Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Clarification and Amendment/Archive 23: Difference between revisions
Content deleted Content added
Dreamy Jazz (talk | contribs) create Tag: Disambiguation links added |
fix lint issues |
||
Line 645:
*I would support a motion that lifts all sanctions except that related to Phil Sandifer. The situation from whence that sanction arose (there was additional on- and off-wiki behaviour that is not detailed in Phil's statement) is of such a nature that I cannot foresee any interaction between Everyking and Phil Sandifer that will not be perceived by many as a rekindling of hostility, now or in the future. As such, I would not be opposed to considering the avoidance sanction to be permanent. [[User:Risker|Risker]] ([[User talk:Risker|talk]]) 22:47, 1 January 2009 (UTC)
*It is not yet 22 February. [[User:Sam Blacketer|Sam Blacketer]] ([[User talk:Sam Blacketer|talk]]) 23:46, 1 January 2009 (UTC)
*In view of the background, the Phil Sandifer sanction doesn't seem so onerous to me and I can see advantages in making it permanent. How does the project gain from its lifting? --[[User:Roger Davies|<font color="maroon">'''R<small>OGER</small> D<small>AVIES
*From email: Cool Hand Luke is recused from any Everyking issue.<span style="font-family:Verdana,sans-serif"> — [[User:Rlevse|<b style="color:#060;"><i>R</i>levse</b>]] • [[User_talk:Rlevse|<span style="color:#990;">Talk</span>]] • </span> 10:56, 2 January 2009 (UTC)
*As far as I can recall, I've never had any significant direct contact with Everyking. My comments about him have occurred primarily during RFA and during Committee work. So I do not think that I need to recuse because of a bias formed from a personal discord between us. It is also worth noting that I've made comments about Phil Sandifer while doing Committee work so there is no reason to think that I would have a basis for favoring one side of this dispute over the other. But since the point of the Committee work is dispute resolution, and I think that there will be a better outcome in this situation if I recuse, I'm to do it. I'm doing this because Everyking appears to have the view that he is being unfairly targeted by past members of ArbCom, individually and as a group. So with my sincerest hope that if I abstain from commenting and have no involvement in this matter, the outcome will be better accepted by Everyking and he will be able to move on, I '''recuse'''. [[User:FloNight|FloNight]][[User talk:FloNight|♥♥♥]] 12:58, 2 January 2009 (UTC)
Line 658:
:# Proposed. [[User:Wizardman|<span style="color:#060">'''''Wizardman'''''</span>]] 17:27, 4 January 2009 (UTC)
:# Support <span style="font-family:Verdana,sans-serif"> — [[User:Rlevse|<b style="color:#060;"><i>R</i>levse</b>]] • [[User_talk:Rlevse|<span style="color:#990;">Talk</span>]] • </span> 17:32, 4 January 2009 (UTC)
:# Support. --[[User:Roger Davies|<font color="maroon">'''R<small>OGER</small> D<small>AVIES
:# Support. [[User:Risker|Risker]] ([[User talk:Risker|talk]]) 17:40, 4 January 2009 (UTC)
:# Support. The effective date of February 22 represents one year from the date of adoption of the previous motion. I do not believe that postponing the effective date is really necessary, but I far prefer this symbolic action intended to reflect the limitation contained in the prior motion over the likelihood that without this proviso, the present motion might well be defeated and we would be forced to revisit this entire situation again in the future. It bears emphasis that the common-sense principles underlying some of the sanctions being lifted against Everyking should nonetheless be followed by all users. Finally, no inferences should be drawn from the consensus that the sanction relating to Everyking and Phil Sandifer should remain in place. [[User:Newyorkbrad|Newyorkbrad]] ([[User talk:Newyorkbrad|talk]]) 17:54, 4 January 2009 (UTC)
| |||