This is an old revision of this page, as edited by SlimVirgin (talk | contribs) at 07:52, 2 August 2009 (→The ArbCom and RfA: new section). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.
Revision as of 07:52, 2 August 2009 by SlimVirgin (talk | contribs) (→The ArbCom and RfA: new section)(diff) ← Previous revision | Latest revision (diff) | Newer revision → (diff)This talk page is for discussion related to motions currently being voted on. For discussion on requests for arbitration, see Misplaced Pages talk:Requests for arbitration.
User;Tajik
User:Tajik was permabanned by Thatcher following Misplaced Pages:Requests for arbitration/E104421-Tajik. 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. User:E104421, 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? Alex Bakharev (talk) 09:18, 30 December 2007 (UTC)
- He should go through the normal means of petitioning. - Penwhale | 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)? - Penwhale | 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. Kirill 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 Misplaced Pages:Requests_for_arbitration/Palestine-Israel_articles/Proposed_decision#Discretionary_sanctions_2 would be better than what is proposed in this case, as it seems to strike the right balance. Martintg (talk) 18:59, 16 January 2008 (UTC)
Geogre
Where has the case been archived to? DuncanHill (talk) 15:49, 1 August 2009 (UTC)
- See the first two entries of Misplaced Pages:Arbitration/Index/Motions. MBisanz 20:36, 1 August 2009 (UTC)
The ArbCom and RfA
John, I'm concerned about this proposal of yours that Aitias is indefinitely prohibited from standing for RfA. Leaving the particular case of Aitias aside, does the ArbCom have the right to tell the community who it may elect? SlimVirgin 07:52, 2 August 2009 (UTC)