User talk:MyMoloboaccount

Arbcom Clerk note - in relation to your comments at the EEML case pages: The account User:Molobo has been indefinitely blocked pending resolution of this matter. Block notices have been left at that account indicating that the block is purely administrative and not punitive in nature. Please keep me informed of future developments. Regards Manning (talk) 02:42, 17 October 2009 (UTC)

No problem. Just let me know when you have regained control of your Molobo account to your satisfaction and I will remove the blocks and restore the pages to their original state. Please alert me using this "MyMoloboAccount" though, as I will ignore any messages from the Molobo account until I am certain it is no longer compromised. Manning (talk) 00:09, 18 October 2009 (UTC)

If you can't regain control of your original account and would like, I could swap the account names. MBisanz ^talk 04:41, 5 December 2009 (UTC)

Relocation of EEML evidence

Just a notice: For a few users I have relocated your EEML evidence to a sub-page.

The reasons for this are because your sections are now so long it was becoming impossible to navigate and decipher who wrote what, particularly towards the end of sections. This effectively rendered your evidence as unusable, which was not a good thing.

Rather than reduce the size of your evidence (which I deemed as unfair) I have removed them to private subpages. These are yours and yours alone to edit. They certain make interpreting your evidence MUCH easier.

The downside is that when you update your evidence it does not go into the history log of the principal evidence page. Hence I suggest you add a brief "Updated evidence on ..." note beneath your evidence heading on the main evidence page. This will alert people to changes on your subpage. An extra bit of hassle I know, but it a small price for having evidence which can be understood.

Also feel free to create a single sentence description of your main headings and insert it on the main page below the link I have added. See for an example from a previous case.

I hope none of you are upset by this - I assure you my only objective was to increase the usability of your evidence.

Sincerely, Manning (talk) 23:10, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

Withdrawal of permission

An apology - earlier you contacted me seeking permission to add information to the enforcements page.

At the time you requested I failed to remember that you were operating under an editing restriction, and hence I do not have the authority to exempt you from it.

As this was my error I shall contact Arbcom to obtain their verdict. I shall also ensure you do not suffer any sanction or penalty for posting to the enforcements page prior to my leaving this message. Manning (talk) 00:32, 25 October 2009 (UTC)

RE : Hi

No worries, since it is comments within the workshop. Usually arbitrators aren't bothered by canvassing on their talk pages.

Arbitrators usually read on the case as a whole and would have impose any additional sanctions or increase the sentence during the case, if they feel that any misconduct on any side during the case has occured. - Mailer Diablo 06:03, 21 December 2009 (UTC)

Block

The original block of the Molobo acct til May 31, 2010 has been reinstituted. — Rlevse • Talk • 19:13, 27 December 2009 (UTC)

Thank you for fast reaction.

--MyMoloboaccount (talk) 19:31, 27 December 2009 (UTC)

RE:Your email request for unblock

Unblock requests are handled on a case-by-case basis, not by citing a precedent. You are not blocked from editing this talk page, you are free to request unblock in the usual manner by using {{unblock|your reason here}}, replacing "your reason here" with a rationale for your unblocking. Beeblebrox (talk) 21:07, 29 January 2010 (UTC)