Wikipedia talk:Requests for arbitration/InShaneee/Workshop

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

You have new messages (last change).

Contents

[edit] Lost in space

Bits of the Workshop keep disappearing, most recently through User:Tony Sidaway and User:Bunchofgrapes removing "unhelpful nastiness", and some of the remaining discussion has lost context as a result. Just so the original discussion is not lost, and the remaining comments make more sense, here are diffs to their removal:

  • Mackensen removing Tony Sidaway's "Proposed principle" that "Problems with Wikipedia should be addressed by discussion, rather than piecemeal attempts to entrap and discredit other editors", accompanied by his comment that "the troll and his mates play merry hell until they gets an arbitration case", references to "the Scoobie Gang" (Tony Sidaway's "informal name for the collection of close associates of Worldtraveller who, purporting to believe the blocked editor to be someone they didn't know, suddenly showed up and started making a very, very loud noise over Inshaneee's behavior ... User:Bunchofgrapes, User:Geogre and User:Bishonen.") and to "Vigilanteism", with replies for various people - (removing principle per consent of parties)

I have not done an exhaustive check of the edit history, so there may be other comments that have been removed or refactored that I have not noticed and listed above.

I also think Tony Sidaway's comments in the "Comment by parties" sections should be moved to the "Comment by others" section: although he added himself as a party (quite why is a little unclear), he later removed himself, and he is not a party now. -- ALoan (Talk) 11:34, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

I may or may not be a party to this case--that's purely for the arbitrators to decide. As a formal matter I have always added myself to cases in which I have given evidence. This has never been a matter of controversy before and I've no idea why it is now exciting controversy. Because of the unnecessary upset, I have removed myself from the list.
Moving my comments from one section to another at this stage would probably only make a mess of the workshop, so I haven't done it. --Tony Sidaway 13:04, 12 March 2007 (UTC)
I'm sure the arbitrators will make such decisions at they think fit - but you always add yourself as a party to a case where you add evidence? I am not aware of anyone else doing that - indeed, I was not aware that you always did it. Is it a recommended practice? Why do you do it? How often have you done it, and when did you do it last, as a matter of interest?
It is unfortunate that your comments and actions seem so often to cause "unnecessary" upset. I have no idea why that happens - do you? -- ALoan (Talk) 14:39, 12 March 2007 (UTC)
I think you're trying to play Perry Mason, so I'll leave it there. --Tony Sidaway 21:55, 12 March 2007 (UTC)
Perry Mason? I don't know what you mean. I was simply interested to know why you would pursue such a course of action: as I said, I am not aware of anyone else doing it, and wondered if it was or ought to be recommended (I can see reasons in favour and reasons against). I suppose I could trawl through previous RFArbs to find out for myself when you have done it before, but I thought it would be easier for you to point me to a previous occasion than for me to do some arbitration archaeology. Shrug - clearly it is too much trouble for you to answer such questions. -- ALoan (Talk) 23:16, 12 March 2007 (UTC)
Perry Mason was a fictional defense attorney who frequently got his clients acquitted by investigating and uncovering the real criminal, often on the witness stand. The name survives in popular culture as a way of saying that someone is 'acting as a detective' and/or 'trying to catch the bad guy'. Tony apparently has a penchant for 1960s television references. --CBD 00:49, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

Tony, I think ALoan is honestly trying to understand and is worth talking to. Despite his obvious sympathy for Giano I have always found ALoan to be open to opinions from others in my dealings with him.

As to the specific question, Tony is one of those people who prefers to speak his mind and trust other people to fill in the blanks. He can be blunt which requires a little interpretation sometimes by his audience. Due to his history with "the scoobies" they all view everything he says with suspicion and jump on anything that can be remotely misinterpreted, which, regrettably, is most of what Tony says.

An ideal world would actually be two worlds, one for Tony and one for the scoobies. Unfortunately that isn't likely to happen. I don't really see a viable solution.

In other news, I am completely opposed to anyone removing anyone else's comments. It is just plain childish to pretend you can force someone to "unsay" something, all it serves to do is confuse the conversation for anyone else trying to figure out what happened later. --Ideogram 01:59, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

Don't call us the Scoobies, Beavis. Thanks. —Bunchofgrapes (talk) 18:35, 13 March 2007 (UTC)
I'll call you whatever the hell I want and you can call me whatever the hell you want. You already do anyway. --Ideogram 00:20, 14 March 2007 (UTC)
Just don't call me late for dinner. —Bunchofgrapes (talk) 01:29, 14 March 2007 (UTC)
Lol. Thanks, humor always helps. --Ideogram 01:47, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Motion to dismiss the case in favor of reopening the RfC

Comments, favorable or unfavorable, are requested on the motion/suggestion I have presented here. I am noting this on the talkpage mostly so it doesn't get overlooked in the lengthy workshop. Newyorkbrad 20:05, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Comment - Principle 5.x

While reading this over I noticed a point that seems to be missed. Principle 5.x, which deals with how administrators should be willing to discuss their actions, is never really followed up on below. Below much is said of Inshannee's apology (i,e, whether or not it was sufficent), but I think that question is irrelvant. There is no principle stating that admins should apologize for their mistakes. The principle says admins should be willing to discuss their actions. So there should be a statement of fact that Inshanee's was or was not adhereing to that principle. I honestly didn't read through the AN/I discussion. And perhaps there is evidence there of Inshanee doing so. However looking only at his one comment addressed to Worldtraveller, although I see an apology there is no discussion.--BirgitteSB 01:22, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Why is Tony still editing the project page?

Arbitrators, if you are incapable of maintaining order, which increasingly appears to be the case, it's best to come clean about it, upfront. Thx. El_C 04:27, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

Or, as Lear said in Act I, "Mend your speech a little / Lest you may mar your fortunes." The Workshop is open for the free exchange of ideas. Mackensen (talk) 11:05, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

The tone of the discussion, which started off appallingly, has improved somewhat. Perhaps next time we can skip the appalling phase. Newyorkbrad 11:53, 16 March 2007 (UTC)
If you want to mention Tony by name, let's talk about Giano. Did anyone else notice the tone of the discussion improved about the time Giano stopped posting? --Ideogram 16:31, 16 March 2007 (UTC)
About stirring the pot: something about a black kettle comes to mind. --Ideogram 17:03, 16 March 2007 (UTC)
The arbitration committee is incapable of maintaining order. I may be partially to blame by suggesting Tony is not the only culprit, but the committee has failed to come to the conclusion that limits must be imposed. Fred Bauder 14:06, 16 March 2007 (UTC)
I am making efforts to avoid worsening things, but have not proven particularly good at this in the past. I'll obviously take notice of any ban. --Tony Sidaway 14:15, 16 March 2007 (UTC)
No comment. El_C 18:04, 16 March 2007 (UTC)
  • I have protected the page for one hour. Not sure what exactly is going on. Sorry for the "free exchange of ideas" pause / inconvenience. El_C 18:49, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Motion to remove Tony Sidaway from list of parties

Copied here from the workshop page, now moot. Paul August ☎ 18:49, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Motion to remove Tony Sidaway from list of parties

1) To the best of my knowledge Tony Sidaway made no comment and had no involvement of any form in this dispute until he decided to list himself as a party after the arbitration case had opened. As the dispute is between myself and InShaneee, and not anything to do with Tony Sidaway, I feel it is inappropriate and unhelpful for him to be listed as a party. 81.179.115.188 19:35, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

Comment by Arbitrators:
Comment by parties:
For what it's worth, I always make a practice of adding myself as a part to a case in which I give evidence. I think it clarifies the role in which I contribute to the case. I'll remove myself from the list since this seems to be upsetting some people unnecessarily, but ultimately the arbitrators decide who is and who is not a party. --Tony Sidaway 20:24, 11 March 2007 (UTC)
You should not add yourself as a party unless you are part of the dispute, or a reasonably anticipated extension of the dispute. Fred Bauder 13:42, 12 March 2007 (UTC)
This is new and I'll take notice of it in future. However it is the case that I was approached by InShaneee about this harassment some weeks ago now. I seem to recall recommending that he take his further concerns primarily to CBD, who I noticed had also expressed concern about the harassment. I also asked him to bring any further instances of harassment to the admins noticeboard. --Tony Sidaway 13:49, 12 March 2007 (UTC)
Comment by others:
  • Tony is here purely and simply as a troll to cause as much trouble as he possibly can. It is truly about time someone told him when to but out and shut up. As none of his friends seem able to to do it: - I will: Piss off out of this, and leave it to those concerned. You have attempted to upset the apple cart for your own nefarious reasons. You are losing credibility. Now just let those concerned sort their own problems out. This is nothing to do with you - OK? Now get lost! Giano 20:51, 11 March 2007 (UTC)
    • Giano, comments of this nature are unacceptable. Fred Bauder 13:45, 12 March 2007 (UTC)
Oh no they are not! You have the choice of sorting out Tony Sidaway "scoobies indeed!" or having an RFA degenerate into a rough scrum. Keep order and you won't have this sort of comment occuring. The choice is yours. Giano 14:13, 12 March 2007 (UTC)
  • This is absolutely clear. Tony Sidaway was in no way involved in any of the blocks under discussion. That he doesn't like the people he blames for his own block abuse being reviewed unfavorably is a pity, but it's really not germane here. The only way that I can see a wedge into the subject is if this is an RFAR on "personal attacks can/cannot cause blocks," as he invoked that language in his own blocks, eight months ago, but ArbCom is not a policy body. His presence here is adding distraction and upping the level of venom precipitously. We have gotten no evidence that he has been involved in the dispute in any form -- either the actions or the discussion (he did not even take part in the rancourous AN/I debate), so it's hard to see his entry here as being intentionally disruptive. Geogre 21:43, 11 March 2007 (UTC)
    Geogre, you (and Giano), were "in no way involved in any of the blocks under discussion". You have both also taken actions which could certainly be described as "upping the level of venom". Does that make your presence here "intentionally disruptive"? Everyone is allowed to comment on an ArbCom case if they wish. I'd urge Tony, and yourselves, to tone the hostility way down, but nobody should be telling anyone else they can't be here. --CBD 21:49, 11 March 2007 (UTC)
    Here's the difference: Geogre and Giano have both commented on the blocks in question. They have not frivolously listed themselves as parties to the dispute. Tony has made no previous comment at all but has listed himself as a party. That is why Tony Sidaway is being accused of trolling but Geogre and Giano are not. 81.179.115.188 21:51, 11 March 2007 (UTC)
    If that were the problem, then I'd simply disclose now that Inshaneee approached me complaining of harassment some weeks ago. The accusation of trolling is, of course, unworthy of response. --Tony Sidaway 23:33, 11 March 2007 (UTC)
    Did he now? Where and how? 81.179.115.188 01:18, 12 March 2007 (UTC)
    • I'm not listing myself as a party. I was out there in public on AN/I concerning the 2nd and 3rd blocks. I'm keeping my comments in the "comments by others" section. Tony can't claim to be a party even if he were "approached" (privately, we assume). He's not a party, and yet there he is...blowing bubbles in the soup. Geogre 02:39, 12 March 2007 (UTC)
  • Is anyone in authority going to do something about Tony's fervour[1] the last 14 edits are all by someone with no connection to the case. This seems to me to have become a some form of hijacking - that needs to be stopped. It is ridiculous, and disruptive. He needs to be banned from the page. Giano 13:28, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Reversions

I think we can do without wholesale reverting - particularly the use of administrative rollback - on the workshop. Thanks, Mackensen (talk) 18:52, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

This is the 1st time I had to protect an arbitration page, which perhaps underscores what I said above. El_C 19:17, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Finding 2 withdrawn

Copied finding 2 from workshop page — withdrawn. Paul August ☎ 19:18, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

In late December, 2006. after several months away from Wikipedia, User:Worldtraveller who had little previous expressed interest in the paranormal came in his first edits to Talk:Red_rain_in_Kerala and chose to edit war anonymously with an administrator, User:Inshaneee, known to have an interest in the paranormal, over the appropriateness of a project label on the talk page. In subsequent complaints on WP:AN, several editors associated with User:Worldtraveller volunteered extremely strong statements about Inshaneee's adminship. WITHDRAWN (see comments below)

Comment by Arbitrators:
Comment by parties:
I would love to be proved wrong here, but the Scoobies have been acting so weirdly over the past six months that I can't be the only person to have noticed. It's like they turned into pod people or something. --Tony Sidaway 02:05, 11 March 2007 (UTC)
The immediately preceding comment by Tony Sidaway is more uncivil and offensive than any of the behavior (by either party) underlying the arbitration case. Newyorkbrad 02:11, 11 March 2007 (UTC)
I (Worldtraveller) started the article Red rain in Kerala and contributed much of its content. 81.179.115.188 02:14, 11 March 2007 (UTC)
I formally apologise to Worldtraveller and withdraw this propoed finding of fact. I did not know that he had created the article. I don't think it's uncivil to try to find the truth. --Tony Sidaway 02:19, 11 March 2007 (UTC)
I'd like to see the characterization of experienced, respected Wikipedians as "the Scoobies" and "pod people" withdrawn and apologized for as well. Newyorkbrad 02:26, 11 March 2007 (UTC)
I accept Tony's apology but would second Newyorkbrad's suggestion and also hope Tony will remove his proposed principle above entitled 'Trolling'. 81.179.115.188 02:30, 11 March 2007 (UTC)
Comment by others:
Isn't it unfair to imply that Worldtraveller was jumping in on something he had little interest in just because it was Inshaneee who was editing it? (I assume that Tony is trying to imply that, because it's the meaning I pick up from his proposed finding of fact.) Worldtraveller actually started that article. See the very first version of it. ElinorD (talk) 02:18, 11 March 2007 (UTC)
I'd contest Newyorkbrad's statement only in that I don't find 'scoobie gang' and 'pod people' "more uncivil and offensive" than Worldtraveller repeatedly calling InShaneee "witless moron" ([2], [3], [4]), "fuckwit" ([5]), and "childish" ([6]) amongst other things. Tony should exercise a higher sense of decorum, but let's not pretend it has been sunshine and roses to this point. --CBD 07:35, 11 March 2007 (UTC)
Probably not more offensive than InShaneee calling an editor a "douche" either. [7] Derex 07:56, 11 March 2007 (UTC)
Shouldn't you also note, CBD, that you blocked him for saying that Inshaneee was acting like a fuckwit, and here you're arguing that Tony Sidaway's characterization of a group of people themselves is proper? I think the one looking inconsistent, or hypocritical, isn't Newyorkbrad. Geogre 20:15, 11 March 2007 (UTC)
No, I shouldn't note that... because I didn't block him for that. Again, you should look at the particulars of the case. Worldtraveller's claim that InShaneee IS a "fuckwit" (no 'acting like' sophistry in evidence) came after my block. As to the rest... I did not say that Tony's actions were proper (indeed, I said I agreed with Newyorkbrad that they weren't), I did not say that Newyorkbrad was inconsistent, I did not say that Newyorkbrad was hypocritical. I said that I do not agree with Newyorkbrad that "scoobies" and "pod people" were the worst incivility we have seen in this case. --CBD 20:48, 11 March 2007 (UTC)
I regret that what I consider to be reasonable suspicions based on some very strange coincidences in this case have not been shared by others. I could have expressed them better. I have long found the extreme hostility expressed by Geogre, Bishonen, Bunchofgrapes and some others towards their fellow administrators who are outside their small group very, very dismaying, and their ongoing hostile activities are in my opinion inimical to the smooth running of Wikipedia, and very much against the spirit of cooperation with which we are supposed to engage in editing. I apologise for expressing these reasonable concerns in a way that may have upset them. --Tony Sidaway 23:16, 11 March 2007 (UTC)
I've received a few self-serving passive-aggressive apologies on this site, but that is by some distance the worst apology I've ever been offered. I reject it as an apology and deplore it as an attack on my actions, demeanour, and motives. In this RFAr a totally irrelevant attack, to boot. Mackensen, I have several constructive suggestions for ways in which you can improve the function of this page and make it more like a workshop and less like a trollfest. I'd try these from 1 to 4 inclusive, if I were you. 1) briskly remove all personal attacks from Tony that are irrelevant to this case (example: this here "apology"), 2) give Tony some sort of ultimatum as to the terms on which he may edit the page. 3) if it comes to that: page ban him from here. 4) if it comes to that, block him for egregious trolling, disruption, and extreme personal attacks. Any inspiration there at all? Bishonen | talk 23:47, 11 March 2007 (UTC).
Seems overly complicated and somewhat limited to me, Bishonen. Wouldn't it be easier to simply follow Tony's own request and, as "an act of kindness to me and to all other Wikipedians", make him "banned from Wikipedia forever"? Unless if you somehow find Newyorkbrad's proposed finding of fact re: Tony's behavior here completely without merit? Now, me, I haven't noticed Newyorkbrad as being the type to completely make up crazy, meritless stuff and propose it in an Arbcom workshop, but YMMV. —Bunchofgrapes (talk) 00:14, 12 March 2007 (UTC)
I've patiently ignored a lot of attacks on me today, but here I must ask you both to tone it down. This is an arbitration case Workshop, not a place to make silly personal attacks. --Tony Sidaway 00:50, 12 March 2007 (UTC)
Oh, quoting your very own, recent words at you is a personal attack now? But you wondering about what grand skulduggery and scheming plans I took part in to trap Inshaneee isn't? How does that work, please? —Bunchofgrapes (talk) 00:56, 12 March 2007 (UTC)
Er... Not to speak directly towards or against anyone's statements here, but I don't suppose that refactoring some of these comments about commenting on workshop items over to the talk page might be possible? Bitnine 01:04, 12 March 2007 (UTC)
I would object to having my statement "refactored". Tony has persistently insulted and trolled me on this page, in a way that I'm actually amazed the arbitrators editing here put up with, and the post above is my one single comment on his behaviour. Iff all of Tony's attacks are removed from the page, feel free to remove my comment on them and advice to Mackensen, too. Bishonen | talk 01:29, 12 March 2007 (UTC).
So, umm, Tony is sorry that he characterized everyone as incapable of independent judgment, malicious, and "odd," even though he has himself been dormant and suddenly appears as both a clerk and a party and has kilobytes to say about something that he hasn't touched before? This is one of those self-destructing semantic traps, isn't it? A koan, perhaps? Tony's not a party to the dispute, and I could have sworn he wasn't a clerk, either, that he was dismissed from that position. I must not keep up. Geogre 02:46, 12 March 2007 (UTC)
For the record, Tony hasn't been a clerk for several months, nor has he claimed to be acting as a clerk in this case, nor have I seen him doing anything that should be reserved to the current clerks (renumbering proposals on the workshop, etc. can be done by any user). Newyorkbrad 02:54, 12 March 2007 (UTC)
Thanks, I was just about to make this point. I'm not a clerk and I haven't been a clerk since mid-September. If I were a clerk I would have recused in order to contribute to this case. I'm afraid a lot of the wilder accusations we're seeing on this page are the result of ignorance of this kind. --Tony Sidaway 02:57, 12 March 2007 (UTC)
The fact that someone made one factual mistake should not be blown out of proportion. Looking now at another colloquy, Geogre may have been confused by your removal of comments (something that should be left for an arbitrator or clerk to take care of—and don't look at me, as I am obviously recused as clerk in this case). I respectfully suggest that you seriously consider the arbitrators' comments in response to my proposed finding #10 before you post anything further to this page. Newyorkbrad 03:06, 12 March 2007 (UTC)
I respectfully demur from that motion, which I find inexplicable. --Tony Sidaway 03:19, 12 March 2007 (UTC)
As I said, I must not be keeping up with the fortunes of Tony Sidaway, but it is weird as heck to see a person go from full slumber to full attack on a case that seems entirely unrelated to him this way, but what's really inexplicable is Tony Sidaway removing my comments, ALoan's comments, and others. I'm astonished to learn that he did that without being a clerk and wasn't blocked for it. It's a rather arrogant or intolerant thing to do. Geogre 10:51, 12 March 2007 (UTC)
I'm not aware of having removed your comments. I did remove some puerile sniping from general comments, but I believe these items were by ALoan and Bunchodgrapes. --Tony Sidaway 12:46, 12 March 2007 (UTC)
Interested parties will find diffs of the "puerile sniping" that Tony removed on the Workshop talk page (another free insult to go with "unhelpful nastiness" - I should start a collection). -- ALoan (Talk) 17:38, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Paul August

Dumping all this workshop text here renders the talk page almost as unreadable as the project page. Perhaps you ought to create a subpage. This is a mess. El_C 19:22, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org../../../r/e/q/Wikipedia_talk%7ERequests_for_arbitration_InShaneee_Workshop_d86d.html"