Wikipedia talk:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Gibraltar/Workshop

Personal Attacks & Bad Faith Presumption
activity, obstinacy, discourtesy, incompetence at communication, and nationalism form a demonic combination "Gibnews' rottweiler" repeated

''I get a sense of "if I'm going down I'm taking you with me" here.  So that is three untruths in the same section from you,  Why are you telling untruths here, Justin?''

At which point do editors get sanctioned for making personal attacks at arbcom? Justin the Evil Scotsman talk 15:26, 7 April 2010 (UTC)


 * Well, there is a greater acceptance, as there should be, of statemnts that might elsewhere be views as PAs or uncivil, it is the nature of arbcom that requires those statements. However, a judgement has to be made at some point over where that line is. Personally my view is that RedHat is just digging a hole (and should be allowed to do so, he is writing the case against himself IMO) with the childish 'Oh oh, I didn't mean that' line. If I call someone a faggot I am rightly condemned for homophobia, and going 'no no, I meant you are a bundle of twigs because you are so skinny, honest' is a schoolyard game that as adults we should all have put away. -- Narson ~  Talk  • 15:11, 8 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Interesting rhetoric, Narson. I don't see the "faggot" analogy as appropriate here (not even close to that), although I share your opinion in the necessary acceptance of certain qualifiers due to the very nature of the Arbitration process. 'Evening. Cremallera (talk) 17:06, 8 April 2010 (UTC)