| Revision as of 14:18, 6 February 2012 editHans Adler (talk | contribs)Autopatrolled, Extended confirmed users, Pending changes reviewers, Rollbackers26,943 edits →Totally inappropriate ban: update signature← Previous edit | Revision as of 16:11, 6 February 2012 edit undoFlightTime (talk | contribs)Autopatrolled, Extended confirmed users, Page movers, File movers, New page reviewers, Pending changes reviewers, Rollbackers, Template editors158,033 editsNo edit summaryNext edit → | ||
| Line 30: | Line 30: | ||
| In my opinion this ban is totally inappropriate and reflects very badly on Arbcom. However, in the interest of clarity I want to point out that my decision to minimise my involvement in this site is mostly due to ''other'' ways in which the Muhammad images dispute was mishandled. ] 14:16, 6 February 2012 (UTC) | In my opinion this ban is totally inappropriate and reflects very badly on Arbcom. However, in the interest of clarity I want to point out that my decision to minimise my involvement in this site is mostly due to ''other'' ways in which the Muhammad images dispute was mishandled. ] 14:16, 6 February 2012 (UTC) | ||
| == ] closed == | |||
| An arbitration case regarding Muhammad images has now closed and the final decision is viewable at the link above. The following remedies have been enacted: | |||
| # The community is asked to hold a discussion that will establish a definitive consensus on what images will be included in the article {{la|Muhammad}}, and on where the images will be placed within the article. As with all decisions about content, the policies on ] and the ] must be the most important considerations. The editors who choose to participate in this discussion are asked to form an opinion with an open mind, and to explain their decision clearly. Any editor who disrupts this discussion may be banned from the affected pages by any uninvolved administrator, under the discretionary sanctions authorised in this decision. The decision reached in this discussion will be appended to this case within two months from the close of the case. | |||
| # ] is prohibited from contributing to any discussion concerning Muhammad. | |||
| # Ludwigs2 is banned from the English Misplaced Pages for one year. | |||
| # ] is admonished to behave with appropriate professionalism in his contributions to discussions about disputed article content. | |||
| # ] is admonished to behave with appropriate professionalism in his contributions to discussions about disputed article content. | |||
| # ] is reminded to engage in discussions about disputed article content with an appropriate degree of civility. | |||
| # ] are authorised for all pages relating to ], broadly interpreted. | |||
| # The participants in the dispute about depictions of Muhammad are reminded that editors who engage extensively in an intractable dispute can become frustrated, and that it is important to be aware that as editors we are limited in our ability to contribute constructively to a deadlocked disagreement. Our exasperation with a dispute can make us unprofessional or unreceptive to compromise. We therefore encourage the disputants of this case to consider if their participation in the coming community discussion of depictions of Muhammad would be useful, and we remind them that if they disrupt the community discussion they may be banned from the discussion or otherwise sanctioned under the discretionary sanctions provision of this case. | |||
| ] <small>(])</small> 16:11, 6 February 2012 (UTC) | |||
| For the Arbitration Committee | |||
Revision as of 16:11, 6 February 2012
|
 Archives |
|
1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10 |
|
This page has archives. Sections older than 10 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III. |
Please comment on Talk:9/11 conspiracy theories
Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Talk:9/11 conspiracy theories. Should you wish to respond to the invitation, your contribution to this discussion will be very much appreciated! If in doubt, please see suggestions for responding. If you do not wish to receive these types of notices, please remove your name from Misplaced Pages:Feedback request service. — RFC bot (talk) 20:15, 27 January 2012 (UTC)
Please comment on Talk:Human rights in Estonia
Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Talk:Human rights in Estonia. Should you wish to respond to the invitation, your contribution to this discussion will be very much appreciated! If in doubt, please see suggestions for responding. If you do not wish to receive these types of notices, please remove your name from Misplaced Pages:Feedback request service. — RFC bot (talk) 20:15, 2 February 2012 (UTC)
just a comment
Ludwigs2, sorry for what is happening to you. I haven't been on Misplaced Pages a lot lately, but in reading the arbitration, I think the fact that they are considering a site ban is rather extreme. Sorry to see this happening as I think you are an editor that is involved more than most in trying to improve Misplaced Pages. stmrlbs|talk 03:17, 5 February 2012 (UTC)
Block
Ludwigs is banned, not blocked. I know it's a technicality but in my experience we don't block banned users unless there is a reason to. I doubt that L2 would violate the terms of his ban and the block looks bad on the record when he hasn't done anything to earn it. Normally when a user is arbcom banned they get a notification on their page and are expected to voluntarily follow that. My apologies if I am wrong here, but this is what I have seen most commonly in my tenure here. Nformation 07:13, 6 February 2012 (UTC)
- I suspect it might be a temporary measure because there was a fumble with publication of the final decision, mostly due to an inexperienced new trainee clerk, but also late voting from an Arb. ASCIIn2Bme (talk) 10:05, 6 February 2012 (UTC)
- Please see my message on User talk:Noformation. Mathsci (talk) 10:10, 6 February 2012 (UTC)
Totally inappropriate ban
In my opinion this ban is totally inappropriate and reflects very badly on Arbcom. However, in the interest of clarity I want to point out that my decision to minimise my involvement in this site is mostly due to other ways in which the Muhammad images dispute was mishandled. Hans Adler 14:16, 6 February 2012 (UTC)
Misplaced Pages:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Muhammad images closed
An arbitration case regarding Muhammad images has now closed and the final decision is viewable at the link above. The following remedies have been enacted:
- The community is asked to hold a discussion that will establish a definitive consensus on what images will be included in the article Muhammad (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views), and on where the images will be placed within the article. As with all decisions about content, the policies on verifiability and the neutral point of view must be the most important considerations. The editors who choose to participate in this discussion are asked to form an opinion with an open mind, and to explain their decision clearly. Any editor who disrupts this discussion may be banned from the affected pages by any uninvolved administrator, under the discretionary sanctions authorised in this decision. The decision reached in this discussion will be appended to this case within two months from the close of the case.
- Ludwigs2 is prohibited from contributing to any discussion concerning Muhammad.
- Ludwigs2 is banned from the English Misplaced Pages for one year.
- Tarc is admonished to behave with appropriate professionalism in his contributions to discussions about disputed article content.
- FormerIP is admonished to behave with appropriate professionalism in his contributions to discussions about disputed article content.
- Hans Adler is reminded to engage in discussions about disputed article content with an appropriate degree of civility.
- Standard discretionary sanctions are authorised for all pages relating to Muhammad, broadly interpreted.
- The participants in the dispute about depictions of Muhammad are reminded that editors who engage extensively in an intractable dispute can become frustrated, and that it is important to be aware that as editors we are limited in our ability to contribute constructively to a deadlocked disagreement. Our exasperation with a dispute can make us unprofessional or unreceptive to compromise. We therefore encourage the disputants of this case to consider if their participation in the coming community discussion of depictions of Muhammad would be useful, and we remind them that if they disrupt the community discussion they may be banned from the discussion or otherwise sanctioned under the discretionary sanctions provision of this case.
Mlpearc (powwow) 16:11, 6 February 2012 (UTC)
For the Arbitration Committee
Categories: