Requests for arbitration

Initiated by -- SashiRolls ^{🌿 · 🍥} at 11:10, 5 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Involved parties

• SashiRolls (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), filing party
• TonyBallioni (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA)
• MastCell (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA)

Confirmation that all parties are aware of the request

• [1]
• [2]

Confirmation that other steps in dispute resolution have been tried

• the original discussion: Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Archive321#Site ban proposal: SashiRolls
• on my talk page (deleted by El C): warning, shows irritation about wiki-class matters
• in the section El C titled SashiRolls' partial block, (deleted by El C)
• in a 580-word statement on El C's talk page which Tony Ballioni later caricatured as a "book length rant" in:
• TonyBallioni v. SashiRolls, where the proposal with the strongest % support was to move the case to ArbCom

Statement by SashiRolls

Arbcom can reverse CBANs, if

procedurally unfair

• The opening statement and an early pile-on led me to panic before heading in to work on 4 hours sleep. I edited it quickly hoping to show how unbalanced it was. 13 people !voted to ban me based (primarily or in part) on this.

My motivation was to get a fair shake. Several people said my motivation was to "deceive" which is wrong and assumes bad faith. Several people commented on how unfairly rhetorical the opening statement was.

• Until Iridescent and Darouet commented, nobody had mentioned I am a productive mainspace contributor.
• I was topic-banned from GMO and from AmPol. Many people disagreed with both. I have not contributed to either area since, but have contributed to many others. After AmPol, I fixed some inaccuracies about AE on an obscure user-page for which I was blocked for 2 weeks without warning. (I am not "pro-Trump" as the page still says.)
• People I had not seen at all since that time showed up to vote at AN. This felt a lot like people bearing a grudge.
• The premature close exaggerated the difference between support and oppose: 37 38-29-2 = 55% not 40-(18/20) = 67-69% and did not mention:
  1. that I'd requested until the weekend to defend myself (People have emailed me since to tell me they heard about the case only after it was closed.)
  2. the 28-12 oppose trend once uninvolved people looked at the evidence
  3. El C's statement
  4. the 12-5 !vote to close Tony's case and send it to ArbCom (the only proposal that had any significant support (at least 2:1) in the last 30 hours the case was open)
  5. the most detailed opposing !votes (1, 2, 3, or 4) may have been counted (though 31-38% of the opposing votes were not counted at all) but do not seem to have been given the same weight as cursory !votes (1, 2) which, in several cases, included pillar-violating incivility (ABF with "deception" &/or armchair 𝜓): 1, 2, 3, 4, 5...
  6. El C's history of mistakes concerning me led me to overreact to a punitive block:
     • 1: warns MrX, but marks the case "no violation"
     • 2: comes up with a tailor-made "no fault" sanction which he does not log and which people did not think was a good idea.
     • 3: this was El C's basis for an indef (!) block, which had little support.
     • 4: reverts his block after getting some sleep
• Floquenbeam chilled discussion, threatening to block anyone who mentioned the incident TB said I should be blocked for.

manifestly excessive

1 + 2 + 3 + 4 + ...

circumstances changed

After evidence was presented, the voting ran 28-12 against a siteban.

After El C's statement only 1 involved and 1 uninvolved person voted for a siteban, 12 people opposed it. At that point, discussion moved on to the question of moving the case to ArbCom and exploring the issue with evidence (for which there was > 2:1 support).

private matters

Cf. email.

Response to questions asked by Arbs (requesting extension to 500-word limit)

@SoWhy:, my statement at AN would have included things in my opening statement here, as well as some of those pages I've prepared for the evidence phase. I would definitely have requested that "retired, and not coming back" editor Tryptofish's I-Ban be reinstated, since they were uninvolved in the incident and yet managed to be the 2nd most prolific participant in the AN discussion other than TB and myself (prosecutor & defendant). This pattern continues here. My participation at AN was to: eliminate rhetoric, debunk a hounding claim, respond to ABF "deception" accusations, and make the proposal that received the highest percentage support in the thread. I also got a bit sidetracked by the "tolerance of sockpuppets" issue.

I would also have said that I am not looking for any drama. I will agree that I react badly to being continually targeted by a small group not representative of the larger en.wp community of contributors. The long continuous stretches of contribution by one such account (of which there is at least one more recent example of greater length) do concern me. I recognize though that only insofar as this account has targeted me (or digs through my contributions to hold ArbCom evidence-phase preparation against me) is this pattern really any of my business. -- SashiRolls ^{🌿 · 🍥} 14:01, 6 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Point of order: MrX has understandably misunderstood the block record. ArbCom never got involved in the Cirt sockpuppetry case. They took over Goldenring's block at my email request in Dec. 2017 (to prevent the false claim of "harassment" from popping up) and removed the "courtesy block" at my request in Oct. 2018. The full list of noticeboard actions taken against me and those who lobbied for them (Cirt, MrX, Tryptofish, Kingofaces43, and now Tony) can be found here.-- SashiRolls ^{🌿 · 🍥} 12:24, 7 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by TonyBallioni

I’m taking some time off Wikipedia, but I’ll make a few points:

• The argument about the momentum being on the side of oppose devalues the comments by those who commented earlier. Nothing fundamentally changed. These type of discussions tend to get supports early and opposes later. Timing isn’t an issue in itself.
• The ArbCom case proposal was basically only supported by those opposing a ban. If taken in the context of the discussion as a whole there was not consensus for it. A majority of editors (indeed, a consensus per thread closer) thought that the community was able to handle it on its own. Considering that proposal as consensus effectively gives the oppose side double the weight by allowing them two !votes to say there shouldn’t be a ban.
• The way this entire appeal is being handled shows the reason many in the community believe Sashi should be banned: they view everything as a battleground with enemies who are out to get them, and he’ll wear you down trying to prove that until you’re exasperated and just don’t want to participate in whatever any more. Even if arbs disagree this type of behaviour deserves a ban, a significant majority of the community thinks it does.
• Finally, if you decide to unban them, go with a motion rather than a case. The community has proven continuously that it is able to resolve these situations. We shouldn’t have a case that would basically serve to limit that in the future.

Finally, ArbCom has the theoretical ability to hear community ban appeals but virtually never does. Yes, this is a controversial case, but nothing ArbCom would do would make it less controversial. This committee’s primary mandate is to resolve problems the community cannot resolve—not to second guess the community resolution on divisive issues. The community has resolved this problem, and there’s no reason to second guess it. SashiRolls can appeal to the community in 6-12 months like everyone else. There’s honestly nothing special about this other than the fact that the banned person insisted at the beginning of the ban they wanted to go to ArbCom rather than let the community handle it. TonyBallioni (talk) 14:34, 5 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• North8000, there is an appeals process: it is to the community, like every other site ban. There’s a reason the committee stopped hearing these appeals 5 years ago: as a whole the community is better able to judge its own tolerance for the disruption of an individual than the committee is. As for a site ban vs. a time limited block, the only difference between a site ban and an indefinite block is that a site ban requires community consensus to lift. I think this case is one where that’s best because of how controversial Sashi can be. TonyBallioni (talk) 14:38, 6 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by MastCell

The closure was a judgment call, and I made a judgment and explained it. I think that the discussion, taken as a whole, was far closer to consensus-to-ban than it was to no-consensus. Separately, I believe that this close was well within appropriate discretionary bounds—meaning that one might disagree with it and personally have chosen a different outcome, but that it is not unreasonable or extreme. I think that plenty of other reasonable admins (though of course not all) would have closed the discussion the same way that I did, which is ultimately the question here. The Committee's role is not to substitute their judgment call for mine, but to determine whether my judgment was within reasonable parameters.

On specific points:

• I reject the claim that the closure was "premature". The discussion attracted substantive input from over 60 editors, easily comparable to or exceeding typical community-ban discussions, and ran well beyond the specified minimum time. It's fine to codify new and different guidelines for these discussions, but not to make them up and apply them post hoc.
• I don't perceive that the tide was turning against a ban. Right up until the close, for instance, early supporters of the ban were re-affirming their position and rejecting lesser sanctions (see comments in this section, for instance). I don't see any reason to artificially inflate the weight of comments made late in the discussion, nor to devalue the input of those commenting earlier or before an arbitrary timepoint.
• SashiRolls complains that he didn't have adequate time to defend himself. He contributed extensively to the thread, with ~35 edits over numerous hours, which I interpreted as indicating sufficient time and bandwidth to respond at length. I would not have closed the thread if he had not had the chance to contribute substantively to it. His current statements here presumably represent the best foot he would have put forward given more time, so I suppose you can judge for yourself how likely his rhetoric would have been to change minds. It seems to me like a book-length expansion of WP:NOTTHEM, and I'm not sure that more of this would have helped his case at WP:AN, but that's me.
• A separate argument made by several commenters below is that I'm generally a bad admin and a bad person, which I don't feel compelled to address. (I responded to Pudeo's charges, which he's been shopping around for awhile, in this talkpage thread).

I don't have a position myself on whether SashiRolls should be banned, as I haven't comprehensively reviewed his contributions. At a glance, this edit alone—in which SashiRolls deceptively manipulates another editor's post with a racially inflammatory edit summary, in the middle of a ban discussion when he is presumably putting his best foot forward—would be grounds to seriously question someone's fitness for the project.

SashiRolls excuses it by citing "panic before heading in to work on 4 hours sleep". I can sympathize—without going into details, the past 4 months have been extremely difficult for me and for others in my line of work, in ways that I hope you'all never have to experience—but at the end of the day I'm an adult. I choose when and how I contribute, and I'm responsible for what I post here. The same applies to SashiRolls. The lack of any assumption of personal responsibility in his statements is striking.

I support SashiRolls's right to appeal to the Committee. I feel that my close was entirely reasonable, but he's entitled to outside review. If you think that no reasonable admin would have closed the discussion the way that I did, then that's your call to make. (That said, if you elect to re-open community discussion again, then no admin in his or her right mind would be, nor should be, willing to step up to close it). MastCell ^Talk 01:24, 7 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Nosebagbear

This is an interesting "case", the first time I remember in my shortish editing history of an attempted overturning of a CBAN based on purely onwiki evidence (though I note there is now an email submission).

Two areas for me are of concern: a request by the editor in question for shortish extension and the major switch in !votes after El C participated. The ANI ran for enough time to be permitted, but I feel it would have been beneficial to allow the extension as it was hardly ridiculous.

More importantly, in my view, is the massive swing in participation after El C (a principal "victim") made a statement against any Siteban. I feel that had that come in at the start, the conversation would have run in a different way. Either more time, or a ping of each participant who had commented before and not after (by a neutral party), would have aided mitigate this problem.

I feel it's likely the arbs would probably have preferred both of these been handled better. The question is more "is it sufficiently unfair" to warrant overruling a CBAN. I think it should, but that's where the dispute lies to me. Nosebagbear (talk) 13:37, 5 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Having seen some additional comments outside of the main ANI body, I am no longer merely inclined but increasingly certain that though I stand by my position that there was procedural fault, Sashi is not capable of calmly acting within the Community. Nosebagbear (talk) 19:46, 5 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Paul August

It seems to me that the appropriateness of the close of this ANI discussion is questionable. It seems to me that a siteban should have, as a rule, a more clear consensus than this one had. Also such a discussion should be allowed to run, again as a rule, until all discussion has been exhausted, which does not seem to have been the case here. This close should be reviewed. Paul August ☎ 15:57, 5 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

With a nod to Iridescent, and with no disrespect to any of the editors involved, group decisions of this kind have a natural tendency to devolve into a mob with pitchforks. Consequently there needs to be some sort of mechanism for dispassionate review. Paul August ☎ 15:03, 6 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by El_C

In 2019, I blocked SashiRolls indefinitely for linking to an external website at AE which was a copy of a page they created that was deleted by another admin as an attack page. After that page was brought to DRV, where it was restored and then deleted again, I unblocked ShashiRolls. Recently, following an AN3 report, I blocked both SashiRolls and DeFacto for edit warring. That this was a partial block is of note. That SashiRolls relentlessly frequented my talk page regarding this matter, even after I asked them to stop and concentrate on their unblock appeal on their user talk page (which was ongoing) — that is also of note. Yes, I lifted the partial block, but I did so to deescalate the overall level of drama rather than due to admitting fault with the block itself. SashiRolls' level of combativeness, overall, is disconcerting to me. The manner in which this Arbitration request has been drafted is also disconcerting to me. Finally, SashiRolls intimating recently that I am part of an "upper class" is a claim I find offensive. The fact that I may have earned some goodwill is not indicative of anything of the sort. Merit is not the same as privilege. El_C 16:58, 5 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note that the partial block was for one week, the same as I issue to editors at AN3 who have a clean block log. The point is: I was trying to be lenient, with two users whose block logs, while not comparable, were substantive. That was purposeful for a host of reasons. El_C 11:11, 6 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The thread on my talk page involving this dispute was the 78th section (June 13). I am now at 156 (July 6). I think I help a lot of people and that this, for example, is a testament to my positive contributions to the project. I invite contributors to review these sections as closely as they see fit so that they may draw their own conclusions. El_C 16:41, 6 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Nick

Ban SashiRolls by motion, with appeal after six months and then every year thereafter. Their statement (above) sadly demonstrates that they're unsuited to remaining a part of our community here. I don't see switching from a Community Ban to an Arbitration Committee Ban as an 'upgrade' of the ban. I simply believe it's best that SashiRolls communicates with ArbCom concerning an appeal given the hostility to sections of the community that is evident in their statement and the edits that they've made concerning their appeal/arbitration request. Nick (talk) 23:57, 5 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Tryptofish

It looks like this has essentially been decided, so I've cot-ed my statement in order to say something that I feel needs to be said. Of all the statements here that have recommended accepting the case, none of them, not a single one, has focused on how SashiRolls would take the concerns of other editors to heart if given another chance. (Admittedly hard, given: "I will agree that I react badly to being continually targeted by a small group...". Like: I'm sorry that you treated me so badly.) Quite a few have argued on behalf of procedural fairness as they see it, and that's fine. Fairness always matters, and is always a discussion worth having. But more than a few have, instead, spun an alternative narrative in order to deflect from the real issues here: Admins need to be very active so we shouldn't care what MastCell thinks, and admins should not be very active so we shouldn't care what El C thinks, but it was unfair that editors didn't care enough about what El C said at AN, but we can ignore El C's statement here, and we should have a right to comment about how much sleep El C gets but Floquenbeam suppressed it, (and, briefly but self-reverted, there's nothing racial about lynching). I have a big problem with that. And so should everyone else. We should not have the community's time taken up with that kind of stuff, and the community needs to push back. Wikipedia in not a democracy, and "anyone can edit" should not be a suicide pact. --Tryptofish (talk) 21:04, 8 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Robert McClenon

This may be an idiosyncratic view, but I think that if an editor has managed to annoy the community to the point where the community will not give him a fair hearing, they should be entitled to a hearing by the ArbCom. TonyBallioni writes: "There’s honestly nothing special about this other than the fact that the banned person insisted at the beginning of the ban they wanted to go to ArbCom rather than let the community handle it." Yes. In my opinion, that is reason enough. Normally the ArbCom should handle cases that the community cannot handle because it is divided. In this case, perhaps, the ArbCom should handle it even though the community has reached a rough consensus. However, SashiRolls should then pay some price for having been a whatever, and that is that ArbCom should be willing to say that SashiRolls, if banned by ArbCom, can request a rehearing in eighteen months. They asked for it. Let them have it. Robert McClenon (talk) 03:00, 6 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Added Comments by Robert McClenon

User:Beyond My Ken - I agree that "exhausting the patience of the community" is a thing, and a very real thing. The defendant has been spitting at the veniremen and cannot get a fair jury, and can be tried by a judge. I said that maybe my view was idiosyncratic. Robert McClenon (talk) 04:12, 6 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Statement of Beyond My Ken

Robert McC: "Exhausting the patience of the community" is a thing. It's been the root cause of many site bannings in the past, and it will be again in the future. I do not think we want to open the Pandora's Box of ArbCom stepping in every time the community has simply had enough of an editor's shenanigans and given them the boot. If and only if the banning discussion was in some manner procedurally unfair -- which I certainly don't see the evidence for, what we have is SR's massaging of the facts to create the possible impression of unfairness -- then perhaps ArbCom might want to consider getting involved, but I would counsel them that they're not in particularly good standing with the community at this moment in time, and may think better of starting a course of action which could end up with the community's will being undone. I don't think that would go over well, frankly. Beyond My Ken (talk) 03:44, 6 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

With no disrespect to Paul August, to some people, every group decision which levies a sanction on an individual tends to start looking like a "mob with pitchforks" when it passes a certain number of participants who vote the "wrong way", that number being a matter of the personal sensitivities of the observer. Hence the graphic to the right, which I devised to use when that sort of comment almost inevitably pops up in those sorts of discussions.

One person's direct democracy is another's mobocracy, I guess. My suspicion is that, generally speaking, where one ends up depends almost entirely on which side one favors.

In this instance, I would appreciate it if someone (aside from SR, whose ability to warp facts into whatever shape they wish them to take is well displayed in this request) would, hyperbole aside, specify exactly what made the sanction discussion regarding SR into a "mob with pitchforks", as opposed to the orderly discussion it appears to be after participating in it at the time and then reading it over again now. Beyond My Ken (talk) 21:44, 6 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Usedtobecool: No, the worst thing they can do is to set an unnecessary precedent for ArbCom to step into, and possibly undermine, community processes when it is not necessary to do so, not totally unlike WMF/T&S getting involved in what was rightfully ArbCom's turf in the Fram case. Beyond My Ken (talk) 21:47, 6 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

CactusJack: Way to go, turning a case request into a direct personal attack on an admin, along with trumped up statistical "evidence" worthy of SR himself. But you've done your job, lit the bonfire to show the legions the way. What was once a set of comments with people from all "sides" expressing their personal views, is now well on its way to being a pile-on by one specific side, easily identified by the personalities involved. We'll now see more and more of those folks coming here to urge that ArbCom take the case, not because of the specifics of the incident, but because you've suceeded in turning it into an "us vs. them" extravaganza. Well done!Beyond My Ken (talk) 23:38, 6 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• ATTENTION CLERKS - This is an appeal by SashiRolls, not a desysop case against MastCell. Please delete the portions of CactusJack's and Pudeo's comments here which consist of evidence for that non-existent desysop case, and which have nothing whatsoever to do with SashiRoll's appeal. Personally attacking the closer is not a tactic which should be allowed or accepted here. Beyond My Ken (talk) 02:24, 7 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Cullen328

The administrator's close accurately reflected consensus although a significant minority disagreed with the outcome. Consensus does not require unanimity. I note that this editor has called my comments "cursory" although I have spent a lot of time examining this editor's long pattern of disruptive behavior. I do not need to write seven paragraphs when a single carefully written paragraph will suffice. The lack of any self-reflection or of any promises to change specific behaviors is telling. It is always someone else's fault. I encourage ArbCom to decline this appeal. I am also highly confident that if this editor returns, that they will provoke other severe disruptions in short order, although I am sad to have to come to that conclusion. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 03:57, 6 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Usedtobecool

It seems the committee reinterpreted by motion the ARBPOL (Scope and responsibilities#2) five years ago such that cases like this are no longer accepted. That would mean the arbs have to consider whether this meets #1 which it probably does not. So policy seems to support kicking it back to the community for re-evaluation if there are grounds to question the validity/fairness of procedures or the outcome; what happens or should happen practically, I am too green to know. In any case,

Beyond My Ken:"... then perhaps ArbCom might want to consider getting involved, but I would counsel them that they're not in particularly good standing with the community at this moment in time, and may think better of starting a course of action which could end up with the community's will being undone." The worst thing they could do is not accept a case they should for-fear-of/having-prejudged an unpopular outcome. Usedtobecool ☎️ 06:13, 6 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Mr Ernie

SashiRolls had explicity requested that the case remain open long enough for them to make a more meaningful statement the upcoming weekend. As the discussion carried on, more and more oppose votes were coming in. Sashi's statement may have drawn a few more oppose votes (or support, we don't know). The timing of the close is a bit curious to me - there was no urgent need for closing before Sashi's statement. I would make a more detailed comment on the closer's activity level (especially their administrative activity in the recent-ish past seeming to focus exclusively in a certain direction), but that does not seem necessary. One thing I do want to mention is that early on Sashi had the misfortune to tangle with a former admin socking to get around a TBAN, and their behavior during that episode was routinely brought up in subsequent discussions long after Cirt was finally reblocked. Some editors and admins who were involved in those discussions never seem to mention that Sashi was 100% right in calling out that behavior. It was suspicious and raised eyebrows, but the vehement defense of Sagecandor and their disruption by some is something I am not able to understand. Arbcom should handle this by motion, unblock, and let Sashi return to productive editing. I am always amazed by how long some are able to hold grudges on this volunteer website. Mr Ernie (talk) 09:07, 6 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Boing! said Zebedee

The thing that concerns me most about the close is that SashiRolls requested a delay until the weekend to have time to put together a proper response. That request was denied, and I see that as a big problem. When it's something as important as a site ban, there's no rush to get it closed as quickly as possible, and the accused should be allowed as fair a chance to defend themselves as is reasonably practical. Didn't we have a thing about allowing 7 days for these things at one time? This was open for only three days. On over-eagerness alone, I think it was a bad close and should be overturned. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 10:19, 6 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• I'll add that the close came just the day after El_C posted concilliatory comments saying "I seek no siteban or any other additional sanction against SashiRolls". People were not allowed enough time to consider that. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 10:25, 6 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• @Alanscottwalker: Thanks for the info. "At least 24 hours" seems woefully inadequate to me, especially when the community is considering banning a prolific content contributor. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 12:47, 6 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• I'll just add that yes, any minimum time allocated for a ban discussion is indeed a matter for the community to decide. But I do think it falls under ArbCom's remit to consider whether an accused has been treated fairly, and to address the fairness of being denied a reasonable time when requested. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 14:24, 6 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Naypta

I didn't really want to butt in here, but I was one of the ones who supported this case going to ArbCom at the AN thread, and I do object to the claim that it was basically only supported by those opposing a ban. I supported the referral of the case to ArbCom because I think that ArbCom are uniquely qualified to examine the evidence and come to a reasonable conclusion, wherever that conclusion happens to fall. I do not have a stance on a ban, not least because I do not feel that I know a sufficient amount about the circumstances to come up with an opinion, and I would prefer that the case is handed off to some of our most experienced and trusted users to come to a conclusion with all the available evidence, rather than just a subset of it. I have a great deal of respect and time for TonyBallioni, and I hope that he might choose to reconsider that statement.

I would urge the Committee not to pay heed to what might or might not go over well, and instead to look at the merits of the case, making their decision on that basis. The role of the Committee must be to impartially consider complicated cases that the community has either failed to resolve, or it is clear will fail to resolve. The question of whether the case should fall into that category is a reasonable one, and can quite rightly be the subject of debate; however, the Committee should not be dragged into the optics of what a decision to evaluate the case might "look like" as a part of that process. Doing so would, in my view, be fundamentally dangerous. Naypta ☺ | ✉ talk page | 10:32, 6 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I will say that I have been moved by the other arguments here. After reading them, I am broadly minded to think that the Committee should actually decline this case, despite having !voted at AN in favour of referring it here - certainly not because of the "appearances" it might give to the community, but so as to allow the AN thread to be re-opened for further discussion. Particularly, Levivich pointing out the 22 comments made in the 17 hours before the close makes me think that perhaps this is too soon for an Arbcom case, in actuality. That's not to say that I don't think there's a substantial chance that this might end up returning to Arbcom in the future; however, if there's still the semblance of a chance that the community might resolve it, that should be tried first. Naypta ☺ | ✉ talk page | 08:43, 7 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Iridescent

To me this seems clearly within Arbcom scope; the fact that there's clear disagreement between uninvolved editors as to whether the closure was correct makes this a textbook case of serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. The fact that the amended ARBPOL mandates the committee to examine appeals from limited subsets of editors, doesn't mean the policy restricts the committee to only examining appeals from those editors. Given the unusual nature of the original complaint—in which the supposed target of harassment explicitly said "I seek no siteban or any other additional sanction against SashiRolls" but people were demanding harsh sanctions regardless, and in which a well-regarded admin and former arb (i.e., someone who could reasonably be assumed to be in a position to follow-through on threats) had made a credible threat to block anyone discussing a key part of the evidence, the original proceedings seems to have been seriously flawed. Either re-examine the evidence presented in the original thread and resolve this by motion, or mandate that the original thread be re-presented the community to examine. I know Wikipedia works on expediency not justice, but as it stands this has the strong appearance of being a case of an editor who'd earned themselves a reputation as a bit of a nuisance, and a lot of people with whom that editor had previously had run-ins jumping onto a relatively trivial complaint to use as a pretext to get them banned. Per my original comment in the thread (linked in SashiRolls's initial statement), this is a long term editor with thousands of constructive edits we're talking about here, not some single-issue crackpot or spammer, and as such we can surely extend the courtesy of an appeal if that's what they want. ‑ Iridescent 12:05, 6 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Alanscottwalker

On a side matter, WP:CBAN for years had no time requirement, so these could and if I recall correctly sometimes were closed in a matter of hours. That changed when there was a 2018 RfC that added an 'open at least 24 hours' requirement. Alanscottwalker (talk) 12:35, 6 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Boing! said Zebedee, OK. But it seems clear that is not a committee matter, it's an RfC matter, if you want policy that way. (You might want to consider though, the psychological toll that 7 days of talking about someone might take)-- Alanscottwalker (talk) 13:17, 6 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

On another side matter, in no way should the committee be persuaded by the irrelevant and unsupported 'committee standing' claim. The community has entrusted you, and you are in good standing. The natural justice, entrusting principle, 'without fear or favor', should apply. Alanscottwalker (talk) 13:03, 6 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I did not participate in the AN, but I can't say I find the '5 votes over the last 24 hours' of much significance for some case of "premature close" because that means that something like 90% of the votes occurred in the two days before the last 24-hours, which means there was an overwhelming slowing down to a practical stop in running its course to a close. -- Alanscottwalker (talk) 01:39, 7 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

After I made the above comment, an editor below directs not to the 5 votes, as an earlier comment did, but to '22 comments on the 18th' but that still shows an overwhelming slowing down, compared to the earlier days, and a virtual closing end in the ban vote. Moreover, those comments of the 18th include 'close'-comments by participants, which shows direct evidence that there was call for close, and additional circumstantial evidence that it was time to close. Alanscottwalker (talk) 13:12, 7 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Jusdafax

I suggest ArbCom take this case. This siteban, with a significant percentage of the community expressing reservations, calls for a full hearing, in my view. Jusdafax (talk) 12:42, 6 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by North8000

Take the case and change it to a 6 or 12 month block; IMHO the process was flawed. There has to be an "appeals" process and arbcom is the only place. It looks like whatever smack of Sasha was proposed would have flown. IMHO I've seen Tony be too pointy a few times and kicking this off by proposing and arguing for a site-ban set the course for that vs. the other unproposed possibilities. Then most of the "ban" votes came in a 1/2 day (14 hour) snowball before Iridescent kicked off some more thoughtful deliberations. Finally, the possibility of other options was only discussed for a bit over 1 day before it was closed. On the flip side, if the most polite, careful, thorough, highly experienced Yoda of Wikipedia (Trypofish) knows the situation and says that Sasha has a big smack coming, you can be sure that they do, :-) and such was also the overall gist of the comments. North8000 (talk) 14:21, 6 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I put out a "Reopen?" idea at AN only to facilitate another option for Arbcom. North8000 (talk) 16:56, 6 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by JzG

For what it's worth, I think the close did not fully reflect consensus. There is clearly a big problem but I did not myself see consensus for a full ban. I don't know what alternative we have, in terms of an appeal. A case seems like overkill, but it's not clear what else we have open to us. Guy (help!) 14:57, 6 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• We have a stalemate: while this is pending, it can't be reviewed at WP:AN. I think there is an appetite for that, so maybe we can get a speedy close remitting it to AN? Guy (help!) 09:36, 7 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Atsme

I agree with Boing! said Zebedee and Boing. I am also of the mind that procedures take precedence, and in instances of variations and/or unconventional actions that lead to any form of indef or site ban that may cause more harm than good, or that may have handicapped a long standing editor's chance to provide a proper defense, the case should automatically revert to ArbCom and not be thrown back into the same court from whence it came. One other thought - WP:BMB states: Editors are site-banned only as a last resort, usually for extreme or very persistent problems that have not been resolved by lesser sanctions and that often resulted in considerable disruption or stress to other editors. Surely no one will deny that opposing views naturally cause stress to other editors, and as a realist, I am of the mind that when a particular group of editors wants their opposition gone, they will do their best to make mountains out of molehills which is why community consensus for a site ban should only be determined by uninvolved editors, if at all when considering the bottomline in community sitebans and the fact that a single admin has sole discretion to close the discussion and make the final determination, as what happened in this case. With the latter in mind, what is the minimum number of editors that comprise "community consensus" for site bans? While I trust and respect many on our admin force, sole discretion when closing something as important as a site ban is still not a committee decision. Intentional or otherwise, the door is left open to POV creep with no checks and balances in place. How do we deal with opposition biases, questionable IP iVotes, not to mention socks we haven't sniffed-out yet, and so on? The latter is why I have reservations about community site bans, especially when the defendant was not given a fair chance because of a procedural error, and why ArbCom should be charged with such a serious long-standing decision. ArbCom is the highest authority in our humble community, and its members have earned our respect and, above all, our trust to handle such important matters in a fair and equitable manner. ^Atsme _Talk 📧 15:10, 6 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Dave

Agree with Boing and others - Whilst I did and still do support a siteban IMHO that thread was closed way too soon, I was also under the impression (like Boing) that things like this were closed in or after 7 days ... not 3!, Anyway imho this should be declined with the ANI report taken back and reopened immediately to allow consensus to form and to allow further discussions to continue. –Davey2010^Talk 16:23, 6 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Floq

Our processes seem to be set up to ensure that a battleground-focused editor can waste everyone's time for much longer than a typical person would think possible. I've already allowed it to waste enough of my time. If the committee wants to waste their own time, that is up to them. I see I'm mentioned above, but don't plan on commenting here further unless an Arb asks me to. --Floquenbeam (talk) 17:12, 6 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Deryck

I see this as an issue of on-wiki jurisprudence. The meat of the issue is, some alleged that a community ban was enacted without adequate regard to due process, and strong opinions are held by multiple sides of the argument. I don't see how this can be resolved in a way that is respectable to everybody involved without escalating to an available higher authority, i.e. ArbCom. Deryck C. 17:22, 6 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Springee

I agree with others who feel that this wasn't a good close. For something like a CBAN I would hope the consensus would be VERY strong. I saw this as a stretch to claim it hit "consensus". Additionally it was clear that as more evidence and facts were being presented and as more editors started seeing the issues with the earlier blocks and the proposed site ban. This doesn't mean SR did nothing wrong but some other remedies were starting to be discussed. It would have been better had they been given a chance before what looked like a needlessly abrupt close. A close that results in what is in effect the nuclear option needs to be clean. Springee (talk) 17:32, 6 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment in response to QEDK's suggestion that the proper action is to start a new ANI and ask if there wasn't really consensus. This is more of a general comment but it applies here. The problem with QEDK's suggestion to open an new ANI is that the burden has shifted from "no consensus to act" to "consensus to overturn". My rule of thumb in cases where numbers ultimately decide is that 2/3rds, 66%, supporting is a rough consensus (I understand !vote but we will assume good arguments on all around). So what happens if an admin comes and closes a discussion when things are only say 55% for? Well the odds are totally against a reversal even though I think most of us would say 55% for is not consensus. What I've seen in past cases is the review discussion turns into those who were happy with the outcome saying the closing was good, those opposed saying it was bad, the result in 55% support the close as is, no consensus to overturn. Thus a bad closing sticks. That is what I think would happen here if this were put back before the masses. The burden for overturning is too high in a case were the claim of "consensus" is weak. Springee (talk) 19:23, 6 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

QEDK, I apologize if I misunderstood. I certainly think it would be fine if this discussion were closed with a comment that the ANI should be re-opened and discussed further instead of going to ArbCom. My only concern is if people say something to the effect of "start a new ANI". As I said before, this looks like a very marginal claim of "consensus" at, if the stats here are correct, 55% in favor. However, what are the odds we could get 66% to support reopening (my statistical "consensus")? Thus a questionable call stands because the burden to overturn a bad call is much higher than the burden to accept a bad call. If this were a clear, clean consensus then I'm OK with a clear consensus being required to overturn. Perhaps we ask, "Was the close good" (Consensus Yes=keep, no-consensus or Consensus No = Reopen in cases like this). Anyway, this is a concern I have with cases where the closing is questioned. Sorry for misunderstanding your suggestion. Springee (talk) 15:35, 7 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by David Tornheim

• Support Hearing Appeal per Boing!'s statement, Levivich's statement and others. Prematurely closed. [more exact reasons to be included later]. --David Tornheim (talk) 17:37, 6 July 2020 (UTC) [revised 12:06, 7 July 2020 (UTC)][Final revision: Adding more reasons now is a bit pointless with the recent votes to decline. --David Tornheim (talk) 03:31, 8 July 2020 (UTC)][reply]
• ArbCom is the right place for this--it should not be sent back to WP:AN, where a single self-selected admin can close it. A community ban of this significance where there is this much division must be heard by a committee, not judged by a single admin. ArbCom should take the case. Yes, the community can weigh in to decide, and who better to hear the true pulse of the community than the elected panel. --David Tornheim (talk) 04:30, 7 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Britishfinance

There are two interlinked issues here – the close, and the behavior.

From a technical perspective, while the ANI initially had a very strong consensus for a site ban, that changed after a day and was moving towards a no consensus; so much so that further options were proposed, but none seemed to have a strong consensus. I am therefore not sure re-opening the ANI would do anything other than confirm the no consensus, thus bringing the case back to ArbCom. MastCell's close anticipated this but I think wanted to lay down a "marker" to SashiRolls that their behavior is very problematic to a clear majority, and that the gap to SashiRolls' understanding of this issue is not closing.

ArbCom should either: (a) take on the case as an investigation into these behavior issues and finally resolve, or (b) decline the case as an explicit independent endorsement of MastCell's close based on the information laid out at the ANI (and ArbCom's knowledge of the history). Don't send back to ANI, or decline on a technicality, as it will likely return. Britishfinance (talk) 19:17, 6 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by qedk

Addressing the claims made by SashiRolls, most of them are either half-truths or blatant lies.

• procedurally unfair - The discussion was kept open for more than one day, as is policy. The summary of the consensus might be for debate (although mostly in favour of siteban) but not the procedure of the close itself. Floquenbeam chilled discussion... is a strong and misleading accusation, it was a warning to people who have been or were WP:INCIVIL at that discussion or elsewhere.
• manifestly excessive - Case in point: block log
• private matters - This is the only feasible reason for overturning a community ban.
• circumstances changed - Circumstances regarding the proposal did not, El_C simply made a statement.

The discussions had adequate consensus at a centralized venue, as is warranted for siteban discussions, there's no point second-guessing it, but if the close is felt to be wrong or heavy-handed, it should be addressed in a new community discussion failing which we can open an ArbCom case, there is no evidence that the community is not capable of handling their own editors in this particular case. --qedk (t 愛 c) 18:30, 6 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Springee: ...the proper action is to start a new ANI and ask if there wasn't really consensus was not my suggestion. My suggestion was that if ArbCom felt the close was inadequate, a new sanction discussion should be opened (since there was no preset time limit before appeal in the prior ban) in preference to a full case. --qedk (t 愛 c) 14:58, 7 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Lepricavark

Permit me to add my voice to the many others who believe that the discussion was closed prematurely. I believe it was clearly moving toward a 'no consensus' outcome despite the pile-on of support !votes at the outset. The community was divided then as to the proper course of action and we remain divided now. This is is the type of situation for which ArbCom was created and they should take on this case regardless of the perceived level of popularity that some editors ascribe to them. LEPRICAVARK (talk) 19:56, 6 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Cactus Jack

The ban discussion suffered from numerous procedural issues:

• It was closed prematurely. At the time of closure, 5 !votes had been cast in the preceding 24 hours; 1 support and 4 opposes. The policy on community bans states that If the discussion appears to have reached a consensus for a particular sanction, an uninvolved administrator closes the discussion, notifies the subject accordingly, and enacts any blocks called for. It is not clear a consensus had been reached at this time, especially given the direction the discussion was going.
• SashiRolls requested that the discussion remain open into the weekend, when they would have time to present their case in full. This did not occur. MastCell closed the discussion on Thursday, June 18. It had begun on Tuesday, June 16.
• MastCell overcounted supports and undercounted opposes. In their close summary, MastCell wrote that At a rough count, there were approximately 40 editors supporting a ban and ~18-20 opposed. While there is no numerical threshold for consensus, it would be inappropriate to close a discussion like this—with >2/3 of commenters supporting action—as "no consensus". By my count, there were 38 supports and 24 opposes, for a support rate of 61% at the time of closure. 61% is less than 2/3, which is 66.7%. Furthermore, as others have noted, this percentage had been steadily dropping ever since the first few oppose !votes brought in new arguments and evidence.
• The discussion suffered from a chilling effect when Floq threatened to block anyone who continued to discuss the fact that El_C's block of Sashi came at the end of a 27-hour editing session.
• As stated above, WP:CBAN requires closure by an uninvolved admin. I do not believe MastCell meets that description here. SashiRolls is heavily involved in the area of American politics (AP2). At risk of overgeneralizing, it's fair to say AP2 editing has 2 major "factions". One faction (henceforth "APS1") favors the mainstream/"establishment" wing of the Democratic Party. The other ("APS2") opposes this faction both from the left and from the right. SashiRolls is quite clearly on the side of APS2. At this time MastCell has made only 69 edits in 2020. Excluding nine edits related to the SR cban ([11] [12] [13] [14] [15] [16] [17] [18] [19]), the majority of MastCell's edits over this time frame are clearly within the AP2 realm, in which MastCell has consistently taken a pro-APS1 position:
  • [20] [21] 2 edits to AE (pro-APS1)
  • [22] [23] pro-APS1 RSN closures
  • [24] DS alert to APS2 IP
  • [25] [26] [27] [28] [29] Talk:Ronald Reagan discussions, pro-APS1
  • [30] [31] [32] [33] [34] [35] [36] [37] [38] [39] jimbotalk discussions, pro-APS1, anti-APS2
  • [40] [41] jimbotalk spillover on own talk page
  • [42] [43] jimbotalk spillover at Masem's user talk
  • [44] [45] [46] [47] fox news RSN, pro-APS1
  • [48] [49] [50] JzG's talk page - political commentary pro-APS1 especially first diff

CactusJack2 (talk) 22:31, 6 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment to clerks re BMK statement above: BMK's accusation against me is false and must be retracted. I am not seeking a desysopping of MastCell, and it is not a "personal attack". It is a demonstration of involvement. I am including the analysis of MastCell's 2020 edits only to demonstrate that MastCell is very much an involved editor in AP2, an area SashiRolls was heavily involved in. CactusJack2 (talk) 02:46, 7 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• I agree with the suggestion by several arbs and others that the discussion be punted back to the community. I suggest that in this case, the discussion should remain open for 7 days. Given the level of attention this has gotten, I suggest a panel close by three admins who are not involved in the AP2 or GMO editing areas. CactusJack2 (talk) 17:51, 7 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by MONGO

Mastcell is currently a somewhat intermittent contributor and mostly active in silencing opposition to his expressed political leanings (as clearly shown by Cactus Jack above) by closing ban and RS discussions against those he does not align with and defending those he does align with. There are plenty of contributors with strong sentiments about politics and those, so long as they are generally discussed politely, are fine in "chat room" areas like usertalks etc. and out of article space for the most part. The problem lies when our admins weaponize their tools and position to use as a way to threaten or enact sanctions against persons or close things that do not share their political leanings. For this purpose, to examine whether the evidence supports a rebuke of Mastcells' admin use of position, I see rationale for a case, as the evidence seems to lean that way. For the record, when I chimed in on the fate of SashiRolls I opposed a ban but supported a six month block.--MONGO (talk) 22:39, 6 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Pudeo

SashiRolls' block was MastCell's first logged action since September 2019. Basically, MastCell rushed to close the thread because El_C's comment did not call for a siteban. The !votes after El_C's comment were not overwhelmingly in favour of a siteban unlike the early ones.

MastCell is the admin with the most partisan track record at AE ever. This is troubling given that this out of the blue close was the first logged action since Sep 2019. The following is MastCell's partisan AE track record (that I recorded in Feb 2019):

• 18 February 2019 proposing sanctions for right-leaning editors (gun politics)
• 28 June 2018 proposing sanctions for a right-leaning editor (American politics 32-)
• 24 May 2018 defending a progressive editor (American politics 32-)
• 17 May 2018 proposing sanctions for a right-leaning editor (gun politics)
• April 4 2018 defending a progressive editor (American politics 32-)
• 4 April 2018 proposing sanctions for a right-leaning editor ("Race and Intelligence")
• 11 March 2018 proposing sanctions for a right-leaning editor (gun politics)
• 4 January 2018 proposing sanctions for a right-leaning editor (American politics 32-)
• 9 November 2017 defending progressive editor and proposing sanctions for a right-leaning editor (American politics 32-)

--Pudeo (talk) 23:40, 6 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Wugapodes

The committee should not initiate a case because this is a question that the community can and should resolve. Finding consensus to send something to ArbCom is at best an abdication of the community's duty to self-govern and at worst a filibuster tactic to prevent the community from actually coming to a resolution. The only case where it makes sense is administrator conduct since AbrCom is the only group that can desysop. That's not on the table here, so nothing about this is outside the remit of the community. We can effectively judge whether a discussion was appropriately closed or not. Those who wish to challenge the close should do it through our regular processes, not use arbitration to circumvent them. 00:22, 7 July 2020 (UTC)

Also, see User:Wugapodes/RFA trend lines for why I find arguments about trend lines dubious. 00:27, 7 July 2020 (UTC)

Statement by Objective3000

MastCell’s response is detailed, responds to every point, is quite difficult to argue with, and even eloquent. SashiRolls has repeatedly come before noticeboards for problematic behavior, and always responds with attacks against filers and admins. Old, perceived injustices are always brought up, even if correct, irrelevant to new filings. If arbcom could study the history and rule the block righteous, that might bring an end to the time-sink drama (or not). But, I don’t see that as an arbcom function when the community has spoken more than once given the extensive block log.[51] At some point, the excuses and accusations must end and some manner of introspection must be displayed.

I must also say that I am disturbed by Pudeo’s list, which seems to follow in SashiRoll's pattern of attacking admins. All of it is out of context and should not have been posted. Particularly considering that MastCell's, response when this was first posted by Pudeo, appears to be missing. O3000 (talk) 01:52, 7 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Levivich

1. The close was made on 18 June at 17:42 UTC. There were 22 comments made in the 17 hours before the close. That's an active, ongoing discussion, not a slow down. Most of the discussion on the last day was about sending it to Arbcom because Sashi wasn't getting fair treatment at ANI.
2. Sashi asked until the weekend and this was closed on a Thursday night. That's a real "F-U" to an editor. QuackGuru's was open for 7 days; Farmbrough's was 4 days; both unsuccessful, by a wider margin. This was the shortest site ban discussion of an established user since 2018, with the exception of Edgar, who was already site banned by Arbcom. We give 7 days to move or delete a page, 30 days for an RFC... three more days for a long term content contributor would have killed us?
3. MastCell's statement above that Sashi's current statements here presumably represent the best foot he would have put forward given more time is unfair. The current statement is about the close, not the numerous incidents and diffs raised in the site ban proposal, which follows the instructions of WP:CBAN.
4. I quote Drmies in the siteban discussion: OK then. I retract "hounding". You win that battle, because I won't be able to make the argument, probably until the weekend. Drmies was able to post in the discussion but needed probably until the weekend to make an argument about his own use of the word "hounding". Having time to post but needing more time to post a full response are not contradictory.
5. Some of the diffs were not characterized accurately. For example, 15 consecutive edits to a user page was described as "violating the above TBAN 15 times" as if it were 15 separate TBAN violations (#7 of the first set of diffs). A two-way IBAN was described as an "IBAN from" another editor (#2), suggesting it was one-way. In that context, I understand Sashi's editing of the statement to make it more neutral. A TPG violation isn't grounds for a site ban.
6. I disagree with MastCell's characterization of "lynching" as a "racially charged" word.
7. In this thread, as in that thread, Sashi is being accused of deception and "blatant lies". Sashi was blocked once for saying someone was dishonest, and that's one of the grounds raised in the site ban proposal. Why is it OK for some of us to call others liars, but not OK for others?
8. I don't understand what "closer to consensus than no consensus" means. What is in between consensus and no consensus? And if this site ban fell in that in-between region, why was it closed as "consensus"?
9. A close that doesn't weigh votes, miscounts the votes, doesn't see a trend towards oppose (which is not a matter of perception but mathematics!), and gives no reason for closing at that particular time, even though discussion was active, should be overturned.

Levivich ^{[dubious – discuss]} 02:28, 7 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Hobit

There was just recently discussion about having a "close review" forum, much like DRV to review closes that aren't deletion-based. Looking at this as a DRV regular, I think the right answer is pretty obvious: relist. I think the committee, by motion, should sent the discussion back to ANI and let someone else close it after the next weekend. I don't think the closer was out of line, I just think it's clear the community thinks that further discussion would have been useful. So let them have that. I think the closer needs to recognize that it's going to happen--appeals courts are going to disagree with you from time-to-time, and that's fine. It's nothing personal. But we are talking about banning someone and when they request extra time that should be granted if the request is within reason. My guess is we are going to end up at exactly the same place, but with a process more people feel was fair. And that's worthwhile. So a suggest a "case by motion" to send back to ANI. Certainly not to open a whole case. Hobit (talk) 03:27, 7 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Rusf10

I strongly encourage arbcom to accept this case. Not only because this was a bad close, but the conduct of the admin who closed it needs to be examined. On the close itself, not only was it premature , but the close summary was dishonest. If you know your close is legit, then why the need to exaggerate the number of support votes? As Cactus Jack and Pudeo pointed out, MastCell barely makes any constructive contributions anymore. Despite that he comes in at just the right time to throw around his weight as an admin against his ideological opponents. This is exactly what he did to me here when he showed up after being completely inactive for almost a month and then a few days later disappeared yet again. What value is it to wikipedia to keep him on as an admin? In his statement above, MastCell seems to believe he should be immune from criticism, refusing to respond to concerns about his contributions that other have raised. I'm sorry, but you as an admin need to be held to a higher standard! And using the your line of work as an excuse is absurd. First, the lack of MastCell's contributions precede the pandemic by at least a year. Regardless, why is it he is too busy to contribute regular articles or discussions, but not too busy to step in to make controversial admin actions? That's what I want to know because if I was so overwhelmed by my work, I certainly wouldn't involve myself in closing a controversial discussion.--Rusf10 (talk) 03:59, 7 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Bison X

Even if the siteban was left open for 7 or 70 days, I believe there is too much history and too many complexities for a straight !vote to ban or not to ban. The !vote would split straight down friend/foe lines. Unfortunately, these things are closed based on hard counts, not policy-based arguments like an AfD. I would prefer to have a judgment made on the evidence presented by SashiRolls and TonyBallioni in a formal arena rather than a community notice board. Disclaimer: I do not believe this should apply to all sitebans; only this one, due to its complexity. Rgrds. --Bison X (talk) 04:05, 7 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by MrX

An admin in good standing evaluated consensus in a CBAN discussion concerning an editor with an extensive history of poor conduct. The admin had no dispute or involvement with the editor. The CBAN discussion more than met the community's time and participation criteria.[52] The discussion and closure were not procedurally unfair. SashiRolls participated extensively (and disruptively) despite his protest about needing more time. The sanction imposed is not excessive or overbroad, considering the previous documented attempts to remediate his conduct with blocks and other sanctions. Remember also that SashiRolls was previously indef blocked by Arbcom and was let back into the fold by a handful of users.[53] As someone who has been subjected to SashiRolls' harassment, and has witnessed his harassment of several other editors and his POV-driven editing, I believe that was a mistake.

Arbcom should deny this case on its lack of standing, and should refuse to reward users who are attempting to make this a referendum on MastCell for purposes unrelated to SashiRolls' conduct. - MrX 🖋 11:03, 7 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Very brief statement by Drmies

User:Levivich, one thing--it wasn't really that I needed more time to make the case; I had no further interest in making the case. Thanks, Drmies (talk) 12:28, 7 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Very brief statement by GMG

Sashi wasted well enough community time a while ago. GMG^talk 00:26, 8 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Mr rnddude

Despite this already being a lost cause, I'd like to highlight Levivich's last point:

A close that doesn't weigh votes, miscounts the votes, doesn't see a trend towards oppose (which is not a matter of perception but mathematics!), and gives no reason for closing at that particular time, even though discussion was active, should be overturned.

Miscounts the votes understates just how poorly the count was conducted. Mastcell estimates ~40 supports and ~18-20 opposes. Both are wrong by a significant margin of error. Including comments without explicit !votes, I could only find 34 supports (so off by ~20%) and no less than 23 opposes (so off by ~15-20%). That means that – by raw count – ~58% of !votes were in favour of a site ban; a stark contrast to MastCell's asserted with >2/3 of commenters supporting action. That's no-consensus territory. Factor in that only 2 of the last 15 ~votes favoured a siteban (a quite remarkable trend change given that only 1 of the first 20 !votes opposed a siteban) and it seems inarguable that MastCell's closure was anything other than inappropriate. Mr rnddude (talk) 19:15, 8 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

For the record, I did the count three times, and twice when the original close was made. It seemed moot to do anything about it at the time, and the trend against action here supports the point that the whole thing is moot. Mr rnddude (talk) 19:20, 8 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by

Other editors are free to make relevant comments on this request as necessary. Comments here should address why or why not the Committee should accept the case request or provide additional information.

SashiRolls: Clerk notes

This area is used for notes by the clerks (including clerk recusals).

SashiRolls: Arbitrators' opinion on hearing this matter <0/9/0>

Vote key: (Accept/decline/recuse)

• Comment: I sympathize with Boing! said Zebedee's stance that a user threatened with a site ban should get sufficient time to respond before a decision is made and a discussion should not be closed before they had time to respond. On that count, I would be open to supporting overturning the close via motion and let SashiRolls post their statement as well as allowing discussion on it. However, by my count, SashiRolls has made 45 edits to the discussion after claiming that they "will not have time to respond to this until the weekend". Hence, I fail to see what people should have waited for. Possibly SashiRolls can enlighten us what else they would have stated if the discussion had been left open until the weekend. As for whether discussions like that should always be open at least 7 days is for the community to decide. Regards SoWhy 11:12, 6 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Decline. I agree that ArbCom should be able to review a close if procedural concerns have been shown or a close is completely incomprehensible and the community has failed to address this. However, I don't think this is the case here. The closing admin has explained their reasoning in detail and it is a justifiable close even if it's not the one some others might have made. The argument that SashiRolls was not given sufficient time to mount a defense is not convincing considering the amount of comments they did make (including changing someone else's comment to make them look better which is a legitimate reason for people to request sanctions. Expecting a long-time editor to know not to do that and calling them out for doing so is not assuming bad faith). They have also not shown that they would have used that extra time for anything not already discussed. As far as claims of bias or involvement go. that would be sufficient to overturn a case but there is no evidence MastCell had any ill-will regarding SashiRolls in particular. Circumstantial claims of bias like different political opinions is not sufficient imho. Last but not least, even if the handling of the discussion was flawed, there is nothing to stop the community from re-discussing the matter or overturning the close. The case might reappear here at a later time or it might not but it should have been tried first. Everyone now had sufficient time to read what SashiRolls wanted to say and if there is consensus to overturn the ban now, why shouldn't the community be allowed to discuss it? Regards SoWhy 18:15, 7 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  @Tryptofish: If the Committee declines this case request straight up (without any motion), logically no decisions are made. The community decision stands and it remains the community's prerogative to change its mind. Regards SoWhy 20:11, 7 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Decline. If there should be a harder minimum time limit for site ban discussions (and I think there should be) that's a community issue. If people want to reopen the ban discussion for greater input, that's a community issue. But I don't see the reason for ArbCom to take on a case (I don't see any other way it could just be a motion without implicitly deciding that the administrator who closed it committed an error in closing that needs to be investigated) and I'm not very much inclined to give SashiRolls another venue here. I would also add that users who profess not to be courting drama probably wouldn't edit others' statements and refer to them as a lynching. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs ^talk 17:01, 6 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• I'm still considering the material presented here, but I would only be inclined to take on this case if after reviewing that material, it appears the process was inherently unfair and/or the closing admin made a serious error in judgement. I would not be inclined to take on a case where we re-argue the ban discussion itself. It is not our place to second-guess and overrule community consensus. Beeblebrox (talk) 18:00, 6 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Decline At the end of the day I find that this is a matter of admin discretion, not administrative abuse. One is a matter for arbcom, the other is not. Beeblebrox (talk) 03:00, 7 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• @MastCell: I'm awaiting your statement; my chief query is why you closed the AN discussion when you did. Why not wait, or why didn't you close it sooner? And how did you arrive at consensus? Katie^talk 19:11, 6 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Decline If the community wants to reopen the ban discussion or start a new one, it can be done without our involvement. If the community wants to establish guidelines for future ban discussions, including how long they should stay open or whatever else, that too can be done without our involvement. But having read MastCell's statement and having reviewed the discussion in question, I don't see procedural issues or bad faith on MastCell's part. Consensus is, in fact, a judgment call. MastCell made one, explained it, and is dispassionate about it. @SashiRolls: You may leave your existing statements intact, but for further edits to this page, you must contact the clerks list and wait for an extension to be granted. Everybody else who is over the word limit needs to trim their statements; if you don't know that's you, the clerks will notify you shortly. Katie^talk 17:50, 7 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Decline nothing in the closure of the request would prevent further community discussion or require arb committee involvement. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 05:42, 7 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Decline as presented. This appeal seems to be mostly predicated on procedural issues. We're not a court of law that issues decisions that deprive an individual of liberty; the worst that we do is ask an individual to not edit the website. In this case, a much more convincing appeal would be one that actually addresses the concerns brought up in the ban proposal and discussion, instead of trying to escape based on voting trends. A good place to start is MastCell's statement that "[there] is a clear community consensus that SashiRolls has been combative and disruptive across a range of topic areas, and that lesser sanctions have failed to fix the problem.", which is a perfectly valid reason to ban someone from a collaborative project. Maxim_(talk) 13:54, 7 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Decline, giving leave to the community to decide whether to re-open the discussion to re-open the site ban. No compelling reason has been presented to override the community on the topic of the site ban or on the topic of whether the site ban discussion should be allowed to run for longer. (My personal opinion is that unless the undesired behaviour had been continuing during the site ban discussion, allowing the principal party the time to respond adequately seems reasonable, especially when the response is offered within 7 days. Wikipedia is a hobby.) –xeno^talk 16:34, 7 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Decline and leave it up to the community whether they wish to reopen the ban discussion. GorillaWarfare (talk) 00:05, 8 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• SashiRolls has clearly put a better foot forward here than he did in the noticeboard discussion, and makes a credible argument that we should review the community ban discussion. And I think it is important that ArbCom retain jurisdiction to review sanctions imposed by the community, to guard against the possibility that the process misfires badly. But in general, we are reluctant to overturn a community sanction that was imposed after a full discussion on a noticeboard—even more reluctant than we were in 2011, when I wrote the paragraph that SashiRolls cites as the basis for his appeal. The 8-arbitrators-thus-far consensus to leave this matter to the community, which emerged during the week I was inactive, is reasonable and I join it. Accordingly, decline as per my colleagues' comments above. I will add only that (1) the question of whether or not the Committee is in "particularly good standing" with some community members did not affect my vote here (in my years of service, the ArbCom's competence has always been despaired of by a significant number of editors); and (2) the e-mail sent by SashiRolls also did not affect my vote one way or the other. Newyorkbrad (talk) 15:45, 8 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]