 Would arbcom ban someone for a user name? |
|
|
|||||||||||||||||
| |||||||||||||||||
| mbz1 |
Post
#1
|
|
Senior Member  Group: Contributors Posts: 461 Joined: Member No.: 25,791  |
I believed that simple user name blocks are imposed by a single admin action, but
this user page has two templates on it: QUOTE This user has been blocked indefinitely from editing Wikipedia, per ruling of administrators, Jimbo Wales and/or the Arbitration Committee. See block log. (toolbox: contributions • page moves • current autoblocks) and QUOTE This user was NOT blocked for vandalism, joking, or 'poking fun at Wikipedia'. This user was banned for violation of Wikipedia's Username policies which state that "Names of well-known living or recently deceased people" are inappropriate and should be indefinitely blocked until confirming evidence (in this case, from Stephen Colbert or Comedy Central) shows that this is, in fact, Stephen Colbert. Although Mr. Colbert 'made the edits on national television', he was also joking and it is not at all certain if he was in fact the person who made the edits attributed to this account. Until the blocking administrator (Tawker) receives word from Stephen Colbert or Comedy Central that this is Mr. Colbert, this account will remain blocked. It is strange. The account is blocked in 2006 apparently per govcom ruling , and then three years later a new template is added with the first one left in the place. (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/confused.gif) If Mr. Colbert was blocked for using his real name, shouldn't he be unbanned then? He did say here that he was the one to hold the account, did he not? This post has been edited by mbz1: |
   |
 
|
Posts in this topic
  |
1 User(s) are reading this topic (1 Guests and 0 Anonymous Users)
0 Members:
|
Lo-Fi Version | Time is now: |