Wikipedia talk:Requests for arbitration/Giano/Evidence

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Tony Sidaways' evidence[edit]

Tony Sidaway has presented no evidence in his section. While this is a common problem among those unfamiliar with the workings of ArbCom, I admit I find it rather unexpected here. Tony, do you want to move your statement to this talk page where it belongs? —Bunchofgrapes (talk) 01:41, 25 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

My evidence is in the form of a statement. The evidence is the statement itself. It belongs on the evidence page. --Tony Sidaway 02:00, 25 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
But, Tony, your statement seems to say simply that the members of ArbCom (or Jimbo, or some other administrators) already know what you think and have done, so there is no need for you to spell it out. It is rather difficult for those of us who are not included in the select group who already know what you have done or think (particularly those of us have been concentrating on adding to the encyclopedia, rather than following the shenanigans on WP:AN or WP:ANI or WP:BN or WT:RFA or a hundred and one user talk pages) to understand or respond to that "evidence" unless you expand your statement with a description of (or at least links to) the points that you mention - for example, your at-length public statements on your involvement in this affair which clarify your thinking and actions, and your opinions on good adminship. -- ALoan (Talk) 11:04, 25 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Tony - thanks for adding some evidence. However, I think there are still areas in your statement that need some evidential underpinning. -- ALoan (Talk) 12:24, 26 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Supplemental evidence of continuing personal attacks by Giano during this RfAr[edit]

  • Comment: Read it in conjunction with the "Evidence on behalf of Kelly Martin," too, though, as it appears to be an ill considered attack on a blog rather than a person. One wishes the same could be said of the blog entry itself. Geogre 01:15, 13 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • When I tell my six-year-old off for being nasty to her sister, she often responds with the riduiculous defence of "but she called me a [insert nasty word] first".--Doc 01:24, 13 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • The diff you cite points to calling a blog names. We must never confuse our artworks with people. And this is not a talk page. Geogre 01:30, 13 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • There is some irony concerning all the harping about Tony supposedly being baited, and then Giano falls into the trap for real. And, again, look who becomes the fall guy. There is a reason why the concept that there are two classes of editors persists. --badlydrawnjeff talk 02:28, 13 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • Jeff, that's too subtle for me. Are you implying this was the work of a victim? That I baited him? As for two classes of editor, Tony and Kelly have now lost their sysop bits basically for incivility, but Giano gets unblocked from a three hour block. That does look like inequity. We must never confuse our artworks with people? Saying that that post is anything less than a vicious nasty personal attack is, frankly, dishonust and unworthy of any Wikipedian.--Doc 02:52, 13 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
        • No, you didn't bait him. Technically, Tony and Kelly resigned their sysop bits. Meanwhile, Giano gets a 3 hour block for what was an unnecessary personal attack that you hoped would get extended rather than removed, but you can't seem to find the same reaction when Cyde pastes something even more unnecessary, and perhaps more inflammatory. Handle things as you may, but it only feeds into the deeper concept that I not only mentioned above, but mentioned at the start of this fiasco. --badlydrawnjeff talk 10:32, 13 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • It's also worth noting that "they have left" is being used as not only spackle over whatever Kelly might have done but also a prevention for any discussion. That's not logical or wise. In fact, Kelly is on the Wikipedia IRC channel every day, although saying that she is "done with Wikipedia," and said that she was amused by the Mailer Diablo RfB, although she "doesn't read Wikipedia" anymore. We have a great deal riding on the simple statement. Perhaps Kelly has left. Perhaps Kelly has not left. Neither has anything to do with whether she acted (past tense) improperly and should be prevented (future tense) from such actions if she decides to come "back." I.e. a block of some sort for such technicolor attacks would be mandatory, if it's going to be invoked with Giano. This is not two wrongs making a right, but rather fairness. If anyone is really a believer in blocks for incivility, then that person would have been popping the button on Kelly. If he or she were not inclined with Kelly, then it is a bit hypocritical to be concerned when Giano makes a largely irrelevant comment about someone's blog. Geogre 10:54, 13 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
        • Fine, then go back the general provision for civility--you know, the one that was opposed earlier. Kelly Martin no longer edits Wikipedia. That is germane and important. Whatever is or is not said on a channel not controlled by Wikipedia is frankly not germane here. I'm all for putting the main participants on civility parole and I wished more people felt the same way. Mackensen (talk) 11:13, 13 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • You believe that Kelly Martin no longer edits Wikipedia. That's fine, but it's no reason to not consider the vicious attacks that she has made and continues to make against the persons and personalities of each of those who have noted her incivilities! Thank her for it? Excuse me? Since you're moving evidence around, why not remove also the "Read it in connection with..." comment, as that's an editorial command to the arbitrators? Why not finally remove that blog from evidence and, at the same time, make a comment on how it reflects the state of mind and personality of Kelly Martin. Or is it that I should be called a liar while Giano may not say that the blog is comparable to scat? If channels aren't germane and blogs aren't germane, then why haven't you hasn't anyone acted to remove them? If they are germane, then why has anyone removed Giano's comment on the blog? I'm asking for consistency, not two wrongs. Practically the second the blog was pasted in, I objected, but I suppose it's fine to call some people liars but not acceptable to call some people's blogs garbage. Geogre 15:16, 13 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • Also, what is the criterion for "civility" that will allow us to spot it when it fails to occur? Is it that our users are insulted or that things our users do off-Wikipedia are insulted? Is it a solo determination that anybody can make (and block for), or is something we should get some agreement upon? Agreement has been hard to find on any issue here. There are people who think they know best and need no input, and there are people who believe that it's wrong to act without agreement. One side there is always going to pull the trigger and claim superiority, and the other will not. Geogre 15:21, 13 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
        • (comments replaced after some silly WP:POINT removal) Kelly's blog was uncivil to say the least- blockable if posted on-wiki. Who is defending her? Not me. But you are still pouring forth your erudite rhetoric, and skilful logic to defend or at least mitigate Giano's post. When you are not doing that, you are trying to change this into a hermeneutical argument about the difficulties of identifying incivility. It is all smoke and mirrors. Yes, there are grey areas (as with anything), but there are also clear-cut examples. Giano's post is one. Any attempt to say otherwise, or wikilawyer round it, is just ridiculous. So, a simple question, will you condemn Giano's posting of that post? Yes/no or prevaricate again?--Doc 15:45, 13 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment: I have stricken through the comment as a clear personal attack on me. Apparently, Doc Glasgow doesn't consider it one, which seriously impugns his judgment, in my view. Geogre 17:29, 13 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
          • Doc, I just want you to understand why people may have an issue with this block. You claim that Kelly's blog was "blockable if posted on-wiki." If it was, why weren't you compelled to block Cyde for posting it here? You replied to it, so you saw it in due time. If Giano's actions were blockable (and I'm not condemning you for it, if we're going to block for personal attacks, let's block for personal attacks), then there's a major inconsistency in practice, and it again looks like the administrators are being favored over the editors when it comes to degree of response. --badlydrawnjeff talk 16:34, 13 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • To answer the only actual charges in Doc's personal attacks: 1) look at hermeticism, 2) NPA does not carry blocking as a follow through, 3) BP does not have "cooling off" anywhere in it. 4) Giano's post attacked a blog. At most, it should be irrelevant. Why should anyone care what he thinks about a blog somewhere? 5) To insist that a blog is a person is to show either lack of honesty or lack of recognition of the difference between subject and object. I defend the unblocking. I condemn the blocking. My opinions of Giano's statements' validity or expression is not at issue. It was not a personal attack, and blocking to "cool off" is precisely what Tony Sidaway liked to do, so using that block summary was as much an effort at reigniting the flames as anything I've seen. 6) Accusing me of lying is the sort of thing that you should repent of. Please act on reason rather than emotion in situations like this. Geogre 16:31, 13 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • Of course it was a peronal attack. every neutral party commenting on ANI thought so. You are just (again) unable to admit any wrong by you and your perfect friends. You are all vicitims, your detractors are evil. How come no uninvolved party shares you view of reality?--Doc 17:14, 13 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Reality is not at issue. Words are. "Every uninvolved party" is every party that has not commented. Every time they do comment, they become an involved party, and "every" uninvolve party is beyond any of us to assess. On AN/I, many folks were shocked at what Giano said. Of those, I cannot say how many had read the context. Perhaps all of them knew what he was talking about, and perhaps none of them did. I do know that all of those whom I know to have been aware of the context broke down into the same two sides and the same positions. Mackensen has not declared one way or the other and should not, and I do and always have respected him, but I also disagree with his reaction. So, where are we? Aren't we right back to words? Aren't we right back to whether attacking a blog is attacking a person and your believing that denigrating an off-wiki project of Kelly Martin's should be a blocking offense and my disagreeing? You keep saying that it's obvious, that it just is, etc., and yet you have no reasoning for that. <shrug> The block was ill advised (or, rather, unadvised) and the block summary was taunting. The unblocking was licit. You're angry. I'm not sure there's more information to be had in this. Geogre 17:26, 13 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • One last thing, just for the record: I only have one friend on Wikipedia. There are other users I respect and like, but I only have one friend currently editing Wikipedia that I know of, and she and I are on different sides of many policy discussions. Geogre 17:37, 13 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Nice theory, but Geogre and I have both posted on User talk:Geogre, in response to a query there from BenAveling, that we both think this was the wrong time and place for Giano's comment, and neither of us like the way it was said. But dislike or distate is not a justification for a block. A number of people have commented on WP:ANI, some more and some less neutral, with some for and some against. That is the definition of "no consensus".
I do not think you, or Tony, or Kelly, or anyone else is "evil", and I hope you do not think we are. We are all human: I am often wrong, but try not to be; I'm sure you will admit to making mistakes from time to time too. -- ALoan (Talk) 17:23, 13 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Deleting or redacting personal attacks?[edit]

Is anything acceptable as evidence? Apparently not (as Giano has found). Is Cyde's post from Kelly Martin blog acceptable as evidence? Presumably not, in so far as it contains personal attacks (presumably the personal attack that I see in Cyde's contribution is just as unacceptable as the personal attack that Doc glasgow sees in Giano's).

On that basis, would there be any objections to me just deleting (or, perhaps better, redacting) the objectionable bits from the blog post? -- ALoan (Talk) 16:52, 13 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • This is another one of those things. If adding, removing, and redacting evidence is something only a clerk is supposed to do, then Doc Glasgow was incorrect in removing Giano's post, and you would be wrong in removing or redacting the blog. If, on the other hand, anyone may remove what one considers a personal attack from the evidence page, then I doubt we'll have anything left. I still request, as I did immediately, that someone with some bona fides get in and do the removal/redaction. Geogre 17:34, 13 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Good thing I asked first then! I had no intention of wading into clerkly waters. Would one of the clerks be so kind as to tell me what I am and am not allowed to do? I looked up at WP:RFARB but I can't see one allocated to this case, and can't remember which have been involved... -- ALoan (Talk) 18:24, 13 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • None has been active so far. I was calling for one. Fred Bauder said that no one could do anything to manage the /Workshop pages, when they were getting incredibly long, except a clerk, so I figure the principle would apply surely to the /Evidence page as well. That said, Doc and Cyde have both now made free with removing and editing things on the /Evidence page. Either Fred Bauder will want to condemn them or he was wrong when he said that no one could archive or unthread the miles-long /Workshop page. No one seems to be speaking to this issue from the ArbCom except Fred. I keep asking for clarification. Geogre 18:48, 13 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I suggested to Cyde last night that he might consider striking and withdrawing the evidence as it stands and replacing it with a neutral summation of Kelly's contributions in the past year. I was under the impression that persons submitting evidence were allowed to edit their evidence, and that alone, but upon re-examination, that isn't explicitly permitted by the guidelines of the Evidence page. If it was wrong for him to do so, I bear some part of the blame for suggesting it. It seems to me sensible that people should be allowed to withdraw evidence they've presented, as not being germane or appropriate upon reflection; perhaps the ArbCom should consider codifying such a policy (although I would suggest that it be done apart from this case, which is sufficiently overgrown and nebulous). Choess 19:22, 13 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for looking through. If that's so, then Doc's removal of Giano's comment, regardless of its content, was inappropriate. Geogre 19:31, 13 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I have looked through the cases currently in voting phase, presumably a representative subset of arbitration practice. I have found the following instances of persons making significant removals of material from the evidence sections they posted, some of which amounted to removal of personal attacks or withdrawal of accusations:

The boilerplate atop the Evidence pages states that "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," and "Do not edit within the evidence section of any other user." In light of the second statement, which suggests that changing one's own evidence section may be permissible, and of the practice demonstrated above, I believe that Cyde's self-redaction was entirely justified within the current understanding of policy. I agree that the correct response to Giano's posting would have been to bring it to the attention of the Arbitrators rather than to revert it. Choess 04:21, 15 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:Requests_for_arbitration/Giano/Evidence&oldid=81530812"