Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case: Difference between revisions
Newyorkbrad (talk | contribs) placeholder |
Newyorkbrad (talk | contribs) →Statement by Newyorkbrad: comment |
||
Line 57: | Line 57: | ||
===Statement by Newyorkbrad=== |
===Statement by Newyorkbrad=== |
||
As far as I know, the record number of statements made on a request for arbitration is 118. Interestingly, that was in the "Civility enforcement" case (2011). The next highest number was 86, in the "Arbitration enforcement 2" case (2015). The goal here is not to see if we can reach a new record. [[User:Newyorkbrad|Newyorkbrad]] ([[User talk:Newyorkbrad|talk]]) 01:07, 13 June 2019 (UTC) |
|||
=== Statement by {Non-party} === |
=== Statement by {Non-party} === |
Revision as of 01:07, 13 June 2019
Requests for arbitration
- recent changes
- purge this page
- view or discuss this template
Request name | Motions | Initiated | Votes |
---|---|---|---|
Restoration of admin permissions to Floquenbeam by WJBscribe | 13 June 2019 | 0/0/0 |
No cases have recently been closed (view all closed cases).
Request name | Motions | Case | Posted |
---|---|---|---|
Amendment request: Definition of the "area of conflict" Clause 4 (b) | Motion | none | 26 July 2024 |
Clarification request: Appeal methods for Lima Bean Farmer topic ban | none | none | 12 August 2024 |
Amendment request: German war effort | Motion | (orig. case) | 13 August 2024 |
Amendment request: Palestine-Israel articles (AE referral) | none | none | 17 August 2024 |
No arbitrator motions are currently open.
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 Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement. To clarify or change an existing arbitration ruling, see Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Clarification and Amendment. This page is for statements, not discussion.
|
Restoration of admin permissions to Floquenbeam by WJBscribe
Initiated by WJBscribe (talk) at 00:03, 13 June 2019 (UTC)
Involved parties
- WJBscribe (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA), filing party
- WMFOffice (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
- Confirmation that all parties are aware of the request
- Confirmation that other steps in dispute resolution have been tried
Wikipedia:Bureaucrats' noticeboard#Resysop request (Floq)
Wikipedia:Community response to the Wikimedia Foundation's ban of Fram
Statement by WJBscribe
I restored the admin permissions of Floquenbeam (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA), which were not removed through a community process or as a result of a ruling by ArbCom. My reasons for doing so are stated in this post. I refer this action to ArbCom for review and scrutiny. I will of course accept any sanction that ArbCom judges appropriate.
Statement by WMFOffice
Statement by Tryptofish
The most beneficial thing ArbCom can do right now is to refrain from escalating an already fraught situation. Please keep that forefront in your minds whatever else you might do. In my opinion, WJBScribe should be commended for the action that he took. I don't see any good in sanctioning the WMF account. --Tryptofish (talk) 00:09, 13 June 2019 (UTC)
- Before deciding whether to evaluate WHEEL issues, you may want to consider whether or not you will want to find that WMF violated it. And, just because you can sanction reversals of office actions, does not mean that you must do so. --Tryptofish (talk) 00:27, 13 June 2019 (UTC)
Statement by Floq
WJBscribe didn't add me as a party, but I probably am. I, too, will happily accept any sanction the en.wiki ArbCom feels is justified for unblocking Fram yesterday. However, in my (completely unbiased!) opinion, no sanction is due either one of us. --Floquenbeam (talk) 00:11, 13 June 2019 (UTC)
Statement by Mz7
The facts of the matter aren't really in dispute: WJBscribe, Floquenbeam, and Bishonen have all knowingly modified clearly designated Wikimedia Foundation office actions, which is something that has been sanctioned in the past by the Arbitration Committee (e.g. [2]). The Arbitration Committee has jurisdiction to review administrator and bureaucrat conduct with respect to office actions, but no jurisdiction to review the actual office action itself (c.f. WP:ARBPOL#Jurisdiction). The question now is whether it would be prudent for the committee to intervene at this stage in this case – honestly, I don't have a view here yet, but given the complexity of the case I'm thinking the answer will eventually be "yes", though right now may not be the best time to do so to avoid needless inflammation. Mz7 (talk) 00:20, 13 June 2019 (UTC)
Statement by Xaosflux
It may be a bit premature, but I suggest that the committee take up a single case, and expand it to all of the wheel warring that has occurred since Fram has been banned by the foundation. Suggest this is held for at least a few days as there may be more parties. — xaosflux Talk 00:23, 13 June 2019 (UTC)
Statement by Hell in a Bucket
There needs to be a great meeting that is open and transparent and Arbcom needs to represent the communities interests in this. I think opening a case with respect to this is needed as I think this is a crisis in the making in how this place functions. Hell in a Bucket (talk) 00:28, 13 June 2019 (UTC)
Statement by ST47
This situation remains too "hot" for a case to start at this time - with daily wheel-warring, there would be a dozen new parties before the evidence phase even ended. I would encourage ArbCom to consider ways to help cool the situation down by motion - possibly including removing tools from some of the parties pending resolution of the eventual case. Since at least some of the admins involved have stated that they don't believe their actions constitute wheel warring, a clarification from the committee on that point (and a statement that future participants will lose the relevant tools) may be helpful.
A full case will eventually be necessary to determine the outcome with respect to Floquenbeam's and Bishonen's sysop bits (who should be added as parties to a consolidated case), WJBscribe's crat bit, any future wheel warriors, and (if the committee feels there's anything to rule on) Fram's own sysop bit, once their office ban ends. ST47 (talk) 00:35, 13 June 2019 (UTC)
Statement by StudiesWorld
I agree with xaosflux on this. While I believe that it is, at this time, premature to accept a case, I also think that this will inevitable come to the Committee and allowing it to expand would make sense. I would add that I think that the case should be more expansive than any concerns regarding wheel-warring to include an investigation of the off-wiki harassment of contributors and any other conduct issues that may arise from this incident. As stated by ST47, I also think that the actions of Floq and Bish should be reviewed with an eye towards possible violations of WP:OFFICE and loss of community trust. StudiesWorld (talk) 00:37, 13 June 2019 (UTC)
Statement by EllenCT
Please use this opportunity to review the propriety of the Office actions, starting with their unilateral expansion of their remit to local non-legally necessary imposition of sanctions within the purview of established conduct policy and community processes and removal of advanced permissions; imposition of civility standards without community involvement, review, or approval, with secret trials by secret and unaccountable judges without the right of representation, defense or appeal, on secret evidence submitted by secret accusers; including the issues of "appropriate principles and our established constitutional order" cited by Jimbo;[3] and whether and which such actions are appealable to him.[4] EllenCT (talk) 00:51, 13 June 2019 (UTC)
Statement by Drmies
I think there is no way for ArbCom to avoid taking this, and it will be a good opportunity for the committee to affirm its commitment to our collaborative system of editing and our community-driven governance. The resysopping of Floq was, at worst, an excellent use of WP:IAR (with the caveat that there were no rules for this situation, I read IAR as Do the Right Thing), and in my opinion a pretty clear expression of the community's desire to not be ruled by unelected officials who have very important jobs, which sometimes require secrecy, of course--but in this case they completely failed to explicate anything at all to the community. Drmies (talk) 00:50, 13 June 2019 (UTC)
Statement by Sir Joseph
While I appreciate some aspects of IAR, I also appreciate that WMF ultimately has the defacto authority here and we have to weigh IAR against anarchy. We can't have admins and bureaucrats going around making changes. So ARBCOM does need to discuss this. Whatever the reasons for the WMF ban, there needs to be a clear line of authority on who/what/when anything can happen. Also, I hereby rescind my topic ban, and ask that one of the admins modify the log so I can edit the full Wikipedia, in keeping with IAR. Sir Joseph (talk) 00:56, 13 June 2019 (UTC)
Statement by Newyorkbrad
As far as I know, the record number of statements made on a request for arbitration is 118. Interestingly, that was in the "Civility enforcement" case (2011). The next highest number was 86, in the "Arbitration enforcement 2" case (2015). The goal here is not to see if we can reach a new record. Newyorkbrad (talk) 01:07, 13 June 2019 (UTC)
Statement by {Non-party}
Other editors are free to make relevant comments on this request as necessary. Comments here should address why or why not the Committee should accept the case request or provide additional information.
Restoration of admin permissions to Floquenbeam by WJBscribe: Clerk notes
- This area is used for notes by the clerks (including clerk recusals).
Restoration of admin permissions to Floquenbeam by WJBscribe: Arbitrators' opinion on hearing this matter <0/0/0>
Vote key: (Accept/decline/recuse)