On Thu, 29 Nov 2007 13:45:16 +1100, "private musings"
<thepmaccount(a)gmail.com> wrote:
The fact that you were 'right' about my
misdeeds in no way alters the nature
of your unethical behaviour.
No, my behaviour was ethical. I asked a few trusted friends for
advice before blocking one of your accounts. That is a sane and
reasonable thing to do.
Nor does it excuse the Arb.s currently voting from
failing to disclose any
prejudicial discussion (is it really due process to expect Arb.s who have
already 'sanity checked' your decision in advance of your block, to then
'review' that block, and further 'vote' in the arb case? - that's a
real
triple whammy.)
No such declaration is necessary. I asked a simple question: in your
opinion, is this valid use of an alternate account? Having ventured
an opinion once does not disqualify them form venturing the same
opinion again, especially when more evidence of even more accounts
is brought to the table.
You seem to think that restricting someone who has used multiple
accounts disruptively and made careless and controversial edits to
sensitive articles in some way damages the arbitration committee's
credibility. I would argue that the opposite is true: failure to do
so would damage their credibility.
Guy (JzG)
--
http://www.chapmancentral.co.uk
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:JzG