Self-government in action.......
Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Reversion of office actions resolved by motion
Although official WMF policy states that Unauthorized modifications to office actions will not only be reverted, but may lead to sanctions by the Foundation, such as revocation of the rights of the individual involved, JEissfeldt (WMF) (talk · contribs) indicated that the WMF would not implement further sanctions against the admins involved in reversing these actions (). In recognition of that decision, and of the exceptional nature of the circumstances, the committee notes without comment this series of events. The community is advised that administrators and bureaucrats are normally expected not to act when they know they do not have all of the relevant facts, and that this is especially important with regard to office actions where those facts may be highly sensitive. As a general rule, wheel warring may be grounds for removal of administrative rights by the committee as well as by the WMF. Lack of sanctions under these exceptional circumstances should not set expectations around similar future actions.
ArbCom have simply lied to the community, and totally ducked the issue. There was more to Jan's statement than is stated here, namely that the Foundation stopped sanctioning users because it wanted to defer the decision about what to do with the local rights holders who defied Foundation policy to the local system of self-governance that seems to want to claim jurisdiction. That was the extent of that "decision", no direction was given to ArbCom as to whether they too should apply no sanctions, and it would be absurd for them to do so if using the Foundation decision as the reason.
ArbCom were tasked with making a decision of their own. So, what have they actually done with this deferred power? Merely outlined what happened, "without comment", except this implication that the reason they are deciding to do nothing is because this was an exceptional situation that proved controversial. A cruel person might point out that seems to be the very definition of any wheel warring case that ArbCom is asked to hear, and rule on. The place where final and binding rulings are issued, and all that.
Note that there has been no ruling
. Not only have the misbehaving local rights holders not been sanctioned or even warned, neither have they been cleared. No official endorsement of this claimed idea they were engaged in legitimate civil disobedience, which has no basis in policy because WP:IAR was certainly never written to excuse knowingly
starting World War III on a self-admitted point of political principle, hence why the Committee didn't dare even suggest this was the source of the rebel's perceived legitimacy.
Oh, they have issued advice, of course, the duly elected hot air factory has to do that. It reaffirms the Foundation policy. Why? The policy did not matter, for unspecified exceptional circumstance in an environment of controversy. If WP:IAR doesn't cover it, then what is the reason that policy didn't matter? Plenty of specific and policy sounding arguments were given, so why no comment from the Ruling Council?
Why should any local rights holder not see this ruling as a precedent? As long as there exists controversy, something a bad actor can interpret as a consensus for civil disobedience, as long as there exists some kind of exceptional circumstance, local rights holders would be within their rights to assume that if they unilaterally use their tools to interfere with an office action despite not knowing the full facts, they are covered. The WMF certainly can't touch them. They might not receive endorsement of the Ruling Council, but neither will they be sanctioned. Just hold the course, and you'll be fine.
Is this your idea of self-government, Wikipediots? Pretty pathetic, if so. A giant policy vaccuum now exists around how trusted volunteer rights holders should behave in situations of utmost seriousness, where literally one wrong move can lead to user's privacy and even their safety, being compromised.
In reality, a Full Case was not opened in lieu of this pathetic motion, because to do so would have revealed ArbCom's major culpability in creating the exceptional circumstances that led to this controversy. The indecision, the botched communications, the general cowardice and instinct for buck-passing and self-preservation. No surprise then, that it has similarly manifested in this contemptible Motion.
Nothing has been done to the rebellious rights holders, neither sanction or endorsement, because the Committee doesn't want to upset its new best friends, the rebellious elements of the community determined to elevate them to the heights of supreme sovereign over all 'local' issues (and child protection, threats of violence and other illegality are all potentially local issues under your definitions, you cowardly cunts). But neither does it want to anger the people they know are still basically the legal owners of the wesbite, which of course absolutely means office actions have to have primacy, and people who fuck with them without authorization, have to lose their rights, immediately and permanently.
No rights without responsibilities. You may not realize it yet wiki-fuckwits, but this Motion calls into question the very notion that the Foundation is entitled to refuse requests for the real names and addresses of rights holders under the previous framework of protection for good faith volunteers. The Foundation can't afford to be put into a position of being seen to have deferred, through inaction much less grant of 'sovereignty', anything that they are rightly and solely legally responsible for when in receipt of a proper legal request for office action. That way lies a Gawker style extinction-suit.
Under that legal reality, what possibly ever counts as an exceptional circumstance? If your best friend gets Global Banned, that counts under the present understanding of controversy, does it not? The WMF banning people without fair trial, giving the community no reason at all? Yeah, you better believe this Motion empowers civil disobedience even in those circumstances. Even more so given greyer areas where controversy is absolutely going to exist now.
Remember, the rebel rights holders only initially claimed consensus backing, you will note they later realized this was unsustainable given it does not apply to overturning office actions given their special status, so they threw themselves before the Committee, asking to be judged for actions that were entirely unilateral. Done with sole legal responsibility, you might say. Which is, of course, their actual legal position. The message of the Committee's inaction, has been received, by those who would do such a thing again, damn the consequences.
This cowardly and amoral non-decision, is simply a reflection of the cowardice and immorality that is ingrained in the community. They truly have the government they deserve, the government they would elect.
I spit on them.