Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Motions: Difference between revisions

Edit links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Browse history interactively
← Previous editNext edit →
Content deleted Content added
VisualWikitext
→‎Motion 1: add note per arbitration committee request
Motions 1, 3, 4 all pass, please note important addendum to Motion 1, archiving and processing per Committee request.
Line 4: Line 4:
{{Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Motions/Header}}
{{Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Motions/Header}}
{{Shortcut|WP:A/R/M}}
{{Shortcut|WP:A/R/M}}
==Aitias removal of administrator permissions==
{{admin|Aitias}}


;Evidence
* [[Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Aitias]] (resysopped at the end of the case)
* [[Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Aitias]]
* [[Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Aitias 2]]
** [[Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Aitias 2#Evidence of disputed behavior]] contains behaviorial evidence after the arb case
** [[Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Aitias 2#Outside view by Friday]] where 18 users have gone on record requesting Aitias' desysop
** Note: Aitias has not responded to the RFC at all

; Aitias [{{fullurl:User_talk%3AAitias|&diff=305541747&oldid=305098131}} notified]

===Statement by Aitias===
*Due to a lack of time, I will not be able to write a statement here until tomorrow evening. However, I will write one then. —&nbsp;[[User:Aitias|<span style="font-family: 'Georgia', serif; color: #20406F;">''Aitias''</span>]]<span style="color: #999;">&nbsp;//&nbsp;</span>[[User talk:Aitias|<span style="font-family: 'Georgia', serif; color: #20406F;">''discussion''</span>]] 01:36, 2 August 2009 (UTC)
*{{Note2}} Please note that I will post a statement within the next hour. —&nbsp;[[User:Aitias|<span style="font-family: 'Georgia', serif; color: #20406F;">''Aitias''</span>]]<span style="color: #999;">&nbsp;//&nbsp;</span>[[User talk:Aitias|<span style="font-family: 'Georgia', serif; color: #20406F;">''discussion''</span>]] 22:58, 2 August 2009 (UTC)
*'''Statement:''' This will be kept short, as I do unfortunately not have enough time to respond to everything in detail. In addition, it appears to be fairly evident how this is going to end; as such, a statement from me seems to be more or less useless anyway. Nevertheless: Actually, I do believe that I have indeed taken the concerns from the first RfC and the RFARB to heart; also, having quickly reviewed the evidence presented in the second RfC there appears to be nothing for which I had been admonished before, e.&nbsp;g. there are no sarcastic comments, which constituted a major problem in the last RFARB; this clearly shows that I have tried to improve after the RFARB and have worked on the issues which were raised back then.
*:Response to some of the evidence:
*::ad 1.) I was not "bugging" at all; there was no mistake on my part; also, note that MZM did even apologise:
*:::MZM, did you really mean to direct the request for taking a step back to me or was that done by mistake? Just asking as I don't think I've been particularly involved here. :) Best wishes, — Aitias // discussion 20:56, 21 May 2009 (UTC)
*:::Thought you were about to jump in. My apologies. --MZMcBride (talk) 21:03, 21 May 2009 (UTC)
*:::Thank you for the clarification. :) Also, I did honestly not plan to “jump in”. I'm sorry if it did sound that way. Best wishes, — Aitias // discussion 21:10, 21 May 2009 (UTC)
*::ad 2.) I have [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Requests_for_adminship/Majorly_2&diff=prev&oldid=292886637 provided] a very long and valid oppose rationale, which was not only valid but civil and not sarcastic. As such, nothing wrong with it.
*::ad 3.) Please ''read'' [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Aitias/archive_10&oldid=305560283#DRV this].
*::ad 8.) Nothing was wrong with me asking questions (the candidate can simply not answer them); also, there was nothing wrong with me opposing.
*::ad 9.) I am not restricted from granting or removing rollback; I am restricted from participating on [[WP:PERM]]. The spirit of the restriction in question was to keep me away from [[WP:PERM]]; a page on which some drama had developed in the past from debates about whether to grant or not to grant rollback. I have stayed away from that page and I do not plan to ever resume editing it. Thus, I have neither violated the restriction nor its spirit.
*::ad 10.) "Aitias reverts again, with a threat to block BigDunc if he continued." The user in question restored a personal attack, which ''had'' to be removed as it was insulting other users. "Aitias and a couple of other users then revert war unnecessarily on Catterick's talk page." I did '''one''' revert [!] and did not revert war by any means; also, I did not know that blocked users were allowed to remove block notices while blocked; I did ''appreciate'' the heads-up that they are in fact: "[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Aitias/archive_10&oldid=305560283#FYI... While I'd like to thank you for your hint regarding the block notice blanking, I am not going to reduce the block. As far as I can see, it is supported and endorsed on ANI, with the only one objecting the block extension being you. Best, — Aitias // discussion 13:28, 22 July 2009 (UTC)]" "[...] Aitias' reblock did not have widespread support; instead it received a fair amount of opposition [...]" It ''did'' receive ''much more'' support than opposition; editors and administrators supporting: {{user|R. Baley}}, {{user|Jauerback}}, {{user|Sandstein}}, {{user|Chillum}}, {{user|The Red Hat of Pat Ferrick}}, {{user|GoodDay}}, {{user|Aeon1006}}. "After Catterick's block was over, Catterick restored his old comment, and as seen in that diff, Aitias reverts him and then blocks him again, and then a second time when Catterick again restores the comment and Aitias reverts him yet again. Indeed, Catterick was wrong to repost the comment, and this is in no way condoning his behavior, but it wasn't "new" incivility, and Aitias needn't have reacted this way; plus, Catterick is not the one with the block button." Explanation copied from [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Aitias/archive_10&oldid=305560283#Request]:
*:::How do you justify reblocking Catterick for a week? The edit he made was done several hours before your reblock, and it wasn't even a "new" personal attack; rather, it was the restoring of past incivility on his own talk page. What does blocking for a week gain? I'm honestly surprised by this block. Acalamari 00:34, 26 July 2009 (UTC)
*:::Hello Acalamari! The first [!] thing this user did after their block had expired was to restore (and to specify) the personal attack they were just [!] blocked for. The users insulted by the personal attack in question have to be protected from being insulted again (and again); thus the block. — Aitias // discussion 00:41, 26 July 2009 (UTC)
*:::I'm just amazed at some of the people who spend their time defending individuals who repeatedly and deliberately revert their talk page contain abuse towards other editors. This editor could have returned from their block and engaged in constructive editing. But no, they decided to repost abuse. The Red Hat of Pat Ferrick t 00:45, 26 July 2009 (UTC)
*:::I'm not sure the block will help in the long run, nor do I think it was necessary, but nevertheless, I shall not challenge this block, and I thank you, Aitias, for a calm and helpful response to my query. As for you, The Red Hat of Pat Ferrick, I object to your comment regarding users who supposedly spend their time defending rude editors: I, for one, have never interacted with Catterick and am not a "friend" of his, nor do "spend my time" defending abusive users (exactly how often do I ever appear on AN or AN/I? The vast majority of my recent edits go to articles). In fact, I wasn't even defending Catterick here, but merely asking Aitias for further rationale behind the block. I respectfully ask you to withdraw that comment. Thank you. Acalamari 01:17, 26 July 2009 (UTC)
*:::@Acalamari: You're very welcome. (If you have any other comments or concerns, please let me know.) @The Red Hat of Pat Ferrick: While I agree with your comment for the most part, I feel certain that it was not Acalamari's intention to defend the personal attacks. Rather, he was asking me to elaborate on my block rationale — that is, of course, perfectly fine and I do appreciate any comments and questions one might have about one of my (admin) actions. Best wishes, — Aitias // discussion 10:20, 27 July 2009 (UTC)
*::ad 11.) "In addition, Aitias showed bad judgment by going offline after the block" I was tired, I did go to bed. Nothing else. I did explain my block in detail, I did not object it being overturned, the block was well withing administrative discretion; also, it was overturned not because it was considered a mistake, but because it was obsolete, as the blocked user did promise to abide their topic ban.
*:Altogether, the incidents raised are either entirely unfounded or very very minor; none does constitute the behaviour for which I had been admonished previously. Indeed, there are for sure some ''very'' unpopular decisions; though, nothing which could be considered inappropriate with regard to the previous RFARB/RFC. —&nbsp;[[User:Aitias|<span style="font-family: 'Georgia', serif; color: #20406F;">''Aitias''</span>]]<span style="color: #999;">&nbsp;//&nbsp;</span>[[User talk:Aitias|<span style="font-family: 'Georgia', serif; color: #20406F;">''discussion''</span>]] 23:44, 2 August 2009 (UTC)

=== Request by MZMcBride ===
If possible, can some sort of clause be included about reinstatement? Whether it's an [[WP:RFA|RFA]]-only thing or whether an appeal to the Committee would work seems like an important point to note. Thanks. --[[User:MZMcBride|MZMcBride]] ([[User talk:MZMcBride|talk]]) 05:44, 2 August 2009 (UTC)

===Statements by other users go here===
*Aitias has again retired on the heels of the RFC and this motion. <small>[[User:Seicer|<font color="#CC0000">seicer</font>]] &#x007C; [[User_talk:Seicer|<font color="#669900">talk</font>]] &#x007C; [[Special:Contributions/Seicer|<font color="#669900">contribs</font>]]</small> 01:49, 3 August 2009 (UTC)
:*He hasn't. However his response above shows he is uninterested in what the community says, and as last time, is denying any wrongdoing. '''[[User:Majorly|<span style="font-family:verdana; font-size:10pt; color:#6B8AB8">Majorly</span>]]''' [[User talk:Majorly#t|<span style="font-family:verdana; font-size:8pt; color:#6B8AB8">talk</span>]] 01:54, 3 August 2009 (UTC)
::*His actions post-notification are identical to what he did in the previous incident, sans protection. Even if not, it is a receipt that he has acknowledged the motion and the RFC. <small>[[User:Seicer|<font color="#CC0000">seicer</font>]] &#x007C; [[User_talk:Seicer|<font color="#669900">talk</font>]] &#x007C; [[Special:Contributions/Seicer|<font color="#669900">contribs</font>]]</small> 02:00, 3 August 2009 (UTC)
*The actions Aitias has done when taken to task have been identical both times. Last time he dodged a bullet when it came to desysopping. I think any other route than desysop gives him the message that all you have to do is blank out your user info and talk page and lay low and everything will go away. The ArbCom should press ahead this time and hopefully the desysop motion will pass. [[User:Mike Halterman|Mike H.]] [[User talk:Mike Halterman|Fierce!]] 02:06, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

*It should be noted that Aitias has [http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/?diff=prev&oldid=1585626 resigned] now. '''[[User:Majorly|<span style="font-family:verdana; font-size:10pt; color:#6B8AB8">Majorly</span>]]''' [[User talk:Majorly#t|<span style="font-family:verdana; font-size:8pt; color:#6B8AB8">talk</span>]] 22:56, 3 August 2009 (UTC)
:*It needs to be made clear that he has done so "under a cloud", and can't simply ask for his administrator privileges back. --[[User:Malleus Fatuorum|Malleus]] [[User_talk:Malleus_Fatuorum|Fatuorum]] 23:24, 3 August 2009 (UTC)
::*I would urge the committee to pass the motions anyway, noting the resignation if necessary but not changing the wording, so as to ensure there is no doubt that this was "under controversial circumstances" (the preferred wording, I believe). See also my note at meta: [http://meta.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?&oldid=1585652#Aitias.40enwiki] ++[[User:Lar|Lar]]: [[User_talk:Lar|t]]/[[Special:Contributions/Lar|c]] 23:35, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

:''There are 12 active arbitrators, so 7 votes are a majority.''

===Motion 1===
{{section|Motion}}
The administrative permissions of {{admin|Aitias}} are removed for disruptive and inappropriate conduct including conduct involving his administrative duties.
:''Note: [[User:Aitias|Aitias]] [http://meta.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Steward_requests/Permissions&curid=164533&diff=1585628&oldid=1585626 resigned his tools] under a cloud after the motions below were passed but prior to their enactment.''

;Support
:# <span style="font-family:Verdana,sans-serif"> — [[User:Rlevse|<b style="color:#060;"><i>R</i>levse</b>]] • [[User_talk:Rlevse|<span style="color:#990;">Talk</span>]] • </span> 23:21, 1 August 2009 (UTC)
:# [[User:Wizardman|<span style="color:#060">'''''Wizardman'''''</span>]] 23:45, 1 August 2009 (UTC)
:# [[User:Risker|Risker]] ([[User talk:Risker|talk]]) 23:53, 1 August 2009 (UTC)
:# Normally I would wait for a statement, but the current logs and contribs of this administrator do not comfort me. <span style="font-variant:small-caps">[[User:John Vandenberg|John Vandenberg]] <sup>'''([[User talk:John Vandenberg|chat]])'''</sup></span> 03:21, 2 August 2009 (UTC)
:# &nbsp;[[User:Roger Davies|<span style="color:maroon; font-variant:small-caps">'''Roger&nbsp;Davies'''</span>]] <sup>[[User talk:Roger Davies|'''talk''']]</sup> 05:27, 2 August 2009 (UTC)
:#: CE. Also added "He may re-apply for adminship by the usual means", which was overlooked. &nbsp;[[User:Roger Davies|<span style="color:maroon; font-variant:small-caps">'''Roger&nbsp;Davies'''</span>]] <sup>[[User talk:Roger Davies|'''talk''']]</sup> 08:21, 2 August 2009 (UTC)
:#: CE.I have taken it out given the events of last night and John's motion below.<span style="font-family:Verdana,sans-serif"> — [[User:Rlevse|<b style="color:#060;"><i>R</i>levse</b>]] • [[User_talk:Rlevse|<span style="color:#990;">Talk</span>]] • </span> 11:14, 2 August 2009 (UTC)
:# per John V. I can't see any statement as ameliorating the situation to a point where I see the editor as not being desysoped. [[User:Casliber|Casliber]] ([[User talk:Casliber|talk]] '''·''' [[Special:Contributions/Casliber|contribs]]) 13:25, 2 August 2009 (UTC)
:# Regretfully. The latest incidents are, in fact, fairly minor in isolation; but they continue a pattern that contributed to a perception that he is unwilling or unable to acknowledge feedback about his administrative actions. Occasional boldness is a desirable trait in an administrator, but Aitias has been pushing the envelope when two RfCs and an arbitration case were telling him to ease off; that he did not left him with dwindling community trust and leaves the committee with little choice. &mdash;&nbsp;[[User:Coren|Coren]]&nbsp;<sup>[[User Talk:Coren|(talk)]]</sup> 10:28, 3 August 2009 (UTC)
:# No significant improvement since the ArbCom case. The recent RfC shows that there's almost no support from the community —especially from fellow administrators. I voted against desysopping last time and still remember my colleague Bainer's words: "''what happens next depends on whether Aitias can improve his working relationships with other administrators''." Unfortunately, the working relationship has deteriorated further. -- [[User:FayssalF|<font size="2px" face="Verdana"><font color="DarkSlateBlue">FayssalF</font></font>]] - <small>[[User talk:FayssalF|<font style="background: gold"><sup>''Wiki me up''® </sup></font>]]</small> 11:17, 3 August 2009 (UTC)
:# Per concerns expressed during the case and the continued problems working with the Community. [[User:FloNight|FloNight]][[User talk:FloNight|&#9829;&#9829;&#9829;]] 12:40, 3 August 2009 (UTC)
:# Per Coren, Fayssal, and FloNight. [[User:Newyorkbrad|Newyorkbrad]] ([[User talk:Newyorkbrad|talk]]) 13:17, 3 August 2009 (UTC)
:# On balance, I am supporting this motion, but I am going to reiterate here my concerns about some aspects of this and why I think this motions page should be used with caution, and not, on balance, in the way it was used here.
:#*(1) Per the concerns raised [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk%3AArbitration%2FRequests%2FMotions&diff=305743829&oldid=305734633 here] (both the 18:49 and 02:53 comments), I think that this motion was brought prematurely. There should have been a formal request made to the committee following the end of the second RfC, when it would have been clearer how many people supported Friday's view (the total was 18 when the motion was opened - I would have been happier to find out what the total would have been at the end of the second RfC, which had only been open for two days). Even better, in my view, would have been a simple request, with accompanying evidence, to amend the Aitias case, either before, or after an RfC. And then a motion could have been started at the amendments page. Single arbitrators reacting to RfCs before a formal request is made is a dangerous precedent, in my view.
:#*(2) I am strongly of the view that a statement by the party should have been received before voting began. This is a matter of principle in my view, and not one to be lightly thrown to one side. There were concerns here about Aitias deleting pages in his userspace, but in my view that was only him wanting to clear things out now, rather than ask later if he was desysopped. Unlike last time, Aitias did provide a statement, and there was no unreasonable or awkward delay. I'm less impressed that he has continued to close article deletion debates while this motion is still open (and clearly passing). But still, a statement from the party was needed to fully assess this motion.
:#*(3) I've read Aitias's statement, and I agree with a number of his points. Specifically I see improvement from his previous behaviour (I am willing to discuss this in more detail if anyone wishes to do so). However, there were still serious errors of judgment (specifically, the Eric Barbour ban proposal), and Aitias should have had enough sense to keep quiet and keep his head down and avoid trouble. To quote Coren: ''"Aitias has been pushing the envelope when two RfCs and an arbitration case were telling him to ease off; that he did not left him with dwindling community trust and leaves the committee with little choice."''
:#*(4) Having said that, I am still of the opinion that the first RfC, the arbitration evidence, and the second RfC all correctly identified major problems, but then proceeded to pad the evidence with minor incidents. This actually made it much harder to see what the main problems were, and was on balance unhelpful.
:#*(5) The final point I want to raise is the unfortunate dispute over what Aitais's rollback restrictions meant. Aitias said: ''"I am not restricted from granting or removing rollback; I am restricted from participating on WP:PERM. The spirit of the restriction in question was to keep me away from WP:PERM"'' - the thing here is that I actually [[Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Aitias/Proposed_decision#Aitias_restricted|pointed out this loophole]] in the proposed decision in the Aitias case. We should have fixed that loophole there and then, and I take my share of the blame for pointing it out but not proposing a new wording. In my view, this is a classic example of something that should have come to "requests for clarification". Either Aitias asking for this to be clarified, or the editors who objected should have come to ArbCom for clarification. Simply presenting it as evidence in the second RfC or in this motion feels wrong, when it would have been better to attempt to resolve that part of things by a request clarification of the original case, rather than presenting it as part of a push for desysopping .
:#:I think that was all the points I had to make here. I do hope that future cases like this get filed as a request for amendment of the original case. There really is no need to start RfCs when there is a recent, previous case. An amendment request being filed is nearly always better, in my view. [[User:Carcharoth|Carcharoth]] ([[User talk:Carcharoth|talk]]) 23:23, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

;Oppose
:# Moot now. --[[User:Stephen Bain|bainer]]&nbsp;([[User_talk:Stephen Bain|talk]]) 00:46, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

;Abstain:

::<s>Awaiting statement by Aitias (or the passage of a reasonable time without his posting a statement) before voting. [[User:Newyorkbrad|Newyorkbrad]] ([[User talk:Newyorkbrad|talk]]) 00:36, 2 August 2009 (UTC)</s>
:::<s> I will wait another 24 hours&mdash;but no longer&mdash;for the statement promised by Aitias; subject to review of that statement, I agree with the comment below by Coren. Inasmuch as Aitias survived desysopping in the prior arbitration case against him by the narrowest possible margin, and should have taken that as a clear signal that he should change his approach toward adminship, any statement should address the concern that his recent conduct is unchanged from that predating our admonition. Frankly, the best outcome for everyone here would almost surely be for Aitias to resign his adminship at this time. [[User:Newyorkbrad|Newyorkbrad]] ([[User talk:Newyorkbrad|talk]]) 14:23, 2 August 2009 (UTC)</s>
:: I will also wait until Aitias has had the opportunity to respond, but I wish to note that he ''should'' have responded to the numerous concerned expressed in the latest RfC since, at this time, it seems clear that Aitias no longer has the support and trust of the community. &mdash;&nbsp;[[User:Coren|Coren]]&nbsp;<sup>[[User Talk:Coren|(talk)]]</sup> 01:51, 2 August 2009 (UTC)

;Recuse
#

=== Motion 2 ===
{{user|Aitias}} is indefinitely restricted from seeking adminship via [[WP:RFA|Requests for adminship]], and is required to notify the Arbitration Committee of any [[Wikipedia:Arbitration_Committee/Noticeboard#Changes of account name by restricted users|changes of account name]].[{{fullurl:Wikipedia:Arbitration_Committee/Noticeboard|diff=297061021&oldid=296747983}}][{{fullurl:Wikipedia:Arbitration_Committee/Noticeboard|diff=next&oldid=297061430}}]

;Support
:# <span style="font-variant:small-caps">[[User:John Vandenberg|John Vandenberg]] <sup>'''([[User talk:John Vandenberg|chat]])'''</sup></span> 07:34, 2 August 2009 (UTC)
:# <span style="font-family:Verdana,sans-serif"> — [[User:Rlevse|<b style="color:#060;"><i>R</i>levse</b>]] • [[User_talk:Rlevse|<span style="color:#990;">Talk</span>]] • </span> 11:13, 2 August 2009 (UTC)

;Oppose
:# Conflates two things that should be voted on separately. Suggest withdrawing and proceeding with the two separate votes below. [[User:Carcharoth|Carcharoth]] ([[User talk:Carcharoth|talk]]) 14:03, 2 August 2009 (UTC)
:# Not necessary. There being no private information relied upon by the committee in addressing this matter, I see no need to restrict Aitias from reapplying for adminship via RfA if the desysopping passes. In my considered opinion, such an RfA would have little chance of passing until Aitias has demonstrated renewed suitability for adminship over a period of at least several months; but that is a different question from whether this committee should restrict him from filing one. [[User:Newyorkbrad|Newyorkbrad]] ([[User talk:Newyorkbrad|talk]]) 14:26, 2 August 2009 (UTC)
:# Concur with Newyorkbrad. I believe that a future request for adminship is an area where the community can manage the situation. [[User:Risker|Risker]] ([[User talk:Risker|talk]]) 14:38, 2 August 2009 (UTC)
:# The community spoke, so not an issue. [[User:Wizardman|<span style="color:#060">'''''Wizardman'''''</span>]] 15:02, 2 August 2009 (UTC)
:# The issue should remain between Aitias and the community. -- [[User:FayssalF|<font size="2px" face="Verdana"><font color="DarkSlateBlue">FayssalF</font></font>]] - <small>[[User talk:FayssalF|<font style="background: gold"><sup>''Wiki me up''® </sup></font>]]</small> 11:19, 3 August 2009 (UTC)
:# [[User:FloNight|FloNight]][[User talk:FloNight|&#9829;&#9829;&#9829;]] 13:41, 3 August 2009 (UTC)
:# [[User:Stephen Bain|bainer]]&nbsp;([[User_talk:Stephen Bain|talk]]) 00:46, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

;Abstain
:#

;Comment
:*Is it possible to split out the "required to notify the Arbitration Committee of any changes of account name" bit from the "indefinitely restricted from seeking adminship via RFA" bit? I'd like to support the former, but not the latter. [[User:Carcharoth|Carcharoth]] ([[User talk:Carcharoth|talk]]) 13:24, 2 August 2009 (UTC)
:*: What would prevent a re-incarnated Aitias from seeking sysop unless he is required to notify us of his new account, if he chooses to "vanish"? <span style="font-variant:small-caps">[[User:John Vandenberg|John Vandenberg]] <sup>'''([[User talk:John Vandenberg|chat]])'''</sup></span> 14:28, 2 August 2009 (UTC)
:*:: I think the style Aitias uses would stick out like a sore thumb. [[User:Carcharoth|Carcharoth]] ([[User talk:Carcharoth|talk]]) 15:24, 2 August 2009 (UTC)
:*me too, as per Carch. [[User:Casliber|Casliber]] ([[User talk:Casliber|talk]] '''·''' [[Special:Contributions/Casliber|contribs]]) 13:26, 2 August 2009 (UTC)

=== Motion 3 ===
{{user|Aitias}} may seek to regain adminship via [[WP:RFA]] or by application to the arbitration committee.

;Support
:# Standard "via usual means" clause. See also (ii) below. &nbsp;[[User:Roger Davies|<span style="color:maroon; font-variant:small-caps">'''Roger&nbsp;Davies'''</span>]] <sup>[[User talk:Roger Davies|'''talk''']]</sup> 13:43, 2 August 2009 (UTC)
:# [[User:Carcharoth|Carcharoth]] ([[User talk:Carcharoth|talk]]) 13:26, 2 August 2009 (UTC)
:# [[User:Casliber|Casliber]] ([[User talk:Casliber|talk]] '''·''' [[Special:Contributions/Casliber|contribs]]) 13:27, 2 August 2009 (UTC)
:# Assuming the motion to desysop Aitias passes (but see my comments above), these standard alternatives would be available to him. I've copyedited by adding the words "seek to", reflecting the obvious fact that neither an RfA nor any reapplication to us is guaranteed to be successful. [[User:Newyorkbrad|Newyorkbrad]] ([[User talk:Newyorkbrad|talk]]) 14:28, 2 August 2009 (UTC)
:# [[User:Risker|Risker]] ([[User talk:Risker|talk]]) 14:40, 2 August 2009 (UTC)
:# Prefer motion 2. <span style="font-variant:small-caps">[[User:John Vandenberg|John Vandenberg]] <sup>'''([[User talk:John Vandenberg|chat]])'''</sup></span> 14:49, 2 August 2009 (UTC)
:# [[User:Wizardman|<span style="color:#060">'''''Wizardman'''''</span>]] 15:02, 2 August 2009 (UTC)
:# Standard clause. &mdash;&nbsp;[[User:Coren|Coren]]&nbsp;<sup>[[User Talk:Coren|(talk)]]</sup> 10:29, 3 August 2009 (UTC)
:# [[User:FayssalF|<font size="2px" face="Verdana"><font color="DarkSlateBlue">FayssalF</font></font>]] - <small>[[User talk:FayssalF|<font style="background: gold"><sup>''Wiki me up''® </sup></font>]]</small> 11:19, 3 August 2009 (UTC)
:# [[User:FloNight|FloNight]][[User talk:FloNight|&#9829;&#9829;&#9829;]] 12:41, 3 August 2009 (UTC)
:# Second choice. --[[User:Stephen Bain|bainer]]&nbsp;([[User_talk:Stephen Bain|talk]]) 00:46, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

;Oppose
:# <span style="font-family:Verdana,sans-serif"> — [[User:Rlevse|<b style="color:#060;"><i>R</i>levse</b>]] • [[User_talk:Rlevse|<span style="color:#990;">Talk</span>]] • </span> 12:20, 2 August 2009 (UTC)

;Abstain
:#

====Motion 3A====

{{user|Aitias}} has [http://meta.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Steward_requests/Permissions&curid=164533&diff=1585628&oldid=1585626 resigned] his administrative tools under controversial circumstances, and must regain them through the usual means.

:Support:
:# Clarifying with respect to the resignation. --[[User:Stephen Bain|bainer]]&nbsp;([[User_talk:Stephen Bain|talk]]) 00:46, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

:Oppose:
:#

:Abstain:
:#

=== Motion 4 ===
{{user|Aitias}} is also restricted to one account and is required to comply with the [{{fullurl:Wikipedia%3AArbitration_Committee%2FNoticeboard|diff=297061021&oldid=296747983}} applicable renaming procedures for restricted users] should he rename.

;Support
:# &nbsp;[[User:Roger Davies|<span style="color:maroon; font-variant:small-caps">'''Roger&nbsp;Davies'''</span>]] <sup>[[User talk:Roger Davies|'''talk''']]</sup> 13:43, 2 August 2009 (UTC)
:# [[User:Carcharoth|Carcharoth]] ([[User talk:Carcharoth|talk]]) 14:15, 2 August 2009 (UTC)
:# <span style="font-family:Verdana,sans-serif"> — [[User:Rlevse|<b style="color:#060;"><i>R</i>levse</b>]] • [[User_talk:Rlevse|<span style="color:#990;">Talk</span>]] • </span> 14:35, 2 August 2009 (UTC)
:# Prefer motion 2. I assume that "rename" here also covers starting a new account. <span style="font-variant:small-caps">[[User:John Vandenberg|John Vandenberg]] <sup>'''([[User talk:John Vandenberg|chat]])'''</sup></span> 14:49, 2 August 2009 (UTC)
:# Not sure if it's necessary, but might as well. [[User:Wizardman|<span style="color:#060">'''''Wizardman'''''</span>]] 20:45, 2 August 2009 (UTC)
:# It might be necessary for everyone in similar situation. This should remain a preventive measure. -- [[User:FayssalF|<font size="2px" face="Verdana"><font color="DarkSlateBlue">FayssalF</font></font>]] - <small>[[User talk:FayssalF|<font style="background: gold"><sup>''Wiki me up''® </sup></font>]]</small> 11:24, 3 August 2009 (UTC)
:# [[User:FloNight|FloNight]][[User talk:FloNight|&#9829;&#9829;&#9829;]] 12:42, 3 August 2009 (UTC)
:# [[User:Casliber|Casliber]] ([[User talk:Casliber|talk]] '''·''' [[Special:Contributions/Casliber|contribs]]) 13:27, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

;Oppose
:# I'm not convinced this is necessary. [[User:Newyorkbrad|Newyorkbrad]] ([[User talk:Newyorkbrad|talk]]) 14:30, 2 August 2009 (UTC)
:# [[User:Stephen Bain|bainer]]&nbsp;([[User_talk:Stephen Bain|talk]]) 00:46, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

;Abstain
:#Not persuaded this is necessary. [[User:Risker|Risker]] ([[User talk:Risker|talk]]) 14:40, 2 August 2009 (UTC)

===Arbitrator views and discussion===
*Noting a few things here. This second RfC started 15:59, 30 July 2009 (when it was moved from userspace into projectspace). It would have been better, in my view, for the second RfC to have been allowed to finish, rather than an arbitrator coming straight here around 2.5 days after the RfC opened. Even better than that, would have been for a request to have been filed at [[Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Amendment]], asking for the Aitias case to be amended based on behaviour since the case closed, or reopened to allow submission of evidence of conduct since the case closed. Going RfC -> ARBCOM -> RfC -> ARBCOM is not ideal. In particular, I don't want to see user (admin) conduct RfCs suddenly sprouting sections for endorsement with the bald statement ''"Arbcom, please desysop <ADMIN>"''. That would short-circuit the process of filing a case to lay out the evidence. Since this laying out of the evidence has mostly happened here, because there ''was'' a case previously, that is not so much of a problem. But the jumping from an RfC to a desysop motion is not something I want this to set a precedent for. Nearly every admin desyopped by motion (as in recent examples) has been offered the chance to appeal by requesting a full case. That is unlikely to be the case here, but again, that should in no way set any precedent. As for the motion itself, awaiting Aitias's statement. I would note though, that even though [[Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Aitias/Proposed_decision#Enforcement|this bit of the proposed decision]] did not pass, note the comments made there about retaining jurisdiction: ''"Not needed since we always retain the ability to modify our rulings"'' and ''"we retain jurisdiction and may consider further motions as necessary in any case"'' and ''"Aitais should realise he is on notice over this"'' and ''"I'd probably see it as if he's under ArbCom probation"''. In other words, the onus is on Aitias here to demonstrate why the case doesn't need to be amended to desysop him. [[User:Carcharoth|Carcharoth]] ([[User talk:Carcharoth|talk]]) 03:31, 2 August 2009 (UTC)

===Clerk notes===
*Right now Motions 1 and 3i are passing, Motion 3ii could pass with one more support and it appears that Motion 2 could never have as much support as 3i (which it is exclusive to), so the motions will be open for a few more days or until such time as 3ii passes, when it will be closed 24 hours later. '''[[User:MBisanz|<span style='color: #FFFF00;background-color: #0000FF;'>MBisanz</span>]]''' <sup>[[User talk:MBisanz|<span style='color: #FFA500;'>talk</span>]]</sup> 00:56, 3 August 2009 (UTC)
*As of now 1, 3, and 4 are passing and it is impossible for 2 to receive a greater level of support than 3 or 4, so the motions will be closed around 24 hours from now. '''[[User:MBisanz|<span style='color: #FFFF00;background-color: #0000FF;'>MBisanz</span>]]''' <sup>[[User talk:MBisanz|<span style='color: #FFA500;'>talk</span>]]</sup> 12:49, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

Revision as of 04:47, 4 August 2009

Arbitration Committee proceedings
Request name Motions Initiated Votes
Persistent WP:IDONTLIKEIT behavior in WP:NCROY discussions   10 May 2024 0/4/0
[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
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

No arbitrator motions are currently open.

Motions

Shortcut
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Motions&oldid=305952944"