Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/MickMacNee/Proposed decision: Difference between revisions
Content deleted Content added
Newyorkbrad (talk | contribs) →Conduct of administrators: comment |
|||
Line 131:
:# [[User:Kirill Lokshin|Kirill]] <sup>[[User talk:Kirill Lokshin|[talk]]] [[User:Kirill Lokshin/Professionalism|[prof]]]</sup> 00:13, 27 July 2011 (UTC)
:# [[User:Newyorkbrad|Newyorkbrad]] ([[User talk:Newyorkbrad|talk]]) 00:30, 27 July 2011 (UTC)
:#: Responding to the abstainers, I saw a relevance when I voted initially and I see a greater relevance today (see next proposed principle that I have added). There need not, in my view, always be a one-to-one correspondence between principles and findings. While I would not (for example) vote to adopt a remedy against a user without a corresponding finding and hopefully a correspondence principle, the converse is not true: it is sometimes in order for the committee to adopt a principle articulating or emphasizing a general rule that is implicated by events discussed in the case, even where no individual violation of the rule warrants criticizing a specific editor by name. [[User:Newyorkbrad|Newyorkbrad]] ([[User talk:Newyorkbrad|talk]]) 15:29, 31 July 2011 (UTC)
:# [[User:PhilKnight|PhilKnight]] ([[User talk:PhilKnight|talk]]) 00:40, 27 July 2011 (UTC)
:# [[User:Jclemens|Jclemens]] ([[User talk:Jclemens|talk]]) 01:12, 27 July 2011 (UTC)
| |||