Revision as of 18:21, 1 April 2015 view sourceSwarm (talk | contribs)Autopatrolled, Administrators32,772 edits →Statement by Swarm: exp← Previous edit | Revision as of 18:22, 1 April 2015 view source Unbroken Chain (talk | contribs)Autopatrolled, Extended confirmed users, Pending changes reviewers, Rollbackers32,193 edits →Statement by Hell in a BucketNext edit → | ||
Line 27: | Line 27: | ||
=== Statement by Hell in a Bucket === | === Statement by Hell in a Bucket === | ||
Well I thought this was sortedin the banning policy case but apparently ] and ] think it's ok to use discretion on banned users. The policies and finding have been pointed out and the response is that admin get to do what they want. I think that needs a admonishment at best or frankly a good desyopping. In case anyone is worried this was a borderline judgement if you see ] you can see the evidence is there, there is no doubt who it is. ] (]) 18:13, 1 April 2015 (UTC) | Well I thought this was sortedin the banning policy case but apparently ] and ] think it's ok to use discretion on banned users. The policies and finding have been pointed out and the response is that admin get to do what they want. I think that needs a admonishment at best or frankly a good desyopping. In case anyone is worried this was a borderline judgement if you see ] you can see the evidence is there, there is no doubt who it is. ] (]) 18:13, 1 April 2015 (UTC) | ||
*] I'd run scared too if I hadn't read "2) When an editor's conduct is exceptionally disruptive or inappropriate, that user may be banned from editing Misplaced Pages. Banned editors are prohibited from editing Misplaced Pages in any way, from any account or anonymously, and all contributions made in defiance of a ban are subject to immediate removal. While users in good standing are permitted to restore content from banned users by taking ownership of that content, such restoration should be undertaken rarely and with extreme caution, as banned editors have already had to be removed for disruptive and problematic behavior. A user who nonetheless chooses to do so accepts full responsibility for the consequences of the material so restored." ] but I'm sure such things are beneath you as admin. ] (]) 18:21, 1 April 2015 (UTC) | |||
=== Statement by Swarm === | === Statement by Swarm === |
Revision as of 18:22, 1 April 2015
Requests for arbitration
Arbitration Committee proceedings- recent changes
- purge this page
- view or discuss this template
Request name | Motions | Initiated | Votes |
---|---|---|---|
Banning Policy II | 1 April 2015 | {{{votes}}} |
Case name | Links | Evidence due | Prop. Dec. due |
---|---|---|---|
Palestine-Israel articles 5 | (t) (ev / t) (ws / t) (pd / t) | 21 Dec 2024 | 11 Jan 2025 |
No cases have recently been closed (view all closed cases).
Clarification and Amendment requestsCurrently, no requests for clarification or amendment are open.
Arbitrator motionsMotion name | Date posted |
---|---|
Arbitrator workflow motions | 1 December 2024 |
Shortcuts
About this page Use this page to request the committee open an arbitration case. To be accepted, an arbitration request needs 4 net votes to "accept" (or a majority). Arbitration is a last resort. WP:DR lists the other, escalating processes that should be used before arbitration. The committee will decline premature requests. Requests may be referred to as "case requests" or "RFARs"; once opened, they become "cases". Before requesting arbitration, read the arbitration guide to case requests. Then click the button below. Complete the instructions quickly; requests incomplete for over an hour may be removed. Consider preparing the request in your userspace. To request enforcement of an existing arbitration ruling, see Misplaced Pages:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement. To clarify or change an existing arbitration ruling, see Misplaced Pages:Arbitration/Requests/Clarification and Amendment.
Guidance on participation and word limits Unlike many venues on Misplaced Pages, ArbCom imposes word limits. Please observe the below notes on complying with word limits.
General guidance
|
Banning Policy II
Initiated by Hell in a Bucket (talk) at 18:05, 1 April 2015 (UTC)
Involved parties
- Hell in a Bucket (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), filing party
- Swarm (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA)
- Fred Bauder (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA)
- Confirmation that all parties are aware of the request
- ]
- ]
- Confirmation that other steps in dispute resolution have been tried
- ]
- ]
Statement by Hell in a Bucket
Well I thought this was sortedin the banning policy case but apparently User:Swarm and User:Fred Bauder think it's ok to use discretion on banned users. The policies and finding have been pointed out and the response is that admin get to do what they want. I think that needs a admonishment at best or frankly a good desyopping. In case anyone is worried this was a borderline judgement if you see User:Saint Kohser you can see the evidence is there, there is no doubt who it is. Hell in a Bucket (talk) 18:13, 1 April 2015 (UTC)
- User:Swarm I'd run scared too if I hadn't read "2) When an editor's conduct is exceptionally disruptive or inappropriate, that user may be banned from editing Misplaced Pages. Banned editors are prohibited from editing Misplaced Pages in any way, from any account or anonymously, and all contributions made in defiance of a ban are subject to immediate removal. While users in good standing are permitted to restore content from banned users by taking ownership of that content, such restoration should be undertaken rarely and with extreme caution, as banned editors have already had to be removed for disruptive and problematic behavior. A user who nonetheless chooses to do so accepts full responsibility for the consequences of the material so restored." ] but I'm sure such things are beneath you as admin. Hell in a Bucket (talk) 18:21, 1 April 2015 (UTC)
Statement by Swarm
The relevant AN/I thread is at WP:ANI#Immediate block request of User:Saint Kohser. As evidenced there, Hell in a Bucket is disruptively restoring vandalism to articles that's being undone by the banned user who added it. This is insanity and HIAB deserves a whale for this one. The second paragraph of Misplaced Pages:Administrators states that administrators "are never required to use their tools". Misplaced Pages:Ignore all rules states, "If a rule prevents you from improving or maintaining Misplaced Pages, ignore it." WP:BURO states, "Do not follow an overly strict interpretation of the letter of policy without consideration for the principles of policies." As I explained at ANI, if any administrator were to disagree with us they would be well within their rights to block the user in question, but attempting to punish us for not following a rule for the benefit of the encyclopedia is nothing short of utterly ridiculous and I won't defend myself against this absurdity further. Swarm 18:16, 1 April 2015 (UTC)
Statement by Fred Bauder
I plead common sense. User:Fred Bauder Talk 18:21, 1 April 2015 (UTC)
Statement by Spartaz
Is this an April Fools joke? Spartaz 18:09, 1 April 2015 (UTC)
Statement by {Non-party}
Other editors are free to make relevant comments on this request as necessary. Comments here should address why or why not the Committee should accept the case request or provide additional information.
Clerk notes
- This area is used for notes by the clerks (including clerk recusals).
Banning Policy II: Arbitrators' opinion on hearing this matter <0/0/0/0>-Banning_Policy_II">
Vote key: (Accept/decline/recuse/other)