|
Main review page (
Talk) —
Evidence (
Talk) —
Proposed decision (
Talk) —
Original case page |
| Wikipedia Arbitration |
|---|
 |
|
|
| Track related changes |
 | This review is now closed and pages relating to it may no longer be watched
|
Should this page be created? I have some things I want to say, but I'm unsure of the format and procedures here. Feel free to move to wherever it should go. — Ched : ? 17:59, 28 January 2015 (UTC)
- Hi
Ched, feel free to add whatever you like here, subject to the usual case talkpage requirements. --
Euryalus (
talk)
08:24, 1 February 2015 (UTC)
- What are the "usual case talkpage requirements"? I've never contributed before. My concern is that what I'd like to say involves other editors and I feel like mentioning this here might be inappropriate, and I'd like to avoid further abuse. --
AussieLegend (
✉)
08:51, 1 February 2015 (UTC)
- @ AussieLegend:, just the usual stuff about observing civility and decorum. I'll ask the clerks to post the boilerplate to make it clear, but you can see it on other Evidence talk pages in other current cases. If you have specific allegations or evidence you want considered, it needs to go on the actual Evidence page rather than here. But if you want to make a general comment about the broad issues in the Review, or make a procedural point, this might be a useful place to do it. Please note there is no workshop phase as this is a Review rather than a full Case, so there will be less time to bring up general points later, if you don't want to do it now.
- What are the "usual case talkpage requirements"? I've never contributed before. My concern is that what I'd like to say involves other editors and I feel like mentioning this here might be inappropriate, and I'd like to avoid further abuse. --
AussieLegend (
✉)
08:51, 1 February 2015 (UTC)
- Re abuse: worth remembering the sole purpose of this page is to host material contributed in order to assist the committee in resolving the case. Random other things, including abusive comments, are not helpful and wont be viewed especially positively by the committee. Hope that helps. -- Euryalus ( talk) 10:35, 1 February 2015 (UTC)
- What concerns me is not abuse I'd be likely to receive by those I wish to mention but the effect on TfDs, which I see as directly relevant. --
AussieLegend (
✉)
10:51, 1 February 2015 (UTC)
- Okay. Doubt there is much that can be done about that, other than offering to keep an eye on TfD pages. All I can say is feel free to post here or on the evidence page, and if your posts are appropraite for the case but cause you problems elsewhere on wiki, please let me or any other admin know. -- Euryalus ( talk) 06:56, 2 February 2015 (UTC)
- What concerns me is not abuse I'd be likely to receive by those I wish to mention but the effect on TfDs, which I see as directly relevant. --
AussieLegend (
✉)
10:51, 1 February 2015 (UTC)
OK - let's cut to the bottom line. All of this is my fault. I was the one who brought all this to Arbcom in the first place. I did it with the best of intentions, but I was wrong. There are/were good people on both sides of the infobox issues - I made an issue of it by bringing it to arbcom. I screwed up. All the "add" and don't add an infobox things have become a respectable thing where there is no discord anymore. Everyone is going about editing articles, without problems. Even though there was a "mandate" restricting editors, they acknowledged and adhered to it.
This childish "look what he did" bullshit is wrong, but I have to take blame for it. If Arbcom takes a step back, and looks to where this all started - it will find me. I'm sorry, I regret it, and I wish I wouldn't have done it. But the fact is that I did start this. If anyone should be admonished, smacked, or sanctioned, ... it is me.
Don't point fingers at the individuals ... look at who started this whole mess .. me. Deal with the facts .... deal with me. — Ched : ? 06:31, 9 February 2015 (UTC)
- Ched, I look at you and see a person with a great heart trying to do the right thing. I learned a lot in the case, for example that "motion" doesn't mean to set something in motion, and that diffs can be misread, most famously the one that an arb quoted to justify to ban Andy, - and all he had done was to move a collapsed existing infobox to the normal position, uncollapsed of course. (If you don't believe me, look at the history of Peter Planyavsky, or here.) -- Gerda Arendt ( talk) 07:45, 9 February 2015 (UTC)
- To save ArbCom the trouble, I've dealt with you. Are we
Done here?
Martijn Hoekstra (
talk)
09:46, 9 February 2015 (UTC)
In case anyone is watching this page and not that, analysis of evidence is being given at Wikipedia talk:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Infoboxes/Review/Proposed decision. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 12:27, 17 February 2015 (UTC)
|
Main review page (
Talk) —
Evidence (
Talk) —
Proposed decision (
Talk) —
Original case page |
| Wikipedia Arbitration |
|---|
|
|
|
|
| Track related changes |
| This review is now closed and pages relating to it may no longer be watched
|
Should this page be created? I have some things I want to say, but I'm unsure of the format and procedures here. Feel free to move to wherever it should go. — Ched : ? 17:59, 28 January 2015 (UTC)
- Hi
Ched, feel free to add whatever you like here, subject to the usual case talkpage requirements. --
Euryalus (
talk)
08:24, 1 February 2015 (UTC)
- What are the "usual case talkpage requirements"? I've never contributed before. My concern is that what I'd like to say involves other editors and I feel like mentioning this here might be inappropriate, and I'd like to avoid further abuse. --
AussieLegend (
✉)
08:51, 1 February 2015 (UTC)
- @ AussieLegend:, just the usual stuff about observing civility and decorum. I'll ask the clerks to post the boilerplate to make it clear, but you can see it on other Evidence talk pages in other current cases. If you have specific allegations or evidence you want considered, it needs to go on the actual Evidence page rather than here. But if you want to make a general comment about the broad issues in the Review, or make a procedural point, this might be a useful place to do it. Please note there is no workshop phase as this is a Review rather than a full Case, so there will be less time to bring up general points later, if you don't want to do it now.
- What are the "usual case talkpage requirements"? I've never contributed before. My concern is that what I'd like to say involves other editors and I feel like mentioning this here might be inappropriate, and I'd like to avoid further abuse. --
AussieLegend (
✉)
08:51, 1 February 2015 (UTC)
- Re abuse: worth remembering the sole purpose of this page is to host material contributed in order to assist the committee in resolving the case. Random other things, including abusive comments, are not helpful and wont be viewed especially positively by the committee. Hope that helps. -- Euryalus ( talk) 10:35, 1 February 2015 (UTC)
- What concerns me is not abuse I'd be likely to receive by those I wish to mention but the effect on TfDs, which I see as directly relevant. --
AussieLegend (
✉)
10:51, 1 February 2015 (UTC)
- Okay. Doubt there is much that can be done about that, other than offering to keep an eye on TfD pages. All I can say is feel free to post here or on the evidence page, and if your posts are appropraite for the case but cause you problems elsewhere on wiki, please let me or any other admin know. -- Euryalus ( talk) 06:56, 2 February 2015 (UTC)
- What concerns me is not abuse I'd be likely to receive by those I wish to mention but the effect on TfDs, which I see as directly relevant. --
AussieLegend (
✉)
10:51, 1 February 2015 (UTC)
OK - let's cut to the bottom line. All of this is my fault. I was the one who brought all this to Arbcom in the first place. I did it with the best of intentions, but I was wrong. There are/were good people on both sides of the infobox issues - I made an issue of it by bringing it to arbcom. I screwed up. All the "add" and don't add an infobox things have become a respectable thing where there is no discord anymore. Everyone is going about editing articles, without problems. Even though there was a "mandate" restricting editors, they acknowledged and adhered to it.
This childish "look what he did" bullshit is wrong, but I have to take blame for it. If Arbcom takes a step back, and looks to where this all started - it will find me. I'm sorry, I regret it, and I wish I wouldn't have done it. But the fact is that I did start this. If anyone should be admonished, smacked, or sanctioned, ... it is me.
Don't point fingers at the individuals ... look at who started this whole mess .. me. Deal with the facts .... deal with me. — Ched : ? 06:31, 9 February 2015 (UTC)
- Ched, I look at you and see a person with a great heart trying to do the right thing. I learned a lot in the case, for example that "motion" doesn't mean to set something in motion, and that diffs can be misread, most famously the one that an arb quoted to justify to ban Andy, - and all he had done was to move a collapsed existing infobox to the normal position, uncollapsed of course. (If you don't believe me, look at the history of Peter Planyavsky, or here.) -- Gerda Arendt ( talk) 07:45, 9 February 2015 (UTC)
- To save ArbCom the trouble, I've dealt with you. Are we Done here?
Martijn Hoekstra (
talk)
09:46, 9 February 2015 (UTC)
In case anyone is watching this page and not that, analysis of evidence is being given at Wikipedia talk:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Infoboxes/Review/Proposed decision. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 12:27, 17 February 2015 (UTC)