[WikiEN-l] Fairness in Wikipedia

charles.r.matthews at ntlworld.com charles.r.matthews at ntlworld.com
Mon Apr 2 12:56:38 UTC 2007


"David Gerard" wrote

> On 01/04/07, Guy Chapman aka JzG <guy.chapman at spamcop.net> wrote:
> > On Sun, 1 Apr 2007 16:46:33 +0200, "Andries Krugers Dagneaux"
> > <andrieskd at chello.nl> wrote:
> 
> > >I understand that. But topic banning an editor whose edits on that topic
> > >were desribed by the arbcom as "generally responsible" and without diffs
> > >that show disruptive editing on that topic is neither fair nor does it
> > >help the encyclopedia.
> 
> > Wasn't the problem here one of conflict of interest, though?
> 
> 
> No, it's that the editors in question have been attempting to get
> Andries kicked off those articles for the last three years and they
> finally rules-lawyered it through.
> 
> This was *not* a good ArbCom decision, not at all.

Well, since 2005, really. My position on this was made public during the case (the most recent SSB case, that is). I didn't vote for the topic ban. (This of course has not spared me criticism from User:Andries, for the unrelated comments about the actual position of AC. We see here how hard it is to help some people by actually giving them the facts.)

I think COI did enter, because the word 'activism' was used in the case; and while activism might be in some cases against 'WP is not a soapbox', in this case it is more usefully seen in the light of [[WP:COI]] under what it has to say about 'Campaigning'. 

Charles 


-----------------------------------------
Email sent from www.virginmedia.com/email
Virus-checked using McAfee(R) Software and scanned for spam




More information about the WikiEN-l mailing list