Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/RHaworth/Proposed decision

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

Case clerk: TBD Drafting arbitrator: TBD

After considering /Evidence and discussing proposals with other arbitrators, parties, and editors at /Workshop, arbitrators may make proposals which are ready for voting. Arbitrators will vote for or against each provision, or they may abstain. Only items which are supported by an absolute majority of the active, non-recused arbitrators will pass into the final decision. Conditional votes and abstentions will be denoted as such by the arbitrator, before or after their time-stamped signature. For example, an arbitrator can state that their support vote for one provision only applies if another provision fails to pass (these are denoted as "first" and "second choice" votes). Only arbitrators and clerks may edit this page, but non-arbitrators may comment on the talk page.

For this case there are active arbitrators. support or oppose votes are a majority.

Majority reference

Abstentions	Support votes needed for majority

If observing editors notice any discrepancies between the arbitrators' tallies and the final decision or the #Implementation notes, you should post to the clerk talk page. Similarly, arbitrators may request clerk assistance via the same method, or via the clerks' mailing list.

Proposed motions

Arbitrators may place proposed motions affecting the case in this section for voting. Typical motions might be to close or dismiss a case without a full decision (a reason should normally be given). Suggestions by the parties or other non-arbitrators for motions or other requests should be placed on the /Workshop page for consideration and discussion.

Motions require an absolute majority of all active, unrecused arbitrators (same as the final decision). See Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee/Procedures#Motions to dismiss.

Template

1) {text of proposed motion}

Support:

Oppose:

Abstain:

Comments:

Proposed temporary injunctions

A temporary injunction is a directive from the Arbitration Committee that parties to the case, or other editors notified of the injunction, do or refrain from doing something while the case is pending. It can also be used to impose temporary sanctions (such as discretionary sanctions) or restrictions on an article or topic. Suggestions by the parties or other non-arbitrators for motions or other requests should be placed on the /Workshop page for consideration and discussion.

Four net "support" votes needed to pass (each "oppose" vote subtracts a "support")
24 hours from the first vote is normally the fastest an injunction will be imposed, unless there are at least four votes to implement immediately. See Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee/Procedures#Passing of temporary injunctions.

Template

1) {text of proposed orders}

Support:

Oppose:

Abstain:

Comments:

Proposed final decision

Proposed principles

Administrator conduct

1) Administrators are trusted members of the community, who are expected to follow Wikipedia policies and are held to a high standard of conduct. They are expected to perform administrative tasks to the best of their abilities. Occasional mistakes are entirely compatible with this; administrators are not expected to be perfect. However, repeated or egregiously poor judgment may result in the removal of administrator status.

Support:

1. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs ^talk 16:01, 28 January 2020 (UTC)
2. –xeno^talk 17:04, 28 January 2020 (UTC)
3. Worm^TT(talk) 17:05, 28 January 2020 (UTC)
4. Maxim_(talk) 17:15, 28 January 2020 (UTC)
5. Newyorkbrad (talk) 17:43, 28 January 2020 (UTC)
6. Mkdw ^talk 18:13, 28 January 2020 (UTC)
7. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 18:52, 28 January 2020 (UTC)
8. Katie^talk 03:49, 29 January 2020 (UTC)
9. – bradv🍁 14:55, 29 January 2020 (UTC)
10. – Joe (talk) 15:30, 29 January 2020 (UTC)
11. DGG ( talk ) 21:16, 29 January 2020 (UTC)
12. GorillaWarfare (talk) 04:28, 30 January 2020 (UTC)
13. AGK ■ 09:02, 30 January 2020 (UTC)
14. Beeblebrox (talk) 13:34, 30 January 2020 (UTC)

Oppose:

Abstain:

Comments:

Leading by example

2) Administrators are expected to lead by example and to behave in a respectful, civil manner in their interactions with others. While such an ideal applies to interactions with all editors, it is particularly relevant to interactions with newer and inexperienced users, as in those cases administrators provide a public face to both the broader administrative corps and to Wikipedia as a whole.

Support:

1. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs ^talk 16:01, 28 January 2020 (UTC)
2. –xeno^talk 17:04, 28 January 2020 (UTC)
3. Worm^TT(talk) 17:05, 28 January 2020 (UTC)
4. Maxim_(talk) 17:15, 28 January 2020 (UTC)
5. Newyorkbrad (talk) 17:43, 28 January 2020 (UTC)
6. Mkdw ^talk 18:13, 28 January 2020 (UTC)
7. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 18:52, 28 January 2020 (UTC)
8. Katie^talk 03:49, 29 January 2020 (UTC)
9. – bradv🍁 14:55, 29 January 2020 (UTC)
10. – Joe (talk) 15:30, 29 January 2020 (UTC)
11. DGG ( talk ) 21:16, 29 January 2020 (UTC)
12. GorillaWarfare (talk) 04:28, 30 January 2020 (UTC)
13. AGK ■ 09:02, 30 January 2020 (UTC)
14. Beeblebrox (talk) 13:34, 30 January 2020 (UTC)

Oppose:

Abstain:

Comments:

Administrator accountability

3) Administrators are expected to objectively consider criticism and questions relating to their decisions including those raised by anonymous editors. For an administrator to not promptly and appropriately deal with concerns, without good cause, may constitute misconduct.

Support:

1. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs ^talk 16:01, 28 January 2020 (UTC)
2. –xeno^talk 17:04, 28 January 2020 (UTC)
3. Worm^TT(talk) 17:05, 28 January 2020 (UTC)
4. Maxim_(talk) 17:15, 28 January 2020 (UTC)
5. Newyorkbrad (talk) 17:43, 28 January 2020 (UTC)
6. Mkdw ^talk 18:13, 28 January 2020 (UTC)
7. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 18:52, 28 January 2020 (UTC)
8. Katie^talk 03:49, 29 January 2020 (UTC)
9. – bradv🍁 14:55, 29 January 2020 (UTC)
10. – Joe (talk) 15:30, 29 January 2020 (UTC)
11. DGG ( talk ) 21:16, 29 January 2020 (UTC)
12. GorillaWarfare (talk) 04:28, 30 January 2020 (UTC)
13. AGK ■ 09:02, 30 January 2020 (UTC)
14. Beeblebrox (talk) 13:34, 30 January 2020 (UTC)

Oppose:

Abstain:

Comments:

Deletion and speedy deletion

4) Administrators have the ability to delete articles and other Wikipedia pages from general view, and to undelete pages that were previously deleted. These powers are exercised in accordance with established policies and guidelines, and community consensus.

Under certain limited conditions, a page may be deleted by an administrator without waiting for any discussion. These limited conditions are explained in depth at Wikipedia:Criteria for speedy deletion. Administrators should take care not to speedy delete pages except in the most obvious cases.

Support:

1. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs ^talk 16:01, 28 January 2020 (UTC)
2. –xeno^talk 17:04, 28 January 2020 (UTC)
3. Worm^TT(talk) 17:05, 28 January 2020 (UTC)
4. Maxim_(talk) 17:15, 28 January 2020 (UTC)
5. So long as the last sentence, which I understand is derived from existing policy, is interpreted reasonably. Newyorkbrad (talk) 17:43, 28 January 2020 (UTC)
6. Mkdw ^talk 18:13, 28 January 2020 (UTC)
7. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 18:52, 28 January 2020 (UTC)
8. Katie^talk 03:49, 29 January 2020 (UTC)
9. As per NYB, the last line needs to be interpreted within the context of the CSD policy. – bradv🍁 14:55, 29 January 2020 (UTC)
10. – Joe (talk) 15:30, 29 January 2020 (UTC)
11. DGG ( talk ) 21:16, 29 January 2020 (UTC)
12. GorillaWarfare (talk) 04:28, 30 January 2020 (UTC)
13. AGK ■ 09:02, 30 January 2020 (UTC)
14. Beeblebrox (talk) 13:34, 30 January 2020 (UTC)

Oppose:

Abstain:

Comments:

Checkuser blocks

5) The Checkuser tool allows its users to determine from Wikipedia's servers the IP addresses used by a Wikipedia user account, as well as other technical data stored by the server about a user account or IP address. Access to this tool is restricted to members of the checkuser group. It is sometimes necessary to block editors based on evidence obtained using the Checkuser tool. Such a block should be designated by the blocking checkuser as a "checkuser block." Blocks not based on checkuser evidence are not to be labeled as checkuser blocks, even if the blocking administrator is a checkuser. Accordingly, administrators who do not have access to checkuser data must not reverse blocks labelled as checkuser blocks without having first consulted the checkuser team or the Arbitration Committee.

Support:

1. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs ^talk 16:01, 28 January 2020 (UTC)
2. –xeno^talk 17:04, 28 January 2020 (UTC)
3. Worm^TT(talk) 17:05, 28 January 2020 (UTC)
4. Maxim_(talk) 17:15, 28 January 2020 (UTC)
5. For clarity, added the sentence Such a block should be designated by the blocking checkuser as a "checkuser block". so that we define what is a checkuser block before we discuss what isn't one (this also parallels the next paragraph). Newyorkbrad (talk) 17:43, 28 January 2020 (UTC)
6. Mkdw ^talk 18:13, 28 January 2020 (UTC)
7. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 18:52, 28 January 2020 (UTC)
8. Katie^talk 03:49, 29 January 2020 (UTC)
9. – bradv🍁 14:55, 29 January 2020 (UTC)
10. – Joe (talk) 15:30, 29 January 2020 (UTC)
11. DGG ( talk ) 21:16, 29 January 2020 (UTC)
12. GorillaWarfare (talk) 04:28, 30 January 2020 (UTC)
13. AGK ■ 09:02, 30 January 2020 (UTC)
14. Beeblebrox (talk) 13:34, 30 January 2020 (UTC)

Oppose:

Abstain:

Comments:

Oversight / suppression

6) Oversight, also known as suppression, provides a means to delete particularly sensitive revisions such that even ordinary administrators cannot see them. The ability to suppress, unsuppress, and view suppressed revisions is restricted to members of the oversight user group. From time to time, it is necessary to block editors who have posted suppressible information. These blocks are labeled as "oversight blocks" and administrators who are neither oversighters nor arbitrators must not reverse them without having first consulted the Oversighter team or the Arbitration Committee.

Material that has been suppressed is always considered private or sensitive and referencing it on wiki should be avoided. Queries about the action should be raised by email to a member of the Oversight team, or to the Arbitration Committee, and certainly not at high profile noticeboards.

Support:

1. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs ^talk 16:01, 28 January 2020 (UTC)
2. –xeno^talk 17:04, 28 January 2020 (UTC)
3. Worm^TT(talk) 17:05, 28 January 2020 (UTC)
4. Maxim_(talk) 17:15, 28 January 2020 (UTC)
5. Newyorkbrad (talk) 17:43, 28 January 2020 (UTC)
6. Mkdw ^talk 18:13, 28 January 2020 (UTC)
7. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 18:52, 28 January 2020 (UTC)
8. Katie^talk 03:49, 29 January 2020 (UTC)
9. – bradv🍁 14:55, 29 January 2020 (UTC)
10. – Joe (talk) 15:30, 29 January 2020 (UTC)
11. DGG ( talk ) 21:16, 29 January 2020 (UTC)
12. GorillaWarfare (talk) 04:28, 30 January 2020 (UTC)
13. AGK ■ 09:02, 30 January 2020 (UTC)
14. Beeblebrox (talk) 13:34, 30 January 2020 (UTC)

Oppose:

Abstain:

Comments:

Treatment of new editors

7) Wikipedia:Please do not bite the newcomers, an important guideline, reminds us that "Wikipedia articles are improved through the hard work of both regular editors and newcomers. Remember: all of us were new editors at Wikipedia once.... New members are prospective contributors and are therefore Wikipedia's most valuable resource. We must treat newcomers with kindness and patience—nothing scares potentially valuable contributors away faster than hostility. It is very unlikely for a newcomer to be completely familiar with Wikipedia's markup language and its myriad of policies, guidelines, and community standards when they start editing...".

Support:

1. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs ^talk 16:01, 28 January 2020 (UTC)
2. An extension of the civility policy. –xeno^talk 17:04, 28 January 2020 (UTC)
3. Worm^TT(talk) 17:05, 28 January 2020 (UTC)
4. Maxim_(talk) 17:15, 28 January 2020 (UTC)
5. Newyorkbrad (talk) 17:43, 28 January 2020 (UTC)
6. Mkdw ^talk 18:13, 28 January 2020 (UTC)
7. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 18:52, 28 January 2020 (UTC)
8. Katie^talk 03:49, 29 January 2020 (UTC)
9. Nearly anything on a wiki can be undone. Driving away new editors is one of the major exceptions. – bradv🍁 14:55, 29 January 2020 (UTC)
10. – Joe (talk) 15:30, 29 January 2020 (UTC)
11. DGG ( talk ) 21:16, 29 January 2020 (UTC)
12. GorillaWarfare (talk) 04:28, 30 January 2020 (UTC)
13. AGK ■ 09:02, 30 January 2020 (UTC)
14. Beeblebrox (talk) 13:34, 30 January 2020 (UTC)

Oppose:

Abstain:

Comments:

Proposed findings of fact

RHaworth

1) RHaworth (talk · contribs) has been a Wikipedia editor since the beginning of 2005, becoming an administrator that same year, and has performed over 500,000 deletions. (Wikipedia:ADMINSTATS)

Support:

1. RHaworth has been a dedicated contributor to Wikipedia, and while arbitration cases obviously focus on the negative aspects of user interaction and conduct, I think it is important to recognize longstanding service to the project. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs ^talk 16:08, 28 January 2020 (UTC)
2. I do believe we should be including these framing findings more often, especially with the positive point to be included. RHaworth has been a boon to Wikipedia. Worm^TT(talk) 17:09, 28 January 2020 (UTC)
3. It's important to contexualize the findings within RHaworth's impressive body of work. –xeno^talk 17:15, 28 January 2020 (UTC)
4. Maxim_(talk) 17:19, 28 January 2020 (UTC)
5. Per others above. Newyorkbrad (talk) 17:46, 28 January 2020 (UTC)
6. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 18:53, 28 January 2020 (UTC)
7. Katie^talk 03:54, 29 January 2020 (UTC)
8. – bradv🍁 15:10, 29 January 2020 (UTC)
9. – Joe (talk) 15:36, 29 January 2020 (UTC)
10. Mkdw ^talk 18:52, 29 January 2020 (UTC)
11. DGG ( talk ) 21:16, 29 January 2020 (UTC)
12. AGK ■ 09:12, 30 January 2020 (UTC)
13. While noting that I agree entirely with GW's point in the abstention section below, I am still supporting in the interest of setting a precedent to continue doing this when applicable. Beeblebrox (talk) 13:36, 30 January 2020 (UTC)

Oppose:

Abstain:

1. While this is true, I am a bit uncomfortable formally recognizing "outstanding/impressive/etc." contributions by RHaworth when we have not done the same in the recent Portals case, which also centered around the actions of a single administrator. GorillaWarfare (talk) 04:29, 30 January 2020 (UTC)

Comments:

RHaworth and deletion

2) RHaworth has regularly performed deletions that do not comply with the deletion policy, specifically the criteria for speedy deletion. The vast majority of the examples raised are not merely "bending" of rules, but at their core, fundamentally at odds with established and prescribed deletion practice. Numerous breaches were cited for CSD A7 ([1][2][3][4][5][6][7][8][9][10]) and G11([11][12][13][14][15]); however, there were also individual examples of deletions that were raised about other criteria (G1 ([16]), G4 ([17]), G5 ([18]), G10 ([19]), G13 ([20]), A3 ([21]) A10 ([22])and R3 ([23])), and about summary deletions that neither cited nor implied any criteria for speedy deletion ([24][25]) (Vanamonde93, Black Kite, Thryduulf, SoWhy, Cryptic, Barkeep49 evidence)

Support:

1. I think compelling evidence was provided that the problems with R's deletions cross the threshold of "mistakes we can expect to crop up in any editor's work given a long enough time and deep enough bench of contributions." Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs ^talk 16:08, 28 January 2020 (UTC)
2. This does explain the crux of this case. Worm^TT(talk) 17:09, 28 January 2020 (UTC)
3. There have been lapses in due care and attention. –xeno^talk 17:15, 28 January 2020 (UTC)
4. Maxim_(talk) 17:19, 28 January 2020 (UTC)
5. Per David Fuchs. To put this finding in terms less tied to the CSD code-letter-number system (a classification system that is unlike anything else I've encountered on Wikipedia and which can be inscrutible to those not familiar with it), RHaworth has deleted many articles on the ground that the article-subjects are not notable enough to warrant a Wikipedia article, even where the article contains a credible claim that they are notable. Similarly, RHaworth has deleted articles on the grounds that they appear to contain promotion or advertising, even when it is not clear this is the case. Newyorkbrad (talk) 17:51, 28 January 2020 (UTC)
6. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 18:53, 28 January 2020 (UTC)
7. Per NYB. Katie^talk 03:54, 29 January 2020 (UTC)
8. – bradv🍁 15:10, 29 January 2020 (UTC)
9. It's been pointed out that, given RHaworth's prolific use of the tools, what we're seeing could actually be an average or low error rate. That might be true (I'm not sure it's feasible to gather the statistics to check). But I don't think that logic holds. Mistakes are mistakes, and mistakes with the tools cause more disruption than most, especially in light of Principle #7 (WP:BITE). If the number of errors is really because RHaworth is deleting so many articles, the obvious conclusion is that he is going too fast, and excessively careless use of the tools can also be misuse. – Joe (talk) 15:36, 29 January 2020 (UTC)
10. Mkdw ^talk 18:52, 29 January 2020 (UTC)
11. with the same rationale as Joe. DGG ( talk ) 21:16, 29 January 2020 (UTC)
12. GorillaWarfare (talk) 04:31, 30 January 2020 (UTC)
13. AGK ■ 09:12, 30 January 2020 (UTC)
14. Beeblebrox (talk) 13:37, 30 January 2020 (UTC)

Oppose:

Abstain:

Comments:

RHaworth interactions with users

3) RHaworth's interactions, particularly with anonymous or new(er) users challenging his deletions, have frequently been dismissive and brusque (e.g. [26][27][28][29][30][31][32][33][34][35]) (Vanamonde93, Buffs, Ritchie333, Pawnkingthree, Thryduulf evidence). These interactions have fallen short of community expectations for the treatment of new editors, as well as the expectations for administrator conduct.

Support:

1. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs ^talk 16:08, 28 January 2020 (UTC)
2. His "I don't talk to IPs" stance, while historical (hopefully), does typify this issue. Worm^TT(talk) 17:09, 28 January 2020 (UTC)
3. This is a particular concerning aspect of the case. –xeno^talk 17:15, 28 January 2020 (UTC)
4. Maxim_(talk) 17:19, 28 January 2020 (UTC)
5. To invoke an old cliche, we never get a second chance to make a first impression, even (perhaps especially) when a rookie editor has made rookie mistakes. I know how this is easy to say for those of us who don't routinely do the patrolling and deletion work, and I appreciate those who do. But experienced, even somewhat jaded adminstrators should try to bear in mind that the 100th new page you are reviewing this week may be the submitting editor's first. Newyorkbrad (talk) 17:55, 28 January 2020 (UTC)
6. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 18:56, 28 January 2020 (UTC)
7. I think it's arrogance, but yes. Katie^talk 03:54, 29 January 2020 (UTC)
8. – bradv🍁 15:10, 29 January 2020 (UTC)
9. Mkdw ^talk 18:52, 29 January 2020 (UTC)
10. As with the others, I think the is the important aspect of the case DGG ( talk ) 21:16, 29 January 2020 (UTC)
11. Agreed that this is particularly concerning. GorillaWarfare (talk) 04:31, 30 January 2020 (UTC)
12. Users who adopt this sort of approach will need to be sanctioned. Work grinds to a halt when users, including those carrying out admin duties, cause this sort of difficulty. AGK ■ 09:12, 30 January 2020 (UTC)
13. Beeblebrox (talk) 13:38, 30 January 2020 (UTC)

Oppose:

Abstain:

Comments:

RHaworth, checkuser blocks, and oversight actions

4) There have been incidents involving RHaworth and functionary-level actions. On 6 September 2019, RHaworth incorrectly advised [36] a new user to consult bureaucrats regarding a suppression. A thread on the bureaucrats' noticeboard [37] was started by the user in question, who was properly advised that bureaucrats are not involved with suppression. On 18 December 2019, RHaworth reversed a checkuser block [38] without having consulted the blocking checkuser, the checkuser team, or the Arbitration Committee. His responses to criticism of the unblock [39][40] showed a lack of understanding of the problem. This unblock led directly to the filing of this arbitration request.[41] While the concerns relating to RHaworth's actions and conduct related to functionary-level actions are valid, there is no evidence of a long-term pattern of such behaviour.

Support:

1. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs ^talk 16:08, 28 January 2020 (UTC)
2. Per my comments at the beginning of this case, I do not think we should be making a big deal about this, and if it was the only issue, a quiet word would be the way forward. However, it is accurate. Worm^TT(talk) 17:09, 28 January 2020 (UTC)
3. Hopefully isolated incidents. –xeno^talk 17:15, 28 January 2020 (UTC)
4. Maxim_(talk) 17:19, 28 January 2020 (UTC)
5. As indicated, these appear to be isolated issues. Findings 2 and 3, not this one, are at the crux of the decision. Newyorkbrad (talk) 17:59, 28 January 2020 (UTC)
6. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 18:57, 28 January 2020 (UTC)
7. Katie^talk 03:54, 29 January 2020 (UTC)
8. – bradv🍁 15:10, 29 January 2020 (UTC)
9. – Joe (talk) 15:36, 29 January 2020 (UTC)
10. Mkdw ^talk 18:52, 29 January 2020 (UTC)
11. DGG ( talk ) 21:03, 29 January 2020 (UTC)
12. GorillaWarfare (talk) 04:33, 30 January 2020 (UTC)
13. AGK ■ 09:12, 30 January 2020 (UTC)
14. Whith the qualification that while I agree there is not a long-term pattern of reversing functionary actions, I do not believe that the referral to BN was really done in good faith and that RHaworth knew perfectly well what suppression was and that there is no appropriate on-wiki venue for discussiing supression actions when sending them there, per comments he made on his talk page at that time. Beeblebrox (talk) 13:42, 30 January 2020 (UTC)

Oppose:

Abstain:

Comments:

Previous attempts at resolution

5) There have multiple recent reports at AN(I) regarding RHaworth's deletions and treatment of other editors [42][43][44][45][46][47][48] (MSGJ, Vanamonde93 evidence). While RHaworth has been responsive to these various threads, as well as to this arbitration case (RHaworth evidence [49]), the previous attempts to resolve the various issues have not yielded meaningful changes.

Support:

1. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs ^talk 16:08, 28 January 2020 (UTC)
2. Unfortunately accurate Worm^TT(talk) 17:09, 28 January 2020 (UTC)
3. –xeno^talk 17:15, 28 January 2020 (UTC)
4. Maxim_(talk) 17:19, 28 January 2020 (UTC)
5. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 18:57, 28 January 2020 (UTC)
6. Katie^talk 03:54, 29 January 2020 (UTC)
7. We're here because the concerns raised many times previously have not resulted in meaningful or lasting change. – bradv🍁 15:10, 29 January 2020 (UTC)
8. – Joe (talk) 15:36, 29 January 2020 (UTC)
9. Mkdw ^talk 18:52, 29 January 2020 (UTC)
10. DGG ( talk ) 21:16, 29 January 2020 (UTC)
11. GorillaWarfare (talk) 04:33, 30 January 2020 (UTC)
12. AGK ■ 09:12, 30 January 2020 (UTC)
13. Beeblebrox (talk) 13:43, 30 January 2020 (UTC)

Oppose:

Abstain:

Comments:

• Before the arbitration case, RHaworth did not sufficiently change his approach. However, his submission on the evidence page, made two weeks ago, promises changes going forward, and I don't believe there's been enough time to evaluate whether this commitment has been kept. Newyorkbrad (talk) 18:02, 28 January 2020 (UTC)
  • But we have also seen a past failure to sustain changes he's promised (see Ritchie333's evidence). GorillaWarfare (talk) 04:33, 30 January 2020 (UTC)

Proposed remedies

Note: All remedies that refer to a period of time, for example to a ban of X months or a revert parole of Y months, are to run concurrently unless otherwise stated.

RHaworth desysopped

1) For his failure to meet the standards expected of an administrator, including repeated misuse of the deletion tool, RHaworth's administrative user rights are removed. RHaworth may regain administrative user rights at any time via a successful request for adminship.

Support:

1. This case involves repeated misuse of admin tools, and frankly I don't find RHaworth's response to these proceedings heartening (coming off as rather bothered that they have to account for repeated mistakes). If the other options are severe restrictions of the editor's toolset in the exact area they do most of their work, a desysop seems the most appropriate choice. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs ^talk 14:01, 29 January 2020 (UTC)
2. Unfortunately I don't see any other viable option here. The overturned CU block, the many improper deletions, and the hostility toward new editors all indicate a serious and lasting problem. While I appreciate and accept RHaworth's commitment to improve their editing, I would prefer that the community have the opportunity to evaluate and respond to the promised improvements at a new RfA. – bradv🍁 15:53, 29 January 2020 (UTC)
3. With a heavy heart. I believe there is a possiblity of avoiding a desysop here, but since my best option to do so (2b) has been quite so firmly rejected so far, and I feel an admonishment on it's own is insufficient, I end up here. If another arb suggests a viable alternative, I may yet strike this vote - however, the only other alternative I have seen discussed is a rate limit, which I don't see as viable. Worm^TT(talk) 17:10, 29 January 2020 (UTC)
4. I was here initially, but took the day to think over the opposing comments. Unfortunately, I'm still here. There's a problem in this case that can't be solved by disallowing deletions, or only disallowing deletions with a certain criteria, or throttling the rate at which deletions are performed. Those proposals don't solve the newbie biting problem, or the total lack of understanding about CheckUser and Oversight (which is like Admin 101 at this point), or the repeated dismissals of long-standing editors who over a period of years brought these concerns to RHaworth's attention. I would say that I'm saddened to lose this kind of admin experience, but I don't think this is the kind of admin experience we need to keep. If RHaworth can demonstrate to the community at RFA that he understands our (not the Arbcom 'our', but the community 'our') expectations of administrators, he should do that. Katie^talk 17:34, 29 January 2020 (UTC)
5. I have been mulling this decision over for the past couple of days based upon the comments by those in the oppose column. After looking at the evidence and FOFs again, an overwhelming pattern emerges where I do not believe someone re-applying for adminship would be granted the tools today. Standards and criteria have evolved over time and it is expected that administrators who remain active and conducting administrative tasks remain reasonably up to date on current practices. So, I find myself here and without prejudice against RHaworth requesting adminship again in the future once the community can be reasonably assured these concerns will be addressed. Mkdw ^talk 18:59, 29 January 2020 (UTC)
6. there is a basic inability to deal with people in problem situations. DGG ( talk ) 21:10, 29 January 2020 (UTC)
7. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 22:00, 29 January 2020 (UTC)
8. The interactions with editors (particularly new/IP editors) land me in support of this remedy. Various restrictions on RHaworth's ability to delete pages will not address the pattern of unacceptable behavior towards others, and I am not optimistic that RHaworth will adequately change his behavior given his past assurances to do so that have not panned out (see FoF 5, Ritchie333's evidence). GorillaWarfare (talk) 04:39, 30 January 2020 (UTC)
9. The evidence presented of previous commitments to improve, but in reality showing a long-term pattern of returning to the same behavior, force me to conclude this is the best option for Wikipedia. If we don't trust a user to delete things responsibly, or to deal with new users in the manner expected of a highly experienced admin, then they simply are no longer fit to be an admin. Frankly, I see this as a case of admin burnout, but one wherein the adminthemselves does not seem to realize they are burned out. In such cases I feel we have little choice. Beeblebrox (talk) 13:48, 30 January 2020 (UTC)
10. I was willing to give RHaworth the benefit of the doubt, and to an extent, still am; however, I cannot in good conscience oppose all the remedies in this case. Furthermore, agree with GorillaWarfare, particularly with the points on the suboptimal treatment of new users and that the past assurances have not panned out. While it was not my original choice in the case, I don't see this remedy as excessive. Maxim_(talk) 14:47, 30 January 2020 (UTC)

Oppose:

I am willing to take RHaworth's statements at face value, especially as an Arb case is a wakeup call. At this time, I do not support a desysop. Worm^TT(talk) 17:14, 28 January 2020 (UTC)

I'm with WTT here. I am also willing to take RHaworth's statements at face value. Maxim_(talk) 17:31, 28 January 2020 (UTC)

1. Per above and in light of RHaworth's commitments in his evidence submission. Newyorkbrad (talk) 18:02, 28 January 2020 (UTC)
2. Accepting the risk that RHaworth may need to be brought back to arbitration, I think this was a highly-active administrator who fell into habits of carelessness and carnaptiousness. Leaving the admin rights in place is likely to give us a satisfactory result. AGK ■ 09:20, 30 January 2020 (UTC)

   Link for AmE readers: carnaptious. Newyorkbrad (talk) 10:27, 30 January 2020 (UTC)

Abstain:

1. I'd like to see RHaworth continue as an administrator, as long as they make the necessary improvements to their approach. I've been exploring the concept of a rate limit because it seems like (aside from the civility concern), the issue came down to RHaworth simply acting too speedily. Legitimate concerns were raised about the interpretation and enforcement of a rate limit. I'm just not sure that current the prohibition/restriction remedies strike the right note, and one could also work through other backlogs not involving deletion (or specific criteria) "too speedily" as well. –xeno^talk 18:18, 28 January 2020 (UTC)

Comments:

• I encourage everyone to thoroughly read the community comments on the talk page before deciding. I think they have raised some really important points. Mkdw ^talk 20:32, 29 January 2020 (UTC)

RHaworth prohibited from performing deletions

2a) For sustained misapplication of deletion policy and his poor interactions with users who question his deletions, RHaworth is indefinitely prohibited from performing deletions. RHaworth may appeal this restriction to the Arbitration Committee after 1 year.

Support:

1. Second choice to 2b (sorry clerks! - i.e., I support this if 2b is failing, otherwise consider this an oppose) Worm^TT(talk) 17:14, 28 January 2020 (UTC)

Oppose:

1. Oppose at this time in light of RHaworth's commitments given in his evidence submission. If a pattern of problems were to continue, which I hope it would not, the issue can be reopened later. Newyorkbrad (talk) 18:04, 28 January 2020 (UTC)
2. It's unclear how RHaworth would demonstrate improvement if they were so prohibited. –xeno^talk 18:18, 28 January 2020 (UTC)
3. If we're going to restrict in this manner, we need to pull the mop entirely. Katie^talk 04:00, 29 January 2020 (UTC)
4. Pretty much per Katie Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 08:27, 29 January 2020 (UTC)
5. Per Katie. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs ^talk 14:01, 29 January 2020 (UTC)
6. The community has never been on board with separating the three core admin tools of block, protect, and delete. – bradv🍁 15:30, 29 January 2020 (UTC)
7. Knowledge about deletion policy and current practices is largely considered an essential requirement for all administrators. Blocking would also be in the same category. I do not think the community would support an administrator restricted from performing deletions and/or blocking. Several proposals have been suggested about unbundling deletion and blocking from the administrative tools and consistently these proposals have failed to pass making them synonymous with adminship. Mkdw ^talk 19:07, 29 January 2020 (UTC)
8. inadequate DGG ( talk ) 21:10, 29 January 2020 (UTC)
9. Insufficient. GorillaWarfare (talk) 04:42, 30 January 2020 (UTC)
10. AGK ■ 09:20, 30 January 2020 (UTC)
11. An admin who can't delete things already is not an admin. Beeblebrox (talk) 13:50, 30 January 2020 (UTC)

Abstain:

Comments:

Are they permitted to perform undeletions? –xeno^talk 18:26, 28 January 2020 (UTC)

@DGG: Your vote on this remedy isn't counting because you have added an extra level of indentation. I noticed you added it in your initial edit, not as a modification later as we often do when we strike votes, and so I think this may have been a typo. Can you confirm? GorillaWarfare (talk) 04:54, 30 January 2020 (UTC)

RHaworth restricted

2b) For sustained misapplication of the criteria for speedy deletion, RHaworth is indefinitely prohibited from performing deletions that fall under following criteria:

• A7 and A9 – No indication of importance
• G11 – Unambiguous advertising or promotion.

RHaworth is reminded to act with care on the remaining speedy deletion criteria, and to ensure he is referencing the specific criteria when performing a speedy deletion. RHaworth may appeal this restriction to the Arbitration Committee after 1 year.

Support:

1. I believe this will remove the majority of problems, when put in conjunction with the admonishment. I do have concerns that RHaworth would start mislabeling CSDs outside these areas, however if he does, a desysop is in order. Worm^TT(talk) 17:14, 28 January 2020 (UTC)

Oppose:

1. Per my vote on 2a. Also, I believe a situation in which an admin were disallowed from deleting on some grounds but not others would cause logistical problems. Newyorkbrad (talk) 18:05, 28 January 2020 (UTC)
2. It's unclear how RHaworth would demonstrate improvement if they were so restricted. –xeno^talk 18:18, 28 January 2020 (UTC)
3. Per my comment at 2a. Katie^talk 04:00, 29 January 2020 (UTC)
4. Pretty much the same as 2a. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 08:28, 29 January 2020 (UTC)
5. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs ^talk 14:01, 29 January 2020 (UTC)
6. Per my vote on 2a, the community has never been on board with separating the three core admin tools of block, protect, and delete. If an editor is not trusted with part of the toolset, they cannot be an effective administrator. – bradv🍁 15:31, 29 January 2020 (UTC)
7. Per my comments at 2a. Mkdw ^talk 19:07, 29 January 2020 (UTC)
8. inadequate; deals with only a portion of the problems. DGG ( talk ) 21:10, 29 January 2020 (UTC)
9. Insufficient. GorillaWarfare (talk) 04:42, 30 January 2020 (UTC)
10. Sharing Newyorkbrad's second objection, the granularity of this restriction makes it impracticable. AGK ■ 09:20, 30 January 2020 (UTC)
11. Beeblebrox (talk) 13:51, 30 January 2020 (UTC)

Abstain:

Comments:

Still thinking 2a and 2b over. Passing 2a and 3 together would be somewhat awkward. I prefer 2a because it's more a straightforward restriction, but the evidence does very much show that A7 ad G11 are particularly weak spots. Maxim_(talk) 17:34, 28 January 2020 (UTC)

As Thryduulf noted on talk, the text for G11 didn't match the link, so fixed. –xeno^talk 22:22, 28 January 2020 (UTC)

RHaworth admonished

3) RHaworth is admonished for repeated misuse of the deletion tool as well as conduct unbecoming an administrator. The Arbitration Committee accepts RHaworth's assurances (RHaworth evidence) that he will

1. more closely adhere to deletion policy and best practice; and
2. improve his interactions with other users.

The Committee will amend the case by motion should these assurances not be met.

Support:

I am wary of the final clause - as to how long it would remain in force. Simply, repeated behaviour beyond the odd mistake can result in a desysop Worm^TT(talk) 17:14, 28 January 2020 (UTC)

As with remedy 1, I'm willing to accept RHaworth's statements at face value. Maxim_(talk) 17:33, 28 January 2020 (UTC)

Newyorkbrad (talk) 18:05, 28 January 2020 (UTC) See below. Newyorkbrad (talk) 10:34, 30 January 2020 (UTC)

1. Hoping this was the wake-up call needed. –xeno^talk 18:18, 28 January 2020 (UTC)

   regardless of other sanctions Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 18:58, 28 January 2020 (UTC)

2. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs ^talk 14:01, 29 January 2020 (UTC)
3. Regardless of other remedies, RHaworth's commitment to follow policies going forward is appreciated and accepted. Second choice to #1. – bradv🍁 15:33, 29 January 2020 (UTC)

   A distant second choice to remedy 1. Mkdw ^talk 19:08, 29 January 2020 (UTC) Moving this to oppose since it was a second choice vote. Mkdw ^talk 18:41, 30 January 2020 (UTC)

4. AGK ■ 09:20, 30 January 2020 (UTC)

Oppose:

1. Should remedy 1 suddenly lose support I may reconsider, but with that passing this is not needed. GorillaWarfare (talk) 04:42, 30 January 2020 (UTC)
2. As the desysop is currently passing, this admonishment is redundant. Also the wording makes no sense if Remedy 1 passes. Worm^TT(talk) 09:49, 30 January 2020 (UTC)
3. With the desysop passing, changing to oppose per WTT. Newyorkbrad (talk) 10:34, 30 January 2020 (UTC)
4. Per my comment below. Katie^talk 12:42, 30 January 2020 (UTC)
5. Per WTT Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 13:22, 30 January 2020 (UTC)
6. per above comments. Beeblebrox (talk) 13:53, 30 January 2020 (UTC)
7. Per WTT. Maxim_(talk) 14:26, 30 January 2020 (UTC)
8. for the record now that FOF 1 will pass. Mkdw ^talk 18:41, 30 January 2020 (UTC)

Abstain:

Comments:

• I'm holding here pending the desysop remedy. If he's desysopped, this remedy becomes the equivalent of a civility restriction, and I'm so not doing that again. If he's not desysopped, I'll consider supporting, but I do not accept his assurances in any case. Mere assurances to us, now that he's been called onto the ultimate carpet, aren't enough for me. Katie^talk 17:41, 29 January 2020 (UTC)
• as with KK. DGG ( talk ) 21:16, 29 January 2020 (UTC)

General reminder

4) Administrators are reminded that checkuser and oversight blocks must not be reversed or modified without prior consultation with the checkuser or oversighter who placed the block, the respective functionary team, or the Arbitration Committee.

Support:

1. Worm^TT(talk) 17:14, 28 January 2020 (UTC)
2. There's arguably a bit of inconsistency in the blocking and checkuser policies, and it doesn't hurt to publish a reminder of expected practice for administrators. Maxim_(talk) 17:20, 28 January 2020 (UTC)
3. In what I believe should be a non-controversial edit, I added the checkuser or oversighter who placed the block. If he or she agrees the block can be lifted, there's no need to consult with the rest of the team or Committee. Newyorkbrad (talk) 18:07, 28 January 2020 (UTC)
4. –xeno^talk 18:18, 28 January 2020 (UTC)
5. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 18:59, 28 January 2020 (UTC)
6. This needs to be clear. You don't know what you don't know, and lifting a block placed by a functionary can do a lot of damage. Katie^talk 04:00, 29 January 2020 (UTC)
7. It does seem that a gentle reminder to all admins is needed on this point. I wouldn't mind reminding the entire community that we cannot publicly discuss the reasons for OS blocks at all.
8. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs ^talk 14:01, 29 January 2020 (UTC)
9. I would prefer this as an admonishment, but I accept that admonishments don't effectively do anything other than serve as a reminder. – bradv🍁 15:36, 29 January 2020 (UTC)
10. Mkdw ^talk 19:08, 29 January 2020 (UTC)
11. DGG ( talk ) 21:10, 29 January 2020 (UTC)
12. GorillaWarfare (talk) 04:42, 30 January 2020 (UTC)
13. The procedure for dealing with CU/OS/PI blocks is now well-established and I do not think many admins require this reminder. AGK ■ 09:20, 30 January 2020 (UTC)
14. I wouldn't mind it at all if, after the case is closed, this is specific remedy were cross-posted at WP:AN and WP:BN and anywhere else deemed appropriate. Beeblebrox (talk) 13:55, 30 January 2020 (UTC)

Oppose:

Abstain:

Comments:

Template

5) {text of proposed remedy}

Support:

Oppose:

Abstain:

Comments:

Proposed enforcement

Enforcement of restrictions

0) Should any user subject to a restriction in this case violate that restriction, that user may be blocked, initially for up to one month, and then with blocks increasing in duration to a maximum of one year.

In accordance with the procedure for the standard enforcement provision adopted 3 May 2014, this provision did not require a vote.

Appeals and modifications

0) Appeals and modifications

This procedure applies to appeals related to, and modifications of, actions taken by administrators to enforce the Committee's remedies. It does not apply to appeals related to the remedies directly enacted by the Committee. Appeals by sanctioned editors Appeals may be made only by the editor under sanction and only for a currently active sanction. Requests for modification of page restrictions may be made by any editor. The process has three possible stages (see "Important notes" below). The editor may: ask the enforcing administrator to reconsider their original decision; request review at the arbitration enforcement noticeboard ("AE") or at the administrators’ noticeboard ("AN"); and submit a request for amendment at "ARCA". If the editor is blocked, the appeal may be made by email through Special:EmailUser/Arbitration Committee (or, if email access is revoked, to arbcom-enwikimedia.org). Modifications by administrators No administrator may modify or remove a sanction placed by another administrator without: the explicit prior affirmative consent of the enforcing administrator; or prior affirmative agreement for the modification at (a) AE or (b) AN or (c) ARCA (see "Important notes" below). Administrators modifying sanctions out of process may at the discretion of the committee be desysopped. Nothing in this section prevents an administrator from replacing an existing sanction issued by another administrator with a new sanction if fresh misconduct has taken place after the existing sanction was applied. Administrators are free to modify sanctions placed by former administrators – that is, editors who do not have the administrator permission enabled (due to a temporary or permanent relinquishment or desysop) – without regard to the requirements of this section. If an administrator modifies a sanction placed by a former administrator, the administrator who made the modification becomes the "enforcing administrator". If a former administrator regains the tools, the provisions of this section again apply to their unmodified enforcement actions. Important notes: For a request to succeed, either (i) the clear and substantial consensus of (a) uninvolved administrators at AE or (b) uninvolved editors at AN or (ii) a passing motion of arbitrators at ARCA is required. If consensus at AE or AN is unclear, the status quo prevails. While asking the enforcing administrator and seeking reviews at AN or AE are not mandatory prior to seeking a decision from the committee, once the committee has reviewed a request, further substantive review at any forum is barred. The sole exception is editors under an active sanction who may still request an easing or removal of the sanction on the grounds that said sanction is no longer needed, but such requests may only be made once every six months, or whatever longer period the committee may specify. These provisions apply only to contentious topics placed by administrators and to blocks placed by administrators to enforce arbitration case decisions. They do not apply to sanctions directly authorised by the committee, and enacted either by arbitrators or by arbitration clerks, or to special functionary blocks of whatever nature. All actions designated as arbitration enforcement actions, including those alleged to be out of process or against existing policy, must first be appealed following arbitration enforcement procedures to establish if such enforcement is inappropriate before the action may be reversed or formally discussed at another venue.

In accordance with the procedure for the standard appeals and modifications provision adopted 3 May 2014, this provision did not require a vote.

Comments:

Motion to close

Implementation notes

Clerks and Arbitrators should use this section to clarify their understanding of the final decision—at a minimum, a list of items that have passed. Additionally, a list of which remedies are conditional on others (for instance a ban that should only be implemented if a mentorship should fail), and so on. Arbitrators should not pass the motion to close the case until they are satisfied with the implementation notes.

These notes were last updated by SQL^{Query me!} 18:57, 30 January 2020 (UTC); the last edit to this page was on 22:45, 30 January 2020 (UTC) by Anomalocaris.

Proposed Principles
Number	Proposal Name	Support	Oppose	Abstain	Status	Support needed	Notes
1	Administrator conduct	14	0	0		·
2	Leading by example	14	0	0		·
3	Administrator accountability	14	0	0		·
4	Deletion and speedy deletion	14	0	0		·
5	Checkuser blocks	14	0	0		·
6	Oversight / suppression	14	0	0		·
7	Treatment of new editors	14	0	0		·
Proposed Findings of Fact
Number	Proposal Name	Support	Oppose	Abstain	Status	Support needed	Notes
1	RHaworth	13	0	1		·
2	RHaworth and deletion	14	0	0		·
3	RHaworth interactions with users	13	0	0		·
4	RHaworth, checkuser blocks, and oversight actions	14	0	0		·
5	Previous attempts at resolution	13	0	0		·
Proposed Remedies
Number	Proposal Name	Support	Oppose	Abstain	Status	Support needed	Notes
1	RHaworth desysopped	10	2	1		·
2a	RHaworth prohibited from performing deletions	1	11	0		·
2b	RHaworth restricted	1	11	0		·
3	RHaworth admonished	4	8	0		·
4	General reminder	14	0	0		·
Proposed Enforcement
Number	Proposal Name	Support	Oppose	Abstain	Status	Support needed	Notes
0	Enforcement of restrictions	0	0	0		Cannot pass	Passes by default
0	Appeals and modifications	0	0	0		Cannot pass	Passes by default

Notes

Vote

Important: Please ask the case clerk to author the implementation notes before initiating a motion to close, so that the final decision is clear.

Four net "support" votes (each "oppose" vote subtracts a "support") or an absolute majority are needed to close the case. The Clerks will close the case 24 hours after the fourth net support vote has been cast, unless an absolute majority of arbitrators vote to fast-track the close.

Support

1. AGK ■ 09:21, 30 January 2020 (UTC)
2. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 09:25, 30 January 2020 (UTC)
3. My maths says that the admonishment cannot pass (6 explicit votes, plus DGG's comment, plus Mkdw's second choice). I'm happy for this to be closed. Worm^TT(talk) 14:08, 30 January 2020 (UTC)
4. Maxim_(talk) 14:27, 30 January 2020 (UTC)
5. Katie^talk 15:49, 30 January 2020 (UTC)
6. Mkdw ^talk 16:03, 30 January 2020 (UTC)
7. – bradv🍁 16:20, 30 January 2020 (UTC)

Oppose

Just need to clear up the admonishment. I've moved to oppose, which turns it to 8 - 2. Mkdw has also marked his vote as a second choice to the desysop, so I believe this does not pass currently. However, it can still pass as we have active arbs who have not voted on the remedy - so holding here until this is resolved. Worm^TT(talk) 09:53, 30 January 2020 (UTC)

Comments