Bishonen

:::So I think we're an interesting area of "wikilaw" that I hadn't fully considered when I acted. ArbCom has a lot of latitude, by both precedent and procedure, for managing the conduct of participants with-in arb space. As a drafter I have specific authority around managing the case to enforce behavior norms. I arrived to the project, having multiple user talk messages from each and from an extended challenge of evidence already submitted. And the edits were continuing to come. So I felt a bit or urgency while also wanting to create time for a plan. The plan would decide how ArbCom wanted to handle and rather than allowing the two to go at each other, I felt I would build on the existing sanction to create space for the clerks and ArbCom to make a longer term decision with-in arb space. It was never intended to be a permanent change, only, from the start a temporary one, a nuance that I think got lost initially but also doesn't matter to the larger point being raised here about modifying a sanction.{{pb}}Upon deeper reflection, I continue to think that a sanctioning admin can't bind the committee (or its authorized representatives, the drafters) from managing the behavior of editors at a case (or more broadly with-in arbcom space). So the exception can be made, without issue, and in fact is a positive exception But this is not at all clear cut and the opposite position - that it could only be modified through a formal vote - is a reasonable one. And as I admitted up front was not something I considered or focused on and, for what it's worth, was not something that anyone who weighed in on the email thread I started mentioned either. So ultimately I would really encourage you to go the ARCA route because I think there's a bigger piece here that needs clarity. This would also let the Committee formally take it over. But if you don't want to do that the simplest is you can make me the enforcing administrator. FWIW, on my list of things to do now are to implement the consensus lifting that suspension. Courtesy pings for @[[User:Vanamonde93|Vanamonde93]] and @[[User:Callanecc|Callanecc]]. [[User:Barkeep49|Barkeep49]] ([[User_talk:Barkeep49|talk]]) 16:11, 20 March 2023 (UTC)

::::Barkeep49, I don't believe anyone here is questioning ARBCOM's authority to modify sanctions, only the need to do so without chatting with the sanctioning admin, or indeed even explaining the reason for the modification. If I'm understanding you correctly the two parties are interacting in such a way as to make the evidence phase harder for everyone; but even just saying so explicitly when making the modification would have avoided the need for this conversation, I think. I'll pipe down now, and I'm certainly not going to ARCA, but it seems to me ARBCOM shouldn't be doing things that discourage admins from taking discretionary actions in CT areas; it's hard enough as it is. <span style="font-family:Papyrus">[[User:Vanamonde93|Vanamonde]] ([[User Talk:Vanamonde93|Talk]])</span> 19:17, 20 March 2023 (UTC)

::::Maybe a sanctioning admin can't bind the committee, {{u|Barkeep49}}, but surely nothing can prevent the committee from exercising the ordinary niceties, in this case talking to me before modifying my sanction, at ''least'' at the same time as talking with the banned users. Leaving me to notice [[Special:Diff/1145378723|Kautilya's post here]] on my watchlist is not quite the same thing. Before you repeat that you tried to ping me, pinging is not enough.

::::Anyway. I'm not enamoured of the ARCA route. Clearing up wrinkles in the Contentious Topics rules, or in the ArbCom charter, isn't the kind of thing I would choose to spend my time doing at Wikipedia.