| Revision as of 00:09, 1 August 2006 editNewyorkbrad (talk | contribs)Autopatrolled, Administrators45,488 edits comment on user page re pending Arb case← Previous edit | Revision as of 03:03, 1 August 2006 edit undoRalbot (talk | contribs)57,708 edits Delivering the ''Signpost'' using AWBNext edit → | ||
| Line 16: | Line 16: | ||
| : Thanks for your note on my talk page. I thought the "proposed remedy" was inappropriate and therefore expressed my view even though I'm a relative newcomer here and have no reason to get involved in other people's arbitration cases (and never plan to be a part of one myself!). That being said, my ''strong'' advice is that you limit any future comments on the arbitration to responding to specific evidence, etc. if any is added, and let ''other people'' raise any institutional issues that need to be raised. I agree that a proposal for a "vote of no confidence in one of the arbitrators" is not going to be viewed as a dispassionate evaluation of the proceedings when it's offered by a participant in a pending case, however unwarranted. Plus I don't share a uniformly negative view of this particular arbitrator, though IMHO he missed the boat in this particular instance. Regards, ] 00:09, 1 August 2006 (UTC) | : Thanks for your note on my talk page. I thought the "proposed remedy" was inappropriate and therefore expressed my view even though I'm a relative newcomer here and have no reason to get involved in other people's arbitration cases (and never plan to be a part of one myself!). That being said, my ''strong'' advice is that you limit any future comments on the arbitration to responding to specific evidence, etc. if any is added, and let ''other people'' raise any institutional issues that need to be raised. I agree that a proposal for a "vote of no confidence in one of the arbitrators" is not going to be viewed as a dispassionate evaluation of the proceedings when it's offered by a participant in a pending case, however unwarranted. Plus I don't share a uniformly negative view of this particular arbitrator, though IMHO he missed the boat in this particular instance. Regards, ] 00:09, 1 August 2006 (UTC) | ||
| ==''Signpost'' updated for July 31st== | |||
| ] | |||
| {| width="90%" cellspacing="0" align="center" | |||
| |- | |||
| | colspan=3 | | |||
| ---- | |||
| |- | |||
| | align="left" | '''Volume 2, Issue 31''' || align ="center" | '''] ]''' || align="right" | ''']''' | |||
| |- | |||
| | colspan=3 align=center | | |||
| ---- | |||
| |} | |||
| {| align="center" cellspacing="20" width=90% | |||
| || ] | |||
| || ] | |||
| |- | |||
| || ] | |||
| || ] | |||
| |- | |||
| || ] | |||
| || ] | |||
| |- | |||
| || ] | |||
| || ] | |||
| |} | |||
| {| width="90%" cellspacing="0" align="center" | |||
| | colspan=2 | | |||
| ---- | |||
| |- | |||
| | align="left" | ] | ] | ] | ] | |||
| | align = "right" | <span class="plainlinks"></span> <small>] : ]</small> | |||
| |- | |||
| | colspan=2 | | |||
| ---- | |||
| |} | |||
| <small>You are receiving this message because you have signed up for the ]. If you wish to stop receiving these messages, simply remove your name from the list. ] 03:03, 1 August 2006 (UTC)</small> | |||
Revision as of 03:03, 1 August 2006
Ugg-ly!
Old messages are at
- User talk:Giano archive 1(2004)
- User talk:Giano archive 2 (2005)
- User talk:Giano archive 3 (2005)
- User talk:Giano archive 4 (2006)
- User talk:Giano archive 5 (2006)
 | Giano is busy in real life and may not respond swiftly to queries. |
Please leave new messages at the foot of the page
Eternal Equivox
Don't let it bother you; with that level of vociferous support I'd be extremely surprised if anything came of it for either you or the others. Stepping back from it, I think old Fred Dibnah is trying to demonstrate what an even hand he has, by making all parties (EE anyway) feel that the enquiry isn't a fait accomplis at this stage. Motions for a vote of no-confidence are probably ill-advised at this stage when nothing has actually been determined, it will only serve to antagonise an Arbcom who probably believes he is acting in good faith. It just means you'll all have to just swallow your pride a bit at the affront of the Proposed Remedies. You shouldn't have to, but there you are......if it really pisses you off - get a steam engine:- "Steam engines don't answer back. You can belt them with a hammer and they say nowt." --Mcginnly | Natter 22:42, 31 July 2006 (UTC)
- Thanks for your note on my talk page. I thought the "proposed remedy" was inappropriate and therefore expressed my view even though I'm a relative newcomer here and have no reason to get involved in other people's arbitration cases (and never plan to be a part of one myself!). That being said, my strong advice is that you limit any future comments on the arbitration to responding to specific evidence, etc. if any is added, and let other people raise any institutional issues that need to be raised. I agree that a proposal for a "vote of no confidence in one of the arbitrators" is not going to be viewed as a dispassionate evaluation of the proceedings when it's offered by a participant in a pending case, however unwarranted. Plus I don't share a uniformly negative view of this particular arbitrator, though IMHO he missed the boat in this particular instance. Regards, Newyorkbrad 00:09, 1 August 2006 (UTC)
Signpost updated for July 31st
|
| ||
| Volume 2, Issue 31 | 31 July 2006 | About the Signpost |
|
| ||
|
| |
| Archives | Newsroom | Tip Line | Single-Page View | RSS Shortcut : WP:SIGN |
|
| |
You are receiving this message because you have signed up for the Signpost spamlist. If you wish to stop receiving these messages, simply remove your name from the list. Ralbot 03:03, 1 August 2006 (UTC)