Content deleted Content added
Line 49: What trust should anyone have in you lot if you send out a statement you need to retract because it was so appallingly written in one part, and when another part uses as justification a policy page which contradicts it, and then continue to use that contradictory page as justification when contacting understandably upset people like Ivanvector? How hard is it, after you have received lots of correct criticism for the "arbcom / AE deletions unreversable through DRV" fiasco, to think twice about what you will do next, and to, just perhaps, put some things to the community for comment and approval instead of charging on regardless? I'm seriously thinking about starting an Arb case about the current arbcom, and I have the feeling I'm not the only one. Your authority as a group has been diminished extremely as a result of your recent actions and comments, and that is a sorry state for enwiki. Instead of reducing friction and making sure that the community runs smoothly when there are some problems between editors (or admin problems), you are simply causing more problems, more frustrated editors, more distrust. [[User:Fram|Fram]] ([[User talk:Fram|talk]]) 06:57, 6 May 2019 (UTC) :That motion was posted publicly for community comment for several days at [[WP:A/R/M]]. Perhaps get basic facts correct before throwing around wild accusations. This isn't something we did in a back room. We openly noted that we would start enforcing the policy about account security of administrator accounts. The policy notes that bureaucrats may resysop a compromised administrator account once they are satisfied that the admin is back in control of the account, and they may. The policy also notes administrators may be permanently desysopped for misconduct by ArbCom. Failing to abide by policy is administrator misconduct, and if a case were to find that an administrator failed to abide by policy, it would be well within the remit of ArbCom to permanently desysop them. If you want to file a case at ArbCom about ArbCom, that's patently silly, but I suppose I've seen you do more unusual things than that. ~ [[User:BU Rob13|<b>Rob</b><small><sub>13</sub></small>]]<sup style="margin-left:-1.0ex;">[[User talk:BU Rob13|Talk]]</sup> 14:00, 6 May 2019 (UTC) ::You mean the policy-changing motion decided on the page "Restoration of sysop privileges to Necrothesp" (it's better to provide links, you know, as I was talking about the statement sent out by the arbs)? Such motions are ''not'' open to community approval or not, the only people who may vote there are arbs, for crying out loud. The discrepancy with policy was noted there by EdChem, but brushed away by the arbs. I said "put some things to the community for comment '''and approval'''", which you clearly didn't, so your "Perhaps get basic facts correct before throwing around wild accusations." is again wildly off the mark. Then again, seeing what you have been up to lately, I'm not surprised. "Failing to abide by policy", right... [[User:Fram|Fram]] ([[User talk:Fram|talk]]) 14:34, 6 May 2019 (UTC) == Administrators' newsletter – May 2019 == | |||