| Revision as of 00:00, 16 September 2006 editCraigleithian (talk | contribs)7 editsNo edit summary← Previous edit | Revision as of 04:35, 16 September 2006 edit undoDominic (talk | contribs)Administrators29,558 edits relatedNext 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 : ], ], ], ], ] | ||
| ::I think all of those are reasonably related enough to Canadian politics and its blogosphere. I'm not sure what the problem is. ]·] 04:35, 16 September 2006 (UTC) | |||
| Articles other than Kinsella were not discussed in the evidence. I believe Bucketsofg is, in effect, trying to ban Ellis from Misplaced Pages.] 00:00, 16 September 2006 (UTC) | Articles other than Kinsella were not discussed in the evidence. I believe Bucketsofg is, in effect, trying to ban Ellis from Misplaced Pages.] 00:00, 16 September 2006 (UTC) | ||
Revision as of 04:35, 16 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)
- I think all of those are reasonably related enough to Canadian politics and its blogosphere. I'm not sure what the problem is. Dmcdevit·t 04:35, 16 September 2006 (UTC)
Articles other than Kinsella were not discussed in the evidence. I believe Bucketsofg is, in effect, trying to ban Ellis from Misplaced Pages.Craigleithian 00:00, 16 September 2006 (UTC)