On 6/3/06, Fred Bauder <fredbaud(a)ctelco.net> wrote:
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
It is not a middle ground, it is an unacceptable insult to my character.
A middle ground would have been to talk to me. A middle ground would
have been to acknowledge that I have already agreed to stop edit
warring, and that a good faith effort at compromise was never made by
my complaintents, Bishonen in particular (who refused to talk to me,
deleting a thread on her talk page prior to the arbitration).
Have you seen this:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:Requests_for_comment/Sam_Spade#…
Read the last statement in the thread, made by myself. Is permanant
probation (or even arbitration) acceptable in such a case? What is the
purpose of it, if not to drive me off? How are you doing what is best
for the project?
SS