Wikipedia talk:Requests for arbitration/Giano/Workshop/findings of fact

message: I have been trying to make sense of this case.  It is difficult because so much has been written and so much of it is tangential.  Mostly for my own benefit, I'm going to try to summarize it here and see if I can get agreement from the interested parties.
I believe the heart of the matter is a disagreement over how discussions are believed to be held and decisions believed to be made on Wikipedia.  On one side we have primarily Giano and also Geogre and possibly Bishonen who allege secret proceedings and cabalism.  On the other side we have primarily Tony Sidaway who believes such allegations are incivil.
This disagreement is complicated by the personalities involved.  Neither Giano nor Tony Sidaway is a stranger to controversy, and neither backs down from a fight.
There is also much discussion of Camildo's RFA, which launched the whole affair.  The question here is which takes precedence, the community consensus as expressed in the voting, or the bureaucrats' judgement.
My opinions on these matters:
I feel that Giano's accusations are bizarre and not worth responding to.  I do not believe they are incivil.  We can hardly forbid him from thinking such thoughts, and to forbid him from voicing them would set a bad precedent.  Although I have little respect for what he is saying (and less for how he is saying it) I do feel he has a right to say it and let others judge for themselves.
Tony Sidaway is attracting a great deal of attention in this case, like others, because of his inflammatory style.  However, I think that focusing on his personality is a distraction and a mistake.  Just as Giano is not going to stop being Giano, Tony is not going to stop being Tony.  Ultimately the only remedy for an offender who does not change is banning from Wikipedia, and in my opinion neither user deserves that.
I believe the Camildo RFA was not originally part of this RFAr, but attention has been drawn to it by John Reid.  Although he and many others expected community consensus as expressed in the voting would be the determinant of granting Admin status, I do not believe it was ever policy that Bureaucrats existed only to rubberstamp the community decision.  It needs to be clarified here, and I hope the ArbCom can do this, that the voting in the RFA process is taken into consideration, but the final decision is made by the Bureaucrats.  This is my understanding of the policy as it stands and I feel that John Reid had expectations not inline with the policy.  Whether this should be the policy cannot be decided here, and perhaps should be taken up at the Village Pump.
Please assume good faith.  Having the opinion that secret machinations are happening is itself a failure to assume good faith.  Accusations of trolling and seeking to inflame are a failure to assume good faith.  Power struggles and demand for close oversight reflect a lack of trust and a failure to assume good faith.  Comments about "content-producing editors" versus others are divisive and a failure to assume good faith.
Do you want Giano to leave?  Do you want Tony to leave?  Do you want Camildo to leave?  Kelly Martin has already left.  The only sanction Wikipedia can apply is forcing people to leave, and some leave quite willingly before it is applied.  When you fight and argue here, think about what you are trying to accomplish.  Will you kill Wikipedia to save it?
--Ideogram 23:03, 1 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Summary attempt