Giano Arbcom case, escalation Options

[Bob Boy]

John254 has filed a request for arbitration regarding Giano II. Prediction - the ArbCom refuses to touch this for fear of a community riot.

[michael]

John254 again? He also started the Zscout370 arbcom request, which is sinking 2/3/0/0. I'd like to see the Arbs just snow it under completely or accept it - I hate to see caes languish and disappear because the Arbs just don't vote.

[Bob Boy]

Oh, look - Giano blocked by Phil Sandifer hours after the issue was at least partly resolved and Giano stops editing. Argument breaks out at Sandifer's talk page and WP:ANI.

UPDATE: Unblocked by Sean William. Sandifer's 72-hour block only lasted an hour. Giano is made of Kevlar covered by Teflon. I wonder if Sandifer will really leave now - he still has the drama-queeny "I've left Wikipedia" statement on the top of his talk page, as well as a heart-rending farewell on his user page from a month ago.

This post has been edited by Bob Boy: Wed 26th December 2007, 6:07am

[SirFozzie]

Sean William unblocks, according to a pretty good ANI consensus, and now Phil is demanding that ArbCom add Sean William to the parties and consider de-adminning/taking away his unblock rights.

[Somey]

This is what these people do for Christmas? Jeez, I thought my life was pathetic!

Anyway, just for the sake of comprehensibility, here's some detail on this. Giano is trying to change this paragraph:

The ethos behind the channel is "You're an admin, you were picked for your judgment. Use it.

To this:

The Arbcom has no control over this channel at all, but as the channel is used to make decisions concerning wikipedia, the ethos behind the channel is "You're an admin, you were picked for your judgment. Use it.

He also tried to remove this section, called "Dealing with problematic behaviour on the channel," completely - presumably because he felt it didn't apply and was therefore inaccurate:

If peer pressure ("please stop that") doesn't work: Admins witnessing behavior unbecoming a Wikipedia admin in the channel, of any kind, are encouraged to contact a channel operator, the Arbitration Committee or Jimbo Wales directly. Jimbo has committed to a sense of kindness and civility on Wikipedia, and this can include some forms of off-wiki interaction. ... Arbitrators have been particularly asked to help uphold standards of conduct by gentle or less gentle encouragement as may be required.

Earlier he'd tried to add this bit, though he finally seemed to give up on it eventually. Original version:

N.B. The practice of addressing colleagues using derogatory or insulting language has in the past lead to users having their access to the channel removed.

Giano-addition version:

N.B. The practice of addressing colleagues using derogatory or insulting language has in the past lead to users having their access to the channel removed, but sadly this often fails to prevent situations arising. One of the anomalies of the channel is that permitted and privileged non-admins are allowed to insult female administrators using base language. "bitch" and "bastard" being favoured terms of derision if a female admin dares to challenge the opinion of a non-admin. When this takes place (or the female becomes disconcerted and uncomfortable) the other males in the channels, most of them admins, look at the floor, talk to each other or try and pretend they have not noticed. This prevents them having to risk their own popularity or status as macho men.

I dunno, these changes of Giano's certainly seem accurate enough to me. I don't see what the problem is...?

[Rootology]

If they take this Arbcom, it won't end well for Giano, but also for the #admin operators, either.

It will be a bloodbath of an RFAR.

Oops, David Gerard fucked up but good.

Edit after protection, when he's involved as Grand Wizard of the #admin channel besides Forrester:
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=...oldid=179936825

Protected it again, here:
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=...oldid=179936825

Naughty naughty! Someone be sure to post this as evidence. What a halfwit.

Holy shit, EVERYONE is editing after protection. This is admin rules violations galore, jesus:

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=...&action=history

Every single person editing beyond spelling errors is completely out of line post-protection.

Bad Jossi:

* http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=...oldid=180209678
* http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=...oldid=180210964

That sort of editing post-protection is the sort of thing that gets folks deadminned.

All of this BETTER end up as Evidence in the RFAR.

[Proabivouac]

Some of these edits constitute a WP:POINT violation, to be sure, but the point being made is valid, and Giano has every right and reason to oppose the IRC channel: as long as it exists, you can count on Giano being blocked every so often. Self-defense, really.

[Miltopia]

All the more reason that admins with weepy "goodbye" messages should be summarily desysopped, regardless of the sincerity of their departure. Drama whores on par with JzG and Phil only log on to cause trouble. The only difference between them and trolls is that trolls have more self-control and self-awareness.

[Peter Damian]

More drama on Giano's talk page (he is now up for the day obviously). As I spent most of my time on Wikipedia actually writing articles, can someone explain what #admins means? thanks.

[dtobias]

Giano is made of Kevlar covered by Teflon.

Well, Giano does seem to be friends with MONGO, from some of the comments they've exchanged. They both seem to have that Kevlar/Teflon covering, but while MONGO uses his to support and defend the Clique/Cabal, Giano has lately been using his super powers to oppose the Clique/Cabal. I wonder if this is putting any strain in the Giano/MONGO friendship?

[Kyaa the Catlord]

More drama on Giano's talk page (he is now up for the day obviously). As I spent most of my time on Wikipedia actually writing articles, can someone explain what #admins means? thanks.

It is an irc channel in which some of the "chosen" amoungst the admins and their firm supporters gather and talk smack. I mean, WP:OWN the encyclopedia for their nefarious purposes. (Yes, I am being a bit dramatic, but seriously they deserve it.)

[Bob Boy]

Hmmm - I think I have just seen the most weaseliest weaselly non-apology in history by Tony Sidaway.

[SirFozzie]

Having been in that channel previously (as an admin), I can somewhat refute that.. (or at least say that I was not privy to any of what Kyaa says) It's a place for folks to gather, and can be very useful as a quick sanity check before an action is taken. (as long as you don't only ask folks who you know are going to agree with you)

Considering that JamesF and ArbCom both state that IRC is not controlled by the ArbCom, and the page states to use ArbCom to remedy any bad behaviour, I do think Giano has a point. He's right, but sometimes he goes about it the wrong way.. but I think it's bad logic to have a WP page say "Contact ArbCom about problems with IRC", and then for WP's ArbCom to state they have no jurisdiction over the channel and its behavior.

I'm surprised there's already 3 votes to accept, and I'm HOPING that this doesn't turn out to be a fait accompli...

[Rootology]

Why has no one asked James F to recuse yet, as owner of the channels?

[SirFozzie]

Good point, Root. I've added it to my statement over there.

[Moulton]

See, it's just another instance of the need to think through and develop a consensus on best practices throughout WikipediaVille.

[Rootology]

Good point, Root. I've added it to my statement over there.

Hope you don't get in trouble or blacklisted for that.

If James F. won't recuse, I truly hope someone has the required stones to put it into an official motion on the Workshop page. He has zero business serving as an Arb on this case, and it would be the most bias/COI yet in an Arbcom case. The only one that would have been close would have been if Fred Bauder hadn't recused when his brother, WHEELER, was brought before Arbcom and banned a few years back.

[Mndrew]

Is anyone else getting that sense that Giano might fare better here instead of at WP, especially considering just how unfairly he's been treated over there?

Someone ought to get him a fruit basket for his efforts, at least...

This post has been edited by Mndrew: Wed 26th December 2007, 4:14pm

[Moulton]

The general issue of unfairness and the corruption of due process is one that needs to be unpacked as a Wiki-wide pattern, rather than as a haphazard collection of unrelated one-off episodes.

[Kyaa the Catlord]

Having been in that channel previously (as an admin), I can somewhat refute that.. (or at least say that I was not privy to any of what Kyaa says) It's a place for folks to gather, and can be very useful as a quick sanity check before an action is taken. (as long as you don't only ask folks who you know are going to agree with you)

Considering that JamesF and ArbCom both state that IRC is not controlled by the ArbCom, and the page states to use ArbCom to remedy any bad behaviour, I do think Giano has a point. He's right, but sometimes he goes about it the wrong way.. but I think it's bad logic to have a WP page say "Contact ArbCom about problems with IRC", and then for WP's ArbCom to state they have no jurisdiction over the channel and its behavior.

I'm surprised there's already 3 votes to accept, and I'm HOPING that this doesn't turn out to be a fait accompli...

I admit that I believe that a lot of administrators tag team against common editors, that there is a severe difference in the enforcement of wikipedia principles when admins are involved and that they are not to be trusted.

I have a bias.... I admit there are good admins, but they are definitely a very small minority.