| Revision as of 06:00, 5 February 2018 view sourceSarekOfVulcan (talk | contribs)Autopatrolled, Administrators51,690 edits →Statement by SarekOfVulcan: NPA← Previous edit | Latest revision as of 04:54, 26 December 2024 view source MJL (talk | contribs)Extended confirmed users, Page movers, New page reviewers, Pending changes reviewers, Rollbackers, Template editors42,350 edits →Sabotage of Lindy Li's page: removing case as premature: declinedTag: Manual revert | ||
| Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
| <noinclude>{{ |
<noinclude>{{Redirect|WP:ARC|a guide on talk page archiving|H:ARC}} | ||
| {{ArbComOpenTasks}}__TOC__{{pp-semi-indef|small=yes}}{{pp-move-indef}}{{-}} | |||
| {{shortcut|WP:ARC}} | |||
| </noinclude> |
</noinclude> | ||
| ⚫ | <includeonly>= ] =</includeonly><noinclude>{{If mobile||{{Fake heading|sub=1|Requests for arbitration}}}}</noinclude> | ||
| {{NOINDEX}} | |||
| ⚫ | |||
| <noinclude> |
{{Misplaced Pages:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Header<noinclude>|width=auto</noinclude>}} | ||
| <noinclude>{{-}}</noinclude> | |||
| == Fram == | |||
| '''Initiated by ''' ] (]) '''at''' 05:28, 5 February 2018 (UTC) | |||
| === Involved parties === | |||
| <!-- Please change "userlinks" to "admin" if the party is an administrator --> | |||
| *{{admin|Gatoclass}}, ''filing party'' | |||
| *{{userlinks|Fram}} | |||
| ;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. --> | |||
| * | |||
| ;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 --> | |||
| *Link 1 | |||
| *Link 2 | |||
| === Statement by Gatoclass === | |||
| I regret having to bring a new issue before the committee when you already have a case to deal with, however, some things just cannot be ignored. This case is not about dispute resolution but about administrator conduct. | |||
| This debacle began . Without going into the details, I added a hook for the ] article to a prep to replace a hook that got pulled, then, after completing my usual checks, loaded that prep into the queue (a protected page). Unbenownst to me, {{u|The Rambling Man}} had made a change to the hook for the article in the interim, so I ended up loading a malformed hook into the queue. Thinking it was me who made the mistake, I went back to check the article itself, confirmed the original hook to my satisfaction, and restored it. Fram then pulled the hook, a completely unnecessary action given that the issue was already under discussion. This caused some difficulty because by pulling it from a protected page, I couldn't reload it without Fram's consent even though TRM had already agreed that the hook, and my change to the article to make it unambiguously conform to the hook, were fine. | |||
| Unfortunately, Fram had already logged off, apparently immediately after pulling the hook, so we were unable to resolve the situation at the time. This action has been typical of Fram's impetuousness at DYK for years, disrupting the process and then disappearing so that others have to clean up his mess. (I would also like to note in passing the gratuitous hostility aimed at me from both Fram and TRM in the above linked thread, typical of what I have had to endure from these two users since they first began taking an interest in DYK some years ago). | |||
| Fram disappeared for a couple of days, so the nomination was held up until he returned. When he did, instead of simply checking the change to the article I had made and confirming (or perhaps contesting) it, he launched an extraordinary personal attack, in which, to summarize, he made the outrageously ] '''''presumption''''' that I had behaved '''atrociously'''. He also accused me in the same post of ''continu to trample all normal editing rules to get what he wants''. I must point out that his charge that I had behaved ''atrociously'' was a readily demonstrable '''falsehood'''. Had he taken even a ''moment'' to check the actual article, he would instantly have seen that the reference from which I sourced the change I made to the article (already agreed to by TRM) was ''not'' offline as Fram falsely claimed but is '''online''' and easily checkable. | |||
| At that point, I decided to respond by abandoning any hope of getting the original hook passed given Fram's usual disinterest in cooperation, and verified the ALT hook instead, at the same time registering my protest at his comments and a repudiation of his charges. (Had I ''not'' done so, of course it would have given the appearance of ''assent'' to his falsehoods, which would clearly have been unconscionable. And that apparent assent would have remained on the nomination page in perpetuity). A few hours later, he hypocritically deleted my repudiation as a "personal attack", at the same time also undoing my verification of the ALT hook with no explanation. | |||
| I decided at that point that the only possible counter was to delete ''his'' earlier post as a personal attack (rendering my repudiation redundant) and just restore my original verification. | |||
| I hoped that would be the end of the matter, but no. To my utter astonishment, on logging on this morning, I found he had <u>'''restored'''</u> his original attack and falsehoods, adding a facetious taunt in the edit summary. | |||
| So to summarize the most important points: | |||
| * He pulled a hook from a protected queue and then disappeared for days when a few minutes discussion would have resolved the matter, an abnegation of his responsibility to remain accountable and ''respond promptly and civilly to queries'' about his admin actions under ] (something, I might add, he has done countless times before at DYK). | |||
| * When he finally returned, he responded with <u>'''an outrageous bad faith assumption, personal attack and falsehood, an egregious breach of his commitments under ADMINACCT'''</u>. | |||
| * He struck down my hook verification with no explanation and failed to respond to the underlying issue, leaving the nomination in limbo for days on end and causing considerable anxiety to the nominator, extremely poor behaviour for an administrator. | |||
| * After hypocritically deleting my repudiation of his charges as a "personal attack", leaving me no option but to similarly delete his, he then <u>'''restored'''</u> his attack, an act of both <u>'''studied malice'''</u> and <u>'''extremely poor judgement'''</u>. | |||
| Now, as to ''why'' any administrator would behave so maliciously and recklessly, I find it difficult to imagine, but I suspect he felt he could get ''away'' with this because I would be too cowed to take this to ARBCOM after my own judgement as an administrator was recently called into question at an AN/I thread about an unrelated matter that Fram started about me. (The thread closed with a strong consensus against me, but in my defence I felt I barely had time to present any defence of my actions before it was closed, and most respondents were responding not to ''my'' arguments, but to the strawman arguments used by Fram to initiate the thread). | |||
| I also suspect that because I've long ignored Fram's problematic behaviour at DYK, he's become emboldened and thinks he can get away with ''anything''. Well, I'm sorry, I'm a pretty patient guy who would prefer to do anything but get involved in Wikidrama, but even I have my limits. | |||
| With regard to this request, I am hopeful it can be dealt with by a simple motion rather than a full case, because if it goes to a case, it's inevitable that the issue behind the AN/I thread will come up, along with everybody's behaviour in recent weeks at DYK. It would all in my opinion just be a huge time-wasting shemozzle, out of which little would probably come but, perhaps, a couple of minor sanctions. But of course, it's up to the Committee to make that call. Regards, ] (]) 05:28, 5 February 2018 (UTC) | |||
| === Statement by Fram === | |||
| === Statement by SarekOfVulcan === | |||
| First Gatoclass ] for ''not'' checking the hooks before they're posted. Now he actually does take Fram to ArbCom for not being online continuously to justify his actions. I really think that Gatoclass is demonstrating enough of a lack of understanding of Misplaced Pages policies that the Committee should evaluate whether he should continue to hold the bit. --] 05:52, 5 February 2018 (UTC) | |||
| :I'm also concerned by the level of personal attacks in the above request. --] 06:00, 5 February 2018 (UTC) | |||
| === 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. * --> | |||
| === Fram: Clerk notes === | |||
| :''This area is used for notes by the clerks (including clerk recusals).'' | |||
| * | |||
| === Fram: Arbitrators' opinion on hearing this matter <0/0/0> === | |||
| {{anchor|1=Fram: Arbitrators' opinion on hearing this matter}}<small>Vote key: (Accept/decline/recuse)</small> | |||
| * | |||
Latest revision as of 04:54, 26 December 2024
"WP:ARC" redirects here. For a guide on talk page archiving, see H:ARC. Arbitration Committee proceedings- recent changes
- purge this page
- view or discuss this template
Currently, there are no requests for arbitration.
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 |
No cases have recently been closed (view all closed cases).
Clarification and Amendment requestsCurrently, no requests for clarification or amendment are open.
Arbitrator motions| Motion name | Date posted |
|---|---|
| Arbitrator workflow motions | 1 December 2024 |
| 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
|
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.