WIKIPEDIA TALK:REQUESTS FOR ARBITRATION GIANO WORKSHOP FINDINGS OF FACT

Subpage

I think that it's a mistyake to have this as a subpage. Discussion is already fragmented enough, this can only exacerbate that problem. - brenneman ^{L} 00:00, 29 September 2006 (UTC) reply

And yet you're also complaining that it's too big because people are perverse enough to insist on adding proposed findings of fact to it! I do wish you would stop this constant stream of small-minded and self-contradictory complaints. -- Tony Sidaway

I just found this sub-page after having coresponding with two other related pages at some length. Oh and Pot->Kettle->Black. Hamster Sandwich 00:47, 30 September 2006 (UTC) reply

That would make some sense if I was in the habit of making petty complaints. :) -- Tony Sidaway

And yet here we are. You are complaining because I complained about your complaint concerning brennerman's complaint. The world goes around and around. And dosen't "brennerman's complaint" just sound a bijou little title for a book? (To brennerman: I'll share the publishing with you!) Hamster Sandwich 02:24, 30 September 2006 (UTC) reply
- (Well, some people seem to think that their own biographies would be entitled, The Chosen. (Sorry, that was irresistable.) Geogre 03:13, 30 September 2006 (UTC) ) reply

I think I'll leave you fellows to negotiate the details of publishing. -- Tony Sidaway 04:00, 30 September 2006 (UTC) reply

John Reid 04:55, 1 October 2006 (UTC) reply

Summary attempt

I have been trying to make sense of this case. It is difficult because so much has been written and so much of it is tangential. Mostly for my own benefit, I'm going to try to summarize it here and see if I can get agreement from the interested parties.

I believe the heart of the matter is a disagreement over how discussions are believed to be held and decisions believed to be made on Wikipedia. On one side we have primarily Giano and also Geogre and possibly Bishonen who allege secret proceedings and cabalism. On the other side we have primarily Tony Sidaway who believes such allegations are incivil.

This disagreement is complicated by the personalities involved. Neither Giano nor Tony Sidaway is a stranger to controversy, and neither backs down from a fight.

There is also much discussion of Camildo's RFA, which launched the whole affair. The question here is which takes precedence, the community consensus as expressed in the voting, or the bureaucrats' judgement.

My opinions on these matters:

I feel that Giano's accusations are bizarre and not worth responding to. I do not believe they are incivil. We can hardly forbid him from thinking such thoughts, and to forbid him from voicing them would set a bad precedent. Although I have little respect for what he is saying (and less for how he is saying it) I do feel he has a right to say it and let others judge for themselves.

Tony Sidaway is attracting a great deal of attention in this case, like others, because of his inflammatory style. However, I think that focusing on his personality is a distraction and a mistake. Just as Giano is not going to stop being Giano, Tony is not going to stop being Tony. Ultimately the only remedy for an offender who does not change is banning from Wikipedia, and in my opinion neither user deserves that.

I believe the Camildo RFA was not originally part of this RFAr, but attention has been drawn to it by John Reid. Although he and many others expected community consensus as expressed in the voting would be the determinant of granting Admin status, I do not believe it was ever policy that Bureaucrats existed only to rubberstamp the community decision. It needs to be clarified here, and I hope the ArbCom can do this, that the voting in the RFA process is taken into consideration, but the final decision is made by the Bureaucrats. This is my understanding of the policy as it stands and I feel that John Reid had expectations not inline with the policy. Whether this should be the policy cannot be decided here, and perhaps should be taken up at the Village Pump.

Please assume good faith. Having the opinion that secret machinations are happening is itself a failure to assume good faith. Accusations of trolling and seeking to inflame are a failure to assume good faith. Power struggles and demand for close oversight reflect a lack of trust and a failure to assume good faith. Comments about "content-producing editors" versus others are divisive and a failure to assume good faith.

Do you want Giano to leave? Do you want Tony to leave? Do you want Camildo to leave? Kelly Martin has already left. The only sanction Wikipedia can apply is forcing people to leave, and some leave quite willingly before it is applied. When you fight and argue here, think about what you are trying to accomplish. Will you kill Wikipedia to save it?

-- Ideogram 23:03, 1 October 2006 (UTC) reply

Giano politics

After close reading of Giano's talk page I think I have a better understanding of him. Basically, he's a Marxist; he believes that when the workers own the means of production the class struggle will end. Now, I respect Marx a great deal but I never understood why he thought there would be an end to class struggle (I admit I have not studied him closely). In my experience power is never shared equally, and there are always conflicts of interests of different individuals or groups (classes). Thus class struggle is fundamental human nature and will not go away until human nature changes, and we become like ants or something.

I don't think Giano and friends are effective revolutionaries; the only power they have is the power to leave, and I happen to think Wikipedia will survive without them. But even if Giano and friends were to achieve power their ruling class of high-edit-count editors would quickly come to oppress the "janitorial class" of "non-editing admins" whom they hold in contempt. It's just human nature to choose one's self-interest over others when they conflict.

Even if you think janitorial admins deserve to be oppressed, I don't see how you could get volunteers. People volunteer to write articles because it is fun; pretty much anyone can tell you being an admin is no fun. Deny them respect as well and no one will do it.

Anyway I thought I would throw that out there and see if anyone responds. -- Ideogram 10:16, 2 October 2006 (UTC) reply

You really expect someone to dignify that with a response? Sure. It's a truly idiotic analysis is my response, no offence intended. 66.225.253.130 21:54, 2 October 2006 (UTC) reply

Just in case anyone thinks the above response is from me User: Giano here is my IP 81.131.8.61 22:07, 2 October 2006 (UTC) reply

It's an open proxy, so original ips are immaterial. 66.225.253.130 22:25, 2 October 2006 (UTC) reply

You think I'm McCarthyist? That's pretty brilliant yourself. -- Ideogram 22:03, 2 October 2006 (UTC) reply

No, I don't. I'm rather certain it's inadvertant. 66.225.253.130 22:25, 2 October 2006 (UTC) reply

If you wish to engage in more indepth discussion than "idiotic" I will be happy to accommodate you. If not, I won't waste any more time. -- Ideogram 22:45, 2 October 2006 (UTC) reply

Not sure about depth. Basically, your claim that Giano et al. is motivated by political ideology has no basis in fact. 66.225.253.130 23:12, 2 October 2006 (UTC) reply

I don't think that Giano identifies himself as a Marxist. I wouldn't try to claim he has read anything by Marx. I'm primarily using Marxism as an analogy to understand Giano's statements. I think it's pretty clear when Giano says contributing editors are the heart of Wikipedia and admins should not be above them that he is talking about some kind of class struggle. The fact that he feels all that is needed is for contributing editors to have more say and oversight over admins and the struggle will cease has a strong parallel in the statements of Marx. On the basis of this analogy I am able to criticize his belief that this will really be an effective solution. -- Ideogram 23:23, 2 October 2006 (UTC) reply

You said that "basically, he's a Marxist," now you say it is only an analogy, but I think the analogy itself is too loose to be applicable. It's probably best you narrow your efforts in findings of fact rather than abstract analogies. 66.225.253.130 23:31, 2 October 2006 (UTC) reply

Giano can be called a Marxist even if he has never read a word of Marx, if he thinks in terms of class struggles and other Marxist concepts even if he has never heard the terms.

This is not the findings of fact page, it is the talk page for findings of fact. The actual findings of fact page is far too cluttered for me to be able to start a discussion there; I hope that by posting here my ideas will be read and considered by those actually involved in finding facts. -- Ideogram 23:41, 2 October 2006 (UTC) reply

I think you should focus on facts, even here. 66.225.253.130 23:47, 2 October 2006 (UTC) reply

I must disagree. Basically anyone is free to post anything they want here and others are free to read it if it is interesting or ignore it if it is irrelevant. -- Ideogram 00:06, 3 October 2006 (UTC) reply

No one's stopping you, it just seems pointless 66.225.253.130 00:22, 3 October 2006 (UTC) reply

Compared to some things, this entire arbitration is pointless. -- Ideogram 00:36, 3 October 2006 (UTC) reply

Giano, even though I am technically not talking to you right now, I have enough confidence in your character to know you would never stoop so low. -- Ideogram 22:12, 2 October 2006 (UTC) reply