Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 22:03, 4 February 2008

Misplaced Pages talk:Requests for arbitration/IRC/Proposed decision/Archive 1

Arbitrators hearing this case

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

Mackensen has withdrawn from the case, asking that all his votes be stricken.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

Arbitrators active on this case

To update this listing, edit this template and scroll down until you find the right list of arbitrators. If updates to this listing do not immediately show, try purging the cache.

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 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. 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 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 Misplaced Pages 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 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 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 Misplaced Pages, 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 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 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 Misplaced Pages. 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 Misplaced Pages 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 Misplaced Pages 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 Misplaced Pages'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_11-2008-01-24T22:36:00.000Z">

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)_11"> _11">

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. 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 Misplaced Pages 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

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 Misplaced Pages 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

Misplaced Pages: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 Misplaced Pages: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 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 . Then Uninvited Company boldly responded to the logjam, and the complaints, by boldly adding some new proposals . Other arbitrators followed suit , 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 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 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 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 Misplaced Pages: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 Misplaced Pages 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 Misplaced Pages 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, Misplaced Pages 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 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 Misplaced Pages 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 }, {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 Misplaced Pages, 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 Misplaced Pages; 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 Misplaced Pages, as they are not part of Misplaced Pages,
10. Establishing the fact that the above (no links from Misplaced Pages to any IRC channel) will happen if the "contact persons" of IRC channels do not allow Misplaced Pages'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 Misplaced Pages 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 Misplaced Pages or they don't get to get advertised by Misplaced Pages, 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 Misplaced Pages. 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:Misplaced Pages:Helferlein/VBA-Macro for EXCEL tableconversion. IRC is one more tool available to members of the Misplaced Pages 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 Misplaced Pages 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 Misplaced Pages. They may remain the channel contacts as agents for Misplaced Pages.

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 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 Misplaced Pages community to have authority over IRC as necessary". 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 Misplaced Pages'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 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. Misplaced Pages 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 , 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." 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 Misplaced Pages and IRC has to change. Either the dispute resolution chain is as Jimbo stated, and IRC channel policy is driven by consensus on Misplaced Pages (when not conflicting with Freenode), or Arbcom has no role in disputes and Misplaced Pages 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 Misplaced Pages. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rx StrangeLove (talk • contribs) 22:15, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

I would be surprised to see the arbitration committee declare that IRC policy is to be declared by Misplaced Pages 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." . Whether Misplaced Pages 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 Misplaced Pages 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 Misplaced Pages 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 Misplaced Pages 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 Misplaced Pages? 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 Misplaced Pages 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 Misplaced Pages to become honest about this discrepancy and acknowledge it. Much harm comes to those of us editors who started out idealistic about Misplaced Pages 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). 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 Misplaced Pages; 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 Misplaced Pages?), 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 Misplaced Pages. 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 Misplaced Pages 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 Misplaced Pages 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 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 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 Misplaced Pages? 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 Misplaced Pages: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 23:14, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

Let no one say I did not try for a happy ending . 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 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" 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 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 , 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 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 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 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 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 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 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" 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. Misplaced Pages, once the underside is revealed, appears to be about raw power. The supposed ideals of Misplaced Pages 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 Misplaced Pages 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, Misplaced Pages 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 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 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 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 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  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 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. And also, it is no less than I would have hoped to see, however difficult or exasperating at times.

FT2  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" , "Why is this even proposed?" ) 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  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  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  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 Misplaced Pages 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 Misplaced Pages IRC channels will be addressed separately by this committee. Could the commitee please define what they mean by "Misplaced Pages 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 Misplaced Pages: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 Misplaced Pages: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 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)

Difference between motion to dismiss and motion to close?

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

The notes at the top of the page say "Only items that receive a majority "support" vote will be passed." - as the support vote here is seven, does it matter that not all the active arbitrators have voted? If that is the case, I make it: principles 1 (dispute resolution, +10), 2 or 2.1 (reversion, +10), 3.2 (disruption by administrators, +10), 4 (WP:OWN, +7), 5 (decorum, +9), 6 (fair criticism, +9), 9 (provocative actions, +7), 15 (bad blood, +7), 17 (IRC, +7); finding of fact 4 (Giano, +8); and remedy 6 (IRC, +7). Some of the findings of fact and remedies are close to passing. Notably principle 10 (forward looking, +6), and 12.2 (Warlike behavior using administrative tools, +6), finding of fact 8 (Tony Sidaway, +5), and remedy 2.2 (Giano namespace ban, +5), but presumably, from his motion to close, UC doesn't think that any further progress can be made on those and other non-passing parts? Carcharoth (talk) 01:17, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

Not commenting on any other aspect at this point, but the distinction between "motion to dismiss" and "motion to close" as you have identified it is correct. If a case is dismissed, there is no decision except for anything contained in the motion to dismiss itself. If a case is closed, then a decision is issued containing whatever proposals were supported by a majority of the active arbitrators. Newyorkbrad (talk) 01:27, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

Missing ArbCom members

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

There are 12 active members supposedly involved in this arbitration (excluding two who are recused). Yet only 10 have voted (fewer on most proposals). That means that a super-majority, 7/10, is required rather than a simple majority (6/10 or 7/12). If arbitrators who aren't voting would declare themselves inactive or recused, or if all active arbitrators would vote, then perhaps it would be easier to get things passed. Even simpler would be to have the majority of votes on each provision decide the question. "Active" arbitrators who aren't voting still skew the result and make it harder for the truly active arbitrators to settle cases. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 02:33, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

We are in the process of deciding how to handle this issue. It is important since Jimbo urged Committee members to resign from the Committee if they are not able to stay active. And if that does not happen then he wants us to have a method to remove them so they can be replaced by users that have the time to contribute. Part of our discussion involves how to measure activity level. Voting on cases is the first and most important measure. FloNight (talk) 02:41, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

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

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

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

Bauder's vendetta

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

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

Peace please everyone

Arbs are called to pass verdicts on user behaviour. It couldn't be that this one has simply reached a conclusion about long-standing problems with certain users, and you disagree with those conclusions?? Now, I think Fred's comments are not particularly helpful in de-escalating this dispute - but I'd have to say the rhetoric of certain others has been even less so. Judges snarling at the accused is certainly unseemly, but the accused and their supporters hurling insults from the dock is predictable and boring. When the ref makes a call you dislike, calling him biased, and screaming insults is not good. The problem here has been that too many people are forgetting that the point of dispute resolution in Misplaced Pages is to seek calm ways of resolving the dispute - not new ways of waging polemical warfare, and castigating all who disagree with you as evil, and portraying yourself as a perpetual victim of bullies. Unfortunately, I am fast reaching the conclusion that certain people have no interest in resolving disputes, only in scoring points and causing drama. If that's the case, then inevitably those people need to change their ways or be removed from Misplaced Pages. Please, let all, whatever their view on the issues, seek to de-escalate the hostilities that we might calmly seek ways of moving forward. If the parties who wish the case closed can do that, they might find many of us willing to support closure. But making closure into a battlepoint, simply means that remedies against such behaviour are going to be necessary, either now or very soon.--Doc 11:17, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

I agree that this section and its title (referring to Fred) are extremely unhelpful. Equally, though, it is divisive to support an attitude that remedies such as year-long bans from the Misplaced Pages namespace are even remotely helpful to resolving a situation like this (and you are the one that put the emphasis on resolving). Statements like "inevitably those people need to change their ways or be removed from Misplaced Pages" conflict with your later "let all seek to de-escalate the hostilities that we might calmly seek ways of moving forward" To be frank, Arbcom should be focused on resolving the disruptive conduct in other cases that causes clear and present harm (like the homeopathy and nationalist editors situations, and others). Giano's actions, while they may cause drama and disruption, are not in the same league. Certain arbitrators should be calm and diplomatic (and some, to their credit, are), and should engage with the concerns and address them, rather than throwing the book at someone just because their patience runs out with the way they do things. In other words, the reaction of some sections of arbcom is disproportionate and unhelpful. It is clear that losing content contributors is harmful (which is what arbcom was and maybe still is in danger of doing). Excessive and wrongful blocking is harmful. Inappropriate deletions and undeletions can be harmful. But, really, absolutely honestly and without bias, putting aside all the outraged feelings and personalities, how harmful is Giano's behaviour? If everyone ignored him (and some others) the next time something like this happened, or concentrated on calming things down and addressing the concerns raised (instead of filing an arbitration case) then the "bad blood" might be lessened and things might improve. I've said as much to Giano on his talk page - the next time he has concerns like this, where he may feel so outraged that he could get into an edit war, bring it up on his talk page and let others comment first on what needs doing and how. Carcharoth (talk) 12:05, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

• I agree that many comments made on this case page are not helping us get to the root of the issue in the case. The purpose of this case was to address the editor conduct issues in IRC channels and Misplaced Pages that are stopping Misplaced Pages from having a pleasant working environment that encourages consensus based decisions based on collaboration. Misplaced Pages is not a battleground, and I expect all users to follow the appropriate means of dispute resolution. Despite prior warnings and sanctions, some parties in this case have chosen to make Misplaced Pages a battleground and do not show any sign of agreeing to stop. I think that this is extremely unfortunate and concerns me for the users themselves and the Community. When I vote to support a finding of facts about an established user, or sanctions placed on them, it is not done lightly by me but only after coming to the conclusion that it is in the overall best interest of the Community. FloNight♥♥♥ 12:49, 1 February 2008 (UTC)
  • Are you saying that Giano has chosen to make Misplaced Pages a battleground? In the last case I was serious when I said that a separate case against Giano would be best to address that. Addressing a complex issue like that against the backdrop of this IRC case was never going to be easy. As for "a pleasant working environment that encourages consensus based decisions based on collaboration" - I've never had any problem working with Giano in article space or Misplaced Pages space. Those who think others are justified in finding such problems should actually try working with Giano on something. It is actually rather easy to work collaboratively with him. I've also been able to talk productively with Tony Sidaway, Geogre, David Gerard and Phil Sandifer, among others. There are some people, though, that I do find it difficult (for whatever reason) to talk (on Misplaced Pages) and work with. Now, make a list of the incidents Giano has been involved in - which of them, after the initial fuss was over, resulted in an obstruction of the consensus process? Sometimes a pleasant working environment just doesn't cut it, and criticism is needed (as one of the passing principles states in this case). Sure, not always criticism the way Giano does it, but at root here there is nothing more needed than to have more diplomacy available when situations like this happen. In my opinion, and with hindsight, a formal arbitration case on the edit war itself was not really needed (all that was needed was for the IRC issues to be resolved), and the arbitration committee should be able to see the bigger picture and recognise that. Carcharoth (talk) 13:16, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

I'm taking a l-on-n-g view of the situation having watched it unfold over several years. The parties in this case have not been able to conform to the standards set out in our policies despite that fact that they are well aware of Misplaced Pages rules and practices. As highly vested members of the Community, they are role models for newer users. Across the board, we need to hold these members to a higher standard of conduct not lower. Some parties have agreed by words or actions to turn over a new leaf. Others have not. The parties conduct going forward will determine their fate either way. FloNight♥♥♥ 13:40, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

Thank-you. For what it is worth, I agree with the final warning remedy you have proposed. It seems the best way forward. I'd quibble about the wording (eg. "are likely to result in further sanctions" - added the word in italics as this is already a sanction), and point out that others have also failed to "conduct disputes in a civil and constructive manner", but then that is what the "all parties cautioned" thing is about. BTW, you do realise that one of your colleagues (the bainer) has been included in that broad sweep covering the 13 named parties to this case? You did mean to include all 13, right? Carcharoth (talk) 13:53, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

I suspect those that the committee has in view know who they are.--Doc 13:58, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

I'm not so sure. In my experience, it is always best to state these things openly, rather than leave them implicit. The latter generally causes more misunderstandings. This is a strongly worded remedy that has the potential to be brought up at future arbitration cases. Would you be happy if in a future case, say in a year's time, the arbitration committee said that you (a named party to this case) had failed to heed the warning and that consequently they are taking "an unsympathetic view"? It needs to be clear who this applies to. We are also back to the old problem that the remedies are being fiercely debated but no clear findings of fact are being passed. In other words, the arbitration committee are failing to tell us, though the findings of fact, what they think happened here. Carcharoth (talk) 15:02, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

• The problem here is that ArbCom is not interested in addressing the root causes of anything. The problem isn't Giano (although he doesn't help his case with his tactics), but the problem is ultiamtely what causes excellent contributors to react negatively. When people who make no significant contribution to the project get a free pass for their rampant incivility and abuses while people like Giano get raked over the coals incessantly for at worst acting badly but better than those being railed against, what kind of message does that send? Sure, get angry that Giano's using arguably disruptive methods to send a message, but the only reason we're at that point is because people with next to no worthwhile contributions to the project are not (and from the way this case appears to be going, STILL not) being held accountable. You want root causes? You know where they are, and they don't reside with Giano. --Badlydrawnjeff (talk) 16:09, 1 February 2008 (UTC)
  • The above user has contributed nothing whatsoever to this project since May, except a dozen edits all, without exception, designed to pursue vendettas and rub salt in old wounds. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Doc glasgow (talk • contribs) 18:05, 1 February 2008 (UTC) Stricken, with apologies to jeff - extremely unhelpful remark by me.--Doc 19:18, 1 February 2008 (UTC)
    • And that's still more than some of the worst people involved in this charade. You already got your fabricated licks in, Doc, I'm glad you're enjoying the results. --Badlydrawnjeff (talk) 18:46, 1 February 2008 (UTC)
      • Believe it or not, I'm enjoying none of this. I'd sooner be writing an article.--Doc 19:14, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

• Once upon a time I used to be nice and lovely, no one listened. Now at long last issues are being seen if not satisfactorily addressed. If the cost is shooting the messenger then so be it. Giano (talk) 18:54, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

• The problem with that is, that if everyone who felt people were not listening to them, jumped up and down screaming, then, in fact, we'd be unable to hear anyone. And the sound of gunshot is even more of distraction. Dispute resolution is for finding resolutions - polemic, rhetoric, paranoia, gunshot and screaming are not conducive. The noise you've made may have got you a hearing (although I doubt it), but the cost to the project is just too high.--Doc 19:14, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

• I believe Winston Churchill once said something similar of poor Mrs Pankhurst, and of course, we all know what that nice Lady Astor told him she would do to his tea. Anyway enough. Womens rights are very admirable etc., but I prefer the analogy to that other unfortunate. Just bear in mind Doc "faint heart never wun nuffin!" I can live with myself. To the Arbcom, I say: Fear not, from now onwards I shall be modelling myself on their esteemed Fred Bauder. Giano (talk) 19:34, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

• I was polite and reserved once too. I supported an admin mailing list as long as the archives were open. I didn't explain that a socially fueled power group under the veil of secrecy could bring its own problems - let's try something less extreme first, thinking that it was self evident. For my opinion I was called "incompetent, unprofessional and unreal". It's a fact of life that with some people, the nicer you are to them the more they'll shit on you. Here's another truth: if someone is vicious to you and over time you slowly begin to respond in kind, and then you are sanctioned for incivility but not the people who opened that door, then you can be sure the sanction has absolutely nothing at all to do with "civility". --Duk 19:27, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

:::::*I agree with this observation by Duk. Right on the mark. Mattisse 21:07, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

I mostly agree with Badlydrawnjeff. Giano has not helped his position, which many people agree with, but that is somewhat beside the point. The project appears to be taking a step towards the non-codling of old-tyme-valued-contributors, but this change in culture will take time. The sooner those in positions of trust and authority speak forcefully to this the sooner the culture will change. Doc, please comment on content, not on contributor. --Rocksanddirt (talk) 19:11, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

• Re the firing squad analogy by Giano, isn't it the condemned that is supposed to be wearing the blindfold? LessHeard vanU (talk) 19:15, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

What major disruption?

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

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

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

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

I don't see how those apply to what I am saying. You cannot judge a person on their intentions AND assume good faith. The assumption of good faith only works in an absence of judgment. If you assumes good faith and then judge a person on their good faith intention, you enter into a circle of dysfunction. Hold on I will find a real-life example instead of vague hypotheticals.--BirgitteSB 15:40, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

Why haven't you taken responsibilty for policing that channel --Because I don't use #admins IRC.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Moved two threads

...to Misplaced Pages talk:Requests for arbitration/IRC/Tavern. Please continue the lounge discussion there. Door prizes! Durova 23:56, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

Any comment I make on this page hastens my inevitable demise! El_C 04:50, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

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

No, No, NO!

We have not come this far, and at such a price to read this Concerns about the behaviour in IRC have not changed one jot! Has Brad read half the evidence? The comments by Slim Virgin, Bishonen, anyone? People are just as concerned as they ever were. I can understand the Arbcom wanting a hurried sweep under the carpet, for accepting this ill advised case, but not an Arb saying that! Giano (talk) 21:55, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

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

Rest of the thread at Misplaced Pages talk:Requests for arbitration/IRC/Tavern.

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

Whilst elected arbs may have some claim to being the representative voice of the people, I think others (on all sides) should not presume.--Doc 11:18, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

"representative voice of the people"? Arbitrators are elected to arbitrate. If we (the en-Misplaced Pages community) want to elect people to be our representative voice, then we should do that. On many matters, the community is quite capable of speaking for itself, rather than having elected representatives speaking for them. Oh, and having read the demagoguery article, I think that this may be an inappropriate phrase to use. The phrase has implications of lying and bad-faith appeals to the public associated with it. Carcharoth (talk) 12:38, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

I didn't say arbs should claim to be representatives, merely that their claim was certainly better than any other self-appointed voice of the people, and so we should all avoid making that claim.--Doc 13:03, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

• As Giano received more support than all of the current arbitrators save Brad, I'd say he has more of a claim to the "voice of the people" mantle than any of them except for Brad. You don't get over 300 supports without having touched on some issues that are close to the hearts of "the people", I would think. 71.54.57.168 (talk) 14:03, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

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

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

I wasn't yelling at you, Doc. I was hoping that people would realize that the conclusion that "things are all better now" is mysterious in every possible way. The People, such as I know about them, don't know IRC exists until they either get on it or they find twelve people appearing in ten seconds to uphold one side of a dispute. The People who do know about IRC seem to think that it's great, if they use it, and that it's stupid, if they don't. This is not because the latter are ignorant, but they have voted with their modemed feet, as it were. These are precisely the People who need to be heard, because they have formed an opinion. This also means that the people who are using IRC are largely supporters of it by nature. (This includes Bishonen.)

For the record, I enjoy passtimes and chatting about nothing, and IRC's good for chatting aimlessly. It's just poison for discussing Misplaced Pages, if the discussion isn't duplicated on Misplaced Pages and transparent.

Anyway, since there is no "issue" without IRC here (unless an edit war is now enough to trigger 4 weeks of ArbCom), I don't know how things can be "settled." I'm not sure what had gotten "upset" to be settled.

The Arbs are eroding confidence in them every time they accept a case without complaint, every time they let something drag on and on, and, most importantly, when they threaten that there is some private conversation they're having -- like the teacher and principle plotting discipline -- and everyone needs to behave. The more they do this, the more they say, "We can't talk to you: we're having a private conversation," the more they indulge a privately satisfying illusion of power and the more they irritate the hell out of the user base and create resentment.

I've looked at this thing for weeks now, and I still can't tell what the basis of arbitration is. "Settled" may be a codeword for "stale" or "tiresome," but it's not a case of the problems being solved in any sense. Saying, "We'll get to it someday" is the worst possible answer.

1. It's not clear that ArbCom will do it; confidence would improve if such a process started before announcing that all was well, here,
2. I don't understand why the community isn't being involved in developing guidelines for IRC usage. That was the only source of my editing David Gerard's page. He just put it there and then announced that it was holy text.
3. The actual usefulness of the admins.irc channel has yet to be proven: it wasn't proven when the thing was proposed, and no one has offered anything but hypotheticals since.

Anyway, the People seem pretty restless, and attempts at absolutism tend to end poorly. Geogre (talk) 21:23, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

People

I think it is clear that the ordinary editor is not able to become "informed" as these "people" merely experience the consequences of the "people" (I guess) you are talking about, Doc. Maybe the levels of "people", since an impenetrable hierarchy appears to exist, needs to become explicit. Having mucked around at the lower levels for nearly two years now, in the dark most of the time, I find the pretense of the "Misplaced Pages" ideals offensive, at this point. I would prefer less pretense and a clearer explanation of what actually goes on here. Because I like to write I have stayed and kept trying but it has been a very ugly experience. It is very hard to try to write and edit articles well in the atmosphere that exists here where most of us are left hanging out to dry without support, while Admin and ArbCon energy goes into the favored few. Mattisse 22:53, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

I'm afraid your comments are too enigmatic for me. What do you mean? And what is the evidence? Sometimes if you can manage in the dark, it is better to stay there. I'm trying to be a content editor now and stuff most of the rest, but vague generalisations and assuming far too much from one or two experiences is precisely the problem here.--Doc 23:00, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

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

Rest of the thread at Misplaced Pages talk:Requests for arbitration/IRC/Tavern.

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

In a large community cliques are inevitable. And since sub-areas of the community (and that goes for the FA process, DYK, DRV, and some wikiprojects as much as for "administration") will inevitably have smaller cores of committed regulars, friendships, group trust and mutual support are also inevitable and probably even desirable. The alternative is faceless bureaucracy. This will always leave some people feeling like outsiders - that's regrettable but also a fact of life. Sure, we need to encourage an inclusive attitude in all departments, but there's no possible way we can regulate it or "overcome" the problem - we just need to continually be alert to it and learn to negotiate it.--Doc 11:25, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

And sometimes a faceless bureacracy is more responsive and easier to ask for something to be done. Go figure. Carcharoth (talk) 12:27, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

People will seldom volunteer to work for faceless bureaucracies. Anyway, whatever your ideal, this is simply not something we could create at wikipedia. Not possible, short of removing personality chips from all wikipedians, and banning friendship.--Doc 13:01, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

• Support: I don't like e-personalities. Geogre (talk) 14:39, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

For the record - another edit war (the case in microcosm)

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

Not quite. I am not a party, last I looked. And all I did was remove an unfortunate remark of Geogre's where he referred to another user as a "newbie quisling" "arrogant" and "parasite". Geogre and I did not edit war, since he has not tried to reinstate it. A couple of IPs did, probably not understanding what quisling is, and why it is so very offensive. The remarks were simply a over-the-top example of the aggressive and overstated polemical rhetoric that we've seen so often. I removed the attack and, very cautiously, asked Geogre to tone it down . I've tried to walk the de-escalation walk here.--Doc 03:31, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

Hang on, Doc. Those aren't all insults or applied to the particular childe. "Arrogant" was of his lecture to me to stop worrying about important things like WEA and go back to work writing articles (and tugging my forelock), and I characterized his argument by saying that we who work on articles are all parasites on Rambot's work (i.e. to him, Rambot is a prized author, and the rest of us are simply poor analogs). As for his being a newbie quisling, I pretty much stand by that as a good, old fashioned insult for someone who shows up recently and does whatever he thinks is going to ingratiate him to the voices of "power." It's strong, and it's mean, and it's an answer to something that was arrogant, dismissive, and insulting to every single Wikipedian with either experience or an alternate point of view. Geogre (talk) 12:52, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

Misplaced Pages:Requests for arbitration/IRC#Involved parties. As far as I'm aware, unless the arbitrators specifically pass a finding of fact about who the real parties are to a case (and they should do that more often, though maybe only at the end of a case), then the parties are as listed there. Personally, I think you were involved enough in the 23 December edit war to be involved as a party here. The IP editing was, shall we say, interesting. I did say above that you two should have been using the talk page to discuss things, rather than edit summaries, but I missed the rather sensible thread on Geogre's talk page - which makes my point that as long as people start talking afterwards, a little edit war doesn't matter too much. It is when people stop talking, and continue to edit war, that things are going wrong. Carcharoth (talk) 03:47, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

I repeat, I have only once reverted Geogre, and he has at no time reverted me. In the current climate, I would certainly not have done so, since I would suspect it would have been incredibly harmful. Had Geogre replaced the comments, I would not have reverted him. I, for one, and committed to a policy of de-escalation. To describe this as an edit war between us is silly. And whatever the title says, I have never considered myself a party --Doc 03:55, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

(ec) For the record, the above references to "edit warring" are my personal opinion. It is possible that there was technically no edit warring. Doc has said he objects to me calling it edit warring, and I'm happy to rephrase it as something like "reverting". There has definitely been reverting going on. The use of edit summaries by the IP addresses leaves me cold - do you really think that the rapid response and use of edit summaries like that means anything other than a logged-out user gaming 3RR? Carcharoth (talk) 04:03, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

For the record - it's a sure sign this case has gone on too long when even the most even-tempered editors, admins and arbitrators start getting a bit punchy. Arbitrators - the ball is in your court to put this baby to bed. Tell us who you think the parties are, finish up your voting, establish a deadline by which you will address the IRC question, and then close this case. No temporary injunctions or other vaguely worded remedies and findings of fact - just bite the bullet and put an end to this. Please. The burr has been under everyone's saddle for quite long enough (with apologies to those who detest mixed metaphors). Risker (talk) 04:50, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

Unfortunately, I don't think that will solve anything much. Unless the users concerned change their ways, it will simply delay the inevitable. I'd love to be wrong, though.--Doc 05:03, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

And unless the culture changes, then banning certain editors will just result in other editors replacing them, or eventually developing the same behaviour. Nature abhors a vacuum. See my quote of Birgitte's comment. Carcharoth (talk) 05:09, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

• For myself, I'll say that Doc went to my talk page, and I answered there. An edit war broke out because everyone has this unbelievably weird Wiki-time. I went off to do Saturday charges, and, when I came back, I saw Doc's note and answered. I told him that I had a "personal attack" (I'd say "insult") from Aza Toth, so I replied with an insult. If 1 Then 2. Now, mine was maybe more angering, but it's still tat and tit cheek by jowl. Removing both would have been ok with me, but removing one would not. Aza Toth needs to be cautioned about personal attacks, and one way to caution him is to demonstrate where that road leads. Since I don't believe in Victorian parlor rules, that was my view at the time (to say, essentially, 'Oh, you want to insult me? Ok. I know how to do that. Feel better?'). One should be free to engage in the darker side of community, but only when there is a strong need -- not to sneer during the exercise of community consensus building in an Xfd deliberation. Geogre (talk) 12:47, 3 February 2008 (UTC)
  • Tit for tat is nowhere mentioned in WP:NPA. If you find our community norms to be "Victorian parlor rules," perhaps some reflection is called for. One underlying source of this case is the lack of restraint shown by various editors, so it's surprising to see named parties not only continue such behavior but defend it. — Carl (CBM · talk) 13:10, 3 February 2008 (UTC)
    • More lectures? How nice. Have you actually read NPA lately? Please do. Please show it as somehow "removal of," and then do distinguish between what I said and what you wish I said. I missed the warning you added to Aza Toth's user talk page about personal attacks, perhaps just as you missed what I said. Good luck, and HTH HAND. Geogre (talk) 13:15, 3 February 2008 (UTC)
      • I can look above to see exactly what you said: "Now, mine was maybe more angering, but it's still tat and tit cheek by jowl." Consider that ordinarily "tit for tat" is not used with a positive connotation. Using the term Victorian to refer to the very mild standards we have for decency here is simply hyperbole. If you felt AzaToth's comments were a personal attack, I am certain you know more productive means to address them than to respond in kind. — Carl (CBM · talk) 13:35, 3 February 2008 (UTC)
    • No, indeed. You see, unlike many here expressing their shock, I believe in the "mob." I believe in Misplaced Pages. I believe that all of us together, in the jostle, can create. I also believe that there is a place for disagreeable language, and I think that trying to suppress that is what is shocking. At best, it's foolish. At most, it's destructive. I felt that it was a personal attack, indeed, and I think that it's worth demonstrating to someone cloaking with sarcasm that such behavior leads to more. I'm not generally one to pursue people. I am rarely in the mood for a harangue. My question is this: if people like yourself are believers that insulting language demands removal, of all things, or a warning, then where were you when Aza Toth offered his insult? Be consistent. If insults are bad, then they're bad. If they're not, they're not. I tend to think they're sometimes appropriate, sometimes not. I also know quite well that "NPA" says that personal attacks are bad. That's all. It doesn't say that they'll be removed. It doesn't say that the first travelling Bowdler will expunge them for family reading. It doesn't say that there are warnings, blocks, or anything else necessitated by them. I agree with NPA. Insults are bad, which is why, when I was insulted, I responded with an insult. Geogre (talk) 20:18, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

I am quite disgusted by this. Truly shocking. And anyone who fails to understand why should read Quisling and consider why one of our most respected writers believes that applying that label to a fellow wikipedian is acceptable, and needs no apology or regret. Why he thinks that is helpful thing to do, when arbcom are asking everyone to calm down and see constructive ways forward. Does he want resolution of this dispute, or does he enjoy inflaming it wherever possible. I was trying hard to find ways to resolve disputes - but it takes too sides to tango, and until people like Geogre can learn from the recent humility of Tony Sidaway and work out where their reverse gear is, there is little point. Utterly dreadful. To think this began because of righteous indignation at a "bitch" remark in iRC! The stench of hypocrisy is startling.--Doc 14:46, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

If you want hypocrisy, Doc, simply look at this reaction to a properly chosen insult and compare it to Tony's telling someone to quit the channel and then being allowed to say that he was the victim. I stand by, incidentally, my characterization of the public persona of that user at that time. He was a new user who was saying whatever seemed most pleasing to whomever he saw as being the side of "power." In my view, that was, indeed, quisling behavior. Is it quite strong? Yes. So are my feelings about those who want to speak for factions so as to give themselves height. There is little as annoying as someone showing up fresh off the boat and telling you that the People Who Count Think X. It's either quisling or the utmost in anti-democratic sentiment coupled with a profound disrespect for others. My term is actually the less inflammatory. Geogre (talk) 20:18, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

If you want to shout and scream at people Doc, do so at the Arbcom. It is a great pity no one saw the origins of this case as "righteous indignation at a "bitch" remark" at the time. Instead, the Arbcom, with wanton stupidity, suddenly seeing an opportunity for spiteful revenge, opened a whole nasty can of worms, and now they want to put the lid back on it while saving their own faces. Even if that means losing some of the projects best writing-editors. I don't think the Arbcom are going to be able to put the lid back on. They have lost huge respect. So, I'm afraid its going to take a lot more than the "humility" of Tony Sidaway to restore that respect and make many of us shut up. We want IRC addressed and addressed now - nothing more - nothing less! Giano (talk) 15:14, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

Giano, if you really think that the only problem in this case is IRC and that you and all who agree with you have been paragons of virtue, that is self-deception of the highest order. Sam Korn 15:23, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

I'm afraid the Arbcom have and continue to refuse to face the true problem. It is easier to shout and try to silence those who point out the problem than face up that problem. It seems now that only the Arbcom are failing to realise this. They should resign in shame. Giano (talk) 15:29, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

So your contention is that you are blameless? Sam Korn 15:44, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

I am guilty of showing Misplaced Pages exactlty what sort of Arbcom it has. Giano (talk) 15:47, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

I've removed everything apart from Azatoth original !vote. Gentlemen, is this really important enough to fall out about? --Joopercoopers (talk) 15:25, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

That's fine with me, Joopercoopers, although I should think that my first response was a response to the insult in the !vote. I.e. the "vote" was an insult to every one of us who edit Misplaced Pages. The Greeks used to say that a person who insulted a person was simply an irritant, while someone who insulted the Greek people was a criminal. In a sense, his statement that all of us who edit Misplaced Pages are the distasteful "mob" is far worse than any blue tongued tirade anyone could have come up with. Geogre (talk) 20:18, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

Continued evidence of problematic behaviour at #admins

The Arbitration Committee should be aware that there is evidence of continued problematic behaviour at #admins. In this particular case, it directly relates to arbitration enforcement, which I understand is under the purview of this committee. I don't want to mix up any more metaphors today (the one that comes to mind involves Rome and fiddles), but really...isn't this kind of thing exactly what this particular case was supposed to address? Risker (talk) 20:06, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

The problem, in addition, is that we simply don't know about abuses. Because the medium is corrupt (the medium is) (see my old essay for my usage here), we just don't know how many non-famous Wikipedians are being told to "go elsewhere" with their concerns. We don't know how many non-administrators are telling administrators that they should shut up. We don't know how many fresh grudges are going to erupt at Misplaced Pages, because no one is allowed to refer to what happened on IRC, much less prove it with a log. Saying that there always already had been a procedure (that no one knew) for sending logs to ArbCom is silly. You send it, and then 6-12 weeks later perhaps someone will tell you that "things are all better now." No. Nothing has been settled. Saying that "it will be, RSN" is to put us right back where we were when this started. Thatcher had an idea for a noticeboard. That would actually work. Apparently, he was quickly told (where, no one knows but him) that it was a bad idea because everything's already all better and some people might be exposed to the "ganging up" on (that darned "mob" again). I.e. no actual reasoning against, and meanwhile "all is well." As your link shows, it is not. If the arbitrators here are enjoying the case, they can put off solutions, because they'll have a replay soon enough. If this case is disgusting to them, then they'd best get on the stick. Geogre (talk) 20:26, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

D'you know Geogre, I am coming to the conclusion that the Arbs are thinking if they sit back idle, twiddling their thumbs, for long enough, you and I will break IRC's stranglehold on wikipedia for them, we become covered in shit, they take the glory and the the IRC problem is solved for all Giano (talk) 21:19, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

And a further case today as well - this time affecting the Main Page. My goodness, you'd think when IRC #admins was being scrutinized by the community, people would grow up a bit. Risker (talk) 21:55, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

IMHO: It's entirely likely that the things in these examples would have happened anyway - regardless of where the communication took place.. --Versageek 22:03, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

No, quite all right just the usual high spirited games in IRC, we can hardly expect them to be on Misplaced Pages writing pages can we? Giano (talk) 22:07, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

None of those other methods of communication have a page on Misplaced Pages extolling their virtues or encouraging all administrators to participate in it. And none have pages that state quite baldly that Arbcom is part of the process for resolving concerns about inappropriate behaviour. Risker (talk) 22:09, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

I think most people have drawn their own conclusion by now. let's face most of the Arbs spend ages chatting their too. Giano (talk) 22:12, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

I am afraid you are correct, Giano. Indeed, the individuals involved in the deletion of the main page seemed to be nearly bragging about it on AN/I. Strikes me that when someone deleted the main page in the past, a steward was found, and the admin involved was emergency de-sysopped. The fact that there are two separate incidents of this nature in just a few hours, and those are just the incidents that have managed to be reported on AN/I, suggests that this kind of behaviour - which would be bad admin behaviour no matter where it took place - is de rigeur on #admins.

I'm going to expand on my comment here, as the situation has changed somewhat and I see that an arbitrator is actively discussing the first example on ANI. That is, indeed, what I hope to see - if nobody in the channel itself questions behaviours when they are occurring there, that such behaviour be openly discussed and critiqued on-wiki. The concept of #-admins makes sense; however, the culture of it remains very concerning. We hear about some childishness on #en-wikipedia, but it seldom bleeds into the encyclopedia in any meaningful way. We hear next to nothing about the other channels. I have friends who use #wikipedia-it and #wikipedia-de, and they don't seem to have these issues either. So IRC as a communication mode isn't the problem, in and of itself. What does seem to be the problem is the apparently ineffective means of correcting inappropriate behaviour in this particular channel, and the apparent inability to dissuade administrators from acting impulsively, improperly, or abusively based on discussions in the channel. It's supposed to be the sanity check, for pity's sake. Risker (talk) 23:31, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

I agree that the recent incidents that allegedly involved IRC discussions are worrying. I'll repeat what I've said elsewhere - it is very easy to go to IRC and complain about something that has happened on Misplaced Pages (there is lots of evidence to point to). It is far less easy to come to Misplaced Pages and complain about something that has happened in IRC (much less evidence to point to, or less evidence that can be provided in the open). Carcharoth (talk) 12:13, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

The same is true of telephone conversations, text messages, emails, and IM conversations. — Carl (CBM · talk) 14:41, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

Of course. And your point is? Carcharoth (talk) 16:21, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

Carl's argument is familiar. "Someone could send a nasty letter in the mail, so we shouldn't do anything about this" is surprisingly frequently offered up as a rationale. I don't blame him for saying it now... it's said quite a bit. However, the telephone or e-mail or telegraph or semaphore nastygram wouldn't be called Misplaced Pages and it most especially would not be "officially" unofficially the home of administrators. For everyone who thinks that, for example, an administrator must be so sober as to never call a trollish user a troll, because that's vulgar, there should be three who realize that en.admins.irc should be so carefully worded and sober as to be utterly silent. We don't need our name, and a lie (that it's for administrators), on it. Geogre (talk) 21:39, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

The way to improve WEA is to have a larger number of admins on it, not fewer. My understanding is that there was an IRC channel before WEA was formed, with an opaque name. Are you arguing that would be preferable to the current situation? I can't see how it would be. — Carl (CBM · talk) 21:51, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

If that's your goal, it's easily done. 1) When a person gets promoted to admin, he or she gets a "hostmask" or whatever it is. 2) When someone is demoted, they lose access. There! All better, and yet, mysteriously, there is resistance to that. Weird, isn't it? The prior name was "myfriendsandme" or something like that. It was just a few people, many of whom are no longer administrators because of what they did and the way they viewed other users, and it cut no bait. No one was going to join them. No one was going to rush to be a part of their circle of SuperFriends. The move to "admins" was an effort to make some people Yertle the Turtle and king of the mountain, it seemed to me. The point is that there never was a reason offered for its existence that convinced people. How private is it, if it's all the admins (and some non-admins)? How super entrusted is it, if it's that group? How wise is it, if most admins don't take part? How deliberative is it, if you catch only the same 8 names constantly chatting? How judicious is it, if the moment someone disagrees she's called an "arsehole" and told to go elsewhere? What the hell good is it? What is its advantage over using Misplaced Pages? Shouldn't we answer that question before we have it and allow all these abuses? Shouldn't we have mechanisms for dealing with potential abuse in place first? Saying, "Well, Kelly and James were going to talk to each other anyway" is back to the same old argument: they might have, but they couldn't call themselves the center of the administrative community. Geogre (talk) 22:03, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

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

3:58:07<kylu> ... if ChrisO comes in, someone lynch him please.
3:58:27<MZMcBride> for what, specifically?
3:58:30<Random832> why?
3:58:39<MZMcBride> i always like to post a message on the tree when i lynch
3:58:49<kylu> he could've told me the user he was having problems with was not only involved in the israel-palestine issue, but also homeopathy, allegations of apartheid, and that's only the last archive of this fool
3:58:53<Trusilver> Though I will happily oblige... is there a particular reason?
3:59:18<east718|away> kylu: who's the fool?
3:59:24<kylu> see my talkpage, east
3:59:34<Trusilver> *nods* Hemp or nylon rope... or do you have a preference?
3:59:52<kylu> Trusilver: 36AWG nickel piano wire
3:59:55<east718|away> for leifern, a bungee cord
4:00:14<kylu> and no tree, use an airplane
4:00:28<kylu> over pirahna-infested Amazon waters
4:00:35<kylu> dropping dynamite behind you
4:00:46<Dragonfly6-7> full of CANDIRU
4:00:47<kylu> ...
4:00:57<kylu> that's a bit overkill, don't you think Dragonfly6-7? :)
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 Misplaced Pages 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. — 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 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 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-Misplaced Pages chatter for things that demand on-Misplaced Pages 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 Misplaced Pages 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'm confused

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

• FofF 6 and principles 9 and 12.1 all have 7 or more votes and thus are passing. There are several "missing" principles, FoFs and remedies because one of the arbitrators elected to remove them earlier. Incidentally, for the attention of the clerk, I note that it is actually Principle 15 that is passing, not Principle 16; the latter has been deleted. Risker (talk) 14:59, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

I've left a message on the Arbcom Clerk noticeboard about the misnumbering; given how active this page has been, it would have been very easy to make an error. I am sure someone will be along shortly to fix it up. Risker (talk) 15:12, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

• Risker is correct. I want to add that oppose votes do not reduce the number of support votes. Hope that helps. FloNight♥♥♥ 15:06, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

Yes, it does. Thanks to you both. DrKiernan (talk) 15:13, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

Motion - disable "e-mail this user"

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

I can point to numerous abuses of this method of communication. I will not breach confidentiality, but only in the last few days:

1. I have personally received abuse via the official e-mail function.
2. One respected user/admin sent another respected user/admin an email simply saying "jerk".
3. I have received e-mail from one party to this case attacking the motives of members of the arbitration committee, and making serious allegations
4. I have received "leaks" from members of the arbitration committee.

Now, had any of these incidents taken place on-wiki, they could subject to community sanction, but since they took place through the officially sanctioned e-mail function, they cannot be. E-mail this user is anti-wiki, encourages unsupervised and unaccountable conspiring against respected users behind their back, and is open to abuse: it should be disabled.--Doc 15:46, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

Gosh! Number 4 sounds interesting - going to share? Giano (talk) 16:06, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

And your response to the rest?--Doc 16:08, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

I disagree. Email this user is obviously useful for users who've been blocked to request unblocking. It would be far more sensible to have sending emails enabled only for blocked users. In addition, the mailing lists, which since the foundation of Misplaced Pages have been the meta-discussion area, should be abolished on the grounds that not all users are capable of using email and therefore would not be able to defend themselves against malicious attacks. Sam Korn 16:09, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

While I don't think it should be disabled, the abuses of the feature identified by Doc are very troubling. Leaks? WTF. childish abuse I expect, but not leaks from those trying to work out solutions to our most serious problems. --Rocksanddirt (talk) 16:15, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

If we all lived in little rooms that could only connect to Misplaced Pages then this might accomplish something. But Misplaced Pages lives on the internet and it is foolish to attempt to limit communications between users. The advantage of the wiki-email feature is that people can contact you without revealing your contact information. If you don't like it, just disable it is your preferences instead of requesting it be removed all together. _(1 == 2) 16:17, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

I only enabled the e-mail preference when I submitted my RfA. Before that I was quite happy never e-mailing anyone. Now I can use it, it is sometimes useful, but I do find it distracting as I have to remember what I know from on-wiki stuff, and what I have to remember was 'private' stuff. I don't get a lot of e-mail, but there is some forum shopping in there as well. Carcharoth (talk) 16:27, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

(multiple ec) In reference to items number 3 and 4—have you had any previous e-mail exchanges with the members, or would they have had an opportunity to acquire your e-mail through innocuous means, such as seeing it on a mailing list? If so, then disabling the funcion would not have made a difference in that case. Horologium (talk) 16:18, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

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

Motion to ban cars:

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

Lets disable all cars for everyone! _(1 == 2) 16:20, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

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

• • A surprising number of people missed Doc's point completely. Thatcher 16:29, 4 February 2008 (UTC)
    • • Oooh! Let's see if I can get this one. "If people want to send e-mails, fine; but the official software should not encourage it, nor suggest official sanction." - that was the point, right? Carcharoth (talk) 16:40, 4 February 2008 (UTC)
    • Alanis Morrisette where are you now? It's like ema-yal, when you've already irc'd. It's the free ride, when you're Willy on Wheels! Hiding T —Preceding comment was added at 16:32, 4 February 2008 (UTC)
• Um, Tony, are you sure that this edit is appropriate? If Doc was joking, he made a very good effort at being serious about it. If he wasn't, then linking to WP:LEVITY seems to misrepresent things, as people assume that the original poster writes the header. Carcharoth (talk) 17:22, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

• I removed Tony's link. Lets leave that for Doc, if he wants to use a club on the baby seal of humor, if this was meant to be humor. Lawrence § t/e 17:23, 4 February 2008 (UTC)
• Yes, Doc is satirizing the moral panic about IRC. It's quite fun figuring out to which emails he is referring in his list of "abuses". The worrying number of people who don't recognise its humorous intent prompted me to try and flag it in some way. --Tony Sidaway 17:28, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

• Weeelll, I think he is being too clever by half if that was his intent. I'll wait to hear him confirm it himself. I think his real point was that IRC is not the only off-wiki form of communication, but that e-mail is built into the software, whereas IRC is not. Carcharoth (talk) 17:36, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

• It's called irony. Its purpose is not to be amusing but to make a serious point. If it needs spelling out, here it is: "Off-wiki forms of communication are helpful. For example, see email. People are bashing IRC as inherently dangerous. Let's point out that other forms of communication are also inherently dangerous, but that doesn't mean we should ban them." Doc just did it in a rather more incisive way than that silly paraphrase suggests. Sam Korn 17:41, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

• Isn't that what I and others have said elsewhere? If that is all Doc was saying, he could have saved his fingers the bother. That is hardly a new argument. As I've said over at AN, inherently non-transparent forms of communications don't interact well with transparent ones, like Misplaced Pages. What I said there was "The problem is that those who give advice in closed areas don't get shown up for the purveyors of bad advice that they are." I stand by that statement, be it e-mail, telephone, text messages, IM, IRC or whatever. People can build power bases based on bad advice. When they get it wrong, there is no bright light of community review shining on them. That is the inherent danger of mediums like IRC. Geogre has said all this in his essay. None of this is new. How has Doc's ironic satire moved the discussion forward? Carcharoth (talk) 18:38, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

• Don't throw the baby out with the bathwater. There, I resorted to an ugly cliche. Now do you get the point? Sam Korn 18:44, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

• I do get the point. I will refrain from sniping at people in my edit summary (irritating habit that). Did you get my point? The baby/bathwater analogy here is better applied to Giano. The pig reference from Tony, I don't get at all. Carcharoth (talk) 18:55, 4 February 2008 (UTC) (I edit conflicted with Sam's removal of his comment - I've restored it so it is obvious what I was replying to, but Sam, feel free to refactor further if needed)

• Part of the reason I removed the comment was that I was irritated. Call it a return to better judgement. As you've restored it, I'll reply. The fact that Giano makes useful contributions is indeed similar to the fact that IRC is useful. It's silly to disregard either. Why do Giano's edits mean IRC should be castrated? Either your point has passed me by or it is completely vacuous. I also don't understand Tony's comment. Sam Korn 19:01, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

• Sorry for coming across as such an obscurantist. I was referring to what I believed to be a common saying, usually attributed to Mark Twain, that goes: "Never try to teach a pig to sing. It's a waste of your time, and it annoys the pig." The pig here in my view being the ephemeral, chatty, private IRC channels some of use to discuss Misplaced Pages matters, and singing being Carcharoth's aspiration to make all discussion of Misplaced Pages transparent. --Tony Sidaway 19:19, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

• Got it. And I have learnt something from your post, which is more than can be said for the rest of this page. Sam Korn 19:23, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

• I'd say he's made a very effective statement against the proposals to change all other forms of communications to be "compatible" in some way with a wiki. The wiki is only the medium we use for constructing the encyclopedia. Obsessively exporting standards designed to make working in the open environment of the wiki easy, to forms of communication which are by design and intent quite private, is not productive, and it annoys the pig. --Tony Sidaway 18:46, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

I sometimes think I should be on a different language wiki from most Americans. I am pointing out the exact opposite. Sure, IRC can be and is misused (although a lot of the so called evidence is bollocks), but so can e-mail or a chat in the pub - so what? That you can point to abuses is irrelevant: the question is 1) can you sensibly prevent such communication? No. 2) Do abuses make the thing intrinsically bad? No. Hence, the whole discussion is useless. Let's do what we can to minimise abuse (actually not a lot) and them move on. Saying that because there is some abuse we should shut it down is pointless, as 1) you can't shut it down 2) even if you could you'll shut down all the good uses too. If you hand is giving you pain, amputation is seldom a sensible option to debate.--Doc 18:53, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

Are you replying to me? I'm not American. And I said on your talk page that shutting down the Misplaced Pages IRC channels is not the point here. The point here is transparency for anything that is official or looks like it is official. OTRS tickets are carefully tracked, right? There is a WP:OTRS page. That is fine. But why the defensive attitude some people have to IRC? Simple. It is a chatting culture they don't want to see changed. Is a chatting culture compatible with Misplaced Pages? Yes, as long as it is transparent. Carcharoth (talk) 19:00, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

Transparency and privacy are incompatible. If you conclude that a certain amount of privacy is necessary, a certain amount of transparency must be laid aside. In any case, it isn't perfectly private, because logs are taken by many people (as witnessed here). But to call it "incompatible with the wiki" because it is not open and to thus suggest that it should be restricted somehow (what else is your aim?) is disingenuous in the extreme. Sam Korn 19:06, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

Then DO disable e-mail, since it is not transparent either. Anyone who thinks making #admins "transparent" isn't the same as closing it down, is missing the point. Either way, you'll simply drive the discussion elsewhere where there is less transparently and accountability and more self-selection.--Doc 19:09, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

See reductio ad absurdum. And if you still don't get it, I suggest you either opt out of the discussion, or enrol yourself at Misplaced Pages:Irony coaching.--Doc 17:40, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

So do we get to eat the babies, or not? I must say you've been very reticent on this matter. --Tony Sidaway 17:46, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

Keeping with the theme, I presume we can only eat the babies if someone first suggests it over #admin. Lawrence § t/e 17:47, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

I hope nobody takes my comment as a green light for anthropophagy in general. Let's wait for the arbitration committee to reach a decision on the matter. --Tony Sidaway 18:08, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

• I'm an American, and I got the joke. And the point. I agree - the medium doesn't cause poor judgement. On-wiki discussion can be just as much of an echo-chamber if it isn't on some central noticeboard. To take a classic phrase - "Guns don't kill people, people kill people." 18:59, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

If I were you Doc, instead of moaning and winging because the Arb's mailing list is being leaked to you through email, I would consider myself fortunate, I have to have their wishes translated to me through the auspices of their toadies on #admins! Giano (talk) 19:13, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

Let me scorch the urban myth before it grows. I have not had, and never have had, leaks from the arbcom mailing list. I have had an arb or two share their thoughts with me - which is certainly not prohibited. I slightly overstated the gravity to make my point. That was silly, I should have guess you'd ignore the point and spin my remarks into another way to disparage the committee.--Doc 19:20, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

Of course Doc, anything you say Doc. Why not show them the error of their ways and spill the beans - or do you too quite like your secrets? The Arbs certainly do not need me to disparage them, they acheive that very effectively all on their own. Giano (talk) 19:29, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

Gah. This medium is plain text. it is impossible to be cute and ironic in a subtle way. I fully believed that someone had actually leaked inappropriate material from the committee's deliberations to you (doc). That they might discuss issues with you is totally not the same. I read your remarks as a serious condemnation of any off wiki communications. I disagree with that. I fact I think some manner of irc for admins is likely a net benifit, but those involved are not making a good case for it. and giano and georgre make a plausible case that it is a net detriment to the project. so what's a peon (err...regular editor) like me supposed to think about all this? --Rocksanddirt (talk) 20:02, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

The thought that some discussion of matters Misplaced Pages may take place off the wiki appears to worry some editors. Doc's satirical proposal was a way of making us think about the fact that all communication media have their faults. In the case of wiki-based communications, for instance, in my opinion it favors the persistent and the sensational over thoughtful and insightful comment--if you think about it, your reaction to the wording of his proposal amply demonstrates that my observation has some truth. --Tony Sidaway 20:16, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

I don't disagree with your point. My point is that plain text is not a good medium for subtle satire, or ironic proposals. I took him at face value. I do think that many folks concerns with off-wiki communications are exacerbated by the questionable behavior that seems to be ongoing with the off-wiki communications. What we really need is a clear decision as to what to do. If the standards of conduct amongst the irc stuff is to be similar to on-wiki, then it is and the chanops have responsibilit to make that happen. If standards are not at all to be similar or related, then we need to divest of any mention that an admins irc channel is in use, and as doc points out below come down hard on bad decisions that are "made without consensus". --Rocksanddirt (talk) 20:47, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

So what is to be done about the poor decisions that seem to originate on #admins?

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

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

I expect you are right Sam . Giano (talk) 19:50, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

Oy, how was my edit a stupid decision? 19:55, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

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

• The only difference that I can see between talkpage and IRC (aside from the history, which is irrelevant to the process of making a decision) is speed. A decision taken after consultation at IRC can be arrived at much more quickly, because the 'wait' time for affirmative responses is shorter. What can you do to solve or mitigate that problem? Well, nothing - it is again an issue of judgement. 19:54, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

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

The solution is simple. Admins are responsible for their own actions unless they can point to an on-wiki consensus which may mitigate a bad decision by "sharing the blame" between participants. If you make a bad decision and there is no on-wiki discussion, you are on your own and personally accountable for the result. It will not matter whether you discussed the matter with no-one, used e-mail, a sekrit mailing list, or a ouija board, if there is no on-wiki discussion it will be treated as your individual call. You may use any method you like for sanity checking, but you alone are responsible for the results if, whether for good or bad reason, you choose not to confer on wiki.--Doc 20:33, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

I agree, but this will only be effective if we also have a "community de-admin" system. That can implement some short deadmin's (esentially like the blocking policy we have now). a day or two for the first stupid harmful decision, etc. --Rocksanddirt (talk) 20:39, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

Since we don't have that for abuse agreed on-wiki, I fail to see the particular relevance to this debate.--Doc 20:45, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

well....as regarding admin activity over the weekend....we sort of do have it. a couple of admins made some poorly thought out decisions regarding the main page. They have been suitably chastised for their actions (appropriate to the level of disruption, I think). An other left his admin account logged in on a machine that was vandalized by folks in his dorm. The account was deadmined, and blocked based on community discussion, until the whole story was sorted out. I don't know that we need a formal request for de-admin but perhaps a more complete discussion of the remedies and prevention neccessary for irregular admin actions. --Rocksanddirt (talk) 20:53, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

Whom would you have de-adminned, and why? I think the community tends to hyperventilate a lot about little things--not just IRC, but naval-gazing is profoundly interesting to some people here. The really abusive cases have resulted in desysopping by Arbcom. Is there anyone else you have in mind? Also, remember that this case did not originate with private discussion leading to a bad block or deletion, but with an insult among two people that happened to occur in the channel but could just as easily have occurred in e-mail. This did lead then to bad decisions on-wiki, such as edit-warring and David Gerard and Geogre editing a page while protected due to a content dispute. Should they be desysopped? If there was indeed some kind of community de-adminning process, I suspect that there are enough people who would be happy to see either David or Geogre desysopped that neither would have survived. Somehow I don't think that is what you had in mind when you made the suggestion. Thatcher 20:53, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

I don't have anyone in mind. just that a discussion explaining to editors and admins that a community discussion might lead to action against an admin as well as action against an editor, not that it all has to be done through an arbcom hearing. I think in this case a week of deadmin for the two of them (david and geogre) might not have been a bad choice, if only to cure the protected page edit war that drove this to arbcom. I'm thinking more of short suspensions of admin tools, not a loss of community trust, but a wake up reminder that admins have a responsibility towards higher behavior. --Rocksanddirt (talk) 21:01, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

I think it's too bad Doc resorted to baiting people here. It's not as if this discussion doesn't have enough bad blood already. The issue is whether we should try and drive conversations about proposed administrative actions back onto Misplaced Pages or not. And if we don't want to, whether the IRC should have some implicit sanction or approval as a place to discuss administrative actions. It seems pretty clear to me that on-wiki discussion is more effective at arriving at a proper result, and is certainly more effective at heading off bad admin decisions. It's also clear to me that discussing administrative actions in a place most admins don't have access to (by choice or by some other circumstance) is a bad thing. No one is talking about shutting anything down, but it certainly makes sense to encourage admins to make use of the talk pages provided here for their work. RxS (talk) 21:16, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

Baiting? Try AGF. I was not. My sin was to use irony, which is obviously too subtle for some people. Is on-wiki best, generally yes. Should we encourage it, yes certainly. There's no dispute there. But that neither means the channel is a bad thing, nor that changing its status makes any difference. Everythign that can be said of the channel is true of e-mail, indeed more true. In short, there's really nothing can be done here except bellyache.--Doc 21:21, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

When did Doc bait anyone?

Furthermore, the main discussion (I think Risker misunderstands...) is not about driving such conversations onto Misplaced Pages. It is about accusations of corrupt machinations occuring in private. The solution proposed is opening the channel up, castrating it, making it impotent. This will but drive such conversation, should it actually occur, somewhere else. Discussing controversial actions on-wiki is a totally different matter to dealing with bad administrative actions. Sam Korn 21:24, 4 February 2008 (UTC) (this comment automatically merged with Doc's)

Mocking those who disagree with you by making a serious sounding proposal (however satirical) is baiting...you got the reaction I'm sure you expected. Unless you expected everyone to see right through the serious tone. See, eating babies is absurd and so his modest proposal worked, making false claims about Arbcom abuse and suggesting a way to eliminate it is (in this climate) everyday stuff. RxS (talk) 21:36, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

I'm sorry you don't understand the rhetorical purpose of irony. Sam Korn 21:38, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

And I'm just as sorry that you accept mockery as an accepted part of civil discussion. RxS (talk) 21:45, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

I mocked no-one. I'm sorry you can't assume good faith. That, and not IRC, is wikipedia's main poison.--Doc 21:52, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

Break

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

I tend to think there are few real conspiracies, mostly people doing dumb things with insufficient reflection and insufficient input.Thatcher 21:49, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

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

• • Very sensible comments, and I would have to agree with all of your recommendations (with the possible exception of deletion the channel, read on). My question is this: If WMF doesn't own/operate the channel, and has no formal authority over it, how is this level of control to be exercised? What stops someone from setting up a parallel channel without these generally sensible controls? Is there anything special about IRC hosting that WMF can't do it independently? 21:58, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

580 KB and counting...

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

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

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

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

I haven't checked, but I suspect the record was set either in the first so-called "Giano" case or in the "Badlydrawnjeff" case. Newyorkbrad (talk) 17:22, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

Noting, of course, that records, in this sort of case, are a Bad Thing (tm). But the BDJ case had a workshop of 815KB, and the proposed decision talk page had two archives. In total, that talk was under 500KB. Here, the IRC workshop page (not the talk page) is 577KB. The Giano pages all seem to be rather small in comparison to these two cases. Carcharoth (talk) 17:33, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

• Can some of the threads on this page be archived? 19:57, 4 February 2008 (UTC)
• I agree with avruch, lets archive a bit of this. --Rocksanddirt (talk) 20:07, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

I comletely agree, it has all become tiresome and tedious in the extreme. Rather like waiting for death. Archive most of it, I cannot imagine anyone reads it. Giano (talk) 20:46, 4 February 2008 (UTC)