Wikipedia talk:Arbitration Committee/Noticeboard: Difference between revisions

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 Lowercase sigmabot III.

Announcement

• I'll go ahead and thank the outgoing Arbiters for their service. It is much appreciated. Eluchil404 (talk) 19:33, 1 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Many thanks from me too for the work done by the outgoing arbitrators. It can be a bit of an adjustment to make (both ways) but they should all have our thanks and best wishes. Carcharoth (talk) 23:58, 1 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Announcement

Yay! More work. MBisanz ^talk 00:46, 1 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Minor request, can I have Checkuser back and be re-subscribed to the AUSC mailing list? It's the same info as my membership on func-en and oversight-l. Thanks. MBisanz ^talk 04:16, 1 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Ooops. I've filed the paperwork on meta for you: [1] Hersfold ^(t/a/c) 04:39, 1 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you! MBisanz ^talk 05:42, 1 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Announcement

Original Announcement

You might like to change the wording slightly

"opening, closing, passing and declining cases and motions;"

gives a slightly broader impression of a clerks job than is probably intended. Rich Farmbrough, 23:11, 2 January 2013 (UTC).[reply]

Looooooooool. Snowolf ^{How can I help?} 23:15, 2 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I've edited it a bit. Regards, Newyorkbrad (talk) 23:21, 2 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The setting of an archive time of a talk page does not fall with the committee's responsibilities Wikipedia:Arbitration/Policy#Scope and responsibilities; so why should the community accept some off-wiki clerk-l discussion as valid for setting of the page archive time, especially when such setting conflicts with community approved guidelines? ArbCom, not GovCom. NE Ent 13:42, 4 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

And by that same policy, the Committee's clerks are responsible for "management of all the Committee's pages and subpages", of which this is one. T. Canens (talk) 13:47, 4 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

While the first change to the archive timing of this page has been done by Timotheus Canens as an Arbitrator and as such it could be argued that it does not fall within its powers but rather the clerks', the last change has been made by a clerk and as such it seems admissible on the above notion, tho I am not particularly sure of the relevant of this whole thing. Last I checked the parameter that has been changed means it's archived 10 days *after* the last comment has been made, and as such it is seems irrelevant. I however agree with the spirit that the Committee shouldn't retain ownership rights over the pages about it, especially those where no argument could be made for a pressing need for it. A reasonable argument can be made that Case pages and the like need strong management from the clerks, but I fail to see why the archiving time of the discussion page of a noticeboard is set following consensus on a private list by a limited subset of wikipedians. It does not bode well that the Committee and its clerks seem to use such mailing lists for so trivial a matter rather than openly discuss it here, as it seems much more appropriate and sound. While it does not surprise me any longer, it is however an indication of a forma mentis and default reasoning in which some of our most prominent wikipedians have fallen into, perhaps. Snowolf ^{How can I help?} 14:01, 4 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Do we really need to have an RFC on the trivial matter of the archive time of discussions which are finished in order to prevent a low-level edit war over the number of days? The clerks-l list is used for coordination between the clerks, so we had a short discussion there to gauge what we and the arbitrators thought would be an acceptable compromise between 3 days and 30. If the community wishes to micromanage every element of the routine housekeeping clerks perform, then I think I shall move on. --Alexandr Dmitri (talk) 14:30, 4 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

If you have a beef about lack of transparency on this one, please bring it up with me instead of the Clerks as I asked them for their thoughts on the slow edit-warring that was taking place. I remind evryone that this very noticeboard - which was set up by ArbCom initiative and not by community request - was created to increase transparency and to provide opportunities for comment and feedback. Otherwise, I endorse what AlexandrDimitri has said. Do we reslly need GovCom accusations over something this trivial?  Roger Davies ^talk 14:47, 4 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict)Nobody has suggested that a RFC is needed. I just fail to see why you couldn't held that discussion on-wiki so that any community member could give their $0.02, as there's no confidentiality or urgency in the matter, clearly, and it would have allowed consensus to develop, instead of having consensus thrust upon us from ML. That said, I don't see anything wrong with the actual change, but I would rather hear that the clerks and the arbitrators don't default to discussing even the most trivial of matters behind closed doors and invoking their rights to manage the Arbitration pages to enact a change. It's precisely because this matter is so trivial that I find it sad for clerks to discuss it on a private list and for arbitrators to invoke the right of clerk to arbitrarily manage pages. Unlike NE Ent, I agree that you have a right to do so. I just don't think that when you were given this right somebody expected you to exercise it to full effect for such a silly thing. I am however really saddened to hear you describe community input as "micro-managing" with a clearly negative accent put on it. This is a wiki, my friend. Community input is what we're here for, the whole everybody can edit, we all have to collaborate together. Surely a few pairs of extra eyes and a few extra minds commenting on an issue should be great news to you :) That doesn't make us right, but it does make us good wikipedians, trying to comment, change, discuss; the whole vibrancy and colorfulness of a Bazaar, not the monolithic top-down approach of the Cathedral. Surely you will agree with me that the wonderfulness and inspiring nature of this project lies in the great people we have here and in the ability of everyone of us to speak our mind and contribute to the place :) Snowolf ^{How can I help?} 14:48, 4 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

NE Ent, could you possibly have picked a more pointless and insignificant nit to pick and make drama about? The archiving delay of a noticeboard talk page? Really? — Coren ^(talk) 14:36, 4 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• This thread is undoubtedly the most insignificant thing I've seen on Wikipedia since the Userbox Wheel War. AGK [•] 14:42, 4 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

(e.c.) Actually, I think the point was about AlexandrDmitri adding a note that the archiving time can't be changed without permission of ArbCom, not about it being 10 days. Surely having a discussion here rather than coming to a decision on a mailing list (you know, the ones for stuff the community can't see) and then decreeing ArbCom untouchability to the conclusion would have been sensible? The archive time issue itself is totally trivial, but the impression being created regarding inclusive v. authoritarian approaches is disappointing. EdChem (talk) 14:48, 4 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

EdChem, he didn't say that at all. He said "do not change without discussion". Roger Davies ^talk 14:59, 4 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Roger, the context of the instruction is a statement that the setting was made by Arb and Clerk discussion. To me, that indicates the discussion required and it does not indicate that community views are welcome. Maybe I have watched ArbCom too long, but I would not violate an instruction like this because I believe ArbCom over-reacts at times to anything they perceive as an affront. I accept that you might view the notice as meaning that change by community consensus is acceptable, and I hope you can accept that others' views of the meaning of the instruction may differ from yours. EdChem (talk) 16:02, 5 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Sure, though your response is somewhat loaded as well. Speculation based on perceived sub-texts, rather a discussion of actual text, is rarely constructive. Everyone ends up constantly bickering like old married couples, with even the most innocuous remarks coming with baggage.  Roger Davies ^talk 08:28, 6 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Wait, one second. Are we really discussing this? I'd have to agree with AGK. — ΛΧΣ²¹ 14:53, 4 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Facepalm --Rschen7754 08:21, 5 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Yes, this looks quite ridiculous. What looks the most ridiculous of all is two things: First, that Editors (most of all Arbs and Clerks?!) pile up in here to bash a user's question. Second, that someone says "do not change without discussion" but then when there is a start up discussion it is shut down as ridiculous, nitpicking, and micro-management... If you do not want a discussion, say so; But if you suggest a possible discussion, then discuss it. Or not, but do not go after the one doing as you asked. Damn, this IS ridiculoius, but it is not the other one which is ridiculous, it is YOU (and me, quite likely, that should be out shopping for groceries instead of here). Oh, I think that 10 days is a good period, and I think stopping that slo-mo-revert-war is a good thing. Wouldn't hurt either if someone made a one line summary of the reason to set it to 10 days. I think it is a fine period has it allows for weekend editors to keep in touch if they which to, while keeping the page mostly fresh. - Nabla (talk) 11:06, 5 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• I agree with NE Ent, Nabla, EdChem, and Snowolf. The actual action isn't a concern. The concern is the thought process of the people taking that action and the fear of the next action that said thought process could produce. I strongly agree with Nabla's point that once discussion starts it is kicked around. Really sad really. It just makes another worrying thought process worth discussing.--v/r - TP 15:29, 5 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

NE's reply

Background

My understanding of the situation was bold edit [2], revert [3], discussion, followed by [4]. This hardly qualifies as an "edit war."

I've since realized there was an intentional edit by a clerk [5] -- which I missed as the edit summary did not mention a change of archive time -- followed by another revert [6]. Had I realized Lord Roem (talk · contribs) has taken action I would have not limited my discussion TC's talk page. NE Ent 18:24, 5 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Importance: Transparency

The time setting of the archive of this page is trivia of little importance. On the other hand, per Wikipedia specific, published peer-reviewed research:

The authors note the importance of transparent interactions in spaces like talk pages, and note that "the reported use of interaction channels outside the Wikipedia platform (e.g., e-mail) is a cause for concern, as these channels limit involvement and reduce transparency." Citing Ostrom's governance principles, they note that "ensuring participation and transparency is crucial for maintaining the stability of self-governing communities."
— Signpost

Similarly, usage guidelines for the admin IRC channel explicitly state: "However, it is not an alternative to on-wiki debate, and is not intended to shortcut or replace good discussion elsewhere."
I'll add my own observation that there is a small but significant number of Wikipedia editors and observers who hold and advocate a Protocols of the Elders of Wikipedia viewpoint. While I don't believe in such conspiracy theories, and do not consider engaging in conversation with such folks a good use of my time, the more off-wiki stuff that happens the more fuel that is added to the conspiracy fires.
Given the recent arbcom-l incident(s), the ArbCom community should be very sensitive to use and misuse of off-wiki discussions.
Obviously cases involving privacy matters must be discussed off-wiki. Additionally I understand that off-wiki discussion, compromise, and negotiation of wording of case and motion language will be frequently beneficial to allow spirited free discussion among the committee.

In regards to the importance -- given there are relatively important functions that no one but the committee can perform -- are you really that under worked that worrying about an archive setting is worth your time? At some point ya'll might get a Civility Enforcement type case that could (or should) chew up lots of your personal time -- I sincerely encourage not to waste whatever portion of your life you have set aside for wiki-time on trivia.

So I'll turn Coren's question around: could the committee have picked a less trivial topic to not discuss on-wiki? NE Ent 18:24, 5 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Clearly, judging by the number of electrons already wasted here on what took all of a dozen one-liner email most of which read something along the lines of "Sure, 10 seems about right."

The bikeshed problem is no joke, and noticeboards are especially vulnerable to it. I'm certainly not going to encourage long drawn-out discussions over trivial page management questions that nobody should worry about. — Coren ^(talk) 22:56, 5 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Actually I am not at all against the ArbCom, I have no grudge, no bad past with it (quite the opposite). But if you get secretive and, most of all, rude about trivial matters, it is natural that some will suspect of your overall actions. Why not a short, simple, polite reply (say 'oh! come on, this is trivial, so we talked about it and 10 days simply felt ok because of (whatever-one-sentence-long), feel free to suggest something else, but please let's not go on changing it a few days back and forth' or whatever like that)? That would certainly not appease everybody, but it would certainly be good enough for me. Also if Lord Roem's edit was made out in the open, with a proper edit summary, it would be better. Done undercover as it was - probably unintentional, sure - it even look like a bad faith change (and that is why I reverted promptly). Also note, that trivial simple things are important not only because we simpletons can not understand anything beyond the bikeshed color, but because if the issue is not important then you are not doing things in a somehow forced circunstances, but simply because you think that is the way to go. - Nabla (talk) 23:56, 5 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

My apologies for not noting the archive change in the edit summary; I overlooked it as I was in the process of posting the motion. Best, Lord Roem ~ (talk) 05:06, 6 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Nabla: it doesn't follow that list discussions are motivated by secrecy. Usually, it's just the quickest way of flagging something for peoplke to take a look at. On the more substantive point, this discussion got off on the wrong foot because positions rapidly polarised. For information, here's text I was going to post when an edit conflict and additional trenchant comment intervened Hmmm. What the note says is "do not change without discussion". So, if you believe ten days is wrong, why not initiate the invited discussion? Also, out of interest, what kind of strong management of case pages would you think is appropriate? What sort of things do you think need managing? Stuff of peripheral relevance? Coatracking? Incivility (as if we'd get consensus)? It would be great if people discussed things dispassionately but on this page, human nature being what it is, that is probably impossible. Roger Davies ^talk 08:42, 6 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

[@both] Thanks. Hey, if we were dispassionate about WP then it would really be in trouble :-) - Nabla (talk) 15:05, 6 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Supplementary notes

With regards to the suggestion I am "creating drama": The oyster makes the pearl.

I find Roger's comment "I remind everyone that this very noticeboard ... was created to increase transparency and to provide opportunities for comment and feedback" in a context where I'm being criticized for providing feedback for non-transparent actions most ironic. NE Ent 18:24, 5 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Many people will probably find it ironic that you found ironic my response to a situation that I found ironic.  Roger Davies ^talk 08:45, 6 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

OK there are three issues here, by addressing them we can deal wit the issues and save electrons

1. Archive time. This is trivia, 3 days was to short, maybe 30 was to long. I don't care much if it is 10, 20 or 30 (though the argument for 20 seems to have merit) and I suspect most people don't. Unless we have conflict over this there should be no need for discussion. If there's conflict, lets have a discussion.
2. HTML comment. Per the above, leave it to normal WP processes. I would be grateful if clerk or arb could simply remove the comment.
3. Off wiki discussion. Happens all the time - but the Arb and Clerking mailing lists are private. They should only deal with private matters, not election tactics, not how some editors are "pompous", not anything that can be done on-wiki. Simples. Be nice to have acknowledgement of that from functionaries.

Rich Farmbrough, 18:15, 6 January 2013 (UTC).[reply]

Announcement

It would be rather helpful if the committee could clarify the basis for why they have vacated this finding. As in, was it that the arbitrators had drawn the wrong conclusion from the evidence presented to them? Or has further evidence been made available to the committee that has made them change their mind? I'm not expecting the full gory details, but if a committee vacates a finding of fact, I think editors have good reason to be provided with broad reasons why that decision was made. —Tom Morris (talk) 03:11, 6 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Rather helpful is the outcome - can you not just read the story and get the point without wanting a worthless wikispeak label sticking on it - Youreallycan 03:25, 6 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

@Tom: The finding of fact was vacated because a second thorough study of the evidence provided enough context to consider that the original finding of fact wasn't completely a fact. At least that's my personal assessment of the motion. — ΛΧΣ²¹ 03:28, 6 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, editors shouldn't have to interpret and explain arbitration decisions to users with advanced permissions - Youreallycan 03:35, 6 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Do we really need to be so snippy? There is close to 300 KB (307,000ish characters of text and markup) of formal-post-case arguments before the committee since the case closed eight months ago as well as an equal amount of informal discussion. This motion is a descendent of much of that discussion. It is only natural that someone who hasn't been closely watching arbcom would be confused by the backstory. No harm; no foul. --Guerillero | My Talk 04:05, 6 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

If I'm being accused of not having kept up with ArbCom minutiae, then I have to plead guilty as charged. Part of the reason we have clerks and noticeboards and announcements on WP:AN is so that editors who aren't obsessive ArbCom watchers can have a basic idea of what's going on. —Tom Morris (talk) 04:19, 6 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

This is my own personal interpretation -- totally unofficial:

• There was some irregularity in the passing of the prior revision to the finding.
• There wasn't 100% agreement on whether all the unblocks were copacetic or not.
• The finding wasn't particularly important to the rest of the case, and it wasn't going to be a good use of time to work through a discussion to come to consensus on what the exact wording should be.

To get a more accurate and detailed understanding of the committees edit please see Wikipedia talk:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Rich Farmbrough#Arbitrator views and discussion 4 NE Ent 13:57, 6 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

That is pretty much exactly it. — Coren ^(talk) 00:24, 7 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Concur with Coren. Carcharoth (talk) 06:01, 7 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Revision

By vacating the revised finding, does this mean that they've gone back to the original finding? Or does it mean that they've completely gotten rid of #8? Nyttend (talk) 04:15, 6 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

As far as I understand, they are getting rid of it. — ΛΧΣ²¹ 04:21, 6 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

That is correct. Reading the page version at the link associated with the word 'motion' in the announcement should make things clearer (the original link takes you direct to motion 3, the link I've provided leaves you at the top of that page version). Four motions were posted for voting. One passed ahead of the other three. Looking at the arbitrator comments on all four motions should make it moderately clear what was going on. Carcharoth (talk) 07:05, 6 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I sense a limited appetite from the committee for more amendments, however I also see little other way forward. Coren has suggested an appeal (presumably to Jimbo but to whom? ), and Roger an "omnibus motion". Both of these require a huge amount of work up front, with no guarantee of any positive result.

There is also the repeated refrain about having the wrong mindset. The "what we have here is an attitude problem" contingent.

Firstly I want to make it very clear that I find this approach Orwellian and deeply disturbing.

Secondly I think it misses the point. Parties to the case cited responsiveness, and leaving errors unfixed. I built a system which allows accurate tracking of responsiveness, and clear up of errors. I also proposed a remedy which would have compelled me to fix problem edits brought to my attention. Now to me this remedy was not onerous, because I believe I was already being responsive and fixing errors: To my critics it gave them what they said they wanted on a plate. This was not welcomed but rather ignored by both the critics and the new drafting admin, in favour of blocks and bans.

Assuming we can get these personal attacks based on my "attitude" out of the way I would be interested in any suitable proposal to vacate the rest of the decision that won't involve the amount of work and time that this has. Rich Farmbrough, 23:07, 6 January 2013 (UTC).[reply]

This is my personal opinion, as an arbitrator, on the applicable policies and practice. This may help you to put events in context and give you some insight into the way the Committee often views things.

• Arbitration cases are the "final binding solutions" specified in policy. They are the last stage in community process, so that lines can be drawn under intractable disputes.
• Arbitration cases are not a legal process and their focus is not the administration of justice. Instead, the objective is usually providing the means by which the work of building an encyclopedia may continue with the least disruption for the largest number of people. For this reason, decisions often require people to disengage completely from the area/s of conflict.
• If you disagree with the final decision, you may - within reason - request amendment. However, the amendment process is not a vehicle for substantially re-writing the final decision. Additionally, we may require a minimum period to elapse between amendment requests, usually to ensure that our limited resources are reasonably and proportionately allocated.
• You may appeal the remedies to Jimbo: to reach his decision, he has in the past looked at the case overall to see whether the remedies are fitting and proportionate.
• You may also ask the committee to reconsider: the committee has in the past been persuaded by assurances that the user has accepted the feedback that the final decision provides and moved on, and wishes to have a second chance.

I hope this is helpful,  Roger Davies ^talk 03:42, 7 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Well, the feedback is in the findings of fact 2-8. We have demonstrated that 1/7 of feedback is wrong. I am pleased therefore that I did not accept that wrong feedback. Of the remaining FoF, 4 FoF are wrong, and 2 are misleading, all are unhelpful. There has been at least one previous case where the committee withdrew its entire decision in 2010 I think, quite apart from the Orange Marlin case a little further back. Rich Farmbrough, 07:00, 7 January 2013 (UTC).[reply]

I have a friend who is a barrister, and this reminds me a of a story he once told about applying for leave to appeal a case in the High Court (you cannot appeal as of right to the high court, they only allow cases that have special importance/legal significance). The opening exchange went something like this:

<Barrister> Your honour, this case should be heard before the court, because frankly, it is blatantly wrong, and a travesty of justice.

<Justice> Mr Synden, since when has that ever been a reason for leave to appeal to the Court?

(long story short, he did manage to get leave to appeal, but that's irrelevant here)

The point that the Justice makes is an important one. There has to be a point where you draw a line in the sand and say stop. Even if the decision is wrong. Otherwise where does it end?

I would say that we've reached that point here. --Chris 04:16, 7 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

As I have stated in the past I still consider the sanctions against Rich to be a net loss to the pedia and every day that he and his bots are not editing, the pedia is losing out. To this point tens of thousands of needed edits aren't being done. I think that the majority of the complaints against Rich were unfounded and were mostly the same three or four users hounding him. I also think this whole sanction is a knee jerk reaction to satisfy too few editors and ended up putting the work on those of us that were willing to do it after Rich and his bots were banned. Edits that those editors that wanted him sanctioned and blocked were mostly unwilling to do by the way. Some of the bot tasks still have not been duplicated even after multiple requests on the bot requests page by multiple editors.

@ Chris, it only ends when the best possible thing for the project is accomplished. That is not this sanction. Kumioko (talk) 04:20, 7 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Very well, I sincerely wish you guys good luck -- I too want what is best for the project. That said, here's my prediction: All this will result in is, walls of text, wasted time and a solution no one is happy with. --Chris 04:57, 7 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Chris G, there are no solutions that everyone is happy with (and I grant that as a general line taken by the Arbitration Committee) - there are however solutions that do draw a line in the sand (like the current solution also does), but that do make a lot more people happy. The current solution is not that solution (in fact, it is not a solution). --Beetstra (public) (Dirk Beetstra^{T C} on public computers) 06:41, 7 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Announcement

During the RfAr and prior AN discussions, Floq, Hex, DHeyward and I discussed the possibility of Hex restricting his use of the block button to cases of obvious vandalism and spamming. In the end, Hex agreed to not use it at all for a year.

There is a lot of discussion on user talk at the moment about inappropriate blocks, and a succession of threads beginning at Wikipedia talk:Blocking policy#Blocking policy alterations. Accurately diagnosing and dealing sensitively and effectively with anything but the simplest behaviour problems demands good social sensibility, intelligence and wisdom. This mix of traits is rarely found in the average person, and more rarely found here. Most of us recognise that RfA is broken; that it is not a good process for determining whether a person has these traits; and that we frequently give the block button to people constitutionally unfit for deciding when to use the block button. (I have no idea whether or not Hex fits that category, his may simply be a case of inexperience.)

Would you please consider, where appropriate, in future cases, restricting the use of the block button by some admins? --Anthonyhcole (talk) 04:02, 8 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Peter principle. If WP is an auto factory Rfa is "Hey, you just proved you can build a car. Now we'll let you mop the floor." NE Ent 04:11, 8 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Now then. I do thank Hex for agreeing to a voluntary restriction in this manner, as I do believe it helped diffuse and resolve this situation much more amicably; had he not, I doubt that a case would have been opened anyway in the lack of evidence showing a pattern of misuse of the block button and/or other misconduct (such as that at AN), but in doing so he helped to reassure the community that such an incident will not recur and at the same time more-or-less gave those calling for a desysopping what they actually wanted. As to whether ArbCom would forcibly prevent someone from using a particular facet of the admin tools... I'm not sure. I know we have in the past forbade admins from undertaking actions with respect to a particular topic area and/or user; this more-or-less amounts to a topic ban, something that is routinely done by both ArbCom and the community at large. I do not think, however, that we have forbade any admin from using any particular tool project-wide before. Nor do I think it is terribly likely in the future. Doing so creates a "partial admin;" a notion which has been proposed to and rejected by the community on a number of occasions. Our project's adminship is set up in such a way that for the community to grant a user access to the tools means they are trusting that user to use all of the tools appropriately and knowledgeably in all situations, or at the least recognize when they lack the knowledge or ability to use the tools appropriately in a particular situation, and then refrain from their use. Our community has made clear on several occasions that they see the admin tools as an all-or-nothing setup; for ArbCom to overrule this and impose our own definition of what a particular administrator can and cannot do would be, I believe, a violation of the community's trust in us.

Anyway, this was a long version of me saying that I personally would not support any motion to deny access to the block button from an administrator without removing the rest of their tools... at least, until the community demonstrates that they as a whole would support such a notion. If individual administrators take it upon themselves to restrict their own use of the tools, that is their decision, and one that the community has trusted them to make wisely. Hersfold ^(t/a/c) 04:33, 8 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hersfold, regarding "Our community has made clear on several occasions that they see the admin tools as an all-or-nothing setup", I'm not sure that the community is so clear about that any more, and I think there would be wide support for Anthony's suggestion. I certainly see it as sensible - the problem of block-happy administrators, as it relates to community morale, community calm and editor retention (and thus, just tangentially, encyclopedia-building), is far more important than the rather detached meta-principle of administrator toolsets being monolithic. Arbcom frequently clashes with the will of the community on all sorts of matters; I suggest this could be an example of arbcom actually doing what the community wants. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 05:20, 8 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

This is being discussed elsewhere? It would be better to make a statement here stating how the discussion elsewhere relates to this arbitration action, and then link to the other discussion and invite participation there from here. As opposed to dragging the discussion over there, to here. Carcharoth (talk) 07:36, 8 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The question of whether ArbCom should, where appropriate, restrict the use of the block button by some admins is not, to my knowledge, being discussed elsewhere. --Anthonyhcole (talk) 08:02, 8 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]