Wikipedia talk:Requests for arbitration/IRC/Workshop

message: Wikipedia:Off-wiki policy discussion and it's talk page is very much related to this arbitration.  I'm not sure if there is anything there that will provide evidence, guidance or whatever but it's worth a look.  violet/riga (t) 22:10, 27 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Related discussions 

message: It is my personal feeling that talk pages should be deleted as a courtesy to retired editors, even if policy does not demand it.  We do not need to kick these editors in the butt one more time on their way out the door.  As far as the case is concerned, the Committee has the option of ignoring Giano, or of passing findings of fact and remedies in case he returns.  Assuming that they were going to pursue findings against Giano, the question I have for the parties is, Is there a point that can be made by referring to Giano's talk page that can not be made better by referring to a project or article page?  In other words, editors are allowed more leeway on their own talk pages, and Giano is no exception.  If he was incivil to someone whom he thought was pestering him, that could be considered evidence, but it would be much more convincing to show evidence from article or project pages.
After considering this question, any parties who still think that they need Giano's talk page as evidence should contact me.  I will probably undelete for the purposes of the case and then redelete, but I would prefer to leave it deleted and see a case built on project and article space edits. Thatcher 03:59, 28 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: And of course, the pages can be undeleted in the event that the users return, should that be necessary. --bainer (talk) 04:29, 28 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: If the user intends to return, or it is very likely they will return, then they don't have the right to vanish. -- Ned Scott  —Preceding comment was added at 04:32, 28 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: This is obvious of course.  For now, though, they are gone. Thatcher 04:36, 28 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: But with a little common sense, Giano isn't "leaving" Wikipedia, he's throwing a fit. We all know this, too. -- Ned Scott 04:46, 28 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Comments like this, which overtly discourage an editor from returning to Wikipedia, should be avoided. Newyorkbrad (talk) 04:47, 28 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Brad, I don't see how the comment is "overtly discouraging" Giano from returning. It's merely expressing skepticism that he will in fact leave permanently. You and I both know that it's quite common for people to announce their intent to leave, only to return a few weeks or months later. Raymond Arritt (talk) 04:59, 28 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Stating that Giano is "throwing a fit" and suggesting that bets be taken on his return is a needlessly provocative way of expressing skepticism.  Let's try not to provoke people, shall we? Thatcher 05:11, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

text: (edit conflict) That's rather indecorous of you. Until such time as Giano returns, we will accept his retirement at face value. Thatcher 04:49, 28 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Using "right to vanish" as a plaything irritates me. Frankly, it's something that's been used far too often, almost never needed, and causes more problems than it solves. We're trying to get things done, and sometimes people need to look at talk pages and old discussions, and who knows what else. People here need the contents of the talk page to present their evidence, and Giano does not have a reasonable argument to support his right to vanish. Making our jobs more difficult for nothing is a foolish thing to do. -- Ned Scott 04:58, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

text: Replying to Thatcher - I think I added several links to Giano's talk page - not sure what others added. I can confirm that there was extensive discussion on his talk page (seven different threads, including some major ones), including comments by Lar and (a long one) by FT2 among others. I could provide admin-specific URLs involving Special:Undelete, but that might risk someone accidentally restoring pages by accident while looking at evidence. Also, there may be non-admins who can't even remember what was said on Giano's talk page. For example, is something like this from Giano relevant? "I would rather be banned for ever than sit idly by watching Wikipedia produce such rubbish as that page. Yes I have reverted, but how many times has #admins reverted. Do you think it is just coincidence they take it in turns like that? Get real. I see the page owner is now editing the page, go and give him some advice. I'm not editing it ay more tonight anyway because I have other fish to fry. So why not re-instate my statement yourself, is it not true, are you afraid of #admins or are you more interested in me than the accuracy of information?" How about Lar's comment: "I don't in any way shape or form condone the tag team reverting I see going on. Because one "team" seems to be bigger than the other one, there are more reverts (per person) on one side than the other. All parties should know better but blocking one editor doesn't seem the best approach. I rarely block established editors, but I was sorely tempted to block a pretty good number of people (3RR is a bright line not an entitlement) for edit warring. Instead I appealed for a different approach." Some of this is not evidence yet, but as the case builds it may be. The comment "I'm not editing it ay more tonight anyway" in particular, and the point that the page protection left Giano a spectator as David Gerard rewrote the page. Carcharoth (talk) 05:02, 28 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Clerk response 

message: Given that #wikipedia-en-roads is being discussed in an ongoing request for arbitration, is it technically possible to find out how many IRC channels exist with the prefix #wikipedia or #wikipedia-en or any other wikipedia or foundation related channels? Just a vague idea. Are there hundreds of such channels or only a few? Carcharoth (talk) 18:46, 30 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Interestingly, very similar concerns are being raised about that channel as are being raised about this one. Risker (talk) 19:06, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

text: The answer is that it depends. There will be a certain amount registered with ChanServ (You can possibly ask for a list from it) though not all of these will be in use/active, these effectively exist at all times and have a channel contact/owner defined. Alternatively anyone can just join a channel which is unregistered e.g. #wikipedia-users-named-bob and the channel is "created" when the first users joins and disappears when the last user leaves. You can similarly form pretty much any channel name you want (though certain like gnaa type channel names are likely to get you permenantly banned from freenode) --81.104.39.63 (talk) 19:49, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

text: If you are inclined, perhaps you can post the list extract from the public server, I may have borked it.  Regards, Mercury 03:07, 31 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, no I'm not going to drop a list of 600 or so channels here.  The question is largely irrelevant; anyone can register a channel.  We have everything from #wikipedia-en-cricket to #wikipedia-en-idiots.  Possibly JameF or Seanw could pull some strings and get all wikipedia-named channels that aren't used for wikipedia business canceled or renamed, but does it really matter?  The channels are not owned, sanctioned, endorsed or regulated by Wikipedia by policy. Thatcher 03:15, 31 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Your correct.  I think the interest was academic, but listing was of no harm.  Either way.  Best, Mercury 03:18, 31 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I compiled a list of all that I could a while back at m:User:John Reaves/IRC list. John Reaves 06:33, 31 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks to everyone for the lists and information. The 600+ was the sort of figure I was after. Any way to estimate the number of users active in the channels? Some stats for #wikipedia are here. John, would you believe that #wikipedia-en-admins is missing from your list? :-) You have the wikinews and wikimedia admin channels, but not the en-wikipedia admin channel. I've gone digging around on meta, and there are loads of pages. See m:IRC channels and m:IRC and m:Template:Communication (for a list of pages). Compared to some pages on meta, these seem fairly good and up-to-date (please correct me if I'm wrong). So why not just let the detail be provided over there, keep the main Wikipedia:IRC channels page here, but reduce it to a summary of what is at meta, with only the briefest of explanations, and a few links to help people get up to speed on what debates about IRC have occurred on en-Wikipedia (including this arbitration case and any other cases involving IRC), and the user essays on the subject. Don't label it "controversy" or anything silly like that, but just make people aware of what has been discussed in the past, while briefly explaining what IRC is and also linking outwards to the meta pages. Carcharoth (talk) 12:18, 31 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Chanserv labels some channels as "Active", I assume that means they are in use at the moment, and the date they were created.  I don;t know how to get chanserv to report more than 100 names at a time, when it says 100/575 listed, I see 100 names but can't see the other 475.  I can try some tricks later tonight. Thatcher 16:05, 31 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The command doesn't show private channels so it's possible #admins was +s at the time. John Reaves 03:17, 1 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Random question about IRC and Wikipedia 

message: I'm not really sure, but this seems to be the most active discussion we've ever had about policies/guidelines for/relating to IRC. Even if things here are not used in the final proposals for the case, or are even off-topic as far as what arbcom can do, this discussion should definitely be used as a starting point for the loose ends. That probably goes without saying, but I thought I would say it anyways. -- Ned Scott 04:59, 31 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Agreed. Too often good ideas emerge during arbcom cases and no-one runs with them. Maybe it is because as soon as you widen the numbers involved, consensus starts to blur markedly. There were several attempts to discuss blocking policy (one was at the village pump) recently, but such discussions get side-tracked or people lose interest. Carcharoth (talk) 12:20, 31 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Arbcom pages being used for guidelines outside of the case 

message: I just reverted another. Since they are all coming in from various IPs, is this all open proxy action? Should this talk page be protected, too? Lawrence Cohen 22:09, 2 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Double post, sorry. Considering one post traces via whois to VA, and one to .DE (the country, not the state), odds are good that one (or both) of them are open proxies. SirFozzie (talk) 22:40, 2 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text:  Triple post. One of the IP's on the main workshop page itself is from Taiwan, so I'm pretty sure these are open proxies. I asked a CheckUser, Alison, to try to see if we can confirm the proxyhood, smoke out any sleepers, and close off the proxies to WP access. SirFozzie (talk) 22:57, 2 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  More IPs 

message: Looks like someone's using Tor Proxies any time the Workshop or its talk page is unprotected. I semi'd both for 72 hours. If I've overstepped my boundaries or if it's overdoing it, please feel free to undo it, don't wait for me to be online to agree with you. SirFozzie (talk) 03:13, 4 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: It appears that these IPs (except for ) are TOR nodes.—Ryūlóng (竜龍) 03:23, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

text: Nor is .—Ryūlóng (竜龍) 03:24, 4 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: ArbCom and talk page semi-protected

message: They're back. Might need to semi-protect again. Lawrence Cohen 21:22, 7 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Link. Lawrence Cohen 21:22, 7 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I just protected the talk page as well. Sean William  @ 21:26, 7 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Why don't we just put up a proposal that Ryulong should be... Oops. No. That would be caving in to pressure, wouldn't it. :-) The ironic thing is that someone might want to put up a similar proposal (though not quite so strongly worded), but the IP editing is actually making it less likely that anything like that will be put up. I could put up an "admonished" suggestion, covering both Geogre and Ryulong for their continued edit warring after making statements at the request for arbitration. That still surprises me that they both did that, and that Ryulong claimed not to be involved when he made his arbitration statement, and then went back and carried on edit warring. Carcharoth (talk) 00:36, 8 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Done. I've proposed that Geogre and Ryulong be admonished. I was going to do that anyway, and the IP edit warring/trolling just reminded me. Carcharoth (talk) 00:48, 8 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: The next time he does it, just leave it there so he stops adding it back. Its not going to be accepted or seriously taken, anyway.—Ryūlóng (竜龍) 22:49, 9 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: But it was a useful exercise for finding tor nodes and other sleepers. :) Thatcher 22:51, 9 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  More IPs redux