Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement: Difference between revisions

* I indeed closed it as overturn, and subsequently got strong objections from Goldenring concerning the restoration of the page (see their talk page), which I disagree with, but it is good to give another administrator a chance to deal with this.--[[User:Ymblanter|Ymblanter]] ([[User talk:Ymblanter|talk]]) 10:50, 15 April 2019 (UTC)

* Given the votes on the pending motion, we must proceed on the assumption that deletion of a page is allowed as a discretionary sanction. In my view, POLEMIC falls on the conduct side of the conduct/content divide: deciding whether a user page violates that guideline does not require one to make decisions regarding any encyclopedic content. Therefore, deleting a user page under POLEMIC does not fall into the category of deletions that may impermissibly settle a content dispute. Having considered the comments at the DRV to the extent they addressed POLEMIC (as opposed to the process issue), and after independently reviewing the page, I cannot say that GoldenRing's interpretation and application of that guideline is outside reasonable admin discretion, and that's all that is needed to sustain a discretionary sanction. '''Decline''' as to the deletion. As to the warning, the appeal is moot. [[User:Timotheus Canens|T. Canens]] ([[User talk:Timotheus Canens|talk]]) 01:57, 16 April 2019 (UTC)

 

==Icewhiz==