Revision as of 22:58, 29 February 2020 editArbClerkBot (talk | contribs)Bots1,375 edits →[] closed: Creating talk page section (bot)← Previous edit | Revision as of 23:43, 29 February 2020 edit undoNosebagbear (talk | contribs)24,097 edits →Misplaced Pages:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Kudpung closed: 1.1 rejectionNext edit → | ||
Line 32: | Line 32: | ||
== ] closed == | == ] closed == | ||
: ]<!-- ] (]) 22:58, 29 February 2020 (UTC) --><!--Template:hes--> | : ]<!-- ] (]) 22:58, 29 February 2020 (UTC) --><!--Template:hes--> | ||
*I'm just getting an increasing feeling that all three of our recent de-sysops could have been handled by less severe steps, the best phrasing of which was probably 1.1 in this case. I'd be interested to see if a majority of arbs are opposed to a version of that proposal ''in any circumstances'' (that is, they feel that anyone with such significant potential restrictions has functionally reached a point of desysopping anyway) or if they just don't feel the recent cases were suitable for it. ] (]) | |||
:While it's not a case of non-cases reaching ARBCOM, these are 3 non clearcut cases, and while ARBCOM absolutely ''could'' have been right in each judgement, it pushes me to see whether every alternative was sufficiently thought out and why they might have been declined. ] (]) 23:43, 29 February 2020 (UTC) |
Revision as of 23:43, 29 February 2020
Shortcuts
|
Archives |
Index 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10 |
This page has archives. Sections older than 10 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III. |
Behaviour on this page: This page is for discussing announcements relating to the Arbitration Committee. Editors commenting here are required to act with appropriate decorum. While grievances, complaints, or criticism of arbitration decisions are frequently posted here, you are expected to present them without being rude or hostile. Comments that are uncivil may be removed without warning. Personal attacks against other users, including arbitrators or the clerks, will be met with sanctions.
DeltaQuad CheckUser and Oversight permissions restored
- Happy day! Mz7 (talk) 23:12, 8 February 2020 (UTC)
- Welcome back :) GorillaWarfare (talk) 23:21, 8 February 2020 (UTC)
- :) TonyBallioni (talk) 23:24, 8 February 2020 (UTC)
- Support awesome candidate of awesome awesomeness. Guy (help!) 17:00, 13 February 2020 (UTC)
- Welcome back! :) --TheSandDoctor 19:53, 18 February 2020 (UTC)
- Nice to see you back! -- Alexf 21:48, 25 February 2020 (UTC)
Cthomas3 appointed full clerk
- Welcome! Grab a full-sized fez from the pile :) GorillaWarfare (talk) 19:31, 25 February 2020 (UTC)
- Thank you, Cthomas3, for all the work you do to keep the arbitration process running smoothly. Your efforts are appreciated. :) – bradv🍁 19:32, 25 February 2020 (UTC)
- Thank you very much! Happy to help as always. :) CThomas (talk) 19:35, 25 February 2020 (UTC)
- I am happy to congratulate you Cthomas but it's conditional on a picture of you in a less than full-sized fez. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 19:39, 25 February 2020 (UTC)
- Congrats Thomas! Money emoji💵 21:45, 25 February 2020 (UTC)
- Congrats Cthomas3 -- Alexf 21:47, 25 February 2020 (UTC)
Misplaced Pages:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Kudpung closed
- I'm just getting an increasing feeling that all three of our recent de-sysops could have been handled by less severe steps, the best phrasing of which was probably 1.1 in this case. I'd be interested to see if a majority of arbs are opposed to a version of that proposal in any circumstances (that is, they feel that anyone with such significant potential restrictions has functionally reached a point of desysopping anyway) or if they just don't feel the recent cases were suitable for it. Nosebagbear (talk)
- While it's not a case of non-cases reaching ARBCOM, these are 3 non clearcut cases, and while ARBCOM absolutely could have been right in each judgement, it pushes me to see whether every alternative was sufficiently thought out and why they might have been declined. Nosebagbear (talk) 23:43, 29 February 2020 (UTC)