--- Fred Bauder fredbaud@ctelco.net wrote:
This decision is very unpopular with the community. A couple of things: Stevertigo's request should stay up for the usual time and receive consideration based on him, not on what folks think of the arbitration decision. The arbitration decision can be appealed to Jimmy Wales by Stevertigo.
Fred
I asked for WP:RFA/SV to be reinstated for the simple reason that I be allowed to comment directly on the RFA. The expressed popular dislike of the Arbcom "decision" is a direct consequence of the Arbcom decision, not of my RFA. So your criticising the criticism seems rather "unwiki" and only opens the door for further criticism of the Arbcom process --of which I now have some uncommon perspective.
All of this could have been solved long ago if the Arbcom had taken the time to actually consider my point by point statement and talk page questions with regard to the original 3RR question, and the self-unblocking question. The "finding of fact" that the block was "equitably applied" was so simplistic as to be false, considering the block on the second party was not applied until 24 hours later.
This curious lack of attention to detail is something that a larger community is supposed to make easier to deal with, and hence make arbitration decisions more complete and well-founded. Take a look at any well-regarded court opinion for example, and you will find that the strength of the opinion itself rests on the strength of its understanding and representation of the arguments and the explanation in depth of the decision and its rationale. The Arbcom doesnt seem staffed to do this, and as a consequence, its decision in my case (for one) was poorly thought out.
While I am continuing the RFA process as directed by the Arbcom, there is in my mind no convenient separation between the problems with the Arbcom process in general, its apparent lack of responsiveness, or the "final" remedy in my case. And while I am considering making an appeal to Jimbo, he is now a rather busy man in charge of running an international foundation. I can't imagine how his dealing with conduct disputes on en.wikipedia could be considered an advance of his mission. Further, I cant imagine how such a busy person, regardless of his proven judgement and temperment, can be expected to properly investigate the case findings of fact which I maintain are incorrect.
In otherwords, if a committee with several active members cannot properly do the job, ask all the questions, and respond to all the criticism and issues, how can I expect Jimbo, busy as he is, to do it? Even on appeal to Jimbo, I still would have legitimate worries that he would feel compelled to simply trust the findings of the Arbcom, even though its decision was "very unpopular" and its process and findings were (as I maintain) 'not without flaw.'
In short, such a last resort for fixing a remedy so "unpopular with the community," must be seen as a complete and total failure of the Arbcom to act properly, meaning 'to make a fair decision or otherwise do no harm.' I can't imagine how I could have argued against a ruling which simply desysopped me for a month, provided it dealt point by point with the issues I raised in an open fashion.
Sincerely, SV
__________________________________ Yahoo! FareChase: Search multiple travel sites in one click. http://farechase.yahoo.com