| Revision as of 21:53, 29 March 2013 editMathsci (talk | contribs)Autopatrolled, Extended confirmed users, Pending changes reviewers66,107 edits →Question← Previous edit | Revision as of 21:59, 29 March 2013 edit undoAkuri (talk | contribs)181 edits →QuestionNext edit → | ||
| Line 39: | Line 39: | ||
| :::There does not appear to be any moratorium on request related to R&I. In fact, I think the arbitrators are waiting for someone to make one. is what Silk Tork said. "I think we need a full case to look carefully into all the issues here. We have a problem which is not being resolved, and motions are perhaps not the appropriate way of gathering evidence and finding a solution - especially when the Committee is divided. If the community are concerned enough about the trolling of Mathsci, and about the impact the fall out from that is having, someone will no doubt put forward a case request in the new year. It may well be that those of us who are involved in arbitration are getting a distorted view of this, and we are seeing it as more disruptive than it is; it is up to the community to let us know how disruptive the matter actually is." I think the matter is very disruptive, so now the community should let Arbcom know that, as he suggested. ] (]) 21:29, 29 March 2013 (UTC) | :::There does not appear to be any moratorium on request related to R&I. In fact, I think the arbitrators are waiting for someone to make one. is what Silk Tork said. "I think we need a full case to look carefully into all the issues here. We have a problem which is not being resolved, and motions are perhaps not the appropriate way of gathering evidence and finding a solution - especially when the Committee is divided. If the community are concerned enough about the trolling of Mathsci, and about the impact the fall out from that is having, someone will no doubt put forward a case request in the new year. It may well be that those of us who are involved in arbitration are getting a distorted view of this, and we are seeing it as more disruptive than it is; it is up to the community to let us know how disruptive the matter actually is." I think the matter is very disruptive, so now the community should let Arbcom know that, as he suggested. ] (]) 21:29, 29 March 2013 (UTC) | ||
| ::::If you are {{userlink|Akuri}}, editing logged off, please use your registered account. Arbcom will have no interest in drive-by IPs from Australia. This is just time-wasting nonsense. Zeromus1 and Mors Martell were no different. ] (]) 21:53, 29 March 2013 (UTC) | ::::If you are {{userlink|Akuri}}, editing logged off, please use your registered account. Arbcom will have no interest in drive-by IPs from Australia. This is just time-wasting nonsense. Zeromus1 and Mors Martell were no different. ] (]) 21:53, 29 March 2013 (UTC) | ||
| :::::Yes, that was me. And I don't care what you think. I posted here to ask for NE Ent's help, not yours. ] (]) 21:59, 29 March 2013 (UTC) | |||
Revision as of 21:59, 29 March 2013
I'm as mad as hell, and I'm not going to take this anymore
— Howard Beale (Network)
It's time for me to go real life for awhile. The hours of sunlight in my North American locale are increasing rapidly, which brings on more tasks, and a recent employment change have reduced the time I have for my wiki-hobby.
This is not in response to the actions of any individual or group on Misplaced Pages.
"Don't you cry,
I'll be back again some day."
Thumpetty thump thump,
Thumpety thump thump,
Look at NE go.
References
- or rejoice, as applicable
| Archives | ||
|---|---|---|
|
Question
Hello NE Ent. I'm the person who contacted you here, but I finally have an account now.
There is an issue I explained here that I think should be in arbitration. Courcelles told me if I want Arbcom to take a new look at it, I should make a case request. I never have tried to do that before, and I wonder if arbitrators won't take it seriously because I registered so recently, even though before registering I edited for a long time as an IP. But I don't think it should be delayed until after I make more edits from my account, because then arbitrators will think it happened so long ago it no longer matters. You seem familiar with the history of this situation, so can you give any help? Akuri (talk) 10:40, 29 March 2013 (UTC)
- What specific goal do you wish to accomplish? NE Ent 17:26, 29 March 2013 (UTC)
- I think the arbitrators should prohibit Future Perfect at Sunrise from making any more admin actions related to the race and intelligence topic, and maybe also take away his admin powers. In this part of his request a few months ago, Cla68 showed that FPAS already lost his admin powers once before, in the Macedonia 2 case.
- Courcelles also told me he thought an arbitration case should cover all of the recent issues there have been in the race and intelligence topic area. So if there is a request, it should cover all of that as well as FPAS. I know he's not the only person whose conduct related to this area has been a problem. I'd like Arbcom to deal with the other problem editors as well, preferably all in the same case. Akuri (talk) 20:33, 29 March 2013 (UTC)
- (edit conflict) Clearly, after just ten edits with a registered account, arbcom is not the first stop for dispute resolution. But there seems to be no dispute at all. Zilch. Perhaps after one year's editing with a registered account, after having encountered persistent conduct problems in editing articles, that might be reasonable. At the moment all that is on record is the inexcusable harassment of Dougweller. That was loosely connected with a frivolous SPI request, where it was suggested that he might be a meatpuppet of KillerChihuahua. My understanding is that there is at present a moratorium on arbcom requests concerning R&I. That applies in particular to frivolous requests. Why should someone with barely enough edits to be autoconfirmed feel they need to go to arbitration? These kinds of edits, pushing for litigation, are too similar to those of editors who have recently been indefinitely blocked by arbcom (Zeromus1, Mors Martell). Mathsci (talk) 21:07, 29 March 2013 (UTC)
- Thanks for reminding me of your own involvement in the issue. You seem to show up whenever there is any kind of argument about race and intelligence articles. I would delay the request until I have more edits if I could, but I know if I wait too long Arbcom will call the issue "stale".
- There does not appear to be any moratorium on request related to R&I. In fact, I think the arbitrators are waiting for someone to make one. This is what Silk Tork said. "I think we need a full case to look carefully into all the issues here. We have a problem which is not being resolved, and motions are perhaps not the appropriate way of gathering evidence and finding a solution - especially when the Committee is divided. If the community are concerned enough about the trolling of Mathsci, and about the impact the fall out from that is having, someone will no doubt put forward a case request in the new year. It may well be that those of us who are involved in arbitration are getting a distorted view of this, and we are seeing it as more disruptive than it is; it is up to the community to let us know how disruptive the matter actually is." I think the matter is very disruptive, so now the community should let Arbcom know that, as he suggested. 101.0.79.8 (talk) 21:29, 29 March 2013 (UTC)
- If you are Akuri, editing logged off, please use your registered account. Arbcom will have no interest in drive-by IPs from Australia. This is just time-wasting nonsense. Zeromus1 and Mors Martell were no different. Mathsci (talk) 21:53, 29 March 2013 (UTC)
- Yes, that was me. And I don't care what you think. I posted here to ask for NE Ent's help, not yours. Akuri (talk) 21:59, 29 March 2013 (UTC)
- If you are Akuri, editing logged off, please use your registered account. Arbcom will have no interest in drive-by IPs from Australia. This is just time-wasting nonsense. Zeromus1 and Mors Martell were no different. Mathsci (talk) 21:53, 29 March 2013 (UTC)
- There does not appear to be any moratorium on request related to R&I. In fact, I think the arbitrators are waiting for someone to make one. This is what Silk Tork said. "I think we need a full case to look carefully into all the issues here. We have a problem which is not being resolved, and motions are perhaps not the appropriate way of gathering evidence and finding a solution - especially when the Committee is divided. If the community are concerned enough about the trolling of Mathsci, and about the impact the fall out from that is having, someone will no doubt put forward a case request in the new year. It may well be that those of us who are involved in arbitration are getting a distorted view of this, and we are seeing it as more disruptive than it is; it is up to the community to let us know how disruptive the matter actually is." I think the matter is very disruptive, so now the community should let Arbcom know that, as he suggested. 101.0.79.8 (talk) 21:29, 29 March 2013 (UTC)