User talk:Grunt: Difference between revisions
Archived. |
Charles Darwin |
||
| Line 7: | Line 7: | ||
:[[/archive4]] ([[November 2004]]) |
:[[/archive4]] ([[November 2004]]) |
||
:[[/archive5]] ([[December 2004]]-[[January 2005]]) |
:[[/archive5]] ([[December 2004]]-[[January 2005]]) |
||
==Charles Darwin== |
|||
re:[[Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Charles Darwin-Lincoln dispute/Proposed decision|Charles Darwin-Lincoln dispute/Proposed decision]] <br>I'm not sure if non-arbitrators can suggest alternatives, and if they can, how to go about it (put something on the discussion page?). Instead, I will give my suggestion to you on your talk page, and you can do with it what you want. As for [[User:Vfp15]], I will admit that he certainly has been a pain on the [[Charles Darwin]] page, and following his edit history shows that he has occasionally been quite opinionated elsewhere (evidence I deliberately decided not to add to my comments), but it has always been on very narrow issues, and he has been a good contributor to the Charles Darwin article and elsewhere when not focused on those narrow issues. I would suggest a short ban on any editing of the Charles Darwin article, related articles, and their talk pages (2 weeks-1 month), but after the short editing ban, absolutely no adding of the birthday trivia into the Charles Darwin article, nor adding it into the [[Abraham Lincoln]] article, nor adding any other birthday or "coincidence" trivia anywhere else in the Wikipedia ever. Then for a coda to the decision, mention that since the arbitration committee has already examined his behavior in voluminous detail, that if he is ever brought before the arbitration committee again, they probably will not be so lenient the second time around (and so maybe he should learn to walk away after he has argued his points when his opinions are not matched by general consensus). |
|||
[A few quibbles on wording: Instead of "Vfp15's working against consensus", I would suggest "Vfp15 deliberately ignored consensus". Also: it is "editing", not "editting", and under 1.2, it says "Antifinnugor" instead of Vfp15.] |
|||
As for [[User:Adraeus]], his behavior is all tied up in the ongoing feud between him and [[User:Sam Spade]], so the arbitrators really should tackle the problem of the two of them as a single issue, rather than have Adraeus single out in isolation for his behavior related to the Charles Darwin article and talk page discussions. [[User:GK|gK]] [[User talk:GK|¿?]] 10:24, 1 Feb 2005 (UTC) |
|||
[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Emailuser&target=GK] |
|||
Revision as of 10:24, 1 February 2005
Archives:
- /archive1 (June 2004-September 2004)
- /archive2 (September 2004)
- /archive3 (October 2004)
- /archive4 (November 2004)
- /archive5 (December 2004-January 2005)
Charles Darwin
re:Charles Darwin-Lincoln dispute/Proposed decision
I'm not sure if non-arbitrators can suggest alternatives, and if they can, how to go about it (put something on the discussion page?). Instead, I will give my suggestion to you on your talk page, and you can do with it what you want. As for User:Vfp15, I will admit that he certainly has been a pain on the Charles Darwin page, and following his edit history shows that he has occasionally been quite opinionated elsewhere (evidence I deliberately decided not to add to my comments), but it has always been on very narrow issues, and he has been a good contributor to the Charles Darwin article and elsewhere when not focused on those narrow issues. I would suggest a short ban on any editing of the Charles Darwin article, related articles, and their talk pages (2 weeks-1 month), but after the short editing ban, absolutely no adding of the birthday trivia into the Charles Darwin article, nor adding it into the Abraham Lincoln article, nor adding any other birthday or "coincidence" trivia anywhere else in the Wikipedia ever. Then for a coda to the decision, mention that since the arbitration committee has already examined his behavior in voluminous detail, that if he is ever brought before the arbitration committee again, they probably will not be so lenient the second time around (and so maybe he should learn to walk away after he has argued his points when his opinions are not matched by general consensus).
[A few quibbles on wording: Instead of "Vfp15's working against consensus", I would suggest "Vfp15 deliberately ignored consensus". Also: it is "editing", not "editting", and under 1.2, it says "Antifinnugor" instead of Vfp15.]
As for User:Adraeus, his behavior is all tied up in the ongoing feud between him and User:Sam Spade, so the arbitrators really should tackle the problem of the two of them as a single issue, rather than have Adraeus single out in isolation for his behavior related to the Charles Darwin article and talk page discussions. gK ¿? 10:24, 1 Feb 2005 (UTC) [1]