| Revision as of 05:40, 29 June 2008 editMastCell (talk | contribs)Edit filter managers, Administrators43,155 edits →Arbitration case and single-purpose accounts: c← Previous edit | Revision as of 05:44, 29 June 2008 edit undoUponleft (talk | contribs)111 editsNo edit summaryNext edit → | ||
| (One intermediate revision by the same user not shown) | |||
| Line 32: | Line 32: | ||
| :You are wrong. The arbitration committee never said anything about 1 revert/24 hours. You are just making that up. In addition the remedy only applies to "disruptive edits" none of these edits was disruptive. Thus the remedy does not apply. ] (]) 05:35, 29 June 2008 (UTC) | :You are wrong. The arbitration committee never said anything about 1 revert/24 hours. You are just making that up. In addition the remedy only applies to "disruptive edits" none of these edits was disruptive. Thus the remedy does not apply. ] (]) 05:35, 29 June 2008 (UTC) | ||
| ::Would you prefer to be banned from the page as the remedy explicitly stipulates? Using a handful of agenda accounts to remove sourced information and bias the article is disruptive, and it's occurred often enough that the Arbitration Committee has provided for streamlined handling. I thought that 1RR/24 hours was more generous. ''']''' <sup>]</sup> 05:40, 29 June 2008 (UTC) | ::Would you prefer to be banned from the page as the remedy explicitly stipulates? Using a handful of agenda accounts to remove sourced information and bias the article is disruptive, and it's occurred often enough that the Arbitration Committee has provided for streamlined handling. I thought that 1RR/24 hours was more generous. ''']''' <sup>]</sup> 05:40, 29 June 2008 (UTC) | ||
| Where has the arbirtation committee provided for "streamlined handling"? I don't see it anywhere on the final decisions by the arbitration committee? Regardless, the arbitration committee resolution only allows for a ban "for repeated violations", which I have not done. Banning me now would be an abuse of your power. ] (]) 05:42, 29 June 2008 (UTC) | |||
Revision as of 05:44, 29 June 2008
 Archive Index |
|---|
Semi Protect?
Is this article really semi protected as it seems here? If so, why? I saw no edit warring, no vandalism, etc. Bstone (talk) 17:18, 23 June 2008 (UTC)
Arbitration case and single-purpose accounts
In light of yet another influx of single-purpose agenda accounts, the following single-purpose accounts are subject to restriction (1 revert/24 hours) under the terms of this Arbitration Committee remedy:
- Uponleft (talk · contribs)
- Bluestrawz (talk · contribs)
- Luceey (talk · contribs)
- Staplers (talk · contribs)
- SeroLogic (talk · contribs)
- Colorwave (talk · contribs)
- KnowDrama (talk · contribs)
Logged at the Arbitration Committee page. MastCell 05:31, 29 June 2008 (UTC)
- You are wrong. The arbitration committee never said anything about 1 revert/24 hours. You are just making that up. In addition the remedy only applies to "disruptive edits" none of these edits was disruptive. Thus the remedy does not apply. Uponleft (talk) 05:35, 29 June 2008 (UTC)
- Would you prefer to be banned from the page as the remedy explicitly stipulates? Using a handful of agenda accounts to remove sourced information and bias the article is disruptive, and it's occurred often enough that the Arbitration Committee has provided for streamlined handling. I thought that 1RR/24 hours was more generous. MastCell 05:40, 29 June 2008 (UTC)
Where has the arbirtation committee provided for "streamlined handling"? I don't see it anywhere on the final decisions by the arbitration committee? Regardless, the arbitration committee resolution only allows for a ban "for repeated violations", which I have not done. Banning me now would be an abuse of your power. Uponleft (talk) 05:42, 29 June 2008 (UTC)