Jump to content

Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Turrican and VeryVerily/Evidence

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Anyone, whether directly involved or not, may add evidence to this page. Please choose an appropriate header for your evidence and sign your comments with your name.

It is extremely important in order that your submitted evidence be considered by the Arbitrators that when you cite evidence to provide a link to the exact edit which displays the transaction, links to the page itself are not sufficient. For example, to cite the edit by Mennonot to the article Anomalous phenomenon adding a link to Hundredth Monkey use this form: [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/wiki.phtml?title=Anomalous_phenomenon&diff=0&oldid=5584644] [1].

This page is not for general discussion - for that, see talk page.

If you disagree with some evidence you see here, please provide counter-evidence, or an explanation of why the evidence is misleading. Please do this under a seperate header, to seperate your response from the original evidence.

Be aware that the Arbitrators may at times rework this page to try to make it more coherent. If you are a participant in the case or a third party, please don't try to refactor the page, let the Arbitrators do it. If you object to evidence which is inserted by other participants or third parties please voice your objections on the talk page. It is especially important to not remove evidence presented by others.

History of Italy[edit]

The sentence about that article is now incomplete, much more has happened since the adding of the dispute notice. Details at page history and Talk:History of Italy. Granted, it no longer seems to involve Turrican, but it does include VeryVerily. --Joy [shallot] 11:43, 10 Nov 2004 (UTC)

(copied from main page, in case that's being ignored)

In the one month plus since I first brought this case, not even the temporary injunction proposed has been implemented. Well, Turrican finally seems to have gone away, after weeks of me watching all of my even minor edits to make sure they weren't being vandalized and being wholly persistent in reverting the destruction (now evidence against me?), all while no official action was taken. A user who vandalized my page with swastikas and obscenities is free and clear, while I may be facing a temporary injunction for reverting trolls and troublemakers - at a request submitted a week later than mine. Do I laugh or cry? VeryVerily 09:46, 14 Nov 2004 (UTC)