Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/RexxS/Workshop

The Workshop phase for this case is closed. Any further edits made to this page may be reverted by an arbitrator or arbitration clerk without discussion. If you need to edit or modify this page, please go here and create an edit request.

Wikipedia Arbitration
About arbitration Talk Arbitration policy (CU/OS) Guide to arbitration Noticeboard + Talk Search archived proceedings Ban appeals Report
Open proceedings All open requests Case requests Clarification and Amendment requests Arbitrator motion requests Enforcement requests
Active sanctions Contentious topics (Log) General sanctions Editor sanctions
Arbitration Committee Discuss + Contact Members Procedures Elections Talk History Clerks + Talk Clerk procedures
Audit Talk Statistics Talk Reports (pre-2016)
Track related changes
v t e

Template

1)

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Template

2)

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Template

3)

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Template

1)

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Template

2)

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Template

3)

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Template

4)

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Arbitrators may ask questions of the parties in this section.

Proposed principles

Distinction between warnings and threats

1) Wikipedia editors have established a large set of user-warning templates under the stewardship of WikiProject User warnings. The Wikipedia:Arguments to avoid in edit wars essay on civility, under § Threats and intimidation, says "it is unacceptable to threaten another with some form of action that cannot or will not likely be taken." Valid warnings are distinguished from unacceptable threats by... [please finish this sentence] – wbm1058 (talk) 16:17, 7 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by Arbitrators:

@Wbm1058:, I had never seen that essay before (or if I have don't recall having read it) so thanks for bringing it to my attention. I think the answer to this question of what's the difference between Valid warning and unacceptable threat is one we should be thinking about in our decision and would suggest it would be helpful for others to attempt to answer it (including you) and appreciate that Valereee has done so below. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 17:02, 8 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Levivich. Despite this being a 5 part test (sure you called it questions but I see through your use of real English rather than legalese), it does show the value to discourse legal thinking can add even in a system like ours that is, by design, not legalistic. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 18:29, 8 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Valid warnings are distinguished from unacceptable threats by the fact the admin giving the warning is involved in a disagreement with the non-admin to whom they're giving that warning. —valereee (talk) 16:48, 8 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

A threat is a statement of intention ("If you do/don't ..., I will ..."). A warning is a statement of prediction ("If you do/don't ..., X will happen.") Both are intended to prompt a change in behavior by the recipient, but there are a number of differences between them:

1. Effectuation - One warns another of a negative consequence, even (or especially) when one cannot effectuate that negative consequence (or effectuate its avoidance, for that matter). If you're a passenger in a car and you tell the driver that they better slow down or they'll get a speeding ticket, that's a warning, not a threat, because the passenger cannot issue the speeding ticket. Unless the passenger is a police officer, of course :-) A threat, on the other hand, is a statement of intention that really only works if the speaker can effectuate the threat. "You better slow down or I'll give you a speeding ticket" sounds silly when it's coming from someone who is not a police officer.
2. Beneficiary - The beneficiary of a warning is the recipient. A warning is motivated by concern for the recipient, a desire that the recipient protect against some predicted harm in order to avoid it. The recipient is not the beneficiary of a threat, however. Threats are made to get the recipient to change their behavior out of concern for the issuer of the threat, or for third parties, but not out of concern for the recipient.
3. Motivation - A warning is motivated primarily by a desire to avoid harm coming to the recipient (as opposed to changing the recipient's conduct for its own sake), whereas a threat is motivated primarily by a desire to change the recipient's conduct (not to avoid harm coming to the recipient for its own sake). A passenger telling the driver that they'll get a ticket if they park in this no-parking zone doesn't care where the driver parks; rather, the passenger cares that the driver avoids getting a ticket. When a police officer, on the other hand, tells a driver they'll get a ticket if they park here, the officer doesn't care if the driver gets a ticket, the officer cares that the driver doesn't park here.
4. Context - Often, a threat is delivered in the form of a warning; context can help distinguish the two. If I say to you, "You better stop saying that, or you're going to get a fat lip," that might be a warning, but if I'm shaking my fist in your face while I say it, it's a threat. "You better hide those drugs before the police come here and find them" is a warning, unless while I say it I'm picking up the phone and calling the police.
5. Follow through - Another way to distinguish "threats formulated as warnings" from genuine warnings is follow-through. "You better slow down or you'll get a speeding ticket" will look like a threat, not a warning, in retrospect, if the passenger later reports the driver to the police for speeding.

So the test: to determine whether "If you don't X, then Y!" is a warning or a threat, ask: (1) Can the speaker effectuate Y? (2) Is the speaker concerned for the recipient, or for the speaker, or others? (3) Is the speaker trying to avoid X, or trying to avoid Y? (4) Is there anything in the context of the exchange that sheds light on the answers to questions 1-3? (5) After the exchange, did the speaker effectuate or attempt to effectuate Y? Levivich ^harass/_hound 17:42, 8 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

My preliminary take on this question is that it is most useful for our purposes here if approached in an en-wiki-specific context. A warning, for our purposes, is made in good faith, and offers a pathway to deescalate the dispute. A threat, for our purposes, is made out of anger or bad will, and may not leave the recipient with a practical or graceful way to turn things around. --Tryptofish (talk) 20:48, 8 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

They are not always easy to distinguish. I used to warn editors saying "if you continued to do X you are likely to be blocked" which was universally understood by everyone as "if you continue to do X I am going to block you", and for example if X was edit-warring with me it was also interpreted as I am going to block someone to gain advantage in edit-warring, though it was not at all what I meant.--Ymblanter (talk) 11:41, 9 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I've slept on Levivich's comments above and believe this is some well thought out criteria, albeit a bit legalese, on the distinction. Perhaps it can be written more succinctly, though.

The key issue with these "warnings" is the chilling effect they have on non-admins, from involved admins trying to discourage non-admin editor from following through with processes to get consensus for their change. In regards to "Effectuation" a non-admin could meet this if they give the appearance they can take the threatened action (eg to a new editor who doesn't know how to verify). ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 12:05, 9 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• As way of an observation or perhaps even a question: Has Arbcom often written their proposed decisions based on essays? (I always thought that the PDs were based in policy). If they are now taking essays as food for a PD, then I'd also like to offer the essay "Wikipedia:Don't template the regulars" for consideration. Just a passing thought from a non-relevant editor. — Ched (talk) 11:14, 9 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  @Ched: Principles highlight key provisions of policy, procedure, or community practice. The essay is simply "food for thought" which may help the Committee form a principle. Essays can be ordinary editors' interpretation of policy, procedure, or community practice, and may become principles if the Committee votes to do so. See Wikipedia:Casting aspersions for another class of principles. - wbm1058 (talk) 14:08, 10 March 2021‎ (UTC)[reply]

Placement of warnings

1) Per Wikipedia:WikiProject User warnings § Introduction "User talk templates are placed on users' talk pages to advise a user against actions that disrupt Wikipedia, to advise editors of common mistakes, or to place a standard boilerplate note at the top of a page." Should warnings always be placed on a user's talk page, or are there any other pages where it is OK to warn a user? If there are, where and under what circumstances? If a user has activated email, can they be warned via email or should the warning always be public? wbm1058 (talk) 18:48, 8 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Hm...I think I'll have to walk myself back a bit re: my comment on the section above. I think a warning template placed on a user talk is slightly different. A warning template is IMO not just a warning but also a notification to admins that, hey, this person has received a warning before. IMO a warning template placed on an editor's page, with a link to a discussion, even if it's a discussion in which the editor placing the template was disagreeing with the other editor, isn't an unacceptable threat, even if the person placing the template is an admin. I would argue this is recognition and acknowledgment by the admin that, "Yes, I can't and won't do anything about this" and qualifies as a warning rather than an unacceptable threat. This doesn't directly get at wbm's statement, it's sort of tangential. —valereee (talk) 22:36, 8 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, the warnings can be put anywhere, but it is best to put them at the talk page of the user because it is a natural place for them to be searched for,--Ymblanter (talk) 11:42, 9 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed principles

Purpose of Wikipedia

1) The purpose of Wikipedia is to create a high-quality, free-content encyclopedia in an atmosphere of camaraderie and mutual respect among contributors. Contributors whose actions are detrimental to that goal may be asked to refrain from them, even when these actions are undertaken in good faith; and good faith actions, where disruptive, may still result in sanctions.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Copied verbatim from the Portals decision. --Tryptofish (talk) 00:25, 10 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Good faith and disruption

2) Inappropriate behaviour driven by good intentions is still inappropriate. Editors acting in good faith may still be sanctioned when their actions are disruptive.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Copied verbatim from the Portals decision. --Tryptofish (talk) 00:25, 10 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Administrator conduct

3) Administrators are trusted members of the community. They are expected to lead by example and to behave in a respectful, civil manner in their interactions with others. Administrators are expected to follow Wikipedia policies and to perform their duties to the best of their abilities. Occasional mistakes are entirely compatible with adminship; administrators are not expected to be perfect. However, sustained poor judgment or multiple violations of policy (in the use of administrator tools, or otherwise) may result in the removal of administrator status. Administrators are also expected to learn from experience and from justified criticisms of their actions.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Copied verbatim from the Portals decision. --Tryptofish (talk) 00:25, 10 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Administrator involvement

4) With few exceptions, editors are expected to not act as administrators in disputes in which they have been involved. Involvement is generally construed very broadly by the community, to include current or past conflicts with an editor (or editors), and disputes on topics, regardless of the nature, age, or outcome of the dispute.

While there will always be borderline cases, best practices suggest that, whenever in doubt, an administrator should draw the situation to the attention of fellow sysops, such as by posting on an appropriate noticeboard, so that other sysops can provide help.

Not having a conflict of interest, as defined in the conflict of interest guideline, is not sufficient to make an administrator uninvolved.

Comment by Arbitrators:

This issue is perhaps the biggest reason I voted to accept the case and this version of the principle seems appropriate to the evidence that has been presented. Barkeep49 (talk) 17:11, 11 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I have commented in the past that this description of "involvement" is overbroad. Read literally, it would mean that an administrator cannot take action regarding an editor if the admin had ever disagreed with the editor about anything, ever. That cannot be right. Newyorkbrad (talk) 04:28, 14 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

I copied this from Portals, but added a sentence at the end about COI. Whether or not you use this sentence in the decision depends on whether or not you make a finding of fact about it. --Tryptofish (talk) 00:25, 10 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

"...an administrator should draw the situation to the attention of fellow sysops, such as by posting on an appropriate noticeboard, so that other sysops can provide help."

In multiple instances Rexx posted on Notice boards asking for input into his actions. Admins abusing tools do not make that abuse public nor do they ask for input or tell other admins they are welcome to overturn their blocks as Rexx did for example on the Ayurveda article. Littleolive oil (talk) 22:24, 11 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia is not a battleground

5) Wikipedia is not a place to hold grudges or insult, harass, or intimidate those with whom you have a disagreement. Editors should approach issues intelligently and engage in polite discussion. Editors who consistently find themselves in disputes with each other when they interact on Wikipedia, and who are unable to resolve their differences, should seek to minimise the extent of any unnecessary interactions between them.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

I copied this from Portals, but deleted a sentence about IBANS that is not relevant here. --Tryptofish (talk) 00:25, 10 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

There IS an elephant in the room. ProcrastinatingReader "broke" a template used by admins in a highly contentious area. At no time that I'm aware of did he take responsibility or understand what his change to the code was creating-making the job of an admin harder than it already was. He refused to back down from his position. Yes Rexx was frustrated and yes that showed in his language. He has a template that wouldn't do what he needed it to do and the change was made with out input. Then, PR who precipitated this situation takes Rexx to arbitration. This did create a battleground situation and the fall out has impacted many people. Littleolive oil (talk) 23:03, 11 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Edit warring

5) Edit warring is not acceptable behaviour as it disrupts articles pages and tends to inflame content disputes rather than resolve them. Editors are expected to engage in calm discussion and, if necessary, dispute resolution rather than making repeated reverts of disputed content.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

This has been worded in various ways in past decisions, with only small differences. I copied this version from Kww and The Rambling Man. --Tryptofish (talk) 00:25, 10 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Suggestion, Trypto, for a minor copy edit. The edit warring” here was on a CfD and a PAG page, rather than on articles. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 00:54, 10 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Also, in regards to the CFD I think it was less “inflaming a content dispute” per se and was more of an interpersonal conflict (for lack of a better word), so that may also need adjusting. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 01:08, 10 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, I agree, and have made corresponding changes.--Tryptofish (talk) 01:11, 10 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

A heated edit war is not reason for an arbitration. Littleolive oil (talk) 22:27, 11 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed findings of fact

Locus of dispute

1) The scope of this case was to examine the conduct of RexxS with view of complaints to do with WP:ADMINCOND.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

RexxS

2) Language about the positive contributions RexxS has made to en-wiki. I'm not sure how to write this.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

I feel very strongly that there needs to be a Finding like this, regardless of the rest of the decision. I'm not sure how to write it, but I hope very much that other editors will propose something like this in the Workshop. --Tryptofish (talk) 01:06, 10 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Tryptofish, if you would like an example of a finding of fact where a finding was about a editor's good contributions take Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/C68-FM-SV § Cla68 (first finding of fact). Dreamy Jazz ^{talk to me | my contributions} 17:25, 11 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you very much for the pointer. But I actually am already familiar with the format. It's more like my not knowing what specific details to fill in, specifically for RexxS. I figure there are other editors watching here who have more familiarity with his work over the years than I do. --Tryptofish (talk) 17:32, 11 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

RexxS

2a) RexxS has made valuable contributions through his actions as an administrator: [1], [2], [3], [4], [5], [6], [7], [8], [9].

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

It occurred to me to base this on Barkeep49's question, as being more narrowly focused on the case scope. ArbCom could use both 2 and 2a, use one or the other, or combine the two into a single finding. --Tryptofish (talk) 17:08, 11 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

RexxS has edit-warred.

3) RexxS has edit-warred: [10], [11], [12], [13], [14], [15], [16].

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

I think that this is the central finding of this case, and it's pretty stark despite having only happened once. ArbCom has a variety of choices about how to remedy it, but I'm very much stuck on the fact that WP:EW is a bright-line policy, that none of the exceptions it allows are applicable to this incident, and that administrators should not do things that the rest of us would surely be sanctioned for. --Tryptofish (talk) 01:06, 10 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The edit warring was, sadly, not unusual in English Wikipedia. Administrators have discretion in deciding how to handle edit warring, and in this case, they chose to close the incidents noticeboard discussion. For me, the disagreement in the noticeboard thread was remarkable; that level of loud accusations by one party and narrow focus by both on repeating the same arguments was extreme. isaacl (talk) 01:20, 10 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

In theory, as blocks are supposedly preventative, it appears Floq's close achieved the preventative effect (in the sense that the edit war ended). Sometimes an edit war ends just by a report being filed, and the parties no longer desire to keep going, and that appears to have been the case here. Floq's close, certainly with the benefit of hindsight, appears to be the most reasonable conclusion to that rapidly deteriorating ANI.

I don't agree with Tryptofish's view that the edit warring is the worst issue here. A general Wikipedia enforcement issue, imo, is that "bright-line violations", such as WP:3RR, are treat as if they're the worst thing one can do on here, simply because they're easier to define. Persistent and far more problematic issues that require subjective determination are brushed aside as if they're trivial. I believe in this case, as with any case, ArbCom needs to seriously evaluate all the evidence and make those determinations dispassionately, regardless of what conclusion they eventually reach, because I don't think the rest of the evidence can be brushed away as easily as Tryptofish believes two sections down. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 18:22, 11 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

In addition, to HJ's below remarks, blown out of proportion seems to be a theme here. BHG presumably felt the need to escalate the dispute to ANI because she couldn't get RexxS to stop mangling her comment (verses just adding in the {{pb}}s himself and leaving a talk page comment with advice). At ANI, she got frustrated and ended up looking worse in the dispute. In the GS template dispute, it's likely that would've just been resolved through conversation or mediation, but the approach and threats resulted in me feeling the need to refer it elsewhere. The same pattern was noted by Reyk in the AMWNP block discussion in this comment. We see the same issue in various other evidence sections. This case seems to me about assessing whether the arbs believe there is a pattern; I don't think there's any central finding or single dispute here. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 18:37, 11 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

My focus was on providing analysis of the incidents noticeboard discussion, so I didn't present evidence on other aspects. However, RexxS did fix another prior instance as well as point to the appropriate advice within the category discussion, and, prior to the incidents noticeboard discussion (but after most of the edit war), at the other user's talk page. isaacl (talk) 18:59, 11 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Extended discussion moved to talk. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 20:11, 11 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

As a statement of fact, this is beyond doubt. What concerns me is whether we would even consider an arbitration finding about it were we not here because of an entirely different incident a year later that itself was blown massively out of proportion. It also feels a little unjust to single out one party to an edit war because they happen to be a party to an (unrelated) arbitration case. Unless, of course, there's a pattern of such conduct. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 17:49, 11 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

An edit war is not a reason for an arbitration. Littleolive oil (talk) 22:31, 11 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

RexxS involved

4) RexxS has incorrectly confounded the lack of a conflict of interest with being uninvolved: [17], [18], [19].

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

This is something from the Evidence page that does seem to me to be factual and relevant. By itself, it does not rise to much more than a "reminded" type of remedy, but it can be viewed with my proposed FoF 3 as part of a pattern. --Tryptofish (talk) 01:06, 10 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

No. Lourdes an admin provides detailed analysis/ rebuttals of multiple admin actions on Rexx's part. Admin actions are not always clear cut and easy to understand, and a lack of simplicity in an admin action does not mean that the action was wrong but that the action was complex. In addition, on multiple occasions Rexx asked for input and scrutiny on his actions. No admin invites scrutiny if he thinks he has misused his tools. If you want admins to work in contentious complex areas, they have to have the ability and support to decipher the complexity. Not every admin has this kind of experience and especially, nor does every editor. Littleolive oil (talk) 22:39, 11 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

RexxS demeanor

5) RexxS has communicated administrator actions in a needlessly aggressive way: [20], [21], [22].

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

I probably did not do a very good job of crafting this last one; in part, I don't like that the diffs are the opinions of two other people and not actions by RexxS himself. So I'm sure someone else will do this better.

But in any case, I've tried to cull from the Evidence page the things that seem to me to actually rise to the level that ArbCom should make findings about them. (Corollary: I'm not persuaded by the rest.) Broadly, ArbCom can either: (1) decide that my 3rd proposed FoF is a serious enough problem to enact serious remedies, and that something along the lines of my 4th and 5th FoFs provide a basis for saying that the edit war was not a one-off, or (2) decide that the edit war is something that requires only a serious warning that there will be no second chance, and either omit the other stuff, combine the other stuff into a single finding, or treat the other stuff as a "reminded" type of remedy. --Tryptofish (talk) 01:06, 10 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

This is written as a definitive statement which is unfair and not the case. A firm assertive stance is not necessarily aggressive. Aggression has a different meaning than assertive or firm. And a search through archives showed me that an abrasive manner was small in relation to a generally easy going way of treating people. I warned about this very approach. We cannot attribute a personality trait to a few instances of a few abrasive heated comments. We can string those comments together make it look like we are dealing with abuse, but that wouldn't be fair or right. Littleolive oil (talk) 22:48, 11 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed principles

Community Sanctions of Administrators

1) While there is currently no method for the community to revoke administrator status (except in cases of inactivity), the community retains the authority to use any other measures for addressing misconduct, including topic bans, interaction bans, and other restrictions. Accordingly, administrators should not close community discussions related to potential misconduct by other administrators on the grounds that the community has no power to act.

Comment by Arbitrators:

This can be an issue, I like the way it was laid out here, but I haven't seen evidence that it happened in this case. Barkeep49 (talk) 18:37, 13 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

I feel that it's important to note that administrators can still be sanctioned like other editors. Certainly, many allegations of administrator misconduct will need to come before the committee, but that doesn't mean that the community is powerless — it is administrators closing discussions without a chance for the community to act that makes the community powerless. If the Arbitration Committee doesn't tell people this, I don't know who will. Tamwin (talk) 07:02, 13 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Are there recent examples of such closes having happened? --Tryptofish (talk) 18:28, 13 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed principles

Template

1) {text of Proposed principle}

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Template

2) {text of Proposed principle}

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Proposed findings of fact

Template

1) {text of proposed finding of fact}

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Template

2) {text of proposed finding of fact}

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Proposed enforcement

Template

1) {text of proposed enforcement}

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Template

2) {text of proposed enforcement}

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others: