Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Mzajac/Preliminary statements: Difference between revisions
Content deleted Content added
←Created page with '{{casenav}} Statements on this page are copies of the statements submitted in the original request to arbitrate this dispute, and serve as verbatim copies; therefore, they may not be edited or removed. == Preliminary statements == <!-- copy all statements by both involved and non-involved parties here --> === Statement by Guerillero === Arbs, I present to you a wheel war over at New Orc Times ([https://e...' Tag: Disambiguation links added |
m remove level 4 headers |
||
Line 218:
===Statement by Robert McClenon (Wheel War)===
On the one hand, most editors agree that this conflict never needed to go to ArbCom, and could have been handled by ordinary discussion. On the other hand, there is a possible side benefit to the side trip to ArbCom, and that is formal procedures for discussion. Sometimes originally trivial cases at [[WP:ANI]] grow tentacles and become [[Architeuthis dux|great monsters]]. By opening a case for arbitration with an evidence phase, ArbCom will ensure that the data is collected in an orderly fashion. If, as is likely, ArbCom finds no serious infractions, then ArbCom can proceed to an accelerated preliminary decision with warnings. Maybe the structure of an ArbCom evidentiary phase may be the way to keep a discussion of admin conduct civil.
Line 225:
Now that this case is pending at ArbCom, ArbCom should probably accept it in order to provide structured discussion rather than an unstructured shouting match.
It appears that this dispute is evolving into an inquiry into the editing and administrative conduct of {{noping|Mzajac}}. The filing of this case as a Request for Arbitration may have been useful because the discussion has been orderly, as it probably would not have at [[WP:ANI]]. Maybe there is a lesson to be learned, either having to do with imposing some sort of discipline or structure on [[WP:ANI]], or about that seemingly premature disputes may occasionally be usefully brought to ArbCom.
Line 231:
[[User:Robert McClenon|Robert McClenon]] ([[User talk:Robert McClenon|talk]]) 06:05, 10 January 2024 (UTC)
I would like to comment on what [[User:Barkeep49]] has written: {{tqb|Accept a case to examine Mzajac's conduct and adherenece to the administrator policy. I do this with some trepidation because most committees in recent years have treated accepting a case has been tantamount to voting to desysop.}} I agree that too often in the recent past both arbitrators and commenting editors have appeared to prejudge cases, by arguing in the pre-acceptance phase over whether sanctions were in order. That should not be the issue at that stage except in a few blatant cases, and this is not such a case. I am pleased to see an arbitrator state that a vote to accept is not a vote to desysop, only to hold a full evidentiary case. Thank you for making a statement that apparently still sometimes needs to be made. A case needs to be heard. (Sometimes great monsters at [[WP:ANI]] need evidentiary hearings, but that it is a hobby-horse for another day.)
| |||