Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/IRC/Evidence

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Notice Create your own section to provide evidence in, and do not edit anyone else's section. Keep your evidence to a maximum of 1000 words and 100 diffs. Evidence longer than this will be refactored or removed entirely.

Anyone, whether directly involved or not, may add evidence to this page. Create your own section and do not edit in anybody else's section. Please limit your main evidence to a maximum 1000 words and 100 diffs and keep responses to other evidence as short as possible. A short, concise presentation will be more effective; posting evidence longer than 1000 words will not help you make your point. Over-long evidence that is not exceptionally easy to understand (like tables) will be trimmed to size or, in extreme cases, simply removed by the Clerks without warning - this could result in your important points being lost, so don't let it happen. Stay focused on the issues raised in the initial statements and on diffs which illustrate relevant behavior.

It is extremely important that you use the prescribed format. Submitted evidence should include a link to the actual page diff in question, or to a short page section; links to the page itself are insufficient. Never link to a page history, an editor's contributions, or a log for all actions of an editor (as those will have changed by the time people click on your links), although a link to a log for a specific article or a specific block log can be useful. Please make sure any page section links are permanent. See simple diff and link guide.

This page is not for general discussion - for that, see the talk page. If you think another editor's evidence is a misrepresentation of the facts, cite the evidence and explain how it is incorrect within your own section. Please do not try to re-factor the page or remove evidence presented by others. If something is put in the wrong place, leave it for the Arbitrators or Clerks to move.

Arbitrators may analyze evidence and other assertions at /Workshop. /Workshop provides for comment by parties and others as well as Arbitrators. After arriving at proposed principles, findings of fact or remedies, Arbitrators vote at /Proposed decision. Only Arbitrators may edit /Proposed decision.

Contents


[edit] Evidence presented by Christopher Parham

[edit] Misuse of administrative powers by David Gerard

[edit] Evidence presented by Phil Sandifer

[edit] Giano disruptively violated the 3RR

Giano made seven separate reverts to Wikipedia:IRC channels/wikipedia-en-admins on December 25th.

Four were to add the sentence "Arbcom has no control over this channel at all, but as the channel is used to make decisions concerning wikipedia," [1] [2] [3] [4].

Three more were to remove two paragraphs added by Jimbo regarding how to deal with problems in the channel: [5] [6] [7].

Given his previous edits to the page (such as violating 3RR to reinsert this content: [8]) it is clear that the intention of these edits was to disrupt the page, and that he was aware of the 3RR.

Note also that Giano was warned and briefly blocked for the 3RR violations on the 23rd.

[edit] Sean William unblocked Giano

Sean William lifted the 3RR block on Giano, saying that "Block did not account for the other participants of the dispute, see ANI" [9]. Note that no other participants in the edit war violated the 3RR, making the insistence on blocking others questionable at best.

[edit] Geogre has been incivil and made personal attacks

Geogre has made a wealth of incivil comments in this matter, including incivil comments and personal attacks about David Gerard [10] and about me [11] (Note that I am in fact wholly uninvolved - as of the time of writing I have not been in IRC in nearly two weeks, and had not participated in any previous discussions on this matter.)

Further incivility, including personal attacks (Some of these go back further than the main period of the case, and are included to show a history of this behavior as support for the needed remedy of a personal attack parole or ban of Geogre)

Against David: [12] [13] [14] (Last comment added in that edit) [15] [16] [17]

Against me: [18]

Against Guy: [19] ("Horseshit")

Against Tony: [20] Against people who disagree with him in general: [21] [22] (Accusing people flatly of "conspiracy") [23] ("HTH HAND") [24][25] (Note particularly the comparison to shooting people) [26] [27] (Referring to user conduct as an "atrocity") [28] (Referring to people as "tumors") [29]

These attacks have continued on the arbitration workshop page: [30] [31] [32] [33] (Referring to those he disagrees with as "monsters") [34]

It is also notable that Geogre has in the past all but declared his opposition to the civility policy: [35]

Geogre's defense that he has merely made warnings and stated his judgment is, frankly, even more troubling - his tone is consistently shrill, his examples and analogies routinely compare positions he disagrees with to gross violations of human rights and civil liberties, and his overall demeanor is dismissive and rude. And that's when he's not calling people monsters and tumors, and tossing around unsupported accusations. Phil Sandifer (talk) 23:00, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] David Gerard's relationship to Wikipedia:IRC channels/wikipedia-en-admins

This is from David's statement in the case, but it is an important piece of evidence that forces a reconsideration of evidence posted below regarding wheel warring:

The Wikipedia:IRC channels/wikipedia-en-admins page was set up after the Giano/IRC-related arbcom case of late last year. The page is an odd one as "policy" pages go; I wrote it after the complaints of it being an undocumented private channel (complaints notably coming from ... Giano, Geogre and Irpen, the edit warriors this time around who say they now want the page removed!). Unlike the typical Wikipedia: policy page which describes a policy determined on the wiki whose power flows directly from the community, this describes a policy determined by the group contact (James Forrester), his designated agents for the purpose (me), Jimbo and the Arbitration Committee themselves (there being considerable discussion of the channel and how to keep it working on the AC list in late 2006 and early 2007). As such, there is such a thing as right and wrong edits to make to it - statements of reality that are not as determined by that small group.
That's why I locked it and edited it locked - it's not a general wiki policy page in the usual sense, but is present in Wikipedia: space as useful information. If the arbcom considers that unacceptable, then I ask them to keep in mind the circumstances of the page's creation, the origins of its contents and their own involvement therein.

Salient points:

  • The page is not a normal policy page, and several policies, most notably WP:OWN do not apply straightforwardly.
  • David possesses a special right to edit the page based on current policy towards IRC, and could reasonably have expected that his actions would not be construed as wheel warring.
  • Geogre does not enjoy any comparable privileges, and could not have reasonably thought that he did.

[edit] Giano is protected

Giano is routinely protected from the consequences of his policy violations. Starting a year ago, and going from Giano's block log: [36]. There are, within about a one year period, seven separate incidents of blocks and swift unblocks that served to protect Giano and condone his policy violations.

  1. Giano is blocked for two days for personal attacks by Chairboy. The block is reversed about a half hour later by Jimbo, who makes clear that he endorses the block and is making "a FIRM request for civility going forward"
  2. Less than a week later, Naconkantari blocks Giano for 24 hours for personal attacks. The block is reversed an hour later by Lar, who says "Blocking for personal attacks is not an effective mechanism any longer." This despite the recent note that Jimbo endorses an incivility block and firmly requested more civility.
  3. In late April, Naconkantari blocked Giano for three hours for disruption. Halfway through the block, Steel359 unblocked per ANI consensus.
  4. On June 16th, TheBainer blocked for 24 hours for incivility. Geogre unblocked 13 minutes later.
  5. On December 23rd, Giano received a 3RR block for edit warring on the en-admins page. The block was extended due to incivility. LessHeard VanU lessened the block to a short block for the 3RR violation, which was then lifted by Doc Glasgow on the grounds that reblocking for 15 minutes was silly.
  6. On December 26th, Giano was blocked by me for 3RR violations. Sean Williams unblocked on the grounds that I had not considered the behavior of other people.

Now let's look at the specific incidents.

  1. This incident clearly stemmed from examples of genuine incivility on Giano's part: [37] [38] [39].
  2. Indeed, this block was also for a personal attack merely five days after Jimbo's previous unblock: [40]. Giano celebrates his unblock by mocking Nacokantari's name: [41], and gloats about his own unblockability: [42].
  3. Edit warring on April 30th: [43] [44] [45]. This is coupled with his usual incivility: [46], and his response to his block is to crow about how foolish it is to block him: [47]
  4. Certainly instances of both incivility and disruption here: [48] [49] [50]. Note also that Geogre, the unblocking admin here, claims that there was no warning about civility. This is flatly untrue: [51]. Note also that Geogre had been involved in the dispute that led to the block: [52]

The remaining two incidents, on the 23rd and 26th, are well-covered by evidence elsewhere, but the point is clear: Giano is frequently protected from blocks for incivility, disruption, and edit warring. He knows that he enjoys this protection, is happy to gloat about it, calling efforts to sanction him "foolish," and he behaves disruptively as a matter of routine.

[edit] Response to Lawrence's evidence

I will ignore the Webcomics case - I will readily admit that situation got overheated, and the light warning of civility to all was deserved. I point out that the personal attacks finding is mis-listed - it did not pass, as it required 5 to pass.

Likewise, I have little to say about Dmcdevit's two year old comment (in no small part because I don't even remember the dispute, even after reading the thread).

The evidence of incivility, then. Most of this relates to my occasional use of profanity. WP:CIV mentions profanity in the context of directing it at other users. A thorough scouring of my contributions on Lawrence's part has managed to find a few instances where I used profanity, few of which were directed at other users. Some were general ("What the fuck is wrong with you people" when directed at an article that had maintained a discussion of superhero genitalia for some time), some were utterly non-directed (Unless Lawrence means to argue that I've been very mean to the template namespace. I admit, I have been rude towards that namespace. I don't think that's what WP:CIV is talking about. I have been curt at times when reverting the same addition of malicious comments to my talk page for the fifth or sixth time.

At best this is evidence that I can be curt or brusque. But it is not evidence that I direct profanity at other contributors. My understanding is that there is not a blanket ban on the use of profanity in Wikipedia discussions. I use it for the purpose it is intended for - occasional effect, occasional humor. But the claim that I am routinely incivil doesn't hold water - my profanity is not typically directed *at* anybody. It is exasperated shouting at the wind, scattered occasionally over years of contributions that have been dug through. The vast majority of diffs cited are nothing more than me exasperatedly and bewilderedly reverting bizarre edits, often months after they happened.

That leaves my ill-advised comment on Giano's talk page. To that I will only say, look at the comment it was responding to. I was not baiting Giano. I got baited. Phil Sandifer (talk) 20:02, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Evidence presented by User:Maxim

I will have more diffs for my assertions, re. editwarring/wheelwaring --Maxim(talk) 01:35, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Giano has been unnecessarily disruptive previously and now

And more similar egregious behaviour. This kind of behaviour has provoked unnecessary drama and disruption.

[edit] Geogre has abused his administrative privileges and editwarred

Editwarring: [63] [64] [65] [66] [67] [68] Wheel-warring: [69] Abuse of rollback: [70] [71]

Geogre has abused his rollback tool, he reversed a protection to continue the edit-war, apparently in the notion that Giano couldn't edit, as he was one of the very few non-admins involved in this

[edit] Administrators have been editwarring

Numerous administrators have editwarred; by looking at the history of Wikipedia:IRC channels/wikipedia-en-admins, there are 10 users who have edit-warred, of which 8 are admins, one former, and another who is a very experienced users, has been blocked for doing that before and should know better, and so do all the others:

  1. Geogre (talk • contribs • blocks • protects • deletions • moves • rights)
  2. Giano II (talk · contribs)
  3. AzaToth (talk • contribs • blocks • protects • deletions • moves • rights)
  4. Betacommand (talk · contribs)
  5. Bishonen (talk • contribs • blocks • protects • deletions • moves • rights)
  6. Ryulong (talk • contribs • blocks • protects • deletions • moves • rights)
  7. John Reaves (talk • contribs • blocks • protects • deletions • moves • rights)
  8. Coredesat (talk • contribs • blocks • protects • deletions • moves • rights)
    1. Sean William (talk • contribs • blocks • protects • deletions • moves • rights) With many apologies, this was in error
  9. David Gerard (talk • contribs • blocks • protects • deletions • moves • rights)

[edit] Abuse of rollback

These users have used a rollback feature, or something similar (i.e Undo, twinkle)

  1. Geogre (talk · contribs)
    1. ([72][73])
  2. AzaToth (talk · contribs)
    1. ([74][75][76][77])
  3. Doc glasgow (talk · contribs)
    1. ([78][79])

[edit] Locus of dispute

The dispute is center around WP:WEA, the on-wiki info page about #admins IRC channel, and the information on the page.

[edit] Evidence presented by Tony Sidaway

[edit] I was wrong

My actions on the channel #wikipedia-en-admins in response to comments by Bishonen were grossly inappropriate. I was wrong. I will try to make amends. -Tony Sidaway 02:51, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] I invited Bishonen to contact me

Bishonen is correct to state that I have not contacted her, but she doesnt' have the whole story. I asked her to talk about her grievance in email at the time she raised the matter (this can be seen on the log).

Doc glasgow can probably also corroborate that I asked him to help to mediate this dispute.

I was not prepared to export the dispute from the IRC channel to Wikipedia. Nor was I prepared to initiate an exchange on my own by email, fearing that she might misinterpret my approach as an attack. --Tony Sidaway 07:27, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

Bishonen have discussed the matter in private on IRC and the section below titled "There is a history of bad blood to which I have contributed" was written by me, and the wording adjusted in response to comments and requests by Bishonen, during the course of that discussion, on January 8, as part of my attempt to make amends. --Tony Sidaway 14:14, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Bishonen has complete and absolute permission and discretion

Bishonen has absolute permission to make, publicly, any submission from IRC logs quoting anything stated actually or purportedly by me that she believes may be relevant to her grievance. She may solicit logs from third parties. Those solicited should feel free to submit them for her consideration. I take all responsibility for everything I have said. She has my permission to quote extensively from my statements online, whether they are about her or any other party. She may quote without attribution to her sources. Obviously she already has an absolute right in policy to submit such material to the Committee, and my offer isn't intended to deny or prejudice that right of private submission of evidence.

I ask her to respect the privacy of others who might have been using IRC at the time. I wish to clear up her grievance with me. --Tony Sidaway 02:09, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] When the issue was brought to the wiki by Giano, I may have exacerbated it by my response

I reverted two attacks on me by Giano on my user talk page that were apparently the result of his interpreting a log from the IRC channel. My edit summaries were grossly inappropriate and inflammatory (see evidence by User:Thebainer), and this was brought to my attention by people using the admins IRC channel. I calmed down and apologised to Giano for the inappropriate edit summaries [80].

While I was vaguely aware during December 23 that he had also been engaging in edit warring on Wikipedia:IRC channels/wikipedia-en-admins (WP:WEA) at the time, I did not piece the two together until later because Giano edit warring on that page is not unusual, and I do not regard the page content as important, so for a time I remained unaware that his edits were a reaction to my behavior on the channel (until Newyorkbrad hinted at this in discussion on IRC). His edit warring on that page followed approximately 24 hours after my own angry edit summaries on my user talk page and continued after my apology. --Tony Sidaway 16:57, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] There is a history of bad blood to which I have contributed

My manner of expressing my opinions undermined my cause and fostered division among Wikipedians. In the Inshanee case, to pick a good example, I persisted in a very speculative and damaging line of questioning that brought the arbitration committee to the brink of banning me from future arbitration cases. User:Thebainer has in the course of investigating this case encountered some particularly ripe and frankly embarrassing examples of intemperate behavior and expression by me [81]. These were wrong, unacceptable from any Wikipedian and must never be repeated. --Tony Sidaway 18:24, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Evidence presented by Ryulong

[edit] My own involvement in the edit war has been minimal

I really don't see myself as part of this ongoing dispute between what I perceive as a dispute between a clique of users who abhor the existence of #wikipedia-en-admins and the users of the aforementioned channel. I do comment in the channel, but my editting of the page about the channel on the website has been ulimately minimal. This is a summary of my part in the edit war, as it most certainly is.

  1. 18:40, December 25, 2007 (UTC) - I reinstate content that was added by Jimbo in an attempt to end the dispute, which had been removed multiple times by both Giano and Geogre. [82] [83] [84] [85] [86] [87]
  2. 18:40, December 25, 2007 (UTC) - I undo an edit by Geogre that I perceive as inappropriate content and editorialization which was first placed at 18:14, December 25, 2007.
  3. 18:50, December 25, 2007 (UTC) - I begin the tread titled This vendetta has to end on the talk page, with continued discussion that is visible on the talk page.
  4. 19:58, December 25, 2007 (UTC) - I revert what I perceive as an inappropriate edit by Giano. I revert again at 20:08, December 25, 2007 (UTC)
  5. 20:06, December 25, 2007 (UTC) - I warn Giano that he's breached WP:3RR and that if he persists he will be blocked. I never state that I would be the one to block, as I am falsely accused several times. I continue to discuss this on Giano's talk page, where at some point User:Irpen and User:MrWhich interject at some point. Giano does not archive this content, as is evident by User talk:Giano II/archive 7. The content of the thread including baiting by both Irpen and MrWhich can be seen here.
  6. 22:54, December 25, 2007 (UTC) - Minor edit
  7. 7:22, December 26, 2007 (UTC) - I undo an edit by User:Jouster which had been done earlier by Geogre that had been added with the falsely leading edit summary "verb mood."

I honestly don't see myself as a party in this. I attempted to stop the dispute, and only made the above edits to the page. Even Geogre does not see me as an included party and had edited my initial statement without my consent, and even attacked it, as I was planning on bringing this to the arbitration committee in June when Giano had decided to edit Wikipedia:IRC channels/wikipedia-en-admins in an equally disruptive way.

[edit] Giano, Geogre, et al. have edit warred

The following is simply the edit warring over a sentence added by Jimbo.

By Geogre
  1. [88]
  2. [89]
  3. [90]
By Giano
  1. [91]
  2. [92]
  3. [93]

[edit] Giano has been querelous in edit summaries

  1. RV back to the truth
  2. RV not a beleif that happens to be the truth! - now stop edit warring
  3. rv Aza Toth seems to be behind the times
  4. check your mail to see what rubbish this paragraph (now removed) is
  5. If you can't face the truth at least don't have a pack of lies
  6. rv TO THE TRUTH!
  7. rv back to THE TUTH [sic]
  8. You want I publish the logs as evidence?

[edit] Geogre has enabled Giano's disruption

  1. Oh, we're going to tell the truth now? Wow! Do we have permission from David to tell the truth? He owns this page.
  2. Reverted edits by David Gerard (talk) to last version by Wknight94
  3. Unprotected Wikipedia:IRC channels/wikipedia-en-admins: NEVER protect to shoo away a single user, David. The protection was 100% illicit
  4. *sigher* (Is this the /man page for Freenode? Why don't we say what's true?)
  5. Reverted edits by AzaToth (talk) to last version by Geogre
  6. "has no direct evidence" is not proper rationale; see talk and gain consensus before substantially destructive edits; this is how Wikipedia works
  7. Now *that* is honest, and it's got active voice verbs!
  8. verb mood
  9. The COI vendetta must end

In June 2007, Geogre unblocked Giano after Thebainer blocked him for "incivility, despite exhortations to avoid being uncivil."

Geogre has also wheel warred at Wikipedia:IRC channels/wikipedia-en-admins after it had been protected by David Gerard and after it had been deleted by Doc glasgow.[94]

[edit] Blocks do not work

Giano has been blocked a total of 15 times and has been unblocked 13 times under the user name Giano II. In total, Giano has been blocked for approximately 14h 57min. This does not include the blocks under Giano (talk · contribs) of which the block log had been expunged and the account abandoned. This is ordeal is described in Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Giano in greater detail. None of these blocks have served any purpose of getting Giano to change his actions on Wikipedia, and only seems to strengthen him and his stubborn ideals.

[edit] Irpen assumes bad faith

In my warning (often read as a threat) towards Giano, Irpen suggests that I do not write articles.

[edit] MrWhich assumes bad faith

MrWhich "seconds" this question and later assumes that I was seeking to block Giano.

[edit] Evidence presented by Coredesat

[edit] Incivility by Giano II

All I really have to offer is further examples of gross incivility and personal attacks on the part of Giano and MrWhich, namely here, here (when I had indicated I was working to help resolve his autoblock), here (a threat to use private logs to humiliate me), [95], here (quite a while after I agreed to the unblock), here, and this personal attack. All this shows is how full of himself he is acting, in violation of WP:CIV and WP:POINT (as mentioned by Rockpocket here). Giano does everything he can to gain the upper hand in a dispute, resorting to threats and incivility, and when he feels he has won, proceeds to hammer his "opponents" into the ground. That, and he uses the fact that admins are hesitant to reprimand or warn him for various actions to his advantage; he immediately resumed edit warring on WP:WEA the next day. This sort of goes hand in hand with Maxim's evidence presented above. --Coredesat 04:43, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] My presence on the IRC channel

I would also like to add that while I was in the IRC channel that day, I was not in the channel when the events in question occurred, and I had not been participating in any relevant discussion until I saw on-wiki that Giano was being incivil toward everyone on his user talk page. I left shortly after. All the other stuff here is news to me. --Coredesat 04:45, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] My comment on ANI

I would also like to note that I was frustrated to the point of nearly leaving the project by the whole ordeal, and made a comment that might indicate I hold a grudge; while I was very upset, I'd like to make it clear that I don't hold a personal grudge against Giano. I made the comment because I personally disagreed with what I was doing at that time - I felt Giano deserved the 72-hour block for reasons already detailed by Maxim above. --Coredesat 06:08, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Evidence presented by Penwhale

[edit] Underlying principle problem

While ArbCom can consider private exchanges (e.g. e-mails), they've never made it clear regarding IRC logs. Since ArbCom has no jurisdiction (technically) over private e-mails, it isn't so much different from IRC channels. In one of the earlier cases (case name fled my mind), editors were sanctioned because of private e-mail correspondence. IRC logs, if quoted in its entirety (and submitted privately to arbcom-l, for example), should be treated as private correspondence and accepted whether Arbitrators can make any decision based on the treatment of IRC channels. (Which, I firmly believe, being unofficial channels of WP, they cannot pass anything related to the channels without making the channels official) - Penwhale | Blast him / Follow his steps 08:41, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Evidence presented by Carcharoth

[edit] Locus of the dispute

The locus of the dispute is Wikipedia:IRC channels/wikipedia-en-admins and Wikipedia talk:IRC channels/wikipedia-en-admins. The evidence here lays out the timeline and the numbers of edits and editors involved from 23 December to 26 December 2007, while briefly covering the earlier history as well. The reasons for the creation of the page are not covered here.

[edit] Editors of Wikipedia:IRC channels/wikipedia-en-admins who reverted or used admin tools during the current dispute

This section covers the editors involved (some only tangentially) in the current dispute, and are from the editors listed here. The list will be annotated to indicate the level of involvement, with the aim of ascertaining whether the involvement rose to the level of knowingly participating in the edit war (those who are clearly uninvolved are in the next sections). References to the 14-stage edit war refer to this. NB. Annotations not yet finished.

Minor involvement, possible edit warring
Clearly involved and edit warring to varying degrees
  • User:Giano II - sixteen edits (initial edit followed by numerous reverts, three of which were part of the 14-stage edit war)
  • User:Geogre - eight edits (including several reverts, one page unprotection, and one undeletion of the page - three of the reverts were part of the 14-stage edit war)
  • User:David Fuchs - one edit (a revert, an undo action with the additional edit summary "this is not constructive"). Already involved due to simultaneous block of Giano.
  • User:AzaToth - four edits, all reverts (two of the reverts were part of the 14-stage edit war)
  • User:David Gerard - twenty-four edits and one page protection (some reversion, mostly rewriting and editing the page, but some while it was protected, one of the reverts was part of the 14-stage edit war)
  • User:Irpen - seven edits (one of these was a revert as part of the 14-stage edit war)
  • User:Coredesat - one edit - a revert, part of the 14-stage edit war
  • User:Betacommand - three edits (two identical reverts as part of a mini-edit war with Giano, and another, more substantial, revert as part of the 14-stage edit war)
  • User:Ryulong - six edits (some reverts, one was part of the 14-stage edit war)
Not yet examined
  • User:Doc glasgow - six edits, several reverts, and one deletion of the page
  • User:Bishonen - three edits (one revert)
  • User:Jossi - two edits (one revert)
  • User:Jouster - three edits (one revert, one null edit to comment in the edit summary, and one minor edit) four edits (one revert, with commentary in the edit summary, and three minor edits, one with commentary in the edit summary)

[edit] Editors of Wikipedia:IRC channels/wikipedia-en-admins who attempted to calm or resolve the current dispute

  • User:GDonato - one edit (a revert of content added by Bishonen, with a plea in the edit summary to stop this because it is unhelpful)
  • User:Jimbo Wales - one edit (a rewrite of part of the document, and an edit summary stating the edit is intended to move things forward)

[edit] Uninvolved editors who protected Wikipedia:IRC channels/wikipedia-en-admins

Clearly uninvolved page protections.

[edit] Editors of Wikipedia:IRC channels/wikipedia-en-admins who were uninvolved in the current dispute

While some of these editors may have been involved elsewhere (such as the talk page), they did not get involved in the editing of the disputed parts of the page in the time period in question. Some were and remain totally uninvolved.

[edit] Discussion took place in edit summaries and on the talk page

The evidence here summarises the comments in the edit summaries in light of the talk page discussion, in an attempt to show that these were experienced users who were using (to a greater or lesser extent) both methods of communicating their intent and engaging in discussion with others. Some of the edit summaries were direct continuation of talk page discussions. Diffs and quotes to follow. Actually, see the "14-stage edit war" bit - that give a flavour of the edit summaries being used, and has a link to the talk page history, though links to the whole talk page threads are still needed. Carcharoth (talk) 04:24, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Other locations where discussion took place

This section covers on-wiki discussions about this dispute.

That should be most of them. Carcharoth (talk) 15:59, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

Adding some new discussions as well, for an attempt at a complete record:

[edit] The main edit wars

During this dispute, there were several different edits wars over several bits of text. Not all the edit wars need to be clearly shown to demonstrate the extent of the edit war. The main edit wars will be detailed here, looking at the clear reverts.

[edit] Edit war: Dealing with problematic behaviour on the channel

This edit war was over the following text:

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

This text was removed and added over a sequence of at least 14 different edits. The text originated from Jimbo Wales, with some modification by David Gerard. Jimbo's original text had been reinserted by Wknight94. David Gerard then moved it into its own section, while also removing a duplicate sentence not spotted by Wknight94, and adding the phrase "If peer pressure ("please stop that") doesn't work:" and the section title "Dealing with problematic behaviour on the channel". Quite a few edits later, David added the final sentence: "Arbitrators have been particularly asked to help uphold standards of conduct by gentle or less gentle encouragement as may be required.", resulting in the text quoted above. The 14-stage edit war (lasting 8 hours and taking place in distinct groups of edits) then proceeded as follows, all times referring to 25 December 2007:

  1. 11:35 - Giano removed the text
  2. 11:37 - John Reaves reverted it back in
  3. 11:47 - Giano reverted it back out
  4. 13:05 - Coredesat reverted it back in
  5. 13:09 - Geogre reverted it back out
  6. 15:18 - AzaToth reverted it back in
  7. 15:19 - Geogre reverted it back out
  8. 15:27 - AzaToth reverted it back in
  9. 15:28 - Giano reverted it back out
    Skip a couple of minor edits.
  10. 18:17 - David Gerard reverts it back in
    Skip a couple of minor edits.
  11. 18:58 - Geogre reverts it back out again (this revert also undid the intervening edits as well)
    Geogre then attempted to edit another part of the document.
  12. 19:15 - Betacommand reverts it back in (this revert also undid Geogre's other edit as well)
  13. 19:25 - Irpen reverts it back out (also restoring Geogre's other edit - ie. a straight revert of Betacommand)
    Skip a minor edit.
  14. 19:40 - Ryulong reverts it back in

At that point, the edit warring moved on to different parts of the page. One point here is that two of the participants in the edit war were also engaging in talk page discussion at the time of the edit war detailed above, and were also continuing the discussion in their edit summaries. Between the times in question (11:35 to 19:40 on 25 December 2007), the following edits were made on the talk page, indicating relevant discussion by Geogre and David Gerard (among those involved in the edit war) and Duk (who had earlier protected the page). Others participated in talk page discussion before and after this, and some failed to engage in talk page discussion at all, limiting their comments to edit summaries. Over the course of the 14-stage, slow motion edit war shown above, the edit summaries were telling their own story. All are quoted from the above links, except's John Reaves's one which is here. NB. These edit summaries were spread out over a period of 8 hours:

  1. Giano - "If you can't face the truth at least don't have a pack of lies"
  2. John Reaves - "they're just suggestions - let's try the talk page shall we?"
  3. Giano - "check your mail to see what rubbish this paragraph (now removed) is"
  4. Coredesat - "*sigh*"
  5. Geogre - "*sigher* (Is this the /man page for Freenode? Why don't we say what's true?)"
  6. AzaToth - "Undid revision 180101628 by Geogre (talk)"
  7. Geogre - "Reverted edits by AzaToth (talk) to last version by Geogre"
  8. AzaToth - "Undid revision 180111702 by Geogre (talk) George undid an edit by Jimbo, restoring it as a fact."
  9. Giano - "rv Aza Toth seems to be behind the times"
  10. David Gerard - "replacing - neither Geogre (per talk page) or Giano have direct knowledge of being on the channel"
  11. Geogre - ""has no direct evidence" is not proper rationale; see talk and gain consensus before substantially destructive edits; this is how Wikipedia works"
  12. Betacommand - "rm POV"
  13. Irpen - "more precisely and removed counterfactual nonsense"
  14. Ryulong - "Jimbo specifically added this content"

Some things should be noted here. Firstly, as detailed at the start of this section, the material in question was partly from Jimbo (48 words), with two additions made by David Gerard (36 words), thus the edit summaries by AzaToth and Ryulong referring to Jimbo, while understandable, are not technically correct. Secondly, AzaToth used the "undo" function twice (once without any additional edit summary), while Geogre responded to the first "undo" with what appears to be a rollback revert. Thirdly, John Reaves suggested using the talk page, but then did not post there or engage any further in this edit war (a good decision, really). Fourthly, David Gerard and Geogre both refer to the talk page, presumably to their ongoing and parallel discussion there. Fifthly, and finally, Coredesat's and Betacommand's edit summaries are noticeably short and, without any talk page follow-up, difficult to engage with.

Overall, the conclusion I would draw from this is that all sides here (except maybe John Reaves, who only reverted once, at the beginning, and then backed off) are guilty of egregious edit warring. All (including John Reaves) are experienced enough to be able to check page histories and see that an edit war was in progress, and that even a single revert would just be fuelling the flames. All should have ceased edit warring (or not joined the edit war) and gone to the talk page to discuss things, and only David Gerard and Geogre did so. All sides here were guilty of using edit summaries to discuss things during an edit war, instead of making those comments on the talk page (though some of the edit summaries indicated that the editors may have read the talk page). I don't use strong language normally, but the words "utterly pathetic" spring to mind, or as Alison put it: "Absolutely inane edit-warring by those who should know better". Carcharoth (talk) 01:46, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Meta pages about IRC

A large number of pages exist at meta concerning Internet Relay Chat channels, guidelines and systems. See m:IRC, m:Template:Communications, m:IRC channels among others. Carcharoth (talk) 12:23, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Suggested additions to the timeline

The timeline provided by User:thebainer misses out several key points:

  • 21:38, December 25, 2007 - the page protection applied by User:East718 expired (but edit warring did not resume until 06:09 26 December 2007)
  • 00:16, 26 December 2007 - Giano said on his talk page: "I see the page owner is now editing the page, go and give him some advice. I'm not editing it any more tonight anyway because I have other fish to fry. So why not read my statement yourself, is it not true, are you afraid of #admins or are you more interested in me than the accuracy of information?" (typos silently corrected)
  • 04:35, 26 December 2007 - a request for arbitration was filed by User:John254
  • 04:47, 26 December 2007 - Phil Sandifer blocks Giano: (1) over 7.5 hours after Giano's last edit; (2) after Giano had been warned by Ryulong for 3RR and told to stop or be blocked; and (3) after Giano had said he would not be editing the page any more that night; and (4) 12 minutes after an arbitration case had been filed.
  • 05:01, 26 December 2007 - an ANI thread was initiated by User:Lar concerning the block. Full thread is here.
  • 08:38, 26 December 2007 - page protection request filed by User:Risker (the page was protected around half an hour later)
  • 23:54, 26 December 2007 - the process of opening the arbitration case began (4 net accept votes were reached at 16:49, 26 December 2007, and the number of net accept votes at the time of acceptance was 6, which was reached at 21:03, 26 December 2007). Full thread at the time of acceptance is here. See the current case pages for the addition of later discussion, statements and recusals.

The point of these additions to the timeline is that from 04:47 to 09:01 on 26 December 2007, blocks and edit warring continued during the request for arbitration, but no-one seemed to think to apply, or re-apply page protection, until around 4.5 hours after the request was filed. Should those edit warring during that period have been aware of the various talk page threads, the ANI thread and the RFARB thread? Carcharoth (talk) 20:29, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Evidence presented by David Fuchs

I won't go into too much detail, as the relevant points of most of the debate has come up above, however some major points:

[edit] Giano is essentially impossible to block

Right after being blocked for one hour,[96] Giano quickly starts up the "poor me" routine[97] and surprise, admins who later unblock Giano appear to agree wholeheartedly with Giano's actions.[98] As shown time and time again by Giano's block log[99] blocks will not stick for long, even for incivility, personal attacks, and blatant 3RR violations. ArbCom 'remedies' have obviously done nothing.[100] And in the meantime, Giano's entourage will attack and pile on any other user who gets 'in the way'.[101][102]

Addendum: seconding Ral's view of things. What I mean by entourage is that there are certain editors who will say "ok, Giano said he wouldn't do it", even when it's clear the pattern of attacks, et al will continue, and unblock. But Ral is correct that the 'stupid Giano' crowd occasionally also overstep; Coredesat, although probably well-meaning to give Giano a more substantial block, only fueled the flames and made the 'pro-Giano' side, for lack of a more descriptive phrase, more likely to overturn the block. Both sides are contributing to an atmosphere of disruption in response to a user's disruption. -15:03, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] In hindsight

The timeline has been immensely helpful, as it pointed out that I blocked Giano for an edit, which, while made after my warning, was less than a minute later; it's entirely possible Giano was still making his reversions before he saw my warning. While I'm fairly certain the warning would not have stopped Giano, I admit I should have tempered my haste somewhat; also, had I realized the full scale of the dispute, I would not have reverted him, and only blocked for the 3RR violation. David Fuchs (talk) 21:10, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Evidence presented by Doc

I had no intention of getting involved here. But since my limited involvement has been cited as abuse, I offer an explanation. I intend to leave it at that, unless I'm questioned further. I believe I tried to act as a peace maker and not a party in this dispute.

[edit] My reverts on Wikipedia:IRC channels....

N.B. Although I sometimes used twinkle (which I basically don't understand how to use) I only once "blind reverted" - at all other points I left clear, civil and rational edit summaries.

  • 13:37, 23 December 2007 [103] I reverted Geogre's attempt to use to page to prosecute a specific complaint. Clearly inappropriate whatever the merits.
  • 14:04, 23 December 2007 [104] I amended a comment by bishonen to make it more general and less of a dig at one specific complaint.
  • 14:45-15:41, 23 December 2007 [105] three uninterrupted edits again attempting to generalise from the specific. Effectively I reverted Bishonen and Giano for the first time - although the revert was selective - they had some valid points.
  • 20:49, 23 December 2007 [106] a second revert of Giano's determination to make the Tony Sidaway allegations part of the page documentation.
  • At this point I walked away - it was getting ugly and I'd had enough.
  • 18:03, 24 December 2007. 24 hours later I deleted the page in the hope of a "Christmas truce" between the edit warriors [107]. When I was reversed, I walked away entirely.[108]

[edit] Evidence presented by Lawrence Cohen

[edit] David Gerard and Geogre wheel warred on Wikipedia:IRC channels/wikipedia-en-admins

The page was protected from

  • 22:57, 23 December 2007 to
  • 16:44, 24 December 2007

It was deleted from

  • 18:03, 24 December 2007 to
  • 18:24, 24 December 2007

It was re-protected at 21:08, 25 December 2007. All the edits outside those windows would have been done by admins.

This includes the following users, full timeline of protected edits (excludes trivial or cloak-related edits):

  • 22:57, 23 December 2007 Initial protection by DragonflySixtyseven.
  • 10:40, 24 December 2007 Duk changes protection from indefinite to one week.
  • 15:14, 24 December 2007 David Gerard reverts content while protected.
  • 15:17, 24 December 2007 David Gerard changes content while protected.
  • 15:29, 24 December 2007 David Gerard changes content while protected.
  • 15:33, 24 December 2007 David Gerard undoes Duk's protection, resetting it to indefinite.
  • 15:48, 24 December 2007 Wknight94 changes content while protected.
  • 16:41, 24 December 2007 David Gerard changes content while protected.
  • 16:43, 24 December 2007 Geogre reverts David Gerard.
  • 16:44, 24 December 2007 Geogre removes the protection.
  • A full-blown unprotected revert war with a dozen people happens (too many to list here).
  • 18:03, 24 December 2007 Doc glasgow (Talk | contribs) deleted "Wikipedia:IRC channels/wikipedia-en-admins" ‎ (disruptive - will undelete on 26th December. Merry Christmas)
  • 18:24, 24 December 2007 Geogre (Talk | contribs) restored "Wikipedia:IRC channels/wikipedia-en-admins" ‎ (421 revisions restored: Come on, Doc, that's not right. Lumpy carpets aren't clean.)
  • 21:08, 25 December 2007 East718 reprotects, set to expire 21:38, December 25, 2007.
  • Other unprotected edits followed, and then Alison finally locked down the page for good: 09:01, 26 December 2007 Alison (Talk | contribs) protected Wikipedia:IRC channels/wikipedia-en-admins ‎ (Absolutely inane edit-warring by those who should know better / WP:RPP request [edit=sysop:move=sysop] (expires 09:01, 2 January 2008 (UTC)))

[edit] Phil Sandifer

[edit] Phil Sandifer/Snowspinner is incivil

Anyone is free to expand upon this section (I wave any rights on touching my evidence if I had any, for adding material evidence and diffs here). Lawrence § t/e 18:51, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

  • "superhero genitalia discussion, because Jesus Fuck What Is Wrong With You People (tm)" [109]
  • "Who the fuck cares if an article doesn't meet a proposed notability guideline?" [110]
  • "Who the fuck are you?" [111]
  • "Why the fuck are the fluctuations in Tammy Faye's weight in this article?" [112]
  • "GODDAMMIT WHAT THE FUCK IS THE TAG I WANT? (THIS IS WHY I HATEHATEHATE THE AMOUNT OF TEMPLATECRUFT WE HAVE)" [113]
  • "Jesus Fucking Christ. You do not declare two people gay because of an article sourced to the National Enquirer!"[114]
  • "Fuck it. I hate the template namespace and can't be bothered to figure out what the template I want is called." [115]
  • "Protected User talk:JamesMarshLaw: Anonymous nutcasery" Whilst using admin tools
  • "time she spent dancing around in front of Tony with a target strapped to her chest" [116]
  • "Use your fucking common sense. Phil Sandifer 05:45, 24 December 2005 (UTC)"[117]
  • "However, if they do not, it is not our failure for not telling them the obvious - it is their failing for being idiots. Phil Sandifer 07:16, 24 December 2005 (UTC)"[118]
  • "In this case, the reason we delete is the searing stupidity. Snowspinner 16:54, Mar 21, 2005 (UTC)"[119]
  • "It's lovely that you think that, Jeeny, but go away - my talk page is not your personal forum for shitting on me."[120]
  • "Revert bullshit." [121]

Comments from arbiters on Phil

  • "My God, Phil, actually I'm surprised by your apparent sheer inability to admit any wrongs, and to stop. You've made enough potshots against Aaron, but right now, it's you who blocked the admin that just blocked you, you who is wheel warring on WP:RFC/KM, you who is wheel warring at Template:Help Wikiboxes, you who handed out punitive blocks to two users who disagreed with you, and I don't even know what to say about the SPUI block. This is not to excuse the other wheel warriors, but give me a break... This is quite possibly the lamest flame I've seen here, and you and everyone else who participated in it shame the rest of us admins. Get over yourself. Dmcdevit·t 06:13, 3 January 2006 (UTC)"[122]

Previous RFARs involving Phil:

  • "Uncivil remarks by Snowspinner", [123][124][125]
  • "Aaron Brenneman, Dragonfiend, Snowspinner, and Tony Sidaway are all cautioned to remain civil even in stressful discussions."[126]
  • "Snowspinner prohibited from enforcing this decision" [127] from Everyking 3. Restrictions on Phil Sandifer based on incivility and interpersonal disputes is not without precedent.

[edit] Phil blocked Giano 26 December 2007

[edit] Phil baited Giano

[edit] Evidence presented by FT2

[edit] Faked logs

Tony mentions in his statement that faked logs exist. This is what I know.

A couple or so days ago, a while after Tony and Bish had their brief spat, I saw Tony being removed from the admins channel access list. I asked what was up, and was given a one line quote attributed to him. Since the rest of that text was still visible in my IRC scrollback buffer, it was very easy and natural to search back for the text to confirm it had been said and read this second conflict I hadn't known about. But there wasn't one, and the line I'd been given was doctored. The first half was genuine and harmless (and not about Bish), the second part (the epithet) was a nasty and crude add-on. I mentioned the disparity, that it didn't match what I had. The person who I was talking to (who will identify themselves if they wish to) said they'd check it, and came back a day later saying their source thought it might be fake as well, on re-checking. Further evidence was found after. I didn't get details (or ask for them). They told Tony around then which is when he heard. I'm posting this, (being the first time I'm aware it was mentioned on-wiki) to confirm it for others here too. I gather it was also noticed by others such as Giano too [128]. FT2 (Talk | email) 01:12, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Evidence presented by GRBerry

[edit] ArbComm has authority over IRC and is now an appropriate forum for adressing incivility there

Jimbo said so after the edit war: "You may consider this a statement of policy. I consider it well within the overall remit of the Arbitration Committee and my own traditional role in the English Wikipedia community to have authority over IRC as necessary. If this is a policy change (I do not think so) then it is a policy change. In any event, this page should reflect the fact that from this day forward, concerns about standards of civility in IRC should be taken up with the channel operators, the Arbitration Committee, and me, in that order." [129] GRBerry 01:26, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Evidence presented by Ral315

[edit] Giano is essentially impossible to block, with caveats

I'd second David Fuchs' arguments above for the most part. I wouldn't by any means call them "Giano's entourage", but there are some administrators, right or wrong, who have shown that they're willing to unblock or defend Giano for nearly any transgression or perceived transgression he might make. The problem is that there's also a group of administrators, right or wrong, who have shown that they're willing to block or attack Giano for nearly anything as well. It is worth noting that there's only one administrator who has blocked Giano twice, or unblocked Giano twice (Naconkantari, who's since left). This tells me that it's more than just a few people involved in this.

The fact is that Giano's been blocked many times, and not a single block has lasted for more than 3 hours (although a few short blocks were never undone) [130]. That tells me that there's a group of good-faith, perhaps overzealous administrators who believe that Giano is a well-meaning contributor who should be blocked due to civility or other issues, and there's a group of good-faith, perhaps overprotective administrators who don't really give a damn about civility, because Giano's occasional temper has little effect on others, and his writing is superb. Which group is right? I honestly don't know -- I can see the arguments of both. But something has to be done to remedy this, because if Giano continues to edit, these tensions will only grow larger and more problematic. Ral315 (talk) 12:58, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Evidence presented by Duk

[edit] Page protection used to silence one side of the dispute

The edit war on this page is a two way street. Some people want to add criticism and commentary, especially when unfortunate events on #adminIRC fail to be addressed, while others want to remove criticism. Page protection has been abused more than once to silence that criticism.

I've alterd the page protection twice: the first time was after an administrator noted that the page was destined for permanent protection; I immediately unprotected, since a group of admins were editing the page without restraint and thereby using protection as a weapon to win a dispute. Productive editing then followed and a controversy section was added. No protection was needed for the next five months. My second action was to reduce an indefinite protection to a week, as noted here.

David Gerard then rewrote the page to his liking while it was protected and upped the protection to indefinite. In the course of his edits he removed all criticism of the channel, including the history of its creation and links to previous dispute resolution processes. He then threatened to move the page to meta and have it protected. His actions and abuse of power exemplify the very worst meaning of the word censorship.

--Duk 17:13, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Evidence presented by Bishonen

[edit] #wikipedia-en-admins and Tony Sidaway

Excerpt from log at en-admins, December 22. This is unfortunately no longer an exact copy of the log, as, after I put it here, it's been resented, removed, restored, modified, etc. I have now removed all contributions by or allusions to any participant other than Tony Sidaway and myself. These changes are minor, but open the door for dismissing it as "edited" or "altered" or "maybe-something-important-is-missing". I will share the exact version, with every pixel in place, and at greater length for more context, by e-mail with any user in good standing, subject to my own judgment.


[07-12-22 00.48] <Tony_Sidaway> It seemed to me at one time that whenever somebody raised an ongoing issue on Wikipedia on this channel, Bishonen would object that the problem user was not here so we should not talk about the,


[07-12-22 00.48] <Tony_Sidaway> them,


[07-12-22 00.48] <bishonen> it did, did it.


[07-12-22 00.49] <Tony_Sidaway> Which is kinda problematic when you consider that this is an admin channel and often admins are talking about problem users.


[07-12-22 00.49] <bishonen> and it seemed to me i couldn't open my mouth without you calling me a bitch or some other choice epithet. would you like to stop now, tony?


[07-12-22 00.49] <Tony_Sidaway> If it was a channel for problem users, that would be a different matter.


[07-12-22 00.50] <Tony_Sidaway> bishonen: you did once claim that I called you a bitch. it's true. I apologised for any slight you might have believed I made. There and then.


[07-12-22 00.50] <Tony_Sidaway> Why bring it up again?


[07-12-22 00.51] <bishonen> believed? you still didn't actually call me a bastard bitch from hell, but you'd like to apologize for my imagining you did? No, i actually don't accept it in that form. who would?


[07-12-22 00.51] <bishonen> i would be happy to just stop.


[07-12-22 00.52] <Tony_Sidaway> bishonen: I'm not aware of calling you a bastard bitch from hell.


[07-12-22 00.52] <bishonen> alternatively, i'll show you the log.


[07-12-22 00.52] <Tony_Sidaway> I am however aware of apologising in any case.


[07-12-22 00.52] <Tony_Sidaway> bishonen: email me if you li,e


[07-12-22 00.53] <Tony_Sidaway> I have already apologised. Why are you trying to ram this idiocy down my throat again?


[07-12-22 00.53] <Tony_Sidaway> It's disgusting.


[07-12-22 00.53] <Tony_Sidaway> Worse than disgusting. Boring.


[07-12-22 00.54] <Tony_Sidaway> I will now admit that if I ever did call you a bastard bitch from hell, you are now richly justifying that epithet.


[07-12-22 00.54] <bishonen> apologizing while denying IS worse than disgusting, I agree.


[07-12-22 00.54] <bishonen> i see.


[07-12-22 00.55] <Tony_Sidaway> go and act like an arsehole somewhere else, please.

The conversation is obviously lacking in wit and charm on both sides. But I hereby declare that I had no intention there to refer to the specific event where Tony once called me a "bastard bitch from hell". It happened in September 2006! I'm well over it, and Tony needs to get over it too. I meant to say that he had called me names in channel now and then ("a bitch or some other choice epithet"). I understand that this was easy to misunderstand, and I acknowledge that I was quite ready to start discussing it when Tony brought it up (as I thought, though clearly he thought I did). I tried to clear up this misunderstanding here, on December 24 [sic... good will to all, you know?] and exhorted Tony to not dredge up ancient history. I got no response. [131]

Historical background

In the year 2007, I've only spent some three or four months frequenting en-admins. I foreswore the channel after some unfortunate experiences with the then active operatives about a year ago. Tony and I have some IRC baggage from these events, which I don't think needs to be gone into here. Anyway, in October or November 2007--I'm not sure exactly when--I decided that I'd been cowardly to let myself be driven away (as I experienced it), and returned. Several people seemed quite pleased to see me, and the channel seemed idyllic enough, except that I personally found Tony Sidaway an extremely dominant and rather disruptive presence. I formed the habit of not using the channel when he was in it. Since the quarrel between us on December 22 (in my timezone), excerpted above, I haven't used it at all.

Tony has not contacted me in any shape or form in the meantime, and briskly deleted my one post to his page without reply. But I see from such means of information as I have, his contribs, that he has asked James Forester to be removed from the en-admins access list "to cool things a bit" [132]. This I consider proper (since, as Tony unselfconsciously pointed out several times during our argument on en-admins, "This is an admin channel") but insufficient. It's a kind of analogy to the way users used to be able to "voluntarily" give up adminship before the arbcom could strip them of it. As happens in such cases of de-adminning today, I suggest that the arbcom should explicitly rule that Tony's channel access was relinquished under "controversial circumstances", and will not be restored on request when things have "cooled a bit". In my opinion, former admins shouldn't have access. Former admins are surely in general, or frequently, "former" because they no longer enjoy the community trust that adminned them in the first place. And if all it takes to remove access is a request, well... then the technical difficulties that AzaToth says prevent the removal of former admins clearly can't be insuperable. [133]

[edit] Giano and Geogre

Full disclosure: Giano and I are long-standing wiki friends. Geogre and I are RL friends sinced before we joined the project. We've all three worked quite a bit on article collaboration together. I spoke with Giano on the evening of December 22 (European time), not intending to mention the disagreeable experience I'd just had on en-admins; but Giano noticed I was upset, and insisted, until I told him. I showed him the log of Tony's disconcerting remarks, thus—unfortunately—engaging his loyalty and indignation. Both he and Geogre were angry on my account. I was angry myself, too. I would point out that there is nowhere to turn in this situation, except—if you can figure it out—it's not any too obvious—to a chanop. I knew one I had reason to trust, Mark Ryan. Giano and Geogre did not know, or have reason to trust, any. On the contrary, they both have a low opinion of IRC as such (compare User:Geogre/IRC considered). I consider this lack of outlet for justified IRC complaints (or "whining", as the most frequent term is) to be extremely damaging. Note that Jimbo Wales has now, on December 23, edited the Wikipedia:IRC channels/wikipedia-en-admins article to encourage those who witness unbecoming conduct on the channel to contact the arbitration committee (which has previously always responded to IRC complaints with a "That's nothing to do with us, go away") or Jimbo directly.[134] This, it seems to me, amounts to a tacit admission that something was missing before. When my appeal to Mark Ryan only led to a half hour block from the channel for Tony, I did not indeed know which way to express my strong feeling that Tony (not an admin) shouldn't be in the admin channel at all, and certainly wasn't an asset there. When I saw Jimbo's fresh edit, I wrote to him, and he replied promptly. Although I don't feel that my contact with Jimbo resulted in any joint flow of reason and feast of soul, or even in much mutual comprehension, it still made a great difference to me, psychologically, to have someone in an appropriate position to appeal to. I wonder if I can explain this? Probably not, but in my case it certainly was so. In Giano's and Geogre's case, they instead exploded spectacularly (somewhat from personal loyalty, and largely from taking a principled stand of criticism) all over the place, fitfully illuminating it with the eloquence of indignation, and focusing on reverting the snowjob about the en-admins idyll in the article Wikipedia:IRC channels/wikipedia-en-admins . To see the feeding frenzy of humiliation and condescension and tender nursing of old grudges that has resulted (see the various proposed punishments in the workshop, and the complaints on this evidence page about "querulous" edit summaries and similar horrible infringements ), with the G-men's arguments and principles reduced to "personal attacks" (bah!), in a place where so much real attacking goes on, and so much power politics ... well, no point in finishing that sentence. You see it or you don't. YMMV. I wish I hadn't told them about it. Bishonen | talk 22:24, 28 December 2007 (UTC).

[edit] Evidence presented by Geogre

[edit] IRC = SomethingAwfullyNotUs

My statement was made in response to the original framing of this case, when it was supposed to be about Giano II not having followed "dispute resolution" for IRC (when there wasn't any).

If the case is about edit warring, let me make a statement of my activities there. The page in question was written by someone who is one of the most active and brooding users of the en.admins.irc channel. He was instrumental in getting the channel established. Now, I've been here a long time, and I remember that monstrosity (in my view) getting created. I opposed its formation because it set up two tiers of users, it made adminship a big deal, it made special people who were more equal than the other animals. When that was combined with the fact that access to it was not automatic with being an admin nor that it was revoked when a person was not an admin, I thought that the channel had no intellectual or ethical basis at all. I also thought that the practice of the channel was to be MyFaceBookster and to encourage little cadres of users and factions. Therefore, for David Gerard to write a page describing something he was intimate with bothered me.

What really bothered me is that it was written in the wake of the so-called "Giano affair," when IRC's potential abuses were shown before. In that case, Kelly Martin, Tony Sidaway, and others had conspired to block people and to look for reasons to "ban" users (particularly Giano). ArbCom ruled at that time that it had no say over IRC behavior. However, they wanted changes made to IRC. David Gerard was militant in that instance and said that ArbCom had no say over IRC, that it was purely a matter of whether James Forester wanted to cooperate or not.

[edit] Creating policy pages the right and wrong ways

In response to the findings last time, I created user:Geogre/IRC considered. The process for creating guidelines and policy is to make an essay. Get input. If there is consensus, move it up. This is how we have always done things, and I gathered up comments. Interestingly, I must have hit the tone on the head, because comments from IRC regulars were generally positive. However, because I felt that ArbCom had ruled that IRC is not Wikipedia, I felt that it was impossible to have a policy page on it. Therefore, I left the essay as an essay.

David Gerard, however, simply created a page in namespace. No cooperation is evident from any other editors. No dissent was taken on board, based on the talk page's history. No language compromises were made. No approvals were sought, no demurrals tolerated.

That made me willing to "war" on the page. If

  1. It covers something that Wikipedia cannot have a policy for (for, as David said, it's not Wikipedia's business)
  2. The page in question never went through any process for approval,

Then it's just a page, and David Gerard is just being an WP:OWNer of it.

[edit] The page was patently false

Per Bishonen's evidence, above, the page showed a world of happiness and well regulated harmony. I know from first and second hand accounts that the channel is neither. ArbCom has determined that the channel has been used to block shop, to wheel war, and to edit war. In fact, from inference one would suppose it was used again to round up all the attention we see suddenly put on it here and now. The substance of the page needed to be changed to show its doubtful claims.

[edit] The page was poorly written

Passive voice is not merely a school marmish issue. Passive voice constructions hide the agency of the verbs. David wrote the page full of passive voice. That lends an air of finality and objectivity to anything. "Passive voice has been found to deceive." Because of what I consider cowardly writing (hiding one's own personal opinions behind the passive), I found that the page was not only incorrect but odious. David has not only not accepted any correction, but he has used revert to go back to inferior writing with incorrect content.

[edit] My edits were corrections

If people want the page left alone because they want to believe that there is no dissent, then they must not confuse that with there being no dissent. If they wish it were policy, they must not believe that that makes it policy. If the page had ever gone through policy approval, I would be delighted to leave it in its sorry state. However, it was just David Gerard's opinion, and there is no reason, absent consensus, to favor his over mine, or Giano's. Geogre (talk) 22:44, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Phil's evidence should be read

I invite all and sundry to read every one of Phil's examples of my "personal attacks." They include telling Phil to edit dispassionately. Powerful, powerful stuff. I had no idea that my warnings actually hurt Phil's person, but I can't answer to that. As for my opinions of what David has done with that page, I say them long form above: that's my judgment. We don't allow vanity pages. In short, I deny that I made any personal attacks, and I demand that anyone who finds with Phil be prepared to explain to me how each one is a "personal attack." I can answer to my intent, and I can document the effect on Wikipedia, but not in Phil Sandifer's heart. We like to say that Wikipedia is not censored when we're talking about dirty pictures, but Phil's position seems at odds with this when it comes to disagreement. Metaphor, litotes, and, above all, hyperbole, are likely to be "personal attacks" if the right censor is looking over your shoulder, and yet we cannot allow the most offended to set the pace for the project that warns users that their words will be edited mercilessly. Geogre (talk) 22:52, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Evidence presented by bainer (talk)

[edit] Timeline

Legend
Edits to the page Edits to the talk page Admin actions on the page Other admin actions Dialog between parties Other edits

The far right column indicates with a red mark edits which were made while the page was protected.

Notes

I have omitted several edits to the page which were made during the relevant period but which were themselves irrelevant, including:

  • spelling corrections
  • edits about the procedure for obtaining a cloak
  • edits relating to requests for access

Please note that the timeline does not include a complete listing of edits from the talk page, only a selection of the ones which I have found pertinent.

All times are in UTC.

Time Action Performed by Comments
10:05, 22 Dec
Giano II to Tony Sidaway
"Must be marvellous for you "men" in "#admins" being able to call a woman any insult you care to, I wonder if your ever so brave to a man in real life? - Oh and before you sneeringly say the "BBFH" came running to me, she didn't, someone else found your behaviour disgraceful. That's #admins for you I suppose. I suggest you guard your tongue more carefully in future when discussing Wikipedia business in a very public forum."
14:59, 22 Dec blanks Giano II's message Tony Sidaway Edit summary: "Remove old stuff and ridiculous trollish accusation"
16:23, 22 Dec
Giano II to Tony Sidaway
"You can remove comment on your behaviour as much as you like bit nothing can change the way you are perceived. Judging from your deplorable abuse of IRC channels we can certainly see why you are so frightened [135] of logs finding there way here, can't we?"
17:06, 22 Dec blanks Giano II's message Tony Sidaway Edit summary: "Another frothingly insane personal attack removed"
17:11, 22 Dec
AzaToth to Giano II
Leaves {{uw-npa4im}}. Edit summary: "Only warning: Personal attack directed at a specific editor on User talk:Tony Sidaway. using TW"
17:13, 22 Dec reverts AzaToth's message Doc glasgow Edit summary: "Reverted edits by AzaToth (talk) to last version by Giano II"
13:06, 23 Dec adds paragraph Giano II Edit summary: "another interesting fact"
13:11, 23 Dec removes paragraph Thebainer Edit summary: "if you know of specific examples of this Giano, take it to the channel admins"
13:13, 23 Dec restores paragraph Giano II Edit summary: "You want I publish the logs as evidence?"
13:16, 23 Dec adds another paragraph Geogre Edit summary: "Oh, we're going to tell the truth now? Wow! Do we have permission from David to tell the truth? He owns this page."
13:37, 23 Dec removes both paragraphs Doc glasgow Edit summary: "Reverted to revision 179777000 by Thebainer; this is really not helpful. using TW"
13:51, 23 Dec adds a sentence Bishonen Edit summary: "Some practical advice."
14:04, 23 Dec edits sentence Doc glasgow Edit summary: "generalise - you are absolutely right, but let's use this to advise and not prosecute"
14:35, 23 Dec reverts Bishonen Edit summary: "It's time for the specific. The polite generalities that nobody thinks applies to them have been tried ad nauseam."
14:35 - 14:36, 23 Dec adds another paragraph Giano II Edit summary: "I am known on Wikipedia for the depth of my research! This will remain. The channel ops know all about it. It is fact"


(2 edits)
14:45, 23 Dec reverts Giano Doc glasgow Edit summary: "Reverted to revision 179785145 by Bishonen; knock it off. . using TW"
14:48, 23 Dec reverts Bishonen Doc glasgow Edit summary: "this is not a forum to pursue grievences (please take this to the channel owners)"
14:52, 23 Dec
Bishonen to Doc glasgow
"Do you realize you've reverted three times within a short while? ...oy, and now you've reverted me, too. That's four. You should block yourself for 3RR vio."
14:54, 23 Dec
Giano II to Doc glasgow
"That would be a pity, why not just revert back to last version by me. I don't mind - honestly!"
14:57, 23 Dec
Doc glasgow to Bishonen and Giano II
"No, I've reverted Giano twice and you only once. Bishonen, Giano, please, this isn't helpful. If you have a grievance the fist step is to post a complaint to the channel owners. Of course people should not use such language, but this is not the way to pursue it, and you know it."
14:59, 23 Dec
Giano II to Doc glasgow
"The channel owners and ops don't care and do nothing. The editorship of this encyclopedia has the right to know how their rulers behave, and exactly what does happen in that channel."
15:41, 23 Dec alters sentence Doc glasgow Edit summary: "add warning"
15:58, 23 Dec removes some text GDonato Edit summary: "please, none of this helps anything"
17:11, 23 Dec reverts Bishonen Edit summary: "restore truthful claims that have been in the article since at least July 2007. Some respected wikipedia admins are made unwelcome in the channel. Take it to talk if you like."
20:48, 23 Dec adds a paragraph Giano II Edit summary: "These facts are no longer in dispute. The chan owners have the logs proving it."
20:49, 23 Dec reverts Doc glasgow Edit summary: "Reverted edits by Giano II (talk) to last version by Bishonen"
20:50, 23 Dec reverts Giano II Edit summary: "rv"
20:52, 23 Dec reverts AzaToth Edit summary: "Reverted 1 edit by Giano II identified as vandalism to last revision by Doc glasgow. using TW"
20:53, 23 Dec reverts Giano II Edit summary: "rv back to THE TUTH"
21:47, 23 Dec alters paragraph Jimbo Wales Edit summary: "trying to resolve a conflict by pointing to a constructive way forward"
22:35, 23 Dec
David Fuchs to Giano II
"You violated the 3RR on Wikipedia:IRC channels/wikipedia-en-admins. Continuing to edit war may result in a block."


(Note that this edit took place at 22:35:08.)
22:35, 23 Dec alters paragraph Giano II Edit summary: "but sadly................"


(Note that this edit took place at 22:35:14.)
22:39, 23 Dec reverts David Fuchs Edit summary: "Undid revision 179852225 by Giano II (talk) this is not constructive"


(Note that this edit took place at 22:39:03.)
22:39, 23 Dec blocks Giano II David Fuchs Block duration: 1 hour. Block summary: "Edit warring: continual addition of material"


(Note that this action took place at 22:39:41.)
22:57, 23 Dec protects page DragonflySixtyseven Protection summary: "Giano, please give the editorializing a rest. Thank you. [edit=sysop:move=sysop]"
23:13, 23 Dec unblocks and reblocks Giano II Coredesat Block duration: 24 hours. Block summary: "previous 3RR block plus blatant incivility and attack on user talk page during block"
23:30, 23 Dec unblocks and reblocks Giano II LessHeard vanU Block duration: 15 minutes. Block summary: "reset back to original 1 hour block, less time served"
23:40, 23 Dec unblocked Giano II Doc glasgow Unblock summary: "not helpful"
02:17, 24 Dec
Tony Sidaway to Giano II
"I've been convinced through discussion that I was a little hard on you in reverting your earlier personal attacks on my talk page, and that the language I myself used was grossly inappropriate and tantamount to a personal attack. I apologise sincerely for that lapse. Your attacks were baseless, hurtful and untrue, but I should have ignored them or responded to them in a less provocative fashion."
10:40, 24 Dec altered protection Duk Protection summary: "resetting protection from indefinite to 1 week [edit=sysop:move=sysop] (expires 10:40, 31 December 2007 (UTC))"
10:50, 24 Dec
Bishonen to Tony Sidaway
"Honestly, Tony, you're the only one who's obsessed with your ancient slight towards me—calling me a "bastard bitch from hell" in September 2006, for goodness sake—get over it already! ... Yes, you have indeed repeatedly "apologized" about the phrase—really classic non-apology apologies claiming it never happened, I'm making it up, I'm obsessed with it (!) and I haven't e-mailed you the ancient log. Sheesh..."
14:29, 24 Dec blanks Bishonen's message Tony Sidaway
15:14, 24 Dec removes section entitled "controversy" David Gerard Edit summary: "This is an authoritative information page, not a bitching forum."  
15:17, 24 Dec alters paragraph David Gerard Edit summary: "de-instruction-creep"  
15:29, 24 Dec removes sentence David Gerard Edit summary: "no editorialisation, this is an information page"  
15:31, 24 Dec new section David Gerard "This is intended to be an authoritative information page. Editorialisation is inappropriate and unwanted. It's not a playground for Wikinomic. Blatant trolling (e.g. Giano's contributions) and edit-warring to keep it in landed him deserved blocks. I've cut the stupidest bits and de-crufted it somewhat"
15:33, 24 Dec altered protection David Gerard Protection summary: "looks like the only way to keep the idiocy and trolling down [edit=sysop:move=sysop]"
15:48, 24 Dec restores Jimbo's paragraph Wknight94 Edit summary: "Boldly re-inserting User:Jimbo Wales's edits"  
16:41, 24 Dec alters paragraph David Gerard  
16:42, 24 Dec replies to David Gerard Geogre "No, in fact, this is David Gerard's page. Everyone else is here at his suffrance. Let's all remember that this is David's page. He made it. His friends edit it. It belongs to him and should reflect his opinions, for, lo, they are not editorials, but rather, yeah, they are verily the truth unto the last generation. Woe unto those unbelievers who shall be deemed wicked in his sight, for they shall know the block, and it shall be 'deserved.'"
16:43, 24 Dec reverts Geogre Edit summary: "Reverted edits by David Gerard (talk) to last version by Wknight94"  
16:44, 24 Dec replies to Geogre David Gerard "You are correct that editorialisation and wikinomic are probably best left here on the talk page"


(Note that this edit took place at 16:44:15.)
16:44, 24 Dec unprotected page Geogre Unprotection summary: "NEVER protect to shoo away a single user, David. The protection was 100% illicit"


(Note that this action took place at 16:44:33.)
16:46, 24 Dec new section Geogre "The best protection is logic. The second best is discussion. Insulting dissenters does not protect, and issuing page protections in contravention of the protection policy (no request, done to prevent dissent rather than vandalism, done by the page author instead of an uninvolved administrator) is no way to achieve harmony. In fact, it is itself disruptive editing and misuse of tools. If anyone gets a wild hair and really wants this page protected, he should list the request and allow someone who didn't write the self-laudatory paean in the first place to take care of it. Until then, I have unprotected."
17:29, 24 Dec reverts AzaToth Edit summary: "Reverted to revision 179971984 by David Gerard; it's private. using TW"
18:02, 24 Dec reverts Irpen Edit summary: "you can't be serious to assert the privacy over the medium with 1000+ participants. These logs pop up all over the web for a reason."
18:03, 24 Dec deleted page Doc glasgow Deletion summary: "disruptive - will undelete on 26th December. Merry Christmas"
18:24, 24 Dec undeletes page Geogre Undeletion summary: "421 revisions restored: Come on, Doc, that's not right. Lumpy carpets aren't clean."
18:28, 24 Dec
Geogre to Doc glasgow
"I know you had good intentions, what with Christmas truces and stuff, but deleting the page isn't really the way forward. I've undeleted it, even though deleted is really how I'd rather it be."
19:00 - 19:10, 24 Dec restructures or removes various paragraphs David Gerard (5 edits)
19:11, 24 Dec removes parts of sentences David Gerard Edit summary: "rm editorialisation and single example (there are lots more, and enumerating them would be unnecessarily limiting)"
19:12, 24 Dec removes sentence David Gerard Edit summary: "actually, that's just redundant (could y'all please read and understand m:Instruction creep)"
19:24, 24 Dec alters paragraph Irpen
19:43, 24 Dec reverts David Gerard Edit summary: "Reverted edits by Irpen (talk) to last version by David Gerard"
19:54, 24 Dec reverts Irpen Edit summary: "restored from undiscussed revert, please explain at talk what here is false"
20:13, 24 Dec replies to Duk David Gerard "You appear to be under the delusion that policy on the channel is determined by the text on this page. That, I think, is the fundamental disconnect here: it isn't."
21:12, 24 Dec
Doc glasgow to Geogre
"Stille Nacht, Alles schläft, so I'm neither going to wheel war, or get into a contentious discussion on this. Merry Christmas to you and yours."
01:22, 25 Dec removes text David Gerard Edit summary: "channel membership is covered, editorialisation is superfluous"
01:23 - 01:28, 25 Dec restructures or removes various paragraphs David Gerard (6 edits)
11:35, 25 Dec removes paragraph Giano II Edit summary: "If you can't face the truth at least don't have a pack of lies"
11:37, 25 Dec reverts John Reaves Edit summary: "they're just suggestions - let's try the talk page shall we?"


(2 edits)
11:47, 25 Dec reverts Giano II Edit summary: "check your mail to see what rubbish this paragraph (now removed) is"
13:05, 25 Dec reverts Coredesat Edit summary: "*sigh*"
13:09, 25 Dec reverts Geogre Edit summary: "*sigher* (Is this the /man page for Freenode? Why don't we say what's true?)"
13:15, 25 Dec replies to SlimVirgin Geogre "My objection is not that nasty talk goes on there. The same people have nasty thoughts whether there or not. My objection is simply to the thing itself. A place for administrators to chat, where they can exclude the general users, is wrong. If it then is, in fact, not for administrators but for administrators and people JamesF and David Gerard like, that only makes it worse. Both of these things create an echo chamber, and they also create an atmosphere of unaccountability. I should not join it, because it should not exist... Even without looking at David's behavior one section up, that's enough to endorse my notion of having no links to this atrocity anywhere on Wikipedia."
15:18, 25 Dec reverts AzaToth Edit summary: "Undid revision 180101628 by Geogre (talk)"
15:19, 25 Dec reverts Geogre Edit summary: "Reverted edits by AzaToth (talk) to last version by Geogre"
15:21, 25 Dec
Geogre to AzaToth
"Please do not use rollback on legitimate edits. If you feel compelled to undo an edit and the matter is controversial, you must discuss it on the article talk page. This is particularly true when the edit you are reverting has been done by a fellow administrator, as failing to uphold proper decorum can lead to wheel wars and other miseries."
15:23, 25 Dec
AzaToth to Geogre
"I had made a comment in the summary, but somehow it was gone. But in fact you where undoing an edit made by Jimbo, and I think that even more wrong than undoing the undoing you made."
15:27, 25 Dec reverts AzaToth Edit summary: "Undid revision 180111702 by Geogre (talk) George undid an edit by Jimbo, restoring it as a fact."
15:28, 25 Dec reverts Giano II Edit summary: "rv Aza Toth seems to be behind the times"
15:32, 25 Dec
Giano II to AzaToth
"Please stop edit warring or you may be blocked. Do not revert again. Discuss with James or John Reid, or your own access to the channel may be removed."
18:17, 25 Dec reverts David Gerard Edit summary: "replacing - neither Geogre (per talk page) or Giano have direct knowledge of being on the channel"
18:27, 25 Dec replies to Geogre David Gerard "Deduction from first principles certainly beats actual facts or experience"
18:58, 25 Dec reverts Geogre Edit summary: "'has no direct evidence' is not proper rationale; see talk and gain consensus before substantially destructive edits; this is how Wikipedia works"
19:14, 25 Dec alters paragraph Geogre Edit summary: "Now *that* is honest, and it's got active voice verbs!"
19:15, 25 Dec reverts Betacommand Edit summary: "rm POV"
19:25, 25 Dec reverts Irpen Edit summary: "more precisely and removed counterfactual nonsense"
19:40, 25 Dec reverts Ryulong Edit summary: "Jimbo specifically added this content"
19:40, 25 Dec reverts Ryulong Edit summary: "The project space is not an editorial"
19:50, 25 Dec new section Ryulong "Geogre, Giano, your vendetta with this IRC channel has to end. All it does is bring ill will when you continually fill this page with editorials based on your personal (or friends') less-than-happy experiences with the channel. Both Giano and Geogre have removed content added specifically by Jimbo to try and alleviate the tensions, but its constant removal is extremely inappropriate. I don't care what the hell started this sudden surge of yellow journalism concerning this channel, but the dispute needs to end."
20:49, 25 Dec replies to Ryulong Giano II "Arbcom has no control over this channel at all, yet the channel is used to make decisions concerning wikipedia - this is not a vendetta it is an attempt to make this page an accurate report, nothing more and nothing less."
20:54, 25 Dec replies to Giano II Ryulong "Since when do project pages like this require an 'accurate report.' This isn't an article. It's barely an essay. By all means, your edits to this page have been done to stir up drama or act in retaliation to what had happened to one of your close contacts on Wikipedia. It is most certainly a vendetta, as whenever you seem to edit outside of the article space, it relates to your disapproval of the IRC channels."
20:55, 25 Dec adds sentence Giano II Edit summary: "Arbcom has no control"
20:58, 25 Dec reverts Ryulong Edit summary: "Leave your personal commentary and beliefs off of this page."
20:59, 25 Dec reverts Giano II Edit summary: "RV not a beleif that happens to be the truth! - now stop edit warring"
21:00, 25 Dec reverts Betacommand No edit summary.
21:01, 25 Dec reverts Giano II Edit summary: "Rv back to the truth"
21:02, 25 Dec reverts Betacommand Edit summary: "rv"
21:03, 25 Dec reverts Giano II Edit summary: "rv edit warrior who seems to have an aversion to the truth"
21:06, 25 Dec
Ryulong to Giano II
"You've broken 3RR at WP:WEA. Cease these tedentious and retaliatory activities now, or you will be blocked."
21:07, 25 Dec reverts Ryulong Edit summary: "You don't seem to back up your claims"
21:08, 25 Dec protected page East718 Protection summary: "time out [edit=sysop:move=sysop] (expires 21:38, December 25, 2007 (UTC))"
21:10, 25 Dec
Giano II to Ryulong
"Here is the dreadful and shocking truth that #IRC Admins are terrified that ordinary Wikipedians will find out [136]. Three times in one evening it has been removed and denied. "The Arbcom have no control over #Admins!""
21:11, 25 Dec
Ryulong to Giano II
"Do you have something constructive, or just more yellow journalism?"
21:13, 25 Dec
Giano II to Ryulong
"It is like talking to a child "The Arbcom has no control over #Admins!" that was the finding of a long and laborious Arbcom case. Wake up!"
21:15, 25 Dec
Ryulong to Giano II
"Don't you have something more constructive to do rather than edit a project page? Like prepare for Christmas dinner or write an article? You are an article writer, but whenever IRC comes up you resort to mudslinging."
21:57 - 22:03, 25 Dec
FT2 to Giano II
(over 4 edits) "Giano, this pains me. But you know completely and well, what standards are expected. You know fully and well, how to handle disagreement, and the norms the community expects and aims for. You, like all of us, experienced users all, choose to make our point well or poorly, and these are made poorly... I ask you this as a collaborator and colleague whose work on content I'm in awe of. I also ask you it as an admin who has the tough decision that if this isn't okay for a newcomer or "ordinary" editor (whatever that might mean), or an admin[137] [138], it's not going to be okay for you either. Please don't repeat."
23:23, 25 Dec
Giano II to FT2
"OH I see, so you think ""The Arbcom has no control over #Admins!" " should not be allowed there either - is it untrue? Or are you leaving these curteous advisory messages on Aza Toth's, Ryulong and other's pages too, or are #Admins allowed to edit war, something us mere mortals are not?"
23:33, 25 Dec
AzaToth to Giano II
Edit summary: "a real scared reply". "Oh shit, but at least I will still have access to the real cabal channel."
23:42, 25 Dec
Durova to AzaToth
"AzaToth, please strikethrough that epithet."
23:45, 25 Dec
AzaToth to Durova
"Ah, it was just a joke, to play a bit with giano :)"
00:16, 26 Dec
Giano II to FT2
"I would rather be banned for ever than sit idly by watching Wikipedia produce such rubbish as that page. Yes I have reverted, but how many times has #admins reverted. Do you think it is just coincidence they take it in turns like that? Get real."
00:18, 26 Dec
Durova to AzaToth
"Sarcastic jokes are rarely productive, particularly when they're vulgar. Please set the standard and strikethrough as a gesture of goodwill."
00:19, 26 Dec
AzaToth to Durova
"What was vulgar?"
01:00 - 01:13, 26 Dec
FT2 to Giano II
(over 5 edits) "I saw the concern. But that's the wrong way to handle it... I'm not inclined to agree that because there are legitimate issues, we should therefore accept illegitimate ones like edit warring, too... If team tagging is going on, tackle it like any other group tagging issue, or problematic editing; don't edit war in response."
04:35, 26 Dec files request for arbitration John254
04:47, 26 Dec blocks Giano II Phil Sandifer Block duration: 72 hours. Block summary: "Egregious and deliberate 3RR violation on Wikipedia:IRC channels/wikipedia-en-admins coupled with past disruption of the page."
05:01, 26 Dec posts on ANI regarding the block Lar "I see Phil Sandifer (talk • contribs • blocks • protects • deletions • moves • rights) has blocked Giano II (talk • contribs • count • logs • page moves • block log • email) for 72h over the 3RR violations at the subject page. I am frustrated by what is going on there as well but I don't think blocking (of one participant) is the answer. I have offered to unblock if Giano will undertake to stop revert warring and work to find a way through this. I seek consensus for that offer."
05:09, 26 Dec removes himself as a party from the arbitration request Ryulong Edit summary: "I wouldn't say I'm an involved party, but I will make a statement sometime in the future"
05:21, 26 Dec reverts his prior edit Ryulong "I was told I shouldn't have done that :/"
05:35, 26 Dec adds statement on the arbitration request Ryulong
05:37, 26 Dec adds statement on the arbitration request Geogre
05:51, 26 Dec unblocks Giano II Sean William Unblock summary: "Block did not account for the other participants of the dispute, see ANI"
05:55, 26 Dec
Geogre to Phil Sandifer
"Phil, you may not block people for history. Your block of Giano was outrageous and clearly intended to inflame the situation rather than act in any form of resolution. I regard it as, in fact, abusive enough that I warn you to attempt normal dispute resolution and do not block for your personal grievances, or you will yourself be blocked."
05:56, 26 Dec
Phil Sandifer to Geogre
"I am unaware of any personal grievances I have with Giano, and do not see how history applies to Giano's six reverts in 24 hours, as I did not block for previous conduct."
06:09, 26 Dec alters paragraph Geogre Edit summary: "verb mood"
06:22, 26 Dec reverts Jossi Edit summary: "what is this? Can Wikipedia namespace pages contain such language?"
06:23, 26 Dec removes sentence Jossi No edit summary.
08:19, 26 Dec reverts Jouster Edit summary: "Reverting edit 180135306 by Geogre; in fact, this text is actually quite informative, and lacks the weasel words of the original." (Note that this should probably read reverting "to" Geogre.)
08:22, 26 Dec reverts Ryulong Edit summary: "That content is identical except for "many" and "some." This is not an essay or in the article space."
08:38, 26 Dec files request for page protection Risker "[seeking] Full protection with as many warnings as can be attached. This page has been the subject of an ongoing edit war involving multiple administrators and long-term editors for the past several days, and has been temporarily protected on at least two occasions. Administrators have edited the page during protection. Editors and admins have been blocked and the edit-warring is now the subject of an Arbcom case."
08:39, 26 Dec hyphenates Jouster Edit summary: "gr (and, quite frankly, "distinguished and well-trusted" is unnecessary and self-aggrandizing as hell, but I'm not willing to step into that snake pit by removing it)"
09:01, 26 Dec protects page Alison Protection summary: "Absolutely inane edit-warring by those who should know better / WP:RPP request [edit=sysop:move=sysop] (expires 09:01, 2 January 2008 (UTC))"
16:04, 26 Dec alters paragraph JzG Edit summary: "Per Jimbo's comment on Talk, since we are quoting him here."  


[edit] Analysis

Analysis stemming from the timeline above, divided into sections on users, sorted alphabetically.

[edit] AzaToth

Awareness of conflict
AzaToth was aware of the dispute between Giano II and Tony Sidaway before becoming involved in the edit war, having given Giano II a templated personal attacks warning for messages left on Sidaway's talk page.
Edit warring
AzaToth made a number of reverts over the course of a 43 hour period: [139], [140], [141], [142].
Baiting
After Giano II warned AzaToth not to edit war, AzaToth responded with "Oh shit, but at least I will still have access to the real cabal channel" with the edit summary "a real scared reply". After being pulled up on this, AzaToth replied "Ah, it was just a joke, to play a bit with giano :)".

[edit] Betacommand

Edit warring
Betacommand made a number of reverts over the course of a 3 hour period: [143], [144], [145]

[edit] Bishonen

Edit warring
Bishonen made two reverts over the course of a 3 hour period: [146], [147]

[edit] Coredesat

Edit warring
Coredesat made one revert ([148]) though this came less than two days after Coredesat had extended a block on Giano II from one to 24 hours.

[edit] David Fuchs

Use of administrative tools in a content dispute
David Fuchs legitimately warned Giano II not to breach the three-revert rule, and blocked Giano II after the fourth revert was made, but not before himself reverting Giano II.

[edit] David Gerard

Edit warring
David Gerard made a number of reverts over the course of a 29 hour period (though not all his reverts were removals of very recent content): [149] & [150] (consecutive edits), [151], [152], [153], [154]
Editing a protected page
David Gerard made a string of substantive edits to the page while it was protected: [155], [156], [157], [158],
Use of administrative tools in a content dispute
David Gerard extended the protection on the page from a duration of one week to an indefinite duration, immediately after making a series of substantive edits to the page: [159], [160], [161].
Baiting
Having significantly edited the page while it was protected, David Gerard posted to the talk page, describing Giano II's edits as blatant trolling among other comments. Following this, Geogre expressed the legitimate concern - albeit in an angry and melodramatic fashion - that Gerard was "owning" the page. Instead of responding to Geogre's concerns, Gerard replied with "You are correct that editorialisation and wikinomic are probably best left here on the talk page".
Later, after Geogre had outlined to another user the reasons why he thought the channel was a bad thing, and why he would not join it, Gerard retorted with "Deduction from first principles certainly beats actual facts or experience".

[edit] Doc glasgow

Edit warring
Doc glasgow made a number of reverts over the course of an 8 hour period: [162], [163] & [164] (consecutive edits), [165].

[edit] Geogre

Edit warring
Geogre made a number of reverts over the course of a 27 hour period: [166], [167], [168], [169],
Editing a protected page
Geogre edited the page while it was protected: [170]

[edit] Giano II

Edit warring
Giano II made a number of reverts over the course of a 56 hour period: [171], [172], [173], [174], [175], [176], [177], [178], [179].

[edit] Irpen

Edit warring
Irpen made a number of reverts over the course of a 26 hour period: [180], [181], [182].


[edit] Ryulong

Edit warring
Ryulong made a number of reverts over the course of a 13 hour period: [183] & [184] (consecutive edits), [185], [186], [187].
Baiting
Ryulong engaged Giano II in a crude user talk page exchange while the two were edit warring with each other: [188], [189], [190], [191], [192].
View of the editing dispute
Ryulong described the edits of Giano II and Geogre as "yellow journalism" ([193], [194]) and a "vendetta" ([195], [196]).


[edit] Prior interpersonal disputes

User Tony Sidaway has a long prior history of interpersonal disputes with Bishonen and Giano II among others from time to time. Some examples of such disputes are below.

Once again, all times are in UTC.


late October 2007
Time Action Performed by Comments
18:32, 30 Oct 07 makes a request for clarification Irpen The request concerned the Arbitration Committee's authority to review bans imposed by Jimbo Wales.
21:36, 30 Oct 07 replies to Irpen Giano II "Irpen, I love you but you are wasting your time here. Nothing on Wikipedia is ever going to change by challenging Jimbo. He is the "God king", or "King God" or whatever it is they say in Yankyland. He thought of the Wikipedia idea first so has the right to only speak to re-enforce his own view. In spite of this odd leadership the project survives mainly because of addiction of the hardcore content editors and a constant turnover of new editors. The nasty noncontributing little admins stay and procreate themselves because there is little other for them, with their limited capabilities, to do elsewhere."
21:43, 30 Oct 07 reverts Giano II Tony Sidaway Edit summary: "Usual paranoid ravings"
21:58, 30 Oct 07
Giano II to Tony Sidaway
"Regarding your edit here [197] Grow up, you tiresome little prat!"
16:04, 31 Oct 07
Tony Sidaway to The Fat Man Who Never Came Back
"Giano has long been known for his paranoia and tendency to insert inflammatory broad brush attacks into discussions. This is (barely) tolerated because he is otherwise a reasonable editor. It is better to remove his comments where they are not appropriate than to indulge him in any way."
16:31, 31 Oct 07
Bishonen to Tony Sidaway
"Giano has "long been known for his paranoia", has he?[198] Not outside your head, I assure you. Please don't insult the community by ascribing your own offensive views of contributors to some undefined Wikipedia collective that supposedly "knows" them to be the case. Don't you think we had enough of that from you on the Inshaneee workshop?"
16:34, 31 Oct 07 reverts Bishonen Tony Sidaway Edit summary: "Rubbish."


early October 2007
Time Action Performed by Comments
02:38, 3 Oct 07 blanks section of Phil Sandifer's talk page Tony Sidaway Edit summary: "More bullying and wankery. Removed."
09:59, 3 Oct 07
Bishonen to Tony Sidaway
Edit summary: "Don't be a fuckhead." "Stop acting like this, please. Don't delete legitimate talk page comments in other people's userspace and don't vent in edit summaries. Don't fling shit at wikipedians. If you go on behaving this self-indulgently, any good work you've done will go for naught. In short: don't make yourself despised. Don't be a fuckhead. Fuckheadism is very disruptive, and therefore a blocking offence."
16:53, 3 Oct 07 reverts Bishonen Tony Sidaway Edit summary: "Quite despicable. Give up."
17:00, 3 Oct 07
Tony Sidaway to the world at large
"I shall not apologise for saying that to tell an editor in good standing that he cannot edit a wiki page is unbelievably stupid. Certain editors should be bloody well ashamed of their conduct towards others, and I will not be hounded to withdraw this well founded opinion, by the fact that the despicable conduct has now been turned on me for saying that they're wrong, These attacks disgust me as they should disgust all Wikipedians. Further attempts to hound me will also be ignored."


April 2007
Time Action Performed by Comments
09:09, 4 Apr 07 alters references to IRC Bishonen Editing Wikipedia:Off-wiki policy discussion.
10:34, 4 Apr 07 reverts Bishonen Tony Sidaway
15:10, 6 Apr 07 comments on the talk page of Danny's RFA Bishonen For full context, see the complete thread (a generally jocular one containing predictions of the outcome of the RFA). "I'll sweeten the pot: no matter the outcome, Gmaxwell's will use the word "whining" about the expression of any view that opposes his own."
01:41, 7 Apr 07 replies to Bishonen Geogre "Can we put bets on other words, too, like betting red and black at roulette? I'll bet that "idiots" is being used liberally now on IRC and that it will make it into at least one if not all of the "the crats should tell the users to shut up and obey" arguments."
01:49, 7 Apr 07 reverts Bishonen & Geogre Tony Sidaway Edit summary: "Probably best not to abuse Wikipedia for personal attacks."
10:18, 7 Apr 07 reverts Tony Sidaway Bishonen Edit summary: "Restoring posts removed by Tony Sidaway. Please stop reverting me in Wikipedia space, Tony. It's not like you're neutral on the issues discussed."
11:12, 7 Apr 07
Bishonen to Tony Sidaway
"Please don't revert any more of my posts in Wikipedia space.[199] [200] If posts are at all widely perceived as "opinionated and unhelpful" or "personal attacks", then somebody who is neutral on the issues debated—as you are not in this case—can probably be trusted to remove them."
19:05, 7 Apr 07
Tony Sidaway to Bishonen
"I'll regretfully disagree with you. That was a very grave personal attack, compounded by multiple responses, and has absolutely no place on Wikipedia."
01:34, 8 Apr 07
Geogre to Tony Sidaway
"You may not remove the comments of others. If you believe that there has been a personal attack, you are free to be affronted, and even to "deny them," but that does not give you license to remove them. None at all. Removing the edits of others is a form of vandalism, and this can result in a block."
10:08, 8 Apr 07
Tony Sidaway to Geogre
"As usual your knowledge of Wikipedia policy is somewhat lacking."

[edit] Evidence presented by LessHeard vanU

[edit] LessHeard vanU's (LHvU) unblocking of Giano II

Per Giano II block log User:David Fuchs blocked Giano II for 1 hour at 22:39 23 December 2007. User:Coredesat extended the block for a period of 24 hours at 23:13 instant, citing original blocking reason plus subsequent comments at Giano II's talkpage, providing a total tariff of 24 hours and 34 minutes. LHvU unblocked and reblocked Giano II for 15 minutes at 23:30 instant, citing the intent of resetting the block to David Fuchs original tariff of 1 hour less time already served - although the total tariff was now for 1 hour and 6 minutes. User:Doc glasgow unblocked Giano II at 23:40 instant. Therefore Giano II served 61 minutes of the original 1 hour block.

My rationale for returning Giano's block to the original tariff as given to Coredesat, and our subsequent responses, is available here. It is therefore incorrect to state that every block levied upon Giano II has been lifted before expiry.

[edit] #Admins was considered separate to en-Wiki

nb. past tense - Jimbo has now clarified the relationship between the channel and the community.

  • The channel (per previous evidence above) was set up for use by sysops on en-wikipedia. However, the availability of the channel never formed part of the recognised tools and facilities granted to admins, membership was subject to approval internal to the channel, logs, membership details, and other information was never advertised as available to the general community, or to to the sysop community. Moreover, non-sysops (AFAIAW, former admins) retained access and posting rights - and some members had posting rights removed temporarily (or permanently?) independent of sanction or lack of on en-wiki. Moderation of the channel was not bound to the same rules, policies and guidelines as existing at en-Wiki, although that may have been the intent and generally the practice.
  • Notwithstanding the independence between the channel and wikipedia it appears to have been the practice of maintaining on-wiki pages regarding the channel to that of a [[Wikipedia:''space'']]; third party editing was scrutinised as regards a supposed consensus, references were heavily vetted, and changes reflecting (perhaps third party) experience of the channel or exampling supposed conduct was disallowed and summarily reverted.

The relationship between #Admins and Wikipedia, and the maintainence of wikipedia space as regards the channel were strongly at odds with each other.

[edit] #Admins was considered part of en-Wiki

nb. past tense - Jimbo has now clarified the relationship between the channel and the community.

  • The channel is hosted on the same servers as is en-Wikipedia, its moderators and members are also part of the en-wiki community and its target user group is en-wiki sysops. Other than gossip unsuitable (per WP:NOT rather than content) for wiki space its intent was a space by which admins could seek opinion and help in relation to their duties on en-wiki. Reference to discussion at #Admins was made at en-wiki space, and was considered unremarkable (although not always uncontroversial).
  • Behaviour at the channel was not always conducted according to the rules, policies and guidelines of en-Wikipedia. The responses to such behaviour sometimes also did not comply to said rules, etc. No record of any sanction or warning or misbehaviour is provided to the Wikipedia community. Records, known as logs, are not default available to the community, and the membership of the channel was not accountable for their actions there.

The relationship between #Admins and Wikipedia, and the accountability of the channel to the community were strongly at odds with each other.

[edit] A historical view of the culture of #Admins

I recommend the adoption of Wikipedia:IRC channels/Personal views regarding IRC as evidence of an existing culture within the admin channel, which concerns do not seem fully addressed until the statement by Jimbo referred to above. I would also commend Durova for initially bringing it to this ArbComs in her evidence below.

[edit] Relationship between LHvU and IRC/#Admins

There is none. I had previously enabled "Chatzilla" on my ISP, but have never used it. I no longer choose this option when the ISP updates. I have previously stated on my userpage that I do not care to conduct my WP related life outside of public scrutiny. I therefore admit a prior bias toward such channels, regardless of how interactions have been conducted there.

[edit] Evidence presented by Giano

[edit] Statement

I have no evidence as such because the truth is always very evident. I had decided not to comment here but one thing does need to be asked - Would someone please explain to me which of my edits to Wikipedia:IRC channels/wikipedia-en-admins were not the truth. Bishonen was indeed insulted by a non admin in the channel. And James Forrester (the channel owner) has clearly said [201] the channel is not under the jurisdiction of the Arbcom. I' m sorry some people find the truth unpalatable and distasteful but there you are, some things can't be changed. The truth is always the truth, and as usual on Wikipedia it is the messenger who gets shot. Giano (talk) 16:27, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

We'll try to answer your question in the decision, but most likely it is the form of your post, when, where, and how presented, rather than its accuracy, which is at issue. Fred Bauder (talk) 21:25, 30 December 2007 (UTC)
Thank you Fred that will be an interesting response indeed. I look forward to reading it. In the meantime - The Bainer says here [202] that I have had "interpersonal disputes, both on and off-wiki". I have no recall of ever disputing anything "off wiki", or even exchanging an uncivil email with anyone - The only person I can think of that I have continued a debate with off-wiki is Rockpocket and Alison, and I recall a difference of opinion but no hostility or unpleasantness in those emails. My first (and last) contact by email or (anywhere else off-wiki) to Sidaway was to forward to him what I suspected were forged logs (I felt he had a right to see them) he has never replied. Maybe I'm wrong, I'm as interested as everyone else to know what the Bainer knows. I don't keep copies of emails for very long but If I have ever been truly uncivil to anyone off-wiki whoever they are they have my full permission to publish those emails on Wiki. I only use G mail and Gmail chat - so if anyone has some evidence please share it. I wish to have no Wiki-secrets at all. Giano (talk) 19:28, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Evidence presented by Durova

[edit] Context for evidence presented by Thebainer

I am loath to come here at all, but Thebainer has disregarded both of delayed in honoring my requests to either remove my own trivial participation from his evidence or include the full context.[203][204][205][206] Some people think of me as Cabal Central and are apt to construe mischief into any mention of my name, so this statement is a proactive effort to clear the air.

One of the sections I wrote into the original draft of the no angry mastodons essay, which I initiated nearly two years ago, was a suggestion for third parties to speak up on behalf of civility when a discussion gets heated.[207] From time to time I make that request in contexts where it's no expression of favoritism. Here are a couple of other recent examples.[208] [209][210] I intend no disrespect; it's just something that usually helps keep the site more harmonious.

So here's the full context of my miniscule involvement. My posts are bolded. What I hoped was to persuade AzaToth to strikethrough a certain four letter word. Since I couldn't be viewed as a partisan for Giano, I thought maybe the suggestion would be well received. It didn't help, but I did my best. Now I'm sorry to have tried. And no, nobody put me up to this and no backroom dealing played any role at all. The original conversation is here.

Please do not use rollback on legitimate edits. If you feel compelled to undo an edit and the matter is controversial, you must discuss it on the article talk page. This is particularly true when the edit you are reverting has been done by a fellow administrator, as failing to uphold proper decorum can lead to wheel wars and other miseries. HTH HAND. Geogre (talk) 15:21, 25 December 2007 (UTC)
I had made a comment in the summary, but somehow it was gone. But in fact you where undoing an edit made by Jimbo, and I think that even more wrong than undoing the undoing you made. →AzaToth 15:23, 25 December 2007 (UTC)
Please stop edit warring or you may be blocked. Do not revert again. Discuss with James or John Reid, or your own access to the channel may be removed. Giano (talk) 15:32, 25 December 2007 (UTC)
Oh shit, but at least I will still have access to the real cabal channel. →AzaToth 23:33, 25 December 2007 (UTC)
AzaToth, please strikethrough that epithet. DurovaCharge! 23:42, 25 December 2007 (UTC)
Ah, it was just a joke, to play a bit with giano :) →AzaToth 23:45, 25 December 2007 (UTC)
Sarcastic jokes are rarely productive, particularly when they're vulgar. Please set the standard and strikethrough as a gesture of goodwill. DurovaCharge! 00:18, 26 December 2007(UTC)
What was vulgar? →AzaToth 00:19, 26 December 2007 (UTC)
No let it stand, he thinks he's being clever. What a surprise is coming to all in that channel. Giano (talk) 00:26, 26 December 2007 (UTC)

DurovaCharge! 21:01, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Otherwise uninvolved

I have never used IRC on any channel. DurovaCharge! 22:57, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Jurisdiction of ArbCom over IRC

On 26 January 2007, Irpen initiated a request for arbitration regarding the admin IRC channel.[211] This proposal got rejected 4-8.[212] An unusual page followed at Wikipedia:IRC channels/Personal views regarding IRC (following an arbitration talk discussion) where Fred Bauder, UninvitedCompany, Paul August, and Kirill Lokshin discussed their individual views about IRC. In particular, at Wikipedia:IRC channels/Personal views regarding IRC#Authority of the Arbitration Committee and Wikipedia:IRC channels/Personal views regarding IRC#On the Committee's authority two arbitrators expressed doubt over whether the Committee has direct jurisdiction over IRC and asked the community for guidance. No consensus emerged. This ambiguity remained until a post by Jimbo Wales followed on 26 December 2007.[213]

So for 11 calendar months of 2007, Wikipedians may have reasonably believed that IRC was considered an off-wiki venue and behaved accordingly. DurovaCharge! 18:16, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Evidence presented by GDonato

[edit] WP:WEA has been the scene of bad conduct all round

It has become apparent that WP:WEA has been a troll magnet and the location of a significant amount of disruption. The page is no longer significantly used as a place to request access to the channel (with no pending requests at the time of writing and this not being unusual by any means). Instead, the page has been used as a place for certain editors to display their personal opinions and is looking less and less like a place to obtain accurate, neutral information. Furthermore, claims of users being made unwelcome on the channel (regardless of the merit of these claims) either intentionally or unintentionally puts new administrators off visiting a channel which is potentially very useful for sanity checking.

[edit] WP:WEA is unneeded and its deletion should be considered

The purpose of the WP:WEA page on Wikipedia would appear to be to:

  • Inform people about the purpose of the irc:#wikipedia-en-admins channel
  • Allow new administrators (or anyone else) to request access to the channel

However, it is no longer functioning as it should. Claims such as this do not promote the constructive use of the channel and, at worst, serve only to intentionally disrupt WEA. The insertion of POV and claims and the reverts of these claims reduce the possibility of obtaining neutral, accurate information from the page.

No other IRC channel has a page dedicated to it Wikipedia as far as I can tell and there is no reason for WP:WEA to have one either at this time.

The only possible constructive use for the WP:WEA page is for access requests but since that is greatly no longer used, some alternatives can be used:

Therefore, there is no need to keep the WP:WEA page as, in short, it has done more harm than good.


[edit] Evidence presented by Encephalon

With apologies to the Committee for adding to the already considerable length of this page, I should like to submit evidence on an issue raised above.

[edit] "Special" status of Wikipedia:IRC channels/wikipedia-en-admins

It is claimed that WP:WEA is a sort of "special case", and an "odd one as 'policy' pages go". It is also held that:

  • User:David Gerard has a "special right to edit the page based on current policy towards IRC", whereas
  • User:Geogre, on the other hand, "does not enjoy any comparable privileges, and could not have reasonably thought that he did."

I believe these claims are incorrect; they are certainly at the very least simply misleading. WP:WEA was created by David on May 6, 2007. It was edited 33 times on the day it was created, mostly by David himself. At no point during this sustained editing activity did David or anyone else indicate that WP:WEA was "special", or could only be correctly edited by a select few, or that there were "right and wrong edits to make to it" (nor indeed who might be determining the rightness and wrongness of edits). (See version of page at 21:36, May 6, 2007). David appears to have edited the page at least 153 times; I am unable to locate at any time an edit specifying the "special" status of the WP:WEA page, nor his or anyone else's "special right" to edit it. (See also [214] and [215] ).

It is also difficult for me to see how Geogre is supposed to have divined the purported facts in regards this special right and status. David seems to have edited Geogre's talk page fewer than 4 times: I can't find any advisement of these matters. It is possible that Geogre was informed at some other venue, but I doubt this.

Finally: apart from the fact that no notice whatsoever appears to have been given of this special status and right (prior to the events that are the focus of this Arbitration), may I ask

  • who conferred this special status to a page residing in the Wikipedia project space? There are indeed pages on Wikipedia that may only be edited by some users (see for example Wikipedia:Medical disclaimer, Wikipedia:Legal disclaimer, etc., which may only be edited by those with Sysop permissions). The special status of these pages, however, obtain from Foundation policy, from a decision by Mr. Wales in his traditional capacity within Wikipedia, or by long-standing consensus. Where did the purported special status of this page come from, please?
  • who conferred the "special right" and "privilege" to one user to edit a Wikipedia page?
  • who else, if any, have been given this special right to edit Wikipedia project pages?

If no prior notice was given of these special rights and status (leaving aside for the moment the propriety of any such, in this instance), how could any Wikipedian be faulted for assuming that a page appearing in Wikipedia was open to editing?

With respect, I do not think that the above claims are fair. From what I can see, they appear to be post hoc formulations to excuse some of the behavior that was displayed during the events that are now the focus of this Arbitration. I suggest that proposed findings of fact and remedies that are based on these claims be rejected. —Encephalon 10:01, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Evidence presented by User:152.91.9.144

Clerk note: This evidence has been originaly posted to Newyorkbrad's talk page [216] by an anonymous editor that was unable to post here because of the semi-protection.

I've moved it to a finding of fact now that protection has been removed. Thank you. - 152.91.9.144 (talk) 23:03, 10 January 2008 (UTC)