Wikipedia talk:Requests for arbitration/IRC

Statement by SirFozzie
One of the rationales given by the blocking admin was that the user was causing drama. If this case is accepted, I think if the ArbCom takes this case (which I don't think is a good idea, see below) the ArbCom could and SHOULD indicate whether blocking only one side of an edit war is designed to reduce drama.. or if it will cause the same thing that the admin involved claimed to be wanting to stop. Also, the creator of this case seems to be firing off ArbCom cases left and right, trying to get ArbCom to remove who he views as controversial admins. In neither case, really, has he tried to work the issue out. (there was no RfC on ZScout's action, yet he brought a case and asked for ZScout to be de-sysoped), and now this case. I would ask that ArbCom reject this out of hand as no TRUE dispute resolution attempted. 05:52, 26 December 2007 (UTC)

(reply to Phil Sandifer statement below)

There is a rather broad consensus on the ANI thread that there should be no block amongst several admins. Asking for Sean William to be de-sysopped and/or lose unblocking privileges due to acting with that consensus against your action is petty and beneath you, Phil. I invite you to remove that statement, and sleep it over. SirFozzie (talk) 06:02, 26 December 2007 (UTC)

(further edit) I would hope any ArbCom members who have a stake in the channel would recuse themselves, as the conflict of interest is visible to all. SirFozzie (talk) 15:56, 26 December 2007 (UTC)

Statement by Picaroon
Drama bomb though this may seem, acceptance is probably necessary. The disruption stemming from recent revert-warring on IRC channels/wikipedia-en-admins is an unusually divisive dispute, involves more than a half dozen users (mostly admins), has resulted in several blocks (me included, though that was overturned pretty quickly), and shows no sign of dissipating (talk page discussing has gotten the issue nowhere).

The recent locus of the dispute has been the IRC channel page, though this actually largely goes back to Requests for arbitration/Giano, and Requests for arbitration/Pedophilia userbox wheel war before it. In other words, this astonishing immaturity is nearing its second birthday. How about the committee try, forcefully, to end the conflict before it blows out some more candles? (And I don't mean slapping Giano with an unenforcable "reminder" and pretending that will do something. Again. Because that clearly does not work.)

Geogre says "Additionally, others have been reverting and rolling back (!) content edits by other users." Why the third person? 

He also says "If anyone looks bad here, it's not Giano II." On the contrary, I think Giano looks like a persistent edit-warrior. That's still considered bad, is it not?

To all arbitrators considering voting reject: no, please don't. Individual admins blocking Giano never works. Nothing is ever decided on AN/I. Even Jimbo making a few pronouncements does nothing. This is what the committee is here for, to arbitrate major disputes that can't be solved elsewhere. So, please accept. Picaroon (t) 06:03, 26 December 2007 (UTC)

Statement by Risker
The root cause of all of the behaviour leading to the filing of this request for arbitration is inappropriate remarks (as noted by Bishonen above) made on the #-admins IRC channel - a locus outside of Wikipedia that this committee has previously stated is outside of their scope. However, many members of this committee are channel operators for this IRC channel, and as such they have individual responsibilities in enforcing appropriate behaviour on the channel. There is already existing conflict within Arbcom with respect to addressing behaviour of editors and administrators on IRC. The chance of a successful result from hearing this matter depends on the Arbcom's ability to address the key issues at the heart of the editorial and administrative behaviour. Therefore, the committee should only accept this case if it believes that it has the authority to address behaviour in the #-admins IRC channel. I note the following:
 * The editor bringing forward this request for arbitration has no on-wiki involvement in the situation, has had no on-wiki communication with any of the participants relating to this issue prior to filing the request for arbitration, and has made no effort to resolve the situation.
 * At the time this case was filed, the edit warring had ceased. All parties had apparently taken heed of the warnings being made and had withdrawn. That is a first step in appropriate dispute resolution. Filing this case is an attempt to short-circuit the normal course of dispute resolution.
 * Any members of the Arbitration Committee who are chanops have a clear and obvious conflict of interest and should recuse in order for any case to appear fair. Failure to do so runs the serious risk the community losing confidence in the independence and disinterest of the Arbitration Committee. Many other members of the committee participate in the channel, and those members should also seriously consider recusing if they are frequently online in the channel or were logged in at the time of the remarks.
 * Should the case be accepted, the arbitrators hearing the case are urged to set up a separate mailing list including only themselves to discuss the case. Aside from the recused current arbitrators, several former arbitrators are either named in this case or have conflict of interest because of their involvement with IRC.
 * As this case specifically deals with remarks made on #-admins IRC, the logs for the period involved should be accepted as evidence and made available to all editors whose behaviour is being reviewed, at a minimum; a good argument can be made that they should be submitted as evidence for the entire community to review. The logs revealed should include a listing of all editors who were in the channel at the time of the remarks, the remarks themselves, and any reaction or actions taken by those involved.  Risker (talk) 11:09, 26 December 2007 (UTC)

Statement by LessHeard vanU
There is much more to be considered than the violations of various policy by one individual. Issues pertaining to why one person only seems to be breaking the letter of the law when the spirit of the law is being ignored by other parties needs to be addressed. The apparent use of separate accounts to pursue the aims of one side of a dispute, knowing that the other disputants would likely violate policy to counter those edits, needs review. The use of the sysop bit to disallow editing of content by non admins, and the same tools to edit the protected content needs investigation. The relationship between Wikipedians using off wiki communications and the resultant actions on wiki needs to be addressed, and how the communities policies (or lack of) toward semi official venues for discussion may influence how and for what purposes they are used. Further to Risker's point above, the presence of many sysops, arbs and 'crats on a medium not regulated by wiki policies and the consequences relating to determining matters arising from conduct on those communication channels needs urgent examination. In short, ArbCom needs to accept this request and to broaden the investigation to address the history of the events leading to the request being filed and to discuss the consequences of any decision in regards the use of extra wiki forms of communication and its relationship with the community. LessHeard vanU (talk) 11:35, 26 December 2007 (UTC)

Statement by Carcharoth
Just a brief appeal here: can we please have full disclosure from the individual arbitrators over their use of and involvement in the Wikipedia IRC channels. I believe this ranges from "not using them" to "owning them". This is a wide spectrum, and it would be best to be clear on the differing levels of involvement. Carcharoth (talk) 11:40, 26 December 2007 (UTC)
 * A further point. We have User:Geogre/IRC considered and User:Kylu/IRC (possibly others as well). Why can't the IRC chanops and channel owners write their own essays, and let the wider Wikipedia community, guided by the non-involved arbitration committee members, write IRC channels and IRC channels/wikipedia-en-admins and other subpages. IRC channels/Personal views regarding IRC will be known to many here, and could be a starting point. The incoming Arbs could add their say to that document. Carcharoth (talk) 13:41, 26 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Looking away from the wider issue of IRC problems, and at the narrow focus on the behaviour of the edit warring at that page, I have to say I agree fully with Moreschi's statement. Hopefully the ArbCom can swiftly re-affirm the principles involving IRC and pledge to clamp down on future misbehaviour in the channel in question, and can issue fair and even justice all round with stern warnings. I see no reason for any bannings here. If anything, that would arise from a separate arbitration case where three or four inveterate drama-mongers are identified and arbitrated for that behaviour, quite simply as a warning to others, and politely asked to relinquish their current accounts and start over with new ones (that would retain the good administrative and content contributions). In other words, add "start over with new account" to the list of penalties ArbCom can impose, as something between a reminder/short ban, and a long ban (giving the offenders the option to take the ban instead, if they want to rehabilitate their original account). Carcharoth (talk) 13:41, 26 December 2007 (UTC)
 * I've created and started to populate Category:User essays on IRC, and linked it from IRC channels. See also my comment here. Hopefully this will aid the process whereby the community discusses and agrees on what IRC channels should say. Small steps rather than radical change might be best here. Carcharoth (talk) 14:31, 26 December 2007 (UTC)

Statement by violet/riga
Giano is not the only one to have a history of "drama". If this arbitration is accepted it needs to look at the actions of more than just the one person. violet/riga (t) 12:47, 26 December 2007 (UTC)

Statement by Moreschi
Number of problems here. *Don't slag off your fellow admins in the channel, save that for the trolls. Tony Sidaway should have been kicked out for a month or something. Actually, scrap that, apologies: seems like someone may have been faking logs. All very Alistair MacLean, but this is largely irrelevant.
 * Giano has behaved very badly. Two 3RR vios/too many reverts were always going to stoke up the drama levels. Why the blocks of Coresdat and Phil Sandifer were overturned, I really don't know, and that's coming from an admin who's unblocked Giano before.
 * As noted by Dmcdevit on ANI, the page (WP:WEA) was protected. This seems to have been the cue for everyone with admin buttons to keep right on using them. The whole point of a page protected due to disputes is that you don't edit it just because you can. The protection is supposed to start discussion, not more reverts. Copy-pasting from Dmcdevit's statement on ANI, the most sensible comment surrounding this ridiculous cretinous mess that anyone's made so far:That might have worked, in a universe where the page hadn't already been protected several times and yet administrators continued the edit war despite the protection. I already count about eight unambiguous instances of abusive administrator action not even counting the edit warring and rampant misuse of rollback. David Gerard, Geogre, and Wknight94 all made reverts while the page was protected. David Gerard and Geogre both used protection powers during the edit war they were involved in. Doc glasgow and Sean William both reversed another admin's block without allowing enough time (10 minutes and one hour, respectively) for consensus or input on the matter. Coredesat and David Fuchs both blocked a user that they also reverted in that edit war. All for this inconsequential project-space page about an IRC channel. It's ridiculous. Dmcdevit·t 08:33, 26 December 2007 (UTC) Award for best comment, however, goes to Somey from Wikipedia Review: "This is what these people do for Christmas? Jeez, I thought my life was pathetic!"
 * Final comment: that log is a disgrace and a couple people should lose their adminship for this/have it suspended. This is all so petty. To see what are supposed to be Wikipedia's finest engaged in the kind of meaningless playground hanky-panky that is usually reserved for our nationalist trolls - bloody hell. Some Christmas present to Wikipedia, guys. Moreschi If you've written a quality article... 12:52, 26 December 2007 (UTC)

Statement by Doc
Merry Christmas. I really want nothing to do with this.--Docg 17:41, 26 December 2007 (UTC)

Statement by Lar
++Lar: t/c 17:49, 26 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Regarding comments made on IRC - I have a copy of the log from 30 September 2006 that is (a small) part of the underlying dispute. The copy that Bishonen sent me matches my own copy, word for word, as near as I can tell. I can share that log with ArbCom if it is material or to corroborate versions sent by others. It is my view that Tony did then say what he is alleged to have said, although it was said obliquely, and knowing Tony, probably without real intent to give grevious offence. (that does not necessarily excuse it...) I have an incomplete log from 12-21 but it has gaps because I dropped. I can share that log with ArbCom if it is material. Others may be a better source except for corroboration. To my great regret I was pretty deep in several other conversations in other channels at the time of the events unfolding, as I wish now I had spoke up then before matters went as far as they did. But this seems more of a personal disagreement and all parties would be well served to ForgiveAndForget instead of bringing it up again. I think actually both Tony and Bishonen have so offered, although perhaps not at the same time and not directly to each other. It's been said that apologies are not always offered in precisely the form that one might wish to receive them... It may be best to accept what is offered and move on. That in no way condones bad behaviour, and sanctions may well be warranted, but moving on still is good advice.
 * Regarding the scope of this case: As do many, I think it's badly misnamed, it should not be about Giano. As I said on the ANI thread, there are more editors misbehaving in this matter than just one. As to what the correct name is, the mind boggles, there are so many choices...
 * Regarding Giano's latest block by Phil: I called for it to be reversed initially, with a proviso that Giano undertake not to edit war any more. It was subsequently overturned by Sean William. My read of the AN/I thread was that there was not general consensus in support of Phil's block at the time it was overturned.
 * Regarding extending the block to others now: Blocks are preventative, not punitive and I think matters would not be well served if several long term editors were now blocked for their role in this matter. The time to have done that was at the time it occured, not later. I do agree with Dmcdevit on AN/I when he said "The proper way to resolve an underreaction is not to lessen the reaction." but this is stale now. Nothing would be served by blocking others now.
 * Regarding who should be on #wikipedia-en-admins... I have proposed elsewhere, and I will repeat it here: "I'm ready to support no non en:wp admins having access, even if that means we lose some good counsel, because it just does seem like a good idea to me that things change that way." It has been unclear to me how exactly such a change would be effected. However, based on Jimbo's latest statement perhaps the authority to effect such changes is now being asserted. If so, I urge ArbCom to do what it can to effect this change, regardless of whether it is formally within their remit or not.

Statement by Marskell
As this is headed toward acceptance, I strongly urge a rename. If weeks are wasted stating the obvious—that Giano was disruptive—nothing will have been accomplished. The role of IRC and, to the extent possible, other off-site fora used for decision-making must be addressed. Unfortunately, the Durova decision failed to properly tackle it. Marskell (talk) 17:46, 26 December 2007 (UTC)

Statement by Secret
I haven't been on wikipedia in almost a week, and IRC for nearly a month, so I don't know what really happened. Looking at the dispute, I agree with Violetriga, all sides needs to be looked at the case, not only Giano, and this is a case in which IRC evidence needs to be looked on closely. Those attacks need to be added to this case. I also agree that Giano should be limited in wikipedia space. Secret account 21:22, 26 December 2007 (UTC)

Statement by Piotrus
I use the channel occasionally; I find it useful but I always thought it should be logged. I agree that Wikipedia decision making should be public and civil, and a closed forum does not encourage those qualities. And let's face it, claiming that the channel is unofficial is wikilawyering. If it is unofficial, remove the links to it from Wikipedia policy page and change its name which sounds quite "legit". That said, I will stress that based on my experience the channel is useful; majority of discussions in it are good faithed and speed up dealing with various problems, and users complaining about IRC cabalism or such are too often complaining due to fear that their misdeeds may get talked about in a forum they cannot disrupt.--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus 12:58, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

Statement by Cla68
Just wanted to point out that although the ArbCom has indicated that they have no authority over what occurs in the IRC in question, the official page for that IRC states clearly that any problems with user behavior in that IRC are supposed be be addressed by the ArbCom, among others. I hope that the ArbCom in their proposed decision will address this contradiction. Cla68 (talk) 00:21, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

Statement by Orderinchaos
I use the channel myself and my characterisation of its nature does not differ from Newyorkbrad's in his posts on this page. Sometimes it is plain out boring as everyone's logged in but asleep or elsewhere. Other times it's friendly and chatty (I'd actually say most of the time). Some unhelpful stuff does go on there at times. Very little organisation or planning is involved, and efforts to do so risk backfiring as the channel users are a diverse bunch with nothing more in common than that 66, 70, however many separate RfAs elevated them to the status of admins. However I would ask ArbCom to consider the possibility that keeping such behaviour where it can be seen by people such as Newyorkbrad, FT2 and others who the community has recently expressed strong confidence in, is actually a good thing from an accountability point of view. I agree that some ganging up occurs, and I have seen it on a few occasions, but that does not need IRC as a venue - I've seen glimpses of private mailing CC groups (not formal lists) which have been both more coordinated and more nasty in times past. I am not defending the actions of any of the parties (some are downright outrageous, and I really hope the Committee can deal with those matters to the satisfaction of all present) but I am merely questioning whether IRC is the locus of the dispute or simply evidence of a wider problem as Wikipedia grows in size and accumulates readers and editors who have no memory or experience of a time when Wikipedia was different to the present - while some of those who do remember that time well and how things worked then have possibly developed a sort of a "them vs us" mentality (as unhelpful as it is inevitable in social media). Orderinchaos 07:14, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

Parties to the case who have access to the arbcom mailing list
Is there a policy regarding members of the arbcom mailing list who also are parties to a case? I can't imaging the the arbcom would allow one participant of a case to make their points on a private mailing list where other parties don't have access.

Since David Gerard is on the arbcom mailing list and also a party to this case, can the arbcom confirm that his input is restricted to the on-wiki case pages? --Duk 20:31, 28 December 2007 (UTC)
 * He is treated the same as other parties to the case. If David or any one else wants to contact ArbCom privately they can if they feel private statements or evidence are needed. Otherwise David and the other parties should place their comments on wiki. So far several parties and others have sent emails to ArbCom mailing list about this case. FloNight (talk) 21:29, 29 December 2007 (UTC)


 * I've experienced this problem twice myself. It should be standard practice that when a mailing list member becomes party to a case, they do not receive internal correspondence about that case.  If this presents technical challenges, we have numerous geeks who can help solve the problem.  There is an appearance of unfairness when one party to a case is privy to the deliberations while other parties are not.  Jehochman  Talk 21:34, 29 December 2007 (UTC)
 * In the case of a former arbitrator who is a party, the simple solution would be for them to give up list access for the duration of the case. --Duk 21:58, 29 December 2007 (UTC)


 * Thank you FloNight. I understand that anyone may contact the arbcom privately. The difference with someone on the list is that they are able to have a dialog that others can't (two way communication), or they may feel comfortable getting barbed points across by virtue of being known and "in the room". And as Jehochman mentions, just being privy to the deliberations can make a difference. --Duk 21:49, 29 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Treated the same as other parties means that he should not participate in the discussion. He is on the honor system about it. Per past practices, unless he starts to make comments about this case he will not be asked leave the mailing list. David in fact noted his involvement with the case and said that he would stop comment about the situation after the case was opened. I do not see it as an issue in this case. FloNight (talk) 22:05, 29 December 2007 (UTC)
 * I am sensitive to the appearances issue presented but can confirm FloNight's comments that no one in the case has used the mailing list inappropriately. I am confident that no one will. Newyorkbrad (talk) 22:42, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

Potential conflicts of interest
Some potential conflicts of interest I've spotted. Nothing major, in my opinion, but best to get this out of the way now, I think. From the IRC logs that were posted over on the evidence page, it seems that FT2 was present in the channel at the time of the Tony Sidaway-Bishonen incident - trying to pour coffee on troubled waters I believe. There was also a metaphorical tranquilising dart gun being used (in vain), and various people bailing out of the channel as they saw trouble brewing (though whether more people left than would normally do so is not clear to me). Anyway, the point I'm making is that FT2 may have a slight conflict of interest here with his role as arbitrator. Similarly, Newyorkbrad, who tried to rewrite and calm things on the IRC channels/wikipedia-en-admins page back in July 2007 (see here) may have a slightly larger conflict of interest in this case as an arbitrator. Raising this now so it can be sorted before the proposed decision page is opened for business. Things get messy if conflicts of interest are raised later on. Personally, I don't think either of these cases of involvement rise to the level of conflict of interest, but this should be stated openly either way. Only Morven (Matthew Brown) responded to my appeal above, and did so here. Were any of the other arbitrators present in the channel during that incident or editing the page in question? Will the active arbitrators on the case make clear the level of involvement they have with IRC? My impression is that some who were not involved much before they became chanops, are still not involved that much. For those who don't know the history, it might be best to make that clearer. Carcharoth (talk) 21:44, 29 December 2007 (UTC)
 * There has been talk of FloNight once being booted from the channel (I guess not permanently though?). That raised a minor red flag with me. —Wknight94 (talk) 22:25, 29 December 2007 (UTC)
 * I have used IRC and participated sometimes in the #admins channel since June or July. I have seen both constructive and unconstructive, both friendly and unfriendly, use of the channel. This includes participation by some of the parties to this case. I also, as noted, edited the on-wiki page discussing the channel back in July, trying (with some success at the time) to defuse a prior edit-war on the page. I did not make any edits during the December edit-war.
 * I believe that I can vote on this case based on fair and impartial consideration of the evidence presented, and I do not believe that any of these facts, individually or cumulatively, rise to the level where my impartiality could reasonably be questioned, which is the test I intend to employ in deciding whether and when to recuse myself (compare the recusal article in mainspace). If anyone disagrees, however, I will be glad to hear their views on the matter. Newyorkbrad (talk) 22:35, 29 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Your presence in the channel is not itself problematic, I'm sure all would agree you take a neutral role in the channel and I see no reason why it would affect your judgement here. However, I'm a little concerned with something I heard you say a couple of days ago - I can't for the life of me remember where you said it, but you stated that for the past year, you've been trying to mediate this dispute between Giano and Tony, that might be a slightly more concerning COI as it means you're directly involved, but of course, it's upto you. Ryan Postl et hw ai te  23:19, 29 December 2007 (UTC)
 * I've tried to defuse some of the related tensions here going back to around the time of the Carnildo resysopping and the ensuing reaction culminating in the ensuing Giano case. Sometimes with success and sometimes not. To that extent, I have familiarity with these editors. On the other hand, if having dealt in one context or another with Giano and/or Tony Sidaway is grounds for disqualification, then this case would probably have to be decided by arbitrators borrowed from another project. Newyorkbrad (talk) 04:09, 30 December 2007 (UTC)
 * FT2 has recused himself, as he is presenting evidence. If he wasn't, being present in the channel and trying to calm Tony and Bishonen down does not equate to a conflict of interest at all. Newyorkbrad was trying to rewrite the page to satisfy Giano and Geogre's concerns, but in a reasonable and neutral manner; this is clear evidence he doesn't favor one side or the other. In other words, while involved, he has no conflict of interest - let's not confuse conflict of interest with involvement (it is simply unrealistic to merge the two in the context of an internet project with only a couple thousand active users). FloNight was booted once, yes, but this was over a year ago; she's now a chanop. I'll ask her to comment here. Picaroon (t) 22:49, 29 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Not sure where that rumor got started. I was never booted from the #wikipedia-en-admins channel. I have been treated more respectfully in the channel than the average user, I think. Likely because I'm an old fogy that the young folks humor. :-) A very long time ago, several regulars in the channel were s/w unfriendly to me but many more made me feel welcome. Any conflict is long past and have no residual problems with any users involved in the incident and in fact have an excellent working relationship with some of them. FloNight (talk) 22:56, 29 December 2007 (UTC)


 * Note to Picaroon - the evidence presented was more of the form of "point of information" for a matter referenced which I was able to confirm. An assertion had been made by one party that faked logs exist, and I was one of the people asked to check if the log was fake. Giano confirmed it too, on a different basis . In a case like this rumors of faked evidence would only be a source of pointless stress to everyone, and best placed in the public realm if information does exist, not just left on arbcom's mailing list. I do not believe that noting this on the wiki impairs my ability to comment and to vote neutrally and impartially. It was stated so that the community would have transparency how it came out. But yes, in this case COI must be carefully considered early on. FT2 (Talk 00:29, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

(unindent) Carcharoth - I'm way ahead of you. I've been considering different forms of COI that might come up as an arb since before entering the Arbcom election, as part of my own careful consideration of the role. As an extension of that, I asked for arb advice as one of my first actions upon hearing I had been appointed to the committee, even though the case had not yet been formally accepted at that point. (Also capable of confirmation if required.) Until January 1 I've been told new appointees are not serving on cases anyhow.

That said, to answer the question directly, my involvement on IRC discussion was extremely slight.

During the dispute I made one comment only, which was in full "> FT2 passes the coffee round" (crossref WP:TEA, I prefer coffee). My last comments before that were to without reserve accept Bish's comment on a topic I had been discussing amicably with (but not related to) Tony. After it my next comment was to Ryan P that I'd fixed a template he had a problem with. In private my only discussion was non-contentious; I solicited both of their opinions on the discussion that had been in progress beforehand, and disengaged with both fairly quickly to try and avoid accidental upset. That was the extent of IRC involvement. I'll comment on wiki (or other) involvement (such little as it was) if needed in January. FT2 (Talk 00:03, 30 December 2007 (UTC)


 * It is unusual but not unheard of for arbitrators to present evidence but remain active in the decision-making and voting. Here, FT2 has posted a clarification to inform the community that Arbcom has received IRC logs, some of which appear to have been faked.  Not an issue requiring recusal. Thatcher 03:47, 30 December 2007 (UTC)


 * Before the election the Committee began discussing various ways that we can reorganize to be more effective. We waited until the new Committee was named to make any changes in order to get their thoughts. Some of the changes might include changes to the way that the Committee researches, discusses, and displays evidence. Suggestions on this topic are welcome from Clerks and other users. Starting a discussion on the RFArb talk page might be good. FloNight (talk) 11:47, 2 January 2008 (UTC)


 * Stating the obvious here, but tables like those presented by thebainer would be very useful. Even better would be a tool of some sort that could be used to produce timeline tables like that. Stick in the diffs and select the type of action and out pops a colour-coded table! The API stuff was good as well. It is also useful sometimes to have an arbitrator providing evidence, as that can help guide those working on a case. I think you are right, starting a WT:RFARB discussion would be good. Carcharoth (talk) 13:11, 2 January 2008 (UTC)


 * Of course, there is no technical or policy reason why any other editor (party, clerk or bystander) could not also have made such a table. It's a matter of time, interest and skill level.  Writing an effective evidence submission is more difficult than simply throwing everything against the wall to see what sticks. Thatcher 13:27, 3 January 2008 (UTC)


 * Of course. But sometimes I see cases where evidence could be improved or falls short or misses something out. There is the option of pointing this out in your own evidence section, but sometimes dropping a note on someone's talk page can lead to them expanding their evidence accordingly. ie. A moderate degree of collaboration in presenting evidence can help. Equally, though, edit warring over how to present the evidence would be, well, silly. And it would happen. So some balance needs to be struck. I've often thought that have a "comments on the evidence" section (within reason) would be better than responding in your own evidence section - maybe make it a link to a section on the evidence talk page if you want to avoid threaded discussion on the evidence page itself? Carcharoth (talk) 17:04, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

Page protection due to expire
The page protection for IRC channels/wikipedia-en-admins (the venue for an edit war that led to the current arbitration case Requests for arbitration/IRC) is due to expire at 09:01, 2 January 2008, which is just over 4 hours from now. Some discussion is going on on the talk page, but I'm raising this issue now so people can consider whether to extend the page protection, or allow careful editing to resume, or to leave things as they are and re-protect if needed. You would think people wouldn't be so stupid as to resume edit warring over this, but I'm not so sure. Cross-posting to the following places: Wikipedia talk:Requests for arbitration/IRC, Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents, and User talk:Alison (the current protecting admin). Carcharoth (talk) 04:50, 2 January 2008 (UTC)


 * If they do resume edit warring that may make the Committee's deliberations simpler. Jehochman Talk 04:55, 2 January 2008 (UTC)


 * Protection expired. Protection tag removed. Note left at the talk page. Carcharoth (talk) 10:46, 2 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Please note: I have no intention of trying to edit that page ever again. It can in future say just what the members of #admins care to write. Giano (talk) 11:22, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

Posting here as Proposed Decision talk is locked
Based on the Gerard section on the Proposed Decision here, if the AC is leaning against not sanctioning him because he has provided evidence in secret that he does WP:OWN the page, this fact and status were apparently unknown or by community history and norms unacceptable before this case. Therefore, if Gerard cannot be sanctioned due to his OWNership of this page, which no one knew about in public, was not in public endorsed by the community, and was unheard of before this case, then no one else can be sanctioned or disciplined for edit "warring" on it if he can't.

What is good for the goose is good for the gander: If Gerard is off the hook for edit warring because he did in fact own it, then others are utterly entitled to the same pass as they did not know this to be the case (in fact, no one except Gerard, and IRC regulars such as Sidaway or Sandifer apparently even endorsed this minority viewpoint before this). To issue sanctions then on other editors for WEA editing would indicate bias towards Gerard, and needs to be disallowed. Please strike the mistaken proposals in the Proposed Decision based on this. Policy enforcement or the lack thereof must be identical for Gerard, Bishonen, Geogre, and Giano. Thanks.

Short version: If Gerard is not to be sanctioned for edit warring because no one knew in public he literally did own that WEA page, then no-one here can be sanctioned for that, as they didn't know in public that he owned it either. Lawrence Cohen 14:47, 18 January 2008 (UTC)
 * I agree with most of this but would add: A sanction for David isn't important. A mild rebuke would be fine. What is important is for the arbcom to say no to special powers for people based on backroom deals that must remain forever secret. And to acknowledge that a dispute resolution process and line of accountability is lacking for #admin IRC; and this is the origin of a problem that has disrupted the community for years. And that the IRC leadership, through their refusal to participate on-wiki in good faith is the main roadblock and main cause of this disruption. And that wikipedia is not censored.


 * There was a time when this community was so fanatical about no-censorship that it actually trumped editorial judgement. In fact, obscene images received magical protection in the name of anti-censorship. That's why we have pictures of men sucking their own wieners. But now? lord help the editor who criticizes the admins' cherished IRC. It's really remarkable to step back and look at this objectively. --Duk 16:53, 18 January 2008 (UTC)


 * I believe each editor is responsible for his or her own edits; each editor has a different set of circumstances based on the record of all of his or her edits. So I can't see that it's necessary, as a matter of principle, for all editors involved to be subject to identical remedies. &mdash; Carl (CBM · talk) 17:04, 18 January 2008 (UTC)


 * To put Carl's comment another way: I'm sure your comment will be taken into account, and may result in more even distribution of sanctions, but the question of whether the page in question is or isn't like normal pages is only one relevant fact in deciding the case and what remedies, if any, would be appropriate. Would the parties have been expected to edit war on Wikipedia in the first place?  If not, then the status of the page, and the questions about that status, may be a mitigating factor, but they don't excuse the edit warring. --Tony Sidaway 17:28, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

Courtesy blanking
I would recommend this page be courtesy blanked. Stifle (talk) 09:50, 11 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Barring a request by one of the named parties, I'm unsure this qualifies under WP:CBLANK. Jouster  (  whisper  ) 12:30, 11 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Why would we courtesy blank an arbitration case? It's a concept that applies to AFDs to benefit the subject of the article, off wikipedia. If editors feel bad about being the subject of arbitration cases, that is understandable, but not a reason to blank the arbitration page. &mdash; Carl (CBM · talk) 12:57, 11 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Because there are a number of editors who edit in their own names, against whom nasty things were said, but against whom no findings were formally adopted. Thatcher 14:56, 11 February 2008 (UTC)


 * As many are aware, Giano is not involved in Wikipedia at present. I emailed him with respect to the question of courtesy blanking this page/case, as I knew he would be unaware of this discussion.  He has asked me to make it clear that he feels rather strongly that the page/case should not be blanked.  As the only party involved in this case who is the subject (by name) of any remedy or enforcement (and thus the editor whose reputation is most at risk of harm), I believe that Giano's feelings on this matter should override those of others for whom no remedy or enforcement clause was passed.  Risker (talk) 18:03, 11 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Thank you, Risker. This information does help. If Giano does not want the page blanked then I do not see any reason that we need to blank it. FloNight&#9829;&#9829;&#9829; 18:51, 11 February 2008 (UTC)
 * As a named party to the case I request that it be blanked. Unlike any other person named in the case except David Gerard and the tangentially involved editors David Fuchs and Phil Sandifer, I edit in my own name. --Tony Sidaway 19:38, 11 February 2008 (UTC)


 * Blank it if there's a good reason to do so, but please don't call it a "courtesy" blanking. There's nothing remotely courteous about making pages harder to use for readers.  Friday (talk) 19:42, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

Risker has also drawn our attention to this de facto request by one of the others named in the case. --Tony Sidaway 20:03, 11 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Actually, no I did not, Tony. I left this link as a discrete, unlabeled link on my userpage. That was done deliberately, because I did not wish to cause Phil any embarrassment. Phil Sandifer has not come to this page to request that there be a courtesy blanking, and he does not request courtesy blanking in that link. He asks Arbcom "not to sully my name with untrue accusations and speculative sanctions." Well, he got his wish, as Arbcom did not make any untrue accusations against him and also did not register any speculative sanctions.  I did a Google search using Phil's name. The first time this specific Arbcom case comes up is at the 74th entry (out of 4540, and there are several other Phil Sandifers). Out of respect to Phil, I will not describe the nature of some of the other links I found on the first several pages of the search.  I also did a Google search using your name, Tony.  I stopped looking for a link to this Arbcom case after the first 250 links; it's probably there somewhere, but with almost 17,000 results linked to your name, finding it will be like a needle in a haystack. And because I am a decent person, I will not go into the nature of many of the links I saw, either posted by you or about you.  The only person who is sanctioned by name in this arbitration hearing is Giano.  He feels rather strongly that the page should not be blanked.  The default position is for the page to remain as it is.  Nobody to this point has shown good cause to blank the page; indeed, the apparent "Google" effect on two of the individuals who edit under their real-life names is near non-existent. It's unfortunate, Tony, that you chose to further inflame this situation by posting that link, as I was put in the position of having to point out the absurdity of editors who claim that any reference to them in an Arbcom case will cause irreparable harm, and having to address Phil's situation directly.  Now this finding is on record, and other editors in the future will not be able to use that claim.  Risker (talk) 01:07, 12 February 2008 (UTC)


 * I pronounce myself gobsmacked by the vehemence of your inexplicable reaction to my edit.  Could we get back to discussing the blanking of this page? --Tony Sidaway 01:21, 12 February 2008 (UTC)
 * I am discussing the blanking of this page, by demonstrating that the theory that pages related to this case will have a high Google ranking is completely false. That's been the main reason given for some time to blank pages. It would be a justifiable reason to blank user and user talk pages, as they invariably have very high Google rankings; Arbcom pages barely register. I have no idea why you find my response vehement or inexplicable, as it is quite matter-of-fact. You want the page blanked, and intimate that someone else (who I was happy to leave out of this discussion) wants it blanked too. I have simply responded with facts in response to the most commonly heard reason for blanking a page, and reiterated that Giano, the only person sanctioned by name in this hearing, feels rather strongly that the page should not be blanked.  Risker (talk) 01:34, 12 February 2008 (UTC)
 * The reason I find it vehement is probably the same reason a lot of other editors will find it vehement. The reason it is inexplicable to me is that the attack seems to me to have sprung out of nowhere.  I believe the blanking is known as a courtesy blanking because it is normally done as a courtesy.  I agree that it is less important if, as Newyorkbrad thinks, steps have been taken to prevent Google indexing arbitration cases. --Tony Sidaway 02:11, 12 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Attack? What attack? The only thing attacked is the idea that one's name being associated with an Arbcom case will have adverse effects on what is visible on Google.  Risker (talk) 02:14, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

I have no objection to courtesy-blanking this talkpage, but I was under the impression that steps had been taken so that arbitration pages and other project-space pages would no longer show up in Google searches. Is that not the case? Newyorkbrad (talk) 01:33, 12 February 2008 (UTC)
 * I've no idea. If that has been done, then blanking would not be necessary. --Tony Sidaway 01:39, 12 February 2008 (UTC)
 * It is not the case. I've just done one, singlesingle in terms of number of searches not search terms search and this page came out top of the list. DrKiernan (talk) 09:24, 12 February 2008 (UTC)
 * They may not come up high in the google ranking, but google does show them. . .earlier (can't remember exactly when), I checked for another (former -some might say "vanished") editor in a recent case. To simplify it, I did type in his name + "arbitration" and the case was the 4th hit.  I have know idea how high the hit would be if I had not added the word arbitration to the search, but google did return a workshop page.  My conclusion is that the RfAr pages are indexed and searchable by google.  R. Baley (talk) 09:42, 12 February 2008 (UTC)


 * I support courtesy blanking, and nearly did it myself just now. It was different before Tony came in, I suppose, although I feel that courtesy blanking is almost always the right thing to do in almost every case.  I wish we had a way to magically archive such pages after a given period of time, i.e. to make courtesy blanking the default.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 11:42, 12 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Unusually in all Wikipeda's pages, the arbitration case pages are managed by clerks, so it would be possible to implement blanking after a period, and (compared to managing the active case pages) not too onerous. --Tony Sidaway 13:02, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

Absolutely not
"Barring a request by one of the named parties, I'm unsure this qualifies under WP:CBLANK. Jouster  (  whisper  ) 12:30, 11 February 2008 (UTC)": Well, I'm a named party, and I would say that we either have a "forgetting" of everything, including the absurdity/monstrosity of the move against Giano, or we leave the entire blob of hate and anger and irrationality in place. If we are going to have institutional memory or "Giano on civility patrol for any chance to block him," then we need an institutional memory of all the dreadful "reasoning" that led there. If we are not going to have that, if we are not going to have a record of all the things that happened, then we shouldn't have a black mark memorialized as well. Many untrue things were said? None more than were said against Giano, and yet those must stay so that anyone who invokes that atrocity will see also the unreasoning nature of it. Geogre (talk) 12:01, 12 February 2008 (UTC)


 * Consider the workshop and proposed decision pages. This case featured an extremely low ratio of findings/remedies passed as opposed to findings/remedies proposed. There were many people (eg, Bishonen, Phil Sandifer) who were the subject of such proposals to whom no reference at all was made in the final decision. --bainer (talk) 12:50, 12 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Arbcom is welcome, nay, encouraged, to go on record as exonerating whomever it cares to name off. That would sort that objection. Personally, I think not at least admonishing Phil for applying the block that sparked this to only one person instead of all the revert warriors there was a place where arbcom fell far short of the mark, but YMMV. ++Lar: t/c 12:55, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

I affix my name in the "absolutely not" column. I don't think it's a good idea to blank this case while there are sanctions active. Moreover, I don't think it's a good idea to blank this case while there are lessons that might be learned from it. Not have it come up in Google searches? Sure. Make that happen, please. But it needs to be referencable and readable, including by non admins those unskilled in divining which revisions to view. I'm not seeing where Arbcom wants to forget the whole thing and lift all the sanctions and remove all the admonishments. I edit under my real name (in that it's clearly linked from an easily findable page) and I am always fully prepared to stand behind every word I say, and accept whatever others say, as long as it's not something that would be oversighted. I trust my colleagues here to know the difference between truth and invective. ++Lar: t/c 12:41, 12 February 2008 (UTC)


 * A blanked case should be referenceable and readable. For this, use  and the page text will read:

--Tony Sidaway 12:58, 12 February 2008 (UTC)
 * I do not edit under my real name, but it's easy enough to find it. I would propose the following as a policy: if you do not stand by every edit you have made, or do not possess a way to explain why an edit you've made, while not indicative of your level of competence, made sense at the time you made it, acquire and use a pseudonym for all your edits.  If, on the other hand, you are merely concerned about libelous remarks made towards you on a Talk page or elsewhere by someone else, by all means, enforce the rough equivalent of BLP by blanking the appropriate sections (or, to reduce drama somewhat, ask a clerk to do it for you).  Remember, however, that truth is an absolute defense against a charge of libel.


 * To Geogre, I must confess I'm somewhat confused as to why you quoted me, above, and then responded in such a hostile tone. You seem to largely agree with me, no?  Jouster  (  whisper  ) 20:28, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

Using hide/show on civility sanctions
Is this (Tony using a hide/show trick, at 16:49 today, on the civility sanction displayed on his talk page) comparable to the blanking of these arbitration case pages? Note: I've already asked Tony about this on his talk page (conversation so far). I have concerns that Tony is annotating, tweaking and hide/show-ing his sanction, while others would not be allowed to do the same with theirs. Of course, since it was voluntary, if enough fuss is made about leaving it visible, Tony could withdraw from agreeing to the civility sanction, but I hope he won't do that (as it would leave him open to charges that it was a cynical ploy to avoid sanctions, rather than a genuine attempt to bring balance to the case, which I believe it was). I would hope though, that Tony would consider leaving the sanction in the state it was when FloNight added it, or at least keeping changes and annotations to a minimum. I am sure there is another sanction in this case that many people would like to annotate, but can't. Carcharoth (talk) 18:22, 12 February 2008 (UTC)
 * As I've said on Tony's talk page, I've dropped this specific point (he has also tweaked the display again, to make it more visible, though as I said over there, that wasn't really my point - my point was whether he should be tweaking it at all). I'd still be interested in the general point, though - are talk pages suitable places to put civility sanctions? There are good reasons, after all, that we don't do this for other people who are sanctioned (or do we?). And now I really will stop posting about this, for a few hours at least! :-/ Carcharoth (talk) 18:58, 12 February 2008 (UTC)


 * I think you are (were?) asking two questions there. I will only guess about one and leave the other alone completely. I don't think hide/show is technically equivalent to blanking, because blanking means that the text can't be found even with the internal search (which searches the current revision). hide/show text is still there and still found by searches. My issue with courtesy blanking in this case is that I don't think the case should be hidden away from internal searches. I don't care if the page is hide/shown but I don't buy the "I used my real name so I don't want searches to show that I was criticised for things" argument. I say, don't do things you're not willing to later stand behind, and as for criticism, depend on DefendEachOther to set things right if you're attacked about your actions unjustly, (if no one will defend your actions, then maybe they're shaky, eh?) rather than papering over later. But then, I don't have the ghits that Tony or Phil do. ++Lar: t/c 18:59, 12 February 2008 (UTC)
 * I think you're getting two points "muxed ip" there. My displaying the notice on my talk page for a few weeks was a concession to a request by FloNight, and she's fine with my formatting.  The courtesy blanking thing is just that: a courtesy.  That is: somebody asks, and we blank.  Or (as seems to be the result of the emerging lack-of-consensus in this case) we don't. --Tony Sidaway 19:24, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

We regularly courtesy blank all or part of RFArb if it helps the involved parties move on. Evidently (my interpretation from his comments on site and in emails to me) Giano feels that the Arbitration Committee has done harm to the Community through this decision. Also that we are trying to silence him. I'm thinking that Giano feels that Committee want to blank this case to hide it from view so that we cover up the harm that was done and silence him. While of course, that is not true, I really do not see the need for blanking in this case and encourage editors to drop the request if it is causing Giano more unhappiness.

I responded to the issue about Tony's sanction on his talk page. FloNight&#9829;&#9829;&#9829; 19:34, 12 February 2008 (UTC)
 * I certainly won't push it if blanking would be a thorn in Giano's side.   --Tony Sidaway 19:39, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

I agree with Tony that several things are muxed ip here. We're talking about "courtesy" but it is also important to remeber that talk all pages serve as some version of our collective memory. I'd also suggest that there is a balance between showing courtesy by blanking and demonstrating courtesy when doing so. In this regard, there seems to be general agreement that the pain felt by those collectively affronted is small enough that it is outweighed by the value of keeping this "in plain sight." - 152.91.9.144 (talk) 02:03, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

Request to amend prior case: Requests for arbitration/IRC
List of any users involved or directly affected, and confirmation that all are aware of the request:
 * (initiator)
 * (done)

Statement by LessHeard vanU
I propose that the the wording of the incivility parole be amended to include the word "unduly" (or similar) prior to the word "uncivil", to permit the community (and especially the admins) sufficient leeway in attempting to deal with instances of vigorous debate with sometimes colourful language by Giano II. In this instance a heated discussion involving several parties resulted in an enquiry whether Giano II should be sanctioned for their style or tone of comments. I do not believe that the parole was intended to disallow Giano from strongly expressing their views, or to allow opposing parties to use the threat of sanction to discourage Giano from arguing their case (a very foolish premise, it might be concluded), and the wording as is allows for instances of "block shopping". Giano II would still be under sanction for instances of incivility that may be determined as being disruptive.

I shall inform Giano II of this request, but do not anticipate a response (here). I urge the Committee to proceed (or not) independent of a statement by Giano II. LessHeard vanU (talk) 13:23, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

Statement by ddstretch
As the person who initiated the enquiry referred to, I would support such an amendment myself.  DDStretch (talk)  13:33, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

Statement by [[User:Until(1
2)|Until(1 == 2)]] ====

The civility policy in no way prevents people from expressing strong views. It just needs to be done in a way that is not nasty. Giano is not being prevented from expressing strong views, but is instead prevented from being uncivil while doing so. You do not need incivility to debate, even when you have strong views. All Giano needs to do in order to avoid sanctions is to treat other editors with more respect. For example he could have explained his objection without saying that his opponent had "the attention span of a gnat", which would have prevented people being concerned about his actions. (1 == 2)Until 13:37, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

Statement by Ddstretch
In addition to Until(1 ==2)'s point, if Giano took more care to avoid characterising other users (editors and readers) in the way he did, it would help maintain the collaborative nature of wikipedia. It would reduce to a minimum the chance that discussions would get unnecessarily heated or dramatic. The underlying point he was endeavouring to make was made quite reasonably, using rational and calm language (excepting the use of "cognitive deficit"), by another here, for instance.  DDStretch (talk)  13:56, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

Statement by JzG
There seems to be a confusion between incivility and kid gloves. In the same way that Wikipedia is not censored, it should not be necessary to treat every editor as if they are a grade-schooler from a strict Mormon home who will be offended by the word "bother". A workable definition of civility has to be one which will improve our community and be embraced by it, rather than one which allows polite but vexatious people to drive off those with greater knowledge and understanding than they themselves have, by pretending mortal insults in cases of forceful assertion.

If a civility guideline cannot include, influence and inspire people like Giano, I'd argue that it is a bad guideline. And there is also a huge difference in character between what is said close to the encyclopaedia, and what is acceptable in userspace. We've recently had the utterly absurd case of an admin blocking a long-standing contributor for telling him to "get lost" on his own user page. Some part of the community seems incapable of applying Clue in this matter. Guy (Help!) 20:43, 26 April 2008 (UTC)


 * @ Swatjester: You miss the point. If people consider that following those rules is so important that if one does not then one may be blocked from editing, however prolific one might be as a contributor, then it would be wise to craft the rules in such a way that they do not seem ridiculous to quite so many long-standing contributors.  I hold Geogre in the very highest regard, I believe he is a model Wikipedian, and Geogre has stated that the civility guideline, as currently written, is hopelessly flawed.  I agree.  We seem to be blocking people for failing to adhere to Bible-belt US English usage, while forgetting that faux politeness can conceal behaviour which is entirely inimical to the mission of Wikipedia. Guy (Help!) 17:36, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

Statement by Swatjester
Wait, guy, so if Giano can't follow the rules on civility, we should get rid of the rules? No, that's ridiculous. If he can't be civil, he needs to go. That simple. He's not specially excepted from the rules, and we don't get to dismiss every violation he makes of them (of which there are numerous) with "zomg treating him with kid gloves". We've given him enough chances. Time to start actually enforcing the rules equitably, including against Giano. &rArr;  SWAT Jester    Son of the Defender  23:13, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

Statement by KillerChihuahua
Concur with Guy, Geogre et al. The civility guideline is hopelessly flawed; it prevents candor and blunt language. All respect to Swat; but I'd much rather toss the civility guidelines out the window than such a fine contributor as Giano. Let us not forget that at all times the first question, the paramount question, should be: what benefits the project? I submit that ridiculously juvenile and narrow definitions of civility, enforced blindly, harm the project immensely. Giano shouldn't have to wear kid gloves or walk on eggshells because some clueless twerps - oh, pardon me, some editors cannot handle blunt phrasing. One puppy's opinion. KillerChihuahua?!? 00:47, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

Statement by Bigtimepeace
Certainly the civility policy can and has been used as a club against users who are blunt like Giano, and there have been admins who are far too willing to block for the slightest little transgression of the civility policy. There's nothing good about either of those things, and indeed such actions are themselves rather uncivil.

I am, however, nonplussed by those editors who insist that we should basically throw the civility policy out the window, or at least not bother to apply it to "good" or "expert" users. I've read many comments complaining about the civility policy, but to my knowledge no one has explained why incivility is ever necessary. I would love to read such an explanation someday. There is nothing wrong with going after another editor's argument in a blunt manner (pointing out errors of logic, fact, or interpretation, or demonstrating inconsistency in a user's approach to a given issue), and indeed doing so will often convince others of your view. But if while doing that one concludes with "which is why you're an idiot" one has; A) Added nothing to the argument; B) Simply angered the other user and inflamed the dispute; C) Made one's argument look worse in the eyes of others. When incivility is directed at newer users by more experienced ones it can also have a chilling effect, since participating at Wikipedia can, at first, be a bit of an intimidating experience to begin with&mdash;even for folks with expertise in a particular area.

The Arbs seem to be attempting to pursue a different route with Giano below which seems fine. These general issues will continually come up though, and in the future I'd like to see the partisans of "to hell with civility" explain why it is ever necessary to be uncivil and provide specific examples of occasions when a failure to make an uncivil comment hindered the work of the encyclopedia.--Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 19:21, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

Arbitrator views and discussion

 * Civility is always due. The incivility of one editor does not give others with whom they are in discussion an exemption from themselves being civil. Admins do, though, have discretion about whether to enforce sanctions. We are discussing, below, proposals to make special provision for enforcement of Giano's civility sanction. Sam Blacketer (talk) 14:45, 26 April 2008 (UTC)
 * The promise and actuality of a mutually civil and friendly working environment were things that drew me, as a new editor, to become more active within Wikipedia. I think this is true of many of us, and it is a reason that most of the arbitration decisions I draft begin with the premise that our purpose is to develop a high-quality free-content encyclopedia "in an atmosphere of cameraderie and mutual respect among contributors." As a general and aspirational matter, I would like to see substantially heightened levels of civility in various places all over the site. However, I think that before we consider blocking an editor for uncivil comments or personal attacks, the history would have to reflect chronic or severe instances of incivility, rather than fleeting and mild ones. This should be understood in connection with all enforcement of the civility and NPA policies, as well as all arbitration decisions imposing civility restrictions or paroles. Newyorkbrad (talk) 16:48, 27 April 2008 (UTC)
 * The idea that a requirement for common courtesy prevents blunt criticism is based on a misunderstanding of the civility policy. Editors are perfectly free to criticize, should they see a need to do so; the restriction is merely that such criticism must be presented in a professional, mature manner, rather than through insults, mudslinging, and schoolyard taunts.  There is never a need to call someone a cretin, a lunatic, an idiot, or any of the dozens of other terms favored by some of our less restrained commentators; and, if one presents criticism with the expectation that it will be listened to by its subjects, rather than merely for its value as crude demagoguery, then it is generally counterproductive to insult said subjects when presenting it. Kirill (prof) 03:11, 4 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Agreed with the above. I believe no modification is necessary. --Deskana (talk) 18:56, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

Request for clarification : Requests for arbitration/IRC
List of any users involved or directly affected, and confirmation that all are aware of the request:
 * (initiator)
 * 
 * (self-added)
 * All of the current arbitration committee that were active and recused on this case (will notify separately)

Statement by Carcharoth
Could the arbitration committee please clarify what has or has not resulted from the final principle and the associated remedy in the IRC case, namely: Requests for arbitration/IRC and Requests for arbitration/IRC, and what is planned for the future, if anything. The principle in full is:"'The Arbitration Committee has recently been asked by Jimbo Wales to take an expanded role in the governance of IRC. The Committee is formulating policy and procedure changes based on this new role independently from this case. passed 7-1 at 03:48, 9 February 2008 (UTC)'" The remedy in full is:"'Policy and procedure changes regarding Wikipedia IRC channels will be addressed separately by this committee. passed 9-0 with 1 abstention at 03:56, 9 February 2008 (UTC)'" Thank-you. Carcharoth (talk) 16:40, 26 March 2008 (UTC) Updated 17:16, 26 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Update - About a week ago, when filing this request, I contacted 13 arbitrators on their talk pages regarding this request for clarification (see here). These were the current arbitrators who were listed as active on the case, or who recused themselves. So far, four have responded: FT2, Newyorkbrad, Paul August and Jdforrester (James F). Of the other nine, eight have edited Wikipedia since I contacted them (the other one has not edited in some time and has a break notice on their talk page), but have not responded here, or on their talk page. I note that FT2 has left a note here saying that he is dealing with other issues at the moment which take priority, which is fair enough. Should we take the silence of most of the other arbitrators to mean that the committee have left FT2 to deal with this? And if the arbitration committee have done this delegation (which I would in some ways prefer to long-winded committee decisions), why can't they just say so? Carcharoth (talk) 15:09, 2 April 2008 (UTC)
 * No such formal delegation has been made. Paul August &#9742; 05:02, 5 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Thank you. I see Flonight has since posted a response. I will wait another week before posting here again, or longer if the arbitration committee can: (a) come up with a schedule for this request; (b) clarify what is needed here and whether any all or only some arbitrators need to respond here; and (c) agree to eventually move/restart the discussion somewhere else. What I hope will come of this is that progress and consensus will be made and documented on Wikipedia (rather than in the channel and by other off-wiki means) - I presume all those participating in the #en-admins IRC channel are happy to participate in on-wiki discussion about the channel? Some moderation of the discussion might be needed, but I think such a discussion might alleviate some of the concerns. For example, one thing that could be suggested is that anyone obtaining a cloak to the channel could be required to sign (on-wiki) the channel code of conduct as part of the sign up process. Carcharoth (talk) 19:12, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

Statement by Ryan Postlethwaite
I can state that several other channel ops and I have been working hard to take the communities views in hand when we have been discussing how to handle future behavioural issues in the channel. The first thing we've done is created guidlines for the channel which all users of the channel are aware of. These can be found here. The problems highlighted in the IRC case are mainly because members of the channel didn't understand what was expected of them and the channel operators didn't really know their role in stopping behavioural problems. The operators have now decided to take a more proactive role in the enforcement of channel standards, and all users are aware that if they start discussing people behind their backs, start being offensive or anything else which could be seen from the outside as unacceptable, they'll have their access removed. Obviously sometimes a warning may suffice, but in serious incidents, we'll remove on sight.

What we've also done is made the access list public, so any IRC user can see exactly who has access to the channel. On wiki, we've created User:Cbrown1023/Guidelines (user info) so that everyone is aware exactly who has access to the channel, and who the channel operators are. If there's a concern with someones conduct, then anyone is welcome to contact one of the ops and it will be taken extremely seriously and we'll of course keep you informed of what is happening. At present, we're currently debating the role of non administrators in the channel and whether or not they should keep their access. We've had no consensus either way up to this point, but we'll keep on going highlighting both the benefits and disadvantages.

The channel has moved on a lot since the case and although there hasn't been any direction from ArbCom, the internal running and operation has taken a lot from the case and everything is now much clearer regarding expected standards and routes for ops to take if there are problems. If people have concerns, just contact one of us. I'm sure the arbitration committee would also be willing to hear of problems if the ops haven't dealt with it. Ryan Pos<font color="#aa0000">tl et hw ai te  17:16, 26 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Related suggestion from Wetman
 * If the access list has been made public, can Ryan Postlethwaite ensure that it is entered in some acceptable fashion at IRC channels, so that more ordinary Wikipedians like myself could actually access it?--Wetman (talk) 22:35, 26 March 2008 (UTC)
 * I've gone ahead and created a new proposed page. Please see User:Ryan Postlethwaite/IRC. This would replace the old admins channel wikipedia space page so it has to go through DRV which can be found at Deletion review/Log/2008 March 26. <font color="#000088">Ry<font color="#220066">an<font color="#550044"> P<font color="#770022">os<font color="#aa0000">tl et hw ai te  23:13, 26 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Note: I linked the list at WP:IRC in the header of the WEA section, some weeks ago. FT2 (Talk 11:13, 27 March 2008 (UTC)


 * Related suggestion from Lawrence Cohen
 * Can we get this list of users updated to seperate out admins from non-admins, with a direct 1:1 relationship shown what IRC handle connects with what English Wikipedia username? <font color="#800080">Lawrence § t/e 15:13, 27 March 2008 (UTC)
 * I've done this at User:Cbrown1023/Guidelines (user info). I linked the ones I knew of the top of my head and non-admins are in bold. John Reaves 07:13, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

Related query by Bishonen
"Just contact one of us"..? Er, how? Why are people expected to know the way to CBrowns userspace if they have been treated badly on the channel? Why isn't there a public board in Wikipedia space (linked to from WP:AN and similar) where complaints can be dealt with by senior ops? Bishonen | talk 17:40, 26 March 2008 (UTC).
 * It should be noted that the anchored redirect WP:WEA broke when the header it redirected to was changed with this edit on 6 March. I've just fixed it, so now people can go straight to the big red box with the link to the guidelines when they click on WP:WEA. From there, they should be able to find someone to complain to. This is a work in progress, and I'm sure suggestions you make will be discussed. Any ideas for a suitable on-wiki talk page to discuss things? Carcharoth (talk) 17:56, 26 March 2008 (UTC)
 * I hope you don't mind me commenting here Bish, please feel fee to move it if you want. I agree that CBrowns userspace isn't ideal, but people didn't like the fact that we had a whole wiki-space page dedicated to #wikipedia-en-admins. I personally wouldn't mind it being in a more accessible location and it would be a good idea to link it more widely so that people are clear where and who to go to and the expected conduct of the users in the channel. I'm not sure a public board is a great idea for this, if there are problems, it would most likely involve passing logs to channel operators, or the channel operators getting evidence from logs which shouldn't be posted on-wiki. I personally don't have a problem with people coming to my talk page with their concerns and I'll communicate with them on wiki regarding the steps that I'm taking to resolve them - I just don't think a dedicated noticeboard is such a good idea. <font color="#000088">Ry<font color="#220066">an<font color="#550044"> P<font color="#770022">os<font color="#aa0000">tl et hw ai te  17:59, 26 March 2008 (UTC)


 * Quick comment on that - that was taken care of at the same time, earlier this month. I linked the entire channel guidelines (including where to seek help and who are the channel operators) from WP:IRC#wikipedia-en-admins specifically to ensure that question had an answer, and those needing to know how to find the guidelines and help, could know.


 * I also added as a second measure, also earlier this month, a section to WP:IRC covering #Problems and help, and to be sure that was visible relinked it as well from near the top of the page too. It gives full details on how to seek help if there is a problem on an IRC channel. The pages they link to contain full details of every person in any kind of channel op role, on en-admins and more generally, for much of English Wikipedia IRC. FT2 (Talk 18:39, 26 March 2008 (UTC)
 * "people didn't like the fact that we had a whole wiki-space page dedicated to #wikipedia-en-admins" - that wasn't my perception at all. People didn't seem to have a problem with it - they seemed to have a problem with the proclamation that there were "special rules" for that page, that only certain editors were allowed to touch it, it wasn't subject to consensus, and that presence there was a privilege above and beyond anything else. Achromatic (talk) 20:50, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

Comment by GRBerry
Given that the remedy the committee passed was that the committee would address this issue, the activity Ryan discusses, while likely meritorious, does not actually fulfill the remedy. Is there a status update as to the committee's activity? GRBerry 17:43, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

Comment by Thatcher
First, I think this space should probably be reserved to ask the committee for an update on their views of IRC governance etc., and discussion of Bishonen's excellent question should be moved elsewhere (including my comments below, should someone be so bold as to start such a discussion).

I think a noticeboard for IRC chanops would be an excellent idea. Now, this gets a bit esoteric and lawyerish, but it seems to be the current situation that IRC is recognized as an independent creature, with different rules of conduct and methods of dispute resolution, and that Wikipedia has no authority to mandate any particular channel behavior or dispute resolution process. However, that does not mean that the chanops could not choose for their own convenience to host a noticeboard on Wikipedia. I think a noticeboard is an excellent idea because it will allow issues to be discussed by more than just the ops who happen to be online at a given moment, and it will have archives, including a record of when and why a user was added or removed from the channel that IRC itself does not provide. There already seems to be a sort of noticeboard at User talk:Cbrown1023/Guidelines.

However, hosting the noticeboard and associated policies/contact lists/dispute resolution processes in Wikipedia space presents the same problem it did before; it suggests that anyone can edit it, when in fact only the participants in IRC have a say and only the chanops (appear to) have the final say. So it may be necessary either to host the pages in project space but grant them an exemption from "everyone can edit" or to keep them in user space but raise their profile through linkage or even transclusion. Thatcher 18:10, 26 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Thatcher, IRC is not reccognised as an independent creature with separate and different rules. Jimbo, himslf, made this very clear here . Giano (talk) 08:23, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

Further plea and misplaced clarification by Bishonen (but if not here, then where?)
I'm replying here to FT2's response to Carcharoth's basic question why the final principle "The Arbitration Committee has recently been asked by Jimbo Wales to take an expanded role in the governance of IRC. The Committee is formulating policy and procedure changes based on this new role independently from this case" (passed 7-1) and its associated remedy "Policy and procedure changes regarding Wikipedia IRC channels will be addressed separately by this committee" (passed 9-0), have both come to naught. My post goes to clarifying the committee's final principles and remedies as they relate to en-admins IRC case—it's not about FT2's block of Giano—therefore I post it here, in preference to drowning it at the now extremely copious discussion of that block on WP:AE (most of it posted by FT2). Yes, I know I'm not supposed to post in this section, which is for arbs, but it seems my only chance of being heard. (I won't post again, whether or not you remove me from this spot, Thatcher. This has taken me much too much time as it is.)

Like probably most people, I feel at an awful disadvantage when attempting to discuss or debate with FT2, since he seems impressively able to write about 100 lines in the space of time that it takes your average wikipedian to write 20, and me to write 5. (And NYBrad to write 70 or so.) My efforts in the direction of debate with FT2 have always literally drowned. But I will try just once to do my own clarification. I made an effort to come to grips with the background to FT2's new guidelines for IRC (at this moment not available in CBrown's space, but mirrored at )—these  guidelines being the only mouse that has so far been born from the laboring mountains of the IRC case, and it's final principles and remedies. The background to the guidelines, as offered by FT2 in channel to anybody interested, turned out to be an edited log of a discussion between FT2 and some 6 or 10 channel users (by FT2's own estimate) from February 25-26. I have it here. It's been edited by FT2 to remove irrelevancies, and consists–well, I don't have any counting tool that will work for this— but at my rough estimate, the discussion consists to at least 80% of FT2 himself talking, mainly describing how well the channel works now:


 * (''Exact quote of log)


 * <FT2> irc runs well now (here)
 * <FT2> but the outside world doesnt know it
 * <FT2> we're like in wikipedia in the old days, "dont be a dick" and "no real rules otherwise"
 * <FT2> we have our sort of "unspoken code"
 * <FT2> a user who harasses here will (or probably should be) talked to or sorted out/calmed down...
 * <FT2> a user who canvasses persistently likewise
 * <FT2> these things dont much happen, we have a sort of unspoken code here
 * <FT2> its nice
 * <FT2> but the outside world doesnt know it
 * <FT2> also channel ops dont know what's okay to do, so if a dispute breaks out, like the bishonen/tony one a while back... should they act? or not.

I discussed these matters with FT2 in PM on IRC several times, before he actually sent me the above log to look at, and I was rather shocked by his descriptions of that log. Here's a snippet of our discussion from March 5, posted with permission.


 * (''Exact quote except that an e-mail address and a couple of typos have been removed.)


 * may I have a copy of the full discussion of the channel? there was something about that in the header before.
 * <FT2-away>	sure :)
 * its enacted now but there wasnt any controversy on it -- most folks reaction was "yeah, commonsense"
 * thanks
 * <FT2-away>	I was just very careful to consult hugely to be sure that nobody could accidentally feel unasked or whatever. You know how it can go.
 * i thought there was going to be a workgroup, or the arbcom would be involved.
 * <FT2-away>	I was thinking of the dispute over roillback.
 * nah
 * hugely?....
 * <FT2-away>	the channel basically sorted it out, about 6 or 10 people, everyone was pretty much "yeah, commonsense" by the time it was done
 * so more people than the users of this channel were invoived?
 * <FT2-away>	no...
 * i see
 * <FT2-away>	but there are a lot of users here... and of course those include a load of people who arent often here
 * that's not hugely in my book, i'm afraid. but whatever.
 * <FT2-away>	the concern was to clean up and ensure that issues of the past were not going to be perrennial
 * let me get this straight. only admins have been consulted? and only the minority of admins that use the admin channel?
 * <FT2-away>	and that's much more about people here accepting norms and considering what norms they feel apply, than about asking others... most people here or elsewhere who care about irc stuff, know what the issues are or were anyway
 * do they?

To recapitulate: What has happened with the policy and procedures of the IRC en-admins channel since the IRC case was closed, then, is that there are now new guidelines for it in CBrown's userspace (update: no, actually at this moment in Martinp23's userspace), authored  (largely) by FT2, and emphasizing how well the channel currently works. The origin of the new guidelines was an IRC discussion, massively dominated by FT2 himself, on February 25-26 between FT2 and a few admins. So much for the expanded role in the governance of IRC that the ArbCom undertook in its final principle. So much for its new oversight as foreseen in the remedy it voted for. May we please have some commentary from some of the arbs besides FT2—from those that put hand to keyboard and voted for a new role of arbcom with respect to IRC—voted for changes in policy and procedure, changes to be addressed by the committee—voted 9-0 and 7-1? FloNight? Newyorkbrad? Paul August? Clarification please? Especially, clarification of that which is never clarified by anybody, but always sidestepped — the role of James Forrester as envisaged by arbcom — would be appreciated to the point of jubilation. Bishonen | talk 16:14, 27 March 2008 (UTC).
 * What on earth does one say, reading the above - just sums up the truth of what I have been saying for weeks. Have our Arbcom anything to say to justify themselves? Or are we all to be banned for wondering, and demanding that they answer and explain themselves. Giano (talk) 17:36, 27 March 2008 (UTC)
 * For the record, I voted oppossed to the related "principle" and abstained with regard to the related "remedy". As far as I know ArbCom has yet to take any official action with regard to either. Paul August &#9742; 18:40, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

Comment by White Cat
Users found publishing logs will be banned from all Wikimedia channels.

Not that I want to stir trouble but I would like to remind people the above rule. Be careful what you post here as this is a public place to publish things. I just don't want to see anyone get banned.

-- Cat chi? 21:46, 27 March 2008 (UTC)
 * It should be pointed out that these excerpts were posted by one of the participants with the explicit permission of the other; there is no issue on that front. &mdash; Coren (talk) 22:58, 27 March 2008 (UTC)
 * I was not accusing anyone of wrong doing. In the heat of the dispute people sometimes forget such things. This was intended as a good faith reminder. Nothing more or less. -- Cat chi? 00:25, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

Comment by Orderinchaos
I'd make the point, speaking to the notes and log above, that the current en-admins channel does have a wide membership in terms of its views, and I think despite the thinking of some that the diversity of the community's views are actually well represented there. A recent incident (well documented elsewhere so no need to do so here) resulted in strident criticism of the channel's operations, and as a critic myself of the initial handling of the matter, I was happy with how it was ultimately resolved. Orderinchaos 11:08, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

Reply to Newyorkbrad by Bishonen

 * in reply to NYB's opinion (moved from below)

"Succinctly"? LOL, come on, don't be so quick to dudgeon just because it's me. You're Patient Guy with everybody else, remember? Thank you for your answer. Will you clarify it a little bit more? I guess there may not indeed be community consensus that the ArbCom should exercise control over the channel, but it's my impression that there is/was ArbCom consensus for it (with the single exception of Paul August). Your own support for the principle "Policy and procedure changes regarding Wikipedia IRC channels will be addressed separately by this committee" is admittedly very hedged, being predicated on it being "unfair to the parties" to keep the IRC case open any longer (not that I quite see what one thing has to do with the other — did Paul's abstention keep the case open any extra time?) As a short version, would you agree with this description of the current state of affairs: the ArbCom is, with the exception of FT2, individually and collectively in flight from taking responsibilty for the principle+remedy in question? Are you all waiting for somebody else to fulfill the passive "input should be sought"? Bishonen | talk 01:29, 29 March 2008 (UTC).
 * "Succinctly" was a bit of self-criticism; I'm trying to cut back on the excessive length of some of my project-space posts (although I will note with a smile that I share your assessment that I will never be the longest-winded arbitrator so long as FT2 is serving on the committee alongside me).
 * The relationship between my vote and closing the case is that traditionally a case is not closed until all the pending substantive proposals have been voted on. The alternative to "issues relating to the channel will be addressed later" would have been keeping the case open to address them now, and that would have prolonged the case, including the pendency of remedy proposals against several editors (including yourself) that you and I were both strongly opposed to.
 * I fear that "in flight" could be considered an NPOV term. I have acknowledged that we have not, or have not yet, collectively followed up on the agenda item of exerting control over the #admins channel. But I am not sure that we should be criticized for not implementing ArbCom governance of the channel without some evidence that either the denizens of the channel or the community at large (the views of both are entitled to strong consideration) wants us to do such a thing. In fact, putting aside the solicitation of the views of the whole community, I am not sure what you personally believe the committee should do at this time to implement the remedy cited and exercise responsibility over the channel, if we were to approach the matter collectively rather than individually. Newyorkbrad (talk) 01:50, 29 March 2008 (UTC)
 * (Diverging from the committee as collective for a moment, I certainly honor you individually for supporting Paul August's motion to dismiss the case.) I'm aware of that tradition, but I thought voting against, or explicitly abstaining on, a substantive proposal counted as "voting on" it, too. No? Keeping the case open can't very well have been the only alternative to voting support to "issues relating to the channel will be addressed later". There was always the possibility of an (at the time) obviously impopular but franker and less foot-shuffling counterproposal that "issues relating to the channel will not be addressed by this committee, and as for James Forrester, forgeddabaddit. " Kicking the ball discreetly into my court ("what you personally believe the committee should do at this time") won't help either, I'm afraid. I have no straw for your collective bricks. If I had, I'd gladly offer it. But, to reverse a classic wiki-saying, I'm not ArbCom's mother. Bishonen | talk 09:49, 29 March 2008 (UTC).
 * The arbcom voted to address the issues, Jimbo told you that you have the "Jimbo given" authority, now cut the crap all of you get in there and do as you told us you were going to do. 9 Arbs voted to address the issues. So far we have seen FT2 and someone called Ryan Postlethwaite talk about how there is no problem. We all know too many bad blocks have been orchestrated there, and too much discussed with non-admins and toadies, so time to clean it up. If you are too frightened to solve  the problems, then dissolve the channel. Incidentally where are these 9 brave Arbs who voted to address the problem in return for placing me on civility patrol? Has there been some form of unreported massacre? I don't believe I have read any reports of it? Now come on, cut the crap and address the problem. You  Arbs enjoy banning me, now you keep to your side of the bargain - or does James Forrester rule you? Giano (talk) 00:26, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

Comment by Irpen
The saga over IRC is not new and the abuse grew since its inception. It first came to public light in the Fall 2006. The IRC got so frightened by the public reaction and by the evidence seeing the light that it called it a "coup d'etat attempt" (this post made my day). Shortly the mess called Giano-I ArbCom was dubbed (aptly but imprecisely) an uprising of writing admins while in fact it was an uprising of Wikipedia writing community against the Wikipedia being "run" by its self-appointed ever-chatting in secret "elite" that dubbed that very community as "fickle and ill-informed populace".

Once some facts came out in the open, the 2007 passed with IRC resisting to give ground and claiming that everything is good to much of the community disgust. However, what was originally seen as "IRC" got developed into a new mentality. This culminated in Durova case and another messy discovery of the existence of the secret "lists" run on Wikia servers where good editors were investigated the Wikipedia Review style by a newly arrived layer of self-appointed "leaders and protectors of Wikipedia". Each of these messes brought some good revelations (and good desysoppings) but their usefulness by far exceeded that.

They where eye openers. Giano-I case revealed the phenomenon, the Durova case showed the extent to which the malfeasance penetrated. It was in this context that a mysterious and never heard of user (just like the author of Giano-I case) submitted a new case (originally also dubbed Giano) which was renamed "IRC" and portrayed as the case about "warring over WP:WEA" when editors of the "fickle and ill-informed" side tried to make the page reflecting the reality while David Gerard and his friends insisted on explicit rights over the Wikipedia page and on the the hypocritically convenient and deliberate lack of clarity over the connection between #admins and the Wikipedia

The ArbCom for whatever reason accepted a case over David Gerard's WP:WEA page just as quickly as it accepted the original (Giano-I) case. ArbCom then produced a decision with a bunch of findings and remedies totally disconnected from each other. Nevertheless, the committee took it upon itself to address the IRC problems at a later time leaving the community under an impression that " Policy and procedure changes regarding Wikipedia IRC channels will be addressed separately by this committee". Community hoped to see something meaningful, like a workgroup proposed by Flo. Later, "no consensus from ArbCom was found for this proposal" (note passive voice).

Soon the community "was told" that the adequate measures "were taken" through the channel's "self-policing" decided through "discussion" that occurred... nowhere else but at #admins itself. A paradox? I happened to have seen this "discussion". It was basically one arb/chanellop saying things and others nodding. This is a strange kind of "discussion" where an input from those "allegedly" abused by #admins is glaringly lacking. But let's see whether the channel improved and the problems are now "addressed" like we've heard time and again. Here is a random (not exclusive by any means) list of events (note recent dates) that took place at #admins and how they were "addressed".


 * 1) Feb. 7, 2008: Admin Moreschi roamed into a channel out of the blue exclusively to whine about Irpen. I think it is worse that he spoke about me behind my back having no courage to say things in my face than the particular word "a bastard" he chose, but that aside, he was met at the channel by a level-30 chanellop. That chanellop told Moreschi that he "probably shouldn't do it somewhere so leaky" and tried to alleviate Moreschi's worries by reminding Moreschi "Well, you've still got a block button" "*chanellop hints". This pleasant conversation had several consequences:
 * 2) When I confronted Moreschi about his conduct this person had no courage to respond at all
 * 3) However, my request for explanation did prompt a discussion at... (sigh) #admins. The discussion was not about the Moreschi's conduct though. Instead it was about "leaks" and it was initiated by another channelop
 * 4) Yet another level-30 channelop was present at the channel, took part in discussion and did nothing of consequence
 * 5) The case was finally analyzed by yet another level-30 channelop and a sitting arbitrator, (see here). The analysis called this blockshopping and  a request to take it somewhere "less leaky" as an attempt to restrain Moreschi. Case thus considered "handled".
 * 6) March 13, 2008 an admin blocked for a clear case of 3RR came to the channel to shop for an unblock. He called his content opponents, long time contributors with a long history of content writing, "two POV-trolls". Again, the user, a long time champion of citing WP:CIV, had no courage to say things of that sort to their face, but at #admins it was considered "OK": not only wasn't he called to order, but he talked himself out of the block. Details available here and here
 * 7) March 14, 2008, an admin who is widely active in wikipolitics (an arbcom clerk, no less, among other things) called a female user "a bitch" (in her absense) over her attempt to draw attention to her pet project through posting a call for participation at another user's talk (she later reverted that). At this time, the admin was politely asked to cut it by an arbitrator who was at the channel. The admin's response to the call to order was defiant, he claimed that he would have said the same in her face. There is no evidence that the said admin went ahead and said this to her face, which I think, although revolting, would be less objectionable than doing so behind the woman's back, but that maybe just me. The admin was not sanctioned in any way although it would have likely prevented an incident below that took place just hours later.
 * 8) On the same date, an IRC admin who happens to be a [former?] "volunteer Communications Coordinator at the WMF" called an absent non-admin user "an idiot and a moron" over this, perhaps a gullible but honest mistake without a doubt. There was no action at the channel
 * 9) Mar 25, 2008: A different but a very IRC active admin who tried to bait Giano with "civility policing" warnings and questions had his comments removed. He ran to the channel asking "someone else" to help "to stop fucking with my questions to Giano so I dfon't have to edit war?" [sic] Is it just me or others see a double paradox in this all being over the civility policing itself (1) and the help being asked so that "[he does]n't have to edit war" (2) ?

(To avoid more red faces, I did not name some of the users and only provided the names in the cases that have been already discussed onwiki).

Now, we clearly see that the channel remains abusive. We also see that the despite some claims to the contrary, the current system of "good ombudsmanship" does not work. One does not need to be exceptionally smart to explain why:
 * 1) This whole idea of ombundsmanship by "good" ops of such closed media as checkuser log and #admins can only work with proactive ombudsmans since affected users usually don't know about being abused. So, channelops have to act vigilantly upon each case of abuse even if they found out purely by accident. Otherwise, it is all meaningless.
 * 2) The corrupted medium cannot be fixed from within by definition. Attempts of outside reform are vigorously thwarted but not by the "community", as some suggest, but by no one other than the channel's regulars
 * 3) This all continues for so long due to a deliberately maintained ambiguity of the channel's status that allows those who shared David Gerard's views and preferences to both claim the cake and eat it too. Not only attempts to improve the channel meaningfully are thwarted, the attempts to disconnect the channel from the Wikipedia are thwarted too. In a bizarre twist, the attempts to subject the channel to a meaningful WP oversight  are also thwarted (and again only by the channel enthusiasts.)

I am sure that immediately upon my posting this will be discussed at the channel whose name you guessed right or even at one of the other "less leaky" channels. Surprisingly, I predict that the discussion will be again not on the substance but on the leaks themselves, just like in the Moreschi's incident.

We walked a long way since the Fall of 2006. On one hand we are by far better aware that backroom activity is thriving. OTOH, more people are now involved. A whole bunch now are on some channel: the #admins, "that other less leaky one" or one of its twins. Among those who are not (as well as who are) a whole bunch are on some "lists", yet unpurged Arbcom-L, a second (or third or more) Arbcom-L, the WR-style "investigations" list, etc (note: I do not have anything against the anti-harassment list particularly if it is held on topic). This list/channel tradition in addition to a direct devastating effect on the project, created a secondary effect. There are now POV-pushing and nationalist e-lists and IM networks. Instead of wikiprojects (many of which are dying), we have IRC-projects that are not transparent (e.g., the USRoads IRC related to another recent Arbcom case.) This atmosphere procreated by #admins is now corroding the good of Wikipedia.

Yes, people can (and will) talk privately. But we should not encourage it directly and, most importantly, should not sanction abuse at the officially affiliated IRC channels (by refusing to act or pretend that all is well), or disclaim the affiliation but refuse to dissociate either (cake have/eat) procreating this deliberate, hypocritical and morally indefensible limbo.

Clean up the #admins in a meaningful way or remove all links to it and let the folks have their chat, just like the team tags do! This all are not new ideas and have been stated in some form multiple times. However, please don't talk the "channel is now good and reformed". It just does not cut it and the editors would not believe such claims anymore anyway.

Volunteering by Stifle
I rarely use IRC (I've been on four times this year) but spend quite an amount of time on wiki, and am somewhat removed from the issues complained of. I'd like to volunteer to be one of the five named admins if the proposal below is passed. Of course I will not take offense if not chosen. Stifle (talk) 11:32, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

Arbitrator views and discussion

 * Good questions by all, and I'll have a go at an answer, but it probably won't be brief. Others will obviously have their view too. Firstly, some background reading for anyone unfamiliar with matters - and that includes a number of people who might feel they are familiar. I tried to describe the main points of the background on IRC as I see it (both sides) at: WP:RFC/IRC channels#Comment by FT2. It's "essential background" on the issue and dynamics, and forms the context of the decisions and any reply.


 * In the meantime I'm fitting drafting a fuller reply in between working stuff in my wiki-in-tray, as well as ever-present real world matters. I'll try to get it posted later today but it could be tomorrow or even a day beyond. That's unavoidable in a way -- the question actually asks for a short report in a way, rather than the usual simple opinion, since "measures taken" are meaningless without an understanding of the context, the disputes, and the various perspectives involved. And of course, a few have very strong views which in fact don't competely match reality, and that will be tricky to explain to them (as can happen in any dispute). So given the subject, it needs to be a bit more thorough. FT2 (Talk 19:22, 26 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Update - events were rather busy here last week, as noted (and here too). This last few days I've been more involved in pushing to 'go live' on BLP-related matters that will help BLP subjects (members of the public). Prioritization. Hence a delay. FT2 (Talk 21:13, 1 April 2008 (UTC)


 * Comments from Newyorkbrad:
 * I will respond as Bishonen requests, while trying my best to heed her implied request that I do so succinctly.


 * Personally, I have not played a role in the governance of #admins or any other IRC channel, although I log into the channel from time to time (less often now than I did a few months ago, as it happens). Frankly, I think I am not alone among the arbitrators in not yet figured out quite how best to implement Jimbo Wales' request that the Arbitration Committee play a new role in overseeing channel governance. Nor is it clear to me that there is community consensus that the ArbCom, as such, should exercise control over the channel. Not only does there remain a lack of clarity as to the relationship, if any, between Wikipedia and the "Wikipedia" named IRC channels, but there remain very mixed views as to whether that lack of clarity is unacceptable, tolerable, or affirmatively desirable. Nor has there been further discussion so far as I am aware concerning the role of Jdforrester in this regard. As reflected in his contribution history, James has had to take some extended wikibreaks this year for real-world reasons and to the best of my knowledge has not been a participant in any matters related to the channel(s) for at least several weeks.


 * In the absence of a committee decision or consensus on how to proceed, individual arbitrators have tried to take the lead: first FloNight, by proposing the creation of a work group (a proposal that did not attain critical mass to go forward), and then FT2 with his proposal and adopting of channel guidelines. Other proposed initiatives to address concerns about the #admins channel, such as the suggestion that the access of everyone who is not an English Wikipedia admininstrator be revoked, have not attained consensus among users of the channel, and the new chan-ops have apparently decided not to implement them over widespread objections. The Arbitration Committee as a whole was not the decision-maker on this or any related issues. It bears note, however, that at least one controversial former participant in #admins, Tony Sidaway, has permanently relinquished his access to the channel and my sense is that there is no prospect of such access being restored save in the unlikely event he were to have a new and successful RfA.


 * If there is a perception that the committee needs to act on its adopted remedy to address issues relating to the administrators' IRC channel, then community input should be sought regarding what changes, if any, should be made. On whether this should be done now, or whether some time should be allowed to pass so we can judge whether the new guidelines have a salutary effect as sought by FT2 and others, I have no strong view. Newyorkbrad (talk) 00:09, 29 March 2008 (UTC)


 * I recused from the Arbitration case for obvious reasons; since the case closed, I have been asked by a group of people who I judged (in my r&ocirc;le as IRC Group Contact) to be representatives of the #wikipedia-en-admins community to carry out a few actions. However, I am (as intended) hands-off and, as Brad mentions, I have not particularly participated in any discussions regarding the channel's organisational aspects. James F. (talk) 13:29, 30 March 2008 (UTC)


 * Comment by FloNight.


 * By custom, and widely supported by the Community and the Arbitration Committee, the Arbitration Committee is not a legislative body. We do not write policy for the Community except as it directly relates to the Committee's procedures and practices. The Arbitration Committee's role is to assist the Community in settling disputes where user conduct issues are stopping the Community from making thoughtful consensus decisions about content or policy, or when user conduct issues are seriously disrupting the Community in other ways. Traditionally, the Arbitration Committee is the source all involuntary removal of administrative tools for misuse of the tools.


 * My interpretation of Jimbo's comment is that he is stating his view that the Arbitration Committee has the authority to settle user conduct problems that occur in #wikipedi-en-admins, if the the usual dispute resolution processes in this channel does not work. I do not think that he is suggesting that the Arbitration Committee is charged with writing the policy for the channel or to be involved in the daily administration of the channel. His request that arbitrators have an influence over the daily administration of the channel is also noted. (This is my interpretations of Jimbo's comments, I realize that other interpretations are possible.)


 * Since misconduct in the #admins channel might be related to the use of administrative tools or possibly involve a lack of decorum that is expected of Wikipedia administrators, it is reasonable to think that an arbitration case might be warranted if a serious type of administrative misconduct occurs.


 * At a minimum, in order for the Arbitration Committee actions related to the channel to be reliable and effective, the Committee needs an accurate record of the alleged dispute to compare with established channel guidelines. Prior to the start of the IRC case neither accurate logs or channel guidelines were available for our review. Establishing these were a priority and the first action taken.


 * I would like to note that other methods for establishing Community consensus regarding #admins have been suggested but none have received the level of support for Community to take action on them at this time. Other suggestions related to other issues related to Wikipedia IRC are also noted. I want to make special note that the Committee received comments on site and by email from editors who primarily edit other Foundation projects that expressed opinions about the Committee's relationship to all Wikimedia Freenode IRC channels. (My comment follows.)
 * A Working group focused on establishing policies that adhere to joint Wikipedia English and IRC standards of conduct. (Not enough support for a separate body to write new policies. I'm uncertain that this is needed.)
 * Establish/review user conduct guideline for all Wikipedia English related IRC channels. (Not enough support at this time. I support a discussion about the merits of this type of a review.)
 * Chan op elections on Wikipedia English for #admin channel. (Not enough support and uncertain that this is needed.)
 * Requiring that the current chan ops read and agree to enforce #admin channel guidelines. (Suggestion has not been widely discussed as far as I know so I'm unclear it has been rejected. I support this idea.)
 * Monitor all Wikipedia English related IRC channels for user conduct issues with logs and other means of observation of conduct. (Not received adequate discussion since Jimbo's comments regarding ArbCom's relationship to IRC.)
 * A notice board for concerns about IRC channels to be discussed. (Not enough support at this time for consensus to establish it and have chan ops available on the notice board.)
 * Monthly meeting on site to address IRC related concerns. Possible in connection with a noticeboard. (Not consensus for the need.)
 * Close #admin. (No consensus.)


 * Future Committee action for consideration:


 * Update Arbitration Committee policy to reflect a consensus agreement of Jimbo's statements about IRC.
 * Continue to in listen to the Community for suggestions about the best ways that the Arbitration Committee assist with IRC related issues. FloNight&#9829;&#9829;&#9829; 17:38, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

Proposed motions and voting

 * For this motion, there are 9 active Arbitrators (excluding two who are recused and one abstention), so 5 votes are a majority.

The editing restriction imposed on in this case shall be subject to special enforcement. The Committee shall name up to five administrators who, together with the sitting members of the Committee, shall act as special enforcers for this restriction. Only these special enforcers shall be authorized to determine whether a violation of the restriction has occurred, and to issue blocks if one has.
 * Special enforcement

Any administrator that reverses, modifies, or otherwise interferes with a block imposed by one of the special enforcers under this provision shall be summarily desysopped.

This provision shall supersede the existing enforcement provisions in the case.


 * Support:
 * Some moderation would be good here. Kirill 02:49, 17 April 2008 (UTC)
 * I think this would be fairer all round in the exceptional circumstances. Sam Blacketer (talk) 16:06, 19 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Might work; certainly nothing else has. --jpgordon&#8711;&#8710;&#8711;&#8710; 16:29, 21 April 2008 (UTC)


 * Oppose:


 * Comments:
 * Kirill, thank you for listening to my concerns about the Committee's existing editing restrictions on Giano, the way that his editing is being evaluated, and the manner that the Committee's sanctions are being enforced. We need to make it clear that administrators that block Giano would be subject to summarily desysopping, as well as those that unblock him. (More later). FloNight&#9829;&#9829;&#9829; 11:22, 17 April 2008 (UTC)
 * In terms of desysopping blocking admins, do you mean those who block specifically under the civility parole, or in general? I have no problems with the former; and my only concern with the latter would be the question of how to effectively inform the admin community of the matter. Kirill 00:32, 18 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Both. I want to make it clear that a limited sanction by the Committee should not interpreted in a manner that lowers the threshold for blocking an user with many good contributions EXPECT for the specific problem that the Committee is addressing with our remedy. I do not think that a single administrator should take it upon themselves to block an user for conduct that the Committee can not agree to address through ArbCom sanctions. In the case of a high profile user, I think that this is an important issue because many administrators are marginally familiar with the user and the situation around them. As a general rule, I think that administrators should be extremely slow to block any user with many, many good contributions because it has an adverse effect well beyond the length of the block. FloNight&#9829;&#9829;&#9829; 17:11, 21 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Although my sole involvement has been in an administrative manner, I feel in view of the intense nature of the last week's discussion, and that it's not needed for me to express a view here (enough others can or will), and prefer to abstain this time around, without prejudice to future case decisions. FT2 (Talk 16:03, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

Sanctions on me
As I seem unable to edit the main page of this charade - which George William Whatever has edited, I suggest some remark pertaining to the discussion here  is added to this incompetent admin's edit. Giano (talk) 19:00, 1 September 2008 (UTC)