Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/RexxS/Evidence

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

Case clerk: TBD Drafting arbitrator: TBD

Arbitration case pages exist to assist the Arbitration Committee in arriving at fair, well-informed decisions. This page is not designed for the submission of general reflections on the arbitration process, Wikipedia in general, or other irrelevant and broad issues; and if you submit such content to this page, please expect it to be ignored or removed. General discussion of the case may be opened on the talk page. You must focus on the issues that are important to the dispute and submit diffs which illustrate the nature of the dispute or will be useful to the committee in its deliberations. Please keep your evidence in the scope of the case which is to examine the conduct of RexxS with view of complaints to do with WP:ADMINCOND.

Submitting evidence or analysis

• Any editor may add evidence or analysis of evidence to this page, irrespective of whether they are involved in the dispute.
• You must submit evidence in your own section, using the prescribed format.
• Editors who change other users' evidence or analysis may be sanctioned by arbitrators or clerks without warning; if you have a concern with or objection to another user's evidence, contact the arbitration clerks by e-mail or on the talk page.

Word and diff limits

• The standard limits for all submissions in this phase are: 1000 words and 100 diffs for users who are parties to this case; or about 500 words and 50 diffs for other users. Detailed but succinct submissions are more useful to the committee.
• If you wish to exceed the prescribed limits on length, you must obtain the written consent of an arbitrator before doing so; you may ask for this on the Evidence talk page.
• Evidence or analysis that exceeds the prescribed limits without permission, or that contains inappropriate material or diffs, may be refactored, redacted or removed by a clerk or arbitrator without warning.

Supporting assertions with evidence

• Evidence must include links to the actual page diff in question, or to a short page section; links to the page itself are inadequate. Never link to a page history, an editor's contributions, or a log for all actions of an editor (as those change over time), although a link to a log for a specific article or a specific block log is acceptable.
• Please make sure any page section links are permanent, and read the simple diff and link guide if you are not sure how to create a page diff.

Rebuttals

• The Arbitration Committee expects you to make rebuttals of other evidence submissions in your own section, and for such rebuttals to explain how or why the evidence in question is incorrect; do not engage in tit-for-tat on this page.

Expected standards of behavior

• 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 incivil or engaging in personal attacks, 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).

Consequences of inappropriate behavior

• Editors who conduct themselves inappropriately during a case may be sanctioned by an arbitrator or clerk, without warning.
• Sanctions issued by arbitrators or clerks may include being banned from particular case pages or from further participation in the case.
• Editors who ignore sanctions issued by arbitrators or clerks may be blocked from editing.
• Behavior during a case may also be considered by the committee in arriving at a final decision.

Evidence presented by ProcrastinatingReader

Issues evidenced:

• WP:TOOLMISUSE - bullet 1 (WP:INVOLVED), and bullet 2 (out of policy actions)
• WP:ADMINCOND issues
• WP:ADMINACCT issues

Personal attacks: In regards to Valereee

March 2020: In response to a cordial comment from valereee, which set out her concerns with Rexx’s proposal being overly complicated and seeking a compromise,[1] RexxS replied not everybody is as inept as you.[2] Valereee approached RexxS about the comment.[3] Another admin, Zero0000 (talk · contribs), also opened a section in relation to ADMINCOND and various remarks made by RexxS in the discussion.[4] RexxS removed both sections without response.[5]

October 2020: When RexxS made uncivil/battleground-y comments towards other editors,[6][7][8] valereee requested that RexxS strike his remarks and stop behaving aggressively toward other well-intentioned editors in discussions.[9] In response, RexxS labelled valereee a partisan editor,[10] an unsubstantiated remark and personal attack per WP:NPA (Using someone's political affiliations as an ad hominem means of dismissing or discrediting their views, such as accusing them of being left-wing or right-wing, is also forbidden.) valereee followed up (twice) for clarity. RexxS replied in a dismissive manner and seemed to accuse her of harassment (?).[11][12][13] valereee replied again asking for clarity; RexxS did not respond.[14]

Tool misuse, INVOLVED blocks, and ADMINACCT failures (AManWithNoPlan and Citation Bot)

June 2020: RexxS indefinitely blocked AManWithNoPlan (talk · contribs),[15][16] for triggering Citation bot (talk · contribs) to edit on an article.[17]

For non-technical arbs: an admin may block a malfunctioning bot, but it is never acceptable to block the editor just triggering the bot, not least because it would not be preventative (someone else can just trigger the bot all the same). AManWithNoPlan is obviously not a malfunctioning bot, nor were they running a bot on their account.

This block was not in line with policy, and was undone by RexxS after unanimous disapproval of the block by the community.[18] After unblocking, RexxS threatened to re-block AManWithNoPlan if you really don't think you have any responsibility for the edits made by the bot that you activated.[19][20] Various editors and admins raised concern with RexxS’s block,[21] his responses and handling of the issue,[22][23][24][25][26] and believed him to be INVOLVED.[27][28][29]

This resulting ANI contained numerous failures of WP:ADMINACCT. RexxS's response was to propose sanctions on Headbomb (talk · contribs),[30] which did not go anywhere. An editor in the discussion described this as a "vindictive retaliation".[31][32] RexxS failed to respond to concerns from the community.[33][34] In the Headbomb thread, and throughout the ANI in general, he refused to accept that his block was against policy. On multiple occasions RexxS either misrepresented policy, or misunderstood it and refused to listen to explanations on what the policy actually is.[35][36][37][38] RexxS denied that he was INVOLVED, considering it an incredible stretch of INVOLVED.[39]

September 2020: RexxS stated he would block Citation Bot again if it edited 'in violation of' a then-unclosed RfC he vigorously participated in.[40]

February 2021: During this case, RexxS has repeatedly reaffirmed his belief that the block was correct (or, to quote RexxS, fully vindicated).[41][42] This suggests that RexxS has still not understood why the block was contrary to policy.

Aspersions (GS template situation)

RexxS has repeatedly, since before and continued after the case filing, stated that I set out to "deceive" the community.[43][44][45][46][47]. This is an aspersion (one which I categorically reject) that calls into question my character. A serious failure to assume good faith.

Threats to pull permissions in content dispute. Other threats of imposing/proposing sanctions in disputes with other editors

In all of the below cases, as far as I can see, in the end no proposals of sanctions were made by RexxS (likely because there appears to be no grounds to make them). All of these remarks, especially coming from an admin, have a chilling effect on discussion and intimidate editors against continuing content disputes.

• March 2020: Threatening to propose sanctions on EEng (talk · contribs) and accusing him of tendentious editing.[48][49] EEng's proposals were supported by multiple editors/admins, so discussing is evidently not tendentious or contrary to policy.
• October 2020: In a WikiProject discussion about medical sources,[50] RexxS threatens editors with COVID GS sanctions.[51] This was part of the events that led to the valereee attacks situation above (October 2020 one).
• February 2021: Fylindfotberserk (talk · contribs) started a section to discuss |partner= of {{Infobox person}}.[52] This is a short section, so I suggest arbs just read it in entirety rather than me summarising it. Note, however, that template documentation is often considered in RfC closes and guides editors on how to use the template in articles, so this section seems normal & wholly proper to me. RexxS interpreted this discussion as a "personal attack" on him (somehow -- I'm really struggling to see how he came to this interpretation) and threatened to propose sanctions on the editor. Another admin, Cyphoidbomb (talk · contribs), had to step in to defuse the situation and explain that they'd advised Fylindfotberserk to start the discussion.
• February 2021: RexxS threatens to remove my template-editor permissions for an out-of-policy reason whilst also involved in a content dispute with me (stretching back to October 2020).[53]
  • In this diff (and several others) RexxS misrepresents the dispute by suggesting my actions on the COVID GS template involved (mis)use of TPE permissions, repeating this in his case statement (has misused sensitive permissions).[54] My only TPE action on {{COVID19 GS editnotice}} was to nominate the template to TfD.[55]
    • Any editor (TPE or not) can nominate any template to TfD. If one doesn't have TPE rights to add the tag itself, they can file an edit request to tag the template. Such an edit request will always be actioned, regardless of merits of the TfD, unless the nomination is pure vandalism.
  • Even if he weren't INVOLVED, RexxS's rationale (ie 'opening a TfD') still has no basis in WP:TPEREVOKE for unilateral removal by an admin.
  • When I suggested we take the dispute to AN for wider opinion,[56] RexxS made comments to discourage me from doing so.[57]
  • In his case statement, he repeated that he was an uninvolved administrator for the purposes of removing my permissions.[58] His statement drew concern from an arbitrator.[59]

Evidence presented by Joe Roe

In his short time as an admin, and beginning with his controversial RfA, there have been regular instances of RexxS misusing his tools as well as complaints about his general conduct.

• April 2019 – RexxS' RfA
  • RexxS' RfA was contentious, with 92 editors (36%) opposing, and 15 neutral.
  • The main reason for opposing or not supporting was RexxS' history of incivility. The diffs mentioned are listed here, including multiple previous AN and ANI complaints.
  • Given that the support percentage was outside of their discretionary range, the crats' narrow (7–4) decision to close the RfA as successful was also controversial; see Wikipedia talk:Requests for adminship/RexxS/Bureaucrat chat and ARC#RexxS RfA bureaucrat chat.
  • Obviously RexxS can't be faulted for the crat chat. The reason I bring it up is that every crat in support mentioned that they had down-weighted the civility concerns, and several explicitly said that they did so because they expected RexxS' conduct to improve after the RfA (exemplified by User:xeno: In matters of civility, aministrators are held to a higher standard; the candidate is now “on notice”, and has committed to examine their own behaviour and make changes). If RexxS' subsequent conduct shows that these civility concerns were justified, and haven't been addressed, it's entirely appropriate for the committee to reexamine whether the crats were correct in their initial judgement that RexxS had the trust of the community.
• March 2020 – personal attacks and threats to take involved actions against BrownHairedGirl[60]
• March 2020 – personal attacks against valereee[61]
  • Refusal to retract or apologise[62] until this case was filed
• May 2020 – involved sanctions related to COVID-19:
  • RexxS is one of the top editors of Coronavirus disease 2019,[63][64] regularly participates in content and sourcing discussions on its talk page,[65] and is generally highly active in the COVID-19 topic area.[66]
  • In May 2020, he placed a source restriction on the page under the COVID19 community-authorised discretionary sanctions.[67]
  • User:Almaty (now vanished), who RexxS had been in a content dispute with on the same page,[68] questioned the need for this sanction on the talk page.[69] In response, RexxS threatened him with a topic ban.[70]
  • User:bradv, who had previously placed a topic ban on Almaty, agreed that RexxS was involved and argued against a second topic ban.[71] RexxS continued to threaten Almaty with sanctions while personalising their dispute.[72]
  • This dispute led to Almaty leaving the project[73] under circumstances that aren't suitable for public discussion, but which arbs can find in the mailing list archives.
• May 2020 onwards – lack of accountability for COVID-19 sanctions:
  • The incident above was discussed at ANI, with multiple editors agreeing that RexxS was involved.
  • RexxS flatly denied this,[74] arguing that his edits to the page were "minor" or "administrative"[75][76], despite being presented with clear evidence to the contrary.[77][78]
  • He seemed not to know what WP:INVOLVED meant, repeatedly confusing it with conflict of interest policy [79][80][81][82][83].
  • After a follow-up discussion at AN (which, to his credit, RexxS initiated), he acknowledged that it was not productive for [him] to attempt to act as an uninvolved admin at Coronavirus disease 2019, though the sanction remains in place and RexxS regularly enforces it with reverts[84][85][86] and talk page comments, sometimes threatening enforcement by other admins.[87][88][89][90]
  • Throughout this dispute RexxS dismissed these concerns as an "agenda"[91] perpetuated by an unnamed group of editors opposed to WP:MEDRS[92][93] and/or Wikimedia Medicine (an organisation RexxS chairs).[94] On Almaty's talk page, he seemed to imply that challenging his administrative contributions was in itself a "personal attack".[95]
• June 2020 – involved block of AManWithNoPlan, in violation of WP:BOTBLOCK[96]
  • Threats to make further involved blocks of Headbomb[97]
• August–September 2020 – involved and out-of-policy blocks related to Ayurveda:
  • There is a long-running dispute on the article on Ayurveda, an Indian alternative medicine system, about whether it should be described as pseudoscientific. RexxS has been active on its talk page,[98] and in an August 2020 RfC argued forcefully that Ayurveda is a pseudoscience [...] beyond doubt.[99]
  • In September 2020, he filed an ARCA asking ArbCom to clarify that Ayurveda was within the scope of the Pseudoscience discretionary sanctions.[100] User:bradv explicitly advised him that he was WP:INVOLVED in the topic.[101]
  • Just before the ARCA, RexxS indefinitely blocked 17 accounts who had argued the contrary position (that Ayurveda should not be described as pseudoscientific) on the talk page as WP:NOTHERE.[102][103][104][105][106][107][108][109][110][111][112][113][114][115][116][117][118]
  • None of these accounts had made more than a handful of edits, and most only one, to Talk:Ayurveda. Most of these edits were oppose !votes in the same RfC that RexxS !voted support.
• September 2020 – lack of accountability for Ayurveda blocks:
  • User:bradv asked RexxS to comment on these blocks on his talk page.[119] Although bradv signed it as an individual, this message was actually on behalf of the 2020 Arbitration Committee after we became aware of the blocks through the Psuedoscience ARCA – arbs can confirm this in the mailing list archive.
  • In his only response in this thread, RexxS again flatly denied being involved and criticised Bradv, acting in his role as an arbitrator asking an admin to justify his actions, for bringing the matter up.[120]
  • The rest of the thread consisted of other users—including several admins—joining in to scold Bradv, at times resorting to personal attacks.[121][122][123] Nevertheless, many also acknowledged that RexxS was probably involved, generally arguing that this was excusable because the blocks were correct and/or necessary to defend Wikipedia from an off-wiki campaign.[124][125]
  • Although RexxS correctly agreed that these challenged blocks could be reversed,[126] six months later, only one account has been unblocked.[127]
  • Above RexxS describes this incident, in my opinion disingenuously, as when Bradv complained to me that I had blocked a bunch of meatpuppets.
• October 2020 – personal attacks against Colin and Jrfw51 in a dispute on COVID sourcing (see above)
• February 2021 – threat to take involved actions while in a dispute with ProcrastinatingReader[128][129][130]
  • After this case was filed, opposed PR's unrelated application for an advanced right[131][132]

Evidence presented by isaacl

March 2020 discussion on discussion thread formatting

The March 2020 discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive1033 § User:RexxS refers to Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2020 March 24 § Musical compositions, wherein BrownHairedGirl added comments that did not follow the generally accepted conventions for using list markup in a discussion. One of these instances led to a sequence of reverts:

1. BrownHairedGirl's original comment, which is added to an eight-level set of nested lists, changing the list type of the first one. This closes all of them and opens a new nine-level set of nested lists. The comment consists of multiple list items.
2. RexxS deletes it while making another comment
3. BrownHairedGirl reverts, removing RexxS's comment and restoring previous comment. Edit summary: "revert edit which removed my post. RexxS, feel free to repost your comment if you can do so without removing mine"
4. RexxS reverts. Edit summary: "BHG please feel fre to repost your comments if you can do so without causing accessibility problems"
5. BrownHairedGirl reverts. Edit summary: "per WP:TPG, do not remove other editor's commnets"
6. RexxS restores comment from step 2 and removes list markup from BrownHairedGirl's comment, turning it into non-indented text. Due to the quirks of the wikitext parser, the newlines separating each former list item do not cause new paragraphs to be created, and so what was separate list items now appears as one paragraph.
7. BrownHairedGirl restores list markup. Edit summary: "restore my comment as posted, reverting removal of indentation and praragraph breaks. @RexxS, just stop this."
8. RexxS reverts. Edit summary: "per MOS:INDENTMIX and WP:TPO 'Fixing format errors'. You must learn to format your posts properly"
9. BrownHairedGirl reverts
10. RexxS reverts
11. BrownHairedGirl reverts
12. RexxS reverts
13. BrownHairedGirl reverts
14. RexxS duplicates comment from step 2 and removes list markup. Edit summary: "remove erroneous formatting to avoid disruption to screen readers per WP:TPO fixing formatting"
15. BrownHairedGirl reverts. Edit summary: "restore indents and para beaks. Feel free to fix the markup, but WP:TPO does NOT entitle you to remove para breaks"
16. RexxS reverts. Edit summary: "i assure you it does per WP:TPO"
17. BrownHaired Girl adds new comment and reverts

Evidence presented by Johnuniq

Joe Roe used a shotgun to add links—I hope Arbs patiently check the context and notice that Joe Roe's claims are often not supported by the link. For example, consider "He seemed not to know what WP:INVOLVED meant, repeatedly confusing it with conflict of interest policy". Looking at the discussions shows that others raised "conflict of interest" and they did that because COI is specified at WP:INVOLVED—there is no confusion by RexxS. RexxS claimed that his actions were minor and did not amount to INVOLVED—the place to contest that would have been at WP:AN.

Joe Roe mentioned "threat to place an involved block while in a dispute with ProcrastinatingReader". Perhaps "remove TE right" was intended because I don't see any threat or mention of a block (there was "go to AN to settle this" but that's very different from an involved block).

Joe Roe and ProcrastinatingReader don't seem to understand the issue regarding {{COVID19 GS editnotice}}. In the discussion at Template talk:COVID19 GS editnotice#Changing this template (permalink), ProcrastinatingReader (PR) seems to think that their proposal would be capable of overturning the WP:AN "COVID-19 community general sanctions" decision (permalink). That is totally wrong—modifying general sanctions imposed at WP:AN would require another discussion there. PR argued that Template:COVID19 GS editnotice should not be used unless a page restriction was specified (such as 1RR). Again, that is a misunderstanding of the purpose of DS/GS which is to provide wide discretion for avoiding disruption in contentious topics. PR's position is arguable (although I disagree with it) but the template documentation clearly shows that a page restriction is optional ("may be displayed"). At the least, PR should have asked at WP:AN for a clarification. Instead, PR wrote a module to replace the template to accord with their view. The 3 November 2020 proposal at the TfD was presented purely as a technical operation to replace unused/redundant templates with an equivalent module. PR should have known that was a misrepresentation of the situation regarding {{COVID19 GS editnotice}} which had its operation completely changed. Bold editing is fine, but significant changes to an admin template would need a WP:AN discussion where the issue was clearly explained. Johnuniq (talk) 06:25, 7 March 2021 (UTC)

• Joe Roe has corrected "threat to place an involved block" (07:23, 7 March 2021) after I posted the above. However, JR clearly had "involved block was threatened" in mind and that would color their interpretations of plain text. Regarding diffs to show that Joe Roe's claims are often not supported by the link, see the five diffs that JR used after the text I quote—none of them show the claim. Johnuniq (talk) 09:19, 7 March 2021 (UTC)

Evidence presented by Bishonen

This is intended to be relevant to Isaacl's evidence above, but is not an "analysis" of it, so I offer it here rather than at the bottom of the page. The edit war from March 2020 laid out by Isaacl is indeed awful, and shows neither of the combattants (RexxS and BrownhairedGirl) at their best, to put it mildly. Many people suffer from quarantine rage / bad temper now, and did a year ago, some more than others, depending on their circumstances. That's a tricky thing to take into consideration, and I'm sure the committee is thinking about it without needing my help. What I want to point to is instead the subject of the edit war: accessibility issues. Isaacl summarizes the problem with BHG's indentation as a failure to "follow the generally accepted conventions for using list markup in a discussion". That is a little misleading (not on purpose, I'm sure) by sounding so bland and, well, conventional. It wasn't failure to follow some conventions that got RexxS riled up — I will say riled up, because it does look like it — it was the screen reader question, see this edit summary. Accessibility is a passion of RexxS', perhaps the single Wikipedia matter he feels most strongly about and has spent most time on. Discussions and information about the various aspects of it can be seen all over his talkpage history, from way before he was an admin and ongoingly. Many people go there to ask about it. See also the essay Wikipedia:Colons and asterisks, which RexxS wrote, and which is about the screen reader aspect of using respectively colons and asterisks for dialogue — i. e. about the very problems for screen reader users at issue in the edit war with BHG — and his subpages User:RexxS/AAAcolour, User:RexxS/Accessibility, and User:RexxS/Accessibility review. These may be some of the extenuating circumstances Tryptofish asked for below with regard to the edit war. Bishonen | tålk 13:17, 8 March 2021 (UTC).

Evidence presented by {your user name}

before using the last evidence template, please make a copy for the next person

{Write your assertion here}

Place argument and diffs which support the second assertion; for example, your second assertion might be "So-and-so makes personal attacks", which should be the title of this section. Here you would show specific edits where So-and-so made personal attacks.

Analysis of evidence

Place here items of evidence (with diffs) and detailed analysis

Analysis of evidence by Valereee

RexxS has apologized here, and he's indicated he regrets the slip. As far as I'm concerned this is all that's required from a well-intentioned editor who has made an intemperate remark, which is something we all are wont to do. —valereee (talk) 18:40, 28 February 2021 (UTC)

Comment by Arbitrators:

Unless other arbitrators disagree, I think there's been enough discussion of that one particular comment. Newyorkbrad (talk) 17:04, 4 March 2021 (UTC)

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Alleged March 2020 personal attacks (analysis by wbm1058)

Valereee and EEng

You really need to at least skim through the discussion from the beginning to get a sense of the context for RexxS' "inept" remark: Telling editors to include DATE AND TIME in {unsigned}

By the time I got to the remark that RexxS struck and modified here I was feeling pretty annoyed, so I can empathize with RexxS; I imagine he was feeling that way too. Others in the discussion were treating this like a game; they weren't taking it seriously. There are places for social talk and jokes on Wikipedia; I don't think guideline pages should be one of them. wikt:inept: Not able to do something; not proficient. Really how much of an attack is it to use this word when the person basically said the same thing about their ability earlier in the thread. WP:Guideline pages aren't intended to give detailed instructions on how to do something; their purpose is to provide guidelines on what to do... best practice. For detailed instructions on how to do that, create a page in Help: namespace or enhance the template documentation. What that time-wasting wall of text accomplished: It changed:

• Attributing unsigned comments: If a comment is unsigned you can find out, from the page history, who posted it and append attribution to it, typically using {{subst:Unsigned}}: {{subst:Unsigned|USER NAME OR IP|DATE AND TIME}}.

to

• Attributing unsigned comments: If a comment is unsigned you can find out, from the page history, who posted it and append attribution to it, typically using {{subst:Unsigned}}: {{subst:Unsigned|USER NAME OR IP|DATE AND TIME}}. The date and time parameter is optional.

Omitting the timestamp from sections with only one message may leave those sections unarchived for a long time, as archiving bots depend on knowing the date of the discussion to know whether it is time to archive it. An undated talk section won't get archived until someone either dates the signature or manually archives it. – wbm1058 (talk) 04:56, 4 March 2021 (UTC)

BrownHairedGirl

BrownHairedGirl was prohibited from portals, but not categories, banned from interaction with another editor and desysopped on 29 January 2020. The closing analysis of her category-interactions with RexxS was just a terse "Could you two please not?" Not what?

• This incident happened in a BHG proposal to rename 1,342 categories by disambiguating "composition" to "musical composition", which RexxS opposed – it didn't find a consensus.
• The behavioral issue revolves around the Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Accessibility § Lists guideline intended to avoid disrupting screen readers used by visually-impaired editors.
• The MOS is primarily focused on article-space, not talk pages. It's advice editors should attempt to follow, though it's best treated with common sense.
• No visually-impaired editors were participating in the discussion.
• As a result of this interaction, BHG asked RexxS to stay off her talkpage forever.

I find RexxS' behavior in this incident lacking the common sense expected of all editors and highly concerning. Surely more care could have been taken to fix the talk-page "layout errors" in a less-disruptive manner. wbm1058 (talk) 13:43, 6 March 2021 (UTC)

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Alleged October 2020 personal attacks (analysis by wbm1058)

Valereee's final What particular cause do you think I'm prejudiced in favor of? question of 21:50, 6 October 2020 was indeed archived without further response from RexxS but note that just two days later, at 14:36, 8 October 2020 RexxS reported that he was COVID-19 positive (meaning he was likely already experiencing symptoms when Valereee asked her question). I'm inclined to give RexxS a pass for not responding further. This happened after RexxS had already responded with a dictionary definition of "partisan" after she asked what partisan stance is that? I'd advise RexxS to avoid further use of this term in this era of hyper-partisanship for politically-charged controversial causes, to avoid the risk his meaning will be misinterpreted. My take is that Wait, you're arguing that calling an idea 'baloney' is the same as telling someone they're 'talking out of their backside'? I'm afraid I can't agree represents a "partisan" response in that it chooses one low-level uncivil remark as being "better" than the other. As a referee I would throw a flag on both and call offsetting penalties. So if you object to an idea being referred to as baloney, then object to it instead of retaliating for it. RexxS did object, albeit in an uncivil way. The community knew that RexxS had issues with maintaining civility when it passed his RfA; now is not the time to raise the bar from the level that was set when he passed his RfA. – wbm1058 (talk) 15:45, 4 March 2021 (UTC)

Comment by Arbitrators:

RexxS's contribution history reflects limited activity during October 2020. Newyorkbrad (talk) 17:49, 4 March 2021 (UTC)

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

"Editor has COVID" would be an excuse if the editor's response were different from how the editor usually responded in such situations, but here that wasn't the case. COVID is probably the reason no one went to arbcom about it back then. As for the final point, I'm outright laughing at the notion that when people supported Rexx's RFA with concerns about civility (that includes me), we were accepting that Rexx's pre-existing level of civility was the standard by which he should be judged going forward. In fact, if you read the RFA, the one thing that everyone, supporters and opposers alike, agreed with, is that Rexx needed to improve, not maintain, how he interacted with other editors going forward. Holding an editor to WP:CIVIL is not "raising the bar" on anyone. Ever. Levivich ^harass/_hound 16:00, 4 March 2021 (UTC)

February 2021 dispute with ProcrastinatingReader (analysis by wbm1058)

This is apparently the incident which triggered this case filing. Here I present a timeline; I'll leave more comprehensive analysis for others.

• 10 December 2020 – Primefac closed an RfC on obsolete community sanctions templates with a consensus to replace and deprecate them.
• 18 February 2021 – RexxS undid the deprecation and opened a discussion on the matter at Template talk:COVID19 GS editnotice#Template restored.
  • Primefac is twice-pinged to this discussion and asked whether they would have closed the TfD as replace and deprecate if they had known about the undisclosed functionality changes. I've not seen a response.
• 19 February 2021 – ProcrastinatingReader unarchives an AN discussion and reboots it. For convenience I have transcluded that below the discussion RexxS opened.
• 21 February 2021 – The administrators' noticeboard discussion is closed; the closer says If a template editor (an advanced user-right) proposes changes/replacing a template but fails to disclose, either by error or ignorance, that the new version will not perform the same as the old version, any potential consensus to make that change (if it existed) will be invalid.
• 23 February 2021 – RexxS opens an RfC on these template changes; it remains open today. Current !voting is 7–2 in support. – wbm1058 (talk) 21:04, 6 March 2021 (UTC)

Comment by Arbitrators:

For what it's worth, I had no idea I was pinged to that discussion, and likely would have relisted that template from the TFD group had I known it was going to be an issue. However, we're a little past that stage now an a new TFD would likely be necessary. Primefac (talk) 22:42, 6 March 2021 (UTC)

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Analysis of evidence by Ritchie333

In the case of AManWithNoPlan, there are several actions that the above evidence does not make clear:

• AManWithNoPlan had been blocked a few months earlier for being abusive. Block log While this may not be important, it could have signalled to RexxS that this user was knowingly disruptive and err on the side of blocking.
• Shortly after blocking, RexxS self-reported at ANI that he had blocked, and gave evidence that it was because a previous warning was ignored. Block action at 23:00, ANI thread at 23:28 entitled "‎Block review of AManWithNoPlan". No other actions were taken between RexxS blocking and opening the ANI thread (Contributions to 7 June 2020) nor was he asked to open the thread by any third parties (history of User talk:RexxS to 8 June 2020).
• On later reviewing the thread, RexxS observed a consensus to unblock, and did so. Unblock

In my view, the block was within the bounds of administrator discretion, having given evidence of prior warnings ignored and previous blocks, the self-reporting at ANI adequately justifies administrator accountability, and being able to admit fault and self-reverse an action when there is consensus to do is the appropriate conduct. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 11:30, 4 March 2021 (UTC)

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

and being able to admit fault and self-reverse an action when there is consensus to do There was no admitting of fault, or acknowledgement of ANI consensus, anywhere, as far as I can see. Rexx still denies to accept any of the conclusions from the ANI. The unblock reason says it was because AMWNP 'promised' not to initiate further bot runs, not because consensus was against the block. Indeed, this is confirmed by Rexx's threat to reblock evidenced in my section and the continued events diffed post-block. Saying blocking an editor for triggering a bot is within the bounds of admin discretion doesn't make sense. It doesn't even stop the bot run they initiated, never mind stop anyone else from initiating bot runs, and I'm not even sure it stops them from initiating more bot runs because triggering a bot happens offwiki. If a bot is malfunctioning, you block the bot... ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 12:23, 4 March 2021 (UTC)

A block can be within the bounds of administrator discretion and still be bad block. The consensus of that discussion was not only that the block of AManWithNoPlan was a bad block, but that RexxS didn't understand why it was a bad block. RexxS still doesn't appear to understand that, given these recent comments: [133] [134]. Regarding AManWithNoPlan's previous unrelated block, what does that have to do with anything? A bad block doesn't get better because someone (in the eyes of the admin) has a rap sheet. If I were RexxS I would dissociate myself from the claim immediately because it makes me look worse, not better. Mackensen (talk) 13:22, 4 March 2021 (UTC)

AManWithNoPlan was using Citation bot to force a fait accompli. Multiple editors expressed concern and AManWithNoPlan's responses were far from helpful. I was contemplating making a similar block myself and only didn't because I wouldn't have been available to deal with the fallout. RexxS's actions may not have been perfect but I see nothing in them that requires the attention of the Arbitration Committee. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 10:26, 7 March 2021 (UTC)

Analysis by Levivich

I filed the last noticeboard report about Citation Bot, Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Archive325#Citation bot again, and I don't think the "full" story has been set out: the problem was never a malfunctioning bot. AMNWP added code to the bot to cause it to remove the |url= from citations, which in most cases de-linked the title of the citation. This was done without any task approval by BAG or otherwise. There had been many complaints from many editors for months about it (specific links are in the noticeboard thread linked above), including (but not limited to) discussions at Citation Bot's UTP, a Village Pump RFC, a previous ANI, and a discussion at BOTN (all linked in that thread). None of these would get AMNWP to remove the code he added. I was openly floating radical and ridiculous solutions like me personally forking Citation Bot (I also considered making an Arbcom case request). It wasn't until Rexx made the block threat linked in the evidence section here that AMNWP removed the code he added and the RFC consensus was implemented. This was a good block threat by Rexx: he took action, and it solved a long-standing problem, and saved the community spending more time on it. While I have concerns about civility, I have no concerns about tool misuse, and while the tool use and threatened tool use in the Citation Bot saga might have pushed the bounds of admin discretion, it was necessary (and effective) in that particular circumstance. Levivich ^harass/_hound 16:12, 4 March 2021 (UTC)

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

At the time of that block threat the RfC wasn't even closed. Barkeep closed it a few hours later. I don't really see anything to indicate AMWNP wouldn't've adhered to that consensus anyway, but a bot operating outside of consensus is equivalent to a malfunctioning bot for the purposes of WP:BOTBLOCK (both can be blocked). Accordingly, it has to be noted that my section about the situation focuses on the block of AMWNP, not of Citation Bot a few hours later. The threat to reblock in September does, because that's a clear WP:INVOLVED action. Any admin taking admin actions in regards to bots should understand that blocking a bot account stops that bot's disruption on the encyclopaedia. If the operator refuses to make their bot align with consensus, it can be left blocked. With regards to Citation bot in particular, I happen to think its approvals are a mess (see here), but all of this is pretty much outside the scope of this case. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 16:36, 4 March 2021 (UTC)

Analysis of evidence by Joe Roe

Almost all of the incidents I listed above have three things in common: WP:INVOLVED tool use; subsequent failure to be accountable; and incivility. Although RexxS is generally reluctant to acknowledge criticism, they show that he has been made aware of the problems, repeatedly. In some discussions he has eventually conceded fault, but gone on to do the same thing again. With this in mind it's hard to take in good faith RexxS' statement here that he has never seriously been accused of misusing the admin tools.

My assessment is that RexxS is a highly committed content editor with a laudable commitment to high standards of sourcing, especially on medical articles. Unfortunately, this often manifests itself as a belief that those who don't meet this standard, or simply disagree on what is "well-sourced", are a threat to the encyclopaedia. He seems to have great difficulty separating his strong opinions about content and sourcing from his administrative work. He is also frequently hostile to others when discussing this and other topics, and does not take criticism well – conduct that has been reinforced by editors that the value of his work justifies the breaches in policy. This is a bad combination of traits in an admin and I don't think his temperament was ever suited for the job.

Regardless of how valued RexxS is in other areas of the project, ArbCom has a responsibility to enforce the admin conduct policy, namely:

• Occasional lapses [in tool use] are accepted but serious or repeated lapses, or lapses involving breaches of 'involved' administrator conduct may not always be.
• sustained or serious disruption of Wikipedia through behavior such as incivility or bad faith editing is incompatible with the expectations and responsibilities of administrators, and consistent or egregious poor judgment may result in the removal of administrator tools.
• Administrators who seriously or repeatedly act in a problematic manner, or who have lost the trust or confidence of the community, may be sanctioned or have their administrator rights removed by the Arbitration Committee.

– Joe (talk) 17:01, 4 March 2021 (UTC)

Johnuniq finds that my evidence is often not supported by the link, citing three examples:

• Looking at the discussions shows that others raised "conflict of interest" and they did that because COI is specified at WP:INVOLVED—there is no confusion by RexxS – the first part is factually wrong, RexxS was the first to bring up COI.[135] Whether RexxS conflated WP:INVOLVED and WP:COI or not is I suppose a matter of interpretation, but I think that's the obvious conclusion from what he said, and I'm not the only person to have said so.
• RexxS threatened to pull PR's rights, not block him – that was my mistake, corrected. I don't think it makes a material difference to the sequence of events though.
• Joe Roe and ProcrastinatingReader don't seem to understand the issue regarding COVID19 GS editnotice – he says this, but the following paragraph is entirely about PR and my evidence doesn't even mention the edit notice.

@Johnuniq: can you please substantiate or revise your claim that my evidence often does not match the diffs, given that you have only pointed out one error (now corrected) and one reasonable difference of interpretation (out of nearly 50 diffs)? – Joe (talk) 07:30, 7 March 2021 (UTC)

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Correct me if I'm wrong, but this is a place for evidence presentation/analysis, not remedy recommendations, correct? Again, I could be WAY off base here. Buffs (talk) 20:03, 4 March 2021 (UTC)

@Buffs: My analysis, based on the evidence, is that RexxS should lose the bit. – Joe (talk) 12:17, 5 March 2021 (UTC)

WP:INVOLVED has the well-known "straightforward cases" exception: In straightforward cases (e.g., blatant vandalism), the community has historically endorsed the obvious action of any administrator – even if involved – on the basis that any reasonable administrator would have probably come to the same conclusion. Although there are exceptions to the prohibition on involved editors taking administrative action, it is still the best practice, in cases where an administrator may be seen to be involved, to pass the matter to another administrator via the relevant noticeboards. It seems to me that Rexx's COVID and Ayurveda admin tool use fits into that exception. For example, of the 17 Ayurveda accounts blocked, 16 remain blocked, and the one that was unblocked was unblocked by Rexx. Where Rexx has submitted his own admin tool use for review, it seems that fits with the spirit, if not the letter, of "pass the matter to another administrator via the relevant noticeboards". COVID and Ayurveda are two of the most-contentious topics on the entire website, both medical-related, where hoaxing dangers are extremely serious, and that could be cause to use tools first (even if involved) and seek review later, rather than seeking review first. Unless I missed something in the timing of diffs in the evidence, in the instances where Rexx has received feedback that he was involved or too close to involved, he took that feedback on board and abided by it going forward. Levivich ^harass/_hound 17:08, 6 March 2021 (UTC)

in the instances where Rexx has received feedback that he was involved or too close to involved, he took that feedback on board and abided by it going forward not sure about this. Examples: The AManWithNoPlan case, he denied being INVOLVED saying it was an exaggeration of INVOLVED, and still retains that view as of this case. In threatening to pull my perms, at RFAR, doubled down on being an uninvolved admin for the purposes of pulling them. In Ayurveda, where he is involved, he still makes comments that blur the line (eg [136]). In several of these and other cases, where the involved status was very clear, yet an involved action was still taken and editors saying he was involved after it went to review (which, to his credit, he initiated some of the times) were brushed off as "misrepresenting WP:INVOLVED". ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 17:44, 6 March 2021 (UTC)

PR, I personally would find it very helpful to see specific pairs of diffs, in which the first diff is someone advising RexxS that he is involved, and the second diff is RexxS subsequently actually using an admin tool nonetheless. Here, I'm not asking about RexxS just saying something, but rather, actually issuing a block or some other sanction. --Tryptofish (talk) 17:54, 6 March 2021 (UTC)

That was sort of my thinking as well. I don't see: [community consensus of wp:involved] (not just some people expressing the opinion, but a formal close or at least clear consensus) followed by (not preceded by) [tool use] (not just threatened or implied, but actual). Levivich ^harass/_hound 18:09, 6 March 2021 (UTC)

But none of those 17 people vandalised anything. In my view the Ayurveda blocks are the worst incidence of tool misuse by RexxS. Apart from being obvious violations of WP:INVOLVED, they are a flagrant and disgraceful abuse of the block tool. It's logically incoherent to say that somebody is "not here" after a single edit to a discussion. Every single point of WP:NOTHERE describes long-term editing patterns. There is no world in which it is preventative to permanently exclude somebody from the project after they offer a single opinion. Clearly, RexxS' view that Ayurveda is pseudoscience aligns with mainstream sources and is the correct wording for the article. But it's also entirely reasonable that many people from a different cultural background—the one in which Ayurveda is practised—find this description surprising. When these people, in good faith, express their opinion in a "request for comment" on the "encyclopedia that anyone can edit", they should be met with an explanation of why we have to favour the scientific point of view. Instead, they find their invited comment removed and their ability to edit removed by an English administrator whose user page proudly proclaims his leadership role in WMF affiliates, and who is free to express his opinion that their beliefs are pseudoscience, not medicine, in-universe wishful thinking that promote[s] the practice of drinking urine . It's unnecessary, a blatant double standard, antithetical to our movement-wide goal to promote inclusion and diversity, and brings the project into disrepute. The remain blocked purely because none of them appealed and most admins are too scared of the spectre of "wheel-warring" to undo bad blocks unilaterally. – Joe (talk) 07:03, 7 March 2021 (UTC)

I understand where you're coming from about welcoming new editors, although I haven't seen us generally be welcoming to canvassed new accounts. (Compare the 2020 Kyiv RM, Part I, which was shut down due to similar canvassing concerns.) My memory of the AY and the Citation Bot fiasco is that Rexx stepped up when other admins didn't (not intended as a criticism of other admins, just saying that's how I remember it). I distinctly remember thinking in both instances, thank god someone finally did something! Levivich ^harass/_hound 07:25, 7 March 2021 (UTC)

Noting: [137], so it isn't confusing later, given various other editors referring to it before deletion. --Tryptofish (talk) 17:47, 6 March 2021 (UTC)

I was asked to remove it by an arbitrator. – Joe (talk) 17:54, 6 March 2021 (UTC)

Yes, but since you deleted it instead of striking it, I was concerned that not everyone would realize it. --Tryptofish (talk) 17:58, 6 March 2021 (UTC)

That would be me in an email I sent Joe yesterday and I appreciate his having done so. Barkeep49 (talk) 17:58, 6 March 2021 (UTC)

Analysis of evidence by Tryptofish

I will soon be posting evidence that can be considered as a defense of RexxS, but I want to use this analysis to endorse some of the evidence that has already been posted, that finds fault with RexxS. I hope that I can improve the signal-to-noise ratio in this case by trying to distinguish between evidence that is useful, and evidence that is less so.

• Citation Bot: ProcrastinatingReader provides evidence about the interactions with AManWithNoPlan, which was a complex situation that has two sides, but which includes some comments about RexxS's tone, such as: [138]. It seems to me that this was a legitimate concern about how RexxS communicated, particularly as regards the threatening aspect.
• COVID 19: Joe Roe cites diffs including this one: [139], indicating that RexxS equated WP:INVOLVED with WP:COI. It seems to me that Joe Roe is correct about this. (Subsequently, however, Joe Roe criticizes RexxS for later continuing to make content edits about COVID 19, and making comments about having uninvolved admins enforce sanctions. That seems to me what an involved admin should be doing.)

--Tryptofish (talk) 19:02, 4 March 2021 (UTC)

• Now seeing Isaacl's evidence of the... whatever that was... with BHG: Both of them come off pretty badly there, no doubt about it. --Tryptofish (talk) 00:19, 7 March 2021 (UTC)

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

@Joe Roe: In your evidence about Ayurveda, you refer to the 2020 ArbCom being involved in a Pseudoscience ARCA. I've been looking through archives, and I cannot find anything about that on-wiki circa 2020. Could you please provide a link to that? (Or is it actually something that only occurred via private email?) --Tryptofish (talk) 20:56, 4 March 2021 (UTC)

My apologies, I found it. --Tryptofish (talk) 21:06, 4 March 2021 (UTC)

I'm not exactly criticising RexxS for continuing to edit COVID 19. It's not uncommon or wrong for an admin to start of as uninvolved then subsequently become a party to a dispute. But you have to be mindful that it won't necessarily be obvious to other editors that you've taken your admin hat off. In RexxS case, he was involved from the start, never really acknowledged that he was, then smoothly transitioned into enforcing his own sanction with reverts and threats. For me that blurs the line a bit too much. – Joe (talk) 12:28, 5 March 2021 (UTC)

For what it's worth, I think some of RexxS's actions in Ayurveda (where he is involved) continue to blur the line also. For example: [140] ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 12:48, 5 March 2021 (UTC)

Analysis by Buffs

Longtime listener, 3rd time caller...

I find Levivich's analysis particularly compelling. The truly contentious issue is CitationBot, which is LOADED with controversy (see Levivich's analysis for the short version). While I too have mild concerns about RexxS's civility, this is a prime example where WP:IAR was notably appropriate. Buffs (talk) 19:28, 4 March 2021 (UTC)

I find the statement "RexxS stated he would block Citation Bot again if it edited 'in violation of' a then-unclosed RfC" particularly uncompelling as this doesn't appear to be an RfC, but a discussion. The statement in question appears to be referring to the discussion and his rationale, not that an unfinished discussion would be the rationale for a block.

Props to User:ProcrastinatingReader for fixing my copy/paste/edit error! Buffs (talk) 19:59, 4 March 2021 (UTC)

PR: Neither of the links provided links to a formal RfC (nothing generally publicized with the general headers). Buffs (talk) 17:47, 8 March 2021 (UTC)

@Clerks. Many of the Wikipedians involved here are well above their respective limits: "The standard limits for all submissions in this phase are: 1000 words and 100 diffs for users who are parties to this case; or about 500 words and 50 diffs for other users." Note that the sole party to this case has not yet responded.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Huh? This is an RfC (although it was not closed at time of comment). RexxS's comment is clearly referring to that discussion (his comment literally links to it). Also, not sure what you mean by "LOADED with controversy", it's a pretty straight forward incident imo. Levivich's comment only refers to the September events (the block threat of CB, which Levivich feels was fair), not the June events, afaict. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 10:24, 5 March 2021 (UTC)

Buffs, in response to your most recent question: it was at WP:VPR, and closed with the RfC template. It was also listed with Legobot via the {{rfc}} template (see this diff for example, to see that banner). Legobot delists RfCs 30 days after they start which is why there was no banner immediately prior to the closing, if that's what confused you. But it was certainly an RfC. Not that its RfC status matters much; my point is that RexxS vigorously participated in a discussion with his opinions, and then, especially before it was even closed with a consensus, threatened to block for violating its not-yet-formulated conclusions. This matches the same behaviour in Ayurveda, for example, where he blocked a bunch of "meatpuppets" arguing the contrary position in an active RfC he argued his opinions in. If a content dispute is valid enough to be subject to an RfC, it's also not "blatant vandalism" for the purposes of a WP:INVOLVED exemption (or the much higher WP:BLOCKNO standard). ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 19:06, 8 March 2021 (UTC)

Analysis of evidence by Lourdes

(with advanced apologies to ProcrastinatingReader, RexxS and other editors whose work I appreciate; and find it unfortunate that we are here...but here we are).

Analysis of evidence presented by ProcrastinatingReader

• Personal attacks: In regards to Valereee

March 2020: RexxS needs to hold himself up to a higher standard. Alluding to Valereee using terms such as "not everybody is inept as you" is unacceptable. But this has to be seen in the light of RexxS subsequently striking the statement (additionally accepting during on this case's main page that "I know I owe Valereee an apology for the "inept" comment:"), and continuing discussions to ensure the guidelines were not unilaterally altered by individuals (including Valerees and EEeng) whose changes were very inefficient, and who were perhaps without realising, ignoring the very smartly worded change RexxS was proposing.). This evidence is not strong enough to claim admin misconduct.

October 2020: Editors were claiming that readers would want to know more about fringe medical solutions, and therefore that Wikipedia articles should report these, even if MEDRS were unavailable to Wikipedia's standards (one such example of an editor's comment:"This antibody drug REGN-COV2 is in the middle of being studied for the RECOVERY Trial, has zero published results of any kind on PubMed, never mind a systematic review, and our readers will want to know about it."). This was being suggested repeatedly, and attempts were being made to input sham conclusions into Wikipedia. RexxS' strong arguments were absolutely justified to ward off such tendentious attempts to develop new verifiability policies through article talk page discussions. Valereee's discussions to instead ask RexxS to back off seem – for the lack of a better word – partisan. She is herself an administrator, and should have seen the full context of what was going on. Reading her comments, it seems she did realise what was going, but chose to repeatedly and deliberately (for reasons best known to her) harangue RexxS to ask him repeatedly, why he considered her partisan. This is baiting, really. This evidence shows how a gatekeeper who is standing true to ensuring that Wikipedia articles don't speak shit (and I beg pardon of all readers here), is instead, being told that this proves his battleground behaviour. Well, absolutely not. And thank god RexxS was/is there.

• Tool misuse, INVOLVED blocks, and ADMINACCT failures (AManWithNoPlan and Citation Bot)

June 2020: RexxS indefinitely blocked AManWithNoPlan (talk · contribs), and raised the issue at the ANI thread himself. I am honestly surprised that a significant number of our editors and administrators missed the fact that one normally blocks a bot first only if it is running automatically. AManWithNoPlan deliberately triggered the bot, knowing very well what the implication would be – and RexxS was absolutely in admin territory to block him to prevent further disruption. This is not to say that every editor triggering the bot should have been blocked. But an editor who is deliberately doing this, is liable to be blocked. There are umpteen 'Rich' cases across Wikipedia where similar actions have been taken by administrators. So I am surprised that so many editors simply came to the discussion and looped off this self-titled so-called "common practice" that only bots have to be blocked. That said, RexxS' action of bringing it to ANI makes him above board. This is how admins have to operate. I find nothing wrong out here.

On the other point that RexxS was wrong in suggesting some action on Headbomb (who had used the "fucking" word arbitrarily during the discussion) – what does this evidence purport to mean? That admins cannot propose any sanctions, out of fear that this will be considered below stellar admin behaviour?!!!? (What the Headbomb am I missing here?)

And the final point here where two editors mention that RexxS is involved because he commented on a related RfC, this is a very long shot. Analogously, no crat/admin who has commented on approving a bot should be allowed to act administratively on any matter related to the bot. That's why it's a long shot. There is no failure of admin involvability here. This is all quite normal for an admin who is into the storm.

September 2020: RexxS's statement is absolutely okay and doesn't show any "involved" issue (for reasons mentioned above).

February 2021: During this case, RexxS has repeatedly reaffirmed his belief that the block was correct. Well, even I think the block was correct. But the important point is, once a certain group of editors concluded the block was bad (a mistaken conclusion, in my assessment), it doesn't mean that RexxS doesn't understand policy. Policy is a matter of interpretation at any particular moment of time, considering the surrounding events. If we were to go by the OP's argument, then after every RfC, we should be dressing down all those who voted opposite to the closing consensus. Hell, we would be dressing down arbs who said "decline" then accepted this case, or those who said "decline" then did not accept this but still are commenting here, and so on. It's about how an admin interprets a situation. RexxS interpreted the situation in the same way as many administrators like me, or HJMichell or Ritchie may have interpreted. Doesn't mean that post-hoc we have to be taken to the cleaners.

• Aspersions (GS template situation)

With due respect to PReader, to enforce a view that editnotices cannot be used on articles under general sanctions unless a page-specific sanction is also in place – was wrong on PReader's part. RexxS has very clearly said that PR's attempt was (on the face of it) in good faith and possibly because of their lack of experience in this area. I hope that the committee understands that if I were to screw up a site wide template, I don't think any administrator would first ensure that my feelings aren't hurt when they point out the mess I have made. This is akin to that. When there is mistaken interpretation of consensus, and when changes are made without clear discussion, then administrators are expected to come out strong. And RexxS did that. Nothing wrong here.

• Threats to pull permissions in content dispute. Other threats of imposing/proposing sanctions in disputes with other editors

It is claimed that in all the below evidences, RexxS created a chilling effect, curbing other editors editing.

March 2020: RexxS is claimed to have threatened to propose sanctions on EEng (talk · contribs) and to have accused him of tendentious editing, despite EEng's proposals have wide support. I reviewed the evidence. Where is the wide support for Eeng's flawed proposal? To be clear, I believe Eeng is one of the smartest editors here with perhaps the most innovative sense of humour. Unfortunately, and irrespective of what I think, if Eeng is going to dig in and push a change that does not have consensus, then RexxS is totally in the right to suggest proposing some corrective measure.

October 2020: In a WikiProject discussion about medical sources, RexxS warned editors about COVID GS sanctions – isn't this what admins are supposed to do?

February 2021: Fylindfotberserk (talk · contribs) complicated the discussion by continuing to ignore RexxS repeated requests to initiate talk page discussions. Instead, at one point, Fylindfotberserk mentions "If you have seen the history (all the way to October), you'd have found quite a lot of IPs and users trying to do the same." But this wasn't a personal attack or a question on RexxS's admin capability. I believe RexxS has misread the editor, partly because the editor was simply reverting using edit summaries, and had not heeded RexxS' advise on opening talk page discussions. Nevertheless, mistakes happen. But this is not a mistake that can be considered a sparkling example of admin inconsistency. I guess it was a bad day for RexxS.

February 2021: RexxS threatens to consider removing PReaders's template-editor permissions. This is in admin territory. RexxS is not involved (if one considers the Sep/Oct 2020 exchange between PReader and RexxS, which seem purely administrative directions being given by RexxS in the normal course of ensuring no misinterpretation occurs).

PReader quotes WP:TPEREVOKE to claim this is out-of-policy. TPEREVOKE is a guideline, not policy. Further, as per the same guideline, "If the failure is particularly egregious, any administrator reserves the right to remove your template-editing access summarily and without warning, even for a first offense." Irrespective of whether I agree with RexxS' reasoning (of whether the failure is egregious), this is standard admin interpretation of the guideline. And PReader choosing to exhibit WP:TPEREVOKE exclusively to claim this out of policy, is clearly a mistaken argument. Nothing stands out as misconduct.

RexxS also did not finally go ahead with removing PReaders's permissions. In other words, there is no basis for claiming involved when RexxS has actually not taken any action. And if RexxS has told PReader that he will ask for further sanctions at AN/ANI (if PReader was going to take the discussion there, as he had suggested), that is being transparent and clear to other editors on the possible implications of their actions. To claim this had a chilling effect on PReader, is akin to claiming editors making mistakes have chilling effects when warned by administrators. Also, the evidence given that an arbitrator has expressed concerns – is a red herring. To be honest, if an arbitrator is going to make conclusions using words like "Flat out wrong", "deeply worrying", "justify an ADMINCOND arbitration case", while in the same breath mentioning, "I haven't yet looked at the other diffs in this case" – then the conclusion being drawn out by the arb should also be given as much importance.

Analysis of evidence presented by Joe Roe

• April 2019 – RexxS' RfA: Ad hominem argument. Every admin is held to the same high standard.
• March 2020 – personal attacks and threats to take involved actions against BrownHairedGirl: Where are the diffs? It's not appropriate to post a whole section and ask the reader to search out the so-claimed attacks and threats.
• March 2020 – personal attacks against valereee: Have already analysed this in the earlier section.
• May 2020 – involved sanctions related to COVID-19: and May 2020 onwards – lack of accountability for COVID-19 sanctions: RexxS himself initiated the review of the page-specific general sanction at AN and himself agreed to not act as an uninvolved admin. Once again, an above board action by RexxS when he was asked to not take any admin action (which, in fact, he never did; except the GS notice, which, if it were so egregious, could have been removed by any admin, and they did not; so that's clearly not the case). Common sense trumps everything here.
• June 2020 – involved block of AManWithNoPlan, in violation of WP:BOTBLOCK: Already have given my assessment above. The block is not involved. And there is no so-called violation of WP:BOTBLOCK. Joe should explain clearly why he thinks there is a violation. Simply pasting a policy link claiming a violation is throwing chaff in the wind. Per WP:BOTUSE, "The operation of unapproved bots, or use of approved bots in ways outside their approved conditions of operation, is prohibited and may in some cases lead to blocking of the user account and possible sanctions for the operator."
  • Threats to make further involved blocks of Headbomb: Again, where is the exact diff? Please don't paste links to big sections expecting the reader to nod in agreement.
• August–September 2020 – involved and out-of-policy blocks related to Ayurveda: The 17 accounts seem clearly like socks/meats. Arbcom must have investigated this and should confirm what they found here. Is Joe privy to private information as a former ArbCom member and asking questions based on this private information that is not public to other editors? Please clarify what was the finding of Arbcom in this case – without which, any analysis of this series of incidents lacks perspective.
• September 2020 – lack of accountability for Ayurveda blocks: Same as what I have written above.
• October 2020 – personal attacks against Colin and Jrfw51 in a dispute on COVID sourcing: Where are the diffs? "See above" does not "enough" my friend. Anyway, my analysis above. Edits not adhering to MEDRS cannot be allowed and editors mollycoddled just because they are in a group. There is no PA here – rather, resoluteness to stop sham inclusions (see my assessment in the previous section).
• February 2021 – threat to take involved actions while in a dispute with ProcrastinatingReader: Already assessed in the above section. Not involved. And no action taken actually.
• After this case was filed, opposed PR's unrelated application for an advanced right: What's wrong with this? So an editor/admin should not oppose an advanced right application, especially when it involves editors whom they have interacted with in the past? Lourdes 17:13, 8 March 2021 (UTC)

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Where is the wide support for Eeng's flawed proposal? – Well, maybe not so flawed. After some initial confusion on a technical point was cleared up (see WT:Talk_page_guidelines/Archive_14#Is_this_so_difficult?) everyone expressing an opinion – except RexxS himself, and (maybe) Nil Einne – agreed with my original proposal that the timestamp be made optional (with some diversity of opinion on how to express that) and indeed the guideline was modified accordingly. EEng 02:04, 7 March 2021 (UTC)

Noted with thanks Eeng. I am unsure why you say RexxS was not discussing. The timeline is important. The warning by RexxS to you was given much earlier, and the actual conclusion to the discussion came post that (correct me if I am wrong), and because of RexxS starting another additional connected thread. I would say that post that, you did work towards resolution. To be honest, a page where editors are freely throwing around words like WTF, fucking and accusing each other of harassment – it's a wonder that RexxS was continuing to drive the discussion towards some closure. But as I said upstairs, I am your fan and feel sorry that you got stuck in that cacophony. Lourdes 05:25, 7 March 2021 (UTC)

You words are much too kind: I am merely a humble editor doing his best to brighten the day of my fellow inmates here at the Wikipedia Asylum for the Hopelessly Something or Other. Some clarifications:

• I am unsure why you say RexxS was not discussing. – I didn't say RexxS wasn't discussing; I said that, of those expressing an opinion once the technical confusion (about UTC) was cleared up, he was one of only two such editors dissenting from the idea that timestamps should be optional.
• The timeline is important. The warning by RexxS to you was given much earlier. – Sure, but that doesn't matter. His warning reads, in pertinent part (spread over two posts):

  There are far too many other editors disagreeing with you, and you don't seem to be able to admit when you're wrong. Drop the stick before patience wears thin with your tendentious commentary here ... What's next for you is me filing a complaint at WP:AN, listing your long history of edit-warring and tendentious editing over these sort of guidelines, and requesting that you be topic banned from them. If you think your behaviour here is beyond criticism, you have another thing coming.

But as it turns out, I wasn't wrong, nor were there "far too many other editors disagreeing" with me – as already noted, once the technical confusion was cleared up just about everyone agreed with me. So RexxS was quite presumptuous in his certainty, and the fact that, as you observe, he made his threat relatively early in the discussion (when even background issues had yet to be shaken out) magnifies the presumption.

• it's a wonder that RexxS was continuing to drive the discussion towards some closure – He did no such thing. He just kept bludgeoning in his insistence that his six-step procedure was not complicated. xeno made a bold edit and it stood. End of story.

EEng 06:10, 7 March 2021 (UTC)

I can't find any basis for the statement that "one normally blocks a bot first only if it is running automatically". A quick glance at User:Citation bot makes it clear to me that any user can trigger the bot on any set of pages, and doesn't have any option to avoid the behavior that RexxS (IMO, correctly) identified as not approved. Any user, therefore, could have caused disruption by triggering Citation bot and hitting a page with the wrong citation markup (not casually obvious). It seems clear to me that the correct course would have been to block Citation bot, thereby precluding *all* disruption of this type, and (given the episode pointed out by Levivich) monitoring unblock requests to make sure the bot was not misrepresented as compliant. I find it hard to see how serially warning or blocking users who did trigger, or who might trigger, Citation bot, the course RexxS took, could be seen as preferable to blocking the bot, which could have been used to extract the same concessions to respect community consensus. Choess (talk) 07:01, 8 March 2021 (UTC)

Hi Choess, would you consider AMWNP a normal editor who used the Citation bot just by the by as any other editor would? Or would you consider AMWNP one who knows how to – for easier understanding – code the bot and let it run the way they want? Your answer would give me an understanding of how well you understand the situation. Thank you in advance. Lourdes 15:26, 8 March 2021 (UTC)

I again object to being called partisan with zero explanation of how, I deny that I was somehow baiting RexxS, and I, well, pretty deeply resent the implications of the accusation that I chose "repeatedly and deliberately (for reasons best known to her)" to harangue RexxS. Other that that I don't think the committee needs to be burdened with the rest of my response to so I'll take it to talk. —valereee (talk) 13:40, 8 March 2021 (UTC)

Hi Valereee, sorry for how this came out. You know I am never going to fight with you on this. Lourdes 15:26, 8 March 2021 (UTC)

Lourdes, I have tremendous respect for you, I like you, we've interacted productively, I hope to continue to interact productively in future, and I OMG so sincerely hate to be a jerk, but honestly if you're going to stand behind these accusations but not explain them, I have to make clear that I challenge their implications absolutely. I have no partisan stance, I absolutely was not baiting RexxS, and I have zero idea what reasons best known to myself even refers to. —valereee (talk) 17:18, 8 March 2021 (UTC)

Lourdes, your analysis of this appears to be WAY over the standard limit of 500 words... Buffs (talk) 18:05, 8 March 2021 (UTC)

Analysis of March 2020 discussion on discussion thread formatting by Isaacl

By convention, nested lists are used for discussions. As most people learn wikitext markup by reading the source for Wikipedia pages, the accepted conventions (as they appeared in March 2020) and the underlying reasons for them are not necessarily known even by long-time editors.

In the incidents noticeboard discussion, RexxS showed great concern that the accepted conventions are followed to enable accessibility for those using assistive technologies such as screen readers. (This is generally more crucial on talk pages than mainspace articles, most of which do not have nested lists, and not at the nesting levels seen on talk pages.) BrownHairedGirl was displeased by the initial removal of the comment (*), and by the subsequent changes that altered the visual appearance of the comment.

(*) RexxS's edit summary BHG please feel fre to repost your comments if you can do so without causing accessibility problems indicates the initial removal was intentional. Subsequently, RexxS simply removed the list markup from the comment instead of deleting it. (In earlier cases where BrownHairedGirl's comments failed to follow convention, RexxS had fixed the list markup, rather than delete it or delete the comment entirely.)

The incidents noticeboard discussion became heated as the two parties focused on different aspects. RexxS interpreted BrownHairedGirl's concerns narrowly by focusing on the absence of literal paragraph break markup within the comment, and thus stated no paragraph breaks were removed. BrownHairedGirl stated the comment was formatted similar to other ones, without engaging on the specific issues being raised. Both parties failed to exhibit an attempt to appreciate the other person's point of view, and look for a way to accommodate it. If one person had been receptive, the other may have been more willing to hear concerns, and vice versa. isaacl (talk) 23:54, 6 March 2021 (UTC)

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

I'm just finding out about this for the first time, and I'm deeply troubled by the edit-warring, regardless of what each editor's point of view was. I'd be interested to hear from anyone if there were any extenuating circumstances. --Tryptofish (talk) 00:28, 7 March 2021 (UTC)

Well, I can think of one extenuating circumstance in March 2020 that would explain why many editors went off the deep end a bit... already-short tempers were even shorter this past year. Levivich ^harass/_hound 00:37, 7 March 2021 (UTC)

Thanks, but still, I'm inches away from doing a complete 180 in my view of this case. --Tryptofish (talk) 00:39, 7 March 2021 (UTC)

I'm going to say this now, and then take another day to think about it and see other editors' comments before posting my evidence and workshop proposals. As far as I can see, this evidence is really the central issue of this case, and it's very damning. I think one could ignore everything in this case, from the opening request until just before isaacl posted his evidence, and not miss very much. The rest is just arguing over side matters, and aside from maybe showing some patterns of behavior, is largely a waste of time. (Talk about burying the lead!) I want ArbCom to get the right result here, but I also want them to get it for the right reasons. --Tryptofish (talk) 20:41, 7 March 2021 (UTC)

Note Joe Roe was the one to introduce the incidents noticeboard discussion into evidence. In order to analyze it in proper context, I provided technical background for the disputed comment. I disagree that only one incident of this sort should be considered central, particularly one occurring in March 2020. Understanding if there is any pattern of behaviour is vital. isaacl (talk) 22:28, 7 March 2021 (UTC)

I'm quite shocked to see two highly experienced and productive editors behaving like children in that thread and the dispute it concerns. Both should have been blocked at time, which would have been well within the bounds of administrator discretion and would not have required arbitration. Nonetheless, I'm not sure what there is to be gained from relitigating it a year (almost to the day) later. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 22:51, 7 March 2021 (UTC)

Once wbm1058 raised this discussion in analysis, I wanted to provide context regarding the dispute and further analysis of the incidents noticeboard discussion. I do know how hard it is to de-escalate a disagreement, particularly when intemperate words have been used (including some words set in big and bold typeface, which is just like yelling at the top of your lungs using a megaphone). My focus is on guidance for what would have been desired behaviour, for both parties. isaacl (talk) 23:10, 7 March 2021 (UTC)

I want to say to isaacl that I don't want you to feel bad about how I have responded to your evidence. I know that you presented it entirely in good faith, and whatever any one of us might think about it, it has been a very helpful contribution to the discussion. But, like HJ Mitchell, I am shocked by it. I, too, am concerned about dealing with it a full year after it happened. I'm weighing how to consider one really bad thing, a year old, along with recent stuff that is, comparatively speaking, more like suboptimal, but which can very possibly be regarded as an ongoing pattern. --Tryptofish (talk) 23:29, 7 March 2021 (UTC)

Bishonen, I sought to capture the technical effects of the edits in the evidence section, as I feel that many in the incidents noticeboard thread did not examine them. I discussed the reasons for the disagreements in the analysis section. isaacl (talk) 15:09, 8 March 2021 (UTC)

Analysis by ProcrastinatingReader

I don't really have the inclination to address all the issues with some of the evidence on the template issue, given the scope of this case, but I will analyse some parts to paint a sufficient picture which arbs can hopefully extrapolate from as necessary. If clerks aren't going to clerk those comments I feel mildly compelled to analyse their veracity.

An analysis of Johnuniq's evidence:

• On RexxS's confusion between COI & INVOLVED, this is indeed supported by Joe Roe's diffs, and even noted by a current sitting arbitrator. See, for example, this series of diffs: [141][142][143][144] That the evidence on this page shows several WP:INVOLVED violations further reinforces the suspicion that RexxS does not quite understand INVOLVED.
• I'm glad Johnuniq agrees that AN is the venue for GS clarifications (which it is), because RexxS views going to AN as "forum shopping".[145]
• Some of Johnuniq's reasoning seems to have logical gaps. As in, one statement does not logically lead to the next. For example: the purpose of DS/GS[] is to provide wide discretion for avoiding disruption in contentious topics => Template:COVID19 GS editnotice should[] be used [even if] a page restriction was [not] specified (such as 1RR). Q.E.D.?
• Incidentally, Johnuniq states there is a "modification" of the original general sanctions authorisation going on here. This is not the case. Indeed, the original discussion did not mention creating this system of editnotices (indeed, atypically just for COVID). The admin who opened the GS discussion agrees that this was not their intention in their proposal.[146][147]
• I didn't think the alignment to the {{Ds}} standard would be controversial or much more than routine housekeeping. As such, I decided to take up just one sentence of the TfD on this aspect, writing: Covid is a mix of -> {{Gs/editnotice}} and this. If one clicks on "this" they are met with a past TfD with a explanation several paragraphs long of this specific point. (but emphasis again on the fact that it was mentioned)
• I agree with Johnuniq that further discussion is now required at AN. In fact, I believed this from my very initial discussion with RexxS (which is why I calmly suggested referring the matter to AN from the beginning[148]). RexxS could've simply said "okay, let's do that" (or "hmm, let's go to DRV instead", or "let's start a new TfD?") and we probably wouldn't be here. We're unfortunately here because RexxS chose to instead respond to my request to go to AN with intimidation, threats of tool misuse, and aspersions alleging deceptive intentions. We're unfortunately here because RexxS has a pattern of behaving in exactly this manner with other editors, too.

wbm1058's analysis appears mostly correct on this issue. However, it has to be noted that the AN discussion was closed by a non-admin whose close, and its neutrality/supervote-i-ness, was questioned by multiple uninvolved editors,[149][150][151] and the close was endorsed by zero uninvolved editors. The issue with such representations is that, well, none of my actions are "bold editing" or (except tagging the template with a TfD notice) used my TPE permissions. If I could've done better (and with the benefit of hindsight I acknowledge this is possible) it's likely just that I should've been more clear in my initial proposal.

On Lourdes' analysis: the entire analysis is troubling and respectfully I hope Lourdes – as someone with access to admin tools – does not actually believe in some of their own points (which are concerning representations of policy). In addition to the comments by EEng above, there's several issues mentioned here by an editor + another admin, and that's still only scratching the surface.

On Bishonen's evidence: That's fair context to be considered by the arbs, but personally I don't think the edit warring can be excused with passion & [a topic] he feels most strongly about and has spent most time on. Everyone who edit wars is passionate about the content they want to include. I'm passionate about the mess of GS templates: if I edit-warred my preferred version I'm sure I'd (rightly) be blocked and look worse in this dispute. [it probably (unfortunately) has to be said, before someone imagines up some page history, this hypothetical didn't happen.]

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Template

before using the last analysis template, please make a copy for the next person

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Arbitrator Questions

Barkeep49 Questions

Note: this was suggested as something useful so I'm hoping arbs, parties, and other editors will excuse me for just trying this boldly

1. Is there evidence of him demonstrating ADMINCOND? There has been a fair amount of evidence, counter evidence, and analysis about some specific incidents where RexxS may or may not have fallen short of ADMINCOND. Obviously if we find that the alleged incidents aren't violations this isn't necessary. But if we do find some/all of these troubling, it would be useful, at least for me, to know the overall context of of this when deciding an appropriate remedy. I'm putting this as a question here but the answer to this, if there are any, would really belong in the appropriate editor's evidence section. Barkeep49 (talk) 17:46, 8 March 2021 (UTC)

Comment by parties:

Comment by others: