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