This is an old revision of this page, as edited by John Vandenberg (talk | contribs) at 07:37, 2 August 2009 (→Motion 2: add permalinks). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

• recent changes
• purge this page
• view or discuss this template

Currently, there are no requests for arbitration.

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

Currently, no requests for clarification or amendment are open.

Motions

Shortcuts WP:ARM WP:ARBM 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.

• WP:A/R/M

Aitias removal of administrator permissions

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

Evidence

• Misplaced Pages:Requests for arbitration/Aitias (resysopped at the end of the case)
• Misplaced Pages:Requests for comment/Aitias
• Misplaced Pages:Requests for comment/Aitias 2
  • Misplaced Pages:Requests for comment/Aitias 2#Evidence of disputed behavior contains behaviorial evidence after the arb case
  • Misplaced Pages: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 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)

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

Motion 1

This template is currently non-functional due to T39256.

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

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

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)

Oppose

Abstain

1. Awaiting a 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)
2. 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)

Oppose

Abstain

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)