Arbitrator mocks Trump in April 1st Signpost: BLP issue?

[Jbhunley]

Those are some good ideas, however first you must establish that the community has the *authority* to recall Arbcom members. So long as they are nominally appointed by Jimbo there is no basis for recall as the community has no authority over them since *they did not actually elect them*.

Jimbo didn't appoint the current arbs. As far as I am aware, he hasn't 'ceremonially' announced the new arbs for at least two years. I may be wrong, so go and look and see if you can find anything in his contributions indicating that he announced the arbs elected after the December 2014 and December 2015 elections. In fact, try and find the last time he carried out this ceremonial role. The Arbitration Policy only says that the arbitrators are appointed, not who does that. The community very definitely is the entity doing the election now and has been for some time.

Carcharoth is right here. The last time Jimbo did his ceremonial role of Arb notifications was linkhttps://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?ti ... =581005646[/link] back in 2013.

That is good. I would still suggest that

Traditionally, elections to the Arbitration Committee only advise Jimbo on who to appoint, and have not thus far been binding, Jimbo being free to appoint other people to the committee, and not to appoint those elected.

and

Since then, arbitrators have been appointed based on the results of annual advisory elections. In the past, Jimbo has not considered himself bound by the results of the elections and has stated that he will not appoint candidates with less than 50% support. Nevertheless, he has generally appointed arbitrators from among the candidates with the highest percentages of positive votes.

be amended to make the documentation comport with practice. Otherwise some rules lawyer - or Jimbo - can step in and cause all sorts of mischief.

--Jbh

[Vigilant]

What is to prevent a rewrite of the arb election/recall process from the ground up?

[TheWordsmith]

What is to prevent a rewrite of the arb election/recall process from the ground up?

It was ratified at the Sole F(l)ounder's mandate, and can only be rewritten using the amendment process already baked into it. It isn't bound by local consensus because that would be chaos.

[Vigilant]

What is to prevent a rewrite of the arb election/recall process from the ground up?

It was ratified at the Sole F(l)ounder's mandate, and can only be rewritten using the amendment process already baked into it. It isn't bound by local consensus because that would be chaos.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia ... _amendment

Ratification and amendment

Once adopted by the Committee, this policy will undergo formal ratification through a community referendum and will enter into force once it receives majority support, with at least one hundred editors voting in favour of adopting it. Until this policy is ratified, the existing arbitration policy remains in effect.

Amendments to this policy require an identical ratification process. Proposed amendments may be submitted for ratification only after being approved by a majority vote of the Committee, or having been requested by a petition signed by at least one hundred editors in good standing.
The Committee is responsible for formulating its own processes and procedures under this policy, which do not require ratification

Offer an amendment. "This process is hereby superseded in its entirety by xxxxx"
Get 100 editors and a simple majority.

[TheWordsmith]

What is to prevent a rewrite of the arb election/recall process from the ground up?

It was ratified at the Sole F(l)ounder's mandate, and can only be rewritten using the amendment process already baked into it. It isn't bound by local consensus because that would be chaos.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia ... _amendment

Ratification and amendment

Once adopted by the Committee, this policy will undergo formal ratification through a community referendum and will enter into force once it receives majority support, with at least one hundred editors voting in favour of adopting it. Until this policy is ratified, the existing arbitration policy remains in effect.

Amendments to this policy require an identical ratification process. Proposed amendments may be submitted for ratification only after being approved by a majority vote of the Committee, or having been requested by a petition signed by at least one hundred editors in good standing.
The Committee is responsible for formulating its own processes and procedures under this policy, which do not require ratification

Offer an amendment. "This process is hereby superseded in its entirety by xxxxx"
Get 100 editors and a simple majority.

That's more or less what would have to be done. A complete rewrite would never get that kind of support, though. Simple unambiguous things like correcting the 2/3 of active non-abstaining arbs are best to get the ball rolling and create momentum for the bigger changes.

Ethics reform is a tough pill to swallow - just look at the attempt to get Single-payer healthcare in the US. Editors aren't going to go for a huge omnibus proposal that claims to solve all their problems. What needs to be done is to start with some small changes, show the community that they're helping, and then they'll be willing to support bigger ideas from the same people. The ideas I haven't posted publicly are too significant to pass unless I either have a track record of reform, and/or get elected to Arbcom and have a wider audience, and can even propose internal changes without the need for ratification.

[Kumioko]

I think a good place to start is to look at what does the Arbcom do well (if anything) and what do they need to improve.

Certainly eliminating the unnecessary committees a few months ago streamlined the process a bit, but I would suggest more improvements are needed.

For example:
* No secret cases.
* All requests for unblock/unban go to UTRS or to the community upon request and if a given amount of time has passed unless the block or ban was initiated by the Arbcom. The Arbcom should not be involved in blocks or bans including topic bans they did not participate in.
* They should be required to publish metrics of offline deliberations, what they were for and what the determination was. They don't need to say who it was for or give significant details, but I frankly am a little tired of the we are really busy dealing with stuff offline BS.

They probably get a lot of spam so certainly that can be excluded and they have a lot of folks on autoignore/autotrash for their email. I seriously doubt the volume of work is that significant and the community should be aware of how many block request they receive and how many are denied.

[Earthy Astringent]

Mandatory admin reviews (with defrocking sanctions on the table). Conducted every 2 years and only admins vote. That should keep the dickheads on their toes and get rid of the capital A crowd.

[DHeyward]

What is to prevent a rewrite of the arb election/recall process from the ground up?

It was ratified at the Sole F(l)ounder's mandate, and can only be rewritten using the amendment process already baked into it. It isn't bound by local consensus because that would be chaos.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia ... _amendment

Ratification and amendment

Once adopted by the Committee, this policy will undergo formal ratification through a community referendum and will enter into force once it receives majority support, with at least one hundred editors voting in favour of adopting it. Until this policy is ratified, the existing arbitration policy remains in effect.

Amendments to this policy require an identical ratification process. Proposed amendments may be submitted for ratification only after being approved by a majority vote of the Committee, or having been requested by a petition signed by at least one hundred editors in good standing.
The Committee is responsible for formulating its own processes and procedures under this policy, which do not require ratification

Offer an amendment. "This process is hereby superseded in its entirety by xxxxx"
Get 100 editors and a simple majority.

You would need 100 editors voting "Yes" or the "No" votes will game out of the process. Why be the 100th voter if your vote is "No?" Like all good ArbCom processes, the only votes come on the last day (I call it "Assume Good Faith Day"). Both groups of "yes" and "no" wait until there are 100 yes votes, then the "No's" swamp in. Timing is everything.

[evangeliman]

Mandatory admin reviews (with defrocking sanctions on the table). Conducted every 2 years and only admins vote. That should keep the dickheads on their toes and get rid of the capital A crowd.

Why on earth would you give Administrators a reason to band together for problems that include an administrator and a regular editor?

[evangeliman]

You would need 100 editors voting "Yes" or the "No" votes will game out of the process. Why be the 100th voter if your vote is "No?" Like all good ArbCom processes, the only votes come on the last day (I call it "Assume Good Faith Day"). Both groups of "yes" and "no" wait until there are 100 yes votes, then the "No's" swamp in. Timing is everything.

I am rather certain that the purpose of that piece of ArbPol is to require a massive bit of momentum to build before serious discussion on the change begins.

[Earthy Astringent]

Mandatory admin reviews (with defrocking sanctions on the table). Conducted every 2 years and only admins vote. That should keep the dickheads on their toes and get rid of the capital A crowd.

Why on earth would you give Administrators a reason to band together for problems that include an administrator and a regular editor?

Because opening it up to everyone would make it a shit show. Arbcom is fucking useless. Let the admins self police, it can't get any worse.

[TheWordsmith]

You would need 100 editors voting "Yes" or the "No" votes will game out of the process. Why be the 100th voter if your vote is "No?" Like all good ArbCom processes, the only votes come on the last day (I call it "Assume Good Faith Day"). Both groups of "yes" and "no" wait until there are 100 yes votes, then the "No's" swamp in. Timing is everything.

What last day? There's absolutely nothing in the policy that expresses a time limit, or even requires it to follow the RFC format. Just like US constitution amendments, there is no time limit on ratification unless the proposed amendment specifically lists one.

I am rather certain that the purpose of that piece of ArbPol is to require a massive bit of momentum to build before serious discussion on the change begins.

Momentum has been building since this case was accepted.

[Jbhunley]

You would need 100 editors voting "Yes" or the "No" votes will game out of the process. Why be the 100th voter if your vote is "No?" Like all good ArbCom processes, the only votes come on the last day (I call it "Assume Good Faith Day"). Both groups of "yes" and "no" wait until there are 100 yes votes, then the "No's" swamp in. Timing is everything.

What last day? There's absolutely nothing in the policy that expresses a time limit, or even requires it to follow the RFC format. Just like US constitution amendments, there is no time limit on ratification unless the proposed amendment specifically lists one.

I am rather certain that the purpose of that piece of ArbPol is to require a massive bit of momentum to build before serious discussion on the change begins.

Momentum has been building since this case was accepted.

Yes, it has, at least among the dramaratti. What the, perhaps mythical, quiet content creators think or even if they care is more of a question since, by definition, they are never heard from.

Much like voting the graves in Chicago politics, I anticipate the sock drawer vote will be high. I bet there are people who could pass the changes all by themselves. The wording of the amendment process - "editors in good standing" - does not even allow for 500/30 protection of the voting page.

--Jbh

[The Garbage Scow]

The Gamaliel Arbcom has closed with the following result:

1. Gamaliel is admonished for multiple breaches of Wikipedia policies and guidelines including for [[WP:POINT|disrupting Wikipedia to make a point]], [[WP:CSD|removing a speedy deletion notice from a page he created]], [[WP:ASPERSIONS|casting aspersions]], and perpetuating what other editors believed to be a [[WP:BLP|BLP violation]].

2. DHeyward and Gamaliel are indefinitely prohibited from [[WP:IBAN|interacting with or discussing each other]] anywhere on Wikipedia, subject to the [[WP:BANEX|usual exemptions]].

3. DHeyward is admonished for engaging in incivility and personal attacks on other editors. He is reminded that all editors are expected to engage respectfully and civilly with each other and to avoid making personal attacks.

4. For conduct which was below the standard expected of an administrator — namely making an incivil and inflammatory close summary on ANI, in which he perpetuated the perceived BLP violation and failed to adequately summarise the discussion — JzG is admonished.

5. Arkon is reminded that [[WP:EW|edit warring]], even if [[WP:3RRNO|exempt]], is rarely an alternative to discussing the dispute with involved editors, as suggested at [[WP:CLOSECHALLENGE]].

6. The community is encouraged to hold an RfC to supplement the existing [[WP:BLPTALK]] policy by developing further guidance on managing disputes about material involving living persons when that material appears outside of article space and is not directly related to article-content decisions.

So I guess we'll have a sitting Arb under an interaction ban.

[Vigilant]

The Gamaliel Arbcom has closed with the following result:

1. Gamaliel is admonished for multiple breaches of Wikipedia policies and guidelines including for [[WP:POINT|disrupting Wikipedia to make a point]], [[WP:CSD|removing a speedy deletion notice from a page he created]], [[WP:ASPERSIONS|casting aspersions]], and perpetuating what other editors believed to be a [[WP:BLP|BLP violation]].

2. DHeyward and Gamaliel are indefinitely prohibited from [[WP:IBAN|interacting with or discussing each other]] anywhere on Wikipedia, subject to the [[WP:BANEX|usual exemptions]].

3. DHeyward is admonished for engaging in incivility and personal attacks on other editors. He is reminded that all editors are expected to engage respectfully and civilly with each other and to avoid making personal attacks.

4. For conduct which was below the standard expected of an administrator — namely making an incivil and inflammatory close summary on ANI, in which he perpetuated the perceived BLP violation and failed to adequately summarise the discussion — JzG is admonished.

5. Arkon is reminded that [[WP:EW|edit warring]], even if [[WP:3RRNO|exempt]], is rarely an alternative to discussing the dispute with involved editors, as suggested at [[WP:CLOSECHALLENGE]].

6. The community is encouraged to hold an RfC to supplement the existing [[WP:BLPTALK]] policy by developing further guidance on managing disputes about material involving living persons when that material appears outside of article space and is not directly related to article-content decisions.

So I guess we'll have a sitting Arb under an interaction ban.

Gamaliel resigned already.

[Earthy Astringent]

In accepting his resignation they thanked him for his service.

"Thanks moron"

[Vigilant]

In accepting his resignation they thanked him for his service.

"Thanks moron"

More like


I think they were just glad they didn't have to pull the trigger themselves.

[EthicalWikiUser]

I hope that means resignation as sysop because it's in that capacity that he's done by far the most damage to the project.

[The Garbage Scow]

Gamaliel resigned already.

Oops... shows how much I pay attention! LOL

[The Garbage Scow]

I hope that means resignation as sysop because it's in that capacity that he's done by far the most damage to the project.

Though he "Retired" on May 27, he is still listed as having administrator rights

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?ti ... p&limit=50

Who wants to place wagers on how long before he comes back?

[Randy from Boise]

I hope that means resignation as sysop because it's in that capacity that he's done by far the most damage to the project.

Though he "Retired" on May 27, he is still listed as having administrator rights

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?ti ... p&limit=50

Who wants to place wagers on how long before he comes back?

He's probably already back under a new account name.

RfB

[Vigilant]

I hope that means resignation as sysop because it's in that capacity that he's done by far the most damage to the project.

Though he "Retired" on May 27, he is still listed as having administrator rights

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?ti ... p&limit=50

Who wants to place wagers on how long before he comes back?

He resigned his ARBCOM position, they took his CU/OS rights and he kept his admin bit, which, I admit, makes little sense.

[Earthy Astringent]

I hope that means resignation as sysop because it's in that capacity that he's done by far the most damage to the project.

Though he "Retired" on May 27, he is still listed as having administrator rights

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?ti ... p&limit=50

Who wants to place wagers on how long before he comes back?

Smells like a new thread. I'm going with Labor Day.

[Poetlister]

He resigned his ARBCOM position, they took his CU/OS rights and he kept his admin bit, which, I admit, makes little sense.

It's not unprecedented. It's more or less what happened with FT2, although that was done behind the scenes.

[Black Kite]

Well that was a complete waste of time.

Incidentally, isn't that the second time that JzG has been admonished, or did I imagine that?

[Kingsindian]

Incidentally, isn't that the second time that JzG has been admonished

Yes.

[Poetlister]

Incidentally, isn't that the second time that JzG has been admonished

Yes.

Has a sitting Arb ever been admonished before? (OK, he was technically no longer an Arb by the time it was delivered.)

[Randy from Boise]

Incidentally, isn't that the second time that JzG has been admonished

Yes.

Has a sitting Arb ever been admonished before? (OK, he was technically no longer an Arb by the time it was delivered.)

I don't recall how the Elen of the Roads situation panned out but that comes to mind as a possibility. Not sure there was ever a case about her though.

RfB

[Earthy Astringent]

What did she do?

[evangeliman]

She leaked Arbcom emails.

[Kumioko]

I don't remember the exact details but as I recall there were some arbs who were lying and/or misrepresenting some events and she called attention to it. Of course that put her in hot water.

[Kingsindian]

I hate to say it (just kidding...I don't), but I told ArbCom to decline the case. They have nobody else to blame but themselves for this idiotic outcome.

[Kumioko]

I hate to say it (just kidding...I don't), but I told ArbCom to decline the case. They have nobody else to blame but themselves for this idiotic outcome.

Yeah I agree and said the same thing. The Arbcom just wasted everyone's time including theirs because they never had any intention of doing anything about their fellow arb. In fact they went far out of their way to direct the heat on others and severely limited the scope of the case to eliminate the possibility of someone being able to establish a long term pattern of conduct.

[Kingsindian]

I should say that I don't really have a problem with the outcome, just that they wasted a few weeks on nothing except admonishments and made themselves look foolish in their justifications.

[Moral Hazard]

She leaked Arbcom emails.

Your formulation is inexact and could be misleading.

Arbcom had failed to maintain security, and earlier its mailing lists were leaked (by somebody called Malice Afterthought on Wikipedia Review).

Elen mentioned to a non-arbitrator outrageous threats made by arbitrator JClemens---imagine KWW (unwanted here) without his social graces and with a "House of Cards" approach to politics---threats that had declared an intention to go public with his ultimatums, to put pressure on the other arbs. Apparently Elen quoted a few lines from one of his rants.

In short, Elen's sharing a few quotes from JClemens's emails, which had declared an intention to make his ultimatums known to voters, to a trusted friend was not "leaking emails".

[Anroth]

Jclemens 'threats' were hardly outrageous. Arbcom would have been a better place if that whole mess had become public.

[Kumioko]

She leaked Arbcom emails.

Your formulation is inexact and could be misleading.

Arbcom had failed to maintain security, and earlier its mailing lists were leaked (by somebody called Malice Afterthought on Wikipedia Review).

Elen mentioned to a non-arbitrator outrageous threats made by arbitrator JClemens---imagine KWW (unwanted here) without his social graces and with a "House of Cards" approach to politics---threats that had declared an intention to go public with his ultimatums, to put pressure on the other arbs. Apparently Elen quoted a few lines from one of his rants.

In short, Elen's sharing a few quotes from JClemens's emails, which had declared an intention to make his ultimatums known to voters, to a trusted friend was not "leaking emails".

Thanks for clarifying.

Jclemens 'threats' were hardly outrageous. Arbcom would have been a better place if that whole mess had become public.

For once I totally agree with you. There is so much back alley discussions and secret deliberations and decision making with the Arbcom no one can reasonably argue it's a fair, unbiased or working process. I wish someone would leak their secret wiki. I bet there is a lot of info in there about what the Arbcom is really about and what they really think about people in the community.

[Michaeldsuarez]

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special%3ALog&page=User%3AVordrak:

19:51, 5 June 2016 Floquenbeam (talk | contribs) changed block settings for Vordrak (talk | contribs) with an expiration time of indefinite (account creation blocked, email disabled, cannot edit own talk page) (clarify this block can only be appealed to ArbCom)
19:49, 5 June 2016 Floquenbeam (talk | contribs) deleted page User:Vordrak (Ugh, I didn't delete this before? Sorry.)

This is interesting timing. Did Vordrak (mistakenly) see the admonishment of Gamaliel as vindication for what he (Vordrak) did nearly a year ago and asked to be unblocked, only to be told to speak to ArbCom instead?

[Vigilant]

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special%3ALog&page=User%3AVordrak:

19:51, 5 June 2016 Floquenbeam (talk | contribs) changed block settings for Vordrak (talk | contribs) with an expiration time of indefinite (account creation blocked, email disabled, cannot edit own talk page) (clarify this block can only be appealed to ArbCom)
19:49, 5 June 2016 Floquenbeam (talk | contribs) deleted page User:Vordrak (Ugh, I didn't delete this before? Sorry.)

This is interesting timing. Did Vordrak (mistakenly) see the admonishment of Gamaliel as vindication for what he (Vordrak) did nearly a year ago and asked to be unblocked, only to be told to speak to ArbCom instead?

Vordrak is mentally ill.
Intuiting what his thought processes might be is a futile quest.

[Kumioko]

Besides that the Arbcom doesn't approve bans after just a year. It's usually only after 3 or more years that they approve any requests for unban.

[Cla68]

When I was in the military, we gave out "admonishments" when we wanted the discipline to be purposely ironic.

[milowent]

I should say that I don't really have a problem with the outcome, just that they wasted a few weeks on nothing except admonishments and made themselves look foolish in their justifications.

the case existed to provide drama and entertainment for people who don't really like to edit in mainspace. anyone who looks back and says "this was a good use of my time" is lying, but the same could be said for binge watching Game of Thrones.

[Randy from Boise]

When I was in the military, we gave out "admonishments" when we wanted the discipline to be purposely ironic.

The fact that Arb Com stands for "Arbitration Committee" rather than "Arbitrary Committee" seems ironic enough...

RfB

[Kumioko]

When I was in the military, we gave out "admonishments" when we wanted the discipline to be purposely ironic.

The fact that Arb Com stands for "Arbitration Committee" rather than "Arbitrary Committee" seems ironic enough...

RfB

Really what this case showed is the continuing pattern of ineptitude, laziness and complacency displayed by the Arbcom routinely in past cases. There should be no reason for surprise by anyone in the results and most of us called out exactly what would happen before the case was even accepted.

[trout]

Really what this case showed is the continuing pattern of ineptitude, laziness and complacency displayed by the Arbcom routinely in past cases. There should be no reason for surprise by anyone in the results and most of us called out exactly what would happen before the case was even accepted.

I followed one arbitration case closely, and the members of the arbcom didn't read the evidence carefully, never did anything by the deadline they were supposed to follow, and didn't seem to care very much about the outcome as much as they seemed to care about keeping their position and status by repeating platitudes about the purpose of Wikipedia. I would guess that was a continuing pattern, otherwise someone might have got angry about the whole thing.

[Kumioko]

Really what this case showed is the continuing pattern of ineptitude, laziness and complacency displayed by the Arbcom routinely in past cases. There should be no reason for surprise by anyone in the results and most of us called out exactly what would happen before the case was even accepted.

I followed one arbitration case closely, and the members of the arbcom didn't read the evidence carefully, never did anything by the deadline they were supposed to follow, and didn't seem to care very much about the outcome as much as they seemed to care about keeping their position and status by repeating platitudes about the purpose of Wikipedia. I would guess that was a continuing pattern, otherwise someone might have got angry about the whole thing.

They never read it carefully if they bother to read it at all. Most cases are decided off the initial submission only. They never perform due diligince, they don't go research (or think) for themselves and they always take the lazy approach.

They are mostly children with no experience in arbitration or any type of policy or legal work (with very rare exception) and they are lazy and don't take the job seriously.

[Vigilant]

Really what this case showed is the continuing pattern of ineptitude, laziness and complacency displayed by the Arbcom routinely in past cases. There should be no reason for surprise by anyone in the results and most of us called out exactly what would happen before the case was even accepted.

I followed one arbitration case closely, and the members of the arbcom didn't read the evidence carefully, never did anything by the deadline they were supposed to follow, and didn't seem to care very much about the outcome as much as they seemed to care about keeping their position and status by repeating platitudes about the purpose of Wikipedia. I would guess that was a continuing pattern, otherwise someone might have got angry about the whole thing.

Like every other ARBCOM case.

Hey WMF,

When are you going to see reason and hire some experienced people to takeover this mess?

Your friend,
Vigilant.
P.S. Try to hire someone with actual relevant experience.

[CoffeeCrumbs]

Really what this case showed is the continuing pattern of ineptitude, laziness and complacency displayed by the Arbcom routinely in past cases. There should be no reason for surprise by anyone in the results and most of us called out exactly what would happen before the case was even accepted.

I followed one arbitration case closely, and the members of the arbcom didn't read the evidence carefully, never did anything by the deadline they were supposed to follow, and didn't seem to care very much about the outcome as much as they seemed to care about keeping their position and status by repeating platitudes about the purpose of Wikipedia. I would guess that was a continuing pattern, otherwise someone might have got angry about the whole thing.

Like every other ARBCOM case.

Hey WMF,

When are you going to see reason and hire some experienced people to takeover this mess?

Your friend,
Vigilant.
P.S. Try to hire someone with actual relevant experience.

Hiring competents would take valuable funds away from one of Wikimedia's most important pillars: box socials for the socially awkward.

[Randy from Boise]

With his Arbcom case now over, the prospect of opining about which of his friends should get WMF $$$$$$$ has brought former Arb and current member of the WMDC Board Gamaliel back from his self-imposed exile on the Isle of Angst. More or less on schedule...

linkhttps://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Special ... s/Gamaliel[/link]

He thinks, among other things, that Arbcom needs "Adult Supervision." Ummmm, yeah, right.

linkhttps://meta.wikimedia.org/w/index.php? ... d=15713753[/link]

RfB

[milowent]