[WikiEN-l] ArbCom - too attached to 'equal treatment'?

Tue Mar 8 12:58:03 UTC 2005

on 3/8/05 7:35 AM, David Gerard at dgerard at gmail.com wrote:

> AndyL wrote:
> 
>> I have stated once already that someone I know who was working on a
>> complaint against Herschelkrustofsky had second thoughts upon seeing
>> tempbans implemented (or pondered) in other cases against complainants
>> (specifically my complaint against ArmchairVexillologistDon in which the
>> ArbComm was initially considering tempbanning *both of us* from all articles
>> related to Canada until the arbitration was concluded - this was being
>> proposed before any evidence had even been heard
> 
> 
> Temporary injunctions are for the specific purpose of keeping the peace.
> I'll also note that this one did not in fact pass, or even close. Are you
> saying the idea should not have even been *considered*?
> 
> 
> - d.
>  

It didn't come to pass because I intervened but I only intervened because I
happened to notice it. I had been inclined to not check the arbcomm pages in
question after having made my complaint about Don and no one alerted me on
my talk page that such a proposal was being made. Considering Don's
behaviour and considering that the conflict was occurring only on two or
three pages related to the very narrow topic of red ensign flags the
proposal to temp ban both of us from *all* articles pertaining to Canada (ie
thousands of pages) was excessive and had I not noticed it (ie because I was
busy with something else for a few days) it would have passed. So no, it
should never have been considered. In fact, I believe it was on the verge of
being approved (or technically even had the needed number of endorsers)
until I intervened so this isn't a case of one arbitrator making a wild
proposal and no one else picking it up but of the ArbComm panel agreeing to
a proposal until the affected party noticed what was going on and said, in
essence, "are you guys nuts?"

Andy