CMAwatch wrote:Is this thread going to be pinned?
Eric changed the topic type, but the phpBB forum is not good enough to actually pin it.
Graaf Statler wrote:I don't think so.
If so, why don't they boot him out?
ericbarbour wrote: ↑Wed Sep 09, 2020 4:22 am[Wikipedia is] a stupid video game, and the "encyclopedia" is an accidental byproduct.
I attempted to warn ArbCom of the dangers of shooting the messenger. Very obvious: when a case is filed, the subject of the case should be narrow, the question presented. But in fact, if a case is filed over abuse, everyone who supports the abuser will scour the history of the filer and their behavior, looking for anything that can be attacked. It makes cases far more convoluted.JuiceBeetle wrote:Because booting a checkuser-admin in his position required many pages of evidence of undebatable abuse and a long-standing editor willing to risk getting banned to make the arbcom case.
Abd wrote:I attempted to warn ArbCom of the dangers of shooting the messenger. Very obvious: when a case is filed, the subject of the case should be narrow, the question presented. But in fact, if a case is filed over abuse, everyone who supports the abuser will scour the history of the filer and their behavior, looking for anything that can be attacked. It makes cases far more convoluted.JuiceBeetle wrote:Because booting a checkuser-admin in his position required many pages of evidence of undebatable abuse and a long-standing editor willing to risk getting banned to make the arbcom case.
There a many characteristics of ArbCom and AC procedure that make it ineffective. ArbCom actually attempted to create a process for reforming itself, and the community shouted it down. There is no responsible supervision on Wikipedia, it's mob rule, with very little refinement and sophistication. So you have some members of a mod who are smart. It is still a mob and overall the pressure is to knee-jerk responses and not consideration of ultimate purpose.
Kumioko wrote:because it doesn't affect them.
ericbarbour wrote: ↑Wed Sep 09, 2020 4:22 am[Wikipedia is] a stupid video game, and the "encyclopedia" is an accidental byproduct.
ericbarbour wrote: ↑Wed Sep 09, 2020 4:22 am[Wikipedia is] a stupid video game, and the "encyclopedia" is an accidental byproduct.
CMAwatch wrote:* Moderatorship abuse (What an irony…)
JuiceBeetle wrote:CMAwatch wrote:* Moderatorship abuse (What an irony…)
That would be an interesting article if it could be sourced. However that's the hard part of the job.
In this form this is no more than an idea, not notable. If expanded, it might be used as an essay in project namespace or on meta.
JuiceBeetle wrote: if it could be sourced.
ericbarbour wrote: ↑Wed Sep 09, 2020 4:22 am[Wikipedia is] a stupid video game, and the "encyclopedia" is an accidental byproduct.