Wikipedia talk:Wikipedia Signpost/2012-07-09/Arbitration report

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Discuss this story

I'm really confused about the Carnildo thing. While the block was not right in my view (simply put, we should not block good faith editors like ItsMeJudith for acting against paedophiles) it certainly wasn't unsupportable - a brief look at what the IP was saying makes it far more likely that they are just a philosophy first year student with their head up their arse and a paedophile accusation is a horrid thing to face just for expressing a viewpoint. Desysopping for a judgement call is an over reaction. Egg Centric 12:12, 10 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

For more background, which does involve quite a bit more history than what you've referenced above, please read the discussion in detail at this point. Cheers, Jclemens (talk) 17:42, 10 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Crikey, I am amazed he remained an admin for this long! Egg Centric 17:48, 10 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Correction to Falun Gong: Colipon is also facing a topic ban, in addition to the two named in the article. Hersfold non-admin(t/a/c) 21:32, 10 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Fixed, thanks Hersfold! :) James (Talk • Contribs) • 10:37am • 00:37, 13 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:Wikipedia_Signpost/2012-07-09/Arbitration_report&oldid=1086383465"