User:WilyD/SanboxArbCom


 * Log of protections.

Timeline of my actions:
 * 15:28, September 3rd Keeper76 Full protects from semi, to expire Sept. 8th
 * 04:32, September 4th Jossi   Reduces to semi protection, citing high traffic
 * 04:43, September 4th Lucasbfr Restores move protection to full (ho-hum)
 * 05:37, September 4th I first become involved in the case. I suggest that Jossi' unprotection be left in place unless problems flare up again, at which point full protection could be restored.
 * 05:52, September 4th Fritzpoll Restores full protection, citing discussion on AN
 * 06:04, September 4th I see Fritzpoll's restoration, and comment that although I didn't want to tug of war over this, I'll endorse it as reasonable given the discussion on AN.
 * 6:06, September 4th I fixed some citations that were garbled as the page was moved in the middle of a pair of edits by a non-admin. Seems uncontraversial.
 * 06:12, September 4th Jossi   Restores semi protection, citing IAR, high traffic, current eventness
 * 07:02, September 4th MBisanz Restores full protection, citing BLP and the special BLP authority
 * 07:06, September 4th I warn everyone to stop warring over protection, promising to hand out blocks otherwise. One minute later, I make the same warning at AN I consul discussion, and not taking action before discussion, express no preference on semi or full protection, and discussion does begin (NEED DIFFS)
 * 07:11 Mike R. opens discussion at WP:AE on whether Bisanz's protection is appropriate. It begins preceeding well, and everything is well in hand.
 * 09:21, September 4th MZMcBride restores semi-protection, citing "This is a wiki"
 * 09:30, September 4th WilyD restores full protection, on the grounds that warring over protection is not acceptable (Oh, Irony). I block MZMcBride for three hours one minute later, and inform him .  I responded on AN to that complain that action had been promised against those who continued to war.

Here ends our protection war.
 * 10:01 I suggest MZMcBride could be unblocked for the ArbCom case, not knowing that Moreschi's just done it . At this time, WP:WHEEL listed "temporary block" as an historic penalty for wheel warring. Previously it'd suggested this was a bad idea which's what Moreschi said he was most familiar with.  It's since been modified due to FloNights musings on the subject.

I was not a proponent of either full protection or semi-protection

 * I endorse Jossi's first unprotection; to the best of my knowledge, this is the first time I'd ever edited her biography (is there a good tool for this?) Certainly I find nothing to well before the start of July
 * I endorse Fritzpol's reprotection, indicating that I was kind of opposed to it, but I'll endorse it for the sake of not protection warring.\
 * When I indicated I'd hand out blocks to admins who continued to war over protection, I consul dialogue, then action. I remain open to semi-protection once a consensus exists. And the same, the same, and again.

Blocking for wheel wars was consistant with WP:WHEEL

 * At the time I blocked MZMcBride, WP:WHEEL stated "Sanctions for wheel warring have varied from reprimands and cautions, to temporary blocks, to desysopping, even for first time incidents." Thus my actions were consistant with WP:WHEEL, though maybe not mandated by it.  In any event, when I warned that I would block anyone who continued to war over the protection, it was received uniformly well.  Warn, warn I get dittoed on the warning After MZMcBride's action, Oren0 asks "Where's the promised block already?"

{Write your assertion here}
Place argument and diffs which support the second assertion; for example, your second assertion might be "So-and-so makes personal attacks", which should be the title of this section. Here you would show specific edits where So-and-so made personal attacks.