Wikipedia talk:Requests for arbitration/IRC/Proposed decision/Archive 2

message: California State University trustees will consider a revision to a section of the student conduct code Wednesday that includes an expectation that students be “civil.” The change would make it more clear that disciplinary action for “uncivil” conduct is not allowed. 
<P>
A Northern California court recently ruled the term is too broad. 
<P>
“The court told us we could not base discipline on civility . . . There is a certain lack of precision to that word,” said Christine Helwick, general counsel for CSU.  The policy affects students at 23 CSU campuses, including SDSU and Cal State San Marcos. 
<P>
That's not to say that students will be permitted to shove someone out of the way while rushing to class. Helwick said students can be disciplined for specific acts of incivility laid out in the conduct code, such as lewd or obscene behavior. 
<P>
Helwick said it was never the CSU's intention to discipline students for the more general charge of “incivility.” She said the revision will make it “abundantly clear.” 
<P>
“We thought it was clear before,” Helwick said. 
<P>
A federal district judge in Oakland didn't. At a November hearing, U.S. Magistrate Wayne Brazil said that a university can say it hopes students will be “civil,” but it can't hold a punishment over their heads if they're not. Brazil granted a preliminary injunction, barring the CSU from basing disciplinary proceedings on incivility. 
This case doesn't apply here because Wikipedia is not required to respect freedom of speech or freedom of expression, but it is an interesting ruling on the perils of trying to enforce civility. Uncle uncle uncle (talk) 01:54, 25 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: perils of trying to enforce civility

message: All dispute resolution pages are in projectspace, so a remedy banning him from projectspace essentially bans him from resolving disputes in the proper way. And since he'd presumably get in trouble for resolving them in an improper way, his only real option is not editing. An effective ban is no different than an actual ban. -Amarkov moo! 17:55, 25 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Or perhaps not engaging in disputes requiring that level of resolution?  English country houses and such are not exactly the most contentious of topic areas; Giano's presence in formal dispute resolution has largely been a consequence of his involving himself in other editors' disputes. Kirill 18:05, 25 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: The project space ban is a very bad idea.  If the Committee feels the need to ban Giano, they should send him away with his dignity intact, and then suffer the consequences.  Inviting Giano to edit without giving him any voice in the project, or chance at raising complaints, would be a dirty. Jehochman  Talk 18:09, 25 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: What remedy do you suggest that would stop the disruption that he causes in project space? Ryan Postlethwaite 18:12, 25 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: We recognize that Giano resorts to strident rhetoric.  That is his nature.   I have already suggested that the problem that needs fixing is that any block of Giano leads to major drama.  My proposal was that if Giano is blocked for violating Arbcom restrictions, he must not be unblocked except by appeal to the Committee or its appointed clerks.  Some tweaking of this idea, plus civility and possibly revert restrictions in project space would be better, I think.  As long as he is peaceful, he should be allowed to edit where he likes, and when he crosses the line, he should be stopped.  The same standards apply to all editors.  Jehochman  Talk 18:21, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

text: What remedy do you suggest that would stop the disruption that he causes in project space? I recommend dropping this case as a bad idea with no prospect of a useful solution, and wait until one of these people act up again. Then let the recently elected arbcom member with the near universal mandate use his wisely acclaimed neutrality skills to lead us to a useful solution. WAS 4.250 (talk) 18:37, 25 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: The problem here is that Giano has had plenty of warnings for other users, we really need remedies in this case, and ones that put an end to disruptive behaviour for good. Ryan Postlethwaite 18:39, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

text: (ec) Yes, that too would be a good idea.  At this point blocking or banning anybody for the IRC dispute would be punitive rather than preventative.  How do you ban somebody for 5 days, as has been proposed, when they did the misdeed 25 days ago?  That makes no sense. Jehochman  Talk 18:41, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

text: The trouble with that, Ryan, is that there is disagreement on how disruptive Giano's actions have been. I (and others) could make a very good case that Giano's actions have been less disruptive than some other actions that caused an immense amount of drama. What is seen by some people as disruption is seen as acceptable by other people. I'm sure we can all think of a few recent examples. Some people don't have their habitual swearing restrained. Some people do. Some people don't have their vigorous criticisms contested. Some people do. A record of poor blocking and rudeness to new editors could be said to be far more disruptive and harmful to the project than what Giano does, but we don't throw the baby out with the bathwater there. I agree with Jehochman - the problem is how people react to Giano's behaviour (and to the behaviour of others, such as Tony Sidaway). People talk about blocks of Giano not sticking. How about blocks of Tony? See here. The most recent one stuck, but the some of the other ones were undone for similar reasons to Giano's. Compare "User promised not to do anything destructive" (an unblock of Giano) to "has promised not to undelete these again - no remedy now neccessary" (an unblock of Tony). I suspect a lot of the problem could be resolved if ArbCom agreed to review any and all future blocks of Giano and Tony. It is the unblocking and feeling that nothing will "stick" that causes a lot of the tension, even if the block turns out to have been unjustified. It will look a lot better if an arbitration ruling says whether a block is justified or not. This may be a slippery slope towards a committee assessing blocks, but if it resolves this situation, that might be a price worth paying. Carcharoth (talk) 11:45, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

text:  I have always been of the opinion that a finding of fact is far more powerful than an ostensible remedy in concentrating the mind of the community on the problem.  Once the facts are made clear by the committee, the remedy becomes clear to the community. --Tony Sidaway 18:49, 25 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree. If the behaviour reoccurs, pointing to an ArbCom finding, even if no remedy was passed, is a very powerful way of focusing the discussion. Carcharoth (talk) 11:49, 26 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  How, exactly, would Giano engage in dispute resolution? 

message: A week ago or so, I tried to calm things down on this page. I don't appear to have succeeded. Commentary in the past week is a convoluted mixture of insightful commentary, rampant incivility, and understandable though often rather unhelpful frustration.
A few observations:
# There is more than one underlying cause for this case, including issues with the IRC channel overall (including but not limited to a lack of clarity about its status and David Gerard's role), an unfortunate exchange on IRC between two individuals, and a multi-editor edit war on a page. It strikes me that all commentators who are insisting only one of these 3 causes is the real one are not taking a broad enough view.
# There are many personality issues involved and a considerable amount of interpersonal history. A week ago, there were a few egregious civility lapses, but such that they could be ascribed to the heat of the moment and arguably best ignored. However, certain parties have continued a campaign of escalating incivility and baiting on these pages to the extent that I believe has become a far greater conduct issue than any one of the 3 causes I listed above. I think the eventual final Arbcom decision will have to firmly address this, not as a punitive measure but as a preventative one, lest such egregious rampant incivility during dispute resolution become commonplace in Wikipedia going forward. WP:RFAR is not a court of law, of course, but the principle that courts can quickly and decisively sanction parties for contempt of court is a meaningful one in this regard.
# Certain people are writing above about "loss of respect" for ArbCom, etc. I for one find my respect for Arbcom as a whole has increased. They are a group of people who clearly have differing viewpoints on this complicated case, but all evidence suggests they are doing an admirable job trying to arrive at a reasonable conclusion. That does not mean that I support the current state of the proposed decision - it is hopelessly incomplete, unfocused, and self-contradictory, and clearly needs to be significantly reworked if it is to have any impact. But I think we all know that, and that does not mean the Arbcom are doing a bad job in trying to get there. It also does not mean my respect for all individuals on the Arbcom has increased; in particular, a few have shown themselves to be quite partisan and far from nuanced in their approach. However, that is part of the reason we have 15, not 3.
# Two points on specific remedies: First, while there is merit in the critique that barring valuable contributors from project space discussions disenfranchises them from the project, if it is the only type of remedy that will decisively prevent the continuation of an increasing pattern of disruption, it ought to be explored. Second, while the choice of contributors to participate in Wikipedia using their real name is their own risk, and the ArbCom ought not influence a judicious decision based on this, the potential for damage from an ill-considered decision is clearly higher. One hopes the Arbcom will remain aware of this and make sure all findings and remedies are well-supported by fact and deliberation and not part of a rush compromise to appear even-handed.
# Finally, questions of gender bias have -- in my opinion -- been rather unfortunately drawn into the discussion. Some of the unfortunate insults thrown around reflected the gender of the insultee, but I see little to conclusively support a belief that gender played an important role in the discourse(?). The stridency of some (not all) of the claims in this regard seems suspiciously like a rhetorical device in the debate. Questions of whether the whole dispute would have proceeded differently had some of the parties been of the opposite gender are of course impossible to guess....
(Soapbox off, retreating into hibernation) Martinp (talk) 22:56, 25 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I really hope we have an early Spring. LessHeard vanU (talk) 12:21, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

text: We are indeed not a court of law, which can issue contempt citations. Unlike a court of law, however, Wikipedia is not an adversarial system, and editors are expected to contribute productively and collegially to the conversations in which they participate. No amount of dislike for the arbitration committee or possible remedies will justify, and no amount of other positive contribution will offset, the assumption of bad faith and lack of respect implicit in some of the comments I have seen on this page. This is not to say that pointed language and sharp criticism are out of bounds. Our community standards simply require that such criticism must be made with an assumption that all parties are working towards the same goal. — Carl (CBM · talk) 14:36, 26 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  One week later... 

message: Over on AN or ANI, I saw a proposal for "three strikes and you are out" with regards to admins. That shouldn't (and probably won't) gain traction, but it got me thinking about this case and the general cases of serial, long-term, "problem" users (putting that in inverted commas because it is not always clear whether the problem is with the user or the people complaining and seeing problems where none exist), who divide the community in this way. The basic idea is to lay down a set number of blocks (excluding test blocks and the like), after which a user's behaviour should be reviewed by the arbitration committee (or some subset thereof). Like the 3RR rule, this would be an electric fence, and would be triggered automatically. An arbitrary figure could be ten blocks, with provisions for blocks to be discounted after a set period of time (eg. two years). The idea is that once someone runs up against that electric fence, their overall long-term behaviour should be automatically examined, as opposed to just specific incidents. An arbitration request would be filed with the user and the blocking admins as named parties. The arbitration committee would then review the block log, decide (and say so) if any of the blocks were unjustified, and decide whether to accept the case or not. As always, the conduct of all parties would be examined, so the conduct of the blocking admins would be examined as well. The arbitration committee could then hand down a finding as to whether long-term chronic behaviour leading to blocking is present, and suggest appropriate remedies, either against the user or against the admins doing the blocking (and unblocking).
If this idea gains traction, it could go two possible ways, or it could be rejected as a bad idea:
*(1) The Arbitration Committee enthusiatically seize on the idea (unlikely, given their current workload).
*(2) The community starts up a process to note those who have chronic block log records and (where necessary - there will be exceptions) finds people willing to collect and present the evidence and file an arbitration case.
*(3) The idea is rejected as unhelpful, unworkable or just a bad idea.
I'm not quite sure how this would interact with the idea of community bans, but I will note here that there are cases where community ban discussions are covering ground that might be better handled in an arbitration case. In any case, some bright-line rules might help keep people in check even if they do get repeatedly blocked and unblocked. Carcharoth (talk) 18:12, 26 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Double three strikes, 3x3? Nine valid blocks over a career means one would probably be a problem, especially if the blocks are for different things. If they were just for one sort of behavior (3rr, incivility) then that would be probably a good candidate for a community enforced parole--your last chance to shape up. Lawrence § t/e 19:20, 26 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Nine lives of a cat? Could be a cat-chy title (sorry!). One reasoning behind this is that sometimes some of these arbcom cases, even though they erupt over a specific issue, are clearly in part driven by personal disputes and dislikes (not in everyone's case, but I would guess in some cases). See the "bad blood" principle. The trouble is that this makes for complex and divisive arbcom cases, especially as there is a reasonable desire to have the parties treated fairly in terms of remedies (see Thatcher's proposed decision, which seems to be languishing on the workshop page). ie. "You are blocking him for a month but only cautioning him!!" (wailing and gnashing of teeth). This could be avoided, or at least made manageable, if there were individual arbcom cases. eg. One for Giano, one for Tony, etc (but please, not for at least another year!). That way, the focus could be on one person at a time. A bit like the way a headmaster at a school might deal with a group of unruly pupils. Don't get them all in the headmaster's office at the same time, but bring them in one by one. In fact, it might not be a bad idea if (in the presence of a neutral observer) each party in intractable cases like this, had a private session with the arbcom - with hard questions asked and answered. At the end of that, the solutions might be obvious. Some people (from both sides) who are full of bravado on-wiki might be less so in private correspondence. This might, though, favour those who can think on their feet, so the option should be between real-time conversations (eg. IRC) or mailing list conversations, or even e-mail deliberations. Again, might be impossible to put into practice, but just another idea to throw out there and see if anyone will run with it. Carcharoth (talk) 19:48, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

text: I'm increasingly wary of the value of community bans. I'm not the sort of administrator that would unblock someone if the blocking administrator did not agree to it, so the "if no administrator will unblock" proviso is useless. Even if I wanted to unblock, I wouldn't, if that makes sense. I posted something to your talk page about this a few days ago. Would you have time to respond? Carcharoth (talk) 21:32, 26 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: In case that didn't make sense, I'm saying that I may see a user as productive (despite the issues that led to the community ban discussion), but if most of the community doesn't, it feels that community ban discussions are unjust. In effect, the community ban discussions force an unblocking admin to mentor, and that shouldn't be a requirement. It should be possible to unblock and let the unblocked user continue to edit after a few ground rules have been discussed. I can provide examples of community ban discussions that were manifestly unfair - the Gene Nygaard example I mentioned on your talk page, and the current one that exploded from the filing of that RfC (Whig and Abridged). I never really took part at CSN, but I don't find the AN process an adequate replacement, let alone the independent discussions and the indefinite blocks that creep under the radar because individual admins carry them out. Are the community ban discussions being logged anywhere? Are the block logs referring to the discussions (actual links, not vague wordings)? One idea I had was to have a daily list of indefinite blocks posted at AN for review and endorsement. But this is way off-topic now. Let's end here or move somewhere else. Any ideas where? Carcharoth (talk) 21:41, 26 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Long-term (chronic) block log records 

message: As I sit here watching Uninvited Company going through and doing elementary housekeeping on the Proposed decision page, I cannot help wondering what the Arbitration Committee's intent was in accepting this case.  On the surface, the case is about an edit war on an obscure page.  The fact that there were multiple administrators involved doesn't make it unusual - at least half the edit wars I've seen have involved one or more administrators. The fact that one or more administrators edited through protection, sadly, is not unusual either; I can think of at least 20 administrators I've seen doing that in the past 2+ years. The fact that the page itself is disputed also isn't unusual - there are countless equally as disputed pages throughout article and project space. In fact, the only thing that is unusual in this case is that Jimbo agreed with Bishonen, Geogre and Giano that there was a behavioural problem in the #admins IRC channel to the point that he tasked Arbcom with second level responsibility for monitoring and responding to it (okay, that is two unusual things). In fact, without that input from Jimbo, most of what happened subsequently would never have occurred - half the edit warring revolves around whether or not Arbcom has authority in the channel.  And yet, the stage was set by accepting this case to aggravate just about every interpersonal disagreement involving any and all of the parties going back months and years, whether or not it was relevant.  The wounds have not only gone unhealed, but are now inflamed and gangrenous. The case has brought no good whatsoever, and a great deal of injury and insult to both the parties and the arbitration committee members. The AC has found itself incapable of addressing the one serious question before it - how it will address the purported responsibility for #admins IRC - and so has left all of the parties dangling for a month with half-hearted proposals to punish them in various ways.  Indeed, one arbitrator has only voted to oppose four proposed remedies, and a second only edited the proposed decision to move that the case be dismissed. 
It is time to close this RFAR.  The damage already evident from this case is vastly greater than any resolution that can be achieved by continuing to pursue it, particularly as the committee seems unwilling to address the IRC issue. Sometimes, the wisest decision is to admit that there is no satisfactory solution.  I urge the committee to reconsider their votes on Paul August's motion and to  dismiss this case.  Risker (talk) 05:28, 28 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I've also followed this case from inception to this point, and I have to agree. Unlike other cases that are just as contentious but seem to be gradually concluding, this one is dragging on and on. The housekeeping is also a bit odd. Some sections are being removed because they "have only oppose votes", while other sections (three of the incivility remedies) are being left in, despite also having only oppose votes. This seems inconsistent. It is also the first time I've seen proposed decision page tidied up in this way. It gives a misleading impression to those reading the page later. Surely the place for the tidied up version is the final decision, as placed on the main page of the case after the case closes? Carcharoth (talk) 12:03, 28 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Misleading is hardly the word I would use! I'm afraid there has to be a conviction at all costs, or otherwise the Arbcom are going to look rather foolish! Giano (talk) 13:00, 28 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  One month later 

message: Is it presumed that the other editors that took place in the edit warring know that they shouldn't have done so and will not repeat their behaviour? Or should the arbitration committee include a blanket finding of fact on that? The "Locus of dispute" FoFs come closest to this, but seem to have been neglected (only two votes) while there was a rush to vote on the remedies. Carcharoth (talk) 12:12, 28 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Other editors 

message: If the committee are indeed stepping back and setting out the findings of fact more clearly, could they confirm this? There are also 35 proposed findings of fact and 37 proposed remedies on the Workshop page (and a packaged decision from Thatcher), in case there is a need for other ideas. Carcharoth (talk) 12:12, 28 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Future course of this case

message: The conduct of the arbitrators is not the subject of this case. --Tony Sidaway 21:22, 29 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: You do like to make discreet observations, don't you Tony? 24.181.203.35 (talk) 21:32, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

text: You shouldn't need to make an instance of incivility a matter for an arbcom - you just have to deal with it at the time at the pertinent venue... if allowed. LessHeard vanU (talk) 22:07, 29 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Exactly. I'm convinced now that the arbitration case was a mistake, and filed prematurely. One of the reasons for accepting was "gasp, terrible edit war!" - yet the other editors in that edit war have been lost in the noise, and the focus has been remorselessly on old grudges. The possible tag-teaming and inflaming of an edit war by other editors seems to have been dropped. The issue of WP:WEA could have been (and probably ultimately will be) decided at WP:MFD. Rejecting the arbitration case and letting the community decide what to do with WP:WEA might have been best. Carcharoth (talk) 22:18, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

text: *The point of this Arbcom case was to get me! Nothing more nothing less. But as usual #admins and the Arbs did not get their "clean kill"! Giano (talk) 22:39, 29 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text:  That may be, Giano, but please think of the people who have defended you and try not to make their work more difficult. Jehochman  Talk 22:45, 29 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: No point in defending a man whose already been sentenced, I have been saying this all along. Now where are those logs for "clean kill" I'm sure I have the buried away somewhere. Giano (talk) 22:47, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

text: For the first few weeks of this Australian Bush theatre I said nothing.  I listened, I watched, I wrote and I waited, and I waited and I waited. Gradually all I knew came to be proven, and continues to be so. Instead of lecturing me, go and lecture elsewhere. I have continually advised that this case should never have been brought, or should be abandoned. However, those that know best for reasons which are becoming extremely transparent want to see it through to the bitter end - so be it - who am I to argue? I merely write a few pages about the place, I'm told,  I'm undeserving of an opinion.  So  I suggest you take your questions elsewhere - to our "superiors". Drag them out the chatroom and ask them. Giano (talk) 23:08, 29 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: As I said on your talk page, you've made your point, as has Fred. No need to overdo it, Giano. Please calm down. Other people are quite capable of reading what Fred and others have said and coming to their own conclusions about you and Fred and others. Carcharoth (talk) 23:53, 29 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: A discreet observation

message: In case anyone missed it, Giano made a series of edits to the Proposed Decision page. Some of the reaction to this is above and elsewhere. I'm posting this in an attempt to forestall any outrage from those who may arrive late and see those edits. I (and others) posted to Giano's talk page, and Giano has said he has not edited the page for some time and is now going to bed. Please, rather than focus on what happened there, can everyone move on and concentrate on letting this case stabilise and eventually close? I was enjoying working on an article in the past few days, and regret returning to these pages. I suggest others consider doing other work rather than commenting here. Carcharoth (talk) 00:11, 30 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Strongly agreed!  I, for one, feel very strongly that... aw, crap.  Jouster  (whisper) 01:42, 30 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: It's my experience that problem users often exhibit the same problematic behavior during Arbitration, providing fresh evidence for the case. You'd think that participants would be on their best behavior during arbitration, and many are, but others find they can't resist doing whatever it was that led to the request. I think we've seen that more than once in this case.  ·:· Will Beback  ·:· 04:09, 30 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Forestalling reactions 

message: For the record, my promised post to David Gerard, asking him about the future of the WP:WEA page, can be seen here. Carcharoth (talk) 02:03, 30 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Future of WP:WEA page 

message: ...as a tangentially involved user, I'd like to summarise the state of affairs thusly: 
*insight into the actual incident under debate has not significantly progressed beyond this description: (...) the community had already resolved one aspect of the case itself. There was an edit war. It had stopped. Jimbo had come up with a way to address similar issues in the future. That was being discussed on the talk page of WP:WEA, although with less than full participation; however, it was Christmas so it's reasonable that some people who might have wished to express opinions were off having a real life. The topic had not yet been raised on AN or ANI or VP. Then someone decided to start an RFAR, without any form of dispute resolution or any on-wiki discussion with any of the editors involved. Then minutes later someone else blocked one of the parties named to the RFAR - which was accepted in landspeed record time. The community was never given a chance to resolve this situation itself.
*the arb com postpones the handling of central questions (responsibility for and conduct on the en.admin IRC channel)
*a poisonous atmosphere prevails, with highly esteemed writers retreating from the project or wasting their time with fights
May I respectfully suggest that:
*either the arb com or the community at large declare the case failed, the pages related to it being stowed away in some dusty corner
*the IRC-related questions be put on the agenda for the community as well as the committee
*an unambiguous conflict of interest policy be implemented, stating that arbiters who are party to a case will not accept undue privileges (such as access to arb com-only sources of information)
*those users whose conduct caused the underlying conflict submit honest apologies and voluntarily commit themselves to civility paroles as well as general decorum befitting their respective positions
*and finally, everyone involved step back from this snakepit here and return to living real life or improving the encyclopedia, at their convenience
Kosebamse (talk) 08:24, 30 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Five weeks later... 

message: To me it is now clear this project is not about writing or improving the encyclopedia. And it is clear that those who act as if it is are at a disadvantage. Wikipedia, once the underside is revealed, appears to be about raw power. The supposed ideals of Wikipedia have been repeated so often they are banal, yet they don't seem to be taken seriously by those in the privileged circle. It does not take a new editor long to realize that instructions given to new editors such as "Be bold"  are a recipe for getting into trouble. The implication to newbies that everyone is equal here is another falsehood leading to trouble. 
These current revelations of layers of inaccessibility, layers of power, layers of privilege are extremely disillusioning. I wonder if anyone reading this can ever edit again with enthusiasm or a clear mind without worrying about back door attacks. A strange world for an encyclopedia indeed, where it is those that contribute to the encyclopedia that are the ones who disproportionally get punished, while those in the category "Admins" (who spend all their time either making clear their power status or opining  endlessly on talk, AN/I etc. with nothing productive resulting -- even sometimes actual harm) are rewarded or at the least, allowed to side by when they break rules or engage in behavior for which they are perfectly willing to block mere editors.
I would hope that ArbCom work toward restoring some confidence in Wikipedia as a whole rather than focusing on the behavior of privileged editors on a hidden channel, the purpose of which eludes me, other than it does seem to be a refuge for sexism. I know for me, Wikipedia is not at all what I thought it was. Any vestige of idealism has been eroded. It is a big loss for me. Mattisse 15:14, 30 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree that it would be to everyone's benefit for the arbitrators to bring this case to closure. I am certain that they realize that themselves, however, and are working to make it happen. Thatcher has begun to ban people form the talk page for brief periods, which should help bring the conversation back to a reasonable tone. — Carl (CBM · talk) 14:38, 30 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Not about writing or improving the encyclopedia 

message: There seems to be substantial support for terminating this process.  May I nominate this case and all its pages for deletion?  The intended result would be for the community to have an opportunity to shut down this process if they so desire.  I am asking because I do not want to be accused of disruption.  In the alternative, I could start a requests for comment that would essentially serve the same purpose via a different format. Jehochman  Talk 14:30, 30 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Since RFAR and Jimbo only have authority because the community lets them (which goes the same all the way up to the Board), I don't believe any permission from Clerks or Arbs would be needed. Just community support to delete the pages once the MFD is launched. Lawrence § t/e 14:33, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

text: The idea of deleting an in-process RFARB is quite odd, especially since the arbitrators have made a clear gesture they plan to proceed. Moreover, they could simply recreate the page if it were deleted, to post the final tallies on the proposals.  If you would like to terminate the process, the best way would be to lobby the arbitrators to vote to close it. — Carl (CBM · talk) 14:35, 30 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, if they recreated it, that opens the interesting can of worms, of what happens if the AC does something without community approval or support? Lawrence § t/e 14:39, 30 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: The arbitrators have a commission to carry out their work without micromangement by the community. A drawn-out, difficult case is the last place that micromanagement should be employed. — Carl (CBM · talk) 14:43, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

text: Part of the usefulness of ArbCom is its ability to act without strict community approval. And it has this authority with community consent, counterintuitively enough, since they forward the cases that the community can't figure out (or approve a decision for) to ArbCom. Not only would a deletion nomination not work, I think it's it would turn out to be an ill-advised and destructive act that would just generate more distraction and drama than this page already generates. Dmcdevit·t 14:44, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

text: (ec x 2) They do things all the time with no explicit or expressed approval by the community (it's usually understood that what ArbCom does, has the approval of the community).  What would make it "interesting" is if they did something not just in the absence of "approval", but against the clear and expressed community will/consensus.  R. Baley (talk) 14:52, 30 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't know if the act would be a good or bad idea--I'm frankly torn on that. My curiosity was piqued because of the question of does the community actually have the authority to shut down something on WP, no matter what it is? As long as it's not mandated by the Foundation, the answer seemed to be a hard "Yes", and even Foundation matters can be changed, since the Board can always be replaced entirely later. Lawrence § t/e 14:50, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

text: Why not wait and see if this process does get somewhere.  The committee has clearly stated an intention to proceed.  I think it's only reasonable to let them try.  Sam Korn (smoddy) 14:45, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

text: I think MfDs of arbitration pages is a step too far. An MfD of WP:WEA is another matter entirely. Arbitration pages are clearly within an established and (in principle) uncontroversial process. WP:WEA is clearly a miscellaneous page, and well within the remit of WP:MFD. On the other hand, I did, in jest (during the Esperanza MfD debates, I think) suggest that WP:MfD is the default way to shut down failing processes and organisations (or at least prompt community-driven reform). I don't think the arbitration committee needs that, but (for whatever reason) the arbitration committee seems poorly equipped to handle cases like this - ones where there is a lot of community opinion. It seems to be able to handle narrow issues OK, or cases involving only a single or few users, but broad and complex cases like this really do strain the arbitration committee, who are, after all, only human. I agree that in some cases the community should leave the arbcom to do their work, or rather, the arbitration committee should decide privately, present a proposed decision, allow discussion, and then close. If the arbitration committee are deadlocked privately, just state that, and close the case without a result, or with minimal findings. Carcharoth (talk) 14:50, 30 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: A RFC would be a feasible way to gather input from the community, and it would not necessarily require a request for shutting down things in a confrontational manner. At least it could serve as a reminder to the arb com that parts of the community lie in bitter and ever worsening strife over these very matters while there is very little visible progress in the RFAR. Kosebamse (talk) 15:17, 30 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Maybe an injunction of some form would help with the "bitter and ever worsening strife"? Carcharoth (talk) 15:30, 30 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Thatcher has already promised to enforce civility more strictly, and has requested help from the uninvolved. See frog in the cookpot.  Jehochman  Talk 15:36, 30 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Asking permission to request community input on this process

message: 6) Policy and procedure changes regarding Wikipedia IRC channels will be addressed separately by this committee.
Could the commitee please define what they mean by "Wikipedia IRC channels"?--BirgitteSB 14:54, 30 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Definitely #wikipedia-en-admins and maybe #wikipedia-en. We will likely make suggestion about the way #wikipedia is managed but I do not think we can take control of that channel. FloNight (talk) 15:02, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

text: *I suggest that if the arbitration committee is going to refuse to deal with the issue that the case was named for (IRC) during this case, that this case be renamed /Giano.Bishonen.Geogre, or something similar, since most opinions on the proposed decision page seem to be coalescing around punishing these three for what is perceived to have been their misbehavior. Leaving the case titled "IRC" when that's not the real issue the arbitrators wish to deal with here is a bit misleading, in my view. 24.181.203.35 (talk) 15:37, 30 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: There are also help channels (used to be called bootcamp) and other special subject channels for en.WP, will those be under your scope.  And what about channels created in the future?  I really only see two useful ways of defining this: a) en.WP arbcom has jurisdiction over all freenode channels with a topic of X or b)  The conduct of all en.WP editors on freenode channels is subject sanctions on en.WP.  It really depends on if what direction you are going with this.  Either you are trying to set up a general administrative structure you can approve of to manage things, or you are trying to hold en.WP editors responsible for conduct that violates en.WP policies.  Making a simple list of channels is short-sighted. BTW I agree trying to take control of #wikipedia will not fly.--BirgitteSB 16:04, 30 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Another (quite extreme) thought might be to make wikipedians responsible for their conduct in whatever venue they are discussing wikipedia, including blogs etc. If we want the editing 'priviledge', it might be reasonable to suggest such professionalism. --Joopercoopers (talk) 16:12, 30 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Dangerous and completely unworkable. What if I make http://Joopercoopers.blogspot.com myself, or register under your name on WR? Lawrence § t/e 16:25, 30 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Then we'd need to prove a link between the blog or post and the wiki account - admittedly difficult and often impossible - but should posts from say, non-bovine ruminations, be ignored if the user returns to wiki? --Joopercoopers (talk) 16:33, 30 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: In previous rulings we have taken into account editor conduct off site as it relates to their editing. Since this is a collaborative project based on discussion to reach consensus, there is an expectation that editor will check there differences at the door at a minimum. If the off site conduct is serious enough, such as emails that are intended to harass an editor, then we will consider that as we decide cases. FloNight (talk) 16:55, 30 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Remedy # 6 

message: I've instigated an MfD, ostensibly of WEA, but also as a forum to discuss the wider issues of page 'ownership' and IRC. I think MfDing these arb pages is pie in the sky and a dangerous precedent - The WEA MfD however, has some merit I believe. See Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Wikipedia:wikipedia-en-admins (3rd nomination) --Joopercoopers (talk) 15:07, 30 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: An MfD of a wiki page isn't likely to change the runnings of the corresponding IRC channel. For the same reasons, edits to the page to describe perceived failings of the channel were never likely to actually resolve such failings. It's akin to Colbert making elephants less endangered by asking fans to edit elephant articles. The committee has clearly said they will address IRC itself in a separate forum. — Carl (CBM · talk) 15:11, 30 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: It may address the page ownership issues, though, which lie at the heart of this. UC's comment made clear that the committee were divided on whether Gerard's mandate justified his reverting and protection actions. The not-yet-created Wikipedia:Arbitration committee/IRC dispute resolution might be one upshot of all this. Carcharoth (talk) 15:33, 30 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Page ownership is an extremely small issue here.  Certainly deleting the page describing the IRC channel will do nothing to address governance issues of the channel itself. Thatcher 16:53, 30 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Except that a delete result at MfD might show that the community felt that the channel should be entirely unofficial, and not to be promoted on a projectspace page... David Mestel(Talk) 17:59, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

text: Page ownership here Thatcher, is the entire problem. I know this "case" (I use the word generally) is complicated but do try to follow. Giano (talk) 18:18, 30 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, then I must be confused because some people who have commented here want to make this case about everything except the dispute over the content of that page. Thatcher 18:26, 30 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: WEA MfD