Wikipedia talk:Arbitration/Requests/Case/RHaworth/Workshop

Main case page (Talk) — Evidence (Talk) — Workshop (Talk) — Proposed decision (Talk)

Case clerks: CodeLyoko (Talk) & Cameron11598 (Talk) Drafting arbitrators: Xeno (Talk) & Maxim (Talk) & Worm That Turned (Talk)

Behaviour on this page: Arbitration case pages exist to assist the Arbitration Committee in arriving at a fair, well-informed decision. You are required to act with appropriate decorum during this case. While grievances must often be aired during a case, you are expected to air them without being rude or hostile, and to respond calmly to allegations against you. Accusations of misbehaviour posted in this case must be proven with clear evidence (and otherwise not made at all). Editors who conduct themselves inappropriately during a case may be sanctioned by an arbitrator, clerk, or functionary, without further warning, by being banned from further participation in the case, or being blocked altogether. Personal attacks against other users, including arbitrators or the clerks, will be met with sanctions. Behavior during a case may also be considered by the committee in arriving at a final decision.

Some thoughts from Boing!

I'm not one for bureaucratese so I'm not going to offer formal proposals on the Workshop page itself, but I want to offer some thoughts on the situation and on what I think needs to happen. I don't want to see a desysop (because RHaworth shoulders a significant part of the admin burden and does a lot of good stuff), but I think things need to change in order to avoid that. I see three essential issues...

• Checkuser block. I'm not bothered by that. I see it as one-off error that I really don't think will be repeated.
• Speedy deletions. I can't see deleted articles these days, but I trust the judgment of those who can (certainly Thryduulf's) and it's clear that there have been far too many speedy deletions that were not only wrong, but badly wrong, and that it's an ongoing problem. That has to stop. The CSD criteria (as several people have pointed out) are very specific and tightly restricted (for good reason), and I want to see adherence to the letter of the CSD criteria.
• Biteyness. There was a case a few years ago of an admin who became increasing bitey over the years (due to frustration and a degree of burnout, it seems) and they were desysopped. I don't know if frustration and burnout is part of RHaworth's problem, but the symptoms appear similar. I understand that when you see an inadequate request/response/whatever for the 1000th time, it can be frustrating. But if it's the 1000th person, you can't expect them to learn the lesson of the previous 999 - for them, they're the first person. But what I'm seeing is seriously unacceptable bite and snark. If a relative newcomer, for example, makes a request but omits any needed diffs, the way to respond is not to bite them for their incompetence or bark an order at them. No, explain what's needed, politely ask them to provide a diff, give a link to the relevant guideline/policy/help page if relevant. Part of the purpose of interacting with inexperienced editors is to help teach them, not to dismiss them as unlearned - and they should come away thinking "That was friendly and helpful" rather than feeling scolded.

If we see RHaworth genuinely understanding these problems, and get a convincing explanation of how they will be solved, then I see no need for any drastic sanction. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 06:43, 8 January 2020 (UTC)

Unfortunately we've had promises of improved behaviour every time RHaworth's actions have been discussed at ANI, and yet the same actions are brought up a few weeks/months later. Unless there is some sort of "if you fail you will (not might) get desysopped without needing a full case I don't see this working, unfortunately. Thryduulf (talk) 12:43, 8 January 2020 (UTC)

Hmm, yes, I've only just finished going through the evidence provided by MSGJ, and I see exactly the same problems have been going on for years. And multiple discussions at ANI have made precisely zero progress. Perhaps I'm naive, but maybe this one finally being before ArbCom might make a difference? You might be right that we need at least a remedy such that "Any repeats will result in desysop by motion" (reportable at WP:AE?) Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 16:07, 8 January 2020 (UTC)

I'm not sure about whether an absolute bright-line (as in, 1 mistake, full de-sysop) is the way to go, but more relevantly AE isn't the location for it. ARBCOM can just say that they'd be free to make a decision by summary motion (if we went down this road) Nosebagbear (talk) 18:46, 8 January 2020 (UTC)

Well, wherever, but Arbcom won't know if nobody tells them in some place. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 18:59, 8 January 2020 (UTC)

Indeed, which is why in my proposal I made it a requirement that the committee be informed at ARCA of repeated or egregious breaches of the sanction. Whether my specific idea is workable (and I haven't read the latest comments on it yet) this is something that might be incorporated into a remedy that is. Thryduulf (talk) 21:42, 8 January 2020 (UTC)

• Just one last comment, on what we've heard of RHaworth's reactions. He doesn't seem to understand the issues, for example as I responded here. If he simply doesn't understand his problems, even though they seem clear enough to everyone else commenting, then that really does make trying to find minimal remedies very hard. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 13:33, 24 January 2020 (UTC)

  Sadly, I concur. As stated below, I only want behavior to change. He seems to be unwilling or unable to do so. If that's fixed, I don't see an issue with him remaining an admin. Buffs (talk) 21:03, 24 January 2020 (UTC)

Some related thoughts from Nosebagbear

• Boing is right as to the three issues at hand. While I've participated in the ANI discussions about the CSD issues, I'd go so far as to say that if the civility/biteyness issue wasn't in play, we'd probably only have had the 1 ANI discussion. RHaworth's CSD rate is so high we are always going to see more issues (even more "completely obvious" cases). And so it's how editor discussion is handled that concerns me the most. Nosebagbear (talk)

I was considering some intermediate methods on the CSDs - such as stopping RHaworth from handling A7s etc, but from the above, I don't think that's needed or, potentially, warranted. The only civility-specific ideas I've seen so far are distinctly "one mistake and you're out", which don't really solve the problem and just knock it slightly into the future. We need an intermediate solution on (newcomer) editor interaction. Nosebagbear (talk) 18:54, 8 January 2020 (UTC)

I don't buy the "CSD rate is so high we are always going to see more issues" thing, because he's been persistently ignoring the CSD criteria for years. Some of the examples we've heard of (and Thryduulf's examples seem quite damning) are things that an admin should never get wrong, even if they do a million deletions. He's simply not allowed to willfully ignore the criteria as he has been doing. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 18:59, 8 January 2020 (UTC)

@Nosebagbear: As I've said somewhere else recently (I can't remember where) with something like CSD the absolute number of errors is significantly more important than the rate of errors (although the latter is not irrelevant). With RHaworth we see both a very high absolute number of errors and a very high error rate. Thryduulf (talk) 12:58, 9 January 2020 (UTC)

The discussion on the evidence/evidence TP just indicated that judging error rates and working to compare them was not working in any objective sense Nosebagbear (talk) 14:26, 9 January 2020 (UTC)

The discussion on the evidence talk page actually concluded that the number of articles/pages restored as a percentage of pages deleted is not a good or useful indicator of error rates (because pages can be and are restored for many reasons, with many or even most not indicating an error on the part of the deleting admin). It concluded nothing about whether error rates in general and/or comparisons of them are or are not useful. Thryduulf (talk) 15:34, 9 January 2020 (UTC)

proposed remedy

Hi. I never followed any arb case before, and posting on the mainpage of this talkpage seemed a lot to me, so here I am: Somebody somewhere in this case stated that RHaworth has deleted more than a half million pages so far. With keeping this in mind, the number of mistaken deletions are obviously going to be high as well. Proposed remedy: RHaworth should be warned sternly about all the things being discussed in this case. None of them are sever enough to go for a desysop. Also, he should be told to be cautious with A7, and G11. I am not sure about his "not talking with IPs" policy. But all the complains presented in the case can be worked upon if RHaworth is willing to. (I carefully went through all the pages regarding this case.) Regards, —usernamekiran(talk) 07:36, 9 January 2020 (UTC)

Usernamekiran: Thank you for your suggestions. Could you elaborate on what you mean by “not talking with IPs”? –xeno^talk 12:32, 9 January 2020 (UTC)

@Xeno: I think Usernamekiran means comments like that at User talk:RHaworth/2019 Mar 30#Leah Maines ("I don't talk to IP addresses but fortunately #54129 is willing to do so.") and at User talk:RHaworth/2017 Aug 15#Kayako ("I have very little time for IP addresses. Feel free to take it to DRV."). Thryduulf (talk) 15:43, 9 January 2020 (UTC)

Thank you. Would this need to be introduced at /Evidence, or could it be referenced in place? –xeno^talk 15:52, 9 January 2020 (UTC)

Putting it evidence certainly wouldn't harm if it isn't there already. I'll take a look later (I don't have time right now). Thryduulf (talk) 15:57, 9 January 2020 (UTC)

@Xeno: Yes. The links provided by Thryduulf are correct. I said "I am not sure" because I am actually not sure how firm he is about "not talking to IPs" Because I vaguely remember him talking with IPs on a few occasions. —usernamekiran(talk) 19:54, 9 January 2020 (UTC)

@Xeno and Usernamekiran: I've added this (and a little more) to my evidence at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/RHaworth/Evidence#RHaworth "does not talk to" IP editors. Thryduulf (talk) 20:11, 9 January 2020 (UTC)

I’ve just noticed there is some material about IP editors in Ritchie333’s section. –xeno^talk 14:46, 10 January 2020 (UTC)

Yes, Ritchie333 added that after I added it. Whether that is related to this discussion and/or my evidence or not you'll have to ask them. Thryduulf (talk) 15:23, 10 January 2020 (UTC)

Thoughts from Ritchie333

I had an extended chat with RHaworth at the London meetup today. He seemed quite upset by this Arbcom case, didn't understand why people had it in for him and why he didn't seem to be able to do anything right. In particular, he was confused and distraught over why, if John Bercow can say "You are a very over-excitable individual, you need to write out a thousand times 'I will behave myself'", why can't he say "Kindly wait until somebody with no COI thinks you are notable". I tried to explain how text-based communication is difficult and how people have different cultures and ideas, but I don't think I was successful. I did recommend he write a defence of his actions ASAP, so it can be used in the workshop.

Anyway, can we just take a long deep breath and make absolutely sure that any sanctions, including a desysop, are genuinely for the benefit of the encyclopedia, before we enact on them. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 19:39, 12 January 2020 (UTC)

I am sorry to hear that he is upset and confused. Perhaps he should consider that In addition to the difference between spoken and written communication, there is a significant difference of culture between Wikipedia and the UK Parliament, nor is Michael Gove (Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster) to whom those remarks were addressed, exactly a newcomer to Parliament (where he has served for 15 years) easily crushed. The situation is not comparable to that where a newcomer to Wikipedia, who does not know the rules and customs, is addressed by an admin, and a particularly well-known admin at that, who has the power to delete or restore the page the newcomer has worked on and is interested in, even if improperly. Use of sarcasm or harsh language down a power gradient is always stronger than such use to apparent equals or superiors -- other things being even roughly equal. DES ^(talk)_{DESiegel Contribs} 08:36, 13 January 2020 (UTC)

Thanks, Ritchie333. We do need to remember in all these cases/requests ongoing at present that we are discussing people who have worked hard for the encyclopedia for many years, with little thanks and no remuneration. In this case, I wish that we could brainstorm something short of removal of tools or prohibition from speedy deletion that might be workable. Espresso Addict (talk) 14:38, 13 January 2020 (UTC)

It would be really good to see a defence - RHaworth's figures speak for themselves when it comes to showing both service and dedication to Wikipedia. In particular it would be great to see if he had any thoughts on preventing re-occurences of the problems (Speedy and civility with newer editors - I don't really think the CU issue will reoccur, that particular medicine seems already taken) Nosebagbear (talk) 20:49, 15 January 2020 (UTC)

The bigger problem is that issues like this continue to occur despite consensus of the community that what he's doing isn't "right". IMHO, this is a symptom of the bigger problem. Buffs (talk) 21:24, 16 January 2020 (UTC)

@Ritchie333:/@RHaworth:, to more directly answer your question/remarks and expand my remarks (and probably that of others):

• "He seemed quite upset by this Arbcom case, didn't understand why people had it in for him..."

  I'd be upset too if my work was brought before ArbCom and my entire work on WP was publicly questioned in front of my peers. That's bound to be upsetting. Likewise, the very real prospect of losing Adminship (I know Jimbo says it's "no big deal"...that's hogwash) would also be upsetting.

  The fact that he doesn't understand why is part of the problem. People have been trying to work with him for years to get him to change his demeanor/processes to no avail.

  Lastly, I don't think people here "have it in for him", per se. They simply want such behavior to stop. Apologies + "I've learned" + "I won't let it happen again" + repeat for 4 years = we don't view this as sincere reflection nor a sincere change. Given all the AN/ANI threads, this is VERY clearly a last resort. If he can't see that we've tried to work with him and it appears to us that he's personally unwilling to make any changes, then we're left with few options. IMHO, he's pushed himself into this corner.

• "...he was confused and distraught over why, if John Bercow can say 'You are a very over-excitable individual, you need to write out a thousand times 'I will behave myself'', why can't he say 'Kindly wait until somebody with no COI thinks you are notable'."

  First, and foremost, RHaworth isn't John Bercow and RHaworth isn't dealing with members of Parliament. You're dealing with laypeople; in many cases, uneducated laypeople unfamiliar with WP procedures, rules, and policies. You cannot treat naive volunteers like professional, elected officials. They don't know the rules. As an admin, you're expected to guide people, not just admonish them. Imagine you're a police officer and you start berating a 12-year-old for playing ball in the street. While the officer is 100% correct that the child shouldn't be playing in the street, berating isn't necessary.

  Second, I'd argue that he's actively driving away users with such rhetoric. I find 'Kindly wait until somebody with no COI thinks [you or this subject] are notable' to be quite insulting/rude. It says that the subject of the article, something about which a user is at least interested in, if not, passionate about, is unworthy of an encyclopedia article and unnotable. When you couple that with the fact that he just deleted an article someone expended at least some effort on and is probably just starting, it's a pretty bad start to their experience on WP: Work on an article about something important to you -> article is deleted -> you're told you/your subject are unnotable; in many cases, it's about the person themselves. That's an inherently personal remark that's unnecessary. Simply explain, "For an article to be created, it must meet certain criteria. Among these is notability. Since the article fails to meet that threshold, it should be removed. If you wish to appeal that, here's how. Likewise, it appears you may have a conflict of interest on this subject. If so, please ensure your actions are in line with our conflict of interest procedures." There are better ways to achieve the same desired results.

  Third, I'd question whether he actually knows what WP:COI says. Just because you have a COI doesn't mean you can't contribute. It doesn't mean you cannot contribute on the subject which you have a COI about. It means that you need to be open about your COI and allow others to assess your choices with that COI in mind. His advice and feelings about COI are in conflict with the actual policies on the subject.

  Lastly, this whole ARBCOM case is WP procedure. One could argue that this proceeding is nothing different from the Parliamentary procedures/language he's espousing, the only difference is that he's the subject...kind of a turnabout on how COI users may feel about his remarks. I would advise him that the way he feels right now may be the same way others are feeling about their interactions with him.

I, for one, will accept ArbCom's ruling on the matter. I would strongly advise RHaworth to admit fault, explain that he understands that Parliamentary language isn't appropriate, explain how he will change his behavior (like the word choice alternatives listed above and actions he won't take), and throw yourself on the mercy of the ArbCom panel. Mere apologies at this point seem insincere. This has been going on for 4+ years. People have tried to talk to him about this ad nauseum all to no avail/no changes in behavior. We are here because there is no alternative left. After all of this, if RHaworth cannot see that there is a problem with his actions, that itself IS the root problem.

All I've ever wanted from RHaworth (and I think most of us are in this boat, but I won't presume) is "Ah. Ok, yeah, I see your point." + a substantive change in behavior. To date, all I'm seeing is perpetual digging in of his heels and an unwillingness to change.

I look forward to your reply. Buffs (talk) 17:39, 17 January 2020 (UTC)

(I note that the Workshop is closed, but am unclear on whether this Talk page is also closed. It appears not, hence my posting, but please accept my apologies in advance if I have erred).

Whilst I have had my own concerns about RHaworth on occasion (he has once or twice speedy deleted articles after I have declined the deletion; the same user put the tag back and RHaworth just deleted it while on a deletion spree), I am going to have to defend him on this particular point.

To me "Kindly wait until somebody with no COI thinks you are notable" is neither rude ("offensively impolite or bad-mannered") nor uncivil ("discourteous; impolite").

Essentially, his statement is a rewording of a sentence from WP:YOURSELF - "If your life and achievements are verifiable and genuinely notable, someone else will probably create an article about you sooner or later" - with the addition of the word "Kindly". The relevant Cambridge Dictionary (British) definition of "kindly" is "used when asking someone to do something, especially when you are annoyed with them but still want to be polite" (emphasis mine).

I don't see a comparable definition in Merriam-Webster (American) so this may be an issue of variation in English around the world and cultural differences.

I would not disagree that the sentence could have been written in a more friendly way, but I suggest that it does not qualify as incivility for the reasons stated. --kingboyk (talk) 04:29, 30 January 2020 (UTC)

Proposals by 65.41.81.89

Proposed principles

Strong contributions do not excuse repeated violations of policy

1) Editors are expected to make mistakes, suffer occasional lapses of judgement, and ignore all rules from time to time in well-meaning furtherance of the project's goals. However, strong or even exceptional contributions to the encyclopedia do not excuse repeated violations of basic policy.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

The idea is that while half-a-million deletions certainly represents a lot of time dedicated to Wikipedia, it does not excuse other failures. 65.41.81.89 (talk) 02:38, 20 January 2020 (UTC)

Users are expected to be reasonably courteous

2) Users are expected to be reasonably courteous to each other, see Wikipedia:Civility and Wikipedia:No personal attacks

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Administrators are expected to lead by example and learn from experiences

3) Administrators are trusted members of the community. They are expected to lead by example and to behave in a respectful, civil manner in their interactions with others. Administrators are expected to follow Wikipedia policies and to perform their duties to the best of their abilities. Occasional mistakes are entirely compatible with adminship; administrators are not expected to be perfect. However, sustained poor judgment or multiple violations of policy may result in the removal of administrator status. Administrators are also expected to learn from experience and from justified criticisms of their actions.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

The idea is that it is less the mistakes than the failure to learn from them and correct course that is a problem. 65.41.81.89 (talk) 02:38, 20 January 2020 (UTC)

Those who ignore all rules should proceed slowly and deliberately

4) Wikipedia has many policies and processes that affect deletion and undeletion of pages. Where there is strong community support (or minimally, a lack of objections), it is sometimes permissible to sidestep or otherwise take liberties with these process. Those who ignore all rules should proceed slowly and deliberately; act only when informed by any existing discussion, history, or logs; and should be prepared to explain the reasoning for their actions. If ensuing discussion shows an absence of community support, practitioners of Ignore All Rules should have the grace to revert their own actions.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Proposed findings of fact

RHaworth has demonstrated a marked lack of civility

1) RHaworth has demonstrated a marked lack of civility towards other editors that as a whole constitutes a failure to meet WP:ADMINCOND

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

RHaworth has frequently and repeatedly made out-of-process deletions

2) RHaworth has frequently and repeatedly made out-of-process deletions.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

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.

RHaworth is admonished for failing to exhibit respectful, civil conduct

1) RHaworth is admonished for failing to exhibit the respectful, civil conduct expected by the administrator conduct portion of policy, and is placed on probation for a period of twelve months from the closure of this case. Any future inappropriate conduct may result in their administrator privileges being revoked by simple motion.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

This is of course assuming the revocation of admin tools as already proposed does not pass. 65.41.81.89 (talk) 02:38, 20 January 2020 (UTC)

RHaworth banned from making any speedy deletions

2) RHaworth banned from making any speedy deletions, or otherwise conducting any admin-actions in the speedy-deletion area, broadly construed. This restriction may appealed no sooner than 12 months after the closure of this case.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Ditto 65.41.81.89 (talk) 02:38, 20 January 2020 (UTC)

This very much depends on what's considered an "admin-action". There's been no evidence presented about problems with (in increasing distance from the actual act of deletion) untagging, or tagging, or undeleting, or salting, or blocking as a result of speedied pages, or inspecting deleted pages; just with the actual deletions and with responding to the unending torrent of complaints that are inevitable if you speedy delete pages in any kind of volume. If RHaworth was willing to step away from deletion entirely and go help out at WP:REFUND or WP:DRV or WP:AIV for a year, I don't think anybody would have a problem with that, but it'd plainly violate this restriction. —Cryptic 16:00, 20 January 2020 (UTC)

I presented some evidence relating to salting. Espresso Addict (talk) 18:47, 20 January 2020 (UTC)

I agree "any admin actions" and "broadly construed" are too wide in this case. I think "banned from (i) speedy deleting any page or (ii) salting any page unless there is an explicit consensus for that action." would cover it sufficiently. Thryduulf (talk) 20:35, 20 January 2020 (UTC)

You're right, of course. I should've known better to make such a statement without doublechecking the evidence page first. —Cryptic 02:33, 21 January 2020 (UTC)

Wrong place for IP's proposal

Doesn't the IP's above proposals belong on the Workshop page? not the Workshop talkpage. GoodDay (talk) 05:42, 22 January 2020 (UTC)

@GoodDay: Yes, but the workshop page is semi-protected. An arbitrator or clerk can move it across if they feel it appropriate. Thryduulf (talk) 15:31, 22 January 2020 (UTC)

Semi-protection (2)

Given the protection of the main page and the ongoing disruption here I've also semiprotected the talk page. However, I hadn't realized that an IP contributor had already provided some constructive comments (see the section directly above this one), nor that I was mentioned by name in the LTA's outburst. If a clerk disagrees with my action then of course feel free to unprotect the talk page.

Personally: I see no policy against it, but I'm troubled by allowing anonymous contributions to an Arbcom case. In my opinion, if an editor has good-faith input to an arbitration proceeding which they do not want to attach to their identity, they should email those comments to the committee directly, rather than posting here logged out. But I have no justification for enforcing that opinion and was not intending to do so when I protected this page. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 16:36, 20 January 2020 (UTC)

@Ivanvector: One of the alleged problem areas with RHaworth's conduct lies in his interactions with IPs. Espresso Addict (talk) 18:44, 20 January 2020 (UTC)

Understood, but my protection is related to the proxy-hopping anon that's been disrupting the case to air their personal grievances against checkusers (which means the probability is roughly 102% that they're someone with a checkuser-blocked account). I don't see any reason to think the IP that posted the section above is the same person, but we don't know who they are at all, and my issue with that is accountability. None of that is related to RHaworth's interactions with IPs at all. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 20:07, 20 January 2020 (UTC)

@Ivanvector: I don't see any reason why IP editors should not participate fully if they are being constructive, and i am very dubious about semi-protecting this talk page as well as the main workshop page. I'm not undoing it, but i urge you to reconsider. Part of the point was that it has been alleged that RHaworth treated IP editors as less entitled to participation, in spite of policy to the contrary. We should not commit the same error in discussing this matter. The above comments seem to assume that most IPs were in fact registered editors editing without logging in, but I see no reason to assume that to be the case. Some long-term editors never create an account, and current policy says this is fine. DES ^(talk)_{DESiegel Contribs} 17:35, 22 January 2020 (UTC)

@DESiegel: the disruption to this case is coming from a community banned disruptive sockpuppeteer hopping IPs (entirely unrelated to Rhaworth). The inability for other IP editors to contribute on a level playing field is an unfortunate side effect of the necessary protection against that disruption. Thryduulf (talk) 18:22, 22 January 2020 (UTC)

Closure

21 January was yesterday in UTC. Shouldn't the workshop be closed by now? Glades12 (talk) 17:12, 22 January 2020 (UTC)

As "target" dates, I didn't think they were set in stone. Personally I'd rather get the right result late, than the wrong result on time. I will advise the two other drafters though, and see what they think. –xeno^talk 17:23, 22 January 2020 (UTC)

I suppose that makes sense. (I am not very familiar with this whole process.) Glades12 (talk) 18:24, 22 January 2020 (UTC)

@Xeno: Given that we've asked questions with no reply and RHaworth appears have been offline for 10 days now, I think it's reasonable to close it now. I don't believe any new information that will be posted. Should RHaworth want more time to craft a response, I'm not opposed to waiting on it. But if he's radio silence, I think it's time to end this. Buffs (talk) 21:44, 23 January 2020 (UTC)

It should be closed, by now. GoodDay (talk) 13:06, 24 January 2020 (UTC)

It is now. Buffs (talk) 21:11, 24 January 2020 (UTC)

• Both clerks in this case, CodeLyoko and Cameron11598, have been absent recently. The recent contributions to the Workshop by SmokeyJoe and Thryduulf should be reverted.--Bbb23 (talk) 13:48, 27 January 2020 (UTC)

  Bbb23, Looks like they have been reverted. If the issue persists, I'll raise the protection level. SQL^{Query me!} 16:16, 27 January 2020 (UTC)

  Sorry. I misread the dates while browsing the cases. —SmokeyJoe (talk) 22:05, 27 January 2020 (UTC)

Technical protection for CU and OS blocks

In a now revered comment on the workshop SmokeyJoe wrote: If this were a serious recurring issue, CU blocks should be technically protected from non-CU unblocking. Is it? —SmokeyJoe (talk) 11:46, 27 January 2020 (UTC). I feel that's a question which deserves a reply that people other than SmokeyJoe are likely to see:

There are currently only two levels of restriction in MediaWiki: Blocks (which can be placed and removed by administrators) and global locks (which can only be placed and removed by stewards. Any technical measure to restrict CU and/or OS blocks to those with the relevant permissions will require a change to the software. I'm not a developer by any means, but based on the work I've observed regarding partial blocks my guess is that this would not be a simple thing to implement. The developers would also need to see a strong consensus that it was desired before considering the change, and I'm not aware that it has ever been proposed. It's an idea that is worth exploring further though, to see just how difficult it would be and whether there would be any community support for it. This is not the right venue for that though, I'm not sure where would be best but maybe one of the village pumps? If anyone does start such a discussion please ping me about it. Thryduulf (talk) 16:13, 27 January 2020 (UTC)

Putting aside the technical issues, there would be a problem with such a restriction. For example, I make a CU block. Six months later, the sock requests to be unblocked per the SO. An administrator asks me if I object to them unblocking the user. I consent to the admin unblocking the user without endorsing the unblock, meaning I won't unblock the user myself. If the proposed restriction were implemented, either the user could not be unblocked (not ideal) or a CU would be "forced" (one cannot force an admin to take any action) to do the unblock. One possible way around this problem is that a non-CU unblocking a CU-blocked user would receive a warning (do you really want to do this?) before the unblock was executed.--Bbb23 (talk) 16:22, 27 January 2020 (UTC)

Another option would be for you (or another CU) to downgrade it to a normal block without unblocking (I guess similar to how you can downgrade page protection from full to semi). Whether that would still be "forcing" an action would be something that needs discussion. Thryduulf (talk) 16:53, 27 January 2020 (UTC)

In this scenario, I don't see downgrading the block to be any different from unblocking in both concept and the use of admin tools.--Bbb23 (talk) 18:03, 27 January 2020 (UTC)

I should add that we probably shouldn't continue this discussion here. It's really not the right place.--Bbb23 (talk) 18:08, 27 January 2020 (UTC)

On the question asked, how often has it happened that a CU Block was reversed inappropriately? —SmokeyJoe (talk) 22:07, 27 January 2020 (UTC)