This is an old revision of this page, as edited by FloNight (talk | contribs) at 00:59, 9 October 2008 ("Every blade in the field, Every leaf in the forest, Lays down its life in its season, As beautifully as it was taken up."). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.
Revision as of 00:59, 9 October 2008 by FloNight (talk | contribs) ("Every blade in the field, Every leaf in the forest, Lays down its life in its season, As beautifully as it was taken up.")(diff) ← Previous revision | Latest revision (diff) | Newer revision → (diff)
| This is FloNight's talk page, where you can send her messages and comments. |
|
| Welcome to my talk page. Please sign and date your entries by inserting ~~~~ at the end. Start a new talk topic. |
Every leaf in the forest,
Lays down its life in its season,
As beautifully as it was taken up."
Henry David Thoreau
Good Faith
Flonight
I'm not sure it's within the realm of regular decorum to comment to you about how you vote regarding my trial, but I'll risk it.
Assume good faith is not conclude good faith - certainly you shouldn't need to assume anything regarding the conduct of myself or my three compadres in crime; you should be able to discern from the evidence whether we were acting in good faith or not.
That said, there's certainly a number of rumours milling about that some or all of us weren't. I have personally be able to track them down, but I aware of a belief that some or all of us were motivated by partisan feelings. It might be nice to some or all of us to be able to say "ArbCom look'd it over, and I'm not a partisan hack, even if I may be a moron."
Brian WilyD 16:37, 6 October 2008 (UTC)
- You're not a moron. :-) I prefer to stay silent about that in the ruling, though, the same as I prefer to stay silent about assuming good faith in the ruling. By not stating it, it does not mean that it is true or not true. I feel that saying it waters down the ruling. My comments and concerns are directed at the named admins in the proposed ruling. I want to make sure that the named admins in the ruling do not think that good intent can be an used as an excuse in the future. FloNight♥♥♥ 17:01, 6 October 2008 (UTC)
- Well, fair enough. I'm not a particular fan of the back-patting ArbCom findings, for what it's worth. Your note threw me a bit, since "Good faith" is such a loaded term, I guess. WilyD 18:19, 6 October 2008 (UTC)
SteveCrossin
Admins, and especially arbs, are expected to be accountable for their actions, and discuss them when concerns are raised. -- Ned Scott 22:53, 6 October 2008 (UTC)
- When has there been any dissent of the decision to block Steve? I think it's well accepted that it was a fair move to ban him for six months Ned. There have been few complaints of the decision and I people realise it was for the best all round, including Steve. Ryan Postlethwaite 22:57, 6 October 2008 (UTC)
- Originally, yes, but then Steve came back and asked for a block review. FloNight used the block review request as a rationale to reset the six month block. Steve suffers from panic attacks, and is quick to ask that discussions be closed, out of fear of said discussions making things worse. There have been several users in good standing that have strong objections to the blocking, and no discussion on the matter has been open for a significant amount of time, so it's far from being well accepted. The community is asking to handle this situation, and we're being denied. No request for arbitration, no public vote between arbs, no disclosure of any kind. -- Ned Scott 23:24, 6 October 2008 (UTC)