Wikipedia talk:Arbitration Committee/Noticeboard

What this page is for:: This page is for discussion of formal announcements by the Committee, including clarification of the specifics of notices.
What this page is not for:: To request arbitration, see Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests. For information on the Committee, see Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee. To report a violation of a Committee decision, see Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement.

Archives

1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10
11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20
21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30
31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37, 38, 39, 40
41, 42, 43, 44, 45, 46, 47, 48, 49, 50
51

This page has archives. Sections older than 10 days may be automatically archived by .

Behaviour on this page: This page is for discussing announcements relating to the Arbitration Committee. Editors commenting here are required to act with appropriate decorum. While grievances, complaints, or criticism of arbitration decisions are frequently posted here, you are expected to present them without being rude or hostile. Comments that are uncivil may be removed without warning. Personal attacks against other users, including arbitrators or the clerks, will be met with sanctions.

Changes to the functionaries team, May 2024[edit]

Original announcement

Thank you for your service as an oversighter. – dudhhr^talk_contribs^she_her 17:02, 1 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for all your hard work, Dreamy Jazz. KevinL (aka L235 · t · c) 17:52, 1 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

From me too! ~ ToBeFree (talk) 21:16, 1 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Mzajac closed[edit]

Original announcement

And yet another administrator decides to pull a 172 exit instead of accepting accountability for their actions. I'd hope admins that get dragged to ArbCom actually have the moral fortitude to admit their failings rather than just ragequit. —Jéské Couriano v^_^v ^{AE thread summaries} 03:49, 8 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

172? – robertsky (talk) 10:40, 8 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, I was wondering about that. All I can come up with for "172 exit" is articles about how to jump out of a Cessna 172 while skydiving :-) RoySmith (talk) 12:42, 8 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Or it could have to do with Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/172 2 :). Lectonar (talk) 12:54, 8 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Lectonar has it right in one. 172 was the first admin to be deopped as a result of refusing to respond to an Arbitration, and it's 172 2 that lays out the reasoning and rationale for all other "refusal to respond to Arbitration" deops since. —Jéské Couriano v^_^v ^{AE thread summaries} 15:46, 8 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I can't say I don't get it. When one is confronted with a list of one's failings, and asked to particate in a process that will almost certainly end with them losing their position, walking away isn't that hard to imagine. Of course they could just resign as an admin and go back to editing, and I am sure I have seen others do that without admitting they ever made a single mistake, but people are people and react differently to things. At least they didn't do like some and just pretend to have some real-life crisis that flares up every time they are under scrutiny, to me that is the most despiciable option. Just Step Sideways ^{from this world ..... today} 17:17, 8 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Obviously this is circumstance-dependent, but actually engaging with arbitration substantially reduces your chances of getting de-sysopped, while refusing to participate makes it a near-certainty. GiantSnowman (courtesy ping) participated fully in the arb case about him, and in the end was courageous enough to accept that he had made mistakes and to take steps not to repeat them. I was proud to be the deciding vote against de-sysopping him and I would do it again; GS is a net positive to the project and I'm glad he's still around with the mop. I hope other arbs would react similarly to those with the willingness to be so accountable. Had GS refused to engage, it would have been an entirely different case and we would have lost a good admin and a good editor had he chosen to retire. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 18:38, 8 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Having gone through the process, I can empathise somewhat with those who don't engage - but as PMC says, I know that if I hadn't the outcome would have been very different and I would have massively regretted that. Engaging helped me see where I had gone wrong and how to correct it. It was ultimately a useful and cathartic process, even if it didn't seem like it at the time... Giant Snowman 18:56, 8 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I find JSS incredibly convincing in any given situation when he argues that any admin with a restriction should not be an admin. But I continue to find it not so compelling in the abstract. I would also just note that besides GS, User:Maxim/ArbCom and desysops shows that admins can participate and not be desyopped (though this is far more likely in a group rather than individual case). Barkeep49 (talk) 19:01, 8 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I suspect that if somehow it were me I'd stick and face the case, even knowing the odds are not on my side, but I also get it when they choose to walk away or not present a defense, although leaving the project entirely in the face of a case obviously more or less guarantees a desysop. We've certainly seen the scenario where an admin has a chance to escape being sanctioned but their behavior during the case convinces the committee that they aren't suited for adminship. Despite my hardline stance, I did always remind myself to be open to the possibility that they just made a couple mistakes. We're all (theoretically) humans here after all. Just Step Sideways ^{from this world ..... today} 22:13, 8 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I would also add, however, that the committee is, in my opinion, sometimes too hesitant to just resolve by motion. Two cases I was a party to were exceedingly obvious cases where the only reasonable decision was a desysop. Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Fred Bauder in paticular did not need to be a full case and became a complete circus during the workshop phase. Just Step Sideways ^{from this world ..... today} 22:23, 8 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know. It wasn't clear to me at the time (from the outside) that Boing wasn't at risk of desysopping which doesn't feel like it could just be resolved by motion. Barkeep49 (talk) 22:41, 8 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Boing made one involved admin action and asked the community to review it more or less right away. Fred wheel warred over his own block, twice. Worlds apart. I would add though that the committee and/or the clerks should have reigned in Fred's ridiculous behavior at the workshop. Just Step Sideways ^{from this world ..... today} 00:59, 9 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

While I can attest from personal experience how difficult it can be to actually do because of committee dynamics and so I am generally reluctant to criticize past committees for inaction, I 100% agree that Fred should have been reigned in at the workshop. Barkeep49 (talk) 01:02, 9 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

It's certainly possible that an admin who is the subject of a case doesn't get desysoped, but it's still highly unlikely. For a such a case request to get accepted, the admin must have done something egregiously bad, something pretty bad and not be responsive to feedback at ANI or elsewhere (e.g. user talk), or a series of not-so-great things and not be responsive to multiple instances of feedback. The pattern of not accepting feedback has an unfortunate tendency to continue during the case; the "egregiously bad" cases start approaching LEVEL II territory. If I was on the receiving end of such a case as a primary party, and it was moving towards acceptance, I would strongly contemplate resignation to save everyone the many-week palaver, because it would hopefully be apparent to me that there are very strong differences between myself and Committee (and by extension, community expectations for administrators).

I'm sympathetic to handling such cases more by motion. I find the outcomes of such cases in particular to be fairly predictable, and any surprises to be quite uncommon. The counterpoint is that our arbitration process at the very least rhymes with some elements of legal proceedings, which implies some process of, for example, presenting evidence, rebutting evidence, or a sense of an "accused" and "accusers", and that inevitably leads to more extended proceedings than a motion that sums up findings of fact and suggests a remedy (and an alternative or two as appropriate). My best explanation of why we hold a full case is institutional momentum: we've done it like so for almost 20 years. Maxim (talk) 01:37, 9 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Both of you... "reined in". In this metaphor the clerks are jockeys, not kings. ;) – bradv 02:59, 9 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

<joke>I think I'd be better at horse riding than ruling. All that sitting in a big chair must get boring.</joke>

. Dreamy Jazz ^{talk to me | my contributions} 08:18, 9 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I believe the spelling you're looking for is rained in, as in "Told an editor that they're all wet" RoySmith (talk) 12:44, 9 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for linking that page, it was an interesting read. Clovermoss🍀 (talk) 07:09, 9 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

It's kind of like, pleading no contest. Alanscottwalker (talk) 22:39, 8 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]