Wikipedia talk:Requests for arbitration/IRC/Workshop

Arbiters who are admins on the IRC admin channel

Should they be recused from serving as arbiters here? Lawrence Cohen 01:49, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

If it were me, merely being a chanop would not be reason for recusal since this case is about people's behavior. If I had been online at the time and had commented or in some other way been involved in the conversation that precipitated these events, I would. But it's a personal choice. Thatcher 01:58, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

Probably JamesF is the only arbitrator with a real COI. He can't be expected to vote on proposals (if they get taken up by another arbitrator) covering his role as IRC GroupContact (though that doesn't seem very clear any more). Carcharoth (talk) 02:16, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

Why on Earth would they be? Phil Sandifer (talk) 02:07, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

Because they might have an interest in opposing change. JamesF certainly shouldn't act as an arbitrator here. SlimVirgin ^{(talk)(contribs)} 02:17, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

The logical extension of this is that all arbitrators who are administrators should recuse themselves in an arbitration case about Wikipedia policy. That's nonsense - this case surely was not accepted to determine what the policy towards IRC channels should be, as that would be the arbcom taking a policy role of the sort that it does not take. Phil Sandifer (talk) 02:19, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

I don't follow how your logical extension works or even what it means.

The situation here is that a group of people (call them group contacts or channel ops, or whatever they call themselves) have presided over a completely toxic corner of Wikipedia that has literally torn the community in two. We now have a chance to get it sorted, which I hope we'll take. The people who could have done something about this, but didn't, shouldn't be in a position to control the outcome. SlimVirgin ^{(talk)(contribs)} 02:26, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

Your wish to have people recused seems to pre-judge the outcome of the case rather egregiously. Phil Sandifer (talk) 02:39, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

Not at all. I'd like to see this case judged by arbitrators who don't have a dog in the fight, which means we wouldn't be able to predict the outcome, and that's quite the opposite of prejudging. SlimVirgin ^{(talk)(contribs)} 02:53, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

"literally torn the community in two" - can we avoid the hyperbole (and abuse of the word "literally", but that's another gripe) here, please? Over in article-space the world is continuing to turn, fish are not raining from the sky, etc. This drama is visible to (and relevant to) a very small percentage of the Wikipedia community. I am an administrator and yet all this had totally passed me by until a few minutes ago. — Hex (❝?!❞) 02:38, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

Go look at Giano's ArbCom vote. That's what I call splitting the community in two. SlimVirgin ^{(talk)(contribs)} 02:53, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

• Is that why it's called "IRC"? It's perhaps called that because that's exactly what this is intended to address. I know you'd rather it be all about Giano and Geogre, and all the other users attempting to reform IRC, but it's not all about them, as we'll hopefully discover as the case progresses. Mr Which??? 02:24, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

The case is called IRC because the precipitating event happened there, the edit war was over the talk page describing the admins IRC channel, and because I have a limited imagination. Thatcher 02:30, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

I mean, really. You could have called it "Internet Relay Chat", or something, to avoid the taxman asking why we are all driving rally cars around a county in Florida, while composing classical music in an attempt to mediate US-Mexico relations. Those waiting for a video signal will have to be patient. Those who are worried, be reassured that the emergency services have been informed, and that aid is on its way. Proposed remedies on a postcard please. Carcharoth (talk) 03:15, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

• Here is the link to Jimbo's assertion of authority over IRC. I'm not sure anyone fully knows what this means yet. Does it mean that Arbcom can ban users from the channel, or merely that Arbcom can take action here on the basis of action there? And this assumes Arbcom has access to logs that are known to be unadulterated. These issues will require some exploration in the workshop, I think, to see just how far Arbcom wants to go. Thatcher 02:30, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

For the record, James has recused himself from this case. NoSeptember 14:15, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

I am a chanop in #wikipedia-en-admins and I don't feel the need to recuse myself. So far, all I have used my chanop status for is to add administrators I've promoted to the channel, and to remove users on their own request. I don't think there's any conflict in my participation in this case (as of 1st Jan, of course). --Deskana (talk) 02:00, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

Thank you at least for being honest and open about your involvement with the IRC in question. Cla68 (talk) 04:52, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

Earlier this year, several arbcom members became chanop in #wikipedia-en-admins after a brush up in the channel. I know that I was added and at least 2 or 3 more were also. I never used the chanop tools as far as I recall. The channel automatically opens when I open my browser, but I don't speak in the channel very often. I'm familiar with the issues in the case as most ArbCom members are since we are experience user, I don't think that knowing about the issues in the case should disqualify a n arbitrator. FloNight (talk) 18:40, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

List of incidents involving behavior on #wikipedia-en-admins?

Would a complete, chronological list of incidents involving behavior #wikipedia-en-admins over the last few years do anyone any good? I'm not sure how easily this could be compiled, but, if it could be, I suspect it would be useful both for people unaware how long ago the things involving Kelly Marting and Gmaxwell were (all over a year, I think) and for arbitrators trying to determine with what frequency this channel causes problems. Dates would be essential to such an undertaking; an undated list of incidents would be pointless. Anyone willing to try and draw one up? Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IRC admin channel might be of use. Picaroon (t) 03:12, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

It would be very helpful to show people how recent some of these incidents are, and how long they've been going on for. I don't think I know enough to compile such a list though. SlimVirgin ^{(talk)(contribs)} 03:15, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

Fair enough, that too. Here's what I can think of off the top of my head.

• Removal of Slim Virgin and FloNight's access from the channel - no idea
• NullC's (Gmaxwell) kick of Bishonen from the channel - no idea
• Zsinj's block of badlydrawnjeff following IRC discussion - May 23, 2007
• Removal of Zsinj's channel access - a few days later
• Leaking of logs to Matthew - sometime in the first half of 2007
• Tony's recent insult of Bishonen - within the last week, though I'm not sure what day (this should be easy enough to find out)

Can anyone think of anything else, or provide dates for the things without them? Picaroon (t) 02:34, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

Just to clarify, Zsinj lost access not for blocking Jeff but for spilling beans about the IRC discussion. --Irpen 09:02, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

• • Just to clarify, FloNight, Bishonen, and I were kicked from the channel (her by Greg Maxwell, me by Kelly Martin), but their overall access wasn't removed, so far as I know. Mine was.
• Sept 19, 2006, #admins -- TexasAndroid, an admin, was checkusered by Kelly Martin because she was in a dispute with him, and his location and ISP were announced on IRC, with a request that he be blocked for any reason anyone could find. She called him a fuckheaded process wonk, and said that he needed to be buried now.
• Dec 3 or 4, 2007, #admins -- some people were discussing trying to block me from WP. Others in the channel at the time alerted me by e-mail. The reason was that I was trying to add to Wikipedia: Private correspondence that there is no reasonable expectation of privacy on IRC. SlimVirgin ^{(talk)(contribs)} 02:45, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

I have plenty more to add but should this go to evidence section rather than here? --Irpen 05:59, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

It probably doesn't hurt to have a general chronology, Irpen.

• Dec 3, 2007, #wikipedia -- Messedrocker calls me a drama whore, and suggests that people subpoena me for the members of the cyberstalking list or burn my house down (a joke, but strangely unfunny). Kelly Martin suggests that I'm mentally ill. Alivar and Kelly discuss how my access to #admins was removed, but no one has told me. Kelly Martin refers to herself as Sean Whitton's deputy. Zocky joins in the discussion supportively. SlimVirgin ^{(talk)(contribs)} 06:10, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

OK, here is some more to start with:

• September 18, 2006 Kelly Martin proposed to Dmcdevit in presence of James F "to get read of Irpen", Dmcdevit suggest such riddance being done "with a slow, grinding process" which "looks like ArbCom" to Kelly Martin. Note, all three at the time had direct relation to arbcom, two were arbs, the third an "arbitrator emeritus" with Arbcom-L read access. James F is still an arbitrator and Dmc still reads the list.
• James F suggests ridding the Wikipedia from "idiots" for the Wikipedia's "health" (idiots were Tony's opponents, Tony was blocked at the moment by JoshuaZ for comparing Giano with some medical filth) and then "we" should "purge" "idiots" that come in their place.
• Flo tries to defend JoshuaZ and Bish and gets bashed by James F. who proclaims that she is not allowed to disagree with him and if she does not like it then "well, tough, that's they way it's always been" and she knows were to "find the door on [her] own."
• Aug 30-31, 2006. Being advised by Lar, Kylu blocks Giano for the latter's comments at Lar's talk. No onwiki discussion of block took place until after the block
• December 21, 2006. Following the IRC discussion, Betacommand blocks Ipren without explaining, warning and even notifying. More at Betacommand's ArbCom
• December 22, 2006. Betacommand, Chairboy and others design a "clean kill" (term coined by Chairboy) of Giano through series of pokings to provoke enough to validate a block.
• March 27, 2007. Tony discusses his adolescent sexual habits in the channel in a way that I would rather not repeat (even if this is OK to some, there are female admins at the channel and some what are possible ways to make them unwelcome)

--Irpen 08:55, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

Proof by repeated assertion isn't really a good approach, Irpen. I can spot at least one item in your list that is a distorted telling of what really happened, leaving out considerable detail that is relevant. If there is one, there may well be others. I am not sure that I think that this sort of laundry list of unsupported allegations is appropriate. How many times are you going to bring up the same stuff? One apparent difference between you and Giano is that he embraces what Meatball:ForgiveAndForget is all about, at least much of the time. People make amends and move on... I highly recommend it as an approach, compared to nursing the same grievances (some of which don't even involve you, some of which are unfounded) indefinitely. ++Lar: t/c 13:00, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

I thought we'd long ago lanced the boil of misunderstanding about whether I'd referred to Giano as some medical filth. I did not. It's a reasonably common simile in English, referring to clearing up a very bad situation by decisive action. It was an unfortunate choice of words, but there was considerable disbelief at the misreading. Note that I voluntarily accepted a block even though it had been based on the misreading. --Tony Sidaway 13:42, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

As an aside, with all the talk about FloNight, perhaps her recusal is in order for this case. —Wknight94 (talk) 14:08, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

Lar, you've seen from my comments elsewhere that I moved on from the Lar/Kylu/Giano incident and hold no grudge. I complemented you lately on changes that I see. Giano's decision to move on was a crucial factor in my attitude towards further advancement of your wikicareer even if you saw fit to ask for checkuser on enwiki without seeking a community support by, say, RfB or explicit RfC or !vote. Forgive does not mean "forget". The fact that the block of Giano occurred after the IRC discussion with the absence of onwiki discussion until after the block is indisputable. We are discussion what IRC incidents took place. IRC-discussion-based blocks are deplorable by a wide consensus of this community.

Tony, even if "medical filth" was misunderstood, this took place onwiki. I brought it up to remind the context of the events that took place on IRC (Forrester's "idiots" talk that he continued onwiki.) In that IRC discussion (whose log I have seen and forwarded to the arbitrators) you behaved quite honorably.

As for the need for Flo to recuse, being attacked does not signify an automatic need to recuse. If it were so, trolls could easily get immunity from Arbcom by posting attacks on every committee member and then demanding their recusals. Or attack admins and claim their becoming "involved" and thus unfit to block. --Irpen 17:09, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

It's ironic that now people who were not on the channel a year or more ago now have more ready access to what was said there than those who were. --Tony Sidaway 19:13, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

Jurisdiction issues and the consequences

It is difficult to conduct the discussion on this simultaneously among several proposed principles, findings of fact and proposed remedies, especially if the discussion participants cannot post in the same field and the question is separated from response by multiple entries thus making it difficult to read. Therefore, I propose a talk page section where we can discuss it. Proposed issues are:

• affiliation (or lack of it) between these IRC channels and anything at all, that is WP, WMF, ArbCom, etc
• jurisdiction of ArbCom (or whoever/whatever else) over these channels or lack of it
• practical possibility to have any IRC-related arbcom rulings enforced.

My view is that there is no affiliation as both WMF denied that, ArbCom declided jurisdiction, Freenode does not recognize anyone as a group contact and the channel owners made it clear that they would only comply with ArbCom if they choose to and nothing could be done about that.

Before going any further, the jurisdiction issue needs to be resolved to avoid wasting time.

Finally, we can either have a connection (IRC <->Wikipedia) or not but not both depending on what view is more convenient. If there is no jurisdiction and no attempt is made to assert it or such attempt is rebuffed, the case still can produce a meaningful result in spelling out the clarity of the matters.

From that point on, we can adjust all Wikipedia-related policy pages to the fact that the any relation of IRC with anything official is explicitly disclaimed.

But this needs to be settled before we move on with this case. --Irpen 03:30, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

Rather than argue endlessly about behaviour and jurisdiction over the existing channel, why not just scrap it? Start a new channel for admins, decide on the community norms for membership, behaviour, publication, whatever you want. Remove the WP references to the old channel and encourage its termination. Yes, people will still talk on it, but people will still talk on all those *other* IRC channels too - just make a new, official, accepted channel. Whatever Jimbo says, it only takes effect from the tick when it hits the server, and until then ArbCom has had no jurisdiction over IRC - so start again with clear rules.

Then continue this arb, which is (at least partly?) about the on-Wiki actions of all involved. People will talk - it is the actions which come onto Wikipedia which must be addressed. Franamax (talk) 09:04, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

• It will be a matter of how far the Arbitrators (including any of the new appointees who feel moved to participate) want to go with Jimbo's assertion of authority. Traditionally Arbcom has refused to consider IRC within its jurisdiction except as it contributes to on-wiki behavior (i.e. a bad block is a bad block; where and with whom it was discussed is irrelevant). Arbcom has the authority to overrule Jimbo, of course, so they could insist on the status quo. Or they could go so far as to grant themselves the right to name the group contact and to designate and revoke chanops. (Although I find that the least likely outcome.)
• I would be interested in seeing Arbcom take on a slightly expanded oversight of IRC. That is, if bad behavior in channel leads to on-wiki consequences, and it is the sort of behavior that would result in a finding if it occurred on-wiki, then the bad actor should not escape consequences (assuming there are no legitimate questions about the accuracy of the logs). I would like to think that the chanops would act on a request to revoke someone's access (for example) even if Arbcom does not technically have the authority to insist on it.
• I also would like some mechanism set up so that people know whom to contact in case of problems in the channel. (Any chanop listed at WP:WEA.) And a mechanism, like a talk page or mailing list, monitored by the chanops, where actions (like revoking SlimV's access, or responding or failing to respond to incivility) can be reviewed and commented on. And not the #ops channel; a forum for review and oversight of op actions should be publiclly accessible.
• Anyway, those are my thoughts. Thatcher 14:19, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

There are ways ArbCom can exert control/influence over IRC with or without cooperation.

1. Assess penalties such as banning from IRC for a period of time, in the same way bans are placed for editing on-wiki and request voluntary compliance:
   • Either the channel operators can voluntarily carry out those bans, or
   • The banned user can voluntarily withdraw from the channel in compliance with the decision (there will be plenty of witnesses to confirm compliance)
2. If neither the user or the operators cooperate, alternative on-wiki sanctions can be applied by ArbCom.

• If the operators are running these channels for the general benefit of the project, we should assume their cooperation given specific requests until we learn otherwise.
• If ArbCom takes on the job of assessing specific penalties, this would relieve the burden on operators to make hard banning decisions (except the day to day stuff), and ArbCom should not pass the buck on specific sanctions - that's what we selected them for.
• Part of the problem is that ArbCom has never asked for off-wiki sanctions. As an experiment alone, it may be worth trying to request voluntary compliance by users and/or operators, just to see what the outcome is, and we can proceed from there. NoSeptember 14:43, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

  I don't think it will be necessary for the Committee to navigate the difficult waters of off-wiki sanctions. I've asked to be removed from the admins channel (where as a resigned sysop I only remained because of consensus that my voice was helpful) and I've made it plain that I intend this to be permanent. I'm conscious of the damage I've done to the channel through injudicious choice of words, and have no wish to do further damage to a very useful medium of communication. --Tony Sidaway 15:46, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

  Even if sanctions are not needed in this case, I think ArbCom should entertain the idea of applying them whenever they do seem to be needed in the future. It would relieve any burden on the ops to justify their actions or non-actions, since they would assume the role of implementing but not making these decisions. And there is no reason to assume that cooperation would not be forthcoming, all ops and all arbitrators are ultimately working for the same goal of improving the project, and off-wiki discussion of the project is an important aspect of that. NoSeptember 15:55, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

Access levels

Users with IRC access on the #admins channel of level 30 or higher, in answer to SlimVirgin's question. (This is a subset of the Channel operators listed at WP:WEA; chanops have access level 10 or higher.) Thatcher 16:58, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

• 30 mindspillage
• 30 DavidGerard
• 30 sannse
• 30 Snowspinner (Phil Sandifer)
• 30 dannyisme
• 30 kim_register (Kim Bruning)
• 31 poore5 (FloNight)
• 31 YellowMonkey (Blnguyen)
• 31 Bastique
• 31 Morven
• 31 UninvitedCompany
• 40 Mackensen
• 40 JimboWales
• 40 Dmcdevit
• 48 FennecFoxen
• 48 Angela
• 49 James_F
• 49 seanw (NOT Sean William)

I clarified those not immediately obvious, for the sake of having all the information in once place. Sean William @ 17:07, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

Do the numbers have any independent significance, or is their importance simply that all are higher than 10? Newyorkbrad (talk) 17:09, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

I do believe it goes like this, if I may quote ChanServ:

	
 	    (Level required to use listed command)
* 5 CMDINVITE Use of command INVITE
* 6 ACCESS Allow ACCESS modification
* 8 CMDVOICE Use of command VOICE
*10 CMDOP Use of command OP
*10 CMDUNBAN Use of command UNBAN
*10 TOPIC Change the channel topic
*15 AUTOKICK Allow AKICK modification
*20 CMDCLEAR Use of command CLEAR
*25 SET Modify channel SETs
*50 LEVEL Use of command LEVEL

Yes, I asked ChanServ's permission. If anyone wants to see for themselves, type /msg chanserv level #wikipedia-en-admins list when connected to freenode. So, to answer your question, no, it does not matter. Correct me if I'm wrong, please. Sean William @ 17:13, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

Sean's list describes what level you need to execute certain commands. Regarding the practical question, you can only change the status of a user lower than yourself. So Mindspillage could not demote Mackensen, for example. Access to the channel requires level 5. Chanops with level 10 or higher (listed at WP:WEA) can add and delete users with level 5, but only this subset can hand out or revoke chanop status. So, regarding the dispute at WT:WEA, if you feel there has been abuse by a regular user (level 5) in the admin channel, you can contact any chanop, but if you feel that a chanop has misused their status, you have to contact someone with a higher level access. Thatcher 17:18, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

Thanks to everyone for the quick responses. Newyorkbrad (talk) 17:20, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

"Yes, I asked ChanServ's permission." Ha ha, good one, Sean. Mike R (talk) 17:33, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

Thatcher, thank you, that's very helpful. SlimVirgin ^{(talk)(contribs)} 02:38, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

I note that of the level 30 or higher chanops listed, YellowMonkey, poore5, Morven, UninvitedCompany, Mackensen, and James_F are all sitting arbitrators. Meanwhile, I'm pretty sure mindspillage, DavidGerard, sannse, Dmcdevit, and FennecFoxen are all former arbitrators. So, since 1/3 of the committee are chanops already, proposals that would "bring #wikipedia-en-admins under arbcom control" don't seem likely to translate to much change. Picaroon (t) 05:11, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

Obviously there is no technical barrier to having Arbcom play a more active role in managing the channel (such as banning users, revoking access, and revoking chanop status). Wikipedia policy has to change to allow this. Thatcher 13:37, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

Related discussions

Wikipedia:Off-wiki policy discussion and it's talk page is very much related to this arbitration. I'm not sure if there is anything there that will provide evidence, guidance or whatever but it's worth a look. violet/riga (t) 22:10, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

Developments

It appears both User:Giano II and User:Bishonen have left the building. User pages and user talk pages deleted. I saw Giano's message before he blanked his page, but am unable to see Bishonen's last user talk page revision (too many edits?). Carcharoth (talk) 00:43, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

I noticed that too. I was thinking of un-deleting Giano's talk page, since there are numerous links from this ArbCom case pointing to diffs in his talk page which are serving as evidence. Deleting the page disrupts the process immensely, and non-admin users wont be able to access the diffs at all. But before we undelete it, I'm requesting feedback from one or more arbitrators on this action. Should it be done? - Mtmelendez ^(Talk) 01:42, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

I've always personally been against the deletion of talk pages. Regardless, given they're involved in a case, they should certainly be undeleted for now (even if they're later redeleted for whatever reason that I may disagree with on a personal level). --Deskana (talk) 01:50, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

There's no basis in policy for the deletion of user talk pages unless there are extreme privacy concerns.--Doc^g 01:53, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

Undeleting these pages will cause a massive server hiccup, as their deletions already did. Sean William @ 01:57, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

(ec) I agree, and that's why I disagree with their deletion on a personal level. But I'm sure that all people involved can agree that (at least) a temporary undeletion is reasonable given the involvement in the case. --Deskana (talk) 01:58, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

I think they should be undeleted, though it might be better to get a DBA to do it in the database if it is likely to cause a server hiccup. There is discussion related to the case on those pages. --Tony Sidaway 02:01, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

Link? - Mtmelendez ^(Talk) 02:02, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

I've had it made clear to myself several times over in the past with other cases that RtV DOES apply to talk pages, and if the pages aren't re-deleted after ArbCom's end (I can understand why it might be necessary now to undelete them), I might just do it myself. It's a crying shame that someone who got harassed off of Wiki (and off-Wiki to boot) can't leave in peace. Shame on the folks who caused this situation. SirFozzie (talk) 02:04, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

Not so. The RtV page on meta explicitly excludes usertalk pages where many parties have contributed. Unless there are extraordinary privacy concerns I will challenge any talk page deletion at DRV - as illegitimate. Thereis no CSD here, use MfD if you wish them deleted.--Doc^g 02:10, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

(ec) SirFozzie, please read m:vanish more carefully. Although the title implies that its an inalienable right, it is actually a courtesy. The contributions made on a userpage, and even a user talk page, are for all to see. - Mtmelendez ^(Talk) 02:10, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

That's the thing. I have. Participated in discussions over another user's citing RtV. Bishonen even participated in that discussion as well. If you want to challenge it, go ahead, I feel that I have a strong case in citing WP:IAR.. after this ArbCom case is over, how the bloody blue blazes does maintaining the talk page of people who have left Wikipedia (because of harassment off-Wikipedia in one case) help build an encyclopedia? Answer, it doesn't. SirFozzie (talk) 02:17, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

The Right to Vanish question is moot, since the question is whether the pages should be undeleted for the duration of the arbitration case. If policy permits, they may be deleted again afterwards. --Tony Sidaway 02:22, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

And that part I have no problem with, Afterwards, we can discuss it, I guess (probably strenuously, but that's for later) SirFozzie (talk) 02:26, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

Forgive me if you misunderstood me. I said that the talk page contains numerous links from this ArbCom case pointing to diffs in his talk page which are serving as evidence, hindering complete study of the facts and the transparency to non-admin users. The page can be deleted after a final decision is made, but others might argue to keep it to preserve the evidence and its history. But that would be best left at DRV or MFD after the case is closed, no? - Mtmelendez ^(Talk) 02:32, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

It's kind of ironic, really. Giano manages to leave chaos and disruption in his path even on his way out the door. Raymond Arritt (talk) 02:07, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

I agree it will probably require some finesse to restore it all; some of the relevant talk on Giano's page had previously been blanked, some was deleted, some was archived then deleted. As this case (according to some) relates to events of some time ago, it may be necessary to undelete all of his archives, plus perhaps a few of his user pages. And Raymond, there would be no chaos and nobody would care if he hadn't been doing something worthwhile around here. Risker (talk) 02:09, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

Without prejudice to anything I may say or vote on in the decision of this case, my personal view is that the loss (permanent or otherwise) of these two experienced editors is an occasion of sadness, and that we might pause at least briefly to note that before quarreling about the issue of page undeletion. Newyorkbrad (talk) 02:24, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

Thank you, Brad. May I just add that taking a pause before "undeletion debate" should also extend to allowing some mandatory time for self-reflection before taunting and baiting messages at their talk pages resume. I suggest protecting their talk pages some already restored as they could not hold themselves. --Irpen 02:30, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

The issue at hand is to make the evidence available. The question on whether the talk page should be deleted or undeleted permanently, for whatever reasons, is another matter which should not be used to deviate attention from this case (without picking sides.) - Mtmelendez ^(Talk) 02:38, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

Good point. But I don't really want to participate in a wake here and now. I was kind of postponing it until after the arbcom case. I also find it is best to wait a while to see if a departure is permanent. Unless there is a notice saying it is permanent, then I think some time to themselves is best before responding in some way. I also get a feeling that there may be more going on here (on both sides) than we are seeing, though I hope not. Carcharoth (talk) 02:57, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

How could I not realise that the talk pages had evidence! I was linking to them recently. Giano's talk page does have some relevant discussions. I disagree very strongly with deletion of user talk pages. Those are often pages that I have edited during my interactions with various members of the community. No-one can own their talk pages, but they can own their contributions list. That is the record of what I have done here, and I strongly object to edits vanishing from that list because someone decides they want their talk page deleted. Over 150 of my talk page edits just went 'poof'. Having said that, I'd much prefer Bish and Giano to return, as future talk page edits and continuing friendships would be far more valuable than any need for an open record of the past. Carcharoth (talk) 02:57, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

Don't dance on the graves! Let them have their peace

This is unbelievable. Giano and Bishonen, authors of tons of articles, being routed away by the cheering IRC mob, chose to not avail their wiki-homes for desecration and burned their houses. And now some come there with taunting an baiting lecturing about policies. Save_Us was there in no time with such stuff. Please have decency to leave them in peace. If anyone hopes that they ever come back, have respect to their wishes. --Irpen 02:17, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

Get off your high horse. Lots of people are involved in arbcom cases without feeling the need to vanish. It defies credulity that Giano (of all people) is such a delicate flower that the prospect of an arbcom case ran him off. And for what it's worth I actually agree with Giano about IRC, which is why I stopped using it a couple of months ago. Raymond Arritt (talk) 02:30, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

Yes, Giano is a delicate flower. If someone needs space to bait article writers, I will start a dedicated section at my talk. I am by far more thick-skinned and learned to ignore nonsense or step back from it, when necessary. Giano was a single most valuable editor this project had to this day, both by amount of top content and by the amount of abuse he stopped. He had a true sense of decency, a very important virtue. Now, let's all learn from it and, at least, get some respect to Giano and Bishonen userspace. There are millions of other pages to write on. --Irpen 02:37, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

Restore and protect? That would address your "desecration" concern about the talk pages. The user pages can, of course, remain deleted. Carcharoth (talk) 02:58, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

update. Is there anyone there to talk to Save_Us owniki (I know he is talked to on IRC but this is exactly what is wrong.) --Irpen 03:00, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

I'm not involved on Wikipedia on IRC and I'm not involved in the Arbitration, go make accusations someplace else. — Save_Us_229 08:06, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

Irpen, your eulogy, while touching, does nothing but accuse others of being arses in veiled language. David Fuchs ^(talk) 15:07, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

Reading through the chain of events as an outside party, even if I'm generally favorable to Giano and Geogre, I'd say that just about everyone involved except Bishonen deserves epithets of a more or less arsely nature.

Peter ^Isotalo 18:50, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

I could swear that your remark stinks mightily of No Personal Attacks. You might be advised to retract. Achromatic (talk) 01:20, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

Yes, please retract. Durova^Charge! 02:50, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

You're welcome to retract whatever you want, I won't revert it, but I stand by my words.

Peter ^Isotalo 09:49, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

RtV does NOT justify the deletion of usertalk pages

m:Right to vanish states: "Your user and talk pages, and their subpages, and other non-article pages that no others have substantively contributed to and whose existence does not impact the project, may be courtesy blanked or deleted." (emphasis added)

The talk pages of substantial contributors thus CANNOT be deleted under rtv courtesy deletion - and there is certainly no WP:CSD allowing it. Now, if there's off-wiki stalking, or harassment, or real-life privacy concerns, an IAR deletion might be justified (although probably just selective deletion), but other than that no. Remember the majority of posts on a talk page usually belong to others, and the majority of the user's own posts are normally found elsewhere. If anyone disagrees, let them suggest a new CSD to make such deletions legitimate. Otherwise we reverse all such deletions.--Doc^g 02:19, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

And before I'm accused of 'dancing on graves' - I have been consistently arguing this over a number of cases recently. And I will test it on DRV if necessary. Many/most people claiming "rtv" actually return. --Doc^g 02:20, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

I can confirm Doc has been consistently arguing this in a number of recent cases, and I have been agreeing with him. Blanking and protection of talk pages should be enough. Deletion of the user pages is enough to make a "red-link" statment if needed. Carcharoth (talk) 03:00, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

I can't believe what I am reading! Can't you just leave them in peace and put aside the GFDL and other policy stuff? They did not destroy their contributions which make this site #1 on the web thus giving its admins this incredible perception of being important to run the site written by editors like these two routed away successfully at last. --Irpen 02:23, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

Then try reading it. This is nothing to do with them. I have previously stated I would take the next rtv nonsense to DRV, and I will.--Doc^g 02:25, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

And I will challenge it at DRV, and wherever else needs be, as I said, that's for after. SirFozzie (talk) 02:28, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

Actually, there's no need. We can restore them now, and you can MfD them later if you want.--Doc^g 02:29, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

• Please, all, do not use admin tools on Bishonen (talk · contribs) or Giano II (talk · contribs) user pages unless they specifically request some sort of action. Okay? Let's not spread this dispute. Jehochman ^Talk 02:32, 28 December 2007 (UTC)
  • Although I think the talk page deletions were done out of process, I also think we should respect their wishes insofar as possible. Is there a way to selectively undelete whatever comments may be necessary for this case? Raymond Arritt (talk) 02:36, 28 December 2007 (UTC)
    • If something is needed, make a request to the clerk who can go retrieve the page and create a temporary copy. This will be the most civil way to go about it. m:WrongVersion is much more desirable than wheel warring. Jehochman ^Talk 02:39, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

I completely disagree with this contention and it's one of my biggest pet peeves of Wikipedia. There is no reason except vindictiveness to keep the user pages of a departed user who does not want to have them retained. Nobody would give a flip about it if we would have the good sense to remove user pages from google hits. As of right now, if you google your user name, chances are your Wikipedia user page is the first g-hit. That's bad for people who edit under their real name or give out their real name on their user page and then leave under bad terms. In an ideal world, user pages would be excluded from the GFDL content and only the articles themselves would be available for redistribution. (We're trying to build an encyclopedia, not pretty user pages, right?) But there's no way in heck that's going to happen so I'd settle for having user pages excluded from search engines by the robots.txt and liberally deleting them on demand of a departed user. --B (talk) 02:41, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

Aagh! :-) We are talking about user talk pages, not user pages. And in either case, blanking and protecting the page is enough to lose Google hits for anything except the name of the user (and moving the page deals with that as well). User talk pages are not, in any way owned by the editors. They are an interface between the editor and the rest of the community, and they are a place where others edit. Carcharoth (talk) 03:05, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

I agree with Doc's comments, and I'd say that Giano does not have the right to vanish according to m:Right to vanish, which says:

• Personal protection - You have personally identifying information on publicly visible pages on the project, or linked to your username, or there is genuine risk of off-wiki harassment, or unacceptable on-wiki stalking, and you wish to avoid such problems.
• Permanent departure - You plan to permanently leave a project, without changing your mind in the future.

Even if you want to focus on the spirit and not the exact wording, Giano does not have the right to "vanish" if he doesn't plan on leaving. If he plans on leaving, the need for this arbcom case goes down a few notches. -- Ned Scott 04:28, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

Oh, but his organized archives still exist: Special:Prefixindex/User talk:Giano II. Who wants to take bets on how long it will take before he comes back? -- Ned Scott 04:31, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

Clerk response

It is my personal feeling that talk pages should be deleted as a courtesy to retired editors, even if policy does not demand it. We do not need to kick these editors in the butt one more time on their way out the door. As far as the case is concerned, the Committee has the option of ignoring Giano, or of passing findings of fact and remedies in case he returns. Assuming that they were going to pursue findings against Giano, the question I have for the parties is, Is there a point that can be made by referring to Giano's talk page that can not be made better by referring to a project or article page? In other words, editors are allowed more leeway on their own talk pages, and Giano is no exception. If he was incivil to someone whom he thought was pestering him, that could be considered evidence, but it would be much more convincing to show evidence from article or project pages.

After considering this question, any parties who still think that they need Giano's talk page as evidence should contact me. I will probably undelete for the purposes of the case and then redelete, but I would prefer to leave it deleted and see a case built on project and article space edits. Thatcher 03:59, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

And of course, the pages can be undeleted in the event that the users return, should that be necessary. --bainer (talk) 04:29, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

If the user intends to return, or it is very likely they will return, then they don't have the right to vanish. -- Ned Scott —Preceding comment was added at 04:32, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

This is obvious of course. For now, though, they are gone. Thatcher 04:36, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

But with a little common sense, Giano isn't "leaving" Wikipedia, he's throwing a fit. We all know this, too. -- Ned Scott 04:46, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

Comments like this, which overtly discourage an editor from returning to Wikipedia, should be avoided. Newyorkbrad (talk) 04:47, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

Brad, I don't see how the comment is "overtly discouraging" Giano from returning. It's merely expressing skepticism that he will in fact leave permanently. You and I both know that it's quite common for people to announce their intent to leave, only to return a few weeks or months later. Raymond Arritt (talk) 04:59, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

Stating that Giano is "throwing a fit" and suggesting that bets be taken on his return is a needlessly provocative way of expressing skepticism. Let's try not to provoke people, shall we? Thatcher 05:11, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

(edit conflict) That's rather indecorous of you. Until such time as Giano returns, we will accept his retirement at face value. Thatcher 04:49, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

Using "right to vanish" as a plaything irritates me. Frankly, it's something that's been used far too often, almost never needed, and causes more problems than it solves. We're trying to get things done, and sometimes people need to look at talk pages and old discussions, and who knows what else. People here need the contents of the talk page to present their evidence, and Giano does not have a reasonable argument to support his right to vanish. Making our jobs more difficult for nothing is a foolish thing to do. -- Ned Scott 04:58, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

Replying to Thatcher - I think I added several links to Giano's talk page - not sure what others added. I can confirm that there was extensive discussion on his talk page (seven different threads, including some major ones), including comments by Lar and (a long one) by FT2 among others. I could provide admin-specific URLs involving Special:Undelete, but that might risk someone accidentally restoring pages by accident while looking at evidence. Also, there may be non-admins who can't even remember what was said on Giano's talk page. For example, is something like this from Giano relevant?

"I would rather be banned for ever than sit idly by watching Wikipedia produce such rubbish as that page. Yes I have reverted, but how many times has #admins reverted. Do you think it is just coincidence they take it in turns like that? Get real. I see the page owner is now editing the page, go and give him some advice. I'm not editing it ay more tonight anyway because I have other fish to fry. So why not re-instate my statement yourself, is it not true, are you afraid of #admins or are you more interested in me than the accuracy of information?"

How about Lar's comment:

"I don't in any way shape or form condone the tag team reverting I see going on. Because one "team" seems to be bigger than the other one, there are more reverts (per person) on one side than the other. All parties should know better but blocking one editor doesn't seem the best approach. I rarely block established editors, but I was sorely tempted to block a pretty good number of people (3RR is a bright line not an entitlement) for edit warring. Instead I appealed for a different approach."

Some of this is not evidence yet, but as the case builds it may be. The comment "I'm not editing it ay more tonight anyway" in particular, and the point that the page protection left Giano a spectator as David Gerard rewrote the page. Carcharoth (talk) 05:02, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

• All right, since the events in dispute here started on 23 December, I have restored Giano's talk page beginning at that point for evidence purposes only, with no prejudice toward its ultimate fate. Thatcher 05:24, 28 December 2007 (UTC)
  • Thatcher, I apologize for not having asked this sooner. I prefer to leave things as they are right now, given that most interested parties are admins and now have access; however, will there be an issue if I (as a non-admin) request access to view this page at some point? I'm not asking for the opportunity to be nosy; I have several posts on that page, and my commentary on that page and others has been linked as evidence. Risker (talk) 05:38, 28 December 2007 (UTC)
    • For now any content on Giano's talk page after the edit war started on 23 December has been temporarily restored. I don't see any relevance in restoring earlier comments. Thatcher 07:20, 28 December 2007 (UTC)
      • No problem, I must have written that just as you were completing the restore, as I was getting an "admins only" notice, but I can now access it without problems. Much obliged. Risker (talk) 07:39, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

As a general principle deletion of potential evidence during a case is inappropriate

To avoid sending confusing messages, I will not be presenting evidence on Giano's longstanding conduct in this case. However if I were I would expect to have access, as a non-administrator, to comments by Giano in his own talk page history. For instance, some editors might legitimately want to examine the approaches to Giano on his talk page when he has made inappropriate edits to the IRC page in the past, and his responses to those approaches. I have little doubt that the longstanding arbitrators are aware of those discussions, but the incoming arbitrators may not.

Deletion of a departed user's talk page is unusual. I absolutely agree that in the long run it should be granted (most user talk pages don't have any lasting value to the project and this is no exception) but suggest that as a general principle it's inappropriate to delete potential evidence during the evidence-gathering phase of an arbitration case. --Tony Sidaway 12:49, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

I know that some people may want to go back into the past and bring up older issues; I am not sure that is necessary or wise (same comment applies to the list of 18 month old IRC incidents being assembled above). I would certainly act on any suggestion or request from Arbitrators, or if the workshop and proposed decision start to look like a longer history is being considered. Thatcher 13:42, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

Thatcher, can I ask if the June-July 2007 and November 2007 edit warring over Wikipedia:IRC channels/wikipedia-en-admins is acceptable as evidence, along with discussion on the talk page at that time? In some cases, the same people are reprising their roles from previous edit wars and reprising their roles in attempting to calm previous edit wars. See the last few sentences of my comment here. It also seems that Giano was blocked once before, in July 2007, for edit warring over this page, but I have yet to confirm that with the blocking admin (the tone of the talk page discussion seems to indicate that this was a friendly warning and not a source of great controversy, but I am unable to see any corresponding discussion at that time on Giano's talk page), and seems rather to be a good example of de-escalating a situation. If that is digging up old stuff, then fair enough, but could you ask the arbitrators to confirm what they think the scope of this case is, and its limits? I also detail some of the early history of the page in this section, but haven't gone as far as looking at the reason for the creation of Wikipedia:IRC channels/wikipedia-en-admins. I believe David Gerard and Geogre cover (or have covered) that elsewhere. Obviously, if you go too far back, you do start dredging up old stuff, but I think going back as far as the creation of the page and the reasons for its existence are fair enough. This would probably not be specific diffs, but more links to discussions to lay out the background to the history of the page. Carcharoth (talk) 18:32, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

My attempt to make sense of all this has been hampered by the deleted revisions. Even as an admin there is no easy way to locate the deleted revision that a diff refers to. If right to vanish is truly the reason behind the deletion of the page then it can be redeleted after arbcom. Looking at the page I see no privacy issues or harrasments. 1 != 2 18:43, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

Without picking sides, you basically nailed it. That was my original concern before it became all this: there are diffs being used as evidence, they are not available anymore as evidence, the arbcom process is hindered. Now it's become all this debate on m:vanish which, quite frankly, is clear on its purpose and limited use. Users are arguing that the pages should remain deleted because of Giano's right to vanish, but I haven't found any evidence that he has invoked that right. His statement of departure (which was just 2 days ago, btw) was I'm not closing the door on a return but at the moment I am sickened by the project. I understand Giano wishes to leave the project, either temporarily or permanently, without major fuss. Every Wikipedia user is entitled to that, and I believe this is the interpretation of many users above. Other users are citing the policy word for word, contesting this assertion. In my view, both arguments are valid yet faulted, with strengths and weaknesses on both sides.

Thatcher has wisely found a middle ground we can all work with, to restore the specific time period in question, and I suggest we accept it as is. If users wish to cite other undeleted diffs as evidence for this case they should contact Thatcher, I'm sure he'll be ready to discuss and assist. Any serious concern raised here should be about particular evidence and accompanied by a specific reason. Aside from that, I think we should just let the rest of the arbitration process continue. Further discussion on undeleting the page should be made at the appropriate forum (WP:DRV), but please, please, after this case is closed and keeping in mind we want less controversy, drama, incidents, wheel-warring, and wasted apple pies. - Mtmelendez ^(Talk) 23:09, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

• This is a bit tricky but I believe I have restored the revisions of Giano's talk page related to the July and November disputes over the IRC page. Thatcher 04:38, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

Ok, so people are looking there for "evidence of edit warring," right? I have had Giano's talk page watchlisted, and I don't remember any talk about that trivial vanity page at any time, there. This is just pointless, while others delete sections of the actual /Evidence given by Bishonen because they want the guilty to agree to airing it? There are policies about right to vanish. There are none covering Wikipedia posting of IRC logs. (There are IRC rules about it but not Wikipedia rules.) Geogre (talk) 13:27, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

Geogre, you're confusing the issue. First of all, the right to vanish does not include the deletion of user talk pages with substantial activity ("Your user and talk pages, and their subpages, and other non-article pages that no others have substantively contributed to and whose existence does not impact the project, may be courtesy blanked or deleted.") and never has. Second of all, Giano has not invoked a right to vanish. Third, talk pages of a user involved in an arbitration case are considered useful evidence; even if they could be deleted under a right to vanish, they would be at least selectively undeleted during the case (as Thatcher has done). Fourth, this is a wiki, so we don't have to rely on the memory of one user on what did or did not take place on a particular page, especially when views on what is relevant differ. Five, the evidence wasn't deleted, it was blanked, and on a wiki that's not a semantic distinction, that's the difference between an editorial action and an administrative action. Mackensen (talk) 21:55, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

I have undeleted the entire page history so that I could get evidence from it. This hasn't been undone, so I assume nobody minds having it undeleted for the duration of this case? Phil Sandifer (talk) 15:45, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

• I expect I will re-delete it when the case closes unless there is a DRV, though. Thatcher 16:21, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

• My practice, when I cleared up some old user talk archives that I never used, was to retain those few that were referred to in the final decision in an arbitration case I was involved in. This seemed fair to me because although I had no further use for them obviously the arbitrators had. It's not a huge deal, though. If Giano ever returns we just restore the deleted history. At the moment it's a ittle ambiguous because Giano clearly has logged in and used his account to make an edit lately, so we have no clear indication of his intention. --Tony Sidaway 16:28, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

• As far as I can tell, the history of your user talk page is complete, back to the earliest history here, in November 2004. Deletion of archive pages doesn't affect retrieving diffs from the history of the main talk page if the archives are created by copyign and pasting. The exception is when people archive by moving their talk page and then recreate it for the next set of posts. That's always seemed a silly way to do things if you have ever tried locating diffs among a set of 20 or 30 archive pages. Carcharoth (talk) 16:59, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

Arbcom "authority"

I notice a lot of proposals talking about arbcom's "authority", such as an authority over some of the IRC channels. This seems to be a very bad idea, since that's not at all what arbcom is supposed to do. Arbcom is only supposed to have authority on case-related matters, not the general operations of something. -- Ned Scott 08:18, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

Jimbo said otherwise recently. And if Arbcom is to have no authority over something, what is that something on the encyclopedia that Arbcom has authority over? Lawrence Cohen 08:22, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

To decide which aspects of policy apply and to provide binding interpretations pertaining to a specific situation? Also, while Jimbo is Jimbo is Jimbo, there are far wiser people on Wikipedia than him. The authority he has is historical, not based on extraordinarily intelligent recent judgements (quite to the contrary, one might argue), and should not be taken too seriously imo. I dorfbaer I talk I 11:56, December 30, 2007

I was under the impression that arbcom can sanction for serial misbehaviour. There are other alternatives on Wikipedia to deal with matters before an arbcom case is needed. What alternatives are available on the Wikipedia IRC channels? Personally, I'm much more used to mailing lists, and I see IRC and the mailing lists as alternative mediums to discuss things. If IRC were cast loose, I'd be worried that the mailing lists (moderated, I think, by David Gerard among others) and other forums (like the recent Wikiback forum started by UninvitedCompany) would be similarly severed from Wikipedia. There are many and varying levels of officialness and independence (think of the way in which the Signpost is an independent community newsletter, for example), and we need to be careful not to go too far with things like this. It is possible that a more focused effort to clean up IRC might work. The impression I've got so far is that it is a medium that works well most of the time, with the occasional bad incident, and an ingrained culture that some people find offputting. If a wider range of people joined, that might improve things. But at the end of the day, we are here to write an encyclopedia, not to improve Wikipedia's IRC channels. Carcharoth (talk) 17:21, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

After reading this, I'm personally just confused how some random editors get autonomy from the Committee and the other admins on-Wiki. I thought the only thing that was above or outside the Committee's control was the Foundation. That is, on the Wiki, I thought it was

• Foundation > Arbcom > Jimbo > anyone else, in that order?

Or is it

• Foundation > Arbcom/IRC operators > Jimbo > anyone else, in that order?

Who elected the operators? When does their term expire? It's very confusing. Lawrence Cohen 17:59, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

As far as I'm aware, nobody has claimed that elections are held. This question seems thus to be based on an unfounded assumption. --Tony Sidaway 19:37, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

• Current policy, Jimbo's statement notwithstanding, is that IRC is separate from Wikipedia; it has its own rules and structure. The highest level operator is James F, there are a number of lower level chanops. If you want to be a chanop, ask one. If you want to ban a user for incivility, ask a chanop. If you want to get a chanop demoted for some reason, ask a higher level chanop. There is no current policy allowing Arbcom or anyone else to dictate to the chanops what they must do. Arbcom can not issue a ruling demoting someone. (However, many high ranking chanops are on the Arbitration committee; presumably they are heavily invested in Wikipedia and would act as chanops rather than as arbitrators to remedy bad situations.) Jimbo appears to want to give Arbcom a greater role, it is not clear how that would work or even if Arbcom would accept, since Arbcom has the authority to overrule Jimbo. Thatcher 02:38, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

To clarify: My feeling is that it would be reasonable for arbcom to include IRC when it's related to a case, etc, but it would be odd to have them manage the channel when it's unrelated. -- Ned Scott 03:38, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

admin IRC operator election?

Why not hold an admin-only (since it's an admin-only channel) public election ala the Arbcom with set terms to decide who becomes an operator, and they answer directly to Arbcom? Lawrence Cohen 18:03, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

Solution looking for a problem, I think. --Deskana (talk) 18:04, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

Based on these absurd pages the problem seems to be that a lot of people think there is no external control over the channels. It was just a suggestion. Who elected the operators, when does their term expire? Lawrence Cohen 18:07, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

There was no election and they have no terms. It's similar to checkuser, actually. They're people that have the knowledge to work the operator tools. I've seen plenty of controversial actions happen using operator tools in #wikipedia-en but I've yet to see anything I consider a problem with regards to the operators of #wikipedia-en-admins. Such is why I find this unnecessary. --Deskana (talk) 18:11, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

Well, since neither Wikipedia nor WMF accept any responsibility for what happens on any IRC channel (Jimbo's statement notwithstanding) it would be inappropriate for any election for these "positions" to be held on Wikipedia. Risker (talk) 19:09, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

Is it any more appropriate, then, to have "policy" of said channels on Wikipedia, but a feeling of OWN around it, explicitly claimed, in some instances, as a "special case", there on the Wikipedia, but only to be touched by those granted the nod from the IRC channel operator? Achromatic (talk) 02:11, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

Since you mention it, I think the list of operators ought to be cleaned up at some point. There's some who have high level and haven't been in there for over a year, and one with 48 (highest being 49) who has apparently never used it. Majorly (talk) 19:32, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

Just a comment: Every IRC channel I have ever been in, operator status is mostly a status symbol. I cannot imagine there being a great need for many operators on a closed admin channel--and what I mean by that is, if only admins and trusted users have access then no one, or very few, will come in the channel to flood it with "LOL MUDKIPS". The more subtle stuff, such as one person calling another an asshole is unlikely to get someone kicked anyway, unless they persist. (I only speak from my experience in other irc channels in my life, not in #admins, I've never been there)

This isn't really an operator problem.

Which leads me to my next point actually--Tony elsewhere describes an "IRC culture", and I agree that there is one, and it's sometimes at odds with what we can only call "Wikipedian culture". And this is the rub in trying to assert control or authority over it from an outside body that has little knowledge about IRC. It would have very little teeth anyway. If someone wants control over IRC so that they can discipline for actions done there, then there has to be brand new channels made. James would keep his channels, whatever they are, since they are essentially his personal channels anyway. I'd personally never ask anyone to hand over authority of their irc channels. These aren't our channels, they're James'. If the community wants more strictly controlled channels, that's great! But you have to make your own...

On the other hand, if James' would like to hand some authority over the channels over to someone else or a group of people, then that would be his choice. But he would have to resign complete control, and like I said before I'd never ask him to do that. Those are his channels, if you don't like how they are ran then you can make your own--there are even a variety of different networks to choose from.

Keep in mind that I find the actions that took place there in this incident depressing and I do not like them. But you simply cannot assert control over another person's IRC channels, whether you are a top ten website or not. daveh4h 19:57, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

In the admins channel, the only need for operators should be for adding people to the auto invite list, and of course to add/revoke access. There's other minor things too: on one occasion someone was flooding in text, and so an op intervened and quieted them. On another, the channel was cleared (this is a command only the highest level ops have). There is a need for ops there... just that they don't need to use their tools all that often, especially to keep order. Majorly (talk) 20:06, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

Random question about IRC and Wikipedia

Given that #wikipedia-en-roads is being discussed in an ongoing request for arbitration, is it technically possible to find out how many IRC channels exist with the prefix #wikipedia or #wikipedia-en or any other wikipedia or foundation related channels? Just a vague idea. Are there hundreds of such channels or only a few? Carcharoth (talk) 18:46, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

Interestingly, very similar concerns are being raised about that channel as are being raised about this one. Risker (talk) 19:06, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

The answer is that it depends. There will be a certain amount registered with ChanServ (You can possibly ask for a list from it) though not all of these will be in use/active, these effectively exist at all times and have a channel contact/owner defined. Alternatively anyone can just join a channel which is unregistered e.g. #wikipedia-users-named-bob and the channel is "created" when the first users joins and disappears when the last user leaves. You can similarly form pretty much any channel name you want (though certain like gnaa type channel names are likely to get you permenantly banned from freenode) --81.104.39.63 (talk) 19:49, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

• This is a channel listing with the wikipedia prefix taken after I issued a LIST command to the public server on 02:47, 31 December 2007 (UTC).

 <code>
anthony.freenode.net Sun Dec 30 20:40:51 2007
#pywikipediabot 
#wikipedia 
#wikipedia-bag 
#wikipedia-BAG/ClueBot 
#wikipedia-BAG/TrialBots 
#wikipedia-bio 
#wikipedia-ca 
#wikipedia-ca-vandalisme
#wikipedia-cs 
#wikipedia-da 
#wikipedia-de 
#wikipedia-en 
#wikipedia-en-admins 
#wikipedia-en-arbcom 
#wikipedia-en-help 
#wikipedia-en-image-uploads
#wikipedia-en-roads 
#wikipedia-en-spam 
#wikipedia-en-spam-bot-temp
#wikipedia-en-unblock
#wikipedia-es 
#wikipedia-fr 
#wikipedia-ideas 
#wikipedia-it 
#wikipedia-ja 
#wikipedia-ja-admins
#wikipedia-ja-articles
#wikipedia-ja-railfan 
#wikipedia-ja-utf8 
#wikipedia-nl 
#wikipedia-nl-vandalism 
#wikipedia-pl 
#wikipedia-pt 
#wikipedia-ru 
#wikipedia-ru-admin
#wikipedia-ru-social
#wikipedia-simple  
#wikipedia-sk 
#wikipedia-social
#wikipedia-spam-stats
#wikipedia-spam-t 
#wikipedia-sv 
#wikipedia-tr 
#wikipedia-VAN 
#wikipedia-VAN/Unreverted 

Mercury 02:47, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

Note: This does not include any channels that are intentionally hidden by freenode staff or channel contacts, if there are any currently set with those modes (+s or +p) they would not appear in response to my LIST command. Mercury 02:48, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

• There are a lot more than that. To list #*wikipedia* it spews out a bunch and says "100/575 matches shown". Just looking for #wikipedia-en* gives 70 matches, and don't forget the #wikimedia channels. Thatcher 02:52, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

If you are inclined, perhaps you can post the list extract from the public server, I may have borked it. Regards, Mercury 03:07, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

Well, no I'm not going to drop a list of 600 or so channels here. The question is largely irrelevant; anyone can register a channel. We have everything from #wikipedia-en-cricket to #wikipedia-en-idiots. Possibly JameF or Seanw could pull some strings and get all wikipedia-named channels that aren't used for wikipedia business canceled or renamed, but does it really matter? The channels are not owned, sanctioned, endorsed or regulated by Wikipedia by policy. Thatcher 03:15, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

Your correct. I think the interest was academic, but listing was of no harm. Either way. Best, Mercury 03:18, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

I compiled a list of all that I could a while back at m:User:John Reaves/IRC list. John Reaves 06:33, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

Thanks to everyone for the lists and information. The 600+ was the sort of figure I was after. Any way to estimate the number of users active in the channels? Some stats for #wikipedia are here. John, would you believe that #wikipedia-en-admins is missing from your list? :-) You have the wikinews and wikimedia admin channels, but not the en-wikipedia admin channel. I've gone digging around on meta, and there are loads of pages. See m:IRC channels and m:IRC and m:Template:Communication (for a list of pages). Compared to some pages on meta, these seem fairly good and up-to-date (please correct me if I'm wrong). So why not just let the detail be provided over there, keep the main Wikipedia:IRC channels page here, but reduce it to a summary of what is at meta, with only the briefest of explanations, and a few links to help people get up to speed on what debates about IRC have occurred on en-Wikipedia (including this arbitration case and any other cases involving IRC), and the user essays on the subject. Don't label it "controversy" or anything silly like that, but just make people aware of what has been discussed in the past, while briefly explaining what IRC is and also linking outwards to the meta pages. Carcharoth (talk) 12:18, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

Chanserv labels some channels as "Active", I assume that means they are in use at the moment, and the date they were created. I don;t know how to get chanserv to report more than 100 names at a time, when it says 100/575 listed, I see 100 names but can't see the other 475. I can try some tricks later tonight. Thatcher 16:05, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

The command doesn't show private channels so it's possible #admins was +s at the time. John Reaves 03:17, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

• I put up a list at User:Thatcher/IRC list. Because chanserv will only give me 100 at a time, I had to do 26 separate searches, #wikipedia-a*, #wikipedia-b* etc, and I'm not sure I got them all because the numbers still don't quite add up. (Must be some with some other character after #wikipedia besides the hyphen and the period, which I checked.) Make of it what you will. Thatcher 17:07, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

Arbcom pages being used for guidelines outside of the case

I'm not really sure, but this seems to be the most active discussion we've ever had about policies/guidelines for/relating to IRC. Even if things here are not used in the final proposals for the case, or are even off-topic as far as what arbcom can do, this discussion should definitely be used as a starting point for the loose ends. That probably goes without saying, but I thought I would say it anyways. -- Ned Scott 04:59, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

Agreed. Too often good ideas emerge during arbcom cases and no-one runs with them. Maybe it is because as soon as you widen the numbers involved, consensus starts to blur markedly. There were several attempts to discuss blocking policy (one was at the village pump) recently, but such discussions get side-tracked or people lose interest. Carcharoth (talk) 12:20, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

More IPs

I just reverted another. Since they are all coming in from various IPs, is this all open proxy action? Should this talk page be protected, too? Lawrence Cohen 22:09, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

Might be a good idea, unless someone else wants to RV them. I'm at 3rr. Lawrence Cohen 22:32, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

I've semid it for 24 hours. SirFozzie (talk) 22:35, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

Double post, sorry. Considering one post traces via whois to VA, and one to .DE (the country, not the state), odds are good that one (or both) of them are open proxies. SirFozzie (talk) 22:40, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

Triple post. One of the IP's on the main workshop page itself is from Taiwan, so I'm pretty sure these are open proxies. I asked a CheckUser, Alison, to try to see if we can confirm the proxyhood, smoke out any sleepers, and close off the proxies to WP access. SirFozzie (talk) 22:57, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

ArbCom and talk page semi-protected

Looks like someone's using Tor Proxies any time the Workshop or its talk page is unprotected. I semi'd both for 72 hours. If I've overstepped my boundaries or if it's overdoing it, please feel free to undo it, don't wait for me to be online to agree with you. SirFozzie (talk) 03:13, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

It appears that these IPs (except for 89.12.88.210 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)) are TOR nodes.—Ryūlóng (竜龍) 03:23, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

Nor is 88.198.14.120 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log).—Ryūlóng (竜龍) 03:24, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

More IPs redux

They're back. Might need to semi-protect again. Lawrence Cohen 21:22, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

Link. Lawrence Cohen 21:22, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

I just protected the talk page as well. Sean William @ 21:26, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

Why don't we just put up a proposal that Ryulong should be... Oops. No. That would be caving in to pressure, wouldn't it. :-) The ironic thing is that someone might want to put up a similar proposal (though not quite so strongly worded), but the IP editing is actually making it less likely that anything like that will be put up. I could put up an "admonished" suggestion, covering both Geogre and Ryulong for their continued edit warring after making statements at the request for arbitration. That still surprises me that they both did that, and that Ryulong claimed not to be involved when he made his arbitration statement, and then went back and carried on edit warring. Carcharoth (talk) 00:36, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

Done. I've proposed that Geogre and Ryulong be admonished. I was going to do that anyway, and the IP edit warring/trolling just reminded me. Carcharoth (talk) 00:48, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

The next time he does it, just leave it there so he stops adding it back. Its not going to be accepted or seriously taken, anyway.—Ryūlóng (竜龍) 22:49, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

But it was a useful exercise for finding tor nodes and other sleepers. :) Thatcher 22:51, 9 January 2008 (UTC)