Wikipedia talk:Requests for arbitration/International Churches of Christ
Latest comment: 16 years ago by Newyorkbrad in topic Statement by User:LtPowers
Interpret / translation
edit
Clerk note: Given the stated lack of fluency from one the the participants, an admin on the Hungarian WP (User:Nyenyec) has graciously offered to provide guidance and help. If a there appears to be a linguistic issue during the case, bringing it to his attention may be worthwhile. — Coren (talk) for the Arbitration Committee 14:11, 28 March 2008 (UTC)
Statement by User:LtPowers
editI wonder if I should be added to the parties in this case. I was involved in reverting TransylvanianKarl's reversions, which I persisted in for a while due to the clear and obvious superiority of Xiaphias's version. However, I fell off in monitoring it because it's hard to keep up with someone dedicated to continuous reverting. Powers T 23:57, 2 April 2008 (UTC)
- You need not be named a party to the case to provide evidence; everyone is welcome to provide information that can guide the arbitrators on Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/International Churches of Christ/Evidence. — Coren (talk) 00:02, 3 April 2008 (UTC)
- I understand that; it's not so much that I have evidence to present, it's just that my conduct may be part of what is reviewed. Powers T 00:06, 3 April 2008 (UTC)
- It's possible that the arbitrators move to include you in the case if they feel it relevant, although they tend to avoid that when it's not necessary to provide a ruling. I can add you to the case if you beleive that it is required in order for them to get a complete picture; but given that your involvement is peripheral, it's probably not required. Again, you are quite welcome to make a statement, either by giving evidence or even just by commenting in the workshop to give your perspective, regardless of whether you are a named party or not. — Coren (talk) 02:07, 3 April 2008 (UTC)
- Thank you; I just wanted to be clear. =) Powers T 12:24, 3 April 2008 (UTC)
- Based on my initial review of the evidence to date, I don't see any need to add LtPowers (or anyone else) as an additional party. If that changes as we get closer to a proposed decision, anyone against whom the committee is considering entering sanctions will be notified. Otherwise, Coren is right that "party" status is not a big deal. Regards, Newyorkbrad (talk) 13:14, 3 April 2008 (UTC)
- Thank you; I just wanted to be clear. =) Powers T 12:24, 3 April 2008 (UTC)
- It's possible that the arbitrators move to include you in the case if they feel it relevant, although they tend to avoid that when it's not necessary to provide a ruling. I can add you to the case if you beleive that it is required in order for them to get a complete picture; but given that your involvement is peripheral, it's probably not required. Again, you are quite welcome to make a statement, either by giving evidence or even just by commenting in the workshop to give your perspective, regardless of whether you are a named party or not. — Coren (talk) 02:07, 3 April 2008 (UTC)
- I understand that; it's not so much that I have evidence to present, it's just that my conduct may be part of what is reviewed. Powers T 00:06, 3 April 2008 (UTC)