Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case: Difference between revisions
Content deleted Content added
→Statement by {Non-party}: statement by Robert McClenon - request is vexatious |
→Statement by Darker Dreams: Reply |
||
Line 41:
I have lost count of the times that edits attempting to include sourced material on pages related to witchcraft have been described as “POV pushing” by one or both of these individuals. Meanwhile, CorbieVreccan specifically has attempted to claim sources which are well-known and respected academically are discredited[https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Witchcraft_%28traditional%29&diff=1168449182&oldid=1168363448], discredit information based entirely on an author's religion,[https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Witchcraft&diff=next&oldid=1166176326] and ignore information challenging their stated point of view.[https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk%3AWitchcraft&diff=1165243409&oldid=1165238129][https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk%3AWitchcraft&diff=1165341831&oldid=1165340593] - [[User:Darker Dreams|Darker Dreams]] ([[User talk:Darker Dreams|talk]]) 12:37, 13 August 2023 (UTC)
:Regarding {{ping|Robert McClenon}}'s statement that the DRN was failed based on this filing; I assumed that was going to happen based on the filing against me on the edit warring noticeboard. My understanding is that the rules bar *any* such filing on noticeboards, and the result would be failure. I deeply appreciate the time and energy that they have put into the mediation and RfC, and am distressed to have caused their evident frustration. - [[User:Darker Dreams|Darker Dreams]] ([[User talk:Darker Dreams|talk]]) 08:14, 15 August 2023 (UTC)
=== Statement by CorbieVreccan ===
I haven't responded because I've assumed this won't be accepted by Arbcom, for all the reasons others have already given.
| |||