Uh, no. It's kind of rude to jump to conclusions. There have been no backroom deals. Adam's views are only known because he's been around a long time and has made his views on editing Wikipedia and experts well known - through many a dispute and the occasional arbitration case. He's also known to not be fond of the arbitration process - hence the brevity of his "evidence".
-- ambi
On 6/8/05, Skyring skyring@gmail.com wrote:
If you go to http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Skyring/Evid... you will see an ArbCom hearing proceeding in the evidence-gathering stage. It was my naive belief that the process was as fair and open as need be. However, anybody knowing anything about this case will see that one party has conspicuously failed to show on the evidence page apart from a brief appearance at http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia%3ARequests_for_arbitrati...
I chipped him about this on the talk page, saying it looked as if he was squibbing his chance to give evidence. His response? "My views are well known to the ArbCom." http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:Requests_for_arbitr...
Is this *really* how it works? The whole process is a sham and it all depends on backroom deals?
-- Peter in Canberra _______________________________________________ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@Wikipedia.org http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l