Wikipedia talk:IRC/Personal views regarding IRC

message: In megabytes of the discussions of this thorny issue, no evidence has been yet given that there can possibly be any "admin-only" confidential matters that require the closed channel. ArbCom has recognized the host of problems the channel and some of its members were generating. ArbCom de-facto took steps to regulate the channel thus asserting its jurisdiction over the matter. 
ArbCom is asked to rule whether there exists the need for such a channel and, if not, shut it down, at least in its capacity as an official Wikipedia-related medium. --Irpen 01:40, 26 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Summary

message: This is not the case I was planning to launch when I talked about my planned ArbCom action recently. But I think the idea has been in the air for some time now. I will be brief since everything there is to it has been said and all sides that wanted to hear, have heard each other's arguments.
#ArbCom recognized that the channel has an evil side and has recently made a series of actions to alleviate them.
#Thereby ArbCom asserted its jurisdiction of the channel de-facto and the community accepted the ArbCom intercession, thus confirming the said jurisdiction.
#The matters whose confidentiality is really necessary are related to checkuser issues, some ArbCom issues and oversight issues. As such, there is a need for ArbCom and checkuser IRC or other private medium. No examples have been given for inherently confidential "Admin-only" issues to this day,
#while the very confidentiality of the "Admin-only" channel has been proven to be the reason of several abusive actions. 'The illusion of confidentiality created an illusion of impunity among certain regulars of the channel which resulted in severe offenses, gross incivility, violations of the WP:BLOCKing policies and other malaise.
#In view of this, ArbCom is asked to rule whether there is any justification to have the said channel associated with  Wikipedia or the Wikimedia foundation.
#The decision to shut down the channel, if rendered, would not in any way violate its members' freedom of speech. Nothing prevents the small group of people most closely associated with the channel from communicating in a private medium. Such a medium will, however, have no clout and no relation to Wikipedia.
#As a side note, certain recusals in this case are requested.
--Irpen 01:40, 26 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Statement by Irpen 

message: Oh god, I'm participating in an Arbcom case. I always said that if I was ever on Arbcom, my first act would be to ban everyone who voted for me, and my second act would be to issue lifetime bans to all participants in all disputes.
Anyway. My point about -en-admins is that, when we did our high-level implementation of WP:DENY last summer - rapidly deleting the categories, the templates, and related miscellany for certain notorious repeat vandals - that could not have been successfully planned in an open forum.
Also, sometimes it's good to be able to mention deleted articles in a place where you can be confident that other people will be able to read their content. DS 02:27, 26 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Statement by DragonflySixtyseven 

message: A channel for discussing admin matters, if existent, should exist the same way the channels for discussing admin stuff on-wiki is - visible to everyone.  Things requiring privacy don't need to be seen by admins who aren't involved anyway, and can be taken to pms and email.  Are admins an official decision-making body, or just people with extra too to implement decisions?  If the latter, there's no reason why everyone shouldn't be able to see their discussions.  
The whole issue hasn't affected me at all, but I think this would be a good idea anyway.  Miltopia 03:26, 26 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Statement by Miltopia

message: As a non-admin, I have not been involved in some of conflicts relating to this channel but as a community member, I do share concerns about the lack of transparency with this channel. In contrast to things like the Arbitrator Mailing list, I do not see a clear need for a "closed door forum" for admins to "vent" and discuss matters that could drastically affect the community. I suppose that a fundamental question in this matter is what exactly an "admin" is and does the responsibility that the community vest upon them require for them the ability to work in isolation and apart from community oversight. I think that question affects many aspects of Wikipedia and would encourage the arbitrators to accept this case and help clarify the matter. Agne 04:46, 26 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Statement by mostly uninvolved [[User:Agne27]]

message: If it's the closed nature of the channel that's causing problems, then I think opening it up is a much better solution than full-out removal of the channel. - Mgm|(talk) 12:57, 26 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Statement by MacGyverMagic

message: I can't help feeling that this case is being directed at the channel out of frustration because certain people are upset that a few specific "wrongdoers" haven't been punished enough for their actions. Since their efforts at getting those people lynched have failed, they have taken a different approach and now want to punish everyone who uses the channel. Instead of punishing a lot of innocent people who find the channel extremely useful for matters that aren't appropriate for the entire to community to hear and removing the important support system and sanity check that this channel is, they should be filing arbitration on the specific people they feel have wronged them. Were the channel closed, as someone has put it quite aptly, "the bad stuff attributed to [the channel] would happen in the private back channels instead, but the good stuff would no longer be possible..." This of course does not even take into account the fact that since this started, the channel has *vastly* improved. The remedies already in place are working, so requesting more (from a person who isn't even there to know they are working) is silliness. pschemp | talk 15:41, 26 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Statement by Pschemp

message: This is impractical almost nonsensical. 
::ArbCom is asked to rule whether there exists the need for such a channel and, if not, shut it down, at least in its capacity as an official Wikipedia-related medium. --Irpen 01:40, 26 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Comment by Drini 

message: I do not want to make a statement I try to avoid ArbCom but this issue forces me to stray from my normal behavior. I am a regular in -admin. Saying this that does not mean that I am a cabalist and I see the need for a admin/trusted user only channel. There have been times when a situation on wiki has happened and I have one idea to handle it. But I take it to -admin and discuss it there. Some times they agree other times they talk me out of making a very foolish mistake. The issue with access to the channel is that #wikipedia has fallen to the trolls and civil discussion on that channel is almost impossible along with the issue of wikiwatch.org having logbots in that channel recording everything and posting those to the web. That includes host mask of users that don't have a cloak. that can be very hazardous as most of the time that has a user's IP address in it. In regard to access of -admin I feel that if we can trust a user that they will not post the logs without asking and not to use what new admins who ask for advice against them. Such as Newadmin joins the channel and states that that user Foo has been incivil on page blah and that the new admin is thinking about blocking user foo for 24 hours because of that. while the rest of -admin doesnt see a blockable reason. and the channel convinces the new admin to just leave a note on the users talk page instead of blocking. I do not want user who will take that conversation and hold it against the new admin. As any place on wiki that could offend the user in question and make the admin look bad. Admins go to the channel to seek advice and assistance. If we can trust a user to not spread conversation that helps no one but uses -admins for a good faith place to discuss information I see no reason that a user in good standing and good faith should not be able to request access to the channel. I have seen -admins do A LOT OF HELP to me and other new admins but I do not think it has to be admin only. But I also do not want it turning into the the troll hole that  #wikipedia is a majority of the time. Betacommand (talk • contribs • Bot) 16:55, 26 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Statement by Betacommand

message: I see alot of partial and contradictory truths in this case. It is true that the 'admin channel' sometimes carries uncivil or improper discussion... and it is also true that people sometimes exaggerate this and/or launch equally uncivil and improper complaints about it on wiki. It is true that there is sometimes a need for admins to discuss matters privately... and true that any secret communication is inherently going to increase both suspicions of wrongdoing and the actual likelihood of such. It is true that this is more a matter for the community than ArbCom... but it is also true that the community has failed to resolve it (rather spectacularly). Et cetera. So, my suggestions: ArbCom should take the case and define standards for a 'Wikimedia administration' channel. ArbCom may or may not have jurisdiction over the existing channel, but it really doesn't matter... as they certainly have the authority to establish a 'new' channel... and if the design for such met with general approval the existing channel might just be 're-molded'. I think it would be possible to address the concerns raised by ALL sides by creating a moderated channel which everyone could read, but only specific ('voiced' in IRC parlance) users (presumably 'admins' from various Wikimedia projects) could write to, and having standards to take truly confidential matters to a private sub-channel (which is very easy to do). Thus, everyone could see the general discussion and verify that it was above-board, most people can't 'talk' so it keeps the channel from being spammed, and anything which truly needs to be kept private can be split out. People could even be temporarily given 'voice' to participate in discussions relevant to them. Yes, there would still be 'secret communication', but based on what I've seen I think the need for that is actually fairly rare... and IMO people are less likely to be suspicious if Jimbo comes onto the channel and says, 'I need to talk to some people about an OFFICE issue - meet me in <#PrivateChannelName> for a few minutes', than they are currently with everything on the channel being 'secret'. --CBD 21:28, 26 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: #wikipedia-en-functionaries currently displays a spectacular lack of interest. Perhaps it could be declared more official, but you then have to interest admins in going there - David Gerard 12:45, 29 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Largely irrelevant. That channel is 'invite only' just like en-admins. Essentially the same setup, just with a different group of people running the show. What I suggested above would be fundamentally different in nature. --CBD 14:35, 30 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Statement by CBDunkerson

message: I'd like to add here that I essentially left wikipedia for 6 months because  of an IRC abuse.  I'm still fundamentally alienated from the community and my level of activity even now is 2% of what it was prior to being a victim of an attack that was coordinated on IRC (I should mention I'm not an IRC user, and have probably instant messaged 20x in the last 15 years), so that while the problems started on IRC the damage was done on wiki.    
While arbcom has no authority to regulate IRC it most certainly has moral credibility on this issue and further can act to counter balance abuse which emerges from IRC.   I'd urge arbcom to take this case and try and set forth policy about what is or is not acceptable conduct on IRC.  If lobbying is unacceptable then it should be unacceptable on IRC.  If people are supposed to be voting independently then they should not be simply acting based on secret evidence on a secret forum.  jbolden1517Talk 20:46, 26 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I wouldn't know where on IRC it occurred.  Many of the people involved in the on wiki attacks were admins, and they are heavy IRC users.   My point was just testifying that there is a real issue regarding IRC (the broader case / policy), I have no knowledge one way or the other regarding this particular channel.  jbolden1517Talk 17:19, 29 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Statement by jbolden1517

message: When you say "IRC abuse", are you speaking of #admins or something completely different?  --Cyde Weys 21:27, 26 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I wouldn't know where on IRC it occurred.  Many of the people involved in the on wiki attacks were admins, and they are heavy IRC users.   My point was just testifying that there is a real issue regarding IRC (the broader case / policy), I have no knowledge one way or the other regarding this particular channel.  jbolden1517Talk 17:19, 29 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Clarification

message: Burning down a house where conspirators once met yields nothing but a burnt out house.  While I would like to see ArbCom clarify it's statement and position regarding their authority over the IRC channels (all of them bearing the Wikipedia name), the only claims I think are worthy of an arbitration case are the underlying complaints of conspiracy, improper admin behavior, and checkuser abuse.  I suggest that ArbCom deny this case, since I don't suspect the more vocal complainants are truly willing to pursue those issues.  They weren't in the previous arbitration involving these parties, and this new request doesn't convince me they are now.  --InkSplotch 22:42, 26 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Statement by InkSplotch

message: I have a limited experience with the #wikipedia-en-admins, my employer forbids to use IRC on my workplace, so the most I can do most of the time is to start the client at home and read the logs. In the mid-September then there was the crisis caused by Carnildo's RFA and the blocks of Giano and Ghirlandajo explained as the consensus reached on IRC I decided to see if I am missing something by ignoring this channel and participated (mostly passively) in this channel for a week, since then I logged there a couple times more. This is my impression based on a limited experience.
80% of the time the channel is a social venue (that IMHO is nothing wrong about), 15% of the time it is a productive place helping our project. Some of the project-related things are easy to reproduce via onwiki boards, mail lists and private chats. Some are more difficult. E.g. it is easy to ask on a close channels:"Hey, do you think XX is a General Tojo's sock?" and expect to receive an answer from an admin experienced with this troublemaker. To ask the same question onwiki maybe a grave personal attack if I am incorrect. And it is sort of silly to send this question to hundreds of maillist users.
Still I was surprised that in a relatively short time I was on the channel it was quite a few times used against the principles that we are all trying to install onwiki: we are not driving productive contributors out, on the contrary we are bending backwards to keep them in; we assume good faith; wiki is not a battleground; we keep private data and especially checkuser results private; we speak openly for ourselves, meatpuppetting and conspiring are discouraged, etc. At that week I was on I saw Kelly Martin discussing private details obtained via checkuser of an admin  (No, it was not Slim Virgin). I saw a sitting arbitrator (User:Dmcdevit) and a few highly respected admins discussing the way to get rid of a productive user (Irpen) via a "slow administrative process that looked like arbcom to them". I saw serious discussions that if only "we" could push through one of "ours" into bureaucrats the pesky RFA opposers would be irrelevant, I saw a significant collective work on a reply in WP:AN over the Giano's block presented as an independent review of an uninvolved admin. IMHO it is too much for a one week. I believe the channel foster a wrong culture that harms the project. There are many new admins there who a learning to believe that the way the #wikipedia-en-admins do it is the right way to do the admin job. There are users who believe that every admin measure directed at them is a result of an IRC conspiracy (I would believe too if I were in their shoes). Something should be done.
IMHO the best way would be to change the culture of the channel. There should be enough people willing to object to unwiki ideas and if necessary bring wrong actions into some wiki scrutiny. I would suggest to  accept to the channels a few trusted users who are vocal critics of the channel: e.g. Giano, Irpen or Baldwindrief. I believe they are contributed enough to believe that they would not leak the logs to WikiTruth or CPlot, but they would act if there is something improper doing on there and their perspective and experience might be quit beneficial for the channel. Additionally it might be useful to allow relevant logs of the channel to be used during the dispute resolution process if the logs are necessary.
Another way would be to close down the channel. It sure would be open under another name but at least all the participants would know that what they are doing is not necessary the best practice  recommended by the project. Alex Bakharev 01:45, 27 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Statement by [[User:Alex Bakharev|Alex Bakharev]]

message: The Committee faces a dilemma. On the one hand, they are obligated to examine highly related misconduct that exist both on-wiki and on-irc, but on the other, by their own admission, they are (at best) crippled in exercizing authority over the latter. Thus, such cases appear forever doomed to one-sided remedies. This problematic is fundamental to the open nature of the wiki (discretion with regards to sensitive matters notwithstanding), and the question is whether members of the Committee can muster the judicial imperative (and I would go so far as to say, the political will) to tackle such issues heads-on. Which is to say, be creative in finding solutions rather than remain in semi-statis on account of the constraints of jurisdictional proceduralism. The Committee has already offered one such creative remedy, although, quite possibly, a partial one as it is likely that there are not nearly enough Mackensens to keep watch over this particular channel. The question is whether the Committee can aim at a decision that can provide some sort of closure, both for the underlying issues as well as the particulars in this case. My problem with the rational behind Fred and other members' reasons for declining is that, by defering to the community, we are effectively left with endless debate with increasingly greater chances of it becoming circular, eliptical, repeticious, and ultimately,  unresolvable. I strongly urge members of the Committee to take this plunge into these unfamilliar waters, to be creative, thereby sparing the community much time& energy. El_C 00:17, 27 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: The Committee's dilemma, by ElC

message: The movement to shut down an IRC channel is a foundation issue (a group contact must have the channel shut down, rather than the arbitration committee). Therefore, it is my opinion that the decision to shut down this channel should be made by a foundation-level decision, or similar, rather than by the English Wikipedia's Arbitration Committee. In either case, I find it absolutely unacceptable that the English Wikipedia Arbitration Committee sees fit to regulate my off-wiki communications. I am an individual, and you will respect my right to privacy, and my right to undertake any communications that I like off-wiki. Wikipedia is not my life, and nor should it be. — Werdna talk 06:01, 27 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Lack of Jurisdiction (Werdna) 

message: I think that, in the cases of personal attacks and incivility off-wiki, people need to exercise whatever resolution mechanisms exist on that area (in this case, speak to group contacts), rather than hiding behind the English Wikipedia's arbitration committee, which is here to regulate the affairs of English Wikipedia, and only the affairs of English Wikipedia. — Werdna talk 07:59, 27 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Addendum

message: I urge the committee to reject the instant case for the reasons presented most cogently above by Tony Sidaway and badlydrawnjeff.  There is simply no jurisdiction here and no specific cases of on-wiki abuse stemming from the channel have been identified.  A case dealing with those specific claims might be a good idea (or it might not), but trying to turn this case into that one certainly is not.  The ArbCom is being asked to rule on the propriety of off-wiki communications and direct the foundation to take certain steps.  It should decline.  Eluchil404 07:54, 27 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Statement by Eluchil404

message: Well, here it is. My first post on an RFAR ever. Someone bronze this comment, eh? Anyways, as a person who has dealt with content disputes, I have applied the philosophy that you have to get away from pointing fingers and instead deal with the issue at hand. However, I'm willing to go in the opposite direction for this: people have to remember that access to #wikipedia-en-admins is a privilege. People who abuse the privilege simply can lose it. But it's not as simple as that – there is also miscommunication problems, misunderstanding, and let's not forget the perennial accusations of cabalism.
I think, instead of being harsh and bringing out the big guns, we should be understanding of each other and open to discussion. We need to be able to convince each other that we're good people, because that's what we all are. #wikipedia-en-admins indeed has the ability to be useful, especially for coordinating administrative activities, but we, the people who have access to such an exclusive channel, ought to show the world we're a responsible bunch and not a clique of prats. —Signed, your friendly neighborhood MessedRocker 08:02, 27 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Statement by mostly un-involved Messedrocker

message: This makes no sense as a case.
#As far as Wikipedia goes, the channel is on Freenode, with Freenode dealing with the group contact, which for Wikimedia is James Forrester - the individual, not the arbitrator. #wikipedia-en-admins is quite simply not a part of en: Wikipedia, even though it is closely related. The ArbCom could try to force James to act in a certain way, but I predict that one Wikimedia project trying to bend another Wikimedia project to its will would be severely problematic in Foundation relations. The ArbCom should expect to hear a lot of people above it saying "Um, no."
#IRC has an "evil side" insofar as human communication does. One could just as well say WP:AN and WP:ANI have an "evil side" considering the continuing poisonous personal attacks there over the past several months, of which Irpen just happens to have been making quite a few (and I fully hope such will be in the purview of this case should the ArbCom accept it). The thing to do is to deal with the poisonous people. I must ask why Irpen does not name the persons whose behaviour he objects to, including something resembling solid evidence.
#When dealing with poisonous people, it helps to use something resembling solid evidence rather than hearsay. Some of the "evidence" circulating (and being spammed across email and the wiki) is edited second- and third-hand logs out of context. Admins are already avoiding the channel in case some idiot takes a line out of context and tries to use it against him.
#The channel is not a monolithic entity. If the AC somehow convinces the Wikimedia contact it's a good idea to shut it down, the alleged poisonous people will, if existing, go elsewhere.
#This is actually Giano round 19. If the ArbCom accepts the case, I would hope it will acknowledge that Giano is the elephant in the room, and deal comprehensively with his conduct on the wiki, particularly the recent series of quite breathtaking personal attacks by him, and the admins who consistently unblock him and enable and encourage his reprehensible conduct.
#This case is possibly stupider than the signatures RFC against Tony Sidaway. But that's just a sidenote.
- David Gerard 01:20, 28 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Statement by David Gerard

message: This, this, this, "cowardice", this, this,
this,
this, 
this.  Want more?
And don't you, Giano, or Irpen ever use the word "troll" in regard to me again.  That's for ArbCom to decide, not you.  --Ideogram 14:28, 28 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: IMHO the use of the word "troll" on Wikipedia, should be avoided. It is not well defined and not well understood, hence for the most part, it simply results in being used or understood as a generic insult like "asshole". Paul August ☎ 20:31, 29 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Here's a quote from my first ArbCom candidacy questions: I think "trollery" shouldn't be an issue for Arbcom; I'd just as soon see the term kept out of Arbcom discussions at all. It's not a helpful label. --jpgordon∇∆∇∆ 00:39, 30 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: "Trolling" and "troll" are different nouns.  A person's behavior can be "trolling" (related to "trawling") without anyone trying to prosecute or defend on the charge "Are you a troll."  When a person announces a judgment in advance and then asks questions that have already been answered, the result is far less the Socratic dialogue and much more the McCarthyist trolling.  I will not submit diffs to show Ideogram announcing his conclusions before his questions, as this is supposed to be about IRC.  Changing the subject again and again to oneself is, yet again, trawling for a fight or attention, and that is the verb "trolling."  Geogre 11:26, 30 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Geogre, "trollery" is a noun different from both of the above, perhaps you would like to argue with Jpgordon about the distinction?  Or maybe you should just drop your hairsplitting and attempt to discredit me on a page that you admit this does not belong on.  Oh yes, since you hate to repeat yourself, perhaps you would be willing to strike the portions of the above statement where you repeat yourself.  --Ideogram 13:53, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

text: P.S.:  Is "trolling" a noun or a verb?  Might I suggest a little quiet reflection before hitting the Save button next time?  --Ideogram 14:09, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

text: P.P.S.:  Since I hate to talk about myself, let's talk about Giano.  Is this trolling?  --Ideogram 14:15, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

text: Yes, Ideogram, that (your comment) is trolling, since this page is about views of IRC, and you want to yell about Giano, and me, and Bishonen, and Irpen.  Your theme seems to be, "This user is angry."  Our theme is "Arbitrators' views regarding IRC."  Geogre 01:49, 31 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Geogre, it's really a shame that you are accusing another editor of trolling.  You should know by now that saying such a thing is never productive.  --Cyde Weys 01:52, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

text: Cyde, please see noun and verb.  Ideogram, please see grammar and syntax.  These are importantly different concepts.  HTH HAND.  Geogre 12:18, 1 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Geogre, please try to say something relevant, "since this page is about views of IRC".  Thanks.  --Ideogram 19:45, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

text: How interesting.  If your theme is what you claim, you can cease to argue here about me, and in particular about the word "trolling".  As I stated before, any time and any where you choose to attack me, I will defend myself.  If you wish me to stop talking about it, all you have to do is stop attacking me.  --Ideogram 02:55, 31 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Bishonen wants diffs, by Ideogram

message: === Statement by Interiot ===
In the past, it hasn't been clear whether Wikipedia's WP:CIVIL or WP:AGF policies apply on IRC.  I believe they should be enforced even more strongly on IRC.  On-wiki, individuals being discussed have a chance to read the comments about them later, and can take steps on their own to address civility problems.  On IRC, the only people who can enforce CIVIL/AGF are those who are active in the channel at the time.  Therefore, on all IRC channels (not just #wikipedia-en-admins — most channels have a no-logging policy), active users should be strongly encouraged to take steps to keep discussion from going too far.  --Interiot 02:13, 30 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Other's view regarding IRC 

message: In the past, it hasn't been clear whether Wikipedia's WP:CIVIL or WP:AGF policies apply on IRC.  I believe they should be enforced even more strongly on IRC.  On-wiki, individuals being discussed have a chance to read the comments about them later, and can take steps on their own to address civility problems.  On IRC, the only people who can enforce CIVIL/AGF are those who are active in the channel at the time.  Therefore, on all IRC channels (not just #wikipedia-en-admins — most channels have a no-logging policy), active users should be strongly encouraged to take steps to keep discussion from going too far.  --Interiot 02:13, 30 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Statement by Interiot 

message: :While this is far from a settled matter, it is my view that our behavior standards can and should apply to members of the community regardless of whether they are communicating via Wikipedia (the web site) or some other means. They apply any time we speak in public and identify ourselves as Wikipedians. They apply to all of our dealings with each other where Wikipedia is part of the subject matter.
I'm just curious, how exactly is this supposed to work, and what exactly does it mean?  --Cyde Weys 22:58, 30 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: One goal of our behavioral standards is to create an environment in which people can collaborate. If a person's actions on an off-site forum make on-wiki collaboration impossible, then even without the ability to regulate the off-site forum, the Arbitration Committee can enforce remedies that would keep the conflicting parties separate on-wiki and minimize the friction between them. These might be article or process bans, bans on certain types of discussion (analogous to the Everyking-Snowspinner remedy), or complete bans in extreme cases. Unfortunately, we cannot completely stop editor A from engaging in personal attacks on editor B (ED is a good example of this reality) but we can make sure that editor B is not obliged to simultaneously work smilingly with editor A on Wikipedia. Christopher Parham (talk) 23:25, 30 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Question for UninvitedCompany 

message: Steve, you say the following:
:Freenode previously recognized Jdforrester as a group contact and gave him elevated chanop status for all #wikipedia-related channels. Jdforrester remains the highest-level chanop for #wikipedia-en-admins (and many other #wikipedia and WMF-related channels) by default even though he is no longer a group contact.
Since when is James not the Wikimedia Group Contact? I must have missed that memo. He is still listed on m:IRC Group Contacts as the Chair, too. - Mark 02:12, 31 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  A minor question for UninvitedCompany 

message: Words cannot express my admiration for this statement.  --Ideogram 02:50, 31 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Re: Statement by UninvitedCompany 

message: Bravo! Kosebamse 05:28, 31 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Minor comment on UninvitedCompany's statement 

message: One of the fundamental issues here is that the Internet is blurring the private and public spheres.  When I copy a music tape and give it to my friend, that is a private matter which the RIAA cannot control.  When I place an mp3 on a website and hundreds of people download it, what was formerly a private activity becomes more public, and a struggle for control arises.
When I tell a friend on the phone, "User X is an asshole", that is a private matter which no one can control.  When someone states on an IRC channel "User X is an asshole" and hundreds of people hear him, what was formerly a private activity becomes more public, and a struggle for control arises.
It is absolutely true that no one can enforce Wikiquette on a private conversation over the phone.  It is also true that no one can enforce a ban on logging of IRC channels.
One of the ways the Internet is changing our world is that everything is recorded.
I want you to think about that.
I came to the Internet in 1985.  One of the new things then was Usenet, perhaps you have heard of it.  Today you can access it via Google Groups.
The flamewars from those days were legendary.  We were all intoxicated by the ability to say whatever we wanted to an audience of strangers.  We thought we were protected by our anonymity.
We were not.
People lost their jobs over things they said on Usenet.  Even worse, every word that we thought was transitory, that we thought would disappear into the ether, has been recorded and can be searched today on Google Groups.
Today the same thing is happening on Wikipedia.  Even though everyone is warned that their words will be recorded for all eternity, they think they can get away with saying things they would never say in person.
And IRC will become like this as well.  Do not assume that IRC can obey they same laws of privacy that face to face conversation does.  IRC, like much of the Internet, exists in that gray area between the public and private spheres.
I hope all parties concerned will think carefully about these issues.
--Ideogram 05:51, 31 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Very well said.  I can think of some things that I said back in the late '90's when I was a highschooler on message boards.  Lo and behold, some of those most obscure posts I can find at web.archive.org.  This is human communication, and as such is flawed to start.  All channels aside, this is at the heart an interpersonal conflict involving less than a dozen parties at it is core.  I, for one, as a user of -admin do not appreciate being a periphery in such a dispute.  Teke (talk) 01:33, 1 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Some thoughts 

message: :Very well said.  I can think of some things that I said back in the late '90's when I was a highschooler on message boards.  Lo and behold, some of those most obscure posts I can find at web.archive.org.  This is human communication, and as such is flawed to start.  All channels aside, this is at the heart an interpersonal conflict involving less than a dozen parties at it is core.  I, for one, as a user of -admin do not appreciate being a periphery in such a dispute.  Teke (talk) 01:33, 1 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Supplemental comment with own thought by Teke

message: The Arbitrators' statements so far posted address the major problems with admins  IRC channel and offer some solutions that will hopefully be implemented. However, in addition to the problem of appalling incivility (even profanity) and personal attacks at the channel, extensively discussed in the Arbitrators opinions, there is another, perhaps, even more crucial problem for the functioning of Wikipedia that is originated from the channel: the malicious onwiki actions prepared or even staged and orchestrated at the channel behind the curtain of its secrecy.
The most damaging aspect of it are IRC-prepared or implemented blocks of the users. Needless to say how damaging those are to the community of the editors. Besides, the perceived by some secrecy of their activity at the channel allows to do, say and plot things one would just never do onwiki as one can be accountable by what was said at WP:ANI while some IRC members may think that at IRC anything goes as no one can be held accountable due to logs being kept secret (that such secrecy of the logs is an illusion is a separate question though). 
ArbCom has been made aware of several instances when specific blocks were prepared and discussed over the IRC or even of the discussions about how to "get rid from" certain users in the best possible way, be it by filling the block log with slurs or making it through an ArbCom itself ("slow and grinding process"). ArbCom can take the case in front of it now but limit its scope to the cases of IRC engineered onwiki actions that violated the letter and the spirit of the policies like WP:BLOCK, WP:CANVASS, meta:Privacy policy. I am not sure to which degree the latter is within the ArbCom purview but the other two certainly are as these are on-wiki issues purely of the users' behavior. ArbCom may request that such case needs to be submitted separately (do we need to protract this even more?). Or ArbCom can provide us with its view on such activity through the statements of the Arbitrators at this project page.
I, for one, care much more about content writing users being abusively blocked or planned to otherwise be "gotten rid of"  than of someone simply calling users offensive names in their absence. While the latter is simply improper in a civilized society, many of the channel's participants who were obviously tolerant to incivility as the rogue users were not called to order. However, the damage from someone somewhere calling their opponents names with the onlookers approvingly laughing or remaining silent is nothing compared to the damage of abusive blocks, discussions rigged through canvassing and users being baited and purposefully driven into blocks through a coordinated action orchestrated behind the curtains. 
This is the activity that is very much affecting the Wikipedia (web-site), it is a user behavioral issue and is certainly within the ArbCom's purview. I respectfully request Arbitrators to address the issue in their statements. --Irpen 07:00, 31 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I completely concur with Irpen, and have seen logs supporting his statement. Giano 07:20, 31 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: We are better off if one more crucial issue is addressed more prominently

message: :These are very serious charges.  I have not yet seen the evidence supporting them.  --Ideogram 07:15, 31 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Forgive me for being dense, but I have not actually seen a statement from any ArbCom members acknowledging the events you describe.  UninvitedCompany's statement clearly acknowledges that personal attacks occurred, but curiously does not mention any of the far more serious accusations you make.  I await enlightenment.  --Ideogram 07:30, 31 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Well as Irpen cannot post logs, and I at the moment am not minded to, I think this situation needs to to de-eccalate.  So you are just going to have to be patient. Giano 08:43, 31 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I can be patient.  --Ideogram 10:03, 31 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Evidence?

message: [edit conflict]
I'm ugly enough to know that appeals for peace in the middle of a bun fight usually just results in laughable derision. But here goes.......I think Uninvited suggestion warrants some serious discussion. Shall we change policy to allow off wiki violations of on-wiki policy be arbitrated by the committee? That's clearly an extensive debate that our energies might be better put towards rather than biting chunks out of each other here. Giano et.al and James F, cyde, kelly et.al are unlikely to be reconciled in this century, the calls for santions from both sides (and I'm hardly neutral here) are unlikely to result in any productive action because the issue is devisive to the community as a whole. I've read calls for peace before in situations like this and loved-up appeals for unity are nauseating to those users who are so pissed off about things, so this isn't an appeal to anyones better nature, it's pragmatic. The bigger picture is citizendium is now running its pilot. Wikipedia needs to improve it's quality or possibly flounder, this threat is behind Danny's challenge etc.etc. I'd rather be trying to sort that out than throw buns in here so lets have a truce. Accept we draw a line under the past (now acknowledged) improprieties and get on with it. Admins, please have some respect for you established writers (apologies heal many wounds). Writers lets avoid the wayward admins - with Arbcom authority extended in the way suggested, we gain more protection from 'rogue' action (and lets try and be civil).  [running for cover]. :-) --Mcginnly | Natter 01:56, 1 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: *I think you have a good idea.  I am quite prepared to bury the hatchet, I always have been, and forget outstanding questions such as this  so long as I'm left alone by the occupants of #Wikipedia en admin.  If I have an assurance that no #admin member will ever again bombard me with templates and blocks following "IRC discussions" etc I am happy to forget the past. So long as the "prvate discussions" do not concern me or any of my friends - I could not care less what they do there any more. Giano 08:44, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

text: I'm going to hold you to that, Giano.  In particular, I expect you to never mention or talk to Kelly Martin or Tony Sidaway again, either directly or indirectly.  --Ideogram 08:54, 1 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Do you know Ideogram? I sometimes wonder what you are doing on this page at all?  In fact sometimes you seem les than helpful. Perhaps if you allowed those concerned to deal with these things without your input, things would be sorted soomer and more easily. Now I suggets you but out and let people who know what they are doing sort it - OK? Giano 11:15, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

text: Nice example of burying the hatchet.   --Ideogram 11:20, 1 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Please stop baiting. I feel that now the problems of IRC#admins have had a very good public airing, people are now forming their owm opinions of that channel without further help from me.  So now is probably an opportune moment to calm things down a notch or two.  Unless I'm attacked by the occupants of #IRCadmin here or on IRC again, I will try to say no more on the subject.  Giano 12:22, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

text: Too bad you didn't think of that before deciding to attack me.  And after declaring you were ready to "bury the hatchet", even.  --Ideogram 19:50, 1 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Ideogram beleive me, If it were not for the Atlantic, I would indeed meet you and happily bury the hatchet.  As that happy event is unlikely to take place, just but out, and accept as far as I'm concerned peace has broken out. OK? Giano 21:38, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

text: You do not decide who gets to participate here.  --Ideogram 21:53, 1 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: You are quite right. Good Night! Giano 22:11, 1 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Bunfights

message: Since Geogre saw fit to attack me on the MfD proposal, which has now closed, I think it would be nice for me to have the chance to defend myself, since he is so vocal against "character assassination" and "prosecutions without the defendent (sic) present".
:You are "responding" with a "fight" here to something said to you? Didn't think so. So, why are you here? David Gerrard's (sic) citations didn't answer the question at all, as there were no personal attacks in them. In fact, they rather seriously indicted David's understanding of either "personal" or "attack." Now, please go on inserting comments randomly wherever they will do least good. Tell us how you feel about Giano again. In fact, you should feel free to do so everywhere. After all, there is some small chance that someone, somewhere, talking about something else, might want to know. Geogre 02:46, 2 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Was Doc talking to you?  Why was your comment relevant?  Why are you attacking David Gerard?  Are you unable to let people read the diffs and decide for themselves?  I rather enjoy your assertion that I have no right to respond to your "randomly inserted" comments.  Hmm, you did tell us how you felt about Irpen, Giano, and Bishonen's statements, an opinion that was not at all relevant to the topic being discussed.  Say, I don't suppose you have a prior relationship with Irpen, Giano, and Bishonen, do you?  Do you claim to be an objective judge?  And if you read very carefully, you'll note that I never mentioned my personal opinion of Giano in that comment anywhere.  I am content to let the facts speak for themselves.  Apparently you are not.  --Ideogram 09:34, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

text: I do not see what relevance this has to the discussion. Ideogram, if you want to discuss other users this is not the place for it, could you please have this conversation elsewhere? Catchpole 10:50, 2 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I have said what I needed to say.  Whether Geogre chooses to respond is up to him.  --Ideogram 10:53, 2 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Geogre's "fight" 

message: Are other arbitrators planning to post to this page?  The one that comes to mind for me is Raul654, who is one of the more active IRC users, though I'd certainly appreciate all arbitrators' opinions on the issue.  Ral315 (talk) 03:10, 2 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm trying to compose something. But I have been very busy elsewhere. And I am finding it slow going. As for other arbiters, if you feel strongly enough, you might want to express your desire more directly. Paul August ☎ 18:08, 2 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Other arbitrators 

message: Since I'm mentioned in Uninvited Company's report, I'll comment on that.
Somebody has raised my access level from 5 to 10 on #wikipedia-en-admins.  I've never asked for or used this access level (which is a chanop level) and seeing that it has been used as a pretext to attack the channel I have asked several times for it to to lowered to 5.  Uninvited Company has the access level to do this himself if he wants (I do not and I haven't had any luck in my requests for this to be done).
There is no problem with the channel that I am aware of; throughout the latest brouhaha it's continued to serve as a useful medium for facilitating day-to-day operation of the wiki.  There are certainly some moderately serious problems with the wiki that cannot be resolved from IRC, but if the arbitration committee isn't able to resolve them I don't think I'd have much success either. --Tony Sidaway 04:53, 3 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Dom fixed it for me.  So no more grounds for moaning, eh? :) --Tony Sidaway 05:17, 3 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: A very small number of comments on this