Wikipedia talk:Arbitration Committee/Noticeboard

Arbitration motion regarding User:EncycloPetey

Original announcement

I understand EncycloPetey has left the project anyway, and was therefore not able to put his side of the case. Given this it would have made more sense to simply suspend Admin rights, leaving the door open in the event that he was to return. Rich Farmbrough, 14:51, 8 September 2012 (UTC).

Rich: Speaking only for myself, I would be willing to consider that option if or when EP returns to editing. I don't think it's any secret that other resolutions to the RFAR than desysopping were possible. AGK [•] 17:02, 8 September 2012 (UTC)

He is active in other Wikimedia projects, and was contacted by e-mail. He could have put his case at any time, and apparently chose not to do so, knowing that desysoping was the most probable outcome of the case. Requiring him to go through RfA again doesn't seem an onerous burden. I believe many members of the community would be upset were the Committee to unilaterally make him an admin again without the community input that an RfA allows. Beyond My Ken (talk) 23:13, 8 September 2012 (UTC)

For myself, I would never support such a thing. If we have desysopped (as opposed to a level 1 emergency removal, but finally desysopped), I consider RFA the only venue competent to return the tools, ArbCom really shouldn't be doing things the community has a perfectly normal method of considering and acting upon. Courcelles 02:53, 9 September 2012 (UTC)

I wonder if anyone else enjoyed the comment from an Arbitrator that "one is left with little option if the volunteer will not engage with the issue, but to remove their ability to make the mistake again", when ArbCom members who choose to not engage with issues / mistakes simply refuse to admit to error or engage and sail on knowing there is no ability to remove their ability to repeat their mistakes? 121.217.36.168 (talk) 00:44, 9 September 2012 (UTC)

As I mentioned in another post recently look at it from the users point of view. Once an editor has been brought before Arbcom and Arbcom accepts the case the result is virtually always the same regardless of the discussions or dialogues. The user gets desysopped and or blocked. So why would a user, knowing this, waste their time fighting what has already been predetermined by Arbcom at the moment they accept the case. The Arbcom is understandably annoyed that the user didn't come back to edit but continued to edit elsewhere but IMO they brought it on themselves with their history of previous cases. Kumioko (talk) 00:50, 9 September 2012 (UTC)

The irony is that the editor would most likely not have been desysopped if he'd simply made a statement saying that he was wrong and that he won't do it again. Instead he chose to assume that he was going to be desysopped no matter what he'd do, and so he was desysopped because he chose not to do anything. --Conti|✉ 01:21, 9 September 2012 (UTC)

That may very well be true but I certainly understand things from the users point of view. Kumioko (talk) 01:25, 9 September 2012 (UTC)

While in many cases, the likely outcome of a case is that someone is going to get banned (I don't have any stats on this but I'd expect it would occur at least 70% of the time, with the other 30% leading to some other form of editing restriction or desysopping against someone), it is not a foregone conclusion. I, and several other of the arbitrators (based on mailing list discussion) would have been quite open to handling this particular issue with an admonishment if EncycloPetey had at least acknowledged that his involvement in those situations meant he should not have used his admin tools. This is the case all over Wikipedia: unblock requests, appeals of editing restrictions, even deletion debates. If the subject of the discussion makes a genuine effort to understand the problem at hand and seek to improve upon it (in the case of deletions, if editors make a significant effort to improve an article), they are much less likely to be sanctioned (or deleted). I will grant that such leniency may be less common at arbitration than other venues, but that's likely because parties to cases have had multiple chances to come to that epiphany at lower levels of the DR ladder. In this case, this was a concern about the use of admin tools, so there were fewer prior chances, and a greater chance for EncycloPetey to turn this around into something more amicable. As it was, he refused to participate beyond his initial statement, which failed to provide any of the assurances the Committee had already stated we were looking for. This refusal to participate is almost the precise opposite of what I mentioned before. It shows no understanding of the problem whatsoever, no desire to learn from the feedback being provided by the dispute resolution process (as acrimonious as it may be, it is nonetheless feedback). When this does happen, and in the face of clear evidence as we had here, the Committee has little choice but to act as we did, since the community has vested in us the sole authority to do so. Should EncycloPetey wish to return to Wikipedia, he is certainly welcome to do so; and I would hope that he does, so that in time he can work to understand what happened here (albeit belatedly) and eventually return to the admin corps.

Sorry for the long rant. I've pondered a number of times about the "someone's getting banned" perception of Arbcom cases and how to change that, but I've honestly no idea how to do so other than try and make people understand that we're really not out to get them, and in most cases we hate banning people just as much as they hate getting banned. Hersfold ^(t/a/c) 01:47, 9 September 2012 (UTC)

Hersfold's impression of the arbitrator opinion on this matter is identical to mine; had EncycloPetey engaged this process, the odds this process ends with an admonishment are high, the only ways this was going to be a desysop was if EncycloPetey said the totally wrong things, or if he ignored the process. Courcelles 03:06, 9 September 2012 (UTC)

Well needless to say I don't really agree but that's no big deal at this point and rather moot. Another productive editor is gone and desysopped for a relatively minor isolated incident. I also don't agree with the assessment about cases ending in admonishment being high. There are a lot of admonishments for third parties related to the subject your right but typically those that are directly related and named parties get desysopped or blocked. I'm going to drop it at this point and move on. Like I said the editor is gone so there's no sense in quibbling. Kumioko (talk) 03:23, 9 September 2012 (UTC)

I think you just agreed with me, actually... I said bans/desysops do tend to be more likely for named parties, but that I'd prefer lesser sanctions be more common. Hersfold ^(t/a/c) 03:42, 9 September 2012 (UTC)

It's disappointing that my point has been missed. It related not so much to the outcome for EncycloPetey as it did to the processes of ArbCom and the hypocrisy of demanding that editors admit to their mistakes whilst Arbitrators adopt a position of infaliability. Arbitrators make some huge mistakes, yet almost never admit to even the possibility of errror, and there is no mechanism by which their power to repeat their mistakes can be removed. EP has been run off the project by a frequent ArbCom mistake, assuming the outcome of a situation before even hearing all the evidence. As Hersfold has noted above, there is no possibility of this case resulting in anything but a ban or a desysop ("the likely outcome of a case is that someone is going to get banned (I don't have any stats on this but I'd expect it would occur at least 70% of the time, with the other 30% leading to some other form of editing restriction or desysopping against someone)" - note that the possibility of a non-punitive outcome is not even suggested in Hersfold's percentages) as no question of editing problems was alleged. As JClemens noted, a case was certain irrespective of EP's response ("The contested administrator actions enumerated above warrant a case ... nor do I see any way that EncycloPetey's presumably forthcoming statement would forestall such a case opening"). Risker concurred ("I believe the case should be accepted, despite the fact that we have not yet heard from EncycloPetey") as did Elen of the Roads ("Accept. Per Risker, despite EncycloPetey not having responded yet"). In other words, the case was declared inevitable before EP offered any comment, and the outcome of that was known to all even without it opening. Newyorkbrad, probably the most respected ArbCom member, had the decency to want to wait for a comment from EP, but even he had already reached and expressed his conclusion ("EncycloPetey needs to abide by the current policies in this area"). In the circumstances, why would EP choose to stay around for a process with a pre-determined outcome? It is ironic that Brad went on to write of policy that is "not merely a bureaucratic obstacle to quality control but serves important purposes that should be respected," yet the idea of waiting for evidence before forming an opinion and deciding a sanction (something which should be integral to the ArbCom policies) is treated as a mere bureaucratic obstacle to the operations of the Committee. Is it any wonder that so many ArbCom cases are recognised by those involved to be heading to a pre-determined outcome? 121.217.36.168 (talk) 05:05, 9 September 2012 (UTC)

PS: I have not bothered to discuss numerous mistakes made by the Committee collectively, or by individual Arbitrators, as they are fairly well known already. Please, don't imagine that this omission was due to a lack of examples.

I have deliberately stayed at the side of this, onlooking what was going on (commenting is futile anyway, it is a freight train with only one possible outcome). I second the contribution of 121.217.36.168. To be clear:

• If you are in front of your second AN/I, you must be guilty of something worthy of an ArbCom.
• ArbCom is accepting such cases - even without waiting for a statement: They was before AN/I twice, there must be something we need to do.

It is a complete red herring here, that if EncycloPetey would have made a proper statement, that then the outcome would have been different. It would even be a red herring to consider that if EncycloPetey would have made that statement at AN/I before this case was filed. Sure, the outcome might have been different at the end of this situation. But seen the greediness that the Arbitration Committee showed to accept this case shows that they at that point already found enough for a case, hence enough to presume that something needed resolution, I doubt whether the outcome would have been much less than a full case and a severe admonisment. And then, seen the greed that they have shown to desysop EncycloPetey lacking a case and a statement shows that they do think that the encyclopedia needed protection from EncycloPetey. Why else desysop? Prevention of what? The Arbitration Committee, as usual, acted on a presumption of guilt here. Not that 'guilt' or 'abuse' is needed: you've been brought before ArbCom, so the Arbitration Committee will resolve it. Even if EncycloPetey would have handed over his sysop bit by himself, a similar resolution would have followed. Point is: EncycloPetey was before ArbCom, resistance is futile.

But lets say that EncycloPetey would have said 'OK, sorry, will not happen again' (including or excluding handing over his bit). Does anyone really believe that the case would have ended there? No, because at the first sign of something, people will be pointing back: 'Look, he was before ArbCom' (like the community did with the second AN/I - look, he has been here before, so now it is ArbCom (again). And again, this case was technically accepted before EncycloPetey could even have made that statement.

Or would enough of the votes of Arbitrators that accepted the case have turned into declines so we would not have gone to a full case? Well, seen that the case was accepted without a statement that seems unlikely. But the result would have been the same. At some time in the future (whether it be 1 week or 6 years), at the first sign of something, people will be pointing back.

Or if we would go through a complete case, and the Arbitration Committee would have come to a conclusion that EncycloPetey did the right thing? Would that have changed things. No. Still, on a next occasion of something, people will be pointing back at this.

Even if the members of the Arbitration Committee collectively decide that what they did here was wrong, revert their decision and remove the case data from existence. Or if the community collectively decides that this is the wrong result and overturns the Arbitration Committee (which they can't do anyway): EncycloPetey is gone. If it makes the community, and the members of the Arbitration Committee feel better, consider EncycloPetey retired and that they will be returning in the future - only to give the then serving Arbitration Committee a chance to ban him (you can't desysop him, and he was already guilty here).

So anyway, the result would have been the same. Look at the older cases where editors go before ArbCom for a second or third time. Or cases where editors go before AN/I for a second or third time (like here). There must be something wrong, no matter how far you improve, it is simply never enough, because you have been there before. The only way the community wants this resolved, is to make sure that you can never do it again.

Do the arbitrators, or the community, really believe that there was any other outcome? Do you expect EncycloPetey to believe such a thing? I don't think he did. And I don't believe it either.

EncycloPetey has done the wise thing, walk away.

Bye EncycloPetey, I hope you enjoy your off-en.wikipedia activities. This place is not fun anymore. --Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 06:35, 9 September 2012 (UTC)

If he had accepted that what he did was wrong and said that he would not it again, there would not have been a desysop. If he had said all that on the original AN/I thread, there most likely would not even have been an arbcom case request. But he basically argued that he was right and that he had all the right in the world to do what he did, and that's the reason that led to his desysopping. What else should have happened here, if not a desysop?

As for the concept of people being remembered from previous arbcom cases: Isn't that how it works? Is arbcom supposed to ignore patters of misbehavior and not take previous admonishments/punishments into account? Don't admins do exactly the same when they see a user with a large block-log and subsequently block him for a longer duration than the last block? Of course, people can change for the better, and in an ideal world a perfect arbitration committee will take this into account and make sure that a user did or did not change before handling out their ruling, but I just can't figure out why the idea of looking at previous incidents is supposed to be a bad thing. --Conti|✉ 08:43, 9 September 2012 (UTC)

"What else should have happened here, if not a desysop?" - "Don't admins do exactly the same when they see a user with a large block-log and subsequently block him for a longer duration than the last block?". --Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 09:00, 9 September 2012 (UTC)

So, a slap on the wrist for using your tools while involved and then not seeing what's wrong with that? --Conti|✉ 09:51, 9 September 2012 (UTC)

Well, there was the case when Arbitrator X made a blatantly involved block on an editor he strongly disliked after Arbitrator Y made an unsupportable accusation of outing... ArbCom demonstrated their infalliable judgment by doing nothing except refusing to take a case when a former Arbitrator indicated he would not let other mistakes by X go undiscussed. Of course, that was the correct decision to demonstrate that ArbCom members are subject to the same rules as other admins for their admin actions, because one could not possibly think there are any differences in equality amongst admins – it's just some are more equal than others. By the way, Conti, if you'd like to engage with the substantive points made by either Dirk or myself, rather than just saying everything was EncycloPetey's fault, that'd be nice. 121.217.36.168 (talk) 10:32, 9 September 2012 (UTC)

Conti, some editors have established that EncycloPetey was acting while involved, others don't agree with that that strictly. You are obviously one of the former, and then 'obviously' a desysop is needed. "[U]sing your tools while involved and then not seeing what's wrong with that?" - that is what you established, Conti, others don't see it so clear, and you (and those others who see it like that) have certainly not managed to convince EncycloPetey that he was involved, or managed to explain why you think he was involved.

And what do we do here, Conti - We do not see a large block log, we see 2 cases 5 months apart, 6 examples in 2.5 years. No RFCs, no blocks, no sanctions, no edit restrictions, no .., nothing. Two AN/I threads 5 months apart. If there was more, one could consider 'blocking for a longer duration than the last block' .. no, we immediately escalate to Arbitration, and we immediately desysop - the only solution. And you have the audacity to ask "What else should have happened here, if not a desysop?" Did anyone try to solve the problem with EncycloPetey, in stead of escalating to AN/I and insisting he is wrong (I did not see evidence for that other attempts to solve the problem, and I think neither did ArbCom). Everyone jumped on it, even the members of the ArbCom did not wait for statements and technically accepted the case without hearing. (To me, in all cases it takes two to tangoEdit War, and whether or not the other party is right, edit warring is never the way forward, for neither party - yet, did anyone report EncycloPetey for edit warring, and did EncycloPetey get a block for it? I don't know, I have not seen that evidence, yet ArbCom has decided without that as well ..).

You just proved my point so clearly: "Do the arbitrators, or the community, really believe that there was any other outcome? Do you expect EncycloPetey to believe such a thing? I don't think he did. And I don't believe it either.".

Well, you got your desysop, and the community got their loss of a productive editor. Obviously there was no other solution possible, Conti. Obviously. --Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 11:49, 9 September 2012 (UTC)

You mention that there has been no attempt to solve the problem with EncycloPetey, and I absolutely agree that this should have been the first step here. Once someone starts an AN/I thread, things may spiral out of control pretty quickly, as they did here, and it is next to impossible to control what happens. I'm pretty sure you know that as well as I do. I'm not trying to say that EncycloPetey is the devil and everyone else is a saint in this situation. But as you say, it takes two to tango, and it takes both sides of a dispute to deescalate it. And as far as I can see, neither side tried to do so, not those that quickly escalated the issue, nor EncycloPetey. He did not acknowledge that there even might possibly be a problem, and pretty much left Wikipedia the moment the arbcom case was started (again, I agree that things went far too quickly here). What happened was unfortunate, but from the actions of both sides it looked inevitable to me.

And while we're at it, yes, it would be really nice to see arbitrators not accepting or declining cases until all parties are heard. I don't think it would have changed anything in this case, however. --Conti|✉ 13:45, 9 September 2012 (UTC)

That is what I mean, Conti, I appreciate that thought. Two AN/I threads are enough to bring things to ArbCom. I find that very worrying. Well, actually, in the beginning, those two AN/I threads were enough to consider a RFC/U. But no attempts, at all, to resolve it in a friendly way. No: DR it is, and DR it will be. There is no attempt to solve it without admission of guilt: 'whether or not what you did in the examples is a case of being involved, consider next time when you are reverting an editor a couple of times to bring them to AIV or AN3 or whatever, and not block them yourself, or protect the pages yourself.' Or even stated as a firm warning. But the threads are full of the accusations, 'forcing' EncycloPetey to admit guilt, a need to escalate, and editors felt the need to bash him around so much that this is the result - the editor walks away.

I doubt if it would have made a difference, indeed. Even if the AN/I thread would have simply died, it may have reoccured again soon(ish) and that might then have been the final drop. Of course, no-one would consider to solve it otherwise - It is the tendency of the community to escalate. It is not the Arbitration Committee that is at fault of how this escalated, though they certainly did no attempts to de-escalate it themselves (more an eagerness to escalate it further), nor has the community tried to stop ArbCom.

ArbCom has now shown that this works. Blind acceptance. There is a current thread on AN/I on an admin who is, though without use of tools, being accused of 'behaviour unbecoming of an administrator'. I wonder, is that enough for next time? Probably. But for EncycloPetey it is too late, there is no way the community can repair this.  :-( --Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 14:32, 9 September 2012 (UTC)

Lordy, although I believe you to be an intelligent and thoughtful man, you do talk some bollocks. If you can't see the difference between EncycloPetey being challenged on his actions and retiring in a huff, more or less saying that if he couldn't do what he wanted it wasn't fun any more, and MuZemike blowing his stack then being man enough to apologise and say he thinks he needs a break, well you're not looking very hard are you. Elen of the Roads (talk) 21:47, 9 September 2012 (UTC)

Thank you for proving my point, Elen. Not that I had hope that something else would be coming from you (unfortunately, I do not have any hope that something else would be coming from the majority of the members of the Arbitration Committee). There was something about a pot and a kettle that comes to mind. --Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 04:27, 10 September 2012 (UTC)

You know, all the individual words in that post were real words, but I have no idea what point you are trying to make here. Other than that you don't like me, which we'll take as read. Elen of the Roads (talk) 13:27, 10 September 2012 (UTC)

I know. And you may be wrong. --Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 13:36, 10 September 2012 (UTC)

No come on, what is your point. Are you saying that all the editors who filed the RfAR were wrong? Are you saying that the community should expect no actions when admins repeatedly violate policy and fail to address challenges (bearing in mind that this was the second time the guy had been at ANI). How many second chances should people get? Should admins get an infinite number? Are good editors really exempt from following the rules. Was it more fun when there were no rules, and the weak just went to the wall? I mean, what is the actual point you are trying to make?— Preceding unsigned comment added by Elen of the Roads (talk • contribs)

No, I am not arguing that, I am not saying that anywhere. Let me ask you a question: I have repeatedly stated (last time a couple of answers back) that I don't think Wikipedia is fun anymore. Why do you think I say that? --Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 14:08, 10 September 2012 (UTC)

People claim it is too hard to remove the bit and then people complain that it is too easy. Wikipedia may well be the best soap opera on the internet. Resolute 13:54, 10 September 2012 (UTC)

To that I agree, Resolute. It are probably not the same people who are arguing that, though. --Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 14:08, 10 September 2012 (UTC)

As a side note, Resolute, I do think that it should be easier .. but not in a process system like the current form of ArbCom, and I am also not sure in which way it should be, or whether it would be possible in a reasonable form. --Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 14:11, 10 September 2012 (UTC)

Elen, I gather that you are having trouble understanding the points Dirk is making. Is the same is true of the points I have made? Haven't I said anything that was worthy of any kind of response - from you or any other Arbitrator? In case it isn't clear, my points were not about whether or not EP had misused his tools (about which I have essentially zero interest) but about problems with the ArbCom and particularly the position of assumed infalliability that is regularly adopted by Arbitrators. You yourself asserted that EP had to be prevented from repeating mistakes at the same time that you and fellow Arbitrators repeated the mistake of deciding an issue without bothering to even wait for all the evidence. How is the community supposed to prevent ArbCom from repeating its mistakes? 121.217.36.168 (talk) 14:06, 10 September 2012 (UTC)

This is a very powerful point, "and the weak just went to the wall?". Thanks for making it Elen.. My position has been that there could have been more than one outcome for this case and my concern was that the most serious had been applied when another sanction might have been as useful. But having been in situations where I was helpless against some powerful admins, I have to say yes,.admins, whatever they were originally meant to be, have it in their power to protect editors but also to abuse them even in small and sometimes hidden ways. They must be held accountable because they have this power. A revelation. I feel better about the outcome of this case given your comment. (olive (talk) 14:08, 10 September 2012 (UTC))

Thanks Olive. That was the concern of all the filing parties - the effect this had on other editors. Elen of the Roads (talk) 14:18, 10 September 2012 (UTC)

@121.217 - in this case, considerable evidence was presented by the filing parties, and was available for review by the Arbs. WP:INVOLVED is fairly clear, and reverting good faith editors then locking the article to your preferred version, then blocking the other editor, is uncontroversially a breach. I don't know why you keep saying there was no evidence - have you not read the actual case? Elen of the Roads (talk) 14:25, 10 September 2012 (UTC)

Elen, I did not and have not said there was no evidence, I said a decision was made without waiting for all the evidence. If the distinction is hard to understand, try asking NYB why he did not vote accept or decline without waiting for EP to comment.

Further, you are skipping over the important points that I am making. I have watched ArbCom on and off for ages. I've seen Arbitrators decline to investigate a blatant violation of WP:INVOLVED by one of their colleagues. I've seen Arbitrators abuse editors on case pages whilst claiming that there is no need to recuse when acting as chief prosecutor and claiming to remain an impartial "judge". I've seen Arbitrators ignore vast swathes of evidence (ask CHL if such a case doesn't leap to mind). I've seen Arbitrators refuse to engage with criticism of their decisions, fully protecting case pages and archiving discussions here simply because they refuse to discuss their actions (aren't admins required to discuss their actions, why do Arbitrators sometimes refuse to do the same). I've seen recused Arbitrators step back into cases, seen recused Arbitrators responding to supposedly confidential emails to ArbCom that they shouldn't even see, and watched clerks follow their instructions instead of telling them that a recused arbitrator has no more right to instruct a clerk than does any other editor. You said that EP had to be desysopped to prevent him repeating mistakes. What about when ArbCom makes mistakes, how are Arbitrators prevented from repeating their mistakes? In case you are wondering, yes I have been an editor on and off over the years and have added considerable content. I've never been blocked, never been a party to a case, and ArbCom is one reason that I don't edit regularly. 121.217.36.168 (talk) 14:55, 10 September 2012 (UTC)

@DirkBeetstra - OK, here's your challenge. What is a fun way of telling an admin that what they are doing is misusing their tools and unfair to other editors. What is a fun way of dealing with that situation where the admin doesn't want to take any notice and doesn't think he has done anything wrong. What would YOU have done that was fair to the editors he reverted, locked out and blocked? Elen of the Roads (talk) 14:29, 10 September 2012 (UTC)

• I would have waited until I heard evidence from all sides. Simply because one or more editors are upset with somebody doesn't make them right and the somebody wrong. ArbCom didn't do that though. They agreed to accept the case even before EP had had a chance to respond. --Hammersoft (talk) 14:38, 10 September 2012 (UTC)

Well, EncycloPetey made a statement. It's not as if he was prevented from saying more. It was his choice to respond the way he did - bearing in mind a previous point made by Little Olive Oil that his first response might have been one of shock rather than how it sounded, he had plenty of chance to say more. In fact, one could interpret his responses as being along the lines that he realised he'd been rumbled but he wasn't going to admit he was wrong. Come on - you're Arbcom for a day. You've got half a dozen mixed admins all seeing a big problem with his edits. You've got the responses he has chosen to give, at ANI, at RfAR, at his WikiProject. How long would you have waited for him to say something else. A month? A year? Forever? Elen of the Roads (talk) 14:49, 10 September 2012 (UTC)

Elen, yours was the fourth vote to accept, and it came 2 hours and 31 minutes after the initial request. ArbCom regularly mentions that it can't act quickly with members in different time zones so a day is needed for coordination. You gave EP barely 10% of a day. Your point about a month or a year would be less hypocritical if you'd waited even a day for EP to respond to the RfAr. 121.217.36.168 (talk) 15:06, 10 September 2012 (UTC)

• Concur with the IP. Elen, there was absolutely no need for there to be a massive rush. Yet, that is what ArbCom did. Even before EP had made a statement, there was a net 4 to accept the case [1]. EP was an editor of 7 years, an administrator of 5 years, with even by the worst estimates a better than 98% success rate in his administrator actions. He deserved respect. Instead, he was insulted, sometimes grossly, by contributors to the request and ArbCom did nothing to reign in those contributors, instead rushing to accept the case before EP had even logged in. It is no small wonder that in his second to last edit here he said "I feel railroaded and surrounded by hungry sharks". --Hammersoft (talk) 15:31, 10 September 2012 (UTC)

• I think ArbCom basically got it right here, thank you. I would think that, of course, being a leader of the anti-admin cabal and lynch mob and all, but I think it's important to say it here. I often don't fully appreciate how crappy it must be to deal with The Giant Firehose of Criticism that accompanies every decision you make. Thanks - a lot - for volunteering to try to keep the peace between hundreds of eggshells armed with hammers. The next time I'm tempted to say something snarky or snide about something y'all have done, I'll try to find it in me to put myself in your shoes for a moment, and then STFU.

  Two takeaways, I think. First, it probably is best going forward to avoid officially accepting a case before the subject has had a reasonable chance to respond; otherwise it allows the focus to be shifted away from the merits of the case, to whether procedure was followed. The same things would have happened here, of course, but there would be one less diversionary tactic available. Second, I think I saw, fairly recently, someone somewhere suggest some sort of admin conduct review board, with the power to require a new RFA, to take issues like this up short of a full case. That sounds like a good idea. --Floquenbeam (talk) 15:57, 10 September 2012 (UTC)

@Elen, I already answered that, and explained that. You however have dodged the question. --Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 16:39, 10 September 2012 (UTC)

There might be an option to put a 'Suspended' status for admins into policy. That is, Arbcom lifts the tools pending a further discussion. The committee would let the bureaucrats know what 'suspended' means. A criterion for lifting the suspension would be stated at the time it was issued. This is not the first time where the failure of an editor to respond has left the arbs uncertain of whether to proceed to a conclusion. A case was closed at AE recently due to the targeted editor becoming unavailable for comment. The closure was "This request is archived until such time as User:XXXX returns to editing." In this particular case, nobody complained. EdJohnston (talk) 17:18, 10 September 2012 (UTC)

Motions regarding discretionary sanctions and Falun Gong 2

Original announcement

Is ArbCom permitted to create a situation in which community consensus does not prevail? By requiring an appeal only to ArbCom, and not also allowing the community to judge, this seems to violate the principal of consensus. Feedback? 134.241.58.240 (talk) 19:00, 10 September 2012 (UTC)

Those three editors were sanctioned as part of an Arbitration case, WP:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Falun Gong 2. This motion changed where the definition of their sanction was, but that was all; the note in the summary that they may only appeal to the Committee is simply reinforcing the point that their sanction was issued by the Committee through a case, and not by an individual adminstrator through discretionary sanctions. As a result, their only route of appeal is through a request for amendment to have the original sanction repealed. Hersfold non-admin^(t/a/c) 19:13, 10 September 2012 (UTC)

I understand, but what if the community has a discussion and decides those sanctions no longer apply to one or more of those editors? 134.241.58.253 (talk) 20:28, 10 September 2012 (UTC)

Arbitration motion regarding Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/The Troubles

Original announcement