Difference between revisions of "Talk:Requests for Comment/Allow exception to LP ban"

From Meta
Jump to navigation Jump to search
m
Tags: Mobile edit Mobile web edit
Line 57: Line 57:
  
 
Given the above stats, either proposal 3 or 4 passes. I ask that {{ping|John}} and {{ping|Reception123}} please confirm my status and consider issuing a closure at some point this weekend. [[User:Amanda|Amanda]] ([[User talk:Amanda|talk]]) 22:50, 14 April 2017 (UTC)
 
Given the above stats, either proposal 3 or 4 passes. I ask that {{ping|John}} and {{ping|Reception123}} please confirm my status and consider issuing a closure at some point this weekend. [[User:Amanda|Amanda]] ([[User talk:Amanda|talk]]) 22:50, 14 April 2017 (UTC)
 +
:Requests are traditionally open for atleast 7 days. This also isn't a vote but rather the arguments involved are what decides the outcome. We've also decided Southparkfan is closing this as myself and NDKilla have made our views known in the RfC. [[User:John|John]] ([[User talk:John|talk]]) 22:56, 14 April 2017 (UTC)

Revision as of 22:56, 14 April 2017

Proposal 2

The more I think about it, the more I am becoming increasingly certain that Proposal 2 is invalid. Not only would it change the original decision, but beyond that technically I personally am not even banned. Also note that LP is not permanently banned, she is indefinitely locked. The only reason why I am going through this procedure is becasue I was required to due to my account being locked. If my account wasn't locked, technically I would not have to have an RFC to get "unbanned" since I wasn't banned in the first place. Seriously, Proposal 2 needs to be re-worded or removed completely. The strong support votes by two users @LulzKiller: and @Robkelk: are concerning me that they are not reading the comments left by @John:. This is not good and needs attention. Amanda (talk) 14:18, 14 April 2017 (UTC)

A proposal can't really be reworded after it was already voted on. I propose removing proposal 2 and making a proposal 5 with the same idea, for whoever supported proposal 2. Reception123 (talk) (contribs) 14:29, 14 April 2017 (UTC)
 Done as proposed above. Amanda (talk) 16:45, 14 April 2017 (UTC)
@Amanda: Maybe it was my fault when I worded it but by "propose" I meant a steward should take care of it. Closing a proposal should not be done by users without asking a steward before. As a general comment on Miraheze, please try to refrain taking actions that you're unsure of without asking a steward/local admin/etc. before doing so. Reception123 (talk) (contribs) 17:28, 14 April 2017 (UTC)

Status check

After 5 days of discussion, I count the following tallies:

Proposal 1

  • Strong support = 1
  • Support = 0
  • Weak support = 0
  • Weak oppose = 1
  • Oppose = 2
  • Strong oppose = 0
  • Symbol neutral vote.svg Abstain = 0

Proposal 2

  • Strong support = 2
  • Support = 0
  • Weak support = 0
  • Weak oppose = 1
  • Oppose = 1
  • Strong oppose = 2
  • Symbol neutral vote.svg Abstain = 0

Proposal 3

  • Strong support = 2
  • Support = 1
  • Weak support = 0
  • Weak oppose = 0
  • Oppose = 1
  • Strong oppose = 0
  • Symbol neutral vote.svg Abstain = 0

Proposal 4

  • Strong support = 1
  • Support = 1
  • Weak support = 1
  • Weak oppose = 0
  • Oppose = 0
  • Strong oppose = 0
  • Symbol neutral vote.svg Abstain = 1

Proposal 5

  • Strong support = 1
  • Support = 0
  • Weak support = 0
  • Weak oppose = 1
  • Oppose = 1
  • Strong oppose = 0
  • Symbol neutral vote.svg Abstain = 0

Given the above stats, either proposal 3 or 4 passes. I ask that @John: and @Reception123: please confirm my status and consider issuing a closure at some point this weekend. Amanda (talk) 22:50, 14 April 2017 (UTC)

Requests are traditionally open for atleast 7 days. This also isn't a vote but rather the arguments involved are what decides the outcome. We've also decided Southparkfan is closing this as myself and NDKilla have made our views known in the RfC. John (talk) 22:56, 14 April 2017 (UTC)