| Revision as of 07:53, 9 September 2009 editWilliam M. Connolley (talk | contribs)Autopatrolled, Extended confirmed users, Pending changes reviewers, Rollbackers66,055 edits →Misplaced Pages:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Abd-William M. Connolley: a little more← Previous edit | Revision as of 18:30, 10 September 2009 edit undoWilliam M. Connolley (talk | contribs)Autopatrolled, Extended confirmed users, Pending changes reviewers, Rollbackers66,055 edits →Misplaced Pages:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Abd-William M. Connolley: exec summary. arbcomm not noted for their attention span :-)Next edit → | ||
| Line 17: | Line 17: | ||
| More later. | More later. | ||
| === Executive summary === | |||
| This entire case was a waste of time. The correct response for arbcomm was to reject it. Having accepted it, they were then grossly negligent by (a) failing to keep it on time (b) failing to impose meaningful limits on the volume of dross produced (c) failing to read the evidence, which was unreadable, due to b (d) most of arbcomm didn't bother to participate (e) all of which lead to producing a bad judgement. | |||
| === On the naming of names === | === On the naming of names === | ||
Revision as of 18:30, 10 September 2009
- Misplaced Pages:Requests_for_arbitration/Geogre-William_M._Connolley
- Misplaced Pages:Requests for arbitration/Climate change dispute (And don't miss part II)
- My comments on the SA appeal can be found via
Interesting. There are limits to incivility on your own talk page to some peoples surprise . Since it would be odd to put this here and not comment, let me make it plain that I agree with Jimbo's actions.
Misplaced Pages:Requests_for_arbitration/Obama_articles/Proposed_decision - some interesting principles.
Misplaced Pages:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Abd-William M. Connolley
Looks like I need a new section for this. And a new section needs a quote:
To all the friends I used to have yo I miss my past
But the rest of you arseholes can kiss my arse
Eminen, as I'm sure you'll recognise . It isn't quite right, as the friends are still there. Suggestions for a better?
More later.
Executive summary
This entire case was a waste of time. The correct response for arbcomm was to reject it. Having accepted it, they were then grossly negligent by (a) failing to keep it on time (b) failing to impose meaningful limits on the volume of dross produced (c) failing to read the evidence, which was unreadable, due to b (d) most of arbcomm didn't bother to participate (e) all of which lead to producing a bad judgement.