Daniel Mayer a écrit:
--- Anthere anthere9@yahoo.com wrote:
Where is it written that the ArbCom has juridiction over the mailing list ? And when and by who was it decided ?
It is being proposed right now on the arbitration policy page.
I am very aware of this. I know it is currently a proposition.
But here, you claim that it has been the case from the very beginning, and this is obviously very untrue.
I think I can fairly say this, as I have been seconding Ed Poor for a while, while the arbcom was already active, and to my knowledge, Ed and I never ban anyone from this mailing list upon the reason the arbcom banned him.
On the other hand, we banned people from the list due to poor behavior *on* the list.
We should first ban editors because they damage wikipedia. That might be because they damage the community or because they damage articles. Would we deny them the possibility to discuss their ban if necessary ?
They have that chance during the arbitration process. In this case the user in question is now trolling the mailing list.
-- mav
I would hope that we talk from a more general perspective than just the current case. The fact is that the arbcom did *not* have juridiction over the mailing lists, and not only are some people trying to change that, but you are trying to say it has always been the case.
I consider the whole idea a very ***bad*** idea, and wonder what will be next. Will you also claim that the arbcom have juridiction over irc ?
Sorry, but this is really something I do not second *at all*. At the most, I'd say that the english mailing lists moderator should feel *very confident* to ban from the list a user banned from en:wikipedia if he begin to be bugging everyone seriously.
Just in case, I will myself not recognise valid the juridication of the arbcom over any mailing list other than the english mailing list. For example, it should be the role of the moderator of wikipedia-l to ban a user, and certainly not of the english arbcom.