QUOTE(Kelly Martin @ Mon 12th October 2009, 10:55am)
And once again Wikipedia reminds its editors: "Don't get caught."
So why is it that Piotrus, Digwuren, and Martintg get three month bans for off-wiki coordination, but Jayjg didn't even get a finger-wagging when clear evidence of his off-wiki coordination came to light?
Oh, wait, I forgot, the Arbitrary Committee doesn't believe in fairness, due process, or consistency. Forget I asked.
Right. But actually addressing the problem of off-wiki coordination, and the implications, and the real issues, would require work that ArbComm is incompetent to undertake, as composed and as functioning. So it's doomed to erratic and incoherent response.
Individual arbitrators do issue individual opinions that are cogent, sometimes, but these easily get lost in the avalanche, and there is a culture, on ArbComm, of seeking "consensus," whereas in decision-making, it is far sounder for participants to vote their exact conscience. ArbComm runs by majority rule in decisions, but it seems that the most knowledgeable arbitrators are afraid to confront the majority, it wouldn't be "collegial" to point out blatant errors and misrepresentations.
Even if done civilly, which is what would expected of real colleagues, not docility and surrender of principle.
Do arbitrators have any idea of the effect on an editor of a "finding of fact" that is blatantly preposterous to those who know the facts, such as an editor upon whom this finding is dumped? ArbComm, in its own process, seems to be unable to distinguish between fact and opinion or subjective judgment, which makes it probably a good feature that they don't make content decisions!
Except they do make content decisions, by selectively banning editors based on content positions that the editors asserted, even when those editors followed the explicit rules.