Similiar to my impressions. There are what, 9 or 12 Arbitrators? I think one examines the portions of a case he feels like examining, makes findings, and the rest rubber stamp it. It pays to have friends and past associations, the proper ideological convictions, or not be branded as something by users with the proper ideological convictions.
My case was humourous, after I called attention on the WP:Verifiabilty rewrite discussion & the Candidate election statements, that verifiabale citations were being used as evidence of personal attacks, the next day they pursued a different track, "editors with strong POV." What a comedy of errors.
nobs
On 1/12/06, Peter Mackay peter.mackay@bigpond.com wrote:
I'm not going to rehash old stuff. Fred's summarising for the Arbcom was quite mistaken, but in his defence he didn't understand the constitutional subleties and he didn't have time to go looking at all the arguments. I was naïve enough to think that the thing would be fully investigated, and I spent a lot of time being righteously outraged and making a damfool of myself.
Peter (Skyring)
From: wikien-l-bounces@Wikipedia.org [mailto:wikien-l-bounces@Wikipedia.org] On Behalf Of Rob Smith
I've read some portions of your case; the content issues are interesting. And I note Fred accepted as per the content issues. Feel free to give your perspective how the whole mess was handled.
WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@Wikipedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l