On Nov 27, 2007 2:16 PM, geni <geniice(a)gmail.com> wrote:
On 27/11/2007, Ray Saintonge
<saintonge(a)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.