This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Mythdon (talk | contribs) at 16:46, 9 August 2009 (→"Temp desyssop of William M. Connolley" motion). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.
Revision as of 16:46, 9 August 2009 by Mythdon (talk | contribs) (→"Temp desyssop of William M. Connolley" motion)(diff) ← Previous revision | Latest revision (diff) | Newer revision → (diff)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.
WMC temp desysop motion
- Rlevse should now recuse from this case. Spartaz 16:24, 9 August 2009 (UTC)
- This is ridiculous. Here Rlevse implies that WMC's ban from cold fusion is invalid when this is a key aspect of the arbitration case that still hasn't been determined - presumably because its imposed by a single admin and then here asserting that the ban is still in place on their own authority. This is ridiculous and makes the proposal to desyspop WMC look extremely suspect if Arbiters can't even decide from one moment to the next what Abd's status is regarding Cold Fusion. WMC isn't involved with Abd outside the CF case and then only in an admin enforcement role so are yu arguing that you can be forced to recuse from dealing with someone just because they file an arbitration case? If so, its a charter for every malcontent and troll to to take any admin to arbitration just to force them off their back. Also, shouldnt Abd be banned formally from CF for the duration of the if you are positing that WMC's ban wasn't valid. What a mess. Spartaz 16:23, 9 August 2009 (UTC)
- Spartaz, I've moved your comment from the main page. If you and others post here, the arbs will read what is said here. Carcharoth (talk) 16:39, 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.
William M. Connolley being a party to this case terminates the title of "uninvolved", which administrators should have before blocking users, in order to maintain impartiality. Abd and William M. Connolley are parties to this case, and therefore, they do not have the "uninvolved" title if they block one another (note that Abd is not an administrator, however). William M. Connolley blocked Abd, but was a party to the same case as Abd, and therefore, William M. Connolley should not be allowed to act.
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. What are your comments? --Mythdon 16:37, 9 August 2009 (UTC)