Guy Chapman admits deck pre-stacked against Privatemusings, serial privacy violator defends corruption Options

[Proabivouac]

Regarding Arbitrators who should have recused themselves, Guy Chapman writes,

"Having ventured an opinion once does not disqualify them form venturing the same opinion again, especially when more evidence of even more accounts is brought to the table."
http://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/wikie...ber/086273.html

Guy Chapman (JzG) betrayed PM's expectations of confidentiality by sharing his communications with the cyberstalking mailing list, then outed his real-world identity on Wikipedia.

Now he defends the failure of Arbitrators to recuse themselves from a case which it's reasonable to suppose (as Chapman suggests) they've predecided.

This post has been edited by Proabivouac: Thu 29th November 2007, 12:44pm

[WhispersOfWisdom]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Req...oposed_decision

Look at the last page of this one, however, because it looks like Arbcom. is set to close it.

This case opened on the 20th/21st of November, 2007.

This post has been edited by WhispersOfWisdom: Thu 29th November 2007, 1:19pm

[Proabivouac]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Req...oposed_decision

Look at the last page of this one, however, because it looks like Arbcom. is set to close it.

This case opened on the 20th/21st of November, 2007.

Key points:
1) the Arbitration Committee supports violations of contributors' privacy, which administrators such as Guy Chapman are free to commit at any time 2) whether or not a contributor has a right to privacy is entirely up to the Committee. 3) so-called "sockpuppets" (including new usernames) are or are not forbidden from participating in policy pages and talk pages, according to the discretion of the committee.