QUOTE(Tony1 @ Sun 12th July 2009, 3:30pm)
The Advisory Council is unconstitutional, because it "advises" ArbCom, and ArbCom's constitution (policy) casts it as a judge of editors' behaviour. The draft update of the policy tightens this scope further. See my comments here:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Req...ment#DiscussionYou are one of the guys who got bitch-slapped by ArbCom for being a pure dick in the notorious date-linking fiasco.
Frankly, I think you got off lightly.
I remember reading the ArbCom stuff about that. Your squeals (above) about how they contain "Must" and "Should" and details on style are completely without merit: given the scale of the problem, and the intransigence of you and others, ArbCom was left with little choice but to try and fix the core problem, since without such a fix, it would simply resurface again when (at least) your probation period ends.
That they failed is a fairly good guarantee that when you and others are released from your cells the entire problem will restart itself. More fun for you, eh?
This post has been edited by taiwopanfob: