At 05:12 30/09/2007, you wrote:
On Sep 29, 2007, at 10:52 AM, Ian Tresman wrote:
Ah. It appears quite a lot of it is explained here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/ Pseudoscience Probation, repeated violations, apparent inability to work with others. Appeal to the arbitration committee is the way back.
Yes, that's where I was found guilty of having an "orientation", and an Arbitrator condoned the use of incivility with Ad hominems against me. Again, no examples of improper editing.
I suggest you re-read it. Look for "low level edit warring and frequent edits against consensus", under the heading "Iantresman's editing style".
Many thanks for taking the time to respond.
Yes, it says it, but gives no examples. Considering that the process is designed to collect and assess evidence, you would think it would be easy to give the best examples.
When I presented my evidence again other editors, it was very easy to provide actual diffs.
(b) reply to their questions?
Most *certainly* not. That would be devastating. Considering Wikipedia is a volunteer project, *requiring* a reply from our
So editors can take on the power of being an Administrator without the accountability and responsibility it entails. And yet they require my courtesy to reply when asked, and stick to the most trivial of guidelines when it suits them. This is very one-sided.
Regards,
Ian Tresman www.plasma-universe.com