Revision as of 05:01, 31 December 2007 editNewyorkbrad (talk | contribs)Autopatrolled, Administrators45,502 edits →Users can be held responsible on Misplaced Pages for public actions elsewhere: comment← Previous edit | Revision as of 05:04, 31 December 2007 edit undoTony Sidaway (talk | contribs)Autopatrolled, Extended confirmed users, Pending changes reviewers81,722 edits →Solomon solution: This is not a solution to the problems of Misplaced PagesNext edit → | ||
Line 1,799: | Line 1,799: | ||
:'''Comment by parties:''' | :'''Comment by parties:''' | ||
:: This is not a solution to the problems of Misplaced Pages. 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. --] 05:04, 31 December 2007 (UTC) | |||
:: | |||
:'''Comment by others:''' | :'''Comment by others:''' |
Revision as of 05:04, 31 December 2007
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) |
Motions and requests by the parties
Template
1)
- Comment by Arbitrators:
- Comment by parties:
- Comment by others:
Template
2)
- Comment by Arbitrators:
- Comment by parties:
- Comment by others:
Template
3)
- Comment by Arbitrators:
- Comment by parties:
- Comment by others:
Proposed temporary injunctions
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 Misplaced Pages 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 Misplaced Pages 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)
- 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 Misplaced Pages 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 Misplaced Pages the same way as any mention of the Misplaced Pages 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 Misplaced Pages 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 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 Misplaced Pages 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 Misplaced Pages the same way as any mention of the Misplaced Pages Review. --Irpen 02:41, 27 December 2007 (UTC)
- Proposed. Otherwise, this is all meaningless. --Irpen 02:16, 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, Misplaced Pages, 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)
- 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 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)
- 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)
- 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)
- You said the owners have no control. The circumstances of this matter show otherwise. --Irpen 02:50, 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)
- 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)
- 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)
- This is pretty fucking stupid (pardon my language), I never interacted with Giano II but his edits seem to be completely true . 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 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 Misplaced Pages 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 Misplaced Pages 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)
Template
2)
- Comment by Arbitrators:
- Comment by parties:
- Comment by others:
Template
3)
- Comment by Arbitrators:
- Comment by parties:
- Comment by others:
Template
4)
- Comment by Arbitrators:
- Comment by parties:
- Comment by others:
Questions to the parties
Proposed final decision
Proposed principles
Decorum
1) Misplaced Pages 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 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 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 06:56, 28 December 2007 (UTC)
- Obvious. Moreschi 00:30, 27 December 2007 (UTC)
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)
- 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)
- 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:
What we had here was a slow motion edit war:"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 Misplaced Pages:Edit war (my emphasis)
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)
- 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)
- 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)
- 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 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)
- 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:
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, 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 Misplaced Pages 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 01:39, 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, 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 Misplaced Pages 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)
- 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)
- 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 01:48, 27 December 2007 (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 Misplaced Pages 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 Misplaced Pages, but are still related to it. Snowolf 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 Misplaced Pages 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. SirFozzie (talk) 02:56, 27 December 2007 (UTC)
- Jimbo may make Misplaced Pages 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)
- 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)
- 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)
- Jimbo may make Misplaced Pages 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
- 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 Misplaced Pages 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. SirFozzie (talk) 02:56, 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 Misplaced Pages, but are still related to it. Snowolf 01:18, 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 Misplaced Pages.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 Misplaced Pages based on blogging activity, calls to vandalise Misplaced Pages, 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)
- 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)
- 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 Misplaced Pages based on blogging activity, calls to vandalise Misplaced Pages, 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)
- 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 Misplaced Pages.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)
Authority
3a) The arbitration committee has supreme authority over relevant IRC channels and other closed off-wiki forums that are advertised on Misplaced Pages outside the personal userspace. Discussion of Misplaced Pages-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 Misplaced Pages enterprise. If it belongs to Misplaced Pages 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[REDACTED] 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[REDACTED] review isn't.--Phoenix-wiki 20:52, 30 December 2007 (UTC)
People may talk to each other
4) Although Misplaced Pages 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 Misplaced Pages. It is only natural that these conversations will at times be about Misplaced Pages, 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 Misplaced Pages, 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 Misplaced Pages 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 21:54, 27 December 2007 (UTC)
- Yes. As long as the Misplaced Pages, 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 Misplaced Pages is concerned. It bears no consequences for IRC but separation needs to be made explicit. --Irpen 01:33, 27 December 2007 (UTC)
- 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)
- 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)
- People can do more than just talk to each other, it's also perfectly acceptable to specifically coordinate Misplaced Pages 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)
- 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)
Posting logs
5) The posting of IRC chat logs onto the English Misplaced Pages 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 Misplaced Pages 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 Misplaced Pages policy that says that. If this is an IRC rule, the violator may face consequences at IRC. IRC rules and Misplaced Pages 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 Misplaced Pages 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)
- 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)
- It's to broad, for example, #wikipedia-en-unblock specifically states "Unblock conversation logs may be published" →AzaToth 01:31, 27 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 Misplaced Pages 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 01:34, 27 December 2007 (UTC)
- Added a "then" between may and become in my following comment. Snowolf 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 01:37, 27 December 2007 (UTC)
- What about something like "The posting of IRC chat logs onto the English Misplaced Pages 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 01:34, 27 December 2007 (UTC)
- Such a rule would need a justification of how this benefits Misplaced Pages. 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)
- Putting it out there. Still don't know whether I agree with it or not. Daniel 01:26, 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)
- 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)
- 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, 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)
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 Misplaced Pages 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 12:22, 30 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)
- 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)
- 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 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)
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 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 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[REDACTED] 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)
- 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 07:41, 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 | 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 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)
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 - Misplaced Pages 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)
Assuming good faith in off-wikipedia interactions
5.3.1) Off-wikipedia interactions between wikipedian regarding Misplaced Pages-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 Misplaced Pages. 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 Misplaced Pages 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)
All decisions open for discussion
6) All decisions and actions on Misplaced Pages 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)
- 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)
- Spoken like somebody who does not deal with sensitive BLP issues routinely. Phil Sandifer (talk) 02:20, 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)
- Actually, -en-admins is more secure than OTRS. Phil Sandifer (talk) 02:06, 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)
- 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)
- 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)
- To nebulous up to the point to irrelevancy. Needs a clearer formulation Alex Bakharev (talk) 07:22, 29 December 2007 (UTC)
Users can be held responsible on Misplaced Pages for public actions elsewhere
7.0) A user that causes problems for Misplaced Pages (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 Misplaced Pages 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 Misplaced Pages 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 Misplaced Pages. Christopher Parham (talk) 06:19, 28 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 Misplaced Pages 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)
- No. Misplaced Pages regulates Misplaced Pages and nothing else. Jehochman 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 Misplaced Pages 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 06:38, 28 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 Misplaced Pages then I hope that the project would perceive that it has some jurisdiction. Risker (talk) 22:03, 27 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. 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)
- Actually, there is some policy related to this at WP:NPA. 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)
- Mackensen, what Misplaced Pages 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 Misplaced Pages'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)
- 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)
- 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 Misplaced Pages? 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 Misplaced Pages 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. Misplaced Pages 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 Misplaced Pages. 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)
- 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)
- 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 Misplaced Pages. 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)
Users can be held responsible on Misplaced Pages for actions elsewhere
7.1) A user that causes problems for Misplaced Pages (or any user on said site) with statements made off of Misplaced Pages 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 Misplaced Pages (or any user on said site) with statements made off of Misplaced Pages 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)
Wheel warring
8) Misplaced Pages: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 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 | 15:06, 27 December 2007 (UTC) Modified link to current. - Penwhale | 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 | 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)
- Um? - Penwhale | 15:14, 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 ] is what I had in mind. Anthøny 21:49, 27 December 2007 (UTC)
- Slightly modified wording. - Penwhale | 21:59, 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)
- 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 Misplaced Pages: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)
- 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 Misplaced Pages: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)
- Should be given; taken from userbox wheel war case. - Penwhale | 15:06, 27 December 2007 (UTC) Modified link to current. - Penwhale | 15:14, 27 December 2007 (UTC)
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 Misplaced Pages.
- 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)
- Copied from the Durova case with a slight tweak. Lawrence Cohen 16:18, 27 December 2007 (UTC)
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 Misplaced Pages, 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)
- Is it just me, or is the MeatballWiki page not coming up? Sean William @ 17:30, 27 December 2007 (UTC)
- One more copied and slightly tweaked from Durova's case. Lawrence Cohen 16:22, 27 December 2007 (UTC)
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 of the edit" comes to mind somewhere in this... FT2 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 00:22, 29 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)
- The thought "Edit summaries exist to characterize the nature of the edit" comes to mind somewhere in this... FT2 07:46, 28 December 2007 (UTC)
- 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)
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. Misplaced Pages 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:
- 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)
- 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)
- 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 Misplaced Pages 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)
- Hear, hear. CharonX/talk 23:38, 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)
- 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)
- Time to nail the "us and them" nonsense. Guy (Help!) 13:40, 29 December 2007 (UTC)
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 Misplaced Pages 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)
- 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)
- 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)
Misplaced Pages is an encyclopedia
14) Misplaced Pages 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)
Disruptive meta-content
15) Misplaced Pages 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 Misplaced Pages 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)
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 Misplaced Pages: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)
- 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)
- 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)
- 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)
- 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)
- Which recent issuers of blocks were considered involved? Picaroon (t) 01:07, 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." 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)
- 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)
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)
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 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. --DarkFalls 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)
- 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. --DarkFalls 02:12, 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)
- 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)
- 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 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)
- 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)
- 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 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)
- 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)
- Are you referring to somebody in particular? I don't see where this is going. Jehochman 01:45, 30 December 2007 (UTC)
Behavior expectations apply anywhere the community gathers
- This is based on this component of UninvitedCompany's statement from January 2007 at Misplaced Pages: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, "Misplaced Pages (the web site) is the means by which Misplaced Pages (the community) writes Misplaced Pages (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)
- Comment by others:
- No, they can't and shouldn't. Why should I be forced to obey Misplaced Pages policies on Misplaced Pages Review, or in my private emails, or on the street? -Amarkov moo! 19:26, 30 December 2007 (UTC)
Template
18) {text of proposed principle}
- Comment by Arbitrators:
- Comment by parties:
- Comment by others:
Template
19) {text of proposed principle}
- Comment by Arbitrators:
- Comment by parties:
- Comment by others:
Proposed findings of fact
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, Misplaced Pages 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 Misplaced Pages or WMF means of communication or private social mediums that are nobody elses business. As long as the Misplaced Pages, the ArbCom, Jimbo, WMF, etc explicitly disclaim any connection with this medium and the medium equally explicitly disclaim any connection with Misplaced Pages, 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 Misplaced Pages 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)
- Irrelevant in present form. Should be more explicit whether this is about officially related to Misplaced Pages or WMF means of communication or private social mediums that are nobody elses business. As long as the Misplaced Pages, the ArbCom, Jimbo, WMF, etc explicitly disclaim any connection with this medium and the medium equally explicitly disclaim any connection with Misplaced Pages, 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 Misplaced Pages 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)
- A simple statement of fact. Phil Sandifer (talk) 01:23, 27 December 2007 (UTC)
- Comment by others:
- Random comment by a passerby: This reads more like a principle than a FoF. Luc "Somethingorother" French 00:43, 28 December 2007 (UTC)
#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 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)
- 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 02:36, 27 December 2007 (UTC)
- 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)
- 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 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 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 02:11, 27 December 2007 (UTC)
- It is part of being made unwelcome, Phil. --Irpen 02:07, 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)
- SlimVirgin, you are still on the access list of #wikipedia-en-admins. Sean William @ 01:54, 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 01:52, 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)
- 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)
- "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)
- Statement of fact. Phil Sandifer (talk) 01:28, 27 December 2007 (UTC)
- Comment by others:
#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)
Giano repeatedly and disruptively violated the 3RR
3) Giano repeatedly and disruptively violated the 3RR on Misplaced Pages: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)
- Giano edit-warred. So did others. Per the evidence. Mr Which??? 12:27, 27 December 2007 (UTC)
Edit warring
3.1) A number of experienced users and administrators engaged in intense edit warring on Misplaced Pages:IRC channels/wikipedia-en-admins, primarily through excessive reverting of others edits. Giano 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 07:52, 28 December 2007 (UTC)
- Agree Alex Bakharev (talk) 08:16, 29 December 2007 (UTC)
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)
- Please see my response on the Evidence talk page. Sean William @ 01:41, 27 December 2007 (UTC)
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 Misplaced Pages 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)
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)
- There we are; I missed with all the other findings. Mackensen (talk) 15:11, 27 December 2007 (UTC)
- 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)
- 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 Misplaced Pages 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 Misplaced Pages 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 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 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 16:45, 27 December 2007 (UTC)
- I put it on the talk page. Thatcher 16:59, 27 December 2007 (UTC)
- 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)
- 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)
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 Misplaced Pages nor acceptable in civilized society.
- Comment by Arbitrators:
- If Misplaced Pages 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)
- 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)
- Comment by others:
- Please do expand, Irpen. It's time for people to be clear -- no more dropping hints. SlimVirgin 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 Misplaced Pages 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 Misplaced Pages tool? It could be seen as harassment of a sexual nature to some users. Lawrence Cohen 16:45, 27 December 2007 (UTC)
- Please do expand, Irpen. It's time for people to be clear -- no more dropping hints. SlimVirgin 01:55, 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 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 Misplaced Pages-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 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)
- 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 11:10, 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 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)
- 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)
- 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)
- 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)
- 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)
- 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)
- 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)
- 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)
- 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)
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 Misplaced Pages policy, because no Misplaced Pages 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 Misplaced Pages. 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)
- I would like to see more information about exactly what happened here. Phil Sandifer (talk) 02:03, 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 Misplaced Pages 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)
- 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)
- 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)
- He mentioned this today on ANI. Lawrence Cohen 01:53, 27 December 2007 (UTC)
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 Misplaced Pages 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)
- I expect to (probably in about 24 hours) work up evidence for a finding called "An unfortunately large swath of the Misplaced Pages 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)
- 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 see no evidence that a consensus existed that Giano was exempt from basic 3RR enforcement. Phil Sandifer (talk) 03:59, 27 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)
- 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)
- 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)
- 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)
- 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)
- "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)
- 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)
- 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 09:22, 28 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)
- Proposed. There was discussion on ANI. SirFozzie (talk) 02:59, 27 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)
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 Misplaced Pages and the Misplaced Pages 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 Misplaced Pages 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 Misplaced Pages. --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 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)
- Only relevant if it becomes established that the IRC is related with Misplaced Pages and the Misplaced Pages 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 Misplaced Pages 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 Misplaced Pages. --Irpen 03:37, 27 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 Misplaced Pages, Misplaced Pages 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)
- Statement of fact Alex Bakharev (talk) 10:22, 29 December 2007 (UTC)
- Proposed, per the IRC logs. John254 03:29, 27 December 2007 (UTC)
Giano's methods and tactics are supported by many Wikipedians
11) Many Wikipedians support Giano's tactics and methods in questioning aspects of Misplaced Pages policy.
- Comment by Arbitrators:
- Comment by parties:
- Relevant only if followed by the principle "Giano's tactics and methods in questioning aspects of Misplaced Pages 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 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 21:39, 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)
- Comment by others:
- Proposed, per Misplaced Pages:Arbitration Committee Elections December 2007/Vote/Giano II. Videmus Omnia 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 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)
- 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)
- 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 Misplaced Pages. I am certain that he would not again play silly games with Misplaced Pages 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 Misplaced Pages 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)
- 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)
- 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 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)
- 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 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 Misplaced Pages to by run through the methods used by Giano. There is certainly a minority that has advocated, for instance, that all correspondence related to Misplaced Pages 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 Misplaced Pages 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)
- 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)
- 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 Misplaced Pages to by run through the methods used by Giano. There is certainly a minority that has advocated, for instance, that all correspondence related to Misplaced Pages 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 Misplaced Pages 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)
- 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)
- 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)
David Gerard and Geogre wheel warred on Misplaced Pages: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)
- 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 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)
- 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 08:33, 28 December 2007 (UTC)
There was a 14-stage edit war involving 9 editors
13) As detailed at Misplaced Pages: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 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)
- 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)
- 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 08:41, 28 December 2007 (UTC)
- 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)
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 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 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)
- 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)
- 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 03:35, 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 Misplaced Pages 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)
- 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)
Status of the Misplaced Pages:IRC channels/wikipedia-en-admins page
15.1) Per Phil Sandifer's evidence, Misplaced Pages 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 Misplaced Pages.
15.2) Per Phil Sandifer's evidence, Misplaced Pages 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 Misplaced Pages 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)
- How can you use the same evidence to reach two different conclusions? Sean William @ 05:22, 28 December 2007 (UTC)
- 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 Misplaced Pages policies here only apply to some editors? Are there any other exempt from policy pages? Lawrence Cohen 05:20, 28 December 2007 (UTC)
All pages on Misplaced Pages are subject to the same policy enforcement
16) All pages on Misplaced Pages 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 Misplaced Pages works. People are constantly changing critical pages, but the changes don't stay, because there is consensus. The defense of a page is Misplaced Pages 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 polices are those exempt from? Lawrence Cohen 00:11, 29 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 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.
- 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)
- It is not true for the pages of my bot, half of them are written by other people.
- A follow up to 15.1 and 15.2. Lawrence Cohen 05:33, 28 December 2007 (UTC)
Nobody owns pages in the Main and Misplaced Pages spaces
16.1) No pages in the Main and Misplaced Pages 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)
- Comment by others:
- Proposed. Reformulated of 16 to make it more clear Alex Bakharev (talk) 11:00, 29 December 2007 (UTC)
Some pages on Misplaced Pages have exemptions to policy enforcement
17) Some pages on Misplaced Pages 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 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)
#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 Misplaced Pages, it's a Misplaced Pages page. If the page describes something that isn't Misplaced Pages, 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)
- 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 Misplaced Pages 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)
- No - it does not fit into any of the standard holes. Phil Sandifer (talk) 22:38, 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)
- 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)
- 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)
- 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 Misplaced Pages where he can treat his vanity projects in whatever manner he chooses. However, if he wants to join the rest of us on this Misplaced Pages, 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)
- 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 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 Misplaced Pages connection, then the operators need to be held accountable to Misplaced Pages consensus. And channel rules should be driven by editor consensus (within Freenode allowances) here on Misplaced Pages. But you can't have it both ways, either the channel is part of Misplaced Pages 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)
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)
- Strong oppose. You DON'T want to go there, trust me. SirFozzie (talk) 18:36, 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 saysimplies 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)
- Well, I am not so sure we should go there - not because Phil's proposal is fundamentally flawed, but because it
- Lets go there. This will only get worse unless addressed. 1 != 2 18:56, 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)
- 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)
- 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)
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 | 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)
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)
- 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)
- 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)
- 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:
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 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 Misplaced Pages'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."
- 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)
- 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:
#wikipedia-en-admins is an official[REDACTED] outlet. Behavior there is considered to be "on-wiki".
23) The #wikipedia-en-admins channel is an official[REDACTED] 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 Misplaced Pages") 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[REDACTED] 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)
#wikipedia-en-admins is not an official[REDACTED] 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 Misplaced Pages. 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 Misplaced Pages") 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[REDACTED] 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)
Template
22) {text of proposed principle}
- Comment by Arbitrators:
- Comment by parties:
- Comment by others:
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.
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 Misplaced Pages, 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 Misplaced Pages sanctions will not be handed out except in extraordinary circumstances (as has always been the case with off-Misplaced Pages 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)
- 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)
- 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)
- 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 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)
- Except that we have no group contacts, according to Freenode. SlimVirgin 01:57, 27 December 2007 (UTC)
- 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)
#wikipedia-en-admins is for administrators of the English Misplaced Pages
2) The IRC channel #wikipedia-en-admins is designated as a social space for administrators of the English Misplaced Pages. 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 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 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 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 Misplaced Pages, 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 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 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 06:30, 27 December 2007 (UTC)
- Are staff like developers also given access? Lawrence Cohen 02:39, 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)
- Proposed. SlimVirgin 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 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 Misplaced Pages. --Irpen 02:05, 27 December 2007 (UTC)
- Tony no longer has access to the channel . 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)
- Tony no longer has access to the channel . John Reaves 11:37, 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 Misplaced Pages. --Irpen 02:05, 27 December 2007 (UTC)
- I'm putting this forward as a proposal, Sean. Tony has apparently given up his access, BTW. SlimVirgin 01:53, 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)
- Well, it's not true. Tony Sidaway and Betacommand still have access, among others. Sean William @ 01:51, 27 December 2007 (UTC)
- Proposed. SlimVirgin 01:44, 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 03:39, 30 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)
- 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)
AzaToth is admonished to not abuse rollback
3) AzaToth (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) 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 - (, , , ). 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 , was that vandalism? Sean William @ 21:47, 28 December 2007 (UTC)
- Proposed, feel free to expand. --Maxim(talk) 01:38, 27 December 2007 (UTC)
Geogre admonished
4) Geogre (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) 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)
Geogre desysoped
5) For egregious judgment and abuse of administrative priveleges, Geogre (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) 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 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)
- 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)
- 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)
- 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 23:48, 27 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)
- What finding of fact justifies this? Sean William @ 01:42, 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 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)
- Proposed, as stronger measure than 4). —Preceding unsigned comment added by Maxim (talk • contribs)
Giano banned from Misplaced Pages namespace
6) Due to deliberate disruption in this area, Giano is banned from the Misplaced Pages namespace for X.
6 a) Excluding the featured article process, Giano is banned from the Misplaced Pages namespace for a period of one year.
6 b) Excluding the featured article process, Giano is banned from the Misplaced Pages 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 Misplaced Pages 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 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 Misplaced Pages, 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)
- 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)
- 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)
- 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[REDACTED] 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[REDACTED] 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[REDACTED] 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[REDACTED] 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 Misplaced Pages 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 Misplaced Pages 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)
- Nope - he'll simply go looking for trouble again. His Misplaced Pages 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)
- 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)
- 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[REDACTED] space. Ryan Postlethwaite 20:04, 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)
- 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)
- 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 Misplaced Pages 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. 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[REDACTED] 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)
- 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. 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)
- But he is excellent as a writer, ridiculously rude and pointy in any discussion that appears in Misplaced Pages 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)
- 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)
- 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 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[REDACTED] 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 Misplaced Pages space. Banning any editor from Misplaced Pages 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 Misplaced Pages 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[REDACTED] 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 Misplaced Pages 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 Misplaced Pages 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)
- 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)
- 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[REDACTED] 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 Misplaced Pages 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 Misplaced Pages 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)
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)
- 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)
- 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 Misplaced Pages 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 Misplaced Pages, 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)
- 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)
- 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 Misplaced Pages, 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)
- This situation is sad and completely unnecessary. To my friend Ryan, in regards to your comments above - how would you feel about Misplaced Pages 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)
- Nasty tone? Ryan Postlethwaite 00:32, 28 December 2007 (UTC)
Giano put on revert parole
7) Giano is forbidden to make more than one revert per 24 hours on any pages in the Misplaced Pages namespace.
7.1) Giano is forbidden to make more than one revert per 24 hours on any pages in the Misplaced Pages 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 22:22, 27 December 2007 (UTC)
- Giano is not only disruptive with edit warring, but general disruptive and trolling behaviour in the Misplaced Pages 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 Misplaced Pages 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 Misplaced Pages machinery, or anything like that, will lead to radical change, is failing to understand how communities like Misplaced Pages work. The cycle of dramas will go on because, at the root of it all, we all care deeply about Misplaced Pages. <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
16more 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 flaunting 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)
- If someone with five years under their belt knows that
- 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)
- 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)
- I think, if we are honest, the "disruption" and "drama" that takes place at various times, are just the most active Misplaced Pages 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 Misplaced Pages machinery, or anything like that, will lead to radical change, is failing to understand how communities like Misplaced Pages work. The cycle of dramas will go on because, at the root of it all, we all care deeply about Misplaced Pages. <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)
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 Misplaced Pages 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)
- 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)
- 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)
- 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)
- 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)
- 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)
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)
- Generous, frankly. Phil Sandifer (talk) 01:43, 27 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 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)
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'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)
- 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)
- 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)
- 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)
- 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)
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 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 Misplaced Pages and Misplaced Pages 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 Misplaced Pages and Misplaced Pages 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 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 Misplaced Pages and Misplaced Pages talk namespaces, Giano could simply move his disruption to other namespaces. John254 02:53, 27 December 2007 (UTC)
- Why ban him from the project entirely? The Misplaced Pages and Misplaced Pages 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 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 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)
- Proposed, see my evidence on Giano on the appropriate page. Maxim(talk) 01:48, 27 December 2007 (UTC)
Tony Sidaway banned for 7 days
11) Tony Sidaway (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · 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 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)
- Sets a rather nasty precedent, no? Phil Sandifer (talk) 04:00, 27 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)
- 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)
- 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 Misplaced Pages. How will banning someone from Misplaced Pages 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 Misplaced Pages, 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)
- 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)
- 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 Misplaced Pages, 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)
- 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)
- 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)
- Proposed, per the Tony Sidaway has made off-wiki personal attacks finding. John254 03:34, 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 22:24, 27 December 2007 (UTC)
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 21:20, 27 December 2007 (UTC)
- Comment by others:
- Proposed. MastCell 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 | 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 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'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 21:00, 30 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 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 21:19, 30 December 2007 (UTC)
Page probation
13) Misplaced Pages:IRC channels/wikipedia-en-admins is placed on article probation for .
- 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 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)
- 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)
- 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 01:59, 28 December 2007 (UTC)
Probation
14) Any user identified as a problem user by the Committee is subject to an editing restriction in Misplaced Pages: and Misplaced Pages 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 Misplaced Pages: or Misplaced Pages 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 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 | 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 | 14:58, 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
David Gerard is desysopped for Wheel Warring on Misplaced Pages: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 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)
- Oppose. Too strong a remedy at this time. Jehochman 22:25, 27 December 2007 (UTC)
- Update on section #15 above based on evidence and timeline of wheel warring. Lawrence Cohen 21:17, 27 December 2007 (UTC)
David Gerard is suspended for Wheel Warring on Misplaced Pages: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 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 22:26, 27 December 2007 (UTC)
Geogre is desysopped for Wheel Warring on Misplaced Pages: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 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 23:37, 27 December 2007 (UTC)
- Oppose. Too strong. Jehochman 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)
Geogre is suspended for Wheel Warring on Misplaced Pages: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:
- 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)
- Comment by others:
- Alternative, per Doc. Lawrence Cohen 21:50, 27 December 2007 (UTC)
- Oppose. Too strong. Jehochman 22:27, 27 December 2007 (UTC)
- Still too strong. --Coredesat 23:35, 27 December 2007 (UTC)
Bishonen encouraged
18) Bishonen is strongly encouraged to look past these extremely regrettable incidents and to continue contributing high-quality content to Misplaced Pages 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)
- Comment by parties:
- I think it ill-becomes arbcom to do solatium. Arbcom is not your mother.--Doc 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 Misplaced Pages: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)
Giano banned for one year
19) Giano is banned for one year.
- Comment by Arbitrators:
- Oppose. Newyorkbrad (talk) 19:49, 28 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)
- 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)
- Oppose on the length of ban, but support the principle. Light current (talk · contribs) made over 30,000 edits, many of them extremely positive, 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 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 Misplaced Pages 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 · filter log · 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 Misplaced Pages, not against it. --Tony Sidaway 19:57, 28 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)
- 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)
- 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)
- Wow. And this from an editor whose own userpage states "I am hard pressed to identify anything substantive I have accomplished 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)
- 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)
- 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)
- 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)
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 Misplaced Pages: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 20:48, 28 December 2007 (UTC)
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)
- 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 Misplaced Pages, 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 Misplaced Pages. 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)
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)
- 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)
- I would want to see evidence of other users being protected. Phil Sandifer (talk) 20:39, 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 Misplaced Pages. 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 Misplaced Pages, 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)
- 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 Misplaced Pages, 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)
- 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 Misplaced Pages. violet/riga (t) 22:41, 29 December 2007 (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[REDACTED] 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)
WP:WEA deleted and salted
22) Because it has caused substantial disruption and is not part of the encyclopedia, Misplaced Pages: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 09:55, 30 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)
- 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)
- Proposed. *** Crotalus *** 20:58, 29 December 2007 (UTC)
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 Misplaced Pages: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 Misplaced Pages: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 Misplaced Pages 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 Misplaced Pages "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)
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)
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)
Template
25) {text of proposed remedy}
- Comment by Arbitrators:
- Comment by parties:
- Comment by others:
Proposed enforcement
Authority over IRC channels
1) The Arbitration Committee shall confirm and agree with the policy stated by Jimbo Wales () and assume Authority over all IRC channels on the freenode network, that are directly connected to the English Misplaced Pages.
- 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 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 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)
- 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 05:29, 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)
- How else would you interpret it? SlimVirgin 05:13, 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 Misplaced Pages IRC" and grant jurisdiction to the ArbCom. - Penwhale | 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[REDACTED] 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 Misplaced Pages, right? SirFozzie (talk) 00:20, 29 December 2007 (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)
- 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)
Solomon solution
2.1) Misplaced Pages assumes full process and policy authority over the "official" IRC channels specific to the English Misplaced Pages, 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 Misplaced Pages.
2.1a) If the decision is made by the Arbitration Committee to adopt a stance like 2.1 here, where control rests forever within Misplaced Pages 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 Misplaced Pages.
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 Misplaced Pages has no role or control over third party services. As a seperate outside service, IRC rules and policies carry no more weight on Misplaced Pages 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 Misplaced Pages, as IRC has no sanctioned affiliation with Misplaced Pages.
- Comment by Arbitrators:
- Comment by parties:
- This is not a solution to the problems of Misplaced Pages. 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 Misplaced Pages 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 Misplaced Pages thing: no freedom to act out; it's like Misplaced Pages 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)
Template
3) {text of proposed enforcement}
- Comment by Arbitrators:
- Comment by parties:
- Comment by others:
Template
4) {text of proposed enforcement}
- Comment by Arbitrators:
- Comment by parties:
- Comment by others:
Template
5) {text of proposed enforcement}
- Comment by Arbitrators:
- Comment by parties:
- Comment by others:
Analysis of evidence
Place here items of evidence (with diffs) and detailed analysis
Template
- Comment by Arbitrators:
- Comment by parties:
- Comment by others:
Template
- Comment by Arbitrators:
- Comment by parties:
- Comment by others:
Template
- Comment by Arbitrators:
- Comment by parties:
- Comment by others:
Template
- Comment by Arbitrators:
- Comment by parties:
- Comment by others:
Template
- Comment by Arbitrators:
- Comment by parties:
- Comment by others:
Template
- Comment by Arbitrators:
- Comment by parties:
- Comment by others:
Template
- Comment by Arbitrators:
- Comment by parties:
- Comment by others:
General discussion
- Comment by Arbitrators:
- Comment by parties:
- Comment by others: