Alright. If you are available, please take a look at the recent ArbCom case and have your word. [1] I am not, first and foremost, opposing my own sanctions, although I believe they are unfair and unwarranted; I have not edit warred or engaged in disruptive behaviour. But relatively lighter sanctions were imposed on PCPP, although his problematic edits have been persistent and frequent. I have sent you e-mail that I'd like you to review. ✔ Olaf Stephanos ✍ 21:52, 30 October 2011 (UTC)
- I have left a comment and an offer on the ArbCom page. I have seen your email - but, to be honest, I have not read through the diffs. I am not a disciplinary admin, I see myself as a dispute resolution and a content creation admin. As such I am less concerned by past behaviour than I am about future behaviour. What I like to do is see articles improve, and to help editors to improve articles. If someone has pissed on the floor, I am more concerned that they clean it up, than that they are locked outside for ten minutes. Of course, if after I have got a mop and helped clean up, they deliberately piss again, then I have no qualms about locking them outside indefinitely. SilkTork ✔Tea time 23:31, 30 October 2011 (UTC)
- I support your offer and wish it all the best. However, I'd like to see it extended to all highly involved editors with a history of "pro-FLG" or "anti-FLG" edits—many of whom commented on the AE thread—not only those who were disproportionately singled out by T. Canens. ✔ Olaf Stephanos ✍ 00:05, 31 October 2011 (UTC)
|
Whack! You've been whacked with a wet trout. Don't take this too seriously. Someone just wants to let you know that you did something silly. |
Here it is, belatedly. Have a nice life! -- Ohconfucius ¡digame! 01:45, 3 November 2011 (UTC)
Under the authority of WP:ARBFLG#Discretionary sanctions, and for the reasons stated in this AE thread, you are banned from all articles, discussions, and other content related to Falun Gong, broadly construed across all namespaces, for a minimum of one year. After one year, and every six months thereafter, you may apply to have this sanction reviewed at AE. You may also appeal this sanction to AE once within the next year, and may appeal to the arbitration committee at any time. The topic ban shall remain in force until it is lifted on appeal. T. Canens ( talk) 16:59, 9 November 2011 (UTC)
- Hi Tim, here's the barnstar you removed from your user talk page.
The Surreal Barnstar I, Olaf Stephanos, award you this surreal barnstar for making Franz Kafka turn over in his grave. ✔ Olaf Stephanos ✍ 08:51, 10 November 2011 (UTC) A file that you uploaded or altered, File:Olaf Stephanos.jpg, has been listed at Wikipedia:Files for deletion. Please see the discussion to see why it has been listed (you may have to search for the title of the image to find its entry). Feel free to add your opinion on the matter below the nomination. Thank you. Kelly hi! 11:37, 15 October 2014 (UTC)
A case ( Falun Gong) in which you were involved has been modified by motion which changed the wording of the discretionary sanctions section to clarify that the scope applies to pages, not just articles. For the arbitration committee -- S Philbrick (Talk) 22:39, 27 October 2014 (UTC)
Hi,
You appear to be eligible to vote in the current Arbitration Committee election. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate, you are welcome to review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. For the Election committee, MediaWiki message delivery ( talk) 13:42, 23 November 2015 (UTC)
Alright. If you are available, please take a look at the recent ArbCom case and have your word. [1] I am not, first and foremost, opposing my own sanctions, although I believe they are unfair and unwarranted; I have not edit warred or engaged in disruptive behaviour. But relatively lighter sanctions were imposed on PCPP, although his problematic edits have been persistent and frequent. I have sent you e-mail that I'd like you to review. ✔ Olaf Stephanos ✍ 21:52, 30 October 2011 (UTC)
- I have left a comment and an offer on the ArbCom page. I have seen your email - but, to be honest, I have not read through the diffs. I am not a disciplinary admin, I see myself as a dispute resolution and a content creation admin. As such I am less concerned by past behaviour than I am about future behaviour. What I like to do is see articles improve, and to help editors to improve articles. If someone has pissed on the floor, I am more concerned that they clean it up, than that they are locked outside for ten minutes. Of course, if after I have got a mop and helped clean up, they deliberately piss again, then I have no qualms about locking them outside indefinitely. SilkTork ✔Tea time 23:31, 30 October 2011 (UTC)
- I support your offer and wish it all the best. However, I'd like to see it extended to all highly involved editors with a history of "pro-FLG" or "anti-FLG" edits—many of whom commented on the AE thread—not only those who were disproportionately singled out by T. Canens. ✔ Olaf Stephanos ✍ 00:05, 31 October 2011 (UTC)
|
|
Whack! You've been whacked with a wet trout. Don't take this too seriously. Someone just wants to let you know that you did something silly. |
Here it is, belatedly. Have a nice life! -- Ohconfucius ¡digame! 01:45, 3 November 2011 (UTC)
Under the authority of WP:ARBFLG#Discretionary sanctions, and for the reasons stated in this AE thread, you are banned from all articles, discussions, and other content related to Falun Gong, broadly construed across all namespaces, for a minimum of one year. After one year, and every six months thereafter, you may apply to have this sanction reviewed at AE. You may also appeal this sanction to AE once within the next year, and may appeal to the arbitration committee at any time. The topic ban shall remain in force until it is lifted on appeal. T. Canens ( talk) 16:59, 9 November 2011 (UTC)
- Hi Tim, here's the barnstar you removed from your user talk page.
-
The Surreal Barnstar I, Olaf Stephanos, award you this surreal barnstar for making Franz Kafka turn over in his grave. ✔ Olaf Stephanos ✍ 08:51, 10 November 2011 (UTC) A file that you uploaded or altered, File:Olaf Stephanos.jpg, has been listed at Wikipedia:Files for deletion. Please see the discussion to see why it has been listed (you may have to search for the title of the image to find its entry). Feel free to add your opinion on the matter below the nomination. Thank you. Kelly hi! 11:37, 15 October 2014 (UTC)
A case ( Falun Gong) in which you were involved has been modified by motion which changed the wording of the discretionary sanctions section to clarify that the scope applies to pages, not just articles. For the arbitration committee -- S Philbrick (Talk) 22:39, 27 October 2014 (UTC)
Hi,
You appear to be eligible to vote in the current Arbitration Committee election. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate, you are welcome to review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. For the Election committee, MediaWiki message delivery ( talk) 13:42, 23 November 2015 (UTC)