This case is now closed and pages relating to it may no longer be watched
|
Case clerk:
Callanecc (
Talk) Drafting arbitrators:
SilkTork (
Talk) and
Newyorkbrad (
Talk)
from Aug 2013
AGK (
Talk) &
NuclearWarfare (
Talk)
Wikipedia Arbitration |
---|
|
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, clerk, or functionary, without further warning, by being banned from further participation in the case, or being blocked altogether. Personal attacks against other users, including arbitrators or the clerks, will be met with sanctions. Behavior during a case may also be considered by the committee in arriving at a final decision.
This page has archives. Sections older than 20 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III when more than 1 section is present. |
As has been discussed above, the FoF in question appears to have been formulated on the basis of a misunderstood comment, according to the cited diff.
Although that salient fact has been brought to the attention of the drafting arbitrator (AGK) and indirectly acknowledged by another arbitrator (NYB), the arbitrator that drafted the FoF has refused to engage in discussion (other than to state he replied privately to NYB) or to modify the FoF or provide an alternative diff.
Accordingly, if there is no concrete example of my alleged ignoring of a specif sound argument during a specific discussion, there is no conduct issue, leaving only the issue of content.
If it is not the case that AGK found a comment I made in a discussion other than that identified by the cited diff objectionable, then why not delete that point from the FoF?
If content issues are beyond the purview of Arbcom, then an FoF related to a content dispute has no place in an Arbcom proceedings.
This sort of begs the question as to what would be the evaluative methodology applicable here for determining what is and isn't a
sound argument about content.
--
Ubikwit
連絡
見学/迷惑
10:07, 4 September 2013 (UTC)
Perhaps I'm misunderstanding this, but this FoF seems to make no sense. It claims that Ubikwit ignored sound arguments. However, the diff provided by ArbCom [1] does not show Ubikwit ignoring or even disagreeing with TuckerResearch's argument. Quite the opposite. Ubikwit is actually agreeing with TuckerResearch's argument. Perhaps ArbCom meant to say that Ubikwit agreed with unsound arguments??? If so, these types of sloppy mistakes do not inspire much confidence in the community. Perhaps someone from ArbCom can explain this FoF? A Quest For Knowledge ( talk) 06:26, 6 September 2013 (UTC)
This case is now closed and pages relating to it may no longer be watched
|
Case clerk:
Callanecc (
Talk) Drafting arbitrators:
SilkTork (
Talk) and
Newyorkbrad (
Talk)
from Aug 2013
AGK (
Talk) &
NuclearWarfare (
Talk)
Wikipedia Arbitration |
---|
|
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, clerk, or functionary, without further warning, by being banned from further participation in the case, or being blocked altogether. Personal attacks against other users, including arbitrators or the clerks, will be met with sanctions. Behavior during a case may also be considered by the committee in arriving at a final decision.
This page has archives. Sections older than 20 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III when more than 1 section is present. |
As has been discussed above, the FoF in question appears to have been formulated on the basis of a misunderstood comment, according to the cited diff.
Although that salient fact has been brought to the attention of the drafting arbitrator (AGK) and indirectly acknowledged by another arbitrator (NYB), the arbitrator that drafted the FoF has refused to engage in discussion (other than to state he replied privately to NYB) or to modify the FoF or provide an alternative diff.
Accordingly, if there is no concrete example of my alleged ignoring of a specif sound argument during a specific discussion, there is no conduct issue, leaving only the issue of content.
If it is not the case that AGK found a comment I made in a discussion other than that identified by the cited diff objectionable, then why not delete that point from the FoF?
If content issues are beyond the purview of Arbcom, then an FoF related to a content dispute has no place in an Arbcom proceedings.
This sort of begs the question as to what would be the evaluative methodology applicable here for determining what is and isn't a
sound argument about content.
--
Ubikwit
連絡
見学/迷惑
10:07, 4 September 2013 (UTC)
Perhaps I'm misunderstanding this, but this FoF seems to make no sense. It claims that Ubikwit ignored sound arguments. However, the diff provided by ArbCom [1] does not show Ubikwit ignoring or even disagreeing with TuckerResearch's argument. Quite the opposite. Ubikwit is actually agreeing with TuckerResearch's argument. Perhaps ArbCom meant to say that Ubikwit agreed with unsound arguments??? If so, these types of sloppy mistakes do not inspire much confidence in the community. Perhaps someone from ArbCom can explain this FoF? A Quest For Knowledge ( talk) 06:26, 6 September 2013 (UTC)