On 2/28/06, Sam Korn <smoddy(a)gmail.com> wrote:
Context. I don't know the history as well as I
know the history of
Why not? In both cases all you have is the presented edit histories
in front of you.
I happen to look at matters through my first hand appreciation of
them. It is clearly impossible to do this here.
Generally arbitrators recuse themselves in cases they experience
firsthand. I think the default is that they *haven't* seen the case
before, in any detail.
I don't live in the past.
But your job is to judge it.
No. My job is to decide what is in Wikipedia's best interests.
By looking at the evidence, which consists of what occured in the
past. Don't play word games.
Yes. We are giving you the chance to show that the
(present tense, not past tense) unnecessary.
If the past is irrelevant, why I am I assumed guilty until proven
innocent? New users are not put through this meat grinder, so why me?
To be fair, you have been found "guilty", whether that was right or
wrong. We're looking at the future.
But that's the past. If you're unwilling to consider how appropriate
the last decision was, why rely on it to make me prima facie deserving
Indeed, I have been very, very patient with all of you. Many users
would be screaming in your ear right now, and not without cause. I
was mistreated badly once, condemned and banned without due cause.
You might do me the courtesy of cutting me some slack now on account
If you want to
change your vote, you'd better hurry. Not much time
for my actions.
I believe we said four months.
Not the vote I was referring to. Obviously.