Wikipedia talk:Requests for arbitration/IRC/Proposed decision/Archive 1

Newyorkbrad's obiter dictum

Without getting into the specifics of the case your comment:"it has never really been settled whether a single reversal of another administrator's action is sanctionable" is highly questionable - and will strengthen the misapprehension that admins can reverse an admin actions without prior discussion. Actually, it has been settled: "undoing an administrative action by another administrator) without first attempting to resolve the issue is unacceptable" Arbcom:Feb 2006 12-0

Are people now to be allowed to undo admin actions if they believe the previous action to be "itself dubious"? Dangerous precedent.

Less importantly: on the specifics:

1. I understood you were never to use admin tools on a page where you were involved in a dispute, let alone compounding this by reversing another admin without discussion. How isn't this disruptive?
2. David Gerard's protection was, in fact, unnecessary, as the page had ALREADY been protected "licitly" by TWO uninvolved admins [1], so it was not simply a case of unprotecting an article dubiously protected. It was unprotecting an article to allow the very much involved unprotector to continue in an edit war. How isn't that disruptive?
3. I'll not be too hard on Geogre for reversing my deletion (which was a light hearted attempt at the Christmas spirit). I'll call him a scrooge more than a rogue here. But your dismissal of the idea that otherwise "someone should have initiated a five-day DRV debate seeking to reinstate the page" misses the mark entirely. a. The first port of call was NOT DRV, but my talk page. I was about that evening - prior discussion would have been nice, rather than "Bah humbug" afterwards. b. If an uninvolved admin had overruled me, that would be one thing - but one of the warriors? Using admin tools (for the second time that day) to reverse another admin without discussion in order to allow him to resume hostilities? This isn't "disruptive"? You could have fooled me?

--Doc^g 02:01, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

To make sure I read this clearly, Gerard reversing Geogre's odd action is good and okay, but Geogre reversing your odd action is bad? – Luna Santin (talk) 02:27, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

I don't believe I commented on Gerard's actions.--Doc^g 02:30, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

By the way, the phrase is spelled "obiter dictum". --bainer (talk) 02:32, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

Corrected thanks, law-school was an age ago ;) --Doc^g 02:33, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

Doc, the precedent you cite with respect to wheel-warring says what you say it does, but we all know it is not the only discussion that's ever been had on the issue. My own practice is never, ever to reverse another administrator's action without seeking to discuss with him or her (or seeking a consensus on ANI if that doesn't work), but not everyone follows that rule, and it's never attained universal acceptance. As to your numbered point (1), obviously it would have been better if Geogre had left taking any administrator action on the page in question to another admin, but I found this situation distinguishable for the reasons given in my succeeding sentences discussing the specific actions in question. In which regard, it appears that you are correct on your point (2). I saw the phrase "changed protection level" in the protection log and assumed it meant that David Gerard had changed the status to full protection from something less. I now see that it was in fact a change in the duration of protection, and that the automatic summary is a little bit misleading (but it's still a blunder on my part, I should have caught it). On your (3), I still consider overruling the Christmas truce to be a relatively minor matter. I may add further thoughts on this matter tomorrow. Newyorkbrad (talk) 02:49, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

In my experience, nothing in Wikipedia attains universal acceptance, but that does not preclude it from being forcible policy which everyone should follow (for the good of the project). - Mtmelendez ^(Talk) 13:46, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

Findings of fact

I notice that the findings of fact only cover a few people so far? Is the presumption that everyone involved will have a finding of fact about them, and if not, is silence in any way endorsing the actions of the other people involved? The other people whose actions I personally would like to see the arbitration committee state a view on are (going by the timeline): User:Tony Sidaway, User:Doc glasgow, User:AzaToth, User:David Fuchs, User:Coredesat, User:LessHeard vanU, User:Irpen, User:Betacommand, User:Ryulong, User:Phil Sandifer, User:Sean William, User:Jossi, User:Jouster. Some of these could, of course, be rolled up into blanket findings covering groups of people. Carcharoth (talk) 04:13, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

Is a separate finding of fact for each party standard practice? I don't recall that being the case in the past. I would imagine that if there is no specific remedy addressed to a particular party then it is unnecessary to make a finding of fact regarding that individual. ^Avruchtalk 04:16, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

I suspect the Arbitrators are not finished here yet. Generally any remedies must be supported by findings, and sometimes (but not always) findings will also be directed at editors who were prominent in the case even if no remedies are proposed against them. Thatcher 04:18, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

There is no decision at this point as to whether additional findings will be proposed, and if so, regarding whom or what. Any arbitrator may place proposals on the page for voting by the committee, and as is obvious, several have not even had the opportunity to look at the partial proposed decision as yet. Newyorkbrad (talk) 04:31, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

Sure, but are the arbitrators sensitive to the effect that the order of the findings of fact have? Is there any order? Does the order reflect the "severity" of what happened (which is itself a matter for debate) or whichever arbitrator gets round to putting something up first? Would a strictly chronological ordering help? At the moment it is unclear whether UninvitedCompany is saying "this is what I feel most strongly about", or whether this is just a start. At the end of this process, I would expect findings concerning all the thirteen named parties, and for all the findings to be presented before voting starts. That way the overall shape of the findings is clearer, and in a case like this the overall balance will be important. The arbitrators who vote later in a case probably find it easier to be consistent as they can see the entirety of what is being presented. Would those voting earlier consider that? Carcharoth (talk) 13:41, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

No, yes, and maybe. The arbitrators now have their own private wiki, on the theory that it would be easier to work on cases than a mailing list. (I of course am not privileged to see or edit there.) These may be the principles that were most readily agreed to, with other, more difficult principles to follow. My own personal feeling is that when the community is deeply divided about an issue, with sensible opinions on both sides, the committee will be too, because they are elected from the community. So extra patience is required in complex cases. Thatcher 14:11, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

Five questions and three answers. :-) I should ask less questions, but thanks anyway (I'm presuming you addressed my first three questions). The private wiki thing sounds good (though not if it detracts from the usefulness of the Workshop and Evidence pages - I would be concerned if some arbitrators assembled their own evidence and proposals on this private wiki without considering the pages here), though the logical endpoint of that process is that decisions drop on this wiki fully formed and with all the arbitrators in agreement (well, as far as they can agree anyway). In some senses the visible disagreements and rewrites on this page are good - in other senses they aren't. One final comment, concerning the evidence presented in the proposed decision - sometimes arbitrators seem to, ahem, miss certain bits of evidence, or not be precise in terms of linking to what they are talking about. Could they be encouraged to copy diffs and stuff directly from the evidence and workshop pages? Carcharoth (talk) 14:33, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

As I noted on the Proposed decision page, I think the first Fof needs to be broader and address a larger group of users. I don't have time to right one now but will get to it later today. (If no one else does first.) FloNight (talk) 15:41, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

Why balance is important when presenting findings of fact

Having looked again at the findings of fact as presented so far, I see what really seems odd. People do read the proposed decision page as it develops, and like it or not this can present a skewed view of the case if the page is not finished. I hope the arbitrators agree that any absence of a finding of fact concerning Tony Sidaway would be nonsensical. The evidence is all there on the Evidence page and, presumably, in the hands of the arbitration committee. It seems strange to use language like "regarding comments made in the channel" and (from Newyorkbrad) "made by another user to Bishonen" - why name Giano and Bishonen and not Tony? It is clear from the first entry in the timeline ("Giano II to Tony Sidaway "Must be marvellous for you "men" in "#admins" being able to call a woman any insult you care to, I wonder if your ever so brave to a man in real life?""), and from the filing of the case ("Giano II claims that Tony Sidaway made a personal attack") that Tony's role in this needs to be explicitly made clear - Tony himself has presented evidence on this point. Given all this, I struggle to fathom why a finding of fact would be put up about Giano, and nothing about Tony. Having said that, I'll be patient and see what happens. Carcharoth (talk) 13:41, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

There could be any number of reasons for this. 1) When Tony has admitted the facts, and that he used inappropriate tone and language, it may be thought superfluous for arbcom to "find" an undisputed fact. 2) Arbcom's primary concern is behaviour that disrupts the wiki - they may, or may not, see IRC behaviour in the same light, or to be under their jurisdiction (I really don't know). 3) A few instances of incivility (however serious) are seldom things that arbcom acts on (even if they are on wiki) - especially when there's been an apology and the user has withdrawn from the forum concerned. Arbcom may consider no possible further "preventative" remedy to be possible here (again, I have no idea). 4) Maybe they've just not got to it yet - it wouldn't be the first time that significant things were dealt with later. I really don't get why you "struggle to fathom" this - we are simply not privy to arbcom's thinking, but there could be any number of rational explanations.--Doc^g 14:50, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

I make that four reasons, not "any number". :-) Findings of fact can be made and the acknowledgment and apology noted in the same finding of fact as an implicit explanation for no remedy. That would be a good example to demonstrate to people that apologising is a good thing. What should be considered here is the reader who knows nothing about the case, who hasn't followed it through all the twists and turns for several weeks. What they see, if the findings of fact are not balanced, actually, maybe "comprehensive" is a better word, is an incomplete picture of what happened. Maybe a disclaimer at the top of arbcom pages should make clear that the final decisions don't always cover the full details of what happened, and that people need to read further (including the evidence pages) to get a fuller story. I often read final decisions without reading the evidence or workshop pages (as I'm sure you do), but I would hope that the final decisions include fair, accurate, just and reasonably comprehensive summaries of what actually happened, and I would hope that others would agree with that. I don't want to have to think to myself when reading final decisions: "Is that the full story, or is there more to this that hasn't made it to the final decision?". In this case, maybe a separate finding of fact that the timeline thebainer provided is just such an accurate and fair summary (though maybe some arbitrators disagree with this?), would be sufficient to draw people's attention to the timeline, rather than linking the timeline from within various findings of fact. Carcharoth (talk) 15:05, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

Arbcom cases are not for telling stories - they are for dealing with problems. If you are looking for balanced narrative, I suggest you do a write-up for the Signpost. And perhaps, to bastardise the Bismarkian cliché: "arbitration decisions are like sausages. It's better not to see them being made".--Doc^g 15:11, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

I might do a narrative in my userspace and link it here. I've considered doing that in arbitration cases where I disagree strongly with the overall tone or balance of the final decision (a "personal response" if you like), but have never found the time yet to do something like that justice. Obviously that may not be needed here, as I may agree with the final decision. And equally obviously, any such agreement or disagreement would be my personal views. As always, I strongly support and appreciate the work of the arbitration committee (they have far more cases to handle then just the few I occasionally follow). Carcharoth (talk) 16:38, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

• Additionally, Carcharoth, the page is not nearly completed yet. Just be patient, and let them do their work. Your comments here could be interpreted as an attempt to switch forums from the evidence page in an effort to have additional influence on the result. I think you can be reasonably certain that the Arbitrators voting in this case have reviewed the evidence pages at a minimum and likely the workshop as well and will take the contents of those pages into account when crafting a final decision. ^Avruchtalk 16:02, 6 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Oh sure. I've said I'll be patient, and I will be. As you can see, others are already having their say, and that is good. New nuances are emerging all the time. For example, I hadn't looked at the early history of Wikipedia:IRC channels before, or been aware that there had been previous attempts to deprecate such pages to meta. Carcharoth (talk) 16:20, 6 January 2008 (UTC)
    • And I have been patient. It has now been ten days. May I ask if the "placeholder" entries will be filled in, or whether there will be any finding of fact about Tony? I saw a recent comment from Newyorkbrad that the committee seem unable to come to a consensus on matters relating to this case. Is this the hold up, or is ten days a normal amount of time to wait in a case like this? Carcharoth (talk) 00:19, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

Finding 1

Proposed Finding of Fact 1 currently concludes with the words: "Giano made a series of provocative and disruptive edits to Wikipedia:IRC channels/wikipedia-en-admins regarding comments made in the channel in early 2007".

A minor niggle, perhaps, but I believe that original comments on the channel were dated late September, 2006. I believe this was the date of appearance of the inflammatory (mea culpa) reference. Lar tells me he sent a transcript witht hat date. --Tony Sidaway 04:28, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

Actually, I believe that the edits were made in response to the comments made on December 22, 2007, based on the evidence given here in this Arbcom, and I suspect those are the comments referred to in the finding. Risker (talk) 04:44, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

In that case "early 2007" is still wrong. December 22 is about as late in the year as it gets. --Tony Sidaway 04:47, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

Fixed I think. Thatcher 04:56, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

Looks about right to me. The arbitrators will elaborate if they think it's that important. --Tony Sidaway 05:02, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

Hopefully they will actually use your name. Sorry to sound cynical, but circumlocutions like "another user" are really not needed, and starting at the WP:WEA page ignores both the earlier edit wars at that page and the edits Giano made to your talk page. Carcharoth (talk) 13:45, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

Only a few arbitrators have commented yet, and later arbitrators may want to modify the wording and add proposals related to my part in the affair. --Tony Sidaway 13:56, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

The FoF regarding David Gerard

The FoF regarding David Gerard seems to me, as it stands, deeply problematic. I am ambivalent about the finding as a fact (I tend to agree with David's conduct), but the issue to me is that the finding depends on an interpretation about the policy surrounding IRC that is highly controversial, and is currently not stated elsewhere in the decision.

This is fine - if the arbcom wishes to clarify that WP:OWN and policies about edit warring apply to all pages with no special cases, it is within their remit and a reasonable interpretation of policy. But if those policies do apply fully to the IRC page, this has profound implications on the nature of that page, its relationship to the community, and its relationship to the IRC channel and, by extension, to the WMF. And those implications need to be dealt with by the arbcom, lest this decision result in increased, rather than decreased confusion. Phil Sandifer (talk) 15:49, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

One point that should be noted is that things change. Wikipedia:IRC channels (the main page) was first written back in December 2001 (confusingly, that diff indicates two earlier edits at later dates, including what looks like an initial creation dated February 2002 - the seeming confusion is explained at User:Conversion script and Wikipedia:Usemod article histories). Getting back to the IRC channels page, and its status, things have changed six years later, most notably Wikipedia itself. Some of the edits over the years make interesting reading: [2] This page is deprecated but will be updated periodically. Please direct edits to the meta:IRC channels.] (April 2004) and most of this page is now on meta. The page then re-evolved into its present form. And then Wikipedia:IRC channels/wikipedia-en-admins appeared in May 2007. It seems that the status of IRC and these pages has never been clear. Carcharoth (talk) 16:10, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

That finding certainly is problematic. Please read the thoughtful late-coming evidence by Encephalon on the evidence page, about the conditions under which David Gerard and Geogre separately edited the en-admins page.[3], and the injustice that the situation itself entailed: "If no prior notice was given of these special rights and status ... how could any Wikipedian be faulted for assuming that a page appearing in Wikipedia was open to editing?" I note as well the fact that David has a quite different situation than any other named party in which to prepare the special statement from him that we are apparently to expect. He is the caretaker of the Arbcom's mailing list and has full access to any discussions on it. Surprisingly, I see that FloNight and NYBrad are both on record saying that this is no problem[4]:

*FloNight: "Treated the same as other parties means that he should not participate in the discussion. He is on the honor system about it. Per past practices, unless he starts to make comments about this case he will not be asked leave the mailing list.
* Newyorkbrad: "I am sensitive to the appearances issue presented but can confirm FloNight's comments that no one in the case has used the mailing list inappropriately. I am confident that no one will."

In other words, nobody is posting inappropriately to the list. But one and only one of the named parties can read the discussion and points made on it freely, while it's a huge secret from the other parties. DG knows what to respond to; all other parties have to respond blindly, and they have no idea which aspects of this (officially very vaguely defined) case the arbs are interested in. Fantastic. I quite agree the finding regarding David Gerard is problematic. Risker (talk) 16:55, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

I agree about the arbitration mailing list concerns, and the failure to specifically state any "special status" on the page itself, or to inform people on talk pages (I've been looking on the talk page for the page itself, but haven't found any conclusive "I'm the owner of this page" statement yet). I have found a possibly tongue-in-cheek comment in an edit summary. On 17 June 2007, David Gerard wrote in the edit summary: "reverting page to a version that doesn't suck, as 0wnz0r of this here project page". 0wnz0r appears to be leetspeak for owner. I still think an examination of that earlier edit war in June-July 2007 and the other one in November 2007, would demonstrate the real history of what was going on here. Carcharoth (talk) 17:16, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

In case anyone is interested, Leetspeak#Morphology has more on the spelling:

"The meaning of this suffix is similar to the more common -er and -r suffixes (seen in hacker and lesser), in that it derives agent nouns from a verb stem. It is realized in two different forms: -xor and -zor, pronounced /-sɔr/ and /-zɔr/, respectively. For example, the first may be seen in the word hax(x)or (/ˈhæksɔr/) and the second in pwnzor (/ˈoʊnzɔr/). Additionally, this nominalization may also be inflected with all of the suffixes of regular English verbs."

Who would have thought that Wikipedia could be so useful? :-) Carcharoth (talk) 17:33, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

The same is true when any arbitrator or former arbitrator is a party to or involved in a case. What would you suggest? The Arbs and former Arbs should be assumed to have the highest level of trust in the community, and it does them a disservice to suggest that they would dishonestly take advantage of their position of trust to benefit themselves in a dispute. ^Avruchtalk 17:22, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

Carcharoth Risker says "DG knows what to respond to; all other parties have to respond blindly, and they have no idea which aspects of this (officially very vaguely defined) case the arbs are interested in." This simply isn't true. Anyone can follow the case in the evidence and make his own mind up what is worthy of response. While the workshop may have digressed somewhat into exotic matters, the Arbitration Committee's long history of very conservative, parsimonous problem-solving, and its considerable aversion to making policy. are well known, and the proposals so far don't contain any surprises. I do not, for instance, see any reason to revise my assessment that the Committee will not feel the need to declare a significant change in the scope of its powers in matters IRC. --Tony Sidaway 18:12, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

Hold on, Tony. I will not have anyone else damned for my words. And my point is very simple. In the abstract, the Arbitration Committee is made up of the individuals the community has elected to address serious issues, and it is the only group within Wikipedia that has certain powers. In order for the community to support the process, Arbcom must not only be fair, it must be seen to be fair. The perception of fairness is critical to community acceptance of any decisions made by the committee. David Gerard is not an elected member of the committee, and he is an involved party in this case, yet he retains access to read every single post on the mailing list. Whether or not he does read the posts, there is no doubt that he, uniquely amongst all involved parties, is in the position to do so. That is a fact. Risker (talk) 18:25, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

I've corrected him and then restored with strike-through. Should have left it for him to correct, but I've done it now. Carcharoth (talk) 18:27, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

I'm afraid I don't see the problem here. David is a former arbitrator, and a member of the list for three years now, so he knows more than almost anybody else on the wiki about the privately expressed concerns, joint and individual, of the arbitrators. But arbitration isn't an adversarial process and if this knowledge gives David an insight into how to be a better Wikipedian, that shouldn't be a problem. He certainly isn't the first person to be in this position--even sitting arbitrators have been the subject of remedies, and that in the fairly recent past, too. --Tony Sidaway 18:36, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

Tony, you may not see the problem, but others surely do. David Gerard seems to be the only Wikipedian whose actions are under scrutiny here and who at the same time has access to the arbcom's mailing list. I am far from familiar with every relevant fact, but assuming that the above information is correct, it seems to me that the only honorable course of action would have been for him to remove himself from any source of privileged knowledge immediately after he was informed of his being a party to this case. This is a classical conflict of interest and David would IMO be well advised to act in the interest of the community by acknowledging it, preferably by actions rather than words. A matter of basic decency, and a necessary step to avoid the otherwise inevitable accusations of cabalism. Kosebamse (talk) 18:55, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

A brief perusal of Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Completed requests shows many instances of members of the arbitration committee, and former members who are still on the mailing list, being parties to arbitration cases. This includes the following people: Fred Bauder, Theresa knott, Dmcdevit, SimonP, Jayjg, David Gerard, Raul654, Ambi (aka Rebecca), Charles Matthews, all in arbitration cases while on the mailing list during the past two years. If this is now suddenly going to be an issue in this particular case, we should at least have some rationale for the claim that a conflict of interest exists by virtue of a person being able to read arbitration committee discussions. --Tony Sidaway 19:38, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

Did those cases involve findings of fact about the conduct of those people? Carcharoth (talk) 19:55, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

Yes, some of them did. Some of them even involved remedies for the conduct of those people. But of course this question is beside the point, because the Committee doesn't know whether it will want to pass a finding or remedy at the start of the case. --Tony Sidaway 19:58, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

The fact that a serious and possibly detrimental conflict of interest exists here seems so obvious that I am amazed how anybody could not find it objectionable that some parties in an arbcom case have access to privileged information while others have not. As for "now suddenly", I don't know how this has been handled before, but if such an obvious inequity has been deemed acceptable, it seems the arbcom should take matters of procedural justice more seriously. Kosebamse (talk) 19:55, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

Could you explain the inequity involved here? It isn't obvious to me. --Tony Sidaway 20:00, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

Parties should be given equal chances to defend their case (that's implied by "procedural justice", or in some jurisdictions "due process", as far as my understanding goes, IANAL). If one party has access to the deliberations of the court while others do not, is that an obvious inequity or not? Kosebamse (talk) 20:19, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

You are mistaken in believing that there is any notion of equity among parties at play in an arbitration proceeding. The system as built is built with only one sort of personal rights safeguard in place - it is built so that everybody has an opportunity to present their case. But past that, there is no investment in our arbitration procedures in the idea of making two parties equal. This is because our arbitration policy is not about righting wrongs to individual people, but about correcting problems in the encyclopedia. Thus saying "David's extended amounts of access are unfair" is not a helpful comment unless it is coupled with some evidence that David's level of access is causing a harm to the encyclopedia. Phil Sandifer (talk) 20:48, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

If that is so, the arbcom should forego every pretension of fairness and declare their own lack of impartiality wherever they go. They don't do that however. Quite the contrary, with their careful and legalistic procedures they do everything to leave an impression of acting like a court of justice. However, if fairness and procedural justice have indeed no role in the arbcom's proceedings, they make themselves obviously vulnerable to accusations of intransparence and cabalism (which are in fact very common criticisms against Wikipedia). How is that not causing a harm to the encyclopedia? Kosebamse (talk) 21:17, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

Apart from that, it is a matter of common decency not to accept undue privileges in such a situation, and I would consider it appropriate for David to remove himself from sources of privileged information if the arbcom does not see the necessity. Kosebamse (talk) 21:20, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

Or, to quote from the very page under discussion here, "Wikipedia users are expected [...] to avoid acting in a manner that brings the project into disrepute." Kosebamse (talk) 21:25, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

I would respectfully suggest that people crying "cabalism" when no evidence of misconduct or misdeed exists do far more harm than the arbcom currently is. Phil Sandifer (talk) 23:20, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

I would like to note that I am not crying cabalism, but am hinting at an obvious weakness in Wikipedia's procedures and structures that makes us vulnerable to such an accusation. A possible misconduct can not easily be spotted (and that's the heart of the problem here), and therefore the chance for misconduct should be eradicated. You however seem to demand trust yet refuse transparency. A field day for the critics. Kosebamse (talk) 05:53, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

It seems to me that the root cause of the perception that David's situation here is unfair (as well as a great deal of talk off-wikipedia about "due process" and such) is the perception that what is important is the ability of various participants to play the wikipedia game equally; rather than understanding that what is important to those running the "game" is to make choices that make wikipedia a better encyclopedia. Being "fair" is not the point. Making wikipedia a better encyclopedia is the point. If you want fairness and due-process, find another "game". The perception is, I believe, that David having inside information will allow him to play the game better than those who do not have inside information. Those who control the "game" only see that David's having inside information will not affect the choices the arbcom makes as it tries to make choices that make wikipedia a better encyclopedia. Those who see it all as a game think David will know the right things to say; the right "moves" to make. The right move to make it to add notable information sourced to reliable published sources. There, now you too know the right move to make. WAS 4.250 (talk) 01:27, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

That's an insightful comment, and to a great extent true, but one fact complicates it...Gerard holds an "official" position, albeit non-paying, with the Foundation as spokesman/PR rep. Thus, any findings by the ArbCom committee on his conduct may affect his standing in that position, or at the very least his credibility as a holder of that title, which also affects the credibility of the entire Foundation administration, since they are judged as a body by the actions of their individual members. Thus, any procedural disciplinary/corrective actions regarding Gerard need to be as free of an appearance of special treatment as possible, because it affects the credibility of the project as a whole. And that does have something to do with making an encyclopedia. Cla68 (talk) 02:04, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

"The right move to make it to add notable information sourced to reliable published sources. There, now you too know the right move to make. — That would be a fair enough point if we were talking about a content dispute in an encyclopedia article. However, that is not the subject being decided by the Committee here. Rather, this is about user conduct and about how an off-site service and its corresponding on-site project page should be handled. On "inside baseball" matters like that, having back-channel communications can help one party enormously. More importantly, even if everyone involved is acting scrupulously, it creates an unavoidable appearance of unfairness. *** Crotalus *** 04:47, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

I could be wrong here, but it looks to me like The Committee regards this as a bog-standard conduct issue. Remember that the Committee has an extremely strong aversion to making policy. Since David's conduct forms a significant part fo the case, the most that membership can grant him (in addition to what the rest of us can do) is to see in detail and in advance precisely how critical the arbitrators are of his conduct. Of course this will be made known to all of us in due course. There is nothing here that didn't also apply, for instance, to then-active arbitrators Jayjg in the CharlotteWebb and Yuber cases, and SimonP in the KJV case. Remedies were passed upon both arbitrators. --Tony Sidaway 10:01, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

... the most that membership can grant him (...) is to see in detail and in advance precisely how critical the arbitrators are of his conduct, and that is exactly the problem here, because he has had that ability already during the evidence phase of this RFAR, while other parties did not enjoy that privilege. I fail to understand why neither the arbcom nor David Gerard take the simple move of ensuring that David is, for the duration of this case, not privy to privileged information. There can be no possible harm in such a step, and it would exclude the accusation that fair play is not wanted when it comes to dealing with Wikipedians in high places. I am of course well aware that there are other routes of communication, and that nobody can prevent individual arbcom members from communicating to parties whatever they like, but that is a different question which has more to do with individual conduct than procedural matters. But I am repeating myself, and if the people involved won't see the harm to the project, it probably can't be helped. Kosebamse (talk) 14:59, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

I think the problem here can be boiled down to your use of the quasi-legal term "privileged" in the above. Perhaps we could focus on whether it is against the interests of Wikipedia for David to know exactly what his peers think about his conduct. In what way does such knowledge by David harm Wikipedia? --Tony Sidaway 16:02, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

We have already focused on this question in much of the above discussion, and I don't think it makes much sense to repeat myself any more. But if you insist, for the last time my argument, in a nutshell:

• inequity in treatment of parties to a case, obviously to the advantage of a member in a prominent position who may have been able to prepare his defense in knowledge of the arbcom's private deliberations
• grudge among other Wikipedians, good writers leaving the project
• no arguments against accusations of cabalism and lack of transparency, field day for Wikipedia's critics, lack of attractiveness for possible new good writers.

If this narration is lacking in clarity, please accept my apologies for my inability to explain the matter. Kosebamse (talk) 18:25, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

I'll leave it there. I'm seeing assertions but nothing to link them to reality. --Tony Sidaway 18:51, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

As noted by Newyorkbrad, I've put a statement into the AC regarding the circumstances of the page, the management of the channel and its origins by email. I fear it's been a busy weekend (work and small child), which is of course my problem and not anyone else's, but leaves me little time to submit promised evidence regarding Giano (who will no doubt walk again) and Geogre as promised in my original statement on the RFAr if this case is moved forward as fast as it appears it is being. I've suggested to the AC that they say what they wish to publicise from my statement, with due care to accuracy of representation - David Gerard (talk) 23:56, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

what's the big deal?

Isn't this all a moot point? If the Committee with the backing and support of the wider community decide something, such as taking control of IRC or that one page on the wiki, isn't that simply that? Jimbo controls the Committee, and Jimbo said IRC was under their supervision. If they decide no pages are immune to their oversight and the community's, and that all policies

1. apply the same universally everywhere and to all pages on the project, and
2. apply the same to everyone on this project,

What's the big deal? How are either #1 or #2 even possibly bad? Honestly, a lot of the gnashing of teeth here sounds like some people don't like a little control and supervision, which is silly. I would appreciate answers as to how #1 or #2 could possibly have a single downside to the community. Lawrence Cohen 06:16, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

Not entirely sure what you're getting at here; however, neither #1 nor #2 have anything to do with Jimbo asserting control over a channel the Foundation specifically disclaims and that is owned by someone else. First off, neither English Wikipedia nor the Arbitration Committee can assume control over something external to our own project without the authorization of the Foundation; secondly, the owner of the channel hasn't given any indication to the community that he is willing to relinquish control. It was a very nice gesture of Jimbo to try to establish this level of control, but I really think it is a bad idea for Arbcom to have any "official" responsibility for this channel without the direct authorization of the Foundation to do so. There's a logistical issue here as well: en-wp has somewhere over 300 IRC channels associated with it, according to the list Thatcher worked up. Arbcom cannot possibly manage dispute resolution for all of them, though it is worrisome that the one channel where the most complaints have come from is #admins. I note that another IRC channel is being discussed in evidence on another case currently before Arbcom[5]. Arbcom has too much work to do on-wiki to babysit IRC channels. Risker (talk) 06:34, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

Locus and genesis of the dispute

I've placed two new proposed findings on the workshop, which I think may be useful in establishing the origins of the dispute. --Tony Sidaway 18:27, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

The current dispute, yes (and thanks for those), but what do you think was the origins of the earlier edit wars. Can anyone even remember what started it all off several years ago? This was briefly covered by Geogre here. The salient point is this:

"What really bothered me is that it was written in the wake of the so-called "Giano affair," when IRC's potential abuses were shown before. [...] ArbCom ruled at that time that it had no say over IRC behavior. However, they wanted changes made to IRC. David Gerard was militant in that instance and said that ArbCom had no say over IRC, that it was purely a matter of whether James Forester wanted to cooperate or not." - Geogre.

Tony, compare this to what you wrote above:

"...the Arbitration Committee's long history of very conservative, parsimonous problem-solving, and its considerable aversion to making policy, are well known, and the proposals so far don't contain any surprises. I do not, for instance, see any reason to revise my assessment that the Committee will not feel the need to declare a significant change in the scope of its powers in matters IRC." - Tony.

At it's core, this is the latest battle in a long-running dispute over IRC and who controls it and who should have access to certain areas and what it should and shouldn't be used for, and who has a say in ensuring that IRC is used properly. If this is not resolved, we will probably all be back here next year or whenever this erupts again. Carcharoth (talk) 18:40, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

I agree that framing a dispute is a difficult matter. I suspect that some arbitrators may agree to some extent with Geogre's framing, but disputes are not new to Wikipedia, and it is the Committee's task to remind us that we resolve such disputes by discussion. Problems only arise for the community when such a dispute moves, as it did here, from discussion to edit warring, personal attacks, and other disruption. --Tony Sidaway 18:55, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

Escaping criticism by Caso

Framing a dispute sent me looking for a picture. What do you think? Suitable for arbitration cases? Carcharoth (talk) 19:58, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

Of course, the fact of the matter is that changes were made to IRC, through the existing mechanisms (read: James Forrester). New channel operators were appointed, many of them sitting and former arbitrators. It was made clear at the time that abuses should be reported to the channel operators. This of course in no way precludes a regrettable incident from taking place any more than the existence of sysops prevents bad behavior on-wiki. In point of fact, Bishonen did complain to a channel operator, and that channel operator did take action that, in the context of IRC, was proportionate. Kicking someone from a channel is functionally equivalent to a namespace ban, even if temporary. It also sets a significant precedent. That this action was judged insufficient by related parties does not justify disrupting the wiki. Mackensen (talk) 20:50, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

Note

As might be obvious, this is an unusually wide-ranging case, covering irc and its operation, administrative activity and actions, dispute resolution, historic disputes, use/misuse of admin tools, past cases related to these issues, and the like. Considerable discussion is taking place, aimed at considering a wide range of these areas, and we are examining a number of connected issues as well. Before any decision on the case, its important to note the train wreck that it was, and the principles attaching to it. In this case more than most, speculation and assumption are probably best avoided. (Personal comment to try and help clarify things, rather than "official" one, btw.) FT2 ^{(Talk | email)} 10:14, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

Minor note

In FOF: Giano, I think it would be best to provide a link to where Giano "was formally reminded less than one month prior to the events of this matter", just to clear any doubts. - Mtmelendez ^(Talk) 14:58, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

Chocolate eggs stains can be safely licked

Giano reminded. Also, bad blood is a rather colloquial expression. It might be best to link it the wiktionary definition at wikt:bad blood. Carcharoth (talk) 15:32, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

I much prefer Viv Stanshall's dictum, in the spoof Country and Western song of the same name: "Bad blood is like an egg-stain on your shirt/You can lick it, but it still won't go away." --Tony Sidaway 15:59, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

Licking egg stains? I'd only do that with some eggs... Seriously, I would hope nothing here has really got to the stage where the bad blood is insurmountable. I was serious when I said on the workshop page that all sides might learn to appreciate each other more if they worked together on an article. Carcharoth (talk) 16:40, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

Wheel warring woooahh!

The Wheel warring finding as it stands is seriously problematic.

1. "the long standing convention of ... this Committee is that wheel warring occurs ...". Whatever this committee wish to rule at this present point, this statement is factually incorrect. At best the "long standing convention" of this committee is ... confused, as Arbcom have on at least one occasion said something very different. "undoing an administrative action by another administrator) without first attempting to resolve the issue is unacceptable" Arbcom:Feb 2006 12-0. By all means change your mind, but let's not pretend that this is a "long standing" convention.
2. Whatever else, undoing a BLP deletion, without consensus to do so, is clearly forbidden.
3. If is *now* the committee's position that wheel waring is only when there "is a repetition of their previous action", then are you green lighting an initial reversal of an admin action even "without discussion". That seems to me a wholly retrograde step.
4. It may be one thing if a previously uninvolved admin chooses to reverse another's action without discussion, but surely it is wholly inappropriate if an admin who is involved does so. That would mean admins could undelete their own speedied articles - or unprotect even when the protection is issued against their own edit warring - as long as they don't repeat "their previous action" they are in the clear.
5. I'm very concerned about the word "their" before "previous action". This implies not only I can undo an action by another, but I can even repeat a previously reversed action, as long as I am not repeating my own action. (admin1 blocks, admin2 unblocks, admin3 can re-block as they are repeating "their" action?) That really does open the door to multi-admin wheel-warring (except it would no longer be wheel warring, would it?)

Hate to be critical, but for an arbcom teeming with lawyers, this is dreadful draughtsmanship. Whatever you pass, please think very carefully about the knock-on effects - as this will be taken as a precedent, whatever your intention.--Doc^g 16:33, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

Your last point seems to be addressed by the final bit: "when one's own previous action using administrative tools was reversed". Or is it addressed by that? Have you read the linked Wikipedia:Wheel war/Examples? Does that help at all? It includes the example you gave (doen at the bottom of the page). Carcharoth (talk) 16:47, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

I don't generally read policy pages.--Doc^g 16:54, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

#3 has been the de facto standard for a while now, after AC declined to hear a couple of cases based on the "one revert is a wheel war" standard. There is also related discussion in the BJAODN case. (Although as shown by his desysopping of Zscout370, Jimbo believes in a different standard.) I agree that formally authorizing the first reversal without discussion is potentially a problem since it basically puts the burden on Admin:Smith to go to ANI and prove he was right, rather than on Admin:Jones to try and get consensus that Admin:Smith was wrong. Thatcher 16:59, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

Actually, we should dump the term "wheel war" entirely - because unfortunately that becomes a game of semantic and linguistic definition, rather than a consideration of what admin actions are permissible. Reversing an admin action without discussion may not be "wheel warring" - but whether it is acceptable or not is another quite seperate question. I'd say: "don't reverse without some discussion (generally, what's the rush?), and certainly don't do it if you are already hotly in dispute". In this case, the issue is NOT wheel warring, it is the use of admin tools by involved users during a hot-tempered dispute in order to further their ability to continue the dispute - and frankly lots of people have been desysopped for that.--Doc^g 17:03, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

In this case a number of conflicting understandings come to the fore. We have multiple versions of several matters floating round. Not Ideal. See #Note. (And, a minor edit was made in response to your 1st point - thanks.)

A comment on this:

The "long standing convention" is accurate -- the number of times an admin has reversed another admins decision (a user block for example) is large, but the number of times a simple single reversal of this kind has been called "wheel warring" or sanctions sought for it by even one one person is tiny. This is evidence the community norms do not usually describe a simple reversal as "wheel warring". The majority of cases where the term is used, plus the wording of stable policy and its examples, also evidence that usually it is the obdurant reinstatement in the face of reversal (and/or "fighting with tools") that matters for wheeling.

What a principle like this means (if agreed) in practical terms is that BLP is still subject to the same standards and norms as it is presently, on admin-reversal, but it isn't always going to be called "wheel warring" when broken. Admin action reversals should be consulted with the originating admin, but if they aren't then it is a breach of WP:BLOCK or the like, but not necessarily "wheel warring". All those restrictions and norms already exist in BLP, BLOCK, and so on. They document community norms, and those norms are pretty consistent. What this is about is not those issues, and none of those situations are changed by it. WP:WHEEL describes specifically something beyond that -- actual battling with admin tools -- and "battling" requires more than just "I do it, you undo it, then we take it to ANI and discuss it with the community".

It also means administrators will know when the additional weight of "you wheel warred!" might be held against them in arbitration and when it will not. ArbCom -- as a committee that is asked to handle a fair number of perceived wheel war cases by the community -- can help that, by stating where their understanding of the present line is, so to speak. (As above, a personal view not a formal one.) FT2 ^{(Talk | email)} 17:16, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

And what about "I do it, you undo it, he re-does it" isn't that a wheel war? But anyway, I agree the term wheel war is unhelpful, as it's range of meaning in normal English don't encapsulate all acceptable and unacceptable activity. However, using admin tools to your advantage on a page in which you are a party to the dispute, whether wheel-warring or not, is surely unacceptable. --Doc^g 17:21, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

Doc, You are remembering that you were one of those people, right? You used your tools without discussion (the deletion of the page) - that can be as controversial as reverting admin actions, especially if you know that someone is very likely to disagree with you. Where do you draw the line between doing something without discussion (not allowed for one side in BLP cases) and undoing an action without discussion. I've been doing image work recently, and I've come across cases of non-free image reduction where the reduction makes the image unusable. As an editor, I'd have assessed the non-free reduce tag and rejected the request and added the (not-yet existing) "non-free reduce exception rationale". But because the image has been reduced and the higher-res versions deleted (as a housekeeping exercise), I have to check with the admin first. Similar housekeeping exercises are the deletions of images because they lack rationales. Do I have to ask the deleting admins before I undelete and add a rationale? The point here is that sometimes reversal of an action is needed to allow fixing of the problem. This is why it is best left to the judgment of individual admins whether a reversal of an action will be controversial or not. A note should be made in the edit summary that you consider this a non-controversial action, and will not revert if you are reverted, but will discuss at <insert name of discussion venue here>. ie. "carrying out this admin action because of X. If you disagree, please revert and discuss with me on my talk page". That sort of deletion summary would stop most wheel wars in their tracks. It is failure to discuss, and continuing to revert, that are the hallmarks of warring. And both happened here (though some sniping discussion occurred via edit summaries and occasionally on user talk pages). Carcharoth (talk) 17:28, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

(edit conflict) The Committee more focuses on describing how policy and norms presently stand. I don't think anyone can agree that a general revert-fest or fight with admin tools is at all acceptable. Maybe the community might for example, strengthen WP:WHEEL to read that once A has acted with tools, B reversed it, then ANYONE who reinstates without seeking consensus (with a few specific exceptions such as BLP) is in breach? It's workable, and would stop certain rare but nasty admin pile-ones dead. But Arbcom can't always solve what the community hasn't yet seen a need to. As it stands now, that situation is a horrible mess that WP:WHEEL seems not to call wheeling. It's changable though, if needed. FT2 ^{(Talk | email)} 17:33, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

You speak as though policy pages were legislation, they are not. Policy is determined by a mixture of "want and use" and arbcom declarations. Polcy pages out to reflect not create policy. However, usually they simply reflect the views of the few people who have camped out on the talk page, arguing about what they ought to say - that's why I generally ignore them. Arbcom need to decide for themselves what policy is, and then boldly declare their findings, there's no point thinking you can read it. (Although I'm with Tony, that the "wheel warring" catch all is useless.--Doc^g 19:12, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

WP:WHEEL had the example of slow-motion wheel warring as late as 5 November 2007. It was changed with this edit per a talk page discussion. The long talk page discussion was here. How widespread consensus was for that change, I don't know, but it was done properly as a request for comments. The slow-motion example can be seen here. Something like that wording (referring to a 'chain') was restored here (7 December 2007), after the discussion here, which used the term "flocking wheel wars" to refer to slow motion wheel wars. Carcharoth (talk) 18:00, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

A few days ago, on the workshop, I remarked:

Would that the W-word had not been coined, because it has become a portmanteau into which several different kinds of abuse have been shovelled indiscriminately. We need to develop a vocabulary to describe with more precision the various situations in which administrative tools are used in furtherance of a conflict rather than, after deliberation, its resolution.

Smart boy wanted. --Tony Sidaway 18:54, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

If you look on the talk page at WP:WHEEL, John Reid always had strong views on the importance of getting the wheel-warring page right. See his history of the development of the policy. Maybe someone could take up where he left off with the history? I still think the "failure to discuss" and "continuing to revert when others disagree" are the hallmarks of any type of warring, be it with editing tools or admins tools. Carcharoth (talk) 00:08, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

Scope of communal editing

For the Scope of communal editing section, beyond pages that describe Foundation information, what exactly isn't up to the community to decide? Everything on Wikipedia eventually comes down to the community, from their selection of the Arbitration Committee, to even electing the Foundation board, right? This doesn't sound accurate. On the 'local' end at the most I can see is that pages related to the WMF's rules, that the local wiki can't change except by kicking out the board in a new election later, and the AC, which is the same situation, at most would be theoretically restricted this way. Am I misreading this? Lawrence Cohen 17:28, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

Other pages... the classic one is NPOV - Jimmy Wales has not ceded the right to modify NPOV as the core basis of the project. The community does not therefore have the right to modify WP:NPOV to describe some other principle as holding in its place. Several other well known policies proably have one or another core principles described within them, that the community probably cannot edit the pages to make them describe the principles as not holding, or being different than they in fact are. FT2 ^{(Talk | email)} 17:39, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

Well NPOV is a WMF thing, isn't it? If it is, theoretically it could be changed by replacing the board with a new one, and then the board changes the policies top down. Not likely I guess, but still community controlled. Since the WMF owns Wikipedia, and the board controls the WMF, it all still comes down to the community in the end and not any single person. Maybe it would be better to clarify what sorts of pages if not which outright can fall under this? If the Committee feels the community has limited control over some things like this (as was implied by some people about the WEA page) spelling it out will probably head off this sort of nonsense in the future, by saying what pages are outside the dispute resolution/community process. I'd suggested that in the workshop--that for any page to have this Exempt Status, it really should be tightly controlled and approved by the AC, together, on a page by page decision, and no one else. If something is outside the community's control, no one in the community except our "elected officials" have any business making that decision. Otherwise people will start thinking they can give themselves a free pass on some things, like appears to have happened on WEA. Lawrence Cohen 17:42, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

I am similarly concerned; the current wording seems to give carte blanche to editors to say that such-and-such an article is "not subject to revision by the community", and the onus is then on the person trying to change the article to prove them wrong. Perhaps what is trying to be communicated in this statement is that some pages on Wikipedia are reflections of fact rather than reflections of community consensus (i.e., just because we all agree the Emperor is fully-clothed, that does not make it so)? Jouster  (whisper) 18:20, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

I'd urge that the members supporting this section take a look at item #3 of m:Foundation issues, then reconsider or provide some clarification.—eric 18:59, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

Stupid question...

Why is Fred bauder voting here? His term has expired. Nothing personal against Fred, but it seems bizarre to allow some cases (those filed at year end) to possess an inordinately large pool of Arbitrators (from the old and new terms combined.) Isn't it the declared result of the election that old terms ended on 1 Jan. for all purposes? Xoloz (talk) 19:51, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

As I understand it, past practice has been that former Arbitrators continue to be able to vote on cases that were accepted before their term expired. Mackensen has also voted on this case. WjBscribe 19:55, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

WJBscribe is correct. Arbitrators who were members of the committee at the time a case was accepted, but whose terms later expire, are permitted to participate through the conclusion of that case. The same procedure has been used in prior years. Newyorkbrad (talk) 20:28, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

Pages are not owned

A moment's lightheartedness to note that, notwithstanding that it would be a horrific WP:POINT violation, adding my support vote as an non-arbitrator to the "pages are not owned" section would be hilarious, would it not? Jouster  (whisper) 14:50, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

Such an edit would be reverted, but I would hope that none of us would get in an edit war with you over it. The Uninvited Co., Inc. 16:56, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

Now that was funny.  :) Jouster  (whisper) 18:41, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

Assistance requested

An IP editor has posted some evidence and a proposed finding of fact for the workshop on Newyorkbrad's talk page[6]; apparently because of the semi-protection to deal with inappropriate IP edits, the IP editor is not able to post directly onto the RFAR. I see that Brad has announced he will be traveling and, as this was not the last post on his talk page, he may have missed it. Could a neutral party please post this information in the correct places, or otherwise ensure it is brought to the attention of the Arbitration Committee as a whole? Thanks. Risker (talk) 18:33, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

I have recopied the evidence provided by the anonymous editor to the evidence page, but will leave the decision on whether this warrants a FoF to the arbitrators. — Coren ^(talk) 00:09, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

ArbCom Mailing List

This is a question less stupid than my one above, but possibly still stupid, for all I know:

Should Mr. Gerard be subject to any discipline from the Committee, are there procedures or provisions in place to remove him from the ArbCom list? It would seem to me that if he is desysopped -- even temporarily -- this was indicate a loss of the community's trust and/or a loss of the "good standing" necessary to remain on the list. Xoloz (talk) 16:57, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

In past cases, remedies passed on serving arbitrators have had no effect on their membership of the Committee. Whether this has a bearing on a former arbitrator's membership of a mailing list, I couldn't say. David Gerard is a member of the communications committee, runs various mailing lists, is an oversighter, and holds various other positions, so if he really were in any way untrusted the problems would go far, far further than English Wikipedia's arbitration committee. --Tony Sidaway 18:00, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

I am willing to say that I have not trusted Mr. Gerard's judgment for a very long time. Should sanctions go forward, I would support the Committee's at least considering whether he is competent to hold any position of trust in light of its findings. I do not urge this action, I guess; but I do endorse it as reasonable. If Mr. Sidaway means to suggest the Committee cannot or should not examine the question merely because Mr. Gerard holds many positions of trust, I disagree with that suggestion vigorously. The more positions of trust that are at stake, the more vital it becomes to examine the issue. Xoloz (talk) 21:54, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

Certainly the committee may make such considerations--it's what they're there for. I do find the idea of entertaining such considerations with respect to this particular highly valued community member somewhat incongruous. Issues with Mr Gerard's fitness to hold a position of trust should surely go, with commensurate evidence, to the Foundation, which bestowed most of them upon him and alone has the power to remove them. Wild, unfocussed, evidence-free smears against a Wikipedian are nothing more or less than personal attacks, and should be treated as such. --Tony Sidaway 09:29, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

David Gerard's adminship, from which stems some of his other positions, is granted by this community, and as such, a community member stating he has concerns is appropriate, particularly in this forum. There is no personal attack in the statement above yours, and your describing Xoloz's words as personal attacks is hyperbolic and disingenuous. This committee can certainly review David Gerard's actions within this community and make findings relative to that. We aren't discussing his work for the Foundation here. Risker (talk) 12:10, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

I don't object to examining conduct. For this one would actually have to provide evidence pertaining to conduct, not vague smears. Such smears are unequivocally personal attacks. --Tony Sidaway 12:38, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

Lack of accountability and transparency, as shown by the dismissive edit summary saying he owned the page (back in June), and heavy-handed edit warring and rewriting of the page (in December) instead of explaining things clearly on the talk page. Whether that is sufficient for sanctions is up to the ArbCom. Carcharoth (talk) 13:20, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

Public evidence vs. private evidence

On this note, was any evidence provided to the Committee via e-mail, that has a bearing on the final Proposed Decision? If so, was this evidence shared with the other involved parties so they would have a fair opportunity to reply in kind to that evidence, as they could have with any evidence posting in public? I note that Gerard posted no public evidence, for some reason. Lawrence Cohen 17:00, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

My understanding is that evidence that is privately submitted is shared publicly assuming both the submitter's acquiescence to this plan and the suitability of the evidence for public viewing. David has said he is willing, so the question is how much, if any, of his evidence is suitable for public viewing.

Given that there has not been a large and public debate on the wiki about the status of IRC, my guess would be that much of David's evidence consists of e-mail conversations among Jimbo, the rest of the WMF, the arbcom, our various IRC group contacts over the years, and the Freenode staff about the specifics over ownership and control of the channel. At least, it is my understanding that these conversations have taken place in the past (though I think many of them are two years old or older) and that they were conducted privately. Given that the discussions occurred privately, it was probably correct of David to submit the evidence privately as well. On the other hand, when the arbcom (hopefully) clarifies what the status of the channels is, I would hope they also make explicit the history and development of the channels to provide some context for this decision and an understanding of how it does (or does not) differ from the present situation. Phil Sandifer (talk) 18:09, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

I agree with Phil here, what he has written makes a lot of sense. What I don't understand is if all these conversations and whatnot took place, why did David Gerard not mention them earlier? Rather than just an edit summary stating he owned the page, why not clearly state where such power came from? Carcharoth (talk) 13:17, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

I suspect David was, by that point, unconvinced of good faith on the part of Giano and Geogre - which I have trouble, based on the evidence, blaming him for. Phil Sandifer (talk) 16:31, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

Still, diplomacy might have worked. You never know unless you try. I don't think David could really have hoped that what he actually did would help, and the hope is, I think, that he would try something else next time, with more discussion. Carcharoth (talk) 17:39, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

What I don't understand is if all these conversations and whatnot took place, why did David Gerard not mention them earlier? . Two possible reasons immediately pop out: First, the nature of these discussions are so sensitive that they merit an extraordinary amount of secrecy, along the lines of nuclear weapons design. The second possibility is that when someone is given authority, a certain amount of responsibility naturally follows. So, if someone wants the authority but not the responsibility that goes with it, then I suppose they wouldn't advertise that authority. After all, if David has some special authority over the channel that explains his ownership of the wiki page, then people might also expect him to help solve the occasionally problem that pops up there (Heaven Forbid!). But these are just wild guesses based on the meager information I posses - eh, the price of secrecy - so perhaps David could come by and explain this fantastic obsession with secrecy over the latest high tech neutron bomb designsome stupid little IRC channel. --Duk 18:02, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

"was this evidence shared with the other involved parties so they would have a fair opportunity to reply in kind to that evidence" - I would hope so. My view is that any evidence submitted privately and specifically concerning a named individual must then be provided to that individual (or the substance of the allegations communicated to that individual) to allow them to defend themselves. Carcharoth (talk) 13:17, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

Agreed. Otherwise it would give Gerard some higher unearned priviledge in this case, relative to others. Lawrence Cohen 14:29, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

Should any such evidence exist, I would agree with you, but I'm hesitant to make a mountain out of such an utterly speculative molehill. What is known is that David submitted evidence privately, and that David's major contention in this case has been that he had unique authority over the WEA page. There is little reason to believe that the evidence extends beyond documentation of this claim, and speculation about what is or is not being revealed is probably unhelpful. Phil Sandifer (talk) 16:31, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

Reviewing the situation, let's imagine that David Gerard said to the arbitration committee, privately and confidentially, the following:

A number of editors were making deliberately provocative edits. The page was protected, I extended the protection period and diminished the disruption by removing the more egregiously provocative content.

Why would any arbitrator want to sanction this action? --Tony Sidaway 23:13, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

For violating the protection policy as an involved party on a page we still have no community-accepted status of "special" on? Lawrence Cohen 23:15, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

That's conceivable, but arbitrators aren't robots. David obviously did the right thing, in the face of deliberate and sustained provocation. Those who opposed him may have had a point, but they chose to make it in a disruptive manner when there are many other ways to make it. --Tony Sidaway 23:27, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

Your point is conceivable too, but judging any action by anyone as right or wrong on any of this is highly subjective and personal opinions only until they actually close the case. Perhaps less spin doctoring is recommended by all sides. Lawrence Cohen 23:29, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

The arbitration committee deals with facts. If David Gerard, or anybody else, had said the above, he would have been making a statement of fact. --Tony Sidaway 23:31, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

I don't understand what you mean. David Gerard is not on the AC and has no special rights as an editor, or more as an admin than any other admin. My spin doctoring comment was simply in reference to the sudden bad-faith damnation of various editors that Gerard edit warred with, and the defense of another's virtuousness. You shouldn't do that. Given your history as posted in the various RFCs to evidence, and other massive disruption you have caused, perhaps you should stop trolling. It is a blockable offense. Lawrence Cohen 23:39, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

• I have never read such complete and utter rubbish in all my life. We now have a situation where Bishonen one of the most respected editors and admins the Encyclopedia has is labelled a problem editor (no wonder she is not editing) while all the named parties are all guilty of editing a page (on the encyclopedia anyone may edit) that they should not have been editing because it was owned by David Gerard. A fact that was known by nobody except David Gerard and the chosen few because it was so secret - so secret in fact that the evidence pertaining to the secrecy has to be secret. Is anyone actually taking this seriously besides Gerard, Sidaway and Sandifer - and presumably JWales? Giano (talk) 23:36, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

Yes, it is the case the those editors deliberately disrupted the page. From this fact we can determine the case. Ignoring the fact would be a bad idea. --Tony Sidaway 23:44, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

That "we" are determining the case Tony comes as a surprise to nobody. Giano (talk)

Facts cannot be altered by implying a point of view. --Tony Sidaway 23:47, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

Of course - anything you say Tony. Giano (talk) 23:50, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

Good to see you back from your Christmas break. Long may you edit. --Tony Sidaway 23:57, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

I think it is unlikely that anybody will be sanctioned for the edit warring itself - or, at least, I think they shouldn't be. Of course, if anybody were to have edited disruptively and/or incivilly, that would be a separate issue. But I don't think there's much to the edit war charge - David was, I think, justified in his interpretation of the page, and the edit warring is not the most pressing feature of anybody else's participation. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Phil Sandifer (talk • contribs) 00:01, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

Almost certainly not the edit warring itself. --Tony Sidaway 00:45, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

Tony, you said above "in the face of deliberate and sustained provocation" - David Gerard is not a newbie whose actions can be defended in that fashion - he knows as well as anyone what edit warring is and the best ways to react to situations like that. Well, at least I thought he did. "I got trolled" is not an adequate defence. And yes, I know that Geogre and Giano are not newbies either. I've said all along that blame exists on all sides, and trying to excuse one side and not the other is not going to help. See the "Escaping criticism" picture above, and try and work out which of the parties is depicted climbing out of the picture frame. I can think of several parties that picture could apply to. Carcharoth (talk) 01:14, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

Don't misunderstand me. I don't think David was provoked at all. He simply took action to end an inappropriate extension of conflict. He was not trolled. I don't believe anybody in this case had any illusions as to the nature of the provocation or the motive. This is not the time to say "we were all to blame". There was a deliberate attempt to disrupt Wikipedia. It is inappropriate and unproductive to accuse those who acted to reduce the disruption, without in any way contributing to it, of acting inappropriately. If you have said all along that "blame exists on all sides", then you have been wrong all along. --Tony Sidaway 01:23, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

Are you saying that if David had discussed, instead of reverting, that Wikipedia would have collapsed overnight because that obscure page said the wrong thing? People say that Giano had many other options other than the actions he chose to take, but that applies to everyone else as well. David had other options available. He chose not to use those options and instead took the actions he did. And the disruption of Wikipedia occurred when the dispute reached the level of an ANI thread (following Phil's block) and a request for arbitration. I still think that if Phil had not blocked, and if the arbitration case had not been filed, that the situation could have been contained to that page and a few talk pages - like it was back in June 2007 and November 2007. The upping of the stakes to ArbCom will only help if this brings an end to the matter, and that requires someone, somehow, to sort out the relationship between Wikipedia and IRC. That's why the case was named IRC. Carcharoth (talk) 02:01, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

I'm not saying that if David had discussed, instead of reverting, Wikipedia would have collapsed overnight. I am saying that we don't normally permit disruption to hang around overnight, or even for one second. This is a statement of fact. If Giano chose to vandalize Wikipedia to publish his opinion, we should deal with Giano's propensity for vandalism. Full stop. --Tony Sidaway 02:07, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

The term "vandalism" is exceedingly unhelpful in this discussion and should not be used again. Newyorkbrad (talk) 02:11, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

I will modify the statement to read "exceedingly inappropriate and deliberately provocative editing". --Tony Sidaway 02:13, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

Exceedingly inappropriate and deliberately provocative editing is what you are doing at this time. Please stop now. Lawrence Cohen 02:21, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

Tony, you are crossing the line again. The same one you have crossed in numerous other Arbcom cases. The same line you keep crossing that results in people starting RFCs about you. There were no vandalistic edits there on any side; indeed, nobody has refuted the statements that Giano was inserting into the page. This was a content dispute that resulted in an edit war. Really,Tony. Histrionics are not called for here. Too bad your strikethrough won't remove the edit summary. Risker (talk) 02:16, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

Nobody has refuted Giano's statements because they were patently ridiculous and unworthy of reply. Please don't accuse others of stepping over a line that has been well trodden by Giano. --Tony Sidaway 02:19, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

One such as yourself, who appears to be an ongoing provocateur and fountain of disruption, ought to stop while ahead. Please stop disrupting Wikipedia. Lawrence Cohen 02:24, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

Well, Risker, when did you stop beating your wife? Mackensen (talk) 02:52, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

Tony, and any other editors thinking of responding in kind, please see here and be mindful of the committee's unanimous observation in a recent case which is equally applicable to this one. Ask yourself before hitting send, "Is this comment going to assist the arbitrators in reaching a fair, well-informed, and expeditious resolution to the case?" If the answer is probably not, don't post it. Newyorkbrad (talk) 02:26, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

Brad, thanks for intervening and apologies for not taking the earlier hint. I've come close to sanction in a previous case so I should have been aware of the problems. My mistake. --Tony Sidaway 02:46, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

[7] Oh dear, Oh dear, Oh dear. Giano (talk) 10:40, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

May I respectfully suggest that demonstrating such an utter disregard for the possibility that your behavior has been disruptive and problematic is perhaps an unwise strategy given that you have prior and recent warnings about such conduct from the arbcom. Demonstrating such utter disinclination to take seriously the possibility that your conduct has been out of line does not suggest that these warnings were sufficient. Phil Sandifer (talk) 17:31, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

• You are so right Phil. Of all the Wikipedia editors I have ever come across, I think it is you and Tony I respect most. You both have something other editors just don't have, I can't quite just put my finger on it. Giano (talk) 21:25, 12 January 2008 (UTC)
  • What, exactly, are you trying to accomplish here? Or even, frankly, what vaguely are you trying to accomplish? Phil Sandifer (talk) 22:12, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

Good question Phil - well done 7/10 Giano (talk) 22:16, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

Mh, I'm not going to accuse anyone of trolling, baiting, or feeding trolls or rising to baiting, but..... seriously, do any of you think continuing this is likely a) to convince the other side you are right b) to impress arbcom? There's drinks at my place if you've nothing better to do.--Doc ^{g - ask me for rollback} 22:22, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

Thanks I have had quite enough for one evening, I have gone to work on a page. I'm sure the others have gone to do likewise. Giano (talk) 22:29, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

PS: Luv the sig. Doc but thanks I already have it. Giano (talk) 22:31, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

Is this going anywhere?

Some of the above encapsulates, in a nutshell, what this case is all about. Its not really about 48 hours of edit warring on an obscure page. Its about the ongoing and persistent personality clashes between certain editors spread across the entire project in time and space. Its especially depressing to see it occur, in its full glory, on the very pages that are supposed to be aimed at finding a resolution. For such a bunch of clearly smart people, it is a remarkably dumb tactic. Please give it a rest and think about Brad's comments, because I see provocation, cheap shots and sarcasm largely overwhelming any efforts "to assist the arbitrators in reaching a fair, well-informed, and expeditious resolution to the case". Rockpocket 22:32, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

I agree with rocket pocket. All of the folks involved in this personal dispute have behaived very poorly, and some continue to. --Rocksanddirt (talk) 15:55, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

Is this going anywhere? Well, I've asked here what is going on. Flonight did say here that the FoFs needed to address a broader group of users, but I haven't seen anything come out of that yet. Carcharoth (talk) 00:22, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

3.2 (provocative and disruptive edits)

I was reading through the proposed decision and it stuck me that Giano, Bishonen and Geogre all had the words "provocative and disruptive" used to describe their edits/actions. The forth editor, David Gerard was/will be let off with the much more mild "repeatedly reverted". This seems to me quite unbalanced, especially when you consider the proposed finding 3.1.4 (Pages are not owned). In fact, many of his actions were worse (as in more disruptive) than some of the others I mentioned including editing a protected page, and using admin tools in what amounts to a content dispute. Admins have been severely reprimanded for doing that in the past.

It may only be terminology, but this is the proposed decision and how editors actions are labeled should come as close to the truth as possible, right? It's hard for me to see how David's actions editing a protected page and using admin tools in a content dispute are any less provocative and disruptive than the other editors in 3.2. And arguably more so then some. This is even more of an issue if there are proposed remedies based on the proposed decision. I hate to sound like I'm quibbling over words but I find it unbalanced to the point where something should be said. RxS (talk) 05:47, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

it gets down to what the arbcom is going to say about the broader irc and the policy pages in particular. It is my observation, with no participation in irc at all, that we are likely to see a "non-finding" on the question of how irc, and admins channel specifically relates to en.wikipedia. Which will lead us back to this point as soon as someone else does something irresponsible relating the irc channels and en.wikipedia. It is much easier to ignore the sticky issues of how to include or exclude the use of irc to help manage the project vs. "ban-the-complainers" (the preceding, obviously, is my own opinion). --Rocksanddirt (talk) 16:12, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

I think the evidence, to say nothing of Giano and Geogre's conduct during the case, supports findings of deliberate disruption on, at the very least, both of their cases. I am hard pressed to find any evidence that David was ever so consciously out to stir up trouble. Phil Sandifer (talk) 16:34, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

Phil can see souls and intentions? Wowee. Editing away from David's desired form is "disruption?" Don't you have to determine that David had a right to control the page before you can say that? Bad, bad logic and attempted mysticism. Utgard Loki (talk) 19:35, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

That may be the case, but I'm not arguing Giano and Geogre's conduct. I think whatever Arbcom finally decides about IRC, there is no way they can find that David wasn't editing a protected page, and wasn't using admin tools in a content dispute. Which is nothing if not disruptive (and any admin should know that consciously or not), especially in the middle of an edit war. I'm not out to "get" David, but the proposed finding of fact (to this point) is severely unbalanced.

And while I'm on the topic, the fact that Bishonen is included here when there are at least 2 other editors into it up to their elbows tells me that the dice were loaded from the start. I'm not suggesting adding anyone, but I think it's worth pointing out that Bishonen seems to be singled out here on the same page that David Gerard seems to be getting a free pass. Look at 12.1 (Warlike behavior using administrative tools) and 12 (Wheel warring). The first sentence in 12.1 is Administrators are strictly and most seriously forbidden from engaging in warlike behavior using administrative tools, whether for desirable reasons or not. How does that not perfectly describe what David was doing? RxS (talk) 16:46, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

phil said; I am hard pressed to find any evidence that David was ever so consciously out to stir up trouble . Phil, the road to hell is paved with good intentions. It always amazes me to see someone doing something vile - like using page protection as a weapon in a content dispute, or for pure raw censorship - while thumping their chest in selfrighteousness the entire time.

I knew this rfar was a joke when I saw all this omitted from the current finding of fact. --Duk 17:08, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

I think the arbiters should be tasked by the community (since they answer to us) to disclose if Gerard or Forrester have been in any manner of inappropiate contact with them to arrange this apparent free pass for disruption and abuse of the protection policies. Something stinks in Denmark on this whole case the further it progresses. Lawrence Cohen 17:11, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

That's easy. No. --jpgordon^∇∆∇∆ 17:25, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

The arbcom has historically (and correctly) been inclined towards harsher sanction for people who are deliberately stirring up trouble than for people who respond rashly to people who are deliberately stirring up trouble. And, as I have argued previously, it is simply not reasonable to strongly sanction David for a defensible interpretation of policy, regardless of whether that interpretation was accurate. Nobody would seriously expect an arbitrator to be sanctioned for repeated reversions of comparable edits to the arbitration policy page. Nobody would seriously expect Raul to be sanctioned for repeated reversions of FA pages. To demand that David be sanctioned for reversions of disruptive content to a page describing processes that he had primary responsibility for the maintenance of smacks of an attempt to punish him for no reason other than the desire to see him punished. Phil Sandifer (talk) 18:10, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

had primary responsibility for. Let's assume this is actually true, just for a second. Did David tell people this while he was edit warring with them? Or did he hide it - at the expense of huge amounts of the communities time and good will - all the way to the arbcom where it's still an official state süper secret? A lack of Mens rea on Davids part is difficult to believe in this case. --Duk 18:38, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

I am baffled to why you would think this. Phil Sandifer (talk) 18:53, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

Well, you also made the astonishing comment; Given that there has not been a large and public debate on the wiki about the status of IRC...[8]. At first, I couldn't believe you were un-aware of the millions of bytes of squandered time, energy and good will wasted on this very topic over the last two years. Then I remembered that David censored all the links to these discussions, so it's forgivable that newcomers are a little out of touch. (see Evidence_presented_by_Duk). --Duk 19:16, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

I think you forgot the diff supporting your rather extraordinary claims in the last sentence there. Phil Sandifer (talk) 19:28, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

The link is there. It's the one labeled "rewrote". --Duk 19:56, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

None of those appear to be a sustained and serious effort to create a policy surrounding IRC. Phil Sandifer (talk) 19:57, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

Of course they are, you obviously couldn't have read them in this short time. Just for example, on one of the links, after David mentions that the channel was set up by Jimbo for Danny, I ask Jimbo and Danny to join the discussion. Nothing.... The people at the center of this channel refuse to participate. And you say it's the community who isn't making the effort to solve this long standing problem? I'd say it's #admins and IRC leadership who've been uncooperative. Phil, your previous three posts in this thread make no sense and display a lack of effort to read links when given. --Duk 20:34, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

Phil, except that the pages you use as examples have been widely and historically seen to be in Arbcoms purview (same for the FA page and Raul) Those are extremely poor examples, there was no similar precedent or understanding by anyone regarding WEA. An editor cannot simply claim ownership of a page, by expertise or by experience.

And even if ownership wasn't an issue, editing protected pages and using admin tools in a content dispute have been historically (and correctly) seriously forbidden, period. Even in the proposed principles in this case it is forbidden whether for desirable reasons or not. You simply cannot get around that. Admins cannot use the tools in content dispute, and being right has never been an excuse.

And furthermore, I'm not talking about sanction. I'm talking (at least to this point) about the language being used to describe actions. Editing a protected page, and using admin tools in a content dispute is disruptive, right or wrong, conscious or not. RxS (talk) 18:41, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

Nobody would seriously expect Raul to be sanctioned for repeated reversions of FA pages. How about if he protected them, censored them to his liking, threaten to move them to meta where he could more effectively censor them, and completely fail to address, or even acknowledge, the communities valid concerns if there were occasional (but outrageous) problems with the FA process? --Duk 18:52, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

The question is whether this was a content dispute, or whether this was two editors deliberately disrupting a page and one editor with a particular responsibility for that page preventing the disruption. Frankly, I have trouble with the entire idea that this is a content dispute, or that Geogre and Giano's edits were ever even subject to the 3RR, given that they were in transparently bad faith and clearly had no possibility of improving the project. But even absent that, we have on one side what appears to have been a good faith if possibly misguided action, and on the other active and deliberate disruption. The findings, as they stand, reflect this disparity. Phil Sandifer (talk) 18:53, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

No, I disagree. The immediate question is how to get redress of misbehavior on #admins. When editors have nowhere else to go for this except the wiki page, and the response is months of snub then punctuated by unrestrained displays of tyrannical censorship, based on mythical and süper secret powers and authority, then there lies your immediate problem. The underlying and more important question is one of ... well, you'll have to read those links I told you about that used to be on the page.--Duk 19:51, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

Boldly putting back the thread below, removed by Phil. Hopefully you'll allow your comments on me to be fully as relevant to me as to Durova. I request that you leave your original comment, struck through, rather than make other people's responses nonsensical by removing it. Please comply straightforwardly with this reasonable request. And please don't remove the thread yet again, as I think it may in fact be useful to the arbitrators. They may wish to evaluate your input and demeanour, Phil Sandifer. Bishonen | talk 20:46, 17 January 2008 (UTC).

Then submit it as evidence instead of engaging in innuendo. The diffs are in the history. If there's something I said that is a relevant and actionable issue, use it as evidence. But to insist that a thread that was clearly recognized by its participants as unhelpful be preserved is ridiculous. The thread was a mess of misunderstandings, poorly chosen words, and unfortunate signal to noise ratio. Preserving it because somebody might want to evaluate my contributions (despite the fact that no findings regarding me have been proposed here or on the workshop) is blithely arrogant. Is everybody involved in this case that invested in a scorched earth, us vs. them approach? Phil Sandifer (talk) 20:53, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

Section Break 1

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

Bishonen was the victim of targeted misogynist harassment. I fail to see why she should be sanctioned for anything. That her harassers are not listed here is disturbing. Tony Sidaway, based on the presented evidence, appears to be a net negative loss to the Wikipedia project. How does a user with such a demonstrated and recorded history of disruption and attacks on female editors remain unblocked? Lawrence Cohen 16:49, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

• Your use of plurals is confusing. From reading the evidence, and from my own knowledge of the history, we have a dispute between two users, Tony Sidaway and Bishonen. This dispute has been confined (largely) to interactions on IRC. I'm not sure how this makes someone the target of misogynist harassment. Who else has Tony harassed? Who are the other harassers? By what policy or precedent do we ban people for things which happen on another medium? Mackensen (talk) 17:17, 17 January 2008 (UTC)
  • It should also be noted that to say that Bishonen was targetted rather ignores the time she spent actively goading Tony into making a personal attack of exactly the sort he ultimately made. This in no way excuses Tony's conduct, but to call it harassment and to pretend that Bishonen is an innocent and incidental victim in this dispute seems to be deeply unhelpful hyperbole. Phil Sandifer (talk) 18:56, 17 January 2008 (UTC)
    • Phil, that metaphor comes disrubingly close to an anecdote I read a very long time ago about the attack on Pearl Harbor. Ann Landers asked her readers to write what they were doing when they learned about it. The best story stuck in my mind to this day. I was playing bridge, when a person walked in and exclaimed, "Somebody's attacked Pearl Harbor!" The dummy next to me said, "She was probably asking for it. I wonder what she was wearing?" Durova^Charge! 19:27, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

I am not sure that the problem of overdramatic hyperbole is overcome by an attempt to shift the field of discussion to physical abuse. Phil Sandifer (talk) 19:29, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

So, Phil, would you be speaking of "chests" for male users? Besides that, you're saying, essentially, "See what you made me do! You made me shoot you!" That's the excuse of the abuser, the abhorent, unthinking, disgusting, and vilely ignorant language of criminals. Utgard Loki (talk) 19:32, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

I considered "back" instead of "chest," but that would give the implication that bishonen's involvement in the conversation was anything less than a head-on attack on Tony. I also disliked the implication that would carry that Tony's comment was shooting Bishonen in the back. So yes - I would have used chest in either case. Both of them were being incivil, rude, and querrelous, and both were trying to goad the other one into crossing a line. Tony crossed it first. Shame on him. But that's not a campaign of harassment - that's a nasty fight. Calling it harassment is overstating the case dramatically. Phil Sandifer (talk) 19:34, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

Phil, the point I am making is this: in cases of actual harassment it is socially acceptable to blame the victim. That's unfortunate but true. If you mean to argue that Bishonen was an active provocateur, please do so with appropriate care and discretion so that your statement does not give the appearance of validating a prejudice. Durova^Charge! 19:37, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

I am skeptical that any attempt to state the fact that this was a feud that both of them went into knowingly and maliciously is going to avoid being read as an anti-female attack on Bishonen. Far too many people in this discussion have decided who they are out for the blood of, and many of them are out for the blood of Tony. There seems little that will stop them from making Bishonen a martyr to their cause, facts be damned. Phil Sandifer (talk) 19:55, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

"Bishonen was targetted rather ignores the time she spent dancing around in front of Tony with a target strapped to her chest." Who are you accusing of "deeply unhelpful hyperbole", Phil??? --Tex 19:43, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

Perhaps we did not read the same transcript. In the one I read, Tony's attack was predicated by several lines of Bishonen all but demanding Tony admit and apologize for calling her names. Tony's attack distinctly escalates the level of vitriol and incivility in the discussion, but it does not mark a shocking or disproportionate escalation. Phil Sandifer (talk) 19:55, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

My point being, you are claiming the "pro-Bishonen" folks are engaging in "deeply unhelpful hyperbole" while at the same time you are engaging in deeply unhelpful hyperbole yourself by claiming she was "dancing around with a target on her chest". Pot, kettle and all that. --Tex 19:59, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

And my point remains that she was not targeted for harassment, she actively got into a fight with Tony. Phil Sandifer (talk) 20:00, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

Because the IRC leadership is clearly "good people". This entire situation has become farce. Can we recall the Committee? I regret some of my recent election choices, now. Lawrence Cohen 19:49, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

When the topic of discussion is a man harassing a woman, any analogy reminiscent of what was she wearing? is dubious at best. I'm willing to suppose these were ill-chosen words written in good faith. Phil, would you be willing to rewrite that statement above? If you do I'll strikethrough my entire commentary to this thread. Durova^Charge! 19:53, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

Note that the large gaps here on this thread were caused by an editor removing all of his comments here. Lawrence Cohen 20:29, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

God knows where to park this, with the editing currently going on so in the absence of any comment from a responsible Arbcom member, I think someone need to point out (so it had better be me) than further discussion here with Sandifer this evening is futile and likely to lead to greater disharmony and ill feeling than is already evident. Can we just leave it, and leave him with his thoughts. Thanks. Giano (talk) 20:44, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

Is this going anywhere?

Just to echo the concerns of Rockpocket's comment from five days ago, I have to ask, is this really going anywhere? It doesn't seem like it. Look at what the parties on either side of this actually want and you'll see why. I'm going to go out on a limb here and predict that this will end in exactly the same way as the previous case involving many of these same people did: vague unheeded warnings followed with another big blow-up not too far down the road. The obvious answer, that everyone just acts civilized and lives with one another, is apparently so obvious it's not worth pursuing. A pity. --Cyde Weys 04:58, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

1RR parole

What on earth is the point of putting parties on 1 revert parole [9] How can preventing editors, who write high quality pages, from maintaining those pages help the encyclopedia. It is important to remember this case is centred on edits to a page that it now seems was not part of the encyclopedia at all. In fact the whole legitimacy of this case is very questionable for that reason. What is the point of penalising the productive editors to appease those who seldom write a page because they prefer to be in their chatroom. This case is true baffling. Giano (talk) 12:05, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

Actually, the suggested remedy only refers to the project namespace (All "Wikipedia:" pages), not the mainspace. --Reinoutr (talk) 13:38, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

And here we have a good reason why the talk page should never have been protected. It is important that there is a venue for non-arbitrators and the parties to a case to ask questions like this. I'm glad Giano's misunderstanding has been cleared up. Carcharoth (talk) 16:57, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

I can't imagine what the virtue of this would be. I did not go beyond one revert in 24 hr. Giano doesn't have the ability to rollback. David Gerard did exceed 2R. Several others did one revert. I.e. had this been in place for merely the named parties (and not, of course, the people who wanted the page to reflect David Gerard's original and erroneous form), it would have caught no one except Giano, and he broke 3RR and got triple the requisite 24 hr block. I.e. "meh." Had parties worked on the talk page of the article, there would have been no edit war. Had the article not been in namespace because it had not been approved, then there would have been no edit war. I see nothing holy and sacred about name space, unless we're talking about policies. This was not a policy, and I still haven't read a word that explains why anyone would be afraid to edit a personal essay that had been improperly placed in name space. If there is such a holy, inviolate status, then I have quite a few essays I should like to move there. For one user:Geogre/IRC considered should have been "bold"ly put there from the start. Geogre (talk) 18:38, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

Actually, Giano does have the ability to rollback. [10] Despite the fact that "Administrators should not grant rollback to editors with a history of edit warring," Doc glasgow (talk · contribs) considered it a good idea to give Giano that user right in the middle of an ArbCom case about edit warring. Go figure. Rockpocket 01:31, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

I think that was more a case of Doc making a point about rollback, rather than any point about Giano. Carcharoth (talk) 02:14, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

FWIW I'll assume good faith here: several administrators gave out rollback very liberally to established non-admins when it first got implemented. Some of us who hadn't asked for it were surprised or even perturbed. Durova^Charge! 02:29, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

David Gerard FoF

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

1. Abstain for now because David Gerard has indicated that he intends to submit a statement. He is urged to do so promptly. Newyorkbrad (talk) 01:10, 6 January 2008 (UTC)
2. FT2 (Talk | email) 09:15, 7 January 2008 (UTC) Abstain for now, still checking relevant points of fact, and also per Newyorkbrad awaiting statement.

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

So, not to make too much of a point of it, but does David Gerard have any intent to submit this statement? It's been two weeks since these abstain votes were posted, and presumably longer since he committed to provision of a statement. If he has sent in such a statement, may we see it, and can the quoted arbitrators please modify their votes accordingly? Jouster  (whisper) 19:00, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

Thank you for the reminder. I will update this vote and comment today. Newyorkbrad (talk) 19:37, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

• Of course Gerard is not going to publish the secret dossier [11] so ludicrous and odd has this case become only the posting Arbs seem to be believing in it. I wonder if they realise how much entertainment they are providing for the rest of us. All credibility lost they continue to perform their ballet like routines - for whose benefit one wonders? Giano (talk) 21:34, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

• I suppose it is a little bit ironic that it falls to me to say this, given that I have been one of the leading advocates within the committee urging that leniency be extended to everyone involved in this fiasco ... but the comparison of this or any Wikipedia arbitration case to the Dreyfuss affair is deeply offensive and irresponsible. I have opined on my talkpage just yesterday that anyone is free to characterize the arbitrators and the committee in any way they wish, but I am equally free to express my revulsion at the repeated use of this analogy. Newyorkbrad (talk) 21:44, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

..........and 1 and 2 and 3 and grand jeté Brad et encore 1 and 2 and concentrate Brad and jeté et immédiatement. How high can you all jump. Giano (talk) 21:46, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

Giano, please! Lots of people have argued on your behalf. Don't implode now. I've just read the following advice and I think everyone involved in this case should head it:

"The one over-riding feature of open wikis, is that you cannot get rid of the people you wish to. If you can learn to work with the top five people you wish would exercise their right to vanish, you will have succeeded at the wiki experience. Because even if they did leave (which they won't), someone worse would fill their void. The cycle of the same people vehemently opposing each other in the same manner again and again over interchangeable issues, ends in nothing actually being accomplished on these issues. When you disagree with people, do so in full honesty, but avoid trying to damage their public image at the same time. Make an extra effort to be vocal in your support for the ideas of your "top 5" on the occasions when you happen to agree with them. And also make an extra effort to publicly disagree with your friends when you happen to disagree on an issue. The quasi-political loyalty which leads to the opposite behaviors is destroying Wikimedia IMHO." - User:BirgitteSB#Unsolicited_Advice

Apologies to Birgitte for nicking that from her user page. Carcharoth (talk) 22:09, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

Or, to put it in a slightly-more-direct way—(no) thanks for shitting up my section, Giano. I agree with you and even I find what you've written here abhorrent and in bad faith. Consider striking and/or making a new section. Jouster  (whisper) 22:32, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

• Certainly not. You dare to talk to me of bad faith!!! This case is crooked and trumped up. We know it. The Arbs know it. They have lost all respect they are deserving of none. That is not imploding that is a transparent statement of fact. Giano (talk) 23:12, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

This case is about a group of wikipedians who collectively lost their senses at a time of year we would have liked to have thought they would have be sitting mellowly on a sheepskin in front of a fireplace, drinking good wine beside the Christmas tree rather than losing their wits on the wiki. Instead unresolved significant issues (role and scope of the admin IRC channel) and personalities combined to make things go FUBAR. The issues are painful, and the personality conflicts long-lasting and unresolved, and you would have to be dense to not realize tentacles of these personality conflicts reach into the ArbCom. But a number of developments are positive: a) renaming the case from Giano to IRC, b) lack of consensus on some of the original hastily-proposed Arbcom findings, c) clearly significant amount of in-camera discussion by the broader ArbCom to figure out what to do, and most importantly, d) most of the warring parties and their supporters have stepped back from the brink, and in many cases written amazingly introspective and intelligent commentary on what happened and what needs to happen. Yes, that's right. Notwithstanding the continued flare-ups (some real, and some I suspect manufactured) that are occurring, there is a lot of intelligent and introspective commentary on this page and other relevant talk and user talk pages. We fortunately have a 15-member arbcom, in which I think all of us can find at least a couple of members we really trust and at most only a few members we really distrust. The best thing we can all do is let them try to collectively come up with something that addresses both the immediate conduct issues and the underlying governance issues and then react to it. For now, I think we have all said more than enough. In particular, a number of the high-profile parties have said they will stay away from this specific page (that includes you a few days ago, Giano), and at least until we all calm down enough to stop attacking others and discussing levels of deserved respect, that is the most helpful thing we can do. Martinp (talk) 15:47, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

Though it may seem that everything and much more has been said here, I think I should make a comment. I have edited the quotation on Bishonen's page to clarify the context, and to avoid confusion I should add that I don't agree that this situation here can be compared with the historical Dreyfus affair, in that prejudice-driven injustice, or lack of justice, seems a byproduct here while it was a central feature there. However, the above mentioned isolated quotation looks in several respects like a reasonable description of the state of affairs.

And to clarify my overall position: reading my earlier comments on this page, one might consider me biased. I am. Biased pro creation of a fertile environment for prolific writers and pro transparent procedures in all levels of self-organisation of Wikipedia. If that makes me partisan, so be it. Kosebamse (talk) 18:49, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

To Newyorkbrad (or any other Arb) re David Gerard's private Statement to ArbCom

Are you able to opine whether the content of Gerard's private communication to ArbCom is such that privacy was required to protect identities and WP resources, or is that outside of the remit? I ask because this may appear to be another example of David Gerard failing to acknowledge the legitimacy of the communities rights in evaluating his role in relationship to his ownership of the #admin's policy page, when presenting his statement. If this is the case I should feel it might be commented upon in the findings. LessHeard vanU (talk) 22:16, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

I strongly agree with this statement; for this procedure to be seen as legitimate by involved parties and outside observers, there needs to be an explicit FoF that David Gerard owns the page, in part due to OTRS-style must-be-kept-confidential information received by ArbCom with regards to this right, accompanied by some basic information on what the confidential submission included and why it must be kept confidential. Lacking such a finding and disclosure, to give one example of issues it would raise, how would one propose to effectively judge the work of ArbCom in subsequent elections without seeing even an abstract of the evidence presented in this case? Jouster  (whisper) 22:32, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

The private statement references discussions that occurred on the ArbCom mailing list last year, going to the question of whether David Gerard had, or could reasonably have understood that he had, certain authority over the #admins channel. I would prefer to leave it to the arbitrators who were active at that time to opine whether continued confidentiality for the statement is necessary, or whether at least a portion of it could be published. Newyorkbrad (talk) 22:24, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

Thank you for that. I also hope that the Arbs previously active will consider how confidentiality regarding past discussion pertains to the actions taken on Wiki relating to the page regarding the off-wiki channel. LessHeard vanU (talk) 22:39, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

Thanks from me too, Brad. I wonder if one further question could be answered? When did these discussions take place? I presume they took place before the creation of WP:WEA, and were part of the motivation for setting up the page? I'm also asking in relation to David's edit summary here in June (about the only clear - if leetspeak can be considered clear - statement from David that he owned the page). In other words, was the ownership of this page there from the very start? I would suggest that in the rush that may develop to close the case (you know how it is at the end of a case like this), that the committee consider three points: (1) Getting a notice put on the page to avoid misunderstandings in future over who owns the page; (2) Urging the community to find and clearly label such 'owned' pages; (3) Giving the community free reign to reject and mark as historical such 'owned' pages (via Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion) if the community considers them harmful to the building of the encyclopedia or detrimental to the community. I would hope that the WP:WEA page is not considered so vital that the community would not be allowed to pass its own verdict at WP:MfD. My view is that no pages on Wikipedia should ever be considered immune from a community-rendered verdict at WP:MfD, except, of course, Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion itself. If the community truly supports a page (eg. Main Page), or policy (Wikipedia:Neutral point of view), or process (Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee) then this should become clear as the MfD progresses. Even those that consider the pages I just mentioned to be sacrosanct, would, I hope, agree that WP:WEA falls squarely in the 'miscellany' category of pages. Carcharoth (talk) 01:06, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

As Newyorkbrad notes above, David Gerard's statement contains extensive references and quotations from arbcom-l discussions of which he was a part. As such, it would be inappropriate to release it in full. The substance of his statement is that he believed, based on the extensive discussion last year on arbcom-l of the problems on #wikipedia-en-admins, that WP:WEA was a page intended to define the way #wikipedia-en-admins should operate rather than reflect its current condition. I think that point has been accepted by the committee. The committee is, at present, divided on the extent to which the prior discussion constituted a mandate to revert and protect the page. The Uninvited Co., Inc. 05:56, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

Was that privately decided intent of what WEA should be ever communicated to the public? If not, why not? Lawrence Cohen 06:17, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

If that was true then the Arbcom are completelly at fault for not putting a template on the page informing people of the page's intention and ownership, and warning of the consequences of editing the page. Why didn't they? Giano (talk) 07:23, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

Indeed. If a page is going to be excluded from the normal rule of "anyone can edit this, and no one has more rights to edit it than anyone else", there'd better be something telling us mortals that. More to the point, though, even if there was some agreement on this, it is baffling to me that anyone is suggesting that this in any way justified edit warring or misusing protection, let alone that ArbCom is considering it. Not edit warring, even when you're right, is pretty much Wikipedia 101 material, and not editing protected pages is a fundamental of being an admin. Heimstern Läufer (talk) 07:33, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

Certainly no effort was exerted by David Gerard to explain that he (believed he) had de facto ownership of the page, pursuant to a private ArbCom hearing that he would be aware that parties outside of that discussion would not be aware of. Whatever belief of he may had, and whether it was correct or not, does not excuse the lack of communication with regard to his actions. In itself the failure to explain was disruptive. One may wonder why he had not previously seen fit to advertise the ownership of the page. LessHeard vanU (talk) 13:44, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

• What I want to know is if the Arbcom knew this, why they allowed the situation to develop. I had been trying to edit that page for months. What stopped them telling me ages ago, I was not supposed to edit this page. Then, knowing this, why did they aceept this case,and why accept it so speedily with such allacrity? Giano (talk) 09:10, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

I cannot comment on acceptance of the case (despite the section header), except by inference, because that happened before I joined the committee. For what it is worth, I believe that any special status of the WEA page was not adequately, in fact it seems not at all, communicated to the parties or other would-be editors of the page. In fact, I was not aware of it myself until I read David Gerard's statement. Clearly any such circumstance cannot and should not be held against any of the parties in any way. Analytically, that does not preclude findings or remedies based on evaluating user conduct on the page without reference to any special but undisclosed understanding about the page, although I personally continue to have doubts about the utility or desirability of such remedies in this case. Newyorkbrad (talk) 13:22, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

Can somebody explain, then, to me this apparent dichotomy; it appears that the WEA page may have been of a different status than ordinary Wikipedia policy pages, and the ArbCom is debating (internally) how this apparent situation was not formally recognised or advertised, yet are still considering applying conclusions, and sanctions that may follow, on the basis that there was violation of Wikipedia standards on that page. The apparent status of the WEA page appears to have shifted since the acceptance of this ArbCom, yet not the edit war (for want of a better term) that was conducted upon and around it. It cannot be argued that the ArbCom had within its powers the ability to investigate, make findings upon, and apply sanctions in relation to conduct upon the channel, and it now seems that the Wikipedia page which applied to the same channel may also had the same presumed distance from other Wikipedia policy spaces. How then can ArbCom apply Wikipedia specific sanctions against anyone considered as behaving in violation of Wikipedia policy on a page where the remit may not extend?

I can see an argument formulated that Wikipedia-en editors should apply the same standards in Wikipedia related spaces as they should do in Wikipedia specific space, but that has not been considered applicable to the channels themselves and neither to Wikipedia related blogs maintained by 'pedians. I am also aware that there appeared to be only one party who was aware of the special status afforded that page, and it may be argued that those who edit warred there may have considered themselves violating Wikipedia policy. However, when in Rome you do as the Romans do - so whatever ills parties may have considered themselves doing they were not in fact disrupting Wikipedia space. If DG does indeed, or did, OWN the page he can sanction any party in relation to that page - but not outside of his remit, however far that may extend, but not in Wikipedia space where the usual rules apply, and nor can ArbCom now sanction any party in relation to the incidents that transpired in a place where their remit did not then extend. Even the wheelwar that followed the revert war on the WEA page cannot stand, since the first sanctions (and subsequent ones to the same purpose) were in error in relation to a space where policy was not apparent or qualified - but made in good faith - and the undoing of same was correct per that page, although not then known.

Folks, you are trying to apply Pax Romana to the Aztec civilisation in the belief that you were dealing with the Indian culture. It isn't working, and it is beginning to be seen as not working. LessHeard vanU (talk) 22:36, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

I think if you look at the principles, findings and remedies in this case the status of the WEA page itself is irrelevant or nearly so. The proposal to postpone defining the status of IRC pages is gaining support, rightly so in my opinion. ^Avruchtalk 22:41, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

However, the incidents which precipitated the principles, findings and remedies were originated on that page, and the incidents that occurred elsewhere in Wikipedia space were directly related to those earlier incidents. If that page fell outside of ArbCom's remit then there is very little material on which to base any principle, finding or remedy. LessHeard vanU (talk) 22:54, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

All decisions against Geogre, Giano, Bish based on violating secret decisions need to go

Given that the previous AC has apparently held key secret evidence from all the involved parties for some mysterious reason, all decisions or findings against other parties for editing the WEA page (which behavior would have been affected by disclosure of that secret evidence months ago) need to be tossed without prejudice. Especially as that secret evidence was a secret decision made by the Committee that is in effect a policy decision re the WEA page, which the Committee has no authorization from the Community to do. If enforced as-is, the Community to be frank has the right here to tell the Committee to be ignored here, since the Committee in the end is subservient to the Community and only has power because we let it. As Giano points out, this entire fiasco would have been avoided had either David Gerard cited this "secret decision" months ago, or the Committee had. Either Gerard is grossly negligent, or the Committee is. Either way, none of that is any of Geogre's, Giano's, or Bish's fault. Either way, to penalize people for violating secret rulings is absurd on it's face and a slap in the community's own face. The committee is asked to take down these mistaken pending statements and actions on the Proposed Decision. Could lead to long term consequences for the authority (and a decline in their authority per the community) of the AC if they stand. Lawrence Cohen 14:15, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

Support

1. Lawrence Cohen 14:17, 22 January 2008 (UTC)
2. Support.We are only here because no one (presumably Tony included) knew of the secret decision. In fact I think the Arbs concerned should be forced to explain why they kept the information secret, and why they agreed to this case knowing full well they had control of the #admin's chatroom and were withholding important information for several months. Knowing full well, as they did the controversy that surrounded that page. I think its time they stopped dithering and hiding and gave some answers. If they had announced that they had given the page to Gerard no one would have been attempting to edit it and there would have been no case to answer. C'mon Fred, Flo, Morven and Mackensen you are not normally shy in coming forward Giano (talk) 14:44, 22 January 2008 (UTC)
3. Support: There is no such thing as a private decision. If it's not on-Wiki, it has no force. David Gerard's vanity page remains utterly reprehensible to this day, and I defy Mackensen or anyone else to point out the "tenor" of my edits. Be specific for once. Say exactly what it is that was not allowed in an edit. Say exactly how. Say exactly why. No more presuming. No more private understandings of shared sensibilities. If people are not to fall afoul of this sort of thing in the future and have previously unheard of editors lodge bizarre RfAr's against them and then have those accepted for entirely different and unstated reasons, then the least people could do is explain exactly what way editing this page at a particular time broke secret laws. (If you detect contempt, you detect correctly, for I have nothing but the utmost contempt for secret prosecutions on private evidence based on secret understandings never made public. I look forward to being reprimanded for not liking the shallow, illogical, self-serving, trainwreck that passes for logic here.) Geogre (talk) 20:19, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

Discuss/off topic

No remedies have been proposed by the arbitration committee against any named party. --Tony Sidaway 14:20, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

Reworded. They can't be found period to have violated secret decisions like this. It's outrageous and beyond the authority of the Committee. The Committee answers to us, not themselves. Lawrence Cohen 14:24, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

It's a bit more complicated than that, but I can see where you're going with this. Do you plan to address the inconvenient fact that none of the findings made so far, or even merely proposed, are based on anyone's having violated any secret decision? --Tony Sidaway 14:31, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

The edits were not disruptive by these three editors, and there has been no evidence presented that they have been--asserting them as diruptive is irrelevant personal opinion (of someone, or some Committee members), presumably based on the fact that their edits were contrary to what the stated private purpose for WEA was. Had the negligent party at fault--either Gerard, or the Committee--placed notice on WEA or to the public that the page was out of bounds for editing, this wouldn't have happened. There was no statement that it was out of bounds, so therefore no one can assert that edits to change a page to reflect what you thought it should should accurately say in good faith was disruptive. Geogre, Giano, and Bish acted in Good Faith, so are without fault, unlike Gerard and/or the AC here.

Your personal viewpoints, as you have a personal stakes in this matter as an old friend of Gerard via Scientology circles are noted, and Forrester as a friend via IRC #admins are noted ahead of time and based on previously statements by you, and I'll remind you that you have been several times warned re civility by Arbiters on this page. I say this as you're again doing the "circling" routine you have done previously, in attempts to exceedingly inappropriately and deliberately provocatively bait other editors. Thank you. Lawrence Cohen 14:47, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

Lawrence, would you care to be more cautious with your own tone of voice and with the insinuations you make? Thatcher 15:00, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

My apologies to you, Thatcher. I'm going to disengage on this. Lawrence Cohen 15:46, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

I apologise to Lawrence if I appear to be baiting or "circling" (though I don't know what that means). What I thought I was doing was making a pretty direct assault on Lawrence's reasoning. I may be wrong, but I think it's permitted to pick holes in a proposal in debate. If it were not, then we might as well all go home. --Tony Sidaway 16:23, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

I remind parties that no specific remedies have been proposed, and that the case is in limbo. If the committee were to decide that David was justified in his actions, I would for my part drop all reciprocal findings and chalk it up to the Committee not making matters clear. Certainly we/they dropped the ball somewhat. On the other hand, there can be no justification for the tenor of edits made. Editors are expected to keep their cool and behave in a civil fashion toward other editors. If other editors are so anathema to them that this isn't possible, then they shouldn't engage them at all. Mackensen (talk) 15:36, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

I'm sure all parties recall that after last January's unpleasantness James (at Arbcom's request) appointed additional chanops, including myself and David Gerard, both former arbitrators at the time. It was understood that we had a mandate to deal with perceived in-channel problems, although the scope was not especially well-defined. Things improved, but new chanops don't prevent all problems any more than new admins prevent problems on-wiki. Tempers are lost, regrettable things are said. I suppose it's an improvement that both parties were in-channel this time. Moving back to the main idea, I agree with those who say that the matter was not made as clear as it should have been. Now, a counter-factual: let's say, for the sake of the argument, that Arbcom had made matters clearer in January. This would not have materially altered the initial incident in any way. What actions would those of you not satisfied with the response of the chanop taken? Mackensen (talk) 16:11, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

(Trying to stay out of the personality issues). If one party was, with some subjective expectation of legitimacy, "playing to different rules" than another, then it may be a mitigating factor in any conduct issues arising from the reaction of other parties to this unpredictable, apparently unjustified behavior. Also see my evidence for some comments on the genesis of the incident. --Tony Sidaway 16:39, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

WP:EW was written to explicitly exclude the behavior of other users from the definition of edit warring. The behavior of other parties does not relieve anyone of his or her obligation to respect community standards. — Carl (CBM · talk) 17:02, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

Absolutely. I'm not talking about justification here, but mitigation. I think this goes to the heart of Lawrence's concern that remedies might be proposed that ignore the extenuating circumstances. I have no such worries--the arbitration committee is chosen by the community as our wisest and most fair-minded, so they can be trusted to weigh up the circumstances. --Tony Sidaway 17:25, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

There are always mitigating circumstances for edit warring offer by those who are aware that it is a big no-no. I don't find the circumstances proposed here particularly convincing. Rockpocket 18:17, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

• Comment. This appears to be basically an RfC on ArbCom behavior. Was that the intention here? Cla68 (talk) 00:26, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

Locus?

We have a running dispute that flares up ugly-like every so often. It takes the form of personal nastiness, but the underlying dispute is over IRC.

Out of ArbCom's reach? Until Jimbo threw it at you. Now you are in a position to actually end this. We won't need to be back here in 5 months for another episode, because you can address the dispute instead of just the incident (which probably would not have reached ArbCom on its own merits.)

Except, except... Why is Arbcom settling this as if the IRC aspect weren't at the core, or were out of its reach? The principles enunciated are fine (once the combinations are hashed out), but there are two big place holders. And the FoFs? What of the role of a few individuals (yes, there was edit warring by some, but not a pattern) when the locus of the dispute is not clearly identified?

There was little need for ArbCom to solve a minor edit war over an obscure page, not when so much more could be accomplished. Jd2718 (talk) 07:01, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

I suspect that the reason we're not seeing much activity in the proposed findings of fact and remedies is because the ArbCom members are having a difficult time agreeing on the core issues involved here. I'd say give them some time. Cla68 (talk) 07:43, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

I am concerned that the IRC principles and Fs oF should precede, not follow, the others, and not only in their order on the page. Without an IRC FoF, how can those about individual editors make sense? Jd2718 (talk) 07:50, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

I don't see that the core issue here is IRC. I think that IRC was a convenient excuse for the latest flareup, for all parties involved. — Carl (CBM · talk) 13:44, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

Hear hear. - Mtmelendez ^(Talk) 17:23, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

You can see what you want to see, but I recommend that you see the request for arbitration. Look what it said. It said that Giano wasn't settling things the way he was supposed to over IRC. Of course there is no way to address IRC issues, so he could hardly have violated the procedure. However, what that was about was that Giano was proving that the page (David Gerard's page) was a lie by sending logs, logs that demonstrated that en.admins.irc not only has gross insult on it, but that such insults are tolerated and embraced, if they're from friends of JamesF's and David Gerard's.

That then opened this fishing expedition, where I am suddenly "incivil," despite no one going to my talk page to report the hurt nor seek the apology, Giano is "disruptive" with no examples, Gerard's page is holy, but in secret, and all kinds of things. Now, of course, the people who want "civility" as the club du jour are here thinking it's all about that. It isn't. It remains about IRC, the fact that Wikipedia has no policy for IRC and therefore should have no page for its policies, and that it is home to abuse for which there is no redress. Geogre (talk) 20:28, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

Well, Geogre, let's talk about the issues. Let's talk about this edit: [12] The basis for this edit is one exchange between two users, and revolved entirely around whether said non-admin had insulted said admin beforehand. The non-admin did not deny using such language; he stated that he did not recall using specific words from a conversation which took place 14 months previous. The difference is subtle, but worth mentioning. The claim that nothing was done, and that such behavior is okay, is ridiculous, and patently untrue. Tony was (briefly) kicked for using such language, as is common and appropriate. You know well enough that users aren't banned from IRC channels for isolated incidents such as these any more than users are banned from Wikipedia (or a namespace) for an isolated personal attack. The presumption that other admins willfully ignore the matter because of being "macho men" or indifference to the plight of another user is unproved and a vile personal attack. That there were repeated reversions to this edit, calling it "the truth," beggars belief. Mackensen (talk) 20:39, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

Ok, Mackensen, now that was a fact, was it not? The channel has repeatedly hosted language like that. Tony Sidaway offered the Ronald Reagan defense, where he said that he did not remember exactly what he said, but Bishonen was the problem, and so Tony got offered ops! Whee! Kelly, of course, has findings of misusing ... get this... the very same IRC channel to plot bans, to decide to "kill" someone, and Chairboy used... wait for it!... the very same IRC channel again to get "unanimous consensus" to block a user. So I'd say it's rather a fact that it is an anomaly of the channel that non-administrators like Tony Sidaway can have access and can call administrators "bitch" and the like and get away with it. You see, if you were at all honest, you'd acknowledge that the channel is misused and that there are no methods for resolving such matters in place now, that there is no recourse on Wikipedia. Acknowledge that, and then it's possible to come up with a document that would make sense. The reason that it's something you cannot but acknowledge is that, unlike David Gerard's paean to himself, the truth is that all IRC channels are non-portable, transient, and illicit as evidence at Wikipedia, and therefore they are outlaw. If any one stopped talking about how great and perfect the damned thing is and began addressing its problems and trying to seriously set forth processes and procedures (which YOU manifestly failed to do last time, and I mean you personally), then we wouldn't have this garbage coming up over and over again.

Now, tell me how I, personally, am involved in all this. Tell me how many reverts I did in 24 hr. Tell me how there are complaints about insults that I never addressed. Tell me how I'm here at all. My contempt for this charade deepens by the moment. Geogre (talk) 20:47, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

Geogre, we're talking about this case please, not things that happened a year (or more) ago. Kelly Martin no longer has access that channel, and has not had same for some time. Chairboy's regrettable remark occurred over a year ago, before the new channel operators were appointed. I have no idea how any chanop could prevent Tony from saying anything unless he wasn't there in the first place.

Moving on, you're attributing to me attitudes and stances which are not mine, which have never been mine, and which I have never defended. I cannot be reasonably expected to respond to criticisms of arguments which I have not made.

Finally, you're here for edit-warring in the project namespace. Mackensen (talk) 20:56, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

Giano II

I'm really concerned about the propoed remedy to ban Giano for a year. Many people are critical of his wikipedia space editing here (myself included) and that side of his editing I would say is detremental to the project. However, how many FA's has he got? His article work is excellent, some of the best we have here and we really don't want to lost that. I agree, a caution given his previous warnings is to weak, but there must be a better solution than to ban him - at least try it. Ryan Postlethwaite 19:48, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

• Have no fear Ryan, I have no intention whatsoever of being a scapegoat in any way shape or form for the inadequacies of members of the Arbcom, who have failed the project. Nor do I intend to take a final kicking from those retiring. They retire in disgrace that is their problem, I'm not handing them a ladder out of that pit into which they have cast themselves. Giano (talk) 20:18, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

And let's remember that "ban" is the kind of vindictive behavior that we would normally attribute to bullies and trolls. It shows a bankruptcy of logic, a poverty of imagination, and a complete inability to justify actions any way but getting rid of the person who shows the ridiculousness of the statements. I would say, "Shame on you," but I know that those in favor of bans have no shame to feel nor sense to perceive it with. Geogre (talk) 20:22, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

Well, this is the trainwreck that got voted in, so there you are. I can't get personally worked up about the abuse the gets hurled here; I suggest to Giano, Geogre, Tony and Phil (in no particular order) that turning the project pages into a battleground is about the least impressive thing I've ever seen. I would also note to Giano that my final "kick" is a plea for moderation; my apologies if you find this irritating. Mackensen (talk) 20:29, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

It did, did it? Battleground, Mackensen? Well, we all know that there is no right of reply at arbitration. The named parties are not allowed to have anything to say. Just as no one has been to the talk pages of any of the named users to try to work out mediation, so also the named users don't get to say anything. No... no... that would be a battleground. All is best done on a mailing list, which David Gerard distributes, and an IRC channel. Much more peaceful there, much less dissent there, and therefore much, much better, as no one can point out how wrong you are, how few you are, how illegitimate you are. Geogre (talk) 20:37, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

Frankly I'm not sure what you're on about in this comment. The volume of discussion on this page and others belies the notion that parties are not allowed to "say" anything. Arbitrators have discussed cases privately for years and have always taken private evidence; this case is not exceptional in that regard. I would also note that the arbcom mailing list (arbcom-l) is a raucous place beset by heated disagreement over this case--worse in many cases then what's said here. If there wasn't dissent within arbcom this case would have closed ages ago. Mackensen (talk) 20:43, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

Thank you for confirming our suspicions. The worst-kept secret on Wikipedia? :-) (I'll note that other cases end in almost uniform agreement). I do hope though that this is genuine disagreement, and not personality issues. ie. I hope the heated disagreement is due to calm rational diasgreement, and not heated "I don't like this user and he is disruptive and I want to get my way and ban him" type arguments (pure speculation of course, and I apologise for that). Sometimes we have to accept that some bans will not be productive, and we have to learn to work with others. Carcharoth (talk) 07:32, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

Bans are rarely productive--the level of sockpuppeting by banned users attests to that. However, we have to look to the existing situation, and ask whether we can really accept the status quo, and live with the social costs of not even trying to effect a change. In past cases the community hasn't provided leadership on this question, which places the ball in Arbcom's court. We're open to suggestions, but most arbitrators are not satisfied with things as they stand and absolutely do not want this to happen again: the edit-warring, the bad faith, the snarky comments, the old grudges, the wild allegations, etc. We all have better things to do here, parties included. Mackensen (talk) 12:00, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

You do realise I was serious when I suggested the parties be advised to work together on an article (or other project of their choice if the skillsets are not compatible)? It might feel like "writing lines", but has arbcom ever considered "community service" as a possible alternative to bans? Carcharoth (talk) 12:24, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

Not to my knowledge. In my experience content-related decisions (like "article mentorship/probation") are ineffectual enough at best. I've written up two in my lifetime (NLP and Great Irish Famine), and they didn't have the effect I wanted. My assumption was that negative contributions from problematic editors would be overborne by the spirit of mutual collaboration under the watchful eye of mentors. It didn't exactly work out that way. Returning to the main idea, I don't have a problem with your proposal, but "positive" remedies are not really enforceable. In a very early case, it might have been Mr-Natural-Health, Arbcom actually required a couple hundred word essay! Thankfully that was never repeated. I don't pretend that this is an ideal or even necessarily desirable solution--simply the best of several very unattractive options. Mackensen (talk) 13:06, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

Echo Mackensen - there is a forest and trees issue here. What are you trying to achieve? If you are so disillusioned with Wikipedia and its processes that you can't participate without vitriol, you know what to do. This whole issue - edit warring over the wording on a page about a channel on IRC restricted to less than 1500 people, most of whom never use it, owned by someone outside Wikimedia... Its ridiculous. I don't know that trolls often find themselves banning people, but people who are consistently disruptive and cause problem after problem (regardless of the outcome of each individual instance) should realistically find themselves open to serious restriction. Not because they are wrong every time - but because dealing with the new outrage of the week is time consuming and pointless and we're all better off without it. ^Avruchtalk 20:34, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

So, you want to ban Tony Sidaway, right? He's been at RfAr about every 3 months for two years now, and he's at the heart of this, too. You do want him hard banned, right? Geogre (talk) 20:40, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

I think that the project would benefit if all of the parties of this case were restricted to article space. Clearly you have lost perspective and are unable to reasonably evaluate what it is that is actually at stake here (very little). I doubt that will ultimately happen, but I wouldn't object if ArbCom started more frequently handing out project-space bans to people who can't seem to stay out of major conflicts. Say this out loud to yourself: its about the wording on a page about a channel on IRC with only 1500 people who can even access it that is not operated by Wikipedia. If that doesn't strike you as nuts, you need to find something else to do for awhile. ^Avruchtalk 20:48, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

And on that basis (the page and channel being irrelevant with only 1500 participants), I have every intention (unless someone beats me to it) of nominating the WP:WEA page to be blanked and redirected to the main WP:IRC page (with a minimal amount merged). At MfD as a unilateral redirection may be controversial. Some pages may be owned, but the community should still have the final say. Carcharoth (talk) 07:39, 23 January 2008 (UTC) - sorry, after the case closes, in case that wasn't clear. Carcharoth (talk) 12:26, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

Likewise. Mackensen's alternative is a more appropriate remedy to benefit the project. I would suggest that a number of named editors should find themselves sitting rather uncomfortably on the moral highground, considering their antics on this page. Rockpocket 20:39, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

I really hope that Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/IRC/Proposed_decision#Giano_II_2 does not pass. NYBrad has it right... who on earth would want to edit as a second class citizen? I.e. ... "We love your articles but don't speak to us about anything not directly article related because we don't want to hear it". You might as well ban him outright, really, instead. I am surprised and disappointed that this remedy is being mooted and at this time has 5 supports, frankly. ++Lar: t/c 05:39, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

• It is quite amazing that a group of Arbs who attempted to suppress the truth from the community are being allowed to ensure that I never put them in that position again. One wonders what else they have up their sleeves. Giano (talk) 07:21, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

• I admit it, it's a vast conspiracy to stop vitriolic edit-warring. Mackensen (talk) 11:56, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

Geogre desysop

I don't see the logic in the desysop proposal against Geogre. If you believe he should be desysopped, do it. If you don't think he should be, don't. Why go through the charade of desysopping him and then allowing him to say "Its all good, man, sorry." and then give the tools back? Remedies proposed in this case should be limited in number and meaningful - even more so here than in other situations because the superficial cause of this case itself lacks much meaning, and the issue is really that it was inflamed to such a ridiculous degree. ^Avruchtalk 21:10, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

IRC Policy

Unless I am misunderstanding - if the Committee intends to clarify that the WEA (or all IRC) pages are outside of the normal editing policies, then it does not seem to have the authority to create a new class of pages. If the Committee claims this authority (and there would appear to be nothing to stop it from doing so) then it will retain it for future issues and the Committee will no longer be able to disclaim power over community policies. This particular problem is of such miniscule greater importance that I see no compelling reason for the Committee to make such a sweeping change in its scope at this time, particularly as this is the first case for the newly reconstituted Committee.

Either the IRC pages should be open to editing as a guideine (which would not, in my mind, include evidence of past misuse) or it should be removed or moved off-site with a link at WP:IRC and a message in the MOTD. ^Avruchtalk 21:16, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

Or move it to meta, and let the Foundation deal with the ethical and/or legal complications on their own. Lawrence § talk/edits 21:23, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

I don't think the committee has any such radical notions in mind - note that at the conclusion of this case I cease to have any official role (thank heavens) so I don't claim to speak for the committee on this issue. The central issue is Arbcom's relation to IRC as a dispute resolution body; Jimbo's declaration of late December explicitly gives Arbcom a role to play here ex-offico and not simply though current and former arbitrators acting as channel operators. Arbcom hasn't figured out how to handle this responsibility yet, which would include, at the very least, #wikipedia, #wikipedia-en, and #wikipedia-en-admins. I gather the new arbs want to get some input from the community at large, which makes sense to me. I'll probably bring forward some proposals of my own when the time comes. Mackensen (talk) 21:29, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

• An agreement between Jimbo and James F can extend the authority of the EN:WP ArbCom to dispute resolution on IRC.
• ArbCom already has (through Jimbo) authority over dispute resolution on EN:WP.

The problem here is that the two authorities intersect, and that the ArbCom is perhaps mistakenly headed towards using its IRC authority to construe power over a WP page. The authority of the committee over a page on Wikipedia is still derived solely through Jimbo and is not increased or extended by serving as James' proxy on IRC.

If the Committee intends to construe the agreement with James and Jimmy as allowing it to designate the WEA page as exempt from typical policies then that is a de facto extension of its WP-only authority to govern policy rather than interpret it. ^Avruchtalk 21:45, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

I would agree with that assessment, particularly with the implication that Arbcom now (potentially) wears two hats. Mackensen (talk) 21:52, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

Or is this proposal anything more than an extension of the principle that governs the WP:OWN exemption for arbitration proposed decision pages? It might have saved considerable hassle if the Committee had articulated the concept of an exemption on the IRC page in advance, yet I also see the sense of establishing certain limited exceptions. Proposed decision pages at arbitration have a clear introductory statement saying who owns them. Recommending similar statements for any other rare cases where ownership exists. Durova^Charge! 22:03, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

I have always viewed the restriction on non-Arbitrators editing some pages here to derive from the fact that they are part of the internal deliberative process public only for our convenience and the purposes of transparency. They are certainly entitled to deliberate, propose decisions, vote and come to a decision completely in private. I think also that there should be a distinction between the WEA page and the ArbCom pages in that one is basically a guideline/informational page and the AC pages are process-specific, restricted in the same sense that we don't allow random article content insertion into a TfD debate. ^Avruchtalk 22:07, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

That's well reasoned. I'm curious what the arbitrators think on the subject. Durova^Charge! 22:10, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

Although I was not part of the committee at the time, I suspect that it may not have occurred to anyone that a special designation for the page in question was needed or appropriate, because it was not anticipated that the page would become controversial. The fact that the IRC channel is itself controversial does not mean that the page concerning the channel would necessarily be. In this regard, there are all sorts of pages that do not have "special status," yet people would typically not edit-war over them. For example (this is a random example and should not change the subject), 3RR enforcement can often be controversial, so someone might post to the policy page of WP:3RR or the talkpage of WP:AN3 to the effect that "a bunch of recent 3RR rulings have been incorrect" ... but no one would be likely to change the top of WP:3RR from "report alleged 3RR violations here" to "report alleged 3RR violations here, but the administrators will probably mishandle your report"—even if they believed that to be the case—and so no one feels compelled to add "do not edit the instructions section of this page." Of course, after the prior edit-war in July greater clarification might have helped, but at that time compromise language was worked out and there was no need to invoke any special status for the page, which may have fed the view that there was no reason to trigger controversy by announcing that one page was to be treated differently from many others. As I say, I was not part of the discussion at the time, so this is just by way of speculation, but I think it makes a certain amount of sense. Newyorkbrad (talk) 22:23, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

That is a reasonable explanation for why the distinction for this page (if there actually is one) was not clarified prior to the eruption of controversy. It doesn't resolve the outstanding issue, though. I notice that the decision includes a postponement of the IRC policy issue and your advice to seek community input, which is the right decision. I might suggest that ArbCom specifically direct that the page be protected until the policy questions are separately resolved. Lacking that, the Committee should at least instruct that edit-warring by these same people or others over similar issues on that page will result in WP:AE sanctions without need for an additional case. ^Avruchtalk 22:33, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

Yes, I think that is a correct way to view the situation. And Wikipedia in general has been minimalist in terms of making policy, often spelling it out only if absolutely necessary. I do not feel that the real concern is the fact that the page was edited but rather the provocative and un-collaborative manner of the editing. This is reinforced by the provocative and uncivil approach that many of the same users have taken on this page. FloNight (talk) 22:36, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

About a year ago ArbCom made a similar request that the community clarify whether the Committee does or does not have authority over the IRC channel. No consensus emerged and, from the way I interpreted the discussion, the default result appeared to be that it did not. It's quite possible that the resulting limbo led some well-intentioned people to conduct themselves at the channel as if offsite standards applied there, and that the resulting environment contributed to the present mess. What makes you suppose a second query for input will be more fruitful than the last one? The buck has to stop somewhere or else it stops nowhere. Durova^Charge! 23:03, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

I agree with the 'buck stops somewhere' principle, and I think the idea of seeking input doesn't necessarily mean that the decision will be made based on consensus. The ArbCom, appointed by Jimbo and using his authority, has been charged by Jimbo with a particular task/area of responsibility. It is up to them ultimately to decide how to act based on his charge - but it is commendable and reasonable that they get community input before making a decision. ^Avruchtalk 23:34, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

Once was commendable and reasonable. Twice I'm not so sure about. Durova^Charge! 23:53, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

Some changes were made based on previous Community input. Further changes are needed and will be based on additional Community input. FloNight (talk) 00:11, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

I hope that happens in a way that doesn't leave kindling behind waiting for the next spark a year from now. Durova^Charge! 00:31, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

Aren't there other pages, such as the Signpost, that already have declared, "special" status? Cla68 (talk) 00:36, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

For what it's worth, my opinion has always been that the Signpost, like most pages, should not have special status within the community; whether it exists in the minds of many is another question. While I discourage major edits to published articles because most people won't see those edits, apart from the byline, the Signpost should, in my personal opinion, be part of the community, and subject to the consensus of the community. That's, again, my personal opinion, which isn't necessarily indicative of how the Signpost is treated in practice. Ral315 (talk) 01:19, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

I don't think most community members, including myself, mind if some pages have special status, as long as this status is openly determined and declared by an authorized rule-making body like ArbCom and the rules and boundries concerning this status are clearly and openly explained. Of course, I don't presume to speak for the community, only myself. Cla68 (talk) 01:23, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

I'm in agreement with you there. Durova^Charge! 05:34, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

Generally speaking, I don't think the concept of some pages having special status is in doubt. But I don't think WEA is one of them. The status of IRC channels in question here should be much closer to WikBack, nonbovine ruminations etc than any on-site resource/page. And so pages like WP:WEA shouldn't really even have a place here (outside of userspace I suppose). IRC channels having some sort of quasi-official status bring too many complications to make them worthwhile (even if it's limited to dispute resolution). I just can't get around the fact that IRC policy is beyond the reach of community consensus, especially regarding behavioral and "openness" guidelines, and yet we would be bound to them and potentially could be sanctioned as a result of them. And since it's unlikely to be brought within the communities reach, any official or quasi-official ties should be cut. That would release Arbcom from having any obligation relating to dispute resolution, the channels could still run but there would be little difference between them and any other Wikipedia related site..maybe I'm missing something but seems like that would be the cleanest exit out of all this, and the best way to avoid problems in the future. There are enough ways to communicate privately (when the need arises) that IRC doesn't have to play a critical role here. RxS (talk) 06:14, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

Well, there's Jimbo's declaration last month that ArbCom does have jurisdiction over the chanel. Durova^Charge! 06:25, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

Very lovely of Jimbo to make such a declaration, and I think the gesture was made sincerely and with a desire to provide some form of reassurance that unacceptable behaviour would be treated identically on-IRC and on-wiki. I think it would be a critical error on the part of Arbcom to accept that role. Arbcom is a creature of this project. En-WP is a child project of the Wikimedia Foundation, which has explicitly disclaimed any role in or responsibility for IRC. I do not believe that our project (or any arm of it) can claim jurisdiction for something for which our parent WMF denies having any responsibility or authority. The Foundation has very good reasons for keeping IRC beyond arm's length - it is outside of their span of control, IRC does not run on its servers, and anyone can set up an IRC channel for any purpose and call it #wikipedia-whatever, as is clear from the number of channels currently listed as being under James Forrester's control. Further, Arbcom clearly has its plate full enough with on-wiki issues, and does not need to become IRC-Nanny too. All in all, it is a very bad idea. Risker (talk) 06:57, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

Jimbo and I don't see eye to eye on this matter. Durova^Charge! 07:06, 23 January 2008 (UTC) I sent the club a wire stating, "PLEASE ACCEPT MY RESIGNATION. I DON'T WANT TO BELONG TO ANY CLUB THAT WILL ACCEPT ME AS A MEMBER". (Groucho Marx) - Telegram to the Friar's Club of Beverly Hills to which he belonged, as recounted in Groucho and Me (1959), p. 321

I fully support Risker's suggestions above. LessHeard vanU (talk) 13:48, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

Jimbo has also said that he wouldn't override an Arbcom decision. I don't know if he meant it in these circumstances but I think he'd go along if Arbcom decided to reject any responsibility over IRC. Risker has made the argument nicely. It's time to make a clean break here. RxS (talk) 16:08, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

The best thing to prevent future flareups would be to get a firm demarcation of admin channel IRC's status. Do site conduct standards apply to the channel? What is the scope and the role of the wikipedia page about it? Rake the dead leaves ten feet from the nearest cabin to minimize damage from potential forest fires. Durova^Charge! 20:12, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

I certainly agree, there's a proposed enforcement section on the workshop page (see # 4.4.2 Solomon solution) that outlines some options for either case. Bring it all the way into the tent or kick it out totally. I think cutting it loose makes the most sense, but I'd be happy with a coin toss also :) RxS (talk) 20:52, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

Proposed principle 17, "Policy issues surrounding IRC"

This looks a little odd as a principle. Perhaps it's really a finding of fact related to the case. --Tony Sidaway 01:18, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

• Well, we're putting down a marker. It might qualify as an obiter dictum. Mackensen (talk) 01:39, 23 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Could we cut or explain the legal terminology? Carcharoth (talk) 07:49, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

Obiter dictum is a remark or observation made by a court or judge that, although included in the body of the court's opinion, does not form a necessary part of the court's decision; for example, where a court rules that it lacks jurisdiction to hear a case or dismisses the case on a technicality, but makes a side comment or explores a hypothetical situation that parallels the discussed case. Obiter dicta are not binding on other courts or future cases. Example - Judge says, "There is insufficient evidence to proceed in this case; however, if a similar case was before me that included evidence A,B and C, then there would be sufficient evidence."  :-) Risker (talk) 07:56, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

Regarding Remedy 6, "IRC"

If the issue will be addressed "separately" from this case, then in what form will the decision be delivered? Will it simply be a post on the administrator's noticeboard, or what? Sean William @ 01:53, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

• See above. Arbcom is putting down a marker. Mackensen (talk) 01:58, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

Little rant

It seems that everything necessary to close this case is passing. What we need most is clarification of who governs IRC and the status of its page. Once that is done, I do not think we will see a repeat of these sorry incidents. None of the parties involved need to be banned or restricted.

As for the brutal insults that occurred on IRC, the most effective remedy will come from the community via social pressure. When somebody shoots off their mouth in an unacceptable way, they hurt their own reputation. Nothing ArbCom can do will change that situation at all.

The parties should kiss and make up. That's also something beyond the power of ArbCom to enforce. Either people will forgive, or they won't.

Thank you for listening to my little rant. Now, how about we all get back to work? Jehochman ^Talk 03:38, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

• If it were so simple as that I doubt we would have gotten here in the first place. Mackensen (talk) 04:15, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

Closing this case would be easy. Now resolving the underlying issue first would make sense, but I see proposals to put this off. Why close the case with the cause still open? Disappointing. Jd2718 (talk) 04:46, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

• I think it's really this simple. Ego can drive people to engage in the lamest disputes because nobody wants to lose face. When that happens, trouts all around works in real life, and I see no reason why it won't work here. Jehochman ^Talk 04:55, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

Quite right.

The classic Wikipedia way to resolve this longrunning and recurring dispute, and the way I favor, is for each of us to resolve in future to act in a way that is beyond reproach. Nearly all of the parties to this arbitration have been criticised, to a greater or lesser degree, for some action of theirs that contributed to it.

Rather than quibble about details, I propose that we each step back and consider that there may be some justice in the criticism, that any preoccupation with assignment of blame could only damage the community further, that all parties in their different ways have done immensely valuable work for Wikipedia in the past and are likely to continue to do so, and that we would not, in all honesty, have wished to bring Wikipedia to this point through our manner of pursuing our personal differences. We should apologise to one another and resolve to do better. The community should hold us to that promise. --Tony Sidaway 04:57, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

Hear hear. Seeing that so many roads to hell are paved with good intentions, "resolve" might not exactly be the best way of putting it, if you'll forgive my splitting that hair. Kosebamse (talk) 07:08, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

Appeals (if necessary)

Trying to head off any big furore with a possible exit strategy (hopefully the exit strategy won't cause it's own furore). If, say, after a month or so, a ban is appealed, do the retiring arbitrators come back to participate in the appeal, or can the new committee overturn any ban without needing to let the retiring arbitrators return? For the record, the retiring arbitrators (currently) active in this case are Fred Bauder and Mackensen. The others (inactive) are Raul, Neutrality and SimonP. In general, the prinicple of whether retiring arbitrators participate in appeals relating to cases they participated in should be made clear (if it hasn't already). Obviously, at some point, the retiring arbitrators have to disengage. Carcharoth (talk) 08:11, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

I think this is looking for a problem. Former arbitrators aren't normally allowed to participate in appeals or requests for clarifications simply because they were one of the Arbs who decided the original case. The participation of former admins must be limited to cases that were accepted during their terms, not to any later reconsideration of those cases. I can't imagine anyone would suggest the contrary given that it would involved departing fairly radically from past practice. WjBscribe 09:39, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

No. Appeals, like motions in prior cases, are heard by the committee as it is constituted at that moment. Mackensen (talk) 11:45, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

Proposed Remedy Giano II 2.1: banned from project space

See also Lar's post above.[13]

(Excuse the length, please, but I've been shutting up for a long time, perhaps to general relief, and plan to return right back to that state.) "There are levels of unseemly conduct that even superlative contributions cannot excuse", writes Kirill Lokshin, in endorsing the proposed one-year ban from project space for Giano. But apparently any level of provocation and taunting levelled at Giano can be excused, since Tony Sidaway and Phil Sandifer don't even get mentioned on the Proposed decisions page—no admonishment, no sanctions, not even a Finding of Fact or mention by name for them. Yet these two eminences grises, Phil and Tony, are the people who've turned this arbitration into a shambles, who've poked and pricked and let loose the dogs of war on the workshop, the evidence, and on this very page. No Remedies for them—only for those they've goaded? Wow. Please note that I'm not talking about Tony Sidaway's original taunt of me on IRC—bah—Bishzilla no such tender violet! Tony and I have talked that over long ago. No, I'm talking about Tony's disruption of these arbitration pages: for instance, his attacks on Giano; followed by anguished assurances that he'll never talk about Giano again; followed by more attacks on Giano. Somebody who's been around the place as long as FloNight (endorsing the proposed Giano ban in turn, on the argument that other users "look inward and see problems with their own conduct") might be expected to recognise Tony's typical outrage/apology/promise-to-behave-better-for-ever-more/here-we-go-again cycle. (Remember RFAR/InShaneee?) Tony's conduct may end in introspection, and I'm not suggesting it's hypocritical. But how can it be infinitely tolerable to a committee that doesn't even think we can afford a little multicultural slack to a Sicilian? Is Tony worth is because of "superlative contributions"? (Where are they?) Tony has disrupted the conduct of this case, and the other cases summarized here, very deeply And he hasvery deeply affected the conduct of the users he attacks. Those are the same users right now being demeaned and humiliated on the Proposed Decisions page, while Tony gets off scot free, his role apparently unrecognized by the committee (really? how can it be?).

Phil Sandifer's conduct on the arbitration pages looks the same to me as Tony's, minus the regrets—I'm not going to specify— I can't face writing up the examples wrt Phil, with the gross attack on myself—I'll be damned if I bother to find a diff collection about it. If the ArbCom is interested in Phil's conduct, which looks unlikely on the face of it, I suppose they've followed it. If they're not, as the silence about him on the Proposed Decisions page suggests, I don't imagine I can make them take an interest.

The ArbCom are seemingly too tender of individual users to mention Tony and Phil by name. This tenderness is unequally applied. For instance, it's apparently not felt to be a problem to leave me and my disruptiveness sitting in the stocks of a proposed Finding of Fact for a couple of weeks while nothing happens. (I wrote to a couple of arbs trying to explain how I felt in that position, and was met with an utter lack of interest and empathy.) The committee makes no problem of pointlessly discussing things that obviously aren't going to happen, like a 1RR for me, or a proposition for desysopping Geogre (seriously: qué?), or to explain why Giano must be banned from project space—all by name. All tending to redefine previously "good" users into "problem users", the kind of people the project is better off without. But x and y—Tony and Phil— are not to be mentioned.

It's probably a psychological truth that individuals don't tend to be ashamed of what their group does. And that if they are, they won't say, because group dynamics work against it. Pity, that, because I'd really be interested in knowing if any of you arbitrators are ashamed of how you have allowed this case to develop, or how you have let individuals be squeezed between the millstones of a dysfunctional process. If you're aware that these are all people. Not just x and y, but the rest of us, too. All of us are people, and some of us have even done some stuff for the encyclopedia.

Note to Mackensen. By past experience, I rather expect a quick posting of a few drops of contempt from you right here, designed to neutralize anything I say, and there's obviously nothing I can do about it. You have the right to post when and where you like, and it's not for me to try to direct it. I'm just asking, as a kindness, that you let FloNight or Kirill or Paul August respond to me before you do. Obviously, I may be quite deluded in thinking that they'll even notice this post of mine, or wish to reply to it. But still. Bishonen | talk 14:57, 23 January 2008 (UTC).

I find your post somewhat odd since I made a Fof regarding Tony as my first business of the day. I'm not satisfied with the case as it now stands and plan to make more changes. FloNight (talk) 15:20, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

Odd? Do you? I guess it's all for the best that I post so rarely, then. (As Carcharot surmised, it took me a long time to write that long post; I wasn't aware that a FoF had appeared in the meantime.) Bishonen | talk 16:40, 23 January 2008 (UTC).

Given the timing, it is entirely possible Bishonen started writing the very long post above before you posted your FoF, and saved it after you saved your FoF. As the person who originally pointed out the imbalance (though I'm sure you and others noticed it as well), I'd like to thank you for your original promise to write such a FoF, and for the FoF that you have now posted. I realise some arbitrators have less time than other arbitrators or some of the parties or observers of this case, and it is much appreciated. Carcharoth (talk) 15:49, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

Bishonen makes a good point (among others) here:

"For instance, it's apparently not felt to be a problem to leave me and my disruptiveness sitting in the stocks of a proposed Finding of Fact for a couple of weeks while nothing happens. (I wrote to a couple of arbs trying to explain how I felt in that position, and was met with an utter lack of interest and empathy.)"

Someone involved in another arbitration case (Adam Cuerden in the MatthewHoffman case) has expressed similar feelings. It seems he wrote to the arbitration committee and similarly felt rebuffed by a wall of silence and/or indifference. I suggest that the Arbitration Committee ensure that all communications are acknowledged, even if only to say "received, will be able to answer in x number of days", or, if the workload is too much, that this is discussed in various places to try and improve communications. Sure, arbitrators sometimes have to remain uninvolved and at a distance, but addressing such things as inattention to a case, or failure to leave a note saying that arbcom mailing list discussions are ongoing and that something will be forthcoming soon, might help to smooth progress through the stages of a case. Carcharoth (talk) 15:40, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

I first mentioned my decision to cease discussing Giano's conduct here in an edit on Newyorkbrad's talk page about six days ago. I am not aware of discussing his conduct since then. I think Bishonen is mistaken. --Tony Sidaway 15:54, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

A short pause in a long pattern could be views as insignificant, or might even go unnoticed. If you keep avoiding discussions of Giano's conduct, people eventually will notice. You might want to strike the last sentence you wrote. Poking Giano's friends looks like poking Giano, even though that is probably not your intention. Jehochman ^Talk 16:05, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

I'm not poking anyone. When I say I think Bishonen is mistaken, I mean merely that I think Bishonen has her facts wrong on that particular matter (her statement that I promised not to discuss Giano's conduct, and then resumed commenting on it). --Tony Sidaway 16:11, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

Although you phrased it more specifically, you made a similar statement here on the 14th. I am not raking your contributions, but that came to my mind without much thinking. Kosebamse (talk) 18:38, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

You're right. I have kept my resolution for nine days, not five. This is a hopeful sign. :) --Tony Sidaway 18:47, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

Eleven whole days, if you count back this far. Whoopee! I'm sorta making progress. --Tony Sidaway 18:53, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

I don't think that said eleven days are much reason for jubilation, given the cyclical pattern of behavior that Bishonen outlined above. Unless you mean it, for once. Even then it would be a long way to the standard of conduct that a certain Tony Sidaway set by saying There is no excuse for incivility on Wikipedia. Kosebamse (talk) 19:18, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

As I have already remarked, I believe that Bishonen's description of cyclic behavior is incorrect. Moreover my cessation of discussion of Giano's conduct is permanent, as is my voluntary departure from the IRC channel. It is true that Bishonen and I have had cyclic rows over IRC and I have done my part to end them once and for all. I have left the channel and played no part in the edit war over the page. I stand by my words of 2005 and recognise that I have failed to live up to them (as have we all). --Tony Sidaway 19:26, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

In reply to Bishonen:

You are, of course, entirely correct that other users have also acted improperly; but we have not yet finished drafting the decision, and I anticipate we will deal with everyone in due course. Some people may require more forceful approaches than others, of course, because of their unresponsiveness to more subtle cues.

And yes, I do regret that our inaction has resulted in the dispute escalating further, and all the unfortunate personal consequences thereof. We have delayed drafting remedies in this case far more than usual, mostly because there are deep divisions within the Committee regarding what the best course of action should be, but also because we continued—even as recently as a few days ago—to harbor the (unfortunately naive) hope that certain participants here would step away from the brink of the crevasse rather than jumping in.

(Having said that, I do not think it is fair to place all the blame for this sordid little affair on our shoulders. It is all well and good to say that we should have stepped in earlier; but, in all honesty, everyone involved here ought to have known better. We can excuse a certain level of angry bickering, but some of the rhetoric seen here was utterly offensive.) Kirill 03:12, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

Kirill, you do realise that when you (and others) say things like this, it comes awfully close to indicating a personal dislike of the rhetoric in question? How can an arbitrator be expected to judge remedies calmly and objectively if they are personally upset by what they have observed? Arbitrators should be able to look beyond the petty nature of the dispute and see the larger picture. I'll say more in another section. Carcharoth (talk) 13:37, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

Note

It bears mentioning that Arbitration cases are a work in progress, and will always be so if and when Arbcom dispenses with these pages altogether and takes everything private. An idea not without its merits, frankly, but it's not my call anymore. I would suggest to commentators that on seeing principle/finding/remedy X, a good question/statement is:

• Okay, you've proposed X, are you considering Y?

...and not...

• How can you propose X but not Y?

We're not out and out evil people, just flawed folks trying to make the best of a bad job. It's entirely possible that we're considering Y but haven't decided on phrasing, or we're looking for diffs, or we got up and went to the john. It's also true that we're not good about acknowledging input. If you saw how much mail comes into arbcom-l you'd understand how acknowledgments get lost in the shuffle. That's an explanation but not an excuse. These things happen. Mackensen (talk) 16:26, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

The john? For two weeks? Dysentery? Bishonen | talk 17:07, 23 January 2008 (UTC).

The less said about the water supply in the Arbcom lounge the better. Mackensen (talk) 17:12, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

Sometimes I wish there was a way to give a plus point or star to certain comments, and this is one. --Rocksanddirt (talk) 19:29, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

Motion to dismiss

As I believe that this case is doing more harm to our encyclopedia than good, I have offered a motion to dismiss this case. Paul August ☎ 16:28, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

Please don't do this. Or else it will just be back here again. There needs to be some sort of resolution here. Hell, just put all the involved parties on civility probation. No one even needs to dredge up diffs, it's all right here on this talk page and obvious common knowledge that DOES NOT NEED ANOTHER set of 100 diffs. Anyone who disputes this (any of you) should be blocked for being obnoxious. This shit has to stop. If the AC can't finesse a solution then just club everyone gently and be done with it (sorry to all):

• Phil (trolling, baiting, incivility)
• Tony (trolling, baiting, incivility)
• Geogre (incivility)
• Giano (incivility)

Indefinite civility probation. Violate, any uninvolved admin (no one named here as a party or involved in any previous conflict with the four) can issue escalating blocks. Everyone wins, everyone loses, bad blocks bringing a massive hammer from Arbcom. Most importantly, Wikipedia wins as everyone is leashed (for better or worse) and we can all go write some fucking articles again, since that's the only ultimate reason we're here. Lawrence § t/e 16:27, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

Yes! Dismissing the case is exactly the right idea. The status of IRC should be clarified via a calm discussion, not within the context of a heated, personal dispute. Any reprehensible behavior that has occurred will be dealt with by the Wikipedia community and by the IRC community respectively. Jehochman ^Talk 16:37, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

Sorry J, it's absolutely the wrong idea or this will just continue. If Phil and Tony want to bait and snap at Geogre and Giano and vice versa (all depending on the perspective of who is watching) lets just muzzle everyone. The first one to act like a child then gets bit by the community and we can move on very soon if they don't learn. Lawrence § t/e 16:40, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

The basis for dismissing the case should be whether a completed decision can contribute or not. If the principles, findings and remedies can't be expected to make a dent in solving the problem then it should be dismissed. I don't think that is the case, here. Even if the problem isn't permanently solved, the history of a final decision with appropriate findings and principles is valuable should the issues here need to be addressed again. Without a complete decision, all of the work on this page is ultimately of no meaning. ^Avruchtalk 16:42, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

ec I agree with Lawrence. Unitl the underlying problems of the relationship of IRC (especially the admins channel) to en.wikipedia is clarified, codified, and community endorsed, this case is not over. Now, there has been plenty of poor behavior related to this case, but it is mostly not disrupting the production of an encyclopedia, except as taking folks away from that activity. --Rocksanddirt (talk) 16:42, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

It is my intention to get to the root of the problem and craft a ruling that the majority of the Arbitration Committee will support. FloNight (talk) 16:57, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

Dismissing this case is in the best interest or Wikipedia. As it stands now, the only remedy is to harm wikipedia by telling a useful contributor he can't communicate on certain pages. But he can email and talk on article pages and at wiki-back and wikipedia review and say there what he otherwise would say in project space. And for what? Because he improved wikipedia by insisting that wikipedia take responsibility for admin behavior on IRC resulting in Jimbo doing exactly that. Is that not what IAR is about? Doing whatever helps wikipedia? Well that is what was done. Only some people don't want wikipedia to be improved in ways that are outside their control, so they feel the need to crush people that are not a member of their team. Demonstrate that you are about improving wikipedia. Dismiss the case. WAS 4.250 (talk) 17:11, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

If ArbCom wants our support, they should reject remedies that are obviously harmful to the project. I know trolls. Giano is not a troll. Jehochman ^Talk 17:20, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

A strong argument can be made that edit warring doesn't improve Wikipedia. — Carl (CBM · talk) 17:43, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

Edit warring in general does not help. There are exceptions; some of which are spelled out in policy and others such as this case that are not spelled out but are covered by the IAR policy. Sometimes ya gotta make a fuss to get results. Prior efforts to solve the lack of accountability of admin behavior regarding IRC did not solve that problem. Due to a fuss being made, attention was paid and Jimbo accepted accountability over wikipedia admin behavior at IRC. This helps wikipedia. WAS 4.250 (talk) 18:00, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

IAR in no way relates to edit warring. Edit warring is not avoided because there is a policy against it, but because it is antithetical to the consensus-building process. There were numerous avenues available to pursue any perceived issues with IRC besides "causing a fuss"; we expect all editors to edit with composure, dignity, and self control. — Carl (CBM · talk) 19:33, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

This case may have to be dismissed because if 7 members of the AC could have agreed on a remedy, I think it would probably have been done by now. I also favor dismissal. But if that too is not possible, how about a remedy that is both more commiserate to the harm caused, and equitable to the parties of this case. I'm thinking maybe a block of a few day or about a week for anyone who (1) edit "warred" over 2 days or (2) used admin buttons to edit, while keeping non-admins from editing, or (3) used the same admin button more than once (that is to say, the same admin action at least twice, e.g. to either protect or unprotect). Maybe it's a token remedy, but it will be seen as being fair without actually perpetuating more harm to the project.

• More important than the above: one thing that does need to be made absolutely clear, "special" pages should have to be declared as such so that everyone knows where they stand when they edit -this is a wiki, transparency is critical. R. Baley (talk) 17:27, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

I agree with your idea, but there's still potential for abuse, like in this case: What if a page is declared "special" for no other reason than to silence criticism, remove important but unflattering history, and eliminate pleas to address problems - especially when all other routes to address grievances turned out to be dead ends? --Duk 18:00, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

• I think it is very likely that, if no remedies pass in this case, another case will emerge. My evidence is the previous arbitration cases without remedies. — Carl (CBM · talk) 17:43, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

I do too. Surely the goal has to be to stop this sort of disruption continuing, rather than punishing editors for a month old edit war. I would support a dismissal if I thought the protagonists had got the message: stop violating policies and disrupting the 'pedia to continue your clash of egos. However, the refusal of most of them to even accept that they did anything wrong, never mind show any willingness to remedy that in the future, means a dismissal now will simply lead to another case down the line. Have already demonstrated that requests do not work, the committee have to decide whether or not it is their job to take bold steps to stop this disruptive, ongoing war of words. Rockpocket 17:45, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

My suggestion of an absolute bright-line, no-negotiation, enforced civility probation is probably based on the history here the most prevantative rather than punitive solution imaginable. Nothing else has worked. The important caveat is that anyone misapplying such blocks will be equally as prone to sanction, so everyone would be on notice. If someone actually does keep it up then, on either/any side depending on all our POVs, the reponding firm slapping would put a swift end to it. If anyone kept it up past that, we'd know who didn't truly care about Wikipedia because they would be the one with the ever-lengthening blocks. Lawrence § t/e 17:55, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

My personal opinion is that a civility probation would simply lead to snide comments that flirted the line of civility resulting in more partisanship as editors aligned along the it was incivil — it was not incivil axis. Maybe I'm a cynic, but these guys are wordsmiths, they turn baiting each other into an art-form. Moreover, that would not address the fact that individuals from both sides appear to think that our core policies, not just WP:CIV, doesn't apply to them because they think they are acting for some higher good. Nevertheless, if there cannot be agreement on more creative solutions, a blanket civility parole would be a start, if only to enforce what we all should be adhering to anyway. Rockpocket 18:12, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

I agree with rocketpocket. These are varsity players, gaming this sort of remedy would be sport. --Rocksanddirt (talk) 19:25, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

As a note, I considered such remedies but rejected them for the reasons outlined above: any remedy with a subjective element will simply cause drama. Regrettably this backs the committee into a corner. Mackensen (talk) 19:27, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

Arbitrary section break

Paul, could you elaborate why you believe that this does more harm than good? As unpleasant as the whole affair may have been, it seems to have helped clarify a number of points (behavior of certain users, assumptions of ownership of a page), even though the central questions (authority of Wikipedia's institutions over that darned IRC channel, acceptability of rudeness outside Wikipedia) seem to have been avoided/postponed. Are you hinting at differences within the arbitration committee that could become overly disruptive if the case is pursued any further? Kosebamse (talk) 17:47, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

If this is causing internal strife and disruption on the AC, that is the AC's matter to sort out. They chose to take on the mantle. If I may make a delicate suggestion. If the strife is primarily coming from ex-arbiters on the list, or from outgoing arbiters, or those with history or known COIs with the involved parties, perhaps those individuals should be made to recuse now, and not as a choice. Lawrence § t/e 17:58, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

Well my question is not based on any factual knowledge, it's purely speculative. However, as you can see from my arguments above (Gerard FoF section and elsewhere) I would certainly agree that conflicts of interest exist here and should be adressed, although neither Gerard nor the arbitration committee seem inclined to do so. Kosebamse (talk) 18:18, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

David Gerard has kept himself at a proper distance. Lawrence's suggestion is a good one; if indeed the "strife" was caused by such, there might be an issue; but that's not the case. The Arbitration Committee is a pretty good reflection of the community as a whole, and as such tends to be divided on issues on which the community is divided. --jpgordon^∇∆∇∆ 18:48, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

David Gerard has participated in mailing list discussions concerning this case. The Committe is under the handicap of conducting discussions in front of a party to the case. Paul August ☎ 18:58, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

I have previously suggested that arbitrators who are parties to a case should not be in on the discussions. This has happened to me twice, and both times it felt uncomfortable and unfair. I urge the committee to come up with a technical solution that allows a recused arbitrator to be fully recused. Jehochman ^Talk 19:06, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

David Gerard is not an arbitrator. Mackensen (talk) 19:18, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

He doesn't get to vote, but he is on the mailing list. The other parties to this case are not. Jehochman ^Talk 19:25, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

Agree with Jehochman. Editors who are a party in the dispute should not be able to see, much less participate in the deliberations. If it feels uncomfortable and unfair, it is because it is not fair, or just, for that matter. However it has been handled in the past, this needs to stop. R. Baley (talk) 19:21, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

I like David Gerard and have no complaints against him. This objection is procedural. This is an opportunity to improve the functioning of the Committee. Jehochman ^Talk 19:24, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

Absolutely, this should be universal in it's application. It's not a slap to DG, it's just the right thing to do. R. Baley (talk) 19:40, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

If I may ask Paul a question relating to similar situations in past arbitrations, was there perceived to be a similar handicap when the Committee discussed arbitrator Jayjg's conduct in the cases of Yuber and CharlotteWebb, in both of which Jayjg was eventually sanctioned (in the former as an active arbitrator, in the latter, as a former arbitrator), or arbitrator SimonP's conduct in KJV in which SimonP, then a newly appointed active arbitrator, was the sole defendant and the only person sanctioned? If so, how was the problem resolved? --Tony Sidaway 19:11, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

• I guess most folk, who care, know what my views are, so you hopefully won't mind me stating; as in everything else, timing is paramount. When it is just Giano and those of that ilk facing findings, decisions and sanctions then this procedure - be it ever so burdened and driven over stony ground - proceeds, but when the other parties to the dispute start making appearances within the pages the cry goes up that the case be dismissed... Am I to assume that everyone has suddenly realised how the sanctioning of Giano is a deficit for the encyclopedia - or is there some other reason that I have failed to comprehend? LessHeard vanU (talk) 21:20, 23 January 2008 (UTC)(edit: I guess there was. LessHeard vanU (talk) 13:52, 24 January 2008 (UTC))
  • Given that the parties against dismissal are also in favor of the findings concerning other editors, I suspect that's not the case. You'd have to ask Paul. Mackensen (talk) 21:29, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

I think it's a bit more complicated. Since giano never gets worked up unless there is a reason, he can't be restricted as a normal unhelpful user. When it is tried to to so, folks point out that regardless, giano has a valid point, and that restricting him means also restricting others....which would be not helpful either...we heal either calls to drop it, or get at the root issues. It appears that there is an attempt to get at the root issues, for which I am hugely relieved for the project. --Rocksanddirt (talk) 21:33, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

• • • To Paul August, per above; why now? What is the specific damage to the encyclopedia now that was not apparent (for instance) a week ago? Would you at least confirm that the suggestion is possibly open to interpretation as I have alluded to? Thanks. LessHeard vanU (talk) 21:41, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

LHvU, Paul was away from about New Years until just a day ago. I think he was more or less right. Let the Arbs deal with IRC, and when they're done, minus grumbling, this (meaning this series of flare ups) will most likely be past. In the meantime we're just stirring the pot. Jd2718 (talk) 13:46, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the clarification - I have now struck my original comment. LessHeard vanU (talk) 13:52, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

FoF/"Comments by Tony Sidaway and Phil Sandifer": a question for FloNight

FloNight, may I ask what you're referring to where you say in your recently posted FoF "Comments by Tony Sidaway and Phil Sandifer" that "Phil realized that his comments were misinterpreted and apologized"? It seems likely that you're talking about Jan 17th, probably this remark by Phil. I don't believe he apologized. (Nor do I want him to, absolutely not; I detest constrained apologies with a passion.) You see, I checked the page history before I broke my previous three weeks of silence and restored the thread, and asked Phil to stop removing it.[14] I wasn't going to interfere like that if he had, even remotely, apologized/expressed regret for his attacks on me. But I couldn't, and can't, see him doing that. (On the contrary, in angry response to my single and rare post he accused me of a "scorched earth" approach and again deleted the thread.) Where do you see him apologizing, please? On a different page? Or have I missed it after all? Or is the FoF erroneous? P. S. BTW, your wording implies that Phil's comments were in your opinion misinterpreted by the people who were outraged by them. How's that..? Bishonen | talk 21:56, 23 January 2008 (UTC).

The allusion seemed unintentional - a poor choice of words - and he did withdraw it as soon as he understood my objection (it took me a couple of tries to articulate the problem adequately). He might not have withdrawn it in the way you preferred and I hope the two of you can work that out. People don't necessarily handle these things perfectly in stressful situations. Likewise - when it comes to poor choices of words directed at or about women - there are a couple of posts to this page from today that I hope the poster withdraws. Durova^Charge! 22:11, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

With respect, Durova, you're waffling. I asked about the claim that Phil apologized, which is stated as a Finding of Fact. All I need for that fact is a diff. Something that I would vaguely have "preferred" isn't relevant. Nor whether Phil handled something (what?) "perfectly" or not. Nor are posts by other people relevant unless there's a FoF about them. If it's a Finding of a Non-Fact, it simply shouldn't be on the page, misleading other arbs. Bishonen | talk 22:49, 23 January 2008 (UTC).

What would you like me to do, ask Phil for a specific apology? Durova^Charge! 22:52, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

I believe Bish is saying the current FoF is wrong, unless someone can provide a link to the already-existing apology that it cites. Or am I reading it wrong too? Withdrawing a statement is not apologizing. Lawrence § t/e 22:54, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

I believe Flo copied that from the proposals I added to the Workshop today (at the bottom of the page) which I wrote from memory without checking diffs. If Phil retracted the comment but did not specifically apologize that should probably be corrected. Thatcher 22:57, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

Thank you, Thatcher. And to Bishonen, what I mean is that incivility toward women because they're women is wrong. Not just wrong-when-the-target's-already-my-buddy, but wrong. Durova^Charge! 23:02, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

Yes...yes... [Bemused.] Am I really reading this? Me: "I don't believe he apologized. (Nor do I want him to, absolutely not; I detest constrained apologies with a passion.)" ... Durova: "What would you like me to do, ask Phil for a specific apology?" I hope it doesn't sound rude, but what in my post makes you think I want you to do anything? What I was asking was for FloNight to tell me if her FoF was right or wrong, of course with the implication that she ought to change it if it was wrong. Now, you—Durova—can't change things on that page. You're not an arbitrator. Flo needs to do it, if it wants doing. And Thatcher, yes, you misremembered, would you like a little atomic deathray? Bishonen | talk 23:17, 23 January 2008 (UTC).

I took the liberty of fixing the proposal, since it was based on my suggestion, and added diffs. Now will you point the death ray somewhere else? Thatcher 00:06, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

I heartily endorse this event or product. Mackensen (talk) 00:38, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

Bishonen, your post was unclear. When you single someone out by name, accuse the person of waffling then list some problems that weren't of that person's making and are outside the person's power to fix, then the best faith reply you can receive is for the person to ask Then what do you want me to do? Durova^Charge! 00:46, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

I hope that FloNight or another arbitrator will consider expanding this FoF to include discussion of the highly unorthodox 3RR block that Phil Sandifer imposed on Giano, which escalated this "incident" from an already-ended and isolated edit war on an isolated page to discussions on WP:ANI and (within minutes) another editor initiating an RFAR. Note that I consider the 3RR block to be unorthodox because it ignored so many other factors, including another editor violating 3RR, the fact that the edit war was over, the fact that multiple other editors/admins were involved in the edit war, and the fact that (as a first 3RR block) it was for 72 hours instead of the policy-prescribed 24 hours. Risker (talk) 22:19, 23 January 2008 (UTC) Corrected based on review of timeline; thanks to Carcharoth. Risker (talk) 23:48, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

As the edit war had flared up several times in a row, I confess to skepticism that it was over. Phil Sandifer (talk) 05:05, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

Off topic but related question

what has the activity on the admins irc channel been like as this case has ground on? less chatty more business? gossipy about the channel and case and participants? --Rocksanddirt (talk) 22:35, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

I can only speak to the times when I am in channel but it seems to be generally more on-topic more of the time and there are more voices to steer it back on topic when it drifts. Thatcher 22:48, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

I'm glad. maybe folks are going to take it more seriously as a work channel. --Rocksanddirt (talk) 23:11, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

A Modest Proposal

What is wrong with you people? Shouldn't this case be renamed to "All Our Yesterdays"? Can't everybody think about tomorrow instead?

1. If the #admins channel is a problem, scrap it. Set up an official IRC channel under the aegis of ArbCom and the community with established norms. Announce that the existing channel is deprecated and remove all mention of it from en:Wikipedia. Forget the past activity, until the minute Jimbo said it was ArbCom-able, it just plain wasn't. Move on.
2. If the ArbCom mailing list is compromised by having involved parties particpating in the list, then set up case-specific maillists when necessary to exclude the involved parties. Forget today, think about tomorrow.
3. If Giano is incivil in project spaces and looks to continue, bar him from project spaces for seven days. If there is a chance Giano will disrupt wiki-spaces as a result, bar him from all of en:wiki for three days. Now you've set a reasonable benchmark based on preventing further damage. Giano is a big boy, he can deal with it, and the community can figure out what to do if he is disruptive a week from now.
4. If Geogre is undertaking problematic admin actions, give him a strong caution. Let him figure out what that means and judge his future actions accordingly.
5. If David Gerard thinks he owns any pages, tell him that from now on he doesn't. Judge him by his future actions, don't use his punishment to even up someone else's. Remember that there are no punishments, there are only preventions, and move on.
6. If Tony Sidaway has acted like an idiot once, twice or all the time, caution him that his actions have been unacceptable and the community will hold him to his promise to reform.
7. If Bishonen is aggrieved at her previous treatment on the admins IRC channel, assure her that it is a new day, ask her to just forget the past and please come back and participate in the community. The sun also rises.
8. Any other named parties should be asked nicely to self-trout-slap at least once.

Forget about the IRC-this and IRC-that, embrace the philosophy of "wow, sometimes I can really act like an idiot". Move on... Franamax (talk) 22:42, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

Well said. Jehochman ^Talk 22:47, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

This is a proposal I can support. ^Avruchtalk 22:48, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

In an ideal world this would work, but if it did, we probably wouldn't be here now. Unfortunately there's some behaviour which isn't going to be settled by short, sharp blocks/bans and cautions - the committee needs to get to the bottom of long term problematic remedies that mean that situations like this won't arise in the future. Ryan Postlethwaite 22:53, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

I agree with most of the proposal, with the exception of editing limitations on editors. Otherwise double trouts all around, and a specific mandate that irc is part of en.wikipedia. --Rocksanddirt (talk) 23:09, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

Ryan, this sets a new "bottom of", it's the new reference point. Future actions are evaluated from this day forward. Rocks, no, Giano needs some sort of indicated limits just as we all do, like I say, he's a big boy and well able to assimilate new information. There is no emasculation here, just a new benchmark. I agree on IRC, but lets not argue endlessly about who owns the existing channel, isn't there something about "if thy right eye offends thee, cast it out"? This isn't a zero-sum game where everyone needs to "win" something, right now it's a confused and damaging process that needs to be resolved in a simple fashion. Franamax (talk) 23:24, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

my point is that a few days of ban/blockage are pointless. all the editors involved here will either learn from the unpleasantness here or not. If not, they need a 6 month ban/block to start gathering their attention. I disagree that it will end up being simple. once the arbcomm takes full control and states that the irc stuff is part of en.wikipedia, there will need to be multiple kilograms of electrons to discuss exactly how it's going to work. --Rocksanddirt (talk) 23:33, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

And my point is that the "few days" are the appropriate response as the beginning of a potentially escalating series of official sanctions for bad behaviour. Until you begin the sanction-series, any severe sanction is jumping the gun, so measure it out and hope the other party modifies their behaviour. Also, I would be loath to see Giano unavailable for article-writing for any length of time beyond that absolutely necessary. His future actions will dictate any future sanctions.

And my further point is that in fact IRC is indeed simple - create a new IRC admin channel with the specific proviso that it is subject to the same behavioural standards as en:Wikipedia itself. The owners of the new channel are answerable to the en:wiki community through en:ArbCom, no-one on freenode can object to that, as long as everything meets their standards, we can set every single one of our own standards as enforced by our own chanops. Discuss as an exercise for the reader, the starting point seems rather straightforward. Franamax (talk) 23:56, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

Personal attacks?

I am curious what evidence, if any, the finding that I have repeatedly engaged in personal attacks rests upon. To the best of what I can see, it is based on a single comment I made in relation to Bishonen's conduct - a comment that I stand by the substance of (which was, essentially, that Bishonen was not targetted and harassed, but got into an ugly pissing match with Tony on IRC) and have noted that I regret the original phrasing of (which could be construed as a comment about Bishonen "asking for it").

Would one of the two arbitrators currently supporting this finding please direct me to the evidence that is being used to justify it so that I can respond appropriately? Phil Sandifer (talk) 04:53, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

A second note - this finding appears to rest in part on a finding from the old Webcomics case that I had made personal attacks. I just went to look at that case, and from the Proposed Decision page it appears that the necessary threshold for a finding passing in that case was 5 votes - the finding in question got 4. While I have no desire to rules-lawyer a two-year-old finding, I have to say that suggesting that "previous warnings and arbitration case rulings have not resolved the problem" when, in fact, there is a single, two-year-old finding of personal attacks that didn't even pass is a bit far-fetched. Phil Sandifer (talk) 05:11, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

From Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Webcomics/Proposed_decision#All_parties_cautioned_to_remain_civil that passed 7-0

Aaron Brenneman, Dragonfiend, Snowspinner, and Tony Sidaway are all cautioned to remain civil even in stressful discussions.

And from Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Webcomics#Uncivil_remarks_by_Snowspinner that passed 6-0

Snowspinner has at times been uncivil etc etc.

Arguing about the one FoF that failed to pass (by a single vote) while ignoring the two items that passed with even one opposer seems to be missing the forest for the trees.

152.91.9.144 (talk) 05:20, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

Yes, I am aware of that remedy - so we are going from a single "all parties cautioned to remain civil" warning that is two years old to "repeated instances of personal attacks and incivility" that prior arbcom cases have failed to remedy? Traditionally cautions have been considered the lowest tier of warning, and, frankly, my conduct in the Webcomics case was a hell of a lot worse than my conduct related to this issue, making the escalation from a mild warning to a finding of repeated personal attacks uncurbed by past rulings puzzling at best. There is presumably some aspect of the evidence or ruling that I am missing here? Phil Sandifer (talk) 05:24, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

"There is presumably some aspect of the evidence or ruling that I am missing here?"

The fact that the majority of the community is absolutely fed up with Phil and/or Tony baiting and trolling Geogre and Giano, or vice versa, depending on the point of view of who is who's friend, and is collectively telling everyone to shut their mouths in a non-negotiable fashion for our well-being. I think thats the missing bit. I hope to God that is now becoming the arbiter's intention. Lawrence § t/e 05:28, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

I bait and troll Giano and Geogre? I may be wrong here, but as far as I know I'd never interacted with Giano prior to this case, and rarely did so with Geogre. You seem to be alleging a history of interactions that there is no evidence for and that doesn't actually exist. Phil Sandifer (talk) 05:30, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

Looking at the comment Phil Sandifer just made in relation to the section below this one, I'm tempted to agree with him here on what he's said there: That both of these findings are the result of this arbitration trying to be "all things to all people." Same goes for my proposed finding of fact w.r.t. Tony Sidaway. It would make sense (if the comitee had the stomache for it) to have seperate arbitrations for just about everyone involved to deal with each of their own particular issues. Barring that, we're going to get some half-way-pregnant finnings and remedies.
152.91.9.144 (talk) 05:31, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

I am quite open to having my conduct spun off into a separate arbitration if people have a serious objection to my conduct in any sort of general sense, it should be noted. Though I'd point out that I haven't been RFCed in two years (the last one was a tangental issue in the Kelly Martin userbox affair) and that no attempts at mediation with me on any of these issues have ever been made. If there is a dispute about my general conduct, I am happy and eager to address that dispute. But shoe-horning me into this case based on an exaggerated reading of a two year old case and a single comment on a talk page that I quickly accepted was poorly phrased seems deeply unfair. Phil Sandifer (talk) 05:37, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

You have a known history of incivility, stretching back years as demonstrated. My own first interaction with you on an AFD here was a circus of incivility, where one user actually said to me,

"Had I but world enough, and time, I'd show you that this particular example is fairly mild compared to some of Sandifer's commentary. Describing someone else's work as "crappy" is hardly civil, but it's what passes for mild commentary from Sandifer.^{[15] [16] [17]} --Ssbohio (talk) 03:07, 6 December 2007 (UTC)"

When I called you on it. You have a demonstrated years-long history of incivility, and (no offense or attack meant) have been the wikilawyering bulldog on this IRC matter for "one side", so for any consequences due to your actions, I'd say just suck it up. No offense. I'd actually say the same to everyone at this point, and ask the ArbCom to start bludgeoning in a wide swath. Nothing less but to just sanction all the main parties with a civility straight-jacket will probably ever work, that others can liberally apply, with ArbCom tightly smacking down any admins that overstop the bounds of enforcing that straight-jacket. Lawrence § t/e 05:39, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

So, basically, never mind that there's no evidence for the finding and that it's not true, we need to whack everybody and we'll do it whether it's honest or not? Phil Sandifer (talk) 05:44, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

This is all just my take on it, but I can't see another reason why, in the end, this is now being pushed forward. A solution that hurts and helps all the major parties is the only solution here that can work, and the wishes of the AC to be honest is probably irrelevant here. It's the community's will that needs to be answered here or it'll never end. The long term well being of the community together is more important now. Lawrence § t/e 05:46, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

If the community sincerely has any dispute with my conduct they should bring it up via an RFC, a request for mediation, or an actual arbcom case that involves evidence. Phil Sandifer (talk) 05:49, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

FWIW, Phil withdrew the comment as soon as he understood the objection, which is exactly what I would expect a basically decent person to do after writing something that looks worse than its intended meaning. Phil, would you be willing to extend an olive branch to Bishonen? Durova^Charge! 05:58, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

Certainly, inasmuch as I was aware that I was in any sort of extended dispute with her, which I largely wasn't. Phil Sandifer (talk) 06:09, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

In response to Phil's plea for dispute resolution to be carried out, I cannot help but reflect upon the contents of Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Webcomics#Statements_by_nominal_defendants. In that arbitration no attempt was made by Phil to use the normal means before he lowered the boom on his fellow editors. The difference here is what again?
152.91.9.144 (talk) 06:03, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

That was a dispute that had wound through four or five venues. This is a dispute that I'm not convinced exists, never mind exists in any actual prior form of resolution. Phil Sandifer (talk) 06:09, 24 January 2008

Surely you're aware of the dichotomy: In that case, those "afflicted" barely bothered to rebutt, they were so certain that dispute resolution was untried and would be appropiate. You disagreed, and pushed right to arbitration. However, when the shoe is paddeling the other foot upstream, you want to go through the rest of dispute resolution first. I'm simply asking if you can see that, barring your personal feelings about it, one might wonder if you're applying convenient and arbitrary standards.
152.91.9.144 (talk) 06:15, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

I am open to the possibility that the Webcomics case was premature. Phil Sandifer (talk) 15:49, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

• Phil is hilarious! "but got into an ugly pissing match with Tony on IRC) " is his reparation for sexist language. First, he wants to point at Bishonen's chest, and now he takes the phallocentric "pissing contest." Women don't engage in pissing contests. He believes that he has made one personal attack, and yet he's made two sexist and really silly statements in this alone. Given that, I recommend that people don't believe his assessment of the IRC exchange. Go look through the history and see the exchange yourself, decide for yourself. No one has been calling Snowspinner or Sidaway an "arsehole" or telling them to go somewhere else and tried to kick them off. Tony, of course, did, as a non-administrator, try to tell an administrator that she should not use this IRC channel... after calling her an arsehole and telling her to go somewhere else. Geogre (talk) 18:37, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/IRC/Proposed_decision#Geogre

We still have Geogre being labled "provocative and disruptive." Has it yet been established why David Gerard gets a bald statement of fact ("repeatedly reverted") and Geogre gets tainted with a strong value judgement? Even if we accept that David had reason to believe that he had special dispensation, George is being tarred for not knowing that when David didn't tell him?
152.91.9.144 (talk) 05:16, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

I'm actually inclined to agree at this point - the finding against Geogre seems to have a tenuous relationship at best with the evidence. Although I support sanction against Geogre, his conduct in the WEA matter was frankly only minimally disruptive. The issue comes when one looks at his conduct as a whole and notices a pattern of incivility and provocation. But if this case is determined to restrict its lens to the WEA matter then there's not much there, I agree. Phil Sandifer (talk) 05:20, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

I'd add Bishonen to this comment as well. It's a point I was trying to make before the page got temporarily locked last week. It's quite unbalanced. RxS (talk) 05:39, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

Again, I agree - while there may be a finding to be had about Bishonen's wider conduct (I don't know - I'm not familiar with Bishonen's larger conduct), her conduct in this dispute was, while certainly not beyond reproach, also probably not sanctionable beyond a slap on the wrist and a "don't support people when they're being disruptive." Phil Sandifer (talk) 05:58, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

Arbs

I can appreciate the realisation of you, and your fellow Arbs behaviour is now common knowledge, must be worrying for you but removing it [18] merely suggests that you have more to hide. Planing punitive actions to hide the Arbs incompetency was hardly ever going to solve your problems. Contrary to the two emails I have received in the subject, and for your information, chewing someone's balls off and subsequently choking has nothing to do with fellatio and more to do with vicious revenge.

You Arbs started this case without the first thought for where it was gong to lead you, and now you are nearing the end of that path, it is a little late to be prim and angry when you find it has lead you only into a larger mess - a mess entirely of the Arbcom's own making. Did you all really think people were going to hang about for ever, smiling sweetly, while you all waited and deliberated over how best you could get yourselves out of this mess? Or is this divided chaos what you all planned from the start? In future when you cook up deals regarding ownership of Wikipedia pages and chatrooms I suggest you have the guts to announce it to the community - you'll find honesty really is often the best policy. It may even be the best thing for the encyclopedia too. Giano (talk) 13:34, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

I've restored the section header below with a note and a comment, for the record. Wholesale removal of an entire talk page thread like that, crucially without leaving a link (as I did below) is disruptive. Meeting one sort of disruption (and you should apologise for your comments, Giano, as they were excessive) with more disruption, is not the right way to handle this. Carcharoth (talk) 14:00, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

Its a case page designed to assist Arbitrators and discuss Arbitration - which would seem to give Arbitrators considerable leeway in managing the discussion, especially when it goes off the rails. Perhaps she should have just deleted it, and maybe locked the page again. ^Avruchtalk 14:31, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

• Carcharoth, my reply to Giano was calm and patient. I wanted to give him the chance to reflect on his poor choice of words and self revert. Instead he chose to respond with another vulgar post and make PAs. I do not see this as a conflict between myself and Giano, or Giano and other arbs. Rather, I see an editor making poor choices and violating policy that has been clearly spelled out on this page. There always has been difference of opinion about how to handle inappropriately worded posts to talk pages with some people wanting complete removal and others wanting them to stay. I think your middle ground of linking works in this situation. Thanks for trying to help out with this difficult situation. FloNight (talk) 14:49, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

• Thanks, FloNight. I did notice your calm response the first time. My problem is that the second comment "Flo, darling..." was clearly directed at you. Can you agree that it might have been better for someone else to handle that? It had already been up for some time (nearly 17 hours), so a quiet word with someone else might have been a better way to handle it. I agree that Giano is going way over the top here, but I also see people losing patience and not knowing how to handle him. Anyone who has really talked to him properly knows his bark is worse than his bite. Carcharoth (talk) 15:00, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

• Why? Can Giano immunize himself by insulting all the Arbitrators? I know Flo was deeply offended; maybe she wanted to avoid doing something in the heat of the moment, and upon a night's reflection decide that removal was indeed the appropriate response. Would it have made any difference if I had removed the thread? Thatcher 15:10, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

• Yes. See my talk page. Carcharoth (talk) 15:12, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

Giano on Giano

Originally posted further up this talk page, this thread was moved to Wikipedia talk:Requests for arbitration/IRC/Proposed decision/removed thread by arbitrator FloNight. See edit summary here. Since there is no talk page for that removed thread, any discussion should be directed here or to FloNight's talk page.

• My personal opinion? If FloNight felt that there had been a vulgar comment directed at her, she should have asked someone else to deal with it, or asked the editor making the comments to retract them. Arbitrators have to be able to deal with a certain amount of flack, and calmly deflect it. If they allowed themselves to be affected to the point of removing talk page threads, then it is questionable whether they can still remain objective. Carcharoth (talk) 14:00, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

• So you are saying that if an editor attacks an admin who seeks to control their disruption, the admin has to back off? I don't think so. This case is not a dispute between Giano and FloNight. Jehochman ^Talk 14:05, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

• Not back off, just try to avoid escalating the situation. Not all admins are skilled at diplomacy. If they realise they can't be diplomatic (sometimes they need to be told this by others) then in cases of attacks on them, they should ask someone else to judge what is best done. Seriously, most reasonable people will think twice when someone else calls them out on a personal attack. I'm of the opinion that personal attack warnings should always be done by others. When it is the person who was attacked, the effect of the warning is different. Carcharoth (talk) 14:35, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

• Personally I think the thread should stay up, but only because it's so indicative of the problem here. Mackensen (talk) 14:09, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

• I am a writer, I am not a teacher instructing on the difference between testicle chewing petty revenge and fellatio. If people do not know the difference then there is a little I can do to help them. Giano (talk) 14:10, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

• I knew the difference; frankly neither one is acceptable. Mackensen (talk) 14:14, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

• Frankly, I was surprised that the comment wasn't removed sooner. On any non-arbitration page I would have removed it myself. In this situation, I assumed that the clerk and arbitrators would decide on their preferred course of action. I'll point out that that comments of that sort are expressly covered ("taunting", "indecent suggestions") by the civility policy. — Carl (CBM · talk) 14:20, 24 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Carcharoth, please see Giano's talk page. I did ask him to remove or moderate the comment. In addition to his response on the page, he also sent me an obscene e-mail. Thatcher 14:24, 24 January 2008 (UTC)
    • So how do you calm a situation like that? Carcharoth (talk) 14:29, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

You delete the offensive comments and block the commenter. ^Avruchtalk 14:33, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

Remove the comments, yes. Blocking here would be best left until other possibilities had been exhausted. Again, trying to land the rocking aircraft safely is difficult, and throwing more weight around doesn't help stabilise the situation. Carcharoth (talk) 14:37, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

A better analogy: Trying to land an aircraft with a giant anchor on a wing is difficult. Throwing the anchor off is the only solution. ^Avruchtalk 14:42, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

Simply replace the other anchors on the other wing (or cut them all loose), instead of letting the other anchors remain inside the aircraft. To continue this tortured analogy, cutting loose this anchor might destablise the aircraft if the other anchors are not also dealt with. Carcharoth (talk) 15:03, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

To put paid to the analogy: Its an aircraft, it doesn't need anchors. When you see one, toss it off. ^Avruchtalk 15:06, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

Maybe we should switch to a boat? Carcharoth (talk) 15:08, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

A boat with a dragging parachute? ^Avruchtalk 15:20, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

I don't usually care enough about the drama here, but I feel the articles written by Giano (and others like him) are so very important for Wikipedia (the very survival of a place like Wikipedia is in its article content not the personal views of its editors) that I wish to comment and maybe bring a little bit of perspective. Let us remember that editors here come from all parts of the world. We do not all share the same sense of humor or get everyone’s "joke". Although I am from the "Bible Belt" of the US, where people tend to feel they are morally superior and may sound very self-righteous to others, I personally did not find Giano's comments at all offensive (maybe because my father is Italian?) and I did not feel they were directed at a particular woman or women. I feel that some have blown his comments way out of proportion and maybe should read up a bit on Italian humor, and maybe then they would understand why everyone else is not so outraged by his comments. Let us remember that too much self-righteous behavior (I won't name names) can be maddening and bring out incivility in all of us. The world is a big place and Wikipedia is for ALL of the world, so let us remember that we are all different and we must have tolerance for our differences and then we can find common ground. - Epousesquecido (talk) 18:14, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

Thank you for your comments. I'm pleased to see different users commenting and hear other perspectives. I also hope the users involved will seek to find common ground. That they have not agreed to move in that direction is the main issue. FloNight (talk) 20:48, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

:::I do not understand why all "remedies" focus on an individual editor and nothing is directed at the Admins that have such enormous freedom to poke their mop at whomever they please. Frankly, though I thought I could handle it, but there seems to be no way to avoid misbehaving Admins other than always retreating, with a "Yes Sir" attitude while those that they favor do as they want. Prior to the Zeraeph arbitration, I was ridiculed on AN/I page, because my name allegedly turns up there often. I got no help for the sock puppets that pursued me for over six months and were responsible for my many AN/I mentions. There is an admin who evoked his right to vanish just after being appointed as Mediator on issue supposedly revolving around me. He vanished allegedly because he was receiving death threats, but he was one of my persecutors and supported the sock puppets. Even though vanished, today he is still an Admin under a different name with no interlude. Obviously this was "worked out" behind the scenes. Why is there no oversight over this sort of thing while there is such undue emphasis on the behavior of an editor? I do not know Gianao, but the diffs in evidence show that he was interjecting the truth about the sexual harassment of another editor, which was repeatedly being removed by one of the "higher beings" apparently. I do not understand this. Mattisse 19:14, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

Several of named parties with remedies are admins. We are discussing whether any additional admins should be named in a Fof or remedy related to the blocks, unblocks, and page protections. FloNight (talk) 19:23, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

Open letter to the arbitration committee

Unfortunately, I see several arbitrators here focussing on the petty disputes and language, and not the larger picture. It was predictable that Giano would react the way he has, and a remedy like this is likely to perpetuate the bad blood, not resolve things. ArbCom resignations, the community calling for ArbCom reform (a request for comment on ArbCom or on individual arbitrators), and so on - is that really what is needed? All these are possible, if horrendous to contemplate, but they might happen. If people really get the message that a minor dispute on an obscure page was so mishandled by ArbCom that a prolific contributor (and many others with him) left the project (I hope they don't, but I agree that restricting people from Wikipedia namespace makes them a second-class citizen). If this is how people perceive what may happen here, then there may be a groundswell of support for ArbCom reform. I've said it before, and I'll say it again, when ArbCom is bitterly divided, it should work to find a solution that the whole ArbCom and the community can support - putting on a united front. Anything else just makes the problem worse, and makes ArbCom part of the problem. Carcharoth (talk) 13:42, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

• I'm missing how this is all somehow the Arbitration Committee's fault that Giano can't control his behavior, or his language. If this is such a minor dispute on such an obscure page, why is Giano making such a big deal out of it, and talking about castration and what not? If this is so inconsequential, why does it keep blowing up. I'm sorry, but no. It isn't acceptable for people to act this way. Put another way, if this is acceptable behavior then we might as well abolish dispute resolution. Mackensen (talk) 14:08, 24 January 2008 (UTC)
  • I'm not saying it is the arbitration committee's fault. I am saying they (or some members) are becoming part of the problem by getting involved and responding to what they may percieve as personal insults, and using strong language in their turn when denouncing Giano. If arbitrators have to vote or comment on remedies involving parties to the case, it is best for them to use calm temperate language, and to let clerks or other uninvolved admins deal with any disruption to the pages. Otherwise things escalate, in part due to the choice by arbitrators to use such language. In addition, what we see here is, in microcosm, a failure for people to comprehend how owned pages are handled. David Gerard waded into WP:WEA and asserted control. What I see here is FloNight wading in and taking control of this page. The difference here is that FloNight is voting on remedies involving Giano. The appearance of objectivity is lost when things like this start to happen. But this is getting off-topic. This section was meant to be about the large picture, not the dispute covered in the section up above. The larger picture is when ArbCom is bitterly divided, this is obvious to the community, and they lose confidence in the ability of ArbCom to deal with this or similar disputes. That is bad for ArbCom and bad for the project. Carcharoth (talk) 14:28, 24 January 2008 (UTC)
    • You are mistaking impartiality for being completely blind. Jurors (or the the judge in a non-jury trial) are supposed to approach a case with an open mind and no predispositions that would affect their decision. At some point, however, the deliberations start, they look at the evidence, and decide what to do about the case. Obviously they have to have opinions at that point. Jurors start a trial non-biased but they don't end that way. You're posing a situation that all admins face sooner or later. According to RFCU/Primetime, Primetime has sent Will Beback over 1100 harassing and obscene emails. Does that mean Will must recuse from blocking any more socks? Giano sent me an obscene e-mail yesterday--does that mean I am ineligible to enforce any remedy that might be offered? If so then I suppose Giano should continue to insult as many arbitrators as he can so that eventually they all have to recuse as no longer having the appearance of neutrality. Thatcher 15:05, 24 January 2008 (UTC)
      • No, only for specific and particular instances. And not during the trial that arbitration is not. Carcharoth (talk) 15:09, 24 January 2008 (UTC)
        • I'm sorry, that's a little cryptic for me. Are you saying that users who insult admins do not create a conflict except during Arbitration, and against Arbitrators? Thatcher 15:12, 24 January 2008 (UTC)
          • No, I'm saying that arbitrators can try and deal with things slightly differently. Don't block and remove talk page threads - let clerks deal with that. Arbitrators can calmly propose new remedies and vote on them, using calm and temperate language. Internally, they may be annoyed, but they shouldn't let that show. Otherwise it just looks like the arbitration committee is getting exasperated and losing patience. Community ban discussions often have this sort of tone as well, along the lines of "quite frankly I've lost patience and I give up". The presence of those who can work with the people in question (I've never had a problem working with Giano) and who haven't yet lost patience, reduces such discussions to the common denominator of those who lose patience first, and that is not an objective criteria by any standard. Carcharoth (talk) 15:30, 24 January 2008 (UTC)
• To my perspective ArbCom is not bitterly divided. We have internally taken several polls and there is strong consensus that sanctions are needed to deal with a persistent pattern of disruptive conduct. The difference of opinion has been about whether there should be topic bans, total bans, civility patrols, desysops, or some other types of sanctions. This has to do with arbitrators general feelings about types sanctions not only the particular situation of this case. Part of the delay has been that we are listening to the new ideas of the new arbitrators also. The exact list of editors and administrators to be sanctioned has also been discussed. Some of the arbitrators had not wanted to list remedies here that will likely not have support. Others feel that they want to publicly go on the record with their views. That is the reason that we ended up with a wide range of sanctions displayed. On a final note, there seems to be consensus that we need to deal with the issue of re-writing IRC guidelines outside this case. I plan to make developing a realistic IRC guideline and strengthening our on site civility policy a top priority. FloNight (talk) 14:22, 24 January 2008 (UTC)
  • To my mind Carcharoth is spot on here. The central issue is IRC - a problem which the Arbcom manifestly failed to deal with the last time. Instead the community was given the fudge, that 'civility and behaviour on the channel will be more closely monitored'. It has never been adequately explained, why this officially endorsed channel shouldn't come under the Arbcom's remit - the endless technical arguments about freenode, logging and all the rest was just smoke and more fudge. We needed arbcom jurisdiction over there a year ago. The fact it took Jimbo Wales to drag you all kicking and screaming to accept the responsibility is to Arbcom's shame. This case was supposed to be about IRC, you've chosen to make it about the behaviour that effected Jimbo's fiat. Arbcom overview of the site is a start, you now need to deal with the ridiculous inequity that allows non-admins into the channel - If an admin has lost the trust of the community, one of the penalties should surely be that this 'helpful advice' that 'admin emerita' supposedly provide should be done away with. Are we saying that an ex-admin without the trust of the community, should retain the ear of the admin community? This just feeds factionalism and a sense of nepotism. --Joopercoopers (talk) 14:55, 24 January 2008 (UTC)
  • From my perspective, it seems the arbcom has spent orders of magnitude more time fretting over Giano than the issues he raises, which generally have merit. Maybe I'm wrong since only the public side of the arbcom visible. Over the last few years people have compared the stewardship of admins IRC to Raul's FAC process. I'll do the same: When someone has a problem with FAC and asks Raul to jump, his typical reply is "how high". That attitude and accountability doesn't seem to exist for admins IRC. Cut to Giano's latest complaint - a former admin insulted one of his friends on the channel. There were a couple of previous incidents on the channel between those two, including one where she was made to feel unwelcome (some one please correct me if I'm wrong). Is Tony still a member of that channel? Why? Is it an admin channel or the 'popular buddies of the moment' crowd? Is it ok to "encourage" some admins to leave the channel while certain other defrocked admins are welcome for social reasons? What are the consequences of running this channel like someones personal social playground? Maybe if someone would jump when complaints like these arise the endless rfars would stop. I suggest the arbcom, for once, try to focus on one of Giano's complaints rather than Giano and see what happens. --Duk 15:50, 24 January 2008 (UTC)
    • When editors use disruptive and provocative methods of dealing with the issues at hand, they are a distraction and hinder the community's ability to deal with the issues in a thoughtful manner. That is the reason that the community has established methods for dealing with conflicts. All editors are ENCOURAGED to participate in these established processes. If editors choose not to do so, they are given warning and if they still do not follow our policies then sanctions are put in place to get them back in line with the established policies. Sadly, several experienced users have crossed the line of what is acceptable conduct. The same as all other arbitration cases, editor misconduct is the reason that several users in this case will have ruling made about them. FloNight (talk) 16:39, 24 January 2008 (UTC)
      • ... participate in these established processes. For admins IRC, what established process would that be? It's my understanding that there isn't any, and that the arbcom washed their hands of IRC back on the Irpen rfar. And it's only after two years of community unhappiness that the arbcom now seems prepared to address this. Do you think this would be true without the efforts of Giano, Geogre, Bishonen and probably others who've stayed anonymous to avoid retribution?
      • above, Thatchers says; I can only speak to the times when I am in channel but it seems to be generally more on-topic more of the time and there are more voices to steer it back on topic when it drifts. I think we have Giano, above all others, to thank for whatever progress has occurred. But this progress is temporary as long as open accountability to the community is lacking. --Duk 17:29, 24 January 2008 (UTC)
        • The climate of the IRC channel and Wikipedia are drastically improved when users that do not like each other do not discuss each other there or fuss with each other if both are in the same area. Usually, this is enforced through social pressure or slight nudges from a channelop or admins. When that fails more drastic measures need to be taken. We are dealing with one of those RARE situations when the regular process does not work because highly vested folks are involved. ArbCom deals with situations like this on site. We are trying figure out the best way to deal with the situation in the Wikipedia English related IRC channels. It is my opinion that these situation can best be solved if all involved parties do some self-reflection about how they mishandled their part of the conflict and then disclosed how they would handle the situation going forward. Since the parties in the case have not chosen to do so, the Arbitration Committee will decide. FloNight (talk) 17:57, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

Oh, sweet Lord, not more of this "manage Giano" nonsense. Has anyone managed FloNight? Has anyone decided how to manage Thatcher, Snowspinner, me, etc.? When you do that, you are automatically getting rid of the human being with equal rights and intellect. People want to "predict Giano?" People want to "control Giano?" Has anyone thought that perhaps this is inherently patronizing and inherent adversarial? What choice, rhetorically or ethically, does a person have in such a case? Give up all of this objectification and start talking to people, please. Geogre (talk) 18:46, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

Why a Giano restriction will fail (prophecy and alternative)

2.1) Seems to be heading for majority support. I'm not going to comment on whether this is merited, but, I note something similar has been proposed before and, as then, I prophesy it will end badly.

Restricting Giano from all project space invites the following inevitable cycle. 1) Giano will breach the ban in some small area with an otherwise constructive and uncontroversial post: he'll make an informed comment on a wikiproject page, he'll opine on an afd, he'll nominate a Good article, he'll list something on DYK - the possibilities are endless. The question of whether his otherwise innocent posting is trolling, making a point, or good faith will be moot. 2) Some admin, perhaps ill-disposed towards Giano, will follow the letter of the law and block. 3)There will be a wheel war or at least a divisive debate over whether the admin is being abusive and whether the block is more disruptive than Giano's action. All hell will break loose.

Now, I don't think this is a "doomsday scenario", I think it is a blatantly obvious outcome. It can be argued that the outcome lies in Giano's hands - well perhaps - but an arbcom ruling that is certain to fail is a very poor ruling indeed. Why not just ban him outright and save delaying the fallout until it lands on the head of some admin acting over some trivia. Arbcom is about making things better and decreasing disruption - not washing its hands and placing the blame on Giano or the community, or of deferring trouble till later.

Of course, that raises the question of what can be done to reign in Giano (and even if one thinks no reigning-in is needed here - what could be done in such circumstances as may hypothetically merit it?). I'd suggest considering things like: A. restricting the enforcement of such a remedy to a limited group (arbs themselves, or what about three level-headed "mentors"?) Allowing any of 1400 admins to police it is just asking for hot-heads or people with vendettas. B. What about something less than a total ban? Allow admins to ban him from any page where he's getting problematic, using heated invective, or responding to baiting or trolling - that allows sensible comments in afd's etc. with no scope for admin hard-assed silliness in response? Just some thoughts, offered in a spirit of trying to sort this.--Doc^g 13:53, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

Doc makes some excellent points. Enforcement of this remedy looks problematic. If anyone other than an Arb blocks Giano for a Wikipedia space infraction, the potential for division and dissent in the community will be immense. This remedy, as currently proposed, could very well cause more harm than good. Agne^Cheese/^Wine 13:56, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

That would be Probation (Supervised editing). "Editors on probation may be banned from pages they edit disruptively, either for a set period of time or indefinitely, by action of an uninvolved administrator." I don't think this will work. Jehochman ^Talk 13:59, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

It will work if the Arbitration committee sits down hard on the first admin to reverse a valid block placed by an uninvolved admin acting within the scope of whatever remedy passes. Thatcher 14:28, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

So, if Giano lists a DYK, we block him and deadmin anyone who reverses it. And that looks like a sane remedy?--Doc^g 14:49, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

A downside to being in the scope of arbcom sanctions is that one may not be able to do all that one wishes. On the other hand, it would be trivial to modify the remedy to include DYK. — Carl (CBM · talk) 14:52, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

Here's a crazy suggestion. How about a list is made of the process pages (as opposed to policy, guideline and essay pages) that Giano can obviously contribute to, and, why not have an RfC on Giano where the community pleads with him to stop his periodic angry outbursts? I'm looking, but as far as I can see, there has never been a request for comments on Giano's behaviour. Carcharoth (talk) 15:07, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

A note to that effect should be included in the final decision, if remedies are passed to which it could apply. — Carl (CBM · talk) 14:48, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

Just a note: listing a DYK would not violate the proposed restriction. DYK is in Template space last I checked. 81.159.143.234 (talk) 15:13, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

Whatever. I also was referring to AfD, DRV, xfD, GA, wikiprojects, stub sorting, or BJAODN....etc. etc. etc.--Doc^g 15:16, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

Yes, the proposal is crude and problematic. It is a broadaxe rather than a scalpel. Do you have an alternative suggestion? Thatcher 15:24, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

I have made some above. I'm afraid I'm not much of a fan of a "something must be done, so lacking any better suggestion, we'll do this, even though it clearly won't work" school.--Doc^g 15:28, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

"If Giano is disruptive, any administrator may block him and log the block at {case block log link}. Blocks placed on Giano that are properly logged may not be lifted without approval of a Committee member, or one of its officially appointed clerks." This should prevent wheel warring, while not subjecting Giano to any restrictions that do not apply to him and the rest of us already. He's free to edit, but if he is disruptive, he can be blocked. Jehochman ^Talk 15:35, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

Cue arbcom wheel-warring or weeks-long arbcom discussions over a long block. Think of the longer ANI threads imported onto arbcom-l. Carcharoth (talk) 15:45, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

Jehochman's suggestion needs to at the least equally apply to Sidaway, given the circumstances, but most importantly the balance of evidence given the heated nature of this needs to be inversed: support to block, not unblocmk, for issues specific to the RFAR. Admins giving themselves a free hand here is what got us into the mess; the suggested wording is the right idea but the inverse nature of it would lead to anarchy. The balance of evidence for a block, like the inclusion of material in an article, is on the person performing the block or adding the material. Not the other way around. Lawrence § t/e 16:21, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

I much prefer Mackensen's new idea of a restraining order. I wish we had such a thing in place for Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/COFS to keep Anynobody away from Justanother, and Justanother away from Smee (and Smee's alternate accounts). Jehochman ^Talk 16:25, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

I much prefer 1RR for project space to a complete ban (and suggested as much in the workshop). Doc Glagow's comment is all too likely to come true, surely we won't stop Giano from commenting on an article nominated for deletion. 90% of the problem will be resolved by making sure Giano (and others) don't edit war. We don't want to gag them, just stop warring. --AnonEMouse ^(squeak) 16:33, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

Indeed. The problem with the solution is that it does not solve the problem. The "Giano problem" is being framed as chronic inappropriate behaviour in project space, and the solution proposed is banning Giano from project space. Fact is, it is the small number of controversial contributions where Giano is aggressive and abrasive but also annoyingly correct that are really being discussed. Unfortunately, each notable episode of "inappropriate behaviour" has met with community agreement that the issue Giano raised was worthy of serious community review and analysis, as pointed out by Duk[19] and Joopercoopers[20] above. The vast majority of Giano's contributions to project space are uncontroversial and nearly universally considered to be beneficial to the project. The intention of the proposal is, I suspect, to reduce drama; however, any actions taken based on this proposed remedy are guaranteed to create the very drama that the remedy is trying to avoid. Lawrence Cohen has a very good point above[21]. Does Arbcom really want to have a permanent "Giano" section on its page? Risker (talk) 16:36, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

It need hardly be said that if Giano could make a point without reference to, say, castration (for example) none of this would be necessary. He's brought this on himself. Mackensen (talk) 16:38, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, well...Giano and I had words about that subject as well, and it may well be one case where his writing was easily and widely misinterpreted. He was writing about emasculation and many people were reading about castration; some of that comes from the differences between European and North American sensibilities. Think of it more in terms of prairie oysters rather than the sexual overtones that were perceived, and his posting makes far more sense. Risker (talk) 17:06, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

There are many issues that are worthy of discussion, and many editors find themselves able to raise them without becoming the subject of multiple arbitration cases. — Carl (CBM · talk) 17:10, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

There are two sides to this. Yes, it would be helpful if Giano played political games to help wikipedia rather than making a fuss to help wikipedia; but no one here is perfect, maybe he doesn't know how to kiss the right ass. Arbcom should accept that IAR applies even when it is arbcom members that are pissed off - so long as in the end wikipedia benefits. When someone does their best to help wikipedia and the result is that wikipedia is helped, then policy was followed - that's what IAR means unless you decide it only applies to the cabal. WAS 4.250 (talk) 17:18, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

Giano has been a party in three Arbcom cases. In the first one, the infamous "Giano" case, the result was that developers found a way to expunge his block log to eliminate the unjustified edit summary "hate speech" - the only time that such a radical step has been taken. In the second one, "Durova," the crux of the complaint against him was that he had published what was considered to be a private email. The community is split on its opinion of whether or not such information can be published on-wiki, given the failure of any version of WP:PRIVATE to achieve consensus. This case is about an obscure edit war on an obscure page, brought to Arbcom by an editor who had no role in the edit war, with no attempt at conflict resolution prior to the RFAR. There are many other editors and administrators whose names have been listed more frequently in RFARs and actual arbitration cases; nobody is saying they should not be allowed to edit project space. Risker (talk) 17:26, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

Indeed, it seems to be a special dispensation. A more common remedy is to block editors for some period of time. I don't view this as a question of not being sycophantic; one can observe community standards for decorum and civility while still being independently minded. — Carl (CBM · talk) 17:39, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

'Hanging on in quiet desparation' is usually my way. Giano appears to favour direct action. I don't condone it all, but marvel at the effectiveness or most of it. The enormous risk with that approach, is you need to be 100% sure you are right, but typically, he is. It's a means of effecting change, and given that wikipedia has a propensity to generate huge amounts of noise, to very little signal, I'm not sure that generating change by quiet discussion is particularly effective. Jockeying for the ear of the right people seems effective too. Incivility policy isn't there as a law unto itself, it's purpose is to maintain a collegiate working atmosphere. Sometime, if something's fundamentally wrong, the chairs need to be kicked over a little in the college - when the dust has settled - it's a better place. Civility is small beans compared to the core issues here, let's not waste our time and divide the community by apportioning blame. Let's draw a line under it, sort the IRC policy out and move on. --Joopercoopers (talk) 17:36, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

::::::Hear! hear! I do not believe this case is really about one editor, Giano. I agree with his point of view, whether or not he is expressing himself correctly. To me it is a very superficial to consider Giano the problem and to select a remedy that focuses on him under the impression that will solve the problem. I believe what is fundamentally wrong ultimately has nothing to do with Giano. Mattisse 18:40, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

A resolution that placed the harshest penalty on Giano would not be equivalent to saying "Giano is the main problem in this case". It would say "On the basis of previous action, Giano has used up the Committee's tolerance, while other users haven't". I'm not saying this would be justified, just that the conclusion that the Committee would be finding Giano to be the root cause is unfair. Sam Korn ^(smoddy) 18:47, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

Mackensen's Everyking style probation

I think we have a possible winnner that will at least force everyone back to writing articles and out of the backend nonsense. Just to be clear, this literally means that the two camps to each other for purposes of Wikipedia need to be treated as "invisible", or incur sanctions? I.e., no matter what Phil says, Bishonen can't comment; no matter what Giano says, Tony can't comment, infer about, or seek remedy against? Whomever crosses the threshold first gets blocked? These are fairly high-profile individuals, so there will be plenty of eyes to see any wrongdoing. Am I understanding the implications correctly, and this is the same thing that restricted Everyking from talking about/to/in regards to Phil himself? The only interactions allowed are 'ships passing in the night' on places like AFD or FAC where they both may happen to comment? Lawrence § t/e 16:39, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

• Yes. Mackensen (talk) 16:41, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

• I support this. It's the closest to the "solomon" type solutions where no one wins but no one completely loses (since nothing else will appeal to everyone), but it ends things. Mackensen, could you also add a note similar to the Everyking 3 one that involved parties may not enforce this themselves? That should (in this case) probably extend to every single party in this RFAR. Lawrence § t/e 16:42, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

• I think the wording implies that already, but there's no harm in repeating it with an enforcement provision. Mackensen (talk) 16:46, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

This remedy is modeled off of the Everyking case, which was a case about targetted and deliberate harassment on the part of Everyking against me. It was an extreme remedy there - one that I know was unduly frustrating for Everyking on numerous occasions, and one that was put into place, notably, on the third case against Everyking, and, if I recall correctly, on something like the third activation of that case. The problem is that this amounts to arbitrary and capricious namespace bans of the sort that are greatly problematic - if Giano and I were to be engaged in similar discussions on WP:NOR and WP:V and someone were to attempt to unify those discussions to a single thread, one of us would be quickly knocked out of the discussion based on whichever of us posted to that new thread first.

It's a useful remedy in cases of wikistalking, but, at least on my part I do not know of any attempts on my part to pick fights with Giano, Geogre, or Bishonen (all of whom I have interacted with a handful of times at best), and no of know attempts on any of their parts to go after me. If the problem is that, when we have interacted, any of have been incivil, target that. But this addresses a problem - wikistalking and continual conflict - that simply doesn't exist, and that there is, again, no evidence for. Phil Sandifer (talk) 16:44, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

• Well, make a better suggestion that has a prayer of being enforced without drama. Mackensen (talk) 16:45, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

I'm not sure any remedy in this area is even necessary - why put into place a remedy to correct a history of conflict that doesn't exist? Whatever problems exist with Giano, Geogre, Bishonen, or even my conduct, those problems are manifestly not our conflicts with each other since those conflicts range from minimal to non-existent. A remedy attempting to curb the non-existent conflicts is rather needless. Phil Sandifer (talk) 16:52, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

The endless waste of time for everyone is rather needless. Lets stop complaining. Being unable to comment on each other will not interfere with anyone's ability to create articles in main space, so there is no net negative loss to the encyclopedia by this finding, and only positive gains. Since we're only supposed to be here to make an encyclopedia, this is a win-win all around. Lawrence § t/e 16:58, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

No, Lawrence - findings that accuse me of behavior I never engaged in and restrict my editing based on things I've never done are not a win-win all around - they are a serious injustice. Phil Sandifer (talk) 17:00, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

Again, the question isn't "hey, can we think of anything better?", it is "will this help?" "would anything help more?". I'm undecided. In fact it might be useful if the arbitration committee finished determining facts before dreaming up remedies. Define the problem, then look for any possible solutions.--Doc^g 16:52, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

Exactly. This is a great solution for a problem that doesn't exist. Phil Sandifer (talk) 16:53, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

Maybe. As I say, let arbcom define the problem first. They decide what problem exists.--Doc^g 16:59, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

Which is most of what I'm asking for - some account of what evidence this remedy is based on. Phil Sandifer (talk) 17:00, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

The parties may not see a problem, but the community does. We are tired of the bickering. ArbCom belongs to us, and we have cases about articles that we would like to be heard. This case is tying up the Committee and we are sick of these disputes. Jehochman ^Talk 16:56, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

Let's let arbcom define the problem. The community does not agree as to what exactly it is, or we would not be here.--Doc^g 16:57, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

If the community's patience has been exhausted by my bickering with Giano, Geogre, and Bishonen, fine. However, I find it difficult to believe that the community's patience has been exhausted with something that had never occurred before this case and has not occurred substantively within this case. Seriously - I do not believe that in the course of this case I have actually had a conversation with Giano, Geogre, or Bishonen. I made one poorly phrased comment about Bishonen that I retracted. The arbcom belongs to the community, and should reflect community wishes, yes. But I doubt the community sincerely wishes people to be sanctioned for non-existent behavior. Phil Sandifer (talk) 16:58, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

My take is that it's the constant low-grade war between all the parties and the slowly spiraling chaos this has caused. Whos to blame? Who started it? Who cares at this point, since there will be no answer, since there are so many partisans on both sides. Or all three sides. Or four. But the five of them are unfortunately at the center of it all, so walling them off from each other will have the singular effect of stopping the low-grade war thats gone on forever. Then everyone can go write articles, since thats the only reason we should be here. Lawrence § t/e 17:04, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

I suspect the community would agree that there's a barrel of laughs every time this mix of editors occurs. I consider this remedy just, enforceable, and preventative in nature. Mackensen (talk) 17:00, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

Please, Mackensen - tell me what times that the mix of me and any of the set of Geogre, Giano, and Bishonen has even occurred. I am genuinely curious. Obviously there is some history of conflict I am unaware of. Phil Sandifer (talk) 17:02, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

Phil, you're no angel in these matters, and I think everyone is sick of digging up evidence. You've gone out of your way in the past to inflame situations here, in regards to the IRC case, and in regards to this low grade war. Just take it like a man and help end this. This will NOT interfere with your writing articles. Why else would you be here? Lawrence § t/e 17:03, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

"Nobody feels like digging up evidence" is a pretty bad reason to let a sanction go through based on non-existent evidence. Phil Sandifer (talk) 17:05, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

That's my opinion; I'm sure the AC have theirs. Your disruptive nature is well known and heavily commented on, even by yourself: "I'm as much of a raging asshole as Tony is." The more important question: are you here to make an encyclopedia, or to advocate things on the back-end that are not tied to making an encyclopedia? If you're not here to make articles and an encyclopedia, get out of the way of those who are. AC, please just end this. Lawrence § t/e 17:07, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

I will admit readily to not suffering fools gladly, to being short of patience with people who are trying to disrupt the encyclopedia, and to moments of brusqueness. I will admit to a half-joking comment regarding Tony's conduct that was based largely on a period a ways back when Tony and I were both accruing RFCs at an alarming and amusing rate (this was over two years ago). I will not admit to a history of personal attacks and conflict with Giano, Geogre, or Bishonen because they do not exist. They have never existed. No amount of bluster about the community's alleged lack of patience with me will paper over the fact that the findings against me in this case are not based on any evidence or, for that matter, on reality. Phil Sandifer (talk) 17:12, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

I make no secret of not suffering fools gladly myself, but at the same time I don't tear into them, and I recognize that the only reason we are here is to write an encyclopedia. Everything else here supports that and is at best secondary or tertiary in value. Again, this is my take only: You have inflamed matters needlessly in regards to this war, and by doing so, you are now a party. As a preventative measure, the community is going to, for their own protection, prevent you from commenting on Giano, Bish, or Geogre in the future. This will not interfere with your ability to write articles--again, the primary function of this whole place and the main reason we're here--so this is a win win, and great preventative solution. Again, my take. And my take is that if someone isn't here to write articles or fix articles, they're here for the wrong reasons. Lawrence § t/e 17:16, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

It's not clear to me how two editors can edit the same page without interacting with each other. In practice, this would mean that whichever group happened to edit a page first would become the only group that could edit it. — Carl (CBM · talk) 17:07, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

Say you and I are restricted from each other. We both see an AFD for Some Stupid NN Thing. We both comment--totally fine. Long as we don't comment on each other, refer to each other, infer each other, etc., we're good. Lawrence § t/e 17:09, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

I wouldn't be able to say, "I disagree with LC", because that would certainly meet the standard of 'comment in any way (directly or indirectly) about each other'. I'n not convinced this is workable. — Carl (CBM · talk) 17:13, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

Beats me. It worked for the Everyking solution. Comes a point in time where the greater good is more important than my getting to say "CBM is wrong on that afd, here's why..." Lawrence § t/e 17:18, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

Let me clarify something. I've dealt with this godawful mess for nearly two years, going all the way back to the pedophile userbox wheel war. It's my impression that every flareup compounds problems by creating a new set of bitter experiences, and adding a a new batch of involved users. Guest stars in this show tend to get recurring parts. I see this remedy as a way to break the cycle. If it fails most of us will be back here in 2-3 months, except there'll be even less room to maneuver. Mackensen (talk) 17:28, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

This is why it's good. If someone, as Phil says below, doesn't like it because it enables "trolls", boo hoo. Long term bad behavior reaps what it sows. Be nice to people, you'll not have to deal with this. Please just pass the damn thing and end the case so that we can wrap this up, wrap up the other backlogged cases, and then go write articles. Lawrence § t/e 17:30, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

Should I acquire a recurring role, sanction away. I have no part in the two year history that frustrates you so, and I resent the attempt to sanction me based on your frustration with a past history of conflict that I'm not a part of. Phil Sandifer (talk) 17:34, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

Asking my question again

Because this question keeps getting buried in threaded discussions, I'm asking this again, and I ask that people please not respond with anything other than an actual answer to either of these questions.

1. What evidence is the finding that I repeatedly make personal attacks based on?
2. What evidence is the claim that I have a history of conflict with Giano, Geogre, or Bishonen based on?

Thank you. I am happy to discuss related issues to this in threaded discussions, but please - do not answer this one unless your answer contains a link to actual evidence. Phil Sandifer (talk) 17:15, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

In response; what is it that you wish to say to Giano, Geogre and or Bishonen that you feel such a restriction would impede? If there is nothing presently, then it only appears that you are obstructing a very real prospect of resolving part of this matter on a matter of personal reputation. Isn't Wikipedia bigger than the hurt feelings of one person? To resolve this, would you agree to such a restriction if the language did not infer that anything improper was previously said, and that this restriction seeks only to avert the possibility of it happening in the future? If the answer is in the affirmative then I would implore the Arbs to consider a wording reflecting this. LessHeard vanU (talk) 23:01, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

For reasons I explained below, given that I edit under my real name, I have a non-trivial investment in not having sanctions and accusations that are not based on need or fact attached to my name. A sanction does real harm - even one that amounts to "We think Phil might start trouble, even though he never has before." It should not be used unless it is needed. I want to know what the evidence is that it is needed. This seems a reasonable request, if only so I can respond to the argument for my sanctioning. Phil Sandifer (talk) 19:09, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

Snowspinner (I'll use your old account name), you and I have been on opposite "sides" of things for ages and ages now. You have always been for more establishment of power and "clueful people" having authority, and I have always been against that. You know as well as I do that you and I had a great deal of trouble over user:Orthogonal's troubles, over the WebComix expert idea, over "semi-policy," over your drafting of "RPA," and a host of other things. In this case, I made one comment to you, and it was appropriate (and on your talk page): I told you not to block out of personal animus. You had blocked for 72 hr for a single 3RR (first ever by that editor). You then tacked me on here and accused me of virtually every crime since Jack the Ripper. It looks like a grudge, alright. If you avoided "personal attacks," I'm surprised but unconcerned. Trying to be technical about something as inherently undefinable as "personal attack" is useless, which is one reason I opposed your trying to create that as "semi-policy." No one can say what one is, and so no one can be vindicated. This is your own petard you're on. Geogre (talk) 18:54, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

Your comment says far more about your attitudes than mine - for my part, I'd not thought about semi-policy in over a year, hadn't thought about the webcomics dispute in about as long, save for the fact that it was cited in this case previously, and I don't even remember what RPA was. (I assume "Remove Personal Attacks," but I'm pretty sure I didn't draft that.) I wouldn't have remembered your involvement in the webcomics issue if you hadn't just reminded me. And your insistence on using an account name I haven't used in two years is telling.

I got dragged into this case after I saw it on RFAr and thought "What? Surely someone violating the 3RR and making such overtly disruptive reverts wouldn't be protected from a simple and straightforward 3RR block." From there I got dragged swiftly in, and, in looking at what I had found myself in, also found what I considered to be a history of incivil behavior from you. Prior to that, I had no particular thoughts or opinions about you. I certainly did not have anything resembling a grudge. I'm sorry you can't say the same. Phil Sandifer (talk) 20:01, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

Gosh, Phil, you sure seemed to remember me well enough when you made those edits to the /Workshop calling for stoning. I think it's good to remember who proposes what and to understand their general designs, and I hope my remembering that you're Snowspinner is telling that. I hope you remember only that I'm against the aggregation of personal power that you think is necessary. You may also now be sympathetic to how really foolish "personal attack" is. You were entirely in favor of that, when you began removing things that called your actions into question, and now you are accused of making them. Indeed, you have been making them, inasmuch as they exist at all. Me, I think they're nothing, but I think you should have to answer to your own beliefs. Beyond that, if you have entirely forgotten me again, I will rest happily. Perhaps you only need to review the blocking policy? Is that it? An editor violating 3RR for the first time, ever, and you go to 3 days? I'm surprised. Geogre (talk) 20:10, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

• I read edits such as that above with an ever increasing sense of incredulity - why the Arbcom ever accepted the case, why they ever allowed it to reach this degree of bitterness, and wonder if they are proud of themselves. I ask them now to dismiss the case and resign before any more long term damage is done to the project by this chaos. Giano (talk) 21:17, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

Remedy 7

remedy 7 subsection one

I'm not sure if remedy 7 ("Communication restricted") is such a good idea. In the Everyking case, Everyking was not only forbidden from interacting with another administrator, but also forbidden to comment on admin actions in general and banned from the administrator's noticeboard. The chance of Everyking and the admin in question crossing paths by chance was quite slim because of those remedies. In this case, we have five users who frequently comment on the popular noticeboards and on various other things that happen in our community, so the chance of those users crossing paths by chance is much higher. That, in turn, might lead to countless discussions on whether two users affected by this remedy interacted with each other by commenting on the same thread on WP:AN/I, for instance. And what about the next big discussion about IRC (which will quite probably happen sooner or later)? All five users might want to contribute to that discussion, but that will be next to impossible if this remedy passes. --Conti|✉ 17:19, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

It's worth noting, I've not actually contributed to any prior discussion of IRC, and am hardly chomping at the bit to start. This remedy is easy enough for me to abide by since, as far as I know, I've never interacted with Giano or Bishonen before this case, and have interacted with Geogre a handful of times. My objection to the remedy is based purely on a desire to not have a bunch of past sanctions over my head providing easy ammunition for trolls and other such idiots - people I deal with regularly when my time is not being sapped by arbitration. Phil Sandifer (talk) 17:20, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

This is a preposterous reason to not do this--to not have your past incivility, bad temper, and lack of social decorum hanging over your head? Don't wade hip first into contentious matters with trolls all the time and this won't be a problem. Our actions and editing history define us. If we don't like that compiled history being easily on display: should have thought of that before. Lawrence § t/e 17:32, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

I would feel far better about this if that past history were actually on display, instead of relegated to the realm of innuendo and implication. Were it on display it would be far easier to simply point out that the claim that I have a history of personal attacks is nonsense. Phil Sandifer (talk) 17:33, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

You were nasty to people when you were Snowspinner [22][23], and that continued recently here on AFD and also [24][25], and even when using your admin tools. Do you really expect people to dig up 100 diffs of a well-known fact? Is the sky blue?? Lawrence § t/e 17:37, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

That's the best you can do? A two year old arbcom finding, one part of which didn't even actually pass, an AfD when I said an article was crappy, me getting frustrated at a template namespace (I suppose I did personally attack the template namespace there...), me responding with shock at a National Enquirer sourced claim that persisted in an article for months, and me getting rid of a disruptive and legal-threat making user? That's your history of personal attacks and incivility? Phil Sandifer (talk) 17:41, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

That's me spending about 20 seconds digging through this page. I'm already digging through your entire editing history, but I'm sure others have still more that they can post sooner. We can't hide from Special:Contributions, Phil. This movement by the AC will not interfere with your creating articles on Wikipedia: do you dispute that? Yes or no. How will your inability to comment on Giano, Geogre, or Bish interfere with "legitimate" work on Wikipedia? Lawrence § t/e 17:45, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

If the community's ability to come up with something on IRC hinges on the input of five users I suspect we're sunk regardless. I would heartily recommend that all parties take a break. Mackensen (talk) 17:23, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

I think the number of times any of the parties has interacted has been very small indeed. Few of those interactions have been necessary, and I think obviously innocent interactions (such as Geogre's recent comment on a major edit I made to The Castle of Otranto) are probably not going to be problematic. Geogre probably didn't even notice my username, his comment was well within the bounds of decorum, and the article is very much in our normal scope of interest. I'm focussing on content quality on fictional articles, with particular reference to overlong plot summaries, and he lists English Literature as one of his areas of interest. Nevertheless under a formal remedy we would probably be more circumspect, and that shouldn't be a problem either. [26].--Tony Sidaway 17:43, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

I don't see how any "restraining order" would relate to comment on IRC. In any case I have nothing constructive to say on the subject. I've done what I could and I failed, and that was largely my own fault. --Tony Sidaway 17:48, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

I think he meant the forthcoming community discussion concerning IRC. Mackensen (talk) 17:49, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

I know that's what he meant. How would your restraining order, which I support, stop me discussing my opinion on the manner in which the arbitration committee might apply its remit to IRC, if I were minded to do so? If there were concern about potential interactions, the parties could send our opinions by private email. The point is moot, however; I agree that my opinion of IRC matters is unlikely to be of much use to the committee. --Tony Sidaway 18:03, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

Including, but not restricted to, the stalled MfD on WP:WEA. It was started at the beginning of the case (by Majorly, I believe), then withdrawn. See Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Wikipedia:IRC channels/wikipedia-en-admins (2nd nomination). Carcharoth (talk) 17:59, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

Could you explain how the restraining order would stop us giving our opinions of the case for deletion? --Tony Sidaway 18:05, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

Don't see how it would. Comment on the deletion, merits of the page, don't comment on each other, allude to each other, or anything else. It should be fine then. Lawrence § t/e 18:12, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

In response to NYB's comment, I have not interacted with Giano, Geogre, or Bishonen substantially prior to this point. I have no desire to do so with Giano and Geogre, and know little enough about Bishonen and her conduct that I am utterly neutral on her. For my part, I am happy to voluntarily agree to carry on the same conduct I have prior to this case, and would much prefer to go about ignoring all three of them without untrue findings of fact being made about me. Phil Sandifer (talk) 17:48, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

I can readily agree that untrue findings of fact should not be made at any time or about any editor. Whether an editor not adjudged guilty of any misconduct can nonetheless be subjected to a remedy as a preventative measure is a closer question. There have been objections raised to that sort of thing on occasion in the past (see, Wikipedia talk:Requests for arbitration/Ferrylodge/Proposed decision for a recent example, and there are others). Newyorkbrad (talk) 17:54, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

I can understand the need to if there's serious concern that I might get into future conflicts with Giano, Geogre, or Bishonen. But I question the need for any such concern - I hardly have a history of crusades and grudges against users. if I did, I no doubt would have actually been involved in the John Gohde arbitration, for instance. Phil Sandifer (talk) 17:56, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

There is a core of a useful proposal in this proposed remedy. We have to be able to work out the semantics in a way that should make it satisfactory to all sides. We don't need to find fault, and this is not Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/WLU-Mystar where the parties aren't allowed to come within 500 feet of each other at any time. If all the parties (I am not referring to Phil here) actually want to continue editing the encyclopedia, then issues of scope and wording can be addressed. Newyorkbrad (talk) 17:59, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

"We have to be able to work out the semantics in a way that should make it satisfactory to all sides" - no, I'd say that's not your job - indeed thankfully not since it would probably be an impossible task. Your job is to find a way forward so the project can get on without further disruption. Not to massage egos. Again, I repeat, find the facts before attempting remedies - if the facts suggest fault then remedy the fault the best you can. it is not acceptable to be even-handed if even-handedness is not suggested by the facts. Arbcom is not here to be popular.--Doc^g 18:22, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

Agreed. This must end here. --Tony Sidaway 18:24, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

• I feel the best way to end the current dispute and prevent future conflicts between the parties is to enact a communication ban between some parties in the case. Unable to predict the future, I'm basing my decision on what I see as the most probable outcome if we do not enact a communication ban. I'm strongly leaning toward including Phil Sandifer in the ban (I voted that way) based on my view that there will be ongoing conflicts between him and some of the other parties in the case unless one is added. I feel that we can not rely on user agreements but need to put it into an enforceable remedy. FloNight (talk) 18:46, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

• • I am gobsmacked. Based on no evidence whatsoever of past conflict and no substantial dialogue with any of them in the course of this case I am to be put under a non-sunsetting editing restriction because my statement that I have no intention or desire to interact with them isn't good enough? This is the most astonishingly capricious ruling I have ever seen out of this committee. Phil Sandifer (talk) 18:57, 24 January 2008 (UTC)
    • Are you suggesting that we have a remedy that says that Giano, Bishonen, and Geogre can not address you but that you can address them? I do not think that is workable, do? And there is plenty of evidence in your contributions showing that you are short-tempered and uncivil at times. Based on that I feel that this remedy is for the best interest of the community and the involved parties. FloNight (talk) 19:05, 24 January 2008 (UTC)
      • It is hardly as though there is a history of them targeting me either. Should this happen (I am perfectly willing to assume good faith and believe that it will not) some sanction can be considered. But for God's sake - this is Googleable under my real name. I am on the job market in a few years. The findings about my conduct are untrue, unnecessary, and cause me genuine harm. Why are you doing this? Phil Sandifer (talk) 19:09, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

Phil your comments in this section remind me of claims made at WR about arbcom. I learned years ago that arbcom typically makes decisions based on their perception of what is best for wikipedia and not on fairness. And that most evidence is not even read by most members of arbcom and instead they count on others to read the evidence and bring points to their attention. Remember what people who received Durova's famous email said? They did not read it carefully, did not follow the links, took no responsibility to act in response. I'm hoping this new arbcom will be better, but you get what you pay for, usually. WAS 4.250 (talk) 19:20, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

• • • • I must object. Please strikethrough the reference. That buck stops with me, not with the previous ArbCom, and certainly not with the present one. If you must draw my name into this, cite the fact that five members of the previous Committee voted on me in less than 24 hours, before I could assemble or present half my evidence in my own defense. Durova^Charge! 19:29, 24 January 2008 (UTC)
        • I’m sorry Durova, I’m not entirely sure what you’re objecting to here, why should WAS 4.250 strike that through? I don’t see the relationship between "the fact that five members of the previous Committee voted on you in less than 24 hours" with what WAS 4.250 was saying: "They did not read it carefully, did not follow the links, took no responsibility to act in response". I don’t think the sudden hurry hat anything to do with your previous "famous" email. Please correct me if I misunderstood. --Van helsing (talk) 20:21, 24 January 2008 (UTC)
          • Well to be specific, WAS implies that it was the Committee that ignored my report before I made a bad block last November. That assertion feeds off an erroneous meme - one I made repeated attempts to dispel as soon as it arose and that somehow persisted anyway. There are indeed some legitimate complaints that could be made about how last year's Committee handled my case, but WAS's example is by no means one of them. So I mentioned the most important one. And FWIW, when Adam Cuerden and Physchim62 got called to arbitration I spoke up against over-hasty voting in both instances. I didn't want another person to go through that same ordeal, even though Adam had stood by in silence and Physchim62 had been among the most vocal people against me when it had been my turn. Right's right; wrong's wrong, and if WAS wants to criticize ArbCom please don't choose a totally off-kilter example. Durova^Charge! 20:49, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

• • • It goes the other way, you realize. Mackensen (talk) 19:02, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

May I also remind the committee that I edit this project under my real name. I am going on the academic job market in a few years. Rulings about my past history of conflict and personal attacks can and will show up on Google searches on my name, and will have non-trivial effects on my ability to find a job in my field. The damage I've sustained to my name at the hands of the WR and ED crowds while working on Wikipedia is bad enough. I would hope that the arbcom would show the decency and restraint not to sully my name with untrue accusations and speculative sanctions. Phil Sandifer (talk) 19:04, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

I think this is a legitimate concern. Newyorkbrad (talk) 19:18, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

I'm concerned that our internal pages show up in Google searches. That is the reason that I do not like cases named after users. Also I support blanking our case pages as a courtesy to the parties. But these concerns should not stop us from making a ruling that is in the best interest of the community and dealing with the other issues after the case closes. FloNight (talk) 19:27, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

Flo, there's no history of past conflict and no intention on my part of future conflict. Could we please take a principle of least action here? If the arbcom wants to step in swiftly with an emergency ruling to this effect should future conflicts arise that would be fine - they won't arise. I'll happily let myself get chased off of any page Giano, Geogre, or Bishonen want to chase me off of. It's better than the real-world damage this ruling has the potential to cause me. Phil Sandifer (talk) 19:34, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

I can support the idea behind this, but it also possibly opens a dangerous double standard that people editing under their real names have extra rights that other editors do not. We aren't special. Lawrence § t/e 20:54, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

I share Lawrence's concerns about the potential for a dangerous double standard, yet I also see eye to eye with Phil. So I urge the Committee to simply apply the burden of evidence fairly and evenly in reference to every party on this case: specific findings and remedies must be supported by the weight of the particular evidence in each instance. It may be wise to close with minimal actual remedies other than a formal caution that the Committee can and will reopen the case if problems resume, and if that need arises those actual remedies would follow swiftly. Durova^Charge! 21:14, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

This is exactly what I am asking for - speculative and preventative remedies are dangerous business, not just because of the mess of injustices that are bound up in them, but because they cause real harm to real people. The evidence in this case simply does not support findings that I have made personal attacks, that I am routinely incivil, or that I have any problems with repeated disputes with Giano, Geogre, or Bishonen. A finding to these effects is wrong. Phil Sandifer (talk) 21:20, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

Phil, this won't be the first or last time that ArbCom get something wrong. Register your dissent now. If it passes, appeal at some future date, and in the meantime get things courtesy blanked. When things have calmed down, a lot of the proposed remedies will look silly and unsupported by evidence. If so, the arbcom should quietly overturn them on appeal. Carcharoth (talk) 23:27, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

We are. We are entitled to courtesies that those editing under pseudonyms are not. --Tony Sidaway 21:11, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

Oh really, Tony? Try a Google search of my actual name. Durova^Charge! 21:16, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

I would suggest, to play devil's advocate, that editing under your real name was a risk that you choose to take. As a prospective employer, I'd find the behaviour of the "real name" individuals to be of some interest. Phil in particular made the conscious choice to move away from being Snowspinner. That's the simple fact of life on the interenet: Nothing is hidden. I'm suprised that it's only now that Phil has considered the implications of this. I'd actually have thought, waving a hand towards Wikipedia Review, that the whole "accused of murder" thing would have been a bigger problem then a finding here. (Please, those who bandy about the "troll" word, stand down from the breach. It's relelvent to the discussion, we all know about it, etc.) - 60.242.38.186 (talk) 22:25, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

The editing under a real name factor is probably something we should table here, and could make for a very interesting RFC. Lawrence § t/e 22:48, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

As I understand it, it's a courtesy matter, in the gift of Jimmy Wales. --Tony Sidaway 22:57, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

section break

I like this proposal. I think that phil's concerns, while real, are not sufficient to take him out a this manner of remedy. On a slightly different note, I'm taking the irc policy finding to mean that irc is part of en.wikipedia and will be governed per the normal way we govern ourselves here. Including (possibly) such things as formal promotion of chanops, restricting the off topic conversations, and such. --Rocksanddirt (talk) 19:16, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

That looks like a very broad assumption, and not, on the face of it, related in any way to Jimmy Wales' statement that "I consider it well within the overall remit of the Arbitration Committee and my own traditional role in the English Wikipedia community to have authority over IRC as necessary...from this day forward, concerns about standards of civility in IRC should be taken up with the channel operators, the Arbitration Committee, and me, in that order." [27]. --Tony Sidaway 19:49, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

It might be a broad assumption, but can you explain why control of such matters shouldn't have community (or Arbcom as community proxy)involvement? --Joopercoopers (talk) 20:59, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

Instruction creep covers it. This is a case of Jimmy saying "the state of affairs now is X" and you saying "is there any reason why it should not be Y?" I hope the non sequitur is obvious enough not to require that I say any more. --Tony Sidaway 21:09, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

I'm afraid it's best to treat me as thick - please say more because arguing that 'more rules will be required' doesn't explain why more rules are a undesirable in this specific instance. Civility in the channel will now be under the jurisdiction of the arbcom, why should it continue to plough it's own furrow in every other respect? It is an instrument of the community for use for specific purposes - there's no non-sequitur to suggest because of that, it's functioning shouldn't have the same community involvement as anywhere else here. --Joopercoopers (talk) 21:16, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

You're simply reiterating the non-sequitur. --Tony Sidaway 21:18, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

Are you being deliberately obtuse? Jimmy Wales may well be saying the situation is now X - what I'm trying to debate, as a member of the community, is why we shouldn't extend that to Y. --Joopercoopers (talk) 21:24, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

I'm not being obtuse. I'm trying to say that your suggestion is like Jimmy saying "the wall is blue" and you saying "okay, so why not pink?" --Tony Sidaway 21:34, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

Well if you're going to sideline this debate into abstractification, I'd rather talk to someone else about it. Rocksanddirt may have offered extension of the policy finding as a logical consequence of Jimbo's assertion. I'm saying Jimbo may assert what he likes (and frankly I wish he'd do it more often), but lets discuss the merits of more community control over irc than just civility. --Joopercoopers (talk) 21:48, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

He also said that he wouldn't overrule an Arbcom decision. They have the final call on all this, so they have some freedom of movement here. They can, if they decide to, remove any official or unofficial ties to IRC. I think that's the best route, but they do have the final say on that. RxS (talk) 22:20, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

remedies are premature - check the facts please

I think what is clearly needed is for the committee to step back from remedies to consider the findings of fact. It seems now we've got a rush to find "even-handed" remedies that can pass without community uproar without a proper consideration of WHAT IS TO BE REMEDIED. Is there a history of disruptive interactions between these parties? If there is, then perhaps this would be a good remedy. However, Phil suggests that he's not had prior problems with these users, so go back to the facts. Does the evidence support it? I really wish arbcom would spend longer defining the problem and considering the evidence, and the histories of the actors, rather than the swift move from principles to remedies filling in the blanks later. Time to stop and think folks, then, perhaps, your remedies might have a hope of fairness, relevance and effectiveness. Not so at the moment.--Doc^g 19:37, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

I concur with you completely, Doc. Risker (talk) 21:04, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

Revised suggestion - please read

I just posted this to the workshop. Would anyone have a problem with modifying Mackensen's no-contact solution on "no contact" to exclude Phil from that provision, and to simply put a full-blown civility probation based on my assembled evidence? There does not appear to be evidence of long-term interaction between Phil Sandifer and the others, but the incivility thing is frankly appalling.

So, it would be Mackensen's existing proposal, but with Phil removed, and add civility probation for Phil separately for him, based on the proposed evidence and FOF. Lawrence § t/e 19:48, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

_{I wish you had avoided using the phrase "final solution." ^Avruchtalk 22:03, 24 January 2008 (UTC)}

Reworded... I'd meant "final" as in the "latest", but, yeah. Lawrence § t/e 22:13, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

I'm planning to add a civility patrol remedy as an option for all the involved parties. This would be in conjunction with the other remedies not as a replacement. FloNight (talk) 19:56, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

Flo, again you are jumping to remedies. Why not examine the evidence and in particular the "accussed's" defence - and get the committee to decide the facts first. That's the whole problem here.--Doc^g 20:08, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

Thanks, Flo. I wanted to put this out in response to the claims that there was no evidence of malfeasance or wrongdoing by Sandifer, and no basis for the Committee to take any action there. Lawrence § t/e 19:57, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

I have responded to this on the evidence page - suffice it to say that the evidence in question is thin at best, and amounts to scattered and exasperated uses of profanity that were not directed at any specific users. It is possible that I swear too much, but I do not use profanity to make personal attacks or to bully other users - the examples cited were largely edit summaries of me bewilderedly reverting bizarre edits. An incivility ruling would be grasping at straws, frankly. Is the committee so determined to sanction everybody in this case whether they need it or not? Phil Sandifer (talk) 20:06, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

Phil, if you feel that your concerns are not getting due attention and reflect the potential for real life harm, you should consider an OTRS request. As a blanket statement, I would agree that no remedies or findings should be made without a strong weight of evidence. I don't know why it isn't standard practice, but it seems like all passed findings should include a selection of evidence or link to such a selection. ^Avruchtalk 22:37, 24 January 2008 (UTC)