4 ms·
The wikipedia community disagreed with you there. The consensus was in favor of sending this to the arbitration committee, with the topic ban being a temporary
by Kim_Bruning 8y ago
The wikipedia community disagreed with you there. The consensus was in favor of sending this to the arbitration committee, with the topic ban being a temporary first fix. And it did go to arbcom, and arbcom did take action.
On the one hand, JzG is obviously not your yes-man; this particular person has a mind of their own and presented the case from their own perspective. That said -on balance- their behavior came out in your favor. (as is abundantly clear now that we have 20/20 hindsight)
Kalholmann was given every opportunity to set/correct the record from their own perspective, but they just didn't take it. Hence my dissapointment.
You and I are working with the same set of evidence. I guess the main difference (if even that) is that I'm not just reading the partial account on your site, but I am also reading directly from the primary source including the bits that your team have left out.
Obviously our interpretation differs. ;-)
I guess only you yourself can know whether you are deliberately spinning things; or whether you are genuinely personally convinced by the narrative that you present.
- k1m 8y ago> The wikipedia community disagreed with you there. The consensus was in favor of sending this to the arbitration committee, with the topic ban being a temporary first fix. And it did go to arbcom, and arbcom did take action. You miss the point. You wrote "if Philip Cross's alleged conflict of interest were to be examined and dealt with, ultimately it would need to be looked at by the arbitration committee." I was pointing out that that is not in fact true. The Wikipedia community can make decisions without referring everything to the arbitration committee. I wasn't expressing an opinion about whether this case should or should not have gone to the committee.