Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents/IRC Admins' Abuse

IRC#Admins' Abuse

The horse has no bones left; please stop beating it. HalfShadow 00:39, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

This is being pasted from here [1] where James Forrester like to keep things tucked away. Giano (talk) 15:51, 1 November 2008 (UTC)

IRC #admins

I do not wish to be slandered, or even mentioned, in your #Admin's channel again. Please ensure it does not happen in future, or it will be closed down. Most editors are thoroughly sick of it and its pernicious influence on the project. I suggest you bear that in mind and control it. Giano (talk) 22:03, 31 October 2008 (UTC)

I share your generalised concerns about abuse of the channel. As and when you have evidence of any such activity, I would greatly welcome you drawing them to my attention. However, as we have previously discussed, vague claims of you being "slandered" without context don't let me help you, and merely encourage division.

James F. (talk) 14:16, 1 November 2008 (UTC)

Try reading the bloody logs of the sewer, or is it so disgusting you never go there? Giano (talk) 14:21, 1 November 2008 (UTC)

I lost regular IRC access for the past fortnight, so do not have a reliable set of logs.

James F. (talk) 15:47, 1 November 2008 (UTC)

If you have not the energy to read the logs have this one on me for a start: How's this "<DanielB> To Giano, who invariably reads this: You are a fucking wanker." Bad enough for you? Giano (talk) 15:28, 1 November 2008 (UTC)

Well, it's certainly not remotely close to "slander", but yes, I agree that that is completely unacceptable. I will have words with Daniel. Thank you for bringing this to my attention.

James F. (talk) 15:47, 1 November 2008 (UTC)

You will be having far more than a word I can assure you. Giano (talk) 15:48, 1 November 2008 (UTC)

JamesF, to give you context...well, there is no context for that comment. Daniel logged into the channel, made the comment, and logged out, all within 25 seconds. And no, I did not give anyone my logs, although because you have responsibility for the channel, I will offer you my logs for the last 36 hours, which contains much of interest. This isn't okay, and it wouldn't be okay regardless of whose name was mentioned. I hope we can all agree on that. Risker (talk) 16:25, 1 November 2008 (UTC)

Isn't he an op, as well? That sort of thing needs to be discouraged in the strongest possible terms - revocation of access for such trolling wouldn't be over the top (since it is obviously trolling - no question he knew what the response would be). Avruch ^T 16:38, 1 November 2008 (UTC)

• Feh, trolling, ignore it. If he did not know that someone was systematically leaking the logs and thus making the channel useless for any kind of open discussion then I am sure Daniel would not have said a word. And for the record I would have absolutely no problem with a log available only to arbitrators, it's the passing-on of logs which are then used by detractors for the purposes of quote mining that I consider problematic. Guy (Help!) 17:18, 1 November 2008 (UTC)

Being a fornicating masturbator isn't so bad. It generally only has a negative meaning if you're already involved in an altercation with whoever calls you that. I mean, if some random person walked past me and called me an asshole, I'd honestly think they were either deranged or had Tourette's. It certainly would qualify as "uncivil" (it was prefaced as if the target would see it, somehow), but neither slanderous nor worth "closing the channel." In fact, it's sure not worth a coronary. -t BMW c- 18:01, 1 November 2008 (UTC)

Nice to meet you, Bwilkins. If you want to bring Tourette syndrome into a completely inappropriate use of "fucking wanker" to describe Giano, at least educate yourself. Thank you, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 19:16, 1 November 2008 (UTC)

Pardon me for a moment, are you suggesting I need to learn even more about Tourette than I already do? Thanks, but I have significant experience with the affliction, and indeed had an fellow writer early in my career who would use quite similar terms while sitting at the desk next to me - not specifically directed, of course. There was no insult to those afflicted. Have a nice day. -t BMW c- 13:09, 2 November 2008 (UTC)

You are completely wrong. Other than being a contradiction in terms it is very uncivil, while we all know that this is typical of the shennanigans that our Admins get up to in their channel - it is the rubbish that they usually tell us does not happen. Only last night one of the pseudo-Admns of the channel was telling me, on WP, that I had not been discussed for ages, when in fact I had the logs proving I had been discussed there only a few hours previously. We are far better off without the channel and being able to see just what these people are in fact doing - which is principally block shopping, wastimg their time and indulging in idle gossip. I am considering posting logs on Wikipedia as and when necessary to prove just what does go on in James Forrester's private channel. Giano (talk) 18:12, 1 November 2008 (UTC)

Shades of WP:TINC? I have two main concerns:

1. If this is a private channel for certain WP users only, or to discuss WP, then, in effect, it is a cabal, is it not?
2. If it is permitted by policy, or is not for discussing WP, and is a friends-only channel, why the hell do the private logs matter? I can call some users whatever I like - and I do - but only to my friends, and only off official channels. For example, "Yeah, I'm having loads of problems with UserA, he's being a difficult prat", to my girlfriend or close RL friends. If it's a friends-only channel, then what goes on in it is not of Giano's concern, unless it's a channel where people are meeting specifically to out him - surely? Posting logs from a private, friend-only channel would be spying. Chase me ladies, I'm the Cavalry (talk) 18:26, 1 November 2008 (UTC)

Which is what in effect Giano has been doing-spying. I don't care about that, but it is a private channel and I don't see how the wiki has to get involved with it. Didn't we already go over this at ArbCom with the IRC case? Until they say otherwise, we don't do anything. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs ^(talk) 18:31, 1 November 2008 (UTC)

Seriously? You're adding a section to AN/I because someone insulted you? That's slander now? Yet when you are uncivil to others that's supposed to be ok (don't claim you haven't said as much). While I will agree that anyone that's so childish they can't behave on an IRC channel should have their access revoked, your doublespeak apparently knows no bounds. Though I don't know why I bother commenting on this since you've long ago proven you are blind to the benefits of the channel and think that as long as people talk about you it must be banished. Clue: it's a tool and just like Wikipedia bad things go on on Wikipedia too. Should we throw that baby out with the bathwater too? - Taxman ^Talk 18:37, 1 November 2008 (UTC)

Very well Taxman if you think it is fine for Admins and Arbs to behave in such a fashion so long as it is a secret place that ordinary editors must not know about, then that is your perogative. So why not say it has nothing what so ever to do with Wikipedia remove all Wikipedia titles etc from it. Cast it adrift. Giano (talk) 18:41, 1 November 2008 (UTC)

Since that's not what I said, I guess I don't need to say more. - Taxman ^Talk 20:00, 1 November 2008 (UTC)

Remember, everyone, just because you aren't paranoid, doesn't mean people aren't out to get you... And if you don't want people to call you names that make you feel bad, don't behave in a manner that causes others to hold negative opinions of your actions... --Jayron32.talk.contribs 18:30, 1 November 2008 (UTC)

Maybe its the season, but that made me think of "If you don't want the government to arrest you for being subversive, don't vote for the other guy..." Maybe more appropriate is that old maxim about not righting a wrong with another wrong. Anyway, there is no reason to tolerate that sort of thing on the admins IRC channel - its poisonous on a number of levels (not least because it results in this sort of problem). I'm curious about the reaction to that comment in the channel - did anyone say anything against it, was it ignored, was it echoed? Avruch ^T 18:43, 1 November 2008 (UTC)

There is a BIG difference between holding an unpopular opinion, and behaving in a rude manner. One can hold unpopular opinions, and should not be sanctioned for it. However, the holding of unpopular opinions does not also excuse behaving in a generally rude and obnoxious behavior. If you behave obnoxiously, you can't then expect that people are NOT going to react to that. --Jayron32.talk.contribs 19:21, 1 November 2008 (UTC)

Daniel joined the channel, made the comment, and left. Nobody commented on it. I wasn't active at the time. It's clear to me that Daniel was trolling Giano there. The context of this is probably the conversation between Giano and Daniel yesterday, on Daniel's user talk page. Each of these two is egging on the other one. — Carl (CBM · talk) 18:53, 1 November 2008 (UTC)

How is asking him to desist attacking after I had assisted in tth e ublock of a wrongly blocked editor egging him on? Giano (talk) 10:09, 2 November 2008 (UTC)

Just to clarify - is this about #wikipedia-en-admins, or a different channel? Chase me ladies, I'm the Cavalry (talk) 18:57, 1 November 2008 (UTC)

A: #wikipedia-en-admins. With that clarified, I'm disengaging here. — Carl (CBM · talk) 18:59, 1 November 2008 (UTC)

Thanks. Also, edit summary? Chase me ladies, I'm the Cavalry (talk) 19:12, 1 November 2008 (UTC)

Might I suggest that both sides are in the wrong here? Giano has always made his opinions on civility clear, and so getting upset about the above comments seems a tad pointless (even if I and others don't see it as such.) On the other hand Daniel is not doing the project any favors. Both are baiting each other, and Giano seems to go out of his way to gather up more drama than he naturally attracts. Either way, this is about individuals, not the channel. David Fuchs 19:18, 1 November 2008 (UTC)

I see, so no drama and let IRC do as it pleases. Good idea. The project would collapse in 6 months. Giano (talk) 10:09, 2 November 2008 (UTC)

My own summary

1. Giano apparently took Daniel to task over a block that Giano disagreed with

No, Daniel and I had no discussion about the block, nor was he involved with it. Giano (talk) 15:20, 2 November 2008 (UTC)

People don't randomly just walk around and call people a name ... -t BMW c- 15:36, 2 November 2008 (UTC)

2. Giano may not have actually seen the entire history of the altercation with that other editor

What altercation with the other editor? Giano (talk) 15:20, 2 November 2008 (UTC)''

See, you might not have known some issues Daniel was dealing with on WP -t BMW c- 15:35, 2 November 2008 (UTC)

3. Daniel took exception to Giano taking him to task

I only objected to him discussing me on IRC. Giano (talk) 15:20, 2 November 2008 (UTC)

4. Daniel vented, inappropriately ... although maybe he'd had a dozen run-ins with extremely bad vandals, and this was the "last straw"?

What have I to do with vandals? Giano (talk) 15:20, 2 November 2008 (UTC)

Arrrghh...you were NOT mentioned as a vandal, I was building "context" around an incident. -t BMW c- 15:35, 2 November 2008 (UTC)

5. Giano got his feelings hurt.

No, Giano will not risk less self assured edotors being driven off by this loutish behaviour. Giano (talk) 15:20, 2 November 2008 (UTC)

Sound about right? Rule #1 of broadcast journalism: never say anything in front of a microphone that you wouldn't want the world to hear. Just because you THINK the microphone is off, doesn't mean it is. Yes, Giano should not have access to those logs, but it let's not go on a witch hunt there.

No, not in the least right. Giano (talk) 15:20, 2 November 2008 (UTC)

You're neither able to look at "big picture" or look at context. You're obviously never going to solve this issue, as you're focused on ONE SINGLE SOLUTION, which is never going to happen. So, start collaborating and SOLVE the problem, rather than being part of the problem. -t BMW c- 15:35, 2 November 2008 (UTC)

• Bwilkins, (the man with the two tone sig) I have come to the conclusion you do not have a clue what you are talking about here. Giano (talk) 15:43, 2 November 2008 (UTC)

...and I have come to the conclusion that when you don't get exactly what you want, you start to denigrate other editors who are both looking at a) the big picture and b) the betterment of the entire project and not just their own personal needs. -t BMW c- 16:30, 2 November 2008 (UTC)

CONCLUSION: Giano - leave Daniel alone. Forever. Daniel - leave Giano alone. Forever. If you need to template/block him for some reason, let someone else do it (even if you have to discuss it in IRC first :-) ). -t BMW c- 13:29, 2 November 2008 (UTC)

fairness

• You know, I'm left asking what would have happened if this remark had been made on wiki? Because I think that IRC incivility should not be tolerated any more or less than we tolerate incivility on wiki. There should be no allowance made for the fact that the remarks were made privately. So, an established wikipedian who called another a "wanker" on wiki, could face a 24 hour block. So, maybe Daniel should be banned fro IRC for 24 hours? On the other hand, on wiki, a civility block is very likely to be undone by someone, especially if there was no warning beforehand..... So, I'm not sure what should happen to Daniel.....except perhaps that he should face the same strong consequences for incivility that, say, Giano might face if he used similar invective on wiki. How does that sound?--Scott MacDonald (talk) 19:14, 1 November 2008 (UTC)
  • These sorts of comments aren't supposed to be tolerated in -en-admins, though unfortunately it depends on whether somebody is around to enforce channel rules and is willing to do so. I've personally had to +q Daniel in the channel before; these comments of his were clearly inappropriate and shouldn't be tolerated in the channel. krimpet✽ 19:36, 1 November 2008 (UTC)

But the IRC channel isn't part of the project. Indeed, it's not official - if you start moving it in as part of the project, then you start bringing in the possibility that decisions can be made "per IRC"... Chase me ladies, I'm the Cavalry (talk) 19:32, 1 November 2008 (UTC)

There is a major difference between bad behavior on the channel being being the concern of the people at Wikipedia, and making decisions at the channel. In fact, it's the possibility of bad behavior there being of concern here which should prevent decisions being made there. Personally, I've never participated or even listened there. DGG (talk) 19:47, 1 November 2008 (UTC)

And ArbCom has repeatedly stated per IRC isn't a good reason for anything. If you agree with something on IRC, then it can be brought to Wikipedia. It should aid rather than thwart. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs ^(talk) 19:56, 1 November 2008 (UTC)

Yes, but it's not a good reason for anything because it isn't part of the project. — Coren ^(talk) 21:41, 1 November 2008 (UTC)

Calling someone a fucking... anything is bad and highly inappropriate. Leaking logs is also bad. Both are bad. And both should stop. Cirt (talk) 19:49, 1 November 2008 (UTC)

Unless, of course, you're calling them a fucking awesome contributor. :) Master&Expert (Talk) 20:18, 1 November 2008 (UTC)

It's more important to address the inappropriate behavior that motivates people to leak logs, rather than just addressing the log leaking (which is extremely difficult to hunt down in such a large channel). Better to address the root cause, rather than just the resulting symptoms. krimpet✽ 19:58, 1 November 2008 (UTC)

Best to address both. Cirt (talk) 20:02, 1 November 2008 (UTC)

I personally think it is more important to deal with the symptoms, but the root cause needs to be addressed. Master&Expert (Talk) 20:18, 1 November 2008 (UTC)

Who leaked the logs is a complete red herring here. The idea that someone is not entitled to tell a third party they have been called a "fucking wanker" on IRC is absurd. There is no justification for such a comment being made and I do not think confidentiality should attach to a statement made in such a flagrant abuse of access to the channel. WJBscribe (talk) 16:54, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

• Traditionaly, the argument is that if the IRC (and especially en-Admins) channels were closed then the badmouthing would occur on other even more off-Wiki (because, as is being argued, there is no indication that en-WP - via ArbCom or any other body - has any real jurisdiction over them) and the good things - which are generalised as "checking the recent action by an admin was appropriate" and "finding an admin quickly" - lost. Well... let the bucketmouths find another venue for their mass debating of other peoples perceived failings because, whether it is admitted or not by the channel ops, the IRC channels have the veneer of WP endorsement due to the servers they are hosted on and the connections between the regulators and owners with WP. The fact that someone can troll or engage in behaviour not tolerated on the publicly viewable WP pages on pages apparently sanctioned by the WP hierarchy does not reflect well on that section of the community. Also, if you are unable to find an admin from the 1000+ active sysops on one of the noticeboards... well, the few that are on IRC are unlikely to want to disturb their slagfest anyhow... (and shutting down en-admins give the inhabitants less reason to be missing in action re assisting the encyclopedia).
• Shut it down already. "You have sat too long here for any good you have been doing..." LessHeard vanU (talk) 22:14, 1 November 2008 (UTC)

It's hardly a slagfest. I am there a fair bit and very rarely see incivility. Yes, it does happen from time to time, but it's certainly not part of the cultural norm of the place. On occasions where someone has gone a bit berserk in there, ops on the channel seem to have been able to control the situation (in one particular case, a long-standing contributor got kick-banned for a short period until they learned to behave). I think there is a problem of perception because historically (and certainly, when I first joined, I was absolutely disgusted and quit after only a few weeks) the place's main function appeared to be sharing dirt and stacking DRVs. Some more fair-minded users realised this was because of the absence of wider scrutiny and went on a campaign to bring in arbitrators and a wider, less insular section of the community. The other activity ceased pretty quickly thereafter. That was if my memory serves me correct June or July of 2007. In around November through to March this year something of a code of conduct came together. I think it even helps as a function to moderate some of our more action-heavy admins - they propose a completely bizarre action at admins, people tell them just how bizarre it is, and they think better of it. Orderinchaos 22:45, 1 November 2008 (UTC)

I am, as is obvious, pretty biased against IRC - so can you tell me what exactly the purpose en-admins serve? If a sysop needs a sanity check before an action, is there not some senior admin/editor they can canvass if they are unprepared to take it before the community (which should be fair indication that it isn't going to be uncontroversial anyway). Same thing if said admin is suspicious of certain accounts behaviour; checking publicly - with AfD considerations - is the appropriate method, not poisoning the well of admin opinion were claims might not be rebutted. The fact that Giano can, above, point out that someone has trolled the channel, and the ops were unaware indicates both that there is some continuing abuse of the venue and that violations of toc are not always noticed (let alone sanctioned). LessHeard vanU (talk) 22:56, 1 November 2008 (UTC)

Speaking personally, very very difficult to find anyone online when in the middle of some situation where one might need advice. Been there and done that *many* times. Almost *all* actions are in some way controversial now that Wikipedia has gotten so large that it is impossible for any admin, short of those ones that spend every waking moment of every day here following all the dramas and parties and politics, to know the implications of any decision they take, even a seemingly obvious or innocent one. I think not having en-admins would decrease the quality of admin decisions. I'd point to the Ashley Todd situation last week as one where I took an action off my own bat and several en-admins people, even those who agreed with my decision, talked me into retracting it in order to reduce Wikidrama. That check or balance would not have happened without the channel as it was 3 or 4 am in my time zone, and the people I talk to on gtalk would not have been awake and may not have noticed, given their editing interests lie elsewhere. Orderinchaos 23:01, 1 November 2008 (UTC)

One cannot hold channel ops who weren't online responsible for something they didn't see, or channel ops who were online responsible for a hit-and-run of this nature. Nobody is at fault here other than DanielB, who clearly acted inappropriately there. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 23:09, 1 November 2008 (UTC)

I agree. The fault is with the user who made the remark. I'm concerned that the user, user:Daniel, holds positions that require impartiality and discretion. I see that Daniel was the clerk of Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Geogre-William M. Connolley in which Giano was a party. I'd hope that he wouldn't act in that capacity in any future cases where he's expressed such a strong opinion about the parties. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 00:10, 2 November 2008 (UTC)

So... someone was insulted, in a semi-private place, where they couldn't see the insult (until someone showed them), so we're supposed to shut it down? I could almost understand the level of drama this caused if it happened in public, like on-wiki, or perhaps in a public channel. If this had happened in a different private channel or a private discussion between 2 people would it still be a problem? If we shut down every form of communication because someone got insulted on it and threw a fit, we'd be left with ... nothing. The gist of this discussion is basically that people shouldn't be allowed to say anything bad about anyone, anywhere, ever, where someone else might see it. Other users are humans and we aren't the thought police. Where is the harm here? Nothing would have been permanently recorded (until the insult was pasted here so it will be archived forever with the rest of this section). Can we all go back to doing something productive now? Mr.Z-man 23:06, 1 November 2008 (UTC)

It seems like a single example of impetuous behaviour by one individual. Had it had any import (i.e. resulted in an action on-wiki) or turned into a channel-wide denunciation of the user concerned, there'd be more cause for concern. As it stands, someone delivered an intemperate comment probably "for the lulz" (which were not by any evidence presented shared), should be cautioned by the IRC ops against doing so again, and the lines of text being generated over the one line can come to a close. Orderinchaos 23:13, 1 November 2008 (UTC)

Summary

It seems to me as if:

1. Giano is acting inappropriately by reading logs he's not permitted to read. Giano needs to stop looking for trouble, and stop reading administrator channel logs until he gets the mop. Any other user would get banhammered fast for spying on logs, and the only reason he isn't being is that it would split the community if he was blocked. I understand his concerns, and I'd probably do the same, but we need to have higher standards than this.

   I see so it's OK to act like that in the channel if no one knows. Shoot the messenger. Giano (talk) 10:18, 2 November 2008 (UTC)

2. Daniel is acting in such a way as to bring Wikipedia into disrepute, both with Giano and others. His edit summaries and messages are at times abusive, and I think he knows that they need improving. I have no doubt he's good at OTRS, and at other things he does, but an admin should never insult another user, for any reason.
3. In conclusion, both parties need to be topic banned from each other. And Giano needs to stop reading logs. If he's got concerns, he should take them up - politely - with the channel ops, but it's not a Wikipedia matter any more than WW or WR are. Chase me ladies, I'm the Cavalry (talk) 23:57, 1 November 2008 (UTC)

Which is what I did and Forrester asked for proof, Giano (talk) 10:18, 2 November 2008 (UTC)

• Support. I support this rational, balanced and objective summary by Chase me ladies, I'm the Cavalry (talk · contribs). Cirt (talk) 00:00, 2 November 2008 (UTC)
• Support This seems a fair assessment of the problems. This is a situation where neither side did anything defensable, and both should bear some blame for needless stirring up trouble. --Jayron32.talk.contribs 00:12, 2 November 2008 (UTC)

Meh, logs should (ideally) not leak. But if someone sends me a log and tells me I'm mentioned in it, I will read it. Can't really blame Giano for that. I think he's overreacted, especially since he's not exactly delicate on civility. As people have learned not to over-react to Giano's directness with his opinions on others, Giano should learn the same when he's the subject of such. But reading logs.....not a sin.--Scott MacDonald (talk) 00:03, 2 November 2008 (UTC)

Per Scott MacDonald; you are trying to convict Giano of reading a log to which they are not entitled, sent to him by a third party (I am surprised there isn't a posse/hanging party out looking for that "villain"), concerning an entry by which someone else completely violating the rules of the channel by denigrating Giano in foul and abusive language solely in an effort to irritate and create a reaction from Giano... Cml,I'mtC, this is the first time I have seen you miss the target but Giano is not the guilty party; it is the coward (who has not participated in this discussion) who made the offensive comment in an effort to provoke such a response. Without the initial comment there would have been nothing on which to castigate Giano for responding. LessHeard vanU (talk) 00:56, 2 November 2008 (UTC)

Q: Banhammered for looking at logs? Is that really true? I mean, if IRC is completely separate from WP, and people can't be banned on WP for what they say on IRC, how can someone be banned for looking at the logs? IronDuke 00:57, 2 November 2008 (UTC)

Damn, I wish I had your smarts! LessHeard vanU (talk) 01:00, 2 November 2008 (UTC)

Oh, hush :P . I know what you mean, but my point still stands, chaps: We don't know how he got the logs, and at the end of the day the channel is secure. There are ways to deal with problems on IRC, reading logs then shouting about them in a public forum, whether given to you by someone or gotten in some other way, is not the way to do it. Giano should have gone to the ops when he found this out, and let them deal with it. Equally, however, Daniel should be looking at a stern talking to. LHVU - this is a sincere request - come and lurk in the IRC channel. You'll see it's nothing more than a friendly forum where people can ask for help. Like #wikipedia, but with more mature humour and the occasional amusing link thrown in. I'm not suggesting Giano should be banhammered - but imagine what would happen to a new user if they were 'spying' on the chatroom - they'd get more than Giano would get, yes? Chase me ladies, I'm the Cavalry (talk) 01:08, 2 November 2008 (UTC)

You shouldn't need to rely on the privileged nature of the forum protecting the miscreant for uttering the offending verbiage to de-escalate potential problems; it should not be permitted in the first instance... I'm sorry, and I have noted my bias regarding IRC previously, but I have no interest in participating in this anomaly; a venue run by WP "high ups", populated by WP admins, discussing WP related matters, but having no authority from WP and no means of redress via WP. LessHeard vanU (talk) 01:40, 2 November 2008 (UTC)

"Giano should have gone to the ops when he found this out, and let them deal with it" Exactly what I did - and was aked on wiki for proof. I provided it Giano (talk) 10:18, 2 November 2008 (UTC)

• I want everyone in participation in this discussion to remember something very important - Daniel is a long-standing, highly valued administrator who does great work for the project, both in terms of content contributons and maintanance. It is not typical of him to call people "wankers". Therefore, the most I endorse with this incident is a trout to the face. Likewise, Giano is a quality editor who's writing skills are practically brilliant. He may be blunt and sometimes even tackless in some of his dealings, but all the good he does for the encyclopedia is truly to an exemplary standard. Poking around in other IRC conversations is intrusive, but Giano can be forgiven. He, also, should garner a good trouting.

• I agree with topic banning them from each other. They clearly aren't overly compatible with each other, and it would be best if they stayed out of one another's way.

Master&Expert (Talk) 01:05, 2 November 2008 (UTC)

I don't edit the same topics as Daniel. I have never had any contact with him before, his attack. Giano (talk) 10:18, 2 November 2008 (UTC)

Master: Well said. that's the point I was trying to make. A slapped wrist to them both, and we'll leave it at that. Chase me ladies, I'm the Cavalry (talk) 01:10, 2 November 2008 (UTC)

Cav, I'm still confused about the banning for IRC thing, hope I'm not being thick. (LHVU, were you saying you wished you had my smarts?) IronDuke 01:13, 2 November 2008 (UTC)

Yep, yours... theirs... anybodies... I ain't choosy, and I reckon they would come in usefull... LessHeard vanU (talk) 01:28, 2 November 2008 (UTC) (small "v" btw)

I guess it's hard to describe. The logs shouldn't be reposted without permission from all involved - this much is mentioned as soon as you join. I very much doubt Giano will reveal his sources for the logs, so we're left with about 3-400 admins who have to be very careful what they say - even in jest - because it will invariably be taken out of context if posted. I don't see why Giano needs to spy on the channel. When I talk about my girlfriend's medical condition in there, I don't want it being posted around some secret mailing list for all to see. It's a private channel, and I'd like it to stay that way - with oversight by a few trusted users, if required - but if I'm talking to my friends about anything, I don't want it subsequently read, used against me and taken out of context by people I hardly know. Chase me ladies, I'm the Cavalry (talk) 01:23, 2 November 2008 (UTC)

If you discuss your girlfriend's medical condition in an open chatroom with a group of strangers....Well, not a lot I can say to that one. Giano (talk) 10:18, 2 November 2008 (UTC)

Right, I think I knew all that. I can absolutely see how posting logs would get you kicked off the IRC, if it were known. But I cannot see how it would have repercussions onwiki, especially as it doesn't go the other way, ie, that things said on IRC are blockworthy here. Without picking a side here, I'd also agree that if someone was saying negative stuff about me on IRC, I'd like to know, and "privacy" concerns would hold little weigh with me in that context. IronDuke 01:30, 2 November 2008 (UTC)

Shoot the messenger. Giano (talk) 10:18, 2 November 2008 (UTC)

(ec) If reposting logs is banned on IRC, then the punishment takes place on IRC. Otherwise, everyone's actions on so-called 'Wikipedia' IRC channels becomes subject to the official policies and scrutiny of Wikipedia (which is what several ArbCom cases revolved around). I hope that when Cavalry is talking about banning for "spying" on IRC, he is talking about IRC ops banning people from IRC, not people being banned from Wikipedia. I suspect loose talk about "banhammering" (a horrible word, anyway) without saying whether the reference is to IRC or Wikipedia, has led to the confusion here. Carcharoth (talk) 01:31, 2 November 2008 (UTC)

A quick question. I was under the impression that permanent logs were being kept by arbitrators of the activity in the admins IRC channel to allow independent review if needed. Is that still being done? Carcharoth (talk) 01:34, 2 November 2008 (UTC)

They don't care what happens there. Giano (talk) 10:18, 2 November 2008 (UTC)

Way up at the top Jdforrester notes that his logs don't include the period including this particular event - it seems possible, likely even, that he is the person who supplies ArbCom with the channel logs upon request. This whole thing is a simple channel management problem that doesn't need to become a big community-wide debate. By and large, the volume of problems originating from IRC has gone way down. Daniel should probably have his #wikipedia-en-admins channel access suspended for some fixed or indefinite period, and everyone should go back to doing something else. Avruch ^T 01:56, 2 November 2008 (UTC)

This is all phooey. Giano complaining that someone used rude invective against him? Pot meet kettle. If Daniel should be sanctioned for these remarks, then it should be with the same measure that we deal with Giano. (That is no sanction at all.) No, I don't blame Giano for reading logs - if anyone sends me sekrit logs and tells me I'm mentioned, I'm sure to read. The real villain of the peace here is whoever sent Giano the logs. Not so much because logs were confidential, but because it is hard not to assume their motive was not pure trolling. Sitting anonymously somewhere and using your access to deliberately poke sticks in the cage to get the inevitable reaction is disruption of the worst type - the leaker should be thoroughly ashamed of themselves. If the leaker had a problem with the Daniel they should have gone to the ops - telling an explosive, habitually incivil, editor that someone was incivil about him, was never going to do anything other than cause a drama and was a fruitless waste of time.—Scott MacDonald (talk) 02:35, 2 November 2008 (UTC)

That's right shoot the messenfer leave the problem. Giano (talk) 10:18, 2 November 2008 (UTC)

• On a procedural level, if ArbCom doesn't sanction people for comments in IRC then is that anything the community should do? If that's what Daniel wrote then he should be ashamed of himself, and the chanops should be taking appropriate action. Yet it's hard to suppose restricting him on-wiki would be anything other than punitive: had the proposed restriction already been in place it wouldn't have prevented him from posting that at IRC, and wouldn't prevent that from happening again. The community rejected BADSITES soundly, and one of the associated principles is that only a very narrowly defined range of off-wiki actions is actionable on-wiki. If an editor posts coercive threats elsewhere we can siteban them here, and off-wiki canvassing would be actionable, but matters of incivility are best taken up with the local venue where the incivility occurred. Durova^Charge! 03:52, 2 November 2008 (UTC)

If this is the kind of behaviour we're going to get in that channel, then I say thank the Lord for those willing to leak logs for helping keep that channel accountable to the community. (And no, I do not leak logs myself.) Heimstern Läufer (talk) 07:09, 2 November 2008 (UTC)

The most sensible comment I have read here - and no he did not! Giano (talk) 10:48, 2 November 2008 (UTC)

As someone who has boycotted IRC for years, and who's gotten heads up from time to time about being the target of nastiness, I can't quite agree. The first step ought to be to have a private word with the person who posts something that rude, or bring it to the chanops' attention. Log sharing should be a last resort. And for something of this nature--just an obscene potshot--there's hardly a need to defend oneself. It's the sort of thing mature adults normally handle discreetly or rise above. Durova^Charge! 09:40, 2 November 2008 (UTC)

• Are you seriously suggesting Durova that editors should turn a blind eye to the insults of the IRC #admin's ratpack? This time they picked on one well able to defend himself - what happens on the occasions when the editor is not? He is just driven off or walks off in disgust. Shame on you Durova for even thinking such a thing. I will always point out the many shortcoming of that Arbcom sanctioned sewer. Giano (talk) 10:48, 2 November 2008 (UTC)

(outdent) Well, the chanops are the best place to go. They usually respond pretty well, and if for some reason they didn't it'd make a more persuasive case to come to ANI or some other venue afterward. Yet really, letting stuff like that go actually is what I've done. It says far more about the person who posted it than it does about you (or me or anybody who gets targeted in a cheap manner). Rising above such things isn't passivity; it's an active demonstration of who's the wiser person.

Maybe that's easier from the perspective of being able to join the channel, but refusing to. Years ago I used to own a motorcycle and it was much easier to sit in Los Angeles freeway traffic knowing I could weave between the cars and get out of there, but choosing not to. So yeah, if you're stuck in the SUV I see your point, and I didn't intend the statement in any demeaning manner. Best wishes. Durova^Charge! 19:20, 2 November 2008 (UTC)

This is the most nonsensical crap I've read in a while. We have people going on about how the channel is supposed to be separate from Wikipedia, but we want people to be sanctioned for things said in the channel that had no effect on Wikipedia until the logs were released to someone they shouldn't have been, and then the ANI drama machine fired up. Yes, Daniel should not have made that comment. But, the logs should not have been released to Giano, and this ANI thread should not have been started (the only purpose I can guess is to cause drama). 3 wrongs don't make a right. Yes, people leave Wikipedia when they get insulted, but they also leave when they get fed up with the wiki-thought-police trying to condemn everything as an act of incivility. What's said in an (ideally) private location to a few people does not deserve the same treatment as something said in a public forum. Are we going to start tapping the phones and intercepting the mail of Wikipedians to make sure they aren't saying anything bad about other Wikipedians there as well? Last I checked, we're all humans, we don't have to like everyone and we don't have to keep all negative emotions to ourselves. Mr.Z-man 19:59, 2 November 2008 (UTC)

All present drama aside, IRC is a tool

As someone who has a great deal of difficulty communicating clearly in written form without the ability for real-time interactive clarification, I find IRC to be quite useful. On-wiki communication options (especially very busy pages..) are extremely difficult for me to follow, much less participate in. By the time I've managed to compose what I want to say in a semi-coherent form, the discussion has moved on.. I can't tell you how many times I've spent half an hour working on a few sentances, ended up edit conflicted - then discovered that what I was going to say was no longer relevant due to other developments. At least on IRC I can spit out my thought & follow up with a clarification. IRC is a tool, no better nor worse than the individuals who use it. I've said this before, and I'll say it again.. Individuals are responsible for their own conduct... the medium shouldn't be condemned just because a few individuals behave improperly. --Versageek 02:37, 2 November 2008 (UTC)

And what about the rest of us who are subject of IRC discussions, but not party to them? Just look at all the shoot the messenger comments on here. Watch how fast I get blocked. BobDysart (talk) 23:15, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

OTRS

FWIW, DanielB has op access on other channels, and has discussed me often in private channels, such as the OTRS one, calling me names along the lines of "wanker", "asshole" etc. Giano is not alone as the receiving end of abuse. Additionally, DanielB abused op rights and kicked me from the open OTRS channel for no reason whatsoever, then banned me when I was asleep - I had to contact an OTRS admin to have the ban removed, and the admin agreed the ban was highly inappropriate. I asked Daniel about this, over on Meta-wiki: his response: "because". It's utterly disgraceful someone like this is representing Wikipedia, both as an administrator, and an OTRS respondant. He needs to grow up and get off his power trip. It's embarrassing watching it. It's because of people like him I no longer volunteer for OTRS, or assist in its related IRC channels. Al Tally ^talk 23:26, 1 November 2008 (UTC)

I'm moving this comment off into its own subsection. OTRS, arguably, is more crucial to the functioning of Wikipedia than the en-admins channel, and deals with more sensitive private information and public relations areas, as far as I'm aware. If there is inappropriate behaviour in the OTRS channel and this affects how the OTRS system works, that is something that people should be concerned about. So I would ask the following: "What is the connection between the official Wikipedia:OTRS system and the OTRS IRC channel?" Carcharoth (talk) 23:40, 1 November 2008 (UTC)

As far as I am aware, it is quite official. The open channel is for users who are not on OTRS, who can ask questions of agents (such as "Does x ticket say n thing?" or "I need a permissions check".) All agents are voiced. The private channel is open to only users with access to the "info-en" queue - the one that deals with common complaints (such as vandalism, errors in articles, FAQs, as well as the "quality" issues such as sensitive BLP enquiries - often dealing with the subject). The private channel is a fairly recent creation - the biggest difference to the open one is that contents of tickets can be openly discussed, since only "trusted" users have access. The channels are run by the OTRS admins (most active being Cary Bass, Guillom, and Jredmond), and a handful of ops, afaik, they are Rjd0060, Cbrown1023 and DanielB. I'd say they are pretty official. On the private wiki, for example, there is a page one can use to request access to the private channel. Since it's run by the administration, I think it's the official channel. Al Tally ^talk 23:48, 1 November 2008 (UTC)

No channels are officially official, as far as I know, and there is no way of legislating to prevent people getting annoyed and venting. Mining for such examples and then presenting them without context is hardly an act of good faith. And these are really very trivial attacks (especially compared with, say, what User:ParalelUni has written about me on Encyclopedia Dramatica). Since these events have not taken place on Wikipedia I don't see much need to discuss them here; if you have a problem with what Daniel has written in the OTRS channels then I recommend you talk to Cary about it, as Cary can probably resolve the issue without escalating it further. And if anyone is leaking the OTRS channels then we have a very serious problem as these may contain personal data. Guy (Help!) 00:10, 2 November 2008 (UTC)

I wouldn't expect an ED writer to be the politest of people. I would expect someone like Daniel (long term admin here, Meta, Wikinews, OTRS agent, board election committee, op on several IRC channels) to be a lot better behaved than that. I spoke to Cary (and to Jredmond). Cary ignored my private message, and Jredmond listened, but didn't really do anything about it. Daniel, as far as I know, still has access, and is still acting incredibly immaturely, be it in the OTRS channel or the admins channel. If Cary doesn't think it's a problem, that's Cary's business. I very much find it a problem. Al Tally ^talk 00:19, 2 November 2008 (UTC)

At Majorly: I can confirm your statement that the #wikimedia-otrs channel is open to all users, and that non-OTRS agents are still welcome. I myself have idled in the channel for some months with zero incident. AGK 00:16, 2 November 2008 (UTC)

That's great to hear, AGK. Daniel obviously doesn't have personal issues with you. Al Tally ^talk 00:19, 2 November 2008 (UTC)

Executive summary: IRC should still be avoided for managing, against all expectations, to actually be worse than nothing at all. Nandesuka (talk) 03:04, 2 November 2008 (UTC)

This is all totally amazing isn't it? I assist in the unblock of an editor who was wrongly blocked. For this, I am then attacked on IRC. I then post in wiki requesting not to be attacked on IRC. A "Pseudo-Admin" then says I imagined it. Then logs prove I did not - he retracts. Then I'm attacked on IRC again "fucking wanker" So I ask James Forester to ensure it does not happen again. He asks for proof. He gets it. I'm then attacked by many IRC users here for complaining about it. Funny old world isn't it? I'm afraid, IRC wants us all just to put up and shut up. Giano (talk) 09:52, 2 November 2008 (UTC)

Which user did you help unblock who was wrongly blocked? Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 10:55, 2 November 2008 (UTC)

I have found Daniel to be rude to some people before, on wiki. But don't expect anything to be done about it because as someone said the other day, in most organizations the further you go up the ranks the better the standard of behaviour expected of you, but on wiki the further you go up the ranks, the more leeway you're given to misbehave.:) Sticky Parkin 13:37, 2 November 2008 (UTC)

...Which is the same reason Giano is still around after all his name-calling. There's really no issue here that needs admin intervention. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs ^(talk) 16:41, 2 November 2008 (UTC)

A new era has dawned courtesy of #Admins.

This consensus of this discussion, and indifference by the Arbcom, has now made me realise we are entering a new period of "free for all", any wikipedia editor can level any personal insult at any user of #admins that s/he cares to, and in return #Admins can carry on as normal. What is sauce for the goose is sauce for the gander. Civility policies anywhere are now dead and buried and unenforceable. Giano (talk) 22:15, 2 November 2008 (UTC)

Are you done yet? HalfShadow 22:18, 2 November 2008 (UTC)

Giano, civility has been dead on the wiki for a while. #admins is just playing catchup with you.--Scott MacDonald (talk) 22:32, 2 November 2008 (UTC)

Spoken like the true IRCAdmin that you "are." and I don't think I have ever called anyone a "fucking wanker" but there you are, there's always a first time. Giano (talk) 22:33, 2 November 2008 (UTC)

Some accusations that have been levelled at me have, at times, hurt. However, inarticulate scatological invective is really not up high in my top ten things that upset me. But YMMV.--Scott MacDonald (talk) 22:40, 2 November 2008 (UTC)

That's not scatological insult. The problem is that a message has been conveyed that suggests certain editors who are unpopular with the IRC cabal may be attacked without fear. As it happens, the folks who control IRC also control ArbCom, so if you happen to disagree with their management of the channel, you have no recourse except an appeal to the public. There is a reason other civilized countries have a separation of powers within their governments. No matter how benign a oligarchy starts out, the excessive concentration of power inevitably leads to corruption. Jehochman ^Talk 22:47, 2 November 2008 (UTC)

A message was conveyed long ago by some that civility was dead on wiki. Now to go around playing rabble-rousing power politics by demanding it be enforced off-wiki is just laughable. But I can't say I'm either surprised or bothered by the irony. I've given up expecting any civility.--Scott MacDonald (talk) 22:56, 2 November 2008 (UTC)

The failings of certain individuals aside, civility is still expected on wiki and I think it is dreadful to suggest otherwise. Dragons flight (talk) 22:39, 2 November 2008 (UTC)

Expected from whom? Most of us have long given up that expectation, along with watching for an imminent parousia.--Scott MacDonald (talk) 22:42, 2 November 2008 (UTC)

Will you be becoming an admin? - or just lurking in the channel? Giano (talk) 22:46, 2 November 2008 (UTC)

[unindent]Am I the only one thinking this horse is beginning to smell? The world ain't perfect, get used to it, now let's all move on. ~ L'Aquatique! [^talk/_stats] 00:22, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

L'Aquatique is a frequent user of #Admins so we can dismiss his views on this subject. Giano (talk) 12:07, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

• ...Can we archive this thread, please? Protonk (talk) 00:34, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

• Civility is not so much the issue here as the underhandedness of doing it in a closed forum that is still used as a decision-making tool of sorts. Even WR is better than that in that can be freely accessed by anyone. #Admins is nothing but a cabal-breeding cesspool and should be treated as such. More importantly, the issue of IRC leaking aside, it's unacceptable for anyone to not disclose, where applicable, the simple fact that they took part in an opinion-forming off-wiki discussion. Need not contain details, but there is a bright line between legitimate privacy and purposeful dishonesty. Everyme 12:39, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

• • How does this one channel qualify as a cabal-breeding cesspool, but not any other IRC channel, email, IM, skype, or voice telephone conversation? It would be absurd (as well as unenforceable) to require people to state any time they have thought about an issue, or raised it with another person, before posting on the wiki. — Carl (CBM · talk) 14:36, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

• I'm not talking about "enforcing" anything. Honesty cannot be enforced like that. But it's still relevant and it should go without saying that anyone should disclose the simple fact of having participated in a forum where many experienced and active Wikipedians (not to mention: admins) participate. Just a matter of politeness and sincerity. Look at it the other way around: Would it diminish my trust in an admin if I found out that they participated in off-wiki discussion with many active Wikipedians which can plausibly be assumed to have a formative effect on their opinion as put into fact by actions on Wikipedia, without disclosing the fact they participated in such discussion? Yes, very much so. To the extent that I wouldn't trust them with the tools anymore, actually. Intellectual dishonesty is despicable. Straightforwardness should be encouraged at every turn. Not "enforced", as that's not possible. But encouraged. Are you arguing it should be discouraged ? Everyme 15:02, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

So what's going to happen now?

I notice this thread has been archived away; swept under the rug so to speak, try to hide this disgraceful incident. I want to know several things: hopefully I will be able to do it in a more civil manner than Giano, who I very much agree with.

Was anything at all done about this behaviour, on the channel? I mean, was there any sanction given, what "words" were said. As myself and Krimpet, and others have said above, Daniel has a history of poor behaviour in the channel (and ironically, it was he who was advocating my removal from there). How long is this going to be tolerated for?

Other issues: why are there arbitrators in charge of the channel? (FT2, James F, Deskana, Dmcdevit (former), YellowMonkey etc). It's hardly surprising nothing gets done about the damage the channel is doing, when the people who are supposedly dealing with it, are the ones running it. Another question, is the channel being logged for private use by ArbCom so that incidents like this can be swiftly dealt with? I heard it was, but perhaps I'm wrong.

Do not archive this thread: this is not over. Al Tally ^talk 12:18, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

Why should something be done? It's off-Wiki, it's in a channel that is not officially endorsed by WP. We have the right and we reserve the right to say anything about anyone, much like how people will go to WR and other sites and say whatever about anybody with no negative recourse here. People are crying over spilled milk here, and especially as to who the complaint is coming from, makes this "complaint" even more worthless. seicer | talk | contribs 12:44, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

Don't pretend that just because it's not "officially" endorsed makes it completely separate. It's run by our arbitrators, and only administrators from this website are allowed in there. It may be off-wiki, but it's part of Wikipedia, like it or not. And don't claim that things said off-site get ignored here, because they don't - I shouldn't have to give examples. Al Tally ^talk 12:50, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

Seicer, fact is, it's being used as an opinion-forming tool and AFAIK discussions there frequently lead directly to decisions on-wiki. Everyme 13:05, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

They do, but if someones acts on something "per IRC" he must be able to stands by his action as an individual. IRC is a way to gather opinions on something, not a decision making process. Majorly, if you are concerned about Daniel's OTRS related actions, I suggest you discuss it with an OTRS admin. -- lucasbfr ^talk 15:11, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

I have already, but apparently his conduct ("wanker" "fucker" "arsehole" etc) is acceptable for someone representing the foundation. It's not my problem, but Wikimedia's. Al Tally ^talk 17:13, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

As far as I can tell Daniel has been inactive both on IRC and on Wikipedia since the incident. I have no idea if James F or a channel op has contacted him privately, and until Daniel comments we'll probably not know.

The statement "the people who are supposedly dealing with it, are the ones running it." makes no sense at all. First, Freenode runs the channel under the direct control of James F, not arbcom. On the other hand, the only way for arbcom members to enforce anything on the channel is for them to be ops, which is why they're ops. So they don't "run" the channel, but they have the ability to remove people from the channel if/when needed. There are other ops who are not on arbcom - are those people also "running" the channel? — Carl (CBM · talk) 13:57, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

The whole IRC/Arbcom is too incestuous [2] the Arbs do nothing because they know that IRC are the ones that vote for them and keep them where they are. When the Arbs decided to examine IRC#admins, who did they appoint to examine? Why, non other than our old friend FT2 - the darling of IRC - no wonder he found no problem. How much longer are we going to keep taking this rubbish from this so called Arbcom/Chanop committee? Giano (talk) 15:08, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

James F is on ArbCom. While James doesn't really "run" the channel, it's certainly the case FT2 does, along with the other ops. And the thing is, they clearly don't remove people, or at least not permanently. Al Tally ^talk 17:13, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

So, if we've opened this thread up again, surely we have some plan as to what will be accomplished by further flagellation of this issue. Both Seicer and Everyme are right, unfortunately. Siecer is right that no one in this noticeboard has the ability or the right to do anything that Majorly or giano would like (shut the channel down or open the logs up). But Everyme is absolutely right that admin IRC has an architectural tendency to produce cliquish behavior and obscure motivation and history to the majority of editors. Saying that "nothing is done per IRC" is neither accurate nor important. No one leaves the IRC channel and says "we decided to block you on IRC, so you are blocked". But that doesn't mean that decisions don't get made and opinions don't get hardened there. Having said that, what purpose does this thread serve? How many more people need to say "boy, that was a shitty thing to say but it doesn't really point to some fundamental flaw" and "This is an example of admin cabalism, etc.."? Protonk (talk) 15:10, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

This has become yet another vent for Giano's many consistent tirades against administrators and "cabals" that include those who participate at IRC and other discussion forums, and is one with no set conclusion. To be frank, IRC is not administered by Wikipedia, Jimbo or any other group -- Freenode runs the channel under James F. as stated above; not the Arbitration Committee. Going to the Committee for this petty incident will result it in being declined. So what else can you do? Beat the dead horse down to ashes? Or is this only going to serve to further your agenda? seicer | talk | contribs 15:25, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

I do not think comments that Giano should have pursued other avenues of complaint before coming to this board should detract from the fact that he has a totally legitimate grievance. No one should be surprised given his history with the channel that he has been as angered by these events as he is. The admin channel is not a forum for abusive language to be used about other Wikipedians. It is my opinion from my involvement in the channel that such incidents are very rare and do not reflect the overwhelming majority of discourse in the channel - however much others seem to believe otherwise. That said, the current rarity of such incidents does not excuse them and I expect action to be taken in response to this matter. I note that Giano appears to have received no apology for the comment. I am also disappointed at the apparent defensiveness I read in responses to Giano. It seems to me that the original insult has only been compounded by them - grilling someone about how they found out they were called a fucking wanker is not going to create a positive impression of the dispute resolution process. "Go away Giano and stop complaining about IRC" is not an appropriate way to respond to a legitimate complaint. WJBscribe (talk) 17:03, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

I couldn't have put it better myself. Yes, the channel is mostly harmless, but the few times it isn't, it can be disasterous. This is a serious matter, and it doesn't help when people like Seicer try to dismiss it as "Giano trolling" or whatever. While I don't necessarily agree with Giano's methods here, I completely and utterly see where he's coming from, as I am in the same boat as him. I also have never received any form of apology whatsoever from my own experience of Daniel's abusive behaviour. Al Tally ^talk 17:13, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

You attributed your "quote" to the wrong individual. seicer | talk | contribs 17:16, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

Notice the "or whatever" part. It means you didn't say those exact words. Here are the words you did say, that basically mean the same thing: "This has become yet another vent for Giano's many consistent tirades" "Or is this only going to serve to further your agenda?". Al Tally ^talk 17:22, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

(I am a fairly regular participant on the admins irc channel). The admins channel is an interesting problem. In a house with glass walls, it is pretty much the only room with opaque walls - it is not surprising that there are people that find it questionable, given how transparent the decision making process is in other aspects.

Administrator conduct must be open for review. For all the jokes about cabals, we can and should not go down the path where people in the in clique can make decisions without review. But then again, a place where administrators can consult and contact each other privately for advice is unquestionably useful. A teacher might need to consult with colleagues discuss how to grade a paper; that does not mean it should be done in front of the student or open for anyone to see the discussion. The same applies to admins wanting feedback on potentially problematic user conduct. Likewise many of these discussions should be kept private; not for the admins sake but for the user's. It serves no purpose for other students to see the discussion on how a fellow student is graded, and can be used against them. But the problem is that the same confidentiality can be used to hide problems.

My conclusion so far is that the channel is a net positive after all. That does not mean it couldn't be improved. My preferred solution which I've advocated on channel is that the logs should be opened up, but with a time delay of n months. Long enough to not to cause or prolong endless drama on the issue of the day, but short enough that any misconduct can be addressed and any systematic problems be addressed.

Another option would be to have a review board, separate from arbcom and the admin community, for example of trusted non-admins and give them read-only access with a mandate to review the content and discussions. The substantiative complaint of Giano is that the review board of the channel is the same as the users - a viewpoint I find valid. Simply put: External review usually works better. henrik•talk 17:08, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

I don't disagree with you, but I want to reinforce something said above - if the arbitration committee is to have the technical ability to enforce any decisions they arrive at upon review, then members of the committee (or clerks, perhaps) must be channel operators. That they are channel operators for this reason doesn't make them de facto "part of the channel" and incapable of reviewing complaints against conduct in the channel. Not being a member, I can't verify that they are ops primarily to engage in conduct review - but maybe someone can clarify that directly. Avruch ^T 17:27, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

The channel is useful to you because you have access to it. Using a private Admin only channel only exacerbates the problems already manifest at Wikipedia. Can't y'all see what Wikipedia is becoming with new users and the public becoming increasingly alienated and atagonized? BobDysart (talk) 23:23, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

End result

After a discussion between myself, other ops and users, Daniel has been banned from the channel for an indefinite period (i.e. until he satisfactorily addresses the situation). John Reaves 21:37, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

Huh? what? accountability from the #admins leadership? there are actually going to be consequences for mis-behavior on that channel? Wow, this is a remarkable development. How did this happen? Is someone being blackmailed? --Duk 22:32, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

P.S. for what it's worth, I think what Daniel did is insignificant compared to the historic lack of accountability at that channel, where even getting a coherent response from the channel leadership was like pulling teeth. Same thing this time, except someone actually got blocked. By the way, has he been re-admitted to #admins yet? Historically this only takes a couple of hours (if I recall correctly). --Duk 22:39, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

C'mon now, no need for the sarcasm. Thank you to the chanops for finally taking long-needed action here. At the very least, I'd expect a public apology before any reconsideration of re-admittance, and a serious look at how the channel is run is needed. Al Tally ^talk 22:55, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

Sorry, it's too little too late. They have had to be forced kicking and screaming to lift a finger, and I expect he is back in there by now anyway. Giano (talk) 22:58, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

Don't worry. They'll be more careful not to let any logs leak out in the future. Long live the cabal! BobDysart (talk) 23:24, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

I have never approved enforced apologies as a condition for unblocks on Wikipedia. They're humiliating and they invite insincerity. I thought most people agreed about this? No? Anyway, for myself, I'm not about to start approving forced apologies (because of course an apology is what this is about, right?) as a condition for getting unbanned on en-admins, either. Come on, use your imagination. What use is a squeezed-out apology to Giano? You can tell he doesn't want it, can't you? Much better to give Daniel some appropriate length of an en-admins ban (a symbolic length, since he has surely been piled-on sufficiently, in this ANI thread and elsewhere). And forget the apology to Giano thing. Please. Bishonen | talk 12:41, 4 November 2008 (UTC).

• I do not want an apology, I have never asked for one. It would stick in Daniel's throat and cause bile in mine. I would imagine being banned form #Admins is more of a holiday than a sanction, but I expect on past form the sanction will be minutes rather than days or weeks. Funnily enough, I don't really blame Daniel, he sees so much such behaviour there I expect he thought it was the acceptable norm. The people I blame are the channels leaders, the FT2s of this world. When appointed by the Arbcom in February to investigate the deplorable state of affairs in the channel, he assured us all, after a short discussion with those regulars who happened to be around (a discussion where some 90% of the words were FT2 himself repeating ad nauseam how fine everything was), that the channel was properly regulated. It is not regulated at all. If it was, this painful situation would not have arisen. We have an Arbcom comprised of #Admins asking other senior #Admins to investigate it and report their findings. It was always going to be whitewash and stitch up, and as usual it is the community who pays the price for a bunch of ne'er do wells lounging about gossiping and promoting themselves while the rest of us write the encyclopedia over which their sole pleasure is to lord it and throw their weight about. Giano (talk) 13:30, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

To me, "Satisfactorily addresses the situation" doesn't mean a forced apology (which I agree is rather worthless). Rather, it means explaining why he acted that way, undertaking not to do so in future, and giving some reason to believe the assurance and some understanding that there are consequences. ++Lar: t/c 21:23, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

Lar's on to something here, I never said anything about an apology (which is more than welcome, but not necessary for unbanning). John Reaves 22:17, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

Please, just leave it, just reading you both is too much, the CheckUser and the Chan op - just leave it. Please spare us all the further embarrassment of having to try and think kindly and assume good faith of anything further you both may say. Giano (talk) 23:09, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

It is my observation that the comment on IRC which started this shitstorm was almost certainly a Parting shot by Daniel, he left IRC immediately after and hasn't been back in any of the places (IRC or Wiki) that he normally visited on a daily basis. Even if he does come back at some point, I seriously doubt there will be any apologies.. although, IMHO - several are due.. --Versageek 23:40, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

Probably worth pointing out that it's exam season in Australia at the moment, and will be until around the 29th of this month. I know Daniel's fairly young and a university student. (I don't think this fact is entirely unrelated to the outburst, personally.) Hence I wouldn't read too much into any absence unless it extends into December. I personally think banning him from IRC was a complete overreaction - as an example, if you steal a Smarties pack in a shop you do not do jail time, more likely you would pay a fine or do community service or something. I think an IRC version of a civility sanction for a period of time may have been a better (and maybe even more productive) option. Orderinchaos 01:36, 5 November 2008 (UTC)