I think it would. I see many people in the discussions, myself included, who would not have any objections to a ban by ArbCom but who oppose the WMF ban. Having a PhD in math and physics, I can not theoretically exclude that there are active community members who are happy now and would object the ArbCom ban, but, to be honest, I still would like to see one.
The amount of shit could indeed be approximately the same. Cheers Yaroslav On Wed, Jun 12, 2019 at 11:31 PM GorillaWarfare < gorillawarfarewikipe...@gmail.com> wrote: > Yaroslav, > > I understand the difference. I'm simply raising an objection to the claim > that this would've gone over much better had it been the ArbCom and not the > WMF who placed a ban. > > – Molly White (GorillaWarfare) > https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:GorillaWarfare > > > On Wed, Jun 12, 2019 at 5:01 PM Yaroslav Blanter <ymb...@gmail.com> wrote: > > > Just to summarize the difference between WMF and ArbCom, in view of the > > majority of the en.wiki community: > > > > We elect ArbCom, and if they do not do what they should be doing, they do > > not get re-elected in two years, which happens on a regular basis > > > > We do not elect WMF and in fact we have no means of influencing WMF > (apart > > of the three Trustees we elect every three years who are themselves > > typically alienated from the community). Short of taking down the > > fundraiser banner or of organizing a Wikipedia blackout. > > > > This is the difference, and this is why virtually everybody who had to > say > > smth about this episode was unhappy with the process. Without looking at > > the diffs, I only remember three users who were perfectly happy with what > > happened, out of hundreds who said smth. > > > > One unfortunate consequence of the whole episode was, whoever is right > and > > whoever is wrong, the general opinion about WMF in the community is > > all-time low, with people generally not prepared to believe to anything > > communicated to them. If WMF is not interested in getting very unpleasant > > surprises, they should start working towards building the community > trust. > > > > Cheers > > Yaroslav > > > > On Wed, Jun 12, 2019 at 10:48 PM GorillaWarfare < > > gorillawarfarewikipe...@gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > On Wed, Jun 12, 2019 at 8:36 AM Fæ <fae...@gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > > > Any Arbcom approved sanction against Fram based on the evidence would > > not > > > > be controversial for anyone. > > > > > > > > > Sorry for coming in late to this conversation; I've mostly been > following > > > the sicussion happening on-wiki. But I wanted to pipe up to say that I > > > absolutely do not believe this is true (see also my comment here > > > < > > > > > > https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:Arbitration_Committee/Noticeboard&type=revision&diff=901559520&oldid=901559137&diffmode=source > > > >). > > > To repeat my comment somewhat, the English Wikipedia ArbCom has in the > > past > > > had to place similar bans: that is, ones against long-term contributors > > > with many supporters, and ones in which the full details behind what > led > > to > > > the ban cannot be revealed publicly. The reaction has been quite > similar > > to > > > the one the WMF is currently experiencing—"star chamber" accusations, > > > claims that we've abused our power or the process, and assumptions that > > the > > > ban is unwarranted unless everyone is allowed to scrutinize the private > > > evidence. The ArbCom is empowered to take action based off of > > > privately-submitted evidence and private discussion, but in practice it > > is > > > extremely poorly-received when we do, basically across-the-board. > > > > > > – Molly (GorillaWarfare) > > > https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:GorillaWarfare > > > _______________________________________________ > > > Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: > > > https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and > > > https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l > > > New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org > > > Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, > > > <mailto:wikimedia-l-requ...@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe> > > _______________________________________________ > > Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: > > https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and > > https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l > > New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org > > Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, > > <mailto:wikimedia-l-requ...@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe> > _______________________________________________ > Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: > https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and > https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l > New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org > Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, > <mailto:wikimedia-l-requ...@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe> _______________________________________________ Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, <mailto:wikimedia-l-requ...@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe>
