For what its worth, I have posted to AN/I, the subpage, and the newly filed
arbitration request. My idea of a comprehensive review includes at least
some examination of the edits of an editor prior to the implementation of a
ban. Not everyone agrees. Sometimes efficient review is stifled by a low
signal to noise ratio (cliched as that phrase has become these days). I
think that has happened in this case, but hopefully the Committee if it
chooses to accept the case can cut through the noise and make a
determination.
Nathan
On Wed, Apr 23, 2008 at 2:29 PM, Relata Refero <refero.relata(a)gmail.com>
wrote:
I think you are ignoring the enormous difference in
how they intended to
influence content, which difference should be reflected in how they are
handled.
And as for "comprehensive" review, I don't see what precisely you think
needed to be added mentioned in your mail; I did mention the fairly good
reasons for the topic-ban. If you feel that the level of review is
problematic, you should feel free to respond there rather than here. Also,
given that the information has been disseminated at AN/I and literally
dozens of talkpages, I wouldn't feel overly concerned that it isn't
receiving sufficient review. Reading and deciding its not worth posting to
object are also forms of review - in fact, pretty much what WP is built
on.
RR