This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Bishonen (talk | contribs) at 21:41, 1 September 2008 (Comment). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

WP:RFAR redirects here. You may be looking for Misplaced Pages:RfA Review (WP:RREV).

Misplaced Pages Arbitration
About arbitrationTalk Arbitration policy (CU/OS) Guide to arbitration Noticeboard + Talk Search archived proceedings Ban appealsReport
Open proceedings All open requests Case requests Clarification and Amendment requests Arbitrator motion requests Enforcement requests
Active sanctions Contentious topics (Log) General sanctions Editor sanctions
Arbitration Committee Discuss+ Contact Members Procedures ElectionsTalk History Clerks+ Talk Clerk procedures Conflict of interest reports
Audit Talk StatisticsTalk Reports (pre-2016)
Track related changes
v t e

• WP:RFAR
• WP:A/R
• WP:ARB/R
• WP:ARBREQ

A request for arbitration is the last step of dispute resolution for conduct disputes on Misplaced Pages. The Arbitration Committee considers requests to open new cases and review previous decisions. The entire process is governed by the arbitration policy. For information about requesting arbitration, and how cases are accepted and dealt with, please see guide to arbitration.

To request enforcement of previous Arbitration decisions or discretionary sanctions, please do not open a new Arbitration case. Instead, please submit your request to /Requests/Enforcement.

This page transcludes from /Case, /Clarification and Amendment, /Motions, and /Enforcement.

Please make your request in the appropriate section:

• Request a new arbitration case
• Request clarification or amendment of an existing case

  This includes requests to lift sanctions previously imposed

• Request enforcement of a remedy in an existing case
• Arbitrator motions

  Arbitrator-initiated motions, not specific to a current open request

• recent changes
• purge this page
• view or discuss this template

Currently, there are no requests for arbitration.

No cases have recently been closed (view all closed cases).

Currently, no requests for clarification or amendment are open.

Current requests

Georgewilliamherbert

Initiated by Moreschi (talk) at 20:21, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

Involved parties

• Moreschi (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA), filing party
• Georgewilliamherbert (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA)
• arguably Giano II (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Stifle (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA)

Confirmation that all parties are aware of the request`

Confirmation that other steps in dispute resolution have been tried

Statement by Moreschi

As you can see from the ANI thread, Georgewilliamherbert made an appalling, awful block of Giano for a comment that had I made, no one would blink an eyelid. Even from Giano, no one apart from George did blink an eyelid. All Giano said was "Stifle is trolling", which was arguably correct, and even if not so, hardly incivil. Massive community consensus to overturn the block, and what does George do? Puts some massive self-justifying screed on ANI (and Giano's talk) about how he's right while the rest of us humble peons are wrong.

Given that GWH has spotty history with the block button and I think this merits a couple of months off from the admin buttons. Think of it as relaxing vacation so he can re-evaluate his performance. He's not a bad guy, just seems to be a bit out of touch. Moreschi (talk) 20:21, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

BTW, RFC would be useless for temporary desysopping, arbcom being the only body that can do this, and I think it would be useless anyway, seeing as everyone's already told him he's wrong at ANI and he didn't listen. And he's still not listening. I see no need to open a full case: the evidence is not complex. A simple vote on this page should suffice. Moreschi (talk) 20:25, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

I'm not asking for anything drastic. Just a couple months away from the tools to think about things, because he is making bad blocks while not making really very many blocks. Moreschi (talk) 21:38, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

Statement by Georgewilliamherbert

I believe that this is premature, as ANI and talk page discussion is still active and (in my opinion) fruitful for all parties, but will respond for the record.

My comment on ANI this morning was this one.

I stand by that statement . Before blocking, I reviewed Giano's complete contributions in that thread, other contributions recently, and the thread context on AN ( ) regarding Stifle's block of Peter Damian.

This revolves around three issues:

1. Giano making uncivil edits.
2. Giano is under prior Arbcom sanction and warnings for incivility and personal attacks (IRC case, Geogre/Wm Connelly case, older cases).
3. Giano is a longstandinding but controverisal member of the community.

My review of the situation before blocking indicated that, in my opinion, Giano was being uncivil and making personal attacks in thread. I also believe that Giano was more uncivil in that thread than the other participants by a noticeable degree. A number of administrators have chimed in that he was not uncivil, or not particularly uncivil, or it was uncivil but the discussion was generally somewhat uncivil and it was not outstandingly so. I reviewed it this morning and I still believe that it was uncivil (and not merely strongly worded opinion), was particularly uncivil and was sustained over time, and was noticably worse than the other commenters.

There was some comment that I might be attempting to restrict Giano's contributions in the thread on Stifle's use of the administrator tools. For the record, I had not participated in the discussion or formed an opinion on the issues previously, and in the course of reviewing his contributions last night I formed an opinion. That opinion is that I agree with Giano's basic premise that there was a mistaken use of the tools on Stifle's part. I concluded that his contributions were uncivil despite agreeing with them in principle.

I was reluctant to do this block, because anything touching Giano has been consistently highly dramatic over time. However, I have a strong opinion that the level of incivility in some forums is highly unhelpful to the project, and I have been working to try and minimize that, using all the appropriate and available tools (polite requests, warnings, and some blocks). I reluctantly concluded that Giano has been adequately asked and warned, and that per his extensive prior history he tends to escalate uncivil behavior once it gets started in a particular thread. I blocked to prevent that, for a short period of time, and tried to engage him on his talk page in a discussion about the ongoing corrosive effects that his incivility has on the project.

Moreschi is correct that I have been critical of many other admins on the ANI thread, though I hope it's been civil. We all need to take incivility seriously. It's horrendously bad for the project - it drives nonconfrontational editors away from pages, away from policymaking, away from participation in the community at all. Giano is, unfortunately, both a longstanding extremely positive contributor to the project, and with about 1% of his edits the poster child for incivility on Misplaced Pages. I believe that politely but firmly confronting this is both appropriate and regrettably necessary.

I would urge that the ANI and talk page threads be allowed to run for a while before this case is taken up. Thanks. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 20:57, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

(addendum) I have reviewed Jehochman and MastCell's comments on ANI in thread, and Jehochman's below, that civility paroles and blocks may simply not work, and I am troubled by the possibility that they might be correct. I think that this is an important point to have discussed in detail (somewhere - ANI, wherever). If they don't work they should not be part of the standard administrator toolkit of responses... and if they don't work in specific cases with specific offenders, they should be taken off the table explicitly. I am not convinced, but concerned on the point... Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 21:32, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

Statement by Ryan Postlethwaite

This case is premature to say the least. Yup, GWH made a big mistake today, and has done on a couple of occasions when using the block button, but he's had no opportunity for real communal feedback into the use of his tools. I'd go as far to say that an RfC would even be premature at this point in time. George has had his feedback for the day in a large AN/I thread. Compared to some other admins, George's misconduct has been extremely minor, and the only reason why there's any aura about this is because the recipitent of the block was Giano. GWH has no hostory of blocks of Giano, and made a good faith mistake when blocking - if there's more evidence than Moreschi has already provided then perhaps an RfC would be the right way to go, but certainly they don't need escalating to this level at the minute - remember, arbitration is the last step of dispute resolution, not the first. Ryan Postlethwaite 21:06, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

Comment by Jehochman

I respectfully request the Committee to review the use of Civility restriction type editing restrictions. In my experience these remedies do not create the desired result, but perhaps a scientific review of past cases may reflect otherwise. Perhaps a different approach would be more fruitful. The present case illustrates the problem that editors under civility restriction become second class citizens, and are subject to improper blocks which make their civility challenges worse, rather than better. The net result is harm to the encyclopedia. I am thinking about User:Giano II, User:ScienceApologist and User:DreamGuy as recent examples of productive contributors who have been turned into virtual punching bags. Jehochman 21:11, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

Comment by Durova

Procedurally inadequate RFAR: no attempt at formal dispute resolution, not an emergency situation. Durova 21:23, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

Comment by Coren

First, a point of fact: Stifle did not block Peter Damian, I did.

Secondly, I don't think this is anywhere near the purview of the Committee; this is little but a stubbornness dispute that has not degenerated into wheel warring and does not require emergency intervention. — Coren  21:34, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

Statement by John254

I would suggest that this case be accepted to examine Stifle's egregiously inappropriate and premature AFD nomination of Epistemic theory of miracles, which resulted in Peter Damian (talk · contribs) leaving the project in disgust, as described at , and precipitated this conflict. While there may be no prior dispute resolution with respect to this matter, how many valuable content contributors should Stifle be permitted to drive off the project before his behavior is examined by this committee? John254 21:37, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

Comment by Bishonen

Civility parole does not mean "not permitted to state opinions on ANI" as far as I know. Giano's comments were not uncivil, they were strongly worded, which was appropriate to the subject of Stifle's actions (which as John254 points out, actually were "horrendously bad for the project"). Dear me. Georgewilliamherbert insists that everybody must speak the same way—namely, as if butter wouldn't melt in their mouths—or else be blocked. That's an outlandish view of our interaction here. At the very, very least he should have taken it to WP:AE for discussion before pushing the button. Disband the civility police now! To the committee: this is to be expected when you institute a remedy that says any admin gets to block the supposed "poster child for incivility". Bishonen | talk 21:41, 1 September 2008 (UTC).

Clerk notes

This area is used for notes by non-recused Clerks.

• Recuse; peripherally involved. — Coren  21:04, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

Arbitrators' opinion on hearing this matter (0/0/0/1)

• Comment: Haven't decided whether to accept this yet -- would rather it were unnecessary. But regarding civility restrictions, I agree; I'll not be supporting civility "paroles" any more, as I believe they do more harm than good. --jpgordon 21:20, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

Clarifications and other requests

• WP:RFAC
• WP:RCAM

Place requests related to amendments of prior cases, appeals, and clarifications on this page. If the case is ongoing, please use the relevant talk page. Requests for enforcement of past cases should be made at Arbitration enforcement. Requests to clarify general Arbitration matters should be made on the Talk page. To create a new request for arbitration, please go to Misplaced Pages:Requests for arbitration. Place new requests at the top. Misplaced Pages:Requests for arbitration/How-to other requests

• recent changes
• purge this page
• view or discuss this template

Currently, there are no requests for arbitration.

No cases have recently been closed (view all closed cases).

Currently, no requests for clarification or amendment are open.

Current requests

Request for clarification on RFA options for User:Coffee and User:PeterSymonds

List of any users involved or directly affected, and confirmation that all are aware of the request:

• Rlevse (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) (initiator)
• Coffee (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) (previously Chet B Long)
• PeterSymonds (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
  • Both parties notified: PeterSymonds and Coffee

Statement by Rlevse

As the prior clarification on Steve Crossin, PeterSymonds, and Coffee did not specifically address the RFA option of Coffee and PeterSymonds as it was focused on other issues, can we get an explicit reading on whether these two users can or can not regain their admin bit by RFA or if their only option is through arbcom? Whenever there's a desyssop, I suggest the committee explicitly state if only arbcom is an option or if both arbcom and RFA are options. It'd greatly reduce confusion.

Statement by User:AGK

As thoughts specifically on how the Committee could respond to this matter, it may be worthwhile developing an "official announcement" in private (on list? on arbcomwiki?) to satisfy the queries raised by Rlevse, seizing the agreement of the arbitrators en banc, and posting that reply on this thread.

In all honesty, the usual system of arbitrators individually commenting; proposing motions, adjustments, amendments, or clarifications; and working towards satisfying the issues underlying; is not appropriate (no "proper response" is really given, from the committee as a single body at least), nor an efficient use of anybody's time.

Anthøny ✉ 02:30, 31 August 2008 (UTC)

For WJB: how would you suggest we approach getting these requests for clarification done quickly and efficiently? Anthøny ✉ 10:29, 31 August 2008 (UTC)

Statement by WJBscribe

Given Deskana's statement that the language which excludes these two former administrators from regaining that access through the normal means was accidental, I would appreciate clarification as to whether they are free to run at RfA. The promotion of administrators should remain the preserve of the RfA process unless there is relevant information about a candidate known to the Arbitration Committee which, for good reason, cannot be openly revealed. It seems that, in this case, full disclosure of the circumstances in which these two users allowed a third party access to their admin account would be needed to reestablish community confidence. Given this, there is no obvious reason why they may only regain adminship through appeal... WJBscribe (talk) 02:39, 31 August 2008 (UTC)

Note: I disagree entirely with AGK's comment above: far too much ArbCom business occurs behind closed doors. If this simple question cannot be resolved in the open, I despair. WJBscribe (talk) 02:43, 31 August 2008 (UTC)

Re phrasing: May I suggest: "... were compromised, may each opt to regain their access either through the usual RFA process, or by application to ArbCom." This avoids the possibly confusing use of "their" and "access" would seem to me to be a better word to use than "status". WJBscribe (talk) 01:45, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

Statement by Durova

Echoing WJBscribe's statement, with the additional comment that it surprises me greatly that the previous request for clarification closed without resolving this important point. Durova 02:55, 31 August 2008 (UTC)

To jpgordon: either option A or C would be reasonable. My only objection is to preventing the community from exercising its customary discretion, without special cause. Durova 05:34, 31 August 2008 (UTC)

(outdent) To Sam Blacketer and Newyorkbrad, please review the request for clarification on the Matthew Hoffman case, which Rlvese closed last month calling it a clear decision. The principal thing it clarified is that a desysopped Wikipedian may not run for RFA unless ArbCom specifically allows it. In the words of TheBainer, which other responding Committee members endorsed:

I can say that desysopping remedies are always explicit about the methods by which the person concerned can reapply to be a sysop, identifying that it may be by the "usual means", by application to the Committee, or by some other means. In this case the method specified was "by application to the Committee, upon demonstration of six months editing in compliance with communal norms and conduct standards", and as such a request for adminship is not permitted within that decision.

When I presented evidence that TheBainer’s explanation conflicted with the Seabhcan precedent where the decision had been silent about RFA, and yet MONGO had subsequently been allowed to request readminship through RFA, I requested a link to any announcement of when the practice had changed. Bainer replied with the following:

Re Durova, I can't speak to what the then members of the Committee were thinking nineteen months ago in the Seabhcan case. All I was saying is that in every single case since then involving a desysopping, the Committee has expressly identified the methods by which the relevant user could re-apply for sysophood. I don't think there was any "announcement", it's just been included explicitly in all the remedies passed since.

Now, barely five weeks later, multiple Committee members fail to see the inconsistency. This is my sixth post to the second of two threads in making a request that you yourselves, as a body, recently declared to be mandatory. After this many attempts I’m at a loss to restate this simple matter politely, so here it is in blunt terms:

The community cannot read your minds. If you depart from precedent and establish a new formula for decision terminology, the onus is upon you to make a clear and public announcement to that effect in advance of its implementation. Once such a decision emerges it remains in force until ArbCom as a body (not a couple of individual arbitrators) changes it. You have conventions for doing so. Use them.

These are matters of basic organizational competence. They should require no reminder or explanation. I have sometimes counseled editors who were named parties at arbitration to put their best foot forward: if they did not conduct themselves in a reasonable manner during the proceeding itself, then the only reasonable conclusion is that they would not or could not do so under any circumstances. Have you forgotten that the community is scrutinizing the arbitration committee at a request for comment? Are you aware that the Italian Misplaced Pages recently shut down their arbitration committee?

Moreover, this must have the effect of yet another slap in the face to Shoemaker’s Holiday, whose health you consistently pay lip service to and then abuse. Put yourselves in his shoes for a moment—singled out and humiliated by an unannounced departure from precedent that you abandon at the very next opportunity--the best exercise of good faith he could probably attempt is a quote from Napoleon:

Never attribute to malice that which can be explained by incompetence.

Shame on you. Durova 21:28, 31 August 2008 (UTC)

To Sam Blacketer: nothing about confidentiality in the Matthew Hoffman case compelled the Committee to make an unannounced departure from precedent in the way it wrote and intended its decision there. Nor did any concern of that nature compel the Committee to first neglect to include a necessary clause from the very next similar decision it handed down after the Matthew Hoffman clarification, or to fumble repeated requests to regularize the Coffee/PeterSymonds decision. Genuine concern for Shoemaker's health should have prompted special diligence to avoid compounding the unnecessary stresses the Committee has already created. It is base to invoke such a concern to conceal your own shortcomings. At least the emperor who had no clothes had the good taste not to steal the lame man's fig leaf.

Shoemaker's Holiday has contributed 28 29 another promotion tonight featured content items to the encyclopedia since his desysopping. In the same span of time, have all 15 of you together done as much? Let he who is without sin cast the first stone. Durova 05:07, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

Follow-up to Sam: is there a typo in your statement? I don't know who you intend to address, but those points are certainly unrelated to my objections here. Durova 08:53, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

Sam: I am at a loss to see how you construe such inferences from my posts. It was TheBainer who cited precedent as the reason Shoemaker's Holiday could not run for RFA, then when presented with a contradictory precedent he argued it was obsolete and practice had changed, and he also insisted that formal request for clarification was mandatory. That was the opinion the Committee endorsed. Now the Commitee may not be bound by precedent but you are bound by an expectation to be comprehensible; it simply doesn't wash to issue a series of vague and contradictory decisions worded indistinguishably whose real intention is understood by nobody but yourselves. We hope that you explain in advance, and when you fail to we must ask you afterward.

In particular it is important to avoid these irregularities when a man's health is concerned. The arbitrators I consulted with privately (I won't name them) expressed a desire to relieve Shoemaker of stress as a reason for offering to resysop him via private appeal. Whether or not you ever do so is not pertinent to this thread, but what is germane is that your actions are having precisely the opposite effect--needlessly and thoughtlessly so--if that were accident it would be bad enough, but when the Committee placed him under its parole it assumed an implicit obligation to be a model of steady and responsible behavior. Is this the example you expect him to follow: forgetting decisions from one month to the next and covering the gaps with excuses? Failing to heed five successive patient and necessary requests, then lashing out with non sequiturs when someone names the inconsistencies? Shoemaker's Holiday is not perfect, but he is unlikely to improve under such guidance as that.

To paraphrase WJBscribe I was near despair when I named Shoemaker's featured content production; there are far more Zoes in the world than Shoemakers. Want a featured credit, Sam? Tonight I downloaded two eighteenth century manuscript drawings of the Mayan ruins at Palenque. They're in good condition and suitable as beginner restoration projects; I'll collaborate if you're willing to learn. Perhaps if you try this you'll see what this site came so close to losing. I'm Misplaced Pages's second best at this medium after Shoemaker, and I'm not half what he is. Durova 11:08, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

Statement by John Reaves

Given the sudden nature of this incident and the arbcom involvement pre-AN post, I think some sort of communication with arbcom by the parties prior to any sort of rights change would be the best course of action. John Reaves 09:16, 31 August 2008 (UTC)

Statement by Shoemaker's Holiday

I was just told about this, but, well, I believe that everything the committee knows about me is to do with my health problems. If there's anything else, the committee has not said so when I asked them if there was. As they feel it's relevant, they have my permission to reveal any and all information they have on me, provided they present it with reasonable tact. =) Shoemaker's Holiday (talk) 03:16, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

To the Arbcom

With all respect, please stop talking about how you made the decision in order to protect my health. In fact, your handling of the process sent me into a six-month decline. Though I accept your intent was probably good, I'm afraid that it is simply galling to have you talking about how you did it to protect me now, given that, at the time, simple requests such as a break because I was having a full-scale nervous breakdown - which I told you - were denied, no time was given off for exams, and instead I was criticised for not providing more evidence while my health got worse and worse. During the recent appeal, it really did feel like Morven was using my illness to attack me. I did not want to be dragged into this discussion. Now that I have, I would ask that you please not speak on my behalf. Shoemaker's Holiday (talk) 12:19, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

As this seems to be an issue, I will briefly list my health problems. The overarching one is that for the past 4 years, I have had symptoms similar to flu that last between two weeks and three months intermittently. It has been diagnosed as several related things, all of which come under the category of post-viral fatigue syndromes.

However, since it has lasted so long, several mental health issues have arisen as well, primarily depression and certain problems with nerves, due to finding it somewhat difficult to cope as, since the problems are intermittent and not outright crippling, I receive no help with coping with the effects whatsoever. This has led to a few nervous breakdowns.

The arbcom case was launched when I was already having money troubles over the effects of these, and while I was in one of my bad patches, where it can feel like I'm thinking through wool.

I do not want to criticise the committee too much - it is my hope they have never and will never suffer from long-term illness. However, as a counterpoint to this, the committee also seems to be unable to deal with such issues in Wikipedians, and their behaviour made things substantially worse. Particularly, continuing the case two months past the point where I revealed this to them and offered to resign adminship immediately can only be described as gross mishandling.

The committee's handling of this was, perhaps understandably, poor, and certain aspects of the case, which I'm sure we are all aware of by now, made things far worse. It is for others to discuss such points. What I would ask now is, that the committee, who have shown themselves so unable to deal with my illness with any sensitivity, recuse themselves from any further decisions on my half motivated by my illness, leaving that between me and my doctors. The committee's efforts to "protect" me, in all honesty, have only served to perpetuate their poor handling of the original case. Shoemaker's Holiday (talk) 12:31, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

Clerk notes

• Recuse, from clerking duties on this thread. Anthøny ✉ 02:27, 31 August 2008 (UTC)

The motion has passed; could some clerk do whatever clerks do with motions that have passed please? --jpgordon 21:17, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

Arbitrator views and discussion

• Comment -- I was kinda surprised it was closed, given the positive response when I asked if there was more that needed to be handled. I think we can do this just with a quick up and down vote. My thought is that the two left under a cloud, but a very visible cloud, and if the community says it's OK to come back as admins, it's OK with me; I can't imagine the community would hold back from grilling both of them completely regarding the situation that led to the accounts being abused; I haven't heard anything that would require any privacy, and I trust the RFA process is at least robust enough to reflect the concern of the community should they try. Other committee members might be more annoyed by the circumstances than I am, or perhaps more informed. I guess the choices should be (a) Coffee and PeterSymonds may regain their administrative status through the normal RFA channel; (b) they may regain their administrative status by application to ArbCom; or (c) they may regain their administrative status by RFA after application to ArbCom. --jpgordon 04:32, 31 August 2008 (UTC)
• I agree with Jpgordon. The circumstances in which these two users came to lose administrative powers are known and in my opinion the community has all the information it needs to decide if and when they should return to be admins. It is up to Coffee and PeterSymonds to decide whether to go through an RFA or to ask Arbcom to restore admin status. Sam Blacketer (talk) 11:38, 31 August 2008 (UTC)

  A response to Durova, whose tone I regret is not constructive. I can't speak for what went on before my term began, but my take on the more recent decisions is this. Sometimes, concerns about the conduct of administrators come to the committee through being raised in public, and the entirety of the case is known to the wider community. In other cases, for various reasons, serious matters are raised in private which one or other party needs to be kept confidential, and in those circumstances the committee has no choice but to decide in private. In the case of these Coffee and PeterSymonds, nothing important is confidential and so the community is fully able to decide. Where one aspect of the case is rightly kept confidential, the community does not have a full picture and it would be unfair all round to have a decision about administrator status made by assumptions about factors which are not known. Sam Blacketer (talk) 21:58, 31 August 2008 (UTC)

  To further reply, Arbitration on Misplaced Pages is not bound by precedent. When Shoemaker's Holiday's performance as an administrator was found to be below acceptable standards, but he gave an explanation to the committee of what lay behind it, the committee accepted his explanation. The decision was that his administrator status should be given up until the committee were satisfied that the underlying issue was no longer a problem (I was recused on his case, having only just joined). This was, in all the circumstances, thought fairer to all than having every member of the community make a judgment on what Shoemaker's Holiday had done and whether it was likely to happen again. Sam Blacketer (talk) 08:38, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

  Final reply to Durova. First, there is no such thing as precedent in the manner you suggest. Second, administrator status is not a reward for producing featured content. Third, it is the time taken up by committee work which prevents arbitrators from writing articles. Sam Blacketer (talk) 09:17, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

• As previously mentioned, I was travelling last week when this matter unfolded, but having now reviewed it, I concur that these two editors are eligible to regain adminship either through a new RfA, or through a request that this committee restore adminship after a reasonable time. Newyorkbrad (talk) 15:34, 31 August 2008 (UTC)
  • With respect to the matter concerning Shoemaker's Holiday, I disagreed with the Committee's original disposition of that matter and agree that the current situation concerning him requires further discussion. I do not believe, however, that it is best addressed in the context of the present motion. Newyorkbrad (talk) 12:46, 1 September 2008 (UTC)
• My opinion is for (c) - that is, they're free to apply to RfA, but they can apply to us as well, if they would prefer. James F. (talk) 21:22, 31 August 2008 (UTC)
• Usually these days, we state what's intended. If we don't it is because we either don't see it as likely, or as likely any time soon, or we haven't ourselves actually decided (yet).
  In this case, per Sam Blacketer/jpgordon, the community has all that's needed and should be able to assess the users at RFA without further ado. However. there is always some risk that they might not get a fair chance at RFA, so if either wanted to ask us to give a view or consider it, before deciding about seeking RFA, I'd consider that a reasonable approach. FT2  06:21, 1 September 2008 (UTC)
• The typical approach is that users who resign adminship in controversial circumstances must reapply for it through the usual means, and there is no cause for that not to apply here. To clarify the situation, and also to allow application to the Committee should they so choose, I support the motion. Re Durova, this is a case of resignation, not of desysopping, but to reiterate the point anyway: remedies mean what they say and no more. Remedies that are permissive permit only that which is expressly permitted, and remedies that are prohibitive prohibit only that which is expressly prohibited, and not vice versa. In any event, the standard wording on desysopping remedies has already been changed to avoid this potential source of confusion. --bainer (talk) 16:11, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

Motion in Coffee/PeterSymonds case

Clerks, please put this in the usual format for a motion.

User:Coffee and User:PeterSymonds, having resigned their administrator status while under scrutiny when their accounts were compromised, may regain their status either through the usual RFA process, or by application to ArbCom, at each editor's own discretion.

There are currently 12 active arbitrators, so a majority is 7.

• Support:

1. jpgordon 22:13, 31 August 2008 (UTC)
2. Could we add, at end, "at their discretion" for clarity? Sam Blacketer (talk) 22:23, 31 August 2008 (UTC)

   I'm trying to figure out an unambiguous way to say that so the "their" clearly refers to the editors, not to ArbCom. Wording suggestions are welcome -- the intent is clear, however. --jpgordon 01:31, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

3. Kirill 23:45, 31 August 2008 (UTC)
4. I've added "at their election" as an attempt to address the wording concern; comments welcome. I would note that approval of an application to this committee for restoration of privileges would not be automatic, but that based on the information presently available, I would be inclined to support it after a reasonable amount of time. Newyorkbrad (talk) 01:35, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

   Maybe "at each editor's own discretion" will work better. But: I flipped a coin to figure out where the apostrophe goes. --jpgordon 01:51, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

   I now recommend "may each ... at his own discretion" as a compromise and to address WjBscribe's concern above (although any of the proposed wordings would accomplish the result). Newyorkbrad (talk) 01:58, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

5. FT2  06:25, 1 September 2008 (UTC) Yes.
6. FloNight♥♥♥ 14:57, 1 September 2008 (UTC)
7. bainer (talk) 16:11, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

• Oppose:

• Misplaced Pages arbitration