From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is a page for working on Arbitration decisions. The Arbitrators, parties to the case, and other editors may draft proposals and post them to this page for review and comments. Proposals may include proposed general principles, findings of fact, remedies, and enforcement provisions—the same format as is used in Arbitration Committee decisions. The bottom of the page may be used for overall analysis of the /Evidence and for general discussion of the case.

Any user may edit this workshop page. Please sign all suggestions and comments. Arbitrators will place proposed items they believe should be part of the final decision on the /Proposed decision page, which only Arbitrators may edit, for voting.

Basic standards of civility will be enforced. Editors who are uncivil or who are deliberately provocative (i.e. trolling) will be warned, then banned from editing the case pages for escalating periods of time, enforceable by brief blocks. For the duration of the ban, banned editors may leave comments on the talk page of any non-recused clerk, provided this privilege is not abused. Thatcher 00:13, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

This page may be protected due to anonymous editors misusing the Workshop page. If the page is presently protected and any anonymous editor wishes to submit evidence, please leave comments on the talk page of an administrator or a non-recused clerk. Nick (talk) 03:10, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

Contents 1 Motions and requests by the parties 1.1 Template 1.2 Template 1.3 Template 2 Proposed temporary injunctions 2.1 The technical control over the channel is given to the ArbCom immediately 2.2 Witnesses protection 2.3 Status of Wikipedia:IRC channels/wikipedia-en-admins 2.4 Template 3 Questions to the parties 4 Proposed final decision 4.1 Proposed principles 4.1.1 Decorum 4.1.2 Edit warring considered harmful 4.1.2.1 Edit warring can involve groups 4.1.3 Authority 4.1.4 Authority 4.1.5 People may talk to each other 4.1.6 Posting logs 4.1.6.1 Channel log policy 4.1.6.2 Channel log policy 4.1.6.3 Channel log policy 4.1.6.4 Assuming good faith in off-wikipedia interactions 4.1.7 All decisions open for discussion 4.1.8 Users can be held responsible on Wikipedia for public actions elsewhere 4.1.9 Users can be held responsible on Wikipedia for actions elsewhere 4.1.10 Users can be held responsible on Wikipedia for actions elsewhere 4.1.11 Wheel warring 4.1.12 Transparency and chilling effect 4.1.13 Vested Contributors 4.1.14 Edit wars: edit summaries vs talk pages 4.1.15 Administrators vs. editors 4.1.16 Unverifiable evidence 4.1.17 Wikipedia is an encyclopedia 4.1.18 Disruptive meta-content 4.1.19 Involved administrators should not issue blocks 4.1.20 Blocks and unblocks should be done by neutral administrators 4.1.21 Involved administrators should not issue blocks 4.1.22 Good contributors with a history of disruptive behavior 4.1.23 Behavior expectations apply anywhere the community gathers 4.1.24 Editing protected pages 4.1.25 Editing protected pages 4.1.26 Stirring the pot 4.1.27 Fuelling the fire 4.1.28 Alternating transcripts 4.1.29 Exceptions to WP:3RR 4.1.30 Fair criticism 4.1.31 Wikimedia control of IRC 4.1.32 Action rather than user 4.2 Proposed findings of fact 4.2.1 Social spaces exist 4.2.2 #wikipedia-en-admins 4.2.3 #wikipedia-en-admins 4.2.4 Giano repeatedly and disruptively violated the 3RR 4.2.4.1 Edit warring 4.2.5 Sean William unblocked incorrectly 4.2.6 Geogre has been incivil 4.2.7 Tony Sidaway resigned under cloud 4.2.8 Tony Sidaway's presence at IRC 4.2.9 Some admins are denied access to the admins channel 4.2.10 Sean William's unblock was fundamentally correct 4.2.11 Tony Sidaway has made off-wiki personal attacks 4.2.12 Giano's methods and tactics are supported by many Wikipedians 4.2.13 David Gerard and Geogre wheel warred on Wikipedia:IRC channels/wikipedia-en-admins 4.2.14 There was a 14-stage edit war involving 9 editors 4.2.15 Egregious edit warring took place 4.2.16 Status of the Wikipedia:IRC channels/wikipedia-en-admins page 4.2.17 All pages on Wikipedia are subject to the same policy enforcement 4.2.18 Nobody owns pages in the Main and Wikipedia spaces 4.2.19 Some pages on Wikipedia have exemptions to policy enforcement 4.2.20 #wikipedia-en-admins page is a special case 4.2.21 Giano has been protected 4.2.21.1 Block record of Giano account 4.2.22 Users left project due to this issue 4.2.23 No misuse of IRC found 4.2.24 #wikipedia-en-admins is an official WIkipedia outlet. Behavior there is considered to be "on-wiki". 4.2.25 #wikipedia-en-admins is not an official WIkipedia outlet. Behavior there is not considered to be "on-wiki". 4.2.26 Meta pages also describe IRC 4.2.27 Sean William is not Sean Whitton 4.2.28 The three-revert rule was applied inconsistently 4.2.29 Edit warring continued after the arbitration case was filed 4.2.30 The ends justified the means 4.2.31 Locus of the dispute 4.2.32 Genesis of the dispute 4.2.33 Geogre acted inappropriately during the creation of this case 4.2.34 Tony Sidaway as an initiator of disruption 4.2.35 Phil Sandifer, aka Snowspinner, has a history of incivility 4.2.36 The admins' channel is a social space where all admins should be made to feel welcome 4.2.37 Template 4.3 Proposed remedies 4.3.1 Jurisdiction 4.3.2 #wikipedia-en-admins is for administrators of the English Wikipedia 4.3.3 #wikipedia-en-admins is for administrators of the English Wikipedia 4.3.4 AzaToth is admonished to not abuse rollback 4.3.5 Geogre admonished 4.3.6 Geogre desysoped 4.3.7 Giano banned from Wikipedia namespace 4.3.8 Giano put on revert parole 4.3.9 Sean William admonished 4.3.10 Geogre on personal attack parole 4.3.11 Geogre put on civility parole 4.3.12 Giano banned for 90 days 4.3.13 Tony Sidaway banned for 7 days 4.3.14 Trouts all around 4.3.15 Page probation 4.3.16 Probation 4.3.17 David Gerard is desysopped for Wheel Warring on Wikipedia:IRC channels/wikipedia-en-admins 4.3.18 David Gerard is suspended for Wheel Warring on Wikipedia:IRC channels/wikipedia-en-admins 4.3.19 David Gerard is admonished for Wheel Warring on Wikipedia:IRC channels/wikipedia-en-admins and put on 0 Administrative revert parole for 1 year 4.3.20 Geogre is desysopped for Wheel Warring on Wikipedia:IRC channels/wikipedia-en-admins 4.3.21 Geogre is suspended for Wheel Warring on Wikipedia:IRC channels/wikipedia-en-admins 4.3.22 Bishonen encouraged 4.3.23 Giano banned for one year 4.3.23.1 Giano placed on revert parole 4.3.24 Community admonished 4.3.25 The community is admonished (invested users) 4.3.26 WP:WEA deleted and salted 4.3.27 Arbitration Committee confirms "#wikipedia-en-admins" unofficial status 4.3.28 Logs from "#wikipedia-en-admins" can be posted publicly 4.3.28.1 Logs from "#wikipedia-en-admins" can be posted as part of Arbitration evidence 4.3.28.2 Wikipedia IRC logs can be posted as part of Arbitration evidence 4.3.29 Time-limited amnesty from on-wiki conduct standards at IRC 4.3.30 Official IRC 4.3.31 Giano placed on modified probation 4.3.32 Tony Sidaway banned for 1 year 4.3.33 Geogre and Ryulong admonished 4.3.34 WEA channel is opened to non-administrators 4.3.35 Tony Sidaway put on civility parole 4.3.36 Everybody involved in this case banned for one year 4.3.37 1RR for Wikipedia name space 4.3.38 0RR for administrative actions 4.3.39 "The Encyclopedia, Stupid." 4.3.40 All parties banned from Wikipedia-space 4.3.41 Phil Sandifer is placed on civility probation 4.3.42 Those who run #wikipedia-en-admins are strongly urged to curb its misuse 4.3.43 A list of non-admins with access is maintained 4.4 Proposed enforcement 4.4.1 Authority over IRC channels 4.4.2 Solomon solution 4.4.3 Ignore all rules 4.4.4 Enforcement - Giano 4.4.5 Enforcement 4.4.6 Log 4.4.7 Blocks and Enforcement 4.5 Analysis of evidence 4.5.1 Template 4.5.2 Template 4.5.3 Template 4.5.4 Template 4.5.5 Template 4.5.6 Template 4.5.7 Template 4.6 General discussion 4.7 Proposed final decision by Thatcher 4.7.1 Proposed findings of fact 4.7.1.1 #wikipedia-en-admins 4.7.1.2 Dispute resolution on IRC 4.7.1.3 Bishonen and Tony Sidaway 4.7.1.4 Geogre and Giano 4.7.1.5 Comments by Tony Sidaway and Phil Sandifer 4.7.1.6 Comments by Geogre and Giano 4.7.1.7 David Gerard 4.7.1.8 Geogre 4.7.1.9 Giano 4.7.1.10 Tony Sidaway 4.7.1.11 Phil Sandifer 4.7.2 Proposed remedies 4.7.2.1 Giano, Geogre and David Gerard banned for 5 days 4.7.2.2 Tony Sidaway banned for 2 days 4.7.2.3 One revert limit

[edit] Motions and requests by the parties

[edit] Template

1)

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

[edit] Template

2)

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

[edit] Template

3)

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

[edit] Proposed temporary injunctions

[edit] The technical control over the channel is given to the ArbCom immediately

1) Effective immediately the person unanimously endorsed by ArbCom is given the highest control level over all channels under discussion. James F, David Gerard irrevocably relinquish their control over these channels they currently hold in individual capacity. The access level may be handled back to them by ArbCom if the latter selects these individuals but their control would then be in an official capacity recognized by the Wikipedia community

Comment by Arbitrators:

The Arbitration Committee has no power to do this, and the case in no way revolves around such a thing occurring. The absence of policy regulating off-wiki communications is a clear indicator in this regard. Mackensen (talk) 02:28, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

I don't see why Arbcom should regulate IRC, and more than it should regulate the mailing list or a user's bedroom. This reference to "JamesF's channels" is pernicious: he was designated Group Contact and the powers that be haven't sought to change that; the channels are not JamesF's personal domain and in reality power rests with the individual chanops. Mackensen (talk) 02:44, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

Well, Irpen, I suppose I see flexibility where you don't. As I understand it they are Wikimedia channels, for which James is the ultimate authority. In practice authority is exercised by the chanops, generally without reference to James or anyone else. No policy on Wikipedia has ever claimed to regulate the IRC channels; ArbCom has made specific declarations to the contrary. You know that as well as anyone else, and so did everyone else. This is not new stuff for the participants in this case. Mackensen (talk) 03:00, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

The IRC channels seem to be as much a part of Wikipedia as any other part, thus subject to the Arbitration Committee's jurisdiction. That would include a reorganization, if persistent problems arise, as seems to be the case. Fred Bauder (talk) 18:21, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

IRC's relevance to ArbCom is on a similar basis to any other offsite activity that users undertake which may help or hinder the project. Users who act off-wiki in a way that they should know may damage the community's collaborations on content (which might be in any way) should probably expect it not to be ignored, if the resulting ripples do ultimately come up on-wiki. There's a tradition that if it doesn't impact on the project, we usually don't take note of it. But (for example) a user who tried to maintain, "Yes I'm running an attack site against users, stirring up biased editorship, harassing by email, etc, but it can't 'officially' be noticed because it's not happening on wikipedia.org" would probably fail to impress with this dismal attempt to use legal-style argument - Arbcom can and does look at all the facts available to it, in deciding what is appropriate. Purely offsite issues with no communal impact are not usually an issue, though. Similar rationale goes in this case and on IRC. Behavior by a user that had negative consequences for the wiki and community that they might reasonably have expected but still allowed to happen, often does result in legitimate questions. FT2 ^{(Talk | email)} 18:30, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

Comment by parties:

Proposed. Otherwise, this is all meaningless. --Irpen 02:16, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

Re Mackensen's post at 02:28, 27 December 2007. We are not talking about the "power to do this". It is a separate matter whether you can force them to if they refuse. However, if this is not done, the entire case is meaningless and should concentrate on spelling out the separation between these channels and the Wikipedia community in the clearest possible form. ArbCom should not waste time to come up with best rulings unless these rulings are to be enforced. If ArbCom tries to regulate IRC, it needs a meaningful control over it. If it can't get it, it needs to say so more clearly and all mentions of James F's channels should be removed from Wikipedia the same way as any mention of the Wikipedia Review. --Irpen 02:41, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

Re Mackenses's post at 02:44, 27 December 2007 (UTC). There is a contradiction here. This is either a totally private IRC which would indeed be comparable to yahoo mailing lists or user's bedroom, or an officially affiliated channels with designated group contact. Freenode, does not recognize James F as a designated group contact. From its POV, those are his private channels. At the same time, if we treat these channels ar user's bedrooms, we just acknowledge the same thing. In such case, having an ArbCom case about IRC is meaningless and all we need is an explicit clarity on the lack of relationship between Wikipedia and James' channels. This was deliberately not done to be able to adjust as needed. This is no way to do things. --Irpen 02:56, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

Re Mackensen's post of 03:00, 27 December 2007 (UTC). I would love to see your understanding "they are Wikimedia channels" being accurate. For that, there needs to be a clear statement by WMF while AFAIK WMF explicitly denies that. Freenode also does not recognize any official group contact. So either way you look, these are James F's private channels. I agree that there is no precedent of the ArbCom being able to regulate them. There is evidence to the contrary as James and DG made clear that they see themselves the ultimate authority and they see the ArbCom to be in no position to give them any orders. However, this situation renders any decision by ArbCom unenforceable. ArbCom has an option to either make itself an authority over this or disclaim any. In the latter case, the lack of connection between those channels and WMF, Wikipedia, etc. just needs to be made explicit. Having done that, we can indeed treat them as private bedrooms. But we cannot consider them as Wikimedia channels and outside of the WMF remedy at the same time. That's a logical impossibility. --Irpen 03:11, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

Update: I think this is the single issue upon which the rest of this case hinges. I started a section at the talk page of this workshop so that it is settled somehow as otherwise, this whole case could be a giant waste of time. Let's see whether we can achieve any clarity on this crucial issue. --Irpen 03:45, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

I disagree. That's one issue, but it is not really related to the other issues: edit-warring by long-time contributors and admins, and the misuse of admin tools by several admins. Resolving the jurisdiction issue will not remedy those problems. Picaroon (t) 03:49, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

I strongly oppose a massive power grab of this nature by the arbcom, and most particularly by a lame duck arbcom. The arbcom does not have the direct authority to author policy, which is what this temporary injunction explicitly asks for. Irpen - please review the arbitration policy before making further proposals in this case. Suggesting things that the arbcom is not meaningfully empowered to do does not help the discussion in any meaningful sense. Phil Sandifer (talk) 05:12, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

rofl, power grab. All the en wiki channels on freenode are just that, the en wiki channels. They should be official, owned by all of us, and subject to rules of behaviour such as we wish to be associated with building the encylopedia. Arbcom ownership is the most workable way of embodying this. If they are unofficial, all veneer of office should be stripped away, leaving them as just a bunch of rogue wiki-related cliques. Articles, if any, should of course reflect this. 86.42.66.94 (talk) 08:08, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

Upon further reflection, given that the IRC channels stem from the Foundation and not the community, the arbcom's authority to step in and claim control seems even more tenuous than I had originally thought. Phil Sandifer (talk) 21:37, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

Comment by others:

Realistically, the owners of the channel don't do much. The channel functions largely independent of them. Sean William @ 02:23, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

May I remind you, Sean, of the circumstances of Kelly Martin's removal of access from #admins last summer and removal of the chanop status at #wikipedia from her recently. I think if the circumstances of these matters were disclosed, the community would get a clearer picture on who does what and how much. Would you like to elaborate yourself? --Irpen 02:44, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

Elaborate upon what? I've said what I needed to say. There's no hidden meaning. Sean William @ 02:47, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

You said the owners have no control. The circumstances of this matter show otherwise. --Irpen 02:50, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

In everyday channel usage, channel operators do little. That's all there is to it. There are certain days where that is not true, I'm sure. Sean William @ 02:51, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

Those happen to be the days that matter. --Irpen 02:57, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

This is pretty fucking stupid (pardon my language), I never interacted with Giano II but his edits seem to be completely true [1]. The page in question is essentially an essay, not policy/guideline, so WP:OR does not apply. Giano's edits seem to be saying exactly the same thing that arbcom is saying right now. Reverting Giano's edits without discussion seems pretty bad faith. Arbcom has no jurisdiction over the IRC channel, correct? 76.10.141.34 (talk) 03:48, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

Part of the problem is how these channels are regulated and run. For those familiar with IRC, each channel usually runs autonomously. That can be changed, but at present that's how it works on these. That means that if users on en-admins argue, in practice it is unlikely anyone will prevent them, and if anyone does it will be channel operators who are around and so minded, not James F or David summoned in to attend. This proposal seeks to respond to a specific instance (one issue), by changing the management of the channel in what is called above a "power grab" proposal (long term structural change). It feels too much like a kneejerk reaction. What might be better is address the specific situation that's gone on... and also consider whether the channels are able to be better managed in future. I wouldn't try to respond to the former by a measure suited to the latter, ewven if in theory subject to review. Too likely to be "yet another mistake made in haste". But part of any genuine solution must be to look at both of these in a reasonable time-span. FT2 ^{(Talk | email)} 06:50, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

The "flexible" status of the #admin channel seems to be the root case of the problem. If it is an enterprise of the Wikipedia community then it should be governed by the community (e.g. via Arbcom), if it is a private Enterprise of JDFoster then it probably should not be advertised in Wikipedia space at all and some sort of a power check of the group on the community should be done. Either one of the solutions can work. What we have now reminds me of a role of the Communist Party in the late Soviet Union. The channel has an enormous influence over the supposedly democratic work of the community, but the populace has now control over the channel nor even the right to have any info about its work beside the rumors. I guess it might be convenient for solving tricky BLP problems but it creates more problems than it solves. If it is so by design it should be properly documented, if it is not but design it should be changed ASAP Alex Bakharev (talk) 15:10, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Witnesses protection

2) If Arbcom decides to investigate who falsified IRC logs then witnesses may expect protection: people who passed the logs without alteration are not to be persecuted on Wikipedia nor on Freenode. Only the person or persons who maliciously altered the log so to inflate the level of incivility is to be restricted from editing (both on freenode or wiki)

Comment by Arbitrators:

In general it's hard to be sure of the forger behind forged logs, however much one would wish to. What is certain is they have completely shot themselves in the foot. Whatever people might have believed before will obviously be scrutinized moreso from now on and treated with more skepticism, not more credulity. A salutary reminder of the merits of "check facts and cite sources". In a way, it's hard to think of a more fitting communal outcome for this attempt to smear and mislead the community's good-faith attempts to understand the matter. I don't think "witness protection" is needed though; there is a degree of commonsense expected in such a discussion. FT2 ^{(Talk | email)} 18:30, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Proposed. If indeed the logs were maliciously altered it should be investigate. Alex Bakharev (talk) 10:10, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

• I have been emailed and asked to return to clarify some points. This is becoming confused. The only false logs were anonymously sent to me from an email address which I have made known to the Arbcom. They consisted of a genuine #admin log discussing Bishonen and I. At one point in the log a false insert was made in which Tony Sidaway calls a female editor a "fucking cunt". The "bastard bitch" logs are genuine. A second log exists which too may be false in which Tony Sidaway recommends Japanese pornographic sites to other admins. I immediately suspected both logs were forged and forwarded them to the appropriate authorities (including Tony Sidaway) as such. If anyone has used them, after I forwarded them, without that proviso then they are guilty of deceit. Giano (talk) 12:19, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

I think we have two strong leads. Do we have tracing route for the "anonymous email"? Can it be checked against the checkuser logs? There are other methods to check the identity of an email sender. On the other hand, how many IRC users were present during both Japanese Pornographic and Arsehole conversations? How many of them might know the particular Giano's Email? How many of the them had grudges against both Giano and Tony? How many of them had the history of previous unethical deeds of a similar kind? I think if the arbcom is interested finding the truth is not impossible. And yes, I am shivered from the suggestion that it might be an arbitrator or a recepient of the Arbcom mailing list Alex Bakharev (talk) 23:50, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

God everytime I look in here you are all becoming more confused the "Arsehole" log is 100% genuine Sidaway actually called Bishonen an Arsehole and a Bastard Bitch in #admins. It is "Fucking Cunt" he did not say. I suspect the Japanese porn logs are also forged but I'm not 100% certain of that. Perhaps Tony can confirm if he does discuss such matters in #admins. If anyone wants the email address of the forger the Arbcom have it, Jimbo has it, Tony Sidaway has it, and I'm quite happy to send it to anyone else who wants it, so long as an Arbcom member posts her to say that is OK for me to hand it out. Giano (talk) 23:56, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

Giano, I suggest that you let the ArbCom deal with it (though if they say something different, I won't argue with that). My view is that we don't really want everyone and their mother trying their hand at tracking down whoever e-mailed you the falsified log. In all probability, just the e-mail address alone is not enough anyway. Carcharoth (talk) 01:15, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

Are there any indications of who the forger could have been (assuming they were indeed forged)? The "clear and present danger" explanation (i.e. Everyking) could be used to justify on-wiki action, as by forging logs, the person responsible was clearly trying to cause problems. --Coredesat 12:27, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

One of the problems with private evidence submission is enabling the accused to defend themselves, especially in cases where the evidence submitted could help identify the whistleblower. Imagine for a moment that you, the person reading this, are accused of off-wiki harassment and told that private evidence has been submitted in private to the arbcom. How can you defend yourself without seeing the evidence? How can the evidence remain private if ArbCom feel they have to send a copy to the accused to allow the accused to defend themselves? Imagine being told that ArbCom agree that the evidence shows you are guilty of what you are accused of, but that you won't be allowed to see the evidence. Thus the concerns of witness protection clash with a need to allow the accused to defend themselves. Anyway, my reading of what Giano has said is that if the logs had not been previously published on any website (including Wikpedia), then only those in the IRC channel at the time, or who otherwise had copies (eg. by e-mail) could have accurately falsified the logs (which is a reason why I raised the point that arbitrators in the channel at the time might need to recuse due to falsified logs leading to even the slightest taint of suspicion). Other than that, though, there is no easy way to determine who sent the falsified logs, thus everyone in the group mentioned above remains under suspicion. Of course, if the logs had been posted in public, then any random troll could have sent Giano falsified versions. Overall, I think a strong message that such behaviour is unacceptable will be enough to head off such behaviour in the future, and hopefully people will learn not to believe everything they are sent or hear or read, and will learn that public posting of logs only enables trolls to circulate false versions. Carcharoth (talk) 14:11, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Status of Wikipedia:IRC channels/wikipedia-en-admins

3) The Abribtration Committee is asked to decide either now, before closing the case, or as part of their final decision, if Wikipedia:IRC channels/wikipedia-en-admins is a special page outside of the control of the community itself, as this has a bearing on all of the rest of this decision. If possible, the Committee is asked to define what conditions may be required for a page to be exempt from community control, or else this sort of thing could well happen again.

Comment by Arbitrators:

The regulation and position of the channels has not always been clear to users (it's been more clear to those involved in managing them). There have been confusing and sometimes conflicting statements and impressions given which hasn't helped either. Discussion has indeed been going on in the background aimed towards rectifying this. One thing that I would wish to come from this is more certainty going forward; ambiguity or confusion doesn't help anybody. FT2 ^{(Talk | email)} 18:30, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Proposed. Seems obviously needed at this point, as no one else but the people we elected can decide at this point, and this decision should trump any political nonsense from any side of this dispute. Lawrence Cohen 16:11, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

Some pages which currently exist as exempt as outside community control include WP:AC/WP:RFAR/WP:AP and WP:MC/WP:RFM/WP:M (as pages of official Committees founded by Jimbo Wales), as well as possibly WP:RFCU (serves to faciliate checkusers, and hence they have control over its' process or they could just shut up shop and refuse to accept checks until it is fixed — as Mackensen wrote, "I wasn't aware the community noticeboard had jurisdiction here", "RFCU was created by checkusers for the benefit of the community and not the other way round" and "RFCU exists for checkusers to accept requests"). WP:OVER, and to a lesser extent the changing username pages, maybe also per the rationale of Mackensen when talking about RFCU. Just my $0.02. Daniel 07:56, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

Yes, some pages may or may not exist currently outside the community control, but since the community appoints everything including the Foundation board who controls everything on Wikipedia back down the other way, so it's probably for the best for the Committee to decide what criteria is needed for a page to be exempt from policy. And specifically, if the IRC page falls under that category, and how "exempt" pages are handled, and who is responsible or has the authority to deal with possible misbehavior there. Basically, since everything comes ultimately down to the community no matter how you shake it, except for legal issues, this might as well be gotten over with. Lawrence Cohen 16:07, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Template

4)

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

[edit] Questions to the parties

[edit] Proposed final decision

[edit] Proposed principles

[edit] Decorum

1) Wikipedia users are expected to behave reasonably and calmly in their interactions with other users, to keep their cool when editing, and to avoid acting in a manner that brings the project into disrepute. Unseemly conduct—including, but not limited to, personal attacks, incivility, assumptions of bad faith, trolling, harassment, and gaming the system—is prohibited. Users should not respond to such behavior in kind; concerns regarding the actions of other users should be brought up in the appropriate forums.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Standard stuff. Kirill 00:26, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

[edit] Edit warring considered harmful

2) Edit warring is harmful. When disagreements arise, users are expected to discuss their differences rationally rather than reverting ad infinitum. Revert rules should not be construed as an entitlement or inalienable right to revert, nor do they endorse reverts as an editing technique.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Obvious. Moreschi ^{If you've written a quality article...} 00:30, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

Should go without saying. Sean William @ 00:44, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

Modify for this case: "Edit warring and uncivil arguments are harmful", in recognition that the uncivil argument was harmful to the community (including those of the community seeking to legitimately collaborate via IRC, and those drawn into talk page and user page arguments), even when this did not involve "edit warring". FT2 ^{(Talk | email)} 06:56, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

There is no such thing as civil and incivil arguments (they can only be valid and invalid; strong or weak). Recognition existence of valid but incivil arguments is equal to adoption of an absurd form of political correctness, that I hope was not intended. Incivility (both on and off-wiki) is indeed harmful but it is a different kettle of fish Alex Bakharev (talk) 04:58, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Edit warring can involve groups

2.1) Edit warring does not always involve two editors. The same revert carried out several times by different editors, with each editor only reverting one or twice can still be an edit war. It depends on what awareness is shown of the overall editing situation, as seen in edit summaries and so forth. ie. A single revert can still be edit warring.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

The essence of edit warring is repeatedly reverting edits without discussion, to the extent that the consensus-making process which is the end of discussion is disrupted. This can involved two or more parties. --Tony Sidaway 02:08, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

I much prefer this wording. If the arbitrators do take notice of this proposal, I hope they use that wording. Carcharoth (talk) 05:09, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

Comment by others:

Proposed. Needs making explicit to make clear that edit warring was happening on both sides. Discussion was also taking place on the talk page, which complicates things. To expand on the principle:

"Edit warring occurs when individual editors or groups of editors repeatedly revert content edits to a page or subject area. Such hostile behavior is prohibited, and considered a breach of Wikiquette. Since it is an attempt to win a content dispute through brute force, edit warring undermines the consensus-building process that underlies the ideal wiki collaborative spirit." - from Wikipedia:Edit war (my emphasis)

What we had here was a slow motion edit war:

User A reverts User X. User X reverts User A. User B reverts User X. User X reverts User B. User C reverts User X. User X reverts User C.

If Users A, B, and C are reverting User X without discussion, then they are as guilty of edit warring as User X. As I said in the principle, whether or not this is an edit war, or reverting to a consensus version, depends on what awareness is shown of the overall editing situation, as seen in edit summaries and so forth, and the state of discussion on talk pages. Carcharoth (talk) 02:58, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

This comes dangerously close to allowing a single tendentious editor to manipulate articles. We see this on a near-daily basis in controversy prone topics such as global warming and pseudoscience. Raymond Arritt (talk) 04:57, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

That's why I said "It depends on what awareness is shown of the overall editing situation, as seen in edit summaries and so forth." What I want to dispel here is the notion that absence of 3RR is a presumption of innocence. It is nothing of the sort. In practice, the normal approach should be to use adequately descriptive edit summaries and/or to refer to, and post on, the talk page. Reflexively hitting "revert", without discussion, for anything but obvious vandalism (and POV-pushing is not vandalism) is still edit warring. Carcharoth (talk) 05:18, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

• I think this is a well-formulated statement. Sandifer has been falling back on, "Well, who else violated 3RR" in defending his block of Giano, and even went so far as to claim that the other editors were basically simply doing no more than reverting Giano's "vandalism" in what they did. He has categorically denied that they were edit-warring. This is a needed proposal. Mr Which??? 12:19, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

If I see a page change and don't like the change, do I need to study the edit history to make sure I am not repeating a revert that somebody else's made before? This seems awfully bureaucratic and prone to gaming. Jehochman ^Talk 21:51, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

No, you do not have to. But I expect experienced users to know better than jumping into what obviously is an edit-war (clicking on the "history" tab does show more than the last edit made, no?) with an uncommented revert. And I believe the parties involved SHOULD have known better. In that sense As much as violating 3RR usually indicates editwarring, tag-teaming with other editors does the same. Even doing only 1 revert without explanation on the talkpage could be essentially Tag-Teaming with several editors to "overwhelm" the numerically inferior side either, possibly pushing them into 3RR violations. CharonX/talk 00:00, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Authority

3) The arbitration committee has supreme authority over relevant IRC channels on the freenode network that are linked to the English wikipedia.

Comment by Arbitrators:

This hasn't been the case previously. While James is the ultimate authority over Wikimedia IRC, this is comes from his previous or current (depending on the interpretation) status as Group Contact, and is not related to his job as arbitrator. While current and former arbitrators have served as chanops in various channels, this is indicative of apparent sensibility and not ex-officio. Barring a change in policy, this isn't the case and arbcom decisions don't make policy. I'm aware of Jimbo's declaration in the matter but the ramifications remain unclear. Mackensen (talk) 02:24, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

Comment by parties:

Proposed, but might need some modifications, for example, the #wikipedia channel is not only for the English wiki, but is mostly used as such. _→AzaToth 01:10, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

False as of now. The ultimate authority over what is generally considered as relevant IRC channels on the freenode network belongs personally to James F who has the highest point level and can overule anyone on any matter for any reason. This is a technical fact. You may wonder why but it is a fact. The somewhat lesser power lies with certain others such as Sean William Whitton ^{(fixed, hope you don't mind Irpen Sean William @ 05:15, 1 January 2008 (UTC))}, Mark Ryan , David Gerard, Jimbo Wales (and a handful of others but I believe all the rest have lower level. These people control these channels personally (as IRC personalities, not as Wikipedia users) and since any relationship between IRC, WMF, WP, etc. were deliberately made murky, there is no mechanism to force David Gerard and James F. to do anything they don't like. This has been tried before and these two individuals made it clear that the their cooperation is their choice and cannot be taken for granted. --Irpen 01:29, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

Not sure arbcom can decide this one. What does Freenode recognise? Ought and is may not be the same here? Actually this isn't a "principle" it is a question of fact - what is the case?--Doc^g 01:39, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

Comment by others:

Freenode apparently doesn't recognize anyone as group contact. I understand that they recommend elections to choose official group contacts, which I think we should consider organizing. SlimVirgin ^{(talk)(contribs)} 01:48, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

I agree. I don't think the current "contacts" do a good job at all. An election would be a very sensible (and fair) idea. Majorly (talk) 19:12, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

Agree, but these comments seem to me to be narrower than is implied. This seems to give arbcom jurisdiction for handling bad behavior on IRC, but it does not seem to me to constitute "supreme authority" as such - I do not take Jimbo's statement to be a claim that the arbcom has policy supervision over IRC, for example. Rather, I take it to mean that policies of both IRC and Wikipedia can be enforced by the arbcom if need be. Phil Sandifer (talk) 05:10, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

I think it's too open to interpretation: a broad view would include channels like #vandalproof, #cvn-wp-en or #npwatcher which are not strictly linked to the English Wikipedia, but are still related to it. Snowolf ^{How can I help?} 01:18, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

Per Jimbo, this is correct. 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. [2] SirFozzie (talk) 02:56, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

Jimbo may make Wikipedia policies single-handily and he has technical means to do that as he has buttons to desysop, ban anyone he wishes. Perhaps, he has same powers over the ArbCom mailing list (I am not sure but possibly so.) He has no control over IRC. Unless the current channel owners relinquish their keys and handle them to Jimbo, he has no control. Personally, I would support this transfer even though I have great respect to Mark and Sean. But I would prefer if the keys were handed to the body chosen by this community, that is the ArbCom. As of now, neither took place. --Irpen

I hesitate to point out that the current channel owners are an arbitrator and a former arbitrator - the keys are hardly removed from Jimbo, and I cannot imagine that either of them would decline to implement a decision by Jimbo. Phil Sandifer (talk) 05:21, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

Your "unable to imagine" does not make anything a fact. They made it clear that they would decline to implement the decision of arbcom if they choose to. And this issue is now at ArbCom, not at Jimbo's talk. So, would they surrender to ArbCom or not, if requested, is a key question. --Irpen 05:25, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

Where has this been made clear, exactly? Phil Sandifer (talk) 05:28, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

ArbCom != internet court. Jimbo can say what he wants, but all that ArbCom could possibly get is control of all channels starting #wikipedia*, via James F or seanw. If users then decided (for whatever reason) to move to a channel such as ##wikipedia-en-admins, ArbCom, James nor seanw would have any authority at all, and any attempts to gain it would likely be opposed by freenode staff. You could reword the principle to "authority over all Wikipedia.en channels which fall into the WMF IRC group contacts' remit", but you would be able to get no more. That is totally unnegotiable, unless the ArbCom has recently gained a lot of power. Sorry. Martinp23 02:36, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

Yah. But ArbCom could still deal out sanctions based on evidence of interaction between off-wiki and on-wiki actions in extreme cases. eg. Ban editors on Wikipedia based on blogging activity, calls to vandalise Wikipedia, calls to out anonymous editors, disruptive activity co-ordinated in IRC channels (whatever the name). The real question is what evidence of off-wiki activity is admissible. Off-wiki actions would be for the Foundation or individual editors to pursue. Carcharoth (talk) 02:44, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

None, unless real life legal stuff, in a real court, with real lawyers and judges. Really, ArbCom isn't the Supreme Court, the House of Lords Appeal Court, or whatever. It can't claim jurisdiction over whatever it wants. I can see it now "We're the ArbCom - give us the logs to ##martinp23 because we need them". Wow, automatic permission from arbcom - naive editor thinks its ok, privacy violated but no-one cares. That the arbcom will accept private (email, non WMF IRC) communications as evidence via the mailing list is wrong to me already - the ArbCom can't treat such things reliably, and can't be unfair to other parties by using it. If I were to block a user now as a sockpuppet, but be wrong, surely the sanction delivered to me should be the same as that which would be given if it emerged I had colluded with a user in ##martinp23 to plan it. Mine is a private channel - logs are only publishable by me, and I would kick up the biggest fuss imaginable if someone tried to use my channel against me before some kangaroo court on the internet. Collusion - the presence or lack thereof, may be relevant at times - but the answer to such a query is a yes/no - not a copy of the communiques in question. We have the right to association and the right to free speech, neither of which, despite the occasional illusions of gradeur, the arbcom can overrule. Martinp23 02:58, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

Good points, and I'm beginning to agree with you that use of off-wiki evidence is a legal and civil rights minefield. I assume you've been making these at WP:PRIVATE? Carcharoth (talk) 18:38, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Authority

3a) The arbitration committee has supreme authority over relevant IRC channels and other closed off-wiki forums that are advertised on Wikipedia outside the personal userspace. Discussion of Wikipedia-related matter on other forums is discouraged.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Proposed as a variant of 3). Basically every off-Wiki forum is either private or a Wikipedia enterprise. If it belongs to Wikipedia then it is ruled by the community-elected body, if it is a private enterprise of a Wikipedian (e.g. my blog) it should not be advertised outside of my userspace. Alex Bakharev (talk) 06:26, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

Just a problem here, this would include things like wikipedia review and wikback. Uninvited company runs Wikback and a load of arbs talk there so that might as well be under the authority of arbcom but wikipedia review isn't.--Phoenix-wiki 20:52, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

Well, neither Wikipedia Review nor Wikiback are advertised in wikispace. I intentionally have not written forbidden but discouraged. I do not think we should encourage participation in WikiReview while Wikiback seems to be harmless and probably promised to be useful. Maybe we should substitute Discussion of Wikipedia-related matter with less wide Canvassing and Gossiping? Alex Bakharev (talk) 05:12, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] People may talk to each other

4) Although Wikipedia does not function primarily as a social network, it is understood that people who work together are likely to become friends and talk outside of Wikipedia. It is only natural that these conversations will at times be about Wikipedia, and that on-wiki actions may be influenced by these conversations.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

We cannot possibly rule anything else - talking is acceptable. Period. We cannot forbid people from having friendships, and cannot forbid friends from talking about mutual interests. Phil Sandifer (talk) 01:21, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

Yes. As long as the Wikipedia, the ArbCom, Jimbo, WMF, etc explicitly disclaim any connection with this medium, those who like each other can socialize where they choose and admit or refuse to admit anyone they like. A caveat, however, if any policy violation takes place onwiki and the conspiracy can be demontsrated beyond reasonable doubt, this become an aggravating factor for the offender as far as his position within Wikipedia is concerned. It bears no consequences for IRC but separation needs to be made explicit. --Irpen 01:33, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

Whether IRC or another media is used for canvassing, the problem is phony consensus. That sort of improper collusion may be easier to prove when IRC is used to coordinate the activity. I am not suggesting that there was improper collusion here, just speculating on the principle. Jehochman ^Talk 21:54, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

Comment by others:

I do not think we should encourage even more canvassing. It is quite bad as it is Alex Bakharev (talk) 06:28, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

So you're proposing, what, "People may not talk to each other?" Phil Sandifer (talk) 06:52, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

Indeed in real life there are topics there you are limited in the environment you can use to communicate with your friends. The rules over insider trading comes to the mind, or, say, sexually explicit talks between adults and minors Alex Bakharev (talk) 05:18, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

People can do more than just talk to each other, it's also perfectly acceptable to specifically coordinate Wikipedia activities off-wiki. I agree with what Phil is saying, but we also might want to point out that we're emphasizing on administrator actions (obvious, I know, but some people take arbcom statements very literally). -- Ned Scott 07:05, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

Of course; it is completely impossible for anyone to regulate friends casually talking to each other off-wiki. But that's not an accurate representation of what goes on at IRC channels. -Amarkov moo! 22:00, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Posting logs

5) The posting of IRC chat logs onto the English Wikipedia is prohibited, unless prior consent from all participants featuring in the log is sought and granted. Users who revert to restore logs may be blocked from editing for disrupting the compilation of the encyclopedia.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Past arbitration decisions have established that the posting of private correspondence on Wikipedia is not acceptable. Whether this extends to a channel to which hundreds have access is open to debate. What's the status of the private correspondence policy? Mackensen (talk) 02:20, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

Comment by parties:

It's to broad, for example, #wikipedia-en-unblock specifically states "Unblock conversation logs may be published" _→AzaToth 01:31, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

There is no Wikipedia policy that says that. If this is an IRC rule, the violator may face consequences at IRC. IRC rules and Wikipedia rules are separate and unrelated unless this is changed. Until then, the statement of this proposal is false. --Irpen 01:35, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

There has traditionally been a prohibition against posting logs from en-admins to Wikipedia because the explicit motivation behind en-admins's creation was to have a place for rapid discussion of BLP issues. Although en-admins has had a problem with leaks, this problem does not seem to me well-solved by giving up the fight, as that would simply necessitate another private channel to exist for BLPs that would rapidly acquire the same set of problems. Although we could keep moving the BLP channel every time we get too many leak problems, I suppose. Phil Sandifer (talk) 05:20, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

There is a simpler solution. The channel devoted to BLP issues being not used for other things, like, you know, engineering blocks or disparaging editors and gossiping behind their backs. --Irpen 05:30, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

And now you move firmly into the realm of trying to legislate what people can and can't talk to their friends about. Which works only slightly better than trying to legislate an on-topic requirement for an IRC channel, which in turn works only slightly better than herding cats. Phil Sandifer (talk) 05:46, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

True enough. Sadly quite a lot of the proposals here seem to boil down to "Wikipedia henceforth mandates a change in human nature". Guy (Help!) 22:07, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

Comment by others:

Putting it out there. Still don't know whether I agree with it or not. Daniel 01:26, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

What about something like "The posting of IRC chat logs onto the English Wikipedia is prohibited, unless prior consent from all participants featuring in the log is sought and granted, or the channel rules explicitly allows it. Users who revert to restore logs may be blocked from editing for disrupting the compilation of the encyclopedia."? However probably the place where such channel rules are published may then became of importance. Snowolf ^{How can I help?} 01:34, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

Added a "then" between may and become in my following comment. Snowolf ^{How can I help?} 01:35, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

This leads to all kinds of silliness, with people dropping heavy hints about what was said, without actually saying it -- which as often as not makes what was said sound worse than it really was. It's in everyone's interests that logs are allowed to be posted. Given that potentially 1,300 people have access to the admins' channel, and everyone has access to the open ones, there can't be any reasonable expectation of privacy. Strictly private channels are a different matter, of course. SlimVirgin ^{(talk)(contribs)} 01:37, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

Such a rule would need a justification of how this benefits Wikipedia. We have no automatic reason to help enforce the rules or norms of other venues. Friday (talk) 01:41, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

Preventing disruption, avoiding Fair Use in non-article space, etc.? Daniel 01:43, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

What SlimVirgin said. IRC is not email. You can't shout something in a crowded theater and then complain when someone puts a video of you shouting it on YouTube. Nandesuka (talk) 23:21, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

How about something more broad like "Posting unpublished correspondence beyond their intended audience is a violation of privacy."? 1 != 2 04:27, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

The intended audience of #-admins is 1300+ admins, and the intended audience of #-en-wikipedia is all en.wp editors. I agree with SlimVirgin, there is no reasonable expectation of privacy. Risker (talk) 06:43, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

In response to Mackensen at 02:20, 27 December 2007 (UTC), WP:Private correspondence is currently protected after an edit war, and has been put up for MfD[3], I understand with the intention of having it flagged "historical" or "rejected". The community has not been able to come to consensus on this issue. Risker (talk) 07:23, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Channel log policy

5.1) Many channels on IRC prohibit the posting of logs. Users should assume that channels prohibit posting logs unless there is a specific notice stating otherwise. The posting of IRC chat logs from such channels onto the English Wikipedia is prohibited, unless prior consent from all participants featuring in the log is sought and granted. Users who revert to restore logs may be blocked from editing for disrupting the compilation of the encyclopedia.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Well, reverting to restore anything is disruptive and might result in a block. Putting my IRC channel operator hat on for a moment, posting logs will probably get you kicked from the channel. When on IRC you're governed by IRC policies. (Switch hats). The failure to establish a specific policy here is a limiting factor. Mackensen (talk) 07:17, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Proposed. -en-unblock allows any logs to be published, as does -bag, and possibly others. Probably requires stronger wording. --uǝʌǝsʎʇɹnoɟʇs(st47) 21:18, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

Strongly disagree. People should always assume that anything they say in public is, y'know, public. Nandesuka (talk) 23:21, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

People have come to expect privacy on IRC, as that is the IRC channel's policy. There is no option here for us to say "ok, logging is fine", because people can still be punished on IRC for posting logs. Especially in private channels, like -admins. We have two choices here, either say it will earn you a block, or say we won't do anything about it, but I don't see how we can say that it's completely legal. --uǝʌǝsʎʇɹnoɟʇs(st47) 23:33, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

"People have come to expect privacy on IRC" I'm sorry, but such people are fools. -- Ned Scott 07:07, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

Or perhaps those who shun privacy are simply closed-minded. Regardless, we aren't here to argue over the policy of the IRC channels, simply whether to help enforce it. --uǝʌǝsʎʇɹnoɟʇs(st47) 22:26, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

Ned, it's against policy to post logs unless everyone who speaks agrees. If they speak in a channel with a notice in the topic saying logs can be published that means they agree to have the logs published, but if they speak elsewhere, you'll never see logs.--Phoenix-wiki ^{talk · contribs} 12:22, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

Taken from freenode channel guidelines:

If you're considering publishing channel logs, think it through. The freenode network is an interactive environment. Even on public channels, most users don't weigh their comments with the idea that they'll be enshrined in perpetuity. For that reason, few participants publish logs.

If you're publishing logs on an ongoing basis, your channel topic should reflect that fact. Be sure to provide a way for users to make comments without logging, and get permission from the channel owners before you start. If you're thinking of "anonymizing" your logs (removing information that identifies the specific users), be aware that it's difficult to do it well—replies and general context often provide identifying information which is hard to filter.

If you just want to publish a single conversation, be careful to get permission from each participant. Provide as much context as you can. Avoid the temptation to publish or distribute logs without permission in order to portray someone in a bad light. The reputation you save will most likely be your own. --Phoenix-wiki ^{talk · contribs} 12:28, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

An idea that works in theory, but doesn't actually work in real life. Even without posting logs, there's always "so and so said some crap about you the other day". People should not assume that discussions are actually private on IRC. It's far too insecure in actual practice. -- Ned Scott 04:53, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

I started to use IRC a week after creating my account and am still using it. In that time, no conversation I've had has made it's way onto wikipedia, and I'm sure a lot of people can say the same thing. And you say it like "saying crap about people" is a regular occurence. It almost never happens, and when it does, it's usually just "That was a stupid thing to do" rather than "He's a dickhead, I hate him".--Phoenix-wiki 19:31, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Channel log policy

5.2) IRC conversations are assumed to be private to those who were present or whose presence would not have been contentious for the conversation. Users who quote the words of others from such conversations without permission, where the words will be seen outside that expectation (other than by Arbcom), are in breach of that expectation. If posted publicly the log may be summarily deleted by any administrator, and depending upon the circumstances the user may often expect to be criticized, sanctioned, or if serious, blocked pending discussion to prevent repetition.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

This is roughly where I get to. Some logs are completely harmless - for example if I post "LOL CHEEZEBURGER!" and ST47 reposts it to Eagle101 in PM, that's hardly a problem, nor would I expect him to be required to ask "Please may I quote that". On the other hand some matters there is exactly that expectation that he will either check, or not do it, and it is to be treated very seriously. So quoting from IRC conversations (log or screen, PM or channel) is a social privacy issue. A publicly posted log may be removed. The user him/herself takes "pot luck", depending how seriously others see it. Brevify if possible, but that seems sensible. FT2 ^{(Talk | email)} 07:29, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

FT2, the logs are readily available to just about any "trusted editor" if you know who to ask. Several IRC regulars log the channels fulltime, and this is well known within the project. Everyone who is participating on IRC should be aware of this (or made aware of this). It is, indeed, one of the reasons why I don't go near the place. They cannot be considered private, really. Risker (talk) 07:35, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

Agree, but if people wantg to propose a policy about seeing logs or showing them, it needs to be a realistic one......... Personally I do as you do, I expect it'll be private to admins, but I don't say anything that I'd be shamed by (in private or public) if it did get seen by anyone else. Seems a sensible approach. But if people want a proposal, then okay..... FT2 ^{(Talk | email)} 07:41, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

It strikes me as more realistic to stop all the "OMG! IRC LOG! DELETE!" nonsense, to be honest, when it comes to the general wikipedia channels, and possibly even the admin one for that matter. If they get posted, they get posted. I can guarantee that behaviour, topic choice and language usage will improve if users know their words could potentially be as visible to the community as anything they post on a talk page - and that does seem to be a desired result. The exception of course would be information covered under the WMF privacy policy. (And no, IRC cloak names would not be covered, as I cannot imagine anyone being dumb enough to cloak themselves with their real life name.)Risker (talk) 08:22, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

It's a private channel but how many people are in there? (As of this posting it was 51--- public enough?) Besides, there are things that should be limited to admins-only, and there are things that just shouldn't be said in a channel with more than a handful of people, period. - Penwhale | ^{Blast him / Follow his steps} 07:50, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

Support this wording as well. --uǝʌǝsʎʇɹnoɟʇs(st47) 12:20, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

Oppose this wording. "Other than ArbCom" is the no-go for me - if evidence can't be public, it shouldn't be evidence, and thus ArbCom gives us an even greater demonstration of why it is bordering on being a kangaroo court (or is already way south of that). ArbCom is not composed of demigods, with greater rights to see our private conversations than others. Either impose an open logging policy on the channels, or get all thoughts of log sharing out of the picture - it is unfair tot he participants, and violates some of their civil rights... Martinp23 23:59, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

Slight misreading I think. That wording is there so that if a user feels something is serious enough that it needs special handling (for example a visitor posts the message "User:X is really John Smith of (address) (phone) (wifes name) (employer) and is a convicted (whatever)!!", then a person can forward it to arbcom to handle, and not be caught by the wording that otherwise would censure all users who quoted the text outside the realm of people reasonably expected to see it. It basically means "if you pass it to arbcom, you won't get beaten up for notionally breaching channel privacy". Many other cases may exist where a user has been concerned enough to ask arbcom to review a matter. There is a long established consensus that logs can be forwarded to arbcom if needed for arb cases. As the community norms stand now, so the wording reflects it. That may change in future, but in general we reflect in cases, how things stand now, not how they might stand if norms change in future. FT2 ^{(Talk | email)} 00:17, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

Misreading indeed - thanks for clarification Martinp23 00:36, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

I think you are mistaking Arbcom for a legal system. It is not. The arbitrators are chartered to make decisions in the role of an arbitrator. I have seen no evidence that they cannot be trusted to use private correspondence in making those decisions, and no reason not to assume that they work professionally in the best interests of the project. — Carl (CBM · talk) 01:38, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

On the other hand, if arbcom is considering evidence provided by one party without the consent of the other, I expect they give it appropriate weight, and consider on a case-by-case basis the potential for forgery. In this particular situation, the IRC logs can be verified by any number of people, but in a channel with only two participants it would be more difficult. — Carl (CBM · talk) 16:05, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

I'd support this, not least because in a recent case the logs proved to have been falsified. Better by far to give them to ArbCom, who can cross-check for authenticity and release if and only if they are confident that the project is best served thereby. Leave it to ArbCom, as the canonical uninvolved party, to decide whether, and how much, to release. Guy (Help!) 22:22, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Channel log policy

5.3) IRC channels often have specific rules relating to public logging, those rules should be followed or the user should recuse themselves from using the channel if they are unable or unwilling to follow those rules. Access to IRC channels is not a right, but a privilege and channel operators are empowered to remove any user that abuses that privilege, whether by publishing logs or any other behaviour that is against the rules of the channel, is considered disruptive or is unwanted.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Proposed. Nick (talk) 15:03, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

Support - Wikipedia has no responsibility to endorse rules of other communities (maybe except the laws of the USA and Florida state), despite China wanting all Chinese wikieditors to be jailed we do not automatically block all the Chinese editors and forward their ips to their Government. If some Freenode channel wants to persecute the leakers it is not our business to help them enforce their policy. On the other hand we have to strongly discourage unethical behavior by something like proposed 5.3.1. Alex Bakharev (talk) 07:07, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Assuming good faith in off-wikipedia interactions

5.3.1) Off-wikipedia interactions between wikipedian regarding Wikipedia-related issues should follow the same decoroum rules as On-wiki interactions. Publications of the off-wiki interactions include IRC-logs that were in good faith intended to be private is a serious violation of WP:AGF policy and may result in blocking the violator from editing Wikipedia. Such a publication may be legitimate in the exceptional cases then there are convincing reasons to believe that the private interactions was not in good faith intended to benefit the Wikipedia project and its participants.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Proposed as an addition to 5.3. Strongly discourage from leaking the logs on and off wiki, but left open the rare cases there such a publication may be valid Alex Bakharev (talk) 07:07, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

No, the problem here is the same as with private email. If we send it to ArbCom they can decide whether to publish it after first checking that it does not violate privacy, is authentic and is the only way of achieving a necessary goal. Every editor involved in any kind of dispute where logs would provide some support will feel, to a greater or lesser extent, that the project would be best served by publicaiton in that specific case. Much better to leave it to an independent party to make the call. Guy (Help!) 22:10, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

It is unclear if the Arbcom has time to quickly evaluate every Lol, hamburger E-mail, every case of E-mail or Irc harassment and every case of canvassing. In important cases there might be perception that Arbcom has a conflict of intersts (e.g. #en-admin channel has many members of the arbcom mailing list as chanops or frequent users, so it is hardly a completely uninvolved committee). In combination with 5.3 it seems to be strong enough. A publicator of a log will be thrown from the channel and if it was unethical enough he or she might be banned on wikipedia. I think it is enough to stop publications of all but the most pressing cases. Alex Bakharev (talk) 06:10, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] All decisions open for discussion

6) All decisions and actions on Wikipedia are open for on-wiki discussion. Although in certain cases related to privacy concerns some aspects of the decision may not be suitable for public discussion no decisions are above public discussion and review.

Comment by Arbitrators:

This isn't any different from principles stated in the Durova case. I'm not sure how this applies here. Mackensen (talk) 02:21, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

Comment by parties:

The flip side of "people are allowed to talk." People are allowed to talk, but on-wiki actions can always be reviewed on-wiki. Phil Sandifer (talk) 01:31, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

Irrelevant. "Certain cases related to privacy concerns" was invoked many times to justify the #admins secrecy but it is nothing but a red herring. Issues of this kind should not be discussed at the channels accessible by clearly unworthy individuals, the channel whose logs pop up reglualry at malicious sites. There is an ArbCom IRC, Checkuser IRC and OTRS IRC channels for such matters. --Irpen 01:52, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

Actually, -en-admins is more secure than OTRS. Phil Sandifer (talk) 02:06, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

I have not seen OTRS logs at Wikitruth. Let's stick to facts. But we can leave OTRS out of this too. Just ArbCom and Checkuser IRC channels only can handle privacy issues. --Irpen 02:18, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

Spoken like somebody who does not deal with sensitive BLP issues routinely. Phil Sandifer (talk) 02:20, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

BLP that are serious enough to require confidentiality should never be near the channel with the past record like this. --Irpen 02:23, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

Irpen has a point here. The frequency of leaks (which demonstrate the channel's insecurity) and the presence of arbcom-desysopped admins (if the committee doesn't trust you with admin tools, are you really trustworthy with BLP issues that require secrecy?) suggest that this channel isn't the best place for discussing confidential BLP matters. Once, maybe, but not nowadays. Picaroon (t) 02:40, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

Well, maybe. There are people who have resigned in controversial circumstances but who still have very sound judgement in matters of WP:BLP. I think that people in the irc channel are there mainly because someone thinks it will help the project if they are able to influence time-critical decisions. Most of my memories of the input of non-admins on irc are of a moderating influence. To take a single instance, without wishing to imply it is anything other than an illustrative instance chosen at random, quite why Tony Sidaway had a go at Bishonen is a mystery to me; an off day, I guess. In my experience, Tony has been completely sound on WP:BLP and has on occasion given decisive input in moderating herd mentality, preventing some silly actions. This may just be my faulty memory, but I don;t think so. Like David Gerard, Tony has the ability to spot idiocy that others have missed through being sucked in to a situation - idiocy that is, in hindsight, blindingly obvious. This does not make him immune from other forms of idiocy, nobody's perfect. So I think an irc channel without Tony would probably be less good. I was strongly against irc until I was finally persuaded to join, and I think the solution is for more people to sign up, and to use it for what it's good for, which is sanity checking - always remembering that all actions are your own responsibility, of course, and never accepting any answer other than "no" as having any meaning or force. Guy (Help!) 22:18, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

Comment by others:

Wouldn't it be all actions done on-Wiki are eligible to be reviewed on-Wiki? Lawrence Cohen 01:46, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

Fixed. Phil Sandifer (talk) 02:06, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

To nebulous up to the point to irrelevancy. Needs a clearer formulation Alex Bakharev (talk) 07:22, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Users can be held responsible on Wikipedia for public actions elsewhere

7.0) A user that causes problems for Wikipedia (or any user on said site) with statements made on a public area can be held responsible for them here.

Comment by Arbitrators:

No such policy, and ridiculously broad. Mackensen (talk) 15:26, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

There have been attempts in the past to create policies which regulate users off-site activities. These have never gained consensus. The committee does not make policy, nor does it ask users to work with one another if such cooperation is not possible. Violetriga, I know of of many users who run blogs slandering users. Many of them are staunch critics of IRC as well. As they see no apparent contradiction then I don't either. Arbcom doesn't make policy. No, I won't go naming names. My views of what amounts to slander are entirely personal and subjective, and I'm not going to run round telling people what they ought to say on their blog. Mackensen (talk) 06:34, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

Chris, I don't deny that's a problem. Two issues present themselves. One: this problem was contained entirely in IRC, then moved on-wiki. No articles were harmed; it's difficult to imagine said editors meeting in the main namespace, although I'm sure a wag will find a diff to prove me wrong. Two: the community has never come up with a policy to handle this question. The Committee deals with off-wiki harassment all the time; I'd say we spend more time dealing with that than anything else. Ultimately there isn't a whole lot we can do about it. Now, if someone's using a Wikimedia IRC channel to be a dick, then go grab a chanop and get them kicked from the channel. Mackensen (talk) 07:00, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

Follow-up, to Risker. I would term that "character evidence." Given problematic on-wiki behavior, evidence of off-wiki disruption is indicative. However, that's a narrow concept that in no way matches what's written above. Mackensen (talk) 07:02, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

I said was; that it didn't stay there is why we're here. The alternative to a "legalistic" stance as you term it is an "arbitrary" approach (cue laughs). I don't think this project would be especially well-served if the committee, in the name of protecting users (to be sure, a noble goal), departing from precedent, tradition, and policy and began doing just as it pleases. Of course, many users maintain that the committee does this already. This is a volunteer project with significant visibility. No one's making you edit here, or edit high-risk topics. Our ability to protect users from the Internet is very limited indeed. You always have the option to walk away. Again, I think you're confusing the issue with regards to collaborative editing. The article space was not touched in this dispute; if Bishonen was having trouble editing because she should not get over something Tony said to her over fifteen months ago then I'm not sure what we or anyone else could have possibly done. Mackensen (talk) 07:27, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

I can imagine circumstances in which a user could be sanctioned on Wikipedia for personal attacks off-wiki. Such circumstances would have to be extreme. Newyorkbrad (talk) 05:01, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

Comment by parties:

Let's just say that this user explicitly takes responsibility for the damaging effects of his actions elsewhere. We can argue the principle another day. --Tony Sidaway 06:21, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

Comment by others:

Proposed. Per given definitions of "problems", "public" and "held responsible" - purposely left vague to promote further discussion. violet/riga (t) 09:23, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

Re: Mackensen 15:26, 27 December - it is intentionally broad as I said above. If someone were to have a blog slandering Wikipedians left, right and centre should they be allowed to continue editing? If a public IRC channel that at least has the appearance of being strongly affiliated with Wikipedia is used as a get-around to violate WP:NPA should we ignore it? That is the basis of this. violet/riga (t) 15:42, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

I agree -- it's simply not reasonable to ask editors to work collegially with people who are making personal attacks against them. The fact that the attacks take place off-wiki doesn't make them any less disruptive to activity on Wikipedia. Christopher Parham (talk) 06:19, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

No. Wikipedia regulates Wikipedia and nothing else. Jehochman ^Talk 21:55, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

While I don't really see this proposal applying to this particular case, I am hesitant to blow it off entirely. If someone were to give a speech, for example, claiming to be (or billed as) a representative of Wikipedia then I hope that the project would perceive that it has some jurisdiction. Risker (talk) 22:03, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

That's a very narrow case which might be covered by this proposal, but I agree with you that it does not seem to be needed here. Jehochman ^Talk 06:38, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

Mackensen, if two parties are engaged in a dispute on an article, and one party goes off-wiki (say to IRC) and begins to attack the other, it amounts to a campaign of intimidation. You seem to be saying that when faced with such a campaign a user has two choices: put up with it, or stop working on the article to buy an end to it. Am I misunderstanding this? Christopher Parham (talk) 06:52, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

Actually, there is some policy related to this at WP:NPA[4]. Essentially, personal attacks of their various stripes made in an off-wiki setting may be considered "aggravating factors by administrators and are admissible evidence in the dispute-resolution process, including Arbitration cases." Perhaps a rewording of this proposal to reflect this? Risker (talk) 07:00, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

Responding to Mackensen at 07:02, 28 December 2007 (UTC) - yes, I agree with you that the NPA principle is not intended to be interpreted anywhere near this broadly; hence my suggestion to reword the proposal. Even then, it would seem to only apply in situations where sanctions are already being seriously considered. Risker (talk) 07:11, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

Mackensen, what Wikipedia user in good standing runs a blog that slanders Wikipdia users? There may be some blogs that say things we would prefer they not say, but if anyone is running an actual attack site (not just saying unpopular things), their presence here is inherently disruptive and they should be dealt with. --B (talk) 07:05, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

(to Mackensen) It's disappointing that you feel the arbitration committee does not have the capacity to deal with editors who undermine Wikipedia's collaborative environment in this way; I think that is a rather legalistic stance. In the absence of an organized approach to this issue there is still the general principle that people who undermine the collaborative environment will be removed from it; this principle is embodied in many of our behavioral policies. As far as this case goes, I have difficulty agreeing that this problem was entirely contained in IRC because it is simply of a piece with the same old universe of issues. Christopher Parham (talk) 07:20, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

In this case it is not about collaborating on a specific article but about collaborating on the project generally. And I don't agree that the alternative to a legalistic approach is an arbitrary one; the best option is to be guided by the intent and spirit of the policies rather than their letter. This intent and spirit not arbitrary, in my view. But I can see why the more cautious would differ. Unfortunately I don't think an equitable resolution to this case is possible if you are not willing to address the off-wiki aspects. (Doubly unfortunate, the committee will probably decide to act inequitably rather than acknowledge that it doesn't have the jurisdiction to provide a resolution of this matter.) Christopher Parham (talk) 07:45, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

No way! Not worked like this at least, unless anyone wants to ban Stephen Colbert because a joke he made in the "real world" caused us problems. -- Ned Scott 07:13, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

Support. Natural result of WP:AGF, we cannot assume good faith from people intentionally harming the project. I would only add the word intentionally to caused harm. otherwise it is indeed to broad. And yes, indeed I support permabanning Colbert (what is his username anyway) until he apologized Alex Bakharev (talk) 07:30, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

Was Stephen Colbert banned because of what he said off-wiki, or because of the possibility that he might, as part of his very amusing entertainment, cause problems for Wikipedia? Or perhaps because it was not definitively possible to ask Mr Colbert to identify himself as the account owner and undertake, despite his possible threats, promises, or suggestions, that he would neither encourage vandalism to Wikipedia not permit his account to be used for the purposes of vandalism? Obviously the thing to do was to ban him for the period of uncertainty. Wikipedia may be improved by Mr Colbert's edits, but clearly it can do without them. The same applies to us all. We are not that important as individuals. --Tony Sidaway 01:14, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

A username similar to his name was blocked because it was thought to be someone else trying to impersonate a living person (which is a pretty standard block simply considering the username policy on it's own). Mr. Colbert, the person, has never been banned from Wikipedia. Not sure how many of you watch his show, but Jimbo even went on it after all this happened, and it's safe to say they were on good terms. -- Ned Scott 05:49, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

I am not aware of any account or IP that Colbert has used, so it would not be possible to block him. If, however, he was a known user that "caused problems" off-wiki then we could think about blocking him. However, please note that I was careful to clarify that the definitions of "problems", "public" and "held responsible" were subjective and may simply be something along the lines of stating in an arbcom that the user, as well as breaking WP:AGF on-wiki they have done similar things publicly elsewhere. violet/riga (t) 11:27, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

I understand where you are going with this, but I still think the wording need tweaking, or this could be seen in the wrong way. (assuming people are on the same page about what the disruption is, etc) -- Ned Scott 04:55, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Users can be held responsible on Wikipedia for actions elsewhere

7.1) A user that causes problems for Wikipedia (or any user on said site) with statements made off of Wikipedia can be held responsible for them here.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Just extending 7.0 for discussions, since that is where it seems headed next. Lawrence Cohen 14:18, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

Very strong opposition to this. Way too broad. -- Ned Scott 07:14, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

IMHO worse than original 7.0. Would agree with A user that intentionally harmed Wikipedia (or any user on said site) with statements made off of Wikipedia can be held responsible for them here.. Intentionally and harmed are important here Alex Bakharev (talk) 07:34, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

Good suggestion - 7.2 perhaps? violet/riga (t) 11:28, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Users can be held responsible on Wikipedia for actions elsewhere

7.2) A user who intentionally harmed Wikipedia (or any user on said site) with statements made off of Wikipedia can be held responsible for them here.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Reformulated 7.1 Alex Bakharev (talk) 06:22, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

I think that if the IRC logs were deliberately falsified so to cause disruption on wiki it might be a test case Alex Bakharev (talk) 06:28, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Wheel warring

8) Wikipedia:Wheel warring (undoing an administrative action by another administrator) without first attempting to resolve the issue is unacceptable. Attempts to discuss the issue should always be the first thing to do.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

This is clearly policy.--Doc^g 20:07, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

Would that the W-word had not been coined, because it has become a portmanteau into which several different kinds of abuse have been shovelled indiscriminately. We need to develop a vocabulary to describe with more precision the various situations in which administrative tools are used in furtherance of a conflict rather than, after deliberation, its resolution. --Tony Sidaway 06:25, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

Comment by others:

Should be given; taken from userbox wheel war case. - Penwhale | ^{Blast him / Follow his steps} 15:06, 27 December 2007 (UTC) Modified link to current. - Penwhale | ^{Blast him / Follow his steps} 15:14, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

I would recommend avoiding the term "wheel war" given its disputed definition. violet/riga (t) 15:10, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

Um? - Penwhale | ^{Blast him / Follow his steps} 15:14, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

A wheel war can only occur when an administrative action is repeated, not when one is merely undone, but many dispute that and the wording of this goes against it too. violet/riga (t) 15:16, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

• The "per WP:DR" section reads like a clumsy little addendum, yet is a pretty key part to the Proposal. Perhaps we could give it a sentence of its own? "...is unacceptable. One should [[WP:DR#Discuss|discuss disputed actions with the other party instead.]] is what I had in mind. Anthøny 21:49, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

• Slightly modified wording. - Penwhale | ^{Blast him / Follow his steps} 21:59, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

Clearly not policy as drafted, one revert is clearly authorized by current policy in many situations. Wheel warring never begins before the first repetition. GRBerry 01:37, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

Well, this is where policy, and community understanding of policy, is murky - recall that Zscout370 was desysopped by Jimbo for what Jimbo described as "wheel warring", even though Zscout370's action was no repetition. Regardless of what Wikipedia:Wheel warring says any one day, it probably doesn't reflect community consensus. Maybe we need a separate rule from the wheel warring policy, a rule which says that even if an initial reversal of an admin action without discussion is not wheel warring, it is nevertheless a Bad Thing™. Picaroon (t) 01:43, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

After lengthy discussions there was never a consensus on what constitutes a wheel war. I said at the beginning to avoid the term because of this - I'm sure we can all agree that undoing an administrative action can be a bad thing without discussion but there are many cases for when it is appropriate. For example Doc's deletion of the page was inappropriate and should have been reversed, and a page protection that is not actually doing any good (because it only blocks a minority of users while the admins continue to edit war) is not really worth keeping. violet/riga (t) 09:33, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

*I have a question. The whole time I have been on Wikipedia I have never been in a dispute resolution that worked, mostly because there is no way to enforce anything. This includes Arbitration decisions. Many of the issues brought up here (not specific to IRC as I know nothing about that as I am just a regular editor) have already been decided many times previously in Arbitrations. In fact the last arbitration I was involved in, Zeraeph (just recently closed), involved so many of the same issues (proposed findings of fact and proposed remedies) that I am having a deja vue experience. After not paying attention to Arbitration for two years, this is a real revelation. Maybe I am misunderstanding something, but I do not see the point of this. For example, (to take one little point) it was decided in the last Arbitration that Admins were not to unblock without asking the blocking Admin. And I believe that has been decided before also. Yet here it is again. Deja vue also is all the personal attack issues, proposed remedies etc. How is all this going to be enforced, since the minimal points are not enforced now? Mattisse 01:00, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Transparency and chilling effect

9) Administrators are expected to act in a reasonable and transparent manner, and any actions decided on IRC must be completely detailed in public. Even when reversed, administrative actions that appear arbitrary or capricious, or are based on poor methodology and evidence, have a chilling effect on people's willingness to contribute to Wikipedia.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Not relevant to this case. All anyone stands accused of is making an unfortunate and ill-judged remark; that the matter did not end there cannot be blamed on the medium. Mackensen (talk) 16:22, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Copied from the Durova case with a slight tweak. Lawrence Cohen 16:18, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

Reply to Mackensen- just seemed to make sense, since people were making accusations of bad and/or good blocks before coming from IRC. Wouldn't this be a natural follow up to the one above that any off-Wiki decision can be subject to on-Wiki review and disclosure? No secret courts (Durova case, et al) and all that? Lawrence Cohen 16:24, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

Support, Might be relevant Alex Bakharev (talk) 07:45, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Vested Contributors

10) Editors are expected to make mistakes, suffer occasional lapses of judgement, and ignore all rules from time to time in well-meaning furtherance of the project's goals. However, all users, regardless of vested "status" or position and role in Wikipedia, must be subject to the exact same application of policies for policies to have teeth. That is, a non-admin with three years of experience will be blocked as readily as an admin, arbiter, or any other with three years of experience.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

One more copied and slightly tweaked from Durova's case. Lawrence Cohen 16:22, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

Is it just me, or is the MeatballWiki page not coming up? Sean William @ 17:30, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

Not working here either. Cache. --uǝʌǝsʎʇɹnoɟʇs(st47) 21:21, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

I actually do not like it. The person having additional rights or some community office is expected to behave according to the stricter standards than an ordinary user. Thus, admin or arbitrator should be blocked for the lesser violations than an ordinary user. On the other hand we should expect to easier spend community resources on babysitting of a bad tempered goose laying golden eggs than on a troll without mainspace contributions or with trivial ones Alex Bakharev (talk) 07:57, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

This is not practice. some folks get a larger degree of lattitude (especially around incivility) than others. --Rocksanddirt (talk) 17:49, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

The point is, that's not how it should be. Ryan Postlethwaite 17:52, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Edit wars: edit summaries vs talk pages

11) Some people have a tendency to continue talk page discussions into their edit summaries (a trait seen in experienced users). This can be harmful during edit wars. It is especially harmful when people think their reverts are justified because they write something in the edit summary to justify the revert. If you have something to say during an edit war, then the correct place to do it is on the talk page, not in edit summaries while continuing the edit war

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Might seem like common sense, but this certainly did not happen in this case. Editorializing in edit summaries took place on both sides in this edit war, when discussion should have moved to the talk page and remained there until consensus was reached. Carcharoth (talk) 18:24, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

The thought "Edit summaries exist to characterize the nature [?and function] of the edit" comes to mind somewhere in this... FT2 ^{(Talk | email)} 07:46, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

Sorry, are you agreeing or disagreeing? I'm not clear. I realise that edit summaries are sometimes useful to say some things, and indeed can, in a limited way substitute for talk page discussion, but I'm saying that in this case the justification for edits needed to be presented and discussed on a talk page, not used in edit summaries as some sort of "justification" for edit warring. I sometimes see people saying that reverts are OK as long as you explain them in the edit summary. This is true, but only up to a certain extent. When an edit war is taking place, explaining reverts is no longer helpful. The impulse to revert needs to be restrained, and the explanation needs to go to the talk page. Carcharoth (talk) 19:03, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

Neither, I just thought of that, reading your proposal, and thought it was a useful thought :) FT2 ^{(Talk | email)} 00:22, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Administrators vs. editors

12) The idea that administrators are a separate class of users from content editors has been the cause of friction. This idea is pernicious and divisive. Wikipedia recognises no hierarchical difference between administrators and non-administrators, and in the absence of evidence to the contrary every Wikipedian is assumed to be here in order to build an encyclopaedia, in whatever way best suits their talents and interests. No official distinction is drawn between the merits of different types of contribution, be it creation of featured articles, deletion of nonsense or prevention of vandalism.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

I'm in complete agreement with JzG. Statements such as (from below) "it is the Admins that do the least editing that are the hardest on productive editors." are not only untrue, they are very damaging to the atmosphere of cooperation that Wikipedia needs. --Tony Sidaway 23:44, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

:::I am speaking from my experience from almost two years on Wikipedia and approximately 37,000 edits, nearly all article edits. This had been my experience. Mattisse 23:53, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

It is precisely this act of generalizing from personal experience that prolongs the state of warfare. If you have a problem with an administrator's actions, use dispute resolution. --Tony Sidaway 03:09, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

:::::This is precisely what I am talking about. The person, Tony Sidaway, commenting above me is completely dismissing my experience as not worth even considering. In fact, he is blaming me for the problem. This is a great example of the Admin attitude. (I am sure he is one or he would not disparage my input so. He has the Admin attitude.) How would you know as you are not in my position? Mattisse 01:26, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

:::::: It was addressed in Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Zeraeph/Proposed_decision#Discussion_by_Arbitrators but in reality, it has no effect. For an Admin, there is no consequence for misbehavior. Mattisse 18:11, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

I've neither dismissing your experience nor blaming you. I'm cautioning against constructing broad generalisations from individual experience. --Tony Sidaway 01:50, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

Comment by others:

Time to nail the "us and them" nonsense. Guy (Help!) 13:40, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

I'd fully support this point, though it is only de jure. De facto admins can get away with LOTS of things with impunity, with which non-admins wouldn't (even if they had the power to do them). I can give you more than enough evidence for this two-class treatment if you want. CharonX/talk 17:19, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

I think this applies to long-standing members of the project generally, it just happens that the longer you've been around the more likely you are to be an admin. Look at the crap Giano gets away with and the incredible amount of rudeness we tolerated from SPUI. Guy (Help!) 12:56, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

The idea is true. Administrators do have a hierarchial difference, whatever policy pages might say. And if stating the truth is "pernicious and divisive", the problem doesn't lie with the people who are talking. -Amarkov moo! 22:59, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

After two years of active participation with the project my impression is that admins are treated, and often treat each other, as a separate class of users from non-admins. Cla68 (talk) 23:07, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

Hear, hear. CharonX/talk 23:38, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

The social networking aspect bothers me. Not only is Wikipedia not a social networking site, but we have WP:NOT#Socialnet making this explicit. And we enforce this, with notes, reminders, templates, and when necessary, with the pointy end of the mop. Yet we have a semi-WP, semi-not-WP social place for admins only. If a channel is needed to discuss biography of living persons issues, good, that should exist, and under WP's control. But having a social site for admins fosters the growth of the real and perceived divide. Jd2718 (talk) 23:53, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

Likewise no distinction should drawn between Featured Article writers, wikignomes, template specialists, sub creators and so on. "Our best contributors" are drawn from all sorts of editors, affording some a special status simply because of their type of contribution is divisive. Rockpocket 02:11, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

One of the examples of such a distinction is the existence of the admin-only primarily social channels like #en-admins. Why the opinions of sex, movies, music and wikipedia policies is more important from the admin than just from an active user? In particular one of the easy ways to solve regular conflicts between Giano and #admins would be to make Giano a member of the channel. Then most of the conflicts could be solved on the channels, misinformation would not be an issue, etc. Moreover, with his temperament and the desire to right all the world wrongs Giano is our insurance against alleged shadow dealings on the channel. Still, I got an impression that it is impossible. Why? Alex Bakharev (talk) 06:52, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

• This is not practice. In practice, there is a real difference in the assignment of good faith between admins and editors, between editors who do FA's and editors who just edit. --Rocksanddirt (talk) 17:55, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

• No need for this — I speak to admins regularly on irc and nobody thinks any worse of me for not being an admin, and I don't think any worse of them either.--Phoenix-wiki 19:37, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

This would be wonderful, but it will never ever be the case. Therefore, there is no point in even proposing it. Being an editor who just edits, I no longer expect to be treated as other than a lower class citizen however much work I put into creating and editing articles. I am resigned to this, though it harms my motivation to work productively for Wikipedia as a whole. Mattisse 19:44, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

• The truest words I have ever read on Wikipedia. I hope the "Arbcom" have noted them. There are those of us who write, those of them who rule, and those of them that serve those who rule. The latter being the largest waste of space. Giano (talk) 20:51, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

:: I hope "Arbcom" does note this because it is the Admins that do the least editing that are the hardest on productive editors. I urge the Arbcom to consider the frustration of productive editors when these Admin's, who do not understand the effort involved in creating and editing a complex article, treat productive editors unfairly. (I refer you to the recent arbitration on Zeraeph Decided January 14, 2008 for an example.) It is becoming increasingly impossible to edit on Wikipedia with Admins who spend all their time giving opinions and protecting each other and no time writing articles or helping productive editors. Mattisse 23:35, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

This "Arbcom" or at least many of its members are only concerned with protecting the sanctitiy of the "chatroom". As far as they are concerned the content, and its writers, can go to hell. Just so long as they have somewhere warm and cosy to sit and discuss the "important" things happening on the project. Giano (talk) 23:44, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Unverifiable evidence

13) Per the arbitration policy, the arbitration committee does not generally consider evidence from unverifiable sources such as IRC.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

I am uncertain how I feel about this, but the relevant portion of the arbitration policy is clear: "Evidence and brief arguments may be added to the case pages by disputants, interested third parties, and the Arbitrators themselves. Such evidence is usually only heard by the Committee if it has come from easily verifiable sources - primarily in the form of Wikipedia edits ("diffs"), log entries for MediaWiki actions or web server access, posts to the official mailing lists, or other Wikimedia sources. The Committee reserves the right to disregard certain items of evidence or certain lines of argument, most notably if they are unverifiable." This dramatically affects what can and cannot be dealt with in this case, and poses a problem for the proposed idea that the arbcom will act as the enforcer of policy on IRC given the seeming difficulty in having valid evidence in that realm. Phil Sandifer (talk) 16:12, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

Comment by others:

Well, if multiple users confirm that the evidence - as given - is correct then there should be no problem with it. Unless, ya know, you not only want to accuse the initial giver of the evidence as a liar but also all the others that confirm the correctness the evidence. This looks like it is directly aimed at discrediting the IRC logs given and confirmed by several users and I'm finding it harder and harder to assume good faith with you in this case, Phil. CharonX/talk 17:15, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

As I said, I'm uncertain how I feel about it - I found it in the arbitration policy when I was looking to see something else, and immediately saw it as a relevant point to this case that hadn't been brought up. The policy, as stated, does give the arbcom non-trivial discretion in this. But it's still an important aspect of this issue. Phil Sandifer (talk) 18:31, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

I agree there. ArbCom has the discretion to accept or ignore external evidence, but as established members of the community have already confirmed the correctness of the IRC logs given, I don't see why ArbCom should decide to ignore and discard their testimonies, making this principle a bit moot. CharonX/talk 18:59, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

Not helpful, if logs are relevant then they should be considered Alex Bakharev (talk) 06:54, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Wikipedia is an encyclopedia

14) Wikipedia is, first and foremost, an encyclopedia. Project pages and off-site discussion exist to serve the encyclopedia, not vice versa. Users who are not interested in building an encyclopedia will be encouraged to leave.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Proposed. This should be obvious, but it seems to have been forgotten here. IRC, policy pages, and all the other crap exists to serve the encyclopedia, not the other way around. *** Crotalus *** 20:53, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

Well, the first sentence is motherhood and apple pie, and I think everyone can agree on that. Project pages do indeed exist to serve the encyclopedia, although there could be a wide range of interpretation as to the meaning of 'serving the encyclopedia'. Off-site discussion can serve any purpose it wants, because it is off-site. If I was to ask someone on IRC if they like ice cream, it would be irrelevant to the project and would not be actionable on or off the project. The last sentence is completely irrelevant to this matter; I do not think anyone involved in this RFAR believes that any person named as a party in this case is "not interested in building an encyclopedia", regardless of any of our feelings about the manner in which they have expressed their interest. Risker (talk) 00:26, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

I understand th feeling but have to agree with Risker that the statement is not helpful Alex Bakharev (talk) 06:57, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Disruptive meta-content

15) Wikipedia content outside the main namespace that disrupts the smooth functioning of the encyclopedia is harmful and should be deleted.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

I think this is obvious. At best there should be a soft-link from English Wikipedia to the meta pages describing the various IRC channels. --Tony Sidaway 04:38, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

Comment by others:

Proposed. Again, this breaks no new ground, and has been asserted in previous Arbcom cases related to userboxes and other similar things. *** Crotalus *** 20:53, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

Should we start deleting all controversial proposals because they disrupt the smooth functioning of the encyclopedia? Or maybe ban accusations of admin abuse? Of course not. -Amarkov moo! 22:12, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

No. Controversy is not the best option, but in this community it seems to be the only way to go. AfD, DRV, RFAr would be the first to go under this. --uǝʌǝsʎʇɹnoɟʇs(st47) 22:29, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Involved administrators should not issue blocks

16) Blocks should be should be undertaken by an uninvolved administrator. An administrator with a long prior history of conflict with an editor is 'involved' and should turn to an uninvolved administrator for assistance.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Proposed. Compare at Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Zeq-Zero0000#Enforcement_of_Probation_by_Zero0000. Blocks should never be used to settle scores, nor should a block be made if it even gives the appearance of settling a score. Jd2718 (talk) 00:54, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

Also with reference to WP:BLOCK: "Administrators must not block users with whom they are engaged in a content dispute; instead, they should report the problem to other administrators. Administrators should also be aware of potential conflicts of interest involving pages or subject areas with which they are involved." Concur. Risker (talk) 00:59, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

Which recent issuers of blocks were considered involved? Picaroon (t) 01:07, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

There is a question at the evidence talk page whether or not David Fuchs was involved, as he also reverted content added by Giano to WP:WEA (both actions are recorded to have taken place in the same minute). Risker (talk) 01:16, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

For the record, the sequence went as follows (the timeline by the bainer is not yet accurate to the second): (1) David Fuchs's slightly unorthodox talk page warning of Giano saved at 22:35 and 9 seconds; (2) Giano saved this edit 6 seconds later at 22:35 and 15 seconds; (3) David Fuchs reverted Giano's edit around four minutes later at 22:39 and 4 seconds; (4) David Fuchs blocked Giano 37 seconds later at 22:39 and 41 seconds. My view is that it is likely that Giano did not see the 3RR message before he saved his 22:35 edit. Whether he saw the message and had any chance to respond in the 4 minutes before he got blocked, we may never know, but my view is that David Fuchs should have followed up with a clearer warning, or just blocked without the warning (and provided diffs to the five reverts Giano had already made - though how aware David Fuchs was of those 5 reverts is also not clear). What David Fuchs should not, in my view, have done, is revert Giano while warning him and eventually blocking him. Carcharoth (talk) 03:18, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

Lets not forget, though, that Giano is no newbie. He is perfectly aware what happens to (most) editors that ignore WP:3RR and, we must presume he was perfectly aware that he had done so. Reverting Giano's nth revert at the same time as blocking him may not have been the smartest move by David Fuchs, but that has little impact on whether the block was merited or not. I'm not convinced that qualifies as "prior involvement" in this context. Rockpocket 03:29, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

Agreed with all except saying that Fuchs reverted a revert. He actually reverted an attempt by Giano to add something to what Jimbo had said. To my mind, this shows more involvement than simply reverting a revert. Page protection was called for, not blocks. That's been said time and time again. Carcharoth (talk) 03:40, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for that clarification, that does perhaps complicate matters further. Page protection, not blocks, could be said to be the solution to all revert-wars. Yet we appear quite happy to issues blocks for blatant and willful 3RR for most people. Since WP:3RR is, explicitly, "a policy that applies to all Wikipedians," I would propose Giano (and anyone else what was revert-warring in this instance) should not be receiving preferential treatment that is not afforded to the rest of the community. Rockpocket 04:11, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

Prior admin action is often incorrectly considered a "history of conflict" (especially by the editor who feels hard done by as a result of the action). To paraphrase FloNight on recent request for clarification of what defines admin involvement, "We need admin to become "involved"... Meaning that they learn about conflicts, bring them to ArbCom for rulings, and apply sanctions as needed." [5] Rockpocket 02:24, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

Thanks to both users Risker and Rockpocket. I refer to Risker's first comment (fuller wording on block), and Rockpocket's (being involved in dispute res mode does not make an admin involved in the way described here; there is a distinction that must be made). They are both well-taken. I will attempt to rewrite to incorporate both. Jd2718 (talk) 02:54, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Blocks and unblocks should be done by neutral administrators

16.1) An administrator with a recent history of conflict with or support for an editor should turn to another administrator for assistance when a block or unblock of that editor is considered. In order to retain the confidence of the community, administrators in such circumstances should be sensitive to the perception of partiality even if they feel they can act impartially.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Proposed, as a symmetric alternative to 16. Both blocking and unblocking were at issue here. Raymond Arritt (talk) 01:04, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

From an admin's point of view, blocks and unblocks may be equivalent, one undoing the other. From a regular editor's point of view, they are not even vaguely equivalent. They should not be lumped together. Jd2718 (talk) 06:20, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

:::This was already an agreed outcome of the recently closed Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Zeraeph. Does each Arbitration have to issue it as a new statement? Mattisse 14:16, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

1) I can't find it in the decision. Have I missed something? And 2) some principles are repeated in case after case - no harm in that. If anything, this one (the version just below) deserves more, regular repetition. Unfortunately. Jd2718 (talk) 02:49, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

:::::It was alluded to in that decision as a principle that was already accepted. It was discussed repeatedly on the various accompanying pages of the Zeraeph evidence, workshop, associated talk pages and links to personal sub pages. What is discouraging is that I have noticed this repetition of principles going back at least to my first involvement in an Arbitration case one year ago, with zero effect on the behavior of Admins. In fact, that Arbitration decision resulted in a number of respected editors leaving Wikipedia for ever. So what is the point of regular repetition, except to make the statements meaningless and obvious that they are not being enforced? Perhaps nothing is really enforceable. Further, perhaps these "high profile" cases such as the current one that do not really involve the average Wikipedian but only a special few should not be carried out in public. It only makes the divide between the "special" and the "average" Wikipedian starkly clear. Mattisse 14:05, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

Looking at the final decision of the Zeraeph case which you have previously cited, I see that it shows that the arbitrators adopted only three principles, and none of those three principles bears any resemblance to this proposed principle. My observation doesn't mean that this principle or one like it wasn't discussed in the workshop, and it says nothing about the merits of this proposed principle. However I submit that it does go a long way towards explaining why I and Jd2718 cannot find the principle in the case in which you claim it was "an agreed outcome." The outcome of an arbitration case is not determined by discussion on its workshop, and discussion on workshops does not make policy. --Tony Sidaway 15:49, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Involved administrators should not issue blocks

16.2) Administrators must not block users with whom they are engaged in a content dispute; nor should they block users with whom they have a long prior history of content or policy dispute; instead, they should report the problem to other administrators. Administrators should also be aware of potential conflicts of interest involving pages or subject areas with which they are involved.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Proposed, as a more standard alternate to 16), above, incorporating the relevant portions of WP:BLOCK, the Zero0000 arbitration, and making explicit reference to content/policy disputes so as to exclude prior dispute resolution from counting as "involvement." Jd2718 (talk) 06:18, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

I agree that this is the best formulation of the 16 Alex Bakharev (talk) 07:12, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Good contributors with a history of disruptive behavior

17) For the purposes of dispute resolution, in cases of manifest and undeniable disruption coupled with especially good contributions, it may sometimes be necessary to designate some easily categorised activies as presumptively beneficial, and the rest, or some subcategory of the rest, as presumptively bad. Such determinations are to be arrived at, normally, as an end result of the dispute resolution process. A contributor designated in this manner is unequivocally in the highest rank of contributors. Only his conduct is normally in question.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Sometimes we need to say to somebody: we love your work, but despite your obvious commitment to the project we cannot accept your conduct overall. --Tony Sidaway 01:37, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

Comment by others:

Are you referring to somebody in particular? I don't see where this is going. Jehochman ^Talk 01:45, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

I'm not entirely sure what this proposal is supposed to mean. I know Tony is referring to Giano, but I don't understand the reasoning for this. --Coredesat 01:55, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

If you're familiar with the myth of Jekyll and Hyde, it isn't very hard to understand. Dr. Jekyll is a respected scientist, who turns into Hyde as a result of a ill experiment. Hyde is a monstrous creature that is violent, ill-natured and basically, evil. What this proposal means is that, although the contributions of a specific person is excellent, their overall behavior can not be tolerated. As with the reference to Jekyll and Hyde, basically the bad overrules the good. --D_arkF_alls ^talk 02:12, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

I'm referring specifically to Giano, but this principle is applicable in the end, to all cases where we don't want to throw the baby out with the bathwater. Although unstated, the principle has applied in some manner or another to many editors whose behavior has been problematic, including me. --Tony Sidaway 02:26, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

Yes. Too many people seem to have a problem with banning of people who do anything at all positive. Of course, this does not apply exclusively to Giano... -Amarkov moo! 04:48, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

Banning isn't the aim. To quote an old song, in an extreme case we may find that we have to accentuate the positive, eliminate the negative, don't mess with Mister Inbetween. --Tony Sidaway 04:53, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

I am sorry, Tony, but this is coming across as a recommendation that Giano have a personality transplant. I think that is well outside of the scope of remedies that can be prescribed by Arbcom. Risker (talk) 05:10, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

Please reread. This is not a finding or a remedy, but a proposed principle. It means that sometimes we like somebody's work but we want them to stop behaving disruptively. The intention is to provide a framing for the dispute, and enable us to consider appropriate remedies if the findings match he principle. --Tony Sidaway 05:14, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

I have re-read it. I cannot see any remedy logically flowing from this proposed principle, other than what I have already suggested. The suggestion that any users around here could be compared to the "Mr. Hyde," the allegorical personification of evil, really goes too far. Do you really think that Giano is evil? --Risker (talk) 05:57, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

The principle establishes a basis for draconian remedies. It can be seen as an elaboration of "At wit's end" in the Durova case. The name is unimportant and can be changed to something like "Good contributors with a history of disruptive behavior." --Tony Sidaway 16:47, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

Ah, I see then. Poor Durova, her name gets tossed into everything nowadays. Changing the title here is insufficient, really, especially when you have made it clear that you think this principle applies only to Giano. Although I think it may well have already been covered, there may be a point in a principle that is not specific to one party here; I suggest you rewrite it in such a way that it is truly a principle that could be applied in any situation, avoiding hyperbole. Risker (talk) 19:04, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

The name of the case is Durova, but the principle was intended to apply to Giano, who was a party to that case and is a party to this case. Both principles applied generally to high value disruptive users, but specifically to Giano. --Tony Sidaway 19:53, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

I am not sure it is relevant for the case, but the principle is good Alex Bakharev (talk) 07:14, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Behavior expectations apply anywhere the community gathers

This is based on this component of UninvitedCompany's statement from January 2007 at Wikipedia:IRC channels/Personal views regarding IRC.

17) Our behavior standards can and should apply to members of the community any time we speak in public and identify ourselves as Wikipedians.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Throwing this back out there again. To quote further, "Wikipedia (the web site) is the means by which Wikipedia (the community) writes Wikipedia (the encyclopedia)": the principle recognises that behavioural policies are an attribute of the community and are not necessarily confined to the web site alone. I think this is a more elegant formulation than some of the others above in a similar vein. --bainer (talk) 14:46, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

Broadly construed, this would mean that conduct on Wikipedia Review and on Kelly Martin's blog would be regulated under our behavior standards. That's not necessarily a problem, but we should be sure we're aware of the breadth of what's being proposed. Phil Sandifer (talk) 16:45, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

Comment by others:

No, they can't and shouldn't. Why should I be forced to obey Wikipedia policies on Wikipedia Review, or in my private emails, or on the street? -Amarkov moo! 19:26, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

Strong support. Most of our policies does not make sense or have absolutely pervert lawyerish meaning without the clause. Does WP:NLT means that it is OK to actually send lawyers to an editor so far as it is not announced onwiki? Does WP:CIVIL means that it is OK to engage in vile personal attacks off-wiki? Or harass by E-mail? Is it OK to post IRC logs on personal blogs (and provide links onwiki)? Does our privacy rules mean that it is OK to out wiki-editors on off-wiki sites? Alex Bakharev (talk) 07:22, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

Following up on Phil's comment: admins have been de-adminned because of their behavior on WIkipedia Review. This is a good thing. I hope it continues. I strongly support this principle. Nandesuka (talk) 18:15, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

More properly, admins have been de-adminned because they said on Wikipedia Review that they would be willing to misuse their admin powers - that is, not because of what they said off-wiki, but because of what they were going to do on-wiki. Phil Sandifer (talk) 18:19, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

Your distinction is perhaps too subtle for me. In any event, I am glad we agree that statements made off-wiki resulted in consequences on-wiki. That is as it should be. Nandesuka (talk) 18:24, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

• This appears to be practice. --Rocksanddirt (talk) 17:59, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Editing protected pages

18) Administrators are never permitted to edit fully protected pages. Doing so, especially when involved in a related dispute, may lead to sanction. If an editor disagrees with a protection, they should raise the issue on an appropriate forum for discussion.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Proposed. Directed both at DG and Geogre, but also more generally. I hate to see it. It's precisely the sort of thing that makes non-admins grind their teeth because it's so clearly an abuse of privilege. Someone might be tempted to add "...except to correct a typo", but I'd suggest a clear statement without extraneous comment. Trivial exceptions will be understood in practice. Marskell (talk) 05:29, 31 December 2007 (UTC) (Oh, and the "singular they" is in use above; sorry Geogre.) Marskell (talk) 05:43, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

What about edit requests and consensual discussion? --Iamunknown 07:15, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

Agree with the spirit, disagree with the wordings: there are consensual protected edit, pages intentionally protected to be edited only by admins, there are adding tags, etc. Proposed 18.1 Alex Bakharev (talk) 07:38, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Editing protected pages

18.1) Administrators are not permitted to make controversial edits to pages fully protected due to the editing disputes. Doing so, especially when involved in a related dispute, may lead to sanction. Such edits can be reverted by an uninvolved administrator. If an editor disagrees with a protection, they should raise the issue on an appropriate forum for discussion.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Narrowing of 18. Proposed Alex Bakharev (talk) 07:38, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Stirring the pot

19) Having identified a dispute, it is appropriate to follow the dispute resolution process with the purpose of resolving it. Escalating a dispute through inflammatory behavior is disruptive.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Proposed. --Tony Sidaway 05:37, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

To clarify, if you have a disagreement with someone it isn't appropriate to disrupt a page--any page--in the wiki in pursuit of that disagreement. That is what we mean by exacerbating a dispute. --Tony Sidaway 19:15, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

Comment by others:

In 90% of the cases instead of WP:DR user should just provide a compromise wording. In many cases a side is simply right and should be supported. All meningful wordings seems to be useless Alex Bakharev (talk) 07:42, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Fuelling the fire

20) Joining or escalating an existing edit war is as bad as or worse than starting one.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Proposed. There were a slew of users here who jumped in to this edit war while it was active, which only made the situation worse. I'm sure many had good intentions, but it needs to be recognised that you can't stop an edit war by getting involved in it. --bainer (talk) 04:04, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

The community taking turns to revert a POV-pusher is a normal way of demonstrating consensus and overwhelming bad behavior in the process. This can act as a damping mechanism, preventing a POV-pusher starting a war that would otherwise have the appearance of a mere interpersonal dispute. Continuing to revert after a single revert by each person has been ineffective is not part of this consensus-demonstrating pattern and is counter-productive. --Tony Sidaway 15:24, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

I think the arbitration committee will likely profit from looking carefully at what each participant did, what his motive was, and whether his actions were likely to succeed in their intent. There was a clear and obvious intention to disrupt in this case, so treating this as a symmetrical edit war wouldn't be appropriate. On the other hand, it's obvious in retrospect that, against this kind of determined disruption, even the most drastic methods had little likelihood of success.

However, normally we as experienced Wikipedians act according to unwritten rules--we assume that the other chap, being experienced, won't risk escalating the dispute. How obvious would it have been at the time that this time the disruptive party would stop at nothing? --Tony Sidaway 15:58, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

There were people joining the edit war for the first time two days after it started. I would think it would have been pretty obvious to everyone. --bainer (talk) 04:00, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

Comment by others:

It would have been probably a good advise in the situation of the case. On the other hand, in 90% of edit warring conflicts new "participants" greatly help to solve the conflict. One of the parties see that the rest of the world is not on their side and gives up or somebody proposed a suitable compromise. This is basically the fundamental wikiway. It should be reworded somehow Alex Bakharev (talk) 07:51, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

It's generally a good idea to get more people involved, yes, but in discussion on the talk page, not in the edit war. --bainer (talk) 04:00, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

I agree with Tony's comment above, but would point out that this applies mostly to article space (mainspace). In Wikipedia namespace, there is little justification for experienced editors to revert instead of going to the talk page. In this light, the reverts by Thebainer and by John Reaves were OK because they suggested going to the talk page (though John Reaves's edit should be seen, in light of the previous stages of the edit war, as contributing to it). For the wider issue, the trouble with saying that single reverts by separate editors is OK, is that this doesn't guard against tag-teaming, where groups try to outdo each other in numbers of reverts. Giano was doing most of the reverting on one side, and seems to have felt (possibly with some justification) that people who were active on #admins were reverting him. Not necessarily co-ordinating, but just approaching the situation from an opposite POV. My view, supported by WP:3RR I think, is that a net total of 3 reverts by different editors indicates that an edit war is developing and that all editors (involved or newly arriving to the situation) should go to the talk page rather than continue to revert. Also, WP:3RR says: "An editor does not have to perform the same revert on a page more than three times to breach this rule; all reverts made by an editor on a particular page within a 24 hour period are counted." By this definition, two other people breached 3RR. Looking at thebainer's analysis, we can conclude that under this definition Doc Glasgow breached 3RR in an 8-hour period on 23 December and Ryulong breached 3RR in a 13-hour period from 25 to 26 December. Carcharoth (talk) 15:49, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

"... supported by WP:3RR I think, is that a net total of 3 reverts by different editors indicates that an edit war is developing and that..." not sure I'd characterise WP:3RR as that, it states "Rather than reverting multiple times, discuss the matter with other editors. If an action really needs reverting that much, somebody else will probably do it — and that will serve the vital purpose of showing that the community at large is in agreement over which course of action is preferable." (Noting that is immediately preceded by "The bottom line: use common sense, and do not participate in edit wars"_ --81.104.39.63 (talk) 15:54, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

Thanks. A direct quote is always best! :-) Maybe I should quote WP:EDIT WAR instead. Carcharoth (talk) 16:15, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

Tony, who are you talking about? You say "I think the arbitration committee will likely profit from looking carefully at what each participant did, what his motive was, and whether his actions were likely to succeed in their intent." I'm assuming Giano, but your comments would equally apply to David Gerard. Seriously, have a look at Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/IRC/Evidence#Analysis, and tell me which of those editors come off worse in all this. Then apply a similar analysis to yourself and Phil Sandifer (since thebainer hasn't included those two yet). Where do your actions and Phil's actions stand in the scale of wrongdoing? How do you decide where to place people in this scale? Carcharoth (talk) 16:22, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

Clear intention to disrupt is absent in Doc's case and David Gerard's case, but manifestly present in Geogre's and Giano's activities. I haven't examined the conduct of the ther editors. David's action in protecting and editing was well intentioned but perhaps foreseeably doomed. He seems to have thought he had a reasonable expectation that his actions were permissible in policy. I don't think Geogre or Giano believed that they had such policy grounding, yet they persisted. --Tony Sidaway 16:38, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

So the critical point is persisting? How persistent, as a group, were AzaToth, Betacommand and Ryulong? You might ask why I'm connecting these three editors, but why are you connecting Giano and Geogre? Is it because of Bishonen's evidence here? My point is that Giano and Geogre could reasonably be seen as acting together after they became aware of what had happened, but the other side needs to be examined as well to see whether the editors are truly independent. Another thing is the spectators. I have no doubt that many people were watching this edit war progress, and anyone who saw it develop and did nothing to calm things down (eg. call for [longer] page protection) also bears some responsibility. I first became aware this at about 13:20 on 24 December, and then commented a few minutes later. My next comment was early in the morning of 26 December, at 00:53, and then gradually got more involved throughout that day, with first the ANI thread, then comments on the talk page of the page in question, and then a statement at the request for arbitration. Phil Sandifer's block and Sean William's unblock, the last remnants of the edit war, and Alison's protection, were the last spasms of the whole sorry business. And now, almost a week later, here we are. Are we any closer to resolving things? I hope so, but wallpapering over bad conduct is not the way to do it. Carcharoth (talk) 17:06, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

No, the critical point is inappropriate and disruptive pursuit of an off-wiki grievance. I don't paper over bad conduct. --Tony Sidaway 17:09, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

Even that (as in the "disruptive intent you state above) appears to be up to interpretation. Looking at the evidence page, for example here, here and arguably here, it seems clear that a) their behaviour was triggered by what they saw as a vulgar personal attack on one of their colleagues, apparently committed under the protection of the grey-area status that appears to be the crux of much of the discussion on this page, and that b) they aimed to include what they thought of as fact on a page that they thought served to inform wikipedia users about IRC. Wanting to include what one believes to be fact on any wiki page is not in itself a disruptive intent (I hope). It is also clear that their behaviour was influenced by their strong impression that the page in question was treated in an ownership-like way (would we ever tolerate an admin who owns, say, a company, protecting the relevant article and removing criticism from it?). Elsewhere on this page I have argued that we should distinguish between pure trolling, i.e. the very frequent form we see all over WP, aimed purely and clearly at disrupting the project and offending its users/contributors from the perceived trolling in this case, which is, like it or not, based on strong views that are indubitably in favour of this project. They would probably argue that their intent was to prevent serious and long-term disruption of the overall project. You are probably technically right in what you say, but there are people on this project who spend more time thinking about content than about "policy groundings", bless their cotton socks. athinaios (talk) 17:12, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

The actions and motives you describe are precisely what I would characterise as inappropriate and disruptive pursuit of a grievance. That is unacceptable. Jimbo clarified the correct way of pursuing such a dispute during the course of the disruption, and nowhere did he say that it's ever appropriate to disrupt Wikipedia in pursuit of a grievance. That doesn't mean that the response to the trolling provocative behavior was appropriate, however. --Tony Sidaway 18:08, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

*This is what Tony Sidaway said to me too. This is the attitude of Admins I believe is so destructive, certainly to my experience at Wikipedia. Mattisse 01:34, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

Well, let's agree to disagree so. If the editors in question had gained the impression that one of the characteristics of the IRC channel was the relatively frequent use of inappropriate language (to put it mildly, and I trust you know what I refer to), they may have thought that it was an important enough fact to be included on the relevant wikipedia page. That is not per se disruptive. It is, however, seen as disruptive, at least elsewhere on this project, to remove relevant information from pages while characterising those who added it as trolls, yellow press, et c. Note that the statements they made regarding control of the channel and the prevailing tone on it were not disputed very much on the talk page. It appears to be their very inclusion that was objected to. Should it turn out, as one may suggest, that the primary purpose of the page in question was not actually to provide information on its topic, but to state policy, or to express the opinion of the IRC channel's owners, it should perhaps have been made clearer that such is the case, as it is unusual on wikipedia for a page to have such aims. athinaios (talk) 18:41, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

You can be reckless as to disruption without intending to disrupt. This is the point this proposed principle is trying to convey. The people jumping in to the edit war were experienced editors and ought to have known that doing so would not help the situation. --bainer (talk) 04:00, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

Excluding edit warring and the misuse of admin tools, of which numerous parties are guilty and which should be addressed equitably, I don't think any party acted disruptively in this case. Some editors made a reasonable attempt to add useful information to a page on the wiki and some others reverted that change; both versions had their good points and the appropriate thing to do was hammer out a consensus on the talk page. Christopher Parham (talk) 05:27, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

Can't see how you could construe an edit such as this as being a reasonable attempt to add useful information to a page. Even if you believe the characterisation of the original event to be reasonable, making a sweeping generalisation to conduct of many individuals(many of whom wouldn't have been in/had access to the channel at the time of the event) and the general content of the channel based on 1 event over a year ago, I cannot see as anything but an attempt to inflame. --81.104.39.63 (talk) 10:04, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

Maybe you should have a look at the evidence page. The incident in question was not over a year ago. It took place on December 22nd, 2007. It can hardly help this discussion if people contribute to it without familiarising themselves with the background. athinaios (talk) 11:40, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

To be more precise, the most recent incident was Bishonen and Tony Sidaway talking in #admins, which ended with the incident from sometime in 2006 (indeed over a year ago) being mentioned in some form. So that is the reason for the "over a year ago" comment. For the record, I think the dispute goes back even further than that (though maybe not the specific Tony-Bishonen one). Carcharoth (talk) 13:24, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

Indeed the edit I refer to includes " "bitch" and "bastard" being favoured terms of derision if a female admin... ", from Bishonen's evidence she wasn't called that on 22 Dec 2007, but "Tony once called me a "bastard bitch from hell". It happened in September 2006!". So my reading of the evidence is fine thanks. (As of now there are 457 entire in the chanserv access level set) --81.104.39.63 (talk) 18:34, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

• You are mistaken. Tony again on 22nd Dec. likenened her to a "bastard bitch from hell" and called here an "arsehole". Please be sure of your facts before posting here. Giano (talk) 19:49, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

I'm quite happy with my reading of the evidence that some of the edits were inappropriate and stirring up a year+ old event, my reading of the evidence differing to yours doesn't make it wrong or "unfactual". However even if it was all due to the 2nd, recent, event it is still trying to portray a channel, with 457 items on the access list, in the light of 2 events centering on 1 person over the 2 year period of the channels existence. Really it doesn't matter what I think, I'm sure the arbs (and anyone eles interested) are more than capable of reading the record and deciding if comments were likely to inflame rather than enlighten and if those making the comments should have been aware of the likely impact of those comments. (The same standard should of course be applied to Tony or anyone else involved) --81.104.39.63 (talk) 06:54, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

Well, while your other points are indeed your valid opinion, if your reading is that the old insult was not explicitly repeated and a new one was not added on the 22nd, that is unfactual and wrong. athinaios (talk) 10:30, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

Under a heading called "Fuelling the fire" Tony continues to stir things and call people trolls. Is that really necessary? violet/riga (t) 19:03, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

I've replaced the word. --Tony Sidaway 19:10, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Alternating transcripts

21) While it is usually a bad practice to distribute without permissions private E-mails or IRC logs, altering those logs with the intention to slander wikieditors and to disrupt the wikipedia, then it is a serious violation of ethics and good faith. It may lead to banning the people responsible from the project.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Barring any evidence that makes this proposal relevant, it seems a very pointless one. Phil Sandifer (talk) 08:38, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

I presume the term intended here is "altering", not "alternating". The altered transcript I have seen obviously fooled nobody. Of course it was wrong, but since it was forwarded anonymously and did no material harm there isn't a lot to be done. --Tony Sidaway 15:18, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

Comment by others:

Proposed. I have no idea whether any logs were altered, who did it and why, but if it was intentional as a disruption, then it is a real monstrosity and IMHO much more important then the edit war we are discussing. Alex Bakharev (talk) 08:01, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

Struck through the words "then it" in order to clarify the statement. No substantive change, just grammar. - Philippe | Talk 02:04, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Exceptions to WP:3RR

22) Various exceptions are listed to WP:3RR explicitly to be interpreted narrowly. Being "Right", "The Truth" etc. are not exceptions, since surely every party in the dispute would claim them.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Proposed --81.104.39.63 (talk) 16:38, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

Anyone claiming that their revert warring is excusable because they were right deserves a very hard troutslap, at the least. -Amarkov moo! 19:31, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Fair criticism

23) Editors are encouraged to engage in frank discussion of matters affecting the project, and are encouraged to share even those facts and opinions which demonstrate the shortcomings of the project, its policies, its decision making structure, and its leaders. Such discourse is limited by policies such as no personal attacks, no legal threats, and the expectation that even difficult situations will be resolved in a dignified fashion. Editors who have genuine grievances against others are expected to avail themselves of the dispute resolution mechanism rather than engage in unbridled criticism across all available forums.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Proposed. From Durova, and the same activities seem to have carried over into this one. --Tony Sidaway 23:28, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

In this case the problem was an IRC-based interpersonal dispute escalated through disruption of a wiki page. In the earlier case the same editor escalated a complaint about a bad block through disruption of other parts of the wiki. --Tony Sidaway 23:52, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

Comment by others:

Not really seeing the relevance here, Tony, nor do I see things having "carried over" - in fact, quite a different set of circumstances. This discussion was confined to one page in the encyclopedia and the talk pages of a few of the participants specific to their involvement (e.g., block warnings, attempts to discuss specific concerns). Giano and Geogre in particular took their issues to the talk page of the page/article/pseudo-policy in question; the administrators involved, particularly later in the discussion, did not. I don't see anyone making legal threats, can you provide a link? Risker (talk) 23:40, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

It's one thing if you're deliberately complaining everywhere you can. There's no evidence that people were deliberately forum shopping, though. Not that the disruption was good, of course, but it's bad only because it was disruption. -Amarkov moo! 05:04, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Wikimedia control of IRC

Freenode delegates day-to-day control of Wikimedia IRC channels to "Group Contact" Wikimedians nominated for the role by the Wikimedia Foundation.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

An important note. It is unclear to me that, under Freenode policy, any body other than the WMF could actually maintain a channel. Short of the community setting up an official channel elsewhere - something that seems to me to be something that ought not stem from an arbitration ruling - I do not see how any alternative to this is viable. Phil Sandifer (talk) 15:20, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

Comment by others:

To imply that nobody except IRC regulars has control over the IRC channels is ridiculous. If JamesF was doing a shonky job, Wikimedia could just email Freenode, tell them they are replacing him, and get someone new in his role who could do what Wikimedia wanted. But by the same token, the ArbCom does not equal Wikimedia, so really ArbCom only has "authority" here by asking Wikimedia very nicely. A strange distinction, but a necessary one, I think, if we're ever going to resolve this "authority" question. - Mark 08:56, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

Finally, a clear statement of what can be done. Thank you. This is also, incidentally, an argument for having the page in dispute on meta or the WMF-wiki, and a regularly-updated copy in the 'Help' namespace here. Carcharoth (talk) 15:20, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

Is the implication of Phil's comment at 15:20, 4 January 2008 that the community simply could setup an official admin channel on their own, deprecating the existing unofficial one? Lawrence Cohen 16:19, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

Of course, no one could be forced to move channels / or stay in a channel. M-ercury at 16:24, January 4, 2008

I wonder what would happen if such a channel was detailed on a page like WP:WEA, in direct conflict or competition with that one... Lawrence Cohen 18:15, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

Yes and no - the current unofficial one could sorta-kinda be deprecated, but on the other hand is a WMF-controlled channel and so couldn't be fully deprecated - though the en community could decline to use it. And a community-run one does not seem to me to be something that could be set up on Freenode based on what Freenode does and doesn't consider a project. So another venue would need to be found, which is a major undertaking. It would be more accurate to say that the community could fork IRC. Phil Sandifer (talk) 21:39, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

Well, everyone has the right to fork... Stifle (talk) 12:33, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

Has anyone asked the Foundation itself whether it is interested in changing its prior position disclaiming all 600+ IRC channels? I suppose that they could ask freenode to give them control, but do they want to asssume control? Risker (talk) 16:23, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

My understanding is that in Freenode's view, the Foundation has control. Phil Sandifer (talk) 21:40, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

Freenode isn't the issue, the Foundation is. The Foundation controls Wikipedia, freenode's opinion is a moot point unless the Foundation agrees that En-WP can assume responsibility for a a channel. Risker (talk) 12:42, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Action rather than user

Responses and remedies should focus on the action rather than the user. Neither past good nor past bad behavior by a user should unduly influence the reaction.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Of course prior good behavior or bad behavior can be taken into account in evaluating user conduct and deciding what action, if any, to take. This does not mean that any user is exempt from policy, but for example, neither an administrator nor the arbitrators would treat a first violation of a policy the same as the tenth one. On the other hand, to say that past good or bad behavior should not "unduly" influence the reaction is a bit of a truism. The prior behavior should affect the response only so much as it ought to affect the response: fair enough, but how much is that? Newyorkbrad (talk) 18:01, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

I'm proposing this, though I have doubts about it. Guidelines, such as those for WP:3RR, and Jimbo Wales' Statement_of_principles indicate that there is no focus on accumulated behavior, though the disruption section of the blocking policy does use the word "persistent". To have a level playing field, if previous bad behavior is to be taken into account, then previous good behavior should also be officially taken into consideration - with the notion and possibility that the one can cancel out the other (lots of good canceling out a bit of bad, as well as lots of bad canceling out a bit of bad good). SilkTork *^SilkyTalk 17:56, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

I presume your last sentence was meant to read "lots of good canceling out a bit of bad, as well as lots of bad canceling out a bit of good"? athinaios | Talk 18:30, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

Thanks. Corrected. SilkTork *^SilkyTalk 22:25, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Proposed findings of fact

[edit] Social spaces exist

1) A number of social spaces, including IRC channels and mailing lists, exist where Wikipedians congregate and talk. As is to be expected, Wikipedia itself is a frequent topic of discussion in these places.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

A simple statement of fact. Phil Sandifer (talk) 01:23, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

Irrelevant in present form. Should be more explicit whether this is about officially related to Wikipedia or WMF means of communication or private social mediums that are nobody elses business. As long as the Wikipedia, the ArbCom, Jimbo, WMF, etc explicitly disclaim any connection with this medium and the medium equally explicitly disclaim any connection with Wikipedia, ArbCom, Jimbo and WMF, those who like each other can socialize where they choose and admit or refuse to admit anyone they like. A caveat, however, if any policy violation takes place onwiki and the conspiracy can be demontsrated beyond reasonable doubt, this become an aggravating factor for the offender as far as his position within Wikipedia is concerned. It bears no consequences for IRC mailing list, etc. But separation needs to be made explicit. --Irpen 02:27, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

So we want to lie to ourselves to make everyone feel better? -- Ned Scott 07:15, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

Reading this again, I think I have misunderstood what you are saying. -- Ned Scott 18:41, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

Comment by others:

Random comment by a passerby: This reads more like a principle than a FoF. ^Thanks, _{Luc "Somethingorother" French} 00:43, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] #wikipedia-en-admins

2) The IRC channel #wikipedia-en-admins is a social space for discussion among Wikipedians. It is used by trusted and long-time users, primarily administrators. It, like other IRC channels, is administered by Wikipedians, but does not operate as an official part of the project.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Kelly Martin's access was removed some time ago. The action by NullC, referred to below, occurred a year ago. He no longer acts as a chanop. Any grievance which rests on actions related to either of these people is so far removed from the present climate that it must be considered as the dredging up of an old feud. Please desist. Mackensen (talk) 02:32, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

If you're talking about my removal of access, I don't know who removed it, Mackensen -- presumably someone still around, so it's very far from an old grievance. Also, Kelly Martin was a channel op on #wikipedia until a couple of weeks ago, despite everything she has done. I find it a little disturbing that you would try to prejudge what the ArbCom is going to take into account, and what not. If this case isn't handled fairly and openly, the situation is going to keep on blowing up, so please take this opportunity to sort it out once and for all. SlimVirgin ^{(talk)(contribs)} 02:36, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

Well, Slim, I'm not aware that you're even a party to this case, and the committee did not accept this case to investigate your old feud with Kelly and James, despite your numerous attempts to somehow make this case about that old feud. Kelly Martin is not a party to this case; the status of chanops in #wikipedia is not at issue here. I'm not referring to your removal of access in any fashion, but to NullC's removal of Bishonen's access. This was changed some time ago. As you are well aware, IRC channels have always been governed separately from the encyclopedia. Users banned from IRC still edit the encyclopedia, and vice-versa. I don't know who removed your access; I don't know why it was done, and it has no bearing on this case. I reiterate that the locus of the dispute is #wikipedia-en-admins; a channel to which Kelly Martin has not had access in a very long time, and which she had sworn off even before formal revocation of access, if memory serves. Mackensen (talk) 15:33, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

I voluntarily resigned my access to the admins' channel (in disgust, to be quite honest) in something like July of 2007; Dmcdevit can (if he remembers) confirm this. I stand on record that the admins' channel should be discontinued. Kelly Martin 13:12, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

I don't think it is within the AC's remit to discontinue any channel, as a matter of note. Mercury 14:32, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

Comment by parties:

Statement of fact. Phil Sandifer (talk) 01:28, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

"trusted" needs to be replaced with "trusted by the James F, David Gerard and whoever else has a high level". No basis for statement that IRCers are trusted by this community. --Irpen 01:37, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

To my knowledge administrators are automatically given access, and a handful of users, generally former administrators who were not found in any particularly egregious violations are permited to stay in the channel - or, more accurately, that access to the channel is rarely taken away. I may be wrong. Please provide evidence if I am. Phil Sandifer (talk) 01:45, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

Ejection of Bishonen and FloNight. Presence of NullC as well as admins whose conduct was "egregious" enough to be desysopped by ArbCom: Tony Sidaway, Kelly Martin, Bettacommand. --Irpen 01:49, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

Admins are denied access in a number of ways -- for example, by having to wait months to be given a cloak, or by being kicked from the channel, or by having their access removed. I've been kicked, FloNight has been kicked, and Bishonen has been made to feel unwelcome. My access was removed by someone connected to Kelly Martin, for example, who acknowledged on IRC that it had been removed for no reason. It's like being in a children's playground in a particularly bad neighborhood. SlimVirgin ^{(talk)(contribs)} 01:52, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

SlimVirgin, you are still on the access list of #wikipedia-en-admins. Sean William @ 01:54, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

I got my access restored, Sean, yes. SlimVirgin ^{(talk)(contribs)} 02:11, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

Correction to what Slim said above. Bishonen was not just "made unwelcome". She was kickbanned by NullC (aka GMaxwell) with an offensive "you ar e bothering me, child" summary. NullC was never an admin but that did not prevent him from being a sysop at the channel. Tony held the same status for a while too. --Irpen 01:57, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

Temporary kickbans do not seem to me equivalent to denial of access. IRC has procedures in place for handling issues - one of them is the kickban. Unless Bishonen's ban was never lifted, this cannot be taken as equivalent to denying access. Phil Sandifer (talk) 02:05, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

It is part of being made unwelcome, Phil. --Irpen 02:07, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

my access was removed, Phil, without my knowledge and even though I hadn't done anything to cause it. I suddenly found I couldn't get in, but I attributed it to my lack of technical knowledge. I changed IRC clients, paid for an upgrade to an existing one, looked around my computer to see what might be causing it, then gave up. Months later, Kelly Martin boasted on IRC that my access had been removed, presumably on her say-so. SlimVirgin ^{(talk)(contribs)} 02:11, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

Ms. Virgin misunderstands the log that was provided to her. The individual I was speaking of in the December 3rd log (posted to Wikipedia Review) whose access was revoked was that of my housemate, who had been granted access to the admins' channel despite never having been an admin because she did a special project for Danny and Brad back in 2006 sometime. To the best of my recollection, I have never discussed SlimVirgin's access to the admins' channel on IRC or elsewhere, and I was not aware that she even used IRC until someone told me that she did, just a few days ago. Kelly Martin 13:12, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

Comment by others:

I thought it was noted above that the admin irc channel was primarily for rapid evaluation of potential admin actions such as blp issues, or similar? If it is primarily social, then either it should be renamed and not give semi-official status, or logged and archived as any other part of en.wikipedia. If it is a work channel for sensitive issues, then any logging should be kept private. --Rocksanddirt (talk) 18:09, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] #wikipedia-en-admins

2.1) The IRC channel #wikipedia-en-admins was created as a communication tool for quick and confidential resolution of WP:BLP problems and occasionally is used as such. It also is used as a social space by some Wikipedians. During last months the channel was the source of a few highly disruptive on-Wiki controversies. The status of the channel within the project is unclear.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Proposed. Just facts Alex Bakharev (talk) 08:15, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Giano repeatedly and disruptively violated the 3RR

3) Giano repeatedly and disruptively violated the 3RR on Wikipedia:IRC channels/wikipedia-en-admins.

Comment by Arbitrators:

That's a lot of reverts. Mackensen (talk) 15:34, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

Comment by parties:

Per evidence. Phil Sandifer (talk) 01:34, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

Comment by others:

Giano edit-warred. So did others. Per the evidence. Mr Which??? 12:27, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

I've counted 16 edits by Giano, most of which probably were reverts, though I have to check that. There were 24 edits by David Gerard as well - I'm uncertain how much of that editing changed the previous content back to even older content (ie. reverted the recent changes). As the nature of reverts go, there are probably an equal number of reverts on the other side as well. The point here is that, as you say, both sides edit warred. That should be clear. I'm putting up a principle that the tendency some people have to continue talk page discussions into their edit summaries (a trait seen in experienced users), can be harmful during edit wars. It is especially harmful when people think their reverts are justified because they write something in the edit summary to justify the revert (like being in "discussion mode", but editing simultaneously). If you have something to say during an edit war, then the correct place to do it is on the talk page, not in edit summaries while continuing the edit war! Carcharoth (talk) 17:58, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

No question that Giano edit-warred. The others did edit-war too - instead of seeking an alternative resolution the conflict they joined the fray with reverting. They did not violate 3RR, sure, but I consider the Tag-Teaming displayed as another form of "gaming the system". CharonX/talk 00:07, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Edit warring

3.1) A number of experienced users and administrators engaged in intense edit warring on Wikipedia:IRC channels/wikipedia-en-admins, primarily through excessive reverting of others edits. Giano [?and list any others?] breached 3RR; a number of others who did not breach 3RR individually nonetheless effectively engaged in revert warring when examined as a group. The warring also included protection and unprotection, deletion and undeletion, and editing through protection.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Seems a balanced description that both sides might more likely agree with. FT2 ^{(Talk | email)} 07:52, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

Agree Alex Bakharev (talk) 08:16, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Sean William unblocked incorrectly

4) Sean William's unblock of Giano was ill-advised given his past participation in the relevant discussion and the lack of 3RR violations on the part of anybody other than Giano.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Generally speaking, equitable enforcement of the 3RR does not include blocking people who did not breach it. Mackensen (talk) 02:33, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

Comment by parties:

Per evidence. Phil Sandifer (talk) 01:37, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

Comment by others:

Please see my response on the Evidence talk page. Sean William @ 01:41, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

Mackensen, that is not what I meant. I suggested protection other than blocking everyone else. Sean William @ 02:35, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

Oppose, agree with Sean William on the Evidence talk page (here). Tim Q. Wells (talk) 19:11, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

Oppose, blocks are not punitive but preventive. There was no need for blocking after the essay was protected and Giano promised to stop the edit war Alex Bakharev (talk) 08:19, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

oppose - it seems there was no consensus to keep blocked. --Rocksanddirt (talk) 17:16, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Geogre has been incivil

5) Geogre has repeatedly been incivil and engaged in personal attacks.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Well, it's a sticky wicket. If civility is important, then Geogre transgressed. If not, then who cares, but then whatever's said on IRC doesn't matter, does it? Mackensen (talk) 02:42, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

Comment by parties:

I assume that Phil has evidence and a definition. There is some point at which a person goes from "disagreeable" to "incivil?" There is a comment that is quantitatively here and another that is quantitatively there? I have an exceptionally low opinion of the Wikipedia user Phil Sandifer and perhaps an even lesser one of the user David Gerard. I have no respect for either of them. Presumably, whatever happens, I'll be allowed to keep that. Geogre (talk) 21:27, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

Per evidence. Phil Sandifer (talk) 01:38, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

Comment by others:

Civility is important. 1 != 2 04:31, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

The diffs on the evidence page are not specific enough to support this finding of fact. To be clear: it's not enough to say "In this diff Geogre makes a personal attack," because I looked at those diffs and, frankly, didn't see the claimed personal attacks. To be even more clear: Just because the Princess can feel the pea under her bed doesn't give her the right to demand a new bedroom, especially when everyone else thinks the bed is perfectly comfortable. Please explain -- carefully, in detail -- what comments Geogre made that were "personal attacks." Thanks Nandesuka (talk) 03:57, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Tony Sidaway resigned under cloud

6) Tony Sidaway has resigned the adminship at en-wiki "under the cloud" as determined by ArbCom. Nevertheless, he was considered "trusted" by the channel owners to be allowed access to the channel to this day. He also remained one of channel's operators for several months after resignation.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Irrelevant. First of all, chanops are not under the control of arbcom. The standards for IRC access, at least at the time, are not related to those used by bureaucrats for granting adminship. Second of all, Tony was forced to resign as an arbitration clerk. At the moment I cannot recall the case in which the committee determined that he had resigned his adminship in controversial circumstances. Mackensen (talk) 02:36, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

• Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Giano. David Mestel^(Talk) 14:43, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

• There we are; I missed with all the other findings. Mackensen (talk) 15:11, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

Comment by parties:

Simple statement of fact. --Irpen 01:46, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

Completely relevant if we're assured that there is a method of dispute resolution already in place and if the IRC channel is under the purview of Wikipedia and ArbCom. If, of course, it isn't under the purview of ArbCom, then why are we here? Why is there a page advertising this private hobby chatroom? Why is Wikipedia treating David Gerard's page as policy, when it has never been proposed and never been approved? Geogre (talk) 20:39, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

Comment by others:

It was unfortunate that I was made a chanop (access level 10) against my will. When I discovered this I asked for the level to be adjusted to 5. My level was again raised to 10, and on discovering this I again asked to be adjusted to 5. At no time have I ever requested chanop rights on that channel. --Tony Sidaway 15:51, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

Tony, for those of us not very familiar with IRC, can you explain what the different levels mean, and who else has access level 10? SlimVirgin ^{(talk)(contribs)} 15:56, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

Hmm ... looking around Google, access level 10 doesn't seem to be very high. Can someone explain what the different levels are, and who has the higher ones? SlimVirgin ^{(talk)(contribs)} 16:31, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

I've no idea what the access levels mean. Suffice to say that the level for a normal user, and the level I required to participate in the channel, is 5. As I understand it, the basic principle is that users with higher levels can control the access of those with lower levels. --Tony Sidaway 16:35, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

I don;t know if this is true for all IRC channels, but in #admins, level 5 is the lowest level at which you can invite yourself into the channel (if you are not on the access list or have a level lower than 5, you have to be invited by someone with at least level 5 every time you want to join). Level 10 allows you to use the command OP to temporarily make yourself an operator (to kick someone, for example, see List of Internet Relay Chat commands). You have to be at least level 30 to add and remove people to the access list, and level 50 is the highest there is. Thatcher 16:40, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

Sorry, my mistake, anyone with level 10 or higher can add people to the access list (which requires level 6), and those are all the chanops lists at WP:WEA. However, you can only grant an access level lower than your own, so chanop status (level 10) can only be created or revoked by someone higher than 10. I think. Thatcher 17:09, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

Thanks, Thatcher. Is there a list anywhere of people who have level 30 access and over? SlimVirgin ^{(talk)(contribs)} 16:45, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

I put it on the talk page. Thatcher 16:59, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

Fixed some grammar, sysop->operator or chanop when discussing IRC. --uǝʌǝsʎʇɹnoɟʇs(st47) 21:25, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

This is a statement of fact. Might help in determined the unclear status of the channel Alex Bakharev (talk) 08:24, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Tony Sidaway's presence at IRC

7) Tony Sidaway used the #admin IRC channel to attack other editors with unacceptable language as well as for conducting abhorrent sexual talk on topics that are neither related to the Wikipedia nor acceptable in civilized society.

Comment by Arbitrators:

If Wikipedia is not censored (and it's not), then neither are unrelated IRC channels. I can't claim to speak for civilized society in this or any other matter, and it's the height of arrogance to assume that this committee can make such a pronouncement. Mackensen (talk) 02:38, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

We need to do our best to make #admin channel discussions be work place friendly so that it is safe for users to pop in for a brief discussion while working or in the company of others where sexual explicit topics are inappropriate. Personally, this is the main reason that I limit my conversation in that channel but more often speak in other channels. That said, I see this as an issue that needs to be addressed in guidelines for the channel but not in this case. As to Tony's comments I think that he now realizes that his language can make others feel uncomfortable. FloNight (talk) 17:11, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

Comment by parties:

Can expand what kind of attacks and what kind of topics, if requested. --Irpen 01:46, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

I am shocked, simply shocked to find abhorrent sexual talk in IRC. Phil Sandifer (talk) 05:16, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

Mackensen's statement, above, is far too broad. If that channel is to have any legitimate function, it is simply to be more on-topic and "useful" for administrators. Tony, who is not and has not been an administrator for a long time, would be exacerbating his distracting presences (as a non-admin on any Wikipedia project) to furthermore dilute the potential usefulness of the channel. The general wikipedia.irc channel is more forgiving of self-indulgence, but that's not where Tony was. Furthermore, though, do not allow this "sex talk" to obscure the more serious issue: using the channel to attack absent users. That's just malign, and there is no place for it on Wikipedia. If we're using analogies, then there's no place for it on admins, either. Geogre (talk) 16:56, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

Comment by others:

Please do expand, Irpen. It's time for people to be clear -- no more dropping hints. SlimVirgin ^{(talk)(contribs)} 01:55, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

Done, in commented out form in this section. If anyone feels it needs uncommenting, do as you please. I think I was explicit enough on what kind of stuff we are talking about. It was tolerated all right and cheered too by other participants. --Irpen 02:03, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

"...as well as for conducting abhorrent sexual talk on topics that are neither related to the Wikipedia nor acceptable in civilized society." Changes might be need here, because I live in San Francisco, and the frank discussion of sexual topics is considered normal here. This statements seems a bit subjective. —Kurykh 04:30, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

I don't think we can sanction people for saying things heard on TV and the radio every day. Raymond Arritt (talk) 05:18, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

Agreed, as worded, this would apply to many more users than just Tony. --Coredesat 06:19, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

Is Phil being sarcastic? Clarification would be appreciated. Carcharoth (talk) 12:37, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

I believe he's riffing on the captain from Casablanca. Mackensen (talk) 15:12, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

Frank discussion about sex and other subjects is a longstanding staple of IRC, and IRC culture may come as a shock to those expecting an atmosphere more like a discussion forum or even a wiki. --Tony Sidaway 16:43, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

Is that appropriate for what is a de facto official Wikipedia tool? It could be seen as harassment of a sexual nature to some users. Lawrence Cohen 16:45, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

No, it's not appropriate. I've seen some pretty dodgy discussions on #wikipedia, involving people who claimed to be underage and who really did sound as though they were. Not involving Tony, I should add. SlimVirgin ^{(talk)(contribs)} 16:49, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

This seems a bit obvious, but.. could there not be a separate channel for the junior high locker room stuff? If it does somehow help the project to have Wikipedia-related chat room(s), surely the useful purpose of such channels is helped by staying on topic, right? Friday (talk) 16:57, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

The channel has chanops who would stop harassment of any kind dead in its tracks. Frank discussion doesn't mean harassment or attacks. --Tony Sidaway 17:15, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

Tony, I think you miss the point about the sex talk. There are older adult male Wikipedians who see no problem with going into the IRC channels with underage people and discussing sex with them. Bear in mind that the teenagers are probably using their computers in their bedrooms with their parents sleeping next door, and if the parents could see some of the discussions, they'd consider calling the police. In fairness to the men I've seen involved in this (and I should stress that I've never seen you do this), they seem not to understand the seriousness of what they're doing, and that's a product of the levelling effect of largely anonymous IRC conversations. But it raises the question of why they're not bored by it, and why they don't realize how inappropriate it is. SlimVirgin ^{(talk)(contribs)} 11:10, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

You make some good points. My experience of IRC culture tells me that your emphasis on males above is a little overplayed--IRC-style sex talk is very far from sexist male locker-room banter and usually highly inclusive. However your point that it might deter some people who really don't want that kind of discussion, for whatever reason, is well taken. I suggest that you contact the chanops with your concerns. I think it regrettable that real world concerns might impinge on the IRC clowning, but I do think you're right that some people would find it off-putting. --Tony Sidaway 16:03, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

Comment on commented out text: the notorious "B.F.H." comment dated back to 2006, over 15 months ago, and has long ago been consigned to cold death in outer space by the vast majority of users, I suspect. The quote was not brought up on this occasion by Tony, but by Bishonen herself, as a repost to Tony during a discussion on channel privacy issues. Tony visibly tried to avoid disputing it in his way, more than once, which although civil was not accepted in the forms he attempted. FT2 ^{(Talk | email)} 08:12, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

One of the problems here was that, even when Bishonen had first raised this matter, as I recall many months ago, it was already far in the past and I had no recollection of any such event. Neither that nor my perception that this was an attempt to drag in ancient grudges excused my hot and abusive response, which in retrospect can only have had the effect of fanning the flames. I would prefer it if all Wikipedians were prepared to accept the obvious truth: that IRC is an informal, real-time medium and frank discussion is to be expected. However they don't, and we have to take that into account. --Tony Sidaway 16:11, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

Another way of finding "obvious truth" here is to suppose that abusive remarks and namecalling are common enough in the channel that the people involved don't even tend to remember it when it occurs. Is this accurate? Friday (talk) 16:48, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

Do you remember every off-the-cuff remark you made in private two autumns ago? I certainly do not. I suggest that your perception is due to misunderstanding the nature of the medium. --Tony Sidaway 16:54, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

As a general rule, of course not. Although, for me, calling a colleague nasty names isn't really a typical off-the-cuff remark of the sort I would easily forget. Maybe it's silly to speak of "professionalism" when we're all volunteers, but I think a smidgen of it might be helpful here. Friday (talk) 17:02, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

Frankness and candor are typical of private discussions. This isn't to excuse or minimise the damage caused by unwise choice of words, and it doesn't excuse incautious discussion, but the reason we value privacy so much is that it enables us to communicate our thoughts accurately without heeding social niceties. Certainly we can attempt to impose standards on IRC channels, but IRC is basically for stream-of-conscious wibbling (which is fun) and is ill-suited to other more formal styles of communication. --Tony Sidaway 21:49, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

It kind of feels like some people here don't understand IRC.. Even if Tony called someone a bad name once, get over it. You people should hear some of the stuff I say about you in other places, oh would you be mad. Venting with friends, omg, whatever will we do.-- Ned Scott 07:20, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

And I should clarify, people who are "venting" are not in their normal state of mind, and are frustrated. My own comments about others are almost always something that I don't actually believe, "That Bob is so stupid, I'm gonna... AAAAA!" I don't know what was said in the channel, but it sounds like it happened once, and that does not seem like an issue. If people have a continual problem with controlling their venting, that would be different. -- Ned Scott 18:44, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

I would guess that the communication channel does not have the culture of its own, the participants have. If some phenomenon of the channel culture prevents the channel from using by a significant segments of wikipedians then it is no good. If the channel is supposed to be used by WMF employees as part of their employment duties but subjects them to some form of a sexual harassment then it might be quite a problem. If adults wikipedians in official position within the project engage into sexually explicit talk with minors it is another possible tickling bomb. I think the fact is relevant and probably important Alex Bakharev (talk) 08:44, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

No argument there. If anybody ever felt harassed by the clowning on IRC, that would be bad. It isn't something arbcom could do anything about, but it's still bad. --Tony Sidaway 02:44, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Some admins are denied access to the admins channel

8) Some admins are denied access to the admins channel.Comment by User:B

Comment by Arbitrators:

That's a matter for the chanops. I don't know B and don't know the circumstances. Given that Bishonen, for example, has access, it's fair to say that ideology is not a determining factor. We need elaboration from B and the chanop who denied the request. Mackensen (talk) 02:39, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

It appears that whether or not this was previously true in any instance, at this time any active administrator who wants access to #admins is readily admitted. If this is not true I would like to know about it. Newyorkbrad (talk) 02:57, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

Comment by parties:

Mackensen's comments go back to the idea that the IRC runs by its own rules and that arbitrators don't have anything to say about the conflicts it produces. If this is so, and it was the point of view last time we went down this road, then the "edit war" about David Gerard's page is simply an edit war. There is no violation of anything else. People have over-reverted. People have been nasty. There is no betrayal of holy and catholic Wikipedia policy, because no Wikipedia policy applies. Phil, on the other hand, wants to deny that there have been irregularities. Well, fine: if the channel has any standing. If it does, could we please see where it was approved by consensus, where its policies were approved by consensus, where David Gerard nominated his page for review, where the talk page comments were, where the approval was? Geogre (talk) 20:44, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

Based on B's comments below, this seems untrue and best ascribed to a backlog of the sort we routinely (albeit regrettably) have throughout Wikipedia. Phil Sandifer (talk) 05:15, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

Comment by others:

He mentioned this today on ANI. Lawrence Cohen 01:53, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

I would like to see more information about exactly what happened here. Phil Sandifer (talk) 02:03, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

I've requested a clarification from B. Picaroon (t) 02:25, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

Would there be a situation where an admin would ever be not given access upon asking? Seems sort of backwards, if so. If they're trusted with tools, why not access to a place to discuss use of the tools? Lawrence Cohen 02:36, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

This was 8+ months ago, I never got a reply from anyone with the ability to grant me access, and I honestly don't remember who I emailed. If I remember correctly from the instructions, there was an online form to fill out to request a cloak ... I never heard back from that ... and I emailed the user that it said was in charge of it and I think a couple of the ops, but honestly, everything before 4-16 seems like a lifetime ago and I couldn't tell you who I emailed. I looked back at my emails from the time and I don't have anything there about it, so I must have used Wikipedia email. I honestly couldn't tell you who I emailed. Unless there are other instances of this happening, I don't think this FOF is needed because honestly, I don't remember from that long ago what steps I took and it ceased to be a priority to me after 4-16 so I stopped pursuing it. --B (talk) 03:39, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

Okay, thank you for the clarification. That's not a denial of access, that's simply being ignored. Rude? Yes. Annoying? Yes. Disheartening? Yes. Provably malicious in any way? No, definitely not. If you ask in #wikipedia (instead of via email), I'm sure you'll get plenty of responses from the #wikipedia-en-admins channel operators who hover in there. Picaroon (t) 03:44, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

I never said nor meant to imply that it was malicious. My only point was that I am not an IRC insider, but I nonetheless supported David's summary and actions. I wasn't trying to make a statement about the IRC vetting process. --B (talk) 03:51, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

Picaroon's statement describes precisely how I gained access to #admins myself. Supposedly you can ask by email but I never received a response. I think channel access simply doesn't have any systematic organization. Raymond Arritt (talk) 05:21, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

No, of course not, B; I wasn't suggesting you had implied that. Thanks again for the clarification. I mentioned that it wasn't malicious just to make sure everybody is on the same page, and so no one thinks this was a deliberate insult to you. Most likely just lack of organization, as Raymond arritt says. Picaroon (t) 21:55, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

"That's not a denial of access, that's simply being ignored" - So you're free to deny access, and not have it flagged as such, as long as you don't specifically explicate that that is in fact what you are doing? Achromatic (talk) 01:09, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Sean William's unblock was fundamentally correct

9) User:Sean William asked for, received, and applied the consensus at WP:ANI correctly in unblocking User:Giano, after discussion

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

I see no evidence that a consensus existed that Giano was exempt from basic 3RR enforcement. Phil Sandifer (talk) 03:59, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

Several editors have mentioned that the consensus in that discussion was to unblock Giano. You may dispute the reason they decided that the block was bad, but you cannot deny that the consensus was that the block of Giano only was bad, and rather then escalate the situation by blocking the other edit warriors, it was decided that Giano should be unblocked. SirFozzie (talk) 04:05, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

I expect to (probably in about 24 hours) work up evidence for a finding called "An unfortunately large swath of the Wikipedia community has taken leave of their senses." It should address this issue. The short form, though, is that the widespread belief that Giano is some sort of heroic martyr does not itself have any weight when it is utterly divorced from sane interaction with policy. Phil Sandifer (talk) 05:14, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

Both the title and the suggested wording are painfully obvious. I suspect that the final decision of this arbitration will be something along the lines of: "The encyclopedia, dummy!" These petty feuds must stop. --Tony Sidaway 17:00, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

Phil, that is a true text. Guy (Help!) 13:12, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

Comment by others:

Proposed. There was discussion on ANI. SirFozzie (talk) 02:59, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

"There was discussion" is a long way from "there was consensus". Am I alone in seeing the irony here? Giano and his friends complain that "the cabal" get away with whatever they like, but Giano is himself being exempted from policies which we apply more or less mechanistically and for good reason. The diffs above reference THE TRUTH™ as an excuse for manifestly exceeding WP:3RR - any other editor blocked for exceeding 3RR to bring THE TRUTH™ would not be unblocked. Actually most editors who exceed 3RR to bring THE TRUTH™ end up banned, because THE TRUTH™ tends to be distinct from the truth. This is not to say the entire dispute is not lame to the point of incomprehensibility, but there is no doubt that Giano was engaging in precisely the kind of problematic behaviour that has caused him trouble before. Guy (Help!) 11:27, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

Actually, Guy, several editors (including Lar and Luna, as well as Sean and myself) agreed that there was consensus for the unblock. SirFozzie (talk) 16:01, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

"Several" <> consensus. Better all round to persuade the blocking admin to unblock, or get a genuine consensus, not a few in agreement. I do think this is dangerous ground. Certainly I would not be pressing for a finding like this, which seems to me to declare open season on wheel warring; we are supposed to be conservative about reversing other admins' blocks as far as I can see. Guy (Help!) 16:22, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

I guess we'll agree to disagree. I understand where you're coming from on this, but I think that what you describe is giving individual administrators a little too much power when it comes to what turns out to be bad, drama-causing actions. I'm not saying Phil was biased, or what have you, but I, and many others, thought that the decision to block Giano, or should I say, ONLY Giano (I'm pretty sure that unlike what you were saying earlier, no one is giving Giano a pass for shattering the electric fence of 3RR, just that the other side was edit-warring as well, but stopped short of that electric fence) , was ill-advised. What you're saying is that any admin can become a miniature God-King (TM Jimbo Wales), by refusing to agree to reverse any action. I disagree. But I don't think I'll convince you, and you probably won't convince me, so, I guess all you can do is shrug is "c'est la guerre". SirFozzie (talk) 16:30, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

The problem with the kind of consensus to which you refer, Fozzie, is that is can be generated pretty rapidly by the groups of like minded editors. If edit warring can occur in groups, so can consensus building. Giano's recent antics have attracted groups of edits who swarm around him, pitching in in agreement at every opportunity (one might, as Guy notes, even call it a cabal). Of course, there are also editors who take the opposite view and disagree with him at every opportunity (this is the real cabal, of course). Both of these groups mask any real community consensus on matters relating to Giano. Rockpocket 23:29, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

Yes, and that's why we should not have this finding. Where opinion is polarised, it can take longer and more thoughtful debate to establish true consensus. What is beyond doubt is that Giano did violate 3RR. Guy (Help!) 13:11, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

Giano undoubtedly breached 3RR for the block he received from Sandifer. The point with that block is that Giano had said he would stop. If he had reverted himself, then the block would have been unjustified. Because Giano left the edit in place, the block was still technically OK, but it did inflame things. The 3RR block by Fuchs (the talk page warning stated it was for 3RR, but the block summary says only "edit warring") is no longer clear. Look at the timeline provided by the bainer over on the evidence page, and tell me where the 3RR is that Fuchs blocked for. Carcharoth (talk) 19:04, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

Scrub that. I had a closer look, and it seems to be a breach of 5RR by Giano before the block by Fuchs. Six edits, the first introducing the text, and the other five clearly re-adding it whole or with some minimal additions before and after the text. See here for details. I suspect though, that if we look for blocks of text, rather than whole edits, others will have breached 3RR as well. Carcharoth (talk) 20:10, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

The process was right but the result may have been wrong according to some. How to word that. (Maybe: "However it is possible that the grounds proposed for unblocking, and the quality of consensus, might have been considered questionable"?) FT2 ^{(Talk | email)} 09:22, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

I think Sean William's unblock was well within the norms that have applied in removing controversial blocks in the past, in that he took the step in the context of discussion and attempts to contact the blocking party. He was not at fault in diagnosing absence of consensus for the block, and reversing it.

However such local consensus by itself sometimes leads to problematic results. Whether this case was one of them is another matter, but there does seem to be an unfortunate amount of toing and froing in Giano's block log and this adds to the mounting evidence that community processes are inadequate to deal with the long multifaceted dispute of which he is the perennial epicenter. It is time for the Committee to grasp the nettle and resolve the dispute one way or another. This case requires a very carefully thought out remedy, perhaps the most important one that the Committee will ever make. It must at the same time be strong enough to kill the seeds of further disruption by the warring parties, while at the same time being light enough to enable all parties to put aside their differences and move forward without bitterness. A tall order. Good luck. --Tony Sidaway 17:11, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

Support the process was right and the result was IMHO right Alex Bakharev (talk) 08:46, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

Support, per Sean William's comment on the Evidence talk page. Tim Q. Wells (talk) 17:59, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Tony Sidaway has made off-wiki personal attacks

10) Tony Sidaway has made off-wiki personal attacks on Bishonen.

Comment by Arbitrators:

This isn't disputed. If Bishonen made representations to channel operators I'm not aware of it; did she? That's normally the first step. I know that I wasn't contacted. Mackensen (talk) 05:14, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

Comment by parties:

Only relevant if it becomes established that the IRC is related with Wikipedia and the Wikipedia community can enforce its will over off-wiki IRC communication. In a hypothetic RL situation when one person assaults another person verbally, with a knife or other tool, this is dealt with by relevant RL authorities. If those two people happen to also be Wikipedians, the assailant is not banned from Wikipedia for going to a real jail. Either we establish IRC<->WP relationsip and clearly spell it out or the attacks on IRC has to be dealt by IRC owners as they don't have anything to do with Wikipedia. --Irpen 03:37, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

• Re Mackensen: I contacted Mark Ryan. Bishonen | talk 17:57, 27 December 2007 (UTC).

Not disputed, even by Tony.--Doc^g 11:39, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

"Normally the first step" is part of the issue, here. Are there first steps? Are there consequences for not following them? Are there steps to take if those break down? Are there appeals if the chanops like someone who has "left under a cloud" and give ops? Are there appeals if legitimate admins are not given access? Are there appeals if people in the channel malign others? Where are these rules written? I thought we were here because David Gerard wrote a page and Giano II and I edited it to reflect our point of view rather than his. Geogre (talk) 20:52, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

Comment by others:

Proposed, per the IRC logs. John254 03:29, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

Regardless of the degree to which the IRC channels are or are not related to Wikipedia, Wikipedia editors are not given carte blanche privileges to make off-wiki personal attacks on other editors. Moreover, recent comments by Jimbo Wales direct the Arbitration Committee to consider users' conduct on #wikipedia-en-admins. John254 03:59, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

Irc logs are private, thus such evidence is inadmissable. That said, there seems to be no rebuttal from Tony. Martinp23 00:06, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

I've waived privacy rights in this instance, as it doesn't make sense to leave people speculating over what was said. That said, the incident was dealt with by the channel operators and ultimately by my own decision to leave the channel. --Tony Sidaway 16:22, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

Statement of fact Alex Bakharev (talk) 10:22, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Giano's methods and tactics are supported by many Wikipedians

11) Many Wikipedians support Giano's tactics and methods in questioning aspects of Wikipedia policy.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Relevant only if followed by the principle "Giano's tactics and methods in questioning aspects of Wikipedia policy violate WP:POINT and a remedy admonishing the community at large not to support disruptive attempts at martyrdom. Phil Sandifer (talk) 05:04, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

I'm sure "many wikipedians" support many things. Not sure what the evidence for this is. I supported Giano for arbcom that certainly wasn't a support of his "methods and tactics", although his right to question is unassailable. Hoe many is "many"? Six, sixteen, sixty?--Doc^g 11:38, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

Oh, I get it! It's guilt by association time, and association by guilt, too! Sheesh. I support Giano's changes to that page. I must have, since I restored them. At the same time, that's now how I would do it. The history of the page shows how I would do it. For one thing, I wouldn't write with passive voice constructions in an effort to hide the fact that the page is the opinion of one guy about his own channel. Methods? I don't know: I disagree with edit wars, but Giano's not an admin. David is. Geogre (talk) 21:32, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

I'm not sure what you mean. My only comment is that this is to vague a finding to be meaningful. Where's the guilt attribution?--Doc^g 21:39, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

I was referring to Phil's attempt at a finding. He was attempting to have a guilt by association, and association by guilt finding. It's sloppy, if I'm being charitable. I suspect that what it really is is just more personal animus. Geogre (talk) 17:03, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

Comment by others:

Proposed, per Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee Elections December 2007/Vote/Giano II. Videmus Omnia ^Talk 20:31, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

If there are such people they should feel free to take the content and found an alternative community based on his methods. --Tony Sidaway 20:43, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

Or they just thought it would be funny for him to be on the committee. Picaroon (t) 20:45, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

I don't think that's evident from the "support" statements. Videmus Omnia ^Talk 20:48, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

Picaroon, that is an insult to the 300+ people who voted for Giano, amongst them longterm editors, featured article contributors, many administrators, several arbitrators, and even a steward or two. Please consider refactoring that. I have my doubts about this proposal, but backhanding a significant portion of the community is just not on. Risker (talk) 20:49, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

It's not an insult (where'd you get that?), it's a facetious response to Videmus Omnia's proposal, which makes a great leap from support of Giano's candidacy to endorsement of his recent disruption. I'm not backhanding anyone. Picaroon (t) 20:54, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

The proposed finding is a statement about Giano's general practices, it is not specific to this particular case. I do urge you to reconsider, as your "facetious" comment does seem to be aimed at the members of the community who supported Giano rather than at anything Giano has done in this particular instance. Risker (talk) 21:00, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

There were many who supported him, and many who opposed. Hmm, come to think of it... might it be worth stating that whether through design or otherwise, Giano's actions tend to polarize the community, with passionate views on each side? The tug-of-war between Giano's fans and detractors certainly played a role in the present brouhaha. Raymond Arritt (talk) 20:52, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

I supported Giano's bid for a position on the arbitration committee, but to represent that as support for his odious methods would be very wrong. I thought we would end up with a better, more thoughtful Giano, and possibly even a better Wikipedia. I am certain that he would not again play silly games with Wikipedia after seeing the hard work that goes into trying to stop this community exploding in warfare. --Tony Sidaway 22:32, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

I think its actually that while most find Giano's methods somewhat distasteful, many agree with his views on certain matters. Some perhaps feel that Giano's ends justify the means; particularly when roadblocks are established to accomplishing those ends through normal means. Christopher Parham (talk) 06:36, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

I certainly admired his willingness to stick his neck out and squawk when something was wrong, even if squawking violated some policy. I have no confidence that this Fall's wiki-sleuthing stuff would have ended in an anti-sleuthing direction had Giano not broken some rules and some norms of civility. I supported him for ArbCom because of, not in spite of, his ideas and his 'active pursuit' of same. And I admired him even more for getting away with it. Until now. Jd2718 (talk) 07:56, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

There was no anti-sleuthing principle, finding or remedy in the Durova arbitration case, nor anything resembling one. Giano's contribution was simply to drive the community down an unproductive side alley, to which the arbitration committee responded by adding him to the case and finding that he "exceeded the bounds of fair criticism" by, amongst other things, "on-wiki publication of private correspondence". --Tony Sidaway 17:18, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

I read Finding of Fact 4, on the nature of the block, as discouraging sleuthing. You are free to disagree or diregard. Jd2718 (talk) 20:29, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

Yes we do see things differently. To my eyes the finding describes two things: blocking in the absence of solid evidence and absence of transparency during the block review. Sleuthing is routinely used on English Wikipedia to identify socks, returning banned editors, likely sources of sneaky vandalism and the like. Actions must be proportionate to the evidence and, with certain tightly circumscribed exceptions, must not be undertaken if the evidence cannot be presented to the community (see Principle 3 for the exact wording). --Tony Sidaway 00:37, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

Disagree. The citation (Giano's arb vote page) evidences that many users support having a fresh presence on Arbcom, an inquiring mind or freedom from a perceived "cabal" on Arbcom, someone different from the norm on Arbcom, rejection of usual candidates on Arbcom, and so on. We have no evidence that the same people were casting a vote in favor of problem solving by all-out edit and revert warring, the "methods and tactics" actually in question on this case. They probably were not.FT2 ^{(Talk | email)} 08:19, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

Without interviewing the 300 this really is unknowable, beyond that there were a variety of reasons for supporting him. Jd2718 (talk) 09:12, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

I think it's reasonable to assume that, in the absence of explicit evidence of substantial consensus to the contrary, most people don't want Wikipedia to by run through the methods used by Giano. There is certainly a minority that has advocated, for instance, that all correspondence related to Wikipedia except perhaps arbcom-l, OTRS and the like, loses all expectation of privacy the minute it is communicated. This as it stands could never have a ghost of a chance of achieving consensus, and moreover would make Wikipedia a community ruled by fear. There have been more moderate calls for a policy explicitly delineating circumstances under which publication on-wiki should be permitted, but none has so far achieved consensus nor seems likely to. --Tony Sidaway 17:52, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

And I don't think that it's reasonable to guess at the motivations of his supporters. The support statements on his voting page ranged from trust that he would continue to speak loudly, to trust that he would respect confidentiality, to trust that he is the most committed and decent among us, to trust that he is a fine editor. I agree that this proposal will not pass, and should not pass, but let's not pretend to speak for those who are not here. Jd2718 (talk) 20:33, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

We have to draw a line somewhere. Even if questionable tactics, skepticism, and cynicism about this project are popular among the rank and file, that's no reason for the project as a whole to sink to that level or make a hero out of people who disrupt the project with it. Populism is often a disruptive thing. Wikidemo (talk) 21:03, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

As a matter of fact I voted against Giano's bid for Arbcom. Still I believe that his intentions are noble and his intervantion in the wikispace makes more good than disruption. I guess many people voting against Giano have the same opinion. Overall it seems like tha majority of the community thinks that his intervention in the policing matter is overall positive Alex Bakharev (talk) 10:27, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

Oppose. Votes in the election mean nothing with respect to this case. --Coredesat 09:33, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

:::I do not know Giano, but I understand why the lower class feels empathy for him. We are all Sad Sacks at the bottom of the pile. He is the only one unafraid to stand up to these Admins who so readily dismiss lowly editors like me and make it clear they has no tolerance for my opinion. Mattisse 01:55, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

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

12) Based on evidence detailed here.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

David Gerard's protection was evidence of bad behavior, and I am astonished that he is not being arbitrated for bullying and using protection for WP:OWN violations. He did it twice in fact -- to prevent edits he disagreed with. Geogre (talk) 20:56, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

Let me state again what should be obvious: the protection policy does not allow us to protect our own pages to prevent changes we disagree with. Protection is when there is slashdotting going on or when vandals are unblockable. There was absolutely no case made either on the talk page or anywhere else for this protection, no evidence offered that either of the protection cases were present, and there was no communication with me or any of the others explaining a rationale. Therefore, I saw a policy violation and undid it, as "unprotected" is the status quo. Indefinite protection is even more shocking a state. We simply do n o t do that. Geogre (talk) 17:07, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

Comment by others:

To support the remedy I posted below out of order. Lawrence Cohen 20:53, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

Updating to my section on the evidence page. Lawrence Cohen 21:13, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

There was editing during protection, but this is not wheeling. In terms of admin tools this was the sequence: Admin-1 protects indef, Admin-2 changes duration to a week, David G resets duration to indef, Geogre unprotects, Admin-3 deletes with a note it will be restored in 48 hours (IAR since protection was not stopping the edit war, fair call), Geogre restored, Admin-4 reprotects but only short-term, Admin-5 extends it for a week. In this context David G did not visibly wheel, a block had been set indef, shortened, and he re-indeffed. Geogre's case is more problematic since at the point he made the page able to be edited, 3 admins had unanimously indicated that they felt it shoulds not be left open to editing. Forllowing his reversal a fourth admin acted to concur with the previous three, and Geogre then reversed this to again set the page to a state anyone could edit. FT2 ^{(Talk | email)} 08:33, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

In some cases, I think editing a protected page is wheeling. If the point of the protection was to lock down the page and force the participants to discuss on the talk page, then by using your admin tools to edit anyway (in the disputed area), you are flagrantly rejecting the whole point of protection. Effectively you are undoing the protection and editing the page and then reprotecting it. Carcharoth (talk) 17:43, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] There was a 14-stage edit war involving 9 editors

13) As detailed at Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/IRC/Evidence#Edit war: Dealing with problematic behaviour on the channel, one of the main edit wars in this incident was a 14-stage edit war involving 9 editors: User:Giano II, User:John Reaves, User:Coredesat, User:Geogre, User:AzaToth, User:David Gerard, User:Betacommand, User:Irpen, User:Ryulong.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Well, Geogre, if a series of reversions such as that isn't an edit war, I don't know what is. Mackensen (talk) 05:24, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

Comment by parties:

I suppose it was an edit war. I see it more that David Gerard and his friends wanted the page exactly as David Gerard thought of it, and the rest of us wanted it to reflect some of the serious concerns with this hobby chatroom. I think all editors had "good will" in that regard, even if I think only I was actually correct. <shrug> What I found remarkable, though, is that only the dissenters, if you will, used the talk page. David Gerard's gnomic pronouncements there were all about how right he was, it seems to me, with never listening to anything anyone had to say: his version, no compromises. Well, this is a wiki. Geogre (talk) 21:01, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

Comment by others:

Proposed. Pulling out one of the main edit wars to show exactly what went on. There were other edit wars as well, but this seems to be the most spectacular one, for all the wrong reasons. Many definitions of edit warring would exclude User:John Reaves from this sequence, so that should be considered as an alternative finding of fact. Carcharoth (talk) 05:17, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

Yup. Succinct and to the point. I'd add "some of whom appeared to be trying to act constructively in the face of warring, others of whom did not" so as to not imply all the above are necessarily tarred equally. It "involved" these, but some were apparently from their edits seeking to calm it down, and ceased rather than edit war, so "involved in" may perhaps not mean in each case, acted improperly. Thinking of Coredesat and this edit early on, which was almost certainly a reasonable normal good-faith edit, not repeated. FT2 ^{(Talk | email)} 08:41, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

To my mind, the timing also matters. John Reaves was early on, so the only reason he might have had to consider not getting involved (and going straight to the talk page instead) was the earlier history. On the other hand, the edit summary indicates that he was aware that a dispute was brewing, but the "let's go to the talk page" is a reasonable first step to take. Sometimes an alternative is to do a null edit and use the edit summary to say "let's take this to the talk page". Coredesat, on the other hand, could see (or should have seen) that the edit war was gathering steam, and that contributing to it would not help (in general, edit summaries of *sigh* don't really help). Going to the other end of the 14-stage edit war, Ryulong might not have realised that the edit was was now fourteen edits long, but he should have, and if he did, then jumping in there was inexcusable. Carcharoth (talk) 17:40, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

Just to clarify, my null edit's summary was to make up for my previous one which was cut off early. --John Reaves 04:00, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Egregious edit warring took place

14) All nine editors who engaged in the 14-stage edit war (see here) were engaged in egregious edit warring. The editors were experienced enough to know that they should have ceased edit warring (or not joined the edit war), and should have gone to the talk page to discuss (or continue discussing) the editing of the page.

14.1) At least eight of the editors who engaged in the 14-stage edit war (see here) were engaged in or contributing to edit warring. The editors in question (User:Giano, User:Coredesat, User:Geogre, User:AzaToth, User:David Gerard, User:Betacommand, User:Irpen, and User:Ryulong) were experienced enough to know that they should have ceased edit warring (or not joined the edit war), and should have gone to the talk page to discuss (or continue discussing) the editing of the page. User:John Reaves carried out one revert and suggested taking the matter to the talk page, but this advice was not followed (User:Geogre and User:David Gerard were talking on the talk page and referring to the talk page, but they still continued to edit war).

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Too vague. Which nine?--Doc^g 11:33, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

What the heck is an egregious edit war? If the question is, "Did both sides know that they were battling," the answer would have to be yes. However, everyone knew it was a battle. There is no one who didn't know that. Why did that out of the way, never cited page suddenly get so many "defenders?" Didn't they know that they were there to do battle? Why did this arbitration start? Wasn't it to get that battle into its next phase? If the article was an edit war, this is another battle in it, and shame on all. Geogre (talk) 21:05, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

An egregious edit war? Perhaps it's something like an egregious pregnancy. --Tony Sidaway 21:56, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

Comment by others:

Proposed. Following up the simple statement of fact with a statement on the behaviour observed here - namely edit warring on all sides regardless of the exact number of reverts. Carcharoth (talk) 02:07, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

The evidence does not support this. For instance, John Reaves is the second to act and reverts once after Giano's first removal. How is a single revert edit warring? Jehochman ^Talk 03:35, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for reminding me. I meant to say that a version of these two findings of fact could be written to exclude John Reaves, who, like the bainer at the start of it all, was merely starting the ball rolling. The other eight editors are clearly edit warring though. Joining an edit war that is in progress is still edit warring (which covers more than just 3RR). I'm talking here about straight reverts. Trying a different wording is the middle ground between a revert and starting a discussion before any editing. Carcharoth (talk) 04:36, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

Also, I'm not excluding John Reaves entirely, because his previous edits and his edit summaries showed he was aware of what was going on. He chose to get involved in what would predictably become an edit war. To his credit, he stayed out of what developed. The other case is where the initial editor (here, this would be Giano) doesn't get involved after the initial edit. In this case Giano did get involved, but even if he had not edited any further, you could argue that he was removing content added by Jimbo and David Gerard, and (even if he didn't continue an edit war, he would have been the one that started it). Also, David's revert should be seen in light of him being one of the originators of the text in question. Similarly, if Jimbo had got involved again, the fact that he originated part of the text would have to be considered. The same holds for Wknight94 if he ever got involved again. The fact that David Gerard expanded on what Jimbo originally wrote is a point in his favour, and effectively reset the "revert" clock. But even if continual rewriting was taking place between edits, at some point a failure to take the discussion to the talk page would mean that it was still edit warring. See what Tony Sidaway has written above about group edit warring. Carcharoth (talk) 05:29, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

Responding to Doc, the same nine named above and at the link. The wording could be improved, but these are only proposed principles. I fully expect any arbitrators that like the look of this (and in all honesty, many of the proposals on this page are never taken up by arbitrators), to modify it and improve the wording. Doing that here seems a bit pointless sometimes, but if you can come up with a better wording, please do so. For the record, the only other people I can see that have reverted (sometimes extending into edit warring) in this whole incident (some in good-faith attempts to calm the situation down) are, on 23 December, Bishonen (who made one revert of you, Doc Glasgow), David Fuchs (his revert is timed at exactly the same time as his block of Giano - which makes me a tad uneasy), you (Doc Glasgow), and (later on), Jouster and Jossi (who each did reverts with edit summaries, and Jouster in fact did a separate null edit and expressed his frustration in an edit summary). Points in favour are attempts to rewrite the material (which both you, Giano and Bishonen did, to varying degrees). There was still, in those early stages, an air of "let's shout at each other in the edit summaries and try and nip this in the bud", with no indication of moving the discussion from the parallel world of edit summaries to a proper discussion page - in retrospect, I think it can be seen that this was ultimately unhelpful (not moving to a talk page). Apart from this, only three other people reverted: Thebainer, Wknight94, and GDonato. Weighing up responsibility, can, I think, be done by a combination of how early on the reverts took place in whichever edit war (eg. Thebainer and John Reaves did initial reverts and then stayed out of it), the content of the edit summary (eg. Wknight made clear what he was doing), indications of attempts to transfer discussion from edit summaries to talk pages (either user talk pages or Wikipedia namespace talk pages, eg. John Reaves and Geogre and David Gerard, though the latter two returned from the talk page and continued warring, which in some ways is even worse), whether there was any attempt to rewrite the material under dispute (eg. David Gerard), and whether there was later or earlier involvement (Giano, Geogre, David Gerard and Coredesat, among others, were reprising their roles from June 2007). For the record, GDonato was similarly briefly involved in the earlier (June-July edit wars) in a similar way, removing POV and cleanup tags with the edit summary "please, these are supposed to be the people the community trusts- not an article". Entirely blameless, and trying to resolve the situation. Duk (who protected this time round) had also protected back in June. DragonflySixtyseven had tried a rewrite back in June, but protected this time around. Bishonen was largely trying rewrites back in June, with a partial revert of a rewrite by Newyorkbrad. Many got involved in June who did not this time round. Anyway, I've said far too much here, and I can't think of a way to finish this, so I'll stop there. Carcharoth (talk) 17:17, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

Reworded and expanded version 14.1, with explicit naming of those involved. Carcharoth (talk) 17:35, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

Responding to Geogre, if anyone gets past my long comment up above, I'm not entirely sure I know what egregious means. It seems to be a buzzword around here with the approximate meaning of "unacceptable". I will foreswear using the word until I find out what it really means... (see the wiktionary link). But what I really need to say here is that the evidence I presented on the edit warring, and the proposed FoF here, was to show that others were behaving as badly, if not worse, when compared to Giano. This may seem obvious, but there are and will be some who would try to paint this as a 3RR by Giano with no blame at all attaching to the "defenders" of the page in question. That was the attitude of Phil Sandifer when his 3RR block was questioned in the ANI thread. What I hope to see here is that any findings of fact or remedies will not focus on Giano specifically, but will be blanket ones covering the entire behaviour of the whole group, with vague caveats about how some were "worse" or "better" behaved than others. Carcharoth (talk) 00:49, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

The language is too strong, the edit conflict was on an obscure essay of no use to 99% of the community, not on the mainpage for goodness sake, nor on a prominent mainspace article nor on a cornerstone policy. I actually see similar levels of edit warring in the mainspace weekly if not daily. What was unusual there was the high level of administrative actions applied to the article, especially by the COI administrators and edit warring on a protected article Alex Bakharev (talk) 10:48, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

Egregious probably is too strong, and was written for my 14.0. My alternative, 14.1, is meant to be under another title, but I didn't do that. Does WP:3RR or WP:EDIT WAR not apply to obscure essays? Was the page protected to force people to discuss the page on the talk page (no-one has done so since the last protection stuck) or merely to separate the warring parties? If the latter, how did the 3RR blocks help to separate the warring parties rather than inflame the situation? If we all agree that page protection and stern warnings is a better way to deal with the periodic infights among invested users, rather than blocks of any sort, then let's write that into policy or make it an unwritten rule and not single out Giano for blocks. Carcharoth (talk) 10:57, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Status of the Wikipedia:IRC channels/wikipedia-en-admins page

15.1) Per Phil Sandifer's evidence, Wikipedia policies do fully apply to this page, and no editors have a free hand to edit as desired, and all policies such as protection policy and WP:OWN apply, as they do anywhere on Wikipedia.

15.2) Per Phil Sandifer's evidence, Wikipedia policies do not fully apply to this page, and certain editors have a free hand to edit as desired, regardless of other restrictions such as protection policy and WP:OWN.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

The point is not that some policies do not apply to some editors - it is that some pages have a special set of policies. See also the main page. In this case, we are talking about a policy page that does not stem from community authority but rather from a specific set of people. That does give that set of people certain extended rights in correcting errors on the page. Or, more to the point of this case, someone who is in such a position of authority could reasonably believe they have such rights, making sanctioning them for good faith exercising of those rights unreasonable. Phil Sandifer (talk) 15:14, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

Complete bunk. The page is not a policy. It has never been through policy approval. It has not achieved consensus in its wording. I suspect this is another instance of Phil's concept of "semi-policy." That may be evidentiary to him, but not to the rest of the project. It's a wiki page. It gets edited. It has been found that it has been written poorly and has established things which have been discovered to be untrue and therefore is to be edited to improve. Geogre (talk) 21:08, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

Comment by others:

Based on Phil's evidence here, as it seems to be in response to my Wheel warring evidence in FOF12 above. Phil seems to be saying that Wikipedia policies here only apply to some editors? Are there any other exempt from policy pages? Lawrence Cohen 05:20, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

How can you use the same evidence to reach two different conclusions? Sean William @ 05:22, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

Well, one interpretation is right, one is wrong. Seems like a decent way to clear up which is which. Lawrence Cohen 05:28, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] All pages on Wikipedia are subject to the same policy enforcement

16) All pages on Wikipedia are subject to the same policy enforcement. No pages are exempt from policy enforcement, for any users.

Comment by Arbitrators:

This is the case neither in policy nor in practice. Any bitter stub-crufter can tell you that. This has nothing to do with the standing of users. I also note that policy pages have occasionally been subtly twisted into something which did not match consensus (WP:SOCK comes to mind), and this led to much unpleasantness and an arbitration case. Mackensen (talk) 05:29, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

Comment by parties:

Flatly untrue - a number of pages, most notably those about fictional topics, routinely and by consensus have weaker sourcing standards. Further, a number of pages, most notably the main page and several core policies, have much more stringent standards. We also would generally give the arbitration committee more leeway to edit, say, the arbitration policy page. To say nothing of the special role Jimbo has on a number of pages - I do not think that anybody would 3RR block Jimbo in a fashion that actually sticks. Phil Sandifer (talk) 15:16, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

Flatly true. Those pages that are most core get reverted quickly, and consensus to change never emerges. That's how Wikipedia works. People are constantly changing critical pages, but the changes don't stay, because there is consensus. The defense of a page is Wikipedia itself. We have always relied on our editors, not our power, and not magic pixie dust. People edit the FAC guidelines, sometimes without any standing. Some people even foolishly write their own descriptions of their own IRC channels and then protect them. However, the boldness in creating such a page does not make it special. Geogre (talk) 21:12, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

Comment by others:

A follow up to 15.1 and 15.2. Lawrence Cohen 05:33, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

No - not true at all, per custom on Main Page, DYK, FA, GA, BRFA, and probably many others.. Martinp23 00:09, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

What polices are those exempt from? Lawrence Cohen 00:11, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

The protection policy, for one. Newyorkbrad (talk) 01:08, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

What about a page a bot uses to help it operate? People are not free to simply start editing such a page, or even try to take it to deletion. We'd tell them "what on earth are you doing? This page isn't a normal page, you can't use those normal policies" -- Ned Scott 07:24, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

It is not true for the pages of my bot, half of them are written by other people Alex Bakharev (talk) 08:08, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

I don't think you understand me. Some bots read and write to some pages, and editing them will mess up the operation of the bot, which is normally acting on behalf of the community. -- Ned Scott 18:40, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

IMHO all those pages should be in the userspace of the bot or his owner. Everything outside of the userspace should be editable on the equal basis Alex Bakharev (talk) 08:08, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Nobody owns pages in the Main and Wikipedia spaces

16.1) No pages in the Main and Wikipedia spaces are owned by a particular user or group of users. If a page is suppose to have special relations with a user it should go to his or her userspace.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Still untrue - see WP:FAC and User:Raul654. Though he does not "own" the page in the sense of WP:OWN, he still has a special relationship with the page. And the attempt to reduce this page to something that should have gone in David's userspace is also misleading, given that the arbcom, Jimbo, and James Forrester all also have special relationships with the page. Phil Sandifer (talk) 14:28, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

Still obviously true: Raul does not own the WP:FAC page. He is the FAC director. He is frequently consulted, and he chooses which FA's go on the main page. That's it. Furthermore, Raul has this uncanny habit of listening to editors who want changes made. I should very much like to see any page on Wikipedia describing an off-wiki, but wiki-named, process that is an exemption to WP:OWN. Phil's statement is either deceptive or very misinformed. Even when we get policy pages that go through approval (and this one never did and applies to something that isn't on Wikipedia), we still get them edited. Those who don't like that are possibly at the wrong project. Geogre (talk) 17:15, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

Comment by others:

Proposed. Reformulated of 16 to make it more clear Alex Bakharev (talk) 11:00, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

Regarding WP:FAC was there a precedent of an edit war there? Alex Bakharev (talk) 08:12, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Some pages on Wikipedia have exemptions to policy enforcement

17) Some pages on Wikipedia are exempt from normal policy enforcement. Only the Arbitration Committee can grant such status.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

A follow up to 15.1 and 15.2. Seems to make sense that something that big would have to be limited to the ultimate authority to decide? Lawrence Cohen 05:33, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

Ho, ho, ho. Any such page should probably be deleted. Jehochman ^Talk 19:31, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

Isn't this true of WP:MEDCOM cases, or did I misunderstand the "priveleged nature of meditation" phase? -Amarkov moo! 19:30, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] #wikipedia-en-admins page is a special case

18) Because #wikipedia-en-admins is not under the community in general's control, but rather under the control of a limited and specific list of people, the policy page describing it is a special case of policy page. Those who have authority over the channel are recognized as having a particular right to edit the page. Editors should in general not revert edits made by those who have control over the channel.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Instead of the nebulous and overbroad phrasing of the last few findings (most of which are principles anyway), a concrete finding about the page in question. Phil Sandifer (talk) 19:29, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

If it's on Wikipedia, it's a Wikipedia page. If the page describes something that isn't Wikipedia, then no one can come along and say, "But I'm an expert! I set it up, and I know how it really is." If they do, that means the page should be violated for WP:VANITY. The editor should be barred under WP:COI, but so should most of those who were reverting. "I'm on the channel all the time, and it's perfect" suggests not "experience" but "conflict of interest." However, what's critical here is that reverting is something we do to vandalism. There was no vandalism at any point. There was a difference of opinion. That should mean debate, discussion, and the talk page. I was there. It was quite lonely. Geogre (talk) 21:16, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

It's a page describing the way that the channel is run. The channel is not run in the same fashion as other things. This is straightforward - you don't run the channel. You have no role in running the channel. You cannot make changes to the way the channel is run. Phil Sandifer (talk) 22:38, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

Dear Lord! Phil, do you think that the page is the same thing as the channel? The page is on Wikipedia. I'm a Wikipedia administrator. I watch for pages on Wikipedia that are in violation of the deletion guidelines. The channel is something I want nothing to do with, but the page should be accurate, well written, and concise, or it should be edited. Anyone who attempts to put a stranglehold on edits and editors is behaving badly. I have no interest in MyFace.com or wherever else "many Wikipedians" go to play, either, but if someone from there came to Wikipedia and demanded control of the page and then demanded that Wikipedia host its "how-to" guides and the like, I'd have an issue. Geogre (talk) 17:20, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

Comment by others:

Are there any other pages given this sort of status, where people have a free hand outside of policy? Is there a precedent for this? Does the same thing apply to any page on Wikipedia name space that is about an outside organization or service? If not, why only the IRC channels? Lawrence Cohen 20:59, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

Uh, no. If a page is so "special" that only a few selected individuals have control over it, it probably shouldn‘t be on the wiki in the first place. --Conti|✉ 21:06, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

WP:WEA is not tagged as policy or guideline and I don't believe it ever has been. — Carl (CBM · talk) 21:07, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

Does that make it just on the level of a general essay page then? Lawrence Cohen 21:10, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

No - it does not fit into any of the standard holes. Phil Sandifer (talk) 22:38, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

Then it should be in the Help: namespace. Carcharoth (talk) 23:42, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

Those who run the channel are free to control what happens on the channel. They do not, however, have any special privilege to dictate how Wikipedians describe the atmosphere, behavior, or procedures on the channel. Specifically, David's position does not give him a special waiver to remove from the page all criticism of the way the channel operates (rather, it burdens him with a conflict of interest when he does); and does not exempt him from the standard protection policy with reference to that page. Christopher Parham (talk) 00:04, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

This seems wrong and the reverting part sounds like a recipe for disaster. If this page is so special it should be moved offsite. Mr.Z-man 08:48, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

Strange logic. By the same logic Microsoft has to own Windows XP page and the Russian government Vladimir Putin page Alex Bakharev (talk) 11:03, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

This particular proposal is ridiculous on its face. If the suggestion is that the #wikipedia-en-admins page is so gosh-darned "special", I urge David to go the whole nine yards and fork off his own copy of Wikipedia where he can treat his vanity projects in whatever manner he chooses. However, if he wants to join the rest of us on this Wikipedia, then he has to abide by our content policies. Not simply make up his own rules as he finds convenient. Nandesuka (talk) 20:26, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

Oh give me a break. It's a policy page. It describes policy that a handful of people are empowered to change. Unless you have some means to dispute that the policy surrounding this channel is not set entirely by David, James, Jimbo, and the arbcom then it's silly to declare that the page is subject to our content policies as it is obviously not the same thing as an article or other policy page. Phil Sandifer (talk) 20:33, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

I think the word "obvious" doesn't mean what you think it does. Nandesuka (talk) 20:34, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

I don't see how it's a policy page...it describes how an off site IRC channel works. Claiming that a (real) policy page can only be edited meaningfully by a handful of people is ridiculous. Now, if people are claiming that the channel has some official Wikipedia connection, then the operators need to be held accountable to Wikipedia consensus. And channel rules should be driven by editor consensus (within Freenode allowances) here on Wikipedia. But you can't have it both ways, either the channel is part of Wikipedia or it isn't. If it is then normal policy's apply and user guidelines in channel need to be worked out here. But in no way should it have special status. RxS (talk) 21:02, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

False. This page is special in no relevant way. GRBerry 18:46, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Giano has been protected

19) Giano has repeatedly been protected by other administrators who have unwisely unblocked him and otherwise kept him from facing the consequences of a documented history of policy violations, particularly incivility.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Per my evidence. Phil Sandifer (talk) 18:33, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

To put it another way: Giano's disruption has been treated as a special case. --Tony Sidaway 16:56, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

Comment by others:

Strong oppose. You DON'T want to go there, trust me. SirFozzie (talk) 18:36, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

Why not? It's a major part of the problem here - Giano's incivility and edit warring was allowed to go on not only unchecked but with tacit endorsement of numerous administrators, and Giano has, in the past, routinely crowed about how "foolish" it is to block him. This is a major problem, especially given that people are saying that various remedies won't work because of the community's willingness to shield Giano. Why would we not want to deal with such a major problem? Phil Sandifer (talk) 18:41, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

Lets go there. This will only get worse unless addressed. 1 != 2 18:56, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

Well, I am not so sure we should go there - not because Phil's proposal is fundamentally flawed, but because it bluntly says implies that Jimbo and Lar and all of the admins who participated in the various consensus ANI unblock discussions are all unwise. This proposal calls into question their decision-making abilities and/or appropriate use of the tools, and as such and in complete fairness to them, they should all be notified of this specific proposal so that they can defend their decisions and actions. Risker (talk) 19:10, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

The proposal says that admins have repeatedly done this, it does not say every unblock by every admin was wrong. Clearly some deep investigation and some difficult questions will be needed before we tarnish anyone. 1 != 2 19:14, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

Well then, this proposed FoF is premature. Right now it is a general statement referring to evidence showing blocking/unblocking/consensus discussions involving a large number of admins. The "deep investigation" you refer to should be done before adding the proposed FoF, especially when the reputations of individual editors and administrators is involved. Risker (talk) 20:21, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

Support, evidence clearly shows this, and the proposal doesn't say every admin was wrong. It's just a statement of fact. --Coredesat 19:34, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

Regrettably, this is true and is a substantial part of the issue. It could be phrased a bit more tactfully. Note especially that it doesn't say "all of the admins who participated in the various consensus ANI unblock discussions are all unwise" as was erroneously stated above. Raymond Arritt (talk) 19:41, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

Noted, I have modified. Risker (talk) 19:44, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

If the committee wants to be blatantly hypocritical, then they'll pass this. Personally, I'd rather that they give Giano the treatment they've given to others. -Amarkov moo! 23:33, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

"Protected" suggests a specific motive in the unblocks. I think Giano has certainly been unblocked in a manner that is unusual and perhaps unwise considering why he was blocked, but I would suggest the admins that unblocked did so not to "protect" Giano per se. I suspect they did so because they felt him being blocked was not in the best interests of the project. Sometimes people do things that are unwise for the best of reasons (indeed, I would say much of Giano's project space disruption falls into this category). Perhaps a rewording without attributing motive would be better. Rockpocket 02:36, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

Evidence suggests that Phil is on the money here. Stifle (talk) 12:40, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Block record of Giano account

sub-section header added to allow easy linking. Carcharoth (talk) 02:14, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

Question: Why was Giano (talk · contribs)'s original block log wiped clean, and by whom? ·:· Will Beback ·:· 22:52, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

It was wiped by a developer, but I don't know why. Majorly (talk) 23:08, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

That is a very interesting tale. See Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Pedophilia userbox wheel war and Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Giano, especially this part. The developers removed Carnildo's accusations of "hate speech" from his block log, as I understand it.--The Fat Man Who Never Came Back (talk) 23:11, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

It's been wiped for a long time. The interesting thing is that there is no record of when this happened. Since it is clear that it did happen, there should be a clear and unambiguous statement of who did this, and when, and why. The problem I think people are trying to avoid is that you will get everyone with any sort of unwarranted block clamouring to have it wiped clean. The irony is that Giano II's block log is more extensive (if lacking the "hate speech" accusations). I also see that User:Giano got deleted under WP:CSD#R1. Seems like that shouldn't really have happened... (this isn't your normal redirect to a deleted page). Carcharoth (talk) 23:30, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the replies. It appears that the ArbCom authorized any willing developer to "remove any reference to "hate speech"." Since at least some of Giano's blocks were unrelated to "hate speech" or Carnildo it would seem that the unknown developer exceeded his or her authorization. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 23:33, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

Were there other blocks of the Giano account. I can't honestly remember now. There are lots for the Giano II account, starting in October 2006. If there were other blocks for the Giano account, then yes, those should have remained. Carcharoth (talk) 23:37, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

You'll have to trust me on this: Giano had no blocks prior to Carnildo's block of his User:Giano account. There was universal consensus that the block was inappropriate, and during the Giano arbitration a strong feeling emerged that the block log of that account should be expunged.

See remedy 5 in Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Giano. Happy New Year. --Tony Sidaway 23:58, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

I see a lot of opposition to deleting the block log in the discussion, including from Brion. Separately, here's a block from a different admin which doesn't seem to have involved a charge of "hate speech": User talk:Giano II/archive 5#Blocked (48 hours) ·:· Will Beback ·:· 00:24, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

That's a block of the Giano II account and has nothing to do with the expunging of his block by Carnildo. --Tony Sidaway 00:30, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

I believe you may be confused by the merger of the two accounts' talk pages. The block was applied while Giano was using his original account, and it does not appear in the block log of Giano II. Has that account has also hasd its block log edited? ·:· Will Beback ·:· 00:40, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

Will Beback appears to be correct. Kylu clearly states that a block was enacted, but there is no record in the logs of the blocks performed by Kylu, or in the block log of the Giano account. I was under the impression that only one block had been expunged, but if more have gone missing this is a serious matter that transcends Giano and this case (and has nothing to do with either of them). Where would be the best place to find out quickly what has happened and whether this has been a misunderstanding of some kind? The wiki-tech mailing list? For now, I've asked Kylu to confirm (from memory) whether a block was indeed enacted, though given that Kylu's last edit was 15 December 2007, the response may not be quick. Carcharoth (talk) 02:05, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

OK. While it would be nice to have developer actions like this clearly logged somewhere (even if not on-wiki), it probably isn't worth pressing this point. As Giano pointed out, everyone knows his history, and those who don't can be directed to the right places to read about it. Carcharoth (talk) 18:35, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

Well that's the point - there's nowhere we can read about Giano's previous blocks, and even engaged editors seem to have mistaken recollections. The impression is that he has been warned and blocked numerous times, but there record isn't clear. Granted, his old account has been inactive for over a year so it's less relevant now. Nonetheless, under the heading of "Giano has been protected" the complete deletion of his prior block log, beyond the authorization of the ArbCom, appears to be a relevant incident. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 21:38, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

I'm not seeing it, Will Beback. The block record deletion was done without Giano's knowledge, he wasn't informed of it after it was done, and the block summary that was the target of the deletion was clearly offensive. Has anyone checked with a developer to find out what exactly is involved with deleting a summary in a block log before suggesting that developer involved had a hand in protecting him? --Risker (talk) 21:53, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

It wouldn't be too difficult to reconstruct the timeline of the block log from the talk page history and archives. But that might be counter-productive at this moment in time. Best to go with what Giano said below: "I have no idea what happened to my former block log nor do I greatly care. The famed hate speech block was the first I ever incurred, and greatly altered my attitude to Wikipedia. All other blocks on that log were directly concerned with my crusade to have that disgraceful block summary lifted." I agree with Risker that making this out to be "protection" of Giano may not be correct - remember, it also impacts the admins who have a possibly controversial block removed from their records. It is harder now for people to say to them "you blocked Giano fairly/unfairly". The wider issue of logging such "developer actions" is probably best quietly raised somewhere else first (eg. ask Brion), and then a WMF policy announced, if such doesn't already exist. Carcharoth (talk) 01:01, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

Do not see it is supported by the evidence Alex Bakharev (talk) 08:16, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

I have been emailed and asked to return to clarify some points. Indeed, I may return to Wikipedia at some time in the future as I said in my last post the door remains over. I am enjoying a rest from Wikipedia. I have no idea what happened to my former block log nor do I greatly care. The famed hate speech block was the first I ever incurred, and greatly altered my attitude to Wikipedia. All other blocks on that log were directly concerned with my crusade to have that disgraceful block summary lifted.

It disappeared by magic with no word to me about it after I had already abandoned that account. I only discovered it much later when someone else told me that it had disappeared. - I have never asked for the two to be merged. Nor do I want them merged, I have not edited as Giano Zero since I changed to Giano II. I have never counted my edits so there was never a desire for a merge, besides which everyone knew who I was.

Content has always been of more interest to me than anything else. I looked at Wikipedia this morning to see User:SilkTork has begun re-writing the pages I once edited. I hope no useful information is lost. Of less interest to me is the Arbcase. I have not really looked at the case pages closely, too much to read. Perhaps, in retrospect, I should have discussed the facts I inserted on the talk but as they were all true, I did not, and do not, see what the problem was. If I have highlighted some problems there perhaps that is a good thing, I am delighted that Jimbo has belatedly but finally taken the decision that #admins is now under the Arbs control - that should solve so many problems. So if the channel cannot be abolished at least it will be better regulated and Wikipedia will benefit as a result. In the meantime I wish the project well. Happy New Year to you all. Giano (talk) 12:28, 1 January 2008 (UTC) (the second one)

Several other parties to this case have been treated as special. Tony, David Gerard etc... If we are going to call out Giano has having been treated as privileged, we also have to call out the others who have been given at least as much room for abusing the community. GRBerry 18:47, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Users left project due to this issue

20) Multiple editors have announced their intent to retire due to events related to this arbitration case.

Comment by Arbitrators:

True, but not pertinent, unless we're proposing to suspend the case. Mackensen (talk) 00:15, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Proposed because I think it's self-explanatory. - Penwhale | ^{Blast him / Follow his steps} 00:03, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

I'm not sure how exactly this would be used, but it's certainly true. -Amarkov moo! 00:06, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

For the record (in case a list of such users is made), I'm not retiring and this case isn't why I announced my wikibreak - there are other factors involved in that. --Coredesat 03:35, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

It's pertinent because users being driven off constitutes damage to the project. —Random832 17:14, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] No misuse of IRC found

21) No evidence has been presented of any use of #wikipedia-en-admins to coordinate or plan on-wiki policy violations.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

This claim sets aside Tony's personal attacks as a separate issue - those were an off-wiki policy violation, and whether they are considered to be something sanctionable on wiki or not is a matter for other remedies. What puzzles me is that there have been rampant accusations of an IRC cabal that makes unreviewable and unjust decisions in IRC and implements them on the wiki. There has been no evidence of this presented, and it's a serious accusation. Somebody - please present actual evidence that IRC is being used to cause on-wiki damage. Otherwise much of this case is little but hot air. Phil Sandifer (talk) 04:13, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

Although much of this workshop concerns hypothetical need for control measures on IRC, I don't think it's likely that this case will turn up any substantial evidence of abuse of the IRC channel. Moreover the channel operators proved quite capable of handling the incident. On the wiki, however, the disruptive activities of several editors, and one editor in particular, caused severe problems. Thus this is a very unrevolutionary case with little or nothing in the way of novelty. Much of it concerns a continuation of activities described in Finding 7 of the recent Durova case and resulting in Remedy 8, which appears to have been unheeded.

Draconian measures may be necessary to deal with substantial ongoing and unrepentant disruption on-wiki; the IRC element of this case is at best a sideshow. --Tony Sidaway 03:46, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

Comment by others:

You may not be aware of this thread. Warning - some old grievances are listed there. Many are personal attacks. Some are probably just empty threats and posturing. Some are serious accusations of co-ordinating, particularly the "clean kill" one. And no, I have no evidence of any of this, but that doesn't mean the accusations are just hot air. I also recall once someone describing the atmosphere as lots of people in a channel (might have been the main #wikipedia one) urged someone to carry out a block (a lynch mob mentality). Carcharoth (talk) 04:26, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

Indeed, I rarely read workshop talk pages for evidence. In my experience the arbs don't either. May I suggest that somebody submit this as actual evidence? Phil Sandifer (talk) 04:31, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

Also, upon looking at that, the highlights appear to support a finding that Kelly Martin has been a destructive and vindictive influence on the project. Which is both obvious and irrelevant to this case. The main meat of it, as you identify, is the "clean kill" accusation. So. Let's see the evidence. Accusations are not evidence. Phil Sandifer (talk) 04:35, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

In my experience with the admin IRC channel there has been no conspiring to bypass policy. All I have ever seen is discussion about problematic users, and policy. If there is an IRC cabal then it is on a different channel. 1 != 2 17:11, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

Those saying that there is no evidence that IRC has been abused may be interested in this current request for arbitration. In particular, the comment here by User:Master son:

"I have seen the discussions - but chose not to participate in them, but being the Channel Contact for #wikipedia-en-roads I have seen these very same users getting together to talk about these discussions and have been very disappointed that this channel was used for this. The channel should be for informal Q & A talk and simple conversation between members, not for bashing users and ideas behind Wikipedia's back and hiding consensus from the non-IRC users, and most certainly for formal consensus gathering - something that needs to be done in the project's talk page on Wikpedia."

If this turns out to be true, then Phil may wish to change his stance to just focusing on #admins and/or #wikipedia. Carcharoth (talk) 18:41, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

I know for a fact that the -roads channel in the past has been used to canvass certain opinions on issues totally unrelated to the scope of the project, most notably RfC's. Daniel 01:58, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

I do not see how we comment on the existence of the evidence about the IRC channel if such evidence is explicitly not allowed to be published. If it only available for the arbitrators then only arbitrators may provide sensible comments there Alex Bakharev (talk) 08:21, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] #wikipedia-en-admins is an official WIkipedia outlet. Behavior there is considered to be "on-wiki".

23) The #wikipedia-en-admins channel is an official WIkipedia outlet, used for officially sanctioned conversations between admins regarding BLP issues. For purposes of arbitration behavior there is considered to be "on-wiki".

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

If sensitive BLP issues are discussed on admins (and this is more true on ad hoc side channels such as those that Jimmy Wales sets up and invites people to) then they are emphatically not "on-wiki". --Tony Sidaway 04:48, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

Comment by others:

Proposed along with the following as an alternative. Here is the crux of the issue: the community (meaning "the 95% of us that don't use IRC, because in our opinions has nothing to do with Wikipedia") is getting whiplash from the absolutely incoherent arguments here. Summarizing the arguments put forth by the IRC advocates: "IRC is an official outlet for BLP discussions, which is why the policy page relating to it deserves special protection and treatment. However, IRC is not an official outlet, so it's OK for random non-admins to hang out on the channel and heap egregious verbal and sexual abuse on others." This is having one's cake factory and gorging on it too, and it is absolutely unacceptable. ArbCom has a positive duty to decide whether or not the IRC channel is official. I will be honest: I don't actually care whether ArbCom decides the channel is part of WIkipedia or not, but I do care that it makes a decision about it. If ArbCom shirks its duty to address this issue, we will simply be back here next year with a similarly pointless and tawdry dispute. Nandesuka (talk) 19:23, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

This seems unworkable, and sets a precedent for policy creation for off wiki stuff. Now understandably certain off wiki behaviors are sanctionable, however, this is overbroad. It is not within the ambit of the arbitration committee to monitor behavior in -admins, wikipedia-en, or any other off wiki social communications medium. Mercury 01:24, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

Without commenting on the proposers rationale, and only commenting on the proposal itself... This seems unworkable, and sets a precedent for policy creation for off wiki stuff. Now understandably certain off wiki behaviors are sanctionable, however, this is overbroad. It is not within the ambit of the arbitration committee, Jimmy, or any local project to monitor or control off wiki behavior in -admins, wikipedia-en, or any other off wiki social communications medium. Mercury 01:24, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

Sensible proposal. If it official, then the behavior there is on-wiki Alex Bakharev (talk) 08:24, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] #wikipedia-en-admins is not an official WIkipedia outlet. Behavior there is not considered to be "on-wiki".

24) While some individuals use it for socializing and chatting, the #wikipedia-en-admins channel is not owned or operated by the WIkimedia foundation, and has no official standing as part of Wikipedia. Behavior on the channel is not considered to be "on wiki" for purposes of arbitration.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Proposed along with the previous as an alternative. Here is the crux of the issue: the community (meaning "the 95% of us that don't use IRC, because in our opinions it has nothing to do with Wikipedia") is getting whiplash from the absolutely incoherent arguments here. Summarizing the arguments put forth by the IRC advocates: "IRC is an official outlet for BLP discussions, which is why the policy page relating to it deserves special protection and treatment. However, IRC is not an official outlet, so it's OK for random non-admins to hang out on the channel and heap egregious verbal and sexual abuse on others." This is having one's cake factory and gorging on it too, and it is absolutely unacceptable. ArbCom has a positive duty to decide whether or not the IRC channel is official. I will be honest: I don't actually care whether ArbCom decides the channel is part of WIkipedia or not, but I do care that it makes a decision about it. If ArbCom shirks its duty to address this issue, we will simply be back here next year with a similarly pointless and tawdry dispute. Nandesuka (talk) 19:23, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

Without commenting on the above rationale, this proposal is better. -admins is not an extension of WMF or en.wiki, but operates more ancillary too the project. That being said, we have policy regarding canvassing, and some off wiki behavior using common sense, but as above, the AC, founder, or local projects have no business blanket monitoring these channels or any other form of off wiki behavior. Mercury 01:27, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

More workable than 23. --Coredesat 09:29, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Meta pages also describe IRC

25) 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. The relationship between these pages and the en-Wikipedia pages about IRC is unclear.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Proposed. Depends on what the final status of IRC is viz-a-viz en-Wikipedia. I was unable to find any IRC pages in the "Help:" namespace. Carcharoth (talk) 12:35, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

WP:IRC and subpages should probably be in the Help namespace (locally). In practice though on enwiki, it is probably about as neglected and underused as the Category talk namespace. Mr.Z-man 03:54, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Sean William is not Sean Whitton

26) The Committee notes that Sean William is not the user known as seanw (Sean Whitton) on freenode. As a result, Sean William wields no power in #wikipedia-en-admins. He reserves the right to whack anyone who mixes them up with a trout minnow.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Far too soft. Sean should be empowered to ban over this. :) Phil Sandifer (talk) 16:47, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

Comment by others:

Only partially kidding. Sean William @ 05:29, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

Support - I confess to having unintentionally identified Sean William in a post related to this issue, and had to correct myself. (Sorry, Sean.) Risker (talk) 05:33, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] The three-revert rule was applied inconsistently

27) While many parties were guilty of edit warring, only one (User:Giano II) was blocked for breaching the three-revert rule. However, WP:3RR says: "An editor does not have to perform the same revert on a page more than three times to breach this rule; all reverts made by an editor on a particular page within a 24 hour period are counted." By this definition, according to the evidence and analysis presented by User:the bainer, one other person breached 3RR: User:Ryulong, in a 13-hour period from 25 to 26 December. Ryulong was not blocked for this, and thus the three-revert rule was applied inconsistently.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

A finding of this sort would be a great boon to edit warriors and wikilawyers. --Tony Sidaway 16:21, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

Let me just make it plain that I see this particular proposed finding as an active and clear attempt to dilute the magnitude of Giano's edit warring here. --Tony Sidaway 17:25, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

I missed this, yes. At the time, however, so did virtually everybody else. I repeatedly in the ANI discussion said that if anybody knew of another 3RR violation I would happily block for it. Absolutely nobody involved in that discussion pointed this out, and many made comments to the effect of thinking that Giano was the only one to actually violate the 3RR, though everybody edit warred. That does not seem to me to be an inconsistency in the application of the 3RR - it was something that was missed. Phil Sandifer (talk) 20:08, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

Comment by others:

Proposed. No need for further remedies, other than possibly a slightly stronger admonishing of Doc Glasgow and Ryulong in any blanket admonishment for edit warring, but stating this clearly as a finding of fact will help correct any perceived injustices here. Carcharoth (talk) 15:59, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

For Doc Glasgow 3 of the edits were consecutive, which WP:3RR specifically contemplates "Consecutive reverts by one editor are treated as one revert for the purposes of this rule.", so you may need to recheck your numbers. --81.104.39.63 (talk) 16:04, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

Noted. Though only two were consecutive, not three. I've changed the proposed finding of fact accordingly. Thanks. Carcharoth (talk) 16:10, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

Responding to Tony: not if it is made clear that edit warring in general is bad, and that common sense indicates that discussion is preferable to reverting. Also, continual reverting over many days is still blocakable. I'm confident enough that admins can see through attempts to wikilawyer 3RR. It is indisputable though that 3RR is an electric fence, and needs to be enforced fairly. Based on the evidence I've seen here, I think a warning to Ryulong is warranted, stating that he breached 3RR (though no action is needed now), and that future breaches of 3RR will see him blocked for 24 hours - he may not even be aware yet that he technically breached 3RR and I'd like to see whether he can justify his reverts or is prepared to state clearly that he won't do this again. If ArbCom fails to address Ryulong's behaviour in their final findings, would I be justified as an individual editor in leaving such a warning, or is there also a time limit on 3RR warnings as well as 3RR blocks? Carcharoth (talk) 16:36, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

Responding to Tony: And why do we need to dilute or magnify the magnitude of Giano's edit (which was repeated several times)? If you wish to propose a finding of fact that Giano was the most persistent edit warrior, feel free. He was also the most consistent, which might mean something as well. Carcharoth (talk) 17:40, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

Would some sort of statement that 3RR is required to be applied the same for all editors, irregardless of who they are, be accurate? Lawrence Cohen 19:18, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

Probably need to consider this relative to the principle Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Miskin#Equitable enforcement (The alternates discarded there may also be of interest Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Miskin/Proposed decision#Equitable_enforcement). Someone might want to propose a similar principle here. --81.104.39.63 (talk) 19:26, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

Indeed. Thanks for pointing those out. I've also just noticed that Ryulong's fourth revert (and the second revert of the same content) was after Giano had been blocked by Phil Sandifer, and was nearly 12 hours after the intial three reverts. There were similar long periods (4-6 hours) between some of Giano's reverts. The edit war was spread out over several hours and days. Carcharoth (talk) 19:50, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

Responding to Phil: that is a very good point. In fact, if you look at the timing, Ryulong's fourth revert was at 08:22, 26 Dec, which was after your comment at 05:39, 26 Dec, in the ANI thread, and after Ryulong had been notified of and commented at the RfArb case. This is worth emphasising. Of all the parties initially named as involved in the arbitration case, Geogre and Ryulong were the only ones to continue to edit the page. To me, that shows an astonishing lack of judgment - Geogre surely knew that the edit war would start up again, and Ryulong presumably failed to realise he was breaching 3RR. When the RfArb case was filed, the page should have been locked down immediately. Geogre and Ryulong would have been notified about the RfArb. Phil, can I ask when you first became aware of the RfArb? Before or after you blocked Giano? If you didn't know, would you have acted differently if you had known? Carcharoth (talk) 01:32, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

I was aware of the case, and thought "What? That's silly. If it's a 3RR violation, a 3RR block should stick without any trouble, and there's no reason for the situation to elevate like this." I was utterly taken aback by the degree to which it was, in fact, impossible to cool down the situation due to the lack of willingness to actually enforce policy. Phil Sandifer (talk) 16:00, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

It's an interesting point. When an arbitration case has been filed, is it more important to block when 3RR has been breached, or is it better just to submit evidence that 3RR has been breached and let the ArbCom issue a sanction? (ie. is it better to have the infraction recorded in the block log and on the user talk page, or is it better to have the infraction documented as part of an arbitration case - probably the answer is that 3RR is too minor to bother ArbCom with). Still, given the previous 3RR breach and block, I would say that making an immediate statement at the RfArb might have been one of the better options. Here's another question. At the ANI thread, others pointed out that the actions of others were equally as bad as Giano's (ie. many were edit warring). You have consistently said that you did not think that the actions of others required blocks (eg. to prevent edit warring - I agree, page protection is all that was needed). After seeing the evidence presented here, do you still think that the situation warranted nothing more than a 3RR block of Giano (and possibly a later 3RR block of Ryulong if that revert had been noticed), and that no further action or sanctions are or were needed? And finally, why would a block as part of rigorous enforcement of policy help to "cool down" the situation? I find both sides taking part in discussions is the best thing to cool things down. Either that or both sides walking away (sometimes enforced by protection). Carcharoth (talk) 16:26, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

I don't put that much weight on a case being filed, simply because frivolous RFArs are pretty normal. I suspected (erroneously) that this was such a case - of a somewhat querrelous edit warrior being RFAred when normal procedures like blocks were more than sufficient. Which is something I stand by - though there were other edit warriors on the page, I do think that Giano's conduct was far and away the worst - not just because he was violating the 3RR, but because he was doing it knowingly and he was doing it to insert what he knew were inflamatory edits. True or not, he knew those edits couldn't possibly stick. And that made his behavior, to my mind, the main sanctionable behavior. Probably, absent RFAr, I would have blocked him and protected the page, leaving it protected after his block expires to force discussion rather than further edit warring. Phil Sandifer (talk) 23:38, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

Fair enough. I generally agree with what you've said here. Thanks for sticking around to discuss it. Carcharoth (talk) 00:06, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Edit warring continued after the arbitration case was filed

28) Edit warring at Wikipedia:IRC channels/wikipedia-en-admins continued after this arbitration case was filed at 04:35, 26 December 2007. Of the parties initially named, two participated in this final bout of edit warring. Both had been notified of the request for arbitration, and both had made statements. User:Geogre made his initial statement (later modified) at 05:37. He then edited the page in dispute at 06:09. User:Ryulong had earlier made his statement at 05:35. A few hours later, at 08:22, Ryulong carried out this revert at the page in dispute. Other parties, not named in the request for arbitration, were also getting involved in the new edit war. No arbitrators had commented at the request for arbitration until 09:54, which was after the page was protected at 09:01.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Proposed. Didn't realise this until I added the timings of the request for arbitration into the timeline. It just begs the question: "why?". Why make a statement at an arbitration case about this matter, and then go back and carry on edit warring over the page? Maybe any remedy should make a note to make sure a page is protected (if needed) following a request for arbitration over edit warring on said page? If only for the self-protection of the parties involved. Seems obvious in hindsight, but probably wasn't at the time. Maybe the very short half-hour page protection by east718 the previous day fooled some people into thinking the page was still protected? Carcharoth (talk) 01:55, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] The ends justified the means

29) The project was not put in any danger by the editing of WP:WEA and it has led to increased awareness and greater discussion about the issues.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Most things don't put the project in danger, for given values of danger. Our policies, however, do not depend on that criteria. Mackensen (talk) 01:13, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Proposed. I know it's controversial to suggest that the ends can justify the means in an edit war but it is one possible way of looking at it. While noses were put out of joint and there has been significant disagreement between vocal editors, at no point did it endanger the project and the increased awareness and discussion of issues surrounding IRC and the admin channel in particular has led to a net benefit. The editors on both sides of the argument will never see eye to eye and, while it is nice to believe that collaborative editing is always a harmonious affair, it often isn't and people will continue to clash. It would obviously be nicer if none of this had happened, but it has. I'm not justifying any actions (and indeed disagree with many) but want to remind everyone that they have led to an improvement in the offending area. violet/riga (t) 08:37, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

Oppose. Yes, I'll admit edit warring brings attention to a page and such, but it's grossly disruptive and should not be allowed. Kwsn (Ni!) 15:25, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

The edit warring only brought some attention to the page. The real attention was focused on the page after it reached ANI (following Phil's block) and after it reached ArbCom (following John254 filing a case). Carcharoth (talk) 15:29, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

The edit warring policy states in part "Editors with combative mindsets should seek to replace an edit warring approach with that of the Wikipedia:BOLD, revert, discuss cycle or Wikipedia:Revert only when necessary." The principle underlying the prohibition on edit warring is that parties engaged in such behavior will always feel their goal justifies reverting, and thus we reject that defense. — Carl (CBM · talk) 15:41, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

Oppose, no matter how this could be written, this could be used to justify any edit war. --Coredesat 04:47, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

If an admin had randomly decided to delete the page, that would also have caused greater awareness. It would still be very much the wrong way to go about it. And it's questionable whether there is discussion; does people asking Arbcom to enforce what they think the right solution is really count? -Amarkov moo! 04:57, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

Not quite right, although I think you're right that the page will be better off after than before. A better finding would be an acknowledgment that the "disruption" caused here was minimal, did not affect our end product in any way, and in the end was limited to a handful of users engaged in a typical content dispute. This has been blown out of all proportion because the conflict was seen as a tool to hound certain users out of the project, but at root it's just another revert war and not even an important one. Christopher Parham (talk) 07:04, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

Not supported by evidence, as far as I can tell. Guy (Help!) 23:26, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

"The project was not put in any danger by the editing of WP:WEA" - no evidence to show that it was. It "has led to increased awareness and greater discussion about the issues" - self-evident from this and all the other pages in this arbitration. The title itself is perhaps not evidenced, however. violet/riga (t) 23:46, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Locus of the dispute

30) The locus of the dispute is the project page, Wikipedia:IRC channels/wikipedia-en-admins (WP:WEA) and the user talk pages of some of the participants.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Proposed. --Tony Sidaway 18:23, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

Comment by others:

[edit] Genesis of the dispute

31) On 22 December, 2007, Giano II (talk · contribs) placed a provocatively worded accusation on User talk:Tony Sidaway concerning comments he had made on the IRC channel #wikipedia-en-admins. These were reverted with angry and intemperate edit summaries by Tony Sidaway (talk · contribs). Tony Sidaway later apologised and played no further part in the dispute. Giano II took the dispute to the project page WP:WEA, which describes the IRC channel, where he repeated the accusation in similar words on the page itself. An edit war involving several highly experienced editors and administrators followed (see Timeline).

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Proposed. Something of this sort, I think, ought to be on the final decision. --Tony Sidaway 18:23, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

Comment by others:

[edit] Geogre acted inappropriately during the creation of this case

32) In the initial filing of this case, Geogre edited Ryulong's statement without contacting the user and simultaneously assuming bad faith.

Comment by Arbitrators:

What an odd edit to make. Mackensen (talk) 01:10, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

Comment by parties:

I'm not sure if this is involved, but while it is mentioned in my statement, I may as well state it here.—Ryūlóng (竜龍) 01:58, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

Comment by others:

Sure Geogre shouldn't have done that. But it should be noted that you (Ryulong) had earlier removed yourself as a party and then reinstated yourself and then added a statement. Was the swift self-reversal of your removing yourself (12 minutes) an example of the advantages of IRC communications? Carcharoth (talk) 02:12, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

I had been contacted by an ArbCom clerk that the ArbCom would (in the end) decide the merits of including or excluding myself as a party, and that I should revert myself edit. The medium by which I received this advice is inconsequential.—Ryūlóng (竜龍) 02:45, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for clarifying what happened there. Carcharoth (talk) 02:56, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Tony Sidaway as an initiator of disruption

33) The edit war on the admins sub-page was initiated in part by Tony Sidaway's incivility in the #admins channel. Tony Sidaway's incivility has been the subject of three request for Comment, and has resulted in multiple Arbitration rulings.

Tony Sidaway is frequently the source of, or very near to, large-scale disruption, mostly over issues that are confined to Wikipedia space and do not directly effect the production of encyclopedic content. Principle amoung these are the "wars" over userboxes, signatures, and spoilers.

As the items below indicate, Tony is involved in disruption of some nature every few months.

Page	Started	Days since last disruption	Comments
RFC 1	01-Aug-05		Closing practice in VfD
RFC 2	21-Oct-05	80	Regarding incivility
Arb 1: Webcomics	01-Dec-05	40
Arb 2: Tony	14-Feb-06	73
RFC 3	01-Jun-06	107	Altering signatures + civility
Arb 3: Giano	24-Sep-06	113
Arb 3.5: Inshanee	12-Mar-07	168	Proposed by Fred Bauder, an arbitrator
Semi RFC 4: Spoilers	15-May-07	63	This is actually an example of Phil, David, and Tony tag-teaming, but that's a seperate issue. Maybe.
RFC 4	04-Oct-07	139	Civility problems
Arb 5: IRC	26-Dec-07	82

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Well, let's just say this: what's at stake is access to IRC at minimum and a block at maximum. So, just how painful, woeful, lamentable, and fatal is being blocked from IRC? Apparently, people who use IRC would far rather lose editing access to Wikipedia than IRC. That alone should tell us something. In the case of Tony, he has swung from rational and helpful to strained and strange, but every one else is being asked to answer for what he has done. That is insane. I am reminded of addicts when I see people rationalizing endlessly for anything, anything at all, that will make the chat sacred. Rules be damned! Wikipedia be damned! The sacred, sweet chat must be preserved, and the chums must be present. Bleck.

If Tony is not on a civility parole on Wikipedia and denied access to IRC, the 3 months here, 3 months here, 3 months here cycle is going to repeat. As for David Gerard's vanity page: it doesn't belong at Wikipedia. It should never be protected. All of those acts are wrong, were wrong, and will be wrong, and I have opposed such violations of our policies and will continue to do so. That is what administrators are supposed to do. I don't know what "Arbs" are supposed to do, except protect their holy awe, but admins are supposed to stop anyone from violating our policies to write onanistic articles about how their favorite thing is indeed the most wonderfulest thing ever. Geogre (talk) 11:46, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

Comment by others:

I'm certainly coming to the party late, and overall the level of discussion here has tapered off, so this may be shutting the barn door after the facts have bolted. However, the current Proposed decisions are all failing to address what appears to be the pebble that started the avalanche. Addditionally, there are a few proposals above that apear to be Tony "washing his hands" of the whole thing, which seems very odd to me. - 152.91.9.144 (talk) 23:25, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

This reflects my entire experience of Tony - a disruptive user. GRBerry 18:51, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

• I have done my best to avoid this staged charade of a show trial with limited comment. However, it is becoming increasingly obvious I'm afraid that we can all moan and groan about this deplorable situation but little is likely to change regarding Wikipedia as a whole. David Gerard, who we are now informed does indeed in fact own the Wikipedia:IRC channels/wikipedia-en-admins page (why on earth it does not carry now a template telling us all not to edit it is beyond me) also controls the Arbcom mailing list and of course he is Tony Sidaway's great friend. Furthermore, James Forester a member of the Arbcom, by his own admission, owns the chatroom itself. The roots of this case seem to be known by a wide number of people but alas by just a few of us who are prepared to do anything about it. So far I will admit to breaking the three revert rule - anything else will be impossible to prove because it will be false. Bishonen's good name has been sullied and bandied around because she has not only been insulted but can also see the truth. Geogre likewise. Rather a sad state of affairs really for a project that once had so much to recommend it. I'm just left wondering who wants what to go where - and what the end game is here? There are a lot of you out there and, I think you all know the answer. I won't bother to spell it out. Giano (talk) 19:54, 15 January 2008 (UTC)
  • The end game I want is harmony on a collaborative project in which we create a great encyclopedia together while getting along and having fun doing it. Incivility, rudeness, and provocative behavior damage our ability all to work together harmoniously and effectively. These should be avoided, both on Wikipedia and in other locations having any actual or perceived connection to Wikipedia, even if an ancillary one. This isn't the place for a listing of what editors might have misbehaved in this matter, except to note my personal opinion that not everyone mentioned on the proposed decision page to date has behaved seriously problematically, and not everyone who has behaved seriously problematically is mentioned on the proposed decision page. I am sorry that the committee on which I am a new member has not yet reached a consensus on how to deal with the current situation, but I also would like to express the hope that all editors involved, with "all" meaning "all," can do their best to avoid any recurrence. Newyorkbrad (talk) 20:02, 15 January 2008 (UTC)
    • Is there any chance the litigants can drop all their claims, shake hands and get back to work. I would be most happy if this case could be dismissed. Jehochman ^Talk 20:13, 15 January 2008 (UTC)
• No, no, no, the Arbcom in their infinite wisdom accepted this case now they can dam well sort it out or resign. The whole dam lot of them! I for one am sick of seeing this mess time after time. I have a dreadful reputation for what? - For all the Arb cases - I have once been "reminded" by the Arbcom - yet if you read all the proposals agreed by this wondrous Arbcom you would think I had been sanctioned time after time after time. That is not so! I repeat only once I have been reminded - every other time I have proved my case and that is what sticks in their throats! Even the blocks sanctioned on #admins can't stick! I'm standing up for the editors of this bloody encyclopedia for as long as I can, not a bunch of useless organ grinders who only listen to their monkeys. Are we writing an encyclopedia or playing silly buggers? Giano (talk) 20:56, 15 January 2008 (UTC)
  • "Are we writing an encyclopedia or playing silly buggers?" - the greatest quote from an ArbCom page ever. I think we should print t-shirts or have it plastered over userpages or something. He is bang on the money there. DEVS EX MACINA _pray 22:27, 15 January 2008 (UTC)
    • Unfortunately a statement that is as applicable to his own behavior as anyone else's. Matthew Brown (Morven) (T:C) 22:59, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

Morven you talk complete rubbish and I'm sick of reading from Arbs who are elected to know better, Either get your head into gear on the way this project is going or resign. Repeating fallacies to yourself will not make them true. No matter what you are being told. I am useful to the project Sidaway and most of you seem to have little use of late Giano (talk) 23:07, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

As someone who watched five arbitrators affirm a decision to admonish me less than twenty-four hours after a case opened and before I had time to present half my evidence, I sympathize with the frustration. I've walked miles in similar moccasins, and I hope my involvement in the Physchim62 case is proof enough that I don't hold grudges about why. Yet every editor who feels like they might get the short end of the stick in an arbitration case feels the same frustration. My experience, featured content, etc. did not privilege me to insult the Committee or its members, whom I believe acted in good faith. Established editors set the example for others. Sometimes we err. Giano, I never used IRC. Nor do I approve of sexist insults. If you had pursued your complaint through normal dispute resolution I would have agreed with you and supported you. I did go as far as asking another editor to be more civil to you. Yet your choices were disruptive and set the wrong example. You weren't the only one to make mistakes in this case, but you're the only one who responds with such defiance. It's possible to be right on principle but wrong in method. A more gracious response would become you better. Durova^Charge! 23:38, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

Individuals (including apparently a sitting arb of all people here) seem to go out of their way to bait Giano. At what point do we sanction the baiters and hold them to up to scrutiny? Lawrence Cohen 23:49, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

I was baited publicly - even in the mainstream tech press - and I did not construe that as an excuse to be rude to others. I ask no more than I demanded of myself. Durova^Charge! 23:54, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

As I recall Durova you were firmly and squarely in the wrong! In this instance several valuable editors are no longer prepared to be pushed arownd and insulted, quite a different state of affairs. Now I suggest you put your well worn moccasins back on and wander off. Giano (talk) 00:02, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

Given Sidaway's disruptive history, it is in the community's best interest (net benefit) to issue a permanent and outright ban. Durova's experience on the other hand, is regrettable but completely irrelevant to the issue we're discussing right now.--Certified.Gangsta (talk) 07:59, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Phil Sandifer, aka Snowspinner, has a history of incivility

34) Phil Sandifer, aka Snowspinner, has a history of incivility stretching from his early days on Wikipedia as User:Snowspinner in 2004, though 2008. Per evidence.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Proposed based on evidence. Lawrence § t/e 19:42, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] The admins' channel is a social space where all admins should be made to feel welcome

35) The IRC channel #wikipedia-en-admins is a social space for discussion among Wikipedia adminstrators and a small number of other trusted users. The point of the channel is that administrators learn to collaborate; come to know and trust each other; and have a place where they can ask for advice.

Since its inception, allegations have been made that a small number of its members have misused the channel to engage in personal attacks on other channel members; to whip up support for attacks; and to discuss the blocking of channel members and other established users, as a consequence of personal feuds and dislikes. The allegations have several times been supported by logs. This misuse has both caused and aggravated long-term bad feeling between certain administrators, which has had an impact on the project in the form of edit wars, ArbCom cases, polarization of the community, and general mistrust between individuals.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Proposed, together with this proposed remedy. I will be posting evidence to the effect that misuse of the channel is continuing. SlimVirgin ^{(talk)(contribs)} 17:34, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

A small change: either the second sentence should start "This alleged misuse" or the word allegations should be removed from the first sentence. — Carl (CBM · talk) 18:36, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

Thanks. I added a sentence that the claims have several times been supported by logs. SlimVirgin ^{(talk)(contribs)} 19:37, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Template

36) {text of proposed finding of fact}

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

[edit] Proposed remedies

Note: All remedies that refer to a period of time, for example to a ban of X months or a revert parole of Y months, are to run concurrently unless otherwise stated.

[edit] Jurisdiction

1) Having received the consent of the Group Contacts, the Arbitration Committee will now have the juristictional authority to control certain IRC channels related to the English Wikipedia, including (but not limited to) #wikipedia-en-admins and #wikipedia-en. Any accusations of severe or continuing misconduct can be submitted to the Committee, via email to the private mailing list, for consideration and action.

The Committee notes that, although English Wikipedia sanctions will not be handed out except in extraordinary circumstances (as has always been the case with off-Wikipedia actions), it can apply bans from the relevant channels as a result of Arbitration Committee mailing list discussions. Such channel-bans, whether temporary or permanent, are not open to review or reversal by the Channel Operators.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Unenforceable until the officially designated by ArbCom contact is assigned the level higher than James F or anyone else. --Irpen 01:39, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

I'm hoping James F will give the authority to the Arbitration Committee to control said channels. The technical issue isn't particularily relevant, really. Daniel 01:40, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

ArbCom should not pass remedies when there is any doubt in its ability to implement them. "Hope" is not enough. This can be discussed only if the person designated by ArbCom de facto receives the higher than JamesF and David Gerard control level. Technically rather than morally. --Irpen 02:10, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

Comment by others:

Proposed. I hope that the Group Contacts will give the Committee jurisdiction over certain channels, especially #wikipedia-en-admins given the nature of it. I post this suggestion with optimism to said fact. Still, I expect the shit to hit the fan with this proposal :) Daniel 01:38, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

Except that we have no group contacts, according to Freenode. SlimVirgin ^{(talk)(contribs)} 01:57, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

Who said that? --uǝʌǝsʎʇɹnoɟʇs(st47) 21:29, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

As far as I'm aware, the group contacts are James F and seanw. Slim, are you making a reference to the suggestion from freenode that groups hold elections for their contacts? I emphasise "suggestion". Martinp23 00:12, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

Seems sensible Alex Bakharev (talk) 08:34, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] #wikipedia-en-admins is for administrators of the English Wikipedia

2) The IRC channel #wikipedia-en-admins is designated as a social space for administrators of the English Wikipedia. All administrators are entitled to use it, unless access is removed for misuse. When adminship is withdrawn for any reason, access to the channel is withdrawn too.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Woah, sledgehammer to crack nuts. I desysopped for 6 months this year, and retained access. There's no reason why ex-admins should not have access per se. If there's abuse - deal with the abuser (admin or not). Someone (say) desysopped for wheel warring may still be highly trusted as a discrete person and could still be handling BLP issues or even OTRS. --Doc^g 02:05, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

This would have the effect of kicking from the channel half a dozen non-problematic ex-admins unrelated to this dispute. How is that a useful remedy to any of the FoF here?--Doc^g 11:30, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

Then kick 'em. If the channel is for en. administrators, then it's for all of them, and if its claim is to be a private place for administrators to speak of private matters, then no one who isn't an en. administrator should be there. When a person regains the bit, he or she regains access. It's not ambiguous. The current form is not only inherently ambiguous, but it is inherently corrupt. (When I say "corrupt" I mean that literally: "tainted," "polluted," "sullied," "heterogeneous.") Having it be "sometimes, and sometimes not" means that it has an inherent favoritism. Even if that favoritism is "haven't gotten around to it yet," having a lack of definition means that the entirety of it is forever untrustworthy. I am against there being any such channel, but if there is going to be one, it must be honest. If IRC chatting is no big deal, then losing access to this particular channel when a person's access on en. is gone should be no big deal, too.

Imagine abusive admin Roggy the Rouge. Ok, now suppose Roggy spends 12 hr a day on IRC. She and her friends decide to "clean things up" one day. She deletes AfD entirely, deletes MfD, rewrites FAC to say "All Pokemon all the time" and protects it, and otherwise goes on a drunken binge. She gets demoted. However, she stays on IRC. She spends 12+ hr a day on the same channel now explaining how it was just a lapse of reason, and people should expunge the record for her, etc. In other words, she retains the bad effect and effectiveness by remaining a shaping influence on other administrators. Doc isn't like Roggy, but other people are. Either way: lose the bit, lose the chat. Get the bit, get the chat. That way, there are no questions. Geogre (talk) 21:24, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

Life is full of questions, and I'd rather be pragmatic than look for legalistic consistency. If some non-admins there are useful to the project I see no reason to boot them just to keep a tidy mind. This project relies on trust and flexibility, not rules. If people abuse the channel, they should be excluded - whether they are admins or not is rather besides the point. Having some rule that said "absolutely no admins", which resulted in us booting people who were benefiting the project makes no sense. I gave up my admin bit for six months this year, purely through choice, and for the last four weeks of that time I was engaged in using search tools to bust libellous articles - which I was then reporting in #admins for discrete deletion. What would have been the sense of me being booted from the channel to keep things tidy, whilst RoggyII who didn't quite get desysopped stays in and abuses it? Cutting off noses to spite faces is not what we do - open minds and continual questions are better.--Doc^g 22:54, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

Comment by others:

This cannot, in my understanding, be implemented - I do not see anything in policy that gives the arbitration committee jurisdiction on the member list or design of the channel. They seem to have, by Jimbo's decree, a limited jurisdiction in IRC conduct disputes, but the channel is not, to my knowledge, an official arm of Wikipedia, and I question the jurisdiction to do this. Phil Sandifer (talk) 02:25, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

There's no reason for non-admins to be there. Anyone wanting to retain access could simly not give up adminship. Most of the trouble -- at least most of the trouble I'm aware of -- has been caused by non-admins launching personal attacks. Not all of it, as you yourself know, but most of it. It's particularly silly to have non-admins in there while admins are denied access. SlimVirgin ^{(talk)(contribs)} 02:22, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

Admins should not be denied access. Some former admins should be, but there are others who I'm hard pressed to justify the removal of. Phil Sandifer (talk) 02:26, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

That's why we need a clean, bright line -- so that no one has to judge which individuals should be there and which not, because they'll judge it according to who they like, who they're friends are, and that's what has caused all this poison. The admins/non-admins distinction is clear and is usually chosen by the community. SlimVirgin ^{(talk)(contribs)} 02:29, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

(In response to SlimVirgin's comment at 2:22) What about foundation employees, like User:Vishal? Should his access be removed too? One of the original purposes of the channel was so that foundation employees could find admins willing to do things for them - is that function of the channel no longer being utilized? Also, have any admins been denied access in the last few months? I think that denial of access to admins is a thing of the past. Picaroon (t) 02:32, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

Yes, Picaroon, I was denied access for several months. It was removed by an unknown person at the apparent behest of Kelly Martin and restored a couple of weeks ago. So this is not a thing of the past. SlimVirgin ^{(talk)(contribs)} 06:30, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

The preceding statement should be stricken as there is no credible evidence to support the assertion that I had anything to do with SlimVirgin's access, or lack thereof, to the IRC channel in question. Kelly Martin 16:18, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

Are staff like developers also given access? Lawrence Cohen 02:39, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

Proposed. SlimVirgin ^{(talk)(contribs)} 01:44, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

Well, it's not true. Tony Sidaway and Betacommand still have access, among others. Sean William @ 01:51, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

I'm putting this forward as a proposal, Sean. Tony has apparently given up his access, BTW. SlimVirgin ^{(talk)(contribs)} 01:53, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

Only if the ArbCom manages to assert its jurisdiction for the channel in a meaningful way (through technical means) and decides to spell out the connection with Wikipedia. --Irpen 02:05, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

Tony no longer has access to the channel [6]. John Reaves 11:37, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

I'm still unclear whether that is until it all blows over. Tony is doing a lot of apologising, as I don't think he wants to permanently lose access, though I may be wrong to say that. The impression I get is that IRC is a lot more important to some people than (say, adminship, or arbcom clerking) because they spend a lot of time chatting with friends. They would really miss it if they couldn't get access. This is why I've advocated renaming #admins (if that is possible, and no-one has said whether it is possible), and starting afresh with a new channel to perform the serious functions of IRC without the chatter that distracts in the other channels. Carcharoth (talk) 12:43, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

My intention is to permanently leave the channel. I have been apologising since Bishonen first accused me of calling her a bad name, many months ago, although I do not recall ever doing so. --Tony Sidaway 14:51, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

The real benefits of having certain former admins on the channel outweigh the theoretical benefits of a bright-line test keeping them out. — Carl (CBM · talk) 19:28, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

It's not a theoretical benefit. Many people have significant problems with former admins still getting access to an exclusive IRC channel. Therefore, there would be a very real benefit if former admins did not have such access. -Amarkov moo! 22:43, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

People having "problems" with it is not the same as their being actually problems. If the feelings are baseless then we don't pander to them. We should deal with bad behaviour in IRC, but are you suggesting non-admins as a category are more likely to be badly behaved?--Doc^g 03:39, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

From the pragmatic point of view if we believe that the problems of the channel is just because of bad influence of Tony and Kelly and both are not admins, then removing their access may solve the problems. On the other hand there are people who are not admins on en-wiki, but whose presence on the channel might be very useful: WMF employees, Commons admins, developers. I would suggest adding that arbcom may authorize non-en-admins for the channel and en-admins banned from the channel Alex Bakharev (talk) 08:43, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

• if it is a social space it doesn't matter about access, and get rid of the semi-official nature of it. --Rocksanddirt (talk) 18:37, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] #wikipedia-en-admins is for administrators of the English Wikipedia

2.1) The IRC channel #wikipedia-en-admins is designated as a social space for administrators of the English Wikipedia. All administrators are by default entitled to use it. When adminship is withdrawn for any reason, access to the channel is withdrawn too. Arbcom can authorize temporary access to the channel to non-administrators as well as ban some administrators from the channel.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Temporal access? Meaning?--Doc^g 23:46, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

Probably "temporary". In the same vein as "shivered" (which, as here, still gets the message across). Carcharoth (talk) 00:53, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

fixed Alex Bakharev (talk) 06:56, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

Comment by others:

Proposed, reformulation of 2.0 due to objections Alex Bakharev (talk) 08:52, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] AzaToth is admonished to not abuse rollback

3) AzaToth (talk • contribs • blocks • protects • deletions • moves • rights) is admonished to not abuse rollback and similar features, such as undo and/or other rollback scripts, ie TWINKLE.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

I agree. One should not be rolling back experienced editors with differences of opinion. Rollback is for vandalism. There was never vandalism in all the inglorious history of this inglorious page. There may have been WP:POINT back in June, but not vandalism, and rollback wasn't used in June. Geogre (talk) 21:44, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

Comment by others:

Proposed, feel free to expand. --Maxim_(talk) 01:38, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

I don't think this is appropriate. The evidence page mentions four times AzaToth used rollback - ([7], [8], [9], [10]). In two of these, he left an edit summary explaining the revert and those could not possibly be considered to be an abuse. One of the remaining two was a repeat of a previous revert and while an edit summary could have been left, it was somewhat redundant as it had already been explained. The fourth edit was reverting this diatribe using the Twinkle vandalism message. In no case was the admin revert used and to be frank, I wouldn't consider either of the two no-edit-summary reverts to be abusive one bit. --B (talk) 04:44, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

Geogre, you seem to be contradicting yourself. You rolled back AzaToth [11], was that vandalism? Sean William @ 21:47, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

Makes sense Alex Bakharev (talk) 08:55, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Geogre admonished

4) Geogre (talk • contribs • blocks • protects • deletions • moves • rights) is strongly admonished not to abuse his rollback featured, as well as not to wheel-war and edit-war.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Proposed, feel free to expand on this. Maxim_(talk) 01:39, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

Probably makes sense too Alex Bakharev (talk) 08:57, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

Seems to be the best solution, as 5 is too extreme. --Coredesat 09:27, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Geogre desysoped

5) For egregious judgment and abuse of administrative priveleges, Geogre (talk • contribs • blocks • protects • deletions • moves • rights) is to be desysoped. He may apply via the regular means or appeal to the Committee.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Geogre has no history of abusing the tools. Whilst the edit warring is insufferable, if an abuse of tools if found here, a warning should suffice.--Doc^g 23:48, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

Horrendously bad judgment ought to be grounds for removing administrative privileges. We certainly should not have an administrator who edit wars and makes personal attacks. Phil Sandifer (talk) 15:18, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

Do you mean "horrendously bad judgment" like when an admin with a COI jumps in and 72 hour blocks a respected contributor for 3RR during an edit war, but leaves the other edit warriors (those that agree with his COI) alone? You mean that kind of "horrendously bad judgement"? User:MrWhich18:56, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

Now when did I rollback? I don't recall having done that at all. When did I protect? I unprotected a page that had been illicitly protected, which is what a good administrator does. When did I block? When did I threaten to "move the page to meta and protect it?" Phil, you're really making yourself look bad, here. Emotion is fine, but don't write "remedies" based on it, please. It's unhelpful to the rest of us, and it's unhelpful to you. Geogre (talk) 21:48, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

I didn't write this remedy. I did write the personal attacks parole remedy, however, and you're not doing much right now to persuade me that you don't need to be kept on a damn short leash regarding incivility. Phil Sandifer (talk) 21:51, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

Although I did not write this remedy, after reviewing evidence and discovering the June 16th incident in which Geogre unblocked Giano claiming (falsely) that he had never been warned about incivility and despite being involved in the editing and disruption, I support this measure. Geogre is an incivil admin who abuses his powers to protect his friends. Phil Sandifer (talk) 18:29, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

Comment by others:

Proposed, as stronger measure than 4). —Preceding unsigned comment added by Maxim (talk • contribs)

What finding of fact justifies this? Sean William @ 01:42, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

Haven't written this up, but my evidence section nentions this. Abuse of rollback, abuse of protection (see the unprotection, egregious judgment). Please gimme a day to finish this out, I'm working hard on this. --Maxim_(talk) 01:48, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

George's misuse of rollback and protection was not half as severe as many have done in the past - a desysopping is far to extreme in this case. Ryan Postlethwaite 18:39, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

No. Jehochman ^Talk 22:14, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

Too far, 4 is probably more appropriate. --Coredesat 23:39, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

Obviously the remedy is too extreme, but Geogre, you clearly did use the rollback tool, and this has been discussed elsewhere. From WP:ROLLBACK: "Clicking on the link reverts to the previous edit not authored by the last editor, with an automatic edit summary of "Reverted edits by X (talk) to last version by Y," which marks the edit as "minor."" - as others have pointed out, this edit clearly shows the use of rollback. It might have been in response to someone undoing one of your edits, but that doesn't make this any better. If people undoing your edits is a "hot button" issue for you, then maybe you were being successfully trolled into using your rollback tools. Please consider that next time. Carcharoth (talk) 00:37, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

Too strong Alex Bakharev (talk) 08:58, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

No one should be desysopped over this, prefer (4) as it is more relevant. GDonato (talk) 14:09, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Giano banned from Wikipedia namespace

6) Due to deliberate disruption in this area, Giano is banned from the Wikipedia namespace for X.

6 a) Excluding the featured article process, Giano is banned from the Wikipedia namespace for a period of one year.

6 b) Excluding the featured article process, Giano is banned from the Wikipedia namespace for a period of one year. Further to this, he is banned from commenting on the actions of administrators on any other pages within the scope the website.

6 c) Excluding the featured article process, Giano is banned from the Wikipedia namespace for a period of one year. Further to this, he is banned from commenting on the actions of administrators on any other pages within the scope the website except related to the FAC process, and articles he is involved in editing.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Well, we considered this in Durova, but went with a warning instead. That wasn't even a month ago. It's difficult to make an argument for mitigation at this stage. Mackensen (talk) 02:17, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

VO hits the nail on the head when he says that this is sad and unnecessary. Speaking as someone who watched this dispute develop over 15 months ago, I think it's a damned shame that all parties felt a need to perpetuate it, and seemed incapable of actually resolving their differences. This is now at least the third case I've sat on, as an arbitrator, which involved this particular dispute. You'd think people would just learn to leave each other be. Perhaps The Scarlett Letter or Les Misérables should be assigned reading in this process. Mackensen (talk) 01:04, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

I kindly suggest to Geogre, that at a time when his own conduct is under scrutiny, he refrain from calling other users "monsters." Either you mean someone specific, and it's a personal attack, or you don't mean anyone at all, in which case the statement is empty and done for effect. I also think it's dangerous to assume that Giano's level of support has any bearing here unless you've asked each and every person who supported him whether they approve of his conduct in this matter. The election predates this unpleasantness. Mackensen (talk) 03:43, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

Comment by parties:

To prevent repeated disruption.

Utterly worthless. All that's going to happen is that Giano will deliberately make one highly pertinent and very civil comment on an afd, GA review, DYK or 100 other useful places and there's be 20 hotheads ready to block. Drama inevitable.--Doc^g 23:46, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

What is required here is not a restraint but a genuine commitment to reform. I don't see a prospect of this, and those who admire and protect Giano make it difficult for him to grasp that there is a genuine need for reform here. --Tony Sidaway 23:53, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

Giano has over 300 votes for ArbCom. I believe I had quite a few, too. I suspect that the monsters who need to be banned from namespace are not the people who are engendering that level of trust from users. I further suspect that this ought to alert those trying to punish and discipline that there may be a very deep and fundamental error in the way they think about Wikipedia, as they are looking to restrict people who are trusted and find disagreeable people that others find wise. Giano is a mirror, in this regard, and the unhappiness people feel at the image they see is not his fault. Geogre (talk) 21:51, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

Monsters, Geogre? That's really the word you want to use? Phil Sandifer (talk) 21:53, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

Comment by others:

This remedy is essentially unworkable, as it would require an administrator to unilaterally block Giano II if the restriction were to be enforced, which would likely start another block war. Giano banned for 90 days is a far more straightforward, enforceable remedy. John254 03:13, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

Administrators who unblocked an arbcom-sanctioned block would, I think, quickly find themselves desysopped. We have made bans like this work fine in the past - Anthony and Everyking have both received comparable bans. Phil Sandifer (talk) 04:00, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

A block to enforce an namespace restriction wouldn't be expressly sanctioned by the Arbitration Committee. There could be significant disputes as to whether any particular infraction merited a block, or merely a warning, or as to what block length would be appropriate. Of course, administrators who repeatedly wheel-war against legitimate enforcement of Arbitration Committee decisions could eventually be desysopped; however, to the best of my knowledge, immediate desysopping for unblocking Giano II, even once, would be available only if Giano II were under a complete ban. John254 04:13, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

In cases where remedies like this are adopted, an enforcement finding will also be passed. Such a finding specifies what is grounds for a block, how long the block should be, etc. So don't worry about disputes over enforcement, since little is left to admin discretion. Picaroon (t) 04:19, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

6a proposed. Basically an attempt at damage limitation as Giano is a valued contributor in FA discussions - stopping this wouldn't be good for the project, however there's some serious questions about his conduct in other wikipedia space areas. Ryan Postlethwaite 18:33, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

6b proposed. In retrospect, I think this is probably required. Sometimes Giano can be correct in what he says about admins, but the way he goes about it is like a bull in a china shop, his major goal looks like he's creating a drama bomb when he comments on admins actions. Taking the ability for him to comment on wikipedia namespaces will inevitably lead to him taking this elsewhere such as individual admin talk pages, so 6b puts a stop to this right away. Ryan Postlethwaite 19:50, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

I added 6c. Seems obvious? Lawrence Cohen 19:52, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

I am sorry to say that this comes across as, essentially, slavery. "Yes Giano, you can write all the feature articles you want. Just don't talk to or about the rest of us who really run the project." I apologize for being so sarcastic, but I cannot imagine any self-respecting contributor editing under these restrictions. Risker (talk) 19:55, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

He's already proven his inability to handle discussion on admin actions without drama or completely unnecessary pointy actions. Every time he enters discussion on admin actions, he destroys the decorum. With the greatest respect to Giano, these comments are seriously detremental to the project (he's extremely disruptive in the wikipedia namespace except from the FAC process), and have to be stopped, this being the only measure. Ryan Postlethwaite 19:58, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

I put up my variant only so that no one could play games around the FAC process. Any restriction there on admin comments would be bizarre--he'd only be able to deal with non-admins on FAC matters? Lawrence Cohen 20:02, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

By signalling out admin actions, I meant in related discussions about admin action or general misconduct - obviously he could contribute to any discussion regarding articles that involve admins, just not in non FAC wikipedia space. Ryan Postlethwaite 20:04, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

What if potential misconduct relates to the FAC process or articles he is involved in? There shouldn't be any restrictions on him towards FAC, should there? What if he gets into a dispute with an admin about something FAC related, and it rolls to ANI or RFC? He can't participate? Lawrence Cohen 20:07, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

Nope - he'll simply go looking for trouble again. His Wikipedia space ban would be full, apart from the FAC process with no exceptions - he's continually proven his inability to remain civil in discussion about other contributors (admins) actions. Ryan Postlethwaite 20:10, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

So all an admin has to do theoretically do if in a FAC conflict with Giano is roll the dispute to AN, ANI, RFC, RFAR, or anything else, and Giano is basically trapped back in FAC and his user talk page and unable to address whatever dispute it is, and thats that? Lawrence Cohen 20:12, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

Just to add, I very much doubt an FAC dispute would really end up on AN/I, and article RfC's appear on talk pages. User conduct RfC's are in Wikipedia space, but again, his issues stem from these area's so are included in the ban. Ryan Postlethwaite 20:13, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

If there is a dispute soley about FAC at AN/I, then he would be allowed to comment, provided it was soley on content, rather than conduct. Ryan Postlethwaite 20:18, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

Ryan, I am not disagreeing with your characterization (at least not too much); Giano can indeed be like a bull in a china shop. It seems to be a condition endemic to a small number of our top quality contributors, and he is not alone in this manner of behaviour; it just seems to rankle more because his focus tends to be admins rather than regular editors. I cannot imagine any serious contributor operating under such a limitation as not being able to edit outside of article space, except if it is for the project to be able to claim another outstanding article. Risker (talk) 20:11, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

But he is excellent as a writer, ridiculously rude and pointy in any discussion that appears in Wikipedia space about admin conduct or any issue involving an admin (other than soley for article purposes). This remedy is preventative - it stops the clear disruption that Giano causes in user/admin conduct discussion, but allows his good work as an article writer to continue. Ryan Postlethwaite 20:16, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

Yes, he is an excellent writer. He is also remembered for when his temper is hot, but few people remember when he is being kind[12]. As with any of us, you get the full package. Trying to turn him into a workhorse is beneath this project. Risker (talk) 20:20, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

Unfortunately, the negatives far outweigh the positives with Giano being allowed to contribute in wikipedia space - everyone can have the occasional lapse of judgement, Giano has extremely occasional good judgement in these discussions. Ryan Postlethwaite 20:22, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

If the problem is edit warring, some form of revert parole would be a better response. Additionally, if Giano is blocked for edit warring, that must be reported in the log of this case, and that the block must not be undone without agreement of the blocking admin, or approval of an arbitrator. Giano blocks don't stick, so there is no way to set limits on his behavior. It is poisonous for the community when a user appears to be above the rules. Jehochman ^Talk 22:20, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

A Giano block for breaking this remedy would be quite hard to be unjustified - there's no way an admin could claim he hadn't edited wikipedia space if he had. There isn't just disruption via edit warring, it comes in many differenct avenues, hence why this is required. Ryan Postlethwaite 22:51, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

Support 6a. Namespace bans can be and have been enforced in the past. --Coredesat 23:38, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

(unindent) Ryan, it seems we are talking past each other. If I understand you correctly, your objective with this remedy is to keep Giano writing great articles, but not have the opportunity to comment on any other activities going on in the rest of the project. My position is that I cannot imagine any serious contributor wanting to continue producing in a project where his opinions on how it is operated are pointedly considered to be unacceptable even before he voices them. As a featured article writer, should he have a voice in developing the policies affecting content? (I hope that FA-level writers are helping to mould those policies.) Should he have a voice at AfD - particularly if an article to which he has contributed is proposed for deletion? Should he have a !vote at RfA? Can he request clarification of a decision from the Arbitration Committee? Can he request page protection? report a vandal? make a 3RR report? All of these activities require access to the Wikipedia space. Banning any editor from Wikipedia space only tells them that they are not considered to be part of the community, and realistically it is unenforceable, given the range of normal editing activities that bring community members into Wikipedia space. Nobody is going to block Giano or any other similarly restricted editor from asking for page protection in the middle of an edit war - which then means that we are back to the discretion of the individual administrator in the specific situation involved. This proposal cannot be effectively implemented. Risker (talk) 23:50, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

The only other choice is to block him completely. Things can't go on like this, with his appetite for disruption and incivility. But I'd rather not make such a black-and-white choice and believe we should find a middle ground. Raymond Arritt (talk) 00:01, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

What I'm saying is that we want him to keep on writing artcles which he does best, just about every other thing he does here in wikipedia space (apart from FAC) could be considered disruptive. As I said, there's the occasional piece of good judgement but the negatives of his contributions to Wikipedia space far outweigh this. This is about damage limitation, and without making a remedy which is too hard to enforce, or too hard to interpret, we have to have a blanket ban on his contributions to this particular namespace. Giano turns the project into a battle ground far too often when he steps out of article space and I'm sure if we restricted him to any page outside AN or AN/I, he would find other areas to cause drama and disruption with respect to admin actions. AfD and DRV have just the same potential to disrupt as an admin noticeboard. It's reached the stage now where quite frankly, his contributions aren't welcome in the Wikipedia namespace because there is a serious ammount of flack that comes with that. Giano only very very rarely does anything such as request page protection or report a vandal so this will not cause him too much trouble. With this remedy, we keep his article writing, and stop the constant drama bombs that his participation in project space mostly causes. I'm sure if he was in an ArbCom case in the future, an immediate remedy would be enacted so he could participate, but 6c would effectively mean that he wouldn't be able to disrupt to the extent of requiring arbitration again. Ryan Postlethwaite 00:09, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

Well, bottom line, Ryan - has there ever been a case where a remedy similar to this has resulted in the editor remaining with the project and producing high quality articles? You know the answer as well as I do - it has never worked. So why bother putting an option that is doomed to failure onto the table? It is nothing short of "let's ban Giano in such a way that it looks like we aren't banning him." Risker (talk) 00:19, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

Because we have no other option now that will work - we're out of any other remedy that could effectively work. Everyking (talk · contribs) had a very similar remedy an he's still here, not sure of any other time when someone has had to have a namespace ban. Ryan Postlethwaite 00:21, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

My restrictions, though obnoxious, were never anywhere near the level being proposed here. I can't say for certain, but I doubt I would have remained on the project if I had been banned from the Wikipedia namespace. Everyking (talk) 01:43, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

It all may be a moot point anyway. I think he's left the house, if his blanking of his pages and an email to me are any indication. Lawrence Cohen 00:12, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

I have a sinking feeling he's trying to avoid the case by leaving the project; I wouldn't be surprised if he ended up returning if the case closes with no action taken against him, given his conduct history here. --Coredesat 00:24, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

Despite counsel from the user I trust most to stay out of this, I have to say that I just really don't think that comment is called for. (and it's very unlike you, as well) Giano is deeply upset at how things have went around here lately, judging from things he has said recently. I hope he will be back but I sincerely believe he's lost faith in the project. Which is really a damn shame. ++Lar: t/c 00:34, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

Withdrawn. --Coredesat 02:18, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

Given his pages have now been deleted at his request, he does appear gone. And due to the nasty tone here, and comments in IRC just now, and based on this, it appears Bishonen is gone now as well. Lawrence Cohen 00:30, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

Nasty tone? Ryan Postlethwaite 00:32, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

This situation is sad and completely unnecessary. To my friend Ryan, in regards to your comments above - how would you feel about Wikipedia if someone advocated restricting you to article space, and denied you any voice in policymaking? That seems to me a variation of taxation without representation and is guaranteed to enrage liberty-minded people. I would suggest that it is not the community that is upset by any Giano rule-breaking, but those who are criticized by him. Much of the community seems to approve of his iconoclastic attitude, based on his ArbCom candidacy. Bishonen's apparent departure would only be the leading edge - do we really want to upset and drive away a substantial portion of the content-writing community just to keep some policy-wonking types from having their feelings hurt? What would be better for the encyclopedia - to drive away Giano, Bish, and their allies - or to tell cop-wannabes to suck up a little criticism and stop whining for the sake of the encyclopedia? 00:58, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

I would suggest I had a good raport with Giano (most probably not anymore I would imagine) and I think in many ways he's a credit to the encyclopedia - I'd love to be able to write an article like him. What I'd say about me being restricted to article/image/portal space is that I don't think I disrupt any areas of Wikipedia, so I don't think I'm ever likely to be banned from any particular namespace - this is what I find so frustrating, I don't understand why Giano behaves like this, I wouldn't bother if I was so bitter about certain aspects of the project. Ryan Postlethwaite 01:03, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

Giano behaves "like this" because that is who he is. He's the guy who will stop without hesitation if he sees you've been in a car accident and find out if you're okay, then sit there until the police and ambulance come, yelling on his mobile phone at everyone to hurry up because you're in pain. And while he is at it, he will take a strip off the driver who cut you off, give the cops hell for not enforcing the speed limit, and root around in someone's garden to give you a rose in hopes of it making you feel a bit better. Then he'll follow up by calling the chief of police to make sure the road continues to be patrolled properly, and testify in court when your case comes up. Giano is a nuisance to some and a great help to others. It's up to the community if we need Giano. Right now, it sure seems that at least some people here have decided we don't. Risker (talk) 01:22, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

To mistquote a Despair, Inc. Demotivator. "It takes months to create a good editor, but only seconds to lose one... the good news is that we should run out of them in no time." ... Really excellent work guys... CharonX/talk 01:33, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

To strong, Giano's influence to the wikispace is mostly positive as evident from all the votes he received for arbcom Alex Bakharev (talk) 09:01, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

Completely illogical conclusion. Alternatively, Giano's influence to the wikispace is mostly negative as evident from all the opooses he received for arbcom. Rockpocket 02:30, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

While we can safely assume that the people supporting somebody's candidacy see his contributions to the Wikipedia area as not only beneficial to the project but much more beneficial than the contributions of the other fine candidates. On the other hand, voting oppose may mean that the contributions are overall positive but not as positive as the other candidates or that he is not of the right temperament for a judge or that a non-admin arbitrator is a nonsense, etc (I know of at least one such voter: it is me). Thus, we now for sure that the majority of the community community supports Giano's contribution to wikispace, and most probably it is a strong supermajority or even a consensus. On the other hand, yes, indeed as this discussion clearly show there is a vocal minority having an opposite opinion Alex Bakharev (talk) 03:56, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

I don't believe we can safely assume the motivation behind his votes beyond the explanations provided. There are a good number the explicitly mention his FA writing as a reason for supporting, others note his "disruption" but laud his "honesty", others just want "to shake up ArbCom" and plenty more give no reason whatsoever. Inferring anything from the ArbCom votes, beyond the communities choice for about who should sit on the ArbCom, is folly. Rockpocket 04:56, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

Lets agree to disagree on that point and move on Alex Bakharev (talk) 05:01, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

This would work if it would be enforced. Over 90% of Giano II's blocks have been reversed, mostly quickly, so I think it won't work. Stifle (talk) 12:53, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Giano put on revert parole

7) Giano is forbidden to make more than one revert per 24 hours on any pages in the Wikipedia namespace.
7.1) Giano is forbidden to make more than one revert per 24 hours on any pages in the Wikipedia namespace. All administrators are cautioned not to unblock Giano without agreement of the blocking administrator or an arbitrator.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Lighter alternative to 3.

Comment by others:

Too weak, in my opinion, per Maxim and Phil Sandifer's evidence. --Coredesat 06:25, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

Yes, but how to enforce this? Try 7.1. Jehochman ^Talk 22:22, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

Giano is not only disruptive with edit warring, but general disruptive and trolling behaviour in the Wikipedia namespace - this is far too weak and does not get to the root of the problem. Ryan Postlethwaite 00:13, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

I think, if we are honest, the "disruption" and "drama" that takes place at various times, are just the most active Wikipedia namespace contributors coming together and arguing over various things. We know who we are. The same names keep showing up time and time again. Reputations get built and destroyed, and elections are held for this and for that. Incremental progress is made - policies are painstakingly worked over and tweaked, and sometimes someone tries to rip things up and start again. Guidelines and essays and manuals of style are furiously debated. But... BUT! ... While all this is going on, the encyclopedia still gets written. Hands are wrung about POV-warriors and trolls, and biting of newbies. Yet still... STILL! ... The project goes on. Thinking that banning a single person, or even campaigning to take a much harder line on POV editing (with indefinite bans handed out indiscriminately), or crusades to save the poor newbies being crushed underfoot by the Wikipedia machinery, or anything like that, will lead to radical change, is failing to understand how communities like Wikipedia work. The cycle of dramas will go on because, at the root of it all, we all care deeply about Wikipedia. <pause> Listen! What is that I hear in the background? It is the sound of the encyclopedia being written. Many of the people writing the encyclopedia try and just avoid the drama. We shouldn't overstate the effect that increasing or reducing the drama by community action or ArbCom sanctions actually has on the reader-orientated parts of the encyclopedia. Carcharoth (talk) 02:25, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

It sounds like you are suggesting we tolerate various levels of incivility, disruptive pointy editing, revert-warring and other policy violations from the regulars because the other nonentities that edit away will continue to do so oblivious to the drama. Yet, should one of those nonentities make one of those transgressions, the regulars don't think twice about blocking/reverting/dismissing them. That is the cause of the chilling effect. The rest of the community doesn't care about the bickering between the usual suspects, they do care when it they are they see themselves treated differently from the usual suspects because of who they are (or, who they are not). Giano is right, being an admin shouldn't afford you special treatment. But guess what, being a featured article writer shouldn't get you special treatment either! Its great you can write a featured article yourself, but it is also great if your are an anonymous wikignome that spends hours correcting grammar and spelling mistakes. Why should we laud one over the other? I'm not a big fan of Ingrid Newkirk, but I can't help thinking her belief that "a rat is a pig is a dog is a boy" is appropriate here. Rockpocket 03:51, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

By that logic, shouldn't someone with five years under their belt get the same block for the same violation and obnoxious behavior as someone with 5 months, or 5 days, no questions asked, no exceptions? Lawrence Cohen 04:08, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

If someone with five years under their belt knows that 16 more than 3 reverts in 24hrs is totally unacceptable, yet still does it, what are we to conclude other than that person thinks our policies do not apply to them? Someone with 5 days experience may not know our policies, thats when we should consider making an exception. Some people think a tool belt protects them from the repercussions of willingly flouting policy, others think its the number of FAs to their name. Its just different sides of the same coin. Rockpocket 05:33, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

Before we start waving numbers around, it was 16 edits that Giano made. Technically, I make 9 of those reverts. The other 7 edits were adding of new text (such as the first edit), and one minor edit to correct a mis-spelt edit summary (not the best-ever edit summary either). Nine reverts is still obviously too much, and the 3RR violation on 25 December is clear. But the edit warring on 24 December doesn't seem to have been for 3RR. It was for edit warring, and it is clear Giano was edit warring then, but if he was edit warring, then so was Doc Glasgow at the least, and maybe others as well. Hmm. Will have to look into that. Carcharoth (talk) 05:59, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

I would actually support 7.1. It is a recipe for a drama, but seems to be needed unfortunately. &.0 is too strong Alex Bakharev (talk) 09:04, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

Support 7.1 since I now think the namespace ban is too extreme. --Coredesat 06:36, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

7.1 is useful, 7 is not for reasons already stated above. Stifle (talk) 12:54, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Sean William admonished

8) Sean William is admonished not to use administrative powers in disputes he is involved in, and to be more careful in unblocking users.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Generous, frankly. Phil Sandifer (talk) 01:43, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

Hideously inappropriate, frankly. Sean William followed Wikipedia policy in undoing an abuse you made, Phil. Again, I urge you to use more reason and less passion in these proceedings. You were wrong, and you were overturned. It's how things go on a cooperative project where there are no masters. Geogre (talk) 21:52, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

Abuse? How in the world was a 3RR block in a discussion I was utterly uninvolved in abuse? Phil Sandifer (talk) 21:54, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

Comment by others:

I didn't take a side on the talk page discussion. My participation on the talk page does not equate to being "involved" in a dispute. In addition, I did not participate in the revert-warring. Sean William @ 01:45, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

Also, before levying remedies against me, you should probably start a motion to add me to the list of parties. Sean William @ 01:48, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

That is not required, although it is often done. The list of parties and the users being considered for sanctions are not necessarily the same. Picaroon (t) 02:11, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

No. Sean William has not done anything to even earn an admonishment. He asked for, received, and applied consensus. SirFozzie (talk) 03:04, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

• I agree wholeheartedly with SirFozzie's take on this. And I think that Phil's "Generous, frankly" comments following some of them are, frankly, more than a bit condescending. Mr Which??? 03:10, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

Question, Mr Which. Do you agree with my statement, or the workshop proposal. You make it seem like Phil is out of line (and indent to my statement), but usually the agree/disagree applies to the workshop statement. SirFozzie (talk) 03:14, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

I don't see anything here that requires action against Sean. Ryan Postlethwaite 18:34, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

• Without commenting on an admonishment in general, I object to this particular version. Evidence provided has not portrayed Sean in a "party" role in this dispute, and I am inclined to agree with that; to the vast majority of intents and purposes, he is an uninvolved editor. Anthøny 21:52, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

Oppose per his statement on the Evidence talk page. Tim Q. Wells (talk) 21:22, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

Oppose. If he should be admonished for an unblock when there was not clear consensus that the block was appropriate, should I be admonished for raising the matter at AN/I in the first place? I think not. ++Lar: t/c 21:25, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

Oppose, his actions were in good faith and sensible Alex Bakharev (talk) 09:06, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

Oppose, did nothing wrong, did not show bad judgment. GDonato (talk) 14:11, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Geogre on personal attack parole

9) Geogre is put on a standard personal attack parole.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Generous, frankly. Phil Sandifer (talk) 01:43, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

I further note that Geogre's conduct on this workshop page only hardens my conviction that this is an absolute necessity - accusations of abusive conduct with no evidence, implying that other contributors are "monsters," and other such incivility is present in virtually every comment he has made. This behavior needs to stop. I'm floored that we're considering a 7-day ban for one incident on Tony's part that wasn't even made on the wiki, but are willing to give a free pass to the serial incivility that Geogre is displaying. Phil Sandifer (talk) 21:57, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

Bizarre, frankly. Personal attack? Phil, I don't know any of the people here personally, don't know their persons, and do not care about their persons. You seem to have magic scales with pans that can weigh out exactly when a comment is an "attack" and when "incivil." I see only discussion, disagreement, and self-righteousness. Geogre (talk) 21:56, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

That's it: All parties are put on a standard self-righteousness parole. --Tony Sidaway 22:13, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

Comment by others:

I don't think this is necessary. At most, a reminder would suffice, though even the necessity of that is debatable. Picaroon (t) 20:59, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

Excessive. Jehochman ^Talk 22:23, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

The diffs on the evidence page are not specific enough to support this remedy. To be clear: it's not enough to say "In this diff Geogre makes a personal attack," because I looked at those diffs and, frankly, didn't see the claimed personal attacks. To be even more clear: Just because the Princess can feel the pea under her bed doesn't give her the right to demand a new bedroom. Please explain -- carefully, in detail -- what comments Geogre made that were "personal attacks." Thanks Nandesuka (talk) 03:56, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

Excessive Alex Bakharev (talk) 09:07, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Geogre put on civility parole

9.1) Geogre is put on a standard civility parole.

Comments by arbitrators

Comments by parties

Modification of 9 - upon looking at the evidence what it really shows is chronic incivility with momentary outbursts of personal attackss, usually taking the form of hyperbole (comparing people to war criminals, calling those he disagrees with monsters) or outright lies (accusing me of being involved in a conspiracy to block Giano). The personal attack parole would be too easy to game and would allow him to continue the incivil behavior if he could stay just behind the personal attack line. That, obviously, is not the goal - the goal is to get a serially incivil user to clean up his act. Phil Sandifer (talk) 14:33, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

Comments by others

I think Phil is misconstruing and mischaracterizing the evidence here -- presumably through error rather than malice -- and hence I don't think this remedy is appropriate. A better first remedy would be for Phil to not be (in my opinion) hypersensitive to criticism from people who vigorously disagree with him. These are serious issues, and they warrant serious discussion. Phil should be thanking Geogre for challenging him, instead of demanding special protection from criticism. Nandesuka (talk) 15:06, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

Very little of Geogre's incivility that I put on the evidence page is directed at me. This is a desperately unfair characterization. Geogre's conduct as documented on the evidence page is serially incivil in a way I have not seen in an arbcom case in years. Phil Sandifer (talk) 15:55, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

My point is that you haven't put any evidence on the evidence page. You have put accusations. Accusations do not equate to evidence.

The simple fact is that no one has complained about any of the "incivility" that you claim to have documented before this very arbcom case. No one has tried to resolve whatever issues you claim there are. No one has dropped notes on Geogre's talk page. No one has asked for third party admin involvement. No one brought anything up on WP:AN. When there are no complaints about incivilty and the very first complaint about them is not via discussion with the alleged problem user but with a library of demands for every remedy under the sun on an arbcom case, I have a hard time believing that there is an actual problem. Rather, it looks to me like you've found a good stone on which to grind an axe. I think it probably looks this way to everyone. While I hope this isn't true, if your goal is actually, as you say, to "get a serially incivil user to clean up his act," perhaps you might want to apply the Wiki Way and start by discussing the issue with the user, rather than by putting on passable imitation of the Red Queen. Nandesuka (talk) 16:00, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

25 diffs of incivil behavior isn't evidence? What, exactly, are you looking for? As for warnings, given the number of oppose votes he got in the 2006 arbcom election that cited his incivility, I don't think he can claim to be surprised here. Phil Sandifer (talk) 16:11, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

I'm saying that when I look at the diffs you provide, they don't support what you're claiming. It's that simple. Nandesuka (talk) 16:14, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

If you sincerely think Geogre's conduct in those diffs is acceptable, so be it. But the arbcom has sanctioned for less than what Geogre has done. Phil Sandifer (talk) 16:17, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

I agree with Nandesuka here. I've been reading through all the diffs that Phil Sandifer has provided in that evidence section, and I would characterise most of Geogre's edits there as strongly worded and severe, though often eloquent, criticism, sometimes rising to the level of accusations, with lots of metaphorical phrasings that you are taking too seriously. The correct response is not to cry "incivil" and "personal attack", but to ask Geogre to provide evidence or retract. If you cry "incivil" and "personal attack", it just looks like you are enabling those who are being criticised to avoid that criticism. By the way, the quote you describe as "tumour" actually talks about "fingers on the throat", ironically one of the quotes that did give me pause for thought, even though you seemed to have described it wrongly. Carcharoth (talk) 18:05, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

Excessive Alex Bakharev (talk) 09:09, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

Erm, look again - that edit does in fact describe people who take a particular viewpoint as tumors. Phil Sandifer (talk) 16:49, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

Apologies. I clicked on the next diff along (the one you haven't annotated). Sorry about that. Struck through the above. Carcharoth (talk) 17:14, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

If it has to be spelled out for you, Phil, "monsters", as far as I could tell, referred not to his own opinion of any editor, but to what you seem to think of Giano as. Because, who but a "monster" could deserve such a ridiculously harsh punishment? —Random832 15:47, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Giano banned for 90 days

10) For consistent disruptive editing, editwarring, and similar egregious behaviour, Giano II (talk · contribs) is banned for 90 days.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

To what end?--Doc^g 23:41, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

Comment by others:

Proposed, see my evidence on Giano on the appropriate page. Maxim_(talk) 01:48, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

Why ban him from the project entirely? The Wikipedia and Wikipedia talk namespaces seem a better choice, if this is adopted. No one has shown he has been disruptive in article space. No need to extend limitations beyond where they do any good. Picaroon (t) 02:13, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

This remedy would avoid the necessity of having an administrator unilaterally block Giano to enforce a namespace restriction, which would probably result in a block war, just as many of Giano's previous blocks have. Blocking Giano with express authorization from the Arbitration Committee appears to be the only feasible solution. Additionally, if banned only from the Wikipedia and Wikipedia talk namespaces, Giano could simply move his disruption to other namespaces. John254 02:53, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

Too far. Giano is by all accounts a valued contributor of content, and does not seem to be disruptive in article space. It would be a shame to lose his contributions there. An alternative might be to restrict him to article space and article talk pages. Raymond Arritt (talk) 05:49, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

This is in many ways punitive, please see remedy 6a. Ryan Postlethwaite 18:35, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

Does not resolve the problem. Does create drama. Oppose. Jehochman ^Talk 22:23, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

I would support this, but it's only going to create more drama. A namespace ban is more appropriate here. --Coredesat 23:41, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

As discussed above a namespace ban is probably unworkable. I think a straight ban is the only way to communicate to Giano that his behavior (edit-warring and incivility) is unacceptable. I think that 30 days is enough myself. Eluchil404 (talk) 06:39, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

Oppose, and I don't see how a namespace ban is unworkable (even though I oppose it). Tim Q. Wells (talk) 19:01, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

Oppose, uncalled for Alex Bakharev (talk) 09:11, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

A namespace ban is unworkable because the user in question has already said in an earlier case that he refuses to edit under such restrictions. —Random832 15:38, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

That does not make it unworkable. It is not the arbcom's responsibility to give Giano a sanction he likes, and parties to the case are not generally taken to have veto power over their sanctions. Phil Sandifer (talk) 16:31, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

In the face of what Giano has said; to pretend that a namespace ban would not amount to a full ban would amount to a refusal to acknowledge reality. —Random832 21:01, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

A topic ban would be far more useful and appropriate than a full ban. GDonato (talk) 14:13, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

May be the only way to stop the disruption in light of the number of people willing to unquestioningly unblock Giano II. Stifle (talk) 12:55, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Tony Sidaway banned for 7 days

11) Tony Sidaway (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · block user · block log)'s editing privileges are suspended for 7 days.

Comment by Arbitrators:

The Everyking case has no bearing here: he was de-sysoped because it was believed, based on off-site evidence, that he was about to grossly misuse his administrative tools. The infraction would have happened on-wiki. To sanction someone solely for making an off-wiki comment would indeed be a significant jump, and one not backed by any policy of any kind. Mackensen (talk) 15:21, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

Comment by parties:

Sets a rather nasty precedent, no? Phil Sandifer (talk) 04:00, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

• I don't think it's appropriate to block Tony for making a remark to me, however disconcerting the remark was. IMO he needs to be arbitrated and sanctioned for the general incivility for which he is notorious, not for any one remark or two. Probably that should be done in a separate RFAR/Tony Sidaway; I can't well see a case named "IRC" being stretched to include it. If possible, I'd indeed be pleased to see such an arbitration include his IRC behavior. Bishonen | talk 19:21, 27 December 2007 (UTC).

To what end?--Doc^g 11:27, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

This would be a mere slap on the wrist, not a solution. I invite editors to consider submitting evidence of my chronic incivility (a known problem) and suggest a civility parole. I need more reminder than most to curb my sharp tongue and the project should not expect to bear the cost indefinitely. --Tony Sidaway 19:02, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

Comment by others:

Proposed, per the Tony Sidaway has made off-wiki personal attacks finding. John254 03:34, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

So you want to ban him on-wiki for off-wiki behavior? That makes absolutely no sense. Sean William @ 03:35, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

The remedy is not designed to directly prevent further off-wiki personal attacks, but rather to deter future misconduct of this nature by Tony Sidaway and other users of the IRC channel. John254 03:43, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

This seems like punishment, and as such I have trouble reconciling it with Blocks are intended to reduce the likelihood of future problems, by either removing, or encouraging change in, a source of disruption. They are not intended for use in retaliation, as punishment, or where there is no current conduct issue which is of concern. Raymond Arritt (talk) 05:53, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

Has the committee ever stated it will sanction users for this? (If so, where?) And Jimmy stating the committee will is not the same as the committee itself saying so - I've yet to hear one arbitrator in favor of sanctioning Wikipedians for their IRC behavior. Even if the committee does choose to impose such sanctions, what good will they do? IRC is not Wikipedia. How will banning someone from Wikipedia prevent (that's what we're going for, recall - prevention, not punishment) this person continuing to make personal attacks off-wiki? Picaroon (t) 03:38, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

As the Arbitration Committee is appointed by Jimbo Wales and operates under a delegation of his authority, I assume that Jimbo Wales' directive to the Committee to consider off-wiki personal attacks on IRC will actually be effectuated. The purpose of the on-wiki sanction is deterrence of future misconduct. John254 03:50, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

Yes, he does say that it should be taken up with the committee. My guess, however, is that the committee will not be enthusiastic towards the expansion of their duties to include the regulation of IRC behavior. Determining onwiki sanctions for onwiki behavior can be hard enough, at times; determining onwiki sanctions for offwiki behavior would be much harder, and is not what they volunteered to do at all. Remember, also, that Jimbo says "In the event that the ArbCom makes a ruling against me, overturning any decision I have made in my traditional capacity within Wikipedia, the ArbCom's decision shall be final." Presumably, the arbitrators are or have been discussing Jimbo's recent statement you linked with him in the last few days. If he gets a largely negative response from them, I don't think he will insist they follow through. Of course, it's up to the committee; not us. Picaroon (t) 03:58, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

The arbitration committee has sanctioned users for off-wiki activity, e.g. Everyking, and it's never been clear why this would be a big jump in principle. Christopher Parham (talk) 04:33, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

Everyking was sanctioned for actions that were considered a clear and present danger - this seems several orders of magnitude below that. Phil Sandifer (talk) 05:05, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

Erm...one week? That's quite weak (haha, pun) for arbcom, isn't it? --uǝʌǝsʎʇɹnoɟʇs(st47) 21:34, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

Oppose as completely inappropriate. Jehochman ^Talk 22:24, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

Support, might help to close the page in the conflict with Bishonen, also establishes useful precedent Alex Bakharev (talk) 09:13, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

Oppose, extremely inappropriate and nothing like the Everyking incident Phil mentioned; this could establish a dangerous precedent if this case were cited too liberally. --Coredesat 09:22, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

Even if the problems this would supposedly solve were on-wiki, would this really be necessary? Captain panda 22:39, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

Remember, administrative actions are supposed to be corrective not punitive. A 7-day block in this situation would punish Tony, but doesn't appear to have much corrective value. A civility parole or something like that would be more corrective. Cla68 (talk) 23:55, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

Oppose this remedy, per Sean William (talk · contribs), on-wiki ban for off-wiki actions is really a bad idea, possibly even contrary to policy. GDonato (talk) 14:16, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

Rather useless, to be honest. Akin to a judge holding someone in contempt for having their cellphone go off in court. Stifle (talk) 12:56, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Trouts all around

12) All involved editors are gently smacked with a trout and asked to carry on with encyclopedia-building. Editors who have previously been smacked with a trout to no demonstrable effect are to be smacked less gently and with a proportionately weightier trout.

Comment by Arbitrators:

The last set of trouts was whale-sized. We can't keep doing this indefinitely. Kirill 04:52, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

Comment by parties:

Sadly, I suspect this only encourages overfishing. Too many trout have already been used up, and the returns are diminishing.--Doc^g 21:20, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

Comment by others:

Proposed. MastCell ^Talk 04:23, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

"Set upon by an onslaught of Oncorhynchus mykiss in full spawn" has a nice ring to it, but this will do. Raymond Arritt (talk) 06:02, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

Horrible, HORRIBLE solution given the related resolutions. - Penwhale | ^{Blast him / Follow his steps} 08:33, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

Approving this would pretty much validate certain points brought up in evidence. This is more of a non-remedy than a remedy, and as Kirill says, this can't go on forever. --Coredesat 11:02, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

I do not believe it is within ArbCom's remit in this case to order the removal of such trouts from their life-giving aqueous environments. There is nothing in evidence supporting a death penalty against these peaceful, albeit tasty, creatures. --uǝʌǝsʎʇɹnoɟʇs(st47) 21:36, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

Port wine will do the deed humanely. Raymond Arritt (talk) 21:52, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

Unfortunately, marginal returns are now deep in the negative. No need to deplete the trout fishery on something that obviously doesn't work and deprive the efficient use of trout in other situations. Time to switch tactics, no? —Kurykh 21:42, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

Based on my reading of the evidence, a weightier fish is needed. Perhaps a tuna? --Carnildo (talk) 00:10, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

Personally I'd recommend switching to a clue-by-four, or we're are bound to run out of trouts really soon now. On a more serious note, the behavior of all involved in this edit-wheel-war debacle (and following "he started it" "we didn't do anything" fingerpointing) made me shake my head. You are admins (or at least very experienced editors), for god's sake, not kindergarden-kids - if you can't act like responsible adults, how can we expect our newbie editors to do it? *Sigh* CharonX/talk 00:23, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

I strongly agree with CharonX's sentiment (reminds me of an answer to a question in my rfa). The policy violations and irresponsible actions from both sides of the dispute - especially on David Gerard's and Geogre's parts - are surprising and disappointing. You guys have been admins for years; what does it take to get you to adhere to our policies and to stop attempting to make excuses for this? Picaroon (t) 01:49, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

How about we actually address the issues, instead of saying "go edit the encyclopedia now"? -Amarkov moo! 22:40, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

I'm sorry - what issues are those, exactly? That someone said something rude on IRC? That's unfortunate and wrong, but hardly grounds for a drama bomb to explode. That editors who ought to know better warred over what amounts to a project-space essay (read by no-one except those with pre-formed opinions on the matter)? Sounds like a classic case for a trout-slapping. That Giano escalates every minor incident in which he's peripherally (un)involved into an ArbCom case? That, at least, warrants an actual ArbCom-imposed remedy. Otherwise, it just looks like the Byzantine historical feuds and alignments this project has accreted are getting in the way of actually writing an encyclopedia. Though my tone was flippant, I think that saying "go edit the encyclopedia now" is addressing the issue. That was my point. MastCell ^Talk 21:00, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

Okay. So you agree that there's something in the way of writing the encyclopedia. How, then, is just saying "go write the encyclopedia" going to help anything? -Amarkov moo! 21:03, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

I suppose I don't see an IRC feud between Tony Sidaway and Bishonen as the biggest obstacle to writing a better encyclopedia. I also think that our priorities seem to have shifted from content to settling old scores and obsessing over who-said-what-about-whom-in-what-offwiki-venue. It would be nice if every now and then, we could ignore the usual agitators and flame-fanners and let a minor contretemps be just that - minor. As to edit-warring and bad behavior from users-who-should-know-better: I suppose I wish everyone took it as seriously when it occurred on a highly visible set of encyclopedia articles as they do when it occurs on a project-space essay that no-one uninvolved particularly cares to read. That's all. MastCell ^Talk 21:19, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

Well, saying it is all Giano's fault is like saying World War I is all Germany's fault. It takes two to tango, and similarly, it takes an editor to make a bad decision AND then one or more editors to follow up with their own bad decisions. Which is what happened here, unless you suppose Giano magically compelled those involved to do fun stuff like "editing, then protecting the right version" and "editing while the article is under protection". No, heaping all the responsibility on Giano won't cut the custard. A nice bunch of experienced editors happily started this edit-war, or joined in while it was in progress - something I'd expect (and forgive) from new editors who don't know the ropes yet, but seeing those involved have an admin badge (or at least several thousands of edits) under their belts, I kinda expected them to know better. In that sense, clue-by-fours all around. CharonX/talk 15:08, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Page probation

13) Wikipedia:IRC channels/wikipedia-en-admins is placed on article probation for [insert time period].

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Proposed: Seems like it will happen, even if it isn't really an article.—Ryūlóng (竜龍) 07:39, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

Should not be implemented without a clear ruling on whether David Gerard's assertion that it is a special case of policy page is accurate. Phil Sandifer (talk) 15:19, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

Comment by others:

I'm not sure of this - we shouldn't have probation on a page that has no net benefit to the project. People should probably just learn to spend less time on such a predantic pedantic issue. Ryan Postlethwaite 18:37, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

Support. No reason why not except that it isn't an article, and there's no harm in 'wasting' probation on such a page as this. --uǝʌǝsʎʇɹnoɟʇs(st47) 21:37, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

I think the better solution would be to place it on a foundation website with an appropriate softlink from the current page name. There is no reason why editors should not write their own essays on IRC, but the main page on the IRC channel should not be used as an essay. --Tony Sidaway 22:36, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

In fact, it's just been MfDed. --uǝʌǝsʎʇɹnoɟʇs(st47) 23:34, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

MFD was withdrawn pending this case. The nominator stated his intentions of renominating once this mess is sorted out. I suggest this remedy be discarded and let the community decide through the normal process of MfD after everyone cools down. - Mtmelendez ^(Talk) 01:59, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

Why would this remedy be discarded? If the page is deleted, then that will defeat the purpose, but it's still an idea if the page survives MFD.—Ryūlóng (竜龍) 02:53, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

Concur with Ryulong, if the community fails to achieve consensus to delete then this remedy would be quite useful. --uǝʌǝsʎʇɹnoɟʇs(st47) 12:22, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

Support, page probation for one year or indefinitely. Would help to solve problems on the page, GDonato (talk) 14:18, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Probation

14) Any user identified as a problem user by the Committee is subject to an editing restriction in Wikipedia: and Wikipedia talk: space. They are limited to one revert per week (except obvious vandalism), and are encouraged to discuss any content changes on the appropriate talk page. Additionally, any uninvolved administrator may, at their discretion, ban said user from editing a specific Wikipedia: or Wikipedia talk: page for a reasonable amount of time. Violation of the revert limitation or a ban may be punished by an uninvolved administrator in the form of a block duration to be specified in an enforcement ruling.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

I don't think this is the kind of dispute that can be resolved by restricting "problem users" (not even Giano). It needs a commitment by all of us to put past grievances to one side and remember that we are one community. --Tony Sidaway

Agreed, but for that to happen, people need to acknowledge the harm done, apologize, and stop the sources of the toxicity from causing that harm ever again. Otherwise we're not one community, as a matter of regrettable fact. SlimVirgin ^{(talk)(contribs)} 02:34, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

Comment by others:

Proposed... obviously needs work, but I'm just throwing it out there. east.718 at 08:03, December 27, 2007

Can't do, just because of the definition of "problem user". - Penwhale | ^{Blast him / Follow his steps} 08:32, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

I assume that would be changed to "X, Y, and Z are subject to an editing restriction..." like I said, it needs work. east.718 at 08:51, December 27, 2007

I don't like the naming; besides, administrators on revert parole in the WP/WT namespace... I need to give it a bit more thinking to process. - Penwhale | ^{Blast him / Follow his steps} 14:58, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

Oppose, does not look like helpful Alex Bakharev (talk) 09:16, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] David Gerard is desysopped for Wheel Warring on Wikipedia:IRC channels/wikipedia-en-admins

16) Per the finding of fact and evidence, both David Gerard and Geogre violated protection policies, and wheel warred. David Gerard is desysopped, and may reapply at any time via normal RFA means.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Overkill. Why would we want to lose such a useful admin over this crap?--Doc^g 21:46, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

Oppose. As David has pointed out, the page in question is a special case of policy page, and his relationship to the page is unique. Even if his actions are determined to be in error (and I don't think they are) they are clearly a reasonable interpretation of a policy that was not entirely clear. To desysop a longstanding administrator over such a small case is unreasonable in the extreme. Phil Sandifer (talk) 05:07, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

Comment by others:

Update on section #15 above based on evidence and timeline of wheel warring. Lawrence Cohen 21:17, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

I suggest that this be split into two separate proposals, one for each admin. Risker (talk) 21:20, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

Done. Lawrence Cohen 21:22, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

Oppose. Too strong a remedy at this time. Jehochman ^Talk 22:25, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

Oppose to strong Alex Bakharev (talk) 09:18, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

For me David's statement puts his actions in a worse light. A single burst of bad behavior can easily be attributed to hotheadedness, but coming to such an obviously wrong conclusion (that edit warring on protected pages is an acceptable use of administrative tools) can hardly be attributed to anything but poor judgment or ignorance of our community standards. Christopher Parham (talk) 05:28, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

• General comment on all the admin action items - quite a number of folks behavied inappropriately, and none was substantially more egregious than another. So, the deadmin or not remedies should apply to all. --Rocksanddirt (talk) 17:23, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

Oppose, does not deserve to be desysopped, generally a good admin. GDonato (talk) 14:21, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

Disagree with desysop: David Gerard's being an admin is a big benefit to the project, performing fine sysop work. My observations of his communication and work have been positive, as was my brief interaction with him once. Acalamari 01:16, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] David Gerard is suspended for Wheel Warring on Wikipedia:IRC channels/wikipedia-en-admins

16.1) Per the finding of fact and evidence, both David Gerard and Geogre violated protection policies, and wheel warred. David Gerard is suspended as an admin for 90 days.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

David, rather stupidly, responded to trolling. I suspect he's learned his lesson. Folly is its own reward.--Doc^g 23:39, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

As per above, I think David's actions on the page were a reasonable interpretation of a vague policy, and that strong sanction is inappropriate. Phil Sandifer (talk) 05:08, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

Comment by others:

Alternative, per Doc. Lawrence Cohen 21:49, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

Oppose. Too strong. Jehochman ^Talk 22:26, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

Oppose, per Doc glasgow. GDonato (talk) 14:25, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] David Gerard is admonished for Wheel Warring on Wikipedia:IRC channels/wikipedia-en-admins and put on 0 Administrative revert parole for 1 year

16.2) Per the finding of fact and evidence,David Gerard violated protection policies, and wheel warred. David Gerard is admonished and put on the zero administrative revert parole for one year: any reversal of an administrative action or violation of the protection policies within 1 year from the arbcom decision will automatically cause his desysopping

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

If editing protected pages is bad, why can't we have faith that the admins concerned will respond to a warning not to do it again?--Doc^g 00:52, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

I disagree. It seems to me that David believed he had special privilege on the IRC page. It seems to me that there is a reasonable case to be made that he was right in this belief. If he was right, obviously no sanction is in order. But even if he was wrong, a firm establishment of this policy point seems to me sufficient - I see no evidence that David would knowingly violate policy. Phil Sandifer (talk) 16:04, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

Comment by others:

Proposed Alex Bakharev (talk) 06:44, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

Since remedies are supposed to be corrective and not punitive, this is probably the most effective of the three proposed for Gerard with the aim of correcting his behavior. Cla68 (talk) 00:03, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

This is a nice prophylactic remedy. It doesn't impose any draconian punishment beyond a (richly deserved) slap on the wrist, and the real meat of the remedy is forward looking, which is to say preventative. Nandesuka (talk) 16:17, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

I do not see the value of prevention here, simply because I do not see any evidence that this is a recurring problem. If David's actions were against policy, a simple clarification of policy should be sufficient - I see no evidence that David knowingly disregards any policies. Phil Sandifer (talk) 23:41, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

Possible solution, generally great care should be taken in reverting any admin action at any time, GDonato (talk) 14:27, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Geogre is desysopped for Wheel Warring on Wikipedia:IRC channels/wikipedia-en-admins

17) Per the finding of fact and evidence, both David Gerard and Geogre violated protection policies, and wheel warred. Geogre is desysopped, and may reapply at any time via normal RFA means.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Overkill. My deletion of this page was an IAR attempt to quell an edit war - reversing it was regrettable, but no big deal. The fact that people wanted to continue the pathetic edit war is more troubling.--Doc^g 21:50, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

I am coming to support this based on the unblocking of Giano in a dispute Geogre was involved in with an unblocking summary that was a blatant lie, and on the documented history of incivility. Phil Sandifer (talk) 14:35, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

Comment by others:

Proposed. Lawrence Cohen 21:50, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

In reply to Doc - deleting it was not an appropriate action in the first place and was clearly never going to be an acceptable way forward. violet/riga (t) 22:01, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

I don't think "appropriate" is quite the word, it unfortunately turned out to be futile, but it seemed worth a try at the time.--Doc^g 23:37, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

Oppose. Too strong. Jehochman ^Talk 22:26, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

Agree, way too strong (argument applies to 16 and 16.1, as well). --Coredesat 23:35, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

overkill Alex Bakharev (talk) 09:28, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

In response to Phil Sandifer at 14:35, 30 December 2007, what is the connection you are making between Giano's unblock and Geogre's actions? Geogre did not unblock Giano, and it seems you are accusing the admin who did unblock Giano, Sean William, of writing an unblocking summary that was "a blatant lie." Perhaps you might wish to reconsider especially that last part? Risker (talk) 01:01, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

The way I read that, Phil seems to be referring to a totally different unblock. I see an unblock Geogre carried out of Giano on 16 June 2007, with the summary "No "exhortations" anywhere and not "incivil" comment, either" - is this what Phil means? Carcharoth (talk) 01:11, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Geogre is suspended for Wheel Warring on Wikipedia:IRC channels/wikipedia-en-admins

17.1) Per the finding of fact and evidence, both David Gerard and Geogre violated protection policies, and wheel warred. Geogre is suspended as an admin for 90 days.

Comment by Arbitrators:

As a general rule, I do not support temporarily removing admin tools. If an admin is trusted to make good use of the tools, then removing the tools makes no sense. If an admin can not be trusted with the tools now, a short desyop is unlikely to change it. FloNight (talk) 16:56, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

Comment by parties:

Support. While David had a legitimate reason to think that he held a special role in editing the page, Geogre had no such reason. That, combined with Geogre's documented tendency towards gross incivility, make me think that a suspension is a reasonable course of action. Phil Sandifer (talk) 05:09, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

Oppose, what's the point? If Geogre can be trusted with the tools (and I say he can) then there's no reason to think he'll not respond to a general warning to all involved against editing protected pages.--Doc^g 00:50, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

Comment by others:

Alternative, per Doc. Lawrence Cohen 21:50, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

Oppose. Too strong. Jehochman ^Talk 22:27, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

Still too strong. --Coredesat 23:35, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

still overkill. Geogre is much less guilty than David Gerard. Still if 16.2 is accepted, analogous 17.2 may make sense Alex Bakharev (talk) 09:30, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Bishonen encouraged

18) Bishonen is strongly encouraged to look past these extremely regrettable incidents and to continue contributing high-quality content to Wikipedia under the account name of her choice.

Comment by Arbitrators:

At the risk of being accused of insensitivity, this isn't appropriate. I've read the channel logs at length; it was Bishonen who raised the matter with Tony, and continued to press him beyond what I personally would have considered appropriate. This is no way excuses Tony's response; I note it for context. This RfAR is the result of absolutely unacceptable actions taken by numerous users who found it necessary to revert-war over a project page in response to something that happened off-site. That administrators could take such a leave of their senses is disheartening and makes me question my commitment to dispute resolution. If Giano was acting on Bishonen's behalf, then she was not well served by her partisans. In a past case I accused Giano of dispute escalation, and voiced my opinion, as an arbitrator, that the project would be better served if he withdrew from the project namespace (or was compelled to withdraw). This suggestion proved unpalatable, so we reminded Giano to be cordial, courteous, and all that. Naturally this only applied to the wiki; arbcom does not claim to govern elsewhere, and is ineffectual enough at best on the wiki itself.

The original insult, it bears mentioning, occurred in September of 2006. The best way to not be reminded of an insult is to let the matter drop. Barring that, there's dispute resolution. On IRC, that means going to a chanop. It does not mean starting a revert-war on the encyclopedia. It should never have come to this: it was preventable, and no one in this mess is blameless. This proposal came from Durova; !! was an innocent bystander wrongly blocked. This incident bears little resemblance. Mackensen (talk) 06:49, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

If adopted, the reference to "account name of her choice" is not necessary. This is borrowed a workshop proposal I made in another case where the circumstances were different. Newyorkbrad (talk) 16:07, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

Comment by parties:

I think it ill-becomes arbcom to do solatium. Arbcom is not your mother.--Doc^g 11:25, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

Bishonen did respond appropriately by going to a chanop (as I discovered later when the chanop had a word with me). Giano stated that he obtained a log of the discussion from elsewhere. Giano was not acting at Bishonen's bidding and I don't think it's correct to accuse her of participating in the deliberate escalation of the complaint. --Tony Sidaway 12:54, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

Comment by others:

Proposed. Taken from Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Durova. This incident stems from a strikingly vulgar insult of Bishonen. Bishonen has now given every indication that she has left the project in response to this RfAR that is related to being reminded of that insult. Risker (talk) 06:12, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

Support. Marskell (talk) 18:09, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

I see no reason why not. --Coredesat 09:23, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

Why not? Alex Bakharev (talk) 09:32, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

I like Bishonen. Bishonen is a friend of mine. But this remedy is a bit pointless. If ArbCom wants to encourage Bishonen (or, for that matter, all other responsible editors), then the best way to do it is to hold people accountable for their bad behavior and lay the groundwork so that similar problems don't happen again. Nandesuka (talk) 16:19, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

While I agree with the sentiment, I also agree with Nandesuka. we need to change the relationship between the irc channels and wikipedia. --Rocksanddirt (talk) 17:20, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Giano banned for one year

19) Giano is banned for one year.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Oppose. Newyorkbrad (talk) 19:49, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

Far too extreme. FloNight (talk) 16:50, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

Comment by parties:

If, as others are saying, it is impossible to meaningfully impose even a namespace restriction on Giano because he will use it as an opportunity to create drama by pushing its limits then we are dealing with a committed and subtle troll of the worst sort. If it is really true that no measures that would move Giano's contributions away from disruption then he should be removed from the project. Phil Sandifer (talk) 17:25, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

This would not resolve the dispute. I think the Committee will have to be very creative in seeking an appropriate and equitable set of remedies. --Tony Sidaway 18:53, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

Comment by others:

A committed and subtle troll? I believe that a person who generates huge amounts of positive contributions towards the encyclopedia is not a troll, no matter what level of disruption they create. Giano is still very committed to the project, and obviously cares about its existence. That contradicts the basic definition of "trolling". Sean William @ 17:51, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

"Troll of the worst sort?" Ph.Sa.'s is a shocking statement, coming from an individual whose mainspace contributions have been relatively poor (at least recently), and referring to one of WP's most active high-quality article writers. If you want Giano's full measure, look at the recent edit history of, say, Queluz National Palace. I thought that kind of achievement was what WP is there for; which is why people like myself are active here. If it's about something else, please let us know, so we can go and do something worthwhile. athinaios (talk) 18:42, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

Oppose, and people posting such comments as calling others "trolls" or disruptive should be mindful of glass houses. Lawrence Cohen 18:45, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

Agreed with the above comment by Athinaios.. I find this behavior by Phil to be the exact same thing of which he is decrying from Giano. SirFozzie (talk) 18:46, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

Far from it. But if every single remedy that is being proposed will not work because it cannot be enforced and Giano will not obey it, I have serious questions about Giano's presence on the project. I mean, really - if somebody will not obey rules or restrictions put on them and are going to continually generate drama, they are causing more heat than light. Nobody is irreplaceable. Phil Sandifer (talk) 18:56, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

Do you really believe that, PS? I don't see the other Gianos to be honest, and I don't see how anything but high quality CONTENT can be the priority here. "Nobody is irreplaceable" is another way of saying "everyone is repleaceable". As a fairly new contributor, I do find that dispiriting (and also arrogant) and utterly lacking in wikilove or any other form of respect. I'd rather have heat and light (and there can be no doubt Giano produced both, as his articles were often red-hot with passion for their topics and glistening with the light of knowledge - and well-written to boot) than such cynicism. athinaios (talk) 19:10, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

Oppose on the length of ban, but support the principle. Light current (talk · contribs) made over 30,000 edits, many of them extremely positive, [13] but that didn't stop him trolling when the mood took him. I don't consider Giano a troll, but his project space antics has been as negative to the project, over the last few months, as his article space edits have been positive. His deification, in some quarters, as some sort of model Wikipedian we can't do without does a huge disservice to those editors who write excellent articles and manage to adhere to the basic policies and community norms that we ask of everyone. The idea that X number of positive contributions earns one a permanent get out-of-jail card after wreaking havoc is ludicrous. Rockpocket 19:02, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

Exactly. We have many excellent article writers who do not troll the project space - sufficiently many that we could readily get rid of one who does not with no substantive ill effect to the project. Now I would prefer some measure that keeps the excellent article writing and gets rid of the trolling. But if, as people are arguing, no such measures can be crafted, so be it. Sad as it is to lose the baby with the bathwater, when the bathwater is this toxic and the baby cannot be saved, so be it. Phil Sandifer (talk) 19:25, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

Wow. And this from an editor whose own userpage states "I am hard pressed to identify anything substantive I have accomplished [in article space] since 2005". Even if we ignore the fact that what some see as "trolling" was what not only Giano but also many others thought right (see his ArbCom vote), you're telling us that any contributor, no matter how prolific in quality or quantity, will be "thrown out" at will if he/she develops strong feelings about the project? The "bathwater" you're poring down the drain might well be quality contributions, and the attempt to make those who provide them feel respected. athinaios (talk) 19:40, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

Wow, if you are going to repeat an editor's words back to him, it might be a good idea to not completely misquote. That sentence was explicitly referring to Wikipedia namespace (the clue is in the, rather appropriate, example: WP:DICK) Rockpocket 19:49, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

Your attempts at ad hominem aside, I at least have many strong feelings about the project. I have not had those strong feelings translate into 3RR violations, repeated blocks, and multiple arbcom cases. That is the difference - it is perfectly possible to have strong feelings without being disruptive. Phil Sandifer (talk) 19:50, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

In response to Athinaios, Giano seems to have left the project (at least for now) and we should respect that decision. The essence of the Giano problem is described in the finding "Giano" in the Durova case, which I'll repeat here in full because it shows the quite broad extent of the problem:

Giano II (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · block user · block log)'s conduct in response to this matter exceeded the bounds of fair criticism. Areas of particular concern include personal attacks, on-wiki publication of private correspondence, a refusal to assume good faith, a lack of respect for project norms, and an unwillingness to resolve disputes utilizing the dispute resolution mechanism.

The people who wrote that weren't parties to the dispute, they were arbitrators making a statement about the facts of the case.

So it's a bit much to say that he's simply developed strong feelings about the project. We all have very strong feelings about the project, but we agree to abide by project norms, and seek to resolve disputes, not to exacerbate them. If he decides to come back, I for one will welcome him. However he must find a way to work with Wikipedia, not against it. --Tony Sidaway 19:57, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

Note to reader: The above is written by a contributor who arguably triggered this whole saga by vulgarly insulting a seasoned editor, who has now left the project as a result (see Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/IRC/Evidence#Evidence presented by Bishonen). So much for abiding by norms, or not exacerbating things. athinaios (talk) 12:31, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

If you'd like to frame the above as a finding of fact then I'm sure the arbitrators will take it into account. --Tony Sidaway 15:03, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

As far as I can see, it's already mentioned/implied in several of the proposals, but thanks. I'm not terribly au fait with procedures here. athinaios (talk) 16:35, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

Serious apologies for the hint of ad hominem, Ph.Sa. I may have issues with your argument, but I mean no personal disrespect. (And thanks for calling me to order rockpocket; incidentally, you are right, I quoted the wrong sentence from PS's userpage. The very next sentence is the relevant one). Yes, obviously we must respect anyone's decision to be here or not, but you know as well as I do that not everyone seems to agree on what constitutes "trolling", but more so that what happened in November ruffled many feathers and still does. I for one, had mostly ignored policy issues up to that point, but became somewhat interested as I noted that an editor I greatly admired (as an editor) was deeply embroiled in the events. Isn't a troll someone who deliberately and consciously works against the project? That was hardly the problem, neither then nor now! Does anyone remember !! and the disrespect he was treated with? I still feel that this whole project ought to be primarily about content and those who provide it, and much less about form or formalities. athinaios (talk) 20:37, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

I couldn't help but note that, at the top of this page there is a boxed notice stating: Basic standards of civility will be enforced. Editors who are uncivil or who are deliberately provocative (i.e. trolling) will be warned, then banned from editing the case pages for escalating periods of time. Incivil and deliberately provocative? Giano wears those badges with pride. The whole project is about content, but if we allow Giano to be incivil and deliberately provocative just because he writes good content, why shouldn't I also be incivil and deliberately provocative too. I've written a FA single handedly and contributed to others. What about everyone else that has written a FA, can they be incivil and deliberately provocative at will? What about good article writers, can they choose to be incivil or deliberately provocative, but not both? The whole point of having policies and guidelines is so that there is an environment where everyone can contribute. If everyone is going around being incivil and deliberately provocative then many good content writers of the future may go elsewhere, because who wants to hang around in a place like that. We have to look at the bigger picture, and beyond one editor who, irrespective of writing talent, is unwilling or unable to play nicely with others. Rockpocket 21:25, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

Ok. That makes sense. But are we talking about G's not playing nicely in actual content discussion, or in the more politics-related context? I agree that being uncivil is always bad, but the context does in my mind make a difference. I may not know the full background, but didn't this involve insulting behaviour elsewhere and by others at an earlier point, not to mention the !! trauma, there was a clear impression that this is not an environment where "everyone can contribute"? Please, at least there must be a difference between purely destructive trolling and the behaviour criticised here, as the latter is clearly not based on a will to harm the project. Finally: Why shouldn't you be uncivil and provocative even if and when others are? Because you shouldn't want to be so. athinaios (talk) 21:54, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

If we are talking creative solutions, what about my suggestion that we have account-banning, while still acknowledging the good contributions from that account and still welcoming and thanking the person doing the edits. In other words, an arb-com forced "start from scratch with a new account". This sends a strong signal that the some of the contributions that were made under the old account were not welcome and led to this rarely enacted remedy, but we want the good contributions (the article writing and the standing up for what is right, but not the edit warring) to continue, while trying to shed the unfortunate history that has accumulated. Put the past behind you. A fresh start. This fresh start could be anonymous (with only arbcom knowing what the new account is, or maybe not even them), and those who disagreed with Giano would be warned not to try and find and bait the new account, or it could be fully open. This option of starting afresh could also be given to others inovlved in this who request it. The users in question would also have the option of taking a ban instead (those editing under their real name might be more reluctant to abandon an account with that name), and rehabilitating their old account after the ban, or even editing for a set period under another account (call this type of remedy a sabbatical, enforced or otherwise), and then taking up an option to resume editing under the old account. Is that creative enough? Carcharoth (talk) 19:22, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

Wrong solution Alex Bakharev (talk) 09:35, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

Queluz National Palace is running on the front page the day after tomorrow. Do we want to ban the main contributor of that article? Jehochman ^Talk 04:23, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

Further, Giano led a team of 29 editors to take a start-class article through Feature Article consideration, to FA classification, and to the Main Page in four weeks. That requires leadership and a high level of communication and motivational skills. So maybe the problem here isn't Giano at all. Risker (talk) 04:32, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

Perhaps he might like to, and perhaps a significant minority would prefer if he did, but Giano doesn't "lead" Wikipedia. Perhaps the required skills to "lead" other editors in writing articles are not the same ones required to edit project space in a civil, constructive and policy compliant manner. Maybe thats the problem. Rockpocket 05:19, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

Rockpocket, even Jimbo has conceded Giano's main points, that some people have been made to be uncomfortable on IRC, and that there has been verbal abuse of at least one user; the evidence of these problems is all over this RFAR. Jimbo considers it serious enough that he has put both Arbcom and himself at the disposal of people who encounter these problems. It is disproportionate to suggest that a person be banned for a year for saying the right things in what some consider to be the wrong way. Indeed, before Jimbo's proposal on how to manage future situations, it was unclear how anyone could have said this in the right way. What would have been the right way to inform potential IRC users that the language can be inappropriate or some users have been made to feel uncomfortable? Risker (talk) 05:52, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

I'm not suggesting someone be banned for one year (you'll note I opposed the proposal, above), neither am I suggesting Giano doesn't have a point about IRC (I have never used IRC for admin purposes, have no intention of doing so and do not consider it a positive force). My point is only that any amount of FA writing does not excuse repeated and willful disruption in project space. Just because one is an excellent writer and skilled at directing a group of acolytes, does not excuse one from adhering to simple policies that the rest of us are expected to. Clearly simply reminding Giano of this didn't work. So if there is not some remedy to get this through to Giano, then we will find ourselves back here again in a few weeks. How do we stop that happening? By restricting his ability to cause further disruption, preferably without interfering with his article writing, but if that is being held to ransom then so be it. Rockpocket 06:30, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

"acolyte" is probably not quite the right word here. It was more a team of editors of varying skills and experience. Hey, that's an idea. The best remedy would be for all the named parties to work together for a month to produce a featured article! Just not something involving IRC... Carcharoth (talk) 15:12, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for your response, but you have not answered my key question, and in fact have completely avoided it. I understand that you think Giano went about this the wrong way. What would have been the right way to inform potential IRC users that the language can be inappropriate or some users have been made to feel uncomfortable? We are considering sanctioning a valuable member of the community (nobody seems to doubt this) because he did something the wrong way. But nobody has yet identified what the right way would have been. Risker (talk) 06:38, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

Do you really have to use the term acolyte (= "assistant or follower") here, considering that it is normally used in a dismissive fashion? Those people have turned an article from fairly middling to mainpage in two weeks (I'd argue that it is no one of the best articles about a building on all wikipedia). There is no good reason to describe the guy who went to take photos of the interior of the palace, or the guy who made an interactive map, as acolytes of Giano. Being dismissive of non-prominent editors is a class-A sin. athinaios (talk) 12:52, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

I don't honestly know. I guess there were a number of options I would have tried. Giano could have appreciated his presence would have caused more heat than light done nothing publicly, but emailed ArbCom and/or Jimbo for advice on how to proceed (I'm not entirely sure why he needs to take it upon himself to adopt everyone else's battles on Wikipedia as his own, anyway). He could have opened an RFC, he could offered a case for ArbCom, he could have heeded WP:3RR, "a policy that applies to all Wikipedians, and is intended to prevent edit warring", and instead discussed it on the appropriate talk page. If he had done all these things, and was ignored and rejected, then I may accept that he had be driven to edit warring to get the issued addressed. However, as far as I know that didn't happen.

It looks like Giano has managed to divert attention to IRC, which may be a good thing, but was there really a need for all the drama? We will never know now, since this appears to be his established MO: stoke up the drama and people begin to take notice. Let me be clear, I am not endorsing a sanction of a valuable member of the community for doing something the wrong way. I am endorsing a sanction for someone who persistently (and I now believe. knowingly) does things the wrong way, because the wrong way has worked to his liking in the past. Lets not forget only weeks ago ArbCom noted that very concern, his "refusal to assume good faith, a lack of respect for project norms, and an unwillingness to resolve disputes utilizing the dispute resolution mechanism". So let me ask you a question: can you honestly say that Giano's recent behaviour appears mindful of that finding? If not, why wouldn't history repeat itself again, and what would you suggest ArbCom do towards ensuring it doesn't? Rockpocket 07:17, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

(<---Unindent) Well, it seems that Giano *did* take it to the talk page, but nobody bothered to talk to him. Instead, an administrator edited out all references to Giano's edits while the page was under protection. An arbitrator emeritus, at that, and without posting to the talk page beforehand and trying to defuse the situation. It makes it a little difficult to assume good faith. Now, if an administrator is going to do that, what reason would any editor in this situation have to believe that an RFC would have survived even its formation? Why would any editor feel there was a chance at an open hearing of the issue with Arbcom, when the owner of the channel is a member, several of its members are chanops, and an arbitrator emeritus is editing the page while it is under protection? And Jimbo was already involved, and had proposed a solution; that solution is essentially "take it to a chanop, if no satisfaction take it to Arbcom, if still no satisfaction take it to Jimbo." Well, let's see. Chanops have certain responsibilities and abilities; however, we find that several of the individuals listed as chanops are rarely in the channel, and we hear that their main role is to activate new users. Arbcom has the authority to...do what, exactly? They have no authority to take action within the channel, and no authority to take on-wiki action against off-wiki activity. Jimbo *might* have some moral suasion with the channel owner and chanops, but again he has no recognized authority in the channel except as a chanop himself. That actually raises an interesting question. People have spent hours and hours on this page discussing whether or not Arbcom should assume some form of responsibility for this channel of IRC (the proposal hasn't been brought up for any other channel to my knowledge). Has JamesF given any statement, as the channel owner, whether or not he is willing to cede any form of control or authority to Arbcom, or even to Jimbo? For that matter, has anyone asked the Foundation if it still disclaims any authority or responsibility for the IRC channels? If the WMF disclaims responsibility for the channels, how can the Arbcom of one project assume any responsibility for events that occur on that channel?

So, back to your question. The situation is that the editor, having been edited off the page, goes to the talk page, but nobody will talk to him, and an administrator violates WP:PROTECT to remove his edits. The editor is handed a solution to his situation that raises far more questions, all the way to the Foundation level, than it actually solves. The owner of the channel, even a week later, hasn't commented at all about whether he finds any of the proposed solutions to be acceptable. Several members of Arbcom are involved in the situation already, either because they are chanops or owners of the channel, so there is no need to "take it to them." There is no remit in the Arbcom policy to accept cases that involve off-wiki behaviour. And let me ask you about "all this drama." What drama? This was one page being edit warred over. It happens every day all over the wiki, over dozens of articles. The only thing that makes this edit war at all unusual is the level of the administrators and editors involved in it. If this had been some 9/11 conspiracy page, people would barely have noticed. People barely notice the edit wars and page protections going on with actual WP policies and guidelines. There was no 3RR report filed. The early page protections were done without a request at WP:RFPP. There was no report to ANI until after Phil Sandifer's block well after the edit war had ended. (Has anyone asked Phil how the edit war came to his attention?) This was a confined edit war that was resolved in situ. In fact, the drama didn't happen until someone completely uninvolved filed an RFAR, and Phil made the 3RR block. Only then did this matter leave WP:WEA and the talk pages of those immediately involved. Risker (talk) 08:36, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

There was shoddy behaviour from a number of people here, no doubt, and Giano is no more guilty than a lot of others in that respect. However, there is a process one should go through. Suggesting an RFC would be pointless because, who would "believe that an RFC would have survived even its formation?" Well, I happen to think it would, and even if it hadn't, at least one should try and then demonstrate that it was removed.

There are lots of justifications that editors can used to explain their actions, but the bottom line is people who should know better have consistently and repeatedly flouted our policies and community norms, apparently because they thought (and appear to continue to think) that there is justification for it. I find that galling at the best of times, but particularly so from editors who have made a wiki-career out of chamionin the little man, and complaining that admins get special treatment. If the editors involved were at least willing to acknowledge ArbCom's concerns and intend to address them, I wouldn't be so bothered. But all I have seen is coded threats that any sanction will result in a blockage of the FA pipeline (and since we obviously can't have that, we better just do nothing, right?)

I don't pretend to know what the ultimate solution is here. It would be foolish to suggest Giano, although an agent provocateur, is the only problem. He's not. But unless the Arbs do something to stop this ongoing pattern, we will be back here again, and again. Rockpocket 09:24, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

I appreciate that it is difficult to come up with a good solution here; I believe that part of the reason it is difficult is that, despite the fact that many people behaved badly, none of their behaviours really justifies it being here in front of the Arbitration Committee. In fact, the only good reason for this matter to be in front of Arbcom is the issue of their having some form of control over IRC - a systemic issue. I'm still trying to figure out what RFC people think should have been filed, and how filing an RFC would have decreased the already minimal drama; in fact, had Giano filed an RFC, there would have been a case to make that he was *increasing* the drama. He never took the dispute off the page except to talk pages of individuals directly involved - an approved dispute resolution method. He never escalated it to ANI or AN, never publicly "called out" any of the questionably behaving admins involved, and certainly didn't involve the Arbitration Committee. Does anyone really think that if Giano had brought this issue to Arbcom, it would have been seen as anything less than drama? No, the drama only happened well after Giano had withdrawn from the dispute. Aside from breaking 3RR on an obscure page (something that an admin did as well), there is nothing here.

Wikipedia has no effective method to identify and address systemic problems; instead, it treats them as individual behavioural problems. The way that IRC is handled on the project is a systemic issue, despite the clearly bad behaviour of certain individuals both while in the channel and in defending it. Attempts to address the systemic issue were made on the talk page of the article about it, and were first ignored, then responded to with a warm-and-fuzzy panacea, the details of which contradict other existing policies of both En-WP and WMF. There is no benefit in addressing systemic problems by taking disciplinary measures against the individuals involved in trying to resolve them, on any side of the issue. Risker (talk) 15:07, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

I agree with Rockpocket that Giano could have tried harder to resolve things before adopting the methods he did. But Risker makes an important point: "This was a confined edit war that was resolved in situ. In fact, the drama didn't happen until someone completely uninvolved filed an RFAR, and Phil made the 3RR block. Only then did this matter leave WP:WEA and the talk pages of those immediately involved." - I completely agree that John254's filing of the ArbCom case and Phil's block, both escalated the situation. A simple page protection and strong warnings to all involved could have de-escalated the situation. Having said that, the discussion surrounding this ArbCom case has served a useful function and made many things clearer. Carcharoth (talk) 15:12, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Giano placed on revert parole

19.1) Giano is placed on parole and may not make any more than one revert, either in whole, or in part within a 24 hour period, to any page outside the article namespace (and excluding obvious exceptions, such as his talk page), for a period to be determined as appropriate. Enforceable by a block not exceeding 24 hours. Any user attempting to have Giano blocked by attempting to force him into making reverts shall also be liable to a block not exceeding 24 hours.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

This could conceivably function as part of a resolution of the problem. --Tony Sidaway 18:54, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

Comment by others:

Proposed. Giano is a recognised contributor of quality edits and he should, in no way, be expected to contribute content without having some say in the way the project is run, but at the same time, his (and others) behaviour needs to be carefully controlled to prevent further incidents such as this from developing. Dunno how workable this is, but I thought I'd throw it in and see what comments it generates. Nick (talk) 18:29, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

We have Wikipedia:Harmonious editing club. I've been a member for a long time and ^almost never revert more than once (except for obvious vandalism). This is hardly a punishment, and it's good advice for all editors to follow. I agree with some form of a "no taunting" provision. We should be very careful not to humiliate anyone. Jehochman ^Talk 20:48, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

7.1 is better Alex Bakharev (talk) 09:35, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

This would help. Stifle (talk) 12:57, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Community admonished

20) The community is admonished for its repeated protection of Giano, and reminded that nobody is exempt from our policies on civility.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Seems to be the only remedy possible for such a broad-based problem as the serial protection and endorsement of Giano's incivility, although the individual admins involved should be looked at carefully. Phil Sandifer (talk) 18:37, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

Admonishing the community for creating a situation that needs to be resolved by the arbitration committee is pointless (if it was likely to do any good, the committee would routinely admonish the community in every single case). The committee's task is not to lament the problem, but having identified it, to resolve it. --Tony Sidaway 05:31, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

Comment by others:

Phil has really gotten to the heart of the matter here. I am really disgusted at the double standard applied to some users, particularly the reversal of legitimate blocks which only validate the disruptive behavior. It is a popular idea that some users are "unblockable" because it is known that someone will reverse the block no matter how valid it is. This idea is poison to Wikipedia, and unfortunately is not without its truth. 1 != 2 18:44, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

Agree on the strongest possible terms. --Coredesat 19:38, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

At risk of being the next one admonished specifically, bullshit. Giano was uncivil, true. Ever heard of the phrase it takes two to tango? This is kicking a former editor who can't defend himself because he's left the project. SirFozzie (talk) 19:42, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

Giano is an editor in good standing, is not blocked, and can defend himself if he desires. I think it would be unwise to use his lack of participation here as a justification to avoid remedies that apply or refer to him. — Carl (CBM · talk) 20:27, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Seeing as this remedy is aimed at the community and not Giano himself, I don't see how this is a case of kicking someone when they're down. This remedy would serve as a reminder to others not to let something like this happen again. --Coredesat 20:28, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

This is shockingly arrogant. "The community" is Wikipedia. This would be like the House of Representatives "admonishing" the American people. Arbcom exists for our sake, not vice versa. *** Crotalus *** 20:48, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

I totally agree. How dare the community decide to stand behind an controversial editor. Who do they think they are? CharonX/talk 21:23, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

Admonish the community? That's hilarious. Does anyone remember this poem by Bertolt Brecht (and yes, it is relevant): After the uprising of the 17th June/The Secretary of the Writers Union/Had leaflets distributed in Stalinallee/Stating that the people/Had forfeited the confidence of the government/And could win it back only/By redoubled efforts. Would it not be easier/In that case for the government/To dissolve the people/And elect another? Happy new year. athinaios (talk) 11:11, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

• this is not current practice. Admins and Arbcomm treat a number of editors with special civility rules. --Rocksanddirt (talk) 18:51, 2 January 2008 (UTC)
• This proposal is far too narrow. There are dozens names that could be substituted for "Giano" above. There are probably _hundreds_ who could get away with incivility a newbie couldn't, were they so inclined. —Random832 15:26, 3 January 2008 (UTC)
• It wouldn't be the "community" being admonished, it would be more likely to apply to those who play favorites towards Giano (or anyone else for that matter). Giano is like every other member of this community, regardless of the amount of content wrote and behavior. Either Giano needs to obide by it's policies and guidelines, or he needs to be blocked for not following them. We can't have administrators unblocking him from disruptive behavior, 3RR, personal attacks, incivility, etc. because they like him and that he has wrote a good article before. — Save_Us_229 07:49, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

People are overstating his incivility in order to discredit his arguments for change. What they should be doing is defending their own (some would argue untenable, with little or no basis in reality or fairness) positions instead of attacking him on something which, at the end of the day, matters little. And if you want to go down this road, I'm sure arguments could be made that implicate most of Giano's most prominent detractors in being given a free pass for questionable behaviour. DEVS EX MACINA _pray 08:59, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

It's not only incivility and personal attacks, it's also repeated and blatant revert warring and the like in this case. I respect anyones opinion on something, but if they can't respect policy when they show their position on something, then they shouldn't express it. Giano repeatedly fails to follow some of Wikipedia's core policies and yet editors show favoritism by unblocking him when he is justifiably blocked. I'm sure there are arguments that could be made for his detractors, hence why I said who play favorites towards Giano (or anyone else for that matter). And the road to stop favoritism to certain editors and not to others is certianly a road I would like to travel. — Save_Us_229 09:37, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

This is a valid remedy although expressed poorly. Stifle (talk) 12:58, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] The community is admonished (invested users)

21) The community is admonished for its inconsistent stance in relation to long-term invested users, both as regards their protection and their disciplining. In both cases, the aim is to encourage the building and writing of the encyclopedia, not to engage in internal politics, populism or feuding.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Proposed. A more balanced version of Phil Sandifer's version (which focused on Giano). No names - there are too many to name. Carcharoth (talk) 20:22, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

This issue does indeed go beyond Giano, so I like the direction it is taking. It makes this place look like an old boys club to any new comer when they see established users being given such license to violate the same policies that new users are routinely blocked for. 1 != 2 20:30, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

You're walking down a dark path, are you sure you want to go any further? I know "there is no cabal" and everything, but one would argue that this protection exists for many of Giano's "enemies" as well, and I'm not sure Phil Sandifer and Tony Sidaway in particular would like a more thorough investigation into any sort of "old boys club". DEVS EX MACINA _pray 07:48, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

I would want to see evidence of other users being protected. Phil Sandifer (talk) 20:39, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

This could be a long list... What sort of "protection" are you looking for? Exactly the same as in Giano's case or different? Carcharoth (talk) 20:45, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

There are lots of users that have the respect of a certain section of the community, be they collaborators, friends, those they regularly socialise with on IRC or whatever. Quite naturally said sections of the community will back their friends and treat their actions differently to how they would another. It's part of life and part of Wikipedia. violet/riga (t) 22:41, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

Sure. That's human nature. We can't regulate against that. But the checks and balances in place are supposed to prevent cliques and cabals forming. Friendships can help Wikipedia, but they can also harm it. The only way to counter that sort of thing is to insist on openness and transparency. Carcharoth (talk) 01:12, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

Indeed - any on-wiki action should be supported by justifications on-wiki. violet/riga (t) 11:20, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

Phil, do you really want to see a list of editors who have been protected? If so, does that include editors whose blocks have been quickly lifted, or whose embarrassing comments or unethical edits have been admin deleted or oversighted, or whose user talk page histories were incorrectly admin deleted, or whose evidence of wrongful actions have been "courtesy blanked" from public discussion forums? I think such a list would make interesting reading, but I'm not sure this ArbCom case is the place to present it. Cla68 (talk) 00:12, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

Again, I don't think that Arbcom even has the power to admonish "the community" from which they derive their authority, nor do I think they want to do so. *** Crotalus *** 20:49, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

How dare the community change it's mind. All we know is that they are just a couple of lazy gits. I challenge you to show me a single good contribution made by them. Damn those kids! I say, let's ban the community from wikipedia for life! CharonX/talk 21:27, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

Even if it made sense for Arbcom to admonish the community (which it doesn't), the committee itself has been complicit before in many cases of this "inconsistent stance". Including this case. Since they are in a unique position to actually do something about it, why isn't this proposal "Arbcom is admonished"? -Amarkov moo! 22:22, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

So we're blaming user conduct issues on society now? Mr.Z-man 00:47, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

I dashed this off in response to Phil's proposal. In retrospect, that was a bad idea and not needed. I agree that references to the community are not needed here. The real issue is problematic conduct by several invested users. Carcharoth (talk) 01:12, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

Of course arbcom can admonish the community. Anyone can admonish anyone, it is symbolic and does not need special authority. 1 != 2 16:01, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] WP:WEA deleted and salted

22) Because it has caused substantial disruption and is not part of the encyclopedia, Wikipedia:IRC channels/wikipedia-en-admins and its associated talk page shall be deleted and protected against re-creation.

Comment by Arbitrators:

I do not intend to endorse the deletion of pages that cause disruption. It sets a bad precedent. Lots of bad things happen on lots of pages. --Deskana (talk) 18:07, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Proposed. *** Crotalus *** 20:58, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

I'm not sure the ArbCom can rule on this (it's not encyclopedic content, but then again, it is still a page). A better solution would be to move it to Meta (along with other pages on various IRC channels), but I don't think the ArbCom can rule on that, either. --Coredesat 21:00, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

Bear in mind that it's only out of their choice that the Arbcom doesn't rule on content disputes. In any case, I can't see that this really falls into that category. David Mestel^(Talk) 09:55, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

That would just make it even more of a cabal because there wouldn't even be a page telling admins how to request access. --B (talk) 21:02, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

Bad idea. Handing this down via ArbCom will only help keeping the issue inflamed (besides the question whether ArbCom can actually do this) as it would seem like "the powers that be" decide something, and Joe Average gets told "My Way or the Highway". CharonX/talk 21:30, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

The IRC channel has caused disruption because people complain about its privacy. Clearly, the solution is to make it secret too! After all, didn't we just determine that everyone loves "sooper sekrit" lists? -Amarkov moo! 22:25, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

No. Reasoning is not acceptable. We do not delete controversial pages. Protection would be a valid option, deletion is not. If you want to delete it, you need to support that somehow, and claiming that it has caused disruption is not sufficient to merit deletion. --uǝʌǝsʎʇɹnoɟʇs(st47) 22:32, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

Moving offsite or merging with the main WP:IRC page (and removing all but a basic description and access request) would be better. Mr.Z-man 00:49, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

If the channel is recognized as an off-wiki space, the decision is correct Alex Bakharev (talk) 09:39, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

I have stated on the evidence page that WP:WEA is likely unneeded. Why not delete it? GDonato (talk) 14:30, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Arbitration Committee confirms "#wikipedia-en-admins" unofficial status

23) The Arbitration Committee acknowledges that the IRC channel "#wikipedia-en-admins" was not approved by any on-wiki community and does not hold any official status within the project nor is regulated by any project community. The Committee also acknowledges that the purpose of the Wikipedia:IRC channels/wikipedia-en-admins page is to make the channel more accessible to any unaware administrators due to the channel's current popularity. Finally the Wikipedia:IRC channels/wikipedia-en-admins page should reflect the stated status of the channel.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Close to true, but not quite. By Jimbo's decree, the channel is regulated by the arbcom and by him. The truth of the matter is that IRC has a subtle relationship and status with the project that is not easily summed up by "unoffiical" but that also is not a part of Wikipedia proper as such. It is best described as an important side forum that the main project keeps an active hand in due to its importance. But, in the end, I think the relationship between the project and IRC is one that resists codification. It works because of its subtlety and ambiguity. Much of the problem in this case, I think, comes from people with a distaste for ambiguity and the belief that any rule that is not full of bright line distinctions and unambiguous decrees is not only ripe for abuse, but being abused. Phil Sandifer (talk) 14:49, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

Comment by others:

Proposed. I think the statement is true and this simple remedy will fix one aspect of the problem aside from the edit warring. Note, I am not hiding my username/identity, I haven't used my account in years and feel no need to login since I'm only an observer. 206.248.183.245 (talk) 00:18, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

A good proposal - either the channel is official, meaning that arbcom has jurisdiction over it, or it is unofficial and care is taken not to present it in such a way. violet/riga (t) 11:22, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

Support. --uǝʌǝsʎʇɹnoɟʇs(st47) 13:09, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

See findings of fact 4.2.24 and 4.2.25. ArbCom needs to make some finding here, either that IRC is an official outlet, and thus on-wiki standards of behavior are expected, or that it is unofficial, and thus receives no special protection. I think the relationship between the project and IRC does not resist codification at all; rather, certain individuals are resisting codification. As for Phil's blithe assertion that the relationship between IRC and Wikipedia "works," I'm compelled to point out that this is the umpeenth arbitration case that has arisen because of capricious and arbitrary bad behavior on IRC. A little codification would have saved us an awful lot of grief. Nandesuka (talk) 15:43, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

Accusations do not equate to evidence. As I commented in a proposed finding, no evidence of the misuse of IRC in any way that extends beyond IRC has been presented. Phil Sandifer (talk) 15:56, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

Well it either official or not, we cannot have it both ways Alex Bakharev (talk) 09:42, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Logs from "#wikipedia-en-admins" can be posted publicly

24) A notice is set to show that logs on "#wikipedia-en-admins" can be posted publicly.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

In general, no - the channel is designed as a locked down channel so that BLP issues can be discussed. Without findings that provide a reason why this has to change it should not. Phil Sandifer (talk) 14:51, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

Comment by others:

Proposed. Not really sure if I agree with it because I've never been into the channel and don't know if there is an particularly sensitive content that should not be reproduced. This is just a possible way forward. violet/riga (t) 13:50, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

• based on above discussions, if the channel is a work channel then no. I would like it to have have an official log that can be sent to arbcom as needed, but that's just me. If it is a social channel (as also discussed above) then any expectation of privacy should be limited, and logs should be post, but only as appropriate to actual on-wiki activity. --Rocksanddirt (talk) 18:58, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

Rocksanddirt, the channel is both a social medium, and is used to discuss BLP issues which are probably best not brought on wiki. I can agree with a bot logging and sending the weekly logs to an arbitrator. But, what would be the point? Why log? Mercury 19:56, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

grrr. my nice response a couple hours ago was lost in the random anon vandalism. The reason to log is that folks don't play nice, and use the channel inappropriately. We really have to decide if the whole irc thing is a help or a hindarence to the project. If it is a help, it needs to be part of the project and subject to all our guidelines about interacting with each other. The quasi-official nature and unclear expectations are an ongoing disruption to the project that will not cease until the irc is either in or out. --Rocksanddirt (talk) 22:37, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Logs from "#wikipedia-en-admins" can be posted as part of Arbitration evidence

24.1) Logs from "#wikipedia-en-admins" can be posted as part of the evidence for an Arbitration case.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Hm. Sure. Phil Sandifer (talk) 14:51, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

How is this preferable to submitting logs to the Committee by email? That method allays any concerns about public display of logs (or at least public display of irrelevant logs, even if there is a case for displaying relevant portions of logs) and makes the submission of logs from multiple sources (to facilitate accuracy checking of logs) much more practicable. --bainer (talk) 04:05, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

Comment by others:

Proposed - alternative version of 24. The logs can be posted because they can be an important part of the evidence in an arbcom and no notice is needed on the channel. violet/riga (t) 13:50, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, good idea, I hope the arbitration commitee accepts it.--Phoenix-wiki 19:37, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

How does this differ from 24? I think there is reason to preserve confidentiality for this channel, but if this or 24 are adopted, it needs to be a "from henceforth" sort of thing, with the notice in the channel pointing out that it is no longer a confidential channel and if sensitve matters (violating the privacy of the innocent or potentially innocent) need discussing, that it should not be done there (this is similar to the provision on the OTRS channel, and on the Stewards channel) ++Lar: t/c 21:23, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

The difference is that 24 says that they are public and thus postable anywhere, with a notice atop the channel, while 24.1 says that this is not the case generally but logs can be posted if it adds to the evidence of an arbcom. violet/riga (t) 12:49, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

This seems blazingly easy to just turn into 24, though. All I have to do is find some arbcom case and then post the log to my hearts content... I can wikilawyer about whether it's relevant for quite a considerable time. No, I don't think this is a good idea. Either logs should be public, or they should not be. You can't be just a little bit pregnant, after all. ++Lar: t/c 01:51, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

To strong. Some logs certainly should not be posted. At any rate publishing of a log should be a matter of last resort Alex Bakharev (talk) 09:44, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

Arbcom is often the last resort. violet/riga (t) 15:16, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Wikipedia IRC logs can be posted as part of Arbitration evidence

24.2) Relevant portions of logs from #wikipedia, #wikipedia-en, and #wikipedia-en-admins can be posted as part of the evidence for an Arbitration case after approval by an arbitrator.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Proposed, a version that covers the 3 main Wikipedia IRC channels (not just the admins' one) and allays concerns over posting of irrelevant logs or sensitive information by requiring arbitrator approval before public posting. Mr.Z-man 00:08, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

Makes sense. --Coredesat 06:21, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

Except, #wikipedia is not a private channel and never has been. Anyone you could think of that you might want not to see a log could be (and many routinely are) in there right now. —Random832 15:19, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Time-limited amnesty from on-wiki conduct standards at IRC

25) During most of 2007 considerable ambiguity existed about whether IRC was an extension of Wikipedia or an off-wiki activity. Wikipedians may have participated there with the reasonable expectation that off-wiki conduct standards applied. Therefore, for the purposes of resolving IRC-related disputes, the Arbitration Committee will apply off-wiki conduct standards when evaluating conduct that took place there between 26 January 2006 and 26 December 2007.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

If the arbitration committee were to really consider both taking direct control of IRC conduct issues, and applying wiki-based conduct standards to private on-channel discussion, then some kind of amnesty might be a good idea.

I don't speak out of self-interest, so I'll make it plain that I fully accept responsibility for my actions and will not bridle at whatever personal remedy is necessary for the peace of Wikipedia. However in order to effect a safe transition to direct rule, other cases arising from long-festering grudges over indiscreet or thoughtless statements in casual conversation would be best avoided.

A more acceptable way of putting this might be for the committee to call on all parties to drop their IRC-based grievances unilaterally. If the parties take it to heart then the effect will be an amnesty satisfactory to all, without any unpalatable hint of compulsion.

It would mean, however, that we should expect an end to inflammatory statements concerning past events on IRC. These ridiculous allegations about conspiracies should end at long last. --Tony Sidaway 20:39, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

In answer to Durova's suggestion that what Jimbo has said implies both direct control by arbcom and imposition of wiki-based standards on private discussion, I quote his words: "Concerns about standards of civility in IRC should be taken up with the channel operators, the Arbitration Committee, and me, in that order." [14]

He also expressed confidence in the functioning of the admins channel. I do not believe that this statement can reasonably be interpreted as implying direct control or a change in the operational standards (which of course imply recourse to complaint, and appropriate sanctions for inappropriate conduct).

I regret my words on channel, and I also regret my inappropriate reaction to attempts to bring the dispute to the wiki. I do not for one minute believe that my behavior reflects badly on the channel, whose chanops took Bishonen's complaint to heart and disciplined me appropriately. --Tony Sidaway 20:55, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

Comment by others:

Proposed per my evidence. This implies no endorsement of any untoward conduct that may have occurred there. The principal individual whose IRC conduct is in question in this case has already resigned from the channel and apologized. Since remedies are intended to be preventative rather than punitive, he is no longer capable of repeating that problem. This finding would simplify any related or subsequent jurisdictional issues, and prevent potential complaints about ex post facto jurisdiction. Durova^Charge! 18:28, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

I do agree that the channel has had a quasi-official status (as a place for Wiki-activities, but not officially Wiki-controlled, even if ArbCom members were the official owners of the channel). The problem I have is that the activities there have had on-wiki effect (undeniable, since we're all here) Hopefully, going forward with Jimbo stating that ArbCom and himself have jurisdiction over ArbCom, it won't repeat.

As for dealing the situation that was the root this ArbCom case, the problem is that folks believed they had special powers over the related on-WP page that regular editors did not have (because they were the owners of the channel, etcetera. That gave the impression that it WAS endorsed by Wikipedia (de facto, if not de jure), so I think that past activity would still need to be discussed as part of this ArbCom case. SirFozzie (talk) 18:41, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

This proposal has no bearing on conduct that occurred at Wikipedia. If there was an edit war, there was an edit war. Durova^Charge! 19:21, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

What I meant (and probably said horribly) was that activities there led to the actions here (Like Tony's comments about Bishonen, one of the reasons for Bishonen's subsequent departure from WP). More of a direct knock-on effect then that. But yes, I do generally agree with you on this. SirFozzie (talk) 19:46, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

How is IRC different in that regard from other venues where off-wiki insults have prompted people to leave Wikipedia? I agree that uncivil conduct is a bad thing, and I particularly dislike statements that smack of bigotry. I also think it's unwise to let a single editor's reaction to particular incidents affect everyone who used the channel during the 11 months when its status was in limbo. Jimbo's statement was sweeping, and in some sense retroactive. Some AGF is appropriate for the other people who used that channel and thought "It's off-wiki, different rules here" and acted accordingly. The community has been far too divided lately. An amnesty makes sense because the status remained in limbo so long. Durova^Charge! 19:58, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

Well, if IRC is no different than other venues then why do we have quasi policy pages for it? Why do we link to different channels from help and reference pages? I don't disagree that it should be completely separate but it isn't treated that way now. And there are folks on this page arguing that it (the admin channel at least) should enjoy special status on Wikipedia. RxS (talk) 21:22, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

That's very close to what I suggested a year ago.[15] Durova^Charge! 00:12, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

This may be putting the cart before the horse, in line with my above comments, amnesty is not required here, and this is unworkable. IRC, is not an extension of WMF, or enwiki. If WMF wants to assert control, they know what they have to do. It is beyond the scope of this local project to assert control however. Mercury 20:04, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

Unless I've misread Jimbo's statement, that is what he asserted. Durova^Charge! 20:44, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

No you read it correctly, however, it is really beyond the scope of Jimbo as project leader, or the AC's remit to manage any off wiki conduct. I've left a message on his talk page. Regards, Mercury 21:12, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

I find that hard to believe. If it's not within Jimbo or the ArbCom's remit, then it doesn't have anything to do with Wikipedia, and the WP:WEA page should be summarily deleted. Leaving it in an inbetween state like it is is not workable. You cannot have the best of both worlds. SirFozzie (talk) 21:22, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

I'm not attempting to have it both ways: I never used the channel. This proposal is a logical extension of Jimbo's declaration. Durova^Charge! 01:34, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

I agree with Mercury when he says it's beyond Arbcom and Jimbo. SirFozzie, I think WP:WEA should be in user space, if anything.
Other than that though, this brings up the issue of if "Jimbo says it, does it make it true?" daveh4h 07:58, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Official IRC

25) The developers are asked to change the text in the error page directing users to freenode; to point instead to a space which is under the control of Wikimedia.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

No Wikipedia or Foundation policies, no principles, and no findings of fact in this or any other arbitration case comes close to furnishing a justification or even an explanation for this proposed remedy. --Tony Sidaway 10:07, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

Misunderstands the role of Freenode here, which exists to provide such spaces to free content projects. Freenode is the appropriate place to house this. It is also worth noting that the link between Freenode and Wikipedia occurs on the Foundation level - that is, the WMF has some Freenode channels associated with Wikipedia, a free content project that they manage. Phil Sandifer (talk) 15:11, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

To put this into perspective, in late 2004 when I started editing Wikipedia seriously, outages were far more common than they are now, and at that time the fault page directed editors to the Wikipedia status page on "OpenFacts", a wiki provided by the BerliOS project. The page seems to be there still and bears edits as recent as September, 2007. The idea that all discussion of Wikipedia operational matters must take place on media under the direct control of Wikimedia seems to be a new one. The Committee could perhaps decide that this should be so, but on the face of it there's no evidence of a need for this. Not to mention that it would be impossible to enforce. --Tony Sidaway 12:37, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

Comment by others:

Proposed. I know this points to #wikipedia rather than WEA, but if it's decided that freenode is "off-wiki space", it's not really more appropriate to send people there than it is to send them to certain other external sites. —Random832 15:17, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

Apparently, Wikipedia gets too many hits noawadays to set up some sort of error server economically. That's what I've been told, anyway. - Mark 09:02, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

Tony, if freenode is entirely out of the control of the foundation and the community, it is absolutely inappropriate to be giving it the appearance of being "official" in this way. It should never have been put on the error page in the first place. Placing a link to #wikipedia on the error page constitutes an endorsement of that channel. —Random832 14:38, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

I fully agree with random. either it's in or out. no more middle ground. If it's out, this case is easy - delete the page and tell everyone to play nice, tony sends bishonen flowers. if it's in - ban giano, deadmin all the admins for inappropriate use of admin tools, have a community discussion on the procedures and rules for use. --Rocksanddirt (talk) 17:29, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

Support, while it is unofficial it should not be referred as an official Alex Bakharev (talk) 01:00, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

Pointing people to IRC for further info puts an undue burden on unsuspecting end users who don't already use IRC. The right place for this is some other web site, not an IRC channel. Friday (talk) 01:06, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

I have commented very little elsewhere, but I feel this remedy, and Friday's response, above, nicely sum up what I believe needs to happen. If Wikipedia cannot be run without a closed-doors meeting room in which administrators can discuss BLP and other issues, very well, though I do not believe that to be the case. But that meeting room should belong to WMF, not to a random administrator who, amongst other capabilities, can grant and restrict access however (s)he may see fit (see elsewhere for more on that last part). Jouster  (whisper) 14:33, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Giano placed on modified probation

26) Giano II (talk · contribs) is placed on modified probation. His account may be blocked by any arbitrator for any edit(s) deemed to constitute edit warring, incivility, or other disruption. Any such block carries the full force of a ban by the Arbitration Committee, and may not be reversed except as expressly authorized by the full Committee. As with any unblocking of a user banned by the Arbitration Committee, any administrator who reverses a block placed against Giano's account in this manner without appropriate authorization may be subject to emergency desysopping.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

An original and innovative approach, but fatally flawed. For all the high motives of this proposal, its effect is to say that Giano must tread on eggshells, and even at his best behavior if one single administrator honestly believes any single action by Giano to be disruptive then he may be blocked without appeal or discussion. Whether applied to Giano or any other Wikipedian, this isn't workable and if applied could only exacerbate conflict. --Tony Sidaway 04:38, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

The proposed remedy states that Giano "may be blocked by any arbitrator" (emphasis added), not any administrator. To avoid unjustified blocks under this remedy, only members of the Arbitration Committee could place them. John254 05:01, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for correcting my error. The enforcement component of the proposal, to have arbitrator enforcement, seems to resemble some proposals made by Mackensen and Kirill on Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Durova/Proposed decision#Proposed_remedies (see proposed remedies 7.1 and 7.2). I think this kind of "judge, jury and executioner" proposal makes the arbitrators, not to mention the community, a little uneasy. --Tony Sidaway 05:14, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

What else can we do? Many of the blocks placed against Giano's account have been unjustified. With such a history of inappropriate blocks, we could hardly permit any administrator to issue a block having the force of an Arbitration Committee ban. Yet, if a block under this remedy didn't have such force, some administrator would almost certainly reverse it. This appears to be the only workable remedy if we wish to retain Giano as a contributor, while permitting disruption to be suppressed. John254 05:20, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

I suspect that the blocks placed by arbitrators would continue to be seen as unjustified by a significant proportion of the community. My advice to the arbitration committee, if they asked for it, would be to tread with care. A mounting series of finding of fact over several cases is of great normative value, and this should not be devalued by making potentially damaging remedies. Two cases of highly inappropriate activity, in quick succession, establish an undeniable trail of deliberate and knowing disruption. A third case, if it should become necessary, would be a much better time to consider serious remedies. It would be enough for now that the history of severe disruption can no longer be written off. The ball would then be in Giano's court. --Tony Sidaway 05:41, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

With respect to Risker, it seem to me that the arbitrators are already voting on such a proposal in this case, and made such a Finding of fact in another case that concluded barely three weeks before the events of this one. --Tony Sidaway 06:44, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

You misunderstand me, Risker. I refer not to this proposed remedy but my own proposal that findings are far more valuable at this stage than remedies, and to repeat my words above: two cases of highly inappropriate activity, in quick succession, establish an undeniable trail of deliberate and knowing disruption. I agree that there will be other valuable effects, but this should probably be enough, in my opinion, to persuade Giano to modify his behavior. --Tony Sidaway 06:57, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

Comment by others:

Proposed. While Giano has been an excellent contributor of encyclopedic content, some of his actions in the project space have been quite disruptive. Efforts to control such disruption by blocking Giano's account have frequently resulted in block wars. This remedy would permit disruption by Giano to be suppressed, while avoiding severe sanctions such as namespace and long-term project bans, and would prevent further block wars. John254 19:45, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

When you filed this case, you focused on Giano. Do you see the behaviour by others in this matter as inappropriate, or is Giano the only problem here (you may want to examine the Evidence page)? Moving on to your proposed remedy, who does the "deeming" regarding edit warring, incivility and disruption? And if the Arbitration Committee finds that someone "deemed" incorrectly, would you support sanctions being placed on any admin who incorrectly blocked Giano? My view is that this sort of probation would lead to increased drama over potentially quite innocuous actions by Giano. Finally, talk of measures involving 'suppression' sound like an attempt to limit discussion that is often needed. Your method suppresses the disruption, but would also suppress the views being expressed. Carcharoth (talk) 03:48, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

With regard to the question of "sanctions being placed on any admin who incorrectly blocked Giano", I note that the proposed remedy states that Giano "may be blocked by any arbitrator" (emphasis added), not any administrator. It is unlikely that members of the Arbitration Committee itself would impose inappropriate blocks. With regard to the question of whether I "see the behaviour by others in this matter as inappropriate", I note that I attempted to include all users involved in the dispute as parties when I filed the case, and that the enactment of this remedy against Giano would not prevent the issuance of remedies against other users. I have given greater attention to the remedy against Giano because of the history of block wars on his account. John254 05:02, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

Furthermore, with regard to the claim that "talk of measures involving 'suppression' sound like an attempt to limit discussion that is often needed", I hope that it would be possible to distinguish between legitimate discussion, and unacceptable disruption. John254 05:33, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

I concur with Carcharoth's analysis. When we actually look at that block log, we see things like admins blocking him for providing evidence in an RFAR, blocks which were instituted without prior discussion with Giano, blocks for "personal attacks" that (when the relevant statements are read) are actually critiques of the actions of individuals and not personal attacks. I will concede there are some reasonable blocks here, but there are a lot of "because he's Giano" blocks here too. It strikes me that an awful lot of the drama associated with Giano is in overreaction to anything he says. This proposal would require that somebody has to run to an arbitrator to make what can be considered a legitimate block, which again heightens the drama, and practically guarantees that the block will become an RFAR. Risker (talk) 04:55, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

The requirement that any block against Giano under this remedy be placed by a member of the Arbitration Committee is designed to avoid unjustified blocks. The matter would not become a request for arbitration, unless other members of the Committee disagreed with the block -- even then, such a disagreement might be handled as motion in a prior case, rather than a completely new arbitration. John254 05:35, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

In response to Tony Sidaway at 05:41, 6 January 2008 (UTC), I again point out that an edit war on a little-known page that didn't even get a mention at AN or ANI can hardly be considered "severe disruption," and that the real drama came well after the edit war was over. All parties were responsible for the level of disruption on that page, but a huge chunk of the silliness on that page is directly related to the use of admin tools - editing through another admin's page protection, changing duration of page protection, deleting the page, etc. Giano did none of these things - because he does not have the tools to do them, and has never sought them. He has only editing and going to the talk page; I don't dispute the edit warring, but he was one of the few people over there on the talk page. Admin tools (contrary to the aphorism) are a big deal, it requires far more misbehaviour to remove them or persuade an admin not meeting minimal standards to give up the tools "under controversial circumstances," when similar behaviour would have a non-admin editor on a long-term block or ban.

John254, I see where you're coming from, although of course anyone could request the block review from Arbcom. I am concerned that there could be some unforeseen problems - mostly to do with the community's faith in Arbcom, if one arbitrator is seen to be blocking unreasonably and being overturned by the committee. I also note that motions related to prior cases take weeks to be resolved, on the whole - understandably so in some cases given the workload - and that may be a drama-generator all by itself. Risker (talk) 06:26, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

In response to Tony Sidaway at 06:44, 6 January 2008 (UTC), you are incorrect. They are voting on proposed principles and findings only, not remedies or enforcement, the categories under which this proposal would fall. Risker (talk) 06:50, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

Do not see any merit in it. Giano was a much lesser problem there than the unclear status of the #admin channel and that of the admin abuse their tools. To stop Giano from edit warring on the essay we only need the essay protected (or Giano warned with a block). To stop admins editwarring we need an arbcom or stewards Alex Bakharev (talk) 00:58, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

This would also help. Stifle (talk) 12:59, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

I could see this possibly working. --Coredesat 07:50, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Tony Sidaway banned for 1 year

27) Tony Sidaway is banned for 1 year.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Nobody is being banned for 1 year in this case. Personally, I don't think anyone should be banned at all, which is not to say that I think much of the behavior that was displayed. Newyorkbrad (talk) 00:53, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

Comment by parties:

In response to Brad: I cannot speak for anybody else but myself, but for myself I can say that I willingly put on this coat of sackcloth and eat these ashes for my sins against Wikipedia. We must end this horrible and silly state of warfare. --Tony Sidaway 16:05, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

Comment by others:

proposed. Ever since he was desysopped, he has been a troublemaker all over the place and carefully gaming the rule with the intent of trolling. Now, he drove Bish, the greatest asset of wikipedia, out of the project. He focuses on wikipolitics and wikidrama. Sorry to say this, but get a life. Anyway, One thing to keep in mind is whether this editor is counterproductive (ie. Doing more harm than good) and he clearly is. He is probably the biggest liability since Ideogram.--Certified.Gangsta (talk) 09:43, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

Very, very, very counter-productive. Banning him won't serve anyone good or do anything that is remotely productive in the long run. — DarkFalls ^talk 09:57, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

I guess him driving out valued editors is considered very productive. Come on, the guy is a vexatious litigant and a pest.--Certified.Gangsta (talk) 09:59, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

Did I say that his activities are productive? No. I merely said that banning him was counter-productive. There's a difference. And as said above on similar proposals, arbcom does not have jurisdiction to your offwiki activities. — DarkFalls ^talk 10:04, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

By the way, please have a check on your civility here. "Sorry to say this, but get a life." — DarkFalls ^talk 10:08, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

We shouldn't refuse to ban people because doing so might cause problems. Ban decisions should be based on whether or not someone has a net benefit, not whether or not people might start complaining. -Amarkov moo! 00:51, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

Oppose, Overkill Alex Bakharev (talk) 00:53, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

You misinterpreted me Amarkov. Counter-productivity to the encyclopedia can mean that banning the user is not a benefit to the encyclopedia. — DarkFalls ^talk 01:24, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

Wow, the pure definition of overkill; between this and the consensus against 11, this is uncalled for. --Coredesat 11:07, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

Overkill? This is the softest remedy I can think of. In fact, it is in the community's best interest to issue a permanent and outright ban given that Sidaway is the master of disruption and that Bishonen, one of the greatest article contributors, has left the project because of him. What benefit does Sidaway bring? Absolutely nothing.--Certified.Gangsta (talk) 08:02, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

The dispute was triggered by off-wiki actions. As I stated earlier, approving such a remedy would set a very dangerous precedent. --Coredesat 07:51, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Geogre and Ryulong admonished

28) Administrators Geogre (talk • contribs • blocks • protects • deletions • moves • rights) and Ryulong (talk • contribs • blocks • protects • deletions • moves • rights) are admonished for failing to observe decorum and for failing to act as role models for the community following the filing of the arbitration case. As detailed in the evidence section here, both Geogre and Ryulong made statements at the arbitration case and then returned to the page in dispute and continued to edit or revert on that page.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Very well then.—Ryūlóng (竜龍) 01:58, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

Comment by others:

Proposed. Follow-up to the evidence I presented. Carcharoth (talk) 00:45, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

Makes sense Alex Bakharev (talk) 00:54, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] WEA channel is opened to non-administrators

29) Access to the #wikipedia-en-admins channel is made available to anyone who requests it.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

We already have #wikipedia - which is full of noise and entirely unproductive. You might as well shut the admins channel down as allow general access - maybe that's the intention, though?--Doc^g 14:51, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

If "noise" is the concern, then deny non-administrators voice by default. Jouster  (whisper) 14:59, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

Comment by others:

Proposed. We already have non-administrators in the channel, putting the lie to an argument that its exclusivity carries some especial purpose. Cabals cannot be formed in the light, and Wikipedia has long been based on openness. To be certain, disruptive activity would continue to result in a channel ban, but why aren't non-administrator users permitted to be in the channel, even, at an extreme, in an unvoiced capacity?

Imagine for a moment that I had proposed that editors on a disputed article be recommended to take their dispute to WEA, where administrators could adjuge the two arguments and render a verdict as to which editor is correct. If your instant (and correct!) response is to say that Talk pages, visible to all, are where such a discussion belongs, then why would you oppose this remedy? Either our processes, policies, and communicatons are open and free, or they are cabalistic and closed. I see very little reason to vasillate somewhere between the two. Jouster  (whisper) 14:47, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

This channel is a private domain. We cannot compel the owner to do anything at all with it. We can sit around all day and wonder why someone would even want such a thing, but it doesn't matter - it already exists. The choice we can easily make is whether or not to advertise this private club on Wikipedia. Friday (talk) 15:30, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

If the channel owner were to refuse an ArbCom ruling, an entire other set of consequences might potentially come into play (or, hell, might not). But the likelihood of that happening is, in my estimation, very, very low. The channel relies on its semi-official status to attract participants; very few administrators would want to be seen as supporting a channel that actively thumbed its nose at ArbCom. Jouster  (whisper) 16:06, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

The Foundation disclaims any responsibility or authority for IRC channels. I cannot see how our project can accept a responsiblity disclaimed by the Foundation itself. Wikipedia does not own the channel because the Foundation doesn't want us to. Much as I may dislike the behaviours I see in the various logs I've reviewed, I believe that the Arbitration Committee has been correct in its past decisions that it has no control over IRC. I do not believe it is appropriate for them to accept responsibility for overseeing activities on #-wp-admins, either. Responsibility without authority is like taxation without representation. It is also wrong to expect arbitrators to show up in the channel and keep an eye on it. They have more than enough work to do here and shouldn't be expected to babysit the IRC channel supposedly populated only by admins, to discuss administrative issues. Risker (talk) 17:05, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

Indeed. We need only cease advertising these channels on the wiki, and the hand-washing is complete. Friday (talk) 17:08, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

I'm uncertain you've read my proposal, Risker. I am not advocating ArbCom taking control of the channel, I'm saying they should make a statement that would hopefully result in a change on the channel. The statement and the requested change are weakly-coupled; that is to say, what ArbCom would be doing is expressing the will of the community in a very direct way, and if the actual owners of that channel were to ignore that edict, we could wash our hands of the whole business. There seems to be a consensus that a real-time method for administrators to communicate, beyond WP:AN/I, is needed. If that is the case, and that venue for communication wishes to continue to use WMF-funded resources to organize itself (and, indeed, to use the "Wikipedia" name and advertise in the "Wikipedia" namespace!), then it must abide by ArbCom not as a matter of fiat, but as a sheer matter of practicality. As I said above, if they choose not to do so, that is a separate issue, but one I do not expect to encounter. Jouster  (whisper) 18:36, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

Regardless of the reason why this would destroy the intended purpose of the channel, this is well outside arbcom's remit. 1 != 2 18:39, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

Normally, I'd agree with you- such obvious conflicts of interest are generally handled by plain-old normal editing. However the community has failed to address the problem in this case. As bizarre as it seems to me, a great many editors see no problem using foundation resources to advertise some private club. Occasionally, arbcom supplies clues when the community is unable to do it by itself. Friday (talk) 18:47, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

The only reason this "private club is advertised" is because of the stink from the last arbitration case and a need to describe the use and purpose. We also have WP:OTRS, which is also a private entity, but that doesn't mean we shouldn't have a project page on it, either.—Ryūlóng (竜龍) 22:46, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

Since when was WP:OTRS a private entity? It is staffed by volunteers doing work for the Foundation. By that definition, en-Wikipedia, edited by volunteers producing an encyclopedia for the Foundation, is a private entity. If you mean private, in the sense that confidential information is communicated, then yes. But the #admins IRC channel is, as others have said, primarily a place where people chat. Do people chat on the OTRS mailing list? Is there an OTRS IRC channel? My point is that there are IRC channels that operate perfectly well without all the chat and flare-ups we've seen from #admins (no matter how little in number the flare-ups are, they are still too many). Carcharoth (talk) 00:30, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

Last I checked, OTRS does have an IRC channel. The main problem that has come about from #admins on Wikipedia is when users air their grievances on Wikipedia to either sling mud or try to circumvent the checks and balances that the channel operators have. During the summer, Matthew claimed that he was getting a live feed of the channel and would only reveal how if someone in the channel went through the reconfirmation process, and only after that, would he say how. The channel is mostly noise, and there are heated discussions, but the channel is used to discuss sensitive matters at times. Its no different than if there was a private mailing list or a private message board.—Ryūlóng (竜龍) 02:08, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

Are you seriously suggesting that ArbCom doesn't—or perhaps shouldn't—have authority over OTRS!? Jouster  (whisper) 15:53, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

No. I'm saying that there are similar private areas that needn't have the access given to the regular user.—Ryūlóng (竜龍) 06:29, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

The data (or essence thereof) from OTRS are available to any user as long as the user trusts the proxy from whom they receive the requested datum. In addition, OTRS does not require you to be an administrator to join (though enPedia requires it in all practicality, and many other projects strongly recommend it).

Regardless of that, however, OTRS is confidential because it's effectively our concentrated cesspool of legal threats, personal information, copyright verification, and similar tomfoolery. WEA appears to be confidential because you don't want the "noise" and because you want a private club for its own sake. I know of no downside, and many upsides, to opening up the channel to, for example, candidates for administrator status.

At the end of the day, this whole argument boils down to WP:DEAL. I've probably been editing the 'pedia longer than the average administrator, and though I don't have their edit counts (ha!) or process knowledge, anyone still ready to accuse me of being a vandal after nearly half a decade of contributions is out of their mind. So why wouldn't I be given access to WEA? Indeed, unlike many administrators, I'm over the age of 18 and have disclosed my real life identity; I arguably should be more trusted than the average administrator.

So, basically, you aren't special, nor is your club. You've got a mop and a bucket because you've shown a willingness to use them and a laudable dedication to using them correctly. Don't make more of that than what it is. Jouster  (whisper) 18:30, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

The whole reason that you would not be allowed into the channel is succinctly for the reason that you have not been an administrator. Surely, someone with your record has a decent chance of being an administrator, but the choice you make in not doing so prevents access to the channel. Candidates at RFA would not be good choices for access to the channel, either, because some surely don't have the trust of the community (long running, but some inappropriate actions that appear to be improper for an administrator). Not all administrators use the channel, and not all administrators feel that the channel is necessary. On the off chance that there are discussions on a particularly sensitive article or topic that should never be open to the public knowledge, then this particular suggestion would be an overall harm to the encyclopedia. Sure, adminship is not a big deal, but that is just covering the role of an administrator. Sometimes the duties are a big deal, such as dealing with pro-pedophilia advocates, suicide threats, school threats from bored children who may or may not be serious, or other situations that may bring the project into disrepute or may require the assistance of real world authorities. The random passerby does not need to be privy to that information, and may do more harm than help by giving access to the channel, should any of those situations should occur.—Ryūlóng (竜龍) 07:18, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

Arbcom doesn't and shouldn't have control over OTRS - OTRS works directly for the Foundation, and is not limited to en. The arbcom has no jurisdiction over its operations. Mind you, the idea that the two would ever come into serious conflict is ludicrous, but still - the arbcom has no jurisdiction over OTRS. Phil Sandifer (talk) 20:36, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Tony Sidaway put on civility parole

30) Tony Sidaway is put on a standard civility parole.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

It's clear that Tony Sidaway's incivility is an ongoing problem. It's highly debateable how relevant this is since

• This proposed remedy would not have covered the off-wiki comments at the time they are made,
• If Tony's comments hadn't "sparked the fire" something else might have, and
• No telling if making Tony behave on-wiki would have any impact on his conduct on the #admin channel.

Regardless, to ignore the contribution this behavior makes overall is short-sighted, and here's an opportunity to rectify it. I won't begin to compile any evidence at this stage, but if/when an arbitrator indicates there's any interest in this remedy I'll do so.
152.91.9.144 (talk) 23:59, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

Seeing as the events in question took place off-wiki, a civility parole would be unnecessary and unenforceable. --Coredesat 14:57, 11 January 2008

I'll accept that "unenforcable" is open to debate, pending the decision as to the status of IRC and its relationship to Wikipedia. However, "unnecessary" is clearly quite wide of the mark. Looking over the recent discussions on Talk:/Proposed decision Tony has had to be reminded twice by an arbitrar to remain civil. ^{[16] [17]} Clearly something needs to be done.
152.91.9.144 (talk) 22:51, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

I have already suggested that a civility parole would be helpful. This is especially relevant here because, I confess, although Newyorkbrad clearly felt that my comments were extremely uncivil, I state in all honesty that I was not aware that they might even be regarded as controversial (I was under the impression that a finding of fact on the matter in question was the only finding that had so far been established). If it should be that my judgement is so poor on such matters, then it is clearly a serious problem for the community. By the way I already resolved the IRC problem, even before the case was accepted by permanently leaving the channel, and having discussed matters with Bishonen I think we've resolved any differences there. --Tony Sidaway 01:28, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Everybody involved in this case banned for one year

31) Everybody who has contributed substantially to the workshop or to any talk page related to this case is banned for one year.

Comment by Arbitrators:

There's a thought. Mackensen (talk) 01:19, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

Comment by parties:

Because, hey, why not? In the end, this case is about the poisonous atmosphere of incivility that grips this project of late. Some people blame it on IRC, others don't. But reading this page it is clear that, regardless of the role of IRC in it, we are all clearly part of this problem. Since nobody seems particularly interested in a careful discussion of the line between baby and bathwater, why not just throw the whole thing out. Phil Sandifer (talk) 20:58, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

Comment by others:

No, I would go for the bathwater alone... saving the baby (sorry, I like cute useful things). I have a pretty strong feeling about who represents the "bathwater" though. --Van helsing (talk) 22:15, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] 1RR for Wikipedia name space

32) The parties decided (in the Findings of fact section, above) to have behaved disruptively in editing the WP:IRC/WEA page are placed on 1RR parole with regards to pages in the Wikipedia name space. They may not undo changes to Wikipedia name space pages, other than blatant vandalism, made by another editor, more than once per page per 24 hour period. This lasts for 1 year. Withdrawing in favor of the similar, but more specific #One revert limit proposed by Thatcher, below.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Sensible enough. Frankly, the project namespace ought to be 1RR for everybody. Mackensen (talk) 01:22, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Proposed. I notice the /Proposed decision has some reasonable FoFs, but no proposed remedies. I agree with MastCell's feelings that this is complete overreaction on (several) sides, and an unnecessary waste of time for everyone involved, and would support his proposal to troutslap everyone involved ... but, as Kirill writes, trout slapping hasn't helped. On the other hand I don't want to ban anyone, and a complete ban on Wikipedia name space is like taking away a citizen's right to vote. This seems a reasonable compromise. There is no reason why restriction to 1RR on Wikipedia space pages should be considered a hidden ban, most reasonable editors recognize that edit warring on policies and such is not a good idea, and work that way already. This just gives a bit of teeth there. If everyone behaves nicely, this isn't a restriction at all. If someone doesn't behave nicely, this is grounds for a block "per arbcom decision", which hopefully will not be reverted by a friendly administrator. Presumably escalating blocks to enforce, but that's a different section. --AnonEMouse ^(squeak) 21:41, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

Withdrawing in favor of the similar, but more specific #One revert limit proposed by Thatcher, below. --AnonEMouse ^(squeak) 18:52, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] 0RR for administrative actions

33) The administrators decided (in the Findings of fact section, above) to have behaved disruptively in using their adminstrative powers (protecting, unprotecting, editing protected pages, blocking or unblocking) are placed on 0RR parole with regards to administrative actions. They may not use administrative powers to undo the actions of another administrator (except for obvious vandalism - do we have to say that?), at all, without first getting that administrator's consent. This lasts for 1 year.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Proposed, similarly to above proposal. Presumably enforcement by "bring this to arbcom and we will speedy desysop"ping. No effect on administrators who behave the way most ... well, many ... administrators behave, but not trout slap, this is "teeth" if this repeats. --AnonEMouse ^(squeak) 21:49, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

Oppose Let's not let administrators become tin-pot dictators. If an administrator makes a wrong decision, and another administrator gets consensus that the decision was incorrect, they should feel free to undo that decision (consensus doesn't mean you IGNORE the administrator who made that decision mind you) SirFozzie (talk) 22:26, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

Historically we consider adminship to be atomic. Either you have all the rights and responsibilities, or you don't. Jehochman ^Talk 01:17, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

A very mild sanction; an admonishment would be almost as strong. Only useful if it would encourage other admins to keep to 0RR. — Carl (CBM · talk) 01:21, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] "The Encyclopedia, Stupid."

34) All involved parties are reminded that the mission of Wikipedia is to write an encyclopedia, and that most of the parties actions in this case have not improved the encyclopedia. SirFozzie (talk) 22:23, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Proposed We're now getting into the silly and asinine. Both sides are proposing "remedies" that are thinly veiled attacks on the other side, and that a vast majority of the activity in this ArbCom has failed when you consider the goal is to improve the encyclopedia. SirFozzie (talk) 22:23, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] All parties banned from Wikipedia-space

35) All parties to this case are banned from editing Wikipedia: and Wikipedia talk: pages. Editing privileges may be restored upon successful promotion of one article to "featured" status.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Not reasonable. Newyorkbrad (talk) 02:56, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Proposed. --Carnildo (talk) 23:45, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

Isn't this going a bit too far? I doubt that everyone involved in this needs to be banned from Wikipedia space. Captain panda 04:16, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

Probably, but this is an encyclopedia we're supposed to be working on. --Carnildo (talk) 05:30, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Phil Sandifer is placed on civility probation

36) Per the finding of fact and evidence of years-long incivility, Phil Sandifer is on indefinite civility probation. Any uninvolved admin may block him for any civility violations, with blocks incrementing in length, to a maximum of one year. As his history of incivility spans many years, and there is no historical basis it will stop, there is no expiration date on this remedy. The party may later appeal to the Committee with Evidence of reformed behavior to have this removed or shortened.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Proposed. Lawrence § t/e 19:45, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Those who run #wikipedia-en-admins are strongly urged to curb its misuse

37) Channel operators are requested to treat the following as a misuse of the channel: engaging in personal attacks; asking other channel members for support in editing disputes in order to gain an advantage; suggesting or arranging a block of other channel members or established users without strong evidence of policy violation and in the absence of an emergency that precludes discussion on Wikipedia; whipping up bad feeling against users in good standing; engaging in behavior that reasonable people would regard as intended to make other channel members feel unwelcome.

The Committee requests that channel operators and the IRC group contact take swift and decisive action against channel members who engage in misuse, including the long-term removal of access after a warning.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Proposed, together with this finding of fact. SlimVirgin ^{(talk)(contribs)} 18:05, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] A list of non-admins with access is maintained

38) Assuming Wikipedia:IRC channels/wikipedia-en-admins‎ is still around, a list of all non-admin users with access could be created and it can be assumed that all admins have access or the opportunity to obtain access. John Reaves 09:18, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

[edit] Proposed enforcement

[edit] Authority over IRC channels

1) The Arbitration Committee shall confirm and agree with the policy stated by Jimbo Wales ([18]) and assume Authority over all IRC channels on the freenode network, that are directly connected to the English Wikipedia.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

This is an alternation of proposed principle 3, that would probably more reflect the issue if it where a new policy. _→AzaToth 01:52, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

This does not seem to me to be what Jimbo is saying in the edit cited. Phil Sandifer (talk) 05:10, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

How else would you interpret it? SlimVirgin ^{(talk)(contribs)} 05:13, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

As the arbcom having the authority to enforce certain policies and standards of behavior in IRC. This is distinct from administrative control over the channels, with the difference essentially being that between the arbcom's function on en and the authority to set policy on en. Phil Sandifer (talk) 05:26, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

What matters is who has the authority over it. Adminstrative control can be removed by the authority, via Freenode, but the authority can't be removed by those who only have administrative control. Jimbo and the ArbCom appear to have assumed authority, or at least a degree of it. SlimVirgin ^{(talk)(contribs)} 05:29, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

For what it's worth, I agree with SV in that it does appear that Jimbo is declaring that he and ArbCom are assuming at least some, if not complete, authority over the IRC in question. Hopefully the ArbCom will clearly state in this case how much authority they have over the IRC and how it will be exercised. Cla68 (talk) 06:18, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

I could be wrong, but I doubt that the Committee is prepared to take on this chalice. --Tony Sidaway 22:42, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

Comment by others:

Oppose, Tim Q. Wells (talk) 20:45, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

Nowhere near enforceable unless we make freenode "official Wikipedia IRC" and grant jurisdiction to the ArbCom. - Penwhale | ^{Blast him / Follow his steps} 21:24, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

"every channel related to wikipedia"?? Not a cat in hell's chance. See my comments above, but ArbCom cannot possibly dream of controlling channels which are owned by users such as myself, under a ## prefix (eg ##wikipedia-en-admins), given that these channels are not under the jurisdiction of the group contacts, and, in freenode's eyes, aren't "offical wikipedia channels". I suspect that if the ArbCom were to try to control such channels, they would get a rare taste of the cluebat from freenode staff. Rewording needed... though the fact is that IRC is effectively under the control of ArbCom already, with JamesF and Dmcdevit being a couple of the big players there. The truth is that this enforcement, or any principle would be totally pointless, as any user could jump ship to another channel. I don't think users will be amused when the ArbCom comes around, waving their diff from GodKing Jimbo, and tries to take control of their private channels. Martinp23 23:48, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

Just to clarify your ambiguous use of "IRC" here, you mean that JamesF and Dmcdevit are "big players" in the #wikipedia IRC channels, rather than "big players" at freenode, right? As far as I'm aware, it is more than JamesF and Dmcdevit who are "big players" in the IRC channels. The impression I get is that several other arbitrators are as well, though that didn't stop what happened here. Carcharoth (talk) 00:15, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

If they want to go ahead and do that, we can just delete the page, because they'd then no longer be affiliated with Wikipedia, right? SirFozzie (talk) 00:20, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

Only in an official sense, and only with enwiki. ArbCom can't change public opinion or meta issues. Mr.Z-man 22:18, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

(e/c) Correct, sorry. The two names sprung to mind as that of the group contact, and of the contact for #wikipedia. I know many other ArbCom members have access on IRC, and agree that they're clearly not using the existing powers properly. What may be needed is a tightening up of channel operation procedures. Still, people can say what hey want on non wikimedia irc channels. It is impossible for ArbCom to regulate off-wiki contact which isn't protected in a similar way to the group contact scheme on freenode. Martinp23 00:22, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

I seriously doubt arbcom would care about yours or anyone else's ## channel. John Reaves 11:00, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

At the very least this needs a channel list as there are many channels somewhat related to the English Wikipedia and to greater extent than others, #-unblock? #wikipedia? GDonato (talk) 13:05, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Solomon solution

2.1) Wikipedia assumes full process and policy authority over the "official" IRC channels specific to the English Wikipedia, in particular the admin channel. All activities there are under the full authority of the Arbitration Committee, as is the wiki itself, and actions on IRC may have repercussions on the wiki. With this, the WP:WEA page becomes an official policy page, with no special provisions applied to it. IRC operators have no special authority over this page or policy related to IRC. IRC policies and rules are decided on-wiki only, by community consensus. All users with access to admin IRC will be recorded on a wiki page in public, and non-admins, including former admins, need community approval (not Arbitration Committee approval) to gain access. No standing admin will be denied access to admin IRC without permission from the Arbitration Committee. All non-admins or non-Foundation employees will be immediately barred access from the channel for security reasons. The Arbitration Committee must approve Foundation employee access on a case by case basis, not the community. Non-Foundation employee access for non-current admins is at the discretion of the on-Wiki community alone. Within x days/weeks of the closing of the IRC arbitration, technical control of the channel must be ceded to the Committee. The Committee will decide what the timeline is when deciding on option 2.1, and it will be fixed with an expiration for the release of IRC control to Wikipedia.

2.1a) If the decision is made by the Arbitration Committee to adopt a stance like 2.1 here, where control rests forever within Wikipedia as an official function, but control is not ceded by the current operators of the relevant IRC channels with a firm and decided time frame (x days, x weeks, determined when option 2.1 is decided upon--the Committee's choice, for the set time frame), option 2.2 becomes mandatory at the expiration of that time frame and IRC is severed from Wikipedia.

2.2) The admin IRC channel and related channels are a third party service with no official or recognized connection to the wiki. Pages such as WP:WEA will be deleted, as Wikipedia has no role or control over third party services. As a seperate outside service, IRC rules and policies carry no more weight on Wikipedia than any other random outside website or service would carry here (such as a message board). Third party rules (IRC rules) are not to be enforced on Wikipedia, as IRC has no sanctioned affiliation with Wikipedia.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

This is not a solution to the problems of Wikipedia. Disruption on-wiki occurred on a pretext of something that happened off-wiki, but those who disrupted the wiki were not those who were involved in the actions off-wiki, and the situation off-wiki was resolved before the disruption on-wiki started. --Tony Sidaway 05:04, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

Comment by others:

Proposed. Stupid name for a solution, but I can't think of anything better. Tossing this idea out for discussion. Either one is a splitting of the IRC baby in half. 2.1's idea is to make the admin channel fully a Wikipedia thing. 2.2 is to toss it out. I'm sure the formatting for this is wrong, but it's two different halves of the same thing. One is fully in, the other is fully out. Why dance around the middle? Just be done with it already. Probably naive, but everyone here seems to want something that the other side doesn't. Autonomy but authority over the wiki. Control. Whatever. A mix. Pick either solution, enforce it forever, and both sides win something, and both sides lose something. Make admin IRC officially a Wikipedia thing: no freedom to act out; it's like Wikipedia but real time then. Cut if off completely: people can do whatever they want, operate it however they want, but have zero authority over anything that then happens on-Wiki in regards to IRC, because IRC is then no different than Yahoo! Messenger. I suggest the Committee take both options, put it to the Proposed Decision, and decide. If neither passes, people will apparently keep fighting on this for another few years. If one passes, great. They were elected to decide this stuff. Either bring it all in, forever, enjoy the IRC. Or cut the cord, goodbye, enjoy the IRC. Hell, just do this as the entire proposed decision. With all the current, outgoing, coming, and going arbiters right now there are more than enough people that were elected to decide.

If the decision is made to cut off IRC, nothing else needs to be done. Delete WP:WEA and related pages, and go write more articles. If the decision is made to bring it in, the community can sort out the rules (mine are just ignorant suggestions). Lawrence Cohen 07:54, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

With some tweaking, this is something that needs to be done. The admin channel needs community driven processes/policy and the reins handed to Arbcom in any dispute. Or sever any formal or informal ties. Flip a coin. But this inbetweeny thing isn't working. RxS (talk) 08:12, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

Added 2.1a. I can't imagine whoever is in charge or IRC refusing the Committee, but throwing it out there for completeness. Lawrence Cohen 09:04, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

I strongly support either of these solutions, without particularly caring which one is chosen. I further propose in advance that anyone who suggests that 2.1 is simply impossible because the IRC server is run by Freenode be buried in a truck full of trout. The problems here are social, not technical. Nandesuka (talk) 01:11, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

Makes sense Alex Bakharev (talk) 10:02, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

The first part of 2.1 is good, but then it defeats its own purpose by setting out most of the rules that the community is supposed to create. As far as 2.2 goes, I would suggest moving the pages to meta as oppsoed to outright deletion. Otherwise it seems like an attempt to kill the Wikipedia IRC channels by removing any mention of them. Mr.Z-man 01:20, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

Well, they were just tossing out suggestions, really, to start some discussion. I assumed that any proposal with this exact wording wouldn't make it into the proposed decision. Lawrence Cohen 18:54, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

To expand on that last bit, pages like this, and most pages in the Wikipedia namespace are descriptive, not proscriptive. Simply deleting it with the rationale that it is no different than any random service or forum does will not make that true. Mr.Z-man 09:20, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

No, it may or may not be true, but sometimes if your body part's health is bad enough you either need to get a transplant and rehabilitate it (take control of IRC) or cut and amputate the thing off (disown IRC and WEA) and throw it in the medical waste bin. Either one will fix your problem in the end. Both have good sides and bad, and both will at once satisfy some people and aggravate others. Either way, the disruption here will be neutralized. Disown: it's all over, no one cares what happens on IRC, and if they do, it has no place on Wikipedia. Bring it in: accountability, and if someone has a problem with IRC, it's addressed here. Someone has to win and someone has to lose unfortunately. Flip a coin. Not flipping the coin means this will just continue how it has which seems unacceptable. Lawrence Cohen 17:08, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

This solution looks very good and constructive, well proposed. GDonato (talk)

[edit] Ignore all rules

3) The recent IRC problems were of such magnitude, and the status of the Wikipedia:IRC channels/wikipedia-en-admins page so unclear, that any recent breaches by editors with respect to that page are officially ignored.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

I suggest ignoring this page and all actions associated with it until the status is clarified. Jehochman ^Talk 14:23, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

Why is this under "enforcement"? Also, I think this excuses bad behavior on the part of many parties, including Giano and Ryulong, and more seriously George and David Gerard. All these parties were well aware that their behavior was inappropriate (or really ought to have been). That doesn't mean we need to come down like a ton of bricks on them, because the impact of the misbehavior was very minimal. Still, actively ignoring is not a good idea. Christopher Parham (talk) 18:58, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

No way. --Coredesat 09:59, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Enforcement - Giano

4) Should Giano II edit in the project namespace despite his ban, he may be briefly blocked for up to 48 hours, increasing to a week after the fifth infringement and to a month after the tenth. Blocks under this section may not be removed other than by the original blocking admin, an arbitrator, or a steward. Removal of the block by any other admin may constitute grounds for summary desysopping by the ArbCom, with the admin's knowledge of this decision taken into account when it makes its decision.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

This is proposed as a first attempt at an enforcement that will stick. Stifle (talk) 15:29, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

Ripe for abuse. Sean William @ 19:41, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

Do you have an alternative suggestion? Stifle (talk) 10:52, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Enforcement

5) Should any party subject to an editing restriction not referred to in enforcement ruling 4 violate it, they may be briefly blocked, for up to a week in case of repeated infringements. After the fifth block, the maximum duration shall increase to one year.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

First attempt. Stifle (talk) 15:32, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Log

6) All blocks shall be logged under "Log of blocks and bans" below. Blocks under section 4 shall also be logged at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents with a prominent warning on the consequences of removing the block.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

First attempt. Stifle (talk) 15:32, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Blocks and Enforcement

7) Blocks carried out to enforce any proposed decision should be done by a member of the Arbitration committee.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Proposed. I think that letting any admin who happens along enforce this is an invitation to drama, and avoiding drama is not something we've perfected yet...to put it lightly. Certainly many if not most admins can be trusted to carry out enforcement here. But the danger of needless drama being created by an admin not aware of the history here, one with an agenda or one who makes a bad call is higher than most cases. I'd rather have proposed enforcement listed at Arbitration enforcement for Arbcoms attention. I'd like to see the prospects of further controversy reduced as much as possible and this seems like a easy way to help with that. A year is a long time. I've cheated and pretty much copied this comment from the Proposed Decision talk page. There is some discussion of it there. [19] RxS (talk) 22:16, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Analysis of evidence

Place here items of evidence (with diffs) and detailed analysis

[edit] Template

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

[edit] Template

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

[edit] Template

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

[edit] Template

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

[edit] Template

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

[edit] Template

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

[edit] Template

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

[edit] General discussion

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

I do not envy those who will read through all this material and come to a decision. The case is nearly as long as Clarissa. Jehochman ^Talk 01:26, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

I printed it out last night and it ran over 250 pages. Will need to plant three trees to make up for that error in judgment. Risker (talk) 01:39, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

We could have had 25 featured articles instead... Jehochman ^Talk 03:04, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

Remedy: each of the thirteen parties is tasked to write two featured articles to make up for lost time! :-) Carcharoth (talk) 03:44, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

Best suggestion I've heard all week, Carcharoth! Risker (talk) 03:48, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

I believe that several of them could readily do it. Newyorkbrad (talk) 03:53, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

This would be an excellent remedy. Jehochman ^Talk 22:26, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Proposed final decision by Thatcher

[edit] Proposed findings of fact

these need diffs and links to evidence, which I can provide if anyone thinks enough of them at this late date to ask Thatcher 18:39, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] #wikipedia-en-admins

T1) #wikipedia-en-admins is an IRC channel set up for administrators and some other trusted users (former admins, mostly) to communicate about sensitive matters. As with any other social space, comments are sometimes off-topic, of a social or personal nature. Message traffic on the channel sometimes deviates significantly from its intended purpose. At least one Arbitrator, having reviewed channel logs from late 2006, called them "deplorable." Poor conduct in channel has had a significant impact on the smooth running of the encyclopedia, reflected in several disputes and Arbitration cases. Following RFAR/Giano, the members of Arbom-L discussed how to improve channel conduct, ultimately asking Mackensen and David Gerard to take a more active role in monitoring #wikipedia, #wikipedia-en and the #admins channel. New chanops were appointed, and some efforts were made to keep channel discussion on-topic and avoid personal matters.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Thatcher 18:16, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Dispute resolution on IRC

T2) In theory, disputes about conduct on IRC are resolved by chanops, who have the authority to ban users from the channel briefly up to indefinitely. Problems with chanops are reported to higher level chanops. In 2006 there was a perception that the chanops were indifferent to conduct complaints, and this view had some validity. Accordingly, new chanops were appointed and efforts were undertaken by David Gerard and Mackensen to improve user conduct on IRC.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Thatcher 18:16, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Bishonen and Tony Sidaway

T3) In September 2006, during a conversation in #wikipedia-en-admins, Tony Sidaway referred to Bishonen as a "bitch from hell." On December 23, 2007, in the same channel, Bishonen attempted to engaged Tony in a discussion of that incident, and Tony resisted, eventually calling her a "bitch" and an "arsehole". Bishonen complained to chanop Mark Ryan, who banned Tony from the channel. The ban was lifted 30 minutes out of concern that Tony had not been given an opportunity to be heard. Tony has since relinquished his access to the channel.

Comment by Arbitrators:

The first sentence should make clear that the reference was on IRC, which is patent from context but should be express. Re the last sentence, I don't believe this was announced as a 30-minute ban: the ban was imposed without duration, but then objections were raised that Tony had not been given an opportunity to be heard before being banned, and so the ban was lifted, which occurred about 30 minutes later; that's not quite the same thing. (Tony has since relinquished his access to the #admins channel.) Newyorkbrad (talk) 21:24, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

Comment by parties:

Precision may not be required, but proposed Findings of Fact ought surely to be at least roughly accurate, which the above statements are not. I suggest you consult the log. Even the bowdlerized version in my evidence section has better information than that offered here, and the real log has much better. Would you like a copy? Bishonen | talk 01:39, 24 January 2008 (UTC).

Comment by others:

Changes made. Thatcher 21:29, 23 January 2008 (UTC) Please make some more changes. Bishonen | talk 01:40, 24 January 2008 (UTC).

I don't want to deny the truth of what was but, but the committee is not likely to use this wording at this point and I see little value in endlessly repeating the comments either, so I have linked to your evidence section. Thatcher 12:25, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Geogre and Giano

T4) Giano and Geogre, either unaware that Tony had been temporarily banned from the channel or dissatisfied with the magnitude of the response, edit-warred with David Gerard over the content of Wikipedia:IRC channels/wikipedia-en-admins. To borrow an idea from Newyorkbrad, their edits were similar to editing the instructions at WP:RFAR to say, "This is where to file Arbitration requests, but your complaint will probably be mishandled and you will be screwed by the Arbitration committee." The edits were provocative in intent and scope, and reflected the deep mistrust these users have for the IRC channel and its administration. David and Geogre both edited the page while protected, a misuse of their administrative tools. Neither David nor anyone else attempted to explain that David had, or thought he had, more authority over the page than would normally be the case. In fact, David Gerard had the opportunity to do so but did not (bainer's evidence). Giano also made edits to User talk:Tony Sidaway that were needlessly inflammatory in tone and substance.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Thatcher 18:16, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Comments by Tony Sidaway and Phil Sandifer

T5) While this case was open, Tony Sidaway and PhilSandifer made needlessly provocative comments. Both eventually apologized; however Phil's attempt to remove his comments led to an edit war on Wikipedia talk:Requests for arbitration/IRC/Proposed decision.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

I would quibble with the exact criticism being made here - needlessly provocative suggests that I intended my comments to inflame. I did not - the potentially offensive subtext was accidental and unintended. The substance of the comment - that Bishonen was not an idle target of harassment but an active participant in a pissing match - cannot be taken as provocative in the context of the discussion. The issue is purely that I phrased my comment poorly. Phil Sandifer (talk) 05:02, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

Comment by others:

Thatcher 18:16, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

Reply to Phil. The problem is you have an ongoing habit of this that is disruptive, or as you said in the Tony RFC, "I'm as as much of a raging asshole as he is". I don't think anyone should be entitled here to wikilawyer their way out of the encyclopedia's best interests. If that means four people are muzzled so be it. Lawrence § t/e 05:23, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

The problem with this claim is that it is not based on any evidence that has been submitted here or to the evidence page, making it difficult to address it. Phil Sandifer (talk) 05:27, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Comments by Geogre and Giano

T6) While this case was open, Geogre and Giano made needlessly provocative and inflammatory comments. Geogre in particular making a number of bad faith personal attacks on James F and David Gerard that mirrored comments he made during the events leading up to this case.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Thatcher 18:16, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] David Gerard

T7) David Gerard needlessly escalated the dispute by edit warring, editing a protected page during a dispute, and making provocative comments. Even if David had a good faith belief that he had a greater authority over WP:WEA than is usual, he did not communicate this to the other parties, even when an opportunity presented itself.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Thatcher 18:16, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Geogre

T8) Geogre needlessly escalated the dispute by edit warring, editing a protected page during a dispute, making provocative comments, and by turning an IRC problem, which had already been handled through the appropriate channels, into a Wikipedia problem. (Geogre was either edit-warring with someone who had been deputized to maintain the page, or he was edit-warring with another admin who had no more right to edit the page than he, but it was edit-warring either way.)

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Thatcher 18:16, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Giano

T9) Giano needlessly escalated the dispute by edit warring, making provocative comments, and by turning an IRC problem, which had already been handled through the appropriate channels, into a Wikipedia problem.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Thatcher 18:16, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Tony Sidaway

T10) Tony Sidaway needlessly escalated the dispute by making provocative comments.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Thatcher 18:16, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Phil Sandifer

T10) Phil Sandifer needlessly escalated the dispute by making provocative comments, and by edit-warring to remove those comments.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

I respectfully dispute that I edit warred - somebody reasonably objected to my initial boldness (removing the thread that was causing disruption), so I attempted to remove just my comments in the hopes that the other participants would follow suit. This was also objected to, and somebody came up with the perfectly reasonable idea of archiving the thread, which I made a single revert in support of. The situation was unpleasant, and in hindsight my attempt to defuse the situation backfired rather catastrophically, but on the other hand, given that it was a talk page discussion, it was not as though I could, well, take it to talk. I note also that the incident lasted a matter of minutes at which point I disengaged (and indeed walked away from the case for several days). I had no long-term investment in the situation, and once the situation had spiralled to an edit war walked away to defuse it.

I agree, my actions here were regrettable, but I must say, the presence of a remedy against me feels an awful lot like an attempt to make the ruling less objectionable to certain quarters of the community by sanctioning everybody whether necessary and appropriate or not. Phil Sandifer (talk) 04:59, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

Comment by others:

Thatcher 18:16, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

I would also point out that Phil Sandifer needlessly escalated the dispute by imposing the 3RR block on Giano without: 1)thoroughly reviewing the edit war that took place, 2)imposing a similar 3RR block on at least one other editor who crossed the same line, 3)taking alternative actions, 4)recognizing that the edit war in question had already stopped several hours before and that Giano had agreed not to edit the page further, and then 5)compounding this by blocking for a first 3RR violation for 72 hours instead of the 24 hours prescribed in the policy. It was only after Phil's block that this entire fiasco was brought up on WP:ANI; prior to that, it was an isolated edit war on an isolated page involving a circumscribed number of editors. Risker (talk) 22:05, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

Risker, if by (2) you mean Ryulong, from memory and the evidence, Phil's block of Giano occurred before Ryulong's 4th revert. And Giano had previously been blocked (on the 23rd) for edit warring on the same page - it was not unreasonable of Phil to make the next block longer (though 72 hours was excessive to some) - admins do traditionally have that latitude. I agree with the point that Phil's block did (regardless of the reasoning behind it) escalate the situation - but would point out that Lar (who started the ANI thread) should also bear some of that blame. The previous block could have landed on ANI, but got sorted out on talk pages. One thing I think is missing from Thatcher's proposed decision is the bit where Geogre and Ryulong left statements at the request for arbitration, and then went back to WP:WEA and continued to edit and revert. Carcharoth (talk) 23:11, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

Fair enough about Ryulong, the evidence trail managed to confuse me for once, despite Thebainer's best efforts. Bottom line, though...the 3RR policy is clear that the purpose of 3RR blocks is to stop edit warring. The edit warring had long since stopped. Applying a block at that point was punitive and not preventative, period, something that is constantly and consistently reinforced in blocking policy. Indeed, it would be worthwhile to look at our sister project at de-wikipedia, where they do not have the 3RR policy, but protect pages involved in edit wars - and editing protected pages by administrators results in an immediate desysopping (with very narrow exceptions like copyvio). What a different outcome we would have seen here had that been in place. Risker (talk) 23:41, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Proposed remedies

Note: All remedies that refer to a period of time, for example to a ban of X months or a revert parole of Y months, are to run concurrently unless otherwise stated.

[edit] Giano, Geogre and David Gerard banned for 5 days

T1) For needlessly escalating the dispute instead of acting constructively to resolve it, the editing privileges of Giano, Geogre and David are suspended for 5 days.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Completly ridiculous "cop out" dreamed up to save the Arbcom's face for ever accepting such a daft case! Giano (talk) 13:04, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

Comment by others:

Thatcher 18:16, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

I think there will be less bad feelings if this remedy is reduced to two days. Jehochman ^Talk 21:38, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Tony Sidaway banned for 2 days

T2) For making provocative comments during the conduct of this case, Tony's editing privileges are suspended for 2 days.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Phil apologized and the others involved in the conversation seemed to have accepted it. Thatcher 18:16, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

Tony also apologized but I think it takes him longer; the conversation I saw between Durova and Phil (mainly) was over within a couple hours of it starting, with Phil realizing he said something in a bad way and Durova accepting that Phil did not mean in in the way it initially looked to her. Thatcher 18:42, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] One revert limit

T3) Giano, Geogre, David Gerard, and Phil Sandifer are placed on revert limitation with respect to the project namespace. They are limited to one revert per page per day, excepting obvious vandalism. The parties may apply to the committee to lift the limitation after 6 months.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Ummm... the one instance of edit warring that you've alleged for me wasn't even *in* the project namespace. Phil Sandifer (talk) 05:28, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

RFAR is not in project space? Thatcher 12:27, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

Talk is a different space. Phil Sandifer (talk) 14:11, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

Comment by others:

Thatcher 18:16, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

Support. This is why some people are clerks, and some are mere mice. And happy to be them. :-) --AnonEMouse ^(squeak) 18:53, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

The key issue regarding Giano is not what remedies are applied to him, but how they are enforced. Can you draft an enforcement ruling? Stifle (talk) 09:36, 29 January 2008 (UTC)