Wikipedia talk:Requests for arbitration/Motion: re SlimVirgin: Difference between revisions
Content deleted Content added
comment on motion 1 |
|||
Line 1:
==Comment on motion 1==
It's amazing how much you can miss when without much internet access for only a few days, I am not yet entirely up to speed with this latest matter. However, I do think a remark needs to be made in relation to motion 1. ArbCom has by this motion given special authority to block users where their block is to enforce ArbCom sanctions. Whereas I would suggest there is usually a requirement to gain a consensus for a block where it is likely to be contentious (and the arbitration enforcement noticeboard has been used in the past to get such consensus) it seems that AE blocks can now be done on the judgment of a lone admin and will remain in effect until there is a consensus to lift it. Were the motion still under discussion, I would have advised all arbitrators to think carefully about whether they still support all sanctions editors are currently under. Now that it has passed, I think it urgently necessary that arbitrators reconsider the sanctions that may result in such blocks. Many of you have said several times that you think civility paroles are problematic and should be lifted yet not action has been taken on this. A majority of arbitrators [[Wikipedia_talk:Requests_for_arbitration/Everyking_3#Proposed_motions_and_voting|supported]] lifting the sanctions which [[User:Everyking|Everyking]] is currently subject, yet he remains under those sanctions due to a different motion passing instead. Are arbitrators happy for sanctions that have little community support (and are felt unnecessary by a significant proportion of the Committee) being enforced in the manner provided for by motion 1? <strong style="font-variant:small-caps">[[User:WJBscribe|WJBscribe]] [[User talk:WJBscribe|(talk)]]</strong> 19:02, 27 November 2008 (UTC)
== Nothing is ever settled till it is settled right. (Kipling?) ==
[[Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Motion: re SlimVirgin|The SlimVirgin case]] has been closed by a clerk, but I hope that all the arbs will still give careful consideration to the questions I raised [[Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Motion:_re_SlimVirgin#Input_from_ElinorD.2FWikitumnus|here]].
I did write to the committee at the time that [[Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/SlimVirgin-Lar|the Lar case]] was closing, requesting that since they had not addressed the issue of Lar having made untruthful statements, someone might take the trouble to explain to me just which sentences from the emails submitted in private evidence had made them think that despite my vehement protests that I don't even '''know''' Lar's wife and that we have never sent each other any messages, in fact, I had apparently (unknown to myself) been making statements to her and Lar together and had been counselled by her.[http://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/wikien-l/2008-July/094632.html] I also hoped that an arb would take the trouble to tell me which sentence from the emails submitted in evidence had made the committee believe that I had admitted to Lar that the CU was justified, despite ''my'' sincere belief that my email to him on 14 March (which they've all seen) said '''exactly the opposite''', and that no other email from me prior to his making [https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/private/checkuser-l/2008-March/002009.html this statement] mentioned my views on the (in)appropriateness of the check at all. I received a message from James Forrester on 4 November, saying that the committee was still discussing my email and I would hopefully get a reply within a day or two. I'm still waiting.
The committee has desysopped Slim partly because of previous cases. But the most recent previous case finding against her was one of making unwarranted accusations. And the committee has been using my privacy as the main pretext for not explaining publicly why they find Slim's accusations against Lar unwarranted. Yet they have been unable to explain to me ''even in private'' the rationale behind their disregarding of so much crucial evidence.
Since private requests are conveniently ignored, I am now requesting public clarification, and I call on the entire community to support this request.
[[User:ElinorD|ElinorD]] [[User talk:ElinorD|(talk)]] 19:30, 27 November 2008 (UTC)
| |||