| Revision as of 16:34, 13 January 2008 editArcticocean (talk | contribs)Edit filter managers, Extended confirmed users46,226 edits create with list of arbitrators | Revision as of 15:58, 30 January 2008 edit undoSirFozzie (talk | contribs)Extended confirmed users11,149 editsm →Request for consideration: Fixing paragraph, signingNext edit → | ||
| (One intermediate revision by the same user not shown) | |||
| Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
| {{ACA|Waterboarding=yes}} | {{ACA|Waterboarding=yes}} | ||
| ==Request for consideration== | |||
| It would greatly help the situation if the following was determined in this ArbCom case: | |||
| A) Whether the following accounts, who are mentioned in the workshop and evidence, are sockpuppets or ideological meat-puppets of the banned user: ] | |||
| *] | |||
| *] | |||
| *] | |||
| *] | |||
| *] | |||
| I have seen enough from a couple accounts (the first two mentioned on the list) in editing style, articles of interest, targets, etcetera to satisfy me that this is so per ], but since this case is in front of ArbCom, I will not take action, and leave it to ArbCom's discretion. | |||
| B, Part 1) Whether the conduct of at least two of the above named accounts (Neutral Good and Samurai Commuter), on the article ] should be considered as evidence in this case, or if this would be better considered as a ] request with regards to the ] case. | |||
| B, Part 2) Whether the conduct of ], who had a finding of fact in the same Free Republic ArbCom case that he was '''previously involved in serious external conflict with Free Republic.''' on the article ] should be considered in this case, or if that would best be handled by a ] request. | |||
| Thank you for your consideration. ] (]) 15:58, 30 January 2008 (UTC) | |||
Revision as of 15:58, 30 January 2008
Arbitrators active on this case
- To update this listing, edit this template and scroll down until you find the right list of arbitrators. If updates to this listing do not immediately show, try purging the cache.
Request for consideration
It would greatly help the situation if the following was determined in this ArbCom case:
A) Whether the following accounts, who are mentioned in the workshop and evidence, are sockpuppets or ideological meat-puppets of the banned user: User:BryanFromPalatine
I have seen enough from a couple accounts (the first two mentioned on the list) in editing style, articles of interest, targets, etcetera to satisfy me that this is so per WP:DUCK, but since this case is in front of ArbCom, I will not take action, and leave it to ArbCom's discretion.
B, Part 1) Whether the conduct of at least two of the above named accounts (Neutral Good and Samurai Commuter), on the article Free Republic should be considered as evidence in this case, or if this would be better considered as a ArbCom Enforcement request with regards to the past Free Republic case.
B, Part 2) Whether the conduct of User:Eschoir, who had a finding of fact in the same Free Republic ArbCom case that he was previously involved in serious external conflict with Free Republic. on the article Free Republic should be considered in this case, or if that would best be handled by a ArbCom Enforcement request.
Thank you for your consideration. SirFozzie (talk) 15:58, 30 January 2008 (UTC)