The proposed arbitration remedy is very limited, reflecting the fact that the vast majority of your work on Wikipedia is both useful and welcome. Probation permits an administrator to ban you from an article which you disrupt by tendentious editing. It may only be applied in cases where that is what you are doing. Clearly, in a few articles you have done so.
If you had been elected to the arbitration committee you would no doubt have found probation useful yourself. It permits action in only the articles which the user has disrupted without interfering with their other activity. I know it is hard to accept, but a case like yours is why it was created, to give some middle ground between a total ban and having to endlessly put up with disruption and edit warring.
Fred
On Jun 3, 2006, at 7:12 AM, Sam Spade wrote:
Sam. You want straight answers? You want plain speaking? OK.
Do you hurt the encyclopedia? Yes. Do you also do good things? Yes, probably; it's pretty hard to make 30,000 edits from the same account without some of them being good. Do you do more damage to the encyclopedia than the good that you do? With the behavior that got the restrictions put on you by the ArbCom, yes, you do more damage.
Then I should have been banned along time ago. I think your wrong (or else I wouldn't have wasted so much time). How did you come to your conclusion, might I ask?
SS _______________________________________________ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@Wikipedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l