Revision as of 19:39, 21 February 2010

What this page is for:: This page is for discussion of formal announcements by the Committee, including clarification of the specifics of notices.
What this page is not for:: To request arbitration, see Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests. For information on the Committee, see Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee. To report a violation of a Committee decision, see Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement.

Archives

1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10
11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20
21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30
31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37, 38, 39, 40
41, 42, 43, 44, 45, 46, 47, 48, 49, 50
51

This page has archives. Sections older than 4 days may be automatically archived by .

Discussion of agenda

Agenda (please use a header for each new discussion section here)

Discussion of announcements

Appeal to BASC: Offliner

Announcement

I trust that Offliner's block and appeal had nothing to do with off-Wiki activities against my person and others as the result of the EEML case on WP. All I have to say on the topic. PЄTЄRS VЄСRUМВА ►talk 00:17, 11 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Do bans include activity as an anonymous IP, as here? I personally believe these are one and the same editor but have no appetite for filing checkuser and formal enforcement requests. PЄTЄRS VЄСRUМВА ►talk 22:59, 13 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I just noticed this ban. I'd be interested to know why the original ban was enacted the way it was: no public announcement, neither on his talk page nor on this noticeboard; talk page immediately full-protected; no indication of the reasons for the ban; no indication of what process had preceded or on the basis of what evidence. Of course, I trust this would all have been communicated with him in private, but I do think some transparency to the community would be required too: What were the charges? Did he do something that is no longer visible or not immediately obvious in his editing history? If not, which of his contributions were deemed so seriously unacceptable?

I'm a bit concerned that Arbcom seems to have taken a habit of making such in camera ban decisions without even a minimum of transparency of late. Fut.Perf. ☼ 13:05, 20 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Offliner's block log clearly states: "Consult ArbCom privately for any discussion of this block", did you some how miss that? Public discussion of privacy cases is inappropriate as it brings further distress to the victim and provides oxygen to the perpetrator. --Martin (talk) 19:39, 21 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Arbitration motion regarding Eastern European mailing list (3)

Announcement

The diff on the second part of it, at least according to my popups, points to an earlier motion on the same case regarding Piotrus, rather than the actual passed motion here. —Jeremy ^{(v^_^v Boribori!)} 20:48, 13 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You didn't scroll down far enough. Better yet, click on it. Dougweller (talk) 21:39, 13 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Appeal to BASC: WVBluefield

Announcement

Resignation of Fritzpoll

Announcement

Well that sucks. --Conti|✉ 23:20, 18 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

That is exactly what I said. KnightLago (talk) 23:31, 18 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for all your volunteer work on Wikipedia. Best wishes for you in your new endeavors. FloNight ♥♥♥♥ 23:37, 18 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The reason for this resignation is not announced. This is too early resignation~~looks irresponsible.~~refactored per the angry responses, but which still puzzles me greatly. 01:31, 19 February 2010 (UTC)--Caspian blue 23:45, 18 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not even going to dignify that comment with a response. Happy‑melon 00:20, 19 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Precisely, per HM. — Rlevse • Talk • 00:22, 19 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed. SirFozzie (talk) 00:24, 19 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

C'mon, I voted for him. However, this announcement for the sudden resignation without "any reason" is disappointing. He only has served for ArbCom for one and half month.--Caspian blue 00:31, 19 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

May I gently suggest that claiming people are irresponsible with zero knowledge, is best avoided. You have no idea really. Suppose he had someone seriously sick or in difficulty in the family and didn't wish to be public about it, or a major change of work or study. Suppose the workload is greater than non-Arbs know (which it is). I am sure he too is sad and reflected deeply on the decision. You rate him, you trust him, you don't know anything to the contrary, consider assuming it's a responsible decision and offering support. FT2 ^{(Talk | email)} 01:23, 19 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Agree that this is extremely discouraging and comes at a bad time. I am speaking for myself and for what I see is happening on Wikipedia. Purely a personal sense of futility and disappointment. —mattisse (Talk) 01:28, 19 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Aye, you'll be missed. MBisanz ^talk 02:01, 19 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
This really does suck :( Sorry to see you go ... - Alison ^❤ 02:59, 19 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Enjoy life outside the madhouse! Take it slowly if your head spins. billinghurst sDrewth 12:17, 20 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Ban Appeal Subcommittee membership

Announcement

@@ Line 23: / Line 23: @@
 :I just noticed this ban. I'd be interested to know why the original ban was enacted the way it was: no public announcement, neither on his talk page nor on this noticeboard; talk page immediately full-protected; no indication of the reasons for the ban; no indication of what process had preceded or on the basis of what evidence. Of course, I trust this would all have been communicated with him in private, but I do think some transparency to the community would be required too: What were the charges? Did he do something that is no longer visible or not immediately obvious in his editing history? If not, which of his contributions were deemed so seriously unacceptable?
 : I'm a bit concerned that Arbcom seems to have taken a habit of making such ''in camera'' ban decisions without even a minimum of transparency of late. [[User:Future Perfect at Sunrise|Fut.Perf.]] [[User talk:Future Perfect at Sunrise|☼]] 13:05, 20 February 2010 (UTC)
+::Offliner's block log clearly states: ''"Consult ArbCom privately for any discussion of this block"'', did you some how miss that? Public discussion of privacy cases is inappropriate as it brings further distress to the victim and provides oxygen to the perpetrator. --[[User:Martintg|Martin]] ([[User talk:Martintg|talk]]) 19:39, 21 February 2010 (UTC)
 == Arbitration motion regarding Eastern European mailing list (3) ==