Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Motions: Difference between revisions
Content deleted Content added
→Brews ohare advocacy restrictions: one step forward and three steps back |
m →Brews ohare advocacy restrictions: one step forward and three steps back |
||
| Line 30: | Line 30: | ||
;Oppose |
;Oppose |
||
# I find this motion to be very funny, this is passed around as a way to help Brews. If there wasn't Tombe, myself or the other supporters there would be no motion to end sanctions on Brews, by this time he would have ben site banned. I do appplaud the fact that there is movement to progress, I ask myself though at what cost? Arbcom is starting to rectify a error that should never happen so they modify policy, they then promptly desysop the admin who unblocks brews. Next after a request for a review by Jimbo, they say ok we are willing to back down a bit but we will be silencing the opposition with a proposal that not cools down the situation where there was one loud sets of voices there will be 4 for this travesty. How is this rectifying the situation? Do you believe us to be any quieter over our own treatment then we were over brews? C'mon folks you're taking one step forward and two back with this motion. |
# I find this motion to be very funny, this is passed around as a way to help Brews. If there wasn't Tombe, myself or the other supporters there would be no motion to end sanctions on Brews, by this time he would have ben site banned. I do appplaud the fact that there is movement to progress, I ask myself though at what cost? Arbcom is starting to rectify a error that should never happen so they modify policy, they then promptly desysop the admin who unblocks brews. Next after a request for a review by Jimbo, they say ok we are willing to back down a bit but we will be silencing the opposition with a proposal that not cools down the situation where there was one loud sets of voices there will be 4 for this travesty. How is this rectifying the situation? Do you believe us to be any quieter over our own treatment then we were over brews? C'mon folks you're taking one step forward and two back with this motion. [[User:Hell in a Bucket|Hell In A Bucket]] ([[User talk:Hell in a Bucket|talk]]) 01:25, 24 March 2010 (UTC) |
||
;Abstain |
;Abstain |
||
Revision as of 01:25, 24 March 2010
Arbitration Committee proceedings
- recent changes
- purge this page
- view or discuss this template
Currently, there are no requests for arbitration.
[edit]
Open cases
[edit]
Recently closed cases (Past cases)
No cases have recently been closed (view all closed cases).
| Request name | Motions | Case | Posted |
|---|---|---|---|
| Amendment request: Definition of the "area of conflict" Clause 4 (b) | Motion | none | 26 July 2024 |
| Amendment request: Palestine-Israel articles (AE referral) | none | none | 17 August 2024 |
| Motion name | Date posted |
|---|---|
| [[Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Motions#Motions regarding Speed of Light and Brews ohare|Motions regarding Speed of Light and Brews ohare]] | 23 March 2010 |
Motions
 | This page can be used by arbitrators to propose motions not related to any existing case or request. Motions are archived at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Index/Motions. Only arbitrators may propose or vote on motions on this page. You may visit WP:ARC or WP:ARCA for potential alternatives. You can make comments in the sections called "community discussion" or in some cases only in your own section. Arbitrators or clerks may summarily remove or refactor any comment. |
Motions regarding Speed of Light and Brews ohare
1) Brews ohare's topic ban, is modified to expire in 90 days from the date that this motion passes. The supplementary restrictions of Brews ohare (namely, restrictions from posting on physics related disputes or the Wikipedia/Wikipedia talk namespaces) will also expire 90 days from the date that this motion passes. Brews ohare is instructed that continued violations of his existing restrictions will lead to the 90 day timer being reset in additional to any discretionary enforcement action taken.
- Support
- I was hoping that this wasn't going to be necessary. Brews ohare seemed to finally understand the situation he was in when he initially replied to the "Moving Forward" suggestion during his appeal at WP:AN. However, subsequent comments unfortunately went down the same old track (continued Wikilawyering and disruption in this area). We are offering the carrot/stick approach here. If he can abide by his restrictions without further disruption, then it will be resolved in 90 days (although I would caution it not be taken as further license to be disruptive at that time!). If he cannot abide by the restrictions, then it will be indefinite (along with any further blocks he receives for his actions in this area). SirFozzie (talk) 23:53, 23 March 2010 (UTC)
- Reluctantly as I'm sure stronger measures will be needed later. — Rlevse • Talk • 23:57, 23 March 2010 (UTC)
- Oppose
- Abstain
Brews ohare advocacy restrictions
1) User:Count Iblis, User:David Tombe, User:Likebox, and User:Hell in a Bucket are indefinitely restricted from advocacy for or commenting on User:Brews ohare, broadly construed. Should one of these editors violate this restriction, they can be blocked for up to 24 hours by any uninvolved administrator. After five blocks, the maximum length rises to one week.
- Support
- I have to say, that the actions of the above named editors in consistently and continually attempting to re-litigate the Speed of Light ArbCom case and Brews ohare's restrictions has made this area a WP:BATTLEGROUND and has indeed been counterproductive for Brews ohare. They feed into his desire to fight this issue again and again and again ad nauseum. While I understand they consider themselves to have nothing but the best motives for this fight, I think it's time we asked them to stop being counterproductive for Brews ohare's sake. SirFozzie (talk) 23:53, 23 March 2010 (UTC)
- Reluctantly as I'm sure stronger measures will be needed later. — Rlevse • Talk • 23:57, 23 March 2010 (UTC)
- Steve Smith (talk) 00:00, 24 March 2010 (UTC)
- Oppose
- I find this motion to be very funny, this is passed around as a way to help Brews. If there wasn't Tombe, myself or the other supporters there would be no motion to end sanctions on Brews, by this time he would have ben site banned. I do appplaud the fact that there is movement to progress, I ask myself though at what cost? Arbcom is starting to rectify a error that should never happen so they modify policy, they then promptly desysop the admin who unblocks brews. Next after a request for a review by Jimbo, they say ok we are willing to back down a bit but we will be silencing the opposition with a proposal that not cools down the situation where there was one loud sets of voices there will be 4 for this travesty. How is this rectifying the situation? Do you believe us to be any quieter over our own treatment then we were over brews? C'mon folks you're taking one step forward and two back with this motion. Hell In A Bucket (talk) 01:25, 24 March 2010 (UTC)
- Abstain