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]

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

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

Based on the list of named parties, I take this case request to be a request to overturn the community site-ban. ArbCom should decline both the case request and the request to un-ban.

Before starting to prepare this request, SashiRolls got some good advice: [3]. In part: Appeals that focus on what everybody else did wrong, rarely succeed. Those that focus on your own actions, acknowledging fault but discussing how that fault might be shared, that's more likely to work. What you have here is the complete opposite. There is nothing above about how SashiRolls intends to try to do better going forward. In a subpage used to prepare this request, [4], he admits fault for having once used the phrase "pissed off" (box checked, that's done) – out of years of sanctions and now the second site-ban. He regrets having tried to reformat Tony's opening of the ban discussion, but regards it as having been a tactical error that backfired, and regards the opinions of numerous editors as evidence of an unfair process, rather than as what those editors concluded. Here, he repeatedly criticizes El C – wrong, wrong, wrong – but considers it a procedural fault that not enough people listened to El C. Somehow, over the many AE sanctions he has received, all the uninvolved AE admins got it completely backwards, every time. Never his fault. He also is trying to tell you that MastCell counted !votes wrong, but since I don't see myself here: [5], I'd be inclined against taking his version of the count on face value. (And yikes: [6]).

More personally, SashiRolls in under a one-way IBAN with respect to me, [7], that is in effect now and would presumably remain in effect even if ArbCom were to un-ban without reviewing all previous sanctions. Nothing in the case request is about me, with just Tony and MastCell as named parties. If he wanted to make me a named party here, he should have lined that up before filing the case request. But in preparing this request, he has created subpages about me: specifically me [8], as one of a group of "repeat players" [9], and as having something to do with "baying at the moon" [10]. Clearly, he is violating the IBAN right here. That said, I'm willing to cut him some slack because he seems to want to argue that past sanctions contributed to the contested site-ban (and it will be moot if the site-ban stands). But, if he is going to keep it in his user space, then ArbCom can certainly consider that as something that might indicate what to expect if his request is granted.

Like most community discussions, the ban discussion at AN was imperfect. But not so much so that ArbCom should override the community. I think a poll of uninvolved admins would find some that feel that MastCell should have found "no consensus" or issued a lesser sanction – but would find others who agree with MastCell. There is nothing here that rises to the level that ArbCom must come in and set aside what the community decided. --Tryptofish (talk) 21:07, 5 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]

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]

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]

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]

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 quickly and too soon, I was also under the impression (like Boing) that things like this were closed in or after 7 days ... not 3 days!, 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

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 <0/0/0>

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]