Misplaced Pages

talk:Requests for arbitration/Giano/Workshop - Misplaced Pages

Article snapshot taken from Wikipedia with creative commons attribution-sharealike license. Give it a read and then ask your questions in the chat. We can research this topic together.
< Misplaced Pages talk:Requests for arbitration | Giano

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Carcharoth (talk | contribs) at 22:30, 27 September 2006 (→Kelly Martin: add comment). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Revision as of 22:30, 27 September 2006 by Carcharoth (talk | contribs) (→Kelly Martin: add comment)(diff) ← Previous revision | Latest revision (diff) | Newer revision → (diff)

Odd editing

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 02:54, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

How can this possible work?

I'd suggest, as gently as possible, that if people are not willing to work on a single version of events, that we're all really wasting our time here. I'm dismayed that even getting one paragraph to reflect a plurality of views appears to be too much to ask. I'm also suprised that a member of the commitee should first support a nascent finding, barely minutes old and then withdraw that support when *gasp* someone edits it.

I cast my mind back to the last arbitration that Tony and I were both involved in and the riduclous lengths that were gone to there to ensure that a preferred version of events was reflected in each finding or principle.

Can I ask that the individuals involved (including myself, or course) make a little bit more effort to edit harmoniously? --Aaron Brenneman 04:49, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

This workshop page is provided for the benefit of the arbitrators. It's probably not a good idea to perform a radical edit on a proposal that at least one arbitrator has accepted. Create an alternative and see if anybody likes it better. This enables the arbitrators to decide between different versions. It's the way it's done on the proposed decision page, except for minor tweaks. --Tony Sidaway 04:59, 25 September 2006 (UTC)
Again, I'd refer to the previous arbitration, where the "proposed versions" included such serious spin-doctoring as to begger belief. If we're trying to craft proposals that reflect the actual chain of events, a lá neutral point of view, then there is no need for forking like this. Statements like "It's the way it's done" serve no useful purpose, providing nothing in the way of material support for this deeply illogical method of working. --Aaron Brenneman 05:22, 25 September 2006 (UTC)
If your preferred version is of merit then it will be copied to the proposed decision and the arbitrators will vote on it. If you have a problem with this way of workshopping, take it up with the arbitrators. This way reduces edit warring and maximises exposure of different viewpoints. The arbitrators decide. --Tony Sidaway 05:30, 25 September 2006 (UTC)
As gently as possible, my previous experiance indicated that Tony Sidaway is the main propenant of this "method" and that other ediotors are happy to work together on finding the nuggets of truth. It's adumbrative to suggest that arbitrators have expressed a preferance for this way or working, and I'd ask everyone as much as possible speak only for them self when editing.
I'd note that a large part of the controversy here surrounds appeals to authority, and editors speaking on behalf of bodies they do not in fact represent. The fact that it's been done twice already on this talk page is illustrative.
Aaron Brenneman 05:39, 25 September 2006 (UTC)
That's complete and utter rubbish. Check any proposed decision page and you'll find that the arbitrators compose and vote on parallel versions of the same motion. It's impossible to keep track of who supports what if people insist on making their large-scale revisions overwrite earlier versions of a motion that someone has already commented on. And what's more it's quite unnecessary to do so. --Tony Sidaway 05:44, 25 September 2006 (UTC)
There is a qualitative difference between the usually superficial changes that occur during voting and the unabashed white-washing that has already occured on the workshop page. I shall however cease for now to debate you on this point. - Aaron Brenneman 05:50, 25 September 2006 (UTC)
See your talk page. How can there have been any whitewashing if both versions are visible, side by side, on the same workshop page? --Tony Sidaway 06:04, 25 September 2006 (UTC)
Aaron, do you really think that it's a good idea to edit a statement after editors have approved it? How are we supposed to know whether the list of approvals is accurate? IMHO, Tony's proposal of listing an alternative to proposal "n" as "n.1" preserves the existing discussion and places your alternative up for debate. Thanks, TheronJ 14:53, 25 September 2006 (UTC)
To be frank, seeing an arbcom member "approve" a statement minutes after it's birthed looks, well, bad. Are we trying to find some version of the truth, or just the pre-judged approved version? As to the actual utility of the n.1 system, it splits debate. Half the points get addressed in one version, half in another. I'd urge anyone who actually thinks that this works to look over the sections in the older arbitration I've linked in "General discussion" on the main page. This is the voice of rude experiance talking: literally tens of thousands of words get wasted because one editor won't work well with others. - brenneman 15:12, 25 September 2006 (UTC)
Fred is only speaking for himself based on the current evidence. I agree that adding separate proposals is better than unilaterally writing. Another option is discussing in the comment section until consensus for new is reached. --FloNight 15:22, 25 September 2006 (UTC)
I've always thought of this as similar to an RFC, where each contributor can add their own findings, proposals, etc., and others can come comment on them. Then, the arbitrators select the ones the find most accurate to their findings, and transplant them to the proposed decision page. I've never seen multiple people hacking away at individal line items, as Aaron suggests, but then I don't go digging away in the history all that much, unless a page has gotten itself confused. As has been said elsewhere, in better words than mine, if we could all get together and agree on things here we probably wouldn't need an arbitration case. --InkSplotch 18:10, 25 September 2006 (UTC)
Bah. I can small consensus, even when it's going the wrong way. I remain firm however that it's anti-wiki, and that the best results in the previous two arbitrations I've been in were achieved that way. Regardless, consider me well and truly back in my box on this issue. Thanks for the input, gentle people. - brenneman 00:32, 26 September 2006 (UTC)
Aaron, I think you have a variant meta-notion of the meta-level positioning of this process :P Or, in Human: think of it more as a structured debate on an article talk page than as the article page itself. Zocky | picture popups 04:05, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

Where is this case going

I'm just rambling here, ok? Please treat this section as a sandbox. - brenneman 08:07, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

If this is about the RFA, what are the possible outcomes?

  1. Re-run the RFA
  2. Provide some direction to bureaucrats
  3. Clarify limits to bureaucats' authority
  4. Endorse the bureaucrats' decision
  5. Nullify the RFA
  6. Something else?

Note that 2 and three could mean simply saying "they did fine" so everyone knows for next time. - brenneman 08:07, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

If it's wider, what else is it about?

  1. The blocks placed by Tony Sidaway and JoshuaZ?
  2. The cultural problems perceived by Geogre et alia?
  3. The longer-term civility issues with named parties?
  4. Clarification of the role of clerks
  5. Code of conduct for clerks (it's becoming clear that they have to be pretty conservative in their demeanor)
  6. What else?

This case is already a mess. Perhaps if we can (amongst ourselves, if the commitee doesn't weigh in) decide where we're trying to go we can work together a little bit to get there. - brenneman 08:07, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

It's arbitration. The Committee can consider any and all of those things. --Tony Sidaway 08:10, 25 September 2006 (UTC)
Clearly these pages exists so that others can form and present a case to the arbitration commitee. If it can be agreed upon what exactly it is that is being looked at here, the burden can be lightened when it comes time for them to make their decision. As a "clerk" I'd think that you'd be first in line when it came to normal editors working together to present a cogent case.
brenneman 08:19, 25 September 2006 (UTC)
The reason we have an arbitration committee is to consider cases where there is an otherwise insoluble dispute. If the editors involved could all get together and agree on the nature of the situation and its remedies, there would be no need for an arbitration case. Look through a few recent arbitration cases, paying particular attention to the way the proposed decisions are assembled and arrayed as alternatives. The arbitrators will make their own minds what is important and what is not, and we won't know until they do, at which point they'll tell us by voting on it.
I've added a few bits in. I know which issues I think are unlikely to be addressed, so I'll ignore those and pay attention to the ones I think will be. --Tony Sidaway 09:15, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

Let us not repeat past mistakes

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 08:15, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

This is matter is beyond trivial. A workshop is supposed to be edited. --Tony Sidaway 09:16, 25 September 2006 (UTC)
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!

Tony's input is welcome. But so would anyones. Fred Bauder 20:09, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

Grudge versus legitimate distrust

Sjakkalle writes:

Is this a grudge, or is it legitimate distrust? Being unfairly blocked indefinitely is a punch in the face, no matter how quickly it is unblocked, and I think it is a bit ureasonable to expect or demand that Giano be happy about seeing the person who did this to him readminned.

What you say is right as far as it goes, Giano is entitled to not forget that Carnildo treated him abominably, and his judgement at RFA may be strongly influenced by that--that's a perfectly legitimate reason to distrust a potential admin.

However Giano's feelings have, you can tell from the way he expresses himself, in themselves become problematic. He accused Lar of "insulting" him simply because, not really understanding the full background, Lar described Carnildo's actions in coming back to the community as "brave". .

What Misplaced Pages is not also tells us not to treat Misplaced Pages like this. It isn't a battlefield, or a place to nurse grudges. We can make allowance for hurt feelings that may influence perceptions, but is that really something we have to do forever? This RFA was over six months after the block. This is the reason why I emphasize that what we have here is a grudge. There is certainly legitimate reason for Giano to doubt Carnildo's reliability, but this doesn't excuse Giano's behavior. Giano's failure to follow dispute resolution over what was clearly a very large and ongoing issue for him probably contributed to the problem. --Tony Sidaway 09:50, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

But Giano felt that he got a second punch in the face when the bureaucrats apparently disregarded the people in the "oppose" column and promoted anyway. Tony, when you blocked Giano, I know you intended it as a cool-off, that Giano needs to take a break from editing because he is angry and posting comments without fully thinking them through. But to Giano it probably felt like a third punch, and the result was another round of angry rebukes. Giano's behavior has not been the most diplomatic we have seen, and may well have contributed to the problem, but he is almost certainly not the only guilty party. I am more inclined to think the whole thing is a chain of events which has been allowed to escalate. It goes something like this:
  1. A perceives he is treated unfairly and speaks out, in an annoyed tone.
  2. B thinks the complaint was uncivil and says "Hey be civil".
  3. Hurt at being told that the comment was incivil, while the main message of the complaint was ignored (it doesn't matter if the message was ignored or not, as long as it was perceived to be ignored), A says back "You didn't bother reading the complaint did you? All you care about is making things look civil."
  4. B thinks the last comment was horrendously incivil and says "You need to cool down and stop making personal attacks, or I'll get someone to block you."
  5. A feels that B is threatening him and responds with...
There are many points here where this chain could be broken, but the root cause is both sides are on the defensive. Both feel that their dignity has been compromised and that the best way to defend it is by fighting those who have attacked him first (and of course, "started it"). A feels wounded by the original perceived injustice, and then by being told that he is an incivil personal attacker. B feels wounded by being told that he is an ignorant busybody.
Perhaps warning someone by citing WP:CIVIL or WP:NPA is a bad idea... it is better perhaps to appeal to their good sense ("I understand that you're upset about this, and I see your point. I disagree with you because...") Sjakkalle (Check!) 14:42, 25 September 2006 (UTC)
Absolutely! I rarely quote Wikpedia policies at people, and when I do, I take the trouble to explain it myself. Just hurling alphabet soup at someone says: "You've been bad. I don't have time to explain. Go and read this page.". It comes across as very rude. More discussion is needed, not curt quoting of Misplaced Pages policies at each other. Carcharoth 17:27, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

If someone, in all seriousness, not in a joking way, falsely accused me of hate speech (a serious criminal act in many jurisdictions) less than a year ago in a public forum, then I would not be in any hurry to forgive or forget. Particularly when the libel was perpetuated on the public record throughout that period, and no unreserved apology was forthcoming. I don't think it would be fair to describe an understandable disinclination towards a person who had done such a thing as a "grudge". -- ALoan (Talk) 10:13, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

Waiting for evidence might help

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)

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 14:37, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

LOL - superb turn of phrase.!--Mcginnly | Natter 15:37, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

Sorry to not be cuddly Fred Bauder 15:43, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

Carnildo

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)

Done, but unless the RfA is overturned, it doesn't affect him. Fred Bauder 17:48, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

A few thoughts

I wanted to be constructive and help in the workshop, but I'm struggling to make sense out of it (it's a rather late hour in my parts), so I'll post some thoughts here.

This case is confusing and I don't see how it can be made to make sense as something to arbitrate on. It tries to deal with too many issues, actions and grievences, and many of them aren't arbitration material. Confusingly, it's named after Giano, but seems to be mostly about Tony. We have Giano's grievences against Carnildo which have not been assuaded, we have the eyebrow-raising bureaucrat decision, then Giano's explosion, then Tony's long-standing incivility and trigger-happiness, Kelly using the T-word on Geogre and then leaving, James's bad judgement in calling everyone idiots, and on top of all that, there are general issues of transparency, trust, fairness and functioning of the project that Geogre raises.

It's a total mess, and here are the ways out of it that I have thought of:

  • If we want to go on as usual and deal with these issues at some later date, we can shrug it off and pretend nothing happened. Find that everybody has learned their lesson and issue no remedies.
  • If we want cosmic justice:
    • Carnildo should be re-de-adminned
    • Giano should be told off
    • bureaucrats should be severely told off
    • Tony should be told to find another place to shout at people
    • Kelly has already done what she promised to do
    • James should step down from the ArbCom
    • Geogre should be urged to keep his comments short and to the point to avoid sidetracking of debates.
    • And the community should have an open, honest debate and clarify the intra-project relationships to mutual satisfaction.
  • If we want something realistic and benefitial for the project:
    • Carnildo should apologize to Giano for the block
    • Giano should gracefully accept the apology and apologize for the unnecessary vitriol from his side
    • Carnildo should decide whether he wants adminship this way and bureaucrats should think about what they did and do what, if anything, they think is appropriate. Everybody should make their own conclusions about these decisions, but debating them to bits is not going to help anything.
    • Tony should indicate that he understands that incivility is unacceptable and that the project is better off without him if he is incapable of remaining civil. If he can't communicate politely with other editors, he could try to find tasks on the project that don't require communication with other people.
    • James should apologize for calling a bunch of people idiots, because they aren't.
    • Former ArbCom members should be removed from the ArbCom mailing list, because the appearance of impropriety outweighs the benefits. Whom the ArbCom lets into their Freenode IRC channel is probably ArbCom's business. IRC is just talk.
    • We should make a list of all kinds of tasks that we do on Misplaced Pages, so that people can know and appreciate how much stuff needs to be done and how much of it other people are doing.
    • We should think hard about what the appearance of credible competition means for the project and its relationship with its best writers, many of whom we don't know because they don't even have a userpage.

The problem is, I don't think ArbCom can adjudicate any of the things in the realistic list. Zocky | picture popups 03:03, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

Remarkably well said, Zocky, and about 95% overlap with my own thoughts at the moment. Newyorkbrad 03:12, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

Brilliantly said. I concur that this arbitration is staggering around like a drunken monkey. Too much is going on, too many threads, mea culpa for my part in that.
  • I asked above what it is that we're meant to be examining here, but the response was unsatisfactory. There are already twenty plus findings of fact and principles out there, not counting variations on the theme.
  • While I'm well and truly back in my box with regards to collaborative editing on the workshop page, I realy do think that if we take some time to together work out here what are the issues we want raised, we'd benefit.
It's all very well and good for some to say that we just plonk everything one the page and that the committee will sort the wheat from the chaff, but *cough* if it were that easy we wouldn't have bloody "clerks" to begin with. We're meant ot be collaborative editors first, let's start acting like it, eh? Going with the "cosmic justice" theme, these fall (to me) into three sections:
  • RFA: Carnildo's adminning examined, bureaucrats examined
  • Civlity: Giano, Tony, Kelly, James, Geogre( ?)
  • Meta ArbCom:Mailing list, Kelly (?), James (?)
Is there some constructive way we can attempt to push this back into meaningful piles, perhaps by sorting the sectios in this manner.
brenneman 03:32, 26 September 2006 (UTC)
What this case lacks, for good or bad, is someone playing the role of prosecutor, or perhaps grand jury. There no indictment setting out the scope of the complaint, no prosecutor to make an opening statement, "In this case we are going to prove that X did Y and should be punished by Z." I recoiled in horror from the AN thread and I have a sense, probably shared by nearly everyone here, that it was "bad" and something needs to be "done". But I have no idea where this case is going at the moment or what the general outcome is supposed to be. Thatcher131 15:22, 26 September 2006 (UTC)
I had the same reaction, but am not going to propose anything. If the trolling keeps on and on month after month... Fred Bauder 18:50, 26 September 2006 (UTC)
I agree with an excellent summation. Steve block Talk 19:07, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

Oh, well done, User:Zocky: an excellent summary. Would you like to stand for ArbCom? :) -- ALoan (Talk) 10:16, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

Kelly Martin

Brad, The proposal is we acknowledge she's left and thank her for her contributions. So far this process has been silent on her involvement - I assume due to her absence - It seems to me that whether she is present and contributing or not, the issues relating to her involvement should be discussed here and so should the hypothetical issues relating to a future return. For instance, if she returns, would she need to pass an RfA to resume her admin status - would privileges such as 'Arbitrator emeritus' (extemely pompous IMHO) and position as clerk be restored by decree of ArbCom or would there be community involvement? I'm sure these questions could be seen as 'putting the boot in' and I really think there are bigger issues to consider here, but the conduct and future of, as Tony Sidaway puts it "Two of wikipedias most controversial administrators" should be resolved and perhaps, statements of intent made by ArbCom and Bureaucrats to give the community some clarity as to what the situation will be. It may be seen as undesirable for Kelly to be tried in her absence, but she's been invited to participate and it's probably a stretch to think she is not aware of the proceedings. --Mcginnly | Natter 23:57, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

Whether and when an administrator who voluntarily gave up his or her sysop bit ("locked her mop-and-broom closet" is how I put it in one recent re-RfA) is entitled to be automatically re-sysopped on request without going through another RfA is unclear right now. I deliberately refrained from expressing a view on this question, because I don't think it's before the ArbCom at the moment and I'm not sure it's a question for the ArbCom at any time. Kelly Martin's other formal statuses on the English Misplaced Pages were as a holder of Checkuser and Oversight access; my understanding is that these statuses are conferred with the approval of ArbCom, but with the ArbCom members sitting in their "administrative rather than judicial capacity," so to speak, i.e., not in the context of an arbitration proceeding itself. (Pardon quasi-Wikilawyering please; I hope my point is clear.) I don't think anyone's raised any questions about her use of those rights; even the users who urged her to give up her access to the ArbCom mailing list specifically said they did not want her to give up these other functions. As for the rest, she hasn't functioned as a Clerk in some time, I don't think (at least not since I became active here at the end of June), so that's moot; and whether she would want to return to "arbitrator emeritus " status, whatever that means or meant, seems, given all the water under the bridge, of peripheral importance at best.
On the merits of the underlying case, many would agree that in recent weeks, Kelly Martin said a few things that she shouldn't have said. I remonstrated about some of her comments at the time; and I didn't object to others because other users had beaten me to it. There was one comment, in particular, that had the predictable effect of turning the temperature on the furnace of mutual invective up to full boil again just when it had started to cool; I remember writing on AN or BN that I was cringing, having just read the words and knowing what was going to result. So if Kelly Martin were to return, I would urge her not to do that sort of thing any more, and not to do some other things as well, but to continue making her positive contributions, which were substantial. But beyond that, as you say, it's pointless as well as unfair to discuss her if she's not here. Newyorkbrad 00:58, 27 September 2006 (UTC)
I haven't been following the discussions very well over the last week. So I may be behind here: please correct me if I am. Last time I checked, though, Kelly Martin had left and given up all her rights, but it was still unclear if she still participated in the private ArbCom mailing list. That is the one thing she was asked to give up, and it may be the only thing she didn't. Given the laundry-list of other issues apparently on the table in this case, I fail to see why that one shouldn't be. It is my personally-held opinion, shared with others I know, that, for obvious reasons, no former ArbCom members should have permissions to read or write the private mailing list. —Bunchofgrapes (talk) 03:48, 27 September 2006 (UTC)
I don't think it matters whether Kelly has or has not unsubscribed from arbcom-l. I don't think it's any of our business. The Arbitration Committee orders its own affairs. It was ridiculous to demand that she unsubscribe and I think it was quite incomprehensible that she offered to do so. --Tony Sidaway 05:23, 27 September 2006 (UTC)
Her subscription to the mailing list is as Tony says, a matter for the arb-com. The question of what to do if she comes back is a minefield. It's been pretty well established that any admin who resigns the bit seeks it again through an RfA, Sarge Baldy and Sean Black are two that spring to mind. That said, Sean's got messy and I don't see why Kelly's would run smooth. However, this all pre-supposes Kelly wants them back. I say cross the bridge when we need to. It's going to be fractious whatever we do, and there's no point starting that debate now. Maybe what we need to evaluate before that point is what we want from our admins, because that's where the divide will be. Steve block Talk 11:17, 27 September 2006 (UTC)
"Her subscription to the mailing list is as Tony says, a matter for the arb-com." Yes, and so are all the other decisions to be made in this case, right? This issue would be one that would be perfectly reasonable -- and in my opinion a very good thing -- for them to go ahead and address here. I imagine the opinions among the committee members aren't unanimous on this issue, and some semi-public airing on stances on this issue would not be a bad thing either. —Bunchofgrapes (talk) 14:41, 27 September 2006 (UTC)
It is not well established that voluntary desysopped admins must go through RfA. This year alone there have been 5 who were resysopped without RfAs: PMA, KnowledgeOfSelf, Doc glasgow, Jaranda, and Lucky 6.9. And based on Taxman's comments here, W.marsh could be considered a sixth instance (RfA closed 4 days early and used only as bureaucrat feedback). More information on resysoppings can be found here. NoSeptember 11:30, 27 September 2006 (UTC)
I stand corrected. I was unaware of those. Wonder why Sean went through an RfA then? I must say I'm glad there's precedent there for a simple giving back of the tools. Steve block Talk 11:36, 27 September 2006 (UTC)
Sean's RfA may have been a motivating factor in this trend. All of these (except PMA) happened after Sean's RfA. See this and this for more context. It may be that bureaucrats have adjusted their thinking about resysoppings, given the circumstances of both Sean's and Carnildo's. NoSeptember 11:47, 27 September 2006 (UTC)
That makes sense. Of course, it's still likely to kick off if and when Kelly does come back. I can now see the value in making the principle that a bureaucrat's decision is final in this case. Steve block Talk 12:16, 27 September 2006 (UTC)
8 admins were voluntarily desysopped in September so far. Perhaps we need a Resysopping policy, resysopping requests are just going to get more frequent in the future. NoSeptember 12:50, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

Just noting that nobody has made ArbCom godkings. ArbCom's legitimacy stems from Jimbo and the community, and both Jimbo and the community can set rules within which ArbCom works. Zocky | picture popups 12:59, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

As regards "resysopping policy", I don't think we need one, i.e. I don't think that a "former admin" is its own kind of user. If the ArbCom thinks that desysopping someone is called for, they should become an ordinary user and ordinary rules for getting admin status should apply to them. Zocky | picture popups 13:15, 27 September 2006 (UTC)
This isn't about people who lost admin status through arb-com but rather through their own choice. Steve block Talk 13:25, 27 September 2006 (UTC)
Well, in some cases (ie. Carnildo) it is about ArbCom desysoppings too. NoSeptember 13:28, 27 September 2006 (UTC)
Zocky, that's a perfectly valid opinion, but actual practice shows that there is different treatment of former admins. Other than by mistake (such as Luigi30 or maybe FSF), who other than a former admin has been promoted with less than 75%? If they are treated differently in practice, then we have a need to discuss it, unless we want a big knock down debate after each sub-75% promotion decision. NoSeptember 13:28, 27 September 2006 (UTC)
I believe there should be a separate procedure for resysopping, at least for those admins who voluntarily resigned their duties. Former sysops, especially those who used/abused their tools actively, have too many opponents to make it to adminship via the ordinary procedure. User:Robchurch's efforts to regain his adminship are a fine example. --Ghirla 13:41, 27 September 2006 (UTC)
Indeed, you don't even have to abuse your tools at all to pick up enemies as an admin. If Rob Church was still active, he would be the top candidate to try again in the now-post-Sean Black era. He had 70% last time (May). NoSeptember 13:45, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

Sorry chaps, but I think were straying a little from my intended point - I do not believe that resigning adminship, or any other privileges for that matter, is simply "locking the mop in the locker", I think it's resignation. I think people might be a lot less inclined to throw their adminship away in this manner, if they really had to think about what would be required to have those privileges restored, eg. RfA. As for Kelly, my point was - she's resigned and gone, an extreme cynic might see this silence and non-participation as an attempt to avoid full scrutiny by the community - don't worry about kelly (or whoever) she's gone, we don't need to debate it. So if she turns up again, what happens - is she handed the mop back, oversight - all the rest without some kind of motion regarding her part in this? I think some examination of her conduct should take place and Arbcom should clarify what would happen vis a vis her adminship and other powers and responsibilities, should this occur. --Mcginnly | Natter 16:12, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

We still haven't had clarification that she's given up her access to the ArbCom mailing list as far as I know. This isn't a problem I don't think if she's not participating in En wikipedia - but will only surface again if she returns. --Mcginnly | Natter 16:18, 27 September 2006 (UTC)
It's not clarification (as it could just be wrong), but the Signpost article here includes access to the ArbCom mailing list as one of the things Kelly Martin "resigned". I guess the best thing to do is to stick this question under the finding of fact regarding Kelly Martin, and see whether the ArbCom decide to answer the question one way or another. Carcharoth 22:30, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

When/why did the focus change

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 03:46, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

The row was about feelings about the closing of Carnildo's RfA. Fred Bauder 04:25, 27 September 2006 (UTC)
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 number it has become) and the promotion itself is still largely presented as background material. —Bunchofgrapes (talk) 03:54, 27 September 2006 (UTC)
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)
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 06:40, 27 September 2006 (UTC)
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)
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 07:10, 27 September 2006 (UTC)
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)
You find it "fun" to participate in ArbCom cases? -- ALoan (Talk) 13:09, 27 September 2006 (UTC)
You don't? Steve block Talk 13:21, 27 September 2006 (UTC)
ALoan, remember that you're talking to a guy who has participated in and observed arbitration cases since his earliest months at Misplaced Pages, 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)
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)
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)
I must say, I've never viewed them as anything more formal than brainstorming. Steve block Talk 11:34, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

Tony's posts

Tony, could I ask you to consider reducing the number of posts you're making to the workshop? You've posted so often — 154 posts in two days, almost double the number of the next most frequent poster — that the page is almost useless, because no one could be expected to plough through it. I'd like to suggest you take a back seat for a couple of days. SlimVirgin 16:42, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

Many of the proposals concern me, so it's not surprising that you'll see a lot of edits from me. Don't worry about it. --Tony Sidaway 16:51, 27 September 2006 (UTC)
You're commenting on practically every issue that arises, whether it involves you or not. SlimVirgin 16:54, 27 September 2006 (UTC)
Why is this a problem? --Tony Sidaway 16:55, 27 September 2006 (UTC)
As I said, the page becomes unusuable, in part because of length, and in part because most of the posts are from one person. The page is for everyone to post on, and it shouldn't be dominated by one editor. Also, the more you post, the less likely people are to read what you say, so less is more in a situation like this. SlimVirgin 16:58, 27 September 2006 (UTC)
I second the above. While I'm sure your intentions are good, your somewhat excessive responding has the effect of drowning out discussion, which is pretty much the point of the workshop. >Radiant< 17:03, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

His input is welcome. Fred Bauder 20:07, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

And nobody said that it wasn't. Slim and I were simply suggesting that he choose quality over quantity. Radiant! 20:57, 27 September 2006 (UTC)
I find the suggestion that my engagement in discussion is "drowning out discussion" somewhat difficult to credit. Did I really read that? --Tony Sidaway 21:06, 27 September 2006 (UTC)
I don't know if you read that, but I'm sure I wrote that. >Radiant< 21:11, 27 September 2006 (UTC)
I find that the volume and tenor of Tony's input on the page to be very helpful in demonstrating the issues at hand. Nandesuka 21:12, 27 September 2006 (UTC)
It's not unthinkable that one person could "drown out discussion" by contributing with a very high volume. What makes a discussion is something kind of reasonable ratio of contributions from various parties. A monologue isn't a discussion. I'm not saying that's precisely what's happening here, just that it's not oxymoronic to suggest that engagement in discussion could drown it out. -GTBacchus 21:21, 27 September 2006 (UTC)
  • I am sorry but for those of us who are forced for financial and mundane reasons to leave wikipedia for some hours a day and inhabit the real world this page has now become impossible to follow. I have just posted my first edit here and my second and final edit to the whole debacle and been told I am persistent. I shan't post on the subject again, it has just become "The Tony Show"- I see no point in having an unseemly slanging match with Tony, which is what he seems to be encouraging when he does not agree with a post. Giano 21:32, 27 September 2006 (UTC)
No sorry this was the first anyway that is my lot here Giano 21:45, 27 September 2006 (UTC)
I really don't see quite how it matters how may edits I make, since I'm one of the few parties editing the workshop and nearly all of my edits are in the "Parties" section, quite separate from the other edits. If it bothers anybody, I suggest that they completely ignore the sections labelled "parties" and stick to reading the proposals (most of which are from other editors) and the comments by others and arbitrators. Then it will be almost as if I hadn't edited the page at all, and we'll all get along happily. --Tony Sidaway 22:23, 27 September 2006 (UTC)