On Sun, 1 Apr 2007 07:42:46 +0200, "Andries Krugers Dagneaux" andrieskd@chello.nl wrote:
One of the working principles of the arbcom is that it does not want to be fair to editors, but to make decisions that will help the project.
That's up there with "verifiability, not truth". It does not mitigate against the idea that there is a set of principles which enjoy broad support, and whose rejection tends to be connected with a short and turbulent life on Wikipedia.
Guy (JzG)
That is not what I meant. I was topic-banned by the arbcom though my edits on that topic ([[Sathya Sai Baba]]) were described as "generally responsible" and I repeatedly but unsuccessfully requested diffs that show that I broke Wikipedia policies or made disruptive or activist edits. When I asked Flonight whether topic-banning in the absence of such diffs was fair, I was told that the arbcom does not want to be fair to editors. Charles Matthews endorsed her reasoning in this respect. If that is the reasoning of the arbcom then I have no intention to be fair to contributors in Wikipedia.
Andries