Misplaced Pages

talk:Arbitration Committee/Noticeboard: Difference between revisions - Misplaced Pages

Article snapshot taken from Wikipedia with creative commons attribution-sharealike license. Give it a read and then ask your questions in the chat. We can research this topic together.
< Misplaced Pages talk:Arbitration Committee Browse history interactively← Previous editNext edit →Content deleted Content addedVisualWikitext
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
What this page is for:
This page is for discussion of formal announcements by the Committee, including clarification of the specifics of notices.
What this page is not for:
To request arbitration, see Misplaced Pages:Arbitration/Requests. For information on the Committee, see Misplaced Pages:Arbitration Committee. To report a violation of a Committee decision, see Misplaced Pages:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement.
Archiving icon
Archives

Index 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10
11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20
21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30
31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37, 38, 39, 40
41, 42, 43, 44, 45, 46, 47, 48, 49, 50
51, 52



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

Original announcement

Cthomas3 appointed full clerk

Original announcement

Misplaced Pages:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Kudpung closed

Original announcement
  • 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)