Wikipedia talk:Requests for arbitration/IRC

Additional opening statements

Statement by SirFozzie

One of the rationales given by the blocking admin was that the user was causing drama. If this case is accepted, I think if the ArbCom takes this case (which I don't think is a good idea, see below) the ArbCom could and SHOULD indicate whether blocking only one side of an edit war is designed to reduce drama.. or if it will cause the same thing that the admin involved claimed to be wanting to stop. Also, the creator of this case seems to be firing off ArbCom cases left and right, trying to get ArbCom to remove who he views as controversial admins. In neither case, really, has he tried to work the issue out. (there was no RfC on ZScout's action, yet he brought a case and asked for ZScout to be de-sysoped), and now this case. I would ask that ArbCom reject this out of hand as no TRUE dispute resolution attempted. 05:52, 26 December 2007 (UTC)

(reply to Phil Sandifer statement below)

There is a rather broad consensus on the ANI thread that there should be no block amongst several admins. Asking for Sean William to be de-sysopped and/or lose unblocking privileges due to acting with that consensus against your action is petty and beneath you, Phil. I invite you to remove that statement, and sleep it over. SirFozzie (talk) 06:02, 26 December 2007 (UTC)

(further edit) I would hope any ArbCom members who have a stake in the channel would recuse themselves, as the conflict of interest is visible to all. SirFozzie (talk) 15:56, 26 December 2007 (UTC)

Statement by Picaroon

Drama bomb though this may seem, acceptance is probably necessary. The disruption stemming from recent revert-warring on Wikipedia:IRC channels/wikipedia-en-admins is an unusually divisive dispute, involves more than a half dozen users (mostly admins), has resulted in several blocks (me included, though that was overturned pretty quickly), and shows no sign of dissipating (talk page discussing has gotten the issue nowhere).

The recent locus of the dispute has been the IRC channel page, though this actually largely goes back to Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Giano, and Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Pedophilia userbox wheel war before it. In other words, this astonishing immaturity is nearing its second birthday. How about the committee try, forcefully, to end the conflict before it blows out some more candles? (And I don't mean slapping Giano with an unenforcable "reminder" and pretending that will do something. Again. Because that clearly does not work.)

Geogre says "Additionally, others have been reverting and rolling back (!) content edits by other users." Why the third person? [1]

He also says "If anyone looks bad here, it's not Giano II." On the contrary, I think Giano looks like a persistent edit-warrior. That's still considered bad, is it not?

To all arbitrators considering voting reject: no, please don't. Individual admins blocking Giano never works. Nothing is ever decided on AN/I. Even Jimbo making a few pronouncements does nothing. This is what the committee is here for, to arbitrate major disputes that can't be solved elsewhere. So, please accept. Picaroon (t) 06:03, 26 December 2007 (UTC)

Statement by Risker

The root cause of all of the behaviour leading to the filing of this request for arbitration is inappropriate remarks (as noted by Bishonen above) made on the #-admins IRC channel - a locus outside of Wikipedia that this committee has previously stated is outside of their scope. However, many members of this committee are channel operators for this IRC channel, and as such they have individual responsibilities in enforcing appropriate behaviour on the channel. There is already existing conflict within Arbcom with respect to addressing behaviour of editors and administrators on IRC. The chance of a successful result from hearing this matter depends on the Arbcom's ability to address the key issues at the heart of the editorial and administrative behaviour. Therefore, the committee should only accept this case if it believes that it has the authority to address behaviour in the #-admins IRC channel. I note the following:

• The editor bringing forward this request for arbitration has no on-wiki involvement in the situation, has had no on-wiki communication with any of the participants relating to this issue prior to filing the request for arbitration, and has made no effort to resolve the situation.
• At the time this case was filed, the edit warring had ceased. All parties had apparently taken heed of the warnings being made and had withdrawn. That is a first step in appropriate dispute resolution. Filing this case is an attempt to short-circuit the normal course of dispute resolution.
• Any members of the Arbitration Committee who are chanops have a clear and obvious conflict of interest and should recuse in order for any case to appear fair. Failure to do so runs the serious risk the community losing confidence in the independence and disinterest of the Arbitration Committee. Many other members of the committee participate in the channel, and those members should also seriously consider recusing if they are frequently online in the channel or were logged in at the time of the remarks.
• Should the case be accepted, the arbitrators hearing the case are urged to set up a separate mailing list including only themselves to discuss the case. Aside from the recused current arbitrators, several former arbitrators are either named in this case or have conflict of interest because of their involvement with IRC.
• As this case specifically deals with remarks made on #-admins IRC, the logs for the period involved should be accepted as evidence and made available to all editors whose behaviour is being reviewed, at a minimum; a good argument can be made that they should be submitted as evidence for the entire community to review. The logs revealed should include a listing of all editors who were in the channel at the time of the remarks, the remarks themselves, and any reaction or actions taken by those involved. Risker (talk) 11:09, 26 December 2007 (UTC)

Statement by LessHeard vanU

There is much more to be considered than the violations of various policy by one individual. Issues pertaining to why one person only seems to be breaking the letter of the law when the spirit of the law is being ignored by other parties needs to be addressed. The apparent use of separate accounts to pursue the aims of one side of a dispute, knowing that the other disputants would likely violate policy to counter those edits, needs review. The use of the sysop bit to disallow editing of content by non admins, and the same tools to edit the protected content needs investigation. The relationship between Wikipedians using off wiki communications and the resultant actions on wiki needs to be addressed, and how the communities policies (or lack of) toward semi official venues for discussion may influence how and for what purposes they are used. Further to Risker's point above, the presence of many sysops, arbs and 'crats on a medium not regulated by wiki policies and the consequences relating to determining matters arising from conduct on those communication channels needs urgent examination. In short, ArbCom needs to accept this request and to broaden the investigation to address the history of the events leading to the request being filed and to discuss the consequences of any decision in regards the use of extra wiki forms of communication and its relationship with the community. LessHeard vanU (talk) 11:35, 26 December 2007 (UTC)

Statement by Carcharoth

Just a brief appeal here: can we please have full disclosure from the individual arbitrators over their use of and involvement in the Wikipedia IRC channels. I believe this ranges from "not using them" to "owning them". This is a wide spectrum, and it would be best to be clear on the differing levels of involvement. Carcharoth (talk) 11:40, 26 December 2007 (UTC)

A further point. We have User:Geogre/IRC considered and User:Kylu/IRC (possibly others as well). Why can't the IRC chanops and channel owners write their own essays, and let the wider Wikipedia community, guided by the non-involved arbitration committee members, write Wikipedia:IRC channels and Wikipedia:IRC channels/wikipedia-en-admins and other subpages. Wikipedia:IRC channels/Personal views regarding IRC will be known to many here, and could be a starting point. The incoming Arbs could add their say to that document. Carcharoth (talk) 13:41, 26 December 2007 (UTC)

Looking away from the wider issue of IRC problems, and at the narrow focus on the behaviour of the edit warring at that page, I have to say I agree fully with Moreschi's statement. Hopefully the ArbCom can swiftly re-affirm the principles involving IRC and pledge to clamp down on future misbehaviour in the channel in question, and can issue fair and even justice all round with stern warnings. I see no reason for any bannings here. If anything, that would arise from a separate arbitration case where three or four inveterate drama-mongers are identified and arbitrated for that behaviour, quite simply as a warning to others, and politely asked to relinquish their current accounts and start over with new ones (that would retain the good administrative and content contributions). In other words, add "start over with new account" to the list of penalties ArbCom can impose, as something between a reminder/short ban, and a long ban (giving the offenders the option to take the ban instead, if they want to rehabilitate their original account). Carcharoth (talk) 13:41, 26 December 2007 (UTC)

I've created and started to populate Category:User essays on IRC, and linked it from Wikipedia:IRC channels. See also my comment here. Hopefully this will aid the process whereby the community discusses and agrees on what Wikipedia:IRC channels should say. Small steps rather than radical change might be best here. Carcharoth (talk) 14:31, 26 December 2007 (UTC)

Statement by violet/riga

Giano is not the only one to have a history of "drama". If this arbitration is accepted it needs to look at the actions of more than just the one person. violet/riga (t) 12:47, 26 December 2007 (UTC)

Statement by Moreschi

Number of problems here.

• Giano has behaved very badly. Two 3RR vios/too many reverts were always going to stoke up the drama levels. Why the blocks of Coresdat and Phil Sandifer were overturned, I really don't know, and that's coming from an admin who's unblocked Giano before.
• As noted by Dmcdevit on ANI, the page (WP:WEA) was protected. This seems to have been the cue for everyone with admin buttons to keep right on using them. The whole point of a page protected due to disputes is that you don't edit it just because you can. The protection is supposed to start discussion, not more reverts. Copy-pasting from Dmcdevit's statement on ANI, the most sensible comment surrounding this ridiculous cretinous mess that anyone's made so far:

“ That might have worked, in a universe where the page hadn't already been protected several times and yet administrators continued the edit war despite the protection. I already count about eight unambiguous instances of abusive administrator action not even counting the edit warring and rampant misuse of rollback. David Gerard, Geogre, and Wknight94 all made reverts while the page was protected. David Gerard and Geogre both used protection powers during the edit war they were involved in. Doc glasgow and Sean William both reversed another admin's block without allowing enough time (10 minutes and one hour, respectively) for consensus or input on the matter. Coredesat and David Fuchs both blocked a user that they also reverted in that edit war. All for this inconsequential project-space page about an IRC channel. It's ridiculous. Dmcdevit·t 08:33, 26 December 2007 (UTC) ”

Award for best comment, however, goes to Somey from Wikipedia Review: "This is what these people do for Christmas? Jeez, I thought my life was pathetic!"

*Don't slag off your fellow admins in the channel, save that for the trolls. Tony Sidaway should have been kicked out for a month or something.Actually, scrap that, apologies: seems like someone may have been faking logs. All very Alistair MacLean, but this is largely irrelevant.

• Final comment: that log is a disgrace and a couple people should lose their adminship for this/have it suspended. This is all so petty. To see what are supposed to be Wikipedia's finest engaged in the kind of meaningless playground hanky-panky that is usually reserved for our nationalist trolls - bloody hell. Some Christmas present to Wikipedia, guys. Moreschi ^{If you've written a quality article...} 12:52, 26 December 2007 (UTC)

Statement by Doc

Merry Christmas. I really want nothing to do with this.--Doc^g 17:41, 26 December 2007 (UTC)

Statement by Lar

• Regarding comments made on IRC - I have a copy of the log from 30 September 2006 that is (a small) part of the underlying dispute. The copy that Bishonen sent me matches my own copy, word for word, as near as I can tell. I can share that log with ArbCom if it is material or to corroborate versions sent by others. It is my view that Tony did then say what he is alleged to have said, although it was said obliquely, and knowing Tony, probably without real intent to give grevious offence. (that does not necessarily excuse it...) I have an incomplete log from 12-21 but it has gaps because I dropped. I can share that log with ArbCom if it is material. Others may be a better source except for corroboration. To my great regret I was pretty deep in several other conversations in other channels at the time of the events unfolding, as I wish now I had spoke up then before matters went as far as they did. But this seems more of a personal disagreement and all parties would be well served to meatball:ForgiveAndForget instead of bringing it up again. I think actually both Tony and Bishonen have so offered, although perhaps not at the same time and not directly to each other. It's been said that apologies are not always offered in precisely the form that one might wish to receive them... It may be best to accept what is offered and move on. That in no way condones bad behaviour, and sanctions may well be warranted, but moving on still is good advice.
• Regarding the scope of this case: As do many, I think it's badly misnamed, it should not be about Giano. As I said on the ANI thread, there are more editors misbehaving in this matter than just one. As to what the correct name is, the mind boggles, there are so many choices...
• Regarding Giano's latest block by Phil: I called for it to be reversed initially, with a proviso that Giano undertake not to edit war any more. It was subsequently overturned by Sean William. My read of the AN/I thread was that there was not general consensus in support of Phil's block at the time it was overturned.
• Regarding extending the block to others now: Blocks are preventative, not punitive and I think matters would not be well served if several long term editors were now blocked for their role in this matter. The time to have done that was at the time it occured, not later. I do agree with Dmcdevit on AN/I when he said "The proper way to resolve an underreaction is not to lessen the reaction." but this is stale now. Nothing would be served by blocking others now.
• Regarding who should be on #wikipedia-en-admins... I have proposed elsewhere, and I will repeat it here: "I'm ready to support no non en:wp admins having access, even if that means we lose some good counsel, because it just does seem like a good idea to me that things change that way." It has been unclear to me how exactly such a change would be effected. However, based on Jimbo's latest statement perhaps the authority to effect such changes is now being asserted. If so, I urge ArbCom to do what it can to effect this change, regardless of whether it is formally within their remit or not.

++Lar: t/c 17:49, 26 December 2007 (UTC)

Statement by Marskell

As this is headed toward acceptance, I strongly urge a rename. If weeks are wasted stating the obvious—that Giano was disruptive—nothing will have been accomplished. The role of IRC and, to the extent possible, other off-site fora used for decision-making must be addressed. Unfortunately, the Durova decision failed to properly tackle it. Marskell (talk) 17:46, 26 December 2007 (UTC)

Statement by Secret

I haven't been on wikipedia in almost a week, and IRC for nearly a month, so I don't know what really happened. Looking at the dispute, I agree with Violetriga, all sides needs to be looked at the case, not only Giano, and this is a case in which IRC evidence needs to be looked on closely. Those attacks need to be added to this case. I also agree that Giano should be limited in wikipedia space. Secret ^account 21:22, 26 December 2007 (UTC)

Statement by Piotrus

I use the channel occasionally; I find it useful but I always thought it should be logged. I agree that Wikipedia decision making should be public and civil, and a closed forum does not encourage those qualities. And let's face it, claiming that the channel is unofficial is wikilawyering. If it is unofficial, remove the links to it from Wikipedia policy page and change its name which sounds quite "legit". That said, I will stress that based on my experience the channel is useful; majority of discussions in it are good faithed and speed up dealing with various problems, and users complaining about IRC cabalism or such are too often complaining due to fear that their misdeeds may get talked about in a forum they cannot disrupt.--_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 12:58, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

Statement by Cla68

Just wanted to point out that although the ArbCom has indicated that they have no authority over what occurs in the IRC in question, the official page for that IRC states clearly that any problems with user behavior in that IRC are supposed be be addressed by the ArbCom, among others [2]. I hope that the ArbCom in their proposed decision will address this contradiction. Cla68 (talk) 00:21, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

Parties to the case who have access to the arbcom mailing list

Is there a policy regarding members of the arbcom mailing list who also are parties to a case? I can't imaging the the arbcom would allow one participant of a case to make their points on a private mailing list where other parties don't have access.

Since David Gerard is on the arbcom mailing list and also a party to this case, can the arbcom confirm that his input is restricted to the on-wiki case pages? --Duk 20:31, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

He is treated the same as other parties to the case. If David or any one else wants to contact ArbCom privately they can if they feel private statements or evidence are needed. Otherwise David and the other parties should place their comments on wiki. So far several parties and others have sent emails to ArbCom mailing list about this case. FloNight (talk) 21:29, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

I've experienced this problem twice myself. It should be standard practice that when a mailing list member becomes party to a case, they do not receive internal correspondence about that case. If this presents technical challenges, we have numerous geeks who can help solve the problem. There is an appearance of unfairness when one party to a case is privy to the deliberations while other parties are not. Jehochman ^Talk 21:34, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

In the case of a former arbitrator who is a party, the simple solution would be for them to give up list access for the duration of the case. --Duk 21:58, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

Thank you FloNight. I understand that anyone may contact the arbcom privately. The difference with someone on the list is that they are able to have a dialog that others can't (two way communication), or they may feel comfortable getting barbed points across by virtue of being known and "in the room". And as Jehochman mentions, just being privy to the deliberations can make a difference. --Duk 21:49, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

Treated the same as other parties means that he should not participate in the discussion. He is on the honor system about it. Per past practices, unless he starts to make comments about this case he will not be asked leave the mailing list. David in fact noted his involvement with the case and said that he would stop comment about the situation after the case was opened. I do not see it as an issue in this case. FloNight (talk) 22:05, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

I am sensitive to the appearances issue presented but can confirm FloNight's comments that no one in the case has used the mailing list inappropriately. I am confident that no one will. Newyorkbrad (talk) 22:42, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

Potential conflicts of interest

Some potential conflicts of interest I've spotted. Nothing major, in my opinion, but best to get this out of the way now, I think. From the IRC logs that were posted over on the evidence page, it seems that FT2 was present in the channel at the time of the Tony Sidaway-Bishonen incident - trying to pour coffee on troubled waters I believe. There was also a metaphorical tranquilising dart gun being used (in vain), and various people bailing out of the channel as they saw trouble brewing (though whether more people left than would normally do so is not clear to me). Anyway, the point I'm making is that FT2 may have a slight conflict of interest here with his role as arbitrator. Similarly, Newyorkbrad, who tried to rewrite and calm things on the Wikipedia:IRC channels/wikipedia-en-admins page back in July 2007 (see here) may have a slightly larger conflict of interest in this case as an arbitrator. Raising this now so it can be sorted before the proposed decision page is opened for business. Things get messy if conflicts of interest are raised later on. Personally, I don't think either of these cases of involvement rise to the level of conflict of interest, but this should be stated openly either way. Only Morven (Matthew Brown) responded to my appeal above, and did so here. Were any of the other arbitrators present in the channel during that incident or editing the page in question? Will the active arbitrators on the case make clear the level of involvement they have with IRC? My impression is that some who were not involved much before they became chanops, are still not involved that much. For those who don't know the history, it might be best to make that clearer. Carcharoth (talk) 21:44, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

There has been talk of FloNight once being booted from the channel (I guess not permanently though?). That raised a minor red flag with me. —Wknight94 (talk) 22:25, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

I have used IRC and participated sometimes in the #admins channel since June or July. I have seen both constructive and unconstructive, both friendly and unfriendly, use of the channel. This includes participation by some of the parties to this case. I also, as noted edited the on-wiki page discussing the channel back in July, trying (with some success at the time) to defuse a prior edit-war on the page. I did not make any edits during the December edit-war.

I believe that I can vote on this case based on fair and impartial consideration of the evidence presented, and I do not believe that any of these facts, individually or cumulatively, rise to the level where my impartiality could reasonably be questioned, which is the test I intend to employ in deciding whether and when to recuse myself (compare the recusal article in mainspace). If anyone disagrees, however, I will be glad to hear their views on the matter. Newyorkbrad (talk) 22:35, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

Your presence in the channel is not itself problematic, I'm sure all would agree you take a neutral role in the channel and I see no reason why it would affect your judgement here. However, I'm a little concerned with something I heard you say a couple of days ago - I can't for the life of me remember where you said it, but you stated that for the past year, you've been trying to mediate this dispute between Giano and Tony, that might be a slightly more concerning COI as it means you're directly involved, but of course, it's upto you. Ryan Postlethwaite 23:19, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

FT2 has recused himself, as he is presenting evidence. If he wasn't, being present in the channel and trying to calm Tony and Bishonen down does not equate to a conflict of interest at all. Newyorkbrad was trying to rewrite the page to satisfy Giano and Geogre's concerns, but in a reasonable and neutral manner; this is clear evidence he doesn't favor one side or the other. In other words, while involved, he has no conflict of interest - let's not confuse conflict of interest with involvement (it is simply unrealistic to merge the two in the context of an internet project with only a couple thousand active users). FloNight was booted once, yes, but this was over a year ago; she's now a chanop. I'll ask her to comment here. Picaroon (t) 22:49, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

Not sure where that rumor got started. I was never booted from the #wikipedia-en-admins channel. I have been treated more respectfully in the channel than the average user, I think. Likely because I'm an old fogy that the young folks humor. :-) A very long time ago, several regulars in the channel were s/w unfriendly to me but many more made me feel welcome. Any conflict is long past and have no residual problems with any users involved in the incident and in fact have an excellent working relationship with some of them. FloNight (talk) 22:56, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

Note to Picaroon - the evidence presented was more of the form of "point of information" for a matter referenced which I was able to confirm. An assertion had been made by one party that faked logs exist, and I was one of the people asked to check if the log was fake. Giano confirmed it too, on a different basis [3]. In a case like this rumors of faked evidence would only be a source of pointless stress to everyone, and best placed in the public realm if information does exist, not just left on arbcom's mailing list. I do not believe that noting this on the wiki impairs my ability to comment and to vote neutrally and impartially. It was stated so that the community would have transparency how it came out. But yes, in this case COI must be carefully considered early on. FT2 ^{(Talk | email)} 00:29, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

(unindent) Carcharoth - I'm way ahead of you. I've been considering different forms of COI that might come up as an arb since before entering the Arbcom election, as part of my own careful consideration of the role. As an extension of that, I asked for arb advice as one of my first actions upon hearing I had been appointed to the committee, even though the case had not yet been formally accepted at that point. (Also capable of confirmation if required.) Until January 1 I've been told new appointees are not serving on cases anyhow.

That said, to answer the question directly, my involvement on IRC discussion was extremely slight.

During the dispute I made one comment only, which was in full "> FT2 passes the coffee round" (crossref WP:TEA, I prefer coffee). My last comments before that were to without reserve accept Bish's comment on a topic I had been discussing amicably with (but not related to) Tony. After it my next comment was to Ryan P that I'd fixed a template he had a problem with. In private my only discussion was non-contentious; I solicited both of their opinions on the discussion that had been in progress beforehand, and disengaged with both fairly quickly to try and avoid accidental upset. That was the extent of IRC involvement. I'll comment on wiki (or other) involvement (such little as it was) if needed in January. FT2 ^{(Talk | email)} 00:03, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

It is unusual but not unheard of for arbitrators to present evidence but remain active in the decision-making and voting. Here, FT2 has posted a clarification to inform the community that Arbcom has received IRC logs, some of which appear to have been faked. Not an issue requiring recusal. Thatcher 03:47, 30 December 2007 (UTC)