Wikipedia talk:Requests for arbitration/IRC

message: === Statement by SirFozzie ===
One of the rationales given by the blocking admin was that the user was causing drama. If this case is accepted, I think if the ArbCom takes this case (which I don't think is a good idea, see below) the ArbCom could and SHOULD indicate whether blocking only one side of an edit war is designed to reduce drama.. or if it will cause the same thing that the admin involved claimed to be wanting to stop. Also, the creator of this case seems to be firing off ArbCom cases left and right, trying to get ArbCom to remove who he views as controversial admins. In neither case, really, has he tried to work the issue out. (there was no RfC on ZScout's action, yet he brought a case and asked for ZScout to be de-sysoped), and now this case. I would ask that ArbCom reject this out of hand as no TRUE dispute resolution attempted.  05:52, 26 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: A further point. We have User:Geogre/IRC considered and User:Kylu/IRC (possibly others as well). Why can't the IRC chanops and channel owners write their own essays, and let the wider Wikipedia community, guided by the non-involved arbitration committee members, write Wikipedia:IRC channels and Wikipedia:IRC channels/wikipedia-en-admins and other subpages. Wikipedia:IRC channels/Personal views regarding IRC will be known to many here, and could be a starting point. The incoming Arbs could add their say to that document. Carcharoth (talk) 13:41, 26 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Looking away from the wider issue of IRC problems, and at the narrow focus on the behaviour of the edit warring at that page, I have to say I agree fully with Moreschi's statement. Hopefully the ArbCom can swiftly re-affirm the principles involving IRC and pledge to clamp down on future misbehaviour in the channel in question, and can issue fair and even justice all round with stern warnings. I see no reason for any bannings here. If anything, that would arise from a separate arbitration case where three or four inveterate drama-mongers are identified and arbitrated for that behaviour, quite simply as a warning to others, and politely asked to relinquish their current accounts and start over with new ones (that would retain the good administrative and content contributions). In other words, add "start over with new account" to the list of penalties ArbCom can impose, as something between a reminder/short ban, and a long ban (giving the offenders the option to take the ban instead, if they want to rehabilitate their original account). Carcharoth (talk) 13:41, 26 December 2007 (UTC)

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

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

message: Drama bomb though this may seem, acceptance is probably necessary. The disruption stemming from recent revert-warring on Wikipedia:IRC channels/wikipedia-en-admins is an unusually divisive dispute, involves more than a half dozen users (mostly admins), has resulted in several blocks (me included, though that was overturned pretty quickly), and shows no sign of dissipating (talk page discussing has gotten the issue nowhere).
The recent locus of the dispute has been the IRC channel page, though this actually largely goes back to Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Giano, and Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Pedophilia userbox wheel war before it. In other words, this astonishing immaturity is nearing its second birthday. How about the committee try, forcefully, to end the conflict before it blows out some more candles? (And I don't mean slapping Giano with an unenforcable "reminder" and pretending that will do something. Again. Because that clearly does not work.)
Geogre says "Additionally, others have been reverting and rolling back (!) content edits by other users." Why the third person? 
He also says "If anyone looks bad here, it's not Giano II." On the contrary, I think Giano looks like a persistent edit-warrior. That's still considered bad, is it not? 
To all arbitrators considering voting reject: no, please don't. Individual admins blocking Giano never works. Nothing is ever decided on AN/I. Even Jimbo making a few pronouncements does nothing. This is what the committee is here for, to arbitrate major disputes that can't be solved elsewhere. So, please accept. Picaroon (t) 06:03, 26 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Statement by Picaroon

message: The root cause of all of the behaviour leading to the filing of this request for arbitration is inappropriate remarks (as noted by Bishonen above) made on the #-admins IRC channel - a locus outside of Wikipedia that this committee has previously stated is outside of their scope. However, many members of this committee are channel operators for this IRC channel, and as such they have individual responsibilities in enforcing appropriate behaviour on the channel. There is already existing conflict within Arbcom with respect to addressing behaviour of editors and administrators on IRC. The chance of a successful result from hearing this matter depends on the Arbcom's ability to address the key issues at the heart of the editorial and administrative behaviour.  Therefore, the committee should only accept this case if it believes that it has the authority to address behaviour in the #-admins IRC channel.  I note the following:
*The editor bringing forward this request for arbitration has no on-wiki involvement in the situation, has had no on-wiki communication with any of the participants relating to this issue prior to filing the request for arbitration, and has made no effort to resolve the situation.
*At the time this case was filed, the edit warring had ceased. All parties had apparently taken heed of the warnings being made and had withdrawn.  That is a first step in appropriate dispute resolution. Filing this case is an attempt to short-circuit the normal course of dispute resolution. 
*Any members of the Arbitration Committee who are chanops have a clear and obvious conflict of interest and should recuse in order for any case to appear fair. Failure to do so runs the serious risk the community losing confidence in the independence and disinterest of the Arbitration Committee. Many other members of the committee participate in the channel, and those members should also seriously consider recusing if they are frequently online in the channel or were logged in at the time of the remarks.
*Should the case be accepted, the arbitrators hearing the case are urged to set up a separate mailing list including only themselves to discuss the case. Aside from the recused current arbitrators, several former arbitrators are either named in this case or have conflict of interest because of their involvement with IRC. 
*As this case specifically deals with remarks made on #-admins IRC, the logs for the period involved should be accepted as evidence and made available to all editors whose behaviour is being reviewed, at a minimum; a good argument can be made that they should be submitted as evidence for the entire community to review.  The logs revealed should include a listing of all editors who were in the channel at the time of the remarks, the remarks themselves, and any reaction or actions taken by those involved.  Risker (talk) 11:09, 26 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Statement by Risker

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

message: Just a brief appeal here: can we please have full disclosure from the individual arbitrators over their use of and involvement in the Wikipedia IRC channels. I believe this ranges from "not using them" to "owning them". This is a wide spectrum, and it would be best to be clear on the differing levels of involvement. Carcharoth (talk) 11:40, 26 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: A further point. We have User:Geogre/IRC considered and User:Kylu/IRC (possibly others as well). Why can't the IRC chanops and channel owners write their own essays, and let the wider Wikipedia community, guided by the non-involved arbitration committee members, write Wikipedia:IRC channels and Wikipedia:IRC channels/wikipedia-en-admins and other subpages. Wikipedia:IRC channels/Personal views regarding IRC will be known to many here, and could be a starting point. The incoming Arbs could add their say to that document. Carcharoth (talk) 13:41, 26 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Looking away from the wider issue of IRC problems, and at the narrow focus on the behaviour of the edit warring at that page, I have to say I agree fully with Moreschi's statement. Hopefully the ArbCom can swiftly re-affirm the principles involving IRC and pledge to clamp down on future misbehaviour in the channel in question, and can issue fair and even justice all round with stern warnings. I see no reason for any bannings here. If anything, that would arise from a separate arbitration case where three or four inveterate drama-mongers are identified and arbitrated for that behaviour, quite simply as a warning to others, and politely asked to relinquish their current accounts and start over with new ones (that would retain the good administrative and content contributions). In other words, add "start over with new account" to the list of penalties ArbCom can impose, as something between a reminder/short ban, and a long ban (giving the offenders the option to take the ban instead, if they want to rehabilitate their original account). Carcharoth (talk) 13:41, 26 December 2007 (UTC)

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

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

message: Number of problems here.
*Giano has behaved very badly. Two 3RR vios/too many reverts were always going to stoke up the drama levels. Why the blocks of Coresdat and Phil Sandifer were overturned, I really don't know, and that's coming from an admin who's unblocked Giano before.
*As noted by Dmcdevit on ANI, the page (WP:WEA) was protected. This seems to have been the cue for everyone with admin buttons to keep right on using them. The whole point of a page protected due to disputes is that you don't edit it just because you can. The protection is supposed to start discussion, not more reverts. Copy-pasting from Dmcdevit's statement on ANI, the most sensible comment surrounding this ridiculous cretinous mess that anyone's made so far: Award for best comment, however, goes to Somey from Wikipedia Review: "This is what these people do for Christmas? Jeez, I thought my life was pathetic!"
*Don't slag off your fellow admins in the channel, save that for the trolls. Tony Sidaway should have been kicked out for a month or something.Actually, scrap that, apologies: seems like someone may have been faking logs. All very Alistair MacLean, but this is largely irrelevant.
*Final comment: that log is a disgrace and a couple people should lose their adminship for this/have it suspended. This is all so petty. To see what are supposed to be Wikipedia's finest engaged in the kind of meaningless playground hanky-panky that is usually reserved for our nationalist trolls - bloody hell. Some Christmas present to Wikipedia, guys. Moreschi  If you've written a quality article... 12:52, 26 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Statement by Moreschi

message: Merry Christmas. I really want nothing to do with this.--Docg 17:41, 26 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Statement by Doc

message: *Regarding comments made on IRC - I have a copy of the log from 30 September 2006 that is (a small) part of the underlying dispute. The copy that Bishonen sent me matches my own copy, word for word, as near as I can tell. I can share that log with ArbCom if it is material or to corroborate versions sent by others. It is my view that Tony did then say what he is alleged to have said, although it was said obliquely, and knowing Tony, probably without real intent to give grevious offence. (that does not necessarily excuse it...)  I have an incomplete log from 12-21 but it has gaps because I dropped. I can share that log with ArbCom if it is material. Others may be a better source except for corroboration. To my great regret I was pretty deep in several other conversations in other channels at the time of the events unfolding, as I wish now I had spoke up then before matters went as far as they did. But this seems more of a personal disagreement and all parties would be well served to meatball:ForgiveAndForget instead of bringing it up again. I think actually both Tony and Bishonen have so offered, although perhaps not at the same time and not directly to each other. It's been said that apologies are not always offered in precisely the form that one might wish to receive them... It may be best to accept what is offered and move on. That in no way condones bad behaviour, and sanctions may well be warranted, but moving on still is good advice.
*Regarding the scope of this case: As do many, I think it's badly misnamed, it should not be about Giano. As I said on the ANI thread, there are more editors misbehaving in this matter than just one. As to what the correct name is, the mind boggles, there are so many choices...
*Regarding Giano's latest block by Phil: I called for it to be reversed initially, with a proviso that Giano undertake not to edit war any more. It was subsequently overturned by Sean William. My read of   the AN/I thread was that there was not general consensus in support of Phil's block at the time it was overturned. 
*Regarding extending the block to others now: Blocks are preventative, not punitive and I think matters would not be well served if several long term editors were now blocked for their role in this matter. The time to have done that was at the time it occured, not later. I do agree with Dmcdevit on AN/I when he said "The proper way to resolve an underreaction is not to lessen the reaction." but this is stale now. Nothing would be served by blocking others now.
*Regarding who should be on #wikipedia-en-admins... I have proposed elsewhere, and I will repeat it here: "I'm ready to support no non en:wp admins having access, even if that means we lose some good counsel, because it just does seem like a good idea to me that things change that way." It has been unclear to me how exactly such a change would be effected. However, based on Jimbo's latest statement perhaps the authority to effect such changes is now being asserted. If so, I urge ArbCom to do what it can to effect this change, regardless of whether it is formally within their remit or not.
++Lar: t/c 17:49, 26 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Statement by Lar

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

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

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

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

message: I use the channel myself and my characterisation of its nature does not differ from Newyorkbrad's in his posts on this page. Sometimes it is plain out boring as everyone's logged in but asleep or elsewhere. Other times it's friendly and chatty (I'd actually say most of the time). Some unhelpful stuff does go on there at times. Very little organisation or planning is involved, and efforts to do so risk backfiring as the channel users are a diverse bunch with nothing more in common than that 66, 70, however many separate RfAs elevated them to the status of admins. However I would ask ArbCom to consider the possibility that keeping such behaviour where it can be seen by people such as Newyorkbrad, FT2 and others who the community has recently expressed strong confidence in, is actually a good thing from an accountability point of view. I agree that some ganging up occurs, and I have seen it on a few occasions, but that does not need IRC as a venue - I've seen glimpses of private mailing CC groups (not formal lists) which have been both more coordinated and more nasty in times past. I am not defending the actions of any of the parties (some are downright outrageous, and I really hope the Committee can deal with those matters to the satisfaction of all present) but I am merely questioning whether IRC is the locus of the dispute or simply evidence of a wider problem as Wikipedia grows in size and accumulates readers and editors who have no memory or experience of a time when Wikipedia was different to the present - while some of those who do remember that time well and how things worked then have possibly developed a sort of a "them vs us" mentality (as unhelpful as it is inevitable in social media). Orderinchaos 07:14, 31 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Statement by Orderinchaos 

message: Is there a policy regarding members of the arbcom mailing list who also are parties to a case? I can't imaging the the arbcom would allow one participant of a case to make their points on a private mailing list where other parties don't have access.
Since David Gerard is on the arbcom mailing list and also a party to this case, can the arbcom confirm that his input is restricted to the on-wiki case pages? --Duk 20:31, 28 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: He is treated the same as other parties to the case. If David or any one else wants to contact ArbCom privately they can if they feel private statements or evidence are needed. Otherwise David and the other parties should place their comments on wiki. So far several parties and others have sent emails to ArbCom mailing list about this case. FloNight (talk) 21:29, 29 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I've experienced this problem twice myself.  It should be standard practice that when a mailing list member becomes party to a case, they do not receive internal correspondence about that case.  If this presents technical challenges, we have numerous geeks who can help solve the problem.  There is an appearance of unfairness when one party to a case is privy to the deliberations while other parties are not.  Jehochman  Talk 21:34, 29 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: In the case of a former arbitrator who is a party, the simple solution would be for them to give up list access for the duration of the case. --Duk 21:58, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

text: Thank you FloNight. I understand that anyone may contact the arbcom privately. The difference with someone on the list is that they are able to have a dialog that others can't (two way communication), or they may feel comfortable getting barbed points across by virtue of being known and "in the room". And as Jehochman mentions, just being privy to the deliberations can make a difference. --Duk 21:49, 29 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Treated the same as other parties means that he should not participate in the discussion. He is on the honor system about it. Per past practices, unless he starts to make comments about this case he will not be asked leave the mailing list. David in fact noted his involvement with the case and said that he would stop comment about the situation after the case was opened. I do not see it as an issue in this case. FloNight (talk) 22:05, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

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

message: The page protection for Wikipedia:IRC channels/wikipedia-en-admins (the venue for an edit war that led to the current arbitration case Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/IRC) is due to expire at 09:01, 2 January 2008, which is just over 4 hours from now. Some discussion is going on on the talk page, but I'm raising this issue now so people can consider whether to extend the page protection, or allow careful editing to resume, or to leave things as they are and re-protect if needed. You would think people wouldn't be so stupid as to resume edit warring over this, but I'm not so sure. Cross-posting to the following places: Wikipedia talk:Requests for arbitration/IRC, Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents, and User talk:Alison (the current protecting admin). Carcharoth (talk) 04:50, 2 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: If they do resume edit warring that may make the Committee's deliberations simpler. Jehochman  Talk 04:55, 2 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Protection expired. Protection tag removed. Note left at the talk page. Carcharoth (talk) 10:46, 2 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Please note: I have no intention of trying to edit that page ever again. It can in future say just what the members of #admins care to write. Giano (talk) 11:22, 2 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Page protection due to expire 

message: Is this (Tony using a hide/show trick, at 16:49 today, on the civility sanction displayed on his talk page) comparable to the blanking of these arbitration case pages? Note: I've already asked Tony about this on his talk page (conversation so far). I have concerns that Tony is annotating, tweaking and hide/show-ing his sanction, while others would not be allowed to do the same with theirs. Of course, since it was voluntary, if enough fuss is made about leaving it visible, Tony could withdraw from agreeing to the civility sanction, but I hope he won't do that (as it would leave him open to charges that it was a cynical ploy to avoid sanctions, rather than a genuine attempt to bring balance to the case, which I believe it was). I would hope though, that Tony would consider leaving the sanction in the state it was when FloNight added it, or at least keeping changes and annotations to a minimum. I am sure there is another sanction in this case that many people would like to annotate, but can't. Carcharoth (talk) 18:22, 12 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: As I've said on Tony's talk page, I've dropped this specific point (he has also tweaked the display again, to make it more visible, though as I said over there, that wasn't really my point - my point was whether he should be tweaking it at all). I'd still be interested in the general point, though - are talk pages suitable places to put civility sanctions? There are good reasons, after all, that we don't do this for other people who are sanctioned (or do we?). And now I really will stop posting about this, for a few hours at least! :-/ Carcharoth (talk) 18:58, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

text: I think you are (were?) asking two questions there. I will only guess about one and leave the other alone completely. I don't think hide/show is technically equivalent to blanking, because blanking means that the text can't be found even with the internal search (which searches the current revision). hide/show text is still there and still found by searches. My issue with courtesy blanking in this case is that I don't think the case should be hidden away from internal searches. I don't care if the page is hide/shown but I don't buy the "I used my real name so I don't want searches to show that I was criticised for things" argument. I say, don't do things you're not willing to later stand behind, and as for criticism, depend on meatball:DefendEachOther to set things right if you're attacked about your actions unjustly, (if no one will defend your actions, then maybe they're shaky, eh?) rather than papering over later.  But then, I don't have the ghits that Tony or Phil do. ++Lar: t/c 18:59, 12 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text:  I think you're getting two points "muxed ip" there.  My displaying the notice on my talk page for a few weeks was a concession to a request by FloNight, and she's fine with my formatting.  The courtesy blanking thing is just that: a courtesy.  That is: somebody asks, and we blank.  Or (as seems to be the result of the emerging lack-of-consensus in this case) we don't. --Tony Sidaway 19:24, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

text: I certainly won't push it if blanking would be a thorn in Giano's side.    --Tony Sidaway 19:39, 12 February 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Using hide/show on civility sanctions

message: List of any users involved or directly affected, and confirmation that all are aware of the request:
* (initiator)
* (done)
==== Statement by LessHeard vanU ====
I propose that the the wording of the incivility parole be amended to include the word "unduly" (or similar) prior to the word "uncivil", to permit the community (and especially the admins) sufficient leeway in attempting to deal with instances of vigorous debate with sometimes colourful language by Giano II. In this instance a heated discussion involving several parties resulted in an enquiry whether Giano II should be sanctioned for their style or tone of comments. I do not believe that the parole was intended to disallow Giano from strongly expressing their views, or to allow opposing parties to use the threat of sanction to discourage Giano from arguing their case (a very foolish premise, it might be concluded), and the wording as is allows for instances of "block shopping". Giano II would still be under sanction for instances of incivility that may be determined as being disruptive.
I shall inform Giano II of this request, but do not anticipate a response (here). I urge the Committee to proceed (or not) independent of a statement by Giano II. LessHeard vanU (talk) 13:23, 26 April 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: @ Swatjester: You miss the point.  If people consider that following those rules is so important that if one does not then one may be blocked from editing, however prolific one might be as a contributor, then it would be wise to craft the rules in such a way that they do not seem ridiculous to quite so many long-standing contributors.  I hold Geogre in the very highest regard, I believe he is a model Wikipedian, and Geogre has stated that the civility guideline, as currently written, is hopelessly flawed.  I agree.  We seem to be blocking people for failing to adhere to Bible-belt US English usage, while forgetting that faux politeness can conceal behaviour which is entirely inimical to the mission of Wikipedia. Guy (Help!) 17:36, 1 May 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Request to amend prior case: [[Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/IRC#Civility: Giano]] 

message: I propose that the the wording of the incivility parole be amended to include the word "unduly" (or similar) prior to the word "uncivil", to permit the community (and especially the admins) sufficient leeway in attempting to deal with instances of vigorous debate with sometimes colourful language by Giano II. In this instance a heated discussion involving several parties resulted in an enquiry whether Giano II should be sanctioned for their style or tone of comments. I do not believe that the parole was intended to disallow Giano from strongly expressing their views, or to allow opposing parties to use the threat of sanction to discourage Giano from arguing their case (a very foolish premise, it might be concluded), and the wording as is allows for instances of "block shopping". Giano II would still be under sanction for instances of incivility that may be determined as being disruptive.
I shall inform Giano II of this request, but do not anticipate a response (here). I urge the Committee to proceed (or not) independent of a statement by Giano II. LessHeard vanU (talk) 13:23, 26 April 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Statement by [[User:LessHeard vanU|LessHeard vanU]] 

message: As the person who initiated the enquiry referred to, I would support such an amendment myself.  DDStretch  (talk) 13:33, 26 April 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Statement by [[User:ddstretch|ddstretch]] 

message: The civility policy in no way prevents people from expressing strong views. It just needs to be done in a way that is not nasty. Giano is not being prevented from expressing strong views, but is instead prevented from being uncivil while doing so. You do not need incivility to debate, even when you have strong views. All Giano needs to do in order to avoid sanctions is to treat other editors with more respect. For example he could have explained his objection without saying that his opponent had "the attention span of a gnat", which would have prevented people being concerned about his actions. (1 == 2)Until 13:37, 26 April 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Statement by [[User:Until(1 == 2)|Until(1 == 2)]] 

message: In addition to Until(1 ==2)'s point, if Giano took more care to avoid characterising other users (editors and readers) in the way he did, it would help maintain the collaborative nature of wikipedia. It would reduce to a minimum the chance that discussions would get unnecessarily heated or dramatic. The underlying point he was endeavouring to make was made quite reasonably, using rational and calm language (excepting the use of "cognitive deficit"), by another here, for instance.  DDStretch  (talk) 13:56, 26 April 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Statement by [[User:Ddstretch|Ddstretch]] 

message: There seems to be a confusion between incivility and kid gloves.  In the same way that Wikipedia is not censored, it should not be necessary to treat every editor as if they are a grade-schooler from a strict Mormon home who will be offended by the word "bother".  A workable definition of civility has to be one which will improve our community and be embraced by it, rather than one which allows polite but vexatious people to drive off those with greater knowledge and understanding than they themselves have, by pretending mortal insults in cases of forceful assertion.
If a civility guideline cannot include, influence and inspire people like Giano, I'd argue that it is a bad guideline. And there is also a huge difference in character between what is said close to the encyclopaedia, and what is acceptable in userspace. We've recently had the utterly absurd case of an admin blocking a long-standing contributor for telling him to "get lost" on his own user page. Some part of the community seems incapable of applying Clue in this matter. Guy (Help!) 20:43, 26 April 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: @ Swatjester: You miss the point.  If people consider that following those rules is so important that if one does not then one may be blocked from editing, however prolific one might be as a contributor, then it would be wise to craft the rules in such a way that they do not seem ridiculous to quite so many long-standing contributors.  I hold Geogre in the very highest regard, I believe he is a model Wikipedian, and Geogre has stated that the civility guideline, as currently written, is hopelessly flawed.  I agree.  We seem to be blocking people for failing to adhere to Bible-belt US English usage, while forgetting that faux politeness can conceal behaviour which is entirely inimical to the mission of Wikipedia. Guy (Help!) 17:36, 1 May 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Statement by [[User talk:JzG|JzG]] 

message: Wait, guy, so if  Giano can't follow the rules on civility, we should get rid of the rules? No, that's ridiculous. If he can't be civil, he needs to go. That simple. He's not specially excepted from the rules, and  we don't get to dismiss every violation he makes of them (of which there are numerous) with "zomg treating him with kid gloves". We've given him enough chances. Time to start actually enforcing the rules equitably, including against Giano. ⇒SWATJester Son of the Defender 23:13, 30 April 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Statement by [[User:Swatjester|Swatjester]] 

message: Concur with Guy, Geogre et al. The civility guideline is hopelessly flawed; it prevents candor and blunt language. All respect to Swat; but I'd much rather toss the civility guidelines out the window than such a fine contributor as Giano. Let us not forget that at all times the first question, the paramount question, should be: what benefits the project? I submit that ridiculously juvenile and narrow definitions of civility, enforced blindly, harm the project immensely. Giano shouldn't have to wear kid gloves or walk on eggshells because some clueless twerps - oh, pardon me, some editors cannot handle blunt phrasing. One puppy's opinion. KillerChihuahua?!? 00:47, 4 May 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Statement by [[User:KillerChihuahua|KillerChihuahua]] 

message: Certainly the civility policy can and has been used as a club against users who are blunt like Giano, and there have been admins who are far too willing to block for the slightest little transgression of the civility policy. There's nothing good about either of those things, and indeed such actions are themselves rather uncivil.
I am, however, nonplussed by those editors who insist that we should basically throw the civility policy out the window, or at least not bother to apply it to "good" or "expert" users. I've read many comments complaining about the civility policy, but to my knowledge no one has explained why incivility is ever necessary. I would love to read such an explanation someday. There is nothing wrong with going after another editor's argument in a blunt manner (pointing out errors of logic, fact, or interpretation, or demonstrating inconsistency in a user's approach to a given issue), and indeed doing so will often convince others of your view. But if while doing that one concludes with "which is why you're an idiot" one has; A) Added nothing to the argument; B) Simply angered the other user and inflamed the dispute; C) Made one's argument look worse in the eyes of others. When incivility is directed at newer users by more experienced ones it can also have a chilling effect, since participating at Wikipedia can, at first, be a bit of an intimidating experience to begin with—even for folks with expertise in a particular area.
The Arbs seem to be attempting to pursue a different route with Giano below which seems fine. These general issues will continually come up though, and in the future I'd like to see the partisans of "to hell with civility" explain why it is ever necessary to be uncivil and provide specific examples of occasions when a failure to make an uncivil comment hindered the work of the encyclopedia.--Bigtimepeace | talk |  contribs 19:21, 9 May 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Statement by [[User:Bigtimepeace|Bigtimepeace]] 

message: *Civility is always due. The incivility of one editor does not give others with whom they are in discussion an exemption from themselves being civil. Admins do, though, have discretion about whether to enforce sanctions. We are discussing, below, proposals to make special provision for enforcement of Giano's civility sanction. Sam Blacketer (talk) 14:45, 26 April 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Arbitrator views and discussion 

message: Could the arbitration committee please clarify what has or has not resulted from the final principle and the associated remedy in the IRC case, namely: Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/IRC#Policy issues surrounding IRC and Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/IRC#IRC, and what is planned for the future, if anything. The principle in full is:"The Arbitration Committee has recently been asked by Jimbo Wales to take an expanded role in the governance of IRC. The Committee is formulating policy and procedure changes based on this new role independently from this case. passed 7-1 at 03:48, 9 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Update - About a week ago, when filing this request, I contacted 13 arbitrators on their talk pages regarding this request for clarification (see here). These were the current arbitrators who were listed as active on the case, or who recused themselves. So far, four have responded: FT2, Newyorkbrad, Paul August and Jdforrester (James F). Of the other nine, eight have edited Wikipedia since I contacted them (the other one has not edited in some time and has a break notice on their talk page), but have not responded here, or on their talk page. I note that FT2 has left a note here saying that he is dealing with other issues at the moment which take priority, which is fair enough. Should we take the silence of most of the other arbitrators to mean that the committee have left FT2 to deal with this? And if the arbitration committee have done this delegation (which I would in some ways prefer to long-winded committee decisions), why can't they just say so? Carcharoth (talk) 15:09, 2 April 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: No such formal delegation has been made. Paul August ☎ 05:02, 5 April 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Thank you. I see Flonight has since posted a response. I will wait another week before posting here again, or longer if the arbitration committee can: (a) come up with a schedule for this request; (b) clarify what is needed here and whether any all or only some arbitrators need to respond here; and (c) agree to eventually move/restart the discussion somewhere else. What I hope will come of this is that progress and consensus will be made and documented on Wikipedia (rather than in the channel and by other off-wiki means) - I presume all those participating in the #en-admins IRC channel are happy to participate in on-wiki discussion about the channel? Some moderation of the discussion might be needed, but I think such a discussion might alleviate some of the concerns. For example, one thing that could be suggested is that anyone obtaining a cloak to the channel could be required to sign (on-wiki) the channel code of conduct as part of the sign up process. Carcharoth (talk) 19:12, 5 April 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Statement by [[User:Carcharoth|Carcharoth]] 

message: Given that the remedy the committee passed was that the committee would address this issue, the activity Ryan discusses, while likely meritorious, does not actually fulfill the remedy.  Is there a status update as to the committee's activity?  GRBerry 17:43, 26 March 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Comment by GRBerry

message: First, I think this space should probably be reserved to ask the committee for an update on their views of IRC governance etc., and discussion of Bishonen's excellent question should be moved elsewhere (including my comments below, should someone be so bold as to start such a discussion).
I think a noticeboard for IRC chanops would be an excellent idea.  Now, this gets a bit esoteric and lawyerish, but it seems to be the current situation that IRC is recognized as an independent creature, with different rules of conduct and methods of dispute resolution, and that Wikipedia has no authority to mandate any particular channel behavior or dispute resolution process.  However, that does not mean that the chanops could not choose for their own convenience to host a noticeboard on Wikipedia.  I think a noticeboard is an excellent idea because it will allow issues to be discussed by more than just the ops who happen to be online at a given moment, and it will have archives, including a record of when and why a user was added or removed from the channel that IRC itself does not provide.  There already seems to be a sort of noticeboard at User talk:Cbrown1023/Guidelines.  
However, hosting the noticeboard and associated policies/contact lists/dispute resolution processes in Wikipedia space presents the same problem it did before; it suggests that anyone can edit it, when in fact only the participants in IRC have a say and only the chanops (appear to) have the final say.  So it may be necessary either to host the pages in project space but grant them an exemption from "everyone can edit" or to keep them in user space but raise their profile through linkage or even transclusion. Thatcher 18:10, 26 March 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Thatcher, IRC is not reccognised as an independent creature with separate and different rules. Jimbo, himslf, made this very clear here . Giano (talk) 08:23, 28 March 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Comment by Thatcher 

message: I'm replying here to FT2's response to Carcharoth's basic question why the final principle "The Arbitration Committee has recently been asked by Jimbo Wales to take an expanded role in the governance of IRC. The Committee is formulating policy and procedure changes based on this new role independently from this case" (passed 7-1) and its associated remedy "Policy and procedure changes regarding Wikipedia IRC channels will be addressed separately by this committee" (passed 9-0), have both come to naught. My post goes to clarifying the committee's final principles and remedies as they relate to en-admins IRC case—it's not about FT2's block of Giano—therefore I post it here, in preference to drowning it at the now extremely copious discussion of that block on WP:AE (most of it posted by FT2). Yes, I know I'm not supposed to post in this section, which is for arbs, but it seems my only chance of being heard. (I won't post again, whether or not you remove me from this spot, Thatcher. This has taken me much too much time as it is.)
Like probably most people, I feel at an awful disadvantage when attempting to discuss or debate with FT2, since he seems impressively able to write about 100 lines in the space of time that it takes your average wikipedian to write 20, and me to write 5. (And NYBrad to write 70 or so.) My efforts in the direction of debate with FT2 have always literally drowned. But I will try just once to do my own clarification. I made an effort to come to grips with the background to FT2's new guidelines for IRC (at this moment not available in CBrown's space,  but mirrored at )—these  guidelines being the only mouse that has so far been born from the laboring mountains of the IRC case, and it's final principles and remedies. The background to the guidelines, as offered by FT2 in channel to anybody interested, turned out to be an edited log of a discussion between FT2 and some 6 or 10 channel users (by FT2's own estimate) from February 25-26. I have it here. It's been edited by FT2 to remove irrelevancies, and consists–well, I don't have any counting tool that will work for this— but at my rough estimate, the discussion consists to at least 80% of FT2 himself talking, mainly describing how well the channel works now:
:(Exact quote of log)
*<FT2> irc runs well now (here)
*<FT2> but the outside world doesnt know it
*<FT2> we're like in wikipedia in the old days, "dont be a dick" and "no real rules otherwise"
*<FT2> we have our sort of "unspoken code"
*<FT2> a user who harasses here will (or probably should be) talked to or sorted out/calmed down...
*<FT2> a user who canvasses persistently likewise
*<FT2> these things dont much happen, we have a sort of unspoken code here
*<FT2> its nice
*<FT2> but the outside world doesnt know it
*<FT2> also channel ops dont know what's okay to do, so if a dispute breaks out, like the bishonen/tony one a while back... should they act? or not.
I discussed these matters with FT2 in PM on IRC several times, before he actually sent me the above log to look at, and I was rather shocked by his descriptions of that log. Here's a snippet of our discussion from March 5, posted with permission.
:(Exact quote except that an e-mail address and a couple of typos have been removed.)
*<bishonen>	may I have a copy of the full discussion of the channel? there was something about that in the header before.
*<FT2-away>	sure :)
*its enacted now but there wasnt any controversy on it -- most folks reaction was "yeah, commonsense"
*<bishonen>	thanks
*<FT2-away>	I was just very careful to consult hugely to be sure that nobody could accidentally feel unasked or whatever. You know how it can go.
*<bishonen>	i thought there was going to be a workgroup, or the arbcom would be involved.
*<FT2-away>	I was thinking of the dispute over roillback.
*nah
*<bishonen>	hugely?....
*<FT2-away>	the channel basically sorted it out, about 6 or 10 people, everyone was pretty much "yeah, commonsense" by the time it was done
*<bishonen>	so more people than the users of this channel were invoived?
*<FT2-away>	no...
*<bishonen>	i see
*<FT2-away>	but there are a lot of users here... and of course those include a load of people who arent often here
*<bishonen>	that's not hugely in my book, i'm afraid. but whatever.
*<FT2-away>	the concern was to clean up and ensure that issues of the past were not going to be perrennial
*<bishonen>	let me get this straight. only admins have been consulted? and only the minority of admins that use the admin channel?
*<FT2-away>	and that's much more about people here accepting norms and considering what norms they feel apply, than about asking others... most people here or elsewhere who care about irc stuff, know what the issues are or were anyway
*<bishonen>	do they?
To recapitulate: What has happened with the policy and procedures of the IRC en-admins channel since the IRC case was closed, then, is that there are now new  guidelines for it in CBrown's userspace (update: no, actually at this moment in Martinp23's userspace), authored  (largely) by FT2, and emphasizing how well the channel currently works. The origin of the new guidelines was an IRC discussion, massively dominated by FT2 himself, on February 25-26 between FT2 and a few admins. So much for the expanded role in the governance of IRC that the ArbCom undertook in its final principle. So much for its new oversight as foreseen in the remedy it voted for. May we please have some commentary from some of the arbs besides FT2—from those that put hand to keyboard and voted for a new role of arbcom with respect to IRC—voted for changes in policy and procedure, changes to be addressed by the committee—voted 9-0 and 7-1? FloNight? Newyorkbrad? Paul August? Clarification please?  Especially, clarification of that which is never clarified by anybody, but always sidestepped — the role of James Forrester as envisaged by arbcom — would be appreciated to the point of jubilation. Bishonen | talk 16:14, 27 March 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: What on earth does one say, reading the above - just sums up the truth of what I have been saying for weeks. Have our Arbcom anything to say to justify themselves? Or are we all to be banned for wondering, and demanding that they answer and explain themselves. Giano (talk) 17:36, 27 March 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: For the record, I voted oppossed to the related "principle" and abstained  with regard to the related "remedy". As far as I know ArbCom has yet to take any official action with regard to either. Paul August ☎ 18:40, 27 March 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Further plea and misplaced clarification by Bishonen (but if not here, then where?) 

message: Not that I want to stir trouble but I would like to remind people the above rule. Be careful what you post here as this is a public place to publish things. I just don't want to see anyone get banned.
-- Cat chi? 21:46, 27 March 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: It should be pointed out that these excerpts were posted by one of the participants with the explicit permission of the other; there is no issue on that front.  — Coren (talk) 22:58, 27 March 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I was not accusing anyone of wrong doing. In the heat of the dispute people sometimes forget such things. This was intended as a good faith reminder. Nothing more or less. -- Cat chi? 00:25, 28 March 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Comment by [[User:White Cat|White Cat]]

message: I'd make the point, speaking to the notes and log above, that the current en-admins channel does have a wide membership in terms of its views, and I think despite the thinking of some that the diversity of the community's views are actually well represented there. A recent incident (well documented elsewhere so no need to do so here) resulted in strident criticism of the channel's operations, and as a critic myself of the initial handling of the matter, I was happy with how it was ultimately resolved. Orderinchaos 11:08, 29 March 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Comment by [[User:Orderinchaos|Orderinchaos]]

message: I rarely use IRC (I've been on four times this year) but spend quite an amount of time on wiki, and am somewhat removed from the issues complained of. I'd like to volunteer to be one of the five named admins if the proposal below is passed. Of course I will not take offense if not chosen. Stifle (talk) 11:32, 24 April 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Volunteering by Stifle

message: As I seem unable to edit the main page of this charade  - which George William Whatever has edited, I suggest some remark pertaining to the discussion here  is added to this incompetent admin's edit. Giano (talk) 19:00, 1 September 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Sanctions on me