I don t think you understand what this person is saying I believe that he or she is saying that the arbitration committee is not trustworthy in it s current state says that a body to which the authority to review such decisions was delegated through an open and honest vote by the entire community is a fallacy There is a real important distinction here and let s not confuse fact with more confusion with unfact This person makes some valid points here I believe that this person is saying that it is literally impossible for a banned editor to have an honest review of their case And it is impossible for unwanted editors to have a legitimate and fair dispute resolution to begin with Indeed there often is an entire bypassing of the policy guidelines at all Jimmy Wales can you answer this person s questions They were clearly written to you not the very admins or any other editors at Wikipedia that may or may not be involved in question