Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard: Difference between revisions

In [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration&diff=125335039&oldid=125325229 this edit], an ArbCom member, who had been named as an involved party in a request for arbitration, summarily deleted the request, and is attempting to suppress on-wiki discussion of the matter. Would a block be appropriate? [[User:DESiegel|DESiegel]] 00:20, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

:For you or him? It's been made quite clear how the committee wants it to be handled. <font face="Verdana">[[User:One Night In Hackney|One Night In Hackney]]</font> 00:22, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

: I am unaware of the circumstances but, judging by the editor's edit summary, I would suggest contacting the arbitration committee. --[[User talk:Iamunknown|Iamunknown]] 00:24, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

Would a block be appropriate? No, of course it wouldn't. The ArbCom seems to like to discuss some things in private, probably so as to minimize disruption onwiki. I think you should write him a note on his talk page about why you think this should be discussed onwiki as opposed to proposing blocks that would be reversed in one minute flat. [[User talk:Picaroon9288|Picaroon]] 00:26, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

:And I want this discussed on-wiki. it is precisely the attempt to prevent that that I am objecting to. There is no policy providing that the arbcom can simply rule subjects off-limits for discussion on-wiki. That is precisely what I am challenging. I can't see any good reason that a proper discussion in a proper forum, would constitue "disruption". Perhaps someone could explain this to me. I am trying to follow proper steps, and getting nowhere because actions are being taken by fiat. [[User:DESiegel|DESiegel]]00:32, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

::Alright, I understand that. But ''why'' is the question? Why do you think this needs to be discussed on wiki? Similar discussions on wiki just bring arguing and the dredging up of grudges from a certain arbcom case which is around 13 months old by now; this is unnecessary disruption. Furthermore, if the arbcom wants to discuss it on their mailing list, well, why not let them? You did file an ''arbitration'' case. I'm sure Fred or another arb would be willing to keep you informed on their mailing list discussion if you asked them to. [[User talk:Picaroon9288|Picaroon]] 00:45, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

::(edit conflict)You should ask the ArbCom to discuss this on wiki, not us. We can't control them. --[[User:Deskana|Deskana]] [[User talk:Deskana|<small>(fry that thing!)</small>]] 00:45, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

::: It's pretty clear that Fred Bauder thinks the Committee should discuss this very sensitive case off-wiki. The [[Wikipedia:Arbitration policy|Arbitration policy]] states that:

:::*Arbitrators take evidence in public, but reserve the right to take some evidence in private in exceptional circumstances.

:::* Deliberations are often held privately, but Committee will make detailed rationale for all their decisions related to cases public.

::: So by my reading, and going by prior custom with similar cases, Fred's decision seems to be quite in order. If the other arbitrators disagree with him on this they can discuss their reasons here or on the mailing list, and may decide to overrule him. But it's up to them. They have discretion within the arbitration policy. --[[User talk:Tony Sidaway|Tony Sidaway]] 00:56, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

::::Well, inasmuch as Fred ought to be recused from any case to which he is a (properly) named party, it might have been better had ''he'' not made the decision to take the case off-wiki. The committee absolutely, rightly or wrongly, have discretion here, but I can't imagine that any particular harm would have befallen anyone had Fred simply waited for at least one non-recused active arbitrator to have issued the off-wiki directive; ideally, a majority of non-recused active arbitrators would simply have signed the ''Arbitrators' opinions...'' section in support of the issue's being directed privately to the mailing list. Tony is quite right that, should other arbitrators disagree with Fred, they will surely make such disagreement public on-wiki and will return the case to [[WP:RfAr]] if they think a return to be appropriate, and Picaroon and Deskana are quite right to suggest that this isn't really a matter that requires the attention of administrators; nevertheless, one wonders whether things might not have been handled other-than-optimally here. [[User:Jahiegel|Joe]] 03:51, 24 April 2007 (UTC)