Wikipedia talk:Requests for arbitration/Instantnood 3/Proposed decision

Fred updated this page this morning with his proposals. They never showed up on Workshop where interested parties could comment. So, I'm commenting here. I don't think this proposed decision is helpful. It's a cut and paste job from the last decision and just as vague and non-prescriptive. This Instantnood3 case came about because the previous remedies and when they should come into play were being ignored by admins, and wiki-lawyered by the parties. These new remedies, though more punitive, will suffer from the same problem. They thus fail to address the issue of why this case even exists.

The decision and remedies need to be prescriptive to admins if the ArbCom thinks any admin is going to act on them. Admins aren't poring over the minutae of ArbCom decisions and aren't going to be familiar with the participants, the principles, or findings of fact. These vague descriptive remedies for "inappropriate editing" and "admin discretion" don't work because admins don't KNOW what inappropriate editing is without reading the ArbCom case, which they don't do. And their discretion ends up as doing nothing because it's easier to just move along to another incident and block an obvious troll than read the arbcom case, investigate the situation, and then try and second guess what ArbCom intends them to do.

I didn't know if I was out of line to do so, but I put proposed remedies on the Workshop page that I think addressed the specific principles and user behaviors at issue here. I only did this a few hours earlier than Fred put this proposal here and think they deserve some discussion before a rushed decision is made. SchmuckyTheCat 17:17, 23 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]