| Revision as of 06:02, 6 August 2012 editThe Devil's Advocate (talk | contribs)19,695 editsNo edit summary← Previous edit | Revision as of 08:01, 6 August 2012 edit undoMathsci (talk | contribs)Autopatrolled, Extended confirmed users, Pending changes reviewers66,107 editsNo edit summaryNext edit → | ||
| Line 3: | Line 3: | ||
| This request for amendment to a recent arbcom review has been under discussion for over a month. At a fairly early stage Newyorkbrad and other arbitrators rejected both amendments, so it is unhelpul to list the amendments here. Arbitrators have also pointed out the time consumed and disruption caused by restoring edits made by a particular community banned user and in initiating subsequent discussions concerning the edits of that banned user. It has been suggested that a motion be passed which would address these issues in this particular case: a precise motion has not yet been formulated. Please look more carefully at the responses of arbitrators before sending out this report. ] (]) 05:22, 6 August 2012 (UTC) | This request for amendment to a recent arbcom review has been under discussion for over a month. At a fairly early stage Newyorkbrad and other arbitrators rejected both amendments, so it is unhelpul to list the amendments here. Arbitrators have also pointed out the time consumed and disruption caused by restoring edits made by a particular community banned user and in initiating subsequent discussions concerning the edits of that banned user. It has been suggested that a motion be passed which would address these issues in this particular case: a precise motion has not yet been formulated. Please look more carefully at the responses of arbitrators before sending out this report. ] (]) 05:22, 6 August 2012 (UTC) | ||
| :Nowhere have they rejected the amendments. Roger and Brad are the only Arbs who have given any substantive comment on the case and neither of them have even commented on the amendments I have requested. They ''have'' mentioned the possibility of a motion that, in Brad's wording, would say to editors involved in the case that they are "not to reinstate any comments by the banned users that may be removed by others, regardless of any claimed justification for doing so under any policy or guideline" and that this could be made enforceable with blocks. Obviously, such a thing should be mentioned in the report since it would be an unprecedented restriction regarding a divisive matter within the editing community.--] (]) 06:02, 6 August 2012 (UTC) | :Nowhere have they rejected the amendments. Roger and Brad are the only Arbs who have given any substantive comment on the case and neither of them have even commented on the amendments I have requested. They ''have'' mentioned the possibility of a motion that, in Brad's wording, would say to editors involved in the case that they are "not to reinstate any comments by the banned users that may be removed by others, regardless of any claimed justification for doing so under any policy or guideline" and that this could be made enforceable with blocks. Obviously, such a thing should be mentioned in the report since it would be an unprecedented restriction regarding a divisive matter within the editing community.--] (]) 06:02, 6 August 2012 (UTC) | ||
| ::The Devil's Advocate's comments here are unreliable and appear to have been added in bad faith. Please could those preparing the report confer directly with arbitrators before proceeding? The Devil's Advocate's account is not currently in good standing; within the last month he has received several warnings from arbitrators about his dealings with banned and topic-banned editors. ] (]) 08:01, 6 August 2012 (UTC) | |||
Revision as of 08:01, 6 August 2012
← Back to Arbitration report
Discuss this story
This request for amendment to a recent arbcom review has been under discussion for over a month. At a fairly early stage Newyorkbrad and other arbitrators rejected both amendments, so it is unhelpul to list the amendments here. Arbitrators have also pointed out the time consumed and disruption caused by restoring edits made by a particular community banned user and in initiating subsequent discussions concerning the edits of that banned user. It has been suggested that a motion be passed which would address these issues in this particular case: a precise motion has not yet been formulated. Please look more carefully at the responses of arbitrators before sending out this report. Mathsci (talk) 05:22, 6 August 2012 (UTC)
- Nowhere have they rejected the amendments. Roger and Brad are the only Arbs who have given any substantive comment on the case and neither of them have even commented on the amendments I have requested. They have mentioned the possibility of a motion that, in Brad's wording, would say to editors involved in the case that they are "not to reinstate any comments by the banned users that may be removed by others, regardless of any claimed justification for doing so under any policy or guideline" and that this could be made enforceable with blocks. Obviously, such a thing should be mentioned in the report since it would be an unprecedented restriction regarding a divisive matter within the editing community.--The Devil's Advocate (talk) 06:02, 6 August 2012 (UTC)
- The Devil's Advocate's comments here are unreliable and appear to have been added in bad faith. Please could those preparing the report confer directly with arbitrators before proceeding? The Devil's Advocate's account is not currently in good standing; within the last month he has received several warnings from arbitrators about his dealings with banned and topic-banned editors. Mathsci (talk) 08:01, 6 August 2012 (UTC)