QUOTE(guy @ Mon 19th November 2007, 4:39am)
QUOTE
would it not have been best for an Arbitrator to make the block ...
That was how we handled Runcorn/Poetlister, for instance.
Sorry to be a pedant, Durova, but Runcorn, Poetlister etc. were blocked by Dmcdevit, not a current member of ArbCom - the same Dmcdevit who shortly after that blocked someone else as a sockpuppet of Runcorn and had to back down. We only have Dmcdevit's word that the ArbCom even saw the evidence, let alone endorsed the ban. Maybe they just haven't had time to consider it yet.
Sigh.
There are so many levels to the inappropriateness here. Leaving aside the fairness (or not) of the Runcorn case.... On a purely semantic level, as you've pointed out, Arbcom didn't do the block in a formal manner, though this is the verbiage put forth, mostly by Durova, the apparent motor behind the block.
This reminds me of her
Google-chat-interview with the editor of Siteproland, where
she repeated, over and over again, that 'I (Durova) banned these users, and that's why they say bad things about me' (paraphrased) , which was completely fallacious.
As an administrator, she can't ban people. There are three ways to ban: Jimbo, Arbcom and community. Period. Indef block is what she can do, and though indef-blocks have the same result as a ban, even then her 'powers' are limited. Her use of the words 'I banned this person' or that person, makes it clear that she sees herself as possessing that power.
Of course, Durova is misrepresenting the procedure with Runcorn (apparently, though Guy et al. know better than I) such that it appears to be a formal Arbcom procedure. Maybe it was, but to the best of my knowledge, it was never published as such. As I understood it, the blocks were announced (presumably to the blocked persons), and they were told that Arbcom approved it. Arbcom never published any such decision, as they should have formally done. Thus the allegation that it was Arbcom-seal-of-approval-give is an unsubstantiated allegation of Durova et al.
Durova's vast over-exaggeration of her own power (to ban, for example, when she can't really, per the rules) demonstrates just how scary the idea of her being on Arbcom could be (
or great, if you want to see Wikipedia become a complete circus that self-implodes ). Arbcom is a sleeping giant, that frequently doesn't move or react. With her involved as a sort of punitive moter and auto-prosecution-machine, Arbcom would just become a giant Durova-bot.
If you are Durova , you think that's great, because she knows what's best for everyone, and what is best is to focus on finding negativity and crushing it (creating even more negativity in the process, usually by accident and error).
If you are Wikipedia (proper) it will lead to eventual scandals and embarassment, because she is singularly focused on finding guilt, and not terribly concerned about making mistakes. She's a not even a loose cannon, she's a random cannon. She's what you want to let loose in your enemy camp. Which if you hate Wikipedia, and want to see it embarassed, or weakened it good.
What is scary is the bodycount increase , of well-intentioned users, newbies (who she'll accuse of being Greg K, or other random scapegoat, or supposed TOR criminal), and newer "EOD", enemies of Durova, such as people who questioned her sainted judgement in the "!!" debacle. Also !!, who if he comes back, is a marked man, or woman).
There is not a really serious sockpuppet problem, except for the socks she's stuffed up her nose (should have tried BEANS). The 'sock problem' is really her obsessive need to prosecute things, which has blossomed into some full blown vendettas, such as with Greg. That's some personal problem she has. Socks aren't problems as such, unless they are vandals, or used to game procedure, and even then, that's probably less than 20% of the sock population (a dirty guesstimate).
Wikipedia's main problems are: 1) substantive inaccuracies, 2) overzealousness-of-the-empowered, and 3) rule-and-procedure-implementation inconsistencies. (
Durova is a huge part of no. 2 and no. 3, of course) Vandalism is just a daily, minor, run of the mill issue, that any newbie vandal patrol fighter can cope with, as long as he/she isn't overzealous to the point of damaging volunteer relationships, or even humiliating people (or even defaming them) unnecessarily.
And which sadly happens too often.There never needs to be a situation where people are humiliated or damaged on Wikipedia , and it unfortunately happens very often. Durova sees this as the fault of the victims of such Wiki-mistakes and that's what would be incredibly sad about her being elected - for Wikipedia, as well as for volunteers. She's not focused on improvements.
She's completely COI, and it isn't about money. Her ego and naked power seeking is the COI.This post has been edited by Disillusioned Lackey: 
Oops, Durova's Mea culpa
