--- Fred Bauder fredbaud@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