| Revision as of 14:48, 6 February 2008 editLawrence Cohen (talk | contribs)13,393 edits →Checkuser followup: new section← Previous edit | Revision as of 16:04, 6 February 2008 edit undoJehochman (talk | contribs)Extended confirmed users, Page movers, Pending changes reviewers, Rollbackers46,275 edits →Checkuser followup: commentNext edit → | ||
| Line 28: | Line 28: | ||
| Is there any internal action happening on my motion for Checkuser review? Or should I go open up something at RFCU before the saved information expires? <span style="font-variant:small-caps"><font color="#800080">] § ]/]</font></span> 14:48, 6 February 2008 (UTC) | Is there any internal action happening on my motion for Checkuser review? Or should I go open up something at RFCU before the saved information expires? <span style="font-variant:small-caps"><font color="#800080">] § ]/]</font></span> 14:48, 6 February 2008 (UTC) | ||
| :If editing behavior is poor, that will trigger sanctions, no matter who the editor is. If the behavior is acceptable, that is even better. ] <sup>]</sup> 16:04, 6 February 2008 (UTC) | |||
Revision as of 16:04, 6 February 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)
Newyorkbrad's probation concerns
In regards to your concerns here about a probation, is your feeling that there isn't enough evidence yet presented by the community of the need for probation? Lawrence § t/e 14:43, 6 February 2008 (UTC)
Checkuser followup
Is there any internal action happening on my motion for Checkuser review? Or should I go open up something at RFCU before the saved information expires? Lawrence § t/e 14:48, 6 February 2008 (UTC)
- If editing behavior is poor, that will trigger sanctions, no matter who the editor is. If the behavior is acceptable, that is even better. Jehochman 16:04, 6 February 2008 (UTC)