Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Climate change/General discussion: Difference between revisions
Content deleted Content added
Carcharoth (talk | contribs) |
Carcharoth (talk | contribs) |
||
Line 34:
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 quoted above? If ArbCom considers them to be essentially the same thing as Arbitration Discretionary Sanctions, 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)
::The question of the relationship between the existing General Sanctions climate change noticeboard and any future arbitration enforcement in relation to this case is being considered as part of the case. For areas where such a noticeboard is established where no arbitration case has taken place, the issue is less clear. The aim for this case is to end up with a system that will enable efficient administration of enforcement requests regardless of where the sanctions originated (whether from a discussion at a GS noticeboard or from an arbitration case). [[User:Carcharoth|Carcharoth]] ([[User talk:Carcharoth|talk]]) 22:30, 20 August 2010 (UTC)
:[[Wikipedia talk:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Climate change/General discussion#Inviolability of General Sanctions|Discuss this question]]
| |||