| Revision as of 16:58, 28 August 2005 editTheresa knott (talk | contribs)Extended confirmed users22,922 edits Please stop. It's pointless. | Revision as of 19:01, 28 August 2005 edit undoNathan Ladd (talk | contribs)856 edits Wait a minute, TeresaNext edit → | ||
| Line 2: | Line 2: | ||
| This page's name is "requests for arbitration". It is a record of the content that led to this AC case being accepted. Now this case has already been accepted. Nothing will change that. Edit warring over this page is pointless. Please stop. ] ] 16:58, 28 August 2005 (UTC) | This page's name is "requests for arbitration". It is a record of the content that led to this AC case being accepted. Now this case has already been accepted. Nothing will change that. Edit warring over this page is pointless. Please stop. ] ] 16:58, 28 August 2005 (UTC) | ||
| :Hmmm. If that's supposed to be the case, then something has gone wrong here. This ''page'' does not have quite the same format as the "DotSix" ''section'' of the RfAr page had before it was removed on Aug 15th. Moreover, nothing from that section was copied over to this page when this page was created that same day. I copied over some sections, but there is still a lot of material that was in the section that is not on this page. Also, this is the only page that contains sections identifying the parties to the dispute, so it does matter if Donald Alford (AKA DotSix AKA 67.182.157.6) is allowed to remove the section identifying him. --] 19:01, August 28, 2005 (UTC) | |||
| :By the way it looks like a concensus of the committee has voted for the edit restrictions on Alford (= "DotSix"). Can you please implement that injunction now? --] 19:01, August 28, 2005 (UTC) | |||
Revision as of 19:01, 28 August 2005
Note to those edit warring on this page
This page's name is "requests for arbitration". It is a record of the content that led to this AC case being accepted. Now this case has already been accepted. Nothing will change that. Edit warring over this page is pointless. Please stop. Theresa Knott (a tenth stroke) 16:58, 28 August 2005 (UTC)
- Hmmm. If that's supposed to be the case, then something has gone wrong here. This page does not have quite the same format as the "DotSix" section of the RfAr page had before it was removed on Aug 15th. Moreover, nothing from that section was copied over to this page when this page was created that same day. I copied over some sections, but there is still a lot of material that was in the section that is not on this page. Also, this is the only page that contains sections identifying the parties to the dispute, so it does matter if Donald Alford (AKA DotSix AKA 67.182.157.6) is allowed to remove the section identifying him. --Nate Ladd 19:01, August 28, 2005 (UTC)
- By the way it looks like a concensus of the committee has voted for the edit restrictions on Alford (= "DotSix"). Can you please implement that injunction now? --Nate Ladd 19:01, August 28, 2005 (UTC)