Wikipedia talk:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Christianity and Sexuality/Proposed decision
 | This case is now closed and pages relating to it may no longer be watched
|
Case clerk: Lankiveil (Talk) Drafting arbitrator: Dougweller (Talk)
| Wikipedia Arbitration |
|---|
 |
|
|
| Track related changes |
Behaviour on this page: Arbitration case pages exist to assist the Arbitration Committee in arriving at a fair, well-informed decision. You are required to act with appropriate decorum during this case. While grievances must often be aired during a case, you are expected to air them without being rude or hostile, and to respond calmly to allegations against you. Accusations of misbehaviour posted in this case must be proven with clear evidence (and otherwise not made at all). Editors who conduct themselves inappropriately during a case may be sanctioned by an arbitrator, clerk, or functionary, without further warning, by being banned from further participation in the case, or being blocked altogether. Personal attacks against other users, including arbitrators or the clerks, will be met with sanctions. Behavior during a case may also be considered by the committee in arriving at a final decision.
Site-banning of Esoglou
[edit]If indeed I am site-banned, as already four think I should, I certainly won't ask to be readmitted to the club that:
- interprets my imaging of myself as tied up as baiting someone else and that presents me as having posted this page, which has a whole series of sexualized images, instead of the one humorous picture that I did post on my own talk page, and to which I posted a mere link on Roscelese's
- judges that, while others may freely accuse me of pro-Catholic bias (which, of course, it does not see as personalizing), it was heinous of me to respond by saying that I made no counter-accusation on grounds of someone's self-proclaimed sexual orientation
- calls it focus on a contributor to appeal to an editor on the article's talk page to discuss that editor's contributions (or rather that editor's deletions), as if there were some other way to try to stop questionings being simply ignored through repeated reverting of anything, no matter how variously expressed, that displeased the owner of the article
- calls it sarcastic to ask for an example of the unspecified "gross original research" allegedly contained in a reverted edit of mine, while I pointed out the sourceless original research in the text I was trying to fix
- accepts, apparently without examining the evidence, an editor's non-specific claim that certain edits were misrepresentations
- calls it original research to present evidence from the most authoritative Greek dictionaries of the meaning of παῖς, in place of letting Wikipedia state as fact that the word "most often means a young male lover" on the grounds that one writer "points out" as "evidence" that the word "pederasty" is derived from παῖς – as if παῖς weren't also the root of the words "pediatrics", "pedagogue", "pedant", "encyclopaedia" and "Wikipedia"! This last comment may well be original research but – in responding to an editor's presenting as evidence a curious comment not just "made" or "said", but "pointed out" – it wasn't original research to cite the Greek dictionaries that give the normal meanings of the word. That should have been let stand, not uncooperatively blanket-reverted.
- condemns as non-neutral the sourced presentation of the Catholic Church's explanation of its view (expressly presented as the Church's view, not as objective fact), while encouraging the presenting of interpretations and criticisms of the Church's view that are advanced by the Church's opponents
- considers it a capital fault to cite concordant sources that another editor will later claim to be of insufficiently high standard (in that editor's opinion) to allow them even to be mentioned as a view actually held, and quite widely
- condemns as another capital fault to ask for a citation for the claim that the word ἀρσενοκοιτία "historically was not used to refer to homosexuality", a claim presented in Wikipedia's voice as fact, not as someone's opinion. Just look at the present text of that article and see how much evidence I finally succeeded in not having immediately reverted about the historical use of the word with reference to various male homosexual actions, and about the rejection by other scholars of the view of a single writer, cited at a certain distance lower in the article, which I did not realize underlay the claim that it is fact, not just an opinion, that ἀρσενοκοιτία was never used in relation to homosexuality – on what grounds? because in one work John the Faster used the word to refer to anal intercourse and remarked that such intercourse was done "even" (καί) with a woman.
These ideas, expressed by a few hostile editors, are being elevated to club rules of Wikipedia. Esoglou (talk) 07:55, 3 March 2015 (UTC)
- I see that the voting is already decisive, indeed, so far it is unanimous. I accept it, not just because I have to, although I disagree with it. I expect that in a few hours, perhaps already tomorrow morning, I will no longer be able to edit Wikipedia, and will instead devote my energies to other purposes. So, while I still can, I take this opportunity to say farewell to all of you and to assure you all of my best wishes for your happiness. Esoglou (talk) 18:55, 3 March 2015 (UTC)
- You are not going to use another account with a different name, are you? --George Ho (talk) 19:53, 3 March 2015 (UTC)