Wikipedia talk:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Skepticism and coordinated editing: Difference between revisions
Content deleted Content added
→Sgerbic questions: Reply |
→Sgerbic questions: Reply |
||
Line 60:
::::::::::::Are you expecting me to answer each piece of "evidence" that is given here within 1000 words? And you say everyone mentioned is open for me to give evidence of, even if they don't normally edit pages concerning "skepticism" and even if the evidence I'm providing is from a talk, user or admin page? Even if it has nothing to do with coordinated editing, but harassment, tone ect? That seems really far reaching. And I can give all this evidence privately to keep from creating more drama? But then they can't respond to it how is that fair to them?
::::::::::::I understand you are bending the rules to explain this to me. I am taking this very seriously, GSoW is a very important project. I care very strongly that I am able to continue to edit and train. So I need understand, there may be sanctions for me and to unknown editors based on the decision of ArbCom. A decision that is made up from three or four detractors giving their "evidence"? This is far-reaching and stressful. [[User:Sgerbic|Sgerbic]] ([[User talk:Sgerbic|talk]]) 19:33, 21 January 2022 (UTC)
:::::::::::::Lastly - this "evidence" I'm seeing from my detractors keeps saying "The GSoW did this or that" When they don't know who GSoW is? I don't control Wikipedia, so how am I expected to control what edits are put on what page by editors I've never heard of before? [[User:Sgerbic|Sgerbic]] ([[User talk:Sgerbic|talk]]) 19:38, 21 January 2022 (UTC)
| |||