In case yew were wondering, im the highly experienced editor Leyasu - also known as the rogue bandit of Soulseek. Im pretty infamous for being banned permenantly as a matter of policy from violating them to show favouritism by admins for users who agree with them.
But non the less - it was a vandalistic edit, and he didnt seem to do it in bad faith. Hence why i reverted and messaged him. When yew say weird things are going on, what do yew mean? I might be able to, lend a hand. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 217.44.161.138 ( talk) 01:28, 11 December 2006 (UTC).
I'm not sure what your goal for filing an arbitration request is, and there is no one who will "take it from here" if you do are not interested in pursuing the case yourself. Neither the arbitrators or the clerks are prosecutors; if you believe action should be taken, you need to lay out a case for what action and why. Regarding Deltabeignet's breaching experiment, it seems like an RFC should be undertaken before any arbitration, if you believe his conduct is serious enough to require action. Thatcher131 08:24, 11 December 2006 (UTC)
Sorry about that; I hadn't looked into the case enough and just thought it was a "User x vs. user y" case. Thanks for clarifying this for me.
Regarding the wait in hearing the case, it's pretty normal for arbitration cases to take several days to be accepted. Cases filed this month may take longer due to the arbcom elections, which are still going on for about another week. There will be at least five new arbitrators coming in next month, and four of the current arbitrators have terms that are expiring at the end of this year (none of them are running for re-election this year). -- Idont Havaname ( Talk) 19:02, 11 December 2006 (UTC)
I added my statement to the arbcom. Im not taking lightly being blamed for some whole thing i have had absoloutly no involvement in. I do however have a feeling that Delta while try to remove it so he doesnt look as bad, thus i could use some help in reminding him banned or not, i still have the right to take part in Arbcom cases involving me. Idont is more reasonable and will listen so i have a good feeling he will just leave it and ban the ip; something more acceptable and within reason. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 81.153.42.173 ( talk) 23:30, 11 December 2006 (UTC).
Hello,
An Arbitration case in which you commented has been opened: Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Deltabeignet. Please add any evidence you may wish the arbitrators to consider to the evidence sub-page, Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Deltabeignet/Evidence. You may also contribute to the case on the workshop sub-page, Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Deltabeignet/Workshop.
On behalf of the Arbitration Committee, —— Eagle 101 ( Need help?) 13:27, 19 December 2006 (UTC)
I have answered several of your accusations on the evidence page, but I thought the most interesting was the accusation that I had twice falsified history. From Treaty of Paris (1763):
Hope that helps. Joyeux Noël! Deltabeignet 04:15, 26 December 2006 (UTC)
Joyeux Noël à toi aussi! Je me sens beaucoup plus doux aujourd'hui. — Sebastian 05:14, 26 December 2006 (UTC)
Hi. I saw your comments in the "Deltabeignet" arbitration case, I am glad I was able to be a little bit helpful.
I also saw you posted a suggestion to the /Proposed Decision in that case. I know it's confusing, but only the Arbitrators are really supposed to make proposals in that page. Comments from other editors, like you and me, go on the /Workshop page. If you move your proposal there you will also see a couple of other users' findings in the case which may give you some comfort about the matter. Newyorkbrad 14:03, 31 December 2006 (UTC)
In case yew were wondering, im the highly experienced editor Leyasu - also known as the rogue bandit of Soulseek. Im pretty infamous for being banned permenantly as a matter of policy from violating them to show favouritism by admins for users who agree with them.
But non the less - it was a vandalistic edit, and he didnt seem to do it in bad faith. Hence why i reverted and messaged him. When yew say weird things are going on, what do yew mean? I might be able to, lend a hand. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 217.44.161.138 ( talk) 01:28, 11 December 2006 (UTC).
I'm not sure what your goal for filing an arbitration request is, and there is no one who will "take it from here" if you do are not interested in pursuing the case yourself. Neither the arbitrators or the clerks are prosecutors; if you believe action should be taken, you need to lay out a case for what action and why. Regarding Deltabeignet's breaching experiment, it seems like an RFC should be undertaken before any arbitration, if you believe his conduct is serious enough to require action. Thatcher131 08:24, 11 December 2006 (UTC)
Sorry about that; I hadn't looked into the case enough and just thought it was a "User x vs. user y" case. Thanks for clarifying this for me.
Regarding the wait in hearing the case, it's pretty normal for arbitration cases to take several days to be accepted. Cases filed this month may take longer due to the arbcom elections, which are still going on for about another week. There will be at least five new arbitrators coming in next month, and four of the current arbitrators have terms that are expiring at the end of this year (none of them are running for re-election this year). -- Idont Havaname ( Talk) 19:02, 11 December 2006 (UTC)
I added my statement to the arbcom. Im not taking lightly being blamed for some whole thing i have had absoloutly no involvement in. I do however have a feeling that Delta while try to remove it so he doesnt look as bad, thus i could use some help in reminding him banned or not, i still have the right to take part in Arbcom cases involving me. Idont is more reasonable and will listen so i have a good feeling he will just leave it and ban the ip; something more acceptable and within reason. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 81.153.42.173 ( talk) 23:30, 11 December 2006 (UTC).
Hello,
An Arbitration case in which you commented has been opened: Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Deltabeignet. Please add any evidence you may wish the arbitrators to consider to the evidence sub-page, Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Deltabeignet/Evidence. You may also contribute to the case on the workshop sub-page, Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Deltabeignet/Workshop.
On behalf of the Arbitration Committee, —— Eagle 101 ( Need help?) 13:27, 19 December 2006 (UTC)
I have answered several of your accusations on the evidence page, but I thought the most interesting was the accusation that I had twice falsified history. From Treaty of Paris (1763):
Hope that helps. Joyeux Noël! Deltabeignet 04:15, 26 December 2006 (UTC)
Joyeux Noël à toi aussi! Je me sens beaucoup plus doux aujourd'hui. — Sebastian 05:14, 26 December 2006 (UTC)
Hi. I saw your comments in the "Deltabeignet" arbitration case, I am glad I was able to be a little bit helpful.
I also saw you posted a suggestion to the /Proposed Decision in that case. I know it's confusing, but only the Arbitrators are really supposed to make proposals in that page. Comments from other editors, like you and me, go on the /Workshop page. If you move your proposal there you will also see a couple of other users' findings in the case which may give you some comfort about the matter. Newyorkbrad 14:03, 31 December 2006 (UTC)