Wikipedia talk:Requests for arbitration/IRC/Proposed decision


 * Wikipedia talk:Requests for arbitration/IRC/Proposed decision/Archive 1
 * Wikipedia talk:Requests for arbitration/IRC/Proposed decision/Archive 2

Arbitrators hearing this case

 * Per longstanding policy, members of the Arbitration committee whose terms expire on 31 December 2007 may participate in this case at their discretion. Newly appointed members are considered recused from any case accepted before their appointment began, but may activate themselves on any open case. Thatcher 00:28, 27 December 2007 (UTC)


 * Mackensen has withdrawn from the case, asking that all his votes be stricken. Thatcher 00:07, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

Arbitrators active on this case
Active:
 * 1) Blnguyen
 * 2) Deskana
 * 3) FloNight
 * 4) Fred Bauder
 * FT2
 * 1) Jpgordon
 * 2) Kirill Lokshin
 * 3) Morven
 * 4) Newyorkbrad
 * 5) Paul August
 * 6) Sam Blacketer
 * 7) UninvitedCompany

Recused
 * 1) JamesF
 * 2) Thebainer

Inactive:
 * 1) Charles Matthews
 * 2) Flcelloguy
 * 3) Neutrality
 * 4) Raul654
 * 5) SimonP

Withdrawn
 * 1) Mackensen

Arbitrators appointed effective 1 Jan 2008, inactive unless they choose to participate
 * 1) FayssalF

Difference between motion to dismiss and motion to close?
About a week ago, Paul August started a motion to dismiss the case: "As the continuance of this case is doing more harm than good, this case is dismissed." Now Uninvited Company has started a motion to close the case. See here: "Noting that voting is deadlocked and discussion is stalled, I move to close.". Could someone clarify the difference here? Presumably dismissing the case would mean nothing happens, but closing the case would mean that what was passing at the time of closing would pass?

The notes at the top of the page say "Only items that receive a majority "support" vote will be passed." - as the support vote here is seven, does it matter that not all the active arbitrators have voted? If that is the case, I make it: principles 1 (dispute resolution, +10), 2 or 2.1 (reversion, +10), 3.2 (disruption by administrators, +10), 4 (WP:OWN, +7), 5 (decorum, +9), 6 (fair criticism, +9), 9 (provocative actions, +7), 15 (bad blood, +7), 17 (IRC, +7); finding of fact 4 (Giano, +8); and remedy 6 (IRC, +7). Some of the findings of fact and remedies are close to passing. Notably principle 10 (forward looking, +6), and 12.2 (Warlike behavior using administrative tools, +6), finding of fact 8 (Tony Sidaway, +5), and remedy 2.2 (Giano namespace ban, +5), but presumably, from his motion to close, UC doesn't think that any further progress can be made on those and other non-passing parts? Carcharoth (talk) 01:17, 1 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Not commenting on any other aspect at this point, but the distinction between "motion to dismiss" and "motion to close" as you have identified it is correct. If a case is dismissed, there is no decision except for anything contained in the motion to dismiss itself. If a case is closed, then a decision is issued containing whatever proposals were supported by a majority of the active arbitrators. Newyorkbrad (talk) 01:27, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

Missing ArbCom members
Here's a suggestion for running the committee more efficiently, inspired by this case.

There are 12 active members supposedly involved in this arbitration (excluding two who are recused). Yet only 10 have voted (fewer on most proposals). That means that a super-majority, 7/10, is required rather than a simple majority (6/10 or 7/12). If arbitrators who aren't voting would declare themselves inactive or recused, or if all active arbitrators would vote, then perhaps it would be easier to get things passed. Even simpler would be to have the majority of votes on each provision decide the question. "Active" arbitrators who aren't voting still skew the result and make it harder for the truly active arbitrators to settle cases. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 02:33, 1 February 2008 (UTC)
 * We are in the process of deciding how to handle this issue. It is important since Jimbo urged Committee members to resign from the Committee if they are not able to stay active. And if that does not happen then he wants us to have a method to remove them so they can be replaced by users that have the time to contribute. Part of our discussion involves how to measure activity level. Voting on cases is the first and most important measure. FloNight (talk) 02:41, 1 February 2008 (UTC)


 * I don't know where you are getting your numbers, Will Beback. All 12 active arbitrators have made at least one motion and/or vote on the page. The voting stage of an arbitration that has lasted five weeks really isn't the time to change the entire structure under which the Arbitration Committee has operated for several years.  Perhaps you might wish to make this suggestion for future cases on WT:RFAR, though, so that the community and the arbitrators can weigh in on it in a neutral venue.  Risker (talk) 02:44, 1 February 2008 (UTC) Edited to add:  Just to be clear, Will Beback, your proposal would mean that if only one arbitrator proposed and voted on a proposed FoF, Principle or Remedy, and s/he voted in favour of it, then it would automatically pass.  That seems entirely inappropriate to me.  Risker (talk) 04:44, 1 February 2008 (UTC)


 * I agree with Risker. For the record, the two most inactive (no offence intended) arbitrators in this case have been Paul August (motion to dismiss) and Blnguyen (four votes on 23 January). Both have been (minimally) active in other areas (watching other cases and at requests for arbitration), but they haven't gone totally inactive. Paul's non-voting can be explained by his motion to dismiss - he is under no obligation to vote in a case that he thinks should be dismissed. And I'd just give Blnguyen some time. It also seems clear from his voting so far that his votes are unlikely to affect the case much. I would also note that FloNight has been active, making notes to propose new versions, but has not done so yet. And that FT2 placed some placeholders a long time ago that haven't been filled in. As FT2 said, this one is going to take time - we just need to be patient. Also, arbitrators who don't appear to be that active on the case pages may be actively contributing to discussions on the mailing list or other arbcom discussion venues. Carcharoth (talk) 06:04, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

I have urged all members of the committee to make a support, oppose, or abstain vote on all measures presently under consideration. I have also urged those members who have opposed most of the substantive proposals to offer alternatives to them. The Uninvited Co., Inc. 16:44, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

Bauder's vendetta
I am starting this section to highlight the instances I have raised in the past few days as well as what Bish pointed out above in which arbitrator Fred Bauder (whose term has expired and is only participating because this case was accepted last December) engaged in verbal assaults, baiting, and biased remedy that borders disruption. Bish and I have supplied similar diffs that clearly demonstrated   that Bauder has been on a crusade to drive out widely-respected mainspace contributors Giano and Geogre from the project at least since 2006. The timestamp of this controversial proposed remediesRequests_for_arbitration/Giano/Proposed_decision, more or less resulted in Geogre unsuccessful arbCom bid in December 2006. (should I say Bauder sabotaged Geogre's campaign?) This instance compunds with his blatant bias in this arbcom case (insulting and baiting Giano) signals that he should recuse from the case in order to keep arbCom's integrity, credibility, and community's trust intact. I have said so in the past and I'm going to repeat again it is not a surprise to see him seize this opportunity (most likely his last arbCom case in his tenure) to seek revenge in his personal vendetta Of course, given this ideal opportunity, Bauder will not step down voluntarily. But I still want to strongly appeal that Bauder step down immediately (or at least recuse from the case) and that other arbCom members take the initiative to remove Bauder’s insults from the proposed decision page. And for anyone who feels the same, feel free to use this section as a petition. Let the community's voice be heard.--Certified.Gangsta (talk) 09:53, 1 February 2008 (UTC)


 * 1) Strong Endorse. Mr. Bauder has repeatedly demonstrated poor judgment and a lack of integrity by failing to recuse himself from cases where he holds a clear bias. Seabhcan provides a prime example of this. By openly and aggressively pursuing personal and political vendettas, as shown above, he also exhibits conduct grossly unbecoming of an Arbitrator. This lame duck, needs to be dismissed from this case and his prior comments and decisions struck, before he is allowed to bring further discredit and disgrace to the committee.--R.D.H. (Ghost In The Machine) (talk) 10:49, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

Peace please everyone
Arbs are called to pass verdicts on user behaviour. It couldn't be that this one has simply reached a conclusion about long-standing problems with certain users, and you disagree with those conclusions?? Now, I think Fred's comments are not particularly helpful in de-escalating this dispute - but I'd have to say the rhetoric of certain others has been even less so. Judges snarling at the accused is certainly unseemly, but the accused and their supporters hurling insults from the dock is predictable and boring. When the ref makes a call you dislike, calling him biased, and screaming insults is not good. The problem here has been that too many people are forgetting that the point of dispute resolution in Wikipedia is to seek calm ways of resolving the dispute - not new ways of waging polemical warfare, and castigating all who disagree with you as evil, and portraying yourself as a perpetual victim of bullies. Unfortunately, I am fast reaching the conclusion that certain people have no interest in resolving disputes, only in scoring points and causing drama. If that's the case, then inevitably those people need to change their ways or be removed from Wikipedia. Please, let all, whatever their view on the issues, seek to de-escalate the hostilities that we might calmly seek ways of moving forward. If the parties who wish the case closed can do that, they might find many of us willing to support closure. But making closure into a battlepoint, simply means that remedies against such behaviour are going to be necessary, either now or very soon.--Docg 11:17, 1 February 2008 (UTC)
 * I agree that this section and its title (referring to Fred) are extremely unhelpful. Equally, though, it is divisive to support an attitude that remedies such as year-long bans from the Wikipedia namespace are even remotely helpful to resolving a situation like this (and you are the one that put the emphasis on resolving). Statements like "inevitably those people need to change their ways or be removed from Wikipedia" conflict with your later "let all [...] seek to de-escalate the hostilities that we might calmly seek ways of moving forward" To be frank, Arbcom should be focused on resolving the disruptive conduct in other cases that causes clear and present harm (like the homeopathy and nationalist editors situations, and others). Giano's actions, while they may cause drama and disruption, are not in the same league. Certain arbitrators should be calm and diplomatic (and some, to their credit, are), and should engage with the concerns and address them, rather than throwing the book at someone just because their patience runs out with the way they do things. In other words, the reaction of some sections of arbcom is disproportionate and unhelpful. It is clear that losing content contributors is harmful (which is what arbcom was and maybe still is in danger of doing). Excessive and wrongful blocking is harmful. Inappropriate deletions and undeletions can be harmful. But, really, absolutely honestly and without bias, putting aside all the outraged feelings and personalities, how harmful is Giano's behaviour? If everyone ignored him (and some others) the next time something like this happened, or concentrated on calming things down and addressing the concerns raised (instead of filing an arbitration case) then the "bad blood" might be lessened and things might improve. I've said as much to Giano on his talk page - the next time he has concerns like this, where he may feel so outraged that he could get into an edit war, bring it up on his talk page and let others comment first on what needs doing and how. Carcharoth (talk) 12:05, 1 February 2008 (UTC)


 * I agree that many comments made on this case page are not helping us get to the root of the issue in the case. The purpose of this case was to address the editor conduct issues in IRC channels and Wikipedia that are stopping Wikipedia from having a pleasant working environment that encourages consensus based decisions based on collaboration. Wikipedia is not a battleground, and I expect all users to follow the appropriate means of dispute resolution. Despite prior warnings and sanctions, some parties in this case have chosen to make Wikipedia a battleground and do not show any sign of agreeing to stop. I think that this is extremely unfortunate and concerns me for the users themselves and the Community. When I vote to support a finding of facts about an established user, or sanctions placed on them, it is not done lightly by me but only after coming to the conclusion that it is in the overall best interest of the Community. FloNight&#9829;&#9829;&#9829; 12:49, 1 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Are you saying that Giano has chosen to make Wikipedia a battleground? In the last case I was serious when I said that a separate case against Giano would be best to address that. Addressing a complex issue like that against the backdrop of this IRC case was never going to be easy. As for "a pleasant working environment that encourages consensus based decisions based on collaboration" - I've never had any problem working with Giano in article space or Wikipedia space. Those who think others are justified in finding such problems should actually try working with Giano on something. It is actually rather easy to work collaboratively with him. I've also been able to talk productively with Tony Sidaway, Geogre, David Gerard and Phil Sandifer, among others. There are some people, though, that I do find it difficult (for whatever reason) to talk (on Wikipedia) and work with. Now, make a list of the incidents Giano has been involved in - which of them, after the initial fuss was over, resulted in an obstruction of the consensus process? Sometimes a pleasant working environment just doesn't cut it, and criticism is needed (as one of the passing principles states in this case). Sure, not always criticism the way Giano does it, but at root here there is nothing more needed than to have more diplomacy available when situations like this happen. In my opinion, and with hindsight, a formal arbitration case on the edit war itself was not really needed (all that was needed was for the IRC issues to be resolved), and the arbitration committee should be able to see the bigger picture and recognise that. Carcharoth (talk) 13:16, 1 February 2008 (UTC)
 * I'm taking a l-on-n-g view of the situation having watched it unfold over several years. The parties in this case have not been able to conform to the standards set out in our policies despite that fact that they are well aware of Wikipedia rules and practices. As highly vested members of the Community, they are role models for newer users. Across the board, we need to hold these members to a higher standard of conduct not lower. Some parties have agreed by words or actions to turn over a new leaf. Others have not. The parties conduct going forward will determine their fate either way. FloNight&#9829;&#9829;&#9829; 13:40, 1 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Thank-you. For what it is worth, I agree with the final warning remedy you have proposed. It seems the best way forward. I'd quibble about the wording (eg. "are likely to result in further sanctions" - added the word in italics as this is already a sanction), and point out that others have also failed to "conduct disputes in a civil and constructive manner", but then that is what the "all parties cautioned" thing is about. BTW, you do realise that one of your colleagues (the bainer) has been included in that broad sweep covering the 13 named parties to this case? You did mean to include all 13, right? Carcharoth (talk) 13:53, 1 February 2008 (UTC)
 * I suspect those that the committee has in view know who they are.--Docg 13:58, 1 February 2008 (UTC)
 * I'm not so sure. In my experience, it is always best to state these things openly, rather than leave them implicit. The latter generally causes more misunderstandings. This is a strongly worded remedy that has the potential to be brought up at future arbitration cases. Would you be happy if in a future case, say in a year's time, the arbitration committee said that you (a named party to this case) had failed to heed the warning and that consequently they are taking "an unsympathetic view"? It needs to be clear who this applies to. We are also back to the old problem that the remedies are being fiercely debated but no clear findings of fact are being passed. In other words, the arbitration committee are failing to tell us, though the findings of fact, what they think happened here. Carcharoth (talk) 15:02, 1 February 2008 (UTC)


 * The problem here is that ArbCom is not interested in addressing the root causes of anything. The problem isn't Giano (although he doesn't help his case with his tactics), but the problem is ultiamtely what causes excellent contributors to react negatively.  When people who make no significant contribution to the project get a free pass for their rampant incivility and abuses while people like Giano get raked over the coals incessantly for at worst acting badly but better than those being railed against, what kind of message does that send?  Sure, get angry that Giano's using arguably disruptive methods to send a message, but the only reason we're at that point is because people with next to no worthwhile contributions to the project are not (and from the way this case appears to be going, STILL not) being held accountable.  You want root causes?  You know where they are, and they don't reside with Giano. --Badlydrawnjeff (talk) 16:09, 1 February 2008 (UTC)
 * The above user has contributed nothing whatsoever to this project since May, except a dozen edits all, without exception, designed to pursue vendettas and rub salt in old wounds. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Doc glasgow (talk • contribs) 18:05, 1 February 2008 (UTC)  Stricken, with apologies to jeff - extremely unhelpful remark by me.--Docg 19:18, 1 February 2008 (UTC)
 * And that's still more than some of the worst people involved in this charade. You already got your fabricated licks in, Doc, I'm glad you're enjoying the results. --Badlydrawnjeff (talk) 18:46, 1 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Believe it or not, I'm enjoying none of this. I'd sooner be writing an article.--Docg 19:14, 1 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Once upon a time I used to be nice and lovely, no one listened. Now at long last issues are being seen if not satisfactorily addressed. If the cost is shooting the messenger then so be it. Giano (talk) 18:54, 1 February 2008 (UTC)
 * The problem with that is, that if everyone who felt people were not listening to them, jumped up and down screaming, then, in fact, we'd be unable to hear anyone. And the sound of gunshot is even more of distraction. Dispute resolution is for finding resolutions - polemic, rhetoric, paranoia, gunshot and screaming are not conducive. The noise you've made may have got you a hearing (although I doubt it), but the cost to the project is just too high.--Docg 19:14, 1 February 2008 (UTC)


 * I believe Winston Churchill once said something similar of poor Mrs Pankhurst, and of course, we all know what that nice Lady Astor told him she would do to his tea. Anyway enough. Womens rights are very admirable etc., but I prefer the analogy to that other unfortunate. Just bear in mind Doc "faint heart never wun nuffin!" I can live with myself. To the Arbcom, I say: Fear not, from now onwards I shall be modelling myself on their esteemed  Fred Bauder. Giano (talk) 19:34, 1 February 2008 (UTC)
 * I was polite and reserved once too. I supported an admin mailing list as long as the archives were open. I didn't explain that a socially fueled power group under the veil of secrecy could bring its own problems - let's try something less extreme first, thinking that it was self evident. For my opinion I was called "incompetent, unprofessional and unreal". It's a fact of life that with some people, the nicer you are to them the more they'll shit on you. Here's another truth: if someone is vicious to you and over time you slowly begin to respond in kind, and then you are sanctioned for incivility but not the people who opened that door, then you can be sure the sanction has absolutely nothing at all to do with "civility". --Duk 19:27, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

Right on the mark. Mattisse 21:07, 1 February 2008 (UTC)
 * I mostly agree with Badlydrawnjeff. Giano has not helped his position, which many people agree with, but that is somewhat beside the point.  The project appears to be taking a step towards the non-codling of old-tyme-valued-contributors, but this change in culture will take time.  The sooner those in positions of trust and authority speak forcefully to this the sooner the culture will change.  Doc, please comment on content, not on contributor.  --Rocksanddirt (talk) 19:11, 1 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Re the firing squad analogy by Giano, isn't it the condemned that is supposed to be wearing the blindfold? LessHeard vanU (talk) 19:15, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

What major disruption?
Drama vs disruption. I see drama as something people can walk away from and chose not to get involved with, and disruption as something more serious. Arbitrators are stating on the proposed decision page that Giano "will continue to cause major disruption for the project". Where is this major disruption? I'm serious here. I see drama, sure, but very little to no actual disruption. Does the definition of "major disruption" change to suit the arbitrators and the context of different cases? Please, if anyone answers this, no vague hand-waving or unclear references to past incidents - clear diffs and evidence of major disruption over and above that caused by other parties to this case, and an indication of the harm that the disruption caused (if it caused no harm, it couldn't have been major). Simply being the focus of several arbitration cases is not in itself being disruptive. If Giano left (or was banned) tomorrow, the disruption and drama would not cease - the problem here is not Giano. Disruption and drama have always occurred on Wikipedia - witness the drama caused by Fred's choice of metaphors (now partially refactored, but still referring to a bull in a china shop and bad apples) How are Giano's actions any more drama-inducing than Fred's? Carcharoth (talk) 14:38, 1 February 2008 (UTC)


 * May I remind everybody that Giano received about two thirds support in the arbitrator elections. I do not think a disruptive editor would receive so much support. People have different styles; intentions are more important than delivery. Jehochman Talk 15:20, 1 February 2008 (UTC)


 * Without commenting on Giano in particular, I must point out the intentions are irrelevant. We are judged on our actions and our intentions are presumed to be in good faith.  And any measures taken against people are solely to alter their future actions.  If an editors acts in accordance with policy, their intentions are irrelevant.  Intentions are the least important factor not the most.-- Birgitte  SB  15:28, 1 February 2008 (UTC)


 * Intentions are completely relevant. If a newbie makes a mistake while trying to do good work, we do not sink our fangs into them, though we might like to.  If a troll uses extremely polite language while attempting to bait another editor, we can apply the cluestick. Jehochman  Talk 15:31, 1 February 2008 (UTC)


 * I don't see how those apply to what I am saying. You cannot judge a person on their intentions AND assume good faith.  The assumption of good faith only works in an absence of judgment.  If you assumes good faith and then judge a person on their good faith intention, you enter into a circle of dysfunction.  Hold on I will find a real-life example instead of vague hypotheticals.-- Birgitte  SB  15:40, 1 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Nevermind, the example I was thinking of was a content case more than a conduct case, but I think something I said at en.WS bears repeating here: I do not care to tread into the quicksand of judging the motivations of a person I have only come into contact with over the internet. Luckily there is no need to do so. All of our policy as well as our past practice here rely judging the content on it own merits with no relevence to what the motivations and prejudices of the contributer might or might not be. I don't care to determine why someone wants to contribute an article from 1871 on what may or may not be called Macedonia. I care to determine that the article existed, was published, is accurately translated under a free licsense, and is accurately labeled. As difficult as it is to spend some months working those issues out, they are things that can be determined definatively. The motivations for choosing to work on one thing instead of others are not. This can follow into issues of conduct as well.  Since you cannot truly know a person motivations and intentions, it is best to simply focus on the actions.  While reasonable people will regularly disagree on what they believe someone's intentions to be, reasonable people will nearly always be in agreement on whether an action was acceptable or not.  And convincing a person to change their internal motivations is near impossible, while convincing them to act in a different manner is relatively easy in comparison.  So everything is to be gained by ignoring intentions and focusing on actions.-- Birgitte  SB  15:56, 1 February 2008 (UTC)


 * Birgitte, in addition to focusing on people's actions, it is important to look at their inaction. The people involved in the creation and running of #admins IRC - specifically Jimbo, Danny, James Forrester and probably some more I don't know - have not seriously participated with the community to resolve this dispute, and it's going on two years now. I'm not talking about behind closed doors, pulling strings and whining to friends with sympathetic ears - I'm talking about serious attempts to resolve this, face to face with the community they are meant to serve. There's no two ways about it; instead of working with the community to resolve these issues, the people at the center of this channel have for the most part hid like cowards behind closed doors. A leader who doesn't have the courage to face their people is no leader at all. Even David 'the mouth' Gerard has slinked off into hiding. An assumption of good faith for the IRC leadership, and #admins in particular, is difficult.


 * On the other hand, Giano, Geogre, Bishonen and a few more have shown unbelievable courage. For there hard work they've been insulted, threatened with desysopping, made to feel unwelcome at #admins, threatened some more and blocked, time and time again. Only after two years of work has Jimbo and the arbcom grudgingly begun to address these issues. --Duk 17:23, 1 February 2008 (UTC)


 * First of all commenting on anyone's actions (or even inactions) is preferable to describing them with epithets. Please do not do that again.  Secondly I will agree that inaction always undermines a person's leadership.  I also think that there is a crisis of leadership which contributes to problems here.  However arbcom can hardly designate leaders.  It everyone's responsibility to step-up and speak out when they hear the sort of insults that have been thrown around on IRC and this talk page.  Most people will avoid such responsibility and stick to "plausible deniability", but a leader will embrace such a responsibility.  The kicker is that you cannot simply take responsibility for defending your friends and those you agree with and expect to be a leader.  It is about taking responsibility to speak out against what is unacceptable no matter who the speaker is; no matter who the target is; no matter if it is fair in the grander scheme of things or not.  It is past time for people to stop complaining about why others, who they believe should have been leaders, haven't taken care of things and step up themselves.  If someone (or everyone) has stopped taking responsibility for a certain area that means there is a void of leadership, not that there is a conspiracy of "leaders" acting in bad faith.  You do not need chan-ops to speak out against insults, there are hundreds of admins on en.WP and any one of them could have changed the enviroment of that channel if they had made it their priority.  No-one did .  You cannot make a short list of those that you blame for not taking leadership there and berate them.  It is not so simple.  Why haven't you taken responsibilty for policing that channel and using social pressure to change the problamatic behaivors in the past two years?  Why should you be absolved of your inaction?-- Birgitte  SB  19:42, 1 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Why haven't you taken responsibilty for policing that channel --Because I don't use #admins IRC.


 * and using social pressure to change the problamatic behaivors -- I think process and openness is more important than social pressure.


 * Why should you be absolved of your inaction? -- Inaction!? I've been working this problem for more than two years. And I've put a lot of my own ideas on the table for criticism. --Duk 20:35, 1 February 2008 (UTC)


 * So you are saying that instead of working with the channel to resolve these issues, the people at the center of the opposition to the channel have for the most part called foul from the outside. Anyone more worried about process and openness than the inappropriate language and insults could have joined the channel and provided appropriate summaries (not logs) of relevant discussions on-wiki. I personally can't think of any way this issue could have been resolved without someone actually engaging with the people on IRC and using the channel itself to push for change.  When you begin with the premise that the channel is so tainted that you refuse to even set foot on it, you cannot really expect that those who use the channel will be very receptive to your ideas.  I can give you marks for the purity of your convictions, but effective solutions are always compromised solutions.  Personally I am a pragmatist, so staying out the channel when the issue was important enough to you to work on for two years strikes me as silly.  But I don't mean to say that this all your fault :) I just mean to point out that anyone could have taken a different kind of action and possibly brokered a solution.  I am trying to show how your remarks above naming several people who failed to take effective action and instead focused on things you found to be ineffective, can really be said of many people.  I find it hard to condemn people for inaction (or more accurately lack of effective action}, as harshly as I condemn people for inappropriate actions.  However failing to act or choosing a less public action when you have an opportunity to make a difference does little to gain my respect.  Not that we don't all do this in some situation or other-- Birgitte  SB  21:39, 1 February 2008 (UTC)


 * Birgitte, you clearly have some misconceptions about me and about dispute resolution. How dare you tell me that I must address this problem your way, by becoming part of it, that I must work to resolve these problems from 'inside' IRC. To start with, my input began even before #admins was created.


 * you begin with the premise that the channel is so tainted that you refuse to even set foot on it -- That was true a long time ago, but there has been progress. Mostly, I just don't use IRC. And you have no place telling me that I must.


 * I find it hard to condemn people for inaction  -- even when it's their job, when they have the power, when it's their responsibility, and when it's their little pet project that is causing the community all this trouble? And when there are many simple solutions that people have asked for that are within their power to make happen, and instead they ignore the community and go hide? Don't you think these people in leadership positions have a duty to their community? --Duk 11:19, 2 February 2008 (UTC)


 * I do not mean to tell you, Duk, that you personally must do anything. However I do believe anyone who wishes to succeed in resolving this issue must do certain things in order to accomplish that.  I am sorry that you mistook my analysis as a personal command.  Your later comments even . . . when it's their responsibility really gets to the point of what I am trying to say here.  You cannot assign true responsibility or leadership to people, they can only claim it for themselves. Chan-ops, titles, control, these things can be assigned but only that person themselves can choose to actually use this control to take responsibility.  And another person with none of these items of control can easily take responsibility when there is a void. If someone is not taking responsibility for one area it means someone else must step-up.  If someone ignores a situation and focuses their energy elsewhere the situation can no longer be considered their project and they can no longer claim a leadership position in that area.  I would simply stop calling them a leader rather than condemn them. I would focus on finding new leaders or becoming one myself rather wasting my energy trying to force people I know to have already failed to take leadership to "do their duty".  But as I said above I am a pragmatist, I expect an idealist such as yourself and I will disagree quite a bit.-- Birgitte  SB  15:05, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

That admins can invited "privileged" editors of their choice to join, presumably their "pals" to support their view. The fact that such a secret channel exists and that blocking decisions and such are made on it, along with sexist remarks and "socializing" explains (to me, maybe wrongly) why one editor can feel "ganged up" on for no apparent reason, while others are favored and seem untouched, even by Arbitration decisions. An outsider can speculate that the reasons for such discrimination reside in decisions made on the channel, when no explanation is forthcoming in public. It may explain why some editors cannot get any help in the public venues, but rather are ridiculed in such forums as AN/I by Admins that give only flippant reasons for treating an editor in such a way. Mattisse 22:09, 1 February 2008 (UTC) (outdent)While others discuss intention and good faith, I will return to the issue of disruption. There was an edit war on a single page involving a large number of editors, but it never went beyond that one page until the edit war was actually over. As well, that one page involved an off-wiki process over which Wikipedia itself has no direct control - that is, IRC. [Yes, I know Jimbo has come up with a plan, but that plan has not been agreed to by either JDForrester (the owner of the channel), the chanops, or the Arbitration Committee to whom Jimbo delegated responsibility. Jimbo *isn't* quite as omnipotent as some people would have us believe, and he can't give away something owned by someone else without that party's agreement.] So what exactly got disrupted? Was it the impression in some people's minds that everything is hunky-dory on #admins? Did editing on the encyclopedia shut down as people watched in shocked horror? Of course not - in fact, the majority of editors and administrators were completely oblivious to the fact that some people were off in the corner having a debate about what that channel is for, what it is like, and how to control improper behaviour there. It was a lopsided debate, as those who have issues were on the talk pages, but those who felt things were a-okay were deleting changes without discussing on the talk page and simply using edit summaries if anything. On other pages, we might well have said the serial deleters were the disruptive ones.

As an aside to Brigitte - there are elements of a content dispute here as well. Some editors wanted to insert a different description of the channel than was there before. They discussed it on the talk page when their edits were being reverted. Their edits were being summarily removed without discussion, the page locked and edited over protection, and the editors proposing the change were generally being ignored on the talk page. If the issue were to be reviewed as you suggest in your post above, those who edited without discussion and protected the page were plenty disruptive all by themselves. Risker (talk) 16:10, 1 February 2008 (UTC)


 * I agree with both Duk and Risker. The disruption problem is a red herring.  The root is the status of irc and what should/could be done about it.  I stand by my previous comments that until that issue is decided as to what form the relationship of en.wikipeida to #wikipedia-en irc channels the rest of this is a form of polite disruption.  --Rocksanddirt (talk) 19:16, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

Moved two threads
...to Wikipedia talk:Requests for arbitration/IRC/Tavern. Please continue the lounge discussion there. Door prizes!  Durova Charge! 23:56, 1 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Any comment I make on this page hastens my inevitable demise! El_C 04:50, 2 February 2008 (UTC)


 * Hang on. The starts of those threads should be kept here. It was only later that the "tavern banter" started. I've restored them below. Carcharoth (talk) 09:16, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

No, No, NO!
We have not come this far, and at such a price to read this Concerns about the behaviour in IRC have not changed one jot! Has Brad read half the evidence? The comments by Slim Virgin, Bishonen, anyone? People are just as concerned as they ever were. I can understand the Arbcom wanting a hurried sweep under the carpet, for accepting this ill advised case, but not an Arb saying that! Giano (talk) 21:55, 1 February 2008 (UTC)


 * When people say "people", I am always left asking, what people, and what people define which people are important in the eyes of the people and how informed are such people and have they considered what other people might say to those people in response. People who claim to speak for the people are people that people might wish to question. Eh? That's the intrinsic problem with demagoguery.--Docg 22:23, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

'' Rest of the thread at Wikipedia talk:Requests for arbitration/IRC/Tavern. ''

I don't think Giano is the only one (on either side) engaging in demagoguery. Carcharoth (talk) 09:16, 2 February 2008 (UTC)


 * Whilst elected arbs may have some claim to being the representative voice of the people, I think others (on all sides) should not presume.--Docg 11:18, 2 February 2008 (UTC)
 * "representative voice of the people"? Arbitrators are elected to arbitrate. If we (the en-Wikipedia community) want to elect people to be our representative voice, then we should do that. On many matters, the community is quite capable of speaking for itself, rather than having elected representatives speaking for them. Oh, and having read the demagoguery article, I think that this may be an inappropriate phrase to use. The phrase has implications of lying and bad-faith appeals to the public associated with it. Carcharoth (talk) 12:38, 2 February 2008 (UTC)
 * I didn't say arbs should claim to be representatives, merely that their claim was certainly better than any other self-appointed voice of the people, and so we should all avoid making that claim.--Docg 13:03, 2 February 2008 (UTC)
 * As Giano received more support than all of the current arbitrators save Brad, I'd say he has more of a claim to the "voice of the people" mantle than any of them except for Brad. You don't get over 300 supports without having touched on some issues that are close to the hearts of "the people", I would think. 71.54.57.168 (talk) 14:03, 2 February 2008 (UTC)


 * The arbitrators were selected, not elected. People conveniently forget that.  No remedies for the mess of IRC have been proposed, and this case, if it has a content of any sort, is about 1) IRC behavior having no dispute resolution, 2) An edit war at David Gerard's vanity page, 3) David Gerard's, and many other people's, concept that IRC is private, owned, and not for Wikipedia to say anything about, and yet for them to speak of on Wikipedia.  People like to forget this, too.  Saying that all is handled now is precisely the kind of cowardice that was involved the last time we were here.  There is a lie going around that "this is all from 18 months ago, and everything is better now."  That is, and I say this clearly and loudly and without equivocation, a lie.  Misbehavior occurred in December and could not be resolved through any means.  Whether the parties disliked each other before that is absolutely irrelevant: the problem is the inability to deal with a dispute.  Those two parties were "famous," so all kinds of things happened.  How often is an unfamous administrator getting called names or told to go away?  We can't know.  How many other cases are there, like Kelly's plotting for a "clean kill" of a user on that channel?  We can't know.  How many Betacommand blocks have happened that way (was that "18 months ago")?  We can't know.  How many block shoppings have happened there?  Have there been none in 18 months?  How about the edit war at David Gerard's vanity page: it seemed to happen in the blink of an eye, and yet, mysteriously, there was nothing on Wikipedia, at any noticeboard, about it.  How, I wonder, did all of these voices of David's opinion (or bidding) suddenly appear?  Is that from 18 months ago?  Is it licit?  We can't know.
 * The People spoke in Giano's 300+ votes for ArbCom. If they were all, as I was told is received opinion at ArbCom, "protest votes," then ArbCom members, if they are sane, need to be extremely nervous that 300+ users are regular enough to have franchise at ArbCom elections and want to protest.  What if they're not protest votes, though?  What if received opinion is wrong?  Is it possible?  I am sure that the votes I got were also "protest votes," and Jimbo "selected" people three ranks below my vote total for ArbCom, and this was with Kelly and her friends doing all they could to kill votes.
 * So, we see, here, an "inside view" from IRC and the two people "outside" are saying quite loudly and clearly that nothing has been remedied. If IRC does not get 1) portable (logs can be posted, if they're a propos), 2) regulated by a policy set that is visible to all before they go there (i.e. on Wikipedia), 3) a public forum for discussing allegations of abuse, nothing has been done.
 * There is another shocking lie out there. If there were a public forum, I'm told, people might "gang up" on unpopular people.  What I see, so far, is that there is no fear there, as Giano and Bishonen are getting the ganging up on.  However, if that's the fear, then it's a fear of Wikipedia.  Consensus is the whole of the law.  If someone is not trusted by the community, then that person's remit as an administrator is gone, and that person's license to be on the admins.irc channel damn sure ought to be gone.  Let them gang up.  That ganging up tells you a lot.  It's the stupidest thing I've heard in ages.
 * Why, why, why, why, why are IRC junkies fighting like mad or drunk to preserve their hobby? If it's no big deal.  If it's boring.  If it's all better now.  If nothing bad happens there.  If all of these things, then what on earth could motivate anyone to fight so hard as to erode public confidence to protect it as it is?  The people who hate sunshine laws are generally the corrupt.  Geogre (talk) 14:34, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

I simply remind you that I, Tony Sidaway, and Mackensen were all among those "people" who supported Giano for arbcom. Read into that what you will.--Docg 16:48, 2 February 2008 (UTC)


 * I wasn't yelling at you, Doc. I was hoping that people would realize that the conclusion that "things are all better now" is mysterious in every possible way.  The People, such as I know about them, don't know IRC exists until they either get on it or they find twelve people appearing in ten seconds to uphold one side of a dispute.  The People who do know about IRC seem to think that it's great, if they use it, and that it's stupid, if they don't.  This is not because the latter are ignorant, but they have voted with their modemed feet, as it were.  These are precisely the People who need to be heard, because they have formed an opinion.  This also means that the people who are using IRC are largely supporters of it by nature.  (This includes Bishonen.)
 * For the record, I enjoy passtimes and chatting about nothing, and IRC's good for chatting aimlessly. It's just poison for discussing Wikipedia, if the discussion isn't duplicated on Wikipedia and transparent.
 * Anyway, since there is no "issue" without IRC here (unless an edit war is now enough to trigger 4 weeks of ArbCom), I don't know how things can be "settled." I'm not sure what had gotten "upset" to be settled.
 * The Arbs are eroding confidence in them every time they accept a case without complaint, every time they let something drag on and on, and, most importantly, when they threaten that there is some private conversation they're having -- like the teacher and principle plotting discipline -- and everyone needs to behave. The more they do this, the more they say, "We can't talk to you: we're having a private conversation," the more they indulge a privately satisfying illusion of power and the more they irritate the hell out of the user base and create resentment.
 * I've looked at this thing for weeks now, and I still can't tell what the basis of arbitration is. "Settled" may be a codeword for "stale" or "tiresome," but it's not a case of the problems being solved in any sense.  Saying, "We'll get to it someday" is the worst possible answer.
 * It's not clear that ArbCom will do it; confidence would improve if such a process started before announcing that all was well, here,
 * I don't understand why the community isn't being involved in developing guidelines for IRC usage. That was the only source of my editing David Gerard's page.  He just put it there and then announced that it was holy text.
 * The actual usefulness of the admins.irc channel has yet to be proven: it wasn't proven when the thing was proposed, and no one has offered anything but hypotheticals since.
 * Anyway, the People seem pretty restless, and attempts at absolutism tend to end poorly. Geogre (talk) 21:23, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

People
I think it is clear that the ordinary editor is not able to become "informed" as these "people" merely experience the consequences of the "people" (I guess) you are talking about, Doc. Maybe the levels of "people", since an impenetrable hierarchy appears to exist, needs to become explicit. Having mucked around at the lower levels for nearly two years now, in the dark most of the time, I find the pretense of the "Wikipedia" ideals offensive, at this point. I would prefer less pretense and a clearer explanation of what actually goes on here. Because I like to write I have stayed and kept trying but it has been a very ugly experience. It is very hard to try to write and edit articles well in the atmosphere that exists here where most of us are left hanging out to dry without support, while Admin and ArbCon energy goes into the favored few. Mattisse 22:53, 1 February 2008 (UTC)
 * I'm afraid your comments are too enigmatic for me. What do you mean? And what is the evidence? Sometimes if you can manage in the dark, it is better to stay there. I'm trying to be a content editor now and stuff most of the rest, but vague generalisations and assuming far too much from one or two experiences is precisely the problem here.--Docg 23:00, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

I realize I am out of my league even commenting here. As far as vague generalizations, I am sure you do not want to hear the specifics -- especially in the cozy bar room atmosphere of drinking provided above. Mattisse 23:11, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

'' Rest of the thread at Wikipedia talk:Requests for arbitration/IRC/Tavern. ''

For the record, I agree with Matisse's observation that there are cliquish elements to the behaviour of long-term established users that can make it difficult for editors who lack confidence, or who are not bold, or who are not persistent, to get their foot in the door and become similarly established. This is a difficult social problem to overcome, but one way is to always be friendly to new editors (and Matisse is far from being a new editor), or those starting to get more involved in pages like this. No-one has been overtly exclusionary, but it is the general atmosphere and (ironically) friendliness that can sometimes be disconcerting to those who are less comfortable with that kind of banter. Carcharoth (talk) 09:16, 2 February 2008 (UTC)


 * In a large community cliques are inevitable. And since sub-areas of the community (and that goes for the FA process, DYK, DRV, and some wikiprojects as much as for "administration") will inevitably have smaller cores of committed regulars, friendships, group trust and mutual support are also inevitable and probably even desirable. The alternative is faceless bureaucracy. This will always leave some people feeling like outsiders - that's regrettable but also a fact of life. Sure, we need to encourage an inclusive attitude in all departments, but there's no possible way we can regulate it or "overcome" the problem - we just need to continually be alert to it and learn to negotiate it.--Docg 11:25, 2 February 2008 (UTC)
 * And sometimes a faceless bureacracy is more responsive and easier to ask for something to be done. Go figure. Carcharoth (talk) 12:27, 2 February 2008 (UTC)
 * People will seldom volunteer to work for faceless bureaucracies. Anyway, whatever your ideal, this is simply not something we could create at wikipedia. Not possible, short of removing personality chips from all wikipedians, and banning friendship.--Docg 13:01, 2 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Support: I don't like e-personalities. Geogre (talk) 14:39, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

For the record - another edit war (the case in microcosm)
In case anyone missed it, two of the parties to this case (Doc glasgow and Geogre) were involved in a recent edit war over at the MfD for WP:WEA. Firstly, Doc and Geogre (and others), do try and talk on the talk page for that page about what should be done there, rather than sniping at each other in edit summaries while reverting each other. Secondly, before anyone reacts with shock and horror and rushes to put remedies on this arbitration case, or to change their votes, ask yourself what harm was done. Then ask yourself what harm was done in the edit war at WP:WEA. Then ask yourself what the real underlying issues are. Then try and solve them, or admit that arbcom can't solve the underlying issues. Carcharoth (talk) 03:05, 3 February 2008 (UTC)


 * Not quite. I am not a party, last I looked. And all I did was remove an unfortunate remark of Geogre's where he referred to another user as a "newbie quisling" "arrogant" and "parasite". Geogre and I did not edit war, since he has not tried to reinstate it. A couple of IPs did, probably not understanding what quisling is, and why it is so very offensive. The remarks were simply a over-the-top example of the aggressive and overstated polemical rhetoric that we've seen so often. I removed the attack and, very cautiously, asked Geogre to tone it down . I've tried to walk the de-escalation walk here.--Docg 03:31, 3 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Hang on, Doc. Those aren't all insults or applied to the particular childe.  "Arrogant" was of his lecture to me to stop worrying about important things like WEA and go back to work writing articles (and tugging my forelock), and I characterized his argument by saying that we who work on articles are all parasites on Rambot's work (i.e. to him, Rambot is a prized author, and the rest of us are simply poor analogs).  As for his being a newbie quisling, I pretty much stand by that as a good, old fashioned insult for someone who shows up recently and does whatever he thinks is going to ingratiate him to the voices of "power."  It's strong, and it's mean, and it's an answer to something that was arrogant, dismissive, and insulting to every single Wikipedian with either experience or an alternate point of view.  Geogre (talk) 12:52, 3 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Requests for arbitration/IRC. As far as I'm aware, unless the arbitrators specifically pass a finding of fact about who the real parties are to a case (and they should do that more often, though maybe only at the end of a case), then the parties are as listed there. Personally, I think you were involved enough in the 23 December edit war to be involved as a party here. The IP editing was, shall we say, interesting. I did say above that you two should have been using the talk page to discuss things, rather than edit summaries, but I missed the rather sensible thread on Geogre's talk page - which makes my point that as long as people start talking afterwards, a little edit war doesn't matter too much. It is when people stop talking, and continue to edit war, that things are going wrong. Carcharoth (talk) 03:47, 3 February 2008 (UTC)
 * I repeat, I have only once reverted Geogre, and he has at no time reverted me. In the current climate, I would certainly not have done so, since I would suspect it would have been incredibly harmful. Had Geogre replaced the comments, I would not have reverted him. I, for one, and committed to a policy of de-escalation. To describe this as an edit war between us is silly. And whatever the title says, I have never considered myself a party --Docg 03:55, 3 February 2008 (UTC)


 * (ec) For the record, the above references to "edit warring" are my personal opinion. It is possible that there was technically no edit warring. Doc has said he objects to me calling it edit warring, and I'm happy to rephrase it as something like "reverting". There has definitely been reverting going on. The use of edit summaries by the IP addresses leaves me cold - do you really think that the rapid response and use of edit summaries like that means anything other than a logged-out user gaming 3RR? Carcharoth (talk) 04:03, 3 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Just a quick comment here. Following an e-mail communication, it seems that the IP editing was probably others (without accounts) following the case. I apologise to both Geogre and Doc and any others with accounts for implying otherwise. Carcharoth (talk) 12:14, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

For the record - it's a sure sign this case has gone on too long when even the most even-tempered editors, admins and arbitrators start getting a bit punchy. Arbitrators - the ball is in your court to put this baby to bed. Tell us who you think the parties are, finish up your voting, establish a deadline by which you will address the IRC question, and then close this case. No temporary injunctions or other vaguely worded remedies and findings of fact - just bite the bullet and put an end to this. Please. The burr has been under everyone's saddle for quite long enough (with apologies to those who detest mixed metaphors). Risker (talk) 04:50, 3 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Unfortunately, I don't think that will solve anything much. Unless the users concerned change their ways, it will simply delay the inevitable. I'd love to be wrong, though.--Docg 05:03, 3 February 2008 (UTC)
 * And unless the culture changes, then banning certain editors will just result in other editors replacing them, or eventually developing the same behaviour. Nature abhors a vacuum. See my quote of Birgitte's comment. Carcharoth (talk) 05:09, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

I am quite disgusted by this. Truly shocking. And anyone who fails to understand why should read Quisling and consider why one of our most respected writers believes that applying that label to a fellow wikipedian is acceptable, and needs no apology or regret. Why he thinks that is helpful thing to do, when arbcom are asking everyone to calm down and see constructive ways forward. Does he want resolution of this dispute, or does he enjoy inflaming it wherever possible. I was trying hard to find ways to resolve disputes - but it takes too sides to tango, and until people like Geogre can learn from the recent humility of Tony Sidaway and work out where their reverse gear is, there is little point. Utterly dreadful. To think this began because of righteous indignation at a "bitch" remark in iRC! The stench of hypocrisy is startling.--Docg 14:46, 3 February 2008 (UTC)
 * For myself, I'll say that Doc went to my talk page, and I answered there. An edit war broke out because everyone has this unbelievably weird Wiki-time.  I went off to do Saturday charges, and, when I came back, I saw Doc's note and answered.  I told him that I had a "personal attack" (I'd say "insult") from Aza Toth, so I replied with an insult.  If 1 Then 2.  Now, mine was maybe more angering, but it's still tat and tit cheek by jowl.  Removing both would have been ok with me, but removing one would not.  Aza Toth needs to be cautioned about personal attacks, and one way to caution him is to demonstrate where that road leads.  Since I don't believe in Victorian parlor rules, that was my view at the time (to say, essentially, 'Oh, you want to insult me? Ok. I know how to do that.  Feel better?').  One should be free to engage in the darker side of community, but only when there is a strong need -- not to sneer during the exercise of community consensus building in an Xfd deliberation.  Geogre (talk) 12:47, 3 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Tit for tat is nowhere mentioned in WP:NPA. If you find our community norms to be "Victorian parlor rules," perhaps some reflection is called for. One underlying source of this case is the lack of restraint shown by various editors, so it's surprising to see named parties not only continue such behavior but defend it. &mdash; Carl (CBM · talk) 13:10, 3 February 2008 (UTC)
 * More lectures? How nice.  Have you actually read NPA lately?  Please do.  Please show it as somehow "removal of," and then do distinguish between what I said and what you wish I said.  I missed the warning you added to Aza Toth's user talk page about personal attacks, perhaps just as you missed what I said.  Good luck, and HTH HAND.  Geogre (talk) 13:15, 3 February 2008 (UTC)
 * I can look above to see exactly what you said: "Now, mine was maybe more angering, but it's still tat and tit cheek by jowl." Consider that ordinarily "tit for tat" is not used with a positive connotation. Using the term Victorian to refer to the very mild standards we have for decency here is simply hyperbole. If you felt AzaToth's comments were a personal attack, I am certain you know more productive means to address them than to respond in kind. &mdash; Carl (CBM · talk) 13:35, 3 February 2008 (UTC)
 * No, indeed. You see, unlike many here expressing their shock, I believe in the "mob."  I believe in Wikipedia.  I believe that all of us together, in the jostle, can create.  I also believe that there is a place for disagreeable language, and I think that trying to suppress that is what is shocking.  At best, it's foolish.  At most, it's destructive.  I felt that it was a personal attack, indeed, and I think that it's worth demonstrating to someone cloaking with sarcasm that such behavior leads to more.  I'm not generally one to pursue people.  I am rarely in the mood for a harangue. My question is this: if people like yourself are believers that insulting language demands removal, of all things, or a warning, then where were you when Aza Toth offered his insult?  Be consistent.  If insults are bad, then they're bad.  If they're not, they're not.  I tend to think they're sometimes appropriate, sometimes not.  I also know quite well that "NPA" says that personal attacks are bad.  That's all.  It doesn't say that they'll be removed.  It doesn't say that the first travelling Bowdler will expunge them for family reading.  It doesn't say that there are warnings, blocks, or anything else necessitated by them.  I agree with NPA.  Insults are bad, which is why, when I was insulted, I responded with an insult.  Geogre (talk) 20:18, 3 February 2008 (UTC)
 * If you want hypocrisy, Doc, simply look at this reaction to a properly chosen insult and compare it to Tony's telling someone to quit the channel and then being allowed to say that he was the victim. I stand by, incidentally, my characterization of the public persona of that user at that time.  He was a new user who was saying whatever seemed most pleasing to whomever he saw as being the side of "power."  In my view, that was, indeed, quisling behavior.  Is it quite strong?  Yes.  So are my feelings about those who want to speak for factions so as to give themselves height.  There is little as annoying as someone showing up fresh off the boat and telling you that the People Who Count Think X.  It's either quisling or the utmost in anti-democratic sentiment coupled with a profound disrespect for others.  My term is actually the less inflammatory.  Geogre (talk) 20:18, 3 February 2008 (UTC)
 * If you want to shout and scream at people Doc, do so at the Arbcom. It is a great pity no one saw the origins of this case as "righteous indignation at a "bitch" remark" at the time. Instead, the Arbcom, with wanton stupidity, suddenly seeing  an opportunity for spiteful revenge, opened a whole nasty can of worms, and now they want to put the lid back on it while saving their own faces. Even if that means losing some of the projects best writing-editors.  I don't think the Arbcom are going to be able to put the lid back on. They have lost huge respect. So, I'm afraid its going to take a lot more than the "humility" of Tony Sidaway to restore that respect and make many of us shut up.  We want IRC addressed and addressed now - nothing more - nothing less! Giano (talk) 15:14, 3 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Giano, if you really think that the only problem in this case is IRC and that you and all who agree with you have been paragons of virtue, that is self-deception of the highest order. Sam Korn (smoddy) 15:23, 3 February 2008 (UTC)
 * I'm afraid the Arbcom have and continue to refuse to face the true problem. It is easier to shout and try to silence those who point out the problem than face up that problem. It seems now that only the Arbcom are failing to realise this. They should resign in shame. Giano (talk) 15:29, 3 February 2008 (UTC)
 * So your contention is that you are blameless? Sam Korn (smoddy) 15:44, 3 February 2008 (UTC)
 * I am guilty of showing Wikipedia exactlty what sort of Arbcom it has. Giano (talk) 15:47, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

I've removed everything apart from Azatoth original !vote. Gentlemen, is this really important enough to fall out about? --Joopercoopers (talk) 15:25, 3 February 2008 (UTC)
 * That's fine with me, Joopercoopers, although I should think that my first response was a response to the insult in the !vote. I.e. the "vote" was an insult to every one of us who edit Wikipedia.  The Greeks used to say that a person who insulted a person was simply an irritant, while someone who insulted the Greek people was a criminal.  In a sense, his statement that all of us who edit Wikipedia are the distasteful "mob" is far worse than any blue tongued tirade anyone could have come up with.  Geogre (talk) 20:18, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

Continued evidence of problematic behaviour at #admins
The Arbitration Committee should be aware that there is evidence of continued problematic behaviour at #admins. In this particular case, it directly relates to arbitration enforcement, which I understand is under the purview of this committee. I don't want to mix up any more metaphors today (the one that comes to mind involves Rome and fiddles), but really...isn't this kind of thing exactly what this particular case was supposed to address? Risker (talk) 20:06, 3 February 2008 (UTC)
 * The problem, in addition, is that we simply don't know about abuses. Because the medium is corrupt (the medium is) (see my old essay for my usage here), we just don't know how many non-famous Wikipedians are being told to "go elsewhere" with their concerns.  We don't know how many non-administrators are telling administrators that they should shut up.  We don't know how many fresh grudges are going to erupt at Wikipedia, because no one is allowed to refer to what happened on IRC, much less prove it with a log.  Saying that there always already had been a procedure (that no one knew) for sending logs to ArbCom is silly.  You send it, and then 6-12 weeks later perhaps someone will tell you that "things are all better now."  No.  Nothing has been settled.  Saying that "it will be, RSN" is to put us right back where we were when this started.  Thatcher had an idea for a noticeboard.  That would actually work.  Apparently, he was quickly told (where, no one knows but him) that it was a bad idea because everything's already all better and some people might be exposed to the "ganging up" on (that darned "mob" again).  I.e. no actual reasoning against, and meanwhile "all is well."  As your link shows, it is not.  If the arbitrators here are enjoying the case, they can put off solutions, because they'll have a replay soon enough.  If this case is disgusting to them, then they'd best get on the stick.  Geogre (talk) 20:26, 3 February 2008 (UTC)
 * D'you know Geogre, I am coming to the conclusion that the Arbs are thinking if they sit back idle, twiddling their thumbs, for long enough, you and I will break IRC's stranglehold on wikipedia for them, we become covered in shit, they take the glory and the the IRC problem is solved for all Giano (talk) 21:19, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

And a further case today as well - this time affecting the Main Page. My goodness, you'd think when IRC #admins was being scrutinized by the community, people would grow up a bit. Risker (talk) 21:55, 3 February 2008 (UTC)
 * IMHO: It's entirely likely that the things in these examples would have happened anyway - regardless of where the communication took place.. -- Versa  geek  22:03, 3 February 2008 (UTC)
 * No, quite all right just the usual high spirited games in IRC, we can hardly expect them to be on Wikipedia writing pages can we? Giano (talk) 22:07, 3 February 2008 (UTC)
 * None of those other methods of communication have a page on Wikipedia extolling their virtues or encouraging all administrators to participate in it. And none have pages that state quite baldly that Arbcom is part of the process for resolving concerns about inappropriate behaviour. Risker (talk) 22:09, 3 February 2008 (UTC)
 * I think most people have drawn their own conclusion by now. let's face most of the Arbs spend ages chatting their too. Giano (talk) 22:12, 3 February 2008 (UTC)
 * I am afraid you are correct, Giano. Indeed, the individuals involved in the deletion of the main page seemed to be nearly bragging about it on AN/I. Strikes me that when someone deleted the main page in the past, a steward was found, and the admin involved was emergency de-sysopped. The fact that there are two separate incidents of this nature in just a few hours, and those are just the incidents that have managed to be reported on AN/I, suggests that this kind of behaviour - which would be bad admin behaviour no matter where it took place - is de rigeur on #admins. I'm going to expand on my comment here, as the situation has changed somewhat and I see that an arbitrator is actively discussing the first example on ANI.  That is, indeed, what I hope to see - if nobody in the channel itself questions behaviours when they are occurring there, that such behaviour be openly discussed and critiqued on-wiki. The concept of #-admins makes sense; however, the culture of it remains very concerning. We hear about some childishness on #en-wikipedia, but it seldom bleeds into the encyclopedia in any meaningful way.  We hear next to nothing about the other channels.  I have friends who use #wikipedia-it and #wikipedia-de, and they don't seem to have these issues either. So IRC as a communication mode isn't the problem, in and of itself. What does seem to be the problem is the apparently ineffective means of correcting inappropriate behaviour in this particular channel, and the apparent inability to dissuade administrators from acting impulsively, improperly, or abusively based on discussions in the channel. It's supposed to be the sanity check, for pity's sake. Risker (talk) 23:31, 3 February 2008 (UTC)
 * I agree that the recent incidents that allegedly involved IRC discussions are worrying. I'll repeat what I've said elsewhere - it is very easy to go to IRC and complain about something that has happened on Wikipedia (there is lots of evidence to point to). It is far less easy to come to Wikipedia and complain about something that has happened in IRC (much less evidence to point to, or less evidence that can be provided in the open). Carcharoth (talk) 12:13, 4 February 2008 (UTC)
 * The same is true of telephone conversations, text messages, emails, and IM conversations. &mdash; Carl (CBM · talk) 14:41, 4 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Of course. And your point is? Carcharoth (talk) 16:21, 4 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Carl's argument is familiar. "Someone could send a nasty letter in the mail, so we shouldn't do anything about this" is surprisingly frequently offered up as a rationale.  I don't blame him for saying it now... it's said quite a bit.  However, the telephone or e-mail or telegraph or semaphore nastygram wouldn't be called Wikipedia and it most especially would not be "officially" unofficially the home of administrators.  For everyone who thinks that, for example, an administrator must be so sober as to never call a trollish user a troll, because that's vulgar, there should be three who realize that en.admins.irc should be so carefully worded and sober as to be utterly silent.  We don't need our name, and a lie (that it's for administrators), on it.  Geogre (talk) 21:39, 4 February 2008 (UTC)
 * The way to improve WEA is to have a larger number of admins on it, not fewer. My understanding is that there was an IRC channel before WEA was formed, with an opaque name. Are you arguing that would be preferable to the current situation? I can't see how it would be. &mdash; Carl (CBM · talk) 21:51, 4 February 2008 (UTC)
 * If that's your goal, it's easily done. 1) When a person gets promoted to admin, he or she gets a "hostmask" or whatever it is.  2) When someone is demoted, they lose access.  There!  All better, and yet, mysteriously, there is resistance to that.  Weird, isn't it?  The prior name was "myfriendsandme" or something like that.  It was just a few people, many of whom are no longer administrators because of what they did and the way they viewed other users, and it cut no bait.  No one was going to join them.  No one was going to rush to be a part of their circle of SuperFriends.  The move to "admins" was an effort to make some people Yertle the Turtle and king of the mountain, it seemed to me.  The point is that there never was a reason offered for its existence that convinced people.  How private is it, if it's all the admins (and some non-admins)?  How super entrusted is it, if it's that group?  How wise is it, if most admins don't take part?  How deliberative is it, if you catch only the same 8 names constantly chatting?  How judicious is it, if the moment someone disagrees she's called an "arsehole" and told to go elsewhere?  What the hell good is it?  What is its advantage over using Wikipedia?  Shouldn't we answer that question before we have it and allow all these abuses?  Shouldn't we have mechanisms for dealing with potential abuse in place first?  Saying, "Well, Kelly and James were going to talk to each other anyway" is back to the same old argument: they might have, but they couldn't call themselves the center of the administrative community.  Geogre (talk) 22:03, 4 February 2008 (UTC)
 * The arguments for the IRC channel have been put forward before, by WP:WEA at least. It is already true that anyone who becomes an admin gets access to the channel upon request.
 * The idea that we should decide on the benefits of IRC before using it is odd, since people were already using IRC before the channel was created and would continue to do so if the channel was deleted. My impression is that you are taking a few of the worst incidents and trying to tar the entire medium. But we could say the same for WP:ANI or WP:AN, or any other forum for administrator interactions.
 * In any case, the arbitrators seem to have decided to address IRC in a different setting than this case. &mdash; Carl (CBM · talk) 22:17, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

Threats/jokes about lynching, ad hominems, etc, on IRC

 * I'd like to request that an arbitrator or clerk close this section please. It's devolved into nothing more than a rather long argument with only tangental bearing on this case. Perhaps we can consider discussion at RfC instead, that way the greater community can give its input, rather than only those interested in this case? ~Kylu (u|t)  00:13, 6 February 2008 (UTC)


 * Agreed and archived. Thatcher 06:50, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

I'm confused
I've missed something (I'm not following closely). If 7 votes is a majority why are FoF 6 and principles 9 and 12.1 passing? Where are FoF 1 and principle 16? DrKiernan (talk) 14:49, 4 February 2008 (UTC)


 * FofF 6 and principles 9 and 12.1 all have 7 or more votes and thus are passing. There are several "missing" principles, FoFs and remedies because one of the arbitrators elected to remove them earlier.  Incidentally, for the attention of the clerk, I note that it is actually Principle 15 that is passing, not Principle 16; the latter has been deleted.  Risker (talk) 14:59, 4 February 2008 (UTC)
 * I've left a message on the Arbcom Clerk noticeboard about the misnumbering; given how active this page has been, it would have been very easy to make an error. I am sure someone will be along shortly to fix it up.  Risker (talk) 15:12, 4 February 2008 (UTC)


 * Risker is correct. I want to add that oppose votes do not reduce the number of support votes. Hope that helps. FloNight&#9829;&#9829;&#9829; 15:06, 4 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Yes, it does. Thanks to you both. DrKiernan (talk) 15:13, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

Motion - disable "e-mail this user"
I would like to move that the arbitration committee instruct the developers to remove the "e-mail this user" function from the software. This is a wiki and all communications should be transparently on-wiki. No? This function, existing within the official software, simply encourages the impression that e-mails are a good method of communication. If people want to send e-mails, fine; but the official software should not encourage it, nor suggest official sanction.

I can point to numerous abuses of this method of communication. I will not breach confidentiality, but only in the last few days: Now, had any of these incidents taken place on-wiki, they could subject to community sanction, but since they took place through the officially sanctioned e-mail function, they cannot be. E-mail this user is anti-wiki, encourages unsupervised and unaccountable conspiring against respected users behind their back, and is open to abuse: it should be disabled.--Docg 15:46, 4 February 2008 (UTC)
 * 1) I have personally received abuse via the official e-mail function.
 * 2) One respected user/admin sent another respected user/admin an email simply saying "jerk".
 * 3) I have received e-mail from one party to this case attacking the motives of members of the arbitration committee, and making serious allegations
 * 4) I have received "leaks" from members of the arbitration committee.
 * Gosh! Number 4 sounds interesting - going to share? Giano (talk) 16:06, 4 February 2008 (UTC)
 * And your response to the rest?--Docg 16:08, 4 February 2008 (UTC)
 * I disagree. Email this user is obviously useful for users who've been blocked to request unblocking.  It would be far more sensible to have sending emails enabled only for blocked users.  In addition, the mailing lists, which since the foundation of Wikipedia have been the meta-discussion area, should be abolished on the grounds that not all users are capable of using email and therefore would not be able to defend themselves against malicious attacks.  Sam Korn (smoddy) 16:09, 4 February 2008 (UTC)
 * While I don't think it should be disabled, the abuses of the feature identified by Doc are very troubling. Leaks?  WTF.  childish abuse I expect, but not leaks from those trying to work out solutions to our most serious problems.  --Rocksanddirt (talk) 16:15, 4 February 2008 (UTC)


 * If we all lived in little rooms that could only connect to Wikipedia then this might accomplish something. But Wikipedia lives on the internet and it is foolish to attempt to limit communications between users. The advantage of the wiki-email feature is that people can contact you without revealing your contact information. If you don't like it, just disable it is your preferences instead of requesting it be removed all together. (1 == 2)Until  16:17, 4 February 2008 (UTC)
 * I only enabled the e-mail preference when I submitted my RfA. Before that I was quite happy never e-mailing anyone. Now I can use it, it is sometimes useful, but I do find it distracting as I have to remember what I know from on-wiki stuff, and what I have to remember was 'private' stuff. I don't get a lot of e-mail, but there is some forum shopping in there as well. Carcharoth (talk) 16:27, 4 February 2008 (UTC)
 * (multiple ec) In reference to items number 3 and 4—have you had any previous e-mail exchanges with the members, or would they have had an opportunity to acquire your e-mail through innocuous means, such as seeing it on a mailing list? If so, then disabling the funcion would not have made a difference in that case. Horologium  (talk) 16:18, 4 February 2008 (UTC)


 * Perhaps if we just replaced the text "Email this user" with "Lulz and great justice", all would be well in the world. Orderinchaos 16:27, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

Motion to ban cars:
 * The following is meant in the spirit of humor and not meant to be taken seriously or as a mockery.


 * 1) I have personally received abuse from someone who drove a car to my house.
 * 2) Once a respected presedent was shot while in a car.
 * 3) People have used cars to get from one place to another to accuse people of things
 * 4) People have used cars to leak private information

Lets disable all cars for everyone! (1 == 2)Until 16:20, 4 February 2008 (UTC)
 * I support this. Gas prices are also too high, and obesity is at an all time high. We could use the exercise of walking or biking everywhere. This has merit.  Lara  ❤  Love  16:23, 4 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Regarding banning cars, we did that ages ago. Hiding T 16:27, 4 February 2008 (UTC)


 * A surprising number of people missed Doc's point completely. Thatcher 16:29, 4 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Oooh! Let's see if I can get this one. "If people want to send e-mails, fine; but the official software should not encourage it, nor suggest official sanction." - that was the point, right? Carcharoth (talk) 16:40, 4 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Alanis Morrisette where are you now? It's like ema-yal, when you've already irc'd. It's the free ride, when you're Willy on Wheels! Hiding T  —Preceding comment was added at 16:32, 4 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Um, Tony, are you sure that this edit is appropriate? If Doc was joking, he made a very good effort at being serious about it. If he wasn't, then linking to WP:LEVITY seems to misrepresent things, as people assume that the original poster writes the header. Carcharoth (talk) 17:22, 4 February 2008 (UTC)
 * I removed Tony's link. Lets leave that for Doc, if he wants to use a club on the baby seal of humor, if this was meant to be humor. Lawrence § t/e 17:23, 4 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Yes, Doc is satirizing the moral panic about IRC. It's quite fun figuring out to which emails he is referring in his list of "abuses".  The worrying number of people who don't recognise its humorous intent prompted me to try and flag it in some way. --Tony Sidaway 17:28, 4 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Weeelll, I think he is being too clever by half if that was his intent. I'll wait to hear him confirm it himself. I think his real point was that IRC is not the only off-wiki form of communication, but that e-mail is built into the software, whereas IRC is not. Carcharoth (talk) 17:36, 4 February 2008 (UTC)
 * It's called irony. Its purpose is not to be amusing but to make a serious point.  If it needs spelling out, here it is: "Off-wiki forms of communication are helpful.  For example, see email.  People are bashing IRC as inherently dangerous.  Let's point out that other forms of communication are also inherently dangerous, but that doesn't mean we should ban them."  Doc just did it in a rather more incisive way than that silly paraphrase suggests.  Sam Korn (smoddy) 17:41, 4 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Isn't that what I and others have said elsewhere? If that is all Doc was saying, he could have saved his fingers the bother. That is hardly a new argument. As I've said over at AN, inherently non-transparent forms of communications don't interact well with transparent ones, like Wikipedia. What I said there was "The problem is that those who give advice in closed areas don't get shown up for the purveyors of bad advice that they are." I stand by that statement, be it e-mail, telephone, text messages, IM, IRC or whatever. People can build power bases based on bad advice. When they get it wrong, there is no bright light of community review shining on them. That is the inherent danger of mediums like IRC. Geogre has said all this in his essay. None of this is new. How has Doc's ironic satire moved the discussion forward? Carcharoth (talk) 18:38, 4 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Don't throw the baby out with the bathwater. There, I resorted to an ugly cliche. Now do you get the point? Sam Korn (smoddy) 18:44, 4 February 2008 (UTC)
 * I do get the point. I will refrain from sniping at people in my edit summary (irritating habit that). Did you get my point? The baby/bathwater analogy here is better applied to Giano. The pig reference from Tony, I don't get at all. Carcharoth (talk) 18:55, 4 February 2008 (UTC) (I edit conflicted with Sam's removal of his comment - I've restored it so it is obvious what I was replying to, but Sam, feel free to refactor further if needed)
 * Part of the reason I removed the comment was that I was irritated. Call it a return to better judgement. As you've restored it, I'll reply. The fact that Giano makes useful contributions is indeed similar to the fact that IRC is useful. It's silly to disregard either. Why do Giano's edits mean IRC should be castrated? Either your point has passed me by or it is completely vacuous. I also don't understand Tony's comment. Sam Korn (smoddy) 19:01, 4 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Sorry for coming across as such an obscurantist. I was referring to what I believed to be a common saying, usually attributed to Mark Twain, that goes: "Never try to teach a pig to sing. It's a waste of your time, and it annoys the pig."  The pig here in my view being the ephemeral, chatty, private IRC channels some of use to discuss Wikipedia matters, and singing being Carcharoth's aspiration to make all discussion of Wikipedia transparent. --Tony Sidaway 19:19, 4 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Got it. And I have learnt something from your post, which is more than can be said for the rest of this page.  Sam Korn (smoddy) 19:23, 4 February 2008 (UTC)
 * I'd say he's made a very effective statement against the proposals to change all other forms of communications to be "compatible" in some way with a wiki. The wiki is only the medium we use for constructing the encyclopedia.  Obsessively exporting standards designed to make working in the open environment of the wiki easy, to forms of communication which are by design and intent quite private, is not productive, and it annoys the pig. --Tony Sidaway 18:46, 4 February 2008 (UTC)
 * I sometimes think I should be on a different language wiki from most Americans. I am pointing out the exact opposite. Sure, IRC can be and is misused (although a lot of the so called evidence is bollocks), but so can e-mail or a chat in the pub - so what? That you can point to abuses is irrelevant: the question is 1) can you sensibly prevent such communication? No. 2) Do abuses make the thing intrinsically bad? No. Hence, the whole discussion is useless. Let's do what we can to minimise abuse (actually not a lot) and them move on. Saying that because there is some abuse we should shut it down is pointless, as 1) you can't shut it down 2) even if you could you'll shut down all the good uses too. If you hand is giving you pain, amputation is seldom a sensible option to debate.--Docg 18:53, 4 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Are you replying to me? I'm not American. And I said on your talk page that shutting down the Wikipedia IRC channels is not the point here. The point here is transparency for anything that is official or looks like it is official. OTRS tickets are carefully tracked, right? There is a WP:OTRS page. That is fine. But why the defensive attitude some people have to IRC? Simple. It is a chatting culture they don't want to see changed. Is a chatting culture compatible with Wikipedia? Yes, as long as it is transparent. Carcharoth (talk) 19:00, 4 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Transparency and privacy are incompatible. If you conclude that a certain amount of privacy is necessary, a certain amount of transparency must be laid aside.  In any case, it isn't perfectly private, because logs are taken by many people (as witnessed here).  But to call it "incompatible with the wiki" because it is not open and to thus suggest that it should be restricted somehow (what else is your aim?) is disingenuous in the extreme.  Sam Korn (smoddy) 19:06, 4 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Then DO disable e-mail, since it is not transparent either. Anyone who thinks making #admins "transparent" isn't the same as closing it down, is missing the point. Either way, you'll simply drive the discussion elsewhere where there is less transparently and accountability and more self-selection.--Docg 19:09, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

See reductio ad absurdum. And if you still don't get it, I suggest you either opt out of the discussion, or enrol yourself at Irony coaching.--Docg 17:40, 4 February 2008 (UTC)
 * So do we get to eat the babies, or not? I must say you've been very reticent on this matter. --Tony Sidaway 17:46, 4 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Keeping with the theme, I presume we can only eat the babies if someone first suggests it over #admin. Lawrence § t/e 17:47, 4 February 2008 (UTC)
 * I hope nobody takes my comment as a green light for anthropophagy in general. Let's wait for the arbitration committee to reach a decision on the matter. --Tony Sidaway 18:08, 4 February 2008 (UTC)


 * I'm an American, and I got the joke. And the point. I agree - the medium doesn't cause poor judgement. On-wiki discussion can be just as much of an echo-chamber if it isn't on some central noticeboard. To take a classic phrase - "Guns don't kill people, people kill people." Avruch talk 18:59, 4 February 2008 (UTC)
 * If I were you Doc, instead of moaning and winging because the Arb's mailing list is being leaked to you through email, I would consider myself fortunate, I have to have their wishes translated to me through the auspices of their toadies on #admins! Giano (talk) 19:13, 4 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Let me scorch the urban myth before it grows. I have not had, and never have had, leaks from the arbcom mailing list. I have had an arb or two share their thoughts with me - which is certainly not prohibited. I slightly overstated the gravity to make my point. That was silly, I should have guess you'd ignore the point and spin my remarks into another way to disparage the committee.--Docg 19:20, 4 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Of course Doc, anything you say Doc. Why not show them the error of their ways and spill the beans - or do you too quite like your secrets? The Arbs certainly do not need me to disparage them, they acheive that very effectively all on their own. Giano (talk) 19:29, 4 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Gah. This medium is plain text.  it is impossible to be cute and ironic in a subtle way.  I fully believed that someone had actually leaked inappropriate material from the committee's deliberations to you (doc).  That they might discuss issues with you is totally not the same.  I read your remarks as a serious condemnation of any off wiki communications.  I disagree with that.  I fact I think some manner of irc for admins is likely a net benifit, but those involved are not making a good case for it.  and giano and georgre make a plausible case that it is a net detriment to the project.  so what's a peon (err...regular editor) like me supposed to think about all this?  --Rocksanddirt (talk) 20:02, 4 February 2008 (UTC)
 * The thought that some discussion of matters Wikipedia may take place off the wiki appears to worry some editors. Doc's satirical proposal was a way of making us think about the fact that all communication media have their faults.  In the case of wiki-based communications, for instance, in my opinion it favors the persistent and the sensational over thoughtful and insightful comment--if you think about it, your reaction to the wording of his proposal amply demonstrates that my observation has some truth.  --Tony Sidaway 20:16, 4 February 2008 (UTC)
 * I don't disagree with your point. My point is that plain text is not a good medium for subtle satire, or ironic proposals.  I took him at face value.  I do think that many folks concerns with off-wiki communications are exacerbated by the questionable behavior that seems to be ongoing with the off-wiki communications.  What we really need is a clear decision as to what to do.  If the standards of conduct amongst the irc stuff is to be similar to on-wiki, then it is and the chanops have responsibilit to make that happen.  If standards are not at all to be similar or related, then we need to divest of any mention that an admins irc channel is in use, and as doc points out below come down hard on bad decisions that are "made without consensus".  --Rocksanddirt (talk) 20:47, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

So what is to be done about the poor decisions that seem to originate on #admins?
To refocus the discussion back to what Doc Glasgow appears to have intended at the top of this thread (and my comments above) - how do we as a community wish to address what appear to be poor administrative decisions, regardless of whether they are based on discussion on-wiki, in #admins, or just completely out of the blue? It's pretty clear there have been a lovely stack of poor admin decisions and actions relating to communication in #admins in the last 36 hours, and how much of that relates to the medium in which they were made and how much of this relates to admins not being able to analyse situations effectively with resultant bad decisions, remains something worthwhile to discuss. I'm concerned that a chanop's "joke" was taken seriously enough for another admin to "test" on the main page; and that an admin thought it acceptable to test things on the main page, but I'd be no less concerned if the same discussions resulting in the same actions had occurred on user talk pages, or via email exchanges, or on IM. We still come back to the same point, though - what is it about this particular channel that seems to spawn these out-of-step behaviours? Risker (talk) 19:39, 4 February 2008 (UTC)


 * A stupid decision is a stupid decision regardless of whether it originated on-wiki, by email, on IRC or out of an admin's head. Per Geogre's essay, all on-wiki action should be justified on-wiki, or at least on the mailing list where they are archived and publically visible.  Even if the impetus to test whether deleting the main page came from the IRC channel, it's still entirely the responsibility of the sysop who took the action.  As to the reason a lot of bad decisions seem to stem from the channel (a thesis about whose veracity I am not wholly convinced), perhaps it is a consequence of the fact that a high proportion of conversation between admins happens there, rather an inherent fault of the medium.  Sam Korn (smoddy) 19:48, 4 February 2008 (UTC)
 * I expect you are right Sam . Giano (talk) 19:50, 4 February 2008 (UTC)


 * Oy, how was my edit a stupid decision? Avruch <strong style="color:#fff;background:#000;border:1px solid #ccf">talk 19:55, 4 February 2008 (UTC)


 * What makes you (or anyone) think that poor admin decisions can be stopped by removing a channel on IRC? IRC doesn't make the decisions. Maybe what we need is better admins, or a stronger tradition of removing admins for poor decision making. I don't know that the problem of admin decision-making has changed in importance - what has changed is the level of scrutiny applied to anything that has roots in IRC. The channel isn't the problem, to put it simply. The decisions are the problem, and it doesn't seem at all unlikely that the same sort of activity could occur based on talkpage discussions.


 * The only difference that I can see between talkpage and IRC (aside from the history, which is irrelevant to the process of making a decision) is speed. A decision taken after consultation at IRC can be arrived at much more quickly, because the 'wait' time for affirmative responses is shorter. What can you do to solve or mitigate that problem? Well, nothing - it is again an issue of judgement. <strong style="color:#fff;background:#000;border:1px solid #ccf">Avruch <strong style="color:#fff;background:#000;border:1px solid #ccf">talk 19:54, 4 February 2008 (UTC)


 * (to Risker) They have been addressed in the past, they are being addressed as we speak, and they will be addressed in the future, all through the normal processes. East718's action and judgement will be scrutinized.  Carnildo and Durova were desysopped, Ryan and Maxim apologized.  Can you point to any bad admin actions that were based in IRC and not ultimately resolved by the community? (And of course, the issue in this case is not one of bad judgement or bad action on wikipedia, but of incivility.) Thatcher 19:58, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

The solution is simple. Admins are responsible for their own actions unless they can point to an on-wiki consensus which may mitigate a bad decision by "sharing the blame" between participants. If you make a bad decision and there is no on-wiki discussion, you are on your own and personally accountable for the result. It will not matter whether you discussed the matter with no-one, used e-mail, a sekrit mailing list, or a ouija board, if there is no on-wiki discussion it will be treated as your individual call. You may use any method you like for sanity checking, but you alone are responsible for the results if, whether for good or bad reason, you choose not to confer on wiki.--Docg 20:33, 4 February 2008 (UTC)
 * I agree, but this will only be effective if we also have a "community de-admin" system. That can implement some short deadmin's (esentially like the blocking policy we have now).  a day or two for the first stupid harmful decision, etc.  --Rocksanddirt (talk) 20:39, 4 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Since we don't have that for abuse agreed on-wiki, I fail to see the particular relevance to this debate.--Docg 20:45, 4 February 2008 (UTC)
 * well....as regarding admin activity over the weekend....we sort of do have it. a couple of admins made some poorly thought out decisions regarding the main page.  They have been suitably chastised for their actions (appropriate to the level of disruption, I think).  An other left his admin account logged in on a machine that was vandalized by folks in his dorm.  The account was deadmined, and blocked based on community discussion, until the whole story was sorted out.  I don't know that we need a formal request for de-admin but perhaps a more complete discussion of the remedies and prevention neccessary for irregular admin actions.  --Rocksanddirt (talk) 20:53, 4 February 2008 (UTC)


 * Whom would you have de-adminned, and why? I think the community tends to hyperventilate a lot about little things--not just IRC, but naval-gazing is profoundly interesting to some people here.  The really abusive cases have resulted in desysopping by Arbcom.  Is there anyone else you have in mind?  Also, remember that this case did not originate with private discussion leading to a bad block or deletion, but with an insult among two people that happened to occur in the channel but could just as easily have occurred in e-mail.  This did lead then to bad decisions on-wiki, such as edit-warring and David Gerard and Geogre editing a page while protected due to a content dispute.  Should they be desysopped?  If there was indeed some kind of community de-adminning process, I suspect that there are enough people who would be happy to see either David or Geogre desysopped that neither would have survived. Somehow I don't think that is what you had in mind when you made the suggestion. Thatcher 20:53, 4 February 2008 (UTC)
 * I don't have anyone in mind. just that a discussion explaining to editors and admins that a community discussion might lead to action against an admin as well as action against an editor, not that it all has to be done through an arbcom hearing.  I think in this case a week of deadmin for the two of them (david and geogre) might not have been a bad choice, if only to cure the protected page edit war that drove this to arbcom.  I'm thinking more of short suspensions of admin tools, not a loss of community trust, but a wake up reminder that admins have a responsibility towards higher behavior.  --Rocksanddirt (talk) 21:01, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

I think it's too bad Doc resorted to baiting people here. It's not as if this discussion doesn't have enough bad blood already. The issue is whether we should try and drive conversations about proposed administrative actions back onto Wikipedia or not. And if we don't want to, whether the IRC should have some implicit sanction or approval as a place to discuss administrative actions. It seems pretty clear to me that on-wiki discussion is more effective at arriving at a proper result, and is certainly more effective at heading off bad admin decisions. It's also clear to me that discussing administrative actions in a place most admins don't have access to (by choice or by some other circumstance) is a bad thing. No one is talking about shutting anything down, but it certainly makes sense to encourage admins to make use of the talk pages provided here for their work. RxS (talk) 21:16, 4 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Baiting? Try AGF. I was not. My sin was to use irony, which is obviously too subtle for some people. Is on-wiki best, generally yes. Should we encourage it, yes certainly. There's no dispute there. But that neither means the channel is a bad thing, nor that changing its status makes any difference. Everythign that can be said of the channel is true of e-mail, indeed more true. In short, there's really nothing can be done here except bellyache.--Docg 21:21, 4 February 2008 (UTC)


 * When did Doc bait anyone?
 * Furthermore, the main discussion (I think Risker misunderstands...) is not about driving such conversations onto Wikipedia. It is about accusations of corrupt machinations occuring in private. The solution proposed is opening the channel up, castrating it, making it impotent. This will but drive such conversation, should it actually occur, somewhere else.  Discussing controversial actions on-wiki is a totally different matter to dealing with bad administrative actions.  Sam Korn (smoddy) 21:24, 4 February 2008 (UTC) (this comment automatically merged with Doc's)
 * Mocking those who disagree with you by making a serious sounding proposal (however satirical) is baiting...you got the reaction I'm sure you expected. Unless you expected everyone to see right through the serious tone. See, eating babies is absurd and so his modest proposal worked, making false claims about Arbcom abuse and suggesting a way to eliminate it is (in this climate) everyday stuff. RxS (talk) 21:36, 4 February 2008 (UTC)
 * I'm sorry you don't understand the rhetorical purpose of irony. Sam Korn (smoddy) 21:38, 4 February 2008 (UTC)
 * And I'm just as sorry that you accept mockery as an accepted part of civil discussion. RxS (talk) 21:45, 4 February 2008 (UTC)
 * I mocked no-one. I'm sorry you can't assume good faith. That, and not IRC, is wikipedia's main poison.--Docg 21:52, 4 February 2008 (UTC)
 * I can assume good faith, and do most of the time. But you're wrong about the main poison here. The main poison is what people consider acceptable means of communication. But oh well...that's never going to change. RxS (talk) 22:33, 4 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Precisely, but the whistling in the wind has now become disruptive.--Docg 08:39, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

Break

 * E-mail this user: The function makes a mockery of "privacy," since it's the #2 way that Arbitration leaks.  However, e-mail is preferrable to the IRC, because it has an interestingly clear provenance.  If you send me an e-mail saying, "Jerk," I own the e-mail.  I can send it along to anyone I want (I might think of other people who would benefit from it), including here.  As bad as it is, it is at least clear.  There is no "privacy" in it.  On the other hand, we have had people here treat the posting of logs (where 9 people are talking and 60 are logging silently) as the height of illegality, as worse than bad blocks.
 * If we get rid of the one foot in, one foot out idiocy of IRC, where it is possible to conspire, we can work our way down to the one-on-one of e-mail. For myself, I note that I can turn off "e-mail this user" in my preferences.  I cannot turn off "talk about Geogre on IRC," though.  I can use a bounce filter on my e-mail, and I have a generous Spam folder.
 * Whenever this kind of thing happens, we're seeing a community that is no community. We're seeing people under such stress that they're fracturing.  It's a clear sign that the path being followed now is not working.  Address IRC's malignity, and we'll probably see less e-mail flying.  Address arbitrators with vested interests who don't recuse, and we'll see less leaking.  (Hey, if we had ArbCom elections and not selections, that might even make ArbCom more in tune with the user base.)  On the list of priorities, "turn off e-mail" is a bit lower than the other abuses.  Geogre (talk) 21:27, 4 February 2008 (UTC)
 * You can't stop people talking to each other, whether on particular IRC channels, through email or by other means. You may as well accept that.  What do you want to happen to IRC?  Be precise.  Sam Korn (smoddy) 21:32, 4 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Indeed. If there are conspiracies in the channel, how will closing the channel stop the conspiracies?  The cyberstalking and investigations lists started as cc groups before a host was found for a mailing list, and there are lots of ways of hosting private mailing lists.  Do you really think that people intent on hatching a conspiracy will be deterred by the closing of one particular virtual meeting space?  I suppose appearances will be maintained if the meeting space does not have "Wikipedia" in its name and a descriptive page in project space, but there will be no substantive change.  I'm not a fan of doing things for appearance sake that have no substance behind them.  At least if the channel is kept open, there will be an opportunity for more sensible people to put a stop to any conspiracies.  Closing the channel will only drive them (if "they" exist at all [1]) underground and into each others' arms.
 * [1] I tend to think there are few real conspiracies, mostly people doing dumb things with insufficient reflection and insufficient input.Thatcher 21:49, 4 February 2008 (UTC)


 * Me? I've said it already.  It's at my user space, which is where people should draft things to get feedback before going to namespace (something David Gerard doesn't regard as necessary for him, I guess).  Take a look, please.  Don't believe anyone who tells you that I "hate IRC."  I don't.  I do think it's a bad place for doing serious business, though.  On the other hand, I want en.admins.irc gone until it has community consensus to exist.  It did not achieve that when it was created, and despite what David Gerard said, it was not "created by Danny to deal with BLP issues."  "BLP" didn't even exist then.  Office didn't exist then.  It went up for proposal and got bogged down when some people asked why we needed it.  Those in favor have held a grudge against these people ever since.
 * A set process for reporting abuses on Wikipedia needs to be in place. A set process for querying logs needs to be in place on WP, as well.  The "ops" should need approval of some sort other than the laying on of hands.  The "contact person" with Freenode has to be subject clearly to WP rules.  A set of "best practices" should be adopted.  (That's what my essay was for, to determine strengths and weaknesses, to set out a set of best practices.)  We should have a regular place for submitting logs and an ombudsman or advocate for handling them.
 * There is no reason for this nastiness to have gone on this long.
 * As for "stop people talking to each other," you mistake me gravely. I want people to talk to each other more, much, much more.  I just want them to do so in the open.  I want them to do that where the person being talked about gets to know what's going on.  I want them to do it where dissent can be heard.  I want them to do it where a multitude of voices can be heard.  I want them to do it where there is a possibility of thinking and choosing words.  I don't want "Wikipedia" stuck on a chatroom and have Wikipedia actions coming from anything that brain dead and inherently inferior to Wikipedia itself.  Geogre (talk) 21:53, 4 February 2008 (UTC)


 * Very sensible comments, and I would have to agree with all of your recommendations (with the possible exception of deletion the channel, read on). My question is this: If WMF doesn't own/operate the channel, and has no formal authority over it, how is this level of control to be exercised? What stops someone from setting up a parallel channel without these generally sensible controls? Is there anything special about IRC hosting that WMF can't do it independently? <strong style="color:#fff;background:#000;border:1px solid #ccf">Avruch <strong style="color:#fff;background:#000;border:1px solid #ccf">talk 21:58, 4 February 2008 (UTC)
 * These things have been discussed to death elsewhere. Very briefly, Freenode recognizes JamesF as the top contact person, so he, in some sense, is the "owner" for all channels that begin with #wikipedia or #wikimedia.  (The issue is more complicated than that but let's avoid nitpicking please.)  Therefore, in theory, JamesF as a private citizen has final say over channel operators, logging, channel access, and all such similar issues, and could refuse a request from Arbcom or Jimbo to change current policies.  Certainly in the past James has refused to change policies at the urging of some vocal wikipedians, but Arbcom or Jimbo has never dealt directly with the issue before (for various longstanding reasons that some people think have never been sensible).  Freenode have said they would recognize a new top level contact if the community agreed to a selection process and then selected someone other than James (presumably someone who would be more agreeable to certain requested changes) but no one has yet attempted to advance such a proposal.
 * There are some 600+ channels with Wikipedia or some variation in the name, anyone can start one, James can have it closed but obviously rarely does so. In fact, last year Mackensen created #wikipedia-en-functionaries which is open to anyone, its just that no one ever goes there.  Geogre could create a new channel tonight if he wanted to, appoint his own chanops and set his own rules on logging, transparency and dispute resolution.  But there is no way to make people use it. Thatcher 22:12, 4 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Thats what I figured. My questions were more for pointing out holes than for requesting new information. <strong style="color:#fff;background:#000;border:1px solid #ccf">Avruch <strong style="color:#fff;background:#000;border:1px solid #ccf">talk 22:19, 4 February 2008 (UTC)


 * Thatcher, you don't think that perhaps the Wikipedia page telling people that the admins channel is there and that it's for admins has had anything at all to do with the population there, do you? If so, and if all the rest of what you say is true, then why would it be "endorsed by Wikipedia" by advertising if it's not subject to anything but the whim of one person?  Also, isn't that person a Wikipedian and therefore subject to restrictions by ArbCom?  Utgard Loki (talk) 13:52, 5 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Freenode have said they would recognize a new top level contact if the community agreed to a selection process and then selected someone other than James In case anyone is unclear of the scope we are dealling with here, I would point out that "community" here does equal en.WP. JamesF is the top-level contact for wikimedia associated channels in all languages, so any sort of new selection process would presumably not involve en.WP exclusively.-- Birgitte  SB  22:36, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

580 KB and counting...
Has a discussion page ever reached 1MB of text? Carcharoth (talk) 16:41, 4 February 2008 (UTC)


 * Maybe. The Giano case workshop was split into 3 pages and most of the discussion happened there in lieu of the PD talk page. Thatcher 16:46, 4 February 2008 (UTC)


 * It would be a good idea to chop this page into two or more pieces to improve usability and download speeds, and to reduce bandwidth consumption. Jehochman Talk 16:52, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

We keep this up this page will hit the magic 5000 Never Deletable Threshold. This edit by me is 1263. <font color="#800080">Lawrence § t/e 16:55, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

I haven't checked, but I suspect the record was set either in the first so-called "Giano" case or in the "Badlydrawnjeff" case. Newyorkbrad (talk) 17:22, 4 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Noting, of course, that records, in this sort of case, are a Bad Thing (tm). But the BDJ case had a workshop of 815KB, and the proposed decision talk page had two archives. In total, that talk was under 500KB. Here, the IRC workshop page (not the talk page) is 577KB. The Giano pages all seem to be rather small in comparison to these two cases. Carcharoth (talk) 17:33, 4 February 2008 (UTC)


 * Can some of the threads on this page be archived? <strong style="color:#fff;background:#000;border:1px solid #ccf">Avruch <strong style="color:#fff;background:#000;border:1px solid #ccf">talk 19:57, 4 February 2008 (UTC)
 * I agree with avruch, lets archive a bit of this. --Rocksanddirt (talk) 20:07, 4 February 2008 (UTC)
 * I comletely agree, it has all become tiresome and tedious in the extreme. Rather like waiting for death. Archive most of it, I cannot imagine anyone reads it. Giano (talk) 20:46, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

WP:WEA redirected
Please see Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Wikipedia:wikipedia-en-admins (3rd nomination). The discussion was closed as redirect to WP:IRC, plus directing the opening of an RfC to discuss the other issues. See the full decision by Ryan for details. Obviously this won't completely solve any problems (and may solve none), but it is a slow step along the route to reform if the community thinks reform is needed, and such reform (in concert with the promised ArbCom discussions on dispute resolution and matters of authority regarding IRC issues) may help to avoid editor conduct issues in the future. Whether the Arbitration Committee want to note the redirection of the page where the edit war took place, or otherwise comment on this, is, of course, up to them. Carcharoth (talk) 01:48, 5 February 2008 (UTC)


 * An RFC has been launched too - see Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Wikipedia:IRC channels‎. Regards --Joopercoopers (talk) 09:58, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/IRC/Proposed_decision#Geogre
Right now there are only two findings of fact that are passing. George's and Giano's. Can an arbitrator please respond to some fairly straightforward questions: Both of the findings that are passing refer to the "timeline" evidence, but bainer's (thebainer's? the thebainer's's??) commentary there implicates both David Gerardanalysis and Ryulonganalysis considerably more than Geogre's does.
 * Is it their contention then that these two editors are more "provocative and disruptive" than anyone else involved?
 * Since there are no remedies that reflect these findings, what exactly are they in aid of?

It might be sensible to clear out all the findings that fail (hello clerks!) so as to throw into stark relief the absurdity here. 152.91.9.144 (talk) 07:09, 5 February 2008 (UTC)
 * In fact, the David Gerard and Tony Sidaway findings are close to passing. They both need one more vote. If those passed, that would bring a nice balance to the case, in my opinion. I too agree that Ryulong technically breached 3RR, but I think the caution to all parties should cover that, though I still would like the committee to state what they mean by "all parties" here. Does that really include the bainer and some others that were peripherally involved? Also, the "what is passing" bit is rather out-of-date now. If the two FoF that I point out above pass, I think that would be ideal. Unfortunately, I have a sinking feeling that the Giano "civility" remedy (the one most likely to fuel ongoing drama and baiting) is close to passing. Any bets that there will be a last-minute switch of votes there to ensure that this passes? :-( Carcharoth (talk) 08:54, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

New remedy at workshop
I realize it's very late in the case, but I put up something new on the workshop and since traffic there is dead, I'm posting a notice here.

Requests_for_arbitration/IRC/Workshop

I really think this would solve any substantial "problem behavior" on his part, as the worse there's been has been during the course of arbitration. The Blip (talk) 09:47, 5 February 2008 (UTC)


 * You gotta love cowardly sock-puppets.--Docg 10:01, 5 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Per a CU check run at the request of Giano, it is my judgment that it is highly likely this is a sock of a currently indef blocked user, (now tagged as such) and I personally don't think we need contributions from it here. I leave it to clerks to decide what to do with this section. ++Lar: t/c 11:58, 5 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Thank you Lar. Giano (talk) 12:08, 5 February 2008 (UTC)
 * I removed it. Giano, let me know if you see any other post by him and I remove them. FloNight&#9829;&#9829;&#9829; 12:11, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

A further failure
Unfortunately this case's resolution fails to address the core issue which is that Giano, while an exceptional editor, can behave with impunity and be taken through arbitration without getting sanctioned for it. If not for his encyclopedic contributions, I strongly suspect he would have had a long ban some time ago. Even the remedy to give him a final warning is being defeated as too soft. The case needs some sort of actual, real remedy because otherwise this is simply going to flare up again in a month or two - warnings haven't worked, blocks are getting reversed whenever an admin is courageous enough to issue a well-deserved one, and this is a serious drain on everyone's time. To borrow from Jean-Luc Picard, the line must be drawn here. Stifle (talk) 11:26, 5 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Actually, I think it is pretty clear a line has been drawn. Whatever remedies pass now, Giano and other concerned cannot fail to know that they are drinking in the Last Chance Saloon now.--Docg 11:38, 5 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Again, I'm left asking "what behaviour". Seriously. Can someone provide diffs? I asked for diffs last time showing this oh-so-awful behaviour, and none were forthcoming. If it is a pattern of long-term behaviour, that shouldn't be tacked on to a case named "IRC". It should be a case truly named "Giano" (the first one named Giano was not solely about him) and it should give Giano a chance to defend himself against specific charges. The Durova case connection was Giano's posting of logs. This case involved edit warring on a page, even though logs were available to be posted. It is clear that Giano learned his lesson about posting logs. Why not give him a chance to learn his lesson with regards to edit warring on pages? Carcharoth (talk) 12:44, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

More generally, I am convinced that the root of the problem is the behaviour of invested users (and that includes some present, former and retiring Arbitration Committee members). If separate cases were filed concerning Giano, Tony Sidaway, Geogre, Phil Sandifer and David Gerard. I think it would become clearer that all of them, in various ways, flout the conventions of Wikipedia and stretch the rules - but that they all have the best interests of the project at heart (however much they might disagree). I could add other names to this list: Doc Glasgow, JzG, are just two. Kelly Martin was one. There is a clear development arc where people who have been around for a long time become: (a) increasingly invested in doing things their way (and feel their long-term presence in some way gives them license to say things others wouldn't - though some have always been like this); and (b) increasingly cranky about how they do it (this is crucial - some long-term users do the same things, but in a civil manner). Of course, the differences between the people I named above are much greater than the similarities, but I do think this is a problem that needs to be addressed. Some old-timers reinvent themselves, some retire gracefully into the background, some carry on as before, some blow up periodically, some blow up permanently and leave, some nurse grudges. All this sort of thing needs to be addressed, and simply focusing on Giano won't help. Oh, and it sets a very bad example to new editors. Carcharoth (talk) 12:44, 5 February 2008 (UTC)


 * The critical differenced is between those of us who realise we've pushed too far occasionally and can be cowed, and those who brazenly continue without any critical self-reflection. Look at the parties you've named, and then ask yourself, which are ready to acknowledge their mistakes and, at least occasionally, listen to criticism. Which ones, in the end, seek dispute "resolution", and which simply keep fighting everyone, always.--Docg 13:08, 5 February 2008 (UTC)
 * s/cowed/re-educated/. --Tony Sidaway 14:30, 5 February 2008 (UTC)
 * No, I don't think Doc wants to re-educate anyone. It is a common pattern I see repeated time and time again. When some people's patience runs out, they switch into "for the good of the project they must go" mode. When there is a significant minority (maybe even a majority) that disagree with that, then Doc (or others, such as Kirill) hold to their "enough is enough" line. They may see themselves as taking a principled stand, but they are, in fact, trying to impose their hardline philosophy over the (more forgiving) philosophy of others, and saying (in effect) "my patience has run out - I don't care whether your patience has run out yet or not, but mine has". Frustration is never a good basis for decisions of this nature. Carcharoth (talk) 22:35, 5 February 2008 (UTC)
 * It's not just Doc's patience that has run out. See proposed remedy 13 (which looks set to pass) and also the comments on proposed remedy 14, particularly the detailed reasoning in the first four objections. --Tony Sidaway 06:36, 6 February 2008 (UTC)
 * It is also clear that some people's patience has not run out (and also that some people don't think there is any problem worth sorting out and that people are over-reacting). When someone uses the "my patience has run out" argument, they need to state clearly what the problem is. I have asked several times for a clear statement (without vague hand-waving) of what the "problem" is with Giano, and have not received an answer. I have also stated several times that I strongly disagree with the "born of frustration" genesis of the "run out of patience" clauses seen in ArbCom and Community Ban discussions. I'll repeat what I said on Brad's talk page: "'I've always had a poor opinion of the various 'exhausted the patience of' clauses (both in Arbcom and in Community Ban discussions). It is not the people whose patience has been exhausted that should be enacting remedies, but the people whose patience hasn't been exhausted. Otherwise you get the situation where someone may still, in good faith and with little thanks, be working to calm a situation, or guide or mentor an editor (sometimes with some degree of success), getting shouted down by those who have had their 'patience exhausted'. If those who shout loudest that their patience has been exhausted are listened to, doesn't that discourage the thankless task of those who are prepared to put time and effort into continuing to resolve a situation'" It is my opinion that if someone gets to the stage where they have lost their patience, then this indicates frustration (even if it is long-term frustration) and that they are no longer calm and objective enough to pass a fair judgment. No-one has yet bothered to address that concern the several times I've raised it. Carcharoth (talk) 11:01, 6 February 2008 (UTC)


 * As one on the receiving end of a pretty plain "patience is running out" reminder, I don't have the luxury of dismissing it as the product of a failure of calm, reflective and fair consideration. I have long believed that the community is tired of this situation and wants an end to it, and the arbitration committee has finally caught up and, in my opinion, is headed for a solution we can all be happy with.  --Tony Sidaway 11:30, 6 February 2008 (UTC)


 * I disagree with Stifle. Giano's (and others) disruption in this case seems to have been brought about by a belief that the after more than a year of attempts to get the irc issues resolved (in ways that clearly delineated the uses, procedures, and what not) they were not being taken seriously and that the percieved and real abuses of the irc system were if not being swept under the rug, at least being ignored by the folks in charge.  Disruption is not the crux of this case, management and the relationship of irc to wikipedia is.  --Rocksanddirt (talk) 15:46, 5 February 2008 (UTC)


 * More talking at cross purposes. "The case" is an edit war: resolved.  It is IRC misuse: unresolved but promised RSN.  The arbs aren't interested in either of these things that actually concern Wikipedia.
 * Instead, the case is a host of "civility" charges that are 1) not defined, 2) not demonstrated, and therefore that the users who are supposed to have done them cannot (not will not, Doc) agree with. Am I supposed to agree that, despite no one telling me that I have insulted them, that somehow for years I have, that they just harbored this and communicated it to a third party who, like an avenging angel, waits for an apt moment to swoop in with a portfolio of crimes?  Doc is sore about an insult that I knowingly and intentionally gave and that I don't regret.  That's fine.  I have a different view of the value and place of harsh language than he does, and such has been the case for some time.  He doesn't have to be purged from the body of Wikipedia for it, but, apparently, I must learn my lesson.  It is a lesson I would gladly learn, if there were a concrete definition and a clear method for understanding what is "civility" and how it can be asserted, understood, and agreed upon by a large editing population.  Barring that, I rather think that we should avoid personal attacks, but we should also realize that "personal attack" is in the eye of the person.  Watch AN/I, and you will see, on any given day, "Block user:Bobo! He personally attacked me when he said that my holocaust denial/Bigfoot/UFO views were fringe!"  We will see other people saying (usually on IRC), "Oh, that user? That user is very incivil.  No, I've never spoken with him."  A charge only has usefulness if it has definition, but "incivil" is one of those things that can be asserted about anyone.  I could say that Doc was horribly "incivil" when he said that it would be welcome when I left the project.  I could say that Sandifer's 100 kb in a day of attacks on me initially were "personal attacks."  I could say, and I do say, that all of this "Giano is incivil" that isn't backed up by something specific and clear is a personal attack.
 * This is why I don't take it very seriously. I cannot be innocent or guilty of a charge that has no meaning, and people use "civility" precisely like a truncheon, not like an instrument of civil discourse.  Geogre (talk) 20:53, 5 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Intentionally only replying to a very small part of your statement, which I think is generally pretty silly (and if you can figure out a way in which that is a personal attack, you are welcome to give me an appropriate block/warning template), there is a very big difference between incivility and making personal attacks. You seem to be conflating them.  Sam Korn (smoddy) 20:57, 5 February 2008 (UTC)
 * The attitude of "if you can figure out a way in which that is a personal attack, you are welcome to give me an appropriate block/warning template" is part of the problem. People shouldn't be trying to figure out whether something is incivil or not. If you have to stop and work that out, or think that it is helpful to do so, then you are heading in the wrong direction. Do what I do when involved in an exchange like that - comment on the content, not the contributer (incivility is best pointed out by someone watching the conversation, not those involved in the conversation). Practically all the time, if you ignore an insult and force the person making the insult to reply to a question about the topic, then the impact of the insult is dramatically lessened. Frequently, one of the reasons for insulting someone is to distract them from the topic at hand. The best response is to keep the conversation on topic and refuse to be side-tracked. This is, of course, an over-simplification, but it is a surprisingly effective strategy when used well. Carcharoth (talk) 22:20, 5 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Geogre calls this "an insult that I knowingly and intentionally gave and that I don't regret". I need make no further comment.--Docg 22:34, 5 February 2008 (UTC)
 * You are focusing on the insult (and I read his 'q' vs 'Q' argument, and it is a valid one), and not on the philosophy behind it. Sure, not everyone should do the same thing - it is a very tricky thing to handle, and Geogre's rhetoric is, frankly, wasted here sometimes - it stands head and shoulders above most of the similar attempts. you insult Geogre's intelligence when you quote him out of context, ignore the main thrust of his argument, and drag attention back to the point you want to focus on. Carcharoth (talk) 22:41, 5 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Ridiculous. And there's a distinction between erudite and verbose.--Docg 22:48, 5 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Good grief! Doc, you're the one who wants all insults scrubbed, and you just said that I am not erudite but, instead, verbose?  That's not an insult?  Should I go into paroxysms of wounded ego now, or start a case?  Or should I just shrug, because I can tell that you're frustrated and angry?  The last would have been my way.  I guess I could just remove your comment instead.  Geogre (talk) 12:34, 6 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Yes, and funnily enough I've reached my limit. Some people can disagree amicably, some can't. I'd love to go round in circles, but I have better things to do tonight. Carcharoth (talk) 23:12, 5 February 2008 (UTC)
 * If you will willfully misunderstand what I was saying... I note you do not disagree with my main point.  Excellent :-)  I can't be bothered to reply to your other comment.  No matter what I say I won't convince you.  OK, here's a challenge.  Write this policy.  Make concrete suggestions as to what the concrete policy should say.  If, however, the only solution you manage is to say "this phrase is OK, this phrase is bad", I'll feel free to ignore it.  Sam Korn (smoddy) 01:08, 6 February 2008 (UTC)
 * I thought I made clear above that concrete policy is not needed for dealing with minor incivility? Just act like a duck and water and don't get distracted. That is not saying that incivility is OK - it is saying that it is sometimes best not to make a big deal out of some things. Carcharoth (talk) 10:40, 6 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Hmm, we appear to agree. I'll bet you'll call some things "minor incivility" that I wouldn't, though, and sometimes you do need to deal with things. But do you want a concrete policy? What is it going to say? I'm interested to know. Put up or shut up. Sam Korn (smoddy) 10:44, 6 February 2008 (UTC)
 * I'll let you guess when the last time was that I actually read WP:CIVILITY. Why would I want to write a policy (or guideline, or whatever) that I don't read. It is common sense, surely? Carcharoth (talk) 11:01, 6 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Oh, we do agree. Good.  :-) Sam Korn (smoddy) 11:04, 6 February 2008 (UTC)
 * That is good, isn't it? Having re-read it just now, I would suggest that CIVILITY is given greater prominence. Carcharoth (talk) 11:05, 6 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Ok, Sam Korn: do I "conflate" personal attacks and civility? No, indeed.  I believe, however, that one policy grew out of the other policy, when NPA didn't "go far enough."  I believe "civility" is used and is not useful.  If you will ignore all that I say about how we should avoid being insulting and ignore the distinction between a salutary desire and a muddleheaded practice, then I do not need to address you, either.  However, that would, indeed, be "incivil."  I consider it civil of me to keep trying to build the community by pointing out where some of the people here have not only gone wrong, but gone spectacularly wrong.  They would want decorations on the cudgel.  The ambiguity and poor wording of the policies is designed to make them ethical guides.  As such, I shrug my shoulders -- they're like a law telling me that I need to breathe.  However, these are being used to be charges.  The policies aren't written that way and are absurdly employed that way.  Again, I could point over and over to "move to meta to keep it away from the WP mob" as "incivil" and an insult.  If we take the bizarre step of going from, "Let's be nice" to "We will ban you for not being nice, after we throw templates and fits in your direction," then we become arbitrary.  To charge someone, there must be clarity.  To sanction someone, there has to be more than a third party deciding that a different person was secretly insulted because there is some quiddity in the words that is "incivil."  I repeat: I do not take it seriously, if people are going to try to levy fines and penalties on the basis of, "I don't like it."
 * I know I'm asking readers to follow an argument and not a statement, but I do hope (that civil streak of mine again) that people do and that they either address the argument (not a chosen statement) to make me a better and obedient Wikipedian or, best yet, to understand that they may either need to refine the instruments they're using or allow for peace. Geogre (talk) 12:34, 6 February 2008 (UTC)
 * I'm sure you realize that this is not a legal system, and we don't make any attempt to codify our practices into prescriptive policies, You're right that the policies aren't written in a precise manner, and are intended in some sense to be ethical guidelines. But that doesn't mean that administrators or arbcom are unable to enforce community norms; users are blocked every day for violating community standards that are only vaguely described in policy documents.
 * In this case, the issue goes beyond "I don't like it". FloNight in particular has pointed out on the decision page that the reactions of involved editors since the beginning of the case are one consideration. I'll point out that the criticisms of IRC could also be very coarsely characterized as "I don't like it". &mdash; Carl (CBM · talk) 14:40, 6 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Huh? There are plenty of cogent arguments about the disadvantages of IRC. See FT2's comment at the request for comments. See User:Geogre/IRC considered. See IRC channels/Personal views regarding IRC. Can all those be coarsely characterized as "I don't like it"? Carcharoth (talk) 16:11, 6 February 2008 (UTC)
 * I do think that Geogre's essay about IRC could be broadly characterized as "I don't like the fact that IRC is used for Wikipedia purposes", yes. Of course that doesn't capture nuance. My point is that the opinions of the involved parties about about IRC are repeatedly offered as an explanation for the edit warring on the WEA page. If, as Geogre claims, "I don't like it" shouldn't be used as a reason to sanction him for incivility, I am pointing out that it can't also be used as a justification for the edits to the WEA page by people who don't like IRC. &mdash; Carl (CBM · talk) 16:35, 6 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Anyway, George's talk of "charges" is just wikilawyering. This is a collaborative project, and when a lot of people over a lot of time request that you depart from ab abrasive tone and general abusiveness and stick to concise commentary on the actual issues, you shouldn't need to insist that they fill in form 34b(ii) or provide you with a semantic and comprehensive description of what constitutes incivility. If you are genuinely interested in constructive collaboration, you should be willing to reflect on what it is about your tone that might be upsetting some of your peers, and to attempt some modification of behaviour to meet those concerns. Gosh, even Tony Sidaway has been willing to do that. One of the problems here is the egocentricity of those who keep assuming that criticism of their tone and tactics is an attempt to "shoot the righteous messengers". That's bollocks. There are a number of us who, whilst we may disagree with their message about IRC, are quite happy to engage in any constructive debate on the issue. I, for one, did not edit WP:WEA in support of David Gerrard's interpretation of IRC, or in the insistence that concerns should not be mentioned there, I edited it in objection to a particular page being used in furtherance of a specific (and JUSTIFIED) dispute with Tony Sidaway - I objected to the provocative tactics and tone. I was happy to collaborate in trying to fine a reasonable remedy for Tony's remarks. Basically, my question: "can't we all just get along?" and "are you willing to help, by doing a little self-reflection?--Docg 16:57, 6 February 2008 (UTC)
 * The dispute had been dealt with by a chanop some time before the edit war started on the wiki. The arbitration committee has apparently drawn the appropriate conclusions.  --Tony Sidaway 17:41, 6 February 2008 (UTC)
 * The edit war was dealt with some time before this case was brought. The community can draw the appropriate conclusions.  --MediaMangler (talk) 20:27, 6 February 2008 (UTC)
 * See proposed findings of fact 4, 6 (which appear to be passing) and 7.1, 8 and 12 (which appear to be close to passing) for an explanation of why the case goes far beyond an edit war.  --Tony Sidaway 10:39, 7 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Perhaps my attempt at irony and reductio ad absurdum was just as misguided as Doc's earlier attempt. Since mine was so much simpler, less contrived and more direct I assumed my point would be immediately obvious.  It appears I was mistaken.  Your statement that "The dispute had been dealt with by a chanop" seems to be dismissive of FOF 12 which explains the problems on the channel as an ongoing pattern going far beyond a single dispute.  --MediaMangler (talk) 13:26, 7 February 2008 (UTC)
 * FoF 12 does not mention an ongoing pattern of problems in the channel; merely an ongoing series of disputes about the channel, which is different. Several of the arbitrators who voted for it pointed out that it's a truism. A key point is that it only speaks to the existence of disputes, not their validity. &mdash; Carl (CBM · talk) 13:31, 7 February 2008 (UTC)
 * It's not that I don't understand your attempt at irony, MediaMangler: rather that I strongly reject it on the basis of the emerging findings in the case. Your point about finding 12 is well taken.  I do not reject it or dismiss it.  We all have lessons to learn from this arbitration (which is the reason I think it has been necessary and productive.) --Tony Sidaway 13:40, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

Update and request for clarification
Since the one-year remedy 2.2 Civility: Giano is now passing, can someone clarify the following, please: Currently, the 'passing' section says: Principle 1, 2, 3.2, 4, 5, 6, 9, 12.1, 15, and 17; FoF 4, 6; Remedy 6. I think we can now add to those FoF 13, and Remedy 2.2 and 13. Carcharoth (talk) 16:38, 7 February 2008 (UTC)
 * (1) Does any closure of the case have to be postponed until voting on the enforcement ruling is complete?
 * (2) As the notes about what is and is not passing are out of date, do the arbitrators who previously voted close have to be informed in case they wish to change their vote?
 * (3) What is the normal procedure when voting on closing has started and additional remedies and findings of fact and principles start to pass after the motion to close has opened? Are there checks and balances in place to prevent single arbitrators, or groups of arbitrators chosing the right moment to vote a proposed section through and then vote to close? "24 hours from the first motion" doesn't seem to apply here. Is it also a convention to wait for all voting arbitrators to vote in the closing motion, or can a closing motion pass before all arbitrators have had a chance to vote?


 * I'd like to see the wording changed a bit (though it's certainly very late in the game)...I'd like to have Arbs perform blocks that fall under this remedy (remedy 2.2 Civility: Giano). Letting any admin who happens along enforce this is an invitation to drama, and avoiding drama is not something we've perfected yet...to put it lightly. I'd rather have proposed enforcement listed at Arbitration enforcement for Arbcoms attention. I'd like to see the prospects of further controversy reduced as much as possible and this seems like a easy way to help with that. A year is a long time... RxS (talk) 17:35, 7 February 2008 (UTC)
 * This is a sensible proposal. Which makes the claim by Sam Blacketer look rather strange: the claim that "It is clear that [...] no more appropriate remedies will emerge" - I can only presume that the arbitrators carefully discussed, on their mailing list, at least some of the other suggestions made in the workshop and on this page? There are many proposals, and even slight changes, that are clearly an improvement, both there and here. Carcharoth (talk) 17:47, 7 February 2008 (UTC)
 * It appears that any change to the wording of that remedy to make clear how blocks are to be performed would be unnecessary  Yomangani talk 17:51, 7 February 2008 (UTC)
 * And that seems the only dignified thing to do. I get the impression that this, despite appearances, is actually Giano 1-0 ArbCom. A classic own-goal. I'm going to go back to editing for a few months now, with a tinge of sadness, but not forgetting any of this. I don't expect matters will end here. Carcharoth (talk) 17:56, 7 February 2008 (UTC)


 * People's minds change, like I said a year is a long time...and I hope he returns. I think this wording change is important enough to take into account changing circumstances. Do any of the Arbs have any thoughts on this? RxS (talk) 18:03, 7 February 2008 (UTC)


 * Well, I just find the whole thing odd. Any editor can be blocked for incivility, personal attacks or assumptions of bad faith - it happens probably 50 times a day. And without the enforcement passing, (it's still not passing, though that could change), that means...umm...Giano can be treated like any other editor when it comes to incivility, personal attacks or assumptions of bad faith.  Of course, given his block log and the fact that most of the blocks against him have been regularly overturned because their basis is highly debatable, Giano may have a point about Arbcom painting a target on him. I tend to agree with RxS that any enforcement should be carried out by Arbcom as a committee. As Giano correctly points out, the community has agreed with him once again and decided the WP:WEA page did not need to exist. Funny how that works.  Risker (talk) 19:37, 7 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Apparently Proposed Remedy 2.2 in this case relates to Finding 7 and Remedy 8 in the Durova arbitration, which closed less then four weeks prior to the events involved here. There is also relevant material in the Evidence page of this case.  It is normal practice for editors wishing to delete a page to nominate it for deletion. --Tony Sidaway 20:18, 7 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Tony, perhaps it would be better if the arbitrators clarified their meaning. As a group, they have been remarkably opaque in their meaning (with some specific exceptions), so I think the ball is in their court. Without referring to the prior case, something they most certainly could have done at any point, it's anyone's guess what they're thinking. Risker (talk) 20:24, 7 February 2008 (UTC)
 * In Proposed finding 4 in this case, currently set to pass 9/1, the committee refers to its formal reminder in the Durova case. No guesswork is necessary. --Tony Sidaway 20:30, 7 February 2008 (UTC)


 * To Carcharoth, lots of proposals have been made for remedies in this case, many of which I favour, but I'm referring to the chances of them actually being approved by the committee once they get on the proposed decision page. More generally, I may be mistaken about this, but it is not my impression that arbitrators frequent arbitration enforcement. We tend to be far more busy with active cases and with mailing list work, whereas arbitration enforcement is for any uninvolved administrator. Given the history of administrator actions involving Giano, it may well be worth proposing that enforcement be left to arbitrators, but let us hope that is a bridge we need never cross. Sam Blacketer (talk) 20:37, 7 February 2008 (UTC)
 * I've added a proposal to the workshop I know it's pretty late in the game, but I think it could help avoid needless drama over the next year. I think we all hope it's a bridge we won't need to cross, but just in case let's try and reduce prospects of further controversy in whatever way we can. I know you guys don't watch that page as much as some, but enforcement in this case is unlikely to be an emergency needing prompt action and will probably be high profile enough for you not to need to watch the arbitration enforcement page. I don't know if there's enough time or will to add something like this but I think it's a good (and smart) idea.  RxS (talk) 22:23, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

Ptui
Ptui (it means "to spit" - though if someone could find a concrete reference for that, I'd be grateful, as it should be documented somewhere on Wikipedia or Wiktionary). Civil or not? Discuss. :-) This will be good practice for the enforcement of remedy 2.2... I wonder if it will help to find similar examples of personal attacks and bad faith and discuss those? Carcharoth (talk) 17:04, 7 February 2008 (UTC)
 * I STRONGLY think that administrators are not the politeness police. It is not administrators job to monitor other users for incivility and warn or block them. Occasionally being uncivil is part of the human condition. Administrators need to become involved if the comments are truly a problem. For example, we are tolerant of parties making uncivil comments during a case up to a limit. They need to blow off steam. But if they go too far and are stopping other users from being able to participate in the discussion, they will be warned by the clerks or arbitrators. Once an user has a civility remedy the situation changes. Admins are going to warn and block faster because the user has been identified someone that has interfered with productive discussion by their comments. FloNight&#9829;&#9829;&#9829; 18:53, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

What a strange place
I don't think I understand how Arbcom works. Can somebody explain these: Giano placed on parole for edits that are "uncivil, personal attacks, or assumptions of bad faith" as a response to a Finding of Fact that he made "provocative and disruptive" edits. Are remedies meant to be connected to findings of fact in some way? Is there a finding of fact that he was "uncivil, or made personal attacks, or assumptions of bad faith" or a passing remedy that puts him on parole for edits that are "provocative or disruptive". Presumably he can continue being provocative and disruptive as long as he doesn't stray into personal attacks or assumptions of bad faith. Looks ironclad to me. The Uninvited Co., Inc. opposes a similar restriction on Tony Sidaway "Per opposition to the related FoF" (Not The Uninvited's opposition I take it, as he voted in favour). And arbs are voting to close when they haven't voted or abstained on the issues (is abstention assumed? In which case why bother having an "Abstain" section). Yomangani talk 17:34, 7 February 2008 (UTC)
 * If an arbitrator votes to abstain, then the number of arbitrators need for a majority is reduced. Opposes have no effect on the vote except as a way to register an opinion of the proposal. The number of support votes is what matters. As long as the number of supports meets the required majority the proposal passes. Hope that helps. FloNight&#9829;&#9829;&#9829; 18:00, 7 February 2008 (UTC)


 * I can't comment on the other matters, but abstention is normally considered to reduce the required majority. Corrections to the following, which is my personal interpretation based on a certain amount of experience as an arbitration clerk, are welcome.


 * Presumably this works as follows: on a case like this there are twelve acting arbitrators so normally the number of support votes required for a majority passing motion would be seven, but if one of the twelve explicitly abstains on a motion that motion can pass with six supporting votes.


 * The effect is that every motion is implicity opposed by every active, unrecused arbitrator on which he does not vote to abstain or support. This explains why abstaining affects the majority.


 * The number of arbitrators active on a case is calculated by taking the number of active arbitrators and subtracting those who are recused on the case; this number may vary throughout the arbitration and, as now, at the start of an arbitration session the outgoing arbitrators are permitted to opt in to cases that started before the new session began if they want to participate (this applies to Mackensen, who retired during the course of the case and asked for his votes to be struck, and Fred Bauder). JamesF and Thebainer recused and five other arbitrators have either not opted in or are inactive for other reasons. --Tony Sidaway 18:05, 7 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Ah, that explains why the Abstain section exists but removes the requirement for the Oppose section (I see that if we don't make the assumption of an Oppose in the case of non-voting then Tony is found to have "engaged in repeated instances of incivility, personal attacks, and general lack of decorum" which doesn't seem fair as he's taken the time to answer my question). Anybody care to have a shot at the other questions? Yomangani talk 18:28, 7 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Let's say I've not always been Miss Sweetness and Light. The sections do have their uses beyond voting.  Arbitrators often give reasons for their votes that illuminate their interpretation of Wikipedia policies and user conduct. --Tony Sidaway 18:37, 7 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Tony, you said on my talk page that you thought that a civility remedy for you was an appropriate and would help the Community resolve the conflicts in the case. Based on that thinking, I would like to write up an enforceable sanction independent of this case that is posted on your talk page for a few weeks. Then we can move it to a subpage with a link on your talk page. Would you be opposed to me doing it? FloNight&#9829;&#9829;&#9829; 19:21, 7 February 2008 (UTC)
 * No objection at all. This is a problem that Wikipedia shouldn't have to live with. --Tony Sidaway 19:31, 7 February 2008 (UTC)
 * So that would mean a remedy concerning Tony "related" to the FoF concerning him that isn't passing? This gets more bizarre. I'm all for Tony holding his hands up if he feels he is a problem editor, but surely Arbcom should agree before a remedy-somehow connected to this case yet not connected-is proposed. Somehow, I didn't see that as the intention from your discussion on FloNight's talk page, but rather saw a FoF about Tony and an associated remedy in this case (rather than near it) being the ideal. Do you think the FoF concerning you should pass, Tony? It would really set my head spinning if you say yes and it is not passed. Yomangani talk 23:37, 7 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Any set of rules is bound to have imperfections and result in occasional odd results, as here. It would be perfectly possible for the Committee to continue debating and perhaps arrive at agreement on a suitable finding and remedy.  If not, then one outside the case will do the job just as well.  --Tony Sidaway 00:44, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

So the FoF about David Gerard passes?
I quote FloNight from above: "If an arbitrator votes to abstain, then the number of arbitrators need for a majority is reduced." . The finding of fact about David Gerard has two abstaining Arbs at the moment (Newyorkbrad and Sam Blacketer), which reduces the number of arbs voting there to 10, meaning that the six current support votes are a majority. Is this correct, and if so, can the page be updates accordingly please?
 * Edit: I just realized that the same is true for the FoF about Tony Sidaway, with one abstaining Arb. --Reinoutr (talk) 22:38, 7 February 2008 (UTC)
 * This case has so many proposals that we are going to need to double-check everything. With Sam's vote it appears to change it but we need to make sure it was an abstain not an misplaced oppose...that happens. Tony's does not have any abstains, only an oppose, I think. FloNight&#9829;&#9829;&#9829; 22:49, 7 February 2008 (UTC)


 * I may have to rethink that one. May I say it's no fun being a marginal constituency on your own. Sam Blacketer (talk) 22:51, 7 February 2008 (UTC)
 * I was mistaken about Tony, and struck it. But even if Sam changes from abstain to oppose, 6 is a majority with 11 voting arbs and 1 abstaining (Newyorkbrad). --Reinoutr (talk) 23:04, 7 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Point Reinoutr to WP:Arbcom Clerk Applications; clearheaded individuals interested in process are always a valuable resource. LessHeard vanU (talk) 22:53, 7 February 2008 (UTC)


 * It's uncontested as a fact. The sole opposition vote is on the principle, espoused by one arbitrator, that "there comes a point when the inclusion of unrelated problems shifts from a holistic assessment to an ex post facto attempt to justify findings which would not otherwise stand up."  As part of the essential healing process I accept that finding of fact, and declare that I have a duty to change my ways in order to enable the community to mend. --Tony Sidaway 22:55, 7 February 2008 (UTC)


 * I appreciate your honesty and helpfulness on the point. If the other arbitrators consent to remove 'a former administrator' from the finding I would shift to abstain. Sam Blacketer (talk) 22:59, 7 February 2008 (UTC)


 * Yes, at this time Finding 7 (DG) passes. Finding 8 (TS) does not pass, opposition does not change the majority needed, only abstention does that.  However, if Sam changes from oppose to abstain it will pass.  At this time a civility restriction on Giano also passes although the accompanying enforcement provision does not. Thatcher 23:04, 7 February 2008 (UTC)


 * The civility restriction passing without the corresponding enforcement passing is the worst possible combination, as a central focus of this dispute has been over Giano's previous behavior. Saying "that's not nice" without an enforcement mechanism only encourages more of the same behavior. I don't want to see Giano exit the project, but there is a need for a binding way to change his behavior, one which cannot be overridden by capricious unblocking. He has already gotten away with behavior that has been a blockable offense for lesser contributors; without a definitive statement that it will not be tolerated any longer, he is free to continue disrupting the project over something that is not a genuine problem. Getting rid of the Admin channel will not eliminate the IRC channel, but it will likely make the process less transparent, as a "private" channel elsewhere will likely be created, and it might very well exclude those who have been his most ardent supporters. A non-sanctioned channel might tell Geogre and Irpen that they may not participate, and they would have no recourse; under the current rules, there is not reason to block them from the "official" admin IRC channel, which allows Giano's supporters to monitor the discussions within. <font color="DarkSlateGray">Horologium  (talk) 00:21, 8 February 2008 (UTC)
 * You're slightly behind, Horologium. Unless NYBrad changes his vote, his abstention from the enforcement provision means that it passes.  Moot point anyway, as Giano seems to have left the building.  Risker (talk) 00:24, 8 February 2008 (UTC)
 * I can only base my comments on the previous statement by Thatcher, which states that the enforcement provision does not pass. If the enforcement passes, so much the better, although I am a bit saddened to see Giano throw in the towel. His contributions will be missed. <font color="DarkSlateGray">Horologium  (talk) 00:29, 8 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Yes, at the present the enforcement now passes. An additional vote came in after I made that comment, I believe. Thatcher 02:23, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

A difficult case
I said on the second day of the workshop of this case that I thought the Committee would have to be "very creative in seeking an appropriate and equitable set of remedies." Hardly an audacious prediction in the circumstances. It has proven a difficult case, and there have been moments when some of us had to "get out and push", as it were, by making concessions. I think the case has come together well over the past few days and now the end is in sight. I believe cooperation is essential for the health of the community. To help paper over the cracks I've accepted FloNight's suggestion that she draw up an enforceable remedy concerning me as an alternative to one that looks likely to fail in this case. That's both creative and sensible. The proximate cause of the arbitration case was an edit war that would not have started without my thoughtless choice of words. Part of this case has concerned widespread perceptions that some parties are privileged in some way. Those perceptions, which I believe to be false, can only be defused by painstaking work in the months going forwards, but this case makes a good start. --Tony Sidaway 00:12, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

Tony Sidaway Civility sanction FloNight&#9829;&#9829;&#9829; 02:36, 8 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Other arbitrators may want to add their endorsements, but I regard this as enforceable as of now. --Tony Sidaway 02:39, 8 February 2008 (UTC)
 * I think this is a community sanction, since it is not an official action of the arbitration committee. I will list it at the community section of Editing restrictions. Jehochman  Talk 02:44, 8 February 2008 (UTC)


 * I agree with tony that the perception of privileged parties is not reality, but there are absolutely some cliques, and some of the cliques present themselves from time to time as if they are special. The challenge of what to do about irc and the admin channel specifically is still out there.  And resolution of what to do there will I think be equally as challenging as the personnel issues that were evaluated here.  --Rocksanddirt (talk) 03:56, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

Noting two incidents
I want to make a note here for the record that I've seen two incidents in the last two weeks where the admins' channel was misused. On January 26, User:Random832 recommended to another admin that two admins (I was one of them) and an established user be blocked, because we were in an editing dispute with the admin he made the suggestion to. I was alerted to this by e-mail. I asked a channel op for help, and he put a stop to the discussion.

Today, I was e-mailed again to say that User:CBM was in the admins' channel trying to drum up support against me in a content dispute we were in. Again, I asked a channel op for help, and he intervened and upheld the complaint.

Given that the channel is full of admins, why isn't it possible for them to be self-policing? The channel must not be used to casually suggest blocks of established users who are simply in content disputes; or to find people to help you revert in a content dispute you're involved in where no admin action is necessary. I find it worrying that this isn't sinking in.

The only reason I know about these incidents is that they concerned me, and so I was e-mailed about them. I'm therefore assuming this is still happening quite a lot. What I'm thinking is that we open up an onwiki incidents board, where these misuses are noted. Then we'd at least be able to see patterns. SlimVirgin (talk) (contribs) 02:21, 9 February 2008 (UTC)
 * A corollary to that is a page setting out expected behavior (I make this suggestion as unironically as possible). Mackensen (talk) 02:25, 9 February 2008 (UTC)


 * I'm very interested in the fact that whoever e-mailed Slim about User:CBM using the admin's channel to "drum up support" did not bother to ask CBM to stop it. People really should speak up and ask folk to modify utterances if they are unhappy with them, rather than running about saying "you'll never guess what they're saying about you?". --Docg 02:28, 9 February 2008 (UTC)


 * Doc, people don't want to make trouble for themselves.


 * Hell, but they do like making trouble for others. Lovely to do it protected by the anonymity of e-mail.--Docg 11:13, 9 February 2008 (UTC)


 * Mackensen, I think that's a good idea too. We could have both -- a page outlining expected behavior, and noting alleged misuse. Perhaps if those people saw the incidents laid out on a page, they'd realize better why they're problematic. SlimVirgin  (talk) (contribs) 02:41, 9 February 2008 (UTC)


 * I feel that SlimVirgin is mischaracterizing my actions and the nature of the IRC channel. The complaint was indeed upheld, but without sanction. I neither asked for a block nor a revert - I said, "Anyone care to point out that changing the citation style of an article shouldn't be done?" and gave a link to a diff of an edit by SlimVirgin. Although my comment was not neutrally worded, it would not have raised eyebrows if I had left asked it on a user talk page on the wiki. SlimVirgin's complaint was promptly handled on IRC, and I will avoid such comments in the future. &mdash; Carl (CBM · talk) 02:39, 9 February 2008 (UTC)


 * No sanction was requested, Carl. It was too minor an incident, but typical of the kind of thing that causes ill-feeling nevertheless. SlimVirgin  (talk) (contribs) 02:41, 9 February 2008 (UTC)


 * And I think it was very clear you were asking someone to help you revert, which is why you linked to the edit of mine you didn't like, rather than, say, the talk page discussion. But either would have been problematic, because there were no admin issues involved, and you were on the admins' channel. SlimVirgin  (talk) (contribs) 02:43, 9 February 2008 (UTC)


 * My comment can speak for itself; my main point about it is that it is a comment that I would be willing to make on the wiki. One of the stated goals of the IRC channel is "to provide a forum for interaction among administrators." The charter is not limited to administrative tasks; one of the important roles of the channel is to provide a forum to get experienced third opinions: "The channel provides a place for admins to obtain input from their colleagues on issues that arise from time to time". &mdash; Carl (CBM · talk) 02:51, 9 February 2008 (UTC)


 * After months of talk about IRC, you're pretending not to "get it," which isn't helpful. If you'd be willing to make that comment onwiki, then do that, where everyone can see it. Don't do it on the admins' channel, where only a select group will see it, and where it's completely inappropriate to discuss it because it's a regular content dispute, which requires no admin action. It's very simple. SlimVirgin  (talk) (contribs) 03:00, 9 February 2008 (UTC)


 * Questions of which topics are appropriate for discussion on the channel will presumably be addressed by the arbitration committee at some point in the near future. &mdash; Carl (CBM · talk) 03:06, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

Another "incident"
To reply to the original Slim's suggestion, it would be a good idea if it was workable. Unfortunately it is not. Check the Moreschi's talk page for another, so called "recent incident".

I would love to see a workable board or ombudsman mechanism but I don't see this possibility. Since logs are only available to the participants themselves, it is impossible for others to know whether they have been the victims of #admins yet again save few exceptions of being alerted by a friend. Thus, there is no public liaison function for the ombudsman to perform.

While the channel's being in the center of this mess is obvious, the arbcom chose to "address it at some future point" (at which point it will promise to again address it at some yet another future point). Instead, since the case must have some remedies and #admins is not part of them, arbcom chose to write up remedies that ejected the most valuable Wikipedia contributors. Very disappointing.

It is pretty ridiculous. What we have is very simple. Some people do not share the view that is pretty much ingrained in the basic ethics rules of any society. The view that it is not appropriate to gossip, to discuss people in disparaging tone behind their backs, plot secret actions that would look spontaneous in the public project, etc. Such people's existence is not a surprise. But they should not be given a venue for such activity under the auspicies of WMF. I gather from the logs I've seen that there are other even less policed truly private places with those being hinted to obliquely. Fine and dandy. Do whatever you want at #secret-cabal channel. This would be just another Wikipedia Review incarnation with different goals and the same methods. But it won't we affiliated with WMF and it will not have a policy page onwiki, just the same way as we do not host the WR policies. --Irpen 03:09, 9 February 2008 (UTC)


 * I have much less of a problem with something like #secret-cabal channel. I know you disagree with me on this point, Irpen. But as I see it, I don't care if CBM and Random832 want to go into a private huddle with two or three others, or even 20 others, to hatch their plots. My objection is that, in the admins channel, they are doing it quasi-publicly. That encourages large numbers of people to get involved, and to see that certain admins are being plotted against, abused, insulted, ridiculed, which undermines those admins. It also discourages those admins from using the channel, which turns it into even more of a school playground for the few who misuse it. SlimVirgin  (talk) (contribs) 03:21, 9 February 2008 (UTC)


 * This is more or less my view, although Slim and I disagree on how systemic the problem actually is. While the exact relationship between IRC (including #wikipedia and #wikipedia-en) and this project remains unclear, a channel whose presumptive membership is en sysops is surely accountable in some fashion, if only through the removal of access. Mackensen (talk) 03:25, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

Huh? I am looking forward at you, Mackensen, enforcing your view on the "presumptive" membership through removing the access from Werdna (who never was an admin) and Betacommand who was desysooped by arbcom but still frequents the channel to ask for blocks and warnings to editors who "personally attacked him". Consider this an official request to you as a channel's sysop.

Slim, that Moreschi and whoever else speaks of myself and others behind our backs in a manner consistent with their views of good manners and ethics bothers me less than block-plotting and, in what I agree with you, the fact that it takes place under the official WP-affiliated channel. The point is that nothing can be done through policing. Mackensen tries his best and still things take place because Mackensen needs to eat, sleep, have a life and make a bread.

The channel is doomed to remain the source of trouble. That's why Arbcom's persistent refusal to act on this is so annoying. --Irpen 03:33, 9 February 2008 (UTC)


 * Sadly, it is simply impossible to remove bitching from personal interactions. No, that doesn't justify it, but attempting to stamp it out, or pretending you can, is totally pointless. It also happens in #wikipedia and any other channel you care to name. That people talk behind your back isn't nice, but it is unpreventable. If you can't handle it, you really best leave, because there's unfortunately no other good remedy. The only remedy for people badmouthing is the peer pressure of people in whatever channel saying "knock it off".


 * And that brings me to another point. I'm sick sick sick of people stirring up trouble by running off to people mentioned in a channel to "spill the beans" - this gets presented as righteous whistleblowing, well it isn't, it is trolling pure and simple. Put it this way: if I go to the pub with colleagues and they start bitching about an absent workmate, the proper thing to do is to say "hey, that's unfair, knock it off" or even "knock it off, or I'm leaving". It is pathetic to sit in silence and then run to the absent party at the first opportunity and say "hey, you'll never guess what they were saying about you?". In anything other than the most illegal conspiracies, telling tales is pathetic and usually designed to cause trouble. Arbcom want to regulating people bitching? Good luck to them, but they will fail. Having said that, I will commit myself to doing what I can to discourage it whenever I encounter it.--Docg 11:25, 9 February 2008 (UTC)


 * You might sit in silence if you were scared the colleagues would turn on you instead, Doc, and that seems to be the situation in that channel. You're right that the best thing is to speak up immediately in the channel. The next best thing is to alert the person being talked about. The worst thing would be to do neither. SlimVirgin  (talk) (contribs) 11:31, 9 February 2008 (UTC)


 * I have never seen anyone being turned on for politely asking people to change the subject. Have you?--Docg 11:33, 9 February 2008 (UTC)


 * No, but I've almost never seen it happen. SlimVirgin  (talk) (contribs) 11:37, 9 February 2008 (UTC)


 * So....? You you just assume that the reason people don't speak out is because they are "scared" that these nasty IRC people would come round and smash their heads in, and you do that after zero observation of the phenomenon? Hm. Actually, I've asked people to change the topic on a number of occasions, or ask people not to canvas, they occasionally ignore me, but I've never been trashed. I've seen others do it too, without any agro in return. So I guess I have some anecdotal evidence for disagreeing with your assumption of communal bullying and bad faith.--Docg 11:45, 9 February 2008 (UTC)


 * Furthermore, one of the main mantras of those against current IRC practices has been "no on-wiki action without on-wiki justification". This is, of course, entirely right.  If no on-wiki action has been taken, it's foolish to make a big on-wiki deal of it.  That can only lead to further annoyance and further strife.  Rather off-wiki matters should be dealt with, as far as possible, off-wiki, not just because it is far more practicable but because it is potentially far less damaging.  If an off-wiki discussion takes place from which there is no on-wiki action, it can reasonably be ignored.


 * Sometimes, when you're in a community, people aren't nice to you. Sometimes you've just got to cope with that.


 * I will, however, quite happily join in Doc's commitment. Sam Korn (smoddy) 11:32, 9 February 2008 (UTC)


 * If an admin is attacked by other admins (and non-admins) in the admins channel for being a bitch or a bastard, then clearly that has onwiki effects in terms of respect for that admin. Those effects could be very serious and long-lasting, thanks to the gossip of just a tiny number of people. But they're not the kinds of effects that can be calculated and pointed to.


 * Instead of criticizing people who want to clean the channel up, why not just be part of the clean-up? SlimVirgin  (talk) (contribs) 11:36, 9 February 2008 (UTC)


 * Inasmuch as I think the way people are planning such a "clean-up" are misguided in the manner in which they seek to implement it, I do not feel myself restricted to one course of action or the other. What is said off-wiki should stay off-wiki, for the sake of everyone's temperateness.


 * Please do not construe this as my supporting personal attacks in the IRC channel. I fully deplore them and fully plan to act on them when I do see them.  Sam Korn (smoddy) 11:42, 9 February 2008 (UTC)


 * If there had ever been evidence of self-policing without external pressure, I'd agree with you. Unfortunately, every single change has come about as a result of pressure from the people you're now criticizing.  SlimVirgin  (talk) (contribs) 11:44, 9 February 2008 (UTC)


 * Whether or not that's true (and I make no comment), that does not imply in any way, shape or fashion that they have the right solution. Sam Korn (smoddy) 11:46, 9 February 2008 (UTC)


 * But it was better than no solution, which is what you and Doc were engaged in, with respect. Look, until quite recently, we had people being seriously attacked, almost libeled in the channel. We had admins openly calling for other admins to be blocked for no reason. We had at least one checkuser performed on an admin just because of a content dispute, with his whereabouts and ISP discussed. We had older men discussing sex in the presence of young teenagers with no idea of how terrible it looked to onlookers, never mind that it was arguably breaking the law in some jurisdictions. We had people being called bitches and bastards. We had admins openly trying to get other admins to help them revert in regular content disputes.


 * Now, thanks entirely to pressure from the people you say have the wrong solution, most of the above doesn't happen anymore. So, even if not perfect, what they did was better than doing nothing. SlimVirgin  (talk) (contribs) 12:03, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

High profile Wikipedians and high profile topics
I think that some Wikipedians that are high profile are going to be discussed where Wikipedians gather. It defies commons sense to think that it is possible to stop discussions about them unless they are present. This includes both official places (like AN/I and other Wikipedia talk pages), semi-official places (like #admins and WpCyberstalking mailing list), and casual gather places (like gmail chat or Skype) that Wikipedians gather to discuss topics of interest. My 2 cents FloNight&#9829;&#9829;&#9829; 12:06, 9 February 2008 (UTC)


 * The difference between the other examples and #admins is that the latter is quasi-public, so lots of people see it without there being a log for the person being discussed to look at. The other examples are either open or closed. It's this semi-open quality that has always been the chief problem with IRC. And we're not talking about people being discussed, Flo, but being attacked, high and low profile. SlimVirgin  (talk) (contribs) 12:11, 9 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Closed lists of the like-minded are FAR more damaging as they don't just bruise egos, they can be used to get "back up" to support POV editing, and that has content implications. I'm more concerned by that. But again, there's not a lot we can do.--Docg 12:14, 9 February 2008 (UTC)
 * I'm not aware of any closed lists of the like-minded that are used to engage in POV editing, so if you have something in mind, you'll have to elaborate. And all closed lists are going to be far less damaging that the quasi-public trashing of people on IRC. SlimVirgin  (talk) (contribs) 12:25, 9 February 2008 (UTC)
 * We'll have to disagree on that. The IRC channel has the advantage of a wide access list that means the chances of stupidity being reigned in are far greater than in any closed-list (IRC or e-mail). I guess I'm more concerned with actions taken on the back of off-wiki decisions than name-calling. However, the only solution is for people present in a room, whichever room it is, to be quicker to speak out and ask people to moderate or change the topic. I'm going to work harder at being that (in all channels) and encourage others to do so too. Hey, I'll slip up, and I'll join in bitching at times, but others should trout slap me then. That's all I can do and, with respect, probably more useful than we dallying on this page. So, I'm going to unwatch now. We will disagree on much of this, but we can probably agree that there's little we can achieve here right now.--Docg 12:47, 9 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Flo (if I may be so bold), whatever other spaces where such discussions may place there is nowhere where there is such quasi or semi official recognition (including from the most high profile Wikipedian of them all), lack of record/accountability, and previous disinterest in rectifying failures or properly investigating complaints. The effect of having such a place even officially tolerated makes any abuse arising out of there have potential consequences far in excess than that which may emanate from a third party site. LessHeard vanU (talk) 14:46, 9 February 2008 (UTC)
 * There are many IRC channels for Wikipedia and other Wikimedia projects that I use daily. There are many interanl mailing lists with limited access for Wikimedia projects also. Some people purposely do not use them for various reasons including lack of transparency and others use them extensively for exactly the same reason. I respect the opinions of both groups of people and we need to find a solution that satisfies both. On Monday, I plan to start a discussion about forming a working group to address Wikipedia-en IRC related issues. Hopefully, this group or something similar will help us move toward finding reasonable solution. Thanks for expressing your thoughts. FloNight&#9829;&#9829;&#9829; 15:04, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

Flo, is the group going to gather at another supersikret location away from the public sight? (*Irpen hints). --Irpen 17:39, 9 February 2008 (UTC)
 * ;-) FloNight&#9829;&#9829;&#9829; 17:45, 9 February 2008 (UTC)
 * I would be interested in participating, Flo. I will also mention this on your talk page.  Risker (talk) 17:56, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

I see perfectly well the sense to limit the group's participation as too many voices may turn the chorus into a cacophony (just like most workshops). But there is no reason whatsoever to have the group hammering their guidelines out of sight (and control) of the general public.

If the group and its findings is to have an authority, credibility and, most importantly, respect in the eyes of both the #admins fans and aggrieved editors the group needs to develop its proposal in the plain view of all the concerned parties. This would prevent the group from being perceived as just another secretive cabal that strives to impose the rule of the selected few over the community. Remember that the ones who tend to object to the sunshine laws are often those corrupt. --Irpen 18:29, 9 February 2008 (UTC)