| Revision as of 20:59, 22 October 2007 editHodja Nasreddin (talk | contribs)Autopatrolled, Pending changes reviewers31,217 edits →Am I wrong here?← Previous edit | Revision as of 22:02, 22 October 2007 edit undoHodja Nasreddin (talk | contribs)Autopatrolled, Pending changes reviewers31,217 edits rm myselfNext edit → | ||
| Line 9: | Line 9: | ||
| ::I think this makes a lot of sense, but I wonder what to do about articles where both Biophys and myself have been active editors? The legitimate content disputes that started all of this will not go away and if we are editing the same articles, there is a risk that we will disagree about the edits to them. (In particular, the ] issue may continue to create conflict). Of course, I too will accept whatever decision Arbcom comes up with on the matter, and I'd like to take this opportunity again to once again apologize for my past incivilities and again announce my intention to edit productively and interact civilly at all times. ] 03:00, 22 October 2007 (UTC) | ::I think this makes a lot of sense, but I wonder what to do about articles where both Biophys and myself have been active editors? The legitimate content disputes that started all of this will not go away and if we are editing the same articles, there is a risk that we will disagree about the edits to them. (In particular, the ] issue may continue to create conflict). Of course, I too will accept whatever decision Arbcom comes up with on the matter, and I'd like to take this opportunity again to once again apologize for my past incivilities and again announce my intention to edit productively and interact civilly at all times. ] 03:00, 22 October 2007 (UTC) | ||
| :::As for me, I am simply looking for instructions from ArbCom as the highest WP authority. So far, I got the following message: it is O'K to be "occasionally incivil" and target WP contributors if you are an established user. I thought that ''wrongdoing by an established editor is actually much worse than wrongdoing by a new editor'' who was not a subject of any previous RfC proceedings. I urge all ArbCom members to consider all evidence very carefully and compare this case with other recent cases. But once again, I am not someone to judge here, and I am ready to apologize for any wrongdoings on my side.] 15:30, 22 October 2007 (UTC) | |||
Revision as of 22:02, 22 October 2007
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.
Am I wrong here?
Thank you for taking this case. Certainly, the ArbCom judgement will clarify everything. As a relatively new user (11 months in WP), I am not that much familiar with WP policies. I honestly thought that Commodore Sloat was uncivil to many users. I can not imagine that people in a good academic lab would be talking like him. But Kirill judgment shows that I might be wrong here. If this is indeed the case, and others vote like Kirill, I would like to apologize to ArbCom and to User:Commodore_Sloat and to correct my own behavior in WP accordingly. Biophys 00:49, 22 October 2007 (UTC)
- He has been occasionally incivil, yes; but not to the extent that I could justify imposing a real sanction on him. The two of you are productive editors; I'd prefer if you guys just stayed out of each others' hair and were able to go back to editing without some harsh restriction on your activity. Kirill 01:53, 22 October 2007 (UTC)
- Thank you! I would certainly agree with your instruction to keep away of each other's edits. After all, that is something I was looking for. But my concern was more about other users who have a significantly bigger overlap of interests with Csloat than me. It is really surprising that none of them provided any evidence. Perhaps they are too busy and do not want to be involved here. That is understandable. Still, I would like ArbCom to make an official judgement, which would clarify everything. If ArbCom decides that sanctions are not required, I would gladly accept this, just as any other decision. I am going to stay as far away of Csloat as possible, so it is perfectly fine if ArbCom decides that Csloat is not a problem for others. Biophys 02:16, 22 October 2007 (UTC)
- I think this makes a lot of sense, but I wonder what to do about articles where both Biophys and myself have been active editors? The legitimate content disputes that started all of this will not go away and if we are editing the same articles, there is a risk that we will disagree about the edits to them. (In particular, the WP:SYN issue may continue to create conflict). Of course, I too will accept whatever decision Arbcom comes up with on the matter, and I'd like to take this opportunity again to once again apologize for my past incivilities and again announce my intention to edit productively and interact civilly at all times. csloat 03:00, 22 October 2007 (UTC)