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- recent changes
- purge this page
- view or discuss this template
Request name | Motions | Initiated | Votes |
---|---|---|---|
DragonflySixtyseven | 13 August 2014 | {{{votes}}} |
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 |
No cases have recently been closed (view all closed cases).
Clarification and Amendment requestsRequest 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 |
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.
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.
General guidance
|
DragonflySixtyseven
Initiated by -- DQ (ʞlɐʇ) at 02:20, 13 August 2014 (UTC)
Involved parties
- DeltaQuad (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA), filing party
- DragonflySixtyseven (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA)
- Toddst1 (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA), inactive
- Bbb23 (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA)
- Rlevse (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), inactive
- 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:
- The 2007 Sadi Carnot Arbitration Case (specifically the the of unblock on Sadi Carnot)
- The Nov 2007 unblock of Snowolfd4
- The Dec 2009 unblock of Pickbothmanlol
- The Sept 2011 double unblock of 76.31.236.91 (the two blocks by the original admins were for different reasons)
- 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)