Wikipedia talk:Requests for arbitration/Giano

message: Below the original request as it appeared on WP:RFAr. - Mgm|(talk) 21:39, 24 September 2006 (UTC)

message: I am listed as a party in this dispute and so will comment although I think my role in it was minor. It isn't clear to me what precisely the ArbCom would be looking into if they did take this case nor is it clear to me whether the ArbCom can reasonably look into this since this does seem to involve(at least in regard to the Kelly Martin part) issues related to the functioning and structure of the Arb Com. I have really no strong opinions on most of this matter excepting my block of Tony. Given later comments he has made it seems likely that the most relevant comment in question about the "boil" (whic I considered to be the final straw) may not have been intended as a personal attack but was simply an incredibly unwise choice of wording. I therefore standby my block of Tony as the correct thing to do under the circumstances and have no comments to make about the more general issue other than to express a feeling that the entire Carnildo resysoping could have been handled more diplomatically by almost all involved parties. JoshuaZ 18:22, 22 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Statement by [[User:JoshuaZ|JoshuaZ]] 

message: I agree with JoshuaZ that the block, in the circumstances of my unwise choice of words in an explosive situation, was merited for the good of Wikipedia, although the meaning that JoshuaZ and at least two other parties read into the statement was far from the one intended.  I took it as a good opportunity to take a break.
I feel that the overt and admitted attempts by some editors to enlist mob rule against the bureaucrats and the arbitrators was beyond what is acceptable behavior on Wikipedia, and the repeated engagement in inflammatory accusations against the arbitration committee, amongst others, was something that merited action.  I believed from the start that a three-hour block should be reviewed although to my mind this was a sensible and reasonable way of dealing with an editor who showed no inclination to moderate his accusations after warnings.  Many disagreed with that block after I submitted it for review.
I think that ghirlandajo's objection has some merit, because it seems unlikely to me that some of the parties accept the jurisdiction of the Committee.  Perhaps this case might be better handled by Jimbo Wales. --Tony Sidaway 18:48, 22 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: There seems to be some confusion about "cooling off" blocks.  Of course all blocks for disruption are "cooling off" blocks.  That's precisely the situation in which a block of a non-vandal editor is appropriate: when his activity is damaging the encyclopedia because of his anger and he needs some time to cool down. --Tony Sidaway 04:12, 23 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Statement by [[User:Tony Sidaway|Tony Sidaway]] 

message: (I've removed my initial now irrelevant query, and am adding instead a statement as involved party.) The initiator InkSplotch says that "Bishonen and Geogre questioned [Kelly Martin]'s status as Arbitrator Emeritus and attempted to use this to influence the actions of the ArbCom". I sure did. Bishonen | talk 20:55, 22 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Statement by [[User:Bishonen|Bishonen]]

message: I recommend, to the strongest possible degree, that ArbCom accept this case and examine the behavior of everyone involved.  --Cyde Weys 18:15, 22 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Comment by Cyde Weys 

message: I know that my statement does not bear much weight here, but I ask ArbCom not to accept this request unless it is renamed to Carnildo, et. al. The whole issue was sparkled by Carnildo's notorious RfA and the ArbCom's moot position in this case. Therefore, it is more appropriate to bring in Bcrats rather than mainspace editors like Giano. As for Tony's comments and all that followed, it seems that the matter was settled for now. Prolific editors returned to editing; admins returned to administrating. I don't see any reasons to boil this pot of bad blood until it explodes. The only result of this may be the massive exodus of Giano and other sensitive contributors from Wikipedia, to the infinite satisfaction of the other side. As for "adressing the idea fought over in this discussion editors vs. admins", I don't see how ArbCom may issue a satisfactory ruling in favor of contributors, being composed primarily of non-writing admins.  InkSplotch's request is all the more ill-advised, as some parties expressed doubts in the integrity of the ArbCom and its procedures against the background of Carnildo's RfA. Bringing the case to be decided by the judge they don't trust seems the worst issue possible. Only the community in general should solve such general problems which don't involve particular mainspace editing conflicts but rather question the whole functioning and structure of the ArbCom. Let's not confuse the courtroom and constitutional assembley. --Ghirla -трёп- 18:43, 22 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Comment by uninvolved [[User:Ghirlandajo]] 

message: As the Arbcom debates whether or not to hear this case, I'd like to point out that it seems to me that one of the central complaints of some are perhaps being mischaracterized as  complaints questioning the legitimacy of Arbcom.  What I have read are not complaints about the legitimacy of Arbcom qua Arbcom, but rather strong concerns about the transparency of the process, in particular the fact that non-arbitrators (a) have access to the Arbcom mailing list and (b) are willing to appear to violate the privacy of that list to make enigmatic pronouncements.  An inference that follows from that is "since this appears to be happening, perhaps that information channel works two ways."  I view that not as an attack on the legitimacy of Arbcom, but as a critique of the particular case management processes being used at the moment. Nandesuka 18:57, 22 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Comment by uninvolved [[User:Nandesuka]] 

message: While Nandesuka above me said it very well, this also has roots in a long-standing, underlying belief that many with what would be called "power" weild it in ways that are improper or unexpected, and when flareups occur such as the Carnildo RfA or the Sidaway/Giano conflict, the end result is the same parties taking the same sides.  We often joke around about 
"cabalism," but the perception oftentimes rears its head as a possible (if not probable) reality, and as we examine the timeline regarding this particular conflict, both named and unnamed parties show these same tendencies which should be lessened as opposed to brought out when heated discussion and dissent takes place.  When it gets to the point where editors get angry at administrators because of articlespace edits, and when administrators stop assuming good faith and consider dissent and criticism trolling, it only makes problems worse.  --badlydrawnjeff talk 20:09, 22 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Comment by uninvolved [[User:Badlydrawnjeff]] 

message: I would agree with Ghirlandajo's notion that the case, if accepted, should be ranamed to something more neutral -- I realize the ArbCom turns its eyes on all parties and the name is of not much import to them, but it would be reasonable to remain sensitive to the general perception among those not entirely familiar with ArbCom that in Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/JoeBlow, JoeBlow is the "problem". I also share the same misgivings about how dispassionate ArbCom members can be regarding some of these ArbCom-related issues.. —Bunchofgrapes  (talk) 19:02, 22 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Comment by uninvolved [[User:Bunchofgrapes]] 

message: There are a lot of issues being mixed up here, and I hope the Arbitration Committee can successfully separate them out where needed. I've read through a lot of the debates, and commented in a few places, and I'd like to comment briefly here in case it is useful. To my mind the issues seem to be: (a) behaviour of users towards each other at various points; (b) concerns about transparency of Arbitration Committee procedures; (c) possible influence of those outside the Arbitration Committee on internal discussions; (d) unresolved issues from the Carnildo RfA.
Relating to point (a), the use of "cooling-off" blocks (seemingly not encouraged) is something that it would be useful to get a ruling on. Relating to points (b) and (c), it might be helpful to clarify the last two points mentioned at Wikipedia:Arbitration_policy#Transparency. Relating to point (d), if there has not been an official pronouncement on the Carnildo RfA and the ensuing discussions, then doing so might help calm things down a bit.
Finally, the general issue of the Arbitration Committee addressing the issue of its own procedures (viz mailing lists and so forth), I was reading around the ArbCom pages and in this unofficial essay I found this: "Arguing about flaws in the Arbitration process is usually a waste of time and will make Arbitrators look dimly upon you." - can those raising issues concerning the Arbitration process (ie. transparency and mailing list discussions) be reassured that this will not be the case here? Carcharoth 23:12, 22 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Comment by uninvolved [[User:Carcharoth]] 

message: My involvement was mostly in general terms, but it seems that Kelly may have left in direct response to my comment on WP:AN, so I may be somewhat involved. 
Anyway, I don't think that there is anything that ArbCom can do about this - the interpersonal issues are petty and nothing new. At the same time the debate that became this case is about how the project should function, and that's for the community (and foundation, and Jimbo) to decide, not ArbCom. Anyway, the issues include the relationship between ArbCom and other editors, and I believe that it's inappropriate for ArbCom to be involved in that issue in its official capacity. (OTOH, it is appropriate and indeed desirable for arbitrators to comment on that issue in their capacity as editors and experienced members of the community). Zocky | picture popups 00:51, 23 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Comment by (mostly) uninvolved [[User:Zocky]]

message: The debate in which the arbcomm needs to be involved is this: is Wikipedia dysfunctional?  •Jim62sch• 03:07, 23 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Comment by uninvolved [[User:Jim62sch]] 

message: I fully welcome a transparent review of these problems but I am concerned about how neutral a forum arbcom is for this - 1 Arbitrator and 2 arbitrator's clerks are named as involved in this request. Given such a close link will Arbcom feel the need to demonstrate that they are entirely impartial? Will this provide justice for Kelly, Tony and James? If they're hung out to dry will this just be seen as a rearguard action? If they're not will this be seen as proof positive that the suggestions of Arbcom impropriety are correct? Also, to successfully defend the accusation that kelly has used her influence upon the ArbCom, fairness should dictate that the mailing list be disclosed, to at least all parties involved; I'm sure everyone will agree that this is undesirable and unworkable, but how can a effective defence be made without it? I think this case seems mired from the start in intractable conflicts of interest . I agree with Ghirla about the case name change and thoroughly support Carcharoth suggestion to broaden the scope to include the Carnildo resysopping - How about a rename to "Events surrounding the Carnildo RFA" - the current name paints Giano as the defendant - the et.al is rather ambiguous. If ever there was a case for Jimbo intervention, this is it. --Mcginnly | Natter 09:55, 23 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Comment by uninvolved [[User:Mcginnly]] 

message: Although Wikipedians are encouraged to express their concerns about Wikipedia, I feel that a precedent needs to be established regarding when a user shows contempt and mockery towards Administrators in general, as well as the Arbitration Committee. The AC should also determine whether certain users' actions towards the Administrator "group" in general and the Arbitration Committee, with numerous allegations of conspiracy and skirting the edge of decency by "demanding" people resign their roles in the community or else Wikipedia will lose "a valuable contributor", borders on disrupting Wikipedia to make a point. I also encourage people at WMF, including those "in-the-know", with refined bullshit testers, to have a look-in. Considering the current opinion held by some regarding the AC, opinions and rulings from "up above" may help quell some of these malicious and unsubstantiated opinions. Daniel.Bryant 11:32, 23 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Comment by uninvolved [[User:Daniel.Bryant]] 

message: This is clearly a disruptive editor. See this edit for evidence on Giano's unacceptable behaviour. Velten 17:00, 23 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Comment by uninvolved [[User:Velten|User:Eternal Equinox]] 

message: As I see it this is a question of how much rule is from below (ie editors). Some editors have been contributing on the basis that they have the power to reject Admins. The flexibility sometimes shown by Bureaucrats has led to anger because this was not the understanding these editors had. I have always assumed Wikipedia had rule from the top, with suggestions from the bottom. Bureaucrats mostly implement routine bottom up decisions, and occasionally implement overrides from the top. I think it is significant that a Steward voted in the two recent relatively low support re-promotions. I feel that if the actual deal is made clear, it will save a lot of trauma in future. Stephen B Streater 22:04, 23 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Comment by uninvolved [[User:Stephen B Streater]] 

message: "Comment by uninvolved User:Eternal Equinox" above points to a paragraph of complaints within Requests for arbitration/Eternal Equinox. At the conclusion of that RfAr, "Remedies" were applied to User:Eternal Equinox and User:Jim62sch; none was applied to Giano. So it seems that the "evidence on Giano's unacceptable behaviour" was unimpressive even when first presented two months ago.
(Incidentally, we read in this 20 July 2006 edit by User:Veryinteresting1 that My final edit to Wikipedia will be made in the next hour. Cannonballs away! —EE so User:Velten may be an imposter.)
-- Hoary 07:28, 25 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Metacomment by uninvolved [[User:Hoary]]

message: :* Accept. No prior formal attempts to resolve this mess have been claimed, but the ArbCom can hardly duck this one. Charles Matthews 18:30, 22 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: * Accept.  Facts not contested but hotly in dispute, therefore there is no point in a damaging RfC.  Sam Korn (smoddy) 18:52, 22 September 2006 (UTC)

text: * Accept. Matthew Brown (Morven) (T:C) 19:32, 22 September 2006 (UTC)

text: * Accept Fred Bauder 01:19, 23 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Arbitrators' opinion on hearing this matter (4/0/0/0)