QUOTE(Anna @ Sat 2nd July 2011, 8:37pm)
![*](style_images/brack/post_snapback.gif)
Those people sound like freaking vigilantes.
Actually, the remarks provided by Malice are from the moderate voices, who wonder whether it might be unseemly to sanction someone (i.e., me) without demonstrating that that person did anything wrong. Except for Fred Bauder, of course. He was all for sanctioning me on the basis of incorrect POV.
In an ArbCom case there is a section called "Findings of Fact," which are basically a listing of crimes committed by the the defendent. This is the "guilty" verdict. In this particular ArbCom case, you will see that my name does not appear in
that section. If I had kept my mouth shut, they would have forgotten all about me. Unfortunately, I was unable to do that. I added my two cents
here and was therefore awarded a sanction.
QUOTE(Anna @ Sat 2nd July 2011, 8:37pm)
![*](style_images/brack/post_snapback.gif)
Speaking of which, what kind of "sanctions" are they talking about, anyhow?
In this instance, I was placed on "
indefinite probation," which meant that if any three admins decided that I was "disrupting Wikipedia," they could do anything to me that their fevered imaginations could conjure up. My two main opponents in content disputes were SlimVirgin and Will Beback, both admins, and they had no difficulty finding a third when needed.
Thanks, Malice. What I find shocking is that there was so little discussion on the ArbCom list about this. Rob Speer via Sannse raises exactly the right point, but no one responds. I had forgotten that Kelly Martin was an Arb at that time. Kelly, have you any observation to make?