| Revision as of 14:21, 3 July 2008 editLar (talk | contribs)Autopatrolled, Administrators29,172 edits →Why not recused?: nod← Previous edit | Revision as of 18:20, 3 July 2008 edit undoIrpen (talk | contribs)32,604 edits →Why not recused?Next edit → | ||
| (One intermediate revision by the same user not shown) | |||
| Line 16: | Line 16: | ||
| :Though Giano was named as a party on the initial request for arbitration, this case really has little to do with Giano. At this point I don't envisage a decision making any findings with respect to Giano; the focus is on the administrative actions. --] (]) 14:01, 3 July 2008 (UTC) | :Though Giano was named as a party on the initial request for arbitration, this case really has little to do with Giano. At this point I don't envisage a decision making any findings with respect to Giano; the focus is on the administrative actions. --] (]) 14:01, 3 July 2008 (UTC) | ||
| ::Nod, but see above. I hope ArbCom chooses to modify the restriction, either via the IRC case motion, or via a new one here. Other than that, absolutely agree. ++]: ]/] 14:21, 3 July 2008 (UTC) | ::Nod, but see above. I hope ArbCom chooses to modify the restriction, either via the IRC case motion, or via a new one here. Other than that, absolutely agree. ++]: ]/] 14:21, 3 July 2008 (UTC) | ||
| :::This "case" without a finding and a remedy that would not include Giano would be a major surprise to me. Not that surprises are rare, but all surprises I have got from this arbcom were bad surprises despite I long since lost my pink glasses. --] 18:18, 3 July 2008 (UTC) | |||
Revision as of 18:20, 3 July 2008
Arbitrators active on this case
- To update this listing, edit this template and scroll down until you find the right list of arbitrators. If updates to this listing do not immediately show, try purging the cache.
Injunction
Goodness me, that injunction would be a mad idea, as it would give free uncivility reign to Giano II if none of the 15 Arbs were online. Stifle (talk) 08:57, 3 July 2008 (UTC)
- Alternatively, the committee of admins idea that got 3 votes could be adopted as a temporary injunction but no, I don't think it would give free reign to Giano. Periods when they are not online are short and it would go harder for Giano if he was warned not to repeat because "we were going to tell". ArbCom members could publicly delegate their authority as well. So I see this as a workable measure. ++Lar: t/c 12:09, 3 July 2008 (UTC)
Why not recused?
I'm amazed to see FT2 is still acting as an active arbitrator on this case. While I have my doubts about the legitimacy of Arbcom as a whole at this hour, and the question whether FT2 should remain part of it is obviously unresolved, I would have thought it a no-brainer that he ought to at least recuse himself from this case. Come on guys, everybody can see that this case is a direct spin-off of the FT2/OrangeMarlin/Arbcom mess. Giano was blocked for negative remarks in a discussion of FT2, on FT2's talkpage. That's what triggered the whole thing. I mean, seriously, how more blatantly involved can you get? Fut.Perf. ☼ 11:27, 3 July 2008 (UTC)
- This case isn't about Giano... Viridae 11:31, 3 July 2008 (UTC)
- I can't tell if you are speaking in jest or not. Please tell me you are; my irony meter must be out of order. Fut.Perf. ☼ 11:33, 3 July 2008 (UTC)
- It might have resulted from events around Giano, but is in no way related to his behaviour. Instead (at least as far as the request went) was about the behaviour of those named in the case title. Viridae 11:35, 3 July 2008 (UTC)
- Giano's only need to even be in this case would be to vacate or modify the IRC ruling, which could be done there as well as here. So could the temporary injunction. ++Lar: t/c 12:09, 3 July 2008 (UTC)
- It might have resulted from events around Giano, but is in no way related to his behaviour. Instead (at least as far as the request went) was about the behaviour of those named in the case title. Viridae 11:35, 3 July 2008 (UTC)
- I can't tell if you are speaking in jest or not. Please tell me you are; my irony meter must be out of order. Fut.Perf. ☼ 11:33, 3 July 2008 (UTC)
- Though Giano was named as a party on the initial request for arbitration, this case really has little to do with Giano. At this point I don't envisage a decision making any findings with respect to Giano; the focus is on the administrative actions. --bainer (talk) 14:01, 3 July 2008 (UTC)
- Nod, but see above. I hope ArbCom chooses to modify the restriction, either via the IRC case motion, or via a new one here. Other than that, absolutely agree. ++Lar: t/c 14:21, 3 July 2008 (UTC)
- This "case" without a finding and a remedy that would not include Giano would be a major surprise to me. Not that surprises are rare, but all surprises I have got from this arbcom were bad surprises despite I long since lost my pink glasses. --Irpen 18:18, 3 July 2008 (UTC)