I-are-seem to be reaching out

Let's talk to rather than past each other. Refractoring some select excerpt for targeted discussion. El_C 05:10, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

On "WEA a special "

Because #wikipedia-en-admins is not under the community in general's control, but rather under the control of a limited and specific list of people, the policy page describing it is a special case of policy page. Those who have authority over the channel are recognized as having a particular right to edit the page. Editors should in general not revert edits made by those who have control over the channel. Phil Sandifer (talk) 19:29, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

Those who run the channel are free to control what happens on the channel. They do not, however, have any special privilege to dictate how Wikipedians describe the atmosphere, behavior, or procedures on the channel. Specifically, David's position does not give him a special waiver to remove from the page all criticism of the way the channel operates (rather, it burdens him with a conflict of interest when he does); and does not exempt him from the standard protection policy with reference to that page. Christopher Parham (talk) 00:04, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

If no prior notice was given of these special rights and status ... how could any Wikipedian be faulted for assuming that a page appearing in Misplaced Pages was open to editing? Risker (talk) 16:55, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

Comments

I just have one: if it's a "special place" that isn't Misplaced Pages, how can there be a Misplaced Pages policy about it? Does Misplaced Pages host policy pages about how SomethingAwful is to be run? By the way, I invited such comments before. There weren't any, so I figured it was fine to edit the page. I guess we were all supposed to read the silences... presumably by hearing a great deal on IRC. Geogre (talk) 14:30, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

I-are-seeing evidence?

Reconciling the un-citability of (non-personal-info) irc logs with accountability & community confidence: possible, or forever a source of woe? El_C 05:10, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

Comments

Geogre "repeatedly": explored

Geogre has repeatedly been incivil and engaged in personal attacks. Phil Sandifer (talk) 01:38, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

To be clear: it's not enough to say "In this diff Geogre makes a personal attack," because I looked at those diffs and, frankly, didn't see the claimed personal attacks. Nandesuka (talk) 03:57, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

Comments

I don't have anything more to add than what I said on the Workshop page: if you're making the serious accusation of a "personal attack," then you have an obligation to state what you think that attack actually is. Phil utterly failed to do this. Nandesuka (talk) 15:55, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

Do I finally get to say something? Ok, here it goes: Phil Sandifer, aka Snowspinner, has always had a thing about "personal attacks." He introduced the very concept to Misplaced Pages, and his original attempt at "semi-policy" failed miserably, thanks to the work of user:Orthogonal and myself. It was an absurdity that has since been used to countenance illogic and misbehavior. There is no way for me to say that Phil's heart wasn't broken by my warning to him, or that Guy didn't weep in bitter tears when I called his comments "horse shit." There is no way for Phil to say that Guy did, either. There is no way to quantify, assess, consider, or even acknowledge a "personal attack." Uncivil behavior can be assessed, however, by its effects. So here is how we can determine whether a person has been uncivil: has that person's comments meant that editing ceased, and all conversation turned to the speech act, rather than the reasoning or issues? Was a single user so deeply affected that she or he left the project or decided not to edit as much?

Well, let's use those two alone and see. After my "repeatedly" "incivil" (why can't people ostensibly getting training in an English department learn to use a dictionary?) remarks, what was the result? Did Phil begin discussing my vicious comments? Did he swear off Misplaced Pages or swear off editing as much? Did Guy? Has David Gerard said that I'm the reason he stopped adding any content to Misplaced Pages? Did any of these editors contact me at any point to ask me to tone it down, to clarify, or to apologize? Did any of them tell me that they were insulted? Did any of them attempt dialog or redress in any form? The answer to those is "no" in every single case.

Now, we can look for a different thing, too. We can ask what Snowspinner/Phil Sandifer has done. Has he attempted dialog? Has he attempted mediation of this rampant uncivil behavior? Has he tried to work out differences with me? Oddly, my talk page is, I believe, a virgin to any comment from Phil in four years. What has he done, then? He has tacked me on to an arbitration, and for what purpose? He moves for demotion, punishment, and all sorts of mean, nasty things. What is the effect of this? It is to draw attention to his personal emotions, his personal sadness at taking losing positions or being unable to argue his positions against me. That, friends, is the definition of uncivil, for it is evidence of someone putting the personal far ahead of the communal. Geogre (talk) 05:46, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

Thought from an irrelevant editor who has to get this out somewhere: Every one of Phil Sandifer's proposals on that arb works hop makes me feel sick. The point of arbcom, even for the non-arbs participating, is (as the order of the elements suggests) to start with the principles, etc, etc, etc. These proposals (principles, findings of fact, remedies) seem to be geared towards specific ends: keeping the channels in a position where they are both official and free of any scrutiny; and driving away users that he perceives to be 'against' him. I for one would rather be rid of any number of those who seem to gather around these WP namespace controversies than any actual content contributer, let alone somebody as generally genial as Bishonen. No more bongos (talk) 19:05, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

Access to arbcom-l: parties and peers

Some have argued that David Gerard's read access to the committee's secret deliberations constitute a pivotal advantage (i.e. being able to adjust his conduct according to expectations gathered therein). Others maintained that there isn't much he could do with that knowledge. What is, however, clear is that he is the only party with such access, which places him in a unique position. El_C 03:17, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

Comments

Community admonished?

The community is admonished for its repeated protection of Giano. Phil Sandifer (talk) 18:37, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

"The community" is Misplaced Pages. Arbcom exists for our sake, not vice versa. Crotalus 20:48, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

I would want to see evidence of other users being protected. Phil Sandifer (talk) 20:39, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

This could be a long list... Carcharoth (talk) 20:45, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

Comments

Phil's acting insane, or he's writing insanely. It's as if he wants people to mention his own misdeeds, as I suspect that he is thinking of getting "even" for being caught short. He, for one, has been well protected, despite horrible acts in the past. Tony Sidaway at en.admins after resigning his admin status under a cloud, and then being offered ops there? Kelly Martin not being an admin and yet given ops over that channel? Kelly "thanked" during an arbitration that resulted in resigning under a cloud? Ed deleting AfD, and Phil doing the same (but claiming "IAR" and being too "clueful" to worry about doing things by the numbers) and not being banned? There are quite a few people who have been arbitrated frequently, but, oddly, the various times that Giano has been mentioned in arbitration, the cases have never, so far, actually been about anything he has done. Before Phil gets away with telling the whole world that he's right and that they all need to be warned that he is, it would be good if he could be precise and say exactly what Giano II is supposed to have done in this case and at this time. Seems like "edit war" is about all there is, and, as Phil should have learned by now, there were a dozen people in that war. Blocking only one of them, and not for the requisite 24 hr but for the outlandish 72 hr, is itself a misuse of admin tools and something that should be arbitrated. However, Phil gets away with abuse. Giano gets blamed for every time people get caught doing something outrageous. Geogre (talk) 04:04, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

"Beyond odd"

Hi. I'm trying to facilitate a laid back, on-wiki discussion about Misplaced Pages and IRC and would appreciate your particpation. Thanks. Regards, El_C 18:31, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

I'm afraid that it would be grossly inappropriate for me to comment whilst a case is in train. I also find it beyond odd that you would seek to carry such a conversation out on a user's talk page, but hey. :-) James F. (talk) 10:40, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

I don't think there's anything prohibiting you from commenting; I can ask other members of the committee in case you feel constrained. And I'm sorry you feel Misplaced Pages users carrying such a discussion on user's talk page is "beyond odd," but IRC was unavailable! ;) El_C 17:38, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

Comments

To James F's credit, at least he replied to my invitation. The other two editors whom this extended, did not. El_C 17:56, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

What on earth would a case have to do with anything? JamesF is not named as a party, and I sincerely hope he's not arbitrating it, given the conflict of interest. For that matter, either he has total control, because it's his party, and then there is no Misplaced Pages link to that channel, or he is ruled by the policies and procedures of Misplaced Pages, in which case we can finally begin to set forth best practice by consensus and rationalize the thing. There is no "semi-policy" and there is no "semi-adherent." If it's not Misplaced Pages, then Misplaced Pages's got no place advertising it. Geogre (talk) 21:13, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

...when *presenting* findings

Carcharoth notes that "balance is important when presenting findings of fact." It is, therefore, noteworthy that three editors from one side of the dispute (Giano, Geogre, Bishonen) are mentioned versus only one from the other (the arbcom-l privy David Gerard). As well, the former are noted in less heated ("provocational") terms than the matter-of-fact description of Gerard, who of course did not shy of such exclamations as "idiocy and trolling." El_C 17:51, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

Comments

I may release some of my own communication to arbcom-l from last month which may shade light on the nature/source of this unevenness. El_C 17:51, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

What's more, the talk page to that idiotic vanity page of David Gerard's is now showing a group of people realizing that... guess what?... the page was inaccurate. It was poorly written (no contest), inaccurate (now community finding), and self-loving (no one has said anything about that, one way or the other, but it would explain the poor writing and inaccuracies). If this is so, then people have a wholly laudable need to edit it. The provocative edits of Giano, the sometimes pointed edits I did, and the edits Bishonen did that brought onto Misplaced Pages a matter that needed to be addressed and which was being ignored behind the veil of "can't be quoted," are all therefore legitimate. On the other hand, with the community findings of fault with the page, David Gerard and others who moved to his preferences, were fighting for no stated reason. Additionally, he in particular, but they in general, employed insulting language over and over in their edit summaries and in their rare talk page comments. The uneven comments reflect something other than fact, other than assessment, and other than reason. Geogre (talk) 12:00, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

Pissing into the wind again for fun Geogre? Giano (talk) 13:33, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

Bishonen, specifically

Moreover, Bishonen only made three edits to the page. Several other editors edited, and reverted, the page more times during the course of the dispute. She, as the victim of the attack, with very few edits (three) to the disputed page, is singled out negatively, whereas her attacker, Tony Sidaway is left unmentioned. Somehow, I am sensing this findings of fact presentation mode is intentional. El_C 17:51, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

Comments

See above comment. Quite a few other users made more than three edits, and furthermore, Bishonen withdrew involvement therein early on. El_C 17:51, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

Tony Sidaway, specifically

Thus, bizarrely, some feel that it is fine to have Bishonen, an admin with an exemplary record, labaled as a troublemaker due to these three edits. Not only, they propose that she will be placed on an indefinite civility parole due to these three edits, which were not even uncivil.

It all strikes yours truly as an approach that seems rather Orwellian. Bishonen is aggregated in this parole with Tony Sidway (the person behind the IRC insults), whose record of indiscretions was submitted to the now virtually unreadable, hundreds of pages-sized workshop. I will outline this Finding of Fact directly below (thankfuly, it was also submitted on Newyorkbard's talk page, which makes for much easier copying):

Tony Sidaway is frequently the source of, or very near to, large-scale disruption, mostly over issues that are confined to Misplaced Pages space and do not directly effect the production of encyclopedic content. Principle amoung these are the "wars" over userboxes, signatures, and spoilers.

As the items below indicate, Tony is involved in disruption of some nature every few months.

Comments

How can Bishonen and Tony Sidway be equally aggregated when she possesses an exemplary record+3 edits, compared to his record, above? It boggles the mind. El_C 21:13, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

Dramaticontroversialdrama

"ontroversial circumstances" does not equal "left because of some drama" Ned Scott 06:55, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

I see nothing in the term 'drama' (which anyway is an over-general and unhelpful term on Misplaced Pages) that contradicts 'controversy' Dan | talk 07:39, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

Comments

Do I dare ask why I'm being quoted here? The comment is unrelated to Bishonen . -- Ned Scott 07:08, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

Indeed it isn't. Here, I'm interested discussing what defines controversy vs. drama, an issue which I felt the above exchange touched on. El_C 15:05, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

"Drama" is a term heavily used in gay slang, and it always comes across to me as cattiness. I find its use offensive, as it turns legitimate issues into "oooh, that bitch." Such trivial people should not have an audience, and they most emphatically should not have imitators. People who leave in controversial circumstances are those whose ability to voluntarily leave is controversial, because there is a segment of the editing population that believes that such a person should have a finding stripping him or her of position. E.g. several users, and not merely the ones I dislike, have "left" when arbitration began, and that has been used as a reason for stopping the RfAr. In other cases, people have "resigned" their administrative status during an arbitration, and therefore the arbitrators have not been moved to give an official demotion. The "under a cloud" finding has now had a face lift and wording change, but the import is the same: a person who quits/resigns when there is substantial evidence of wrong doing is not truly volunteering, and therefore they have something "on their record," as it were.

I still find that ruling problematic, myself. I do not think ArbCom should be taking cases that are about personalities. Personalities and personal problems should be dealt with either by community actions or by mediation. If it's just, for example, the case of SandyGeorgia and Zeroath, there should be an easier way to deal with it than arbitration. Instead, arbitration should take place when there is an operative principle involved, when there is something deeper than unhappy people or jerks. If there is an issue, then ArbCom should make a finding, even if the people all leave/resign/apologize. The point is to make a finding on how policies should or should not be employed or to recommend places where policies need to be formed. Geogre (talk) 04:16, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

Bishonen and Giano Main pageness

Bishonen (in five days) and Giano (tomorrow) are the gift that keeps on giving, even when whilst away. As always, when it comes to claims of having the project's best interests in mind, this editor feel that action speaks louder than loudly-spoken words. Congratulations to them both! El_C 17:56, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

Comments

Belated congrats! El_C 21:13, 13 January 2008 (UTC)