Misplaced Pages

talk:Requests for arbitration/Warren Kinsella/Proposed decision: Difference between revisions - Misplaced Pages

Article snapshot taken from Wikipedia with creative commons attribution-sharealike license. Give it a read and then ask your questions in the chat. We can research this topic together.
< Misplaced Pages talk:Requests for arbitration | Warren Kinsella Browse history interactively← Previous editNext edit →Content deleted Content addedVisualWikitext
Revision as of 23:51, 14 September 2006 editBucketsofg (talk | contribs)Administrators9,965 edits add specific pages affected← Previous edit Revision as of 23:51, 14 September 2006 edit undoBucketsofg (talk | contribs)Administrators9,965 editsmNo edit summaryNext edit →
Line 1: Line 1:
On the proposed remedy that "Arthur Ellis be banned indefinitely from Warren Kinsella and articles which relate to Canadian politics and its blogosphere. Any article which mentions Warren Kinsella is considered a related article for the purposes of this remedy. This includes all talk pages other than the talk page of Mark Bourrie." I suggest emending this to "All articles mentioned in the original request, including any article that mentions Warren Kinsella, is considered…". I say this because Arthur Ellis was blocked for 24 hours for 3RR yesterday for his edits at ], and has today been using socks or meets to blank large section of the article. The Marsden article was one of Bourrie's orginal battlegrounds and the current formulation is not clear on whether it is included. ]]<font color="grey">] 23:41, 14 September 2006 (UTC) On the proposed remedy that "Arthur Ellis be banned indefinitely from Warren Kinsella and articles which relate to Canadian politics and its blogosphere. Any article which mentions Warren Kinsella is considered a related article for the purposes of this remedy. This includes all talk pages other than the talk page of Mark Bourrie." I suggest emending this to "All articles mentioned in the original request, including any article that mentions Warren Kinsella, is considered…". I say this because Arthur Ellis was blocked for 24 hours for 3RR yesterday for his edits at ], and has today been using socks or meets to blank large section of the article. The Marsden article was one of Bourrie's orginal battlegrounds and the current formulation is not clear on whether it is included. ]]<font color="grey">] 23:41, 14 September 2006 (UTC)
:Specifically, in the original request the "articles affected" were : ], ], :Specifically, in the original request the "articles affected" were : ], ], ], ], ]
], ], ]

Revision as of 23:51, 14 September 2006

On the proposed remedy that "Arthur Ellis be banned indefinitely from Warren Kinsella and articles which relate to Canadian politics and its blogosphere. Any article which mentions Warren Kinsella is considered a related article for the purposes of this remedy. This includes all talk pages other than the talk page of Mark Bourrie." I suggest emending this to "All articles mentioned in the original request, including any article that mentions Warren Kinsella, is considered…". I say this because Arthur Ellis was blocked for 24 hours for 3RR yesterday for his edits at Rachel Marsden, and has today been using socks or meets to blank large section of the article. The Marsden article was one of Bourrie's orginal battlegrounds and the current formulation is not clear on whether it is included. Bucketsofg 23:41, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

Specifically, in the original request the "articles affected" were these: Mark Bourrie, Warren Kinsella, Pierre Bourque, Rachel Marsden, Elizabeth May (environmentalist)