| Revision as of 14:30, 16 September 2006 editBucketsofg (talk | contribs)Administrators9,965 editsm →proposed temporary injunction: grammar← Previous edit | Revision as of 14:30, 16 September 2006 edit undoBucketsofg (talk | contribs)Administrators9,965 edits →proposed temporary injunctionNext edit → | ||
| Line 9: | Line 9: | ||
| == proposed temporary injunction == | == proposed temporary injunction == | ||
| I've proposed a temporary injunction on AE at the workshop. Since a ban on AE's editing of certain articles has already been |
I've proposed a temporary injunction on AE at the workshop. Since a ban on AE's editing of certain articles has already been supported by a majority of the arbitrators, I have proposed that we implement such a ban now as a temporary injunction. (AE is currently blocked for a week, and this might be moot, but it's not impossible that the ArbComm decision may not be finalized for a while still. ]]<font color="grey">] 14:29, 16 September 2006 (UTC) | ||
Revision as of 14:30, 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)
- This is yet another sock of Arthur Ellis, as shown by CheckUser. Bucketsofg✐ 14:03, 16 September 2006 (UTC)
proposed temporary injunction
I've proposed a temporary injunction on AE at the workshop. Since a ban on AE's editing of certain articles has already been supported by a majority of the arbitrators, I have proposed that we implement such a ban now as a temporary injunction. (AE is currently blocked for a week, and this might be moot, but it's not impossible that the ArbComm decision may not be finalized for a while still. Bucketsofg✐ 14:29, 16 September 2006 (UTC)