[WikiEN-l] status correction

[steve v]

--- Fred Bauder <fredbaud at ctelco.net> wrote:

> It is not at all hard to decide on a remedy under 
> these circumstances. No amount of wikilawyering, 
> however sophisticated, is going to work.

Theres no "wikilawyering" here -- this is called
discussion -- though I admittedly could have just shut
up and not responded to Ben's questions, which seemed
sincere. "Sophisticated?" Please.

Ive only commented here and about because I had lost
some trust (in violation AGF perhaps) in the Arbcom's
ability to 1) investigate 2) respond 3) deliberate 4)
decide. The RFA would seem to agree with this, but at
the same time that issue also opened wide any internal
Arbcom problems to the public -- it's hit on the vital
point that the Arbcom needs to be more responsive in
its process, and that the community (LION) has the
defacto authority to correct it. Even if Arbcom
responses reveal some inappropriate bitterness, its
least something that I (overwhelmed defendant) and the
community can respond to.

> Your contention was considered by the arbitration
> committee and rejected; both offenders were blocked,
> if by different people. 

> You are in the same position as someone who is
caught 
> and disciplined then claims, "No fair, so and so was
> doing it too and was not punished as quickly as I >
was." 

You miss the point entirely. The whole point of 3RR,
and the only reason why I ever went out of my way to
defend the idea (when it had little support on
quickpoll) was that it could work (in the context of
the time) if it was applied equitably. Otherwise, (now
with 600 admins running loose) how can there be any
reasonable assurance that, in the context of an edit
dispute, blocks would not be used by POV admins for
POV reasons. I cant claim that the enforcers in this
case were POV, but even they state that the
enforcement was improper according to the process.
Your characterization of "not punished as quickly" is
again besides the point, if enforcers can enforce
policy any way they want including in a manner not
described in the policy. Thats vigilanteeism, and
though established people like to have their loopholes
(WP:IAR - what a farce), you seem to be supporting a
violation of WP:CIVIL in responding to a violation of
3RR and Blocking. Which rule/policy/guideline
supercedes? As a lawyer, you yourself know these
things are best sorted out --does the Arbcom not have
a role in striking down bad policy/clauses/ as well as
'bad people?'

-SV



	
		
__________________________________ 
Yahoo! Mail - PC Magazine Editors' Choice 2005 
http://mail.yahoo.com