Joefromrandb

Editors, Admins and Bureaucrats Oh my!
Post Reply
User avatar
CrowsNest
Sucks Maniac
Posts: 4459
Joined: Tue Feb 27, 2018 4:50 am
Been thanked: 3 times

Joefromrandb

Post by CrowsNest » Mon Mar 05, 2018 12:32 pm

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia ... and_others

Banned for six months. He can walk straight back into Wikipedia as soon as it expires, his only sanction thereafter being a 1RR restriction and the possibility of being banned indefinitely by ArbCom motion.

This is an incredibly lenient outcome, given the following facts.....

-Literally three months before this case was accepted, Joe had escaped having a case opened about him, after making a series of equivocal to the point of defiant statements about how he would certainly try to clean up his act, but blah blah blah

-The case was accepted after he showed rather spectacularly that he has no capacity for self-improvement even after being given the mother of all second chances, and it was no surprise that his misbehaviour occurred under the very same conditions he told the committee three months prior that he would not be changing his approach (essentially when he believed he was in the right and/or being trolled).

-he declared he would not participate in the case because it would be a show trial - exactly what he said three months before about the prospect of the earlier case

-requests for evidence to support Joe's claims that he's somehow the victim of baiting/trolling came to nothing. He had said three months prior that he would bring this evidence to the table, should that case be accepted.

So, in short, it's been proven Joe is a recidivist offender, a serial blamer of others, a serial breaker of promises, and totally averse to taking any responsibility for his own actions.

In the face of all that, to get a mere six month holiday, which took four months in total to achieve from the point an uninvolved admin was so concerned about his behaviour that they decided to reverse their own attempt at resolution and place it before ArbCom as an issue too big for any one admin to handle, is a bit of a joke. No, it's a huge joke.

Quite bizarrely, they've dropped the standard provision that he can only be unbanned on receipt of a successful appeal, even when offered alongside the ridiculously short (half-standard) ban length of six months, because he appears to them to be the sort of arrogant fuck who wouldn't lower himself to appealing.

Essentially, with no real support anymore for civility paroles, it looks like this is going to be the template for how ArbCom intends to deal with problem editors in future, the people who have always got some excuse or explanation for why they can't or don't need to follow the rules governing editor behaviour, specifically rules on civility and due process, and have lots of people willing to defend their rights to special treatment based on their record of otherwise good edits.

It seems like other editors are going to have to deal with these people, the infamous assholes of Wikipedia, the mere 9% who issue most of the personal attacks, by putting up with their shit through countless reports and blocks, and then suffer the whole drama of having to ensure an ArbCom case is accepted in the face of lying fucks on ArbCom who want to pretend black is white. Only then, after all that, will they see any results, and it will essentially just be a longer version of a cool down block, after which they will be let back in on probation.

As such, the whole idea that the period of editting after your first block, even if confined to your first 'significant' block, isn't the time for a user to be on probation, has been dismissed. A full ArbCom case has essentially just become another go around on AN/I, and the dispute resolution venue of last resort is now WP:ARCA, which is of course even less effective and infested with wikilawyers and special pleaders than AN/I.

Of course, the reason it all took this long, is because Arbitrator Opabina Regalis got away with lying her ass off in the first case, disgustingly claiming all it was about was Joe saying "fuck off". Unbelievably, second time around, she gets away with expressing disbelief that Joe isn't taking the case as seriously as he should, given the evidence presented, while still being prepared to offer him another chance by supporting a lesser sanction, one that is easily nullified when people like her turn up to lie their asses off about what Joe has actually done.

Post Reply