Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests: Difference between revisions

Revision as of 17:33, 23 August 2004

Revision as of 18:41, 23 August 2004

Line 49:

----

I'd like to note that I don't think VV's conduct can be reasonably looked at without looking at the larger issue of his treatment by the community at large, and, specifically, by people who are supposed to be in the position of settling disputes. I refer here to [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/wiki.phtml?title=Wikipedia:Requests_for_comment/172&diff=3681033&oldid=3681018], which I think probably had the effect of making both requests for comment and mediation ineffective options for VeryVerily. I'm not asking for sanction against Danny (Or against Mirv or Hephestos, both of whom later signed this summary), but I think that this action and the consequences it probably had for dispute resolution with VV need to be taken into account. [[User:Snowspinner|Snowspinner]] 16:45, Aug 21, 2004 (UTC)

'''Evidence'''

Line 85 ⟶ 84:

Sorry this is so long. [[User:VeryVerily|V]][[User talk:VeryVerily|<font color=green>V</font>]] 21:54, 21 Aug 2004 (UTC)

:Yes, the second poll is currently at 5-1, but you were already reverting when it stood at 5-0. I don't know how you can accuse others of turning this into a revert-fest, when no one reverts as much as you. If polling is no substitute for discussion, reverting isn't either. The issue here is not about the content of the article (I have no problem with your version of the popularity section myself, I just don't think it should be pushed against consensus), but about your behaviour, which only results in the page being protected half the time. If a poll goes 20-3 against you, you can't just say everyone is biased or uncommunicative. It's up to you to make your case on the talk page and try to convince people to change their vote. [[User:Gzornenplatz|Gzornenplatz]] 22:16, Aug 21, 2004 (UTC)

===Arbitration policy===