User talk:Dreadstar/UTDEHA3: Difference between revisions

< User talk:Dreadstar Browse history interactively ← Previous edit Next edit →Content deleted Content addedVisual WikitextInline

Revision as of 03:15, 9 March 2011 editOcaasi (talk \| contribs)Administrators37,090 editsm →Unblock: fix sig← Previous edit		Revision as of 03:16, 9 March 2011 edit undoDreadstar (talk \| contribs)53,180 edits →Unblock: bad blockNext edit →
Line 20:		Line 20:

	Hi, I generally support Ludwigs' view and have also disagreed with QG. Just wanted to make sure you saw that although Ludwigs used a regular unblock template, that the initial block was done under ArbCom sanctions, and carried this: "Notice to administrators: In a March 2010 decision, the Committee held that "Administrators are prohibited from reversing or overturning (explicitly or in substance) any action taken by another administrator pursuant to the terms of an active arbitration remedy, and explicitly noted as being taken to enforce said remedy, except: (a) with the written authorization of the Committee, or (b) following a clear, substantial, and active consensus of uninvolved editors at a community discussion noticeboard (such as WP:AN or WP:ANI). If consensus in such discussions is hard to judge or unclear, the parties should submit a request for clarification on the proper page. Any administrator that overturns an enforcement action outside of these circumstances shall be subject to appropriate sanctions, up to and including desysopping, at the discretion of the Committee.". I'd like to see the block lifted as well, but not if it means you put yourself into the mess. ] (]) 03:15, 9 March 2011 (UTC)		Hi, I generally support Ludwigs' view and have also disagreed with QG. Just wanted to make sure you saw that although Ludwigs used a regular unblock template, that the initial block was done under ArbCom sanctions, and carried this: "Notice to administrators: In a March 2010 decision, the Committee held that "Administrators are prohibited from reversing or overturning (explicitly or in substance) any action taken by another administrator pursuant to the terms of an active arbitration remedy, and explicitly noted as being taken to enforce said remedy, except: (a) with the written authorization of the Committee, or (b) following a clear, substantial, and active consensus of uninvolved editors at a community discussion noticeboard (such as WP:AN or WP:ANI). If consensus in such discussions is hard to judge or unclear, the parties should submit a request for clarification on the proper page. Any administrator that overturns an enforcement action outside of these circumstances shall be subject to appropriate sanctions, up to and including desysopping, at the discretion of the Committee.". I'd like to see the block lifted as well, but not if it means you put yourself into the mess. ] (]) 03:15, 9 March 2011 (UTC)
			:It was a very bad block and in my opinion did not properly fall under the ArbCom findings. If this goes to ArbCom, so be it. ] <small>]</small> 03:16, 9 March 2011 (UTC)

Revision as of 03:16, 9 March 2011

This user is busy in real life and may not respond swiftly to queries.

Welcome!

Archives and sandboxes

In recognition of your efforts on Misplaced Pages and for dedication to law oriented edits, I, Cdogsimmons, award you the **Society Barnstar**.

Defender

		The Mighty Defender of the Wiki Barnstar
		In recognition & thanks for your efforts in helping us work our way towards consensus towards making Battle of Washita River a good WP:NPOV (instead of WP:SOAP) article. Still a lotta work to do, but now we can do it, in no small part because of your help. Yksin

Award!

		The Vandal Eliminator Award
		* I, Stormtracker94, award you the Vandal Eliminator Award for amazing vandal fighting and RC Patrol. STORMTRACKER 94

RL Barnstar

		The Real Life Barnstar
		- For reporting a situation that could have resulted in a real life massacre I present you this barnstar. Initiative in dealing with situations like this is essential, and for all we know you may have saved lives the moment you posted that. Good work! Thank you. +Hexagon1

Initiative in dealing with situations like this is essential, and for all we know you may have saved lives the moment you posted that. Good work! +Hexagon1

Just be glad you're on the good side, every time I get involved in situations like that, I seem to be the one getting arrested... (kidding, please don't report me Mr. Thoughtpolice-man! :) +Hexagon1

Holy wow. Good job, Dreadstar. --Fang Aili

New comments below this section

Thanks! Dreadstar †

Barnstar

		The Barnstar of Integrity
		Whereas, Dreadstar has shown himself to be a member of the community distinguished for his devotion to the Misplaced Pages project; Therefore be it resolved, that this Barnstar of Integrity is affixed to his wall. Will Beback talk 11:21, 2 March 2011 (UTC)

Wow, thanks Will, this really means a lot! Dreadstar ☥ 03:15, 6 March 2011 (UTC)

Unblock

Hi, I generally support Ludwigs' view and have also disagreed with QG. Just wanted to make sure you saw that although Ludwigs used a regular unblock template, that the initial block was done under ArbCom sanctions, and carried this: "Notice to administrators: In a March 2010 decision, the Committee held that "Administrators are prohibited from reversing or overturning (explicitly or in substance) any action taken by another administrator pursuant to the terms of an active arbitration remedy, and explicitly noted as being taken to enforce said remedy, except: (a) with the written authorization of the Committee, or (b) following a clear, substantial, and active consensus of uninvolved editors at a community discussion noticeboard (such as WP:AN or WP:ANI). If consensus in such discussions is hard to judge or unclear, the parties should submit a request for clarification on the proper page. Any administrator that overturns an enforcement action outside of these circumstances shall be subject to appropriate sanctions, up to and including desysopping, at the discretion of the Committee.". I'd like to see the block lifted as well, but not if it means you put yourself into the mess. Ocaasi (talk) 03:15, 9 March 2011 (UTC)

It was a very bad block and in my opinion did not properly fall under the ArbCom findings. If this goes to ArbCom, so be it. Dreadstar ☥ 03:16, 9 March 2011 (UTC)