Tally on Editors Driven Away by ArbCom Options

[Eight]

I was just taking a stroll through the talk page at the Date delinking ArbCom case and noticed a few mentions of editors resigning out of frustration with this ArbCom. Does anyone keep a running tally of resignations and blocks of editors as a result of arbitration cases? Ideally, a list with a breakdown of content contributors, gnomes, admins, and anything else that might be out there?

[Obesity]

Does anyone keep a running tally of resignations and blocks of editors as a result of arbitration cases?

No. That would be really, really boring.

[RMHED]

Does anyone keep a running tally of resignations and blocks of editors as a result of arbitration cases?

No. That would be really, really boring.

I'm with Fatty on this, who fucking cares. ArbCom are a joke, their motions lack substance and solidity, too much fibre perhaps?

[Eight]

Does anyone keep a running tally of resignations and blocks of editors as a result of arbitration cases?

No. That would be really, really boring.

I'm with Fatty on this, who fucking cares. ArbCom are a joke, their motions lack substance and solidity, too much fibre perhaps?

I agree that ArbCom are a joke... which is why I thought it would be interesting to know how many actual contributors are driven away by their actions.

[Herschelkrustofsky]

Compiling stats on this were a monumental task.

[Eight]

Compiling stats on this were a monumental task.

I know. That's why I was hoping someone else had already done it...

[EricBarbour]

I'm with Fatty on this, who fucking cares. ArbCom are a joke, their motions lack substance and solidity, too much fibre perhaps?

Not enough fibre. They all need to issue a big, wet, splotchy refried-bean shit.
Then maybe they'll stop writing crap instead.

(On second though, to hell with that one. The Digwuren "decision" is even more disgusting.)

This post has been edited by EricBarbour: Mon 15th June 2009, 1:37am

[sbrown]

I agree that ArbCom are a joke... which is why I thought it would be interesting to know how many actual contributors are driven away by their actions.

Nobody here except NYB and One would deny ArbCom are a joke. (Im not sure even One would.) Still theyve had one or two members in the past who were good contributors such as Charles Matthews. Is he making more edits now hes been thrown off?

[Eight]

My reason for asking wasn't to establish that we all think ArbCom are a joke. I'm looking to quantify the joke with data. ArbCom has hurt the project by driving off x editors.

[Emperor]

For a while Encyc was keeping a list of the more interesting resignation statements, then we got bored with it.

http://encyc.org/WikipediaResignationStatements

[Newyorkbrad]

I was just taking a stroll through the talk page at the Date delinking ArbCom case and noticed a few mentions of editors resigning out of frustration with this ArbCom. Does anyone keep a running tally of resignations and blocks of editors as a result of arbitration cases? Ideally, a list with a breakdown of content contributors, gnomes, admins, and anything else that might be out there?

Well, there is an index on-wiki to past arbitration cases which would include a list of editors banned or blocked under the terms of the decisions themselves.

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.

I don't know of any list of people who have left Wikipedia because they disagreed with a committee decision (regarding them or more broadly) or a sanction against them, although I could probably come up with some examples if I put my mind to it. Unfortunately, the Date delinking dispute appears to be leading to at least a couple more of these.

Do bear in mind not every instance of an editor leaving because of an ArbCom decision means that the decision was wrong. Several people left Wikipedia in protest over the decision in RfAr/Badlydrawnjeff, a 2007 case in which the committee recognized that the effect of BLP articles on their subjects is an important consideration in deletion discussions, but I don't think there are many WR contributors who would disagree with that decision.

[Jon Awbrey]

I was just taking a stroll through the talk page at the Date delinking ArbCom case and noticed a few mentions of editors resigning out of frustration with this ArbCom. Does anyone keep a running tally of resignations and blocks of editors as a result of arbitration cases? Ideally, a list with a breakdown of content contributors, gnomes, admins, and anything else that might be out there?

It's pretty obvious that the ArbComedians have rather less bearing on the Realpolitik of Wikipedia than the Royal Fumbly has on the actual government of Great Britain. In both cases, their antics are largely a form of entertainment to divert the Blue Hairies, and, oh yes, Da Press.

The vast majority of e-migration from Wikipedia is of course e-forced by lynch mobs acting in the dead of night, out of sight, out of mind of anyone assuming even token responsibility.

And the cases that do make it to the ArbCommode have been so worked over by WikiProsecutors and WikiProstitutors that the Original Realities of the situation are as bannable for mentioning as any other OR in Wikiputia.

Really, now, how could it be any other way?

Jon Awbrey

[Viridae]

I agree that ArbCom are a joke... which is why I thought it would be interesting to know how many actual contributors are driven away by their actions.

Nobody here except NYB and One would deny ArbCom are a joke. (Im not sure even One would.) Still theyve had one or two members in the past who were good contributors such as Charles Matthews. Is he making more edits now hes been thrown off?

Actually, the current incarnation of arbcom is making a bloody good effort at not being a joke.

[gomi]

Actually, the current incarnation of arbcom is making a bloody good effort at not being a joke.

Sadly, great effort does not always yield great results. Without regard to the best intentions of its members, Arbcom is an irretrievably broken structure. Making a broken machine work slightly better, rather than replacing or repairing it, is a symptom of a extreme short-sightedness.

[Guido den Broeder]

There is also a page on-wiki called "list of banned users" which gives a reason for the ban in each case.

Note that a reason for the ban is not always mentioned. In my case, for instance, the reader has nothing to go on.

[Guido den Broeder]

ArbCom are a joke, their motions lack substance and solidity, too much fibre perhaps?

Communities usually get the government that they deserve. WP users are patiently waiting in line for their turn to get this:

Arbcom: "You are a bad person so you are banned!"
User: "What did I do wrong?"
Arbcom: "..." (silence)
User: "I believe a mistake was made, so I wish to appeal the decision, as one should be able to."
Arbcom: "Because we are right and you are a bad person we will not allow you to appeal. We will also not reply to any questions you may have."

[Jon Awbrey]

There is also a page on-wiki called "list of banned users" which gives a reason for the ban in each case.

Note that a reason for the ban is not always mentioned. In my case, for instance, the reader has nothing to go on.

Not To Worry — they usually find it more convenient to make up a reason after they're sure you're really gone.

Jon

[A Horse With No Name]

Actually, the current incarnation of arbcom is making a bloody good effort at not being a joke.

And they have succeeded...they have gone from being a joke to being a travesty.

[Jon Awbrey]

Actually, the current incarnation of arbcom is making a bloody good effort at not being a joke.

And they have succeeded … they have gone from being a joke to being a travesty.

A dribble wrapped in a travesty inside a joke.

Ja Ja

[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.