Revision as of 00:11, 13 June 2019 view sourceFloquenbeam (talk | contribs)Administrators38,357 edits →Statement by Floq: cmt← Previous edit | Revision as of 00:21, 13 June 2019 view source Mz7 (talk | contribs)Autopatrolled, Checkusers, Oversighters, Administrators77,568 edits +Next edit → | ||
Line 29: | Line 29: | ||
=== Statement by Floq === | === 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 <small>(completely unbiased!)</small> opinion, no sanction is due either one of us. --] (]) 00:11, 13 June 2019 (UTC) | 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 <small>(completely unbiased!)</small> opinion, no sanction is due either one of us. --] (]) 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 ], which is something that has been sanctioned in the past by the Arbitration Committee (e.g. ). The Arbitration Committee has juridiction to review administrator and bureaucrat conduct with respect to office actions, but no jurisdiction to review the actual office action itself (c.f. ]). 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. ] (]) 00:20, 13 June 2019 (UTC) | |||
=== Statement by {Non-party} === | === Statement by {Non-party} === |
Revision as of 00:21, 13 June 2019
Shortcut
Requests for arbitration
Arbitration Committee proceedings- 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 |
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 | 1 December 2024 |
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
|
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
Misplaced Pages:Bureaucrats' noticeboard#Resysop request (Floq)
Misplaced Pages: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)
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. ). The Arbitration Committee has juridiction 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 {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)