Misplaced Pages

talk:Requests for arbitration/C68-FM-SV/Proposed decision: Difference between revisions - Misplaced Pages

Article snapshot taken from Wikipedia with creative commons attribution-sharealike license. Give it a read and then ask your questions in the chat. We can research this topic together.
< Misplaced Pages talk:Requests for arbitration | C68-FM-SV Browse history interactively← Previous editNext edit →Content deleted Content addedVisualWikitext
Revision as of 05:15, 6 June 2008 editDorftrottel (talk | contribs)14,762 edits Drafting: re Viridae← Previous edit Revision as of 09:03, 20 June 2008 edit undoFT2 (talk | contribs)Edit filter managers, Administrators55,546 editsm Drafting: tweakNext edit →
(One intermediate revision by the same user not shown)
Line 19: Line 19:
::::Nice try...surely such less than half measures now exempt you from your admin transgressions.--] 04:51, 6 June 2008 (UTC) ::::Nice try...surely such less than half measures now exempt you from your admin transgressions.--] 04:51, 6 June 2008 (UTC)
::::Viridae, I'm sure it would be appreciated if you summarised your acknowledgement of whatever parts of the evidence presented against your behaviour you think is valid and included related diffs or links, or repeated any apologies you think are appropriate ]. I'm confident such a conciliable statement wouldn't go unnoticed by the ArbCom when they evaluate what to expect from each of the parties in the future. On the other hand, I'm also confident the ArbCom will take into account the de facto refusal of any party to acknowledge any part of the evidence presented against their behaviour as further evidence against that party. <small>(Also, I never played the cowboy. I always was an Indian. You see, when we played as kids, the Indians always were the heroes, the cowboys were the villains; and since nobody wanted to be the cowboy, we mostly played happy community life instead of war. Weird Germans, hah?)</small> <big>]&nbsp;(])</big> 05:15, 6 June 2008 (UTC) ::::Viridae, I'm sure it would be appreciated if you summarised your acknowledgement of whatever parts of the evidence presented against your behaviour you think is valid and included related diffs or links, or repeated any apologies you think are appropriate ]. I'm confident such a conciliable statement wouldn't go unnoticed by the ArbCom when they evaluate what to expect from each of the parties in the future. On the other hand, I'm also confident the ArbCom will take into account the de facto refusal of any party to acknowledge any part of the evidence presented against their behaviour as further evidence against that party. <small>(Also, I never played the cowboy. I always was an Indian. You see, when we played as kids, the Indians always were the heroes, the cowboys were the villains; and since nobody wanted to be the cowboy, we mostly played happy community life instead of war. Weird Germans, hah?)</small> <big>]&nbsp;(])</big> 05:15, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

Minor apologies. The delay isn't due to discussional matters - it's more due to end of school year and "that time of year" of all things. A number of arbitrators have had family matters (family vacations, events, kids needing more attention than usual), wikibreak, and the like. Plus, I've been working on some fairly intense review cases that haven't really brooked delay. Let's try this again shall we? :)

]&nbsp;<sup><span style="font-style:italic">(]&nbsp;|&nbsp;])</span></sup> 09:01, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

Revision as of 09:03, 20 June 2008

Arbitrators active on this case

To update this listing, edit this template and scroll down until you find the right list of arbitrators. If updates to this listing do not immediately show, try purging the cache.

Drafting

Just to keep parties and others up to date...

This started as a case that had a lot of claims that might be hard to evidence, as well as significant potential for "sprawl"/drama/confusion/heatedness, and it's therefore been given a fair bit of time for evidence to be heard and to 'bed in' (rather than assessing it too soon). In practice, the case has been somewhat smoother than it initially seemed it might, and in general, the Workshop pages have been used by participants and onlookers to produce some useful viewpoints and opinions too. (Thanks!)

Initial review of the case pages and evidence, while the rest of the case is posted up onto these pages, is likely to be taking place shortly by Arbitrators.

Just an FYI for all, to keep up to date.

FT2  11:57 (UTC), 31 May 2008

Thanks! any hint on things the committee would like to either see more of/have questions on/like more opinion about? --Rocksanddirt (talk) 06:08, 2 June 2008 (UTC)
I feel that the catharsis is nearly complete. Before disruptive elements move in and clutter the pages with endless arguments, perhaps now is an opportune moment to read them all and start drafting a decision. Jehochman 16:41, 2 June 2008 (UTC)
Valid point. some of that has already started. --Rocksanddirt (talk) 18:17, 2 June 2008 (UTC)
I agree that the collection of evidence and interpretation of it in the Workshop has had enough time, but I believe it'd be worthwhile to wait for this (see also here). dorftrottel (talk) 10:45, 3 June 2008 (UTC)
Hold your horses there cowboy! I have apologised for several of the things presented about me - and you can consider this an apology for any genuine (MONGO - telling you to pull the other leg is not uncivil) incivility on my part. I try to keep cool and most of the time I succeed but sometimes I act rashly in the heat of the moment. Apologies to those offended by my words or actions in said heat of moment. Viridae 13:08, 3 June 2008 (UTC)
Nice try...surely such less than half measures now exempt you from your admin transgressions.--MONGO 04:51, 6 June 2008 (UTC)
Viridae, I'm sure it would be appreciated if you summarised your acknowledgement of whatever parts of the evidence presented against your behaviour you think is valid and included related diffs or links, or repeated any apologies you think are appropriate here. I'm confident such a conciliable statement wouldn't go unnoticed by the ArbCom when they evaluate what to expect from each of the parties in the future. On the other hand, I'm also confident the ArbCom will take into account the de facto refusal of any party to acknowledge any part of the evidence presented against their behaviour as further evidence against that party. (Also, I never played the cowboy. I always was an Indian. You see, when we played as kids, the Indians always were the heroes, the cowboys were the villains; and since nobody wanted to be the cowboy, we mostly played happy community life instead of war. Weird Germans, hah?) dorftrottel (talk) 05:15, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

Minor apologies. The delay isn't due to discussional matters - it's more due to end of school year and "that time of year" of all things. A number of arbitrators have had family matters (family vacations, events, kids needing more attention than usual), wikibreak, and the like. Plus, I've been working on some fairly intense review cases that haven't really brooked delay. Let's try this again shall we? :)

FT2  09:01, 20 June 2008 (UTC)