On 8 Oct 2006, at 05:01, Ray Saintonge wrote:
charles.r.matthews@ntlworld.com wrote:
David Boothroyd wrote
In February, blocked wrongly for a non-existent 3RR, at 1 AM in the middle of an edit that had taken an hour, I self unblocked. I was a very naughty boy and I was punished by being blocked again, but everyone seemed to think that was closed.
Then, months later a completely unrelated issue in which I was tangentially involved goes to ArbCom and results in this issue being dragged up again.
Yes, you can have forgiving, and you can have transparent, but you may not be able to have both at once.
Why not?
- If ArbCom is the only body that can remove admin status,
excluding self-administered recalls, then how does it cope with low-level but persistent admin misbehaviour? ArbCom is much better at dealing with egregious single incidents.
But that comment is in tension with the previous point.
If there is persistent incivility by someone, and there is a case brought, then everything from the year dot can in principle be brought up. Everyone should bear in mind that the site has an elephant's memory.
Perhaps that the solution should be to disallow any evidence more than six months old except in some predetermined kinds of cases.
Wouldn't this allow people to never learn? They could just start again every six months.