This is an old revision of this page, as edited by MiszaBot II (talk | contribs) at 06:49, 28 October 2010 (Archiving 1 thread(s) (older than 4d) to Misplaced Pages talk:Arbitration Committee/Noticeboard/Archive 12.). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.
Revision as of 06:49, 28 October 2010 by MiszaBot II (talk | contribs) (Archiving 1 thread(s) (older than 4d) to Misplaced Pages talk:Arbitration Committee/Noticeboard/Archive 12.)(diff) ← Previous revision | Latest revision (diff) | Newer revision → (diff)Shortcuts
|
Archives |
Index 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10 |
This page has archives. Sections older than 4 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III. |
Misplaced Pages:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Stevertigo 2
- I shouldn't be surprised, I suppose, after the argument over the retirement notice where it was stated that a ban notice would soon replace it anyway, that we have now an argument over the ban notice. See User:Stevertigo (MfD discussion) for more. Uncle G (talk) 12:11, 24 October 2010 (UTC)
- I don't recall an argument. I raised a question, it was answered. → ROUX ₪ 12:12, 24 October 2010 (UTC)
- Unfortunate outcome, but one that Steve drove towards relentlessly, despite a lot of people trying to tell him to put the brakes on or turn aside. Correct but unfortunate outcome. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 23:25, 25 October 2010 (UTC)
- I have to agree; he no doubt contributed in good faith but was unfortunately unable to improve his problematic behaviors. Ucucha 23:35, 25 October 2010 (UTC)