(my bolding)Review of community sanctions
11) The Wikipedia community, acting through a fair discussion leading to consensus achieved on the administrators' noticeboard or another appropriate venue, may impose a sanction on an editor who has engaged in problematic behavior. A sanctioned editor may request an appeal to the Arbitration Committee. While the Arbitration Committee is authorized to overturn or reduce a community sanction, such action is relatively rare, and would be based on good cause such as a finding that (1) some aspect of the community discussion was procedurally unfair, (2) the sanction imposed appears to be significantly excessive or overbroad, (3) circumstances have changed significantly since the community sanction was imposed, or (4) non-public information that should not be addressed on-wiki, such as personal information or checkuser data, is relevant to the decision.
Passed 15 to 0 at 20:38, 16 February 2011 (UTC).
Could you please define how you, a senior arbitrator and an attorney of law newyorkbrad, understand the the term "a fair discussion"?
For example
*do you believe that a discussion, in which a defendant is not allowed to participate, not even on his own talk page is a fair discussion?
*do you believe that a discussion, in which more than half of the users supporting the ban are involved with the defendant is a fair discussion?
*do you believe that a discussion, in which some users support the ban not with the diffs, but with lies is a fair discussion?
*do you believe that a discussion, in which the first supporter of the ban use the lies it obtained directly from a criminal is a fair discussion?
*do you believe that a discussion, in which no single diff of an alleged harassment is presented is a fair discussion?
Thanks.