On Thu, 29 Nov 2007 13:45:16 +1100, "private musings" thepmaccount@gmail.com wrote:
The fact that you were 'right' about my misdeeds in no way alters the nature of your unethical behaviour.
No, my behaviour was ethical. I asked a few trusted friends for advice before blocking one of your accounts. That is a sane and reasonable thing to do.
Nor does it excuse the Arb.s currently voting from failing to disclose any prejudicial discussion (is it really due process to expect Arb.s who have already 'sanity checked' your decision in advance of your block, to then 'review' that block, and further 'vote' in the arb case? - that's a real triple whammy.)
No such declaration is necessary. I asked a simple question: in your opinion, is this valid use of an alternate account? Having ventured an opinion once does not disqualify them form venturing the same opinion again, especially when more evidence of even more accounts is brought to the table.
You seem to think that restricting someone who has used multiple accounts disruptively and made careless and controversial edits to sensitive articles in some way damages the arbitration committee's credibility. I would argue that the opposite is true: failure to do so would damage their credibility.
Guy (JzG)