On 07/27/04 19:32, Rebecca wrote: again gotten himself He's attempted to taken a long time to previous block, I disputed Middle being two, causing the discuss edits, just ground from his blocked, this judge it purely on The User Formerly Known As OneVoice is on [[Current events]] as a propagandist. He keeps putting in stories from INN (a partisan news source whose reports tend not to faintly resemble mainstream press even when one makes it that far. But don't take my word for it, read http://israelnn.com/ - at least with Slashdot it's just kept out as having a ridiculously small ambit). I suggest it's nothing like news unless it hits the mainstream press, or what passes for mainstream in specialist areas. Middle-east politics is part of the ambit of the mainstream press, so if it's on INN and nowhere else then it's deeply suspect. (I have also been accused of bias for cutting completely crappy stories slanted against Israel, so I must therefore, by the comments on my actions, be an anti-Semitic Jew.) [[Current events]] has some sort of vague criteria of newsworthiness. While not *everything* will be caught by the mainstream newsfeeds, nor are they certain indicators of worthiness, they do make a handy rough guide. The INN feed really doesn't cut the mustard. - d. _______________________________________________ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l(a)Wikipedia.org http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l

So, it seems that this Harry Smith guy has once again gotten himself blocked. Current events, this time. However, it's also worth noting this guy's record. He's attempted to add POV material and subvert consensus that had taken a long time to work out on numerous articles. Indeed, before his previous block, I believe he'd assaulted not one, not two, but five disputed Middle Eastern articles [[UNRWA]] and [[Tali Hatuel]] being two, causing the former to be re-protected. He doesn't seem to discuss edits, just reverts, or if he does anything, will not give any ground from his (usually hardline) position. Thus, if he's getting blocked, this shouldn't be much of a surprise - and please don't judge it purely on the basis of his latest actions.

The title of the arbitration is chosen by whoever makes the request. It could probably be changed later by either one of the other parties or one of the arbitrators to more clearly reflect the parties and issues involved, but it is probably seen by the arbitrators as an arbitrary choice that the filer of the initial complaint made. However your point is well taken and perhaps some of the arbitrators will begin editing that title a bit. Fred <wikien-l(a)Wikipedia.org> to list http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l _______________________________________________ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l(a)Wikipedia.org http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l

My point being that naming of the cases should probably be left to the arbitrators to decide, as they're the ones who get to determine the scope of a given case. -Snowspinner