User talk:Oneismany
Welcome to my talk page!
Norman Mineta[edit]
Dear Oneismany,
I would welcome any improvements you could make to my proposal at Talk:9/11#Norman Mineta testimony issue ! — Xiutwel ♫☺♥♪ (speech has the power to bind the absolute) 06:52, 27 February 2008 (UTC)
request your input in a consensus survey re 9/11[edit]
Dear Oneismany,
At Talk:9/11#defining consensus I started a survey to get a better picture on how editor's opinions are varying with respect to the following statement:
- "The current form of the 9/11 article is at odds with the WP:NPOV policy, and the proposed inclusion of the fact that Michael Meacher alleges the US government of willfully not preventing the attacks, would make the article better, in stead of worse.
I would appreciate it when you could take a look. — Xiutwel ♫☺♥♪ (speech has the power to bind the absolute) 17:00, 14 March 2008 (UTC)
Arbitration[edit]
I have named you as an involved party at Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration#9/11 conspiracy theories. Ice Cold Beer (talk) 22:21, 17 March 2008 (UTC)
An Arbitration case involving you has been opened, and is located here. Please add any evidence you may wish the Arbitrators to consider to the evidence sub-page, Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/September 11 conspiracy theories/Evidence. Please submit your evidence within one week, if possible. You may also contribute to the case on the workshop sub-page.
For the Arbitration Committee, AGK § 19:27, 19 March 2008 (UTC)
This arbitration case has been closed and the final decision is available at the link above. Further to this, any uninvolved administrator may, on his or her own discretion, "impose sanctions on any editor working in the area of conflict (defined as articles which relate to the events of September 11, broadly interpreted) if, despite being warned, that editor repeatedly or seriously fails to adhere to the purpose of Wikipedia, any expected standards of behavior, or any normal editorial process." The full remedy is located here.
For the Arbitration Committee, Anthøny 15:53, 8 April 2008 (UTC)
Clarification motion[edit]
A case (September 11 conspiracy theories) in which you were involved has been modified by motion which changed the wording of the discretionary sanctions section to clarify that the scope applies to pages, not just articles. For the arbitration committee --S Philbrick(Talk) 19:19, 27 October 2014 (UTC)