moved per suggestion |
→Ping: new section |
||
Line 33: | Line 33: | ||
::In the course of this case I've been called demonic, racist, prejudiced, a liar and the old Rottweiler reference dragged up again. Seemingly with impunity. Kind of ironic considering some of the comments made in the proposed decision. ''[[User:Justin_A_Kuntz|Justin]]'' <small>''[[User Talk:Justin_A_Kuntz|talk]]''</small> 15:42, 22 April 2010 (UTC) |
::In the course of this case I've been called demonic, racist, prejudiced, a liar and the old Rottweiler reference dragged up again. Seemingly with impunity. Kind of ironic considering some of the comments made in the proposed decision. ''[[User:Justin_A_Kuntz|Justin]]'' <small>''[[User Talk:Justin_A_Kuntz|talk]]''</small> 15:42, 22 April 2010 (UTC) |
||
==Ping== |
|||
;Response to Newyorkbrad — [[Moving the goalpost|Runaround]]?<br> |
|||
[[User:Newyorkbrad|Newyorkbrad]] -- Your comment [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Clarification&di here] in [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Clarification&oldid=358214350#Request_for_clarification:_Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration.2FArmenia-Azerbaijan_2 Request for clarification: Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Armenia-Azerbaijan 2] is relevant in the currently open [[Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Tang Dynasty|Tang Dynasty]] thread: You explained that "[i]n general I dislike giving good-faith requests the [[wikt:runaround|runaround]]." |
|||
You may recall that you summarized the [[Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Tang Dynasty|Tang Dynasty]]'s [[Gordian Knot]] as a "welter of words" [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Tang_Dynasty/Workshop&oldid=294408642#Tenmei_and_Inner_Asia_during_the_Tang_Dynasty here]. |
|||
Any assertion or response I tried to present was overwhelmed. What evolved in the past year has taken on a life of its own. Whether viewed from the starting point over a year ago, or construed in the terms of this one "clarification" thread, this has been a [[wikt:runaround|runaround]]. |
|||
Why? |
|||
What distinguishes this [[Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Tang Dynasty|Tang Dynasty]] thread from a "[[wikt:runaround|runaround]]"? If this is not a "[[wikt:runaround|runaround]]", please explain it to those who have volunteered to explain such things to me. |
|||
:::<b>Ping</b>. |
|||
:::[[User:Newyorkbrad|Newyorkbrad]] -- Now what? [[Cui bono]]? |
|||
:::*This ''whatever-it-is'' is indistinguishable from punishment; and I'm left [[Wikipedia:Escalating alphabeticals|wondering '''what precisely am I being punished for'''?]] |
|||
:::*What [[recidivism]] is thus prevented? |
|||
:::How are the volunteer mentors and others in the community expected to construe this thread? What are you going to do? --[[User:Tenmei|Tenmei]] ([[User talk:Tenmei|talk]]) 16:06, 26 April 2010 (UTC) |
Revision as of 20:20, 26 April 2010
This page has archives. Sections older than 7 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III. |
Re Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Gibraltar/Proposed decision#Anonymity and conflicts of interest
I hope you don't mind me asking this here - if it would be more appropriate to the Proposed decision talk page or somewhere else, please feel free to move/refactor/whatever. Both you and SirFozzie have noted that the COI allegations were "not handled well". Since it was me that handled them (initially by dealing with the outing issue then via email with some of the parties), this appears to be a censure of my actions at that time. If so, I'd greatly appreciate any pointers you could give me as to where I went wrong and how I could have acted more appropriately. Thanks, EyeSerenetalk 09:50, 22 April 2010 (UTC)
- Thanks for your note. I actually didn't particularly have in mind your initial raising of the COI issue in writing this finding. I was more concerned about some people's continuing to harp on the issue on-wiki, even after it was noted that there was an outing risk and the matter might be better taken elsewhere.
- If you would like more input on this, a post on the talkpage of the proposed decision might draw more arbitrators' eyes than here. Regards, Newyorkbrad (talk) 14:33, 22 April 2010 (UTC)
Justin A Kuntz
"he has strongly held views on the history and status of Gibraltar"
Actually no I don't. I also sign myself as Justin the Evil Scotsman after being accused of demonic posession - I would appreciate it if you noted that.
May I also ask a question, does this mean arbcom isn't going to consider the conduct related to WP:CPUSH? Effectively that means editors have gotten away with it. Justin the Evil Scotsman talk 10:57, 22 April 2010 (UTC)
- Thanks for your note. Well, all I can say is that your editing led me to believe that you have some strongly held views, and I don't think I'm the only one to have reached that conclusion. But if you want me to delete the reference I will do it.
- The words "signs as Justin the Evil Scotsman" were included simply to avoid any initial confusion—as I once had—along the lines of "who is User:Justin A Kuntz? I don't see any posts from Justin A Kuntz." No pejorative implication of any sort was intended.
- With regard to what you characterize as WP:CPUSH, my impression is that the conduct in this area did not rise to the level of requiring an arbitration finding. That does not mean that anyone has "gotten away with" anything; please note that the discretionary sanctions remedy, if adopted, will provide uninvolved administrators with enhanced tools to deal with any sort of disruptive editing on the Gibraltar-related articles. If you still think that a more specific finding or remedy on this aspect is warranted, you can post to the talkpage of the proposed decision, where your post will be seen by the other arbitrators. Although I have done the initial draft of the proposed decision, other arbitrators are free to propose additional principles, findings, or remedies if they think they are warranted. Regards, Newyorkbrad (talk) 14:41, 22 April 2010 (UTC)
- No I don't have strong views about that, I do have strong views on people using wikipedia to push nationalist agendas though.
- Actually I think the problem of "what I characterise" as WP:CPUSH on that article has driven certain editors nuts to the point that they have become uncivil and has contributed to the entirely poisonous atmosphere. So yes, they have gotten away with it, the results of their actions is to be punished but the underlying problems isn't tackled. It has been an ongoing problem that arbcom and AN/I has not tackled. Worse those people are encouraged by getting rid of the editors who opposed what they wanted by topic bans. As I feared, the field is cleared for them to do what they want.
- What is the point of a section for examining and going over the evidence if it isn't then used?
- And with respect, what is the point of posting to the talk page, what I've already brought up in the workshop and previously at AN/I for it to be ignored. It was a case with no previous attempts at long term solutions, despite their being proposed. What you're proposing isn't addressing the problem. The discretionary sanctions remedy? No it doesn't address the problem.
Ping
- Response to Newyorkbrad — Runaround?
Newyorkbrad -- Your comment here in Request for clarification: Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Armenia-Azerbaijan 2 is relevant in the currently open Tang Dynasty thread: You explained that "[i]n general I dislike giving good-faith requests the runaround."
You may recall that you summarized the Tang Dynasty's Gordian Knot as a "welter of words" here.
Any assertion or response I tried to present was overwhelmed. What evolved in the past year has taken on a life of its own. Whether viewed from the starting point over a year ago, or construed in the terms of this one "clarification" thread, this has been a runaround.
Why?
What distinguishes this Tang Dynasty thread from a "runaround"? If this is not a "runaround", please explain it to those who have volunteered to explain such things to me.
- Ping.
- Newyorkbrad -- Now what? Cui bono?
- This whatever-it-is is indistinguishable from punishment; and I'm left wondering what precisely am I being punished for?
- What recidivism is thus prevented?
- How are the volunteer mentors and others in the community expected to construe this thread? What are you going to do? --Tenmei (talk) 16:06, 26 April 2010 (UTC)