Tony Sidaway wrote:
The arbcom is empowered to make such decisions. There
is no issue that I
can see here, except for those who want editors to be free to complain
about other editors without suffereing the consequences of their own
behavior where this has been deleterious to Wikipedia.
It's all a matter of what you think arbcom is for. Is it to be a catspaw
with which adept procedure-manipulators can wage war on their less adept
enemies, or is it (as I believe to be the case) a body elected by the
editors and delegated by Jimmy Wales to stop editors doing harm to
Wikipedia by their actions? If the latter, it should levy penalties to
all who merit such penalties. If it only ever penalizes the people
nominated by the petitioners, then it can only ever be driven by the
perceptions of, and the prejudices of, the cleverer, more adept, editors.
I believe that's the longer form of what I meant when I said "you greatly
underestimate the propensity of our more antisocial editors for gaming
the system" ;-)
- d.