Wikipedia talk:Requests for arbitration/Sadi Carnot/Proposed decision

Initial proposed decision
The decision which has been proposed by is, quite frankly, the worst of all worlds. It does not address the points raised by uninvolved users (who include some very respected members of the Community), but simply bows to the rule of "who-shouts-loudest". It is unnecessary to resolve the points to which it addressed, and unless in resolving the points which it so sorely ignores. It is Wikipedia as an experiment in ochlocracy. I can only ask the arbitrators to reconsider. Physchim62 (talk) 12:59, 8 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Which points does it ignore that you would like to see addressed? Carcharoth 13:11, 8 November 2007 (UTC)
 * As to unclear policy, ArbCom can explain how to apply policy to specific situations and create examples, but they don't have any special power to create policy. If anybody thinks written policy is unclear or incorrect, I recommend starting a discussion on the relevant policy talk page, and using RFCpolicy and making an announcement at the village pump policy section to attract attention. As for Sadi Carnot, the case is essentially moot because he has voluntarily retired from editing.  No matter what the decision, if Sadi would like to return, we can petition ArbCom to review the decision. I urge ArbCom to keep the decision as simple as possible (but not simpler). - Jehochman  Talk 14:30, 8 November 2007 (UTC)
 * I agree with Jehochman. The committee has made as much of a policy statement as they can (per thier community mandate).  It is up to the community to figure out a better way to decide these things.  I've given a few thoughts at WP:BAN's talk page, so have others.  --Rocksanddirt 22:22, 8 November 2007 (UTC)
 * I've got to say that I approach agreeing with Physchim62, albeit for different reasons. I think that the question of whether Sadi should be banned is nearly trivial ... there is essentially one disagreeing voice in a sea of consensus on that one. The difficult issue involves the block/unblock/block/unblock battle, where two different pairs of admins performed opposing acts that were ostensibly for the good of Wikipedia, but skirted right up to (and perhaps over) the edge of correct behaviour while doing so. Kww 00:37, 9 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Let's not stir up drama. Everybody had a chance to say their piece. Please, let's move on to other things. - Jehochman  Talk 00:53, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

I'm afraid that I get close to agreeing with Kww. This decision does not provide any guidance at all for admins dealing with similar situations in the future. It does not even explain why Sadi Carnot is supposedly much worse than other users who have been dragged before ArbCom for similar WikiCrimes and received lesser sanctions. If Kirill's proposed decision stands, we will all have wasted our time. Physchim62 (talk) 14:35, 9 November 2007 (UTC)


 * It's nice that Physchim62 and Kww agree on *something.* :-) To clear up Physchim62's question about why Sadi Carnot was hit so hard, I think it's because people were really annoyed that he got away with it so long. It's embarrassing to be fooled, more embarrassing to be fooled for a long time. I doubt this is the end of it though. I would be very surprised if he does not come back under another name. I wouldn't be surprised if he is editing like mad right now. Keith Henson 22:16, 14 November 2007 (UTC)


 * "The remaining parties are encouraged to move forward from this unfortunate incident with a spirit of mutual understanding and forgiveness." - I interpret that as an oblique reference to the unsightly mass of proposals put forward on the Workshop page. "Mutual understanding" often requires discussion. "Forgiving", in my opinion, means not dragging out the case by you and Kww proposing sanctions against each other on the Workshop page. By all means ask Kirill to clarify if you disagree with my interpretation of this. I also think that a lesson to learn from this is not to put too much effort into a Workshop page because there is always the possibility the arbitrators will come up with something shorter and more succint, and the effort on the Workshop page will have been wasted. I agree with Jehochman - let's move on to other things. Carcharoth 15:01, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

And what for the 1300 univolved admins, who will certainly have to deal with similar cases in the future? ArbCom doesn't have to be (in my view, shouldn't be) a banning machine: it should look at disputes and try to prevent them from reoccuring. In this sense, I find the current version of the proposed decision sorely lacking. Physchim62 (talk) 17:05, 9 November 2007 (UTC) Nor do I believe that the Process should prime over the result, as Carcharoth appears to imply. This should not be "a lesson to learn" because all parties should be working not to bring cases to ArbCom in the first place. The case is here, for whatever reasons, it should be resolved to the best of the capacities of the current Committee. Physchim62 (talk) 17:09, 9 November 2007 (UTC)


 * What issues, precisely, are you looking for guidance on? How community banning is supposed to work? We can't tell you, unfortunately; the community's development of contradictory policy has left the matter unclear, and it's for the community to decide how it wants to dig itself out of that hole (see the Ferrylodge case for more details on that). How to deal with disruptive editors like Sadi Carnot? I would think that the decision is quite clear on what ought to be done with them. Or something else? Kirill 17:14, 9 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Maybe a FoF that the community banning policy is unclear and (another) "remedy" urging the community to sort it out? Carcharoth 11:09, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

Specifically, I think Kirill is referring to Requests for arbitration/Ferrylodge/Proposed decision and Requests for arbitration/Ferrylodge/Proposed decision. Those are the ones that seem most relevant to me. Carcharoth 11:13, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

So
There's no consensus in the community about whether the two blocking-unblocking cycles constituted a wheel war. I think a committee opinion on this is actually more important than a determination of the appropriateness of sanctions for Sadi Carnot. The participants are of course encouraged to hold no ill will either way, but nevertheless the wheel war question should not be left unanswered - sysops in future similar situations will want to know how their actions will be viewed. Is it the opinion of the committee that this was a wheel war, or not? Picaroon (t) 16:40, 14 November 2007 (UTC)


 * As the first to act, I have nothing at stake in the outcome, but just to be clear I strongly oppose any sanctions being applied to the 2nd, 3rd or 4th administrators to act in this particular case. I think the definition of wheel war should be strict: no contentious reverting of sysop actions without discussion and consensus. - Jehochman  Talk 17:48, 14 November 2007 (UTC)


 * From what I can recall, there was discussion to varying degrees, and justifications provided for the unblockings and blockings. It was judging the consensus that failed, or in some cases putting personal opinion over and above the community opinion (sometimes necessary, but probably not needed here). By its very nature, blocking and unblocking is a personal decision that individuals have to take responsibility for. What is unclear is the mechanisms by which a subset of the community "agrees" to block or unblock. Carcharoth 18:31, 14 November 2007 (UTC)
 * I´m not sure that it is in the slightest bit important whether we put this case in the "wheel war" file or not. The arbitrators seem to have treated Jehochman's block under "administrative discretion", which is fair enough, and have not touched the general rule of 1RR on administrative actions, which is the corollary of this analysis. If you have discretion, you must also have appraisal, otherwise we would just be giving a huge gift to the admintrolls. Physchim62 (talk) 13:14, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

"Move to close, everything passes"
Except everything that was left out. Physchim62 (talk) 16:22, 16 November 2007 (UTC)