- February 2014 - Toddst1. Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case#Motion (Toddst1) From request for a case to a motion to bar use of tools in 5 days.
- Wikipedia:Former administrators/reason/for cause
- Wikipedia:Former administrators/reason/resigned
- Eloquence (former: t · c · b · p · d · r · meta · local) Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Media Viewer RfC#Case suspended (II)
- Nikkimaria (former: t · c · b · p · d · r · meta · local) Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Archive263#Nikkimaria - topic ban proposal
- Kaldari (former: t · c · b · p · d · r · meta · local) Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive831#Sock puppetry by an admin
- December 2014 - Secret (former: t · c · b · p · d · r · meta · local) From the misuse of tools to desysopping by motion in 15 days. Case involved handling of confidential information.
User:TenOfAllTrades/CDAresponse
| Proposed process muddles together evaluation of actions (and evidence) and imposition of sentence |
|---|
|
One thing that Arbitration does fairly well in its decisions is the illustration of its 'thought process'. There are clearly-delineated sections of an Arbitration decision which sequentially describe the Principles at issue (what do we expect?), the Findings of Fact (what actually happened?), and the Remedies (what do we do about it?). The traditional Arbitration framework lets the ArbCom specifically address two important questions separately. First, did an individual's conduct violate or fall short of the project's expectations? Second, what sanction is warranted in response to that misconduct? This proposed process mixes and muddles those questions. It asks "Does this editor deserve to be desysopped?" without bothering to achieve consensus on what misconduct was actually at issue in the first place. Editors who say "no" to a desysop request will be hounded. There isn't any room to say something even slightly nuanced, like "this conduct wasn't appropriate, but desysopping isn't necessarily the best remedy", or even "if better-substantiated, I could support desysopping, but more evidence is required." Making the problem worse is the short timeline; discussion gets cut off because immediate voting and punishment are so urgent. |
| Development of these processes is like the development of alchemical transmutation, with similar efficacy |
|---|
|
Among other things, the ancient alchemists believed that the transmutation of base metals into gold could be achieved in their workshops, if only the correct combination of techniques were assembled. Great effort was expended to test different temperatures, different boiling durations, different incantations—all variations on the same themes, none of which would ever succeed. We have gradually developed a similar approach – and problem – in the the slow proliferation and iteration of desysopping proposals. Different numbers of certifiers (two? three? ten? none?), credentials for certifiers and closers (admins? bureaucrats only? non-admins only?), thresholds for desysopping (fifty percent? sixty? seventy? eight percent? discretion of a 'crat, within assorted specific windows, except on Sundays?), assorted time limits (one week? two? four weeks?), and so forth have all been thrown at the issue: variously voted on, discussed ad nauseam, killed at RfC, and so forth. Like the ancient alchemists, new proposers persist in the belief that by tweaking their newest protocol just a bit – three endorsements instead of two! – they'll successfully achieve the goal that has eluded their predecessors. The problem is, there just isn't a magic formula which will transmute a knee-jerk, mob-driven, high-speed vote-gathering process into a fair and judicious outcome. |
| Editors with a lot of friends or stalkers will hold disproportionate influence over this process |
|---|
|
While explicit canvassing is forbidden, it would be disingenuous to pretend that this sort of process won't light up editors' watchlists. Participating editors – whether for the 'prosecution' or the 'defence' – who have highly-watched user/talk pages will have a disproportionate influence on the recruitment of voters—whether they want to or not. If twelve editors present the same diff in an Arbitration case, it's still one diff. If twelve editors vote in this process, it's twelve times the influence. |
| This one size fits all approach lacks the flexibility to deal with problem admins effectively |
|---|
|
I can't believe I'm about the write the following phrase, but here it is—the Arbitration Committee is actually capable of rapid, flexible action. The ArbCom has demonstrated on more than one occasion that they can desysop in less than a week when presented with a clear case. (And they've carried out emergency desysoppings – on the rare occasions where they have been necessary – in minutes.) There's no need to stretch cases like Toddst1 or Craigy144 from a few days out to a full two weeks, or drag in scores of voters. These cases could be handled quickly and straightforwardly by the ArbCom. At the other extreme, where cases involve complex issues, weighting of evidence and judgement calls, and examination of conduct by multiple parties, two weeks may be drastically too short for volunteers to properly cope with. Nevertheless, this process proposes we use the same cookie cutter for every case, no matter how poorly it fits. |
| The proposal would consume volunteer resources better applied elsewhere |
|---|
|
Instead of trusting to the ArbCom members endorsed by the community to handle these disputes, this process will demand the extended attention of dozens or even hundreds of community members each time it is activated. |
- Andrevan: From initial case request (5 June 2018) to closure after resignation under a cloud (11 June 2018) in six days. case page.