The proposed arbitration remedy is very limited, reflecting the fact
that the vast majority of your work on Wikipedia is both useful and
welcome. Probation permits an administrator to ban you from an
article which you disrupt by tendentious editing. It may only be
applied in cases where that is what you are doing. Clearly, in a few
articles you have done so.
If you had been elected to the arbitration committee you would no
doubt have found probation useful yourself. It permits action in only
the articles which the user has disrupted without interfering with
their other activity. I know it is hard to accept, but a case like
yours is why it was created, to give some middle ground between a
total ban and having to endlessly put up with disruption and edit
warring.
Fred
On Jun 3, 2006, at 7:12 AM, Sam Spade wrote:
Sam. You want straight answers? You want plain
speaking? OK.
Do you hurt the encyclopedia? Yes. Do you also do good things? Yes,
probably; it's pretty hard to make 30,000 edits from the same account
without some of them being good. Do you do more damage to the
encyclopedia than the good that you do? With the behavior that got
the
restrictions put on you by the ArbCom, yes, you do more damage.
Then I should have been banned along time ago. I think your wrong (or
else I wouldn't have wasted so much time). How did you come to your
conclusion, might I ask?
SS
_______________________________________________
WikiEN-l mailing list
WikiEN-l(a)Wikipedia.org
To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l