On 6/3/06, Fred Bauder fredbaud@ctelco.net wrote:
The proposed arbitration remedy is very limited, reflecting the fact that the vast majority of your work on Wikipedia is both useful and welcome. Probation permits an administrator to ban you from an article which you disrupt by tendentious editing. It may only be applied in cases where that is what you are doing. Clearly, in a few articles you have done so.
If you had been elected to the arbitration committee you would no doubt have found probation useful yourself. It permits action in only the articles which the user has disrupted without interfering with their other activity. I know it is hard to accept, but a case like yours is why it was created, to give some middle ground between a total ban and having to endlessly put up with disruption and edit warring.
Fred
It is not a middle ground, it is an unacceptable insult to my character.
A middle ground would have been to talk to me. A middle ground would have been to acknowledge that I have already agreed to stop edit warring, and that a good faith effort at compromise was never made by my complaintents, Bishonen in particular (who refused to talk to me, deleting a thread on her talk page prior to the arbitration).
Have you seen this:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:Requests_for_comment/Sam_Spade#S...
Read the last statement in the thread, made by myself. Is permanant probation (or even arbitration) acceptable in such a case? What is the purpose of it, if not to drive me off? How are you doing what is best for the project?
SS