User:Ealdgyth/2022 Arb diff collection

diffs

 * not really a good look here
 * in which a past arb is scarily off on fringe
 * Oooookkkaaayy....
 * Policy on blocking on off wiki evidence in which some admins show some very scary ideas
 * hmmmm

past stuff

 * Community response to the Wikimedia Foundation's ban of Fram and Arbitration/Requests/Case/Reversion of office actions and Arbitration/Requests/Case/Fram
 * Arbitration/Requests/Case/Portals/Proposed decision
 * Arbitration/Requests/Case/Kudpung/Proposed decision
 * Arbitration Committee/Noticeboard/Archive 12
 * Arbitration/Requests/Case/RHaworth/Proposed decision
 * Arbitration/Requests/Case/Jytdog/Proposed decision
 * Arbitration/Requests/Case/Medicine/Proposed decision
 * The Lightbreather unban debacle
 * The Ricky81682 unban
 * This unbanned user that went on to be CBANed
 * Arbitration/Requests/Case/RexxS/Proposed decision
 * Arbitration/Requests/Case/Kurds and Kurdistan/Proposed decision
 * Arbitration/Requests/Case/Iranian politics/Proposed decision
 * Arbitration Committee/Noticeboard/Archive 13
 * Arbitration Committee/Noticeboard
 * Arbitration Committee/Noticeboard/Archive 13 and then the CBAN 4 months later
 * Administrators' noticeboard/Archive334

Soapbox
Don't read here if you don't want unvarnished opinions.


 * 1) I think Arbitration/Requests/Case/Portals/Proposed decision was insane. To be utterly frank - I think comparing this decision to the Arbitration/Requests/Case/Jytdog/Proposed decision or Arbitration/Requests/Case/Kudpung/Proposed decision I can not escape the impression that BrownHairedGirl was held to a higher standard of civility than male admins are held to.
 * 2) As further evidence - see Arbitration/Requests/Case/Jytdog and the reply at Arbitration/Requests/Case/Jytdog where the comments from women editors (and arbs!) are dismissed as "Bringing gender into this case for the pure purpose of illustrating the point about women's vulnerability when gender was completely uninvolved in this very case is unnecessarily divisive and puts undue weight on a certain class" or "How inappropriate, the gender comparisons really needs to stop. Harassment comes from all genders and affects all genders in the context of Wikipedia, and you know that very well."
 * 3) Don't get me started on WP:NONAZIS and the insanity that is the unthinking support of it. The fact that the people supporting it can't see how their support of it is one of the things that actual Nazis did just ... amazes me. (For those unable to figure it out - one thing the Nazis did was loudly proclaim that some things were "what everyone supports" and that those things should be considered unarguable and thus folks who didn't support those "unarguable" positions shouldn't be considered part of the "healthy community". It's one step further from that to considering those "unhealthy" persons as unpersons and then well... those unpersons don't need to live, do they? Yes, that is a very simplified discussion but it's ultimately HOW the Nazis got to the place where they could murder 6 million Jews and 3+ million Slavs, not to mention the actual war casualties.)
 * 4) Oh... the joys of inconsistent behavior from arbs. Look at the differences between Arbitration/Requests/Case/German war effort/Proposed decision where Cinderella157 gets a German history topic ban and a one-way interaction ban with KECoffman for making comments like this, but accusing someone of making stuff up is fine and doesn't get a topic ban that sticks. The whole Polish-Jewish-WWII edit area is so incredibly toxic I had to take most of the articles off my watchlist because it was too unhealthy for me to even see the crappy sourcing/personal attacks/utter battleground behavior that went on. And yet, that area is routinely let slide. Get your act together, ArbCom and at least try to be consistent.