| Revision as of 05:08, 1 March 2007 view sourceGordonWatts (talk | contribs)4,767 edits Update: ArbCom rejects my case - and supports an admin who violated WP:Consensus← Previous edit |
Latest revision as of 04:16, 25 April 2019 view source Rockstone35 (talk | contribs)Extended confirmed users, Pending changes reviewers, Rollbackers10,500 edits Added link to ban reason |
| (22 intermediate revisions by 14 users not shown) |
| Line 1: |
Line 1: |
|
|
{{banned user|by=the community|link=], , ]}} |
|
]In a recent dispute, I was voted down 6.0 to 2.5 (long explanation about the half a vote thing) |
|
|
|
|
|
While I don't like losing the vote (the voting is used to mathematically determine the consensus, since no other logical means exists), nonetheless, I am mature and accept the outcome, but I got in the last word -right or wrong -on the matter (at least, it is the last word, as of this writing). Observe: |
|
|
|
|
|
On both and here , I point out that many feel that Misplaced Pages is NOT a reliable source and cite these argumentative editors as part of the reason. I could be wrong, but often times editors disagreeing with me will make generalized assumption (like Geocities or AOL or blog links are not reliable) -and not look at actual policy. Not all editors just babble; some of them make good points, and I concede I am wrong on a few points (such as my erroneous suggestion that Terri's Fight did not have special status when in fact policy does make exceptions to links from the actual participants). |
|
|
|
|
|
OK, what I really don't like about this wiki is how many people often don't adhere to actual guidelines but sort of make up excuses for their edits; People making a case should use the actual policy as it is written to make your case; opinions don't count here. |
|
|
|
|
|
I get in the last word on Schiavo link dispute: Many people don't consider ] itself reliable -so what was that again about those links not being reliable,...--] 09:40, 15 February 2007 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
---- New news: please see my talk page for a Request for ArbCom intervention.--] 02:48, 25 February 2007 (UTC) |
|
|
---- |
|
|
|
|
|
* UPDATES: ArbCom has decided to , even though they never got the required for "the case to be de-listed." . (The arbiter removing that forgot to wait for a 6th vote -or vote himself! Whoops. |
|
|
|
|
|
* In short, ArbCom's refusal to review the case () effectively supports ].] |
|
|
|
|
|
* In addition, ArbCom arbiters were deaf to . Also, they had no respect for the opinions of -and that no disciplinary action was taken. |
|
|
|
|
|
When you don't pay your employees, you get what you pay for: Low quality editor labour. (Maybe Misplaced Pages could help itself by taking out paid advertisement -and then using that money to hire editors -they'd probably have more time to do quality work if they were paid -and didn't have to work a "regular" job. Just my 2 cents' worth of helpful advice.) |
|
|
|
|
|
Only at Misplaced Pages -where the admins can't count! Only at Misplaced Pages: Where somehow constitutes a ].--] 05:08, 1 March 2007 (UTC) |
|
