Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Giano

Giano

Note: Doc Glasgow was "bold" by archiving the entire discussion (and just this!) because no one came out looking good. I believe that this was inappropriate for several reasons: 1. Several of the topics were still hot, 2. Kelly Martin's assurance of stepping down provided there were requests would be a legitimate AN matter, 3. The underlying issues behind this acrimony will not be resolved by quick archiving and avoidance, 4. It is possible that some of the underlying causes of acrimony and editor disaffection can be found and redressed. It is not bold so much as irresponsible to archive in such a manner. WP: BOLD applies to articles, not to Wikipedia space, and not to discussions. Citing it was...incorrect, one might say. Geogre 15:21, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

Giano

• Giano (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)

Giano has taken his concerns about the recent Carnildo affair beyond the level of reasonable discussion and has begun to make quite hysterical and false accusations [1] [2]. I've given him three hours to reconsider his words and cool down a bit. --Tony Sidaway 21:14, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

I don't think that a block was necessary here... I don't read anything that makes it look like there's any danger to the project, and it isn't obvious to me that the comments are designed to upset any contributors. Jkelly 21:23, 14 September 2006 (UTC)-

I agre with Jkelly. I'm going to unblock, and leave him a message on his talk page asking him to be a bit cooler. Raul654 21:24, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

Hrm, Flonight beat me to it. Raul654 21:24, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

I don't agree with the block, but Giano definitely needs to cool it. There's room for civil discussion, and then there's accusations of conspiracy, corruption, and cabalism. True or not, the latter doesn't help a damn thing. Mackensen (talk) 21:26, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

No problem. I think it had gotten far beyond the stage where asking him to cool it would have worked, though. We'll see how it goes. --Tony Sidaway 21:29, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

Sorry, for the delay in posting. Keep getting edit conflicts. Giano will not respond positively to a block so I unblocked. --FloNight 21:31, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

I support getting Giano to return to the excellent work he has done in FA's and to try and let the situations outside of that become the past, as they should be. I also hope folks aren't going around undoing Tony Sidaway's admin actions, knowing that he cannot revert them since he is under an administrative 1RR ruling. Let's not undo others admin actions as this is the second time in less than 24 hours an admin has changed Tony's blocks.--MONGO 21:34, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

"[T]his is the second time in less than 24 hours an admin has changed Tony's blocks." Seems to me there are two ways to interpret that statistic.... —Nate Scheffey 21:45, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

Here's here all week folks! Mackensen (talk) 21:48, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

Tony, the block was uncalled for, especially of an editor you hadn't even warned, that I can see. The block summary was even more so.[3] "Hysterical" is untrue and a personal attack, and now it's there in the log for evermore. Please consider the formulation of block summaries with particular care, as they are extremely difficult to remove or change, and it's in practice never done. This was discussed extensively, recently, in relation to Carnildo's "hate speech" summaries, which still remain in several block logs—Giano's, as luck would have it, being one of them. Bishonen | talk 21:35, 14 September 2006 (UTC).

Yes, the block was uncalled for (and particularly bad form). Better to risk a bruised ego by undoing an improper block than to let it stand out of some misguided notion of politeness. Friday (talk) 21:36, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

I'm afraid we'll have to differ on this,Bishonen. Giano's accusations of skulduggery and malice are beyond anything that is ever acceptable on Wikipedia. --Tony Sidaway 21:38, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

Hmm, well, you don't usually mince words yourself, Tony. A month ago you were accusing a fellow admin of "Pure, unadulterated malice. Disgusting." Haukur 21:55, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

Tony weren't you also just fighting with Giano on the crat board? [4][5] I notice you've also started doing more refactoring of those discussions after I asked you to stop. JoshuaZ 21:43, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

And where is this "skulduggery and malice?" From the two diffs you provided, the editor disagreed with Taxman's re-promotion of Carnildo and discussed it. They didn't explicitly attack either Carnildo or Taxman with anything more than opinions. I don't think dissenting opinions deserve a block, and if something in the grey area like this does, it is better to discuss your problems with the editor first, especially if you've had problems with them before. There was nothing urgent or dangerous about this matter which required an immediate block. The ikiroid (talk·desk·Advise me) 21:47, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

If 2-3 admins disagree with Tony Sidaway, I think that sends a strong message that the action was wrong in teh first place. Hbdragon88 19:43, 17 September 2006 (UTC)

I think that events have proven the wisdom of that block. The issue has quite evaporated now that those who were engaged in pushing a ridiculous shrieking campaign against trusted Wikipedians have stopped. When a nurse lances a boil, sometimes she gets covered in malodorous filth and she may be blamed for the smell. The patient's health prospects are immediately improved, however. --Tony Sidaway 19:57, 17 September 2006 (UTC)

OK, we have to add that one to The sayings of Yogi Berra Tony Sidaway ;). NoSeptember 20:06, 17 September 2006 (UTC)

Such a remark is deeply offensive and disgusting. No wonder a block was issued, was about time. -- Grafikm ^(AutoGRAF) 21:13, 17 September 2006 (UTC)

What pure, unadulterated, self-righteous poppycock; entirely uncivil and an offensive personal attack to boot: delighting in the departure of a Wikipedian whose positive contribution to this encyclopedia (rather than the byzantine claptrap that resides in Wikipedia space) can scarcely be counted, from a person who admits that his favourite article is the execrable falling. The block was not "wise" - it was unnecessary, inflamatory, and made a bad situation worse, like the block of Ghirlandajo. Tony the nurse may be congratulated for amputating Wikipedia's right arm. And the issues underlying Giano's accusations have not gone away. Far from it. -- ALoan (Talk) 20:29, 17 September 2006 (UTC)

• If anything could be the opposite of what was stated, that is. Who, pray tell, are the "trusted Wikipedians," when it's quite clear that Tony is not trusted and barely a Wikipedian, while Giano enjoyed a great deal of trust and made Wikipedia grow? Is Tony saying that his shrieking campaign against Giano is over now? That's odd, since, above, he says that he had never heard the name until a couple of days prior and then, not a quarter of a screen later, that he knows that Giano had been complaining for months, and, elsewhere, that all of Giano's complaints are "silly" and that it's a "truism" that they needed no consideration. Someone has a Bush-like grip on realitys. Geogre 20:13, 17 September 2006 (UTC)

Tony's last statement here -- the one with the metaphor comparing Giano to a filth-filled boil -- is incredibly offensive. I question whether the value Tony adds to the encyclopedia is worth the price the community pays by allowing him to edit here. —Bunchofgrapes (talk) 20:26, 17 September 2006 (UTC)

Perhaps the metaphor wasn't intended to come out the way it did. Tony, I invite you to withdraw the comparison or face a block for an outrageous personal attack. Bishonen | talk 20:35, 17 September 2006 (UTC).

Bish, no need to. He already got blocked for it, and I fully endorse that block. Titoxd^(?!?) 20:40, 17 September 2006 (UTC)

Mmm... Never thought I'd see the day when I was sticking up for Tony, but I don't think that was a personal attack, merely a poorly worded metaphor. The "boil" was Giano's behaviour, the operation was issuing a cooling-off block, and the mess was, well, all this of course. Perhaps I'm wrong but that's how I read it. --kingboyk 20:43, 17 September 2006 (UTC)

I support the block - Tony's clearly been engaging in a pattern of disruptive behavior. He may enjoy playing the biggest bully in the schoolyard, but this yard doesn't need bullies and there's no reason we should tolerate them. Friday (talk) 20:45, 17 September 2006 (UTC)

As the blocking admin, the block was not just for that attack (which merited at least a stern warning by itself and almost certainly a block) but the general disruptiveness and lack of civility and willingness to mistreat long term productive users. This particularly dif was the final straw in that regard. I consider the dif to be arguably not block worthy but when taken together with Tony's other recent behavior it seemed more than necessary (and before anyone thinks I have some personal issue here I was the person who attempted to defend Tony's ealier borderline wheel-warring). JoshuaZ 20:52, 17 September 2006 (UTC)

Erm, I'm not quite sure what the wisdom in this block is. I would echo Newyorkbrad's thoughtful comments below about both of these editors. If we accept that Giano's and Ghirla's blocks were unwarranted as cool-off blocks only serve to make a bad situation worse, how is this block different (other than being a block of Tony Sidaway)? I hope it isn't a controversial thing to say now that my ideal scenario is that both Giano and Tony Sidaway (and Ghirla, too) stick around for a long time to come, and in calmer circumstances, too. I understand the problem with incivility here. But I'm left wondering what productive gain this block is meant to have, unless it is just a heat-of-the-moment thing. I did think the course of previous discussion ws to determine that we don't think blocks are a good solution to incivility for long-term productive editors. I think all block buttons should be lowered at this point, as they are clearly hindering a resolution. Dmcdevit·t 21:18, 17 September 2006 (UTC)

I agree that we should be more conservative with blocks all around. However, there was a pattern of disruptive behavior here that was getting worse, not better. Tony takes "not getting it" to a new level, and he wasn't getting it. Will this make him realize his behavior is unacceptable? I don't know. But we do know that no amount of people simply telling him it's unacceptable has had any effect. Friday (talk) 21:21, 17 September 2006 (UTC)

My point is (and speaking not to the merits of any of the arguments, but just how I see them if I'm not misreading) it seems like that was exactly the reason Tony gave for blocking Giano, and the arguments he got in return were not (totally) that Giano wasn't a bit too uncivil, but that that's not how blocks should work. If that's not how blocks should work... maybe it would have been better to have blocked neither of these editors. I'm afraid this whole affair is creating needless divisions between people (based on administrative and community concerns, too, not even encyclopedia ones) ans wish there was some easy way to transition back to amiable encyclopedia writing. Dmcdevit·t 21:35, 17 September 2006 (UTC)

Dmcdevit, I can see the irony in blocking someone for being uncivil in a discussion over why he shouldn't block people for being uncivil. I also understand and support the block - Tony needs a wake up call, and wishing for amiability continues to not work. Scores of Wikipedians, including many admins, have tried to explain to Tony that he can and should deal with conflict situations in a way that serves to dignify all the parties involved, and thus easily de-escalate situations, rather than escalating them by treating disgruntled parties with contempt and dismisiveness. He continues to disagree, and I don't see any number of repetitions from experienced Wikipedians making any difference. If anything, he's more and more defiantly sure that his brute-squad enforcement approach to adminship is the way to go. It's up to ArbCom at this point. I realize that Tony is a clerk, and very helpful to the arbitrators, but they really need to somehow take him aside and explain that, whether he understands or not, whether he agrees or not, this won't fly, and that he is not indispensible to the project. If ArbCom won't say it, then Jimbo needs to say it. If Jimbo won't say anything, the community's patience will eventually wear out. -GTBacchus^(talk) 21:45, 17 September 2006 (UTC)

And Tony's most recent comment [6] makes it look like Bish would have blocked Tony as well. JoshuaZ 21:02, 17 September 2006 (UTC)

I agree that Tony has issued a few unwarranted and truly damaging blocks recently, and that his continued obstinate attitude and condescending, dismissive replies to everyone who disagrees with him are unacceptable. However, I feel this block, and others like it, will not solve anything. Tony will simply "sit this block out,"[7] and then continue the controversial behavior. I think, at this point we need to seriously consider whether Wikipedia is improved by Tony having the mop and bucket. —Nate Scheffey 21:31, 17 September 2006 (UTC)

This block is indeed useless when the blocked user does not understand its purpose at all. --Conti|✉ 21:45, 17 September 2006 (UTC)

• I suppose I should weigh in. For a long time now, Tony and a few others have "prevailed" in their disputes by not obeying the rules and then knowing that their opponents, being rules proponents, will not treat them as they have treated others. (Sorry for that inelegance, but I hope the sense is clear.) Blocking for personal attacks is something I disagree with. Blocking for disruption is something I agree with. I believed that the frivolous and ill-tempered RFAR behavior was disruptive. I believe coming back to get the last word in this section was disruptive. I believe that blocking people who merely disagree with you is disruptive. I concur that this block was warranted, exactly as JoshuaZ said, not for the particularly noxious phrase, nor for the contradictory and apparently dishonest arguments, but because of ongoing disruptiveness. Blocks are preventative, and this one was. That said, I also think that clock struck midnight days ago on whether or not Tony uses or abuses administrative powers. Geogre 00:43, 18 September 2006 (UTC)

The problem is not Giano but Tony Sidaway

I see a big problem here and this problem is not Giano (talk · contribs), but Tony Sidaway (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA). Tony has turned the entire Wikipedia into a battleground between himself and anyone who dares to disagree with him. Tony has lately resorted to a more fiery methods of intimidation, including frivolous arbcom submissions and, most amazingly, blocks when the opponent is especially voiceful. His own recent activity ranged between foul language, personal attacks, intimidation and gross abuse. There is no single contribution into a single article in mainspace, which is also noteworthy.

Until Tony will stand in front of ArbCom for his contempt of everyone but himself, he needs time to chill out. I call on the community ro consider giving him a time to cool off. Perhaps a 1-3 day block will be enough for him to take a good use of a wikibreak, cool down and come back somewhat chilled out. --Irpen 21:46, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

Again already? He got blocked just a couple of days ago as a naughty essay-deleter :) [8] Haukur 22:16, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

I thought it had been established that cooling-off blocks didn't do any good. Heaven knows there are howls of protest whenever one's proposed against a non-admin. Mackensen (talk) 21:49, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

Is that sarcasm or do you agree that cooling off blocks do no good? —Nate Scheffey 21:55, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

I've never seen them work, really, because it's difficult for someone to take a block in good grace. I don't blame you for asking, though. Mackensen (talk) 22:00, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

They work well if they're permitted to. I don't disagree with the unblock (all my blocks are subject to review and overturning with my implicit permission). I think we would have done well to permit Giano the time to reconsider the quite hysterical and false accusations of skulduggery and malice of his recent comments. --Tony Sidaway 21:58, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

You are wrong. This block would not have cooled Giano off. His comments were not hysterical. Saying so doesn't make it so. All of your blocks are subject to review regardless of your permission. —Nate Scheffey 22:06, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

Ah, my impression is that he does post any potentially controversial blocks up for review, so I cannot see what you meaning is on this point.--MONGO 22:18, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

Since he said "all my blocks" I'm not sure where you got "potentially controversial blocks" from. Regardless, my meaning is that on Wikipedia all of our actions are subject to review, no permission necessary. —Nate Scheffey 22:47, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

Tony Sidaways' latest is another of those blocks that will obviously have the opposite effect of its stated intent. This needs to be addressed in WP:BLOCK. —Nate Scheffey 21:52, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

Blocking isn't the answer. Furthermore, I'd encourage you to be careful with "voiceful" (I suspect you meant "forceful"). There's a very important line between arguing your point forcefully and trolling. It's often hard to tell the difference, and people have varying levels of tolerance. When in doubt, moderate one's language. Mackensen (talk) 21:53, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

(four edit conflicts) Agree that the problem is Tony. Disagree on the block. Other solutions are needed. --Jeffrey O. Gustafson - Shazaam! - <*> 21:56, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

I believe Giano may be more than a little upset at the way Tony responds incivily to a civil (and might I add hypothetical) statement, then, called on it, says "ridiculous threats deserve to to be treated with loud and resounding contempt." Noting that one would call for Tony's recall if he were a bureaucrat is not any sort of threat that I can discern. Tony is being incivil; he has been consistenty policing post-Carnildo discussion to what seems to me a disruptive point, and he should perhaps block himself for three hours for a calm-down, if he finds such blocks generally effective. —Bunchofgrapes (talk) 21:54, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

Did anyone bother to discuss the blocking with Tony before reverting his action?--MONGO 22:02, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

I think there was about as much discussion with Tony about unblocking as there was between Tony and Giano before he imposed the block. -- ALoan (Talk) 22:07, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

Hi ho

If no one minds I'm going to attempt to stifle and censor discussion by proposing that this matter best be handled as dispute resolution between Giano and Tony Sidaway. Tony reported his block, the block has been undone. Nothing's going to be accomplished here save much grumbling and drama. We all know where the dispute pages are; we all know where to discuss the blocking policy. Administrative action isn't needed here. Mackensen (talk) 22:00, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

I've got nothing further to say on the matter. Hopefully Giano will calm down now that more eyes are on him. --Tony Sidaway 22:03, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

(multiple edit conflicts) I see two issues here. If people agree that cool-off blocks do not work, why Tony is not yet reprimanded for the cool-off blocks against respected users who simply dare to disagree with him? I mean, some people cry foul loudly but since Tony does not care about the community's perception of himself, there is no consequences for him whatsoever. At the same time, he lately runs completely amok and that's not just me who says that. He needs not a cool-off period but a wiki-break. If he, like all of us, is such a wikiholic that he can't call a wikibreak by himself, the wikibreak must be called on him by the community. The disruption by Tony to an entire Wikipedia has become intolerable. Personally, I won't care if he blocks me. First of all, someone will likely unblock, and, second, I am here to write content and I will use the time to write an article or two on a hard-drive. But other users are more britle and take unfair blocks closer to heart. Tony's behavior drive out Wikipedians, and not those who like him spend their entire time chatting and lawyering, but those who write a FA once every 2-3 days. Users like the G-3 (Giano, George, Ghirlandajo), the Worldtraveller, 172 is hardly contributing. What the hell is happening? --Irpen 22:05, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

(Record number of edit conflicts) I strongly endorse the unblocking. I had been following the discussion on WP:BN today and Tony Sidaway was an active participant in it, disagreeing with several of the other users contributing. In the process, Tony made remarks that by his own admission on his talk page were uncivil and "over the top." Resort to the page history at BN is necessary because throughout the day, Tony refactored the discussion by deleting several comments that he disagreed with. Although BN is a project page rather than an article, Tony's blocking here was the equivalent of blocking to gain an advantage in an edit war, widely considered an unacceptable practice.

Under the circumstances, while I do not agree with everything Giano had to say, and I find that the ongoing debate on Carnildo's re-sysoping has become somewhat sterile, Tony certainly should not have been the blocking admin -- even had Giano said anything that could have warranted a block, which he did not. User:Giano is not some random troll to be driven away; he is a major contributor to the encyclopedia, who has had two featured articles on the Main Page within the past week, and is entitled to express his opinions on an administrative noticeboard, particularly where he is doing so more civilly than the person who chose to block him.

We are at the point that we have some valuable contributors who are living in fear of administrators will block them if they say something out of touch with the mood of the day -- not in an article, but in project space where meta-issues are supposed to be debated. A strong consensus should emerge from this that it's time for some folks to step away from the block button. Newyorkbrad 22:09, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

Who are the contributors that are leaving for fear of being blocked for speaking their minds?--MONGO 22:16, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

I cleaned up the BN and was thanked for doing so by several editors, including one bureaucrat. It doesn't matter what good Giano is doing elsewhere, his activities on use talk pages were inflammatory accusations of malicious skulduggery and he had been warned to stop. Newyorkbrad's false accusation of blocking to gain advantage in a dispute is unworthy of response. --Tony Sidaway 22:18, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

Newyorkbrad, a relatively new editor, is also one of the most thoughtful commentators on meta-issues I have seen. You demean yourself by dismissing him thusly. —Bunchofgrapes (talk) 22:20, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

Thoughtful he may be, but when he's wrong he's wrong. --Tony Sidaway 22:21, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

He's not wrong. You are wrong. Dismissing his accurate and well reasoned objection as "unworthy of response" demonstrates conclusively that your civility issues need to be formally addressed. —Nate Scheffey 22:28, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

Surely all opinions judged wrong by you are not "unworthy of response"? —Bunchofgrapes (talk) 22:24, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

No. Only the clearly ridiculous ones. --Tony Sidaway 22:43, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

Thoughts on Two Users

User:Tony Sidaway is dedicated to this project. He has clearly spent thousands of hours serving Wikipedia as an administrator, as the ArbCom clerk (time-consuming and tedious I'm sure), and in meta-debate as well. When doing his job well, he is one of the most valuable Wikipedians. Unfortunately, Tony has his rough edges: by his own admission, he is sometimes uncivil; he says what's on his mind and minces no words; and lots of people have had to urge him more than once to cool down; and he's acknowledged that he has a fiery temper, to the point that he is subject to restrictions not placed on any other administrator. But he's put in his time; he's been subject to vicious personal attacks off-wiki for his work here; and he withstands it all and continues to work for Wikipedia.

User:Giano is dedicated to this project. He has clearly spent thousands of hours serving Wikipedia as a contributor to some of our best articles, and more recently to some extent in meta-debate as well. When doing his job well, he is one of the most valuable Wikipedians. Unfortunately, Giano has his rough edges: when provoked, he sometimes skirts the edges of civility; he says what's on his mind and minces no words; and lots of people have had to urge him more than once to cool down. But he's put in his time; he's been subject to inane block summaries and proposed (fortunately not enacted) ArbCom remedies; and he withstands it all and continues to work for Wikipedia.

There is a place for both of these people here, and it's not sitting behind blocks. Newyorkbrad 22:34, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

Well put. Jkelly 22:37, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

The problem here is that what Giano has been doing is far beyond incivility. It is clearly false accusations, without evidence, of malicious wrongdoing. He remains very, very worked up about this, which is a shame, because we'd all like him to cool down and stop adding this stuff to user talk pages and trying to whip up hatred against other Wikipedians. Those actions are real problems. We may differ on what to do about them, but they won't go away just because we ignore them. --Tony Sidaway 22:54, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

• "we'd all like him to cool down and stop adding this stuff to user talk pages" I bet you would; but what stuff exactly Tony? Giano | talk 22:58, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

If that's what is happening, and there is a real behaviour problem, it isn't obvious enough yet, given that a whole bunch of us here couldn't see the block as even a necessary evil. If there is a problem that goes beyond Giano's... level of emphasis, it needs a lot more spelling out -- an RfC level of spelling-out, I'd suggest. Jkelly 23:05, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

It's abundantly obvious. "All of them I suspect were in on this - even Angela - there are no innocents here" and "I smell a rat, I see a rat, and I don't like it one little bit" make it plain that the fellow has taken to making false, quite unfounded and extremely damaging allegations about other Wikipedians. Asking for an RfC is superfluous. This is the kind of poison, in my opinion, that should never be spread around on Wikipedia. Since others can't see that I've no problem accepting that I was mistaken. --Tony Sidaway 23:43, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

//sigh// Well, I was hoping that perhaps what I wrote would induce Tony Sidaway to acknowledge that Giano has his merits, and Giano to recognize that Tony has his. Not working out that great so far, is it? Tony likes to write that he's "not one of life's mediators," and it looks like perhaps I shouldn't quit my day job either. Newyorkbrad 23:44, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

Newyorkbrad, I have nothing against Giano and until the other day I don't think I'd ever heard of him. His recent actions have been, to say the least of it, odd. As an administrator I seek to deal with those actions. I'm not succeeding in this instance otherwise we wouldn't be having this conversation, and I'll own up to that with no problems. However Giano's actions remain a problem for the community. --Tony Sidaway 23:48, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

You're all idiots

OK, I don't really mean that. :-) Well, not for all of you; Newyorkbrad, for one, has been quite rational. The hysteria and nonsense from many of the rest of you, however, leaves me disappointed. I won't try to point fingers at the poor players (if you don't know that a finger would have been pointed at you or not, it probably would have been, and that you cannot tell is not a good thing).

Tony's comment was not at all, in any way, a personal attack; it was an accurate observation, though perhaps beladen with a little too much melodrama. Only those looking to take offence could possibly miscontrue it. However, even were it offensive, this build-up still would be nowhere near sufficient to block a fellow sysop. We shouldn't block people in retribution, only in prevention, when it will actually make a difference to the benefit of Wikipedia. Blocking a long-term user - whoever that is - will rarely (but not never) accomplish this.

I would imagine that you've all got much, much more productive things to do than comment on here. Some fool once told me that, apparently, we're here to write an encyclopædia. Go and get on with that job, and knock it off.

OK, but only 'cos it was requested: I am Spartacus.

James F. (talk) 22:42, 17 September 2006 (UTC)

And I agree. As I said before, I think just about everyone who has used their block or unblock button in this matter and everything leading up to it has made things worse. We need to step back and decide when such things are worth it and beneficial to the encyclopedia, and when they just make us feel better (and make others not feel better). I think it's time to recognize this whole affair has been an exercise in the latter. I hope I am stressing "everyone" here clearly enough. Dmcdevit·t 22:49, 17 September 2006 (UTC)

I'm sure you're stressing it clearly enough for those who already agree with you. Those who won't apply it to themselves are precisely those who need to hear it, though. I doubt that particular bit of communication is best on-wiki, so I hope it's happening off-wiki. -GTBacchus^(talk) 15:36, 18 September 2006 (UTC)

I concur entirely in James' opinion, above. The block button is a sledgehammer, not a feather. It is rarely possible to give someone a "light tap on the shoulder" with the block button, and yet people persist in the fiction that they can. It just increases the drama level, and that's not helping Wikipedia at all. So, please, everyone, stop being silly sausages; move along, there's nothing more to see here. Kelly Martin (talk) 22:57, 17 September 2006 (UTC)

Huh... your second third and fourth sentences are precisely what people have been trying to tell Tony. The fourth sentence in particular, about drama not helping Wikipedia, contradicts what you yourself have said in the past about drama serving to identify "useless users", when explaining to me why you're happy to generate it. [9] I'm glad to see you've changed your mind - or is drama only destructive in some cases? Finally, your last sentence is misguided. Tony has been exhibiting chronic drama-generating behavior, and sweeping that issue under the rug again will only make it a bigger and worse drama eruption next time around. I hope that something happens during his week off to convince him to stop swaggering around with a banstick and an attitude. Looking away on the grounds that there's "nothing to see here" won't do it though. I hope your call to ignore the situation is simply what you say on the wiki, and that in some other, more private, setting, you're working to address the very real problem we're talking about. -GTBacchus^(talk) 15:36, 18 September 2006 (UTC)

There is significant private discussion on this issue; it would be unproductive to share it publicly. Kelly Martin (talk) 14:58, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

Good. I hope it's going well. -GTBacchus^(talk) 18:04, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

Less than three months ago, Kelly, you wrote this after blocking MONGO:

My block was intended as a "tap on the shoulder", to get his attention and underscore the message that flamewarring on third party talk pages is not acceptable. MONGO's reaction to it tells me that he is in dire need of an attitude adjustment, however, and I think he should consider either (a) a wikibreak or (b) resigning his adminship. [10]

Have you changed your mind since then on blocking as taps on the shoulder? Haukur 16:12, 18 September 2006 (UTC)

Some people will react to a tap on the shoulder by stopping what they're doing and listening attentively to the tapper. Others will react by turning around and slugging the person doing the tapping. One has to exercise judgment in using such methods; I believe that Tony's judgment, in using such an approach with Giano, was misguided. Giano was clearly not in the mindset where he would react positively (in either the short or long term) to such a block. This should have been obvious to anyone even remotely familiar with the history of the situation. What Giano needed was for someone to talk to him, calmly and probably also privately, and slowly and quietly bang some sense into him. That someone needed to be someone he would respect, rather than someone he viewed as the enemy. Giano brought a great deal of this onto himself; laying all the blame for this situation on Tony's lap -- or on Carnildo's or the ArbCom's (for unspecified crimes) or Taxman, Rdsmith, and Danny (for controversially promoting Carnildo) -- is woefully misguided. This is very much in danger of turning into a lynch mob. Please don't live down to James' sarcastic characterization of Wikipedia as a dystopic ochlocracy. Kelly Martin (talk) 14:58, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

Admin blocked because someone took his comments out of context. Tsk, tsk. Sounds like a bit of personal vendetta-ism going on here. This action (blocking Tony) is completely unwarranted. People need to get over themselves and not take things so seriously. Bastiq▼e ^demandez 22:46, 17 September 2006 (UTC)

I suggest you look at Tony's talk page where he seems to make it clear that the relevant dif was intended exactly as he meant it. Furthermore, as I explained above the block was not just for that dif but the general disruptive behavior that Tony has been engaging in. Yes there is an encyclopedia here but if Tony keeps driving away the people who want to write it we have a problem. JoshuaZ 22:48, 17 September 2006 (UTC)

Psh. You seem to think that you know better than everyone else. However, it was you who blocked a long-term user - who erred; who show no remorse. And Tony is the problem?

James F. (talk) 22:58, 17 September 2006 (UTC)

You have just described exactly what Tony did to Giano. Bittersweet irony. —Nate Scheffey 01:50, 18 September 2006 (UTC)

Being a longtime and helpful user is no excuse for driving away multiple users one of whom had multiple FAs. Your above comment also somehow seems to imply that possibly I'm a problem which is a bit odd since if you look at Tony's talk page you will note that I the person who went through the relevant logs related to the easlier wheel-warring accusations and argued that he hadn't wheel-warred. JoshuaZ 23:02, 17 September 2006 (UTC)

If we're here to write an encyclopedia, well, Tony's action caused a most excellent conributor to leave and another one near doing so. If we choose to favor people that effectively write an encyclopedia, Tony's behaviour is even more problematic.

Oh, and telling people to knock it off is quite incivil, if you ask me. This reaction like, "shut up and just work" (don't remember who said it on Tony's talk) is just revolting. Wikipedians are not expendable cogs to throw away and they're not citizens of a totalitarian state telling them to get up to workwrite an encyclopedia every morning. -- Grafikm ^(AutoGRAF) 22:50, 17 September 2006 (UTC)

"Knock it off" is absolutely standard Committee parlance. Yes, that is exactly what it means. And, ahem, you obviously didn't listen to the Committee panel recording - cogs is exactly what we all are. "Totalitarian state" indeed - read WP:NOT again, especially "Wikipedia is not a democracy". We are not here for you to feel included. If you don't like that, go else where. That's the social contract we've all signed, and if you didn't read the fine print, well tough.

James F. (talk) 22:58, 17 September 2006 (UTC)

James, I think you miss an issue here- people don't function well when treated as cogs or worse as "boils." You are welcome to run a Wiki of your own that treats everyone as machines. I doubt it will last long. JoshuaZ 23:02, 17 September 2006 (UTC)

Responding to Joshua's comment above that I would presumably have blocked Tony also. Noh... I do endorse Joshua's block, but Giano is a personal friend and I'm very upset that he has left. Therefore, I should not and hopefully would not have blocked Tony. I lost my cool when I saw Tony's disgusting attack, and said (and meant it) that I'd block unless he withdrew it. In my defense, I believe I would have reacted the same way at the same low triumph over a departed editor who wasn't a friend of mine. And I do believe I would have recovered before actually using the block button. Dear friends, from this we may draw a valuable lesson about the advantage of always warning before you block! It gives not only the presumptive blockee, but the blocker, an extra minute to think. Oh, and I would like to emphasize that I don't take orders from James F, and I'm surprised at his tone. To me it sounds more like standard parlance for calling dogs to heel. Bishonen | talk 23:04, 17 September 2006 (UTC).

I would even say that I'm surprised a lot at his tone. It is plain insulting. -- Grafikm ^(AutoGRAF) 23:10, 17 September 2006 (UTC)

Well, that put us in our place. Back to work, minions!

As it happens, I agree that this block will be entirely ineffective in addressing the problem, which it Tony's attitude. You only have to read the succession of complaints and suggestions on his talk page, and his totally dismissive responses, to understand that. Perhaps it would help if Tony would "knock it off" and get on with writing the encyclopedia, a task to which he has singlarly failed to contribute for as far back in his edit history as I care to look. I present you with the pinnacle of his contributions: falling. Enough said.

But even Tony is perhaps the worst case of a wider malaise. I used to enjoy being a Wikipedian, and doing my bit to spread knowledge. I used to. Now it seems like a constant uphill battle. What is wrong with this place? -- ALoan (Talk) 23:25, 17 September 2006 (UTC)

Hehe, I was about to mention that article too...

As to answer your concerns: it is in my (not so) humble opinion pretty clear. As WP grows, more and more people seem to forget that the goal is to contribute, and not to spent time on endless wikilawyering. Consequently, a contributor that writes stuff is the central point to WP. Not the admins, as some people think. Being an admin does not make you superior. An admin's job is to mop, not to treat normal editors as his subordinates.

Yes, some of editors are engaged in edit wars and stuff, but as long as the whole thing's getting discussed and is moving, any block is harmful (see the RFC on DMC's conduct as an example). -- Grafikm ^(AutoGRAF) 23:29, 17 September 2006 (UTC)

James F said: Tony's comment was not at all, in any way, a personal attack; it was an accurate observation, though perhaps beladen with a little too much melodrama. Only those looking to take offence could possibly miscontrue it.

I have to put my foot down and disagree in strong terms here. Only those with a strong determination to look the other way could misconstrue it as anything but a vile attack carefully worded to avoid technically falling under the sacred "PA" label. Using a metaphor doesn't give you a free out; you are still responsible in civil language for the metaphor you pick. —Bunchofgrapes (talk) 00:22, 18 September 2006 (UTC)

• James F, what the hell are you doing here all of a sudden? "The Committee" has parlance? The Committee for Public Safety, or the Arbitration Committee? And now Kelly shows up, too. Gosh. Getting involved now, and entirely for Tony's unilateral blocks, against process, is really wonderful. Your input is terribly appreciated, and especially the "idiots." It's just too darned bad that there are so many idiots, isn't it? Why, oh why, can't we all think as The Committee does? Why, oh why, can't we all block without thought, speak without moderation, and come back to taunt the way that Tony does? The Committee enjoys very, very, very, very, very little confidence, and the sooner it starts to realize that its tendency to view itself as a cadre is eroding what little confidence it ever had, the better. How, James F, have you been writing an encyclopedia? How, Kelly, have you been writing an encyclopedia? How has Tony Sidaway? I click on contributions and I really don't see many. Still, the Committee for Public Safety can tell us that we're all idiots for responding to someone calling "festering boil" an insult, because the Committee knows best, has a private language, and need not speak the same language as everyone else. Geogre 10:51, 18 September 2006 (UTC)

Help, it's a conspiracy of our elected representatives secretly plotting against 'everyone else'. Time for the 'plain man' to speak up? TINC? --Doc 10:59, 18 September 2006 (UTC)

Elected representatives? Do you even know how the ArbCom was picked? Did you pay attention during the "election?" What about the clerks, which Tony represents so admirably? Were they elected? Wow. However, if you believe that they were elected, please inform me where the no confidence votes are to be lodged. Also, tell me when the next election is. Also, please tell me how, in a Lockean model, the once-elected have power without the will of the governed. ArbCom enjoys very, very, very, very, very little confidence at this point. Also, the point remains that those calling all of us "idiots" are showing up late, uninformed, and unreasonable. Still, tell me again how they're elected representatives, and I'll tell you a fable about King Log. Geogre 11:48, 18 September 2006 (UTC)

See here's the thing. Arbcom may not be purely elected - but each of them poled massively possitive votes when the community at large spoke up at the arbcom election. The people in whom the community, as a whole, had most confidence were appointed. Wheras individuals like you, with no mandate behind them, rant on about 'the will of the governed' and pronounce ex cathedra on the subject of the community's confidence. You presume to speak for 'the community'? On what basis? No, JamesF's idiot remarks, and Tony's responses may not have been well-advised. I'm not defending them. But I can sometimes have sympathy with the sense of exasperation at the self-righteous and self-appointed prophets of the 'democratic'.--Doc 11:58, 18 September 2006 (UTC)

• In addition to Slim Virgin's response, let me just point out that I have every bit the mandate that Tony has. I am an administrator. Further, I have been here longer. Further, I have contributed far more content. Given that that content has been passed by community consent several times to the FA level, that's some mandate. Further, several of my policy ideas have become policy. I'd say, on any basis, I have as much, and yet I "rant," while Tony cannot be blocked for disruption. Amazing. And you've been following all this all along? You've been helping Tony? You've been trying to calm things? Right. That "ranting" thing: that's a huge help. As for whether I speak for the project when I say that the Committee for Public Safety has confidence, I speak on the basis of evidence. What evidence do you have? You say that they had approval, which is not strictly even true and certainly not germane to the present. Once more, you say that, "They went through an election, so they can speak to anyone any way they want and get a cordon sanitaire around them." Go, King Log, go! When do they come up for re-election? What is the mechanism for no-confidence? If you suckle at the teat of such an unfounded analogy as comparing them to a government (and I had thought, silly me, that they were not a government, but a dispute resolution body and that they were not supposed to ever be above other users...little did I know that I was being asked to vote for a ruler!), then answer those questions. Geogre 13:56, 18 September 2006 (UTC)

Well I look forward to the next AC election in Decemeber, when, by your logic, the community will seek to ouste the 'Committee on Public Saftey', and, no doubt, overwhelmingly endose your popular platform.--Doc 14:12, 18 September 2006 (UTC)

Doc, please don't refer to respected users as "ranting." The facts are that Tony is an admin and yet has been blocked eight times in one year for 3RR, disruption, and personal attacks; he exercises his admin tools under an ArbCom restriction; he is extraordinarily rude and dismissive of people; he's been instrumental in the departure of a highly respected editor in the same week that editor had two of his six featured articles on the main page; and most importantly, he does all this in the context of himself not editing the encyclopedia. Tony would be the first to criticize this behavior in any other user. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 12:11, 18 September 2006 (UTC)

SV, I'm neither attacking nor defending Tony. I'm not getting into that. I was responding to Geogre's rather bizzare attack on arbcom as the 'Committee on Public Saftey' and his rather absurd claim to be the authentic voice of the community. I really don't know what to describe that as if not a 'rant'. Perhaps 'demagoguery'? --Doc 14:12, 18 September 2006 (UTC)

You can only think that I was making such a claim if you have been paying absolutely no attention to the situation as it has developed over the last month, and that is part of my criticism. Now that Tony has gotten 24 hours for his actions, James F, Kelly Martin, and you show up. Fantastical is what it is. If you're not commenting on Tony's actions, then how can you say that his actions, and the failure of the ArbCom, is good or bad? If you had been paying attention, then you would know that we have Giano, Bishonen, ALoan, Paul August, and myself all either withdrawing for a time or quitting entirely over Tony and this bullflop. If this isn't enough, add to these names several others (at least 5) who are contemplating the same. This is what's called "evidence" of lack of confidence in the way that these users are being treated. It is on that basis that I say there is very little confidence in ArbCom, and to have them magically appear like pixies when Tony -- the self-appointed clerk -- gets acted against for his disruption, frivolous blocks, and unilateralism only erodes that more. The audience isn't probably going to accept being called "idiots" and probably won't "cut it out" because James F and Kelly Martin show up to tell us that we are all inferior to them. Nor will anyone respond well to apologists for them, especially when they claim that they're not really, really apologizing for what they said -- they just felt that they had to launch an attack on those they have been deriding. Geogre 15:06, 18 September 2006 (UTC)

You don't get a free pass based on contributions. Some leniency, perhaps, but not a free pass. I brought this up the last time Giano got blocked for incivility but I'm not sure the point sunk in. I'm as saddened as anyone to lose valuable contributors, but we all volunteer here, after all, including the admins, and time will tell if the net of Giano's departure is negative or positive, as I'm not sure I'd paint this affair as entirely one sided, "good contributors fleeing" and nothing else. I think in fact there is some fallout (in the general case of people bucking against warnings, bucking against blocks) of good admins giving up, admins who are tired of being taken to task for trying to make this place better and who therefore choose not to participate in necessary admin functions. The irony of the claim that a warning was needed in this case, when a warning (and the response to it) was part of the reason for Giano's LAST block, is not lost on me either. I point this out without taking sides in the current disagreement of whether Tony was justified or not. ++Lar: t/c 12:56, 18 September 2006 (UTC)

I totally agree with you Geogre. Basically, calling other people "cogs" or "idiots" or whatever in that tune just because someone is an admin/arbitrator/clerk/whatever while the other side is not is plain revolting and insulting. The greatest threat of any organization is to be overcome by its own bureaucracy. I hope it won't be the case... :( -- Grafikm ^(AutoGRAF) 20:12, 18 September 2006 (UTC)

Note: For anyone who may not have seen it, User:Tony Sidaway has announced on his talk page that he is on a 7-day Wikibreak. Newyorkbrad 13:02, 18 September 2006 (UTC)

Why should we believe that? - [11]. --Mcginnly | Natter 12:08, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

Well, I took his word for it when he wrote it 36 hours ago. Since then he seems to have been unable to withhold his thoughts on a couple of RfA's where he has strong views, and he's been doing some talkpage archiving. I think it definitely qualifies as a highly reduced level of activity, anyway. Newyorkbrad 12:18, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

The temptation to say something cutting, clever, or incendiary is high, but, whether Tony takes a voluntary break for ten minutes or ten days is somewhat irrelevant, since he has been the person imposing involuntary breaks of hours and days on people to "cool it" and to get their attentions. Further, as Tony's own words say, if he leaves or not, it will be his actions and decision. Thus he absolved himself of any responsibility for generating the departure of several users, not just Giano, so I think anyone who has been drawing attention to his behavior here should take the warm comfort he offered himself. Geogre 12:30, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

I just intended a point of information. I don't suggest it binds all wounds. Newyorkbrad 12:41, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

This whole affair has been really disappointing. Giano needs to fucking cool it. Tony needs to stop being so fucking provocative towards otherwise good users. End of story. Rebecca 23:21, 18 September 2006 (UTC)

If it were the end of the story, a lot of people would agree. For a long time, people have agreed with both points, and both users' friends had said things to the effect, but the reason this rose to the level of AN and possible injunction (supposing it would be possible for a self-annointed clerk to have his case examined by the dispute resolution mechanism (not masters, not rulers, not superiors, not honored among users)), is the use of the block button. Tony has been very free with it. This is aggravating by hypocrisy (blocking people for language and then using worse). Giano never went back to become an administrator again, never sought to have power. Tony, in my opinion and the opinions of several others above, abused those powers and tenaciously refuses to even have his behavior examined. That is why we're here, instead of sending e-mails to users and telling them to step back. Geogre 12:55, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

Tony's behavior is being examined quite closely. So is yours. Please cool it. Kelly Martin (talk) 14:58, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

Wonderful! I have been waiting to be examined quite closely. After all, I'm only editing articles and objecting to you and others of ArbCom employing imperatives instead of reason, only objecting to your considering yourselves anything other than parts of the dispute resolution process, and clearly that needs very, very close examination. Much better to threaten than to listen, after all. Even better would be to block instead of apologize and mandate rather than mediate. That's what the dispute resolvers do, is it? Geogre 15:41, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

I'm wincing, because it's inevitable that Kelly Martin's last comment is just going to raise the temperature again. Newyorkbrad 15:02, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

It's the passive that does it. "Is being examined" leaves out by whom it is being examined, as well as why it cannot be examined by the unstated group implied. Further, my behavior "is being examined." If that does not imply a power differential, if not a Star Chamber, then I must have some serious reading problems. Why do the heathens rage? Geogre 15:45, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

Congratulations; you have successfully taken maximum offense and assumed the worst possible connotation of a wholly innocent statement, thereby insuring that you, too, are clearly part of the problem, and not part of the solution. That Tony's conduct has been and is being examined is obvious; one need merely read this discussion to see that. Likewise, I'm sure everyone reading this discussion has examined your behavior and reached some conclusion; at this point mine is that you are ranting for the sake of ranting, and not actually trying to help Wikipedia, and as such I wish you would just quit it. (And to think that I've always respected you, at least until now.) I'm sure there are any number of private examinations going on as well -- both by the ArbCom (the issue has been broached on the private mailing list, although I shall not discuss details) and by other "cabals", the number of which on Wikipedia is almost certainly countless. However, I question whether your recent actions are intended to help solve the problem; if they are, they are very poorly crafted attempts. I strongly urge you -- and everyone else -- to think about forty times before posting any more heated invective to this or any other Wikipedia discussion page. Kelly Martin (talk) 16:07, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

I suspect that the smart move here - and probably at the 'crats noticeboard as well - is to archive this thread as having reached the point where nothing lis likely ot be achieved other than restating the dissent which we already know exists. Guy 16:10, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

Kelly, I've always respected you until now, too. But if your posts in this thread are intended to help solve the problem, they are eye-poppingly unskillful. As Newyorkbrad points out above, the kind of "cooling" you're doing here can only raise the temperature. If you have no water to offer, do you really think petrol will do in a pinch? Bishonen | talk 16:29, 19 September 2006 (UTC).

If this is what it takes to lose your respect, then it's well gone. Look at the header for this section. Look at your contributions. Look at your phrasing. It takes no skill to read those passive voice constructions. Further, they're validated by your own statement. It has "been broached" on the "private" mailing list of arbitrators. Why? Has an RFAR been lodged? Has one been lodged against me? Has one been lodged against James F calling everyone taking umbrage at Tony Sidaway an idiot? Has one been lodged against you for showing up, offering no evidence at all that you have been trying to mediate, no evidence that you have been trying to moderate, and yet that we should all henceforth be quiet? Quiet? Really? Is quiet the way we build an encyclopedia? As for my personal behavior, you are free to examine it to your heart's content and form whatever opinion your private jaundice dictates, but my actions to date (not today) have been wholly concerned with gaining transparency in operations, not more private cabals, consistency in the application of policy (not Tony blocking people for saying "fuck" and then saying "fuck" himself, not Tony blocking people to "send a message" or Kelly Martin using a block to "get someone's attention" and then having a 24 hr block of Tony Sidaway treated as idiotic), and ensuring equality among users and not ordering people to behave in a way that causes me least distress. Kelly, if you have nothing to actually add that will indicate that arbitration is underway, that Tony's actions are condemned (not "being examined privately where no one may know by whom"), that your own actions are being "examined" by your peers, and that you, too, wish for more transparency, equality, and consistency, then the gratuitous threats aimed at me are despicable. However, I invite you or any other to examine my contributions on any day. Today, they have been adding content (there is that despised word again) to Aurelian Townshend and removing a horrid sentence that a member of ArbCom had inserted to save face, adding content to Margaret Cavendish in regard to her poetry, and offering a policy idea. Other than that, I've been trying to deal with arbitrary, not arbitrating, threats. If you will not have dialog, then enjoy monolog. Geogre 17:26, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

You seem to confuse your editing actions with the sum-total of all you do on Wikipedia. I imagine the reference was to your input to places such as this, though I make no comment on that. Just a thought. BTW, thank you for the amusing (and highly satirical) personal attacks - they are a refreshing change from the usual crap I get. KUTGW :-)

James F. (talk) 17:50, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

Of course! How could I be so blind! You're right, James F! I should be calling you an idiot, the way you have called me one, as that's a contribution to Wikipedia, and I must never again confuse writing an encyclopedia with contributing to it. Let's compare our "contributions" here, then, shall we, James? You have called everyone an idiot and incited anger. What have I done that's comparable to that "contribution?" Geogre 23:38, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

Perhaps you're right ... but then again, most people have some innate need to let their opinions be heard, even if it may increase the drama of a situation in the short term. And in the long term, the more people who speak up with their opinions as soon as possible, the better. --Cyde Weys 16:33, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

"And in the long term, the more people who speak up with their opinions as soon as possible, the better." You sure about that? I've been staying out of this one since my opinions have already been adequately voiced by others. But if you insist..... :] --CBD 17:46, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

Let me amend that. I'm not saying that discretion is useless and that everyone should always say exactly what they think, even when they would rather remain silent. I'm merely saying that if someone wants to say something, but the only thing stopping them is some perception from other people that they aren't helping matters in the short term, they should say it anyway. It's better to get issues out of the way sooner rather than later, if you want to get issues out of the way, anyway. People shouldn't be jumped on merely for speaking their mind; they should be jumped on because what they are saying is wrong, not that they are saying it at all. That make any sense? --Cyde Weys 18:00, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

Hey, as long as we're clear that they should get jumped on, the rest is just details right? ;) Phrasing and kidding aside, I think you're calling for people to get their baggage out on the table so we can deal with it, rather than dragging it around, rolling over people's toes and taking up aisle space on the bus. That still isn't an argument for doing it in an inflammatory way, if a diplomatic way would do. I mean, we could make sorting through the baggage as difficult as possible, or as easy, or anywhere in between... -GTBacchus^(talk) 22:55, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

Yes, of course diplomatic is better than inflammatory ... although I don't recall suggesting inflammatory remarks, either. --Cyde Weys 01:47, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

No, I don't think you did suggest that. I think we're talking about Bishonen's water/petrol comment above, no? I agree with you that it's good to get things out on the table, and with Bishonen, that it's better when it's done with some tact and diplomacy. Nothing really controversial about that, I imagine. -GTBacchus^(talk) 03:44, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

Not quite the idiots you seem to think

Sorry to disappoint those who had hoped they had seem the back of me but my attempts to give up wikipedia appear at the moment to be as successful as my many attempts to quit smoking, so I hope this edit will prove to be just one quick gasp. I think one thing we all agree on is that Wikipedia has a big problem, apart from me, that is. There is a haemorrhage of quality editors who feel belittled and undervalued by the treatment they receive here by an overbearing and sinister arbcom, and too many little buzzing admins. The only way to rectify this is to allow those valued editors a voice, and a very loud one too. There are many editors, all valued, and contributions range from boring (to me, categories) to writing front page articles, or numerous 500 word pages. There is one chap in wikipedia's basement (I will not embarrass him here, but I'll email his name to anyone who asks) who should be lauded and barnstarred for his work in categories, but I doubt many of you have ever heard of him.

The arbcom are now teetering on the edge of losing control - as demonstrated by the bizarre attitudes and sayings here of J Forrester and Kelly Martin (James don't ever join the army - your men would shoot you in the back if you behaved like that - you are an officer here, behave like one). As for Kelly Martin her unpleasant veiled threat to Geogre is despicable. In my view her repeated overbearing pronouncements make her unfit for the sensitive office she assumes.

At the moment the arbcom have lost touch and need to be re-ordered. This can be achieved simply and painlessly: J Forrester and K Martin who have shown their majestic lack of appreciation of the mood of the encyclopedia, should resign immediately, in Martin's case also all sysop and any other rights she may have. This will immediately prove to the editorship that there is change is in the air. Tony Sidaway needs to be prevented from arbcom clerking permanently, and as for Carnildo, whose RFA began this whole affair, well not much can be done there - he is once again an admin - so leave it alone.

Following the resignations (dismissal if necessary) of J Forrester and Kelly Martin a selection of highly valued and respected contributing editors should offer themselves in an extraordinary election to the arbcom, with two of them being elected. Geogre, Bishonen, ALoan immediately spring to mind, but their must be many others in other corners of the encyclopedia, the net should not be confined to admins but to the rank and file, one does not need a block button to have a worthy opinion - even here.

I would advise debate on this now, but not for too long, the arbcom can save itself or throw itself on the mercy of the encyclopedia - the encyclopedia being its editors. Giano 20:39, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

Sorry Kelly, I only just saw your question [12] the answer is "Arbitrator Emeritus", CheckUser and oversight rights, and Admin, in fact all those rights you advertise on your page. You have the golden opportunity to help write the encyclopedia as member of what you so eloquently term the "fickle and ill-informed populace." [13]. Giano 22:20, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

I believe it's impossible to resign as "Arbitrator Emeritus", insofar as that position is defined by being a former Arbitrator. The only way for me to cease to hold that position is to become, once again, an Arbitrator, and I doubt that Jimbo would consent to appoint me as such. In any case, that title entails no rights. And I do actually contribute to the encyclopedia, although a significant fraction of my recent encyclopedic edits have been on a different account (yes, I have a sockpuppet; four, in fact, although only one has been used recently). Lately, however, I have not been very active, as my obligations to family and work have left relatively little time to do much more than what I do for the Foundation in my various roles held there (which are explicitly not subject to this offer of resignation; I will not be resigning from the Communications Committee or quitting OTRS). I also contribute to the Wikimedia Commons. I may not have the time or the writing talent to spew forth featured article material at the same rate that you do, but for you to claim that I do not meaningfully contribute to Wikimedia projects is both ill-informed and offensive. Kelly Martin (talk) 01:34, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

• All these bodily functions here... articles are not "spewed" they are written. You, Sidaway and his boils, JForrester and his idiots are a disgrace to the leadership of an encyclopedia. To think these are our "front men/woman" and leaders who Jimbo hopes will attract in more Academics as editors - some hope! The sooner you lot go the better for the encyclopedia. Giano 07:26, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

I have consented to comply with Giano's demands on the condition that he must enlist Geogre, Bishonen, and two other admins to make them as well. Kelly Martin (talk) 21:11, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

I think you will note I said "dismissal if necessary" - your peers can decide - you and your colleagues are now so out of touch it doesn't really matter how you go, just so long as you go. Giano 21:19, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

This proposal would be a step in the right direction if executed. --Jeffrey O. Gustafson - Shazaam! - <*> 21:39, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

Well then we make it happen, we can either lie down and suffer this tyranny, threats and blocks, or we do something about it. To throw the whole lot of them out would de-stabilise the encyclopedia and ultimately be a bad thing, so we kick out those who seem to be most out of touch and menacing, replace them with those we trust, and then see what happens. Raul, Mindspilage etc the sensible hard working ones remain and give a sense of reason and continuity. Seems like rational common sense to me. Giano 21:47, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

I disagree with your proposal of removing Tony Sidaway as clerk. Giving him a job that basically amounts to shuffling people's complaints around and generally acting as page boy is a great idea - because it's Arbcom-related it sounds important, but it keeps him away from real work that would require him to exercise judgement, such as Articles for Deletion, at which Deletion Review has frequently shown up his incompetence. If only the Arbcom could think up more such jobs for him we could keep him too busy to make these pointless and posturing blocks as well. 22:35, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

I have only just seen this, as I had hoped that my absence from AN would make my heart grow less rancorous. I don't know about the Kelly suggestion yet. I am not going to rush, but there is something I have restrained from saying that now has to be said, if only for clarity: Kelly Martin is not a member of the Arbitration Committee, although James F is. When this iteration of ArbCom was constituted, it was a serious bone of contention whether former ArbCom members be allowed access to the ArbCom mailing list. That was handled as too many things have been handled, by being shuffled away from wiki and onto the mailing list itself. I had no idea whether they continued to have access or not until Kelly said that behavior "is being examined" and that behavior "had been broached" on the list, which made it clear that access was still there. I will say no more, although I cannot say that I disagree with James Forrester's stepping down in any respect. I have not seen his name on any actual ArbCom cases lately, have not had a single pleasant conversation with him (and the only opportunities have been on IRC, as I have never once run into him on-wiki, except in occasions like this, when his comments have been boorish at least and consistently implied his patriarchy over all the little writers who swarm about in the dark). For the rest, I will hold my peace for the moment and have something to say tomorrow (US). Geogre 23:48, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

This seems a bit harsh to me. You have one somewhat curt run-in with JamesF and immediately you're calling for his resignation? People might take you a bit more seriously if you didn't call for outrageous punishments that go far beyond the pail of any possible consequences that might be necessary for the actions under consideration. It's like the constant stream of people demanding desysoppings on ANI, only moreso I suppose, since ArbCom is a much more vaunted position than administrator. --Cyde Weys 01:50, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

I don't think JamesF is a substantial issue here. However, to be blunt both Kelly and Tony have highly problematic and continue to do so. However, of the discussed people only Tony as far as I can see has engaged in what may constitute an abuse of admin tools. (This is not to say I am supporting Giano here just clarifying what I see as the central problem). JoshuaZ 03:35, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

• The central problem is that the arbcom blindly presides over all this mess, and needs to be reformed. I don't think I have ever had any one to one dealings with J Forrester, I gauge him by his performance. Kelly Martin rules through threats and put downs. I'm sure there are other members of the arbcom equally worthy of disposal, but I want reform not a revolution. I'm not calling for Tony Sidaway's desysoping either, the reformed Arbcom can deal with him as best they see fit. If Kelly Martin won't go peacefully, then she must be dismissed by whoever has the authority to do so. She may not officially be on the arbcom but he emeritus obviously gives her certain rights or why use the title, and as for all her other "positions" - we need a clean sweep they can go too. I don't even want to erode the Arbcom's powers, just have a better Wikipedia, one ruled by people who understand the aims, encourage writing, and have a more just sense of maintaining order. We don't have to live with being afraid to voice our views on what is wrong . Just out of interest unlike some I'm not controlling an army of thought through email, and I haver been on IRC. If you lose this opportunity for reform I doubt there will be another. I just want to refer to "our Arbcom". Giano 06:28, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

• Clerk is actually a rather necessary position now. ArbCom deals with so many cases that lots and lots of text needs to be shuffled around, various subpages need to be created, rulings need to be announced, etc. None of these actions require any discretion — it's just following the same old procedure, using certain templates, and counting votes rigorously — and so they should be dealt with by people other than ArbCom, as ArbCom members should be spending all available time on the actual cases (God knows cases run slowly enough as it is, imagine if they had to do all of the technical stuff too). --Cyde Weys 06:32, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

• At the heart of this is the divide between people who write the encyclopedia, on the one hand, and people who don't but who nevertheless have a bewildering attitude of superiority toward those who do. If any good comes of this episode, it'll be that we learn to cherish good editors, because we have precious few of them. I'm not talking about subject specialists necessarily (who are no more guaranteed to be good editors than anyone else), but people like A Loan, Bishonen, Geogre, Giano, and so on, whose contributions are regular, substantial, and of a consistently high quality. The Foundation has said it wants to concentrate on quality now, not quantity, so we need to keep and attract excellent editors, and we need them as admins and arbitrators too. That the best of our editors are being looked down on by people who don't edit articles is an unsustainable situation. Imagine the management of the Encyclopaedia Britannica telling its very best writers that they're idiots and boils that need to be lanced. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 07:01, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

• I concur with SlimVirgin. I'm not interested in namespace editing, admin tools, and featured content, so I'm sure that most admins don't know my name, because I work primarily in main space and don't spend some 10+ hours a day on IRC, which gives you a significant popularity boost. For me, this project is not a monopoly: I have my native Wikipedia to move to when the times are nasty here and I also hope that Citizendium will finally take flight. So I'd not be hurt if my comments are edited out and I'm blocked for sharing them, as I was in the past. My opinion is as follows. Quality editors can't edit in peace like they used to; apparatchiks wouldn't change La Règle du jeu. The main flaw of the existing project is a stratum of non-editing nomenklatura presiding over masses of hard working editors. They spend some 10+ hours a day on IRC, with 15 piddly edits per day in main space (mainly vandalism reversions), while there are numerous backlogs waiting for admin action. It's time to understand that it's not people like Tony Sidaway who have made Wikipedia into the Top 13. Non-writing admins are expendable; quality editors are not. I hope that Tony, Kelly, Dmc and others will write at the top of their talk pages: "We are here to write an encyclopaedia; my motto is NN main space edits each day!" This will be the first step towards normalizing the situation, which Tony already termed a coup d'etat. --Ghirla ^-трёп- 08:08, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

• I want to add that there are ways of contributing to Wikipedia that don't involve writing articles. It's just the attitude of superiority that has to go. This is a collaborative effort. Our aim should be, not a heirarchy, but a core of excellence in writing and research, with everyone contributing in whatever way they can to its sustenance. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 08:29, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

Yes. What we have here is actually a quite typical example of an organization crumbling under the weight and the wannabe superiority of its own internal bureaucracy. As time passes, bureaucrats (in the general sense of the word, not the WP one, mind you) tend to forget what they're here for and tend to consider their own existence as the goal - not the organization they're working for. Unless someone reverses the trend that is.

And if one looks closely, there are plenty of people who are both excellent contributors and excellent admins or ArbCom members. I hate to make examples because it sounds silly, but just look at SimonP, Bishonen, Raul or Kirill - all are admins and excellent writers with FAs on their display. That's what we should aim for. -- Grafikm ^(AutoGRAF) 09:04, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

Jayjg too; he's on the Arbcom, he's a featured article writer, and he continues to edit regularly. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 09:42, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

The exemples provided are by no means a complete list :))) -- Grafikm ^(AutoGRAF) 09:47, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

I think both sides of this debate need to step back and realise that they are both, in the end, working towards the same goal. It's a shame to see people implying that because they contribute a lot of content they have more legitimacy as Wikipedians than others who take on more administrative roles; vice versa it's very disturbing to read those with administrative roles trying to adopt a position of superiority simply because they administrate.

The first group need to realise that people who don't contribute much raw content are often doing a huge amount of work for the encyclopaedia: resolving disputes, handling correspondence in OTRS, dealing with the press, and so on. Meanwhile, the second group need to realise that there wouldn't be an encyclopaedia to work with if it weren't for people contributing content. In the end, all these jobs are important. --ⁿɡ͡b Nick Boalch\^talk 09:24, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

Yes, but one must not show such a contemptuous superiority because he or she has the shiny buttons while the others are "fickle and well-informed populace" (dixit Kelly Martin). It is an attitude problem here... -- Grafikm ^(AutoGRAF) 09:38, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

By and large, the "fickle and ill-informed populace" (note: ill, not well) refers not to the dedicated editors editing content, but indeed to the people who are trying to game our system to illegitimately obtain social standing. If Ghirl, Giano, and Geogre think that I'm referring to them when I say that, they are sadly mistaken.

There are not two groups in Wikipedia, but (at least) three. There are those who tirelessly write the encyclopedia. There are those who tirelessly manage the encyclopedia. And then there are those who parasite on the encyclopedia project. The problem, as I see it, is that the people in the first group are failing to distinguish the people in the second group from the people in the third group. And those of us in the second group sometimes have trouble distinguishing those in the first group from those in the third, too. Kelly Martin (talk) 11:30, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

I would think that the goal of Wikipedia is to create the main space content not to be a social club or an exersice in governance. The productive editors create this content. The prolific productive editors create the matrix that keeps all this material together. Without them the project would not be much different from the amorphous mass of blogs indexed by Google. The only role of admins is to keep productive editors and especially prolific productive editors in a comfortable working conditions. That is the only worthy duty for me, Slim Virgin (admin), Kelly Martin, Tony Sidaway is to make Ghirlandajo, George, Giakomo, Halibutt, Slim Virgin (editor), Renata3, the secret sock of Kelly Martin that she uses to write content from and all of the others to feel happy, protected and appreciated. There is no other valid goal in our existence. We are to endure great pains and abuse just to give these people protection and comfortable working conditions. Writing content by admins is not required for that duty but greatly helps. It provides useable insights as well as some sort of a positive experience for a change. I am sorry, but if any admin believes that the editors are for them to feel self-important not the other way around, then he or she should go. I hope there are very few many admins of that sort. abakharev 09:44, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

I agree to a certain extent, with the key proviso that we are there as administrators to make others 'feel happy, protected and appreciated' as far as they are working to improve the encyclopaedia: our ultimate goal here is a great encyclopaedia, not a community of happy people. The second is important in achieiving the first, but shouldn't override it. So, to pluck an entirely random example unrelated to any of the disputants here, if we have a fantastic editor who has contributed to many FAs but who persists in uploading copyright violations then I am going to disregard his feelings of happiness and comfort and block him, because his actions are damaging to the encylclopaedia. --ⁿɡ͡b Nick Boalch\^talk 11:44, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

The real problem arises (as it recently has) when either prolific editors or prolific administrators become divas, and by so doing interfere with the harmonious editing environment. If you are a prolific editor and start arguing that you should get leeway because you are a prolific editor, then you have become a diva, and you need to stop and reconsider your actions. If you are an administrator and start arguing that you should get leeway because of all you do to "protect the encyclopedia", you also have become a diva and need to stop and reconsider your actions. Being a prolific editor is not a free pass from the obligation to maintain a harmonious editing environment. If you are a prolific editor and your actions are making other editors feel unhappy, unprotected, or unappreciated, then you are part of the problem and need to be dealt with. Kelly Martin (talk) 12:02, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

I find myself agreeing with abakharev and with Nick, as far as they go... that this project is an encyclopedia. Everything else has to support that, and we all should in particular, support the creation of good content. But where they fall short, where I get the disconnect is how some editor being incivil, nasty, or incollegial contributes to that process in any way. What seems lost in all this is that this started, or came to a head at any rate. It is because someone (one of our good contributors, yes... but good contributions DO NOT GET YOU A FREE PASS) was acting the prat (and not just one time, to be sure). I don't see how his good contributions excuse his prattishness. If they do that is indeed diva-ness and Kelly has it exactly right. All this speaking of revolution is just folderol. ++Lar: t/c 12:17, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

Poor Lar, you have not grasped it, you are just like Tony Sidaway with his post about a coupe d'etat, it is not revolution but reform of which we are talking - to talk of revolution is to be a drama queen, neither are we talking about people uploading copyright images and breaking national laws, and to do so is digression - no-one disputes that is wrong. Kelly Martin has belittled and threatened many good editors and brought this situation entirely upon herself, and now it is time for her to go. If there is a diva here, it is her, frantically trying to save herself. The Arbcom have allowed Tony Sidaway to run amok in an orgy of bannings and insults. They have allowed him to preside over the RFA page as though it is his personal page. When people ask them to do something about the situation they ignore them, and when finally some of them do appear here it is to deliver more insults on editors. The arbcom needs to wake up and reform, only they can do anything about it, and they can begin by removing Kelly Martin's power to threaten, and then remove for J Forrester for his complete lack of effort on Arbcom cases, and ability to be civil. Show ordinary editors a real commitment to reform and appreciation of their past mistakes. Giano 12:34, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

Giano, I didn't want to continue this discussion with people who had not written an article in the last half a year, but I feel obliged to defend Kelly here. Unlike Lar, Doc, and other IRC-style-talking admins whose main space edits are negligible and admin effectiveness is not apparent either, I've seen Kelly do a lot of good to the project. Neither did I see Kelly abusing her tools. I can't agree with her in that a prolific editor makes other editors feel unhappy, unprotected, or unappreciated. Only a block-happy admin does. Actually, some of Kelly's own assertions made wikipedians like me feel "unhappy, unprotected, and unappreciated". What she calls a "diva" is termed an "expendable cog" by many other wikipedians. But it was not she who hastened to block her opponents. I believe that only return to main-space editing is a solution. Otherwise, some non-editing wikipedians will always be more equal than others, as is the case now. --Ghirla ^-трёп- 13:21, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

Oh yes, prolific editors can make other editors feel unhappy, unprotected, and unappreciated. I have heard that you have changed (improved) Ghirlandajo, so don't see this as a current complaint, but you were (for me) the example of a prolific editor acting as a diva, insulting other editors, and make them feel unappreciated. I did not leave Wikipedia over it, I just tried to edit only a group of articles I thought you would tay out of, so that I didn't have to meet you and your comments again. I agree that diva admins are a bad thing, but they are not the only ones that are a danger to the project, and you, with your history here, should know better than to act as if admins are the only ones making editors unhappy and feeling unappreciated. Fram 13:38, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

Since it appears I wasn't clear enough, let me point out that prolific editors in and of themselves do not make other editors feel unhappy. Simply that SOME of them do, through their conduct when they're not being prolific editors (or even as they are: edit summaries can be uncivil too). Some prolific editors have been known to revert war, to be uncivil, or to otherwise edit tendentiously. And when they do these things, their prolificness is not a defense. Whether you have no FAs or 1000 FAs, you are still obliged to follow the rules of the community.

As an aside, I have, in fact, created at least one article in the past six months: Bubba (fish), which appeared on the front page recently in the "Did You Know" section. Yeah, not likely to become a featured article, but Bubba made the front page of the Chicago Tribune, and I figured it was good enough for an article. I've started a few others (Lombard College, Fore-edge painting, Frank Pace) as well; I don't keep track of them anymore. Just last night I made substantial contributions to Polar exploration. We each contribute in our own way; to try to assign priority values to indivdual modes of contribution is divisive and pointless, so let's stop it already, ok? Kelly Martin (talk) 14:01, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

So dramatic is your rhetoric, but you fail to address the actual salient point I made, this started because you, apparently thinking you had a free pass, acted the prat. That you might be right about other things really doesn't excuse that. That others may have been incivil, or even far worse, to you in the past, really doesn't excuse that. No one has a free pass, and no one should go about agitating for revolution/reform/revolt/re-whatever in response to someone pointing out they were being a prat. Stop acting such a prat, and be more civil than those you think are misguided, rather than less civil. Really, it's that simple. All this sturm und drang could be avoided if everyone was nicer, and didn't fly off the handle when reminded that perhaps something they said wasn't nice, and politely were asked to tone it down a bit. ++Lar: t/c 12:59, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

I believe Giano has every right to discuss the problems and propose a reform. It is not he who is the problem. Where is User:172? Where is User:Pecher? Where is User:Worldtraveller? Where is User:Paul August? Giano is the only one who had the guts to discuss the problems which force the finest contributors to leave Wikipedia these days. And I may say, after talking privately with many wikipedians, that your own dismissive statements don't add motivation for people to stay in the project. Please cool off and assume good faith. --Ghirla ^-трёп- 13:21, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

Right is Might

It appears there is a group of good and established editors who are unhappy with the way power is being exercised. My observation is that, however much you say that a position is just extra work with no real power, people holding such a position will come to believe the power is theirs to exercise as they see fit. I suggest like minded editors set up an alternative to see if it works better - a people's Arbcom. Without any official power - and hence no possible reliance on Might is Right - this will be forced to come up with good solutions (consensus in fact) which can be adopted by the various parties. People who genuinely want to find good solutions and improve the working environment can go to this group of editors for arbitration, whose might would come from being right. So I say to all the disgruntled editors: Would you be prepared to join such a group?. There are many clearly qualified members - Newyorkbrad, for example. Elections could be conducted using a sensible system like Single Transferable Vote to ensure a representative group. I have some ideas on how this could work on a wiki where people come and go. So rather than good editors leaving, let's make a bit of the system you like, and use that. Stephen B Streater 08:39, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

Silent Masses checking in

Speaking as one of the (until now) silent masses, the ArbCom has my full respect. I haven't the time to thoroughly examine every case, but in every one I have examined, the ArbCom has issued a fair, equitable, and cogent ruling. Their rulings almost without fail strike a careful balance between conciliation and punishment, and between understanding and steadfastness. I have a great respect for those who devote so much of their time to dealing with the worst Wikipedia has to offer. Powers ^T 13:00, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

As long as the silent are speaking, I think some folks are doing this issue real disfavor by being so dramatic. There are real issues here but the rhetoric is so over heated that they are obscured. Whenever I read ArbCom material they mostly come off as level headed people dealing with long running problems. They seem to get it mostly right. The real issue here is that some high profile admins have been curt, dismissive and rude long before anyone said anything about boils or ill-informed populace. I don't know how Kelly and Tony got to this point but if they weren't so mean spirited and rude sometimes we wouldn't be having this conversation. And this is coming from someone who at one time admired both of them for their ability to cut through to the heart of issues. Kelly seems to have access to high level private conversations that I for one don't trust her in at all (anymore). I'd like to see people dial back the heat a little. Rx StrangeLove 13:37, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

Another silently massive person here. I've been silent and not spoken up out of fear, not from admins or arbcom but from the very folks calling for their heads. It's like a witchhunt out here, and frankly I didn't want to be lumped into the 'sycophantic minion' crowd or some such. Now that we're confronting it, though, I don't think Tony was out of line, I do think Giano was/is wandering into personal attack territory and that George is beginning to join him (amongst others) with their attacks on certain admins and arbcom, I think good admins are getting drawn into the same behavior here, and I think this whole section ought to be archived and dropped off the page. There is nothing, absolutely nothing that's been done by any single admin or group of admins that truly calls for an uprising against the authority here. And I'm stopping here, because I'm getting worked up now. --InkSplotch 13:49, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

Who appointed the demagogues?

I can't believe this thread. 'Attitudes of superiority'? Arrogance cuts two ways, you know. Consider for a moment the arrorance of the perenial person (Geogre and Giano are just the latest, before them there was Karmafist and GodofWar and ....so on), this person who fills themself with the delusion that they are the authentic prophetic 'voice of the voiceless' who can, without mandate, pronounce 'thus sayeth the community' and assume some plebian tribunal power to desysop and demote their enemies. Don't be so bloody presumptious. Stop the demagoguery. The problem with the silent majority, is that we don't know wht they think, because......they are silent! --Doc 08:47, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

Equating Geogre with God of War/Kamafist is....not accurate. Rx StrangeLove 13:40, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

Perhaps not. Although it may becoming less inappropriate. However, my wider point is that the history of epopel who believed they could speak for the masses ... is not a happy one. Perhaps they should simply give their own oppinions.--Doc 15:51, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

And risk getting blocked for holding unpopular opinions? --badlydrawnjeff talk 15:53, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

Oh yes, that's really what happens. That's why you and everyone else in this threat are currently blocked. Look, this is hot enough without your conventional trolling.--Doc 15:57, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

Happens enough to note it. Your personal attack is entirely unnecessary, especially in this context. --badlydrawnjeff talk 16:02, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

Well, Giano and Ghirla got blocked, didn't they? -- Grafikm ^(AutoGRAF) 16:09, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

This is why elections are good. And if there is no official power for this group, they will have to rule by strength of argument and consensus, which is what they are asking for from exisiting people. Who knows if it would work, but in my experience, most issues here are solvable with a bit of goodwill and understanding - provided that people take part and do not see themselves above the law. Stephen B Streater 08:56, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

Erm, we had elections siv months ago, remember. The current arbcom topped the poll. Why do you assume that new elections would elect different people? You again presume too much. And if you don't like those a new election throws up, will you then call for a fresh revolution. You don't like the result, so make them vote again, huh? WP:NOT a democracy, but WP:NOT Trotskyite either.--Doc 09:16, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

• Your statements are factually incorrect, and you believe that I am assuming the Voice when I have established for you, more than once, that I was speaking of evidence. If you will not inform yourself or listen to others, then at least stop making accusations. This ArbCom did not "top the polls." Some who were picked in fact left in disgust. Where is Filiocht now? Like I said: please inform yourself or stop making accusations. I'd settle for either. Geogre 15:35, 20 September 2006 (UTC)
  • No, my statement is correct. The current Arbcom did all achieve very high poll ratings, and those at the very top of the poll were appointed - plus a few others who'd also polled very highly. But this is a technicallity. You keep claiming to speak for the people, by what authority? I look forward to you putting yourself forward in the Decemeber elections. If you are right about the community being behind you, rather than, say, JamesF, then I expect you'll poll a lot higher than he did. Then youy'll be able to speak on behalf of those that have agreed with you. Until then, perhaps I should calm down, and perhaps you and others would confine yourself to giving your opinions and not claiming a popular authority you have not earned.--Doc 15:46, 20 September 2006 (UTC)
    • I have never chosen to stand for ArbCom, and I will not be taunted into it. However, I speak for the evidence of departures. You speak for... for... an assumption that I must be putting on airs? The list of people who have quit or gone on break over precisely these people acting in precisely this way is long, and the names have one thing in common: they were all long time users and all heavy content providers. I have generally avoided denigrating the work done by developers, but I will be happy to denigrate people who box war, Doc, and who spend their time on talk pages instead of writing, and losing this many writers so that we can retain, without examination in any public forum the behavior of Kelly (not on ArbCom, but speaking for it) and Tony Sidaway (and we can add other names as well, if needed, such as Phil Sandifer) is the sort of calculus only a fool could think worked out. Evidence, Doc, not assumed voice of all. We know they left. We know why. We know how. The ones happy as pigs in a stigh to be ordered about are not our concern when addressing problems. Geogre 16:46, 20 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Unless I am grossly misinformed, Filiocht has been away since last December due to serious medical issues (at least, that's what Bishonen shared with several of us back in February). For you to suggest that his absence is due to "disgust" means either you have information that has not been shared with the rest of the community, or you are being disingenious. Given that Filiocht has edited a few times since then, but only to note that he is away indefinitely, I think you should refrain from imputing motives to his absence. Kelly Martin (talk) 15:51, 20 September 2006 (UTC)
    • Kelly, you are grossly mistaken. I will not "prove" this in the definitive way that I can. Instead, I will merely invite you to investigate, as Filiocht's talk pages had plenty of evidence of his disgust. Geogre 16:46, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

You will observe that I'm not one of the editors considering leaving, or expressing discontent with Arbcom. The reality is that some people will always be more interested in attaining power than finding the wisdom to use it well. If I'm ever elected to Arbcom, I'll work towards getting the parties to agree, rather than implementing decisions by force. Stephen B Streater 09:28, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

Yeah fine - stand for AC, but if you want to mediate medcom might suit you better. Arbcom seems to oftendeal with people who are waaaay beyond softly-softly. But I'd actually say that it is the ranting demagogues above who seem to me to be throwing demands about without wisdom or restraint. That's idiocy in plently. --Doc 09:39, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

Doc, just because you don't see them talking does not mean they aren't. -- Grafikm ^(AutoGRAF) 09:42, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

Eh? So you know what the consensus of our thousands of silent editors is? My point is, that the last time we got anything like a reasonably large sample of wikipedians together (and even that was tiny)....and they spoke.... they ....elected the arbcom. So, I'd say JamesF has more legitimacy in speaking for the people (and even he isn't claiming that) than the 'idiotic' ranters.--Doc 09:47, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

• I can live with the insults "arrorance of the perenial person (Geogre and Giano are just the latest, before them there was Karmafist and GodofWar and ....so on)" - The truth is the Arbcom have been repeatedly asked to sort this mess out, they have remained aloof and distant, now it is too late, and they still are doing nothing. The "powerless editors arbcom" is a lovely idea, but sadly every time the real Arbcom disliked one of their motions or views their clerk would block or delete, supported by his ill-informed and out of touch masters. I think people here are quite capable of forming their own opinions now, and if the Arbcom don't act soon then what little confidence people have in them will completely evaporate. Obviously they feel if they do nothing the "ill informed populace" will return to work. Sadly they are probably right for once. Giano 09:45, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

Your arrogance astounds me. 'What little confidence people have in them will completely evaporate'. Despite all I said, you continue to offer yourself as the legitimate voice of the people. This is madness. Are you indeed crazy?--Doc 09:51, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

Giano is not offering himself, he merely expresses a point a lot of people do as well. -- Grafikm ^(AutoGRAF) 09:53, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

I suggest we all give this particular thread a rest for a few hours. There's really no need to tear into each other over Wikipedia politics. How about a ceasefire? -GTBacchus^(talk) 09:57, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

For the record: I have never been an admin. I never will be an admin or member of the the Arbcom. To Bacchus - We cannot keep backing away from these issues, they have to be faced or Wikipedia will not survive its up and coming competitors Giano 10:00, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

Giano, that's fine, but that's not an argument against anyone who's actually upset walking away for a few hours. That's all I'm saying. Believe me, I'm with you, about wanting to deal with this issue this month, as opposed to next year, but maybe tonight it's time for a beer, or a cup of tea, or whatever, you know? -GTBacchus^(talk) 10:05, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

Doc, he speaks the truth, and just because people are either afraid to speak up or feel it's futile to do so doesn't mean they don't feel this way. Let's just say that challenging the percieved cabalistic establishment rarely results in a good experience for people, and after being beat down time and time again, you can't expect people who won't speak up because they've been hit so hard when they do to arrive here, and you can't take such experiences as evidence that people don't feel this way. It's not arrogant to assume you're the voice of the people when you're saying exactly the same thing you've heard time and time again. --badlydrawnjeff talk 11:05, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

Yup, you speak to your pals and they agree with you. I speak to mine and they say something else. That's the way it is. I'm not saying that the masses don't agree with Giano, I'm saying that I've no idea what they thing, and neither does he. The last time we asked a significant number of Wikipediasn to express an opinion on the community's direction, they elected the arbcom. Hundreds of people supported each one of them. That's the only real data we have, the rest is anecdote and assertion.--Doc 11:10, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

I have been horrified by aspects of this whole discussion, which prompts me to make the following modest points that appear, at times, to have been overlooked. I hope they do not appear trite, but I feel the need to say them anyway. All Wikipedians are also people. Nothing on Wikipedia is irreversible, except personal disservices. The article namespace is Wikipedia's only product: all the other namespaces (including all policy) are purely ancillary. Membership of the arbitration committee is purely ancillary, and confers no mandate to preside or superintend, but only to rule formally on actions formally brought to their attention. In their Wikipedia-related activities the arbcom should be under no more scrutiny than any other Wikipedian, except when acting on arbcom business. However, they may consider that the fragility of the trust vested in them makes each of their actions and opinions more prominent, and accordingly more thoughtfully to be weighed before its final submission. Former arbcom members are currently discharged from that position (I believe emeritus means earned one's discharge by service). Clerks are personally accountable for any clerk's duties they undertake. A clerk's duties generally involve record-keeping in the interests of transparency, and correspondence to convey information. There is no mention of "clerks" on WP:ARB. --RobertG ♬ talk 10:14, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

Try looking here. HTH HAND —Phil | Talk

That is well stated, RobertG. Another important facet is that Wikipedia was set up with a flat hierarchy. It initially had no top-down order at all, and it is still constitutionally designed that way. Despite this, Doc's comments continue, despite the rhetorical scorching of the last time, to imply that ArbCom is government. I remind him, and I especially remind it, that it is merely a dispute resolution body and possesses no mandate, no power, no license except in those highly limited circumstances where a case is formally brought before it. The members of this body were not democratically elected. They did not get hundreds of votes each, and that was a terrible mistake, as it involved a mixed message to the site. I am no great believer in the votes as they were going, mind you, as it appeared that hundreds were voting without any knowledge of the candidates beyond their statements, but, regardless, it was a mixed anti-democratic and democratic exercise that set the stage for part of this confusion. Remember, Doc: they are not a government. Remember, ArbCom: you are no more than users. You have no magic grease, no chrism that makes you holy. No red heiffer was sacrificed for you, as Wikipedia is supposed to be a flat structure. This can be easily demonstrated, but with disasterous effects, by simple "civil disobedience" (something I do not call for nor endorse). Arbitrators have power only so long as fellow administrators and editors enact it. Geogre 15:45, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

I never claimed arbcom were a government - we have no such thing. I was responding to the absurd notion that a few individuals like you could presume to speak for the 'people' against JamesF and his 'Committee on Public Saftey'. My point was simply that arbcom members have individualy shown that they enjoy the overwhelming respect from a large majority of the users who voted in the election. So, for all you know, the 'people' may more agree with JamesF's decription of idiocy, than your positions. That's all.--Doc 16:57, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

I suggest we all give this particular thread a rest for a few hours. There's really no need to tear into each other over Wikipedia politics. How about a ceasefire? -GTBacchus^(talk) 09:57, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

For the record: I have never been an admin. I never will be an admin or member of the the Arbcom. To Bacchus - We cannot keep backing away from these issues, they have to be faced or Wikipedia will not survive its up and coming competitors Giano 10:00, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

Um...

George has implied above that several arbitrators quit in "disgust." Kelly Martin has already pointed out that if this was case with Filiocht, this is news to everyone, including I suspect Filiocht. That brings us to the other dropout. I resigned as an arbitrator in February; the 19th if I'm not mistaken. This is a matter of public record. My reasons for doing so are not, as one can see from older versions of my user page. While I discussed the matter privately with several individuals, including Jimbo, I certainly never did so with Geogre.

I'm rather intrigued that George thinks he knows my own mind better than I do. If I thinks I left the committee because I was disgusted with it, he's out of his mind. I had good and continue to maintain good relations with the active and inactive arbitrators, many of whom I'd worked with well beforehand (indeed, I prefer to be on good terms with people, when it's all said and done). The insinuation that the case is otherwise is a vile and filthy lie that he is patently incapable of backing up.

I resigned from the committee because of stress over userboxes (and conflicts over them with other sysops), combined with personal pressures and other factors, had pushed me to the breaking point. When I resigned on the 19th I didn't have any intention of coming back at all. In fact, only the kind intervention of an arbitrator, whom shall remain nameless, stopped me from handing back the sysop bit until I'd had a day or two to reconsider. As it happens, I did reconsider, and gradually re-entered the community and the project, albeit in a very different role. I resigned in disgust, all right, but not with the Arbitration Committee.

So, tell me Geogre, who are the arbitrators who resigned in disgust at the committee? Are we forgetting somebody? Or are you making up facts to push your point? Mackensen (talk) 16:12, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

• I had said that several people had quit in disgust. As for how I know why Filiocht left, I do not choose to indicate, but I do know it, and it would not be news to him. If, indeed, you had looked at his user page prior to the ArbCom elections, it would not be news to you, either. Had you been speaking to him at all, it would not be news, as Filiocht was extremely upset with...guess what? the very same issues being discussed here. As for you, I have no knowledge of why you resigned. So the answer to your false dichotomy is "neither." I am not making up facts nor am I suggesting that I know your mind, and I find your own rage here puzzling. If you believe that the current ArbCom "topped the polls," please say so. If you believe that they are a government, please indicate that. Otherwise, my point remains that Doc's argument is spurious: ArbCom is not the government and is not democratic. Geogre 16:23, 20 September 2006 (UTC)
  • You said some arbitrators, Geogre. Some implies more than one; and you statement suggested to some people that I resigned in disgust. I came hear to clear the matter up. You may wish to consider being more careful with your language in the future. Regarding Filiocht, the only clue I found was here [14], where he expressed disquiet with RfA-style voting. He left a long time ago, for that matter–well before the elections. I've no opinion on what Doc said, I'm here setting matters straight. Mackensen (talk) 16:29, 20 September 2006 (UTC)
• If I implied more than one, I had evidence only for one. I choose not to share that evidence. Therefore, you are free to not believe me, if you choose.
• However, who on earth said this was about "disgust with ArbCom?" It isn't. It's about disgust with power centers. As has been stated several times: neither Tony Sidaway nor Kelly Martin are members of ArbCom. It is true that James Forrester is, but the disgust has been at this highly typical response: "We, the governors, have decided that you are idiots for questioning our friend Tony, and you shall all shut up now and obey." That is precisely the problem: "We are discussing you on a private mailing list" and "We note your puny concerns." That imperiousness is indicative of an actual practice on the part of the current Arbitration Committee and its attendant structures: to assume that it is a government and to secret itself, thereby isolating its members from accountability and contact with the rest of the project. I assure you, Filiocht was quite disgusted with that. This is not a rally against ArbCom: this is a rally against the on-high assumption of a power structure that is neither licensed by Wikipedia policy nor justifiable by the behavior or work ethic of those assuming it.
• You may trust me on this or not, as I was only Filiocht's friend, but he was very, very disturbed by some of the very same names entering the lists here. These individuals, and especially their assumptions of power and back channel obscuriantianism, have cost us many, many editors. Filiocht is simply another name to add to the roll call of "driven off by chumminess in the private channels." Geogre 16:34, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

I'm sorry, Geogre, but I've reviewed Filiocht's contributions up to shortly before he left on his break. Your statements cannot be reconciled with what I found there; I see no evidence of dissatisfaction with Wikipedia in his user page or user talk page, and his stated reason (according to his own edits, made in February) for his extended break was illness. However, I see no point in continuing this discussion. You are putting words in the mouth of an absent Wikipedian, words of strong import for which you have not offered any validation. If Filiocht wishes his opinions to be known, he may do so. Kelly Martin (talk) 16:51, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

I also happen to know why Filiocht left, and I concur with Geogre completely. You see Kelly you really don't know very much about what is going on here at all. Giano 18:12, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

Nor did anyone bother telling her, or the Arbitration Committee, or Jimbo, until just now. I'm sorry Giano, but you've given us no reason to believe you, and even if you had, a decision made nine months ago in a different context is of dubious relevance. I still don't see why Geogre brought it up, but I think it would be a courtesy to drop it. Mackensen (talk) 18:23, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

Is Kelly Martin omniscient? How would she know information that apparently was not placed in any public location, then? If Filiocht chose to leave the project for reasons other than what he stated publicly its not unreasonable to think that others accepted the public reasons as the "real" reason. Syrthiss 18:24, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

And this is how red herrings get chewed. I was not trying to prosecute Kelly Martin on this. Doc had very foolishly suggested that all is well because democracy reigns in ArbCom...or it seemed that way to me...but he combined that with an insult toward me -- that I was making it all up, that I was putting on airs and trying to speak for people. Well, if Doc himself hadn't been so eager to archive the entire discussion, he would have seen a list of names of people leaving or left due to Tony Sidaway, Kelly Martin, and a general feeling that this particular ArbCom was running in private circles. In my defense I pointed out that, not only was it not democracy, people who had been picked for that ArbCom had left in disgust. It is true. How do I know this? Well, Filiocht and I were friends. What he said to me was not in confidence, but it was in private. I do not feel that I am violating trust in revealing it, but I feel that I would by going into archives. However, it simply doesn't matter if I'm believed or not. I'm sure Giano knows that it is true, and I'm sure Paul August does, too, although he cannot corroborate now... as he has been driven off by Tony Sidaway's behavior and ArbCom's rush to support him and denounce all who question it. If you folks think I'm generally a liar, then you will think so now, too. If you do not, then you may consider this evidence. Filiocht did have an illness as well, and when it occurred he thought that it was a great excuse to kiss off the site and wipe the dust from his feet. Some people run for ArbCom because they like power. Some because they are driven to it out of horror at the way things have been going. If you think Filiocht was the former instead of the latter, you haven't been reading his talk pages at all. Geogre 19:12, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

Silent Masses checking in

Speaking as one of the (until now) silent masses, the ArbCom has my full respect. I haven't the time to thoroughly examine every case, but in every one I have examined, the ArbCom has issued a fair, equitable, and cogent ruling. Their rulings almost without fail strike a careful balance between conciliation and punishment, and between understanding and steadfastness. I have a great respect for those who devote so much of their time to dealing with the worst Wikipedia has to offer. Powers ^T 13:00, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

As long as the silent are speaking, I think some folks are doing this issue real disfavor by being so dramatic. There are real issues here but the rhetoric is so over heated that they are obscured. Whenever I read ArbCom material they mostly come off as level headed people dealing with long running problems. They seem to get it mostly right. The real issue here is that some high profile admins have been curt, dismissive and rude long before anyone said anything about boils or ill-informed populace. I don't know how Kelly and Tony got to this point but if they weren't so mean spirited and rude sometimes we wouldn't be having this conversation. And this is coming from someone who at one time admired both of them for their ability to cut through to the heart of issues. Kelly seems to have access to high level private conversations that I for one don't trust her in at all (anymore). I'd like to see people dial back the heat a little. Rx StrangeLove 13:37, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

100% correct. --badlydrawnjeff talk 15:52, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

Yep. This happens all too frequently- there's a real dispute that probably needs resolved, but a few participants go over-the-top with it. Then, the whole issue is dismissed as silliness by people who see only the over-the-top parts, and don't recognize the true dispute. The issue of Tony Sidaway's allegedly disruptive behavior is important- if his critics are correct, he's causing huge damage to the project. Trying to get people to shut up about it instead of dealing with the problem hasn't worked in the past, so I'm not sure why anyone would want to try that again. Friday (talk) 16:03, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

I agree with the above comments to some extent, and mostly with the need for the rhetoric to be toned down. Yes, there are some problems that are cropping up (and I agree that Kelly and Tony both have communication issues with non-admins, and sometimes with admins, that really need to be dealt with to avoid fueling drama). Do we need to rise up against the man? That's not quite the level we need to go to. Folks like Giano have points to be made, but calling for the guillotine stirs the pot too much. There needs to be some rational, less heated discussion to avoid people getting defensive, and thus shooting back. Tony Fox (arf!) 16:11, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

I've come to believe that this is frequently intentional- When Tony is criticized, for example, he lashes out with insults and/or blocks in hopes of getting his critics to respond in kind, and appear unreasonable. That way, he or someone else can come in, delete the discussion, and brush off the entire episode as the silly whining of unreasonable editors. Perhaps skill in applying this technique is part of what has allowed this problem to linger for so long? Friday (talk) 16:30, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

I'd love to see you, or anyone else, try actually proving that. Some people just have a natural "talent" for unintentionally escalating situations. He does have communication issues, but accusing him of intentionally running a scheme like that is outright paranoia. --tjstrf 16:36, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

You're right in that we cannot know someone else's mind- all we can observe is their editing behavior. I'm certainly willing to admit that perhaps Tony's on-wiki persona is the result of astoundingly bad communcation/social skills, rather than intentionally being manipulative. In the end, it makes little difference which is true- the result is the same. Friday (talk) 16:44, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

Another silently massive person here. I've been silent and not spoken up out of fear, not from admins or arbcom but from the very folks calling for their heads. It's like a witchhunt out here, and frankly I didn't want to be lumped into the 'sycophantic minion' crowd or some such. Now that we're confronting it, though, I don't think Tony was out of line, I do think Giano was/is wandering into personal attack territory and that George is beginning to join him (amongst others) with their attacks on certain admins and arbcom, I think good admins are getting drawn into the same behavior here, and I think this whole section ought to be archived and dropped off the page. There is nothing, absolutely nothing that's been done by any single admin or group of admins that truly calls for an uprising against the authority here. And I'm stopping here, because I'm getting worked up now. --InkSplotch 13:49, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

• • Please inform me, on my page, if you prefer, of any time I near personal attacks. I have been angry, but anger is not an insult. My anger has pretty consistently been roused by abuse of process, not persons, but I will concur that I have nothing nice to say about James F, who came first to AN to announce that anyone in favor of a 24 hour block of Tony Sidaway was an idiot. I confined myself to my personal observations. I have, indeed, never once had a pleasant conversation with him. I have, indeed, never seen his comments on project space and felt they were moderating or moderate. That is my opinion, and I do not call for anyone to step down at this point, even if I cannot see any good being done by some. It would have been easy to ride the waves into attacking territory, but the closest I know of coming is in my reply to Doc, and that in reply to his accusation that I am putting on airs. I have pointedly avoided replying to Kelly's accusation that I am becoming a diva, as I regard her allegation as being pretty hard to sustain. However, I think it's pretty important that this not be dropped off the page. Geogre 15:58, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

The kind of thing I consider to be boardering on personal attacks are comments like this[15]. It's certainly possible I'm looking at the idea of "personal attacks" differently than most, but I've never really bought the idea that a politely worded insult is less of an insult. I look at your second bullet point ("Whoever said...") and to my mind it's a very serious allegation of misconduct and impropriety that, without the evidence to support something like an RFAr, is a personal attack. It's a similar viewpoint, I believe, that led Tony to block Giano in the first place. It's also the sort of thing that's isolated the folks over at sites like WR. If someone has the evidence to support such claims, in a calm and reasonable manner, it should be delivered through the resolution process. If ArbCom itself is a member, than a special kind of RFC should be created for it. But in my time here I've seen a lot of quiet grudges simmering in the background, resentment fueled by "everyone knows that..." but no one will take steps to resolve it. And this thread on AN isn't taking steps, it's just sound and fury, but everyone's so riled up right now it can't hope to accomplish anything. Geogre, your early comments in this fray were very calm and reasonable, and I've never seen any evidence you hold a grudge against anyone before...I hope you don't come out of this with them. --InkSplotch 18:29, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

I think there are issues with arbcom, such as the process taking too long and some of the recent emergency desysoppings have been questionable imho. However I don't see any evidence that the people on arbcom aren't fair-minded hard-working Wikipedians. Also, we did elect them and will have an opportunity to speak again on this issue soon. Perhaps, if there's nothing wrong with the arbitrators, there might be a few improvements necessary in the system. Indeed, it would be very helpful now if we could stop talking about personalities and focussed on procedures. --kingboyk 16:35, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

While I'm not sure regarding the anger toward ArbCom (especially since the most glaring personality issues have not been brought before the body (not that it's stopped them from action before)), I'm not sure I can agree with your idea of it being helpful to move from personalities to procedures. The procedures are largely okay, when done properly. The problem is the personalities who either a) abuse said procedures, or b) consider them above said procedures, either consciously or unconsciously. --badlydrawnjeff talk 16:41, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

Another mass of silence speaking here :-). While the ArbCom system can always be improved--like everything at Wikipedia, it is a work in process--I don't think drastic change is needed and I generally support the current system. IMHO, this whole episode appears to be another of the endless dramas that pop up here all the time. Editors and admins act like the world will end over every personal disputes and use these disputes to try and push through needed "reforms." Sometimes these reforms work well, sometimes they don't. Do be aware, though, that only a small percentage of the 1000 plus admins here have been involved in this debate/arguement. However, once those involved in this debate use this as a pretense to push through reform of ArbCom or any other Wikipedia policies they will discover these "silent masses." While the silent masses don't take part in every personal drama on Wikipedia, we do stand up and take notice if ill-considered reforms are attempted. As a result, I'd suggest any reformers seek out admins and editors who have not been involved in this debate and seek their opinions on possible reforms. Best, --Alabamaboy 16:50, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

Are we suffering from topic drift? I don't see the point in "taking on" ArbCom - as others have said, they do great work at a difficult job the vast majority of the time. The only issue I have with them is that they haven't, so far, done much to discourage sociopathic behavior from some admins - which is fair in a way, because the first step is to try to address it through less formal channels, which has failed. Now we've got to a point that that we, as a community, have to stop coddling and encouraging such behavior through inaction or further attempts to convince those who just won't listen. I don't see that any kind of "revolution" or major reform needs to happen; just civility needs to be made a priority that we care about, and that needs to apply to the brute squad as much as it does to the rank and file. Personally, I don't care if the relevant conversations happen on or off wiki, so long as the message is conveyed to those who need to hear it that disrespect and contempt are simply not ok, in any case, ever. -GTBacchus^(talk) 18:33, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

A silent mass of one. -- Drini 20:12, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

Request to archive

This isn't going anywhere. We've devolved to a meditation on the nature of power on Wikipedia. I think that's a sure a sign as any that no actual constructive action is going to occur. If dispute resolution is needed, there's WP:RFC or WP:RFAR. If arbitrators need to be replaced, you can email Jimbo or wait until the December elections. I believe there are three seats open, including the one I vacated. If you intend to seize power, you'll need a rogue steward to make it effective. If you want to develop proposals for devolving Arbcom's authority over desysopings (an authority expressly given to it by the community, please see Stevertigo's last RfA), then Geogre, Dmcdevit, and I have each, independently, developed proposals that would do that. Otherwise, I think it's time to step back and wonder how things got this far, and all pledge to try and be polite to one another. For this to be effective, admins have to stop threatening to block people, and non-admins have to stop claiming that if they speak up admins will block them. Neither one represents helpful or respectful behavior. Mackensen (talk) 17:44, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

I suggest archiving and agreeing to a voluntary 72 hour period of silence on these topics. No comments by any user on this topic on any policy page. Give everyone a chance to collect their wits and come back with more collaborative goals and methods for resolving these issues. FloNight 18:10, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

If the arbcom is really considering Tony's case, I urge them to actually open a case on it. If people had a right place to present evidence (and hopefully not just more general debate) maybe we'd see less of it in questionable-relevant places. Friday (talk) 18:27, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

Surely the right place is RFAR? This page isn't part of the dispute-resolution process (if anything, it's part of the dispute-generation process). Mackensen (talk) 18:30, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

Object, people need to voice out their opinions and be aware of what's going on. -- Grafikm ^(AutoGRAF) 18:28, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

That's not the purpose of this page, and they've been doing that for four days. Pray tell, what is going on, at this stage? Mackensen (talk) 18:30, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

Move it to a subpage, then, so that the real business of the admins' noticeboard can resume. Guy 18:31, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

Dissent

I strongly disagree with a move to archive. This has always, always, always been about "the nature of power," because the community had decided what to do -- sanction Tony Sidaway for 24 hr with a block -- and then found magical friends appearing to unblock him and tell everyone else to shut up. However, the reason this should not be archived is that, first, there are no trolls here. No one who has posted to this is an anon whining about abuse. Second, there are very significant issues with the specific behavior of some people that affect the ongoing operation of Wikipedia here. Third, this is NOT (sorry for shouting, but I've tried everything else to get attention) a referrendum on ArbCom. This is and always has been about back channel communication and clubbishness overriding the operation of the administrators. Fourth, those who say that they will get blocked for unpopular views have legitimate grounds for saying so, as the Giano case attests in glorious black and blue. Finally, there are unresolved matters still pending. Do not declare silence triumphant or force peace, please. Geogre 18:36, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

• Geogre, with all due respect, what you are describing cries out for an arbitration case. You aren't going to stop people talking to each other off-wiki. For heaven's sake, you and Giano obviously do so as well, since you've got back channel information on the real reason Filiocht left. What are you trying to accomplish here? Mackensen (talk) 18:39, 20 September 2006 (UTC)
  • I think it would be unproductive to come out against off-wiki communication. It's really just disrespect, dismissiveness and contempt displayed by some admins towards those they deem "useless" or "idiots" or whatever that's the problem. ArbCom is only part of the issue because, after enough of us have tried other steps of dispute resolution, they're the only ones with the power to do anything about it. As for off-wiki communication, if some piece of IRC chat or email or backroom dealmaking can persuade Tony Sidaway to treat others with respect and dignity, even when he disagrees with them and thinks they're obviously wrong, then God bless it. -GTBacchus^(talk) 18:50, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

Above, I suggested a kind of RFC, only because I'm seeing dispairity amongst "who" is involved. There's Tony, who really hasn't been mentioned too much recently, Kelly, ArbCom...and so long as ArbCom itself is partly involved, an RFAr might not be able to resolve everyone's issues. I think it's Giano who's spoken out most against ArbCom (relatively), so I'd like to know if he feels an ArbCom case could work before we shuffle off there. I do think, at the least, an RFC could make a dent in the cries of "the community thinks this!" --InkSplotch 19:01, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

• A second note. Who unblocked him? [16] -- Mackensen (talk) 18:52, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

I believe it was Giano's 3 hr block that was overturned, Tony's 24 hr block held. --InkSplotch 19:01, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

Interestingly, Tony volunteered to take one for the project [17] and not request an unblock. Whether 3 hours or 24 hours, we should all consider doing this to minimize the drama, even when we feel legitimately wronged. NoSeptember 20:28, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

I thought that went without saying. The fact that he needed to point out that he would not unblock himself says something all by itself. Friday (talk) 20:31, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

Who said anything about unblocking himself? Admins can request an {{unblock}} too. He chose not to. NoSeptember 20:43, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

I concur. I took his statement as a request for other admins not to unblock him. Peeking at his block log, I don't see any instance where he's unblocked himself before (except for a block test he performed a year ago). Do you really feel he was making a point about such a thing? --InkSplotch 20:59, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

Ahh, alright. I read it one way, others read it a different way. He certainly could have been saying that he wouldn't ask others to unblock him. To me, his comment about sitting it out made it sound like he was implying that he could be blocked only by his own consent, which struck me as an inappropriate way for an editor to think. Friday (talk) 21:07, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

• Perhaps the things I'm describing cry out for an RFAR, but the reason none has been pressed is that the particular individuals involved have demonstrated immunity from arbitration and dispute resolution generally. I don't know about Giano, but I know that Filiocht and I were e-mailing off wiki based on our similar interests in literature, but the real reason is largely buried in diffs on my talk page and Filiocht's. In other words, there was nothing off wiki about wiki; there was personal material about his attitude toward Wikipedia off wiki, as it should be. I have generally been the brake man when it comes to these things. See below, though, for some of the crux of the matter. The private mailing list that is never even indexed to the wiki is pretty bad, and the way that some people can manipulate it is worse.
• I'll probably get edit conflicts keeping this open so long, but let me run down my own version of the chronology of the last 4 days. The Giano heading was somewhat unsatisfactorily closed by Giano's leaving. Tony came back to get in a new dig. Five to six administrators felt that his comments were far, far over the line into disruption and imposed a 24 hour block. (This was not for "personal attack," as those who advocated the block are not generally ones who believe in "NPA" as a blocking offense, but for disruption.) The matters were unhappily at an ebb at that point.
• James F and Kelly showed up, as if by magic, to tell us that we were all "idiots" and being discussed in the channels of power. What good that was supposed to do, I cannot imagine, but the effect was to flush to the fore the issue that arbitration is being viewed by both supporters and foes as government. The place fairly erupted at that point, and I certainly did. The real subject, the subject that was always submerged and in the subtext, had been and now explicitly was, "Can members of ArbCom, or former members, or clerks, be treated differently from those they block because they're buddies with each other?" The answer from me is, "no."
• The further subtext, unfortunately, remains the Carnildo "affair." (Like an extramarital affair, something illicit and dirty did go on, there, IMO.) Because RFA is "broken," the solution of expedience but not good experience was "beaurocrats decide against the consensus." No one wants to ask the project how to fix RFA. No one even tries. Just more power in fewer hands, more edicts from fewer mouths, none of which can be queried.
• All involved, in my view, need this discussion. Tony's "lanced boil" analogy is finally apt. Geogre 18:56, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

time for RfDA

it seems clear that the time has now come for a standardized process to deal with requests for de-admining. This has been suggested in the past and been turned down as trollbait. The issues here are with admins burning out: formerly great editors who have reached a point where they need a break. At least that's the gist as I capture it. We need an RfDA procedure with all the checks and balances that were suggested before (you need consensus to defrock people, you cannot nominate the same admin every other week, etc.) Seriously, we need this now, to get back the trust of the community in the admin population. dab (ᛏ) 18:53, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

Okay, give me more details. Who would you use it on right now, and what metric would you use to determine if it had been successful (and thus the named admin should be desysopped)? --Cyde Weys 19:05, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

Those are not helpful questions. More to the point is whether such a procedure should be established to examine any cases, without at this stage targeting specific individuals. However, as has been pointed out before, ArbCom deals with such extreme situations already. I think far more viable would be a means of dealing with intermediate situations. If ArbCom is the higher court, dealing with severe cases, then there needs to be a lower court to deal with cases that do not merit de-sysopping, but may merit a formal warning, a temporary or partial suspension of admin powers, or a block. It would be a lot less messier and a lot quicker than RfC. It would also provide a means of addressing grievances that users have. It would not be a very useful avenue for trolls, as the "lower court" could choose not to take the case even to the stage of involving the admin, but to sanction the troll instead. Tyrenius 02:00, 21 September 2006 (UTC)

New idea

I've written up an idea that's been floating around in my head for a few days and finally gelled this morning: Administrative nullification. Comments and flames welcomed. Best, Mackensen (talk) 12:15, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

Me likes. -- Drini 14:30, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

For a length of time to be determined, an administrator will be asked to stop using the tools. Who will be doing the asking? Unless the admin in question has done something particularly egregious, which should go through the arbcom anyway, I can see having contentious arguments between groups of admins and users as to whether or not what was done even warrants nullification (for example, policy wonks vs IAR wonks). Overall, though, I think it's a good idea. --Kbdank71 15:59, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

You might want to read through User:Dmcdevit/Proposal for desysopping, which has some similar ideas. jaco♫plane 16:07, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

Well, if we're making proposals, I have had one, too. I'm not sure that it's a thing for the general site to argue over as much as it is a proposal for a reconsideration of how ArbCom thinks about what it does. It's here[18] for those who care. Geogre 15:36, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

The general idea of "easy way for desysopping (voluntarily or otherwise) for some time" seems to be common to these proposals. I think it's a good idea, as any proposal to desysop indefinitely is likely to fail. (Liberatore, 2006). 17:05, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

My own goal is to have an expiring demotion, as Guy put it. When people demoted have to go through an RFA again, it beomes a truly onerous process. That's why I'm suggesting that, as we have blocks that go 24 hr, 48 hr, etc., we have demotions that time out, though not for such brief periods. What I'm really advocating is a change of mindset from ArbCom. It would demystify ArbCom a bit and make the stick held over administrators potentially shorter (and therefore easier to swing), but it's all possible already. Geogre 17:33, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

I wouldn't be opposed to the idea. The more power that devolves from the center, the better. Mackensen (talk) 17:37, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

Well then, let's just eliminate admins altogether. With all due respect, I just see so many pitfalls, as Doc says. We can't agree on how admins should be desysopped or when they should be...so let's open up another discussion on how to temporarily desysop them so we can all disagree on that. It's pointless. --Woohookitty^(meow) 10:01, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

These ideas all have the same fatal flaw. You will not get any consensus to desysop an admin (temporary or otherwise) unless the case is so clearcut that arbcom would deal with it anyway. Take, for insstance, Tony_Sidaway who has obviously annoyed a lot of people right now, but I still think you'd get no consensus to take any specific action. I, for one, would oppose it. In short any of these systems will generate a lot of heated debate, but they'll never do anything that AC wouldn't have done anyway. --Doc 18:06, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

Exactly. --Woohookitty^(meow) 10:01, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

(edit conflict) The two proposals seem similar in general theory - Mackensen's suggests a voluntary break from admin tasks while Geogre's has it enforced by temporary removal of powers. I'd suggest leaving the details (such as duration of 'hiatus') to the ArbCom to determine on a case by case basis, but otherwise see no problem with either... or both. ArbCom currently tells users 'stay away from articles on this subject' and then only blocks if the user does not... they could similarly tell an admin 'stay away from deletions of this type' or 'check with other admins before doing anything that is foreseeably likely to be very controversial' (applying Mackensen's concept to only a particular type of admin activity) and only enacting Geogre's 'enforced vacation' if they violated the injunction. Heck, I'd like to see this concept applied as general practice without any sort of punitive element to it. We all have our particular areas that we feel strongly about and valid reasons to be involved in, but when things get heated walking far enough away to get fresh perspective is a good thing. More... 'go do something else while tempers cool' than 'you are wrong and we are gonna block you'. 'Andy Mabbet, stop working on Birmingham articles for now', 'SPUI, go work on something other than roads for a while', 'Cyde, you need to walk away from userboxes for now', 'CBD, you should leave off defending blocked users for a while', et cetera. I'd much rather see, 'ok you all stay away from this subject for a week', as a standard response to edit wars and incivility than warnings or blocks. (after conflict) I wonder if this latter would address Doc's concern - would people really object if it were a way of saying 'there is a problem on this issue and everyone involved needs to walk away from it for a while' rather than parcelling out 'blame' and 'punishment'. --CBD 18:19, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

I'll echo Doc's concerns, and explain. I don't think this will work precisely because in the kinds of situations like this, sides are drawn. And sides think they're right, and cannot fathom why no one else can see it. Those with the Admin bit, using the admin bit feel they're protecting the project in these situations and telling someone like that to back off rarely works. I doubt you'd get two sides to agree at once, and I doubt you'd get anyone to be recognized as a mediating influence (i.e., completly non-partisan) outside of ArbCom. And sadly, the current kerfluffle above around Tony seems to have drug the ArbCom into it, so I'm not sure how that one will shake out. I'm sorry, this looks to me like a bit of instruction creep which isn't likely to really solve any problems, even though it's very well intentioned. --InkSplotch 18:31, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

Conrad has the thread of what I'm getting at here. Administrators need to take breaks from administrating now and then. If anyone's looked at my contributions, they'll note that my first reaction after my...unpleasantness...on the noticeboard a few days back was to go and start a new article (still a stub, but I'm going to take some pictures this week). Re InkSplotch, I want to avoid instruction creep as much as possible. Formal processes, enshrined policies, page listings...let's avoid all that. What we need is a way to tell an administrator that he or she needs to go something else, and for that administrator to listen. Mackensen (talk) 18:46, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

Great, but we should not *force* breaks. As I said before, so many negative assumptions. It's a "one size fits all" type of idea. And what happens if vandals or other people who don't assume good faith try to get someone desysopped? As doc says, who decides that the desysopping be done? If it's other admins, then it's basically the arbcom. I just don't see the point of forcing it. It's very very unwiki. --Woohookitty^(meow) 10:01, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

I'd certainly agree that a "way to tell an administrator to go [do] something else" is a fine thing, but how do you make them listen without resorting to the use of admin tools? Or, rather, how do you make them listen without resorting to admin tools and without inflaming the situation? It's a tactical challenge beyond me, but if you succeed, I'll be fully behind you. Can I ask, is this in direct response to the Tony/Giano situation above, or just sort of tangential? --InkSplotch 20:20, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

I'd been thinking about a workable desysoping idea (if only temporary) for a while. It's not a direct response, but it certainly influenced my thoughts. Mackensen (talk) 20:30, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

I agree with the importance of taking breaks. One good way of taking a break from the Wikipedia admin grind, and other users that you might be in conflict with is poking around some of the other projects. Perhaps we could encourage people to do that (not "get the hell off en wp" but "hey, have you seen this Wikibook on <<insert user's favourite topic>>") the wub "?!" 21:55, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

Can we call it 'going on wiki-walkabout'? :] --CBD 00:31, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

I was thinking more like "Wiki-rambling" or some such. Random article patrol is an oddly soothing exercise sometimes. Amazing what you find sometimes. Mackensen (talk) 03:59, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

I've been watching RfA for a long time and here's my observation. Many people do lots of cheap edits and then stop after they "win" RfA in order to turn into political chatterboxes. An important reason for desysoping should be lack of main space edits (other then reversions). Those admins who write no new articles tend to ignore the names of quality editors. They know only those wikipedians with whom they chat for hours on IRC. If they have no recent experience in editing Wikipedia, what's the point of their presiding over the project? Wikipedia for them is a maiden aunts' tea party. After all, we are here to write an encyclopaedia. All the rest is of secondary importance. --Ghirla ^-трёп- 08:27, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

But there is still useful work that can be done outside the article space e.g whatever you think about the arbcom and its clerks, they are doing a job that benefits the encyclopedia by resolving disputes. XfD voting and closing has a direct effect, and welcoming newbies is important too. And you want to desysop those who mainly revert vandalism? Well good luck writing new articles whilst trying to keep vandals off all your old ones on your own. The point is, some people (myself included) might not be particularly good at writing new articles - or just don't feel like it. Users should be able to contribute in areas where they feel able to, if it benefits the encyclopedia. On the other hand I think there should probably be more recognition for "quality editors" - I have to admit I had barely heard of Giano before all this, which seems a real shame. the wub "?!" 09:56, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

Yep. Again. Just too many negative assumptions by those who want this. --Woohookitty^(meow) 10:01, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

• So, because the admins will disagree, there is no point in trying? Sheesh. My point, if any of those objecting actually read it, is that we use blocks freely and demotion almost never. This is the opposite of what it should be. If I lose the buttons, I can still edit. If I lose the ability to edit, I can't use the buttons. ArbCom's informal practice is to reserve demotion for something horrible. That's a ridiculous situation, but it's understandable given the horrors of RFA. That's why I suggest either that ArbCom start issuing temporary demotions freely (and therefore Tony, for example, would have been popped about 8 times this year by now) with no "shame on you! you shall never be a trusted user again" involved or, if ArbCom cannot face this, a collective remedy through administrator review. Any misuse of the buttons should mean a loss of those buttons, precisely as an injunctive remedy. The fact that the administrators won't agree is irrelevant. It's easy to go Eeyore. It's hard to make things better. One thing is absolutely clear: the status quo is not working. Geogre 10:55, 20 September 2006 (UTC)
• Breaks and sabbaticals are an old-ish idea. I, for one, have floated the "reappointment by review once a year" idea before, with lots of attenuations to prevent the lynchings of RFA, and breaks are a fine thing. In fact, a break to write something is good. A break to clear backlogs is vital. A break to simply do any one of the thousands of things that are part of the admin task kit without any conversation on project pages would be wonderful. However, that's informal, and we need only announce a league to get that done. I will endorse any such, but it will be meaningless for me to do so, given my usual activity on Wikipedia. Geogre 10:55, 20 September 2006 (UTC)
  • A once-yearly administrator review would add twenty RFAs a week. No thank you. --Cyde Weys 21:34, 20 September 2006 (UTC)
    • Reviewing 1000 admins every year would be too much. So what about a yearly review on certain admins only when another admin (or two, or three) request it? There are probably 950 admins no one has any serious complaints about, so this would lessen the number of reviews quite a bit. --Conti|✉ 21:54, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

ArbCom deals with extreme situations already. I think far more viable would be a means of dealing with intermediate situations. If ArbCom is the higher court, dealing with severe cases, then there needs to be a lower court to deal with cases that do not merit de-sysopping, but may merit a formal warning, a temporary or partial suspension of admin powers, or a block. It would be a lot less messier and a lot quicker than RfC. It would also provide a means of addressing grievances that users have. It would not be a very useful avenue for trolls, as the "lower court" could choose not to take the case even to the stage of involving the admin, but to sanction the troll instead. Tyrenius 21:15, 21 September 2006 (UTC)

This whole thing about the amount of editing and admin tasks an admin does makes me uneasy. No-one should force anyone to make the choice of what balance they choose to make between such tasks. Even those who write lots of articles are often specialists, and there are areas of Wikipedia they never go near. Similarly, admins can be specialists and not know anything about certain areas. Maybe a recommendation should be for all admins to keep a record on their user page of what work they actually do on-wiki (people who do Office and Foundation work can say this as well, and give some idea of how much this reduces their on-wiki work). I realise the contributions log says this, but I think it is good practice for admins to sit down and review what they did that day/week and write a summary for their user page (or a subpage). This can then be used when reviewing how productive an admin has been. If the summary for a particular week says "I was wheel-warring with other admins and spent hours arguing on IRC and the Administrator's noticeboard" - then it might be fair to say that, for whatever reason, this has not been a very productive week for that admin. If certain admins have a consistent record of this, then they could be flagged in some way. Of course, the problem with getting the admin themselves to write this summary is that they may put political spin on what happened, but this might be a good thing as it would bring more focus to disagreements, rather than having them springing up from the actual incidents. Getting every admin to do this might be counter-productive, so I suggest that an alternative is to have someone (ArbCom or some lower body) to have the power to suggest or require an admin over which there has been controversy to not just explain what happened in that particular incident, but to be asked to write an account of all your actions over the past month and submit it for review. Failure to do this could be met by desysopping. My guess is that if this "write an essay about what you've done" was a possible sanction, then people might be more careful about what they do. Possibly ArbCom already ask for this sort of thing. I haven't checked. Carcharoth 09:18, 22 September 2006 (UTC)

Another point, is that this could be entirely voluntary. People can then see for themselves whether a particular admin is the sort of admin that carefully reviews his/her actions, or whether they are the sort of admin that frantically rushes from one 'fire' to another, trying to put them all out and overstretching themselves. I understand that admins are overloaded at present, but I have argued in the past that just saying that will not make things any better. It is a valid excuse, but only if something is also being done to reduce the workload. Simply repeating, in a year's time, the tired old excuse - "admins have lots to do and not enough time to do x" - will show that no progress has been made. Carcharoth 10:01, 22 September 2006 (UTC)

Wiki-sabbatical?

How about to have a rule that every admin should be temporarily de-sysopped for two months in a year? They should be strongly encourage to use this sabbatical to contribute into the visible areas of the main space. Writing FAs, writing GA, writing DYK-able new articles, mass correction of the category tree - you name it. The benefits are two-fold. The admins would get an insight into the life of a productive editor. You know, fencing off POV-pushers without edit warring, attempts to reach a consensus with the orphanbot, DR with people whose Good Faith you have reasons to doubt. They would also got a vanity list to show those pesky editors then asked about their mainspace contributions. abakharev 09:23, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

I don't see the value of that. This would be pre-emptive. I mean, I am an admin and I mostly do "regular editor" stuff. And I know I'm not the only one. There are just alot of assumptions in your proposal that I don't agree with. It's assuming that admins don't ever act like regular editors or that all they do is act like admins. It's completely incorrect. Even arbcom members do "regular editor" stuff. I am just against anything that makes negative assumptions about anyone, including admins. I think all stuff like this does is feed into the idea that's out there that we're not "real" editors and that we don't care about the quality of the encyclopedia. --Woohookitty^(meow) 09:55, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

I am sort of doing some editing as well. But I could certainly do more if not have to do the admin staff as well as to monitor the bloody 7K+ watchlist. Still if you look a few sections higher then there are people expressing contempt over respectful admins having much less contributions to the main space. Maybe I should make a wikisabbatical for myself abakharev 10:09, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

I don't do any "regular editing", so a forced sabbatical would just mean someone else would need to take up the work at CFD that I'm no longer able to do. Nor would I attempt to do any "regular editing". I'd just sit on the sidelines until my time was up. Not sure how others feel about this, but I don't see how it would help, really. --Kbdank71 11:09, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

I find this statement disappointing and actually alarming. Admins need to edit not just "admin". Mike _{(T C)} 03:40, 21 September 2006 (UTC)

Woohookitty, you edit, and I edit. I am quite sure that quite a few of the people advocating unilateralism and power don't do much editing. It's not an assumption as much as inductive reasoning. However, if it is wrong, then the effect would be nil. I.e. people would already satisfy it and not be affected at all. There are some people who would be tremendously discomfitted, though. What is galling is the very real, very easily seen, attitude expressed by many of those who have gotten a little drunk from monolog on private mailing lists and IRC. That said, I do not and have not supported a requirement like this. It ought to simply be a thing we do, and I see the usefulness of calls like this as more rhetorical than actual. Geogre 11:01, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

I gotcha and agree. And you know, no one is forced to do admin chores. I've taken time off from doing admin stuff several times. --Woohookitty^(meow) 07:36, 21 September 2006 (UTC)

The Kelly Martin offer

Kelly Martin offered, on her user talk page and on the -- surely now archived -- section of AN entitled "Giano," to step down from being an administrator if Bishonen and I and two others would ask her to. I did not answer immediately because, despite being called a diva, being told that I'm under scrutiny, etc., I take these matters seriously. Bishonen has a longer and much better thought out query and petition on user talk:Kelly Martin than I will here, but here is what I would request.

I request that Kelly Martin voluntarily give up subscription to the Arbitration Committee mailing list. I request that she cease advocacy on any and all particular arbitration matters where she is not named as a party, although, of course, she should continue to express her opinions and offer her advice on the best way forward for the arbitration committee in general. I would request this of all former arbitrators no longer on the committee as well, but they have not made any similar offers as Kelly.

I do not feel that Kelly should lose her administrator status. I personally think that her worst moves have been due to a claquishness surrounding the invincible and invisible back channels rather than casual editing, development work, or scanning name space, so, therefore, I feel that if she were to forego association with officially unofficial ArbCom semi-membership, those problems would not arise in the first place. She is entirely free to accept or decline this request, and I will believe in her follow-through, whatever position she takes. Geogre 18:43, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

How much discussion there is about checkuser and oversight issues on the ArbCom mailing list would be relevant here, no? NoSeptember 18:52, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

I certainly think that the arbitrator's mailing list is a valid topic here. Kelly is a developer, I believe, and all developers have checkuser. Unless someone wants to speak to Kelly's qualifications as a developer, and I certainly don't, I have been silent on that. (The grim irony that developers have no hesitation in telling writers how to act, while writers rarely tell the developers how to behave is probably not germane.) Geogre 19:01, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

Developer status, checkuser and oversight are separate functions (the idea was in part to remove these tasks from the developer's workload). We have a shortage of active checkusers as it is, and Kelly is one of the few active ones. If discussion of oversight and checkuser cases takes place on the ArbCom mailing list, then access is important. For example, if Kelly did a checkuser on a puppetmaster and discovered it was related to a party in an ArbCom case, that would certainly be worthy of a private discussion on the mailing list. NoSeptember 19:31, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

That's an excellent point, but having one-way access (write access) or pass-through wouldn't be a huge deal. The point is that I feel that she has already demonstrated inappropriate use of the priviledge. I also feel that it has led her to some of the most controversial and insupportable actions. That's my feeling and remains my request. We do need more check users, but I no longer feel that an advantage in one place means that a disadvantage in another has to be ignored. Geogre 20:57, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

Regarding "Inappropriate use of privilege": You've mentioned this before, and so have others, but I've never seen anyone really explain what that means. I realize evidence might be hard to come by, seeing as neither Kelly nor the ArbCom ever discuss what is actually said on the mailing list. The most I've seen is whenever Kelly even mentions a topic has appeared on the list, an assumption is often made that 1)She mentioned it, 2)She's leading or even dominating the discussion and 3)Is biased in doing so. But no one will actually say what she's actually done, or how she's abused this privilege. It seems a pretty bold request without more support. --InkSplotch 21:15, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

They're not saying it because it's clearly said already. You'll now have to go to the /Giano subpage to find it, though, as some folks are sure that this matter is no longer worth discussion. Therefore, if you need this outlined, please go there. If I say anything here, it will no doubt be immediately archived in the interests of peace. Geogre 22:00, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

I am, sadly, familiar with the contents of the /Giano subpage, and I do not see it as clearly as you do. I see many things implied, but very little proven. --InkSplotch 22:16, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

My offer to Giano and his friends is hereby revoked. Kelly Martin (talk) 13:37, 21 September 2006 (UTC)

Gosh, thank for, err, clarifying your offer. May I ask what the purpose of this little charade was? Friday (talk) 13:49, 21 September 2006 (UTC)

There is no alternative but self-appointed leaders' stepping aside

An interesting Kelly's "revocation" was as sincere as, I believe, an "appeal for peace" Tony posted at his talk. Remember how this all started. The Carnildo debacle brought some fierce dissenting voices and Tony, Kelly and others from the IRC cabal responded in an utterly defiant, disrespecting, heavy-handed and combative way that included even blocks of the two most voiceful opponents who did no wrong but expressed their disgust with the "authorities". To be disgusted and to say so in proper terms is no incivility and they knew it. That outcry was incredible. That started the avalanche. To end this all, the easiest thing is for people who compromised their credibility within community to go. By those I mean the non-editing self-appointed "leadership" who spend all their time at IRC discussing on how to "save" wikipedia from its editors.

Tony, Kelly lost the trust of the Wikipedia editors and they must go to end this. The overall perception is the Wikipedia needs a pro-editor's reform, which was disgustingly called by Tony a "coup d'etat" (telling, huh?). Coup d'etat or not, the change is needed. To end this all, the small group of self-appointed self-important "leaders" who lost the trust of the editors must step aside peacefully in the interest of Wikipedia and this warring will end. There are enough admins to Police trolls without Tony's involvement which only sparks controversies. There are enough arbitrators to discuss cases without the emeritus one telling them what to do at the secret mailing lists, and, especially, treating the entire editing community with an utter contempt and self-righteousness. If anyone wants to hang out at IRC they can do so by all means but this has nothing to do with what's good for Wikipedia. Sociolizing is their business and no one demands "dumping" friends. The so-called leadership, after its stepping aside would be as welcome as anyone to edit mainspace, something they perhaps forgot how to do.

For Wikipedia, certain figures needs replaced. Their going peacefully will end the drama at once. Kelly made an insincere offer trying to bully others in the "all or nothing" game. When she did not get what she wanted she withdrew the offer showing that her offer was dishonest to begin with. Whatever tricks are tried now, it is too late and things will not be the way they were before. Some has to be removed from their "appearance" of being leaders of Wikipedia because they are not leaders no more for a while. --Irpen 21:00, 21 September 2006 (UTC)

For those of you who have missed it, see Kelly's request for desysopping and the User Rights Log. AnnH ♫ 21:48, 21 September 2006 (UTC)

This is not good. --FloNight 22:05, 21 September 2006 (UTC)

Worse. It's a goddamn shame. I have my disagreements with Kelly on policy issues, and a Wikibreak and a reappraisal of her role in the community would have been wonderful... but this is a lot further than I (bearing in mind I'm not an admin or all that important to the project) would have been willing to endorse. When you have a productive employee who puts out a huge amount of vital work and helped build the damned project but isn't being a great team player at the moment, you don't fire the employee; you give the employee a vacation and a decent talking to, maybe a demotion if it's necessary. Jeez... I need to think about this. Captainktainer * Talk 22:18, 21 September 2006 (UTC)

She's too good, and too dedicated, to stay far away. I'm convinced that Kelly will continue to serve the WikiMedia projects. --Tony Sidaway 22:14, 21 September 2006 (UTC)

I'm torn between saying "Nice to know that whining loud and long enough will get you your way..." and just cursing. --tjstrf 22:18, 21 September 2006 (UTC)

It seems like the only people who leave voluntarily are those I wish would stay. Tom Harrison ^Talk 23:24, 21 September 2006 (UTC)

I guess that's because you don't know who the people who actually write this project are. Sorry, how many articles did you contribute for this project? One non-writing admin is out, another one instantly takes his place. People willing to do admin tasks, and willing to exert power and judge/block people, are a dime a dozen. Although I defended Kelly in the latest debacle, I see absolutely no tragedy in her moving on. I share Dbachmann's opinion that arbitrators should be replaced on a regular basis to prevent the emergence of a classe politique. --Ghirla ^-трёп- 07:02, 22 September 2006 (UTC)

"I guess that's because you don't know who the people who actually write this project are. Sorry, how many articles did you contribute for this project?" What is the basis for this attack? Go and look at my contributions if you care. Tom Harrison ^Talk 13:32, 22 September 2006 (UTC)

Why do you label my innocent question about the articles written by you as an attack? Is there something wrong about them? Please assume good faith. --Ghirla ^-трёп- 14:00, 22 September 2006 (UTC)

I must congratulate you on the fact that you can make that statement without being a hypocrite. That's a definite first. --tjstrf 07:14, 22 September 2006 (UTC)

I hope that your casual accusations of hypocrisy are well-grounded. Otherwise, please check WP:NPA. --Ghirla ^-трёп- 07:21, 22 September 2006 (UTC)

Stop this passive-aggressive nonsense at once. You clearly asked a question in an unpleasant way: "I guess that's because you don't know who the people who actually write this project are. Sorry, how many articles did you contribute for this project?" You have no right to turn around and start accusing people of being uncivil after basically questioning everything they've ever done for the project. You are not helping this discussion; please leave it if you are going to continue acting in this fashion. --Cyde Weys 14:13, 22 September 2006 (UTC)

I consider this "shut up and go away" manner of talk plain insulting. Your comments here or here smack of that good old Tony-Sidaway-style rudeness. I see no point in sharing my opinions with those who is not interested in writing new articles and therefore leave this board in disgust. --Ghirla ^-трёп- 14:21, 22 September 2006 (UTC)

Actually, I'm honestly saying you are not a hypocrite. There was no sarcasm in that statement whatsoever. Far too often, the people saying "go write articles" are just using that as a trite phrase to try dismissing the admins as busybodies for attempting to chastise them. --tjstrf 07:26, 22 September 2006 (UTC)

Sorry, I'd misconstrued you. --Ghirla ^-трёп- 07:45, 22 September 2006 (UTC)

You have no idea of the work that Kelly and others do for Wikimedia behind the scenes, often almost totally unappreciated by most Wikipedia editors. --ⁿɡ͡b Nick Boalch\^talk 13:43, 22 September 2006 (UTC)

I would love to appreciate the work that others do behind the scene. I am sure there are ways to say on someone's user page that they also spend time doing x, y, and z off-wiki, but still to do with Wikipedia (sometimes details might be sensitive and not openly stated, which is understandable). That could lead to people appreciating each other more. But just not saying anything and then bringing it up at moments like this as a defensive response to an 'attack' doesn't feel right. Carcharoth 18:19, 22 September 2006 (UTC)

Actually, I said all the time that I trust Kelly does a lot of work behind the scenes. I have no doubts that she will be elected into the Board. But I would be glad to see some work on the scene as well. Actually, I would be happy if IRC had been closed down and our dear apparatchiks returned back to WP editing in order to debate the issues more openly. It's not pleasant to see Politburo members caring about nothing but behind-the-scenes politics and shouting at "mere" editors. The most effective remedy against nomenklatura is glasnost. --Ghirla ^-трёп- 14:00, 22 September 2006 (UTC)

You implied that the only contributors we should value are those who 'actually write this project'. As I've pointed out before, there are a lot of us doing extremely valuable work that doesn't involve actually writing content. All contributions by Wikipedians should be valued. --ⁿɡ͡b Nick Boalch\^talk 14:54, 22 September 2006 (UTC)

Wire pulling and groaning

"I request that she cease advocacy on any and all particular arbitration matters where she is not named as a party" — that is absurd. Even anonymous users are allowed to comment on all arbitration cases. Why should Kelly be gagged?! --Cyde Weys 19:04, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

She's free to reject any part. I meant "advocating for a specific outcome on a specific case" that doesn't involve her. Again, she's free to accept or reject any part. Geogre 19:59, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

So she would not be allowed to add one of those "Comment by uninvolved person" entries which sprout up on just about every single "Request for Arbitration"? As Cyde says above, even anonymous users are allowed to do that. You're coming across more like some sort of bunny boiler than anybody I would want anywhere near me. Stop it now, before someone gets hurt. HTH HAND —Phil | Talk 20:29, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

This has been answered already, but your input, as always, is appreciated. Geogre 20:57, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

"before someone gets hurt" anyone in mind Phil, or just an idle threat? Giano 21:05, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

• Do you even know how to assume good faith anymore? The idea of Phil Boswell causing harm to somebody is absurd. He's trying to de-escalate the situation, as are others. How about you? Mackensen (talk) 21:25, 20 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Mackensen, I regard you as a sane voice here, but I don't think "bunny boiler" and HTH HAND aren't exactly de-escalatory phrases. In fact, they are only matched in sarcasm by my response to them, which is why my response was what it was. Geogre 21:58, 20 September 2006 (UTC)
    • I've often seen Phil append HTH HAND to his comments, so I really wouldn't put much stock in that. I would challenge you to tell me straight up that there's malice in his remark. I suppose if you're looking for malice you'll find it. Mackensen (talk) 22:06, 20 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Absolutely, straight up: accusing me of being insane is fairly malicious. Tell me that you see that as calming, as de-escalating. I'm not looking for offense, and that's why I was simply sarcastic in reply. Impugning all I do and all I have done with a comparison to a dangerously insane person is supposed to be a vague bit of malice? I'm stunned. Geogre 02:45, 21 September 2006 (UTC)
• I think people are just getting so exasperated that you claim to be the voice of the "trodden upon" yet the actions you want taken are so harsh and draconian that no one else is stepping up to support them. --Cyde Weys 21:32, 20 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Who are you talking to? The measures I'm suggesting? You would prefer it if Kelly lost her administrator's status? Again: she is free to accept or reject, so I don't see how I'm doing much of anything except answering her offer. You are free to be aghast at whatever you wish, though, as you are free to concentrate on a phrase instead of a sentence. Let's hear from Kelly, eh? Geogre 21:58, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

• "You're coming across more like some sort of bunny boiler" good one, I'll try to rememeber that when I'm next trying to "de-escalate a situation" thanks for that tip Mackensen. Giano 21:34, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

• Mmmmm, boiled bunny ... --Cyde Weys 21:36, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

• Especially good with juniper berries and olives. Giano 22:28, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

Giano, what is it that you want? After all of this, what is it that you want? That so much ruckus came of out a three-hour block reflects poorly on quite a few people–there's more than enough blame to go around. But that's over and done with. I repeat myself, what is it that you want? Mackensen (talk) 22:01, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

• a perfect world - how about you? Giano 22:28, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

• For starters, a sign you still took this seriously. Mackensen (talk) 22:32, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

Mackensen's post above sums up the situation neatly. As for Kelly Martin, she is a highly regarded sysop, and I would not want her to be de-sysopped. --LiverpoolCommander 22:05, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

Excuse me, but your account is ten days old, and all of your edits (all of them) are to templates. If Doc is outraged and shocked that I speak for others, then he must be totally speechless at what you've just said. Geogre 02:42, 21 September 2006 (UTC)

She's like the little girl who had a little curl. When she's good, she's very good, but when she's bad, she's horrid. The point is that I have not advocated demotion, either. I have asked her to surrender the arbitrator-l priviledge and to cease advocating on cases that she's not involved in. Inasmuch as Kelly is an even more highly respected developer, I hope she will continue to perform that job in the sterling manner that she has so far. I also think that she can and does perform administrative duties well, and I hope she continues to. I personally feel the problems come from private clubs and presumptive speech on behalf of an arbitration committee that she is not a part of. That's my view. Geogre 22:11, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

You know, you could deal with this by remembering that she no more speaks for the committee than I, or any other former arbitrator, does. If you think she's doing a good job with the tools then by all means let's all stop calling for her head. Mackensen (talk) 22:14, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

I'm not calling for her head. I'm calling for her access to the ArbCom mailing list. She can keep her head. Apparently, she is now predicting -- and it sure looks like it's meant to sound official -- that I am heading for a big blocking. She offered to lose her admin status, and I do not think she should lose that status, as I don't think she has been particularly bad with using those tools. I do think that coming to AN to inform us that we are being examined and breaching the privacy of the arbitrator's mailing list partially to create a threat was an exceptionally vulgar and obvious abuse of that priviledge, and I see her prior assurances that she is the center of the project, the indispensible person, and the voice of the ArbCom (tell me that you haven't seen her pull this schtick, please) as related. I'm only asking for one thing, and it's surely not her head. I was trying to be nice, but access to that mailing list must be valuable beyond gold or pearls if it's being treated with such dread. Geogre 22:49, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

Oh don't be so dramatic, no-one wants her head, Geogre has explained perfectly well what is required, now do calm down and stop over dramatisig please. Giano 22:28, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

Oh really? Could've fooled me. Mackensen (talk) 22:32, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

Without commenting on Kelly one way or the other, I think that all former arbitrators should either be completely removed from the workingss of ArbCom, or abstain from making any comments about arbitration cases outside of the ArbCom mailing list and IRC channel, possibly both. It's not a question of personalities. Keeping up apperances is an important part of conflict resolution, and the current ill-defined role of former arbitrators isn't helping with that. Zocky | picture popups 22:27, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

• No other members of the community are so restricted, and I fail to why people with important background knowledge should be treated any differently. Mackensen (talk) 22:32, 20 September 2006 (UTC)
  • I think it might be a good idea if the ArbCom mailing list was, after a decent interval, made open. I mean an interval of at least a year and possibly longer. It should operate in some way similar to the Thirty year rule under which British government papers are released. I thought about proposing this when seeking election to Arbcom in January and now think it is even more pressing. David | Talk 22:57, 20 September 2006 (UTC)
    • One very basic reason for not doing this is that sensitive (e.g. CheckUser) is sometimes displayed on the list. This cannot be opened up, obviously. Sam Korn ^(smoddy) 23:03, 20 September 2006 (UTC)
      • Then redact them, dear Liza. David | Talk 23:15, 20 September 2006 (UTC)
        • That's a crapload of work though. You'd need a full-time Arbcom-l clerk just to clean up messages from over a year ago to release for public consumption. Considering this is a volunteer project, who would want to spend their time doing that? Who wants to be a censor for year-old messages that are now utterly irrelevant? --Cyde Weys 23:28, 20 September 2006 (UTC)
          • I agree with Zocky on this one. There are certain benefits to having ex-arbitrators on the arbitration list if difficult issues arise, but at the moment, they are being far outweighed by the fact that people who have been voted off the committee or have long resigned and are badly out of touch have almost equal say in arbitration decisions through the arbitration list. I am one of the people who would lose my access, but, while this would be annoying, I think it's for the greater good. As for Dbiv's suggestion - the arbitration list is private for a reason. It gives arbitrators a place to discuss proper solutions among themselves and an appropriate means of discussing often-sensitive issues. Rebecca 00:57, 21 September 2006 (UTC)
          • Agreeing with Rebecca, there really isn't a compelling reason to keep former arbititors that outweights the ascoiated proplems. . If anyone on the arbitration commitee feels a need to consult them they could presumably email them. Also agreeing that making ArbCom mailing list emails public is not a good idea at this point in time. JoshuaZ 03:07, 21 September 2006 (UTC)
            • It's difficult to agree with Rebecca's characterisation of former arbitrators who edit the wiki daily and have access to the mailing list as "badly out of touch", and of course it's flatly incorrect to describe them as having "equal say" in arbitration committee decisions. Serving arbitrators have one and only one vote on each motion in a case, provided they are not recused. Former arbitrators have absolutely none. If the current arbitration committee wants to exclude former arbitrators from the list, that's a decision well within their remit, but I hope that they will make such decisions on the basis of good reasoning and informed discussion. --Tony Sidaway 22:29, 21 September 2006 (UTC)
          • No, you're wrong. The real life analogy applies. Jurors cannot request additional people to take part in deliberations on the permanent bais. They can though ask specific question ether from the judge and from the technical experts. Similarly, ArbCom is free to ask for the valuable opinions of whoever they see fit, be it former ArbComers, just respected editors, Tony Sidaway or myself. But it is uttely nonsensial to pick anyone they choose becoming effectively life time arbiters. Same applies to the recused ones. The votes themselves mean little. Much less than the intimate communication. As the saying goes, Those who have the information, control the situation. --Irpen 22:38, 21 September 2006 (UTC)
            • • The Arbitration Committee is not a jury. It is up to the arbitration committee, and the Foundation, to decide who has access to the Committee's mailing list and they will make their own determination on this. --Tony Sidaway 23:02, 21 September 2006 (UTC)
            • I do not imply that it is a jury. I am bringing up an analogy only. This is an entirely sensible expectation, similarly to my voiced earlier expectation of conduct of the recused arbitrator on specific cases. It is derived from a simple common sense and the sense of propriety. While request for the privacy of the ArbCom deliberations is sensible, it is equally sensible to have a transparency and complete clarity of the procedure. I was sure that cases were decided by the non-recused sitting ArbCom members rather than with an active input of the recused (!), former and other close to the IRC-group Wikipedians. And I bet a bottle of good Cognac (sent to the address provided) that this is what an entire community sees sensible. I suggest you ask Fred, the only ArbCommer with the real life legal experience, what he thinks of the participation of the recused ArbCommers in the discussions of the cases from which they recused. --Irpen 23:14, 21 September 2006 (UTC)
              • The community doesn't decide who is on the arbitration committee mailing list. The community doesn't decide how the arbitration commmittee makes it decisions. --Tony Sidaway 23:19, 21 September 2006 (UTC)
                • Funny, I remember the community voting on the Arbitration Policy, which discusses in some detail how decisions are finalized. Nitpick aside, I agree that they basically have the authority to run their mailing as they see fit. My preference, as I have stated in the past, is that the ArbCom mailing list be closed to people who are not current Arbs, except if people are invited to address specific issues of specific cases. I think doing so gives the process a greater appearance of fairness and mitigates against potential abuses. But as I say, that is my preference, and they are certainly free to ignore me. Dragons flight 23:38, 21 September 2006 (UTC)
            • The community is entitled to demand that the procedures (not the actual deliberations) are clear and transparent. Participation of the recused arbitrators in the regular discussions of the specific cases, participation of former arbitrators, fired arbitrators, voted out arbitrators in specific case decision in also an utter nonsense and defies any sense of normalcy. The community does not decide how the ArbCom makes its decisions but the community is entitled to have the assurances that the decisions are made by ArbCom and only ArbCom members, not the nobody knows who is in the mailing list. Access to information and being able to input is tantamount to the decision making. Votes themselves, compared to the regular input in discussions, means very little. --Irpen 23:33, 21 September 2006 (UTC)
              • I disagree that participation of former arbitrators is "an utter nonsense and defies any sense of normalcy." Of course it would be sensible to exclude untrustworthy persons from the mailing list. I imagine that the arbitration committee, with which we trust the ultimate mechanism of dispute resolution, is capable of doing that. We can sure that decisions are made only by arbitration committee members because their votes are recorded publicly. --Tony Sidaway 01:14, 22 September 2006 (UTC)
                • If the arbcom wishes to open themselves up to council from the experience of retired arbcom members, that's their prerogative, and probably leads to more fair decision making. If the ex-members make dumb/unfair/wrong suggestions, then the Arbcom should obviously disregard them. --tjstrf 01:21, 22 September 2006 (UTC)
            • Tony Sidaway: your response just does not make sense. There are plenty of sensible Wikipedians around who enjoy a firm support and trust of the community. Never would ArbCom agree, I imagine, to allow their access to their list, right or wrong question aside. --Irpen 01:40, 22 September 2006 (UTC)
            • tjstrf, indeed if ArbCom wants to hear an advise from anyone, including the retired members, this is all fine and dandy. The issue here is a permanent and inapropriate involvement in the intimate deliberation of not only non-ArbCommers but even of the recused ArbCommers which defies any sense of the recusal. --Irpen 01:40, 22 September 2006 (UTC)
              • Is the ability to make comments really that big a deal? I could understand kicking people off the list who were de-Arbcommed for abuse of their access to special information, but if they merely quit, or were "fired" for reasons unrelated to impropriety with information, then can't the Arbcom be trusted as to whether they want them on the list? --tjstrf 02:37, 22 September 2006 (UTC)
                • ArbCom members are (more or less) elected. Some former members are voted out of office or do not run for reelection knowing it is unlikely they would succeed. Hence, the community could be interpreted as saying: "I trusted you in the past, but I don't trust you any more". Thus it can be potentially upsetting to the community (and has the appearance of cabalism) to know that such individuals continue to participate in private ArbCom discussions. In essence, the community is denied any mechanism of removing people from those discussions even though this runs contrary to the fact that community trust is supposed to be a criteria for membership. Dragons flight 03:34, 22 September 2006 (UTC)
                  • If you think a person is untrustworthy, do it properly. Dispute resolution exists for a purpose,and it's to resolve precisely this kind of problem. A straight vote cannot possibly be interpreted to mean "this person is untrustworthy." Voters can reject candidates for many reasons and they're not obliged to vote for a candidate merely because they find them trustworthy. --Tony Sidaway 03:42, 22 September 2006 (UTC)
                    • Surely there are candidates who can be considered unsuitable for ArbCom and yet not be involved in a situation where DR is appropriate/useful. To draw an analogy, I can vote against an real life elected official if I dislike the job he is doing even though he actions are perfectly legal (perhaps I feel his priorities are in the wrong place). And if he were voted out of office, I would then be comforted to know that he is no longer actively involved in setting policy. By contrast, former arbcoms continue to be involved in some opaque and poorly defined way. In addition, given the necessary secrecy of the ArbCom list, once someone passes into the status of ex-Arb there is no evidence on which to even base a dispute resolution case. Even if I suspected someone was a undesirable influence on ArbCom based on my opinion of their past actions, I would have no way of knowing the degree to which they influenced the current ArbCom. Dragons flight 04:48, 22 September 2006 (UTC)
                      • It looks like this is just turning into another incarnation of the administrator term limits idea, only this time applied to the ArbCom. Have we come up with a solution or demonstrated need for either supposed problem at this point? --tjstrf 06:09, 22 September 2006 (UTC)
                        • By design, ArbCom is finite in number and supposed to turn over at fixed times. Dragons flight 06:25, 22 September 2006 (UTC)
                        • If you're ever worried that a non-arbitrator may be voting on arbitration decisions, you can look at his contiributions and see that he isn't. This never happens. Remember also that the arbitration committee isn't an elected panel of representatives; its role is to exercise delegated dispute resolution power originally exercised by Jimbo. The community intentionally does not have much scope to interfere with the decisions of the arbitrators. Ideally it should have absolutely none. --Tony Sidaway 09:58, 22 September 2006 (UTC)
              • My response makes sense, but not if you assume that all trustworthy persons must have access to the mailing list. Such an assumption would be absurd. --Tony Sidaway 03:21, 22 September 2006 (UTC)
  • It has become necessary, with Tony's argument, to point something out that I had not wished to mention: some "former arbcom" members are former members because, as they say themselves, they were "fired" from ArbCom. Should people specifically removed from ArbCom still be arbitrating, only where no one can know? Apparently, this arbitration committee has decided that they do, and that is a direct statement that this group believes that it is not bound by the rest of the project. That's isolation as well as arrogance. In fact, Tony knows as well as I do that "this arbcom" is not a uniform body with uniform points of view, and many did not want "arbitrator emeriti" to have access. However, those in favor made the debate poisonous enough that they dropped it in the interests of peace. (There's that again: "Let's just shut up. Move along. Get back to work.") It's rare, but sometimes it is worth having the stink. (For anyone new, there is a big, long history to these users and personalities that the old timers keep referring to in short hand. I'm sorry about that. Most folks are trying to avoid more warring, despite what the others might say off wiki. I would not bring this up, except that Tony is using his knowledge of history to try to blow some things past you guys. I say this not to try to pick a fight with him, either, but merely because, if you're going to bring up the past of when arbcom "made" the decision (it actually avoided the decision), then let's get all of the information out there.) Geogre 10:07, 22 September 2006 (UTC)
    • I've no idea what you're talking about, geogre. I have no idea whether or not the current arbitration committee or any of its predecessors has ever held a debate on whether to include former arbitrators on the list, although it seems reasonable to assume, as you seem to do, that such discussions have taken place. If such a debate has been held, then neither you nor I are in any position to know, and we're certainly unlikely to know whether or not anyone "made the debate poisonous enough that they [proponents of exclusion] dropped it in the interests of peace." They're basically self-governing and I'm happy to leave it up to them to decide how they run their own show. --Tony Sidaway 11:51, 22 September 2006 (UTC)
      • We have discussed it, but never in a heated way, Fred Bauder 18:00, 23 September 2006 (UTC)

Moving along

Apparently Geogre and Giano don't want Kelly Martin desysoped. This is the latest, based on the above. I apologize if I've misread something. Instead, we're to remove her access to the Arbcom mailing list–if she consents, according to Geogre. Apparently that's to tbe outcome of this trial by fire. I hope it was worth it to all concerned. Now can we please, finally, bring the matter to a close? Is there anyone left to offend? Mackensen (talk) 22:40, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

• This is why I opposed archiving. No, Mackensen, that is not all. That is all that escaped the "let's archive it now, now, now so we can say it's over" purge. All that was left over was, "Kelly Martin promised to give up her admin powers if Bishonen, Geogre, and two other editors in good standing asked her to." Well, I figured that access to the mailing list was much less important than administrative status, but, it turns out, she was not being sincere in her offer. On her talk page, she has explained that she's far too important to the Foundation itself to allow something like loss of the mailing list to occur, much less losing her administrative rights, which, paradoxically, she says she does not use. Never mind that, though. The point is that Kelly Martin was not the issue. Kelly Martin betraying the contents of the arbitrator's mailing list partially to intimidate people was certainly one issue, but it was not "all." It is because this betrayal of the privilidge occurred right before our eyes (or did, but now it's archived for peace) that I felt it was a certain and reasonable thing to ask. Silly me! I confined my suggestion to Kelly Martin because Kelly Martin offered. I assumed good faith. Apparently, the offer was not made in good faith. Now, of course, the discussion of whether former arbitrators keep getting access to the list will go back...to the list where no one can contribute except the involved parties and where we will never again know, unless Kelly decides again to tell us that we're being noted and discussed and disapproved of there. I apologize for taking such a harsh tone, but being intentionally reductive of the issues, and I can't read your comments any other way, is pretty much a slap in the face. Geogre 02:32, 21 September 2006 (UTC)

I think the issues raised in this dispute are far greater than this, and shouldn't be quite so easily dismissed. I for one, in the wake of this week's discussions, believe that the practice of keeping ex-arbitrators on arbcom-l should be discontinued. I think we'd be even better off if we had a complete spill of the committee in December, but I guess that might be being a bit hopeful. Rebecca 01:01, 21 September 2006 (UTC)

Why a complete spill? Is AC doing a poor job? They were elected for 3 years, they are only 1/6 into that. Do we have to have a revolution every time a few people get upset. WP:NOT Trotskyite. --Doc 01:16, 21 September 2006 (UTC)

Why do you keep saying these things, Doc? They were not elected in the first place, and they were not elected for 3 years in the second place. Also, the answer is an emphatic "yes" to whether they're doing a poor job, but this has not been about whether ArbCom itself is a good institution or bad. (It's a bad institution because it doesn't scale. It took 3 months for a very recent and clearcut case to go through, and then the only two active arbitrators allowed their personal annoyance at one person to lead them to some bizarre and incendiary proposals.) The question is, "Should people be unimpeachable because they hang out all day with certain arbitrators who allow their likes and dislikes to stand far in front of the policies of Wikipedia." We have observed, here, that Tony Sidaway experienced a whole 24 hours block for disruption and then had one member of ArbCom and one "not really a member" come along and try to cow people into quiescence. Was that behavior appropriate? No. Is there remedy? No, apparently, and you say that we should be happy because, no matter how poorly an "elected" ArbCom member performs that one sprinkling of magic pixie dust means 3 years of unindictability. At least that's what it seems like you're saying, repeatedly. Geogre 02:37, 21 September 2006 (UTC)

I had a much more modest proposal that was that retired and recused arbitrators refrain from discussing the ongoing cases along the private channels. See Wikipedia talk:Arbitration policy#Recusals and Wikipedia talk:Requests for arbitration#Question on the recusal. I was more naive last week and at that time the kinds of responses I got surprized me. I would not think so now but I invite you to take a look at the proposal and its perception. It is directly related to this issue. --Irpen 01:15, 21 September 2006 (UTC)

I don't see a fundamental problem with former arbitrators discussing matters with ArbCom members if the current members iniate for some reason and even I have discussed matters related to ArbCom issues with different members of the ArbCom when I felt that something was too sensitive to be put out in the open. The real issue here is putting the former arbitrators on the list by default which seems to be much more problematic. As for George's comment- on the whole the ArbCom has been doing very well I think and by and large are doing a good job. It is unreasonable to remove Abritrators in an out of process fashion unless we can establish a very clear consensus for the matter. As for the issues with Tony, I suspect that he is on a short leash at the moment. Presumably if a similar incident occurs again I hope the ArbCom will be very willing to look into it. JoshuaZ 03:13, 21 September 2006 (UTC)

Kelly seems like she's in pretty close contact with a lot of the arbcom members... [19] (starting at 3:30), so it may not matter whether she's still on the mailing list or not? I was a bit surprised when I first heard that Kelly was still on the list (she mentioned it during Wikimania 2006), but if the arbcom members are comfortable discussing things with/in front of her, then maybe that's their business? --Interiot 03:57, 21 September 2006 (UTC)

Indeed, strangely enough some of those people are my (gasp) friends. And, heavens, we talk about Wikipedia from time to time. And not always on the arbcom channel or the arbcom mailing list, either. Kelly Martin (talk) 05:18, 21 September 2006 (UTC)

It seems to me that the Arbcom have no choice but to discuss it with you! In fact choice seems to be a thing in very short demand here Giano 06:27, 21 September 2006 (UTC)

Kelly, that's exactly the problem, at least in my eyes. Arbitration is one of the few kinds of official business we have and mentioning friendships in this context smacks of cronyism. 13:18, 21 September 2006 (UTC)

If you wish me to make the choice between having friends and being an active member of Wikipedia, I will choose to have friends. Bye. Kelly Martin (talk) 13:32, 21 September 2006 (UTC)

I hope nobody is trying to change friendships... Mindspillage and Gmaxwell will always have the option of talking about arbcom cases over the dinner table. And cronyism, if it exists, is countered not by changing friendships but by disclosing that they exist. On the other hand, Kelly remaining on the mailing list is potentially optional, and her presence on the official list may give the appearance of unelected influence to some. On the other hand, it might be domineering to tell the arbcom how to do its job, especially if the changes proposed have little practical difference. --Interiot 15:20, 21 September 2006 (UTC)

In no way did I suggest that anybody should stop being friends. What I did say, and continue to think, is that mentioning your friendships is not helpful when you are involved in these situations just as mentioning that you're an admin is not helpful when you're involved in a content dispute. Zocky | picture popups 21:10, 21 September 2006 (UTC)

Disclosing of relationships is a tricky matter. After the comment about Mindspillage and Gmaxwell (see above), I went to their user pages. There is no indicaton there that they have the option of "talking about arbcom cases over the dinner table". I would never have known this if Interiot had not said this. Similarly, despite having encountered both Angela and Tim Starling around Wikipedia, it was only on visiting their user pages (and reading the recent news from the Wikipedia Signpost) that I realised they live together. Now, I'm in no way asking for such disclosures to be compulsory, but it might be something for those whose circle of real life friends include Wikipedians to remember the different dynamic this creates, especially when an unsuspecting bystander suddenly realises that these people know each other.

Regarding Kelly Martin's comments about chosing between friends and Wikipedia, it is worth remembering that many Wikipedians are not as good friends with other Wikipedians as she seems to be. For many of them, this "choice" is not even an option. Empathising with other Wikipedians in this way (ie. realising that not all Wikipedians are like you - having close friends you chat to on IRC, etc) is worth keeping in mind before making such sweeping statements. And bringing friendships into policy discussions just seems silly.

Finally, for what it is worth, I hope Kelly Martin doesn't stay away for long. Though, I'm trying to remember what she can do now? She voluntarily left English Wikipedia and asked for all rights to be removed. Does that include access to the ArbCom mailing list (which after all is what started this all off)? I've seen lots of threats to leave over the years, some of which were followed through, and some of which were not. Personally, I hope I never get to the stage where I will feel the need to announce my exit. Quietly slipping out the back door seems much more dignified. Carcharoth 00:17, 22 September 2006 (UTC)

She, um, actually did slip out the back door pretty quietly, without announcing it. --Interiot 01:34, 22 September 2006 (UTC)

I'm actually referring to the "Bye" comment a few paragraphs up. I'm aware that someone else actually pointed out the voluntary giving up of her rights, but that "Bye" comment qualifies this as an "announced exit" for me. Carcharoth 08:50, 22 September 2006 (UTC)

Carcharoth, you touch off several very good questions. Access to the ArbCom mailing list and other close media of communication was the only thing that sparked this controversy and those things seemed most dear to K. M. judging from her statements. And it is totally unclear whether she is removed from these communications at last.

No one would ever mind her being in En-wiki as a contributor. Too bad that she wrote so little to the mainspace lately and with all the time free from those secret dealings she may actually start fulfilling the main purpose of this project, that is writing.

However, properness of retaining an adminship after these controversies seemed indeed questionable and I assume that with the loss of the adminship she loses the access to the AdminIRC but even for that we hear no confirmation.

As for the checkuser, personally I would welcome more checkusers, included Kelly. Sockpuppetry is a huge problem and WP:RFCU is always backlogged. If K. M. comes on record saying it loud and clear that she never revealed any of the obtained checkuser info during her behind the scenes discussions (other than in ArbCom deliberations) that is in IRC and other private communication on non-ArbCom matters, I would be first to support restoration of her checkuser rights should she be interested. --Irpen 00:48, 22 September 2006 (UTC)

Let's leave "senators for life" to the Second Empire. Without exception, ex-members of ArbCom simply don't belong on the mailing-list. Exceptions for favored members should never be made: that way there's absolutely nothing personal about it. All these duties are privileges.--Wetman 01:20, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

Look at what you folks have done

I am in no way involved in this issue, but having witnessed everything from start to finish, and having seen what has transpired out of this, I feel compelled to issue a statement. I simply can't believe that Giano would demand Kelly Martin & Jdforrester to give up any or all of their rights, despite the fact that it was Tony Sidaway, not KM or JDF, who blocked Giano and caused him to initially announce his departure. Soon, more users join in, and what was originally a thread about Tony Sidaway's block of Giano quickly turned into an anti-KM thread. KM had already given up several positions in the wake of the userbox controversy, and still people wouldn't leave her alone. And now she's gone. I can't believe what you folks have done. IMO, this is worse than the Linuxbeak controversy in late May/early June, and the worst incident of this kind since RickK's departure more than a year ago. I'm pretty sure if RickK had seen through or heard of this, he'd be laughing at us now. This is exactly the type of incident that has the greatest tendency to drive the best users away. I think if people had simply taken a few days off to allow the wounds to heal naturally, instead of aggressively pursuing this issue until someone is flogged or beheaded, this incident would've been just like most other incidents, and no big deal would've been made out of it. But now that I've seen what has transpired, I wouldn't be surprised if even my days here are numbered. Scobell302 00:10, 22 September 2006 (UTC)

"Oh, do get off it". --Jeffrey O. Gustafson - Shazaam! - <*> 00:23, 22 September 2006 (UTC)

"I wouldn't be surprised if even my days here are numbered"? My advise - please contribute a couple of articles to the project. It is a healthy experience and the only purpose of the whole project. Not meetups and discussions, but writing an encyclopaedia. Also, you are welcome to check User_talk:Kelly_Martin/Archives/2006_September#Drama queens. --Ghirla ^-трёп- 07:08, 22 September 2006 (UTC)

I would really appreciate it if you followed your own advice. I don't mind people who act superior as long as they're putting their money where their mouth is, but if you are going to be hypocritical about it, deriding actions in the same sentence as you are taking them, then I do mind it a bit. You also need to understand that there's more to Wikipedia than merely writing articles. Being instrumental in setting up a beneficial policy (such as semi-protection, for instance) ultimately saves thousands of man-hours in the long-run, way more time than you spend working on writing articles. Also, I'm a bot developer on pyWikipediaBot. You'd probably never even know this because it doesn't show up in my on-wiki contribs, only the pyWiki CVS logs, but trust me, it is some valuable work. So please stop evaluating people merely by what shows up in their contribs, as there is soooo much other stuff they could be doing that is helpful too. --Cyde Weys 14:20, 22 September 2006 (UTC)

Cyde, it is true that I have yet to see a single helpful bot in this project, but I genuinely respect your hard work and the work of other janitors who are given tools to fend off vandals and trolls from my articles. It is an important menial labour and those who actually write encyclopaedia should be grateful to those who make bots for correcting spelling mistakes or replacing "colour" with "color" or some other small useful things. My only meaning was that prolific editors are not entitled to suffer condescending or intimidating attitudes which some of the admins exhibited in the above part of the discussion. For my own part, I would not like to be commanded by an would-be honorary assistant of the bureaucrat's yes-man emeritus' clerk. I had no intention to offend anyone and want to bring my apologies to anyone who thought that I dismiss admins as useless. God forbid! If I can't express my ideas clearly, I'd better keep away from talkspace. --Ghirla ^-трёп- 15:18, 22 September 2006 (UTC)

I am glad we had this discussion. Of course there was a lot of unnecessary bickering, but that is the way we have always done things. My faith in the strength of the community to hold its own is somewhat restored. As for KM, she made an offer, loudly and clearly. People took up the offer and asked her to renounce certain privileges in the interest of restoring trust. If she prefers to leave the project over following up on her offer, the offer looks disingenious in retrospect. I do not think anybody wanted to bully KM out of the project, and as we know (see Giano, too), such sudden exits in anger more often than not turn out to be not so much actual exits as dramatic effects intended to emphasize the user's frustration. The lesson here, as per Ghirla, is that we must avoid at all cost the separation of the community into a writing vs. an administrating caste, lest we go the way of the Soviet Union (hatching apparatchiks), hence my recent subscription to Wikipedia:Campaign for less bull more writing. dab (ᛏ) 08:11, 22 September 2006 (UTC)

For any who want to see my view of my own involvement in this mess, I've put it at User_talk:Geogre in "Why_is_Geogre_suddenly_a_troll?__An_attempt_at_a_narrative." I think that Kelly somewhat inserted herself into the mix and tried to force a crisis over her centrality. The subject was never Kelly Martin. It wasn't even quite Tony Sidaway. At least for me, the subject was always "let's shut down discussion and decide for the project that the project wants what we want." Kelly and James Forrester attempted to silence and, at least in conversation, contravene the normal function of Wikipedia by intimidating administrators carrying out licit 24 hour blocks. (By the way, for any bad language or sloppy writing in that section, I broke my usual rule of 'write drunk, edit sober' for that. I apologize for the low quality of the prose.) Geogre 09:58, 22 September 2006 (UTC)

Those of us actually working on the encyclopedia will not miss Kelly Martin. Her bullying behavior (which I have often observed from Tony as well) only caused disruption and bitter feelings. Kelly and Tony have done much harm to this project simply by lending so much credence to the idea of "cabalism". Although I have never been the target of their bullying, I have witnessed it many times, and wondered why it was so tolerated. Kaldari 00:41, 27 September 2006 (UTC)