→Re:AN: r |
Newimpartial (talk | contribs) →Re:AN: Reply Tag: Reply |
||
Line 31: | Line 31: | ||
Rather, I am being straightforward and transparent in saying that I feel - as a number of editors acknowledged on "both sides" of the ANI discussion resulting in my ban - that I have institutional knowledge and P&G knowhow that would be helpful on WT:MOSBIO this yearI'll- and that, unlike vandalism patrolling of GENSEX BLPs, is a scarce resource on-wiki. I have already been deploying my P&G familiarity in the recent nationalities discussions there, just as I have discussed P&G constructively on other pages (such as a current discussion about FRINGE [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard#Can_sources_that_state_that_religious_miracles_actually_occurred_be_reliable_sources? at RSN] and the discussions and RfC that resulted in the current text of the [[WP:SNG]] section, a couple years ago). I am simply offering to contribute to a specific corner of P&G development concerning GENDERID as well - policy development being an area where my contributions have never (to my knowledge) been perceived as disruptive whether or not GENSEX matters were involved. [[User:Newimpartial|Newimpartial]] ([[User talk:Newimpartial|talk]]) 17:27, 15 April 2023 (UTC) |
Rather, I am being straightforward and transparent in saying that I feel - as a number of editors acknowledged on "both sides" of the ANI discussion resulting in my ban - that I have institutional knowledge and P&G knowhow that would be helpful on WT:MOSBIO this yearI'll- and that, unlike vandalism patrolling of GENSEX BLPs, is a scarce resource on-wiki. I have already been deploying my P&G familiarity in the recent nationalities discussions there, just as I have discussed P&G constructively on other pages (such as a current discussion about FRINGE [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard#Can_sources_that_state_that_religious_miracles_actually_occurred_be_reliable_sources? at RSN] and the discussions and RfC that resulted in the current text of the [[WP:SNG]] section, a couple years ago). I am simply offering to contribute to a specific corner of P&G development concerning GENDERID as well - policy development being an area where my contributions have never (to my knowledge) been perceived as disruptive whether or not GENSEX matters were involved. [[User:Newimpartial|Newimpartial]] ([[User talk:Newimpartial|talk]]) 17:27, 15 April 2023 (UTC) |
||
:tbh, I took with a pinch of salt the "I'm needed" argument. I haven't delved (and won't) into whether the other editors who have put that forward simply share your POV and that's what they want on board again. But I noted starship.paint's comment to one of them that {{tq|possibly your value of Newimpartial's input/perspective/help may be because you two have similar stances}}. I won't be making any other comment either here or at the thread. [[User:DeCausa|DeCausa]] ([[User talk:DeCausa#top|talk]]) 17:39, 15 April 2023 (UTC) |
:tbh, I took with a pinch of salt the "I'm needed" argument. I haven't delved (and won't) into whether the other editors who have put that forward simply share your POV and that's what they want on board again. But I noted starship.paint's comment to one of them that {{tq|possibly your value of Newimpartial's input/perspective/help may be because you two have similar stances}}. I won't be making any other comment either here or at the thread. [[User:DeCausa|DeCausa]] ([[User talk:DeCausa#top|talk]]) 17:39, 15 April 2023 (UTC) |
||
::Well, I won't expect another reply, then, but I will point out to you that that since Sideswipe9th and I do not ageee about such GENDERID-related policy questions as the inclusion of deadnames in biographies after death or the use of neopronouns, and presumably Sideswipe remembers these differences of perspective, the explanation offered by Sideswipe in reply to starship.paint's insinuation should possibly be given more weight than you are currently giving it. [[User:Newimpartial|Newimpartial]] ([[User talk:Newimpartial|talk]]) 17:46, 15 April 2023 (UTC) |
Revision as of 17:46, 15 April 2023
This page has archives. Sections older than 30 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III when more than 3 sections are present. |
World War II and the history of Jews in Poland: Arbitration case opened
Hello DeCausa,
You recently offered a statement in a request for arbitration. The Arbitration Committee has accepted that request for arbitration and an arbitration case has been opened at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/World War II and the history of Jews in Poland. Evidence that you wish the arbitrators to consider should be added to the evidence subpage, at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/World War II and the history of Jews in Poland/Evidence. Please add your evidence by April 04, 2023, which is when the first evidence phase closes. Submitted evidence will be summarized by Arbitrators and Clerks at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/World War II and the history of Jews in Poland/Evidence/Summary. Owing to the summary style, editors are encouraged to submit evidence in small chunks sooner rather than more complete evidence later.
Details about the summary page, the two phases of evidence, a timeline and other answers to frequently asked questions can be found at the case's FAQ page.
For a guide to the arbitration process, see Wikipedia:Arbitration/Guide to arbitration.
For the Arbitration Committee,
~ ToBeFree (talk) 00:12, 14 March 2023 (UTC)
We live about 4700 miles apart
...but I still heard your jaw hit the floor.-- Ponyobons mots 21:44, 16 March 2023 (UTC)
- Posting a coherent reply was completely beyond me. DeCausa (talk) 21:48, 16 March 2023 (UTC)
- (talk page stalker) And now I've been intrigued enough to read it. Wow. I love this place. Harrias (he/him) • talk 21:59, 16 March 2023 (UTC)
Leo Frank
There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Neutral point of view/Noticeboard regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Harry Sibelius (talk) 03:05, 5 April 2023 (UTC)
Re:AN
Concerning this comment - I wanted to offer a clarification, since my proposal for WT:MOSBIO isn't based on what I really want
to be able to do - if that were my animus, I would be asking for a carve-out for reverting vandalism to BLPs even in GENSEX cases, since I feel that invoking BANEX 1 provisions to do so could be perceived as GAMING the restriction, and that form of editing is what I feel the most urgency about within the topic area.
Rather, I am being straightforward and transparent in saying that I feel - as a number of editors acknowledged on "both sides" of the ANI discussion resulting in my ban - that I have institutional knowledge and P&G knowhow that would be helpful on WT:MOSBIO this yearI'll- and that, unlike vandalism patrolling of GENSEX BLPs, is a scarce resource on-wiki. I have already been deploying my P&G familiarity in the recent nationalities discussions there, just as I have discussed P&G constructively on other pages (such as a current discussion about FRINGE at RSN and the discussions and RfC that resulted in the current text of the WP:SNG section, a couple years ago). I am simply offering to contribute to a specific corner of P&G development concerning GENDERID as well - policy development being an area where my contributions have never (to my knowledge) been perceived as disruptive whether or not GENSEX matters were involved. Newimpartial (talk) 17:27, 15 April 2023 (UTC)
- tbh, I took with a pinch of salt the "I'm needed" argument. I haven't delved (and won't) into whether the other editors who have put that forward simply share your POV and that's what they want on board again. But I noted starship.paint's comment to one of them that
possibly your value of Newimpartial's input/perspective/help may be because you two have similar stances
. I won't be making any other comment either here or at the thread. DeCausa (talk) 17:39, 15 April 2023 (UTC)- Well, I won't expect another reply, then, but I will point out to you that that since Sideswipe9th and I do not ageee about such GENDERID-related policy questions as the inclusion of deadnames in biographies after death or the use of neopronouns, and presumably Sideswipe remembers these differences of perspective, the explanation offered by Sideswipe in reply to starship.paint's insinuation should possibly be given more weight than you are currently giving it. Newimpartial (talk) 17:46, 15 April 2023 (UTC)