Yes, please look at this and give us some feedback. If we have not explained well enough why we are coming to the decisions we have in this case, dialogue here would help us explain it better. For a start, there is no finding that there was any conspiracy. A number of folks who could loosely be described as "right wing" have engaged in a number of activities which violate Wikipedia policies and guidelines. The most serious violations involve Nobs01 who basically acts like an attack dog. This has little or nothing to do with anyones political viewpoint, a great deal to do with the targeting of a valuable Wikipedia editor.
Fred
On Dec 2, 2005, at 2:03 PM, Sam Spade wrote:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/ Nobs01_and_others/Proposed_decision
The appointed arbiters don't seem to be working out, place have a look at their handiwork. Note the lack of recusals, and near perpetual conflicts of interest. Note the political railroading of a handful of "rightwingers" on trumped up conspiracy charges. Look at the ability of an editor who barely warrants an article to cite himself, and enforce his blatantly biased POV w impunity, due to friends in the right places. It is a caricature of wikipedia at its worst.
Sam Spade _______________________________________________ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@Wikipedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l