Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/RexxS

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)

Case opened on 04:13, 27 February 2021 (UTC)

Case closed on 23:21, 26 March 2021 (UTC)

Watchlist all case (and talk) pages: Front, Ev., Wshp., PD.

Case information

Involved parties

RexxS (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA)

Prior dispute resolution

• Archived

Preliminary statements

Statement by ProcrastinatingReader

RexxS had a successful RfA in April 2019 with 64% support, passing after a crat chat. The opposes were mainly concerned with incivility and temperament. I am concerned with RexxS's temperament, which is probably the main quality for admins to possess and is codified in policy @ WP:ADMINCOND. His approach to communication is way too aggressive and combative, and not in line with the expectations of an administrator in a collaborative environment.

WP:ADMINCOND: Administrators should lead by example and, like all editors, should behave in a respectful, civil manner in their interactions with others. Administrators should strive to model appropriate standards of courtesy and civility to other editors. [S]ustained or serious disruption of Wikipedia through behavior such as incivility or bad faith editing is incompatible with the expectations and responsibilities of administrators.

• Personal attacks and unsubstantiated aspersions
  • [1] Context: [2]
  • [3]
• Threatening to impose or propose sanctions against editors in good standing with whom RexxS disagrees
  • [4] (line 385)
  • [5] (which would be an involved action, in any case)
    • Context [6] (my request to move the conversation to AN for wider opinion) - threatening editors against going to seek wider opinion & consensus is quite egregious
    • [7][8]
  • [9] (see full section)
• Frivolous accusations
  • [10] - WP:AN is, and always has been, the venue for GS clarifications.[11] Accusing an editor of "forum shopping" for asking their question at AN, rather than at an obscure talk page, is way off the mark.
  • [12] - Even ignoring the content issue, RexxS seems to be referring to a July revision of the module (Special:Permalink/970506158) which precedes my TPE perms anyway (granted in August). Even if I did have them at the time it's impossible to "abuse" TPE privileges in the continuous set of diffs after creation, especially in a then-not-protected template. I have also never made content edits on Template:COVID19 GS editnotice (history). His threats have no basis in WP:TPEREVOKE, which he should know.
• Other incivility or unnecessary aggravations against editors speaking calmly
  • [13]
  • [14]
  • [15]
  • [16]
  • [17] (re involved actions)

Above is probably not exhaustive. Though I am not personally aware of tool misuse (haven't looked), ADMINCOND still applies and I believe the above conduct is unbecoming. Pulling rank, attacking and baselessly threatening contributors should not be acceptable from any editor, much less from an admin. Given that admins are, in practice, immune to sanctions or censure from the community via its normal venues (AN/ANI), ArbCom is the only venue that can investigate and deal with problematic conduct from admin users. Hence I urge the Committee to take this case. There appear to have been substantial concerns about civility before the RfA, and I am not sure they have dissipated.

I'd like to end on a lighter note by saying that I think RexxS's technical work is solid, and I have personally sought his advice on technical issues on multiple occasions. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 14:06, 20 February 2021 (UTC)

• re Rexx/Johnuniq's statements; my explanation is at AN, since I don't think it relates to this case and my TPE rights can be discussed by the community. But, in short: see TfD #1, TfD #2 (note from nom: Covid is a mix of -> {{Gs/editnotice}} and this). The text RexxS is claiming supports his view is this unilateral addition, which was disputed by an arbitrator as far back as June and July. I tried to discuss the deprecation of the template in mid-2020 on the talk; RexxS opposed the change so I let it be (since I didn't believe the consensus was clear enough for me to do anything). I sent them to TfD separately a few months later to get consensus; the outcome was deprecate, and the consensus was accordingly implemented by the closer. The normal steps to take, if one is concerned about a TfD outcome or believes that there was a procedural irregularity, is to open a Wikipedia:Deletion review. As for Tom.Reding's statement: I wouldn't characterise the situation as such but yes, I'd say that was probably the only mistake I've made as TPE. It was a genuine mistake; I'd misread the month-long short discussion on talk and when Tom disputed my assessment and reverted, I immediately opened a TfD to get broad consensus. My action was discussed at the TfD where Tom raised it, and an uninvolved admin said it wasn't smart but not an irresponsible use.
  Re this case: the above diffs are from throughout 2020 and 2021, all within the last 12 months, most the last 6. I believe it demonstrates a pattern of fundamental ADMINCOND concerns that cannot be resolved as long as RexxS remains an admin. Valereee's statement links that he has been approached about these before. Clerks: requesting extension for this comment, please. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 05:20, 21 February 2021 (UTC)
• If this case were on the edge I think Joe Roe and Serial's statements, along with Joe's evidence, pushes it way over. It would be dangerous precedent for ArbCom not to take this on. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 17:37, 22 February 2021 (UTC)
• If more evidence is still needed, there's also this involved indefinite block of User:AManWithNoPlan for triggering User:Citation bot, which was unanimously overturned at AN and was an awful violation of WP:BOTBLOCK in any case, given that AManWithNoPlan is not a malfunctioning bot.[18] ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 14:43, 23 February 2021 (UTC)
  • This case was also a failure of WP:ADMINACCT. Rexx's response was to propose sanctions on User:Headbomb,[19] which did not go anywhere. An editor in the discussion described this as "vindictive retaliation".[20][21] ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 14:51, 23 February 2021 (UTC)

Statement by RexxS

This is a vexatious filing. I am in dispute with ProcrastinatingReader over their behaviour.

ProcrastinatingReader created a template {{Gs/editnotice|covid}}, for use as an editnotice on articles subject to the community-imposed Wikipedia:General sanctions/Coronavirus disease 2019. It was intended to replace {{COVID19 GS editnotice}}, which would have been a step forward in rationalisation, but PR made a decision when coding the template that it should not be usable unless the article also has page-specific sanctions (such as 1RR or "consensus required", CR), and coded it to prevent its use alone. That is normal practice for the discretionary sanctions imposed by ArbCom, but not for general sanctions imposed by the community. The relevant text authorising (or implicitly requiring) editnotices on articles subject to COVID-19 sanctions (from Wikipedia:General sanctions/Coronavirus disease 2019 #Remedies is

Pages with discretionary sanctions in effect should be tagged with {{Gs/talk notice|covid}} and an editnotice with {{COVID19 GS editnotice}} should be created.

Note that creation of the editnotice is not restricted to pages with subject-specific sanctions.

Furthermore, the COVID-19 area had additional restrictions applied to it by a subsequent debate at AN resulting in the restrictions added at Wikipedia:General sanctions/Coronavirus disease 2019 #Application notes:

Sources for any content related to medical aspects of the disease are expected to adhere to the standards laid down at WP:MEDRS. Since this is a rapidly evolving area with instances already documented of poor or fraudulent research, preprints and other non-peer-reviewed sources should not be used.

Editors are reminded that the onus is on the editor seeking to include disputed content to achieve consensus for its inclusion. Any content or source removed in good faith and citing a credible policy-based rationale should not be reinstated without prior consensus on the article's talk page.

It is essential that on some problematic articles, an editnotice can be added to draw editors' attention to the full set of restrictions, even when no page-specific sanctions have been imposed, particularly because COVID-19 has topic-wide restrictions beyond the standard set of general sanctions. The old template, {{COVID19 GS editnotice}}, did that job without problems, but the replacement coded by PR simply gives an error message {{Gs/editnotice}} when an admin tries to use it without also imposing a page-specific sanction. That constitutes a "breaking change" to the template's functionality.

Despite making ProcrastinatingReader fully aware of my concerns with altering the functionality, PR went ahead and took the decision to stop the new template being used in the same manner as the old one, and then started a deletion discussion without mentioning that the functionality had changed in the proposed replacement template.

ProcrastinatingReader is proud of their coding skills, and does good work, but they have implemented their own preference, unsupported by any broad community decision to alter the way a sanctions template was working, in an attempt to put together two different types of sanction templates that operated differently. They then deceptively omitted to mention the change in functionality (that they clearly were aware of) at the TfD, and mislead the community into thinking the new template would be a direct replacement for the old one.

ProcrastinatingReader has broken the trust that is put in WP:Template Editors. TEs are expected to edit cautiously and with regard to objections: "Avoid making unilateral decisions if there is reason to think people might object. You can always propose the change on a template's talk page, and make the change if there are no objections after a few days. ... Expect to be held accountable for all changes you make. Be receptive to any concerns or complaints that others raise. ... If the failure is particularly egregious, any administrator reserves the right to remove your template-editing access summarily and without warning, even for a first offense. That is the standard that PR should be adhering to, and I believe it is within the remit of any uninvolved administrator to remove that permission. --RexxS (talk) 18:40, 20 February 2021 (UTC)

@Newyorkbrad: Anyone who knows me recognises that you can have any number of heated arguments with me, without me ever falling out with you over it. Nevertheless there are occasions when I know I've been too harsh and regretted it afterwards. I know I owe Valereee an apology for the "inept" comment: she was almost certainly exaggerating when she said it took her a dozen tries to enter a timestamp, and I should have been kinder. But I strongly deny that there is a pattern. The context is that since my RfA I've made over 9,000 edits to most areas of enwiki and a substantial number to probably a dozen other Wikimedia projects. I have performed admin actions at AE, in the COVID-19 and general medical area, vandal patrol, and elsewhere. Until a recent accusation by ProcrastinatingReader at AN (since withdrawn), I do not believe I have ever seriously been accused of misusing the admin tools. The nearest thing to a concern raised with me that I can recollect was when Bradv complained to me that I had blocked a bunch of meatpuppets, who had been recruited off-wiki by OPINDIA to disrupt the Ayurveda page.

My concern in this particular case is the behaviour of the filer, who has made no effort at prior dispute resolution, has misused sensitive permissions and has clearly filed this case in an attempt to deflect attention away from themselves and towards me on the premise that if you sling enough mud, some of it might stick. --RexxS (talk) 02:48, 21 February 2021 (UTC)

@Newyorkbrad: I would have preferred not to comment further, but I will address your request, and take the opportunity to comment on PR's additions and Robert McClenon's statement. I'm sorry to read that he doesn't like me, but I certainly don't reciprocate the feeling. I understand completely that I can be abrasive, but I dispute that makes me an abrasive editor. Please take the time to look through my talk page and its archives. You will find occasions where someone has raised a concern with me, but the vast majority are examples of friendly, collegial interactions. You can look through my contributions and find examples of where I have been brusque, but it's far more typical to see me collaborating with other editors productively. Most of my contributions over the last week have been with MSGJ at Template talk:Wdtable row. I'm not an abrasive editor.

In case there's any doubt, I made a 'flip' response to Valereee that insulted her. It distressed her and I have regretted it ever since. I offer her my sincere apologies and she can rest assured that I will not repeat that.

To your specific request, Brad, I can assure you that I have taken on board what I've read here, and that I'll do my very best not to interact uncivilly. I can't promise that I'll never debate forcefully, and you'll note that PR accuses me of being combative. That is their way of criticising me for sticking to my guns when I am right. PR was wrong to change the functionality of the GS editnotice and their only interest here is to remove an opponent to their action. They completely distort the events surrounding my block of Citation bot for removing links from the titles of citations. I blocked AManWithNoPlan to prevent them from instigating further damaging bot runs, and lifted the block on their assurance that they would not. The bot remained blocked for making unauthorised edits until its maintainer, AManWithNoPlan, modified it so that it no longer removed links for citation titles in line with the overwhelming view expressed at this RfC. The subsequent debate fully vindicated me and my stance that programmers should not make unilateral changes to policy based on their own whims. Exactly the same problem exists with PR's changes to the editnotices and they will have to restore the functionality of the GS editnotice. --RexxS (talk) 18:31, 23 February 2021 (UTC)

Preliminary statements by uninvolved editors. The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.

Statement by Littleolive oil

I am very uncomfortable when an arbitration is opened with the one-sided, only negative aspects of an RfA; such an opening colours the water. RfA's are notorious for their partisan positions and the lack of control of vitriolic comments often misunderstood and untrue. After a quick look the one remark which might be considered uncivil was struck. Don't confuse firmness and assertiveness with incivility or an admin misbehaving and certainly without the much larger context of past editor interactions. This refers to other edits in the discussion. Littleolive oil (talk) 16:33, 20 February 2021 (UTC)

• The AN diff from PR above [22] doesn't explicitly deal with behaviour but with a dispute over aspects of content. As well, as has been implied elsewhere: an AN discussion that is truncated by a run to arbitration is an end run that short circuits a process for discussion and resolution. Littleolive oil (talk) 16:58, 20 February 2021 (UTC).
• Concern: That an uncivil comment colors the appearance of an entire discussion where assertiveness and firmness are being confused with that one diff-I understand that a diff can be insulting, but an arbitration deals with specific ongoing behaviour. Littleolive oil (talk) 17:04, 21 February 2021 (UTC)
• @Barkeep49: In asking to see proof that this arbitration should not be opened you imply it should be opened. Isn't that backwards? Shouldn't a case be opened based on evidence of possible concerns not prematurely presumed guilt. And then: Is a link to one truncated AN discussion where the filer was in a dispute about his own work, and then shoots over to Arbitration to implicate the editor he is in a controversial discussion with, acceptable behavior? Who now controls that dispute? The editor who is filing the arbitration certainly, and not the editor who is now faced with an arbitration instead of further discussion. Is a case that is opened with a reference to an old RfA as background evidence fair or even appropriate? These are concerns I had with this case even before I looked at the diffs. Those diffs are not uncivil with one exception. Does one diff, struck, make for an arbitration? Do posts indicating open dislike for an editor evidence of anything. It's easy to pluck the low hanging fruit here-one interaction-and generalize based on that one diff. What is the ratio of that one diff/interaction to hundreds maybe thousands of other, positive at best, and neutral at worst, interactions? There are too many concerns and questions here to support an arbitration, a time sink for everyone and as Arbitrations often go, demoralizing and unproductive Littleolive oil (talk) 04:37, 22 February 2021 (UTC)
  • I hope the arbs will read User:Joe Roe's evidence very, very carefully and please note context. There's more than one misleading diff.

Here's one: A diff from this discussion [23] used to allege misuse but in fact ignores further comments and context which includes agreement from other editors. "And three admins other than RexxS have said that these were the correct, neutral actions to take.... . -bɜ:ʳkənhɪmez (User/say hi!) 17:39, 21 September 2020 (UTC).

Even if there is no arbitration, posting information that is misleading or damaging is a real problem in arbitrations. We walk away but I can tell you from experience the negative misinformation posted in an arbitration follows an editor for a very long time. Littleolive oil (talk) 17:40, 22 February 2021 (UTC)

• • And all of this is reason to acknowledge that an arbitration must be based on facts and fairness investing in the time and psychological sink an arbitration has on everyone only if absolutely necessary while suggesting this is not an opportunity to relitigate a years old RfA Littleolive oil (talk) 21:07, 23 February 2021 (UTC)
• @Levivich:. I am bothered because you consider edits uncivil when others do not and most importantly that your comments imply your view is the only view. This is the danger here- a pre-formed conclusion based on opinion. Do you see the problems in this Arbitration? An opinion seen as fact, focus on one diff, multiple misleading diffs, relitigation of an RfA, not considering Rexx's comments collected and posted here in relation to an entire body of work over an almost 15 year period. We could cherry pick a few diffs from any editor here and prove just about anything we want. My hope is that arbs are aware of this problem, inherent in arbitrations and respond accordingly, whatever that means. But this is no clear cut situation and going into this with the view that there is guilt is wrong for any of us, in my opinion. Littleolive oil (talk) 15:31, 24 February 2021 (UTC)

Statement by TonyBallioni

Given that admins are, in practice, immune to sanctions or censure from the community via its normal venues (AN/ANI), ArbCom is the only venue that can investigate and deal with problematic conduct from admin users.

The premise this case is based on is false. AN is the first step to reviewing administrator conduct or actions. It’s why admins invite users who have disagreements with them to raise the issues at AN. If there is an open AN thread, the community is engaging, and the conduct is not so egregious that the community is saying that it is wrong, I’m failing to see how a case is needed. ArbCom should not be used to circumvent community review of administrators compliance with WP:ADMIN at AN.

The policy on review of administrator conduct is clear at WP:ADMINABUSE—ArbCom will ordinarily only review admin conduct once other methods have failed. This case request (as quoted above) is explicitly asking ArbCom to become involved while dispute resolution is active and ongoing. While ArbCom can do this, it shouldn’t, as that’s not what the policy foresees or the community anticipates. TonyBallioni (talk) 16:20, 20 February 2021 (UTC)

• @Valereee: I’d actually argue that AN is pretty effective in dealing with admin conduct issues as most of the time people cut out any objectionable behaviour after being dragged there, because it’s not a fun experience. If the point of a warning and discussion is to prevent things from escalating, the standard should be how many sanctions/desysops does it prevent from happening, not how many does it cause. The problem here is that it hasn’t been tried and the request is asking that it not be tried. Imo, that’s not the correct way to handle conduct concerns. TonyBallioni (talk) 17:15, 20 February 2021 (UTC)
• Valereee, no, I know you’re not trying to be argumentative and I’m not condoning how RexxS talked to you. I just have really serious concerns that we’re not even trying to de-escalate before going into case requests now. Again, I think that AN tends to work well if people use it, but not using it is a self-fulfilling prophecy. The Arbitration Committee typically requires attempts at resolution, and there’s literally been none here.
  Also, Serial Number 54129, first, glad you’re back :) Second, that quote was in reference to a proposal to site ban someone instead of desysoping them in lieu of a community based procedure. AN can absolutely review, censure, and sanction admins. I just didnt think site banning in place of a case is a good idea... TonyBallioni (talk) 15:49, 21 February 2021 (UTC)

Statement by Alanscottwalker

I too am wondering about prior dispute resolution. A bit expanding on TonyBallioni, dispute resolution at AN need not be 'first step' (although, probably in most cases, it should be in the steps), there is talking with the admin, before that: to that end, I note that the OP's fourth diff shows a retraction, so that suggests that lower-level dispute resolution has at least some chance (it also gives a different light on the 3 diffs before). Alanscottwalker (talk) 16:38, 20 February 2021 (UTC)

Disagree with Robert McClenon that that prior case is apposite, and not because, contra Black Kite, the prior case in my view, was unfortunate, but needed. Before that prior case, multiple pre-Arbcom discussions had occurred, including restriction imposed at AN. Alanscottwalker (talk) 20:35, 20 February 2021 (UTC)

If I recall correctly, I was much on record about how poor the Crat chat and action were with respect to that Rfa. But that is done and done, and does not replace lower level dispute resolution. As for the Arbcom case that Robert McClenon refers to, in my view anyone with knowledge of the extent of the record, prior to Arbcom, knew when that case was accepted, there was a very high probability that to faithfully follow ADMINCOND, that result was very highly likely to occur. The problem in that case, was fellow admins or the community did not get the admin to reverse before it reached Arbcom. That's why we have lower level dispute resolution, so issues have a chance to end there. -- Alanscottwalker (talk) 12:45, 21 February 2021 (UTC)

If INVOLVED is an issue, you don't need an ARBCOM case to tell an admin they are involved, nor to settle the matter. You just need lower level dispute resolution, directly on the INVOLVED issue. Alanscottwalker (talk) 13:12, 21 February 2021 (UTC)

SN54129 (Serial)'s first quote, below, of TB is miscast, TB rightly said the authority to desysop is in the committee. ElC's quote I take it occurred in relation to this committee's remedies, but if it is read broadly that the community can't make remedies against an admin (besides desysyop), it is false and against community practice (the fuller context of ElC's comment suggests even there, the community can warn an admin, which is a remedy). Alanscottwalker (talk) 14:28, 21 February 2021 (UTC)

SN54129: No. Desysop is not the only remedy against admins. Discussions at AN do issue correction to admins, without desysopping them. For example, in the prior case, mentioned by Robert McClenon, a correction at AN was issued against the admin. -- Alanscottwalker (talk) 14:47, 21 February 2021 (UTC)

@Barkeep49:: I think I have tried to address all the issues you want focused on. I'll add, I think we all agree that it's important and valuable that this is generally self-regulating community. To that end, we have adopted Policy on how to handle this, and in point here WP:RUCD, Arbcom plays a part in our self-regulation but it is last step (or emergency) as it alone operates beyond consensus, after other participatory community venues. If you have found prior direct community discussions of RexxS's civility (indeed, discussions of what has been called "ongoing incivility") or involvement, and they have failed (through lack of consensus or continuing problems), my policy based suggestion is the committee identify them and proceed. (But I would also urge the committee members, so that it's not in doubt, especially if ElC's recent comment has brought it into doubt, that admins do stand before the community in its forums addressing behavior, civility, or involvement. And that admins stand before other admins. Moreover, all policy based remedies are available, save only the remedy reserved to this committee. -- Alanscottwalker (talk) 12:34, 22 February 2021 (UTC)

Statement by Robert McClenon

I started to read this Request for Arbitration skeptically, partly because, as User:Littleolive oil says, it starts with the RFA, and RFAs are hostile, and this RFA was one of the worst. However, on reading it, I see that it is well-researched, and that RexxS continues regularly to insult and attack other editors with whom he disagrees. If he were not an administrator, we would already be on the second or third AN or ANI block review for a pattern of insulting other editors.

I do not like User:RexxS, who is an abrasive editor whose technical skills are as good as he thinks and who therefore doesn't seem to recognize the need for people skills as an administrator. I have not liked RexxS since before his RFA, when he engaged in multiple personal attacks against AFC reviewers including User:LaMona and myself. I opposed his RFA. But when the bureaucrats decided to take a chance on RexxS, I was willing to put that in the past. There was a Request for Arbitration requesting to overturn the Crat Chat. I thought that was silly, and that the community had simply made a bad decision, and we all sometimes make bad decisions. I hoped that RexxS might acquire diplomacy as an administrator.

I do not see tool abuse. I do see a pattern of insulting other editors. ArbCom has desysopped administrators for repeatedly insulting other editors, without evidence of tool abuse. In particular, the Portals case ended in the loss of admin status by User:BrownHairedGirl for repeated allegations of lying. No one questioned the work that BHG was doing with the tools on categories and with scripts. It was only a matter of personal attacks. This Request for Arbitration appears to be mostly about personal attacks by an administrator. ArbCom should accept it. ArbCom has said that administrators should not get away with insults. Robert McClenon (talk) 16:46, 20 February 2021 (UTC)

Comment on Statement by RexxS To paraphrase an old saying, occasionally it is better to keep one's fingers off the keyboard and be thought to be uncivil, than to put language on the Internet and dispel doubt. See also the First law of holes. (But I do sympathize with anyone who tries to deal with sockpuppets in Ayurveda.)Robert McClenon (talk) 04:03, 21 February 2021 (UTC)

I dislike User:RexxS because he never apologized to me for accusing me of lying in the LaMona AFC dispute, although his personal attack had to be redacted. He apologized to Valeree, and he can apologize to me now. Robert McClenon (talk) 19:10, 23 February 2021 (UTC)

Comments on Portals I agree with Black Kite that the ArbCom botched the Portals case, but: first, BHG did attack NA1K repeatedly, second, if one has reason to think that someone else is making incorrect statements, it is possible to say so without using the "L" word, third, other admins have been desysopped for incivility; fourth, the community-wide discussion of portals fizzled out. I agree with AlanScottWalkter that the Portals case itself was necessary, but with Black Kite that it was poorly decided. Robert McClenon (talk) 04:03, 21 February 2021 (UTC)

Statement by Hammersoft

This seems distinctly premature to me. Yes, there has been a history of the need of ArbCom to step in for WP:ADMINCOND situations, but we are not at that stage here. A number of the diffs provided simply aren't the violations they are claimed to be. Example; the line 385 diff here; the language is more direct than I would personally use, but RexxS is not out of line at all for a suggested next step in actions. There are others. I also note that prior to this, the OP and RexxS appeared to have engaged in cordial discussions on RexxS' talk page without incident. I also found no evidence that the OP has approached RexxS on their talk page regarding their behavior and can't find any evidence to suggest the OP has approached them anywhere else about their behavior. I don't agree with some of the uncivil comments RexxS has made (the comment made to Valereee here made me cringe). However, bringing this to ArbCom at this point is extremely premature given the lack of any attempt to discuss the overarching issue of ADMINCOND with RexxS by anybody, much less the OP. The OP noted RexxS' RfA. They should be aware that RexxS is open to recall. If they are thus so concerned about RexxS' conduct, perhaps they should approach RexxS regarding their criteria for recall. --Hammersoft (talk) 16:54, 20 February 2021 (UTC)

• Wikipedia:Administrators is policy. WP:ADMINABUSE on that policy makes it clear that other steps are to be taken in dispute resolution before claims of admin misconduct are raised to the level of an RFAR. ArbCom, in taking this case, is voiding that policy. they are also establishing a very, very cold reality; an administrator who makes even the slightest mistake can now be brought before RFAR before anything else is done to attempt to resolve the dispute. PR has a dispute with RexxS regarding the latter's admin conduct. No attempt was made by PR to resolve this dispute other than to bring it to RFAR. The bar for accepting admin misconduct cases isn't low. It's non-existent. Indeed, Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Desysop Policy (2021) is meaningless; the levels of misconduct required to action such a process far exceed the non-existent bar ArbCom is setting for such cases. --Hammersoft (talk) 18:09, 23 February 2021 (UTC)

Statement by Valereee

To me that RfA provided context. There’s a history of concern over RexxS’s incivility. I supported RexxS in that RfA. At least one bureaucrat supported consensus to promote because they assumed RexxS would take all the opposes due to civility to heart.

Frankly PR’s Diff1 shocked me when it happened. Up until that very moment I thought I’d been participating in a polite disagreement over policy. And when I fairly gently complained, RexxS didn’t even respond, just deleted the complaint from his talk. If he'd responded with an apology I probably wouldn't even remember the incident.

The next time I complained about something on RexxS’s talk, he accused me of being partisan. When I asked him to explain, he did not, even after I’d asked for a third time. (After which he got COVID so I didn’t like to insist again.)

I see Tony’s point, but I do see an admin who is seriously uncivil when crossed, and to me that’s a major concern. It is undoubtedly difficult to effectively address admin bad behavior. I kind of think requiring AN to be absolutely exhausted first is what keeps problematic admins from bothering to change. They know the first five AN sections will result in “Admin X is reminded” and then warned and then really frowned at really, really hard. And that if the same person is opening some of them, that person will actually be in the greater danger. So we’ve then required multiple people to open those multiple sections, and of course anyone experienced enough to know how to open an effective section is also experienced enough to understand boomerang and the relative value of just avoiding/not arguing with the problematic admin. I just think this needs to be solved. Maybe Arbcom is what's needed here, because as far as I can tell AN seldom has actually been a productive way to handle admin misbehavior.

I find EI C's statement that all AN can do is warn, and the warned admin is free to do what they will with that warning, to be very pertinent to concerns about process. If all a trip to AN does is provide proof the admin has been warned before, how is it any more probative than the stack of diffs of other editors making valid complaints at various talk pages that was going to serve as evidence at AN? PR could have opened this at AN/I, and then someone could have said, "Yeah, those diffs look bad, but there's nothing we can really do about it here"; would that have been enough to make this in-process? Because if so it seems like just one more hoop to force people to jump through if they're going to have to end up here anyway. Like I said above, I am not hoping for a desysop. I just want someone to take RexxS by the scruff and give him a good firm shake to focus his attention, and from EI C's diff, a "warning" at AN doesn't really do that. The fact RexxS is calling this frivolous is important w/re that, IMO.

RexxS, apology accepted, with thanks. No biggie, I'm sure I've said worse! :) —valereee (talk) 18:34, 23 February 2021 (UTC)

Statement by Black Kite

My inclination would be to decline this as I don't think it yet rises to the level of an ArbCom case. Yes, there are some problematic diffs there, though I think some of them are not major red flags and the number is not great considering some go back a year or so. My bigger concern is what Robert McClenon said comparing this to the Portals case. Without going into detail, as I don't want to fall foul of ADMINCOND myself, I am somewhat leery of ending up with another case that has the potential to go as badly wrong as that one did. Black Kite (talk) 17:58, 20 February 2021 (UTC)

Statement by Bilorv

Consistent incivility by a long-term admin is precisely the type of case Wikipedia fails to deal with. I've seen this happening in other cases and when someone shows such obvious contempt to you but knows exactly where the line is for ANI to dismiss it, it is extremely damaging and makes you feel like you're being gaslighted by everyone. If Arbcom wants to avoid another case of WP:FRAM then they need not to turn a blind eye to reports like this that come their way. If you show too few diffs then you're casting aspersions; if you show too many then people literally reply "lol, you expect me to read that?"; if you take it to ANI first then the unblockable's colleagues or the people saying "give them one more chance" (after the user's twentieth chance) are the majority voice and get it closed with no action, which makes it less likely Arbcom will accept the case.

If I went to a random active admin and told them that a non-admin had acted towards me how RexxS acted towards Valereee then I would expect the user to be blocked for 31 hours or a week in at least three-quarters of cases. Several of the other diffs presented are also actionable. For RexxS to not be warned or blocked or de-sysoped for any of the consistent long-term incivility would set an incredibly dangerous precedent, both in the case of RexxS feeling unimpugnable and other editors feeling that they can push things as far as this with no consequences.

RexxS talking about the technical side and not addressing a single temperament comment (as of now) tells you everything you need to know about how they see temperament as irrelevant and will not change their style of communication unless made to. — Bilorv (talk) 18:46, 20 February 2021‎ (UTC)

Statement by L235

I firmly believe that RexxS's continued insistence that he is an uninvolved administrator for the purposes of pulling ProcrastinatingReader's template editor bit is deeply worrying (and flat-out wrong), and could itself justify an ADMINCOND arbitration case. I haven't yet looked at the other diffs in this case, but this case request is clearly not "vexatious", as RexxS claims. KevinL (aka L235 · t · c) 20:28, 20 February 2021 (UTC)

Statement by Johnuniq

The above #Statement by RexxS explains the situation with links. I'll put it more briefly. ProcrastinatingReader proposed merging 21 templates to use a new module which PR wrote (TfD). That's good, but there was no mention of the fact that {{COVID19 GS editnotice}} would be significantly changed. The subsequent discussion here shows the problem—RexxS talked about the fact that the template no longer worked, while ProcrastinatingReader argued that the new template's behavior was good due to various opinions. PR completely misses the point—it is highly disruptive to change the fundamental behavior of an important template due to a conviction that the old template is wrong. Bold editing has its place but there has to be significant discussion and clear consensus before changing a template relied on by admins trying to reduce disruption in the COVID-19 area. I found it very hard to get PR to say what the dispute was about and in diff PR said "I don't really know what you mean about functionality changing" which confirms they don't seem to grasp that fundamental changes need to be agreed in advance. Johnuniq (talk) 01:34, 21 February 2021 (UTC)

Statement by Yngvadottir

I am on record as having been appalled by the crat chat that led to the closure of RexxS's RfA as successful. I regretted my generosity or timidity in remaining neutral in the RfA, since opposers pointed to behavior that showed he had not reformed since I began avoiding him. I haven't heard much about him since, but it appears from ProcrastinatingReader's diffs that I was wrong, and he has not adequately reformed since becoming an admin. Some of those diffs are flat-out nasty, and the non-responsiveness to concerns that Valereee adds would be uncivil and contrary to WP:ADMINCOND even without the rudeness toward her that she was asking about. Our expectations of admins do indeed go beyond that they avoid breaking the wiki, or even that they avoid blocking the wrong people, and we expect them to be civil toward other editors not just because we expect that of all editors on the project, nor just because we expect them to set an example of "civilised discourse", but because if they do not show respect toward other editors, they are licensed bullies. A threat like this one to EEng has far more weight from an admin than a non-admin. I also think objections to the term "temperament" are self-defeating: that there is a culture on Wikipedia of making excuses for snideness, dismissiveness, and other tactics of combat-by-debate providing they avoid using either obviously insulting or "dirty" words is a problem, not a feature. ArbCom should accept this case. Yngvadottir (talk) 02:34, 21 February 2021 (UTC)

Statement by Tom.Reding

ProcrastinatingReader's conduct in template-protected space has been problematic before. Last month, they "trialed" a major change, without consensus, to a template transcluded on 2,000,000+ pages ({{WikiProject banner shell}}). The talk page discussion was 2 oppose to 1 support at the time of their edit. I & others expressed similar views on PR's irresponsible use of their TE permissions.

Later, at the TfD, PR said "I couldn’t extract your [ Redrose64's ] position". RR's position is very unambiguous. If PR really couldn't extract RR's position, PR was acting on 1, one, support vote, and 1 "non-RR" oppose. Instead, PR either WP:IDHT'd, or ignored most of RR's post, and went on to make the non-consensus change.

This echos Johnuniq's statement above; it is PR's repeated combination of WP:IDHT, willful and/or feigned ignorance, misjudgment, and their general ignoring of opinions contrary to their own that backdrops this case.   ~ Tom.Reding (talk ⋅dgaf)  04:33, 21 February 2021 (UTC)

Plea for compassion by Folly Mox

Please let us not. We don't need to see here a good editor triumph and a good editor fall. We still have the opportunity for deescalation. Both editors are talented, knowledgeable, skilled, beautiful humans who have contributed to our magnificent project.

We can all stand up

And stretch out our hands as far as they'll go

And draw in a deep breath...

two... three... four...

And out,

two... three... four...

This editor has suffered reversions

just like me

This editor has been on the losing side of consensus

just like me

This editor has experienced loneliness

just like me

This editor has been hurt

just like me

Please let us feel gratitude for the oxygen that nourishes our human bodies. Let us contextualize.

Both of these editors are positive contributors. Both deserve to be admins. And edit filter managers.

We can all contribute positively and still disagree.

Also please let us remember the context of Bishzilla on April Fools Day before quoting numbers?

Decline without prejudice. <3 Folly Mox (talk) 06:43, 21 February 2021 (UTC)

Statement by Deepfriedokra

• If the Arb's have time, they should accept. AN is simply not capable of handling a complaint of this magnitude, and too often AN threads become three-ring circuses on routine matters. The subtext of comments even here support this position-- the emotional loading is palpable. No opinion on what the Arb's should do. (I will note my opinion that PR could be a little less bold in their template work, but that is not the fundamental issue under discussion.) I like RexxS, despite their sometimes coming across as grumpy/impatient/stressed, and hope we can work this out . --Deepfriedokra (talk) 09:17, 21 February 2021 (UTC)
• Ritchie333 reminded me of my own COVID19 concerns. I believe it has affected cognition/critical thinking in myself and others, apart from the shear terror aspect. I think we should all respond with forbearance while considering that at least one person in any discussion mightn't be at their best. Ritchie333 makes a lot of good points below. --Deepfriedokra (talk) 09:57, 22 February 2021 (UTC)

  Switch to "Ask Arbcom to decline" per Kudpung, Montanabw, and Ritchee333 below --Deepfriedokra (talk) 14:00, 26 February 2021 (UTC)

Statement by Alfie

Without commenting on RexxS' conduct:

General consensus at AN/ANI is that there's very little that can be done there even if it is agreed that an administrator's behaviour is inappropriate: see here, among other ANI cases.

I think that ProcReader has done a decent thing by putting this in front of arbcom, and I would urge the committe to accept - not necessarily because I believe that RexxS should be sanctioned, but because I believe that our current crop of Arbs are a smart, sensible bunch of humans who will be able to resolve this promptly and succinctly in a way that (I hope) is satisfying to all parties involved instead of burning a bunch of community goodwill at AN/ANI and potentially losing one or both contributors to the project.

More generally, I think that the arbs should generally lean to accept WP:ADMINCOND cases that haven't yet been past a noticeboard - The prior steps of dispute resolution involved in cases where one user is an Administrator seems to be absolutely exhausting - I think that if our goal is retaining two decent contributors to the encyclopaedia, an ArbCom case is the most likely venue to acheive that.

-- a ^{they/them | argue | contribs} 09:36, 21 February 2021 (UTC)

SN54129

I was not going to comment—as usual—but there's a couple of points where the emphasis could be recast—as usual. In the interests of disclosure, I vigorously supported RexxX's RfA and at the 'crat chat; conversely I opposed Valereee's RfA.

Only in Death has closed the AN, and noted that Arbcom will not decide on the issue of the templates. They act on conduct. Just so. As such, it should be noted that Rexx's statement above does nothing to address behavioral concerns, but deals only with the issue of templates. Arbcom may consider this an (unintended) obfuscation.

Others have emphasized that because the issue was still at AN, Arbcom could/should not address it. This flies in the face of accepted practice. TB says above that he is satisfied with the noticeboard as a vehicle for sanctioning admins; in 2018 he argued that the community does not have the authority to [sanction]...If people want him [sanction], they should go through the normal procedure; Black Kite then confirmed this in his close. El C stated only a few weeks ago that This forum does not have the authority to censure any admin, for anything, about anything. That is just a fact. It remains the sole domain of the Arbitration Committee.

So there you have it. The ANI thread has been demonstrated to have focussed on the non-behavioral. Arbcom has been confirmed to be the only venue for censuring (per El C) an admin. The committee has little choice other than to accept, unless it wishes to further encourage the Catch-22 of admin accountability: "ANI doesn't deal with admin behavior. Take it to arbcom"--->"Arbcom can't hear the case before ANI, send it back". ——Serial 14:06, 21 February 2021 (UTC)

(Incidentally I do not think that desysop is a likely or profitable outcome, so have redacted those references. Everyone's blood pressure is high enough as it is.)

(@ASW: clearly the ability to make sanction without the ultimate sanction is no ability whatsoever, and clearly El C's approach is current practice, rightly or wrongly. There is disingenuity in seeing in ANI the ability to perform on paper that it cannot perform in the actualité.)

(Obviously, in a case request regarding civility, committee members will understand that I do not intend engaging in word tennis, having said my substantive piece. I will note, however, that a previous case that resulted in a "correction" being issued is an exception that proves the rule: what it did was literally all it could do. Further, perhaps, if an admin with a similar approach as El_C (apologies of course for using them as a case study) had decided to close the discussion, who's to say that that would have been the result? Very difficult, that, in the absence of any codification.)

*Incidentally, I am sure that Folly Mox is an editor of repute, but the submission ranges from the inchoate to the incoherent. ——Serial 14:44, 21 February 2021 (UTC)

Yes, TB, I'm sure that was totally different request for sanctions. Still hasn't happened here though. And can someone point out to LOO that rbitration deals with specific ongoing behaviour is categorically not the case? (Ironically they're probably thinking of AN/I; but arbitration commonly relies on previous history, often requiring only a small spark to light a larger flame, so to speak.) Still, no more tennis, please. ——Serial 17:29, 21 February 2021 (UTC)

• @Sluzzelin: for the record, it's ADMINCOND that's under discussion, rather than ADMINACCT. ——Serial 10:32, 23 February 2021 (UTC)

@arbs:can I draw your attention to the excellent post by Moneytrees? Specifically, the second portion regarding the commons incident, which I recall being a total Mons. It is interesting thta communication is valued as a fundamental component of ADMINACCT, but this is a redlink. The point is that while RexX's communication may have been on occasion sub-par, if he can learn from the mistakes, than he is doing more than many of us here. On WP, I suggest, communication and development are apposites. ——Serial 19:44, 23 February 2021 (UTC)

Statement by Montanabw

• Decline, decline, decline. It is so ridiculous that people who get called out for their failure to collaborate and refusal to fix their errors or listen to sound advice are the first ones to go scream “incivility.” Any editor who has been here as long as RexxS will occasionally be a little short and sharp when faced with the same WP:CHEESE arguments over and over again. It’s not a “pattern of incivility,” it’s a pattern of pointing out problems and insisting that they be corrected. If a few feelings are bruised, they are the ones who need to step away from the keyboard.

RexxS is USUALLY only short and sharp with those who need the short, sharp, shock to shape up their approach to a situation. Here’s the analogy that comes to my mind. No one “likes” it when Dad tells you to behave, but once you grow up and look back, you know Dad was right and was just trying to lead you in a direction that was good for you. And yeah, occasionally Dad got a little grumpy. So sometimes people go crying to mom (aka ArbCom), but mom didn’t fall the turnip truck yesterday, and most of the time, she is going to focus on the behavior of the complaining party as well. (She might privately remind dad that he sometimes gets a little too grumpy, but not in front of the kids). RexxS has a lot of Dad energy. We need a few more adults on Wikipedia.

I remember RexxS’s RfA, which I supported. Anyone who has been on WP for a decade or more (as is true of RexxS) will have “enemies,” people they have irritated over the years. Somehow, every one of these people gets wind of an RfA and chooses to go there to pile on and get in their licks. That happened with his RfA. When you know the situation and the parties involved, you have a more accurate picture than a simple raw !vote count. That’s why there was a ‘crat chat, and why they passed RexxS to admin. He’s ably wielded the mop now for some time, and to paraphrase Jimbo, it doesn’t surprise me that he’s occasionally been a little sharp; what impresses me is how patient he is with very difficult people and for how long. Montanabw^(talk) 19:24, 21 February 2021 (UTC)

@Lepricavark: I hope to god that admins apply adult energy to their work. Otherwise we have Lord of the Flies. I think “dad” is a much better analogy than “babysitter” or “cop.” (Which perhaps are terms reflecting the opposing ends of the spectrum). That said, I acknowledge that people who have difficult relationships with their own parents may prefer a different analogy. So feel free to propose a different word for “person with wisdom and experience who helps the encyclopedia by use of a specialized set of tools.” Montanabw^(talk) 23:18, 21 February 2021 (UTC)

Statement by Volunteer Marek

What Montanabw says 100% ^^^^^^^^^^^^ Volunteer Marek 20:59, 21 February 2021 (UTC)

Statement by Ched

I think an attempt to relitigate (for lack of a better term) a years old RfA crat chat through Arbcom is a poor defense for bad choices mistakes in template coding. Perhaps it's not even a "defense", but simply a matter of revenge. Either way, I'm hopeful that the current group of Arbs will see this for what it is. The only link provided for any attempt to resolve the issues with RexxS is to 1 (one) AN discussion. A link by the way which indicates that PR didn't like the outcome so reopened the thread after archive here, then continued to (for lack of a less pejorative term) 'debate' the issue after the thread was closed.here. It looks to me as if the problem was explained to PR that his efforts essentially broke the template/page/edit notice at both Template talk:COVID19 GS editnotice and Wikipedia talk:General sanctions/Coronavirus disease 2019. I know nobody likes to hear the term "Forum Shopping" bandied about, but it looks to my eyes as if getting a preferred version instituted is what the rub is all about. If a problem has been explained multiple times, I'm not sure how RexxS covering an explanation in sugar and sprinkling it with rainbows is going to help. I do appreciate PR's coding efforts, but nobody is perfect. I know you folks will do as you wish; all I ask is that if you look at one person, then also look at the other. — Ched (talk) 21:20, 21 February 2021 (UTC)

Statement by Lepricavark

I'm disturbed by Montanabw's analogy. Admins are not parents. Admins should not adopt a paternalistic tone when speaking to rank-and-file editors. Admins are not inherently better than non-admins, and thus they have no right to talk down to non-admins. I am not prepared to say whether this case should or should not be accepted, but I urge the arbs not to make that decision based on the patronizing notion that it's okay for an admin to use his "Dad energy" to put us in our place. LEPRICAVARK (talk) 21:51, 21 February 2021 (UTC)

Statement by Thryduulf

I think it's clear that the specific dispute between RexxS and ProcrastinatingReader (PR) is at best premature and, on it's own, does not require ArbCom's involvement. That is not what ArbCom is being asked to investigate though, it is being asked to investigate a long-standing pattern of behaviour of which the dispute involving PR is simply the latest (and not most egregious) example. Many, perhaps most, of the comments from uninvolved editors are completely missing this distinction. AN/I as a venue is appallingly bad at dealing with cases of (alleged) long-term incivility by administrators with lots of vocal friends, as RexxS does (having friends is not a bad thing, but a chorus of unwavering support at every turn (and dismissal or denigration of anyone who dares question that) makes it very difficult for anyone to dispassionately examine the facts of a given situation). I think it would be a good thing therefore for the committee to accept this case and undertake that dispassionate look at the evidence. I expect the outcome will be somewhere in the range of "there is no problem here, but everyone please remember that civility is important" to "RexxS is cautioned to maintain civility, especially when acting as an administrator" but nobody is well served by ignoring allegations of bad behaviour by admins.

If arbcom do accept this case it is extremely important that they are very clear, from the start, about the precise scope of the case and (themselves or via the clerks) are very responsive to questions about it that arise during the evidence and/or workshop phases and keep discussion focused on what is relevant (by liberal closing and hatting if necessary). Thryduulf (talk) 00:26, 22 February 2021 (UTC)

@Nsk92: It is possible for an arbitrator to recuse on one aspect of a large case while being active on the rest. I can't remember which case it was, but during my term (2015) there was an occasion where both DGG and I were recused with respect to one person in a case (possibly it was an ARCA, but case is more likely) involving at least 2-3 others for example. I'm not expressing an opinion whether Primefac should do that in this case, just noting it is an option. Thryduulf (talk) 16:03, 23 February 2021 (UTC)

Statement by Swarm

This is my impression: This is a complex case because RexxS is a complex person. He's a great editor, and he seems to be a pretty intelligent person who is ultimately more on the friendly side. Like Montanabw is getting at, it's no secret that he'll speak his mind, even if it means crossing into unabashed incivility, but in all fairness, he usually knows exactly what he is saying and has good reason for saying it. I have been on the receiving end of his scoldings and it is not a good feeling. But he's still a reasonable person, and even when he does cross the line, he's willing to bury the hatchet and be a bigger person after the fact. His RfA was contentious for exactly this reason. He's not purely uncivil and he's not purely civil. He walks this fine line and pulls off this balancing act between righteous incivility and genuine good faith civility. I think the diffs presented in this complaint are in line with that. I supported his RfA and I don't think I could have justified doing anything else. I think the RfA got it right, he deserved to pass by the skin of his teeth. But make no mistake, passing an RfA inherently includes this fundamental understanding that the new admin is expected to lock any behavioral issues down and serve the community without civility issues. I think the diffs do demonstrate the continuation of civility issues. And I'm not saying this is a cut-and-dry case for a desysop. I'm just saying that there are valid accusations of admin misconduct, and that this is something that we need to look into. No action, a reminder, an admonishment, a warning, a desysop, it doesn't matter what the end result is, it's a valid complaint to look into and I can't see any reason that it shouldn't be looked into. This notion that users are not to go to Arbcom with complaints of admin abuse because it's a "personal conflict" is not something that I buy. Like Lepricavark says, the fact that an admin is merely taking some sort of righteous, authoritarian parenting approach to the role is not necessarily an excuse for behavioral misconduct. I am on the side of RexxS here, I hope he can be vindicated, but as a matter of procedure I think that these accusations that his civility issues have persisted into his tenure as an admin are fair and are worthy of being looked into. ~Swarm~ ^{sting} 02:23, 22 February 2021 (UTC)

Statement by Nsk92

I urge the Arbcom to decline this case. For the record, I did not take part in the RfA of RexxS. I don't know how I would have voted there but I believe that the crat chat and the RfA close were abominably bad. RfAs should never be passed by the skin of their teeth. That's not how the trust of the community is earned. But what's done is done, and RexxS is an admin now. ArbCom should not compound the past mistakes. By the same token, I believe that potential desysop cases should not be accepted by the skin of their teeth either. The initial evidence needs to be more convincing than what we have here. It is clear from the evidence presented here that RexxS does exhibit occasional incivility and at times comes off as way too agressive when engaged in discussions. I don't think these concerns can simply be pooh-poohed away as him being a dad who only spanks children who need to be spanked. The episode with a nasty remark directed at Valereee is particularly reprehensible. RexxS should be apologizing for that episode to this day, repeatedly and profusely. But as far as I can tell, that seems to have been the worst of it. Overall, the civility concerns here do not seem to rise to the level that would likely result in desysopping on those grounds. I didn't know that Kudpung was desysopped until a couple of days ago, but reading that RfAR, I think the initial evidence was much stronger there, and yet I still consider the entire Kudpung case something of a close call. RexxS has never misused admin tools. Nor has he threatened to do so. The threat to report somebody to AN doesn't qualify, not even close. Using that as a reason to accept the case would definitely be the equivalent of accepting the case by the skin of its teeth. Accepting a case that will likely only result in a civility admonishment for RexxS strikes me as quite counterproductive. I think this entire RfAR should already be viewed as a civility adminishment for RexxS, and hopefully he will take it as such. In the matter of the covid template dispute between PR and RexxS, my impression is that RexxS was largely in the right and that PR needed to be much more careful. But that matter is definitely not ready for ArbCom and should be adressed elsewhere. Nsk92 (talk) 03:53, 22 February 2021 (UTC)

In view of the additional evidence presented here regarding misuse of admin tools, I withdraw my earlier opinion. I think the ArbCom needs to accept this case to review the admin conduct of RexxS. The thread Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive1039#Block review of AManWithNoPlan (and the seven resulting subthreads) is deeply concerning. Not only was the original block of AManWithNoPlan egregiously wrong, as the ANI discussion shows, but RexxS exhibited a distrurbingly aggressive attitude in that thread, including an attempt to open a retaliatory subthread against Headbomb. However, I believe that arbitrator Primefac needs to stay recused for this case. Procrastinating Reader will still be a party in the case, if it is opened, and will certainly present substantial amount of evidence there, including evidence concerning interactions between PR and RexxS. The original reasons for Primefac's recusal still apply, even if the scope of the case got broader. Nsk92 (talk) 15:18, 23 February 2021 (UTC)

Primefac, sorry, I still think trying tp parse out this case into PR-related and non PR-related parts is a bad idea and that you should recuse. For everybody else who is still arguing for the case to be declined, I strongly urge you to look at Joe Roe's statement in detail, including the links provided there. Several of them deal with highly problematic admin actions by RexxS (that are completely unrelated to the dispute with PR). There is a thread User talk:RexxS/Archive 62#Ayurveda and blocks, where a series of questionable blocks by RexxS is brought to his attention by a former arb bradv. The response by RexxS is quite concerning. None, except for one, of the blocks have been reversed although, IMO, most of them are unwarranted. E.g. User:Maniam Babu has been indef blocked as NOTHERE for making this single article talk page edit [24]. Then we have Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive1037#I am being inappropriately threatened with general sanctions for COVID-19. RexxS apparently threatened with COVID GS sanctions an editor who opposed RexxS's content proposal being discussed at a talk page of a COVID-19 related article. During the ANI thread discussion it transpired that RexxS considered himself WP:UNINVOLVED even though he had been actively editing COVID-19 related articles and their talk pages. In the same thread RexxS argued that: "Yes, you do need to have a CoI to be INVOLVED because that's what INVOLVED says." Just these two episodes, together with the block of AManWithNoPlan mentioned above, already justify accepting a case to review the admin conduct and the use of tools by RexxS (even if one takes the template dispute with PR completely out of the picture). Nsk92 (talk) 19:03, 23 February 2021 (UTC)

Statement by Ritchie333

I get on with RexxS, ProcrastinatingReader and Valereee. I'm finding it difficult to parse ProcrastinatingReader's request as the diffs have all the context trimmed from them, which takes time and effort to understand. For example, the first case involving Template:Unsigned did involve a mild personal attack from RexxS to Valereee, which was later struck out and replaced with something less inflammatory. The thread in question also involved a great deal of input from EEng, who tends to try and defuse MOS arguments with humour, but in this case might well have contributed to the temperature of the discussion that made RexxS snap. When you consider that 16 March 2020 was the start of the pandemic lockdown, leading to many people fearing for their lives and livelihoods, I can understand if editors were on edge at that time. Diff 17 in PR's evidence includes RexxS saying "I'd like to thank all of you who commented, and I appreciate the support and constructive advice." and ducking out of the discussion. That is a good course of action when discussion starts to get heated.

The principal problem we have with civility is how to respond to it and deal with it. I've said before that the Arbitration Committee don't really arbitrate, and that's what I'd like to happen here. Somebody needs to sit down with PR, evaluate their concerns, then sit down with RexxS, evaluate their concerns, and come to an overall conclusion (even if that's "okay, I think we've seen enough, now drop the stick and back slowly away from the horse carcass"). Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 09:41, 22 February 2021 (UTC)

@Valereee: : In the case of RexxS removing this discussion, I think it was simply because Cassianto was trying to pick a fight with you and keep a blazing argument going, and he simply removed the thread as being off-topic, or to tone down the aggression on his talk page. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 12:03, 23 February 2021 (UTC)

Statement by Andrew D.

The pandemic and related sanctions seem to be a factor in this case. One consequence of the lockdowns in the UK is that the regular Wikimeets now take place on online. RexxS often attends these, where he is a prominent participant. This then provides a form of accountability as editors may attend to observe his "Dad energy" for themselves. These meetings are reasonably open to all but you may need to consult our own Jackie Weaver to gain admittance if you're not a regular – that's the wub. See Meta for details of the next meeting on Sunday afternoon.

Arbcom should consider such Zoom calls for their own proceedings. They might speed up internal discussion and so get cases resolved more quickly. And public hearings might be appropriate in some cases so that justice can literally be seen to be done. Of course, there may be difficulties too but now's a good time to explore and address them. As the parties are technically proficient, this might be a good case to start with.

Statement by Joe Roe

I strongly urge to the committee to accept this case. In his short time as an admin, and beginning with his controversial RfA,[25][26][27][28] there have been several incidents of RexxS misusing his tools, particularly when WP:INVOLVED,[29][30] not being accountable for his admin actions,[31][32][33] and generally failing to meet the conduct expectations, especially with regard to civility and avoiding battleground mentality.[34][35][36] While some of these might not seem egregious in isolation, the pattern of potential admin misconduct needs to be systematically reviewed by ArbCom, as the only body we have that is equipped to do so.

I've prepared detailed evidence at User talk:Joe Roe/sandbox#RexxS which I'll submit if the case is accepted.

I am surprised at the claim that bringing this to arbitration is premature. The diffs above include multiple AN, ANI, and talk page discussions about his conduct stretching over years. Given especially the admin wagon-circling that happened when Bradv tried to ask RexxS about the Ayurveda blocks, and the widespread perception that his RfA passed at least in part because of his status as an "experienced editor", you would have to be very optimistic indeed to believe that these issues could get a fair hearing in community dispute resolution. – Joe (talk) 15:37, 22 February 2021 (UTC)

Reading the rest of this request, it strikes me that the dispute between RexxS and ProcrastinatingReader is very similar to the previous incidents around COVID-19[37] and Ayurveda.[38] Namely, RexxS gets into a dispute with an editor; he threatens them with sanctions; and then resolutely ignores people telling him he's involved. In fact, up until just under a year ago, RexxS apparently didn't know what WP:INVOLVED meant, repeatedly confusing it with the WP:COI policy.[39][40][41][42][43] In light of this it's very hard to take seriously RexxS' claim above that he doesn't believe he has ever seriously been accused of misusing the admin tools. He might not have agreed with the two AN threads about his involved COVID-19 sanction, or the objections to 17 involved blocks from a sitting arb (disingenuously described by RexxS as when Bradv complained to me that I had blocked a bunch of meatpuppets), but he can't possibly think that these weren't accusations of tool misuse (or have forgotten about them?) – Joe (talk) 17:17, 22 February 2021 (UTC)

Statement by Atsme

This diff speaks loudly for the RexxS I know. My heart sank when I saw this case. My sentiments align closest with Folly Mox, along with some aspects of what others have said above. The majority of the respondents here are all hard working, talented contributors. I have a great deal of respect for RexxS, Valereee, Montanabw, and several others who may or may not be supportive of ArbCom taking this case. If I thought for one minute that RexxS is the type of admin who would repeatedly insult Valereee, or others for that matter, I would take a much different position. I would like to see this case declined because I'm of the mind that the filing alone has opened quite a few eyes to things we tend to take for granted. We need admins like RexxS; he's an admin with many talents. My personal experiences with RexxS have been good ones, and we didn't start out on the best of terms back in 2015, which further proves things can and do change for the better - and the good will last for a long time. Atsme 💬 📧 16:15, 22 February 2021 (UTC)

Statement by Pawnkingthree

The Committee should accept this. Enough concerns have been raised about civility and the possible INVOLVED administrative actions for a full case to be warranted. This is not something that AN is equipped to handle.-- P-K3 (talk) 20:02, 22 February 2021 (UTC)

Statement by Tryptofish

I think you should decline this case.

There seem to me to be two parts to PR's evidence in requesting this case: the template dispute, and some disputes over medical content. The latter is stuff that was left-over from ArbCom's Medicine (Drug pricing) case, and is a lot more two-sided than the presentation here would indicate. I'd loathe to see you take that on without really getting into what would inevitably have to be a "Medicine 2" case; otherwise, it's just a stacked case structure, stacked against RexxS.

So the other part is the dispute about the template. If you do accept it, don't take it as a name-of-one-person case, as a case of admin conduct. Take it as a case about a dispute growing out of that template, looking at both "sides" of it. And the fact is, that the worst thing presented here is the comment directed at Valeree, which RexxS has already taken back and apologized for. That leaves some never-acted-upon threats to maybe use admin tools against PR. (I consider RexxS, Valeree, and PR to all be wiki-friends; this is all so sad.) And I don't think that that really rises to an ArbCom case.

There's a danger here, that ArbCom is becoming somewhere where an editor who has a gripe with an admin and who can come up with some bad-temper diffs can come to RfAr and the Committee will take the attitude that there is "a low bar" for admin abuse cases, and once the case is accepted, the outcome is predetermined. --Tryptofish (talk) 22:39, 22 February 2021 (UTC)

Barkeep49 asked me some things about my statement at my talk page, and I'll just put one thing I said here: if you do accept the case, which I still don't think you need to do, I hope that you'll treat the case with a light hand. --Tryptofish (talk) 23:17, 22 February 2021 (UTC)

My apologies if someone else already posted this, but I just did some looking around and found this: [44], from several hours before this case request was filed. It seems to me to indicate pretty strongly that RexxS was trying to be helpful and respectful towards PR as of that time. --Tryptofish (talk) 23:25, 22 February 2021 (UTC)

Statement by Leaky caldron

Please accept this case. The evidence presented is clear, much more so than in the Kudpung case 12 months ago, which also concerned Admin conduct. Looking at the RfA and the associated 'Crat chat, ominous indications of the very concerns now presented were disregard. It was only a matter of time that this Admin. would end up here. Failure to accept this case and deal effectively with it simply delays the inevitable, I'm afraid. Leaky caldron (talk) 00:12, 23 February 2021 (UTC)

Statement by Sluzzelin

If a majority (or plurality, or whatever) of the committee decides to look into this, ok, then do so, but, like many people above, I don't see a 'pattern' when you look at all edits, at most occasional unneccesities. To me, the frequently cited WP:ADMINACCT is about accountability. The accountability for actions per admin, i.e. actions that only an admin can perform. I realize admins shouldn't be throwing around their weight in terms of threatetning sanctions only an admin can perform either (mainly blocks, I see no such threats). I hope this gets declined. Of course, eveyone, including RexxS, can learn from this too. But no need for a federal case. ---Sluzzelin talk

Serial Number 54129, thanks, point taken. I saw WP:ADMINACCT being referred to a couple of times too, but acknowledge the existence of WP:ADMINCOND and it being relevant here. Still hope this doesn't escalate into something that will make the encyclopedia worse off. ---Sluzzelin talk 20:47, 23 February 2021 (UTC)

Statement by Wugapodes

I share Tony's concern above: I just have really serious concerns that we’re not even trying to de-escalate before going into case requests now. That said, while AN might be a good way to de-escalate situations, so might arbitration. Regardless of that concern, I do not believe the committee has the ability to decline cases related to administrator conduct (well, functionally they can decline whatever they want, but they shouldn't, see ARBGUIDE). Accepting a case should not be considered a sign of impending sanctions. It ought to be the start of a fact finding mission and attempt to resolve community tensions. If the facts support a resolution by sanctions, so be it, but administrator accountability at Arbcom should not be predicated on letting bad admins run rampant for years with minimal consequence (this is a general comment not a statement on RexxS). If the committee has time, they should accept the case and use this as an opportunity to further develop ideas presented last year and during the elections. For example, this proposed remedy by Xeno in the Kudpung case or Primefac's ideas for facilitating "productive communication" in this year's ACE Q&A. 02:10, 23 February 2021‎ (UTC)

Reading the statements by Valereee and Johnuniq, I also think a low barrier to entry for admin conduct cases allows us to examine reporter conduct in a way which limits fear of reprisal. Many people are reluctant to file AN(I) reports because they might be retaliated against (as Valereee details) or because they didn't do their best in the situation either (as Johnuniq details). See also Question 2 of last year's anti-harassment RFC. 02:36, 23 February 2021 (UTC)

Statement by Jehochman

Given the very debatable outcome of Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/RexxS, RexxS would have been wise to avoid using tools in highly contentious situations, and to be slow in using them. Convince, cajole, warn, and collect indications of support from other wise editors before blocking.

The bureaucrats who leniently passed that RFA may have done RexxS a disservice, because RexxS is now exposed to the risk of a desysop eternal. Had the RFA result been "no consensus," RexxS could have learned from the experience, made a second try, and had a better trajectory as an admin.

RexxS's good option is to admit any errors in judgement now and say how they will be wiser next time. However, they are not the only one. There is opportunity for learning all around. We need more self-awareness and sincere efforts to improve by all the involved parties. A case would be slow torture, so we should try to avoid it.

Statement by Johnbod

This should be declined. This diff which neatly encapsulates most of the dispute here (currently #13 above) is listed by the complainant under "Other incivility or unnecessary aggravations against editors speaking calmly". It seems entirely reasonable to me, and the complainant's "speaking calmly" in many exchanges linked above is probably better characterized as "completely refusing to engage with the issues", which will provoke people eventually. I've known Rexxs personally & on-wiki for many years, and he can be grumpy, but he doesn't let go when the issue is important, and rightly so. Johnbod (talk) 16:58, 23 February 2021 (UTC)

Statement by Levivich

In the diff Johnbod links to above, Rexx wrote to PR: I warned you that pushing the issue would leave your actions open to scrutiny, and that will happen. Well, what's good for the goose is good for the gander.

I vocally supported Rexx's RFA and I think that in some of the interactions that have been presented here, Rexx was in the right. However, I'm perturbed that Rexx opposed PR's pending EFM rights request the other day (while this case request was pending: an obvious conflict of interest, and undisclosed in the !vote AFAICS) [45] [46]. I'm bothered that Rexx acknowledges that valereee is owed an apology, but has not delivered it yet (AFAIK).

I'm even more bothered by the statements from other editors that either the statements in the diffs presented are not uncivil, or that when Rexx is uncivil, it's usually to people who deserve it. That kind of thinking, I would characterize as enabling incivility and gaslighting the targets of incivility, and IMO that kind of thinking is outright dangerous to the community's health and should be snuffed out. Some pigs are not more equal than others. In the diff Johnbod links to above, Rexx writes, "It's unacceptable that admins discretion is having to play second-fiddle to the whims of coders." Admins are not better than or superior to coders. And "whim" doesn't accurately describe PR's actions in this dispute.

In that diff, Rexx describes PR's failure to describe the change of functionality as "indisputably deceptive". That's not cool, it's ABF. Another explanation is that PR forgot. Or simply neglected it. Assuming PR's intent was to deceive is uncalled for. In that diff, Rexx says "I object to you besmirching my conduct": amazing, because Rexx had just finished besmirching PR's.

I was going to sit this out because I have a lot of respect for both parties and have gotten along with both of them well and I think both are really important members of our community who contribute a lot. But reading other editors say "that's OK" compels me to say "no I think that's not OK". I just hope Rexx takes NYB up on his offer to basically fix this, here and now, before it snowballs into a big "thing" that's going to leave us all worse off. Having just been a party to a case, where I was not sanctioned, I can tell you: it still sucks. If you can do something to avoid it, do it. I'm hopeful this case request will turn into an example to other administrators of how to respond to concerns raised by editors in a way that minimizes community time and gets things back on track. Levivich ^harass/_hound 17:36, 23 February 2021 (UTC)

Statement by Moneytrees

Well... AN/ANI really can't deal with cases involving admin "incivility" and is only better at forming some sort of consensus that wrong was done when it comes to the most obvious tool misuse. And I truly, truly hate to say this, but other concerns over behavior that aren't even mentioned here have already had their run at ANI: there's March 2020's Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive1033#User:RexxS, which involved edit warring and trading insults with BrownHairedGirl, where both were criticized before the issue was swept under the rug with the close "Could you two please not?". There's also June 2020's Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive1039#Block review of AManWithNoPlan- a block brought to ANI for self review that was widely agreed to have been a bad block, and was reversed by RexxS. There's further commentary including a proposal for RexxS to recuse from future admin actions in respect of citation bot and its operators that ended up getting archived through inactivity without any sort of result.

However, and this is a big however, RexxS strikes me as an editor who can take on advice to improve. I haven't seen any further issues with BHG or the Citation Bot, and I'd like to highlight comments made during the Commons Rodhullandemu situation that were very calm and measured, especially so considering how volatile that situation was and that they were made after facing threats and harassment from the aforementioned user. I believe there can be a peaceful, better resolution to this- people forget Arbcom doesn't need to explode Users in every case. Moneytrees🏝️^{Talk/CCI help} 19:18, 23 February 2021 (UTC)

Statement by SarahSV

I'm dismayed that this is being accepted, especially given recent discussions about the toll of these proceedings on people at the centre of them. RexxS may not thank me for saying this, but he came down with COVID-19 not that long ago, and I do not think this situation will be good for him. I want to add that he is one of the most genuinely kind editors I've had the pleasure to encounter. You may not get fake politeness from him, but you have found a friend if you ever need one. I'm glad he has apologized to Valereee, and I hope she and the committee accept the apology and find a way to avoid a case even at this late hour. SarahSV ^(talk) 19:52, 23 February 2021 (UTC)

Statement by Narky Blert

I weakly urge ARBCOM to accept this case. I have no view on the merits; I know by reputation some of the editors who have posted here, but do not think I have closely interacted with any of them. I am proposing a test case.

I follow WP:ANI and this thread (but not WP:AN) out of morbid curiosity. I have seen some allegations against admins which were utterly frivolous, and others which resulted in desysopping. My concern is that (as is only natural) admins tend to band together when one of them is attacked; and that AN reports can tend to enter a wash-rinse-spin-repeat cycle. Abuse of admin tools should always wind up here. Conduct unbecoming (e.g. incivility, bullying and pulling rank) is a grey area. WP:But I'm an administrator! is a WP:ESSAY, but IMO contains a good deal of sense.

The corpus of admins might find authoritative guidance helpful as to when the mark may have been overstepped and ARBCOM intervention would be appropriate. To continue my analogy - when should the idea of one more turn through the washing machine be dropped? Narky Blert (talk) 21:46, 23 February 2021 (UTC)

Statement by Sir Joseph

I urge Arbcom to accept this request. Admin incivility is a real thing and there is nothing now that can be done about it short of Arbcom. I'm thinking of another admin (who incidentally was brought to Arbcom and IIRC, the case was dismissed) who had several ANI/AN instances, all closed with warnings or admonishments, but that doesn't do anything to curb behavior. Sir Joseph ^(talk) 02:49, 24 February 2021 (UTC)

Statement by Tamwin

Without commenting on the merits of this specific dispute, I find the statements that admins cannot be sanctioned by normal community processes extremely disturbing. Admins are community members like everyone else, and although the community does not currently have the authority to remove the admin bit, they should still have access to the wide variety of other measures they normally use. If there's a policy that indicates that admins cannot be sanctioned by normal community processes, I'd like to be pointed to it. In the absence of such a policy, I think the committee should take the case, in part to clarify that the community can sanction administrators normally. I'm sure the committee will be leery of overstepping their scope, but I think clarifying how other conduct processes are supposed to work should be within the committee's scope. Tamwin (talk) 01:02, 25 February 2021 (UTC)

Statement by Kudpung

This is another classic case of "vindictive retaliation" by the filer. Montanabw and Ritchie333 say it best. There has been little or no attempt to deescalate before bringing this to Arbcom. Evoking RexxS RfA is totally inadmissible evidence, and as the judge would say in court "The jury please ignore these comments" - the RfA passed and it will not be relitigated here. Arbitration Committees have a history of desysoping because they can, and it will be a sad day for Wikipedia if they get rid of another long term, industrious, dedicated admin. And there’s the parallel between this and the Kudpung case that has been mentioned here several times, and if the Committee decides to accept we know how it will end. As Tryptofish also says: There's a danger here, that ArbCom is becoming somewhere where an editor who has a gripe with an admin and who can come up with some bad-temper diffs can come to RfAr and the Committee will take the attitude that there is "a low bar" for admin abuse cases, and once the case is accepted, the outcome is predetermined. Committee members, please decline this case. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 11:22, 26 February 2021 (UTC)

Preliminary decision

Clerk notes

• I think I'll Recuse from this. Moneytrees🏝️^{Talk/CCI help} 22:46, 20 February 2021 (UTC)
• Recuse as well. GeneralNotability (talk) 02:47, 22 February 2021 (UTC)

Arbitrators' opinion on hearing this matter <8/2/2>

Vote key: (Accept/decline/recuse)

• Recuse. Primefac (talk) 14:35, 20 February 2021 (UTC)

  This request is quickly moving away from a single dispute to a case of admin conduct overall, and while I can understand the concerns expressed by the community regarding declining on the basis of any sort of chilling effect, there seems to be enough here to avoid (to quote CaptainEek below) any sort of Proc v. Rexx case as the primary focus, or re-litigating the RFA or GS disputes. Thus, I have changed my opinion to accept. Primefac (talk) 14:38, 23 February 2021 (UTC)

  As a note regarding Nsk92's comment (and Thryduulf's reply), this was something along my thinking. I am not planning on being a drafting arb on this case, and to expand on my comment above I feel like there will be enough evidence that is not between PR and RexxS that I will be able to make an informed and unbiased decision regarding said evidence. If there are areas in which I still feel there is a bias I will of course indicate my abstention from voting. Primefac (talk) 16:10, 23 February 2021 (UTC)

  I still think trying tp parse out this case into PR-related and non PR-related parts is a bad idea and that you should recuse. Until the actual PD is posted I will likely not be participating much in the proceedings anyway (since I helped draft the just-closed Kurds case), but even if I were to recuse from accepting the case (i.e. where we're at now) it's still a majority in favour of opening it. Thus, my vote here is somewhat moot. I will, however, keep your feedback in mind and recuse myself further along in the proceedings if I find it necessary (after all it's only the final tallies that really matter as far as "outcomes" go). I will also do my best (should I not recuse entirely from the case) to explain my thoughts so that my intentions and bias (or lack thereof) are more transparent.

  In other words, I want to see where this case goes and honestly do not think my working relationship with PR will affect my judgement for the important points of contention; my initial recusal was due to a concern of "PR vs RexxS" clouding my judgement, but that is just one incident in what appears to be a large body of potential evidence. Primefac (talk) 01:51, 24 February 2021 (UTC)

• Recuse. KevinL (aka L235 · t · c) 20:20, 20 February 2021 (UTC)
• I am leaning toward declining as premature, but I would appreciate if RexxS would respond to the allegations of a pattern of incivility. (If you need a reasonable number of extra words to do that, please let us know.) Thanks, Newyorkbrad (talk) 01:18, 21 February 2021 (UTC)
  • Decline as premature, but I strongly urge RexxS to carefully consider the feedback he is receiving here on how he interacts with other editors. Newyorkbrad (talk) 12:23, 22 February 2021 (UTC)
    • By way of update, I've been rethinking this vote based on additional statements made after I voted. One reason I have developed a higher bar than some others to accepting this type of case is the great stress that the arbitration process places on the individual who is the subject of the case. I realize it is fairly late in my lifetime on the Arbitration Committee for me to make this connection, but if we could meaningfully streamline this process for this type of case (consistent with fairness) so that it wouldn't take a month, I might reconsider that thinking. As for this specific case, meaningful assurances by RexxS that he will modify his approach to address the concerns raised—if he genuinely sees the desirability of doing that—might perhaps help reassure those who currently believe that a case is warranted at this time. I ask RexxS to respond specifically to this comment. Newyorkbrad (talk) 03:15, 23 February 2021 (UTC)
    • As a procedural matter, the request by ProcrastinatingReader for an extension of the word limit is granted to the extent of what he has already posted plus an additional 500 words for any further replies. RexxS is also granted an extension to the extent of what he has already posted plus an additional 500 words for any further replies. Both of these parties may also respond in their sections, without a specific word limit but please as concisely as possible, to any questions asked of them by arbitrators. Newyorkbrad (talk) 03:15, 23 February 2021 (UTC)
• Accept I think there is a suitable question here that we can investigate. If we find that RexxS has behaved to the standards of adminship, we can always close the case without action. Arb cases are not forgone conclusions. On the merits: this has come to ARC because of a dispute with ProcReader. It seems to me that this has been blown way out of proportion, and I do not want Proc v. Rexx to dominate the case (there seem to be other, more pertinent editor interactions, such as with valeree). However, I am concerned about how RexxS has interacted with Proc. They are hardly uninvolved, yet threatened to pull Proc's permissions; though I note they have yet to actually take admin action. There appears to be no tool abuse here. But ArbCom has routinely acted as the enforcer of WP:ADMINCOND, and I think we should continue to hold admins to high standards. Well behaved admins are a key part of editor retention.

There has been much discussion of whether this is premature. While we are usually a last resort, we don't always have to be. One of the key things that we can take action on without much prior community resolution is admin abuse. AN is not particularly well suited to dealing with admin misconduct. It can easily fix admin mistakes, like bad blocks. But it does not deal well with chronic, sub-par behavior (it tends to over/under react by a good margin). On that note: a key thing that makes me think this case should be opened is the comments to EEng and especially to Valeree. Wikipedia should be a collegial environment at all times. While RexxS did strike their "inept" remark, I find it quite concerning that they even thought to make it in the first place. Everyone makes mistakes, and Rexx acknowledged it. But this appears part of a broader pattern. I think we should look into this further, even if the outcome is to merely remind RexxS (and all admins) of the standards Wikipedia expects. CaptainEek ^{Edits Ho Cap'n!}⚓ 06:47, 21 February 2021 (UTC)

@Andrew Davidson: We actually do a fair amount of business by Zoom, although the sensitive/confidential nature of our business generally necessitates that it happen behind closed doors. I am open to trying to hold public hearings on some issues, but it poses logistical challenges. It is already difficult for a majority of us to schedule a few zoom calls a month at the same time, let alone all of us, or more frequently. We all have lives, jobs, and live in different time zones. CaptainEek ^{Edits Ho Cap'n!}⚓ 16:48, 22 February 2021 (UTC)

• Saying that ANI/AN will not lead to any consequences and thus should not be tried before bringing something here is something of a self-fulfilling prophecy. Of course AN/ANI cannot resolve anything if it's not attempted. The only discussion linked to is one that is still open and while it sees the requesting user in a discussion with RexxS it does not contain any attempts to talk about RexxS' behavior in a broader community forum. Yes, ArbCom is the only body that can remove the sysop flag but that does imho not mean that cases should be filed before any attempt to resolve the issues are made elsewhere. At this point, I'm leaning towards decline as premature, although CaptainEek makes some good points, so I'm waiting for more community comments before making a final decision. Regards SoWhy 09:06, 21 February 2021 (UTC)

  After further input, I agree to accept the case seeing as it's unlikely that at this stage, any AN/ANI discussion might be helpful. As such, at this time, an investigation by this Committee, which has no foregone conclusion, might actually be better for RexxS than the alternative. In the spirit of full disclosure, I did oppose RexxS' RFA although after the cratchat was opened, I opined that the consensus was indeed to promote. Regards SoWhy 18:35, 23 February 2021 (UTC)

• Accept inciviility is one thing, a suggestion of sanctions in an argument takes it into potential misuse of position territory. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 19:54, 21 February 2021 (UTC)
• Some thoughts. First, I agree with Thryduulf about what we're being asked to consider here. The precipitating incident does not need an ArbCom case to resolve, but that's not what we're being asked to consider. We're being asked to consider whether this incident is part of a pattern that needs examination. I also echo SoWhy's statement that AN/ANI does serve a purpose. Sometimes a critical peer assessment is all that is necessary to keep an administrator on a productive track. No doubt that's why it's a central part of the current desysop proposal. That process playing out, rather than coming here too quickly, is important and productive. I would ask people to consider a previous ArbCom's statement on that matter. As to the matter at hand, I'm not sure the criteria I laid about when to accept these kind of cases has yet been met, but Swarm's statement is causing me to rethink that. So I will continue to read comments and think. Given all this, at least for me, it would be helpful for those who think a case is not necessary to explain why given the totality of evidence/experience they're familiar with and not explain why the GS template situation doesn't need a case, which would be clearly and obviously premature and unnecessary. Barkeep49 (talk) 02:56, 22 February 2021 (UTC)
  • Thanks for asking me to clarify Littleolive oil. I am suggesting that a number of people suggesting we don't accept this case are suggesting we should not because we would either be re-litigating the RfA (I have no interest in that) or because the scope would be the GS template situation. This is why I pointed out Thryduulf's statement, which I think captures the scope of the decision. It's also why I made clear that I think the GS template situation is not something that needs an arbcom case, and that I'd been leaning towards declining based on my criteria but am now re-evaluating. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 04:48, 22 February 2021 (UTC)
  • @Ritchie333: if this case is declined, and maybe even if it is accepted since I don't expect that issue to be decided on directly, I think you sound like a great person, given your positive relationship with both parties, to arbitrate this dispute. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 16:28, 22 February 2021 (UTC)
  • I'm an accept as what Joe Roe has presented satisfies my criteria. I believe, as already noted, in the scope outline by Thryduulf. Barkeep49 (talk) 15:46, 23 February 2021 (UTC)
• Recuse Worm^TT(talk) 10:04, 22 February 2021 (UTC)
• Accept I was ready to decline this as premature, but the statements by admins quoted about how AN apparently can't address issues like these pushes me to accept. If closing admins are abrogating their responsibility to figure out what the issues are then it falls to us. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs ^talk 16:39, 22 February 2021 (UTC)
• Just commenting that there is a lot of arb business going on right now, and I'm not quite caught up as to exactly what has made this bubble up right now. I will say that I do consider the bar for accepting to be lower for cases of admin conduct. Beeblebrox (talk) 21:07, 22 February 2021 (UTC)

• Accept Per my above comment, and as others have said, not to just look at this one incident. Beeblebrox (talk) 19:04, 23 February 2021 (UTC)

• Accept I largely echo Thryduulf here. It would be more constructive to consider an admin conduct case rather than this specific dispute, for which arbitration does not seem necessary. This is not an easy call. I'll also echo the sentiments, such as Captain Eek's, that there are no foregone conclusions. --BDD (talk) 14:26, 23 February 2021 (UTC)
• I'm a belated decline albeit weakly. Given what has been presented, I'm not seeing a strong comparable to recent admin conduct cases that arbcom has accepted, and accordingly don't feel it to be appropriate to hold a multi-week case that puts a negative spotlight on an editor. I would, however, strongly urge RexxS to consider what has been said at this case request. Maxim_(talk) 01:23, 24 February 2021 (UTC)

Final decision

All tallies are based the votes at /Proposed decision, where comments and discussion from the voting phase is also available.

Principles

Administrator conduct

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

Passed 10 to 0 at 23:21, 26 March 2021 (UTC)

Leading by example

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

Passed 10 to 0 at 23:21, 26 March 2021 (UTC)

Administrator accountability

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

Passed 10 to 0 at 23:21, 26 March 2021 (UTC)

Decorum

4) Wikipedia users are expected to behave reasonably, calmly, and courteously in their interactions with other users. Unseemly conduct, such as personal attacks, incivility, assumptions of bad faith, harassment, disruptive point-making, and gaming the system, is prohibited.

Passed 10 to 0 at 23:21, 26 March 2021 (UTC)

ArbCom and RfA

5) Requests for adminship is the process by which the Wikipedia community decides who will become administrators. The task of determining whether consensus to promote exists falls solely in the hands of the bureaucrats. The Arbitration Committee is not tasked to relitigate this decision absent evidence of misconduct.

Passed 10 to 0 at 23:21, 26 March 2021 (UTC)

Administrator involvement

6) 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. Involvement does not require that the administrator also has a conflict of interest.

Passed 10 to 0 at 23:21, 26 March 2021 (UTC)

Community handling of administrator misconduct

7) Although the Arbitration Committee is the only body capable of removing administrator permissions, the community retains the authority to use measures for addressing misconduct of administrators, including admonishments and reminders as well as topic bans, interaction bans, and other restrictions. Accordingly, discussions about improper conduct by an administrator should not be preemptively or prematurely closed in favor of Arbitration if a less severe sanction than removal of administrator permissions is a plausible outcome of the discussion.

Passed 9 to 0 at 23:21, 26 March 2021 (UTC)

Findings of fact

RexxS

1) RexxS (talk · contribs) has been a user since 2008 and an administrator since 2019. He has made over 43,000 edits and performed more than 200 admin actions. He has been particularly active in technical matters, especially modules and Wikidata integration.

Passed 10 to 0 at 23:21, 26 March 2021 (UTC)

RexxS and INVOLVED

3) RexxS has repeatedly threatened or engaged in the use of his administrator tools in topics where he has made substantial contributions or where he has had significant disputes with editors, in violation of WP:INVOLVED, e.g. [47], [48], [49] He has also confused not being involved with not having a conflict of interest, e.g. [50] [51] [52] and threatened to use his tools to remove the template editor user right from a user he was in a conflict with [53]

Passed 10 to 0 at 23:21, 26 March 2021 (UTC)

RexxS has edit-warred

4) Rexx has on two occasions edit-warred to restore his preferred versions.[54][55]

Passed 8 to 1 with 1 abstention at 23:21, 26 March 2021 (UTC)

RexxS's conduct in discussions

5) RexxS has at times displayed unnecessary hostility during discussions that inflamed rather than defused conflict; in particular, he has reacted poorly to evidence that he has not followed policies or guidelines, and displayed a battleground mentality. [56][57][58][59]

Passed 9 to 0 at 23:21, 26 March 2021 (UTC)

Remedies

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

RexxS desysopped

1) RexxS (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) administrative privileges are revoked. He may apply to have them reinstated at any time via a new request for adminship.

Passed 6 to 3 at 23:21, 26 March 2021 (UTC)

Enforcement

Enforcement of restrictions

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

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

Appeals and modifications

0) Appeals and modifications

This procedure applies to appeals related to, and modifications of, actions taken by administrators to enforce the Committee's remedies. It does not apply to appeals related to the remedies directly enacted by the Committee.

Appeals by sanctioned editors

Appeals may be made only by the editor under sanction and only for a currently active sanction. Requests for modification of page restrictions may be made by any editor. The process has three possible stages (see "Important notes" below). The editor may:

1. ask the enforcing administrator to reconsider their original decision;
2. request review at the arbitration enforcement noticeboard ("AE") or at the administrators’ noticeboard ("AN"); and
3. submit a request for amendment at "ARCA". If the editor is blocked, the appeal may be made by email through Special:EmailUser/Arbitration Committee (or, if email access is revoked, to arbcom-enwikimedia.org).

Modifications by administrators

No administrator may modify or remove a sanction placed by another administrator without:

1. the explicit prior affirmative consent of the enforcing administrator; or
2. prior affirmative agreement for the modification at (a) AE or (b) AN or (c) ARCA (see "Important notes" below).

Administrators modifying sanctions out of process may at the discretion of the committee be desysopped.

Nothing in this section prevents an administrator from replacing an existing sanction issued by another administrator with a new sanction if fresh misconduct has taken place after the existing sanction was applied.

Administrators are free to modify sanctions placed by former administrators – that is, editors who do not have the administrator permission enabled (due to a temporary or permanent relinquishment or desysop) – without regard to the requirements of this section. If an administrator modifies a sanction placed by a former administrator, the administrator who made the modification becomes the "enforcing administrator". If a former administrator regains the tools, the provisions of this section again apply to their unmodified enforcement actions.

Important notes:

1. For a request to succeed, either

(i) the clear and substantial consensus of (a) uninvolved administrators at AE or (b) uninvolved editors at AN or

(ii) a passing motion of arbitrators at ARCA

is required. If consensus at AE or AN is unclear, the status quo prevails.

2. While asking the enforcing administrator and seeking reviews at AN or AE are not mandatory prior to seeking a decision from the committee, once the committee has reviewed a request, further substantive review at any forum is barred. The sole exception is editors under an active sanction who may still request an easing or removal of the sanction on the grounds that said sanction is no longer needed, but such requests may only be made once every six months, or whatever longer period the committee may specify.
3. These provisions apply only to contentious topics placed by administrators and to blocks placed by administrators to enforce arbitration case decisions. They do not apply to sanctions directly authorised by the committee, and enacted either by arbitrators or by arbitration clerks, or to special functionary blocks of whatever nature.
4. All actions designated as arbitration enforcement actions, including those alleged to be out of process or against existing policy, must first be appealed following arbitration enforcement procedures to establish if such enforcement is inappropriate before the action may be reversed or formally discussed at another venue.

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

Enforcement log

Any block, restriction, ban, or sanction performed under the authorisation of a remedy for this case must be logged at Wikipedia:Arbitration enforcement log, not here.