On 2/28/06, The Cunctator cunctator@gmail.com wrote:
As ye olde former Arbitration Committee member, I think
- VeryVerily is something of a dick (or, more specifically, he's
rather incapable of ignoring antagonistic behavior, and quick to get antagonized).
It may be true I get antagonized more easily than I should, but I don't think this earns me the d-word. Maybe you have an expanded definition.
- The Arbitration Committee is being way too punitive and antagonistic.
- After staying away for a year, he shouldn't have any restrictions
on his edit behavior outside of those on the general community.
In other words, we should assume good faith and not engage in probation.
No argument with any of this, of course.
Obviously, lots of people are going to be watching him as if he were wearing the scarlet letter no matter what, and they'll probably find something to jump on eventually, since we all make mistakes/do things that upset another editor (e.g. Raul reverting a perfectly normal edit
A point worth underscoring. Even if I were untethered, I'd fully expect to get the hawkeye and be very vulnerable to being dragged before the committee again by anyone with a beef.
And of course the hawkeye problem is doubled with this restriction, as a menu of pretexts is open. "I see you removed a deleted category; someone else once added that, so it's a revert; 24-hour block." That is the point the arbs refuse to comment on. In the absence of condemnation of past abuses of the ruling, airy assertions about how "reason" will be applied in the future aren't very reassuring.
VV