Wikipedia talk:Requests for arbitration/Giano/Proposed decision

Principle 16

"having engaged in bad behavior in the past, it is difficult for an desyopped administrator to pass Wikipedia:Requests for adminship due to the requirement for consensus."

I would urge the arbiters to consider that while it may seem that way, this evidence points in a different direction: that most ex-admins coming to RFA again fail for reasons entirely unrelated to what got them demoted in the first place. I agree with the sentiment that RFA is far too critical of people to the point of being broken, but whatever problems RFA has are not resolved by bypassing it. >Radiant< 14:44, 2 October 2006 (UTC)

I concur. Please look at the evidence rather than the rumor or impression. Radiant has compiled a very, very telling analysis, and to have that work ignored and gainsaid without even consideration is very poor judgment, it seems to me. At least engage the evidence, but don't assert the counter position as if in ignorance or disregard of evidence. Geogre 13:48, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

Links back to Workshop?

Is it possible to have links from these sections back to the relevant sections of the Workshop, so that Arbitrators coming to this page 'cold' can go there and read the comments left by those who were discussing these issues on the Workshop pages? Either that, or an indication of whether the rest of the Arbitration committee are reading the Workshop pages? Obviously Fred is active over on the Workshop pages, but he did say that he was generally the only ArbCom member to use those pages. I think I did see another ArbCom member on the talk page of the Workshop, but he said that the Workshop was so big that it, um, crashed his browser! Anyway, I recognise that at some point the Arbitrators have to form their own conclave and pass judgement, but I just wanted to ensure the extensive (and almost entirely civil) discussion that took place on those Workshop pages is not overlooked. Carcharoth 00:50, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

I don't know what they look at. I presume that look at all the evidence and carefully analyze all the material on the Workshop. But that may not be true. Fred Bauder 19:43, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

Poor wording

There is consistently poor wording, and I believe that Fred's draft, at this point, is a prosecution rather than assessment of evidence from all sides. Saying something like "do not troll" is inarguable, until you realize that it's stated only to get at "those who disagreed more than once were trolling," just as "do not bait" is inarguable, until you realize that "you are a boil" and "you are all idiots" is, in this characterization, merely an "undiplomatic response," while, "Did you all actually agree with this decision" is "baiting." A difference of opinion is the stuff of Wikipedia, but these interpretations are so beyond the pale as to amount to advocacy that is better suited to the workshop than judgment made from a position of disinterest and dispassion. Throughout this proposed decision, exceptionally ill-defined terms that carry enormous emotional freight are employed, and there is never an effort made to justify or explain why or how such terminology should be anything but fuel to the fire, rather than a calm assessment. In regular jurisprudence, judges are supposed to be unemotional and without prior friendships with disputants. Geogre 13:53, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

I don't think we can farm this out to Meatball. A dispute here will end up with us, warts and all. Fred Bauder 19:47, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

Very true. Picking one side of an argument and saying "this side was baiting the other" means little other than "I happen to agree with the other side." I think it's obvious that there was lots of disagreement and criticism, sometimes harshly worded, all around. Friday (talk) 14:07, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

I want to repeat my statement before the arbitration was accepted (now deleted for some reason): As for "addressing the idea fought over in this discussion editors vs. admins", I don't see how ArbCom may issue a satisfactory ruling in favor of contributors, being composed primarily of non-writing admins. InkSplotch's request is all the more ill-advised, as some parties expressed doubts in the integrity of the ArbCom and its procedures. Bringing the case to be decided by the judge they don't trust seems the worst issue possible. Now we have a predictably poor finale to a manipulative arbitration rigged up by a sockpuppet account. What may be less surprizing? --Ghirla ^-трёп- 15:55, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

Your statement is included in the decision as a comment to Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Giano/Proposed_decision#Jurisdiction_of_the_Arbitration_Committee, a dissenting opinion, if you will. Fred Bauder 19:47, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

Ghirla, for whatever comfort it may be, your statement is still to be found here on the case talk page. The convention seems to be that when a case is opened, the parties' statements stay on the main case page and non-party statements/comments go on the associated talkpage. Newyorkbrad 16:32, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

Lest there is any misunderstanding, I am not trying to say Fred's a bad guy, impugn him in any way, but the wording here is really bothersome. I have an assignment where students read an article about "fat is fine," and the article throughout talks about how "fat" has no harmful effects, etc. I teach my students to notice that this begs the question of "what is fat?" 5 kg overweight is very different from 50 kg overweight. In this proposed judgment, there are many, many cases of undefined, damaging words. I would not like to have this very argument, for example, cited as "baiting" or "trolling" or anything, and yet Fred's proposed decision, at this point, suggests that you get to say something exactly once, and, if the other person does not change his or her tune, doing anything more (other than, apparently, blocking without moderation) is "trolling." That's a hideous idea. Geogre 14:49, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

I'd like to see you say anything just 3 times, or even so little as a dozen times. Fred Bauder 19:40, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

Please see the section below for my comment on this amazing discourtesy. Bishonen | talk 21:53, 3 October 2006 (UTC).

Judging by such comments, RfAr degenerates from quasi-judicial procedures to quasi-personal vendettas. Not that it had not been evident before this case, though. Another illustration of corruption is that people resort to sockpuppetry in order to launch a RfAr with seemingly predetermined results. There is very little trust in ArbCom these days. --Ghirla ^-трёп- 07:13, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

Ah, the gratuitous insult, and then the illogical proposal to follow. Please try to be calm, Fred. It's not helpful for you to get angry, as your resulting words are irrational. Geogre 00:59, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

Explanation needed

Since "wikipedia is not a battleground" is cited as justification for demoting people, would Fred deign to explain to folks how that policy applies to discussing policy? He cites it as a lynchpin and proof, and yet I cannot see how the policy supports any injunction of any user, much less administrator demotion. Geogre 02:49, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

Highly Unanticipated Provisions of Proposed Decision - Geogre and John Reid

Among other things, the /Proposed Decision being drafted by Fred Bauder proposes that Geogre be desysopped ("suspended indefinitely" as an administrator "for sustained aggressive political campaigning" is the precise wording). John Reid would be banned for one week for his postings to the Bureaucrats' Noticeboard. In all the pounds of typing expended in the Workshop and elsewhere, not a single user suggested that either of these remedies was in order or should even be considered. I did not agree with everything that Geogre or John Reid said during the past month, but I consider these proposals to be entirely unreasonable and unacceptable. Newyorkbrad 20:36, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

1. Second that. -- Grafikm ^(AutoGRAF) 20:46, 3 October 2006 (UTC)
2. Thirded. To add, desysopping is not going to do ANYTHING for the issues at hand that Geogre is accused of. So, there is NO rationale for this.-- Kim van der Linde ^{at venus} 20:50, 3 October 2006 (UTC)
3. Fourthed, for what it's worth. --Conti|✉ 21:19, 3 October 2006 (UTC)
4. I'm stunned to read that it's even been proposed. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 21:31, 3 October 2006 (UTC)
5. Yikes, a non sequitur at best. Outrageous attempt at punishing an outspoken but rational critic. Rx StrangeLove 21:38, 3 October 2006 (UTC)
6. Strongly support what Newyorkbrad writes. Desysopping Geogre is unreasonable, there was nothing that he wrote that was so terrible, and he never used his admin powers in conflict. He was by no means the only one writing these things; desysopping him for it would only further the impression that the Wikipedia administrators are a club expected to conceal their own opinons, toe the party line, and circle the wagons in the face of any criticism. Blocking John Reid is overkill, nothing indicates that he intends to damage the Wikipedia, note that "Blocks are preventive rather than punitive measures" (WP:BLOCK, nothing and, frankly, if administrators are supposed to be thicker skinned than the average user, surely bureaucrats should be even more so. AnonEMouse ^(squeak) 20:56, 3 October 2006 (UTC)
7. Unreasonable and unacceptable desysopping and block, yes. As for Fred's personal attack just above, "I'd like to see you say anything just 3 times, or even so little as a dozen times", that's the voice of one who doesn't understand the obligations a position of power places on him. Oh, no, did I say that? Trolling! Desysop Bishonen! Bishonen | talk 21:49, 3 October 2006 (UTC).
8. Yes, utterly unreasonable, as per all the comments above. I have an extremely hard time believing anyone could seriously suggest such a thing. Friday (talk) 21:54, 3 October 2006 (UTC)
9. LOL surely a joke! I think Fred must be baiting. It's clear now this process is utterly unworkable. --Mcginnly | Natter 21:59, 3 October 2006 (UTC)
10. Well it's not a very funny joke, so I strongly advise Fred Bauder to retract that proposal. Giano 22:01, 3 October 2006 (UTC)
11. I'm absolutely gobsmacked. Desysop for alleged "disruption" an exemplary admin who has never abused the tools? I'm not normally this direct, but I have to say I think that must be one of the very worst suggestions I've seen since I joined Wikipedia. AnnH ♫ 22:48, 3 October 2006 (UTC)
12. Hmph. I wrote a long diatribe with lots of technical objections. But then I deleted it and decided just to leave this show of support. Carcharoth 22:50, 3 October 2006 (UTC)
13. See, I don't have a way of adding myself to this list that doesn't come across as cronyism, or as a personal attack on Fred Bauder's rationality. (Or maybe both.) So maybe I shouldn't add myself to this list. But I guess it would be dishonest not to. —Bunchofgrapes (talk) 22:53, 3 October 2006 (UTC)
14. I'm not sure that this does anything, but egads. --badlydrawnjeff talk 23:03, 3 October 2006 (UTC)
15. Exactly as per Carcharoth and Bunchofgrapes. Just one additional comment below. --Irpen 23:03, 3 October 2006 (UTC)
16. This isn't a vote, of course, but I particularly find imposing sanction on Geogre in this way to be beyond the pale. Even more disturbing is Fred's mischaracterization of Geogre's comment on WP:AN as expressing "the position that the administrative structure of Wikipedia is oppressing those who do the editing." My reading of Geogre's words — and I think they're quite straightforward — is specifically that certain activities have occurred outside of Wikipedia's administrative structure which have had negative effects on the project. So by my reading, Fred's interpretation is 100% backwards of what Geogre actually said. Nandesuka 23:23, 3 October 2006 (UTC)
17. The situation, as I see it, involves the fairly uncommon case of an administrator who also happens to be a stellar contributor to article space. More a rarity, even, as this is a case where "stellar" is an understatement, but it's the best word I can come up with. This is also the sort of administrator whom we'd prefer simply to thank for his article-writing achievements rather than rolling our eyes when he launches incessant criticism of other administrators, because we all know that Geogre's work is phenomenal and he writes featured articles like he's Danielle Steele, even in his sleep, and even if half of active admins could name one and a quarter have read one, we still appreciate it, even if we never bother to say so. This is the kind of administrator whom we have no reason to suspect of tool-abuse. This is the kind of administrator to whom we'd prefer to say just say "shut up and edit", but most of us don't, because somewhere deep inside, we have tremendous respect for him. This is the sort of administrator for whom I might support remedies similar to Everyking 3 (namely 7.1.6.3.1 and 7.1.6.3.2), but I see no rationale in hell for desysopping him.
    The other key issue here seems to be the concept that one's position as an administrator can be abused without actually abusing tools, i.e. without doing something inappropriate that would appear in one's activity log. Now, this question is a complex one, and it has less to do with the Giano case itself than with the rather hackneyed riddle of the true nature of adminship. Is it a technical or political position, folks? I think we need to really get back to the basics here, to actually codify what adminship (and by extension, admin abuse) is and isn't, rather than tweaking its definition to suit one's own side of a given argument. —freak(talk) 01:37, Oct. 4, 2006 (UTC)

    Oh, and as for User:John Reid, endorse as written. —freak(talk) 01:38, Oct. 4, 2006 (UTC)

18. I may be the only user in this entire...situation, horror, mess, whatever...who was credited with a "more neutral observation". So I'll make a definitely non-neutral comment. Fred Bauder's proposals on Geogre and John Reid are the worst things I've seen crawl out of ArbCom. If I thought these proposals had a snowball's chance in summertime Phoenix with the the other arbs, I would seriously consider leaving Wikipedia. Fortunately, these proposals will undoubtedly be voted down. I can't and don't want to imagine the enormous damage to the project that would result otherwise. Casey Abell 02:22, 4 October 2006 (UTC)
19. The Geogre remedy is quite thoroughly unsupported by the facts of the case, and indeed, by the findings of fact on this page. The good news, I suppose, is that if it passes Don Denkinger will be off the hook at last. --Robth^Talk 02:27, 4 October 2006 (UTC)
20. No. Bad idea. Geogre's done nothing to abuse adminstrator tools, so the "remedy" would "remediate" nothing: it would be a non-sequitur. To me it seems punitive, and misses the point of what we are: a group of people who have gotten together to build an encyclopedia. We're not a cult, and we don't punish people for speaking their mind, when they do it civilly, in the proper channels, and in conformance with policy. Honestly, listen: this remedy is a terrible idea. Geogre's done nothing to abuse administrator tools. Let's not do this. Antandrus (talk) 04:25, 4 October 2006 (UTC)
21. I found this unusual proposal to be wrong on at least three different levels:
    1. I do not see Geogre harming Wikipedia
    2. Even if he did something harmful, in this conflict he did not used or abused his admin tools; thus, the remedy is unhelpful.
    3. Even if he did something wrong and his desysopping would somehow prevent this behavior in future, it still was not discussed on the Workshop. It should be discussed first. abakharev 10:25, 4 October 2006 (UTC)
22. Yup. These proposals are ill-advised. Sjakkalle (Check!) 06:17, 4 October 2006 (UTC)
23. I believe Fred was misled by someone into believing that Wikipedia is corrupted some sort of struggle between "power-haves" and "power-have-nots". This is not the case, because we know apriori that power is wielded by admins, not editors, however prolific they may be. A most useless IRC fairy has the power to block and banish from editing the most helpful wikipedian. Nobody, even Geogre, has doubted the principle. Apart from insulting proposals as regards Geogre, I am stunned at the arbitrator's phrase about "high status users, including productive editors" (which apparently refers to Giano). I would like to know — is Giano's "high status" official or what? what privileges are conferred upon him? does he have an access to IRC? will he be able to unblock himself if a new IRC conspiracy results in new blocks for him? how could you tell which non-admin has a "high status" within the community? It seems weird to put admins and mere editors on an equal footing as regards punishments, not privileges. This is a very strange proposal which calls for revision of many policies that we have. --Ghirla ^-трёп- 06:54, 4 October 2006 (UTC)
24. Although I can't muster the surprise so many are expressing... Everyking 08:04, 4 October 2006 (UTC)
25. I fail to see the logic here or how desysopping Geogre will make Wikipedia better. Shanes 09:55, 4 October 2006 (UTC)
26. IMHO, desysopping doesn't make much sense. I wish that Geogre (and others) had been more civil, but that doesn't have anything to do with his role as an admin. TheronJ 14:31, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

½

• User:John Reid went slightly too far, IMHO, and I had already said as much on WP:BN, but the suggestion that User:Geogre should lose his admin bit "indefinitely" for engaging in vigorous policy debate, in an entirely civil if tenatious manner, defies description. He was speaking for many of us who have profound doubts about the direction - and indeed creation -of the Wikipedia power structure. Is this another remedy "pour (dis)encourager les autres"? -- ALoan (Talk) 10:52, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

Discussion of Wikipedia's power structure, including attempts to change policy is welcome. Fred Bauder 11:19, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

Good. So when does "discussion of Wikipedia's power structure, including attempts to change policy" (welcome, it seems) become "sustained aggressive political campaigning" and "continuing violations of Wikipedia is not a battleground (and so liable to lose admin status indefinitely)? Presumably "sustained" is alright (unless we are now required to shut up as soon as someone tells us to?), and discussion of policy will inevitably be "political", so presumably the alleged problem is that User:Geogre has been "aggressive" in some sense? If it is not clear when otherwise-acceptable behavious becomes culpable, the effect may be that we will just have to keep quiet for fear of being punished. Is that the intended effect? -- ALoan (Talk) 12:50, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

Absolutely not. Just frame issues as policy, suggest policy changes if necessary and attempt to reach consensus. When does it become a "battlefield"? Hard to say, but I think it can be expressed as agitation against consensus. If what you want as policy is not adopted after extensive discussion, then further campaigning is inappropriate. Fred Bauder 14:00, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

So it seems that "sustained" is actually a problem (I note in passing that you have not pointed to any agression on Geogre's part, or disputed that the process is inherently political). How are Wikipedians meant to achieve change (that is, crystallise consensus in a different place to where it was previously) without "agitation"? Oysters and pearls. And, as someone else said, it takes two to "battle". -- ALoan (Talk) 15:06, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

Comments

• ...if I may. This totally unexpected decision was never proposed and discussed at the Workshop, while, admitedly, this is not required. So, I suppose this is either Fred's own suggestion or it is transferred here from ArbCom-L. In any case, in line with Fred's own earlier proposal that stated that it is reasonable to expect the explanation in difficult decision, may I request such explanation of the rationale of such totally undiscussed (openly), unexpected, and as above edits show, rather uncalled for proposal, at least in opinions of many respected editors. --Irpen 23:03, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

• While I agree with the intent of it, being keenly aware of the corrosive effect of this brand of wikipolitics, the proposed remedy regarding Geogre doesn't seem to address the problem directly, but rather in the manner of a deterrent. I recognise that we're not well placed as a community to deal with this kind of campaigning, and it would be hard to craft a more suitable remedy, so I appreciate why Fred's trying this proposal. I think it would be hard to avoid turning Geogre into a much brighter, more resourceful Karmafist, however. --Tony Sidaway 06:31, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

Not clear what the last sentence means but there's clearly no comparison between Geogre and Karmafist, who as I recall ended up engaging in a vandalism campaign and encouraging others to. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 06:34, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

It's not a perfect comparison but hitherto the closest we have had to political insurrectionism of this kind was Karmafist's campaigning. --Tony Sidaway 06:58, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

It's an unfair comparison. Very different agendas and different personalities. Geogre is trying to clear up specific instances of unfairness or irrationality and what he sees as the causes. Karmafist was trying to change so much it was hard to keep track, and as I recall he did it from day one; Geogre on the other hand is a regular editor using his considerable experience here to effect change. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 08:25, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

I agree that if taken as a moral equivalence it would be an unfair comparison. Karmafist, by the way, was a regular editor and administrator until he became damaged during the course of the Pigsonthewing arbitration. However the point I'm making here is that Fred's proposal could have the opposite of the desired effect (sadly, not an uncommon occurrence in arbitration). --Tony Sidaway 08:31, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

I agree with you that arbitration can make issues worse, and I feel I've noticed this more since the advent of the workshop pages, which trigger very bitter, fruitless debate; repairing the editing relationships afterwards is almost impossible. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 08:37, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

I have to disagree on workshop pages. I have found them to be very valuable, and my decision to desysop was a direct result of insights gained from the comments in the workshop in the current case. --Tony Sidaway 08:45, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

Well, I admire you for requesting the desysopping, but I wish there was a less damaging way of airing differences. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 08:51, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

I don't see any reason why Karmafist's name should be brought by Tony in his every second comment. Not everyone is aware of who Karmafist was. --Ghirlandajo 06:56, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

I've mentioned him perhaps three times in the current case. See Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Karmafist for a partial history. --Tony Sidaway 07:03, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

Ummm, one more time: Tony's comment again talks about "revolution." Wikipedia has no government. Would Fred kindly put in a "resolved: Wikipedia is governed by the ArbCom?" That way, Tony can be correct, and Fred won't have to put up with me correcting him. I cannot advocate a revolution or insurrection, because there is no government at Wikipedia, and, if there were, it wouldn't include clerks or "emeritus" ArbCom members. I don't even think it would include the ArbCom members. Geogre 10:09, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

I'm sorry for the exasperated tone. It's just that we are not governed. We have experts and commoners on the same level, administrators and new users with equal power. Any leadership we have is a meritocracy, or should be. Much of Kelly's support is due to her long, good work, and I cannot disagree with that (although I wish someone would actually say what it is instead of just waving a hand vaguely), but it is also a great deal her own telling people that she is important, and with that I disagree wholeheartedly. We do not have a pyramid. We have an informal structure that is derived solely from practice, not policy. No one can revolt. No one can perform a coup. Unless a campaign of civil disobedience begins, there is no striking at the power of Wikipedia. That would be a revolution, but only that. Geogre 10:39, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

Tony is correct that this matter is quite similar to Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Karmafist. Kelly was quite aggressive, even bullheaded, but now, when she is hurting, is not the time to analyze her errors explicitly, best just to say thank you. The Arbitration Committee bases its decision on Wikipedia's practice and policies. While others may differ, I interpret Wikipedia is not a battleground to preclude political agitation leading to development of factions. Fred Bauder 11:44, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

Highly questionable analogy. Karmafist's case was about his arguing Wikipedia policies and politics in welcome messages to newcomers. Geogre was arguing Wikipedia policies and politics on places like the Administrators' Noticeboard and the Requests for Administration page. Invalid comparison. Newyorkbrad 15:36, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

Irrational, if not vindictive proposal

One of the issues here is that Tony Sidaway exhibited vindictive blocking. Another was that Kelly Martin (who now believes that her blog is applicable evidence on Wikipedia) drew up enemies lists and tried to get people to act in such a way as to allow her to block them. Fred has here proposed that I should lose my administrative status for holding to my point of view, and he has cited "not a battleground" as justification. Aside from the fact that nothing in the Evidence page suggested that I had failed "battleground," what really concerns me is that he is showing vindictiveness for my above exposing of the semantic weakness of his statements.

The proposal is wholly irrational, however, and the irrationality suggests that it is coming out of anger rather than deliberation. How is it irrational? Well, if everything stated were true, if I were making Wikipedia a battle ground, if I were at "war," then that has absolutely nothing to do with whether I am an administrator or not. Had he proposed that I be blocked indefinitely, that would be logical. However, in the absence of even alleging that I have misused administrator's powers, the proposal is so irrational on its face as to beg the question of Fred's mental state when he made it. I also ask how any member of the arbitration committee would make such an enormous error of fact as to cite a policy that explains how we are supposed to behave in article creation unless it were out of anger.

I hope I'm wrong and that there is some secret manner in which it is logic and not anger and vengeance that explains it, but Fred has offered us no help there. This is not sarcasm: I really hope that there is a logic. If there is, I trust that Fred will always vote and propose such sanctions on all administrators who argue all positions for an amount of time beyond his own preference and for a position he disagrees with. Geogre 01:06, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

Giano's block log

While I fully support expunging Giano's block log of the "hate speech" entry, I noticed Brion posted this comment[1]. I hope ArbCom works something out before voting occurs on that proposal, I'd hate for false hopes to be raised. --InkSplotch 21:10, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

Thank you for your concern Inksplotch, however you are overlooking two things. 1: Nobody is taking the slightest notice of anything on the workshop page; and 2: I have changed my name and so rid myself of the block log - so I am happy. Counting edits and credits are of no importance to me what so ever, all the people who matter know who I am and that is good enough for me. Giano 21:17, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

They were my proposals, Giano, standing out clearly when they were first posted on a relatively clean page; intended as conciliatory gestures, and adopted as such by Fred Bauder in the /Proposed Decision; but unfortunately, matters seem to have moved a bit beyond that. Newyorkbrad 21:25, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

Well, it's proposing your original account be reactivated, which I'd assume would involve your current account & history being merged into the original, as well as the block log being modified. I imagine merging the accounts is something most admins can do, although the password reset might require developer assistance. But modifying the block log is a more serious thing, at least to Brion, the lead developer. So, if you personally don't want any of that remedy enacted on your behalf, and I'd think carefully on it, you might want to state it clearly right here, where Fred is most likely to see it. Otherwise, it might get voted on and carried out regardless. --InkSplotch 21:27, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

I'm afraid I don't have your experience of these things, but to be honest I couldn't care less - what's in a name? Giano 21:41, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

Developers may be able to do such things, but if you mean admins as in those with the +sysop bit, we're not given access to those tools that would allow for merging accounts and histories, resetting passwords, or modifying the verbiage on the block log. More information is available at WP:ADMIN if you'd like. It's actually a very limited set of tools, though perhaps too easy to use at times. ~Kylu (u|t) 00:38, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

Giano seems to have indicated that these proposed remedies (as I stated above, my proposals on the Workshop, based on comments he made in the past) are no longer of much interest to him. Perhaps one issue (brand new user account) has cancelled out the other issue (objectionable block summary from February). Since the putative beneficiary is not worried about these proposals any more, we needn't spend much more time on them. Newyorkbrad 00:46, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

Observation

I think that all the commentators above who express horror at Fred's proposals have missed their purpose. Now, I haven't talked to Fred, this is simply my interpretation. For about three days earlier this month, we were all confronted with what I would call an attempted "permanent revolution." That is to say, there was a definite lack of desire on the part of certain parties to see the situation resolved. If you go though the noticeboard archives you'll see me, among others, trying repeatedly to find a way to defuse the situation and get the parties talking to each other in a constructive fashion. Gnashing, wailing, calling each other idiots and demanding bans and whatnot doesn't count. All suggestions at dispute resolution and archiving were waved off because that either meant I was trying to stifle discussion or dispute resolution was "inadequate" or "inappropriate" (I'm paraphrasing).

Wikipedia is not a battleground, and anyone who tries to make it one is not welcome here. I think this is a principle to which we could all subscribe. It is my view that administrators are looked to by the community as leaders; certainly many think of themselves that way and try to act appropriately. It is for this reason, beyond most, that Tony Sidaway has earned condemnation. A three-hour block is small beer indeed, in the grand scheme of things. However, by his use of inflammatory language and rhetoric, Tony escalated the situation far, far beyond where it needed to go. In short, he ceased being a custodian of Wikipedia and became part of the problem.

Now, we turn to Geogre. His contributions to the article space are outstanding and I hope that this will continue. At the same time, his holding of administrative status confers upon him certain responsibilities–responsibilities which he abandoned when he repeatedly prolonged a dispute that cried out for closure and resolution. For several days Geogre was among those users who stood in the way of resolution. I watched with horror as the permanent revolution moved from place to place, from noticeboard to noticeboard, from wrong to wrong.

This doesn't mean that administrators are expected to be the Arbcom's jackboots; far from it. There is a place and time for responsible and constructive criticism. In moments of anger unfortunate things may be said, but it is expected that parties will attempt to come together in good faith to resolve their problems. If parties are unwilling to do so–that is to say, are not willing to resolve the dispute–then we have a very serious problem.

I may have misunderstood Fred; I'm sure that what I've said above will prove unpopular and be roundly criticized. This is how I see the matter. Put briefly, administrators are expected to defuse situations and not escalate them. Mackensen (talk) 01:04, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

You seem to get it. Fred Bauder 02:03, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

• To say the least, your view is incorrect. What you call "resolution" I call "telling people to shut up." Silence is never to be confused with resolution. You offered absolutely no remedy. You offered no further discussion to work out principles and demanded that everyone else cease talking. Did I stand up for continued discussion? Yes. That is my responsibility as a leader, but not as an administrator, because whatever leadership I do have does not come from that administrator's status. The resolution, the only gesture of resolution, was coincidentally taken by Kelly Martin when she lodged this Rfar. You could have done that but did not. Fred could have but did not. Doc could have but did not. Instead, you insisted on silence and that means that you showed no concern for the complaints of dozens of editors. That is not leadership: that is coercion. Finally, you state and stated that you think this is "revolution" and "revolt," as if there is a government. Please, Mackensen, will someone enter in "Proposed: Wikipedia has a government, and administrators and editors work beneath it?" That way, we can for once have some statement that everyone should have been quiet when you spoke, or James did, or Kelly did (even though "emeritus"), or the deferred governors the clerks. If there is no government, then please do not expect anyone to have to be quiet simply because the conversation is uncomfortable. Every effort at telling people to stop talking was generative of more protest. Only the offer of actual resolution at RFAR was anything approaching resolution, and you will note that people did get quiet then. (Well, except Tony making the workshop page 3 transcluded pages long, but I'm sure that's not battling.) Geogre 01:15, 4 October 2006 (UTC)
  • No, Geogre, that's not what I said. I wasn't in a dispute with anybody, then or now. I had no standing for dispute resolution. I asked you to consider dispute resolution; you refused. I suggested that you craft a new policy proposal; you continuted arguing on the noticeboard. I suggested alternate paths but I didn't tell you to shut up; I didn't delete your comments either. I detest coercion and detest even more the suggestion. Government has been proposed before and rejected; I believe Karmafist was the last. I don't support such an idea and wouldn't give my backing to one. If you think it's a good idea why don't you go propose it. I'm talking about individual responsbility here–I suggested, as one individual to another, that you consider these ideas. Why should my voice silence yours? My intention was to get something constructive going by getting the disputing parties interested in something other than arguing. If I had no concern why did I express that concern repeatedly and urge that something be done? Mackensen (talk) 01:21, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

• I want to see diffs to those offers of yours.
• Something "constructive" was impossible so long as Tony Sidaway continued to behave unilaterally and retained that administrator's power. Further, it could not be accomplished so long as Kelly stomped around threatening people with her "power." Neither of those things could be remedied without an arbcom action. If Tony Sidaway stops acting unilaterally, I have no issues with him. If Kelly goes to do the incredibly wonderful work that she does furnishing opinions to thousands every day and playing with IRC and stops trying to bait people, bully people, create enemies lists, reveal Checkuser data in public, etc., then I have no issue, but that needed ArbCom. What policy could I have proposed for these things, when the policies are present.
• Now, why is this "battling?"
• Please correct me if I summarize improperly, but your argument is: 1) Geogre battled (but Tony didn't and Kelly didn't and you didn't and telling people to stop talking is not a battle action, but talking is), 2) administrators are looked up to (even though there is nothing that says this anywhere), 3) because of this one violation of this one principle understood in this one debate, Geogre should cease to be an administrator because...no one who ... is ... admired...should be allowed to battle? [I'm sorry, but I see a lot of "battle" going on, and the way I read that page is that it never applies to policy debates, which is what we were having. Still, if we're going to say that even policy arguments are "battle"s, that no one has baited me but I have baited others, that my attempts at being nice and avoiding calling names are nevertheless "trolling," and that this is such that this one debate over this one issue is so clearly an example of violating a policy that doesn't refer to such debates, then I've got to wonder why Fred is going to remain an administrator, why ...well, why anyone who hasn't been quiet... unless this is reserved for the people who are effective in their arguments or being singled out because they are admired.] [Is it inconceivable that people are admired for reasons other than being administrators?]
• If you want to start criticizing people for battling, spread the love. Take yourself into account. Take all the participants into account. Take every admin into account.
• Also, read the policy that's cited. It has nothing to do with arguing policy nor seeking remedy for abusive behaviors, which Tony, James Forrester, and Kelly Martin had engaged in. "Battle" violations would be creating an enemies list (see the evidence on Kelly) and looking for reasons to block people (IRC evidence Kelly and Tony actively looking for any possible way to block someone who had ticked them off). That is a violation of "battleground." Protesting "battleground" violations is not a violation. I'm sorry that I believed that these issues were worth arguing for. Geogre 01:30, 4 October 2006 (UTC)
  • I've responded in the main below, but I want to respond to one specific thing you said right here. Just what do you mean about revealing checkuser data. That's serious business and a slur if you're wrong. I'd like to see evidence of that happening. Mackensen (talk) 01:33, 4 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Another point: did you read where I criticized Tony's behavior and agreed with his desysopping? Mackensen (talk) 01:34, 4 October 2006 (UTC)
• The Checkuser matter cannot be discussed publically without repeating the crime, but it is being followed by the appropriate authority. However, you only needed to look at the administrator's IRC channel, that fantastic echo chamber, to have seen it. And you have no qualm with Kelly making enemies lists, and then making them again to try to trap another admin? Geogre 02:06, 4 October 2006 (UTC)
  • If there's no evidence that can be revealed in a public manner then the accusation shouldn't be made public either. Having spent considerable time in the admin IRC channel I can only say that it's a silly place most of the time, and hardly the sinister cabal-cave of lore. I don't like people making lists; they say much about the people who make them. I'm not sure where that accusation comes into this, or why you presupposed I approved. Mackensen (talk) 02:10, 4 October 2006 (UTC)
• I don't know how to explain how you missed it, then. Perhaps you weren't noticing? My log has "one of us (will do) penance for a week." My log has "If they don't have diffs, fuck 'em!" My log has "X person edits out of X ISP" said casually to the friendly confines. If the place is boring, let's open it up to all Wikipedia. Hey, better yet: if it's not useful as cabal-self-love, let's just abolish it! (This is like that "It's no big deal for Kelly to have access to the list" arguments: if it's no big deal, then why is everyone fighting for her to keep it? If the channel hasn't been used in the past for collusion, why keep it? What good has come to Wikipedia from its existence?) As for whether the allegation can be made publically...sure it can! It might not be nice, but it explains why I oppose Kelly's regaining of previous rights so tenaciously. That was the question. Why would I "fight" in this case? It is precisely my judgment and experience as an administrator that tells me that this one is worth fighting for. Geogre 03:01, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

This might be a good time to take it private, with all due respect? Rx StrangeLove 03:06, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

• • At the moment, I've missed it because it isn't in front of me. I can't comment on evidence that I haven't seen. Out of deference to people's privacy I don't log channels nor do I quote from them. Agree with the good doctor, you offered to take this part to email and I accepted. Did you get my note? Mackensen (talk) 03:08, 4 October 2006 (UTC)
• Note: I did forward the logs and had forwarded them by the time of your comment. Second, I did not quote from logs. I gave quotes with no reference to the speakers. If you are able to figure out the speakers, then that's proving my point about the characters involved. As for logging: much worse than logging is colluding to run people off Wikipedia. I sincerely hope that every time comments like these are made, someone is logging. I will never agree to invisible, unaccountable actions. Geogre 10:13, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

Quotations

If no one minds I'm going to attempt to stifle and censor discussion by proposing that this matter best be handled as dispute resolution between Giano and Tony Sidaway. Tony reported his block, the block has been undone. Nothing's going to be accomplished here save much grumbling and drama. We all know where the dispute pages are; we all know where to discuss the blocking policy. Administrative action isn't needed here. Mackensen (talk) 22:00, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

• • Because the issue had broadened. It simply wasn't Tony Sidaway vs. Giano at that point. It was the bullying of administrators by James Forrester and Kelly Martin and Kylu that was at stake there. The reason no one accepted your view is that it would have been to sheer away the actual open question of policy by trying to treat everything as if it were a single action. The project had dealt with the single issue already. There was no need for an RFAR, unless folks wanted Tony arbitrated. No one did, at that point. We had dealt with it, but things had exploded because of the intervention of arbcom members speaking as arbcom members. If the misstatement of an administrator earns loss of administrative status, what about speaking as if you were ArbCom when you're on ArbCom? Is that not worse? Geogre 02:03, 4 October 2006 (UTC)
    • Actually, that's not the case. My comment was made on the 14th, JamesF's on the 17th. Mackensen (talk) 02:07, 4 October 2006 (UTC)
  • My apologies if I got the chronology wrong. One of the things that was at stake at the very earliest was whether three or four administrators agreed that it was necessary to go for a longer block or ArbCom, but it surely wasn't Tony v. Giano. The question was, "Is Tony off the rails? Is there sufficient stuff to go to ArbCom?" I admit that "ArbCom gives him a free pass" was voiced, although not by me (nor generally replied to by me). I do think that Tony has gotten slaps on the wrist where others would have gotten permanent bans, but I don't think talking about collusion helps unless there is actual evidence. Actual evidence came along much later. Geogre 02:41, 4 October 2006 (UTC)
    • Well, Tony was already under administrative parole (1RR I believe). To me, that was a sign that he was on thin ice already. Part of the question is whether arbitrators we speaking ex cathedra, as it were. For my part, when I'm speaking as a checkuser when not on the checkuser page I'm clear about it (e.g. "speaking as a checkuser"). At the time, I thought the real dispute was between Tony and Giano, given the vitriol passing between the two of them. Mackensen (talk) 02:46, 4 October 2006 (UTC)
      • Mackensen, you do it the right way. You've never heard me utter a bad word against you, I hope, although just now I'm disappointed. You do it the right way. You should have access. The people who do it the wrong way should not, and they should not regain access whenever they feel like it. Furthermore, their friendships should not allow them to do such horrid things. To the matter at hand, though: No. The vitriol between them was private, as far as those of us considered the "anti-Tony" group here, were concerned. None of us, that I know of, do much about WP:NPA. None of us, that I know of, were following Giano to endorse what he was saying. We were discussing the wider issues. In fact, one of my frustrations has been trying to convince people that there can be a fair trial of Tony Sidaway. By commenting publically, I waited for mediation or expiation. The apologies Tony has offered later would have been a tonic if offered then, if they carried with them, "I am going to get someone else to do any blocks of people I'm arguing with" (which is what Blocking policy says we're supposed to do). Geogre 10:19, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

This isn't going anywhere. We've devolved to a meditation on the nature of power on Wikipedia. I think that's a sure a sign as any that no actual constructive action is going to occur. If dispute resolution is needed, there's WP:RFC or WP:RFAR. If arbitrators need to be replaced, you can email Jimbo or wait until the December elections. I believe there are three seats open, including the one I vacated. If you intend to seize power, you'll need a rogue steward to make it effective. If you want to develop proposals for devolving Arbcom's authority over desysopings (an authority expressly given to it by the community, please see Stevertigo's last RfA), then Geogre, Dmcdevit, and I have each, independently, developed proposals that would do that. Otherwise, I think it's time to step back and wonder how things got this far, and all pledge to try and be polite to one another. For this to be effective, admins have to stop threatening to block people, and non-admins have to stop claiming that if they speak up admins will block them. Neither one represents helpful or respectful behavior. Mackensen (talk) 17:44, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

• And yet, what followed, was regular users quoting statments by Tony Sidaway showing that he did threaten to block them if they complained. That evidence is here on the Evidence page. I.e. it wasn't "the nature of Wikipedia." It was the misstatements and bullying of a very few people using their elected status to try to isolate and silence the rest. This is, indeed, where the inability to arbitrate came up. The proper response at this point in the debate would have been to open a case, but I couldn't imagine how to open a case against James Forrester and Kelly Martin and Kylu for hanging out on the #en.wikipedia.administrator IRC channel and all at once responding to Tony Sidaway's block to come to AN to tell everyone to shut up and mind their business. I couldn't think of how to frame the issue of Kelly, in particular, who was not a member of ArbCom, pretending to speak for ArbCom (when she may have only been speaking of that onanistic IRC channel) and its mailing list. New issues had arisen, and they needed to be addressed. What's more, they still do. To have been quiet at that point would have been wrong. Further, as you can see below, nothing, even the most tireless tirades, would have been "not a battleground" violation, because that policy has diddly to do with policy debates. Geogre 02:03, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

Note my original attempt to bring the parties to dispute resolution was on the 14th; that went nowhere. I then suggested that route again on the 20th. Note that I suggested a number of possibilties, some more serious than others. I also referred to three separate policy proposals, one of which I myself had authored. So much for me not doing anything (and yes, Geogre, you did chip in some). Now, tell me Geogre, in all honesty, how did the following response help?

• • The bit on the 14th was rejected as still a narrowing and trivializing and misreading of the situation. Folks were wondering, with Tony's use of "fuck" in edit summaries and block summaries when blocking people for anger, plus his action in the Ghirla case, and then the action with Giano, whether this was something that needed to be yet another Tony Sidaway arbcom case. Or, should we go for a block? If so, how long? I.e. it was rejected for not being proper at that time. Geogre 02:41, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

I strongly disagree with a move to archive. This has always, always, always been about "the nature of power," because the community had decided what to do -- sanction Tony Sidaway for 24 hr with a block -- and then found magical friends appearing to unblock him and tell everyone else to shut up. However, the reason this should not be archived is that, first, there are no trolls here. No one who has posted to this is an anon whining about abuse. Second, there are very significant issues with the specific behavior of some people that affect the ongoing operation of Wikipedia here. Third, this is NOT (sorry for shouting, but I've tried everything else to get attention) a referrendum on ArbCom. This is and always has been about back channel communication and clubbishness overriding the operation of the administrators. Fourth, those who say that they will get blocked for unpopular views have legitimate grounds for saying so, as the Giano case attests in glorious black and blue. Finally, there are unresolved matters still pending. Do not declare silence triumphant or force peace, please. Geogre 18:36, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

• I shall be happy to tell you how it helped. I opposed the archiving, because the very issue under debate was the "you're all idiots" and "you are being examined" foolishness. That was in the section you wished to archive. The rest of the discussion would have been, and in fact was, entirely incomprehensible without that. Therefore, the archiving attempts were, in my view, an attempt at sweeping the dirt under the rug, making sure the maladroit statement by James Forrester was no longer visible and the threats by Kelly were gone. Further, what battle was prevented by the ultimate archiving? How did splitting half of it away fix anything? How would shoving it all into the archive actually addressed any of the issues? Silence does not equal health. Silence is not assent. Getting everyone to shut up is preliminary only to watching them all leave. Geogre 02:03, 4 October 2006 (UTC)
  • I'm not sure what this splitting is; nothing I did. My proposal was to archive what there and start afresh, renewed, somewhere else. If I thought silence was assent I would've just done it and blocked anyone who disagreed. Instead I asked. When you objected I didn't do it. Mackensen (talk) 02:07, 4 October 2006 (UTC)
    • Indeed. I have not accused you of improper actions. I do think you were on the wrong side of the beam, but you obey policy. Were you actually unaware that Doc Glasgow partially archived? Then Drini tried to archive? Then Doc Glasgow partially archived to remove a bit where he looked bad (at least it seemed that that was the reason)? Were you unaware that "archiving" was then a topic in the discussion itself, and the very subject of "does it do any good to stop this discussion now" was under discussion? I felt that archiving and continuing there (if you said "elsewhere," it was not clear that you meant ArbCom, since every other version had been "on a subpage") would have made the discussion incomprehensible. I felt that putting it on a subpage did absolutely nothing except attempt to limit participation. I felt that the topic needed to be aired and needed discussion. If you want an administrator's action from me in any of this, there were none, but it was my judgment as an administrator that we needed to keep talking. It was yours that we didn't. I see that as a tie and certainly not a violation of WP:NOT. Geogre 02:41, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

This is marvelous rhetoric completely unconnected with what was written. No one unblocked Tony Sidaway, and there's nothing magical about people showing up to argue. Issues of behavior sounds like a dispute resolution question. You stated that there were "further issues" but you didn't say what those were. Tell me, Geogre, just what was all the meant to accomplish? Mackensen (talk) 01:33, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

• When you tell me what stopping people from working out the issues would accomplish, I can tell you what trying to work them out was meant to accomplishe. Oh, heck: I'll tell you anyway so as to avoid the wait. The further debate was attempting to work out a policy that ArbCom members cannot tell the project to cease debating policy. You found me out. Oh, and I hoped we would get to an agreement that no one may employ private associations as leverage on Wikipedia. (Note: that's leverage.) Other than that, I was hoping to let the discussion lead where the community wished it to go and I see and saw no benefit to telling the community that it couldn't go there. You appeared to. Please tell me what that silence was going to achieve. Geogre 02:03, 4 October 2006 (UTC)
  • I didn't call for silence (save in jest). I called for moving things into appropriate forums. Mackensen (talk) 02:07, 4 October 2006 (UTC)
    • I did not see, in the bit about archiving, any suggestion of how we'd go to dispute resolution. We all wanted dispute resolution, although I wanted no more unilateral actions and coercion even more. Geogre 02:41, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

Let's talk about that "battleground," eh?

Just for those who rely on their memories and don't believe in reading policy:

Wikipedia is not a battleground 

Wikipedia is not a place to hold grudges, import personal conflicts, or nurture hatred or fear. Making personal battles out of Wikipedia discussions goes directly against our policies and goals.

Every user is expected to interact with others civilly, calmly, and in a spirit of cooperation.. Do not insult, harass, or intimidate those with whom you have a disagreement. Rather, approach the matter intelligently and engage in polite discussion. If a user acts uncivilly, uncalmly, uncooperatively, insultingly, harassingly, or intimidatingly towards you, this does not give you an excuse to do the same in retaliation. Either respond solely to the factual points brought forward and ignore its objectionable flavoring, or ignore the relevant message entirely.

When a conflict continues to bother you or others, adhere to the procedures of dispute resolution. There are always users willing to mediate and arbitrate disputes between others.

Also, do not create or modify articles just to prove a point. Do not use Wikipedia to make legal or other threats against Wikipedia, Wikipedians, or the Wikimedia Foundation: other means already exist to communicate legal problems. Threats are not tolerated and may result in a ban.

• So, first, we realize that this is part of "NOT" which is about article creation.
• Second: personal grudges and imported stuff. Nope. I don't care about the persons, have avoided making personal reflections, have generally tried to comment on the words or actions of people rather than the character or personality or person of the individuals. This is not gaming, either: I generally don't care about people. I don't like them, much, and Wikipedia people aren't even people: they're screen names in front of identities of which only words exist.
• Calmly, etc. Well, take a look at the Kelly Martin "evidence" and see how calm that is. Compare the worst thing I have said (whatever that might be) to find any hostility, insult, pejorative, etc., and I don't think we can see me as a problem if Kelly isn't, and yet Kelly's demotion is not being advocated, as she gave up the bit and can get it back without fuss. (And those who have believed that she should be demoted have not said so because of incivility, but what that incivility has accompanied.)
• So, we should go to conflict resolution. We're here now. I have engaged in it, and yet it's principally this, I think, that is cited as evidence of my violation. As for Mackensen's statements, I could not think of an appropriate way to lodge an RFAR, as I did not think we should have to file one to tell people not to interfere with admins conducting licit blocks. Had I known that lodging a "let's catch everyone who we don't like for no particular reason" case would make, I'd have done it from the start. Of course, Kelly intimated that she was in charge and that arbcom was going to act without a case, so, if I didn't know her, I might have been reluctant to file. Fortunately, I've been here long enough to know better than to trust people to tell you that they're in charge. Geogre 01:43, 4 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Just because it's part of article creation does not mean that said behavior is appropriate elsewhere. Let's ignore the legalism and move on. I would like to believe that you aren't holding grudges, but you seem to be protecting yourself with a version of tu quoque. Just because the opposition is hysterical and irrational does not grant license to assume bad faith and refuse resolution. You'll notice that penalties are being leveled against the remaining party from the other faction. I'm glad that we've arrived at conflict resolution, I wish we'd arrived here a good deal sooner. I think it says something that you saw no way to handle this through dispute resolution. What about my original suggestion--that Tony and Giano seek mediation or some such? That would've headed much of this off. Finally, I'm disappointed that you felt the need to take yet another potshot at Kelly. Can we leave vanished users alone? Also, you've not responded to me query above. Mackensen (talk) 01:50, 4 October 2006 (UTC)
• I do not regard her as vanished, and, until it is settled that she cannot resume all former powers simply by asking, she remains here as an administrator. Giving up the "bit" only to get it back whenever is no different than taking a Wiki-break, and we don't stop examining the abuses of people just because they hide behind a tree (or a new account name) for a week. Further, this is not a tu quoque. Instead, the argument I am presenting is that your own ethos in making this specific charge is weakened to dust when you apply your principles specifically at only one. I do not recognize factions, but among the people who have agreed that Tony and Kelly acted abusively (and who agree with me on little else) are many people who argued after you called "stop." Yet I am the one user whom you felt moved to call for demotion without evidence presented? Also, your ethos is weakened further when you say that I failed to launch an RFAR and yet you are amounting to introducing a new complaint, a new section of evidence, and a new principle (that "battleground refers to all edits and policy") only when we're at the decision stage, and not when evidence was being presented. It is this, the weakness of your position as a speaker, that I am responding to with what appears to be "they're as bad." The full statement is "they're as bad, and you say nothing." If you were to recommend demotion of everyone who participated in the AN argument beyond your first call for mediation (including Doc Glasgow, Phil Bosworth, and everyone else who taunted another round and laid out bait), then I would have nothing to say except, "If it happens to them, it should happen to me." Otherwise, you would need to demonstrate that there was something special about me. There wasn't. Maybe I was more effective or more admired, but I wasn't the only administrator, and nothing I said compared someone to a "bunny boiler" or Kelly Martin to our appointed government. Geogre 02:19, 4 October 2006 (UTC)
  • I don't recall calling for your demotion, here or anywhere else. I applied principles equally, please read the paragraph where I mention Tony. Also note that as Brad observed below, I described Fred's reasoning without necessarily endorsing all of it. Mackensen (talk) 02:22, 4 October 2006 (UTC)
• Reread the policy It clearly states Wikipedia is not a battleground is a subsection of What the Wikipedia community is not. The idea that this applies only to article creation is flawed and redundant. I have no axe to grind here but I won't see this important principle reduced in such a manner. Steve block Talk 11:32, 4 October 2006 (UTC)
  • I've re-read it numerous times, and I posted it, all of it, right up there. It is, indeed, part of the section on article writing. The subtext was initially, "Don't try to fight your Balkan war with articles." It also covered, "Don't bring your Something Awful fights here." It's on the second pivot that the "behave without fighting" turns. This is nothing whatever about "don't debate policy with someone who disagrees." It's not "stop talking as soon as the other person tells you to." It has no mention of, "If you disagree, you may only disagree until such a time as someone else dislikes it." One person says, "This is going nowhere and must stop." The other says, "This needs to be said." That's not making a battleground: it's normal disagreement. To decide who is right, you ask the community and get consensus. If the consensus is fractured, you do not cease the discussion, much less arbitrate on its existence! What you're calling an "important principle" simply isn't in the policy. If you think it should be, then by all means get some wording changes and seek consensus for them, but absolutely nothing in the AN argument is covered by that policy. Geogre 11:49, 4 October 2006 (UTC)
    • You didn't post it all, you missed out an important line: The above guidelines apply to articles on Wikipedia. These guidelines apply to Wikipedia discussions. Regardless of any subtext you seem to aver exists, that is quite clear. Wikipedia is not a battleground applies to Wikipedia discussions. It's there, plain and simple. You can argue that your discussion was not turning Wikipedia into a battleground, that's your choice, but let's be honest here, the principle applies to Wikipedia discussion per policy. Steve block Talk 12:01, 4 October 2006 (UTC)
  • So, umm, you want to be arbitrated against for stepping in here, when you weren't involved, to pick a fight? You're making this a battleground! You're trying to make enemies! Now: prove to me you're not.
  • You see?
  • I want you to read the policy properly. I want you to have been watching since the creation of the page. You want me to believe in Fred's irrational (and he even admits) interpretation of a page that didn't apply. By your standard, you are guilty, because I want you to be quiet, and you want to tell me I'm wrong. It's folly. It's absurdity. It's the dream of the childish and the weak and the tyrannical. Geogre 15:14, 4 October 2006 (UTC)
    • My apologies, but don't see that I have anything to prove to you. I'm simply here to make the point that "Wikipedia is not a battleground" applies to Wikipedia discussion, not article writing, as you stated and which is clearly countered by the policy itself. I don't need to have watched the page from creation to know how it reads now, although I'd note the page's history doesn't support your assertion either. You are free to dismiss my words as you will, and I have no interest in whether your actions fall foul of the policy or not; ultimately that's not my decision anyway. What I want to make clear is that all discussion on Wikipedia is subject to the policy "Wikipedia is not a battleground". Feel free to make points on whether your actions breach that policy to those to whom it matters. I have merely corrected you on a point and am now asking you not to misrepresent the policy. I would hope you can accept my intentions and also accept your mistake regarding the nature of the policy. Steve block Talk 15:50, 4 October 2006 (UTC)
      • You are both failing to understand what the other one is saying. Steve is right that WP:NOT a battleground applies to Wikipedia discussions, but Geogre is right that the "politics" part applies to battling for encyclopedia content from political POVs, not to internal project policy discussions. Zocky | picture popups 16:31, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

No he's wrong, "politics" refers to internal Wikipedia politics. Fred Bauder 16:43, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

Informal mediation

I'd like to invite the two big fellas above to step into my office. I reckon that here isn't the place to work it out. While I'm not the most unbiased with regards to them both, when I put my "sorting it out" hat on I'm a straight shooter. George: Think of it as satisfying the "you didn't try dispute resolution" complaint, Mack: Think of it as a way to communicate with George via someone whom he trusts. I'll make a space on my talk, and suggest that the above thread be moved there if you both agree. - brenneman ^{L} 01:48, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

• Aaron, I'll regard the matter as settled if Geogre clarifies his accusation above that Kelly did or threatened to violate Foundation policy. I've said my piece otherwise. I appreciate your offer very much–if Geogre accepts I'll reciprocate as a measure of good faith. Mackensen (talk) 01:50, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

(edit conflict) I also was about to humbly suggest that this thread may not be going anywhere we should want it to go, especially on this particular page. As for Mackensen's pending question, as much as I value transparency, this may not be the best place for that discussion either. Newyorkbrad 01:52, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

• I have clarified as much as I can in public. If it is regarded as a slur to merely refer to something I know that you do not, then I am sorry for all the slurs that Kelly has committed when she speaks of the powerful groups she knows who are paying careful attention to my edits. I can furnish private evidence, but the evidence is mixed. Mackensen should know about one of the misuses. The other misuse occurred in IRC and has been captured in logs which may not be posted publically according to the rules of Freenode and Wikipedia both. Nevertheless, I do not regard Mackensen's endorsement of the absurd and vindictive and illogical proposal of Fred's (though without support from workshop or evidence pages) to be a thing that can be explained away. If he wishes to avoid hypcrisy, he can recommend demotion of all administrators who argued on AN in that thread. Geogre 02:11, 4 October 2006 (UTC)
  • I agree that the matter is best discussed privately and I would be most gratified if Geogre would be willing to do, privately (via email). I hope that my word is still sufficient assurance that the matter would remain private. Regarding your other point, I don't see anything hypocritical in my position. Mackensen (talk) 02:14, 4 October 2006 (UTC)
    • (edit conflict) Perhaps I am misreading the situation, but although Mackensen has endorsed Fred Bauder's criticism of some (lots, even) of your comments, Geogre, I don't see that he has actually endorsed the remedy proposal itself. Nor does it matter much whether he does or not, nor do I want to put him on the spot by suggesting that he comment pro or con ... but I also don't want the two of you talking past each other more than already seems inevitable. Newyorkbrad 02:17, 4 October 2006 (UTC)
      • You've got the thread, but I'm afraid that Fred and I have become conflated. Mackensen (talk) 02:22, 4 October 2006 (UTC)
  • I see the position as inherently hypocritical if applied to me but not to those who baited, and even Mackensen himself, whose "everyone be quiet" couldn't have been thought to achieve peace. Surely everyone knows that you do not go to any group, children or adults, and tell them to be quiet and expect that to get peace! At most, you can get the desired quiet, if the group fears you, but, without actual persuasion (i.e. talking (i.e. not silence)), you can't get folks to be peaceful. If Mackensen wants Doc Glasgow demoted, along with Phil Bosworth, along with himself, along with Kelly (demoted, not "vanished"), along with Tony, along with Friday, along with ... everyone who participated after he regarded the discussion as sterile, then there has to be some particular uniqity to my statements or person that would warrant particular treatment. Further, it still doesn't follow that it has anything to do with administrator's status. Geogre 02:28, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

Can we please take this elsewhere? For the sanity of all concerned, not to mention that it's terribly unseemly seeing you two go at it: Decorum cast aside, zimmermans at thirty paces, wigs askew and red in the face. Please. - brenneman ^{L} 02:26, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

• Aaron, I had always held Mackensen in the highest regard. This sure feels like a mugging. Geogre 02:28, 4 October 2006 (UTC)
  • I feel as though there are some misunderstandings here. First of all, I sought to explain Fred's reasoning. I sympathize with some of it. I never called for your desysopping and don't really think it would accomplish anything anymore than mine would. Neither one of us used our tools during the dispute, not that I'm aware of at any rate. If I'm trying to stifle discussion I'm obviously working at a cross-purposes with myself. Mackensen (talk) 02:31, 4 October 2006 (UTC)
    • If you felt that all of the discussion needed to be in arbitration, I sure wish you'd led the way by filing a case or asking people to come up with a list of the charges. Note that I tried to do that before. I had a "narrative" that I drafted to try to help people understand, from my own point of view, "Why we fight." I was doing that to get input so that we could have a proper dockett. One cannot be guilty of not seeking dispute resolution when coming up with dispute resolution charges (compare Fred seeing my drafting of my "Evidence" on a subpage of my talk page as "evidence" of my battling!). Geogre 02:47, 4 October 2006 (UTC)
      • Perhaps I could have done so, I didn't feel it was my case to bring. I think I did ask, at one point, that people state clearly what they wanted, but that might be slightly different then drafting a list of charges. Mackensen (talk) 02:49, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

Is anybody questioning Geogre's use of admin buttons, and if not, why was this brought up at all? Zocky | picture popups 02:57, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

• I believe the primary cause was the Proposed Decision calling for Geogre's desysoping. All stems from there. We've moved on to a more general discussion that has in some respects been fruitful. Mackensen (talk) 02:59, 4 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Well, I guess you both got inadvertently trolled, since you seem to be arguing over things that you agree on. I have no reason to expect any bad faith arguments from either of you, and neither of you looks stupid enough to abuse their powers and authority. But you should both remember that this is in large part about appearances, especially appearances to people who don't know you. Especially, you both need to be concious of your authority and take into account that people will misread every inclarity in your comments, especially in heated situations. Aaron used a great word up there: decorum. Zocky | picture popups 03:27, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

Not sure I understand the first sentence. Who is doing the inadvertant trolling here? Is it possible to inadvertantly troll someone? Carcharoth 12:31, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

To clarify, Geogre and Mackensen were having a heated discussion over some of Fred's proposals, although none of them agrees with those proposals. So, they were "trolled", but since that wasn't Fred's intention, it was "inadvertent". Zocky | picture popups 16:26, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

A few more thoughts.

(Apologies for the length, I'm trying to say this as clearly as possible and be done with it.)

I volontered as a mostly uninvolved party on this case because I made a few comments in the debate on WP:AN, although nobody seems to have found them problematic. I tried to contribute constructively to the workshop. I have remained calm and civil throughout, and I advocated no sanctions against anybody. The only issue I had previously with any of the participants was Tony's incivility, and particularly the inappropriate block of Aaron over a conflict between the two. And even then, I'm not unsympathetic to Tony, and have no problem whatsoever with him remaining admin if he stops being incivil and trigger happy.

In the underlying issue on this debate, my position has remained unchanged for years - I believe that if we want to build a high-quality and neutral encyclopedia, the process of writing it must be neutral and transparent. If working on the project consists of reading snide comments and vulgarities, how do we expect anybody who isn't interested in that to stay around? If project policy doesn't accommodate people who think that methodical process and transparency are important, who do we expect to write complete and truthful articles?

That said, I'm not obsessed by rules and red tape. The purpose of doing things in pre-agreed ways is to avoid misunderstandings and remove personalities from the debate, both of which help save time and energy. But in an open community where anybody can participate, unexpected situations do occur, and sometimes doing the right thing does indeed involve ignoring all rules. I have been known both to write essays like Wikipedia:There's no common sense, and to hound off an established editor by threatening an indefinite block in a highly curt tone, and meaning it.

I've been around since before ArbCom, and I was sceptical when it was introduced. It actually turned out alright on average, IMO, and in the few cases where I was tangentially involved, it made the right decisions. I never ran for any elected position, had no interest in becoming an admin before the main page templates were protected, and have no desire to be powerful on Wikipedia or elsewhere. I hang out on IRC enough to be in top 25 users of #wikipedia without ever wishing to become an op.

So, having established my lack of grudges, non-extremism, non-existence of political ambition, and lack of fear of IRC, I must say that I'm deeply unsettled by the proposed decision. I have trust that other arbitrators will ammend it and vote down the inappropriate proposals, but I'm compelled to share my view on this: the proposed findings and decision are not only non-neutral, they are self-contradictory and tendentious. Here are some of the glaring issues:

• "Geogre has engaged in an extensive political struggle based the position that the administrative structure of Wikipedia is oppressing those who do the editing" - this is simply not true:
  • the "political" bit is cited from "WP:NOT a battleground" and is meant there in the sense of party politics and ideology. The "struggle" that Geogre engaged in was about project issues, not ideological or political issues in the sense of WP:NOT, nor in the sense of politicking for power.
  • "the administrative structure of Wikipedia" is administrators and bureaucrats, possibly Danny. Many administrators were involved in the whole issue on both sides, and in any case, Geogre spoke about individuals, not the collective. ArbCom, whom Geogre did mention, is not an administrative body. Unlike the administration, it is made up of a small number of individuals who often speak in the name of the whole committee, and neither them nor the committe are immune from criticism.
  • "oppressing" is a serious misrepresentation of Geogre's position. His argument has been that certain admins, encouraged by some ArbCom's decisions and some arbiters' comments, are interfering with the process of writing the encyclopedia, which is what we are here for. "Politics" and "oppression" are meaningless terms in this context. This is not a state.
• Geogre, a user in good standing who has not abused his administrator privileges is permanently desysopped, while Tony Sidaway, who has inappropriately blocked several users and was already subject to ArbCom warnings is desysopped for one month.
• JDForrester, who made an unfortunate remark is chastised, while Kelly Martin who repeatedly used, shall we say, undiplomatic language and escalated the debate is thanked.
• John Reid, an established editor is blocked for a week, while Tony getting blocked for 1 day is described as extreme. Note that his request for reconfirmation of allegiance to consensus would have been easily met in good humour by the bureaucrats, had they not put themselves and the whole administration in an impossible position by overriding a long established custom in a controversial case.

These amount to false imputations, unfair dispensation of justice, and beating the child for calling the emperor naked. I respect Fred and the amount of work he puts into arbitration, but it is my belief that these proposals are a result of preconceptions about issues and persons on his side. In my opinion, it would have been best for the project and for everybody involved if he had recused himself at the outset of the case.

To conclude: power and authority must be excercised fairly and competently because of the encyclopedia, not because we want a shiny-happy community. If we're not writing the encyclopedia and deciding how to write it in a fair and transparent way, how can we ensure (and convince others) that it is neutral and any good? Zocky | picture popups 05:29, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

I agree entirely with the above well-presented and thoughtful summary. I would also urge those discussing some of the proposed decisions not to forget the other proposed decisions. If the wording and content of some of the proposed decisions is proving so controversial, then all of them should be carefully examined. Carcharoth 12:29, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

It was not my intent to divert attention; yes, please discuss the other proposals. Fred Bauder 14:07, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

I certainly think there's a point being missed. There are generally two sides in a battle. Steve block Talk 13:22, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

I agree in the main with what's been said. I would argue that the thanking of Kelly Martin is predicated on the belief that she's left this project (otherwise it's perverse). Mackensen (talk) 13:41, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

It is based on two things, gratitude and not being mean. I expect this is quite painful for her. Time enough to examine her errors in detail if she comes back. Fred Bauder 14:05, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

Regarding out-of-band communication and blocks

I notice some disparity between WP:OOB (Out-of-band communication considered harmful: i.e. don't make consensus on IRC) versus WP:BP#Controversial_blocks ("If possible, contact other administrators informally to be sure there are others who agree with your reasoning. The administrators' noticeboard, IRC and email are effective tools for this.")

Would it have merit to suggest removal of the IRC and email options? ~Kylu (u|t) 07:05, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

• Sorry for top-posting, but "IRC" in that case simply means the general IRC channel, and by no means an invitation-only channel, and it is applicable for emergency controversial blocks. How do I know this? When the blocking policy was written, there was no "invitations to our friends" IRC channel, and I don't think it could have been imagined. As for how it applies only to emergency controversial blocks, it makes no sense whatever to rely upon any medium that leaves no trace and cannot be examined for seeking to justify a controversial block, above all, unless it is a last resort and an emergency. Geogre 10:28, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

Out of band communication considered harmful is an essay written in one draft by User:Friday. The Blocking policy is official Wikipedia policy and cannot be superseded by Friday's personal opinion. You have been criticised for seeking advice on IRC. The mere fact of the existence of criticism does not make the criticism valid. --Tony Sidaway 07:10, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

I agree that the policy shouldn't be encouraging editors to look for support on IRC. Doing so has caused a lot of trouble. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 07:35, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

This could be discussed on Wikipedia talk:Blocking policy. However I think it very unlikely that current practice would change even if we changed the written policy. Discussion prior to blocking is good. --Tony Sidaway 07:40, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

Colluding with friends on IRC is not good and the policy shouldn't encourage it given the amount of trouble it has caused. That doesn't mean that any use of IRC is bad; as always, it's a question of using common sense, but sadly not everyone has it. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 07:48, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

Well the problem here really is in your use of inappropriate language. Seeking advice becomes "looking for support" and then in the next comment it becomes "colluding with friends". Discussing a block prior to applying it is a good thing. It causes no trouble to do so. --Tony Sidaway 07:52, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

Given some of the behavior I've seen on IRC, "colluding with friends" is entirely appropriate language. If blocks need to be discussed, there's usually no reason not to do it on AN/I; and on the rare occasions a discussion needs to be private, e-mail is available. I can't think of a single reason IRC would be preferable to either of those. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 07:57, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

I can confirm this. *Especially* in the "elite", semi private #wikipedia-en-admins channel. Some have treated it as a haven for attacks on those not-in channel and as a forum for daring each other into making controversial blocks. —Bunchofgrapes (talk) 15:19, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

It's more timely than email or wiki. While on-wiki discussion is sometimes considered advisable prior to blocking, a quick sanity check on IRC doesn't do any harm. I think a lot of bilge is said on-wiki about IRC. It's very useful indeed. --Tony Sidaway 08:02, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

I've seen personal attacks made against editors (including against you) on IRC that sometimes makes it hard to tell apart from WR. It encourages a herd mentality, where people engage in or support behavior that they probably wouldn't engage in as individuals. I don't see why it should be more timely than e-mail or wiki; if people are around, they tend to respond regardless of the medium. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 08:12, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

IRC has its faults, but it enables an ongoing dialog that is different in quality from email. It has been used for years for very much this kind of purpose, and it fits well. Sensible discussion of any kind preceding a decision to block is a good idea. --Tony Sidaway 08:22, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

I've personally never witnessed a sensible discussion of a block on IRC. Although I don't doubt that they occur, there's no evidence that it's the norm, and the editors who discuss issues sensibly on IRC could do it just as easily elsewhere. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 08:27, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

Jimbo and Danny frequently use the admin channel for urgent requests (and sometimes blocks are involved). Glancing at my admin channel log I see records of requests for blocks on open proxies, and on editors making legal threats, a proposed block on an article spammer (the response was "not yet"), discussion on operational aspects of the username block policy, and some autoblock clearances. This all comes from a few hours worth of log about three weeks ago. This is normal. --Tony Sidaway 08:41, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

Jimbo and Danny sometimes use it, not frequently, and I'm not saying it's never used correctly; I'm saying that it's regularly misused (and there's no question of that; I've witnessed it), and therefore our policy shouldn't suggest it to people. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 08:54, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

I sense there's an elephant in the room but I'll let him be. What witness most often in the admin IRC channel is the discussion of Dr. Who episodes. The problem isn't the discussion, the problem is anyone who uses IRC as a justification to block. Encouraging sysops to block without consultation is not the right direction. Mackensen (talk) 11:06, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

I think it's appropriate to discuss the block in Wikipedia talkspace rather than on IRC, so that other people could chime in. In many cases, the reasons for blocking are not clear for the blockee. A note to him that "it was discussed with other admins" is not very helpful, too. We have seen an instance when one IRC guy asked his friend to block his opponent without bothering to provide explanation on-wiki. This practice is deplorable. Furthermore, when an editor is called on IRC a "demon bitch from Hell" or someone speaks about a prized editor "going bananas", it is considered normal and does not influence on-wiki processes, while an informal discussion between two admins results in an unexplained block. We should determine whether IRC discussion predetermine administrative actions in Wikipedia and, if they do, in what way. --Ghirla ^-трёп- 08:03, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

admins can communicate 'out of band' all they want, that just doesn't go towards justification of their on-wiki actions. With or without OOBcom, they need to explain their actions on wikipedia, and in unclear cases ask for review on AN, as if their OOB talk had not taken place. I think this is too obvious to even require pointing out. Unexplained blocks remain unexplained blocks even if two dozen admnins talked about it on IRC. What is harmful are implications of behind-the-scene discussion towards the blocked user: implying "a certain number of influential admins are watching you, and boy, their opinion isn't favourable" towards any user us unacceptable, and I think with some good faith and common sense, it should be clear where such implications were being made. dab (ᛏ) 10:24, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

• Amen. IRC cannot be submitted to Wikipedia as evidence. Therefore, any approval, consultation, or reasoning on it is not Wikipedia. I agree that the blocking policy needs to be clarified. IRC would be a last resort in the case of a controversial block and could only be considered if it's a true emergency (if user Geogre got ticked off and had decided to plaster penis pictures everywhere, etc.). Actually, most emergency blocks won't be very controversial, so perhaps it's better just to say that IRC discussions can help one talk things out. Geogre 10:34, 4 October 2006 (UTC)
  • I don't think anyone would disagree with the above, least of all me. IRC allows the seeking of input, but that's a useful function, not a problem. Mackensen (talk) 11:04, 4 October 2006 (UTC)
    • I don't think it's very useful, compared to AN/I, but it's somewhat useful, so long as we're talking about open access IRC, where plaintiff and defendant may both be present. Once we start getting into private, members-only areas, any potential usefulness is nullified. Once we go beyond that and get to members-only mailing lists, we're even more useless for discussing blocks. A person said, "If they don't have diffs, fuck 'em!" Well, I kind of think, "If it can't be referred to, it don't exist." Geogre 11:41, 4 October 2006 (UTC)
      • I don't think there should be any encouragement at all in policy that admins use IRC to discuss anything, just as we don't add to policy that they ought to discuss blocks with each other in their local pub, though some might. I object just as strongly to an entirely open channel being used, where hundreds of people might be watching the editor be personally attacked, and yet no one knows who the watchers are, and because there's no formal logging, the victim might never know what was said about them. Mackensen, I'm not aware of any elephant in the room. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 11:49, 4 October 2006 (UTC)
        • Frankly, I'm not bothered by the idea that somewhere beyond my scope of vision people are discussing what a worthless [insert favored term here] Mackensen is. People will harbor these thoughts regardless of what we say. I'm more concerned that admins make blocks in a vacuum, particularly new admins who haven't learned the ropes yet. I'm not that concerned about logging anyway; someone's always doing it anyway and you can always count on an individual to leak said material, even when policy specifically says they oughn't. The wiki doesn't keep its secrets particularly well. Mackensen (talk) 12:04, 4 October 2006 (UTC)
          • You don't know whether people would harbor the negative thoughts anyway. Editors are picking up cues about who it's okay to attack and who they ought not to. I've watched it happen time after time. A certain name is mentioned negatively on IRC. Ten minutes later, a mini swarm turns up on WP to cause a problem for that editor. If this is done openly on Wikipedia, the victim and others can trace the origin of the attack (and it wouldn't be done for that reason). If it's done by e-mail, at least the damage is confined only to the people the e-mail is sent to. But IRC represents the worst of both worlds: public without being accountable, operating outside WP policies, and full of personal attacks, some of them serious, often with no factual basis; just the casual smearing of other people for the fun of it. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 12:12, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

One thing that's not being mentioned here, that I'm certain anyone who has ever communicated on a closed IRC chat is that people are frequently discouraged from making stupid or rash actions on IRC. I have both discouraged others from foolish action as well as been discouraged from rash actions taken in anger and frustration. In fact, more often than not lately, I use the channels on IRC to bounce decisions and considerations off of other people, rather than on-wiki, where every word one ever says shows up months and years down the road. Things like:

You've said all sorts of INCIVIL things. See [1] [2] [3] [4], etc.

One wonders why every discussion doesn't take place on IRC. Bastiq▼e ^demandez 16:53, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

Re:Tony "When baited he consistently fell into the trap" finding

I don't recall seeing evidence to support this. - brenneman ^{L} 14:16, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

• Indeed, nothing on the Evidence page showed anyone baiting Tony. Perhaps Tony's private statement, to which he alludes, has some allegation, but that was not presented in open court for consideration. However, this is just another "judgment" Fred has offered that was not part of the complaint or the evidence. Geogre 15:21, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

If anyone cares about manifestos and ideology

Just for anyone who wants to know how I think I've been consistent and organized around policy, please see user:Geogre/Ideology. Geogre 17:39, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

Question for Raul

Raul654 17:36, 4 October 2006 (UTC) - I see this princple, combined with principle #25 (productive editors can be banned) as an attempt to retroactively justify the emergence of a class of administrators who rarely or never edit articles. This is antithetical to the creation of an encyclopedia.

Does that mean there is presently no justification for the existence of administrators 'who rarely or never edit articles'? Should they then depart wikipedia?

I, with a few exceptions, now rarely edit articles except to deal with vandalism or OTRS related problems. It has been my judgement that my existence as an administrator on Wikipedia is of benefit to the project. Are you suggesting that there is no justification for my existence, and that it is antithetical to the encyclopedia? Am I not 'productive'?--Doc 17:53, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

For that matter, I don't see how picking articles to appear on the front page is writing the encyclopedia either. --Cyde Weys 18:03, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

I think you need to aim straighter.

In my experience, the possibility of reaching one of the featured content categories is a strong motivational factor that encourages certain editors to write and improve content. Which improves the encyclopedia, naturally. Plus we need something to appear on the Main Page, so picking one of the better articles as an example is a pretty good idea. It shows people how good this encyclopedia of ours gets, and encourages them to join in too. Which improves the encyclopedia, naturally. Inevitably, that article needs to be chosen by a person or a process. Finally, and perhaps most importantly, writing the encyclopedia is only the first step: we are writing it so others read it. I expect may readers enjoy seeing what gets put on the Main Page from day to day, and end up reading a good article on a topic that they would otherwide never bother to read about. I certainly do. Surely part of our mission is to encourage people to learn something new (and perhaps even enjoy themselves at the same time). -- ALoan (Talk) 18:15, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

That's not what I intended by my comment. I have clarified it to make my reasoning more clear. Raul654 18:09, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

And not that you have to justify yourself, but it's not like you aren't up front about your contributions anyway. --badlydrawnjeff talk 18:17, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

• I tend to agree somewhat with Doc, I get about in the article space a bit more, but I'm not prolific. But the opposal does imply an assumption that editing articles is the only way to build an encyclopedia, which is a flawed premise. It would be WP:POINT to demonstrate, but if all admins withdrew their not article editing actions, would that hinder the creation of the encyclopedia? If we're hoinest, we have to answer absolutely.

• I'm also querying the opposal to 25, Administrators and other high status users, including productive editors, who seriously disrupt Wikipedia may be briefly blocked. In extreme cases they may be desysopped or banned.

• Raul, does your opposal indicate the rise of a class of untouchable editors, because that's how it reads to me. Steve block Talk 18:20, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

Thanks Raul for responding, but you clarification still leaves the impression that administrators who write articles are to be privilaged, better treated, and other types of administrators are somehow illegitimate. If that's even partly right, I'll resign immediately, and allow Feature writers to take over my OTRS tasks.--Doc 18:22, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

(Edit conflict) It's not that I oppose blocking either productive editors or admins - I can see *limited* circumstances where blocking either could be warranted. However, I believe a number of very productive editors have been mistreated in this case - mistreated by admins who do little (if any) article editing. The finger wagging at Tony over falling was malicious and mean spirited, but there was more-than-a-little truth in the accusations. I the light of these facts, several of these principles worry me. Raul654 18:29, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

The clarification is here. I also still don't quite understand it, partly because many of us don't have access to Ambi's comments. Does this mean that all admins who rarely edit articles are looked upon unfavorably? --Interiot 18:26, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

We do seem to be experiencing some sort of new uprising of admins who think that other admins who don't spend as much time writing articles are worthless. Let me respond to that accusation. I don't spend too much time writing articles. Why? Because anyone can do it, whereas not everyone can program. To the people claiming that my contributions aren't valuable because I'm not mostly devoted to working on articles, I respond with this: you go add significant functionality to pyWikipediaBot. --Cyde Weys 18:36, 4 October 2006 (UTC)