Jump to content

Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Giano/Evidence: Difference between revisions

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Browse history interactively
← Previous editNext edit →
Content deleted Content added
VisualWikitext
John Reid (talk | contribs)
4,087 edits
Line 340: Line 340:


I'm adding this stuff into evidence because I think it has a bearing on the discussion at the bureaucratic noticeboard regarding Carnildo's promotion. I'm thinking it shows both that John maybe has issues communicating, issues with assumming good faith, issues with civility and also that it may explain or mitigate the "Let the record show comment". I'm only adding this since John has added himself as a party. [[User:Steve block|Steve block]] <small>[[User talk:Steve block|Talk]]</small> 11:02, 3 October 2006 (UTC)
I'm adding this stuff into evidence because I think it has a bearing on the discussion at the bureaucratic noticeboard regarding Carnildo's promotion. I'm thinking it shows both that John maybe has issues communicating, issues with assumming good faith, issues with civility and also that it may explain or mitigate the "Let the record show comment". I'm only adding this since John has added himself as a party. [[User:Steve block|Steve block]] <small>[[User talk:Steve block|Talk]]</small> 11:02, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

: '''Object; immaterial.''' I hope it's obvious that all these diffs are from a completely unrelated issue. I stand by my comments even so; both JzG and Steve were way out of line -- one thoughtless and rude, one stuffy and patronizing. If Steve thought ''I'' was out of line he ought to have blocked me ''immediately'', not taken the opportunity to bully or lecture. But the entire thing has nothing to do with ''this'' ArbCom. I hope we haven't gotten to the point where every case subsumes every other. If so, then I'll move for a month to dig up more history on ''all'' parties. Do we want to go this way? [[User:John Reid|John&nbsp;]][[User talk:John Reid|Reid]] 07:03, 10 October 2006 (UTC)


==Evidence presented (by [[User:Cyde|Cyde]]) on behalf of [[User:Kelly Martin|Kelly Martin]]==
==Evidence presented (by [[User:Cyde|Cyde]]) on behalf of [[User:Kelly Martin|Kelly Martin]]==

Revision as of 07:03, 10 October 2006

Anyone, whether directly involved or not, may add evidence to this page. Please make a header for your evidence and sign your comments with your name.

When placing evidence here, please be considerate of the arbitrators and be concise. Long, rambling, or stream-of-conciousness rants are not helpful.

As such, it is extremely important that you use the prescribed format. Submitted evidence should include a link to the actual page diff; links to the page itself are not sufficient. For example, to cite the edit by Mennonot to the article Anomalous phenomenon adding a link to Hundredth Monkey use this form: [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Anomalous_phenomenon&diff=5587219&oldid=5584644] [1].

This page is not for general discussion - for that, see talk page.

Please make a section for your evidence and add evidence only in your own section. Please limit your evidence to a maximum 1000 words and 100 diffs, a much shorter, concise presentation is more likely to be effective. Please focus on the issues raised in the complaint and answer and on diffs which illustrate behavior which relates to the issues.

If you disagree with some evidence you see here, please cite the evidence in your own section and provide counter-evidence, or an explanation of why the evidence is misleading. Do not edit within the evidence section of any other user.

Be aware that the Arbitrators may at times rework this page to try to make it more coherent. If you are a participant in the case or a third party, please don't try to refactor the page, let the Arbitrators do it. If you object to evidence which is inserted by other participants or third parties please cite the evidence and voice your objections within your own section of the page. It is especially important to not remove evidence presented by others. If something is put in the wrong place, please leave it for the arbitrators to move.

The Arbitrators may analyze evidence and other assertions at /Workshop. /Workshop provides for comment by parties and others as well as Arbitrators. After arriving at proposed principles, findings of fact or remedies, Arbitrators vote at /Proposed decision. Only Arbitrators may edit /Proposed decision.

Evidence presented by Tony Sidaway

Statement

I think that the Arbitration Committee is already more familiar with the Giano case than I. My sole prior experience, more or less, was involvement as a clerk helping to compile a timeline in early February for the case in which Carnildo, amongst others, were desysopped.

I've already described my own involvement in this affair at length publicly, and privately in a brief email to Jimbo, that he has asked to forward to the Committee. The Committee is familiar with my thinking and actions so I won't bother to present evidence on that.

I've always taken great care to divorce my personal actions from those of the arbitration committee, recusing as a clerk when there is the slightest hint of conflict. I have never claimed to be speaking or acting for the arbitration committee except when required to deliver Committee rulings, and I regard the perception that I act with arbitration committee authority as misguided and baseless. It was perhaps insensitive to get involved in some affairs where the parties seemed to have convinced themselves that the arbitrators were at war with the editors and I was their loyal henchman.

The Committee, and many other administrators, are aware of my opinions on good administratorship. Perception is as important as reality. Choosing a controversial sysop for the clerk role, however skilled he may be, is probably not a good idea.

I am not using my sysop bit at present. --Tony Sidaway 22:26, 24 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]


Involvement in Giano case

Evidence presented by User:Geogre

I will offer my views, willingly, but I have to query something before that. My understanding of arbitration is that evidence must be submitted on the evidence page. A private communication between Tony Sidaway and Jimbo Wales, or to the arbitrator's mailing list, or even to each arbitrator's user page, is not public and not put in evidence. Inasmuch as it is a principle of most Anglophone judicial procedures that evidence be given in open court, that there be no secret charge or secret evidence, I object initially to Tony's suggestion that he has offered thoughts which should be considered (evidentiary) and yet are not open to examination by all sides. To be clear, I am no one's prosecutor, no one's "other side," but it would sure help to know what has been said already, so at least, in my evidence, I know what is in contention and what needs to be clarified. Geogre 00:50, 25 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Evidence can be offered privately, but really only if it is of a sensitive nature. In all the cases where this has happened (Agapetos angel springs to mind), there was an open offer to forward the stuff to the party in question for a response. In any case, Tony hasn't offered any private evidence. It was a short email to Jimbo asking for action, which he had forwarded because it pertained to the discussion. Dmcdevit·t 01:36, 25 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not trying to be obtuse, but, since private communication is going to be a large point in my view, it seems like it's either inappropriate to state it as evidence, above, or inappropriate to have it be private, or inappropriate for the arbitrators to consider. I'm sure it was innocuous, or irrelevant to procedings, but it's rather strange to open one's statement by saying, essentially, "I've written all of you privately, so no need to say anything here." It's as if one were saying, "You all know that I have two pair; let's see how the others bet without knowing this." Geogre 09:58, 25 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Narrative and evidence

With everything I write, please understand that I apologize for the length. I am trying to be concise, but the Workshop page is now so full as to be unreadable, so some things here may seem out of place. My apologies, again.

  1. The "Carnildo affair": User:Giano had a justifiable grievance at the prior behavior of Carnildo ("justifiable" as seen in ArbCom action), and Carnildo sought twice to regain administrative status, finally gaining it, against consensus, in September.
    1. In Carnildo 2, Giano and others asked Carnildo to apologize personally, not publicly, to Giano for the personal affront.[13] Inasmuch as "personal attacks" are now being treated as justification for blocking someone, it seems reasonable to expect some apology.
    2. In Carnildo 2, Carnildo's only concession of any mistakes in his actions was the comment, "In hindsight, blocking Carbonite was unneccessary, as he had already left Wikipedia, and blocking Giano and El C was unwarranted, as they had not actively engaged in banning people." [He seemed unaware that Giano, not being an admin, indeed had no way of blocking anybody.] Responding to an Oppose comment that such words made a trifle of the whole thing,[14] Carnildo confirmed that the blocks were a trife in his view: "I'd feel regret if the consequences had been more significant, but I don't see how a heated opinion and a few minutes of not being able to edit Wikipedia is worth agonizing over."[15]
    3. The fundamental question a number of "Oppose" voters sought to answer in Carnildo 2 and 3 is whether or not Carnildo recognized that the "mistake" had been using block functions in a private manner, in allowing his personal vision and personal feelings overcome any regard for process, deliberation, or prior review (the blocks were indeed posted on ANI for review after the fact.) Anyone seeking an answer to that question had silence as their reply.
    4. In Carnildo 3, Carnildo admitted that the "hate speech" blocking was a mistake, although he did not seem to know why it was a mistake.[16] Apparently, he had made private assurances to his own friends that he would not repeat the mistakes.[17] Apparently, these assurances were passed privately to the bureaucrats. They, following, presumably, the precedent of WP:DRV determined that administrative status was always up to their own discretion and that the results of a public poll were never binding; that, in the absence of precedent or expression of community trust, they could substitute their own trust, based on these private assurances.
    5. Giano reacted with understandable anger at the decision.
    6. User:ALoan, User:Geogre, and User:Paul August all felt moved to protest the action overtly, and user:Bishonen withdrew from public activity on Wikipedia as well. The decision of the bureaucrats that their private understandings of private assurances from the urging of "two former ArbCom members" and "two present ArbCom members" (source is private e-mail, and so I am bound to keep its origin private) was superior to the attested trust of 70% of the voting editors of Wikipedia outraged dozens of Wikpiedians of long standing, public trust, and long time contributions. No one had been privvy to these assurances, and the bureaucrats themselves had been urged in private, where no competing or dissenting voices could be heard, to take an action that was without any analog. (Incidentally, my own "strike" was based not on any disrespect toward Giano, but rather the fact that someone who had in effect announced that his feelings were superior to the community's was going to again have the power to block people based on his personal and unreviewed and unexamined motives. I had and still have no reason to believe otherwise.)
  2. The following arguments about the Carnildo "affair" brought out some heated words between defenders and accusers of the bureaucrats' action.
    1. Giano and Tony Sidaway ended up on opposite sides of the debate, and for some essentially good reasons. Tony had, in the past, asserted a position akin to what one can find on user:Phil Sandifer's user page: his personal decisions trumped any policy or process. Giano, as only a regular editor, couldn't have agreed with that, even if he had not been insulted by Carnildo and received no recompense.
    2. During these arguments, Tony offered the hypothetical of his own actions if he were a bureaucrat and suggested that he would also act according to discretion.
    3. Giano responded that Tony would be arbitrated, and Tony blocked Giano for 3 hours to "cool down."
  3. The blocking bother began on WP:AN.[18] Several administrators, including arbitrators User:Raul654 and User:Mackensen, user:Bishonen, user:JoshuaZ, and regular users, such as user:Newyorkbrad, objected to the block. There was no grounds for the block to "cool off." Giano was unblocked by User:FloNight (who got to the unblock button just before Raul654), as the only course of action commensurate with Wikipedia policy.
    1. Tony had not sought review before the block, although he did announce it after the fact.
    2. It is important to note that Tony Sidaway was not blocked for inappropriately blocking Giano. Two days after the inappropriate block, Tony returned to WP:AN and reopened the taunting with Giano by comparing Giano (and those who agreed with Giano that unitary executives are a bad idea on an encyclopedia that anyone can edit) to a festering boil and himself to a nurse with a lancet. Several users protested, and User:JoshuaZ blocked Tony for 24 hours for this statement, which was at least potentially designed to provoke Giano into saying something that would allow a block for the non-policy of WP:NPA (it is policy to not attack one another, but that policy carries no specific sanction, so violating it does not involve a block, a retort, or anything else), combined with his previous behavior in blocking when Giano did reply.
    3. The block was because Tony was interrupting conversation, preventing discussion, and apparently harassing users he disagreed with, and he was using his administrator's powers to do so. In other words, Tony was antagonizing another user whom he intended to block as soon as he responded. That qualified, for five or so of us, myself included (I offered to block), to block Tony to prevent disruption.
  4. The Boor War: After Tony Sidaway was blocked for 24 hours, user:James F and user:Kelly Martin came to AN, having participated in no part of the previous exchange (or, honestly, any exchange on WP:AN). James F said that all of those discussing Tony's inappropriate blocks were "idiots."[19] Kelly Martin, however, went a step further. She said that those opposing Tony "had been noticed" and told Geogre his "behavior" was "being examined quite closely."
    1. James F's language was inappropriate and boorish and could only have acted to aggravate matters, which is what it did, but Kelly's language drew my particular concern.
    2. Kelly seemed to be violating the trust of arbitrator-l, as well as speaking for ArbCom or the Foundation itself. The arbitrator's mailing list is private, and "emeritus" (not the best term for the position, in her case) users have access to it. To tell all the other administrators (who are equal in rank with her, of course, if there were ranks) that they were being watched looks like an overt attempt at intimidation as well as a violation of the privacy of the contents of the mailing list.
    3. I learned later that, indeed, the entire situation was under review on that mailing list, although not in such a one-sided manner as she implied. Nor was James's assessment of his universal opinion accurate. Therefore, it appears that this revelation was a breach of security.
  5. This Rfar was lodged by user:InkSplotch, an unconcerned party, and its purpose was and remains vague. Is this about Giano's action? Is it about Tony Sidaway's? Is it about the hamfisted way that James Forrester tried to deal with his friend's blocking? Is it the violation of mailing list priviledges by Kelly? Is it other misdeeds by Kelly?

Actionable offenses

There are two sets of offenses against policy that can be arbitrated, in my view.

  1. Tony Sidaway's improper use of blocking. Tony's blocking of Ghirlandajo(see the rejected Ghirlandajo RFAR) and Giano were against policy.
    1. Tony Sidaway's seemingly intentional baiting of Giano was also a breach of civility, and may have been designed to allow a block.
    2. Tony Sidaway's misuse of WP:NPA was astonishing. While he blocked Giano (and others) for anger, he used profanity copiously to express his own anger. It is fine to not block for NPA, as I do, or, more iffy, to block consistently for NPA, but to block when it's the other guy is a violation of even the misinterpretation of the policy.
    3. However, I believe that administrators acted injunctively with a 24 hour block for these offenses.
  2. Kelly Martin's attempts to buffalo the community represented policy violations.
    1. If Kelly was not actually repeating words from the private mailing list, she was clearly attempting to seem as if she were, and either one is a violation of the trust of privacy. Whether she was accurate in the representation of the mailing list or not, she was alledging to be telling administrators that a powerful group had noted their actions, that a secret discussion area was now focused on the insects questioning Tony.
    2. It is possible that Kelly intended to refer to the "administrator's IRC channel" (which is not for all administrators, of course), but, since such a thing is not Wikipedia and has no official status with Wikipedia, the much more natural assumption would be, given her appearance with James Forrester, that it was the arbitrator's listserv.
    3. Kelly was involving herself against the judgment of a community of administrators (as was James Forrester) to frustrate the carrying out of a licit block and forestall arbitration or conflict mediation with Tony Sidaway.

Inactionable offenses

There are many of these that have been committed in off-wiki fora. The "#wikipedia-en-admins" IRC channel has been rife with denigration, plotting, and illicit actions. Evidence of these cannot be presented here, and therefore it is up to the arbitrators to either know the subject matter or not, but, for those who do, it establishes mens rea -- the mindset of the crime. The above-named individuals showed not a willingness, but an actual desire, to stop all "process" and to act on individual desires. Those who requested that they follow the rules were derided and placed into an enemies list.

Summary

My own view is that this has become an omnibus Rfar, which reduces its potential effectiveness in imposing remedies. However, if I can lay out a particular ideology and issue that underpins all of the abuses, all of the bad behavior, by each of the parties, I should very much like to highlight one feature: secret communication and lobbying in secret to act against policy.

The common element in this is, I think, that private associations, whether those associations are the people who write academic articles, those people who are on ArbCom (or think they are), those people who are bureaucrats, or those people who spend time on the administrator's IRC channel (and say things like, "Who is this Texas Android person? If there is any way to ban him, I want him gone" or "If they don't have diffs, fuck 'em!" or "Major process wonk" or "ArbCom is your mother, whether you know it or not") have allowed themselves to be blinded to the larger group, the project of Wikipedia. Because we are now so large and so crowded and with such diversity of content, we naturally form like-minded circles and get frustrated when our vision of what is undoubtedly true cannot be communicated.

Phil Sandifer's user page announces that he will not read policy or pay attention to it, because it gets in the way of doing what he knows to be correct. Kelly and Tony have acted out that philosophy, but anyone who acts that out is saying that his or her private understanding needs no consultation and that his or her efforts seek no compromise or cooperation. Both Kelly and Tony have put the philosophy into action. The egoism involved has been exaggerated by private communication. First, the two users and others engaged in impropriety on an IRC channel, including revealing sensitive information (the same information that supposedly makes it impossible for an "emeritus" arbitrator to lose access to the mailing list), and the purpose of the channel seemed to be to cooperate in clearing obstacles for the superusers to act without the hindrance of "process wonks." Additionally, both have intimated that there was a secret forum for judging and evaluating other users. That forum may have been the IRC clubhouse, but, in the case of Kelly, it was often intimated that a secret avenue to power was open to her. Even in her own statement about giving up her rights, she insisted that "thousands look to" her every day for "opinions." That statement surpasses hyperbole. It again claims that she has a cache of power and importance that will allow her to swiftly mow down those in her way (if she were not so magnanimous).

What is critical, I think, is that any group that allows its friends and friendship to carve out a private discussion area, or which believes that it must communicate in private, or which sets up "invitation only" discussion areas is a group that is setting up an echo chamber. If such discussions are about private matters, then they are fine. If they are about site-wide issues, then the voices of the entire site are necessary. May Gmaxwell and Mindspillage talk to each other? Of course they may. They may not plot, nor use their association to suggest that they have extra special powers. My belief is that the bureaucrats who decided on "discretion" were flat wrong. One can use discretion on the deletion of an article, because WP:DRV exists to hash out community consensus, and because the action can be easily reversed. However, a small group cannot act on "discretion" about a position that is defined as "a person trusted by the community." A person can act on personal judgment if the issue can be reviewed and reversed, if the question is a single item, but blocking established users should never be a personal decision, whether that person is Carnildo, Fred Bauder, Tony Sidaway, or me. The greater the effect, the greater the need for review before hand and the more improper it is to silence the voices of others. The damage of losing a new account is worrying, but the damage in losing a long-time contributor is horrifying. The risk of losing an administrator (such as Paul August, Filiocht, ALoan, or, I hope, myself) should be unimaginable, because each step up is an investment of time, trust, and oversight. To allow Tony Sidaway to unilaterally block Giano for disagreement, or for a group on an invisible IRC channel to collude to plan for getting rid of Giano, is an atrocious offense. For Kelly Martin to decide that her own view of the editing patterns of another user are such that revealing personal information is justified is unspeakable. All of these bad actions, I think, come from isolation, from not listening to the voices of the site.

I do not think that IRC channels do much good, but invitation-only channels are asking for clubhouses. That their contents cannot be reported in arbitration is a loophole that allows for the most pernicious collusion. I do not think that the arbitrator's mailing list should be entirely invisible, as it is a false dichotomy to suppose that complete invisibility and complete access are the only options. A redacted summary would be possible. However, if it is to remain as it is now, then it must be policed so that it never carries content about things that are not already arbitration cases. If the site were assured that that was the policy, then no one could be bluffed or confused by the next "Kelly's" statements into believing that "mother" is coming to punish the lowly administrators for acting according to their collective judgment. I do not believe that Kelly Martin should ever be permitted to feign speaking for the Foundation with other users. She can refer people to appropriate pages, of course, and forward communiques, of course, but to be the mouthpiece for the Foundation is not her job in any sense. Tony Sidaway's actions as a clerk have been, so far as I am aware, entirely clean. I have heard (as a person perceived to be on the "other side" from him) of complaints, but none of them have ever held up under investigation. But his actions as an administrator have been frequently unilateral and too often against policy.

View by Geogre 11:52, 29 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    • Oh, and I stand by every comment that InkSplotch cites, although it's mysterious to me why he does not consider calling me a "troll" on her talk page is evidence of incivility by Kelly Martin. I suppose it would be wrong to conclude that dual standards are par for the course or that one determines what is "incivility" in some manner other than an ArbCom case or that being oblivious to Tony Sidaway calling folks all sorts of things directly is inappropriate. Geogre 19:44, 30 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • Just noting that JoshuaZ blocked Tony for a pattern of disruption, not for the boil remark alone. Zocky | picture popups 15:54, 1 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • As I had tried to say. The boil comment was the when but not the why. The "why" was disruption of the operation of the site, and it was discussed openly beforehand on a project page, where there was no demurral. The demurral (and "punishment") came afterward. Geogre 22:02, 1 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Evidence presented by Aaron Brenneman

Hello wikignomes! I don't give a stuff about the rules, please feel free to edit this section, and cast aside the chains that bind you.
brenneman {L} 13:59, 25 September 2006 (UTC) [reply]

Tony Sidaway's history of controversy

Tony Sidaway has a demonstrated history of incivility, tendentious editing, and disruption. All stages of dispute resolution have been attempted, with only temporary changes to the underlying disruptive behavior.

Dispute resolution
Incivility

Tony Sidaway has frequently been uncivil to other editors and administrators. Civility was a issue in his request for adminship in March 2005, during the request for comment in October 2005, and again in June 2006. An existing arbitration remedy cautions Tony Sidaway to remain civil. However, Tony Sidaway continues to be incivil. [20][21][22][23][24] Civility warnings are often removed 23 May 2006 [diff] [diff] with incivil edit summaries. [diff] [diff]

Edit warring and tendentious editing by Tony Sidaway

Tony Sidaway engages in small-scale edit warring, designed to wear down opposition. This is a long-term pattern of abuse, be it the VfU guideline in October 2005 [25][26][27][28][29], AfD closes in January [30][31][32][33], section headings in April (with use of admin privileges to solve a content dispute thrown in) [34][35](block)[36], over mention of blocking on the signature guideline in May [37][38][39][40] [41] [42] [43], and in June 2006 over something as trivial as the formatting of a table.[44][45][46]

Failure to engage - This section needs help!

(This is the "doesn't stop when asked" section.) This user does actively use the talk page of articles to announce his reversions [diff] [diff] and user talk page to issue reprimands. [diff] [diff] However often declines to be involved in continuing discussions, even when explicitly asked to do so. [vfu header talk diffs]

  • undeletion for DRV around 01:27, 1 February 2006
Disruption - This section needs help!
Tony's refactoring of sigs as harmful
Random other

Evidence presented by Radiant

The Adminship Matter

The heart of this case, and a perennial cause for dissent in a variety of other forums, is our somewhat nebulous standard for adminship. As we all know, adminship can be granted through the community process at WP:RFA, and can be revoked by the arbitration committee. The problem is that these two forums are increasingly divergent:

  • Requests for Adminship has an exceedingly high standard of adminship. It is possible for a nomination to fail on any of a number of relatively unimportant matters, such as editcountitis, lack of a userpage, and using a swearword several months ago.
  • Arbitration has, by comparison, an exceedingly low standard of adminship. Although demotion is becoming somewhat more common, an admin has to do some very extreme things before having his status revoked.

A resultant problem is that this is becoming a source of mutual distrust for both parties. It is not uncommon for people who are somewhat in doubt to oppose an RFA because they did not trust the ArbCom to demote the candidate if he does turn out to be problematic later. On the other hand, in the recent Giano debacle it was commented that some arbitrators were reluctant to demote admins because they didn't trust the community to ever reinstate a once-demoted admin.

The circular reasoning is obvious, and the only way to stop the dissent is to reach a compromise. It should be noted, however, that it is not (or not yet) as bad as some people on both extremes appear to think. As I just stated, admin demotion by the ArbCom is becoming more common; and while indeed most renominations of demoted admins have failed, it is important to note that nearly all of the failures were for reasons unrelated to the demotion.

Circular reasoning works both ways. If either party can be convinced to change their standards, the other party will have increased trust in that party and respond by similarly changing their standards. That way we can go back to adminship being No Big Deal. >Radiant< 16:58, 25 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Footnote to the above

The below is a list of renominations of ex-admins that failed, but did so for reasons unrelated to the demotion - such as edit warring, sockpuppetry or perceived abuse of process. There are generally a few people that hold a long grudge, but far from enough to sway consensus.

I have ignored the few RFAs that were just a few weeks after the actual demotion (Karmafist, Carnildo 2 and Everyking). I have also omitted the nominations for KI and Pegasus1138 since the public was not aware that these were in fact former admins. And of course I have omitted the nominations that were succesful.

  • Aevar Bjarmason failed because a few days earlier, Aevar used his developer status to give himself admin rights in order to perform a block of no particular urgency.
  • Chacor failed because of recent issues of edit warring and sockpuppetry.
  • Guanaco 2 failed because he was recently advocating that Willy on Wheels should be unbanned, and creating a controversial poll on the subject.
  • Guanaco 3 failed because he was not a very active editor in the months before the nomination. When he became an active editor again, his renomination succeeded.
  • JTkiefer failed because he had recently failed four other RFAs under a pseudonym.
  • Kils failed because he had barely any activity in the year before, and there were civility issues.
  • Stevertigo failed because his nomination itself was full of unfriendly statements against the ArbCom, and during the debate he was incivil to several participants.

It seems that any ex-admin demoted by the ArbCom has a snowball's chance of getting reinstated by RFA for the first month or two, and after that is treated by the process mostly like any other candidate. This is good, since an encyclopedia shouldn't hold long-term grudges against enthousiastic contributors.

Evidence presented by Bishonen

I have attempted to influence the actions of the arbcom

I'm sorry for the crashing boringness of this post, but I should probably respond to Inksplotch's statement, made in what I take to be a critical tone, that I attempted to influence the actions of the arbcom, since it's the reason I'm named as an involved party. Did I attempt to influence the actions of the ArbCom? Yes. I don't know if it worked, but I'm pleased with myself for trying. I have no notion that he arbcom ought to be or wishes to be insulated from community concerns, up to and including attempts to influence their actions. Did I specifically attempt to use Kelly Martin's surprise call-up of me to catch the arbcom's attention? Yes. My response to KM was primarily an attempt to reach out and get some real communication going with her—to ask her to see her own role and demeanor from new angles, and to take an interest in the damaging perceptions of her communication style—but secondarily it was also an attempt to influence the arbcom. The first was a pitiful failure.[52] I don't know how the second went over, I still have hopes for it.

Merging RFAr/Ghirlandajo into this case would illuminate Tony Sidaway's blocking practices

Several editors, including Tony Sidaway himself[53], have suggested merging the recently rejected request for arbitration of Ghirlandajo into this case. I agree, as many statements in it address the same matters of principle, and because the Ghirlandajo kerfuffle adds an illuminating perspective on Tony's blocking practices. Notably, Tony's three-hour block of Ghirlandajo on September 5 is the twin of his three-hour block of Giano nine days later, which has been widely discussed in this case. Note also on September 7, chronologically between the two blocks, Tony's threat to block people for "precisely the kind of nonsense that I blocked Ghirlandajo over"[54]—essentially, a general warning against talking back to him.
These blocks + the block warning were all used in the context of dissenting voices in the matter of Carnildo's re-sysopping. Tony's block summaries and block messages suggest strongly that they functioned as "don't-contradict-me" blocks rather than cooling-down blocks. Empirically, they always inflamed those they were directed at, rather than cool anybody down .

  1. Block 1: Putative original offenses by Ghirlandajo: [55][56] [57] [58] [59][60][61][62][63][64]
    • Warning by Tony S for "gross incivility and what appear to be trolling or deliberately inflammatory comments"[65].
    • Response by Ghirla to warning: "Please don't try to intimidate me. The community demonstrated that it does not trust admin tools to Carnildo and his admirors have to live with it..."[66]
    • Block by Tony S for "Unreasonable and defiant response to request to tone down after multiple instances of gross incivility"[67].
  2. Block threat. As soon as Carnildo was promoted, discussion broke out on Wikipedia talk:Requests for adminship/Carnildo 3 where several highly-respected editors argued with Tony. He responded with invective, as even a cursory glance at the page will show, and by pointedly reminding his opponents (perhaps specifically Bunchofgrapes, the last person to speak) of Ghirlandajo's block a little earlier. "Hey guys, enough with the warring. This is precisely the kind of nonsense that I blocked Ghirlandajo over: the personalization of differences of opinion to the extent of open warfare."[68]
  3. Block 2. Giano posted copiously and angrily about the bureaucrats' decision to re-sysop Carnildo, including on Taxman's talkpage. Tony S blocked Giano for 3 hours, I believe especially for this post, with the comment "Making quite hysterical accusations and needs to cool down a bit"[69] and with this message to Giano. Tony posted the block for review on ANI, and it was quickly undone. Tony has implied several times that he meant the block summary to be the equivalent of an invitation to have a nice cup of tea.[70][71]

Giano's block has received a whirlwind of attention, so I'll just comment briefly on Ghirlandajo's. Since most commentators didn't think Ghirla's original posts uncivil at all, but merely expressions of his opinion in appropriate fora, I argue that Tony's actions in regard to these posts did not quell disruption and belligerence, but instead whipped it up. For a fuller discussion, please see my own earlier comment in RFAR Ghirlandajo. I ask ArbCom to find that Tony unreasonably provoked Ghirla into a heated (though not incivil or unreasonable) reply which he, Tony, then blocked him for. Such an action against a prolific content contributor, who's widely regarded as much improved and improving in the way he works with others on the site (please see the Ghirlandajo RFAR, passim) is quite destructive, however well-intentioned it may be. Also, more importantly, I ask them to find that editors get to "defy" admins; that they're not obliged to choose between meekness under (what they see as) injustice on the one hand, and a block on the other. It is intolerable for admins to present users with such a choice.

Wikipedia is an encyclopedia

Pious platitude or reality? If Wikipedia is first and foremost an encyclopedia, content is surely king, and excellent content contributors like Giano and Ghirlandajo will be trusted and respected and nurtured and protected by the community, the admins, and the arbcom. In reality Giano has instead, after a long and cheerful wiki career principally spent at WP:FAC, met with a series of indignities this year, from Carnildo's infamous "hate speech" block in February, via Fred Bauder's and Charles Matthews' proposal in July to ban him for an impatient remark to a notorious nuisance editor, followed by a 48-hour block and toe-curling condescension from a newbie admin [72] in August (Note that I mean "newbie" as an excuse for the admin, not a criticism of her), to the three-hour block for "hysterical accusations" from Tony Sidaway in September. To see blocks, bans, or threats of this nature as mere potential hindrances from editing for a few hours or a few days is a grievous failure of imagination. Compare Bunchofgrapes on the workshop page: "Blocks hurt people. They are emotionally damaging, especially for long-time users. Undoing a bad block does not undo that harm. "[73]. Some or perhaps most of these four events were not aggressively intended, but I believe they very amply explain any failure of equanimity in Giano, as well as his loss of enthusiasm for the project. (But then these are the days of many lost enthusiasms, as the pre-history of this RFAr suggests.) Here are specifics of the four events:

  1. February: Carnildo's block of Giano. Carnildo hasn't been in touch with the victims of his "hate speech" blocks, Giano and User:El C. . His position as stated at [[Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Carnildo 2|Carnildo 2] remains AFAIK his position of record: "I imposed a block and made a few hastily-worded statements. The block was reverted within ten minutes, and the statements were mostly ignored. I'd feel regret if the consequences had been more significant, but I don't see how a heated opinion and a few minutes of not being able to edit Wikipedia is worth agonizing over." [74] My impression, from reading the Carnildo RFAs, is that this was the reason so many opposed returning the block button to him, and the reason for Giano's anger at the bureaucrats' decision: not Carnildo's long-ago brief brainfart of placing the blocks (February 2006 is ancient history, counted in wiki-time), but Carnildo's ongoing dismissal of of the harm blocking can do: a loud signal that he shouldn't have the button.
  2. July: The proposed ArbCom ban of Giano. In the RFAR on Eternal Equinox (aka User:Hollow Wilerding, presently User:Velten, Fred Bauder proposed banning Giano for a month for "taunting" Eternal Equinox with this post. This was supported by Charles Matthews pour encourager les autres, but rejected by all other voting arbs. (Note the humiliating touch that neither Fred nor Charles proposed banning Eternal Equinox herself, Giano thus being singled out by two arbs as the only user in the case whose contributions the encyclopedia deserved to be relieved of for a space of time. [75].) Many people, a minority of them friends of Giano's, who were aware of how especially Charles Matthews' endorsement was affecting him, attempted to plead/argue with CM on his talkpage[76], but clearly got off on the wrong foot (some of them being less polite than others) and were collectively written off as "a few buddies piling up on my User Talk".[77] I'm not writing this to criticize CM, knowing his conscientiousness and also what an unreasonable burden of work all arbitrators shoulder, but I do believe the effects were unfortunate. It seems to me a good illustration of the consequences of the notion, when held even by scrupulous users such as CM, that blocks and bans are merely a matter of taking—or being given—a break from editing. ("A one-month ban is a holiday."[78]) A number of people have asked what the problem was—Giano wasn't in the upshot banned by the ArbCom, was he? This IMO is again a failure of imagination. Giano was in fact found to have "taunted a sensitive user" (=Eternal Equinox). I would suggest that Ghirlandajo and Giano, and, heck, most of us (I suppose not all, since some like to boast about their thick skin) are sensitive users. And since it is an encyclopedia, I would put the need for supportiveness less on tenderness towards the pure nuisance editors draining our resources (Eternal Equinox, currently under various restrictions, is nevertheless keeping several admins busy containing her antics [79][80] [81]) and more on allowing for the sensitivities and pride of productive editors. Users such as the extremely productive Giano and Ghirlandajo react well to trust and respect and belief in their good faith; badly to blocks, poking, patronizing, admin arrogance, and to being, in every disagreement, at the mercy of the man with the block button. (By the man with the block button, I'm referring to Tony's recent Wild West blocking practices, by no means to admins in general, though the tendencies do exist elsewhere IMO.)
  3. August: The second block of Giano (48 hours).[82] This block was issued for Giano's insistence and anger with Lar, as narrated by Lar in the section above. Here Giano doubtless went too far in his surprise and outrage at seeing a supposed friend vote strong support and admiration for Carnildo, the unapologetic blocker of Giano and others in the Pedobox War. Lar's stated basis for his vote—deference to the fact that arbitrators (superusers? demigods?) were supporting—apparently got deep under Giano's skin as a poor amount of RFA research.
  4. September: The third block of Giano (Tony Sidaway, 3 hours). Everybody knows this one.
Bishonen | talk 22:57, 1 October 2006 (UTC). (Full disclosure:Giano and I are friends.)[reply]

Evidence presented by InkSplotch

(In progress)

Incivility

One of the reasons I request this aribtration was to examine what, in my mind, constitute personal attacks and incivil behavior through attacks and accusations of unsubstantiated claims. If one claims, user X is a vandal, one is expected to show evidence, or the evidence is expected to be self-evident. Too often in this conflict, people would say, user X is doing this because... and often claiming deliberate malfeasance, collusion with others (cabalism), or actions driven by ego, revenge, or other emotions. In this section I hope to collect diff's of what I feel cross the line into personal attacks and incivility, either because the accusations are baseless, or because the accusations are serious enough to warrant action and the accuser refuses to substantiate their claims.

This may include diff's from the named parties in this case, as well as others who participated in the Giano threads in AN.

{Write your assertion here}

Place argument and diffs which support the second assertion; for example, your second assertion might be "So-and-so makes personal attacks", which should be the title of this section. Here you would show specific edits where So-and-so made personal attacks.

Evidence presented by Kirill Lokshin

Incivility

Tony Sidaway is habitualy incivil and often engages in borderline (or not-so-borderline!) personal attacks. Kirill Lokshin 17:34, 27 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Inflammatory remarks

Tony Sidaway often characterizes the actions of other editors in terms that serve to inflame, rather than cool down, conflicts. Kirill Lokshin 17:34, 27 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Evidence presented by Lar

Giano has been involved in allegations of incivility before

This thread on my talk page: User_talk:Lar/Archive_13#Carnildo (as archived) ( or [110] from diffs, includes thread but also unrelated diffs) resulted in Giano being warned for incivility [111] by Kylu (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA), and in his subsequently (on not taking a suggestion to cool it well) receiving a block [112] for 48 hours also from Kylu, which was overturned by Bunchofgrapes (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA), amid some controversy [113]. This incident happened prior to the events mentioned on the front page of this arbitration page. It is also related to the Carnildo RfA, and there is more backstory, which I can provide if necessary, but I think this is the gist of it.

I think this demonstrates some prior history of incivility, and inability to take suggestions to cool it graciously on the part of Giano. I have subsequently been quoted as saying that no editor, regardless of the awesomeness of his or her contributions, ought to get a free pass regarding their actions, and I assert that Giano, in this incident, essentially did get one, other editors and admins suffered more negative consequences from trying to encourage Giano to be civil than he did.

Note that I choose to present this evidence because I beleive it has bearing on the events of a few days later after Carnildo was promoted. I do not assert it is a major portion of this case or that other evidence is not valid or relevant, and I think others are doing fine at presenting it, but I didn't want this precursor to be overlooked. The implication I am making is that this prior incident may have had some bearing on Giano's state of mind. But since this case seems to be evolving into a case about Tony and Kelly, that may not be all that relevant. ++Lar: t/c 19:33, 28 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Evidence presented by unsigned

Special license to misconduct

Some editors {{fact}} observe that T. Sidaway carries himself as self appointed spokesman for The powers that be through incivil and initimidating conduct. Some editors fear T. Sidaway gets special treatment due to these alleged personal loyalties. Eg of related recent incident (excerpted):

I believe you are simply wrong. Your "overwhelming majority" has no basis in fact... Bunchofgrapes (talk) 23:08, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

I think it's obvious that your vile slurs are quite unacceptable here or on any Wikimedia project... Tony Sidaway 23:25, 7 September 2006 (UTC)
This is not a vile slur, it's a criticism of your editing behavior... Friday (talk) 23:33, 7 September 2006 (UTC)
I find your characterization of my earlier wording as "vile slurs" ridiculous... Bunchofgrapes (talk) 23:34, 7 September 2006 (UTC)
This is precisely the kind of nonsense that I blocked Ghirlandoja over... Tony Sidaway 23:39, September 2006 (UTC)
I strongly disagree with some of the things you've been doing lately. Is telling you this a blockable offense now? Friday (talk) 23:47, 7 September 2006 (UTC)
Well I'll leave you to troll by yourselve. Just stick a bookmark on my above statements. --Tony Sidaway 23:51, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

— Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.225.253.130 (talk • contribs)

Evidence presented by Giano

I wasn't going to post any evidence here, but now the case finally seems to be winding up perhaps it is time for me to have my say, unhindered. This case bears my name, and so must be about me, but I really don't think it is. It seems to me to have been a long awaited opportunity for many people to air grievances. I would like to think it is about the article-writing editors being weary of the ever increasing administrative staff, but it's not. Perhaps it is about the secret cliques who unashamedly meet in private IRC channels and then influence proceedings? - I don't know.

I have read so much about myself over the last days, I don't know where to begin - has there ever been such a mass pile on? However for better or for worse I am still here. I think if I were so wicked I would never have survived so long. I'm glad the only thing that has not been questioned by the various factions is my commitment to the Wikipedia project - because that would have hurt. It's no secret I loathe the current admin culture. Whatever happened to the "It's no big deal" - I feel strongly that all Wikipedians without exception should cut their teeth writing articles, but of course as one assumes more responsibility time is limited. The "No bull" campaign was intended to bring the fact that so few of the administrative staff write, for various reasons, to the forefront, so I'm glad that achieved its intention.

So what of me, the "Giano" of this case? It is no secret I am bad tempered when crossed. I don't think I am desperately rude, a little short and terse perhaps. I don't think I have ever sworn at anyone, but perhaps sometimes I deliver some unwelcome truths. There are many editors who do not wish to be admins but they now seem to be regarded as second class citizens by newbie admins who have barely contributed to the encyclopedia - I am not second class, neither are my colleagues here, and I will not be treated in such a fashion.

One thing that has upset me is the constant reference to my boasts of contributions, because I don't think anywhere have I ever mentioned my own perceived value to the project (other than the small page somewhere, basically for my own reference of my favourite pages), but I would be a liar if I denied I was immensely proud each time a page I have helped appears on the main page. I read often of references to Giano's pages, but there is not one of them which has not been heavily edited by others before it even reaches main space. Compared to Emsworth and his like, I am a beginner.

I've been here since May 2004. I had a couple of earlier names (where as a daft newbie I disclosed too much personal information so moved away). I have seen things change so much in that short time. The most exciting thing has been the influx of the Russians, who have written so much about places untill recently closed to us (perhaps some of them still are). I think not to welcome them, who are so keen to contribute, with open arms, and sometimes, yes, make allowances, would be criminal.

Concluding, I don't think of myself as a superior editor (I merely regurgitate facts from books), but Wikipedia has some fantastic editors who it risks losing at its peril. It seems to me now that IRC is the "in place" to be in order to know what is best for Wikipedia. I have never been there. Giano 21:22, 3 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

{Write your assertion here}

Place argument and diffs which support the second assertion; for example, your second assertion might be "So-and-so makes personal attacks", which should be the title of this section. Here you would show specific edits where So-and-so made personal attacks.

Some more stuff by Radiant

Not sure if this is useful data, but I made a count of reasons people used to oppose Carnildo's last RFA. The numbers correspond to the oppose !voters, N## refers to the neutral remarks. People who gave multiple reasons are listed multiple times; people who gave no reason (or said 'per all of the above' or somesuch) aren't listed.

  • 44x He did not apologize for the actions that led to his demotion (1, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 13, 14, 15, 16, 18, 19, 21, 22, 24, 25, 27, 29, 30, 33, 34, 37, 41, 44, 45, 48, 49, 50, 52, 53, 55, 56, 57, 58, 62, 65, 66, 68, 71, N1, N3, N4, N7, N9)
  • 20x He cannot be trusted (6, 7, 8, 9, 12, 13, 18, 29, 30, 33, 38, 39, 42, 43, 51, 54, 55, 69, 70, N8)
  • 17x His lack of civility (1, 3, 4, 8, 13, 14, 16, 31, 40, 42, 56, 57, 59, 63, 71, N4, N10)
  • 11x The same actions that led to his demotion (2, 3, 7, 17, 23, 25, 37, 55, 57, 64, N2)
  • 8x His perceivedly harsh opinion on blocking policy (21, 22, 26, 33, 45, 50, 61, 65)
  • 7x Dislike of his bot (4, 11, 14, 52, 63, 64, N10)
  • 6x He tends not to communicate (1, 3, 46, 59, 63, 67)
  • 2x He doesn't use enough edit summaries (15, 16)
  • 2x Perceivedly obnoxious behavior of the support voters (47, 52)

Evidence presented by Sjakkalle

Since there is a workshop remedy regarding Kelly Martin, I feel the need to add some evidence here regarding her conduct. Kelly Martin has a record of incivil conduct. Although I realize that she has exercised her right to leave, leaving is not an escape from accountability, and so I feel that it is not inappropriate to still consider this.

Inappropriate block

Due to this support vote, User:Grue was blocked by Kelly Martin for 24 hours without warning. The block was quickly overturned.

The user lists

  • A list, User:Kelly Martin/B was created which contained a list of users who opposed Sean Black's RFA (the view opposing Kelly Martin's support). Responses on the Administrator's Noticeboard were evasive.
  • The B-list was delted by User:Cyde
  • Kelly then produced another list User:Kelly Martin/R also consisting of a list of names. This was deleted by User:El C, who also blocked Kelly Martin for it. These actions were reversed and the R-list was sent to MFD.
  • The creation of the R-list was explained July 24, 02:47. "I created it for one express purpose: to see if El C would jerk his knee and attempt to punish me for creating it." and "To an extent, this is disrupting Wikipedia to prove a point, but if the extremely minor disruption that this causes exposes a wildly irresponsible admin for who he [El C] is, I consider it worthwhile."
  • In spite of only a slight majority on the MFD to delete the R-list, I close the MFD debate as a "delete" result, citing the reason for the list's creation as "harrassment".

Predictions of indefinite bans

  • [114]. Kelly Martin has predicted that it is only a question of time before Giano is indefinitely banned, and said that "Geogre is close to this point as well, and may have already passed it.". It is my assertion that making such predictions, having "seen the writing on the wall", is not conducive to a friendly, civil and constructive discussion.

Sjakkalle (Check!) 12:23, 1 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Evidence presented by Steve block

John Reid's "Let the record show" comment and civility issues

Basically, I noted these two posts by John and thought that they weren't best placed in assuming good faith nor in communicating his opinion in the most civil manner. [115] and [116]. I commented on this at John's talk page [117], and the discussion seen disintegrated [118], [119], [120], [121], with User:Anthony cfc noting the tension between us, [122], which didn't help, [123]. Following dispute resolution, I walked away from the discussion after my last comment [124], and hadn't noted John's final remark until now [125]. However, I think that my comment of "The record shows" [126] may provide some insight into John's usage of a similar phrase at the bureaucrats' noticeboard [127].

I'm adding this stuff into evidence because I think it has a bearing on the discussion at the bureaucratic noticeboard regarding Carnildo's promotion. I'm thinking it shows both that John maybe has issues communicating, issues with assumming good faith, issues with civility and also that it may explain or mitigate the "Let the record show comment". I'm only adding this since John has added himself as a party. Steve block Talk 11:02, 3 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Object; immaterial. I hope it's obvious that all these diffs are from a completely unrelated issue. I stand by my comments even so; both JzG and Steve were way out of line -- one thoughtless and rude, one stuffy and patronizing. If Steve thought I was out of line he ought to have blocked me immediately, not taken the opportunity to bully or lecture. But the entire thing has nothing to do with this ArbCom. I hope we haven't gotten to the point where every case subsumes every other. If so, then I'll move for a month to dig up more history on all parties. Do we want to go this way? John Reid 07:03, 10 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Evidence presented (by Cyde) on behalf of Kelly Martin

As my recent contribs (or lack thereof) will attest, I've been somewhat on leave from Wikipedia as a direct result of the general pall of unpleasantness brought up by this and related incidents. Frankly, there's too much drama, scheming, and warring, and it's not worth my time to be involved in it. I have only (briefly) returned to present evidence in defense of Kelly. Since she has been gone there have been some atrocious lies said about her during this Arbitration, and I could not stay quiet and allow her to be slandered so. Thus, I now provide two blog postings by Kelly rebutting the false accusations against her (reprinted with permission).

Wikipedia Arbitration, primadonnas, and pointless measures

I made the mistake of looking at the "arbitration" case opened to review the broader circumstances related to my departure from the English Wikipedia. What a train wreck! Mostly, I'm disgusted at the prima donnas sashaying around demanding all sorts of vindictive concessions because their precious egos have been bruised. One of them even went so far as to demand that a block log entry that he finds offensive be purged from history to satisfy his tender sensitivities. Fortunately, Brion stood up for sensibility and flatly declared that that request would be denied. And the prima donnas are on both sides.

The real problem here is that we have people who believe that their contributions to Wikipedia (whether those contributions be in the form of article authorship or administrative support) excuse them from basic social obligations. I'm as guilty of this as the rest of them; the only difference is that I've agreed to stop doing it. They haven't -- and until they do Wikipedia will not get better.

I noticed statements to the effect that I was "hounded off of Wikipedia". There's some truth to that, but not a lot. I left Wikipedia for my own sanity. I was expending too much energy in negative activity, and I decided that this was bad for me. Toward the end there I definitely did things I regret having done, but what's done is done. It's as much as response to my own excesses as to those of others; I am neither totally accepting nor totally avoiding responsibility for my role in creating the current state of affairs.

In the meantime, I'm waiting on the toolserver to have valid database replicas so I can go back to generating statistics on the databases, and in the meantime I'm continuing to work on my reimplementation of MediaWiki in Java. While the latter will probably never reach fruition, I am learning a great deal about the innards of MediaWiki, which might eventually prove useful. Once I get a bit further I might put my work in progress up on an SVN server, assuming I can figure out how to put up SVN, that is....

Update: One of the anonymous trolls who likes to stalk my blog has suggested this summary of the incident. Of course, it is written by one of the rather more unrepentant primadonnas, and should be taken with at least a cowlick's worth of salt.... [128]


Lying primadonnas

I've noticed that one of the primadonnas running amok on Wikipedia has taken to claiming that I wasn't even an editor when I was still there. I'm not sure what purpose he has to repeating this lie -- other than to evidence his own poor connection to reality -- but in the interest of setting the record straight, the following is an incomplete list of the articles I made nontrivial contributions to in the past year (that is, since October 1, 2005):

This is in addition to contributing spelling corrections, markup corrections, or other minor adjustments to literally thousands of articles. It also does not count articles I touched in the course of handling copyright release notices, copyright infringement notices, vandalism management, or special requests from Brad or Danny.

But apparently the above list, or the over 7000 mainspace edits I'd made in the past twelve months (my critic having made barely 1000 mainspace edits in the same timeframe), were not enough to make me an editor.

And to think that the person making this claim is not only considered by many a "valued member of the Wikipedia community" but is being held forth, by himself and by others, as a paragon of virtue that others should emulate. I wasn't aware that raving on spewing forth falsehoods (which in his case I shall call "lies"; this is my blog and I am not required to be "civil" and assume that his lies flow merely from ignorance of the facts) was considered virtuous. If these are truly the moral standards of Wikipedia, Wikipedia is in far darker trouble than even I had envisioned. [129]

— Preceding unsigned comment added by Cyde (talk • contribs) 23:44, 3 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

On the strike through:

  1. This evidence was unsigned
  2. The person who posted it indicated nowhere his identity
  3. The evidence alledges to be by Kelly Martin, which may or may not be true. However, because it contains a long litany of WP:NPA violations, I would doubt it is by her.
  4. Until a clerk can be found who will verify and decide upon refactoring, I have done a strike through. If the evidence can be signed, either by the person who submitted it or the person who wrote it, the strike through seems appropriate. Geogre 10:02, 4 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Geogre, 1) would it not have been better to look at the history, see that the post was made by Cyde, and have added {{unsigned|Cyde}}? I'm sure he just forgot to sign it. 2) As to whether the evidence comes from Kelly, I have no additional knowledge, but assuming good faith, Cyde is not lying. I'm not going to defend the evidence itself, but the strikethrough, especially by a highly interested party like you is inappropriate and inflammetory. I suggest you reverse it. (I won't - since I have no wish to provoke this situation). Let's leave this to a neutral clerk. --Doc 10:16, 4 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Doc, I really don't want to be controversial, but I saw that Cyde posted it. I just can't be sure it came from Kelly Martin, and it wasn't presented as by Cyde. That put it in a netherworld, and I very much would like for a clerk to decide on the propriety. Since this discussion is here, I will remove the strikethrough and let this discussion stand as a large "Caveat." It's an entirely unprecedented thing to expect that a blog post be submitted as evidence. It's not Wikipedia, not part of Wikipedia, not linked. If we would never prosecute or offer prosecutorial evidence from a blog, then we would never admit exculpatory (or, in this case, attacking) evidence from a blog. Geogre 10:56, 4 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I've asked Kelly per e-mail to confirm, and she did. However I guess feelings were hurt, looks like she's done with Wikipedia. So therefore she won't confirm it by posting here. Here's part of what she wrote: "Cyde asked me for permission to quote from my blog, yes, and the blog at http://nonbovine-ruminations.blogspot.com/ is in fact my blog." --Pizzahut2talk 21:16, 4 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I like how, because I forgot to sign my post (I haven't edited in ten days), Geogre comes through and immediately tries to discredit everything I've posted. Geogre, you're trying to turn this into some sort of battlefield. You're not helping matters at all; you're simply taking every single opportunity to be as unpleasant, rude, and dismissive as possible. I support Fred's resolution. --Cyde Weys 18:08, 4 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sorry? Geogre raises some questions about whether posts from a blog -- which appear to be more evidence against than by Kelly Martin -- are indeed intended to be entered as evidence by Kelly, and you take that as grounds for dysysopping? Geogre hasn't been unpleasant, rude, or dismissive, either. —Bunchofgrapes (talk) 18:15, 4 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Your first post after not editing for ten days is to post a personal attack on behalf of someone who has left Wikipedia, and yet it's Geogre who is turning this "into some sort of battlefield" and Geogre who is "taking every single opportunity to be ... unpleasant, rude, and dismissive"? SlimVirgin (talk) 18:17, 4 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I'm particularly confused by this. This "evidence" is not evidence at all, and only makes Kelly look worse, not better, so how can it have been posted to help her? I would suggest removing all of this as being irrelevant to the case. Friday (talk) 18:40, 4 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I'd simply observe that all parties here are 'interested' (I include myself, although I'm losing interest fast), so if this is to be removed (and perhaps it should be), let an arb or a clerk do it. Anyone else, we're likely to descend into a further pit. --Doc 18:54, 4 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Cyde, give me a break. Geogre's questions were completely justified. Given it's content it does seem to be a strange defense. For example, i checked the history of the first four contributions that you listed on behalf of Kelly. Two of them include a single, minor, edit to the encylopedia (Rest area and Clover). If these are typical, doesn't this just prove her critics point?
Regardless of whether she should be adding content to the encylopedia, personally i don't think that is necessarily a requirement, she is still behaving in a holier than thou attitude and that just pisses people off. This interface for interaction is based solely on written words and requires that people think twice about what they write. There is no body language, her words represent her position. Frankly, her thoughtless put-downs are still a problem.
The back room chatter is also a problem in a project that is supposed to be open. The B list, which i found myself on since i voted against Sean Black, is not what wikipedia is about. She of all people should know this to be the case. She has to understand that editors who disagree with her are not all raving lunatics who are out to get her. I am beginning to percieve a certain amount of paranoia that could easily be solved by open dialog rather than turning to a select group of editors that she trusts.
There are very many legitimate editors who are impatient with her continual bad attitude to the collaborative project. Strangely many of her critics actually agree with her policy decisions but the strife she regularly and unrepentantly causes is unacceptable. There are many admins that do not cause these types of problems for the project so it is not a legitimate excuse to say that she causes tension because she is working in sensitive areas. The obvious truth is that she causes tension by being dismissive of legitimate concerns. This is a common theme among our elite admins. The solution is easy. First, explain your reasoning patiently, convince your critics that you ideas are sound. If this does not work agree to disagree and work with concensus. If you do not get support then drop it or find another way to argue your case. How hard is that? David D. (Talk) 18:50, 4 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Evidence presented by Mailer Diablo

  • Kelly Martin has continued to be incivil and made personal attacks aganist editors involved in this RfAr that she disagrees with, as shown in the evidence from the blog posts as presented by Cyde (if accepted by the ArbCom) :
    • "Mostly, I'm disgusted at the prima donnas sashaying around demanding all sorts of vindictive concessions because their precious egos have been bruised" [130]
    • "Of course, it is written by one of the rather more unrepentant primadonnas (Geogre, for User:Geogre/Blug), and should be taken with at least a cowlick's worth of salt...." [131]
    • "Lying primadonnas" [132]
  • A link by the blog to her profile appears to confirm that the poster is indeed User:Kelly Martin (http://www.blogger.com/profile/30217029).

- Mailer Diablo 16:49, 4 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Only a note: I had thought, given the living color NPA violations in it, that this couldn't have been intended by Kelly Martin as evidence in her own behalf. When it says, "this is not Wikipedia," that should pretty much disqualify it, so I had thought this was on the borderline of a personal attack by Cyde to have posted it. Geogre 17:11, 4 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Frankly, I'm beginning to see how Fred's proposition regarding your adminship makes perfect sense. --Cyde Weys 18:06, 4 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
You can avoid these difficulties, in the future, by signing all posts to Wikipedia with four tildes. Also, be sure to label your contributions appropriately. This will help you avoid confusion in the future. As for your agreement with Fred, I shall only take whatever consolation as I might. Geogre 19:32, 4 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Cyde, you're skating on thin ice already regarding personal attacks, so my advice is don't exacerbate things. SlimVirgin (talk) 18:11, 4 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
:-P Cyde Weys 18:15, 4 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Giano/Evidence&oldid=80571004"