I dont think you understand what this person is saying I believe that he or she is saying that the arbitration committee is not trustworthy in its 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 lets 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 persons 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