[WikiEN-l] 172 de-sysopped

Wed Mar 2 16:44:00 UTC 2005

geni wrote:
> On Tue, 1 Mar 2005 14:33:06 -0600, Phil Sandifer <sandifer at sbcglobal.net> wrote:

>>Why would they all have to recuse? This had nothing to do with the Ambi
>>block...

> Never said it was. It was a joke It's just between us we have probably
> racked up enough incerdents (both good and bad) with the arbcom
> members to make a case for questioning thier  nutrality.

There's *supposed* to be a rule that if half the arbcom recuses, then all
are unrecused and back on the case. It doesn't appear to have made it into
the rules. It or something like it really really needs to be in there.
Came close in the new Anthony case ...

- d.