Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case

Edit links
Page semi-protected
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< Wikipedia:Arbitration‎ | Requests

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by GPinkerton (talk | contribs) at 01:43, 22 February 2021 (→‎Statement by GPinkerton: typo). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

"WP:ARC" redirects here. For a guide on talk page archiving, see H:ARC.

Shortcut

Requests for arbitration

Arbitration Committee proceedings
Request name Motions Initiated Votes
RexxS   20 February 2021 2/0/2
Attar-Aram syria, Shadow4Dark, عمرو بن كلثوم   21 February 2021 0/1/0
[edit]
Open cases
Case name Links Evidence due Prop. Dec. due
Venezuelan politics (t) (ev / t) (ws / t) (pd / t) 20 Apr 2024 04 May 2024
[edit]
Recently closed cases (Past cases)
Case name Closed
Conflict of interest management 13 Apr 2024
Mzajac 7 May 2024
Request name Motions  Case Posted
Amendment request: Conduct in deletion-related editing none (orig. case) 30 April 2024
Clarification request: Palestine-Israel articles 4 none (orig. case) 8 May 2024

No arbitrator motions are currently open.

RexxS

Initiated by ProcrastinatingReader (talk) at 14:06, 20 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Involved parties

Confirmation that all parties are aware of the request
Confirmation that other steps in dispute resolution have been tried

Statement by ProcrastinatingReader

RexxS had a successful RfA in April 2019 with 64% support, passing after a crat chat. The opposes were mainly concerned with incivility and temperament. I am concerned with RexxS's temperament, which is probably the main quality for admins to possess and is codified in policy @ WP:ADMINCOND. His approach to communication is way too aggressive and combative, and not in line with the expectations of an administrator in a collaborative environment.

WP:ADMINCOND: Administrators should lead by example and, like all editors, should behave in a respectful, civil manner in their interactions with others. Administrators should strive to model appropriate standards of courtesy and civility to other editors. [S]ustained or serious disruption of Wikipedia through behavior such as incivility or bad faith editing is incompatible with the expectations and responsibilities of administrators.

  • Personal attacks and unsubstantiated aspersions
  • Threatening to impose or propose sanctions against editors in good standing with whom RexxS disagrees
    • [4] (line 385)
    • [5] (which would be an involved action, in any case)
      • Context [6] (my request to move the conversation to AN for wider opinion) - threatening editors against going to seek wider opinion & consensus is quite egregious
      • [7][8]
    • [9] (see full section)
  • Frivolous accusations
    • [10] - WP:AN is, and always has been, the venue for GS clarifications.[11] Accusing an editor of "forum shopping" for asking their question at AN, rather than at an obscure talk page, is way off the mark.
    • [12] - Even ignoring the content issue, RexxS seems to be referring to a July revision of the module (Special:Permalink/970506158) which precedes my TPE perms anyway (granted in August). Even if I did have them at the time it's impossible to "abuse" TPE privileges in the continuous set of diffs after creation, especially in a then-not-protected template. I have also never made content edits on Template:COVID19 GS editnotice (history). His threats have no basis in WP:TPEREVOKE, which he should know.
  • Other incivility or unnecessary aggravations against editors speaking calmly

Above is probably not exhaustive. Though I am not personally aware of tool misuse (haven't looked), ADMINCOND still applies and I believe the above conduct is unbecoming. Pulling rank, attacking and baselessly threatening contributors should not be acceptable from any editor, much less from an admin. Given that admins are, in practice, immune to sanctions or censure from the community via its normal venues (AN/ANI), ArbCom is the only venue that can investigate and deal with problematic conduct from admin users. Hence I urge the Committee to take this case. There appear to have been substantial concerns about civility before the RfA, and I am not sure they have dissipated.

I'd like to end on a lighter note by saying that I think RexxS's technical work is solid, and I have personally sought his advice on technical issues on multiple occasions. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 14:06, 20 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

re Rexx/Johnuniq's statements; my explanation is at AN, since I don't think it relates to this case and my TPE rights can be discussed by the community. But, in short: see TfD #1, TfD #2 (note from nom: Covid is a mix of -> {{Gs/editnotice}} and this). The text RexxS is claiming supports his view is this unilateral addition, which was disputed by an arbitrator as far back as June and July. I tried to discuss the deprecation of the template in mid-2020 on the talk; RexxS opposed the change so I let it be (since I didn't believe the consensus was clear enough for me to do anything). I sent them to TfD separately a few months later to get consensus; the outcome was deprecate, and the consensus was accordingly implemented by the closer. As for Tom.Reding's statement: I wouldn't characterise the situation as such but yes, I'd say that was probably the only mistake I've made as TPE. It was a genuine mistake; I'd misread the month-long short discussion on talk and when Tom disputed my assessment and reverted, I immediately opened a TfD to get broad consensus. My action was discussed at the TfD where Tom raised it, and an uninvolved admin said it wasn't smart but not an irresponsible use.
Re this case: the above diffs are from throughout 2020 and 2021, all within the last 12 months, most the last 6. I believe it demonstrates a pattern of fundamental ADMINCOND concerns that cannot be resolved as long as RexxS remains an admin. Valereee's statement links that he has been approached about these before. Clerks: requesting extension for this comment, please. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 05:20, 21 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by RexxS

This is a vexatious filing. I am in dispute with ProcrastinatingReader over their behaviour.

ProcrastinatingReader created a template {{Gs/editnotice|covid}}, for use as an editnotice on articles subject to the community-imposed Wikipedia:General sanctions/Coronavirus disease 2019. It was intended to replace {{COVID19 GS editnotice}}, which would have been a step forward in rationalisation, but PR made a decision when coding the template that it should not be usable unless the article also has page-specific sanctions (such as 1RR or "consensus required", CR), and coded it to prevent its use alone. That is normal practice for the discretionary sanctions imposed by ArbCom, but not for general sanctions imposed by the community. The relevant text authorising (or implicitly requiring) editnotices on articles subject to COVID-19 sanctions (from Wikipedia:General sanctions/Coronavirus disease 2019 #Remedies is

Pages with discretionary sanctions in effect should be tagged with {{Gs/talk notice|covid}} and an editnotice with {{COVID19 GS editnotice}} should be created.

Note that creation of the editnotice is not restricted to pages with subject-specific sanctions.

Furthermore, the COVID-19 area had additional restrictions applied to it by a subsequent debate at AN resulting in the restrictions added at Wikipedia:General sanctions/Coronavirus disease 2019 #Application notes:

Sources for any content related to medical aspects of the disease are expected to adhere to the standards laid down at WP:MEDRS. Since this is a rapidly evolving area with instances already documented of poor or fraudulent research, preprints and other non-peer-reviewed sources should not be used.

Editors are reminded that the onus is on the editor seeking to include disputed content to achieve consensus for its inclusion. Any content or source removed in good faith and citing a credible policy-based rationale should not be reinstated without prior consensus on the article's talk page.

It is essential that on some problematic articles, an editnotice can be added to draw editors' attention to the full set of restrictions, even when no page-specific sanctions have been imposed, particularly because COVID-19 has topic-wide restrictions beyond the standard set of general sanctions. The old template, {{COVID19 GS editnotice}}, did that job without problems, but the replacement coded by PR simply gives an error message |topic= not specified. Available options:

Topic codeArea of conflictDecision linked to
{{Arbitration/Requests|topic=aa}}politics, ethnic relations, and conflicts involving Armenia, Azerbaijan, or bothWikipedia:General sanctions/Armenia and Azerbaijan
{{Arbitration/Requests|topic=crypto}}blockchain and cryptocurrenciesWikipedia:General sanctions/Blockchain and cryptocurrencies
{{Arbitration/Requests|topic=kurd}}Kurds and KurdistanWikipedia:General sanctions/Kurds and Kurdistan
{{Arbitration/Requests|topic=mj}}Michael JacksonWikipedia:General sanctions/Michael Jackson
{{Arbitration/Requests|topic=pw}}professional wrestlingWikipedia:General sanctions/Professional wrestling
{{Arbitration/Requests|topic=rusukr}}the Russo-Ukrainian WarWikipedia:General sanctions/Russo-Ukrainian War
{{Arbitration/Requests|topic=sasg}}South Asian social groupsWikipedia:General sanctions/South Asian social groups
{{Arbitration/Requests|topic=syria}}the Syrian Civil War and ISILWikipedia:General sanctions/Syrian Civil War and Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant
{{Arbitration/Requests|topic=uku}}measurement units in the United KingdomWikipedia:General sanctions/Units in the United Kingdom
{{Arbitration/Requests|topic=uyghur}}Uyghurs, Uyghur genocide, or topics that are related to Uyghurs or Uyghur genocideWikipedia:General sanctions/Uyghur genocide

when an admin tries to use it without also imposing a page-specific sanction. That constitutes a "breaking change" to the template's functionality.

Despite making ProcrastinatingReader fully aware of my concerns with altering the functionality, PR went ahead and took the decision to stop the new template being used in the same manner as the old one, and then started a deletion discussion without mentioning that the functionality had changed in the proposed replacement template.

ProcrastinatingReader is proud of their coding skills, and does good work, but they have implemented their own preference, unsupported by any broad community decision to alter the way a sanctions template was working, in an attempt to put together two different types of sanction templates that operated differently. They then deceptively omitted to mention the change in functionality (that they clearly were aware of) at the TfD, and mislead the community into thinking the new template would be a direct replacement for the old one.

ProcrastinatingReader has broken the trust that is put in WP:Template Editors. TEs are expected to edit cautiously and with regard to objections: "Avoid making unilateral decisions if there is reason to think people might object. You can always propose the change on a template's talk page, and make the change if there are no objections after a few days. ... Expect to be held accountable for all changes you make. Be receptive to any concerns or complaints that others raise. ... 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. That is the standard that PR should be adhering to, and I believe it is within the remit of any uninvolved administrator to remove that permission. --RexxS (talk) 18:40, 20 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Newyorkbrad: Anyone who knows me recognises that you can have any number of heated arguments with me, without me ever falling out with you over it. Nevertheless there are occasions when I know I've been too harsh and regretted it afterwards. I know I owe Valereee an apology for the "inept" comment: she was almost certainly exaggerating when she said it took her a dozen tries to enter a timestamp, and I should have been kinder. But I strongly deny that there is a pattern. The context is that since my RfA I've made over 9,000 edits to most areas of enwiki and a substantial number to probably a dozen other Wikimedia projects. I have performed admin actions at AE, in the COVID-19 and general medical area, vandal patrol, and elsewhere. Until a recent accusation by ProcrastinatingReader at AN (since withdrawn), I do not believe I have ever seriously been accused of misusing the admin tools. The nearest thing to a concern raised with me that I can recollect was when Bradv complained to me that I had blocked a bunch of meatpuppets, who had been recruited off-wiki by OPINDIA to disrupt the Ayurveda page.
My concern in this particular case is the behaviour of the filer, who has made no effort at prior dispute resolution, has misused sensitive permissions and has clearly filed this case in an attempt to deflect attention away from themselves and towards me on the premise that if you sling enough mud, some of it might stick. --RexxS (talk) 02:48, 21 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Littleolive oil

I am very uncomfortable when an arbitration is opened with the one-sided, only negative aspects of an RfA; such an opening colours the water. RfA's are notorious for their partisan positions and the lack of control vitriolic comments often misunderstood and untrue. After a quick look the one remark which might be considered uncivil was struck. Don't confuse firmness and assertiveness with incivility or an admin misbehaving and certainly without the much larger context of past editor interactions. This refers to other edits in the discussion. Littleolive oil (talk) 16:33, 20 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  • The AN diff from PR above [18] doesn't explicitly deal with behaviour but with a dispute over aspects of content. As well, as has been implied elsewhere: an AN discussion that is truncated by a run to arbitration is an end run that short circuits a process for discussion and resolution. Littleolive oil (talk) 16:58, 20 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • @Valereee: No RfA can be context because it has no oversight whatsoever in terms of behaviour and information. I've seen very good editors who leave Wikipedia, one for example, after an RfA in which votes were recruited from Wikipediocracy. Nothing was done to correct that unfairness. The one diff that shows a concern in the AN was struck. How is that not an implied apology for the comment during a dispute? I really dislike the term temperament when describing another editor. We don't get to decide what personalities are acceptable. How presumptuous of us to think we can make that kind of judgement. We don't have to like an editor or style but nowhere on Wikipedia is temperament a criteria for admin status. Valeree I don't know you, and am not judging you, I just disagree with your position. Littleolive oil (talk) 17:21, 20 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • @Valereee: I realized last night I was way over the allowed 500 words. Sorry for removing reponses to you. I'll summarize the statements I removed. I am concerned about the extrapolations and generalizations you've made based on my comments. You said Rexx didn't apologize. I suggested that in the heat of contentious discussion striking a comment is an implied apology. He has since stated an apology is owed you. Other comments: I said clearly the inept statement was an incivility. (You said I didn't respond to you.) I'd add, born out of frustration. You extrapolated from: "I do not believe that's how we should be encouraging editors to interact with one another. I'm very surprised you would think it was." I didn't say this. This is a generalization about a comment based on a specific instance. Generalization concern me when applied too any editor (not concerned about me here) especially during an arbitration.
  • Concern: That an uncivil comment colors the appearance of an entire discussion where assertiveness and firmness are being confused with that one diff-I understand that a diff can be insulting, but an arbitration deals with specific ongoing behaviour. Littleolive oil (talk) 17:04, 21 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by TonyBallioni

Given that admins are, in practice, immune to sanctions or censure from the community via its normal venues (AN/ANI), ArbCom is the only venue that can investigate and deal with problematic conduct from admin users.

The premise this case is based on is false. AN is the first step to reviewing administrator conduct or actions. It’s why admins invite users who have disagreements with them to raise the issues at AN. If there is an open AN thread, the community is engaging, and the conduct is not so egregious that the community is saying that it is wrong, I’m failing to see how a case is needed. ArbCom should not be used to circumvent community review of administrators compliance with WP:ADMIN at AN.

The policy on review of administrator conduct is clear at WP:ADMINABUSE—ArbCom will ordinarily only review admin conduct once other methods have failed. This case request (as quoted above) is explicitly asking ArbCom to become involved while dispute resolution is active and ongoing. While ArbCom can do this, it shouldn’t, as that’s not what the policy foresees or the community anticipates. TonyBallioni (talk) 16:20, 20 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  • @Valereee: I’d actually argue that AN is pretty effective in dealing with admin conduct issues as most of the time people cut out any objectionable behaviour after being dragged there, because it’s not a fun experience. If the point of a warning and discussion is to prevent things from escalating, the standard should be how many sanctions/desysops does it prevent from happening, not how many does it cause. The problem here is that it hasn’t been tried and the request is asking that it not be tried. Imo, that’s not the correct way to handle conduct concerns. TonyBallioni (talk) 17:15, 20 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Valereee, no, I know you’re not trying to be argumentative and I’m not condoning how RexxS talked to you. I just have really serious concerns that we’re not even trying to de-escalate before going into case requests now. Again, I think that AN tends to work well if people use it, but not using it is a self-fulfilling prophecy. The Arbitration Committee typically requires attempts at resolution, and there’s literally been none here.
    Also, Serial Number 54129, first, glad you’re back :) Second, that quote was in reference to a proposal to site ban someone instead of desysoping them in lieu of a community based procedure. AN can absolutely review, censure, and sanction admins. I just didnt think site banning in place of a case is a good idea... TonyBallioni (talk) 15:49, 21 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Alanscottwalker

I too am wondering about prior dispute resolution. A bit expanding on TonyBallioni, dispute resolution at AN need not be 'first step' (although, probably in most cases, it should be in the steps), there is talking with the admin, before that: to that end, I note that the OP's fourth diff shows a retraction, so that suggests that lower-level dispute resolution has at least some chance (it also gives a different light on the 3 diffs before). Alanscottwalker (talk) 16:38, 20 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Disagree with Robert McClenon that that prior case is apposite, and not because, contra Black Kite, the prior case in my view, was unfortunate, but needed. Before that prior case, multiple pre-Arbcom discussions had occurred, including restriction imposed at AN. Alanscottwalker (talk) 20:35, 20 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
If I recall correctly, I was much on record about how poor the Crat chat and action were with respect to that Rfa. But that is done and done, and does not replace lower level dispute resolution. As for the Arbcom case that Robert McClenon refers to, in my view anyone with knowledge of the extent of the record, prior to Arbcom, knew when that case was accepted, there was a very high probability that to faithfully follow ADMINCOND, that result was very highly likely to occur. The problem in that case, was fellow admins or the community did not get the admin to reverse before it reached Arbcom. That's why we have lower level dispute resolution, so issues have a chance to end there. -- Alanscottwalker (talk) 12:45, 21 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
If INVOLVED is an issue, you don't need an ARBCOM case to tell an admin they are involved, nor to settle the matter. You just need lower level dispute resolution, directly on the INVOLVED issue. Alanscottwalker (talk) 13:12, 21 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
SN54129 (Serial)'s first quote, below, of TB is miscast, TB rightly said the authority to desysop is in the committee. ElC's quote I take it occurred in relation to this committee's remedies, but if it is read broadly that the community can't make remedies against an admin (besides desysyop), it is false and against community practice (the fuller context of ElC's comment suggests even there, the community can warn an admin, which is a remedy). Alanscottwalker (talk) 14:28, 21 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
SN54129: No. Desysop is not the only remedy against admins. Discussions at AN do issue correction to admins, without desysopping them. For example, in the prior case, mentioned by Robert McClenon, a correction at AN was issued against the admin. -- Alanscottwalker (talk) 14:47, 21 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Robert McClenon

I started to read this Request for Arbitration skeptically, partly because, as User:Littleolive oil says, it starts with the RFA, and RFAs are hostile, and this RFA was one of the worst. However, on reading it, I see that it is well-researched, and that RexxS continues regularly to insult and attack other editors with whom he disagrees. If he were not an administrator, we would already be on the second or third AN or ANI block review for a pattern of insulting other editors.

I do not like User:RexxS, who is an abrasive editor whose technical skills are as good as he thinks and who therefore doesn't seem to recognize the need for people skills as an administrator. I have not liked RexxS since before his RFA, when he engaged in multiple personal attacks against AFC reviewers including User:LaMona and myself. I opposed his RFA. But when the bureaucrats decided to take a chance on RexxS, I was willing to put that in the past. There was a Request for Arbitration requesting to overturn the Crat Chat. I thought that was silly, and that the community had simply made a bad decision, and we all sometimes make bad decisions. I hoped that RexxS might acquire diplomacy as an administrator.

I do not see tool abuse. I do see a pattern of insulting other editors. ArbCom has desysopped administrators for repeatedly insulting other editors, without evidence of tool abuse. In particular, the Portals case ended in the loss of admin status by User:BrownHairedGirl for repeated allegations of lying. No one questioned the work that BHG was doing with the tools on categories and with scripts. It was only a matter of personal attacks. This Request for Arbitration appears to be mostly about personal attacks by an administrator. ArbCom should accept it. ArbCom has said that administrators should not get away with insults. Robert McClenon (talk) 16:46, 20 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comment on Statement by RexxS To paraphrase an old saying, occasionally it is better to keep one's fingers off the keyboard and be thought to be uncivil, than to put language on the Internet and dispel doubt. See also the First law of holes. (But I do sympathize with anyone who tries to deal with sockpuppets in Ayurveda.)Robert McClenon (talk) 04:03, 21 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comments on Portals I agree with Black Kite that the ArbCom botched the Portals case, but: first, BHG did attack NA1K repeatedly, second, if one has reason to think that someone else is making incorrect statements, it is possible to say so without using the "L" word, third, other admins have been desysopped for incivility; fourth, the community-wide discussion of portals fizzled out. I agree with AlanScottWalkter that the Portals case itself was necessary, but with Black Kite that it was poorly decided. Robert McClenon (talk) 04:03, 21 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Hammersoft

This seems distinctly premature to me. Yes, there has been a history of the need of ArbCom to step in for WP:ADMINCOND situations, but we are not at that stage here. A number of the diffs provided simply aren't the violations they are claimed to be. Example; the line 385 diff here; the language is more direct than I would personally use, but RexxS is not out of line at all for a suggested next step in actions. There are others. I also note that prior to this, the OP and RexxS appeared to have engaged in cordial discussions on RexxS' talk page without incident. I also found no evidence that the OP has approached RexxS on their talk page regarding their behavior and can't find any evidence to suggest the OP has approached them anywhere else about their behavior. I don't agree with some of the uncivil comments RexxS has made (the comment made to Valereee here made me cringe). However, bringing this to ArbCom at this point is extremely premature given the lack of any attempt to discuss the overarching issue of ADMINCOND with RexxS by anybody, much less the OP. The OP noted RexxS' RfA. They should be aware that RexxS is open to recall. If they are thus so concerned about RexxS' conduct, perhaps they should approach RexxS regarding their criteria for recall. --Hammersoft (talk) 16:54, 20 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Valereee

Littleoliveoil, to me that RfA provided context. There’s a history of concern over RexxS’s incivility. I supported RexxS in that RfA.

Frankly PR’s Diff1 shocked me when it happened. Up until that very moment I thought I’d been participating in a polite disagreement over policy. I really couldn’t believe what I was reading. And when I fairly gently complained, RexxS didn’t even respond, just deleted the complaint from his talk.

The next time I complained about something on RexxS’s talk, he accused me of being partisan. When I asked him to explain, he did not, even after I’d asked for a third time, each time with more civility than he showed me throughout. (After which he got COVID so I didn’t like to insist again.)

I see Tony’s point, but I do see an admin who is seriously uncivil when crossed, and to me that’s a major concern. It is undoubtedly difficult to effectively address admin bad behavior. I kind of think requiring AN to be absolutely exhausted first is what keeps problematic admins from bothering to change. They know the first five AN sections will result in “Admin X is reminded” and then warned and then really frowned at really, really hard. And that if the same person is opening some of them, that person will actually be in the greater danger. So we’ve then required multiple people to open those multiple sections, and of course anyone experienced enough to know how to open an effective section is also experienced enough to understand boomerang and the relative value of just avoiding/not arguing with the problematic admin. I just think this needs to be solved. Maybe Arbcom is what's needed here, because as far as I can tell AN seldom has actually been a productive way to handle admin misbehavior.

I find EI C's statement that all AN can do is warn, and the warned admin is free to do what they will with that warning, to be very pertinent to concerns about process. If all a trip to AN does is provide proof the admin has been warned before, how is it any more probative than the stack of diffs of other editors making valid complaints at various talk pages that was going to serve as evidence at AN? PR could have opened this at AN/I, and then someone could have said, "Yeah, those diffs look bad, but there's nothing we can really do about it here"; would that have been enough to make this in-process? Because if so it seems like just one more hoop to force people to jump through if they're going to have to end up here anyway. Like I said above, I am not hoping for a desysop. I just want someone to take RexxS by the scruff and give him a good firm shake to focus his attention, and from EI C's diff, a "warning" at AN doesn't really do that. And frankly the fact RexxS is calling this frivolous is pretty important w/re that, IMO. —valereee (talk) 16:40, 21 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Black Kite

My inclination would be to decline this as I don't think it yet rises to the level of an ArbCom case. Yes, there are some problematic diffs there, though I think some of them are not major red flags and the number is not great considering some go back a year or so. My bigger concern is what Robert McClenon said comparing this to the Portals case. Without going into detail, as I don't want to fall foul of ADMINCOND myself, I am somewhat leery of ending up with another case that has the potential to go as badly wrong as that one did. Black Kite (talk) 17:58, 20 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Bilorv

Consistent incivility by a long-term admin is precisely the type of case Wikipedia fails to deal with. I've seen this happening in other cases and when someone shows such obvious contempt to you but knows exactly where the line is for ANI to dismiss it, it is extremely damaging and makes you feel like you're being gaslighted by everyone. If Arbcom wants to avoid another case of WP:FRAM then they need not to turn a blind eye to reports like this that come their way. If you show too few diffs then you're casting aspersions; if you show too many then people literally reply "lol, you expect me to read that?"; if you take it to ANI first then the unblockable's colleagues or the people saying "give them one more chance" (after the user's twentieth chance) are the majority voice and get it closed with no action, which makes it less likely Arbcom will accept the case.

If I went to a random active admin and told them that a non-admin had acted towards me how RexxS acted towards Valereee then I would expect the user to be blocked for 31 hours or a week in at least three-quarters of cases. Several of the other diffs presented are also actionable. For RexxS to not be warned or blocked or de-sysoped for any of the consistent long-term incivility would set an incredibly dangerous precedent, both in the case of RexxS feeling unimpugnable and other editors feeling that they can push things as far as this with no consequences.

RexxS talking about the technical side and not addressing a single temperament comment (as of now) tells you everything you need to know about how they see temperament as irrelevant and will not change their style of communication unless made to. — Bilorv (talk) 18:46, 20 February 2021‎ (UTC)[reply]

Statement by L235

I firmly believe that RexxS's continued insistence that he is an uninvolved administrator for the purposes of pulling ProcrastinatingReader's template editor bit is deeply worrying (and flat-out wrong), and could itself justify an ADMINCOND arbitration case. I haven't yet looked at the other diffs in this case, but this case request is clearly not "vexatious", as RexxS claims. KevinL (aka L235 · t · c) 20:28, 20 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Johnuniq

The above #Statement by RexxS explains the situation with links. I'll put it more briefly. ProcrastinatingReader proposed merging 21 templates to use a new module which PR wrote (TfD). That's good, but there was no mention of the fact that {{COVID19 GS editnotice}} would be significantly changed. The subsequent discussion here shows the problem—RexxS talked about the fact that the template no longer worked, while ProcrastinatingReader argued that the new template's behavior was good due to various opinions. PR completely misses the point—it is highly disruptive to change the fundamental behavior of an important template due to a conviction that the old template is wrong. Bold editing has its place but there has to be significant discussion and clear consensus before changing a template relied on by admins trying to reduce disruption in the COVID-19 area. I found it very hard to get PR to say what the dispute was about and in diff PR said "I don't really know what you mean about functionality changing" which confirms they don't seem to grasp that fundamental changes need to be agreed in advance. Johnuniq (talk) 01:34, 21 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Yngvadottir

I am on record as having been appalled by the crat chat that led to the closure of RexxS's RfA as successful. I regretted my generosity or timidity in remaining neutral in the RfA, since opposers pointed to behavior that showed he had not reformed since I began avoiding him. I haven't heard much about him since, but it appears from ProcrastinatingReader's diffs that I was wrong, and he has not adequately reformed since becoming an admin. Some of those diffs are flat-out nasty, and the non-responsiveness to concerns that Valereee adds would be uncivil and contrary to WP:ADMINCOND even without the rudeness toward her that she was asking about. Our expectations of admins do indeed go beyond that they avoid breaking the wiki, or even that they avoid blocking the wrong people, and we expect them to be civil toward other editors not just because we expect that of all editors on the project, nor just because we expect them to set an example of "civilised discourse", but because if they do not show respect toward other editors, they are licensed bullies. A threat like this one to EEng has far more weight from an admin than a non-admin. I also think objections to the term "temperament" are self-defeating: that there is a culture on Wikipedia of making excuses for snideness, dismissiveness, and other tactics of combat-by-debate providing they avoid using either obviously insulting or "dirty" words is a problem, not a feature. ArbCom should accept this case. Yngvadottir (talk) 02:34, 21 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Tom.Reding

ProcrastinatingReader's conduct in template-protected space has been problematic before. Last month, they "trialed" a major change, without consensus, to a template transcluded on 2,000,000+ pages ({{WikiProject banner shell}}). The talk page discussion was 2 oppose to 1 support at the time of their edit. I & others expressed similar views on PR's irresponsible use of their TE permissions.

Later, at the TfD, PR said "I couldn’t extract your [ Redrose64's ] position". RR's position is very unambiguous. If PR really couldn't extract RR's position, PR was acting on 1, one, support vote, and 1 "non-RR" oppose. Instead, PR either WP:IDHT'd, or ignored most of RR's post, and went on to make the non-consensus change.

This echos Johnuniq's statement above; it is PR's repeated combination of WP:IDHT, willful and/or feigned ignorance, misjudgment, and their general ignoring of opinions contrary to their own that backdrops this case.   ~ Tom.Reding (talk ⋅dgaf)  04:33, 21 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Plea for compassion by Folly Mox

Please let us not. We don't need to see here a good editor triumph and a good editor fall. We still have the opportunity for deescalation. Both editors are talented, knowledgeable, skilled, beautiful humans who have contributed to our magnificent project.

We can all stand up

And stretch out our hands as far as they'll go

And draw in a deep breath...

two... three... four...

And out,

two... three... four...


This editor has suffered reversions

just like me

This editor has been on the losing side of consensus

just like me

This editor has experienced loneliness

just like me

This editor has been hurt

just like me


Please let us feel gratitude for the oxygen that nourishes our human bodies. Let us contextualize.

Both of these editors are positive contributors. Both deserve to be admins. And edit filter managers.

We can all contribute positively and still disagree.

Also please let us remember the context of Bishzilla on April Fools Day before quoting numbers?

Decline without prejudice. <3 Folly Mox (talk) 06:43, 21 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Deepfriedokra

  • If the Arb's have time, they should accept. AN is simply not capable of handling a complaint of this magnitude, and too often AN threads become three-ring circuses on routine matters. The subtext of comments even here support this position-- the emotional loading is palpable. No opinion on what the Arb's should do. (I will note my opinion that PR could be a little less bold in their template work, but that is not the fundamental issue under discussion.) I like RexxS, despite their sometimes coming across as grumpy/impatient/stressed, and hope we can work this out . --Deepfriedokra (talk) 09:17, 21 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Alfie

Without commenting on RexxS' conduct:

General consensus at AN/ANI is that there's very little that can be done there even if it is agreed that an administrator's behaviour is inappropriate: see here, among other ANI cases.

I think that ProcReader has done a decent thing by putting this in front of arbcom, and I would urge the committe to accept - not necessarily because I believe that RexxS should be sanctioned, but because I believe that our current crop of Arbs are a smart, sensible bunch of humans who will be able to resolve this promptly and succinctly in a way that (I hope) is satisfying to all parties involved instead of burning a bunch of community goodwill at AN/ANI and potentially losing one or both contributors to the project.

More generally, I think that the arbs should generally lean to accept WP:ADMINCOND cases that haven't yet been past a noticeboard - The prior steps of dispute resolution involved in cases where one user is an Administrator seems to be absolutely exhausting - I think that if our goal is retaining two decent contributors to the encyclopaedia, an ArbCom case is the most likely venue to acheive that.

-- a they/them | argue | contribs 09:36, 21 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

SN54129

I was not going to comment—as usual—but there's a couple of points where the emphasis could be recast—as usual. In the interests of disclosure, I vigorously supported RexxX's RfA and at the 'crat chat; conversely I opposed Valereee's RfA.

Only in Death has closed the AN, and noted that Arbcom will not decide on the issue of the templates. They act on conduct. Just so. As such, it should be noted that Rexx's statement above does nothing to address behavioral concerns, but deals only with the issue of templates. Arbcom may consider this an (unintended) obfuscation.

Others have emphasized that because the issue was still at AN, Arbcom could/should not address it. This flies in the face of accepted practice. TB says above that he is satisfied with the noticeboard as a vehicle for sanctioning admins; in 2018 he argued that the community does not have the authority to [sanction]...If people want him [sanction], they should go through the normal procedure; Black Kite then confirmed this in his close. El C stated only a few weeks ago 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.

So there you have it. The ANI thread has been demonstrated to have focussed on the non-behavioral. Arbcom has been confirmed to be the only venue for censuring (per El C) an admin. The committee has little choice other than to accept, unless it wishes to further encourage the Catch-22 of admin accountability: "ANI doesn't deal with admin behavior. Take it to arbcom"--->"Arbcom can't hear the case before ANI, send it back". ——Serial 14:06, 21 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

(Incidentally I do not think that desysop is a likely or profitable outcome, so have redacted those references. Everyone's blood pressure is high enough as it is.)

(@ASW: clearly the ability to make sanction without the ultimate sanction is no ability whatsoever, and clearly El C's approach is current practice, rightly or wrongly. There is disingenuity in seeing in ANI the ability to perform on paper that it cannot perform in the actualité.)
(Obviously, in a case request regarding civility, committee members will understand that I do not intend engaging in word tennis, having said my substantive piece. I will note, however, that a previous case that resulted in a "correction" being issued is an exception that proves the rule: what it did was literally all it could do. Further, perhaps, if an admin with a similar approach as El_C (apologies of course for using them as a case study) had decided to close the discussion, who's to say that that would have been the result? Very difficult, that, in the absence of any codification.)
*Incidentally, I am sure that Folly Mox is an editor of repute, but the submission ranges from the inchoate to the incoherent. ——Serial 14:44, 21 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, TB, I'm sure that was totally different request for sanctions. Still hasn't happened here though. And can someone point out to LOO that rbitration deals with specific ongoing behaviour is categorically not the case? (Ironically they're probably thinking of AN/I; but arbitration commonly relies on previous history, often requiring only a small spark to light a larger flame, so to speak.) Still, no more tennis, please. ——Serial 17:29, 21 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Montanabw

  • Decline, decline, decline. It is so ridiculous that people who get called out for their failure to collaborate and refusal to fix their errors or listen to sound advice are the first ones to go scream “incivility.” Any editor who has been here as long as RexxS will occasionally be a little short and sharp when faced with the same WP:CHEESE arguments over and over again. It’s not a “pattern of incivility,” it’s a pattern of pointing out problems and insisting that they be corrected. If a few feelings are bruised, they are the ones who need to step away from the keyboard.

RexxS is only short and sharp with those who need the short, sharp, shock to shape up their approach to a situation. Here’s the analogy that comes to my mind. No one “likes” it when Dad tells you to behave, but once you grow up and look back, you know Dad was right and was just trying to lead you in a direction that was good for you. And yeah, occasionally Dad got a little grumpy. So sometimes people go crying to mom (aka ArbCom), but mom didn’t fall the turnip truck yesterday, and most of the time, she is going to focus on the behavior of the complaining party as well. (She might privately remind dad that he sometimes gets a little too grumpy, but not in front of the kids). RexxS has a lot of Dad energy. We need a few more adults on Wikipedia.

I remember RexxS’s RfA, which I supported. Anyone who has been on WP for a decade or more (as is true of RexxS) will have “enemies,” people they have irritated over the years. Somehow, every one of these people gets wind of an RfA and chooses to go there to pile on and get in their licks. That happened with his RfA. When you know the situation and the parties involved, you have a more accurate picture than a simple raw !vote count. That’s why there was a ‘crat chat, and why they passed RexxS to admin. He’s ably wielded the mop now for some time, and to paraphrase Jimbo, it doesn’t surprise me that he’s occasionally been a little sharp; what impresses me is how patient he is with very difficult people and for how long. Montanabw(talk) 19:24, 21 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Lepricavark: I hope to god that admins apply adult energy to their work. Otherwise we have Lord of the Flies. I think “dad” is a much better analogy than “babysitter” or “cop.” (Which perhaps are terms reflecting the opposing ends of the spectrum). That said, I acknowledge that people who have difficult relationships with their own parents may prefer a different analogy. So feel free to propose a different word for “person with wisdom and experience who helps the encyclopedia by use of a specialized set of tools.” Montanabw(talk) 23:18, 21 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Volunteer Marek

What Montanabw says 100% ^^^^^^^^^^^^ Volunteer Marek 20:59, 21 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Ched

I think an attempt to relitigate (for lack of a better term) a years old RfA crat chat through Arbcom is a poor defense for bad choices mistakes in template coding. Perhaps it's not even a "defense", but simply a matter of revenge. Either way, I'm hopeful that the current group of Arbs will see this for what it is. The only link provided for any attempt to resolve the issues with RexxS is to 1 (one) AN discussion. A link by the way which indicates that PR didn't like the outcome so reopened the thread after archive here, then continued to (for lack of a less pejorative term) 'debate' the issue after the thread was closed.here. It looks to me as if the problem was explained to PR that his efforts essentially broke the template/page/edit notice at both Template talk:COVID19 GS editnotice and Wikipedia talk:General sanctions/Coronavirus disease 2019. I know nobody likes to hear the term "Forum Shopping" bandied about, but it looks to my eyes as if getting a preferred version instituted is what the rub is all about. If a problem has been explained multiple times, I'm not sure how RexxS covering an explanation in sugar and sprinkling it with rainbows is going to help. I do appreciate PR's coding efforts, but nobody is perfect. I know you folks will do as you wish; all I ask is that if you look at one person, then also look at the other. — Ched (talk) 21:20, 21 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Lepricavark

I'm disturbed by Montanabw's analogy. Admins are not parents. Admins should not adopt a paternalistic tone when speaking to rank-and-file editors. Admins are not inherently better than non-admins, and thus they have no right to talk down to non-admins. I am not prepared to say whether this case should or should not be accepted, but I urge the arbs not to make that decision based on the patronizing notion that it's okay for an admin to use his "Dad energy" to put us in our place. LEPRICAVARK (talk) 21:51, 21 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Thryduulf

I think it's clear that the specific dispute between RexxS and ProcrastinatingReader (PR) is at best premature and, on it's own, does not require ArbCom's involvement. That is not what ArbCom is being asked to investigate though, it is being asked to investigate a long-standing pattern of behaviour of which the dispute involving PR is simply the latest (and not most egregious) example. Many, perhaps most, of the comments from uninvolved editors are completely missing this distinction. AN/I as a venue is appallingly bad at dealing with cases of (alleged) long-term incivility by administrators with lots of vocal friends, as RexxS does (having friends is not a bad thing, but a chorus of unwavering support at every turn (and dismissal or denigration of anyone who dares question that) makes it very difficult for anyone to dispassionately examine the facts of a given situation). I think it would be a good thing therefore for the committee to accept this case and undertake that dispassionate look at the evidence. I expect the outcome will be somewhere in the range of "there is no problem here, but everyone please remember that civility is important" to "RexxS is cautioned to maintain civility, especially when acting as an administrator" but nobody is well served by ignoring allegations of bad behaviour by admins.

If arbcom do accept this case it is extremely important that they are very clear, from the start, about the precise scope of the case and (themselves or via the clerks) are very responsive to questions about it that arise during the evidence and/or workshop phases and keep discussion focused on what is relevant (by liberal closing and hatting if necessary). Thryduulf (talk) 00:26, 22 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by {Non-party}

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

RexxS: Clerk notes

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

RexxS: Arbitrators' opinion on hearing this matter <2/0/2>

Vote key: (Accept/decline/recuse)

  • Recuse. Primefac (talk) 14:35, 20 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Recuse. KevinL (aka L235 · t · c) 20:20, 20 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • I am leaning toward declining as premature, but I would appreciate if RexxS would respond to the allegations of a pattern of incivility. (If you need a reasonable number of extra words to do that, please let us know.) Thanks, Newyorkbrad (talk) 01:18, 21 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Accept I think there is a suitable question here that we can investigate. If we find that RexxS has behaved to the standards of adminship, we can always close the case without action. Arb cases are not forgone conclusions. On the merits: this has come to ARC because of a dispute with ProcReader. It seems to me that this has been blown way out of proportion, and I do not want Proc v. Rexx to dominate the case (there seem to be other, more pertinent editor interactions, such as with valeree). However, I am concerned about how RexxS has interacted with Proc. They are hardly uninvolved, yet threatened to pull Proc's permissions; though I note they have yet to actually take admin action. There appears to be no tool abuse here. But ArbCom has routinely acted as the enforcer of WP:ADMINCOND, and I think we should continue to hold admins to high standards. Well behaved admins are a key part of editor retention.
There has been much discussion of whether this is premature. While we are usually a last resort, we don't always have to be. One of the key things that we can take action on without much prior community resolution is admin abuse. AN is not particularly well suited to dealing with admin misconduct. It can easily fix admin mistakes, like bad blocks. But it does not deal well with chronic, sub-par behavior (it tends to over/under react by a good margin). On that note: a key thing that makes me think this case should be opened is the comments to EEng and especially to Valeree. Wikipedia should be a collegial environment at all times. While RexxS did strike their "inept" remark, I find it quite concerning that they even thought to make it in the first place. Everyone makes mistakes, and Rexx acknowledged it. But this appears part of a broader pattern. I think we should look into this further, even if the outcome is to merely remind RexxS (and all admins) of the standards Wikipedia expects. CaptainEek Edits Ho Cap'n!⚓ 06:47, 21 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Saying that ANI/AN will not lead to any consequences and thus should not be tried before bringing something here is something of a self-fulfilling prophecy. Of course AN/ANI cannot resolve anything if it's not attempted. The only discussion linked to is one that is still open and while it sees the requesting user in a discussion with RexxS it does not contain any attempts to talk about RexxS' behavior in a broader community forum. Yes, ArbCom is the only body that can remove the sysop flag but that does imho not mean that cases should be filed before any attempt to resolve the issues are made elsewhere. At this point, I'm leaning towards decline as premature, although CaptainEek makes some good points, so I'm waiting for more community comments before making a final decision. Regards SoWhy 09:06, 21 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Accept inciviility is one thing, a suggestion of sanctions in an argument takes it into potential misuse of position territory. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 19:54, 21 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Attar-Aram syria, Shadow4Dark, عمرو بن كلثوم

Initiated by GPinkerton (talk) at 23:11, 21 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Involved parties

Confirmation that all parties are aware of the request
Confirmation that other steps in dispute resolution have been tried

[22]

Statement by GPinkerton

Further to a recent request, the named parties have been passed over for sanction by ArbCom for procedural reasons only. Their behaviour and malpractice should not be ignored. Since arbitrary word limits were adhered to, the committee did not consider the evidence submitted. This must be remedied and the tendentious editors stopped in order to cease their personal attacks and other unacceptable actions and policy violations. GPinkerton (talk) 23:11, 21 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

SQL the open case failed to take account of the evidence because there was too much of it. So another case is needed or else the evidence will go unexamined and the project endangered thereby. GPinkerton (talk) 23:19, 21 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Beyond My Ken: I don't think your comment is at all accurate. GPinkerton (talk) 00:58, 22 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Beyond My Ken: You made a claim that is not accurate. You claimed This is yet another example of GPinkerton's behavior as described. This is false. In order for it to be accurate, my filing of this case would have to be like to one of the opinions of CaptainEek you quoted. This is not the case, so your claim is inaccurate. It is not disruptive to file an ArbCom request and neither is it trying to bend the rules, test us, or just flat out break the rules and expect to be treated differently. I have concerns about the edits made by the accounts listed as parties to the case, and I think they should be examined by ArbCom. GPinkerton (talk) 01:26, 22 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Beyond My Ken: It is furthermore inaccurate to claim: they refused to do so, even though they were given every opportunity and insure [sic] that the Arbitrators saw sufficient information to issue appropriate sanctions, since even with the limited evidence available, ArbCom has so far failed to issue appropriate sanctions. The limit on evidence would never have been enough to supply sufficient evidence against all the relevant parties, and even now arbiters have stated that there was not enough evidence to do more than topic-ban the tendentious editors. In consequence, the committee needs to examine further evidence. GPinkerton (talk) 01:31, 22 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Beyond My Ken: please explain how a supplementary filing to my own case can possibly be accurately described as "retaliatory"? Against whom can I be retaliating? GPinkerton (talk) 01:42, 22 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Power~enwiki: I repeatedly asked arbiters whether this would be appropriate, and no-one told me no until after I did it. How would you suggest dealing with the evidence of disruption? GPinkerton (talk) 01:40, 22 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by عمرو بن كلثوم

Statement by Shadow4dark

GPinkerton is topic banned and blocked. Shadow4dark (talk) 00:41, 22 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Attar-Aram syria

Statement by Beyond My Ken

I'd simply like to quote from CaptainEek's statement in their vote on "Proposed Remedy #2: GPinkerton banned" in the currently open case:

GP's conduct during this case has pushed me over the edge. If GP could not behave, would not behave, with the highest level of scrutiny we have on Wiki, how can we know that GP will behave when not being watched like a hawk? I understand Arb cases are difficult things, and I don't expect perfect conduct. But I expect that editors will make a good effort to play within the rules. I did not see any such effort from GP. At every turn they were trying to bend the rules, test us, or just flat out break the rules and expect to be treated differently. Combined with evidence of disruption in other areas, I'm afraid that a topic ban alone is not sufficient.

This is yet another example of GPinkerton's behavior as described. Beyond My Ken (talk) 00:55, 22 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

GPinkerton: How can my comment possibly be "not at all accurate", considering that the majority of it consists of text I copied and pasted from the Kurds and Kurdistan case, and the rest is my opinion, which I can assure you is accurate: I do indeed think that this case request is another example of the type of behavior that CaptainEek described. Beyond My Ken (talk) 01:15, 22 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I urge the committee not to accept this case request, which would set up a terrible precedent for retaliatory case requests filed just before the proposed decision of an open case is finalized. GPinkerton has already had a bite at the apple and refused to tailor the evidence they presented to the requirements of Arbitration, therefore a good portion of their evidence was deleted. GPinkerton could have re-worked their evidence to include only the most salient points, and thereby insure that the Arbitrators saw sufficient information to issue appropriate sanctions, but they refused to do so, even though they were given every opportunity. They should not be given another bite at the apple, especially considering that they are about to be site banned. Beyond My Ken (talk) 01:24, 22 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
GPinkerton: You filing of this case request is indeed disruptive. I have been here for 15 1/2 years, and have been watching arbitration for probably 12 or 13 of those years, at least, and I do not ever recall anyone filing a blatantly retaliatory case request against other editors while the original case involving those editors was still in the proposed decision state. You, of course, will not see it this way, but I believe to the rest of the Wikipedia community, it's just another instance of your trying to "bend the rules, test us, or just flat out break the rules and expect to be treated differently." You appear to be here to WP:RIGHTGREATWRONGS, and like must editors here for that purpose, you obviously care little about how you get the results you require, just as long as you get them. That's disruptive at its core, because you don't care what damage you do to other editors or to the community, as long as you get your required results.
Now, you are about to be site banned, and if you have any desire to return to editing in the future, you had best think about what kind of reputation you are leaving with. I think that if you leave with this case request as your parting gesture, it's highly unlikely that GPinkerton will ever edit here again. You may have a bit of a chance if you withdraw this case request and apologize to the Committee and the Community for what perhaps seemed like a good idea at the time. Beyond My Ken (talk) 01:38, 22 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by power~enwiki

Filing a second ARBCOM case request on the same topic as an ongoing case is disruptive. GPinkerton's inability to understand this is part of the reason why that case is likely to site-ban him. power~enwiki (π, ν) 01:35, 22 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by {Non-party}

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

Attar-Aram syria, Shadow4Dark, عمرو بن كلثوم: Clerk notes

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

Attar-Aram syria, Shadow4Dark, عمرو بن كلثوم: Arbitrators' opinion on hearing this matter <0/1/0>

Vote key: (Accept/decline/recuse)

  • Decline without prejudice - the current case will be enacting Discretionary Sanctions for the topic area, so if these editors are as problematic as claimed they will be tbanned in short order by the admin corps. Primefac (talk) 23:25, 21 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case&oldid=1008195329"