Overleg gebruiker:TonyBallioni
Afwijzing verzoek[brontekst bewerken]
Geachte TonyBallioni, De Arbitragecommissie heeft besloten uw verzoek van 29 juni 2018 niet aan te nemen. Voor meer informatie zie Wikipedia:Arbitragecommissie/Zaken/Verzoek TonyBallioni. 10 jul 2018 00:13 (CEST)
- Wthjmkuiper, I was informed of the fact that you all promised the local CheckUsers to consult them by Trijnstel, whom I trust on this issue. I’ll defer to them as to if I misrepresented the information she provided me. TonyBallioni (overleg) 10 jul 2018 00:23 (CEST)
- @Wthjmkuiper, Trijnstel: fix ping. TonyBallioni (overleg) 10 jul 2018 00:27 (CEST)
- @TonyBallioni:, I don't keep track of the Dutch Arb-com, and I happened to visit your userpage here. I was utterly surprised to see an Arbcom case was actually filed... and already rejected. I might at least have been notified, that this was going on.
- Even worse is it was one of the members of the Dutch Arbcom commission two days ago rejected my request to restore an article about me, see here. And after I commented that it was a pure arbitrary decision, he didn't respond any more. His argument was that there was one (again) absolute standard so the request was denied. In the previous discussion this had not came up, yet the people involved kept nagging about the 45 year old first newspaper article, and some more thing like that. Just use google translate to see what come up. Even more worse is that I filled a request to dismiss a six year old arbcom case against me, abominable from beginning to the end.
- So far I was under the impression that the discussion about this was only held at meta. Now it is starting to look like a case of divide and conquer, where opponents are being attacked, kept in the dark, and ruled out by arbitrary absolutism. I might fill a formal request to re-open this case. -- Mdd (overleg) 10 jul 2018 17:47 (CEST)
- There seem to be another plain and simple formal mistake here... where is the notification that the request was filled. I should take a closer look at the Arb-com regulation. It should state that the Arb-com has the duty to inform the participants involved.
- Now I have taken another look at the reason why.... and I understand the rejection. That is bold. Now I am truly sorry. I didn't pay more attention (to much detracted by my own affairs). I think together we can file a new request, or even better, share your concerns with the Dutch Wikipedians at the Dutch Village Pump first. -- Mdd (overleg) 10 jul 2018 18:04 (CEST)
- The case has been rejected by the ArbCom in the first place because TonyBallioni is a user who does not have 100 edits yet on this wiki, so you'd have to start altogether from scratch. Another thing is that while there's a lot of controversy regarding Whaledad's behaviour on a different Wikimedia project (Wikiquote), this issue concerns specifically his appointment as a CU here on Wikipedia-nl. There's no immediate connection between the two projects, apart from the fact that they're both Wikimedia. So my suggestion to you both is to let this matter drop, at least for now. De Wikischim (overleg) 10 jul 2018 18:01 (CEST)
- I have no intent of taking this further: I was told to contact the Dutch ArbCom rather than raise this publicly, so that is what I did. I have no problem with local wikis following local processes, though I still have very grave concerns with the temperament of Whaledad for this tool. My concerns were heard, and the local body designed to oversee CheckUsers decided they didn't have merit. I disagree, but it is the process here. The only reason I responded above was because it was said I made a false claim: I was only repeating what was told to me by a Dutch user I trust very much, so wanted to clarify that. Anyway, as I said, my concern was heard, I think the nl.wp ArbCom made a mistake in this appointment, but they disagree, which is their prerogative. There isn't much more that can be done. TonyBallioni (overleg) 10 jul 2018 18:07 (CEST)
- Thanks Tony, I respect your decision and fully agree with your assessment. I will include this in the case I am building against the Dutch Arbcom. -- Mdd (overleg) 10 jul 2018 18:24 (CEST)
- I have no intent of taking this further: I was told to contact the Dutch ArbCom rather than raise this publicly, so that is what I did. I have no problem with local wikis following local processes, though I still have very grave concerns with the temperament of Whaledad for this tool. My concerns were heard, and the local body designed to oversee CheckUsers decided they didn't have merit. I disagree, but it is the process here. The only reason I responded above was because it was said I made a false claim: I was only repeating what was told to me by a Dutch user I trust very much, so wanted to clarify that. Anyway, as I said, my concern was heard, I think the nl.wp ArbCom made a mistake in this appointment, but they disagree, which is their prerogative. There isn't much more that can be done. TonyBallioni (overleg) 10 jul 2018 18:07 (CEST)