This is an old revision of this page, as edited by FayssalF (talk | contribs) at 20:45, 29 February 2008 (archiving). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.
Revision as of 20:45, 29 February 2008 by FayssalF (talk | contribs) (archiving)(diff) ← Previous revision | Latest revision (diff) | Newer revision → (diff) userpage • contributions • edit info • This editor is an elephant administrator | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
_-_Google_Art_Project_-_edited.jpg){kind=small}
Requests for arbitration/Episodes and characters 2Regarding this case, I know a lot of discussion is floating around, but I really feel strongly about this and wanted to get more attention to this comment I made: If any of the arbs are reading these messages, I beg of you to accept a proposal that limits TTN's actions only when challenged. Like the others, I'm still not convinced TTN has even done something grossly wrong, but it's far better than the current proposal, allows TTN to preform non-controversial actions, and addresses the core issue of force rather than content judgements. TTN might have had a liberal interpretation of ArbCom's instructions from the last case, but something like this would be a lot more clear cut, and I have no doubt he would follow it. Perhaps this could be given a trial time of a week or two, and if not effective then simply default to the 1.1 proposal that you are supporting now. I really believe this issue comes down to when situations where forced when challenged, and not the initial editorial actions. He would learn a lot from that kind of six month (or whatever) probation, and still be able to be constructive on Misplaced Pages. I also believe it's something that both "sides" would be able to live with. -- Ned Scott 04:25, 29 February 2008 (UTC) A personal thank you
| ||||||||
