User talk:Salvio giuliano/Archive 79

Question
I have one question Salvio. I respect you, and I understand your talk page notice. But I want to know - was the decision to add Giano to the case yours, and yours alone - or was it a committee agreement? — Ched : ?  05:33, 5 November 2015 (UTC)
 * It was mine. Drafters have always been allowed to unilaterally ask that new parties be added. Salvio Let's talk about it! 11:37, 5 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Salvio, surely you realize closing the thread at talk:AE2, as you just did, is an action that reflects even more poorly on you than your original failure to answer cogent objections such as Risker's. You're not up for re-election this year; does that make you feel it doesn't matter how you conduct yourself? Or does it simply come from being unwell, per your page notice? In that case I sympathise, but if that's it, you should probably consider taking a break from committee work. Bishonen &#124; talk 13:41, 5 November 2015 (UTC).


 * Please don't act in this capacity if you aren't feeling well. You don't need the stress and you might not make sound judgements if illness lowers your mood. Jehochman Talk 20:53, 5 November 2015 (UTC)
 * I just wanted to point out that the notice at the top of this page has been there for several years. Whatever health issues they concern do not involve a sudden onset of symptoms. Liz  Read! Talk! 21:10, 5 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Oh dear! One can't help but be minded of an observation, I made several years ago. Giano    (talk) 23:08, 5 November 2015 (UTC)

Please comment on Wikipedia talk:Fringe theories
The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Wikipedia talk:Fringe theories. Legobot (talk) 00:04, 7 November 2015 (UTC)

The Signpost: 04 November 2015

 * Read this Signpost in full
 * Single-page
 * Unsubscribe
 * MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 18:28, 7 November 2015 (UTC)

just saying
I have to be honest here Salvio. I am half-tempted to block you for "not here" and "grudge" reasons. Good Lord, talk about a transparent agenda. Hey, if the project is gonna play some sort of "civility" card, that's fine - but you have to know that when it does that, it loses a ton of content because a bunch of grumpy old farts don't care to play some online game. As much as I admire Jimbo's utopia concept - it is not reality. The big picture is about presenting online knowledge .. it's not about who can "play nice" in the sandbox. — Ched : ?  19:26, 8 November 2015 (UTC)
 * I'll just point out that starting out with I am half-tempted to block you for "not here" and "grudge" reasons is not the best idea if one wants to taken seriously, or is looking for a response on the merits. Salvio Let's talk about it! 19:29, 8 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Hey - you take it for what it's worth Salvio. I admire a lot of good things you do, but I have to speak my mind.  Personally I don't care how anyone takes me ... — Ched :  ?  19:42, 8 November 2015 (UTC)
 * removed. And apologies to Salvio and everyone else. — Ched : ?  19:51, 8 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Ched, please, please refactor that. If an editor is obnoxious on your own talk by all means tell them to fuck off. But don't do it on his own talk page where he can't easily ignore you. I don't like the green textisms either but it's his house, his perogative. Jehochman Talk 15:57, 9 November 2015 (UTC)

When I was a much, much younger man a USMC Staff Sergeant explained to a group of us commissioned officers in training, "You can be an aass-hole, but as long as you're a consistent aasshole, the men will love you." (If you've ever heard a Southie accent, a la Good Will Hunting, that was the dialect.) The fundamental problem is you laid down a line in the sand (clerks will remove! proactively!) and then --- they didn't. When in one case the non-party accused suddenly becomes a party, folks start suspecting an "agenda." The issue isn't that you aren't doing what people want, whether it be pro-content, pro-civility, pro-gap, pro-equal treatment, pro-what have you, it's that ya'll have failed to do what you said were going to do, and such behavior in authorities breeds contempt. NE Ent 02:46, 10 November 2015 (UTC)

Recusal request

 * Arbitration/Requests/Case/Arbitration enforcement 2

Salvio, I would like to ask you to recuse from further involvement in this case, for which you are currently the drafting arbitrator. I have read through the discussions regarding that case carefully and a number of actions you have taken give the impression that you have an agenda in relation to this Arbitration, rather than acting as a neutral judge. In particular: I am sorry but your conduct in relation to this case has left me with the strong impression that you are not a neutral person to be determining it. Maybe I am wrong, but it is important to avoid giving that impression. Your conduct in relation to this case appears to have made many in the community uneasy. I urge you to consider carefully recusing from the case. WJBscribe (talk) 10:54, 8 November 2015 (UTC)
 * 1) Originally deciding to name the case "vested contributors". This was a non-neutral term suggesting a pre-existing value judgment.
 * 2) Abolishing the workshop phase without full discussion and explanation. This action suggested that the decision was already made and no input from the community was wanted in relation to it.
 * 3) Unilaterally adding Giano to the case without proper explanation and clarification of the case scope. This is particularly concerning given the original title of the case. His selection appeared arbitrary and reactionary to criticism he has made of ArbCom's actions.
 * 4) Shutting down discussion about your reasons for the addition of Giano. That discussions was civil, measured and involved a number of highly respected editors calmly probing the reasons for your decision. Apparently this was unwelcome.
 * Support, uneasy. What if all arbitrators on that case - which seems a giant waste of time - would recuse, Kirill Lokshin apologize for a strange block, Yngvadottir is unblocked, and we return to writing articles? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 11:58, 8 November 2015 (UTC)
 * I didn't pick the original name of the case; I sort of inherited it from a discussion that was going on on the clerks' mailing list, where it was the only alternative name proposed. Despite the feeling of some in the community, case names are never chosen with much attention. It's probably something we should change going forward (for instance, adopting nondescriptive names, such as 2015/01), but, at the moment, names are chosen on a "yeah, that'll do" basis. The workshop was abolished because it would, to quote Opabinia regalis, be nothing but a mudflinging fest. Quite frankly, I didn't have any intention of forcing the clerks and myself to watch over the workshop for a fortnight, to prevent potshots, in particular because I strongly doubt it would have been of any use. To be fair, I have not removed the comments where various members of the community tell us how they think we should solve this issue; the community offered their advice at the request stage, on the case main talk page and on the evidence talk page. Having a workshop would have been, in my opinion, not worth the hassle. After all, all possible solutions have already been indicated: remove all restrictions imposed as a result of the GGTF case, cap the block lengths, force all enforcement requests involving Eric to go through AE, take over the enforcement of Eric's restrictions, ban Eric. A workshop would have turned into an unhelpful series of votes and of allegations against all and sundry. The workshop, just like all other case pages, is there to help ArbCom reach a fair decision; when the drafter anticipates that it will yield no useful results and will, for good measure, force the clerks and the drafter to spend time and energy policing the page, then abolishing the workshop is a reasonable decision. Simply put, the community have been discussing Eric's conduct for years. The fact that three arbitration cases have been needed is evidence enough that further community discussion would do nothing but waste time. The clerks', the participants' and mine. The unilateral addition of parties is nothing new. Most drafters have unilaterally added parties and nobody has ever batted an eye. Furthermore, he was not added for his criticism of ArbCom; if I were adding all those who criticise ArbCom, the list of parties would be much longer. Not to put too fine a point on it, there is a difference between criticism and abuse. And, calling them , , and  is definitely abuse. Giano's actions are related to the scope of the case (the enforcement of Eric's restrictions), display a pattern of conduct, and were brought to my attention. I could have simply ignored them for bureaucracy's sake, but I didn't think that would have been fair: we have WP:NOTBURO for a reason. Are you seriously suggesting I should have ignored them? . Furthermore, concerning the discussion of Giano's addition, well, arbitration is different from other venues, such as AN or ANI, in that we don't need community's consensus to act, and we don't need to persuade the community. The community is entitled to an explanation, which I gave. Nothing more. Finally, per the arbitration policy, an arbitrator is supposed to recused when he has a significant conflict of interest, which includes significant personal involvement in the substance of the dispute or significant personal involvement with one of the parties. Previous routine editor, administrator or arbitrator interactions are not usually grounds for recusal. I don't think I have a conflict of interest and, so, I am not inclined to recuse. I'll ask for input from other arbitrators, before giving you my final answer, though.  Salvio Let's talk about it! 12:08, 8 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Thank you for your considered reply and I will of course reflect carefully on your final response. I would ask that you consider that avoiding the appearance of a conflict of interest is as important as not having one in the first place. If it were me, I would try to consider whether I have by my actions given the impression of a conflict of interest, rather than whether I have one, as it's easier to do so objectively. WJBscribe (talk) 12:14, 8 November 2015 (UTC)
 * OtherStuff. There are all kinds of problems on Wikipedia. When a concise set off issues comes to arbitration it is best not to take the bait when somebody tries to drag in a third party as happened when Gamaliel denounced Giano on the evidence page. You don't want to encourage and reward that sort of thing. The correct answer should have been "out of scope, go file a separate request for arbitration if you want us to address that issue. "  Salvio, there is a strong appearance that you have been waiting for any chance to sanction Giano, so you suspended normal good practice and got a little Machiavellian. Jehochman Talk 14:56, 8 November 2015 (UTC)
 * The correct answer should have been "out of scope, go file a separate request for arbitration if you want us to address that issue. " The point is that those edits are pretty much in scope: every single one of those comments was in relation to the enforcement of Eric's restrictions, which is the scope of the case. Furthermore, specifically concerning your suggestion to say go file a separate request for arbitration: now that's a neat idea. Let's have yet another case concerning the enforcement of Eric's restrictions, I'm sure everything is going to go smoothly there. so you suspended normal good practice, if I had wanted to follow procedure for procedure's sake, I'd have asked the clerk to remove the evidence, informing Gamaliel that he could have asked for the addition of Giano as a party, which I would have granted, in light of the diffs provided, and Gamaliel could have reinstrated his evidence. Adding new parties is a normal and accepted practice and so is WP:NOTBURO. There was no point in forcing Gamaliel (or anyone else, for that matter) to go through the red tape of asking for the addition of Giano, only to restore the evidence he originally provided (and, had I done that, I'm certain someone would have complained that I was being a bureaucratic prick, and that I was trying my hardest to look the other way when disruption is brought to my attention). Quite frankly, everyone complains that ArbCom cases are too bureaucratic and last too long, but as soon as someone tries to cut down the bureaucracy, he's a stalinist who can't wait to suppress dissent. Salvio Let's talk about it! 17:55, 8 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Salvio, I think that the problem here is that you need to communicate more to the community what the reasons are for the management of the case in this way, and what the intentions of having the case are. For editors watching what's going on, it has been very unclear what the scope of the case really is. It briefly started out under the flawed name of "vested contributors", which could be construed by making some educated guesses that it would be about finding a solution, for once and for all, for the conflicts surrounding controversial editors such as Eric Corbett and Giano. Then it was renamed as AE2, which can reasonably be inferred to be a follow-up to AE1. In that case, it would be about Kirill's block, Yngvadottir's unblock, and the AE process. In fact, in AE1, you explicitly said that AE1's purpose was to put in place "ground rules" for an eventual AE2. The instructions to editors not to comment on editors who were not parties seemed to reinforce the perception that this really was about AE, and not about sanctioning editors beyond what happened at AE. But then, the addition of Giano seems completely at odds with the case being only about the AE process. Absent a workshop, there is every appearance that the Committee, and not just you as drafter, made a decision before the collection of evidence that actions are going to be taken against Eric Corbett and Giano. That's what the community sees. And when the discussion was closed by you as "asked and answered", most uninvolved editors thought: when was it really answered? I'm not seeing a benefit in recusal, but I think that there is a serious need for a clarifying statement on the evidence talk page about what the scope of the case decision will, and will not, be. --Tryptofish (talk) 16:34, 8 November 2015 (UTC)
 * The scope of the case is the enforcement of Eric's restrictions. I hoped that the clarifications we made during AE1 would have been enough to avoid another case, but I was wrong, so this case is basically the continuation of that one, but this time we specifically focus on Eric's restrictions and, after the addition of Giano as a party, to his comments in relation to the enforcement of those. Salvio Let's talk about it! 17:55, 8 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Thanks. So, in the interests of clarity, am I correct that the scope is not about Eric, beyond his restrictions and their enforcement, and not about Giano, beyond his comments about enforcement? --Tryptofish (talk) 18:09, 8 November 2015 (UTC)
 * That is correct. Salvio Let's talk about it! 18:14, 8 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Thanks, that's very helpful. Please do yourself and the Committee a favor, and say that on a case page. The community needs to hear it. --Tryptofish (talk) 18:16, 8 November 2015 (UTC)

I just saw this link on the Arb case page. First, to clarify, I am not asking you to recuse. This is about the addition of Giano to the case. When you say that you included Giano based on Gamaliel's evidence, it looks very strange because Gamaliel themselves stated that they did not ask for Giano to be a party. Secondly, I don't see any thread about Giano on WP:ANI or WP:AN since at least February, where they were unblocked after community review; most of the thread seems to be over the conduct of the blocker rather than the blocked. Why the need to handle this through ArbCom? Is there some ongoing disruption? If there is a long term problem with Giano, let it go to WP:ANI and decide there. This just creates the appearance of shortcutting the process. Kingsindian &#9821;&#9818; 08:30, 9 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Why the need to handle this through ArbCom? because we have a pattern of conduct which bears investigation, and which was related to the scope of the case, a case which, by the way, deals with an issue that the community has been bitterly divided over for a very long time; and because it was brought to my attention. Drafters have historically had the prerogative of adding new parties to a case, when they think that their conduct is in scope and needs to be reviewed. And that's what I have done. If there is a long term problem with Giano, let it go to WP:ANI and decide there oh, another neat idea. After all, ANI has such a stellar record dealing successfully with divisive issues! Salvio Let's talk about it! 10:34, 9 November 2015 (UTC)
 * I am not questioning your prerogative, I am questioning the wisdom. As to the non-suitability of WP:ANI for disputes, is that the new rule: any problems with behaviour, the first step is ArbCom? That way is the step to even more Arb cases. I see that five of them are already pending. I was frustrated by the lack of progress on the WP:ARBPIA3 case, but then I saw that the e-cig one is late by more than a month. Kingsindian &#9821;&#9818; 11:52, 9 November 2015 (UTC)

I just wanted to note that I do not intend to follow up my request here with a request to ArbCom for your involuntary recusal. I still remain of the view that the matters I have raised, and the discomfort they are causing neutral observers, is such that you should voluntarily recuse. However, I agree with your analysis of ArbPol - it only provides for involuntary recusal where a conflict of interest exists. In my opinion that doesn't go far enough - Arbitrators should also conduct themselves in a manner that avoids giving the appearance of such a conflict. Nevertheless, as I am unable to show an actual (as opposed to apparent) bias, I do not intend to take the matter further. WJBscribe (talk) 13:13, 11 November 2015 (UTC)

National Defense Forces
The Syrian National Defense Forces needs an article. I see you have deleted an article by that name in 2013 based on "G5: Creation by a blocked or banned user in violation of block or ban". I am not sure what was there has anything to do with Syria or if the Syrian NDF should exist under some other name. Is there anything you can do to help? -- Petri Krohn (talk) 01:48, 11 November 2015 (UTC)
 * The deletion was due to the fact that the article had been created by a block-evading sock, it had nothing to do with the subject of the article. If you wish, you can recreate the article. Salvio Let's talk about it! 10:13, 11 November 2015 (UTC)

unnecessary snark
"For the benefit of my most learned and wise colleagues, I'll just point out that a ban is not being proposed for this minor infraction, but for this plus the previous six infractions. How many infractions are required to speak of a pattern, rather than a minor infraction which can be nonchalantly brushed aside, is left as an exercise for the reader" is not helpful snark, bordering on personal attack against other committee members; it's okay to disagree with the rest of the committee but if you must use the mailing list -- Please change the comment to the legit part, specifically: "I'll just point out that a ban is not being proposed for this minor infraction, but for this plus the previous six infractions." NE Ent 14:56, 14 November 2015 (UTC)

The Signpost: 11 November 2015

 * Read this Signpost in full
 * Single-page
 * Unsubscribe
 * MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 21:08, 15 November 2015 (UTC)

Please comment on Wikipedia talk:Non-free content
The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Wikipedia talk:Non-free content. Legobot (talk) 00:04, 17 November 2015 (UTC)

Not a party
When the case opened, several people proposed adding JzG as a party, but were told that it wasn't necessary for someone to be added as a party because the arbitrators would carefully review the evidence provided, no matter who against. So, now that the PD has been posted, several of you vote against several of the proposals, saying, "JzG is not a party." Another editor (Jusdafax) was added as a party just because he posted a comment on the case talk page, and the committee refused to delist him as a party when he objected and asked why JzG, who had actually participated in the topic area, wasn't listed. You really can't make this stuff up. Wikipedia never fails to come through. Cla68 (talk) 23:47, 12 November 2015 (UTC)
 * I concur with the issue of JzG not being added as a party when requested, and then the reason for not sanctioning being cited as "not a party" being a lot like a runaround, a procedural failure, a way in which an editor/admin who has shown abusive behavior toward me and toward others in a seemingly agenda-driven way, and has allegedly outed me by doing opposition research on me to use against me in Wikispace, etc... to be unscathed in a case in which i have been topic banned for year, for consistently insisting on integrity. It's just not right. Thanks for your time that you volunteer as an arbitrator, but decisions like this do matter for the world and ought to be done based on principles and on what is right. SageRad (talk) 13:55, 17 November 2015 (UTC)
 * But the problem is that, in my opinion, it is not right to "ambush" an editor like that. I agree that, in hindsight, he should have been added, but he wasn't. That was the procedural error, not the current opposition to remedies against him. As I said on the PD talk page, the correct course of action now is either a new case focusing on JzG's conduct or an amendment request once the case closes. Salvio Let's talk about it! 14:15, 17 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Thank you for the reply. Much appreciated. I can understand this reasoning. I appreciate identifying this as a problem with this case as it moved forward that JzG was not added in a timely manner, and therein may lie a failing. It still does have the feel of a runaround to me, as i could not understand the reasoning for not including JzG in the case, but i do understand your reasoning. Like a lot of things in this case, it fails to feel good to me. I would say this even if i were not a named party with sanctions. SageRad (talk) 14:20, 17 November 2015 (UTC)

The Signpost: 18 November 2015

 * Read this Signpost in full
 * Single-page
 * Unsubscribe
 * MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 22:26, 21 November 2015 (UTC)

comments
I posted tonight with comments which include your name. My apologies for not using the ping function. — Ched : ?  07:24, 22 November 2015 (UTC)

ArbCom elections are now open!
MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 14:12, 24 November 2015 (UTC)

Please comment on Wikipedia talk:Categories, lists, and navigation templates
The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Wikipedia talk:Categories, lists, and navigation templates. Legobot (talk) 00:06, 27 November 2015 (UTC)

The Signpost: 25 November 2015

 * Read this Signpost in full
 * Single-page
 * Unsubscribe
 * MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 03:27, 29 November 2015 (UTC)

The Signpost: 02 December 2015

 * Read this Signpost in full
 * Single-page
 * Unsubscribe
 * MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 23:21, 6 December 2015 (UTC)

Please comment on Wikipedia talk:User pages
The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Wikipedia talk:User pages. Legobot (talk) 00:09, 7 December 2015 (UTC)

Ping
Hi Salvio. I hope you're doing OK, and are indulging yourself, and feel better soon. Just in case you want to opine - I misspelled the ping. --Anthonyhcole (talk · contribs · email) 01:59, 9 December 2015 (UTC)

The Signpost: 09 December 2015

 * Read this Signpost in full
 * Single-page
 * Unsubscribe
 * MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 20:39, 12 December 2015 (UTC)

Please comment on Wikipedia:Administrators/RFC on inactivity 2015
The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Wikipedia:Administrators/RFC on inactivity 2015. Legobot (talk) 00:02, 18 December 2015 (UTC)

The Signpost: 16 December 2015

 * Read this Signpost in full
 * Single-page
 * Unsubscribe
 * MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 19:57, 19 December 2015 (UTC)

Yo Ho Ho


 Ϣere Spiel  Chequers  is wishing you Seasons Greetings! Whether you celebrate your hemisphere's Solstice or Christmas, Diwali, Hogmanay, Hanukkah, Lenaia, Festivus or even the Saturnalia, this is a special time of year for almost everyone!

Spread the holiday cheer by adding to your friends' talk pages.

FWIW
If I've been banished from this page - feel free to delete. I come with hat in hand to wish you a very happy holiday season. You are one of two people who have made me lose my temper (on wiki) - but in honesty, I only lose my temper with people I respect. I honestly would like to sit across the table with you and talk. I'd love to elaborate, but - well .. probably more work than would be productive. I agree with you on things - and disagree with you on other things. I just want to wish you a very happy and enjoyable holiday. — Ched : ?  01:38, 23 December 2015 (UTC)
 * You are not banned from my talk page, Ched, and, anyway, holiday wishes are always appreciated. Merry Christmas to you too, if you celebrate it, and a happy new year. Salvio Let's talk about it! 10:22, 23 December 2015 (UTC)

Merry Christmas and happy new year
<div style="border-style:solid; border-color:#FF4646; background-color:lightgreen; border-width:2px; text-align:left; padding:7px; border-radius: 1em; box-shadow: 0.1em 0.1em 0.5em rgba(0,0,0,0.75);>

Merry Christmas and happy new year. (: --<span style="white-space:nowrap;text-shadow:#008C3A 0.1em 0.1em 1.5em,#01796F -0.1em -0.1em 1.5em;"><b style="color:#01796F;">Pine</b><sup style="color:#01796F;">✉