"David Gerard" wrote
On 01/04/07, Guy Chapman aka JzG
<guy.chapman(a)spamcop.net> wrote:
On Sun, 1 Apr 2007 16:46:33 +0200, "Andries
Krugers Dagneaux"
<andrieskd(a)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