Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/RexxS/Proposed decision

Proposed motions
Arbitrators may place proposed motions affecting the case in this section for voting. Typical motions might be to close or dismiss a case without a full decision (a reason should normally be given). Suggestions by the parties or other non-arbitrators for motions or other requests should be placed on the /Workshop page for consideration and discussion.

''Motions require an absolute majority of all active, unrecused arbitrators (same as the final decision). See Arbitration Committee/Procedures.''

Template
1)

{text of proposed motion}


 * Support:


 * Oppose:


 * Abstain:


 * Comments:

Proposed temporary injunctions
A temporary injunction is a directive from the Arbitration Committee that parties to the case, or other editors notified of the injunction, do or refrain from doing something while the case is pending. It can also be used to impose temporary sanctions (such as discretionary sanctions) or restrictions on an article or topic. Suggestions by the parties or other non-arbitrators for motions or other requests should be placed on the /Workshop page for consideration and discussion.

Four net "support" votes needed to pass (each "oppose" vote subtracts a "support") 24 hours from the first vote is normally the fastest an injunction will be imposed, unless there are at least four votes to implement immediately. See Arbitration Committee/Procedures.

Template
1)

{text of proposed orders}


 * Support:


 * Oppose:


 * Abstain:


 * Comments:

=Proposed final decision=

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


 * Support:
 * Newyorkbrad (talk) 03:58, 22 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 09:05, 22 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Primefac (talk) 11:56, 22 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Barkeep49 (talk) 13:51, 22 March 2021 (UTC)
 * BDD (talk) 15:22, 22 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Beeblebrox (talk) 18:22, 22 March 2021 (UTC)
 * So Why  07:10, 23 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs talk 14:01, 23 March 2021 (UTC)
 *  Maxim (talk)  14:48, 23 March 2021 (UTC)
 * CaptainEek Edits Ho Cap'n!⚓ 00:44, 25 March 2021 (UTC)


 * Oppose:


 * Abstain:


 * Comments:

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


 * Support:
 * Newyorkbrad (talk) 03:58, 22 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 09:05, 22 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Primefac (talk) 11:56, 22 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Barkeep49 (talk) 13:51, 22 March 2021 (UTC)
 * BDD (talk) 15:22, 22 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Beeblebrox (talk) 18:22, 22 March 2021 (UTC)
 * So Why  07:10, 23 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs talk 14:01, 23 March 2021 (UTC)
 *  Maxim (talk)  14:48, 23 March 2021 (UTC)
 * CaptainEek Edits Ho Cap'n!⚓ 00:44, 25 March 2021 (UTC)


 * Oppose:


 * Abstain:


 * Comments:

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


 * Support:
 * Newyorkbrad (talk) 03:58, 22 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 09:05, 22 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Primefac (talk) 11:56, 22 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Barkeep49 (talk) 13:51, 22 March 2021 (UTC)
 * BDD (talk) 15:22, 22 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Beeblebrox (talk) 18:22, 22 March 2021 (UTC)
 * So Why  07:10, 23 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs talk 14:01, 23 March 2021 (UTC)
 *  Maxim (talk)  14:48, 23 March 2021 (UTC)
 * CaptainEek Edits Ho Cap'n!⚓ 00:44, 25 March 2021 (UTC)


 * Oppose:


 * Abstain:


 * Comments:
 * Including this as a principle does not automatically mean that the principle has been violated. Newyorkbrad (talk) 04:19, 22 March 2021 (UTC)

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


 * Support:
 * Newyorkbrad (talk) 03:58, 22 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 09:05, 22 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Primefac (talk) 11:56, 22 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Barkeep49 (talk) 13:51, 22 March 2021 (UTC)
 * BDD (talk) 15:22, 22 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Beeblebrox (talk) 18:22, 22 March 2021 (UTC)
 * So Why  07:10, 23 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs talk 14:01, 23 March 2021 (UTC)
 *  Maxim (talk)  14:48, 23 March 2021 (UTC)
 * CaptainEek Edits Ho Cap'n!⚓ 00:44, 25 March 2021 (UTC)


 * Oppose:


 * Abstain:


 * Comments:
 * Same comment as on #3, especially for a principle like this one with multiple parts. Newyorkbrad (talk) 04:19, 22 March 2021 (UTC)

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


 * Support:
 * Newyorkbrad (talk) 03:58, 22 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 09:06, 22 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Primefac (talk) 11:56, 22 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Barkeep49 (talk) 13:51, 22 March 2021 (UTC)
 * BDD (talk) 15:22, 22 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Beeblebrox (talk) 18:22, 22 March 2021 (UTC)
 * So Why  07:10, 23 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs talk 14:01, 23 March 2021 (UTC)
 *  Maxim (talk)  14:48, 23 March 2021 (UTC)
 * CaptainEek Edits Ho Cap'n!⚓ 00:44, 25 March 2021 (UTC)


 * Oppose:


 * Abstain:


 * Comments:
 * We might want to tweak the last sentence: I don't think we would ever be tasked with deciding whether the 'crats closed an RfA correctly or not, though we might have to evaluate allegations of misconduct that relate to an RfA in some other way. Newyorkbrad (talk) 03:58, 22 March 2021 (UTC)
 * The last sentence is not about "correctly" but about misconduct by the closing crats. I do think that ArbCom has the right to step in if there is evidence that the closing crat(s) violated the rules and this might indirectly also affect the close. For (an unlikely) example, if a contentious RfA is closed as promote by a single crat and there is later evidence that someone paid the crat to close it that way, would we not have the authority to reverse the close and sanction the crat in question? Regards So  Why  07:31, 22 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Could always tack on "... by the closer(s)" to the end of the last sentence to make it more clear who the misconduct refers to. Primefac (talk) 11:56, 22 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Should it instead be "to relitigate the RfA process..."? I think SoWhy is right that there are (extreme) circumstances where we'd have a charge to do something but there would need to be evidence of misconduct, rather than simply incorrect judgement, for us to do so which is a high(ish) bar. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 13:51, 22 March 2021 (UTC)
 * As long as the principle is read in light of this discussion, I think we are okay. Newyorkbrad (talk) 21:21, 24 March 2021 (UTC)

Administrator involvement
6) With few exceptions, editors are expected to not act as administrators in disputes in which they have been involved. Involvement is generally construed very broadly by the community, to include current or past conflicts with an editor (or editors), and disputes on topics, regardless of the nature, age, or outcome of the dispute. Involvement does not require that the administrator also has a conflict of interest.


 * Support:
 * Newyorkbrad (talk) 03:58, 22 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 09:05, 22 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Primefac (talk) 11:56, 22 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Barkeep49 (talk) 13:56, 22 March 2021 (UTC)
 * BDD (talk) 15:22, 22 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Beeblebrox (talk) 18:22, 22 March 2021 (UTC)
 * So Why  07:10, 23 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs talk 14:01, 23 March 2021 (UTC)
 *  Maxim (talk)  14:48, 23 March 2021 (UTC)
 * CaptainEek Edits Ho Cap'n!⚓ 00:44, 25 March 2021 (UTC)


 * Oppose:


 * Abstain:


 * Comments:
 * I'll support this because the wording is drawn directly from the policy page, but I'll point out that the second sentence could use reevaluation. The first sentence correctly states that administrators must not act in disputes where they are involved, but the second sentence is much broader and suggests that an admin will remain forever "involved" with an editor or in a topic-area if he or she was a party to a different, and perhaps only tangentially related, dispute years ago. Read literally, although I don't think it would be, it could mean that an administrator must not take admin action with respect to an editor if he or she has ever been in a serious disagreement with that editor about any matter, ever. Fortunately, in practice the community and we have usually been able to draw sensible lines. Newyorkbrad (talk) 03:58, 22 March 2021 (UTC)
 * , if you have a different wording I'm open to it. In our decisions around involvement we're having some influence on what is policy and we could enter a phase where we become an echo chamber between us and the policy leading to absurd outcomes. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 13:56, 22 March 2021 (UTC)
 * With the case hopefully nearing a conclusion, it's probably not worth debating a changed wording, with the attendant risk that we might be accused of trying to rewrite community-adopted policy. For now, I'm content with simply observing that the scope of the principle and the policy always need to be interpreted reasonably. Newyorkbrad (talk) 21:24, 24 March 2021 (UTC)
 * In general, administrators, who have been involved in a topic area in a purely administrative role, are not disqualified under WP:INVOLVED. Is it relevant to note this distinction in this principle as to avoid any possible ambiguity?  Maxim (talk)  15:06, 23 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Again, as long as it's understood that this principle reflects part of the policy but doesn't purport to summarize the entire page, hopefully we should be okay. Newyorkbrad (talk) 21:24, 24 March 2021 (UTC)

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


 * Support:
 * The point here, as I see it, is not that any of these should frequently be necessary. It is that noticeboard threads about administrators' behavior should not be reflexively closed on the theory that "this noticeboard can't desysop, so there's no point in discussing this." Newyorkbrad (talk) 03:58, 22 March 2021 (UTC)
 * fair point. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 09:11, 22 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Primefac (talk) 11:56, 22 March 2021 (UTC)
 * I think our community pretty capable of handling a wide range of problems and this includes low level issues involving an administrator. I think the BHG/Rexx thread that is in evidence in this case is an example where, despite the "simple" close, it shows the community being able to handle, effectively, some administrator related concerns; I say this because, to my knowledge, BHG and Rexx have not had subsequent issues and I didn't hear about the incicting incident behind that thread again. Barkeep49 (talk) 13:56, 22 March 2021 (UTC)
 * BDD (talk) 15:22, 22 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Beeblebrox (talk) 18:22, 22 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Despite some comments on the talk page, not every problem with an administrator's conduct needs a desysop and there are plenty of examples of admins being sanctioned for violating policies without the need for an ArbCom case. This Case proves that the Committee does not shy away from taking up requests for Arbitration where needed but that does not mean we have to if there are other equally viable options. Regards  So  Why  07:10, 23 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs talk 14:01, 23 March 2021 (UTC)
 *  Maxim (talk)  14:48, 23 March 2021 (UTC)


 * Oppose:


 * Abstain:


 * Comments:

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


 * Support:
 * Newyorkbrad (talk) 04:13, 22 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 09:13, 22 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Primefac (talk) 12:09, 22 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Barkeep49 (talk) 15:12, 22 March 2021 (UTC)
 * BDD (talk) 15:24, 22 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Beeblebrox (talk) 18:22, 22 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs talk 14:04, 23 March 2021 (UTC)
 *  Maxim (talk)  14:49, 23 March 2021 (UTC)
 * So Why  13:28, 24 March 2021 (UTC)
 * CaptainEek Edits Ho Cap'n!⚓ 00:50, 25 March 2021 (UTC)


 * Oppose:


 * Abstain:


 * Comments:

RexxS did not participate after the Case was opened
2) RexxS has not participated during the Case after it was opened. He did provide a statement during the request phase and answered questions by the Committee.


 * Support:
 * Newyorkbrad (talk) 04:13, 22 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 09:13, 22 March 2021 (UTC) Moved to abstain. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 00:04, 24 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Primefac (talk) 12:09, 22 March 2021 (UTC) Moved to oppose. 13:24, 23 March 2021 (UTC)
 * BDD (talk) 15:24, 22 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Not only is it factually correct, it is imho important for two reasons: 1) It serves as an explanation for later readers why mitigating evidence that RexxS could have provided was not considered and 2) it is relevant because, as Joe Roe points out on the talk page, participating in cases is something WP:ADMINACCT expects from admins. Regards So  Why  13:28, 24 March 2021 (UTC)


 * Oppose:
 * I don't care for this as it does not lead into any of the proposed remedies, but it does imply that not actively participating in a case is something we will sanction over. It's factual on it's face but it does not add anything of value to the case. Beeblebrox (talk) 18:32, 22 March 2021 (UTC)
 * The comment above, combined with this post, has made me realize that while it is a true statement, such a fact can easily be seen by looking at the case pages themselves, and with no actual remedy regarding this FoF it does seem rather pointless to make. Primefac (talk) 13:24, 23 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Disappearing instead of defending your conduct (especially when pulled with the "I'm retiring" move that gets seen a lot) does not make me inclined to view their behavior in a better light. But we ultimately can't subpoena anyone, and I don't think it's really relevant. It's a statement of fact that doesn't tie into the remedies. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs  talk 14:04, 23 March 2021 (UTC)
 * It's factually true but I don't think it's relevant to the rest of the decision. Whether or not a user or administrator should be participating in the case is a question that perhaps not well-suited to be answered in an arbitration case focused on one individual. Arguably, given the statements made during request phase, I'm not quite sure what else RexxS could have contributed to the case.  Maxim (talk)  14:51, 23 March 2021 (UTC)
 * True? Okay. Relevant to the case? No. I don't think we should be penalizing people for not engaging. Arbitration is a very stressful period and its fair if folks wish to withdraw. Now, this isn't always the case, but Rexx made an effort to reply during the request phase, so I can't hardly hold this against him. That he didn't engage didn't factor into my decision making. CaptainEek  Edits Ho Cap'n!⚓ 00:50, 25 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Abstain:
 * Per my comments below. Barkeep49 (talk) 18:48, 23 March 2021 (UTC)
 * While true, it has no bearing on how I reviewed the evidence. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 00:04, 24 March 2021 (UTC)


 * Comments:
 * Although this is a true statement, I do not perceive it as grounds for any remedy. As noted, in addition to making a statement, RexxS did respond to the questions I asked in the hopes that a case might not prove necessary. Perhaps he simply felt he had nothing more to add. More broadly, I note that RexxS has not merely been absent from the case pages, but has not edited at all since the case was opened. Assuming that this absence is voluntary, I find it saddening that an experienced Wikipedian would consider our arbitration process so monstrous that he'd prefer to leave the project altogether for weeks or longer rather than participate in it. (Compare my comments at the acceptance stage.) Newyorkbrad (talk) 04:23, 22 March 2021 (UTC)
 * I agree with the above, though I would liken it perhaps to RfA and reference some comments on this PD's talk, in that it is a stressful situation, and if there's nothing more to add from someone that it might make sense to just step back, not get overly worked up, and come back when the dust has cleared. Primefac (talk) 12:09, 22 March 2021 (UTC)
 * I think ArbCom functions better if the default is that people participate. We will make better decisions. If it becomes accepted that "ArbCom is awful" so people don't feel any need to participate I think that's a bad outcome for the community. One because it will allow "ArbCom is an awful place" to become conventional wisdom, which as our recent reforms hopefully make clear is not the status quo we want, and two because we will make worse decisions and that harms the editor in question and the community. However, while I want participation to be the norm, any given individual is a volunteer and so it is defensible and reasonable that any given individual choose not to participate. Does noting that participation as an FoF thread that needle? Maybe. I will need to think more about it. Barkeep49 (talk) 15:12, 22 March 2021 (UTC)
 * I don't necessarily disagree with any of that (and agree that participation makes a just outcome more likely), just trying to hypothesize/rationalize why someone might choose to not participate. As far as the FoF goes, while it's a factual statement I can see how it could be used in the future as "since he didn't participate, XYZ happened and he could have stopped it". Primefac (talk) 15:35, 22 March 2021 (UTC)


 * As Kevin points out, this should not be construed as encouraging non-participation. Subjects of a case should not participate at their own risk. Failure to participate is likely to lead to a worse outcome, not a better one. This case happens to be an exception to that rule. Or is it? I said it didn't factor into my conscious decision making, but maybe had Rexx participated we would see a different outcome. CaptainEek  Edits Ho Cap'n!⚓ 01:35, 25 March 2021 (UTC)

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


 * Support:
 * Newyorkbrad (talk) 04:13, 22 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 09:19, 22 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Excellent point by NYB below, that WP:INVOLVED uses the phrase conflict of interest in a way that is in the dictionary but at odds with the way it's used at the link. However, I think the fuller context of INVOLVED makes clear how the phrase is being used and I think it reasonable for an administrator to understand this distinction/nuance. Barkeep49 (talk) 15:18, 22 March 2021 (UTC)
 * BDD (talk) 15:24, 22 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Beeblebrox (talk) 18:38, 22 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs talk 14:04, 23 March 2021 (UTC)
 * The first sentence is a good "in-a-nutshell" summary of where the line is drawn in terms of what constitutes a WP:INVOLVED admin.  Maxim (talk)  14:56, 23 March 2021 (UTC)
 * So Why  13:28, 24 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Agreed with the above. Primefac (talk) 16:53, 24 March 2021 (UTC) Re: recusal, 2/3 of the statements and 6/7 diffs are unrelated to PR, and thus even abstaining from comment on diff 7 there is enough here to make an informed and rational decision.
 * CaptainEek Edits Ho Cap'n!⚓ 00:50, 25 March 2021 (UTC)


 * Oppose:


 * Abstain:


 * Comments:
 * The confusion over equating COI with INVOLVEment might stem from WP:INVOLVED itself, which states, 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 to which they have been a party or about which they have strong feelings. But the type of COI referenced there is one created by the admin's having a "rooting interest" in the outcome of a dispute they are embroiled in; there is no requirement of a COI beyond that. Newyorkbrad (talk) 04:13, 22 March 2021 (UTC)
 * But we expect administrators to know not just how to look up policies and quote them, but to understand how they are used in practice. INVOLVED has been around a very long time and I think it's generally well understood by the community. Beeblebrox (talk) 18:38, 22 March 2021 (UTC)

RexxS has edit-warred
4) Rexx has on two occasions edit-warred to restore his preferred versions.


 * Support:
 * Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 09:21, 22 March 2021 (UTC)
 * BDD (talk) 15:24, 22 March 2021 (UTC)
 * While other examples were not presented in this case, this is not the first arbitration case where these problems were brought up. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs  talk 14:04, 23 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Per David and the talk page. Barkeep49 (talk) 15:10, 23 March 2021 (UTC)
 * I appreciate the updated language and can now support this. While it doesn't seem to be a common problem for Rexxs, admins should never edit war and Iwould expect every single admin to be very aware of that. There's no excuse for it even if it did only happen twice. Beeblebrox (talk) 21:13, 23 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Not typical? Maybe. But still factually correct and something that needs to be recorded because no matter how often it happens, edit-warring by admins should not happen at all. Regards So  Why  13:28, 24 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Common? No. Problematic? Yes. Primefac (talk) 20:43, 24 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Twice is accurate, and admins, more than anyone, should know not to edit war. They should be very familiar with the methods of dispute resolution we use, and have the patience to let them work. CaptainEek  Edits Ho Cap'n!⚓ 00:54, 25 March 2021 (UTC)


 * Oppose:
 * I think Rexx is an assertive editor. He's assertive in a variety of contexts and there are pluses and minuses to that style but it is a style which is, on the whole, allowed under policies and guidelines. However, I agree with NYB below that going from actual assertive editing to edit warring appears rare and I do not think this evidence strong enough to merit an FoF. Barkeep49 (talk) 15:30, 22 March 2021 (UTC)
 * True but I don't think that the behaviour rises to a finding given there's no claims of a sustained pattern of edit-warring.  Maxim (talk)  15:02, 23 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Abstain:
 * I perceive these as isolated, widely separated instances and not typical of RexxS's editing. Newyorkbrad (talk) 04:13, 22 March 2021 (UTC)


 * Comments:
 * While "two" is technically multiple times, I feel like we should just say "twice" as that is more accurate. Beeblebrox (talk) 18:40, 22 March 2021 (UTC)
 * How about "twice edit-warred multiple times" then, as that is even more accurate. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 02:39, 23 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Updated language. Primefac (talk) 10:29, 23 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Ummm...and then there is Colin's note on the talk page. So is three times. or do we write "at least" two times...or leave it with some sort of qualifier ("in the evidence presented here")? Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 00:02, 24 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Yeah, I'd rather just say "has edit-warred" then try to be so exact. Maybe "several" gave a misleading impression of frequency, but just saying "twice" does that much more. Do we need an alt instead? --BDD (talk) 15:08, 24 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Agreed copyedits are fine. I don't think voting on an alternate proposal is needed. Newyorkbrad (talk) 21:25, 24 March 2021 (UTC)

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


 * Support:
 * Overall, RexxS's contributions have been friendly and helpful far more often than ill-tempered, but when (as I hope) he returns, he might do well to keep a bit more of an even keel. Sometimes that might mean stepping away from the keyboard temporarily during moments of stress. Newyorkbrad (talk) 04:13, 22 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 09:22, 22 March 2021 (UTC)
 * BDD (talk) 15:24, 22 March 2021 (UTC)
 * As I've stated previously, I think Rexxs is a great Wikipedian with a lot to offer this project, and I do hope he returns to editing, but his temper sometimes gets the better of him in a manner we don't like to see from an administrator. Beeblebrox (talk) 18:42, 22 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs talk 14:04, 23 March 2021 (UTC)
 *  Maxim (talk)  15:08, 23 March 2021 (UTC)
 * So Why  13:28, 24 March 2021 (UTC)
 * While I agree with the sentiments expressed in the comments below, and recognize that everyone does get frustrated/angry/fed up/etc at times and says things they shouldn't, my concern is more the doubling-down when shown to be out of line with policy. Primefac (talk) 16:58, 24 March 2021 (UTC)
 * We all get annoyed at times. And I think we've all said things we regret. But Rexx has shown difficulty cooling down during a heated discussion. Part of an admin's job is to pull the shouting kids on the playground apart, not be one of the shouting kids. CaptainEek  Edits Ho Cap'n!⚓ 00:50, 25 March 2021 (UTC)


 * Oppose:


 * Abstain:


 * Comments:
 * I think what's written at the moment is true. However, it's an incomplete picture. While at times Rexxx has displayed unnecessary hostility, at other times Rexx has helped to cool discussions (evidence: 1 2), reassure concerned editors, or otherwise provide help (evidence). This is, for me, just as much Rexx's conduct in discussions as the diffs noted in the finding at the moment. Barkeep49 (talk) 15:50, 22 March 2021 (UTC)
 * I wouldn't dispute that, but it doesn't negate the times he acted poorly, which is generally what arbcom in interested in. Beeblebrox (talk) 18:43, 22 March 2021 (UTC)
 * As I write, at considerable length, in my oppose to desysop in cases that aren't about violating bright lines, and for me this is such a case, I am interested in the broader record even if the committee as a whole is not. I have made mistakes as an editor, administrator, and arbitrator and I think the same is true for you and every other editor. The bigger context provides data for what the right remedy is going to be since an administrator who nearly always or never upholds ADMINACCT is different from one that sometimes or rarely fails to uphold it. Barkeep49 (talk) 18:52, 22 March 2021 (UTC)
 * The flip side of this is the idea of wikipedia as an egalitarian level playing field - is it worse for overall morale in the editing community if they see examples of admins either using tools, threatening to use tools or speak in a coercive/overbearing tone, with people they are in dispute with that go undealt with? Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 02:19, 23 March 2021 (UTC)
 * I don't think it helps morale, on the whole, by telling among our most dedicated and accomplished editors and suggesting that they have to be perfect to be an administrator. But this sentiment is clearly one I'm sympathetic to - it's why I supported the current community desysop proposal and also is why I support 5.2. We, the community, need more tools in our toolbox to deal with admin, that is editors who are valuable volunteers who we should want to keep around doing good work, than just the hammer that ArbCom has to offer. Barkeep49 (talk) 02:24, 23 March 2021 (UTC)
 * No-one is saying an admin needs to be perfect - question is how far from ideal is where each of our "bright lines" actually are. I don't see how the presence of lack of a community desysop process makes a difference in this case - in fact, I can imagine nuanced discussion at one for sanctions lesser than a desysop being less organised and much more drama-laden than anything we come up with here, and I disagree that we only have a hammer (as evidenced by options below) Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 13:59, 23 March 2021 (UTC)
 * RexxS has demonstrably led to editors retiring. I don't think there's a better example that comes to mind of where treating an administrator with a light touch means you're just foisting the negative externalities on everyone they interact with. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs  talk 14:04, 23 March 2021 (UTC)

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

RexxS desysopped
1) administrative privileges are revoked. He may apply to have them reinstated at any time via a new request for adminship.


 * Support:
 * Case participants successfully argued that RexxS's use of administrative tools have fallen well short of expectations, and that he has lacked the accountability, courtesy, and humility we should all expect from administrators. He has also made many positive contributions, and I genuinely hope he will do so in the future. I believe he can do so without the tools. --BDD (talk) 15:49, 22 March 2021 (UTC)
 * RexxS has many positive contributions; I'm not seeing any reason those require administrator tools. His conduct has clearly fell short of standards we expect. "Everyone makes mistakes" seems like a pretty blasé dismissal of his actions considering that they have led to editors leaving the project, they have been ongoing, and RexxS has assumed bad faith of most everyone he disagrees with. Most critically for me, the examples provided in evidence of "RexxS responds positively to people, too!" were nothing I could fathom ever responding to negatively in the first place; we expect admins to deal well with occasional antagonism or disagreement, not to immediately stoop to that level. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs  talk 14:11, 23 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Despite the positive contributions, there is a pattern of problematic behaviour. Threatening use of tools either directly or indirectly when on one side of a dispute is antithetical to the level playing field of wikipedia. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 19:46, 23 March 2021 (UTC)
 * I didn't want to find myself here, yet here I am. I simply don't find it acceptable that a user with this much experience either doesn't know how the involved admin policy works in practice, or is pretending to misunderstand it. It doesn't matter really which it is, all admins should be keenly aware of this as it is one of the most important things we expect of admins. Combined with the attitude issues it's a deal breaker. If this were a "regular" user I wouldn't consider the edit warring a contributing factor as they were two isolated incidents, but that is also something I never, ever want to see from an administrator, not even once. Beeblebrox (talk) 21:12, 23 March 2021 (UTC)
 * What Beeblebrox said. Regards So  Why  13:41, 24 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Like Beeblebrox, I do not want to find myself supporting this motion, but here we are. To me it comes down to pledges made and not kept, and problematic conduct. Civility was an issue at his RfA (during which he said (A3) ...I would be obliged to more passive in my responses if acting in any admin capacity), and in the case request (quoted below) said much the same thing. In the intervening two years there have been edit wars, incivility, and misunderstandings about our core policies. Any one of these can (and do) happen to the best of us, but after reading through thousands of bytes of text on all of these pages I feel like if this motion does not pass in this case, it will happen in a year or two down the line. If RexxS really does feel like he should have the tools, he needs to make the changes he has said he would and file a request at RfA to showcase those changes. If that happens, I genuinely think that (to quote myself) RexxS would essentially be a shoo-in for the post. Primefac (talk) 00:00, 25 March 2021 (UTC)


 * Oppose:
 * I'm going to allow some more time to evaluate input from other arbitrators (here) and the community (on the talkpage), but I know I will not be supporting this. Newyorkbrad (talk) 04:14, 22 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Based on what had been presented during the case request, I came into the case thinking that there wasn't enough evidence to support a desysop, but there was enough to justify a deeper look to see if there was more. From what had been presented I also thought ArbCom would need to make a clear statement (through a Finding of Fact and/or remedy) to Rexx that his conduct was not not found correct after some of the incidents listed (Alamaty, AManWithNoPlan) and to the community-at-large about how ArbCom views INVOLVED (in the hopes of heading off future cases and concerns such that potential problems could be solved during the admin talk page level rather than the community level or the ArbCom level). During the course of this case there has not be sufficient new evidence presented, with only one new incident put into evidence and while that incident has raised real concerns for me, for reasons I'll write about in a different comment later on, it was not enough for me to tip the overall balance into supporting a desysop. One of the reasons I wanted ArbCom to make a statement about INVOLVED to the community at large is because I think there has been some (good faith) disagreement about what that means. It is, I think, a minority view or at least a view not really supported by policy and practice. However, it is not some fringe view held by Rexx such that it would disqualify him from being an administrator but rather a position supported by multiple respected members of the community at times . The faults I can find with Rexx in this case are not the kind that would, on their own, merit desysop and where the broader context is irrelevant. The closest to such an action would be the  December 2020 block] but I don't quite get there, though a second such example might have been enough for me to feel differently. And when I look at that that fuller context I see an editor who has, on the whole, acted in accordance with expectations for Administrators and has a mixed record, with some concerns but also quite a few positives, when it comes to dispute resolution (per my comments in the conduct FoF). I have enough evidence to support the idea that the mistakes that have been made around INVOLVED won't happen again and thus Rexx remains fit to retain the administrative toolset. Barkeep49 (talk) 16:54, 22 March 2021 (UTC)
 * While there has been some suboptimal conduct on RexxS's part, I don't feel that it rises to the level where we must desysop. A case like this one is ample warning by itself. The major issues at play—involved blocks and suboptimal conduct in discussions—are those that should be easy to avoid given the clarification in this case, or have been acknowledged in the filing statements. If there is a significant recurrence, I would expect that it would expediently addressed by the committee.  Maxim (talk)  15:25, 23 March 2021 (UTC)


 * Abstain:


 * Comments:
 * Given that my stated position has long been that all admin conduct cases come down to this and not lesser types of remedies, this is the crux of the whole thing as far as I am concerned. The rare exceedingly obvious case aside, it is not a decision to be taken lightly and I have come to believe this is one of the most important functions of the committee. This is all a rather long-winded way of saying I am still reviewing the evidence and considering my position on this. Beeblebrox (talk) 18:54, 22 March 2021 (UTC)

RexxS admonished
2) For failing to uphold the standards expected of administrators, RexxS is admonished.


 * Support:
 * I'm supportive of both this and remedy 3 and see them as not mutually exclusive with other remedies. --BDD (talk) 15:26, 22 March 2021 (UTC)
 * I'd also like to call this conditional, per Barkeep. It's really not necessary with remedy 1 passing. --BDD (talk) 23:10, 25 March 2021 (UTC)
 * I think there is enough evidence for something more than a reminder though I don't care (per Beeb's mention below) whether we call it an admonishment or warning (I'd have said admonishment is worse than warning and not a softening). Barkeep49 (talk) 19:13, 22 March 2021 (UTC)
 * I'll make my support conditional on desysop not passing. This remains what I support and so I don't want to oppose because then it looks like I didn't favor doing anything which isn't the case as much as not wanting to pile on. Barkeep49 (talk) 18:48, 25 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Regardless of other remedies passing. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs  talk 14:11, 23 March 2021 (UTC)
 * per David Fuchs Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 14:20, 23 March 2021 (UTC)
 * So Why  13:41, 24 March 2021 (UTC)
 * CaptainEek Edits Ho Cap'n!⚓ 02:37, 25 March 2021 (UTC)


 * Oppose:
 * I agree with this remedy in spirit but I prefer the wording of 3.1.  Maxim (talk)  15:33, 23 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Agree with Newyorkbrad that passing this remedy and the desysop is unnecessary.  Maxim (talk)  18:43, 25 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Oppose as unwarranted piling-on given that the desysopping is passing. Newyorkbrad (talk) 18:24, 25 March 2021 (UTC)


 * Abstain:
 * As always, I do not care for the entire concept of admonishments. The community regularly warns users for all sorts of low-level problems that don't require an entire committee to resolve, but when someone gets here for some reason we "admonish" them instead. I don't see how it makes any sense that when one arrives at the highest level of dispute resolution we suddenly soften the language and try to disguise a warning as something else. Beeblebrox (talk) 18:46, 22 March 2021 (UTC)
 * This might be my language barrier talking but for me, warning and admonishing are pretty much the same, just that admonishing sounds more "official". In fact, dictionary.com lists one of the definitions of "to warn" as "to admonish or exhort, as to action or conduct:". I don't think there is any actual reason to assume that "admonished" will be perceived as less of a warning than it's intended to. Regards So  Why  07:01, 23 March 2021 (UTC)
 * The utility of warnings and admonishments is mostly in case editors wind up back at the Arbitration Committee. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs  talk 14:11, 23 March 2021 (UTC)
 * To me it just comes off a little milquetoast, like "you be good now" when being firm and clear is what is necessary. Beeblebrox (talk) 23:06, 23 March 2021 (UTC)
 * I'm not sure how this jives with Remedy 1 passing. Primefac (talk) 00:03, 25 March 2021 (UTC)


 * Comments:
 * I'm proposing 3.1 below as an alternative to both 2 and 3. Newyorkbrad (talk) 21:06, 22 March 2021 (UTC)

RexxS reminded
3) RexxS is reminded that the community defines administrator involvement broadly and that administrators should abstain from acting in their role as administrators if they are or were involved in conflicts with an editor (or editors), or disputes on topics, regardless of the nature, age, or outcome of the dispute.


 * Support:
 * I'm supportive of both this and remedy 3 and see them as not mutually exclusive with other remedies. --BDD (talk) 15:26, 22 March 2021 (UTC)
 * I'd really prefer that we issue one remedy for Rexx but BDD is right that this covers different ground than remedy 2 and in some ways I think are helpful. Barkeep49 (talk) 19:18, 22 March 2021 (UTC)
 * As with the admonishment this support is conditional on desysop not passing. Barkeep49 (talk) 18:49, 25 March 2021 (UTC)
 * So Why  13:41, 24 March 2021 (UTC)


 * Oppose:
 * More nuanced version below. And stronger above. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 13:47, 23 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs talk 14:11, 23 March 2021 (UTC)
 *  Maxim (talk)  15:33, 23 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Oppose as unwarranted piling-on given that the desysopping is passing. Newyorkbrad (talk) 18:26, 25 March 2021 (UTC)


 * Abstain:
 * I feel like they were already reminded of this, and also that if a reminder were enough of a remedy we wouldn't be here. Beeblebrox (talk) 20:14, 22 March 2021 (UTC)
 * I'm not sure how this jives with Remedy 1 passing. Primefac (talk) 00:05, 25 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Comments:
 * I'm proposing 3.1 below as an alternative to both 2 and 3. Newyorkbrad (talk) 21:18, 22 March 2021 (UTC)

RexxS advised and reminded
3.1) RexxS is advised that as reflected in community discussions and this case, much of the community interprets "administrator involvement" more conservatively than RexxS's interpretation. Going forward, in non-emergency situations where RexxS feels administrator action is needed but where he might reasonably be considered involved in the dispute, he should bring the issue to a noticeboard or seek other appropriate resolution rather than act unilaterally.

RexxS is also reminded that in commenting on this case, he stated that I can assure you that I have taken on board what I've read here, and that I'll do my very best not to interact uncivilly. He is urged to live up to this standard he has set for himself.


 * Support:
 * Proposed. Newyorkbrad (talk) 21:18, 22 March 2021 (UTC)
 * But consider this changed to oppose if the desysopping passes, as the first paragraph would be moot and the second would be piling-on. Newyorkbrad (talk) 21:27, 24 March 2021 (UTC)
 * more focussed than other remedies. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 13:47, 23 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Last choice. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs  talk 14:11, 23 March 2021 (UTC)
 *  Maxim (talk)  15:33, 23 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Second choice to 2) and 3). Regards So  Why  13:41, 24 March 2021 (UTC)
 * CaptainEek Edits Ho Cap'n!⚓ 02:38, 25 March 2021 (UTC)


 * Oppose:
 * Changing to oppose as unwarranted piling-on given that the desysopping is passing. Newyorkbrad (talk) 18:26, 25 March 2021 (UTC)


 * Abstain:
 * For me this is the tone and tenor of advice we should be offering to someone who is headed towards an ARC rather than at the conclusion of a case. It's not really wrong, but I think the other two statements, taken together, offer the right advice and reminder. Barkeep49 (talk) 15:06, 23 March 2021 (UTC)
 * I'm not sure how this jives with Remedy 1 passing. Primefac (talk) 00:05, 25 March 2021 (UTC)


 * Comments:

RexxS restricted
4) RexxS is restricted from using the administrator tools, especially the ability to block an editor, against any editor he has interacted with shortly before, broadly construed. He may appeal this restriction after a period of six months.


 * Support:
 * So Why  13:41, 24 March 2021 (UTC)
 * This seems unlikely to pass, but I will offer my moral support for it. I think we should be more open to passing restrictions than just desysopping. When a lesser sanction would work, we should take it. I hope going forward we can try to think of other clever solutions to the tricky problem of admin cases. CaptainEek  Edits Ho Cap'n!⚓ 02:31, 25 March 2021 (UTC)


 * Oppose:
 * I have often stated my opinion that an administrator that needs to be restricted by arbcom is not fit to retain administrative rights. Therefore, I am especially opposed to a restriction that only has to do with admin functions. If a restriction like this is truly needed (haven't made up my mind on that point as of now), a full desysop is the appropriate remedy, not a half-measure like this. (I also don't care for the wording of the second half as it would either prevent Rexx from blocking anyone he had talked to no matter what or could encourage blocking before talking,  neither of which is optimal). Beeblebrox (talk) 18:26, 22 March 2021 (UTC)
 * no admin should be doing this in the sort of exchanges presented as evidence here. So (sort of) support, but if we're making this level of sanctions, it raises the question of them being an administrator at all. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 19:34, 22 March 2021 (UTC)
 * No administrator should be allowed the tools if their behavior is assumed specious to this level. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs  talk 14:11, 23 March 2021 (UTC)
 *  Maxim (talk)  15:33, 23 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Concur with the above. Primefac (talk) 16:48, 24 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Good advice in some circumstances, but probably too broad. In any case, moot if the desysopping passes. Newyorkbrad (talk) 21:29, 24 March 2021 (UTC)


 * Abstain:


 * Comments:


 * Torn here - no admin should be doing this in the sort of exchanges presented as evidence here. So (sort of) support, but if we're making this level of sanctions, it raises the question of them being an administrator at all. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 09:32, 22 March 2021 (UTC)

RexxS placed under review (alternative)
4.1) RexxS is placed under review indefinitely; during the review, with the exception of obvious vandalism, he is subject to the following restrictions:
 * 1) He may not block an editor without first using at least three escalating messages and template warnings
 * 2) He may not consecutively block an editor; after one block he is advised to consult with another admin or bring the matter to the attention of the community
 * 3) He may not place a warning template on an editor's talk page without having first placed an appropriate self-composed message containing links to relevant policies and guidelines
 * 4) He may not place more than five consecutive warning templates or messages; after which he is advised to consult with another admin
 * 5) If he blocked someone he interacted with shortly before, he is required to request a review by another admin or the community.

Violations may be reported by any editor to WP:AE. RexxS may appeal any or all of these sanctions, including the review itself, directly to the Arbitration Committee at any time.


 * Support:


 * Oppose:
 * If an admin has this many caveats on their editing privileges/tools, then they really shouldn't be an admin. Is incompatible with being a "trusted member of the community" Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 09:27, 22 March 2021 (UTC)
 * I'm open to the idea of trying steps short of deysop and so I'm pleased to see this presented. From what I understand, this remedy has worked on the admin for whom it was originally crafted. However, I don't think it's an appropriate remedy for the facts of this case. Barkeep49 (talk) 17:43, 22 March 2021 (UTC)
 * If we were even thinking about putting this many restrictions on a non-admin editor I'd be in favor of a site ban instead. Also per my oppose to remedy 4.0. Beeblebrox (talk) 18:29, 22 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Per above. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs  talk 14:11, 23 March 2021 (UTC)
 *  Maxim (talk)  15:33, 23 March 2021 (UTC)
 * So Why  13:41, 24 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Primefac (talk) 17:04, 24 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Newyorkbrad (talk) 21:29, 24 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Too complicated. CaptainEek  Edits Ho Cap'n!⚓ 02:30, 25 March 2021 (UTC)


 * Abstain:


 * Comments:
 * I do/did think something like this was worth considering and applaud the folks who wrote it up. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 09:27, 22 March 2021 (UTC)
 * This reminds me of the antiquated concept of arbcom "probation" which was deprecated a long time ago because it caused more problems than it solved. If an adminneeds babysitting they shouldn't be an admin. Beeblebrox (talk) 18:51, 22 March 2021 (UTC)

Community reminded
5) The community is reminded that unless misconduct by an administrator is so severe that a desysop is the only imaginable sanction, it should attempt to address the misconduct using the other tools and sanctions at its disposal by talking to the administrator in question on their talk page or reporting them on the appropriate noticeboard.


 * Support:
 * I think this is a valuable idea and not just "passing the buck". Administrators are editors as well and there should not be a special forum to discuss problems with their behavior unless the behavior requires a sanction that usual forums cannot impose. But if for example an admin edit-wars a single time, I do believe that WP:ANEW could handle that and there would be no need to start an Arbitration Case. And yes, I do recognize that reporting admins is usually hard to do but it's also impossible for things to change if no one tries. Similarly, it's impossible for a discussion at AN(I) to result in a meaningful result if they are immediately closed as "Can't desysop here, take it to ArbCom". Regards  So  Why  13:41, 24 March 2021 (UTC)


 * Oppose:
 *  Maxim (talk)  15:33, 23 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Beeblebrox (talk) 23:02, 23 March 2021 (UTC)
 * The power dynamic of adminship makes it difficult for the community to effectively tackle. For simple or even moderately complex issues, they are already discussed on userpages and at AN. Bad blocks and the like regularly make AN. But for chronic or contentious matters, I think ArbCom is better suited to the matter, and better suited to take the heat. CaptainEek  Edits Ho Cap'n!⚓ 01:41, 25 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Per my comment on 5.2 below. Newyorkbrad (talk) 18:30, 25 March 2021 (UTC)


 * Abstain:
 * I don't see any of this as inaccurate, but nor do I see a need for it in this case. --BDD (talk) 15:31, 22 March 2021 (UTC)
 * per BDD Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 19:35, 22 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs talk 14:11, 23 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Similar to 5.1, if a desysop isn't remotely on the table, we will likely not accept the case anyway. That being said, this is a reasonable reminder so I won't strictly oppose it. Primefac (talk) 12:41, 25 March 2021 (UTC)


 * Comments:
 * See comment on 5.1. Regards So  Why  07:24, 22 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Proposing 5.2 in lieu. Newyorkbrad (talk) 21:31, 22 March 2021 (UTC)

Community reminded (alternative)
5.1) The community is reminded that a request for Arbitration should generally not be filed if there is a reasonable possibility that concerns with an administrator's conduct could instead be resolved by a discussion on the administrator's talk page or on the appropriate noticeboard.


 * Support:
 * Second choice to #5. Regards So  Why  13:41, 24 March 2021 (UTC)


 * Oppose:
 * We accepted this case, it seems weird to pass a remedy that seems to imply we shouldn't have. Beeblebrox (talk) 18:48, 22 March 2021 (UTC)
 * I think the principle covers enough of this sentiment. I don't see the point of the finding. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs  talk 14:11, 23 March 2021 (UTC)
 *  Maxim (talk)  15:33, 23 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Per above CaptainEek  Edits Ho Cap'n!⚓ 02:25, 25 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Premature case requests get shot down, so "the community needs to resolve this in-house before coming to ArbCom" is something that is already done. If we accept a case, clearly we see something that we need to handle. Primefac (talk) 12:36, 25 March 2021 (UTC)
 * See my comment on 5.2. Newyorkbrad (talk) 18:30, 25 March 2021 (UTC)


 * Abstain:
 * I don't see any of this as inaccurate, but nor do I see a need for it in this case. --BDD (talk) 15:31, 22 March 2021 (UTC)
 * per BDD Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 19:36, 22 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Comments:
 * I inserted a bit about the user's talk page per 's suggestion on talk. I think that should be unproblematic since there are no votes on this yet. Regards So  Why  07:22, 22 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Proposing 5.2 in lieu. Newyorkbrad (talk) 21:31, 22 March 2021 (UTC)

General observation
5.2) The Arbitration Committee is well-aware that it has the sole authority for revoking administrator privileges (desysopping) on this project. The Committee takes this fact into account in deciding which requests for arbitration to accept, and will continue to do so. However, depending on the circumstances, allegations of administrator misconduct can sometimes be resolved through other steps including but not limited to posting to the administrator's talkpage or a noticeboard; through appropriate process, overturning a specific administrator action and providing the administrator with input on why the action was disapproved; pointing out specific issues as to which an administrator is considered "involved" and should not act as an administrator; and providing community input on how an administrator should change his or her behavior.

Administrators are expected to give appropriate consideration to community consensus and the best-reasoned feedback that may emerge from such discussions. Particularly where perceived issues have not been protracted or severe, editors should consider whether steps short of arbitration are likely to help resolve an admin-conduct concern before filing an arbitration request.


 * Support:
 * Proposed in lieu of 5 and 5.1 with the hope of achieving greater balance (or, perhaps, with the effect of displeasing everyone equally). Newyorkbrad (talk) 21:31, 22 March 2021 (UTC)
 * I think this nicely gets at the idea of 5 and 5.1 but is also responsive to the concerns expressed on the talk page. First and only choice. Barkeep49 (talk) 21:38, 22 March 2021 (UTC)
 * This is a fair observation. I do wonder at times if we would be better off having some system of giving a formal warning—even something like the committee declining a case request but formally asking an administrator to take note of any conduct deficiencies raised—without it ending up in unnecessary bureaucracy or drama. (And for clarity, decline+warn would an option and not a prerequisite for a full case; we should still accepting cases on the really egregious stuff.)  Maxim (talk)  15:33, 23 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Third Choice. Regards So  Why  13:41, 24 March 2021 (UTC)


 * Oppose:
 * Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs talk 14:11, 23 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Beeblebrox (talk) 23:03, 23 March 2021 (UTC)
 * As I wrote below, I drafted this to implement improvements that had been suggested for 5 and 5.1, but with many people still disagreeing over the wording and the case otherwise approaching closure, it's probably better just to drop it. I'm sure the philosophy of case acceptance will continue to be discussed from time to time. Newyorkbrad (talk) 18:30, 25 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Also been thinking over this remedy, I also come to the conclusion that this one isn't worth it.  Maxim (talk)  18:42, 25 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Barkeep49 (talk) 23:48, 25 March 2021 (UTC)


 * Abstain:
 * Well thought out and accurate, but still, I don't see a need to go this direction in the remedies at all. --BDD (talk) 15:12, 24 March 2021 (UTC)
 * The best of the 5.X options, but I think it makes a poor remedy. We should not be discouraging folks to present cases. The complexity and acrimony of the process already does that. But I do not feel very strongly, and contemplated supporting at first, so I will simply abstain. CaptainEek  Edits Ho Cap'n!⚓ 02:29, 25 March 2021 (UTC)
 * I'm with CaptainEek on this one; while it is well-worded, we don't necessarily want to set up a 10-point-program/precedent where someone must do X Y and Z before we'll accept a case. See also my comment for Remedy 5.1. Primefac (talk) 12:41, 25 March 2021 (UTC)


 * Comments:
 * I'm just not sure what the point is here. Seems like we've got several proposals hand-wringing about whether or not we should have accepted the case. We crossed that bridge already. I'm aware not everyone wanted to take the case, but a majority did and here we are. Beeblebrox (talk) 21:53, 23 March 2021 (UTC)
 * I drafted 5.2 to implement suggestions made for improving 5 and 5.1, but I don't think any of them are indispensible if people would prefer just to drop the subject (for now). Newyorkbrad (talk) 21:31, 24 March 2021 (UTC)

Implementation notes
''Clerks and Arbitrators should use this section to clarify their understanding of the final decision—at a minimum, a list of items that have passed. Additionally, a list of which remedies are conditional on others (for instance a ban that should only be implemented if a mentorship should fail), and so on. Arbitrators should not pass the motion to close the case until they are satisfied with the implementation notes.''

These notes were last updated by Dreamy Jazz talk to me &#124; my contributions 22:57, 26 March 2021 (UTC); the last edit to this page was on by User:.


 * Notes

Vote
Important: Please ask the case clerk to author the implementation notes before initiating a motion to close, so that the final decision is clear.

''Four net "support" votes (each "oppose" vote subtracts a "support") or an absolute majority are needed to close the case. The Clerks will close the case 24 hours after the fourth net support vote has been cast, unless an absolute majority of arbitrators vote to fast-track the close.''


 * Support
 * While we still have 1 active arb yet to vote on desysop, that vote doesn't change the numerical outcome and it doesn't seem like discussion is otherwise up in the air so I'm going to go ahead and say that this is ready to close. Barkeep49 (talk) 14:52, 25 March 2021 (UTC)
 *  Maxim (talk)  14:58, 25 March 2021 (UTC)
 * BDD (talk) 15:54, 25 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 19:19, 25 March 2021 (UTC)
 * I don't see the result changing in any real way at this point. Beeblebrox (talk) — Preceding undated comment added 22:25, 25 March 2021‎


 * Oppose


 * Comments