| Revision as of 03:59, 17 November 2008 editNovickas (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 award← Previous edit | Revision as of 04:55, 17 November 2008 edit undoDeacon of Pndapetzim (talk | contribs)Autopatrolled, Administrators39,746 edits →Two objections: reNext edit → | ||
| Line 14: | Line 14: | ||
| :'''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) | :'''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) | ||
| :Newyorkbrad has also gone over the evidence and has said he would also add his say, so that's something. I've given my thoughts on this already. Findings are too random and skewed, there is little public reason to believe that the evidence has been read and processed, interactions in the proposals with Piotrus bothered me, etc, etc. Unfortunately, in practice the way these things work is that even if Kirill were overly-sympathetic towards Piotrus or had failed otherwise, it is unlikely that this could be reversed now by other arbs as they probably feel they couldn't do so without appearing to discredit Kirill; and so I'm taking it as a '']''. I'll just add, I was told by an unmentioned person at the beginning of the arbcom that if Kirill was drafting the proposals it would likely be very good for Piotrus. It would though be nice and reassuring to know that the evidence was actually read and processed by other arbs, because I'd by default assume (nyb aside now) that alot of the reading will be done backwards à la ], reading the proposals and then the evidence. ] (<small>]</small>) 04:55, 17 November 2008 (UTC) | |||
Revision as of 04:55, 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)
- Newyorkbrad has also gone over the evidence and has said he would also add his say, so that's something. I've given my thoughts on this already. Findings are too random and skewed, there is little public reason to believe that the evidence has been read and processed, interactions in the proposals with Piotrus bothered me, etc, etc. Unfortunately, in practice the way these things work is that even if Kirill were overly-sympathetic towards Piotrus or had failed otherwise, it is unlikely that this could be reversed now by other arbs as they probably feel they couldn't do so without appearing to discredit Kirill; and so I'm taking it as a fait accompli. I'll just add, I was told by an unmentioned person at the beginning of the arbcom that if Kirill was drafting the proposals it would likely be very good for Piotrus. It would though be nice and reassuring to know that the evidence was actually read and processed by other arbs, because I'd by default assume (nyb aside now) that alot of the reading will be done backwards à la selection bias, reading the proposals and then the evidence. Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 04:55, 17 November 2008 (UTC)