Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Clarification and Amendment/Archive 8: Difference between revisions
Content deleted Content added
Dreamy Jazz (talk | contribs) spaces due to the spam blacklist |
MalnadachBot (talk | contribs) m Fixed Lint errors. (Task 12) |
||
Line 259:
:::::To each their own then. <font face="comic sans ms">[[User:Kwsn|<span style="background: #23238E; color: #FFFF00;">'''Kwsn'''</span>]]<small>[[User talk:Kwsn|<span style="background: #23238E; color: #FFFF00; ">(Ni!)</span>]]</small></font> 19:53, 16 August 2007 (UTC)
:::::No attack sites was rejected. Or at least the form I have seen was - people seem to be thinking it IS actually policy though! [[User:Viridae|Viridae]][[User talk:Viridae|<small><sup>Talk</sup></small>]] 05:30, 20 August 2007 (UTC)
If the article on Daniel Brandt can be a redirect, then surely anything ED-related can be a redirect also. What he's done carries far more clout and legitimacy than what they've done.
{{abot}}
Line 680:
I'll try to be brief. I am posting here as there is a discussion about some admins who have had knowledge about the issue. Well, yes, i am one of ''them''. I got to know about that on-wiki (via email) just weeks after a RfC i filed against Proabivoauc back on January 2007. Apart from that, i don't recall Pro editing disruptively.
MONGO, i believe you are the only person in this discussion who technically cannot get access to the contents of that RfC. In other words, as Thatcher had mentioned yesterday at Pro talk page answering Tom Harrison, that RfC outcome would have been totally different if people could know who was Pro at that time. Now, i hope all parties get back to work and forget about the fuss. -- [[User:FayssalF|<
:I, as well, was aware of the fact, although not for as long, but I did operate under the assumption that the Arbitration Committee was also clued in to this. It is, however, my understanding that at least one Committee member and one Foundation official were made privy to it. [[User:El C|El_C]] 21:39, 11 September 2007 (UTC)
I want to reiterate that if this was (otherwise) a problem account, we wouldn't be having this discussion. [[User:El C|El_C]] 21:44, 11 September 2007 (UTC)
::Well, it seems that Pro ''chasing'' some banned accounts here (w/ whom he had conflicts) led those account owners to post online the relationship between Pro new and old account. Pro insists on <small>PRIVACY</small>, <small>ATTACKSITE</small>, <small>HARASS</small> defending his case. On the other hand, the ArbCom saw that reseting the terms of the probation is <small>WHATSHOULDBEDONE</small> and that process counts especially in cases such as this. There would have been no further discussion if Pro would have kept it at minimum yesterday. This case is probably a precedent and hope it would never happen again in Wikipedia. It is the trust of people on the project which is at stake here. I believe that's why we are having this discussion here. -- [[User:FayssalF|<
:There are previous cases where a user under probation has attempted to discard that account and reincarnate. In all cases of which I am aware, the probation was enforced on the new account, except in one case where the probation period had actually expired before the new account was discovered. However, this is the first case where the original account was the user's real name, raising the privacy objection. [[User talk:Thatcher131|Thatcher131]] 22:55, 11 September 2007 (UTC)
::Does BADSITES have to pop up in everything these days? To edit under one's real name is to voluntarily reveal it; if one is to become anonymous again, one must accept responsibility for doing it effectively. [[User:Mangoe|Mangoe]] 03:25, 12 September 2007 (UTC)
| |||