Wikipedia talk:Requests for arbitration/C68-FM-SV/Proposed decision

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

[edit] Arbitrators active on this case

Active:

  1. Blnguyen (talk • contribs • email)
  2. Charles Matthews (talk • contribs • email)
  3. FT2 (talk • contribs • email)
  4. Jdforrester (talk • contribs • email)
  5. Jpgordon (talk • contribs • email)
  6. Morven (talk • contribs • email)
  7. Sam Blacketer  (talk • contribs • email)
  8. Thebainer (talk • contribs • email)

Inactive:

  1. Deskana (talk • contribs • email)
  2. FayssalF (talk • contribs • email)
  3. FloNight (talk • contribs • email)
  4. Paul August (talk • contribs • email)
  5. UninvitedCompany (talk • contribs • email)

Recused:

  1. Kirill Lokshin (talk • contribs • email)





To update this listing, edit this template and scroll down until you find the right list of arbitrators.

[edit] Drafting

Just to keep parties and others up to date...

This started as a case that had a lot of claims that might be hard to evidence, as well as significant potential for "sprawl"/drama/confusion/heatedness, and it's therefore been given a fair bit of time for evidence to be heard and to 'bed in' (rather than assessing it too soon). In practice, the case has been somewhat smoother than it initially seemed it might, and in general, the Workshop pages have been used by participants and onlookers to produce some useful viewpoints and opinions too. (Thanks!)

Initial review of the case pages and evidence, while the rest of the case is posted up onto these pages, is likely to be taking place shortly by Arbitrators.

Just an FYI for all, to keep up to date.

FT2 (Talk | email) 11:57 (UTC), 31 May 2008

Thanks! any hint on things the committee would like to either see more of/have questions on/like more opinion about? --Rocksanddirt (talk) 06:08, 2 June 2008 (UTC)
I feel that the catharsis is nearly complete. Before disruptive elements move in and clutter the pages with endless arguments, perhaps now is an opportune moment to read them all and start drafting a decision. Jehochman Talk 16:41, 2 June 2008 (UTC)
Valid point. some of that has already started. --Rocksanddirt (talk) 18:17, 2 June 2008 (UTC)
I agree that the collection of evidence and interpretation of it in the Workshop has had enough time, but I believe it'd be worthwhile to wait for this (see also here). dorftrottel (talk) 10:45, 3 June 2008 (UTC)
Hold your horses there cowboy! I have apologised for several of the things presented about me - and you can consider this an apology for any genuine (MONGO - telling you to pull the other leg is not uncivil) incivility on my part. I try to keep cool and most of the time I succeed but sometimes I act rashly in the heat of the moment. Apologies to those offended by my words or actions in said heat of moment. ViridaeTalk 13:08, 3 June 2008 (UTC)
Nice try...surely such less than half measures now exempt you from your admin transgressions.--MONGO 04:51, 6 June 2008 (UTC)
Viridae, I'm sure it would be appreciated if you summarised your acknowledgement of whatever parts of the evidence presented against your behaviour you think is valid and included related diffs or links, or repeated any apologies you think are appropriate here. I'm confident such a conciliable statement wouldn't go unnoticed by the ArbCom when they evaluate what to expect from each of the parties in the future. On the other hand, I'm also confident the ArbCom will take into account the de facto refusal of any party to acknowledge any part of the evidence presented against their behaviour as further evidence against that party. (Also, I never played the cowboy. I always was an Indian. You see, when we played as kids, the Indians always were the heroes, the cowboys were the villains; and since nobody wanted to be the cowboy, we mostly played happy community life instead of war. Weird Germans, hah?) dorftrottel (talk) 05:15, 6 June 2008 (UTC)