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

Tue Mar 8 16:32:19 UTC 2005

On Tue, 8 Mar 2005 09:09:49 -0700, slimvirgin at gmail.com
<slimvirgin at gmail.com> wrote:
> From: David Gerard <dgerard at gmail.com>
> >Temporary injunctions are for the specific purpose of keeping the peace.
> 
> On Tue, 08 Mar 2005 13:50:10 +0000, David Gerard <dgerard at gmail.com> wrote:
> > An editor in good standing feeling mistreated is the sort of thing that
> > makes volunteers fade away, so all this is a matter of concern. Temp
> > injunctions need to be applied with care.
> 
> David, one arbitrator has strongly implied that the policy of
> tempbanning has been adopted in order to discourage editors from
> seeking arbitration, and not simply to keep the peace. 

That's not how i feel about temp bans. If I thought that a temp ban
was being proposed as a punishment for bring a a case to the AC then I
would vote against it. If a case was not worthy of my time, i wouldn't
need to punish people for bringing it to my attention, I'd just reject
the request and be done with it. Do remember that when an arbitrator
speaks on a talk page or in an email they are doing so as an
individual, they do not represent the whole of the AC.

Theresa