Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/RexxS/Evidence

Evidence presented by ProcrastinatingReader
Issues evidenced:
 * WP:TOOLMISUSE - bullet 1 (WP:INVOLVED), and bullet 2 (out of policy actions)
 * WP:ADMINCOND issues
 * WP:ADMINACCT issues

Personal attacks: In regards to Valereee
March 2020: In response to a cordial comment from valereee, which set out her concerns with Rexx’s proposal being overly complicated and seeking a compromise, RexxS replied not everybody is as inept as you. Valereee approached RexxS about the comment. Another admin,, also opened a section in relation to ADMINCOND and various remarks made by RexxS in the discussion. RexxS removed both sections without response.

October 2020: When RexxS made uncivil/battleground-y comments towards other editors, valereee requested that RexxS strike his remarks and stop behaving aggressively toward other well-intentioned editors in discussions. In response, RexxS labelled valereee a partisan editor, an unsubstantiated remark and personal attack per WP:NPA (Using someone's political affiliations as an ad hominem means of dismissing or discrediting their views, such as accusing them of being left-wing or right-wing, is also forbidden.) valereee followed up (twice) for clarity. RexxS replied in a dismissive manner and seemed to accuse her of harassment (?). valereee replied again asking for clarity; RexxS did not respond.

Tool misuse, INVOLVED blocks, and ADMINACCT failures (AManWithNoPlan and Citation Bot)
June 2020: RexxS indefinitely blocked, for triggering to edit on an article.

For non-technical arbs: an admin may block a malfunctioning bot, but it is never acceptable to block the editor just triggering the bot, not least because it would not be preventative (someone else can just trigger the bot all the same). AManWithNoPlan is obviously not a malfunctioning bot, nor were they running a bot on their account.

This block was not in line with policy, and was undone by RexxS after unanimous disapproval of the block by the community. After unblocking, RexxS threatened to re-block AManWithNoPlan if you really don't think you have any responsibility for the edits made by the bot that you activated. Various editors and admins raised concern with RexxS’s block, his responses and handling of the issue, and believed him to be INVOLVED.

This resulting ANI contained numerous failures of WP:ADMINACCT. RexxS's response was to propose sanctions on, which did not go anywhere. An editor in the discussion described this as a "vindictive retaliation". RexxS failed to respond to concerns from the community. In the Headbomb thread, and throughout the ANI in general, he refused to accept that his block was against policy. On multiple occasions RexxS either misrepresented policy, or misunderstood it and refused to listen to explanations on what the policy actually is. RexxS denied that he was INVOLVED, considering it an incredible stretch of INVOLVED.

September 2020: RexxS stated he would block Citation Bot again if it edited 'in violation of' a then-unclosed RfC he vigorously participated in.

February 2021: During this case, RexxS has repeatedly reaffirmed his belief that the block was correct (or, to quote RexxS, fully vindicated). This suggests that RexxS has still not understood why the block was contrary to policy.

Aspersions (GS template situation)
RexxS has repeatedly, since before and continued after the case filing, stated that I set out to "deceive" the community.. This is an aspersion (one which I categorically reject) that calls into question my character. A serious failure to assume good faith.

Threats to pull permissions in content dispute. Other threats of imposing/proposing sanctions in disputes with other editors
In all of the below cases, as far as I can see, in the end no proposals of sanctions were made by RexxS (likely because there appears to be no grounds to make them). All of these remarks, especially coming from an admin, have a chilling effect on discussion and intimidate editors against continuing content disputes.


 * March 2020: Threatening to propose sanctions on and accusing him of tendentious editing. EEng's proposals were supported by multiple editors/admins, so discussing is evidently not tendentious or contrary to policy.
 * October 2020: In a WikiProject discussion about medical sources, RexxS threatens editors with COVID GS sanctions. This was part of the events that led to the valereee attacks situation above (October 2020 one).
 * February 2021: started a section to discuss partner of Infobox person. This is a short section, so I suggest arbs just read it in entirety rather than me summarising it. Note, however, that template documentation is often considered in RfC closes and guides editors on how to use the template in articles, so this section seems normal & wholly proper to me. RexxS interpreted this discussion as a "personal attack" on him (somehow -- I'm really struggling to see how he came to this interpretation) and threatened to propose sanctions on the editor. Another admin,, had to step in to defuse the situation and explain that they'd advised Fylindfotberserk to start the discussion.
 * February 2021: RexxS threatens to remove my template-editor permissions for an out-of-policy reason whilst also involved in a content dispute with me (stretching back to October 2020).
 * In this diff (and several others) RexxS misrepresents the dispute by suggesting my actions on the COVID GS template involved (mis)use of TPE permissions, repeating this in his case statement (has misused sensitive permissions). My only TPE action on COVID19 GS editnotice was to nominate the template to TfD.
 * Any editor (TPE or not) can nominate any template to TfD. If one doesn't have TPE rights to add the tag itself, they can file an edit request to tag the template. Such an edit request will always be actioned, regardless of merits of the TfD, unless the nomination is pure vandalism.
 * Even if he weren't INVOLVED, RexxS's rationale (ie 'opening a TfD') still has no basis in WP:TPEREVOKE for unilateral removal by an admin.
 * When I suggested we take the dispute to AN for wider opinion, RexxS made comments to discourage me from doing so.
 * In his case statement, he repeated that he was an uninvolved administrator for the purposes of removing my permissions. His statement drew concern from an arbitrator.

Involved out-of-policy block
December 2020: RexxS, whilst in a content dispute with, in which RexxS was also uncivil, made an retaliatory block of that editor for adding line breaks for readability and not obeying RexxS's instructions. The rhetoric in the discussion also has similarities to the BrownHairedGirl incident. This block was both out-of-policy and in violation of WP:INVOLVED/WP:BLOCKNO

Evidence presented by Joe Roe
In his short time as an admin, and beginning with his controversial RfA, there have been regular instances of RexxS misusing his tools as well as complaints about his general conduct.


 * April 2019 – RexxS' RfA
 * RexxS' RfA was contentious, with 92 editors (36%) opposing, and 15 neutral.
 * The main reason for opposing or not supporting was RexxS' history of incivility. The diffs mentioned are listed here, including multiple previous AN and ANI complaints.
 * Given that the support percentage was outside of their discretionary range, the crats' narrow (7–4) decision to close the RfA as successful was also controversial; see Wikipedia talk:Requests for adminship/RexxS/Bureaucrat chat and ARC#RexxS RfA bureaucrat chat.
 * Obviously RexxS can't be faulted for the crat chat. The reason I bring it up is that every crat in support mentioned that they had down-weighted the civility concerns, and several explicitly said that they did so because they expected RexxS' conduct to improve after the RfA (exemplified by User:xeno: In matters of civility, aministrators are held to a higher standard; the candidate is now “on notice”, and has committed to examine their own behaviour and make changes). If RexxS' subsequent conduct shows that these civility concerns were justified, and haven't been addressed, it's entirely appropriate for the committee to reexamine whether the crats were correct in their initial judgement that RexxS had the trust of the community.
 * March 2020 – personal attacks and threats to take involved actions against
 * March 2020 – personal attacks against
 * Refusal to retract or apologise until this case was filed
 * May 2020 – involved sanctions related to COVID-19:
 * RexxS is one of the top editors of Coronavirus disease 2019, regularly participates in content and sourcing discussions on its talk page, and is generally highly active in the COVID-19 topic area.
 * In May 2020, he placed a source restriction on the page under the COVID19 community-authorised discretionary sanctions.
 * User:Almaty (now vanished), who RexxS had been in a content dispute with on the same page, questioned the need for this sanction on the talk page. In response, RexxS threatened him with a topic ban.
 * User:bradv, who had previously placed a topic ban on Almaty, agreed that RexxS was involved and argued against a second topic ban. RexxS continued to threaten Almaty with sanctions while personalising their dispute.
 * This dispute led to Almaty leaving the project under circumstances that aren't suitable for public discussion, but which arbs can find in the mailing list archives.
 * May 2020 onwards – lack of accountability for COVID-19 sanctions:
 * The incident above was discussed at ANI, with multiple editors agreeing that RexxS was involved.
 * RexxS flatly denied this, arguing that his edits to the page were "minor" or "administrative", despite being presented with clear evidence to the contrary.
 * He seemed not to know what WP:INVOLVED meant, repeatedly confusing it with conflict of interest policy.
 * After a follow-up discussion at AN (which, to his credit, RexxS initiated), he acknowledged that it was not productive for [him] to attempt to act as an uninvolved admin at Coronavirus disease 2019, though the sanction remains in place and RexxS regularly enforces it with reverts and talk page comments, sometimes threatening enforcement by other admins.
 * Throughout this dispute RexxS dismissed these concerns as an "agenda" perpetuated by an unnamed group of editors opposed to WP:MEDRS and/or Wikimedia Medicine (an organisation RexxS chairs). On Almaty's talk page, he seemed to imply that challenging his administrative contributions was in itself a "personal attack".
 * June 2020 – involved block of, in violation of WP:BOTBLOCK
 * Threats to make further involved blocks of
 * August–September 2020 – involved and out-of-policy blocks related to Ayurveda:
 * There is a long-running dispute on the article on Ayurveda, an Indian alternative medicine system, about whether it should be described as pseudoscientific. RexxS has been active on its talk page, and in an August 2020 RfC argued forcefully that Ayurveda is a pseudoscience [...] beyond doubt.
 * In September 2020, he filed an ARCA asking ArbCom to clarify that Ayurveda was within the scope of the Pseudoscience discretionary sanctions. User:bradv explicitly advised him that he was WP:INVOLVED in the topic.
 * Just before the ARCA, RexxS indefinitely blocked 17 accounts who had argued the contrary position (that Ayurveda should not be described as pseudoscientific) on the talk page as WP:NOTHERE.
 * None of these accounts had made more than a handful of edits, and most only one, to Talk:Ayurveda. Most of these edits were oppose !votes in the same RfC that RexxS !voted support.
 * September 2020 – lack of accountability for Ayurveda blocks:
 * User:bradv asked RexxS to comment on these blocks on his talk page. Although bradv signed it as an individual, this message was actually on behalf of the 2020 Arbitration Committee after we became aware of the blocks through the Psuedoscience ARCA – arbs can confirm this in the mailing list archive.
 * In his only response in this thread, RexxS again flatly denied being involved and criticised Bradv, acting in his role as an arbitrator asking an admin to justify his actions, for bringing the matter up.
 * The rest of the thread consisted of other users—including several admins—joining in to scold Bradv, at times resorting to personal attacks. Nevertheless, many also acknowledged that RexxS was probably involved, generally arguing that this was excusable because the blocks were correct and/or necessary to defend Wikipedia from an off-wiki campaign.
 * Although RexxS correctly agreed that these challenged blocks could be reversed, six months later, only one account has been unblocked.
 * Above RexxS describes this incident, in my opinion disingenuously, as when Bradv complained to me that I had blocked a bunch of meatpuppets.
 * October 2020 – personal attacks against and  in a dispute on COVID sourcing (see above)
 * February 2021 – threat to take involved actions while in a dispute with
 * After this case was filed, opposed PR's unrelated application for an advanced right

March 2020 discussion on discussion thread formatting
The March 2020 discussion at refers to, wherein BrownHairedGirl added comments that did not follow the [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Help:Talk_pages&oldid=941738602#Indentation generally accepted conventions for using list markup in a discussion]. One of these instances led to a sequence of reverts:


 * 1) BrownHairedGirl's [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2020_March_24&diff=prev&oldid=947382748 original comment], which is added to an eight-level set of nested lists, changing the list type of the first one. This closes all of them and opens a new nine-level set of nested lists. The comment consists of multiple list items.
 * 2) RexxS [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2020_March_24&diff=prev&oldid=947384565 deletes it while making another comment]
 * 3) BrownHairedGirl [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2020_March_24&diff=prev&oldid=947389010 reverts], removing RexxS's comment and restoring previous comment. Edit summary: "revert edit which removed my post. RexxS, feel free to repost your comment if you can do so without removing mine"
 * 4) RexxS [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2020_March_24&diff=prev&oldid=947389835 reverts]. Edit summary: "BHG please feel fre to repost your comments if you can do so without causing accessibility problems"
 * 5) BrownHairedGirl [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2020_March_24&diff=prev&oldid=947391046 reverts]. Edit summary: "per WP:TPG, do not remove other editor's commnets"
 * 6) RexxS [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2020_March_24&diff=prev&oldid=947479942 restores comment from step 2 and removes list markup] from BrownHairedGirl's comment, turning it into non-indented text. Due to the quirks of the wikitext parser, the newlines separating each former list item do not cause new paragraphs to be created, and so what was separate list items now appears as one paragraph.
 * 7) BrownHairedGirl [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2020_March_24&diff=prev&oldid=947515321 restores list markup]. Edit summary: "restore my comment as posted, reverting removal of indentation and praragraph breaks. @RexxS, just stop this."
 * 8) RexxS [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2020_March_24&diff=next&oldid=947515321 reverts]. Edit summary: "per MOS:INDENTMIX and WP:TPO 'Fixing format errors'. You must learn to format your posts properly"
 * 9) BrownHairedGirl [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2020_March_24&diff=prev&oldid=947516472 reverts]
 * 10) RexxS [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2020_March_24&diff=next&oldid=947516472 reverts]
 * 11) BrownHairedGirl [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2020_March_24&diff=next&oldid=947516886 reverts]
 * 12) RexxS [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2020_March_24&diff=next&oldid=947517202 reverts]
 * 13) BrownHairedGirl [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2020_March_24&diff=next&oldid=947517483 reverts]
 * 14) RexxS [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2020_March_24&diff=prev&oldid=947519547 duplicates comment from step 2 and removes list markup]. Edit summary: "remove erroneous formatting to avoid disruption to screen readers per WP:TPO fixing formatting"
 * 15) BrownHairedGirl [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2020_March_24&diff=prev&oldid=947520082 reverts]. Edit summary: "restore indents and para beaks. Feel free to fix the markup, but WP:TPO does NOT entitle you to remove para breaks"
 * 16) RexxS [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2020_March_24&diff=prev&oldid=947521345 reverts]. Edit summary: "i assure you it does per WP:TPO"
 * 17) BrownHaired Girl [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2020_March_24&diff=prev&oldid=947524029 adds new comment and reverts]

Evidence presented by Johnuniq
Joe Roe used a shotgun to add links—I hope Arbs patiently check the context and notice that Joe Roe's claims are often not supported by the link. For example, consider "He seemed not to know what WP:INVOLVED meant, repeatedly confusing it with conflict of interest policy". Looking at the discussions shows that others raised "conflict of interest" and they did that because COI is specified at WP:INVOLVED—there is no confusion by RexxS. RexxS claimed that his actions were minor and did not amount to INVOLVED—the place to contest that would have been at WP:AN.

Joe Roe mentioned "threat to place an involved block while in a dispute with ProcrastinatingReader". Perhaps "remove TE right" was intended because I don't see any threat or mention of a block (there was "go to AN to settle this" but that's very different from an involved block).

Joe Roe and ProcrastinatingReader don't seem to understand the issue regarding COVID19 GS editnotice. In the discussion at Template talk:COVID19 GS editnotice (permalink), ProcrastinatingReader (PR) seems to think that their proposal would be capable of overturning the WP:AN "COVID-19 community general sanctions" decision (permalink). That is totally wrong—modifying general sanctions imposed at WP:AN would require another discussion there. PR argued that Template:COVID19 GS editnotice should not be used unless a page restriction was specified (such as 1RR). Again, that is a misunderstanding of the purpose of DS/GS which is to provide wide discretion for avoiding disruption in contentious topics. PR's position is arguable (although I disagree with it) but the template documentation clearly shows that a page restriction is optional ("may be displayed"). At the least, PR should have asked at WP:AN for a clarification. Instead, PR wrote a module to replace the template to accord with their view. The 3 November 2020 proposal at the TfD was presented purely as a technical operation to replace unused/redundant templates with an equivalent module. PR should have known that was a misrepresentation of the situation regarding COVID19 GS editnotice which had its operation completely changed. Bold editing is fine, but significant changes to an admin template would need a WP:AN discussion where the issue was clearly explained. Johnuniq (talk) 06:25, 7 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Joe Roe has corrected "threat to place an involved block" (07:23, 7 March 2021) after I posted the above. However, JR clearly had "involved block was threatened" in mind and that would color their interpretations of plain text. Regarding diffs to show that Joe Roe's claims are often not supported by the link, see the five diffs that JR used after the text I quote—none of them show the claim. Johnuniq (talk) 09:19, 7 March 2021 (UTC)

Evidence presented by Bishonen
This is intended to be relevant to Isaacl's evidence above, but is not an "analysis" of it, so I offer it here rather than at the bottom of the page. The edit war from March 2020 laid out by Isaacl is indeed awful, and shows neither of the combattants (RexxS and BrownhairedGirl) at their best, to put it mildly. Many people suffer from quarantine rage / bad temper now, and did a year ago, some more than others, depending on their circumstances. That's a tricky thing to take into consideration, and I'm sure the committee is thinking about it without needing my help. What I want to point to is instead the subject of the edit war: accessibility issues. Isaacl summarizes the problem with BHG's indentation as a failure to "follow the generally accepted conventions for using list markup in a discussion". That is a little misleading (not on purpose, I'm sure) by sounding so bland and, well, conventional. It wasn't failure to follow some conventions that got RexxS riled up — I will say riled up, because it does look like it — it was the screen reader question, see this edit summary. Accessibility is a passion of RexxS', perhaps the single Wikipedia matter he feels most strongly about and has spent most time on. Discussions and information about the various aspects of it can be seen all over his talkpage history, from way before he was an admin and ongoingly. Many people go there to ask about it. See also the essay Colons and asterisks, which RexxS wrote, and which is about the screen reader aspect of using respectively colons and asterisks for dialogue — i. e. about the very problems for screen reader users at issue in the edit war with BHG — and his subpages User:RexxS/AAAcolour, User:RexxS/Accessibility, and User:RexxS/Accessibility review. These may be some of the extenuating circumstances Tryptofish asked for below with regard to the edit war. Bishonen &#124; tålk 13:17, 8 March 2021 (UTC).

Evidence presented by Moneytrees
I'm still torn on this. I'll refer back to my statement in the initial request; I won't repeat what's there that's already being discussed here. Since it hasn't been mentioned here, I'll again bring up the Rodhullandemu conflict, where I was impressed with Rexx's participation in it; this in particular was a very brave thing to say. And I'll say again: "I believe there can be a peaceful, better resolution to this- people forget Arbcom doesn't need to explode Users in every case." As Serial notes, "It is interesting thta communication is valued as a fundamental component of ADMINACCT, but WP:LEARNINGISIMPORTANT is a redlink"

"Admins can't defend themselves at Arbcom"
I am against this nonsense notion that seems to be clouding around the case. I don't know what's going on behind the scenes right now, I don't know if the lack of editing has to with this, or if there's some related illness and this is all very bad timing, but I do know that admins actually can defend themselves in Arbcom cases and it won't be "used against them". Contrary to what some may think or say, this is not a surefire desysop and this Arbcom isn't out to get everyone. If possible, some sort of participation will hopefully result in the best outcome. If it isn't possible, that should be taken into account as well. Moneytrees🏝️Talk/CCI guide 19:30, 8 March 2021 (UTC)

Evidence presented by Littleolive oil
I am not judging intention here just attempting to analyze diffs and the situation.

In an effort to find a way to rebut diffs in this arbitration, presented in some cases without critical context,  sometimes mischaracterized, I decided to look through Rexx's archives to see what I would find-despite how distasteful that is, rather like rooting through someone's sock drawer. I chose archive dates randomly-the archives were not cherry picked-to get a sense of the 15-years-old career. Rexx is a long time editor who has given his time, energy, and expertise selflessly and unfailingly to Wikipedia and her sister projects for years. He has attended and spoken at numerous wiki meet ups, and international meetings; I have never heard him described as abrasive.

In the talk pages, I found an ability to defuse situations, mediate, to be incredibly patient and helpful, and his integrity in terms of neutrality is obvious. These are the attributes of a good admin.

[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:List_of_diver_certification_organizations#Adding_IFDI_to_the_list| Maintaining politeness in disagreement. Comment from User:Darth Flappy about this discussion: "Marking as answered. This has to be one of the longest, most polite and civil disagreement I have seen on the internet (or elsewere) in a long time.  Darth Flappy «Talk» 19:02, 4 July 2020 (UTC)”]

| Let me know if you need any help with it

| Contentious but calm discussion with Jytdog

[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:RexxS/Archive_40#my_goodness| Neutrality even when dealing with friends: "I agree about the edit-warring, of course, but James was edit-warring as well. Ironically, I've give both of them bollockings in the past for edit-warring, but I value both of them as friends (and vice-versa) and that's probably why I can sometimes be more useful to them." --RexxS (talk) 19:14, 9 February 2018 (UTC), Calm in a contentious situation]

| Providing links reading material to other editors

| Caution and awareness in use of tools.

| Work that impacts sister projects

Like any of us Rexx has had periods of frustration; he admits to moments of abrasive language. But he also works in highly contentious, taxing areas. Very few editors have the expertise or the will and stamina to work there. Rexx is one of the few. In such areas an editor who can be more forceful, if necessary, is needed. Abrasive language is not the norm for Rexx which the above diffs indicate, but a narrow subset of normal when compared to a whole career. We are in danger in this arbitration of falling for a false, stubbornly-held, pejorative narrative, framed and presented as normal often with diffs lacking context and or that mischaracterize or misrepresent,  and for the most part, evaluated in isolation from the long-time actions of the editor as a whole. This is selective matching-he is guilty so select the diffs that prove he is. I'll analyze a few examples of the many diffs I have concerns with, soon. Littleolive oil (talk) 20:48, 8 March 2021 (UTC)

Evidence presented by Tryptofish
For me, the starting point for ArbCom in deciding what to do with this case is the edit war detailed in the evidence presented by isaacl.

ArbCom's next step should be to ask to what extent that incident was a one-off, or part of a pattern that has continued until more recently. I want ArbCom to come to the right result, but also, to do it for the right reasons. There are a lot of "wrong reasons" on this Evidence page. So my own evidence is going to take a close look at that.

Medical editors
Some evidence has cited comments by RexxS to other editors working on medical content. All but one example given involve comments replying to one editor. I remind ArbCom what you determined about that editor in the recent Medicine case:. I also want to link to RexxS's own evidence in that case:. My point is that this was a dispute that very much had two sides, and it would be a mistake to take a small percentage of posts by RexxS out of context to make findings in this case now. You can see from his evidence that RexxS has had a long history of civil, collaborative, and constructive editing within the Medicine WikiProject.

Ayurveda
I am especially concerned that ArbCom not make a mistake with respect to this dispute. Here are Bradv's question to RexxS, and all of Bradv's subsequent comments:, ,.

Here is RexxS's response:. It is polite though firm, thoughtful, and responsive in terms of WP:ADMINACCT. Given the request for examples of RexxS acting properly:, that is one example. Bradv was concerned that RexxS was blocking over a content dispute, but RexxS addresses that.

I'm going to focus on other comments made there by administrators. There were three:
 * Johnuniq:.
 * Bishonen:,.
 * Boing! said Zebedee:, , ,.

All three of them back up what RexxS said. Bradv insisted that it was a content dispute, but four admins in good standing explained to him that he misunderstood the situation – not that they had a disagreement on the meaning of policy, but that he had misunderstood the facts on the ground. I don't think ArbCom can override that consensus feedback.

Here is a thread from the talkpage of the Noticeboard for India-related topics:. This is what editors working in that topic area have to deal with on a regular basis. The community has determined through WP:MEDRS and elsewhere that it is essential that health-related content must not mislead our readers, because the consequences can be dire. There is a reason why RexxS said: "I blocked each of those meatpuppets as "not here to build an encyclopedia"." Let me explain that reason this way: they were meatpuppets, and they were not here to build an encyclopedia.

I don't know what went on, on the ArbCom mailing list. But anyone who thought that these were just new editors interested in improving coverage fails to realize that this was an organized mass campaign to undermine community consensus. I shudder to think of the damage to the project that will result if any of this is used for findings of fact in this case, except that it shows RexxS using his admin tools exactly as he should have done.

For Barkeep49's question
For : I went through User talk:RexxS starting in early 2020, looking for things that directly involve ADMINCOND, that do not involve "wiki-friends", and that are not part of other evidence here. Going through about mid-2020 when I ran out of energy, these should all be self-explanatory:,, , , , , , ,.

Evidence supporting ADMINCOND
Sorry to do this like this (as I have been the one recommending to others to not do this), but a mere look at User talk:RexxS will show how helpful and supportive Rex has been for each and every comment on his page. You have admins thanking him for AGFing, and others reaching out for various kinds of support, which RexxS has been more than helpful to give. And to mention perhaps the most important point of ADMINCOND, "The administrator should bring the issue to a noticeboard or refer it to another administrator to address, rather than potentially compound the problem with poor conduct." This has been something referenced already in multiple analysis above, about how RexxS has chosen to reach out to various noticeboards than resolve the issue himself in complex situations. Even when PReader posted the note about the ArbCom issue, RexxS opened an RfC to get wider opinion (an RfC which has 7 supports and 2 opposes as of date). RexxS is surely someone who comes across as extremely helpful, polite and supportive – but who will reject disruptive edits strongly. Lourdes 05:26, 9 March 2021 (UTC)

Evidence presented by MSGJ
I'll keep this brief ...

Helpful and civil in the vast majority of his contributions
In all my dealings with RexxS where we have collaborated on templates, he has been extremely helpful and civil. Our paths have crossed mainly on Module talk:WikidataIB and more recently on Template talk:Wdtable row where you can see he is polite, collegial, attentive and bending over backwards to be helpful. Whatever shortcomings may have been identified with Rexx's contributions in other areas, I sincerely hope we do not lose his technical skills which are a huge benefit to the project, and I that he is able to continue to work in these areas.

Edit warring
My only negative experience was when I intervened in an edit war on Naming conventions (ships) in October 2020. The 3RR rule was not broken, but I was surprised to see this behaviour by experienced editors. After I fully protected the page, there were no further incidents on this page. &mdash; Martin (MSGJ · talk) 12:11, 9 March 2021 (UTC)

Evidence presented by Atsme
The diff I initially presented speaks volumes for RexxS. There isn't much else I can add to the evidence that was already presented except that I would like to explain the diff I provided with context and a bit more detail relative to misbehavior by administrators that caused RexxS to comment.

The diff in context
Just look at the discussion in the diff I provided, and you will see a stark contrast in the kind of admin behavior that warrants desysopping and that which does not as in this case with RexxS. I think it provides a starting point for what is considered abuse. RexxS is a working administrator, a tech-savvy helpful administrator and is clearly here to help build the encyclopedia. He is not using his admin tools abusively, he is not here to RGW, or HOUND other editors whose POV he opposes which is the kind of behavior serious enough to call for desysopping. We're not seeing that in any of the evidence presented against RexxS. He did not misuse his tools or overstep his authority as an admin, such as HOUNDING, unwarranted threats, targeting an editor with relentless character assassinations to discredit them (per HOUNDING). We cannot write "politeness" scripts for every working administrator - they're busy working and helping to build the encyclopedia. Each person has their own way of presenting a statement, and hard cold text on a computer doesn't soften statements that are made "matter-of-factly", as would a face-to-face discussion where we exchange facial expressions, gestures and body language.  Atsme 💬 📧 13:27, 12 March 2021 (UTC)

Possibly problematic block
I posted this originally on Wikipediocracy and am submitting a slightly revised version of it here. I edit as an IP address.

RexxS blocked User:Nerd271 on December 14, 2020 for "Disruptive editing - making a point in breach of WP:LISTGAP". Immediately preceding the block, RexxS had been in a discussion with Nerd571 over on the Talk:General Certificate of Secondary Education Talk page (section Heritability of results), which RexxS started after twice reverting Nerd571 in the article, citing MEDRS.

Most of the discussion centers around MEDRS, but at one point, RexxS says A study about a very specific cohort is worthless for adding content to a Wikipedia article. It's laughably WP:UNDUE for an article about the GCSE, and it's no more suitable to take up space in the article than to use to make policy recommendations – our readers deserve quality content. To me, deciding whether something is UNDUE or not is a content decision. Others may disagree.

Later, after mentioning LISTGAP, RexxS (presumably accidentally) used rollback on Nerd571's post, re-added the reverted text without mentioning that it had accidentally been reverted and also included a lecture to Nerd571, including this bit: Editors and readers who use screen readers have a difficult enough time here anyway, and your thoughtless and selfish actions simply make that experience worse. You should be ashamed of yourself.

Nerd571 responded with Adding line breaks is now abusing the visually impaired? What are you even talking about? We are not making a list. I add line breaks so that it is easier for everybody to read the code. and bam! RexxS blocked him.

To RexxS's credit, he did unblock after a discussion on Nerd571's Talk page (archived here).

It's hard not to see this block as retaliatory for disagreeing with RexxS and as a possible breach of INVOLVED, even if the block was not intended that way. RexxS was clearly in the right about MEDRS and secondary sources. However, the block looked to me like the ticket a cop gives the hooligan for something minor because they just want to give that hooligan a ticket. RexxS was clearly upset in that discussion and has passionate feelings about using markup correctly but those strong feelings suggest that he shouldn't have blocked that particular editor.

I think that RexxS's judgement that the LISTGAP violation was block-worthy was flawed (clouded by both the preceding dispute and his very strong feelings about LISTGAP). I don't know if it rises to the level of actual tool misuse but it has the appearance of tool misuse to me.

— Preceding unsigned comment added by 2605:8d80:629:e72c:8294:1791:b849:96be (talk • contribs) 20:27, 12 March 2021 (UTC)

Evidence presented by Mike Peel
Since WP:ADMINCOND seems to be so general, I’m going to make quite broad statements here. They come from having known RexxS for almost a decade now through Wikimedia, both online and offline.

RexxS provides valuable contributions across the whole of the Wikimedia movement
While the scope here is enwp, I think it’s important to note RexxS’s work across the whole of the Wikimedia movement. RexxS has been a Wikimedia UK Trustee for over 6 years, and as a volunteer for much longer. He is also on Wiki Project Med’s Board. He has particularly been involved in training new editors (a list of training events he’s participated in would be too long to post here), and supporting editors across the whole of the movement - look at the long tail at.

A contribution I am particularly thankful for is his work on Module:WikidataIB, which is used in literally millions of pages here and on other wikis (and I’m particularly worried about the maintenance of this if RexxS is no longer around due to this case). He knows modules and templates inside-out. I understand that the origin of this case is the functionality of a template (and one used by admins), so this is particularly important to bear in mind.

RexxS has always met WP:ADMINCOND every time I’ve seen his work (caveat that I haven’t been involved in the cases here, since we edit in different areas). In particular, he has always gone out of his way to help new editors or editors with technical issues. As a working admin, he seems to have been working in some tough areas - particularly COVID related topics. I can understand how that can raise tempers and frustration, and RexxS is not one to back down unless the issue is properly resolved - normally for good reason.

Losing him as an editor and admin as a result of this case would be a big loss for Wikimedia. Thanks. Mike Peel (talk) 10:15, 13 March 2021 (UTC)

Evidence presented by Gerda Arendt
I miss a user with a passion for accessibility, and feel like Cassandre, having said that however the outcome, this case would not improve kindness, nor an article.

RexxS tried to arbitrate
On 13 May 2013, RexxS made a comment in an infobox discussion, addressing the parties on both sides:. "It is not in the best interests of the project to require consensus before editing an article. ... The value of infoboxes in any article includes that they do provide the "lazy" overview ... there are many reasons why infoboxes may disadvantage an article ... Without ... dialogue, and a willingness to listen carefully to each other, you won't be seeing where common ground lies and where compromise is possible. We need to be able to do that if we want to avoid the scenario where two distinct sides are polarised and simply edit-war to see who can force their preferred version into an article. That would indeed be a failure of the processes that have created the project we all so passionately believe in." We will miss that, - or hopefully not because we could begin anytime to listen, even if the point was made almost 8 years ago. Just imagine the addressed protagonists had listened. Summary: User:RexxS/Infobox factors --Gerda Arendt (talk) 16:31, 13 March 2021 (UTC)

Evidence presented by {your user name}
before using the last evidence template, please make a copy for the next person

{Write your assertion here}
Place argument and diffs which support the second assertion; for example, your second assertion might be "So-and-so makes personal attacks", which should be the title of this section. Here you would show specific edits where So-and-so made personal attacks.

Analysis of evidence
Place here items of evidence (with diffs) and detailed analysis

Analysis of evidence by Valereee
RexxS has apologized here, and he's indicated he regrets the slip. As far as I'm concerned this is all that's required from a well-intentioned editor who has made an intemperate remark, which is something we all are wont to do. —valereee (talk) 18:40, 28 February 2021 (UTC)


 * Comment by Arbitrators:
 * Unless other arbitrators disagree, I think there's been enough discussion of that one particular comment. Newyorkbrad (talk) 17:04, 4 March 2021 (UTC)


 * Comment by parties:


 * Comment by others:

Valereee and EEng
Skim the discussion for a sense of the context of RexxS' "inept" remark.

When I got to RexxS' struck and modified remark I was feeling annoyed; imagine RexxS was too. Other participants were treating this like a game. Guideline pages aren't places for social talk and jokes. inept: Not able to do something; not proficient. Really how much of an attack is it to use this word when the person basically said the same thing about their ability earlier in the thread. WP:Guideline pages aren't intended to give detailed instructions on how to do something; their purpose is guidance on what to do... best practice. For detailed instructions on how, create a Help: page or enhance the template documentation. The discussion added the highlighted text: Omitting timestamps from one-message sections may leave those sections unarchived for a long time, as archiving bots depend on discussion dates to know whether it is time to archive them. An undated talk section won't get archived until someone either dates the signature or manually archives it.
 * Attributing unsigned comments: If a comment is unsigned you can find out, from the page history, who posted it and append attribution to it, typically using {{subst:Unsigned}}: . The date and time parameter is optional.

BrownHairedGirl
BrownHairedGirl was prohibited from portals, but not categories, banned from interaction with another editor and desysopped on 29 January 2020. The closing analysis of her category-interactions with RexxS was just a terse "Could you two please not?" RexxS' behavior in this incident lacks the common sense expected of all editors. More care could have been taken to fix the talk-page "layout errors" in a less-disruptive manner.
 * This incident happened in a BHG proposal to rename 1,342 categories by disambiguating "composition" to "musical composition", which RexxS opposed – it didn't find a consensus.
 * The behavioral issue revolves around the guideline intended to avoid disrupting screen readers used by visually-impaired editors.
 * The MOS is primarily focused on article-space, not talk pages. It's advice editors should attempt to follow, though it's best treated with common sense.
 * No visually-impaired editors were participating in the discussion.
 * As a result of this interaction, BHG asked RexxS to stay off her talkpage forever.

RexxS' essay is a good explanation of how to correct non-conforming indentation. He'd avoid much grief by sticking to edits making indentation syntax adjustments which did not change the appearance of the page for sighted users while linking to his essay in his edit summary. However isaacl's diffs show RexxS removing her comments which is generally against talk page guidelines, and commenting on her behavior in the middle of the categories discussion rather than on her personal talk. Administrator guidance on edit-warring suggests that RexxS should have been warned or blocked rather than simply asked to "please not".


 * Comment by Arbitrators:


 * Comment by parties:


 * Comment by others:

Alleged October 2020 personal attacks (analysis by wbm1058)
Valereee's final question of 21:50, 6 October 2020 was indeed archived without further response from RexxS but just two days later, at 14:36, 8 October 2020 RexxS reported that he was COVID-19 positive. I'm inclined to give RexxS a pass for not responding further. This happened after RexxS had already responded with a dictionary definition of "partisan" after she asked what partisan stance is that? I'd advise RexxS to avoid further use of this term in this era of hyper-partisanship for politically-charged causes, to avoid the risk his meaning will be misinterpreted. My take is that Wait, you're arguing that calling an idea 'baloney' is the same as telling someone they're 'talking out of their backside'? I'm afraid I can't agree represents a "partisan" response in that it chooses one low-level uncivil remark as being "better" than the other. As a referee I would throw a flag on both and call offsetting penalties. So if you object to an idea being referred to as baloney, then object to it instead of retaliating for it. RexxS did object, albeit in an uncivil way.


 * Comment by Arbitrators:
 * RexxS's contribution history reflects limited activity during October 2020. Newyorkbrad (talk) 17:49, 4 March 2021 (UTC)


 * Comment by parties:


 * Comment by others:
 * "Editor has COVID" would be an excuse if the editor's response were different from how the editor usually responded in such situations, but here that wasn't the case. COVID is probably the reason no one went to arbcom about it back then. As for the final point, I'm outright laughing at the notion that when people supported Rexx's RFA with concerns about civility (that includes me), we were accepting that Rexx's pre-existing level of civility was the standard by which he should be judged going forward. In fact, if you read the RFA, the one thing that everyone, supporters and opposers alike, agreed with, is that Rexx needed to improve, not maintain, how he interacted with other editors going forward. Holding an editor to WP:CIVIL is not "raising the bar" on anyone. Ever. Levivich harass/hound 16:00, 4 March 2021 (UTC)

February 2021 dispute with ProcrastinatingReader (analysis by wbm1058)
Apparently this incident triggered this case. See Template talk:COVID19 GS editnotice.


 * Comment by Arbitrators:
 * For what it's worth, I had no idea I was pinged to that discussion, and likely would have relisted that template from the TFD group had I known it was going to be an issue. However, we're a little past that stage now an a new TFD would likely be necessary. Primefac (talk) 22:42, 6 March 2021 (UTC)


 * Comment by parties:


 * Comment by others:

Analysis of evidence by Ritchie333
In the case of AManWithNoPlan, there are several actions that the above evidence does not make clear:
 * AManWithNoPlan had been blocked a few months earlier for being abusive. Block log While this may not be important, it could have signalled to RexxS that this user was knowingly disruptive and err on the side of blocking.
 * Shortly after blocking, RexxS self-reported at ANI that he had blocked, and gave evidence that it was because a previous warning was ignored. Block action at 23:00, ANI thread at 23:28 entitled "‎Block review of AManWithNoPlan". No other actions were taken between RexxS blocking and opening the ANI thread (Contributions to 7 June 2020) nor was he asked to open the thread by any third parties (history of User talk:RexxS to 8 June 2020).
 * On later reviewing the thread, RexxS observed a consensus to unblock, and did so. Unblock

In my view, the block was within the bounds of administrator discretion, having given evidence of prior warnings ignored and previous blocks, the self-reporting at ANI adequately justifies administrator accountability, and being able to admit fault and self-reverse an action when there is consensus to do is the appropriate conduct. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont)  11:30, 4 March 2021 (UTC)

I read through the discussion on Guy's talk page linked in Atsme's evidence that RexxS tried to quell, and I'm just gobsmacked. I have certainly seen discussions like those all over the net, sometimes with me directly participating in them, but it was eye-opening to see a political feud like that happening on Wikipedia. I agree with everything RexxS wrote. I have very strong feelings on Donald Trump, the Republican Party, the Tories, Brexit, Bolsonaro, Nigel Farage, Boris Johnson, Jacob Rees-Mogg etc etc etc etc .... however I generally do not discuss them on Wikipedia because I cannot write about those subjects with a neutral point of view. And therefore, Wikipedia is completely the wrong place to discuss them. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont)  19:33, 12 March 2021 (UTC)


 * Comment by Arbitrators:


 * Comment by parties:


 * Comment by others:
 * and being able to admit fault and self-reverse an action when there is consensus to do There was no admitting of fault, or acknowledgement of ANI consensus, anywhere, as far as I can see. Rexx still denies to accept any of the conclusions from the ANI. The unblock reason says it was because AMWNP 'promised' not to initiate further bot runs, not because consensus was against the block. Indeed, this is confirmed by Rexx's threat to reblock evidenced in my section and the continued events diffed post-block. Saying blocking an editor for triggering a bot is within the bounds of admin discretion doesn't make sense. It doesn't even stop the bot run they initiated, never mind stop anyone else from initiating bot runs, and I'm not even sure it stops them from initiating more bot runs because triggering a bot happens offwiki. If a bot is malfunctioning, you block the bot... ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 12:23, 4 March 2021 (UTC)


 * A block can be within the bounds of administrator discretion and still be bad block. The consensus of that discussion was not only that the block of AManWithNoPlan was a bad block, but that RexxS didn't understand why it was a bad block. RexxS still doesn't appear to understand that, given these recent comments: . Regarding AManWithNoPlan's previous unrelated block, what does that have to do with anything? A bad block doesn't get better because someone (in the eyes of the admin) has a rap sheet. If I were RexxS I would dissociate myself from the claim immediately because it makes me look worse, not better. Mackensen (talk) 13:22, 4 March 2021 (UTC)


 * AManWithNoPlan was using Citation bot to force a fait accompli. Multiple editors expressed concern and AManWithNoPlan's responses were far from helpful. I was contemplating making a similar block myself and only didn't because I wouldn't have been available to deal with the fallout. RexxS's actions may not have been perfect but I see nothing in them that requires the attention of the Arbitration Committee. HJ Mitchell &#124; Penny for your thoughts? 10:26, 7 March 2021 (UTC)

Analysis by Levivich
I filed the last noticeboard report about Citation Bot, Administrators%27 noticeboard/Archive325, and I don't think the "full" story has been set out: the problem was never a malfunctioning bot. AMNWP added code to the bot to cause it to remove the url from citations, which in most cases de-linked the title of the citation. This was done without any task approval by BAG or otherwise. There had been many complaints from many editors for months about it (specific links are in the noticeboard thread linked above), including (but not limited to) discussions at Citation Bot's UTP, a Village Pump RFC, a previous ANI, and a discussion at BOTN (all linked in that thread). None of these would get AMNWP to remove the code he added. I was openly floating radical and ridiculous solutions like me personally forking Citation Bot (I also considered making an Arbcom case request). It wasn't until Rexx made the block threat linked in the evidence section here that AMNWP removed the code he added and the RFC consensus was implemented. This was a good block threat by Rexx: he took action, and it solved a long-standing problem, and saved the community spending more time on it. While I have concerns about civility, I have no concerns about tool misuse, and while the tool use and threatened tool use in the Citation Bot saga might have pushed the bounds of admin discretion, it was necessary (and effective) in that particular circumstance. Levivich harass/hound 16:12, 4 March 2021 (UTC)


 * Comment by Arbitrators:


 * Comment by parties:


 * Comment by others:
 * At the time of that block threat the RfC wasn't even closed. Barkeep closed it a few hours later. I don't really see anything to indicate AMWNP wouldn't've adhered to that consensus anyway, but a bot operating outside of consensus is equivalent to a malfunctioning bot for the purposes of WP:BOTBLOCK (both can be blocked). Accordingly, it has to be noted that my section about the situation focuses on the block of AMWNP, not of Citation Bot a few hours later. The threat to reblock in September does, because that's a clear WP:INVOLVED action. Any admin taking admin actions in regards to bots should understand that blocking a bot account stops that bot's disruption on the encyclopaedia. If the operator refuses to make their bot align with consensus, it can be left blocked. With regards to Citation bot in particular, I happen to think its approvals are a mess (see here), but all of this is pretty much outside the scope of this case. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 16:36, 4 March 2021 (UTC)

Analysis of own evidence by Joe Roe
Almost all of the incidents I listed above have three things in common: WP:INVOLVED tool use; subsequent failure to be accountable; and incivility. Although RexxS is generally reluctant to acknowledge criticism, they show that he has been made aware of the problems, repeatedly. In some discussions he has eventually conceded fault, but gone on to do the same thing again. With this in mind it's hard to take in good faith RexxS' statement here that he has never seriously been accused of misusing the admin tools.

My assessment is that RexxS is a highly committed content editor with a laudable commitment to high standards of sourcing, especially on medical articles. Unfortunately, this often manifests itself as a belief that those who don't meet this standard, or simply disagree on what is "well-sourced", are a threat to the encyclopaedia. He seems to have great difficulty separating his strong opinions about content and sourcing from his administrative work. He is also frequently hostile to others when discussing this and other topics, and does not take criticism well – conduct that has been reinforced by editors that the value of his work justifies the breaches in policy. This is a bad combination of traits in an admin and I don't think his temperament was ever suited for the job.

Regardless of how valued RexxS is in other areas of the project, ArbCom has a responsibility to enforce the admin conduct policy, namely:


 * Occasional lapses [in tool use] are accepted but serious or repeated lapses, or lapses involving breaches of 'involved' administrator conduct may not always be.
 * sustained or serious disruption of Wikipedia through behavior such as incivility or bad faith editing is incompatible with the expectations and responsibilities of administrators, and consistent or egregious poor judgment may result in the removal of administrator tools.
 * Administrators who seriously or repeatedly act in a problematic manner, or who have lost the trust or confidence of the community, may be sanctioned or have their administrator rights removed by the Arbitration Committee.

–&#8239;Joe (talk) 17:01, 4 March 2021 (UTC)

Analysis of Johnuniq's evidence by Joe Roe
finds that my evidence is often not supported by the link, citing three examples:


 * Looking at the discussions shows that others raised "conflict of interest" and they did that because COI is specified at WP:INVOLVED—there is no confusion by RexxS – the first part is factually wrong, RexxS was the first to bring up COI. Whether RexxS conflated WP:INVOLVED and WP:COI or not is I suppose a matter of interpretation, but I think that's the obvious conclusion from what he said, and I'm not the only person to have said so.
 * RexxS threatened to pull PR's rights, not block him – that was my mistake, corrected. I don't think it makes a material difference to the sequence of events though.
 * Joe Roe and ProcrastinatingReader don't seem to understand the issue regarding COVID19 GS editnotice – he says this, but the following paragraph is entirely about PR and my evidence doesn't even mention the edit notice.

can you please substantiate or revise your claim that my evidence often does not match the diffs, given that you have only pointed out one error (now corrected) and one reasonable difference of interpretation (out of nearly 50 diffs)? –&#8239;Joe (talk) 07:30, 7 March 2021 (UTC)

Analysis of Littleolive oil & Tryptofish's evidence by Joe Roe
Both Littleolive oil and Tryptofish claim that RexxS' actions, specifically around Ayurveda, must be justified because other admins/editors agreed with them. This is a fallacy. Administrators are expected to use their tools in accordance with the consensus of the broader community, above all that expressed in the administrator policies. A local consensus amongst a smaller group, admins or not, cannot override that. The committee will be well aware that repeated misconduct by established editors is often excused and reinforced by those around them. One of its primary jobs is to cut through this understandable tendency for editors to rally around friends and against those they see as a threat to the encyclopaedia, and objectively judge whether an admin has used their bit in a way that is consistent with the expectations of the broader community that entrusted it to them. –&#8239;Joe (talk) 14:13, 9 March 2021 (UTC)


 * Comment by Arbitrators:


 * Comment by parties:


 * Comment by others:
 * Correct me if I'm wrong, but this is a place for evidence presentation/analysis, not remedy recommendations, correct? Again, I could be WAY off base here. Buffs (talk) 20:03, 4 March 2021 (UTC)
 * My analysis, based on the evidence, is that RexxS should lose the bit. –&#8239;Joe (talk) 12:17, 5 March 2021 (UTC)
 * WP:INVOLVED has the well-known "straightforward cases" exception: It seems to me that Rexx's COVID and Ayurveda admin tool use fits into that exception. For example, of the 17 Ayurveda accounts blocked, 16 remain blocked, and the one that was unblocked was unblocked by Rexx. Where Rexx has submitted his own admin tool use for review, it seems that fits with the spirit, if not the letter, of "pass the matter to another administrator via the relevant noticeboards". COVID and Ayurveda are two of the most-contentious topics on the entire website, both medical-related, where hoaxing dangers are extremely serious, and that could be cause to use tools first (even if involved) and seek review later, rather than seeking review first. Unless I missed something in the timing of diffs in the evidence, in the instances where Rexx has received feedback that he was involved or too close to involved, he took that feedback on board and abided by it going forward. Levivich harass/hound 17:08, 6 March 2021 (UTC)
 * in the instances where Rexx has received feedback that he was involved or too close to involved, he took that feedback on board and abided by it going forward not sure about this. Examples: The AManWithNoPlan case, he denied being INVOLVED saying it was an exaggeration of INVOLVED, and still retains that view as of this case. In threatening to pull my perms, at RFAR, doubled down on being an uninvolved admin for the purposes of pulling them. In Ayurveda, where he is involved, he still makes comments that blur the line (eg ). In several of these and other cases, where the involved status was very clear, yet an involved action was still taken and editors saying he was involved after it went to review (which, to his credit, he initiated some of the times) were brushed off as "misrepresenting WP:INVOLVED". ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 17:44, 6 March 2021 (UTC)
 * PR, I personally would find it very helpful to see specific pairs of diffs, in which the first diff is someone advising RexxS that he is involved, and the second diff is RexxS subsequently actually using an admin tool nonetheless. Here, I'm not asking about RexxS just saying something, but rather, actually issuing a block or some other sanction. --Tryptofish (talk) 17:54, 6 March 2021 (UTC)
 * That was sort of my thinking as well. I don't see: [community consensus of wp:involved] (not just some people expressing the opinion, but a formal close or at least clear consensus) followed by (not preceded by) [tool use] (not just threatened or implied, but actual). Levivich harass/hound 18:09, 6 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Unless I've missed it, that sort of evidence has not been forthcoming. It does look like RexxS has been quite consistent in stepping back from his use of admin tools once he sees clear advice that he ought to. For instance, in the Ayurveda dispute, once Bradv told RexxS that he should regard himself as INVOLVED:, I don't think RexxS took any further admin actions in that area (someone should correct me if I missed something). --Tryptofish (talk) 20:07, 9 March 2021 (UTC)
 * But none of those 17 people vandalised anything. In my view the Ayurveda blocks are the worst incidence of tool misuse by RexxS. Apart from being obvious violations of WP:INVOLVED, they are a flagrant and disgraceful abuse of the block tool. It's logically incoherent to say that somebody is "not here" after a single edit to a discussion. Every single point of WP:NOTHERE describes long-term editing patterns. There is no world in which it is preventative to permanently exclude somebody from the project after they offer a single opinion. Clearly, RexxS' view that Ayurveda is pseudoscience aligns with mainstream sources and is the correct wording for the article. But it's also entirely reasonable that many people from a different cultural background—the one in which Ayurveda is practised—find this description surprising. When these people, in good faith, express their opinion in a "request for comment" on the "encyclopedia that anyone can edit", they should be met with an explanation of why we have to favour the scientific point of view. Instead, they find their invited comment removed and their ability to edit removed by an English administrator whose user page proudly proclaims his leadership role in WMF affiliates, and who is free to express his opinion that their beliefs are pseudoscience, not medicine, in-universe wishful thinking that promote[s] the practice of drinking urine . It's unnecessary, a blatant double standard, antithetical to our movement-wide goal to promote inclusion and diversity, and brings the project into disrepute. The remain blocked purely because none of them appealed and most admins are too scared of the spectre of "wheel-warring" to undo bad blocks unilaterally. –&#8239;Joe (talk) 07:03, 7 March 2021 (UTC)
 * I understand where you're coming from about welcoming new editors, although I haven't seen us generally be welcoming to canvassed new accounts. (Compare the 2020 Kyiv RM, Part I, which was shut down due to similar canvassing concerns.) My memory of the AY and the Citation Bot fiasco is that Rexx stepped up when other admins didn't (not intended as a criticism of other admins, just saying that's how I remember it). I distinctly remember thinking in both instances, thank god someone finally did something! Levivich harass/hound 07:25, 7 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Noting:, so it isn't confusing later, given various other editors referring to it before deletion. --Tryptofish (talk) 17:47, 6 March 2021 (UTC)
 * I was asked to remove it by an arbitrator. –&#8239;Joe (talk) 17:54, 6 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Yes, but since you deleted it instead of striking it, I was concerned that not everyone would realize it. --Tryptofish (talk) 17:58, 6 March 2021 (UTC)
 * That would be me in an email I sent Joe yesterday and I appreciate his having done so. Barkeep49 (talk) 17:58, 6 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Joe has posted an analysis of my evidence that boils down to whether or not four admins responding to Bradv's inquiry constitutes a WP:CONSENSUS. Actually, that's a distraction, and it does not materially change things either way. It was a consistent reply from four administrators, which amounts to something that should be listened to, as opposed to being met with WP:IDHT. RexxS and three other admins engaged with Bradv's concerns, which does not require agreeing with those concerns. And they were right. I won't fault Bradv for having asked. He asked a reasonable question, and was told that these were meatpuppets (not sockpuppets) coming from an organized mass campaign to disrupt Wikipedia by promoting falsehoods that would have been harmful to our readers.
 * But now, I will fault Joe Roe, because if ArbCom makes the mistake of believing his arguments, they will be acting on something that was never communicated to RexxS or the others. I still don't know what happened on the ArbCom mailing list, but if ArbCom actually wanted to hear more from RexxS, that should have been made transparent at the time, and some secret harboring of resentment on the mailing list does not come anywhere near to representing community consensus. If ArbCom felt then that RexxS and the other three were mistaken, that should have been made explicit as a follow-up question that acknowledged what had already been said. The fact that the follow-up question never happened does not negate the validity of the answers to the actual question posed by Bradv. --Tryptofish (talk) 19:16, 9 March 2021 (UTC)

Analysis of evidence by Tryptofish
I will soon be posting evidence that can be considered as a defense of RexxS, but I want to use this analysis to endorse some of the evidence that has already been posted, that finds fault with RexxS. I hope that I can improve the signal-to-noise ratio in this case by trying to distinguish between evidence that is useful, and evidence that is less so. --Tryptofish (talk) 19:02, 4 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Citation Bot: ProcrastinatingReader provides evidence about the interactions with AManWithNoPlan, which was a complex situation that has two sides, but which includes some comments about RexxS's tone, such as: . It seems to me that this was a legitimate concern about how RexxS communicated, particularly as regards the threatening aspect.
 * COVID 19: Joe Roe cites diffs including this one:, indicating that RexxS equated WP:INVOLVED with WP:COI. It seems to me that Joe Roe is correct about this. (Subsequently, however, Joe Roe criticizes RexxS for later continuing to make content edits about COVID 19, and making comments about having uninvolved admins enforce sanctions. That seems to me what an involved admin should be doing.)
 * Now seeing Isaacl's evidence of the... whatever that was... with BHG: Both of them come off pretty badly there, no doubt about it. --Tryptofish (talk) 00:19, 7 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Bishonen, Moneytrees, and Littleolive oil do an excellent job of examining what might – perhaps – be reasons to regard that incident, from a full year ago, as being insufficient for findings in this case. Conversely, WP:EW is a bright-line policy, and the exceptions it allows do not include believing strongly that one is right. --Tryptofish (talk) 19:35, 9 March 2021 (UTC)


 * Comment by Arbitrators:


 * Comment by parties:


 * Comment by others:
 * In your evidence about Ayurveda, you refer to the 2020 ArbCom being involved in a Pseudoscience ARCA. I've been looking through archives, and I cannot find anything about that on-wiki circa 2020. Could you please provide a link to that? (Or is it actually something that only occurred via private email?) --Tryptofish (talk) 20:56, 4 March 2021 (UTC)
 * My apologies, I found it. --Tryptofish (talk) 21:06, 4 March 2021 (UTC)
 * I'm not exactly criticising RexxS for continuing to edit COVID 19. It's not uncommon or wrong for an admin to start of as uninvolved then subsequently become a party to a dispute. But you have to be mindful that it won't necessarily be obvious to other editors that you've taken your admin hat off. In RexxS case, he was involved from the start, never really acknowledged that he was, then smoothly transitioned into enforcing his own sanction with reverts and threats. For me that blurs the line a bit too much. –&#8239;Joe (talk) 12:28, 5 March 2021 (UTC)
 * For what it's worth, I think some of RexxS's actions in Ayurveda (where he is involved) continue to blur the line also. For example: ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 12:48, 5 March 2021 (UTC)

Analysis by Buffs
Longtime listener, 3rd time caller...

I find Levivich's analysis particularly compelling. The truly contentious issue is CitationBot, which is LOADED with controversy (see Levivich's analysis for the short version). While I too have mild concerns about RexxS's civility, this is a prime example where WP:IAR was notably appropriate. Buffs (talk) 19:28, 4 March 2021 (UTC)

I find the statement "RexxS stated he would block Citation Bot again if it edited 'in violation of' a then-unclosed RfC" particularly uncompelling as this doesn't appear to be an RfC, but a discussion. The statement in question appears to be referring to the discussion and his rationale, not that an unfinished discussion would be the rationale for a block.


 * Props to User:ProcrastinatingReader for fixing my copy/paste/edit error! Buffs (talk) 19:59, 4 March 2021 (UTC)


 * PR: Neither of the links provided links to a formal RfC (nothing generally publicized with the general headers). Buffs (talk) 17:47, 8 March 2021 (UTC)
 * @PR: When you are called to cite evidence, you should cite the evidence where you are referencing it, not 50 comments later. I stand by my assessment based on the statements made at the time. If it's been corrected, good. If not, it should be corrected. We shouldn't have to scroll through the history of a page hoping we stumble across what you're mentioning. Likewise, your evidence is well over the limit for someone who isn't a party to the case (you aren't the only one...clerks should step in...) Buffs (talk) 03:30, 12 March 2021 (UTC)`

@Clerks. Many of the Wikipedians involved here are well above their respective limits: " The standard limits for all submissions in this phase are: 1000 words and 100 diffs for users who are parties to this case; or about 500 words and 50 diffs for other users. " Note that the sole party to this case has not yet responded.


 * Comment by Arbitrators:


 * Comment by parties:


 * Comment by others:
 * Huh? This is an RfC (although it was not closed at time of comment). RexxS's comment is clearly referring to that discussion (his comment literally links to it). Also, not sure what you mean by "LOADED with controversy", it's a pretty straight forward incident imo. Levivich's comment only refers to the September events (the block threat of CB, which Levivich feels was fair), not the June events, afaict. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 10:24, 5 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Buffs, in response to your most recent question: it was at WP:VPR, and closed with the RfC template. It was also listed with Legobot via the rfc template (see this diff for example, to see that banner). Legobot delists RfCs 30 days after they start which is why there was no banner immediately prior to the closing, if that's what confused you. But it was certainly an RfC. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 19:06, 8 March 2021 (UTC)
 * and I were both granted a word limit extension. –&#8239;Joe (talk) 12:22, 12 March 2021 (UTC)

Analysis of evidence by Lourdes

 * (with advanced apologies to ProcrastinatingReader, RexxS and other editors whose work I appreciate; and find it unfortunate that we are here...but here we are).

Analysis of evidence presented by ProcrastinatingReader

 * Personal attacks: In regards to Valereee

March 2020: RexxS needs to hold himself up to a higher standard. Alluding to Valereee using terms such as "not everybody is inept as you" is unacceptable. But this has to be seen in the light of RexxS subsequently striking the statement (additionally accepting during on this case's main page that "I know I owe Valereee an apology for the "inept" comment:"), and continuing discussions to ensure the guidelines were not unilaterally altered by individuals (including Valerees and EEeng) whose changes were very inefficient, and who were perhaps without realising, ignoring the very smartly worded change RexxS was proposing.). This evidence is not strong enough to claim admin misconduct.

October 2020: Editors were claiming that readers would want to know more about fringe medical solutions, and therefore that Wikipedia articles should report these, even if MEDRS were unavailable to Wikipedia's standards (one such example of an editor's comment:"This antibody drug REGN-COV2 is in the middle of being studied for the RECOVERY Trial, has zero published results of any kind on PubMed, never mind a systematic review, and our readers will want to know about it."). This was being suggested repeatedly, and attempts were being made to input sham conclusions into Wikipedia. RexxS' strong arguments were absolutely justified to ward off such tendentious attempts to develop new verifiability policies through article talk page discussions. Valereee's discussions to instead ask RexxS to back off seem – for the lack of a better word – partisan. She is herself an administrator, and should have seen the full context of what was going on. Reading her comments, it seems she did realise what was going, but chose to repeatedly and deliberately (for reasons best known to her) harangue RexxS to ask him repeatedly, why he considered her partisan. This is baiting, really. This evidence shows how a gatekeeper who is standing true to ensuring that Wikipedia articles don't speak shit (and I beg pardon of all readers here), is instead, being told that this proves his battleground behaviour. Well, absolutely not. And thank god RexxS was/is there.

Analysis of evidence presented by Joe Roe

 * April 2019 – RexxS' RfA: Ad hominem argument. Every admin is held to the same high standard.
 * March 2020 – personal attacks and threats to take involved actions against : Where are the diffs? It's not appropriate to post a whole section and ask the reader to search out the so-claimed attacks and threats.
 * March 2020 – personal attacks against : Have already analysed this in the earlier section. Lourdes 17:13, 8 March 2021 (UTC)


 * Comment by Arbitrators:


 * Comment by parties:


 * Comment by others:
 * Where is the wide support for Eeng's flawed proposal? – Well, maybe not so flawed. After some initial confusion on a technical point was cleared up (see WT:Talk_page_guidelines/Archive_14) everyone expressing an opinion – except RexxS himself, and (maybe) Nil Einne – agreed with my original proposal that the timestamp be made optional (with some diversity of opinion on how to express that) and indeed the guideline was modified accordingly. EEng 02:04, 7 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Noted with thanks Eeng. I am unsure why you say RexxS was not discussing. The timeline is important. The warning by RexxS to you was given much earlier, and the actual conclusion to the discussion came post that (correct me if I am wrong), and because of RexxS starting another additional connected thread. I would say that post that, you did work towards resolution. To be honest, a page where editors are freely throwing around words like WTF, fucking and accusing each other of harassment – it's a wonder that RexxS was continuing to drive the discussion towards some closure. But as I said upstairs, I am  your fan and feel sorry that you got stuck in that cacophony.  Lourdes  05:25, 7 March 2021 (UTC)
 * You words are much too kind: I am merely a humble editor doing his best to brighten the day of my fellow inmates here at the Wikipedia Asylum for the Hopelessly Something or Other. Some clarifications:
 * I am unsure why you say RexxS was not discussing. – I didn't say RexxS wasn't discussing; I said that, of those expressing an opinion once the technical confusion (about UTC) was cleared up, he was one of only two such editors dissenting from the idea that timestamps should be optional.
 * The timeline is important. The warning by RexxS to you was given much earlier. – Sure, but that doesn't matter. His warning reads, in pertinent part (spread over two posts):
 * There are far too many other editors disagreeing with you, and you don't seem to be able to admit when you're wrong. Drop the stick before patience wears thin with your tendentious commentary here ... What's next for you is me filing a complaint at WP:AN, listing your long history of edit-warring and tendentious editing over these sort of guidelines, and requesting that you be topic banned from them. If you think your behaviour here is beyond criticism, you have another thing coming.
 * But as it turns out, I wasn't wrong, nor were there "far too many other editors disagreeing" with me – as already noted, once the technical confusion was cleared up just about everyone agreed with me. So RexxS was quite presumptuous in his certainty, and the fact that, as you observe, he made his threat relatively early in the discussion (when even background issues had yet to be shaken out) magnifies the presumption.
 * it's a wonder that RexxS was continuing to drive the discussion towards some closure – He did no such thing. He just kept bludgeoning in his insistence that his six-step procedure was not complicated. xeno made a bold edit and it stood. End of story.
 * <b style="color:red;">E</b><b style="color:blue;">Eng</b> 06:10, 7 March 2021 (UTC)
 * I'll mention that even in the section xeno started with the bold edit, I can see RexxS making multiple suggestions (and opinions, if you may) and ensured that the discussion moved to the correct place (the template talk page). I am unsure how that is equivalent to xeno making a bold edit and period. Please note that this doesn't mean that I agree with RexxS' suggestions. I am simply mentioning he was driving  the  discussion.  Lourdes  01:38, 9 March 2021 (UTC)
 * No, xeno edited in the version that stands today, after which RexxS got into an argument with another editor over something peripheral and eventually the thread died of exhaustion. RexxS has never edited the template, its talk page, or its documentation. <b style="color:red;">E</b><b style="color:blue;">Eng</b> 05:16, 9 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Hi again. The page in question is Wikipedia talk:Talk page guidelines. You mentioned, "everyone expressing an opinion – except RexxS himself". I showed diffs where he did. You mention these are just RexxS "bludgeoning" and "getting into arguments" – which is different from "everyone expressing an opinion – except RexxS himself". I rest my case here, mentioning that we can't simply be blind to RexxS's attempts to discuss and we can't claim they did not express any opinion, and then claim their discussions were not discussions. Whichever way it is, I would hope you make up your mind. Warmly, Lourdes  05:37, 9 March 2021 (UTC)
 * I'm sorry, but you're just not parsing the English right, maybe because you're truncating it. This sentence ...
 * Everyone expressing an opinion – except RexxS himself – agreed with my original proposal
 * ... doesn't mean, as you seem to think, that RexxS didn't express an opinion. It means the RexxS did express an opinion, and also other people expressed opinions, but out of all those people RexxS was the only one whose opinion did not agree with my original proposal. <b style="color:red;">E</b><b style="color:blue;">Eng</b> 10:43, 9 March 2021 (UTC)
 * You know, we both have been arguing over stuff and wasting time when we could be having coffee together. Let me know <3 Lourdes  10:48, 9 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Well, it's important to get the facts straight. As for coffee, I'll need your credit report, high school and college transcripts, verification of employment, and pedigree. And I drink only free-trade, cruelty-free, rainforest-friendly Vienna roast harvested by virgins at dawn on the vernal equinox. <b style="color:red;">E</b><b style="color:blue;">Eng</b> 16:04, 9 March 2021 (UTC)
 * I can't find any basis for the statement that "one normally blocks a bot first only if it is running automatically". A quick glance at User:Citation bot makes it clear to me that any user can trigger the bot on any set of pages, and doesn't have any option to avoid the behavior that RexxS (IMO, correctly) identified as not approved. Any user, therefore, could have caused disruption by triggering Citation bot and hitting a page with the wrong citation markup (not casually obvious). It seems clear to me that the correct course would have been to block Citation bot, thereby precluding *all* disruption of this type, and (given the episode pointed out by Levivich) monitoring unblock requests to make sure the bot was not misrepresented as compliant. I find it hard to see how serially warning or blocking users who did trigger, or who might trigger, Citation bot, the course RexxS took, could be seen as preferable to blocking the bot, which could have been used to extract the same concessions to respect community consensus. Choess (talk) 07:01, 8 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Hi, would you consider AMWNP a normal editor who used the Citation bot just by the by as any other editor would? Or would you consider AMWNP one who knows how to – for easier understanding – code the bot and let it run the way they want? Your answer would give me an understanding of how well you understand the situation. Thank you in advance.  Lourdes  15:26, 8 March 2021 (UTC)
 * I again object to being called partisan with zero explanation of how, I deny that I was somehow baiting RexxS, and I, well, pretty deeply resent the implications of the accusation that I chose "repeatedly and deliberately (for reasons best known to her)" to harangue RexxS. Other that that I don't think the committee needs to be burdened with the rest of my response to so I'll take it to talk. —valereee (talk) 13:40, 8 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Hi, sorry for how this came out. You know I am never going to fight with you on this. Lourdes  15:26, 8 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Lourdes, I have tremendous respect for you, I like you, we've interacted productively, I hope to continue to interact productively in future, and I OMG so sincerely hate to be a jerk, but honestly if you're going to stand behind these accusations but not explain them, I have to make clear that I challenge their implications absolutely. I have no partisan stance, I absolutely was not baiting RexxS, and I have zero idea what reasons best known to myself even refers to. —valereee (talk) 17:18, 8 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Lourdes, your analysis of this appears to be WAY over the standard limit of 500 words... Buffs (talk) 18:05, 8 March 2021 (UTC)
 * I'm already right up against my extended word and diff limit so no, I won't be adding more. I'm confident the arbs are capable of reading a discussion and coming to an independent conclusion. –&#8239;Joe (talk) 13:57, 9 March 2021 (UTC)

Analysis of March 2020 discussion on discussion thread formatting
By convention, nested lists are used for discussions. As most people learn wikitext markup by reading the source for Wikipedia pages, the [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Help:Talk_pages&oldid=941738602#Indentation accepted conventions (as they appeared in March 2020) ] and the underlying reasons for them are not necessarily known even by long-time editors.

In the incidents noticeboard discussion, RexxS showed great concern that the accepted conventions are followed to enable accessibility for those using assistive technologies such as screen readers. (This is generally more crucial on talk pages than mainspace articles, most of which do not have nested lists, and not at the nesting levels seen on talk pages.) BrownHairedGirl was displeased by the initial removal of the comment (*), and by the subsequent changes that altered the visual appearance of the comment.

(*) RexxS's edit summary BHG please feel fre to repost your comments if you can do so without causing accessibility problems indicates the initial removal was intentional. Subsequently, RexxS simply removed the list markup from the comment instead of deleting it. (In earlier cases where BrownHairedGirl's comments failed to follow convention, RexxS had fixed the list markup, rather than delete it or delete the comment entirely.)

The incidents noticeboard discussion became heated as the two parties focused on different aspects. RexxS interpreted BrownHairedGirl's concerns narrowly by focusing on the absence of literal paragraph break markup within the comment, and thus stated no paragraph breaks were removed. BrownHairedGirl stated the comment was formatted similar to other ones, without engaging on the specific issues being raised. Both parties failed to exhibit an attempt to appreciate the other person's point of view, and look for a way to accommodate it. If one person had been receptive, the other may have been more willing to hear concerns, and vice versa. isaacl (talk) 23:54, 6 March 2021 (UTC)


 * Comment by Arbitrators:


 * Comment by parties:


 * Comment by others:
 * I'm just finding out about this for the first time, and I'm deeply troubled by the edit-warring, regardless of what each editor's point of view was. I'd be interested to hear from anyone if there were any extenuating circumstances. --Tryptofish (talk) 00:28, 7 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Well, I can think of one extenuating circumstance in March 2020 that would explain why many editors went off the deep end a bit... already-short tempers were even shorter this past year. Levivich harass/hound 00:37, 7 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Thanks, but still, I'm inches away from doing a complete 180 in my view of this case. --Tryptofish (talk) 00:39, 7 March 2021 (UTC)
 * I'm going to say this now, and then take another day to think about it and see other editors' comments before posting my evidence and workshop proposals. As far as I can see, this evidence is really the central issue of this case, and it's very damning. I think one could ignore everything in this case, from the opening request until just before isaacl posted his evidence, and not miss very much. The rest is just arguing over side matters, and aside from maybe showing some patterns of behavior, is largely a waste of time. (Talk about burying the lead!) I want ArbCom to get the right result here, but I also want them to get it for the right reasons. --Tryptofish (talk) 20:41, 7 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Note Joe Roe was the one to introduce the incidents noticeboard discussion into evidence. In order to analyze it in proper context, I provided technical background for the disputed comment. I disagree that only one incident of this sort should be considered central, particularly one occurring in March 2020. Understanding if there is any pattern of behaviour is vital. isaacl (talk) 22:28, 7 March 2021 (UTC)
 * I'm quite shocked to see two highly experienced and productive editors behaving like children in that thread and the dispute it concerns. Both should have been blocked at time, which would have been well within the bounds of administrator discretion and would not have required arbitration. Nonetheless, I'm not sure what there is to be gained from relitigating it a year (almost to the day) later. <b style="color: teal; font-family: Tahoma">HJ Mitchell</b> &#124; <span style="color: navy; font-family: Times New Roman" title="(Talk page)">Penny for your thoughts? 22:51, 7 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Once wbm1058 raised this discussion in analysis, I wanted to provide context regarding the dispute and further analysis of the incidents noticeboard discussion. I do know how hard it is to de-escalate a disagreement, particularly when intemperate words have been used (including some words set in big and bold  typeface, which is just like yelling at the top of your lungs using a megaphone) . My focus is on guidance for what would have been desired behaviour, for both parties. isaacl (talk) 23:10, 7 March 2021 (UTC)
 * I want to say to isaacl that I don't want you to feel bad about how I have responded to your evidence. I know that you presented it entirely in good faith, and whatever any one of us might think about it, it has been a very helpful contribution to the discussion. But, like HJ Mitchell, I am shocked by it. I, too, am concerned about dealing with it a full year after it happened. I'm weighing how to consider one really bad thing, a year old, along with recent stuff that is, comparatively speaking, more like suboptimal, but which can very possibly be regarded as an ongoing pattern. --Tryptofish (talk) 23:29, 7 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Bishonen, I sought to capture the technical effects of the edits in the evidence section, as I feel that many in the incidents noticeboard thread did not examine them. I discussed the reasons for the disagreements in the analysis section. isaacl (talk) 15:09, 8 March 2021 (UTC)

Analysis by ProcrastinatingReader
I don't really have the inclination to address all the issues with some of the evidence on the template issue, given the scope of this case, but I will analyse some parts to paint a sufficient picture which arbs can hopefully extrapolate from as necessary. If clerks aren't going to clerk those comments I feel mildly compelled to analyse their veracity.

An analysis of Johnuniq's evidence:
 * On RexxS's confusion between COI & INVOLVED, this is indeed supported by Joe Roe's diffs, and even noted by a current sitting arbitrator. See, for example, this series of diffs: That the evidence on this page shows several WP:INVOLVED violations further reinforces the suspicion that RexxS does not quite understand INVOLVED.
 * I'm glad Johnuniq agrees that AN is the venue for GS clarifications (which it is), because RexxS views going to AN as "forum shopping".
 * Some of Johnuniq's reasoning seems to have logical gaps. As in, one statement does not logically lead to the next. For example: the purpose of DS/GS[] is to provide wide discretion for avoiding disruption in contentious topics => Template:COVID19 GS editnotice should[] be used [even if] a page restriction was [not] specified (such as 1RR). Q.E.D.?
 * Incidentally, Johnuniq states there is a "modification" of the original general sanctions authorisation going on here. This is not the case. Indeed, the original discussion did not mention creating this system of editnotices (indeed, atypically just for COVID). The admin who opened the GS discussion agrees that this was not their intention in their proposal.
 * I didn't think the alignment to the Ds standard would be controversial or much more than routine housekeeping. As such, I decided to take up just one sentence of the TfD on this aspect, writing: Covid is a mix of -> Gs/editnotice and this. If one clicks on "this" they are met with a past TfD with a explanation several paragraphs long of this specific point. (but emphasis again on the fact that it was mentioned)
 * I agree with Johnuniq that further discussion is now required at AN. In fact, I believed this from my very initial discussion with RexxS (which is why I calmly suggested referring the matter to AN from the beginning). RexxS could've simply said "okay, let's do that" (or "hmm, let's go to DRV instead", or "let's start a new TfD?") and we probably wouldn't be here. We're unfortunately here because RexxS chose to instead respond to my request to go to AN with intimidation, threats of tool misuse, and aspersions alleging deceptive intentions. We're unfortunately here because RexxS has a pattern of behaving in exactly this manner with other editors, too.

wbm1058's analysis appears mostly correct on this issue. However, it has to be noted that the AN discussion was closed by a non-admin whose close, and its neutrality/supervote-i-ness, was questioned by multiple uninvolved editors, and the close was endorsed by zero uninvolved editors. The issue with such representations is that, well, none of my actions are "bold editing" or (except tagging the template with a TfD notice) even used my TPE permissions. If I could've done better (and with the benefit of hindsight I acknowledge this is possible) it's likely just that I should've been more clear in my initial proposal.

On Lourdes' analysis: the entire analysis is troubling and respectfully I hope Lourdes – as someone with access to admin tools – does not actually believe in some of their own points (which are concerning representations of policy). In addition to the comments by EEng above, there's several issues mentioned here by an editor + another admin, and that's still only scratching the surface.

On Bishonen's evidence: Personally I don't think the edit warring can be excused with passion & [a topic] he feels most strongly about and has spent most time on. Everyone who edit wars is passionate about the content they want to include. I'm passionate about the mess of GS templates: if I edit-warred my preferred version I'm sure I'd (rightly) be blocked and look worse in this dispute.

On analysis of Joe Roe's "meatpuppet" blocks: If a content dispute is valid enough to be subject to an ongoing RfC then it's also not "blatant vandalism" for the purposes of a WP:INVOLVED exemption, never mind the much higher WP:BLOCKNO standard: Administrators must not block users with whom they are engaged in a content dispute; instead, they should report the problem to other administrators. (emphasis mine).
 * Comment by Arbitrators:


 * Comment by parties:


 * Comment by others:
 * "In general, editors should not act as administrators in disputes in which they have been involved. This is because involved administrators may have, or may be seen as having, a conflict of interest in disputes", quoted from WP:INVOLVED. RexxS had no confusion. The sitting arbitrator you refer to was wrong in his interpretation (arbitrators are editors, like you and I, and can make mistakes). No comments on the rest of your analysis as I find it quite weak and don't think it makes any difference to rebut it. Lourdes  15:44, 9 March 2021 (UTC)

Ayurveda article context re Joe Roe's allegation of out-of-policy blocks: Littleolive oil
India is presently in the midst of a struggle between allopathic medicine and the traditional health care modality. Ayurveda article was overrun with new SPacCounts. probably recruited by Opindia.

Problems at Ayurveda brought to AN/I, August 2020. 

Selected edited comments indicating the extent of the problems.

•I am pretty sure that they are all meatpuppets or sockpuppets.... --Guy Macon (talk) 14:24, 26 August 2020 (UTC)

•We've simply been reverting and in some cases blocking over the last few days. Black Kite (talk) 15:20, 26 August 2020 (UTC)

•...but OpIndia's twitter feed continues to attack Wikipedia--Guy Macon (talk) 12:51, 31 August 2020 (UTC)

| Rexx asked for clarification as a way to address the problem.

Problems are ongoing in September 2020 where Guy Macon reposted a comment by JZG. | "The main problem is an endless succession of new single-purpose accounts following a thread on Twitter.”

Rexx eventually blocked multiple accounts. He later told Brad, | If you feel that any of them actually were here to build an encyclopedia, please feel free to unblock them." Joe Roe's asserts that, "Although RexxS correctly agreed that these challenged blocks could be reversed,[126] six months later, only one account has been unblocked.[127]" mischaracterizes. Only two of 17 accounts actually asked to be unblocked.

Grossly understating the situation: "is that someone posted somewhere "Wikipedia is calling Ayurveda pseudoscience", and that prompted a bunch of people who believe in Ayurveda to come and defend it." and " but we don't have a policy to block people for expressing opinions that are contrary to consensus." Multiple editors/admins like Black Kite, JZG, Vanamonde over a months-long period were involved with a non-ending flow of editors who were creating a barrage of demands without sourcing and with almost no explanation.

Rexx made the blocks after looking for help at AN when he tried to have pseudoscience clarified. This was deliberate disruption on the part of many SPA editors with a single intention. It's somewhat insulting to those of us who worked in that environment to dismiss the problems on Ayurveda and the attack on the admin trying to avert the decay of a Wikipedia article is unfair. Littleolive oil (talk) 22:35, 13 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Comment by Arbitrators:


 * Comment by parties:


 * Comment by others:
 * There is no evidence that any of these accounts were sockpuppets; Guy Macon suspecting that they are does not make it so. We have a process for handling suspected sockpuppets, which is to request an investigation by a checkuser at WP:SPI, not block them on sight. Nor do we block single-purpose accounts on sight, and it's a truism that any account with one edit is "single-purpose". There is no policy forbidding new editors learning about Wikipedia discussions via Twitter. In any case, none of this changes the fact that RexxS is deeply involved in Ayurveda-related content disputes and should not be handing out blocks in that area under any circumstances.
 * The context of Bradv's request has been discussed at length elsewhere on this page and its talk page. I acknowledge that there's ambiguity on whether it came "on behalf of the committee". It wasn't explicitly declared as such, so there's no fault on RexxS' part if he didn't connect the dots. However I object to the claim that this is a mischaracterisation on my part. I was on the committee in 2020—that's the sole reason I have any knowledge of this case—and my interpretation of the sequence of events is just as valid as any arb who was on the committee then or has access to our discussions now. But again, this is completely irrelevant: administrators are expected to respond promptly and civilly to queries about their admin actions from anyone – arb, admin, editor, even, gasp, an "SPA". I believe my evidence shows that RexxS' response to Bradv's query was unsatisfactory. –&#8239;Joe (talk) 13:46, 9 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Well, I want to add because your point makes me think of the communal norms about this stuff: we can consider the 2020 cases of the Death of Sushant Singh Rajput dispute, and also the Joe Biden presidential election certification dispute. Both of these attracted significant offwiki attention, edit requests, etc. Best I know, none of these cases resulted in WP:NOTHERE blocks, at least not based on the first edit, and afaik not even for the persistent arguing. Those pages were heavily watchlisted by admins and also reached AN/ANI several times. I think that's sufficient to evidence that the Ayurveda NOTHERE blocks were outside communal norms. If WP:BLOCKNO wasn't violated I think it's safe to say no other admin would've actually pressed the block button on them. I am suspicious of the claim that editor agreement on the talk page of the blocking administrator constitutes even a semblance of valid 'consensus' (for obvious reasons). ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 14:19, 9 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Joe, your comment that "There is no evidence that any of these accounts were sockpuppets" – you obviously saw all these accounts being created on the same day or around the same day, all these accounts leaving talk page comments asking the removal of the same words (quackery, pseudoscience), all these accounts on the same talk page. Are you disregarding all this evidence and claiming "there is no evidence"? I find it odd because you almost always have a very logical analysis. Requests for arbitration/Regarding Ted Kennedy is now a part of sock policy, fyi, and mentions "when there is uncertainty whether a party is one user with sockpuppets or several users with similar editing habits they may be treated as one user with sockpuppets.". I believe your stand of "no evidence" flies against the evidence.
 * You state that "We have a process for handling suspected sockpuppets, which is to request an investigation by a checkuser at WP:SPI, not block them on sight." What are you saying?! WP:SPI reports and subsequent blocks are predominantly based on behavioural evidence. Have you not seen SPI reports that have clear sections where you may or you may decide not to request for CU? CUs are not pixie dust, and any one who frequents WP:SPI knows it. So your statement that "CU at SPI" is the process, is not absolutely correct. Suspected socks can be blocked on sight.
 * Having said that, while you keep mentioning about RexxS being WP:INVOLVED, it is important to re-visit WP:IAR: "If a rule prevents you from improving or maintaining Wikipedia, ignore it.". RexxS had to ensure that talk page consensus was not disrupted by these socks, and had to block these accounts. The final aim is to protect Wikipedia – and not to take to task editors who are fighting for protecting it. Lourdes  15:13, 9 March 2021 (UTC)
 * In context, the obvious explanation for all those accounts, which I don't think anyone is actually disputing, is that someone posted somewhere "Wikipedia is calling Ayurveda pseudoscience", and that prompted a bunch of people who believe in Ayurveda to come and defend it. I get that many people see this as in itself a threat to the encyclopaedia—not without good reason—but we don't have a policy to block people for expressing opinions that are contrary to consensus, MEDRS, or that we find personally illogical. At the most, their comments should have been tagged with SPA, but it would have been abundantly obvious to the closer of that RfC what was happening so that, and by extension the blocks and removal of their comments, would serve no real purpose. Our consensus process can generally be trusted to be robust to bad arguments without administrative intervention.
 * As ever, WP:IAR is the weakest possible argument to do something. I have no doubt that RexxS (and others) sincerely believes that he is defending the project from pseudoscience and disinformation. As I've said elsewhere, that's a laudable commitment. But it's not primarily an admin's job, and as I think the evidence here shows, the battleground mentality it fosters has led RexxS to use his tools to intimidate and drive away editors he sees as wrong-thinking. That's not protecting Wikipedia, it's diminishing it. –&#8239;Joe (talk) 16:08, 9 March 2021 (UTC)
 * They were meatpuppets, not sockpuppets. --Tryptofish (talk) 19:20, 9 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Hi Joe. To your statement: "Our consensus process can generally be trusted to be robust to bad arguments without administrative intervention." At AfDs, yes. At RfCs that are not inviting community wide discussions, clearly no. There is no surety that a closer can recognise such comments (how many times as a closer have you gone to each user account and checked when they were registered, how many contributions they have done?). Doesn't work. In your explanation, it's clear to me that you are also ignoring the Arbcom ruling at Requests for arbitration/Regarding Ted Kennedy which, I reiterate, is now a part of sock policy, and mentions "when there is uncertainty whether a party is one user with sockpuppets or several users with similar editing habits they may be treated as one user with sockpuppets." This is opposite to your suggestion of tagging them as SPAs. Finally, you mention that WP:IAR is the weakest argument and RexxS blocking these accounts diminished Wikipedia as it drove away editors!!!! Really??!!!! Sorry man. I think we are on two different planes. I am out of here. Lourdes  04:56, 10 March 2021 (UTC)

Covid edit notice discussion: Littleolive oil
Procrastinating Reader evidence lacks context:

ProcrastinatingReader in the COVID19 GS editnotice discussion,  implemented his  preference to a template,  without broader community input changing the way a sanctions template works and quite possibly with out alerting anyone  about the change and functionality. PR is not an admin and can’t use the template but Rexx is and had been fighting in the trenches at the multiple Covid related articles. In effect PT probably with out realizing, was making editing even harder for long tent editing. Rexx admits his behaviour wasn’t ideal in this discussion, and he “struck” an obvious incivility. The remedy for this was not to rush over to arbitration, the final frontier on Wikipedia, to truncate a discussion in exchange for a situation where desysop is a possibility. There are interim, good faith steps that should have been taken. PR never takes responsibility for his part in this. Littleolive oil (talk) 22:44, 13 March 2021 (UTC)


 * Comment by Arbitrators:


 * Comment by parties:


 * Comment by others:

Template
before using the last analysis template, please make a copy for the next person
 * Comment by Arbitrators:


 * Comment by parties:


 * Comment by others:

Barkeep49 Questions
Note: this was suggested as something useful so I'm hoping arbs, parties, and other editors will excuse me for just trying this boldly
 * 1) Is there evidence of him demonstrating the qualities asked for in WP:ADMINCOND?  There has been a fair amount of evidence, counter evidence, and analysis about some specific incidents where RexxS may or may not have fallen short of ADMINCOND. Obviously if we find that the alleged incidents aren't violations this isn't necessary. But if we do find some/all of these troubling, it would be useful, at least for me, to know the overall context of of this when deciding an appropriate remedy. I'm putting this as a question here but the answer to this, if there are any, would really belong in the appropriate editor's evidence section. Barkeep49 (talk) 17:46, 8 March 2021 (UTC)
 * I don't think that answers my question as it is his perspective in relation to this case. I'm trying to ascertain, if we find merit in any/all of the instances presented here, whether that is a representative sample or not. I am thinking about this. Barkeep49 (talk) 22:21, 9 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Seen just those diffs from the given timeframe (March to very start of May) is helpful context and no need for you or anyone else to go overboard in collecting them. Barkeep49 (talk) 23:51, 9 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Comment by parties:


 * Comment by others:
 * This touches on an elephant in the room: ordinarily we would expect RexxS himself to be here to offer some defence of his conduct. But four days away from the evidence deadline, he has yet to make an appearance. Unless the committee is aware of some extenuating circumstances, I'd argue that this in itself is a failure to meet WP:ADMINACCT. –&#8239;Joe (talk) 13:50, 9 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Which part of WP:ADMINACCT is RexxS not meeting? Is the process here to ask questions from RexxS – and therefore his absence is being considered failure to meet ADMINACCT? Or does he have to comment on the sections above giving his clarification for each evidence? Please don't go around pressing an impression with false premises. Lourdes  15:30, 9 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Rexx answered major questions in the Request section of this arbitration, and probably better than anyone else could. I'd suggest his comments given the clarity of his post in terms if his own actions are worth considering and looking at again. Littleolive oil (talk) 22:02, 9 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Barkeep49 Every comment here is a personal perspective, every comment here is based on an editor looking at the discussions and deciding to represent what they think they see. I can tell you that some of the perspectives I see here have nothing to do with my sense of what happened in those situations, and some of the perspectives mischaracterize, in my opinion. If the arbs want a clear picture they will have to research beyond what is posted. There are very few facts here, much is posted through the lens of the editor posting. Rexx posted what he saw and what he thought was right. He is an editor with integrity; I have no reason to believe anything else from the first days I encountered him and he was giving me "what for" for something he thought I was doing, to now. If you lose this editor well..... Littleolive oil (talk) 23:46, 9 March 2021 (UTC)
 * I would appreciate it very much if other editors would continue from what I started to do here. I cannot do it all myself. --Tryptofish (talk) 23:47, 9 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Thanks, Barkeep, I'm glad – that's me, fish overboard! { --Tryptofish (talk) 23:56, 9 March 2021 (UTC)