Wikipedia talk:Wikipedia Signpost/2013-09-11/Arbitration report

I am a member of QAI and said in the case : " - It was a mistake, but I would do it again, and I keep doing so and say no more, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 06:38, 13 September 2013 (UTC)


 * Rather ironic that this was released on 9/11. —  Ched  ZILLA  11:01, 13 September 2013 (UTC)


 * Very poor decision by Arbcom. This result allows a group of editors to continue to viciously attack anyone attempting to improve "their" project and bans knowledgeable people from saying anything about it.  In an attenpt to institute a false image of "fairness," they also failed to identify or say anything about the worst offenders who contributed greatly to the atmosphere of hostility that characterized the original set of disputes.  The four people who did get smacked, given time, would probably have worked out their disputes amongst themselves.  The underlying problem itself continues unabated and those most hostile to infoboxes got off scott-free and can continue to make claims that have no basis in technical reality.  However, the wall of text that characterized this case appears to have  made it impossible for ArbCom to sort the wheat from the chaff and reveals a fundamental structural problem in the process.   Montanabw (talk) 21:34, 13 September 2013 (UTC)


 * I continue to lose faith in ARBCOM when the end result is always a series of bans and no resolution of the issue. Chris Troutman  ( talk ) 18:52, 15 September 2013 (UTC)


 * how dare anyone try to add an infobox. this coddling of unreasonable people, drives away veteran editors. what the article owners don't grasp, is that their article will be unimproved, while every article but theirs has one. (until they leave) the problem with the route around censorship approach is that whole swaths of the wiki are a desert indefinately. the reliance on software tools and not training and "coaching" is an epic fail. (although i do sympathize) Duckduckgo (talk) 18:41, 16 September 2013 (UTC)


 * The arbitrators are operating within the confines of a system that in effect, however we want to pretend it isn't, has punitive overtones. Like Gerda I recently also decided not to present evidence against another editor, because the environment on Wikipedia that includes attacks on each other and the arbs has become poisonous, and I was exhausted with it. I can't say I won't do that again, but at the time it seemed right. I understand frustration on the parts of  community members, and on the arbs part, but until we allow for another way of dealing with problem areas-ways that are collaborative-we are doomed to more and more of the same. I doubt its the fault of the arbs or the fault of the community, its a system that doesn't work very well-walls of text, diffs that are taken out of context, editors who are not necessarily savvy in arbitrations,  some needing help and support but nobody who cares or is afraid to help, which allows for unfair decisions, all of this, and more. Until we change or adjust the system and as a community allow for change, we bhave no one to blame but ourselves. When we all take responsibility, whether that hurts or not, then we can expect more novel and ultimately productive ways of dealing with this kind of case. *Gets down off soapbox*(olive (talk) 23:00, 16 September 2013 (UTC))