No edit summary |
No edit summary |
||
Line 33: | Line 33: | ||
::Would you prefer to be banned from the page as the remedy explicitly stipulates? Using a handful of agenda accounts to remove sourced information and bias the article is disruptive, and it's occurred often enough that the Arbitration Committee has provided for streamlined handling. I thought that 1RR/24 hours was more generous. '''[[User:MastCell|MastCell]]''' <sup>[[User Talk:MastCell|Talk]]</sup> 05:40, 29 June 2008 (UTC) |
::Would you prefer to be banned from the page as the remedy explicitly stipulates? Using a handful of agenda accounts to remove sourced information and bias the article is disruptive, and it's occurred often enough that the Arbitration Committee has provided for streamlined handling. I thought that 1RR/24 hours was more generous. '''[[User:MastCell|MastCell]]''' <sup>[[User Talk:MastCell|Talk]]</sup> 05:40, 29 June 2008 (UTC) |
||
Where has the arbirtation committee provided for "streamlined handling"? I don't see it anywhere on the final decisions by the arbitration committee? Regardless, the arbitration committee resolution only allows for a ban "for repeated violations", which I have not done. Banning me now would be an abuse of your power. [[User:Uponleft|Uponleft]] ([[User talk:Uponleft|talk]]) 05:42, 29 June 2008 (UTC) |
Where has the arbirtation committee provided for "streamlined handling"? I don't see it anywhere on the final decisions by the arbitration committee? Regardless, the arbitration committee resolution only allows for a ban "for repeated violations", which I have not done. Banning me now would be an abuse of your power. No useful information was removed from the article. All the information that was removed was synthesis, speculation, and weasel words.[[User:Uponleft|Uponleft]] ([[User talk:Uponleft|talk]]) 05:42, 29 June 2008 (UTC) |
Revision as of 05:48, 29 June 2008
Archive Index |
---|
Semi Protect?
Is this article really semi protected as it seems here? If so, why? I saw no edit warring, no vandalism, etc. Bstone (talk) 17:18, 23 June 2008 (UTC)
Arbitration case and single-purpose accounts
In light of yet another influx of single-purpose agenda accounts, the following single-purpose accounts are subject to restriction (1 revert/24 hours) under the terms of this Arbitration Committee remedy:
- Uponleft (talk · contribs)
- Bluestrawz (talk · contribs)
- Luceey (talk · contribs)
- Staplers (talk · contribs)
- SeroLogic (talk · contribs)
- Colorwave (talk · contribs)
- KnowDrama (talk · contribs)
Logged at the Arbitration Committee page. MastCell Talk 05:31, 29 June 2008 (UTC)
- You are wrong. The arbitration committee never said anything about 1 revert/24 hours. You are just making that up. In addition the remedy only applies to "disruptive edits" none of these edits was disruptive. Thus the remedy does not apply. Uponleft (talk) 05:35, 29 June 2008 (UTC)
- Would you prefer to be banned from the page as the remedy explicitly stipulates? Using a handful of agenda accounts to remove sourced information and bias the article is disruptive, and it's occurred often enough that the Arbitration Committee has provided for streamlined handling. I thought that 1RR/24 hours was more generous. MastCell Talk 05:40, 29 June 2008 (UTC)
Where has the arbirtation committee provided for "streamlined handling"? I don't see it anywhere on the final decisions by the arbitration committee? Regardless, the arbitration committee resolution only allows for a ban "for repeated violations", which I have not done. Banning me now would be an abuse of your power. No useful information was removed from the article. All the information that was removed was synthesis, speculation, and weasel words.Uponleft (talk) 05:42, 29 June 2008 (UTC)