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)