This is an old revision of this page, as edited by El Sandifer (talk | contribs) at 05:12, 27 December 2007 (→The technical control over the channel is given to the ArbCom immediately). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

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)

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)

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:

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)

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)

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)

Comment by others:

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

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)

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)

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)

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)

Template

7) {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:

#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)

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:

Comment by parties:

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

Comment by others:

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:

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 channels sysops 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)

Comment by parties:

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

Comment by others:

Tony Sidaway's presence at IRC

6) 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)

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)

Some admins are denied access to the admins channel

6) 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:

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)

Sean William's unblock was fundamentally correct

7) 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)

Comment by others:

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

Tony Sidaway has made off-wiki personal attacks

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

Comment by Arbitrators:

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)

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)

Template

9) {text of proposed finding of fact}

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Proposed remedies

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

Jurisdiction

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

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

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

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

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

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

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)

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

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 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)

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

Comment by others:

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)

AzaToth is admonished to not abuse rollback

2) 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

1) 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

4) 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:

Comment by others:

Proposed, as stronger measure than 3). — 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)

Giano banned from Misplaced Pages namespace

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

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)

Comment by parties:

To prevent repeated disruption.

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)

Giano put on revert parole

6) Giano is forbidden to make more than one revert per 24 hours on any pages in the Misplaced Pages namespace.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Lighter alternative to 3.

Comment by others:

Sean William admonished

7) 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)

• Agreed. 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)

Geogre on personal attack parole

8) 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:

Giano banned for 90 days

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

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

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)

Tony Sidaway banned for 7 days

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

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

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

Comment by others:

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

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

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

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)

Trouts all around

11) 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:

Comment by others:

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

Template

11) {text of proposed remedy}

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Proposed enforcement

Template

1) {text of proposed enforcement}

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

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: