user:CorbieVreccan made a post at Wikipedia_talk:Systemic_bias#Witchcraft claiming that another user had attempted to WP:CANVASS [1]. I checked and found that appeared to not be the case,[2] but it appeared to me that CorbieVreccan had been attempting to exert WP:OWNERSHIP over the page for some time.[3][4][5]

I became involved,[6] was immediately reverted,[7] and after some back and forth attempts at improvement, made a rough move proposal intended to resolve the conflicting definitions by simply disambiguating and allowing the different definitions to be independently developed. The move proposal was defeated[8] with little consensus actually generated aside from "no move."[9][10] However, CorbieVreccan began to claim across multiple pages that it represented consensus for the article, and all other content related to witchcraft across Wikipedia, as they thought it should be.[11][12][13]

About this time it appears that CorbieVreccan identified me as "the main problem" on "a site-wide POV push" and established coordination with user:Asarlaí for further efforts.[14] I discovered at this point that CorbieVreccan was an admin via their deployment of warnings and “admin notes” to influence conversation and project what felt to be attempts at intimidation.[15][unable to access diff on talk page of now-deleted Witchcraft (diabolic)] They have continued weaponizing policy and processes, including two denied attempts to get the Witchcraft page admin protected, use of the admin noticeboards that resulted in at least one editor saying they felt intimidated,[16] and a block against myself on editing a page currently under an AFD where their edits display a battleground mentality, include blanking the page[17] and edits self-described as being to “undercut the premise of the article.”[18]

I have lost count of the times that edits attempting to include sourced material on pages related to witchcraft have been described as “POV pushing” by one or both of these individuals. Meanwhile, CorbieVreccan specifically has attempted to claim sources which are well-known and respected academically are discredited[19], discredit information based entirely on an author's religion,[20] and ignore information challenging their stated point of view.[21][22] - Darker Dreams (talk) 12:37, 13 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding @Robert McClenon:'s statement that the DRN was failed based on this filing; I assumed that was going to happen based on the filing against me on the edit warring noticeboard. My understanding is that the rules bar *any* such filing on noticeboards, and the result would be failure. I deeply appreciate the time and energy that they have put into the mediation and RfC, and am distressed to have caused their evident frustration. - Darker Dreams (talk) 08:14, 15 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by CorbieVreccan

I haven't responded because I've assumed this won't be accepted by Arbcom, for all the reasons others have already given.

But clarifying here that, @Primefac: unless I'm missing something, I didn't delete any of the involved pages. I suggested A10 as a rationale for the POV forks Darker Dreams was creating for the content they couldn't get accepted at Witchcraft.

This is the A10 deleted page: Witchcraft (diabolic), deleted by Versageek. Later recreated and turned into a redirect by Skyerise.
This is the AfD where I suggested the other one DD created also met the criteria: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Witchcraft (traditional)

I had periodically reverted vandals and disruption on the Witchcraft article, and had semi-ed it at one point after talk page requests. My only real concern there has been, and is, that they not conflate modern redefinitions of the term (largely held by Neopagans - a community with which I am very familiar) with the global definition held by Indigenous, African, and other traditional communities. This led to very confusing discussions as participants keep using different meanings for the terminology, even after those who don't use the Neopagan redefinition repeatedly clarified. It seemed like an WP:IDONTHEARYOU situation.

Darker Dreams and several others have displayed what DD projects onto others: a tag-team battleground mentality, and seems to be fighting a religious crusade. DD is currently partially blocked for a week for tendentious editing, and has called good faith edits by editors in good standing, "vandalism":[23], [24]

DD has also responded to good-faith efforts at dialogue with childish mockery:[25]

I've lost track of all of DD's policy violations and misrepresentations of policy. I covered some in the tendentious editing report. Look at their talk page and contribs. They've been chronically disruptive, incivil, and look to me to have engaged in tag-teaming. FWIW, I am unaware of Aslaraí doing any of this, and we have had no off-wiki coordination. I'm sorry DD wasted your time with this. I'm sorry they've wasted all of our time. I tried to stop them, but as I'd edited the article, there was only so much I could do. - CorbieVreccan ^☊ ☼ 19:38, 14 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for striking the comment and your apology, Primefac. And for your additions, Deepfriedokra, Best Wishes. - CorbieVreccan ^☊ ☼ 20:03, 14 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@DIYeditor: fwiw, I won't speak for anyone else here, but I am not, and have never been, a Christian. :) - CorbieVreccan ^☊ ☼ 20:14, 14 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@CaptainEek: in case you didn't know, there is ongoing dispute resolution, but only about the article content, which has resulted in this RfC going live today: Talk:Witchcraft#RFC on Lede Section on Witchcraft. - CorbieVreccan ^☊ ☼ 20:56, 14 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

In his statement, Darker Dreams incorrectly and repeatedly called me an "involved admin." Several uninvolved editors promptly gave evidence below that his claim is untrue - other admins did all the page deletions and blockings. I've even been accused of things that didn't happen. Despite this evidence, DD has not apologized (or perhaps clarified that he didn't know what those words meant) and now Esowteric shows up to cast the same aspersion and false charges (he also did so in an AfD).[26][27] This has misled arbitrators and caused confusion about just what is being charged here. I'm asking for some kind of WP:BOOMERANG to be considered at this point, especially as Esoterwic is one of the people who does look to have done the tag-team edit-warring and coordination with Darker Dreams that DD is projecting onto others.

Other false claims from Esoterwic: Esowteric also says I nominated Witchcraft (traditional) for deletion[28][29] (which was perfectly within my rights to do as a regular editor), but it was Oaktree b who did the nom.[30] and Liz who did the deletion. As well as saying that I blanked it when I turned it into a redirect (after reading it, doing a minor edit, and seeing it was a duplicate of the main article):[31] - CorbieVreccan ^☊ ☼ 20:29, 15 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

This was a content dispute amongst quite a few people, still at mediation. The filer was blocked for tendentious editing and edit-warring. His "evidence" against me was that he was warned and reported, and other admins protected the pages and blocked him. As a retaliatory action, because I am the only admin editing some of these articles, he and Esoterwic falsely accused me of being an "involved admin", which I am not, and misled everyone here. This is an abuse of the process and a series of personal attacks. - CorbieVreccan ^☊ ☼ 22:02, 15 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Asarlaí

Serial

yo Darker Dreams, it's probably as well to announce that you are currently partially blocked from the Witchcraft page sooner rather than later. Better to be upfront about being partially blocked from the Witchcraft page than let people find out you've been partially blocked from the Witchcraft page after you've already filed here. Happy editing! SN54129 — Preceding undated comment added 13:55, 13 August 2023‎ (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Alalch E.

[ec] Darker Dreams had also created "Witchcraft (diabolic)" which has been A10-deleted, see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Witchcraft (diabolic). The DRN is listed as among the "steps in dispute resolution have been tried", but dispute resolution there is still ongoing. Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Witchcraft (traditional) is also ongoing.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Alalch E. (talk • contribs) 13:58, 13 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by DIYeditor

Stumbled on this at dispute resolution. I'm concerned about these content forks, witchcraft (traditional), witchcraft (diabolical), witchcraft - how are they all not forks of magic (supernatural)? I also have concerns about possible WP:COI/WP:SOAP editing here (nobody in particular). I have a POV about this (both personal and opinion on the pertinent historical facts) so I can't say I'm totally impartial either, and I'm not sure what ArbCom can bring to this but the topic could definitely use the flames doused a bit. I think we may have some editors here trying to promote a pagan view of witchcraft and some trying to promote a Christian. That's SOAP. —DIYeditor (talk) 14:14, 13 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Beyond My Ken

Just noting for the record that Darker Dreams' partial block from Witchcraft (traditional) is for 1 week, beginning on August 11. The block was for edit warring and was made by User:Daniel Case. Beyond My Ken (talk) — Preceding undated comment added 23:56, 13 August 2023‎ (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Deep-fried okra

FWIW, I took the liberty of going through CorbieVreccan's deletion log in search of A10's Here is what I found.

2023-05-18T17:29:44 CorbieVreccan talk contribs block deleted page Cultural impact of Johnny Depp (A10: Recently created article that duplicates an existing topic: Duplicate of content at Johnny Depp created by one, new user without discussion)

2021-08-09T13:50:30 CorbieVreccan talk contribs block deleted page 'Gay Liberation' Monument (A10: Recently created article that duplicates an existing topic: Student-created duplicate of Gay Liberation Monument. All useable content moved there. Converting to redirect.)

2019-10-28T20:08:43 CorbieVreccan talk contribs block deleted page John Smelcer (writer) (A10: Recently created article that duplicates an existing topic, John Smelcer)

2016-05-03T17:20:11 CorbieVreccan talk contribs block deleted page Children’s rights law (Multiple reasons: speedy deletion criteria A10, G12. Source URL: http://hls.harvard.edu/content/uploads/2008/07/guide-children-rights.pdf. Article: Children's rights) -- Deepfriedokra (talk) 20:04, 14 August 2023 (UTC), aka Captain Obvious[reply]

@Primefac: Meh. You weren't the only one. ¯\_(ツ)_/¯ -- Deepfriedokra (talk) 20:06, 14 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by North8000

I don't have knowledge about the particular issue but have several interactions with Corbie where I felt they acted incorrectly as an editor (albeit possibly with utilizing an admin imprimatur) much less as an admin. I basically let those situations "blow over". IMO this should not be dismissed out of hand. IMO somewhere it should be reviewed to see if some feedback/course correction/guidance is in order. Probably wp:ani does not do well in handling such things. Perhaps an authoritative / methodical "smaller" review by arbcom with some possible mild result/guidance of the types that I noted would be a good thing even if it is not the classic arbocm situation. Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 00:04, 15 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@KevinL: Maybe a good idea, but my experience regarding this is too narrow for that to come from me. North8000 (talk) 16:50, 15 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Robert McClenon (Witchcraft)

Like L235, I think that ArbCom should accept more cases than it does, and should encourage editors to bring cases. ArbCom has for years been tacitly discouraging editors from bringing cases because most of the initial responses to most case requests start out between negative and neutral. ArbCom has the mandate to hear and resolve cases that the community is not able to resolve, either because they polarize and divide the community, or because the community does not have the authority to resolve them. Administrator abuse is in the latter class. Great monster cases at WP:ANI are in the former class, but it seems that some arbitrators prefer not to accept them.

However, this dispute is not a case that the community has so far been unable to resolve. On 25 July 2023, the filing editor filed a request for discussion at DRN. The disagreement about the content and structure of the Witchcraft article is not the sort of case that DRN is primarily intended to resolve, but I agreed to conduct discussion to try to address issues about the scope of the article. After some discussion, an RFC has been started concerning the lede paragraph of the article. I do not know whether this approach will resolve the article content dispute, which is about the scope and subject matter of the article, but the community has not been able to resolve it, because both the DRN and the RFC were still open at the time that the filing editor filed this arbitration case request. Because the community is still working to try to resolve this dispute as a content dispute, the filing of the arbitration request was not only unnecessary, but vexatious. ArbCom should not only decline this case, but admonish the filing editor for misuse of process. I have failed the DRN case. The RFC is in progress. If the filing editor thinks that there has been administrator abuse, they have not made that case, but have only cast aspersions. The next stop may be WP:ANI, and maybe the community should consider topic-bans.

ArbCom should decline this case, and admonish the filing editor for vexatious filing. Any conduct allegations can go to WP:ANI. Robert McClenon (talk) 05:52, 15 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Esowteric

It was no doubt the correct thing to delete Witchcraft (traditional), and since that was the outcome of the AfD, I'm happy to go along with that. However, as Darker Dreams pointed out, this was part of a widespread dispute centred around the Witchcraft article, disambiguation pages, and associated ("satellite") articles where virtual ownership has been claimed and maintained, against calls of systemic bias, through claims that "scholarly consensus" is on their side, and tag-team reversions to avoid 3RR themselves and inflict 3RR on dissenters. In short, this topical area has become a battleground, and I'm sad to see that the dispute resolution (DRN) process failed, as we have begun to work on a compromise for the lede, which is especially contentious.

I would agree with Darker Dreams that the involved admin CorbieVreccan's edits have been problematic, as have Darker Dreams' own. CorbieVreccan's edits include blanking the page[32] and creating a redirect during an ongoing AfD for which he was the nominator and !voted for a speedy A10 deletion, even though this is only an option "where the title is not a plausible redirect."

Edits by Asarlaí which were self-described as being to "undercut the premise of the article",[33] could hardly be described as being made in good faith, especially since he !voted to delete the article at the ongoing AfD. When these were reverted by Darker Dreams, again CorbieVreccan stepped in to back up Asarlaí by reverting, and then, when Darker Dreams reverted him, CorbieVreccan of course reported Darker Dreams for breaching 3RR and Darker Dreams was partially blocked for a week. I can, of course, see that Darker Dreams was out-of-line, and yet at the same time I have sympathy for his wanting to do what he saw as improving the article as the AfD was playing out, in the face of what to him looked like concerted efforts to prevent him from doing this and crippling the article so that it was more likely to be deleted at AfD. I also have sympathy for Darker Dreams' bringing this vexed issue to arbitration. Esowteric + Talk + Breadcrumbs 17:24, 15 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Addendum: CorbieVreccan claims that editors are casting aspersions by calling him an "involved admin" because he took no administrative actions. But in these disputes he has used that term to describe his role, thereby adding weight to his testimony against another involved editor at the Witchcraft article. See Administrators' Noticeboard/Edit warring old revision Comment by involved admin: Look at her block log. Skyerise has been blocked for this behaviour many times before. - CorbieVreccan ☊ ☼ 20:41, 21 July 2023 (UTC) Esowteric + Talk + Breadcrumbs 10:33, 16 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by {Non-party}

Other editors are free to make relevant comments on this request as necessary. Comments here should address why or why not the Committee should accept the case request or provide additional information.

Witchcraft and related topics: Clerk notes

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

Witchcraft and related topics: Arbitrators' opinion on hearing this matter <0/7/0>

Vote key: (Accept/decline/recuse)

While there seems to be a thorny issue here, I'm not seeing that it is ripe for Arbitration. It has yet to reach AN or ANI, unless I've missed something, and this case is not so severe that we'd take it without having first hit a noticeboard. While there is an allegation of admin abuse, the provided edits hardly substantiate that. Not to say that CV is necessarily blameless, but at the moment it seems like ANI could solve this problem. Alternatively, it seems like a well considered WP:RfC might better solve this problem, since there seems to be disagreement about how the Witchcraft article ought present the subject, and I'm not seeing much outside input at the talk page. CaptainEek ^{Edits Ho Cap'n!}⚓ 02:38, 14 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I am leaning towards declining this. I was away this past weekend and have not yet had to do anything more than quickly glance at the pages in question, but my only concern right now would be the A10 deletion by CorbieVreccan; if said deletion came after their involvement in the topic area there might be a bit of a trout for deleting as an involved admin (noting they did not delete the other page under A10), but unless there is more that I am missing I generally agree with CaptainEeek on the salient points. Primefac (talk) 09:34, 14 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Striking my above comment. I genuinely have no idea how I managed to read (twice) that CorbieVreccan performed the A10 deletion on the (diabolic) page. My apologies. Primefac (talk) 20:00, 14 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Decline. Primefac (talk) 10:57, 16 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I'm inclined to agree with CaptainEek. There is enough potential inovlved blocking that I'm awaiting further evidence/comments but absent that I will be voting to decline. Barkeep49 (talk) 21:46, 14 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Decline Barkeep49 (talk) 08:20, 15 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Decline per above. Izno (talk) 22:16, 14 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Decline. I think ArbCom should generally be taking on cases somewhat more often than it does — and the community should bring cases before us more often — but this case appears premature and doesn't meet even an expanded vision of ArbCom's scope. Best, KevinL (aka L235 · t · c) 22:55, 14 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@North8000, I think that case (a relatively gentle but comprehensive review of Corbie's actions) needs to be a different case request with a different/broader framing, compared to this case request. I would welcome a more comprehensive basis on which to consider a different case. Or, maybe I'd even entertain accepting this case request, if the need was presented much more thoroughly. It's just not what's before us now. Best, KevinL (aka L235 · t · c) 01:57, 15 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Esowteric: Unless I'm reading something wrong, that "Comment by involved admin" note is meant to decrease the amount of weight assigned to that comment. We know who admins are — some folks even have highlighters for who is an admin and who isn't. The note that one is "involved" is meant to indicate that one is not acting as an admin in that discussion. KevinL (aka L235 · t · c) 00:39, 17 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Decline Cabayi (talk) 08:30, 15 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I have no problem with Arbcom accepting cases, but I generally believe the community should be able to sort things out first, and Arbcom should be kept as a final port of call. Decline Worm^TT(talk) 08:54, 15 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Decline ArbCom is a very heavyweight process, and not everything needs to go through a heavyweight process. As others have noted, this seems like it could be effectively handled by more lightweight, community-led processes. If that doesn't work, then I'd be more open to using the heavy machinery of a case. The corollary of being open to accepting a broader range of cases is being willing to deny a lot more, abut I don't think denials are necessarily a bad outcome. There's been a lot of useful perspectives and information compiled here, and they could be compiled and repurposed for an AN proposal and community discussion. — Wug·a·po·des 22:15, 15 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]