This is an old revision of this page, as edited by DangerousPanda (talk | contribs) at 15:29, 11 October 2014 (→The saga of arbitration enforcement: cmt). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.
Revision as of 15:29, 11 October 2014 by DangerousPanda (talk | contribs) (→The saga of arbitration enforcement: cmt)(diff) ← Previous revision | Latest revision (diff) | Newer revision → (diff)Use this page to discuss information on the page (and subpages) attached to this one. This includes limited discussion of the Arbitration Committee itself, as a body. Some things belong on other pages:
| Shortcuts |
 | This Arbitration Committee has been mentioned by a media organization:
|
| Misplaced Pages Arbitration |
|---|
 |
| Open proceedings |
| Active sanctions |
| Arbitration Committee |
Audit
|
| Track related changes |
2014 Arbitration Committee Electoral Commission
The RfC to appoint 3 individuals to the 2014 Arbitration Committee Electoral Commission has begun. Nominations will be accepted through October 17 23:59 (UTC). Following the nomination period, comments will be welcomed to discuss the suitability of the candidates.
Best regards, Mike V • Talk 04:00, 10 October 2014 (UTC)
- I thought Arbcom elections were meant to be managed entirely by the community. What is this notice doing here? Tony (talk) 09:54, 11 October 2014 (UTC)
The saga of arbitration enforcement
How is it that an administrator can make a demonstrably poor block at WP:AE and disappear, forcing the 'defendant' to wade through an overly bureaucratic appeals process? (Dangerous Panda has not responded to an email sent by Lecen) Relevant links:
- User talk:Lecen
- Special:Contributions/DangerousPanda/Special:Contributions/EatsShootsAndLeaves (note: this administrator was formerly known as Bwilkins and has a checkered history with blocking editors)
- Misplaced Pages:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement#Lecen: upon expanding this, you'll note that Dangerous Panda blocked Lecen for comments he made in error (they were on wrong page; he was, I assume, planning to go to WP:ARCA instead). Lecen removed them as soon as he realized the mistake, hours before Dangerous Panda implemented the block. This was a punitive block, and we don't hand those out for very good reasons. Ed 09:40, 11 October 2014 (UTC)
- I hadn't looked at that thread since Sandstein suggested the block, and I'm not a fan of Lecen's attitude—I think he over-personalises things and needlessly inflames situations, which I suspect is how he ended up subject to an arbitration remedy in the first place—but having just had a look, I agree this was a poor block. The block came roughly 27 hours after Lecen removed the comment that was ostensibly the reason for it. Unfortunately, no other administrator can overturn the block without losing their bit. I recommend Lecen appeal to ArbCom if discussion with the blocking admin hasn't made any progress, though accusing DP of a "block and run" seems unfair, given that he did respond to you on Lecen's talk page and Lecen hasn't appealed on-wiki. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 12:27, 11 October 2014 (UTC)
- Nice job, poisoning the well... "checkered history with blocking editors"? I'd say "fuck you, that's inappropriate", but I think that goes without saying ... and someone might suggest I was being uncivil. The ed's done more harm than good in this situation - I'm in communication with Lecen, and I'm sure something could be worked out if The ed shuts the fuck up, or at least tones down the disgusting rhetoric the panda ₯’ 15:29, 11 October 2014 (UTC)