45:
block, and disagreement with the indef duration (I felt blocks should follow a sequence - eg; 24hrs, 48hrs, etc.) On 18 July, in the same thread, L requested another review on the matter due to A arguing that the block was biased, and on 19 July I reviewed it. I was unconvinced by (and found problems with) C's complaint to justify the duration. L explained his reasoning in a timely manner (within 3 hours). Still, he respected the outside opinion, and changed the block duration to follow that sequence. (
58:
without some sort of restraining order being put on A, despite the fact I'd explained that it was not possible. In any case, things did manage to die down (or so I thought) and I didn't follow the dispute for sometime after this. Apparently, both A and S violated their agreement and J enforced it against both users (with blocks). After some discussion, A and S agreed to end the agreement: noted by J on 25 August. (
87:
on for months, and it has come to the point where I (like the rest of the parties listed here) think enough is enough. (I don't want to go back to either the wider community or ArbCom anytime in the future regarding this matter - so that's the sort of remedies that I'd favour in this case). I ask that the case be accepted by the
Committee to end this matter.
44:
Rather than at the RFC/U, I commented on this dispute as an outside party for the first time during an ANI report, which had been filed by C. L blocked A indefinitely and put the action for review in the report (16 July 2008), and a few users including myself expressed a mixture of agreement with the
86:
Clearly, the problems have not been resolved and the methods we've tried are not working. There's nothing more I can offer - certainly nothing outside of ArbCom - that has a chance of resolving this dispute. I'm fairly confident the wider community can and will not do much more either. This has gone
135:
It is mindless argumentation like this that will be the bane of our encyclopedia. We need to stop arguing and splitting hairs and start editing some fucking articles. Seriously. Despite what many channers will tell you (ironically), the internet is NOT serious business. If you're reading this page,
57:
I then wrote out an agreement for A, C and S to follow. A and S agreed, but despite requests by several users including myself, C refused to sign the agreement - this did not help. Anyway, J unblocked A under the agreement. C was unhappy with this and refused to let me close the ANI discussion
78:, and my view in the next thread at 16:38. After discussing it between all parties and myself, L notified the parties of the non-voluntary restrictions that are in effect on 13 September, which went unopposed at WP:AN. Since then, I have not followed this matter thinking it's resolved.
111:
which is still in effect. Background/context on the non-voluntary editing restriction is available in my above statement. I'm afraid what users seek here is something more restrictive than that.
108:
36:
NB: L=LessHeard vanU, C=Collectonian, A=Abtract, S=Sesshomaru, J=JHunterJ. Unless arbitrators have specific questions for me, this statement is also my evidence.
17:
75:
120:
96:
136:
stop, go to your favorite portal, and make some corrections and addtitions, and stop arguing over bullshit. No offense.
59:
46:
116:
92:
71:
74:. I looked into it and gave my view, along with a few proposals on how to resolve the dispute. See
112:
88:
107:
Been there, done that, per the non-voluntary editing restriction
70:
On 2 September, C complained to L (about A). L then
18:Knowledge (XXG) talk:Requests for arbitration
8:
47:See this thread, and the next 2 threads
7:
32:Statement by uninvolved Ncmvocalist
24:
1:
121:10:08, 13 October 2008 (UTC)
97:09:18, 12 October 2008 (UTC)
27:Statements from non-parties
150:
66:Non-voluntary restriction
82:Request for arbitration
72:requested for my input
53:Voluntary restriction
129:Reply to all y'all
102:Reply to jpgordon
141:
149:
148:
144:
143:
142:
140:
139:
138:
34:
29:
22:
21:
20:
12:
11:
5:
147:
145:
133:
132:
131:
130:
124:
123:
104:
103:
84:
83:
68:
67:
55:
54:
42:
41:
33:
30:
28:
25:
23:
15:
14:
13:
10:
9:
6:
4:
3:
2:
146:
137:
128:
127:
126:
125:
122:
118:
114:
110:
106:
105:
101:
100:
99:
98:
94:
90:
81:
80:
79:
77:
76:C's complaint
73:
65:
64:
63:
61:
52:
51:
50:
48:
39:
38:
37:
31:
26:
19:
134:
85:
69:
56:
43:
40:Introduction
35:
113:Ncmvocalist
89:Ncmvocalist
60:See this
16:<
117:talk
109:here
93:talk
62:.)
49:.)
119:)
95:)
115:(
91:(
Text is available under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License. Additional terms may apply.