Hoi,
Well, our motives are clear: we want to know, and that's it. Once we know maybe we will be happy about what we just knew, maybe not; yet until we do not know we are unhappy by default.
I'm not discussing anyone's power to make decisions; I simply think people must take responsibility on how they use such a power. I'm positive there are passages in a discussion that require to be private, that is always the case with any Committee. Yet once a decision is made it must be public and it must have a CLEAR public explanation.
Berto 'd Sera Personagi dl'ann 2006 per l'arvista american-a Time (tanme tuti vojaotri) http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,1569514,00.html
-----Original Message----- From: wikipedia-l-bounces@lists.wikimedia.org [mailto:wikipedia-l-bounces@lists.wikimedia.org] On Behalf Of Maury Markowitz Sent: Monday, May 07, 2007 5:18 PM To: wikipedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Subject: Re: [Wikipedia-l] Trying to edit wikipedia on request Result:Strange arbcom ruling on nl.wikipedia, 1 month blocked
+1. I would have voted in favor of the ban in object because of the socket-puppetry involved, but I think people should have the guts to take responsibility for what they say/decide.
What really chuffed me in this particular case is that when I asked what had
led to the ban, the people involved started asking questions about _my_ motives, like I was some sort of spy or something.
Maury
_________________________________________________________________ Win a webcam! Nominate your friends Windows Live Space in the Windows Live Spaces Sweetest Space Contest and you both could win! http://www.microsoft.com/canada/home/contests/sweetestspace/default.aspx