Wikipedia talk:Arbitration/Requests: Difference between revisions
Content deleted Content added
→Slimvirgin-Lar: Answers have been denied, with the excsuse of protecting my privacy |
→Slimvirgin-Lar: No, it hasn't been answered |
||
Line 422:
:::The case was to be heard "in private". So I presented my evidence in private, to the committee. I couldn't have known that they were going to ignore it. When I tried publicly requesting explanations for Lar's false statements, finally realising that the committee intended to pass over them, I got criticised for doing so when Lar couldn't answer because he was protecting my privacy. (He could have answered by private email, which I had originally requested.) Then I waived my privacy, as did the other two affected editors. There were still no answers. The case closed, and I wrote to the committee asking that since they had chosen not to address the issues of Lar's false statements, they would please inform me of which parts of the evidence had made them satisfied that the statements were not false. I got a reply back from James Forrester, saying that they were still discussing it and that hopefully I'd get a reply within a day or two. That was a month ago, and I have heard nothing since. [[User:ElinorD|ElinorD]] [[User talk:ElinorD|(talk)]] 23:36, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
If there was a clerical mistake, then clearly it should be corrected. Otherwise, I would simply ask the committee to settle these claims, which continue to be brought across multiple forums. I assume that the committee did not ignore ElinorD's contentions, but heard them and considered whether they warranted a finding. All the same, it seems that something is needed to clarify whether editors should continue to argue these points, or if in fact the claims have now exhausted Wikipedia's final stage of dispute resolution. Until that happens, I will note that the merits of these claims were most recently discussed [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:ElinorD&oldid=254862471#Regarding_your_concerns here]. [[User:Mackan79|Mackan79]] ([[User talk:Mackan79|talk]]) 08:41, 2 December 2008 (UTC)
:::On what grounds do you assume that the committee "did not ignore [my] contentions"
:I thought the response for most of this, as before, was "asked and answered" [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/SlimVirgin-Lar/Proposed_decision#Additional_statement_by_Newyorkbrad]. [[User:Cla68|Cla68]] ([[User talk:Cla68|talk]]) 08:50, 2 December 2008 (UTC)
::No Cla, it was not. Nowhere does Newyorkbrad deal with the issue of Lar lying to his fellow CUs by stating that I had admitted to him that the check was justified, when I had said exactly the opposite. I asked for clarification from the committee in private emails. No attempt has been made to explain it. If I really did say that to him, or if I really said something that could have been misinterpreted that way as an honest error, they'd find it easy (as would Lar) to identify the relevant sentence and point it out to me. Cla, do *you* think Newyorkbrad has dealt with the issue of Lar lying about my views on the check? If not, do you think that he (or someone else) *should*? If a CU carries out a check which other CUs find somewhat iffy (to say the least), receives an email from the affected editor saying that she doesn't see how the check could be justified, then posts in response to questions on the private CU list that the affected editor admitted to him that the CU was justified, is that or is that not a problem? [[User:ElinorD|ElinorD]] [[User talk:ElinorD|(talk)]] 14:41, 2 December 2008 (UTC)
== Policy question: Undoing Arb blocks ==
| |||