Wikipedia talk:Requests for arbitration/ArmchairVexillologistDon/Proposed decision

[Re. the 2nd proposed injunction, moved from main page]

If I may intervene, rather than suffer under a temporary injunction effecting my ability to edit any Canadian articles (which is the bulk of my activity on wikipedia) or political articles (which is the remainder of my activity) I will voluntarily withdraw from the three articles Don has been editing and associated talk pages and all other pages on vexillology and I will not engage in any debates or edit wars with Don on any other articles or talk pages he chooses to edit until the matter is resolved. If the ArbComm insists on the extremely broad injunction proposed above I prefer to withdraw my request for arbitration altogether. User:Homey 01:33, 17 Dec 2004 (UTC)

[moved from main page]

I came back August 6, 2005 ... Please reopen Arbitartion

ArmchairVexillologistDon 16:42, 15 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Respectfully, to whom it may concern on the ArbCom,

(i). I freely admit that in Dec. 2004, and on Aug. 6-8, 2005, I did publish the full name of User:Homey (formerly [name removed]).

(ii). I freely agree that this is a violation of Wikipedia Policy, and I shall not do that to User:Homey , or anyone else.

(iii). My reasons for doing so (which was in violation of policy) where to advance my opinion that User:Homey's real life Activist Activities against a "group that happenned the be carrying the Canadian Red Ensign" were not a justification to post this observation on Wikipedia (an international quoted on-line reference encyclopedia).

Canadian Red Ensign (as per last paragraph).

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Canadian_Red_Ensign

(iv). I formally apologise to User:Homey (aka [name removed]), and I promise not to publish his identity again, and I promise to refrain from any personal attacks in the future. If I am re-instated with full editing rights, I do reserve the right to debate User:Homey, in a respectful, and constructive manner.

Lastly, I have contributed to the Red Ensign of the Union of South Africa(1910-1928), the correction to the Provincal Blue Ensign of Quebec (1868), and (if re-instated) I have a correction to contribute to the Blue Ensign of the Dominion of New Zealand (1907).

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flag_of_New_Zealand

Sincerely, and respectivefully,

ArmchairVexillologistDon 15:40, 18 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Anyone notice this?

User:Homey ([name removed]) wrote this back on Dec 17, 2004,

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:Requests_for_arbitration/ArmchairVexillologistDon/Proposed_decision

[Re. the 2nd proposed injunction, moved from main page]

If I may intervene, rather than suffer under a temporary injunction effecting my ability to edit any Canadian articles (which is the bulk of my activity on wikipedia) or political articles (which is the remainder of my activity) I will voluntarily withdraw from the three articles Don has been editing and associated talk pages and all other pages on vexillology and I will not engage in any debates or edit wars with Don on any other articles or talk pages he chooses to edit until the matter is resolved. If the ArbComm insists on the extremely broad injunction proposed above I prefer to withdraw my request for arbitration altogether. User:Homey 01:33, 17 Dec 2004 (UTC)

So User:Homey gets to run amok, and I get gagged?

Can anyone on the AbrCom give me any comment, on any progress on my case?

Please.

ArmchairVexillologistDon 19:38, 20 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Reopened RFA: questions

I think it might make more sense to treat this as a new RFA rather than a reopened one as a) the complainants/impacted parties are different b) the body of evidence is different (or at least involve a significant addition) c) the issues (ie using talk pages as chat rooms, personal attacks, original research) are not exactly the same as before, for instance the question of violating privacy or harassing users by posting their "real names" or other personal information is not an issue here where it was previously.

Certainly the issues overlap and evidence from the previous RFA is relevant but this really is a different RFA as far as I'm concerned (and I'm not interested in assuming the "complainant" role here).User:Homey 21:56, 11 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]