| Revision as of 16:24, 9 August 2009 view sourceSpartaz (talk | contribs)Administrators52,772 edits rlevse should recuse← Previous edit | Revision as of 16:37, 9 August 2009 view source Mythdon (talk | contribs)Extended confirmed users, Pending changes reviewers, Rollbackers15,405 edits →"Temp desyssop of William M. Connolley" motion: new sectionNext edit → | ||
| Line 3: | Line 3: | ||
| *Rlevse should now recuse from this case. ] <sup>'']''</sup> 16:24, 9 August 2009 (UTC) | *Rlevse should now recuse from this case. ] <sup>'']''</sup> 16:24, 9 August 2009 (UTC) | ||
| == "Temp desyssop of William M. Connolley" motion == | |||
| I have not reviewed any of the evidence of the case, but let me make this one comment about the motion. | |||
| To block someone who is a party to the same arbitration case as you is, uncalled for and non-legitimate because to do so, you're not an impartial administrator as you're an involved party to the same case as the person you block. William M. Connolley should have reported to another administrator who wasn't an involved party to the case if there was a need that Abd be blocked. William M. Connolley is not uninvolved if both him/her and Abd are a party to the same case, no matter what the evidence says. Such a block is biased, beyond doubt, and can affect the case in a harmful manner, and can affect the decision being made by the committee, because the user blocked will be unable to provide their evidence during the block or able to comment on the decision proposals by other users. | |||
| Wizardman, who is supporting the desysop makes a good phrase with "no question". There is indeed no question that this is necessary. | |||
| Therefore, I urge the Arbitration Committee to desysop William M. Connolley, at least until the specified time comes. --<font color="#414797" face="times">]</font> <sup>''<font color="#8447C1" face="times">]</font> • <font color="#8447C1" face="times">]</font>''</sup> 16:37, 9 August 2009 (UTC) | |||
Revision as of 16:37, 9 August 2009
Arbitrators active on this case
- To update this listing, edit this template and scroll down until you find the right list of arbitrators. If updates to this listing do not immediately show, try purging the cache.
- Rlevse should now recuse from this case. Spartaz 16:24, 9 August 2009 (UTC)
"Temp desyssop of William M. Connolley" motion
I have not reviewed any of the evidence of the case, but let me make this one comment about the motion.
To block someone who is a party to the same arbitration case as you is, uncalled for and non-legitimate because to do so, you're not an impartial administrator as you're an involved party to the same case as the person you block. William M. Connolley should have reported to another administrator who wasn't an involved party to the case if there was a need that Abd be blocked. William M. Connolley is not uninvolved if both him/her and Abd are a party to the same case, no matter what the evidence says. Such a block is biased, beyond doubt, and can affect the case in a harmful manner, and can affect the decision being made by the committee, because the user blocked will be unable to provide their evidence during the block or able to comment on the decision proposals by other users.
Wizardman, who is supporting the desysop makes a good phrase with "no question". There is indeed no question that this is necessary.
Therefore, I urge the Arbitration Committee to desysop William M. Connolley, at least until the specified time comes. --Mythdon 16:37, 9 August 2009 (UTC)