Wikipedia talk:Arbitration/Requests/Case/RexxS/Evidence

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

Case clerk: TBD Drafting arbitrator: TBD

Behaviour on this page: Arbitration case pages exist to assist the Arbitration Committee in arriving at a fair, well-informed decision. You are required to act with appropriate decorum during this case. While grievances must often be aired during a case, you are expected to air them without being rude or hostile, and to respond calmly to allegations against you. Accusations of misbehaviour posted in this case must be proven with clear evidence (and otherwise not made at all). Editors who conduct themselves inappropriately during a case may be sanctioned by an arbitrator, clerk, or functionary, without further warning, by being banned from further participation in the case, or being blocked altogether. Personal attacks against other users, including arbitrators or the clerks, will be met with sanctions. Behavior during a case may also be considered by the committee in arriving at a final decision.

Question to clerks

SQL maybe. How does one link to a diff with a weird section title? https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:RexxS&oldid=946019462#"Perhaps_you_should_actually_try_it"_"Not_everybody_is_as_inept_as_you"_"before_patience_wears_thin_with_your_tendentious_commentary" is a perfectly valid link if you copy+paste it into the URL bar, but the software doesn't seem to understand the whole thing as one link when surrounded by square brackets (& even when not). ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 06:17, 27 February 2021 (UTC)

(watching) "Perhaps you should actually try it" "Not everybody is as inept as you" "before patience wears thin with your tendentious commentary" --Gerda Arendt (talk) 08:11, 27 February 2021 (UTC)

[1] works for me. 2602:24A:DE47:BB20:50DE:F402:42A6:A17D (talk) 08:15, 27 February 2021 (UTC)

Thanks both! Trying to hide the section title, so IP's solution works best for me. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 08:46, 27 February 2021 (UTC)

Word and diff limit question regarding "Analysis of evidence"

I see that somehow the "Analysis of evidence" section for this case has migrated from Workshop to Evidence. In this regard I have a question regarding the word/diff limits. The current instructions at the evidence page say: "The standard limits for all submissions in this phase are: ...." (with the same submission limits as used for arbitration cases before the change that moved "Analysis of evidence" from Workshop to Evidence). I would like to clarify whether the submission limits stated there are cumulative, for everything a given editor presents at the Evidence page. Or are the submissions made in the "Analysis of evidence" section subject to separate limits? Thanks, Nsk92 (talk) 23:28, 27 February 2021 (UTC)

Hi. The arbitrators are discussing this. Dreamy Jazz ^{talk to me | my contributions} 23:47, 27 February 2021 (UTC)

@Dreamy Jazz: Any news on the question I asked? It has been a week already. Nsk92 (talk) 14:37, 4 March 2021 (UTC)

Separate limits for each section. Primefac (talk) 15:02, 4 March 2021 (UTC)

Nsk92, see the above. Thanks Primefac. Dreamy Jazz ^{talk to me | my contributions} 15:06, 4 March 2021 (UTC)

OK, thank you. Nsk92 (talk) 15:36, 4 March 2021 (UTC)

It would be helpful if the Arbs would also give instructions on whether the Analysis of Evidence will close at the same time as the Evidence itself, or later. Thanks. --Tryptofish (talk) 19:27, 28 February 2021 (UTC)

Yes, the plan is to close everything at the same time, though obviously if necessary things can be extended. Primefac (talk) 00:42, 1 March 2021 (UTC)

About closing everything at the same time, I just noticed that the Workshop will close the same time that the Evidence closes. If that's the intention, I have no objection, but since it's a pretty significant change from past practice, I want to make sure that this is, in fact, the case. --Tryptofish (talk) 19:12, 4 March 2021 (UTC)

That is the intention. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 19:14, 4 March 2021 (UTC)

Thanks. Participating editors: take note! --Tryptofish (talk) 19:15, 4 March 2021 (UTC)

Also note that there are (intentionally) no proposed remedies, just principles and FoF. Primefac (talk) 19:18, 4 March 2021 (UTC)

Thanks for pointing that out (for the Workshop page). I hadn't noticed it. But that leads me to a question. I had intended to workshop an idea I was working on, about ArbCom consulting with the community about some things, as an outcome of this case. (Until just now, I was thinking of a Workshop remedy like "Community encouraged", where ArbCom would encourage discussion about some things.) Where would be the appropriate place for me to do that now? Or is it not wanted? --Tryptofish (talk) 19:24, 4 March 2021 (UTC)

A suggestion: It occurs to me that I might write up the idea for such a consultation elsewhere, not on a case page. And I could comment on the Workshop talk page about it, with a link there. That would satisfy my concern, without making you change anything here. --Tryptofish (talk) 19:42, 4 March 2021 (UTC)

That works. The arbs will still be working on a full PD at arbwiki, so any suggestions that might fall outwith the primary scope of the case but could still be considered relevant are appreciated. Primefac (talk) 19:44, 4 March 2021 (UTC)

Thanks, will do. In the interests of being clear about all changes, do I understand correctly that (1) while editors participating in the Workshop are not going to be able to recommend remedies directed at RexxS, (2) ArbCom might, or might not, issue remedies in the Final Decision? --Tryptofish (talk) 19:55, 4 March 2021 (UTC)

In a word, yes. There are a finite number of potential remedies in a case like this, so they do not necessarily need to be workshopped. Primefac (talk) 20:05, 4 March 2021 (UTC)

I have created page editnotices to highlight to editors (on desktop) that the workshop is closing at the same time as the evidence and that editors (except arbitrators) can only propose findings of fact and principles. Hopefully this means that everyone will see this, and not be unaware of these differences to the normal. Dreamy Jazz ^{talk to me | my contributions} 19:40, 4 March 2021 (UTC)

To the above, not sure a workshop is helpful at all in this case. The evidence is structured in such a way that FoFs are easy to extract on the points they believe are of value. Principles I think ArbCom can come up on its own with, to support the FoFs. And the remedies, well, there’s only a finite number. I think this would’ve been a good test case to demonstrate ‘turning off’ the workshop. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 22:11, 4 March 2021 (UTC)

I can't speak for the drafting arbs, but I think the idea was to at least try it this way to see how it went. And this came up while we were still discussing the structural changes, it went from theory to reality a but faster than expected. Beeblebrox (talk) 22:43, 4 March 2021 (UTC)

I also can't speak for anyone but myself, but will note that we're under competing pressures here between those who want a more robust Workshop and those who say "get rid of it altogether". Right now we're experimenting with a couple things (simultaneous closure, no remedies) that given the facts as we understood them from the case request seemed appropriate. We are going to see how these play out and decide what to do in our next case (may it be many months away) then. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 22:48, 4 March 2021 (UTC)

For what little it may be worth (but I was very outspoken on the issue) I think the Committee did this very well, as a good way to see how it works this time. (Of course, I might change my mind if I don't like the decision, LOL.) I've also been noticing that Arbs have been prompt in answering questions most of the time, and I thank you for that. --Tryptofish (talk) 23:26, 4 March 2021 (UTC)

Word limit extension

Could I please request an extension for my evidence? I've tried to be as concise as possible, and include minimal commentary, bearing in mind the volume of incidents, but I'm at around 1000 words. I could probably trim some fat here and there but there's no way I can get it down to 500 words without removing relevant evidence. – Joe (talk) 12:33, 5 March 2021 (UTC)

Same request from me please. I've tried to make a conscious effort to avoid excessive adverbs/adjectives/other fluff, and have done some trimmings in my most recent section for focus, but my evidence details too many different events to trim down any further without losing information on relevant events. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 12:37, 5 March 2021 (UTC)

I have notified the arbitrators about your requests. When a decision is made, I (or an arbitrator) will post about it here. Dreamy Jazz ^{talk to me | my contributions} 12:47, 5 March 2021 (UTC)

The other drafters can overrule me if they think otherwise, but I'm reticent to extend evidence amounts at this time. I will say regarding the evidence that ArbCom is not going to be relitigating RexxS's RfA, so any evidence in that respect is wasted (trust that we are aware of the background.) Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs ^talk 13:03, 5 March 2021 (UTC)

My own evidence has never spoke about the RfA. I've took another skim through my submission and trimmed out some commentary but am struggling to find more to trim (it currently hovers at 1000 words). Are there any examples from my own evidence the drafters think are redundant as evidence, such that I'd be able to get it below 500? ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 13:59, 5 March 2021 (UTC)

I mean, we're a week into the evidence phase and only ProcrastinatingReader and I have submitted anything. I don't think you guys are going to be overwhelmed with material... – Joe (talk) 16:39, 6 March 2021 (UTC)

After consideration, we will grant an extension to 1000 words for both you and PR. When trimming your evidence, consider that, as David Fuchs has pointed out, ArbCom is aware of the RfA and its closure, so we don't really need any evidence regarding this. Regards SoWhy 17:46, 6 March 2021 (UTC)

Thanks, I trimmed mine down to <1000. – Joe (talk) 07:08, 7 March 2021 (UTC)

What is going on here, please?

I recently found out about this case off-wiki, and it came as a surprise to me. Having worked with RexxS over the last decade, and across a wide cross-section of the Wikimedia projects, I can testify that he has put a huge amount of work into welcoming new editors, improving Wikimedia content, and developing fundamental modules/templates that are used in millions of content pages. I could provide diffs to document that, but I'm not sure if that would be welcome here?

If I start at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/RexxS, I see that RexxS is an involved party, and he has made a preliminary statement ('This is a vexatious filing.' etc.), but I can't see the accusation that caused the start of the case? Is there a simple summary of what this is about, please? Is it about a specific issue, or a general review of RexxS as a whole? Thanks. Mike Peel (talk) 19:13, 5 March 2021 (UTC)

I agree with you it's confusing. We had discussed this some on-list but it got lost amid 1,000 other things with this case (and 9,000 other things). I have gone ahead and moved the statement out of the collapsed box. But let's be clear on why this was done in the first place - the committee (in an action I strongly support) decided to not make PR a party to this case. So the clerks followed procedures and moved his statement to the uninvolved parties collapsed box. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 19:22, 5 March 2021 (UTC)

@Barkeep49: an action I understand and also agree with. But, to save concerns such as Mike Peel had (and, indeed, which I shared when I first saw, before realising what was intended) in future, perhaps hatnote the original plaint, or some other boxed comment advising readers where the expected comment has gone.

By the way, a couple of remarks concerning the case in this discussion may be relevant to the committee. ——Serial 19:33, 5 March 2021 (UTC)

@Barkeep49: OK, that helps, but I still can't see what this case is about? Is it 'RexxS's temperament'? Is it about his interactions with ProcrastinatingReader? Or something else? Is there a short summary of the issue at hand, please? Thanks. Mike Peel (talk) 19:34, 5 March 2021 (UTC)

There is not a short summary, no. In another change from past practice we did add a "Scope" to the case navigation template but that is hardly a summary and so not what I think you're looking. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 19:38, 5 March 2021 (UTC)

@Barkeep49: OK, so, what is the case about please? Thanks. Mike Peel (talk) 19:47, 5 March 2021 (UTC)

I'm not an Arb, but the "case scope" is given near the top of this talk page. --Tryptofish (talk) 19:59, 5 March 2021 (UTC)

@Tryptofish: Thanks, I hadn't seen that link. So this is solely about his conduct as an admin, and anything that isn't related to that role is out of scope? Thanks. Mike Peel (talk) 20:08, 5 March 2021 (UTC)

"His conduct as an admin" does not necessarily mean the scope is limited to actions that require adminship. After all, WP:ADMINCOND is not about the technical tools but also about the expectations the community has on how administrators should behave themselves. Regards SoWhy 21:18, 5 March 2021 (UTC)

Sorry for not following up on this sooner, I fell ill. Given that the deadline is today, I've posted some general evidence, please let me know (ping me) if it needs refining/extra diffs/anything. Thanks. Mike Peel (talk) 10:18, 13 March 2021 (UTC)

Rebuts in editor's own section

Rebuttals to editor's comments are being added outside of editor's own section. Could this be clarified? As is, this is confusing? I made an initial comment which I thought of as evidence to clarify an action, but if seen as a rebuttal I'm happy to remove it.

As well, I read somewhere that proposed remedies should not be offered by editors but left to arbs. Is that the case? Littleolive oil (talk) 21:32, 5 March 2021 (UTC)

Regarding the second, that has been mentioned above. See #Word and diff limit question regarding "Analysis of evidence". Dreamy Jazz ^{talk to me | my contributions} 21:48, 5 March 2021 (UTC)

I've removed my own comment. I hope others will do the same and comply with instructions. Otherwise the confusion with multiple editor rebuttals mixed in with evidence is substantial. Littleolive oil (talk) 21:58, 5 March 2021 (UTC)

(I hope Littleolive oil doesn't mind my posting this here.) In re Dreamy Jazz's reply, I think the question was about one of the Analysis of Evidence sections, where there is discussion of whether an editor should have used the analysis to argue for desysopping. I see that Littleolive oil and Levivich have removed some of their comments from one of the Analysis sections, and I think that's nice in terms of making the discussion less argumentative – but I also note that the template is formatted in terms of comments from Arbs, parties, and the community, so it's not clear to me that community comments really did need to be removed.

I hope that these potential changes will be clarified, to avoid confusion. Also, it should be made clear whether or not there should be threaded discussion on the Workshop and PD talk pages. --Tryptofish (talk) 00:08, 6 March 2021 (UTC)

I had only responded to their second point (i.e. remedies can only be proposed by arbitrators). I didn't comment on the first. Regarding the first, comments about the analysis should ideally be directed at the analysis itself. If the editor wishes to analyse it in a different way, they should probably make their own analysis section. Dreamy Jazz ^{talk to me | my contributions} 00:12, 6 March 2021 (UTC)

I think it's clear already that only Arbs can propose remedies on the Workshop and PD pages, but there is a question about whether or not editors can comment that they think a particular remedy should be used, elsewhere on case pages. Joe Roe does this in his analysis of evidence, and another editor has questioned it there; it's possible that other editors will bring up remedies in other discussions on case pages, without formally proposing remedies in the Workshop.

Thanks for clarifying that comments about evidence analysis should focus on that particular analysis, whereas analyzing in a different way should probably be in a separate section.

Please clarify, still, about threaded discussion versus editor-specific sections for the Workshop and PD talk pages. --Tryptofish (talk) 00:22, 6 March 2021 (UTC)

Although I cannot answer your question fully (as it would be helpful for an arbitrator to speak on that) I can say that editors not being able to propose remedies on the workshop page is specifically about the workshop and only about proposing. This means that comments on whether they think a proposed remedy should or should not be used can be made under the arbitrator proposed remedy in the comments section and on the pd talk when the pd is posted. Dreamy Jazz ^{talk to me | my contributions} 00:51, 6 March 2021 (UTC)

Also in regards to the question in your last sentence, sectioned discussion is nearly always enforced on a case pd talk and nearly never implemented on a workshop talk. At the moment sectioned discussion is not in force on the workshop talk, and is on the pd talk. I don't see any indication that this would change, unless behavior at the workshop talk requires sectioned discussion to keep the situation in order. Dreamy Jazz ^{talk to me | my contributions} 00:56, 6 March 2021 (UTC)

Could an arb explain this shocking statement please

I don't understand this statement. Ignoring the misrepresentation of the Ayurveda situation where I was editing, this comment by Joe Roe below, is very confusing.

User:bradv asked RexxS to comment on these blocks on his talk page.[119] Although bradv signed it as an individual, this message was actually on behalf of the 2020 Arbitration Committee after we became aware of the blocks through the Psuedoscience ARCA – arbs can confirm this in the mailing list archive.

(Italics, bold mine). Is Joe Roe speaking for arbitrators, have access to arbitrator information? Is he an arbitrator? I didn't notice that he was. What's going on here? I'm pretty shocked at this point. Littleolive oil (talk) 15:02, 6 March 2021 (UTC)

Joe Roe was an arbitrator, with his term ending at the end of 2020. It would hence make sense that he was involved in arbitrator business in 2020, including dealing with that incident. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 15:04, 6 March 2021 (UTC)

Holy lord. Brad, who I do happen to respect, was secretly (apparently) acting (apparently) for the arbs as a group. I was editing there and there was no mention of this, further, the entire statement misrepresents the situation on that article. And Joe Roe as a former arb is now, in effect, presenting evidence on behalf of the arbs of that time. PR since you're not an arb this should be answered by an arb. Littleolive oil (talk) 15:20, 6 March 2021 (UTC)

The list of arbs is public knowledge. We elect them every year in WP:ACE. Joe Roe also declares his arbitratorship on his userpage. But I guess an arb could clarify for you that he was indeed an arbitrator from 2019-2020. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 15:27, 6 March 2021 (UTC)

Bradv was acting for himself in that discussion. If he had been acting on behalf of the committee, it would have either included an invitation to email the committee or the signature "For the Arbitration Committee, Bradv". Joe is presenting evidence for himself now. Speaking only for myself, but in my official capacity as an Arbitrator, Barkeep49 (talk) 15:37, 6 March 2021 (UTC)

Thank you Barkeep49. Joe Roe is using that information inappropriately. He is adding credence to a statement by invoking " all of the arbs", a misrepresentation. I would be surprised by this in any editor but in a former arb, I'm incredulous. And this means I spend my Saturday combing through diffs to asses what else is misrepresented. Darn. Best. Littleolive oil (talk) 15:49, 6 March 2021 (UTC)

@Littleolive oil let me amend my statement. There was support from some other Arbs for the questions being asked. So Joe is not grossly misrepresenting what happened whe. He says that there was support for Bradv to post the questions. Again only speaking for myself but in my role as an Arbitrator, Barkeep49 (talk) 15:59, 6 March 2021 (UTC)

Thanks Barkeep. Questions being asked is different than "on behalf of the 2020 arb committee" and then using that information in support of pejorative information in an arbitration especially when pertinent information and context is being left out. That's a misrepresentation of fact and the result is to prejudice. That's not right! But don't mean to yack at you. Not your monkey not your parade. Littleolive oil (talk) 16:13, 6 March 2021 (UTC)

• I'll have to disagree with Barkeep here. Bradv wasn't just posting for himself, but on behalf of the committee, in the sense that he had consensus to do so from other arbs who weighed on in the matter. Maybe if he'd been clearer about that the discussion wouldn't have been quite so acrimonious, but that's hindsight. In any case the current committee has access to the mailing list archive and can make their own mind up about what happened. I'm not on ArbCom any more, my evidence is presented as an uninvolved observer, but it would be absurd (and dishonest) to pretend my encounters with him while I was on the committee didn't inform it.

@Littleolive oil: You already decided my evidence was misrepresented before the case accepted, so I'm not sure what this song and dance is in aid of. You and the committee can of course make your own assessment of the diffs. Though I'm curious what possible motive you think I'd have to lie about them. – Joe (talk) 16:25, 6 March 2021 (UTC)

• @Joe Roe: Sorry missed this. You had presented evidence in the request which I was reacting to, and no one accused you of lying nor would I. Nor do I question your intentions. I am questioning what was posted and how. Littleolive oil (talk) 22:20, 6 March 2021 (UTC)

As the Committee evaluates the tone of RexxS's comments to other editors, it's worth looking at Joe Roe's tone of annoyance here. In any case, the responses to Bradv's questions to RexxS need to be read in the context of what editors could reasonably be expected to know, not what they could divine clairvoyantly. In other words, Bradv sounded like he was asking, genuinely asking, as an individual, and he got answers based upon that. Maybe not the answers that Joe Roe wanted. I'll present evidence of what the answers were, that Bradv got from others, but it would be a bad look to say "sorry, not the answers that we wanted". --Tryptofish (talk) 16:34, 6 March 2021 (UTC)

I guess I'm a little annoyed at Littleolive oil's persistent insinuations that I'm part of some conspiracy. As for the discussion on RexxS' talk page, he barely answered at all. 90% of the discussion is talk page stalkers piling on to attack Bradv for daring to challenge RexxS. And yeah, I found that pretty unpleasant. It should be normal and uncontroversial for admins to justify their actions to anyone who asks, arb or not. – Joe (talk) 16:50, 6 March 2021 (UTC)

First off, Joe Roe, if this is piling on, it comes from one of our most respected admins (recently handed his tools in for a Wikibreak) and is something I might well have said myself, but under today's climate admins get desyoped for it - but at least I can only have my tools yanked once. Secondly, I cannot see anything, every which way I parse the syntax and morphology, where Littleolive oil has been making persistent insinuations that you are part of some conspiracy. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 06:33, 7 March 2021 (UTC)

• I never said that please don't extrapolate. I find that I cannot agree with some of your diffs for various reasons. That's what happens in an arbitration. I don't like being here and I don't like having to look at dozens of diffs, and I don't like suggesting any editor has misrepresented the facts. I also do not assume intention so I'm not saying lying I'm saying I don't think your points present the facts and exclude context as I see them and it. So I'll have to post that position. And by the way people supporting Rexx's action which by the way came after he had asked for help and got none, is in support of Rexx and the action and not an explicit attack on Brad. I respect Brad I disagreed with him. Song and Dance. Listen I have to trust arbs and I want to trust the poster. Your statement seems to misrepresents a situation and at stake is the shift in an arbitration and another human being. I have to question that. That's what happens in arbitrations. Smelly business that they are. Littleolive oil (talk) 18:12, 6 March 2021 (UTC)

We all can get a little annoyed from time to time, there's no felony there. --Tryptofish (talk) 16:53, 6 March 2021 (UTC)

To be fair, that discussion is a bit off. Comments like these aren't really appropriate regardless of whether ArbCom is inquiring or just a single administrator. It may be worthwhile for the Committee to note, as a general reminder to all admins and editors, that it is perfectly reasonable for editors to ask administrators to justify their admin actions, and such a request should not be met with aggression. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 17:12, 6 March 2021 (UTC)

The editor who wrote that comment was a non-admin, and certainly was not RexxS. --Tryptofish (talk) 17:22, 6 March 2021 (UTC)

I'm not saying that comment is a blemish on RexxS (accordingly, it's not part of my evidence). But multiple arbs, when accepting the case, expressed interest in having one of the remedies be a general reminder to all admins (/editors). Accordingly, I think several comments in that discussion may contribute towards such a general reminder. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 17:25, 6 March 2021 (UTC)

Thanks, I agree with all of that. --Tryptofish (talk) 17:27, 6 March 2021 (UTC)

• Seems this is all leading up sanctioning someone for "tone" (not misuse of tools, not personal attacks, not even the all holy incivility). Indeed, that should serve as a good "general reminder to all admins". (and I'm curious as to how you read 'tone' in a text based medium) But maybe I'm missing something, so I'll just assume I'm wrong in my thinking here. — Ched (talk) 17:52, 6 March 2021 (UTC)
  • Psst, Ched. You're not wrong. :) --Tryptofish (talk) 18:06, 6 March 2021 (UTC)

Some further questions for ArbCom

So as I understand it, RexxS initiated an ARCA discussion here: [2]. This led to some discussion on the ArbCom mailing list, and Bradv asked RexxS about the multiple blocks, on RexxS's talk page, following some private discussion on the mailing list that asking would be an appropriate thing to do.

I've read through the ARCA discussion, and I cannot find anywhere that someone raises the issue that RexxS made a large number of blocks that are sufficiently concerning that ArbCom should investigate them. It's noted that there were a large number of probable meatpuppets, but no discussion of questionable blocking. Did I miss something?

Assuming that I didn't miss it, then I can think of two possible causes for ArbCom discussing how Bradv should raise the specific issue with RexxS:

1. Someone, perhaps one or more of the blocked editors, contacted ArbCom to complain or appeal.
2. Some Arbs simply decided to investigate further, beyond what the ARCA raised on-wiki.

I can very much understand that if ArbCom had gotten email(s) appealing the blocks, then it would be appropriate to ask RexxS about it. But in that case, if (hypothetically, for the sake of discussion here) RexxS and any other editors who responded at his talk page were to give a reasonable explanation for the blocks, then ArbCom should either have accepted those explanations or stated explicitly at RexxS's talk page that there were still concerns and that ArbCom was investigating those concerns. Clearly, no one explicitly told RexxS that the blocks were being investigated by the Committee.

But if any Arbs took it upon themselves to conduct an investigation of something where no one, on or off-site, had contacted the Committee and requested assistance, then that sounds like, to be frank, an abuse of power (if it happened that way). The Committee is charged to arbitrate matters brought to it by the community, and to deal with problems that are unsuitable for public discussion, but not as a sort of police force, particularly not without being transparent with the editor(s) being investigated.

So, what happened? --Tryptofish (talk) 20:46, 6 March 2021 (UTC)

It's always appropriate to ask any administrator about their administrator actions, and anyone can do so. And the idea that arbitrators can only act when it is formally requested is erroneous—see the Level-I and II desysop procedures, for example. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs ^talk 21:47, 6 March 2021 (UTC)

It is also far from uncommon for people to discuss Wikipedia in off-wiki venues, and to get second opinions from others in such venues before acting. I've seen (and asked) plenty of "Is it just me or is ... something of concern?" and "Something seems off about ... what do you think?" type questions on wiki, by individual email, on facebook/FB messenger, on the oversight, functionaries and (when I was an arb in 2015) arbcom email lists (possibly also the clerks list as well, I can't remember off the top of my head). This is a good thing as it reduces the chances of misunderstandings increasing the chances that things which are disruption get addressed and that things which aren't disruption are not.
In addition to what David Fuchs says immediately above (for which see WP:ADMINACCT: "Subject only to the bounds of civility, avoiding personal attacks, and reasonable good faith, editors are free to question or to criticize administrator actions. Administrators are expected to respond promptly and civilly to queries about their Wikipedia-related conduct and administrative actions [...] Administrators should justify their actions when requested.") every Wikipedia editor must be prepared to discuss and explain their actions when requested (WP:ENGAGE says: "All Wikipedia editors are expected to make a good-faith effort to use talk pages to discuss issues when needed."). Thryduulf (talk) 22:10, 6 March 2021 (UTC)

We can perhaps agree to disagree, but I find those answers evasive. I get it, that there is nothing wrong with asking someone to explain what they have done. I get it, that there are procedures like Level-#. I get it, that ArbCom can have private discussions among themselves. But that is not what I asked about. It is clear that ArbCom decided to look into the long list of blocks that was posted by Bradv on RexxS's talk page. It is clear, now, that no one told ArbCom about those blocks at the ARCA discussion, but that ArbCom became aware of the blocks as an outgrowth of that discussion. Perhaps ArbCom was told of the blocks via private communication, which is OK. Perhaps someone on ArbCom decided to take a closer look at the administrative actions RexxS had taken in connection with the ARCA, which by itself is OK. In either case, Bradv asked RexxS for information about the blocks, which is also OK. In the evidence that I will soon present, we can take a close look at the replies to Bradv's inquiry. But we will take that look in the knowledge that no one responding knew anything more than that Bradv, individually, had asked. If a careful examination of those replies shows that RexxS responded in compliance with ADMINACCT, then there will be no valid reason to conclude that RexxS violated the requirement that he explain his actions. So the next question will be whether the responses to Bradv's inquiry, from RexxS personally as well as taken as a whole, present anything that is actionable at ArbCom now. But that will have to be evaluated separately from whether anything in those responses was at odds with the thoughts of other Arbs on the mailing list, because those thoughts were never communicated, and ADMINACCT does not mandate mind-reading. Putting that another way, everyone who responded to Bradv's inquiry was responding to that inquiry, not to a combination of the inquiry plus everything else that was discussed on the private mailing list. I see that Joe Roe has said that he found the discussion unsatisfying. He has every right to feel that way, but no one in that discussion was informed of that, at the time. If ArbCom were to, now, penalize RexxS for having responded only to what Bradv had asked, that would be an error, so let's be clear about that. And if (spoiler alert!) the discussion were to show a reasonable consensus that the blocks served a good purpose, then the fact that this might contradict the assumptions that had been made by some Arbs before the discussion doesn't make RexxS wrong. --Tryptofish (talk) 23:34, 6 March 2021 (UTC)

Spot on Tryptofish

-EEng

+1 Said absolutely spot-on Tryptofish. Lourdes 05:43, 9 March 2021 (UTC)

Response to Lourdes' analysis

I was hoping after I accepted RexxS’s apology I could just walk away from this. I ignored wbm1058’s accusations. Then I saw Lourdes’, and to those I guess I have no choice but to respond. I don’t think the committee needs to consider any of this, so I’m answering it here.

• Lourdes, I’ll ask you the same thing I was asking RexxS: can you please clarify what you mean by partisan? And honestly, “for reasons best known to her” is such an ugly phrase. It implies so many ugly things. And it implies that we all know exactly what those nefarious reasons are. Let’s get it right out into the open: what exactly are you implying are my reaons? Because I can assure you they are quite open: I saw a fellow admin make a rude statement to a non-admin, I came into that admin's page, and I asked them to stop being rude. They accused me of partisanship, and I did’t understand what they were implying were the partisan motives behind my behavior.

What was I doing that was partisan? And why is it baiting to ask for an explanation of an accusation of partisanship? I was being called partisan. I asked for an explanation. I do not understand why you are calling this baiting.

I’m also troubled by this: “She is herself an administrator, and should have seen the full context of what was going on. Reading her comments, it seems she did realise what was going, but chose to repeatedly and deliberately (for reasons best known to her) harangue RexxS to ask him repeatedly, why he considered her partisan.” Yes, I'm an administrator. I think administrators ought to never, even if someone is pissing them off, be rude, and especially not to non-admins. And frankly I think administrators ought to be willing to -- even are required to -- call one another out when they see that happen. I'm not going to quibble over whether I should have considered the non-admin's rudeness just as rude; fine, stipulated. Admins shouldn't be rude, especially to non-admins they're in a disagreement with, period. If they are, another admin needs to say something to them.

What is it exactly that you’re accusing me of? Which comments are showing I realize what? What was I realizing? What nefarious reasons ‘best known to me’ are you implying I am doing what because of? You seem to be saying, “You know what you did!” And I don’t. I really don’t. What did I do?

I am getting the strong feeling that you believe I am behaving in a way that is somehow disingenuous. I am not, though I’m happy to stipulate, as I’ve done many times, that I may simply not be understanding what others understand. Please clarify. I wish I could express that there’s nothing ulterior here and that I’m being completely sincere, but I understand that these are things insincere people with ulterior motives do say. You are making nebulous accusations that can be interpreted in fairly hideous ways.

• I guess while I’m here I might as well deal with the other stuff. wbm1058, trying to treat disagreements as something other than brain surgery isn’t equivalent to not taking the discussion seriously. I was trying to disagree without becoming disagreeable. Yes, I’m not technically proficient, and I admit it often and freely. Frankly I think it’s one thing for me to call myself inept and someone else to do so. If you don’t understand that basic bit of human nature, you may be causing offense to lot of people without realizing it. I'd put a little smiley in there, but I'm afraid you'll think I'm not taking this seriously; I assure you I am. The literal entire point of that entire wall of text you’re calling "timewasting" was to convince folks who apparently thought implying not including the date/timestamp was no better than not signing at all was ridiculous because "anyone could learn how to include the date/timestamp." It seemed quite obvious to me that of course having a sig without a date/timestamp is better than having no sig at all.  Of course given that some folks might have a hard time figuring out the date/timestamp portion (which clearly I was) might make it worth our while to make clear. I fail to see how making that argument was wasting time. Am I taking this seriously enough for you now?

Apologies for the length of this. I tried to make it as short as I could, but there was so much to unpack. —valereee (talk) 14:04, 8 March 2021 (UTC)

Given that four separate editors (excluding myself), between here and Lourdes' talk, have found four separate aspects of her analysis concerning and/or misleading, and indeed there remain several other points of concern not yet mentioned with pretty much all of it, and some parts of this analysis are not just wrong but also offensive (such as the 'valereee was pretty much baiting / being partisan'), plus the WP:POINTY editing of a PAG to support her analysis: imo Lourdes should probably reconsider/collapse her analysis in the interests of productivity and to keep the general temperature of the evidence page low. (I say this with respect, as someone who has often agreed with Lourdes on unrelated points, and can probably understand the reasons for the submission but it's still deeply worrying, especially from an admin). ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 14:15, 8 March 2021 (UTC)

And I found most of Lourdes comments compelling and coincided with my experience; I am not judging whether Valeree is partisan or not. Lourdes should no more collapse her evidence than you should yours, unless the arbs ask her too. I don't think you understand what you have unleashed PR. This all saddens me so much. Littleolive oil (talk) 17:19, 8 March 2021 (UTC)

@Littleolive oil, yeah, see, this is the problem with accusations not being explained. You don't know how to judge whether I'm partisan or not because I can't defend myself against accusations that haven't been explained. So some people, including you apparently, are inevitably going to think those accusations might have been reasonable because you can't judge. It looks like I might just forever be the editor who was possibly partisan and might have had nefarious but unspecified reasons for unfairly haranguing and baiting another editor. That's just fucking great, eh? —valereee (talk) 19:21, 8 March 2021 (UTC)

Valereee, please, you really have stop making assumptions about me and extrapolating from what I say. I say what I mean and if I mean more I'll say it."So some people, including you apparently, are inevitably going to think those accusations might have been reasonable..." I didn't say that.

If anyone would have listened to me about Arbitrations I would have said, first, please don't do it. Every editor is potentially in position to have comments thrown at them which they will find really, really hard to rebut in part because behaviour over time and presented on a two dimensional screen is probably going to be lacking context. I've said before, no one is unaffected by an arbitration some are affected more than others. I have known editors who suffered PTSD from arbitrations and others, one with over 100,000 edits just left. I will never do an arbitration, if I am named, because I don't have the will or stamina to deal with it. This isn't the arbs fault, I assume they do the best they can, it just doesn't work. The repercussions of an arbitration can be sad and sometimes devastating. This arbitration is loaded with mischaracterizations by the way so you're not alone including numerous ones directed at Rexx. Misery doesn't love company so I know that doesn't help. Littleolive oil (talk) 20:08, 8 March 2021 (UTC)

What you're effectively saying is that (in general) there should be no recourse to take care of abusive administrators, and rank-and-file editors subject to such abuse should suck it up. This is the only venue to investigative administrative misconduct, so that's what's going on here. Just because the arbitration process is unpleasant doesn't mean (a) that it's not necessary; and (b) that unsubstantiated (ie, no diffs) claims, or "assertions" that are a massive reach based on the supplied diffs, are also okay. They aren't, and those are what makes this process unpleasant. Yes, editors have to expect some substantiated allegations they might not like but could potentially be true, for the arbs to evaluate. No, editors shouldn't have to tolerate baseless and unsubstantiated claims.

Between mine and Joe Roe's evidence are 132 diffs and links to discussions. Every sentence, or every other sentence, in my submission ends with multiple diffs to substantiate the relatively neutral explanation preceding the diffs. The exceptions are for general statements of fact or policy, or (infrequent) reasonable inferences of the preceding sentence. Isaacl does even better than me by separating his inferences and evidence entirely. Compare that to this: In the comments about valereee's partisanship/baiting/'reasons best known to her' are 0 diffs. The analysis of her comments is a stretch beyond anything that can reasonably be interpreted from them. Amongst your repeated messages that the case (and particularly Joe's evidence) is "loaded with mischaracterisations" are 0 diffs. With claims that I abused my TPE permissions (doing what, making a TfD nomination?) is, again, zero diffs of exactly which of my edits on a protected template were in violation of WP:TPE. I hope the clerks can aggressively remove every comment which doesn't even make an attempt to be substantiated with a diff. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 21:01, 8 March 2021 (UTC)

No. What I'm saying is what I said. And PT you are not an arb. Please let them deal with this case. Littleolive oil (talk) 23:16, 8 March 2021 (UTC)

Correct, which is why I haven't clerked anything myself. I requested clerks clerk such comments, of which there are too many on the evidence page and are a violation of the existing evidence rules: Evidence must include links to the actual page diff in question, or to a short page section; links to the page itself are inadequate. + Accusations of misbehaviour posted in this case must be proven with clear evidence (and otherwise not made at all). ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 23:21, 8 March 2021 (UTC)

@Littleolive oil, sorry, you said you couldn't judge whether I was partisan or not, even though there's been no evidence of my partisan behavior, only accusations of it. I made the assumption, for which I apologize, that you like so many people had fallen into the trap of believing 'no smoke without fire' and assumed there had to be good reason for the accusations. Because otherwise I'd think it was actually pretty easy to judge: "Hm, no actual evidence? I guess that means I'll have to assume no actual guilt." And I did not bring this case. —valereee (talk) 21:30, 8 March 2021 (UTC)

@Valereee: If I wanted to judge whether you were partisan or not I would look beyond the posts on the evidence page. Since this case is not about determining whether you are partisan or not-you have not been named- all I can say is, and I will not add to the vitriol either on this page or in this case, I simply cannot judge. An arbitration is loaded with accusations, some unfortunately posted on the talk page as if they are fact. Until this case is decided there is no fact (even then, fact as determined by the arbs is not definitive fact), but only interpretations, and again I have no opinion of you beyond a few posts which means I am not judging nor am I interested in judging. Littleolive oil (talk) 17:17, 10 March 2021 (UTC)

@Lourdes: I've moved my response here to avoid cluttering the evidence page with dialectic. I do not think your distinction between an ordinary user and a user familiar with the code is relevant here, because when Citation bot is triggered with a load of articles, the degree to which the person triggering it "knows how to code the bot" has no effect on what Citation bot does to those articles.

I get the impression that you are (and RexxS was, at the time) preoccupied with fixing AMWNP's moral responsibility for Citation bot making changes that are not approved. I think his decision to defend those changes as "approved", in the face of mounting evidence that the community did not approve of them, was unwise, and potentially sanctionable. I continue to believe that RexxS's decision to begin by blocking AMWNP rather than Citation bot was incorrect. I believe that your statement that "one normally blocks a bot first only if it is running automatically", which implies that blocking Citation bot would have been *wrong*, is not supported by policy, guideline, or custom, and that you should strike it from your analysis as untrue. You have quoted BOTUSE to justify the block, "may in some cases lead to blocking of the user account and possible sanctions for the operator." I interpret that as meaning that the user account *of Citation bot* should have been blocked, and possible sanctions for the operator (AMWNP or Smith609, depending on how you construe it) then discussed.

I am sorry to be so perseverative, but you are reading things into policy that I cannot find when I read them, and that makes me worry that either you or I will get into trouble for a good-faith attempt to enforce policy that the community does not agree with. I consider that to be of much more moment than whatever this incident does or doesn't say about RexxS. Choess (talk) 21:12, 8 March 2021 (UTC)

Hi Choess, your statement above is: "the degree to which the person triggering it "knows how to code the bot" has no effect on what Citation bot does to those articles." That answers part of my question of your understanding of this issue. Further, irrespective of your interpretation on the term "user account" and "bot account" (see Wikipedia:Bot policy#Bot accounts), would you consider AMWNP a user or an operator in this case of Citation bot? Lourdes 01:26, 9 March 2021 (UTC)

Analysis section heading

Regarding this edit: in the past I have not used analysis section headings with a specific user name, in order to allow for consolidated, collaborative analysis of a given aspect. Of course, having analysis sections was not very popular before. My preference would be not to personalize individual analysis section headings if the person creating it did not do so themselves. I leave it to the clerks, however, to decide on the best approach. isaacl (talk) 16:19, 8 March 2021 (UTC)

I can remove it if you object. I added it to match the standard of all other sections. Please feel free to revert it anyway you prefer. Warmly, Lourdes 17:18, 8 March 2021 (UTC)

Thanks for your co-operation! At present the heading reads as if the discussion was about formatting done by me. I prefer topic-based discussion versus author-based discussion when feasible, but I appreciate why the opposite may work better for some circumstances. Thus personally I'd rather there be some flexibility. isaacl (talk) 22:41, 8 March 2021 (UTC)

#METOO discussion of prosthetic cacophony

For those playing along at home, this little lovefest was surgically extracted from [3]:

• sorry that you got stuck in that cacophony – Actually, my cacophony's prosthetic so it gets stuck in things all the time and it doesn't hurt a bit. That comes in real handy in beekeeping, but I go back and forth on whether it's worth all the extra hassle at airport security. EEng 06:10, 7 March 2021 (UTC)

  EEng, I know it would be inappropriate to say I love you... But I do, even if I tend to disagree (warmly) with your interpretations. You have this way of putting things, that just is so beautiful. Thanks for the points above. Love, Lourdes 15:06, 7 March 2021 (UTC)

  Well I shouldn't say this on-wiki either, but if my cacophony weren't prosthetic I'm sure your words would be giving me a warm feeling in it right now. EEng 17:38, 7 March 2021 (UTC) Stage whisper: Someone call the POLICE!

Request for leeway in analysis word limit

This is a request to the clerks for leeway in the analysis word limit. It is tough to reduce analysis word count considering the evidence section. However, if the clerks decline, I'll basically cut blindly and get to it. Looking for guidance. Lourdes 01:30, 9 March 2021 (UTC)

IMO it would be unfair to enforce word limits on the analysis section at all. The instructions at the top of the page don't mention any and the clarification from the arbs above came after the fact. Whether intended or not, people are using the evidence section to rebut others' evidence, and putting an absolute limit on the analysis section gives us very little room to respond to that. – Joe (talk) 14:19, 9 March 2021 (UTC)

Limits are being discussed. It is probable that there will be limits. Dreamy Jazz ^{talk to me | my contributions} 17:22, 10 March 2021 (UTC)

FoF when someone doesn't participate

Moved from Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/RexxS/Evidence § Barkeep49 Questions

I want to note first of all that editors are, indeed, providing answers to the question that Barkeep49 actually asked, and I hope that there will be more. But anyway, I've been thinking about how some previous ArbCom cases have included a Finding of Fact that "(name of admin) did not participate in this case", and I believe that requires some rethinking. If there is a very specific way in which such an FoF gives rise to a particular Remedy, then it should be included, but perhaps this is a practice that should stop being used "as a simple statement of fact". This ArbCom case is trying out some changes in procedure (and doing a good job of it so far, in my opinion!), intended in part to make cases less stressful for named parties. I think it would be illogical to say that we would like to reduce stress for non-admin parties, but not for parties who are admins. There has been a history of named parties just not feeling emotionally able to participate in ArbCom cases, and if we are going to be humane, we should not hide behind a stiff-shirted insistence that "ordinarily we would expect RexxS himself to be here to offer some defence of his conduct." ADMINACCT matters, but it has limits. --Tryptofish (talk) 19:30, 9 March 2021 (UTC)

Adding: The context in which I wrote the above was another editor raising the issue of RexxS not participating in this case. --Tryptofish (talk) 23:06, 9 March 2021 (UTC)

In all cases, parties are encouraged to present their side of the story - this is a Good Thing. If someone chooses not to then, in many cases, there is a lack of evidence mitigating and/or explaining the actions, and arbcom can only make decisions based on the evidence available so not participating increases the likelihood that remedies will (appear to) be disproportionate. I'm very much of the opinion that findings of fact should be taken as neutral statements of, well, facts that are relevant to, summarise and explain the situation rather than being directly tied to a remedy (and I argued for this when I was on the committee). Noting that a party chose not to participate would definitely be something directly relevant to the case, and should not be seen as a badge of shame any more than something like "RexxS blocked XYZ for vandalism, consensus was that this was a good block" would be. I have not read even most of the evidence so I don't know how relevant this all is to this specific case though. Thryduulf (talk) 20:27, 9 March 2021 (UTC)

That would be a badge of shame for XYZ. Levivich ^harass/_hound 20:28, 9 March 2021 (UTC)

I hope we'll all remember that, behind the usernames, we are dealing with real people. --Tryptofish (talk) 20:32, 9 March 2021 (UTC)

I want to add that it wasn't my intention to deprecate all FoFs that are neutral statements of facts; I was speaking about this one specifically. It may be a specific instance of what has been done in the past, that is due for a re-think. --Tryptofish (talk) 21:08, 9 March 2021 (UTC)

I don't have a strong feeling about these one FoF way or another. But I will say good decision making happens best when a wide variety of viewpoints are considered, and all interested stakeholders participate. So missing out on the perspectives a named party has to offer, but especially when that named party is the focus of the case, does make it harder for us to reach good decisions. It also, I think, raises the temperature just a bit because wikifriends try to assume the mantle instead. And because most people do know that there's another person on the other side of this, I think people use slightly sharper words when addressing a third party than they would in addressing the person themselves. So I think we have a harder slightly less pleasant process in these circumstances. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 21:49, 9 March 2021 (UTC)

Rexx answered major questions in the Request section of this arbitration, and probably better than anyone else could. I'd suggest his comments given the clarity of his post in terms if his own actions are worth looking at and considering again. (Repeated from post Evidence page.) Littleolive oil (talk) 22:08, 9 March 2021 (UTC)

My personal position is that we should not have a finding of fact that doesn't logically lead to a remedy, except for sometimes actually saying something nice as we have done in some other admin conduct cases (i.e. <ADMIN> has a been an active contributor for 13 years, having made over 43,000 edits in that time, and became an administrator in 2018). So unless we find that not participating in the case is part of a pattern of WP:ADMINACCT misconduct I don't see the point in mentioning it in the decision. Beeblebrox (talk) 22:36, 9 March 2021 (UTC)

Re Barkeep49's comment above about RexxS's absence from the case making it "harder" for arbcom to reach a good decision, and even more re Joe Roe's suggestion on the evidence page that that absence is "a failure to meet WP:ADMINACCT",[4] I'll just mention that Wikipedia is not compulsory. "Editors are free to take a break or leave Wikipedia at any time" is fucking policy. Read up on it. Bishonen | tålk 23:21, 9 March 2021 (UTC).

Of course anyone can take a break whenever they want. Arbs themselves do it all the time, but I do agree with Barkeep that participation from case parties can make it easier to reach a final decision. Sometimes in a good way, sometimes not so much. In any event Rexx is hardly the first person to just walk off when a case was opened, and historically I don't think that in and of itself has been seen as something to sanction over. Beeblebrox (talk) 23:34, 9 March 2021 (UTC)

Speaking for myself, I think it is entirely appropriate to say that it is harder for ArbCom to reach a good decision when some voices aren't present. That's just a fact, and it's also part of the community-approved arbitration policy: Editors are expected to respond to statements about themselves; failure to do so may result in decisions being made without their participation. I have no comment on whether not answering questions in this forum amounts to an ADMINCOND violation, but I do think it's unfair to say anyone in this thread needs to "read up on" "fucking policy". KevinL (aka L235 · t · c) 23:36, 9 March 2021 (UTC)

Nobody in this thread, no, KevinL. Sorry, Barkeep49, I should have made it more clear that I think it's Joe Roe, with his WP:ADMINACCT on the evidence page, that needs to read up on WP:NOT, and specifically on fucking WP:NOTCOMPULSORY, and try to internalize it. I should have been more careful to distinguish between him and you, who for your part merely lamented that "missing out on the perspectives a named party has to offer, but especially when that named party is the focus of the case, does make it harder for us to reach good decisions." In your comment there was a mere hint of guilt-pushing, no accusations of policy violations or bad faith, in contrast to Joe's. Bishonen | tålk 00:35, 10 March 2021 (UTC).

WP:ADMINACCT is also a policy, Bishonen. Nobody is saying that RexxS is obligated to return to Wikipedia. But if he doesn't respond to accusations that he misused his advanced rights, he shouldn't expect to keep them. – Joe (talk) 11:43, 10 March 2021 (UTC)

So people are guilty until they prove themselves innocent in your world, are they Joe? It's a lesson I shouldn't need to be teaching to an ex-arbitrator, but the onus should be on the accusers to prove their accusations, not on the accused to disprove them. And I'm disgusted to hear an ex-arbitrator claim the exact opposite. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 18:05, 11 March 2021 (UTC)

(Modified to add "ex-") Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 18:25, 11 March 2021 (UTC)

• Hold on. Allegations and accusations do not equal guilt. We have arbs here and those arbs I assume check allegations for their veracity. No one gets sanctioned for allegations. What do we have arbs for if they just accept ANYTHING any editor posts. I just saw this and found it to be jaw dropping. Littleolive oil (talk) 18:04, 11 March 2021 (UTC)
  • ^That was an excellent point. --Tryptofish (talk) 18:07, 11 March 2021 (UTC)

(obviously speaking for myself) How is it unfair? If something stresses you out, drags you down, or just plain disgusts you, why shouldn't you prioritize your own sanity, regardless whether your behaviour is seen as a 'badge of shame' by some of the community or not? I hope RexxS returns, but not if this turns out to be a rather randomly initiated making an example of a good if feisty editor, an actual person, dedicated to improving the encyclopedia, occasionally suboptimally, but in view of all edits, rather well. ---Sluzzelin talk 23:54, 9 March 2021 (UTC)

What I wrote is true. Without his participation it is harder to make a good decision. We would benefit from his insight and perspective. Barkeep49 (talk) 23:38, 9 March 2021 (UTC)

For what it's worth, I'm with Bish on this. But, as I said above, we should all remember that there are real people behind the usernames. In evaluating whether RexxS may have lost his temper from time to time, it's good to remember that we all can lose our temper, even when recused. --Tryptofish (talk) 00:00, 10 March 2021 (UTC)

I feel like "remember the person" gets deployed selectively, along the lines of, "remember that there's a person behind this username we're familiar with". The editors RexxS inappropriately blocked, threatened, and drove away from the project are also people. It's much more common to see that kind of editor dehumanised with labels like "SPA" and "meatpuppet" than someone with the social capital that RexxS has here. That's why misuse of the admin tools is so damaging to the project, and why those of us who ask for them have an obligation to be responsible for their use. – Joe (talk) 11:43, 10 March 2021 (UTC)

I deploy it when it actually applies to the situation. Continuing to insist that the blocked editors were not demonstrably part of an organized off-site campaign to undermine community consensus, and thus were not meatpuppets, is WP:IDHT. Or, should I say, a real person committing WP:IDHT. --Tryptofish (talk) 20:45, 10 March 2021 (UTC) Struck part. --Tryptofish (talk) 20:57, 10 March 2021 (UTC)

Re: "The editors RexxS inappropriately blocked, threatened, and drove away from the project..." - so you've already judged this then, have you Joe? Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 18:10, 11 March 2021 (UTC)

While Joe was an Arbitrator for 2019 and 2020, he is not currently on the committee BSZ. Hopefully this calms your disgust. Barkeep49 (talk) 18:14, 11 March 2021 (UTC)

Phew, thanks Barkeep49, that does come as some relief - I really thought he still was an Arb. I'm still disgusted to hear those words from an ex-Arb, though. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 18:21, 11 March 2021 (UTC)

@Barkeep49 and Boing! said Zebedee: me too, and it's not the first time inappropriate comments have come from that quarter (diffs exist). Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 19:12, 11 March 2021 (UTC)

I'll third that comment. I was once selected for a jury pool for a child rape trial. I wasn't selected as a juror, but the prosecutor made a speech that sticks with me to this day. He said that the defense doesn't have to do a thing. It is not their job to prove anything. That's his job. If the prosecutor doesn't prove the case beyond a reasonable doubt in the minds of the jurors, then we HAVE to find the defendant innocent. The concept that an accused should be compelled in ANY way to participate in what amounts to a trial against him is antithetical to justice. Given the format here, I can understand why people don't want to participate. When 2-3 people can present 1500 words and you can only use 1000. It's a bit of a disadvantage. When accusers are given double what everyone else gets, it's 3:1 disadvantage or worse. You basically have to pray that others will jump to your defense. Instead, the same 2-3 accusers can drastically add to their limits by responding to each and every comment and analysis. One person by themselves barely stands a chance based on volume alone. You'd have to make this a full time job just to keep up. When you add that to the idea that you have to participate or the case is effectively decided against you ("guilty until proven innocent")...this is more and more a kangaroo court and, IMHO, it's pathetic that ArbCom and their clerks have allowed this to devolve into the sham it has. I'm not going to sit here and say he's innocent, but he also hardly stands a chance and I don't blame him for leaving. (For all intents and purposes, this is mob rule/cancel culture rather than what it really should be: a reasoned, measured discussion of the facts). Buffs (talk) 03:53, 12 March 2021 (UTC)

This sounds good on the surface, but once one actually analyses the facts this seems to fall apart. The person with the single most words of text in this case is Lourdes, whose contribution stands at 2400 words, which is already more than the evidence submission of Joe Roe and I combined. Combined with just Littleolive oil, the "defence" is already contributing far more words than the "accusers" at a jaw-dropping total of 4000 words. If RexxS was "praying" that editors would jump to his defence, I think the evidence page thoroughly shows that a God exists. If the clerks have inadvertently benefitted anyone in this case, it's the "defence". Not only in word count, but by allowing incredibly reaching analysis, including blatant misrepresentations (called out by several uninvolved editors) and accusations of misbehaviour beyond anything that can reasonably be interpreted from the referenced diffs, to stand. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 04:16, 12 March 2021 (UTC)

Hi ProcrastinatingReader. "blatant misrepresentations (called out by several uninvolved editors) and accusations of misbehaviour". Do cool down buddy. You, me shouldn't be going down this path. You and I generally have/will get along together. Why should this case spoil that? Like I said, cool down my friend. Lourdes 14:21, 12 March 2021 (UTC)

That’s not an attack of some sort, and it’s not just about your submission, and most of the comments I refer to aren’t even directed towards me. It’s just how I see some of the evidence/analysis on both the evidence page and this talk, and it’s a fact that it’s been left up for some reason. It’s also a fact that nobody can speak to the intentions of another editor, so speculation on that front seems to be unhelpful. All this just inflames the case (and its participants). This is the first case with these changes, so I hope the Committee will make changes to future cases, particularly to the rules for analysis and add rules for talk page decorum, and make stricter the enforcement. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 14:43, 12 March 2021 (UTC)

Actually, it was quite strict during earlier days, with clerks chasing up on editors and making them delete/strike their comments. These days, I feel it's more like modern day soccer, where the referee uses common sense over rules while ignoring fouls (temporarily) to let the game continue uninterrupted, and intervenes only with much discretion. That said, it's time to let the Arbs do what they are here to do – and for us both to make up. Next meet-up beer's on me, whenever it happens. Lourdes 15:01, 12 March 2021 (UTC)

...yes? I've openly said that I think RexxS should be desysoped and supported that with 1,000 words of evidence. But it's not up to me, it's up to the committee. Is there something wrong with that? – Joe (talk) 07:56, 12 March 2021 (UTC)

Yes, Joe Roe, a couple of things actually. In your 1016 words which took me quite a while to examine and follow the links and diffs, you appear to have not always reported on the full context, and therefore the 'evidence' you have presented is possibly biased. The first 233 words have got nothing whatsoever to do with the case in hand. Your participation is some of the most emphatic here and it's beginning to sound as if you have a personal ax to grind against the accused. Your comments have been criticised by several respected users; you are no longer an arbitrator and the outcome is not up to you - as you correctly stated, it's up to the committee, and one can only hope that for once they will accord less weight to the words of non involved participants. It would just be nice for former arbitrators to take constructive criticism seriously. I do (as a former admin), I've been through the shite myself and defrocked by your committee. Even if my bitterness to the way in which I was desysoped shows through, and even if I do happen to be a RL friend of RexxS, I'm only concerned that future cases against admins are handled differently and with more decorum and dignity, but sadly a battleground perspective on these behavioural fora appears to be extremely entrenched. Note that I'm only summarising what I have seen here and what others have observed, and Buffs has hit several nails very firmly and squarely on the head. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 11:29, 12 March 2021 (UTC)

I have responded to criticism of my evidence and made corrections as best I can, given the limits of the format. What axe would I have to grind? You're not the first person to fling that accusation at me but as far as I know I've never had any direct interactions with RexxS. Maybe the knee-jerk wagon-circling from people who "happen" to be friends with the subject, and the assumption that anyone offering negative evidence must have a vendetta, is part of the reason admin conduct cases get needlessly fraught? Or why we have such difficulty resolving them before they escalates to this stage? – Joe (talk) 12:29, 12 March 2021 (UTC)

You have asked questions, thus it would be fair for me to offer some answers. Arbcom is not a fair process and never has been. Far from 'friends' circling their waggons, any form of defence is extremely rare on any Arbcom case and the reception defenders get is such that most people don't want to risk their own skin by coming to someone's defence. What makes Arbcom cases doubly unpleasant is 1) They are often led by non-involved parties who are determined to make the case stick and call for the harshest of remedies come hell or high water. 2) Because they are apparently reluctant to investigate the veracity of the claims and the actual background of the plaintiffs and accusers, the committee, faced with an impasse, lets itself be guided by whoever of their number shouts loudest with "This has gone on long enough, let's just get it over with and slam the admin with the hardest punishment we can and make an example of him/her." Compiling a decent arbitration committee is never going to be easy when there are barely enough candidates to fill the seats - anyone who claims that all committee members have been chosen from Wikipedia's wisest and most upstanding, decent, honest, righteous, and ethical editors needs to seriously think again.

"Circle the wagons” is the wrong idiom in this context, it generally means that members of a group cohese to protect themselves from some outside danger. That's not what's happening here. Your 'adversaries' here are simply independently advocating a just and equitable outcome. In that anticipation, I'll not be posting further anywhere on this case. I'll leave that to the anonymous regulars from the Wikipedia hate sites, and let the new committee do its work. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 22:36, 12 March 2021 (UTC)

• I can understand someone else wishing RexxS were here. But this is a no-win for him. He doesn't show up, it's him "running off when there is scrutiny hoping it will go away", "failing ACCT" and so on. He shows up, he either owns up to everything and "it's too late", "he's disingenuous, he's trying to save his ass", or he denies everything, does that once or twice, he's being "dismissive" and "generally contemptuous of the process", does it a lot and it's "IDHT" and "insisting that he's right", with "BLUDGEON" thrown in for good measure. In my opinion, ARB submission should be a series of diffs, arbs should draft a narrative off of them and invite the community to comment on it and that's all that should happen instead of evidence+workshop. There is enough diffs here. Now can arbs look at them free of perspectives-and-relationships-guided narratives woven around them, and consult the comments only for context that they may have missed? I hope so. Usedtobecool ☎️ 03:03, 10 March 2021 (UTC)

  I don't really think that's true. There's nothing to suggest some sort of response will be definitively taken as negative. Moneytrees🏝️^{Talk/CCI guide} 12:14, 10 March 2021 (UTC)

PS. ACCT is an obligation to answer when asked about it ("promptly when requested"). I think RexxS was asked and answered on his talk page, ditto the Request page. I don't know if anything has been asked of him since. I am guessing no, because it seems parties already have ample explanation for everything from multiple frames of reference, the evidence page is full of it. Usedtobecool ☎️ 03:03, 10 March 2021 (UTC)

He has participated, even if only briefly The issue here seems to be one of whether his failure to continue participating should be held against him. If I were still an Arb in the lack of evidence as to exactly why he was no longer participating (remember he's not editing either} I would try to make a decision on the basis of the available evidence, I would not make an assumption as to why he was no longer participating affect my decision. There are many possible reasons for his ceasing to edit. Doug Weller talk 14:58, 10 March 2021 (UTC)

This is a good point, there is a difference between someone continuing as normal as if a case was not happening and someone who is not editing at all. In some cases there can be off-wiki evidence about the latter that can help inform, but that is not always the case. RexxS has never been very active on social media so his absence from there is not concerning, but I know he is (or at least used to be) in regular email contact with some other editors, so it's not impossible that the Committee do have non-public information. Any such information can be positive or negative (or neither) of course - when I was an arbitrator we had private information regarding why one editor was not responding to a case request in which they were a party that gave an entirely reasonable explanation for why they were not editing ("credible and convincing" was the phrase I used at the time) giving a likely timescale for their return so we held off deciding whether to open a case. However towards (or after?) the end of the that period we received information from another editor that they were now trying to avoid scrutiny so we opened a case in their absence. In the absence of any information at all, it is not correct to assume that an absence is genuine or otherwise, however it is not practical to delay a case indefinitely. Thryduulf (talk) 16:31, 10 March 2021 (UTC)

@Joe Roe and Usedtobecool:, I very strongly agree with Tryptofish , Bishonen, and Doug Weller Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 22:11, 10 March 2021 (UTC)

+1 — Ched (talk) 23:44, 10 March 2021 (UTC)

I'm going to say something more. It would be helpful to the Committee to have input from RexxS: I get that. It's possible that RexxS could communicate something that the Committee and the rest of us would otherwise not know about: I get that. But does it follow logically from that, that RexxS's non-participation demonstrates something from which the Committee ought to draw an inference about the proper remedies for this case? No, it does not! Some people may perhaps think something like "if it were I, I would not hesitate to post evidence and workshop proposals in order to make myself understood". Well then, pin an effing rose on you! Aren't you special! What does the fact that a party to a case did not participate demonstrate, factually? That they did not participate. Nothing else. Not that they are hiding something. Not that there is some sort of deep dark secret that should be weighed against them. And, given that the non-participation is a meaning-neutral fact, does it add something of value to the decision to include it as a Finding? Well, "the sky is blue" is factual, so should that be an FoF too? OK, so maybe that's true, but not relevant. Well then, "RexxS is from the UK": should that be an FoF? Here's a Fact: including an FoF in a decision implies that it adds useful information to the decision, that it is something that serves a material purpose in reaching the decision that was reached. So if you want to base a remedy on the presumption that failure to participate requires a sanction, then do it, although it would be the wrong thing to do. But if it does not play any role in determining the final remedies, then there's no good reason to include it. --Tryptofish (talk) 22:36, 10 March 2021 (UTC)

The thing is that it might be relevant - e.g. to a remedy, or giving context to other findings. In the context of a rail accident reports it is very common to see findings of things which were not problematic in themselves but which were necessary to allow problematic things to occur. For example for a wagon to run away it was necessary for both the brakes to have failed and for the track to be on a slope, only the first of these is relevant to remedies but both are included in equivalent of the findings of fact section of the report. Similarly non-problematic actions (or inactions) should be in findings when they are relevant. However as we do not know whether it is or is not relevant then asserting that it would be a "badge of shame" or anything similar is at best incorrect and at worst disruptive - especially as non-participation can be the result of unavoidable matters in real life or it can be an intentional effort to avoid scrutiny (or anywhere in between) and Arbcom may have private evidence that makes this clear (all I know is that I have not sent them anything). Would a finding that "RexxS was unable to participate in this case due to real-world circumstances [private evidence]" be a badge of shame or irrelevant? Thryduulf (talk) 23:01, 10 March 2021 (UTC)

If we do not know whether or not it is relevant... then it serves no purpose to point it out. --Tryptofish (talk) 23:26, 10 March 2021 (UTC)

What I mean is that we non-arbitrators commenting before the evidence phase has even closed, do not know whether it is or is not relevant. When writing the decision the arbs will know whether it is or is not relevant to their decision. Thryduulf (talk) 23:33, 10 March 2021 (UTC)

How mystical... --Tryptofish (talk) 23:37, 10 March 2021 (UTC)

Not really. We are not in possession of all the available evidence, and absent an explicit statement from the committee that they have received no private evidence, never will be. It is the arbs job to make the decisions, they will know what is and isn't relevant to the decisions they make we can only go by what they say is explicitly relevant and not relevant (and there is simply no need to do that for every single bit of evidence). Thryduulf (talk) 00:04, 11 March 2021 (UTC)

So was I premature to post Workshop proposals? Look, I'm not dissing the Arbs, but describing them as some kind of all-knowing and supremely fair font of wisdom gets a little comical to my ears. The fact is, the process here is to give them advice to consider. I'm giving them advice that they should reconsider the usefulness of participation FoFs. The Mighty Tryptofish has spoken! (disappears in a mystical cloud of smoke) --Tryptofish (talk) 00:22, 11 March 2021 (UTC)

No, it's just wrong to state that any FoF regarding Rexx's non participation would be definitely relevant or definitely irrelevant. There are circumstances in which it would be relevant, there are circumstances in which it would not be. Personally I think the former are more numerous and more likely, but I haven't even read all the public evidence so there is no way I can be sure of that. Thryduulf (talk) 01:11, 11 March 2021 (UTC)

Oh, good! I'm so glad that I didn't say that! --Tryptofish (talk) 17:00, 11 March 2021 (UTC)

• I don't think we should interpret ADMINACCT so strictly as to require participation in ArbCom proceedings. It's hard for me to articulate, but it gives me bad vibes. If an admin has responded to concerns in another forum, we should not require them to keep repeating the same thing; it could be used as a bludgeon and incentivizes sealioning. As Usedtobecool points out, a strong participation requirement could also lead to putting admins in a damned-if-you-do-damned-if-you-dont situation that could be counter productive. We're not a government and this isn't a court, but as a philosophical text, arguments around the Fifth Amendment to the United States Constitution#Self-incrimination might be something to keep in mind when considering how to interpret non-participation. — Wug·a·po·des​ 23:51, 10 March 2021 (UTC)

(edit conflict)Yes, Tryptofish, how mystical indeed. It is not relevant of course - whatever the reason. Any suggestion that remaining silent is running away from scrutiny or a badge of shame is shameful and disingenuous in itself. “You do not have to say anything. But, it may harm your defence if you do not mention when questioned something which you later rely on in court. Anything you do say may be given in evidence.” Whatever it looks like in police procedural TV movies, "no comment" is often the only possible answer and cannot be taken as admission of guilt. Some of the things people say on Arbcom cases are not very nice (sometimes even blockworthy but with impunity), but history has shown that if an accused admin attempts to defend him/herself, they will additionally be accused of doubling down (diffs exist). The big difference between criminal court procedure (in the UK - and that's where RexxS and I come from) and Arbcom is that even in court, although the defendant is not allowed to have their say, they do have an expert legal mouthpiece acting on their behalf. Anyone coming to an admin's defence at Arbcom will invariably be met with aspersion and innuendo rather than being politely heard - that's why they stay away and why Arbcom is mostly all about anecdotal evidence and prosecution and not about protection of the possible innocence or mitigating circumstances - these are facts, not opinions. One does not need to have been a member of the Arbitration Committee to understand its brief and the way it is supposed to work. It's up to the committee to arbitrate and investigate the veracity of the claims rather than just read out a consensus of the plaintiff(s), and of the non-involved commenters, some of whom may well not have an orthodox motive for being present at a case at all. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 00:06, 11 March 2021 (UTC)

(idk where to put this reply so feel free to move it around)Eh, I'd be a hypocrite if I said we could never draw inferences from a choice not to participate, and even in jurisprudence there are situations where exercising a right to remain silent can lead to adverse inferences. But your wider point is well taken. Generally, I agree that ArbCom shouldn't make inferences on the absence of evidence, but instead engage in a fact finding mission and attempt to resolve community tensions (from my case statement). For that reason I appreciate Barkeep's question: it helps steer participants in a useful direction so that we don't have evidentiary gaps that result in unnecessary or even incorrect assumptions. — Wug·a·po·des​ 00:35, 11 March 2021 (UTC)

With his allusion to the Miranda Right, it looks as if Wugapodes is saying more or less the same thing that I was writing. That now makes a significant number of users here sharing the same basic opinion and a desire to uphold some moral principles that should be converted to practice. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 00:15, 11 March 2021 (UTC)

There is no explicit information in the fact that an editor does not show up for their own arbitration. If there's no information there's nothing to add to the case one way or the other. I mentioned elsewhere that Rexx added a very clear explanation for some of his actions in the Arb Request. I understand Thrydulf's explanation but don't believe it applies here. Littleolive oil (talk) 00:33, 11 March 2021 (UTC)

• Frankly I really don't care about relevant or not, is it or is it not related to any admin policy - what I DO care about is: I hope he's ok in real life. — Ched (talk) 02:08, 11 March 2021 (UTC)

• This is probably off topic here: For obvious reasons (which nevertheless have not impaired my intellect) I personally have nothing to gain nor to lose by any changes to Arbcom, but for obtaining safe verdicts for future cases, perhaps it's time to get one or two things anchored in policy. I don't know how that is normally done for Arbcom, whether the Committee changes its own rules by fiat or whether a community-wide RfC should be held, but something needs to be done to put an end to all this speculation, treating people as guilty by default, and possibly desysoping them because they simply preferred not to comment, and let Arbcom get on with it - whatever the reason. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 03:22, 11 March 2021 (UTC)
• RexxS has left Wikipedia. Bishonen | tålk 10:53, 11 March 2021 (UTC).

  Oh dear. Well I hope the damn peanut gallery is pleased with itself... Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 11:36, 11 March 2021 (UTC)

  Irrespective of everything else, RexxS is one of the best Wikipedians I have met in real life and could happily talk with him all day about everything and anything over a beer or three ... oh wait, I have. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 11:51, 11 March 2021 (UTC)

  So have I, and I couldn't agree with you more. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 12:20, 11 March 2021 (UTC)

  @Ritchie333 and Kudpung: On that matter at least I am in full agreement with you both and sincerely hope that, regardless of the outcome of this case, that he feels welcome to continue attending meetups, training events, etc. Thryduulf (talk) 21:27, 11 March 2021 (UTC)

  I imagine there's a prospective degree of fluidity contingent on the outcome of this case. ——Serial 13:39, 11 March 2021 (UTC)

  Quite. Only RexxS knows for sure whether he has left Wikipedia permanently.-- P-K3 (talk) 13:59, 11 March 2021 (UTC)

  I would suggest not stopping the proceedings. Let's go ahead and get the Arbcom decision. That will help RexxS decide on his return with a much clearer perspective and no sword hanging over his head. Lourdes 15:51, 11 March 2021 (UTC)

  This being an admin conduct case, unless Rexxs gives up the tools voluntarily it pretty much has to keep going even if it appears he has stopped editing. I also hope Rexxs will return regardless of the outcome, he was a "regular" user a lot longer than he has been an admin and clearly has a lot to offer in that capacity. Beeblebrox (talk) 18:36, 11 March 2021 (UTC)

  ...he was a "regular" user a lot longer than he has been an admin and clearly has a lot to offer in that capacity - people don't care about that. The main thing is to get another industrious user sanctionjed or desysoped and/or driven away as the case may be. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 18:48, 11 March 2021 (UTC)

  @Beeblebrox: not necessarily. There are examples of admin conduct cases that have been suspended when a user has apparently left Wikipedia, normally for 6-12 months. If they return during that time the case is resumed from where it left off (they are usually directed to contact the committee on their return and prohibited from using their admin tools until the case has resumed), if they don't return at the end of that period the case is closed with the single remedy that they are desysopped but may regain the tools following at successful RFA. I'm not sure whether that would be appropriate in this case or not (it will depend in part what, if any, private information the Committee has received), but the option exists.
  

  Before anyone comments that a desysop in that manner is effectively permanent, this is unknowable - I'm not aware that anyone in this position has ever stood for a re-RFA (certainly none since 2015). Thryduulf (talk) 21:24, 11 March 2021 (UTC)

  I'm not a huge fan of that, as I feel it is basically a threat against the user in question. "Come back and we're still totally doing this" There have been some cases where that probably was the correct message to send (technically this case from over a decade ago is still open), but this isn't one of them. Beeblebrox (talk) 22:02, 11 March 2021 (UTC)

• It also assumes a desysop. Littleolive oil (talk) 22:16, 11 March 2021 (UTC)
  • It's only an automatic desysop if they don't return within the specified time period, and even then it's as much an accellerated desysop for inactivity as a desysop for cause - it depends in part on the state of the case at the time it was suspended. As Beeblebrox says, it's the right thing to do in some cases and not the right thing to do in others. Thryduulf (talk) 00:23, 12 March 2021 (UTC)

  While we're on the subject, please let me encourage someone, anyone, with more of a history with RexxS than I have, to look at my second proposed Finding of Fact on the Workshop page, and see if you can craft a good version as your own Workshop proposal. Thanks. --Tryptofish (talk) 22:06, 11 March 2021 (UTC)

• • Regarding talk page decorum: What is important to remember is Arbitration is not a Wikipedia article. Links to comments in and of themselves are not sources for infallible information, nor are the comments they link to. They are an editor's view of what constitutes correct information, they provide possible context and maybe some verification. If one editor feels a statement mischaracterizes or misrepresents that is also an opinion. I feel some editors have left out pertinent information but that's my opinion based on my experience both on Wikipedia as a whole and in my knowledge of specific situations, discussions. The idea that somehow, a few editors rebutting evidence is somehow lucky for Rexx, a thank God moment, is, and I'm looking for the least antagonistic word here, but let's say, ill-conceived. Most long term editors know what an arbitration entails and will not take part. I can make a long list of some of those people right now. Arbitrations are not a straightforward, present my position, and everyone will agree and then we can go home. If this was truly and arbitration where editors were brought together to iron out some disagreements then this might be easier. But there's more at stake, isn't there, when an editor has made it clear he wants a desysop. In such a case you can expect scrutiny of your evidence. By the way, when editors ask for and are allowed more word count than is supposedly allowed and they then present more evidence why would other editors not deserve the same in part to rebut all of those extra words. I have done well enough in arbitrations, I cannot say the same for AE, but this is not the case for all parties. It's the arbs and their careful scrutiny of the evidence, looking for context, and scrupulous fairness and honesty that makes the difference between a fair arbitration and one that is biased. When I came here to this arbitration is was because the editor in question has done more for this encyclopedia than anyone will or can ever know. He has left Wikipedia and he is not prone to dramatizing himself so we may have lost him. In the meantime, arbitrations are a back and forth scrutiny of evidence and the editors that present it. It's fatiguing, and blaming that on anyone but the process doesn't help anything or anyone. Littleolive oil (talk) 00:10, 13 March 2021 (UTC)

The evidence and workshop phases will close in around 24 hours

The evidence and workshop phases will close at or soon after 00:00 UTC 14 March 2021. Please ensure that you get your evidence and proposals in before the phases close so that you do not miss the deadline. It is recommended that editors do not wait to post evidence or proposals so that technical difficulties do not prevent them from posting evidence and/or proposals in time. Dreamy Jazz ^{talk to me | my contributions} 00:12, 13 March 2021 (UTC)

I object to evidence being allowed to be posted without giving enough time for review. I will not invest my weekend on this and neither should other editors be expected to. Therefore, while I can say that evidence be posted by 14 March, I would request the clerks to give till at least 17 March for analysis. While other editors may have time to analyse new evidence, I would not be able to by this weekend. Request your consideration. Lourdes 01:19, 13 March 2021 (UTC)

Both phases have had pre-determined end dates for weeks now. SQL^{Query me!} 01:24, 13 March 2021 (UTC)

Especially with this "much experienced" IP posting new evidence today.... I would urge the clerks to extend analysis stage to a handful of days beyond the last date for evidence posting. The editors doing an analysis have a real life, and cannot be opening their devices every day just to ensure they don't miss the bus (a view mirrored by Kevin). Per above, please consider (and request to Arbs– please consider this for future cases too; give a week beyond last date of evidence posting, for analysis). Thanks, Lourdes 01:29, 13 March 2021 (UTC)

I am not a drafting arb, but I have a couple thoughts @Lourdes. We are trying the evidence, analysis, and workshop all ending at the same time in this case. We will no doubt reflect when the case is done on how well that worked and use this experience to help us make a decision when the next admin (or similar case) comes to us. The IP's evidence is not, from my reading, a new incident having already been introduced by PR a few days back. If there is actual new late breaking evidence, ArbCom has historically shown a willingness to add a few days to a phase and the drafting arbs are now specifically empowered to make such a decision. I will note that from an eyeball reading, you are currently well above your word limit for the analysis phase so you could perhaps use the time on that. Barkeep49 (talk) 01:47, 13 March 2021 (UTC)

• And while we are at it, may I request the clerks/arbs to check this IP's credentials? Thank you, Lourdes 01:43, 13 March 2021 (UTC)
• I for one would like to thank the IP for taking the time to add a high quality contribution. The above seems like a request for CU, which doesn’t seem appropriate imo. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 02:07, 13 March 2021 (UTC)

  Wikipediocracy? Littleolive oil (talk) 02:28, 13 March 2021 (UTC)

  It’s a well researched, neutral, detailed and fair representation of events, is it not? Which means it’s helping the Committee make evidence-based decisions, and that’s a high quality contribution in my eyes. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 02:44, 13 March 2021 (UTC)

I understand that is your position. Littleolive oil (talk) 17:37, 14 March 2021 (UTC)

• Thanks Barkeep49 for your inputs. PR introduced this evidence on 10 March. I missed seeing this. Anyway, I'll leave it to the Arbcom/drafting clerks whether they would wish to give a couple or more so days as leeway here or stick to the pre-decided deadline. Also, about the word limit, I had requested for a leeway in an above section. Is your communication intended as a decision response to my request above? And is it applicable to all posters (in which case, I would recommend this be communicated to all and not just me)? And of course, I would need till Wednesday for getting the analysis cut to requirements, if you are able to allow. Warmly, Lourdes 06:44, 13 March 2021 (UTC)

  My communication is not a decision as I'm not a drafting arb. Barkeep49 (talk) 14:19, 13 March 2021 (UTC)

• This arbcom case uses a new and experimental format that differs substantially from the earlier cases in several important respects. Generally, it is a bad idea to try out several new big changes at once, as it makes it much harder to evaluate the results and the impact of those changes. In this case specifically I believe that several changes were particularly ill-advised, and I hope that they will be modified in the future arbcom cases. First, it was a mistake to make the evidence and the workshop phases end at the same time. Somebody could make a substantive evidence submission close to the end of the evidence phase, and there would be no time to properly analyze it or to propose and discuss any FOFs based on it. For example, here an IP made a fairly substantive evidentiary submission a day before the deadline. The workshop phase should have been set to end several days later (I'd say about a week) after the closure of the evidence phase, so that all the evidence, including late evidence and changes and adjustments that editors make to their evidence submissions could be taken into account and discussed properly. Note that announcing that the deadlines for the evidence and the workshop phases are the same well in advance does not ameliorate this problem. Second, it was also a mistake to move the "Analysis of evidence" section from Workshop to Evidence. This change was probably motivated by the desire to limit the length of the submissions in that section but the same goal could have been accomplished by simply adding a word/diff limit for the "Analysis of evidence" section while keeping it in Workshop. You can't properly analyze the evidence until all of the evidence has been submitted, in its final form. E.g. what happens now is that there is not enough time to analyze IP's evidence. More generally, there would be insufficient time to analyze evidence that is submitted close to the end of the evidence phase. In addition many editors continue to change and edit their evidentiary submissions up to the end of the evidence phase, in part because of the existence of the strict word/diff limits there. I hope the ArbCom will take these considerations into account when designing the format for future cases. Nsk92 (talk) 12:33, 13 March 2021 (UTC)

  You are not the only one who has expressed concerns over the analysis and we will certainly consider this feedback. I will, however, note that very little evidence that wasn't presented at the case request has been given. As I noted above to Lourdes the incident the IP focuses on was introduced by PR a few days ago. When major new evidence has been given at the deadline in the past, extensions have been given before and the drafting Arbs could do so here if necessary. Barkeep49 (talk) 14:18, 13 March 2021 (UTC)

Relying on extensions creates a built in design weakness in the process. It makes much more sense to have the workhop close about a week later than evidence and to have the analysis of evidence phase in the workshop, subject to the workshop deadline (but perhaps also subject to a word/diff limit). Supposing someone makes a major evidence submission near the end of evidence phase and the phase is extended to allow time for submitting rebuttal evidence (as happened in the recently closed Kurdistan case). There would still be too little time to analyze the rebuttal evidence and to consider its effect on the FoFs. If the evidence and workshop deadlines are kept separate, then an extension of the evidence phase deadline would probably usually necessitate a corresponding shift in the deadline for the workshop phase as well. However, the algorithm will be fairly clear and there would be no need for improvisation and ad hoc solutions. Nsk92 (talk) 07:18, 14 March 2021 (UTC)

The phase has closed as scheduled. To allow wbm1058 and Lourdes to trim their analysis themselves, they are allowed to edit the evidence phase for the next 24 hours to trim and/or remove parts of their analysis so that it is under the word limit of 500 words. Once this 24 hours is up, the exception no longer applies and their analysis may be shortened if it is still significantly above their word limits. Dreamy Jazz ^{talk to me | my contributions} 00:07, 14 March 2021 (UTC)

• My sincere apologies. I am busy in RL and cannot find time to edit. I give leeway to any editor not involved in the case to feel free to edit as they want. I am okay with the clerks/Arbs cutting the analysis whichever way they might consider appropriate. I know this is not how it should have been. But my apologies – it is too late in the day and I have my weekend and my RL priorities. Once more, sorry for this. Warmly, Lourdes 03:25, 14 March 2021 (UTC)
• Dreamy Jazz, per the list of Top 10 by added text I only rank #7, with just over 5% of the content, while the top three alone account for more than half the content. As ProcrastinatingReader wasn't made a party to the case, aren't they over their limit? wbm1058 (talk) 03:30, 14 March 2021 (UTC)
  • Joe and I have extensions from the arbs (above). Though I suspect the bulk of our added characters are links to diffs, and comments to analyses which aren’t word limited I think. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 03:36, 14 March 2021 (UTC)
    • What I see with a glance up the page is § Request for leeway in analysis word limit is "Limits are being discussed. It is probable that there will be limits." – wbm1058 (talk) 03:49, 14 March 2021 (UTC)

      Our extension is in #Word limit extension, to 1000 words. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 03:53, 14 March 2021 (UTC)

      I have zero words in the evidence section; everything I've written is in the analysis section. I guess that means you guys can write three times the number of words on this page as I'm allowed to. wbm1058 (talk) 04:05, 14 March 2021 (UTC)

      There were separate limits for analysis and evidence, which had been mentioned earlier above by a drafting arb. I do understand that this was not made very clear and that the shortening request was made with not long to go. Hopefully the extra time has been helpful. The word limits for the analysis do not include any comments made, but are instead only the analysis presented in the section. Dreamy Jazz ^{talk to me | my contributions} 08:43, 14 March 2021 (UTC) (modified 14:01, 14 March 2021 (UTC))

Dreamy Jazz: After the clarification that the word/diff limits are separate for the evidence and the analysis of evidence section was provided here at this talk page, the info about this point should have been added at the top of the main evidence page itself. The text there never changed and it simply said the same thing that it said before (for the arbcom cases prior to this new experimental format): "The standard limits for all submissions in this phase are: 1000 words and 100 diffs for users who are parties to this case; or about 500 words and 50 diffs for other users." That phrasing is ambiguous and, for this particular case, could easily be misleading. Not everybody reads the talk page carefully and the case participants generally look for the instructions on submission at the top of the evidence page itself. If this case format is retained for future cases, the note at the top of the evidence page will certainly need to be modified to explain that the word/diff limits are separate. Nsk92 (talk) 12:07, 14 March 2021 (UTC)

Dreamy Jazz, Re: "There were separate limits for analysis and evidence, which had been mentioned earlier above by a drafting arb." I've reviewed all signed comments posted on this page by the three drafting arbitrators and found no formal announcement of the analysis limit made by any of them. As far as I'm concerned, there was no analysis limit until you announced the limit on my talk. I presume the Committee privately communicated this limit to you. – wbm1058 (talk) 13:54, 14 March 2021 (UTC)

Wbm1058, Primefac posted Separate limits for each section. Primefac (talk) 15:02, 4 March 2021 (UTC) in reply to § Word and diff limit question regarding "Analysis of evidence". I had misread who made that comment when making the comment above, as Primefac is not a drafting arb. The drafting arbs I don't think mentioned onwiki about the limit, and it was only fairly recently that a decision was made to post the notification about the over length analysis. Dreamy Jazz ^{talk to me | my contributions} 14:01, 14 March 2021 (UTC)

Personally, I think the word limits on analysis should have been formally announced here and also noted on the page at an earlier time. I should have asked the arbs for final a decision on word limits earlier, but as we don't have time machines yet I can only take this forward to further cases. I think that now it is clear that editors are allowed by default 500 words of analysis, and in future cases (unless this changes) I'll make sure this is clearly noted when the case is opened. Apologies for confusion. Dreamy Jazz ^{talk to me | my contributions} 14:05, 14 March 2021 (UTC)

• Separate limits for each section. Primefac (talk) 15:02, 4 March 2021 (UTC)
• Limits are being discussed. It is probable that there will be limits. Dreamy Jazz ^{talk to me | my contributions} 17:22, 10 March 2021 (UTC)

No indication of the actual limit (500). So you shouldn't imply on this page that Lourdes and I were knowingly exceeding any published official limit. – wbm1058 (talk) 14:39, 14 March 2021 (UTC)

:By my estimate, Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/RexxS/Evidence#Analysis by ProcrastinatingReader exceeds 700 words. As I've now trimmed my sections to below 700 total, I think I'm done trimming, given that you haven't told ProcrastinatingReader that they're more than 200 words over limit. – wbm1058 (talk) 15:04, 14 March 2021 (UTC)

I'm happy to trim. But if directions weren't clear, and I certainly wasn't sure what was expected, then abandon the directions for now rather than penalize some editors and not others. Every action impacts Rexx so should be scrupulously fair. No one else is impacted in this arbitration. Littleolive oil (talk) 16:53, 14 March 2021 (UTC)