Revision as of 03:34, 19 December 2019

WP:ARC

Requests for arbitration

Request name	Motions	Initiated	Votes
RHaworth		19 December 2019	0/0/0

[edit]

Open cases

Case name	Links	Evidence due	Prop. Dec. due
Venezuelan politics	(t) (ev / t) (ws / t) (pd / t)	20 Apr 2024	04 May 2024

[edit]

Recently closed cases (Past cases)

Case name	Closed
Conflict of interest management	13 Apr 2024
Mzajac	7 May 2024

Clarification and Amendment requests

Request name	Motions	Case	Posted
Amendment request: Conduct in deletion-related editing	none	(orig. case)	30 April 2024
Clarification request: Palestine-Israel articles 4	none	(orig. case)	13 May 2024
Amendment request: Article titles and capitalisation	none	(orig. case)	13 May 2024

Arbitrator motions

No arbitrator motions are currently open.

Shortcuts

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. 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 Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement. To clarify or change an existing arbitration ruling, see Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Clarification and Amendment.

File an arbitration request

This page is for statements, not discussion.

If you must reply to another user's statement, do so in your own section (more information).
Your section must not contain more than 500 words (Word Count Tool; internal gadget). This includes your replies to other users. To request an extension, either make the request in your statement section or email the clerks email list.
Arbitrators or clerks may refactor or delete statements, eg 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 Wikipedia:Arbitration/Index/Declined requests. Accepted case requests are opened as cases, and logged at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Index/Cases once closed.

RHaworth

Initiated by TonyBallioni (talk) at 03:34, 19 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Involved parties

TonyBallioni (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA), filing party
RHaworth (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA)

Confirmation that all parties are aware of the request

[diff of notification RHaworth]

Confirmation that other steps in dispute resolution have been tried

1
2
3
4

Statement by TonyBallioni

Today, RHaworth unblocked an account that was subject to a CheckUser block without consulting a CheckUser. This is a red line in policy that if done intentionally is worthy of a desysop in itself. While RHaworth has not directly answered the question as to if he knew this is a policy violation, it is my contention that even if he didn't, this is part of a pattern of either recklessness or willful disregard of policy that is unbecoming of an administrator and where the only remedy is a desysop.

In this BN thread from September 2019 he intentionally lied to a new user and directed them to bureaucrats despite knowing what suppression was. Evidence that he knew about suppression/the oversight team was discussed on the oversight list at the time, and will be emailed to the Arbitration Committee as evidence. Lying to a new user about suppression to make a point that he doesn't like the lack of audit trail is seriously concerning.
Longstanding concerns about his use of speedy deletion. I have privately made jokes that he just opens up CAT:A7 and runs d-batch in twinkle. While I'm not sure if it's that brazen in reality, the sheer number of AN threads (Here and here for recentish examples, but this dates back years, and if a case happens, I'm sure I and others will be able to provide more evidence.)
Today he unblocked Velanatti, a CU blocked account. When questioned about it he said that he knew they were the same person, and didn't see the point in consulting with a CU (diff and diff).

RHaworth's archives are somewhat difficult to search since he uses the old move and delete method, but these are far from the only controversies surrounding his use of the tools, and we now have within a 3 month period two instances of him making serious mistakes involving both suppression and CU. If the committee wants more evidence now before a case is submitted, I can provide it, but I think the evidence above is enough to open a case and allow evidence to be presented so that a desysop can be considered. TonyBallioni (talk) 03:34, 19 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by RHaworth

Statement by {Non-party}

Other editors are free to make relevant comments on this request as necessary. Comments here should address why or why not the Committee should accept the case request or provide additional information.

RHaworth: Clerk notes

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

RHaworth: Arbitrators' opinion on hearing this matter <0/0/0>

Vote key: (Accept/decline/recuse)

@@ Line 6: / Line 6: @@
 <noinclude>{{ArbComOpenTasks|acotstyle=float:right}}</noinclude>{{NOINDEX}}
 {{Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Header<noinclude>|width=43%</noinclude>}}
+== RHaworth ==
+'''Initiated by ''' [[User:TonyBallioni|TonyBallioni]] ([[User talk:TonyBallioni|talk]]) '''at''' 03:34, 19 December 2019 (UTC)
+=== Involved parties ===
+<!-- Please change "userlinks" to "admin" if the party is an administrator -->
+*{{admin|TonyBallioni}}, ''filing party''
+*{{admin|RHaworth}}
+;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 of notification RHaworth]
+;Confirmation that other steps in [[Wikipedia:dispute resolution|dispute resolution]] have been tried
+* [[Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/IncidentArchive980#RHaworth_and_speedies|1]]
+*[[Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Archive312#Maya_Rani_Paul_and_Jogesh_Chandra_Barman_or%2C_RHaworth_and_speedy_deletions|2]]
+*[[Wikipedia:Bureaucrats%27_noticeboard/Archive_42#help_with_a_deleted_user_page?|3]]
+*[https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard&oldid=931478852#How_many_things_can_go_wrong_in_one_WP:BITE_incident? 4]
+=== Statement by TonyBallioni ===
+Today, RHaworth unblocked an account that was subject to a CheckUser block without consulting a CheckUser. This is a red line in policy that if done intentionally is worthy of a desysop in itself. While RHaworth has not directly answered the question as to if he knew this is a policy violation, it is my contention that even if he didn't, this is part of a pattern of either recklessness or willful disregard of policy that is unbecoming of an administrator and where the only remedy is a desysop.
+*In [[Wikipedia:Bureaucrats%27_noticeboard/Archive_42#help_with_a_deleted_user_page?|this BN thread]] from September 2019 he intentionally lied to a new user and directed them to bureaucrats despite knowing what [[WP:OS|suppression]] was. Evidence that he knew about suppression/the oversight team was discussed on the oversight list at the time, and will be emailed to the Arbitration Committee as evidence. Lying to a new user about suppression to make a point that he doesn't like the lack of audit trail is seriously concerning.
+*Longstanding concerns about his use of speedy deletion. I have privately made jokes that he just opens up [[CAT:A7]] and runs d-batch in twinkle. While I'm not sure if it's that brazen in reality, the sheer number of AN threads ([[Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/IncidentArchive980#RHaworth_and_speedies|Here]] and [[Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Archive312#Maya_Rani_Paul_and_Jogesh_Chandra_Barman_or%2C_RHaworth_and_speedy_deletions|here]] for recentish examples, but this dates back years, and if a case happens, I'm sure I and others will be able to provide more evidence.)
+*Today he [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Log&page=User%3AVelanatti&type=block unblocked] Velanatti, a CU blocked account. When questioned about it he said that he knew they were the same person, and didn't see the point in consulting with a CU ([https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Velanatti&diff=931377334&oldid=931369037 diff] and [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:RHaworth&diff=931444807&oldid=931430851#User:Velanatti diff]).
+RHaworth's archives are somewhat difficult to search since he uses the old move and delete method, but these are far from the only controversies surrounding his use of the tools, and we now have within a 3 month period two instances of him making serious mistakes involving both suppression and CU. If the committee wants more evidence now before a case is submitted, I can provide it, but I think the evidence above is enough to open a case and allow evidence to be presented so that a desysop can be considered. [[User:TonyBallioni|TonyBallioni]] ([[User talk:TonyBallioni|talk]]) 03:34, 19 December 2019 (UTC)
+=== Statement by RHaworth ===
+=== Statement by {Non-party} ===
+Other editors are free to make relevant comments on this request as necessary. Comments here should address why or why not the Committee should accept the case request or provide additional information.
+<!-- * Please copy this section for the next person. * -->
+=== RHaworth: Clerk notes ===
+:''This area is used for notes by the clerks (including clerk recusals).''
+*
+=== RHaworth: Arbitrators' opinion on hearing this matter <0/0/0> ===
+{{anchor|1=RHaworth: Arbitrators' opinion on hearing this matter}}<small>Vote key: (Accept/decline/recuse)</small>
+*