Indeed. The person who responded made the following points:
* BHG then made a thuggish and threatening post on your user page:
* BHG later characterised this like "oh but he was trolling me and I merely asked him one time on his talk page to stop (which is allowed)", which is bollocks because the "one time" is a long, angry screed written in a menacing tone.
And yet, no action was taken against her. I wonder why that was? And yet I was the one who was indefinitely banned. There was clear bias, and Wikipedia lost a good contributor. One I would say did far more than she ever did (she dealt with categories and dead links, and one article relating to Ireland).
Incidentally, if you want to know what the poster missed... it was that it was a one-way interaction ban. BHG was never, not even once, admonished for the way she treated me. In fact, her supporters actively encouraged her to attack me. When she attacked me, I was unable to defend myself or respond. Does that sound like procedural fairness to you?
Funnily enough, she did this to one too many people and was banned. I was banned by her supporters, not by ArbCom. It's what is known as a kangaroo court.
But hey, fairness and impartiality on Wikipedia was something that was lost a long time ago. Wikipedia is continuing to slide into obscurity. The ones who are active are most interested in drama, and not content. I feel sorry for those who are there for the content.