| Revision as of 22:49, 16 November 2008 editSandstein (talk | contribs)Autopatrolled, Administrators188,358 editsm →Clerical comments on the proposed decision: rephrase "context" to "subject matter" in my comment← Previous edit | Revision as of 03:59, 17 November 2008 edit undoNovickas (talk | contribs)Autopatrolled, Extended confirmed users, Pending changes reviewers9,221 edits 2 objections: to BtheCat banned, on grounds of multiple (not easily counted) Gbook references; to KL's involvement in light of !vote Piotrus awardNext edit → | ||
| Line 8: | Line 8: | ||
| * In finding 10, I suggest that "fear-mongering" be replaced with a term more in keeping with the measured tone expected from an Arbitration Committee decision. | * In finding 10, I suggest that "fear-mongering" be replaced with a term more in keeping with the measured tone expected from an Arbitration Committee decision. | ||
| I have no opinion on the merits of the case, or of the proposed decision. <small><span style="border:1px solid black;padding:1px;">]</span></small> 22:48, 16 November 2008 (UTC) | I have no opinion on the merits of the case, or of the proposed decision. <small><span style="border:1px solid black;padding:1px;">]</span></small> 22:48, 16 November 2008 (UTC) | ||
| == Two objections== | |||
| :'''Strongly oppose''' banning Boodlesthecat. I wish there were some quick and easy tool-based way to quantify this: he has added scores of reliable and easily verifiable EN Google book references to articles. | |||
| :'''Re Kirill in this case.''' Sorry, but in light of K's support of an award to Piotrus I think he should have recused himself here. ] (]) 03:59, 17 November 2008 (UTC) | |||
Revision as of 03:59, 17 November 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.
Clerical comments on the proposed decision
If I may, a few suggestions:
- In finding 4, "Regrettable" should not be capitalised.
- In finding 6.1, "the Russian regime" should read "the Russian government", because the choice of the pejorative (to my ears) term "regime" may create the appearance of prejudice, particularly given the subject matter of the case.
- In finding 10, I suggest that "fear-mongering" be replaced with a term more in keeping with the measured tone expected from an Arbitration Committee decision.
I have no opinion on the merits of the case, or of the proposed decision. Sandstein 22:48, 16 November 2008 (UTC)
Two objections
- Strongly oppose banning Boodlesthecat. I wish there were some quick and easy tool-based way to quantify this: he has added scores of reliable and easily verifiable EN Google book references to articles.
- Re Kirill in this case. Sorry, but in light of K's support of an award to Piotrus I think he should have recused himself here. Novickas (talk) 03:59, 17 November 2008 (UTC)