| Revision as of 10:19, 10 November 2009 editDomer48 (talk | contribs)16,098 edits Undid revision 325021574 by Domer48 (talk)← Previous edit | Revision as of 12:22, 10 November 2009 edit undoOne Night In Hackney (talk | contribs)Pending changes reviewers, Rollbackers32,879 edits →Page ban at Peter Hart: Oh no he isn't!Next edit → | ||
| Line 86: | Line 86: | ||
| I did tell you that you would be banned from editing {{la|Peter Hart}} if you restored the coat-rack criticism and questionable sources. You did so . You are now banned from editing the Peter Hart article for the next three months. I have of course reverted your edit. Please do not add similar questionably sourced criticism of Hart to any other article. ] ] 23:03, 9 November 2009 (UTC) | I did tell you that you would be banned from editing {{la|Peter Hart}} if you restored the coat-rack criticism and questionable sources. You did so . You are now banned from editing the Peter Hart article for the next three months. I have of course reverted your edit. Please do not add similar questionably sourced criticism of Hart to any other article. ] ] 23:03, 9 November 2009 (UTC) | ||
| :I don't think so! No Troubles remedy gives you the authority to ban Domer from that page, I suggest you read them. There is an ArbCom case that would give you the authority to ban someone from a page, but as you haven't followed the correct procedure required by the remedy from that case that can't apply either. That said, and without having had time to investigate the merits of the edits in question, I would advise Domer in the strongest possible terms not to add the disputed material in question or any other possibly controversial material without clear consensus on the talk page. This should forestall the need for any petty and vindictive blocks, and unless Domer says he is going to restore the material and block that is attempted is not a preventative one and therefore against policy. I would caution anyone even thinking about using tools right now to investigate recent ArbCom cases involving page bans issued without authority and use of tools to enforce them. <font face="Celtic">]<sub>'']''</sub></font> 12:22, 10 November 2009 (UTC) | |||
Revision as of 12:22, 10 November 2009
 | If you object to anything you read on this page, then the correct solution is to click here. Domer48 (talk) 16:30, 20 August 2009 (UTC) |
- Pádraig, Rest In Peace a chara - sorely missed - not to be forgotten.
-- Trolls will be removed with Extreme prejudice!
Veteran Editor II
and is entitled to display this
Bronze Editor Star.
|
 Archives |
|---|
Useful links
Irish Manual of Style~
Policy ~
Assume good faith ~
Citing sources ~
Civility ~
Consensus ~
Dispute resolution ~
Etiquette ~
No original research ~
What Misplaced Pages is not ~
No personal attacks ~
Neutral point of view ~
POINT ~
Reliable sources ~
Verifiability ~
WP:Attribution ~
WP:Synthesis ~
tools ~
WP:Avoid peacock terms ~
Misplaced Pages:Avoid weasel terms
Useful Noticeboard
3RR~ WP:Reliable sources/Noticeboard ~ Third opinion Noticeboard ~ Misplaced Pages:No original research/noticeboard
Template messages
Warning templates ~ Template messages/Sources of articles ~ Template messages/Cleanup ~ Template messages/Disputes
Diff
Page ban at Peter Hart
I did tell you that you would be banned from editing Peter Hart (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) if you restored the coat-rack criticism and questionable sources. You did so here. You are now banned from editing the Peter Hart article for the next three months. I have of course reverted your edit. Please do not add similar questionably sourced criticism of Hart to any other article. Angus McLellan (Talk) 23:03, 9 November 2009 (UTC)
- I don't think so! No Troubles remedy gives you the authority to ban Domer from that page, I suggest you read them. There is an ArbCom case that would give you the authority to ban someone from a page, but as you haven't followed the correct procedure required by the remedy from that case that can't apply either. That said, and without having had time to investigate the merits of the edits in question, I would advise Domer in the strongest possible terms not to add the disputed material in question or any other possibly controversial material without clear consensus on the talk page. This should forestall the need for any petty and vindictive blocks, and unless Domer says he is going to restore the material and block that is attempted is not a preventative one and therefore against policy. I would caution anyone even thinking about using tools right now to investigate recent ArbCom cases involving page bans issued without authority and use of tools to enforce them. 2 lines of K303 12:22, 10 November 2009 (UTC)