On Nov 27, 2007 2:16 PM, geni geniice@gmail.com wrote:
On 27/11/2007, Ray Saintonge saintonge@telus.net wrote:
This is nothing less than an attempt to subvert the Arbcom process. From the beginning the Arbcom was set up as a body to hear appeals of admin actions such as blocking.
Not really. In the early days there were far less complex ways to appeal and admins tended not to ban.
Good point, arbcom was more set up to enact bans than as a body to hear appeals of blocks. Admins not only "tended not to ban", they weren't allowed to ban. Back then a ban could only be imposed by Jimbo or arb com. Admins could *block* logged in users (this in itself was a somewhat new ability), but they couldn't *ban*.
Arbcom had nothing to do with "appeals" in the beginning.