| Revision as of 07:03, 4 March 2014 editJohn (talk | contribs)Extended confirmed users, Rollbackers215,640 edits →Interaction ban: fmt← Previous edit | Revision as of 23:46, 4 March 2014 edit undoCallanecc (talk | contribs)Edit filter managers, Checkusers, Oversighters, Administrators73,488 edits →Interaction ban: ClarifyNext edit → | ||
| Line 16: | Line 16: | ||
| Hi Pete, and thanks for your contributions at the Australia sports naming debate. As has been pointed out by ], your interaction ban as discussed ] prevents you from taking part in the discussion. I will take no action for your participation thus far (though another admin may, if they feel you have knowingly breached your ban), nor will I remove your contributions. But I would ask you not to edit there again, pending a successful appeal or clarification of your ban. This may be made at ]. As you have mentioned, Arbcom would be another possible avenue. I am sorry as it does feel counter-intuitive in a way to restrict a good faith participant from the process, but it's impossible for me to read the topic ban any other way. --] (]) 07:03, 4 March 2014 (UTC) | Hi Pete, and thanks for your contributions at the Australia sports naming debate. As has been pointed out by ], your interaction ban as discussed ] prevents you from taking part in the discussion. I will take no action for your participation thus far (though another admin may, if they feel you have knowingly breached your ban), nor will I remove your contributions. But I would ask you not to edit there again, pending a successful appeal or clarification of your ban. This may be made at ]. As you have mentioned, Arbcom would be another possible avenue. I am sorry as it does feel counter-intuitive in a way to restrict a good faith participant from the process, but it's impossible for me to read the topic ban any other way. --] (]) 07:03, 4 March 2014 (UTC) | ||
| Just clarifying a bit more based the discussion on Drmies's talk page. Another way for me to have said the last sentence in my closure statement would be "that the IBAN extends to any issue which one party is already involved with". As HiLo is already involved in the naming issue you aren't permitted to be involved in it. Hope that clarifies a bit more. <b>]</b> (] • ] • ]) 23:46, 4 March 2014 (UTC) | |||
Revision as of 23:46, 4 March 2014
Sorry Pete
It really shouldn't be like this but I have to mind my Ps & Qs, if you'd like to talk about anything else feel free to visit my talk page some time --Orestes1984 (talk) 09:34, 3 March 2014 (UTC)
Interaction ban
Hi Pete, and thanks for your contributions at the Australia sports naming debate. As has been pointed out by User:Drmies, your interaction ban as discussed here prevents you from taking part in the discussion. I will take no action for your participation thus far (though another admin may, if they feel you have knowingly breached your ban), nor will I remove your contributions. But I would ask you not to edit there again, pending a successful appeal or clarification of your ban. This may be made at WP:AN/I. As you have mentioned, Arbcom would be another possible avenue. I am sorry as it does feel counter-intuitive in a way to restrict a good faith participant from the process, but it's impossible for me to read the topic ban any other way. --John (talk) 07:03, 4 March 2014 (UTC)
Just clarifying a bit more based the discussion on Drmies's talk page. Another way for me to have said the last sentence in my closure statement would be "that the IBAN extends to any issue which one party is already involved with". As HiLo is already involved in the naming issue you aren't permitted to be involved in it. Hope that clarifies a bit more. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 23:46, 4 March 2014 (UTC)