[Wikipedia-l] Trying to edit wikipedia on request Result: Strange arbcom ruling on nl.wikipedia, 1 month blocked

[Maury Markowitz]

>Andre you are intelligent enough to know that no matter how I had
>defended myself you should have given me the right to a defence.

No, that's often not the case. This is a common misconception.

As I understand the case, you were blocked for repeatedly using proxy 
accounts. When these were blocked, you opened another proxy account. You 
cannot claim that you were unaware of the infraction. The creation of a new 
account demonstrates that you were fully aware of what was going on.

>This is on par with a firingsquad in a bananarepublic.

No, it's on par with a parking ticket.

If you get a parking ticket and fail to respond, you'll be considered guilty 
by default and fined. This is true even if you claim you were unaware of the 
fine (the "wind blew it off" non-defence), but it seems clear from my 
readings here that you couldn't even claim that in this case.

It's simply the way the system works. Minor crimes that have little effect 
on the guilty (like a small fine) can be considerably "more wrong" than 
major ones that have major effects on the guilty (like jail time). You've 
likely heard the statement that "it is better for ten guilty men to go free 
than one innocent man go to jail", but in the case of minor infractions the 
reverse is true. Maybe it sucks, but that's the way it is.

And let's face it, the punishement in this case is hardly limiting you. A 
month ban on an account you clearly stated you no longer wanted to use 
anyway? I wish I had such problems.

>What Waerth does not tell you is that the "attacking and harassing"

This is always the case in my experience. I've seen edit wars over changes 
in grammar.

That said, I have been repeatedly upset by the "invisibility" of the 
process. For a project that claims to be about sharing information, the way 
the arbcom decisions are made without any publically available information 
being posted. That discredits the wiki, IMHO.

For instance, I recently came across a perma-ban on a use whom I had past 
"dealings" with. Try as I might, I was unable to find out any information on 
what had happened to precipitate the ban. I wrote to the banning user, and 
the person that started the process, and was given the runaround for days. I 
still don't know precisely what happened.

Is it really too much to require a CLEAR explaination of what the events 
were to be posted on the userpage in question? I think this should be 
policy.

Maury

_________________________________________________________________
Find the best places on campus to get take out, study & unwind 
http://www.liveu.ca/explore.aspx