 | This is an essay. It contains the advice or opinions of one or more Wikipedia contributors. This page is not an encyclopedia article, nor is it one of Wikipedia's policies or guidelines, as it has not been thoroughly vetted by the community. Some essays represent widespread norms; others only represent minority viewpoints. |
 | This page in a nutshell: When in doubt as to whether a case of administrator abuse should be accepted, the ArbCom should accept the case. |
When a case request is made to the Arbitration Committee that involves a claim of administrator abuse, the comments that are made. both by editors and by arbitrators about whether the case should be accepted. too often appear to try to decide whether the administrator has abused their tools and should be desysopped. I think that is the wrong question. The question is not whether the administrator has abused their tools, but whether the administrator may have abused their tools. The difference involves the legal concept of burden of proof. The difference is essentially the difference, in common law countries, between indictment and conviction. Acceptance of a case of alleged administrator abuse is equivalent to indictment, a decision that trial is necessary. The trial is the evidentiary hearing and workshop proceedings. It is not necessary to decide that the administrator was wrong in order to accept a case. It is necessary to decide that it appears that the administrator may have been wrong. For that reason, if there is doubt as to whether ArbCom should accept a case, it probably should accept the case. If there is found to be doubt after the evidence is considered, the administrator can be cleared.