Content deleted Content added
Line 357: *:Maybe you should read the "community restriction" policy, which you seem to think is one of several "trivial points"? I look forward to your next run at ArbCom.... :D <small><span style="border:1px solid black;padding:1px;">[[User:Kiefer.Wolfowitz|<font style="color:blue;background:yellow;">'''Kiefer'''</font>]][[User talk:Kiefer.Wolfowitz#top|<font style="color:blue;">.Wolfowitz</font>]]</span></small> 07:47, 17 June 2013 (UTC) *'''Support''' - Some less drama wouldn't hurt anybody. If its possible to achieve that through this, I'll gladly support it. [[User:TheOriginalSoni|TheOriginalSoni]] ([[User talk:TheOriginalSoni|talk]]) 07:59, 17 June 2013 (UTC) *:Please clarify your argument. Why not just ban me or everybody, which would minimize drama? <small><span style="border:1px solid black;padding:1px;">[[User:Kiefer.Wolfowitz|<font style="color:blue;background:yellow;">'''Kiefer'''</font>]][[User talk:Kiefer.Wolfowitz#top|<font style="color:blue;">.Wolfowitz</font>]]</span></small> 19:12, 17 June 2013 (UTC) * I find it difficult to believe that the window of acceptable outcomes here even includes an unblock. If this is the toughest sanctions that will stick, so be it. It's sadly far more likely that KW will continue to test the extremely sanguine boundaries set here than he will to consciously alter his attitude. [[User:Thumperward|Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward)]] ([[User talk:Thumperward|talk]]) 12:17, 17 June 2013 (UTC) *:Maybe you should ask My76Strat for copyediting help? <small><span style="border:1px solid black;padding:1px;">[[User:Kiefer.Wolfowitz|<font style="color:blue;background:yellow;">'''Kiefer'''</font>]][[User talk:Kiefer.Wolfowitz#top|<font style="color:blue;">.Wolfowitz</font>]]</span></small> 19:12, 17 June 2013 (UTC) *'''Support''' at a minimum. I agree with the people who've said above that Kiefer should have been free to either accept the unblock and restriction, or decline both, but not to mix and match, and that rejecting his restriction as he's doing ought to lead to a re-block until new terms are negotiated. However, there's not likely to be overwhelming support for reblocking Kiefer based on what's been said in this thread so far, so assuming that's a no-go, here's what I think: I think removing Kiefer from RFA discussion is just putting a [[band-aid]] on an issue we'll soon find ourselves revisiting anyway, but if it's the best solution we have available right now, it will have to do. Kiefer, I see that even people who've had their issues with the bureaucracy around here have been pleading with you to dial back the approach you're taking lately; I think they're speaking a lot of sense, and I wish you'd consider listening to them. [[User:Fluffernutter|A fluffernutter is a sandwich!]] ([[User talk:Fluffernutter|talk]]) 18:28, 17 June 2013 (UTC) *:Advice to me based on political expediency is prime facie evidence of political incompetence, at least on Wikipedia. Advice to me on principle is always welcome. Fluffer, you seem to be suggesting that an arbitrator can impose a community restriction, which is not policy. Change the policy through an RfC if you like, but be honest. <small><span style="border:1px solid black;padding:1px;">[[User:Kiefer.Wolfowitz|<font style="color:blue;background:yellow;">'''Kiefer'''</font>]][[User talk:Kiefer.Wolfowitz#top|<font style="color:blue;">.Wolfowitz</font>]]</span></small> 19:09, 17 June 2013 (UTC) | |||