Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Climate change/General discussion: Difference between revisions

Revision as of 03:54, 20 August 2010

Revision as of 18:51, 20 August 2010

Line 26:

::We are aware of the incident and the ANI discussion (though we may miss other discussions unless they are explicitly pointed out). We don't have any special powers to stop slow-motion train wrecks, though my initial thoughts are that stuff like this happening is likely to delay the posting of a proposed decision, so those still butting heads over issues like this might like to consider that the next time they ask why the posting of the proposed decision is delayed. If there are many more incidents like this, I may propose an injunction on all participants in the case for not just a topic ban, but a non-interaction restriction as well. [[User:Carcharoth|Carcharoth]] ([[User talk:Carcharoth|talk]]) 03:25, 20 August 2010 (UTC)

:[[Wikipedia talk:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Climate change/General discussion#Ridiculous slow-motion train wreck|Discuss this question]]

==Inviolability of General Sanctions==

In March 2010, the Arbitration Committee passed a motion on overturning measures taken by an admin pursuant to an ArbCom decision:

{{quote|Administrators are prohibited from reversing or overturning (explicitly or in substance) any action taken by another administrator pursuant to the terms of an active arbitration remedy, and explicitly noted as being taken to enforce said remedy, except:

:(a) with the written authorization of the Committee, or

:(b) following a clear, substantial, and active consensus of uninvolved editors at a community discussion noticeboard (such as [[WP:AN]] or [[WP:ANI]]). If consensus in such discussions is hard to judge or unclear, the parties should submit a request for clarification on the [[Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Clarification|proper page]].<br>

Any administrator that overturns an enforcement action outside of these circumstances shall be subject to appropriate sanctions, up to and including desysopping, at the discretion of the Committee.}}

Could a Principle be added to the proposed decision indicating what the Arbitration Committee's position on properly established community General Sanctions is in relation to the March 2010 motion quote above? If ArbCom considers them to be essentially the same thing, then could perhaps Request for Enforcement of General Sanctions and Arbitration Enforcement be merged into a single noticeboard? '''<font color="navy">[[User:NuclearWarfare|NW]]</font>''' ''(<font color="green">[[User talk:NuclearWarfare|Talk]]</font>)'' 18:51, 20 August 2010 (UTC)