Wikipedia talk:Requests for arbitration/IRC/Proposed decision

Arbitrators hearing this case

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

Arbitrators active on this case

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

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)

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)

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)
  • • 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)

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)

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)

"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)

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)