I'm having some trouble understanding what is meant in the part stated "Private evidence" requires a commensurate private hearing. It seems like some words are missing, but what words precisely I don't know. If the quoted text is indeed correctly written, then I would appreciate some further explanation by another person, thanks. —The Editor's Apprentice (talk) 14:30, 30 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
That was my attempt to convey the gist of the case's principles section titled Private evidence, which reads "When the Arbitration Committee admits privately-submitted evidence, existing policy requires a private hearing..." ☆ Bri (talk) 14:52, 30 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
A related discussion about WMF involvement in community affairs has begun at here. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 08:35, 1 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
it is entirely inappropriate to use the term “voters” in the context of a consensus-driven process. I know that !voters is sometimes used, but that punctuation mark doesn’t in any way change the meaning of the word and I would have objected to its use as well. It’s not as if writers need to be concerned about how much space will be taken up to be accurate. As we tell small children, “use your words.” All of them, if clarity is the goal.~TPW 21:08, 3 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I agree, as does a recent RFC so I have edited the article to avoid use of the word "vote". Wug·a·po·des 04:44, 5 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
It's interesting that in all the words written about this matter, not once have I seen a writer for Signpost state succinctly why this editor was banned. Hints, yes; shorthand references, maybe, but a clear statement, no. Now I expect a rash of comments, some of them rude, about this posting, pointing me to examples of where I was wrong. Thanks in advance, because not only have I been wrong many times in my life, but I have also BeenAroundAWhile (talk) 17:15, 6 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Funny you should mention that. The full report on why they were banned is in the Special Report of the June 2019 edition of The Signpost. Oh, if you aren't an administrator, you won't be able to follow the link. A can of worms is the question of whether the deletion has been properly applied. - Bri.public (talk) 18:33, 7 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
It was properly deleted because it contained demonstrably false information + seriously unfounded attacks. It seems as if most people not associated with the Signpost agreed with the deletion and don't consider this a "can of worms" at all, but you are free to take it to WP:DRV, the admin's noticeboard, or ArbCom of course. If people really want to know why I was banned, they can of course read the ArbCom case, which makes it clear that the ban was not warranted, and the RfA, which makes it clear that despite this, my style of adminning / editing was not appreciated by many people and was too heavy-handed, uncivil at times, confrontational, ... Basically, there is plenty of material out there you can point to, instead of directing people to a properly deleted BLP violating attack piece. Fram (talk) 06:51, 8 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Smallbones is the author of the BLP-violating deleted Signpost page. My "non-responses" are because I don't want to have anything to do with Smallbones and his repeated misleading and inflamatory statements about the whole situation. I doubt that his question is really the best place to get an answer about this situtation, it certainly isn't a neutral, unbiased place to start. Fram (talk) 04:35, 10 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
So ... the WMF shook en.WP's sick power structure mightily and got a result. We're about to enter Chapter II. Tony(talk) 07:07, 11 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
No we're not. Actually the en.Wiki shook the WMF's sick power structure mightily, but "Plus ça change, plus c'est la même chose". Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 02:48, 16 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
An odd thing to write, when en.WP's power structure is as sick as a lake of vomit. Tony(talk) 23:17, 17 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Which's one of the main reasons behind the tolerance of your antics and abuse for such a long span of time. ∯WBGconverse 02:43, 18 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
If you're referring to me, that's an excellent example of the sickness. Tony(talk) 07:00, 18 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Oh, dear, wrong again: Its the cabal of the anti-admin brigade and their uncalled for acrimonious comments that are ' as sick as a lake of vomit'. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 10:25, 18 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Both of you are well-known as abusers. I did not change this into a personal attack: you two did. The kind of behaviour that indicates total unsuitability for adminship. Tony(talk) 23:36, 18 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
