An open letter to Newyorkbrad

[Zoloft]

Damn, my book-wiki article about Ira just keeps getting longer and longer. He's a crap fountain.

The annoying thing about him is that unlike some people we could all think of, he's probably a decent human being motivated by a desire to improve Wikipedia. Further, he has the intelligence and communal respect to make some difference, yet he doesn't. Obviously he's been led astray and not maintained his backbone, but let's not pretend that he's evil. He's just a horrendous under-performer.

Well, there is the banality of evil. 'Evil', in that sense, is not the evil of a particular person, but rather of events, or a sequence of events, or of a group, or an organisation. Evil in the sense of bad things that happen. And 'banality' in the sense of each person trying to do what they see is right, in a particular context, in uninteresting and therefore banal and mundane ways. But the sum total being complete horror.

Peter,

Maybe you should read about the Putin regime or about other recent crimes, to gain a bit of perspective. For example, read about murders using bolt guns (like Anton Chigurh's in "No Country for Old Men").

Evil can be in small deeds as well as the monstrous. Cheating a small child, for example. That's evil. It's not genocidal, nor fascist. But it's still, in its own small way, evil.

[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?

[Kumioko]

At this point its obvious that Brad has seen this discussion and is choosing to ignore it. So that tells me he doesn't think the questions posed deserve his time. Which is pretty characteristic of questions posed to Arbcom, so it fits.

[Newyorkbrad]

At this point its obvious that Brad has seen this discussion and is choosing to ignore it. So that tells me he doesn't think the questions posed deserve his time. Which is pretty characteristic of questions posed to Arbcom, so it fits.

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?

[Newyorkbrad]

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.

[Kelly Martin]

At this point its obvious that Brad has seen this discussion and is choosing to ignore it. So that tells me he doesn't think the questions posed deserve his time. Which is pretty characteristic of questions posed to Arbcom, so it fits.

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?

You see, Kumioko, by publicly complaining (over and over again) how he's not responding, you open the door to the above-quoted gambit. You didn't get a substantive reply to anything, and Ira's managed to make you look both petty and unreasonable. If you try to press him now, you'll come across as hounding him, and he'll once again be able to evade your questions and continue to diminish your reputation at no cost to his own.

You're not playing with an amateur here. Tread carefully.

[neved]

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.

Oh dear, where to begin...
First of all nobody forced you to use the word "illegal" in the description of the block.
Second of all nobody forced you to write a blog and to try to explain something that cannot be explained,
but most of all nobody ever forced you to become an arbitrator. It was you own choice, and guess what you should spend as much time as it takes to respond legitimate, polite questions posted by anybody even by those horrible banned users because there are real people behind user names.

[Kumioko]

At this point its obvious that Brad has seen this discussion and is choosing to ignore it. So that tells me he doesn't think the questions posed deserve his time. Which is pretty characteristic of questions posed to Arbcom, so it fits.

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?

First, the questions here were posed after you posted that, secondly, I'm not "entitled" to your time I made a statement that you probably weren't going to answer and that you undoubtedly knew about the discussion. Your nearly immediate post here proves I was right. Lastly, the blog was a waste of everyones time...especially yours. The reasons have partially been outlined in discussions on this site which I am sure you have already read through so I'm not going to regurgitate it here. But basically it didn't impress me. If anything it was further proof that you like to hear yourself talk, you like to be a politician and you like to didge the questions with half assed answers that only confuse the readers more...Much like most of the Arbcom sanctions.

So, again, its clear you either do not want too or are unable too answer the questions posed in the beginning of this discussion, probably because you have no answer. Which is fine, that is your right and as you say we are not entitled to your time. Happily though this isn't Wikipedia, because if it was, I would be getting a block right now for talking disrespectfully to an Admin and Arb.

[Newyorkbrad]

The annoying thing about him is that unlike some people we could all think of, he's probably a decent human being motivated by a desire to improve Wikipedia. Further, he has the intelligence and communal respect to make some difference, yet he doesn't. Obviously he's been led astray and not maintained his backbone, but let's not pretend that he's evil. He's just a horrendous under-performer.

When I started on the Arbcom in 2008, overflowing with energy and zeal, one of the first things that several people associated with both Wikipedia and Wikipedia Review asked me to do was to carefully investigate and try to reverse the desperately unfair railroading out of Wikipedia of Poetlister, Londoneye, Taxwoman, and five or six other people. I spent a considerable part of my first two months on the ArbCom evaluating all the evidence, only to conclude that Poetlister was just as guilty of manipulation and deception as the old guard had figured out in the first place. Indeed, much of the evidence that I pored over so carefully turned out to have been sent to me by you under multiple other names.

When you give me back the 15 or 20 hours of my wikitime that I wasted on that effort, Poetlister, I will dedicate them to trying to make more of a difference. Until then, I submit that it does not lie in your mouth, of all people's, to bemoan what an under-performer I supposedly am.

[neved]

Newyorbrad, you've already have spent more time trying to defend your actions than it would have ever taken to respond my initial questions.

[Kumioko]

At this point its obvious that Brad has seen this discussion and is choosing to ignore it. So that tells me he doesn't think the questions posed deserve his time. Which is pretty characteristic of questions posed to Arbcom, so it fits.

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?

You see, Kumioko, by publicly complaining (over and over again) how he's not responding, you open the door to the above-quoted gambit. You didn't get a substantive reply to anything, and Ira's managed to make you look both petty and unreasonable. If you try to press him now, you'll come across as hounding him, and he'll once again be able to evade your questions and continue to diminish your reputation at no cost to his own.

You're not playing with an amateur here. Tread carefully.

Virtually everyone already thinks I am a jerk so I'm really not losing anything.

[Newyorkbrad]

Happily though this isn't Wikipedia, because if it was, I would be getting a block right now for talking disrespectfully to an Admin and Arb.

Do you really think we block everyone who speaks disdainfully or disrespectfully to an arbitrator? I believe that on Wikipedia today there are a total of about four experienced editors who haven't strongly criticized the ArbCom for something or other. And I think three of those are bots.

[TungstenCarbide]

The annoying thing about him is that unlike some people we could all think of, he's probably a decent human being motivated by a desire to improve Wikipedia. Further, he has the intelligence and communal respect to make some difference, yet he doesn't. Obviously he's been led astray and not maintained his backbone, but let's not pretend that he's evil. He's just a horrendous under-performer.

When I started on the Arbcom in 2008, overflowing with energy and zeal, one of the first things that several people associated with Wikipedia Review asked me to do was to carefully investigate and try to reverse the desperately unfair railroading out of Wikipedia of Poetlister, Londoneye, Taxwoman, and five or six other people. I spent a considerable part of my first two months on the ArbCom evaluating all the evidence, only to conclude that Poetlister was just as guilty of manipulation and deception as the old guard had figured out in the first place. Indeed, much of the evidence that I pored over so carefully turned out to have been sent to me by you under multiple other names.

When you give me back the 15 or 20 hours of my wikitime that I wasted on that effort, Poetlister, I will dedicate them to trying to make more of a difference. Until then, I submit that it does not lie in your mouth, of all people's, to bemoan what an under-performer I supposedly am.

heh heh. 1) good point, NYB. 2) you are still avoiding the issue.

[Vigilant]

How about the time you huffed off in a diva rage-quit after I compared wikipedia to the Westboro Baptist Church?

[thekohser]

When you give me back the 15 or 20 hours of my wikitime that I wasted on that effort, Poetlister, I will dedicate them to trying to make more of a difference. Until then, I submit that it does not lie in your mouth, of all people's, to bemoan what an under-performer I supposedly am.

Gotta give a +1 to Brad on this one.

Folks, I'd like to make a suggestion. No more posting in this or related threads if all you're doing is the "neener neener" type of thing. If you have something new to say, in a meaningful way, by all means oblige. But there's been a palpable weariness that the stuff is exacting on the rest of us.

[Newyorkbrad]

2) you are still avoiding the issue.

There isn't an issue. The thread started out as a thinly veiled effort by Neved to reargue the fairness of her block on English Wikipedia. If anyone wants me to talk about that, I'm sorry, but it's been a long time and frankly I don't remember most of the details surrounding that block. I do, of course, remember lots of Neved's more recent behavior, but this isn't the right forum for ban appeals, and it's a moot point as she constantly says she doesn't want to edit anyway.

[Newyorkbrad]

How about the time you huffed off in a diva rage-quit after I compared wikipedia to the Westboro Baptist Church?

How about the time you made an ass of yourself by comparing Wikipedia to the Westboro Baptist Church?

[neved]

2) you are still avoiding the issue.

There isn't an issue. The thread started out as a thinly veiled effort by Neved to reargue the fairness of her block on English Wikipedia. If anyone wants me to talk about that, I'm sorry, but it's been a long time and frankly I don't remember most of the details surrounding that block. I do, of course, remember lots of Neved's more recent behavior, but this isn't the right forum for ban appeals, and it's a moot point as she constantly says she doesn't want to edit anyway.

WRONG!!! I am reaguring the fairness of community bans and the term "the wikipedia community" for that matter in general. Yes, at first I asked you some specific questions, but later on I asked you only to respond two term from the statement you supported and you refused.

And about my more recent behavior... I am proud of everything I have done for Wikipedia after I was banned. I was able to help a few real people, and hopefully I was able to make some wikipedians to think how to make Wikipedia a kinder and more sane place. It is sad you are not one of them.

[Newyorkbrad]

Yes, at first I asked you some specific questions, but later on I asked you only to respond two term from the statement you supported and you refused.

I didn't just support that statement, I wrote it. The words used in it have their common, everyday meanings.

[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.

[neved]

Yes, at first I asked you some specific questions, but later on I asked you only to respond two term from the statement you supported and you refused.

I didn't just support that statement, I wrote it. The words used in it have their common, everyday meanings.

Newyorkbrad, I assume that you do not remember my situation, but shouldn't you as a fair arbitrator offer me to email to you and to prove that my banning procedure was not just procedurally unfair, but it was as unfair as it gets? Only please do not tell me that if I am not going to edit Wikipedia my questions are moot. I do not want to edit wikipedia, but unfairness should be undone. Let's say somebody was executed for a crime he did not commit. Does it mean that his name should never be cleared because he is dead anyway?

[neved]

Newyourkbrad, I would like to make two important points.

1. I am not fighting for being able to edit wikipedia. If I wanted to edit wikipedia I would have opened a new account. Even If the arbcom told me, it's OK to open a new account, I would have refused. I am fighting for being treated fairly, and I am doing this not only for myself, but for many others as me.
2. One could be a banned user or an arbitrator, but the most important thing is to be a human and treat others as humans.

[Vigilant]

How about the time you huffed off in a diva rage-quit after I compared wikipedia to the Westboro Baptist Church?

How about the time you made an ass of yourself by comparing Wikipedia to the Westboro Baptist Church?

Well then, it should be trivial for you to refute my points and make me look the fool.

Care to take a second bite at the apple, counselor?

[Midsize Jake]

...But there's been a palpable weariness that the stuff is exacting on the rest of us.

Indeed, the big problem with piling-on is that while it's lots of fun for the folks who are piling on, you quickly end up in a situation where uninvolved people (i.e., casual readers of the site) can't tell who is who, what is what, or why any of it is even occurring in the first place. All they see is the big pile.

I mean, I was around for nearly all of the incidents people are bringing up in this thread, and I have a fairly good memory for incidents, but even I'm having trouble differentiating between the various sub-threads and accusations - everybody seems to assume everyone else already knows the context, and that would be fine if the thread were focused on one or two things, but when you get to eight or more things, it all blends together.

Some of us are also getting senile, of course, but that's probably a separate issue.

[Kumioko]

Happily though this isn't Wikipedia, because if it was, I would be getting a block right now for talking disrespectfully to an Admin and Arb.

Do you really think we block everyone who speaks disdainfully or disrespectfully to an arbitrator? I believe that on Wikipedia today there are a total of about four experienced editors who haven't strongly criticized the ArbCom for something or other. And I think three of those are bots.

Frankly Brad I think Wikipedia is getting to the point where admins will block any non-admin who disagrees with them and the culture has eroded to the point where other admins will agree with them just because they are an admin. Your right though a lot of people do criticize the Arbcom for a variety of different reasons but the core of the problem is that by and large the people elected to Arbcom are there by a popularity contest and lack the skills to do the job in a competent manner. So what you end up with are sanctions that are a joke to the community and don't do anything but further the us and them mentality. My ban for example was nothing more than a few admins and editors that didn't like my commenting about admin abuse. They kept submitting over and over until they got the result they wanted. That isn't a process or a procedure, that is a joke and shows there is no process. So if you wonder why I don't take my ban seriously, that's why. Well that and the fact that the admins don't take policy seriously when they violate the rules so why should I?

[EricBarbour]

Frankly Brad I think Wikipedia is getting to the point where admins will block any non-admin who disagrees with them and the culture has eroded to the point where other admins will agree with them just because they are an admin.

More-or-less correct. Back in the 2005-08 prime period, there was considerable disagreement on admin noticeboards, because so many sitting admins were content writers and not mere button-pushers or trolls. Today the button-pushers/trolls dominate, and they don't give a damn about an "encyclopedia". It's all just entertainment and "Lulz" for them. Like running a 4chan imageboard or a subreddit.

Brad has a problem---the remaining "community" is slowly turning against Arbcom, because it often "gets in the way" of their "fun". Would not be surprising to see a vote, soon, to eliminate Arbcom and let the remaining admins (patrollers, gnomes and assorted lunatics) have their way unchecked. That will probably be the beginning of Wikipedia's final demise.

[Malleus]

Frankly Brad I think Wikipedia is getting to the point where admins will block any non-admin who disagrees with them and the culture has eroded to the point where other admins will agree with them just because they are an admin.

More-or-less correct. Back in the 2005-08 prime period, there was considerable disagreement on admin noticeboards, because so many sitting admins were content writers and not mere button-pushers or trolls. Today the button-pushers/trolls dominate, and they don't give a damn about an "encyclopedia". It's all just entertainment and "Lulz" for them. Like running a 4chan imageboard or a subreddit.

Brad has a problem---the remaining "community" is slowly turning against Arbcom, because it often "gets in the way" of their "fun". Would not be surprising to see a vote, soon, to eliminate Arbcom and let the remaining admins (patrollers, gnomes and assorted lunatics) have their way unchecked. That will probably be the beginning of Wikipedia's final demise.

More or less correct, but it's nothing to do with "fun".

[Kumioko]

Although I agree that the community is turning against Arbcom, the community doesn't have the authority to get rid of Arbcom. It was created by Jimbo partly so he could sluff off some of his duties (IMO also to cut ties and not get dragged down with the project as it digressed). I honestly don't think anything will be done to stop Wikipedia from its final demise with or without the Arbcom. I think there are things that could be done, but none of the stakeholders are willing to do them (the WMF, the community or the Arbcom).

[Kelly Martin]

Would not be surprising to see a vote, soon, to eliminate Arbcom and let the remaining admins (patrollers, gnomes and assorted lunatics) have their way unchecked. That will probably be the beginning of Wikipedia's final demise.

Hasten the day.

[Kurt M. Weber]

Although I agree that the community is turning against Arbcom, the community doesn't have the authority to get rid of Arbcom. It was created by Jimbo partly so he could sluff off some of his duties (IMO also to cut ties and not get dragged down with the project as it digressed). I honestly don't think anything will be done to stop Wikipedia from its final demise with or without the Arbcom. I think there are things that could be done, but none of the stakeholders are willing to do them (the WMF, the community or the Arbcom).

They don't need to get rid of it, because it was never legitimate in the first place.

Just ignore it.

[Kumioko]

Thats easier said than done. I partially agree that their decisions are as arbitrary as the ones from the community, but when they have the ability to block you from editing, create edit filters so your username cannot even be entered or to block anyone without question just for editing as an IP on the same topic, its hard to ignore.

[thekohser]

...they often fail to see the oblivious.

Actually, they seem to have a laser-focus on attacking the oblivious.

[enwikibadscience]

...they often fail to see the oblivious.

Actually, they seem to have a laser-focus on attacking the oblivious.

I failed to see the oblivious initially. It's not hate now, though, just frustration at the degree of obliviousness. Initially it was naivette.

[neved]

...they often fail to see the oblivious.

Actually, they seem to have a laser-focus on attacking the oblivious.

Greg, I thought better of you.
Here's my whole quote:

I am not fighting for being able to edit wikipedia. If I wanted to edit wikipedia I would have opened a new account. Even If the arbcom told me, it's OK to open a new account, I would have refused. I am fighting for being treated fairly, and I am doing this not only for myself, but for many others as me.

(my bolding in my old quote)
Also as I told you before in a different thread I consider that "editing Wikipedia" means editing articles.

I do not edit articles which means I do not edit Wikipedia.
I am fighting for being treated fairly, and I am doing this not only for myself, but for many others as me.
I started doing that after more than a year passed since I was blocked. It was the only way to make them to notice me. It was the only way to make a difference for myself and others. You know they ban persons to silence them, they use a scare tactic, and for a whole year I complied with their illegal ban. I am tired of being scared of those sick bullies. Enough is enough, and I am not interested in editing Wikipedia.

Correction After I made the post I got PM from Greg. He explained to me that he simply made a joke about me confusing the word "obvious" with "oblivious". So I apologize to Greg for my response to his joke about my English. It is OK to make jokes like that as long as you agree with my logic :-)
In any case I'd like to thank Greg for his joke about my English that I did not understand (because of my English) because Greg's joke provided me with the opportunity to demonstrate one more time what "half-truth" really means .

[Triptych]

Correction After I made the post I got PM from Greg. He explained to me that he simply made a joke about me confusing the word "obvious" with "oblivious". So I apologize to Greg for my response to his joke about my English. It is OK to make jokes like that as long as you agree with my logic :-)
In any case I'd like to thank Greg for his joke about my English that I did not understand (because of my English) because Greg's joke provided me with the opportunity to demonstrate one more time what "half-truth" really means .

Your English is great, Neved. Never mind those meanies Kohser and Enwikibadscience.

[Peter Damian]

[...]I spent a considerable part of my first two months on the ArbCom evaluating all the evidence, only to conclude that Poetlister was just as guilty of manipulation and deception as the old guard had figured out in the first place. Indeed, much of the evidence that I pored over so carefully turned out to have been sent to me by you under multiple other names.

Yes but you sorted him out good and proper didn't you Brad.

[Vigilant]

How about the time you huffed off in a diva rage-quit after I compared wikipedia to the Westboro Baptist Church?

How about the time you made an ass of yourself by comparing Wikipedia to the Westboro Baptist Church?

Well then, it should be trivial for you to refute my points and make me look the fool.

Care to take a second bite at the apple, counselor?

Why am I guessing that this is going to be a replay of the Kevin Gorman/Vinegar Monk conversation wherein one side puts forth and the other side runs away like a little bitch?

[thekohser]

Certain contributors here don't seem able to pick up on the "crazy pile-ons don't make us look good, either" message. Please see what Jake wrote above.

[neved]

Correction After I made the post I got PM from Greg. He explained to me that he simply made a joke about me confusing the word "obvious" with "oblivious". So I apologize to Greg for my response to his joke about my English. It is OK to make jokes like that as long as you agree with my logic :-)
In any case I'd like to thank Greg for his joke about my English that I did not understand (because of my English) because Greg's joke provided me with the opportunity to demonstrate one more time what "half-truth" really means .

Your English is great, Neved. Never mind those meanies Kohser and Enwikibadscience.

Thank you!

[neved]

Newyorkbrad, you used the word "fair discussion" and " procedurally unfair"in the motion you wrote. It was probably a mistake on your part , Wikipedia is not supposed to be fair, is it? I am not sure what happened, maybe you had not enough sleep, but you wrote it, and it was supported by all arbitrators, and it is still there.

I state: my ban discussion was procedurally unfair on many levels and I could prove it publicly or otherwise. I am not appealing the substance of the block because it could take some time, but proving that my ban discussion was procedurally unfair would not take much time at all.
You correctly mentioned to me that WO is not the right place to appeal bans. It is not, but where is the right place? The last time I was silly enough to email to the list of arbitrators was in August of 2013, almost a year ago. It was not an appeal. I only asked for clarification, on how somebody could harass somebody without actually violating any point listed in WP:harassment (T-H-L)
Here's the response that I got:

The Arbitration Committee believes that the action taking regarding
you on English Wikipedia was correct, and will not discuss the matter
at all with you. Any further e-mails relating to this subject will be
ignored.

For the Arbitration Committee,
Anthony (AGK)

So, Newyourkbrad, I am asking you one more time probably the last one, are you ready to prove that you are a person, a human being who stands behind his own words, and listen, no, not to my appeal, but just to a very short prove why my ban discussion was "procedurally unfair", or you are just another Wikipedia functionary of the same level as AGK and Beeblebrox who should not be trusted?

Such precedent could be very useful, and not only for me, for others like me, but also for you and for the health of the community in general, and for FAIRNESS.

In a meantime I'd like to quote Tarc on the subject on why "the community ban" almost always is procedurally unfair
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?tit ... an_enacted

What this sort of thing comes down to is how many supporters you can line up vs. how many opponents they can line up. It's like World of Warcraft, sometimes there's just too many orcs and not enough humans. Tarc (talk) 16:23, 24 January 2013 (UTC)

[Peter Damian]

To those who say I am being harsh on Brad, let me give an example. It is a personal example, I admit, but I don't have a better one. When the arbcom correspondence was leaked, it turned out they had discussed my ban (a few years ago) and many of them agreed it was unfair and unjust, out of process etc. They were even prepared to issue an apology. Brad was the one person who disagreed. "I am in favour of doing nothing" or something like that. I was always puzzled why, given he hardly knew me. I eventually concluded that his being seen to be fair in that case would lose favour with the powerful group who then ruled the site. Since his unfairness would never become public, it benefited him not to act, whereas acting might damage his reputation with the ruling group.

By contrast, there was another case he was involved in, the serious bullying incident I have mentioned before. He also failed to act, because punishing the bully could have made him unpopular with the main group. Again, he did nothing.

Someone mailed me asking me about the bolded statement, asking me to check. I did, and the leaked correspondence shows that my statement "Brad was the one person who disagreed" was false. I apologise to Brad for that. Other arbitrators such as Coren also disagreed. Also, none of the ones who agreed manage to do so at the same time. Again, I apologise to Brad.

On the other, truly horrific incident, it is clear that he knew about it from early on, yet did nothing. So no apologies needed on that.

[Triptych]

The last time I was silly enough to email to the list of arbitrators was in August of 2013, almost a year ago. It was not an appeal. I only asked for clarification, on how somebody could harass somebody without actually violating any point listed in WP:harassment (T-H-L)
Here's the response that I got:

The Arbitration Committee believes that the action taking regarding
you on English Wikipedia was correct, and will not discuss the matter
at all with you. Any further e-mails relating to this subject will be
ignored.

For the Arbitration Committee,
Anthony (AGK)

So, Newyourkbrad, I am asking you one more time...

I have always disapproved of publishing person-to-person emails without the approval of both parties, however I feel that emails sent in an official capacity (i.e. "arbitrator") and especially emails purporting to speak on behalf of Arbcom ("for the Arbitration Committee") may in fact be gentlemanly published at the discretion of the recipient.

Anybody else have an opinion on this point?

EDIT: Side note, Kww and AGK want it known that sending out these curt, unexplained, and rude denials takes a psychological toll on them (http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?tit ... 12360#UTRS). "[A]s much as people think I enjoy being nasty, I found sending e-mail after e-mail that said "no, your block is valid and your block will remain in place -- please go away" depressing.—Kww, 16:28, 22 March 2014 (UTC)." "I know the feeling, having sent out my fair share of Declines. AGK, 23:37, 22 March 2014 (UTC)."

It's not like they are cheap loathsome cyberbullies that actually love pushing common editors around and gravitate to the yet more fun part of rejecting appeals, because that is what props up their self esteems. Really, they feel all bad about it and stuff, and if it gets much worse they may need grief counseling.

[Peter Damian]

I'm still interested in Brad's view on the OP of this thread. Natural justice requires that if some person is accused of something then at least there is a process or public hearing where the accused person or victim is allowed to speak for themselves, or preferably have a skilled attorney represent them, in a highly formal environment where the spectators are allowed to watch but not to heckle and shout and not to occasionally take the law into their own hands and string up the accused or burn them alive. As part of this process, there are sometimes careful investigations into documentation, statements by witnesses, cross-examination and so on.

There is none of this on Wikipedia, and the whole process looks quite unfair from the outside. What does Brad think of this?

[Kumioko]

I still want to know too, but he isn't going to answer because there is no answer. It isn't fair and its not meant to be. If it was fair, then the admins on the site would be held accountable for their mistakes. The admins on Wikipedia would not be able to use their own discretion to block anyone they choose without having to worry about having to explain themselves. Brad isn't going to answer those questions because Brad would have to make a stand on something and Brad doesn't stand for anything that is going to jeopardize his standing in the community and give people the impression he doesn't suffer from group think.

[neved]

The last time I was silly enough to email to the list of arbitrators was in August of 2013, almost a year ago. It was not an appeal. I only asked for clarification, on how somebody could harass somebody without actually violating any point listed in WP:harassment (T-H-L)
Here's the response that I got:

The Arbitration Committee believes that the action taking regarding
you on English Wikipedia was correct, and will not discuss the matter
at all with you. Any further e-mails relating to this subject will be
ignored.

For the Arbitration Committee,
Anthony (AGK)

So, Newyourkbrad, I am asking you one more time...

I have always disapproved of publishing person-to-person emails without the approval of both parties, however I feel that emails sent in an official capacity (i.e. "arbitrator") and especially emails purporting to speak on behalf of Arbcom ("for the Arbitration Committee") may in fact be gentlemanly published at the discretion of the recipient.

Anybody else have an opinion on this point?

I absolutely agree with you about publishing person to person emails, but I do not feel that emails written on behalf of faceless list could be considered a person to person email. I am the person, they are the list. Besides sooner or later somebodywould publish them anyway.

BTW about private emails. Some time ago I sent a private email to Mark Arsten (T-C-L). Mark forwarded it to Demiurge1000 (T-C-L) who published it at Jimbo's talk. It was how I found out because mark did not bother to notify me about his indecency. The govcom is aware about the incident, but mark is still an admin and demiurge1000 was not even warned.
When I asked mark how could he have shared my private email with everybody, he absolutely seriously responded: "Not with everybody, only with demiurge1000". Yeah, right, of course not with everybody, only with the most indecent troll on Wikipedia, who right away published my email on Jimbo's talk.

[neved]

EDIT: Side note, Kww and AGK want it known that sending out these curt, unexplained, and rude denials takes a psychological toll on them (http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?tit ... 12360#UTRS). "[A]s much as people think I enjoy being nasty, I found sending e-mail after e-mail that said "no, your block is valid and your block will remain in place -- please go away" depressing.—Kww, 16:28, 22 March 2014 (UTC)." "I know the feeling, having sent out my fair share of Declines. AGK, 23:37, 22 March 2014 (UTC)."

It's not like they are cheap loathsome cyberbullies that actually love pushing common editors around and gravitate to the yet more fun part of rejecting appeals, because that is what props up their self esteems. Really, they feel all bad about it and stuff, and if it gets much worse they may need grief counseling.

They are, but not because they sent declines. Declines are fine if and only if they are supported by evidences, by reasons, by diffs. It is what missing in their declines.
I would not have complained, if in response to my request to clarify how somebody could harass somebody without violating any of WP:Harassment policy, they would have presented at least on valid explanation, at least one valid diff, but they presented none.
They decline, but why? It is the problem and it is why

they are "cheap loathsome cyberbullies".

[Textnyymi]

Neved, would you be satisfied to see Newyorkbrad apologize to you about the mistreatment, or do you need something more? Perhaps him telling you "i shall stop being a bully and if i make another mistake i'll resign"?

[neved]

Neved, would you be satisfied to see Newyorkbrad apologize to you about the mistreatment, or do you need something more? Perhaps him telling you "i shall stop being a bully and if i make another mistake i'll resign"?

Actually I'd like quite the opposite. I wish that by proving otherwise Newyorkbrad allowed me to apologize to him for calling him a dishonest, power-hungry coward.

And most definitely I do need his or anybody else apology. I do not believe in a forced apology.

The best outcome for me, and I mean it, would have been stopping so called community bans altogether. In the most situations it is a barbaric, medieval practice. I would not have minded to remain banned myself forever, if the so called community bans would be stopped.
See, in the most situations the community bans are not used against vandals, thy are not used against criminals, they are not used against pedophiles. They are used against content creators, to silence the critics, just like in North Korea and in Stalin's Soviet Union.

But stopping community bans is all, but impossible, and is definitely not in Newyorbrad's power even if he wanted to stop them.

That's why the only thing I am asking for is letting me in a fair discussion (preferably a public discussion on my wikipedia talk page for example) to prove why my ban discussion was procedurally unfair even for a very low wikipedia's fairness standards.

As I mentioned a few times I would like to do it not only for myself, but for many others like me. I strongly believe that such thing would make Wikipedia a slightly healthier place.
Is it so much to ask for?

[everyking]

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.

[neved]

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.