Add your questions below the line using the following markup:
#((ACE Question
|Q=Your question
|A=))
There is a strong consensus against granting the administrator right automatically to non-administrators upon appointment to the Arbitration Committee. I haven't read the RfC itself, so I don't know whose opinion I'm making fun of here or whether I'm missing a point that would change my mind, but based on my own experience I think that position is straight up cuckoo crackers. Opabinia regalis (talk) 20:00, 19 November 2017 (UTC)
At the time, I (among many other people) raised the concern that this action by ArbCom violates WP:ARBPOL provision In exceptional circumstances, typically where significant privacy, harassment or legal issues are involved, the Committee may hold a hearing in private. The parties will be notified of the private hearing and be given a reasonable opportunity to respond to what is said about them before a decision is made.
(ignore the case of Cla68 for now, and just focus on TDA). See also this RfC on the Village Pump about private hearings in cases of alleged harassment. Can you explain how ARBPOL was not violated, and if it was, why the committee chose to do so? Kingsindian ♝ ♚ 04:30, 20 November 2017 (UTC)
should future misconduct occur in any topic area, he may be banned from the English Wikipedia by motion of the Arbitration Committee. That being said, with the benefit of experience I would try to do better with coordinating communications. This had a preventative aspect in that TDA's then-active block for unrelated misbehavior was due to expire soon; if a similar situation recurred I'd extend the block, email him, and then proceed with a ban if the committee was unsatisfied with the response. Opabinia regalis (talk) 04:30, 21 November 2017 (UTC)
I've always thought arbcom clerking should be deprecated—I've never cared for the notion that the arbs are special snowflakes who can't be expected to descend from their ivory tower to maintain the dozen-or-so pages in their purview, nor for the idea of arbcom having its own private police force to stop the great unwashed saying things the Great Council of Elders might find objectionable. (Plus, as you've probably discovered by now, the position attracts more than its fair share of oddballs whom I certainly wouldn't want issuing statements or performing actions in my name.). In the light of two years experience on the committee, do you (a) feel that arbitrators have any kind of special status in comparison to people working in other areas of Wikipedia, and (b) if (as both yourself and NYB assure me) the committee workload has dropped so drastically in recent years, do you feel the existing "we do the thinking and the servants do the dirty work" setup is justifiable in light of the fact that no similar formal hierarchy exists in any other part of Wikipedia, or do you feel that if the Committee orders an action to be taken they should be willing to take that action in their own names?