Wikipedia talk:Requests for arbitration/Giano

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

Giano, et al.

 * Initiated by  User:InkSplotch at 18:01, 22 September 2006 (UTC)

Involved parties



 * Confirmation that all parties are aware of the request
 * Messages have been posted on named parties talk pages, and on AN.


 * Confirmation that other steps in dispute resolution have been tried

This arbitration request is to examine the actions surrounding the actions and discussions resulting from Giano's behavior after Carnildo's re-admin.

Links

 * Administrators%27_noticeboard
 * Administrators' noticeboard/Giano
 * Bureaucrats%27_noticeboard/archive3
 * Requests for adminship/Carnildo 3
 * Requests for arbitration/Pedophilia userbox wheel war
 * Administrators%27_noticeboard/Archive29

Statement by Initiator
It's with heavy heart that I bring this arbitration request forward. It is not my intent to reignite the tempers which flared on the Administrator's Noticeboard, Bureacrat's Noticeboard, and various talk pages. It's also not my intent to declare any one party "right" or "wrong" in this, because as I see it, all parties have made such decisions for themselves. Instead, I bring this to ArbCom because I feel what fueled this fire for so long was a level of personal attacks in the form of unsubstantiated accusations which do nothing to serve the goals of the encyclopedia. I feel arbitration is necessary to give the involved parties an opportunity to substantiate their claims, and to give arbcom the opportunity to clarify what level of claims constitute opinion or personal attacks.

I've listed the following individuals as involved parties, and would like to give my reasons. (Of course, the offical list about is subject to modification.)
 * Giano was initially blocked by Tony Sidaway for comments like these .  They follow this initial post  in which Giano expreses his loss of confidence in what he claims is a "huge error in judgement."  This evolved into his later statements which seem to claim collusion between high ranking members of ArbCom (by which I think he might mean the Bureaucrats) and Foundation members (notably, Angela) in reinstating Carnildo, acting directly against the communities wishes and to the detriment of the project.
 * Tony Sidaway blocked Giano for 3 hours, and announced it on AN. The block was over turned.
 * JoshuaZ blocked Tony Sidaway for 24 hours for disruption and incivility relating to the Giano block, but "other recent behavior", particularly comments made by Tony later.
 * Geogre has claimed on several occasions on AN during this discussion (now archived at AN/Giano) that Tony, Kelly and other admins have used their positions and forceful manner to intimidate users and game the system (my phrase) to win arguments, while insinuating at motives highly disruptive to the project. He has, in discussion with me, outlined his thoughts on his talk page and commented that he has no interest in collecting evidence or seeking arbitration on these users.  As serious as his claims are, I feel it's disruptive not to.
 * Irpen has also claimed malfeasance against Tony, as well as claims of cabalism and plotting amongst admins with a call for them to resign.
 * James F began a section in the Giano discussions titled, You're all idiots. While backing off from this in the next sentance, this header sparked much more discussion and server to incense many editors.  Althought I suspect it was an attempt at humor, it failed to defuse the situation and only made things worse.
 * Kelly Martin, who I do not expect to participate, offered to resigned her assigned posts of Admin, Checkuser and Oversite if Giano and four admins (Bishonen, Geogre and two others) called for it. Instead, Bishonen and Geogre questioned her status as Arbitrator Emeritus and attempted to use this to influence the actions of the ArbCom (something they claim Kelly does given her level of access to ArbCom members).  In response, Kelly has renounced her positions of Admin, Checkuser and Oversite, and seems to have left the project.

I request that the Arbitration Committee accept this request to examine the behavior of admins in this affair, most importantly the attacks and accusations between admins with unsubstantiated claims. It's factionalising the adminship, and leading to proposed policies that would, in my opinion, further disrupt administrative duties in the forms of Admin probation, suspension and de-adminning by giving admins the weapons to fight ideological battles against one another rather than talk things out. I would also request the Committee adress the idea fought over in this discussion "editors vs. admins" where raw edits to the main space and featured articles were used as (the only) meters by which all should be "ranked." Finally, I request that the discussions on AN, BN, and AN/Giano be accepted as prior attempts at mediation. A great number of editors and admins alike participated in the discussions on AN, and I don't feel an RFC or mediation could possibly sort out the mess at this point.


 * Update: Per the reasons listed by Kelly Martin above, and discussion with Bishonen below, I have added Bishonen to the Involved Parties.

Statement by JoshuaZ
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)

Statement by Tony Sidaway
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)


 * 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)

Statement by Bishonen
(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).

Comment by Cyde Weys
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)

Comment by uninvolved User:Ghirlandajo
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)

Comment by uninvolved User:Nandesuka
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)

Comment by uninvolved User:Badlydrawnjeff
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)

Comment by uninvolved User:Bunchofgrapes
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.. &mdash;Bunchofgrapes (talk) 19:02, 22 September 2006 (UTC)

Comment by uninvolved User:Carcharoth
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 Arbitration_policy. 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)

Comment by (mostly) uninvolved User:Zocky
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)

Comment by uninvolved User:Jim62sch
The debate in which the arbcomm needs to be involved is this: is Wikipedia dysfunctional? &#0149;Jim 62 sch&#0149; 03:07, 23 September 2006 (UTC)

Comment by uninvolved User:Mcginnly
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)

Comment by uninvolved User:Daniel.Bryant
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)

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

Comment by uninvolved User:Stephen B Streater
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)

Metacomment by uninvolved User:Hoary
"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! &mdash;EE  so User:Velten may be an imposter.)

-- Hoary 07:28, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

Clerk notes

 * (This area is used for notes by non-recused clerks.)

Arbitrators' opinion on hearing this matter (4/0/0/0)

 * 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)
 * 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)
 * Accept. Matthew Brown (Morven) (T:C) 19:32, 22 September 2006 (UTC)
 * Accept Fred Bauder 01:19, 23 September 2006 (UTC)