| Revision as of 04:35, 16 September 2006 editDominic (talk | contribs)Administrators29,558 edits related← Previous edit | Revision as of 14:01, 16 September 2006 edit undoBucketsofg (talk | contribs)Administrators9,965 edits comment on Rachel MarsdenNext edit → | ||
| Line 2: | Line 2: | ||
| :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) | ::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) | ||
| :::The problem is that it is not obvious that the ], which was the first article that Bourrie (=Ceraurus = Ellis = etc.) engaged in tendentious edit and revert wars, article falls within the remedy: she is not a politician or a blogger, but a columnist. Since Ellis has just been blocked for 3RR-through-socks there today (]), it would be worth making sure that there is no ambiguity. ]]<font color="grey">] 14:01, 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 14:01, 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)
- The problem is that it is not obvious that the Rachel Marsden, which was the first article that Bourrie (=Ceraurus = Ellis = etc.) engaged in tendentious edit and revert wars, article falls within the remedy: she is not a politician or a blogger, but a columnist. Since Ellis has just been blocked for 3RR-through-socks there today (here), it would be worth making sure that there is no ambiguity. Bucketsofg✐ 14:01, 16 September 2006 (UTC)
- 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)