This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Hans Adler (talk | contribs) at 14:16, 6 February 2012 (→Totally inappropriate ban: new section). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.
Revision as of 14:16, 6 February 2012 by Hans Adler (talk | contribs) (→Totally inappropriate ban: new section)(diff) ← Previous revision | Latest revision (diff) | Newer revision → (diff)
|
 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)
Categories: