An open letter to Newyorkbrad

neved · Unread post by **neved** » Tue Apr 22, 2014 5:04 am

Newyorkbrad, some time ago you linked to this review

Review of community sanctions

11) The Wikipedia community, acting through a fair discussion leading to consensus achieved on the administrators' noticeboard or another appropriate venue, may impose a sanction on an editor who has engaged in problematic behavior. A sanctioned editor may request an appeal to the Arbitration Committee. While the Arbitration Committee is authorized to overturn or reduce a community sanction, such action is relatively rare, and would be based on good cause such as a finding that (1) some aspect of the community discussion was procedurally unfair, (2) the sanction imposed appears to be significantly excessive or overbroad, (3) circumstances have changed significantly since the community sanction was imposed, or (4) non-public information that should not be addressed on-wiki, such as personal information or checkuser data, is relevant to the decision.

Passed 15 to 0 at 20:38, 16 February 2011 (UTC).

(my bolding)

Could you please define how you, a senior arbitrator and an attorney of law newyorkbrad, understand the the term "a fair discussion"?

For example
*do you believe that a discussion, in which a defendant is not allowed to participate, not even on his own talk page is a fair discussion?
*do you believe that a discussion, in which more than half of the users supporting the ban are involved with the defendant is a fair discussion?
*do you believe that a discussion, in which some users support the ban not with the diffs, but with lies is a fair discussion?
*do you believe that a discussion, in which the first supporter of the ban use the lies it obtained directly from a criminal is a fair discussion?
*do you believe that a discussion, in which no single diff of an alleged harassment is presented is a fair discussion?

Thanks.

neved · Unread post by **neved** » Tue Apr 22, 2014 4:36 pm

Newyorkbrad, if you have difficulties in responding direct questions I posted above, could you please describe in your own words what in your opinion is a fair discussion?

Kumioko · Unread post by **Kumioko** » Tue Apr 22, 2014 5:03 pm

Judging from how he and the other Arbs drafted the sanction against Rich Farmbrough so that it can be interpretted differently by anyone who reads it, I doubt they have a a clue....or care about what constitutes "A fair" discussion. Unfair discussions and processes are what allow them to maintain their power of the community. If they lose that, then the Arbcom has no resaon to exist.

Unread post by **Peter Damian** » Tue Apr 22, 2014 5:23 pm

These are slightly leading questions, but I'm interested in the answer. Much of what happens in Wikipedia is not what ordinary people think of as 'fair'.

Brad says this (to another banned user):

I'm going to take off my lawyer hat and remind the banned user in question, and everyone else who is reading here, that almost all of us came to Wikipedia as a hobby. And ... when a hobby stops being fun for you ... or when for whatever reason you're asked to leave the club ... the rational thing to do is to step away and find another hobby. You don't stick around and complain that everyone else is doing a lousy job enjoying your old hobby ... and you certainly don't destroy the clubhouse or scrawl graffiti on it and leave a mess for everyone else to clean up.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Newy ... ter_misuse

This misses the crucial point that many of the well-known Wikipedia vandals or disgruntled users or rebels or whatever (and I am going back to its very beginnings) originally started of as good faith editors, but became what they are through a sense that they had been treated profoundly unfairly.

When you point this out to Wikipedians, perhaps even Brad, they will tell you that Wikipedia is not meant to be fair.

Fair enough.

[Removed a rude comment]

Textnyymi · Unread post by **Textnyymi** » Tue Apr 22, 2014 5:47 pm

Peter Damian wrote:These are slightly leading questions, but I'm interested in the answer. Much of what happens in Wikipedia is not what ordinary people think of as 'fair'.

This misses the crucial point that many of the well-known Wikipedia vandals or disgruntled users or rebels or whatever (and I am going back to its very beginnings) originally started of as good faith editors, but became what they are through a sense that they had been treated profoundly unfairly.

When you point this out to Wikipedians, perhaps even Brad, they will tell you that Wikipedia is not meant to be fair.

Fair enough.

[Removed a rude comment]

What is fair?
How can you define fair?

Unread post by **Peter Damian** » Tue Apr 22, 2014 6:17 pm

Treating people even handedly and equally, under an open and agreed set of rules. Rather than arbitrarily, with one set of rules for the powerful, and another punitive set of rules for the weak.

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.

Everything Brad does is carefully calculated to preserve his image as the kindly avuncular godfather of Wikipedia. Behind the scenes, it is quite a different matter.

I don't think he does this out of malice, only cowardice, from a desire of continual involvement with this ghastly and barbaric project. I utterly despise him.

Textnyymi · Unread post by **Textnyymi** » Tue Apr 22, 2014 7:05 pm

Arrogant with the weak, servile with the powerful.

At least he could have tossed a coin to decide "yes/no", that would have been fair chance.

Kumioko · Unread post by **Kumioko** » Tue Apr 22, 2014 7:08 pm

Speaking from the point of view of one of those who was treated unfairly I don't personally mind the "unfairness". What I do find quite irritating is the blatant violations of policy being allowed to be performed by admins simply because they are admins and the treating of regular editors as second class citizens simply because they do not have the ability to protect their own talk page or threaten others with blocks. If, for example I had been submitted to Arbcom and a sanction was drafted by them, although I would have still not been happy about it, I could have lived with that. because the Arbcom, for good or bad (mostly bad in my opinion by the way) has been given the mandate for dealing with such things. But, because a handful of involved editors had a secret ballot one night I was voted off the island and banned for a year. No appeal, no process, no nothing and a year block is granted. If the community cannot be trusted to desysop an admin when they abuse the tools, the community should not have the authority to ban someone from the site for a year simply to set an example to editors on the site not to question the authority of admins or the Arbs. And they wonder why I do not recognize or accept my ban? If they do not have enough respect for the rules of the site to follow them when an admin violated the policy, then I have no remourse in ignoring them as well. No remourse whatsoever.

Unread post by **Peter Damian** » Tue Apr 22, 2014 7:10 pm

I think if you look at my definition of 'unfairness' you will see it fits exactly what you are irritated about.

neved · Unread post by **neved** » Tue Apr 22, 2014 7:29 pm

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?

Kiefer.Wolfowitz · Unread post by **Kiefer.Wolfowitz** » Tue Apr 22, 2014 8:24 pm

neved wrote:Newyorkbrad, some time ago you linked to this review
Review of community sanctions

11) The Wikipedia community, acting through a fair discussion leading to consensus achieved on the administrators' noticeboard or another appropriate venue, may impose a sanction on an editor who has engaged in problematic behavior. A sanctioned editor may request an appeal to the Arbitration Committee. While the Arbitration Committee is authorized to overturn or reduce a community sanction, such action is relatively rare, and would be based on good cause such as a finding that (1) some aspect of the community discussion was procedurally unfair, (2) the sanction imposed appears to be significantly excessive or overbroad, (3) circumstances have changed significantly since the community sanction was imposed, or (4) non-public information that should not be addressed on-wiki, such as personal information or checkuser data, is relevant to the decision.

Passed 15 to 0 at 20:38, 16 February 2011 (UTC).

This quotation induced flashbacks of Habermas.

neved · Unread post by **neved** » Tue Apr 22, 2014 8:45 pm

Except Habermas is able to explain the meaning of the statements he makes.

BTW, this quotation also states that "the Arbitration Committee is authorized to overturn or reduce a community sanction" if "some aspect of the community discussion was procedurally unfair", which makes it even more important to understand what exactly does it mean " procedurally unfair" or rather what the arbitrators meant under " procedurally unfair" because wikipedia of course is a Kingdom of Crooked Mirrors, and it has its own crooked definitions of what is fair and what is unfair.

Kiefer.Wolfowitz · Unread post by **Kiefer.Wolfowitz** » Tue Apr 22, 2014 8:57 pm

neved wrote:
Kiefer.Wolfowitz wrote:
neved wrote:Newyorkbrad, some time ago you linked to this review
Review of community sanctions

11) The Wikipedia community, acting through a fair discussion leading to consensus achieved on the administrators' noticeboard or another appropriate venue, may impose a sanction on an editor who has engaged in problematic behavior.
This quotation induced flashbacks of Habermas.
Except Habermas is able to explain the meaning of the statements he makes.

For counter-examples, consider the quotations (with translation) given by Karl Popper in his contribution to "The Positivist Debate in German Sociology".

EricBarbour · Unread post by **EricBarbour** » Tue Apr 22, 2014 9:32 pm

Peter Damian wrote:Everything Brad does is carefully calculated to preserve his image as the kindly avuncular godfather of Wikipedia. Behind the scenes, it is quite a different matter.

I don't think he does this out of malice, only cowardice, from a desire of continual involvement with this ghastly and barbaric project. I utterly despise him.

Agreed. And he does a terrible job of covering up his real purposes.

SB_Johnny · Unread post by **SB_Johnny** » Tue Apr 22, 2014 10:19 pm

I'll offer a +1 interwebs to NYB if he comments on this thread. Preferably in a nonsensical way.

Cedric · Unread post by **Cedric** » Wed Apr 23, 2014 12:42 am

Peter Damian wrote:Everything Brad does is carefully calculated to preserve his image as the kindly avuncular godfather of Wikipedia. Behind the scenes, it is quite a different matter.

I don't think he does this out of malice, only cowardice, from a desire of continual involvement with this ghastly and barbaric project. I utterly despise him.

Quite. This is why I refer to him as a "machine man," in the 19th century meaning of the phrase.

enwikibadscience · Unread post by **enwikibadscience** » Wed Apr 23, 2014 12:58 am

Cedric wrote:
Peter Damian wrote:Everything Brad does is carefully calculated to preserve his image as the kindly avuncular godfather of Wikipedia. Behind the scenes, it is quite a different matter.

I don't think he does this out of malice, only cowardice, from a desire of continual involvement with this ghastly and barbaric project. I utterly despise him.
Quite. This is why I refer to him as a "machine man," in the 19th century meaning of the phrase.

This is everyone who succeeds at en.Wikipedia. The Cwmhiraeth-initiated ANI against me is the perfect example of incompetence, incivility, time-wating, stupidity and cluelessnes. Right also, to cowardice as a guiding light for Wikipedians. But who can blame them? I got bashed quite severely by ColonelHenry in retaliation for sticking my head up, and the community of cowards was content to let it happen, and they are continuing on his behalf. NewYorkBrad with his plea for no publicity? Really. WTF. The whole thing's going to Essjay-splat the community in the face like the alien in Alien.

neved · Unread post by **neved** » Wed Apr 23, 2014 1:34 am

Peter Damian wrote:Everything Brad does is carefully calculated to preserve his image as the kindly avuncular godfather of Wikipedia. Behind the scenes, it is quite a different matter.

I don't think he does this out of malice, only cowardice, from a desire of continual involvement with this ghastly and barbaric project. I utterly despise him.

+1

EricBarbour · Unread post by **EricBarbour** » Wed Apr 23, 2014 8:42 am

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

Anthonyhcole · Unread post by **Anthonyhcole** » Wed Apr 23, 2014 8:50 am

Peter Damian wrote: 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.

If your conclusion is right - that his motivation was politics not fairness - your ire is justified.

Peter Damian wrote: 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.

Reading through that appalling thing, years later, I assumed the bully was let off so as to just shut the thing down, for the sake of the victim. It's what I would have done. (Would you mind PMing me with a link to the relevant threads?)

I completely agree with your point about a hurt sense of fairness giving rise to many of Wikipedia's banes. Which then goes back to the IQ and character of many admins and some arbitrators, and the impossible job confronting even the best of them.

greyed.out.fields · Unread post by **greyed.out.fields** » Wed Apr 23, 2014 9:13 am

Kiefer.Wolfowitz wrote:For counter-examples, consider the quotations (with translation) given by Karl Popper in his contribution to "The Positivist Debate in German Sociology".

Hmm... having discovered him shortly after having discovered them, "flashbacks of Habermas" always reminds me of this cheerful little song:

Poetlister · Unread post by **Poetlister** » Wed Apr 23, 2014 11:35 am

EricBarbour wrote: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.

Kumioko · Unread post by **Kumioko** » Wed Apr 23, 2014 11:40 am

I can live with that!

neved · Unread post by **neved** » Wed Apr 23, 2014 1:41 pm

Newyorkbrad, I asked you to explain to me two terms ("a fair discussion" and "procedurally unfair") from the statement you voted for. There's no reason in the world to refuse to respond such questions, except being a dishonest power-hungry coward, (the necessary qualities to survive being an arbitrator on " with this ghastly and barbaric project" for as long as you did), and as I've already told you at your talk page I am not sure how you could live with yourself.

Zoloft, once you asked me to present diffs to prove my accusations of Newyorkbrad being a dishonest power-hungry coward, and I told you that sometimes the lack of diffs is the evidence required to prove the accusations. I hope now you understand what I meant.

Kelly Martin · Unread post by **Kelly Martin** » Wed Apr 23, 2014 2:07 pm

Poetlister wrote: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.

No, he's not. 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.

It's unlikely that he joined Wikipedia with the explicit intent to become one of its judicial magnates, but when the opportunity presented itself, he jumped at it with both feet. He may have come to Wikipedia to "improve" it, but he stays there because it lets him lord over others. He is probably in denial about this, and won't come to see that that is what's going on until he gets away from Wikipedia and stays away for quite some time. He likely still believes that he's doing "good things" by staying at Wikipedia.

Unread post by **Zoloft** » Wed Apr 23, 2014 2:12 pm

I'll say this: the day you see Newyorkbrad quit Wikipedia with a lengthy essay is the day it becomes Friendster/MySpace/Altavista. Conversely, if a major initiative for reform ever gets close, Newyorkbrad is one of the players you want on board.

Kiefer.Wolfowitz · Unread post by **Kiefer.Wolfowitz** » Wed Apr 23, 2014 2:49 pm

greyed.out.fields wrote:
Kiefer.Wolfowitz wrote:
neved wrote:
Kiefer.Wolfowitz wrote:
neved wrote:Newyorkbrad, some time ago you linked to this review
Review of community sanctions

11) The Wikipedia community, acting through a fair discussion leading to consensus achieved on the administrators' noticeboard or another appropriate venue, may impose a sanction on an editor who has engaged in problematic behavior.
This quotation induced flashbacks of Habermas.
Except Habermas is able to explain the meaning of the statements he makes.
For counter-examples, consider the quotations (with translation) given by Karl Popper in his contribution to "The Positivist Debate in German Sociology".

Hmm... having discovered him shortly after having discovered them, "flashbacks of Habermas" always reminds me of this cheerful little song:

It is springtime, and I am as happy as a little girl.

Kumioko · Unread post by **Kumioko** » Wed Apr 23, 2014 2:56 pm

Zoloft wrote:I'll say this: the day you see Newyorkbrad quit Wikipedia with a lengthy essay is the day it becomes Friendster/MySpace/Altavista. Conversely, if a major initiative for reform ever gets close, Newyorkbrad is one of the players you want on board.

It should be obvious to everyone that me and Brad are not and never will be "friends". But I personally would rather have him than a lot of the others like Resolute, AGK, Fram, Rschen or a number of others. There are at least 4 on the Arbcom that are at or beyond useless to the site and if they were to stop editing no one would miss them or care. I don't always agree with Brad and I agree completely with the assessment that he is too much of a politician, but he does sometimes have good points and I think he generally is a net positive to the project. A big plus in his favor to me is that he isn't particularly heavy handed with his use of the admin tools. Too many admins have the mentality to block first and who cares about questions because I am in charge and at least I do not get that from him.

Casliber · Unread post by **Casliber** » Wed Apr 23, 2014 3:25 pm

neved wrote: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.

neved · Unread post by **neved** » Wed Apr 23, 2014 3:31 pm

Casliber wrote:...

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.

Newyorkbrad · Unread post by **Newyorkbrad** » Wed Apr 23, 2014 3:41 pm

Only because SB Johnny asked....

Everything Brad does is carefully calculated to preserve his image as the kindly avuncular godfather of Wikipedia.

Which definition of "Godfather" do you have in mind?

TungstenCarbide · Unread post by **TungstenCarbide** » Wed Apr 23, 2014 3:48 pm

Newyorkbrad wrote:Only because SB Johnny asked....
Everything Brad does is carefully calculated to preserve his image as the kindly avuncular godfather of Wikipedia.
Which definition of "Godfather" do you have in mind?

http://youtu.be/L4qZQWbaGZw?t=7m24s

neved · Unread post by **neved** » Wed Apr 23, 2014 3:55 pm

Kumioko wrote:
Zoloft wrote:I'll say this: the day you see Newyorkbrad quit Wikipedia with a lengthy essay is the day it becomes Friendster/MySpace/Altavista. Conversely, if a major initiative for reform ever gets close, Newyorkbrad is one of the players you want on board.
It should be obvious to everyone that me and Brad are not and never will be "friends". But I personally would rather have him than a lot of the others like Resolute, AGK, Fram, Rschen or a number of others. There are at least 4 on the Arbcom that are at or beyond useless to the site and if they were to stop editing no one would miss them or care. I don't always agree with Brad and I agree completely with the assessment that he is too much of a politician, but he does sometimes have good points and I think he generally is a net positive to the project. A big plus in his favor to me is that he isn't particularly heavy handed with his use of the admin tools. Too many admins have the mentality to block first and who cares about questions because I am in charge and at least I do not get that from him.

Kumioko, you're mistaking Newyorkbrad is not any better than AGK. If anything he's worse. Why? Because he is much more experienced, much older, probably much smarter than AGK is, which makes him as much more indecent than AGK is.
If you still are not convinced, please try to justify Newyorkbrad's unwillingness to respond my questions.

Kumioko · Unread post by **Kumioko** » Wed Apr 23, 2014 4:35 pm

Don't get me wrong, I think Brad has a lot of problems too, not the least of which is his political posturing and I admit that age and treachery will beat youth and skill, but I think he is better than AGK. With that said, I think the Arbcom should be abolished as a failure, I think the admin culture breeds the toxic environment of Wikipedia and I don't think Brad or his cronies on the Arbcom have done a damn thing about it. Nor are they particularly interested in doing so because they have the power and they want to keep it. So if the WMF suddently came along and desysopped the entire group and banned them for a year for failing to perform their duties I wouldn't shed a tear (and would probably toast the occassion). Having met them both in person though, I generally think Brad is better than AGK. He at least gives me the impression of being honest (thought not always forthcoming, often complacent and generally not very friendly). AGK is just a hat collector and doesn't give a shit about anything else except how many baubles he can collect and how much influence he can peddle. I could be wrong in both cases but that is my perception having met them both in person and interacting with them frequently online. I cannot say that about many of the others having never met them in person, so I don't have the same base of understanding from which to build my conclusions. I would add to that the understanding that I am not looked upon fondly be either. They can say they do not like me, they can say they think the project is better off without me and they can say that they don't agree with my views about the abusive culture. What neither can say is that I don't care about the project, I haven't been consistent in my views about admin abuse and they cannot say I didn't try and fix it. So regardless of whether they agree with how or why I tried to change it, that is more than I can say of them. They sat on their hands when they were in the position and had the opportunity and influence to make meaningful change. But they would rather hide behind their fake billets of power and levy their control and influence than improve the project to be more inviting to new editors and build the project. So from that aspect they should both resign as arbs, give up their tools and shut up and go edit something and be useful.

Kelly Martin · Unread post by **Kelly Martin** » Wed Apr 23, 2014 4:46 pm

Kumioko wrote:He at least gives me the impression of being honest (thought not always forthcoming, often complacent and generally not very friendly).

Yes, he definitely gives the impression of being honest. And I suspect that he does actually try to avoid actually lying, but he is absolutely not above making deliberately misleading statements or even questions.

By all accounts, Mr. Matetsky is an eminently competent lawyer. Another name for lawyer is "social engineer", and Ira excels at this aspect of the craft. Every interaction he has on Wikipedia (and in its penumbra, such as here) is a carefully crafted effort to engineer circumstances into alignment with what he would prefer. The difference for him is twofold: first, he's very good at crafting such efforts, and second, he's very good at not letting on what his actual motivations are. It's also why he rarely answers questions asked of him by "outsiders" such as neved: the risk-benefit analysis of interacting with someone like neved is generally more negative than the fairly low cost of ignoring such people, and so that's why he rarely ever engages.

Keep in mind that, generally speaking, Wikipedians are well below average when it comes to social skills. Ira, on the other hand, is well above average, and it causes him to stand out.

There's also a notable difference between Jimmy and Ira. Jimmy says whatever he thinks will serve his interests at the time, without regard to whether it's true or not. Ira also tries to say what he thinks will best serve his interests, but he does seem to care about the truth and seems to avoid saying things that he knows are untrue, and avoids actually asserting as true things he doesn't know whether they are true or not. With Jimmy, you can't trust anything he says at all; with Ira, you just have to parse what he does say very carefully.

Kumioko · Unread post by **Kumioko** » Wed Apr 23, 2014 4:52 pm

I think you make excellent points and I generally agree. Again, I am not a Brad fan anymore than he is a fan of me and I think he could do a lot of things better. So I agree it could be just a front and I wouldn't be surprised. But I still think he is better than the likes of AGK, Sandsteing or a host of others.

Kelly Martin · Unread post by **Kelly Martin** » Wed Apr 23, 2014 4:55 pm

Kumioko wrote:I think you make excellent points and I generally agree. Again, I am not a Brad fan anymore than he is a fan of me and I think he could do a lot of things better. So I agree it could be just a front and I wouldn't be surprised. But I still think he is better than the likes of AGK, Sandsteing or a host of others.

Oh, I think Ira does a fine job. You just have to remember that when you're interacting with him, he is playing the role of "learned counsel for the opposition", and treat with him in that manner. Unfortunately for you, and most of the rest of us, he's far better at playing that role than we are at countering it.

Triptych · Unread post by **Triptych** » Wed Apr 23, 2014 5:02 pm

Casliber wrote:
neved wrote: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.

You're abusing the term "community" by using it as shorthand for the loathsome behavior of the personality-defective, hateful, ignorant, and stupid participants that typically coalesce around the "vote him or her off the island" ban and block discussions that occur at WP:AN/ANI. These are individuals whose self-esteem actually goes up when they have a chance to block others. That is their motivation. The community is all the Wikipedia editors, not the pack of blockaholics and cyberbullies that inhabit WP:AN/ANI.

I noticed even Newyorkbrad in his unlawful

blog post couldn't quite choke out the assertion the assertion that Kumioko was banned "by the community" without sneaky equivocation about it:

Newyorkbrad blog, Wikipedia and the law of computer misuse wrote:With all that being said ... does a banned editor who continues to edit, in breach of a ban imposed by the community or its dispute-resolution procedures, thereby act in a legally impermissible manner?

Did you catch it? He can't quite bear to say the community banned Kumioko, he has to leave open the possibility that he was banned by "its dispute resolution procedures." What are those procedures? You slash open the helpless wildebeest's thigh and toss it into the WP:AN/ANI cage with the twenty rabid hyenas to see if they can reach consensus on what to do. Them is "community procedures."

neved · Unread post by **neved** » Wed Apr 23, 2014 5:06 pm

Kelly Martin wrote:
Kumioko wrote:He at least gives me the impression of being honest (thought not always forthcoming, often complacent and generally not very friendly).
Yes, he definitely gives the impression of being honest. And I suspect that he does actually try to avoid actually lying, but he is absolutely not above making deliberately misleading statements or even questions.

It is not necessarily to actually "lie" to be dishonest. Avoiding responding direct, legitimate questions that are connected to one's role as an arbitrator is one of the worst type of dishonesty. A liar could be caught. It is much harder to catch the one who simply keeps silent.

Kumioko · Unread post by **Kumioko** » Wed Apr 23, 2014 5:16 pm

Kelly Martin wrote:
Kumioko wrote:I think you make excellent points and I generally agree. Again, I am not a Brad fan anymore than he is a fan of me and I think he could do a lot of things better. So I agree it could be just a front and I wouldn't be surprised. But I still think he is better than the likes of AGK, Sandsteing or a host of others.
Oh, I think Ira does a fine job. You just have to remember that when you're interacting with him, he is playing the role of "learned counsel for the opposition", and treat with him in that manner. Unfortunately for you, and most of the rest of us, he's far better at playing that role than we are at countering it.

If I was an admin I would still be on the site, but because I was an editor questioning the nature order of things I was an outcast...because how dare I. The prophet is never accepted in their own homeland!

Vigilant · Unread post by **Vigilant** » Wed Apr 23, 2014 5:35 pm

Kelly Martin wrote:
Poetlister wrote: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.
No, he's not. 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.

It's unlikely that he joined Wikipedia with the explicit intent to become one of its judicial magnates, but when the opportunity presented itself, he jumped at it with both feet. He may have come to Wikipedia to "improve" it, but he stays there because it lets him lord over others. He is probably in denial about this, and won't come to see that that is what's going on until he gets away from Wikipedia and stays away for quite some time. He likely still believes that he's doing "good things" by staying at Wikipedia.

This.

Vigilant · Unread post by **Vigilant** » Wed Apr 23, 2014 5:38 pm

Kelly Martin wrote:
Kumioko wrote:I think you make excellent points and I generally agree. Again, I am not a Brad fan anymore than he is a fan of me and I think he could do a lot of things better. So I agree it could be just a front and I wouldn't be surprised. But I still think he is better than the likes of AGK, Sandsteing or a host of others.
Oh, I think Ira does a fine job. You just have to remember that when you're interacting with him, he is playing the role of "learned counsel for the opposition", and treat with him in that manner. Unfortunately for you, and most of the rest of us, he's far better at playing that role than we are at countering it.

Challenge him directly.
He'll go off in a sulk.

Kumioko · Unread post by **Kumioko** » Wed Apr 23, 2014 5:49 pm

Vigilant wrote:
Kelly Martin wrote:
Kumioko wrote:I think you make excellent points and I generally agree. Again, I am not a Brad fan anymore than he is a fan of me and I think he could do a lot of things better. So I agree it could be just a front and I wouldn't be surprised. But I still think he is better than the likes of AGK, Sandsteing or a host of others.
Oh, I think Ira does a fine job. You just have to remember that when you're interacting with him, he is playing the role of "learned counsel for the opposition", and treat with him in that manner. Unfortunately for you, and most of the rest of us, he's far better at playing that role than we are at countering it.
Challenge him directly.
He'll go off in a sulk.

Your right about that. I've seen him do it a couple times.

TungstenCarbide · Unread post by **TungstenCarbide** » Wed Apr 23, 2014 6:02 pm

Yeah, he's all into social manipulation and 'playing the game'. You can tell because he used to come here to socialize and rub elbows but wouldn't discuss anything substantial. Take away the social veneer and pursue logical, hard hitting discussion and he'll grab any excuse to run.

AndyTheGrump · Unread post by **AndyTheGrump** » Wed Apr 23, 2014 6:13 pm

Kumioko wrote: ...
If I was an admin I would still be on the site, but because I was an editor questioning the nature order of things I was an outcast...because how dare I. The prophet is never accepted in their own homeland!

For fuck's sake Kumioko, does your ego know no bounds?

Kumioko · Unread post by **Kumioko** » Wed Apr 23, 2014 6:27 pm

AndyTheGrump wrote:
Kumioko wrote: ...
If I was an admin I would still be on the site, but because I was an editor questioning the nature order of things I was an outcast...because how dare I. The prophet is never accepted in their own homeland!
For fuck's sake Kumioko, does your ego know no bounds?

Nope!

Unread post by **Peter Damian** » Wed Apr 23, 2014 6:54 pm

Poetlister wrote:
EricBarbour wrote: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.

Unread post by **Peter Damian** » Wed Apr 23, 2014 7:20 pm

Anthonyhcole wrote:Reading through that appalling thing, years later, I assumed the bully was let off so as to just shut the thing down, for the sake of the victim.

The evidence is persuasively against this. I PM'd you.

Brad's position on this was to stay away from any of the arbitrator threads where this was discussed. However, one of the arbitrators mentioned his early involvement, and when I put it to Brad, he did not deny it. It was on the lines of "If X recalls discussing it with me in 2009 then I have no reason to disagree with him".

Kiefer.Wolfowitz · Unread post by **Kiefer.Wolfowitz** » Wed Apr 23, 2014 7:52 pm

Peter Damian wrote:
Poetlister wrote:
EricBarbour wrote: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").

Unread post by **Peter Damian** » Wed Apr 23, 2014 8:15 pm

Kiefer.Wolfowitz wrote:Peter,

[...] read about murders using bolt guns (like Anton Chigurh's in "No Country for Old Men").

This is a work of fiction, as I understand. I believe there are individuals who are completely psychopathic and feel no remorse whatsoever for the truly bad things they have done. I have only known one such individual, and he had a peculiar sort of moral code which, for him, justified his appalling actions. But the fact he felt he needed such a code, and that he needed to justify his actions at all, suggests he felt some kind of remorse, no?