Wikipedia talk:Requests for arbitration/Chuck F/Proposed decision

Under "One-month ban for disregard for the previous Arbitration rulings", I suspect "community" should be "committee". P.S. Glad to finally see some action on this case. RadicalSubversiv E 03:42, 3 Jan 2005 (UTC)

In light of Chuck's previous pattern of evading blocks, and recent threats to do so if a ban is imposed, I reiterate my request that any bans imposed be subject to automatic extension if he attempts to evade them. RadicalSubversiv E 11:10, 3 Jan 2005 (UTC)

This is already the case for all ban periods. A person could theoretically permanently ban themselves by violating a single 24 hour block once every 24 hours. --mav 03:27, 10 Jan 2005 (UTC)

I'm again dumbfounded by Fred Bauder's votes. Fred says there is no specific evidence showing that Chuck F participated in revert wars. This is simply baffling.. the evidence page contains hundreds of links to specific diffs showing exactly that. Fred voted similarly on the Reithy arbitration. I think an explanation is in order. Rhobite 23:51, Jan 4, 2005 (UTC)

Watching the evolution and timing of his votes, it might be that Fred objects to the findings of fact themselves mostly not pointing to specific diffs. This strikes me as a bit absurd, given the mountain of evidence, but I could see insisting on it on procedural grounds. If, however, he is saying that there is nothing on the evidence page showing Chuck's participation in edit wars, then we have a big problem. RadicalSubversiv E 00:37, 5 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Rhobite administrator misusing blocking powers

Rhobite also misused his admin powers with me.This page gives his victims the chance to respond. Ollieplatt 08:49, 13 Jan 2005 (UTC)