Tally on Editors Driven Away by ArbCom Options

[Guido den Broeder]

Let me guess: your "community" was on the opposing side of a content dispute?

[Sceptre]

There is also a page on-wiki called "list of banned users" which gives a reason for the ban in each case. I actually find the page highly problematic in some ways, but if you wanted to take the time, you could scan the page for the words "arbitration" or "ArbCom" and this would lead you to additional users who have been banned as a result of repeated violation of committee decisions, etc.

Yes, here's the list. And in my case, I am banned due to "community discussion," the "community" in this case consisting of Will Beback and JoshuaZ.

Admin: Hey, this banned user seems to show that they're willing to work constructively. Should I go about unbanning him?
ANI crowd: No! He's community banned!
Admin: Which means?
ANI crowd: That no admin is willing to unban him.
Admin: But I am willing to unban him...
ANI crowd: You can't do that!
Admin: Why?
ANI crowd: Because he's community banned!

Repeat ad nauseum.

This post has been edited by Sceptre: Wed 17th June 2009, 3:48pm

[A Horse With No Name]

There is also a page on-wiki called "list of banned users" which gives a reason for the ban in each case. I actually find the page highly problematic in some ways, but if you wanted to take the time, you could scan the page for the words "arbitration" or "ArbCom" and this would lead you to additional users who have been banned as a result of repeated violation of committee decisions, etc.

Yes, here's the list. And in my case, I am banned due to "community discussion," the "community" in this case consisting of Will Beback and JoshuaZ.

Admin: Hey, this banned user seems to show that they're willing to work constructively. Should I go about unbanning him?
ANI crowd: No! He's community banned!
Admin: Which means?
ANI crowd: That no admin is willing to unban him.
Admin: But I am willing to unban him...
ANI crowd: You can't do that!
Admin: Why?
ANI crowd: Because he's community banned!

Repeat ad nauseum.

Just because I am horse doesn't mean I like carousel rides.

Wikipedia has, what, one million or two million registered users? But someone like RHMED is "community banned" by the input of 12 people in an Admin Noticeboard discussion? And it should be said they are 12 of the least productive editors, too -- but that's another story.

I cannot do math (I am a horse, damn it!), but I suspect that 12 out of one million is a ridiculously low percentage (will some smart aleck please provide the figure?). Can anyone with a straight face claim that someone like RHMED is "community banned" simply because 12 people don't want him?

This post has been edited by A Horse With No Name: Wed 17th June 2009, 4:34pm

[Jon Awbrey]

Wikipedia has, what, one million or two million registered users?

NXS of 9.9 million registered accounts on the English Wikipedia, but most of those are me.

Ja Ja

[thekohser]

I cannot do math (I am a horse, damn it!)...

That is no excuse, Horse With No Name:

[Tarc]

There is also a page on-wiki called "list of banned users" which gives a reason for the ban in each case. I actually find the page highly problematic in some ways, but if you wanted to take the time, you could scan the page for the words "arbitration" or "ArbCom" and this would lead you to additional users who have been banned as a result of repeated violation of committee decisions, etc.

Yes, here's the list. And in my case, I am banned due to "community discussion," the "community" in this case consisting of Will Beback and JoshuaZ.

Ugh, I've never seen that before, what an ugly piece of tripe that list is. "administrative rampage", "relentless POV pushing", seems more like a poorly-maintained article that just allowed people to get one final dig in at people that have been banned.

[CharlotteWebb]

"administrative rampage"

To be fair I cannot think of any better way to describe the final moments of User:Robdurbar (09:57–10:14, 19 April 2007), see:

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=...&user=Robdurbar
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=...=User:Robdurbar
http://meta.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?titl...obdurbar@enwiki

[Jon Awbrey]

I was just taking a stroll through the talk page at the Date delinking ArbCom case …

What's all this fuss I hear about Date Delinking?

Don't you think it's time to put that whole sordid Marsden v. Wales bizness behind us?

Jon

[Herschelkrustofsky]

There is also a page on-wiki called "list of banned users" which gives a reason for the ban in each case. I actually find the page highly problematic in some ways, but if you wanted to take the time, you could scan the page for the words "arbitration" or "ArbCom" and this would lead you to additional users who have been banned as a result of repeated violation of committee decisions, etc.

Yes, here's the list. And in my case, I am banned due to "community discussion," the "community" in this case consisting of Will Beback and JoshuaZ.

Let me guess: your "community" was on the opposing side of a content dispute?

Yessir.

[Guido den Broeder]

I thought so. From what I have seen, virtually all bans are of the 'removing the opposition' type.

[Digwuren the Grey]

I thought so. From what I have seen, virtually all bans are of the 'removing the opposition' type.

That's the only way disputes are ever "resolved" on Wikipedia.

[Milton Roe]

I thought so. From what I have seen, virtually all bans are of the 'removing the opposition' type.

Yep. This is why you never see IP's indef-blocked. A ban is by definition personal. If the purpose of an indef-block were to prevent harm to the encyclopedia, we'd see more of them against IPs, which often do far more damage than "nameusers" (which are no more identifiable than IPs, and sometimes less-so, as we've all seen).

But it does not happen that way. IP vandalism is more or less tolerated with great indulgence (unless it generates very bad publicity, but even the Ron Livingston edit IP only got 1 year). However, nameusers who get into pissing matches with powerusers over matters of opinion, even if they've never vandalized anything, can be banned in one of several ways, and often are.

It's not a matter of "harming the encyclopedia," which is what vandalism most clearly does. Banning is a matter of winning an argument by gagging your named-opponent, the bastard! So one must DEFINE "harms the encyclopedia" in such cases as "disagrees with me politically or epistemologically, and has more time than I do".

[everyking]

I thought so. From what I have seen, virtually all bans are of the 'removing the opposition' type.

Yep. This is why you never see IP's indef-blocked. A ban is by definition personal. If the purpose of an indef-block were to prevent harm to the encyclopedia, we'd see more of them against IPs, which often do far more damage than "nameusers" (which are no more identifiable than IPs, and sometimes less-so, as we've all seen).

But it does not happen that way. IP vandalism is more or less tolerated with great indulgence (unless it generates very bad publicity, but even the Ron Livingston edit IP only got 1 year). However, nameusers who get into pissing matches with powerusers over matters of opinion, even if they've never vandalized anything, can be banned in one of several ways, and often are.

It's not a matter of "harming the encyclopedia," which is what vandalism most clearly does. Banning is a matter of winning an argument by gagging your named-opponent, the bastard! So one must DEFINE "harms the encyclopedia" in such cases as "disagrees with me politically or epistemologically, and has more time than I do".

The worst crimes of all are political crimes. Vandalism is like petty theft; it doesn't threaten anyone's power, so the treatment tends to be comparatively mild.

[Milton Roe]

I thought so. From what I have seen, virtually all bans are of the 'removing the opposition' type.

Yep. This is why you never see IP's indef-blocked. A ban is by definition personal. If the purpose of an indef-block were to prevent harm to the encyclopedia, we'd see more of them against IPs, which often do far more damage than "nameusers" (which are no more identifiable than IPs, and sometimes less-so, as we've all seen).

But it does not happen that way. IP vandalism is more or less tolerated with great indulgence (unless it generates very bad publicity, but even the Ron Livingston edit IP only got 1 year). However, nameusers who get into pissing matches with powerusers over matters of opinion, even if they've never vandalized anything, can be banned in one of several ways, and often are.

It's not a matter of "harming the encyclopedia," which is what vandalism most clearly does. Banning is a matter of winning an argument by gagging your named-opponent, the bastard! So one must DEFINE "harms the encyclopedia" in such cases as "disagrees with me politically or epistemologically, and has more time than I do".

The worst crimes of all are political crimes. Vandalism is like petty theft; it doesn't threaten anyone's power, so the treatment tends to be comparatively mild.

Correct. For those just-arriving: the only real sin in any heirarchical organization (which includes business, church and state) , is defiance. AKA disrespect and failure to kowtow to authority. Theft can be forgiven-- indeed authorized theft isn't even called theft. Murder can be forgiven (indeed authorized killing is defined to not be murder). But treason, like its cousins heresy and mutiny, has always been the least socially forgivable crime, because it's the most dangerous to those in power.

Translate to wikipedia and you get the worst crimes as not really relating to wikipedia's content, or else relating in some tangential way which is never as bad as malicious vandalism (which can, so hold that argument, be as subtle as you like). Nobody cares. The Binmores of the world can do whatever they like, and nobody really cares but Wikipedia Review . Wikipedia itself only acts out of organizational embarrassment. Otherwise they don't really give a shit. It's not as though the man successfully raised the idea that Jimbo was bisexual.

MR

Probably that's the single slur about Jimbo that nobody would ever believe, no matter what the vandals did.

[Lar]

But treason, like heresy, has always been the least unforgivable crime, because it's always the most dangerous to those in power.

? Least forgivable or most unforgivable, nicht wahr?

[Milton Roe]

But treason, like heresy, has always been the least unforgivable crime, because it's always the most dangerous to those in power.

? Least forgivable or most unforgivable, nicht wahr?

Meh, I'll fix it.

[GlassBeadGame]

The worst crimes of all are political crimes. Vandalism is like petty theft; it doesn't threaten anyone's power, so the treatment tends to be comparatively mild.

Sadly you are a political prisoner in a completely voluntary association that provides nothing of importance to sustain your well being.

[Herschelkrustofsky]

Wikipedia has, what, one million or two million registered users?

NXS of 9.9 million registered accounts on the English Wikipedia, but most of those are me.

No, they are mostly me, and I hereby cite Will Beback as an authoritative source.