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.

Per [1], [2], I'm posting this here. I would like the Committee to look at Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Desysop Policy (2021)#An alternative approach, where ArbCom initiates the process while you are working on this case. (The Clerks might want to look, too, because it suggests some roles for you.) No matter what else you decide with this case, I would encourage you to include a Remedy in the form of "The Community is encouraged" where you say that you encourage the community to conduct discussion about ideas of that sort. You wouldn't be endorsing such a process, but just saying that it would be helpful if the community were to look into it and decide whatever the community decides.

You could do this as a remedy here, or alternatively you could leave it out of this case decision and post something about it separately. But I would not want you to move it to the back burner and then forget about it.

Of course, you should only do something with this if you actually come to believe that it might be beneficial, and that is up to you, of course. It's my reading of the community's sentiment that there will be a prohibitive amount of skepticism about any such proposal unless there has been some indication of interest from ArbCom. So, I encourage you to take a look at it. I hope everyone feels encouraged, now. --Tryptofish (talk) 01:25, 10 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Moved from Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/RexxS/Workshop#RexxS_has_edit-warred.

I think after the prior events people tend to become somewhat defensive and less receptive towards feedback. Giving advice in the first instance seems like it might've had a better reception, but of course it's impossible to know for sure. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 19:13, 11 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

As I mentioned, advice was given in the first instance. Regarding receptiveness, there's a lot to unpack there regarding the specific editors involved, and so I leave it to the arbitrators to consider. isaacl (talk) 19:28, 11 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I've only skimmed the CfD - I see references to INDENTMIX (eg Please observe WP:INDENTMIX; it's an accessibility requirement.), but no specifics on what specific wrong thing was done? If it's there, then maybe that's worth adding as evidence (if not already done -- I haven't thoroughly read all the evidence either). People are more likely to be receptive to "Please copy and paste the indents from the previous comment. Replying with ::: to *: is not valid and causes accessibility issues." than "please read WP:INDENTMIX and fix your comments accordingly". I do see at least two occasions of him fixing the indenting though (here and here).

As an aside, on the content, I see that looking at the current CfD revision that the HTML is mangled on the comment RexxS tried to change, but this isn't visible when just looking at visual output, so it's probably hard to appreciate some of the nuances of lists. Indeed, several other editors in the same discussion were also violating it in the same way as I think BHG was (eg this or this). All this is to say that I think talk pages are somewhat hopeless and indenting difficult to many; perhaps the WMF's new Reply Tool will help in this regard. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 19:55, 11 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

It's fine if other people see things differently than I do, in terms of what is or is not the most important in this case – that's in part what Workshops are for. But as I see it in terms of what is needed for ArbCom purposes, the motivations of RexxS and BHG are useful in understanding where each of them was coming from, but much less useful in arriving at a case decision. In other words, edit warring is wrong regardless of one's motivation, in my opinion. And yelling at one another is likewise. I think that both parties come off very badly there, but BHG has already been desysopped by ArbCom, and the case here is about RexxS. --Tryptofish (talk) 21:50, 11 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The evidence and workshop phases will close at or soon after 00:00 UTC 14 March 2021. Please ensure that you get your evidence and proposals in before the phases close so that you do not miss the deadline. It is recommended that editors do not wait to post evidence or proposals so that technical difficulties do not prevent them from posting evidence and/or proposals in time. Dreamy Jazz ^{talk to me | my contributions} 00:13, 13 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Apologies, I got my proposal to the workshop in rather late, and there was a question I didn't have a chance to reply to before it closed. @Tryptofish: there are several examples of WP:ANI filings against administrators being closed at least in part on the basis that the community cannot sanction administrators, one of which was recent. At [3], El C stated that "This forum does not have the authority to censure any admin, for anything, about anything. That is just a fact. It remains the sole domain of the Arbitration Committee." Admittedly, they went on to explain that they wouldn't have closed the discussion with consensus for action for other reasons, but that statement is... concerning. That and several older examples were in SN54129's initial statement. Again, I apologize to everyone for posting this after the workshop closed, although I hope that I'm just pointing to facts already in evidence should minimize issues. Tamwin (talk) 05:24, 14 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Tamwin, this is something WP:DESYSOP2021 is attempting to remedy (which I support, btw). El_C 05:28, 14 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

El C, I've already !voted. :) Perhaps if that looks to be passing my proposal will need to be tweaked. But the fact remains that the community can do things other than desysoping administrators. Even if it comes to pass that the community can desysop administrators, that's a pretty radical remedy. I know a lot of people think that if you can't trust administrators without sanctions you can't trust them at all, but there are limits. I'm under the impression that WP:IBANs of administrators are well precedented (I'm sure someone will tell me if I'm wrong). Surely there are cases where it makes sense for the community to do that rather than desysoping? It may be a "censure", but it's also a sensible way to deal with people who just can't get along. I think it's permissible for the community to do that under current policy (WP:CBAN doesn't say "unless the editor is an administrator), and insofar as your close suggested that the community cannot apply normal sanctions against administrators, I disagree with it. Tamwin (talk) 05:41, 14 March 2021 (UTC) Edit: Managed to mess up my ping, so... @El C Tamwin (talk) 05:43, 14 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

No TBAN or IBAN is relevant in this case. Besides, whether the community has the theoretical ability to site ban or restrict an admin from using tools by a social prohibition seems irrelevant since enough people will (& do) oppose on the basis that it doesn’t, such that the proposal won’t gain consensus on that basis alone. So I don’t really see how that workshopped principle is relevant to this case. Place to change that is RfC imo. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 05:50, 14 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Entirely fair! I thought it was relevant because the authority of WP:ANI to sanction administrators (or lack thereof) was a significant factor in the arguments presented about whether to take this case. So, in that sense, if the committee doesn't want to end up needing to take every case where an administrator is at issue, even if the community could handle it, they might want to clarify that the community is in fact permitted to handle it. If that isn't sufficiently in scope, that's understandable. Tamwin (talk) 05:55, 14 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Well, it’s just my personal opinion, who knows what Arbcom is thinking, but IMO how do you think El C could’ve closed that discussion differently: even if the allegations about Drmies were true (and that was dubious), exactly what community sanction do you think would be appropriate? A TBAN from AP2, or an IBAN with the editor Drmies reverted? The exact same issues apply to this case. A TBAN or IBAN is obviously inappropriate here, so there’s no possibly applicable community sanction. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 06:53, 14 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Tamwin, I actually did TBAN an admin recentlyish (Dec 2020), following a consensus by AE admins to do so (AE report), but with the ANI discussion involving Drmies, the OP sought "censure" as in a desysop, so that is what I meant in my closing summary there. True, the community can decide on almost anything, including a siteban, of anyone, admin or not. But a hypothetical ANI close certifying a desysop would not have been acted upon by the bureaucrats to revoke the sysop flag without ArbCom's expressed consent (even if only as merely a formality). Again, that is just a fact. El_C 07:23, 14 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Interestingly, Serial's evidence also showed a site ban failing because editors saw it as an end run around ArbCom hence opposed it. So whether it's theoretically possible is moot. Heck, I'm not even sure an ANI discussion in the past few years has closed with consensus for a [temporary] block (would be interested to know if it has)? ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 07:34, 14 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

My point is that the procedure is what it is. Ultimately, as a hypothetical, it'd be a query best left to bureaucrats at WP:BN, since they're the ones with the technical ability to revoke the sysop flag. But it, indeed, may be moot because of opposition of that nature (i.e. who'd view it as circumventing the existing procedure). I'm, of course, discounting desysop requests that are of an urgent nature (as in a genuine emergency). El_C 07:56, 14 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for the clarification! If everyone agrees that the committee doesn't need to be involved to restrict administrators, a principle is decidedly less important. Tamwin (talk) 03:35, 19 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]