| Revision as of 04:24, 5 February 2010 editMZMcBride (talk | contribs)Extended confirmed users190,597 edits →On breaching experiments: new section← Previous edit | Revision as of 05:31, 5 February 2010 edit undoMZMcBride (talk | contribs)Extended confirmed users190,597 edits →No good deed goes unpunished: refactored commentNext edit → | ||
| Line 5: | Line 5: | ||
| {{ACA|MZMcBride 2=yes}} | {{ACA|MZMcBride 2=yes}} | ||
| == |
== No good deed goes unpunished == | ||
| --] (]) |
Over on the '']'', a contributor has that ]'s tool has now been re-purposed for nefarious uses. --] (]) 05:31, 5 February 2010 (UTC) | ||
Revision as of 05:31, 5 February 2010
|
Main case page (Talk) — Evidence (Talk) — Workshop (Talk) — Proposed decision (Talk) Case clerks: Ryan Postlethwaite (Talk) & AlexandrDmitri (Talk) Drafting arbitrators: Roger Davies (Talk) & Kirill Lokshin (Talk) |
 | Please stay calm and civil while commenting or presenting evidence, and do not make personal attacks. Be patient when approaching solutions to any issues. If consensus is not reached, other solutions exist to draw attention and ensure that more editors mediate or comment on the dispute. |
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.
No good deed goes unpunished
Over on the Misplaced Pages Review, a contributor has noted that Magnus's Save-a-BLP tool has now been re-purposed for nefarious uses. --MZMcBride (talk) 05:31, 5 February 2010 (UTC)