Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Climate change/General discussion: Difference between revisions

Revision as of 02:43, 24 August 2010

Revision as of 02:49, 24 August 2010

Line 53:

::I have drawn the attention of the other arbitrators to this post. You should post something similar to the proposed decision talk page if you have not already, and make a statement there in the section provided for statements, as well as discussing matters further in the discussion section as needed. I won't be voting until towards the end of this week, but I can't speak for the other arbitrators. [[User:Carcharoth|Carcharoth]] ([[User talk:Carcharoth|talk]]) 01:05, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

::The proposed decision is a complex document prepared by multiple people that will affect many editors. As I noted last night, I have no intention of voting on findings and remedies until there is an opportunity for editors to comment on the proposals, and although I did vote on the principles, those votes too are subject to modification based on input that may come in suggesting difficulties or improvements. Although for various reasons it took us longer than expected to post the proposed decision, I do not, and I don't believe any arbitrator does, believe that the way to mitigate that is by rushing to a conclusion now. [[User:Newyorkbrad|Newyorkbrad]] ([[User talk:Newyorkbrad|talk]]) 01:36, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

:[[Wikipedia talk:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Climate change/General discussion#Voting on PD/Closure Timeline|Discuss this question]]

The proposed decision is a complex document prepared by multiple people that will affect many editors. As I noted last night, I have no intention of voting on findings and remedies until there is an opportunity for editors to comment on the proposals, and although I did vote on the principles, those votes too are subject to modification based on input that may come in suggesting difficulties or improvements. Although for various reasons it took us longer than expected to post the proposed decision, I do not, and I don't believe any arbitrator does, believe that the way to mitigate that is by rushing to a conclusion now. [[User:Newyorkbrad|Newyorkbrad]] ([[User talk:Newyorkbrad|talk]]) 01:36, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

:Will the arbitrators actually read the comments being made at the proposed decision? Because I can't see ''any'' indication that the arbitrators took the Evidence and Workshop pages into account when formulating the PD. The PD in its current form could easily have been put together before the case even started, saving everybody a lot of trouble and acrimony. [[User:Short Brigade Harvester Boris|Short Brigade Harvester Boris]] ([[User talk:Short Brigade Harvester Boris|talk]]) 02:30, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

::Agreed. I presented extremely compelling [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Climate_change/Evidence#Evidence_presented_by_A_Quest_for_Knowledge evidence] but much of it appears not to have factored into the Arbitration Committee's proposed decision. The problem we face is far greater than the three editors sanctioned or even the six editors that I've presented evidence against. Does anyone seriously believe that sanctioning a mere three editors will result in an editing environment based on mutual respect and cooperation? [[User:A Quest For Knowledge|A Quest For Knowledge]] ([[User talk:A Quest For Knowledge|talk]]) 02:37, 24 August 2010 (UTC)