| Revision as of 16:14, 13 May 2012 edit94.196.3.173 (talk) →Banned or not: new section← Previous edit | Revision as of 17:46, 13 May 2012 edit undoRoger Davies (talk | contribs)Administrators34,587 edits →Banned or not: Probably a de facto banNext edit → | ||
| Line 55: | Line 55: | ||
| Hello. You mentioned the conduct of a party in a current ArbComm review towards a "banned user", who is presumably the person who at one time operated the account {{user|Echigo mole}}. There is no evidence that this person has in fact been banned at all (although one party has repeated the claim on numerous occasions). Perhaps it would be a good opportunity for AC to rule on that issue. It would seem to be covered by objective (1) of the review's terms of reference, and it seems that there is no objection to extending the scope of the remedies to user who were not explicitly mentioned at the outset. Until then, it seems incorrect to use refer to that person in this way. Thanks. ] (]) 16:14, 13 May 2012 (UTC) | Hello. You mentioned the conduct of a party in a current ArbComm review towards a "banned user", who is presumably the person who at one time operated the account {{user|Echigo mole}}. There is no evidence that this person has in fact been banned at all (although one party has repeated the claim on numerous occasions). Perhaps it would be a good opportunity for AC to rule on that issue. It would seem to be covered by objective (1) of the review's terms of reference, and it seems that there is no objection to extending the scope of the remedies to user who were not explicitly mentioned at the outset. Until then, it seems incorrect to use refer to that person in this way. Thanks. ] (]) 16:14, 13 May 2012 (UTC) | ||
| :Not wanting to prejudge this but is there any need for ArbCom to get involved? Echigo mole is indefinitely blocked for socking and, at first sight, because of their history ], it seems unlikely any admin would unblock them. This is how a block becomes what's known as a ]. Nevertheless, they could request an unblock on their talk page and see what happens. ] <sup>]</sup> 17:46, 13 May 2012 (UTC) | |||
Revision as of 17:46, 13 May 2012
If you post a message on this page, I'll reply here to avoid fragmenting the discussion. So add it to your watchlist.
If I leave you a message on your talk page, it will be added to my watchlist. So feel free to reply to it there instead of here.
Please sign and date your message by typing four tildes (~~~~)
Intermission
I'm picking on you because you did the featured article work for Hamlet. What can you write about intermissions? Jonathan de Boyne Pollard (talk) 19:00, 9 May 2012 (UTC)
Roman Polanski Arbcom
I posted a reply on the Roman Polanski matter in Arbcom: Misplaced Pages:Arbitration/Requests/Case#Statement_by_Psalm84 Psalm84 (talk) 15:51, 11 May 2012 (UTC)
La Treille
Hi Roger.
On 10 March I was invited by friends to stay with them on the outskirts of Aubagne. On the Sunday (11 March) we went in the early morning to La Treille, 10 minutes away by car, and my friend, Didier Quertier, took several pictures for me, two of which I uploaded onto wikipedia the next day. A picture of the fountain, dating from 1871, and of Pagnol's grave in the cemetery down the hill. Someone is now claiming that these pictures are illegal because of French laws. Ronhjones describes the picture of the fountain as a "panoramic view".File:Fontaine-La-Treille.jpg We do have panoramas of Marseille in the article there, also taken in France. This however is of a monument occupying approximately a space of only a few cubic metres. Please could you comment there as you are familiar with La Treille and with wikipedia policy. Here are the reports Misplaced Pages:Possibly unfree files/2012 May 12#File:Fontaine-La-Treille.jpg Misplaced Pages:Possibly unfree files/2012 May 12#File:Tombeau-Pagnol-La-Treille.jpg Here is a poorer quality image of the grave uploaded on commons by a French wikipedian.File:Marseille-Pagnol94.jpg Didier's picture is of better quality and shows the view down the hill also.File:Tombeau-Pagnol-La-Treille.jpg Regards, Mathsci (talk) 23:31, 12 May 2012 (UTC)
Banned or not
Hello. You mentioned the conduct of a party in a current ArbComm review towards a "banned user", who is presumably the person who at one time operated the account Echigo mole (talk · contribs). There is no evidence that this person has in fact been banned at all (although one party has repeated the claim on numerous occasions). Perhaps it would be a good opportunity for AC to rule on that issue. It would seem to be covered by objective (1) of the review's terms of reference, and it seems that there is no objection to extending the scope of the remedies to user who were not explicitly mentioned at the outset. Until then, it seems incorrect to use refer to that person in this way. Thanks. 94.196.3.173 (talk) 16:14, 13 May 2012 (UTC)
- Not wanting to prejudge this but is there any need for ArbCom to get involved? Echigo mole is indefinitely blocked for socking and, at first sight, because of their history subsequent socking, it seems unlikely any admin would unblock them. This is how a block becomes what's known as a de facto ban. Nevertheless, they could request an unblock on their talk page and see what happens. Roger Davies 17:46, 13 May 2012 (UTC)