On Sun, 1 Apr 2007 07:42:46 +0200, "Andries Krugers Dagneaux"
<andrieskd(a)chello.nl> wrote:
>One of the working principles of the arbcom is that
it
>does not want to be fair to editors, but to make decisions that will
>help the project.
That's up there with "verifiability, not
truth". It does not mitigate
against the idea that there is a set of principles which enjoy broad
support, and whose rejection tends to be connected with a short and
turbulent life on Wikipedia.
Guy (JzG)
That is not what I meant. I was topic-banned by the arbcom though my
edits on that topic ([[Sathya Sai Baba]]) were described as "generally
responsible" and I repeatedly but unsuccessfully requested diffs that
show that I broke Wikipedia policies or made disruptive or activist
edits. When I asked Flonight whether topic-banning in the absence of
such diffs was fair, I was told that the arbcom does not want to be fair
to editors. Charles Matthews endorsed her reasoning in this respect. If
that is the reasoning of the arbcom then I have no intention to be fair
to contributors in Wikipedia.
Andries