Misplaced Pages

User talk:Second Quantization: Difference between revisions

Article snapshot taken from Wikipedia with creative commons attribution-sharealike license. Give it a read and then ask your questions in the chat. We can research this topic together.
Browse history interactively← Previous editNext edit →Content deleted Content addedVisualWikitext
Revision as of 10:24, 18 March 2014 editGeorgewilliamherbert (talk | contribs)Extended confirmed users16,680 edits Arbitration case discretionary sanctions warnings: flawed in these more precise ways← Previous edit Revision as of 10:36, 18 March 2014 edit undoSecond Quantization (talk | contribs)Pending changes reviewers24,876 edits Arbitration case discretionary sanctions warnings: replyNext edit →
Line 11: Line 11:
:::The preferred procedure is asking on WP:AE for a warning to be issued. Or asking any uninvolved admin elsewhere to review snd warn if justified. :::The preferred procedure is asking on WP:AE for a warning to be issued. Or asking any uninvolved admin elsewhere to review snd warn if justified.
:::] (]) 10:24, 18 March 2014 (UTC) :::] (]) 10:24, 18 March 2014 (UTC)
::::I didn't notice the admin=no part, but on the main issue, there is no requirement that it be an uninvolved party that I am aware of. It fully constitutes a notice and is usable at ] to establish when they were notified. If you disagree, cite where you are getting your information from, ] (]) 10:36, 18 March 2014 (UTC)

Revision as of 10:36, 18 March 2014

Arbitration case discretionary sanctions warnings

For your future information, these are only valid if made by 'uninvolved administrators.
Your warning / notification to Johnrv4 failed both those clauses...
Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 09:55, 18 March 2014 (UTC)
You are incorrect. Misplaced Pages:Arbitration_Committee/Discretionary_sanctions#For_administrators: "A warning need not be issued by an administrator;" Second Quantization (talk) 10:00, 18 March 2014 (UTC)
It must be issued by an uninvolved party, which you are not, and if not issued by an uninvolved administrator is not fully enforceable, and if not issued by an uninvolved administrator you are REQUIRED to use the following template modification per the template instructions, which you failed to do:
If you use this notice and you are not an "uninvolved administrator", you must include the parameter |admin=no in the template, so that the sentence "This notice is given by an uninvolved administrator and will be..." is adapted accordingly.
This is to prevent random users using these as clubs against one another.
Using them as clubs usually leads to sanctions.
The preferred procedure is asking on WP:AE for a warning to be issued. Or asking any uninvolved admin elsewhere to review snd warn if justified.
Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 10:24, 18 March 2014 (UTC)
I didn't notice the admin=no part, but on the main issue, there is no requirement that it be an uninvolved party that I am aware of. It fully constitutes a notice and is usable at WP:AE to establish when they were notified. If you disagree, cite where you are getting your information from, Second Quantization (talk) 10:36, 18 March 2014 (UTC)