| Revision as of 17:49, 3 July 2010 editDoug Weller (talk | contribs)Edit filter managers, Autopatrolled, Oversighters, Administrators264,210 edits →Arbitration motion regarding Misplaced Pages:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Tothwolf: motion pass 19:26 UTC 2 July 2010← Previous edit | Revision as of 18:16, 3 July 2010 edit undoNcmvocalist (talk | contribs)Autopatrolled, Extended confirmed users, Pending changes reviewers, Rollbackers27,127 edits →Arbitration motion regarding Misplaced Pages:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Tothwolf: yep, correct call was madeNext edit → | ||
| Line 23: | Line 23: | ||
| ::No, 15:25, 27 June 2010 (UTC), and was made 15:50, 25 June 2010 (UTC). — <font size="4">] ]</font> 17:24, 3 July 2010 (UTC) | ::No, 15:25, 27 June 2010 (UTC), and was made 15:50, 25 June 2010 (UTC). — <font size="4">] ]</font> 17:24, 3 July 2010 (UTC) | ||
| :::That was the date the case was closed. "Case modified by motion on 19:26, 2 July 2010 (UTC)", which is at the top of the page, and at the bottom, " The six months starts from the day this motion passes. | :::That was the date the case was closed. "Case modified by motion on 19:26, 2 July 2010 (UTC)", which is at the top of the page, and at the bottom, " The six months starts from the day this motion passes. Passed 7-0 at 19:26, 2 July 2010 (UTC)". ] (]) 17:49, 3 July 2010 (UTC) | ||
| ::::Indeed; the logic is based on long-standing practice in relation to arbitration motions, let alone community enforcement. ] (]) 18:16, 3 July 2010 (UTC) | |||
| Passed 7-0 at 19:26, 2 July 2010 (UTC)". ] (]) 17:49, 3 July 2010 (UTC) | |||
| == Arbitration Motion regarding ] == | == Arbitration Motion regarding ] == | ||
Revision as of 18:16, 3 July 2010
Shortcuts
|
 Archives |
|
Index 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10 |
|
This page has archives. Sections older than 4 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III. |
Arbitration motion regarding Pseudoscience
Arbitration motion regarding Misplaced Pages:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Tothwolf
Hi. My first attempt at enforcement was "Closed as not actionable" in this edit. I disagree with the logic in both of the posts in section "Result concerning JBsupreme" (and the consequent summary closure), as the motion itself unambiguously specifies "The six months starts from the day this motion passes." I would like clarification, as well as further examination of the Edit Summaries used by JBsupreme since the day the motion passed. Thank you. — Jeff G. ツ 05:01, 3 July 2010 (UTC)
- The motion passed on 2 July 2010; the last edit that JBSupreme made was 1 July 2010. Therefore, the enforcement request was closed correctly - it is not actionable as the restriction was not in force at the time of the alleged violation. Note also, what constitutes a violation will be something that is at the discretion of enforcing administrators. Ncmvocalist (talk) 09:12, 3 July 2010 (UTC)
- No, "The motion passes 15:25, 27 June 2010 (UTC), and the last vote needed for passage was made 15:50, 25 June 2010 (UTC). — Jeff G. ツ 17:24, 3 July 2010 (UTC)
- That was the date the case was closed. "Case modified by motion on 19:26, 2 July 2010 (UTC)", which is at the top of the page, and at the bottom, " The six months starts from the day this motion passes. Passed 7-0 at 19:26, 2 July 2010 (UTC)". Dougweller (talk) 17:49, 3 July 2010 (UTC)
- Indeed; the logic is based on long-standing practice in relation to arbitration motions, let alone community enforcement. Ncmvocalist (talk) 18:16, 3 July 2010 (UTC)
- That was the date the case was closed. "Case modified by motion on 19:26, 2 July 2010 (UTC)", which is at the top of the page, and at the bottom, " The six months starts from the day this motion passes. Passed 7-0 at 19:26, 2 July 2010 (UTC)". Dougweller (talk) 17:49, 3 July 2010 (UTC)