At 05:12 30/09/2007, you wrote:
On Sep 29, 2007, at 10:52 AM, Ian Tresman wrote:
Ah. It appears quite a lot of it is explained
Probation, repeated violations, apparent inability to work with
others. Appeal to the arbitration committee is the way back.
Yes, that's where I was found guilty of having an "orientation", and
an Arbitrator condoned the use of incivility with Ad hominems against
me. Again, no examples of improper editing.
I suggest you re-read it. Look for "low level edit warring and
frequent edits against consensus", under the heading "Iantresman's
Many thanks for taking the time to respond.
Yes, it says it, but gives no examples. Considering that the process
is designed to collect and assess evidence, you would think it would
be easy to give the best examples.
When I presented my evidence again other editors, it was very easy to
provide actual diffs.
(b) reply to
Most *certainly* not. That would be devastating. Considering
Wikipedia is a volunteer project, *requiring* a reply from our
So editors can take on the power of being an Administrator without
the accountability and responsibility it entails. And yet they
require my courtesy to reply when asked, and stick to the most
trivial of guidelines when it suits them. This is very one-sided.