Ok, so lets be clear, you see no reason to suspect this arbiter will be anything other than perfectly neutral in this case?
I did, hence all this discussion, but I'm not the one who appoints arbiters or makes rules (or shells out nearly a million bucks in donations ;), and if you see no problem w the situation, I will stop complaining about it.
Jack (Sam Spade)
On 11/13/05, Jimmy Wales jwales@wikia.com wrote:
Jack Lynch wrote:
I certainly agree, it is statements made by the arbiter, not by the defendant, which concern me.
"That is not an RfC, it's a rant by a known troublemaker. I see no reason to participate in such a clearly broken process." (regarding an RfC initiated by Silverback) \ Let's check the outrage at the door and discuss this reasonably, ok? Hyperbolic screaming does not benefit your cause. Kelly Martin (talk) 12:54, 3 November 2005 (UTC)
etc...
Jack (Sam Spade)
I haven't seen the 'etc' but I would not consider the above remark to be even remotely close to the sort of thing that would cause me to urge an arbiter to recuse from a case. It was _not_ an RfC, it _was_ a rant by a known troublemaker. Checking outrage at the door and avoiding hyberbolic screaming _are_ good ideas.
--Jimbo
WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@Wikipedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l