Content deleted Content added
m →Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Race and intelligence/Review closed: modify slightly |
|||
Line 21: | Line 21: | ||
:Shit. Mea culpa, I thought I had voted on all the Mathsci findings of facts, but I seemingly missed the crucial one. I'm actually stumped at what the pricedural process is now... [[User:Courcelles|Courcelles]] 05:17, 14 May 2012 (UTC) |
:Shit. Mea culpa, I thought I had voted on all the Mathsci findings of facts, but I seemingly missed the crucial one. I'm actually stumped at what the pricedural process is now... [[User:Courcelles|Courcelles]] 05:17, 14 May 2012 (UTC) |
||
::Probably to vote on the FoF on the PD page now as the correction of a "slip". Then the FoF can be enacted and the Final Decision updated. I think that's the least bureaucratic route, [[User:Roger Davies|<span style="color:maroon; font-variant:small-caps">'''Roger Davies'''</span>]] <sup>[[User talk:Roger Davies|'''talk''']]</sup> 05:22, 14 May 2012 (UTC) |
::Probably to vote on the FoF on the PD page now as the correction of a "slip". Then the FoF can be enacted and the Final Decision updated. I think that's the least bureaucratic route, [[User:Roger Davies|<span style="color:maroon; font-variant:small-caps">'''Roger Davies'''</span>]] <sup>[[User talk:Roger Davies|'''talk''']]</sup> 05:22, 14 May 2012 (UTC) |
||
:::I would request that even at this late stage arbitrators rephrase that finding, since |
:::I would request that even at this late stage arbitrators rephrase that finding, since, even if Courcelles made a slip, it was not passing clearly. The evidence of Ferahgo the Assassin and Captain Occam shows neither a pattern of personal attacks (which diffs?) nor any ideological stance that I supposedly have (which diffs?). My understanding is that the diffs they gathered were a catalogue of the times that I had mentioned either Captain Occam or Ferahgo the Assassin on wikipedia: for example on the AE2011 election page of Jclemens, where I responded to a question of Casliber, and on the workshop page of the abortion arbcom case. It is true that the finding echos what Captain Occam stated on wikipedia on [[User talk:Ludwigs2]] [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Ludwigs2&diff=prev&oldid=423209894][http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Ludwigs2&diff=prev&oldid=423229296] and similar statements posted by the pair on external websites. These are extreme and unbalanced statements by two users who have been actively involved in [[WP:gaming the system]] for two years now (since May 2010). Now that the review has closed, it is evident that the pair were irritated to be found out and were reluctant to accept any reponsibility for their own actions even up to the end. I am relieved that Roger Davies and other arbitrators have addressed and will further address the problem of proxy-editing. [[User:Mathsci|Mathsci]] ([[User talk:Mathsci|talk]]) 07:00, 14 May 2012 (UTC) |
Revision as of 08:04, 14 May 2012
1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10 |
This page has archives. Sections older than 4 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III. |
Edit request
On Template:Casenav please change "Decision posted" in second line section to "Proposed decision" to be consistent with T:AC Nobody Ent 12:12, 12 May 2012 (UTC)
So arbcom passed a remedy admonishing Mathsci for battlefield conduct without actually passing a finding of fact saying that he engaged in battlefield conduct. Heh. T. Canens (talk) 03:28, 14 May 2012 (UTC)
- Shit. Mea culpa, I thought I had voted on all the Mathsci findings of facts, but I seemingly missed the crucial one. I'm actually stumped at what the pricedural process is now... Courcelles 05:17, 14 May 2012 (UTC)
- Probably to vote on the FoF on the PD page now as the correction of a "slip". Then the FoF can be enacted and the Final Decision updated. I think that's the least bureaucratic route, Roger Davies talk 05:22, 14 May 2012 (UTC)
- I would request that even at this late stage arbitrators rephrase that finding, since, even if Courcelles made a slip, it was not passing clearly. The evidence of Ferahgo the Assassin and Captain Occam shows neither a pattern of personal attacks (which diffs?) nor any ideological stance that I supposedly have (which diffs?). My understanding is that the diffs they gathered were a catalogue of the times that I had mentioned either Captain Occam or Ferahgo the Assassin on wikipedia: for example on the AE2011 election page of Jclemens, where I responded to a question of Casliber, and on the workshop page of the abortion arbcom case. It is true that the finding echos what Captain Occam stated on wikipedia on User talk:Ludwigs2 [1][2] and similar statements posted by the pair on external websites. These are extreme and unbalanced statements by two users who have been actively involved in WP:gaming the system for two years now (since May 2010). Now that the review has closed, it is evident that the pair were irritated to be found out and were reluctant to accept any reponsibility for their own actions even up to the end. I am relieved that Roger Davies and other arbitrators have addressed and will further address the problem of proxy-editing. Mathsci (talk) 07:00, 14 May 2012 (UTC)
- Probably to vote on the FoF on the PD page now as the correction of a "slip". Then the FoF can be enacted and the Final Decision updated. I think that's the least bureaucratic route, Roger Davies talk 05:22, 14 May 2012 (UTC)