A little research could have reveal that to you.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Thebainer#Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbi...

First issue was the creation of a redirect to an old case. I created the redirect [[Wikipedia:Requests for Arbitration/Davenbele]] as a redirect to an old 2005 case which has stayed relevant to date due to the persistence of the stalker. As the person who references the article stuffing it in the mouths of people repetitively I desired the convenience of such a shortcut. It was promptly deleted in an out of process manner. When I attempted to discuss it with the deleting admin (arbitrator or not) he ignored it.

Is this a trivially small issue? It should have been but it isn't. Out of process speedy deletions not meeting the speedy deletion criteria are always promptly reverted. People, even admis should be using the relevant process when deleting pages not meeting WP:CSD.

Am I supposed to back of from a stand point because an arbitrator said so? So long as we are going to consider arbitrators as regular users, no.

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk%3ARequests_for_arbi...

The other issue was me seeking to chip rfar into two pages. One for new requests and other for former cases that a clarification is requested. The two sections are unrelated to each other. This attempt was classified as "trolling" by a person that I believe is an arbcom clerk.

All above cases demonstrate our culture of treating arbcom as the divine authority. Arbcom supposed to be the final word in disputes yes but arbcom doesn't pass content based rulings. When the matter comes to the content of rfar process itself, arbcom becomes the source of the dispute.

You would think arbcomers and clerks would act modestly like regular users on such an issue but they did not. And this forceful attitude was over trivial issues. I cannot imagine them dealing with an actual controversy.

On a third note, when was the last time arbcom resolved anything? How necessary is arbcom?

- White Cat

On Sun, May 18, 2008 at 5:08 AM, WJhonson@aol.com wrote:

White Cat. Why are you never willing to disclose the specific actions with specific links and names?

Will Johnson

**************Wondering what's for Dinner Tonight? Get new twists on family favorites at AOL Food. (http://food.aol.com/dinner-tonight?NCID=aolfod00030000000001) _______________________________________________ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l