This is an old revision of this page, as edited by STSC (talk | contribs) at 01:20, 15 September 2011 (→Use of Feezo's RfA statement by Qwyrxian to boost his standing in the arbitration: new section). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.
Revision as of 01:20, 15 September 2011 by STSC (talk | contribs) (→Use of Feezo's RfA statement by Qwyrxian to boost his standing in the arbitration: new section)(diff) ← Previous revision | Latest revision (diff) | Newer revision → (diff) Main case page (Talk) — Evidence (Talk) — Workshop (Talk) — Proposed decision (Talk)Case clerk: TBD Drafting arbitrator: TBD
| Misplaced Pages Arbitration |
|---|
 |
| Open proceedings |
| Active sanctions |
| Arbitration Committee |
Audit
|
| Track related changes |
Behaviour on this page: Arbitration case pages exist to assist the Arbitration Committee in arriving at a fair, well-informed decision. You are required to act with appropriate decorum during this case. While grievances must often be aired during a case, you are expected to air them without being rude or hostile, and to respond calmly to allegations against you. Accusations of misbehaviour posted in this case must be proven with clear evidence (and otherwise not made at all). Editors who conduct themselves inappropriately during a case may be sanctioned by an arbitrator or clerk, without further warning, by being banned from further participation in the case, or being blocked altogether. Personal attacks against other users, including arbitrators or clerks, will be met with sanctions. Behavior during a case may also be considered by the committee in arriving at a final decision.
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Additional statements from uninvolved parties
Statement by Ajl772
Technically speaking, I should have been notified as well, since I was involved (albeit briefly) in attempting to get to some sort of dispute resolution running (specifically by filing a MedCom request). However I withdrew from that for various reasons, which I will list at a later time, as well as providing a statement, which will be included in this section (but for now, I need to sleep). – AJL 10:17, 13 August 2011 (UTC)
- I'm going to follow the example of Tenmei – by striking out my comments – and not participate in this. I have better things to do with my life than
argue over some stupid islands I don't care aboutget involved in petty disputes about who is "right" or "wrong," and the possible ramifications of who gets disciplined/reprimanded/etc. I'm done. – AJL 07:40, 17 August 2011 (UTC)
Statement by Eraserhead1
I have no interest in this topic whatsoever - I don't even know where these islands are.
However I do think that its important to solve disputes rather than leave them hanging - that's why I took the abortion case to the mediation cabal rather than just walking away. I also appreciate that you guys have a big workload but ultimately I think that if all the steps in the dispute resolution process have been tried - and formal mediation has failed - then that in itself is a conduct issue that should be addressed by somebody. Maybe the only solution is to topic ban everyone who is involved in the dispute and let new editors take over, maybe you can draw a line in the sand between the disruptive behaviour and the non-disruptive behaviour but it shouldn't just be left hanging as that isn't good for anyone. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Eraserhead1 (talk • contribs)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.Demand for an apology from Qwyrxian
(moved from workshop by Clerk)
Re: Qwyrxian's statement, "Some editors have held that no matter what consensus says, the current article title will never be acceptable."
Please note the following facts:
- I have never held that "no matter what consensus says, the current article title will never be acceptable".
- There is no consensus on the current article title "Senkaku Islands".
- My position on the article title is purely based on Wiki neutrality policy.
The "Statement by Qwyrxian" on the case implies me that I have behavioral problem because of my position on the article title, and it also implies me that I was one of the editors who caused the failure of the mediation. I must ask Qwyrixian to clarify his Statement on the case and to apologize publicly for damaging my reputation. STSC (talk) 18:57, 20 August 2011 (UTC)
- Yes. I believe that should be clarified, because that sounded like it was implying STSC likes to IDIDNTHEARTHAT and was actively filibustering the process (when he was, in fact, a valuable contributor). --Bobthefish2 (talk) 20:33, 20 August 2011 (UTC)
- I am willing to apologize if STSC is willing to clarify that, should consensus (again) show preference for the Senkaku Islands title (via whatever method we pursue once the Arbitration is done), that xe will accept that result. Your explicit statement which I linked said, "Whatever, the title with the Japanese name is never "NPOV" as long as Japan is one of the participants in the territorial dispute." Did I misunderstand what you said? To me, your words mean that you believe that even if the community consensus is in favor of the current article (as it was at the last RfC), that you still will insist the title is wrong and insist upon the NPOV-title tag remaining? If that is what you meant, then we have a problem, because you're saying that you won't accept community consensus until it matches your own personal opinion about the title and our policies. So if you will state that you will accept whatever consensus says on the title, then I will apologize for misunderstanding you. Qwyrxian (talk) 01:33, 21 August 2011 (UTC)
- I think you should be careful about using consensus to coerce others from pursuing minority views. Even if there is a majority support for a given notion, it doesn't mean the supported idea is correct. Rather it just implies the majority of those (most likely less than 10) opinions out of billions of people in this world favoured that idea. Instead of placing emphasis on the votes, it's more important to focus on the quality of arguments (as suggested in CONSENSUS).
- Personally, I wouldn't accept the fact that pigs can fly even if 2000 felt that's true in an RfC. However, I can be convinced that a Korean is the mitochondrial eve if there are scientific evidence that supports it... even if 20 Catholic priests say that's b.s. --Bobthefish2 (talk) 02:17, 21 August 2011 (UTC)
- I am willing to apologize if STSC is willing to clarify that, should consensus (again) show preference for the Senkaku Islands title (via whatever method we pursue once the Arbitration is done), that xe will accept that result. Your explicit statement which I linked said, "Whatever, the title with the Japanese name is never "NPOV" as long as Japan is one of the participants in the territorial dispute." Did I misunderstand what you said? To me, your words mean that you believe that even if the community consensus is in favor of the current article (as it was at the last RfC), that you still will insist the title is wrong and insist upon the NPOV-title tag remaining? If that is what you meant, then we have a problem, because you're saying that you won't accept community consensus until it matches your own personal opinion about the title and our policies. So if you will state that you will accept whatever consensus says on the title, then I will apologize for misunderstanding you. Qwyrxian (talk) 01:33, 21 August 2011 (UTC)
- Qwyrxian said, "We've established before that the title is NPOV." and I replied directly to this comment. Consensus or not was not the issue in my reply. He didn't misunderstand me; he in fact willfully misrepresented me in his statement on the case. Please Qwyrxian do not try to deflect my demand for your unreserved apology. STSC (talk) 07:04, 21 August 2011 (UTC)
- STSC, so you're trying to tell us that whilst you don't see "Senkaku Islands" as being NPOV under any circumstances, if others Wikipedians agreed to keep the article title as it is, you would recognise that as consensus? I'm not sure how much I believe you, given that one of the problems is that proponents of changing the article name say that there is no consensus to keep it as it is, rather than admit they can't get consensus to change it. It's not like the article title was set as something else for most of the history of the article and then one person suddenly changed it. Come on, this is a red-herring. This is precisely the sort of thing you can address in your evidence. Perhaps you should expand on what you've already submitted to put your side of the story. John Smith's (talk) 09:37, 21 August 2011 (UTC)
- I'm not discussing other issues under this motion. STSC (talk) 12:12, 21 August 2011 (UTC)
- I don't really understand John Smith's statements either. But to clarify a little bit, I'd like to point out that the article name was initially a bold change by someone that was actually not widely accepted. The change stayed simply because there was a lot of wiki-lawyering going on and that somehow proponents of the move to "Senkaku Islands" decided to declare that a consensus was required to move the article back out of "Senkaku Islands". Since Misplaced Pages was still at relative infancy at 2003, I wouldn't at all be surprised if the average editor had less awareness of the rules back then. --Bobthefish2 (talk) 18:38, 21 August 2011 (UTC)
- I'm not discussing other issues under this motion. STSC (talk) 12:12, 21 August 2011 (UTC)
Further request for apology
Qwyrxian, you have clearly misrepresented my words in your statement on the Arbitration case. I'm trying to resolve this amicably with you before further steps will be taken in the Dispute Resolution. I ask you again politely to withdraw unconditionally the misrepresentation in your statement by a declaration on this talk page (since your statement cannot be modified on the Main Case page). If you think you can freely put your own words into other editors' mouth then your suitability as an administrator must be highly questionable. STSC (talk) 04:09, 22 August 2011 (UTC)
- I have a rough idea of how he might've mis-represented your position in his statements, but it'd be nice if you can elaborate on the specifics. Otherwise, the ambiguities can lead to an unnecessarily long exchange. --Bobthefish2 (talk) 07:07, 22 August 2011 (UTC)
- STSC has asked for my apology, stating that I have "willfully misrepresented" his position in my Statement. Unfortunately, I cannot apologize, because I honestly don't understand what misrepresentation I've made. I've asked for STSC to clarify what it was, in fact, that xe meant, but xe has refused to do so. However, I will try to be very careful and restate what I said in my Statement. I said that one problem with past discussions is that "Some editors have held that no matter what consensus says, the current article title will never be acceptable." That statement is strictly my interpretation of the events that have occurred at talk. Specifically, I linked to a diff by STSC from May 2011, which stated, in full, "You too are not assuming good faith by saying '... simply because you don't agree with the name'. As mentioned above, the purpose of the tag is to invite inputs on the questionable title. Whatever, the title with the Japanese name is never "NPOV" as long as Japan is one of the participants in the territorial dispute." My first interpretation of that statement is that STSC will always consider "Senkaku Islands" to be a non-neutral title as long as Japan is involved in the real world dispute about the islands. That much, I don't think I've misinterpreted, since it's very close to what STSC actually said. I further interpreted that statement (based in part on this specific conversation, but also based on other positions that STSC has taken throughout the discussion) to mean that STSC would always insist upon moving the name to another title, and/or would always insist that the "NPOV-title" tag should remain; I further interpreted those words to mean that this insistence would remain no matter what the results of any DR process might be. This interpretation was based on the fact that STSC was editing the article actively during at least 2 of the community DR processes--a RM which closed as no consensus to move and an RfC, that, while not formally closed, had every single uninvolved editor support the current name. That statement by STSC was after both of the DR. It seems that my interpretation of xyr words does not match STSC's own, though I do not actually know what xe meant definitively (of course, no one ever knows what anyone else "means", but that's a post-modern discussion for another place). I do apologize that I did not clarify that the words I wrote in my Statement were not STSC's literal words and instead were my interpretation of those words. Qwyrxian (talk) 08:58, 22 August 2011 (UTC)
- Since you love to talk about how people supported no change in the RfC, let me quote the entirety of your post to show how helpful that block of text was:
- Problem: What name should be used for this article and the related Senkaku Islands dispute article? The quick summary is that the ownership of these islands is in dispute between Japan, China, and Taiwan. As such, each side applies its own name(s) to the islands. The question is, what should the title be in English Misplaced Pages?
- Since you love to talk about how people supported no change in the RfC, let me quote the entirety of your post to show how helpful that block of text was:
- STSC has asked for my apology, stating that I have "willfully misrepresented" his position in my Statement. Unfortunately, I cannot apologize, because I honestly don't understand what misrepresentation I've made. I've asked for STSC to clarify what it was, in fact, that xe meant, but xe has refused to do so. However, I will try to be very careful and restate what I said in my Statement. I said that one problem with past discussions is that "Some editors have held that no matter what consensus says, the current article title will never be acceptable." That statement is strictly my interpretation of the events that have occurred at talk. Specifically, I linked to a diff by STSC from May 2011, which stated, in full, "You too are not assuming good faith by saying '... simply because you don't agree with the name'. As mentioned above, the purpose of the tag is to invite inputs on the questionable title. Whatever, the title with the Japanese name is never "NPOV" as long as Japan is one of the participants in the territorial dispute." My first interpretation of that statement is that STSC will always consider "Senkaku Islands" to be a non-neutral title as long as Japan is involved in the real world dispute about the islands. That much, I don't think I've misinterpreted, since it's very close to what STSC actually said. I further interpreted that statement (based in part on this specific conversation, but also based on other positions that STSC has taken throughout the discussion) to mean that STSC would always insist upon moving the name to another title, and/or would always insist that the "NPOV-title" tag should remain; I further interpreted those words to mean that this insistence would remain no matter what the results of any DR process might be. This interpretation was based on the fact that STSC was editing the article actively during at least 2 of the community DR processes--a RM which closed as no consensus to move and an RfC, that, while not formally closed, had every single uninvolved editor support the current name. That statement by STSC was after both of the DR. It seems that my interpretation of xyr words does not match STSC's own, though I do not actually know what xe meant definitively (of course, no one ever knows what anyone else "means", but that's a post-modern discussion for another place). I do apologize that I did not clarify that the words I wrote in my Statement were not STSC's literal words and instead were my interpretation of those words. Qwyrxian (talk) 08:58, 22 August 2011 (UTC)
- Background: In the sources, sometimes the name Senkaku Islands (Japanese name) is used, sometimes Diaoyu or Diayoutai or Tiaoyu or Tiaoyoutai Islands(Chinese names, various different transliterations), sometimes both are used, as in "Senkaku/Diaoyu Islands" or "Diaoyu-Senkaku Islands", and, very rarely and primarily in very old texts, an English translation of the name, Pinnacle Islands, is used. There is a dispute among the various regular editors about how often each naming variant is used in various sources (scholarly articles, encyclopedias, general internet, news articles, etc.). Furthermore, there is dispute about how to interpret these results in the context of the relevant policies for naming places and article titles, the most notable of which are WP:Article titles (in particular, the section Considering title changes), WP:NPOV (in particular, the subsection Naming), and Misplaced Pages:Naming conventions (geographic names) (in particular, the sections Widely accepted name and Multiple local names).
- In short, there are no diff's, nothing on research regarding on common name usage, nothing about how the current name was chosen without consensus. Even though I tried to add more content to it later, it was too late. Now, how many 3rd party opinions did we have? A grand total of 4? Did I miss any? Not surprisingly, one of the main arguments is COMMONNAME, namely the Japanese version is far more common. If my memory serves, our evidence is clearly against that notion already.
- You know, it's very easy to stack the deck in a RfC. One way to do that is to CANVAS, which I don't think you did. Another way would be to leave out critical information. :) --Bobthefish2 (talk) 18:00, 25 August 2011 (UTC)
Requested comment
I was asked to come here and "offer a short statement on involvement with the protection" of the Senkaku Islands pages. On both of them, I've changed protection levels a couple or three times, usually as a result of edit warring or editors promising to not edit war (which has generally been proven to be a false promise). The section directly above this one is a classic example of editors demanding things of other editors rather than laying their blatant nationalistic biases aside and working together in a spirit of cooperation. The main article has been in existence since October 23, 2003, and within a few months the disputes were already forming. It's really sad that it's come to arbitration, but I honestly don't see how anything other than generous application of a cluebat is going to do anything here. ···日本穣 · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe · Join WikiProject Japan! 04:37, 31 August 2011 (UTC)
What is the real motive behind Qwyrxian's bringing up this procedure?
(moved from workshop by clerk) I had never received any complaint from him and he had never discussed with me regarding his allegations. Then, all of a sudden, he dug out some of my old arguments with other editors in the talk page about one year ago (as he could not find any real evidence) and then ridiculously accused me as "causing the bulk of the problems". This is just character assassination. It's normal that there are heated exchanges during discussion in a talk page; I made comments on other editors' behaviour in general but no personal attacks. Moreover, Qwyrxian was not even involved with the articles at that time and would not have known the real circumstances. He is so egocentric that he thinks he can judge anyone by his own "interpretation". Why is Qwyrxian desperately trying to build up a case against me soon after I strongly opposed him to be elected as an administrator?
- Sorry, but, are you joking about the RfA bit? Your logic doesn't make any sense, as I'm also trying to get Tenmei and Bobthefish2 banned from the articles, even though they supported me in my RfA, and I'm not trying to get Lvhis banned from the articles, even though Lvhis also opposed me. In other words, there is absolutely no correlation between your !vote on my RfA and my actions here. As to why I dug up those diffs, it's because, in preparation for my evidence, I went through every archived discussion on both Talk:Senkaku Islands and Talk:Senkaku Islands dispute, as well as quite a number of the conversations had by the participants in other places like user talk pages. That's when I found your comments from before I was an editor on these articles. When I put your more recent actions in the context of those older comments, it became my belief that your attitude is overall incompatible with collaborative editing with respect to this topic. However, as I said elsewhere, I would be comfortable with you continuing to edit so long as you agree to accept consensus decisions and participate helpfully without treating the articles or their talk pages as a battleground.
- Finally, I reject your idea that what I do with judgment is different from what anyone else does in the world. Everyone judges based on interpretation. There is no such thing as "judging based on facts"; everyone takes in sensory data, and filters it through his/her own preconceptions, biases, paradigms, and world views, and then judges what those "facts" "mean". There is no such thing as a literal meaning of words, or a fact which can be detached from an associated point of view. Then, when we want others to concur with our interpretations, we attempt to persuade them that our interpretations make sense. So, yes, my claims about your words are my interpretations, but that's only because it would be impossible for them to be anything else.
- Of course you would be selective on your targets to hide your motive. And please don't speak as if everyone is under your mercy on this case. You still continued to be silly and ridiculous in saying, "my claims about your words are my interpretations, but that's only because it would be impossible for them to be anything else." STSC (talk) 03:41, 8 September 2011 (UTC)
- Right, and perhaps Bobthefish2 was strategically !voting for Q because he knew it would pass anyway, and wanted to stay on his good side. Of course, I don't necessarily believe this, but going by your logic we might as well start questioning everyone's motives. IMO the fact that STSC is even proposing an idea so palpably silly (that Q would ignore his best judgment on 3 other editors just to make his sinister agenda against 1 editor - STSC - look stronger) speaks to his poor discernment for the facts on the ground. Magog the Ogre (talk) 20:26, 8 September 2011 (UTC)
- That's not an obscure speculation at all. Lvhis and STSC are hardly ranked among the most disruptive editors involved and yet they were nominated to be indefinitely banned by two administrators. And that's all without any attempt to go through any DR's to addressed their supposed problems. Good faith or not, this is evidence that administrative tools should not be entrusted to people who exercise poor judgment when they are involved in a dispute. --Bobthefish2 (talk) 23:50, 8 September 2011 (UTC)
- Just to clarify, I have never once suggested Lvhis be topic banned or blocked (i.e., only one admin has), and I have further clarified that I do not believe that STSC needs to be banned if xe is willing to commit to following consensus and dropping xyr battleground mentality. Qwyrxian (talk) 23:57, 8 September 2011 (UTC)
- Sorry, I was a bit unclear: You advised for STSC's ban and Magog advocated Lvhis' block. By the way, it is unethical to criticize single STSC and I with regards to "battleground mentality". Reasons is that, based on your definition, practically everyone of us here (barring infrequent participants like Penwhale) harbour some rather substantial extent of battleground mentality. --Bobthefish2 (talk) 00:11, 9 September 2011 (UTC)
- I've presented my evidence justifying why I think STSC's behavior is fundamentally different--nothing unethical about arguing that one set of behaviors is different from another. At this point, it's up to Arbcom to figure out if my interpretation is sound. Qwyrxian (talk) 03:11, 9 September 2011 (UTC)
- I don't really see the "fundamental difference". The diffs I provided have shown that others have done pretty much the same. Such as suggesting there is an "ulterior motive on the other side" and deriding others' posts/contents as POV. --Bobthefish2 (talk) 03:21, 9 September 2011 (UTC)
- It's called back-stabbing, it seems in all those days he had been quietly plotting to silent me. He did not even have the courtesy to raise any issue with me personally. STSC (talk) 04:02, 9 September 2011 (UTC)
- That's not really backstabbing, because he never really did betray you in anyway. I doubt he really plotted against you either. I suspect he simply thought it's a good opportunity to get rid of another opponent, since I don't think you were any more rude or entrenched than the average active participant here... but then again he may be genuine about his expressed perception (although that doesn't make is any less misguided). --Bobthefish2 (talk) 04:22, 9 September 2011 (UTC)
- He should feel ashamed now you've defended him, but his knife is still stuck on my back, what shall we call it? STSC (talk) 04:45, 9 September 2011 (UTC)
- To clarify: I don't think he needs to be ashamed of being defended on this particular point, because he really did not backstab you. Yes, he did (in my humble opinion) pick on you in an inappropriate and potentially unprofessional way, but the concept of backstabbing requires both parties to have some sort of liaison that does not seem to exist in this particular context. --Bobthefish2 (talk) 19:09, 9 September 2011 (UTC)
- Backstabbing is: attacking (someone) unfairly, especially in an underhand, deceitful manner. STSC (talk) 20:39, 9 September 2011 (UTC)
- My apologies >_<. I've always thought of "backstabbing" as something that is intrinsically associated with betrayal. It appears the dictionary says otherwise. --Bobthefish2 (talk) 23:59, 9 September 2011 (UTC)
- There's another definition of "backstabbing" from a dictionary: harmful and unfair things that are said or done to hurt the reputation of someone. I shall rest my case. STSC (talk) 02:20, 10 September 2011 (UTC)
- My apologies >_<. I've always thought of "backstabbing" as something that is intrinsically associated with betrayal. It appears the dictionary says otherwise. --Bobthefish2 (talk) 23:59, 9 September 2011 (UTC)
- Backstabbing is: attacking (someone) unfairly, especially in an underhand, deceitful manner. STSC (talk) 20:39, 9 September 2011 (UTC)
- To clarify: I don't think he needs to be ashamed of being defended on this particular point, because he really did not backstab you. Yes, he did (in my humble opinion) pick on you in an inappropriate and potentially unprofessional way, but the concept of backstabbing requires both parties to have some sort of liaison that does not seem to exist in this particular context. --Bobthefish2 (talk) 19:09, 9 September 2011 (UTC)
- He should feel ashamed now you've defended him, but his knife is still stuck on my back, what shall we call it? STSC (talk) 04:45, 9 September 2011 (UTC)
- That's not really backstabbing, because he never really did betray you in anyway. I doubt he really plotted against you either. I suspect he simply thought it's a good opportunity to get rid of another opponent, since I don't think you were any more rude or entrenched than the average active participant here... but then again he may be genuine about his expressed perception (although that doesn't make is any less misguided). --Bobthefish2 (talk) 04:22, 9 September 2011 (UTC)
- It's called back-stabbing, it seems in all those days he had been quietly plotting to silent me. He did not even have the courtesy to raise any issue with me personally. STSC (talk) 04:02, 9 September 2011 (UTC)
- I don't really see the "fundamental difference". The diffs I provided have shown that others have done pretty much the same. Such as suggesting there is an "ulterior motive on the other side" and deriding others' posts/contents as POV. --Bobthefish2 (talk) 03:21, 9 September 2011 (UTC)
- I've presented my evidence justifying why I think STSC's behavior is fundamentally different--nothing unethical about arguing that one set of behaviors is different from another. At this point, it's up to Arbcom to figure out if my interpretation is sound. Qwyrxian (talk) 03:11, 9 September 2011 (UTC)
- Sorry, I was a bit unclear: You advised for STSC's ban and Magog advocated Lvhis' block. By the way, it is unethical to criticize single STSC and I with regards to "battleground mentality". Reasons is that, based on your definition, practically everyone of us here (barring infrequent participants like Penwhale) harbour some rather substantial extent of battleground mentality. --Bobthefish2 (talk) 00:11, 9 September 2011 (UTC)
- Just to clarify, I have never once suggested Lvhis be topic banned or blocked (i.e., only one admin has), and I have further clarified that I do not believe that STSC needs to be banned if xe is willing to commit to following consensus and dropping xyr battleground mentality. Qwyrxian (talk) 23:57, 8 September 2011 (UTC)
- That's not an obscure speculation at all. Lvhis and STSC are hardly ranked among the most disruptive editors involved and yet they were nominated to be indefinitely banned by two administrators. And that's all without any attempt to go through any DR's to addressed their supposed problems. Good faith or not, this is evidence that administrative tools should not be entrusted to people who exercise poor judgment when they are involved in a dispute. --Bobthefish2 (talk) 23:50, 8 September 2011 (UTC)
- Right, and perhaps Bobthefish2 was strategically !voting for Q because he knew it would pass anyway, and wanted to stay on his good side. Of course, I don't necessarily believe this, but going by your logic we might as well start questioning everyone's motives. IMO the fact that STSC is even proposing an idea so palpably silly (that Q would ignore his best judgment on 3 other editors just to make his sinister agenda against 1 editor - STSC - look stronger) speaks to his poor discernment for the facts on the ground. Magog the Ogre (talk) 20:26, 8 September 2011 (UTC)
- Of course you would be selective on your targets to hide your motive. And please don't speak as if everyone is under your mercy on this case. You still continued to be silly and ridiculous in saying, "my claims about your words are my interpretations, but that's only because it would be impossible for them to be anything else." STSC (talk) 03:41, 8 September 2011 (UTC)
Use of Feezo's RfA statement by Qwyrxian to boost his standing in the arbitration
Questions need to be answered:
- Being a mediator, is Feezo supposed to be neutral in this arbitration?
- Can Feezo's RfA statement be used in such a manner by Qwyrxian in the arbitration?
- Qwyrxian said, "The behavior STSC is criticizing for is the same behavior that caused Feezo to support my RfA."
I'm criticizing Qwyrxian's extreme egocentric mentality, is that the same behavior that caused Feezo to support him?