| Revision as of 12:48, 23 July 2009 editStephen Bain (talk | contribs)Extended confirmed users12,147 editsm moved Misplaced Pages talk:Requests for arbitration/Motions to Misplaced Pages talk:Arbitration/Requests/Motions: reactivating← Previous edit | Latest revision as of 04:27, 12 August 2011 edit undoXeno (talk | contribs)Autopatrolled, Bureaucrats, Administrators103,385 edits ←Redirected page to Misplaced Pages talk:Arbitration/Requests | ||
| (495 intermediate revisions by 79 users not shown) | |||
| Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
| #REDIRECT ] | |||
| This talk page is for discussion related to motions currently being voted on. For discussion on requests for arbitration, see ]. | |||
| == User;Tajik == | |||
| ] was permabanned by Thatcher following ]. No and again Tajik surfaces with his sockpuppets that we have to block. Still all those sockpuppets appear to be productive users, who generate minimum disruptions. It appears that at least part of the abusive socks that caused Tajik to be permabanned were misattributed. ], tha main Tajik's opponent does not object to Tajik's return and even asked for this on Jimbo's talkpage. It is already more than 6 months since Tajik is permablocked and while he occasionally appeared onwiki using socks he seems to work as a productive and disciplined user. It seems to be a misuse of resources to block productive accounts only for being Tajik's socks. Is it possible to give him some sort of the last chance? ] (]) 09:18, 30 December 2007 (UTC) | |||
| *He should go through the normal means of petitioning. - ] | <sup>] / ]</sup> 15:19, 15 January 2008 (UTC) | |||
| == A-A 2 == | |||
| Are we completely wiping the remedies from the first as well as the second case (meaning that the article probations are lifted)? - ] | <sup>] / ]</sup> 15:21, 15 January 2008 (UTC) | |||
| :The article probations are subsumed into this remedy; anything authorized by them is also authorized by this broader one. The individual editor sanctions of the first case remain, though, as do any already imposed under the second case. ] 01:13, 16 January 2008 (UTC) | |||
| * Comment, having a quick look at the enforcement block logs in this case, I think the proposed remedy as worded in ] would be better than what is proposed in this case, as it seems to strike the right balance. ] (]) 18:59, 16 January 2008 (UTC) | |||
Latest revision as of 04:27, 12 August 2011
Redirect to: