Wikipedia talk:Administrative probation
- yes a human readerble version is definetly required.Geni 03:15, 2 November 2005 (UTC)
- ...if any version were required, which it is not. Wbfl 03:23, 2 November 2005 (UTC)
This guy Harro5 is abusing his admin power, he deletes many good articles in wikipedia, just take a look at his talk page you will see how many contributors are complaining about this admin deleting their legit good articles for stupid reasons, he deleted my article about my clan that I lead for the last 6 years, clan CHAOS, I planned to revisit that article and add more with time but I cannot do that if this admin keeps deleting my article! He also blocked my account! —The preceding unsigned comment was added by PeteRoy (talk • contribs) 00:08, 6 June 2006 (UTC).
stop this train wreck please
the "community" sent the arbcom back to de-admin the subject of the RfA and remove itself from the mire it created through lack of gumption and sense. so the reaction is to... create more mire? this attempt at policy-on-the-run isn't even good legalese. what is the impetus for this obfuscation other than to make it appear as though a neutered arbcom is creating value somewhere along the line? this travesty should be immediately deleted by its author, and the directionless arbcom should follow through with following the orders of the "community", since it can't do anything better. it's obvious to everybody what happened; face-saving maneuvers aren't fooling anybody (at least not anybody on the observation end). does the phrase "cut your losses" mean nothing to the arbcom? Wbfl 23:19, 31 October 2005 (UTC)
- No one is "face saving" here. Fred is simply proposing alternative solutions for us to consider. The orders of of the community are pretty clearly "The AC should deal with it" Which is what we are all doing. Theresa Knott (a tenth stroke) 06:23, 1 November 2005 (UTC)
- obviously incorrect. the message from the renom was that the arbcom should have dealt with it. important difference there. if clarity of the "orders of the community" is significant to the arbcom (which essentially now admits that it's subordinate, while pretending it's not), the opinion was clearly that the arbcom should have removed the subject of the RfA from the admin group. what the arbcom is doing now is ignoring that clarity, and pretending that creative "solutions" (AKA muck) were requested. they were not. "the community" consensus is that it's a joke that the arbcom persisted in doing everything but de-admin'ing the subject of the RfA. the arbcom is simply posing, wasting time, stirring up noise, and trying to disguise the overt truth that the arbcom is an inept jackass being led around by the nose as nimbly as its stubbornness will allow. Wbfl 14:05, 1 November 2005 (UTC)
"Attempt at clarification"
- I've removed it. WBFL using a seperate account to make attacks is not a "legal" use of a sockpuppet. If you continue to abuse this sock in this way I will delete everything you have ever written using it. If you have something to say, say it, others please be quiet. Theresa Knott (a tenth stroke) 14:43, 2 November 2005 (UTC)
- Please note that I did remove the concept of PF, as under the previous guideline, there was no mechanism for determining if a specific case was a PF case - in fact, all accepted cases were defined as PF. Hipocrite - «Talk» 14:00, 4 November 2005 (UTC)
- Ok, sorry about that. For reference, as a professional in the field of translating legal -> buisness, this is how the policy reads to me .
- Redundancy is useful for understanding Fred Bauder 14:20, 4 November 2005 (UTC)