Wikipedia Arbitration
About arbitration Talk Arbitration policy (CU/OS) Guide to arbitration Noticeboard + Talk Search archived proceedings Ban appeals Report
Open proceedings All open requests Case requests Clarification and Amendment requests Arbitrator motion requests Enforcement requests
Active sanctions Contentious topics (Log) General sanctions Editor sanctions
Arbitration Committee Discuss + Contact Members Procedures Elections Talk History Clerks + Talk Clerk procedures Conflict of interest reports
Audit Talk Statistics Talk Reports (pre-2016)
Track related changes

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.

• Keeping this in context and for easy reference here: Additional request for Primefac and CaptainEek's recusal. Thanks, Lourdes 04:14, 18 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• I thank the Arbcom for giving their decision without much delay. In a way, it provides RexxS clear perspective of his standing – and I guess this is the end of the road for him here. Thanks. Lourdes 05:00, 25 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Where I am it's already 21 March. In SF it's 20 March 11:55, in NY it's 15:00, and in the UK where it's 19:00 the day is nearly over and it's proposed decision day (Proposed decision to be posted by 20 March 2021). Having been through this process myself and kept waiting for weeks, I just wouldn't want RexxS to be kept on tenterhooks. Whether certain members of the community or the Committee want him desysoped or not, or another remedy pronounced, or even none, I hope the Committee will please put itself in RexxS' shoes and be as humane as possible. Thanks. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 19:01, 20 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Littleolive oil it probably was still claimed to be 20 March when you posted. The {{casenav}} transclusion has been discretely edited but without a comment from the clerks for the community. This is how it started on my case, but this time with the much larger number of active arbitrators, a decision should not be hard to reach. Unless the outcome is likely to be favourable for RexxS, they should make it short and sweet (but obviously not hurried just to get it over with), otherwise it' a double punishment like being kept on death row for decades and then still being decapitated in the end. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 02:48, 21 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Thryduulf. Thank you for your detailed reply. It would nevertheless be appropriate if the clerks could properly keep the community informed - after all, a desyoping of a prominent, industrious editor is no minor event. FWIW, I know all about committees and board meetings, I was business owner for over 40 years and an academic department head for nearly two decades. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 04:58, 21 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  @Kudpung: We (clerks) didn't know the the PD was pushed back either as far as I'm aware. The edit in question that you are chiding the clerk team for was made by an arb, and not a clerk. SQL^{Query me!} 22:15, 21 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  I'd like to add that discussion to do with the pd before it is posted onwiki is pretty much always kept on arb only discussion lists and on arbwiki. This makes it difficult for the clerks to keep up to date with what is happening without requesting an update, including changes to pd posting dates, before everyone else knows. I do understand that it may be useful that once a clerk noticed a change onwiki to leave a notice on the pd talk, but in this case I'm sure everyone is aware by now. I don't mean to say that your concerns are not important or valid but instead I'm saying that in cases where it's just the arbs discussing, deciding and implementing we will usually find out when you find out. Dreamy Jazz ^{talk to me | my contributions} 22:40, 21 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Thryduulf is correct, we are, in a word, swamped, but the PD is pretty much ready and I expect it to be forthcoming very soon. Beeblebrox (talk) 19:40, 21 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• @Mike Peel and Barkeep49: ...it was always the source of the issue, everything else was going through RexxS's edits to dig up Stuff That Looked Bad. That happens on every arbcom case of this kind. It generally comes not necessarily only from the plaintiff(s) and/or request proposer, but also from totally uninvolved participants. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 06:20, 23 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• @Barkeep49, Robert McClenon, and Newyorkbrad: Linguistically NYB is perfectly correct and I applaud his observation. An admonishment is a reprimand. From the Latin ‘’admonere’’ it means ‘ ‘’urge’’ by warning’. A ‘warning' OTOH, is a precautionary device that advises of something to beware of. These, despite the work we did on the template texts at the Warning Template Project, are some of the most misunderstood notions on Wikipedia and the lexical ignorance of them by those seeking to sanction users for their use even contributes to desysopings, in much the same way as they like to interpret them as threats or harassment for the purpose of piling on with complaints. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 20:00, 25 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Regarding the idea that Rexx only treats his friends well, that support for him is because supporters are friends, or to paraphrase one arb, that he's nice some of the time is not enough: I tried to show in my evidence, but words are limited, that none of these suppositions have any support in the actuality of behaviors, over time.

• Did anyone see this conversation/diff:

@Jytdog: Perhaps you can see that I don't share your perspective on "He should not have removed it there". James's reply to the COI editor was not "a discussion on the article's talk page to explain what is non-neutral about the article." Read his words and try to imagine what an uninvolved editor would be able to work out from those. Nothing. That's why Andy was completely in the right to remove the tag. I agree about the edit-warring, of course, but James was edit-warring as well. Ironically, I've give both of them bollockings in the past for edit-warring, but I value both of them as friends (and vice-versa) and that's probably why I can sometimes be more useful to them. --RexxS (talk) 19:14, 9 February 2018 (UTC)

This is a stated position when two "friends" have fallen out of line. In the hours that I randomly searched through RexxS Archives, I saw very little if any abrasive language with anyone.

• I am one of those editors who had a rocky start with RexxS. I was part of the TM arbitration and while I don't think RexxS took part in the arbitration he did address me on the talk page where he was very strong about use of sources. (At the time MEDRS sources were not something that were being used by anyone on the TM pages- peer review was the standard-I'd never really heard about MEDRS, so I didn't agree with his admonishment much less understand it.) I still edit on MEDRS related pages and have never had any negative interactions with Rexx even if I disagree with him.
• The idea that those supporting Rexx do so because he is a friend is side stepping. In fact, if editors support other editors in an arbitration it might be truer to say that is because they know the admin and feel the arbitration falls short in seeing the entire stretch of career of that admin. This holds for both positive and negative postings. I'll repeat what I said in my evidence: selective matching means a decision is made in our minds about something in part because that is what we see and what dominates as happens with diffs to show fault- the dominate diffs in this kind of case. For those of us us posting, we can assume guilt so match the diffs to that idea. The entirety of a career as an admin and editor should not take a back seat to those selected diffs. I'm not explaining this very well in such a short space but the brain is not the nicely controlled organ we might think it is. It is a mechanism that ensures survival, selective matching which removes the new as threatening is one of those mechanisms. (My area of teaching has been in how to understand how brain impacts creativity.)

I'll add, Rexx has recently admitted to some abrasive language. I'll repeat that the areas he is editing in can be beyond frustrating. I've found myself ready to tear my hair out, since I edit sporadically in some of those areas, too. I'll add that this is a person who had Covid and who suffered fatigue long after that. I don't have the diff where he says this, but remember it. None of us knows the long term effects of Covid in any way and especially in long term fatigue. Rexx began this Request for Arbitration by saying he would take on board the concerns with his behaviour. I would hate to see a long term remedy for a short term situation. Littleolive oil (talk) 15:53, 23 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Colin: Sorry Colin. You selectively leave out part of my comment to make a point, that with your tone consistent with other discussions leaves me not wanting to interact here. My statement stands. Littleolive oil (talk) 17:37, 23 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Bradv: Habitual incivility? Really? Have you looked through his archives? And he wasn't the only one who disagreed with you, in one case that I know of at least-the Ayurveda case-with your position. Should an editor agree with you even when three other admins disagree with you? He several times went to NB to ask for input, a clear indication of looking for outside input. Littleolive oil (talk) 18:12, 23 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Bradv: Apologies for mess with user name. Littleolive oil (talk) 20:41, 23 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• What surprises me in all of this is the mistaken idea that there is only one way for an admin to act, that there is only one right. (Good luck with that idea if you have kids.) On the Ayurveda article both Brad and Rexx were correct. Brad in that he was upholding a general standard for admins and Rexx who, and I worked on that article, was acting in a specific instance and was preventing the decay of an article, with support of 3 admins, and who decided he had to act. And decay is not hyperbole. Is it possible that a long time editor and then admin has the experience to make a decision someone else doesn't agree with. Is there a difference between I don't agree with you and you're transgressing our standards for admins.

I see lots of concern about incivility but vitriol on the part of others in a discussion is ignored. So ok, and admin is held to a higher standard than others but if you allow vitriol and editors who are also upset in a situation to go unnoticed you open the door for problems including baiting. It takes two to Tango. So much of this is a one sided view and that is disappointing. Littleolive oil (talk) 22:16, 23 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• • I can see that nothing I have said is really understood nor does anything anyone said in support of an editor here matter. Lourdes presented diff after diff that indicated that she like others did not consider RexxS' decisions wrong- another admin seeing the actions with a different set of eyes than the people who are looking for a desysop. My comments are not that Rexx can work well; they were that he did for most of his career and that no one here can claim more, if they are human. He was supported in so many cases by other admins yet that doesn't seem to matter. The issue that he could best support himself in the evidence phase is a real one; I know he could since his statement on the request was a better more articulate explanation than most including me, could ever give. But the crux of the matter is not whether editors can defend themselves but what they have to defend themselves for, against, and why. If there is any doubt about a dysysop the default should not be to desysop but especially in a case where an editor has agreed that he will do better, and where a Wikipedia career has been one of so much usefulness to this project and her sister projects, to let him do that. A record of great work must stand for something or we should all go home and forget Wikipedia. If he fails given another chance, we know what will happen, but you the arbs are not giving him that chance. This is the saddest of arbitrations for me and I've seen and I have been part of some doozies. Littleolive oil (talk) 16:11, 24 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

As Ched said below, for the most part I don't blame; we are wrapped in a system of our own making and to make that flawed system work takes much more than a look at diffs. Littleolive oil (talk) 16:27, 24 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

and it bothers the heck out of me to see an arb posting on Wikipediocracy after an arbitration has opened. I guess it doesn't matter but for me it does. Littleolive oil (talk) 16:38, 24 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Tryptofish:. Please don't judge those who felt they couldn't post here. Some, like me, find it so stressful that to even read the arguments posted on another editor is exhausting and upsetting. As I've said, I know of several editors who have suffered real PTSD from arbitrations, some never come back. In part the problem is that while an editor can post a mountain of diffs seemingly showing some kind of misbehavior dismantling those arguments and note, a single editor has to dismantle the diffs posted by multiple editors, diffs and their context must be provided to explain behaviour. There is no simple, diff for and diff against. Also, not everyone has the same ability to explain away something they know to be wrong. I, for example read and see everything in pictures, a benefit for an artist but not a defender. And please don't criticize those who miss a well-respected editor. There are lots of ways of describing grief, and this is grief for many and not game or something trivial. While there is much on Wikipedia that is NOT real life, the heart and effort people put into this place is very real. Littleolive oil (talk) 19:13, 24 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

It would have taken pages to truly discuss the diffs presented against Rexx and we weren't given those pages. Lourdes came close, but was also asked to remove text. And it would have taken more time than people who have jobs can spare. The system works against the ones defending themselves, in part because of how brain works. Read the Undoing Project for more on that. One depends on the arbs to look beyond diffs but that doesn't always happen for many reasons, and one hopes the arbs can be open minded and not come into this with preconceived notions, but many do, and if they can't get beyond that there is little to be done. I have been advocating for change in arbitrations for years because I know first hand what damage our DR processes do. It's antiquated given what we know about behavior and the brain, but here we are again. And the loSS by the way cannot be recouped. We take 12-15 years to train an admin like Rexx and we don't give them or him the benefit of the doubt to fix issues, as if none of us has issues, to hold on to him. It's hard to admit experience is greater than one's own. But unless we do, we'll need years to train another editor who even approximates Rexx, and of course there are no clones of anyone. Littleolive oil (talk) 19:36, 24 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• @Barkeep49:. Thank you for your consistent efforts to answer questions throughout this arbitration. Littleolive oil (talk) 17:09, 25 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Beeblebrox:. You had, in your collective hands, the means to both test a way of dealing with cases like this and preventing the heat that ensued. You had in your hands the means to prevent the loss of one of our finest editors with a years long record of service. You had an arb talk to the editor and received a reply that indicated he would deal with criticisms of his recent work. You could have easily given him a month to work through this stuff and if he couldn't then an arbitration. But you didn't. You took him to arbitration and without naming the other editor involved, an insult to any editor. It's not about whether the arbs wanted deal with one issue rather than many it's about dealing humanely with people. Retention is not only about holding on to new editors, it's about dealing with long terms editors who are perhaps tired or frustrated as if they matter especially when they have been so integral to Wikipedia's development. I'm seldom this blunt, but you messed up to put it mildly. And you've lost an editor Wikipedia needs. Littleolive oil (talk) 22:39, 26 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Add: To be clear I'm not criticizing the arbs as people. I assume they are good people. And I know this is a tough job, but the job is to protect Wikipedia and its editors. I am criticizing how this was handled and the fallout for all of us, as it is for those of us who work in the MEDRS areas, even if that work is limited, as it is with me. Littleolive oil (talk) 23:05, 26 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Kudpung: Arbs have commented multiple time recently that they are even busier than usual, and comments to the Functionaries (about an issue completely unrelated to this case) a couple of days ago strongly suggested that this was still the case. If you have ever been involved with committees outside Wikipedia you should realise that the more people needed to make a decision the harder it gets to make the decision - and that's with everybody in the same room. If emails from my time on the committee were ever leaked people would see that a good proportion of them was someone (often me*) chasing others about something that needed doing (although that sort of boring email is rarely the sort that get leaked!) and it would not surprise me if the same was true today. (* things idling out without conclusion is one of my pet hates!). Thryduulf (talk) 04:03, 21 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Re "ArbCom and RFA" I like Primefac's suggestion of adding "by the closers" but I would also suggest changing "absent evidence of misconduct" to "absent allegations of misconduct" (or "credible allegations" or similar if you prefer) as whether the presented information was evidence of misconduct or not would be determined by the case not before it. Thryduulf (talk) 12:41, 22 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Re "RexxS placed under review (alternative)" I get the intent here, but these restrictions would seem to preclude RexxS blocking anyone for a brightline policy violation (e.g. repeated obvious vandalism) or blocking someone who was warned by other users (e.g. if a user had been given a series of six warnings by six different uninvolved administrators, RexxS would not able to block them without leaving a self-composed pre-warning first). The requirement for a self-composed message is itself something I'm torn about - in some cases the best worded way to provided someone with the links is a template. Thryduulf (talk) 12:41, 22 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Concerning the remedy "Community reminded" and its alt - what I am always missing in this and similar arbitration (and even pre0arbitration) proceedings is that communication with the user always must start with the user's talk page. The exceptions are really outrageous things like rapid vandalism, and even in this case the blocking admin is required to leave a block message on the user's talk page (though many unfortunately do not). The first communication point is the user's talk page, not ANI, not edit summaries during the revert, and certainly not the ArbCom. The community must be reminded of this.--Ymblanter (talk) 07:00, 22 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Ymblanter: I don't necessarily agree with "must", since there are plenty of imaginable cases in which this is unlikely to work, but I have amended the proposals 5 and 5.1 to the effect that they now include contacting the user on their talk page. Regards SoWhy 07:26, 22 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, certainly an improvement.--Ymblanter (talk) 07:38, 22 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@ProcrastinatingReader: The purpose of communicating with the administrator about their actions is not primarily to "get them blocked" and not to make the deadmin procedure fast. The purpose is primarily to let them know that (in your opinion) they are doing something they should not be doing. The best outcome of this discussion, or a series of discussions, should be not that the admin gets blocked or loses the tools, but that they correct their behavior. Arbitration is the last resort, for the cases everything else has been tried, and the administrator is unwilling or unable to correct their behavior. It is not supposed to be a punishment tool. (No idea how this applies to the current situation, we are talking about an important general principle now).--Ymblanter (talk) 11:54, 22 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

FOF3, which currently passes unanimously, starts with RexxS has repeatedly threatened or engaged in the use of his administrator tools in topics where he has made substantial contributions or where he has had significant disputes with editors, in violation of WP:INVOLVED. However, WP:INVOLVED does not stay that administrator tools can not be used in the area the administrator has made substantial contributions. It only says In general, editors should not act as administrators in disputes in which they have been involved. Whereas, in principle, one can argue that if one has edited a lot in some area, they experience strong feeling towards this area, and therefore they are INVOLVED. However, first, this reasoning is flawed - for example, a significant part of my own contrubution was cleaning up some stubs about obscure female cyclists created by Sander v Ginkel, but I do not experience any feelings at all towards these, without any doubts, respectable ladies, second, I am not sure this is how the community considers involved. Having conflicts is of course a different business, and one has to be very careful, but as of now, this FoF reads "do not act an administrator in the area you are editing", which, I believe, is not supported by our policies. Certainly if this passes as is, I will immediately stop any admin activity in Eastern Europe area, my main editing area.--Ymblanter (talk) 22:17, 23 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Though it probably does not matter at this stage, let me state that I fully agree with HJ Mitchell. I have been on that side on the arbitration, a case was once submitted with me as the principal named party, which I believed (and still believe) had zero substance, and it was rejected, but came dangerously close to acceptance, and the whole deliberation took a lot of time. I tried to explain that there is no substance, but there were a lot of editors who had unrelated issues with me, and all these issues were brought there, and there were some other editors who did not have issues with me but felt strong about the topic, and I did not get an impression that the arbs were listening to what I was saying. The general attitude was indeed "no smoke without fire", and I do not feel it would have gone well if the case were accepted. Whatever positive I learned from the case, could have easily been achieved by a polite message on my talk page - but nobody cared to leave this polite message.--Ymblanter (talk) 09:41, 26 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• @Newyorkbrad: At the time of writing, you've supported findings of fact that RexxS has 1. repeatedly threatened or engaged in the use of his administrator tools when WP:INVOLVED, 2. displayed unnecessary hostility during discussions and displayed a battleground mentality, 3. reacted poorly to evidence that he has not followed policies and has not participated during the Case after it was opened, but indicated that you will not support a desysop. Given that these findings almost exactly mirror passages in the administrators policy describing conduct that is grounds for a desysop (namely 1. serious or repeated lapses, or lapses involving breaches of 'involved' administrator conduct may not always be [accepted], 2. behavior such as incivility or bad faith editing is incompatible with the expectations and responsibilities of administrators, and 3. administrators are expected to respond promptly and civilly to queries about their Wikipedia-related conduct and administrative actions, especially during community discussions on noticeboards or during Arbitration Committee proceedings – emphasis added), I wonder if you could explain how your vote on the remedies follows from your votes on the findings? Are there mitigating factors that are not mentioned in the PD? (In which case perhaps they should be added?) – Joe (talk) 08:43, 22 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • @Joe Roe: Relevant factors in my view included (1) RexxS's commitment at the case acceptance stage to take account of the feedback he received there and improve his level of civility, and (2) my view that while his interpretation of WP:INVOLVED was narrower than many people construe it, he'd be willing to follow our guidance to interpret the policy more strictly. He is also an extremely dedicated, well-intentioned, knowledgeable Wikipedian, and while that doesn't excuse misbehavior, it isn't meaningless, either. Whether to desysop or not in this case is not a clear-cut decision and I respect the views of those who have voted or advocated the other way. Newyorkbrad (talk) 21:42, 24 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• @Barkeep49: Thanks for taking the time to explain your reasoning. Although obviously I disagree, I mostly follow it, except for on two points.

The first is that you've voted for a remedy without voting on all of the FoFs – in particular #5, which directly relates to RexxS and WP:ADMINCOND and thus the remedies. I understand from your comment that you agree with the finding, but have not supported it because it's an "incomplete picture". Aren't all findings by nature an incomplete picture? When the committee finds that editor X has done Y, it doesn't logically follow that they always do Y, or have never done the opposite of Y. Admin conduct cases fundamentally ask ArbCom to weigh someone's actions against WP:ADMIN, which is a set of minimal expectations, not couched in terms of an acceptable proportion of "bad" behaviour amongst "good".

The second thing I don't understand is your statement that I have enough evidence to support the idea that the mistakes that have been made around INVOLVED won't happen again. What is this evidence? I spent quite some time reviewing the multiple discussions of RexxS' involved actions, by my count at least four, and not once did I see RexxS clearly admit fault or commit to a change in approach, nor did any of the other evidence provide any instances of this. On the contrary, I presented evidence of him continuing to threaten use of admin tools in areas where he had been explicitly told by the community that he was involved. And of course, RexxS has not participated in this case, apart from in the request phase where he again denied any fault and dismissed the request as frivolous. Since both you and NYB allude to mitigating factors that aren't present in the PD, it makes me wonder if RexxS has been in contact with the committee off-wiki to promise change? If so this should at least be mentioned in a finding. Otherwise it feels like we are right back where we were after RexxS' RfA, with trusted functionaries assuming that he will change his behaviour, absent any statement from the man himself that he will follow through, or even sees the need to. – Joe (talk) 18:03, 22 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I haven't voted for FoF 5 because I want to see if other arbs support what I'm suggesting with my comment there. If so I will write an alternative and vote for that. If not, I will revisit, the existing FoF 5 which, as I note in my comment, is supported by the evidence at hand. Rexx has not been in private contact with the committee. The mitigating factors are those that I laid out either in my opposition to desysop and/or at FoF 5. As for been explicitly told by the community I think the problem here is that he hasn't been told explicitly. He's been told with enough ambiguity that he's read into those conversations what he wants them to say rather than what they do say (though as in the Ayurveda I think he did read the discussion correctly and it was the discussion that was incorrect). Everyone is at risk for motivated reasoning and so I have touch of patience for that. Hope that helps clarify. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 18:43, 22 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks but I'm still at a loss as to why you think the mistakes that have been made around INVOLVED won't happen again? If there's been no contact from RexxS, where is the empirical basis for that assertion in the case pages? Sorry to harp on, but given this is at least the third time RexxS has been directly involved in an ArbCom case, and many editors have invested time in arguing this case that he has chosen not to participate in, it would be extremely unfortunate to end up back here again, with another set of editors bullied and wrongly blocked, just because this committee decided to give him the benefit of the doubt (again). – Joe (talk) 19:56, 22 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

First, I'm not sure what the third ArbCom case is - 1) Medicine 2) this. Bigger picture I really did take heart from the diffs offered by Tryptofish, that if the concerns are put to Rexx directly that there will be improvement. Barkeep49 (talk) 20:21, 22 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The RexxS RfA case request. I still think (and I see bradv has said below) this is a claim that really ought to be supported by a finding of fact, rather than a subjective impression, but that's your call. – Joe (talk) 09:36, 24 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• A minor point about the "RexxS did not participate" finding: while I agree that it is tangential to the case and not worth dwelling on (I regret bringing it up in the evidence phase), WP:ADMINACCT does actually specifically say Administrators are expected to respond promptly and civilly to queries about their Wikipedia-related conduct and administrative actions, especially during community discussions on noticeboards or during Arbitration Committee proceedings. So it's not the case that the committee has to decide whether participation in a case is expected (cf. Maxim), it's already in policy. – Joe (talk) 09:36, 24 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Far enough, but RexxS did participate, at the acceptance stage, including responding to my direct question to him. He may have felt he had nothing further to add, or he may, frankly, have been demoralized by our decision to open the case. It's easy to say "editors who are the subjects of ArbCom cases should fully participate in them," and I've probably said it myself at some point in the past 13 years, but let's have some empathy for those who are actually in that position. Newyorkbrad (talk) 21:42, 24 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

There doesn't seem to be anything here about User:ProcrastinatingReader's role in this whole incident, which led to this arbitration case. That is very disappointing. Has the template that was the source of the issue even been fixed yet? Mike Peel (talk) 11:00, 22 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

To get a bit in the weeds, for me the template was never the source of the issue. It was the inciting incident but that's a different matter altogether. Given the clearly defined scope of the case even if it's disappointing I hope it wasn't surprising that we didn't mention PR directly in the proposed decision. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 17:39, 22 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Barkeep49: It was always the source of the issue, everything else was going through RexxS's edits to dig up Stuff That Looked Bad. It's not surprising due to low expectations, but it is definitely disappointing. Thanks. Mike Peel (talk) 22:20, 22 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@David Fuchs: "I'm not seeing any reason those require administrator tools" - bear in mind that some of the modules he has worked on, e.g., Module:EditAtWikidata, are admin protected. (Many more are template editor protected, like Module:WikidataIB, although that's now so much used that it may well be fully protected in the future.) Thanks. Mike Peel (talk) 16:18, 23 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Primefac: "2/3 of the statements and 6/7 diffs are unrelated to PR" - I can't understand how you are calculating those ratios, can you explain please? Thanks. Mike Peel (talk) 21:58, 24 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

There are three statements: RexxS has repeatedly threatened ... [1], [2], [3] He has also confused ... [4] [5] [6] and threatened to use ...[7] Those three statements have seven diffs attached to them. Only the last statement and diff deal with ProcrastinatingReader, the editor from which I had agreed to recuse w.r.t. their evidence and interaction as it related to RexxS. That puts the majority of that FoF in territory on which I can comment. Primefac (talk) 23:20, 24 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• @Primefac: At least the first two diffs are about cases covered in PR's evidence as well. Thanks. Mike Peel (talk) 08:53, 26 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  But yet, they are not about PR. Primefac (talk) 10:55, 26 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@David Fuchs: "RexxS has demonstrably led to editors retiring." - which editors, please? Thanks. Mike Peel (talk)

Seen. So far the thing that stands out in this case is the stark contrast in reaction between Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Rama/Evidence (and other cases) and this. Generally RexxS has labelled criticism of his actions as "personal attacks" or "mud-slinging".[1] In this case, he labelled it a "vexatious filing" and "slinging mud", and stated his block of AMWNP was "fully vindicated". He has now disappeared, allegedly retired. Though, I acknowledge he did eventually apologise to valereee after requests. Still, lack of acknowledgement does not really inspire confidence that something will change. I would appreciate if arbs (like Newyorkbrad) could expand on their thinking when voting so folks can follow along. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 11:18, 22 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Also, I question the relevance of 5 and 5.1. Although I did not personally file an ANI on RexxS, there are past ANIs on his conduct and past UTPs. And we know how all those turned out. The evidence is also clear in line with past cases. The Arbitration Committee's own procedures are also clear. AN literally cannot do anything to an admin, particularly not about patterns in behaviour, but it can rectify single instances of miscalculated admin actions (eg bad block). Does anyone have a single instance of when an admin was blocked, in the past five years, following an AN discussion? A noticeboard that cannot do anything to an admin, much less a popular one, is functionally useless. Same issue with principle 7: do you believe that a topic ban from medicine, bots, etc., is an appropriate remedy to the evidence? (or possibly an interaction ban with a dozen editors?) I feel like these further cement a catch-22 of dealing with problematic admins, and as such are actively harmful. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 11:29, 22 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I appreciate this comment. I think there is a general issue with AN/ANI not even trying to handle these cases. However, I think you bring up a good point that while this might be a problem in general there isn't a ton of evidence to support it being a reason we reached this ArbCom with Rexx. I will be thinking more about this. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 17:36, 22 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I would add, barkeep49, that ArbCom has to remember that it cannot set policy, nor can it tell editors how to vote in sanctions discussions. This isn't my opinion on whether the community should be able to do more. Indeed, in a recent discussion, until Wugapodes made their tirade the discussion was heading towards no consensus (in the end, likely due to Wug's comments, it ended up with a topic ban, which also shows the community will and does use the resources at its disposal when appropriate). What the community cannot do, for better or worse, is deal with patterns of problematic conduct by admin users. Pretending that it can, regardless of how much some may wish it so, doesn't help but instead hurts. That is what remedies 5 and 5.1 do. I've no doubt the arbs wrote them with good intentions, but arbs cannot force community members to support inappropriate (or even appropriate) sanctions. The fact that community discussions have failed to even block admins for blockworthy conduct illustrates that, again for better or worse, ArbCom is the only venue to deal with patterns and should not abrogate this responsibility until the community decides itself (via RfC or practice) that it's willing to step up to that task. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 21:21, 22 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I have just seen Brad's 5.2. It is more measured, but I continue to believe it is inappropriate for all the above reasons. In particular, community input has been provided, from the moment user:xeno said the candidate was "on notice" in 2019 to the various AN/ANIs listed since. To the posting to the administrator's talkpage by valereee, Zero0000, bradv and others (ironically, all three were attacked by TPWs for their comments). or a noticeboard including the various discussions RexxS said everyone was misunderstanding policy until eventually dismissing it as "mudslinging" once a strong enough consensus built up. The remedy is (likely unintentionally) an insult to all those editors who participated in those discussions to no avail. IMO: no variant of remedy 5 should be passed. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 21:35, 22 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Ymblanter: I'm speaking in relevance to the evidence. The various AN/ANIs filed over the past 12 months show that RexxS does not respond well to community discussions on his conduct. The case also shows that he has a lot of wikifriends. Editors in the case stated he should've been blocked in the BHG discussion. The worst AN can do to an admin is be an unpleasant experience, as TonyBallioni said in his case statement, which RexxS already experienced prior to this case (multiple times). More generally to your point: wouldn't ANI be a great place if it adopted that ideology for every editor, not just admins? As in, the only thing editors can do on a first report is close with a warning? Still, ArbCom should probably change its own procedures first if it wants to pass that remedy. It's not the wording of the remedy that's a problem, it's the implication that this case could've been handled on a noticeboard. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 12:02, 22 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

4.1 seems to be taken from Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/GiantSnowman but has not been adjusted for relevance to this case. RexxS does not have a problem with consecutively blocking editors, or with misusing warning templates. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 12:45, 22 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

There's a big difference between making a mistake (or several) vs misconduct. Usually that difference, amongst other factors, includes a willingness to engage, admit that one perhaps could've done better, and take on board feedback for future actions. Humility, contrition, and acknowledgement of the fact we're all human; imperfect and (hopefully) improving each day. It’s telling that he still refuses to show up on PD talk and, in his own words, provide some acknowledgement and an assurance to do better. It isn't difficult. I’m not sure how arbs can expect a change without that. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 16:44, 23 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I know this is a minor detail, but it's bugging me. Remedy 1 isn't grammatically correct ("RexxS administrative privileges are revoked"). ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 19:47, 24 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The problem is that either one has to put the apostrophe-s before the userlinks, creating a possessive-nominative disagreement, or afterwards, leaving the "'s" floating in space by itself. Another alternative would be to reword to "The administrator privileges of RexxS [links] are revoked," but I'm unwilling to make sure a far-reaching copyedit without unanimous consent. Newyorkbrad (talk) 21:45, 24 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Newyorkbrad: Ah, I see (also, TIL 'possessive-nominative disagreement'). Doesn't really matter then. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 18:28, 25 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I'm disappointed that repeated talking points of demonstrable falsehoods and, at times, blatant personal attacks (eg intentionally lying by omission) are allowed here. It's gotten to the point where folks don't even bother expand on their rationale, they just repeat RexxS's case statement without even bothering to explain the logic of how they came to the conclusion (which is, again, demonstrably not true). Not a single person has decided to either (a) file an AN with their 'evidence' or (b) provide any rationale of their own, much less address the analysis or rationale I gave. Why are unsubstantiated remarks allowed here, as they were in evidence and evidence talk (although, there they were mainly directed at valereee and Joe, but equally problematic)? ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 18:28, 25 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I must register my strong objection to the proposed remedy 3.3.5 "Community reminded" (and its variant, 3.3.5.1). This remedy is inappropriate on general grounds and it definitely has no business being a part of the final decision in this arbitration case. The kind of sentiment expressed in this remedy is entirely wrongheaded in general. Administrators are currently appointed for life, and ArbCom is the only venue for desysopping them. Admin cronyism is a serious and well-known problem. Sending the community the signal that they should jump through fifty five different hoops before bringing a possible desysop case to ArbCom is a terrible message, and you should not send it. In this specific case including a remedy like this one in the final decision just looks like a hypocritical case of buyer's remorse. The appropriate place for the ArbCom to express this type of sentiment, if at all, was at the RFAR stage. But you have voted to accept the case. Don't try to blame the community for bringing it to you now. Nsk92 (talk) 14:27, 22 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Barkeep49: You are "not comfortable with the idea that the sole remedy for administrator misconduct is to desysop"? Are you comfortable with the idea of doing the job you were elected to do? Because if not, you should resign right now. The job of the Arbitration Committee is to arbitrate, including in complex cases requiring lengthy fact-finding and analysis of evidence. Whether or not an admin needs to be desysopped often becomes clear only at the end of this process, and sometimes even then it is a close call. You cannot and should not tell the community that they should only bring to you the obvious desysop cases that essentially can be disposed of by motion. Guerillero is right. Remedy 3.3.5 is an insult to the community and an abrogation of your responsibilities. Nsk92 (talk) 17:50, 22 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I am comfortable with doing the job I think I was elected to do and have been trying to do just that this morning. I will continue to use the criteria I laid out during my election to guide whether or not I accept a case, just as I did here where I accepted a case despite not having seen evidence at the time sufficient for a desysop. Barkeep49 (talk) 17:53, 22 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Well, good for you then. In that case you should vote against this remedy. Nsk92 (talk) 17:59, 22 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I haven't decided how I am going to vote on that remedy and will consider the thinking that you and others have given before doing so. While I'm here, I think it worth saying that I have read hostility in your messages to me (Are you comfortable with the idea of doing the job you were elected to do? Because if not, you should resign right now... an abrogation of your responsibilities... Well, good for you then. I'm hoping that this is me reading something that isn't really there which is why I note it here. Barkeep49 (talk) 18:28, 22 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

My hostility is directed at the Arbcom for entertaining this remedy which I view as expressing contempt and disrespect for the community as well as abrogation of arbcom's responsibilities. And while you are considering your vote on the remedy including what "tools and sanctions at its disposal" are really available to the community in relation to admins, try to recall how often it actually happens that an admin receives a formal sanction at WP:ANI or WP:AN. And when was the last time that happened? Nsk92 (talk) 20:53, 22 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding remedy 5.2 "General observation", what exactly is the purpose of including this condescending lecture to the community in the final decision? Are you being inundated with frivolous desysop requests? With admin conduct cases that have not been to AN/ANI quite a few times and do not already involve several contentious discussion threads at the user talk page of the admin in question? When was the last RFAR request you dealt with where these conditions have not been satisfied? Certainly in the present case all of these conditions have been met, and then some, including a unanimously overturned block and multiple prior discussions (and even a clarification given by the arbcom itself) regarding the meaning of WP:INVOLVED. You could not possibly ask for more, short of a formal sanction against an admin at AN/ANI, which as we all know never happens. So what is this remedy doing here? Nsk92 (talk) 22:16, 22 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I drafted 5.2 to address some suggestions that were made about 5 and 5.1, but as I just wrote on the voting page, none of them are indispensible, especially if they are making commenters this unhappy. Newyorkbrad (talk) 21:48, 24 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

If violating WP:INVOLVED and contradicting WP:ADMINACCT by not participating in this case do not merit a desysopping, what does? -- Calidum 15:43, 22 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

There is considerable disagreement on that second point for a few reasons. One is that Rexxs did in fact offer a statement at the outset of the case. He didn't completely ignore it. It is actually fairly common for people to simply tune out a case about their own behavior if they believe they have already said everything they have to say. I am aware of a number of cases where case parties have made things considerably worse for themselves by doing dumb things while the case was underway. I have just voted to desysop due to other concerns, but not actively participating in every aspect of the case is explicitly not part of my rationale. Beeblebrox (talk) 22:03, 23 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I appreciate you taking the time to respond, even if I don't necessarily agree. -- Calidum 23:13, 25 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Remedies 5 and 1.5 are insults to the Wikipedia community and an incredible show of the distain you all have for the core work of the committee: arbitrating. Discussions about ADMINCONDUCT at ANI are a waste of time for the community and the admin involved because ANI can not desysop a user. If an admin is making involved blocks to the level that we get an arbcom FOF, then you all need to do your jobs and look into it. If you are too busy with the smoke-filled backroom work, then use the functionaries or set up a subcommittee. You only sit through less than 10 cases a year. It is not in the project's best interest to reduce that number to 2 because you all decided that you do not want to do less than the most egregious ADMINCONDUCT cases anymore. --In actu (Guerillero) ^{Parlez Moi} 16:05, 22 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I am not comfortable with the idea that the sole remedy for administrator misconduct is to desysop. For instance, just last year quite a few people stated that they found a comment of yours objectionable. From what I've seen you got that message and we didn't need an arbcom case to do it. That is what I think those pieces are getting at. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 17:17, 22 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@SoWhy: By tradition, at ArbCom the sliding scale of remedies goes

remind -> warn -> admonish -> desysop/sanction -> time limited site ban -> indef site ban

The warnings and admonishments are a way of documenting the "frequent flyer" problem that is sometimes seen at arbcom --In actu (Guerillero) ^{Parlez Moi} 16:09, 23 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the explanation :-) Regards SoWhy 16:35, 23 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I can't comment for others, but I am and was always happy to accept a case to look into admin conduct (i.e. not "last resort") as I recognise arbitration is pretty much the place to do it. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 20:02, 23 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I would just note that as of right now literally nobody has voted in support of either of those remedies, so "an incredible show of the distain you all have" is possibly a bit much. Beeblebrox (talk) 22:06, 23 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Beeblebrox: I may have turned the intensity up to 11, but having been on the other side of the table, I know that these sort of bespoke remedies only appear because a group of arbs really waned it to happen. 5.2 is slightly less insulting, but still contains the buck passing --In actu (Guerillero) ^{Parlez Moi} 02:06, 24 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I vowed to stay out of this arbitration because a) three medicine arbitrations in one year is a bad look, b) and those editors who do participate in arbcases are routinely shot at with arbs/clerks doing little about that. But there are several factors about this case which I don't understand.

I hope it is now apparent (after three cases in one year) that a good deal of the evidence at WP:ARBMED was either not read, or overlooked, by the Committee then, and, had they dealt with all of the issues raised explicitly then, they likely could have avoided the next two cases. I warned you in advance of my evidence that there were considerable festering problems and that evidence would be lengthy; the need for my length was overlooked, the extent of problems was not fully accounted for in findings and remedies, and we ended up with three med cases in one year. The opportunity to deal with the whole shebang was missed, and you ended up shooting yourselves in the feet by having to spend even more time. By sending conflicting messages and not dealing with everything raised in ARBMED, issues were allowed to continue. So, y'all complained about the length of my evidence (albeit unspoken, but it was clear), but had you engaged ALL of it THEN, you could have ended up saving all of us a lot of ongoing problems and agida, and probably the problems we saw in the next two cases would have been nipped in the bud and we would not have needed additional cases. And the subsequent solution was to curtail evidence. How are three short cases, consuming a year of editor time, better than one long case that gets it over with? I seriously doubt that some of the issues in the two subsequent cases would have continued had the Committee taken stronger stances at ARBMED re editwarring, coordinated editing, and everything else in evidence.

One of the issues in observing this case which is most confusing to me revolves around edit warring.

1. Tryptofish argues at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/RexxS/Workshop#RexxS has edit-warred. that edit warring is a "bright-line policy" that is the "central issue" in this case. And yet, even with considerably more evidence of admin edit-warring presented at ARBMED, Tryptofish did not consider editwarring by that admin in any of their proposed findings or even mention it as a concern. Why is it now such a concern for Tryptofish? What is the goose–gander? What is the difference, and is admin edit-warring a bright line or is it not? Where do the arbs stand on this, lest we end up with another unclear outcome and find ourselves right back here again?
2. Barkeep49, who had a front-row seat (and who I thank profusely for becoming the most communicative of all the arbs of late) argues at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/RexxS/Proposed decision#RexxS has edit-warred that RexxS's "edit warring appears rare", and yet Barkeep49 was the editor who filed WP:ARBMED after observing editwarring by multiple admins-- editwarring during an ongoing arbcase, evidence of which was presented clearly at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Medicine/Evidence#Atorvastatin. Hopefully, and particularly with the complaints about length of evidence, we can count on some institutional memory and for editors to not have to bring forward evidence that has already been presented this year? Whatever you all find this time, could you please read old evidence and not leave WP:MED with festering problems, as has occurred in the previous two cases?
3. At Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/RexxS/Evidence#Medical editors, Tryptofish takes one of the weakest findings from ARBMED (Passed 4 to 1 with 2 abstentions)-- a case in which there was no remedy against Colin-- and uses it in what looks like an attempt to impugn other editors in this case (aformentioned problem of people getting shot at for participating in arbcases, even as medical articles avoided this particular case). Gee, I wonder why editors don't want to participate in arbcases? It looks in retrospect like, had medical editors engaged, they could have been expected to be shot at.

So, the take away for me is that when arbs don't deal with, or even read, full evidence in cases, we are left with simmering problems. I am pleased to see, though, that the attempt to drag "Medical editors" through this affair (which began over something entirely unrelated to Medicine) was unsuccessful up to now. But please get the message straight, as I see nothing but contradiction here. Arbs, you have missed now TWO opportunities to stem problems plaguing medical editing, all of which were laid out in gory and excruciating and verbose (me) lengthy detail at WP:ARBMED. Please be consistent and thorough this time, so we won't have to be back here a fourth time. Three shorter cases is not better than one long case; the failure to deal comprehensively with everything presented at ARBMED, and what were the driving factors, continues to leave WP:MED dealing with festering issues. Do we or don't we care about admin editwarring, and do we or don't we need to repeat evidence from case to case? The arbs already had evidence of a three-way admin edit war; no wonder similar repeated, since lines were not clearly drawn, and attacks made during that edit war were overlooked (along with other evidence in the Medicine case). SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:51, 22 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

PS, 3.5 and 3.5.1 are tone deaf; I am surprised the Committee is not, by now, aware of what becomes of editors who report admins to ANI. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:04, 22 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I think if the only option for people who have a problem with an admin is to come to ArbCom that's a worse outcome for the community. I agree that posting about any respected editor, admin or not, at AN/ANI is hard and not easily undertaken. However, I also don't think that the answer to every case of an administrator doing wrong is a desysop. So ArbCom saying "we'll keep handling admin issues but you the community are not impotent when it comes to admins" is us recognizing what it's like now and us saying "hey, we can't force anything to be different but we think it should be." I had anticipated I would vote for 5 or 5.1 based on the draft PD but I haven't because I want to consider the feedback offered here by you and others before doing so. Barkeep49 (talk) 20:28, 22 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, BK; I am offering no opinion re desysopping or any remedy, rather questioning the apparent discrepancies in how some view admin editwarring, wondering why evidence that the Committee has already seen in another case is ignored, and pointing out that by leaving problems to fester, WP:MED has continued to deal with disruptive editing since full evidence of the extent of the considerable issues was presented a year ago. How y'all decide this case is less my concern than is the knowledge that we are still dealing with issues because the Committee chose to address only one small aspect of a much broader problem a year ago. I would certainly say you (not you, they) missed a chance to desyop a year ago, as you (they) missed the chance to deal with coordinated editing, lack of civility, editwarring, conflict of interest, canvassing, and the whole shebang that I presented and that continues to affect WP:MED.

It appears that the Committee has been quite effectively checkmated. Those who saw no problem with edit warring a year ago but now see editwarring as central to this case can now simply argue that you have set a precedent for not desysopping a year ago when editwarring was worse, so that horse is out of that barn. And THAT is the result of not completing the ARBMED case, just as the arbs did not complete the next case dealing with a medical editor. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 20:41, 22 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Re: SandyGeorgia's comments about me on this talk page, if the Arbs have any questions for me, please let me know. Otherwise, I greatly appreciated the lovely interaction that I had recently with Sandy at Talk:Sissinghurst Castle Garden, and had very much hoped that the unpleasantness was behind us. --Tryptofish (talk) 22:03, 22 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Re: the PD, I agree very much with what Levivich said about it being better to use Principles than to use Remedies for that purpose. I also think that it would be best not to, in effect, scold the community over filing a case that you accepted, as seems to me to be implied in all three of the alternatives in the "Community reminded" remedies. Also, since you explicitly decided that ProcrastinatingReader would not be a named party, it is unfair to appear to find fault with the filing of the case request.

By the way, you did a nice job of pruning down my Workshop proposal for a Principle about INVOLVED. --Tryptofish (talk) 22:47, 22 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I've been thinking about proposed Principle 5, "ArbCom and RfA", and even though it is passing, it might be better to leave it out of the final decision. I realize that the background for it is that some editors presented a lot of evidence about RexxS's RfA and left that evidence up after being told by some of the Arbs that it was unlikely to be useful. However, it strikes me, as with my comment just above, as undesirable to have "scolding" elements of this sort in the decision. The best way to communicate to the community that the evidence was not wanted by ArbCom is to make no Findings of Fact based upon it, and, having in fact made no such findings, that's all you need. --Tryptofish (talk) 18:10, 23 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom has been looking at ways to improve decorum on case pages. An editor has posted about me on this talk page: "I don't think Tryptofish would be a good administrator.": [2] What purpose did that serve? For context, here is what I posted on the Evidence page: [3]. There is nothing proportional about the present remark about me. This makes the second time that editors have used this talk page to take shots at me, in ways that are unrelated to improving the PD. I've been trying to be tolerant, but at this point, enough is enough. --Tryptofish (talk) 18:19, 23 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Fixed, with thanks to Dreamy Jazz. --Tryptofish (talk) 19:08, 23 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

In Bradv's section, he discusses with Barkeep49 some diffs that I presented in evidence, and expresses the view that those diffs dealt with ADMINCOND, but not with INVOLVED. I will repeat here three of those diffs, that in fact show otherwise: [4], [5], [6]. --Tryptofish (talk) 23:23, 23 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

As I watch the discussions on the PD page, I want to suggest that an Arb, anyone of you, should add another proposed FoF, as per this. (Go ahead. Do it. Cash up front!) However each Arb decides on the Remedies, it would be useful to decide how you would vote on that. --Tryptofish (talk) 23:29, 23 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I think that there is an excellent discussion going on now in Ched's section. When BDD says: "I should hope examples can be found of good behavior!", ouch, touché! That's certainly a powerful rebuttal to some of what I've said! But in addition to what Barkeep49 replied, I'd say that it's important to distinguish "anecdote" from "data". In other words, it's not a matter of "oh look, here are some examples of good diffs", but rather, a matter of "when you look at the totality of the available information, it becomes apparent that the bad diffs are atypical whereas the vast majority of diffs are good" (if in fact that's the case). It's a matter of proportion. And I think that's what Barkeep49 was, quite rightly, trying to get at, when he asked for diffs of this nature: a sense of the relative proportions of good versus bad admin actions.

And Ched raises something that has been on my mind too, during this case. He says in part: "that all too often it's the antagonist who is willing to comb through an editors contribs to dig out and cherry-pick any and all shortcomings of individuals". I've been very aware of this, in this case as well as in the Medicine case, and it's starting to worry me. And I don't just mean it in terms of RexxS or DocJames not participating in their own defenses, because I continue to believe that there are very serious reasons why the process is so unpleasant that it's understandable that named parties can feel overwhelmed. It's an imbalance between case input from the "prosecution" and the "defense". The right way to present evidence of good conduct is to say: "Here are diffs that demonstrate good conduct: diff, diff, diff, diff." The wrong way is to say: "Just look through his talk page, and it's obvious, anyone can see it. Here's a lengthy discourse on my view of how things should be: (lengthy discourse). Here's why I think nobody understands what I'm saying."

I don't know why, but I'm seeing a trend in which the "prosecution" tends to present evidence the right way, and in which the "defense" tends to do it wrong. I don't really see it as ArbCom's fault, so much as the community's. I can accept that the diffs I collected in response to Barkeep49's request didn't quite graduate from "anecdote" to "data". But where was everyone else? All the people who carefully posted weepy photos of RexxS captioned "This user misses RexxS" on their user pages, who posted lengthy opinion pieces on case pages, who were suddenly too busy to respond to word limits, they were radio-silent when they could have tracked down more than what I did. --Tryptofish (talk) 18:02, 24 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I appreciate Littleolive Oil's reply to me, I really do, but that doesn't help RexxS, and it doesn't change how the Arbs will judge this case. As for the issue of how the Arbitration process does real psychic harm to real people, I'm with you all the way there, and that's exactly why I said what I said. --Tryptofish (talk) 19:20, 24 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• There's no easy answer to what I'm about to say, and I'm not blaming anyone (indeed, my own opinion has see-sawed back-and-forth during the posting of evidence). During the case request, there was a lot of discussion about how ArbCom should routinely accept cases about admin conduct, but that acceptance of a case does not amount to a done deal that there will be a desysop. Now, it will be inevitable that a lot of community members will say that it was indeed preordained that RexxS was going to be desysopped. That he never stood a chance. That he was right not to take part, once the case had been accepted. This is going to become a sort of received wisdom. Whether it is true, or not. --Tryptofish (talk) 18:58, 25 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  The cynic in me wants to say that we would be harangued regardless of what decision was made; if we desysop, we were too harsh and it was preordained that he would lose the mop; if we simply admonish, we were being too soft and Super Mario strikes again. However...

  I am certain that you are correct and "admins get desysoped at ArbCom" will become the catchphrase, but keep in mind this case (much like his RfA) is (and I say is because at the time of writing it is still open) on a razor's edge, with a few opinions that (in my opinion) could have just as easily swung the other direction. Honestly, in watching the evidence roll in I half expected us to end up doing nothing more than admonishing him, but I think that's also the importance of the PD, as it focuses all of that noise into something resembling a formal statement that can be boiled down further to a set of results. The result this time is unfortunate, but I hope that people do not assume that it was foregone. Primefac (talk) 21:26, 25 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  Thanks for the thoughtful reply. I pretty much agree with you that there's no way to avoid criticism, just a choice as to who the critics will be. However, I don't see us anywhere near to where there will be a neo-meme of "ArbCom just accepted the case, but they never desysop anyone." I spent most of the case thinking that ArbCom should issue no sanctions, and then I did an about-face when I saw the edit warring. I realize that most Arbs ending up weighing things differently than I did, which is fine, but I can accept that this was genuinely not an easy decision. (And I'll have a ton of whining notes for you at WT:ACN after the case closes. sound of evil laughter) --Tryptofish (talk) 23:16, 25 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I think what is trying to be said in Remedies 5 ("Community reminded") and its alternates 5.1 and 5.2 is already said in Principle 7 ("Community handling of administrator misconduct"). There's a world of difference between calling it a "principle" and calling it a "remedy". "Remedy" suggests arbcom is remediating something done by the community, which isn't the case here (as there is no relating finding). Levivich ^harass/_hound 22:03, 22 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding the idea that "an administrator that needs to be restricted by arbcom is not fit to retain administrative rights"... "incompatible with being a "trusted member of the community" – why is this editor who was restricted by arbcom still trusted to retain administrative rights? wbm1058 (talk) 23:01, 22 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The issues with that user were restricted to the use of the Checkuser tool, and my opinion on these matters is not necessarily shared by the entire committee, so that's as far as it went. I suppose had there been a full case it might have gone differently, but that's just speculation.Beeblebrox (talk) 00:35, 23 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

For those Committee members who aren't comfortable with the idea that the sole remedy for administrator misconduct is to desysop and those who may be comfortable with the idea but find yourself struggling over that decision, I point out that the Committee has found creative solutions in the past, for example, the creation of the WP:Extended confirmed user access level. You could create a new user group "Block-restricted administrators" and assign all the administrator privileges to that group except the "Block a user from sending email" (blockemail) and "Block other users from editing" (block) rights and move block-sanctioned administrators into this group, for some specified duration. Noting that (I believe) there has been no evidence of violations of deletion or protection policies, this would allow these admins to retain rights they have not abused. – wbm1058 (talk) 20:10, 23 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I'm obviously not in that camp, but I would oppose this idea. We either trust users to be admins or we don't. Each tool is part of a kit, an admin who can't use all the tools isn't very helpful. Deletion and blocking in particular go hand in hand, and protection and blocking are two different potential responses to disruption of articles. If only one user is causing the problem, blocking them is better than protecting the page, but if they don't have that option they will just protect in every instance. Beeblebrox (talk) 22:12, 23 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

As some will know, I didn't discover this case until it was closed, hence my lack of participation. Firstly, let's get the squabbling over "multiple" vs "two" edit wars done: Beeblebrox and Casliber, there is serious edit warring documented on the medical arbcom, so that makes three at least. That arbcom was started because of James's edit warring over drug prices post an RFC that didn't go his way, and RexxS's warring was notable for occurring during arbcom, and with a former arb. So it should have been memorable, but clearly wasn't. I do encourage you to read what RexxS wrote while warring, as it has similarities with his language used to valeree, and his claim justifying his own warring has similarities to his confusion over INVOLVED.

I don't think Barkeep49's oppose vote at the "RexxS has edit warred" FoF will make a lot of sense to most people. This isn't some judgement call about whether someone misused tools in a complex situation or has a battleground mentality, where one might judge the evidence too slight to use such strong language as "misused" or "mentality". Edit warring is wrong. With only a few clear and obvious exceptions (vandal/sock fighting, etc). There's no "but I have policy on my side" or "but they don't understand the RFC conclusion" get-out-clause. It is doubly wrong for admins, who we expect to have a very clear idea about it and therefore to be trusted to wave the block stick appropriately at others. By all means consider whether edit warring is frequent enough to warrant a desysop, but three documented cases of edit warring by an admin should be a FoF.

I've been wondering about the mix of opinions over RexxS. My theory is that RexxS is fine with those he has met in real life, and those he has established a rapport with online. But if your first encounter with RexxS online is to be in disagreement with him, then you get put in the "Assume bad faith" box, never to escape. The reason for disagreeing with RexxS isn't that some rational people have different opinions, but its that you are here to personally undermine him and to destroy Wikipedia. The reason why edits might be imperfect or not MEDRS-compliant isn't that the person is a newbie (either to Wikipedia, or to medical or Covid articles) but that you are here to harm Wikipedia with nonsense and woo. I don't have to try to read RexxS's mind to guess this: he openly and explicitly states these things and is very clear that he is assuming bad faith with you. RexxS might be wonderful with peers and newbies at a Wiki event, but my experience of him as an admin dealing with online strangers is different. This is an attitude problem that is incompatible with adminship, which should be finding resolution and consensus, and helping stumbling mistaken newbies.

I see some arbs are agonising over desysop. Nobody is suggesting one has to be "perfect to be an administrator". But don't make it such a huge deal to not (any longer) be an administrator. Let's be clear, I don't think I'd be a good administrator, and plenty others I don't think would be good administrators. There are qualities we want/need from administrators and not everyone has them. RexxS doesn't. His RFA and subsequent 'Crat chat was an exercise in optimism over experience. It was a frankly naive hope for personal improvement in a job that places one under pressures that brings out the worst in some. It was made very clear then to RexxS that his hostility and anger management was in the "needs work" department. What makes you think that a "Reminder" or "Admonished" warning to improve is going to work this time? -- Colin°^Talk 09:24, 23 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

...if your first encounter with RexxS online is to be in disagreement with him, then you get put in the "Assume bad faith" box, never to escape. This is a really interesting comment that I've been thinking about since I first read this comment a few hours ago. Barkeep49 (talk) 15:38, 23 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Barkeep49, I'm sure there are exceptions to the "never to escape" clause, as Littleolive oil is at pains to point out. But it does seem to be the default. Littleolive oil, I'm not going to argue with you on your vs my impressions, and it is too late to dig up yet more very-much-cherry-picked evidence now. I saw the statement by RexxS ("I can assure you that I have taken on board what I've read here, and that I'll do my very best not to interact uncivilly") but anyone reading the rest of RexxS's post will see almost complete denial that he's done anything wrong, personal attacks on those who criticise him, and "regretted it afterwards" seems to mean apologising for one offensive personal remark a year later when dragged to Arbcom. There are plenty such remarks in the RexxS archives. -- Colin°^Talk 16:35, 23 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Littleolive oil, you appear to be suggesting that RexxS getting Covid is a mitigating factor (a "short term situation") for which a "long term remedy" would be inappropriate. The post you are looking for is User talk:RexxS/Archive 63#COVID-19 positive, which is from 8 October 2020, and after the events that are diffed in the PD, and most of the diffs in evidence. -- Colin°^Talk 16:53, 23 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I would like to see the evidence for Barkeep49's assertion: "I have enough evidence to support the idea that the mistakes that have been made around INVOLVED won't happen again." The only statements that RexxS made about this case concerned his habitual incivility, and made no mention of the repeated violations of INVOLVED. On the several occasions I have had to remind RexxS of his obligations under the administrator policy, I never got the impression that he acknowledged his mistakes. In fact, at this point I have seen absolutely no indication that these mistakes won't be repeated, other than that he appears to have departed the project. – bradv🍁 17:01, 23 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I discussed these same concerns with Joe above so rather than rehash what I said there I'm just going to point to it. Barkeep49 (talk) 20:50, 23 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Can you point me to precisely where you explained this "evidence"? I see he has asked you twice as well. – bradv🍁 20:53, 23 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

See the last sentence of this diff. Barkeep49 (talk) 21:03, 23 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

That still doesn't answer my question. Your conversation with Tryptofish was about ADMINCOND, not INVOLVED. None of those diffs include RexxS assuring anyone that he won't violate INVOLVED again, nor do they consist of him admitting to making a mistake with respect to the INVOLVED section of the administrator policy. – bradv🍁 22:27, 23 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sorry you don't find my answer satisfying. Barkeep49 (talk) 22:45, 23 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Newyorkbrad: All of the steps you mention in remedy 5.2 have been done repeatedly, with the exception of overturning the actions themselves. Are you suggesting that I should have simply reversed the bad blocks when I didn't get a positive reception on RexxS' talk page? Would that be the point at which you would vote to accept a case involving administrator misconduct? – bradv🍁 20:42, 23 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, some of RexxS's actions were overturned, although not all. I guess I saw my "decline" vote on this case, which I was considering changing at one point until I saw RexxS's answer to my question, as a variation "the comments here are a clear signal of community concerns; let's give him one more chance to take the feedback into account going forward." Whether things have gone past that point, in a given case, is a judgment call, and I respect that most of my colleagues judged it the other way. Newyorkbrad (talk) 21:51, 24 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

A desysop would be incorrect for the reasons already given, especially by Barkeep. While remedy 4.1 is unlikely to pass, I want to echo Cas Liber in thanking the drafting arbs for developing it as it may be a useful starting point for future cases where it might be useful. With that in mind, I want to push back on the spirit of remedy 5 and its revisions.

I stated in the request (and still believe) that ArbCom should take any good faith request of administrator misconduct, and strongly oppose remedy 5 and revisions. The community is able to handle administrator misconduct itself, but our options are limited and the costs are high. The community's most powerful meatball:TechnologySolution is the block. This is ham-fisted in many situations, but blocked administrators are still able to use some tools despite the block (c.f. the Fram desysop). If any community restriction on an administrator were violated, we would struggle to adequately enforce them ("yeah badmin violated their TBAN, but I'd have to block them from everything which is a net negative so let me just give another warning"). This brings me to the next point: the costs of enacting a community solution are high. Sanctioning an administrator requires significant social capital in order to marshal community membors to take on the risk of publicly criticizing a prominent community member. Consider the David Gerard incident brought up by PR above; how many people do we think could get away with an expletive-laden tirade? I publicly confronted oppose !voters, and called them out on their bullshit rationalizations. I behaved like a teenager on an internet forum because reasoned argument had gotten us nowhere. The pathos was intentional: I knew sufficient will resided in the community, but it needed to be roused. It is disappointing (but not surprising) that the facts I merely summarized were not sufficient to convince the community, and dangerous that our primary method for dealing with misconduct is so susceptible to passion. We knew what needed to be done, clearly, but the risk of publicly stating it is, in many cases, higher than not doing anything. By nature, I'm contrarian, and am willing to take flak for others if it gets us to the right solution. We should not ask others to take on that same risk, let alone design a performance-review system around it. But functionally that is what remedies 5.X recommend.

Just because the community can deal with administrator issues does not mean that it should. Having two independent processes for dealing with administrator misconduct is a feature, not a bug. It provides reporters with multiple options that they can choose from based on their particular situation and fears. To some degree, this is what remedy 5.2 gets closest to, but it loses touch with reality. RexxS had been given feedback on this---the crux of his RfA was civility concerns, and the promoting crats assumed (given the margin) he would take them on board. Editors had been in touch with him about his conduct, and the evidence page has examples of this. Of note is when valereee and Zero0000 raised concerns about Rexx's conduct on his talk page; not only was it removed without comment the reporters were berated by a third party and accused of raising the concerns in bad faith. Prior to reporting their concerns at ANI, the now-vanished editor had discussed their concerns with Rexx on a talk page where another administrator also raised concerns.

Looking at the evidence, are we to believe that prior resolution methods had not been tried? Was RexxS was unaware of concerns? Would further talk page discussions or AN(I) threads likely result in anything? On what grounds would the answer to any of those questions be yes? Remedy 5.2 writes against a reality that did not happen and advises the community to do things it already did. It resolves nothing, because the fundamental premise behind remedy 5 and revisions is flawed. They are correct in stating that arbitration is in addition to, not instead of, community solutions, but in what realistic circumstances has someone's venue of first resort been WP:RFARB instead of a talk page or noticeboard? None. Because the situation remedies 5.X write against is unrealistic, these remedies function largely as a recommendation that we waste our time, emotional energy, and camaraderie on repeated discussions that historically have gotten us nowhere. Imbalances in power and social capital make sanctioning an administrator by community consensus outrageously difficult and opens the reporter up to further harassment. Sometimes it works fine, and the community is working to improve our success rate. But we should not pretend that our best developed structure for limiting power imbalances in reporting misconduct is off-limits to most situations. It is acceptable to take no action after accepting a case, but remedy 5.0 in particular suggests accepting a case is tantamount to a presumption of guilt and establishes an undefined threshold of "desysop-worthy". I have said, and I maintain that the committee should take all good faith administrator conduct cases, because doing otherwise harms our community by disincentivizing reporting and prolonging conflicts creating a toxic environment. The committee rightly acknowledges that it should not take every case that it can; now extend that same wisdom to the community. 19:58, 23 March 2021 (UTC)

P.S. I don't see a maximum length listed anywhere on this page, but if there is one let me know and I will revise.

HJ Mitchell has a good response below that I think warrants a clarification. His point about the social capital needed to file a request for arbitration is well taken---he is correct that at present the social capital required to mobilize editors in support of a case request is high---but that is precisely why I believe ArbCom should take all good faith cases regarding administrator misconduct: we should not pretend that our best developed structure for limiting power imbalances in reporting misconduct is off-limits to most situations. By lowering the barrier to entry, we decrease the chance that misconduct goes unaddressed for long periods of time.

Harry is further correct that investigations take time and energy, and in fact this is the crux of my social capital analysis. Social capital is not only getting people to agree with you, and it is not knowing the right places and norms (that is cultural capital). Like economic capital, social capital is used to do things. If I want to start a podcast, I can use economic capital to buy equipment, hire audio engineers, and pay for advertising. Alternatively, I can use social capital to borrow equipment from my musician friends, have them put me in touch with their mixers, and tell all my friends about it. Depending on whether I have more money or more friends, one of these strategies will be more effective. Harry is correct that ANI does a bad job of investigating patterns of misconduct, and this is because mobilizing volunteers to comb through thousands of edits is hard; go look at the WP:CCI backlog. Investigative departments pay people to do that; they use financial capital to mobilize human resources to spend time and effort on a particular task. We do not pay people. We use social capital to mobilize our human resources, and we pay people in prestige, trust, and owed favors.

So to bring this back to ANI and ArbCom: social capital is not just about swaying people to your side. It is used from the beginning to get people to spend time considering your post and to get people to investigate the situation at all. If a new editor showed up at AN(I) claiming that an admin was misusing their tools, how deep would we investigate? We see so many frivolous complaints, many would just brush it off and not waste our time. Eventually it will get archived with maybe a few comments. In fact, social capital can be used to prevent mobilization of resources. If the reported admin quickly responds with a particular interpretation of events, they invest accumulated social capital to dissuade further investigation. In fact, look at the recent case of Tenebrae who hid their own COI by accusing others of COI editing and getting them blocked. The social capital they accumulated from generally positive editing was used to buy deference, prevent investigation, and silence critics by mobilizing human resources in their defense until it ultimately brought the project into disrepute.

Peer review is important and viable, I'm not saying it isn't, but it is not infallible or immune to the forces of capital. In fact, social capital as a sociological theory was developed to understand how organizations protect their members from outside attacks, create advantages for insiders, and ultimately (re)produce inequality; it was literally developed as a theory to understand how "old boys clubs" operate. Social capital as a theoretical framework is useful here because we are an old boys club. Our decline in active editors stopped around 2014-15 and has been increasing since 2019 (chart), but of our 1,109 current admins, 92% got the bit prior to 2015. Our processes don't work because they were designed to protect the privileges of early Wikipedians (Fernandez 2019); that is one of the privileges social capital works to produce and protect. Most of the people tasked with enforcing our norms have a vested interest in not doing so. I am not even trying to shift blame, as I said in the David Gerard ANI complaint I was aware of that problem for months before it got brought to ANI. I did nothing, because I didn't want to deal with the potential backlash at the time. Investigating the problem and getting others to look into it or take me seriously would require more effort than it was worth, and likely would have opened me up to the same kinds of harassment. Why would I volunteer for that when I could go deal with the RfPP backlog?

Why I push for a lower bar for accepting admin cases (and why I oppose remedies 5.X) is because it can help counteract these forces. Our time, as volunteers, is limited. Claims are unlikely to be investigated without some form of capital. At present, I have little incentive to publicly criticize my colleagues and the documented cases of retaliatory harassment give plenty of reasons not to do so. By contrast, ArbCom is quite literally tasked with compiling evidence and coming to conclusions and solutions based on that evidence. It has an explicit structure for inexperienced editors to follow, and a group of volunteers whose literal job is to fix formatting and inform them about the norms. ArbCom's mandate is the very thing Harry and I agree ANI is bad at: investigating patterns of behavior. But we seem to come to different conclusions. Instead of hoping someone will care enough to go through thousands of edits to establish a pattern of abuse, I believe we should use the existing committee for the job it already does using the structures it already has in place to limit the identified inequalities. By making it easier to report, we decrease the chance that problems go unaddressed for years because the newbies/victims got run off or blocked.

It is a structural problem, not an individual problem, which is why I am advocating for a structural solution. The solution--I think--is clear, and I have said it repeatedly: ArbCom should take all good faith admin conduct complaints they receive. If we do not find a way to balance the inequalities in social and cultural capital that influence our admin conduct dispute resolution process, the WMF has made explicitly clear that it will use its economic capital to pay Trust & Safety to do so. 20:43, 25 March 2021 (UTC)

I was nodding along in agreement with everything written here until I got to By contrast, ArbCom is quite literally tasked with compiling evidence which is quite literally wrong. ArbCom does no compiling of evidence ourselves. In fact the community, to a degree I find unreasonable but which I live as an arb because it's the expectation, dislikes Arbs finding their own evidence. We can see that dislike on display in this very talk page even. So ArbCom relies on social capital to investigate just as much (or even more) than AN/ANI. Now, the committee could expend some of our social capital and change that norm. But why would we? I'd much rather use our social capital in things like Tenebrae where we need the community to trust us that there was evidence (there was) and we discussed thoroughly (we did) and we came to a conclusion. When the community softens on something, as they have recently about the usefulness of proposed decisions, there is a window for ArbCom to make a change if we wish. But if you want ArbCom to be willing to investigate and not just accept what others put forward, I think you'll need the community to change its general message to Arbs first. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 21:10, 25 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I mean "compiling" very literally, and I mean "ArbCom" broadly to refer to the entire process not necessarily the arbs themselves. Cases usually have an "evidence" page where the community submits and analyzes evidence. From that perspective, it quite literally creates a compilation of evidence. We don't think of it that way, but that doesn't mean it's not one of the tasks included in the typical ArbCom proceeding. Who specifically does it is not really material to my point. Regardless of who does it, ArbCom proceedings differ from ANI because they have an explicit period for finding evidence structured in a way that disincentivizes the dysfunctional parts of AN(I). Accepting a case in itself is an expenditure of social capital: the committee is signaling to the community that you are taking the concerns seriously and that we should too. It mobilizes editors on both sides of a dispute to engage in the necessary fact finding because it has a reasonably well defined scope (as opposed to the open-ended inquiries of ANI that threaten to waste your time), a low risk of retaliation (unlike the public flame wars and boomerang of Damocles that plague every ANI contributor), and a cadre of people who are compensated (with social, but not economic, capital) for spending their time reviewing and acting on it (unlike ANI where your work may well just be ignored).

So, yes, one way to implement this would be to have arbs themselves investigate, but I believe the quoted statement already reflects the reality of how accepting a case mobilizes editor resources to a common task. Look at the difference in participation between this case vs the AN threads PR had started. This one from February had roughly 10 unique participants across roughly a week and a half; the case request alone had 43 editors engaged. The evidence page had 17 editors participate---with more on the talk---and only three were part of the AN thread I mentioned. As I'm writing, this page has 30 editors engaging in discussion about that evidence and we are all being quite civil about it. At all stages, this case has mobilized more human resources into dispute resolution than an entire AN thread. So, yes, we could try to shift community opinion to encourage Arbs to investigate more---this long analysis and your response may well help change some minds---but if you want editors to better engage in admin conduct dispute resolution processes, I hope my example demonstrates that the solution to incentivize that really is right in front of us, and it is not any of the remedies in 5. — Wug·a·po·des​ 01:58, 26 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding proposed remedy 5.2: the first two sentences sound defensive. I suggest wording them as assertions, such as the following: The Arbitration Committee has the sole authority for revoking administrator privileges (desysopping) on this project, and it takes this into account when deciding whether or not to accept a request for arbitration. Note I am not arguing in favour of or against adopting the remedy. isaacl (talk) 20:17, 23 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Newyorkbrad: there's no need for the user links in the remedy. They are already present in the "Involved parties" subsection of the "Case information" section of the case page (where the final decision will be placed). isaacl (talk) 21:50, 24 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

You're right, but some drafters like to include them again in the remedies as well. I'll leave whether to tweak it up to the drafters. Newyorkbrad (talk) 21:52, 24 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I'll have more to say but I'll start off with how Wugapodes is correct in that the 5.X remedies just don't make any sense. Moneytrees🏝️^{Talk/CCI guide} 20:34, 23 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Nevermind, this is ending soon. Whatever important things I have to say can be said in the ensuring discussion at WT:ACN... Moneytrees🏝️^{Talk/CCI guide} 20:37, 25 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I have a quick question about the principle relating to ARBCOM not overturning RFA decisions. If, for a hypothetical, a single crat closed an RFA which had 56% as promote and the other crats affirmed that decision would Arbcom take any action in that case of an egregious violation of standards for assessing consensus; or would that fall out of their purview under this principle. ( A real similar example happened in 2006; where an RFA was closed as successful with 61% when the discretionary range was 70-80%, and Arbcom ended up reviewing the matter; although the RFA result was not overturned. ) Basically, I am asking if Arbcom would review a future case of a bureaucrat promoting an admin despite the result being significantly below the discretionary range, or if they would not review it under the aforementioned principle. Arbcom reviewed it back in 2006 but they did not review it much more recently in REXXS' RFA.Jackattack1597 (talk) 22:52, 23 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Extremely unlikely if that's all there was to it and issue was post-RfA conduct only. Maybe differently if some other issue was uncovered (insert speculation here). Really depends on specific scenario. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 00:09, 24 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Every ArbCom makes its own decisions about what it will and won't hear. What I think we're saying is that there would have to be misconduct for us to review. I don't believe that closing something as pass at 61% counts as misconduct sufficient to review. Though I would add I would be pretty upset at the crat for having done so and if there was a pattern of the crat using their tools inappropriately I could see a case about the crat though even then I don't think I'd be in favor of overturning a decision. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 00:09, 24 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

That makes sense, thanks for clarifying, I just figured it'd be good to ask now in case there was a scenario down the road.Jackattack1597 (talk) 01:01, 24 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@SoWhy: Why do you support both remedy 3.1 and remedy 3.4? I don't understand why you both support restrictions on sysop powers as well as removing sysop powers completely. ( I thought that in these cases restrictions usually took the place of a Desysop.)Jackattack1597 (talk) 18:02, 24 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Pinging SoWhy as the above ping was made in an edit after the signature was placed. Although I cannot speak for SoWhy, if the desysop remedy does not reach a majority they will keep their tools and as such another remedy (like a restriction) may have majority. Dreamy Jazz ^{talk to me | my contributions} 20:00, 24 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

That, basically. I think it's clear that remedy #4 is moot if remedy #1 passes. Regards SoWhy 20:10, 24 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, I think I didn't make myself clear, what I'm really trying to ask is if you would consider changing your vote for remedy #1 if remedy #4 passed, or if your vote for remedy #4 was just in case remedy #1 didn't pass. ( I'm mainly asking because this looks like it could be a knife's edge vote, and its conceivable that some of the opposes to remedy #1 might be willing to support remedy #4 if that would help prevent remedy #1, at least in my view) Jackattack1597 (talk) 20:56, 24 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Also, I think this question is still relevant despite remedy #1 currently passing and #4 currently failing, since if the three opposes to remedy #1 plus 1 more arb either abstaining or supporting remedy 4 it would be just enough for #4 to pass, and if you and CaptainEek( the two current supporters of #4) opposed #1 it would fail, but that is all moot if your first choice is remedy #1. Jackattack1597 (talk) 10:52, 25 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

By my calculations, this is where the case currently stands as far as remedy are concerned: Remedy 1, which would Desysop RexxS, is currently passing, and in order for it to fail at least one supporter would have to switch their vote to oppose. This means that the only realistic way a Desysop could be avoided ( aside from an Arbitrator changing their mind at the last minute) would be if a compromise was made to implement remedy #4 or a more tailored variation of it instead. It would take all of the current supporters of remedy #4 voting against remedy #1 in addition to all of the opposers of remedy #1 supporting remedy #4, combined with one current arb who supports remedy #1 and opposes remedy #4 abstaining or voting support on remedy #4 in order for remedy #4 to replace remedy 1, in case any arbs were seeking a lesser remedy. Alternatively, one of the arbs could draft a different option altogether, such as a suspended Desysop that would take effect if he didn't make the necessary changes while giving him a last chance to show that he can make changes in his behavior, avoiding the need for another full case in the future ( I think there is a template for that in the Kudpung case). Pinging Primefac in case he might be interested in drafting a suspended Desysop motion in lieu of a full dysop. If the status quo remains, this case will end with RexxS being desysopped, as well as a community reminder about steps before Arbcom.Jackattack1597 (talk) 15:51, 25 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure how much of an appetite there is for dragging this out further with yet another sub-motion, but I can always ask if it would be reasonable. Primefac (talk) 16:27, 25 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

If you would be willing to support a suspended Desysop instead of a full Desysop and think that could reasonably happen then I'd appreciate it if you could propose that as a remedy, but if you wouldn't support it instead of a Desysop or if you think there's no chance of it succeeding, then there's no point in proposing it and further dragging out the case . ( Sorry if I caused confusion by saying a motion, I meant an alternate suspended Desysop remedy, to be clear.) Jackattack1597 (talk) 17:25, 25 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Primefac Pinging primefac again in case he didn't see my reply, sorry for another ping, I just didn't want you to miss my reply when other arbs are voting on closure and if I wait much longer it'd be way too late for you to propose any more remedies. Jackattack1597 (talk) 18:09, 25 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I did what I said I would, I've asked the other arbs if they would be willing to add another remedy. I am currently waiting on replies to that effect. See also my reply to Leaky Cauldron below. Primefac (talk) 18:13, 25 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, thank you. I appreciate that, and I'm grateful that you assumed good faith and listened to me and didn't dismiss my comment out of hand. Jackattack1597 (talk) 18:35, 25 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Pinging Leaky_caldron Could you please stop assuming bad faith about my comments? The public wasn't permitted to propose remedies until the proposed decision phase as far as I know, and the proposed decision has only been posted for a few days. I do not appreciate your comment that "something is not quite right" Jackattack1597 (talk) 18:42, 25 March 2021 (UTC) Were_Spiel_Chequers Sorry if I didn't explain myself well in my question, I wasn't asking if Arbcom should review every time there is a close outside the discretionary range, I was just trying to ask if they would consider reviewing if there was a close egregiously outside the discretionary range by at least 5% with no good reason. ( IE: If a crat closed an RFA at 58% as successful with no crat chat, or if a crat chat closed an RFA at 56% as successful ( A similar scenario happened in 2006, and ARBCOM said the close was wrong, but they didn't reverse the close. )Jackattack1597 (talk) 15:21, 26 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

WereSpielChequers Fixing ping. ( Sorry, I keep managing to do the pings wrong.)Jackattack1597 (talk) 16:50, 26 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

CaptainEek Are you planning on voting on the Desysop? The case is closing in about an hour, and the Desysop remedy has passed, but it'd still be good to see how all the arbs feel on that remedy. ( Obviously you don't have to vote on it, though) Jackattack1597 (talk) 16:53, 26 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

re: The (overused) RexxS didn't participate claims.¹ When I think back to the beginning, PR started with the request with the RexxS' RfA link; with commentary², and dropped a bunch of 'short-sharp' or salty diffs. RexxS countered with the diffs of the faulty edit notice template (along with links to a couple discussions where many agree that there was a problem). Most of the Arbs comments were of the "we'll look at admin faults" variety, and mentioned little to nothing of the template issues. So I'm not really sure what you were expecting him (RexxS) to "participate" with. Any "but he was wrong" rebuttals from RexxS wouldn't be well received (and likely turned into "see he's argumentative" comments from some). I know everyone needs to something to hang their hat on, but the participation issue is pretty weak IMO.

I understand the past year of our liberties taken from us, being locked-down, isolated, forced to wear masks, and forbidden to take part in many of life's little pleasure's has caused many/most folks to feel upset, frustrated, and in some cases angry. It would be only natural to lash out. You can't really fight back against a virus, and I hope folks aren't taking out their frustrations on others.

— Ched (talk) 23:08, 23 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• ¹ see: Formal fallacy
• ² known in some areas of discussion as Poisoning the well

I'm not entirely sure who you are referring to with your last paragraph? Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs ^talk 13:59, 24 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I wasn't referring to any individuals in particular David. It was more a suggestion/reminder that especially at this time it is good to step back and take things into perspective. While that's always good advice, I think it's especially important to remember given the changes in the world over the past year. I've seen a lot of posts (in general) that I wouldn't expect from a fair number of people in the past few months, but I understand it. I thought it was a valid thought to bring forth. I know that different countries have dealt with the Covid issue in their own way, and in fact here in the USA it's has been, and IS, being dealt with differently not only by state, but by individual counties and towns. But it's a global situation, and restrictions are being placed on people. It's natural to be upset by that. I don't know that transference or displacement are the correct words - but the concept of being upset with one person/thing, and subconsciously taking it out on an entirely different person/thing is a very real concept and practice. I offered it simply as food for thought. — Ched (talk) 14:36, 24 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• There's a thought that's been in my brain for a bit that I might as well put down somewhere. I almost put it in the comments section for this finding a couple of times, but it didn't seem to add much: The editors who presented evidence in RexxS's defense successfully argued that he can work well with others and make positive contributions, but there was very little that mitigated the negative incidents presented by others. The former only gets you so far. I should hope examples can be found of good behavior! If RexxS were consistently exhibiting bad behavior, this probably would not have gotten to ArbCom level.

The most effective response to the negative evidence (for me as an arbitrator), then, would have been RexxS's own words. Where did he think he was still in the right? Which incidents does he regret? We didn't get that information, and I wanted the record to reflect that, even if only in the proposed decision. In my book, at least, the lack of participation is not in itself negative evidence or anything worthy of a sanction. Simply that letting one's actions speak for themselves has severe limitations. --BDD (talk) 15:24, 24 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I really like what you write here BDD and think you have some excellent points and I broadly agree with it. I will note, however, that speaking up in your own defense is a double edged sword. There have definitely been people whose participation during the case has helped their cause and meant a lesser sanction has passed but there have been others whose participation definitely led to a greater sanction (and/or less disagreement about imposing a greater sanction). I think Rexx's participation would have been the former but I respect anyone who is concerned about the latter and deciding, past the case request stage, to say nothing. Barkeep49 (talk) 15:30, 24 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Absolutely. Well put. --BDD (talk) 15:46, 24 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• First: Thank you for the responses, I do appreciate that. Now I've mentioned elsewhere something that's been on my mind for a long long time, so since there seems to be some conversation on the generalities, I post something similar here. The one thing that I've learned and am painfully aware of is that Arbcom often achieves the opposite of what should be its intended purpose. Far too often Arbcom fails to review the core of the issue, and limits its eyes to only the specific diffs presented (even when they are misleading) ... and I do realize that is simply the nature of the system we've put in place. That is to say: that all too often it's the antagonist who is willing to comb through an editors contribs to dig out and cherry-pick any and all shortcomings of individuals, who then walks away unscathed at Arbcom. Either by design or by lack of context, it leads to a very slanted view. Those who choose to take the high-road and attempt to deal with only the issue(s) at hand, are often doomed to be sanctioned. All too often I've seen a malcontent start a discussion (not just Arbcom, but AN, AN/I, or other drama boards as well) and starts pulling things out of context to achieve a desired end. Far too often I've seen good people who have no desire to respond in kind and throw out the sub-optimal diffs of the OP. Instead they tend to just throw their hands up and walk away. I understand that Arbs aren't obligated to dig into the details, and time often limits the consideration to the diffs presented. I've seen it in Medical disputes, political disputes, in Infobox cases, and in real life. All too often a parallel wall remains clean only because people choose to not bother throwing any sticky mud at it. In the end, in order to stop "disruption", the squeaky wheel gets the grease, and the silent wheel gets the shaft (pun intended). That's just the nature of the beast. I'll stop there as I don't care to sully myself with dwell on past events, and I certainly have no desire to engage in mud raking aimed at individuals. And NO, these are NOT comments directed to or about any individual, just an observation of the workings of DR on wiki. — Ched (talk) 16:16, 24 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Newyorkbrad, it would be wrong to vote in a principle without deciding whether it has been violated, principally because, that would also be an obvious way of implying wrongdoing while maintaining deniability (there might even be a word for it). One would expect the qualification for any principle making it into the PD is necessarily that RexxS has violated it or come close to, especially in a case named "RexxS". These principles are passing, and why wouldn't they? No reasonable person would disagree with them (as evidenced by unanimous support for every one of them). I hope arbs reconsider their votes in light of whether they conclude the principle has been violated by the person that the case is named after.
  You have added that disclaimer to 3 and 4; does that mean you've concluded RexxS has indeed violated the others? Regards! Usedtobecool ☎️ 13:39, 24 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • The current structure of decisions with principles/findings/remedies is not necessarily one we would invent today, but it's a long-settled tradition that we work with. In response to your observation, we wouldn't include a principle in a case if it had no relevance, but we might include one that is relevant to a situation even if in a given case the principle was followed rather than violated (for example, principle 5 in this case). Also, the principle might be relevant but there might remain a good-faith disagreement over whether it was violated or not (and we don't need to resolve the disagreement to resolve the case). Further, some standard principles also have multiple parts and it's possible that some of the parts would be more relevant in a given case than others. But it is always the findings in the decision that represent the Committee's conclusions about the behavior we are evaluating, not the general statements in the principles. Newyorkbrad (talk) 21:58, 24 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I've seen a few motions being passed by the arbitrators recently - yet not one examining the person who filed this case. It was a clear abuse of template editor rights, and given that RexxS' threat (not involved, given the only involvement was in the administrative function of evaluating the use of advanced permissions by the other editor) was included in evidence, it seems odd that the person filing the case is being allowed to not only get an admin desysopped for it, but get off and keep their advanced permissions after an exceedingly clear abuse thereof in not only going against consensus but intentionally lying by omission to mislead the community into accepting their changes. Whether anyone wants to admit it or not, this was always a witch-hunt - and became even more so the second the arbitrators agreed to accept this case focused only on one editor when the conflict leading to the case involved multiple. When one only looks at the prosecution's side of the evidence, of course the defendant looks guilty. And that's exactly what happened here - people with unclean hands themselves are getting a good admin desysopped for technicalities and borderlines, whereas they're getting off without so much as a slap on the wrist because of careful crafting of the case to eliminate the chance of evaluating others' conduct too. So, it's a witch-hunt with the expected result. And people wonder why more medical editors, who have to put up with shit (I considered, at great lengths, a lesser word here) day in and day out, and with very little help from admins not interested in medical articles, don't run for adminship. One arbitrator brought up (without evidence) that editors "left" because of RexxS - maybe it should've been considered both how many will leave because of this result, and how many stayed in the first place because RexxS reached out to them at an early stage. Appalling. -bɜ:ʳkənhɪmez (User/say hi!) 01:08, 25 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Berchanhimez, We intentionally did not make PR a party because we did not want to make it PR vs. Rexx. This case was examining Rexx's conduct throughout their entire time as an admin, not just the interaction with PR. I think PR's conduct can still be examined at WP:AN if users think it necessary. CaptainEek ^{Edits Ho Cap'n!}⚓ 01:18, 25 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

So someone can file a case, based on one incident that is directly connected to them, have their interactions be (misconstrued as involved) included in evidence, and then get away without being examined by ArbCom? Maybe the "boomerang" concept doesn't apply here, but if not, it definitely should. The idea that a case "titled" RexxS can't include examinations of the filer's actions, when that's the entire reason the case exists, is semantics and bureaucracy. This is a laughable situation - I personally feel it is an overly-bureaucratic view that you couldn't examine PR in this case - the choice not to include any final decision about the behavior, and the admission here that this was all about one editor, and not considering others'/the wider picture is not helping anything. It was a witch hunt - any reason to discount mitigating factors (such as "this wasn't about PR, even though including that would've justified RexxS's actions") is bureaucratic failure. I just hope that the arbitrators voting to de-sysop RexxS will be willing to help when I or other medical editors ping them for necessary action - because it's not fun, it's hard to deal with, there's often lots of talk pages to go through to get a feel for a situation, and there's only so much crap someone can deal with in good faith before taking action when nobody else is helping. -bɜ:ʳkənhɪmez (User/say hi!) 01:25, 25 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

To those suggesting that not responding to an arbitration case should violate ADMINCOND, why should someone respond when the case was opened basically ignoring the entirety of their original response, and when the person who started the witch hunt gets off without even mention in the end result? I dare any administrator to say that they wouldn't be absolutely fuming if their conduct was being examined based on a report of someone with very unclean hands and they were ignored at the start - it makes complete sense RexxS left and if he did so to avoid being uncivil/digging deeper, that should be commended, not faulted. Was RexxS contacted by email and explicitly refused to participate, or has he been AWOL from the project completely - because being AWOL completely in the face of such a drastic "fuck you" witch hunt is very understandable and I suspect would likely be the human reaction of any administrator in the same position. -bɜ:ʳkənhɪmez (User/say hi!) 01:35, 25 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

User:Beeblebrox - at least one arbitrator has implied very clearly that it factored in (SoWhy, David Fuchs), and only two (CaptainEek, Cas Liber) have explicitly stated that they attempted to not factor it into their decision making as a whole in this case. I suspect that at least some of the arbitrators unconsciously (and even consciously) allowed this to impact their decisionmaking - but only four (a minority) have made clear whether it did or not. Regardless of arbitrators' personal view as to whether it impacted their own decision making or not, given that two have basically explicitly said it did, it deserves a mention along with a comment as to whether it should have been a factor. Not addressing this would be inappropriate - because if it should have factored in, but didn't, that is a failure of some, but if it shouldn't have factored in but did, that's a failure on others' part. -bɜ:ʳkənhɪmez (User/say hi!) 01:43, 25 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Berchanhimez:, I notice you didn't provide a diff when you say someone lied by omission. Now I, having read all the evidence carefully, understand what evidence applies to that statement such that it's not just an unfounded personal attack (even if I don't think it's true). In the same way another arbitrator referenced something else in evidence which you seem to have not noticed (just as you hadn't noticed the several explanations given by multiple arbs throughout this case about why PR is not a party to the case). Of course it's not your responsibility to follow as closely as the arbs and it's totally fair for you to disagree with the decisions we're making (I know I don't agree with all of them). However, I hope you can join me in believing that the arbs who've reached different decisions about some FoF and remedies from me and from you have done so in good faith and with the project's best interests in mind. Barkeep49 (talk) 02:01, 25 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I never intended to imply that any arb is not acting in good faith, but I'll note that the lying by omission was pretty clearly covered by others including RexxS in the case request and elsewhere - that the Arbs either chose to ignore it or failed to see it is not my responsibility to make up for at this point, nor would it even do anything at this point. The explanations given are poor, and are simply an excuse for the witch hunt at this point. It cannot be denied, regardless of whether any individual arbitrator agrees or disagrees with what the outcome will likely be at this point, that this case was, by careful design or by unintentional oversight, designed to be a witch hunt which only had one possible outcome. -bɜ:ʳkənhɪmez (User/say hi!) 02:11, 25 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Given that no arbitrator has yet taken issue with the one-sided witch hunt driving away a good editor (not that I expected them to), maybe they should reconsider their votes on finding 2. Multiple arbitrators have stated either explicitly or implicitly, or through not denying, that RexxS' lack of participation in the case was a factor in their decisionmaking - thus it deserves a principle stating whether arbitrators should be doing so, based on policy, and if they are to be doing so (or are not, or there is no basis in policy either way), it needs the finding of fact to support such. Otherwise, it is arbitrators "legislating from the bench" and reading into ADMINCOND what is not there. RexxS responded to the case and was basically told to "piss off" by framing the case only about him - the least the arbitrators can do is have the decency to formalize their decision making process and to explicitly state as a principle/finding whether not participating in the case can be, and was, used as part of the reason for the desysop. Regardless of individual arbitrators taking it into account or not, allowing a desysop to pass with multiple arbitrators relying heavily on something that is not in a principle or a finding would be... weird to say the least, and yet another disservice to RexxS at most. Not to mention that at least one arbitrator (David Fuchs) is, based on his own vote, relying on quite a bit of evidence that I can't find anywhere in the evidence page, nor has been presented (ex: causing editors to leave) - which hasn't drawn any comment by anyone else from what I can see.

I'll furthermore add that in reply to User:Maxim in User:L235's section: If the majority of "administrator" cases are framed like this, where case requests that center on one conflict with other editors involved are turned into witch hunts (either by intentional design or unintentional crafting), then of course they will mostly result in de-adminning. A witch hunt allows for cherry-picking of negativity without considering the circumstances around this case - as has been done here - and if this is common in other adminship cases, in that they're turned into a witch hunt under the guise of "examining one administrator", then it only makes sense that this is the typical outcome. Nothing happens in a vacuum here - except apparently bad conduct by other users when they can get an administrator to take the fall and thus distract the arbitrators and community from the larger problems at play.

The reluctance to press on with FoF 2 is understandable (though I'm not sure I would oppose it personally). However, for the arbs who are opposing or abstaining, you run the risk of implicitly encouraging non-participation in further cases. An acknowledgement that refusing to participate is, as a practical matter, not in the best interests of the editor is both justified and supported by policy (see Wikipedia:Arbitration/Policy § Participation). If I were active on this case I would propose a principle along the lines of this: "Editors are expected to respond to statements about themselves in arbitration proceedings. Failure to do so may result in decisions being made without their participation." (Paraphrasing of arbitration policy.)

Further, if you don't buy the ADMINACCT argument on the grounds that RexxS was not specifically asked to respond, an additional principle you could adopt would be along the lines of: "Administrators are accountable for their actions involving administrative tools. As such, they are expected to respond appropriately to queries about their administrative actions and to justify their actions where needed. This expectation extends to queries raised in arbitration proceedings if the administrator is specifically asked to respond." Adopting a principle like this would clarify the Committee's view of ADMINACCT as regards arbitration proceedings. (The first two sentences of this principle are taken verbatim from Principle 4 of the Kafziel case.) Best, KevinL (aka L235 · t · c) 01:28, 25 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

ping arbitrators opposing/abstaining on FOF 2 ​​​​​​​ KevinL (aka L235 · t · c) 01:30, 25 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not opposed to a principle. Barkeep49 (talk) 01:31, 25 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• What I don't like about it is it implies it is part of what led us to the final decision. If it did play into that we should be explicit in saying so. I fully agree that is desirable that case subjects participate, but I also do not care for FoF's that don't directly lead into remedies. Beeblebrox (talk) 01:38, 25 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • @Beeblebrox: That's true of FoFs but not to the same extent of principles. Every case has a number of guiding principles that do not necessarily lead directly to remedies. As Newyorkbrad wrote in this case, Including this as a principle does not automatically mean that the principle has been violated. Best, KevinL (aka L235 · t · c) 01:39, 25 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • I'm generally of the mind that principles and FoF should always directly relate to the remedies; I've never been a fan of proposed decisions that have three dozen recitations of Wiki arcana like it's some part of the mass. That RexxS did not participate is obvious, and while I think non-participation hurts people more than it helps (we don't operate on jury standards of evidence for verdicts, for one reason among many) we also can't really compel people to show up. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs ^talk 13:31, 25 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• An administrator's non-participation in a case where the scope is his/her conduct isn't surprising. Considering the past 10 years of arbitration cases, the Committee on average hears ~2–3 cases per year whose scope is largely an administrator's conduct. I can count five where the outcome wasn't a desysop:
  • Reversion of office actions—noted without comment, and given the overall circumstances, it would probably be unreasonable to count this as a "[case] whose scope is largely an administrator's conduct".
  • GiantSnowman—outcome was a bespoke restriction similar to what is proposed here.
  • Magioladitis—the scope was more than anything bot use/operation so inclusion is somewhat arguable because reading the principles/FoFs, it's all about bot policy. But, there was Magioladitis 2 that was a desysop.
  • Michael Hardy—only had eight-year-old evidence of tool abuse and the FoF on Michael Hardy's conduct was mostly about one dispute. Also of note is the Committee reminding itself to "carefully consider the appropriate scope of case requests".
  • Gamaliel and others—a bit different in it wasn't only focused on one administrator but I think still a reasonable comparison case.
• Of the five above, I'd say four are fair comparisons (Reversion of office actions is excluded). However, if an administrator is a named party to an accepted arbitration case, the case is potentially named for this administrator, and the scope of the case has anything to do with WP:ADMINCOND or tool use, the outcome of the case is exceedingly likely to be a desysop.

  Absent significant changes to the arbitration process, there's no benefit or drawback to sitting the case out, after having given preliminary statements. There's probably more benefit to sitting out: it may avoid some of the stress of this process. As for drawbacks... I don't think there are any; what is a committee going to do for non-participation, desysop the admin twice? Rarely do the issues present in such cases merit bans.

  While my intent is not to imply that the outcome of such a case is fixed, the history of such cases speaks for itself, and so does the fact that a majority or net 4 of arbitrators (the tendency seems to be to accept cases, in general, with a significant majority) decides there are serious enough issues with conduct or tool use to merit a case. Despite the talk of a "lower bar for ADMINCOND cases because only arbcom can desysop", there is no substantive history of "letting off" administrators in such cases with a warning, because the bar was too low. We go through a case because there's a certain due diligence that should be done (this is synonymous with taking time for sober second thought) and to have have some sense of justice and protection from arbitrary decisions (the latter is important for community health; in fairness, complaints the arbcom has failed on those points are not uncommon, any dinosaurs remember "Arbitrary Committee"?). Yet, when arbitrators have voted 8/2 to open a case, despite assurances from the central party to take the concerns on board, I'm not sure what else the central party of the case could do. Maxim_(talk) 02:55, 25 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

To the clerks[edit]

@ArbCom Clerks: Given that the motion to close is about to pass, could someone update the implementation notes to reflect changes in votes on R5.2, before the motion to close passes? Best, KevinL (aka L235 · t · c) 21:35, 25 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I see the {{@ArbComClerks}} template became outdated – apologies to those I pinged who are no longer on the clerk team! Ping Dreamy Jazz as you weren't on the template or first ping. KevinL (aka L235 · t · c) 21:40, 25 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

In responce to Jackattack1597 and Barkeep49 and their comments in Jacattack's section about crats closing an RFA outside the normal discretionary zone. My RFB was pretty soon after the RexxS crat chat and there was more than one question about the discretionary range. I gave hypothetical examples of where a crat or more likely a cratchat should close an RFA in ways that go beyond the usual discretionary zone. To be honest I would hope and expect that if I'd said that RFA is an election and we can only close in accordance with a strict interpretation of the discretionary zone my RFB would have failed. Whatever you think of the RexxS cratchat, if you think Crats should stick precisely to the discretionary zone I'd suggest reading that RFB and if you still think the same way starting a thread on the crats noticeboard. ϢereSpielChequers 11:54, 25 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I tried to be clear that I was discussing a single crat action rather than a crat chat but probably should have said so. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 12:50, 25 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, yes that would be a very bold action for a crat to take. It may never happen and I suspect is more likely to be an act of mercy to end the drama of an RFA that had dropped 20% in the last 12 hours than a close as a pass - I struggle to think of a hypothetical example of an RFA below the discretionary zone where a crat would reasonably close as successful as opposed to opening a cratchat or of course closing as unsuccessful. ϢereSpielChequers 13:43, 25 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I have two thoughts to share, one specific to this case and one on the general principle:

Specific:

Looking at the evidence and all the diffs presented, this case seems remarkably thin. Far from an editor or admin who has had wide-ranging conduct issues going back years (most of whom have been desysopped by now, or have left after it's been made clear that their action are not in line with the community's expectations), I see an admin who is an asset to Wikipedia but who has occasionally crossed the line, made an error in judgement, or lost his temper. How many admins who do the grunt work on this project, never mind those trying to keep a lid on difficult topic areas, can say they've never done any of those things? That's not to say that we should be condoning bad judgement calls or losses of temper. What concerns me is that this would not rise to the level of arbitration remedies had it not been for a dispute over a template that was brought here prematurely and with unclean hands, accompanied by some hand-waving along the lines of "noticeboards can't sanction admins". If it did, that could have been handled by motion at the request stage given that—for all the words expended on these pages—only one new diff has been presented.

Which leads me to my more general point:

ArbCom should not get into the business of being the "admin review board". Individual admin actions are subject to review or appeal at the relevant noticeboard and peer review of admin actions should be encouraged and welcomed. The community is perfectly capable of censuring admins and imposing restrictions (which could start as mild as a finding that a given admin is involved with respect to an editor or topic). The arguments that it takes a lot of social capital seem to ignore the fact that it takes at least as much, if not more (and probably considerably greater knowledge of the inner workings of Wikipedia), to file a request for arbitration that is likely to be accepted and result in any tangible action. It is difficult to establish a pattern of behaviour by any prolific editor going back years. It's a big haystack, and it takes a lot of time and energy to put the diffs together, present the pattern, and see a thread through to its conclusion but only by investing the time will we get anywhere (see Wifione for an example of a pattern that only became clear once the time was put in to presenting the case). That, in my opinion, is why ANI does a poor job of resolving complaints about patterns of behaviour. ArbCom rarely does a better job, and it gets months to scrutinise one editor's record.

And another general thought:

The interpretation of "involved" being used here is the one that most experienced admins agree with and abide by, ie that you should not be adminning in controversial topic areas if you're also actively editing (for example, I used to be one of the more active editors in the Israel-Palestine topic area, so I made a point of not making substantive edits in the area or expressing opinions on content matters; I've written articles articles within the scope of the Troubles discretionary sanctions so I don't enforce sanctions in that area). I would say that interpretation is widely enough accepted that we could call it a community norm. However this norm is not actually documented at WP:INVOLVED and, as Barkeep points out, is not universal practice even among very experienced admins and editors.

Apologies for length. For full disclosure, RexxS and I are friends in real life but our editing interests don't often overlap. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 13:07, 25 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

So I'll say two things even as we agree in general about this case. First I have lost my temper a couple of times because of Wikipedia, including one time during this case, and somewhat more regularly I get irritated. When that happens, I can just step away from Wikipedia until I'm ready to respond without crossing a line. I don't claim it's easy, which is why I'm willing to say some failures to do this can be forgiven, but because we're an asynchronous platform it can be done. Second, I think the conclusion of your second paragraph would be that admins could only be desysopped for repeated bright line rule violations. Long term conduct that just barely violates our administrative policy would thus be be condoned (and could perhaps shift where that line of acceptable behavior is). I came to the conclusion that this isn't what happened here but I respect my colleagues who read things over and came to a different conclusion. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 14:47, 25 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Barkeep49, appreciate the reply. It's always nice to see arbs engaging on PD talk pages. That's not what I was getting at with my second paragraph above. My point was more about the idea that noticeboard threads about admin conduct are pointless. It is difficult to make a case for long-term misconduct that doesn't involve bright-line violations when it involves pulling maybe a few dozen diffs out of tens of thousands of edits, but it's no more or less difficult to do it in an arbitration case than it is at a noticeboard. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 15:16, 25 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• @Robert McClenon: We on Wikipedia, and arbitrators in particular, go to great lengths to avoid using plain English as it appears in the dictionary, especially when we want to sound formal or sombre. ;) HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 18:41, 25 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• @Wugapodes: You're correct that the arbitration case drew in more editors and more words. The evidence page must be over 10,000 words, and another few thousand in the initial request and the workshop, plus thousands here and on the talk page, over five weeks. Yet for all of that hot air, we got precisely one diff that wasn't presented five weeks ago. That's an atrocious heat:light ratio, so it's hardly surprising the subject of it wouldn't want anything to do with it. I'd rather spend five weeks trying to untangle every interpersonal dispute at ANI; at least that might accomplish something. Equally, it's hardly surprising that several editors see this case as a foregone conclusion—ArbCom opened a case about this person, and we now have tens of thousands of words about how awful this person is and all the terrible things they've done. No smoke without fire, right? Nobody in their right mind is going to beat their way through all that smoke to see how big the fire underneath really is. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 09:31, 26 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Hi Harry.

The committee is painfully aware that being the subject of a case sucks pretty bad. The structure used here was a test case aimed at improving the heat/light ratio, but it doesn't seem to have been particularly effective at doing so. Future cases like this, where the focus is a single user, may not employ a workshop at all. We really do have a crop of reform-minded individuals on the committee right now, and we've barely scratched the surface of how we might restructure the process of full cases, hopefully we'll come back to the subject, but a comprehensive review of discretionary sanctions has just begun and that looks like it will be a fair bit of work. Beeblebrox (talk) 18:33, 26 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Pinging Primefac AC members are currently voting on closure. Rather than permit this decision to be hijacked and delayed by last-minute plea-bargaining on behalf a non-participating colleague, can I suggest that process is allowed to play out? There should be no consideration to a sword of Damocles style, deferred Desysop. The person involved here is entitled to certainty, as is the community. FWIW, I have taken no part in this case since it was agreed to proceed with it. Leaky caldron (talk) 17:38, 25 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Given that it's up to the committee on whether to close or extend the proceedings, I see no direct hijacking; a reasonable question was asked and I find no reason to dismiss the comment out of hand. As it stands we probably won't be adding any additional motions (for the reasons you mention but others as well). Primefac (talk) 17:52, 25 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Pinging Primefac Can you identify a case of similar characteristics which would make this particular late, post-decision request "reasonable" / not out of the ordinary? The Arbs / community has had weeks to propose and define remedies. I do not see this as a reasonable request at this late stage and the precedent it would set could have lasting adverse implications for future case management timetables. I will say no more than I think something is not quite right - but that is a matter of personal opinion. Leaky caldron (talk) 18:34, 25 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I cannot. As it stands, I asked the question, the general response was "no", and thus no new remedy is/was/will be added. I do not think there is ever any harm in asking a question (though some times the answer will be short). Primefac (talk) 14:29, 26 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

This may be a comment about terminology for a future case, since it appears that the distinction between "warning" and "admonishment" is not relevant. However, it is my opinion, as a literate American, that a "warning" is stronger than an "admonition" or "admonishment". The arbitrators should only "admonish" an editor if they want to pull their punches. If you really mean that the subject just barely avoided a stronger sanction, that should be a formal warning. Robert McClenon (talk) 18:36, 25 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

To me it's a subtle difference of tense. "You are admonished because you did ABC" but "you are warned not to do XYZ any more." Newyorkbrad (talk) 18:38, 25 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

At one point it wa documented (I'm not sure where as I couldn't find it in a quick search but I believe around 2012) that the sliding scale was reminded, warned, admonished. I think this scale has fallen out of favor (and is certainly not somewhere that makes it clear if this is a scale). Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 18:41, 25 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Found it with ease on ArbWiki. It seems it was done in 2009 by Risker and was actually a 5 point scale: reminded, caution, warning, admonishment, removal of access. I don't think it's an awful idea to have this kind of scale but it does need to be somewhere such that everyone understands how they're being used, which isn't the case now and why I was so "I don't care what word we use" in this case. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 18:44, 25 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I find it highly distasteful that two members of ArbCom found support for a FoF that "RexxS did not participate after the Case was opened". Furthermore one redefined WP:ADMINACCT in his/her own words to suit a particular point of view: "participating in cases is something WP:ADMINACCT expects from admins"

In fact, WP:ADMINACCT states:

Administrators are expected to respond promptly and civilly to queries about their Wikipedia-related conduct and administrative actions, especially during community discussions on noticeboards or during Arbitration Committee proceedings. Administrators should justify their actions when requested.

RexxS stated his side in the initial Case request along with multiple WP:A actions. Further discussion was not needed nor was it requested. If someone wanted to ask him a question that hadn't already been answered, then they might have a point. If ArbCom wants new policies or to update them, they should propose such changes for the community, not attempt to lynch someone over declining to participate in what very much seems to be a kangaroo court. While Admins should explain their actions, they are not required to REPEATEDLY explain them. Buffs (talk) 21:10, 25 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I also find it distasteful to have allowed accusers to add additional detail beyond their word limit (stated elsewhere as well) when the subject didn't even submit evidence. If there is no opposition, you shouldn't need to double the length of your narrative in order to "win". Buffs (talk) 21:13, 25 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]