Three open cases, motion for the removal of Carnildo's administrative tools

No cases were closed or opened, leaving the number of open cases at three. One motion was filed this week.

Open cases

Fæ (Week 6)

The case concerns alleged misconduct with regards to aggressive responses and harassment by Fæ toward users who question his actions. The case was brought before the committee by MBisanz. The other parties are Michaeldsuarez and Delicious carbuncle. A decision is expected on 6 July.

In response to a workshop proposal calling for the removal of his adminship, Fæ's administrator rights were removed at his request on 18 June; he has declared he will not pursue RfA until June 2013, and that should another user nominate him and he feels confident to run, he will launch a reconfirmation RfA rather than requesting the tools back without community process.

The case was referred to the committee by Timotheus Canens, after TheSoundAndTheFury filed a "voluminous AE request" concerning behavioural issues related to Ohconfucius, Colipon, and Shrigley. The accused deny his claims and decried TheSoundAndTheFury for his alleged "POV-pushing". According to TheSoundAndTheFury, the problem lies not with "these editors' points of view per se "; rather, it is "fundamentally about behaviour". A decision is expected on 8 July.

Perth (Week 3)

The case, filed by P.T. Aufrette, concerns wheel-warring on the Perth article after a contentious requested move discussion (initiated by the filer) was closed as successful by JHunterJ. The close was a matter of much contention, with allegations that the move was not supported by consensus. After a series of reverts by Deacon of Pndapetzim, Kwamikagami and Gnangarra, the partiality of JHunterJ's decision was discussed, as was the intensity of Deacon of Pndapetzim's academic interests in the topic. Questions were also raised about the suitability of the new move review forum.

In a workshop proposal, uninvolved user Ncmvocalist outlined in proposed principles the need for administrators to lead by example, behave respectfully and civilly in their interactions with other users, learn from experience, and avoid wheel-warring irrespective of the circumstances or nature of the dispute; and that WikiProjects are not platforms for point-of-view pushing or the pushing of one's own agenda and where consensus cannot be reached other venues of discussion should be sought out. Proposed decisions are due on 12 July.

Motions

A motion was filed by arbitrator PhilKnight calling for the removal of Carnildo's administrative tools for "long-term poor judgement" in his use of the tools. Carnildo may regain the tools via a successful request for adminship. At the time of writing, seven arbitrators are in unanimous support of the motion, a majority of 8 is needed for the motion to pass.

← Previous "Arbitration report"

Next "Arbitration report" →

In this issue

2 July 2012 (all comments)

Discuss this story

These comments are automatically transcluded from this article's talk page. To follow comments, add the page to your watchlist. If your comment has not appeared here, you can try purging the cache.

With regard to the "Fæ" case, I and MBisanz are not the only named parties. --Fæ (talk) 12:17, 3 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The others mentioned were added near the end of the evidence phase. -- Lord Roem (talk) 23:21, 3 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The Perth case was opened in regards to the wheel warring -- the Move Review process didn't even really come up until I implemented the decision. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 13:33, 3 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Also, a correction to the Falun Gong case - the decision won't be posted at least until the 8th, as other commitments and complications have prevented the drafters from being able to review the case in a timely manner. See Wikipedia talk:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Falun Gong 2/Proposed decision. Hersfold non-admin^(t/a/c) 16:22, 3 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

All corrected, thanks guys :) James ^{(Talk • Contribs)} • 10:09am • 00:09, 4 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks muchly. :-) --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 01:12, 4 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The change in the description of the Perth case needs more changes actually. The Perth case is reviewing administrator conduct and actions (mainly in relation to a move request concerning the Perth article), but the case was opened following a wheel-war; the case is not limited to reviewing a wheel-war. Also, the move review process was brought up well-before SarekOfVulcan used his tools in the way that he did. Ncmvocalist (talk) 02:31, 7 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Whoa Nelly! ArbCom is now attempting to de-sysop on their own initiative? This looks like creeping arrogation of power. While the non-hierarchical model Wikipedia has attempted to use is not without problems, it also has massive benefits. The desire for structure and "leadership",^[1] evident from the earliest days, pulling in the contrary direction to the philosophy of the majority of early Wikipedians, may in the longer term prove the undoing of the community, the sacred tenet of open editing and the goal of delivering free knowledge. Rich Farmbrough, 00:20, 9 July 2012 (UTC).[reply]

References

^ W R Brion (1961). Experiences in Groups. Reprinted. London and New York: Routledge.