An open letter to Newyorkbrad

[Peter Damian]

You're more likely to get a "fair" outcome from the community than the ArbCom. Community discussions are always transparent, after all, and usually involve a healthy exchange of views. The ArbCom's decisions are normally political and never transparent. You don't see an exchange of views, and you don't know why or how the decisions were reached; very often you have to conclude the decisions were badly informed, or made for the wrong reasons.

I do agree with your description of the arbcom discussions, but most so called community ban discussions are hardly any better. Here's why:

1. There's no such thing as the Wikipedia community. There are few users who regularly take part in such discussions, but there are thousands of Wikipedians who have never heard about drama boards.

2. Transparency is good, when a discussed person is allowed to participate in the discussion. I was not, not even at my own talk page. Involved bullies lied about me, but I was able only to watch their lies and half-truths silently.

3.There's absolutely nothing healthy in community bans. In the most situations they are used to silence critics and/or to retaliate to content opponents.

This is very true. The problem is that when you move to the slightly more formalised process operated by the arbcom, it's all in secret. So you have the choice between a public lynching by the sort of creatures who hang about the drama boards, or slightly more civilised private version of the same.

When I went through those arbcom threads about me again, it was depressing. Nearly all of it was on the level of a personal attack with all kinds of speculation about my personal motives, all of it incorrect. My original complaint, namely that I had been publicly accused of lying by a senior member of the administration, was entirely ignored.

Of course it's not meant to be fair, but the question is why Brad, who works as a lawyer and has considerable experience of 'legal process' wants to contaminate himself by his involvement with this 'project'.

[Kiefer.Wolfowitz]

At heart, he's a petty tyrant who has always wanted to be in the position of standing in judgment over others, but didn't win on his bid to do so (which is why he's a corporate lawyer, not a judge like he so desperately wants to be). He takes out his frustrations at the lack of success in his chosen career by playing at being a jurist on Wikipedia.

I'm afraid this crosses the line from "speculating about another person's motivations" to "just making things up." If anyone cares, I've never wanted to be a judge, never planned to become a judge, and never done any of the things that in New York might help lead to one's becoming a judge.

Tip for Newyorkbrad (T-C-L):

Attorneys in New York may volunteer as judges in the small-claims courts.

[lilburne]

]Tip for Newyorkbrad (T-C-L):

Attorneys in New York may volunteer as judges in the small-claims courts.

But you can't be your own jury too.

[Kumioko]

And its generally frowned upon in most states to be the executioner.

[Triptych]

And its generally frowned upon in most states to be the executioner.

Don't forget cop. Newyorkbrad also is the cop, as when he reverted and blocked your IP, Kumioko.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wvJiYrRcfQo

[Kumioko]

And its generally frowned upon in most states to be the executioner.

Don't forget cop. Newyorkbrad also is the cop, as when he reverted and blocked your IP, Kumioko.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wvJiYrRcfQo

That's true, it reminds me of this movie where a guy was selling the house, then came back as the "plumber", then referred them to the house restoration expert (also himself with a different hat), etc. When the system allows someone to play the part in all the rolls in a case, the only outcome is going to be a lack of fairness and misconduct. Even if its unintentional, its not a fair, impartial or balanced system. I will say this for Brad, although I don't like some of his responses and I think he dodges a lot of the questions I have to at least give him credit for posting here. That's more than I can say about the rest of the clowns that malinger around the Arbitration process. The only happy note is that there seems to be an increasing number going on Wikibreak from Arbcom.

[Triptych]

Several of you had questions about my block summary the other day, and I wrote up a long explanation on Wikipedia. It took me two and one-half hours to do that. Just how much of my time do you think you're entitled to?

Brad, I just timed myself and it only took me 85 seconds to type: "I was wrong to say that Kumioko acted unlawfully. There was nothing unlawful in what he posted to Timotheus Canens' talkpage. I apologize for the disturbing charge and will try to be more careful and exercise better judgment in my remarks in the future."

[Vigilant]

Several of you had questions about my block summary the other day, and I wrote up a long explanation on Wikipedia. It took me two and one-half hours to do that. Just how much of my time do you think you're entitled to?

Brad, I just timed myself and it only took me 85 seconds to type: "I was wrong to say that Kumioko acted unlawfully. There was nothing unlawful in what he posted to Timotheus Canens' talkpage. I apologize for the disturbing charge and will try to be more careful and exercise better judgment in my remarks in the future."

Your fingers must not be very fat and your ego must be smaller than the moon.

[Kumioko]

Several of you had questions about my block summary the other day, and I wrote up a long explanation on Wikipedia. It took me two and one-half hours to do that. Just how much of my time do you think you're entitled to?

Brad, I just timed myself and it only took me 85 seconds to type: "I was wrong to say that Kumioko acted unlawfully. There was nothing unlawful in what he posted to Timotheus Canens' talkpage. I apologize for the disturbing charge and will try to be more careful and exercise better judgment in my remarks in the future."

Your fingers must not be very fat and your ego must be smaller than the moon.

Personally I think it shows a lot about the character of Brad and the other members of Arbcom that they can make statements like the one Brad did, then create a "blog" (when Wikipedia isn't supposed to be used for blogging), then deny any wrongdoing. Its also telling of the editing environment when they come after me with legal threats because I advocated eliminating Admin abuse on the site but then act to protect themselves and their chronies from reprisals for violating policy. The community is seeing the signs of abuse, they see the failures and incompetence of Arbcom and this Arbcom has done more to prove to the community how worthless the Arbcom process is than I ever did. So thanks Arbcom, you are the best player on our team!

[Casliber]

Well, it is not me who used the word "fair", arbitrators did. They voted 15 to 0 to support that definition. At the very least they should be able to explain what they meant under "fair".

What is 'fair", newyorkbrad? Well, let's start with the simplest question:
Is it fair to discuss a person who is not allowed to participate in the discussion?

By the way although I addressed my question to newyorkbrad, other current and former arbitrators are welcome to respond too.
Casliber, maybe you could explain to me how you see a fair discussion by the wikipedia community in regards to the community ban? After all you too voted for that definition, did you not?

definition = treating people equally without favouritism or discrimination.

The proposal is supposed to be framing in context what actually happens. I am not sure what you're asking - that sanctions by the community not be allowed to occur and we have a gov-com?

One would expect/hope that anyone reviewing or closing a discussion would attempt to sift through the potential biases of commenters and opinion-offerers to understand motives. I've been amused over the past while trying to figure these out and place opinions in context.....but the arbs can't "control" the community only review what happens afterwards.

Wow! one arbitrator actually responded!
Before I comment on your response could you please also explain to me what does it mean: "some aspect of the community discussion was procedurally unfair"? (my bolding) It is from the same statement I quoted at the beginning of the thread.

Take your pick - obviously (like any other person reviewing) it'd be about examining who said what and how the consensus in the debate was determined. Depends on the discussions? Which one did you have in mind then?

Casliber, thank you for responding my questions!
Now let's talk about some specific situations. You stated that "a fair discussion" is
"treating people equally without favouritism or discrimination."
OK, let's say that:

*one user is allowed to participate in his ban discussion at AN/I and another only on his talk page. Is this an equal treatment?
*one user is allowed to participate in his ban discussion on his talk page, and another is not allowed to participate in his ban discussion at all. Is this an equal treatment?
*in one situation the ban discussion lasts 72 hours, in another 24 hours. Is this an equal treatment?
*in one discussion there are hard evidences of an alleged behavior presented, in another there's none. Is this an equal treatment?
*In one discussion most supporters of the ban had no prior involvement with the discussed user. In another one more than half users are involved. Is this an equal treatment?
Thanks.

In sequence -
*depends - if person is blocked, there is sometimes a discussion to allow unblock to participate. If not, a talkpage is only a link away.
*depends again on circumstances. One can always email a third party to post.
*Some ban discussions take longer to gather consensus - some examples might be good of shorter ones that should have been allowed to go on longer - do you have any?
*Ideal would be hard evidence at all times - do you have any where there wasn't?
*Obviously depends on how many other editors are in dispute with the person being discussed. Some might have few, others many. All who have an on-topic and relevant point should be commenting.

[neved]

Well, it is not me who used the word "fair", arbitrators did. They voted 15 to 0 to support that definition. At the very least they should be able to explain what they meant under "fair".

What is 'fair", newyorkbrad? Well, let's start with the simplest question:
Is it fair to discuss a person who is not allowed to participate in the discussion?

By the way although I addressed my question to newyorkbrad, other current and former arbitrators are welcome to respond too.
Casliber, maybe you could explain to me how you see a fair discussion by the wikipedia community in regards to the community ban? After all you too voted for that definition, did you not?

definition = treating people equally without favouritism or discrimination.

The proposal is supposed to be framing in context what actually happens. I am not sure what you're asking - that sanctions by the community not be allowed to occur and we have a gov-com?

One would expect/hope that anyone reviewing or closing a discussion would attempt to sift through the potential biases of commenters and opinion-offerers to understand motives. I've been amused over the past while trying to figure these out and place opinions in context.....but the arbs can't "control" the community only review what happens afterwards.

Wow! one arbitrator actually responded!
Before I comment on your response could you please also explain to me what does it mean: "some aspect of the community discussion was procedurally unfair"? (my bolding) It is from the same statement I quoted at the beginning of the thread.

Take your pick - obviously (like any other person reviewing) it'd be about examining who said what and how the consensus in the debate was determined. Depends on the discussions? Which one did you have in mind then?

Casliber, thank you for responding my questions!
Now let's talk about some specific situations. You stated that "a fair discussion" is
"treating people equally without favouritism or discrimination."
OK, let's say that:

*one user is allowed to participate in his ban discussion at AN/I and another only on his talk page. Is this an equal treatment?
*one user is allowed to participate in his ban discussion on his talk page, and another is not allowed to participate in his ban discussion at all. Is this an equal treatment?
*in one situation the ban discussion lasts 72 hours, in another 24 hours. Is this an equal treatment?
*in one discussion there are hard evidences of an alleged behavior presented, in another there's none. Is this an equal treatment?
*In one discussion most supporters of the ban had no prior involvement with the discussed user. In another one more than half users are involved. Is this an equal treatment?
Thanks.

In sequence -
*depends - if person is blocked, there is sometimes a discussion to allow unblock to participate. If not, a talkpage is only a link away.
*depends again on circumstances. One can always email a third party to post.
*Some ban discussions take longer to gather consensus - some examples might be good of shorter ones that should have been allowed to go on longer - do you have any?
*Ideal would be hard evidence at all times - do you have any where there wasn't?
*Obviously depends on how many other editors are in dispute with the person being discussed. Some might have few, others many. All who have an on-topic and relevant point should be commenting.

OK, let's pause for a moment.
You said: that a fair discussion means "treating people equally without favouritism or discrimination"
I asked: "one user is allowed to participate in his ban discussion at AN/I and another only on his talk page. Is this an equal treatment? "
You responded:"depends - if person is blocked, there is sometimes a discussion to allow unblock to participate. If not, a talkpage is only a link away."

Now let me please ask you to imagine a trial, in which a defendant is allowed to defend himself not from the court room, but just from his own cell let's say via telephone, if of course somebody wants to call him? Would the verdict of such trial stand? Now let imagine even worse situation. A defendant is allowed to defend himself only by asking a third party to talk for him? Would a verdict of such trial stand? Were these defends treated equally? Now let's imagine a trial, in which every second juror has prior involvement with a defendant. Would their verdict allow to stand?

Generally speaking how any equity could depend on anything at all? I mean, if as you say a fair discussion means "treating people equally without favouritism or discrimination" (my bolding), should not everybody be treated equally without depending on anything?

[EricBarbour]

Wasting your time.....he won't listen. Believe me.

[neved]

Wasting your time.....he won't listen. Believe me.

I always believe you :-)
Yet, I don't think I am wasting my time.
If I am not mistaking it is the first time somebody who used to be an arbitrator for a few years agreed to talk about fairness at all.
Usually if somebody complains he was treated unfairly, the only response he gets: "Wikipeia is not fair. Period."
At least Casliber tries to respond, and I am more than willing to give him a benefit of a doubt, if for nothing else, then at least for his time and efforts.

[Kiefer.Wolfowitz]

And its generally frowned upon in most states to be the executioner.

Don't forget cop. Newyorkbrad also is the cop, as when he reverted and blocked your IP, Kumioko.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wvJiYrRcfQo

That's true, it reminds me of this movie where a guy was selling the house, then came back as the "plumber", then referred them to the house restoration expert (also himself with a different hat), etc. When the system allows someone to play the part in all the rolls in a case, the only outcome is going to be a lack of fairness and misconduct. [....]

You do not appreciate Jerry Lewis, n'est ce pas?

[Kumioko]

I have to admit I have never been a big Jerry Lewis fan however the actions of Arbcom and the Wikipedia environment these days is an awful lot like a Monty Python sketch or a bad episode of Abbot and Costello. We are kinda like MST3K reviewing a bad movie or the 2 old guys from the muppets commenting from the balcony.

[Casliber]

Well, it is not me who used the word "fair", arbitrators did. They voted 15 to 0 to support that definition. At the very least they should be able to explain what they meant under "fair".

What is 'fair", newyorkbrad? Well, let's start with the simplest question:
Is it fair to discuss a person who is not allowed to participate in the discussion?

By the way although I addressed my question to newyorkbrad, other current and former arbitrators are welcome to respond too.
Casliber, maybe you could explain to me how you see a fair discussion by the wikipedia community in regards to the community ban? After all you too voted for that definition, did you not?

definition = treating people equally without favouritism or discrimination.

The proposal is supposed to be framing in context what actually happens. I am not sure what you're asking - that sanctions by the community not be allowed to occur and we have a gov-com?

One would expect/hope that anyone reviewing or closing a discussion would attempt to sift through the potential biases of commenters and opinion-offerers to understand motives. I've been amused over the past while trying to figure these out and place opinions in context.....but the arbs can't "control" the community only review what happens afterwards.

Wow! one arbitrator actually responded!
Before I comment on your response could you please also explain to me what does it mean: "some aspect of the community discussion was procedurally unfair"? (my bolding) It is from the same statement I quoted at the beginning of the thread.

Take your pick - obviously (like any other person reviewing) it'd be about examining who said what and how the consensus in the debate was determined. Depends on the discussions? Which one did you have in mind then?

Casliber, thank you for responding my questions!
Now let's talk about some specific situations. You stated that "a fair discussion" is
"treating people equally without favouritism or discrimination."
OK, let's say that:

*one user is allowed to participate in his ban discussion at AN/I and another only on his talk page. Is this an equal treatment?
*one user is allowed to participate in his ban discussion on his talk page, and another is not allowed to participate in his ban discussion at all. Is this an equal treatment?
*in one situation the ban discussion lasts 72 hours, in another 24 hours. Is this an equal treatment?
*in one discussion there are hard evidences of an alleged behavior presented, in another there's none. Is this an equal treatment?
*In one discussion most supporters of the ban had no prior involvement with the discussed user. In another one more than half users are involved. Is this an equal treatment?
Thanks.

In sequence -
*depends - if person is blocked, there is sometimes a discussion to allow unblock to participate. If not, a talkpage is only a link away.
*depends again on circumstances. One can always email a third party to post.
*Some ban discussions take longer to gather consensus - some examples might be good of shorter ones that should have been allowed to go on longer - do you have any?
*Ideal would be hard evidence at all times - do you have any where there wasn't?
*Obviously depends on how many other editors are in dispute with the person being discussed. Some might have few, others many. All who have an on-topic and relevant point should be commenting.

OK, let's pause for a moment.
You said: that a fair discussion means "treating people equally without favouritism or discrimination"
I asked: "one user is allowed to participate in his ban discussion at AN/I and another only on his talk page. Is this an equal treatment? "
You responded:"depends - if person is blocked, there is sometimes a discussion to allow unblock to participate. If not, a talkpage is only a link away."

Now let me please ask you to imagine a trial, in which a defendant is allowed to defend himself not from the court room, but just from his own cell let's say via telephone, if of course somebody wants to call him? Would the verdict of such trial stand? Now let imagine even worse situation. A defendant is allowed to defend himself only by asking a third party to talk for him? Would a verdict of such trial stand? Were these defends treated equally? Now let's imagine a trial, in which every second juror has prior involvement with a defendant. Would their verdict allow to stand?

Generally speaking how any equity could depend on anything at all? I mean, if as you say a fair discussion means "treating people equally without favouritism or discrimination" (my bolding), should not everybody be treated equally without depending on anything?

And in real life, some people get bail before court and others don't. Again depends on the scenario and is hard to generalise.

Fairness is a relative concept - no system is 100% "fair" - any process will have people treated unjustly harshly or leniently as the numbers go up - pretty much a statistical certainty and any understanding of statistics will make this obvious. Folks are only human and we can only check and remedy where we can.

Furthermore, the committee often needs someone to make a case or notify them before they can act.

[neved]

Well, it is not me who used the word "fair", arbitrators did. They voted 15 to 0 to support that definition. At the very least they should be able to explain what they meant under "fair".

What is 'fair", newyorkbrad? Well, let's start with the simplest question:
Is it fair to discuss a person who is not allowed to participate in the discussion?

By the way although I addressed my question to newyorkbrad, other current and former arbitrators are welcome to respond too.
Casliber, maybe you could explain to me how you see a fair discussion by the wikipedia community in regards to the community ban? After all you too voted for that definition, did you not?

definition = treating people equally without favouritism or discrimination.

The proposal is supposed to be framing in context what actually happens. I am not sure what you're asking - that sanctions by the community not be allowed to occur and we have a gov-com?

One would expect/hope that anyone reviewing or closing a discussion would attempt to sift through the potential biases of commenters and opinion-offerers to understand motives. I've been amused over the past while trying to figure these out and place opinions in context.....but the arbs can't "control" the community only review what happens afterwards.

Wow! one arbitrator actually responded!
Before I comment on your response could you please also explain to me what does it mean: "some aspect of the community discussion was procedurally unfair"? (my bolding) It is from the same statement I quoted at the beginning of the thread.

Take your pick - obviously (like any other person reviewing) it'd be about examining who said what and how the consensus in the debate was determined. Depends on the discussions? Which one did you have in mind then?

Casliber, thank you for responding my questions!
Now let's talk about some specific situations. You stated that "a fair discussion" is
"treating people equally without favouritism or discrimination."
OK, let's say that:

*one user is allowed to participate in his ban discussion at AN/I and another only on his talk page. Is this an equal treatment?
*one user is allowed to participate in his ban discussion on his talk page, and another is not allowed to participate in his ban discussion at all. Is this an equal treatment?
*in one situation the ban discussion lasts 72 hours, in another 24 hours. Is this an equal treatment?
*in one discussion there are hard evidences of an alleged behavior presented, in another there's none. Is this an equal treatment?
*In one discussion most supporters of the ban had no prior involvement with the discussed user. In another one more than half users are involved. Is this an equal treatment?
Thanks.

In sequence -
*depends - if person is blocked, there is sometimes a discussion to allow unblock to participate. If not, a talkpage is only a link away.
*depends again on circumstances. One can always email a third party to post.
*Some ban discussions take longer to gather consensus - some examples might be good of shorter ones that should have been allowed to go on longer - do you have any?
*Ideal would be hard evidence at all times - do you have any where there wasn't?
*Obviously depends on how many other editors are in dispute with the person being discussed. Some might have few, others many. All who have an on-topic and relevant point should be commenting.

OK, let's pause for a moment.
You said: that a fair discussion means "treating people equally without favouritism or discrimination"
I asked: "one user is allowed to participate in his ban discussion at AN/I and another only on his talk page. Is this an equal treatment? "
You responded:"depends - if person is blocked, there is sometimes a discussion to allow unblock to participate. If not, a talkpage is only a link away."

Now let me please ask you to imagine a trial, in which a defendant is allowed to defend himself not from the court room, but just from his own cell let's say via telephone, if of course somebody wants to call him? Would the verdict of such trial stand? Now let imagine even worse situation. A defendant is allowed to defend himself only by asking a third party to talk for him? Would a verdict of such trial stand? Were these defends treated equally? Now let's imagine a trial, in which every second juror has prior involvement with a defendant. Would their verdict allow to stand?

Generally speaking how any equity could depend on anything at all? I mean, if as you say a fair discussion means "treating people equally without favouritism or discrimination" (my bolding), should not everybody be treated equally without depending on anything?

And in real life, some people get bail before court and others don't. Again depends on the scenario and is hard to generalise.

Fairness is a relative concept - no system is 100% "fair" - any process will have people treated unjustly harshly or leniently as the numbers go up - pretty much a statistical certainty and any understanding of statistics will make this obvious. Folks are only human and we can only check and remedy where we can.

Furthermore, the committee often needs someone to make a case or notify them before they can act.

Yes, fairness is a relative concept but any relativity could and should not be stretched forever. A bail is not a very good example because bail has nothing to do with a trial, and in US no mater if a defendant is on bail or in jail he has a right to be tried by absolutely uninvolved, absolutely independent, named jury, and to appear before the jury in person, and to defend himself in person.

[Casliber]

Well, it is not me who used the word "fair", arbitrators did. They voted 15 to 0 to support that definition. At the very least they should be able to explain what they meant under "fair".

What is 'fair", newyorkbrad? Well, let's start with the simplest question:
Is it fair to discuss a person who is not allowed to participate in the discussion?

By the way although I addressed my question to newyorkbrad, other current and former arbitrators are welcome to respond too.
Casliber, maybe you could explain to me how you see a fair discussion by the wikipedia community in regards to the community ban? After all you too voted for that definition, did you not?

definition = treating people equally without favouritism or discrimination.

The proposal is supposed to be framing in context what actually happens. I am not sure what you're asking - that sanctions by the community not be allowed to occur and we have a gov-com?

One would expect/hope that anyone reviewing or closing a discussion would attempt to sift through the potential biases of commenters and opinion-offerers to understand motives. I've been amused over the past while trying to figure these out and place opinions in context.....but the arbs can't "control" the community only review what happens afterwards.

Wow! one arbitrator actually responded!
Before I comment on your response could you please also explain to me what does it mean: "some aspect of the community discussion was procedurally unfair"? (my bolding) It is from the same statement I quoted at the beginning of the thread.

Take your pick - obviously (like any other person reviewing) it'd be about examining who said what and how the consensus in the debate was determined. Depends on the discussions? Which one did you have in mind then?

Casliber, thank you for responding my questions!
Now let's talk about some specific situations. You stated that "a fair discussion" is
"treating people equally without favouritism or discrimination."
OK, let's say that:

*one user is allowed to participate in his ban discussion at AN/I and another only on his talk page. Is this an equal treatment?
*one user is allowed to participate in his ban discussion on his talk page, and another is not allowed to participate in his ban discussion at all. Is this an equal treatment?
*in one situation the ban discussion lasts 72 hours, in another 24 hours. Is this an equal treatment?
*in one discussion there are hard evidences of an alleged behavior presented, in another there's none. Is this an equal treatment?
*In one discussion most supporters of the ban had no prior involvement with the discussed user. In another one more than half users are involved. Is this an equal treatment?
Thanks.

In sequence -
*depends - if person is blocked, there is sometimes a discussion to allow unblock to participate. If not, a talkpage is only a link away.
*depends again on circumstances. One can always email a third party to post.
*Some ban discussions take longer to gather consensus - some examples might be good of shorter ones that should have been allowed to go on longer - do you have any?
*Ideal would be hard evidence at all times - do you have any where there wasn't?
*Obviously depends on how many other editors are in dispute with the person being discussed. Some might have few, others many. All who have an on-topic and relevant point should be commenting.

OK, let's pause for a moment.
You said: that a fair discussion means "treating people equally without favouritism or discrimination"
I asked: "one user is allowed to participate in his ban discussion at AN/I and another only on his talk page. Is this an equal treatment? "
You responded:"depends - if person is blocked, there is sometimes a discussion to allow unblock to participate. If not, a talkpage is only a link away."

Now let me please ask you to imagine a trial, in which a defendant is allowed to defend himself not from the court room, but just from his own cell let's say via telephone, if of course somebody wants to call him? Would the verdict of such trial stand? Now let imagine even worse situation. A defendant is allowed to defend himself only by asking a third party to talk for him? Would a verdict of such trial stand? Were these defends treated equally? Now let's imagine a trial, in which every second juror has prior involvement with a defendant. Would their verdict allow to stand?

Generally speaking how any equity could depend on anything at all? I mean, if as you say a fair discussion means "treating people equally without favouritism or discrimination" (my bolding), should not everybody be treated equally without depending on anything?

And in real life, some people get bail before court and others don't. Again depends on the scenario and is hard to generalise.

Fairness is a relative concept - no system is 100% "fair" - any process will have people treated unjustly harshly or leniently as the numbers go up - pretty much a statistical certainty and any understanding of statistics will make this obvious. Folks are only human and we can only check and remedy where we can.

Furthermore, the committee often needs someone to make a case or notify them before they can act.

Yes, fairness is a relative concept but any relativity could and should not be stretched forever. A bail is not a very good example because bail has nothing to do with a trial, and in US no mater if a defendant is on bail or in jail he has a right to be tried by absolutely uninvolved, absolutely independent, named jury, and to appear before the jury in person, and to defend himself in person.

Disagree - it is about freedom before the trial...or process or whatevr...with a bit of abstraction inferred.

[tarantino]

↑ That is definitely too many nested quotes.

[neved]

Fairness is a relative concept - no system is 100% "fair" - any process will have people treated unjustly harshly or leniently as the numbers go up - pretty much a statistical certainty and any understanding of statistics will make this obvious. Folks are only human and we can only check and remedy where we can.

Furthermore, the committee often needs someone to make a case or notify them before they can act.

Yes, fairness is a relative concept but any relativity could and should not be stretched forever. A bail is not a very good example because bail has nothing to do with a trial, and in US no mater if a defendant is on bail or in jail he has a right to be tried by absolutely uninvolved, absolutely independent, named jury, and to appear before the jury in person, and to defend himself in person.

Disagree - it is about freedom before the trial...or process or whatevr...with a bit of abstraction inferred.

Well, the most important thing, the verdict does not depend on the bail, does it?

OK, let's try this question. I am not sure what kind of court system there's in Australia, but in US we have juries. Some time ago I was a potential juror in a trial of a young emigrant woman who married an old man and right away put him in a nursing home, where he died. She of course kept his house and his money.

So every juror was given a huge questioner to respond. Of course nobody from potential jurors knew either the woman or her late husband, but still every juror was asked, if he/she had/has a relative in a nursing home, if he/she is married, what is the difference between his/her age and his/her spouse age, what he/she thinks about emigrants and so and so on and so on. Some questions were so weird I was not able to figure out why they want to know.

Let's even take Wikipedia. Involved arbitrators would not vote on the cases in which they are involved.
Involved admins are not allowed to use their tools on the users they involved with.
Didn't you yourself request an arbitration concerning AGK because he acted as involved?

It's a well known fact, on Wikipedia most users who support bans are usually involved. Of course involved users should be allowed to comment, to present truthful evidences, to be witnesses, but they are not witnesses, they are jurors, they vote.


So what is the difference between the situations I described and involved users supporting so called community ban?

Could you justify that practice too?

[fja]

I do agree with your description of the arbcom discussions, but most so called community ban discussions are hardly any better. Here's why:

1. There's no such thing as the Wikipedia community. There are few users who regularly take part in such discussions, but there are thousands of Wikipedians who have never heard about drama boards.

I think that's because people who edit wikipedia article space would not actively be searching for these boards. They are only really known to those who have come across them whilst seeking help from an admin, or (more likely) come to the attention of an admin.

I can never quite understand why admins and other special types of users get 'tenure' as soon as they are given the tools. It seems that the tools are only given up when an egregious admin comes to their senses and voluntarily resigns them, or the admin community realises that the persons behaviour could reflect on the project in a seriously negative way in the public eye. Most other organisations, even those with unpaid volunteers, would not tolerate this for so long.

[Peter Damian]

Disagree - it is about freedom before the trial...or process or whatevr...with a bit of abstraction inferred.

Can you explain this a bit better. E.g. what does "with a bit of abstraction inferred" mean?

Fairness is a relative concept - no system is 100% "fair"

So, out of 10, how fair is the official criminal justice system as against the Wikipedia justice system, out of 10? For example, in Wikipedia it is considered OK to ban someone if enough people from the drama boards turn up in force. Double voting by sockpuppets, while not considered OK, clearly happens. There is no check whatsoever on whether the people voting are independent of the issue. Contrast with the justice system where great pains are taken to ensure that the people 'voting' are independent, i.e. have no interest in the outcome, and have as little as possible prior knowledge. The idea is to present the evidence for and against, as impartially as possible, to these independent people, so they can make an impartial, i.e. fair judgment.

The justice system also prefers as far as possible to make the whole process transparent, conducted in the light of day. The reason for this is that it is much easier to make a process unfair, partial and biased, if conducted in secret. Police states know this well.

Wikipedia by contrast is binary. Either you get public lynching, where anyone can turn up and vote, regardless of whether they have a conflict of interest, or secret trials. Neither of these are theoretically allowed in the real world judicial process. You will object that nothing is 100% fair. Of course. But the point is that the law recognises the principles of (a) independent judgment (b) openness and transparency. Wikipedia doesn't.

[lilburne]

What would Ayn have thought? link

[Poetlister]

I can never quite understand why admins and other special types of users get 'tenure' as soon as they are given the tools. It seems that the tools are only given up when an egregious admin comes to their senses and voluntarily resigns them, or the admin community realises that the persons behaviour could reflect on the project in a seriously negative way in the public eye. Most other organisations, even those with unpaid volunteers, would not tolerate this for so long.

On some sites, admins are subject to regular re-confirmation, but that is almost invariably a formality. If they tried it on English WP, I suspect that most of them would turn into a bunfight to make the average RfA look calm and placid, and you might well end up with hardly any admins. No doubt the powers that be (all admins) realise this, so they won't do it.

[Kumioko]

The reason they don't want to do this on the English Wikipedia is because they know a lot of the admins are using the tools abusively and wouldn't get reconfirmed. So in their eyes its better to have a bad admin that does some good occasionally than to have no admins.

[fja]

The reason they don't want to do this on the English Wikipedia is because they know a lot of the admins are using the tools abusively and wouldn't get reconfirmed. So in their eyes its better to have a bad admin that does some good occasionally than to have no admins.

I guess this is because despite the admin behaviour of some (not all, just the ones that treat the tools counter logging thingie like a gamer-board), the money keeps coming in to the WMF so they see no reason to interfere with the running of their biggest project.

Apart from the call for donations every once in a while, does anyone have any insight in to how wikipedia is financed? I used to have a US currency charge card with a few dollars still left on it so I used to give an odd $20 every so often using that (I knew I wouldn't be going back to the US for a while) but I am guessing it is not only personal donations but other entities like universities and campus-style software developers who may have an interest in keeping the project going. I guess they might also not be as exposed to the 'dark' side of wikipedia so much - except when it gets in the press for whatever reason.

[Triptych]

↑ That is definitely too many nested quotes.

LOL! Really!

[Triptych]

Wikipedia by contrast is binary. Either you get public lynching, where anyone can turn up and vote, regardless of whether they have a conflict of interest, or secret trials. Neither of these are theoretically allowed in the real world judicial process. You will object that nothing is 100% fair. Of course. But the point is that the law recognises the principles of (a) independent judgment (b) openness and transparency. Wikipedia doesn't.

Many of these blocks are horrendously unfair. It can be the mob-sourced ridiculousness at WP:AN/ANI, but more often it's the irritation-based move of a single administrator based on little or nothing at all, confident that he or she will be backed up fellow cyber-bullies. But the instant you say "unfair" some jerk is ready to reflexively pounce "well, life is not fair" or "Wikipedia doesn't have to be fair. I find the better way to criticize the unfairness is to call it "non-policy." That's to say that the project indeed has rules that are supposed to be followed, but instead they are ignored by those in power.

[neved]

Wikipedia by contrast is binary. Either you get public lynching, where anyone can turn up and vote, regardless of whether they have a conflict of interest, or secret trials. Neither of these are theoretically allowed in the real world judicial process. You will object that nothing is 100% fair. Of course. But the point is that the law recognises the principles of (a) independent judgment (b) openness and transparency. Wikipedia doesn't.

In my situation there's that petty idiot Beeblebrox (T-C-L). When he supports my ban he says something like that: "I am involved, I would have recused as an arbitrator" yet he has no decency not to vote in the community lynchings.
The thing is that those sick wikipediots live in accordance with wikipedia policies: there's no policy not to support the ban, if one is involved, then it's OK to support it.

[neved]

Casliber, we have had a long and rather philosophical discussion about fairness, and here's my last question to you on this subject. It is "yes" or "no" question because if your answer is "no" I am not interested in your reasoning why "no".

So are you, Casliber, agree or disagree that so called community ban discussion could not be called "a fair discussion" if involved users voting in it, and when I say "involved" I mean involved on both sides (for or against a defendant)? Please just say "yes" or "no", and of course, if there's no response, I'd take it as "no".


Thanks.

[Zoloft]

Casliber, we have had a long and rather philosophical discussion about fairness, and here's my last question to you on this subject. It is "yes" or "no" question because if your answer is "no" I am not interested in your reasoning why "no".

So are you, Casliber, agree or disagree that so called community ban discussion could not be called "a fair discussion" if involved users voting in it, and when I say "involved" I mean involved on both sides (for or against a defendant)? Please just say "yes" or "no", and of course, if there's no response, I'd take it as "no".


Thanks.

That's not a yes or no question, and it is complex besides...

Casliber could say, "Agree or disagree? Yes."

[neved]

Casliber, we have had a long and rather philosophical discussion about fairness, and here's my last question to you on this subject. It is "yes" or "no" question because if your answer is "no" I am not interested in your reasoning why "no".

So are you, Casliber, agree or disagree that so called community ban discussion could not be called "a fair discussion" if involved users voting in it, and when I say "involved" I mean involved on both sides (for or against a defendant)? Please just say "yes" or "no", and of course, if there's no response, I'd take it as "no".


Thanks.

That's not a yes or no question, and it is complex besides...

Casliber could say, "Agree or disagree? Yes."

Yes, you are right. It is "Agree or disagree" question. About complexity...Well, IMO it is a very simple question with the only one correct response, but if you, Casliber, or anybody else for that matter disagree with my defenition of a fair discussion in regards of involved users voting, I am willing to listen the arguments.

[Casliber]

↑ That is definitely too many nested quotes.

LOL! Really!

Aawww ....it's sorta like a ziggurat of words from above.....

[Casliber]

Casliber, we have had a long and rather philosophical discussion about fairness, and here's my last question to you on this subject. It is "yes" or "no" question because if your answer is "no" I am not interested in your reasoning why "no".

So are you, Casliber, agree or disagree that so called community ban discussion could not be called "a fair discussion" if involved users voting in it, and when I say "involved" I mean involved on both sides (for or against a defendant)? Please just say "yes" or "no", and of course, if there's no response, I'd take it as "no".


Thanks.

Depends how the admin closing it views the comments and whether they are aware of folks motives. Remember, wikipedia is about !voting, where things are discussed and assessed qualitatively, not tallied up quantitatively....

[neved]

Casliber, we have had a long and rather philosophical discussion about fairness, and here's my last question to you on this subject. It is "yes" or "no" question because if your answer is "no" I am not interested in your reasoning why "no".

So are you, Casliber, agree or disagree that so called community ban discussion could not be called "a fair discussion" if involved users voting in it, and when I say "involved" I mean involved on both sides (for or against a defendant)? Please just say "yes" or "no", and of course, if there's no response, I'd take it as "no".


Thanks.

Depends how the admin closing it views the comments and whether they are aware of folks motives. Remember, wikipedia is about !voting, where things are discussed and assessed qualitatively, not tallied up quantitatively....

OMG! I have no words. Fairness should not depend on what an anonymous, underage, a bully admin is aware or not aware about. Besides my question was not about the process. It was about your own personal opinion, and I was not asking you how the process is handled now. I asked you how should it be handled.

OK, here's a direct question:

In accordance with this are you ready to update banning policy with this addition?

"Involved user construed very broadly are not allowed to vote in the community ban discussions because they may be seen as having, a conflict of interest in disputes they have been a party to or have strong feelings about. They are allowed only to comment. If a banned user could prove the involved users voted for his ban, such votes should be taken off, and the result should be recalculated. If supporters of the ban could prove that some or all of the opposers are involved with the user, their votes should be taking off, and the result should be recalculated."

This addition is absolutely essential, it is the very least that should be implemented if you really want that sick discussion (lynching) at least to appear as being fair.

[Vigilant]

Casliber, we have had a long and rather philosophical discussion about fairness, and here's my last question to you on this subject. It is "yes" or "no" question because if your answer is "no" I am not interested in your reasoning why "no".

So are you, Casliber, agree or disagree that so called community ban discussion could not be called "a fair discussion" if involved users voting in it, and when I say "involved" I mean involved on both sides (for or against a defendant)? Please just say "yes" or "no", and of course, if there's no response, I'd take it as "no".


Thanks.

Depends how the admin closing it views the comments and whether they are aware of folks motives. Remember, wikipedia is about !voting, where things are discussed and assessed qualitatively, not tallied up quantitatively....

Did i miss the irony tags in this post?

[Kumioko]

Casliber, we have had a long and rather philosophical discussion about fairness, and here's my last question to you on this subject. It is "yes" or "no" question because if your answer is "no" I am not interested in your reasoning why "no".

So are you, Casliber, agree or disagree that so called community ban discussion could not be called "a fair discussion" if involved users voting in it, and when I say "involved" I mean involved on both sides (for or against a defendant)? Please just say "yes" or "no", and of course, if there's no response, I'd take it as "no".


Thanks.

Depends how the admin closing it views the comments and whether they are aware of folks motives. Remember, wikipedia is about !voting, where things are discussed and assessed qualitatively, not tallied up quantitatively....

I always liked you Casliber, you always struck me as a pretty level headed editor. But if you honestly believe wikipedia is not about !voting, and the votes are discussed and assessed qualitatively, and not quantitatively, you just lost a lot of points. Anyone who has ever edited for 5 minutes knows it has nothing whatsoever to do with quality. It has everything to do with quantity of votes. I could list for days how quality has been repeatedly thrown out the windows because the quantity of the votes didn't care about quality. No absolutely not, voting on Wikipedia has nothing to do with quality.

[Triptych]

Casliber, we have had a long and rather philosophical discussion about fairness, and here's my last question to you on this subject. It is "yes" or "no" question because if your answer is "no" I am not interested in your reasoning why "no".

So are you, Casliber, agree or disagree that so called community ban discussion could not be called "a fair discussion" if involved users voting in it, and when I say "involved" I mean involved on both sides (for or against a defendant)? Please just say "yes" or "no", and of course, if there's no response, I'd take it as "no".


Thanks.

Depends how the admin closing it views the comments and whether they are aware of folks motives. Remember, wikipedia is about !voting, where things are discussed and assessed qualitatively, not tallied up quantitatively....

Did i miss the irony tags in this post?

The horrendous notion that these votes (and votes they are) shall be assessed by quality, not quantity, is another manifestation of accruing total power to the administrative class. It was on exhibit in a recent successful RFA where bureacrats assessed, despite substantial opposition, that the "yea" votes were more emphatically and intelligently expressed than the "nay" votes, which they claimed were meandering and lukewarm and thus devalued.

[Casliber]

Casliber, we have had a long and rather philosophical discussion about fairness, and here's my last question to you on this subject. It is "yes" or "no" question because if your answer is "no" I am not interested in your reasoning why "no".

So are you, Casliber, agree or disagree that so called community ban discussion could not be called "a fair discussion" if involved users voting in it, and when I say "involved" I mean involved on both sides (for or against a defendant)? Please just say "yes" or "no", and of course, if there's no response, I'd take it as "no".


Thanks.

Depends how the admin closing it views the comments and whether they are aware of folks motives. Remember, wikipedia is about !voting, where things are discussed and assessed qualitatively, not tallied up quantitatively....

Did i miss the irony tags in this post?

Yes I did chuckle as I wrote it as I have hated the !vote meme too, though obviously there is an element of it needed by any person trying to wade through a ban/indefblock discussion yes.

Thing is, you either let folks have their say and let the closer try and sift through levels of involvement themselves or draw some mental line in the sand and let folks argue about what shade of grey counts as involved and have yet another itm folks spend reams of text arguing over (and remember that walls of text repel the uninvolved...)...as well as the closer re-sift through that - which is what will happen.

Anyway, I am not sure why we are arguing about this, the whole point of the arb motion in the first place was to review discussions that had been raised as suspect....

[Kumioko]

Casliber, we have had a long and rather philosophical discussion about fairness, and here's my last question to you on this subject. It is "yes" or "no" question because if your answer is "no" I am not interested in your reasoning why "no".

So are you, Casliber, agree or disagree that so called community ban discussion could not be called "a fair discussion" if involved users voting in it, and when I say "involved" I mean involved on both sides (for or against a defendant)? Please just say "yes" or "no", and of course, if there's no response, I'd take it as "no".


Thanks.

Depends how the admin closing it views the comments and whether they are aware of folks motives. Remember, wikipedia is about !voting, where things are discussed and assessed qualitatively, not tallied up quantitatively....

Did i miss the irony tags in this post?

Yes I did chuckle as I wrote it as I have hated the !vote meme too, though obviously there is an element of it needed by any person trying to wade through a ban/indefblock discussion yes.

Thing is, you either let folks have their say and let the closer try and sift through levels of involvement themselves or draw some mental line in the sand and let folks argue about what shade of grey counts as involved and have yet another itm folks spend reams of text arguing over (and remember that walls of text repel the uninvolved...)...as well as the closer re-sift through that - which is what will happen.

Anyway, I am not sure why we are arguing about this, the whole point of the arb motion in the first place was to review discussions that had been raised as suspect....

If you are referring to an Arb motion on me, there was none. I was banned by a handful of involved jackasses and because I was critical of the Arbcom they won't go against the community. Even if I was the perfect editor and the community acted in complete shame, the Arbcom still doesn't have the balls to go against the community "consensus". I have no respect anymore for the Arbcom or the community.

[neved]

Anyway, I am not sure why we are arguing about this, the whole point of the arb motion in the first place was to review discussions that had been raised as suspect....

Really? So "a fair discussion" and "procedurally unfair" applies only to the specific discussion?
But it is not as its author Newyorkbrad sees it. He linked to it a few months ago from a general discussion about banning policies and called it "The principle that guides the Arbitration Committee".

So what you say now?

[Casliber]

Anyway, I am not sure why we are arguing about this, the whole point of the arb motion in the first place was to review discussions that had been raised as suspect....

Really? So "a fair discussion" and "procedurally unfair" applies only to the specific discussion?
But it is not as its author Newyorkbrad sees it. He linked to it a few months ago from a general discussion about banning policies and called it "The principle that guides the Arbitration Committee".

So what you say now?

I say that there is no such thing as black and white, the committee would generally only hear issues that have been forwarded to them generally and that no discussion would be considered in isolation

[neved]

Anyway, I am not sure why we are arguing about this, the whole point of the arb motion in the first place was to review discussions that had been raised as suspect....

Really? So "a fair discussion" and "procedurally unfair" applies only to the specific discussion?
But it is not as its author Newyorkbrad sees it. He linked to it a few months ago from a general discussion about banning policies and called it "The principle that guides the Arbitration Committee".

So what you say now?

I say that there is no such thing as black and white, the committee would generally only hear issues that have been forwarded to them generally and that no discussion would be considered in isolation

Of course there's no such thing as black and white, but the problem with the committee that they call "black" "white" and "white" "black", which of course is the worst case of dishonesty.

[Kumioko]

Anyway, I am not sure why we are arguing about this, the whole point of the arb motion in the first place was to review discussions that had been raised as suspect....

Really? So "a fair discussion" and "procedurally unfair" applies only to the specific discussion?
But it is not as its author Newyorkbrad sees it. He linked to it a few months ago from a general discussion about banning policies and called it "The principle that guides the Arbitration Committee".

So what you say now?

I say that there is no such thing as black and white, the committee would generally only hear issues that have been forwarded to them generally and that no discussion would be considered in isolation

I agree, the problem is the Wikipediots only see black and white. That is the problem

[Kumioko]

So I left one of the Arbs, AGK, a little note telling them that creating a filter just to prevent me from signing my name was petty and pointless. See the link link. So then NYB leaves a comment on that accounts user page at User talk:Wallsofgeese (T-C-L) stating I was "intentionally interfering with the site, causing damage and loss".

Perhaps the first part is true, assuming they are utterly incapable of ignoring a talk page comment which seems apparently true. But damage and loss? That is a major stretch. So again, Brad is reduced to using patent lies and hyperbole to justify their vendetta. Gotta love those Arbs and Admins. Double standards to the end.

[everyking]

So I left one of the Arbs, AGK, a little note telling them that creating a filter just to prevent me from signing my name was petty and pointless. See the link link. So then NYB leaves a comment on that accounts user page at User talk:Wallsofgeese (T-C-L) stating I was "intentionally interfering with the site, causing damage and loss".

Perhaps the first part is true, assuming they are utterly incapable of ignoring a talk page comment which seems apparently true. But damage and loss? That is a major stretch. So again, Brad is reduced to using patent lies and hyperbole to justify their vendetta. Gotta love those Arbs and Admins. Double standards to the end.

What is up with Brad? Why is he so fixated on you and saying these outrageous things? It sounds like he's headed down that crazy Captain Ahab road, like Raul654 a few years ago, obsessively blocking thousands of people in his quest to rid the wiki of Scibaby. I reviewed the edits made by this account and found nothing harmful at all. The edits were borderline pointless, but certainly not destructive. Why does he feel so strongly about you?

[Kumioko]

People hate a critic.

[Triptych]

What is up with Brad? Why is he so fixated on you and saying these outrageous things? It sounds like he's headed down that crazy Captain Ahab road, like Raul654 a few years ago, obsessively blocking thousands of people in his quest to rid the wiki of Scibaby. I reviewed the edits made by this account and found nothing harmful at all. The edits were borderline pointless, but certainly not destructive. Why does he feel so strongly about you?

Account blocked indefinitely. Banned user intentionally interfering with the site, causing damage and loss. Newyorkbrad (talk) 01:50, 29 April 2014 (UTC)

At least he learned from the last time we spanked this big dumb juvenile presence that he mustn't say "unlawfully" any more (WIN!) but he's still running off nonsensically and falsely at his loud mouth about "interference" and "damage" and "loss" and so forth.

[Kelly Martin]

he's still running off nonsensically and falsely at his loud mouth about "interference" and "damage" and "loss" and so forth.

I have to wonder where he's coming up with "loss". Just what is being lost? Wikimedia doesn't claim that its editors are volunteers (if it did it would have a legal responsibility to supervise them, albeit only to avoid "gross negligence"), so it cannot claim a "loss" or any other form of damage merely because its customers waste their time dealing with a "banned user". And even if they were claimed as volunteers, or for that matter, employees, the Hamidi precedent would seem to argue that a loss of productivity caused by an outside party using a public service to attempt to communicate is neither "loss" or "damage". Does Ira seriously believe that the action for which he banned this person was damaging Wikimedia's servers?

Ira need to stop making baseless veiled (or not so veiled) legal threats when interacting with other Wikimedia customers. If he were not a member of the Arbitration Committee, he would already have been desysoped, and quite possibly blocked, for this persistently inappropriate behavior.

[Kumioko]

I agree that its hard to justify a loss so I'm not sure how is is going to try and justify that. Granted I'm not doing much of use to the project at the moment but then again I am banned so its hard to be useful. The only thing that has been "lost" to the project is a high output contributor and the respect of the Arbcom. The only damage I can think of is to AGK's ego because no matter how hard he tries, he can programmatically remove me from the project.