The full text isn't hard to find.
On a related note.....
http://www.niemanlab.org/2018/02/after- ... al-reader/The article wasn't all that great. It isn't even clear why it was written. It nominally appears to be an explanation of what ArbCom is and does, and the trigger for it being written appears to be the recent Infobox case. But I cannot for the life of me think why the journalist or the editor thought these were worthwhile things to be writing about. I guess we can at least be happy that a deeper dive into now Wikipedia works is on the msm's agenda now, even if the results are questionable.
The article largely focused on what Wikipediots say, interviewing several, so it isn't all that useful for the critic cause. They did at least include some critical opinions at the very end, which is something I guess.
Piotr Konieczny, a Wikipedia editor and academic who has studied ArbCom, finds the body’s approach to sentencing distinctly American.
“I always find it shocking,” he says, when an editor expresses remorse yet is banned from an article. Polish Wikipedia’s Arbitration Committee, he has heard, is more inclined toward forgiveness.
“It’s very dictatorial,” says Edwin Black, an author who has written critically about technology, including Wikipedia. “You don’t get to face your accusers because you don’t know the person behind the pseudonym. You might be talking to someone named Bizarro24 or Swampboy.”
The article heavily focussed on the views of NewYorkBrad, to the point he is even allowed the last word, an outrageous invocation of Winston Churchill to try to argue that for all its faults, any other system would be worse.
They ran with the theme that ArbCom is Wikipedia's Supreme Court, and they get the basic details of what it does right. Euralysis pushed back on this view, but not because it isn't a court, simply because their jurisdiction and available punishments are limited. Which goes to show his limited capacity for dealing with analogies.
Perhaps most troubling, is within all this talk of it being a court, there seems to have creeped into the article the basic assumption that what they do and how they do it is as fair and diligent as you would expect in a courtroom. Which we all know is complete crap. The article completely sidesteps that, except to convey via Alanshohn that apparently ArbCom's decisions are more respected by the community than those of the lower courts. Which is something we critics also know to be horseshit (and is indeed one of the reasons their case load is reduced - filers are no longer wasting their time since they see even after getting an ArbCom ruling that, for example, Eric Corbett is a nasty piece of work who needs to be stopped, will be ignored).
Disturbingly, Brad is the only person they ask for a reason why ArbCom's case load is vastly reduced, the only person they asked as to whether or not ArbCom is politically biased, and the only person they asked to actually explain the reaction to now they handled the infobox case.
As you might expect then, the picture the readers get of how Wikipedia works from this article, while slightly clearer, is still far from the unvarnished truth. There will be no Pullitzer Prize for this piece, although it would be harsh to call it fluff. It was nonetheless, a softball. Perhaps they were just bored, and desperately wanted to write about something other than Trump and hashtags.