Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case

Requests for arbitration

Arbitration Committee proceedings

• recent changes
• purge this page
• view or discuss this template

Case requests

Request name	Motions	Initiated	Votes
[[Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case#Increase of protection on article protected under WP:OFFICE action|Increase of protection on article protected under WP:OFFICE action]]	Motions	24 January 2014	{{{votes}}}

[edit]

Open cases

Case name	Links	Evidence due	Prop. Dec. due
Venezuelan politics	(t) (ev / t) (ws / t) (pd / t)	20 Apr 2024	04 May 2024

[edit]

Recently closed cases (Past cases)

Case name	Closed
Conflict of interest management	13 Apr 2024
Mzajac	7 May 2024

Clarification and Amendment requests

Request name	Motions	Case	Posted
Amendment request: Conduct in deletion-related editing	none	(orig. case)	30 April 2024
Clarification request: Palestine-Israel articles 4	none	(orig. case)	13 May 2024
Amendment request: Article titles and capitalisation	none	(orig. case)	13 May 2024

Arbitrator motions

No arbitrator motions are currently open.

Increase of protection on article protected under WP:OFFICE action

Initiated by —Kww(talk) at 05:49, 24 January 2014 (UTC)

Involved parties

• Kww (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), filing party
• Philippe (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Confirmation that all parties are aware of the request

• https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Philippe&diff=592132126&oldid=592129953

Confirmation that other steps in dispute resolution have been tried

Admin vs admin and application of WP:OFFICE takes this one straight to Arbcom.

Statement by User:Kww

On July 17th, 2013, Phillipe placed Conventional PCI under PC2 protection, a protection state which is not valid under Wikipedia protection policy. When this was brought to my attention, I increased the protection level to full (a level permitted on Wikipedia) and placed a polite note on Philippe's talk page requesting that he choose one of the permissible protection levels for the page.

Phillipe has subsequently restored the protection level to an illegitimate level and has demanded that I be placed subject to arbcom action for "circumventing or reversing" an office action.

As my action was neither a circumvention nor a reversal, I would like to see it made clear to Philippe that he must choose one of the permitted protection levels, and, for future reference, that protections under WP:OFFICE set a floor for the protection level, not a ceiling.—Kww(talk) 05:49, 24 January 2014 (UTC)

Note to User:EdChem:Philippe did change the protection to semi, but he left PC2 in place. Unlike full protection and PC2, semiprotection and PC2 operate simultaneously and in parallel, so he has restored PC2 to the article.—Kww(talk) 09:38, 24 January 2014 (UTC)

User:Roger Davies: My argument is that increasing protection on an article does not circumvent or reverse the office action. Had I removed protection, I would be guilty of that. By increasing the protection, I left the article in a state where every threat that the office was worried about was still guarded against. It would be impossible to argue that my action had exposed the WMF to any kind of legal threat.

As for complying with policy: yes, Philippe the admin is required to take actions that comply with our policies unless doing so is not an option. Philippe has made no effort to comply with our policies in this case. There's no history on the article of chronic problems while the article was under semi-protection, nor is there any sign that the next legitimate step (PC1+semi) was ever taken. There's simply no evidence that this article is under PC2 for any legitimate reason. It's there because Philippe consciously chose to ignore our protection policies and, just today, has proceeded to ignore them again.—Kww(talk) 09:49, 24 January 2014 (UTC)

• @User:Roger DaviesI see the distinction between acting as an agent of the office and acting as a local admin. That doesn't mean that there isn't an obligation on Philippe's part to make an effort to conform to our policies where possible. There's no legal issue facing the office that full protection would not have addressed, no reason to believe on the face of the available evidence that it was not being met by semi-protection, and the remaining policy compliant alternative, PC1, was never tried. That is all kind of moot, however: changing PC2 to full does not violate WP:OFFICE, as full protection is neither a reversal nor a circumvention of PC2.
• @User:Worm That Turned:When I encounter PC2 on an article, I normally quietly adjust it to PC1 or semi-protection on the basis that it was a clear mistake on the part of the protecting administrator. In this case, when I noticed what appeared to be a good-faith error on Philippe's part, I corrected his error by upping the protection. I increased the protection specifically so as to not violate WP:OFFICE. I then notified Philippe so that he could apply one of the valid protection levels at his leisure, secure in the knowledge that, since the article was fully protected, nothing could happen in the interim that would cause harm to Wikipedia or the WMF. It has only become clear in the aftermath that Philippe was knowingly violating our protection policies as opposed to having done so unintentionally.—Kww(talk) 13:33, 24 January 2014 (UTC)

@User:Someone not using his real name and User:Salvio giuliano: I repeat that this wasn't an effort to poke the office in the eye with a stick. It didn't occur to me until after Philippe's reaction that this had been anything other than a simple mistake on Philippe's part. I was simply putting the protection in the only policy compliant position that was available. It couldn't remain where it was and be compliant with WP:PROTECT and couldn't be unprotected, semi or PC1 and have my action be compliant with WP:OFFICE. That left only full protection. One thing that I note that Arbcom is not addressing here is the question of how the office should indicate to admins that the protection level on an article cannot be increased. I maintain that increasing the protection of the article could not and cannot be interpreted as reversing or circumventing an office action, because, as Philippe states in his comment immediately below, the office level of protection is a floor, not a ceiling.—Kww(talk) 16:16, 26 January 2014 (UTC)

Statement by Philippe

To begin, it appears that there are those who believe my correspondence with Kww last night lacked tact, and escalated needlessly. I agree, and for that I apologize. However, with that said: Office actions are a bright bold line that must not be crossed. It has been pointed out that OFFICE protections should be the floor, not the ceiling - I concur. If there were a valid protection reason to raise it, independent of the OFFICE action, then it should be raised. I've seen no demonstration of that, however.

The office chooses its protections carefully - we protect to the minimum level necessary in order to meet the legal requirements. We do it as rarely as possible (the logs of office actions will demonstrate that we do them much less frequently in recent years than in the earlier years - this is to be expected, as the project matures, I think) and we pick them carefully. They are almost always the subject of non-public information that we simply can not disclose. That should be assumed to be the case. An office action is a Big Deal. And the right of the WMF to make office actions is a critical underpinning for the project, and a legal safety-valve.

I believe that Kww made a gross error in judgment. I do not believe he should be desysoped for it. There are those who suggest there is lingering VE resentment here - nothing could be farther from the truth. I hold no resentment toward Kww; his actions during VE were on the whole measured and reasonable (even when I disagreed with them), and I respected that in particular. I only wish his actions here had been as measured. Of course, I can also say the same for my own.

With that said, in summary - do I regret my tone? Absolutely. Do I regret defending the OFFICE policy strongly? Not for a moment. Philippe Beaudette, Wikimedia Foundation (talk) 19:22, 24 January 2014 (UTC)

Statement by EdChem

The facts of this case are straight-forward and (I suspect) undisputed: Philippe ‎added PC2 protection to the Conventional PCI article citing WP:OFFICE in July 2013. The article has been under OFFICE protection since 2011 (as discussed in the talk page archive following a DMCA notice to the Foundation. The present PC2 RfC shows that use of this protection approach is not authorised on the English Wikipedia and is controversial. Kww changed the protection to full because PC2 is an "illegal protection state" (in his words) and notifed Philippe with his next edit, four minutes later. Newyorkbrad expressed concern at Kww's "unilateral overriding of an Office action without consultation." Kww's response shows he was definitely aware he was altering an OFFICE action but also noted that in choosing to change to a higher protection level, he believed he was not overriding OFFICE and was leaving it to Philippe to choose the appropriate level within the restrictions of the protection policy. Brad responded "that raising the article's status to full-protected was less blatantly irresponsible than unprotecting would have been" and noted that was no need for urgent action and skipping consultation. Philippe declared that he would unilaterally desysop Kww if there were not an ArbCom, and instead has asked the Committee to act. Philippe's response also specifically quotes the talk page notice: "Under no circumstance are editors to remove this protection or edit in an attempt to circumvent the letter or spirit of it." Philippe then reduced protection to semi and configured article feedback in both cases declaring "No. You absolutely may not alter OFFICE actions, and particularly not without discussing first". Jalexander changed the article feedback settings less than 15 minutes later, presumably as a related OFFICE action that he did not indicate this, simply noting "don't need article feedback". Kww has brought this to ArbCom, as can be seen above.

My reason for posting is to ask that ArbCom not react reflexively to this case request. Declaring that Kww violated a bright line rule and summarily desysopping would be easy, but there is more here. In my view:

• Kww was foolish to not ask Philippe first, both because there was no urgency (PC2 had been in place for months) and because changing anything marked OFFICE is politically unwise as there is almost guaranteed to be information that the admin does not know.
• However, Kww does have a point that protection policy does not allow PC2 at present, and so whether OFFICE actions can (or should) violate policy, especially when policy-compliant options were available.
• This all takes place within a context of PC2 being controversial, and I wonder what influence that had.
• Brad's response started out very reasonable and sensible, expressing concern and advising Kww to not take further actions on the article, exactly the sort of thing I would expect from his. His subsequent response was uncharacteristically over-the-top and (in my view) foolish. Suggesting that raising protection was "less blatantly irresponsible than unprotecting would have been," thereby classing it as blatantly irresponsible is not reasonable on its face. Philippe quotes the talk page notice about forbidding editors / admins from removing protection or editing "in an attempt to circumvent the letter or spirit of it". Categorising full protection in this way is more than a stretch. Kww was unwise to act, yes, but the action he chose was not irresponsible, was not removing protection, and did not circumvent the spirit or letter of it.
• Philippe's response is worse still. Yes, OFFICE actions have special protection and for good reason, in this case because of a DMCA notice and the importance of safe harbour provisions. If Kww's actions had introduced problems in these areas, then by all means, throw the book at him. However, full protection cannot possibly open risks in this area. Philippe's response reminds me of lèse-majesté, based on an assumption of infaliablity and being affronted at the idea that policy might apply to him. The community has to accept that some matters need confidentiality, but this is not such a case, and there was no reason that Philippe could not have acted in line with protection policy. That Philippe also states he consulted WMF legal about Kww is silly and arguably meant to intimidate and add weight to his position. If Philippe wants the WMF to take legal action against Kww, he should be warned or blocked under WP:NLT and told to go take a few deep breaths and come back to reality. His final comments that on "any other wiki, [he'd] be removing [Kww's] tools right now" and referring to ArbCom to "determine what sanction to take" reads more like "I can desysop but since there's an ArbCom you should do it for me" rather than "on en-wiki admin actions come under ArbCom's jurisdiction and this situation where an OFFICE protection level was changed unilaterally should be examined".

Consequently, I suggest the following:

• Kww should be admonished for altering protection without contacting the OFFICE in a situation where urgency is not required
• Kww should be reminded to be more temperate in his language, not complying with protection policy is not illegal, and there are often genuine legal issues around OFFICE actions (as in this case)
• Philippe should be reminded that the special protections that go with OFFICE actions are not proof of infaliability and a right to take actions regardless of policy. An office action in relation to this article is fine, but acting within policy is also expected. Had Kww simply raised the incongruity with Philippe, it is reasonable to expect that Philippe would act to bring the OFFICE action in line with policy. Philippe should also be reminded that the WMF can refer matters to ArbCom for their attention but not to direct ArbCom to desysop an admin... if the WMF wants to act unilaterally, it should do so clearly and directly and not through ArbCom.
• ArbCom should explicitly note that an OFFICE protection level cannot be lowered except by OFFICE action as the WMF have access to the legal issues behind the need for the action; however, this does not mean that a higher level of protection may not subsequently be necessary and admins can act in line with existing policy in raising the level. The language of OFFICE and various notices uses a mixture of prohibitions against any alterations and against circumventing these actions. ArbCom should resolve that the latter is the appropriate interpretation of the OFFICE policy, while continuing to stress the importance of discussion before acting being essential in all but the most dire of urgent circumstances.

I have left a heading for Philippe to add a post as a party above my post. EdChem (talk) 07:57, 24 January 2014 (UTC)

Comment by KTC

The Wikimedia Foundation, as operator of this website, has absolute authority to do as it wishes. That includes going against the wishes of the users of the website. The risk they take if they do that is the potential alienation of its users who then leave, up to the forking of the project such as Wikivoyage did with Wikitravel. Obviously, the WMF should listen to the views of the community and act with that in mind, but it is not bound by it. The community for example could vote 500-0 to restore something deleted under Office action, but that doesn’t mean the WMF is bound to restore it. Similarly here, just because there is no community consensus to use PC2 doesn’t mean the WMF (acting through Philippe in this specific instance) cannot if it chooses use it for one of its Office action. OTOH, I do agree that Office protection should be the floor and not ceiling in terms of protection level. However, that should be considered in the normal course of editing, e.g. an edit war on an Office PC2’d article, and not because an admin doesn’t like the fact that PC2 were used. -- KTC (talk) 10:25, 24 January 2014 (UTC)

Comment by Spartaz

The committee will probably find the following diff from Phillippe's talkpage relevant. [1]. Spartaz ^Humbug! 13:23, 24 January 2014 (UTC)

Comment by Jayen466

The Foundation has said many times that it's the role of the volunteer editing community to manage articles and make any changes. This is either true or it isn't.

Kww did not remove any of the protection implemented per WP:OFFICE. In my view, there would be a case to answer for Kww if he had weakened the protection level. Given that he strengthened it, however, he was within his rights as a community-appointed admin.

Note also that more than half a year elapsed between Philippe's original protection measure and Kww's increasing the protection level. This was not a wheel war, but a routine adjustment of the article's protection level to one currently supported by community consensus.

I recall that Kww has gone against the Foundation's wishes before, on the matter of the VisualEditor opt-in. He had overwhelming community support for that, and his change stuck. I hope this will not turn into a WMF revengefest. Andreas JN466 14:17, 24 January 2014 (UTC)

Newyorkbrad, LFaraone, Seraphimblade: WP:OFFICE says, in its lead paragraph, Neither this policy nor actions taken under it override core policies, such as neutrality.

Is WP:Protection not a core policy? Because it says, quite clearly, Only what is known as "Pending changes level 1" should be used, which is labeled "Require review for revisions from new and unregistered users". Pending changes level 2, or "Require review for revisions from everyone except Reviewers", should not be used at this time per WP:PC2012/RfC 1.

Kww's actions were within policy as written, and the admonishment being voted on below is on shaky grounds, policy-wise.

I know that WP:OFFICE also says, Administrators, who have the technical power to undo protections and deletions, are strongly cautioned against modifying these edits. Official statements and past incidents indicate that such unauthorized modifications will be actively reverted, and possibly the rights of the modifier will be revoked. When in doubt, consult the user applying the protection/template, or the Wikimedia Foundation.

But again, there was no harm done here, except to an ego. Protection was not weakened, just brought in line with community standards. Please reconsider whether there is indeed a firm policy basis for the proposed admonishment. Andreas JN466 17:42, 24 January 2014 (UTC)

Newyorkbrad, LFaraone, thanks for taking the time to look at this, and for your responses. Andreas JN466 18:27, 24 January 2014 (UTC)

Comment by Begoon

per Andreas: "I recall that Kww has gone against the Foundation's wishes before, on the matter of the VisualEditor opt-in. He had overwhelming community support for that, and his change stuck. I hope this will not turn into a WMF revengefest."

I hope that too. I can't see that ending well.

(for clarity, I meant "petty revenge" won't end well, not "Visual Editor", though neither really seem destined for a particularly pretty end to me) Begoon ^talk 14:38, 24 January 2014 (UTC)

adding: Per Ultraexactzz below - given the history, Phillippe's hasty attempts to escalate, and veiled threats, do seem improper. I see no emergency that precluded a wait for calmer heads - but I do see the appearance of grasping at a chance for revenge. That's not a good look. Kww deserves no sanctions. I reserve judgement on Phillippe - he may realise he was hasty, and I await his considered response. Begoon ^talk 15:31, 24 January 2014 (UTC)

The thing is a farce, as evidenced by the backdown to a pissy motion when y'all were challenged. Not quite that easy, huh? Nevertheless I commend AGK for being the only one of you to have the balls so far to call out Phillippe on his evident impropriety. Well done that man. Begoon ^talk 17:59, 24 January 2014 (UTC)

Oh, and @NYB's response to Andreas: Bollocks. You know the point is telling and relevant. The rest of your :;tldr scribe is mere obfuscation. I'm disgusted. I used to have respect for your comments. Of late, not so much. Begoon ^talk 18:08, 24 January 2014 (UTC)

adding: Agree with Leaky_caldron's comment below entirely - talkpages was the place for this, not this revengefest. I've said as much, coincidentally, a few minutes earlier at Beeblebrox's talkpage:

...

If you don't like what Kww did, then leave him a note on his bloody talk page....[2]

...

"Ok - as I say, we differ. Even given the "way it went down", while you guys are doing admonishments, one of those issued to Phillippe for the chilling effect and near WP:NLT of saying he'd "consulted WMF legal" about Kww's actions, his overall "Lèse-majesté" approach, and, fuck it, just overbearing non-collegial, threatening response in implying he'd summarily desysop but would rather arbcom did it for him, then openly suggesting Brad organised just that, might just seem a wee bit more balanced when hindsight comes to look at all this. I realise he subsequently climbed down from part of that podium in the face of reaction, but still..."...[3].

...

So, if we're flinging admonishments around because we feel the drama needs it, then let's fling them equitably, huh? Phillippe, as he admirably admits, was at fault. He was at fault for more than he admits, but that's by the by - we all do that. I'd prefer the whole thing was sent off to die, but for God's sake don't make it worse by taking sides and sanctioning one party. That's unsustainable, and will speak volumes, and set a horrible tone going forwards. Begoon ^talk 15:41, 25 January 2014 (UTC)

and @T. Canens - I'm glad you voted as you did on the admonishment, but Phillippe's actions are *not* outside your jurisdiction when he edits the English wikipedia in the fashion he did here in his interactions with Kww. If you think they are, then that way madness lies. Begoon ^talk 15:55, 25 January 2014 (UTC)

Comment by Ultraexactzz

It's not immediately clear what brought this article to the attention of Kww. That is to say, why now? What changed, that required the protection to be re-evaluated? Or was it simply a matter of sorting out an article that was listed under a generally unused and unapproved protection level? If that's the case, some discussion beforehand might have sold Phillippe on the idea. Or not, but that's a discussion worth having.

Obviously, our policies do not come to bear on WMF employees acting in their official capacity - but Phillippe's comments on his talk page (linked by Spartaz) show a concerning lack of decorum. Phillippe's action was the one reversed, so it's bad form for Phillippe to be the one threatening a desysopping ("On any other wiki, I'd be removing your tools right now..."). Kww's action may be a violation of policy, and certainly it was unwise to take such action without discussion first - but Phillippe's immediate reaction leaves something to be desired as well, and reflects poorly on his office. UltraExactZZ ^Said ~ Did 15:01, 24 January 2014 (UTC)

To clarify - No, I do not believe Kww should be desysopped for this incident. I do, however, believe that he rates at least a trout. I'm more concerned about Phillippe's actions here, frankly - the fact that there was a previous dispute between Kww and Phillippe means that Phillippe should not be the one acting in his official capacity (or appearing to) while threatening Kww with sanction. UltraExactZZ ^Said ~ Did 15:16, 24 January 2014 (UTC)

Comment by Fluffernutter

This seems to be escalating astoundingly quickly, which concerns me. The issues I see here are thus:

• Did Kww use poor judgement in not contacting an admin, any admin, before reversing their action? Yes.
• Did Kww use poor judgment in altering an administrative action when, by the definition of that type of action, he could not have all the facts related to that action? Yes. Much like checkuser blocks and oversight blocks, the existence of an OFFICE action indicates that private communication/legal issues have taken place that normal admins are not privy to.
• Did Kww intend to substitute his judgment about the article's protection needs for Philippe's? No, he was trying to use Philippe's judgment ("This article's viewable content should not be alterable by most people") and apply it in a policy-conforming way.
• Did Kww's action fail to take into account that OFFICE actions are historically taken when out-of-policy actions are necessary? Yes. It's true that OFFICE actions may not conform to our local policy. That's why they're taken as OFFICE actions, essentially by fiat. If they could be handled by internal debate/policy, the office would delegate them to the community to handle that way.
• Did Philippe react to Kww's action with what seems to be an alarming escalation? Yes, and I can't help feeling that there probably is a little bit of VE resentment still lurking along. Immediate threats of desysopping have never gotten anyone to speak calmly and rationally, and there was no reason to think this time would be different. Ultimately, however, Philippe needs to protect his staff's right to irreversible OFFICE actions, or the project will very quickly land in legal trouble.
• Does Kww need to be desysopped for this? Doubtful, assuming he understands where he went wrong. It's clear that he believed he was fixing a procedural error by changing the protection setting to a corresponding, not-community-disapproved-of option, rather than that he was attempting to substitute his judgment about whether the article needed to be protected for Philippe's judgment. The issue arose because Kww doesn't seem to understand that OFFICE actions can't be reversed, and certainly not without discussion with the WMF - even if you think the change you're going to make should be uncontroversial or more "legal". Does one mistake - made with an effort to not lessen the strength of the OFFICE sanction on the article - call for a desysop, though? Not unless Kww can't or won't understand that altering actions he doesn't have all the facts for - especially when the action was taken by "special" authority - is simply unwise. A fluffernutter is a sandwich! (talk) 15:09, 24 January 2014 (UTC)

Comment by Sandstein

The Committee's reasoning for admonishing Kww is, in principle, sound. Even normal administrative actions should not be reverted unilaterally without appropriate discussion, let alone of course office actions, even if these actions or their form appear to be mistaken. Reaffirming this principle is helpful. However, if the Committee considers (presumably correctly) that the review of office actions is outside their purview as a community-authorized body, then they could also decline to sanction (even by admonishment) any interference with such actions. Any sanctions would then likewise be a matter for Foundation staff.

Like others, I think that community feedback about Mr. Beaudette's actions in this case would also be beneficial. While we, the editorial community, cannot and should not attempt to review the grounds for actions made by Foundation staff for legal reasons, we are allowed to expect that such actions are taken and communicated in a professional and competent manner. By using a form of protection not currently allowed by this project's community, instead of the equally preventative tool of normal protection, and by responding to Kww's good-faith (if erroneous) action as a volunteer administrator in a less than collegial and constructive manner, I think that Mr. Beaudette did not meet these expectations in this case, which is a matter of concern considering that his duties are "to serve as an advocate for and to the Wikimedia community". I think that the Arbitration Committee would be justified in expressing these concerns.  Sandstein  18:40, 24 January 2014 (UTC)

Comment by Thryduulf

While I understand and agree with the admonishment for Kww's actions in this case, I think it is important for the Arbitration Committee to explicitly state whether normal administrative actions for reasons unrelated to the OFFICE action are acceptable or not. The motion is clear that OFFICE actions must not be changed without discussion with the office when there is no emergency. The motion is not clear whether an admin risks admonishment or desysopping in the following situations:

1. There is an edit war or other emergency and an admin increases the protection level in the same way they would on any unrestricted article.
2. The protection level of an article under office protection was increased to deal with an edit war or other emergency situation, but that situation is now over and an admin restores the protection level to that set by the Office without asking beforehand.
3. Same as 2 but the protection level was restored to that set by the Office with community consensus but no comment from the Office after several days. Thryduulf (talk) 19:10, 24 January 2014 (UTC)

Comment by SB_Johnny

I don't have a particular favorite dog in this spat, but I think the Committee should take care here because of the "politics" involved:

1. Kww recently went up against the foundation in the "VE battle", where he used technical means to force the WMF to take community preferences into account (when they hadn't been doing so).
2. There really is a conflict, however minor and technical, between Phillipe's actions and current policy.
3. Any decision or motion the Committee makes in this case will position the Committee squarely in the position as an intermediary between the English Wikipedia's community and the board and staff of the WMF.

I urge the Committee to carefully consider the ramifications. --SB_Johnny | ^talk✌ 21:46, 24 January 2014 (UTC)

Comment by Leaky Caldron

Completely unnecessary drama here, created by the objectionable tone from WMF following a non-harmful "error" (if indeed that is what it was) and exacerbated by a majority of the en-wiki Arbcom. The guy responsible for this [4] needs to get a grip, it is not the first time he has steamed in with thinly veiled accusations [5] against an editor here. So there was an error of judgement about a change involving an area for which WMF are responsible. It could have been dealt with discretely by talk page exchange. Instead we get the macho-style threat that they would have removed their Admin. rights in slightly different circumstances. As for Arbcom., you should have simply told Philippe "matter dealt with" instead of the all too evident act of appeasement. Leaky Caldron 14:12, 25 January 2014 (UTC)

Comment by Alanscottwalker

The motion is the only action that makes sense. The balancing of the harms between open editing and closed editing with legal implications belongs with the WMF, who no doubt get "totally close down all editing" demands (which they have to resist, per the Pillars) often. The person responsible for this "drama" is Kww. Alanscottwalker (talk) 14:24, 25 January 2014 (UTC)

Comment by Ymblanter

There is one aspect which has not yet been covered. PC2 means that administrators have to accept edits introduced into the article by non-administrators. Lack of consensus in the community concerning PC2 (at least the current lack of consensus, I am not sure what happens after RFC) means that no administrator has an authority to accept these changes, at least if the administrator is not a WMF employee editing from the official account. Since apparently there was no statement from WMF that the employees were required to watch the article and to accept edits in a timely manner, moving the article to full protection looks a perfectly sensible action. Of course the action should have been taken after consultation etc, but this has been already noted.--Ymblanter (talk) 14:27, 25 January 2014 (UTC)

Ado by NE Ent

In context, Kww's protection was reasonable. The article was listed as office action on 3 Jan 11 [6] and the office listing make no mention of required protection, nor does the talk page discussion. The PC1 protected was not added by Philippe (WMF) rather by Philippe -- an account whose user page stays clearly actions by it are not WMF actions. It's not reasonable to think an agreement between a copyright holder and WMF that took place in Jan 2011 would require changing of protection in July 2013; the reasonable interpretation was that Philippe was making a technical adjustment and accidentally picked an unused protection level and set it to an appropriate one, while courteously notifying Philippe of the situation.

Philippe falsely claims WP:OFFICE is a bright bold line. No, throwing "WP:OFFICE" around like an incantation does not a bright bold line make. If he expects Wikipedians who are expected to be bold to not inadvertently transgress it's his obligation to make the situation clear. If the specific protection level is required, it should be listed at both WP:OFFICE and the article talk page. As noted by Ymblanter, we now have a protection level on the article with no policy on how to review it. NE Ent 23:07, 25 January 2014 (UTC)

Minor comments by PinkAmpersand

As a point of information, NE Ent, Philippe's userpage includes a link to User:Philippe/Official acts, where he lists the Conventional PCI protection modificiation as one of a handful of actions made under the Philippe account that were carried out in his capacity as a WMF employee. — PinkAmpers&^{(Je vous invite à me parler)} 23:20, 25 January 2014 (UTC)

@Carcharoth: Philippe or someone else more familiar with the staff rights can correct me if I'm wrong, but as I understand it, Philippe's WMF account only gives him the rights listed at m:Special:GlobalGroupPermissions/Staff, while his admin account gives him the (sometimes broader, sometimes narrower) rights listed at Special:ListGroupRights#sysop. The right in question, 'stablesettings', is now a part of the Staff toolset (added by m:User:Trijnstel on 15 August), but was not in July when Philippe configured pending changes on the Conventional PCI article. That said, he still had other options that wouldn't have required using his personal account (asking a steward to add the right, as James Alexander asked Trijnstel a month later, or even just temporarily sysopping his staff acount here), but I thought I'd answer the technical part of your comment. — PinkAmpers&^{(Je vous invite à me parler)} 06:07, 28 January 2014 (UTC)

Comment from Anthonyhcole

If you're still deliberating, please consider an admonishment for Philippe. He has apologised for his petulant, posturing, bullying dummy-spit that played right into the gamer's hand (might have been naïvety) but not for his capricious use of a tool here that the community has put aside, for now. It was an insulting display of hubris and contempt, not attractive qualities in a community liaison (or a foundation employee, for that matter). --Anthonyhcole (talk · contribs · email) 03:12, 26 January 2014 (UTC)

Can ArbCom remove Philippe's adminbit? --Anthonyhcole (talk · contribs · email) 19:36, 28 January 2014 (UTC)

Comment by (possibly involved) Someone not using his real name

As someone who has actually edited (and hopefully improved) the PCI article, I found the PC2 protection far less troublesome than full-protection would be. If we must have some sort of special OFFICE approval for editing some articles, PC2 is preferable to full protection. I should note however that my edits there were approved by some random Wikipedians having the reviewer flag, not by anyone from WMF, so it's unclear if the PC2 protection is actually more effective than simply semi-protecting (or PC1-protecting) the article. My understanding is that the original rationale for the OFFICE action was threatened legal action by PCI-SIG because some Wikipedians were violating WP:LINKVIO on that page by linking to pirated copies of the standards; see Talk:Conventional PCI/Archive 1#OFFICE action 2 and the DMCA request.

Since OFFICE actions are not subject to community policies or consensus, I find silly Kww's argument that PC2 is "illegal" there. OFFICE actions can use any technological means they deem necessary, even if those means don't have any community-approved use at the moment. It's true that Kww didn't technically weaken the protection. But his whole rationale for changing it (without any sort of prior consultation with the WMF) was essentially to bitchslap the WMF with some community policy, which could be interpreted as "I [or the community] know[s] better". Clearly that is not an appropriate rationale for altering an OFFICE action. An aggravating factor was Kww's nonchalant and improper use of the word "illegal" in his admin action and thereafter. (Imagine the El Reg headline: Wikipedia volunteer admin rules WMF legal team's action "illegal".) I'm not that surprised that it has triggered a slightly intemperate but otherwise understandable response, which could well be summarized in one word as "WTF?" Kww could have avoided all this if instead of his hasty action dressed up in misapplied legal language, he would have actually consulted with the WMF office or their actual legal team before pressing his admin buttons. Someone not using his real name (talk) 06:28, 26 January 2014 (UTC)

I now found a community proposal (which has fair chance of passing being at 54:18 s:o presently) proposing to use PC2 to "deal with certain vandalizing sockpuppeteers without locking everyone out completely". If repeated LINKVIO violations qualify for that intent, then the current OFFICE use on the PCI page doesn't seem too far ahead of the community. Someone not using his real name (talk) 12:41, 27 January 2014 (UTC)

Comment by EatsShootsAndLeaves

• WP:OFFICE is a bright line situation - just like we mere mortal admins cannot unilaterally change a checkuser block, we cannot change an OFFICE action
• WP:OFFICE actions must be made from their WMF account, in order to be valid <--- THIS is something ArbComm can rule on, by the way
• PC2 is not "illegal" it's just not currently in use (although I have accidentally applied it a couple of times - it didn't break the 'pedia)
• nevertheless, if a WMF employee institutes "PC5 - only users wearing Groucho Marx glasses can view it", then it's valid - no matter what.
• in all cases, if we believe something has been done wrong by another admin, we're supposed to check with them - this is even more important when it's an OFFICE action
• I believe both Phillippe and Kww were doing good for the project
• Let me repeat: OFFICE is bright line, period. Any admin who breaks it must have their wrist slapped as a minimum - it sets a dangerous precedent otherwise
• as no other harm occurred, I see nothing more than wrist-slapping being required in this situation

ES&L 10:40, 27 January 2014 (UTC)

Clerk notes

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

• Recuse. --Rschen7754 05:53, 24 January 2014 (UTC)
• Recuse. — ΛΧΣ^{21 Call me Hahc21} 15:12, 24 January 2014 (UTC)

• Noting here that the motion has passed, further motions are (as far as I know) unlikely, and further comment should be made elsewhere. I'll ask a clerk to enact the motion. Carcharoth (talk) 22:26, 28 January 2014 (UTC)

Increase of protection on article protected under WP:OFFICE action: Arbitrators' opinion on hearing this matter <0/0/0/9>

Vote key: (Accept/decline/recuse/other)

• Comment: Before I go further, I should mention that, per policy, "the Committee has no jurisdiction over ... official actions of the Wikimedia Foundation or its staff". Now, if I understand this correctly, Kww's position is that the strict prohibitions in WP:OFFICE don't apply in this instance because the type of action (Pending Changes) applied by Philippe is not one approved by local (en-wiki) policy. I may be missing something but I don't follow this at all and I'd really appreciate an explanation. Also, is there any reason why Kww didn't raise this with Philippe Beaudette first? As Kww's actions are not in dispute, this is probably something that can be dealt with by motion.  Roger Davies ^talk 09:34, 24 January 2014 (UTC)
  • Kww. When Philippe is applying office actions, he's not acting as a local admin. It rather worries me that you do not see the distinction.  Roger Davies ^talk 10:05, 24 January 2014 (UTC)
• @Kww: The thing I'm really struggling with is that you didn't contact Philippe or anyone else in the Office prior to acting. Our admin policy is quite clear - ... administrative actions should not be reversed without good cause, careful thought, and (if likely to be objected to), where the administrator is presently available, a brief discussion with the administrator whose action is challenged. Combining that with WP:OFFICE which accounts for a total 5 actions on the entire encyclopedia that you must not overturn, I find your unilateral actions concerning. Could you please explain why you felt discussion on this matter was not needed? Worm^TT(talk) 10:09, 24 January 2014 (UTC)
• This issue seems clear enough that, I believe, it can be dealt with by motion. Before doing anything, though, I'd rather hear from Philippe, if he wants to leave a comment here as well.

  That said, I think it's worthwhile to remind everyone that the Foundation don't have to abide by consensus and that their WP:OFFICE actions are not subject to en.wiki policies. Salvio ^{Let's talk about it!} 12:29, 24 January 2014 (UTC)

• I find it hard to see Kww's actions as anything other than deliberate provocation. I understand the whole VE debacle may have led him to believe that he was the community's white knight fighting against being pushed around by the WMF, but this is not about some new feature that doesn't work right, this is about legal issues and that is an area that is not subject to consensus. I see no compelling reason why he could possibly have honestly believed that altering an office action and then discussing it afterward would lead to anything other than a drama fest. That being said I agree a full case is not probably not warranted here and we can deal with this with some motions. Beeblebrox (talk) 16:26, 24 January 2014 (UTC)
• Like others, I am confused by why Kww (talk · contribs) felt it was urgent to adjust the protection settings for a page affected by WP:OFFICE. As stated elsewhere, those actions are not subject to local consensus, so stating that Philippe "knowingly violated" anything is simply not correct. We don't have full information for why things are the way they are; for this reason administrators are strongly cautioned on taking actions that undo office changes. Beyond that, I would hope that prudence would indicate that an administrator should avoid taking an action on a change made under WP:OFFICE, even if they perceived compliance with the spirit of the restriction, without further discussion. LFaraone 16:49, 24 January 2014 (UTC)
  • In re @Jayen466:, I mostly echo Newyorkbrad (talk · contribs)'s comments below. There may have existed reasons why PC-2 was the required protection level for this article, as per say a negotiated agreement between the WMF and another body. Regardless of whether that was the case, taking rash action without discussion is unacceptable. LFaraone 18:10, 24 January 2014 (UTC)
• I am proposing a motion, below. Newyorkbrad (talk) 17:12, 24 January 2014 (UTC)
  • While the points made by Jayen466 are not frivolous, and I considered them before posting last night and before offering the motion, the appropriate means by which Kww could have addressed them would have been by a query to Philippe, rather than by an undiscussed, unilateral action. It is apparent from Philippe's post on his talkpage that there may well be sound and valid reasons for PC-2 to be the state of this article by Office designation, notwithstanding that PC-2 is otherwise deprecated on En-WP at this time. It may also be that if reasonably queried and reminded that PC-2 has not been endorsed by the En-WP community, Philippe would have adjusted the protection level (although it is difficult for me to understand why indefinite full-protection would be a better state for this article than PC-2 if, as the listing on the WP:OFFICE page suggests, the concern is to keep one particular type of edit out of the article). Unilaterally making the change without even discussing it with anyone first was not acceptable and in that light I think an admonition, which I proposed at this time partly to defuse further escalation and the prospect of a more severe proposal, is warranted. Newyorkbrad (talk) 18:00, 24 January 2014 (UTC)
  • My response to the questions Thryduulf poses is that an administrator should ask the Office first if there's any doubt about whether a proposed administrator action would trench on an Office action. Beyond that, while I understand his hypotheticals in theory (and could come up with some more of my own), the WP:Office policy has existed for eight years and I don't recall any of these issues ever arising. We are talking, at this stage, about five articles in the entire encyclopedia. Review of the list of articles currently subject to Office actions reflects that some of Thryduulf's scenarios could not currently arise on any article at all. While a clear policy is generally better than an unclear one, I'd prefer to see us not spend too much time anticipating or debating how we would address vanishingly rare situations. Newyorkbrad (talk) 19:18, 24 January 2014 (UTC)
• I think the motion is adequate for the moment. Hopefully it will send a very clear signal that modification of OFFICE actions is never acceptable unless the permission of the office is first obtained. We don't generally know the full story behind why these actions are the way they are and they are extremely serious issues, in many cases issues where legal jeopardy could result from an inappropriate action, so assuming they can be modified in a certain way is very unwise. There was no emergency here precluding discussion or requiring a precipitous action. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 17:37, 24 January 2014 (UTC)
  • @Jayen466: I also don't believe your concerns are meritless, and do understand why you bring them up. In this case, Kww's actions are not likely to have caused any harm. But they could have, and that's why there's a bright line around office actions.

Imagine, for example, that the WMF had reached a settlement with someone agreeing to maintain a certain protection level on an article for X months. Like most such settlements, it can't be disclosed. Someone then fiddles with the protection. Technically, the WMF has just broken the agreement, and a judge may not understand the nuance of "greater" protection. Unlikely, perhaps, but then office actions are for extreme edge cases with serious potential consequences. The protection had been set to PC2 on this article for several months. There was no reason Kww could not approach Philippe and say "Consensus was against using PC2 on articles on this project and I noticed this one does. Do you object to using full protection instead?" That's generally a basic courtesy before altering another admin's action in any case, and where an office action is involved, it is more, not less, necessary. Precipitous action here was not the type of calm, reasoned action we should expect from administrators when using the tools. As to the protection policy, to put it as succinctly as possible, office actions are not bound by policy or consensus. One would hope WMF would respect these when possible, but because of the reasons for office actions, that won't always be possible. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 20:46, 24 January 2014 (UTC)

• I'll echo the other arbitrators here when I say that I too am confused as to why Kww felt that immediate change to the page's protection level was necessary. This whole issue could easily have been avoided by a quick note to Philippe asking him to change the protection level. I agree that a motion is sufficient to handle this issue. GorillaWarfare (talk) 22:07, 24 January 2014 (UTC)
• Thank-you, PinkAmpersand for this explanation. The pages you link to give a scarily long list of rights, many I had never heard of. Some of that does mollify my previous concerns, but it would still be nice if those with WMF accounts were able to keep things as separate as possible, if only to make things easier for everyone else. The note left on Philippe's talk page does point out that he mentioned this difference in a log entry as the reason for needing to use his personal account, so that is where I couldn't remember reading about that before (I had been looking for the explanation on his user page disclaimers and statements). Carcharoth (talk) 22:24, 28 January 2014 (UTC)

Proposed motion: Kww admonished

For this motion there are 14 active arbitrators. With 0 arbitrators abstaining, 8 support or oppose votes are a majority.

Majority reference

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

Proposed:

Kww is admonished for knowingly modifying a clearly designated Wikimedia Foundation Office action, which he did in the absence of any emergency and without any form of consultation, and is warned that he is subject to summary desysopping if he does this again.

Because the request for arbitration filed by Kww seeks review of Office actions, it is outside the purview of the Arbitration Committee and accordingly the request is declined.

Enacted — ΛΧΣ^{21 Call me Hahc21} 23:59, 28 January 2014 (UTC)

Support:

1. Newyorkbrad (talk) 17:12, 24 January 2014 (UTC)
2. LFaraone 17:16, 24 January 2014 (UTC)
3. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 17:25, 24 January 2014 (UTC)
4. Though his actions are outside our jurisdiction, I would also strongly advise Philippe to take a less confrontational, immotile line with well-intentioned community members in the future. AGK [•] 17:41, 24 January 2014 (UTC)
5. This isn't about whether the article should have had an "illegal" protection on it, it is about the right way and the wrong way to approach an issue,and Kww picked the wrong way. A prior discussion, as opposed to just telling the office you already unilaterally modified one of their actions, could have easily prevented any drama here. Beeblebrox (talk) 19:07, 24 January 2014 (UTC)
6. Office actions should never be adjusted without prior discussion with the office. Kww's failure to discuss before adjusting the protection level, especially when there was no apparent urgency, is deserving of admonishment. GorillaWarfare (talk) 22:32, 24 January 2014 (UTC)
7. As pointed out by some, this is one of those unfortunate cases where, regardless of what we decide, both doing something and doing nothing have "political" repercussions... So, at least as far as I'm concerned, we also have to take those repercussions into consideration when casting our votes. In that spirit, I note that it's always a good idea to restate that, barring cases of emergency, the power to restrict and sanction administrators rests squarely with the Arbitration Committee, even in the event of a WP:OFFICE violation. To understand why that's a good idea, one just has to take a look at Philippe's impulsive and precipitate reaction (for which, it's true, he has duly apologised).

   On the actual merits of the case, it's true that Kww's actions may not immediately appear to be particularly serious (he simply increased the protection level; at first glance one might ask what possible harm can come of that); however, as with most WP:OFFICE actions, we don't know all that happened behind the scenes, so there might have been a reason for imposing PC2 rather than full protection that we don't know about – and admins are encouraged not to act when they don't know all the facts: in those cases they should rather always ask first. Moreover, I have also been persuaded by the arguments presented by some of my colleagues on this very page, by this IP and, finally, also by Someone not using his real name concerning the fact that the use of the word "illegal" in that context might have been problematic.

   For these reasons, I find Kww's actions suboptimal and think that they warrant an admonishment. Salvio ^{Let's talk about it!} 11:13, 26 January 2014 (UTC)

8. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs^(talk) 14:48, 27 January 2014 (UTC)
9. Nothing much to add to the foregoing though I'd be happier (i) if Philippe made office actions exclusively from his WMF account and, as he acknowledges, toned down the rhetoric and (ii) if Kww left well alone in future.  Roger Davies ^talk 16:05, 27 January 2014 (UTC)
10. I can support an admonishment for Kww, but no more than that. The way Philippe uses his WMF account and his personal account really confuses me. The statement he has on the user page of his personal account has too many caveats (as does the statement on his WMF account which has similar caveats operating the other way). Why does he need to carry out office actions using his personal account and log them separately here when he has a WMF account that should surely be used instead? I think I read somewhere (I forget where) that the personal account can do things that the WMF account cannot, which doesn't make much sense either. It would be easier on others trying to follow things if the two roles and accounts (WMF and personal) were separated more than they currently are. Carcharoth (talk) 02:20, 28 January 2014 (UTC)

Oppose:

1. If Kww had reduced it to PC1, I could easily understand the uproar, and I would likely even join in. But the protection level was increased - which Phillipe specifically says he would not have had a problem with if it had been done for any other reason. Even though discretion would have suggested asking Phillipe first instead of acting first (and I'm sure Kww knows that now), the whole over-reaction to this is utterly stupid and a waste of time, and I'm not going to play along. I suppose I'd be willing to admonish Kww for bringing this to ArbCom instead of saying "oh, sorry Phillipe" and dropping it, but that's not what this motion is about. Oh, and decline as a case. --Floquenbeam (talk) 23:02, 24 January 2014 (UTC)
2. Essentially per Floquenbeam. Unlike some of my colleagues, I do not think the application of full protection to the article is a big deal by itself. I find the hypothetical scenarios imagined by my colleagues to be exceedingly unlikely, and in any event if an increased level of protection would actually cause problems, one would imagine that the person performing the OFFICE action would add a special note to that effect, lest admins accidentally increase the protection while responding to a edit war or multiple autoconfirmed vandals.

   The actions of both Kww and Phillipe contributed to the unnecessary escalation of this relatively minor dispute, though Phillipe's conduct is outside our jurisdiction. Kww's overall conduct in this matter is clearly suboptimal, and an admonishment is probably warranted, but I cannot support this motion as written. T. Canens (talk) 15:08, 25 January 2014 (UTC)

3. Every way I look at it, I have to oppose this motion. From a jurisdiction point of view, it's not something Arbcom should be weighing in on, Wikipedia:Arbitration/Policy#Jurisdiction is clear about this OFFICE actions are the top thing we should not be dealing with. By extension, we should not be dealing with reversals of OFFICE actions. Philippe, however, passed it our way. So, looking at what happened - Philippe chose a protection state that is not considered valid elsewhere on the encyclopedia. To the best of my knowledge, he's not actually given a reason why - just that it was carefully considered. That is the OFFICE's prerogative, they are not bound by anything but core policies (i.e. WP:V,WP:NPOV,WP:NOR)
   What did Kww do? He changed the protection from "edits must be checked by admin or reviewer" to "edits must be checked by an admin". That's increasing the protection, something Philippe mentioned he would be happy with if there was a reason to do so. This all comes down to is Kww's reason valid...
   Kww should have talked to Philippe first, no doubt. When he was told that Philippe chose the protection specifically, he should have dropped it. Kww could do with a clip round the ear, or a slap with a wet trout or whatever it might be, but a formal admonishment? Not needed.
   Finally, Philippe, your tone was inappropriate, as you have acknowledged. I was significantly unimpressed by the undercurrent of "I'm not taking your tools, but I expect arbcom to do it for me". We are a forgiving community - we do not expect users to be infallible and when they do slip up the consequence should be proportionate to the "crime". This crime deserved nothing more than a wet fish. Had you responded differently, teaching instead of scolding, we wouldn't be here, I hope you'll consider that in future. That said, I do appreciate that you've apologised for your tone and thank you for that. Worm^TT(talk) 10:13, 27 January 2014 (UTC)
4. This poses quite an interesting question. If the foundation wants to take action against a user for violating WP:OFFICE action, where and how must they do so. Grab a steward? Use their office tools? Hopefully that never happens, but although I'm quite willing to investigate admin abuse matters, I feel the need to act extremely cautiously in regards to ruling on WP:OFFICE which seems to be out of our jurisdiction. I will start by saying I am thoroughly unimpressed by Kww's actions. There probably needed to be a discussion about why PC2 was being used, but in this particular case when there is a line drawn in the sand I would have much preferred a query to the Office regarding their usage, and if it would be possible to change it. I will also note Phillippe should try to stick to using his office account for Office actions. I do appreciate that Phillippe has offered an apology. In my mind, the main problem here is both parties expressed an attitude of escalation. While I do not know his true intentions, Kww's actions came off to me as rather WP:POINTy, almost as if he was trying to purposefully drag this to arbcom so we could make some sort of supervote on the topic. Likewise, I agree with Worm that a wet fish is in order for KWW. I do thank Phillippe for apologizing for his tone, which was clearly non-ideal. If this was an admonishment for escalating this to arbcom in a rather pointy manner which was sure to attract drama, and focused around Kww's actions after the actual protection, I'd be more inclined. Per above, the increase in protection was at very least an attempt to Kww to keep things acceptable to legal. As things stand I'm reluctant to pass judgment on WP:OFFICE, and simply resolve that Kww should be more careful and enter dialogue sooner, and Phillippe more courteous. NativeForeigner ^Talk 17:58, 27 January 2014 (UTC)

Abstain:

Comments:

While I do support the admonishment, I also sympathize with the remarks in opposition to it. I was quite surprised to see the normally very calm and cordial Philippe fly off the handle like that and I do not think his tone helped the situation, rather the opposite. I also don't think that arbcom's role is to serve as enforcers for the WMF. We work for the community not the Foundation. You want hatchet men, you're going to have to pay for them. However, both Kww and Philippe asked us to handle this, so here we are, but they probably could have resolved it between themselves in a much simpler and less dramatic fashion if they had both just calmed down and thought about what they were doing before they did it. Beeblebrox (talk) 18:55, 27 January 2014 (UTC)