>> Therefore, Arbcom is not being "unfair" to such a person by ruling
against him.
>It is rarely so simple.
>One of the reasons is that our policies are not drafted by legal
>professionals. Therefore the assumption that they can be used as the
basis >of an entirely judicial approach to resolving disputes is flawed
from the >outset. The policies, for most editors, are a rough indication
of what >Wikipedia expects in the way of behaviour. That's good enough
for most >editing.
>ArbCom cases are not 'everyday situations' (thank God). They cover all
>possible variations on editing that transgresses or tries to exploit
policy. >If someone is working with a misconception of what policy
means, or is in >effect wikilawyering by sailing very close to the wind,
there does come a >point at which Arbitrators look at the substantive
effect of editor >behaviour, not the letter of policy.
>Charles
I think that the arbcom has made decisions that diverge quite strongly
from the existing policies and guidelines. For example, cited evidence
against me was repeatedly linking to a website maintained and authored
by the subject of the article. My behavior was okay according to
[[WP:EL]]. I had made every effort to follow dispute resolution.
When there is such a big difference between guidelines and the ruling of
the arbcom then the decision of the arbcom is not fair to the
contributor, even if the decision helps the encyclopedia.
Andries Krugers Dagneaux