User:The Four Deuces/ARBCOM

Amendment request: Tea Party movement
Initiated by  TFD (talk) at 15:54, 12 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Case affected :


 * Clauses to which an amendment is requested
 * 1) Principle 1
 * 2) Finding 2
 * 3) Remedy 3


 * Information about amendment request


 * "Topic ban": "The purpose of a topic ban is to forbid an editor from making edits related to a certain topic area where their contributions have been disruptive...."
 * "Format of decisions": "Decisions are written in clear concise standard English and usually: ...(ii) make findings of fact...".
 * "Policies and guidelines": "Wikipedia policies and guidelines are developed by the community...."
 * "Proposals": "Proposals for new guidelines and policies require discussion and a high level of consensus from the entire community for promotion to guideline or policy."
 * "Policy and precedent": "The arbitration process is not a vehicle for creating new policy by fiat."
 * "Appeals and discussion": "The appeal should clearly but succinctly explain the reasons the editor feels the ban should be overturned, such as what lessons the editor has learned since the ban or block was imposed, how the editor would conduct himself or herself differently in the future if they are allowed to resume editing, or why they believe the ban was unfair."
 * Details of desired modification

Statement by The Four Deuces
The case was requested by KillerChihuahua on 25 February 2013 and accepted 6 March. Evidence closed 20 March and the workshop closed 27 March. I was added without explanation as an involved party on 16 July.  On 29 July AGK set up a motion to page-ban me and all other editors listed as involved, but not KillerChihuahua, for six months and voted in favor of the motion in the same edit, i.e., before allowing me or anyone else to respond.  Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs, and SilkTork then voted in favor before I had been notified of the motion.  I was notified of the motion the following day.  At no time was any evidence or finding of fact presented against me, or that I had even edited the page.

The ban exceeds ARBCOM's authority and is therefore void. ARBCOM has responsibility for enforcing policies that have been approved by the Wikipedia community. Those policies do not permit it to ban individual editors without reason or to create new policy. Arbitrators are like all other editors free to recommend policy changes. They are also free to recuse themselves from cases or votes.

While not specifically mentioned in policy, the structure of ARBCOM cases with case, evidence, workshop and decision pages implies that arbitrators will follow a rational decision-making approach, viz., identify problems, hear evidence, make findings of facts, then implement remedies. The general approach of Wikipedia policies is that decisions are made based on evidence.

Appeals are allowable if the decision was "unfair". Certainly a decision made without evidence is always unfair. Appeals are also allowable if editors can demonstrate that they will conduct themselves differently in future, since, "Sanctions, including blocks, are not "punitive"; they are intended to protect the project and prevent or reduce the risk of future disruption." (See information page "Expectations and norms of the Wikipedia community".) Since no disruption on my part has led to the ban, there can be no expectation that any disruption will follow.

Finally, the ban is sending out an unwelcoming message to all participants in the project, since it shows a disregard for policy, rational decision-making and fairness to editors.

Statement by {other user}
{Other editors are free to comment on this amendment as necessary. Comments here should be directed only at the above proposed amendment.}

Clerk notes

 * This section is for administrative notes by the clerks (including clerk recusals).