Arbcom

[Steeletrap]

Who or what regulates this thing?

[Midsize Jake]

Who or what regulates this thing?

Is this a trick question?

I should say, for the benefit of any social libertarians who may be reading this, the mere fact that something is unregulated doesn't automatically make it a failure. There are many factors relating to Arbcom that make it a failure; that's just one of them.

[Zoloft]

To Steeletrap (T-C-L).

As far as regulation, my private theory is that WP:ARBCOM (T-H-L) is an extended Monty Python sketch.

[HRIP7]

Who or what regulates this thing?

Welcome.

I take it you're somewhat disappointed with the delay in the Austrian Economics case?

Sympathies. The proposed decision was due almost three weeks ago. Instead, tumble weeds.

[Bottled_Spider]

Who or what regulates this thing?

[Poetlister]

Ultimately, it's regulated by Jimbo, who in theory could dismiss it, though I've no idea how that's supposed to work in practice. Of course, the Community could refuse to re-elect a member after three years, but that's not much of a control.

[Triptych]

Who or what regulates this thing?

Zoloft pointed you to the best overview page, Steeletrap, but be cautious in interpreting what is mere *description* or *information* vs. what may be said to be *binding* or *regulating*. If you look at the first big box on the right, headed "Wikipedia arbitration," there's a collection of links, some of which are nominally regulating.

For example, the "Rules and procedures" sub-link (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia: ... Procedures) is nominally regulating. The "Arbitration policy" (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia: ... ion/Policy) is nominally regulating, and even went through some sort of "ratification" open referendum. And the Arbitration policy for example says (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia ... rbitrators) how an arbitrator may supposedly be gotten rid of. It was examined in the controversy over election of 28bytes three months ago.

Do the arbs actually know or go by this stuff? No. In my opinion there're a couple or three of them that wouldn't even be able to tell you it exists. They use an authority-based style in which they read the chatter on the secret mailing list, and proclaim "consensus" now and then over the latest random percentage exceeding 50.

For example, Arbcom doesn't honor its ban appeal provisions (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia: ... an_appeals) when a blocked or banned editor manages to break past WP:UTRS (which "almost never" (per AGK) unblocks) and WP:BASC (which rejects 92% appeals last time it released statistics). Arbcom doesn't honor its provisions mainly because it is corrupt, but also because its members are mostly arrogant and drunk with their own authority which they've all carried over from the administrative culture, ignorant that there are actually rules they're supposed to be following, and take advantage that everything is secretive and anonymous and no-one is in a position to hold them to account.

Hope this helps.

[Kumioko]

Arbcom is supposedly reportable to the WMF however, its unlikely the WMF would do anything. Arbcom gives the MF plausible deniability on anything that goes on in Wikipedia.

Arbcom as a process is a joke though, the people elected to it mostly aren't qualified to be Arbitrators. Most don't take it seriously, they fail to do what they are supposed to do and frequently overstep their mandate to get involved in things that have nothing to do with them. They are nothing more than enablers of abusive admins and it gives the members a niche in their belt and another hat. They don't even follow their own rules let alone the rules of the community. The vaste majority of their case decisions are questionable at best and many have clear POV connotations.

I also agree completely with what tryptech said above.

Arbcom is a joke and should be disbanded.

[AndyTheGrump]

Who or what regulates this thing?

Welcome.

I take it you're somewhat disappointed with the delay in the Austrian Economics case?

Sympathies. The proposed decision was due almost three weeks ago. Instead, tumble weeds.

Three weeks? The 'gun control' decision is almost seven weeks late.

[Steeletrap]

Who or what regulates this thing?

Welcome.

I take it you're somewhat disappointed with the delay in the Austrian Economics case?

Sympathies. The proposed decision was due almost three weeks ago. Instead, tumble weeds.

It's been three weeks since the last deadline to close. They set that deadline after failing to meet another one.

The situation is even worse on gun control. They're nearly two months overdue there. That situation, unlike Austrian economics, doesn't even require background research. It's clear cut: the Holocaust had nothing to do with gun control.

[HRIP7]

Who or what regulates this thing?

Welcome.

I take it you're somewhat disappointed with the delay in the Austrian Economics case?

Sympathies. The proposed decision was due almost three weeks ago. Instead, tumble weeds.

It's been three weeks since the last deadline to close. They set that deadline after failing to meet another one.

The situation is even worse on gun control. They're nearly two months overdue there.

Commiserations to all concerned. Waiting for an ArbCom decision to find out whether you will be vindicated or banned can be pretty stressful.

[Randy from Boise]

Who or what regulates this thing?

Welcome.

I take it you're somewhat disappointed with the delay in the Austrian Economics case?

Sympathies. The proposed decision was due almost three weeks ago. Instead, tumble weeds.

It's been three weeks since the last deadline to close. They set that deadline after failing to meet another one.

The situation is even worse on gun control. They're nearly two months overdue there.

Commiserations to all concerned. Waiting for an ArbCom decision to find out whether you will be vindicated or banned can be pretty stressful.

Speaking of which, looks like the modification request of your pal Cirt (T-C-L) that would have allowed him to edit articles on three early Hubbard novels is gonna die in a 7-7 tie.

I'm really surprised at the depth of animosity against him with Arbcom — he's never again going to be allowed back in full, it would seem.

Also really surprised that my pal Beeblebrox is the only one seeming to share my views of the matter. Go figure.


RfB

[Kumioko]

Thats because their too busy trying to figure out what to do with me.:-). The ban clearly hasn't worked and probably never will since I don't recognize it for anything other than bullies trying to silence a critic. The current Arbcom is the worst ever, and I can't say that enough time. It is aweful.

[Notvelty]

Thats because their too busy trying to figure out what to do with me.:-). The ban clearly hasn't worked and probably never will since I don't recognize it for anything other than bullies trying to silence a critic. The current Arbcom is the worst ever, and I can't say that enough time. It is aweful.

You don't know Mila, do you?

[Neotarf]

My guess is that the Austrian economics case will take even longer than they anticipate. There are a huge number of diffs to go through, and quite a few BLP articles named as well, so they will take special care with that. When I first started following the cases, I was quite surprised; they really do go through the diffs. But unless you have edited with someone, it's not easy to figure out what is going on, even with the diffs in front of you. You pretty much have to see a discussion unfold in real time.

With the Teaparty case, they tried to take some shortcuts, and threatened to just ban everyone. They even tried to add a name to the case after evidence phase had closed, without diffs, as a "political" solution, but this didn't fly, as it was seen to be unfair.

With this case, if they have to choose between being late and being wrong, they will probably choose to be late.

Kumioko's ban is not just about criticizing abusive admins, it is about context. The first piece of context is that the last, and successful, ban discussion was initiated by an editor who does not have a reputation for harshness, and who voted against a ban in the previous discussion, thus reversing their previous vote. The one diff that the ban discussion hinged on was a comment by Kumioko on the talk page of a new editor who thought they were being harassed during a deletion discussion. They were not. By putting the comment on this page, Kumioko was giving the impression that someone had done something improper to the editor in this particular situation, when in fact, the new editor simply didn't understand what was going on. There was an earlier situation as well, where another editor offered to show Kumioko some diffs, but Kumioko pressed on without all the facts. Better to look at the diffs, and make sure of the situation first, otherwise the next time you claim abuse, no one will believe you.

[Steeletrap]

My guess is that the Austrian economics case will take even longer than they anticipate. There are a huge number of diffs to go through, and quite a few BLP articles named as well, so they will take special care with that. When I first started following the cases, I was quite surprised; they really do go through the diffs. But unless you have edited with someone, it's not easy to figure out what is going on, even with the diffs in front of you. You pretty much have to see a discussion unfold in real time.

With the Teaparty case, they tried to take some shortcuts, and threatened to just ban everyone. They even tried to add a name to the case after evidence phase had closed, without diffs, as a "political" solution, but this didn't fly, as it was seen to be unfair.

With this case, if they have to choose between being late and being wrong, they will probably choose to be late.

Kumioko's ban is not just about criticizing abusive admins, it is about context. The first piece of context is that the last, and successful, ban discussion was initiated by an editor who does not have a reputation for harshness, and who voted against a ban in the previous discussion, thus reversing their previous vote. The one diff that the ban discussion hinged on was a comment by Kumioko on the talk page of a new editor who thought they were being harassed during a deletion discussion. They were not. By putting the comment on this page, Kumioko was giving the impression that someone had done something improper to the editor in this particular situation, when in fact, the new editor simply didn't understand what was going on. There was an earlier situation as well, where another editor offered to show Kumioko some diffs, but Kumioko pressed on without all the facts. Better to look at the diffs, and make sure of the situation first, otherwise the next time you claim abuse, no one will believe you.

So you actulaly believe the months-long delays on Gun Control and AE -- including multiple changed deadlines -- are solely due to the fact that ArbCom is studying these matters (the former of which is totally straight-forward) super-carefully? Do you also believe in dragons, fairies, and unicorns?

[EricBarbour]

Who or what regulates this thing?

Welcome to our mess. I see that you ran into the Brick Wall of Arb Stupid because you were trying to edit Ludwig Von Mises Institute (T-H-L).
Congrats, you won't be the first or the last to be driven away/insane by Wikipedia libertarian-things.
Ditto for gun control, because it pushes their hot little buttons.

[Kelly Martin]

My guess is that the Austrian economics case will take even longer than they anticipate. There are a huge number of diffs to go through, and quite a few BLP articles named as well, so they will take special care with that. When I first started following the cases, I was quite surprised; they really do go through the diffs. But unless you have edited with someone, it's not easy to figure out what is going on, even with the diffs in front of you. You pretty much have to see a discussion unfold in real time.

They rarely actually go through the diffs. Rather, somebody tells them which diffs to look at for what and they look at those. Actually looking at the diffs is way too much work.

The only time they take a thorough look at the evidence is when there is disagreement within the committee as to how to decide the case, as each faction within the committee searches for ammo to win the fight. And even then they mainly rely on the clerks and the parties to tell them what really matters. Most of this, of course, takes place behind the curtain.

Note that this is how courts work in real life as well, so don't think it's all that surprising, unusual, or really terribly problematic.

[Neotarf]

Do you also believe in dragons, fairies, and unicorns?

Only gnomes.

Being a few days behind schedule is not all that unusual for the ArbCom. In the Argentine History case, a proposed decision was scheduled for April 26, but was not posted until June 12. The decision for Tea Party Movement was scheduled for April 3, but posted on May 6, although the case itself was not closed until September.

When I was writing the Arbitration Report for the Signpost, I probably looked at only about half of the diffs, or as many as it took to figure out if they were making a mistake. It's a huge amount of work. I did notice that some arbs seem to be more active in certain cases, perhaps they take turns concentrating on a particular case. But for the final decision they would often cite a particular diff as being decisive.

[Hersch]

To Steeletrap (T-C-L).

As far as regulation, my private theory is that WP:ARBCOM (T-H-L) is an extended Monty Python sketch.

I think that has been well established.

[Triptych]

Kumioko's ban is not just about criticizing abusive admins, it is about context. The first piece of context is that the last, and successful, ban discussion was initiated by an editor who does not have a reputation for harshness, and who voted against a ban in the previous discussion, thus reversing their previous vote. The one diff that the ban discussion hinged on was a comment by Kumioko on the talk page of a new editor who thought they were being harassed during a deletion discussion. They were not. By putting the comment on this page, Kumioko was giving the impression that someone had done something improper to the editor in this particular situation, when in fact, the new editor simply didn't understand what was going on. There was an earlier situation as well, where another editor offered to show Kumioko some diffs, but Kumioko pressed on without all the facts. Better to look at the diffs, and make sure of the situation first, otherwise the next time you claim abuse, no one will believe you.

Well, wait, Neotarf. This thread is about Arbcom, but Kumioko was banned by WP:AN/ANI (courtesy discussion closer 28bytes). It's a worthwhile matter for Wikipediocracy to discuss WP:AN/ANI (which is a Wikipedia blocking nexus at least as powerful as Arbcom, and ten times as damaging at least in terms of hyperactivity and editors harmed) but lets not mix up the poisonous mushrooms with the E. Coli hamburger.

Since you did though, let me briefly correct you that 28bytes "initiated" the lattermost WP:AN/ANI ban discussion of Kumioko. It was 28 that *closed* it with the official ban. Ne_ent initiated it by pointing to a diff in which Kumioko criticized WP:AN/ANI, claiming that Kumioko was "stirring the pot," and falsely claiming that Kumioko acted to take advantage of a struggling new editor to further Kumioko's mischief.

I looked once more, briefly, at the underlying case, which is new editor's Cowhen1966's efforts to write an article on Cecil Jay Roberts who is, by the discussion, minister and musician. The article is nominated for deletion (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia: ... ay_Roberts). Cowhen1966 attempts to defend. A mass of administrative regulars, with the notorious Wikipedia cyberbully Bwilkins (now masquerading alternately as "Dangerouspanda" and "Eatsshootsandleaves" and probably other accounts unknown, and whose real name is John R. Palmer, and who lives in eastern Canada, and who works for Canada's Ministry of Defense, and who has for a single example told an editor to "rot in the hell that is eternal block") at the forefront are criticizing Cowhen1966, threatening him or here with blocks, haranguing with pointers to non-applicable or at-best argumentative references to policy nuggets such as WP:BATTLEGROUND and WP:CANVASSING which are typically and artificially used at the drama boards to set up blocks. They are intimating suspicious COI sentiments against Cowhen1966.

In sum the lone newbie Cowhen1966, who self-identifies as pensioner and grandparent, is in fact being harassed by that administrative gang, and it's running concurrently with sequential WP:AN/ANI discussions in which he or she is also being knocked around, and Kumioko was right to comment and sympathize with him or her: "I have to say I am pretty disappointed with the ANI process and in all of you," which was the trigger pulled by Ne_ent for the Kumioko discussion that resulted in Kumioko's block.

Enough said? We deviated from the subject line and I welcome Zoloft or whomever to split this off to a new thread, how about "More Cowhenbell!"

[Kumioko]

I agree, I have no problem with discussions of my particular case but it should be done in its own thread not as a distraction here. Arbcom has already denied my BASC request so at this point and forever more I am just the latest banned editor of Wikipedia. It should also be noted that they have been systematically eliminating all the top editors. There's only a couple in the top 10 now that haven't been attacked for editing.

I also agree that Bwilkens use of multiple accounts is obvious socking and it amazes me that he is allowed and even encouraged to do so. Further proof that admins and especially former Arbs are allowed great lattitude to do whatever they want without having to worry about those pesky Wikipedia policies that only apply to the editor riff-raff.

Anyway, back to the pertinent thread and as I said before Arbcom is a joke process. Anyone familiar with it knows it including most of the Arbs. Its simply a status machine for hat collectors. Its the Apex billet for the editors with the biggest ego's and often times the smallest brains.

[Notvelty]

I agree, I have no problem with discussions of my particular case

Really? Never would have picked it.

but it should be done in its own thread not as a distraction here.

Yes, we definitely need another thread on it.

[Neotarf]

@Triptych; Who closed Kumioko's ban, again? A little fact-checking, please. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia: ... and_IPs.29 And where does Bwilkins/DangerousPanda/EatsShootsAndLeaves call out anything but notability as a reason for requesting deletion of the article? His remarks here are nothing short of demure.

The ban clearly hasn't worked and probably never will since I don't recognize it for anything other than bullies trying to silence a critic.

Is this user really the best poster child for admin abuse that Kumioko can find? Check the user page. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk: ... o_to_trust The supposedly (abusively) deleted comments were never found. The only thing removed was the new user's sig, which they had somehow inserted into the middle of someone else's comment. Check also the deletion request for an image the new user uploaded, claiming to be the copyright holder. http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commo ... erts_3.jpg Yeah, a new "Kumioko admin abuse" thread could probably be opened, or the old Kumioko ban discussion thread reopened, but it would probably have the opposite effect from the one that was intended.

[Triptych]

@Triptych; Who closed Kumioko's ban, again? A little fact-checking, please. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia: ... and_IPs.29 And where does Bwilkins/DangerousPanda/EatsShootsAndLeaves call out anything but notability as a reason for requesting deletion of the article? His remarks here are nothing short of demure.

Neotarf, I'm confident that the level of fact-checking I've done has led me to a more accurate interpretation of the edit record than yours. Jehochman attempted to close the discussion with a six-month block, but it was reopened (as I said) by Ne_ent some hours later and at 14:07, 4 March 2014 (UTC) 28bytes banned Kumioko by officially closing with the words "ban enacted."

Was Bwilkins "demure" in his handling of new editor and self-identified pensioner/grandparent Cowhen1966? Well, he lays down the law and raises his voice to him or her in the deletion discussion, limiting the number of policy arguments Cowhen1966 may raise, and at what point he or she may raise them: "You get to make ONE policy-based argument. Then, you may make policy-based counters a couple of other times, as long it's not repeating information you have already put forward. If you make any repeat comments, they will likely be removed DP 21:02, 19 February 2014 (UTC)." Note Bwilkins' (here, "DP") threat to remove Cowhen1966's comments if they seem repetitive to Bwilkins.

Bwilkins' threat to block Cowhen1966 occurred just a few paragraphs down: "accusations of [me] being on a power trip - all of which could have led to a block for WP:NPA ... DP 22:53, 20 February 2014 (UTC)." Is he demure there, Neotarf? I linked this discussion in my prior post where I made the remarks about Bwilkins you're quarreling with.

As for Kumioko, you portray him (or her? I forget) as engaged in a search for a "poster child for admin abuse" which you assert Cowhen1966 fails miserably because he or she has not been abused enough. Kumioko can and will defend him or herself, I'm not going to make an habit of it. But I think this is a very cynical and inaccurate way for you to view things. Cowhen1966 was a new editor who endured the not-uncommon treatment of being pushed around by the regular asshats in WP:AN/ANI orbit, was blocked for a week on who knows what pretense, and has apparently decided not to return. I think Kumioko just criticized the awfulness of this commonality as it occurred and was not particularly or artificially searching for "a poster child."

[Kumioko]

You are correct Tryptych (and I am indeed a he) in your assessment of my posting on that users talk page. Anyone who edits as a new user will quickly find themselves being targeted, Jimbo himself has mentioned it and several Arbs and admins in the past have proven it by creating alternative accounts to test the theory that new users are treated differently and often unfairly. In every case, they found it true that new users are often harassed by admins. Not one that I know of that tested the theory came to a different conclusion and most discovered it within the first couple weeks and less than 100 edits.

I can also indeed name a good number of admins that are more abusive than Bwilkins however I do find his use of alternate accounts to be dubious and frankly a violation of the socking policy. But wait, he is an admin, and admins are exempt from Wikipedia policy!

[Neotarf]

Was that supposed to be some kind of Fool's Day comment, Triptych? Bwilkins' entire statement was:

You were given "a way forward" - I offered to put it back into AFC where you and others could try to work on it, and I gave you tons of friendly advice on your talkpage. Your response was to call me a bully, "big man", and accusations of being on a power trip - all of which could have led to a block for WP:NPA, but I don't do that to people I've worked hard to assist.

After opposing his ArbCom attempt, I find it ironic to find myself defending him here.

More fact-checking: Kumioko's ban discussion was closed on 07:05, 28 February 2014, but not officially logged, as a courtesy by the closing admin. But after a peek in Kumioko's sock drawer, it became apparent that Kumioko was neither "the loyal opposition" or "a voice crying in the wilderness", but had indeed gone over to The Dark Side. ("You got one and I'll give you another. I wonder how long I can keep this up? I bet I created hundreds of accounts. Maybe even thousands anticipating this day coming.") Torches and pitchforks were assembled. Kumioko was then officially added to the list of banned editors as of 21:57, 28 February 2014, with no dissenting voices. But the posse was now on a roll, and would not be disbanded for another 5 days, when the second, post-ban discussion was given a long-overdue official burial.

[Triptych]

Was that supposed to be some kind of Fool's Day comment, Triptych? Bwilkins' entire statement was:

You were given "a way forward" - I offered to put it back into AFC where you and others could try to work on it, and I gave you tons of friendly advice on your talkpage. Your response was to call me a bully, "big man", and accusations of being on a power trip - all of which could have led to a block for WP:NPA, but I don't do that to people I've worked hard to assist.

He threatened to block the pensioner, grandparent, struggling newbie editor. I quoted him accurately. You want to read the self-puffery Bwilkins routinely sandwiches his threats and verbal abuse in? Have at it, but it's meaningless, don't expect me to quote it.

As to rest of what you say, okay I looked at that again. I may have read 28bytes wrong as having implemented the ban. Here is what 28 said when he closed and sealed the second discussion box: "Ban enacted, little point in discussing the standard offer while Kumioko is actively vandalizing the site. 28bytes (talk) 14:07, 4 March 2014 (UTC)." I took that as an affirmative statement that 28 was exercising his administrative authority to enact a ban of Kumioko. I'm sure you can understand how that is a reasonable interpretation of his comment in the context.

However, the alternate interpretation (and this is probably what 28 meant, since 28 disagreed with me previously on the point) is that by "ban enacted," 28 referred back to what Jehochman and Nyttend did in the immediately previous discussion box. 28 therefore wasn't affirmatively doing anything other than closing the discussion box.

The difficulties then persist because of the distinction between "blocks" and "bans." Jehochman explicitly said it was not a ban and further personally guaranteed Kumioko an unblock on request after a six-month break. Then in the second discussion (gosh, this is a pain to parse) hitherto-unheard-from administrator Atama (who does *not* close the second discussion box) proclaims it a ban not block, and asserts apparently correctly that Jehochman yielded the point. By this time a mob-thrashed and dispirited Kumioko also appears to yield the point. Atama goes the extra mile and adds Kumioko to the wall of tears at the List of Banned Users (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia ... nned_users).

I think the whole affair is chaotic and rules-free and of course extremely unfair to Kumioko who editorship died at the hands of Atama, Jehochman, Nytend, and 28bytes, but also of course amidst the shrieks and catcalls of the ignorant and rampaging WP:AN/ANI mob. It's despicable but it's a despicable commonality at Wikipedia.

[Kumioko]

Regardless of what I did or did not do in my final days in Wikipedia they had been trying to ban me and were going to continue to do so until they got it because I was questioning the admin culture and the Arbcom. It had nothing to do with socking which I only did after the ban was assured because I do not and will never recognize my ban. To wait six months or even ten days would be to yield the fact that admins on the site are allowed to do anything they want and are exempt from policy. They are not and should not be. They should, if anything, be held to a higher standard. Yet every day admins harass editors, in particular new ones who do yet know all the thousands of rules and especially IP's whom they assume to all be vandals and trolls. Many revert IP edits to "their" articles on sight without even bothering to look at the edit to see if it was beneficial.

Adminship does not nor was it ever intended to be a conduit to WikiKnighthood. Anyone who has been around for more than the last couple years knows that its a few extra tools. That's it, nothing more or less and even then almost all can be reverted (although some leave residual footprints behind like block notices). So they can ban me if they want, but it will not stop me from commenting or contributing and I added a comment to 2 pages today and I modified to Medal of Honor recipient articles last night that had vandalism on them. Also judging by the multuiple discussions about Arbcom failures currently going on in the project, whatever I have done in my past to bring light to them, wether as a direct or indirect result of my actions, appears to be working. So I will continue to comment here as long as I am allowed too, I will continue to coment in Wikia projects about the perils and tribulations of Wikipedia as well as Wikipedia itself. They can even revert my comments but people do read them including Jimbo himself when left on his talk page. So even if they do not agree, it does raise overall awareness of the problem. Even then, I envision the future of Wikipedia to be on steep decline and the next couple years will be a tell of its future.