Misplaced Pages

:Arbitration/Requests/Case: Difference between revisions - Misplaced Pages

Article snapshot taken from[REDACTED] with creative commons attribution-sharealike license. Give it a read and then ask your questions in the chat. We can research this topic together.
< Misplaced Pages:Arbitration | Requests Browse history interactively← Previous editNext edit →Content deleted Content addedVisualWikitext
Revision as of 15:01, 11 August 2014 view sourceSphilbrick (talk | contribs)Administrators178,906 edits Civility: Removing request for arbitration: declined by the Committee← Previous edit Revision as of 02:23, 13 August 2014 view source AmandaNP (talk | contribs)Edit filter managers, Autopatrolled, Bureaucrats, Checkusers, Oversighters, Administrators45,707 edits post caseNext edit →
Line 4: Line 4:
<noinclude>{{ArbComOpenTasks|acotstyle=float:right}}</noinclude>{{NOINDEX}} <noinclude>{{ArbComOpenTasks|acotstyle=float:right}}</noinclude>{{NOINDEX}}
{{Misplaced Pages:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Header<noinclude>|width=53%</noinclude>}} {{Misplaced Pages:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Header<noinclude>|width=53%</noinclude>}}

== DragonflySixtyseven ==
'''Initiated by ''' -- ] ] '''at''' 02:20, 13 August 2014 (UTC)

=== Involved parties ===
<!-- use {{admin|username}} if the party is an administrator -->
*{{admin|DeltaQuad}}, ''filing party''
*{{admin|DragonflySixtyseven}}
*{{admin|Toddst1}}, ''inactive''
*{{admin|Bbb23}}
*{{userlinks|Rlevse}}, ''inactive''
<!-- The editor filing the case should be included as a party for purposes of notifications. -->

;Confirmation that all parties are aware of the request
<!-- All parties must be notified that the request has been filed, immediately after it is posted, and confirmation posted here. -->
*Diff. 1
*Diff. 2

;Confirmation that other steps in ] have been tried
<!-- Identify prior attempts at dispute resolution here, with links/diffs to the page where the resolution took place. If prior dispute resolution has not been attempted, the reasons for this should be explained in the request for arbitration -->
*
*
*
*
*
=== Statement by DeltaQuad ===
From incidents spanning from late 2007 to present day, DragonflySixtyseven has demonstrated issues with ] and the ], in relation to his administrative actions. At least 5 times since the start of 2007, Dragonfly67 has inappropriately reverted other administrators blocks without seeking consensus at any time nor contacting the original blocking administrator. He did not even discuss the original action with the administrators making them.

Last time in 2011, ], Dragonfly67 ] by , which he failed to follow through on when he unblocked & .

There are 5 relevant incidents listed below:
#] (specifically the )
#
#
# (the two blocks by the original admins were for different reasons)
#The Aug 2014 unblock of &

Furthermore DS67 seems to ] for a users actions, which is a community-wide administrative duty. In the 2011 incident (see block log link above) he says ''"Pay attention. I said, a) I'm not convinced he's a sock, b) '''if he gets out of line, I'll block him myself. I'm handling this. If he misbehaves, bring him to my attention.'''"'' (emphasis my own), telling other admins that they must go through him to take action on him. I did not see that at the time coming from an SPI when I made my block.

These actions make it difficult for administrators to work with DS67, and there is a repeat issue. Each time that it has been taken to ANI, admins have disagreed with the process DS67 has taken. The admins, every time have been left not happy with the result, and unwilling to wheel war for fear of getting sanctioned themselves, including myself. Also, there is a disregard for declined unblock requests at the time of some of the unblocks. I'm not here because I think desysop is the right or best option, but clearly talking it out one on one or with the community hasn't produced results. -- ] ] 02:20, 13 August 2014 (UTC)

=== Statement by {Party 2} ===

=== Statement by {Party 3} ===

=== Clerk notes ===
:''This area is used for notes by the clerks (including clerk recusals).''

=== DragonflySixtyseven: Arbitrators' opinion on hearing this matter <0/0/0/0> ===
{{anchor|1=DragonflySixtyseven: Arbitrators' opinion on hearing this matter}}<small>Vote key: (Accept/decline/recuse/other)</small>

*

Revision as of 02:23, 13 August 2014

Requests for arbitration

Arbitration Committee proceedings Case requests
Request name Motions Initiated Votes
DragonflySixtyseven   13 August 2014 {{{votes}}}
Open cases
Case name Links Evidence due Prop. Dec. due
Palestine-Israel articles 5 (t) (ev / t) (ws / t) (pd / t) 21 Dec 2024 11 Jan 2025
Recently closed cases (Past cases)

No cases have recently been closed (view all closed cases).

Clarification and Amendment requests
Request name Motions  Case Posted
Amendment request: American politics 2 none (orig. case) 15 January 2025
Amendment request: Crouch, Swale ban appeal none none 22 January 2025
Arbitrator motions

No arbitrator motions are currently open.

Shortcuts

About this page

Use this page to request the committee open an arbitration case. To be accepted, an arbitration request needs 4 net votes to "accept" (or a majority).

Arbitration is a last resort. WP:DR lists the other, escalating processes that should be used before arbitration. The committee will decline premature requests.

Requests may be referred to as "case requests" or "RFARs"; once opened, they become "cases". Before requesting arbitration, read the arbitration guide to case requests. Then click the button below. Complete the instructions quickly; requests incomplete for over an hour may be removed. Consider preparing the request in your userspace.

To request enforcement of an existing arbitration ruling, see Misplaced Pages:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement. To clarify or change an existing arbitration ruling, see Misplaced Pages:Arbitration/Requests/Clarification and Amendment.


File an arbitration request


Guidance on participation and word limits

Unlike many venues on Misplaced Pages, ArbCom imposes word limits. Please observe the below notes on complying with word limits.

  • Motivation. Word limits are imposed to promote clarity and focus on the issues at hand and to ensure that arbitrators are able to fully take in submissions. Arbitrators must read a large volume of information across many matters in the course of their service on the Committee, so submissions that exceed word limits may be disregarded. For the sake of fairness and to discourage gamesmanship (i.e., to disincentivize "asking forgiveness rather than permission"), word limits are actively enforced.
  • In general. Most submissions to the Arbitration Committee (including statements in arbitration case requests and ARCAs and evidence submissions in arbitration cases) are limited to 500 words, plus 50 diffs. During the evidence phase of an accepted case, named parties are granted an automatic extension to 1000 words plus 100 diffs.
  • Sectioned discussion. To facilitate review by arbitrators, you should edit only in your own section. Address your submission to arbitrators, not to other participants. If you wish to rebut, clarify, or otherwise refer to another submission for the benefit of arbitrators, you may do so within your own section. (More information.)
  • Requesting an extension. You may request a word limit extension in your submission itself (using the {{@ArbComClerks}} template) or by emailing clerks-l@lists.wikimedia.org. In your request, you should briefly (in 1-2 sentences) include (a) why you need additional words and (b) a broad outline of what you hope to discuss in your extended submission. The Committee endeavors to act upon extension requests promptly and aims to offer flexibility where warranted.
    • Members of the Committee may also grant extensions when they ask direct questions to facilitate answers to those questions.
  • Refactoring statements. You should write carefully and concisely from the start. It is impermissible to rewrite a statement to shorten it after a significant amount of time has passed or after anyone has responded to it (see Misplaced Pages:Talk page guidelines § Editing own comments), so it is often advisable to submit a brief initial statement to leave room to respond to other users if the need arises.
  • Sign submissions. In order for arbitrators and other participants to understand the order of submissions, sign your submission and each addition (using ~~~~).
  • Word limit violations. Submissions that exceed the word limit will generally be "hatted" (collapsed), and arbitrators may opt not to consider them.
  • Counting words. Words are counted on the rendered text (not wikitext) of the statement (i.e., the number of words that you would see by copy-pasting the page section containing your statement into a text editor or word count tool). This internal gadget may also be helpful.
  • Sanctions. Please note that members and clerks of the Committee may impose appropriate sanctions when necessary to promote the effective functioning of the arbitration process.

General guidance

  • This page is for statements, not discussion.
  • Arbitrators or clerks may refactor or delete statements, e.g. off-topic or unproductive remarks, without warning.
  • Banned users may request arbitration via the committee contact page; don't try to edit this page.
  • Under no circumstances should you remove requests from this page, or open a case (even for accepted requests), unless you are an arbitrator or clerk.
  • After a request is filed, the arbitrators will vote on accepting or declining the case. The <0/0/0> tally counts the arbitrators voting accept/decline/recuse.
  • Declined case requests are logged at Misplaced Pages:Arbitration/Index/Declined requests. Accepted case requests are opened as cases, and logged at Misplaced Pages:Arbitration/Index/Cases once closed.

DragonflySixtyseven

Initiated by -- DQ (ʞlɐʇ) at 02:20, 13 August 2014 (UTC)

Involved parties

Confirmation that all parties are aware of the request
  • Diff. 1
  • Diff. 2
Confirmation that other steps in dispute resolution have been tried

Statement by DeltaQuad

From incidents spanning from late 2007 to present day, DragonflySixtyseven has demonstrated issues with the dispute resolution process and the the blocking policy, in relation to his administrative actions. At least 5 times since the start of 2007, Dragonfly67 has inappropriately reverted other administrators blocks without seeking consensus at any time nor contacting the original blocking administrator. He did not even discuss the original action with the administrators making them.

Last time in 2011, when I was directly involved, Dragonfly67 avoided an arbitration request by placing himself under restriction, which he failed to follow through on when he unblocked Iaritmioawp aka PathOfExile & I really need that username.

There are 5 relevant incidents listed below:

  1. The 2007 Sadi Carnot Arbitration Case (specifically the the of unblock on Sadi Carnot)
  2. The Nov 2007 unblock of Snowolfd4
  3. The Dec 2009 unblock of Pickbothmanlol
  4. The Sept 2011 double unblock of 76.31.236.91 (the two blocks by the original admins were for different reasons)
  5. The Aug 2014 unblock of Iaritmioawp aka PathOfExile & I really need that username

Furthermore DS67 seems to be taking direct responsibility (owning) for a users actions, which is a community-wide administrative duty. In the 2011 incident (see block log link above) he says "Pay attention. I said, a) I'm not convinced he's a sock, b) if he gets out of line, I'll block him myself. I'm handling this. If he misbehaves, bring him to my attention." (emphasis my own), telling other admins that they must go through him to take action on him. I did not see that at the time coming from an SPI when I made my block.

These actions make it difficult for administrators to work with DS67, and there is a repeat issue. Each time that it has been taken to ANI, admins have disagreed with the process DS67 has taken. The admins, every time have been left not happy with the result, and unwilling to wheel war for fear of getting sanctioned themselves, including myself. Also, there is a disregard for declined unblock requests at the time of some of the unblocks. I'm not here because I think desysop is the right or best option, but clearly talking it out one on one or with the community hasn't produced results. -- DQ (ʞlɐʇ) 02:20, 13 August 2014 (UTC)

Statement by {Party 2}

Statement by {Party 3}

Clerk notes

This area is used for notes by the clerks (including clerk recusals).

DragonflySixtyseven: Arbitrators' opinion on hearing this matter <0/0/0/0>-DragonflySixtyseven">

Vote key: (Accept/decline/recuse/other)

Misplaced Pages:Arbitration/Requests/Case: Difference between revisions Add topic