Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/SchuminWeb: Difference between revisions
Content deleted Content added
→Enforcement: rmv |
→Motion regarding SchuminWeb (3): the creeping bolding is jarring |
||
Line 147:
'''Enacted''' - [[User:AlexandrDmitri|Alexandr Dmitri]] ([[User talk:AlexandrDmitri|talk]]) 18:35, 27 December 2012 (UTC)
:# A further alternative introducing a shorter (three-month) period than that proposed above. It also extends the prohibition on tool use to all areas; this really is the best interests both of the community and SchuminWeb; any tool use is bound to become a major source of unpleasant drama. Other than that, a few copy edits for (hopefully) clarity. [[User:Roger Davies|<span style="color:maroon; font-variant:small-caps">'''Roger Davies'''</span>]] <sup>[[User talk:Roger Davies|''talk'']]</sup> 07:26, 22 December 2012 (UTC)
:# [[User:SirFozzie|SirFozzie]] ([[User talk:SirFozzie|talk]]) 07:42, 22 December 2012 (UTC)
Line 159:
:# [[User:Kirill Lokshin|Kirill]] <sup>[[User talk:Kirill Lokshin|[talk]]]</sup> 00:54, 27 December 2012 (UTC)
:#Sorry, but I just can't support ''anything'' that leaves the tools in place in this circumstance. Who is going to ''enforce'' the restriction? Are we giving the crats authority to do so? Are we going to have to make ''another'' motion if this one is violated? I despise doing it, but I'm going to be adding a fourth motion. [[User:Courcelles|Courcelles]] 22:49, 22 December 2012 (UTC)
:# Why are we "instructing" SchuminWeb not to use his tools? If we wish him not to use his sysop permissions, then we should revoke them. This sort of "gentlemen's agreement" is rather silly, and I would prefer that anything we do with permission removals be watertight. [[User talk:AGK|<font color="black">'''AGK'''</font>]] [[User talk:AGK#top|[•]]] 21:44, 23 December 2012 (UTC)
:#
:* In answer to the opposes.. if we removed them prior to a case, the overwhelming view would be that we would be judging them guilty without a chance to respond, and that they would have the burden of proof upon their return to be given the tools back. Here, they may be technically still an administrator (as no judgement has been made to remove the tools). Considering he was not available to answer the case, we do not want them using the tools without first going through the case to determine whether the mistakes they made warrant removal of administrative tools. Basically, we're not saying that a removal is warranted, nor are we saying it's unwarranted, but solely that there is enough questions whether removal of the tools is warranted we do not wish them to use the tools until first going through with us. And if they don't answer, then we remove them as we cannot leave these cases upon indefinitely. [[User:SirFozzie|SirFozzie]] ([[User talk:SirFozzie|talk]]) 12:58, 26 December 2012 (UTC)
:* @ Davewild: while pending and suspend come originally from the same root, they are not synonyms. As far as the policy provision is concerned, it is sometimes helpful to look at the intention as well as the wording. The objective of the policy provision was to provide continuity during the transition from one year's committee to the next and and to prevent the disruption that would result from half of the committee changing in the middle of the workshop or midway through voting on an intricate proposed decision. Neither of those circumstances apply here ;) [[User:Roger Davies|<span style="color:maroon; font-variant:small-caps">'''Roger Davies'''</span>]] <sup>[[User talk:Roger Davies|''talk'']]</sup> 11:47, 27 December 2012 (UTC)
| |||