Wikipedia talk:Requests for arbitration/Archive 17

A question on recusals
Two current arbitrators were recused from the Giano motion, Dmcdevit and James F. (A third recusal was Mindspillage who has since left the ArbCom). Indeed, James F. was a party to the arbitration and indeed received a caution to "maintain the decorum appropriate for an arbitrator" due to a "you are all idiots" posting. Why are they now voting on this case? Sjakkalle (Check!)  07:14, 2 January 2007 (UTC)


 * Answer, "because they can". The issue you raise has everything to do with ethics. Many people think that rules of the ethical behavior are rather obvious and should be simply implied in everyone's behavior. Perhaps that's why they where never written into a Wikipedia policy. Indeed, these two arbitrators should not have been involved in this motion in the first place as it is started in connection to the ArbCom case where these to Arbitrators were recused. More, one of the arbitrators was a part (!) of the case on whose motion he now still votes all right. The other Arbitrator found it fit even to start a motion on his own initiative (!) to reopen the case in which he was recused. Seems bizarre to you? So it seems to me and many others.


 * More strange things happened on the very onset of this motion. The support votes were cast within minutes after the motion was submitted while routinely open and shut motions stay unvoted for days because no one bothers.


 * The issue of the backroom coordination was already raised in this respect. But there is more to it. Both the original case (called "Giano-case") and this motion were not mostly about Giano but about the culture of backroom activity followed by the implementation of such deals onwiki.


 * We may discuss whether the arbitrators having a history of involvement exactly in such backstage deals aimed at "ridding" from editors who call for transparency and accountability should be impeached and that would be a separate discussion. But that the recusals in the particular case are surely warranted in the very least. --Irpen 08:31, 2 January 2007 (UTC)
 * The reason for the apparent block voting is that Dmcdevit mentioned that he had made the motion on the Arbcom IRC channel, no more to it than that. I think it is a good motion, but as you can see from the voting, discussion continues. However Giano is gone. Most action from now on will be with respect to the problems this matter raised. General nastyness on the admin IRC and how much slack to cut especially good contributors when they get nasty, and perhaps are provoked. I say none, but opinions differ. As to the failure to recuse, I'm not sure, but if they recused in the first case, probably should remain recused. Have to look at their explanations. Fred Bauder 13:52, 2 January 2007 (UTC)


 * I would like to thank Fred for showing a good example of arbitrator's decorum here. There are many reasons why Arbitrator's IRC should be private and I don't ever recall any serios calls to change that. At the same time, the fact that the private discussion indeed took place is publicly acknowledged. This way, both the necessary privacy and the needed degree of transparency are both achieved.


 * I have to disagree with the remainder of Fred's explanation. The core of the original case was not Giano's incivility but specifically the community reaction to the backroom deals aimed to satisfy the few who self-appointed themselves ar the "bedrock of Wikipedia". The original falldown, to remind you, was caused by the massive community outrage of how Carnildo was promoted to Adminship against the editor's consensus purely due to the backstage maneuvers of some of his supporters among both the bureaucrats and arbitrators. At the time many voiced the outrage and Tony Sidaway, who was at the time the most vigorous enforcer of the backroom decisions, acted ruthlessly to suppress the dissent through outside-of-policy blocks as well as horrific remarks posted to several threads. In the middle of the crisis a little known account, but obviously a sock or reincarnation of an existing user, concocted a haste ArbCom case which was instantly accepted.


 * This fallout is nothing but the continuation of this old controversy reiterated by a new series of the outside of the policy blocks and extreme arrogance of self-professed "elite" (these events should and likely will become a separate ArbCom case). Back to the recusals, the particular arbitrators in question are involved fully in the secretive plottings over IRC aimed at specifically driving out the editors who most vigorously oppose to the opaque and mysterious politicking at Wikipedia. And they have no moral right to arbitrate the case where such politicking is the core controversy.


 * But there is more to it. This "motion" should be considered either as a reopening of the old case or as a separate case. If this is the former, it is plainly clear that the recused arbitrators cannot just reenter the case on the whim. Besides, in the old case such motion was studied and rejected specifically because it was not warranted by evidence. If this motion is to be considered independently of the old case, it should be presented as such. In this case we need evidence and discussion, not a in-haste move to quickly vote and shut this down. However, as per both the policy and the common sense, the case should be presented to the ArbCom first. This cannot be a legitimate case if it is being started by the Arbcom member on his own and, even worse, the initiator of the case being a judge too. If Dmcdevit wishes to submit the case to ArbCom, he should recuse and desist from all closed channels as far as this case is related. He can be either a party of the case (perhaps initiator too) or the judge but not both. --Irpen 18:54, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

A question on recusals 2

 * Is there an impeachment process? That would be, um, messy. Carcharoth 12:31, 2 January 2007 (UTC)
 * We serve at Jimbo's pleasure, so he's the one to talk to. Fred Bauder 13:52, 2 January 2007 (UTC)
 * I raised this question with both of these arbitrators on their respective talk pages, so you can find there their responses to this issue. Newyorkbrad 12:37, 2 January 2007 (UTC)
 * They give reasonable explanations for not recusing. Fred Bauder 13:59, 2 January 2007 (UTC)
 * I disagree, with respect to JDF. Even if his reasons for recusing himself last time do not apply this time, there is another reason which is that he has expressed (on and off wiki) what appears to be a personal bias against Giano.  Even if he has no bias against Giano, Giano has grounds to believe that he does.  Given that the cost of recursing is only that another arbitrator has to be found, his repeated refusal to recuse in the face of repeated requests from uninvolved parties is puzzling.  I'd rather hear from JD before approaching Jimbo, but given that JD seems to have taken a wikibreak, it's an option I'm considering.  Regards, Ben Aveling 10:56, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

My recusal is noted here. FloNight 14:40, 2 January 2007 (UTC)


 * Actually, at first glance that recusal looks a bit strange because of the dates confusion. You might want to explain (for future readers) that the recusal came after the case was accepted and after it closed, and only relates to future motions (because you weren't elected until after the case closed!). I'm sure the ArbCom clerks might have something to say as well about how best to note a recusal to a motion made after a case is closed. Carcharoth 17:46, 2 January 2007 (UTC)


 * Thanks, I don't think there would have been many eyebrows raised if you had declined to recuse but your forthrightness in mentioning your past issues with this case is welcomed. Regarding Fred Bauder's comments above, I have read the reasons given. Dmcdevit has an adequate reason for unrecusing himself from this case, his reason to recuse is unrelated to this motion. I cannot agree with that James should be unrecused however. He made a posting on the AN which provoked a lot of the reaction and flamethrowing which led to the arbitration case being filed, and he was listed as a party by the person who filed the request. My opinion is that he should not be voting on anything related to this case, period. Sjakkalle  (Check!)  15:18, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

Is it possible to come up with a system other than voluntary recusal? I suppose an arbitrator's record of recusal plays a part in their re-election, but that doesn't help if an arb still has a couple of years to go, or if they don't intend to seek re-election. I am force to conclude, like others before me, that it is only considered and forceful discussion from the sidelines, plus maybe internal discussion in the ArbCom, that can keep arbs on the straight and narrow as far as recusal is concerned. At the very least, would ArbCom be able to come up with something more concrete to covere cases where an arb is a named party, and ArbCom agree that the arb should be a named party? That would seem to be a clear case of recusal for the case and future motions. Carcharoth 17:42, 2 January 2007 (UTC)
 * The question of whether an arbitrator's declining to recuse himself or herself from a given case is reviewable by the full committee was raised in a case a few weeks ago and gave rise to this discussion, although no conclusion was reached. One arbitrator appears to believe that the issue can be raised by motion of a party while at least one other has voted that this procedure is not permissible because whether to recuse rests in each arbitrator's own individual discretion. No comment here on which view is preferable; real-world analogs are discussed in the mainspace article on recusal. Newyorkbrad 17:57, 2 January 2007 (UTC)


 * I note that – as with all issues on Wikipedia – Jimbo and the Board could pull an Arb from a case by decree. I expect that if the question of an Arb's recusal comes up, it might be discussed privately by the ArbCom and Jimbo; a reluctant Arb could face strong pressure from that quarter to recuse without necessarily requiring a polarizing, public motion. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 18:26, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

I wonder if it might be appropriate to ask the Arbitration Committee to confer amongst themselves and produce a voluntary "standards of conduct" in regards to recusals which they could all agree too. --Barberio 18:54, 2 January 2007 (UTC)


 * Few months ago (how naive I was then!) I made a what seemed to me obvious and non-controversial suggestion to the policy that would have addressed that matter. Several of then current arbitrators disagreed and Fred, the only arbitrator with real life legal background, saw the benefits of my proposal at the time but said that this is perhaps to be addressed when the new ArbCom convenes. Now, perhaps, it's the right right for that. --Irpen 19:06, 2 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Lots of instruction creep and written standards of conduct are not necessarily going to help here, because it's impossible to foresee every possible situation that might arise, plus this is informal wiki arbitration and not an actual legal proceeding or anything like that.
 * But for what it's worth, I happen to have read much of the U.S. literature on recusal standards in the real world, and the best articulation of a standard that I've ever seen is this one sentence in the Model Code of Judicial Conduct: "A judge shall disqualify himself or herself in any proceeding in which the judge's impartiality might reasonably be questioned." Newyorkbrad 22:10, 2 January 2007 (UTC)
 * I think we all agree with that standard, but the problem in this particular case seems to be a disagreement over what constitutes a "reasonable question" of impartiality. Also, it remains to be seen what happens when an Arbitrator deliberately flaunts his or her authority over recusals and fails to recuse from a case where there is an obvious conflict of interest. Under the current system, it seems that nothing can be done about this. Of course, similar thought-battles have been waged since the ratification of the United States Constitution over the idea of judicial independence. --causa sui talk 22:58, 2 January 2007 (UTC)
 * There's an extra layer to this, which is that Giano was saying, before his blocks, that J.Forrester was out to get him. For that reason alone, it would make sense for J.Forrester to stand down from voting on a sanction for Giano. People like myself, who (apart from believing resignedly that all human groups tend to evolve a degree of speaking behind each other's backs and politicking) haven't the faintest idea whether Giano had a point or not, might at least be able to unfurrow their brow on the objectivity of this voting. qp10qp 23:27, 2 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Strong reasons for editors to deliberate carefully during ArbCom elections. This time I saw excellent questions, including on this very issue. And I think all the newly-appointed arbitrators answered the recusal questions well.


 * But the decision to recuse should be the arbitrator's alone, using some sort of guideline (Newyorkbrad's is direct and clear). And if he doesn't? No matter. One voice in 15 will not be decisive. We may be offended, but in the long run the arbitrator is casting one of 15 votes in return for losing community trust. For that matter, arbitrators should be prepared to recuse when there is even the appearance of conflict of interest. No one's individual voice is so important that the project will be lost without it. Jd2718 23:31, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

Newyorkbrad quotation on recusal standard is the best we can do indeed. We can't be any more specific than the rule that recusal is warranted when the "impartiality might reasonably be questioned." Reminding you that the issue here is not Giano per se but serious and justified suspicions of secretive attempts to "run Wikipedia" by expunging the editors who happen to undermine the ability of self-appointed "elite" and the #admin IRC having been widely perceived as the main place where such activity happens, the two arbitrators known for their wide involvement in this channel can be and are reasonably questioned on their impartiallity on that basis alone. That one of them was part of the original case and the other initiated this one should by itself be sufficient grounds to question the ability to be impartial.

On another note, it is true that merely someone's saying that others are "out to get him" would not have been enough. Otherwise, this would have become a bulletproof defense for all sorts of trolls and troublemakers. But it is obvious that we are having a different case here. Not only Giano is not a troll out to damage the Wikipedia (much to the contrary) but that a narrow circle concentrated around #admin is indeed out not just to get Giano but to shut down the community outrage caused by their actions is a wide sentiment here.

Finally, as important as the standards for recusal are the standards of conduct for those who are recused. Jd2718 correctly points above that the arbitrator has only one vote. However, the primary influence the arbitrators have on the case is not through voting but through being able to argue their positions to other arbs in the backroom. It is high time to implement the policy that would require the recused arbitrators to discuss the case (if they have to) only publicly (except very few instances related to sensitive personal information). Real life rules of ethical conduct have similar provisions and I have read the mistrials declared when it was simply revealed that the judge played golf with one of the case parties (or its counselor). No way the recused judge can be allowed in the chambers of the judicial panel that is deliberating the case. Same rules should apply to ArbCom. Having eleven, twelve, thirteen or fourteen active members of an ArbCom provides sufficient guarantee that the case will be discussed by the diverse enough body. There is no need to add any cloud to the arbcom decisions that would be the case if the reasonable rules of both the recusals and the conduct of the recused are under doubts. --Irpen 00:08, 3 January 2007 (UTC)
 * We are discussing this matter, and hopefully a consensus will emerge that if you recuse, you ought not to be using the arbcom mailing list or IRC to advance your position. However, it remains up in the air. I automatically did this, from the beginning, based on my legal experience. Fred Bauder 00:16, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

Moot
James F. has now recused from hearing the Giano case. Thanks for doing so. :-) Sjakkalle (Check!)  14:19, 3 January 2007 (UTC)


 * But of course.
 * James F. (talk) 15:10, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

Case names

 * Since this was a more general discussion of case naming, I have moved it from Requests for arbitration/Giano/Workshop. Thatcher131 21:07, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

The arbcom and clerks should avoid naming cases after a single person because that tends to give people the misconception that this single person was the cause and center of all problems. Most arbcom cases don't revolve around one person (indeed, if it were that obvious the person usually gets blocked without need for arbitration) but around a conflict between two or more. For instance, the "Giano" case has in fact nine other involved parties, and remedies against three others.  &gt; R a d i a n t &lt;  10:14, 3 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Hard to find an appropriate name, but I'll try. Not sure what that mess should have been called. Perhaps something about resyopping. Fred Bauder 14:57, 3 January 2007 (UTC)
 * As long as we are making suggestions about arbcom, I would like to see the new members try out less legalistic paradigms. WAS 4.250 11:01, 3 January 2007 (UTC)
 * "A rose, by any other name, would still smell as sweet", or perhaps in this case, "a rotting fish, by any other name, would still smell as foul". Yes, naming can be an issue, but really, it's a tangential thought to this whole debate.  ArbCom is not on trial here (or anyone else, if we can help it), and while review of their methods is something they would happily undergo, this is not the proper forum.  Cheers, ✎  Peter M Dodge  (  Talk to Me  &bull;  Neutrality Project  ) 15:15, 3 January 2007 (UTC)
 * I think Radiant makes a good point here, and this seems like as good a place as any to make it. Paul August &#9742; 18:30, 3 January 2007 (UTC)
 * How cases should be named has been discussed several times before on RfAr talk. The consensus was that article names rather than user names should be used whenever possible. In this case the controversy spanned various project pages so that wasn't really an option. An earlier format of adversarial names (X v. Y) has wisely been dropped, meaning that in some cases one or more usernames wind up being the case name. When this case was originally filed at RfAr by User:InkSplotch, it was captioned "Giano et al.", but when the case page was opened, someone dropped the "et al." Newyorkbrad 18:35, 3 January 2007 (UTC)
 * I think we should try to name the case after the issue. Usually, that's the page.  Sometimes, it probably has to be the user, though that should be the last resort.  In this case, the issues seem to be 1. The relationship between #admins and wikipedia; and 2. quantifying the extent to which provocation and a good record of contributions excuse incivility.  Regards, Ben Aveling 07:00, 4 January 2007 (UTC)


 * Generally if the case relates to a specific article or issue we use the article or issue name (or we should, barring ocassional lapses). Many cases do focus on a specific editor, however, and unless we adopt some kind of numerical or date-based system, we're pretty much stuck with naming some cases after editors.  (It's a heckuva lot easier to remember and find Requests for arbitration/Zer0faults, which I'm dealing with now elsewhere, than Requests for arbitration/26 July 2006.)  If anyone has concerns about a current case, contact the clerk listed for the case; moving to a new name is trivial if the original name is a problem.  The Giano case was exceptional in many ways and a better name could probably have been chosen, but I'm not sure changing it now would be a good idea, I suspect there are a lot of bookmarked links that would get messed up.


 * I'd say, don't use usernames period (unless the case clearly centres around one distinct user). If there's an article, subject, or issue involved fine - but on the odd case where there isn't, use something neutral: e.g. 'Case of 2nd Jan07' or even 'admin shitstorm dispute of Oct 2006' - it would not be hard to be creative, and if in doubt use the date the case was filed.--Docg 21:33, 4 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Looking back over the last few months, there a few with personal names that probably could have been given issue or article names. Like I said, if you are concerned, contact a clerk. Thatcher131 21:41, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

I'm looking forward to the prospect of Requests for arbitration/Quantifying the extent to which provocation and a good record of contributions excuse incivility, myself. :-). AnonEMouse (squeak) 21:35, 4 January 2007 (UTC)
 * A bit hard on the fingers, but it sure as hell won't be called /Giano 2, if it ever happens. Thatcher131 21:38, 4 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Or /Giano II, as it were. -- Cyde Weys  23:26, 4 January 2007 (UTC)
 * How about Snide Wars? Giano 18:36, 5 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Or Snark Trek? Thatcher131 18:42, 5 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Ex accuso lucellum?--Mackensen (talk) 18:43, 5 January 2007 (UTC)
 * I tend to agree with this. The only time Clerks should use individual usernames is when we have a situation like a Husnuck or a Deltabeignet, which were about that one user only. Currently, surveying the list of cases, the only other one to include usernames is Piotrus-Ghirla, which is probably a good naming idea also given what the dispute was about. Naming that one Piotrus or Ghirla would have been bad, and exactly the things clerks should try to avoid. Daniel.Bryant [ T · C ] 03:36, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

I say we should rename the Giano case to Requests for arbitration/Giano v. Tony Sidaway v. Kelly Martin v. InkSplotch v. George. By the way, some earlier cases did have the "vs." label, such as Requests for arbitration/FuelWagon v. Ed Poor. Hbdragon88 04:59, 5 January 2007 (UTC)
 * If every case should be renamed for an article, perhaps the earlier so-called "Giano" case would become Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/War of all against all. Newyorkbrad 05:06, 5 January 2007 (UTC)
 * No, that's a terrible idea for a name of the case. We stopped using "v." for a reason.  -- Cyde Weys  18:07, 5 January 2007 (UTC)
 * I don't think Hbdragon88 was making a serious suggestion, any more than I was. Newyorkbrad 18:15, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

Think of it as another barrier against frivolous RFARs. "If you can't type a 100-character URL in properly, your dispute isn't serious enough, go to mediation." (Only mostly humorous.) AnonEMouse (squeak) 18:56, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

Collaborations involving page-banned users
There are currently two reports at Arbitration enforcement of users who are banned from certain pages seeking to collaborate with other editors to continue to work on the articles. Of course, this is only a problem in cases where an editor is banned from article talk pages as well as the articles themselves. Still, some response needs to be devised, as article bans (either direct or imposed per probation) are part of many arbitration cases. I see a couple of equally logical responses. I think either response can be justified with reference to various policies. What is the arbitration committee's intent here? Thatcher131 04:53, 6 January 2007 (UTC)
 * is banned from Plasma cosmology and its talk page for three weeks under the terms of his probation. He posted some comments to User talk:Ionized, which Ionized posted verbatim to Talk:Plasma cosmology  .  Ian and Ionized argue that even if verbatim reposting is a problem, Ian can provide "information" which Ionized can use to edit the article.
 * , who is permanently banned from Sex tourism and related articles and their talk pages, has been advised that he can collaborate with another editor on article changes so long as he does not edit directly himself, and he is seeking to do so.
 * 1) The policy regarding banned users should be extended to users under temporary or permanent page bans. Proxy editing is prohibited.  Editors who collaborate with a banned editor, either by verbatim reposting or by using their suggestions, get the same page bans imposed on them.
 * 2) Page bans are issued for disruptive behavior, not for providing particular content. The banned editor may offer his suggestions to other editors, who, at their own discretion, may choose to make verbatim edits, partial edits, or ignore the advice. If these third party edits are seen by uninvolved admins as carrying on the disruption, the third party editors may be appropriately blocked or banned.  If the third party editors behave responsibly, the edits are treated like any other edit the user may make, even though they were suggested by a banned user.


 * A user who does a forbidden act for another user steps into the shoes of the other and is fully responsible. The penalty which would have applied to the other user applies to the user who acts in their stead. Fred Bauder 05:21, 6 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Should they be warned first? The page-banned user knows they are doing wrong, but the other user might be an innocent party until told about the history of the case. Carcharoth 02:40, 9 January 2007 (UTC)
 * I'm not an Arbitrator, so this isn't binding by any stretch of the imagination; but WP:AGF would say so. A final warning would be appropriate, with a link to the remedies and this statement by Fred B. Daniel.Bryant [ T · C ] 05:16, 9 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Yes, they are responsible for their disruptive acts, but equal amounts of disruption from new users and established users are treated differently with good reason. We should react to the disruption, but not in the same way as with the banned user unless the new user become persistent as well. Dmcdevit·t 07:15, 9 January 2007 (UTC)
 * I'm not an Arbitrator (and I reported the KyndFellow issue above). Disruptive acts aren't the issue here. If a page-banned user edits their banned page, even in a non-disruptive fashion, they are subject to being blocked. However, a third party may be believe it is okay (helpful even) to edit on behalf of the banned user. There needs to be a routine warning for the third party in this situation, per Carcharoth's suggestion. Only then could the third-party editor reasonably be subject to the banned user's penalties, per Fred Bauder. / edgarde 07:31, 9 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Fred's statement is either misleading and trivial (of course if someone reproduces the behaviour that lead to the banning of a user, he or she will be in trouble) or, in my opinion, neither fair nor useful. If someone is banned from a store for shoplifting, we don't forbid others to shop for him. Likewise, if someone has been banned from an article, we ban the offending behaviour, not necessarily (all of) the content. Otherwise we would open up a huge can of worms. What is "collaboration"? Is some piece of information tainted forever because a banned user told me about it? Or even just broadcasted it to the world? How do we detect off-wiki collaboration? I would certainly like to hear some other arbitors opinion, and/or a more detailed answer from Fred. --Stephan Schulz 14:18, 9 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Not at all. In many jurisdictions, an accomplice to a crime is just as culpable as the primary party.  Cheers, ✎  Peter M Dodge  (  Talk to Me  &bull;  Neutrality Project  ) 18:48, 12 January 2007 (UTC)
 * There are instances where an individuals judgement is suspect, to the extent that their contributions are a net negative, even though some of the contributions would be good. Filtering the contributions through a third party can mean that overall contribution is positive.  So I wouldn't like to see the option of using third parties eliminated outright.  Regards, Ben Aveling 21:32, 13 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Certainly some discretion should be applied when judging the edit. Someone should not be condemned simply by association if they have done nothing questionable, but making edits requested by a banned user in that user's stead is something that will be more looked at with more discrimination, at the very least.  Cheers, ✎  Peter M Dodge  (  Talk to Me  &bull;  Neutrality Project  ) 20:33, 14 January 2007 (UTC)

The arbcom has dealt with proxy editing (editing an article in the place of someone who has been banned from it) previously in one of the Lir cases. We prohibited the practice. Raul654 03:49, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

Another so soon?!?
Okay, I once again renew my call for an expeditious review of the acceptance mechanism. Look at this case -- a user has been indefinitely blocked due to sockpuppetry. The admin in question removed the unblock template from his userpage and then protected his userpage (effectively rendering him mute, unable to even request advocacy). He alleges abuse, and it at least seems on the surface that some procedures regarding blocks may not have been followed properly. Please note I'm not addressing the sockpuppetry or administrative abuse issues here... I'm simply saying that this may be another example of detriment caused by the rule change. Four ArbCom members have found cause to hear the case, three have rejected. A net of +1, very unlikely to ever get heard, and yet it apears to four ArbCom members that this merits further investigation (I'm inclined to agree -- protecting user talk pages?)... Sorry to stir the waters more, but this just stuck out at me. /Blaxthos 10:06, 21 January 2007 (UTC)
 * I haven't looked at the merits of that particular application, but the issue of whether to change the current language on case acceptance really ought to be resolved. The meta-discussion above seems to have petered out, which is quite understandable as it's a dull topic, but still.... One arbitrator having changed his rejection to willingness to accept based on other arbs' interest in the case is a good step toward collegiality in this area, of course.
 * Having given this more thought, I propose: "A case will be opened expeditiously if at any time it has a total of four net 'accept' votes (i.e., accept minus reject votes) or has accept votes from a majority of the total number of active, non-recused arbitrators. Otherwise, a case will be opened if it has received more accept than reject votes as of 10 days after filing."
 * Four accept votes period (the original rule) would also work, although it gives a minority of the committee the theoretical right to put a case on the agenda (cf. the real-world analog noted above), but there are arguments to support that. The current "four net" policy I still think is untenable: cases shouldn't be rejected by a vote of 4-3 to accept, much less 8-5 to accept. Newyorkbrad 12:13, 21 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Newyorkbrad's suggestion makes sense. Adding a minimum number of accept votes (to the third case) does not seem necessary. What is the likelihood that a case will sit at 3-2 for a week and a half?
 * What rule applies to the current RfAs? Four net? Jd2718 16:32, 21 January 2007 (UTC)
 * I think it's written down as four net. -Penwhale | Blast the Penwhale 21:41, 21 January 2007 (UTC)
 * A 4-3 accept case was just rejected. Given Newyorkbrad's workable, sensible solution, this would be the moment to attract some attention for it. Jd2718 23:37, 21 January 2007 (UTC)
 * I think Newyorkbrad's wording is a little baroque tho. As written, the Gnetwerker case would *still* have been dismissed since it was not a majority vote of *all* active members. It's also a bit of re-inventing the wheel, since this kind of issue has arisen in other similar bodies. Applying a quorum principle to votes is pretty simple to write down, and has a clear effect.
 * "Requests will be accepted when at least six committee members have voted and there is a majority of votes. Requests not accepted after ten days will be removed." --Barberio 13:01, 22 January 2007 (UTC)
 * No, under my proposal the case would have been accepted, because the "majority of ALL" is required only before the 10 days are up (to avoid cutting off discussion if the result might change). Still, if my wording is baroquen, it can certainly be improved. Newyorkbrad 13:55, 22 January 2007 (UTC)
 * NYB's idea is good, rephrased to: IF [(Accept > arbitrator/2) Or (Accept - Reject >= 4) OR (Accept > Reject AND T >=10] THEN Case = OK; else NO CASE. -Penwhale | Blast the Penwhale 15:11, 22 January 2007 (UTC) (Sorry, had to do something like this so I don't go out of my mind.)


 * Of course, there's nothing to say the voting would have gone the same way on Gnetwerker's case if these rules had been in place; for example, Fred might or might not have changed his vote, and other members might have raised "no" votes if it looked like it might be accepted otherwise. I'd tweak the accept slightly -- I'd say "if accept > (arbitrator/2 - 1)" just because it feels more like the Supreme Court model -- if one vote shy of a majority wants to review a case, that's good enough. However: (accept > reject and T>=10) is no good; a 3-2 that sits for a week shouldn't be accepted. There should be a minimum total vote -- a quorum, I guess -- for simple majority acceptance. --jpgordon&#8711;&#8710;&#8711;&#8710; 17:11, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

Number of votes required for case acceptance
At some point last summer, the arbitration policy was changed so that instead of simply 4 "accept" votes being required for ArbCom to open a case, it now requires 4 net accept votes. Questions were raised about the pros and cons of the change, and I believe it was indicated that the matter could be revisited after the first of the year when the new arbitrators were installed. As it would be better to have this discussion in the abstract rather than at a time it's dispositive of a pending application, I raise the matter here. Newyorkbrad 18:16, 8 January 2007 (UTC)
 * For what it's worth, I went over all the cases from 2006 and posted an analysis here. There seems to have been only one case acccepted under the 4 vote standard that should not have been accepted in all of 2006.  In the 2 months since the policy was changed to 4 net votes there may have been one case rejected that arguable should have been heard. Thatcher131 23:36, 8 January 2007 (UTC)
 * I'll post thoughts and links on this when I get back from a trip (Thurs.) if the committee is interested in pursuing the matter. In brief, "4 accept votes" is problematic because it means "4 accept, 9 reject" gets accepted. "4 net votes" is also problematic because it means "8 accept, 5 reject" gets rejected. Maybe "at least 4 accept votes provided it's a majority of those voting"? Newyorkbrad 23:41, 8 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Both seem to have their own advantages; I'm not too sure which one (or a combination of some sort) would be the most effective. What do others think? (Yes, of couse we're interested in your comments on this, Newyorkbrad.) Thanks! Flcelloguy (A note? ) 02:24, 9 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Well, I'm not NYB, but here's my thoughts (and excuse the instruction creep):
 * After seven days, if a case recieves more "accept" than "reject" votes (eg. 4/1, 6/3 etc.), and "accept" votes tally at least four, and there are two more "accept" votes than "reject" (ie. two net "accept" votes), the case is accepted.
 * If a case hasn't recieved four votes to either "accept" or "reject" after seven days (eg. 3/2, 3/3, 1/3 etc.), the case is given three more days to try and meet either; cases which don't have the +2 net "accept", but have four "accept" votes, are also afforded this extension. Cases which have four votes in "reject" are dismissed after seven days if they fail the above bullet point.
 * Anything else is rejected, and if the cases which are valid for the extension above still can't meet the "accept" requirements after the extra three days, they are rejected. Daniel.Bryant [ T · C ] 05:12, 9 January 2007 (UTC)
 * That really is instruction creep. It is very complicated in contrast to 4 net accept votes in a week. Important matters get accepted without any delay or controversy. Fred Bauder 15:02, 9 January 2007 (UTC)
 * How about a simple 4 supports and >50% support? Ral315 (talk) 17:45, 9 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Isn't that what Newyorkbrad said? :-) "Maybe "at least 4 accept votes provided it's a majority of those voting"?" - seriously, this does seem the most sensible proposal. 3/2/1-anything fails (even 3-0). 4-0, 4-1, 4-2, 4-3 all pass, but 4-4 fails. More controversial might be that 5-4, 6-5, 7-6, and 8-7 would all pass this way. Incidentially, arbitrators do still vote and take part in cases that they voted to reject, don't they? Or do they concentrate on cases they voted to accept? Or do they tke part in all cases while they are 'active'? Carcharoth 18:04, 9 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Presently there are between 9-14 arbitrators participating on each case, with most cases closing after 6-7 arbitrators have voted. Thatcher131 19:11, 9 January 2007 (UTC)
 * 7-6 should not pass; that is the flaw with the proposed system. Daniel.Bryant [ T · C ] 01:18, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

How about a little common-sense application of WP:IAR? If a case is on the border between being accepted and not and there are issues that need to be examined, or a majority of arbitrators do want to see it, or what not, why not just use discretion and use the case anyway? I don't think it necessarily makes sense in this instance to try to figure out the best hard-and-fast rule. -- Cyde Weys 18:12, 9 January 2007 (UTC)


 * Well, from the clerks' point of view I'm not going to IAR and open a case that doesn't meet the criteria set forth by my Insect overlords the arbitration committee, although the arbitrators are free to do so themselves.  In my opinion, the old system only failed to reject one case that should have been rejected, out of more than 100 in 2006.  The new system rejected the case against Cbuhl79 at 4-2, but since Cbuhl79's last edit was 11 days before the case was canned, that was also argulably the right decision.  The proposed hybrid solution (4 votes and over 50%) is functionally the same as 4 total votes since there was no case in 2006 where the hybrid solution would have resulted in a different decision from 4 total votes. Thatcher131 19:11, 9 January 2007 (UTC)


 * Thatcher131, let's not Monday-morning quarterback the Cbuhl79 case -- at the time the issue was decided (by the new rules) there was no way to determine if Cbuhl79 would resume editing or not, and thus if it was the right decision or not. The precedent set by the circumstances at the time of the decision arguably shows the fatal flaw of the rule change.  That the troll simply went away is secondary, and doesn't negate the problem that was revealed. :-) /Blaxthos 23:48, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

I have been reading along on this issue for the past few rounds (approximately 6-8 weeks I guess) and have refrained from commenting as I thought it was primarily an issue for the arbitrators to discuss, but I see others are jumping in, so I will too. Although my Wikipedia experience is not as deep as some, I do have some experience with decision-making in small groups (of the in-person variety.) I would like to suggest a simplified version of Daniel.Bryant's proposal, specifically that a case be accepted only if it has at least four "accepts" AND the "accepts" outnumber the "rejects" by at least two votes, within seven days (if that is the correct number of days.)  (Or in the parlance used on here, 2 net accepts and 4 gross (if you will) accepts.)  This is not "instruction creep" and it is not complicated. (All I have really done to Daniel.Bryant's proposal is to remove the automatic extension of time at the end of the seven days; if the arbitrators want that, they should have it, but I got the sense that it was this aspect that drew the "instruction creep" comment. The numbers of votes are exactly as Daniel.Bryant proposed, he just stated it in a more complicated way by including a "majority" vote, which does not need to be stated because of the "two net accepts" requirement, which is actually a sort of supermajority.)  To make this even simpler to implement, someone could make up a little table showing how many votes are required per number of voters. (I figured out the numbers, but I do not know how to make tables.) This method would ensure that at least four arbitrators have participated in the decision, and that there is more than a bare majority in favor of accepting it, while avoiding the rejection of cases in situations where, for example, 6 accept and 3 reject. I think the 6-3 vote (leading to rejection) is a good example of something you want to avoid. A member of the community asks the ArbComm to hear a case that he/she thinks has considerable importance; a majority of the committee (9 of 15) give their opinion about whether to accept; two-thirds of those voting (6 of 9) vote to accept; but the case is rejected because it has 3 net accepts instead of 4. I think a member of the community would be justifiably irritated by such a result. So, there's my suggestion. 6SJ7 21:58, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

I guess I like 6SJ7's suggestion as well. "2 net, 4 gross" really isn't instruction-creepish at all, and can be stated very succintly and understood just as easily. -- Cyde Weys 22:05, 9 January 2007 (UTC)
 * I do have a nack of overcomplicating things :) The main concern I had originally was cases at 7-6, 6-5 etc. should not pass. Even 7-5 is debatable, as is 6-4, but still there is a concensus among ArbCom to accept, as opposed to one Arbitraror casting a "swing vote". Daniel.Bryant [ T · C ] 01:21, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

I apologize for the fact that this discussion has become a bit more complicated than I expected. Subject to correction by someone who was here at the time (such as User:Uninvited Company), I think the original rationale for 4 votes was to get cases open quickly when it was clear arbitrators wanted to hear them, without waiting further, and that is still a laudible objective if things start off 4-0; not sure if the arbs would want a case opened at 4-3 or would prefer to wait for more votes at that time. To Thatcher131's point, I think the distinction is more likely to matter with a greater number of arbitrators. Hopefully the rule agreed upon can be encapsulated in a way that tables should not be necessary! Newyorkbrad 22:12, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

I would suppose it comes down to a balancing act. The criteria for accepting a case should be sufficiently strict that the ArbCom isn't bogged down by frivolous cases. At the same time, it should not be so difficult to grant cert that worthwhile cases are being cast by the wayside. From the analysis above, it appears that a change in the rules would have made a difference in very few cases last year (though I'm not sure about the effect of the new, enlarged ArbCom.) I am inclined to argue that the ArbCom ought to hew towards the less-restrictive standard, simply because it avoids an appearance of unfairness (a 6-3 support-oppose tally resulting in rejection?) while having a very minimal effect on the actual workload.

For reference, the United States Supreme Court (USSC) employs the so-called rule of four, which stipulates that the Supreme Court will hear a case given the support of four of the nine justices. In essence, if at least a substantial minority thinks a case has some meat to it, the Court is compelled to hear the issue. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 22:21, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

Purpose?
Amid the discussion of all the possible permutations of options for ArbCom acceptance mechanisms, it occured to me that one particular facet hasn't been discussed much... at the risk of sounding dense, what was the intended purpose of the change? Was it to alleviate type I and/or type II errors? Why did it occur, and did it have the intended result? Might be useful in trying to find a better solution. /Blaxthos 23:54, 9 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Before the reject votes really did not matter expect they were not an accept vote. The same as not voting at all. This made them matter more. FloNight 00:26, 10 January 2007 (UTC)


 * I'm a little leery of the 'matter more' argument. I mean, I assume that Arbs aren't sitting around alone at night, drinking rye straight from the bottle, quietly weeping to themselves because their votes don't matter enough.  (At least, I hope that they aren't....)  I am concerned that the large 'net' margin makes reject votes matter more&mdash;more in fact than an accept vote, in that substantially more accept votes are required than reject votes to determine whether or not a case is accepted.  If we're up to a fifteen-member ArbCom, a case can be rejected even if as many as nine of the fifteen Arbs think it has merit.  TenOfAllTrades(talk) 03:02, 10 January 2007 (UTC)
 * My preferred beverage is Merlot. And since I've been an arbitrator for less that a month, I still manage to use a wine glass most of the time. ;-) Your question has some merit but it is important to remember that this matters in very few cases. Many cases are rejected as being premature with the hope that some type of resolution will occur without ArbCom involvement. If the situation is not resolved then the situation can be revisited. FloNight 19:47, 17 January 2007 (UTC)


 * Exactly my point. In essence, one reject vote vetos four members who believe the case warrants acceptance -- the balance of power, so to speak, has been completely tilted (not to mention if one factors in the fact that the full ArbCom rarely participates).  Far too much power in one vote, if you ask me... I like the model based on the SCOTUS procedure, personally.  However, this still begets the question... what was the purpose of the change?  /Blaxthos 03:08, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

And this becomes relevant...
The University of Phoenix case is at 3/3/0/0. It is unlikely to achieve four net votes, but possible to gain the +2 net proposed. Thoughts? Daniel.Bryant [ T · C ] 04:07, 14 January 2007 (UTC)


 * The purpose of the change (which happened in October, incidentally) is kinda foggy to me too; it came along with some other streamlining moves. Not sure it was discussed enough. --jpgordon&#8711;&#8710;&#8711;&#8710; 08:55, 14 January 2007 (UTC)


 * I believe it was definitely not discussed enough, and as time progresses we see more cases that (in my humble opinion) are being rejected while a majority of ArbCom members feel that it should be accepted. I personally prefer the acceptance mechanism that is modelled after the Supreme Court.  In any case, I believe it's time to do something -- widen the scope of discusssion?  RfC?  Who does these things?  Who gets to decide these issues?  If ArbCom are the ones to decide the rules by which they accept cases, it would be wholly ironic if we send it to WP:RfArb.  /Blaxthos 20:49, 17 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Well, we haven't actually seen any case in which a majority voted for acceptance and yet the case was rejected, have we? The case that was a 3-3 case turned into a 3-6 case when I asked for more votes on it (that wasn't what I'd hoped for, but that's the problems with individual opinions -- they're often different from mine.) If it ever does seem to make a difference on a case, we can review the rules for acceptance there and then; since we (as in ArbCom) made the procedures, we get to change 'em too, and on the fly if we want to. (For example, if we find ourselves with a case that's 6-5, my guess is that we'd be able to work out between us that a case with almost half the board wanting to hear it is worth hearing.) --jpgordon&#8711;&#8710;&#8711;&#8710; 21:33, 17 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Not to be a thorn, but I do think Wikipedia has a duty to inform its userbase of what the operating procedures will be. One of the foundations of our democratic society (both by Constitutional law and Supreme Court review) states that there will be no de facto laws... I think that's a pretty good premise for us to emulate here as well.  I'm not trying to ignore the practical wisdom of your proposal, however I think that it is only forestalling more confusion and increasing the likelihood of additional type I/II errors, as well as supressing users' liklihood to attempt at even filing ArbCom cases.  Just pointing out the yang.  /Blaxthos
 * Be careful what you wish for. It looks like there will be a clear example in the Gnetwerker case where a significant majority of Arbcom members voted for hearing a case, but the 'four net votes in ten days' rule leads to it being dismissed.
 * This really isn't that new a problem, and other bodies that may sit with variable numbers of their members set a Quorum. I think the best, and simplest to word solution would be to say "Requests will be accepted where at least six current arbitration committees members have voted and a simple majority voted to accept. Requests that have not been accepted within ten days will be removed." Assuming a quorum of six would be acceptable to the arbcom for voting to take cases. --Barberio 09:17, 21 January 2007 (UTC)


 * Works for me, but I'd love to hear from the ArbCom on why the standard was changed in the first place&mdash;what problem was recognized and solved by this solution? TenOfAllTrades(talk) 15:02, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

AMA advocates' status in cases
Surely some here know me for being an AMA advocate that from time to time appears in the halls of ArbCom defending people. This time, I have a doubt. What status have formal or informal advocate during a case? Are we "parties" or just "others"? If we are "parties", then, can we make motions, endorse them, object, request in the workshop or just comment as an uninvolved user? My opinion is that advocates should be considered a party, as we're involved (indirectly, yes) in the case... but, in the other hand, no arbitrator has ever thought on ruling on an advocate... It's quite confusing to me and that's why I request this clarification. Thanks in advance! --Neigel von Teighen 19:12, 18 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Any user may be an informal advocate, but an AMA advocate speaks for the user they represent. They are not a party but may speak for the party they represent. In the past no advocate has effectively represented a user, but the role is open. Great care should be taken to make only motions which make sense to the arbitrators. Focus on adequately presenting relevant evidence in a useable form and on framing proposals in terms of core Wikipedia policies. Fred Bauder 02:01, 23 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment: A rule that a party's advocate in a mediation automatically becomes a party to an ensuing arbitration case might inadvertently discourage editors from taking on the role of advocate. Hopefully, it is a rare situation in which an advocate's own conduct becomes the focus of inquiry by ArbCom, so I don't think formal "party" status is necessary. A sensible rule would be that advocates have the same standing as any other editor to present evidence, make workshop proposals, etc., but that of course when an advocate is commenting in the capacity of advocate, it's good practice to note that fact. When an ArbCom case is filed, providing courtesy notification to anyone who was acting as an advocate is also an appropriate thing to do. Newyorkbrad 19:20, 18 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment &bull; As an advocate myself, I would say that we are just another editor, and should be treated as such. There should be no preferential or special treatment given, and their status as a party should be judged on the merits, or lack thereof, of their actions, and the length of their involvement.  If they are not directly involved in the dispute, other than by acting as an advocate, than I would be compelled to think that they would not be a party.  After all, we do not bring the previous mediator on a case into a case simply because they were the mediator in the prior attempt at dispute resolution.  Cheers, ✎  Peter M Dodge  (  Talk to Me  &bull;  Neutrality Project  ) 19:27, 18 January 2007 (UTC)


 * I'd suggest doing something like putting the comment in the party section and then signing it, say, "NvT as advocate for RealParty". Unless acting directly as advocate -- i.e., speaking for them -- then you're just another editor with a hopefully useful comment. I think ArbCom can figure out the difference between the real parties and the advocates and is unlikely to include the advocates in any remedies... --jpgordon&#8711;&#8710;&#8711;&#8710; 19:33, 18 January 2007 (UTC)


 * Well, that's what I myself do: add "User: Imaglang (aka Neigel von Teighen) AMA advocate for User" in the party list and then adding a diff to anything that certifies me as advocate. What I expect from ArbCom is a little guideline on what to do, not a policy. Something we can rely on when an advocate (formal or informal) has doubts on what to do. That's it what we need. --Neigel von Teighen 09:04, 19 January 2007 (UTC)


 * Comment &bull; I would assume an Advocate is not a party, but an advocate for a party. In a given case were an Advocate represents a party, and performs actions as any other editor, it may raise COI issues. nobs 22:17, 19 January 2007 (UTC)


 * Comment Neigel asks "can we make motions, endorse them, object, request in the workshop[?]". It seems to me the answer is "yes, of course; anyone can do all that stuff, party to the case or not". As far as I can see, absolutely nothing hinges on whether advocates are considered parties. What am I missing here? PurplePlatypus 05:32, 20 January 2007 (UTC)


 * Nobs has hit the point that led me to make this request. There can be COI problems like this: User X makes a motion and Advocate endorses it, counting as two "moves" for the same party in a same "turn"... (proposing-endorsing) I don't know if I'm clear enough... It turns me to be rather unfair in some way... although anyone could go and request an advocate too. Simply put, what I request is a little official guideline written by ArbCom so no doubt nor conflict arrive... Maybe am I being too silly? If so, tell me and withdraw this. --Neigel von Teighen 17:41, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

Advocates have no formal status during arbitration (or, stated another way - they are the same as everybody else). In the past, they have shown themselves clearly and conclusively to be impediments to the arbitration process. In cannot think of a single case they have helped in any way. In short, the AMA is useless. Raul654 18:04, 21 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Well, I really know we're an impediment, but we try to do the best we can, including myself. And have an idea: please send me a feedback on my work on the ongoing Starwood case after its closure and tell me how I did it and what shall I improve or if I was really useless? Honestly, it can be a good start! --Neigel von Teighen 19:01, 21 January 2007 (UTC)
 * I can't speak to the Starwood case (which I haven't yet looked at), but in all past cases, the AMA advocates' arguments have amounted to nothing but pettifoggery. If you wish for things to go different, then - and I say this admittedly without looking at what you have been doing there - I strongly suggest you advocate for the person are representing, and avoid resorting to the AMA's standard toolbox of dilatory tactics. Raul654 21:38, 23 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Personally, I feel that Advocates could be of use, but currently and in the past they have not been. The problem is that when someone makes an argument on one person's behalf and it is struck down, they tend to take it as a slight against them.  I feel that it is important that AMA advocates hold themselves to a certain decorum when working in a case.  Cheers, ✎  Peter M Dodge  (  Talk to Me  &bull;  Neutrality Project  ) 18:48, 22 January 2007 (UTC)
 * This is why we thought in our last AMA meeting to do gather arbitrators with our Coordinator and Deputies to talk about these things... Well, in summary, the answer to my request is: "Advocates are the same as anyother editor in the case". Have I undertood it well? If so, then, we can say this request is closed, wouldn't be? --Neigel von Teighen 11:17, 23 January 2007 (UTC)


 * I honestly must say that I find myself taken aback by comments such as "In short, the AMA is useless," but I cannot deny that historically such observations have been true. In the past, members of the AMA were causing havoc by bringing cases that were far too young in the WP:DR process to MedCom and ArbCom. This, in turn, was mostly due to two things: 1) Advocates who did not have enough direction or practical experience and 2) the fact that the AMA was practically inactive and running "on its own" without any sort of supervision or direction. People were "signing up" with no communication between members and no idea of what to do, the request system was horrific, and the previous Coordinator had resigned months earlier with no acknowledgment from the Association. (This is the state I found it in when I joined). Recently, with many Advocate efforts, there has been a resurgence in membership, a reorganization of our structure and and influx of zeal to help and because of that the AMA is back on its feet. We've kept the same goal that we initially held (helping disputes on Wikipedia) yet have a very different way of going about things. As a result we have already relieved ArbCom of dozens of cases and saved many hours of precious time by reducing the escalation of conflicts as they arise and are referred to us. Things are working well, but they are far from perfect yet, and I feel that the next logical step is for the AMA to foster a closer, functional, and working relationship with ArbCom in order for our processes to be more efficient, and in the end, put less strain on WP:DR. If we end up doing "our job" properly, even fewer cases will rise to the level of Arbitration, and those that do should be properly researched, formed and submitted. What my wishes are in discussing this would be to see that there is some cooperation between us to further these goals and make Wikipedia a better place.  -- (AMA Coordinator) אמר Steve Caruso  ( desk / AMA )  03:39, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

I had suggested that we open a formal hearing on this but there wasn't much interest from the other members of the committee. I'll throw out a few comments informally here since I've seen the AMA in action before and have a few specific concerns and believe I can see both sides: The Uninvited Co., Inc. 10:52, 28 January 2007 (UTC)
 * The AMA was organized by individuals who were not especially supportive of the arbitration process. A clean break or a repudiation of this viewpoint might be appropriate.
 * Arbitration Committee members love to see clearly and concisely presented cases. If that's what you do, great, you'll find that you have our full support in about a picosecond.  On the other hand, if you expand cases unnecessarily with trivial counterclaims, you'll be walking in the footsteps of your predecessors.
 * If you're going to do this, part of your job is to control your clients.   They shouldn't be participating themselves in cases except to offer testimony.
 * If a request for arbitration includes a statement from someone stating that they wish to be represented by a member advocate and that they are going to refrain from direct participation in the case themselves, I would respect that and would expect that most other committee members would as well, as a practical matter.
 * I would be open to a more formal or official role for advocates once advocates have established a track record as an asset to arbitration itself in addition to helping out by steering cases to the most appropriate forum.


 * I am very encouraged by Steve Caruso's statement above. The function of AMA, done well, can provide a very valuable service to the community and the ArbCom. I also support UninvitedCompany's reccomendations above. Paul August &#9742; 19:30, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

Number of votes required for case acceptance
At some point last summer, the arbitration policy was changed so that instead of simply 4 "accept" votes being required for ArbCom to open a case, it now requires 4 net accept votes. Questions were raised about the pros and cons of the change, and I believe it was indicated that the matter could be revisited after the first of the year when the new arbitrators were installed. As it would be better to have this discussion in the abstract rather than at a time it's dispositive of a pending application, I raise the matter here. Newyorkbrad 18:16, 8 January 2007 (UTC)
 * For what it's worth, I went over all the cases from 2006 and posted an analysis here. There seems to have been only one case acccepted under the 4 vote standard that should not have been accepted in all of 2006.  In the 2 months since the policy was changed to 4 net votes there may have been one case rejected that arguable should have been heard. Thatcher131 23:36, 8 January 2007 (UTC)
 * I'll post thoughts and links on this when I get back from a trip (Thurs.) if the committee is interested in pursuing the matter. In brief, "4 accept votes" is problematic because it means "4 accept, 9 reject" gets accepted. "4 net votes" is also problematic because it means "8 accept, 5 reject" gets rejected. Maybe "at least 4 accept votes provided it's a majority of those voting"? Newyorkbrad 23:41, 8 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Both seem to have their own advantages; I'm not too sure which one (or a combination of some sort) would be the most effective. What do others think? (Yes, of couse we're interested in your comments on this, Newyorkbrad.) Thanks! Flcelloguy (A note? ) 02:24, 9 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Well, I'm not NYB, but here's my thoughts (and excuse the instruction creep):
 * After seven days, if a case recieves more "accept" than "reject" votes (eg. 4/1, 6/3 etc.), and "accept" votes tally at least four, and there are two more "accept" votes than "reject" (ie. two net "accept" votes), the case is accepted.
 * If a case hasn't recieved four votes to either "accept" or "reject" after seven days (eg. 3/2, 3/3, 1/3 etc.), the case is given three more days to try and meet either; cases which don't have the +2 net "accept", but have four "accept" votes, are also afforded this extension. Cases which have four votes in "reject" are dismissed after seven days if they fail the above bullet point.
 * Anything else is rejected, and if the cases which are valid for the extension above still can't meet the "accept" requirements after the extra three days, they are rejected. Daniel.Bryant [ T · C ] 05:12, 9 January 2007 (UTC)
 * That really is instruction creep. It is very complicated in contrast to 4 net accept votes in a week. Important matters get accepted without any delay or controversy. Fred Bauder 15:02, 9 January 2007 (UTC)
 * How about a simple 4 supports and >50% support? Ral315 (talk) 17:45, 9 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Isn't that what Newyorkbrad said? :-) "Maybe "at least 4 accept votes provided it's a majority of those voting"?" - seriously, this does seem the most sensible proposal. 3/2/1-anything fails (even 3-0). 4-0, 4-1, 4-2, 4-3 all pass, but 4-4 fails. More controversial might be that 5-4, 6-5, 7-6, and 8-7 would all pass this way. Incidentially, arbitrators do still vote and take part in cases that they voted to reject, don't they? Or do they concentrate on cases they voted to accept? Or do they tke part in all cases while they are 'active'? Carcharoth 18:04, 9 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Presently there are between 9-14 arbitrators participating on each case, with most cases closing after 6-7 arbitrators have voted. Thatcher131 19:11, 9 January 2007 (UTC)
 * 7-6 should not pass; that is the flaw with the proposed system. Daniel.Bryant [ T · C ] 01:18, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

How about a little common-sense application of WP:IAR? If a case is on the border between being accepted and not and there are issues that need to be examined, or a majority of arbitrators do want to see it, or what not, why not just use discretion and use the case anyway? I don't think it necessarily makes sense in this instance to try to figure out the best hard-and-fast rule. -- Cyde Weys 18:12, 9 January 2007 (UTC)


 * Well, from the clerks' point of view I'm not going to IAR and open a case that doesn't meet the criteria set forth by my Insect overlords the arbitration committee, although the arbitrators are free to do so themselves.  In my opinion, the old system only failed to reject one case that should have been rejected, out of more than 100 in 2006.  The new system rejected the case against Cbuhl79 at 4-2, but since Cbuhl79's last edit was 11 days before the case was canned, that was also argulably the right decision.  The proposed hybrid solution (4 votes and over 50%) is functionally the same as 4 total votes since there was no case in 2006 where the hybrid solution would have resulted in a different decision from 4 total votes. Thatcher131 19:11, 9 January 2007 (UTC)


 * Thatcher131, let's not Monday-morning quarterback the Cbuhl79 case -- at the time the issue was decided (by the new rules) there was no way to determine if Cbuhl79 would resume editing or not, and thus if it was the right decision or not. The precedent set by the circumstances at the time of the decision arguably shows the fatal flaw of the rule change.  That the troll simply went away is secondary, and doesn't negate the problem that was revealed. :-) /Blaxthos 23:48, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

I have been reading along on this issue for the past few rounds (approximately 6-8 weeks I guess) and have refrained from commenting as I thought it was primarily an issue for the arbitrators to discuss, but I see others are jumping in, so I will too. Although my Wikipedia experience is not as deep as some, I do have some experience with decision-making in small groups (of the in-person variety.) I would like to suggest a simplified version of Daniel.Bryant's proposal, specifically that a case be accepted only if it has at least four "accepts" AND the "accepts" outnumber the "rejects" by at least two votes, within seven days (if that is the correct number of days.)  (Or in the parlance used on here, 2 net accepts and 4 gross (if you will) accepts.)  This is not "instruction creep" and it is not complicated. (All I have really done to Daniel.Bryant's proposal is to remove the automatic extension of time at the end of the seven days; if the arbitrators want that, they should have it, but I got the sense that it was this aspect that drew the "instruction creep" comment. The numbers of votes are exactly as Daniel.Bryant proposed, he just stated it in a more complicated way by including a "majority" vote, which does not need to be stated because of the "two net accepts" requirement, which is actually a sort of supermajority.)  To make this even simpler to implement, someone could make up a little table showing how many votes are required per number of voters. (I figured out the numbers, but I do not know how to make tables.) This method would ensure that at least four arbitrators have participated in the decision, and that there is more than a bare majority in favor of accepting it, while avoiding the rejection of cases in situations where, for example, 6 accept and 3 reject. I think the 6-3 vote (leading to rejection) is a good example of something you want to avoid. A member of the community asks the ArbComm to hear a case that he/she thinks has considerable importance; a majority of the committee (9 of 15) give their opinion about whether to accept; two-thirds of those voting (6 of 9) vote to accept; but the case is rejected because it has 3 net accepts instead of 4. I think a member of the community would be justifiably irritated by such a result. So, there's my suggestion. 6SJ7 21:58, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

I guess I like 6SJ7's suggestion as well. "2 net, 4 gross" really isn't instruction-creepish at all, and can be stated very succintly and understood just as easily. -- Cyde Weys 22:05, 9 January 2007 (UTC)
 * I do have a nack of overcomplicating things :) The main concern I had originally was cases at 7-6, 6-5 etc. should not pass. Even 7-5 is debatable, as is 6-4, but still there is a concensus among ArbCom to accept, as opposed to one Arbitraror casting a "swing vote". Daniel.Bryant [ T · C ] 01:21, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

I apologize for the fact that this discussion has become a bit more complicated than I expected. Subject to correction by someone who was here at the time (such as User:Uninvited Company), I think the original rationale for 4 votes was to get cases open quickly when it was clear arbitrators wanted to hear them, without waiting further, and that is still a laudible objective if things start off 4-0; not sure if the arbs would want a case opened at 4-3 or would prefer to wait for more votes at that time. To Thatcher131's point, I think the distinction is more likely to matter with a greater number of arbitrators. Hopefully the rule agreed upon can be encapsulated in a way that tables should not be necessary! Newyorkbrad 22:12, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

I would suppose it comes down to a balancing act. The criteria for accepting a case should be sufficiently strict that the ArbCom isn't bogged down by frivolous cases. At the same time, it should not be so difficult to grant cert that worthwhile cases are being cast by the wayside. From the analysis above, it appears that a change in the rules would have made a difference in very few cases last year (though I'm not sure about the effect of the new, enlarged ArbCom.) I am inclined to argue that the ArbCom ought to hew towards the less-restrictive standard, simply because it avoids an appearance of unfairness (a 6-3 support-oppose tally resulting in rejection?) while having a very minimal effect on the actual workload.

For reference, the United States Supreme Court (USSC) employs the so-called rule of four, which stipulates that the Supreme Court will hear a case given the support of four of the nine justices. In essence, if at least a substantial minority thinks a case has some meat to it, the Court is compelled to hear the issue. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 22:21, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

Purpose?
Amid the discussion of all the possible permutations of options for ArbCom acceptance mechanisms, it occured to me that one particular facet hasn't been discussed much... at the risk of sounding dense, what was the intended purpose of the change? Was it to alleviate type I and/or type II errors? Why did it occur, and did it have the intended result? Might be useful in trying to find a better solution. /Blaxthos 23:54, 9 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Before the reject votes really did not matter expect they were not an accept vote. The same as not voting at all. This made them matter more. FloNight 00:26, 10 January 2007 (UTC)


 * I'm a little leery of the 'matter more' argument. I mean, I assume that Arbs aren't sitting around alone at night, drinking rye straight from the bottle, quietly weeping to themselves because their votes don't matter enough.  (At least, I hope that they aren't....)  I am concerned that the large 'net' margin makes reject votes matter more&mdash;more in fact than an accept vote, in that substantially more accept votes are required than reject votes to determine whether or not a case is accepted.  If we're up to a fifteen-member ArbCom, a case can be rejected even if as many as nine of the fifteen Arbs think it has merit.  TenOfAllTrades(talk) 03:02, 10 January 2007 (UTC)
 * My preferred beverage is Merlot. And since I've been an arbitrator for less that a month, I still manage to use a wine glass most of the time. ;-) Your question has some merit but it is important to remember that this matters in very few cases. Many cases are rejected as being premature with the hope that some type of resolution will occur without ArbCom involvement. If the situation is not resolved then the situation can be revisited. FloNight 19:47, 17 January 2007 (UTC)


 * Exactly my point. In essence, one reject vote vetos four members who believe the case warrants acceptance -- the balance of power, so to speak, has been completely tilted (not to mention if one factors in the fact that the full ArbCom rarely participates).  Far too much power in one vote, if you ask me... I like the model based on the SCOTUS procedure, personally.  However, this still begets the question... what was the purpose of the change?  /Blaxthos 03:08, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

And this becomes relevant...
The University of Phoenix case is at 3/3/0/0. It is unlikely to achieve four net votes, but possible to gain the +2 net proposed. Thoughts? Daniel.Bryant [ T · C ] 04:07, 14 January 2007 (UTC)


 * The purpose of the change (which happened in October, incidentally) is kinda foggy to me too; it came along with some other streamlining moves. Not sure it was discussed enough. --jpgordon&#8711;&#8710;&#8711;&#8710; 08:55, 14 January 2007 (UTC)


 * I believe it was definitely not discussed enough, and as time progresses we see more cases that (in my humble opinion) are being rejected while a majority of ArbCom members feel that it should be accepted. I personally prefer the acceptance mechanism that is modelled after the Supreme Court.  In any case, I believe it's time to do something -- widen the scope of discusssion?  RfC?  Who does these things?  Who gets to decide these issues?  If ArbCom are the ones to decide the rules by which they accept cases, it would be wholly ironic if we send it to WP:RfArb.  /Blaxthos 20:49, 17 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Well, we haven't actually seen any case in which a majority voted for acceptance and yet the case was rejected, have we? The case that was a 3-3 case turned into a 3-6 case when I asked for more votes on it (that wasn't what I'd hoped for, but that's the problems with individual opinions -- they're often different from mine.) If it ever does seem to make a difference on a case, we can review the rules for acceptance there and then; since we (as in ArbCom) made the procedures, we get to change 'em too, and on the fly if we want to. (For example, if we find ourselves with a case that's 6-5, my guess is that we'd be able to work out between us that a case with almost half the board wanting to hear it is worth hearing.) --jpgordon&#8711;&#8710;&#8711;&#8710; 21:33, 17 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Not to be a thorn, but I do think Wikipedia has a duty to inform its userbase of what the operating procedures will be. One of the foundations of our democratic society (both by Constitutional law and Supreme Court review) states that there will be no de facto laws... I think that's a pretty good premise for us to emulate here as well.  I'm not trying to ignore the practical wisdom of your proposal, however I think that it is only forestalling more confusion and increasing the likelihood of additional type I/II errors, as well as supressing users' liklihood to attempt at even filing ArbCom cases.  Just pointing out the yang.  /Blaxthos
 * Be careful what you wish for. It looks like there will be a clear example in the Gnetwerker case where a significant majority of Arbcom members voted for hearing a case, but the 'four net votes in ten days' rule leads to it being dismissed.
 * This really isn't that new a problem, and other bodies that may sit with variable numbers of their members set a Quorum. I think the best, and simplest to word solution would be to say "Requests will be accepted where at least six current arbitration committees members have voted and a simple majority voted to accept. Requests that have not been accepted within ten days will be removed." Assuming a quorum of six would be acceptable to the arbcom for voting to take cases. --Barberio 09:17, 21 January 2007 (UTC)


 * Works for me, but I'd love to hear from the ArbCom on why the standard was changed in the first place&mdash;what problem was recognized and solved by this solution? TenOfAllTrades(talk) 15:02, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

Failure to engage
Hi, My case is currently up for arbitration, and this may not be the proper place to ask questions such as the following. If this is the case, please let me know and I'll ask it in that venue. I am wondering what happens if one member of the arbitration case fails to appear, post a statement, etc. after they have unequivocally been alterted to the case? Is the case dismissed without a hearing or decision? Thanks, WLU 00:57, 24 January 2007 (UTC)


 * Of course I defer to the arbitrators, but from what I have seen on these pages, typically, the committee waits for at least one week after the case is accepted and opened, to make sure everyone has an opportunity to participate. Sometimes it's a bit longer than a week, due to the backlog of cases, etc., but one week is supposed to be the minimum. After that, the committee usually moves ahead to a decision based on the evidence that is before it, whether or not there is a party who has chosen not to participate. Of course the arbitrators have discretion to do what they feel is appropriate in any given case, so if this situation arises in your case you still can mention in your evidence or on the Workshop what remedies you think should be implemented and why. Newyorkbrad 01:13, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

While it would depend somewhat on the specifics, in general we will ultimately proceed anyway unless the case is moot as might happen if they have departed the project. It would be most unusual for someone to refuse to post a statement. It is more common for disputants to depart the project shortly after posting a statement, without participating in the evidence or workshop pages. The Uninvited Co., Inc. 01:23, 24 January 2007 (UTC)


 * Thanks for the replies. I'm not sure if there's a protocol, but if anyone has to recuse themselves becuase of their response to my question, that makes sense to me.  WLU


 * It's a good question, though. I'm not voting to accept or decline for a while, because the response is not there yet. --jpgordon&#8711;&#8710;&#8711;&#8710; 06:48, 24 January 2007 (UTC)


 * At this point the case will be opened tomorrow as it has enough votes, unless one of the arbitrators objects. In my experience, if you decline to participate in the case but are still an active editor on the site, it will go on without you and if any ruling is adopted that it adverse to you it will be imposed.  Cases occasionally evaporate due to lack of evidence, and if the evidence against you is poor, the arbitrators may dismiss the case.  If the evidence against you is strong, they will not do the work of finding evidence in your defense.  If you intend to continue editing, you should at least monitor the evidence and workshop pages of the case, so you will be aware of the progress of the case, should you decide later to participate. Thatcher131 08:25, 24 January 2007 (UTC)


 * Thanks for the clarification. It might be worth posting this information on Mystar's talk page, as I don't think he is taking this seriously at all, and if I post this information he might ignore it or think I'm just trying to harass him.  But I leave this up to the arbitrators to decide.  WLU 12:38, 24 January 2007 (UTC)
 * I was wondering whether I should gently prod Mystar to speak up now, but wasn't sure whether doing so would be appropriate. --jpgordon&#8711;&#8710;&#8711;&#8710; 15:15, 24 January 2007 (UTC)
 * I doubt that a nudge in the general direction of participation would be seen as compromising your neutrality. However, the clerks are always happy to do stuff like this.  You can summon a clerk with the appropriate incantation at the clerks' noticeboard. Thatcher131 16:05, 24 January 2007 (UTC)
 * I am deliberately leaving this up to someone else's judgement. Incidentally, what/where's this workshop page people keep talking about?  WLU 15:25, 24 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Both parties will get a templated notice when the case opens. I can copy my remarks as well.  The workshop page will be created when the case subpages are set up.  You can get a preview of how the process works by looking at some of the other open cases. Thatcher131 16:05, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

Well for what its worth, I do not think two days can hardly be called "Failure to engage". It may most likely be that mystar is simply preparing his statement and laying out the layers of holes and erroneous information presented so far. But that is just my personal opinion. Though mystar could also be discussing it with members of the AMA, to make sure his rebuttle is correct Mystar 17:50, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

Splitting the lead off into a subpage to be transcluded
This page is rather long even if there's only one topic - right now there's four, and there have been more. I'd like to propose splitting off the topmatter/frontmatter/whatever you call it into a subpage, like Administrators' noticeboard/Header is for Administrators' noticeboard. Are there any reasons why not? If not, I'll go ahead. Picaroon 02:04, 23 January 2007 (UTC)


 * I don't see why not. Thanks! Flcelloguy (A note? ) 03:26, 23 January 2007 (UTC)


 * Done. Page size is now down 3.4 kilobytes. Picaroon 20:28, 23 January 2007 (UTC)


 * Thanks for doing so. Flcelloguy (A note? ) 02:56, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

Nathanrdotcom
Doesn't it seem kind of unfair that the person who this case is being filed against isn't allowed to participate?  ♥ Fr  ed  il  01:46, 26 January 2007 (UTC)
 * He is able to participate by sending an e-mail to the Arbitration Committee mailing list. Newyorkbrad 01:47, 26 January 2007 (UTC)


 * (An email to any one of us will also suffice, and if requested, we can forward it to the entire list.) Flcelloguy (A note? ) 02:56, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

I would like to point out that the case is proceeding privately and we are indeed receiving a good deal of correspondence from Nathan. The Uninvited Co., Inc. 17:30, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

Please explain the need of confidentiality if you make a statement in support of Admin IRC
One remark. Unfortunately statements by Tony and Doc failed to address the pivotal issue I raised in my original request. No inherently "admin-only" matters that require confidentiality have been identified by the channel's supporters in all these discussions. While there may be and there are ArbCom-only, checkuser-only and oversight-only confidential matters, there are none pertaining to just adminship.

The channel most abusive regulars do not have checkuser and oversight rights and are not at ArbCom. So, what is confidential there? A more detailed discussion is at WP:ANIRC. I request that the channel's supporters that plan to write their statements, address this omission by Tony and Doc. Please explain the need for the confidentiality of admin matters that need to be known to Kelly and Tony but not to others. --Irpen 15:32, 26 January 2007 (UTC)


 * So? — P ilotguy (ptt) 16:16, 26 January 2007 (UTC)


 * Um... Doc identified OTRS as something which required confidentiality, at least from the general userbase. -Amark moo! 15:50, 26 January 2007 (UTC)


 * OTRS has its own dedicated IRC channel, so I don't think that impacts the admin channel. Check it out here. Bishonen | talk 18:05, 26 January 2007 (UTC).


 * As someone very involved with OTRS I can testify that that channel does not meet all our needs (it only allows us to contact a small pool of other OTRS personnel - and is often empty), and the admins channel is of great value in asking a cross-section of trusted users to take a look at (or watchlist) an article or a problem user. I use it almost daily for that purpose. OTRS is a thankless time consuming job, done quietly by a few dedicated people. Please don't make our job harder.--Docg 18:13, 26 January 2007 (UTC)


 * "Trusted users"? OMG! Here the community demonstrated how some of the channel most active regulars (chanops even) are trusted. --Irpen 23:32, 26 January 2007 (UTC)


 * As that page notes in bold, the channel can't be used to discuss confidential information because it's open to anyone. --Interiot 19:39, 26 January 2007 (UTC)


 * Sorry, I am not about to enter into this discussion. When witches are being hunted, you'll not get a hearing on the medicinal purposes of certain herbs. Some people, who mainly know nothing about it, have already made up their mind about this channel, and would simply dismiss anything I might say without genuine consideration. This is more about point scoring and partisanship than common sense. All the issues that are being raised as reasons for closing it down WOULD ACTUALLY BE MADE WORSE IF IT WERE (I'm tempted to bold that, but....). But that's not really relevant to the true believers either, is it? This does not appear to me to be a rational debate, people do not appear to be interested in facts, just things to cement their prejudices, so you will excuse me if I refuse to play this game.--Docg 16:03, 26 January 2007 (UTC)


 * Doc, I asked a specific question. Are there inherently confidential topics that require adminship to get access to them? Not checkuser but mere adminship, or even former admiship, I repeat. There is a separate OTRS IRC channel for the related issues and for the appropriate set of users.


 * No one yet gave an example of a specific topic discussed at #admins that is so confidential that cannot be seen by the general public but, nevertheless, is OK to be seen by so mistrusted users like some of the #admin channel's regulars. No example was given of any such discussion to give any positive outcome while plenty of examples were given that the mere secrecy, as perceived by IRC admins, did result in abuse.


 * So, please answer the question about the need of confidentiality and please do not post off-topic stuff. Go to WP:ANIRC for that. Thanks, --Irpen 17:24, 26 January 2007 (UTC)


 * Yes (and no, the OTRS channel doesn't meet the need since 1) it is open 2) there are seldom many people in there with time to help.--Docg 17:47, 26 January 2007 (UTC)
 * But there's other times when there's a need to discuss something personal or which could compromise someone's real-life identity where you don't want it to be published on one of the anti-WP sites the next day. To me, this is silly - I'm all for openness, but not at the cost of tying one hand behind our backs. --BigDT 18:05, 26 January 2007 (UTC)


 * If there are issues of the real life identity, children's privacy, etc, being an admin is not by itself a justification to have the access to the discussions of so sensitive nature. Moreover, the populace made it clear that several of the channel's regulars are greatly mistrusted by the community. Nevertheless, some of such members are even the IRC channel's sysops (!). There is an ArbCom IRC channel whose access is never given arbitrary to mistrusted users based on one person's likes or dislikes. There is (or can be set) a checkuser IRC for real-life identity issues with the access restricted to the people entrusted by the community with the checkuser access. Those not entrusted to deal with such issues, should not take part in those discussions. This especially applies to the people very much mistrusted by the community. --Irpen 18:52, 26 January 2007 (UTC)
 * But this is a silly standard you are asking for. You are asking for proof that the purpose of the admin channel cannot be fulfilled by any other means. But, as with many things in life, if the admin channel didn't exist, life would go on. There are plenty of things that we don't "need" but we have because they are convenient, they are better than the alternative, or because WP:ILIKEIT. Even on Wikipedia, there are processes that could be accomplished by some other means. But IRC does not have to be the only option in order to exist, it just needs to be an acceptable option that is helpful in some fashion. As for those on there who aren't trusted by the community, if they aren't admins here, why does it matter? If you don't trust them, stay away from the channel. --BigDT 19:03, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

The problem is that #admins solution is not "better than the alternative" but worse since it created the corrupt culture of abuse with the perceived impunity of the abusers. I cannot post the specific logs to demonstrate to you the examples of such abuse but ArbCom have seen the logs, realized the scale of abuse and stepped in already. In my opinion, however, steps undertaken by the ArbCom, while good, are insufficient. It is up to the ArbCom members to get convinced or not that my proposal will address the problem better.

Besides, I am making the case that the channel is outright unnecessary in the first place and it is up to an ArbCom to see whether I am making a good case for this. Almost any good things in life come with certain cost. If the benefits outweigh the cost, this is called "progress". Here we have no benefits from the existence of the channel but the enormous cost the community has to bear from the culture of corruption bred by that channel. If ArbCom does not agree with such assessment, it will allow the channel to continue to run. I am asking it simply to consider the complaints and evaluate the proposed solution. --Irpen 19:14, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

Please explain the need of confidentiality if you make a statement in support of Admin IRC (section break)

 * "If you don't trust them, stay away from the channel." - faulty logic, if their behaviour there is causing problems here. "Even on Wikipedia, there are processes that could be accomplished by some other means. But IRC does not have to be the only option in order to exist, it just needs to be an acceptable option that is helpful in some fashion" - quite true, but you've missed out the serious allegation that the IRC admins channel's net contribution to the encyclopedia is deficient. It has been alleged that the IRC admins channel is not an "acceptable option". This needs to be dealt with. Moreschi Deletion! 19:20, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

This is all bs. Irpen you are not active in the channel, and you don't do OTRS. You asked is it useful for that purpose, I told you it was. But, as I suspected, you are not really interested in understanding its purposes, you are only interested in defeating any argument for its utility. Sure, most of the discrete (and discrete is better that confidential - since the channel is not in effect confidential) stuff that goes on in there could be done in other ways. But the fact is that it is vastly more convenient to have a place where one can poke a good selection of reasonably trusted people quickly. Danny Wool and Jimbo have both used it for that purpose, OTRS admins do so regularly. This is very important stuff, drastically undervalued by the community and waaaaay more important than some silly soap-opera with dodgy logs about what someone might have said once about Giano. Get a sense of perspective. Understand also this: if you close the channel you will handicap (although granted not eliminate) useful work, and make life more difficult for busy troubleshooters; at the same time, if you close the channel, you will NOT eliminate the perceived problems. They will only go elsewhere, into less accountable, less open places with more possibilities for cabals, plots and group think. This whole campaign makes no sense, other than some warriors are looking to flex their muscles and score some sort of victory against some perceived 'wicked establishment'. This whole thing is lose/lose for Wikipedia. Please just stop it.--Docg 19:30, 26 January 2007 (UTC)


 * I am convinsed that the loss to the Wikipedia due to the abuse generated by the channel is more damaging than the hypothetical loss of convenience you are talking about. You and I don't know the full extent of that abuse. ArbCom knows it, let it decide. If ArbCom can come up with the solution that will guarantee that the abuse stops, abusers are ejected and the ArbCom will implement some safeguards that would guarantee that the situation won't repeat, it will be just as well. I don't see such solution is possible. So, I suggest to shut the channel down. Does not mean ArbCom cannot find the solution that I do not see. I offered my opinion and supported it with the arguments the best I can. That's all there is to it. --Irpen 19:49, 26 January 2007 (UTC)


 * Hypothetical? No, it is very real. I "don't know the full extent of the abuse" - no, but I am in the channel and I do OTRS and I do have some knowledge other than hearsay. You are not, do not, and don't. So how are you 'convinced'? You want "a solution that will guarantee that the abuse stops", sorry, there are no guarantees. There are no guarantees on-wiki, and there no guarantees that shutting the channels will help. (In fact logic, which your case wholly lacks, states the opposite). If you need guarantees, then best pack your bag and leave wikipedia now. Because you'll get nowhere. People who constantly assume bad faith, and mount little campaigns without possession of facts, really shouldn't be taken seriously. This is a totally unbelievable waste of time!!! And right now I'm going to stop, because I am really angry with the utter stupidity of this argument. As I said when you asked me for views on the utility of the channel, I was reluctant to give you any, because you are simply not interested in truth, evidence or rational discussion. You are just looking to forward this silly little bad-faith argument, and win some pyric little victory. I've had it with the soap-opera and the grandstanding. Just please, for the love of mercy, knock it off!!--Docg 20:56, 26 January 2007 (UTC)


 * Doc, note I asked for some specific examples that show the channel's being useful as opposed to what would have happened if the same issues were discussed elsewhere. You delivered instead this eloquent arrogant "I am in the know while you aren't" speech which just shows how strongly you disagree with me. Fine, but please argue facts. Several examples of abuse that became possible due to the channels secretive corruptive nature have been given. You, respond with empty demagogy. Instead, please be more specific.


 * I repeat the question again. How many specific examples can you give us of the useful actions that came from the channel that would not have happened if they were discussed at WP:ANI? Please be specific if you are going to answer. Thanks, --Irpen 21:19, 26 January 2007 (UTC)


 * Em, you want me to post specific examples of confidential issues that need discrete channels and can't by their nature be referred to on-wiki?? Hows about I say, NO (obviously). Enough, I'm unwatching this page, this is foolishness.--Docg 21:42, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

Perhaps in general terms, Doc? Just being as general as possible? Still can't? My god, must be some serious stuff that you deal with there if we can't know what this is about even without specifics.

How about such hypothetical discussion:
 *  I need to issue a npa warning to an editor but I am involved in a dispute with said user anyone want to give me a hand?
 *  sure, why not
 *  He's a wikilawyer, a solid block rationale is more necessary than ever.... you need to get a clean kill, so focus on the specific violating criteria. 

Such discussion would have been indeed very confidential and could not have been described in general terms without the fundamental breach of Wikipedia's security. Too bad you unwatched the page but in case you rewatched it, please explain what was the benefit to Wikipedia from such discussions (if they took place). Or did you mean some other discussions? --Irpen 22:00, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

Please explain the need of confidentiality if you make a statement in support of Admin IRC (2nd section break)

 * Most of the people in the channel are admins, people chosen specifically for their trustworthiness and dedication to the project. If admins are as irreformable as you suggest, then Wikipedia has far worse problems than a single side channel.  --Interiot 20:24, 26 January 2007 (UTC)


 * Admins placed in the medium that by design encourages behind the scenes dealmaking and cabalism have their worst instincts bred and nurtured. Not all admins are at IRC. Not all who are at IRC are abusers but there is clearly a correlation. The medium is the problem. Some people are incorruptible, true enough. We cannot be sure that all our admins are such (we no for a fact that this is not so, btw) and we need to pull the plug from the place that appeals to the weak sides of the human nature and gradually turn otherwise good people into power freaks. --Irpen 20:36, 26 January 2007 (UTC)


 * The admin channel and IRC are necessary for matters that swiftly need oversight. It is the preferred medium as it takes much longer for e-mails to be addressed, while in many oversighters are in the admin channel for immediate access. There's your answer. Cowman109 Talk 23:51, 27 January 2007 (UTC)


 * Matters that swiftly need oversight (personal information, children's privacy, etc.) are usually matters of such sensitivity, that they can only be discussed within a very restricted circle of truly trusted users. #Wikipedia-en-admins simply does not qualify to be the appropriate forum as it has a notorious presence of certain individuals with the history of abuse pertaining to specifically the most sensitive info (checkuser abuse) and to whom the community has demonstrated a total lack of trust. There may be a need for a Checkuser/Oversight IRC channel with an access to only those who community entrusted with the keys to such tools but it would be a grave breach of security to discuss such issues at the channel where access and even sysop privileges are arbitrary given based on personal friendships and whose logs occasionally pop up at Wikitruth, ED, WR and other malicious web-sites. --Irpen 01:07, 29 January 2007 (UTC)


 * I can say, as a checkuser clerk that has access to a channel of this nature, that channels of this nature do indeed exist. Cheers, ✎  Peter M Dodge  (  Talk to Me  &bull;  Neutrality Project  ) 01:28, 29 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Great! That's a huge relief to know that there is an appropriate place where such issues are discussed. --Irpen 01:39, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

Secrecy breeds corruption

 * IRC "by design" encourages dealmaking and cabalism? Come on Irpen, say something sensical.  Here is what IRC is actually "by design" intended to do.  -- Cyde Weys  21:34, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

Another good usage of the channel &mdash; earlier today we had a lot of spam attacks coming in from multiple proxies. We have a few meta admins in #admins and one was able to quickly add the relevant URLs to the spam blacklist. We also discusses the best way to handle these kinds of things. This is not a discussion you want to be having on WP:ANI, where the spammers can read our discussion and adapt to our defenses. Wikipedia is basically at war with spammers. They certainly don't do any of their planning out in the open, but if we are limited to only discussing our defense out in the open we are at a tremendous disadvantage. By the way, we now have another technical measure to use against spammers that would be become much less useful if they knew what it was &mdash; but they don't, because we did it where they can't see it >:-D  Cyde Weys  21:31, 26 January 2007 (UTC)


 * Thank you Cyde for the first specific example of something good that came out due to this channel's discussion. Note, however, that this was a discussion of purely technical matter rather than the adminning one. It could have taken place at #wikimedia-tech or, if the latter channel can be read by spammers (I don't know if it is open or not) at the private sub-channel that would be easy to create, like #wikimedia-tech-closed. The abuse comes not from technical discussions but from the discussions of the users. Technical discussions can move to technical IRC channels where they rightfully belong. --Irpen 21:39, 26 January 2007 (UTC)
 * You're right; if I want coffee, I should go build my own coffee shop, rather than just going to Starbucks, because something bad once happened at a Starbucks, and it doesn't cost any investment in time to set up a new coffee shop, and anyone who was in a Starbucks will automatically go to my place too. -- Cyde Weys  22:37, 26 January 2007 (UTC)


 * (edit conflict) This argument is silly. What did you have for breakfast this morning? Prove to me that you couldn't have eaten something different. If you could have eaten something different, then you should have done that instead. That's about the level of this argument. Just as your breakfast this morning was your chosen method of nutrition, the admin IRC channel is a chosen method of communication. It's no different, as you point out, from email, a different IRC channel, meeting in person, Vulcan mind melds, whatever. Closing it down would accomplish nothing. --BigDT 22:39, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

Whether I brew my coffee at home or buy it in Starbucks in no way results in a violation of the WP:BLOCKing policy. The potential block being discussed at WP:ANI instead of IRC makes sure no one is blocked unfairly. That's the difference. --Irpen 22:49, 26 January 2007 (UTC)
 * How? Blocks have been discussed at ANI and implemented, then later held to be incorrect.  A public lynch mob has no more authority than a private one. --BigDT 22:52, 26 January 2007 (UTC)
 * OK, let me modify my statement. Potentially controversial block being discussed at ANI rather than IRC makes the unfair action much less likely but, true enough, not totally impossible. However, knowing that one's words will be read and will stay in history would strongly discourage the abuse from an admin who is just out to get someone to avenge that someone's criticism of the said admin (perhaps uncommon but possible situation that did happen several times in Wikipedia lately). --Irpen 22:58, 26 January 2007 (UTC)


 * WP:BP doesn't say you can't run a block by a single other administrator as a sanity check, nor does it say every block has to be reviewed on WP:AN. On the other hand, it's probably a good idea to generally avoid discussing blocking established users off-wiki.  So put that rule in place on IRC...  there's no need to do this shell game of "as long as we call it #wikipedia-tech-closed, it's okay".  --Interiot 22:56, 26 January 2007 (UTC)


 * WP:BP says: "[B]locks of logged-in users with a substantial history of valid contributions, regardless of the reason for the block [are always controversial]". At the same time, sometimes such users have to be blocked, true. Moreover, admins are allowed to make a good faith block when the situation clearly warrants. That said, often there are marginal cases or simple misunderstanding when the best decision can be achieved only in a discussion. This is what WP:ANI is for.


 * I agree that if the IRC policy suggested by Interiot was implemented, the abuse would have been curtailed significantly. The problem is that as long as channel is secretive, there is no way to enforce such rule. As per JDForrester, he once made "Discussion of blocking is prohibited" a message of the day at the channel. The discussion immediately turned towards the message itself and quickly turned back into the discussion of blocking. It is hard to argue with facts. Secrecy breeds corruption. --Irpen 23:00, 26 January 2007 (UTC)
 * So #wikimedia-tech-closed, a channel with fewer people in it, breeds less corruption? You're dreaming.  #wikipedia-en-admins is a growing channel, with people who don't see eye-to-eye on everything, things that happen there are hardly secret.  Tell them to police each other, and make it easier to tackle problems, and that's all you need.  --Interiot 23:37, 26 January 2007 (UTC)
 * The reality showed that it did not work. I wish it did. You are right, though, that ensuring the diversity of the participants of the discussions makes the abuse much less likely. However, there is already a medium with such perfect diversity: WP:ANI. This is why precisely ANI discussions produce so few abusive blocks, if any, unlike IRC.


 * As for #tech-closed becoming a breeding ground for abusive blocks, it would be much easier to ensure its oversight. There is no good excuse to not allow a prolific editor who committed wealth of his time and knowledge to the project and created a host of FAs to the channel devoted to the discussion of warding off the spammers and vandals and closing open proxies. As such, if the user like Giano or Ghirla asks for access or for logs, Lar or Cyde will have no excuse to refuse as there cannot be any reasonable doubt that Giano or Ghirla are not to help spammers damage the project to which they are so committed themselves. Knowing that, I doubt anyone will carry the discussion about how to find the best excuse to block someone as it was done at JDForrester's channel. --Irpen 00:16, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

How does ArbCom have jurisdiction here?
How does ArbCom have jurisdiction over the IRC chatroom? It is an IRC chatroom onn a third party server. It would be like ArbCom giving me a speeding ticket. --BigDT 17:13, 26 January 2007 (UTC)


 * See my statement. ArbCom asserted its jurisdiction over the policy-related matters by accepting the original, so called, "Giano case" where no specific behavioral complaints were listed. Additionally, ArbCom asserted its jurisdiction over #admins IRC by forcing JDForrester to add new chanops appointed by ArbCom. So, it does have a de-facto jurisdiction. --Irpen 17:31, 26 January 2007 (UTC)
 * "by forcing JDForrester to add new chanops appointed by ArbCom" is completely incorrect - Mackensen and I suggested we'd keep an eye on the place, Jdforrester whacked us with level 40, we went "wtf? oh, okay" - David Gerard 11:11, 28 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Sorry, to those of us unfamiliar with your jargon can you explain the meaning of "Jdforrester whacked us with level 40"? Thanks Giano 13:28, 28 January 2007 (UTC)
 * As has apparently become my law of Wikipedia, on Wikipedia, the reward for a job well done is another three jobs. (This applies to any volunteer organisation - once you have about ten jobs, people who come up with a new task tend to look to those who have several already.) "Level 40" means almost complete control of who is allowed access to the channel, what powers they have and so forth - David Gerard 23:44, 28 January 2007 (UTC)
 * The Giano case was different - that was an on-wikipedia issue, even if it wasn't really a complaint that someone had done something wrong. But in this case, the channel is completely off Wikipedia.  ArbCom has the power and authority, I suppose, to punish someone on Wikipedia for off-Wikipedia actions.  (That I know of, that has only been done once and then only because there was the possibility of the user's sysop tools being used on Wikipedia for inappropriate purposes.)  ArbCom has no technical ability to stop any group of Wikipedia users from convening at another place and time and to sanction them on Wikipedia would seem to be inappropriate unless there is some actual evidence of a misuse of the sysop tools.  I say this as an outsider - I do not have access to this chatroom so I have no idea what goes on in there. --BigDT 17:42, 26 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Again, please see my statement. ArbCom has no means to prevent Kelly, Tony, JDForrester and whoever else from organizing a private chat room. No one can prevent other users, admins or not, who think they will benefit from getting advise from the channel's founders, from joining them there. That's fine.


 * However, such channel, whatever name its founders choose for it, will not have any official or semi-oficial connection with Wikipedia or the foundation. Foundation financially supported Freenode from the money you and I donated to it because, supposedly, it sees the channel somehow affiliated with it. As per this, there is a jurisdiction of the Wikipedia body over the channel in its current state. If this is changed to something completely non-related to Wikipedia, the issue will be moot. --Irpen 17:55, 26 January 2007 (UTC)
 * If the issue is the name, then that's a foundation issue. ArbCom can't file a trademark infringement suit. At most, ArbCom could have mention of the chatroom removed or sanction users if there is actual evidence of a misuse of administrative tools. --BigDT 18:10, 26 January 2007 (UTC)
 * There cannot be trademark infringement as the channel is affiliated with the Wikipedia. The need for such channel and such affiliation is what's questioned. Since the channel is currently affiliated, the jurisdiction of ArbCom exists. Besides, it exists de-facto as arbcom already stepped in to interfere with channel's operation and channel's "owner" accepted such interference, thus recognizing the jurisdiction. --Irpen 18:15, 26 January 2007 (UTC)


 * Personally, I think the moment ArbCom asserted it's authority over the channel by appointing a number of arbitrators and former arbitrators as ops, it asserted jurisdiction. Cheers, ✎  Peter M Dodge  (  Talk to Me  &bull;  Neutrality Project  ) 18:54, 26 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Um, the AC didn't do anything of the sort - David Gerard 11:11, 28 January 2007 (UTC)
 * I might ask you to change your behavior on Wikipedia, for example, stop contributing to a particular article or some such thing. You might even listen to me and find that I offered good advice.  But that doesn't mean that I actually had the authority or the power to enforce my advice.  You would have been well within your rights to say no. Unless I'm completely missing something here, why is this any different?  In the interest of getting along and doing what's best for the community, those who run the channel agreed to implement ArbCom's suggestions, but had they refused, what could ArbCom have done about it? --BigDT 19:09, 26 January 2007 (UTC)


 * BigDT, please read the discussion at WP:ANIRC. While lengthy, it offers answers to many of your questions. --Irpen 19:17, 26 January 2007 (UTC)
 * As ArbCom has a significant number of ops on the channel, and the owner of the channel is an arbitrator, an awful lot is what they could have done. Cheers, ✎  Peter M Dodge  (  Talk to Me  &bull;  Neutrality Project  ) 19:21, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

My opinion as an non-admin is that admins should act in an open and transparent manner, unless there is a compelling reason to keep something private. Accepting adminship is not a golden ticket into a special club, it's your accepting certain on-wiki duties. Amongst those duties is accepting open and transparent constant review of all your actions as an admin. I think part of the ArbCom's duties are to ensure admin meet up to this obligation, and to do this they must take jurisdiction over certain off-wiki matters that touch on it. Again, I find myself stressing how extremely important is is that Admins are not seen as a Cabal or exclusive club. --Barberio 23:03, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

Reading through this entire discussion (and the one on other pages), could I gently remind people to always remain civil, respectful, and courteous to each other? The discussion may be heated and viewpoints differing, but we need to remain constantly polite and civil to each other. Thanks! Flcelloguy (A note? ) 02:05, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

Dmcdevit
I do not want to be rude to a very valuable contributor to our project but Dmc is obviously a party of the case, I would expect him to recuse. Alex Bakharev 06:35, 27 January 2007 (UTC)


 * But what is this case about? If it is just about specific identifiable incidents, then yes, all involved in those particular incidents should step aside. Arbcom should look at the behaviour of all the participants in that incident (on and off wiki). But that would, in fairness, mean they'd need to look at people like Giano and Irpen too. Were the blocks justified? If they do that, then those arbs associated with those individuals and their friends in the past should also step aside. I see no indication that they will.
 * If the case is about the channel itself, and all its pros and cons over a year or so of running 24/7. Then no-one should recuse. That potentially involves lots of stuff, and most IRC active arbs will have had some involvement at some stage. If we leave it to those who haven't IRC experience then we've a problem: how can people who aren't active in the channel really take a view of what happens there? Sure, they can be shown logs of a few incidents to examine - but whilst that might show some bad behaviour, it is no evidential basis to assess the aggregate worth of the channel. Perhaps all those arbs who have no experience of its workings should step aside too?--Docg 12:04, 27 January 2007 (UTC)


 * As this case will be examining such edits as this: which may well be discussed and explored within this case, it is appropriate that User: Dmcdevit recuses. Giano 12:41, 27 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Currently Dmcdevit is listed as "away" (which has the same effect as recusal). Thatcher131 13:39, 27 January 2007 (UTC)
 * (I restored the above comment by Thatcher131 to comment on it; I hope he doesn't mind.) Without commenting on the matter of recusal, Dmcdevit has addressed the issue of being away and voting to accept or reject a case - my understanding is that with him having voted to accept/reject, he's not recused, but because he's away, won't be participating in the case, if accepted. Thanks. Flcelloguy (A note? ) 17:09, 27 January 2007 (UTC)
 * but his voting reject could have a bearing on whether the case is accepted, so he is obviously not recused - is he? Giano 17:46, 27 January 2007 (UTC)
 * If Dmcdevit's vote turns out to be the one vote that sways the issue of acceptance, it might be worth pursuing. At this time, that is not the case. Thatcher131 20:58, 27 January 2007 (UTC)


 * Dmcdevit is away, and therefore unable to vote, anyways. I would trust that if he did "vote" it would be a recusal. Cheers, ✎  Peter M Dodge  (  Talk to Me  &bull;  Neutrality Project  ) 20:27, 27 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Just for the record, he's voted today. Newyorkbrad 22:18, 27 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Indeed. Fire in the hole!  ✎  Peter M Dodge  (  Talk to Me  &bull;  Neutrality Project  ) 22:56, 27 January 2007 (UTC)
 * No fire, just an issue for the arbitrator in question to think through. Newyorkbrad 23:09, 27 January 2007 (UTC)
 * I don't see any issue. I'm away because I'm not able to be active enough to participate in enough cases right now because of external work, and I wouldn't want to clog the process by inflating majority numbers. Case acceptances aren't based on majorities of arbitrators, but net votes, and I will likely be active by the time any potetial case came to voting anyway. Dmcdevit·t 23:47, 27 January 2007 (UTC)
 * I would appreciate a bit more explanation about why you think recusal is necessary. The mention of me in Alex's statement is cryptic. I don't have past logs, or, honestly, remember what/when you are talking about, especially since it sounds old, if Kelly Martin still had CheckUser. I'm not clear whether the accusation is that I was part of some plot to block someone (which is a strong claim, and I wasn't) or just that I was there (for which I see no reason to recuse). Dmcdevit·t 23:47, 27 January 2007 (UTC)
 * What exactly are you finding cryptic about Alex's statement "I saw a sitting arbitrator (User:Dmcdevit) and a few highly respected admins discussing the way to get rid of a productive user (Irpen)" - As Irpen is the editor bringing this case, and another editor has accused you of conspiring on - and so thus abusing the IRC channel, how can you possibly not, in all fairness, recuse from hearing a case in which serious allegations have been made against you? Giano 00:34, 28 January 2007 (UTC)
 * In that case, they are false. I haven't conspired as you are accusing me of. Frankly, it's a bit insulting to have such an accusation tossed at me. I don't know what Alex is talking about, but it's the first I've heard of this, and I don't know why he's making the claim. I'm also dismayed that he couldn't have simply asked me about his concerns, whatever they are, on my talk page as if I were a reasonable person. Dmcdevit·t 06:04, 28 January 2007 (UTC)
 * As I'm sure you can appreciate, once such conduct has been levelled against an arbitrator it has to be investigated to evaluate the justification of the claim.  Therefore the arbitrator accused (rightly or wrongly) is not the best placed person to investigate himself.  Why Alex has chosen to raise the matter in this forum is a private matter between you and him, discussion of that here would be to sidetrack the claims alleged. Giano 10:56, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

Just a thought: requesting that everyone one disagrees with recuse from a case is one way to attempt to rig it to get the "correct" result. -- Cyde Weys 23:35, 27 January 2007 (UTC)
 * It is not a question of acheiving the right result. It is a question of acheiving a result that cannot be challenged in any quarter. If the behaviour of an arbitrator hearing a case was to be questioned, then that whole case would become suspect.  We know Dmcdevit's comments on IRC are to be part of this case, therefore it is only natural that he does not become his own judge.  Surely you can see that? Giano 23:45, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

On David Gerard's statement
I owe an answer to a question on why individuals are not named. It is my view that the individuals matter less because many of the abusers are actually not bad people. Mere the corruption-breeding secrecy of the powergames appealed to the worst insticts in certain individuals and I think it is better to deal with the source of the problem rather than its off-springs. If the case is rejected due to lack of jurisdiction over IRC in general, perhaps bringing the user-related cases against the individuals engaged in the complicity would be a logical step but I should hope the ArbCom recognizes that the problem runs deeper than the few abusers. Since by a recent action ArbCom did make a regulatory steps towards the channel, the jurisdiction de-facto exists.

I welcome the scrutiny of myself by the Arbitration committee proposed by David Gerard. He failed to give a single diff to me making personal attacks on ANI. Therefore, I claim his accusation is baseless. But if I did, I will apologize sincerely and will accept the responsibility for them.

As for ANI also having an "evil side" as DG puts it, the difference is that the malaise at ANI will have a trace, diffs and archives and the evildoers can be held accountable for their actions. ANI does not breed the inherent corruption that exists in the closed medium where some users feel they can abuse others wth an impunity. --Irpen 01:53, 28 January 2007 (UTC)


 * The problem is you are using words like 'abusers' 'corruption' 'worst instincts' 'complicity' 'evildoers' as if these were all established facts, and as if they constituted a self-evident and incurable problem that outweighs any utility of the channel (a utility which you have admitted you know nothing about). You have offered evidence for none of that. There seems to be an assumption that if you just repeat something often enough it becomes true. Now, I've no doubt that some regrettable things have happened in IRC (I've doubtless said some things I'd sooner not have myself) - as David says, that's the nature of fallen humanity. But if you are really going to base your case on an assertion that there is endemic rot, malice, corruption and evil in that channel that is directly harming Wikipedia, you are going to have to do better than that. You are going to have to name names, give instances, cite evidence that amounts to a substantiated pattern of manifold abuse. Because until that is proven, we can't even begin to ask the question: would shutting down the channel help stop it, or just relocate it? Would closing it do sufficient good to offset any loss to the project? The first thing needs to come first.--Docg 02:26, 28 January 2007 (UTC)


 * Doc, ArbCom have seen the logs and its recent intervention into the IRC affairs, as well as posts at WP:AN by several arbcom members, indicate that ArbCom considers what it saw reprehensible. So, there is a real evidence that ArbCom have seen and there is something more to it than my or Giano's mere repeating something trying to make it look true.


 * I offer to the ArbCom what I see the only cure to the problem of abuse of which it is already aware. If ArbCom does not see it that way, it will act differently than what I propose. ArbCom may instead make it clear that it would only consider the case against specific abusers or that it considers the measures it have already omplemented sufficient. If so, such case against specific users would be a possibility. ArbCom may also accept the current case but limit it to the consideration of the specific abusers only, as perthe evidence it already saw (and, perhaps, will see more at the case's evidence page). ArbCom is not restricted in its action to the original case outline.


 * Finally, about the possibility of the abusive medium merely shifting elsewhere. This will happen to some degree. But that new medium will not be affiliated with Wikipedia or the Foundation which by financially supporting Freenode gives the abusive medium the clout of legitimacy. As Alex has correctly noted, in this case the participants of the abuse would have to consciously join the medium specifically created for abuse, not like the original purpose of #admins. Thus, the participation will be limited only to the conscious abusers which, in my opinion, constitute only a small part of the crowd. --Irpen 05:17, 28 January 2007 (UTC)


 * I still haven't seen any evidence that the Freenode donation had anything to do with #wikipedia-en-admins, especially when there are obviously more important channels on IRC (the devs need a place to communicate when Wikipedia goes down) And you're seriously misinformed to suggest that people would actually create channels specifically for abuse*...  closed channels have ostensibly useful purposes, as evidenced by arbcom-l remaining closed, the rest of IRC remaining log-free, and you yourself suggesting that #wikipedia-tech-closed be created.  --Interiot 06:21, 28 January 2007 (UTC)  * Which isn't at all what Alex said, by the way.
 * I think David makes some thought provoking points. His statement "....Giano is the elephant in the room, and deal comprehensively with his conduct on the wiki, particularly the recent series of quite breathtaking personal attacks by him, and the admins who consistently unblock him and enable and encourage his reprehensible conduct." is certainly indicative of the  manner in which those admins supporting reform of the channel have been treated there, and certainly proves the need for the arbcom to accept this case and decide whether this channel should be operating under the auspices of Wikipedia. Giano 11:06, 28 January 2007 (UTC)
 * I can't understand what Giano is trying to say here. --Ideogram 14:45, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

Irpen
(Irpen) I welcome the scrutiny of myself by the Arbitration committee proposed by David Gerard. He failed to give a single diff to me making personal attacks on ANI. Therefore, I claim his accusation is baseless. But if I did, I will apologize sincerely and will accept the responsibility for them.


 * Calling me a troll is a personal attack. Unless you are willing to take it to ArbCom.  --Ideogram 14:43, 28 January 2007 (UTC)


 * Too bad Ideogram does not cite diffs to my alleged misconduct. Do you mean this and this? I welcome ArbCom to analyze them. Or do you mean something else? --Irpen 17:54, 28 January 2007 (UTC)


 * Gee, the fact that you use the word "trolling" might clue you in. And you misunderstand me.  I'm not going to take you to ArbCom.  But if you aren't willing to ask ArbCom to decide that I'm a troll, you can apologize for your feeble attempt at character assassination.  Let me explain it again for you.  Either prove to a neutral third party (the ArbCom) that I am a troll or shut up.  --Ideogram 18:00, 28 January 2007 (UTC)


 * I did not call you a troll. I merely showed that many members of the community view your posts to the Wikipedia project space as trolling. I would welcome ArbCom's analysis of this issue. Now, please, don't try to again sidetrack the discussion. DG above accused me in making PA's. My response is that he does not site any diffs. My further response is that I still welcome my own behavior in connection with this issue to be analyzed by ArbCom and will accept the responsibility for my part if ArbCom sees I have any. There is no disagreement on that. Don't try to shift the topic to your personality. You are free to complain about me or anyone at WP:ANI or start an ArbCom for the alleged character assassination of yourself. This discussion is about IRC, please do not try to derail it to your own agenda. Stay on topic please if you are to post anything to the thread. --Irpen 18:31, 28 January 2007 (UTC)


 * I happen to think that calling my editing style "trolling" is pretty damn close to calling me a troll, which is a personal attack. How interesting that you choose not to apologize.  You can either file an ArbCom case or shut up.  Including more links isn't going to help you.


 * The topic is not my personality, if you thought about it for a second you would realize that I am not going to argue with you about whether I am a troll. The argument is whether implying I am a troll is a personal attack, which you claim you have not made.


 * Finally don't delude yourself that you control this discussion, or any discussion on the wiki. --Ideogram 18:52, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

I will not apologize to calling your edits for what they seem to so many people. I will leave it to the community to judge this issue further. I have no time for empty arguing with you about your personality, especially at the ArbCom's talk. --Irpen 18:59, 28 January 2007 (UTC)


 * Yes you will leave it to the community, which means if you ever use that terminology with regards to me again, I will point out to everyone how you love to level accusations but are afraid to prove them. --Ideogram 19:06, 28 January 2007 (UTC)


 * The issue of your behavior has been address by multiple users, some of the treads are Administrators%27 noticeboard/IncidentArchive186, Wikipedia talk:Requests for arbitration/Giano/Proposed decision, and there are more. Just cool it please. --Irpen 01:25, 29 January 2007 (UTC)


 * You either file an ArbCom case or shut up. Otherwise you are wasting your breath and you have no credibility.  --Ideogram 04:16, 29 January 2007 (UTC)


 * Ideogram, Irpen, please remember that you're on the Arbitration Committee talk page and be especially careful to be civil. Accusations here should be constrained to the topic on hand, please, and that topic is the administrator's channel and the bad actions it has provoked.  Ideogram and Irpen, please feel free if one of you wants to open a conduct RFC on the other to do so.  That would be the appropriate venue to discuss your differences or problems, or perhaps the mediation cabal.
 * As to the topic of the administrators channel, I think David Gerard raises a few valid points. First of all, the admins' channel has been poisonous, as he puts it, but that is largely because people that are using it, or some of them, are not people who exercise proper judgment.  Some, such as Kelly, are not trusted by the community and should not be there, at least until the community trusts them again with that kind of position.  I myself take no position on whether they should be trusted (personally, I kind of like Kelly, but I don't trust her judgment, as I noted to her once, she thinks and feels rather than sits and thinks.)
 * There have been contentious blocks from the admin channel. This is essentially unchallenged.  The crux of the ArbCom case, as I see it, is to punish those responsible for these inappropriate blocks.  This is necessary, as it will send a message to those that would use IRC maliciously in the future - consequences await.
 * As to the existance of the channel I feel another valid point is raised, and a counterpoint here is also relevant. It has been noted that if the channel were shut down, these "poisonous" people would just find another venue.  This is completely true, I think, but Irpen (I think it was Irpen) also raises a valid point that it would be valuable to dismantle the "official" channel to send a message that these kinds of blocks and behaviours are not considered acceptable.  Cheers, ✎  Peter M Dodge  (  Talk to Me  &bull;  Neutrality Project  ) 01:43, 29 January 2007 (UTC)


 * Yes, it was me, thanks for pointing that out. Indeed, secretive backstage dealmaking may lead to abuse irrespective to what the name of the channel is. However, recognizing that such activity takes place at the channel officially affiliated with the Wikipedia and shutting it down will send a message that such activity has none of any official endorsement.


 * If, however, ArbCom does not agree that shutting the channel down is the best solution to the problem or finds such action to be outside of its scope, it may make clear that that the channel's existential issue is rejected and order to the parties to only restrict the evidence to the specific cases of abuse. As it has been just noted by the ArbCom member and as it happened in the past many times, ArbCom has a discretion to modify the venue of the case in the course of its consideration. --Irpen 02:00, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

Irpen doesn't seem to realize that this is not the place to discuss whether I am a troll or not. If he has a case, he can bring it to ArbCom. Otherwise everything he says about me here is slander which I choose not to respond to. I am perfectly capable of discrediting his sources if he chooses to bring the case before ArbCom.

I would also like to note that Irpen is currently engaged in an edit-war with me at What is a troll. I have invited him to discuss my proposed changes in a rational manner but he continues to try to prove I am a troll. I think it would be obvious to anyone that it is not possible to have a reasonable discussion with someone who calls you a troll. --Ideogram 04:37, 29 January 2007 (UTC)


 * Without a semantic argument about what is or is not trolling, I believe this aspect of the discussion is unproductive, and should be immediately discontinued. Newyorkbrad 04:44, 29 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Seconded. This is disrupting Wikipedia to prove a point.  Please desist, and calm down.  Cheers, ✎  Peter M Dodge  (  Talk to Me  &bull;  Neutrality Project  ) 04:46, 29 January 2007 (UTC)


 * Tell Irpen to stop insulting me. --Ideogram 04:48, 29 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Perhaps I was not clear. Your continued insistance on bring this debate up is unhelpful, disruptive, and highly inflammatory.  Please ceas from doing so, and remember to keep cool.  Cheers, ✎  Peter M Dodge  (  Talk to Me  &bull;  Neutrality Project  ) 04:56, 29 January 2007 (UTC)


 * No, perhaps I was not clear. As soon as Irpen chooses to stop arguing that I am a troll, or that I am "trolling", I will be happy to let it drop.  If he continues to make such implications in this venue, or any venue, I will continue to oppose him.


 * This is a volunteer organization. You do not pay me enough to for me to continue to let Irpen defame my character.  If I am not allowed to defend myself, then I clearly do not belong here at Wikipedia, but if you are going to force me out I am going to get due process up to and including ArbCom.  --Ideogram 05:05, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

Both sides of this need to cool it. I think this is a clear demonstration why no one should ever be called a troll on-wiki. It's clearly not productive in the slightest. Ideogram has been rather strident in defending himself, but I can't blame him; if I was being accused of being a troll I might do the same. Irpen, please use different, more productive language when speaking with Ideogram (and certainly don't ever call him a troll), and Ideogram, please keep the invective down a little bit when stepping up to defend yourself. -- Cyde Weys 15:15, 29 January 2007 (UTC)