Revision as of 18:54, 28 December 2007

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

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

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

Motions and requests by the parties

Template

1)

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Template

2)

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Template

3)

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Proposed temporary injunctions

The technical control over the channel is given to the ArbCom immediately

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

Comment by Arbitrators:

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

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

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

Comment by parties:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Comment by others:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Template

2)

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Template

3)

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Template

4)

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Questions to the parties

Proposed final decision

Proposed principles

Decorum

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

Comment by Arbitrators:

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

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Edit warring considered harmful

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

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Obvious. Moreschi 00:30, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

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

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

Edit warring can involve groups

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

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

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

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

Comment by others:

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

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

What we had here was a slow motion edit war:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Authority

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

Comment by Arbitrators:

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

Comment by parties:

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

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

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

Comment by others:

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

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

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

Per Jimbo, this is correct. You may consider this a statement of policy. I consider it well within the overall remit of the Arbitration Committee and my own traditional role in the English Misplaced Pages community to have authority over IRC as necessary. If this is a policy change (I do not think so) then it is a policy change. SirFozzie (talk) 02:56, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

People may talk to each other

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

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

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

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

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

Comment by others:

Posting logs

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

Comment by Arbitrators:

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

Comment by parties:

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

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

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

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

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

Comment by others:

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

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

Added a "then" between may and become in my following comment. Snowolf 01:35, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Channel log policy

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

Comment by Arbitrators:

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

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

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

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

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

Channel log policy

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

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

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

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

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

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

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

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

Channel log policy

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

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

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

All decisions open for discussion

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

Comment by Arbitrators:

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

Comment by parties:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Comment by others:

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

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

Users can be held responsible on Misplaced Pages for public actions elsewhere

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

Comment by Arbitrators:

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

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

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

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

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

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

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

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

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

No. Misplaced Pages regulates Misplaced Pages and nothing else. Jehochman 21:55, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Users can be held responsible on Misplaced Pages for actions elsewhere

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

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

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

Wheel warring

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

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

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

Comment by others:

Should be given; taken from userbox wheel war case. - Penwhale | 15:06, 27 December 2007 (UTC) Modified link to current. - Penwhale | 15:14, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

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

Um? - Penwhale | 15:14, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

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

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

• Slightly modified wording. - Penwhale | 21:59, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

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

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

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

Transparency and chilling effect

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

Comment by Arbitrators:

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

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

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

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

Vested Contributors

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

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

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

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

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

Edit wars: edit summaries vs talk pages

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

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

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

The thought "Edit summaries exist to characterize the nature of the edit" comes to mind somewhere in this... FT2  07:46, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

Template

12) {text of proposed principle}

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Proposed findings of fact

Social spaces exist

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

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

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

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

Comment by others:

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

#wikipedia-en-admins

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

Comment by Arbitrators:

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

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

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

Comment by parties:

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

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

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

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

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

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

I got my access restored, Sean, yes. SlimVirgin 02:11, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

Comment by others:

Giano repeatedly and disruptively violated the 3RR

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

Comment by Arbitrators:

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

Comment by parties:

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

Comment by others:

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

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

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

Edit warring

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

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

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

Sean William unblocked incorrectly

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

Comment by Arbitrators:

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

Comment by parties:

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

Comment by others:

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

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

Geogre has been incivil

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

Comment by Arbitrators:

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

Comment by parties:

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

Comment by others:

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

Tony Sidaway resigned under cloud

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

Comment by Arbitrators:

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

• Misplaced Pages:Requests for arbitration/Giano. David Mestel 14:43, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

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

Comment by parties:

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

Comment by others:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Tony Sidaway's presence at IRC

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

Comment by Arbitrators:

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

Comment by parties:

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

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

Comment by others:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Some admins are denied access to the admins channel

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

Comment by Arbitrators:

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

Comment by parties:

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

Comment by others:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Sean William's unblock was fundamentally correct

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

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

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

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

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

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

Comment by others:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Tony Sidaway has made off-wiki personal attacks

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

Comment by Arbitrators:

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

Comment by parties:

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

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

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

Comment by others:

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

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

Giano's methods and tactics are supported by many Wikipedians

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

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

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

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

Comment by others:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

David Gerard and Geogre wheel warred on Misplaced Pages:IRC channels/wikipedia-en-admins

12) Based on evidence detailed here.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

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

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

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

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

There was a 14-stage edit war involving 9 editors

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

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

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

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

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

Egregious edit warring took place

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

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

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

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

Comment by others:

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

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

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

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

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

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

Status of the Misplaced Pages:IRC channels/wikipedia-en-admins page

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

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

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

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

Comment by others:

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

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

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

All pages on Misplaced Pages are subject to the same policy enforcement

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

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

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

Comment by others:

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

Some pages on Misplaced Pages have exemptions to policy enforcement

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

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

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

Proposed remedies

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

Jurisdiction

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

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

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

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

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

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

Comment by others:

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

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

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

#wikipedia-en-admins is for administrators of the English Misplaced Pages

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

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

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

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

Comment by others:

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

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

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

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

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

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

Are staff like developers also given access? Lawrence Cohen 02:39, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

Proposed. SlimVirgin 01:44, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

Well, it's not true. Tony Sidaway and Betacommand still have access, among others. Sean William @ 01:51, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

I'm putting this forward as a proposal, Sean. Tony has apparently given up his access, BTW. SlimVirgin 01:53, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

Only if the ArbCom manages to assert its jurisdiction for the channel in a meaningful way (through technical means) and decides to spell out the connection with Misplaced Pages. --Irpen 02:05, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

Tony no longer has access to the channel . John Reaves 11:37, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

I'm still unclear whether that is until it all blows over. Tony is doing a lot of apologising, as I don't think he wants to permanently lose access, though I may be wrong to say that. The impression I get is that IRC is a lot more important to some people than (say, adminship, or arbcom clerking) because they spend a lot of time chatting with friends. They would really miss it if they couldn't get access. This is why I've advocated renaming #admins (if that is possible, and no-one has said whether it is possible), and starting afresh with a new channel to perform the serious functions of IRC without the chatter that distracts in the other channels. Carcharoth (talk) 12:43, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

My intention is to permanently leave the channel. I have been apologising since Bishonen first accused me of calling her a bad name, many months ago, although I do not recall ever doing so. --Tony Sidaway 14:51, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

AzaToth is admonished to not abuse rollback

3) AzaToth (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) is admonished to not abuse rollback and similar features, such as undo and/or other rollback scripts, ie TWINKLE.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Proposed, feel free to expand. --Maxim_(talk) 01:38, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

I don't think this is appropriate. The evidence page mentions four times AzaToth used rollback - (, , , ). In two of these, he left an edit summary explaining the revert and those could not possibly be considered to be an abuse. One of the remaining two was a repeat of a previous revert and while an edit summary could have been left, it was somewhat redundant as it had already been explained. The fourth edit was reverting this diatribe using the Twinkle vandalism message. In no case was the admin revert used and to be frank, I wouldn't consider either of the two no-edit-summary reverts to be abusive one bit. --B (talk) 04:44, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

Geogre admonished

4) Geogre (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) is strongly admonished not to abuse his rollback featured, as well as not to wheel-war and edit-war.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Proposed, feel free to expand on this. Maxim_(talk) 01:39, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

Geogre desysoped

5) For egregious judgment and abuse of administrative priveleges, Geogre (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) is to be desysoped. He may apply via the regular means or appeal to the Committee.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Geogre has no history of abusing the tools. Whilst the edit warring is insufferable, if an abuse of tools if found here, a warning should suffice.--Doc 23:48, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

Horrendously bad judgment ought to be grounds for removing administrative privileges. We certainly should not have an administrator who edit wars and makes personal attacks. Phil Sandifer (talk) 15:18, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

Comment by others:

Proposed, as stronger measure than 4). —Preceding unsigned comment added by Maxim (talk • contribs)

What finding of fact justifies this? Sean William @ 01:42, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

Haven't written this up, but my evidence section nentions this. Abuse of rollback, abuse of protection (see the unprotection, egregious judgment). Please gimme a day to finish this out, I'm working hard on this. --Maxim_(talk) 01:48, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

George's misuse of rollback and protection was not half as severe as many have done in the past - a desysopping is far to extreme in this case. Ryan Postlethwaite 18:39, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

No. Jehochman 22:14, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

Too far, 4 is probably more appropriate. --Coredesat 23:39, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

Giano banned from Misplaced Pages namespace

6) Due to deliberate disruption in this area, Giano is banned from the Misplaced Pages namespace for X.

6 a) Excluding the featured article process, Giano is banned from the Misplaced Pages namespace for a period of one year.

6 b) Excluding the featured article process, Giano is banned from the Misplaced Pages namespace for a period of one year. Further to this, he is banned from commenting on the actions of administrators on any other pages within the scope the website.

6 c) Excluding the featured article process, Giano is banned from the Misplaced Pages namespace for a period of one year. Further to this, he is banned from commenting on the actions of administrators on any other pages within the scope the website except related to the FAC process, and articles he is involved in editing.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Well, we considered this in Durova, but went with a warning instead. That wasn't even a month ago. It's difficult to make an argument for mitigation at this stage. Mackensen (talk) 02:17, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

VO hits the nail on the head when he says that this is sad and unnecessary. Speaking as someone who watched this dispute develop over 15 months ago, I think it's a damned shame that all parties felt a need to perpetuate it, and seemed incapable of actually resolving their differences. This is now at least the third case I've sat on, as an arbitrator, which involved this particular dispute. You'd think people would just learn to leave each other be. Perhaps The Scarlett Letter or Les Misérables should be assigned reading in this process. Mackensen (talk) 01:04, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

Comment by parties:

To prevent repeated disruption.

Utterly worthless. All that's going to happen is that Giano will deliberately make one highly pertinent and very civil comment on an afd, GA review, DYK or 100 other useful places and there's be 20 hotheads ready to block. Drama inevitable.--Doc 23:46, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

What is required here is not a restraint but a genuine commitment to reform. I don't see a prospect of this, and those who admire and protect Giano make it difficult for him to grasp that there is a genuine need for reform here. --Tony Sidaway 23:53, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

Comment by others:

This remedy is essentially unworkable, as it would require an administrator to unilaterally block Giano II if the restriction were to be enforced, which would likely start another block war. Giano banned for 90 days is a far more straightforward, enforceable remedy. John254 03:13, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

Administrators who unblocked an arbcom-sanctioned block would, I think, quickly find themselves desysopped. We have made bans like this work fine in the past - Anthony and Everyking have both received comparable bans. Phil Sandifer (talk) 04:00, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

A block to enforce an namespace restriction wouldn't be expressly sanctioned by the Arbitration Committee. There could be significant disputes as to whether any particular infraction merited a block, or merely a warning, or as to what block length would be appropriate. Of course, administrators who repeatedly wheel-war against legitimate enforcement of Arbitration Committee decisions could eventually be desysopped; however, to the best of my knowledge, immediate desysopping for unblocking Giano II, even once, would be available only if Giano II were under a complete ban. John254 04:13, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

In cases where remedies like this are adopted, an enforcement finding will also be passed. Such a finding specifies what is grounds for a block, how long the block should be, etc. So don't worry about disputes over enforcement, since little is left to admin discretion. Picaroon (t) 04:19, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

6a proposed. Basically an attempt at damage limitation as Giano is a valued contributor in FA discussions - stopping this wouldn't be good for the project, however there's some serious questions about his conduct in other wikipedia space areas. Ryan Postlethwaite 18:33, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

6b proposed. In retrospect, I think this is probably required. Sometimes Giano can be correct in what he says about admins, but the way he goes about it is like a bull in a china shop, his major goal looks like he's creating a drama bomb when he comments on admins actions. Taking the ability for him to comment on wikipedia namespaces will inevitably lead to him taking this elsewhere such as individual admin talk pages, so 6b puts a stop to this right away. Ryan Postlethwaite 19:50, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

I added 6c. Seems obvious? Lawrence Cohen 19:52, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

I am sorry to say that this comes across as, essentially, slavery. "Yes Giano, you can write all the feature articles you want. Just don't talk to or about the rest of us who really run the project." I apologize for being so sarcastic, but I cannot imagine any self-respecting contributor editing under these restrictions. Risker (talk) 19:55, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

He's already proven his inability to handle discussion on admin actions without drama or completely unnecessary pointy actions. Every time he enters discussion on admin actions, he destroys the decorum. With the greatest respect to Giano, these comments are seriously detremental to the project (he's extremely disruptive in the wikipedia namespace except from the FAC process), and have to be stopped, this being the only measure. Ryan Postlethwaite 19:58, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

I put up my variant only so that no one could play games around the FAC process. Any restriction there on admin comments would be bizarre--he'd only be able to deal with non-admins on FAC matters? Lawrence Cohen 20:02, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

By signalling out admin actions, I meant in related discussions about admin action or general misconduct - obviously he could contribute to any discussion regarding articles that involve admins, just not in non FAC wikipedia space. Ryan Postlethwaite 20:04, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

What if potential misconduct relates to the FAC process or articles he is involved in? There shouldn't be any restrictions on him towards FAC, should there? What if he gets into a dispute with an admin about something FAC related, and it rolls to ANI or RFC? He can't participate? Lawrence Cohen 20:07, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

Nope - he'll simply go looking for trouble again. His Misplaced Pages space ban would be full, apart from the FAC process with no exceptions - he's continually proven his inability to remain civil in discussion about other contributors (admins) actions. Ryan Postlethwaite 20:10, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

So all an admin has to do theoretically do if in a FAC conflict with Giano is roll the dispute to AN, ANI, RFC, RFAR, or anything else, and Giano is basically trapped back in FAC and his user talk page and unable to address whatever dispute it is, and thats that? Lawrence Cohen 20:12, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

Just to add, I very much doubt an FAC dispute would really end up on AN/I, and article RfC's appear on talk pages. User conduct RfC's are in Misplaced Pages space, but again, his issues stem from these area's so are included in the ban. Ryan Postlethwaite 20:13, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

If there is a dispute soley about FAC at AN/I, then he would be allowed to comment, provided it was soley on content, rather than conduct. Ryan Postlethwaite 20:18, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

Ryan, I am not disagreeing with your characterization (at least not too much); Giano can indeed be like a bull in a china shop. It seems to be a condition endemic to a small number of our top quality contributors, and he is not alone in this manner of behaviour; it just seems to rankle more because his focus tends to be admins rather than regular editors. I cannot imagine any serious contributor operating under such a limitation as not being able to edit outside of article space, except if it is for the project to be able to claim another outstanding article. Risker (talk) 20:11, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

But he is excellent as a writer, ridiculously rude and pointy in any discussion that appears in Misplaced Pages space about admin conduct or any issue involving an admin (other than soley for article purposes). This remedy is preventative - it stops the clear disruption that Giano causes in user/admin conduct discussion, but allows his good work as an article writer to continue. Ryan Postlethwaite 20:16, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

Yes, he is an excellent writer. He is also remembered for when his temper is hot, but few people remember when he is being kind. As with any of us, you get the full package. Trying to turn him into a workhorse is beneath this project. Risker (talk) 20:20, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

Unfortunately, the negatives far outweigh the positives with Giano being allowed to contribute in wikipedia space - everyone can have the occasional lapse of judgement, Giano has extremely occasional good judgement in these discussions. Ryan Postlethwaite 20:22, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

If the problem is edit warring, some form of revert parole would be a better response. Additionally, if Giano is blocked for edit warring, that must be reported in the log of this case, and that the block must not be undone without agreement of the blocking admin, or approval of an arbitrator. Giano blocks don't stick, so there is no way to set limits on his behavior. It is poisonous for the community when a user appears to be above the rules. Jehochman 22:20, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

A Giano block for breaking this remedy would be quite hard to be unjustified - there's no way an admin could claim he hadn't edited wikipedia space if he had. There isn't just disruption via edit warring, it comes in many differenct avenues, hence why this is required. Ryan Postlethwaite 22:51, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

Support 6a. Namespace bans can be and have been enforced in the past. --Coredesat 23:38, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

(unindent) Ryan, it seems we are talking past each other. If I understand you correctly, your objective with this remedy is to keep Giano writing great articles, but not have the opportunity to comment on any other activities going on in the rest of the project. My position is that I cannot imagine any serious contributor wanting to continue producing in a project where his opinions on how it is operated are pointedly considered to be unacceptable even before he voices them. As a featured article writer, should he have a voice in developing the policies affecting content? (I hope that FA-level writers are helping to mould those policies.) Should he have a voice at AfD - particularly if an article to which he has contributed is proposed for deletion? Should he have a !vote at RfA? Can he request clarification of a decision from the Arbitration Committee? Can he request page protection? report a vandal? make a 3RR report? All of these activities require access to the Misplaced Pages space. Banning any editor from Misplaced Pages space only tells them that they are not considered to be part of the community, and realistically it is unenforceable, given the range of normal editing activities that bring community members into Misplaced Pages space. Nobody is going to block Giano or any other similarly restricted editor from asking for page protection in the middle of an edit war - which then means that we are back to the discretion of the individual administrator in the specific situation involved. This proposal cannot be effectively implemented. Risker (talk) 23:50, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

The only other choice is to block him completely. Things can't go on like this, with his appetite for disruption and incivility. But I'd rather not make such a black-and-white choice and believe we should find a middle ground. Raymond Arritt (talk) 00:01, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

What I'm saying is that we want him to keep on writing artcles which he does best, just about every other thing he does here in wikipedia space (apart from FAC) could be considered disruptive. As I said, there's the occasional piece of good judgement but the negatives of his contributions to Misplaced Pages space far outweigh this. This is about damage limitation, and without making a remedy which is too hard to enforce, or too hard to interpret, we have to have a blanket ban on his contributions to this particular namespace. Giano turns the project into a battle ground far too often when he steps out of article space and I'm sure if we restricted him to any page outside AN or AN/I, he would find other areas to cause drama and disruption with respect to admin actions. AfD and DRV have just the same potential to disrupt as an admin noticeboard. It's reached the stage now where quite frankly, his contributions aren't welcome in the Misplaced Pages namespace because there is a serious ammount of flack that comes with that. Giano only very very rarely does anything such as request page protection or report a vandal so this will not cause him too much trouble. With this remedy, we keep his article writing, and stop the constant drama bombs that his participation in project space mostly causes. I'm sure if he was in an ArbCom case in the future, an immediate remedy would be enacted so he could participate, but 6c would effectively mean that he wouldn't be able to disrupt to the extent of requiring arbitration again. Ryan Postlethwaite 00:09, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

Well, bottom line, Ryan - has there ever been a case where a remedy similar to this has resulted in the editor remaining with the project and producing high quality articles? You know the answer as well as I do - it has never worked. So why bother putting an option that is doomed to failure onto the table? It is nothing short of "let's ban Giano in such a way that it looks like we aren't banning him." Risker (talk) 00:19, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

Because we have no other option now that will work - we're out of any other remedy that could effectively work. Everyking (talk · contribs) had a very similar remedy an he's still here, not sure of any other time when someone has had to have a namespace ban. Ryan Postlethwaite 00:21, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

It all may be a moot point anyway. I think he's left the house, if his blanking of his pages and an email to me are any indication. Lawrence Cohen 00:12, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

I have a sinking feeling he's trying to avoid the case by leaving the project; I wouldn't be surprised if he ended up returning if the case closes with no action taken against him, given his conduct history here. --Coredesat 00:24, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

Despite counsel from the user I trust most to stay out of this, I have to say that I just really don't think that comment is called for. (and it's very unlike you, as well) Giano is deeply upset at how things have went around here lately, judging from things he has said recently. I hope he will be back but I sincerely believe he's lost faith in the project. Which is really a damn shame. ++Lar: t/c 00:34, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

Withdrawn. --Coredesat 02:18, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

Given his pages have now been deleted at his request, he does appear gone. And due to the nasty tone here, and comments in IRC just now, and based on this, it appears Bishonen is gone now as well. Lawrence Cohen 00:30, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

Nasty tone? Ryan Postlethwaite 00:32, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

This situation is sad and completely unnecessary. To my friend Ryan, in regards to your comments above - how would you feel about Misplaced Pages if someone advocated restricting you to article space, and denied you any voice in policymaking? That seems to me a variation of taxation without representation and is guaranteed to enrage liberty-minded people. I would suggest that it is not the community that is upset by any Giano rule-breaking, but those who are criticized by him. Much of the community seems to approve of his iconoclastic attitude, based on his ArbCom candidacy. Bishonen's apparent departure would only be the leading edge - do we really want to upset and drive away a substantial portion of the content-writing community just to keep some policy-wonking types from having their feelings hurt? What would be better for the encyclopedia - to drive away Giano, Bish, and their allies - or to tell cop-wannabes to suck up a little criticism and stop whining for the sake of the encyclopedia? 00:58, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

I would suggest I had a good raport with Giano (most probably not anymore I would imagine) and I think in many ways he's a credit to the encyclopedia - I'd love to be able to write an article like him. What I'd say about me being restricted to article/image/portal space is that I don't think I disrupt any areas of Misplaced Pages, so I don't think I'm ever likely to be banned from any particular namespace - this is what I find so frustrating, I don't understand why Giano behaves like this, I wouldn't bother if I was so bitter about certain aspects of the project. Ryan Postlethwaite 01:03, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

Giano behaves "like this" because that is who he is. He's the guy who will stop without hesitation if he sees you've been in a car accident and find out if you're okay, then sit there until the police and ambulance come, yelling on his mobile phone at everyone to hurry up because you're in pain. And while he is at it, he will take a strip off the driver who cut you off, give the cops hell for not enforcing the speed limit, and root around in someone's garden to give you a rose in hopes of it making you feel a bit better. Then he'll follow up by calling the chief of police to make sure the road continues to be patrolled properly, and testify in court when your case comes up. Giano is a nuisance to some and a great help to others. It's up to the community if we need Giano. Right now, it sure seems that at least some people here have decided we don't. Risker (talk) 01:22, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

To mistquote a Despair, Inc. Demotivator. "It takes months to create a good editor, but only seconds to lose one... the good news is that we should run out of them in no time." ... Really excellent work guys... CharonX/talk 01:33, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

Giano put on revert parole

7) Giano is forbidden to make more than one revert per 24 hours on any pages in the Misplaced Pages namespace.
7.1) Giano is forbidden to make more than one revert per 24 hours on any pages in the Misplaced Pages namespace. All administrators are cautioned not to unblock Giano without agreement of the blocking administrator or an arbitrator.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Lighter alternative to 3.

Comment by others:

Too weak, in my opinion, per Maxim and Phil Sandifer's evidence. --Coredesat 06:25, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

Yes, but how to enforce this? Try 7.1. Jehochman 22:22, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

Giano is not only disruptive with edit warring, but general disruptive and trolling behaviour in the Misplaced Pages namespace - this is far too weak and does not get to the root of the problem. Ryan Postlethwaite 00:13, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

I think, if we are honest, the "disruption" and "drama" that takes place at various times, are just the most active Misplaced Pages namespace contributors coming together and arguing over various things. We know who we are. The same names keep showing up time and time again. Reputations get built and destroyed, and elections are held for this and for that. Incremental progress is made - policies are painstakingly worked over and tweaked, and sometimes someone tries to rip things up and start again. Guidelines and essays and manuals of style are furiously debated. But... BUT! ... While all this is going on, the encyclopedia still gets written. Hands are wrung about POV-warriors and trolls, and biting of newbies. Yet still... STILL! ... The project goes on. Thinking that banning a single person, or even campaigning to take a much harder line on POV editing (with indefinite bans handed out indiscriminately), or crusades to save the poor newbies being crushed underfoot by the Misplaced Pages machinery, or anything like that, will lead to radical change, is failing to understand how communities like Misplaced Pages work. The cycle of dramas will go on because, at the root of it all, we all care deeply about Misplaced Pages. <pause> Listen! What is that I hear in the background? It is the sound of the encyclopedia being written. Many of the people writing the encyclopedia try and just avoid the drama. We shouldn't overstate the effect that increasing or reducing the drama by community action or ArbCom sanctions actually has on the reader-orientated parts of the encyclopedia. Carcharoth (talk) 02:25, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

It sounds like you are suggesting we tolerate various levels of incivility, disruptive pointy editing, revert-warring and other policy violations from the regulars because the other nonentities that edit away will continue to do so oblivious to the drama. Yet, should one of those nonentities make one of those transgressions, the regulars don't think twice about blocking/reverting/dismissing them. That is the cause of the chilling effect. The rest of the community doesn't care about the bickering between the usual suspects, they do care when it they are they see themselves treated differently from the usual suspects because of who they are (or, who they are not). Giano is right, being an admin shouldn't afford you special treatment. But guess what, being a featured article writer shouldn't get you special treatment either! Its great you can write a featured article yourself, but it is also great if your are an anonymous wikignome that spends hours correcting grammar and spelling mistakes. Why should we laud one over the other? I'm not a big fan of Ingrid Newkirk, but I can't help thinking her belief that "a rat is a pig is a dog is a boy" is appropriate here. Rockpocket 03:51, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

By that logic, shouldn't someone with five years under their belt get the same block for the same violation and obnoxious behavior as someone with 5 months, or 5 days, no questions asked, no exceptions? Lawrence Cohen 04:08, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

If someone with five years under their belt knows that 16 reverts in 24hrs is totally unacceptable, yet still does it, what are we to conclude other than that person thinks our policies do not apply to them? Someone with 5 days experience may not know our policies, thats when we should consider making an exception. Some people think a tool belt protects them from the repercussions of willingly flaunting policy, others think its the number of FAs to their name. Its just different sides of the same coin. Rockpocket 05:33, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

Before we start waving numbers around, it was 16 edits that Giano made. Technically, I make 9 of those reverts. The other 7 edits were adding of new text (such as the first edit), and one minor edit to correct a mis-spelt edit summary (not the best-ever edit summary either). Nine reverts is still obviously too much, and the 3RR violation on 25 December is clear. But the edit warring on 24 December doesn't seem to have been for 3RR. It was for edit warring, and it is clear Giano was edit warring then, but if he was edit warring, then so was Doc Glasgow at the least, and maybe others as well. Hmm. Will have to look into that. Carcharoth (talk) 05:59, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

Sean William admonished

8) Sean William is admonished not to use administrative powers in disputes he is involved in, and to be more careful in unblocking users.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Generous, frankly. Phil Sandifer (talk) 01:43, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

Comment by others:

I didn't take a side on the talk page discussion. My participation on the talk page does not equate to being "involved" in a dispute. In addition, I did not participate in the revert-warring. Sean William @ 01:45, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

Also, before levying remedies against me, you should probably start a motion to add me to the list of parties. Sean William @ 01:48, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

That is not required, although it is often done. The list of parties and the users being considered for sanctions are not necessarily the same. Picaroon (t) 02:11, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

No. Sean William has not done anything to even earn an admonishment. He asked for, received, and applied consensus. SirFozzie (talk) 03:04, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

• I agree wholeheartedly with SirFozzie's take on this. And I think that Phil's "Generous, frankly" comments following some of them are, frankly, more than a bit condescending. Mr Which??? 03:10, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

Question, Mr Which. Do you agree with my statement, or the workshop proposal. You make it seem like Phil is out of line (and indent to my statement), but usually the agree/disagree applies to the workshop statement. SirFozzie (talk) 03:14, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

I don't see anything here that requires action against Sean. Ryan Postlethwaite 18:34, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

• Without commenting on an admonishment in general, I object to this particular version. Evidence provided has not portrayed Sean in a "party" role in this dispute, and I am inclined to agree with that; to the vast majority of intents and purposes, he is an uninvolved editor. Anthøny 21:52, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

Geogre on personal attack parole

9) Geogre is put on a standard personal attack parole.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Generous, frankly. Phil Sandifer (talk) 01:43, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

Comment by others:

I don't think this is necessary. At most, a reminder would suffice, though even the necessity of that is debatable. Picaroon (t) 20:59, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

Excessive. Jehochman 22:23, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

Giano banned for 90 days

10) For consistent disruptive editing, editwarring, and similar egregious behaviour, Giano II (talk · contribs) is banned for 90 days.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

To what end?--Doc 23:41, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

Comment by others:

Proposed, see my evidence on Giano on the appropriate page. Maxim_(talk) 01:48, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

Why ban him from the project entirely? The Misplaced Pages and Misplaced Pages talk namespaces seem a better choice, if this is adopted. No one has shown he has been disruptive in article space. No need to extend limitations beyond where they do any good. Picaroon (t) 02:13, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

This remedy would avoid the necessity of having an administrator unilaterally block Giano to enforce a namespace restriction, which would probably result in a block war, just as many of Giano's previous blocks have. Blocking Giano with express authorization from the Arbitration Committee appears to be the only feasible solution. Additionally, if banned only from the Misplaced Pages and Misplaced Pages talk namespaces, Giano could simply move his disruption to other namespaces. John254 02:53, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

Too far. Giano is by all accounts a valued contributor of content, and does not seem to be disruptive in article space. It would be a shame to lose his contributions there. An alternative might be to restrict him to article space and article talk pages. Raymond Arritt (talk) 05:49, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

This is in many ways punitive, please see remedy 6a. Ryan Postlethwaite 18:35, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

Does not resolve the problem. Does create drama. Oppose. Jehochman 22:23, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

I would support this, but it's only going to create more drama. A namespace ban is more appropriate here. --Coredesat 23:41, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

As discussed above a namespace ban is probably unworkable. I think a straight ban is the only way to communicate to Giano that his behavior (edit-warring and incivility) is unacceptable. I think that 30 days is enough myself. Eluchil404 (talk) 06:39, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

Tony Sidaway banned for 7 days

11) Tony Sidaway (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)'s editing privileges are suspended for 7 days.

Comment by Arbitrators:

The Everyking case has no bearing here: he was de-sysoped because it was believed, based on off-site evidence, that he was about to grossly misuse his administrative tools. The infraction would have happened on-wiki. To sanction someone solely for making an off-wiki comment would indeed be a significant jump, and one not backed by any policy of any kind. Mackensen (talk) 15:21, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

Comment by parties:

Sets a rather nasty precedent, no? Phil Sandifer (talk) 04:00, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

• I don't think it's appropriate to block Tony for making a remark to me, however disconcerting the remark was. IMO he needs to be arbitrated and sanctioned for the general incivility for which he is notorious, not for any one remark or two. Probably that should be done in a separate RFAR/Tony Sidaway; I can't well see a case named "IRC" being stretched to include it. If possible, I'd indeed be pleased to see such an arbitration include his IRC behavior. Bishonen | talk 19:21, 27 December 2007 (UTC).

To what end?--Doc 11:27, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

Comment by others:

Proposed, per the Tony Sidaway has made off-wiki personal attacks finding. John254 03:34, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

So you want to ban him on-wiki for off-wiki behavior? That makes absolutely no sense. Sean William @ 03:35, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

The remedy is not designed to directly prevent further off-wiki personal attacks, but rather to deter future misconduct of this nature by Tony Sidaway and other users of the IRC channel. John254 03:43, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

This seems like punishment, and as such I have trouble reconciling it with Blocks are intended to reduce the likelihood of future problems, by either removing, or encouraging change in, a source of disruption. They are not intended for use in retaliation, as punishment, or where there is no current conduct issue which is of concern. Raymond Arritt (talk) 05:53, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

Has the committee ever stated it will sanction users for this? (If so, where?) And Jimmy stating the committee will is not the same as the committee itself saying so - I've yet to hear one arbitrator in favor of sanctioning Wikipedians for their IRC behavior. Even if the committee does choose to impose such sanctions, what good will they do? IRC is not Misplaced Pages. How will banning someone from Misplaced Pages prevent (that's what we're going for, recall - prevention, not punishment) this person continuing to make personal attacks off-wiki? Picaroon (t) 03:38, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

As the Arbitration Committee is appointed by Jimbo Wales and operates under a delegation of his authority, I assume that Jimbo Wales' directive to the Committee to consider off-wiki personal attacks on IRC will actually be effectuated. The purpose of the on-wiki sanction is deterrence of future misconduct. John254 03:50, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

Yes, he does say that it should be taken up with the committee. My guess, however, is that the committee will not be enthusiastic towards the expansion of their duties to include the regulation of IRC behavior. Determining onwiki sanctions for onwiki behavior can be hard enough, at times; determining onwiki sanctions for offwiki behavior would be much harder, and is not what they volunteered to do at all. Remember, also, that Jimbo says "In the event that the ArbCom makes a ruling against me, overturning any decision I have made in my traditional capacity within Misplaced Pages, the ArbCom's decision shall be final." Presumably, the arbitrators are or have been discussing Jimbo's recent statement you linked with him in the last few days. If he gets a largely negative response from them, I don't think he will insist they follow through. Of course, it's up to the committee; not us. Picaroon (t) 03:58, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

The arbitration committee has sanctioned users for off-wiki activity, e.g. Everyking, and it's never been clear why this would be a big jump in principle. Christopher Parham (talk) 04:33, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

Everyking was sanctioned for actions that were considered a clear and present danger - this seems several orders of magnitude below that. Phil Sandifer (talk) 05:05, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

Erm...one week? That's quite weak (haha, pun) for arbcom, isn't it? --uǝʌǝsʎʇɹnoɟʇs(st47) 21:34, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

Oppose as completely inappropriate. Jehochman 22:24, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

Trouts all around

12) All involved editors are gently smacked with a trout and asked to carry on with encyclopedia-building. Editors who have previously been smacked with a trout to no demonstrable effect are to be smacked less gently and with a proportionately weightier trout.

Comment by Arbitrators:

The last set of trouts was whale-sized. We can't keep doing this indefinitely. Kirill 04:52, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

Comment by parties:

Sadly, I suspect this only encourages overfishing. Too many trout have already been used up, and the returns are diminishing.--Doc 21:20, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

Comment by others:

Proposed. MastCell 04:23, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

"Set upon by an onslaught of Oncorhynchus mykiss in full spawn" has a nice ring to it, but this will do. Raymond Arritt (talk) 06:02, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

Horrible, HORRIBLE solution given the related resolutions. - Penwhale | 08:33, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

Approving this would pretty much validate certain points brought up in evidence. This is more of a non-remedy than a remedy, and as Kirill says, this can't go on forever. --Coredesat 11:02, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

I do not believe it is within ArbCom's remit in this case to order the removal of such trouts from their life-giving aqueous environments. There is nothing in evidence supporting a death penalty against these peaceful, albeit tasty, creatures. --uǝʌǝsʎʇɹnoɟʇs(st47) 21:36, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

Port wine will do the deed humanely. Raymond Arritt (talk) 21:52, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

Unfortunately, marginal returns are now deep in the negative. No need to deplete the trout fishery on something that obviously doesn't work and deprive the efficient use of trout in other situations. Time to switch tactics, no? —Kurykh 21:42, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

Based on my reading of the evidence, a weightier fish is needed. Perhaps a tuna? --Carnildo (talk) 00:10, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

Personally I'd recommend switching to a clue-by-four, or we're are bound to run out of trouts really soon now. On a more serious note, the behavior of all involved in this edit-wheel-war debacle (and following "he started it" "we didn't do anything" fingerpointing) made me shake my head. You are admins (or at least very experienced editors), for god's sake, not kindergarden-kids - if you can't act like responsible adults, how can we expect our newbie editors to do it? *Sigh* CharonX/talk 00:23, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

Page probation

13) Misplaced Pages:IRC channels/wikipedia-en-admins is placed on article probation for .

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Proposed: Seems like it will happen, even if it isn't really an article.—Ryūlóng (竜龍) 07:39, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

Should not be implemented without a clear ruling on whether David Gerard's assertion that it is a special case of policy page is accurate. Phil Sandifer (talk) 15:19, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

Comment by others:

I'm not sure of this - we shouldn't have probation on a page that has no net benefit to the project. People should probably just learn to spend less time on such a predantic pedantic issue. Ryan Postlethwaite 18:37, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

Support. No reason why not except that it isn't an article, and there's no harm in 'wasting' probation on such a page as this. --uǝʌǝsʎʇɹnoɟʇs(st47) 21:37, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

I think the better solution would be to place it on a foundation website with an appropriate softlink from the current page name. There is no reason why editors should not write their own essays on IRC, but the main page on the IRC channel should not be used as an essay. --Tony Sidaway 22:36, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

In fact, it's just been MfDed. --uǝʌǝsʎʇɹnoɟʇs(st47) 23:34, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

MFD was withdrawn pending this case. The nominator stated his intentions of renominating once this mess is sorted out. I suggest this remedy be discarded and let the community decide through the normal process of MfD after everyone cools down. - Mtmelendez 01:59, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

Why would this remedy be discarded? If the page is deleted, then that will defeat the purpose, but it's still an idea if the page survives MFD.—Ryūlóng (竜龍) 02:53, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

Concur with Ryulong, if the community fails to achieve consensus to delete then this remedy would be quite useful. --uǝʌǝsʎʇɹnoɟʇs(st47) 12:22, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

Probation

14) Any user identified as a problem user by the Committee is subject to an editing restriction in Misplaced Pages: and Misplaced Pages talk: space. They are limited to one revert per week (except obvious vandalism), and are encouraged to discuss any content changes on the appropriate talk page. Additionally, any uninvolved administrator may, at their discretion, ban said user from editing a specific Misplaced Pages: or Misplaced Pages talk: page for a reasonable amount of time. Violation of the revert limitation or a ban may be punished by an uninvolved administrator in the form of a block duration to be specified in an enforcement ruling.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

I don't think this is the kind of dispute that can be resolved by restricting "problem users" (not even Giano). It needs a commitment by all of us to put past grievances to one side and remember that we are one community. --Tony Sidaway

Agreed, but for that to happen, people need to acknowledge the harm done, apologize, and stop the sources of the toxicity from causing that harm ever again. Otherwise we're not one community, as a matter of regrettable fact. SlimVirgin 02:34, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

Comment by others:

Proposed... obviously needs work, but I'm just throwing it out there. east.718 at 08:03, December 27, 2007

Can't do, just because of the definition of "problem user". - Penwhale | 08:32, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

I assume that would be changed to "X, Y, and Z are subject to an editing restriction..." like I said, it needs work. east.718 at 08:51, December 27, 2007

I don't like the naming; besides, administrators on revert parole in the WP/WT namespace... I need to give it a bit more thinking to process. - Penwhale | 14:58, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

David Gerard is desysopped for Wheel Warring on Misplaced Pages:IRC channels/wikipedia-en-admins

16) Per the finding of fact and evidence, both David Gerard and Geogre violated protection policies, and wheel warred. David Gerard is desysopped, and may reapply at any time via normal RFA means.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Overkill. Why would we want to lose such a useful admin over this crap?--Doc 21:46, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

Oppose. As David has pointed out, the page in question is a special case of policy page, and his relationship to the page is unique. Even if his actions are determined to be in error (and I don't think they are) they are clearly a reasonable interpretation of a policy that was not entirely clear. To desysop a longstanding administrator over such a small case is unreasonable in the extreme. Phil Sandifer (talk) 05:07, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

Comment by others:

Update on section #15 above based on evidence and timeline of wheel warring. Lawrence Cohen 21:17, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

I suggest that this be split into two separate proposals, one for each admin. Risker (talk) 21:20, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

Done. Lawrence Cohen 21:22, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

Oppose. Too strong a remedy at this time. Jehochman 22:25, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

David Gerard is suspended for Wheel Warring on Misplaced Pages:IRC channels/wikipedia-en-admins

16.1) Per the finding of fact and evidence, both David Gerard and Geogre violated protection policies, and wheel warred. David Gerard is suspended as an admin for 90 days.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

David, rather stupidly, responded to trolling. I suspect he's learned his lesson. Folly is its own reward.--Doc 23:39, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

As per above, I think David's actions on the page were a reasonable interpretation of a vague policy, and that strong sanction is inappropriate. Phil Sandifer (talk) 05:08, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

Comment by others:

Alternative, per Doc. Lawrence Cohen 21:49, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

Oppose. Too strong. Jehochman 22:26, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

Geogre is desysopped for Wheel Warring on Misplaced Pages:IRC channels/wikipedia-en-admins

17) Per the finding of fact and evidence, both David Gerard and Geogre violated protection policies, and wheel warred. Geogre is desysopped, and may reapply at any time via normal RFA means.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Overkill. My deletion of this page was an IAR attempt to quell an edit war - reversing it was regrettable, but no big deal. The fact that people wanted to continue the pathetic edit war is more troubling.--Doc 21:50, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

Comment by others:

Proposed. Lawrence Cohen 21:50, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

In reply to Doc - deleting it was not an appropriate action in the first place and was clearly never going to be an acceptable way forward. violet/riga (t) 22:01, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

I don't think "appropriate" is quite the word, it unfortunately turned out to be futile, but it seemed worth a try at the time.--Doc 23:37, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

Oppose. Too strong. Jehochman 22:26, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

Agree, way too strong (argument applies to 16 and 16.1, as well). --Coredesat 23:35, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

Geogre is suspended for Wheel Warring on Misplaced Pages:IRC channels/wikipedia-en-admins

17.1) Per the finding of fact and evidence, both David Gerard and Geogre violated protection policies, and wheel warred. Geogre is suspended as an admin for 90 days.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Support. While David had a legitimate reason to think that he held a special role in editing the page, Geogre had no such reason. That, combined with Geogre's documented tendency towards gross incivility, make me think that a suspension is a reasonable course of action. Phil Sandifer (talk) 05:09, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

Comment by others:

Alternative, per Doc. Lawrence Cohen 21:50, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

Oppose. Too strong. Jehochman 22:27, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

Still too strong. --Coredesat 23:35, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

Bishonen encouraged

18) Bishonen is strongly encouraged to look past these extremely regrettable incidents and to continue contributing high-quality content to Misplaced Pages under the account name of her choice.

Comment by Arbitrators:

At the risk of being accused of insensitivity, this isn't appropriate. I've read the channel logs at length; it was Bishonen who raised the matter with Tony, and continued to press him beyond what I personally would have considered appropriate. This is no way excuses Tony's response; I note it for context. This RfAR is the result of absolutely unacceptable actions taken by numerous users who found it necessary to revert-war over a project page in response to something that happened off-site. That administrators could take such a leave of their senses is disheartening and makes me question my commitment to dispute resolution. If Giano was acting on Bishonen's behalf, then she was not well served by her partisans. In a past case I accused Giano of dispute escalation, and voiced my opinion, as an arbitrator, that the project would be better served if he withdrew from the project namespace (or was compelled to withdraw). This suggestion proved unpalatable, so we reminded Giano to be cordial, courteous, and all that. Naturally this only applied to the wiki; arbcom does not claim to govern elsewhere, and is ineffectual enough at best on the wiki itself.

The original insult, it bears mentioning, occurred in September of 2006. The best way to not be reminded of an insult is to let the matter drop. Barring that, there's dispute resolution. On IRC, that means going to a chanop. It does not mean starting a revert-war on the encyclopedia. It should never have come to this: it was preventable, and no one in this mess is blameless. This proposal came from Durova; !! was an innocent bystander wrongly blocked. This incident bears little resemblance. Mackensen (talk) 06:49, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

Comment by parties:

I think it ill-becomes arbcom to do solatium. Arbcom is not your mother.--Doc 11:25, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

Bishonen did go to a chanop (as I discovered later when the chanop had a word with me). Giano stated that he obtained a log of the discussion from elsewhere. Giano was not acting at Bishonen's bidding and I don't think it's correct to accuse her of participating in the deliberate escalation of the complaint. --Tony Sidaway 12:54, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

Comment by others:

Proposed. Taken from Misplaced Pages:Requests for arbitration/Durova. This incident stems from a strikingly vulgar insult of Bishonen. Bishonen has now given every indication that she has left the project in response to this RfAR that is related to being reminded of that insult. Risker (talk) 06:12, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

Giano banned for one year

19) Giano is banned for one year.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

If, as others are saying, it is impossible to meaningfully impose even a namespace restriction on Giano because he will use it as an opportunity to create drama by pushing its limits then we are dealing with a committed and subtle troll of the worst sort. If it is really true that no measures that would move Giano's contributions away from disruption then he should be removed from the project. Phil Sandifer (talk) 17:25, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

This would not resolve the dispute. I think the Committee will have to be very creative in seeking an appropriate and equitable set of remedies. --Tony Sidaway 18:53, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

Comment by others:

A committed and subtle troll? I believe that a person who generates huge amounts of positive contributions towards the encyclopedia is not a troll, no matter what level of disruption they create. Giano is still very committed to the project, and obviously cares about its existence. That contradicts the basic definition of "trolling". Sean William @ 17:51, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

Comment by others:

"Troll of the worst sort?" Ph.Sa.'s is a shocking statement, coming from an individual whose mainspace contributions have been relatively poor (at least recently), and referring to one of WP's most active high-quality article writers. If you want Giano's full measure, look at the recent edit history of, say, Queluz National Palace. I thought that kind of achievement was what WP is there for; which is why people like myself are active here. If it's about something else, please let us know, so we can go and do something worthwhile. athinaios (talk) 18:42, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

Oppose, and people posting such comments as calling others "trolls" or disruptive should be mindful of glass houses. Lawrence Cohen 18:45, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

Agreed with the above comment by Athinaios.. I find this behavior by Phil to be the exact same thing of which he is decrying from Giano. SirFozzie (talk) 18:46, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

Giano placed on revert parole

19.1) Giano is placed on parole and may not make any more than one revert, either in whole, or in part within a 24 hour period, to any page outwith the article namespace (and excluding obvious exceptions, such as his talk page), for a period to be determined as appropriate. Enforceable by a block not exceeding 24 hours. Any user attempting to have Giano blocked by attempting to force him into making reverts shall also be liable to a block not exceeding 24 hours.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

This could conceivably function as part of a resolution of the problem. --Tony Sidaway 18:54, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

Comment by others:

Proposed. Giano is a recognised contributor of quality edits and he should, in no way, be expected to contribute content without having some say in the way the project is run, but at the same time, his (and others) behaviour needs to be carefully controlled to prevent further incidents such as this from developing. Dunno how workable this is, but I thought I'd throw it in and see what comments it generates. Nick (talk) 18:29, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

Template

20) {text of proposed remedy}

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Proposed enforcement

Authority over IRC channels

1) The Arbitration Committee shall confirm and agree with the policy stated by Jimbo Wales () and assume Authority over all IRC channels on the freenode network, that are directly connected to the English Misplaced Pages.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

This is an alternation of proposed principle 3, that would probably more reflect the issue if it where a new policy. _→AzaToth 01:52, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

This does not seem to me to be what Jimbo is saying in the edit cited. Phil Sandifer (talk) 05:10, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

How else would you interpret it? SlimVirgin 05:13, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

As the arbcom having the authority to enforce certain policies and standards of behavior in IRC. This is distinct from administrative control over the channels, with the difference essentially being that between the arbcom's function on en and the authority to set policy on en. Phil Sandifer (talk) 05:26, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

What matters is who has the authority over it. Adminstrative control can be removed by the authority, via Freenode, but the authority can't be removed by those who only have administrative control. Jimbo and the ArbCom appear to have assumed authority, or at least a degree of it. SlimVirgin 05:29, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

For what it's worth, I agree with SV in that it does appear that Jimbo is declaring that he and ArbCom are assuming at least some, if not complete, authority over the IRC in question. Hopefully the ArbCom will clearly state in this case how much authority they have over the IRC and how it will be exercised. Cla68 (talk) 06:18, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

Comment by others:

Template

2) {text of proposed enforcement}

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Template

3) {text of proposed enforcement}

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Template

4) {text of proposed enforcement}

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Template

5) {text of proposed enforcement}

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Analysis of evidence

Place here items of evidence (with diffs) and detailed analysis

Template

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Template

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Template

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Template

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Template

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Template

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Template

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

General discussion

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others: