Obama Arber Drama, or, ArbCom don't care about BLP if it's the President Options

[Sceptre]

Well, The Obama RfAr is about to close. And what a clusterfuck it is.

First, the finding of facts are totally over-exaggerating what has actually happened. Case in point, as it will be for most of my posts, will be the proposals concerning me.

8) Sceptre (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · abuse filter log · block user · block log) has engaged in edit-warring[20][21][22] and continued to revert Stevertigo outside of the Barack Obama FAQ.[23][24] and engaged in edit summary attacks.[25]

Okay, I admit that I did edit-war on the Obama FAQ. But the reversions of Stevertigo were because he was in full-disruption mode at that point (one of the diffs is me reverting an edit which was used in a proposal about Stevertigo disrupting!). Oh, and the "edit summary attack"? I said "fuck". Other people I've talked to have failed to see any wrongdoing on anything other than the edit warring.

Which brings us to the proposed decision:

5) Sceptre (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · abuse filter log · block user · block log) is admonished for his edit-warring. Furthermore, Sceptre is subject to an editing restriction for one year. Sceptre is limited to one revert per page per week (except for undisputable vandalism and BLP violations), and is required to discuss any content reversions on the page's talk page. Should Sceptre exceed this limit or fail to discuss a content reversion, he may be blocked for the duration specified in the enforcement ruling below.

What the fuck? That is way over-the-top for what can be shown to be one case of edit warring. I contested it saying that my actions were all in the spirit of BLP (as I would enforce NPOV on McCain's article just as much as on Obama's, and I worked on removing and rearranging similar articles and sections regarding Bush at the same time), and so should not be subject to a sanction that harsh, and that it would leave me unable to edit in the area where I can actually prove to be useful (Doctor Who, and I take the article writing seriously, not "zomg so good here's some theory splurge!") because of how popular those articles are (high visitor and anonymous editor count, and often semi-protection after episodes air). Wikidemon agreed to the same effect, saying that while I may have gone OTT, it was in the spirit of BLP and unduly restrictive. But of course, as this case shows, ArbCom don't listen to the users.

But the icing on the cake? Stevertigo is about to receive the exact same sanction. This is the same person who was desysopped by ArbCom for edit-warring and failed to win his adminship back. This just proves that the ArbCom's (stated) philosophy of BLP enforcement being something that should be encouraged and unimpeded is no longer functional. Now, they are just trying to appear politically "fair" and "unbiased" because stricter sanctions on Steve would prove Wikipedia's "liberal bias". But that hasn't been an issue before, so why should it be now?

I'm very disappointed in ArbCom with this, having held some users to be trustworthy and actually give a fuck about BLP. Let me just say that, unless I see otherwise, I'm opposing anyone running for re-election in December.

This post has been edited by Sceptre: Wed 17th June 2009, 4:16pm

[dtobias]

In that thread, JzG said "I've always found Sceptre to be perfectly decent", which basically proves that Sceptre is a total jerk. (And that thread is where I first brought the Lisa Simpson quote that's still in my sig here into Wikipedia debate.)

This post has been edited by dtobias: Fri 19th June 2009, 11:13am

[Sceptre]

In that thread, JzG said "I've always found Sceptre to be perfectly decent", which basically proves that Sceptre is a total jerk. (And that thread is where I first brought the Lisa Simpson quote that's still in my sig here into Wikipedia debate.)

I'm not going to deny that I can be a jerk. Although, it isn't a copy-JzG thing. He stole my signature, not the other way around.