Wikipedia talk:Requests for arbitration/IRC/Proposed decision/Archive 1

message: Without getting into the specifics of the case your comment:"it has never really been settled whether a single reversal of another administrator's action is sanctionable" is highly questionable - and will strengthen the misapprehension that admins can reverse an admin actions without prior discussion. Actually, it has been settled: "undoing an administrative action by another administrator) without first attempting to resolve the issue is unacceptable" Arbcom:Feb 2006 12-0 
Are people now to be allowed to undo admin actions if they believe the previous action to be "itself dubious"? Dangerous precedent.
Less importantly: on the specifics: 
#I understood you were never to use admin tools on a page where you were involved in a dispute, let alone compounding this by reversing another admin without discussion. How isn't this disruptive?
#David Gerard's protection was, in fact, unnecessary, as the page had ALREADY been protected "licitly" by TWO uninvolved admins , so it was not simply a case of unprotecting an article dubiously protected. It was unprotecting an article to allow the very much involved unprotector to continue in an edit war. How isn't that disruptive?
#I'll not be too hard on Geogre for reversing my deletion (which was a light hearted attempt at the Christmas spirit). I'll call him a scrooge more than a rogue here. But your dismissal of the idea that otherwise "someone should have initiated a five-day DRV debate seeking to reinstate the page" misses the mark entirely. a. The first port of call was NOT DRV, but my talk page. I was about that evening - prior discussion would have been nice, rather than "Bah humbug" afterwards. b. If an uninvolved admin had overruled me, that would be one thing - but one of the warriors? Using admin tools (for the second time that day) to reverse another admin without discussion in order to allow him to resume hostilities? This isn't "disruptive"? You could have fooled me?
--Docg 02:01, 6 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: To make sure I read this clearly, Gerard reversing Geogre's odd action is good and okay, but Geogre reversing your odd action is bad? – Luna Santin (talk) 02:27, 6 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't believe I commented on Gerard's actions.--Docg 02:30, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

text: By the way, the phrase is spelled "obiter dictum". --bainer (talk) 02:32, 6 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Corrected thanks, law-school was an age ago ;) --Docg 02:33, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

text: In my experience, nothing in Wikipedia attains universal acceptance, but that does not preclude it from being forcible policy which everyone should follow (for the good of the project). - Mtmelendez (Talk) 13:46, 7 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Newyorkbrad's obiter dictum 

message: I notice that the findings of fact only cover a few people so far? Is the presumption that everyone involved will have a finding of fact about them, and if not, is silence in any way endorsing the actions of the other people involved? The other people whose actions I personally would like to see the arbitration committee state a view on are (going by the timeline): User:Tony Sidaway, User:Doc glasgow, User:AzaToth, User:David Fuchs, User:Coredesat, User:LessHeard vanU, User:Irpen, User:Betacommand, User:Ryulong, User:Phil Sandifer, User:Sean William, User:Jossi, User:Jouster. Some of these could, of course, be rolled up into blanket findings covering groups of people. Carcharoth (talk) 04:13, 6 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Is a separate finding of fact for each party standard practice? I don't recall that being the case in the past. I would imagine that if there is no specific remedy addressed to a particular party then it is unnecessary to make a finding of fact regarding that individual. Avruchtalk 04:16, 6 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I suspect the Arbitrators are not finished here yet.  Generally any remedies must be supported by findings, and sometimes (but not always) findings will also be directed at editors who were prominent in the case even if no remedies are proposed against them. Thatcher 04:18, 6 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: There is no decision at this point as to whether additional findings will be proposed, and if so, regarding whom or what. Any arbitrator may place proposals on the page for voting by the committee, and as is obvious, several have not even had the opportunity to look at the partial proposed decision as yet. Newyorkbrad (talk) 04:31, 6 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Sure, but are the arbitrators sensitive to the effect that the order of the findings of fact have? Is there any order? Does the order reflect the "severity" of what happened (which is itself a matter for debate) or whichever arbitrator gets round to putting something up first? Would a strictly chronological ordering help? At the moment it is unclear whether UninvitedCompany is saying "this is what I feel most strongly about", or whether this is just a start. At the end of this process, I would expect findings concerning all the thirteen named parties, and for all the findings to be presented before voting starts. That way the overall shape of the findings is clearer, and in a case like this the overall balance will be important. The arbitrators who vote later in a case probably find it easier to be consistent as they can see the entirety of what is being presented. Would those voting earlier consider that? Carcharoth (talk) 13:41, 6 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: No, yes, and maybe.  The arbitrators now have their own private wiki, on the theory that it would be easier to work on cases than a mailing list.  (I of course am not privileged to see or edit there.)  These may be the principles that were most readily agreed to, with other, more difficult principles to follow.  My own personal feeling is that when the community is deeply divided about an issue, with sensible opinions on both sides, the committee will be too, because they are elected from the community.  So extra patience is required in complex cases. Thatcher 14:11, 6 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Five questions and three answers. :-) I should ask less questions, but thanks anyway (I'm presuming you addressed my first three questions). The private wiki thing sounds good (though not if it detracts from the usefulness of the Workshop and Evidence pages - I would be concerned if some arbitrators assembled their own evidence and proposals on this private wiki without considering the pages here), though the logical endpoint of that process is that decisions drop on this wiki fully formed and with all the arbitrators in agreement (well, as far as they can agree anyway). In some senses the visible disagreements and rewrites on this page are good - in other senses they aren't. One final comment, concerning the evidence presented in the proposed decision - sometimes arbitrators seem to, ahem, miss certain bits of evidence, or not be precise in terms of linking to what they are talking about. Could they be encouraged to copy diffs and stuff directly from the evidence and workshop pages? Carcharoth (talk) 14:33, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

text: As I noted on the Proposed decision page, I think the first Fof needs to be broader and address a larger group of users. I don't have time to right one now but will get to it later today. (If no one else does first.) FloNight (talk) 15:41, 6 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Findings of fact 

message: Having looked again at the findings of fact as presented so far, I see what really seems odd. People do read the proposed decision page as it develops, and like it or not this can present a skewed view of the case if the page is not finished. I hope the arbitrators agree that any absence of a finding of fact concerning Tony Sidaway would be nonsensical. The evidence is all there on the Evidence page and, presumably, in the hands of the arbitration committee. It seems strange to use language like "regarding comments made in the channel" and (from Newyorkbrad) "made by another user to Bishonen" - why name Giano and Bishonen and not Tony? It is clear from the first entry in the timeline ("Giano II to Tony Sidaway "Must be marvellous for you "men" in "#admins" being able to call a woman any insult you care to, I wonder if your ever so brave to a man in real life?""), and from the filing of the case ("Giano II claims that Tony Sidaway made a personal attack") that Tony's role in this needs to be explicitly made clear - Tony himself has presented evidence on this point. Given all this, I struggle to fathom why a finding of fact would be put up about Giano, and nothing about Tony. Having said that, I'll be patient and see what happens. Carcharoth (talk) 13:41, 6 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: There could be any number of reasons for this. 1) When Tony has admitted the facts, and that he used inappropriate tone and language, it may be thought superfluous for arbcom to "find" an undisputed fact. 2) Arbcom's primary concern is behaviour that disrupts the wiki - they may, or may not, see IRC behaviour in the same light, or to be under their jurisdiction (I really don't know). 3) A few instances of incivility (however serious) are seldom things that arbcom acts on (even if they are on wiki) - especially when there's been an apology and the user has withdrawn from the forum concerned. Arbcom may consider no possible further "preventative" remedy to be possible here (again, I have no idea). 4) Maybe they've just not got to it yet - it wouldn't be the first time that significant things were dealt with later. I really don't get why you "struggle to fathom" this - we are simply not privy to arbcom's thinking, but there could be any number of rational explanations.--Docg 14:50, 6 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I make that four reasons, not "any number". :-) Findings of fact can be made and the acknowledgment and apology noted in the same finding of fact as an implicit explanation for no remedy. That would be a good example to demonstrate to people that apologising is a good thing. What should be considered here is the reader who knows nothing about the case, who hasn't followed it through all the twists and turns for several weeks. What they see, if the findings of fact are not balanced, actually, maybe "comprehensive" is a better word, is an incomplete picture of what happened. Maybe a disclaimer at the top of arbcom pages should make clear that the final decisions don't always cover the full details of what happened, and that people need to read further (including the evidence  pages) to get a fuller story. I often read final decisions without reading the evidence or workshop pages (as I'm sure you do), but I would hope that the final decisions include fair, accurate, just and reasonably comprehensive summaries of what actually happened, and I would hope that others would agree with that. I don't want to have to think to myself when reading final decisions: "Is that the full story, or is there more to this that hasn't made it to the final decision?". In this case, maybe a separate finding of fact that the timeline thebainer provided is just such an accurate and fair summary (though maybe some arbitrators disagree with this?), would be sufficient to draw people's attention to the timeline, rather than linking the timeline from within various findings of fact. Carcharoth (talk) 15:05, 6 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Arbcom cases are not for telling stories - they are for dealing with problems. If you are looking for balanced narrative, I suggest you do a write-up for the Signpost. And perhaps, to bastardise the Bismarkian cliché: "arbitration decisions are like sausages. It's better not to see them being made".--Docg 15:11, 6 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I might do a narrative in my userspace and link it here. I've considered doing that in arbitration cases where I disagree strongly with the overall tone or balance of the final decision (a "personal response" if you like), but have never found the time yet to do something like that justice. Obviously that may not be needed here, as I may agree with the final decision. And equally obviously, any such agreement or disagreement would be my personal views. As always, I strongly support and appreciate the work of the arbitration committee (they have far more cases to handle then just the few I occasionally follow). Carcharoth (talk) 16:38, 6 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Why balance is important when presenting findings of fact

message: Proposed Finding of Fact 1 currently concludes with the words: "Giano made a series of provocative and disruptive edits to Wikipedia:IRC channels/wikipedia-en-admins regarding comments made in the channel in early 2007".
A minor niggle, perhaps, but I believe that original comments on the channel were dated late September, 2006.   I believe this was the date of appearance of the inflammatory (mea culpa) reference.  Lar tells me he sent a transcript witht hat date. --Tony Sidaway 04:28, 6 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Actually, I believe that the edits were made in response to the comments made on December 22, 2007, based on the evidence given here in this Arbcom, and I suspect those are the comments referred to in the finding. Risker (talk) 04:44, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

text: In that case "early 2007" is still wrong. December 22 is about as late in the year as it gets. --Tony Sidaway 04:47, 6 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Fixed I think. Thatcher 04:56, 6 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text:  Looks about right to me.  The arbitrators will elaborate if they think it's that important.  --Tony Sidaway 05:02, 6 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Hopefully they will actually use your name. Sorry to sound cynical, but circumlocutions like "another user" are really not needed, and starting at the WP:WEA page ignores both the earlier edit wars at that page and the edits Giano made to your talk page. Carcharoth (talk) 13:45, 6 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text:  Only a few arbitrators have commented yet, and later arbitrators may want to modify the wording and add proposals related to my part in the affair. --Tony Sidaway 13:56, 6 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Finding 1

message: Isn't this all a moot point? If the Committee with the backing and support of the wider community decide something, such as taking control of IRC or that one page on the wiki, isn't that simply that? Jimbo controls the Committee, and Jimbo said IRC was under their supervision. If they decide no pages are immune to their oversight and the community's, and that all policies 
# apply the same universally everywhere and to all pages on the project, and
# apply the same to everyone on this project, 
What's the big deal? How are either #1 or #2 even possibly bad? Honestly, a lot of the gnashing of teeth here sounds like some people don't like a little control and supervision, which is silly. I would appreciate answers as to how #1 or #2 could possibly have a single downside to the community. Lawrence Cohen 06:16, 7 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Not entirely sure what you're getting at here; however, neither #1 nor #2 have anything to do with Jimbo asserting control over a channel the Foundation specifically disclaims and that is owned by someone else. First off, neither English Wikipedia nor the Arbitration Committee can assume control over something external to our own project without the authorization of the Foundation; secondly, the owner of the channel hasn't given any indication to the community that he is willing to relinquish control. It was a very nice gesture of Jimbo to try to establish this level of control, but I really think it is a bad idea for Arbcom to have any "official" responsibility for this channel without the direct authorization of the Foundation to do so. There's a logistical issue here as well: en-wp has somewhere over 300 IRC channels associated with it, according to the list Thatcher worked up. Arbcom cannot possibly manage dispute resolution for all of them, though it is worrisome that the one channel where the most complaints have come from is #admins.  I note that another IRC channel is being discussed in evidence on another case currently before Arbcom.  Arbcom has too much work to do on-wiki to babysit IRC channels.  Risker (talk) 06:34, 7 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: what's the big deal?

message: I've placed two new proposed findings on the workshop, which I think may be useful in establishing the origins of the dispute. --Tony Sidaway 18:27, 6 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: The current dispute, yes (and thanks for those), but what do you think was the origins of the earlier edit wars. Can anyone even remember what started it all off several years ago? This was briefly covered by Geogre here. The salient point is this: "What really bothered me is that it was written in the wake of the so-called "Giano affair," when IRC's potential abuses were shown before. [...] ArbCom ruled at that time that it had no say over IRC behavior. However, they wanted changes made to IRC. David Gerard was militant in that instance and said that ArbCom had no say over IRC, that it was purely a matter of whether James Forester wanted to cooperate or not." - Geogre. Tony, compare this to what you wrote above: "...the Arbitration Committee's long history of very conservative, parsimonous problem-solving, and its considerable aversion to making policy, are well known, and the proposals so far don't contain any surprises. I do not, for instance, see any reason to revise my assessment that the Committee will not feel the need to declare a significant change in the scope of its powers in matters IRC." - Tony. At it's core, this is the latest battle in a long-running dispute over IRC and who controls it and who should have access to certain areas and what it should and shouldn't be used for, and who has a say in ensuring that IRC is used properly. If this is not resolved, we will probably all be back here next year or whenever this erupts again. Carcharoth (talk) 18:40, 6 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text:  I agree that framing a dispute is a difficult matter.  I suspect that some arbitrators may agree to some extent with Geogre's framing, but disputes are not  new to Wikipedia, and it is the Committee's task to remind us that we resolve such disputes by discussion.  Problems only arise for the community when such a dispute moves, as it did here, from discussion to edit warring, personal attacks, and other disruption.  --Tony Sidaway 18:55, 6 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Framing a dispute sent me looking for a picture. What do you think? Suitable for arbitration cases? Carcharoth (talk) 19:58, 6 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Of course, the fact of the matter is that changes were made to IRC, through the existing mechanisms (read: James Forrester). New channel operators were appointed, many of them sitting and former arbitrators. It was made clear at the time that abuses should be reported to the channel operators. This of course in no way precludes a regrettable incident from taking place any more than the existence of sysops prevents bad behavior on-wiki. In point of fact, Bishonen did complain to a channel operator, and that channel operator did take action that, in the context of IRC, was proportionate. Kicking someone from a channel is functionally equivalent to a namespace ban, even if temporary. It also sets a significant precedent. That this action was judged insufficient by related parties does not justify disrupting the wiki. Mackensen (talk) 20:50, 6 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Locus and genesis of the dispute

message: As might be obvious, this is an unusually wide-ranging case, covering irc and its operation, administrative activity and actions, dispute resolution, historic disputes, use/misuse of admin tools, past cases related to these issues, and the like. Considerable discussion is taking place, aimed at considering a wide range of these areas, and we are examining a number of connected issues as well. Before any decision on the case, its important to note the train wreck that it was, and the principles attaching to it. In this case more than most, speculation and assumption are probably best avoided. (Personal comment to try and help clarify things, rather than "official" one, btw.) FT2 (Talk | email) 10:14, 7 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Note 

message: In FOF: Giano, I think it would be best to provide a link to where Giano "was formally reminded less than one month prior to the events of this matter", just to clear any doubts. - Mtmelendez (Talk) 14:58, 7 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Giano reminded. Also, bad blood is a rather colloquial expression. It might be best to link it the wiktionary definition at wikt:bad blood. Carcharoth (talk) 15:32, 7 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text:  I much prefer Viv Stanshall's dictum, in the spoof Country and Western song of the same name: "Bad blood is like an egg-stain on your shirt/You can lick it, but it still won't go away." --Tony Sidaway 15:59, 7 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Licking egg stains? I'd only do that with some eggs... Seriously, I would hope nothing here has really got to the stage where the bad blood is insurmountable. I was serious when I said on the workshop page that all sides might learn to appreciate each other more if they worked together on an article. Carcharoth (talk) 16:40, 7 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Minor note

message: For the Scope of communal editing section, beyond pages that describe Foundation information, what exactly isn't up to the community to decide? Everything on Wikipedia eventually comes down to the community, from their selection of the Arbitration Committee, to even electing the Foundation board, right? This doesn't sound accurate. On the 'local' end at the most I can see is that pages related to the WMF's rules, that the local wiki can't change except by kicking out the board in a new election later, and the AC, which is the same situation, at most would be theoretically restricted this way. Am I misreading this? Lawrence Cohen 17:28, 7 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Other pages... the classic one is NPOV - Jimmy Wales has not ceded the right to modify NPOV as the core basis of the project. The community does not therefore have the right to modify WP:NPOV to describe some other principle as holding in its place. Several other well known policies proably have one or another core principles described within them, that the community probably cannot edit the pages to make them describe the principles as not holding, or being different than they in fact are. FT2 (Talk | email) 17:39, 7 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Well NPOV is a WMF thing, isn't it? If it is, theoretically it could be changed by replacing the board with a new one, and then the board changes the policies top down. Not likely I guess, but still community controlled. Since the WMF owns Wikipedia, and the board controls the WMF, it all still comes down to the community in the end and not any single person. Maybe it would be better to clarify what sorts of pages if not which outright can fall under this? If the Committee feels the community has limited control over some things like this (as was implied by some people about the WEA page) spelling it out will probably head off this sort of nonsense in the future, by saying what pages are outside the dispute resolution/community process. I'd suggested that in the workshop--that for any page to have this Exempt Status, it really should be tightly controlled and approved by the AC, together, on a page by page decision, and no one else. If something is outside the community's control, no one in the community except our "elected officials" have any business making that decision. Otherwise people will start thinking they can give themselves a free pass on some things, like appears to have happened on WEA. Lawrence Cohen 17:42, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

text: I am similarly concerned; the current wording seems to give carte blanche to editors to say that such-and-such an article is "not subject to revision by the community", and the onus is then on the person trying to change the article to prove them wrong.  Perhaps what is trying to be communicated in this statement is that some pages on Wikipedia are reflections of fact rather than reflections of community consensus (i.e., just because we all agree the Emperor is fully-clothed, that does not make it so)?  Jouster  (whisper) 18:20, 8 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Scope of communal editing 

message: Why is Fred bauder voting here?  His term has expired.  Nothing personal against Fred, but it seems bizarre to allow some cases (those filed at year end) to possess an inordinately large pool of Arbitrators (from the old and new terms combined.)  Isn't it the declared result of the election that old terms ended on 1 Jan. for all purposes? Xoloz (talk) 19:51, 7 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: As I understand it, past practice has been that former Arbitrators continue to be able to vote on cases that were accepted before their term expired. Mackensen has also voted on this case. WjBscribe 19:55, 7 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: WJBscribe is correct. Arbitrators who were members of the committee at the time a case was accepted, but whose terms later expire, are permitted to participate through the conclusion of that case. The same procedure has been used in prior years. Newyorkbrad (talk) 20:28, 7 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Stupid question...

message: A moment's lightheartedness to note that, notwithstanding that it would be a horrific WP:POINT violation, adding my support vote as an non-arbitrator to the "pages are not owned" section would be hilarious, would it not?  Jouster  (whisper) 14:50, 9 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Such an edit would be reverted, but I would hope that none of us would get in an edit war with you over it.   The Uninvited Co., Inc. 16:56, 9 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Now that was funny.  :)  Jouster  (whisper) 18:41, 9 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Pages are not owned 

message: An IP editor has posted some evidence and a proposed finding of fact for the workshop on Newyorkbrad's talk page; apparently because of the semi-protection to deal with inappropriate IP edits, the IP editor is not able to post directly onto the RFAR. I see that Brad has announced he will be traveling and, as this was not the last post on his talk page, he may have missed it.  Could a neutral party please post this information in the correct places, or otherwise ensure it is brought to the attention of the Arbitration Committee as a whole?  Thanks.  Risker (talk) 18:33, 9 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I have recopied the evidence provided by the anonymous editor to the evidence page, but will leave the decision on whether this warrants a FoF to the arbitrators.  — Coren (talk) 00:09, 10 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Assistance requested 

message: This is a question less stupid than my one above, but possibly still stupid, for all I know:
Should Mr. Gerard be subject to any discipline from the Committee, are there procedures or provisions in place to remove him from the ArbCom list?  It would seem to me that if he is desysopped -- even temporarily -- this was indicate a loss of the community's trust and/or a loss of the "good standing" necessary to remain on the list. Xoloz (talk) 16:57, 10 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: In past cases, remedies passed on serving arbitrators have had no effect on their membership of the Committee.  Whether this has a bearing on a former arbitrator's membership of a mailing list, I couldn't say.  David Gerard is a member of the communications committee, runs various mailing lists, is an oversighter, and holds various other positions, so if he really were in any way untrusted the problems would go far, far further than English Wikipedia's arbitration committee.  --Tony Sidaway 18:00, 10 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I am willing to say that I have not trusted Mr. Gerard's judgment for a very long time.  Should sanctions go forward, I would support the Committee's at least considering whether he is competent to hold any position of trust in light of its findings.  I do not urge this action, I guess; but I do endorse it as reasonable.  If Mr. Sidaway means to suggest the Committee cannot or should not examine the question merely because Mr. Gerard holds many positions of trust, I disagree with that suggestion vigorously.  The more positions of trust that are at stake, the more vital it becomes to examine the issue.  Xoloz (talk) 21:54, 10 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text:  Certainly the committee may make such considerations--it's what they're there for.  I do find the idea of entertaining such considerations with respect to this particular highly valued community member somewhat incongruous.  Issues with Mr Gerard's fitness to hold a position of trust should surely go, with commensurate evidence, to the Foundation, which bestowed most of them upon him and alone has the power to remove them.  Wild, unfocussed, evidence-free smears against a Wikipedian are nothing more or less than personal attacks, and should be treated as such. --Tony Sidaway 09:29, 11 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: David Gerard's adminship, from which stems some of his other positions, is granted by this community, and as such, a community member stating he has concerns is appropriate, particularly in this forum. There is no personal attack in the statement above yours, and your describing Xoloz's words as personal attacks is hyperbolic and disingenuous. This committee can certainly review David Gerard's actions within this community and make findings relative to that. We aren't discussing his work for the Foundation here. Risker (talk) 12:10, 11 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text:  I don't object to examining conduct.  For this one would actually have to provide evidence pertaining to conduct, not vague smears.   Such smears are unequivocally personal attacks. --Tony Sidaway 12:38, 11 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Lack of accountability and transparency, as shown by the dismissive edit summary saying he owned the page (back in June), and heavy-handed edit warring and rewriting of the page (in December) instead of explaining things clearly on the talk page. Whether that is sufficient for sanctions is up to the ArbCom. Carcharoth (talk) 13:20, 11 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: ArbCom Mailing List

message: Some of the above encapsulates, in a nutshell, what this case is all about. Its not really about 48 hours of edit warring on an obscure page. Its about the ongoing and persistent personality clashes between certain editors spread across the entire project in time and space. Its especially depressing to see it occur, in its full glory, on the very pages that are supposed to be aimed at finding a resolution. For such a bunch of clearly smart people, it is a remarkably dumb tactic. Please give it a rest and think about Brad's comments, because I see provocation, cheap shots and sarcasm largely overwhelming any efforts "to assist the arbitrators in reaching a fair, well-informed, and expeditious resolution to the case". Rockpocket 22:32, 12 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree with rocket pocket.  All of the folks involved in this personal dispute have behaived very poorly, and some continue to.  --Rocksanddirt (talk) 15:55, 14 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Is this going anywhere? 

message: Bishonen was the victim of targeted misogynist harassment. I fail to see why she should be sanctioned for anything. That her harassers are not listed here is disturbing. Tony Sidaway, based on the presented evidence, appears to be a net negative loss to the Wikipedia project. How does a user with such a demonstrated and recorded history of disruption and attacks on female editors remain unblocked? Lawrence Cohen 16:49, 17 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I am not sure that the problem of overdramatic hyperbole is overcome by an attempt to shift the field of discussion to physical abuse. Phil Sandifer (talk) 19:29, 17 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: So, Phil, would you be speaking of "chests" for male users?  Besides that, you're saying, essentially, "See what you made me do!  You made me shoot you!"  That's the excuse of the abuser, the abhorent, unthinking, disgusting, and vilely ignorant language of criminals.  Utgard Loki (talk) 19:32, 17 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I considered "back" instead of "chest," but that would give the implication that bishonen's involvement in the conversation was anything less than a head-on attack on Tony. I also disliked the implication that would carry that Tony's comment was shooting Bishonen in the back. So yes - I would have used chest in either case. Both of them were being incivil, rude, and querrelous, and both were trying to goad the other one into crossing a line. Tony crossed it first. Shame on him. But that's not a campaign of harassment - that's a nasty fight. Calling it harassment is overstating the case dramatically. Phil Sandifer (talk) 19:34, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

text: I am skeptical that any attempt to state the fact that this was a feud that both of them went into knowingly and maliciously is going to avoid being read as an anti-female attack on Bishonen. Far too many people in this discussion have decided who they are out for the blood of, and many of them are out for the blood of Tony. There seems little that will stop them from making Bishonen a martyr to their cause, facts be damned. Phil Sandifer (talk) 19:55, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

text: "Bishonen was targetted rather ignores the time she spent dancing around in front of Tony with a target strapped to her chest."  Who are you accusing of "deeply unhelpful hyperbole", Phil??? --Tex 19:43, 17 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Perhaps we did not read the same transcript. In the one I read, Tony's attack was predicated by several lines of Bishonen all but demanding Tony admit and apologize for calling her names. Tony's attack distinctly escalates the level of vitriol and incivility in the discussion, but it does not mark a shocking or disproportionate escalation. Phil Sandifer (talk) 19:55, 17 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: My point being, you are claiming the "pro-Bishonen" folks are engaging in "deeply unhelpful hyperbole" while at the same time you are engaging in deeply unhelpful hyperbole yourself by claiming she was "dancing around with a target on her chest".  Pot, kettle and all that.  --Tex 19:59, 17 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: And my point remains that she was not targeted for harassment, she actively got into a fight with Tony. Phil Sandifer (talk) 20:00, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

text: When the topic of discussion is a man harassing a woman, any analogy reminiscent of what was she wearing? is dubious at best.  I'm willing to suppose these were ill-chosen words written in good faith.  Phil, would you be willing to rewrite that statement above?  If you do I'll strikethrough my entire commentary to this thread. DurovaCharge! 19:53, 17 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Section Break 1

message: Just to echo the concerns of Rockpocket's comment from five days ago, I have to ask, is this really going anywhere?  It doesn't seem like it.  Look at what the parties on either side of this actually want and you'll see why.  I'm going to go out on a limb here and predict that this will end in exactly the same way as the previous case involving many of these same people did: vague unheeded warnings followed with another big blow-up not too far down the road.  The obvious answer, that everyone just acts civilized and lives with one another, is apparently so obvious it's not worth pursuing.  A pity.  --Cyde Weys 04:58, 18 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Is this going anywhere?

message: What on earth is the point of putting parties on 1 revert parole  How can preventing editors, who write high quality pages, from maintaining those pages help the encyclopedia. It is important to remember this case is centred on edits to a page that it now seems was not part of the encyclopedia at all. In fact the whole legitimacy of this case is very questionable for that reason.  What is the point of penalising the productive editors to appease those who seldom write a page because they prefer to be in their chatroom. This case is true baffling. Giano (talk) 12:05, 19 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Actually, the suggested remedy only refers to the project namespace (All "Wikipedia:" pages), not the mainspace. --Reinoutr (talk) 13:38, 19 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: And here we have a good reason why the talk page should never have been protected. It is important that there is a venue for non-arbitrators and the parties to a case to ask questions like this. I'm glad Giano's misunderstanding has been cleared up. Carcharoth (talk) 16:57, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

text: I can't imagine what the virtue of this would be.  I did not go beyond one revert in 24 hr.  Giano doesn't have the ability to rollback.  David Gerard did exceed 2R.  Several others did one revert.  I.e. had this been in place for merely the named parties (and not, of course, the people who wanted the page to reflect David Gerard's original and erroneous form), it would have caught no one except Giano, and he broke 3RR and got triple the requisite 24 hr block.  I.e. "meh."  Had parties worked on the talk page of the article, there would have been no edit war.  Had the article not been in namespace because it had not been approved, then there would have been no edit war.  I see nothing holy and sacred about name space, unless we're talking about policies.  This was not a policy, and I still haven't read a word that explains why anyone would be afraid to edit a personal essay that had been improperly placed in name space.  If there is such a holy, inviolate status, then I have quite a few essays I should like to move there.  For one user:Geogre/IRC considered should have been "bold"ly put there from the start.  Geogre (talk) 18:38, 19 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text:  Actually, Giano does have the ability to rollback.  Despite the fact that "Administrators should not grant rollback to editors with a history of edit warring,"  considered it a good idea to give Giano that user right in the middle of an ArbCom case about edit warring. Go figure. Rockpocket 01:31, 20 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text:  I think that was more a case of Doc making a point about rollback, rather than any point about Giano. Carcharoth (talk) 02:14, 20 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: FWIW I'll assume good faith here: several administrators gave out rollback very liberally to established non-admins when it first got implemented.  Some of us who hadn't asked for it were surprised or even perturbed. DurovaCharge! 02:29, 20 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: 1RR parole 

message: # Lawrence Cohen 14:17, 22 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Support

message: I'm really concerned about the propoed remedy to ban Giano for a year. Many people are critical of his wikipedia space editing here (myself included) and that side of his editing I would say is detremental to the project. However, how many FA's has he got? His article work is excellent, some of the best we have here and we really don't want to lost that. I agree, a caution given his previous warnings is to weak, but there must be a better solution than to ban him - at least try it. Ryan Postlethwaite 19:48, 22 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: *Have no fear Ryan, I have no intention whatsoever of being a scapegoat in any way shape or form for the inadequacies of members of the Arbcom, who have failed the project. Nor do I  intend to take a final kicking from those retiring.  They retire in disgrace that is their problem, I'm not handing them a ladder out of that pit into which they have cast themselves. Giano (talk) 20:18, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

text: And let's remember that "ban" is the kind of vindictive behavior that we would normally attribute to bullies and trolls.  It shows a bankruptcy of logic, a poverty of imagination, and a complete inability to justify actions any way but getting rid of the person who shows the ridiculousness of the statements.  I would say, "Shame on you," but I know that those in favor of bans have no shame to feel nor sense to perceive it with.  Geogre (talk) 20:22, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

text: It did, did it?  Battleground, Mackensen?  Well, we all know that there is no right of reply at arbitration.  The named parties are not allowed to have anything to say.  Just as no one has been to the talk pages of any of the named users to try to work out mediation, so also the named users don't get to say anything.  No... no... that would be a battleground.  All is best done on a mailing list, which David Gerard distributes, and an IRC channel.  Much more peaceful there, much less dissent there, and therefore much, much better, as no one can point out how wrong you are, how few you are, how illegitimate you are.  Geogre (talk) 20:37, 22 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Frankly I'm not sure what you're on about in this comment. The volume of discussion on this page and others belies the notion that parties are not allowed to "say" anything. Arbitrators have discussed cases privately for years and have always taken private evidence; this case is not exceptional in that regard. I would also note that the arbcom mailing list (arbcom-l) is a raucous place beset by heated disagreement over this case--worse in many cases then what's said here. If there wasn't dissent within arbcom this case would have closed ages ago. Mackensen (talk) 20:43, 22 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Thank you for confirming our suspicions. The worst-kept secret on Wikipedia? :-) (I'll note that other cases end in almost uniform  agreement). I do hope though that this is genuine disagreement, and not personality issues. ie. I hope the heated disagreement is due to calm rational diasgreement, and not heated "I don't like this user and he is disruptive and I want to get my way and ban him" type arguments (pure speculation of course, and I apologise for that). Sometimes we have to accept that some bans will not be productive, and we have to learn to work with others. Carcharoth (talk) 07:32, 23 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Bans are rarely productive--the level of sockpuppeting by banned users attests to that. However, we have to look to the existing situation, and ask whether we can really accept the status quo, and live with the social costs of not even trying to effect a change. In past cases the community hasn't provided leadership on this question, which places the ball in Arbcom's court. We're open to suggestions, but most arbitrators are not satisfied with things as they stand and absolutely do not want this to happen again: the edit-warring, the bad faith, the snarky comments, the old grudges, the wild allegations, etc. We all have better things to do here, parties included. Mackensen (talk) 12:00, 23 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: You do realise I was serious when I suggested the parties be advised to work together on an article (or other project of their choice if the skillsets are not compatible)? It might feel like "writing lines", but has arbcom ever considered "community service" as a possible alternative to bans? Carcharoth (talk) 12:24, 23 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Not to my knowledge. In my experience content-related decisions (like "article mentorship/probation") are ineffectual enough at best. I've written up two in my lifetime (NLP and Great Irish Famine), and they didn't have the effect I wanted. My assumption was that negative contributions from problematic editors would be overborne by the spirit of mutual collaboration under the watchful eye of mentors. It didn't exactly work out that way. Returning to the main idea, I don't have a problem with your proposal, but "positive" remedies are not really enforceable. In a very early case, it might have been Mr-Natural-Health, Arbcom actually required a couple hundred word essay! Thankfully that was never repeated. I don't pretend that this is an ideal or even necessarily desirable solution--simply the best of several very unattractive options. Mackensen (talk) 13:06, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

text: So, you want to ban Tony Sidaway, right?  He's been at RfAr about every 3 months for two years now, and he's at the heart of this, too.  You do want him hard banned, right?  Geogre (talk) 20:40, 22 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I think that the project would benefit if all of the parties of this case were restricted to article space. Clearly you have lost perspective and are unable to reasonably evaluate what it is that is actually at stake here (very little). I doubt that will ultimately happen, but I wouldn't object if ArbCom started more frequently handing out project-space bans to people who can't seem to stay out of major conflicts. Say this out loud to yourself: its about the wording on a page about a channel on IRC with only 1500 people who can even access it that is not operated by Wikipedia. If that doesn't strike you as nuts, you need to find something else to do for awhile.  Avruchtalk 20:48, 22 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: And on that basis (the page and channel being irrelevant with only 1500 participants), I have every intention (unless someone beats me to it) of nominating the WP:WEA page to be blanked and redirected to the main WP:IRC page (with a minimal amount merged). At MfD as a unilateral redirection may be controversial. Some pages may be owned, but the community should still have the final say. Carcharoth (talk) 07:39, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

text: Likewise. Mackensen's alternative is a more appropriate remedy to benefit the project. I would suggest that a number of named editors should find themselves sitting rather uncomfortably on the moral highground, considering their antics on this page. Rockpocket 20:39, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

text: *It is quite amazing that a group of Arbs who attempted to suppress the truth from the community are being allowed to ensure that I never put them in that position again. One wonders what else they have up their sleeves. Giano (talk) 07:21, 23 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: *I admit it, it's a vast conspiracy to stop vitriolic edit-warring. Mackensen (talk) 11:56, 23 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Giano II 

message: I don't see the logic in the desysop proposal against Geogre. If you believe he should be desysopped, do it. If you don't think he should be, don't. Why go through the charade of desysopping him and then allowing him to say "Its all good, man, sorry." and then give the tools back? Remedies proposed in this case should be limited in number and meaningful - even more so here than in other situations because the superficial cause of this case itself lacks much meaning, and the issue is really that it was inflamed to such a ridiculous degree.  Avruchtalk 21:10, 22 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Geogre desysop 

message: This looks a little odd as a principle.  Perhaps it's really a finding of fact related to the case. --Tony Sidaway 01:18, 23 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Proposed principle 17, "Policy issues surrounding IRC"

message: If the issue will be addressed "separately" from this case, then in what form will the decision be delivered? Will it simply be a post on the administrator's noticeboard, or what? Sean William  @ 01:53, 23 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Regarding Remedy 6, "IRC" 

message: Trying to head off any big furore with a possible exit strategy (hopefully the exit strategy won't cause it's own furore). If, say, after a month or so, a ban is appealed, do the retiring arbitrators come back to participate in the appeal, or can the new committee overturn any ban without needing to let the retiring arbitrators return? For the record, the retiring arbitrators (currently) active in this case are Fred Bauder and Mackensen. The others (inactive) are Raul, Neutrality and SimonP. In general, the prinicple of whether retiring arbitrators participate in appeals relating to cases they participated in should be made clear (if it hasn't already). Obviously, at some point, the retiring arbitrators have to disengage. Carcharoth (talk) 08:11, 23 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I think this is looking for a problem. Former arbitrators aren't normally allowed to participate in appeals or requests for clarifications simply because they were one of the Arbs who decided the original case. The participation of former admins must be limited to cases that were accepted during their terms, not to any later reconsideration of those cases. I can't imagine anyone would suggest the contrary given that it would involved departing fairly radically from past practice. WjBscribe 09:39, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

text: No. Appeals, like motions in prior cases, are heard by the committee as it is constituted at that moment. Mackensen (talk) 11:45, 23 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Appeals (if necessary) 

message: It bears mentioning that Arbitration cases are a work in progress, and will always be so if and when Arbcom dispenses with these pages altogether and takes everything private. An idea not without its merits, frankly, but it's not my call anymore. I would suggest to commentators that on seeing principle/finding/remedy X, a good question/statement is:
*Okay, you've proposed X, are you considering Y?
...and not...
*How can you propose X but not Y?
We're not out and out evil people, just flawed folks trying to make the best of a bad job. It's entirely possible that we're considering Y but haven't decided on phrasing, or we're looking for diffs, or we got up and went to the john. It's also true that we're not good about acknowledging input. If you saw how much mail comes into arbcom-l you'd understand how acknowledgments get lost in the shuffle. That's an explanation but not an excuse. These things happen. Mackensen (talk) 16:26, 23 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: The john? For two weeks? Dysentery? Bishonen | talk 17:07, 23 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: The less said about the water supply in the Arbcom lounge the better. Mackensen (talk) 17:12, 23 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Sometimes I wish there was a way to give a plus point or star to certain comments, and this is one.  --Rocksanddirt (talk) 19:29, 23 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Note 

message: Paul, could you elaborate why you believe that this does more harm than good? As unpleasant as the whole affair may have been, it seems to have helped clarify a number of points (behavior of certain users, assumptions of ownership of a page), even though the central questions (authority of Wikipedia's institutions over that darned IRC channel, acceptability of rudeness outside Wikipedia) seem to have been avoided/postponed. Are you hinting at differences within the arbitration committee that could become overly disruptive if the case is pursued any further? Kosebamse (talk) 17:47, 23 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: If this is causing internal strife and disruption on the AC, that is the AC's matter to sort out. They chose to take on the mantle. If I may make a delicate suggestion. If the strife is primarily coming from ex-arbiters on the list, or from outgoing arbiters, or those with history or known COIs with the involved parties, perhaps those individuals should be made to recuse now, and not as a choice. Lawrence § t/e 17:58, 23 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Well my question is not based on any factual knowledge, it's purely speculative. However, as you can see from my arguments above (Gerard FoF section and elsewhere) I would certainly agree that conflicts of interest  exist here and should be adressed, although neither Gerard nor the arbitration committee seem inclined to do so. Kosebamse (talk) 18:18, 23 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: David Gerard has kept himself at a proper distance. Lawrence's suggestion is a good one; if indeed the "strife" was caused by such, there might be an issue; but that's not the case. The Arbitration Committee is a pretty good reflection of the community as a whole, and as such tends to be divided on issues on which the community is divided. --jpgordon∇∆∇∆ 18:48, 23 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: David Gerard has participated in mailing list discussions concerning this case. The Committe is under the handicap of conducting discussions in front of a party to the case. Paul August ☎ 18:58, 23 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I have previously suggested that arbitrators who are parties to a case should not be in on the discussions.  This has happened to me twice, and both times it felt uncomfortable and unfair.  I urge the committee to come up with a technical solution that allows a recused arbitrator to be fully recused.  Jehochman  Talk 19:06, 23 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text:  David Gerard is not an arbitrator. Mackensen (talk) 19:18, 23 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text:  He doesn't get to vote, but he is on the mailing list.  The other parties to this case are not. Jehochman  Talk 19:25, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

text: Agree with Jehochman.  Editors who are a party in the dispute should not be able to see, much less participate in the deliberations.  If it feels uncomfortable and unfair, it is because it is not fair, or just, for that matter.  However it has been handled in the past, this needs to stop.  R. Baley (talk) 19:21, 23 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text:  I like David Gerard and have no complaints against him.  This objection is procedural.  This is an opportunity to improve the functioning of the Committee. Jehochman  Talk 19:24, 23 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Absolutely, this should be universal in it's application.  It's not a slap to DG, it's just the right thing to do.  R. Baley (talk) 19:40, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

text:  If I may ask Paul a question relating to similar situations in past arbitrations, was there perceived to be a similar handicap when the Committee discussed arbitrator Jayjg's conduct in the cases of Yuber and CharlotteWebb, in both of which Jayjg was eventually sanctioned (in the former as an active arbitrator, in the latter, as a former arbitrator), or arbitrator SimonP's conduct in KJV in which SimonP, then a newly appointed active arbitrator, was the sole defendant and the only person sanctioned?  If so, how was the problem resolved?  --Tony Sidaway 19:11, 23 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I think it's a bit more complicated.  Since giano never gets worked up unless there is a reason, he can't be restricted as a normal unhelpful user.  When it is tried to to so, folks point out that regardless, giano has a valid point, and that restricting him means also restricting others....which would be not helpful either...we heal either calls to drop it, or get at the root issues.  It appears that there is an attempt to get at the root issues, for which I am hugely relieved for the project.  --Rocksanddirt (talk) 21:33, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

text: LHvU, Paul was away from about New Years until just a day ago. I think he was more or less right. Let the Arbs deal with IRC, and when they're done, minus grumbling, this (meaning this series of flare ups) will most likely be past. In the meantime we're just stirring the pot. Jd2718 (talk) 13:46, 24 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks for the clarification - I have now struck my original comment. LessHeard vanU (talk) 13:52, 24 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Arbitrary section break

message: FloNight, may I ask what you're referring to where you say in your recently posted FoF "Comments by Tony Sidaway and Phil Sandifer" that "Phil realized that his comments were misinterpreted and apologized"? It seems likely that you're talking about Jan 17th, probably  this remark by Phil. I don't believe he apologized. (Nor do I want him to, absolutely not; I detest constrained apologies with a passion.) You see, I checked the page history before I broke my previous three weeks of silence and restored the thread, and asked Phil to stop removing it. I wasn't going to  interfere like that if he had, even remotely, apologized/expressed regret for his attacks on me. But I couldn't, and can't, see him doing that. (On the contrary, in angry response to my single and rare post he accused me of a "scorched earth" approach and again deleted the thread.) Where do you see him apologizing, please? On a different page? Or have I missed it after all? Or is the FoF erroneous?  P. S. BTW, your wording implies that Phil's comments were in your opinion misinterpreted by the people who were outraged by them. How's that..? Bishonen | talk 21:56, 23 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: The allusion seemed unintentional - a poor choice of words - and he did withdraw it as soon as he understood my objection (it took me a couple of tries to articulate the problem adequately).  He might not have withdrawn it in the way you preferred and I hope the two of you can work that out.  People don't necessarily handle these things perfectly in stressful situations.  Likewise - when it comes to poor choices of words directed at or about women - there are a couple of posts to this page from today that I hope the poster withdraws. DurovaCharge! 22:11, 23 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: With respect, Durova, you're waffling. I asked about the claim that Phil apologized, which is stated as a Finding of Fact. All I need for that fact is a diff. Something that I would vaguely have "preferred" isn't relevant. Nor whether Phil handled something (what?) "perfectly" or not. Nor are posts by other people  relevant unless there's a FoF about them.  If it's a Finding of a Non-Fact, it simply shouldn't be on the page, misleading other arbs. Bishonen | talk 22:49, 23 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: What would you like me to do, ask Phil for a specific apology? DurovaCharge! 22:52, 23 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I believe Bish is saying the current FoF is wrong, unless someone can provide a link to the already-existing apology that it cites. Or am I reading it wrong too? Withdrawing a statement is not apologizing. Lawrence § t/e 22:54, 23 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I believe Flo copied that from the proposals I added to the Workshop today (at the bottom of the page) which I wrote from memory without checking diffs. If Phil retracted the comment but did not specifically apologize that should probably be corrected. Thatcher 22:57, 23 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Thank you, Thatcher.  And to Bishonen, what I mean is that incivility toward women because they're women is wrong.  Not just wrong-when-the-target's-already-my-buddy, but wrong. DurovaCharge! 23:02, 23 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes...yes... [Bemused.] Am I really reading this? Me: "I don't believe he apologized. (Nor do I want him to, absolutely not; I detest constrained apologies with a passion.)" ... Durova: "What would you like me to do, ask Phil for a specific apology?" I hope it doesn't sound rude, but what in my post makes you think I want you to do anything? What I was asking was for FloNight to tell me if her FoF was right or wrong, of course with the implication that she ought to change it if it was wrong. Now, you—Durova—can't change things on that page. You're not an arbitrator. Flo needs to do it, if it wants doing. And Thatcher, yes, you misremembered, would you like a little atomic deathray? Bishonen | talk 23:17, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

text: I took the liberty of fixing the proposal, since it was based on my suggestion, and added diffs.  Now will you point the death ray somewhere else? Thatcher 00:06, 24 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I heartily endorse this event or product. Mackensen (talk) 00:38, 24 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Bishonen, your post was unclear. When you single someone out by name, accuse the person of waffling then list some problems that weren't of that person's making and are outside the person's power to fix, then the best faith reply you can receive is for the person to ask Then what do you want me to do? DurovaCharge! 00:46, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

text: I hope that FloNight or another arbitrator will consider expanding this FoF to include discussion of the highly unorthodox 3RR block that Phil Sandifer imposed on Giano, which escalated this "incident" from an already-ended and isolated edit war on an isolated page to discussions on WP:ANI and (within minutes) another editor initiating an RFAR. Note that I consider the 3RR block to be unorthodox because it ignored so many other factors, including another editor violating 3RR, the fact that the edit war was over, the fact that multiple other editors/admins were involved in the edit war, and the fact that (as a first 3RR block) it was for 72 hours instead of the policy-prescribed 24 hours.  Risker (talk) 22:19, 23 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: As the edit war had flared up several times in a row, I confess to skepticism that it was over. Phil Sandifer (talk) 05:05, 24 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: FoF/"Comments by Tony Sidaway and Phil Sandifer": a question for FloNight

message: what has the activity on the admins irc channel been like as this case has ground on?  less chatty more business?  gossipy about the channel and case and participants?  --Rocksanddirt (talk) 22:35, 23 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I can only speak to the times when I am in channel but it seems to be generally more on-topic more of the time and there are more voices to steer it back on topic when it drifts. Thatcher 22:48, 23 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm glad.  maybe folks are going to take it more seriously as a work channel.  --Rocksanddirt (talk) 23:11, 23 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Off topic but related question 

message: We still have Geogre being labled "provocative and disruptive."  Has it yet been established why David Gerard gets a bald statement of fact ("repeatedly reverted") and Geogre gets tainted with a strong value judgement?  Even if we accept that David had reason to believe that he had special dispensation, George is being tarred for not knowing that when David didn't tell him? 152.91.9.144 (talk) 05:16, 24 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm actually inclined to agree at this point - the finding against Geogre seems to have a tenuous relationship at best with the evidence. Although I support sanction against Geogre, his conduct in the WEA matter was frankly only minimally disruptive. The issue comes when one looks at his conduct as a whole and notices a pattern of incivility and provocation. But if this case is determined to restrict its lens to the WEA matter then there's not much there, I agree. Phil Sandifer (talk) 05:20, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

text: I'd add Bishonen to this comment as well. It's a point I was trying to make before the page got temporarily locked last week. It's quite unbalanced.  RxS (talk) 05:39, 24 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Again, I agree - while there may be a finding to be had about Bishonen's wider conduct (I don't know - I'm not familiar with Bishonen's larger conduct), her conduct in this dispute was, while certainly not beyond reproach, also probably not sanctionable beyond a slap on the wrist and a "don't support people when they're being disruptive." Phil Sandifer (talk) 05:58, 24 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/IRC/Proposed_decision#Geogre]] 

message: I can appreciate the realisation of you, and your fellow Arbs behaviour is now common knowledge, must be worrying for you but removing it  merely suggests that you have more to hide. Planing punitive actions to hide the Arbs incompetency was hardly ever going to solve your problems.  Contrary to the two emails I have received in the subject, and  for your information, chewing someone's balls off and subsequently choking has nothing to do with fellatio and more to do with vicious revenge.
You Arbs started this case without the first thought for where it was gong to lead you, and now you are nearing the end of that path, it is a little late to be prim and angry when you find it has lead you only into a larger mess - a mess entirely of the Arbcom's own making.  Did you all really think people were going to hang about for ever, smiling sweetly, while you all waited and deliberated over how best you could get yourselves out of this mess? Or is this divided chaos what you all planned from the start?  In future when you cook up deals regarding ownership of Wikipedia pages and chatrooms I suggest  you have the guts to announce it to the community - you'll find honesty really is often the best policy.  It may even be the best thing for the encyclopedia too. Giano (talk) 13:34, 24 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I've restored the section header below with a note and a comment, for the record. Wholesale removal of an entire talk page thread like that, crucially without leaving a link (as I did below) is disruptive. Meeting one sort of disruption (and you should apologise for your comments, Giano, as they were excessive) with more disruption, is not the right way to handle this. Carcharoth (talk) 14:00, 24 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Its a case page designed to assist Arbitrators and discuss Arbitration - which would seem to give Arbitrators considerable leeway in managing the discussion, especially when it goes off the rails. Perhaps she should have just deleted it, and maybe locked the page again. Avruchtalk 14:31, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

text: *Carcharoth, my reply to Giano was calm and patient. I wanted to give him the chance to reflect on his poor choice of words and self revert. Instead he chose to respond with another vulgar post and make PAs. I do not see this as a conflict between myself and Giano, or Giano and other arbs. Rather, I see an editor making poor choices and violating policy that has been clearly spelled out on this page. There always has been difference of opinion about how to handle inappropriately worded posts to talk pages with some people wanting complete removal and others wanting them to stay. I think your middle ground of linking works in this situation. Thanks for trying to help out with this difficult situation. FloNight (talk) 14:49, 24 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: *Thanks, FloNight. I did notice your calm response the first time. My problem is that the second comment "Flo, darling..." was clearly directed at you. Can you agree that it might have been better for someone else to handle that? It had already been up for some time (nearly 17 hours), so a quiet word with someone else might have been a better way to handle it. I agree that Giano is going way over the top here, but I also see people losing patience and not knowing how to handle him. Anyone who has really talked to him properly knows his bark is worse than his bite. Carcharoth (talk) 15:00, 24 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: *Why?  Can Giano  immunize himself by insulting all the Arbitrators?  I know Flo was deeply offended; maybe she wanted to avoid doing something in the heat of the moment, and upon a night's reflection decide that removal was indeed the appropriate response.  Would it have made any difference if I had removed the thread? Thatcher 15:10, 24 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: *Yes. See my talk page. Carcharoth (talk) 15:12, 24 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Arbs 

message: :Originally posted further up this talk page, this thread was moved to Wikipedia talk:Requests for arbitration/IRC/Proposed decision/removed thread by arbitrator FloNight. See edit summary here. Since there is no talk page for that removed thread, any discussion should be directed here or to FloNight's talk page.
*My personal opinion? If FloNight felt that there had been a vulgar comment directed at her, she should have asked someone else to deal with it, or asked the editor making the comments to retract them. Arbitrators have to be able to deal with a certain amount of flack, and calmly deflect it. If they allowed themselves to be affected to the point of removing talk page threads, then it is questionable whether they can still remain objective. Carcharoth (talk) 14:00, 24 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: * So you are saying that if an editor attacks an admin who seeks to control their disruption, the admin has to back off?  I don't think so. This case is not a dispute between Giano and FloNight. Jehochman  Talk 14:05, 24 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: *Not back off, just try to avoid escalating the situation. Not all admins are skilled at diplomacy. If they realise they can't be diplomatic (sometimes they need to be told this by others) then in cases of attacks on them, they should ask someone else to judge what is best done. Seriously, most reasonable people will think twice when someone else calls them out on a personal attack. I'm of the opinion that personal attack warnings should always be done by others. When it is the person who was attacked, the effect of the warning is different. Carcharoth (talk) 14:35, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

text: * Personally I think the thread should stay up, but only because it's so indicative of the problem here. Mackensen (talk) 14:09, 24 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: *I am a writer, I am not a teacher instructing on the difference between testicle chewing petty revenge and fellatio. If people do not know the difference then there is a little I can do to help them. Giano (talk) 14:10, 24 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: *I knew the difference; frankly neither one is acceptable. Mackensen (talk) 14:14, 24 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: You delete the offensive comments and block the commenter. Avruchtalk 14:33, 24 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Remove the comments, yes. Blocking here would be best left until other possibilities had been exhausted. Again, trying to land the rocking aircraft safely is difficult, and throwing more weight around doesn't help stabilise the situation. Carcharoth (talk) 14:37, 24 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: A better analogy: Trying to land an aircraft with a giant anchor on a wing is difficult. Throwing the anchor off is the only solution. Avruchtalk 14:42, 24 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Simply replace the other anchors on the other wing (or cut them all loose), instead of letting the other anchors remain inside the aircraft. To continue this tortured analogy, cutting loose this anchor might destablise the aircraft if the other anchors are not also dealt with. Carcharoth (talk) 15:03, 24 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: To put paid to the analogy: Its an aircraft, it doesn't need anchors. When you see one, toss it off. Avruchtalk 15:06, 24 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Maybe we should switch to a boat? Carcharoth (talk) 15:08, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

text: I don't usually care enough about the drama here, but I feel the articles written by Giano (and others like him) are so very important for Wikipedia (the very survival of a place like Wikipedia is in its article content not the personal views of its editors) that I wish to comment and maybe bring a little bit of perspective. Let us remember that editors here come from all parts of the world. We do not all share the same sense of humor or get everyone’s "joke".  Although I am from the "Bible Belt" of the US, where people tend to feel they are morally superior and may sound very self-righteous to others, I personally did not find Giano's comments at all offensive (maybe because my father is Italian?) and I did not feel they were directed at a particular woman or women. I feel that some have blown his comments way out of proportion and maybe should read up a bit on Italian humor, and maybe then they would understand why everyone else is not so outraged by his comments. Let us remember that too much self-righteous behavior (I won't name names) can be maddening and bring out incivility in all of us. The world is a big place and Wikipedia is for ALL of the world, so let us remember that we are all different and we must have tolerance for our differences and then we can find common ground. - Epousesquecido (talk) 18:14, 25 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Thank you for your comments. I'm pleased to see different users commenting and hear other perspectives. I also hope the users involved will seek to find common ground. That they have not agreed to move in that direction is the main issue. FloNight (talk) 20:48, 25 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I do not understand why all "remedies" focus on an individual editor and nothing is directed at the Admins that have such enormous freedom to poke their mop at whomever they please. Frankly, though I thought I could handle it, but there seems to be no way to avoid misbehaving Admins other than always retreating, with a "Yes Sir" attitude while those that they favor do as they want.  Prior to the Zeraeph  arbitration, I was ridiculed on AN/I page, because my name allegedly turns up there often. I got no help for the sock puppets that pursued me for over six months and were responsible for my many AN/I mentions. There is an admin who evoked his right to vanish just after being appointed as Mediator on issue supposedly revolving around me. He vanished allegedly because he was receiving death threats, but he was one of my persecutors and supported the sock puppets. Even though vanished, today he is still an Admin under a different name with no interlude. Obviously this was "worked out" behind the scenes. Why is there no oversight over this sort of thing while there is such undue emphasis on the behavior of an editor? I do not know Gianao, but the diffs in evidence show that he was interjecting the truth about the sexual harassment of another editor, which was repeatedly being removed by one of the "higher beings" apparently. I do not understand this.  Mattisse 19:14, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

text: Several of named parties with remedies are admins. We are discussing whether any additional admins should be named in a Fof or remedy related to the blocks, unblocks, and page protections. FloNight (talk) 19:23, 27 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Giano on Giano 

message: Unfortunately, I see several arbitrators here focussing on the petty disputes and language, and not the larger picture. It was predictable that Giano would react the way he has, and a remedy like this is likely to perpetuate the bad blood, not resolve things. ArbCom resignations, the community calling for ArbCom reform (a request for comment on ArbCom or on individual arbitrators), and so on - is that really what is needed? All these are possible, if horrendous to contemplate, but they might happen. If people really get the message that a minor dispute on an obscure page was so mishandled by ArbCom that a prolific contributor (and many others with him) left the project (I hope they don't, but I agree that restricting people from Wikipedia namespace makes them a second-class citizen). If this is how people perceive what may happen here, then there may be a groundswell of support for ArbCom reform. I've said it before, and I'll say it again, when ArbCom is bitterly divided, it should work to find a solution that the whole ArbCom and the community can support - putting on a united front. Anything else just makes the problem worse, and makes ArbCom part of the problem. Carcharoth (talk) 13:42, 24 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Oh, sweet Lord, not more of this "manage Giano" nonsense.  Has anyone managed FloNight?  Has anyone decided how to manage Thatcher, Snowspinner, me, etc.?  When you do that, you are automatically getting rid of the human being with equal rights and intellect.  People want to "predict Giano?"  People want to "control Giano?"  Has anyone thought that perhaps this is inherently patronizing and inherent adversarial?  What choice, rhetorically or ethically, does a person have in such a case?  Give up all of this objectification and start talking to people, please.  Geogre (talk) 18:46, 27 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Open letter to the arbitration committee 

message: 2.1) Seems to be heading for majority support. I'm not going to comment on whether this is merited, but, I note something similar has been proposed before and, as then, I prophesy it will end badly. 
Restricting Giano from all project space invites the following inevitable cycle. 1) Giano will breach the ban in some small area with an otherwise constructive and uncontroversial post: he'll make an informed comment on a wikiproject page, he'll opine on an afd, he'll nominate a Good article, he'll list something on DYK - the possibilities are endless. The question of whether his otherwise innocent posting is trolling, making a point, or good faith will be moot. 2) Some admin, perhaps ill-disposed towards Giano, will follow the letter of the law and block. 3)There will be a wheel war or at least a divisive debate over whether the admin is being abusive and whether the block is more disruptive than Giano's action. All hell will break loose.
Now, I don't think this is a "doomsday scenario", I think it is a blatantly obvious outcome. It can be argued that the outcome lies in Giano's hands - well perhaps - but an arbcom ruling that is certain to fail is a very poor ruling indeed. Why not just ban him outright and save delaying the fallout until it lands on the head of some admin acting over some trivia. Arbcom is about making things better and decreasing disruption - not washing its hands and placing the blame on Giano or the community, or of deferring trouble till later.
Of course, that raises the question of what can be done to reign in Giano (and even if one thinks no reigning-in is needed here - what could be done in such circumstances as may hypothetically merit it?). I'd suggest considering things like: A. restricting the enforcement of such a remedy to a limited group (arbs themselves, or what about three level-headed "mentors"?) Allowing any of 1400 admins to police it is just asking for hot-heads or people with vendettas. B. What about something less than a total ban? Allow admins to ban him from any page where he's getting problematic, using heated invective, or responding to baiting or trolling - that allows sensible comments in afd's etc. with no scope for admin hard-assed silliness in response? Just some thoughts, offered in a spirit of trying to sort this.--Docg 13:53, 24 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Doc makes some excellent points. Enforcement of this remedy looks problematic. If anyone other than an Arb blocks Giano for a Wikipedia space infraction, the potential for division and dissent in the community will be immense. This remedy, as currently proposed, could very well cause more harm than good. AgneCheese/Wine 13:56, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

text: That would be Probation (Supervised editing).  "Editors on probation may be banned from pages they edit disruptively, either for a set period of time or indefinitely, by action of an uninvolved administrator." I don't think this will work. Jehochman  Talk 13:59, 24 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: It will work if the Arbitration committee sits down hard on the first admin to reverse a valid block placed by an uninvolved admin acting within the scope of whatever remedy passes. Thatcher 14:28, 24 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: So, if Giano lists a DYK, we block him and deadmin anyone who reverses it. And that looks like a sane remedy?--Docg 14:49, 24 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: A downside to being in the scope of arbcom sanctions is that one may not be able to do all that one wishes. On the other hand, it would be trivial to modify the remedy to include DYK. — Carl (CBM · talk) 14:52, 24 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Here's a crazy suggestion. How about a list is made of the process pages (as opposed to policy, guideline and essay pages) that Giano can obviously contribute to, and, why not have an RfC on Giano where the community pleads with him to stop his periodic angry outbursts? I'm looking, but as far as I can see, there has never been a request for comments on Giano's behaviour. Carcharoth (talk) 15:07, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

text: A note to that effect should be included in the final decision, if remedies are passed to which it could apply. — Carl (CBM · talk) 14:48, 24 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Whatever. I also was referring to AfD, DRV, xfD, GA, wikiprojects, stub sorting, or BJAODN....etc. etc. etc.--Docg 15:16, 24 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, the proposal is crude and problematic.  It is a broadaxe rather than a scalpel.  Do you have an alternative suggestion? Thatcher 15:24, 24 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I have made some above. I'm afraid I'm not much of a fan of a "something must be done, so lacking any better suggestion, we'll do this, even though it clearly won't work" school.--Docg 15:28, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

text: Cue arbcom wheel-warring or weeks-long arbcom discussions over a long block. Think of the longer ANI threads imported onto arbcom-l. Carcharoth (talk) 15:45, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

text: Jehochman's suggestion needs to at the least equally apply to Sidaway, given the circumstances, but most importantly the balance of evidence given the heated nature of this needs to be inversed: support to block, not unblocmk, for issues specific to the RFAR. Admins giving themselves a free hand here is what got us into the mess; the suggested wording is the right idea but the inverse nature of it would lead to anarchy. The balance of evidence for a block, like the inclusion of material in an article, is on the person performing the block or adding the material. Not the other way around. Lawrence § t/e 16:21, 24 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I much prefer Mackensen's new idea of a restraining order.  I wish we had such a thing in place for Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/COFS to keep Anynobody away from Justanother, and Justanother away from Smee (and Smee's alternate accounts). Jehochman  Talk 16:25, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

text: It need hardly be said that if Giano could make a point without reference to, say, castration (for example) none of this would be necessary. He's brought this on himself. Mackensen (talk) 16:38, 24 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Yeah, well...Giano and I had words about that subject as well, and it may well be one case where his writing was easily and widely misinterpreted. He was writing about emasculation and many people were reading about castration; some of that comes from the differences between European and North American sensibilities. Think of it more in terms of prairie oysters rather than the sexual overtones that were perceived, and his posting makes far more sense. Risker (talk) 17:06, 24 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: There are many issues that are worthy of discussion, and many editors find themselves able to raise them without becoming the subject of multiple arbitration cases. — Carl (CBM · talk) 17:10, 24 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: There are two sides to this. Yes, it would be helpful if Giano played political games to help wikipedia rather than making a fuss to help wikipedia; but no one here is perfect, maybe he doesn't know how to kiss the right ass. Arbcom should accept that IAR applies even when it is arbcom members that are pissed off - so long as in the end wikipedia benefits. When someone does their best to help wikipedia and the result is that wikipedia is helped, then policy was followed - that's what IAR means unless you decide it only applies to the cabal. WAS 4.250 (talk) 17:18, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

text: Giano has been a party in three Arbcom cases.  In the first one, the infamous "Giano" case, the result was that developers found a way to expunge his block log to eliminate the unjustified edit summary "hate speech" - the only time that such a radical step has been taken.  In the second one, "Durova," the crux of the complaint against him was that he had published what was considered to be a private email. The community is split on its opinion of whether or not such information can be published on-wiki, given the failure of any version of WP:PRIVATE to achieve consensus. This case is about an obscure edit war on an obscure page, brought to Arbcom by an editor who had no role in the edit war, with no attempt at conflict resolution prior to the RFAR.  There are many other editors and administrators whose names have been listed more frequently in RFARs and actual arbitration cases; nobody is saying they should not be allowed to edit project space.  Risker (talk) 17:26, 24 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Indeed, it seems to be a special dispensation. A more common remedy is to block editors for some period of time. I don't view this as a question of not being sycophantic; one can observe community standards for decorum and civility while still being independently minded. — Carl (CBM · talk) 17:39, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

text: 'Hanging on in quiet desparation' is usually my way. Giano appears to favour direct action. I don't condone it all, but marvel at the effectiveness or most of it. The enormous risk with that approach, is you need to be 100% sure you are right, but typically, he is. It's a means of effecting change, and given that wikipedia has a propensity to generate huge amounts of noise, to very little signal, I'm not sure that generating change by quiet discussion is particularly effective. Jockeying for the ear of the right people seems effective too. Incivility policy isn't there as a law unto itself, it's purpose is to maintain a collegiate working atmosphere. Sometime, if something's fundamentally wrong, the chairs need to be kicked over a little in the college - when the dust has settled - it's a better place. Civility is small beans compared to the core issues here, let's not waste our time and divide the community by apportioning blame. Let's draw a line under it, sort the IRC policy out and move on. --Joopercoopers (talk) 17:36, 24 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Hear! hear! I do not believe this case is really about one editor, Giano. I agree with his point of view, whether or not he is expressing himself correctly. To me it is a very superficial to consider Giano the problem and to select a remedy that focuses on him under the impression that will solve the problem. I believe what is fundamentally wrong  ultimately has nothing to do with Giano.  Mattisse 18:40, 1 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: A resolution that placed the harshest penalty on Giano would not be equivalent to saying "Giano is the main problem in this case".  It would say "On the basis of previous action, Giano has used up the Committee's tolerance, while other users haven't".  I'm not saying this would be justified, just that the conclusion that the Committee would be finding Giano to be the root cause is unfair.  Sam Korn (smoddy) 18:47, 1 February 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Why a Giano restriction will fail (prophecy and alternative) 

message: I think we have a possible winnner that will at least force everyone back to writing articles and out of the backend nonsense. Just to be clear, this literally means that the two camps to each other for purposes of Wikipedia need to be treated as "invisible", or incur sanctions? I.e., no matter what Phil says, Bishonen can't comment; no matter what Giano says, Tony can't comment, infer about, or seek remedy against? Whomever crosses the threshold first gets blocked? These are fairly high-profile individuals, so there will be plenty of eyes to see any wrongdoing. Am I understanding the implications correctly, and this is the same thing that restricted Everyking from talking about/to/in regards to Phil himself? The only interactions allowed are 'ships passing in the night' on places like AFD or FAC where they both may happen to comment? Lawrence § t/e 16:39, 24 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: * I support this. It's the closest to the "solomon" type solutions where no one wins but no one completely loses (since nothing else will appeal to everyone), but it ends things. Mackensen, could you also add a note similar to the Everyking 3 one that involved parties may not enforce this themselves? That should (in this case) probably extend to every single party in this RFAR. Lawrence § t/e 16:42, 24 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: * I think the wording implies that already, but there's no harm in repeating it with an enforcement provision. Mackensen (talk) 16:46, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

text: I'm not sure any remedy in this area is even necessary - why put into place a remedy to correct a history of conflict that doesn't exist? Whatever problems exist with Giano, Geogre, Bishonen, or even my conduct, those problems are manifestly not our conflicts with each other since those conflicts range from minimal to non-existent. A remedy attempting to curb the non-existent conflicts is rather needless. Phil Sandifer (talk) 16:52, 24 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: The endless waste of time for everyone is rather needless. Lets stop complaining. Being unable to comment on each other will not interfere with anyone's ability to create articles in main space, so there is no net negative loss to the encyclopedia by this finding, and only positive gains. Since we're only supposed to be here to make an encyclopedia, this is a win-win all around. Lawrence § t/e 16:58, 24 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: No, Lawrence - findings that accuse me of behavior I never engaged in and restrict my editing based on things I've never done are not a win-win all around - they are a serious injustice. Phil Sandifer (talk) 17:00, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

text: Exactly. This is a great solution for a problem that doesn't exist. Phil Sandifer (talk) 16:53, 24 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Maybe. As I say, let arbcom define the problem first. They decide what problem exists.--Docg 16:59, 24 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Which is most of what I'm asking for - some account of what evidence this remedy is based on. Phil Sandifer (talk) 17:00, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

text: The parties may not see a problem, but the community does.  We are tired of the bickering.  ArbCom belongs to us, and we have cases about articles that we would like to be heard.  This case is tying up the Committee and we are sick of these disputes. Jehochman  Talk 16:56, 24 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Let's let arbcom define the problem. The community does not agree as to what exactly it is, or we would not be here.--Docg 16:57, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

text: If the community's patience has been exhausted by my bickering with Giano, Geogre, and Bishonen, fine. However, I find it difficult to believe that the community's patience has been exhausted with something that had never occurred before this case and has not occurred substantively within this case. Seriously - I do not believe that in the course of this case I have actually had a conversation with Giano, Geogre, or Bishonen. I made one poorly phrased comment about Bishonen that I retracted. The arbcom belongs to the community, and should reflect community wishes, yes. But I doubt the community sincerely wishes people to be sanctioned for non-existent behavior. Phil Sandifer (talk) 16:58, 24 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: My take is that it's the constant low-grade war between all the parties and the slowly spiraling chaos this has caused. Whos to blame? Who started it? Who cares at this point, since there will be no answer, since there are so many partisans on both sides. Or all three sides. Or four. But the five of them are unfortunately at the center of it all, so walling them off from each other will have the singular effect of stopping the low-grade war thats gone on forever. Then everyone can go write articles, since thats the only reason we should be here. Lawrence § t/e 17:04, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

text:  I suspect the community would agree that there's a barrel of laughs every time this mix of editors occurs. I consider this remedy just, enforceable, and preventative in nature. Mackensen (talk) 17:00, 24 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Please, Mackensen - tell me what times that the mix of me and any of the set of Geogre, Giano, and Bishonen has even occurred. I am genuinely curious. Obviously there is some history of conflict I am unaware of. Phil Sandifer (talk) 17:02, 24 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Phil, you're no angel in these matters, and I think everyone is sick of digging up evidence. You've gone out of your way in the past to inflame situations here, in regards to the IRC case, and in regards to this low grade war. Just take it like a man and help end this. This will NOT interfere with your writing articles. Why else would you be here? Lawrence § t/e 17:03, 24 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: "Nobody feels like digging up evidence" is a pretty bad reason to let a sanction go through based on non-existent evidence. Phil Sandifer (talk) 17:05, 24 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: That's my opinion; I'm sure the AC have theirs. Your disruptive nature is well known and heavily commented on, even by yourself: "I'm as much of a raging asshole as Tony is." The more important question: are you here to make an encyclopedia, or to advocate things on the back-end that are not tied to making an encyclopedia? If you're not here to make articles and an encyclopedia, get out of the way of those who are. AC, please just end this. Lawrence § t/e 17:07, 24 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I will admit readily to not suffering fools gladly, to being short of patience with people who are trying to disrupt the encyclopedia, and to moments of brusqueness. I will admit to a half-joking comment regarding Tony's conduct that was based largely on a period a ways back when Tony and I were both accruing RFCs at an alarming and amusing rate (this was over two years ago). I will not admit to a history of personal attacks and conflict with Giano, Geogre, or Bishonen because they do not exist. They have never existed. No amount of bluster about the community's alleged lack of patience with me will paper over the fact that the findings against me in this case are not based on any evidence or, for that matter, on reality. Phil Sandifer (talk) 17:12, 24 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I make no secret of not suffering fools gladly myself, but at the same time I don't tear into them, and I recognize that the only reason we are here is to write an encyclopedia. Everything else here supports that and is at best secondary or tertiary in value. Again, this is my take only: You have inflamed matters needlessly in regards to this war, and by doing so, you are now a party. As a preventative measure, the community is going to, for their own protection, prevent you from commenting on Giano, Bish, or Geogre in the future. This will not interfere with your ability to write articles--again, the primary function of this whole place and the main reason we're here--so this is a win win, and great preventative solution. Again, my take. And my take is that if someone isn't here to write articles or fix articles, they're here for the wrong reasons. Lawrence § t/e 17:16, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

text: Say you and I are restricted from each other. We both see an AFD for Some Stupid NN Thing. We both comment--totally fine. Long as we don't comment on each other, refer to each other, infer each other, etc., we're good. Lawrence § t/e 17:09, 24 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I wouldn't be able to say, "I disagree with LC", because that would certainly meet the standard of 'comment in any way (directly or indirectly) about each other'. I'n not convinced this is workable. — Carl (CBM · talk) 17:13, 24 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Beats me. It worked for the Everyking solution. Comes a point in time where the greater good is more important than my getting to say "CBM is wrong on that afd, here's why..." Lawrence § t/e 17:18, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

text: This is why it's good. If someone, as Phil says below, doesn't like it because it enables "trolls", boo hoo. Long term bad behavior reaps what it sows. Be nice to people, you'll not have to deal with this. Please just pass the damn thing and end the case so that we can wrap this up, wrap up the other backlogged cases, and then go write articles. Lawrence § t/e 17:30, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

text: Should I acquire a recurring role, sanction away. I have no part in the two year history that frustrates you so, and I resent the attempt to sanction me based on your frustration with a past history of conflict that I'm not a part of. Phil Sandifer (talk) 17:34, 24 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Mackensen's Everyking style probation 

message: === remedy 7 subsection one ===
I'm not sure if remedy 7 ("Communication restricted") is such a good idea. In the Everyking case, Everyking was not only forbidden from interacting with another administrator, but also forbidden to comment on admin actions in general and banned from the administrator's noticeboard. The chance of Everyking and the admin in question crossing paths by chance was quite slim because of those remedies. In this case, we have five users who frequently comment on the popular noticeboards and on various other things that happen in our community, so the chance of those users crossing paths by chance is much higher. That, in turn, might lead to countless discussions on whether two users affected by this remedy interacted with each other by commenting on the same thread on WP:AN/I, for instance. And what about the next big discussion about IRC (which will quite probably happen sooner or later)? All five users might want to contribute to that discussion, but that will be next to impossible if this remedy passes. --Conti|✉ 17:19, 24 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: It's worth noting, I've not actually contributed to any prior discussion of IRC, and am hardly chomping at the bit to start. This remedy is easy enough for me to abide by since, as far as I know, I've never interacted with Giano or Bishonen before this case, and have interacted with Geogre a handful of times. My objection to the remedy is based purely on a desire to not have a bunch of past sanctions over my head providing easy ammunition for trolls and other such idiots - people I deal with regularly when my time is not being sapped by arbitration. Phil Sandifer (talk) 17:20, 24 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: This is a preposterous reason to not do this--to not have your past incivility, bad temper, and lack of social decorum hanging over your head? Don't wade hip first into contentious matters with trolls all the time and this won't be a problem. Our actions and editing history define us. If we don't like that compiled history being easily on display: should have thought of that before. Lawrence § t/e 17:32, 24 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I would feel far better about this if that past history were actually on display, instead of relegated to the realm of innuendo and implication. Were it on display it would be far easier to simply point out that the claim that I have a history of personal attacks is nonsense. Phil Sandifer (talk) 17:33, 24 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: You were nasty to people when you were Snowspinner , and that continued recently here on AFD and also , and even when using your admin tools. Do you really expect people to dig up 100 diffs of a well-known fact? Is the sky blue?? Lawrence § t/e 17:37, 24 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: That's the best you can do? A two year old arbcom finding, one part of which didn't even actually pass, an AfD when I said an article was crappy, me getting frustrated at a template namespace (I suppose I did personally attack the template namespace there...), me responding with shock at a National Enquirer sourced claim that persisted in an article for months, and me getting rid of a disruptive and legal-threat making user? That's your history of personal attacks and incivility? Phil Sandifer (talk) 17:41, 24 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: That's me spending about 20 seconds digging through this page. I'm already digging through your entire editing history, but I'm sure others have still more that they can post sooner. We can't hide from Special:Contributions, Phil. This movement by the AC will not interfere with your creating articles on Wikipedia: do you dispute that? Yes or no. How will your inability to comment on Giano, Geogre, or Bish interfere with "legitimate" work on Wikipedia? Lawrence § t/e 17:45, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

text: If the community's ability to come up with something on IRC hinges on the input of five users I suspect we're sunk regardless. I would heartily recommend that all parties take a break. Mackensen (talk) 17:23, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

text: I think the number of times any of the parties has interacted has been very small indeed. Few of those interactions have been necessary, and I think obviously innocent interactions (such as Geogre's recent comment on a major edit I made to The Castle of Otranto) are probably not going to be problematic.  Geogre probably didn't even notice my username, his comment was well within the bounds of decorum, and the article is very much in our normal scope of interest.    I'm focussing on content quality on fictional articles, with particular reference to overlong plot summaries, and he lists English Literature as one of his areas of interest.  Nevertheless under a formal remedy we would probably be more circumspect, and that shouldn't be a problem either.  .--Tony Sidaway 17:43, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

text: I don't see how any "restraining order" would relate to comment on IRC.  In any case I have nothing constructive to say on the subject.  I've done what I could and I failed, and that was largely my own fault. --Tony Sidaway 17:48, 24 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text:  I think he meant the forthcoming community discussion concerning IRC. Mackensen (talk) 17:49, 24 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text:  I know that's what he meant. How would your restraining order, which I support, stop me discussing my opinion on the manner in which the arbitration committee might apply its remit to IRC, if I were minded to do so?  If there were concern about potential interactions, the parties could send our opinions by private email. The point is moot, however; I agree that my opinion of IRC matters is unlikely to be of much use to the committee. --Tony Sidaway 18:03, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

text: Including, but not restricted to, the stalled MfD on WP:WEA. It was started at the beginning of the case (by Majorly, I believe), then withdrawn. See Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Wikipedia:IRC channels/wikipedia-en-admins (2nd nomination). Carcharoth (talk) 17:59, 24 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text:  Could you explain how the restraining order would stop us giving our opinions of the case for deletion? --Tony Sidaway 18:05, 24 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Don't see how it would. Comment on the deletion, merits of the page, don't comment on each other, allude to each other, or anything else. It should be fine then. Lawrence § t/e 18:12, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

text: I can readily agree that untrue findings of fact should not be made at any time or about any editor. Whether an editor not adjudged guilty of any misconduct can nonetheless be subjected to a remedy as a preventative measure is a closer question. There have been objections raised to that sort of thing on occasion in the past (see, Wikipedia talk:Requests for arbitration/Ferrylodge/Proposed decision for a recent example, and there are others). Newyorkbrad (talk) 17:54, 24 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I can understand the need to if there's serious concern that I might get into future conflicts with Giano, Geogre, or Bishonen. But I question the need for any such concern - I hardly have a history of crusades and grudges against users. if I did, I no doubt would have actually been involved in the John Gohde arbitration, for instance. Phil Sandifer (talk) 17:56, 24 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: There is a core of a useful proposal in this proposed remedy. We have to be able to work out the semantics in a way that should make it satisfactory to all sides. We don't need to find fault, and this is not Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/WLU-Mystar where the parties aren't allowed to come within 500 feet of each other at any time. If all the parties (I am not referring to Phil here) actually want to continue editing the encyclopedia, then issues of scope and wording can be addressed. Newyorkbrad (talk) 17:59, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

text: Agreed. This must end here. --Tony Sidaway 18:24, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

text: I think this is a legitimate concern. Newyorkbrad (talk) 19:18, 24 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm concerned that our internal pages show up in Google searches. That is the reason that I do not like cases named after users. Also I support blanking our case pages as a courtesy to the parties. But these concerns should not stop us from making a ruling that is in the best interest of the community and dealing with the other issues after the case closes. FloNight (talk) 19:27, 24 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Flo, there's no history of past conflict and no intention on my part of future conflict. Could we please take a principle of least action here? If the arbcom wants to step in swiftly with an emergency ruling to this effect should future conflicts arise that would be fine - they won't arise. I'll happily let myself get chased off of any page Giano, Geogre, or Bishonen want to chase me off of. It's better than the real-world damage this ruling has the potential to cause me. Phil Sandifer (talk) 19:34, 24 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I can support the idea behind this, but it also possibly opens a dangerous double standard that people editing under their real names have extra rights that other editors do not. We aren't special. Lawrence § t/e 20:54, 24 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I share Lawrence's concerns about the potential for a dangerous double standard, yet I also see eye to eye with Phil.  So I urge the Committee to simply apply the burden of evidence fairly and evenly in reference to every party on this case: specific findings and remedies must be supported by the weight of the particular evidence in each instance.  It may be wise to close with minimal actual remedies other than a formal caution that the Committee can and will reopen the case if problems resume, and if that need arises those actual remedies would follow swiftly. DurovaCharge! 21:14, 24 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: This is exactly what I am asking for - speculative and preventative remedies are dangerous business, not just because of the mess of injustices that are bound up in them, but because they cause real harm to real people. The evidence in this case simply does not support findings that I have made personal attacks, that I am routinely incivil, or that I have any problems with repeated disputes with Giano, Geogre, or Bishonen. A finding to these effects is wrong. Phil Sandifer (talk) 21:20, 24 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Phil, this won't be the first or last time that ArbCom get something wrong. Register your dissent now. If it passes, appeal at some future date, and in the meantime get things courtesy blanked. When things have calmed down, a lot of the proposed remedies will look silly and unsupported by evidence. If so, the arbcom should quietly overturn them on appeal. Carcharoth (talk) 23:27, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

text:  We are.  We are entitled to courtesies that those editing under pseudonyms are not. --Tony Sidaway 21:11, 24 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text:  Oh really, Tony?  Try a Google search of my actual name. DurovaCharge! 21:16, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

text:  I would suggest, to play devil's advocate, that editing under your real name was a risk that you choose to take.  As a prospective employer, I'd find the behaviour of the "real name" individuals to be of some interest.  Phil in particular made the conscious choice to move away from being Snowspinner.  That's the simple fact of life on the interenet: Nothing is hidden.  I'm suprised that it's only now that Phil has considered the implications of this.  I'd actually have thought, waving a hand towards Wikipedia Review, that the whole "accused of murder" thing would have been a bigger problem then a finding here.  (Please, those who bandy about the "troll" word, stand down from the breach.  It's relelvent to the discussion, we all know about it, etc.) - 60.242.38.186 (talk) 22:25, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

text: As I understand it, it's a courtesy matter, in the gift of Jimmy Wales. --Tony Sidaway 22:57, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

text: That looks like a very broad assumption, and not, on the face of it, related in any way to Jimmy Wales' statement that "I consider it well within the overall remit of the Arbitration Committee and my own traditional role in the English Wikipedia community to have authority over IRC as necessary...from this day forward, concerns about standards of civility in IRC should be taken up with the channel operators, the Arbitration Committee, and me, in that order." . --Tony Sidaway 19:49, 24 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: It might be a broad assumption, but can you explain why control of such matters shouldn't have community (or Arbcom as community proxy)involvement? --Joopercoopers (talk) 20:59, 24 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text:  Instruction creep covers it.  This is a case of Jimmy saying "the state of affairs now is X" and you saying "is there any reason why it should not be Y?"  I hope the non sequitur is obvious enough not to require that I say any more. --Tony Sidaway 21:09, 24 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm afraid it's best to treat me as thick - please say more because arguing that 'more rules will be required' doesn't explain why more rules are a undesirable in this specific instance. Civility in the channel will now be under the jurisdiction of the arbcom, why should it continue to plough it's own furrow in every other respect? It is an instrument of the community for use for specific purposes - there's no non-sequitur to suggest because of that, it's functioning shouldn't have the same community involvement as anywhere else here. --Joopercoopers (talk) 21:16, 24 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text:  You're simply reiterating the non-sequitur. --Tony Sidaway 21:18, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

text:  Are you being deliberately obtuse? Jimmy Wales may well be saying the situation is now X - what I'm trying to debate, as a member of the community, is why we shouldn't extend that to Y.  --Joopercoopers (talk) 21:24, 24 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text:  I'm not being obtuse.  I'm trying to say that your suggestion is like Jimmy saying "the wall is blue" and you saying "okay, so why not pink?" --Tony Sidaway 21:34, 24 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Well if you're going to sideline this debate into abstractification, I'd rather talk to someone else about it. Rocksanddirt may have offered extension of the policy finding as a logical consequence of Jimbo's assertion. I'm saying Jimbo may assert what he likes (and frankly I wish he'd do it more often), but lets discuss the merits of more community control over irc than just civility. --Joopercoopers (talk) 21:48, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

text: He also said that he wouldn't overrule an Arbcom decision. They have the final call on all this, so they have some freedom of movement here. They can, if they decide to, remove any official or unofficial ties to IRC. I think that's the best route, but they do have the final say on that. RxS (talk) 22:20, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

text: I concur with you completely, Doc.  Risker (talk) 21:04, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

text: I wish you had avoided using the phrase "final solution." Avruchtalk 22:03, 24 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Reworded... I'd meant "final" as in the "latest", but, yeah. Lawrence § t/e 22:13, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

text: I'm planning to add a civility patrol remedy as an option for all the involved parties. This would be in conjunction with the other remedies not as a replacement. FloNight (talk) 19:56, 24 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Flo, again you are jumping to remedies. Why not examine the evidence and in particular the "accussed's" defence - and get the committee to decide the facts first. That's the whole problem here.--Docg 20:08, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

text: Thanks, Flo. I wanted to put this out in response to the claims that there was no evidence of malfeasance or wrongdoing by Sandifer, and no basis for the Committee to take any action there. Lawrence § t/e 19:57, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

text: I have responded to this on the evidence page - suffice it to say that the evidence in question is thin at best, and amounts to scattered and exasperated uses of profanity that were not directed at any specific users. It is possible that I swear too much, but I do not use profanity to make personal attacks or to bully other users - the examples cited were largely edit summaries of me bewilderedly reverting bizarre edits. An incivility ruling would be grasping at straws, frankly. Is the committee so determined to sanction everybody in this case whether they need it or not? Phil Sandifer (talk) 20:06, 24 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Phil, if you feel that your concerns are not getting due attention and reflect the potential for real life harm, you should consider an OTRS request. As a blanket statement, I would agree that no remedies or findings should be made without a strong weight of evidence. I don't know why it isn't standard practice, but it seems like all passed findings should include a selection of evidence or link to such a selection. Avruchtalk 22:37, 24 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Remedy 7 

message: I'm not sure if remedy 7 ("Communication restricted") is such a good idea. In the Everyking case, Everyking was not only forbidden from interacting with another administrator, but also forbidden to comment on admin actions in general and banned from the administrator's noticeboard. The chance of Everyking and the admin in question crossing paths by chance was quite slim because of those remedies. In this case, we have five users who frequently comment on the popular noticeboards and on various other things that happen in our community, so the chance of those users crossing paths by chance is much higher. That, in turn, might lead to countless discussions on whether two users affected by this remedy interacted with each other by commenting on the same thread on WP:AN/I, for instance. And what about the next big discussion about IRC (which will quite probably happen sooner or later)? All five users might want to contribute to that discussion, but that will be next to impossible if this remedy passes. --Conti|✉ 17:19, 24 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: It's worth noting, I've not actually contributed to any prior discussion of IRC, and am hardly chomping at the bit to start. This remedy is easy enough for me to abide by since, as far as I know, I've never interacted with Giano or Bishonen before this case, and have interacted with Geogre a handful of times. My objection to the remedy is based purely on a desire to not have a bunch of past sanctions over my head providing easy ammunition for trolls and other such idiots - people I deal with regularly when my time is not being sapped by arbitration. Phil Sandifer (talk) 17:20, 24 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: This is a preposterous reason to not do this--to not have your past incivility, bad temper, and lack of social decorum hanging over your head? Don't wade hip first into contentious matters with trolls all the time and this won't be a problem. Our actions and editing history define us. If we don't like that compiled history being easily on display: should have thought of that before. Lawrence § t/e 17:32, 24 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I would feel far better about this if that past history were actually on display, instead of relegated to the realm of innuendo and implication. Were it on display it would be far easier to simply point out that the claim that I have a history of personal attacks is nonsense. Phil Sandifer (talk) 17:33, 24 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: You were nasty to people when you were Snowspinner , and that continued recently here on AFD and also , and even when using your admin tools. Do you really expect people to dig up 100 diffs of a well-known fact? Is the sky blue?? Lawrence § t/e 17:37, 24 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: That's the best you can do? A two year old arbcom finding, one part of which didn't even actually pass, an AfD when I said an article was crappy, me getting frustrated at a template namespace (I suppose I did personally attack the template namespace there...), me responding with shock at a National Enquirer sourced claim that persisted in an article for months, and me getting rid of a disruptive and legal-threat making user? That's your history of personal attacks and incivility? Phil Sandifer (talk) 17:41, 24 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: That's me spending about 20 seconds digging through this page. I'm already digging through your entire editing history, but I'm sure others have still more that they can post sooner. We can't hide from Special:Contributions, Phil. This movement by the AC will not interfere with your creating articles on Wikipedia: do you dispute that? Yes or no. How will your inability to comment on Giano, Geogre, or Bish interfere with "legitimate" work on Wikipedia? Lawrence § t/e 17:45, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

text: If the community's ability to come up with something on IRC hinges on the input of five users I suspect we're sunk regardless. I would heartily recommend that all parties take a break. Mackensen (talk) 17:23, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

text: I think the number of times any of the parties has interacted has been very small indeed. Few of those interactions have been necessary, and I think obviously innocent interactions (such as Geogre's recent comment on a major edit I made to The Castle of Otranto) are probably not going to be problematic.  Geogre probably didn't even notice my username, his comment was well within the bounds of decorum, and the article is very much in our normal scope of interest.    I'm focussing on content quality on fictional articles, with particular reference to overlong plot summaries, and he lists English Literature as one of his areas of interest.  Nevertheless under a formal remedy we would probably be more circumspect, and that shouldn't be a problem either.  .--Tony Sidaway 17:43, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

text: I don't see how any "restraining order" would relate to comment on IRC.  In any case I have nothing constructive to say on the subject.  I've done what I could and I failed, and that was largely my own fault. --Tony Sidaway 17:48, 24 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text:  I think he meant the forthcoming community discussion concerning IRC. Mackensen (talk) 17:49, 24 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text:  I know that's what he meant. How would your restraining order, which I support, stop me discussing my opinion on the manner in which the arbitration committee might apply its remit to IRC, if I were minded to do so?  If there were concern about potential interactions, the parties could send our opinions by private email. The point is moot, however; I agree that my opinion of IRC matters is unlikely to be of much use to the committee. --Tony Sidaway 18:03, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

text: Including, but not restricted to, the stalled MfD on WP:WEA. It was started at the beginning of the case (by Majorly, I believe), then withdrawn. See Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Wikipedia:IRC channels/wikipedia-en-admins (2nd nomination). Carcharoth (talk) 17:59, 24 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text:  Could you explain how the restraining order would stop us giving our opinions of the case for deletion? --Tony Sidaway 18:05, 24 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Don't see how it would. Comment on the deletion, merits of the page, don't comment on each other, allude to each other, or anything else. It should be fine then. Lawrence § t/e 18:12, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

text: I can readily agree that untrue findings of fact should not be made at any time or about any editor. Whether an editor not adjudged guilty of any misconduct can nonetheless be subjected to a remedy as a preventative measure is a closer question. There have been objections raised to that sort of thing on occasion in the past (see, Wikipedia talk:Requests for arbitration/Ferrylodge/Proposed decision for a recent example, and there are others). Newyorkbrad (talk) 17:54, 24 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I can understand the need to if there's serious concern that I might get into future conflicts with Giano, Geogre, or Bishonen. But I question the need for any such concern - I hardly have a history of crusades and grudges against users. if I did, I no doubt would have actually been involved in the John Gohde arbitration, for instance. Phil Sandifer (talk) 17:56, 24 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: There is a core of a useful proposal in this proposed remedy. We have to be able to work out the semantics in a way that should make it satisfactory to all sides. We don't need to find fault, and this is not Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/WLU-Mystar where the parties aren't allowed to come within 500 feet of each other at any time. If all the parties (I am not referring to Phil here) actually want to continue editing the encyclopedia, then issues of scope and wording can be addressed. Newyorkbrad (talk) 17:59, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

text: Agreed. This must end here. --Tony Sidaway 18:24, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

text: I think this is a legitimate concern. Newyorkbrad (talk) 19:18, 24 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm concerned that our internal pages show up in Google searches. That is the reason that I do not like cases named after users. Also I support blanking our case pages as a courtesy to the parties. But these concerns should not stop us from making a ruling that is in the best interest of the community and dealing with the other issues after the case closes. FloNight (talk) 19:27, 24 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Flo, there's no history of past conflict and no intention on my part of future conflict. Could we please take a principle of least action here? If the arbcom wants to step in swiftly with an emergency ruling to this effect should future conflicts arise that would be fine - they won't arise. I'll happily let myself get chased off of any page Giano, Geogre, or Bishonen want to chase me off of. It's better than the real-world damage this ruling has the potential to cause me. Phil Sandifer (talk) 19:34, 24 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I can support the idea behind this, but it also possibly opens a dangerous double standard that people editing under their real names have extra rights that other editors do not. We aren't special. Lawrence § t/e 20:54, 24 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I share Lawrence's concerns about the potential for a dangerous double standard, yet I also see eye to eye with Phil.  So I urge the Committee to simply apply the burden of evidence fairly and evenly in reference to every party on this case: specific findings and remedies must be supported by the weight of the particular evidence in each instance.  It may be wise to close with minimal actual remedies other than a formal caution that the Committee can and will reopen the case if problems resume, and if that need arises those actual remedies would follow swiftly. DurovaCharge! 21:14, 24 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: This is exactly what I am asking for - speculative and preventative remedies are dangerous business, not just because of the mess of injustices that are bound up in them, but because they cause real harm to real people. The evidence in this case simply does not support findings that I have made personal attacks, that I am routinely incivil, or that I have any problems with repeated disputes with Giano, Geogre, or Bishonen. A finding to these effects is wrong. Phil Sandifer (talk) 21:20, 24 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Phil, this won't be the first or last time that ArbCom get something wrong. Register your dissent now. If it passes, appeal at some future date, and in the meantime get things courtesy blanked. When things have calmed down, a lot of the proposed remedies will look silly and unsupported by evidence. If so, the arbcom should quietly overturn them on appeal. Carcharoth (talk) 23:27, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

text:  We are.  We are entitled to courtesies that those editing under pseudonyms are not. --Tony Sidaway 21:11, 24 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text:  Oh really, Tony?  Try a Google search of my actual name. DurovaCharge! 21:16, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

text:  I would suggest, to play devil's advocate, that editing under your real name was a risk that you choose to take.  As a prospective employer, I'd find the behaviour of the "real name" individuals to be of some interest.  Phil in particular made the conscious choice to move away from being Snowspinner.  That's the simple fact of life on the interenet: Nothing is hidden.  I'm suprised that it's only now that Phil has considered the implications of this.  I'd actually have thought, waving a hand towards Wikipedia Review, that the whole "accused of murder" thing would have been a bigger problem then a finding here.  (Please, those who bandy about the "troll" word, stand down from the breach.  It's relelvent to the discussion, we all know about it, etc.) - 60.242.38.186 (talk) 22:25, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

text: As I understand it, it's a courtesy matter, in the gift of Jimmy Wales. --Tony Sidaway 22:57, 24 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  remedy 7 subsection one 

message: I like this proposal.  I think that phil's concerns, while real, are not sufficient to take him out a this manner of remedy.  On a slightly different note, I'm taking the irc policy finding to mean that irc is part of en.wikipedia and will be governed per the normal way we govern ourselves here.  Including (possibly) such things as formal promotion of chanops, restricting the off topic conversations, and such.  --Rocksanddirt (talk) 19:16, 24 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: That looks like a very broad assumption, and not, on the face of it, related in any way to Jimmy Wales' statement that "I consider it well within the overall remit of the Arbitration Committee and my own traditional role in the English Wikipedia community to have authority over IRC as necessary...from this day forward, concerns about standards of civility in IRC should be taken up with the channel operators, the Arbitration Committee, and me, in that order." . --Tony Sidaway 19:49, 24 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: It might be a broad assumption, but can you explain why control of such matters shouldn't have community (or Arbcom as community proxy)involvement? --Joopercoopers (talk) 20:59, 24 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text:  Instruction creep covers it.  This is a case of Jimmy saying "the state of affairs now is X" and you saying "is there any reason why it should not be Y?"  I hope the non sequitur is obvious enough not to require that I say any more. --Tony Sidaway 21:09, 24 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm afraid it's best to treat me as thick - please say more because arguing that 'more rules will be required' doesn't explain why more rules are a undesirable in this specific instance. Civility in the channel will now be under the jurisdiction of the arbcom, why should it continue to plough it's own furrow in every other respect? It is an instrument of the community for use for specific purposes - there's no non-sequitur to suggest because of that, it's functioning shouldn't have the same community involvement as anywhere else here. --Joopercoopers (talk) 21:16, 24 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text:  You're simply reiterating the non-sequitur. --Tony Sidaway 21:18, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

text:  Are you being deliberately obtuse? Jimmy Wales may well be saying the situation is now X - what I'm trying to debate, as a member of the community, is why we shouldn't extend that to Y.  --Joopercoopers (talk) 21:24, 24 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text:  I'm not being obtuse.  I'm trying to say that your suggestion is like Jimmy saying "the wall is blue" and you saying "okay, so why not pink?" --Tony Sidaway 21:34, 24 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Well if you're going to sideline this debate into abstractification, I'd rather talk to someone else about it. Rocksanddirt may have offered extension of the policy finding as a logical consequence of Jimbo's assertion. I'm saying Jimbo may assert what he likes (and frankly I wish he'd do it more often), but lets discuss the merits of more community control over irc than just civility. --Joopercoopers (talk) 21:48, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

text: He also said that he wouldn't overrule an Arbcom decision. They have the final call on all this, so they have some freedom of movement here. They can, if they decide to, remove any official or unofficial ties to IRC. I think that's the best route, but they do have the final say on that. RxS (talk) 22:20, 24 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: section break

message: I think what is clearly needed is for the committee to step back from remedies to consider the findings of fact. It seems now we've got a rush to find "even-handed" remedies that can pass without community uproar without a proper consideration of WHAT IS TO BE REMEDIED. Is there a history of disruptive interactions between these parties? If there is, then perhaps this would be a good remedy. However, Phil suggests that he's not had prior problems with these users, so go back to the facts. Does the evidence support it? I really wish arbcom would spend longer defining the problem and considering the evidence, and the histories of the actors, rather than the swift move from principles to remedies filling in the blanks later. Time to stop and think folks, then, perhaps, your remedies might have a hope of fairness, relevance and effectiveness. Not so at the moment.--Docg 19:37, 24 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I concur with you completely, Doc.  Risker (talk) 21:04, 24 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: remedies are premature - check the facts please

message: I just posted this to the workshop. Would anyone have a problem with modifying Mackensen's no-contact solution on "no contact" to exclude Phil from that provision, and to simply put a full-blown civility probation based on my assembled evidence? There does not appear to be evidence of long-term interaction between Phil Sandifer and the others, but the incivility thing is frankly appalling. 
So, it would be Mackensen's existing proposal, but with Phil removed, and add civility probation for Phil separately for him, based on the proposed evidence and FOF. Lawrence § t/e 19:48, 24 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I wish you had avoided using the phrase "final solution." Avruchtalk 22:03, 24 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Reworded... I'd meant "final" as in the "latest", but, yeah. Lawrence § t/e 22:13, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

text: I'm planning to add a civility patrol remedy as an option for all the involved parties. This would be in conjunction with the other remedies not as a replacement. FloNight (talk) 19:56, 24 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Flo, again you are jumping to remedies. Why not examine the evidence and in particular the "accussed's" defence - and get the committee to decide the facts first. That's the whole problem here.--Docg 20:08, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

text: Thanks, Flo. I wanted to put this out in response to the claims that there was no evidence of malfeasance or wrongdoing by Sandifer, and no basis for the Committee to take any action there. Lawrence § t/e 19:57, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

text: I have responded to this on the evidence page - suffice it to say that the evidence in question is thin at best, and amounts to scattered and exasperated uses of profanity that were not directed at any specific users. It is possible that I swear too much, but I do not use profanity to make personal attacks or to bully other users - the examples cited were largely edit summaries of me bewilderedly reverting bizarre edits. An incivility ruling would be grasping at straws, frankly. Is the committee so determined to sanction everybody in this case whether they need it or not? Phil Sandifer (talk) 20:06, 24 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Phil, if you feel that your concerns are not getting due attention and reflect the potential for real life harm, you should consider an OTRS request. As a blanket statement, I would agree that no remedies or findings should be made without a strong weight of evidence. I don't know why it isn't standard practice, but it seems like all passed findings should include a selection of evidence or link to such a selection. Avruchtalk 22:37, 24 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Revised suggestion - please read