| Revision as of 20:50, 2 May 2008 editJovin Lambton (talk | contribs)698 editsNo edit summary← Previous edit | Revision as of 00:46, 4 May 2008 edit undoEstemi (talk | contribs)430 edits My positionNext edit → | ||
| Line 8: | Line 8: | ||
| ::: Concur. ] <sup><span style="font-style:italic">(] | ])</span></sup> 22:41, 28 April 2008 (UTC) | ::: Concur. ] <sup><span style="font-style:italic">(] | ])</span></sup> 22:41, 28 April 2008 (UTC) | ||
| :::Do not Concur. <span style="font:bold 11px Arial;display:inline;border:#151B8D 1px solid;background-color:#ADDFFF;padding:0 4px 0 4px;">]</span> <sup>]</sup>/<sub>]</sub> 20:50, 2 May 2008 (UTC) | :::Do not Concur. <span style="font:bold 11px Arial;display:inline;border:#151B8D 1px solid;background-color:#ADDFFF;padding:0 4px 0 4px;">]</span> <sup>]</sup>/<sub>]</sub> 20:50, 2 May 2008 (UTC) | ||
| ::Unless I'm missing some evidence here, this was a overreaction and a poor show of Misplaced Pages's self-regulation. At worst the templates violated WP:SOAP, and, to be honest, I've seen worse. The escalation of this into an arbitrated permanent ban only provides another warning of the decay of this project to a heavy-handed bureaucracy - no, an oligarchy - that operates on the mandate of "elite" users rather than due deliberation and reference to policies. | |||
| ::I had hoped that even if the user was a pedophile, there would be a more forceful reaction against. Nevertheless, I really can't blame everyone, because apparently paper-thin connections to pedophilia are enough to expel them from the project indefinitely. --] (]) 00:46, 4 May 2008 (UTC) | |||
Revision as of 00:46, 4 May 2008
20250104012310
This account was blocked for pedophilia-related disruption. In particular, the creation of userboxes to self-identify as a pedophile was unacceptable. Dmcdevit·t 00:56, 26 April 2008 (UTC)
- This account has been unblocked because a permanent block strikes me as a serious over-reaction. --Carnildo (talk) 18:14, 28 April 2008 (UTC)
- I have reblocked. Direct questions to the arbcom. Matthew Brown (Morven) (T:C) 21:30, 28 April 2008 (UTC)
- Unless I'm missing some evidence here, this was a overreaction and a poor show of Misplaced Pages's self-regulation. At worst the templates violated WP:SOAP, and, to be honest, I've seen worse. The escalation of this into an arbitrated permanent ban only provides another warning of the decay of this project to a heavy-handed bureaucracy - no, an oligarchy - that operates on the mandate of "elite" users rather than due deliberation and reference to policies.
- I had hoped that even if the user was a pedophile, there would be a more forceful reaction against. Nevertheless, I really can't blame everyone, because apparently paper-thin connections to pedophilia are enough to expel them from the project indefinitely. --Estemi (talk) 00:46, 4 May 2008 (UTC)