Revision as of 14:07, 11 April 2019

• WP:ARC

Requests for arbitration

• recent changes
• purge this page
• view or discuss this template

No cases have recently been closed (view all closed cases).

Currently, no requests for clarification or amendment are open.

RexxS RfA bureaucrat chat

Initiated by Pudeo (talk) at 11:28, 11 April 2019 (UTC)

Involved parties

• Pudeo (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), filing party
• Maxim (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA)

Confirmation that all parties are aware of the request

• Maxim notified

Confirmation that other steps in dispute resolution have been tried

• Dissent at Misplaced Pages talk:Requests for adminship/RexxS/Bureaucrat chat

Statement by Pudeo

The RfA for RexxS finished with 196 supports, 92 opposes and 15 neutral votes which meant a support rate of 64.1 % that falls under the 65-70 % discretionary range. Despite this, bureaucrat Maxim opened the crat chat, stating that it has also been somewhat customary, for better or worse, to extend somewhat of a leniency with respect to the numbers, for editors with a longer history on the project. The crat chat ended 7-4 with consensus to promote.

The discretionary range was decided in a 2015 election reform RfC. Administrator Biblioworm modified the RfA header with the following text in December 2015: in general, RfAs that finish between 65–75% support are subject to the discretion of bureaucrats. However, the RfC question or closing statement had nothing about the range being just a "in general" principle. The community explicitly voted against the minimum 60 % range and instead wanted to range to be approximately a two-thirds supermajority, but not less than 65 %.

According to WP:BUREAUCRAT, bureaucrats are bound by policy and consensus only to grant administrator or bureaucrat access when doing so reflects the wishes of the community. The bureaucrats' actions are not within the mandate they have been given. It would be a bad look if a WMF UK board member, who is considered a divisive editor for his conduct, had a different rule set applied. Neither do the bureaucrats have a supervote over the community that civility concerns do not carry weight. Bureaucrat UninvitedCompany specifically disagreed with the role that some other bureaucrats were taking with regards to this.

Respectfully, I am requesting the Committee to consider 1) affirming the 2015 election reform RfC, 2) review whether Maxim and possibly other bureaucrats acted within policy, and 3) overturning the bureaucrat chat. Only the ArbCom is able to do this. --Pudeo (talk) 11:28, 11 April 2019 (UTC)

Statement by Maxim

Statement by SoWhy

Crats were chosen for their ability to assess consensus without being bound to numbers. The whole RFA system relies on the fact that there is no fixed number / ratio one has to reach to become an administrator. If it did, it would be an election and we wouldn't need crats at all (except to flip the bit). The community has (in the cited RFC and elsewhere) time and time again decided that it did not want elections for admins. With RexxxS, these principles were tested but not broken. So there is nothing to arbitrate here. Also, ArbCom is the last resort and here the filer could easily have started a new RFC to allow the community to review whether it still believes that crats should ultimately be the ones to decide edge cases, which seems to be at the heart of this request. I thus urge the Committee to decline this request. On a side note, I cannot see any consensus in the cited RFC that all RFAs below 65% must fail, which is what the filer alleges. Regards SoWhy 11:41, 11 April 2019 (UTC)

• Since the filer disagrees with the outcome of the crat chat, shouldn't all participating crats be parties of this request, especially those in favor of promotion? Regards SoWhy 12:09, 11 April 2019 (UTC)

Statement by Hhkohh

Seven crats endorse the RfA promotion while only four crats opposed to promoting. I do not see how poor it is Hhkohh (talk) 11:40, 11 April 2019 (UTC)

• note Pudeo cast oppose vote in RfA Hhkohh (talk) 11:46, 11 April 2019 (UTC)

Statement by Fæ

I urge decline. People are blowing off steam in the 'crat chat, and whether 'crat exercise their discretion or not should remain an issue for that group. If folks wish to refine 'crat guidelines, the conventional method is available for making a proposal after discussion, rather than throwing Arbcom at it, like an instant veto.

With regard to RexxS' other roles off-wiki, there is zero evidence that this influenced events. The likelihood is the reverse, for those of us who know Rexx via off-wiki real life activities, we are far more likely to think twice before getting involved in on-wiki detailed decisions about our highly respected volunteer colleague. --Fæ (talk) 11:43, 11 April 2019 (UTC)

Statement from SN 54129

May I suggest that the candidate's nominator be added as a party to the case? An angry dino is just what the last 10 days needs to round it off. It would also demonstrate the degree to which this filing is considered...unnecessary, shall we say. ——SerialNumber54129 11:52, 11 April 2019 (UTC)

Statement by Alanscottwalker

It's not in the least true that "we wouldn't need crats at all (except to flip the bit)." The issue is over the range, but that there is a 75% to 65% range no one denies. The community did explicitly reject discretion in the 60% to 65% range and explicitly rejected discretion down to the range 50%+1 . I do not see how this can be arbitrated, though. -- Alanscottwalker (talk) 12:02, 11 April 2019 (UTC)

What? It rather heightens the non-transparency, or inscrutability when Jhochman below says "Enemies of Bishonen" as no one in the crat chat mentioned that. So, that was a reason it passed? (I did not participate in the RfA, but I was on the Crat talk page). Alanscottwalker (talk) 13:35, 11 April 2019 (UTC)

Statement by Aiken drum

Decline this. Bureaucrats are chosen for their judgement for cases just like this. There were many factors that prevented this from being a numerical fail, and the bureaucrat chat was the exact right response. Aiken D 12:03, 11 April 2019 (UTC)

Statement by Xeno

Seems a matter for an RFC, not arbitration. –xeno 12:05, 11 April 2019 (UTC)

Bureaucrats strive to adhere to any policies and guidelines in place relevant to the role. The relevant policy at the time the RfA was put forth indicated the determination is not based exclusively on the percentage of support, but in practice most RfAs above 75% pass. The community has determined that in general, RfAs between 65 and 75% support should be subject to the discretion of bureaucrats. (Therefore, it logically follows that almost all RfAs below 65% support will fail.) The use of "almost all" all makes it clear that a sub 65% finish does not translate into an automatic fail. This policy has remained unchanged for over three years. –xeno 12:41, 11 April 2019 (UTC)

RfA is, always has been, a discussion, not a vote, so those referring to 'ballot counting', rigid percentages, etc. are somewhat missing the point. We could do away with the percentage ticker altogether.

Those mentioning "supervoting", could you clarify if you are referring to the notion of supervoting shares (which bureaucrats arguably possess in a bureaucrat discussion) or if referring to Misplaced Pages:Supervote, indicate which type you feel was expressed in the bureaucrat discussion? –xeno 13:57, 11 April 2019 (UTC)

Statement by SemiHypercube

This should be declined, opening the 'crat chat despite being below 65% seems like a pretty WP:IAR move to me, and there appears to be consensus to promote anyway. SemiHypercube 12:17, 11 April 2019 (UTC)

Statement by Boing! said Zebedee (talk)

The RFA !vote range has never been a hard and fast rule, it has always been a guideline, with crats being able to use their discretion outside of the guideline range. That's a core Misplaced Pages principle, that consensus is not and has never been decided purely by numbers. Prior to the RFC, the WP:RFA page said...

"Historically, most of those above 75 percent approval pass and most of those below 70 percent fail. However, the actual decision of passing or failing is subject to the bureaucrats' discretion and judgment, and in some cases further discussion.""

After the RFC it was changed (after several modifications) to say...

"In practice, most RfAs above 75% support pass. In December 2015 the community determined that in general, RfAs that finish between 65 and 75% support are subject to the discretion of bureaucrats (so, therefore, almost all RfAs below 65% will fail)." (Oh, and it still prefixes that with "Consensus at RfA is not determined by surpassing a numerical threshold, but by the strength of rationales presented".)

Both of those wordings clearly mean that the range is not mandatory, and the RFC did not need to add "generally" because the policy already effectively said that - the RFC merely changed the numbers. That the RFC said nothing about changing policy to make the range mandatory means it remained non-mandatory, as it was before. This is an attempt Enforcing a hard 65% lower limit would enforce an alleged mandatory policy that simply does not exist, and would subvert our core principle of consensus into a vote. In my opinion the case request should be declined. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 12:34, 11 April 2019 (UTC)

(I've reworded and struck a part of that as it unfairly alleges motive, which is really not what I meant). Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 13:00, 11 April 2019 (UTC)

• Per Jehochman's request and for transparency, I supported the RFA. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 13:32, 11 April 2019 (UTC)

Statement by Reyk

Decline this. Yes, it was an unsatisfactory discussion. Looking at the talk page of the bureaucrat discussion, those who voted neutral on the RfA (or who didn't vote, such as myself) overwhelmingly thought the opposers on that RfA were hard done by. I suggest the bureaucrats think about that before being so eager to turf out votes en masse in the future. But I don't see how getting ArbCom involved could possibly help. Reyk _YO! 12:26, 11 April 2019 (UTC)

Statement by Leaky

The capacity of Bureaucrats to disregard community defined ranges on RfA pass & fail certainly needs to be closely examined and their scope redefined and curtained. This was a bad decision compounded by a confused and slanted 'crat. discussion. But not here.

Statement by 28bytes

As the filer noted in the talk page of the bureaucrat discussion, the wording that describes how bureaucrats close RfAs has been in place since 2015: "in general, RfAs that finish between 65–75% support are subject to the discretion of bureaucrats." That description accurately describes current practice, and in turn bureaucrats have been following that guidance since then.

I recused from that particular 'crat chat, but had I participated, I'm pretty confident that I would have came to the same conclusion as to whether there was consensus to promote regardless of whether the raw percentage was 63.7%, 64.1%, 65.2%, or 66.8%, assuming that the underlying arguments made by the supporters and opposers were the same. If the community wants us to hew rigidly to an arbitrary percentage rather than use our judgment to determine consensus, we will of course abide by that, but that should be done (as Xeno and others have suggested) via an RfC rather than an arbitration case. 28bytes (talk) 12:41, 11 April 2019 (UTC)

Statement by Sideways713

There's a serious lack of transparency around how RexxS's RfA ended up in a bureaucrat chat in the first place; the last RfA with a similar support percentage, Philafrenzy's, was closed as "no consensus" without a bureaucrat chat. And some of the bureaucrats supporting promotion openly discarded oppose !votes that were fully grounded in facts and policy, which isn't a good look. But the correct remedy is still probably a new RfC on requests for adminship, not an ArbCom case or any other attempt to relitigate RexxS's RfA in particular. Sideways713 (talk) 12:48, 11 April 2019 (UTC)

Statement by Coretheapple

Decline. I agree with Pudeo's concerns but also agree that there is no role for arbcom here and that perhaps there should be another RfC. We have a broken system that puts admin candidates through a grueling trial while at the same time elevating candidates when there are bona fide civility concerns. We have people throwing around the nonsensical nostrum from sixteen years ago that "it's no big deal." I agree that the process as currently in force reinforces editor cynicism and apathy. But that's the way the cooke crumbles around here. Coretheapple (talk) 12:49, 11 April 2019 (UTC)

Statement by Pawnkingthree

I supported the RfA, but this should be declined as the filer seems to have overlooked the words "generally" and "almost all." Maxim was not acting outside of the policy. Crat chats on close RfAs are about all the bureaucrats have left to do, let's not have Arb Com interfere in this.-- Pawnkingthree (talk) 13:06, 11 April 2019 (UTC)

Statement by EdChem

As the filer notes, Maxim opened the 'crat chat. The filer omits to mention that of the 11 'crats expressing a view on the RfA, none suggested the 'crat chat was unnecessary or inappropriate. Several other 'crats recused or stated that they were unavailable to participate. None of them suggested that the 'crat chat was unnecessary or inappropriate. By the filer's logic, all of these have failed in their duties if any of them has. Consequently, I suggest two options:

• Option 1: ArbCom should remove the 'crat flag from all current 'crats. There being no facts in dispute, this should be done by motion. This would leave en.WP without any 'crats, so as a simple exercise in IAR, ArbCom should appoint Bishzilla as 'crat-overlord-for-life in their place.
• Option 2: ArbCom should decline this case and the filer should be trouted blue whaled.

Here's hoping for the benevolent overlordship of a wise dinosaur. EdChem (talk) 13:08, 11 April 2019 (UTC)

Statement by Jehochman

I did not vote in this one. Would the others commenting above consider stating whether you voted and how? It would make this discussion more transparent.

I count 64% support, 36% oppose. Bureaucrats are entitled to give variable weight or no weight to votes that have good or bad reasoning associated with them. One of the votes, for example was "Oppose - don't like the guy," with no reason stated why. I saw a fair number of Enemies of Bishonen turn up to deliver payback. Bureaucrats are smart enough to discount this type of vote manipulation. When voting at RFA, please focus on the candidate, not the nominator, and provide reasons for your vote if you want it to count fully.

For the above reasons, decline. There was no abuse by the bureaucrats; quite the opposite. Jehochman 13:13, 11 April 2019 (UTC)

@RexxS: - Congratulations. You will soon receive your admin T-shirt with bullseyes printed on both the front and the back. Remember, "Tact is the ability to tell someone to go to hell in such a way that they look forward to the trip." Jehochman 13:37, 11 April 2019 (UTC)

Statement by QEDK

I expect ArbCom to sensibly decline this as this is not under their mandate — the committee has a history of not accepting cases when it is under their purview as well, so this should be a cakewalk. The minorly POINTy comment aside, if the filer is particularly distressed with the outcome, they should propose an RfC which sets rigid, %-based restrictions on RfC, and the community can decide on erasing the 'crats subjectivity in the process. --qedk (t 桜 c) 13:21, 11 April 2019 (UTC)

Statement by Yngvadottir

Please accept this case. There was flamboyant supervoting on the part of several bureaucrats, which is the opposite of what they are selected to do, with no response to reasoned arguments on the crat chat talk page. As I said there, far from avoiding establishing a precedent, overriding the outcome of this RfA to appoint RexxS sets a very bad precedent. Yngvadottir (talk) 13:24, 11 April 2019 (UTC)

Statement by Sir Joseph

I agree with Yngvadottir. I was surprised to read the page and note how several of the 'crats were discounting many of the oppose votes or just saying that many of the oppose votes were simply for one reason, ie civil, and those can be discounted because that was a long time ago, and therefore we now have a consensus to promote. What we ended up seeing was not that 'crats were interpreting the votes, but that they were supervoting and they ended up voting themselves for the RFA, not just counting the ballots, so to speak. Sir Joseph 13:29, 11 April 2019 (UTC)

Statement by Objective3000

Decline. 7 to 4 really isn't a close decision. And if a 'crat can't IAR, who can? O3000 (talk) 13:35, 11 April 2019 (UTC)

Statement by Nick

Decline is the correct outcome, but a few wise words from the Arbitration Committee wouldn't go amiss here - I'd suggest the committee reminds the community that when taking part in a discussion such as an RfA, they should ensure their true feelings about an issue are accessible to those tasked with judging consensus, even if they wish to make such comments in a flippant and comedic fashion. I supported the RfA, so can't truly consider the behaviour of the bureaucrats in an impartial manner, but from my perspective, they did an excellent job in the difficult circumstances surrounding the horseshitfest that is April Fools Day on Misplaced Pages. I would suggest going forward, the community agrees that RfA should be exempt from the usual April Fools Day shit that goes on elsewhere (I'd prefer the entire project to outlaw the fuckwittery that goes on around 1 April, but I doubt that would ever be agreed to) as one incremental improvement to ensure we don't have a repeat of this type of incident next year, and that bureaucrats be urged to involve themselves earlier in RfAs which may not initially be conventional/orthodox in tone, nomination or discussion, so that editors here can revise their tone and commentary appropriately. Nick (talk) 13:40, 11 April 2019 (UTC)

Statement by User:RhinosF1

Please decline this case. The crats made what was an appropriate call and reached a clear agreement among them which was based on their thoughts regarding the points raised. Maxim was right to open a Crat Chat given the situation and confusion regarding April fools Day.

If anything is discussed, it should be regarding the appropriateness of this case and any case should invlove all crats.

RhinosF1_{(status)(contribs)} 13:42, 11 April 2019 (UTC)

Statement by Calidum

The committee should accept this case, seeing that the community at-large has no ability to remove bureaucrats. Because of this, I fail to see how this falls outside arbcom's scope. (I would add, as someone who opposed the RFA, I don't believe the ultimate result of the RFA should be undone. The actions of the 'crats should be the sole focus of this case.) Calidum 13:49, 11 April 2019 (UTC)

Recusal request

@Worm That Turned: Because you participated in the RFA (you rightfully recused yourself from thr 'crat chat because of this), I respectfully request you recuse yourself here. Calidum 13:55, 11 April 2019 (UTC)

Statement by WBG

Outside of ARBPOL; they can't dictate bureaucrats on how to close RfBs nor can carve out new policy (set numerical percentages et al) for the purpose. ∯WBG 14:02, 11 April 2019 (UTC)

Statement by Crazynas

As someone who opposed the original RfA (and subsequently presented arguments contra finding consensus in the chat) I believe this should be declined. It appears that A) all parties acted in good faith and B) they acted within their remit. I suppose this is technically your prerogative as the flag has been granted and you are the sole means to revoke it (which makes it a bit ironic considering who is named in the case request). However, consensus is not a number. Unless there is evidence of subterfuge or collusion regarding the decision to promote, this does not appear to be an actionable request. We should probably clarify some things with a fresh RfC, however. Crazynas 14:04, 11 April 2019 (UTC)

Statement by {Non-party}

Other editors are free to make relevant comments on this request as necessary. Comments here should address why or why not the Committee should accept the case request or provide additional information.

RexxS RfA bureaucrat chat: Clerk notes

This area is used for notes by the clerks (including clerk recusals).

• Recuse – bradv🍁 13:51, 11 April 2019 (UTC)

RexxS RfA bureaucrat chat: Arbitrators' opinion on hearing this matter <0/5/0>-RexxS_RfA_bureaucrat_chat-2019-04-11T11:48:00.000Z">

Vote key: (Accept/decline/recuse)

• Decline as written. RfA is about consensus, not numerical count. This one was unusual in that some early votes could be dismissed due to April Fools Day. Even if they didn't, the 'crats are specifically tasked with evaluating consensus and if Maxim felt that some discussion should happen on judging that consensus, then that falls well within his discretion. The very fact that there is no unanimity on the 'crat chat implies that it was the correct decision. I absolutely disagree with the idea of ArbCom supervoting over the 'crats in this matter. Worm(talk) 11:48, 11 April 2019 (UTC)"> ">
• Decline ArbCom should not be telling the 'crats how to handle a close RFA vote. As WTT just said, the fact that there is a difference in opinion within the 'crats shows this was the right decision to discuss the matter. RickinBaltimore (talk) 11:53, 11 April 2019 (UTC)
• Decline. This is not within the scope of ArbCom. ~ Rob₁₃ 13:00, 11 April 2019 (UTC)
• Decline, per WTT. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 13:31, 11 April 2019 (UTC)
• I feel strongly that this was a poor close by the crats, essentially supervoting away valid opposes because they were not convinced by them, while, as usual, being far laxer with the supports. It does look like excessive leniency for an "establishment" RfA candidate, and it is particularly grating that civility concerns were dismissed given mounting evidence that a hostile culture is stifling the project. But, I'm not a crat, and they are appointed specifically for their experience in closing complex discussions. They were acting perfectly within their remit and it's not our place to overrule their decision – so decline. – Joe (talk) 14:07, 11 April 2019 (UTC)