This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Doug Weller (talk | contribs) at 12:01, 31 January 2010 (request rejected). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.
Revision as of 12:01, 31 January 2010 by Doug Weller (talk | contribs) (request rejected)(diff) ← Previous revision | Latest revision (diff) | Newer revision → (diff) Arbitration Committee proceedings- recent changes
- purge this page
- view or discuss this template
Request name | Motions | Initiated | Votes |
---|---|---|---|
Jéské Couriano | 30 January 2010 | {{{votes}}} |
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 motionsMotion name | Date posted |
---|---|
Arbitrator workflow motions | 10 January 2025 |
Requests for arbitration
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
|
Jéské Couriano
Initiated by Mbz1 (talk) at 22:34, 30 January 2010 (UTC)
Involved parties
- Mbz1 (talk · contribs), filing party
- Jéské Couriano (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA)
- Confirmation that all parties are aware of the request
- Confirmation that other steps in dispute resolution have been tried
- Link 1
- Link 2
Statement by Mbz1
On January 25/26 I was the subject by 5+ hours of bluing and harassment by administrator Jéské Couriano and some other users. During those 5+ hours administrator Jéské Couriano never assumed a good faith toward me.
Here are only few differences:
- "Troll-o-meter is thru the roof; maybe I should ask for a CU to see if this is Israelbeach...")
- Now get off my talk page and stay off; you're trolling.
- if the CU returns otherwise, Mbz1's done.
- if you carry on like this you'll end up blocked irrespective of the CU results
- Chummliechen, you were trolling. And given the totality of the evidence, it was very reasonable to assume you are a sock.]
- Mbz1, you're hunting for a sanction here
The last one is a bran new threat for me filing the arbitration request.
(everywhere highlighted by me)
I was about to let it go, but I've done some research on administrator Jéské Couriano, and I decided to go ahead with that request because it was not the first time of such a behavior by administrator Jéské Couriano. Administrators work with people. People cannot be undeleted or restored as images or articles could. 5+ hours of an absolutely unwarranted harassment, PA, treating with blocks and bulling cannot be undone or overwritten with an apology. Jéské Couriano cannot be an administrator.
Here's only one recent case of assumption of a bad faith by administrator Jéské Couriano, which actually resulted in the user being blocked.
This message is going to the Committee. I've always thought that administrators should be civil no matter what. Here Jéské Couriano explains why he believed CU was justified in my case "If there's behavioral evidence that an account is compromised (i.e. a sudden and radical change in editing pattern) then it's not fishing to ask a CU to look into it." Let's apply the same rules to administrator Jéské Couriano own behavior. I am of course sure that Jéské Couriano is Jéské Couriano, the account was not compromised, which means that few hours of harassing and bulling me was usual "editing pattern" of the administrator, and I could provide quite a few differences to prove it. But do we really need the differences? IMO a behavior like this one even on a single occasion is one time too many. I assure you that the request I filed has nothing to do with revenge. The only purpose of filing it is preventing other users to be bullied and harassed by Jéské Couriano under the cover of his administrator-ship. Because, and I hope you'd agree with me, it is one matter being harassed by a regular user, and absolutely different being harassed by an administrator. I'm asking you to consider the case please.
Statement by Jéské Couriano
I have already sincerely apologized for this; the revision is in the deleted edit history on her talk page and thus is admin access only, unfortunately. Mbz1 needs to drop it, and I urge the Committee to reject this request as moot. —Jeremy 23:50, 30 January 2010 (UTC)
- That last diff you just posted cannot be construed, in any way, as a threat, Mbz1. —Jeremy 00:12, 31 January 2010 (UTC)
- Mbz1, the Sbs101 wasn't "me assuming bad faith" as I got involved after the user was blocked and practically everyone, including CheckUsers, initially thought that he was a sockpuppet. In fact, when proof otherwise came out, I unblocked him. —Jeremy 01:35, 31 January 2010 (UTC)
Statement by {Party 3}
Clerk notes
- This area is used for notes by non-recused Clerks.