Sat 6th March 2010, 11:23pm
(cur) (prev) 21:12, 6 March 2010 Chillum (talk | contribs) m (47,810 bytes) (Reverted edits by Logic Historian (talk) to last version by HistorianofLogic) (undo)
Yeah, he's clearly playing favorites there.
QUOTE(Lar @ Sat 6th March 2010, 6:55pm)
Your previous strenuous defense of Jayjg during the case where he was stripped of his OV, CU and access to the functionaries mailing list is hereby noted.
Your well-poisoning abuse of the passive voice is hereby noted.
QUOTE(Kwork @ Sat 6th March 2010, 7:13pm)
I also argued that removing Jayjg's oversight and checkuser privileges was irrational because there was not even an accusation that he had misused them.
Apparently he misused them by edit-warring and joking about beer
(which exists distinctly from the aforepoisoned באר). Yes, that's B-E-E-R as in Ice Cold Beer
(which, in middle America, tastes much like Sweet Blue Water
apart from the carbonation).
But, how hard could it have been to cite a specific incident or two and give the community some general fucking idea
which abuses of checkuser/oversight access (or accumulations thereof) are actual grounds for removal?
Arbcom has already established that disclosing a user's (ehh…) non-standard browser configuration during an RFA is not on one of them. Neither is discovering a user's various former accounts, revealing these to one's spouse (even when one's spouse was is active WP editor), and somehow using it as a pre-text to checkuser unrelated users who are not among said former accounts.
Some of us would like to know how arbcom actually decides things like this, yet they refuse to answer straightforwardly, instead feeding us a bunch of bullshit about decorum and certain edits being "within permissible bounds for an admin, but not for a functionary".