QUOTE(georgeieboy @ Thu 14th May 2009, 1:44pm)
it is looking like ryulong is gonna get what he requires. Fucked off.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Req...long_desysoppedRlevse is talking about taking away Ryulong's
rollback privilege for 6 months. Oh, the inhumanity! Is there no revenge too great! It's cruel. It's unusual. It's really..... wierd. (IMG:
smilys0b23ax56/default/unsure.gif)
Speaking of weirdnesses, here is ArbComm Love Potion #9:
Blocking
9) Blocking is a serious matter. Administrators should be exceedingly careful when blocking. Blocking may only be used to prevent damage or disruption to Wikipedia, and not to punish users; that is, blocking is preventative, not punitive. Blocks should be made only if other means --such as warnings-- are not likely to be effective. Even when reversed, blocks that appear arbitrary or capricious, or are based on poor methodology and evidence, have a chilling effect on people's willingness to contribute to Wikipedia.
Support:
FayssalF - Wiki me up® 08:30, 12 May 2009 (UTC)
FloNight♥♥♥ 09:57, 12 May 2009 (UTC)
Casliber (talk · contribs) 13:05, 12 May 2009 (UTC)
Wizardman 15:32, 12 May 2009 (UTC)
Vassyana (talk) 15:45, 12 May 2009 (UTC)
Rlevse • Talk • 00:26, 13 May 2009 (UTC)
===================================
If Arbcom does not make policy, what is all the wanking above, about? What is there to "support" or "oppose," if the principle is already written down someplace (which I believe it is) and Arbcom can't change it? Why not just refer to it by title and statute or something? And say they're putting it down because they think it applies to a violation of it by User:NumbNuts, or something. Which I think is actually the point of the above, but I cannot be sure, because it's written in Wikipedian-- a language I'm not fluent in, and which Bablefish won't handle.