Wikipedia talk:Requests for arbitration/Koavf

message: As stated by Sandstein, the community restrictions are for the community to handle. As for the 2007 case, whether to consider the issue expired due to the later community sanctions or whether to lift it now is up to them. Wizardman Operation Big Bear 21:32, 15 October 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Statement by Wizardman 

message: Why are there no links to th discussion leading to the community ban?
I think the community should handle this.  I think ArbCom should agree to har this ONLY if the person can demonstrate a clear abuse of WP procedures (e.g. wheel warring bullying and COI in the community ban case).  Unless the person can demonstrate the the original ban was an abuse of power, I do not think ArbCom shouuld override thre community decision. Slrubenstein   |  Talk 22:40, 15 October 2010 (UTC)
thread_title: Comment by Slrubenstein 

message: Thank you I have moved this to WP:AN per the above input. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 23:53, 15 October 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Request for closure by Koavf 

message: ==== Statement by yet another editor ====
==== Clerk notes ====
==== Arbitrator views and discussion ====
*Awaiting community input. — Rlevse • Talk •  15:55, 15 October 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Further discussion 

message: *Awaiting community input. — Rlevse • Talk •  15:55, 15 October 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Arbitrator views and discussion 

message: =====Statement by Fetchcomms=====
As I stated at the AN thread, I don't see any major issue with lifting the restrictions. Not sure what else I have to say; I was never involved in the original sanctions. /ƒETCHCOMMS/ 03:32, 30 November 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: @NW, I'm not a clerk but I think I updated the template. /ƒETCHCOMMS/ 03:58, 4 December 2010 (UTC)

text: @Shell, I don't think it was consensus not to remove the sanctions as much as lack of participation either way. It might just because not many people are familiar with this case and Koavf's current activity. I interpret lack of input as "I don't care" over "status quo, leave them in place". /ƒETCHCOMMS/ 03:27, 19 December 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Statement by other editor 

message: As I stated at the AN thread, I don't see any major issue with lifting the restrictions. Not sure what else I have to say; I was never involved in the original sanctions. /ƒETCHCOMMS/ 03:32, 30 November 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: @NW, I'm not a clerk but I think I updated the template. /ƒETCHCOMMS/ 03:58, 4 December 2010 (UTC)

text: @Shell, I don't think it was consensus not to remove the sanctions as much as lack of participation either way. It might just because not many people are familiar with this case and Koavf's current activity. I interpret lack of input as "I don't care" over "status quo, leave them in place". /ƒETCHCOMMS/ 03:27, 19 December 2010 (UTC)
thread_title: Statement by Fetchcomms

message: Again, my opinion has not changed just like Fetchcoms.  At the same AN thread above, I noted that I saw no problem with lifting restrictions 1 & 2.  Restriction 3 needs to remain in place for some time while he his allowed to edit in the problematic area.  While Koavf has remained in good standing when editing outside of the Western Sahara/Morocco area, we have no evidence one way or another how things will go once he starts to edit in that area.  I think that keeping restriction 3 in place, for say at least another 6 months or so, will allow us to see if things go well.  If they do, then we can recind that restriction as well.  So my opinion is that ArbCom should look at recinding restrictions 1 & 2, and leave 3 in place for six months as a sort of "trial period" for editing the Western Sahara related articles.  --Jayron32 03:46, 30 November 2010 (UTC)
thread_title: Statement by Jayron32

message: I...tried to updated Template:ArbComOpenTasks, but I couldn't figure out how to do so. Could another clerk take a gander at it? NW (Talk) 16:51, 3 December 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Clerk notes 

message: * In the absence of any commentary to the contrary, a week after this has been filed, I am hard pressed to think of a reason to deny this request, and would likely support lifting it.  Risker (talk) 02:29, 8 December 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: *ArbCom competence For what it's worth, I posted here because I was told to post here. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 15:45, 17 December 2010 (UTC)

text: *Hardly There wasn't a "consensus not to remove the sanctions", there was simply no consensus to remove the sanctions. In point of fact, everyone who participated was willing to remove them (or stagger their removal), so the !votes were in favor of lifting it; there just weren't enough. And then I was told to come here--if you have a better place for me to take this, I'd happily do it. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 18:03, 20 December 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: *Now that NYBrad has pointed out where the sanctions initially came from, I also find I like Jayron32's suggestion for removing most of the sanctions and giving this a trial. Shell   babelfish 20:39, 30 December 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Arbitrator views and discussion