Wikipedia talk:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Andrevan

Main case page (Talk) — Evidence (Talk) — Workshop (Talk) — Proposed decision (Talk)

Case clerks: Amortias (Talk) & Miniapolis (Talk) Drafting arbitrators: Worm That Turned (Talk) & DeltaQuad (Talk)

Behaviour on this page: Arbitration case pages exist to assist the Arbitration Committee in arriving at a fair, well-informed decision. You are required to act with appropriate decorum during this case. While grievances must often be aired during a case, you are expected to air them without being rude or hostile, and to respond calmly to allegations against you. Accusations of misbehaviour posted in this case must be proven with clear evidence (and otherwise not made at all). Editors who conduct themselves inappropriately during a case may be sanctioned by an arbitrator, clerk, or functionary, without further warning, by being banned from further participation in the case, or being blocked altogether. Personal attacks against other users, including arbitrators or the clerks, will be met with sanctions. Behavior during a case may also be considered by the committee in arriving at a final decision.

Preliminary statements by uninvolved editors

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

---

Statement by Winkelvi

There's a ton of evidence that supports Beeblebrox's spot-on concerns, I'm not going to list all of it here, rather, I will just link to the AN/I I filed about Andrevan several days ago. [1] There have been several incidents involving him where he's raised eyebrows including this at Jimbo's talk page [2] and a note he left at another editor's talk page where it appears he is asking them to proxy edit for him to carry on his "mission" after being topic banned [3]. All that noted, suffice it to say that if Andrevan were involved in anything serious administrator- or bureaucrat-wise where I was concerned, I wouldn't trust him to do the right, fair, or policy-based thing. At all. I've never seen a better case for someone turning in their advanced permissions/tools. -- ψλ ● ✉ ✓ 02:06, 5 June 2018 (UTC)

Well, reading Guy Macon's comment below, I'm wondering if I would be considered involved and if I should have commented at all. I'm new at commenting here, so any direction would be appreciated. -- ψλ ● ✉ ✓ 04:08, 5 June 2018 (UTC)

Considering the most recent developments, and the continued, undeniable evidence that Andrevan doesn't have a clue and isn't interesting in getting one, I think the only solution that will satisfy the community at this point is to desysop and un-crat ASAP. Hoping this case will be accepted but that it isn't a long, drawn out process. The evidence for misuse of tools is now there. Evidence of Andrevan not understanding various rogue-type actions of administrators are no longer considered acceptable (as they were to a degree when he went through his RfA) is overwhelming based on his behavior and his own statements. As a few have already pointed out, that he edits infrequently and in short bursts (look at his editing history/year counts here) is more evidence that he won't miss the tools and isn't really benefitting Wikipedia by having them. The lack of benefit of him being an admin and bureaucrat is clear with the disruption and drama he's caused in just one week. All of this equals net negative, not positive. The honorable thing for him to do would be to turn in his tools and creds, but I think he's made it plain that's not going to happen. That leaves only one solution, from where I sit. -- ψλ ● ✉ ✓ 17:07, 9 June 2018 (UTC)

Statement by Aquillion

Here is the discussion from the incident in 2017 that Beeblebrox mentioned. Skimming it, the general consensus at the time was that Andrevan made the wrong call, but not indefensibly so, and that it made little difference either way; he also (as far as I can tell) responded appropriately when corrected. Obviously some of Andrevan's recent behavior on ANI and talk pages has been inappropriate, and whether those actions as an editor are enough to reconsider his permissions is up to the committee to decide, but at the very least based on the two examples presented I don't think that his actions with his admin tools rise to the level where they're worth considering. --Aquillion (talk) 02:15, 5 June 2018 (UTC)

Statement by Guy Macon

Before I comment, I would like to ask, should I be listed as a party in this case? It sort of feels like I should, but I would like to have one of the arbitrators decide. I wouldn't want a repeat of the past, where Arbcom attempted to sanction me (and then relented when pretty much everyone complained) without me being notified, any evidence being presented against me and with me being given no chance to respond -- all things that a party to the case would have received. --Guy Macon (talk) 03:54, 5 June 2018 (UTC)

For those interested in the details, see Wikipedia talk:Arbitration Committee/Noticeboard/Archive 35#I believe that I am owed an apology., but I would advise not dragging out old disputes. I am over it, other than having a perfectly understandable fear of commenting on any Abcom case. --Guy Macon (talk) 05:24, 5 June 2018 (UTC)

While I do appreciate Newyorkbrad's comment ("In response to some of the comments, please note that editors are not sanctioned for commenting on an arbitration request or case (unless perhaps the edits are so seriously disruptive that they wouldn't be permitted on any page). Both "involved" and uninvolved editors may comment; what is important is relevant information and thoughtful analysis.") The fact remains that Opabinia regalis attempted to sanction me for commenting on an arbitration request[4] and I have no reason to believe that it will not happen again.

Because I do not believe that the issues I raised at Wikipedia talk:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Michael Hardy/Proposed decision#Guy Macon's section have ever been resolved, I am withdrawing from this case and unwatching this page and I advise anyone else who is contempating whether they should participate to seriously consider the possibility that the same thing may happen to them. --Guy Macon (talk) 16:49, 6 June 2018 (UTC)

Statement by Ajraddatz

I don't think I've ever commented here before, but it's also pretty rare to see a bureaucrat dragged before ArbCom. I have two thoughts on this case:

First on the case: I'm always a believer that people who hold advanced permissions should be able to hold whatever beliefs they want, so long as they use their advanced access in accordance with community expectations. I have not seen any misuse of sysop or crat tools here. But there is certainly some behaviour that goes against the expectations of an admin/crat, and in the interests of being responsive to community concerns about holders of advanced permissions it might be worth accepting this case.

Second on decorum: Could we, as a community, agree to stop telling advanced permissions holders to resign as a measure of seeming first resort? What a toxic culture to operate in, where literally any mistake or even disagreement is met with messages telling the person to resign, and where statements encouraging resignation are paraded around on requests like this. We're all volunteers here, and we all are trying to work towards the best ends for the project. -- Ajraddatz (talk) 05:35, 5 June 2018 (UTC)

Statement by MONGO

I would likely be a named party to this case for if it is accepted surely an issue I brought up regarding a violation of outing by Andrevan (with now suppressed external links) would come up[5]. I've been editing here for a long time and I have never seen a, shall we say, fall from grace, that was so rapid [6]. It appeared to me that the possibility of a compromised account, or one that was sold or something worse on a personal level could explain some of the erratic behavior [7]. Crats and admins are expected to not abuse their rights and to not abuse the power their rights inherently convey. Andrevan's conspiracy theories about paid Russian, Trump organization or other nefarious editors who were holding the articles related to Donald Trump hostage (by allegedly suppressing negative information) and his outing attempt was what led to the topic ban. The subsequent activities dancing around that topic ban led to a near immediate block for 24 hours. He has subsequently been tampering around with the DS tag for the very topic ban he was given, under the pretense of making sure the wording is 100% accurate to avoid confusion[8]. A half dozen administrators have gently been offering Andrevan guidance and even support but he seems to lack a great sense of self awareness about all this and he has yet to offer any apology to any editor he, as an administrator, wrongly accused without a shred of proof of being paid operatives/editors. Lastly, Andrevan uses the tools themselves so infrequently I wonder why he would even wish to retain them at this point. Diffs can be given at evidence should the need arise.--MONGO 13:42, 5 June 2018 (UTC)

Diffs:

At Talk:Donald Trump:

• "It seems to me that discussion of this topic is driven by partisans who, through tendentious editing, protect this article from factual truths."

At Wikipedia:Village pump (idea lab):

• "My concern is that actual Russian agents are attempting to infiltrate Wikipedia and are pushing POVs on many topics"

At Admin Noticeboard:

• "A number of right-wing POV pushing users are engaged in tendentious editing to maintain a whitewashed status quo version of the article" and later "I suspect at least some of these users to be paid Russian/GOP/NRA advocacy agents -- Trump World PR reps. Others may simply be partisans."
• "We also know Russians were paying social media users on Reddit, Facebook, and other places"

Borderline harassment of a suspected editing foe over their choice of username:

• at Factcheckeratyourservice's talk (FCAYS for short)

and Andrevan later states at Admin Noticeboard:

• ..."Wikipedia is under attack by Russian/GOP agents and partisans. FCAYS is probably one of them, and I would not assume that just because there is a lengthy history going back years that the user cannot also be a paid editor. We know that the Russians spent time building profiles and activating them later"
• "Please see Jytdog's recent comment at which supports the idea of FCAYS being a Russian agent, as well as the timing and connection to Sarah Palin..."

Potential threat to OUT an editor:

• "Simply because I have not WP:OUTed MONGO in a way that would violate his privacy does not mean there is no evidence."

Clearly shows he knows the policy about OUTING:

• "does your response indicate that you know about something I might OUT? I believe the recommended way to handle sensitive COIs is to do via private email between privileged users with oversight/checkuser/ArbCom etc."

Suppressed edits at Usertalk:NeilN show he did violated OUTING after he had demonstrated he understood the policy above.

Inability to AGF of another suspected editing foe:

• "I am guessing you are a right wing American politics editor and supporter of blocked user who I warned about the username policy just now."

Statement by Mandruss

I don't know much, but I know that an admin (and a bureaucrat, whatever that is) should be expected to observe Wikipedia's most fundamental behavior principles, including the one about not making claims against other editors without evidence. Andrevan's embarrassing recent spectacle at WP:AN showed a blatant disregard for that principle. This was two hours after I pointed it out to Andrevan on a user talk page, which should not have been necessary, and he persisted for some time after having it pointed out again multiple times in the AN discussion.

Add to that a scattered assortment of less dramatic things, such as stating in article talk that my content argument was "not policy-based"[9]—when my argument was clearly a WEIGHT argument and I even cited WP:WEIGHT explicitly.[10] WTF? This is what I would expect from an editor with a few months of experience, not an admin and crat. Yes, Andrevan was acting as an editor, so this was not an abuse of the advanced permissions, but shouldn't admins and crats be required to be good editors first? That would make a lot of sense to me.

I feel that those with the admin bit should be expected to understand these things and to be exemplars of them, and my understanding is that the standard is even higher for bureaucrats (whatever that is). I'm fairly confident that such behavior would result in a near-SNOW fail at RfA today, and rightly so. The question becomes: Do we grandfather the expectations for admins and crats to this degree? ―Mandruss ☎ 13:49, 5 June 2018 (UTC)

Statement by John Cline

I think Beeblebrox should withdraw this unsupportable request. Demonstrating the community's inability to resolve issues with Andrevan's conduct is a critical wp:before element and such inability has not been remotely shown. The contrary, on the other hand, that Andrevan is responsive to the community, proactive in allaying her emergent concerns, and willingly subordinate to her collective will is evident in the given diffs. Aside this missing requisite, no abuse is shown that relates to Andrevan's advanced permissions (as an administrator or a bureaucrat). If the request is not withdrawn, I believe the committee should speedily close the request with prejudice; sanctioning Beeblebrox against any future Arbcom filings for at least 6 months. I am sorry to say that I see this request as almost being a frivolous filing; it is certainly, at best, a good faith lapse of judgement and policy clue.--John Cline (talk) 14:24, 5 June 2018 (UTC)

• Thank you Kudpung for commenting on my apparent misuse of the feminine pronoun. Although I'd intended for it to correspond with Wikipedia, not Andrevan, I apologize for the confusion it spawned.--John Cline (talk) 03:24, 6 June 2018 (UTC)

Statement by DarthBotto

I provided uninvolved input with both the AN/I reports, so I feel as though I should weigh in. Simply put, Andrevan's behavior was appalling, unbecoming of an entrusted (and veteran) administrator and frankly, I was almost convinced that their account was compromised. However, I do believe that everyone is entitled to a bad day- sometimes a bad week- and that their behavior was just shy of needing their exceptional privileges revoked. As Andrevan has confirmed that they were out of line and promised not to do it again, I am in favor of giving them one more chance. However, that comes with the caveat that if they put one toe out of line, they should absolutely be finished with their admin tools; do not pass GO, do not collect $200. DARTHBOTTO _talk•cont 17:07, 5 June 2018 (UTC)

Due to the events of the past few hours- specifically, the block of Dewythiel, thereby violating the Trump topic ban- I am withdrawing my defense of Andrevan and supporting whatever disciplinary measures are deemed appropriate. Yes, we have bad days and bad weeks, but "bad months" is where consequences are warranted. DARTHBOTTO _talk•cont 04:38, 9 June 2018 (UTC)

Statement by Calidum

I hope that if Arbcom takes this case it examines tendentious editing by others of late (including at least one other editor above) in this latest round of discourse over articles related to American politics. To hold only one side accountable is unacceptable. Calidum 18:21, 5 June 2018 (UTC)

Statement by Swarm

The recent debacle with Andrevan has been unfortunate, and Andrevan is guilty of conduct unbecoming an administrator and 'crat. However, that has been handled by the community via discretionary sanctions already, and Andrevan has responded appropriately, so based on that alone, there was no pressing need for an ArbCom followup. The case presented against Andrevan here comes across, to me, as overstated, as nothing except the recent incidents have been reported as evidence, not only by the OP, but by the two involved users as well. I urge the accusers here to actually provide some examples of this alleged previous misconduct. It's a little strange to say we can't see any more of the evidence yet when a desysop is on the table.

• Yikes. Second topic ban violation/objectively bad block/misunderstanding of basic policy/misuse of rollback/involvement in an edit war he actioned...all in one go. You hate to see it. Especially coming from a crat. Swarm ♠ 09:57, 9 June 2018 (UTC)

Statement by JFG

When he emerged from his multi-month break, Andrevan focused vehemently on perceived imbalance, POV-pushing and conspiracy theories about "paid Russian/GOP/NRA trolls" at Donald Trump and related articles. He was politely made aware of process, decorum and specific editing restrictions, by multiple editors and admins familiar with this territory. Nevertheless he persisted, falling deeper into an I-must-save-the-world delusion. Such behavior could have been expected of a very aggressive newbie, and many editors were astonished to discover that Andrevan was a veteran admin and bureaucrat. I have seen some temperamental admins but this was off the charts. Some editors including myself worried that either Andrevan's account had been taken over by a cunning warrior, or that he was going through a mental breakdown. The notorious Kingshowman came to mind, but thankfully Andrevan proved a lot more articulate with language compared to the utterances of this perennial doomsayer. I have no opinion whether any further remedies than the TBAN should be enacted, however I am confident that if some J. Random Editor had stirred but one tenth of the drama raised by Andrevan in this epic week, they would have been indeffed with a collective sigh of relief. At the very least ArbCom should hear the case and give Andrevan a chance to redeem himself. — JFG ^talk 00:52, 6 June 2018 (UTC)

Statement by Kudpung

First off, I would like to point out that Andrevan is male, (@John Cline:).
Advanced rights are accorded as much on trust for good judgement and appropriate editing as on the use of tools. Isolated incidents concerning users are often easy to deal with, but there sometimes comes a time when a pattern emerges that cannot be ignored and may need to be be examined. Having fully researched these issues, and on the assumption that further evidence can and will be presented on the evidence page, I am strongly of the opinion that whatever the outcome, the Committee should accept the case. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 00:55, 6 June 2018 (UTC)

(@John Cline:), I apologise for my missing the point of your syntax.
@Andrevan:. Please consider confining your comments regarding this case to these case pages. My comment above is worded neutrally enough until the Committee accepts (or declines the case). I do not discuss open Arbcom cases on my talk page so please don't expect a reply there. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 02:28, 6 June 2018 (UTC).

@TParis:, In my opinion, as stated above, bureaucrats and admins are elected as much on a basis of trust, maturity, expression, and judgement as on the use of tools. I believe therefore that there is sufficient reason at least for a case to be accepted and examined. It's then up to the Committee to decide how they close it. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 03:02, 6 June 2018 (UTC)

Statement by TParis

I've had run-ins with Andrevan in the past that I wasn't at all happy with and I found him to be combative. But, I am too. We eventually talked it out and I believe we've mostly put it behind us; unless I've just now opened an old wound. I've reviewed the evidence in this case and Andrevan's attitude in this area sucked. Pure and simple. But so do a lot of editors. It's a heated topic and some people fear their very livelihoods and freedoms are at stake. As a Libertarian, although I somewhat disagree to the extent of the issues, I still get it. His behavior and beliefs are not surprising for any ordinary editor and everyone can get overwhelmed. Those issues were discussed and sorted.

Which brings us to this AR. I don't mean to ruffle Beeb's feathers, but as I've laid out in my own recall conditions, I believe that removal of advanced rights should be based on misuse of those rights or violations of policies related to those rights. At this time, I believe that Andrevan has fulfilled his obligations under WP:ADMINACCT. He doesn't have to agree with his vocal opposition to have fulfilled it. And with no violation of any of the tools, and no violations of policies, I believe that this case is meritless. I understand Beeb's frustrations, and Andrevan hopefully is taking them to heart, but there isn't a case here that I can see.

@Kudpung: I hear what you're saying about trust, but it's a subjective measure. We don't have a matrix that we can use to determine whether it exists and the vocal opposition generally gets more attention toward their distrust than the silent majority when we base these issues on trust. That's one of the key issues that just drove me mad about Salvidrim's Arb case. If we're going to be objective about it, we need to look at our policies and determine if there was a violation. I don't think there is and I don't think an Arbcase will find one.

So, I believe what is really being asked for here is an open forum for editors to voice their opinions about their lack of trust toward Andrevan with the idea that Arbcom will remove the tools. The problem with that approach is that people don't generally keep an eye on Arb cases unless they feel there is a problem. So this forum attracts more opposition than it does support and the result of an open forum in this venue will always be skewed against a subject.

That's why, I believe, we need to keep it objective. And objectively, no advanced permissions policies have been violated that I've seen. The rest was already dealt with, as it should be. Arbcom is for cases that cannot be solved by the community; this one has.--v/r - TP 13:56, 6 June 2018 (UTC)

Recent events kind of render my whole point null.--v/r - TP 03:04, 9 June 2018 (UTC)

Statement by WBG

What TParis and Swarm has said.There's no evidence of tool-abuse.

It's clear cut that Andrevan's behavior in APOL, over the week was grossly poor and a TBan was rightly deserved.But, now that he seems to have agreed about his lapses, I don't support a desysop/debureaucratisation, at all.

In all likelihood, a bad week.Or so I expect.....

Edit 2--Fram's evidence and the recent most incident of frivolous blocking which spectacularly backfired...... There's some genuine CIR problems w.r.t to use of advanced tools.

Additionally, Vanamonde has made some quite good points.

IMHO, a clear-cut case for outright debureaucratization and desysoping.~ Winged Blades^Godric 05:51, 9 June 2018 (UTC)

Statement by Fram

Since many editors are opposing this case based on the lack of evidence of misuse of admin tools, I decided to take a look at this. His hundred latest logged uses (so not things like editing through protection, if such ever happened) include, from most recent to oldest:

• blocking IP 101.103.154.182 indefinitely: clearly an incorrect use of admin tools. After protest, he changed it to three months, which is still excessive for an IP who edited one article 4 times in a few minutes, and nothing else.
• 01:07, 2 May 2017 (yes, a year ago, but only 9 log entries down in his admin log if you ignore self-serving actions): "Andrevan (talk | contribs | block) unblocked Riceissa (talk | contribs) (Challenge block reason: review contributions. User is promoting what exactly, malaria?)" The editor was blocked indef by MER-C, and 1 hour after Andrevan's unblock wsa again blocked indef by Drmies[11]. This was discussed at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Archive288#Vipul's paid editing enterprise, again. Clear abuse of admin tools.
• Three actions further down, and we are in 2014(!): "07:45, 22 November 2014 Andrevan (talk | contribs | block) changed group membership for Northamerica1000 from autopatrolled, file mover, mass message sender, pending changes reviewer, rollbacker and template editor to mass message sender, pending changes reviewer and administrator (successful RFA Wikipedia:Requests_for_adminship/Northamerica1000 2)" Oops, abuse of the bureaucrat tools, as they had voted in that RfA. In the discussion about that action[12], Andrevan claimed "I strongly disagree that it reflects in any way on NA1000's admin status. I am not INVOLVED, I knew nothing about the user before the RFA, and my support comment reflects that in invoking NBD and AGF. Andrevan@ 22:22, 22 November 2014 (UTC)" and other rather silly similar stuff. He only undid his action after another bureaucrat promised to immediately reclose the promotion with the same result.

Basically, in his last 15 or so admin / bureaucrat actions (stretching back three 1/2 years, and excluding maintenance of his own userspace), he made at least three egregious errors, and each time failed to recognise the problems with his action. I think we can live without an admin who makes very, very little admin actions, but when he does to often makes serious errors and stands by them after they have been pointed out again and again. Fram (talk) 08:50, 6 June 2018 (UTC)

Statement by Cas Liber

Yeah...based on Fram's additional evidence, tool use needs to be reviewed via a case or whatever systematic scrutiny you want to do. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 09:45, 6 June 2018 (UTC)

Statement by Ammarpad

I was initially leaning towards discouraging the Committee from accepting this case due to insufficient evidence that warrants further looking and the fact that the latest problem has been handled already by sanction.

However, I am greatly perturbed by this RfA incident, brought up by Fram. It was very poor decision by Andrevan and his comments there only reinforced why his judgement is way below of what is generally expected from ordinary NAC closer, not talk of Administrator... talkless of Bureaucrat.

It is imperative to note that the linked incident occured 3 years ago or thereabout, but the recent events, that led to his topic ban further show, he still lacks the necessary restraint and behavior expected from advanced permissions holders. More recent misreading of RfA like this, just refreshed the 2014 incident and corroborates the obvious sentiment that their judgment is impaired.

I don't mean to suggest Bureaucrats should behave like robots, but I believe any bureaucrat that behaved so wildly such that it even led to Topic bans and subsequently blocked and reblocked for violations, should not retain access to bureaucrat tools.

Therefore, since acceptance of case doesn't necessarily means issuance of remedy, I urge the Committee to accept this case. –Ammarpad (talk) 12:04, 6 June 2018 (UTC)

Statement by Jehochman

I recommend accepting this case because either (1) some action is needed, or (2) the accusations should be cleared up to remove the shadow from this elevated user. When accusations involve misuse of tools and there is actual misuse, though possibly minor or excusable, it is necessary to dig into the history to ensure that there isn't a bad pattern. Moreover, there is an accusation involving private evidence, which can only be resolved by ArbCom. I don't care that the original statement didn't include the private evidence; it's come up and should be dealt with now. Jehochman ^Talk 13:36, 6 June 2018 (UTC)

Statement by Alanscottwalker

It looks like it's all out there (even the nature of the "oversighted" thing is known on the project), so perhaps think of disposing by motion, instead of a case - just so as to not drag it out more. Move to A) Remove bu. flag; B) remove adm. flag; C) admonish; D) warn; E) trout, and just let whichever of those get the majority of the ctte. pass and be done. Alanscottwalker (talk) 17:32, 6 June 2018 (UTC)

Statement by Lepricavark

I understand why some might be reluctant to consider evidence from as far back as 2014, but I believe it is merited in this case. Andrevan uses the tools very rarely and the committee should review evidence that shows that these rare uses of the tools are often flawed. I also find this comment by Andrevan to be disconcerting. Lepricavark (talk) 18:53, 6 June 2018 (UTC)

In light of the most recent developments, I think it makes more sense to resolve this via motion instead of a time-consuming case. Lepricavark (talk) 16:38, 9 June 2018 (UTC)

Statement by Davey2010

I'll admit since this was created I've been undecided but I feel Arbcom should accept this case - The diffs presented by Fram are rather concerning,
Their comment in this very thread is the final nail for me - We all have different opinions and we all become frustrated here but the comments this admin's been making over the past few weeks are again problematic and IMHO unbecomming of any admin let alone a crat, . It warrants looking at. –Davey2010^Talk 20:18, 6 June 2018 (UTC)

• Andrevan blocks Dewythiel > Block gets overturned > Andrevan gets blocked for violating his topc ban,

I hate to say it but what with the diffs above and now this it does genuinely seem like every time this admin makes an Admin decision it backfires spectacularly,

Best resolution for this mess is a desysop (and crat desysop) pure and simple. –Davey2010^Talk 03:14, 9 June 2018 (UTC)

Statement by Factchecker_atyourservice

I would just like to say that Andrevan's accusations stating outright I was "probably" a Russian operative—documented by MONGO above—were not merely unfounded, they were insultingly wrong. As I previously pointed out at my AE topic ban case, I actually attended a summer program at West Point while I was in high school. To further elaborate, my roommate in the cadet barracks, despite being admitted to Princeton, ended up going back to West Point and Ranger School, became an infantry captain serving in Iraq, and was the subject of an in-depth feature in Newsweek magazine, pictured on the cover with his unit. I still have a battered original copy of the print magazine as well as a handwritten letter that he sent me. My American-ness level is not over 9000, but it is quite high.

As someone whose IP has been unmasked in the past based on a flimsy and unsubstantiated CheckUser request, it was troubling to think a person who voiced such an insane theory, and who made vague outing threats about somebody else, might go trying to CheckUser somebody in order to obtain "proof" of their nefarious activities—and get the request rubber-stamped because of apparent sysop/bureaucrat authority. Who knows what a person with such poor judgment might do with personally identifying information about a user whom they suspect of being a Russian spy?

Statement by Softlavender

Based on Fram's evidence, Andrevan hardly uses the tools and when he does he uses them inappropriately or flat-out destructively. Based on others' evidence, including Factchecker's evidence, Andrevan is combative and engages in unwarranted (and even egregious) personal and ad hominem attacks. It's fairly straightforward that someone who doesn't appear to need the tools and who attacks others should be de-sysopped. Softlavender (talk) 04:30, 7 June 2018 (UTC)

Statement by kashmiri

Consider me an uninvolved editor. The problem is not with the fact that Andrevan used the tools wrongly. A bad day or even a bad week can happen to anyone. The problem is that they clearly do not give a toss about the community and WP:CONSENSUS, haggling instead that they have "discretionary rights" to do anything at whim. Worse, they persist in saying so despire numerous editors trying to explain them the problem. Sure, had Andrevan replied along the lines "Sorry, I'll be more cautious next time," I would likely be neutral about the case. But their recent response that "Regarding the old unblocks or admin actions, I stand by them" is quite worrying. Since Andrevan declares not trusting the community, I see no reason the community should trust them any longer with management tools.

I see no chance an editor with such an attitude and history would pass an RfA now and urge the Committee to examine Andrevan's access to admin tools. — kashmīrī ^TALK 17:03, 7 June 2018 (UTC)

Statement by Javert2113

(For the record: I am an uninvolved editor.)

Administrative and bureaucratic tools are granted by the community to those whom the community feel exemplify good conduct and disinterested judgment. Like the appointment of Article III judges in the United States, these appointments are not term appointments, but rather lifetime appointments; and while "good Behavior" and loss of public trust are not expressly mentioned as reasons to revoke those tools, they might properly be implied. The evidence presented here may rise to a level such that those tools should be revoked.

I request that the Committee accept this case to resolve this matter, regardless of its outcome. — Javert2113 (talk; please ping me in your reply on this page) 02:21, 8 June 2018 (UTC)

Statement by Vanamonde93

I would urge the committee to accept this case. The accusations and evidence provided here may or may not be sufficient for a removal of Andrevan's advanced permissions, but they are substantive. Not examining them in detail would be unfair to the community, which should be able to hold admins and crats accountable, and unfair to Andrevan, who would leave with a cloud over them.

Furthermore, I would urge the committee to examine all of Andrevan's actions, even if they are older than usual. There is a catch-22 situation with users who have low levels of activity. Single incidents cannot be reported because they are single incidents; patterns of bad behavior cannot be reported because the edits establishing a pattern stretch occur over a lengthy period of time, and may be considered "stale": and this observation is by no means directed only at Andrevan.

Finally, in considering older admin/crat actions, I do not think the question the committee should ask should be "was this an abuse of the tool" (which is appropriate to ask for recent actions) but "If this was a mis-step, has Andrevan learned from it?" Everyone makes mistakes. Retaining the community's trust shouldn't be about remaining mistake-free, but about acknowledging and learning from any errors in judgement. In a case such as this, it strikes me that whether such learning has occurred is what ARBCOM needs to judge. Vanamonde (talk) 07:44, 8 June 2018 (UTC)

Statement by Tarage

Not getting involved in this, but I just wanted to note that Andrevan just blocked someone on a trump-related article, reverted them, thus breaking his topic ban, resulting in the block being overturned and him being blocked for a week. This... this is the administrator you are reviewing. This level of obliviousness. I'll let you decide if he should keep his bit... --Tarage (talk) 01:53, 9 June 2018 (UTC)

Statement by Galobtter

Based on this, can't the committee just desysop him by motion? He clearly cannot use the tools responsibly. Do we really need a full case for someone who's acted so below par the standard of an admin (let alone crat..), over multiple years (per Beeblebrox's evidence, including this)? Apart from desyoping/de-crating him, everything else should be handleable by the community, so I don't see the point of having weeks of a case Galobtter (pingó mió) 09:45, 9 June 2018 (UTC)

Meh, it does seem clear-cut enough to me that he is either incapable or unwilling to use the tools responsibly, and doesn't really understand INVOLVED, 3RR, or other basic policies that an admin would need to know. And I was basically meaning this as Callanecc said, resolving the case by a single motion rather than a full case. Galobtter (pingó mió) 10:41, 9 June 2018 (UTC)

Statement by Maxim

The latest block was incredibly bad on so many levels. While already under scrutiny for previous questionable actions, Andrevan reverted an editor (violating topic ban) and the blocked the same editor (involved admin action, plus another violation of the topic ban, this time with admin tools). I would equally support the option to remove advanced permissions by motion versus the option to open a full case. Maxim_(talk) 16:46, 9 June 2018 (UTC)

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

Additional statements by uninvolved editors

Statement by Xaosflux

Please note, following a self-requested resignation by Andrevan, administrator and bureaucrat access have been removed from this account. See Special:PermaLink/845192726#Andrevan's_resignation at WP:BN for notes. Best regards, — xaosflux ^Talk 02:54, 10 June 2018 (UTC)