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

Bishonen civility? Stop the remedies now!

This is getting ridiculous. We now have a motion to put Bishonen on civility parole. We have no finding of fact to support this (indeed the only FOF remotely critical of Bishonen is currently failing 1-5). Further, no one has led any evidence whatsoever in support of a civility issue with Bishonen. I say again, will arbs STOP proposing ill-considered remedies before they have agreed the facts of what needs remedying!!! Consider the evidence first - and decide what is factual and pertinent. This smacks of trying to find a politically acceptable remedy which will avoid arbs taking any sides - and let them be seen as even-handed. For goodness sake be bold and decide what you think is wrong, then proceed from there. Right now the proposed decision page is beginning to look as fractious as the workshop. In both the case of Bishonen and indeed Phil, we've had remedies without facts - this has the inherent danger of beginning to look like personal slights.--Doc^g 22:29, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

There are 4 passing findings of fact. Five civility parole remedies are proposed, of which three have supporting findings of fact. But the FoFs have very different weights, and I don't necessarily see how they lend themselves to identical remedies. If you can't agree on substantial facts what is the point of proposing remedy after remedy? For all intents and purposes, these proposals are indelible and have the weight of official deliberation even if they do not pass. ^Avruchtalk 22:35, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

(just echoing) Where's the evidence that Bishonen needs a similar level of curbing? Giano, Tony, totally. Phil, George, probably. (Although Doc is correct that the "forms must be followed." Gather some evidence of Phil's offences and create a FoF before the remedy.) But Bish? Nonsense. - 60.242.38.186 (talk) 22:36, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

I'm also perplexed by the proposal against Bishonen. I'm pretty sure it wouldn't be passed, but the very fact of this kind of proposal being posted to the page is going to be distressing, as I think she explained yesterday to FloNight. I've never seen Bishonen be anything but civil, even when upset. We need to be careful that we don't end up driving good editors away with this. SlimVirgin ^{(talk)(contribs)} 22:46, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

:::I am perplexed also. This is reminiscent of a recent arbitration case in which an extremely well respected editor who has contributed enormously to Wikipedia had her name added to the arbitration case name when her behavior has been, in my opinion, above reproach. Although her name was eventually removed from the case, she was forced to spend time defending herself and the "residue smear" remains. Also, I am wondering why "male" editors do not take a more proactive role in sanctioning obviously sexist and crude remarks against "female" editors. This is similar to the bias against "regular" editors who are blocked and ridiculed for such minor offenses compared to what Admins regularly condone in each other. Mattisse 15:11, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

I think good editors are also sensible enough to know that a proposal without any votes in favor is meaningless. Given the hypersensitivity shown here, I'm left wondering whether the community wants transparency in these proceedings or not. I think guidance on this question would be helpful. Mackensen (talk) 22:56, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

Perhaps Mackensen you and Flo should just retire gracefully before you do any more harm. Giano (talk) 22:59, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

Remind me, again, why I ever worked so hard to stop you from getting banned? Mackensen (talk) 23:05, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

Possibly because you realised it would not be a good career move. Giano (talk) 23:10, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

You mean you'd treat me even more shabbily if I took a hard line? That sounds like a blast. Mackensen (talk) 23:19, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

Like the making of sausages, ArbCom proposals are best unseen until they are ready for consumption. (Don't show things unless they have a reasonable chance of passing. To do otherwise creates needless anxiety.) Jehochman ^Talk 22:59, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

Is it wise to discuss sausages when sensitivities are so highly tuned? Giano (talk) 23:01, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

Only the silly sausages, Giano. Lawrence § t/e 23:02, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

I wouldn't call it anxiety, unless you are including anxiety about the sanity of ArbCom members - as no one but members can edit proposed decision, then yes indeed it is appropriate to react with disbelief, criticism, and censure when idiotic proposals like this are placed on the page. And I have not bothered to check who added this nonsense, so take this as a general comment. Puppy has spoken, and puppy was really trying to stay out of this three ring circus. KillerChihuahua^?!? 23:04, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

I'm offering the wide array of sanctions as discussed among us privately. Different arbitrators have different views of the root of the problem. There is one opinion that Bishonen has held grudges and escalated the dispute with comments like this. FloNight (talk) 23:09, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

That diff is certainly uncivil. But a sanction should need a finding of a record of incivility, such that prevention is necessary. FOF need to come first.--Doc^g 23:13, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

I rather suspect you will find Bishonen was quoting David Gerard! He wrote an ESSAY about fuckheadism. Giano (talk) 23:19, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

(moving back out to show that this is out of time sequence) Flo, the various theories you report are a sign that you're talking to the wrong people and that the whole group is operating out of prejudice. I mean that literally. What is shocking, flatly shocking, is that no one ever bothers to ask people what's going on. Rather than asking me why I would edit David Gerard's vanity page, there is an assumption that received wisdom (where it is to be found, I won't say) has it all figured out. Rather than asking Bishonen if she dislikes this user or that, your closed discussion group assumes that it's all figured out, that the best explanation is a grudge. Rather than asking Giano why he was willing to get blocked (for 24 hr, as the blocking policy states) for 3RR to make a point, we get an arbitration. Instead of asking people why the dispute resolution broke down in the face of Tony Sidaway's nasty personal attack on IRC, we get a chance to "settle things" by getting rid of three exceptionally good contributors. This is an explicit sickness. What ever happened to Wikipedia, where we talk to each other? If that's gone, then I really should be, too, and I rather suppose many fewer would want to come. Geogre (talk) 02:25, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

(after ec) Flo, you know I think you are the cat's pajamas, but Doc is right. Has logical progression gone with the dodo? FOF, then add only PR which have some relation to reality - this is simply getting too bizarre for words. I don't know what is going on in your email list, but have any of you thought that you might want to slow down and try to actually make something somewhat resembling sense out of the evidence, and proceed to FOFs, then proposed remedies? I swear to you your paycheck won't be late if this case takes longer than a week. Really truly, there is NO RUSH to paste up every possible remedy before there have been FOFs. KillerChihuahua^?!? 23:21, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

Just how much more stupidity are we to witness from this disgraced and failing arbcom? Giano (talk) 23:25, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

Giano, please calm down. The ArbCom appear to be dealing with other cases OK (well, having said that, I wouldn 't say all cases, but that's another matter). This is a particularly difficult case. Please be patient and don't inflame the situation. Carcharoth (talk) 23:31, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

How is pointing out the obvious inflaming?, confidence in the Arbcom is failing - I'm sure I'm not the only one who can see that. Giano (talk) 23:33, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

Because like it or not, arbcom is all that stands between us and the abyss of anarchy. We can (and perhaps should) have a serious discussion about arbcom reform in less heated circumstances, but abuse hurtled from the dock is unlikely to be listened to.--Doc^g 23:36, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

You feel a mess like this is the result of good calm administration? OH dear. We need some resignations to restore confidence and a few kicked off the mailing list, or else just fire the lot - I know what I would chose. Giano (talk) 23:44, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

No, this mess was caused by a lack of calmness all right. But I think arbcom can hardly be blamed as the instigators of that. However, if we all aim for a little calm now, and seek our utmost, to resolve the dispute, we might make some headway. More sound less noise?--Doc^g 23:49, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

At the same time, Doc, this group of arbitrators bears a serious stain. When arbitration has occurred in the past, the first question is "evidence of prior attempts at mediation." None was sought, here. The cause for arbitration as stated was that Giano was sending logs by e-mail. There is no policy against that. Then it was that Giano was not following policy for resolving IRC disputes, but there isn't one of those, either. In other words, there was no policy violation stated, and there were no prior efforts at resolution, and yet a case started without a complaint. That alone would render the thing moot if we were attempting any regularity of proceeding. The various findings of fact are unrelated to ... well... anything, really. They don't seem to be about the 3RR at David Gerard's vanity page. They seem to be about "long time trouble," and yet the case was instigated, as several others have been, by Tony Sidaway's statements. I do not recommend banning, blocking, etc., for Tony, but if there were honesty about these things, then Tony would be in the dock as causing another, so the real cause isn't that, either. In fact, it's very difficult to discern what it is, exactly, that is supposed to be arbitrated here. Even "arbitration" isn't applicable, as the proposed remedies don't seem to be aimed, even vaguely, at arbitrating. They seem to be punitive, in most cases, or score settling. Above all, they seem to be making policy (by stating that there is an IRC process, and it's whatever people on IRC say it is, but it can't be said here), which is yet another thing that shouldn't be done by ArbCom. I think those are some of the reasons that Giano thinks that the arbitrators have been chopping away at their own legitimacy. Certainly I regard this as a doomed and actually irrelevant proceeding. This is why I haven't participated: I figure that all of this is nebulous, a collection of grumbles, and unsupported by policies as they are stated at Wikipedia. I counsel others to shrug their shoulders at the arbitrators. I'm not sure what they are trying to do, exactly, but it doesn't seem to be to create a harmonious editing environment. I'm also not sure that they are "they." I think they are a bunch of people all very upset, very unhappy, and not at all in agreement. That's just how it looks to me, from the outside. I don't have access, like David Gerard does, to the super secret discussion among the like minded select. Geogre (talk) 02:35, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

Utterly insane, of course. Finding me guilty of "incivility" isn't even valid, and I'm much more acidic than Bishonen. Have none of the arbs noticed that she has spent the last month not posting to Wikipedia anywhere? And yet there is "incivility?" I spent my month writing three new articles and posting to this page one morning. However, for my pains I was accused of making it a "battleground." Phil went bonkers on the /Workshop page (find a single word from me on the workshop anywhere), then went on an insulting campaign here, saying that Bishonen was going around with a target on her chest. So, when the "rampant incivil" Geogre posts for the first time, it's a battleground. When Bishonen finally comes back to Wikipedia after a month, a proposed remedy of "civility parole." This is utterly childish. These arbitrators are acting like the child that stubs its toe and blames the paving stone for the boo-boo. When you go off half-cocked, irrationally, and against policy and you find people pointing out the shortcomings of your logic and process, don't blame that person. This is absurd, Jerry Springer Show-styled temper tantrums. Geogre (talk) 02:20, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

With respect, Geogre, you are being uncivil right now. Little wonder that trying to call others' civility into question by using emotional language about people's insanity and irrationality and comparing the arbitrators themselves to children doesn't work. In case you haven't figured it out yet, behavior like yours—right now, right here—is what landed us here. I guess like everyone else I can expect an attack on my character for saying so, but this entire situation is ridiculous and Wikipedia's community should not have to waste its time on it, much less on the continuation of it for months even during the case. Dmcdevit·t 04:41, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

Dmcdevit, I'd be interested in any useful suggestions you might have to resolve this case. --Duk 09:00, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

PS - you can see some of mine here

Dom, where in the para by Geogre you replied to is there incivility? Acerbity, yes, but incivility? All I see there is stating what is true. If that's incivil, we're doomed. ++Lar: t/c 17:05, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

Responding to the questions about why the case was accepted: I wasn't yet a member of the committee when that occurred, but I note for the record that WP:RfAr lists "unusually divisive disputes among administrators" as one of the two bases that can justify taking a case directly into arbitration without prior dispute resolution procedures. The then-sitting arbitrators might have thought that the events of December 23-26 qualified. Whether in retrospect acceptance had the best possible results is a different question. Newyorkbrad (talk) 04:12, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

For what it's worth, it became obvious to me when I first heard of the edit warring on the admins IRC channel page, and noticed several controversial uses of admin tools, that an arbitration case was the likely outcome. I think a more pertinent question might be why the participants ever thought that it was not. --Tony Sidaway 15:41, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

Remedies 8 -> 11

While it is sad that it's required, these should have some sort of rider saying, "No adminstrator shall remove such a block without overwhelming consensus to do so, and must place a notice on a relevant discussion board stating the intention to lift the block ,and allowing sufficient time for discussion before actually lifting the block. Adminstrators who do otherwise will be visited in the night by a trout." - 60.242.38.186 (talk) 22:36, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

Could you, I don't know, log in maybe? Few edits under this IP, obvious familiarity with the people and the process = editor with an account. The only conclusion is that you are editing as an IP to mask your identity in order to divorce your comments from your past. ^Avruchtalk 22:39, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

That could be the only conclusion obvious to you but let me suggest some others:

• I'm a lurker who has finally had enough. That's not it, but it could be.
• I'm a former contributor who publically stomped off in disgust but they've "sucked me back in." Not it either, but pretty reasonable.
• I'm somone who contributes elsewhere, tries no to get sucked into shenanigans of this sort, but failed to here.
• Other stuff I haven't thought of.

Does any of that really matter, though? I'm trying to be even handed in the last few comments here, is the messenger more important than the message? Although, seeing how close we keep steering to frying Giano while ignoring the things he complains about, perhaps I already know the answer to that. - 60.242.38.186 (talk) 22:44, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

Yup, consider the message - not the messenger. LessHeard vanU (talk) 23:06, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

That argument - "don't shoot the messenger" - goes too far in assuming there was a valid message (another claim often made in connection to this case). The flashpoint for this was a single episode between two specific editors on an IRC, not a conspiracy among a large number of people on the channel. It's hard to see why it should be necessary to tar the channel itself as flawed because of a failed conversation between two users. Indeed, the main problem with the IRC channel appears to be that a set of lingering interpersonal disagreements are attributed to the channel rather than to the editors who are in disagreement. — Carl (CBM · talk) 14:22, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

Fairly early on in this case I asked for an account of actual and real on-wiki problems that could be attributed to the #WEA channel. I got a few that involved Kelly Martin, but past that it was pretty threadbare. Making me think that, in fact, the assumption that Giano is right about IRC is tenuous at best. Phil Sandifer (talk) 15:12, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

There's been a series of controversial "discussed on IRC" blocks going back as long as it's been running. I'd hate to have to comb through AN/I archives to find them but it's hard to imagine anyone denying that. There's also the fact that it's used for sensitive discussions. The problem there is that while it's supposed to be private, that doesn't always seem to be the case. Another subtler problem is that there's limited membership among the admin group. The majority of admins won't have access to those discussions, which should be carried out on Wiki anyway (except for BLP type things, which shouldn't be talked about in an unsecured secure environment in the first place). There's no real community oversight, and making admins accountable for their actions in channel is obviously difficult. I don't know that this case has been made here, but it's an argument that's been made pretty consistently over the last couple years when the subjects come up. Something from section 4.4.2 on the workshop page (the "Solomon solution") should be seriously considered RxS (talk) 15:52, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

Phil, I think you are talking about this section on the workshop talk page. Still, even if Giano being right is a tenuous assumption, how does that impact on the remedies proposed regarding his behaviour? Do we ban people for being wrong? Wouldn't it be preferable to convince a contributor like Giano (who, contrary to what some people say, does listen to people) that they are wrong, rather than banning them from the Wikipedia namespace? If the kind of record that Giano has is enough to get this sort of remedy passed, then there are other editors with equally problematic behaviour who should be requested, via dispute resolution (and ultimately arbcom), to change their behaviour, or face similar remedies. Some people may say that Giano doesn't listen (I disagree), but there are plenty of invested users around here with hobbyhorses or biases, who won't listen, or who only give the appearance of listening to what others say. And there are plenty of editors who aggressively and disruptively argue their points, but are accepted because they are on the "right" side. I might even agree they are correct, but it gives the appearance of double standards. Carcharoth (talk) 16:30, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

Well, no - we sanction editors for being deliberately disruptive. The defense of Giano seems to be "But he was right." If, in fact, he was not then that defense becomes even more tenuous. Phil Sandifer (talk) 17:47, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

perils of trying to enforce civility

[1]

California State University trustees will consider a revision to a section of the student conduct code Wednesday that includes an expectation that students be “civil.” The change would make it more clear that disciplinary action for “uncivil” conduct is not allowed.

A Northern California court recently ruled the term is too broad.

“The court told us we could not base discipline on civility . . . There is a certain lack of precision to that word,” said Christine Helwick, general counsel for CSU. The policy affects students at 23 CSU campuses, including SDSU and Cal State San Marcos.

That's not to say that students will be permitted to shove someone out of the way while rushing to class. Helwick said students can be disciplined for specific acts of incivility laid out in the conduct code, such as lewd or obscene behavior.

Helwick said it was never the CSU's intention to discipline students for the more general charge of “incivility.” She said the revision will make it “abundantly clear.”

“We thought it was clear before,” Helwick said.

A federal district judge in Oakland didn't. At a November hearing, U.S. Magistrate Wayne Brazil said that a university can say it hopes students will be “civil,” but it can't hold a punishment over their heads if they're not. Brazil granted a preliminary injunction, barring the CSU from basing disciplinary proceedings on incivility.

This case doesn't apply here because Wikipedia is not required to respect freedom of speech or freedom of expression, but it is an interesting ruling on the perils of trying to enforce civility. Uncle uncle uncle (talk) 01:54, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

If I Ran The Zoo

Here's what I'd do...

#wikipedia-en-admins

Wikipedia:IRC channels/wikipedia-en-admins is a closed, private, unofficial channel. It has proven useful to some in the past but has often proven problematic on Wiki and is the prime reason for this case. It has created serious concerns about transparency, civility and off Wiki decision-making with on Wiki consequences.

The ArbCom hereby orders the creation of a new, official channel open to all administrators. The key features of which shall be:

• Open logs, linkable and admissible on the Wiki itself.
• The same codes of on-Wiki conduct and civility would apply to the channel itself.
• Those violating these codes would be subject to the same sanctions on the channel and could even be held accoutable on Wiki itself if the violations are serious enough.
• Neutral moderators, chosen on-Wiki via an open vote, would enforce these codes.

Article probation

All of the parties named in this case are forbidden to make any edits to Wikipedia:IRC channels/wikipedia-en-admins for a period of one year, outside of simple, obvious vandalism reversion.

David Gerard

David Gerard (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) is placed on civility parole for a period of one year. He is further reminded, that someone who is such an important and visable face of the project is expected to conduct themselves with due decorum on and off Wiki.

Tony Sidaway

Tony Sidaway (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) is placed on civility parole for a period of two years. He is further restricted from making any edits outside of article space, his own user space and usertalk space for a period of one year.

Giano

Giano II (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) is placed on civility parole for a period of one year. But given his tremendous and ongoing content contributions and to avoid the appearance of shooting the messenger, that period is reduced to six months. He is thanked for all he has done, but is warned not to again try the Committee's patience, at least for the next few months. There are more polite, desirable ways to get one's message across, please exercise them.

Support:

1. Not that it matters much at this point. The AC has chosen its scapegoat, glanced over the real issues and personalities underlying the case and again demonstrated itself incapable of rendering a fair, just or impartial verdict. In the process it will turn one of the project's finest champions into one of its most outspoken opponents. Way to go AC.--R.D.H. (Ghost In The Machine) (talk) 04:33, 25 January 2008 (UTC)
2. This seems pretty fair, but I'd like to see a few alterations to this. Clearly if logs are published immediately, the effectiveness of the channel for its purported purpose - dealing with BLP and concerted vandal attacks would be diminished. I suggest something akin to the 30 year rule - logs may be published after a fortnight's or month's delay. Secondly a note about access to the channel is needed - either the channel is opened up to all 'editors in good standing' or restricted to just admins. I prefer the later. If the people in there have lost the confidence of the community, or voluntarily given their priviledges up, they shouldn't retain them in this channel. I'm also not convinced that sanctioning anyone for 'civility' is going to be useful here, especially when the bar for incivility in this rfar is apparently so low - see Geogre above, expressing an opinion that the rulings are childish, insane, and irrational is told this is emotive and the root of all our problems. 'Quite bizarre' - is that sufficiently compliant with policy?--Joopercoopers (talk) 10:43, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

The evidence page and the proposed findings don't concern IRC at all; it's somewhat surprising to me that the case was renamed in that way. There are sound reasons for having a channel with closed logs, including the discussion of BLP issues and the desire not to reveal targets for trolling. I think that if evidence about IRC was included (possibly in the form of testimony from admins who use the channel), it wouldn't be possible to characterize it in an entirely negative light. As anyone who has lived in a city knows, not everyone standing on the street corner shouting actually has an important message to convey. — Carl (CBM · talk) 14:49, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

This makes me appreciate the zoo keepers we have.--Doc^g 14:50, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

Indeed. A day or two ago there were complaints that the case was lopsided and the IRC component wasn't being discussed. Because this was due to the arbitration committee privately discussing those matters on which there was disagreement, only those findings on which some agreement appeared likely had been exposed to light [2]. Then Uninvited Company boldly responded to the logjam, and the complaints, by boldly adding some new proposals [3] . Other arbitrators followed suit [4], thus removing the cause for the initial complaint that the case wasn't moving.

And then the pattern of complaints magically changed. It wasn't, any more, that the case was lopsided and IRC wasn't being discussed, but that we were seeing the arbitration committee discussing things openly, and this was such a hideous sight that it damaged, we were told, the credibility of the arbitrators.

I suggest that you can't have your cake and eat it. Are there proposals on view that won't pass? Sure, but this is no different from (to pick some example cases at random) the first Everyking case, 2005, the Sathya Sai Baba case of 2006, or the Dbachmann case of 2007, except that the issues raised in this case are more difficult and feelings run quite high within the community. In short, the Committee is doing its job in an admirable way, and while we may complain about the process, we may have confidence that the arbitrators are chosen by us as our wisest and best, and they are determined to get this right. --Tony Sidaway 15:31, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

I don't think its so much that "the Committee is doing its job in an admirable way" as "you generally get the governance you deserve". We, the community, need to do better if we are to expect to have a better governance process. WAS 4.250 (talk) 16:32, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

But what, precisely, is the complaint about the current one? Is there a real complaint or, as I suggest above, simply an illusion caused by the committee's way of presenting their process on the wiki? --Tony Sidaway 18:35, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

How, exactly, would Giano engage in dispute resolution?

All dispute resolution pages are in projectspace, so a remedy banning him from projectspace essentially bans him from resolving disputes in the proper way. And since he'd presumably get in trouble for resolving them in an improper way, his only real option is not editing. An effective ban is no different than an actual ban. -Amarkov moo! 17:55, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

Or perhaps not engaging in disputes requiring that level of resolution? English country houses and such are not exactly the most contentious of topic areas; Giano's presence in formal dispute resolution has largely been a consequence of his involving himself in other editors' disputes. Kirill 18:05, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

The project space ban is a very bad idea. If the Committee feels the need to ban Giano, they should send him away with his dignity intact, and then suffer the consequences. Inviting Giano to edit without giving him any voice in the project, or chance at raising complaints, would be a dirty. Jehochman ^Talk 18:09, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

What remedy do you suggest that would stop the disruption that he causes in project space? Ryan Postlethwaite 18:12, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

We recognize that Giano resorts to strident rhetoric. That is his nature. I have already suggested that the problem that needs fixing is that any block of Giano leads to major drama. My proposal was that if Giano is blocked for violating Arbcom restrictions, he must not be unblocked except by appeal to the Committee or its appointed clerks. Some tweaking of this idea, plus civility and possibly revert restrictions in project space would be better, I think. As long as he is peaceful, he should be allowed to edit where he likes, and when he crosses the line, he should be stopped. The same standards apply to all editors. Jehochman ^Talk 18:21, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

What remedy do you suggest that would stop the disruption that he causes in project space? I recommend dropping this case as a bad idea with no prospect of a useful solution, and wait until one of these people act up again. Then let the recently elected arbcom member with the near universal mandate use his wisely acclaimed neutrality skills to lead us to a useful solution. WAS 4.250 (talk) 18:37, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

The problem here is that Giano has had plenty of warnings for other users, we really need remedies in this case, and ones that put an end to disruptive behaviour for good. Ryan Postlethwaite 18:39, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

(ec) Yes, that too would be a good idea. At this point blocking or banning anybody for the IRC dispute would be punitive rather than preventative. How do you ban somebody for 5 days, as has been proposed, when they did the misdeed 25 days ago? That makes no sense. Jehochman ^Talk 18:41, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

The trouble with that, Ryan, is that there is disagreement on how disruptive Giano's actions have been. I (and others) could make a very good case that Giano's actions have been less disruptive than some other actions that caused an immense amount of drama. What is seen by some people as disruption is seen as acceptable by other people. I'm sure we can all think of a few recent examples. Some people don't have their habitual swearing restrained. Some people do. Some people don't have their vigorous criticisms contested. Some people do. A record of poor blocking and rudeness to new editors could be said to be far more disruptive and harmful to the project than what Giano does, but we don't throw the baby out with the bathwater there. I agree with Jehochman - the problem is how people react to Giano's behaviour (and to the behaviour of others, such as Tony Sidaway). People talk about blocks of Giano not sticking. How about blocks of Tony? See here. The most recent one stuck, but the some of the other ones were undone for similar reasons to Giano's. Compare "User promised not to do anything destructive" (an unblock of Giano) to "has promised not to undelete these again - no remedy now neccessary" (an unblock of Tony). I suspect a lot of the problem could be resolved if ArbCom agreed to review any and all future blocks of Giano and Tony. It is the unblocking and feeling that nothing will "stick" that causes a lot of the tension, even if the block turns out to have been unjustified. It will look a lot better if an arbitration ruling says whether a block is justified or not. This may be a slippery slope towards a committee assessing blocks, but if it resolves this situation, that might be a price worth paying. Carcharoth (talk) 11:45, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

I have always been of the opinion that a finding of fact is far more powerful than an ostensible remedy in concentrating the mind of the community on the problem. Once the facts are made clear by the committee, the remedy becomes clear to the community. --Tony Sidaway 18:49, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

I agree. If the behaviour reoccurs, pointing to an ArbCom finding, even if no remedy was passed, is a very powerful way of focusing the discussion. Carcharoth (talk) 11:49, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

The historical precedent for a namespace ban (and, to my knowledge, the first one ever metted out) was in Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Anthony DiPierro 2, where an explicit exception was carved out for dispute resolution processes. The wording could probably be further tweaked (it is not clear from the Anthony ruling that Anthony was to be allowed to initiate dispute resolution, which there is in practice no question he should have been allowed to), but it provides a good starting point for tuning this restriction. Phil Sandifer (talk) 19:05, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

One week later...

A week ago or so, I tried to calm things down on this page. I don't appear to have succeeded. Commentary in the past week is a convoluted mixture of insightful commentary, rampant incivility, and understandable though often rather unhelpful frustration. A few observations:

1. There is more than one underlying cause for this case, including issues with the IRC channel overall (including but not limited to a lack of clarity about its status and David Gerard's role), an unfortunate exchange on IRC between two individuals, and a multi-editor edit war on a page. It strikes me that all commentators who are insisting only one of these 3 causes is the real one are not taking a broad enough view.
2. There are many personality issues involved and a considerable amount of interpersonal history. A week ago, there were a few egregious civility lapses, but such that they could be ascribed to the heat of the moment and arguably best ignored. However, certain parties have continued a campaign of escalating incivility and baiting on these pages to the extent that I believe has become a far greater conduct issue than any one of the 3 causes I listed above. I think the eventual final Arbcom decision will have to firmly address this, not as a punitive measure but as a preventative one, lest such egregious rampant incivility during dispute resolution become commonplace in Wikipedia going forward. WP:RFAR is not a court of law, of course, but the principle that courts can quickly and decisively sanction parties for contempt of court is a meaningful one in this regard.
3. Certain people are writing above about "loss of respect" for ArbCom, etc. I for one find my respect for Arbcom as a whole has increased. They are a group of people who clearly have differing viewpoints on this complicated case, but all evidence suggests they are doing an admirable job trying to arrive at a reasonable conclusion. That does not mean that I support the current state of the proposed decision - it is hopelessly incomplete, unfocused, and self-contradictory, and clearly needs to be significantly reworked if it is to have any impact. But I think we all know that, and that does not mean the Arbcom are doing a bad job in trying to get there. It also does not mean my respect for all individuals on the Arbcom has increased; in particular, a few have shown themselves to be quite partisan and far from nuanced in their approach. However, that is part of the reason we have 15, not 3.
4. Two points on specific remedies: First, while there is merit in the critique that barring valuable contributors from project space discussions disenfranchises them from the project, if it is the only type of remedy that will decisively prevent the continuation of an increasing pattern of disruption, it ought to be explored. Second, while the choice of contributors to participate in Wikipedia using their real name is their own risk, and the ArbCom ought not influence a judicious decision based on this, the potential for damage from an ill-considered decision is clearly higher. One hopes the Arbcom will remain aware of this and make sure all findings and remedies are well-supported by fact and deliberation and not part of a rush compromise to appear even-handed.
5. Finally, questions of gender bias have -- in my opinion -- been rather unfortunately drawn into the discussion. Some of the unfortunate insults thrown around reflected the gender of the insultee, but I see little to conclusively support a belief that gender played an important role in the discourse(?). The stridency of some (not all) of the claims in this regard seems suspiciously like a rhetorical device in the debate. Questions of whether the whole dispute would have proceeded differently had some of the parties been of the opposite gender are of course impossible to guess....

(Soapbox off, retreating into hibernation) Martinp (talk) 22:56, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

I really hope we have an early Spring. LessHeard vanU (talk) 12:21, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

We are indeed not a court of law, which can issue contempt citations. Unlike a court of law, however, Wikipedia is not an adversarial system, and editors are expected to contribute productively and collegially to the conversations in which they participate. No amount of dislike for the arbitration committee or possible remedies will justify, and no amount of other positive contribution will offset, the assumption of bad faith and lack of respect implicit in some of the comments I have seen on this page. This is not to say that pointed language and sharp criticism are out of bounds. Our community standards simply require that such criticism must be made with an assumption that all parties are working towards the same goal. — Carl (CBM · talk) 14:36, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

Long-term (chronic) block log records

Over on AN or ANI, I saw a proposal for "three strikes and you are out" with regards to admins. That shouldn't (and probably won't) gain traction, but it got me thinking about this case and the general cases of serial, long-term, "problem" users (putting that in inverted commas because it is not always clear whether the problem is with the user or the people complaining and seeing problems where none exist), who divide the community in this way. The basic idea is to lay down a set number of blocks (excluding test blocks and the like), after which a user's behaviour should be reviewed by the arbitration committee (or some subset thereof). Like the 3RR rule, this would be an electric fence, and would be triggered automatically. An arbitrary figure could be ten blocks, with provisions for blocks to be discounted after a set period of time (eg. two years). The idea is that once someone runs up against that electric fence, their overall long-term behaviour should be automatically examined, as opposed to just specific incidents. An arbitration request would be filed with the user and the blocking admins as named parties. The arbitration committee would then review the block log, decide (and say so) if any of the blocks were unjustified, and decide whether to accept the case or not. As always, the conduct of all parties would be examined, so the conduct of the blocking admins would be examined as well. The arbitration committee could then hand down a finding as to whether long-term chronic behaviour leading to blocking is present, and suggest appropriate remedies, either against the user or against the admins doing the blocking (and unblocking).

If this idea gains traction, it could go two possible ways, or it could be rejected as a bad idea:

• (1) The Arbitration Committee enthusiatically seize on the idea (unlikely, given their current workload).
• (2) The community starts up a process to note those who have chronic block log records and (where necessary - there will be exceptions) finds people willing to collect and present the evidence and file an arbitration case.
• (3) The idea is rejected as unhelpful, unworkable or just a bad idea.

I'm not quite sure how this would interact with the idea of community bans, but I will note here that there are cases where community ban discussions are covering ground that might be better handled in an arbitration case. In any case, some bright-line rules might help keep people in check even if they do get repeatedly blocked and unblocked. Carcharoth (talk) 18:12, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

Double three strikes, 3x3? Nine valid blocks over a career means one would probably be a problem, especially if the blocks are for different things. If they were just for one sort of behavior (3rr, incivility) then that would be probably a good candidate for a community enforced parole--your last chance to shape up. Lawrence § t/e 19:20, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

Nine lives of a cat? Could be a cat-chy title (sorry!). One reasoning behind this is that sometimes some of these arbcom cases, even though they erupt over a specific issue, are clearly in part driven by personal disputes and dislikes (not in everyone's case, but I would guess in some cases). See the "bad blood" principle. The trouble is that this makes for complex and divisive arbcom cases, especially as there is a reasonable desire to have the parties treated fairly in terms of remedies (see Thatcher's proposed decision, which seems to be languishing on the workshop page). ie. "You are blocking him for a month but only cautioning him!!" (wailing and gnashing of teeth). This could be avoided, or at least made manageable, if there were individual arbcom cases. eg. One for Giano, one for Tony, etc (but please, not for at least another year!). That way, the focus could be on one person at a time. A bit like the way a headmaster at a school might deal with a group of unruly pupils. Don't get them all in the headmaster's office at the same time, but bring them in one by one. In fact, it might not be a bad idea if (in the presence of a neutral observer) each party in intractable cases like this, had a private session with the arbcom - with hard questions asked and answered. At the end of that, the solutions might be obvious. Some people (from both sides) who are full of bravado on-wiki might be less so in private correspondence. This might, though, favour those who can think on their feet, so the option should be between real-time conversations (eg. IRC) or mailing list conversations, or even e-mail deliberations. Again, might be impossible to put into practice, but just another idea to throw out there and see if anyone will run with it. Carcharoth (talk) 19:48, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

No, per WP:BURO. If you come across such a user, take a look at their editing, and either do nothing, propose a community ban or request arbitration as needed. Jehochman ^Talk 20:23, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

I'm increasingly wary of the value of community bans. I'm not the sort of administrator that would unblock someone if the blocking administrator did not agree to it, so the "if no administrator will unblock" proviso is useless. Even if I wanted to unblock, I wouldn't, if that makes sense. I posted something to your talk page about this a few days ago. Would you have time to respond? Carcharoth (talk) 21:32, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

In case that didn't make sense, I'm saying that I may see a user as productive (despite the issues that led to the community ban discussion), but if most of the community doesn't, it feels that community ban discussions are unjust. In effect, the community ban discussions force an unblocking admin to mentor, and that shouldn't be a requirement. It should be possible to unblock and let the unblocked user continue to edit after a few ground rules have been discussed. I can provide examples of community ban discussions that were manifestly unfair - the Gene Nygaard example I mentioned on your talk page, and the current one that exploded from the filing of that RfC (Whig and Abridged). I never really took part at CSN, but I don't find the AN process an adequate replacement, let alone the independent discussions and the indefinite blocks that creep under the radar because individual admins carry them out. Are the community ban discussions being logged anywhere? Are the block logs referring to the discussions (actual links, not vague wordings)? One idea I had was to have a daily list of indefinite blocks posted at AN for review and endorsement. But this is way off-topic now. Let's end here or move somewhere else. Any ideas where? Carcharoth (talk) 21:41, 26 January 2008 (UTC) By the way, the epitome of bureaucracy on Wikipedia is WP:ARBCOM...

One month later

As I sit here watching Uninvited Company going through and doing elementary housekeeping on the Proposed decision page, I cannot help wondering what the Arbitration Committee's intent was in accepting this case. On the surface, the case is about an edit war on an obscure page. The fact that there were multiple administrators involved doesn't make it unusual - at least half the edit wars I've seen have involved one or more administrators. The fact that one or more administrators edited through protection, sadly, is not unusual either; I can think of at least 20 administrators I've seen doing that in the past 2+ years. The fact that the page itself is disputed also isn't unusual - there are countless equally as disputed pages throughout article and project space. In fact, the only thing that is unusual in this case is that Jimbo agreed with Bishonen, Geogre and Giano that there was a behavioural problem in the #admins IRC channel to the point that he tasked Arbcom with second level responsibility for monitoring and responding to it (okay, that is two unusual things). In fact, without that input from Jimbo, most of what happened subsequently would never have occurred - half the edit warring revolves around whether or not Arbcom has authority in the channel. And yet, the stage was set by accepting this case to aggravate just about every interpersonal disagreement involving any and all of the parties going back months and years, whether or not it was relevant. The wounds have not only gone unhealed, but are now inflamed and gangrenous. The case has brought no good whatsoever, and a great deal of injury and insult to both the parties and the arbitration committee members. The AC has found itself incapable of addressing the one serious question before it - how it will address the purported responsibility for #admins IRC - and so has left all of the parties dangling for a month with half-hearted proposals to punish them in various ways. Indeed, one arbitrator has only voted to oppose four proposed remedies, and a second only edited the proposed decision to move that the case be dismissed.

It is time to close this RFAR. The damage already evident from this case is vastly greater than any resolution that can be achieved by continuing to pursue it, particularly as the committee seems unwilling to address the IRC issue. Sometimes, the wisest decision is to admit that there is no satisfactory solution. I urge the committee to reconsider their votes on Paul August's motion and to dismiss this case.
Risker (talk) 05:28, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

I've also followed this case from inception to this point, and I have to agree. Unlike other cases that are just as contentious but seem to be gradually concluding, this one is dragging on and on. The housekeeping is also a bit odd. Some sections are being removed because they "have only oppose votes", while other sections (three of the incivility remedies) are being left in, despite also having only oppose votes. This seems inconsistent. It is also the first time I've seen proposed decision page tidied up in this way. It gives a misleading impression to those reading the page later. Surely the place for the tidied up version is the final decision, as placed on the main page of the case after the case closes? Carcharoth (talk) 12:03, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

Misleading is hardly the word I would use! I'm afraid there has to be a conviction at all costs, or otherwise the Arbcom are going to look rather foolish! Giano (talk) 13:00, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

Other editors

Is it presumed that the other editors that took place in the edit warring know that they shouldn't have done so and will not repeat their behaviour? Or should the arbitration committee include a blanket finding of fact on that? The "Locus of dispute" FoFs come closest to this, but seem to have been neglected (only two votes) while there was a rush to vote on the remedies. Carcharoth (talk) 12:12, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

Future course of this case

If the committee are indeed stepping back and setting out the findings of fact more clearly, could they confirm this? There are also 35 proposed findings of fact and 37 proposed remedies on the Workshop page (and a packaged decision from Thatcher), in case there is a need for other ideas. Carcharoth (talk) 12:12, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

Proposing another communication restriction

And here's another one, Carcharoth. There's currently a "Communication restriction" posted on the Proposed decisions page, enjoining {Tony and Phil} from interacting with {Geogre, Giano and Bishonen} and vice versa. I've drafted a second similar remedy, which would restrict future interaction between {most current arbitrators} and {Geogre, Giano and Bishonen}. I think my proposed restriction would do an at least equal amount of good in keeping antagonistic users apart, especially considering the power discrepancy between arbitrators and ordinary users. Theoretically, my proposal belongs on the workshop; but the trouble is, I would be surprised if anybody was still reading the workshop, loose baggy monster that it is. I've put it on this page per IAR, since there is still a lively and up-to-date discussion of arbitrators' input here, with arbs themselves occasionally taking part, whereas I doubt that anybody considers the workshop usable any more. And threaded discussion, as here, is also better than the split and bewildering workshop commentary where the essential distinction lies in whether it's made by arbitrators, parties, or common riff-raff. Here goes:

Involved groups in these hostilities ({Uninvited Company, Fred Bauder, Kirill Lokshin, FloNight, Morven, FT2, Deskana, jpgordon, Sam Blacketer [note Feb 1: having second thoughts about jpgordon, removing him from the list. And I obviously missed Sam Blacketer before, who had not at the time come out in his complete opinions and remarks; adding him to this proposal, which I really wish somebody would import to the main page. Bishonen | talk 15:56, 1 February 2008 (UTC).]}, {Bishonen, Geogre and Giano}) shall not interact with, or comment in any way (directly or indirectly) about each other (as individuals), on any page in Wikipedia, once this case is finished. Should any of them do so, s/he may be blocked by any uninvolved administrator for a short time, up to one week; after the fifth such violation, the maximum block length shall be one year.

Proposed in the interest of ameliorating some of the bitterness engendered by the way this case has been handled, or at least of minimizing all harking back to that bitterness. I can supply diffs of disruption, anger, and inappropriate partiality from members of both groups on request, though in fact I hope people will refer to their own memories instead: the events are recent enough, and I would prefer to begin as I mean to go on, i. e., without harping on old grudges.

If Bishonen, Geogre, or Giano should find themselves involved in yet another RFAr involving those same arbitrators, this remedy must, naturally, be void, and free commentary resume on both sides. (The Committee is however urged to make an effort to avoid that situation, by not accepting such a ragbag of a case again). I added "as individuals" to the phrasing, on the consideration that the ArbCom is a wiki-political body, which performs the last step of dispute resolution on Wikipedia; therefore, to enjoin any user from mentioning or criticizing the Committee as such, would be intolerably restrictive. Only individual arbiters (those enumerated above) should be considered covered by this remedy.

The list I've compiled is not of all the arbs active on this case, as you can see; feel free to suggest alternatives. I made my list on perhaps rather naive principles: it consists of the arbs I would be pleased to avoid, and who will surely in their turn, from the opinions they've expressed, be delighted to have nothing more to do with us. Obvious objections, though: well, firstly, aren't the arbiters needed, to keep an eye on us, and keep our bad behaviour and bad faith in check? No, I really don't think so. An exception to the restriction is explicitly made for arbitrations; and outside the arbitration pages, arbitrators are just users. Well, they're admins, but there are 1500 other admins out there, all ready to contain our disruptiveness. We'll have little chance of wreaking havoc, always assuming (as seems in fact to be assumed) that such is our goal.

And secondly, the arbiters aren't being arbitrated here; isn't it hair-raisingly presumptuous of me to propose restrictions for them? Well, I repeat: they're users. Any user who deserves it can be sanctioned, admonished, encouraged, or urged to alter their behavior in the course of a case; and my proposal here doesn't even put forth any such rudenesses, it merely suggests a mutual restraint which would surely be to the advantage of everybody involved, and would promote good will and editing harmony.

P.S. Quoting NYBrad: "Perhaps if the parties named in this remedy were all voluntarily to agree to abide by it, without the need for formal findings of who was incivil, aggressive, or unjust to whom how many times, progress would be made." Bishonen | talk 18:20, 28 January 2008 (UTC).

Is there any evidence that the arbitrators have done anything to warrant a sanction? It seems odd to consider a restriction when one side is a majority of the arbitration committee and the other side includes only named parties in this case. — Carl (CBM · talk) 19:16, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

If you read my post with any care, you will have noticed that for evidence, I offer diffs to those who insist. (Though I'd rather refrain from posting such, as I foresee it'll get me accused of mulling over "grudges"; plus, it's hardly worth the trouble for someone who in any case considers my proposal simply "odd" from the ground up.) For "sanction", that's not a sanction. It's "a mutual restraint which would surely be to the advantage of everybody involved, and would promote good will and editing harmony". What's wrong with that? Do take another look at the quote from NYBrad, too. Please don't make me say everything twice. Bishonen | talk 19:34, 28 January 2008 (UTC).

I admit I missed your offer of diffs. If you could email them to me, I will not pass them along further. Newyorkbrad seemed to only be urging the parties in the case to voluntarily abide by sanctions. I attribute that to his desire that the committee shouldn't impose them, but I'm sure he'll let me know if I am misunderstood.

It isn't only your post that I find surprising. Claims that the arbitration committee has somehow done wrong by accepting that case are also difficult to accept if they come from the parties facing possible sanctions. — Carl (CBM · talk) 19:46, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

Concur: Let no one speak of any other potential remedy, such as,

1. Establishing a mechanism for dispute resolution on IRC,
2. Making the en.admins.irc channel for all administrators without question and for no non-en. administrators, without question,
3. Demanding that parties to a "dispute" contact one another to seek solutions before arbitration,
4. Requiring arbitrators with a pre-formed conclusion about "problem users" to refrain from being part of an arbitration,
5. Asking arbitrators to seek to work out peaceful relations with those being arbitrated privately and publicly,
6. Allowing no one to be offended on behalf of someone else and therefore allowing no one to claim that a user is "incivil," when there do not appear to be any interlocutors who are upset or insulted in any way,
7. Defining "incivil" in a way that the community can agree upon it before insisting that it be a standard upon which to base blocks,
8. Asking that cases be accepted only when previous mediation has been attempted and when there is a violation of policy stated in the complaint,
9. Jettisoning pages advocating or describing IRC pages from Wikipedia, as they are not part of Wikipedia,
10. Establishing the fact that the above (no links from Wikipedia to any IRC channel) will happen if the "contact persons" of IRC channels do not allow Wikipedia's dispute resolution processes to have full play on and authority over IRC conflicts,
11. Allowing the posting of logs, when they are evidence of misbehavior, as there is no privacy in them,
12. Prohibiting private communication as a grounds for Wikipedia decisions;

Let no one, I repeat, speak of these unless he is prepared to believe that any of them have any likelihood of ever coming into being or gathering support from this august and awed court of opinion. Geogre (talk) 20:23, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

You seem to be saying that this arbitration over conduct issues cannot be successful unless it makes policy changes to satisfy one of the parties, you. Can it be possible that your view on this matter is influenced by your involvement? --Tony Sidaway 04:53, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

Sidaway, ¿Por qué no te callas? and let the arbitrators do their work.--Certified.Gangsta (talk) 06:37, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

Indeed I shall. However Georgre knows as well as I that his policy demands will not and cannot be met by any arbitration committee. --Tony Sidaway 07:05, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

Whether his policy demands are met or not is irrelevant. Nor does it excuse your egregious behavior, continuous wikilawyering, and shameless attempts to drive out valued mainspace contributors. And please do not presume you speak for the committee.--Certified.Gangsta (talk) 07:26, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

Policy change? Why, no! I agree, of course, that there should be big restrictions on talking to one another, because that is much easier than remedying any of the problems. I'm sure that people not speaking to each other will be the very essence of improving dispute resolution. It's clear that people have been speaking to each other far too much already. If we cannot do as Jimbo said and acknowledge that IRC simply is under the control of ArbCom, and if we cannot define "civility" before we start beating people over the head with it, and if we cannot communicate with each other to forestall these things, and if we cannot have the "contact persons" for IRC realize that they either get their passtimes regulated by Wikipedia or they don't get to get advertised by Wikipedia, then it's much better if we seek the peace and happiness of the Grand Chartreuse and not, by any means, the raucous, "incivil," chaos of the bazaar. Geogre (talk) 13:12, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

Geogre, while your argument that the IRC page represents advertising by folks to support their personal hobby is appealing, I see another explanation. There are a variety of people who have created software tools to use with Wikipedia. We allow them to publicize these things in their userspaces. I've got one on my userpage, called wpcite.xpi and here's another example: de:Wikipedia:Helferlein/VBA-Macro for EXCEL tableconversion. IRC is one more tool available to members of the Wikipedia community.

Perhaps the correct decision is to move the IRC page to the user space of one of the control people. This will make clear that it is a private resource, subject to their control, made available for the community on terms of the owners' choosing. Keeping the page in project space is problematic because it makes the channel look like it is official and subject to Wikipedia rules, when it is not.

In the alternative, ArbCom can assume responsibility for enforcing community norms on IRC, and the control people can donate the channel to Wikipedia. They may remain the channel contacts as agents for Wikipedia.

I encourage resolution of the IRC ownership issue and dismissal of all the other claims and counter-claims. If we remove the underlying source of conflict, the unacceptable editing behavior may also disappear without the need for highly controversial and divisive remedies. Jehochman ^Talk 14:30, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

I'd welcome this Jehochman. I do think IRC is the root of it all, and the solution really isn't going to be 'making an example of people -whatever the collateral damage'. I think we perhaps differ in that you appear to think there's still ambiguity about the official status of the channel whereas I think it has been made explicit by Jimbo - "I consider it well within the overall remit of the Arbitration Committee and my own traditional role in the English Wikipedia community to have authority over IRC as necessary"[5]. We were asked to consider that policy, indeed we were told that (in Jimbo's head) it had always been policy. He then went on to discuss the specifics of how civility on the channel should be enforced. So this disagreement may be as easy as asking Jimbo to clarify. Let's put an end to the stalemate witchhunt here, userfy or add 'policy' tags to the WEA page and move on to discussion about dispute resolution at IRC and the other attendant issues. --Joopercoopers (talk) 15:16, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

Since the status of IRC was previously unclear, ArbCom should not apply the new rules ex post facto. Tony Sidaway has given up access to the channel, so that issue is resolved. The inappropriate response to Tony's provocation is resolved by subjecting the channel to Wikipedia's rules, and by clarifying that the IRC page is no longer owned by the channel contacts. What remains to be done is that ArbCom and the channel contacts should confirm Jimbo's pronouncement for the avoidance of all doubt, and ArbCom should dismiss the pointless remedies that have been proposed against several good faith contributors. Jehochman ^Talk 15:42, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

Yes, eminently sensible. --Joopercoopers (talk) 15:59, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

Yes, Arbcom (and jimbo if arbcom decides it's out) need to clearly state the status of the irc program. either in or out. until that all the rest of this is timewasting folly. Tony's continuous assertion that irc cannot CANNOT be part of wikipedia is, I think, misguided. Wikipedia can be anything we like it to be. --Rocksanddirt (talk) 18:07, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

I have asserted no such thing. I have stated that I think the committee will probably want to stop short of taking direct control of IRC disputes [6] [7] [8][9][10], and this is in fact supported by Jimmy's own statement that "from this day forward, concerns about standards of civility in IRC should be taken up with the channel operators, the Arbitration Committee, and me, in that order." [11] Note in particular the absence of references to the on-wiki dispute resolution process. In my view certain parties have harbored similar misconceptions about the nature of this case to those they expressed about the nature of the Durova case. --Tony Sidaway 19:02, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

I note your curious use of 'misconceptions' as a shorthand for 'differing viewpoint to Sidaway', and congratulate your creative use of language. :-) Joopercoopers (talk) 19:44, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

I refer, rather, to the marked differences between statements by certain observers about the issues in both cases, and statements actually made by the arbitrators themselves on the proposed (and in the case of Durova, final) decision pages. This requires no act of creativity at all, but is in fact a comment on the creativity of those observers. --Tony Sidaway 21:11, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

Ah come on Tony, you know good natured banter when you see it, your pulling my leg. --Joopercoopers (talk) 21:19, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

Pardon me. My sense of humor module seems to have temporarily shorted out (<thwack>). --Tony Sidaway 21:24, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

And as I try and point out from time to time, Jimbo has also said that he would not overrule an Arbcom decision, so they have more freedom of movement than that quote would seem to leave them. If they do stop short of taking direct control of disputes then they should end any relationship with the IRC channels. RxS (talk) 21:09, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

I quite agree that the arbitrators could decide to exceed the remit set for them by Jimmy Wales. I have also observed that historically the arbitration committee has been very conservative and parsimonious in adopting any new powers. There are also pragmatic reasons not to remove the IRC op layer of discipline and not to apply precisely the same standards as those applying on the wiki--pretty much the same reasons that apply to, for instance, the various mailing lists. --Tony Sidaway 21:13, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

Conservative yes, paralyzed and forbidden, no. I don't think anyone is suggesting that tactically, the channel ops don't (or shouldn't) have control over discipline in the channel. The point is that the fundamental relationship between Wikipedia and IRC has to change. Either the dispute resolution chain is as Jimbo stated, and IRC channel policy is driven by consensus on Wikipedia (when not conflicting with Freenode), or Arbcom has no role in disputes and Wikipedia policy doesn't extend to IRC, and doesn't promote it. But as it is now it's semi-official status has caused a long line of problems. Wikback and similar sites never generate those problems and IRC should be treated much more like external sites than an official adjunct of Wikipedia. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rx StrangeLove (talk • contribs) 22:15, 29 January 2008

I would be surprised to see the arbitration committee declare that IRC policy is to be declared by Wikipedia consensus. I don't agree that IRC itself is the problem, and I know that Jimmy has stated in the very statement I have cited, that in his opinion the IRC admins channel is not at all a source of problems. He's also pretty clear that he regards IRC as "a fundamental part of the way we conduct our work, and...an incredibly valuable tool." [12] . Whether Wikipedia is "official" or not is moot. --Tony Sidaway 22:38, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

::::::::The channel does seem innately unfair since only "some" editors are allowed to participate, apparently on the basis of favoritism. Yet the importance of the channel on the functioning of Wikipedia seems obvious, as evidenced by this Arbitration. How can this state of affairs be condoned? Mattisse 16:32, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

I thought all administrators were automatically entitled to access? Is this not the case still? On what authority could a valid admin on this English Wikipedia be denied access? Lawrence § t/e 16:57, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

I am not aware of any admins currently denied access, and if there are, they should contact me. Newly promoted admins should not be denied access on any basis. Admins could be temporarily or permanently removed for inappropriate conduct in channel, although exactly what the terms and conditions are need to be better defined. Thatcher 17:09, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

:::::::::::At least one editor (non-admin) has bragged somewhere on these pages of having access to the channel without any problems. It is obvious that some non-admins do have access to the channel. On what basis is this granted? Is the basis (what ever it is) fair to the community as a whole? Does allowing privileged non-admins access to the channel contribute to the goals and spirit of Wikipedia as a whole? Or does it contribute to the atmosphere of inequality, the privileged versus the lower class, and the feeling of secrecy and backdoor dealings on Wikipedia? Mattisse 17:21, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

<- (outdent) I believe channel policy is to invite (on a case by case basis) editors who are in positions of trust but who are not admins. For example, it is probably harder to get approval for OTRS (the system by which trusted editors answer complaints from people in the real world) than to be promoted to admin, and if there are OTRS people who are not admins, they might be granted access since many of the issues raised by OTRS require admin intervention (BLP and copyvio deletions, mostly) and it is a good channel for rapid, relatively private communication. Again, if Arbcom accepts Jimbo's offer to assume some role overseeing IRC, I would think the issues of access would be addressed. Thatcher 18:53, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

::Hopefully they will address it, as what you write above sounds rather hypothetical as it is based on your beliefs and not on anything concrete. It is predicated on the belief that Wikipedia operates fairly which is increasingly harder to assume. There is obviously a privileged group (or groups), and there are those of us who, no matter what, will never be a member of a privileged group. I think it is time for Wikipedia to become honest about this discrepancy and acknowledge it. Much harm comes to those of us editors who started out idealistic about Wikipedia and have operated in the dark about this for so long, wondering about the obvious discrepancy between how various editors are treated, yet being told all is fair. However, it does explain much strange and discriminating behavior against some editors while others are favored, why some of us are never taken seriously, and why getting answers to some questions are impossible to obtain. Mattisse 19:20, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

It's not hypothetical, that is how the channel is supposed to work. It's just that I can not swear that every one of the 400+ people on the access list is there for a good reason because there is no central record on the IRC system of when they were added and why. (This is not due to nefarious reasons or deliberate obfuscation; IRC simply does not keep such records.) Thatcher 20:17, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

Abuse on the Proposed Decision page

This is too much. To insert gratuitous personal insults in votes on the Proposed Decision page, as when Fred Bauder called Giano "a disruptive personality" (among other things) just now, is simply contemptible. To use his position as arbitrator to remark on the personality of a user he dislikes and disapproves of, on a special page only arbitrators get to edit... does this man set himself up as a judge of "civility", really? I've written to Fred on his page, but am taking the issue here as well, noting Thatcher's advice to do so (along with Thatcher's rather quaint old-world Upstairs, Downstairs note that it's not "his place" to register public disapproval of arbitrators).[13] Fred, if you can't restrain yourself, please don't cling to the last vestiges of arbitrator power, step down now. If not, I appeal to the rest of the committee to defend users against such abuse. Bishonen | talk 21:01, 29 January 2008 (UTC).

Does WP:NPA apply on the Proposed Decision page? Lawrence § t/e 21:09, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

For better or for worse (there are arguments both ways), no. Picaroon (t) 21:21, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

• Can I please ask why you feel saying that Giano has a disruptive personality is a personal insult? I don't think we would be in this position is some people thought that his disruption in project space had reached serious levels, and neither would we have the remedies that are currently been considered if this wasn't at least partly true. Freds comment wasn't incivl, it was his opinion and reasoning for his vote - I honestly see nothing wrong with it, some people just need to open their eyes. When users have to resort to attacking arbitrators and start talking about the committee choking on their balls, I don't really think you've got much rebuttal when someone says something like this. Ryan Postlethwaite 21:17, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

In a Nutshell - Comment on content, not the contributor. (From WP:NPA). It is a far different thing to say that a person has a "disruptive personality" than it is to say that someone "edits in a disruptive manner" or "disrupts proceedings." One is about the essence of a person, something that cannot reasonably be deduced in a forum such as Wikipedia; the other is about the actions that a person takes. Nonetheless, I did not expect Fred to be sunshine and light. I do have a reasonable expectation that all arbitrators including Fred be more clear in what they are saying. Fred's votes imply that he thinks a one-year ban is a wimpy solution, and that all of the editors identified in the "restricted communications" proposal are bad apples. I find both of those statements to be as clear as mud. Risker (talk) 21:43, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

The arbitrators are asked to comment on contributors, not so much on content in this particular case, so it would be hard for some people not to take things personally. I think Fred meant that Giano edits in a disruptive manner (possibly he has a disruptive personality on Wikipedia?), but maybe he could have been clearer. Ryan Postlethwaite 21:48, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

Or maybe he could have conducted himself in a more professional manner--perhaps like Newyorkbrad, for example--and less like an angry oaf. 24.181.203.35 (talk) 21:52, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

Mr. Which, please moderate your tone. I think you will find that being uncivil during a discussion of civility will not impress the other discussants. Thatcher 22:17, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

Unless you're Fred Bauder. Then it's OK. SashaNein (talk) 13:28, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

• Exactly, Sasha. And I referred to how Fred was acting ("like an angry oaf"), I didn't say he was an angry oaf. And I even complimented a member of the Arbcom in the process. I also note how Thatcher refers to an anonymous IP by a username they suspect the anon IP to be. Is this standard practice for arbitration clerks? And perhaps this clerk knows information associated with a secret checkuser run by a member of the arbcom on the MrWhich account, when that account holder dared -- DARED, I say! -- to disagree with the conduct of the Durova case? I'm with Giano on this one: it ain't paranoia if they actually are out to get you. 24.181.203.35 (talk) 13:40, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

You may well be right in your interpretation of Fred's words, Ryan. In a case like this, where all of those involved (including most of the arbitrators) have had years of experience with each other, it is just that much more important for the decision-makers to be crystal clear in their wording, so that people on all sides of the question are not left doing free interpretation of the intent. Indeed, poorly constructed opinions are more likely to inflame the situation, as can already be seen on this page. I hope that Fred goes back and clarifies what he means, because his words are poisoning the well against not just Giano but also David Gerard, Tony Sidaway, Geogre and Bishonen - whether he intended it or not. Risker (talk) 21:55, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

I routinely call for the use of civil and moderate language in arbitration proceedings as in all areas of Wikipedia. That request applies to everyone involved in the process. Newyorkbrad (talk) 22:01, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

A few points:

• (1) I've been waiting for weeks for Fred Bauder to turn up with a predictable "wimpy" comment. In fact, Fred is as predictable as Giano in that respect. They both seem to say things without thinking what the reaction to their comments will be.
• (2) Disruption, to answer Ryan's comment, comes in many forms. What some view as "serious disruption" by Giano makes not a whit of difference to most people. And the conduct of some of the arbitrators is possibly as disruptive as Giano's actions, if not more so. Just as we rightly hold admins to a higher standard of conduct, so arbitrators should also be able to conduct themselves with decorum.
• (3) More importantly, in general it is important to be civil whoever you are talking about, and to use temperate language where possible. The banned user that someone disparages may be unbanned at some point, and we may have to work with them in future. Building up bad blood for the future is not good. Arbitrators may say things about a user who is being banned for a year, that may prejudice that user reforming and returning after that year, and that is not good.

And why do some arbitrators have to take things so personally? They were elected to arbitrate, not to judge and condemn. Carcharoth (talk) 22:05, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

Amen to many of the above. However, what I have found objectionable is that a case that is accepted about "Giano is not following IRC dispute resolution" (and then it turns out there isn't any) and then shifts to "there is an edit war" (and that was over by that point, with a 24 hr block handed to the one person who went 3RR), is accepted for other reasons. Several arbitrators have said that they wish to "deal with" "longstanding" and "persistent" abuse from "problem users." I know that ArbCom has no resemblance to a court of law, but it might be good to remember that judges are supposed to have no opinion about the guilt or innocence of a party when they accept a case. If they have been waiting for the chance to take care of a "disruptive personality," we call it prejudice, and judges must recuse if there is any evidence that they had made previous statements indicating guilt. In our ArbCom, though, prejudice seems to be operative. If you already know that these are "disruptive users" (Bishonen), "incivil users" (me), and "disruptive personalities" (Giano), then you are not judging anything: you're getting even or getting a chance to impose your opinion.

One former arbitrator assured me that all 300+ of the votes Giano got for ArbCom were protest votes. He was not concerned that 300+ users would feel the need to protest nor admit that anyone might believe Giano would do a better job than others. I did not have the poor grace to ask what explained the votes that I once got. That kind of assumption of stupidity about the user base of Wikipedia is distasteful.

I find it remarkable that people can take single lines from diffs (if they read them) and conclude anything. It reminds me of fundamentalist Christians who take single verses of scripture ("proof texts") and shout them at each other. Disruption is an act, not an attribute. As a verb, it requires an object. Any time you hear that someone "has disrupted," don't you ask, "disrupted what?" Disrupting a crime in progress is good. Disrupting a charity work is bad. Disrupting the "editing environment" is an absurdity as a charge levelled at anyone who has edited and added content merrily for years.

Fred Bauder's exposure to Giano consists solely of arbitration. At best, he could think that Giano makes Fred's arbitration goals difficult (disrupted). The question is this: are people arbitrating (taking some of this, some of that, seeking middle ground, seeking concessions, determining a middle way), or are they prosecuting. I have disrupted prosecution. Giano has too. So has Bishonen. Has arbitration come to a halt because of Giano's presence? The way I see it, people accelerate and expand arbitration if they think they can involve Giano.

I agree, of course, that the arbitrators here have taken things personally, personally, and personally. They have sometimes acted like Cartman more than like Justice Marshall. No one has to respect you, or me. No one has to agree with you, or me. No one has to bow to your authoritay or mine. Many of the arbitrators on this case should feel shame and let other people go about the work, including Giano going about his work of editing. The arbs should cease being disruptive and "personalities." Geogre (talk) 22:48, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

I agree with much of the sentiment here, however I feel I should note that there is a dispute resolution mechanism for IRC, Bishonen followed it, and Tony was banned from the channel. He was apparently unbanned on the grounds that he had not been given a chance to speak in his own defense, but no one know what the outcome would have been if the discussion between Bishonen, Tony and Mark Ryan had not been overtaken by events. Thatcher 12:16, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

Thatcher, you're being disingenuous several places, and this is one of them. So, 1) There is a dispute resolution process? Where do we find it? Where do we find out what to do if we're not on IRC and yet are being maligned? Where do we go to find out what to do if the "process" isn't followed? 2) Bishonen followed it. She happened to have followed that last IRC case carefully and to have seen the "remedies" there (new ops, but nothing structural), and, because she was on IRC quite a bit, she knew that Mark Ryan was the uberop. What happens to other admins? How many knew this? What would have happened if a party had been unsatisfied with things? What would have happened if, God forbid, Mark Ryan had had a real life holiday or emergency? Quick: who's second in charge? 3) "Tony was banned": for 30 minutes he was banned from en.admins, where he was because? As a non-administrator on en., why was he there, and why ignore the statement of one administrator to allow an asterisk to the channel name? 4) Because he hadn't represented himself is the most ironic statement made in a case full of hypocrisy and irony: the substance of the "dispute" between Bishonen and Tony was that Bishonen said that you shouldn't go dragging people through the mud on IRC if they're not there to defend themselves, and Tony told her to go "be an arsehole" somewhere else, because that was the admins! IRC channel and not the "problem user" IRC channel. 5) Because he hadn't represented himself: He gave a non-denial denial, without Bishonen being checked with, without any checking of logs, without any allowance of logs, and claimed only that, like Alberto Gonzales, he did not recall what he said. 6) He was then readmitted, end of problem, and Bishonen is a "problem user" for being offended; in contrast to these proceedings when ArbCom has taken upon itself to be insulted on behalf of others when levying "civility" charges, this went to the realm where a person actually was insulted and then got blamed for it. So all was well? That's absolutely precious. Geogre (talk) 12:36, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

I've exchanged emails with Bishonen, and it is apparent that the dispute resolution process for IRC that exists in theory did not function in her case. I don't know what the Arbitrators have in mind as they consider issues of channel governance, but I wonder if most of the issues could be avoided with a public chanops' noticeboard, where complaints could be registered and discussed publicly and any actions would be transparent. It would also allow a record to be kept so that someone who is a persistent problem couldn't escape scrutiny by appealing to friends or because no single chanop ever handled more than one complaint (this is all hypothetical of course). We would all think it pretty strange if Wikipedia allowed for brief and escalating blocks for disruptive behavior but maintained no block log and had a culture that only admins who were on line at the time of the complaint could comment or act. Thatcher 06:59, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

Didn't function in this case?...in this case? Didn't function or completely failed because it was a broken almost non-existant process? The very second Sidaway was removed all his friends were screaming for him to be allowed back in, which is why his first removal only lasted half an hour, and if it were not for the publicity surrounding this case he would be back in there now - discussing the case with you and Flo Knight. It is about time you people woke up and realised why the community is so angry about this.Giano (talk) 08:28, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

Perhaps as part of its new mandate, Arbcom will better define the process and make it more transparent. And, as I told her in my reply, perhaps I should ask to be a chanop. I don't fold under pressure easily and if I kicked someone for good reason and they were back in half an hour, I would bloody well demand answers. I was not on line during the incident on the 23rd, by the way. Thatcher 11:45, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

No, and I don't suppose we will ever be officialy told who was. Perhaps they will hold their hands up though and tell us. Giano (talk) 12:29, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

A discreet observation

The conduct of the arbitrators is not the subject of this case. --Tony Sidaway 21:22, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

You do like to make discreet observations, don't you Tony? 24.181.203.35 (talk) 21:32, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

You shouldn't need to make an instance of incivility a matter for an arbcom - you just have to deal with it at the time at the pertinent venue... if allowed. LessHeard vanU (talk) 22:07, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

Exactly. I'm convinced now that the arbitration case was a mistake, and filed prematurely. One of the reasons for accepting was "gasp, terrible edit war!" - yet the other editors in that edit war have been lost in the noise, and the focus has been remorselessly on old grudges. The possible tag-teaming and inflaming of an edit war by other editors seems to have been dropped. The issue of WP:WEA could have been (and probably ultimately will be) decided at WP:MFD. Rejecting the arbitration case and letting the community decide what to do with WP:WEA might have been best. Carcharoth (talk) 22:18, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

• The point of this Arbcom case was to get me! Nothing more nothing less. But as usual #admins and the Arbs did not get their "clean kill"! Giano (talk) 22:39, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

That may be, Giano, but please think of the people who have defended you and try not to make their work more difficult. Jehochman ^Talk 22:45, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

No point in defending a man whose already been sentenced, I have been saying this all along. Now where are those logs for "clean kill" I'm sure I have the buried away somewhere. Giano (talk) 22:47, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

Giano, if anyone is out to "get you" it is precisely because of provocative statements like that. Look, do you want a resolution of this dispute? If you do, poisoning the air with repeated assumption of bad faith which border on self-absolved paranoia are not helpful. If you attack everyone as complicit in a conspiracy against you, sooner or later your prophecy will self-fulfil. And, yes, eventually they will stump up the nerve to ban you! Is there any chance of you working for a de-escalation of this dispute? All that is really required is for you, and a few others, to indicate that when issues arise in future you will calmly and collaboratively work for resolutions - assuming as much good faith as is possible. The bottom line is that we can't go on like this. It needs to stop. It needs less clever rhetoric and rabble-rousing and a lot more clear-heads and compromise. Are there issues? Yes. Is their blame on every side? Undoubtedly. But are your consistent tactics likely to help sort this? I don't think even you think that's likely. You love this project - please please please use you unmatched commitment, and evident skills to save it now.--Doc^g 22:56, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

For the first few weeks of this Australian Bush theatre I said nothing. I listened, I watched, I wrote and I waited, and I waited and I waited. Gradually all I knew came to be proven, and continues to be so. Instead of lecturing me, go and lecture elsewhere. I have continually advised that this case should never have been brought, or should be abandoned. However, those that know best for reasons which are becoming extremely transparent want to see it through to the bitter end - so be it - who am I to argue? I merely write a few pages about the place, I'm told, I'm undeserving of an opinion. So I suggest you take your questions elsewhere - to our "superiors". Drag them out the chatroom and ask them. Giano (talk) 23:08, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

As I said on your talk page, you've made your point, as has Fred. No need to overdo it, Giano. Please calm down. Other people are quite capable of reading what Fred and others have said and coming to their own conclusions about you and Fred and others. Carcharoth (talk) 23:53, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

What nonsense!

Can someone please explain to me how any of this is going to improve Wikipedia? I think most of the community is tired of this case and wants it gone. It's about a meaningless edit war over a project page that doesn't matter a damn. Perspective, everyone, please! Just the voting phase of this case has been open for nearly one full month. It's ridiculous! There are other arbitration cases waiting in the wings, where the arbitrators might actually be able to make a positive difference, rather than piss off every one of the parties involved (and a good many parties not involved). To top it off, these pending cases (Waterboarding and Episodes and characters 2) actually involve real articles, not just IRC navel-gazing and project-space vanity.

I am seriously considering nominating Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/IRC and all corresponding subpages and talk pages for deletion, via MFD. Time to stop the bleeding. Time to move on to something productive. *** Crotalus *** 23:09, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

Go on do, I'll vote for it. Giano (talk) 23:11, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

YES!! to the first paragraph. Jehochman ^Talk 23:14, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

Let no one say I did not try for a happy ending [14]. Giano (talk) 23:21, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

I'd love to be able to say that was your intention. Unfortunately, it is beginning to strain credibility.--Doc^g 23:24, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

I have a better idea. How about everyone just shut up with the divisive background noise and let the Arbs do the job we elected them to do. Everyone has had their chance to have their say on the talk and workshop pages and there has been very little said by anyone for weeks that has been constructive. Either the Arbs will come to a conclusion, or they will be deadlocked and come to no conclusion. The sniping is what has turned this into a circus. Rockpocket 23:30, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

• It was not my intention to "snipe" at the arbitrators, who I think are doing the best job they can in trying circumstances. I think that the entire process on this case is unhelpful and should be ended. Moreover, I think it is safe to say that, after nearly one month of deliberations, that Arbcom is "deadlocked" already. Time to declare the wiki-equivalent of a hung jury, and move on. (And no retrial. Please!) *** Crotalus *** 23:46, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

In response to Crotalus horridus, and after a bit of reflection, I have a hard time believing that there are any parties involved in this case who would object to the idea of having the whole shooting match deleted; Phil Sandifer has expressed concerns about how it will affect his future job prospects, for example, and David Gerard's name being prominently attached to the case has implications for Wikimedia UK as well. For that matter, I am getting the sense that some of the arbitrators wouldn't mind all that much either, except perhaps for the precedent being made. I do agree with Crotalus horridus that there are many much more important issues for this committee to address than this. Risker (talk) 23:33, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

I strongly agree with Uninvited Company's recent statement that the arbitrators "have a responsibility to hear the case" [15] and I rather suspect that many of the parties who have not spoken up on this matter agree with me. Certainly the mood of the arbitrators seems to be disposed to continue, if recent votes on the motion to dismiss are anything to go by. --Tony Sidaway 23:52, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

It is an interesting question, though. In theory, the community could endorse an MfD of this case - it is unlikely though that the MfD would be open for long enough (someone would assert authority and speedy keep it or declare the MfD invalid), or that anyone would have the gumption to actually delete said pages even if the MfD was overwhelmingly in favour of that (also unlikely). In theory, I suppose, as the arbitration pages are supposedly owned in the same way that WP:WEA is, the arbitration committee could order the pages of a case to be deleted (unlikely though, given the amount of contributions by others). What might be an idea is for the community to re-open and expedite the currently closed MfD on WP:WEA, get rid of that page, and in so doing, send a signal to the arbitration committee. Or David Gerard could just delete, merge and/or userfy it. In fact, I'm going to ask David if he will consider doing that, though it might be better if the community sent that signal at an MfD. Really, though, the question becomes whether it is even valid to MfD "owned" pages. I would say that some "central" pages should never be subject to MfD, but that truly miscellaneous pages (even if owned) should still be subject to MfD. Carcharoth (talk) 00:02, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

the arbitrators "have a responsibility to hear the case" Of course they do. Unfortunately they decided not to. --Duk 00:16, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

Yes. They have dodged the main issue and gone after the decoys. ArbCom serves at the community's pleasure. If we choose to delete these pages as a failed process, they must acquiesce. Regrettably, this process has failed. There is no consensus, and the community is opposed to the direction that ArbCom is currently heading. Dear colleagues on the Committee, I like you very much, but you have marched into a box canyon. Jehochman ^Talk 00:24, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

It is an interesting facet of arbitration that we end up with the arbitration case the arbitrators see in the evidence. What makes it particularly interesting to me is that the case is seldom that seen by quite a large section of the community. This is to be expected. If the community had the capability of resolving the case by itself, then the case would not have arrived at the doorstep of the arbitrators in the first place. --Tony Sidaway 00:31, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

Tony, the community had already resolved one aspect of the case itself. There was an edit war. It had stopped. Jimbo had come up with a way to address similar issues in the future. That was being discussed on the talk page of WP:WEA, although with less than full participation; however, it was Christmas so it's reasonable that some people who might have wished to express opinions were off having a real life. The topic had not yet been raised on AN or ANI or VP. Then someone decided to start an RFAR, without any form of dispute resolution or any on-wiki discussion with any of the editors involved. Then minutes later someone else blocked one of the parties named to the RFAR - which was accepted in landspeed record time. The community was never given a chance to resolve this situation itself. Risker (talk) 00:41, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

I suggest that this case cannot be summarised as "There was an edit war. It had stopped." The findings of fact that look like passing in the case so far, at least, suggest that one could find other rather worrying aspects without breaking a sweat, and that those problematic features have existed unresolved for a very long time indeed. --Tony Sidaway 01:50, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

You are referring to the FoF about yourself, right? I'm still bemused that the "Locus of dispute" FoFs have languished. Surely voting on what actually happened is needed before anything else? Carcharoth (talk) 02:12, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

I will admit to being both perplexed and amused that after seeing people complaining about my incivility for over two years, I have had to actually lobby (albeit rather discreetly) for a civility parole for myself in this case [16], and, when it looks as if the proposed remedy stands a chance of passing, suddenly the air is filled with the clamor to dismiss the case. It's almost as if, the minute I take the problem seriously, everybody else decides that it doesn't matter after all. --Tony Sidaway 02:38, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

The decision to address IRC separately is just that -- a decision to undertake our review of the IRC environment outside of the context of this case. That does not mean it will go unaddressed, just that it will not be addressed here. The Uninvited Co., Inc. 00:35, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

UC, can you say where it will be addressed, if not here? We had another incident a few nights ago of an admin casually suggesting in the admins' channel that two other admins and a third established user be blocked. To focus on particular examples in this case, and to miss the bigger picture, will inevitably mean there has to be yet another case. SlimVirgin ^{(talk)(contribs)} 00:59, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

sigh. I agree with slimV. Until the question of irc part of wikipedia is resolved this is all a waste of time. All these folks were acting in disruptive good faith (some more than others). --Rocksanddirt (talk) 01:06, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

I can't see how merely suggesting people might be blocked is problematic (not that I know what was said). If anyone acts on it an irc suggestion, they would naturally be "on their own", and their actions judged (and sanctioned) on the merits or otherwise. In any case it is hardly more a problematic utterance than the inflammatory rhetoric we've been seeing here on wiki. I'd suggest that until arbcom are able to get to grips with on wiki problems, they'd be ill-advised to push their jurisdiction any further into informal channels. Looks like they've got their hand full already. One thing at a time.--Doc^g 01:12, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

I'm surprised to see you argue that, Doc, as I'm pretty sure I've seen you argue the opposite too. The point is that the atmosphere of the channel is poisoned when channel members discuss the blocking of other channel members casually as though they were vandals. It's this kind of toxicity that has led to all the ArbCom cases and other disputes involving IRC. To see it continue even as this case is before ArbCom suggests that members of the channel aren't able to self-regulate. SlimVirgin ^{(talk)(contribs)} 01:17, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

Have your taken your complaint to the channel operators? --Tony Sidaway 02:44, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

I did, and one of them put a stop to the discussion. It's the fact that it's still happening at all that's worrying. SlimVirgin ^{(talk)(contribs)} 07:54, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

Obviously it's difficult to discuss a particular case the details of which I'm unaware, but you should be aware that the channel is intended for adminstrator discussion. Discussing whether a block is or is not required to stop ongoing disruption, by any editor, is pretty much normal business (just as it is on the administrators' noticeboard, and various user talk pages. But I presume that there was something more to the case than that, if you think the fact of the discussion alone makes IRC uniquely toxic. --Tony Sidaway 08:03, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

There would have been no reason for a block. It was the old thing of an admin discussing with a mate an edit dispute s/he was involved in, and the mate saying "hey, just issue a block." It wasn't discussed, just thrown out as though they were talking about a vandal. It's exactly the kind of thing that makes the admins' channel toxic, Tony. You can't invite people to become members of a channel that's meant to foster harmony and trust between admins only to have them watch themselves be called bitches and become the focus of a block discussion by someone they're in an edit dispute with. SlimVirgin ^{(talk)(contribs)} 08:11, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

If you could give a timestamp when the discussion in question occurred, it would be easier for everyone with logs to look at it. — Carl (CBM · talk) 03:34, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

I don't want to make a big deal out of the particular case, Carl. SlimVirgin ^{(talk)(contribs)} 07:54, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

UC, there is no case besides IRC issues - particularly #admins. This is the root of the problem. Every FOF and PR that focuses on individuals should be dumped - most of the PR's aren't passing anyway. IRC is the elephant in the room that the arbcom is ignoring, and your focus on individuals is petty and just a diversion from the real problem. Quit procrastinating and do your job. --Duk 04:56, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

Quoting Sidaway above I strongly agree with Uninvited Company's recent statement that the arbitrators "have a responsibility to hear the case" [42] and I rather suspect that many of the parties who have not spoken up on this matter agree with me. This has to be the funniest thing I have ever seen. Of course Sidaway, everyone who hasn’t spoken up agree with you. The community worships you. Btw, next time you feel like calling someone a “bitch”, go look in the mirror first.--Certified.Gangsta (talk) 05:16, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

Do you believe that "I rather suspect" means "I state as a fact", I wonder? For reasons that aren't clear to me, Geogre, Giano and Bishonen have repeatedly called for the case to be dismissed, but they are not the only parties to the case. Besides those three and myself, there are nine other parties, five of whom (Ryulong, AzaToth, David Gerard, TheBainer, David Fuchs) explicitly declared themselves in favor of acceptance in their responses to the application. One of them, a newly created arbitrator, strongly urged acceptance. Three non-parties counseled acceptance, including Sean William (concerned at the long term disruptive activities "on both sides of the dispute"), and Coredesat and AzaToth (both concerned at a particular perceied source of disruption).

Strangely, I see few responses to the application, by any editor except TheBainer, focussing on systematic aspects of conduct on the IRC channel itself as the primary focus of the dispute. --Tony Sidaway 05:52, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

• Note Per the warning I placed on the workshop page at the beginning of this case, I have banned Certified.Gangsta from editing any IRC case pages for 48 hours; violations to be met with blocks. A page ban is the absolutely mildest thing I can do; editors are free to edit anywhere else, and an enforced timeout on editing the case is not going to deprive anyone of any rights. Editing these case pages is a privilege and a courtesy afforded by Arbcom, not a right, and I've had just about enough. I probably should have done this much earlier, but like the proverbial frog in the cookpot, I didn't notice the problem until it was really out of control, and I thought it was too late to do anything to help. I have changed my mind, and I intend to enforce the warning I originally placed. Hopefully this will be the only page ban needed. Thatcher 05:32, 30 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Stating this here for the record. Thatcher also (around two hours later) blocked Giano for eight hours. I had hoped my talking with Giano on his talk page, and my post below, pointing out that this little episode was over, would have been enough to avoid a block like that. To explain that some more: I went to Giano's page and asked him to calm down, and he said he was going to bed - and I left it at that (having got a response from Giano and trusting him to have calmed down). I also posted here (see below) to try and head off a reaction of "he needs to be blocked" (which I thought might inflame the situation). Thatcher chose to take a different route, either unaware of what I had done (unlikely - it was visible here and on Giano's talk page), or deciding to over-ride my (seemingly successful) response, and to assert the authority he has as clerk for this case. Thatcher, would you be able to clarify this? I'm asking because I wouldn't want to try and calm a similar situation again and have you (or anyone else) arrive later and handle things differently - it is unfair to me (who took the time to do that) and to Giano (who might have thought that things were over). I presume the logic also is that this short block is a warning in case Giano tries to edit the Proposed decision page again? It should be noted that others have also been editing the Proposed decision page with minor corrections over the past few days - may I suggest that the warning not to edit the page (unless you are an arbitrator or clerk) be highlighted? Carcharoth (talk) 09:15, 30 January 2008 (UTC)
    • Hang on. I got the timings wrong. Giano edited after I asked him to calm down, and presumably after he had had some sleep. I can't defend that. Thatcher, sorry if the above confused things. Giano, my offer on your talk page still stands. Carcharoth (talk) 11:10, 30 January 2008 (UTC)
      • Yes, I was out when he {{db}}'d the page; by the time I returned home and caught up, the edit was stale and he had said on his talk page that he was done for the day. He made his 4th edit after that. And, just for historical context, it only took one logged out edit for the committee to decide that it was necessary to desysop Dbiv after all (the vote was 3-3 before the edit and closed at 6-2). Thatcher 11:48, 30 January 2008 (UTC)
        • Sure, but you would hope that the arbitration committee weigh up the niceties and balance stress during an ArbCom case of someone who is, after all, not an administrator, and the appearance of the arbitration committee being reactive rather than proactive (Giano may be fickle, but should the arbitration committee be blown off course so easily?). Sometimes it is better to agree that something has been dealt with (in this case by your block) and look at other options on the table (my offer on Giano's talk page) as opposed to making a martyr of someone and damaging the project (driving away productive editors). As I said before, my offer on Giano's talk page still stands. And I would hope that the arbitration committee don't react to Giano's behaviour by focussing on Giano and ignoring the other problems in this case. Carcharoth (talk) 12:00, 30 January 2008 (UTC)
          • I generally agree with you. However, I think it is unavoidable that behavior during the case will have consequences. It is certainly not unique to this case that one or more editors, having been accused of disruptive behavior. acts negatively and disruptively during the case as well. How can that not affect the outcome? Here, the conduct of Giano and some others has made Arbcom's job of dealing with a rather smallish edit war much more difficult. Thatcher 12:09, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

Forestalling reactions

In case anyone missed it, Giano made a series of edits to the Proposed Decision page. Some of the reaction to this is above and elsewhere. I'm posting this in an attempt to forestall any outrage from those who may arrive late and see those edits. I (and others) posted to Giano's talk page, and Giano has said he has not edited the page for some time and is now going to bed. Please, rather than focus on what happened there, can everyone move on and concentrate on letting this case stabilise and eventually close? I was enjoying working on an article in the past few days, and regret returning to these pages. I suggest others consider doing other work rather than commenting here. Carcharoth (talk) 00:11, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

Strongly agreed! I, for one, feel very strongly that... aw, crap. Jouster  (whisper) 01:42, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

It's my experience that problem users often exhibit the same problematic behavior during Arbitration, providing fresh evidence for the case. You'd think that participants would be on their best behavior during arbitration, and many are, but others find they can't resist doing whatever it was that led to the request. I think we've seen that more than once in this case. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 04:09, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

Future of WP:WEA page

For the record, my promised post to David Gerard, asking him about the future of the WP:WEA page, can be seen here. Carcharoth (talk) 02:03, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

Five weeks later...

...as a tangentially involved user, I'd like to summarise the state of affairs thusly:

• insight into the actual incident under debate has not significantly progressed beyond this description: (...) the community had already resolved one aspect of the case itself. There was an edit war. It had stopped. Jimbo had come up with a way to address similar issues in the future. That was being discussed on the talk page of WP:WEA, although with less than full participation; however, it was Christmas so it's reasonable that some people who might have wished to express opinions were off having a real life. The topic had not yet been raised on AN or ANI or VP. Then someone decided to start an RFAR, without any form of dispute resolution or any on-wiki discussion with any of the editors involved. Then minutes later someone else blocked one of the parties named to the RFAR - which was accepted in landspeed record time. The community was never given a chance to resolve this situation itself.
• the arb com postpones the handling of central questions (responsibility for and conduct on the en.admin IRC channel)
• a poisonous atmosphere prevails, with highly esteemed writers retreating from the project or wasting their time with fights

May I respectfully suggest that:

• either the arb com or the community at large declare the case failed, the pages related to it being stowed away in some dusty corner
• the IRC-related questions be put on the agenda for the community as well as the committee
• an unambiguous conflict of interest policy be implemented, stating that arbiters who are party to a case will not accept undue privileges (such as access to arb com-only sources of information)
• those users whose conduct caused the underlying conflict submit honest apologies and voluntarily commit themselves to civility paroles as well as general decorum befitting their respective positions
• and finally, everyone involved step back from this snakepit here and return to living real life or improving the encyclopedia, at their convenience

Kosebamse (talk) 08:24, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

Not about writing or improving the encyclopedia

To me it is now clear this project is not about writing or improving the encyclopedia. And it is clear that those who act as if it is are at a disadvantage. Wikipedia, once the underside is revealed, appears to be about raw power. The supposed ideals of Wikipedia have been repeated so often they are banal, yet they don't seem to be taken seriously by those in the privileged circle. It does not take a new editor long to realize that instructions given to new editors such as "Be bold" are a recipe for getting into trouble. The implication to newbies that everyone is equal here is another falsehood leading to trouble.

These current revelations of layers of inaccessibility, layers of power, layers of privilege are extremely disillusioning. I wonder if anyone reading this can ever edit again with enthusiasm or a clear mind without worrying about back door attacks. A strange world for an encyclopedia indeed, where it is those that contribute to the encyclopedia that are the ones who disproportionally get punished, while those in the category "Admins" (who spend all their time either making clear their power status or opining endlessly on talk, AN/I etc. with nothing productive resulting -- even sometimes actual harm) are rewarded or at the least, allowed to side by when they break rules or engage in behavior for which they are perfectly willing to block mere editors.

I would hope that ArbCom work toward restoring some confidence in Wikipedia as a whole rather than focusing on the behavior of privileged editors on a hidden channel, the purpose of which eludes me, other than it does seem to be a refuge for sexism. I know for me, Wikipedia is not at all what I thought it was. Any vestige of idealism has been eroded. It is a big loss for me. Mattisse 15:14, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

I agree that it would be to everyone's benefit for the arbitrators to bring this case to closure. I am certain that they realize that themselves, however, and are working to make it happen. Thatcher has begun to ban people form the talk page for brief periods, which should help bring the conversation back to a reasonable tone. — Carl (CBM · talk) 14:38, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

Asking permission to request community input on this process

There seems to be substantial support for terminating this process. May I nominate this case and all its pages for deletion? The intended result would be for the community to have an opportunity to shut down this process if they so desire. I am asking because I do not want to be accused of disruption. In the alternative, I could start a requests for comment that would essentially serve the same purpose via a different format. Jehochman ^Talk 14:30, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

Since RFAR and Jimbo only have authority because the community lets them (which goes the same all the way up to the Board), I don't believe any permission from Clerks or Arbs would be needed. Just community support to delete the pages once the MFD is launched. Lawrence § t/e 14:33, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

The idea of deleting an in-process RFARB is quite odd, especially since the arbitrators have made a clear gesture they plan to proceed. Moreover, they could simply recreate the page if it were deleted, to post the final tallies on the proposals. If you would like to terminate the process, the best way would be to lobby the arbitrators to vote to close it. — Carl (CBM · talk) 14:35, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

Well, if they recreated it, that opens the interesting can of worms, of what happens if the AC does something without community approval or support? Lawrence § t/e 14:39, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

The arbitrators have a commission to carry out their work without micromangement by the community. A drawn-out, difficult case is the last place that micromanagement should be employed. — Carl (CBM · talk) 14:43, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

Part of the usefulness of ArbCom is its ability to act without strict community approval. And it has this authority with community consent, counterintuitively enough, since they forward the cases that the community can't figure out (or approve a decision for) to ArbCom. Not only would a deletion nomination not work, I think it's it would turn out to be an ill-advised and destructive act that would just generate more distraction and drama than this page already generates. Dmcdevit·t 14:44, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

(ec x 2) They do things all the time with no explicit or expressed approval by the community (it's usually understood that what ArbCom does, has the approval of the community). What would make it "interesting" is if they did something not just in the absence of "approval", but against the clear and expressed community will/consensus. R. Baley (talk) 14:52, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

I don't know if the act would be a good or bad idea--I'm frankly torn on that. My curiosity was piqued because of the question of does the community actually have the authority to shut down something on WP, no matter what it is? As long as it's not mandated by the Foundation, the answer seemed to be a hard "Yes", and even Foundation matters can be changed, since the Board can always be replaced entirely later. Lawrence § t/e 14:50, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

Why not wait and see if this process does get somewhere. The committee has clearly stated an intention to proceed. I think it's only reasonable to let them try. Sam Korn ^(smoddy) 14:45, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

• Thank you for the comments. I will not act on this idea. Nevertheless, I think the community has the right to shut down an arbitration that has run off the rails. Jehochman ^Talk 14:48, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

I think MfDs of arbitration pages is a step too far. An MfD of WP:WEA is another matter entirely. Arbitration pages are clearly within an established and (in principle) uncontroversial process. WP:WEA is clearly a miscellaneous page, and well within the remit of WP:MFD. On the other hand, I did, in jest (during the Esperanza MfD debates, I think) suggest that WP:MfD is the default way to shut down failing processes and organisations (or at least prompt community-driven reform). I don't think the arbitration committee needs that, but (for whatever reason) the arbitration committee seems poorly equipped to handle cases like this - ones where there is a lot of community opinion. It seems to be able to handle narrow issues OK, or cases involving only a single or few users, but broad and complex cases like this really do strain the arbitration committee, who are, after all, only human. I agree that in some cases the community should leave the arbcom to do their work, or rather, the arbitration committee should decide privately, present a proposed decision, allow discussion, and then close. If the arbitration committee are deadlocked privately, just state that, and close the case without a result, or with minimal findings. Carcharoth (talk) 14:50, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

A RFC would be a feasible way to gather input from the community, and it would not necessarily require a request for shutting down things in a confrontational manner. At least it could serve as a reminder to the arb com that parts of the community lie in bitter and ever worsening strife over these very matters while there is very little visible progress in the RFAR. Kosebamse (talk) 15:17, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

Maybe an injunction of some form would help with the "bitter and ever worsening strife"? Carcharoth (talk) 15:30, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

Thatcher has already promised to enforce civility more strictly, and has requested help from the uninvolved. See frog in the cookpot. Jehochman ^Talk 15:36, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

In case anyone missed it

This case is one that's taking time. There are good reasons for this, which is not gone into on the public RFAR because as usual, arbitrator discussions on a case and its evidence take place in the background of the case often more than on the proposed decision pages. The idea of closing the case has been rather strongly rejected in the last few days, and would be inappropriate in my view too. As an admin before December, I felt very let down by those cases vacated for lack of finding, and this case, which is reaching consensus internally, may yet need a while longer to be fully sure of the form of that consensus. Past cases have at times taken 6-10 weeks if complex, and this is likely to be one of those.

Those who read between lines will note some of us have said little, except that the case will take time and speculation is probably unhelpful. At this point that's where it stands. We are still - unlikely as it may seem to some - calmly assessing evidence on this case, whose roots go back some two years and across multiple venues.

Thanks,

FT2 ^{(Talk | email)} 14:48, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for this. Something along these lines earlier would have helped. The process by which bits of the proposed decision and discussion and votes have emerged on this page, in a rather piecemeal process, hasn't really helped either. Was the idea to get community feedback and then go back to deliberations? If so, clear statements to that effect, and updates (like the one you have provided) would make the process much smoother in these long cases. Managing "the community" is difficult, but it can be done. :-) Carcharoth (talk) 14:55, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

I've been encouraging some of the other arbitrators to be more active and vocal on this case but in reality we all are extremely busy working on other arbcom related matter. FT2 has been working behind the scene on other important matters such as setting up a Work group on ethnic and cultural edit wars. I realize that there is community interest in this case. That is all the more the reason for us to take our time and make the correct ruling. FloNight (talk) 15:13, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

Perhaps there would be less drama if the Committee worked step by step, analyzing the evidence before proposing and voting on findings and sanctions. Working out of order creates the appearance that evidence is contrived to support a conclusion. Other examples of backwards process include Hoffman and Durova. Jehochman ^Talk 15:51, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

It would also be nice if the committee would attempt to police its' own. Perhaps a polite word from "calm" arbs to other arbs who are calling people names on the proposed decision page would benefit the community as well as the committee. SGT Tex (talk) 16:19, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

I suspect that your advice would be better received if you were equally concerned about civility on all side. I see Giano has said "Just how much more stupidity are we to witness from this disgraced and failing arbcom", and both Fred and UninvitedCompany have been accused of deliberately trying to goad Giano into doing something blockable (an accusation that leaves me speechless). Thatcher 17:00, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for your input, Thatcher, but I've already attempted to get you to post the polite message, but you refused. I am now asking the committee to do so. And how do you know I didn't contact Giano offsite to ask him to remain civil? After all, you refuse to talk to the committee about their civility on-wiki, so perhaps I am refusing to talk to Giano on-wiki about his civility. SGT Tex (talk) 17:15, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

Two quick comments -- brief but again one may read between the lines:

• "The process by which bits of the proposed decision and discussion and votes have emerged on this page, in a rather piecemeal process, hasn't really helped" (Carcharoth), and "Perhaps there would be less drama if the Committee worked step by step, analyzing the evidence before proposing and voting on findings and sanctions" (Jehochman): 100% agreed. This takes both a change in working practice, and also a change to infrastructure. The infrastructure issue has taken up much of my January, and is in large part why I've been quiet on a number of other matters; I've been handling much of that for the committee so they can focus on other areas. This one will take time to sort out, but is essential. The approach advocated here is exactly the break from the past that is discussed internally, but will take time to achieve.
• "It would also be nice if the committee would attempt to police its' own" (SGT Tex): Without getting into "he said/she said" on various posts, again 100% agreed. Nobody is proof against provocation, but even so some unpleasant things have been said by a number of people, and once or twice arbs have been needled into them too. I think it's common ground that admins act as role models to the community (or should); if so then arbs are in effect, almost held up as role models to the role models. That won't mean "perfection", but it is a broad perspective that I endorse. If anyone feels in future that a situation is out of hand, I'd value an email letting me know a specific link (I might not see everything as it happens). I'm sure that's far from an uncommon perspective though. The overall culture of the past, whereby a degree of "blunt speaking" (translate: incivility through to personal attack) was tacitly condoned by "established admins" is not something I'm inclined to endorse; nowadays we expect all users (of whatever experience and standing) to act civilly and congenially; a view I'm more than willing to see us take a lead on in conduct and cases. Again I doubt this is a unique perspective.
  That said, given the attempts to place vitriol on these pages by a few, it is actually amazing to me just how fair some arbs have been and the efforts made to bend over backwards for those involved. ^[17][18] And also, it is no less than I would have hoped to see, however difficult or exasperating at times.

FT2 ^{(Talk | email)} 21:32, 30 January 2008 (UTC) ::Thank you very much for this. Mattisse 21:40, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

Yes, thank you FT2. Your comments are a breath of fresh air. Tex (talk) 22:31, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

Hi, FT2. Er, you say that once or twice even arbitrators (read:Fred Bauder?) have been "needled into" saying unpleasant things. Needled recently, by "a number of people". With respect, I think this is a pretty one-sided description. I understand that you've read a lot of commentary on the subject, but you may need to read still more before forming an us-versus-them generalization as to who is provoking who. A suggestion: please look at this diff—not recent at all, but from 2006—note the comments by other arbs, look me in the eye, and tell me whether what's happening between Fred and Geogre looks like needling by Geogre, or like a long-standing vendetta by Fred (still visible here). Please think of these two users, Fred and Geogre, as simply users, and tell me: is there evidence of Geogre needling Fred? (Where?) Or is there evidence of violent and vitriolic prejudice from Fred? (Yep, here: "Ridiculous proposal" [Jayg], "Why is this even proposed?" [Raul654]) Bishonen | talk 22:33, 30 January 2008 (UTC).

My comment was not entirely specific to this case. As such it was neither a slight to any specific person in this case, nor an endorsement of anyone in this case, nor a literal characterization of each comment in it. It was addressing questions of general principle by users looking at the wider picture. I stated clearly and up front "Without getting into 'he said/she said' on various posts..." and meant it. If the specific wording I used seems incorrect or one sided to you, then I ask you to mentally replace it by whatever wording will convey the intended spirit and focus of it better, that works for you. FT2 ^{(Talk | email)} 22:57, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

Does anyone, having read Bishonen's post above still have any confidence in the reasons for bringing this case, and if so why? We keep going arownd and arownd in circles, with the obvious smashing us in the face at half hourly intervals. Is anyone other than the "Arbcom" getting anything out of this? Giano (talk) 23:16, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

I don't think Fred Bauder's opinion can have had any undue influence on the decision to accept the case. He is not one of the six arbitrators who voted to accept it. --Tony Sidaway 23:47, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

:::::::: I am taking the comment as pertaining equally to editors, admins and arbitrators. Therefore, to me it seems like a huge olive branch to admit arbs can be held to some standards of behavior just as the rest of us are. Mattisse 00:04, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

There is no question about that. Arbitrators are editors and are subject to, if anything, more stringent expectations of conduct. There are past findings against arbitrators, and remedies too, to demonstrate the truth of my statement. --Tony Sidaway 00:52, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

::::::::::Perhaps so, but I have not seen it. And I have seen such behavior on their part in the past overlooked and not commented upon even when it has been brought to their attention. I do think at least one instance has been overlooked in this case so far, so perhaps F2's comment means it will not happen anymore, at least in this arbitration. Mattisse 01:31, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

Can't guarantee that. I wish I could but I can't stand guarantor for anyone elses conduct. This is a culture change we're discussing, and those can take time. Doesn't mean its good, but means you get more by making clear over time its continuing to be not okay, and seeing if the community adopts that as a new standard and norm. That is clearly the wish of the community, so whatever has happened in the past, it's the direction that's likely to be followed. If there is a problem and it's not being addressed, I'd be glad (as said) to be emailed a link since I might not be aware of it. For the most part though, usual admin approaches are all that's needed for normal incivility. FT2 ^{(Talk | email)} 01:48, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

Barely 6 weeks ago I was admining, and if anyone at that time had suggested some editors/admins merit a different standard on the basics (other than a higher one), I'd have calmly set about disagreeing and/or changing that. In fact during Aug - Oct from time to time a number of people suggested that, and I was not inclined to agree, often firmly. Others also disagreed. If anything's has changed since in communal view on that, I must have missed it. That it hasn't always been that way on enwp, is gradually one hopes, becoming history, and something I hope to see change over time, and would be glad to play a part in seeing on its way. But for the benefit of the project, not for grandstanding or drama purposes, so a lot of it is behind the scenes if judgement says thats the best way to effectively talk to some people, sometimes. FT2 ^{(Talk | email)} 01:34, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

Having said that, I think the fuss here is over some statements by Fred Bauder in the context of a number of arbitration cases, in his role as arbitrator, where he is required and mandated to make judgements on conduct. I haven't often agreed with Fred Bauder, but I haven't seen any conduct by him that exceeds his remit as an arbitrator. --Tony Sidaway 01:37, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

::::::::::Do you think voting Keep in an AfD on an article at issue in a case Fred Bauder was currently an Arbitrator on was within his remit? Mattisse 14:54, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

Absolutely within his remit as a Wikipedia editor. Involvement in a case does not require that an arbitrator jettison his opinions on matters of content. --Tony Sidaway 21:17, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

::::::::::::Well, would you at least consider that it might have been in poor judgment as that act, plus Bauder's many communications and actions on behalf of the same editor, including unblocking him, (an editor who had many sock puppets working in his behalf} resulted in fear among other editors to edit the 100's of articles involved in that case that continues to this day? Mattisse 22:06, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

I don't know what you are referring to in connection with the latter matter, nor that it has much to do with the current case. Especially given that Fred has left the committee, and is participating in this case only because it opened last year, I don't think that a general discussion concerning him will serve a useful purpose, certainly not at this location. Newyorkbrad (talk) 22:18, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

• How very different your, and the "Arbcom's," understanding of impartiality must be from most other people's Brad. Giano (talk) 22:32, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

Remedy # 6

6) Policy and procedure changes regarding Wikipedia IRC channels will be addressed separately by this committee. Could the commitee please define what they mean by "Wikipedia IRC channels"?--BirgitteSB 14:54, 30 January 2008 (UTC)##

Definitely #wikipedia-en-admins and maybe #wikipedia-en. We will likely make suggestion about the way #wikipedia is managed but I do not think we can take control of that channel. FloNight (talk) 15:02, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

• I suggest that if the arbitration committee is going to refuse to deal with the issue that the case was named for (IRC) during this case, that this case be renamed /Giano.Bishonen.Geogre, or something similar, since most opinions on the proposed decision page seem to be coalescing around punishing these three for what is perceived to have been their misbehavior. Leaving the case titled "IRC" when that's not the real issue the arbitrators wish to deal with here is a bit misleading, in my view. 24.181.203.35 (talk) 15:37, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

There are also help channels (used to be called bootcamp) and other special subject channels for en.WP, will those be under your scope. And what about channels created in the future? I really only see two useful ways of defining this: a) en.WP arbcom has jurisdiction over all freenode channels with a topic of X or b) The conduct of all en.WP editors on freenode channels is subject sanctions on en.WP. It really depends on if what direction you are going with this. Either you are trying to set up a general administrative structure you can approve of to manage things, or you are trying to hold en.WP editors responsible for conduct that violates en.WP policies. Making a simple list of channels is short-sighted. BTW I agree trying to take control of #wikipedia will not fly.--BirgitteSB 16:04, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

Another (quite extreme) thought might be to make wikipedians responsible for their conduct in whatever venue they are discussing wikipedia, including blogs etc. If we want the editing 'priviledge', it might be reasonable to suggest such professionalism. --Joopercoopers (talk) 16:12, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

Dangerous and completely unworkable. What if I make http://Joopercoopers.blogspot.com myself, or register under your name on WR? Lawrence § t/e 16:25, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

Then we'd need to prove a link between the blog or post and the wiki account - admittedly difficult and often impossible - but should posts from say, non-bovine ruminations, be ignored if the user returns to wiki? --Joopercoopers (talk) 16:33, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

In previous rulings we have taken into account editor conduct off site as it relates to their editing. Since this is a collaborative project based on discussion to reach consensus, there is an expectation that editor will check there differences at the door at a minimum. If the off site conduct is serious enough, such as emails that are intended to harass an editor, then we will consider that as we decide cases. FloNight (talk) 16:55, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

WEA MfD

I've instigated an MfD, ostensibly of WEA, but also as a forum to discuss the wider issues of page 'ownership' and IRC. I think MfDing these arb pages is pie in the sky and a dangerous precedent - The WEA MfD however, has some merit I believe. See Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Wikipedia:wikipedia-en-admins (3rd nomination) --Joopercoopers (talk) 15:07, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

An MfD of a wiki page isn't likely to change the runnings of the corresponding IRC channel. For the same reasons, edits to the page to describe perceived failings of the channel were never likely to actually resolve such failings. It's akin to Colbert making elephants less endangered by asking fans to edit elephant articles. The committee has clearly said they will address IRC itself in a separate forum. — Carl (CBM · talk) 15:11, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

It may address the page ownership issues, though, which lie at the heart of this. UC's comment made clear that the committee were divided on whether Gerard's mandate justified his reverting and protection actions. The not-yet-created Wikipedia:Arbitration committee/IRC dispute resolution might be one upshot of all this. Carcharoth (talk) 15:33, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

Page ownership is an extremely small issue here. Certainly deleting the page describing the IRC channel will do nothing to address governance issues of the channel itself. Thatcher 16:53, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

Except that a delete result at MfD might show that the community felt that the channel should be entirely unofficial, and not to be promoted on a projectspace page... David Mestel^(Talk) 17:59, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

Carl, Thatcher, David - please head on over to the MfD, its purpose is to be a wide debate, not just about the deletion of one page. These are all good valid viewpoints, let's see if we can build a consensus. --Joopercoopers (talk) 18:13, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

Page ownership here Thatcher, is the entire problem. I know this "case" (I use the word generally) is complicated but do try to follow. Giano (talk) 18:18, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

Well, then I must be confused because some people who have commented here want to make this case about everything except the dispute over the content of that page. Thatcher 18:26, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

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

[This log quote by Leifern is redacted.

It was a snip from an IRC log, showing an admin who took some communal flak for dealing with a request by ChrisO (another admin), engaging in gallows humor related to suitable lynchings as punishment, asking others what material would be suitable for it, and stating that ChrisO could have been more forthcoming on certain information which would have helped. A user who is not an admin was briefly also called a "fool" in passing once. The log is short.

There is no overriding need to post such logs here nor communal sense that we perpetuate off-wiki discussions this way, a summary is sufficient if it must be discussed. The original material is in page history if needed [19]. Post continues as below. FT2 02:53, 5 February 2008 (UTC)]

This appears to be related to an arbitration enforcement that ChrisO asked Kylu to perform for him. ChrisO was then reported for gaming the AE.

I'm not sure what "lynching" is supposed to mean here, or what it means to use a piano wire; but I think this crosses the line of admin decorum and general decency. I don't know where this fits into this arbcom case, but I think this is highly inappropriate --Leifern (talk) 13:22, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

It is part of the culture on IRC to joke around like that. Part of the reason people do it is because it is meant to be a transient medium, like verbal conversations, and there are various written and unwritten rules that logs are not posted. People feel they can relax and say things they wouldn't say on-wiki. Generally, people making off-colour jokes and poor taste comparisons do not think that in IRC these are being recorded for posterity. It is all part of the problem that people often only use IRC, or a channel reaches critical mass, because of this kind of social interaction and joshing. If that atmosphere goes, there will be less people participating in the channel. That could be good and it could be bad. The point is that it needs to be decided whether, given this culture that is an integral part of it, IRC is suitable for Wikipedia discussions? Carcharoth (talk) 13:38, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

Those admins who have adopted a culture of disparaging editors and discussing them in such terms should be desysoped for good, as they clearly do not have the necessary respect or judgment to exercise their judgment with civility and fairness. --Leifern (talk) 14:01, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

I'm curious if Leifern actually read the first line of the log he posted where it quite clearly states that it was directed towards ChrisO. Afterwards he apologized for dragging me into the quagmire that is Leifern's obstreperous tendency to involve himself in every passing dispute. In an environment that regards "slapping with a trout" as little more than a greeting and contains BOFH humor in great quantity, the one who is involved in passing along channel logs to this user without bothering to explain the actual implications has done all involved a disservice.

As far as your "being a fool", considering he's now gone out of his way to take simple venting off-wiki, apply on-wiki standards to it, and accuse me of administrative misconduct all in one breath for the sole purpose of involving more people in an already complicated arbitration case, I'm afraid I'm not retracting that one. For that matter, I'm terribly interested to know what admin has twice now brought Leifern's IRC logs from what is a purposefully restricted channel. It appears to me that this action was done simply to further the drama here.

I'd already mentioned that I'd prefer Leifern just left me alone and left me out of hisr squabbles, yet he seems to be incapable of discontinuing disputes on his own. I'd rather ask that an arbitrator find a decision of enforced noncommunication with/about eachother. ~Kylu (u|t) 14:13, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

Kylu wants the right to insult me to my office and deprecate me on a public admin channel, but she wants me to not communicate with her? Also, I am only aware of this IRC channel - what is the other one? What is the basis for her assertion that I want to involve myself in "every passing dispute?" There is none. Also, since there is an arbcom case involving the use of IRC, it is clearly not considered "off-wiki" by the Arbcom, and since it is limited for use by admins, it is clearly related to it. --Leifern (talk) 14:22, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

It appears to me that you have a conflict of interest in the particular situation being described. [20] — Carl (CBM · talk) 14:39, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

Why? Does anything justify this kind of incivility? --Leifern (talk) 15:26, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

First of all, you should not have posted logs without the permission of those who appear in them. Even in the most egregious circumstances -- which this is not -- you should at least attempt to obtain permission unless there is some desperate urgency. There wasn't and this was wrong.

Secondly, I do not read in the above log outrageous incivility. It is quite plainly meant humourously. It is pointed, yes, but it is not ipso facto incivil to express annoyance in an informal setting. Sam Korn ^(smoddy) 15:33, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

I did not hack into anyone's private AIM, YIM, email, or other private conversations, and there is no reason why I should ask for their permission to publish incriminating evidence of their incivility. Expressing annoyance is one thing, talking about stringing someone up with piano wire is another. This distinction should be pretty self-evident. --Leifern (talk) 15:49, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

The conversation above is not incivil. It is expressing annoyance in a pointed manner -- do you really think anyone was considering actually stringing someone up with piano-wire? The whole idea is laughable, which is, of course, the whole point. Someone was annoyed and they were expressing that point with humour. Sam Korn ^(smoddy) 16:20, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

Want to see something interesting? I think Kylu was venting anger harmlessly because hyperbolically. There was no "block this person for me" nor "everyone agree that X should be blocked" nor "I can't believe the idiots who are voting for X's RFA" nor "Help, I'm being attacked personally by the incivil UserX!" These things are the abuses: they coordinate actions without providing reasoning and they seek to put forward non-Wikipedia chatter for things that demand on-Wikipedia justifications. Kylu should not have been so graphic, and the rest were showing the childishness that IRC fosters, but it's not anything like the Betacommand, Chairboy, Kelly Martin, or Tony Sidaway abuses.

This said, it is nevertheless an illustration of how bad feelings and bad actions are born on IRC and then disrupt the Wikipedia editing environment. The fact that the editor thinks he's being conspired against, and the fact that there is no oversight, and the fact that there is no dispute resolution process, and the fact that there is no regular process that he can follow if he thinks he's getting shafted, proves that this "It's all better now, so we don't need to do anything about IRC" is a flat out lie. It's proof that the, "Bishonen had a grudge, and that's what caused all of this -- nothing to do with IRC" is a lie. It's proof that en.admins.irc is a bad idea poorly executed. en.wikipedia.irc is chatty and ignorable -- open to all -- but there has never yet been a good reason for the existence of a semi-administrative channel, even as the reasons for jettisoning it mount. Geogre (talk) 21:35, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

I actually don't think the IRC channel should be jettisoned, but I think that admins should be admonished that childish, brutish, and offensive talk can (and will) be made public, and they should never write anything that embarrasses them. I'm familiar with rants and not above having them myself. But I do my best to avoid to say or write anything that somebody could reasonably take offense to. I also think that over-the-top offensive rants on an official or semi-official Wikipedia channel, and particularly among admins who are supposed to be exemplars of good behavior, should be met with sanctions.

I will also say that I had to confer with WP editors offline to be dissuaded from making an even bigger stink about this, as I actually - albeit briefly - felt threatened. Lynching and piano wire hangings carry a particularly sensitive connotation in the topics I often edit, and it wasn't lost on me that the admins were encouraged to review my archive. My answer to bad behavior is generally not to cut off the medium in which it occurs, but to go after the behavior itself. In my opinion, this kind of behavior speaks of exceedingly bad judgment that is incompatible with the responsibility of an admin. So if it were up to me - which it isn't - I would summarily desysop these admins, and for good. --Leifern (talk) 22:48, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

In view of the dire jeremiads being posted on-wiki, I suggest that a bit of levity, even gallows humor, is understandable. In passing your judgement on the above admins, I expect you realise that you're inviting comparison to your own judgement in posting this obviously harmless, but out-of-context, material here. There might perhaps be queries about the state of your Spider-Man costume. --Tony Sidaway 22:58, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

Well, the spider-man thing is funny. I'm all for levity and can certainly appreciate gallows humor; and I noticed that Kylu has apologized to ChrisO, so they can get back to bashing me at the earlies possible opportunity (JUST KIDDING - these guys would NEVER dream of making rude, condescending remarks to me). But ok, I'm willing to accept the premise that the people who engaged in this dialogue are not knaves, but rather fools - the best they can do is crack jokes that a moderately sophisticated 13-year old would ask them to cut out. --Leifern (talk) 23:44, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

Admins are only human - considering the amount of crap we have to deal with it's only natural to feel the need to blow off steam occasionally. Dealing with "difficult" users like Leifern is enough to raise anyone's blood pressure. As for how Leifern got access to log files from a private IRC channel, I don't think we have to look too far, considering that FeloniousMonk (talk · contribs) intervened on Leifern's behalf yesterday and quoted (selectively and misleadingly) from the very same IRC channel. The two of them really haven't done themselves any favours in this episode. -- ChrisO (talk) 23:49, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

ChrisO, apparently they were more keen to string you up than me, so I guess the need to blow off steam - as you put it - goes for you, too. And if you're going to make accusations, back them up, or shut up. --Leifern (talk) 00:08, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

OK, I think we all get the picture now. It is about IRC, but not technically to do with this case. Could you continue the discussion about this particular IRC incident somewhere else? Thanks. Carcharoth (talk) 00:50, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

Tell it to ChrisO, who's got a lot of nerve accusing me of sharing IRC logs without a shred of evidence less than 24 hrs after he showed up at my page complaining about "baseless allegations." This is his idea of getting in a few cheap shots to settle a score. FeloniousMonk (talk) 05:46, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

ChrisO, perhaps dealing with "difficult" users like you is enough to raise Leifern's blood pressure. You gamed the WP:AE board; stop trying to make this about your victim, or the whistleblower, or anyone else who happens to notice this and comment. Jayjg ^(talk) 12:53, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

So let's be clear - an "unknown" admin violated the confidentiality of a channel (which login message reads "This is a private channel. Please do not repost IRC logs without permission.") and sent the log to a disruptive editor with a grudge, who then used that log to cause unnecessary further drama here. In doing so, the person responsible abused the trust of the channel's users, violated confidentiality, contributed to an apparent smear campaign against Kylu and carried out a sneaky backstabbing. But thanks for letting us know you're OK with all of that. -- ChrisO (talk) 21:05, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

Chris, please review the Fallacy of many questions. Of course, there's obviously no need for you to review the Chewbacca defense. Jayjg ^(talk) 02:30, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

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