From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to navigation Jump to search

Ironically, I have been more engaged with the project in the past three weeks, both on- and off-wiki, than I have been for years. That said, it is particularly telling as to how large of a crisis we have when a new dumpster fire seems to start most days, whether through comments or good-faith attempts to improve the situation. At this point, I don't think it particularly matters anymore what precipitated the ban. Instead, the greater issue is that by injecting itself in user behavior matters and bypassing established community processes, the WMF has managed to wholly undermine those processes and make matters much worse than they were prior to their actions. Indeed, I think we see a corollary to the Streisand effect: by trying to solve an issue quietly, supposedly to protect victims of harassment, the heavy-handed and, in a way, unilateral approach that eschews any appearance of natural justice, has instead produced the loudest and most chaotic solution possible. I echo the statement by Arbitration Committee that asks the WMF to "[leave] behavioural complaints pertaining solely to the English Wikipedia to established local processes". Otherwise, our community processes are left impotent. Why should anyone, whether individual administrators or the Arbitration Committee, seek to deal with behavioural complaints, if a dissatisfied party can instead go to the WMF and have a remedy imposed where the other party sees no evidence and cannot appeal? Maxim(talk) 15:11, 30 June 2019 (UTC)