| Revision as of 03:26, 9 March 2011 editDreadstar (talk | contribs)53,180 editsm →Unblock: grammar← Previous edit |
Revision as of 03:44, 9 March 2011 edit undoDreadstar (talk | contribs)53,180 edits archiveNext edit → |
| Line 16: |
Line 16: |
|
|
|
|
|
:Wow, thanks Will, this really means a lot! ] <small>]</small> 03:15, 6 March 2011 (UTC) |
|
:Wow, thanks Will, this really means a lot! ] <small>]</small> 03:15, 6 March 2011 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
== Unblock == |
|
|
|
|
|
Hi, I generally support Ludwigs' view and have also disagreed with QG. Just wanted to make sure you saw that although Ludwigs used a regular unblock template, that the initial block was done under ArbCom sanctions, and carried this: "Notice to administrators: In a March 2010 decision, the Committee held that "Administrators are prohibited from reversing or overturning (explicitly or in substance) any action taken by another administrator pursuant to the terms of an active arbitration remedy, and explicitly noted as being taken to enforce said remedy, except: (a) with the written authorization of the Committee, or (b) following a clear, substantial, and active consensus of uninvolved editors at a community discussion noticeboard (such as WP:AN or WP:ANI). If consensus in such discussions is hard to judge or unclear, the parties should submit a request for clarification on the proper page. Any administrator that overturns an enforcement action outside of these circumstances shall be subject to appropriate sanctions, up to and including desysopping, at the discretion of the Committee.". I'd like to see the block lifted as well, but not if it means you put yourself into the mess. ] (]) 03:15, 9 March 2011 (UTC) |
|
|
:It was a very bad block and in my opinion did not properly fall under the ArbCom findings. If this goes to ArbCom, and I'm sanctined for it, so be it. ] <small>]</small> 03:16, 9 March 2011 (UTC) |
|
|
::It was certainly a debatable block at least, but since it was done under ArbCom, you might be prepared for some backlash. ] versus ] may be helpful. ] (]) 03:23, 9 March 2011 (UTC) |
|
|
:::Thanks for the support, I was prepared for backlash when I did it. It would have nice, really, for the issue to have acutally been brought to ], it wasn't. ] <small>]</small> 03:26, 9 March 2011 (UTC) |
|
