Wikipedia talk:Arbitration/Requests/Case/RexxS

Page contents not supported in other languages.
Source: Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia.
Main case page (Talk) — Evidence (Talk) — Workshop (Talk) — Proposed decision (Talk)

Case clerks: SQL (Talk) & Dreamy Jazz (Talk) Drafting arbitrators: CaptainEek (Talk) & David Fuchs (Talk) & SoWhy (Talk)

Wikipedia Arbitration
Open proceedings
Active sanctions
Arbitration Committee
Audit
Track related changes

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.

Filing party

I am curious as to why ProcrastinatingReader has not been added to the case as the filing party, consistent with similar cases such as Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/RHaworth, Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Wifione and Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/DangerousPanda. This is important as disputes do not arise in a vacuum and the filer's conduct should be examined alongside any other parties, even if the conclusion is that no action should be taken. It also stops vexatious cases being filed, as people know that their own conduct can be equally examined, in the same way that a vexatious ANI thread can be WP:BOOMERANGed back at them. Can the case page be adjusted to include this? Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 10:43, 27 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. The arbitrators requested that only RexxS should be a party in the case. An arbitrator will likely respond soon to review this / explain why they asked for PR not to be a party. Dreamy Jazz talk to me | my contributions 11:14, 27 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, but I need to stress that as it stands, I think it's unfair. RexxS should be allowed to have his right of reply against ProcrastinatingReader with no favouritism to either side. To be clear, I'm not suggesting PR should be sanctioned or that this request is vexatious; rather it's that being an Arb is a thankless task at the best of times, so it's best to be seen to be scrupulously fair to avoid any unnecessary criticism. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 11:31, 27 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
PR was not added because this is not a question of "PR vs RexxS", but rather an evaluation of RexxS's conduct across Wikipedia.
Speaking personally, events and discussions over the last year or so have indicated that ArbCom needs to make some changes in how it operates, and thus I expect that there will be more actions in the future that break with "tradition" or "precedent". Primefac (talk) 14:03, 27 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I'm happy that ArbCom is considering change especially if that change removes some of the stress around arbitrations, however, I for one and probably others would feel that fairness was better served if changes were posted before they're implemented, in any filed arbitration, as a movement towards greater transparency. A thought. Littleolive oil (talk) 15:32, 27 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
There was no lack of transparency here. Multiple arbs, including myself, were clear we did not feel that the PR/Rexx incident as the driving force of this case when we voted to accept. PR, or future filers, will have no way of knowing when they file what scope of a case ArbCom will decide. In some instances, I could see a filer requesting they be kept as a party so that they would have increased diffs/words when filing evidence. I think your point, ultimately, is not that it wasn't transparent, but that there is procedural fairness in knowing what the rules are ahead of time. That is a good point and one I support. What we might be signaling, and I don't think we'll know until we've done it another time or two, is that we have rules around filing a case and then if you're a party we have rules about how a case proceeds. Those rules include past precedent for adding parties to cases in the middle of a case. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 15:40, 27 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you Barkeep. I was saying that arb transparency is always good where possible; anything that illuminates procedure is positive. As a suggestion: changes in Arbitration procedures should be posted as soon a possible after they are decided, perhaps with an implement time-changes can only be implemented in Arbitrations if they have been posted already a defined period of time so that editors posting or considering Arbitrations know where they stand. I was surprised at this change, and do think it's a mistake to have a change implemented that no one beyond the arbs knew about, but I wasn't referring to this case actually, as I have no sense that a question here could change an already posted Arbitration. Thanks for your thoughtful reply. Littleolive oil (talk) 16:14, 27 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I think working groups should be empowered to decide what steps work best for them based on the current situation, and so they shouldn't be compelled to post rationales for every decision prior to their being made. That being said, for this particular case, it's not new for the arbitration committee to decide on a scope that differs from ones raised by participants to the case request. isaacl (talk) 17:49, 27 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I disagree. Arbitrations are meant to clarify behavior in the community, and the community needs to know if there are changes. There is a big difference between "every decision" and a years-long standard for posting arbitrations. I would agree that there are changes that do not involve the community, but there are others that have been operating procedures for years. Delineating the two kinds of changes and making sure the community is aware of a change is probably a good step, in my opinion, such as it is. Littleolive oil (talk) 18:34, 27 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Maxim and Primefac / possible recusals

Not sure why exactly Nsk92 requested Primefac to recuse. I guess the "working relationship" referenced in Primefac's reply means they could have "pro-PR bias". However, Primefac voted for "consensus to promote" in the RexxS crat chat.

More importantly though, Maxim initiated the crat chat and voted for promotion. Remember that at that point many users believed that the RfA was a done deal because it went below the 65 % discretionary range, so opening the chat was a noteworthy act itself. Now Maxim voted to decline this case. A perception of a pattern could arise here. Not saying that Maxim should recuse, but it's better that if this needs addressing, it's addressed before the proposed decision is being voted on. --Pudeo (talk) 20:16, 27 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I'll willingly say it, Maxim must recuse to ensure that there is absolutely no question of the appearance of partiality. I am equally sure we can rely on their recusing, based on his answer to this question during his 2019 Arb. Comm. application:Ought Arbitrators who have been personally involved in any way concerning the facts of a case recuse themselves from any related cases?
An arbitrator should recuse, broadly speaking, if they cannot be, or appear to be, impartial to a case. Such a decision should be made on a case-by-case basis; "any way" is very broad and may include minor/tangential involvement that might not give the appearance of partiality. Maxim(talk) 11:01 pm, 14 November 2019, Thursday (1 year, 3 months, 15 days ago) (UTC+0) Leaky caldron (talk) 20:30, 27 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
If the scope was "PR vs RexxS", yes, I was concerned that I would have a pro-PR bias. However, as the scope is dealing specifically with RexxS, and will likely involve evidence not related to PR, I do not think my overall judgement will be influenced (though as mentioned, I will do my best to avoid PR-related sections). In reply to Leaky caldron, I will be entirely honest that I had to read through the crat chat to even figure out what my position was at the time of RexxS's promotion, and I've interacted with them maybe a handful of times since then; if we're talking about recusing for reasons of "has interacted with this individual at all" then I suspect the entire committee would have to recuse on admin-related cases as we have likely interacted with just about everyone at some point or another. Primefac (talk) 20:38, 27 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I was only referring to Maxim. Leaky caldron (talk) 20:59, 27 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I figured as much, but I feel like the back half of my response to you is still valid re: Maxim; doing one's job as a crat does not meant that one has been been permanently INVOLVED with that user until the end of time. Primefac (talk) 21:01, 27 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
It could be argued that we are here entirely due to Maxim's actions in the RFA / 'crat chat. I cannot see the hand of involvement and the requirement to avoid the need to appear to be, impartial to a case.... any more clearly. Anyway, it isn't for you to argue the merits - that's up to Maxim. Leaky caldron (talk) 21:08, 27 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Why would I be, or appear to be, more "partial" because I initiated the 'crat chat? You're picking a scapegoat because you don't like the close. There were 11 'crats in total who voiced their opinions on the close; Primefac is one of the 11 too. We're not here to relitigate the RfA, as Pudeo attempted in a request for arbitration that was soundly declined. If anything, there would be more logic to asking arbitrators who previously voiced an opinion on the suitability of RexxS as administrator at the time (i.e. voted in the RfA) to recuse. Primefac and I only assessed community consensus in that RfA—we have never voiced an opinion on the candidate. If you ask anyone in that RfA to recuse, we'd left at 4 arbitrators (BDD, CaptainEek, David Fuchs, and Newyorkbrad by my count), but I cannot recall RfA !votes ever disqualifying arbitrators from a case. If, for the sake of argument, we took RfA involvement as a a reason to recuse, the rule of necessity would apply. Maxim(talk) 21:31, 27 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The community decided that the discretionary range is 65-75% in a 2015 RfC. Voters specifically were against a lower range of 60 %. You opened a crat chat with a 64.1 % result, and then did not give weight to civility concerns in your bureaucrat assessment . Now you voted against accepting a case which evaluates whether these concerns were right. Many hats here, --Pudeo (talk) 22:01, 27 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not sure where the partiality is; the bureaucrats impartially evaluated community consensus in the request for administrative privileges. I do not have the perception that they have any stake in how the administrator's subsequent behaviour is reviewed. isaacl (talk) 21:38, 27 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not talking about the 'Crats in general. I am concerned that one particular 'Crat., now a member of the Arbcom., initiated a highly dubious 'crat chat, supported the candidate and was in a minority of 2 in this case, purporting to abstain in a case where, by their own statement wish to appear to be, impartial to a case..... Leaky caldron (talk) 21:49, 27 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, I was including that specific bureaucrat as well as the others. isaacl (talk) 21:55, 27 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Well it's obvious ins't it that my prole's opinion isn't going anywhere. I mean, he's already becoming angry at the very suggestion that - by his own words - he might be seen to be impartial in the case. Forget it. Leaky caldron (talk) 22:09, 27 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
To answer Pudeo's original question at the top of this thread, I requested Primefac to recuse from this case because earlier Primefac did recuse from this case[1], with the recusal rationale stated as "as I do not feel I would be able to be as impartial as necessary in this case due to my working relationship with PR." Nsk92 (talk) 21:41, 27 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Additional request for Primefac's recusal

  • Hi Primefac, this is a formal request from me for your recusal. As the evidence and analysis sections involve significant commentary from PR, which you can't close your eyes to (well, PR's all over the place, to say the least), I do not believe you can handle this case without a conflict of interest. Kindly recuse, in the interest of this case decision not being tainted. Thanks. Lourdes 02:50, 12 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Agree. Littleolive oil (talk) 03:00, 12 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • Primefac, repinging you for this recusal request. Lourdes 03:52, 15 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
      • I still do not feel a recusal is necessary, but I also haven't been around much the last week to really dig into the evidence. Primefac (talk) 13:25, 16 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
        • Thanks Primefac. You wrote above, ""However, as the scope is dealing specifically with RexxS, and will likely involve evidence not related to PR, I do not think my overall judgement will be influenced (though as mentioned, I will do my best to avoid PR-related sections)". Are you planning to participate as an Arbitrator by avoiding all evidence, discussions, analysis related to PR and those where PR has commented? Please advise why do you believe recusal is not necessary here? Thanks for your response. Lourdes 00:40, 17 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
          • I think there is a significant difference between "analysis related to PR" and "[analysis] where PR has commented". If the locus of the evidence is (for example) "RexxS said inappropriate thing X to Lourdes" and PR commented on the evidence (or even if they provided it) the evidence is related to RexxS and Lourdes, not to PR. That being said (and as I said above) I have not yet had an opportunity to really look at the evidence to see which of those two groups the bulk of the evidence falls under. Basically, I want to make sure I take the time to properly evaluate the situation in order to make the best and most appropriate decision regarding this case and my role in it. Primefac (talk) 12:36, 17 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Request for CaptainEek's clarification

  • Hi Cap, I noticed that you and ProcrastinatingReader have interacted since last year on the topic of Abraham Lincoln, first attempting to collaborate on getting it to FA (talk page+article edits) and also in touch beyond that. I can place some of the links if you would like more details on the context. My intention is to enquire whether you are open to recusing, similar to what has been asked of Primefac above. Thanks, Lourdes 16:00, 17 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    I will point out that PR is not a party to the case. I will also note that I don't know to what extent you were trying to make a point about involvement given the facts of this case but I will say that I have definitely thought about this section in relation to that. Beyond that it's not really my place to speak for Eek and you weren't really asking me so I'll let Eek respond to whatever degree they think appropriate. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 17:07, 17 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    I have interacted with both Proc and Rexx on various topics. After you edit Wikipedia enough, it is inevitable that you interact with a good deal of the active userbase. Merely having interacted with a user is not grounds for recusal. If that were the case, everyone would have to recuse basically every case. Plus, merely having interacted with an editor is not itself likely to bias one's decision making. Recusals ought be in cases where the relationship would unduly influence the outcome or cloud one's thinking. In this matter, I have only general interactions with Proc and Rexx. Proc did ask me recently about my favorite book on Lincoln, likely due to me commenting on it at the Poland ARCA, and I responded. But that hardly rises above the level of regular contributor interaction. Now, there are definitely cases I would recuse in, and I have recused on some private matters. Say, if we had to hear a case about Atsme, I would likely recuse, as I hold a very high opinion of her and know her in real life. Or if a case involved birds as a major focus, since that is my main content area and I have strong feelings about bird articles. But on this matter, no, I do not think a recusal is necessary. I have entered this case with no preconceptions, and still remain undecided as to my final course of action. CaptainEek Edits Ho Cap'n!⚓ 18:25, 17 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Thank you both, Barkeep and CaptainEek. Barkeep49, in the light of this comment by you and the subsequent response by NyB, and that you are referring to some deletion discussion essay to support your point, I too would not wish to comment on your interpretation of uninvolved.)
    CaptainEek, following are some examples of your interactions with PR:
    In my opinion, the above provide significant evidence of your interacting with PR on and possibly on IRC ("missed you on IRC" comment). If you were asked to decide on any case involving evidence related to PR, then as a member of the ArbCom – which should follow the highest levels of uninvolved decision making – you and Primefac should be recusing, if not from the case, surely from the parts that involve evidence related to PR and analysis provided by PR. I would request you to kindly recuse from this case, or at least ensure you avoid all sections related to PR. Please advise if this is something you are considering doing. And obviously, you simply cannot be the drafting arbitrator in this case, given the above. I await your response. Lourdes 03:58, 18 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Lourdes, I appreciate your concerns, and thank you for being vocal. I have already laid out my reasons above why recusing is not necessary. Furthermore, I disagree with the principle that positive collaboration with an editor makes their evidence invalid. By that logic, I would need to not read moneytrees evidence, because I reviewed their first GA. CaptainEek Edits Ho Cap'n!⚓ 04:31, 18 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • I disagree that cordiality and collaboration necessarily result in undue bias that warrants recusal. There has been a lot of discussion about treating editors decently and remembering their human qualities. People who do this are quite likely to collaborate with others and speak kindly, and these are good qualities to have in the Wikipedia community. Personally, I don't believe we should be providing incentives to select arbitrators who are more withdrawn. isaacl (talk) 04:28, 18 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

What are we doing here?

More heat than light at this point. Barkeep49 (talk) 15:40, 13 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.


This is the way...
-
Forging a head. DFO

The grounds for opening this case were flimsy at best, but I get that ArbCom want to be seen as "tough on crime" (or in this case, administrator misconduct), and that some arbs have a "low bar" for accepting a case about admin misconduct (real or perceived) because of a vague notion that it can't or won't be dealt with at community venues. That point has now been made. The evidence has been open for nearly two weeks. What we have is the original dispute with ProcrastinatingReader over the Covid sanctions editnotice (which could and should have been resolved through normal dispute resolution and community processes), an edit war from a year ago (for which both parties should have blocked which, again, could have been handled at a noticeboard), and a few losses of temper. You could find similar if you dug through many, possibly most, admins' histories. That's not to excuse incidents where Rexx or any admin has acted poorly, but admins are human and we can't have an arbitration case every time one of ~1,000 people loses their rag or makes a poor decision (I'd have had many). If there was a purpose in opening a full case in the first place, I feel that purpose has been served and this should be closed for everybody's sake. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 18:30, 11 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hey HJ, you have past experience in posting analysis in ArbCom cases. If you can post this as your analysis, it can become part of ArbCom's formal decision. Lourdes 02:52, 12 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Despite some people's assumptions, there is no set outcome of any case. Cases are not opened to "make a point". The case was opened to investigate multiple claims of administrator misconduct. Those claims will be investigated and then we will make a decision based on the evidence before us. If the evidence does not warrant any remedies, there will not be any remedies. This is the way. Regards SoWhy 08:36, 12 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
That is the way you see it, SoWhy, and it's a mercy that you are an arbitrator, but the Committee should still be sure to do more than simply read and rubber stamp a perceived consensus of the participants. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 04:35, 13 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
What leads you to believe they are that stupid and/or lazy? PackMecEng (talk) 04:45, 13 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I didn't say or even infer that at all, PackMecEng, and that kind of question/comment and second guessing people's thoughts is precisely the type of participation that makes Arbcom and other noticeboards and collaborative areas most unpleasant places (and incidentally, what got me desysoped - not that I care about having been relieved of my tools). That said, indeed, this composition of the Committee is probably not stupid and does appear to be attempting to make positive changes in the way Arbcom cases work. It remains to be seen. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 05:33, 13 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Kudpung, Don't piss on my leg and tell me it's raining. There is little else that could be inferred from your comment. Insinuations like that have no place here. PackMecEng (talk) 14:24, 13 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:Arbitration/Requests/Case/RexxS&oldid=1079518426"