Wikipedia talk:Requests for arbitration/Giano/Workshop

message: My last edit I got a brief flash of the edit conflict screen, and then it went to the page... please do review it, whomever is interested. - brenneman {L} 02:54, 25 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Odd editing 

message: Count of Edits	
 Tony Sidaway    30
 Aaron Brenneman 28
 Fred Bauder     18
 Kirill Lokshin   3
 Sjakkalle        2
 Dmcdevit         1
 Ral315           1
 MacGyverMagic    1
 Grand Total     84
Unseemly.  I'd love to hear how we can avoid having 70% of this whole arbitration being yet another round of the Aaron-and-Tony show.  I'd support an injunction saying we could not edit the page more than twice a day, or something similarly Draconian.  We've both got lots to say, but the domination of the page by anyone (or two) is a bad thing, as it makes it both less likely that others will contribute and makes it harder for them to be heard when they do.
brenneman {L} 08:15, 25 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: This is matter is beyond trivial.  A workshop is supposed to be edited. --Tony Sidaway 09:16, 25 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  I am inclined to agree. We should not put an embargo on the edits. That is not nice. One should be allowed the freedom to talk and clarify his/her position and points. Here, we should not apply the principle that edit countis is fatal! Bhadani on 27.09.06
Tony's input is welcome. But so would anyones. Fred Bauder 20:09, 27 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Let us not repeat past mistakes 

message: Aaron and Tony, perhaps if you wait for evidence to be put on the evidence page this case would be more focused. ;-) FloNight 10:36, 25 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Bah, call me idealistic, but I thought that first we defined the problem together and then we scrounged up diffs to support what everyone already knew.  This whole "side by side competing statements" thing combines the efficiency of the post office with the warmth of the tax department.  It's just a terrible way to work.  But, per suggestion, I've dumped a bunch of diffs onto the evidence page.  Please do edit them. - brenneman {L} 14:37, 25 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Sorry to not be cuddly Fred Bauder 15:43, 25 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Waiting for evidence might help

message: I presume from comments on his talk page that User:Carnildo is aware of this RfAr. I am also aware that he is not a named party in this RfAr, but that his recent RfA is a subject of discussion here. I can see the advantages and disadvantages of Carnildo choosing to stay away from this discussion. But can someone briefly explicate/confirm whether, as he has not technically been named and informed, any conclusions here can concern him. Thanks. Carcharoth 17:24, 25 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Done, but unless the RfA is overturned, it doesn't affect him. Fred Bauder 17:48, 25 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Carnildo 

message: After reading the request for arbitration and seeing that it was focused on the behavior of Tony and Giano, I was a bit surprised to see the workshop has inked considerable time in reviewing the Carnildo promotion. The request was purely about the behavior that came up afterwards. It's fine if the arbcom wants to review the decision of course, it's just surprising to see my name and the decision I took part in brought up many times when I had no expectation it would be or notice that it was. I tend to avoid arbcom proceedings as much as possible because I think they should be participated in only minimally to get the job done and get back to editing, so I'm not sure of everything about how they work. Maybe examining everything related is normal. So I guess the question is was that intentional to focus on the promotion decision, and whether or not it was, is that a desired/helpful part of this case? - Taxman Talk 03:46, 27 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The row was about feelings about the closing of Carnildo's RfA. Fred Bauder 04:25, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

text: Maybe I'm missing something, but thus far your name appears four times on the Workshop page (a small number for the War-and-Piece [sic] number it has become) and the promotion itself is still largely presented as background material. —Bunchofgrapes  (talk) 03:54, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

text: Arbitration workshops can often be quite different from the proposed and final decisions.  Anybody, and I mean anybody, can make a proposal on a workshop page.  Doesn't mean it will be considered by the arbitration committee.  Although the arbitrators may make comments during the workshop, and perhaps influence its direction in this way, in practice nobody knows during the workshop phase which points the arbitration committee will consider to be relevant to the case. --Tony Sidaway 05:29, 27 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  This is true on some level and utterly false on others.  It's base to shift all responsability for the outcome of this case onto the arbitration committee.  As I've said before, if the committee were able to adequately filter and process all the data  without the input of others, we wouldn't need these pages.  The onus is on the "normal" contributors to present a clear concise case supported by evidence. - brenneman {L} 06:40, 27 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  Not really.  It's the arbitrators' job and theirs alone to decide if there is a problem that needs to be fixed, define it, and order remedies.  Anything they get from other editors is a freebie, although obviously it's in the interests of some participants to draw attention to matters they think may be relevant to the case. --Tony Sidaway 06:51, 27 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  I find it difficult to reconcile this stated casualness and the zeal with which you edit these pages.  What function do you then serve in doing so, might I ask? - brenneman {L} 07:10, 27 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  It's fun, it's on a subject I enjoy discussing, and discussing these things helps me (and others) to understand what took place. --Tony Sidaway 07:48, 27 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: You find it "fun" to participate in ArbCom cases? -- ALoan (Talk) 13:09, 27 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: You don't? Hiding Talk 13:21, 27 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  ALoan, remember that you're talking to a guy who has participated in and observed arbitration cases since his earliest months at Wikipedia, who aided editors who were in need of advocacy or just someone to tidy up their evidence, ran for the Committee last December, recently brought three simultaneous arbitration cases, and has engaged as a clerk in more arbitration cases than any other clerk to date.  Why would I have done all this, which is very hard work, if I didn't enjoy arbitration cases? --Tony Sidaway 15:45, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

text: No, not at all - and, far as I am aware, I am not yet, although I may do later - I would rather be writing articles.  Unfortunately, my article output has fallen in recent weeks due to a variety of non-wiki issues, and, since bricks may be falling from a great height onto heads that I care about as a result of this discussion, I feel the need to see how it evolves.  I think this is another instance of the divide between people prefer to write articles, and people who prefer spending time behind the scenes -- ALoan (Talk) 14:23, 27 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I contribute on occasion to arbitration cases because I think that I can contribute effectively to the process.  I find it intellectually satisfying to contribute to the discussion and the potential resolution of a dispute, in much the same way that a user who acts as a mediator can enjoy and learn from that experience, albeit it's not quite the same kind of enjoyment as writing an article.  And of course, it's also good to advocate for the positions I believe in as a Wikipedian.  However, if I were participating in an arbitration proceeding as a party whose behavior was being questioned, I'm sure I wouldn't enjoy that at all. Newyorkbrad 14:35, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

text: I must say, I've never viewed them as anything more formal than brainstorming.  Hiding Talk 11:34, 27 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  When/why did the focus change 

message: I tried reading the workshop(s!) but after a while (and after my browser crashing several times because it's so big) I've realized that's it's mostly unsalvageable. What's there tends to be either irrelevant, personal opinion and editorializing, or obvious, and there's simply too much to make my thoughts known on how the case should actually end up looking with hundreds of proposals. Basically, having looked at all the evidence, but not quite having formulated opinions on everything, my basic outline is like this:
*(Background of the Pedophilia case and first block and its consequences.)
*RFA/Carnildo 2: Carnildo is promoted unexpectedly and against common practice (though not nominated or promoted with ArbCom's support, unless I am out of the loop). I admit I initially thought it was a good compromise, but having seen the result, I am still undecided about how I feel about the way it was done.
**However, I don't see any problems with Carnildo's admin actions so far, so we should confirm he has a review in the future, but is not re-deadminned.
*Repercussions:
**Giano was uncivil
**Tony has a prior history of poor admin judgment (RFAr/Tony Sidaway)
***Tony is involved in the dispute.
***Tony also made a controversial block without discussion (not always bad, but it was clearly controversial here, and not according to any clear policy, so it should have been discussed and supported first)
****His block was inappropriate for those reason.
***Tony Sidaway previously cautioned to remain civil (RFAr/Webcomics)
****Tony was uncivil
***JoshuaZ was involved in the dispute with Tony.
****JoshuaZ's block was inappropriate (should have been done by someone else at least, though I woudn't call it as controversial).
**Geogre was uncivil
**James' comment was "===You're all idiots=== OK, I don't really mean that. :-)" with the second part frequently left out. It was ennecessarily provocative, but I find it hard to see that as a personal attack. Moreover, there is one comment in total. I lean towards non-inclusion.
**The Kelly Martin stuff confuses me a bit. Sjakkelle's old evidence seems like over-reaching to me. The pertinent part is the diff in Geogre's evidence, but, while a bad idea, it's one diff. It may warrant inclusion but, unless there's more that no one offered in the evidence, I'm still undecided on that.
**Bishonen, Irpen, Ghirla don't seem sufficiently involved or problematic (the block of Ghirla has been mentioned, it might be relevent to a finding about Tony, but I'm afraid I'd probably have to recuse on anything related to him anyway); the concept of clerking seems unrelated: Tony wasn't acting for the AC in any of this, in fact he would have been fired if he hadn't resigned. Given that, I don't understand the interest in the matter.
*I'm sure I've managed to rub everyone the wrong way, but this is how it looks to me. I'm not sure I can stomach figuring out how to make this clear through the workshop, so this is in lieu of participating there. (Which means, of course, people can comment here, but I hope that doesn't get out of control, too.) Dmcdevit·t 23:49, 2 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Seems about right to me. --Tony Sidaway 23:54, 2 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  So what does that mean in terms of sanctions, recommendations, etc.?  After all of this, I don't think that any blocks, bans, desysoppings, etc. are warranted, for reasons I explained in detail in the now-considered-unsalvageable workshop (into which I and a number of others put a lot of effort, so it's unfortunate that turns out not to have been useful to you, but that's life, I suppose).  Other commenters have disagreed with me, in various different directions.  Then again, unlike some, I was never convinced the case was a good idea to begin with, and there's been strong disagreement with that.  In terms of your specific tentative findings, each of them has support from at least some commenters with the exception of your comment about JoshuaZ's block of Tony Sidaway, which as far as I recall no one has criticized at all.  I disagree with some of them, of course.  Also, I'm sure you will have noted that Fred Bauder is partway through writing up a /Proposed Decision already. Newyorkbrad 00:09, 3 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Huh? That's news. Thanks for noting that here. I'm off to look. Anything has to be better than wading through the Workshop again to check I've read everything! Carcharoth 00:39, 3 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: That's what the page history is for! Newyorkbrad 00:42, 3 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Yeah. I do use that as well. But I still seem to miss stuff! :-) Carcharoth 00:59, 3 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Thoughts 

message: Among other things, the Proposed decision being drafted by Fred Bauder proposes that Geogre be desysopped ("suspended indefinitely" as an administrator "for sustained aggressive political campaigning" is the precise wording).  John Reid would be banned for one week for his postings to the Bureaucrats' Noticeboard.  In all the pounds of typing expended in the Workshop and elsewhere, not a single user suggested that either of these remedies was in order or should even be considered.  I did not agree with everything that Geogre or John Reid said during the past month, but I consider these proposals to be entirely unreasonable and unacceptable. Newyorkbrad 20:34, 3 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: These remedies are based on my personal organizational experience. Political agitation sucks productive energy big time. Fred Bauder 20:46, 3 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Since Geogre hasn't used his admin powers in this matter, and arbitration is not about punishment (nor is adminship a reward), I find this highly inappropriate. Zocky | picture popups 02:54, 4 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  And desysopping worthy admins does so even more unfortunately :( -- Grafikm (AutoGRAF) 20:48, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

text: I didn't think to recommend any individual remedies in this case and I don't expect that those currently proposed regarding John and Geogre are likely to prevail; however they're not that unexpected, given the tenor of Fred's investigation.  I would add (and Fred has said this himself) that it's quite possible that all his proposals will be rejected.  The remedies directed at individuals aren't particularly important in any case.  This arbitration is much more important than that. --Tony Sidaway 20:40, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

text: Fred, do you think desysopping Geogre is going to achieve your objectives with that? -- Kim van der Linde at venus 03:00, 4 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Discussion of the above is taking place here. SlimVirgin (talk) 05:50, 4 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Highly Unanticipated Provisions of Proposed Decision - Geogre and John Reid  

message: I proposed this injunction based on my first hand observations of her incivility and personal attacks on the channel over the past month and specifically since she joined the channel in the last 48 hours. 
 FloNight 10:19, 4 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Q. Does arbcom have jurisdiction over IRC, or is this not a matter for the channel ops? I've no comment on the specifics. --Doc 10:23, 4 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I would think that ArbCom would have jurisdiction over all official Wikipedia-en entities. Since members of Arb Com are channel ops, it should not be a problem to implement. FloNight 10:36, 4 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: OK, just asking. I take it they'll be able to examine the logs for evidence, unless they were in the channel at the time. --Doc 10:39, 4 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Injunction proposed re: Kelly Martin's access to #wikipedia-ed-admins

message: Hi, There are a number of sections on the project page that assume Tony is an admin, which he no longer is.  I suggest we strike them out.  Regards, Ben Aveling 08:48, 6 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  I suggest we strike