--- Fred Bauder <fredbaud(a)ctelco.net> wrote: I asked for WP:RFA/SV to be reinstated for the simple reason that I be allowed to comment directly on the RFA. The expressed popular dislike of the Arbcom "decision" is a direct consequence of the Arbcom decision, not of my RFA. So your criticising the criticism seems rather "unwiki" and only opens the door for further criticism of the Arbcom process --of which I now have some uncommon perspective. All of this could have been solved long ago if the Arbcom had taken the time to actually consider my point by point statement and talk page questions with regard to the original 3RR question, and the self-unblocking question. The "finding of fact" that the block was "equitably applied" was so simplistic as to be false, considering the block on the second party was not applied until 24 hours later. This curious lack of attention to detail is something that a larger community is supposed to make easier to deal with, and hence make arbitration decisions more complete and well-founded. Take a look at any well-regarded court opinion for example, and you will find that the strength of the opinion itself rests on the strength of its understanding and representation of the arguments and the explanation in depth of the decision and its rationale. The Arbcom doesnt seem staffed to do this, and as a consequence, its decision in my case (for one) was poorly thought out. While I am continuing the RFA process as directed by the Arbcom, there is in my mind no convenient separation between the problems with the Arbcom process in general, its apparent lack of responsiveness, or the "final" remedy in my case. And while I am considering making an appeal to Jimbo, he is now a rather busy man in charge of running an international foundation. I can't imagine how his dealing with conduct disputes on en.wikipedia could be considered an advance of his mission. Further, I cant imagine how such a busy person, regardless of his proven judgement and temperment, can be expected to properly investigate the case findings of fact which I maintain are incorrect. In otherwords, if a committee with several active members cannot properly do the job, ask all the questions, and respond to all the criticism and issues, how can I expect Jimbo, busy as he is, to do it? Even on appeal to Jimbo, I still would have legitimate worries that he would feel compelled to simply trust the findings of the Arbcom, even though its decision was "very unpopular" and its process and findings were (as I maintain) 'not without flaw.' In short, such a last resort for fixing a remedy so "unpopular with the community," must be seen as a complete and total failure of the Arbcom to act properly, meaning 'to make a fair decision or otherwise do no harm.' I can't imagine how I could have argued against a ruling which simply desysopped me for a month, provided it dealt point by point with the issues I raised in an open fashion. Sincerely, SV __________________________________ Yahoo! FareChase: Search multiple travel sites in one click. http://farechase.yahoo.com

--- Fred Bauder <fredbaud(a)ctelco.net> wrote: I understand and I'm considering making one, but the RFA process (as the Arbcom directed) is continuing --despite the apparent problems of using a 70 percent threshold nomination scheme for a referendum vote, in a case that (as Mindspillage let spill out) was "deadlocked" --is continuing. (Indeed the different uses--promotion and demotion--suggest very different ways of reading the votes.) But as Ive said, it should be regarded as a total failure of the Arbcom to make a proper case--not merely a failure with respect to its remedy. I dont have access to private Arbcom discussions, and the Arbcom has chosen to be rather tight-lipped about its own internal "deadlock" re. the case. In addition, as Ive said many times now, the Arbcom appears to have assumped a rather tight-lipped posture even during the period in which the case was heard. Hence its overall level of responsiveness--before, during, and after the case--appears to be substandard for an "open" project that likes to claim to be fully in the public view. I appreciate your distinction between using the case as a referendum on my conduct, from using it as a referendum on my character. But in fact that's what it was, and thats indeed what the "remedy" appears designed to be--looking at votes which refer directly to the fresh and lacking-in-explanatory-detail RFAR FOF. I would suggest that the Arbcom take it upon itself to review its own "remedy" and make appropriate changes to it in light of recent criticism, rather than obliquely defer to the esteemed Founder, who no doubt has better things to do. Sincerely, SV __________________________________ Yahoo! Mail - PC Magazine Editors' Choice 2005 http://mail.yahoo.com

Anthere wrote: Not that I'm arguing with this or anything and I think that this is probably is fine (at least until arbcom makes a decision) I figured that was going to stay desysopped until either RFA and then I guess now arbcom decided in favor of him. I also don't see the justification of as per WP:RFA/SV since the vast consensus of all who didn't vote to put back to arbcom were to keep him desysopped. -Jtkiefer

On 11/6/05, Anthere <anthere9(a)yahoo.com> wrote: Not really. It would not have prevented the current situation. Untill the issue that triggered the case there wasn't much that Stevertigo had done that could be objected to. I doubt netaholics stament would have been enough to have any real effect. -- geni

On 11/6/05, Anthere <anthere9(a)yahoo.com> wrote: "revert to the previous stable situation" seems exactly right in this case, until another decision is passed. Thanks for your care about this, Anthere. ++SJ