| Revision as of 15:25, 2 April 2013 editSilkTork (talk | contribs)Administrators104,130 edits →Miss Supranational: commenting← Previous edit | Revision as of 08:00, 4 April 2013 edit undoAkuri (talk | contribs)181 edits →Arbitration requests: new sectionNext edit → | ||
| Line 14: | Line 14: | ||
| :I have locked the page for 24 hours, and sent you both a notice about edit warring. I have also left a notice on the talkpage. Please attempt to resolve your dispute by discussion. If the other party does not engage in discussion, but continues to edit the article in a manner that concerns you, please read ] and follow the advice there. If you do not get prompt assistance and are growing frustrated you may contact me again, and I will look more closely at the matter. ''']''' ''']''' 15:25, 2 April 2013 (UTC) | :I have locked the page for 24 hours, and sent you both a notice about edit warring. I have also left a notice on the talkpage. Please attempt to resolve your dispute by discussion. If the other party does not engage in discussion, but continues to edit the article in a manner that concerns you, please read ] and follow the advice there. If you do not get prompt assistance and are growing frustrated you may contact me again, and I will look more closely at the matter. ''']''' ''']''' 15:25, 2 April 2013 (UTC) | ||
| == Arbitration requests == | |||
| Hello SilkTork. Would you please clarify the meaning of what you said , that the committee would accept a case about race and intelligence if someone requested it in 2013? Newyorkbrad's reason for declining the request is that problems are not continuing, but they still are. Future Perfect at Sunrise is still making admin actions while involved, and refusing to respond to other editors' queries about them, and Mathsci is still gaming The Devil's Advocate's one-way interaction ban with him. I offered to present some evidence about that, but nobody asked me to, and now it's too late because the case is being declined. This issue has already been through arbitration enforcement multiple times, and the committee also declined to make the interaction bans mutual, with the reason that it required a full case. If that was their reason to reject the motion to do that, but they also won't open a case, it's not clear how they expect that to be resolved. ] (]) 08:00, 4 April 2013 (UTC) | |||
Revision as of 08:00, 4 April 2013
SilkTork
I will listen to you, especially when we disagree.
— Barack Obama
Miss Supranational
Please take a look at the Miss Supranational article. I think the article needs page protection for continuous vandalism of an editor who is the Chief Operating Officer of the pageant. He has threatened to bring the matter into legal action as indicated in his edit summaries. I asked him to participate in the discussion either in his talk page or at the Miss Supranational talk page but he refused to do so. Thank you.--Arielle Leira (talk) 14:59, 2 April 2013 (UTC)
- I have locked the page for 24 hours, and sent you both a notice about edit warring. I have also left a notice on the talkpage. Please attempt to resolve your dispute by discussion. If the other party does not engage in discussion, but continues to edit the article in a manner that concerns you, please read WP:Dispute resolution and follow the advice there. If you do not get prompt assistance and are growing frustrated you may contact me again, and I will look more closely at the matter. SilkTork 15:25, 2 April 2013 (UTC)
Arbitration requests
Hello SilkTork. Would you please clarify the meaning of what you said here, that the committee would accept a case about race and intelligence if someone requested it in 2013? Newyorkbrad's reason for declining the request is that problems are not continuing, but they still are. Future Perfect at Sunrise is still making admin actions while involved, and refusing to respond to other editors' queries about them, and Mathsci is still gaming The Devil's Advocate's one-way interaction ban with him. I offered to present some evidence about that, but nobody asked me to, and now it's too late because the case is being declined. This issue has already been through arbitration enforcement multiple times, and the committee also declined to make the interaction bans mutual, with the reason that it required a full case. If that was their reason to reject the motion to do that, but they also won't open a case, it's not clear how they expect that to be resolved. Akuri (talk) 08:00, 4 April 2013 (UTC)