Wikipedia talk:Arbitration/Requests/Case/GamerGate/Proposed decision: Difference between revisions
Content deleted Content added
→Enough Already: cmt |
|||
Line 772:
===Statement by Neonchameleon===
It feels as if the resolution has changed extremely rapidly in the last few days. First Principle 14: Limits of Arbitration came out of nowhere despite the fact that it undermines principle 11: Enough is Enough (others have pointed out that the Scientology case has a different precedent and resolution that could be applied). Second there seems to have been a last minute flurry of vote changes with NBSB and TarainDC being swapped for each other (one topic ban failed, one passed), and a last minute site ban for Ryulong. What changed? [[User:Neonchameleon|Neonchameleon]] ([[User talk:Neonchameleon|talk]]) 12:04, 28 January 2015 (UTC)
===Statement by Resolute===
I cannot endorse {{u|SinglePurposePartier}}'s statements enough. I understand what the committee is trying to accomplish, and can't disagree that there are individuals on each side that should be separated from the topic. But in trying to appear fair, you've really only given the outside harassers exactly what they want. I sincerely hope your "robust protections" are as advertised, because from where I sit, I see no incentive at all to try and enforce Wikipedia's policies on this set of articles. Looks like all you will get for your trouble is harassed, attacked, doxxed and threatened from the outside, and then topic or site banned from the inside. [[User:Resolute|Reso]][[User Talk:Resolute|lute]] 21:39, 28 January 2015 (UTC)
===Statement by {username}===
| |||