On 12/12/06, Newyorkbrad (Wikipedia) newyorkbrad@gmail.com wrote:
I have reviewed Radiant!'s analysis of the findings. It independently corroborates much of Durin's analysis posted to the talkpage of /Proposed Decision today. I have also posted my own thoughts to the talkpage of the /Proposed Decision.
Both you and Radiant! limited your comments solely to the few citations in the arbcom finding and ignored the evidence page (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Seabhcan/Evi...) which has dozens of examples.
I'll be the first to agree that the actual arbitration finding texts are often poorly written and illconsidered, but that by no means causes the outcome of the decision to be invalid. You must consider the underlying evidence, just as the arbcom did before you can fairly comment.