Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case

"WP:ARC" redirects here. For a guide on talk page archiving, see H:ARC.

Requests for arbitration

Arbitration Committee proceedings

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

Case requests

Request name	Motions	Initiated	Votes
JzG		9 September 2020	1/3/0

[edit]

Open cases

Currently, no arbitration cases are open.

[edit]

Recently closed cases (Past cases)

Case name	Closed
Venezuelan politics	25 May 2024

Clarification and Amendment requests

Request name	Motions	Case	Posted
Clarification request: mentioning the name of off-wiki threads	none	none	4 June 2024
Clarification request: Contentious topics restrictions	none	none	10 June 2024
Amendment request: World War II and the history of Jews in Poland	Motion	(orig. case)	21 June 2024
Clarification request: Noleander	none	(orig. case)	3 July 2024
Amendment request: Durova	none	(orig. case)	4 July 2024

Arbitrator motions

No arbitrator motions are currently open.

JzG

Initiated by - MrX 🖋 at 15:20, 9 September 2020 (UTC)

Involved parties

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

Confirmation that all parties are aware of the request

• [1]

Confirmation that other steps in dispute resolution have been tried

• September 9, 2020
• September 5, 2020
• June 9, 2020
• March 11, 2019
• June 3, 2016
• October 9, 2015 [2]
• August 6, 2015
• March 17, 2015
• January 10, 2015

Statement by MrX

I respectfully request that Arbcom open a case to fairly, but thoroughly, examine the history of JzG's actions as an administrator, and his general conduct that reflects adversely on his role as an administrator. The area where JzG struggles the most is with closing and re-opening discussions. On several occasions he has circumvented normal process, often when he has been involved with the underlying subject. He has also been formally warned for incivility, has engaged in edit warring, [3][4][5] and has violated WP:INVOLVED on several occasions.[6][7]. His attitude when confronted with these concerns have frequently been dismissive, indicating that he is not willing or able to change his approach.[8][9][10][11]

I've have been considering bringing this case request to Arbcom for several years, but I was hopeful that JzG would take the hint after receiving so much feedback from so many other people. The precipitating events that finally convinced me that a case was necessary are the two most recent ones linked in the 'Confirmation that other steps in dispute resolution have been tried' section above. In the most recent one that I'm involved in, JzG re-opened an RfC[12] that I had properly closed three and half weeks ago. I reverted him and raised my concern on his talk page, advising him that there was a WP:CLOSECHALLENGE in progress.[13] JzG then reverted me,[14] effectively re-opening the RfC without regard to WP:CLOSECHALLENGE. He claimed that he did it because it was a WP:BADNAC, but did not explain his reason. I dispute that WP:BADNAC applies. I am an experienced editor[15] who has closed nearly 100 RfCs[16], and I am completely uninvolved with the subject. I'm not even sure how JzG found the RfC buried on the talk page of an article he has never edited. After my post to JzG's talk page, he then closed the WP:CLOSECHALLENGE discussion prematurely.[17]

There is a great deal more evidence that can be brought to bear that will show that JzG is unsuited to continue holding adminship. Given the number of complaints about JzG evincing a pattern of admin misconduct, and these recent incidents, a case seems long overdue. Thank you. - MrX 🖋 15:20, 9 September 2020 (UTC)

• Bradv It is my understanding that a closed RfC (or most any consensus-building discussion) should remain closed until there is a consensus to overturn the close. This is based on observed practice and the lack of any instruction in WP:CLOSECHALLENGE that says that a discussion should be re-opened during a close challenge. It kind of makes sense if you think about it, since re-opening it removes the closing statement from the discussion and allow editors to continue to comment in the discussion while the close challenge is underway. I can't recall ever seeing a case where an RfC close was re-opened during a close challenge. Are you aware of any such cases? - MrX 🖋 16:01, 9 September 2020 (UTC)
• JzG seems to be indulging in a bit of revisionism in his statement. The fact is, he reopened the RfC at at 18:53 yesterday. Only after I raised the issue on his talk page at 11:59 today, did he then close the discussion at WP:AN at 12:23. At least he admits that he was not evaluating consensus in the close review, but rather substituting his own view of my closure (Which is text book WP:SUPERVOTE). - MrX 🖋 16:43, 9 September 2020 (UTC)
• @El C: Would you please cite the policy advising that RfCs can be re-opened during a WP:CLOSECHALLENGE, especially by someone who has commented in the very same close review? While you're at it, feel free to answer the questions I asked in the actual close review. - MrX 🖋 17:10, 9 September 2020 (UTC)

It's conveniently self-serving to say that "not all policy is written". Why even have a close review process if admins can just delete any close they disagree with? - MrX 🖋 17:44, 9 September 2020 (UTC)

• Still no one has shown that there is actually a policy or guideline to support the notion that admins can revert non-admin closes that they disagree with. The argument relies entirely on this entry made in January to the supplement: [18]. It does not enjoy community consensus, and it is in direct opposition to the principle that any experienced editor can close an RfC and that there is a process for challenging closes. As described in WP:CLOSE: After discussing the matter with the closing editor, you may request review at the Administrators' noticeboard.

As it happens, the discussion did start at Talk:People's Mujahedin of Iran#Recently closed RfC. Vanamonde93 shut it down with the comment: "This is quickly turning into a relitigation of the RfC, and in any case this isn't the place to challenge a closure. The closer has been asked to explain their statement, and they have done so. The next step in the process would be to ask for a review at WP:AN. I would recommend against that, because I see no reason why this was an unreasonable closure."

I'm disappointed to see wagons circling to defend this culture of admins doing whatever they want outside of our usual community consensus process. This was not an emergency requiring admin action and there was no "disruption" as falsely asserted by El C. It was a calm deliberation that was short circuited by an elite minority of close-knit allies.

This is nothing more that a few admins taking control of content, which is antithetical to the founding principles of the project and specifically contrary to WP:CON. Once again, the bar for examining admin conduct is set so high as to be unattainable by us drones, yet if an admin brings a case against an unpopular admin, that case is accepted with the barest of evidence and prosecuted with zeal. - MrX 🖋 10:45, 10 September 2020 (UTC)

• Boing! said Zebedee proves my point by telling me that I should shut up and go about my business. I wish I found that surprising. - MrX 🖋 11:22, 10 September 2020 (UTC)

Statement by JzG

Per Floquenbeam, I am more than happy to admit that I could have handled this better. If I'd thought for a minute that MrX was likely to escalate so fast and so furiously, I would have explained at greater length. But that's me: either nowhere near enough words, or far, far too many :-( And actually if there had been any meaningful discussion, rather than half an hour and three comments between reversion and ArbCom (literally: see below), I might well have done so. I agree with Robert that this does raise a good question about RfC closes, where reasonable people may well differ.

1. The People's Mujahedin of Iran RfC close

MrX performed a non-admin close. A thread was opened at AN. Based on input from El C and my own review of the close, I reopened the RfC (see [19]).

MrX reverted this: [20]. That is inconsistent with WP:BRD. I reopened the RfC again, so MrX posted to my Talk page saying I'm surprised that you would edit war over this and use such poor judgement to circumvent consensus. [21]. That is a rather idiosyncratic interpretation given that he had reinstated his own NAC after it was reverted by an uninvolved admin. The edit war starts with the second revert, the first revert is WP:BRD.

Remember: an RfC close is a big deal. Any edit to an article is normally handled by the BRD cycle, but an RfC close is generally taken as binding on content and as such is pretty much the only thing we do, other than deletion, which is binding on content. That's why it's nortmally left to uninvolved admins. We are sufficiently aware of this as a community that some RfCs are closed by panels of three or more uninvolved admins and editors, and can take many days to evaluate. As MrX knows from recent past experience, non-admin closes of contentious RfCs that would have the effect of making binding changes to long-stranding content, are wont to be controversial. The onus is rather obviously on the closer to justify the close, not on anyone who reopens the discussion, otherwise the RfC system would break down. Here's a close I made of a contentious debate. This appears to have been welcomed by both sides, including the sanctioned editor.

What is most striking here, though, is the absence of any meaningful attempt to resolve the dispute, including through that existing noticeboard thread. The time from MrX's first challenge to my reopening, and his announcement of his intent to file this case, was 33 minutes and 27 seconds, in which time he made exactly three other edits, none of which showed any openness to the possibility that he might need to better explain the contentious close. If the discussion on my talk page was supposed to be the "prior attempts to resolve the dispute", it consists of two comments and their replies over a period of about five minutes. That must be some kind of record.

Which suggests to me that the real beef might actually be the second item.

2. AE re. infobox on Frank Sinatra

Per [22] and [23], there is no apparent disagreement that the sanction against I-82-I (which includes an indefinite block for editing logged out to evade scrutiny) is appropriate, but substantial and loud disagreement - with no obvious consensus in any direction - on what to do about some other editors. All the drama stems from the fact that the discussion had morphed into an ironically bad-tempered discussion of other editors, notably SchroCat.

The question therefore I guess comes down to interpretation of this from Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Arbitration enforcement § Role of consensus in arbitration enforcement:

4) Although administrators do not need explicit consensus to enforce arbitration decisions and can always act unilaterally, when the case is not clear-cut they are encouraged, before acting, to seek input from their colleagues at arbitration enforcement. In addition, when a consensus of uninvolved administrators is emerging in a discussion, administrators willing to overrule their colleagues should act with caution and must explain their reasons on request. Administrators overruling their colleagues without good cause may be directed to refrain from further participation in arbitration enforcement.

The "steps to resolve" here would be via WP:ARCA, which is exactly where it currently is. Thus this probably fails the test of prior attempts to resolve.

That said, the substantive question would seem to be: is closing an AE with a sanction against the originally filed party inappropriate when there are admins arguing in good faith for sanctions against another party? Moreover, does the requirement to "act with caution and must explain their reasons on request" mandate something more than a willingness to talk about it?

As I said, I don't think a thread about an obvious bad actor should morph into sanctions against good faith editors, and I really do think de-escalation would be more profitable here. I hold to that view. Lepricavark makes the reasonable point in rebuttal: Your closure perpetuates an unhealthy environment in which myself and others are needlessly subjected to unwarranted and unsubstantiated attacks and accusations. Please reconsider. But I remain of the view that an AE against I-82-I was not the place to debate sanctions on SchroCat for a much wider pattern of conduct which many consider to be worthy of its own arbitration case, and which necessarily attracts the attention of partisans (SchroCat is as loved by some as he is disliked by others), and in any case AE does not permit of a partial close applying an obvious sanction to the original party while leaving discussion to run on someone else - and that seems to me to be an artifact of the fact that AE is not really designed for complex long-running multi-party cases, but for enforcement of breaches, often (usually?) by a single uninvolved admin.

Indefensible? To the point of requiring arbitration? Guy (help! - typo?) 16:24, 9 September 2020 (UTC)

• MrX this is Wikipedia. Anyone can revert anything, and the onus is then on the person seeking to make the disputed change, to show that it has consensus. In theory you could revert an admin close, and take it to AN for review either before or afterwards. The convention is that contentious closes are performed by uninvolved admins. Not so long ago that was how pretty much all closes were done, but we're short of admins. You have yet to demonstrate any meaningful prior attempts to resolve the dispute, so there's that as well. Guy (help! - typo?) 12:54, 10 September 2020 (UTC)
• Robert McClenon you make a very good point. As above, I had not previously thought through the basis for my gut feeling that RfCs should default to remaining open if challenged. As I just said above, RfC closes are one of the few things we do on Wikipedia that represent binding decisions on content. The only other one that springs to mind is deletion. With deletion, we have a well established process for review and reversion, but this is complicated by the need for the sysop bit in order to undelete (whether permanently or temporarily). It seems to me self-evident that the closer of an RfC bears the burden of satisfying the community that the close is valid, and that any challenge in good faith, whether to an admin or not, should, by default, result in either reopening, or perhaps the application of the {{closing}} wrapper while the close is debated. I think this would form the basis of a sensible discussion at WP:CENT. What do you think? Guy (help! - typo?) 18:30, 10 September 2020 (UTC)

Statement by El_C

This seems like a frivolous request. Had I the time, I likely would have reopened the RfC myself. I thank Guy for, correctly, having done so. And, yes, I am the uninvolved with the most experience with the article, notwithstanding having taken a break from engaging it for the last several months — the Wikipedia:General sanctions/Post-1978 Iranian politics is a testament to that thorough engagement on my part (my role as an uninvolved admin in the article precedes that GS by many months, though). I'm certain that Vanamonde93, who has been the uninvolved admin with the second most experience with the article in question would confirm this. In closing, this was an inappropriate closure which needed to be overturned, and so it was. El_C 16:58, 9 September 2020 (UTC)

MrX, not all policy is written, and again, this is an article covered by General Sanctions. In fact, it's the article which largely gave rise to the GS in question. For the benefit of the Committee, this RfC was about condensing key longstanding text to something like 1/20th of its size. I have no opinion about the change itself, but you don't close a discussion which concerns a decision of such gravity with so little substance. That simply falls below standards. It was a closure which required correction and, dare I say, ought to lead to due reflection on the part of said closer. El_C 17:34, 9 September 2020 (UTC)

MrX, it is at the discretion of an uninvolved admin to correct actions which they deem to be disruptive to the stability of the page in question, including NACs. Sometimes a lengthy review process is due for challenged NACs, sometimes not. That also falls at the discretion of an uninvolved admin. As Guy Macon notes: editors whose closes are being overturned at decision reviews, and/or directly reverted by administrators, should pause closing [...] I think that speaks for itself. El_C 17:59, 9 September 2020 (UTC)

MrX writes: a calm deliberation that was short circuited by an elite minority of close-knit allies — that concerns me. Not only there is an unwillingness to recognize shortcomings which pertains to the closure (lack of depth and breadth), but there are also these bizarre accusations which are totally baseless. El_C 15:13, 10 September 2020 (UTC) Strike out of respect. I did not realize that MrX has left the project over this dispute at the time of writing this comment. That sucks. El_C 20:22, 10 September 2020 (UTC)

A sidenote about Ayurveda. I am the admin who mandated the RfC in question (logged as a discretionary sanction). Note that I did not add the requirement that the discussion be closed by an admin. I could have, but I chose not to. That is because I do believe non-admins are qualified to close controversial discussions. El_C 15:32, 10 September 2020 (UTC)

Statement by Vanamonde

I'm still undecided on the closure itself, but the discussion was messy and contentious, and the topic is under discretionary sanctions, meaning that an admin close was probably a good idea. I don't see how this was misconduct at all, let alone misconduct worthy of a request to ARBCOM. Yes, I'm a party to the ARCA request involving JzG at the moment, but that doesn't mean I necessarily doubt his judgement in general. When the actions of long-standing administrators are in question, I think you need evidence of frequent or sustained bad judgement for a case to be justified, and you don't have that here. Vanamonde (Talk) 17:07, 9 September 2020 (UTC)

Statement by Guy Macon

Previous discussion: Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard#RFC closure review

I am becoming concerned about MrX's NACs. I noticed a problem at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Archive323#Close challenge, where he clearly got it wrong and dug in his heels when multiple editors complained. Now he appears to be doing it again.

Here is a brief timeline with diffs:

On 19:41, 14 August 2020 MrX performed an extremely contentious NAC.[24]

As can be seen at [25], the rough count was 7 yes, 4 no, so a reclose by an uninvolved administrator might very well come to the same conclusion, but WP:BADNAC is clear:

"A non-admin closure is not appropriate [when] the outcome is a close call (especially where there are several valid outcomes) or likely to be controversial. Such closes are better left to an administrator."

I don't think that any reasonable person would conclude that the outcome wasn't likely to be controversial. The Ayurveda RFC was also clearly controversial.

On 16:28, 8 September 2020 Administrator El_C !voted to overturn the close.[26] MrX was aware of El_C's opinion.[27]

I suspect that the comment "I found that Mhhossein's detailed argument was adroitly rebutted by Barca's." in the closing summary was inappropriate. It could be argued that the closer should talk about what the consensus is and not about who is right (with the exception of when an argument is against policy) to avoid the perception of a supervote.

On 18:53, 8 September 2020 Uninvolved administrator JzG undid the close, citing WP:BADNAC.[28]

On 11:59, 9 September 2020 MrX reverted[29] with the edit comment "Editors cannot unilaterally reopen closed RfCs" This claim directly contradicts Wikipedia:Non-admin closure#Who should close discussions:

"While rare mistakes can happen in a close, editors whose closes are being overturned at decision reviews, and/or directly reverted by administrators, should pause closing until they have discussed these closes with an administrator, and that administrator gained comfort that the closer understands their mistakes, and will not repeat them."

Our policy is clear: editors closes can be overturned by being directly reverted by administrators, and in such cases the closer should pause closing until they have discussed these closes with an administrator. Mrx first posted to JzGs talk page on this[30] at 11:59, 9 September 2020‎ -- the same minute as the revert. In that post he wrote "Please don't unilaterally reopen closed RfCs. As an admin, you should know to follow WP:CLOSECHALLENGE", but CLOSECHALLENGE does not say that it is the only acceptable way to undo a close, and indeed administrators reverting BADNACs is an everyday occurrence.

If MrX had argued that his NAC wasn't bad, that would have been within policy, but instead MrX has repeatedly claimed that admins cannot undo NACs even if they are bad. And, given that "bad" specifically includes "likely to be controversial" this NAC was clearly "bad". --Guy Macon (talk) 17:31, 9 September 2020 (UTC)

Statement by Barkeep49

As a person who just filed an ARCA where I think JzG overstepped, and was (am) pretty frustrated with the way he dug his heels in after acting against consensus, I still have a hard time seeing enough here for a full case against him. I think JzG's actions at the RfC, unlike in the ARCA incident, done with tacit or explicit endorsement of others and the reversing of the close in-line with appropriate practice. If the April 2019 ANI thread had been from this year, maybe, sure. But it wasn't and I have a hard time saying that there is enough here to merit a full case against JzG. Barkeep49 (talk) 17:35, 9 September 2020 (UTC)

Just noting that I don't think or policies, guidelines, or typical procedures supports the idea that non-admins shouldn't close controversial RfCs. I closed some controversial RfCs before becoming an admin without issue. I can't find the thread now (silly Wikipedia search abilities) but this year S Marshall had closed several controversial RfCs all of which were upheld on review at AN. Additionally we have a 2012 RfC which tells us On the question of whether an RFC close by a non-admin can be summarily overturned by an admin, in most cases, no, and never if the only reason is that the closer was not an admin. We have plenty of competent non-admin who can and should close a wide range of RfCs. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 14:36, 10 September 2020 (UTC)

Statement by Alanscottwalker

Just to note BADNAC and CLOSE are neither policy nor guideline, so the committee if it takes this up will have to deal with the fact that the community has not seen fit to get an explicit consensus on them. As for NACD that is only for deletions not RfC's -- Alanscottwalker (talk) 19:41, 9 September 2020 (UTC)

Well, some of the seeming 'high-handedness' about experienced editors being forbidden to close RfC's, is IMO without consensus and mostly wrong (of course, if you don't want to be in a hot-seat, angles fear to tread and all that). But than I closed an RfC related to The Troubles back in the day and it seemed to work out fine, perhaps people were not wrapped up in status then or they more closely followed the admonition not to go at something simply because one is an experienced editor (or perhaps another way to say that is, 'focus not on the person'). Alanscottwalker (talk) 20:52, 10 September 2020 (UTC)

Statement by Reyk

This seems like someone is sour at being overruled, has seen that JzG has rubbed people the wrong way in the past, and sees an opportunity to use ArbCom as a vehicle for revenge. I don't think ArbCom should accept this. Reyk _YO! 19:45, 9 September 2020 (UTC)

Statement by PaleoNeonate

Considering that an AN thread also existed challenging it, I don't see a problem with unclosing. —PaleoNeonate – 04:41, 10 September 2020 (UTC)

Statement by Boing! said Zebedee

MrX says "I'm disappointed to see wagons circling to defend this culture of admins doing whatever they want outside of our usual community consensus process" amid other baseless accusations. I'm disappointed to see MrX trotting out such classic anti-admin whining. The case should be declined, MrX should quit making non-admin closes of contentious RfCs, and should stop complaining and trying to dig up dirt when they're reverted. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 10:56, 10 September 2020 (UTC)

Statement by Deepfriedokra

There is no admin abuse here and nothing requiring ArbCom intervention. ArbCom should decline. I'm disappointed to see this from MrX . I agree with Boing! said Zebedee. MrX should stop it. Non admins should not make contentious closes. NAC's are reviewable and reversible by those entrusted by the community-- the admins. When a non admin is reversed by an admin, they should see it as a learning experience instead of filing baseless ArbCom cases. This case is just needless disruption. --Deepfriedokra (talk) 13:00, 10 September 2020 (UTC)

Statement by PackMecEng

I have to say I was a little on the fence here. But I think Guy Macon & Boing! said Zebedee's comment really struck a chord with me here.

To Guy Macon's point about past closures, like the one at Ayurveda. Which incidentally during that RFC Guy Macon was heavy involved in and MrX closed against his positing while being completely uninvolved. Then an admin came by and basically made the same close. So I am not sure how his close was problematic or indicative of a pattern of bad closures. So that kind of argument is easily debunked.

Next with Boing! said Zebedee, it just looks like you are whining that the points MrX makes are correct. From what I can tell MrX is completely within written policy and everyone else is not. Then the accusations of bad faith are extremely disappointing and concerning. Perhaps a more productive path would be to answer any of the concerns that he has about admin behavior and policy rather than prove his point.

In the end from what I can see policy is fairly clear here. One, anyone can close an RFC. Two, the close review process is you take it to AN and if consensus is found to overturn then you overturn not before hand. Three, after being reverted on the close probably should not of edit warred to re-open it while not citing policy.[31] Four, he probably should of not closed the AN thread discussing it when his reverting of the close was controversial.[32] PackMecEng (talk) 15:15, 10 September 2020 (UTC)

I have to disagree with one point that Rober McClenon is making below. Just because an RFC or close might be contentious that is no reason to forbid a NAC. Being contentious is not in of itself an issue either, so I am not sure what you mean with the learn from their mistake part? Could you explain what mistake you are referring to? PackMecEng (talk) 19:39, 10 September 2020 (UTC)

You know Floquenbeam, if you disagreed with me less you would be right more often. PackMecEng (talk) 19:50, 10 September 2020 (UTC)

Statement by Mr Ernie

I would encourage the arbs to accept this case. MrX is a very experienced editor and has every bit of judgment needed to close difficult RFCs, and their actions don't have any less worth simply because they haven't run an RFA. JzG has a pattern of taking a wikibreak or resigning his tools when things get heated (which is not a bad thing), but coming back from those breaks and shortly resuming similar behavior. Now we've had several discussions about JzG where consensus determined that the one specific thing wasn't actionable, but there is now a body of evidence that taken together should be considered by the Committee. JzG works in difficult topic areas so the Committee may determine that his behavior was necessary in those cases - we won't know without a case and I don't think the best idea is to kick the can further down the road. Mr Ernie (talk) 16:45, 10 September 2020 (UTC)

If we have serious editorial disagreements, is that not exactly what ArbCom is for? We can't afford to lose an editor of MrX's caliber, and I say that as an editor who frequently disagrees with them. I find that is exactly what makes Wikipedia better, as MrX has repeatedly engaged in discussion with me and given me advice that I find improves the approach that we all have. One of the last discussions on their talk page is where I approached them seeking feedback, knowing they would give it honestly and openly, and they did. Arbs, please open the case and help us understand how policies should better be applied! Mr Ernie (talk) 20:43, 10 September 2020 (UTC)

Statement by Robert McClenon

This case request has at least two aspects. It is about non-administrative closes, and it is about the administrative conduct of Guy. First, perhaps we should have an ArbCom case about non-administrative closes, although it would probably result in ArbCom telling the community to clarify the rules on non-administrative closes. However, this case request is not the vehicle for the ArbCom to try to address that issue, if one is in order. It seems to be only one episode, not worth an ArbCom case. Second, perhaps we should have an ArbCom case about the administrative conduct of JzG, although I do not see the need at this time. What I see is an administrator who has been usually right and occasionally wrong and has made a reasonable effort to be a reasonable administrator

A case about non-administrative closes should not be brought by a non-administrator who has made a controversial close. If a non-administrator has made a controversial close that has resulted in controversy, they probably were too bold, and probably should learn from their mistake, rather than trying to use the case as a vehicle. A case on non-administrative closes, if there is one, will more likely be brought against the reckless closer, and will probably be at WP:ANI rather than here anyway, or may be brought against an administrator who was vindictive. This is not such a case.

There may be a future case brought to ArbCom about non-administrative closes. This dispute is not that case. The community probably should clarify the rules on non-administrative closes. This case is not the vehicle to bring the issue to the community.

Either part of this case may recur. This is not a case for ArbCom. Robert McClenon (talk) 18:15, 10 September 2020 (UTC)

Comment About RFC Close Review

It appears that User:JzG is suggesting a centralized discussion on formalizing the procedures for RFC closes. I agree that a centralized discussion would be a good idea. It is clear that RFC closes can be reviewed after the RFC is already closed, at WP:AN. I have taken part in a few such closes where, after closing an RFC that had been awaiting closure for at least a week, an editor asked me if I would re-open it so that they could insert their statement. In each case, I said No, but took the close to WP:AN. (In each case, I am assuming bad faith that the editor waited until the RFC was closed in order to try to get it re-opened. That is not important.) (One RFC that I closed that was reversed had to do with Ayurveda, and there was sockpuppetry. Some types of misconduct continue.) So I agree that a discussion of review of RFC closes would be a good idea. Robert McClenon (talk) 19:16, 10 September 2020 (UTC)

Statement by Floq

I am surprised (no offense, I hope, but we disagree about a lot of stuff) to find myself agreeing 100% with PackMechEng's last paragraph (of their first post). Guy did not handle this well. MrX did not handle this well. People throwing around snark and assumptions of bad faith all over the place are not handling this well. I don't understand (well, by now I guess I do understand, but still wish it weren't so) why everything around here has to end with namecalling and a long time productive editor quitting or getting kicked out. It would have been fantastic for Guy to say "yeah, I could have handled this better", and MrX saying "yeah, I could have handled this better", but ... that kind of thing basically never happens around here. Bye User:MrX, I hope you come back whenever you're ready. If not, vaya con dios. --Floquenbeam (talk) 19:46, 10 September 2020 (UTC)

Statement by Dave

Largely agree with PackMecEng and Floq here - IMHO MrX shouldn't of closed that RFC however Guy shouldn't of kept reverting either - Both are to blame here however as a whole I see no issues with Guys behaviour so as such IMHO this case should be declined. None of this drama helps our readers. –Davey2010^Talk 20:01, 10 September 2020 (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.

JzG: Clerk notes

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

JzG: Arbitrators' opinion on hearing this matter <1/3/0>

Vote key: (Accept/decline/recuse)

• MrX, can you explain a bit more of your thought process behind restoring your close while it was under discussion at AN? Procedurally, shouldn't you have waited for that discussion to reach a conclusion? – bradv🍁 15:45, 9 September 2020 (UTC)
  • Decline – I do not see an ongoing problem here that would require arbitration. If more input on the RfC close is required, that discussion can be held at AN. – bradv🍁 13:24, 10 September 2020 (UTC)
• Decline. I do not see a pattern of problematic closings by JzG that requires arbitration. With respect to the "People's Mujahedin" RfC close, I see no evidence of misconduct. With regard to the infoboxes AE close, it is being discussed in the ARCA thread and even if we wind up modifying the close, such a disagreement would not rise to the level of misconduct either. In voting to decline a previous case request against JzG in June, I urged him to remain civil even in difficult situations. It is good that in both of the recent disputed discussions, he appears to have done so. Newyorkbrad (talk) 22:34, 9 September 2020 (UTC)
• Accept, per my vote on the previous request. Admittedly, the incident that prompted this filing does not seem particularly serious. But both this and the last case request asked us to examine the long-term conduct of an administrator and the history of prior dispute resolution does show sustained concerns from the community. We should have a low bar to accept cases like this, because arbitration is the only venue where such concerns can be effectively investigated. If we continue to refuse to look at administrator conduct unless there's been a recent, clear-cut misuse of the tools, we are seriously undermining one of ArbCom's most important responsibilities – to hold administrators accountable. – Joe (talk) 14:36, 10 September 2020 (UTC)
• Decline. While WP:BADNAC - which is not a policy or guideline as was correctly pointed out - says non-admins should avoid closing controversial discussions, it does also say (in note c) "Administrators should not revert a closure based solely on the fact that the original closer was not an administrator, based on consensus following this request for comment. Per WP:ADMINACCT, administrators are expected to promptly and civilly justify their decision to revert based on an assessment of the local consensus and application of Wikipedia policy and guidelines". (emphasis added) Guy's comments on his talk page when challenged (User_talk:JzG#Close_challenge) as well as in this request sound as if violating BADNAC was his only reason to overturn the close, which is, as Barkeep49 correctly points out, not a sufficient reason to do so. That said, while I do generally agree with Joe's reasoning that ArbCom should not make it difficult to review admin's actions, this is not a pattern of misconduct here that would require a case to examine. Regards SoWhy 15:12, 10 September 2020 (UTC)