Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case

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

Requests for arbitration

Arbitration Committee proceedings

• recent changes
• purge this page
• view or discuss this template

Case requests

Request name	Motions	Initiated	Votes
RHaworth		19 December 2019	0/0/0

[edit]

Open cases

Case name	Links	Evidence due	Prop. Dec. due
Venezuelan politics	(t) (ev / t) (ws / t) (pd / t)	20 Apr 2024	04 May 2024

[edit]

Recently closed cases (Past cases)

Case name	Closed
Conflict of interest management	13 Apr 2024
Mzajac	7 May 2024

Clarification and Amendment requests

Request name	Motions	Case	Posted
Amendment request: Conduct in deletion-related editing	none	(orig. case)	30 April 2024
Clarification request: Palestine-Israel articles 4	none	(orig. case)	13 May 2024
Amendment request: Article titles and capitalisation	none	(orig. case)	13 May 2024

Arbitrator motions

No arbitrator motions are currently open.

RHaworth

Initiated by TonyBallioni (talk) at 03:34, 19 December 2019 (UTC)

Involved parties

• TonyBallioni (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA), filing party
• RHaworth (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA)

Confirmation that all parties are aware of the request

• [1]

Confirmation that other steps in dispute resolution have been tried

• 1
• 2
• 3
• 4

Statement by TonyBallioni

Today, RHaworth unblocked an account that was subject to a CheckUser block without consulting a CheckUser. This is a red line in policy that if done intentionally is worthy of a desysop in itself. While RHaworth has not directly answered the question as to if he knew this is a policy violation, it is my contention that even if he didn't, this is part of a pattern of either recklessness or willful disregard of policy that is unbecoming of an administrator and where the only remedy is a desysop.

• In this BN thread from September 2019 he intentionally lied to a new user and directed them to bureaucrats despite knowing what suppression was. Evidence that he knew about suppression/the oversight team was discussed on the oversight list at the time, and will be emailed to the Arbitration Committee as evidence. Lying to a new user about suppression to make a point that he doesn't like the lack of audit trail is seriously concerning.
• Longstanding concerns about his use of speedy deletion. I have privately made jokes that he just opens up CAT:A7 and runs d-batch in twinkle, because the results would be similar. While I'm not sure if it's that brazen in reality, the sheer number of AN threads tells a story (Here and here for recentish examples, but this dates back years, and if a case happens, I'm sure I and others will be able to provide more evidence.)
• Today he unblocked Velanatti, a CU blocked account. When questioned about it he said that he knew they were the same person, and didn't see the point in consulting with a CU (diff and diff). If an individual thinks they have been unfairly blocked by a CU, that can be reviewed through the normal process of a block appeal to be reviewed by other CUs or to the Arbitration Committee as a whole. Bbb23's block can be reviewed this way, not unilaterally by someone who appears not to care about the rules.

RHaworth's archives are somewhat difficult to search since he uses the old move and replace method, but these are far from the only controversies surrounding his use of the tools, and we now have within a 3 month period two instances of him making serious mistakes involving both suppression and CU. If the committee wants more evidence now before a case is submitted, I can provide it, but I think the evidence above is enough to open a case and allow evidence to be presented so that a desysop can be considered. TonyBallioni (talk) 03:34, 19 December 2019 (UTC)

• Worm That Turned, there’s a reason I made this public rather than just leaving this at emailing to the list: this is not just about the block/unblock. This is about that as a part of a pattern of behaviour of RHaworth acting far outside the norms of adminship. It is not just the CU unblock. It is the CU unblock, the rudeness to anyone who questions him, the years of questions about his use of speedy deletion, the strong likelihood of lying about not being aware of what suppression is and misdirecting a new user to BN to prove a point when he had previously made the same complaint to the oversight team without having to look anything up or be told where to go. The totality of that is enough for a pattern of behaviour case. I also disagree with Fram on the initial block thing: Bbb23 has already said he would have likely unblocked if done on its own, and made good on that. The issue here is not his conduct, but rather the years of RHaworth behaving in a way below standards of admin conduct (also, if above word limit, extension request. Don’t plan on saying more.) TonyBallioni (talk) 11:32, 19 December 2019 (UTC)

Statement by RHaworth

• Regarding the BN thread from September 2019: the accusation of "intentionally lying" is a total libel. When an humble admin looks at user:SPMCC88, they see, or rather, find that they cannot see any of the deleted edits. Nowhere is there any hint that something called "oversight" has been applied. Sure, I may have been told about oversight before - am I not allowed to forget? So rather, than say to SPMCC88 "sorry I have no idea", I pointed them somewhere else.

• Regarding the unblocking of User:Velanatti, I did not realise that it is set in stone that check user blocks must be discussed with the blocker. I have apologised to the blocker. The user has been re-blocked and then unblocked by the original blocker. In my view, matter satisfactorily resolved.

• Please explain why my user talk page archives are more difficult to search than those created by an archive bot. I provide a search box at the top of every page.

• Please remember to view any specific admin action of mine in the light of the total number of my actions. Surely I am allowed to make a few "mistakes"?

— RHaworth (talk · contribs) 09:28, 19 December 2019 (UTC)

• You may be sure that following the battering I have received here, I shall be very mindful of the Oversight and Checkuser areas in future. But regarding Checkuser, please remind me where it is written that when a user has been blocked by an admin following a Checkuser check, that admin must be consulted before another admin undoes the block. — RHaworth (talk · contribs) 10:13, 19 December 2019 (UTC)

Cryptic So what is wrong with my actions in respect of Dan Spilo? I saw a page with not one, but three speedy deletion reasons. I deleted it. Others disagreed. It has been taken to deletion review. I shall accept the deletion review decision. Wikipedia quality control working efficiently in my view. — RHaworth (talk · contribs) 09:28, 19 December 2019 (UTC)

Statement by Cryptic

Regarding speedy deletions - if arbitrators don't want to have to wade through the ANI archives Tony provided, Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive1021#Alien autopsy is both brief and egregious (though to RHaworth's credit, he at least self-reported there). If you want something not just "recentish" but current, Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2019 December 17#Dan Spilo. —Cryptic 04:21, 19 December 2019 (UTC)

Statement by ConstantPlancks

The use of CheckUser and the bitey, out-of-policy block for "socking" of an editor seeking help by Bbb23 should also be looked at. This whole thing has been a clusterfuck of heavy-handed admins abusing tools to the detriment of the community. See here Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard#How many things can go wrong in one WP:BITE incident? [2]ConstantPlancks (talk) 05:06, 19 December 2019 (UTC)

Statement by Bbb23

I wanted to elaborate a bit on Tony's comments about my CU block and the unblock request by the user. By the time I logged on to Wikipedia this morning, the unblock request had already been made and RHaworth had already unblocked the user. At that point, I felt that the priority was to notify RHaworth of his breach of CU policy. By the time RHaworth responded (sort of), another administrator had "reinstated" the block. It would have been a bit awkward for me to then consider unblocking the user. However, if I had seen the unblock request in the normal way, I would probably have either unblocked the user myself or at least stated that I had no objection to the user being unblocked. I doubt that in this particular instance, the request would have to have been reviewed by another CU or the Committee. I actually apologized to the user for being "yanked" around (blocked, unblocked, reblocked) and tried to explain briefly what happened. As I'm writing this, I just noticed that the user has made another unblock request post my explanation. I will AGF their explanation and unblock them...and go to bed. I don't think that my unblock in any way mitigates RHaworth's breach of policy and believe the Committee should accept the case.--Bbb23 (talk) 05:21, 19 December 2019 (UTC)

@Worm That Turned: See "Checkusers should clearly mark as a 'checkuser block' any block based on findings that involve checkuser data." (subsection "Reasons and communication")--Bbb23 (talk) 13:22, 19 December 2019 (UTC)

Statement by Fastily

RHaworth performs *a lot* of administrative actions and while there are bound to be mistakes (believe me, I would know), I am troubled by the way he chooses to respond to concerns about his administrative actions. Even a brief look through his talk page history and simple search of AN/ANI archives reveal a plethora of complaints complete with BITEy/acrimonious retorts from RHaworth. Today's incident isn't a one-off occurrence; this has literally been going on for years. I'm also unimpressed with his unusual talk page archiving scheme, which appears to be deliberately messy in order to confuse would-be complainers. I'll note for the record that while I have nothing personally against RHaworth, his behavior reflects poorly on the group of admins who do a lot of the heavy administrative lifting on Wikipedia.

I encourage the committee to accept this case and review RHaworth's behavior as applicable to WP:ADMINCOND. -FASTILY 05:55, 19 December 2019 (UTC)

Statement by Berean Hunter

• Regarding the claim that the checkuser tool has been abused, this is not true. After being told that they shouldn't write about themselves, that didn't stop them from making another edit several minutes later and then they pulled the tags off despite the fact that COI is true and the article still had puffery and peacock language. After being told not to create an article in their name, they created a new account with a different name to avoid scrutiny and leave the previous warnings behind for an attempt at article recreation. Creating a new account would only be justified if they forgot the password...any other reason in this case is garbage. Running a check is at the discretion of the checkuser and in this case, the pulling of COI tags, avoiding scrutiny and having the hallmarks of a paid editor means that running a check is well-justified to confirm the socks and has the potential of turning up other UPEs/socks. There has been no abuse of the checkuser tool.
   — Berean Hunter (talk) 06:24, 19 December 2019 (UTC)

Statement by SmokeyJoe

This is premature. Fram’s WP:AN thread is a good forum, and it has not played out. ArbCom is a forum of last resort.

TonyBallioni and Bbb23 take themselves too seriously, and they take an overly legalistic approach to Wikipedia rules. If that block was a sacred block, it was a bad sacred block. The blocked user’s claim comes down to whether he is to be believed, not privileged private information. The unblock was correct, and Bbb23’s agreement speaks to that. IAR seems to apply.

RHaworth conducts himself too casually. He doesn’t seem to be conversant with the fine details of policy. He is very quick and loose in deleting unimportant pages. The current DRV case is exactly an example, he misused CSD policy, when instead the page should be sent to AfD and SNOW deleted.

If ArbCom needs to do anything, it is to devalue the 2010 ArbCom statement at https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?oldid=374236496#Statement_on_checkuser_blocks. While it is broadly correct, in letter and spirit, that is not how Wikipedia is supposed to manage itself, by committing ArbCom statements to stone as Gospel. That statement was not intended for a newcomer who is just first grasping the purpose of an account, having first registered an account matching their first topic. If an administrator believes that a Checkuser block has been made in error, the administrator should first discuss the matter with the Checkuser in question, and if a satisfactory resolution is not reached, should e-mail the committee. As appropriate, the matter will be handled by the Ban Appeals Subcommittee, by the Arbitration Committee as a whole, or by an individual arbitrator designated by the committee. is absurd in the context of this particular example. —SmokeyJoe (talk) 07:35, 19 December 2019 (UTC)

There has been no abuse or misuse of the checkuser tool. —SmokeyJoe (talk) 07:40, 19 December 2019 (UTC)

Statement by Andrew Davidson

The main issue here seems to be the blocking/unblocking. As I understand it, the first block was a bad block. RHaworth's action of unblocking was therefore reasonable and WP:IAR applies. Be that as it may, if the case proceeds, Oshwah should be made a party because their action of repeating the block appears to have been a breach of WP:WHEEL, "Do not repeat a reversed administrative action when you know that another administrator opposes it." Andrew🐉(talk) 10:07, 19 December 2019 (UTC)

Statement by Fram

The use of CU, while not necessary, was not wrong either (it was obvious and self-admitted already that the two accounts were the same, but one can never know that there were others I suppose). However, when the CU results show that there is nothing beyond the already known, that nothing nefarious or hidden is going on, and that no actual breach of the socking policy has happened, then the fact that the two accounts are from the same person is not a justification for any kind of block, and certainly not a sacrosanct, un-overturnable CU block. There was no reason at all that, if a block was deemed necessary, it couldn't have been a regular block, overturnable by any other admin; and worse, no block was necessary, only a warning and some guidance. WP:AGF and WP:BITE don't magically disappear when you are a checkuser (and neither does WP:ADMINACCT: having the time to rush to berate someone else for overturning your block, but not having the time to explain the block itself, shows a greater for bureaucracy than for getting things right in practice).

The use of speedy tags, deletions, and salting, are also problematic, but can be better dealt with at the AN case. But if the overturning of this CU block is case-worthy, then the actual problematic CU block should be investigated as well and Bbb23 added as a party. (Let me repeat: checkusering the editor was not a problem, but the CU block is an issue.) Fram (talk) 10:24, 19 December 2019 (UTC)

Statement by Black Kite

I couldn't really care less about the CU unblock, to be honest. The oversight thing is bizarre, but I'm shrugging my shoulders on that one too. What I do find utterly incredible in this whole saga is this tagging of the article as an A7 speedy by RHaworth. Now bear in mind this is an admin who does a shitload of speedy deletions, yet clearly, judging by this example, has no idea what A7 actually means (an article about a real person that does not credibly indicate the importance or significance of the subject). Just look at the article at the time - yes, it's a bit promotional, but there is clear credibility, not to mention some decent sources including a full page interview in The Hindu! Still, we've got the backup that although an admin got the tagging wrong, another admin won't make the same mistake and actually delete it, will they? Oh, right. And the reason I'm prioritising this is because this is what drives new users away. Black Kite (talk) 10:58, 19 December 2019 (UTC)

Statement by Nnadigoodluck

Considering the way things turned out yesterday towards the block, unlock, re-blocked and unblocked again issue, whether this request for an ArbCom case will be accepted or not, concrete efforts should be made to prevent such from repeating itself in the foreseeable future. NNADIGOODLUCK (Talk|Contribs) 11:47, 19 December 2019 (UTC)

Statement by Boing! said Zebedee

I want to echo Black Kite's point, but in a more general way than specifically this incident - and not specific to any admin, but as part of the background to the case request. I used to do a lot of CSD work, but I gave it up largely because of the increasing abuse of the CSD criteria I kept seeing from admins. Editors not understanding the critera and nominating incorrectly is understandable, but I expect admins to be able to recognise that, to decline incorrect nominations, and explain to the nominator. And I expect admins to not make incorrect nominations themselves. But almost every CSD patrol session I did, I'd see admins deleting nominated articles when the nomination was obviously incorrect. Someone above mentioned the similarity with just opeaning a category and running a delete script on it all, and I've seen what looks like that approach many times (but can't remember the guilty parties). A7 was probably the worst, with the deleting admin appearing to treat it as a notability issue and deleting articles which contained very clear claims to importance or significance. G11 was probably the second worst, and is for "pages that are exclusively promotional and would need to be fundamentally rewritten to conform with WP:SOAP". But I frequently saw it abused with no stronger rationale than effectively "I think this is trying to promote something", or based solely on an alleged COI from the article creator - often articles containing not even a hint of promotional writing. If the committee takes this case, I hope you'll consider this a key part of it - and if not, I hope you might at least offer a few words about it and perhaps clarify the obligations of admins working on CSD. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 11:57, 19 December 2019 (UTC)

Statement by Mz7

Speaking generally, I think it is an important bright-line rule that administrators should first consult with a checkuser before lifting checkuser blocks, even if a case appears obvious. For various reasons, checkusers don't always state publicly everything that they know about a particular case. For example, there could've been logged out editing involved or perhaps more accounts than there initially appears. There could even be something quirky in that data that makes a user's explanation suspicious or unlikely. Simply put: the checkuser has access to more information than you do, so you should talk to them first.

How the Arbitration Committee responds to an out-of-process modification of a checkuser block is up to the Committee. If it's a one-off, unwitting mistake that is unlikely to happen again, a quick reminder would probably be best. In the past, however, the Committee has used it as part of the rationale to desysop an administrator—see Special:PermanentLink/700515004#Checkuser blocks (FOF) for an example from 2016—particularly if the action fits as part of a pattern of suboptimal administrative decisions. Mz7 (talk) 12:31, 19 December 2019 (UTC)

Statement by Kusma

There are several aspects to this case, and the Committee should clarify the scope if a case is accepted. There is the issue of the CU block (which was apparently unnecessary) that RHaworth probably shouldn't have undone (it looked like a block for something not blockworthy at all, so RHaworth should have assumed there is additional private evidence that led to the block, and double check with the blocking CU). But this requires trust in the CUs only making CU blocks when truly necessary, and CUs need to make sure they do not overstep their bounds. From a 2010 ArbCom motion: Checkusers are reminded that because designating a block as a "Checkuser block" means that it cannot be reviewed on-wiki or on unblock-l, this term should only be used when confidential information has been used in the blocking decision. In this case, the accounts were known to be the same person and nobody so far has stated anything about the existence of confidential information related to the block.

Then there is a long history of RHaworth deleting things very quickly, and under an interpretation of CSD that leads to more things being deleted than my own. Many of these pages should probably be deleted, but not speedily, so I have some sympathy with his position, especially as he does respond to reasonable requests. In any case, CSD is not nearly as high-volume as it used to be pre-WP:ACTRIAL, so speedy deletions could be done quite a bit slower without creating a huge backlog.

Is there something to do here? Sure, several people could improve how they work here, and we should definitely try to err more on the side of not biting. I am not convinced that Arbcom has to be involved, but if Arbcom accepts the case, please clarify (again) how untouchable CU blocks are and how CUs should behave. —Kusma (t·c) 13:31, 19 December 2019 (UTC)

Statement by Thryduulf

There is enough evidence of community concern with RHaworth in his talk page archives and the threads at ANI that, regardless of the merits or otherwise of today's unblock, I think the committee should open a case to examine his admin actions and determine whether there is or is not grounds for a desysop.

Separately, I also think that every time an admin reverses a CU or OS action without either (a) consultation with or (b) express permission from someone with the relevant permission; or reverses a CU/OS action in direct contradiction to the comments received, the Committee should look in to the circumstances and determine if action is required. This need not be a full case in every instance, but the decision to desysop or not desysop must always be actively made. If an admin is unhappy with a CU or OS action taken by an individual functionary they should seek input from other functionaries or the Arbitration Committee. Ultimately the m:Ombudsman commission is available should the need arise. There is no need for action to be taken by someone not in possession of the full facts.

Finally, if a case is opened the Committee will need to be explicit about its scope in order to be fair to all parties. Thryduulf (talk) 13:01, 19 December 2019 (UTC)

Statement by {Non-party}

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

RHaworth: Clerk notes

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

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

Vote key: (Accept/decline/recuse)

• I'd like to hear from RHaworth, but am leaning towards accepting a case. This issue in particular is blown out of proportion, technically it was a CU block, but it was a new editor and fairly clear to everyone what was going on. Yes there could have been more to it, but there wasn't. I'm more concerned about how RHaworth believes he should be interacting with other administrative actions, especially CUOS actions, generally. It may be nothing, and that's why I'd like to hear from him before deciding whether to accept any case. Worm^TT(talk) 07:25, 19 December 2019 (UTC)

  RHaworth, thanks for your comments. I see that you had a discussion in March 2018 on OTRS about oversight and how it appeared for admins, which I believe is why Tony is claiming that you sent the editor to the wrong place intentionally in September 2019. You are a very experienced admin, which does make it quite surprising that you are not aware of our WP:OS policy and norms. Similarly, when something is designated as a {{checkuserblock}}, there are certain requirements for admins which are clearly set out on that template. Again, your level of experience does lead to an expectation of knowledge of such areas.

  Personally, I'd be happy to let this case request sit as a strong warning that similar mistakes in violation of CUOS policy will lead to a full case, and quite possibly a desysop. Would you be willing to pledge to review WP:Oversight and WP:Checkuser and remain mindful of such areas in the future, RHaworth? Worm^TT(talk) 09:58, 19 December 2019 (UTC)

  RHaworth, I've moved your comment back to your own section - per the edit notice on this page, you may only edit in your own section - we do not have threaded discussion on case requests. Bureaucratic, I know, but it's how we keep a bit of order in this stressful environment.

  As to your question, it's mentioned in {{checkuserblock}}, {{checkuserblock-account}} (which was in the blocklog), and is all based on this announcement from 2010. You have a number of options regarding checkuser blocks you disagree with, but you should not be simply undoing them. All "Checkuser blocks" should be designated as such in the block log, they are not standard blocks by an admin after a user has been checkusered. Worm^TT(talk) 10:31, 19 December 2019 (UTC)

  Final note - The actual policy in question: Wikipedia:CheckUser#CheckUser blocks & Wikipedia:Blocking policy#CheckUser blocks Worm^TT(talk) 10:35, 19 December 2019 (UTC)

  Ok, I appreciate the alternate angle from Fram. Whilst I was tilting towards declining a full case - I do think there is possibly a need to look at whether this should have been a CheckUser block in the first place. I know the committee has made the mistake in the past that they did not look at issues around a case which has lead to larger problems further down the line. I will need to think on this. Worm^TT(talk) 10:40, 19 December 2019 (UTC)

  Bbb23, hmmm. I'm not sure about that. I would expect that Checkuser blocks should be used when a block cannot be reviewed without the CheckUser tool. If you can make the same block without the CU data, then I don't believe you should be declaring it a checkuser block with the protections afforded by it. Worm^TT(talk) 13:50, 19 December 2019 (UTC)