Wikipedia talk:Requests for arbitration/Giano/Proposed decision: Difference between revisions

Principle 16

"having engaged in bad behavior in the past, it is difficult for an desyopped administrator to pass Wikipedia:Requests for adminship due to the requirement for consensus."

I would urge the arbiters to consider that while it may seem that way, this evidence points in a different direction: that most ex-admins coming to RFA again fail for reasons entirely unrelated to what got them demoted in the first place. I agree with the sentiment that RFA is far too critical of people to the point of being broken, but whatever problems RFA has are not resolved by bypassing it. >Radiant< 14:44, 2 October 2006 (UTC)

I concur. Please look at the evidence rather than the rumor or impression. Radiant has compiled a very, very telling analysis, and to have that work ignored and gainsaid without even consideration is very poor judgment, it seems to me. At least engage the evidence, but don't assert the counter position as if in ignorance or disregard of evidence. Geogre 13:48, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

Links back to Workshop?

Is it possible to have links from these sections back to the relevant sections of the Workshop, so that Arbitrators coming to this page 'cold' can go there and read the comments left by those who were discussing these issues on the Workshop pages? Either that, or an indication of whether the rest of the Arbitration committee are reading the Workshop pages? Obviously Fred is active over on the Workshop pages, but he did say that he was generally the only ArbCom member to use those pages. I think I did see another ArbCom member on the talk page of the Workshop, but he said that the Workshop was so big that it, um, crashed his browser! Anyway, I recognise that at some point the Arbitrators have to form their own conclave and pass judgement, but I just wanted to ensure the extensive (and almost entirely civil) discussion that took place on those Workshop pages is not overlooked. Carcharoth 00:50, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

I don't know what they look at. I presume that look at all the evidence and carefully analyze all the material on the Workshop. But that may not be true. Fred Bauder 19:43, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

Poor wording

There is consistently poor wording, and I believe that Fred's draft, at this point, is a prosecution rather than assessment of evidence from all sides. Saying something like "do not troll" is inarguable, until you realize that it's stated only to get at "those who disagreed more than once were trolling," just as "do not bait" is inarguable, until you realize that "you are a boil" and "you are all idiots" is, in this characterization, merely an "undiplomatic response," while, "Did you all actually agree with this decision" is "baiting." A difference of opinion is the stuff of Wikipedia, but these interpretations are so beyond the pale as to amount to advocacy that is better suited to the workshop than judgment made from a position of disinterest and dispassion. Throughout this proposed decision, exceptionally ill-defined terms that carry enormous emotional freight are employed, and there is never an effort made to justify or explain why or how such terminology should be anything but fuel to the fire, rather than a calm assessment. In regular jurisprudence, judges are supposed to be unemotional and without prior friendships with disputants. Geogre 13:53, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

I don't think we can farm this out to Meatball. A dispute here will end up with us, warts and all. Fred Bauder 19:47, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

Very true. Picking one side of an argument and saying "this side was baiting the other" means little other than "I happen to agree with the other side." I think it's obvious that there was lots of disagreement and criticism, sometimes harshly worded, all around. Friday (talk) 14:07, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

I want to repeat my statement before the arbitration was accepted (now deleted for some reason): As for "addressing the idea fought over in this discussion editors vs. admins", I don't see how ArbCom may issue a satisfactory ruling in favor of contributors, being composed primarily of non-writing admins. InkSplotch's request is all the more ill-advised, as some parties expressed doubts in the integrity of the ArbCom and its procedures. Bringing the case to be decided by the judge they don't trust seems the worst issue possible. Now we have a predictably poor finale to a manipulative arbitration rigged up by a sockpuppet account. What may be less surprizing? --Ghirla ^-трёп- 15:55, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

Your statement is included in the decision as a comment to Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Giano/Proposed_decision#Jurisdiction_of_the_Arbitration_Committee, a dissenting opinion, if you will. Fred Bauder 19:47, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

Ghirla, for whatever comfort it may be, your statement is still to be found here on the case talk page. The convention seems to be that when a case is opened, the parties' statements stay on the main case page and non-party statements/comments go on the associated talkpage. Newyorkbrad 16:32, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

Lest there is any misunderstanding, I am not trying to say Fred's a bad guy, impugn him in any way, but the wording here is really bothersome. I have an assignment where students read an article about "fat is fine," and the article throughout talks about how "fat" has no harmful effects, etc. I teach my students to notice that this begs the question of "what is fat?" 5 kg overweight is very different from 50 kg overweight. In this proposed judgment, there are many, many cases of undefined, damaging words. I would not like to have this very argument, for example, cited as "baiting" or "trolling" or anything, and yet Fred's proposed decision, at this point, suggests that you get to say something exactly once, and, if the other person does not change his or her tune, doing anything more (other than, apparently, blocking without moderation) is "trolling." That's a hideous idea. Geogre 14:49, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

I'd like to see you say anything just 3 times, or even so little as a dozen times. Fred Bauder 19:40, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

Highly Unanticipated Provisions of Proposed Decisions - Geogre and John Reid

Among other things, the /Proposed Decision being drafted by Fred Bauder proposes that Geogre be desysopped ("suspended indefinitely" as an administrator "for sustained aggressive political campaigning") is the precise wording). John Reid would be banned for one week for his postings to the Bureaucrats' Noticeboard. In all the pounds of typing expended in the Workshop and elsewhere, not a single user suggested that either of these remedies was in order or should even be considered. I did not agree with everything that Geogre or John Reid said during the past month, but I consider these proposals to be entirely unreasonable and unacceptable. Newyorkbrad 20:36, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

Second that. -- Grafikm ^(AutoGRAF) 20:46, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

Thirted. -- Kim van der Linde ^{at venus} 20:50, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

• Strongly support what Newyorkbrad writes. Desysopping Geogre is unreasonable, there was nothing that he wrote that was so terrible, and he never used his admin powers in conflict. He was by no means the only one writing these things; desysopping him for it would only further the impression that the Wikipedia administrators are a club expected to conceal their own opinons, toe the party line, and circle the wagons in the face of any criticism. Blocking John Reid is overkill, nothing indicates that he intends to damage the Wikipedia, note that "Blocks are preventive rather than punitive measures" (WP:BLOCK, nothing and, frankly, if administrators are supposed to be thicker skinned than the average user, surely bureaucrats should be even more so. AnonEMouse ^(squeak) 20:56, 3 October 2006 (UTC)