Wikipedia talk:Requests for arbitration/IRC/Proposed decision

message: :Per longstanding policy, members of the Arbitration committee whose terms expire on 31 December 2007 may participate in this case at their discretion.  Newly appointed members are considered recused from any case accepted before their appointment began, but may activate themselves on any open case. Thatcher 00:28, 27 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Mackensen has withdrawn from the case, asking that all his votes be stricken. Thatcher 00:07, 25 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Arbitrators hearing this case

message: About a week ago, Paul August started a motion to dismiss the case: "As the continuance of this case is doing more harm than good, this case is dismissed." Now Uninvited Company has started a motion to close the case. See here: "Noting that voting is deadlocked and discussion is stalled, I move to close.". Could someone clarify the difference here? Presumably dismissing the case would mean nothing happens, but closing the case would mean that what was passing at the time of closing would pass?
The notes at the top of the page say "Only items that receive a majority "support" vote will be passed." - as the support vote here is seven, does it matter that not all the active arbitrators have voted? If that is the case, I make it: principles 1 (dispute resolution, +10), 2 or 2.1 (reversion, +10), 3.2 (disruption by administrators, +10), 4 (WP:OWN, +7), 5 (decorum, +9), 6 (fair criticism, +9), 9 (provocative actions, +7), 15 (bad blood, +7), 17 (IRC, +7); finding of fact 4 (Giano, +8); and remedy 6 (IRC, +7). Some of the findings of fact and remedies are close to passing. Notably principle 10 (forward looking, +6), and 12.2 (Warlike behavior using administrative tools, +6), finding of fact 8 (Tony Sidaway, +5), and remedy 2.2 (Giano namespace ban, +5), but presumably, from his motion to close, UC doesn't think that any further progress can be made on those and other non-passing parts? Carcharoth (talk) 01:17, 1 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Not commenting on any other aspect at this point, but the distinction between "motion to dismiss" and "motion to close" as you have identified it is correct. If a case is dismissed, there is no decision except for anything contained in the motion to dismiss itself. If a case is closed, then a decision is issued containing whatever proposals were supported by a majority of the active arbitrators. Newyorkbrad (talk) 01:27, 1 February 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Difference between motion to dismiss and motion to close? 

message: Here's a suggestion for running the committee more efficiently, inspired by this case.
There are 12 active members supposedly involved in this arbitration (excluding two who are recused). Yet only 10 have voted (fewer on most proposals). That means that a super-majority, 7/10, is required rather than a simple majority (6/10 or 7/12). If arbitrators who aren't voting would declare themselves inactive or recused, or if all active arbitrators would vote, then perhaps it would be easier to get things passed. Even simpler would be to have the majority of votes on each provision decide the question.  "Active" arbitrators who aren't voting still skew the result and make it harder for the truly active arbitrators to settle cases.  ·:· Will Beback  ·:· 02:33, 1 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: We are in the process of deciding how to handle this issue. It is important since Jimbo urged Committee members to resign from the Committee if they are not able to stay active. And if that does not happen then he wants us to have a method to remove them so they can be replaced by users that have the time to contribute. Part of our discussion involves how to measure activity level. Voting on cases is the first and most important measure. FloNight (talk) 02:41, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

text: I don't know where you are getting your numbers, Will Beback.  All 12 active arbitrators have made at least one motion and/or vote on the page. The voting stage of an arbitration that has lasted five weeks really isn't the time to change the entire structure under which the Arbitration Committee has operated for several years.  Perhaps you might wish to make this suggestion for future cases on WT:RFAR, though, so that the community and the arbitrators can weigh in on it in a neutral venue.  Risker (talk) 02:44, 1 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree with Risker. For the record, the two most inactive (no offence intended) arbitrators in this case have been Paul August (motion to dismiss) and Blnguyen (four votes on 23 January). Both have been (minimally) active in other areas (watching other cases and at requests for arbitration), but they haven't gone totally inactive. Paul's non-voting can be explained by his motion to dismiss - he is under no obligation to vote in a case that he thinks should be dismissed. And I'd just give Blnguyen some time. It also seems clear from his voting so far that his votes are unlikely to affect the case much. I would also note that FloNight has been active, making notes to propose new versions, but has not done so yet. And that FT2 placed some placeholders a long time ago that haven't been filled in. As FT2 said, this one is going to take time - we just need to be patient. Also, arbitrators who don't appear to be that active on the case pages may be actively contributing to discussions on the mailing list or other arbcom discussion venues. Carcharoth (talk) 06:04, 1 February 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Missing ArbCom members

message: I am starting this section to highlight the instances I have raised in the past few days as well as what Bish pointed out above in which arbitrator Fred Bauder (whose term has expired and is only participating because this case was accepted last December) engaged in verbal assaults, baiting, and biased remedy that borders disruption. Bish and I have supplied similar diffs that clearly demonstrated    that Bauder has been on a crusade to drive out widely-respected mainspace contributors Giano and Geogre from the project at least since 2006. The timestamp of this controversial proposed remediesWikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Giano/Proposed_decision#Geogre_desysopped, more or less resulted in Geogre unsuccessful arbCom bid in December 2006. (should I say Bauder sabotaged Geogre's campaign?) This instance compunds with his blatant bias in this arbcom case (insulting and baiting Giano) signals that he should recuse from the case in order to keep arbCom's integrity, credibility, and community's trust intact. I have said so in the past and I'm going to repeat again it is not a surprise to see him seize this opportunity (most likely his last arbCom case in his tenure) to seek revenge in his personal vendetta Of course, given this ideal opportunity, Bauder will not step down voluntarily. But I still want to strongly appeal that Bauder step down immediately (or at least recuse from the case) and that other arbCom members take the initiative to remove Bauder’s insults from the proposed decision page. And for anyone who feels the same, feel free to use this section as a petition. Let the community's voice be heard.--Certified.Gangsta (talk) 09:53, 1 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree that this section and its title (referring to Fred) are extremely unhelpful. Equally, though, it is divisive to support an attitude that remedies such as year-long bans from the Wikipedia namespace are even remotely helpful to resolving a situation like this (and you are the one that put the emphasis on resolving). Statements like "inevitably those people need to change their ways or be removed from Wikipedia" conflict with your later "let all [...] seek to de-escalate the hostilities that we might calmly seek ways of moving forward" To be frank, Arbcom should be focused on resolving the disruptive conduct in other cases that causes clear and present harm (like the homeopathy and nationalist editors situations, and others). Giano's actions, while they may cause drama and disruption, are not in the same league. Certain arbitrators should be calm and diplomatic (and some, to their credit, are), and should engage with the concerns and address them, rather than throwing the book at someone just because their patience runs out with the way they do things. In other words, the reaction of some sections of arbcom is disproportionate and unhelpful. It is clear that losing content contributors is harmful (which is what arbcom was and maybe still is in danger of doing). Excessive and wrongful blocking is harmful. Inappropriate deletions and undeletions can be harmful. But, really, absolutely honestly and without bias, putting aside all the outraged feelings and personalities, how harmful is Giano's behaviour? If everyone ignored him (and some others) the next time something like this happened, or concentrated on calming things down and addressing the concerns raised (instead of filing an arbitration case) then the "bad blood" might be lessened and things might improve. I've said as much to Giano on his talk page - the next time he has concerns like this, where he may feel so outraged that he could get into an edit war, bring it up on his talk page and let others comment first on what needs doing and how. Carcharoth (talk) 12:05, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

text: I'm taking a l-on-n-g view of the situation having watched it unfold over several years. The parties in this case have not been able to conform to the standards set out in our policies despite that fact that they are well aware of Wikipedia rules and practices. As highly vested members of the Community, they are role models for newer users. Across the board, we need to hold these members to a higher standard of conduct not lower. Some parties have agreed by words or actions to turn over a new leaf. Others have not. The parties conduct going forward will determine their fate either way. FloNight♥♥♥ 13:40, 1 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Thank-you. For what it is worth, I agree with the final warning remedy you have proposed. It seems the best way forward. I'd quibble about the wording (eg. "are likely to result in further sanctions" - added the word in italics as this is already a sanction), and point out that others have also failed to "conduct disputes in a civil and constructive manner", but then that is what the "all parties cautioned" thing is about. BTW, you do realise that one of your colleagues (the bainer) has been included in that broad sweep covering the 13 named parties to this case? You did mean to include all 13, right? Carcharoth (talk) 13:53, 1 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I suspect those that the committee has in view know who they are.--Docg 13:58, 1 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm not so sure. In my experience, it is always best to state these things openly, rather than leave them implicit. The latter generally causes more misunderstandings. This is a strongly worded remedy that has the potential to be brought up at future arbitration cases. Would you be happy if in a future case, say in a year's time, the arbitration committee said that you (a named party to this case) had failed to heed the warning and that consequently they are taking "an unsympathetic view"? It needs to be clear who this applies to. We are also back to the old problem that the remedies are being fiercely debated but no clear findings of fact are being passed. In other words, the arbitration committee are failing to tell us, though the findings of fact, what they think happened here. Carcharoth (talk) 15:02, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

text: *Once upon a time I used to be nice and lovely, no one listened. Now at long last issues are being seen if not satisfactorily addressed. If the cost is shooting the messenger then so be it. Giano (talk) 18:54, 1 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: *The problem with that is, that if everyone who felt people were not listening to them, jumped up and down screaming, then, in fact, we'd be unable to hear anyone. And the sound of gunshot is even more of distraction. Dispute resolution is for finding resolutions - polemic, rhetoric, paranoia, gunshot and screaming are not conducive. The noise you've made may have got you a hearing (although I doubt it), but the cost to the project is just too high.--Docg 19:14, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

text: *I was polite and reserved once too. I supported an admin mailing list as long as the archives were open. I didn't explain that a socially fueled power group under the veil of secrecy could bring its own problems - let's try something less extreme first, thinking that it was self evident. For my opinion I was called "incompetent, unprofessional and unreal". It's a fact of life that with some people, the nicer you are to them the more they'll shit on you. Here's another truth: if someone is vicious to you and over time you slowly begin to respond in kind, and then you are sanctioned for incivility but not the people who opened that door, then you can be sure the sanction has absolutely nothing at all to do with "civility". --Duk 19:27, 1 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: *I agree with this observation by Duk. Right on the mark.  Mattisse 21:07, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

text: I mostly agree with Badlydrawnjeff.  Giano has not helped his position, which many people agree with, but that is somewhat beside the point.  The project appears to be taking a step towards the non-codling of old-tyme-valued-contributors, but this change in culture will take time.  The sooner those in positions of trust and authority speak forcefully to this the sooner the culture will change.  Doc, please comment on content, not on contributor.  --Rocksanddirt (talk) 19:11, 1 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: *Re the firing squad analogy by Giano, isn't it the condemned that is supposed to be wearing the blindfold? LessHeard vanU (talk) 19:15, 1 February 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Bauder's vendetta 

message: Arbs are called to pass verdicts on user behaviour. It couldn't be that this one has simply reached a conclusion about long-standing problems with certain users, and you disagree with those conclusions?? Now, I think Fred's comments are not particularly helpful in de-escalating this dispute - but I'd have to say the rhetoric of certain others has been even less so. Judges snarling at the accused is certainly unseemly, but the accused and their supporters hurling insults from the dock is predictable and boring. When the ref makes a call you dislike, calling him biased, and screaming insults is not good. The problem here has been that too many people are forgetting that the point of dispute resolution in Wikipedia is to seek calm ways of resolving the dispute - not new ways of waging polemical warfare, and castigating all who disagree with you as evil, and portraying yourself as a perpetual victim of bullies. Unfortunately, I am fast reaching the conclusion that certain people have no interest in resolving disputes, only in scoring points and causing drama. If that's the case, then inevitably those people need to change their ways or be removed from Wikipedia. Please, let all, whatever their view on the issues, seek to de-escalate the hostilities that we might calmly seek ways of moving forward. If the parties who wish the case closed can do that, they might find many of us willing to support closure. But making closure into a battlepoint, simply means that remedies against such behaviour are going to be necessary, either now or very soon.--Docg 11:17, 1 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree that this section and its title (referring to Fred) are extremely unhelpful. Equally, though, it is divisive to support an attitude that remedies such as year-long bans from the Wikipedia namespace are even remotely helpful to resolving a situation like this (and you are the one that put the emphasis on resolving). Statements like "inevitably those people need to change their ways or be removed from Wikipedia" conflict with your later "let all [...] seek to de-escalate the hostilities that we might calmly seek ways of moving forward" To be frank, Arbcom should be focused on resolving the disruptive conduct in other cases that causes clear and present harm (like the homeopathy and nationalist editors situations, and others). Giano's actions, while they may cause drama and disruption, are not in the same league. Certain arbitrators should be calm and diplomatic (and some, to their credit, are), and should engage with the concerns and address them, rather than throwing the book at someone just because their patience runs out with the way they do things. In other words, the reaction of some sections of arbcom is disproportionate and unhelpful. It is clear that losing content contributors is harmful (which is what arbcom was and maybe still is in danger of doing). Excessive and wrongful blocking is harmful. Inappropriate deletions and undeletions can be harmful. But, really, absolutely honestly and without bias, putting aside all the outraged feelings and personalities, how harmful is Giano's behaviour? If everyone ignored him (and some others) the next time something like this happened, or concentrated on calming things down and addressing the concerns raised (instead of filing an arbitration case) then the "bad blood" might be lessened and things might improve. I've said as much to Giano on his talk page - the next time he has concerns like this, where he may feel so outraged that he could get into an edit war, bring it up on his talk page and let others comment first on what needs doing and how. Carcharoth (talk) 12:05, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

text: I'm taking a l-on-n-g view of the situation having watched it unfold over several years. The parties in this case have not been able to conform to the standards set out in our policies despite that fact that they are well aware of Wikipedia rules and practices. As highly vested members of the Community, they are role models for newer users. Across the board, we need to hold these members to a higher standard of conduct not lower. Some parties have agreed by words or actions to turn over a new leaf. Others have not. The parties conduct going forward will determine their fate either way. FloNight♥♥♥ 13:40, 1 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Thank-you. For what it is worth, I agree with the final warning remedy you have proposed. It seems the best way forward. I'd quibble about the wording (eg. "are likely to result in further sanctions" - added the word in italics as this is already a sanction), and point out that others have also failed to "conduct disputes in a civil and constructive manner", but then that is what the "all parties cautioned" thing is about. BTW, you do realise that one of your colleagues (the bainer) has been included in that broad sweep covering the 13 named parties to this case? You did mean to include all 13, right? Carcharoth (talk) 13:53, 1 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I suspect those that the committee has in view know who they are.--Docg 13:58, 1 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm not so sure. In my experience, it is always best to state these things openly, rather than leave them implicit. The latter generally causes more misunderstandings. This is a strongly worded remedy that has the potential to be brought up at future arbitration cases. Would you be happy if in a future case, say in a year's time, the arbitration committee said that you (a named party to this case) had failed to heed the warning and that consequently they are taking "an unsympathetic view"? It needs to be clear who this applies to. We are also back to the old problem that the remedies are being fiercely debated but no clear findings of fact are being passed. In other words, the arbitration committee are failing to tell us, though the findings of fact, what they think happened here. Carcharoth (talk) 15:02, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

text: *Once upon a time I used to be nice and lovely, no one listened. Now at long last issues are being seen if not satisfactorily addressed. If the cost is shooting the messenger then so be it. Giano (talk) 18:54, 1 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: *The problem with that is, that if everyone who felt people were not listening to them, jumped up and down screaming, then, in fact, we'd be unable to hear anyone. And the sound of gunshot is even more of distraction. Dispute resolution is for finding resolutions - polemic, rhetoric, paranoia, gunshot and screaming are not conducive. The noise you've made may have got you a hearing (although I doubt it), but the cost to the project is just too high.--Docg 19:14, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

text: *I was polite and reserved once too. I supported an admin mailing list as long as the archives were open. I didn't explain that a socially fueled power group under the veil of secrecy could bring its own problems - let's try something less extreme first, thinking that it was self evident. For my opinion I was called "incompetent, unprofessional and unreal". It's a fact of life that with some people, the nicer you are to them the more they'll shit on you. Here's another truth: if someone is vicious to you and over time you slowly begin to respond in kind, and then you are sanctioned for incivility but not the people who opened that door, then you can be sure the sanction has absolutely nothing at all to do with "civility". --Duk 19:27, 1 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: *I agree with this observation by Duk. Right on the mark.  Mattisse 21:07, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

text: I mostly agree with Badlydrawnjeff.  Giano has not helped his position, which many people agree with, but that is somewhat beside the point.  The project appears to be taking a step towards the non-codling of old-tyme-valued-contributors, but this change in culture will take time.  The sooner those in positions of trust and authority speak forcefully to this the sooner the culture will change.  Doc, please comment on content, not on contributor.  --Rocksanddirt (talk) 19:11, 1 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: *Re the firing squad analogy by Giano, isn't it the condemned that is supposed to be wearing the blindfold? LessHeard vanU (talk) 19:15, 1 February 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Peace please everyone

message: ...to Wikipedia talk:Requests for arbitration/IRC/Tavern.  Please continue the lounge discussion there.  Door prizes! DurovaCharge! 23:56, 1 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Any comment I make on this page hastens my inevitable demise! El_C 04:50, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

text: Hang on. The starts of those threads should be kept here. It was only later that the "tavern banter" started. I've restored them below. Carcharoth (talk) 09:16, 2 February 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Moved two threads 

message: I think it is clear that the ordinary editor is not able to become "informed" as these "people" merely experience the consequences of the "people" (I guess) you are talking about, Doc. Maybe the levels of "people", since an impenetrable hierarchy appears to exist, needs to become explicit. Having mucked around at the lower levels for nearly two years now, in the dark most of the time, I find the pretense of the "Wikipedia" ideals offensive, at this point. I would prefer less pretense and a clearer explanation of what actually goes on here. Because I like to write I have stayed and kept trying but it has been a very ugly experience. It is very hard to try to write and edit articles well in the atmosphere that exists here where most of us are left hanging out to dry without support, while Admin and ArbCon energy goes into the favored few.  Mattisse 22:53, 1 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm afraid your comments are too enigmatic for me. What do you mean? And what is the evidence? Sometimes if you can manage in the dark, it is better to stay there. I'm trying to be a content editor now and stuff most of the rest, but vague generalisations and assuming far too much from one or two experiences is precisely the problem here.--Docg 23:00, 1 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I am too far down on the totem pole for you to relate to my experiences. I realize I am out of my league even commenting here. As far as vague generalizations, I am sure you do not want to hear the specifics -- especially in the cozy bar room atmosphere of drinking provided above. Mattisse 23:11, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

text: In a large community cliques are inevitable. And since sub-areas of the community (and that goes for the FA process, DYK, DRV, and some wikiprojects as much as for "administration") will inevitably have smaller cores of committed regulars, friendships, group trust and mutual support are also inevitable and probably even desirable. The alternative is faceless bureaucracy. This will always leave some people feeling like outsiders - that's regrettable but also a fact of life. Sure, we need to encourage an inclusive attitude in all departments, but there's no possible way we can regulate it or "overcome" the problem - we just need to continually be alert to it and learn to negotiate it.--Docg 11:25, 2 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: And sometimes a faceless bureacracy is more responsive and easier to ask for something to be done. Go figure. Carcharoth (talk) 12:27, 2 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: People will seldom volunteer to work for faceless bureaucracies. Anyway, whatever your ideal, this is simply not something we could create at wikipedia. Not possible, short of removing personality chips from all wikipedians, and banning friendship.--Docg 13:01, 2 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: *Support: I don't like e-personalities.  Geogre (talk) 14:39, 2 February 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  People 

message: In case anyone missed it, two of the parties to this case (Doc glasgow and Geogre) were involved in a recent edit war over at the MfD for WP:WEA. Firstly, Doc and Geogre (and others), do try and talk on the talk page for that page about what should be done there, rather than sniping at each other in edit summaries while reverting each other. Secondly, before anyone reacts with shock and horror and rushes to put remedies on this arbitration case, or to change their votes, ask yourself what harm was done. Then ask yourself what harm was done in the edit war at WP:WEA. Then ask yourself what the real underlying issues are. Then try and solve them, or admit that arbcom can't solve the underlying issues. Carcharoth (talk) 03:05, 3 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Not quite. I am not a party, last I looked. And all I did was remove an unfortunate remark of Geogre's where he referred to another user as a "newbie quisling" "arrogant" and "parasite". Geogre and I did not edit war, since he has not tried to reinstate it. A couple of IPs did, probably not understanding what quisling is, and why it is so very offensive. The remarks were simply a over-the-top example of the aggressive and overstated polemical rhetoric that we've seen so often. I removed the attack and, very cautiously, asked Geogre to tone it down . I've tried to walk the de-escalation walk here.--Docg 03:31, 3 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Hang on, Doc.  Those aren't all insults or applied to the particular childe.  "Arrogant" was of his lecture to me to stop worrying about important things like WEA and go back to work writing articles (and tugging my forelock), and I characterized his argument by saying that we who work on articles are all parasites on Rambot's work (i.e. to him, Rambot is a prized author, and the rest of us are simply poor analogs).  As for his being a newbie quisling, I pretty much stand by that as a good, old fashioned insult for someone who shows up recently and does whatever he thinks is going to ingratiate him to the voices of "power."  It's strong, and it's mean, and it's an answer to something that was arrogant, dismissive, and insulting to every single Wikipedian with either experience or an alternate point of view.  Geogre (talk) 12:52, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

text: Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/IRC#Involved parties. As far as I'm aware, unless the arbitrators specifically pass a finding of fact about who the real parties are to a case (and they should do that more often, though maybe only at the end of a case), then the parties are as listed there. Personally, I think you were involved enough in the 23 December edit war to be involved as a party here. The IP editing was, shall we say, interesting. I did say above that you two should have been using the talk page to discuss things, rather than edit summaries, but I missed the rather sensible thread on Geogre's talk page - which makes my point that as long as people start talking afterwards, a little edit war doesn't matter too much. It is when people stop talking, and continue to edit war, that things are going wrong. Carcharoth (talk) 03:47, 3 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I repeat, I have only once reverted Geogre, and he has at no time reverted me. In the current climate, I would certainly not have done so, since I would suspect it would have been incredibly harmful. Had Geogre replaced the comments, I would not have reverted him. I, for one, and committed to a policy of de-escalation. To describe this as an edit war between us is silly. And whatever the title says, I have never considered myself a party --Docg 03:55, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

text: (ec) For the record, the above references to "edit warring" are my personal opinion. It is possible that there was technically no edit warring. Doc has said he objects to me calling it edit warring, and I'm happy to rephrase it as something like "reverting". There has definitely been reverting going on. The use of edit summaries by the IP addresses leaves me cold - do you really think  that the rapid response and use of edit summaries like that means anything other than a logged-out user gaming 3RR? Carcharoth (talk) 04:03, 3 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Just a quick comment here. Following an e-mail communication, it seems that the IP editing was probably others (without accounts) following the case. I apologise to both Geogre and Doc and any others with accounts for implying otherwise. Carcharoth (talk) 12:14, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

text: Unfortunately, I don't think that will solve anything much. Unless the users concerned change their ways, it will simply delay the inevitable. I'd love to be wrong, though.--Docg 05:03, 3 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: And unless the culture changes, then banning certain editors will just result in other editors replacing them, or eventually developing the same behaviour. Nature abhors a vacuum. See my quote of Birgitte's comment. Carcharoth (talk) 05:09, 3 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: If you want hypocrisy, Doc, simply look at this reaction to a properly chosen insult and compare it to Tony's telling someone to quit the channel and then being allowed to say that he was the victim.  I stand by, incidentally, my characterization of the public persona of that user at that time.  He was a new user who was saying whatever seemed most pleasing to whomever he saw as being the side of "power."  In my view, that was, indeed, quisling behavior.  Is it quite strong?  Yes.  So are my feelings about those who want to speak for factions so as to give themselves height.  There is little as annoying as someone showing up fresh off the boat and telling you that the People Who Count Think X.  It's either quisling or the utmost in anti-democratic sentiment coupled with a profound disrespect for others.  My term is actually the less inflammatory.  Geogre (talk) 20:18, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

text: If you want to shout and scream at people Doc, do so at the Arbcom. It is a great pity  no one saw the origins of this case as "righteous indignation at a "bitch" remark" at the time. Instead, the Arbcom, with wanton stupidity, suddenly seeing  an opportunity for spiteful revenge, opened a whole nasty can of worms, and now they want to put the lid back on it while saving their own faces. Even if that means losing some of the projects best writing-editors.  I don't think the Arbcom are going to be able to put the lid back on. They have lost huge respect. So, I'm afraid its going to take a lot more than the "humility" of Tony Sidaway to restore that respect and make many of us shut up.  We want IRC addressed and addressed now - nothing more - nothing less! Giano (talk) 15:14, 3 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Giano, if you really think that the only problem in this case is IRC and that you and all who agree with you have been paragons of virtue, that is self-deception of the highest order.  Sam Korn (smoddy) 15:23, 3 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm afraid the Arbcom have and continue to refuse to face the true problem. It is easier to shout and try to silence those who point out the problem than face up that problem.  It seems now that only the Arbcom are failing to realise this. They should resign in shame. Giano (talk) 15:29, 3 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: So your contention is that you are blameless?  Sam Korn (smoddy) 15:44, 3 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I am guilty of showing Wikipedia exactlty what sort of Arbcom it has. Giano (talk) 15:47, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

text: That's fine with me, Joopercoopers, although I should think that my first response was a response to the insult in the !vote.  I.e. the "vote" was an insult to every one of us who edit Wikipedia.  The Greeks used to say that a person who insulted a person was simply an irritant, while someone who insulted the Greek people was a criminal.  In a sense, his statement that all of us who edit Wikipedia are the distasteful "mob" is far worse than any blue tongued tirade anyone could have come up with.  Geogre (talk) 20:18, 3 February 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  For the record - another edit war (the case in microcosm) 

message: *I'd like to request that an arbitrator or clerk close this section please. It's devolved into nothing more than a rather long argument with only tangental bearing on this case. Perhaps we can consider discussion at RfC instead, that way the greater community can give its input, rather than only those interested in this case? ~Kylu (u|t)  00:13, 6 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Agreed and archived. Thatcher 06:50, 6 February 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Threats/jokes about [[lynching]], ad hominems, etc, on IRC 

message: I've missed something (I'm not following closely). If 7 votes is a majority why are FoF 6 and principles 9 and 12.1 passing? Where are FoF 1 and principle 16? DrKiernan (talk) 14:49, 4 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I've left a message on the Arbcom Clerk noticeboard about the misnumbering; given how active this page has been, it would have been very easy to make an error.  I am sure someone will be along shortly to fix it up.  Risker (talk) 15:12, 4 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, it does. Thanks to you both. DrKiernan (talk) 15:13, 4 February 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  I'm confused 

message: *E-mail this user:  The function makes a mockery of "privacy," since it's the #2 way that Arbitration leaks.  However, e-mail is preferrable to the IRC, because it has an interestingly clear provenance.  If you send me an e-mail saying, "Jerk," I own the e-mail.  I can send it along to anyone I want (I might think of other people who would benefit from it), including here.  As bad as it is, it is at least clear.  There is no "privacy" in it.  On the other hand, we have had people here treat the posting of logs (where 9 people are talking and 60 are logging silently) as the height of illegality, as worse than bad blocks.
*If we get rid of the one foot in, one foot out idiocy of IRC, where it is possible to conspire, we can work our way down to the one-on-one of e-mail.  For myself, I note that I can turn off "e-mail this user" in my preferences.  I cannot turn off "talk about Geogre on IRC," though.  I can use a bounce filter on my e-mail, and I have a generous Spam folder.
*Whenever this kind of thing happens, we're seeing a community that is no community.  We're seeing people under such stress that they're fracturing.  It's a clear sign that the path being followed now is not working.  Address IRC's malignity, and we'll probably see less e-mail flying.  Address arbitrators with vested interests who don't recuse, and we'll see less leaking.  (Hey, if we had ArbCom elections and not selections, that might even make ArbCom more in tune with the user base.)  On the list of priorities, "turn off e-mail" is a bit lower than the other abuses.  Geogre (talk) 21:27, 4 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: [1] I tend to think there are few real conspiracies, mostly people doing dumb things with insufficient reflection and insufficient input.Thatcher 21:49, 4 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Thats what I figured. My questions were more for pointing out holes than for requesting new information. Avruchtalk 22:19, 4 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Freenode have said they would recognize a new top level contact if the community agreed to a selection process and then selected someone other than James In case anyone is unclear of the scope we are dealling with here, I would point out that "community" here does equal en.WP.  JamesF is the top-level contact for wikimedia associated channels in all languages, so any sort of new selection process would presumably not involve en.WP exclusively.--BirgitteSB 22:36, 4 February 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Break

message: Has a discussion page ever reached 1MB of text? Carcharoth (talk) 16:41, 4 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Maybe. The Giano case workshop was split into 3 pages and most of the discussion happened there in lieu of the PD talk page. Thatcher 16:46, 4 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: It would be a good idea to chop this page into two or more pieces to improve usability and download speeds, and to reduce bandwidth consumption. Jehochman  Talk 16:52, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

text: Noting, of course, that records, in this sort of case, are a Bad Thing (tm). But the BDJ case had a workshop of 815KB, and the proposed decision talk page had two archives. In total, that talk was under 500KB. Here, the IRC workshop page (not the talk page) is 577KB. The Giano pages all seem to be rather small in comparison to these two cases. Carcharoth (talk) 17:33, 4 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I comletely agree, it has all become tiresome and tedious in the extreme. Rather like waiting for death. Archive most of it, I cannot imagine anyone reads it. Giano (talk) 20:46, 4 February 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  580 KB and counting... 

message: Please see Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Wikipedia:wikipedia-en-admins (3rd nomination). The discussion was closed as redirect to WP:IRC, plus directing the opening of an RfC to discuss the other issues. See the full decision by Ryan for details. Obviously this won't completely solve any problems (and may solve none), but it is a slow step along the route to reform if the community thinks reform is needed, and such reform (in concert with the promised ArbCom discussions on dispute resolution and matters of authority regarding IRC issues) may help to avoid editor conduct issues in the future. Whether the Arbitration Committee want to note the redirection of the page where the edit war took place, or otherwise comment on this, is, of course, up to them. Carcharoth (talk) 01:48, 5 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: An RFC has been launched too - see Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Wikipedia:IRC channels‎. Regards --Joopercoopers (talk) 09:58, 5 February 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  WP:WEA redirected 

message: Right now there are only two findings of fact that are passing. George's and Giano's. Can an arbitrator please respond to some fairly straightforward questions:
* Is it their contention then that these two editors are more "provocative and disruptive" than anyone else involved?
* Since there are no remedies that reflect these findings, what exactly are they in aid of?
Both of the findings that are passing refer to the "timeline" evidence, but bainer's (thebainer's? the thebainer's's??) commentary there implicates both David Gerardanalysis and Ryulonganalysis considerably more than Geogre's does.
It might be sensible to clear out all the findings that fail (hello clerks!) so as to throw into stark relief the absurdity here.  152.91.9.144 (talk) 07:09, 5 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: In fact, the David Gerard and Tony Sidaway findings are close to passing. They both need one more vote. If those passed, that would bring a nice balance to the case, in my opinion. I too agree that Ryulong technically breached 3RR, but I think the caution to all parties should cover that, though I still would like the committee to state what they mean by "all parties" here. Does that really include the bainer and some others that were peripherally involved? Also, the "what is passing" bit is rather out-of-date now. If the two FoF that I point out above pass, I think that would be ideal. Unfortunately, I have a sinking feeling that the Giano "civility" remedy (the one most likely to fuel ongoing drama and baiting)  is close to passing. Any bets that there will be a last-minute switch of votes there to ensure that this passes? :-( Carcharoth (talk) 08:54, 5 February 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/IRC/Proposed_decision#Geogre 

message: I realize it's very late in the case, but I put up something new on the workshop and since traffic there is dead, I'm posting a notice here.
Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/IRC/Workshop#Giano banned from arbitration
I really think this would solve any substantial "problem behavior" on his part, as the worse there's been has been during the course of arbitration.  The Blip (talk) 09:47, 5 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: You gotta love cowardly sock-puppets.--Docg 10:01, 5 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Per a CU check run at the request of Giano, it is my judgment that it is highly likely this is a sock of a currently indef blocked user , (now tagged as such) and I personally don't think we need contributions from it here. I leave it to clerks to decide what to do with this section. ++Lar: t/c 11:58, 5 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Thank you Lar. Giano (talk) 12:08, 5 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I removed it. Giano, let me know if you see any other post by him and I remove them. FloNight♥♥♥ 12:11, 5 February 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  New remedy at workshop 

message: Since the one-year remedy 2.2 Civility: Giano is now passing, can someone clarify the following, please:
*(1) Does any closure of the case have to be postponed until voting on the enforcement ruling is complete?
*(2) As the notes about what is and is not passing are out of date, do the arbitrators who previously voted close have to be informed in case they wish to change their vote?
*(3) What is the normal procedure when voting on closing has started and additional remedies and findings of fact and principles start to pass after the motion to close has opened? Are there checks and balances in place to prevent single arbitrators, or groups of arbitrators chosing the right moment to vote a proposed section through and then vote to close? "24 hours from the first motion" doesn't seem to apply here. Is it also a convention to wait for all voting arbitrators to vote in the closing motion, or can a closing motion pass before all arbitrators have had a chance to vote?
Currently, the 'passing' section says: Principle 1, 2, 3.2, 4, 5, 6, 9, 12.1, 15, and 17; FoF 4, 6; Remedy 6. I think we can now add to those FoF 13, and Remedy 2.2 and 13. Carcharoth (talk) 16:38, 7 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I'd like to see the wording changed a bit (though it's certainly very late in the game)...I'd like to have Arbs perform blocks that fall under this remedy (remedy 2.2 Civility: Giano). Letting any admin who happens along enforce this is an invitation to drama, and avoiding drama is not something we've perfected yet...to put it lightly. I'd rather have proposed enforcement listed at Arbitration enforcement for Arbcoms attention. I'd like to see the prospects of further controversy reduced as much as possible and this seems like a easy way to help with that. A year is a long time... RxS (talk) 17:35, 7 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: This is a sensible proposal. Which makes the claim by Sam Blacketer look rather strange: the claim that "It is clear that [...] no more appropriate remedies will emerge" - I can only presume that the arbitrators carefully discussed, on their mailing list, at least some of the other suggestions made in the workshop and on this page? There are many proposals, and even slight changes, that are clearly an improvement, both there and here. Carcharoth (talk) 17:47, 7 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: It appears that any change to the wording of that remedy to make clear how blocks are to be performed would be unnecessary  Yomanganitalk 17:51, 7 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: And that seems the only dignified thing to do. I get the impression that this, despite appearances, is actually Giano 1-0 ArbCom. A classic own-goal. I'm going to go back to editing for a few months now, with a tinge of sadness, but not forgetting any of this. I don't expect matters will end here. Carcharoth (talk) 17:56, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

text: People's minds change, like I said a year is a long time...and I hope he returns. I think this wording change is important enough to take into account changing circumstances. Do any of the Arbs have any thoughts on this? RxS (talk) 18:03, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

text: Well, I just find the whole thing odd.  Any editor can be blocked for incivility, personal attacks or assumptions of bad faith - it happens probably 50 times a day. And without the enforcement passing, (it's still not passing, though that could change), that means...umm...Giano can be treated like any other editor when it comes to incivility, personal attacks or assumptions of bad faith.  Of course, given his block log and the fact that most of the blocks against him have been regularly overturned because their basis is highly debatable, Giano may have a point about Arbcom painting a target on him. I tend to agree with RxS that any enforcement should be carried out by Arbcom as a committee. As Giano correctly points out, the community has agreed with him once again and decided the WP:WEA page did not need to exist. Funny how that works.  Risker (talk) 19:37, 7 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text:  Apparently Proposed Remedy 2.2 in this case relates to Finding 7 and Remedy 8 in the Durova arbitration, which closed less then four weeks prior to the events involved here.  There is also relevant material in the Evidence page of this case.  It is normal practice for editors wishing to delete a page to nominate it for deletion. --Tony Sidaway 20:18, 7 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Tony, perhaps it would be better if the arbitrators clarified their meaning.  As a group, they have been remarkably opaque in their meaning (with some specific exceptions), so I think the ball is in their court. Without referring to the prior case, something they most certainly could have done at any point, it's anyone's guess what they're thinking. Risker (talk) 20:24, 7 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text:  In Proposed finding 4 in this case, currently set to pass 9/1, the committee refers to its formal reminder in the Durova case.  No guesswork is necessary. --Tony Sidaway 20:30, 7 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: To Carcharoth, lots of proposals have been made for remedies in this case, many of which I favour, but I'm referring to the chances of them actually being approved by the committee once they get on the proposed decision page. More generally, I may be mistaken about this, but it is not my impression that arbitrators frequent arbitration enforcement. We tend to be far more busy with active cases and with mailing list work, whereas arbitration enforcement is for any uninvolved administrator. Given the history of administrator actions involving Giano, it may well be worth proposing that enforcement be left to arbitrators, but let us hope that is a bridge we need never cross. Sam Blacketer (talk) 20:37, 7 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I've added a proposal to the workshop  I know it's pretty late in the game, but I think it could help avoid needless drama over the next year. I think we all hope it's a bridge we won't need to cross, but just in case let's try and reduce prospects of further controversy in whatever way we can. I know you guys don't watch that page as much as some, but enforcement in this case is unlikely to be an emergency needing prompt action and will probably be high profile enough for you not to need to watch the arbitration enforcement page. I don't know if there's enough time or will to add something like this but I think it's a good (and smart) idea.  RxS (talk) 22:23, 7 February 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Update and request for clarification 

message: Ptui (it means "to spit" - though if someone could find a concrete reference for that, I'd be grateful, as it should be documented somewhere on Wikipedia or Wiktionary). Civil or not? Discuss. :-) This will be good practice for the enforcement of remedy 2.2... I wonder if it will help to find similar examples of personal attacks and bad faith and discuss those? Carcharoth (talk) 17:04, 7 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I STRONGLY think that administrators are not the politeness police. It is not administrators job to monitor other users for incivility and warn or block them. Occasionally being uncivil is part of the human condition. Administrators need to become involved if the comments are truly a problem. For example, we are tolerant of parties making uncivil comments during a case up to a limit. They need to blow off steam. But if they go too far and are stopping other users from being able to participate in the discussion, they will be warned by the clerks or arbitrators. Once an user has a civility remedy the situation changes. Admins are going to warn and block faster because the user has been identified someone that has interfered with productive discussion by their comments. FloNight♥♥♥ 18:53, 7 February 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Ptui 

message: I quote FloNight  from above: "If an arbitrator votes to abstain, then the number of arbitrators need for a majority is reduced." . The finding of fact about David Gerard has two abstaining Arbs at the moment (Newyorkbrad and Sam Blacketer), which reduces the number of arbs voting there to 10, meaning that the six current support votes are a majority. Is this correct, and if so, can the page be updates accordingly please?
:Edit: I just realized that the same is true for the FoF about Tony Sidaway, with one abstaining Arb. --Reinoutr (talk) 22:38, 7 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: This case has so many proposals that we are going to need to double-check everything. With Sam's vote it appears to change it but we need to make sure it was an abstain not an misplaced oppose...that happens. Tony's does not have any abstains, only an oppose, I think. FloNight♥♥♥ 22:49, 7 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I may have to rethink that one. May I say it's no fun being a marginal constituency on your own. Sam Blacketer (talk) 22:51, 7 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I was mistaken about Tony, and struck it. But even if Sam changes from abstain to oppose, 6 is a majority with 11 voting arbs and 1 abstaining (Newyorkbrad). --Reinoutr (talk) 23:04, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

text: *Point Reinoutr to WP:Arbcom Clerk Applications; clearheaded individuals interested in process are always a valuable resource. LessHeard vanU (talk) 22:53, 7 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text:  It's uncontested as a fact.  The sole opposition vote is on the principle, espoused by one arbitrator, that "there comes a point when the inclusion of unrelated problems shifts from a holistic assessment to an ex post facto attempt to justify findings which would not otherwise stand up."  As part of the essential healing process I accept that finding of fact, and declare that I have a duty to change my ways in order to enable the community to mend. --Tony Sidaway 22:55, 7 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I appreciate your honesty and helpfulness on the point. If the other arbitrators consent to remove 'a former administrator' from the finding I would shift to abstain. Sam Blacketer (talk) 22:59, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

text: *The civility restriction passing without the corresponding enforcement passing is the worst possible combination, as a central focus of this dispute has been over Giano's previous behavior. Saying "that's not nice" without an enforcement mechanism only encourages more of the same behavior. I don't want to see Giano exit the project, but there is a need for a binding way to change his behavior, one which cannot be overridden by capricious unblocking. He has already gotten away with behavior that has been a blockable offense for lesser contributors; without a definitive statement that it will not be tolerated any longer, he is free to continue disrupting the project over something that is not a genuine problem. Getting rid of the Admin channel will not eliminate the IRC channel, but it will likely make the process less transparent, as a "private" channel elsewhere will likely be created, and it might very well exclude those who have been his most ardent supporters. A non-sanctioned channel might tell Geogre and Irpen that they may not participate, and they would have no recourse; under the current rules, there is not reason to block them from the "official" admin IRC channel, which allows Giano's supporters to monitor the discussions within. Horologium (talk) 00:21, 8 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: You're slightly behind, Horologium.  Unless NYBrad changes his vote, his abstention from the enforcement provision means that it passes.  Moot point anyway, as Giano seems to have left the building.  Risker (talk) 00:24, 8 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I can only base my comments on the previous statement by Thatcher, which states that the enforcement provision does not pass. If the enforcement passes, so much the better, although I am a bit saddened to see Giano throw in the towel. His contributions will be missed. Horologium (talk) 00:29, 8 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, at the present the enforcement now passes.  An additional vote came in after I made that comment, I believe. Thatcher 02:23, 8 February 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  So the FoF about David Gerard passes? 

message: I said on the second day of the workshop of this case that I thought the Committee would have to be "very creative in seeking an appropriate and equitable set of remedies."   Hardly an audacious prediction in the circumstances.  It has proven a difficult case, and there have been moments when some of us had to "get out and push", as it were, by making concessions.  I think the case has come together well over the past few days and now the end is in sight.  I believe cooperation is essential for the health of the community.  To help paper over the cracks I've accepted FloNight's suggestion that she draw up an enforceable remedy concerning me as an alternative to one that looks likely to fail in this case.  That's both creative and sensible.  The proximate cause of the arbitration case was an edit war that would not have started without my thoughtless choice of words.  Part of this case has concerned widespread perceptions that some parties are privileged in some way.  Those perceptions, which I believe to be false, can only be defused by painstaking work in the months going forwards, but this case makes a good start. --Tony Sidaway 00:12, 8 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Other arbitrators may want to add their endorsements, but I regard this as enforceable as of now. --Tony Sidaway 02:39, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

text: I think this is a community sanction, since it is not an official action of the arbitration committee.  I will list it at the community section of Wikipedia:Editing restrictions. Jehochman  Talk 02:44, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

text: I agree with tony that the perception of privileged parties is not reality, but there are absolutely some cliques, and some of the cliques present themselves from time to time as if they are special.  The challenge of what to do about irc and the admin channel specifically is still out there.  And resolution of what to do there will I think be equally as challenging as the personnel issues that were evaluated here.  --Rocksanddirt (talk) 03:56, 8 February 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: A difficult case

message: I think that some Wikipedians that are high profile are going to be discussed where Wikipedians gather. It defies commons sense to think that it is possible to stop discussions about them unless they are present. This includes both official places (like AN/I and other Wikipedia talk pages), semi-official places (like #admins and WpCyberstalking mailing list), and casual gather places (like gmail chat or Skype) that Wikipedians gather to discuss topics of interest. My 2 cents FloNight♥♥♥ 12:06, 9 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: The difference between the other examples and #admins is that the latter is quasi-public, so lots of people see it without there being a log for the person being discussed to look at. The other examples are either open or closed. It's this semi-open quality that has always been the chief problem with IRC. And we're not talking about people being discussed, Flo, but being attacked, high and low profile. SlimVirgin (talk)(contribs) 12:11, 9 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Closed lists of the like-minded are FAR more damaging as they don't just bruise egos, they can be used to get "back up" to support POV editing, and that has content implications. I'm more concerned by that. But again, there's not a lot we can do.--Docg 12:14, 9 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm not aware of any closed lists of the like-minded that are used to engage in POV editing, so if you have something in mind, you'll have to elaborate. And all closed lists are going to be far less damaging that the quasi-public trashing of people on IRC. SlimVirgin (talk)(contribs) 12:25, 9 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: We'll have to disagree on that. The IRC channel has the advantage of a wide access list that means the chances of stupidity being reigned in are far greater than in any closed-list (IRC or e-mail). I guess I'm more concerned with actions taken on the back of off-wiki decisions than name-calling. However, the only solution is for people present in a room, whichever room it is, to be quicker to speak out and ask people to moderate or change the topic. I'm going to work harder at being that (in all channels) and encourage others to do so too. Hey, I'll slip up, and I'll join in bitching at times, but others should trout slap me then. That's all I can do and, with respect, probably more useful than we dallying on this page. So, I'm going to unwatch now. We will disagree on much of this, but we can probably agree that there's little we can achieve here right now.--Docg 12:47, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

text: Flo (if I may be so bold), whatever other spaces where such discussions may place there is nowhere where there is such quasi or semi official recognition (including from the most high profile Wikipedian of them all), lack of record/accountability, and previous disinterest in rectifying failures or properly investigating complaints. The effect of having such a place even officially tolerated makes any abuse arising out of there have potential consequences far in excess than that which may emanate from a third party site. LessHeard vanU (talk) 14:46, 9 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: There are many IRC channels for Wikipedia and other Wikimedia projects that I use daily. There are many interanl mailing lists with limited access for Wikimedia projects also. Some people purposely do not use them for various reasons including lack of transparency and others use them extensively for exactly the same reason. I respect the opinions of both groups of people and we need to find a solution that satisfies both. On Monday, I plan to start a discussion about forming a working group to address Wikipedia-en IRC related issues. Hopefully, this group or something similar will help us move toward finding reasonable solution. Thanks for expressing your thoughts. FloNight♥♥♥ 15:04, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

text: ;-) FloNight♥♥♥ 17:45, 9 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I would be interested in participating, Flo.  I will also mention this on your talk page.  Risker (talk) 17:56, 9 February 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: High profile Wikipedians and high profile topics