Misplaced Pages

:Arbitration/Requests/Motions - Misplaced Pages

Article snapshot taken from Wikipedia with creative commons attribution-sharealike license. Give it a read and then ask your questions in the chat. We can research this topic together.
< Misplaced Pages:Arbitration | Requests

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Daniel (talk | contribs) at 04:45, 4 August 2009 (→Motion 1: add note per arbitration committee request). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Revision as of 04:45, 4 August 2009 by Daniel (talk | contribs) (→Motion 1: add note per arbitration committee request)(diff) ← Previous revision | Latest revision (diff) | Newer revision → (diff) Arbitration Committee proceedings Case requests

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
Recently closed cases (Past cases)

No cases have recently been closed (view all closed cases).

Clarification and Amendment requests

Currently, no requests for clarification or amendment are open.

Arbitrator motions
Motion name Date posted
Aitias removal of administrator permissions 2 August 2009

Motions

Shortcuts

This page can be used by arbitrators to propose motions not related to any existing case or request. Motions are archived at Misplaced Pages:Arbitration/Index/Motions.

Only arbitrators may propose or vote on motions on this page. You may visit WP:ARC or WP:ARCA for potential alternatives.

Make a motion (Arbitrators only)

You can make comments in the sections called "community discussion" or in some cases only in your own section. Arbitrators or clerks may summarily remove or refactor any comment.
Shortcut

Aitias removal of administrator permissions

Aitias (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA)


Evidence
Aitias 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. — Aitias // discussion 01:36, 2 August 2009 (UTC)
  • information Note: Please note that I will post a statement within the next hour. — Aitias // discussion 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. 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 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 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: "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: R. Baley (talk · contribs), Jauerback (talk · contribs), Sandstein (talk · contribs), Chillum (talk · contribs), The Red Hat of Pat Ferrick (talk · contribs), GoodDay (talk · contribs), Aeon1006 (talk · contribs). "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 :
    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. — Aitias // discussion 23:44, 2 August 2009 (UTC)

Request by MZMcBride

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

Statements by other users go here

  • 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. seicer | talk | contribs 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. Mike H. Fierce! 02:06, 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: ++Lar: t/c 23:35, 3 August 2009 (UTC)
There are 12 active arbitrators, so 7 votes are a majority.

Motion 1

This template is currently non-functional due to T39256.

The administrative permissions of Aitias (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) are removed for disruptive and inappropriate conduct including conduct involving his administrative duties.

Note: Aitias resigned his tools under a cloud after the motions below were passed but prior to their enactment.
Support
  1. — Rlevse • Talk • 23:21, 1 August 2009 (UTC)
  2. Wizardman 23:45, 1 August 2009 (UTC)
  3. Risker (talk) 23:53, 1 August 2009 (UTC)
  4. Normally I would wait for a statement, but the current logs and contribs of this administrator do not comfort me. John Vandenberg 03:21, 2 August 2009 (UTC)
  5.  Roger Davies 05:27, 2 August 2009 (UTC)
    CE. Also added "He may re-apply for adminship by the usual means", which was overlooked.  Roger Davies 08:21, 2 August 2009 (UTC)
    CE.I have taken it out given the events of last night and John's motion below. — Rlevse • Talk • 11:14, 2 August 2009 (UTC)
  6. 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. Casliber (talk · contribs) 13:25, 2 August 2009 (UTC)
  7. 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. — Coren  10:28, 3 August 2009 (UTC)
  8. 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. -- FayssalF - 11:17, 3 August 2009 (UTC)
  9. Per concerns expressed during the case and the continued problems working with the Community. FloNight♥♥♥ 12:40, 3 August 2009 (UTC)
  10. Per Coren, Fayssal, and FloNight. Newyorkbrad (talk) 13:17, 3 August 2009 (UTC)
  11. 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 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 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. Carcharoth (talk) 23:23, 3 August 2009 (UTC)
Oppose
  1. Moot now. --bainer (talk) 00:46, 4 August 2009 (UTC)
Abstain
Awaiting statement by Aitias (or the passage of a reasonable time without his posting a statement) before voting. Newyorkbrad (talk) 00:36, 2 August 2009 (UTC)
I will wait another 24 hours—but no longer—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. Newyorkbrad (talk) 14:23, 2 August 2009 (UTC)
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. — Coren  01:51, 2 August 2009 (UTC)
Recuse

Motion 2

Aitias (talk · contribs) is indefinitely restricted from seeking adminship via Requests for adminship, and is required to notify the Arbitration Committee of any changes of account name.

Support
  1. John Vandenberg 07:34, 2 August 2009 (UTC)
  2. — Rlevse • Talk • 11:13, 2 August 2009 (UTC)
Oppose
  1. Conflates two things that should be voted on separately. Suggest withdrawing and proceeding with the two separate votes below. Carcharoth (talk) 14:03, 2 August 2009 (UTC)
  2. 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. Newyorkbrad (talk) 14:26, 2 August 2009 (UTC)
  3. Concur with Newyorkbrad. I believe that a future request for adminship is an area where the community can manage the situation. Risker (talk) 14:38, 2 August 2009 (UTC)
  4. The community spoke, so not an issue. Wizardman 15:02, 2 August 2009 (UTC)
  5. The issue should remain between Aitias and the community. -- FayssalF - 11:19, 3 August 2009 (UTC)
  6. FloNight♥♥♥ 13:41, 3 August 2009 (UTC)
  7. bainer (talk) 00:46, 4 August 2009 (UTC)
Abstain
Comment

Motion 3

Aitias (talk · contribs) may seek to regain adminship via WP:RFA or by application to the arbitration committee.

Support
  1. Standard "via usual means" clause. See also (ii) below.  Roger Davies 13:43, 2 August 2009 (UTC)
  2. Carcharoth (talk) 13:26, 2 August 2009 (UTC)
  3. Casliber (talk · contribs) 13:27, 2 August 2009 (UTC)
  4. 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. Newyorkbrad (talk) 14:28, 2 August 2009 (UTC)
  5. Risker (talk) 14:40, 2 August 2009 (UTC)
  6. Prefer motion 2. John Vandenberg 14:49, 2 August 2009 (UTC)
  7. Wizardman 15:02, 2 August 2009 (UTC)
  8. Standard clause. — Coren  10:29, 3 August 2009 (UTC)
  9. FayssalF - 11:19, 3 August 2009 (UTC)
  10. FloNight♥♥♥ 12:41, 3 August 2009 (UTC)
  11. Second choice. --bainer (talk) 00:46, 4 August 2009 (UTC)
Oppose
  1. — Rlevse • Talk • 12:20, 2 August 2009 (UTC)
Abstain

Motion 3A

Aitias (talk · contribs) has resigned his administrative tools under controversial circumstances, and must regain them through the usual means.

Support:
  1. Clarifying with respect to the resignation. --bainer (talk) 00:46, 4 August 2009 (UTC)
Oppose:
Abstain:

Motion 4

Aitias (talk · contribs) is also restricted to one account and is required to comply with the applicable renaming procedures for restricted users should he rename.

Support
  1.  Roger Davies 13:43, 2 August 2009 (UTC)
  2. Carcharoth (talk) 14:15, 2 August 2009 (UTC)
  3. — Rlevse • Talk • 14:35, 2 August 2009 (UTC)
  4. Prefer motion 2. I assume that "rename" here also covers starting a new account. John Vandenberg 14:49, 2 August 2009 (UTC)
  5. Not sure if it's necessary, but might as well. Wizardman 20:45, 2 August 2009 (UTC)
  6. It might be necessary for everyone in similar situation. This should remain a preventive measure. -- FayssalF - 11:24, 3 August 2009 (UTC)
  7. FloNight♥♥♥ 12:42, 3 August 2009 (UTC)
  8. Casliber (talk · contribs) 13:27, 3 August 2009 (UTC)
Oppose
  1. I'm not convinced this is necessary. Newyorkbrad (talk) 14:30, 2 August 2009 (UTC)
  2. bainer (talk) 00:46, 4 August 2009 (UTC)
Abstain
  1. Not persuaded this is necessary. 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 Misplaced Pages: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 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. 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. MBisanz 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. MBisanz 12:49, 3 August 2009 (UTC)