Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IRC admin channel

Moved from Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard#IRC_admin_channel (permanent link)

Original notice

Numerous incidents involving gross incivility on the IRC channel have been brought to the Arbitration Committee's attention. We consider such behavior absolutely unacceptable; to ensure that it does not continue, we have worked with the leadership of the IRC channels to appoint additional channel ops, with a specific mandate to keep Wikimedia IRC channels polite and courteous. Behavior on the IRC channel may be taken into consideration with respect to arbitration cases if it results in disruption on Wikipedia. Fred Bauder for the Arbitration Committee 01:54, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

IRC admin channel

Good call. HighInBC ^{(Need help? Ask me)} 01:59, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

Not enough. The worst offenders are themselves chanops, as demonstrated by logs submitted to the ArbCom. IMO, their removal from the channel is the very least the ArbCom needs to do for the abused community and mistreated individuals. (The fact that the chanops in question are not actually admins should make the removal all the simpler.) What I see in Fred's message, however is not even a proposal to remove their chanop privileges. Are you serious? Bishonen | talk 02:14, 16 January 2007 (UTC).

Indeed. Without some community involvement regarding who the IRC chanops are, this is unlikely to make much difference. I'm not sure who the worked-with "leaders" in Fred's message are; is it a secret? —Bunchofgrapes (talk) 02:20, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

I didn't even know there was a proposal to speak of, where is this being discussed? HighInBC ^{(Need help? Ask me)} 02:16, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

I'm afraid, when arbcom have constantly declined to address rank and obvious incivility on-wiki, they forfeit all credibility in any attempt to extend themselves into IRC. Send out out strong signals that incivility stops on-wiki and perhaps that will filter through to IRC. Until then.....showing teeth isn't going to convince.--Doc^g 02:19, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

That's no different to the claim "we have article X which is clearly rubbish, so we cannot delete article Y" often raised by n00bs at AfD. If the Arbcom feel that these relatively simple steps will reduce incivility in IRC, then they should go ahead, not stop because they haven't solved everything on-wiki first. the wub "?!" 02:45, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

Nonsense. If arbcom have shown a total and continued failure to deal with incivility on-wiki, threatening to come down hard on off-wiki incivility just isn't credible.--Doc^g 02:59, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

how often have they been presented with on-wiki incivility to deal with it, though? Considering the issues that the channel has apparently given in past/current cases, it seems like they're simply doing what's asked of them. --badlydrawnjeff talk 03:04, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

Why is the issue actually being raised here, in full public view, and not in private with the parties concerned though ? There's already enough disruption on-wiki concerning IRC channels (and this channel in particular) and as nobody outwith the sysop pool (and a few selected others, I'm led to believe) can see what goes on in that channel, posting about it here is perhaps a little overly transparent. I heartily support any promotion of civility however. --Kind Regards - Heligoland ^{(Talk) (Contribs)} 02:20, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

I assume Fred brought it up here to notify us of a change of policy. HighInBC ^{(Need help? Ask me)} 02:22, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

All this will start is anoth shit-storm (sigh)--Doc^g 02:26, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

Maybe we should work to fix incivility on-wiki too. These proposed remedies are more strict than how misconduct has been handled on-wiki as of late. --Cyde Weys 02:36, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

• This is becoming a joke. Judging from the title of the heading alone shows that we are no different from Legislative Yuan. - Mailer Diablo 02:39, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

I find a regulation of off-wiki activities by a panel with jurisdiction ONLY over this wiki somewhat disturbing. — Werdna talk 02:40, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

They aren't claiming jurisdiction, note Fred says they have been working with the IRC leadership. They are simply stating that IRC activity may be considered in on-wiki cases if it is relevant. the wub "?!" 02:48, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

I'm sorry but why is this being discussed now? Efforts have been made in the past few weeks to put a stop to whatever negative activities are occuring in the channel. Frankly, I think most of us support the shutdown of the channel entirely, rather than creating more mess with the same parties, which is what's happening right now. —Pilotguy (ptt) 02:43, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

Maybe it is time to shut it down. RxS 02:45, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

Whether it is shut down or not, the behavior we are trying to stop can easily continue through other means if people really want to do things subtly, but nonetheless I think that shutting the channel down is a poor move. The channel has its uses for immediate issues and things that require administrator intervention. Rooting out the behavior that would not be suitable even on-wiki is definitely a positive step in making the channel more useful so that there is less cause for disruption in the future, though. Cowman109^Talk 02:49, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

Possibly, but discussing administrator intervention issues there is what started all this in the first place. Sensitive foundation/WP:BIO stuff can find a new home, sometimes it's easier to shut something down and start over then trying to fix ongoing systemic problems. But maybe all it needs is an influx of new users/admins with these conversations in mind. RxS 03:16, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

Can someone point me to the discussion that everyone seems to have read, because I am lost here, what is everyone so pissed off about? HighInBC ^{(Need help? Ask me)} 02:51, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

In this case, ignorance is bliss. Just slowly step away and never look back. --Cyde Weys 02:53, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

IRC comes up from time to time...buried in WP:AN and WP:ANI archives. Some admins are firm believers in it, some editors (mostly non-admins) are vocal against it, and others such as myself qualify to join but decline to do so. The civility aspect dovetails with another recent hot button topic not necessarily confined to IRC. On January 5 I set off a firestorm (quite inadvertently) after I left a civility warning on another admin's talk page. If I'd anticipated how heated some reactions would be I would have handled the situation with greater circumspection, yet the admin I warned wasn't offended and two other editors awarded me barnstars. It sprouted some threads in my most recent user talk archive and the top of my current page if you're curious. Durova^Charge 03:12, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

• This is not sufficient, in my view. Lest I be counted merely among the "burn it down" camp, let me delineate:
  1. Additional ops would be enough if there were a suggestion that there were too few. In fact, in this case, the ones with "ops" have been implicated several times in the incivility.
  2. Additional ops are also not going to answer the glaring problem that at least two people with "ops" are not administrators on en.wikipedia. One of these was implicated in using that IRC channel inappropriately in September of 2006 and then again in December 2006. This is not a one time problem but a serial problem with two or three people.
  3. The channel still has no justification, as it is populated by non-administrators as well as being a place only a small fraction of en. administrators ever go.
  4. The channel will not be capable of behaving properly unless the people with control of it understand what it is that they have done that is not proper. So far as I have seen or heard, they still are in the dark about how calling for someone to be "killed, slowly" is bad, and there is no hope at all for them to understand how "let's start a pool on when X will be banned" is improper.
  5. The central problem remains undefined. If no one knows what "civility" means, then we're going to have more boots and blocks for someone using a wordy dird while detailed character assassination is cheered on. There is no actual guideline yet for the ops or users to employ for determining when they're acting improperly. In fact, one of the most hostile and reductive and bullying editors I've encountered is up above crying about on-wiki "civility" not being enforced. Obviously, what he means and what Fred means, and what I mean, are different things. He seems to hyperventilate about calling a he a she or a jerk an ass, while I care about trying to get people blocked so that their voices are no longer heard.
• I do think the whole thing should be disbanded, as I cannot see any room for it to help Wikipedia and built in ways for it to damage Wikipedia, but that would be merely philosophical if it weren't for the fact that ArbCom cannot act here and now because the people "in charge" are the people in the dock. They do not admit wrong, cannot conceive that they could be wrong, and will therefore not do anything differently, especially in the long term. If this is merely round two of a three round fight, if we have to wait for yet another horrendous case of star chamber blocks and rallying to destroy users, then that's a disgrace that proves that it's not what you do, but who you know. Incidentally, that is the charge trolls make all the time, and it's disgusting that we would make them right. Geogre 03:29, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

Geogre, I think it's apparent that there isn't a definition of civility that everyone agrees on. Your comment above, "a he a she or a jerk an ass," illustrates the problem nicely. You didn't think anything of it, and still don't, but several people regarded it as one of the meanest, nastiest things ever said by one user about another, and the fact that you don't agree does not for one moment diminish the effect that it had. Mackensen (talk) 03:51, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

• And, on the other hand, many people see absolutely nothing wrong with spending hours talking about users who aren't present and talking about how they're all "idiots" and how they should be banned. They see nothing wrong with it still. So, if we were to balance out the two, where would we be: one person saying, of another who says frequently that she is pleased to be able to identify either way, one particular thing about gendered speech, versus three sitting about every night with an enemies list and coordinating provocations, blocks, and actions to generate a ban? You're right, Mackensen, I don't see that there is any comparison at all. One is being disagreeable and the other is trying to interrupt Wikipedia. One is where all sides may defend themselves (or take revenge, which seems to be the preferred reaction), and the other is where only like-voices can be heard as revenge. That you could be such a blushing violet and see these as anything like the same is strange to me, you are correct. Geogre 13:11, 16 January 2007 (UTC)
  • Geogre, you seem to be taking the same line that Giano is: incivility on the encyclopedia is justified by perceived off-wiki conspiracies. Let's say you're right, just for the sake of the argument: Kelly Martin and other persons are conspiring to drive you and Giano off the encyclopedia. How does that, in any way, justify you making the aforementioned statement? An eye for an eye, Geogre? If I allege an off-wiki conspiracy against me by User X, on flimsy evidence, may I start trash-talking them in public? Mackensen (talk) 13:30, 16 January 2007 (UTC)
• No, Mackensen, I'm trying to illustrate to you the difference between being unpleasant (me) and disliking someone (as I do) and character assassination with the intent of blocking. I am justified in calling you a worm, if I want. That's my opinion, to which I am entitled. I would probably hope that you would be affronted, but I would have no expectation that you'd block for that, as no policy says that anyone may be blocked for expressing an unpleasant opinion. On the other hand, if I spend hours with only my friends in Wikipedia Divine Actions IRC, and we talk non-stop about how horrible Mackensen is, how he lies all the time, how he spends all his time complaining, how he's corrupt, how he's a hypocrit, etc., and then, when new people come in, that's all they see. If they protest, we all take turns telling that person that she should not be at our channel, because she may get blocked. Now, suppose, Mackensen, that you actually saw a log of that. How would you feel if I got sanctimonious about it? How would you feel if I threatened to block you (or did it) for telling anyone about the log? As for me, let them conspire. They've been doing it, and they'll do it still. I'm a big boy and am not threatened by pufferfish. The issue is much more concrete, much more precise. We are all free to be unpleasant, disagreeable, cantankerous, and ill humored, but we are not free to conspire to block other users. Or, in simpler words: we have to obey policy, not our inner rage. Geogre 00:13, 17 January 2007 (UTC)
  • Well, call me a worm if you like. That's not very collegial but I suppose if it floats your boat I won't argue. I wouldn't block you either, but I might start bringing up next time you ran for arbcom. I don't like civility blocks, and I'm on the record stating this numerous times, so let's move on. For all I know there are IRC channels where my name is mud; certainly there are talk pages on this encyclopedia that fit said description. I can't say that those bother me either. People of sound judgment can tell the difference between intelligent criticism and prattle, and I know whose opinion I value. Now, as it happens, I've been in a position where private evidence of someone bad-mouthing me was presented to me. I didn't do anything about it because frankly I didn't give a good damn. You're quite right that we have to obey policy. Last I looked WP:CIVIL was a policy, although not one with much weight any more. You talk about character assassination: why don't you look down below, where Giano is making slanderous remarks. You wanted to be an arbitator: is this your idea of handling a dispute? Mackensen (talk) 00:39, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

I don't believe in ignorance is bliss, that has always seemed like a myth to me. HighInBC ^{(Need help? Ask me)} 03:33, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

The arbcom has discussed this at great length. Clearly there is a problem. However, with an issue this complex, involving this many actors, there is no solution that will please everyone. On one extreme is people who advocate shutting the channel down, and on the other is people who advocate doing nothing. I think the solution Fred mentioned - working with the structures currently in place to enforce civility in the channel - is a fair compromise. Raul654 03:40, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

What structures? Is there any clear methodology for who and who isn't a chanop there? Who are the "leaders" Fred Bauder mentioned? It's a wild-west free-for-all where the most entrenched clique wins in there. —Bunchofgrapes (talk) 03:49, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

Beg pardon, but how can you confess ignorance at the leadership structure and then characterize it? Mackensen (talk) 03:54, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

Admin IRC? Is that the place where admins rubs their hands saying mwhahaha? -- ReyBrujo 03:57, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

You joke, but I'm left with the impression that some people think just that. That's what happens when you cherry-pick from a log file. Sure, you'll find something objectionable, but extrapolating from that and coming up with the idea that the whole channel is rotten to the core is just bad propaganda. One should never build law on outlier cases or personalities, but we seem to be headed that way. Mackensen (talk) 04:00, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

Let me point out, specifically, that I acknowledge the existence of specific abuses in the above comment. Mackensen (talk) 04:01, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

I've never set foot ... err ... keyboard ... in the admin IRC channel. Is it any different from the regular one? On there, people ask for help. They bounce ideas off of each other. They talk about non-wiki things. They point out funny/silly/ludicrous things they've found while editing. Sometimes there's profanity or other rudeness. It's pretty much like life in general. Is the admin channel any different? --BigDT 04:04, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

Not really, except that the people in there discuss administrative actions too. The controversial nature of any admin action is squared if "IRC" is breathed, since it implies a conspiracy. Mackensen (talk) 04:06, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

On the whole, the incidents which have prompted this constitute well under 1% of all traffic. Unfortunately, they also represent between 50%-100% of some users total experience with either this channel, or IRC in general. This is a problem, but I think it's a problem in search of a targeted solution. Mackensen (talk) 04:10, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

(edit conflict, replying to Mackensen at 04:00) Thankfully, my knowledge about IRC is limited to /connect, /join, /alias and /quit, so I am pretty neutral here. Hmm... I once tried to download some movie through a channel, but it said something about being at position 5,000 in a queue, and after half an hour I was 7,000, so I turned the computer off and bought the DVD.

I know IRC is necessary to discuss in real time, but undoubtedly, it creates a separation between administrators, just like Category:Administrators open to recall. There are those that can/want to connect through IRC, and those that can't/won't. It is inevitable. Even I feel that difference when someone reports a user at AIV stating "sockpuppet of blocked XXX", and when reviewing XXX's block, I find a "[Un]blocked per IRC talk" or similar. However, I must assume good faith, especially without logs. Others just can't (because of personal experience or anything), and raise in arms. It is a real pity that we do not have a Special:Irclogs where to check the public conversations in the channels, available only for admins, that would make things much clearer for everyone. -- ReyBrujo 04:20, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

There's the rub: you don't why an administrator is acting period, regardless of what discussion took place. Even when an administrator cites a specific policy, it still came down to the functioning of various processes in his or her head. There's a thousand IRC channels out there, and most of them prohibit logging. It only comes up with #wikipedia-en-admins because a) some things said there really aren't for public consumption because there are privacy issues, and b) the relative size makes it possible to enforce the rule. Mackensen (talk) 04:25, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

Of course! However, if an off-wiki action (as in, a IRC chat) brings a on-wiki reaction (in example, blocking a user), I think it would be just to include at least some information about that, just like you would point to the AFD when deleting an article, or the external link when deleting a copyvio. Ok, so full logging is not a solution, but at least consider some way of IRC board where to post the juicy parts (as in, the statements that were used to build consensus about something). We can quote an AFD, a URL or a report, we can even quote a mail to the mailing list, but we can't quote an IRC conversation? As I said, I assume good faith even though a vandal has broken two test4 warnings. However, others are less patient, and you need to comprehend them. I would even say that everyone's priority is to open the process as much as possible. -- ReyBrujo 04:42, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

Well, as I've said before, I see no reason to invoke IRC at all; every administrator is responsible for what they do. Heck, every editor is responsible for every edit they make. Whether it was discussed on IRC or not is frankly beside the point. Anyone should be able to give a rational accounting of their actions. The problem is that the mention of IRC often leads to an assumption of bad faith--not always, but it happens. Mackensen (talk) 04:46, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

It is not that different from, in example, asking to review a block here, is it? I mean, some users may bring a review here (like #1 month block of 88.104.202.232), others may feel more comfortable with reviewing there. You are right, if you do something, you take responsibility. But if they can't and use some IRC chat as justification, that chat should be made public.

No need to reply, though, we will keep going in circles like the Line Rider avatar :-) -- ReyBrujo 05:02, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

Much of this seems a bit moot. Even if the admin channel was shut down, it is technically impossible to prevent private communication between any group that decides to communicate privately. HighInBC ^{(Need help? Ask me)} 04:13, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

The admin channel also serves as a place a lot of newer admins with questions go to get their questions answered. They hang out there, and see how abusive behavior is tolerated and encouraged. In short order they may come to believe such behavior is the correct and expected behavior for administrators. —Bunchofgrapes (talk) 04:24, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

Good point grapes, I went there when I was new at the mop for advice and it was very helpful. HighInBC ^{(Need help? Ask me)} 04:29, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

Yep. It's a good use for IRC. We don't need an #admins channel for it; were there very many highly-sensitive issues you were asking about, that couldn't have been as easily asked and answered in #wikipedia-en? —Bunchofgrapes (talk) 04:36, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

Well, you go where the people are. If you have a specific question about administration, you go where the administrators are. I find #wikipedia a bewildering place; I never got the impression that #wikipedia-en was highly patronized. Mackensen (talk) 04:39, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

Nothing is wrong with private communication, some questions need to be asked in front of experienced users, instead of everyone. HighInBC ^{(Need help? Ask me)} 04:40, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

Yes, but no reason to not ask a few well regarded administrators privately via email for the same advice or direction. Rarely, is something so immediate that it can't be resolved via email.--MONGO 06:44, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

In camera (aka arbitrary section break)

It's been asked a few times, but I'll ask again: What discussion with whom? Would it not make more sense to have the whole thing conducted "in public" as it were? The easiest questions to answer are:

• Who are the "leadership of the IRC channels," and
• Who has been "appoint[ed as] additional channel ops?"

brenneman 04:27, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

• The channels are under the control of James Forrester. The leadership is best described as James and Essjay, with help from others. The chanops on this channel in question include the following: FloNight, DavidGerard, Sannse, Fennec, Danny, Mackensen, Morven, Mark Ryan, Jimbo, Essjay, Angela, JamesF, Kelly Martin, Uninvited Company, Mindspillage and Dmcdevit. Mackensen (talk) 04:34, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

Good questions. Please, don't assume everyone knows what you are talking about, I only have a vague sense of what is going on here. HighInBC ^{(Need help? Ask me)} 04:31, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

Since I'm a bit thick I like it when things are spleed write out: this channel in question is the admin channel? JF is "in charge" of #wikipedia and #whateveritis-admins, and that list are the chanops for #admins? And "include the following" is hazy to me. Sorry to be pedantic, but can we have a complete list of

• Existing/previous chanops for vanilla wikipedia channel,
• Existing/previous chanops for admin channel, and
• Whomever are the "additional" chanops and what channels they are assigned on?

The more I read that response the less feeling of security I get... "with help from others" leaves a lot to be desired as well. Was this discussion conducted via mailing list, IRC, something else, and is it written on water or is there something that Morlocks like me can refer to?
brenneman 04:57, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

• First of all, #wikipedia-en-admins is the only channel under consideration here. Latent abuses in other channels remain unexplored pending someone of importance getting wronged in one of them (no, I'm not being sarcastic, I'm quite serious about that). New chanops for #wikipedia-en-admins are: FloNight, David Gerard, Mackensen, Morven, Uninvited Company and Dmcdevit (thereabouts, anyway). JamesF, as I understand it, is controller of at least all English-language channels because of chaos at freenode following Rob Levin's death. There're numerous chanops on #wikipedia, too many to list here. The information is publicly accessible if anyone wants it. This was discussion on the mailing list of the Arbitration Committee, which happens to include the people responsible for the IRC channels. A happy coincidence proving that no good deed goes unpunished. Mackensen (talk) 05:07, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

• Thank you. I appreciate you having patience while I catch up. No, I'm not being sarcastic. ^_^
  brenneman 06:23, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

• Mackensen, a minor point about your list of 16 #en-admins chanops above. You say that the list "includes" these people; does that mean it's incomplete? I ask because a couple of weeks ago I was kickbanned from the channel by somebody who's not on the list. I won't inflame matters here by naming him, but you certainly know who I mean. Was he an op? Or temporarily opped in order to kick me? Is he an op today? I'm over it, but the action was random and remains unexplained, so I think the answers are of some general interest. Bishonen | talk 06:13, 16 January 2007 (UTC).

• I omitted all level 10s in the interest of brevity. It was also late and I knew I'd miss somebody. Mackensen (talk) 11:42, 16 January 2007 (UTC)
• Bishonen, that was awhile ago now. I think it's best to just get over it and stop constantly bringing it up. IRC channel actions really don't mean a lot. --Cyde Weys 14:32, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

In the interest of full disclosure, I have placed a copy of the access list, obtained via ChanServ, in my userspace (User:Bbatsell/IRC) so as not to clutter up AN. I have removed all those under accesslevel 10, which to my recollection is the level of CMDOP in the channel. If anyone objects to this list (although it is freely available in IRC), then I will remove it. The names there are registered nicknames, and may or may not correspond with Wikipedia usernames. —bbatsell ¿? 06:50, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

Well, I am glad to see other syops on the channel will have the ability to boot those that are being incivil, but what level of incivility is needed before this happens? The problem as I see it has less to do with incivility than with the channels being used to speak a bit too openly about other editors...that should be reserved for private email only. I recognize that IRC would have usefulness if the sole purpose was to expedite a block on a troll, but all decisions to make blocks on established editors should be determined by consensus on wiki, not off it....so what pupose does it serve? Really now, are we a chat forum or are we a collection of encyclopedia writers?--MONGO 06:36, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

The "Chatting vs. Encyclopedia-writing" argument is moot on IRC. IRC is for discussion of all types, and WMF has nothing to do with Freenode. Those who use IRC are not using Wikipedia as a chat forum, they're using IRC as a chat forum, whose initials, by the way, stand for "Internet Relay Chat". —bbatsell ¿? 06:45, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

Yes, but the chatting has led to blockings and has led to reverting blocks made by established admins and has led to formulating abuses that have taken place on wiki on established editors. I am well aware of what IRC stands for...I never use it however and won't.--MONGO 06:53, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

I'm sure it has. But it's very easy to pick out singular events that happen every so often, paint all of IRC with the same brush, and in so doing lose sight of what actually happens the majority of the time, which is positive discussion. I know that I personally have been talked down from blocks that I was ready to make when I asked for second opinions, I know that discussions take place that are very positive. I know that sometimes it's okay for someone who has been blocked to be able to get on IRC, get a one-on-one chat with an admin, and explain their side of the story that often doesn't come out on-wiki. The {{unblock}} template is great but sometimes it isn't very conducive to an in-depth review of a block. If an unblock happens based on that discussion, then it is absolutely the responsibility of the unblocking admin to monitor their contributions to ensure that they were not being disingenuous on IRC. Admins make mistakes, and discussions about what we do or about Wikipedia process or about the general goings-on can almost never be bad, in my humble opinion. I guess I just don't see the basis for the "OMG EVIL!" attitudes that some people (not you, MONGO) harbor towards IRC. Do people sometimes get into heated discussions? Sure, I got into one last night. Do sometimes administrators make bad judgments? Of course, that's true with or without IRC. I just think that people are looking at a very tiny subset of what goes on and are ignoring what goes on 99% of the time, which is very positive for Wikipedia. Anyway, just my $0.02. Your mileage may vary, etc. etc. —bbatsell ¿? 07:19, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

Of course...the point is, I see that IRC allows less transparency than we should have. I don't have time to bother with IRC and am simply encouraging all admins and ArbCom members to do all they can to discuss matters on wiki and use IRC for non-harassing chat.--MONGO 07:31, 16 January 2007 (UTC

• My experiance with the plain olde #wikipedia channel is almost universally positive: People collaberating on articles, rational discussions of policy interpretation, etc. When the atmosphere turns poisonious there are enough people around to either tell the person to can it or for the offender to get the boot. (Once it was me, and I deserved it.) #admins I lurk in all the time, and the ratio is reversed: There are too many like-minded people there, and the toxicity gets multiplied. I have never, not even on one occasion, seen anything discussed there that would not have gotten a better airing on the main channel. More ops isn't going to solve this, when the list supplied above has listed as ops several of those often painted as "unrepentantly uncivil." - brenneman 07:30, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

• You really need to try the channels again. #wikipedia is pretty much universally acknowledged as a cesspit. #admins at least has well-reasoned discussion, although it's going downhill a bit what with the recent influx of teen admins who don't seem to realize that it isn't for extended off-topic chatter. --Cyde Weys 14:32, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

• The one thing I have never understood about the admin channel is that it appeared to me, on my infrequent visits, that people weren't using their Wikipedia username as their nickname. I guess I'm probably a little dense, but I never understood why. Hiding Talk 10:12, 16 January 2007 (UTC)
  • How many people have access to the channel who are not admins? How many are former admins who resigned their sysop status, or were forcibly de-sysopped? Because not one of those should have access to the channel, yet they do. Proto::► 12:00, 16 January 2007 (UTC)
    • I've yet to hear why an admin who voluntarily relinquished adminship is no longer trustworthy. Mackensen (talk) 12:08, 16 January 2007 (UTC)
      • Not to kick salt in someone's eyes when they are down, but if the ArbCom has said that you _must_ re-apply for adminship if you want it back there is clearly a grey area with regards to trust. - brenneman 12:26, 16 January 2007 (UTC)
        • Plus at least some of those who voluntarily relinquished adminship jumped before they were pushed, so to speak. Proto::► 13:22, 16 January 2007 (UTC)
• Fred Bauder says "Numerous incidents involving gross incivility on the IRC channel have been brought to the Arbitration Committee's attention. We consider such behaviour absolutely unacceptable; to ensure that it does not continue, we have worked with the leadership of the IRC channels to appoint additional channel ops" Fred gives sufficient reasons for closing down the channel but then shows the complete lack of understanding of the problem by failing to say that some of the existing channel ops are not only the worst offenders but at least one is a member of the arbcom. He then goes on to say "we have worked with the leadership of the IRC channels " again the self proclaimed owner of the channel; is not only a member of the arbcom, but yes, you've guessed it - one of the worst offenders. Well done Fred we yet again see that this arbcom is beyond redemption. However, I am glad that after so long of being told by Wikipedia's hierarchy that I am imagining these things, they do now seem to be completely unacceptable gross incivility even though the IRC logs show them to be far more serious. Bullying and intimidation are just two words which immediately spring to mind. It should also be remembered that the deplorable events which have been permitted on IRC (certainly in my own experience) are 100% to blame for any incivility which has happened on-wiki. However I must be careful what I say or Fred, Jim and Dm will be RFArbing me again for even thinking such things. Giano 12:04, 16 January 2007 (UTC)
  • You're still responsible for your actions on-wiki. Mackensen (talk) 12:08, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

• Well of course that is true, and entirely why IRCadmins has been such a successful harassing operation, goad and plot against editors in secret, and then ban than when they respond it public. Thank you Mackensen for pointing that out so clearly. Giano 12:15, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

• You're free to allege that; I've seen the evidence and it looks more like a comedy of errors than some deep rooted plot. How do you justify your incivility towards editors who do not use IRC, or who do use IRC but have never been a party towards comedy or malevolence? Feel free to ignore my earlier statements denouncing incivility towards other in IRC. It's also worth mentioning that as an ex-arbitrator I had a hand in drafting Fred's statement and fully endorsed it. There are no free passes here. Mackensen (talk) 13:24, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

• Of course it's fair to add more channel ops to combat incivility and personal attacks, but if some of the older channel ops are in fact party to making those attacks, it makes a lot of sense to replace them with friendlier ops. Otherwise, this will just turn into a rehash of "both parties are incivil but we're going to point at one of them and ignore the other's behavior". >Radiant< 12:58, 16 January 2007 (UTC)
  • Sorry, but this would seem to be wikidrama for the sake of it. Is there a point to this wikidrama? Is there a point to the admins channel? If something needs sorting out, AN and ANI exist for a reason. If something needs sorting out privately or you want a private opinion, as MONGO pointed out email should be perfectly adequate. If you are worried about privacy, IRC will hardly assuage your worries, as there would seem to be log leaks left, right, and centre. Does and has the admins channel caused harm, problems, and unnecessary wikidrama? That does not seem to be in dispute. The obvious solution is to nuke the admins channel and every other Wikipedia IRC channel with the exceptions of #wikipedia and #wikipedia-en, where on occasion I have had some enjoyable conversations that have benefited the encyclopedia. That will certainly put a stop to the wikidrama. Moreschi ^Deletion! 13:26, 16 January 2007 (UTC)
    • Mackensen, some of your arbcom colleagues have had a fee pass for far too long. I concur with Moreschi, any new channel ops will still be under the old disgraceful management? The arbcom's credibility can only be restored if this channel is abolished and its self proclaimed owner de-sysoped for bringing Wikipedia into disrepute along with the other admins involved. It must be remembered that leading members of the arbcom have known and approved of this deplorable situation for years. Now it is in the open heads have to roll for Wikipedia's reputation to be restored. Giano 13:32, 16 January 2007 (UTC)
      • Then by all means bring an arbitration case, or appeal to Jimbo directly. I certainly don't consider myself JamesF's "agent," I can think for myself and act independently, for better or worse. Mackensen (talk) 14:55, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

First, Mackensen is arguing pretty vociferously, and he's one of the ops for the channel, so I'm not sure he's uninvolved. There are so many bad arguments being made that it's hard to know where to start.

1. First, is there "cherry picking logs?" What is the difference between "cherry picking logs" and "citing evidence?" Of course you're going to "cherry pick" because you're going to cite the dang evidence. The :15 when no one is there is not going to be cited. Sheesh. That's a Karl Rove like argument. The point is that the abuse is taking place by the same few people, who are chanops, on several occasions and arguably regularly. The evidence is clear enough for "several occasions," and "regularly" is what's in dispute.
2. That it's the same few people no one seems inclined to discuss. That these people are not administrators is similarly not being argued. As far as "giving up" status and having it stripped goes, an ArbCom decision said that Kelly Martin "left under a cloud." It demoted Tony Sidaway. Both are at en.admins.irc, and Greg Maxwell is simply not an administrator at en.wikipedia. He's a meta administrator, but I'm not aware of his being an admin at en.wikipedia at any point. However, people who give up their status give up their status, and being at that cursed channel is part of the status. If it's not, then why not open the channel to people who one day will be administrators along with people who once upon a time were administrators? I'm not being vindictive, here: it's simply built into the very definition of the thing. The arguments for its creation were that administrators needed to speak of sensitive materials. Well, why? So they could act. These people who are not administrators can't act. This isn't me being petty: I never supported segregating the beautiful people from the hoi poloi, but it's what the channel was supposed to do.
3. Go where the people are is, in fact, the critical feature. Admins are all over the regular wikipedia irc channel. Go there, because there are enough people there to turn the conversation away from abuse. In fact, the admins.irc channel is nasty precisely because it's not where The People are, but where only a small group is from time to time. The more populated the channel, the less commonly it goes into abuse. Every log I have seen of abuse has been when there are few people there, mostly like-minded about the central issue that admins are superior to users, that "clueful" people run things. They are philosophically inclined to believe it their right and responsibility to do what's "right" without policy.

Finally, the people are the problem, but the medium gives them their freedom to abuse. It's like LSD: the sane people will have a slight entertainment, while the mentally unstable will make a very bad trip. Geogre 13:29, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

I'm aware of one active non-admin wikipedian who requested "admission" to the channel and was last I heard roundly ignored. If that makes ay sense, it's a bit late and too hot for thinking. - brenneman 13:32, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

Start an on-wiki procedure to appoint channel operators, so that we don't have clique accusations later. Remove all the non-admins from the channel. Seems like the best solution. — Nearly Headless Nick 13:36, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

First, Geogre, if you'd read the discussion you'd note that I'm a newly-appointed chanop, which makes me part of the solution, not part of the problem (note: this presupposes that the arbcom is sane). I don't appreciate the comparison to Karl Rove and wonder whether it was necessary. I mean, you score some points but it hardly helps matters. I say "cherry-picking" because there's an indictment on the channel as a whole based on the selected behaviour of individuals. That does not make sense. As you rightly note, certain individuals are the problem. That's cause for individual condemnation, not some broad-based approach. If you're going to indict the "medium," you have to actually prove that the medium is corrupt; to assert it is simply not enough. Mackensen (talk) 14:54, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

A note of clarification, none of the new channel ops were appointed by the ArbCom. Paul August ☎ 17:17, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

I'm sorry you don't appreciate the comparison to Rove, but it's a Rove argument. It's exactly the kind of rhetorical flourish he's famous for. When evidence is presented of abuse, he says, "They cherry picked it." Well, how much would it take? The reason this is an issue, to answer the question the people who haven't followed all of this keep asking, is that on-wiki actions have been orchestrated on the "invisible" and unaccountable medium of that IRC channel. Each one of these actions has been quickly, if not instantly, reversed, but they just keep coming. Yes, the people are this problem, but there remains no rationale for the channel that shows any advantage to Wikipedia. What purpose does it have? What purpose does it actually serve that is not better served by media already in place that are already regulated, like AN/I? I asked that question a month ago and, unless I'm really biased, didn't get an answer that stood up. If, therefore, we have people who have to be "worked with" to get permission to change that channel and if these very people are demonstrably problematic, then what the heck are we doing? This is especially the case if they violate the very elitism the channel was set up to create.

I've tried to be helpful, to offer positive solutions, as well as to condemn what exists now. My essay was an honest effort at working out the inherent strengths and weaknesses. Although some of my points are getting repeated, the hatred and scorn poured out on me by the problem users will prevent their ever admitting that there is a problem.

Finally, I remind you of what we're talking about here. The subtext is not "play nice." That's lily livered. The subtext is "don't team up to beat on people in a private clubhouse." It's far more pointed than someone like me being obnoxious to Kelly. It's about blocking. It's about harassing. It's about pretending to be powerful. It's about encouraging new administrators to run roughshod over the project because they are important people. It's about learning to show some respect for the people who make Wikipedia, as those people are not the chanops who spend their lives on IRC. Geogre 00:02, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

Geogre: Greg Maxwell is an admin on Commons. We need as many Commons admins in #admins as we can get. Yes, technically, English Wikipedia and Wikimedia Commons are separate projects; in practice, they have a lot of related issues, and we frequently need actions taken on Commons (such as nuking shock images being used for vandalism). --Cyde Weys 14:35, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

break 2

Some insight into the reasoning:

• the AC has no jurisdiction over #wikipedia-en-admins. Really, it doesn't.
• The channel was originally set up as a hotline for admin help being requested, particularly by Jimbo or Danny, and it's damn useful for that.
• It's not just for admins, it's for "trusted Wikipedians" of all sorts. There's Alphax on there as a Commons admin, Greg as a developer, etc. (That someone here may feel they have conclusive proof that a given chanop is a minion of Satan out to destroy Wikimedia is irrelevant to this - it's not yours to decide. I don't care. Really.) *and Greg is on as a Commons admin too, of course.
• It's also a good place for admins to sanity-check their personal decisions (or find another admin to deal or not with a matter they feel would be a conflict of interest to deal with or whatever). I'd like it if all new admins were invited onto it and someone should write up some suitable how-to process page.
• Many of the IRC logs received from the AC have clearly been edited and even when not don't include a metric shitload of off-channel communication that serves as context.
• There are admins already avoiding the channel because the cries of the torch and pitchfork toting mob above are making them afraid of what people would do with an out-of-context quote. So the AC going over the last six months of logs sent in from viewers looking for people to bring the vengeance of the Lord down upon really just is not likely to happen.

So the course of action chosen is to try to improve the tone of the place by leading from the front, hence the current /topic: speak like the person you're discussing is reading. And my frequent strong suggestions to behave better. YOU'RE ADMINS, DAMMIT, YOU WERE CHOSEN FOR YOUR GOOD JUDGEMENT. Mostly the channel shows that, by the way. Anyone characterising it as a festering snakepit that must be abolished is IMO smoking crack and I really can't take them seriously.

Note: I am an ex-arb and still on the AC list to kibitz advise. I have level 40 on #wikipedia-en-admins because Jdforrester landed it on me. I'm in there a bit lately, when I'm home and my laptop is on and I remember.

Any questions that show evidence of a shred of good judgement? - David Gerard 13:56, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

David I hope you will take my concerns seriously. Paul August ☎ 17:26, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

Quote: "It's also a good place for admins to sanity-check their personal decisions (or find another admin to deal or not with a matter they feel would be a conflict of interest to deal with." Is there a reason why AN, ANI or even email cannot be used for this? Why the insistence on spurious - spurious, because this is clearly not happening - privacy that is only ever going to feed accusations of a cabal? Given that this channel seems to be causing far more wikidrama than it's worth, is there really a compelling argument as to why this should be kept? Moreschi ^Deletion! 14:01, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

Because sometimes one wants a quick answer, because sometimes one is dead wrong and when ten people say HELL NO one gets awareness of it, because in many cases it creates less drama than ANI. Though I prefer ANI as well. Saying "we decided it on IRC" on admin matters is not a good way to do things, way definitely. Your point is a really important one and one to keep in mind: transparency has to be consciously worked for - David Gerard 14:05, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

And I want the channel kept because it's damn useful for what it's damn useful for, and abolishing it would lose that without, my psychic powers predict, diminishing the dramatists' valiant and assiduous defense of the wiki or whatever they're doing one iota - David Gerard 14:06, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

I would like to know is David Gerard making the above comments with the sanction and public approval of the arbcom, or are they just using him as a barometer of our opinions. No, I'm afraid a comment alone from Fred will not suffice, something a little more concrete from the arbcom is required. 14:10, 16 January 2007 (UTC)— Preceding unsigned comment added by Giano II (talk • contribs)

The above are David's private views. They do not represent the consensus view of the ArbCom. Paul August ☎ 17:40, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

I'm not speaking for the AC (I'm not on the AC, as noted), I'm speaking for me, though the matter is in a lot of discussion at present and I've asked the AC to stop by and clarify if any of them feel I've misrepresented things - David Gerard 14:26, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

Can you explain your role in regard to the arbcom mailing list? Giano 14:29, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

I did, above: "I am an ex-arb and still on the AC list to kibitz advise." Ex-arbitrators stay on the AC list as they choose - David Gerard 14:35, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

Well, it's really very simple. It is said there are too much nasty remarks on the channel, and that the solution is to make more people channel ops. That makes sense. Then someone points out that the nasty remarks are in part made by the older channel ops. No solution for that has been proposed, but the obvious answer seems to be to de-op those. Note that I have never used the channel, nor do I believe it should be nuked. It's appears simply to be a case of two parties being incivil, and only one party being examined for that. >Radiant< 14:14, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

If it was that simple it would have been resolved centuries ago, ergo it's not that simple. If someone wants someone removed from being a chanop on #wikipedia-en-admins they get to convince Jdforrester, because I'm certainly not going to, I can tell you now ... - David Gerard 14:26, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

It is not just incivility, it is bullying and harassment and attempting to "get rid" of editors. This been condoned by the arbcom, by their assenting silence, - the only solution is to abolish the channel, then no-one has to worry about tackling Jim Forrester (I'm not frightened of him anyway) Giano 14:29, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

I agree that it is more than just incivility, and I don't assent. Paul August ☎ 17:48, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

I suggest it is unlikely you're going to get the lynching you're after. I also suggest you're barely on Jdforrester's radar - David Gerard 14:35, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

Oh I think you'l find our Jim knows exactly who I am - and I think you know that too! Giano 14:40, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

Yes, you're the one I blocked for egregious personal attacks that no other editor making would be tolerated. If you read what I wrote, by the way, you'll note the AC does not have the power to abolish the channel. I don't know if you've ever heard of "diplomacy" or "assuming good faith", but you could give them a go and see if they give you more results you want rather than less - David Gerard 14:42, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

And the solution is not just to make more people ops, it's to ask people to be nice and use their admin-given judgement more. These are smart people, and if they have bursts of stupid then the first thing is to try really hard to stop those. This is the diplomatic solution and lacks the emotionally-satisfying and crowd pleasing character of a really good 'Bungee Saddam' Christmas special, but I submit is more likely to make things actually better - David Gerard 14:32, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

The fact that you are so disgusting as to mention "Saddaam" in this context is indicative of the behaviour and level of rubishing anyone who opposes that channel receives. I have been on the receiving end of long enough to know every nasty little trick used. You are going to have to find new depths to sink to now. Giano 14:37, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

Any other questions? - David Gerard5 14:56, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

Well, you've already implied that I'm among those who in your opinions "are smoking crack" and can't be taken seriously, so I suppose it would do me little good to ask a question, O your excellency. —Bunchofgrapes (talk) 15:07, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

I was speaking as someone who's actually on the damn thing and knows precisely what the usual content is, against those who characterise it in a manner bearing no resemblance to what I see. Of course, it may just be that my crack supplier is much better - David Gerard 15:19, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

I have a question - who is it that leaks all those logs to Wikitruth? Proto::► 15:10, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

Dunno, but the best course of action I can think of is to treat it as a working-channel-with-chat like a sensible admin - David Gerard 15:23, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

Hrrmm — if we knew, we'd definitely have done something about it already ... Cyde Weys 15:28, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

• So to sum up,
  1. People should not be nasty on the channel,
  2. If you see someone nasty, you can ask a channel op to kick that person, but he is not obliged to comply,
  3. If you see an op being nasty, you can ask Jdforrester to deop that person, but he is not obliged to comply,
  4. The arbcom can request that certain people be opped, deopped, kicked or unkicked from the channel, but the channel ops are not obliged to comply,
  5. Being nasty on the channel can be taken into account in arbitration cases, and
  6. The cabal puppy eating contest is next wendesday.
• That broadly correct? >Radiant< 15:11, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

Any chanop is no more obliged to take an admin action than any particular en: admin is obliged to take an admin action, i.e. not at all. People should not be nasty on the channel because it's bad for what is after all supposed to be a working-space-with-chat rather than a cesspit being a working-space-with-chat rather than a cesspit; and I think I'm asking nothing unreasonable by asking admins to act with GOOD ADMIN JUDGEMENT AAARGH. You can indeed and James is actually pretty approachable (if busy) and not insane and stuff. Not only does the AC have no jurisdiction over the channel, the Wikimedia Foundation specificially disclaims jurisdiction over the #wikipedia-xxx channels for reasons of possible legal liability, so bitching about it here does nothing and annoys the pig. Being nasty anywhere that affects the wiki can be taken into account by the AC. The puppy eating contest is Thursday. And NO CANNIBALISM - David Gerard 15:19, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

• K, fair enough. >Radiant< 15:27, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

break 2.5

A somewhat more-to-the-point explanation, perhaps: the operative issue here is David's first point. The ArbCom does not have any power over the IRC channels. We cannot shut them down; we cannot replace the ops; we cannot, as a group, force anything to happen on IRC (except insofar as some members of the Committee happen to be ops on some channels). The ArbCom simply lacks that ability, and no amount of indignation—justified or otherwise—is going to magically grant it to us.

(As for anyone wondering why there's no desysoppings, etc.: well, the ArbCom has decreed, in the past, that off-Wikipedia matters were not its concern. This is likely not to be the case in the future—hence Fred's note—but it would be quite crass of us to extend this retroactively to past events. Hindsight is 20/20, of course.)

(And, on a further note, for anyone wondering: no, the ArbCom does not have Secret All-Seeing IRC Logs(tm).) Kirill Lokshin 15:12, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

Further on this note: the AC has no power, but currently James, Mackensen and myself (arb and two ex-arbs) - not James very much in practice, he has plenty of other stuff he does - are working to make the place sweeter and happier for all concerned. i.e., we'd like it not to suck kthx and consider such important for the wiki - David Gerard 15:25, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

You, Mackensen and Forrester - who do you immagine has any confidence in you? This is a joke! Giano 16:09, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

I wasn't aware that my judgment and capacity to serve were in question. I have always served at the pleasure of the community and if my services are no longer deemed necessary I will happily withdraw into private life, as it were. Mackensen (talk) 16:14, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

Now you are aware. But compared to the unremittingly combative David Gerard, there's still hope for you. 88.198.5.138 16:50, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

Joyous news, I am not a complete failure yet! Prithee, when did thee supplant our Fair God-King? Mackensen (talk) 17:10, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

So ... is this IP Giano? Or someone else? --Cyde Weys 17:19, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

You're definitely failing the community by consistently Cyding with the IRC gang, against all reason. But that is neither news nor new. 88.198.5.138 17:21, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

Cyde why not ask one of the secret channel to do an ilicit check user - and find out, that does happen there doesn't it? Giano 17:24, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

Oh I've just seen "Cyding" that really is very funy, I wish I had thought of that Giano 17:25, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

You should withdraw that, if you had any concept of decency. Mackensen (talk) 17:27, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

What exactly is indecent? I have seen far worse(far far worse) said by your heros on IRC, so is it vecause I'm saying it in public? Giano 17:38, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

You are publicly insinuating that checkusers are breaching the Foundation's privacy policy, and possibly local law, by making unauthorized disclosure of private information. You are publicly accusing someone of an incredibly dishonourable, if not illegal, act. If you can't back it up then you should withdraw it. Mackensen (talk) 17:41, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

Who knows what has been buried and concealed concerning that channel - nothing you people get up to there would surprise me. Giano 17:48, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

I will ask one more time that you retract that statement. I'm quite serious. Mackensen (talk) 17:55, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

• Read what I wrote - "that does happen there doesn't it?" why not stop shouting and answer the question Giano 17:59, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

Having to deny such accusations is degrading. I might as well ask whether you beat your wife. It does not. It would be a grave breach of the trust if it did. That you blithely assume so speaks volumes of the utter contempt you have for all concerned here. I wonder why you stay, when you're surrounded by such fools. Mackensen (talk) 18:03, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

I stay Mackensen, because in spite of the frequent clumsy and very obvious attempts by your colleagues to get rid of me, I know I am of use to the encyclopedia - a progect to which i am totally committed. You are quite correct on one point though "Having to deny such accusations is degrading" - I'd change my friends if I were you. Incidentally, why would saying "No! Check user has never been abused" be "a grave breach of the trust"?. Please Mackensen don't start clever games with me that you cannot finnish, because I see everything through to the end no matter how bitter (for some) that end may be. Giano 19:50, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

Without wishing to cast aspersions at any users with checkuser access, it is certainly possible for checkuser privileges to be abused. I understand that there has been at least one complaint regarding checkuser being used outside of policy. Perhaps I have misunderstood what I have read (I can't guarantee that I could find a link if asked) but I understand the relevant person admitted that they undertook the checkuser complained of, "could not remember" why they did it, and that person subsequently lost their checkuser access. As I understand it, there are checkuser logs, but they are only available to other uses with checkuser privileges. -- ALoan (Talk) 18:13, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

• If you count banned trolls and sockpuppets we get complaints all the time. Some of these were deemed important enough for investigation, but the checkuser was cleared in each instance. I am not aware of a direct link between any investigation and any loss of privileges. I've seen that story floating around too, but I've never seen it substantiated, and I first saw it months ago. Mackensen (talk) 18:16, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

Actually, that IP and I are acquainted. It's a webserver in Germany with open ports. I had to deal with a nasty privacy violation coming from it just a few days ago. Could be anybody using it. Mackensen (talk) 17:31, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

Anon IP troll blocked for 48 hours (not his first offense, either). And Giano, you shouldn't be cyding with trolls. --Cyde Weys 17:31, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

Nevermind, block duration changed to indefinite as open proxy per Mackensen's findings. --Cyde Weys 17:33, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

That's right Cyde, knock em senseless if they say something you don't like. Giano 17:38, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

Indeed, how shocking that Cyde should follow policy! We can't have that. Mackensen (talk) 17:45, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

How unshocking it is that when Cyde breaches the civility and personal attacks policies, Mackensen, David Gerard, and the rest of the IRC gang are nowhere to be found. Looks pretty one-cyded to me. 88.198.5.138 18:05, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

Hello open proxy! France, this time. Mackensen (talk) 18:09, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

Hello! It may surprise you, but I admire your work. I just hope you can find it in you to internalize these criticisms without becoming reactively defensive. [p.s. please block this latest open proxy silently] 88.198.5.138 18:26, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

break 3

"Behavior on the IRC channel may be taken into consideration with respect to arbitration cases if it results in disruption on Wikipedia" Fred, does this mean that the door is now open to launch RFA's relating to the orchestrated blocking incidents and use the logs as evidence? --Mcginnly | Natter 14:44, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

Deep breaths everyone. To sum up;

• Fred's statement
  1. ArbCom recognizes that a problem exists and has been discussing ways of dealing with it
  2. New channel procedures and operators are being pushed in an effort to increase civility
  3. Comments made on IRC may have 'on Wiki' consequences if they cause 'on Wiki' problems
• Outstanding concerns
  1. Channel continues to exist and thereby damages 'faith in Wikipedia'
  2. No punishments for past abuses - banning from the channel and de-sysoping were suggested
  3. Non en-wikipedia admins on the channel
  4. Failure to enforce civility on Wikipedia itself / double standards
  5. Lack of details about new channel operators/procedures that Fred mentioned

Disclaimer: After long avoiding IRC (ick, ptooey!) I requested access to the admin channel when this blew up about two weeks ago, and (after not hearing back) asked again and got access yesterday. This likely makes me either 'an evil insurrectionist mole', 'irredeemably tainted by IRC toxins', or both.

As to my opinions; I'd say that the changes Fred described all sound like good things. On the concerns/complaints: I have no doubts that if the channel were removed another (or several) would be set up - without any sort of civility requirements or access to people who might object to 'cabalism'... the same would be true for removal of the non admins. It has been de facto policy until now that 'what happens in IRC stays in IRC' - retroactively applying IRC bans and Wikipedia de-sysopings would thus seem improper to me (not to mention rather vindictive). Incivility on Wikipedia itself certainly has been a major factor here, but we have existing procedures for that which generally work - despite glitches and disputes over application. Finally, I would like to hear more about who is being asked to help operate the channel and what sort of guidelines / directions for civility are being contemplated.

My impression based on one whole day would be that the channel was 60% silly, 25% productive admin work, and 15% complaining about things... the last including occasional incivility which I'd consider on par with what is normally seen amongst admins on Wikipedia. One person was called a 'clown', there was a joking suggestion to ban everyone who supported a particular featured article, an old major dispute was discussed and one of the primary participants complained about, et cetera. Not perfect and surely not the worst which has taken place, but nothing which couldn't be managed. There was markedly less nastiness than this discussion for instance. --CBD 15:11, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

• CBD has the thread here. It's part of the last 15% that we'd generally like to deal with, but sometimes it can't be avoided–especially when this very topic came up and partisans from both sides were in channel. On the other hand, as you rightly note, nothing was said there that wasn't said here, and it's also my impression that the conversation on IRC was more polite. This may be because on IRC you can be kicked for being a jerk. Mackensen (talk) 15:17, 16 January 2007 (UTC)
• Thank you CBD, for actually investigating on your own and not just believing the mindless hype. The way some of the way people on here talk about it, you'd think #admins goes through a dozen kittens a day, and that's just the ones used for sacrificial purposes (feasts not included). --Cyde Weys 15:25, 16 January 2007 (UTC)
• So how do you propose we deal with people on Wikipedia who are jerks? I'm not thinking of anyone in particular but this place frequently turns downright nasty. >Radiant< 15:27, 16 January 2007 (UTC)
  • Well, blocking used to work, but recently this whole place has become downright partisan that the blocks are overturned even when the person really deserves it. As a result, the person feels vindicated, and continues on with the bad behavior. --Cyde Weys 15:30, 16 January 2007 (UTC)
  • Obviously the answer is to delete WP:AN and subpages and salt them. Also, if we make a rule against incivility, that should stop it in its tracks - look how effective m:Don't be dense is - David Gerard 15:48, 16 January 2007 (UTC)
    • Oh yes, we definitely a board where people can come complain to mommy that "that nasty person hit me after I kicked him". >Radiant< 16:14, 16 January 2007 (UTC)
• This always confused me. Wikipedia has no jurisdiction over the IRC channels, fine. If they were closed down people would only find other ways to communicate, yes, that's all well and good. But Wikipedia currently explicitly sanctions use of these specific IRC rooms, by pointing people to them on WP:IRC and meta:IRC. If Wikipedia wishes to bear no responsibility for these rooms, and insists that what happens in there does not relate to what happens on Wikipedia, then they should not be plugged on-Wiki, right? Proto::► 15:32, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

I agree. Paul August ☎ 18:07, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

Can we tone down the discourse and look at this in cost-benefit terms? Sure the channel has uses, but noncontroversial alternatives seem to exist for all of those uses. Wikipedia is almost entirely a volunteer operation. Part of the reason why millions of people have joined up is because it's an open meritocracy. Admin-only IRC introduces a degree of opaqueness. Although the overwhelming majority of that may be responsible dialog, a small number of serious problems can discredit the undertaking. I doubt effective fail-safes can be implemented. If ArbCom doesn't have authority then I'd like to see that formalized by disaffiliating the channel from Wikipedia. It's a recipe for trouble to have a secret-but-leaky chat that 1000+ people can visit that lacks firm admission criteria and that putatively has a formal connection to Wikipedia outside the reach of ArbCom. I'm an eventualist on this issue, which means I've always suspected the channel will sink under its own weight but maybe the folks who like it can patch the hull. Durova^Charge 15:32, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

Sadly for you Cyde the logs show it is not "mindless hype" and that is why we are all here. According to you Mackensen above - there is no problem of huge concern? No wonder they chose him to be chan op! It's going to be another "let's wipe it under the carpet and save the arbcom" - He is of course on the arbcom mailing list. I think we are having our intelligence insulted here by Cyde, Mackensen and David Gerard, I expect as we speak they are rounding up further little IRC admins to come here with their 10 pennies worth - it is truly amazing - what are they going to come up with next? Watching these peole on the run is truly wonderous Giano 15:34, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for that. Your support is appreciated. Mackensen (talk) 15:46, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

I in no way support you. You have been a member of that chanel and known full well what has been going on for ages, so suddenly why have you decided to do something about it, you have condoned it for ages with your silence. You just want to save the "club" at all costs, and when this has died down it will be just as it was before. Giano 16:13, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

For all of one day. It's that dangerous, is it? Mackensen (talk) 17:44, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

(Note: Giano wasn't talking to CBD, he was talking to Mackensen. I've moved CDB's comment down to make that more clear. Paul August ☎ 18:22, 17 January 2007 (UTC))

Giano, much as I am really enjoying the humor value in the implication that I am a 'little IRC admin in cahoots with David, Mackensen, and Cyde' (ROTFL)... 'not a battleground' comes to mind. Yup, people have done things they shouldn't have. Welcome to the human condition... you need to get over it. 'An eye for an eye leaves the whole world blind', 'forgive and forget', and all that. If everyone insisted that every wrong be punished we'd spend all our time fighti... <looks around> oh wait. You haven't been above reproach either and in expecting such lapses to be forgiven you should also understand the need to do so for others. People agreeing to 'try to do better' is a victory for everyone... and insisting that 'there will be no peace until vengeance is satisfied' a loss for all. --CBD 16:35, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

break 4 - ArbCom mailing list

It seems to me that the main issue here (other than the incivility that brought the issue into the open, and that official policy seems to be to sweep past indiscretions under the carpet) is that use of IRC is encouraged, as a quick and dirty way for interested parties to discuss issues as they arise, but there is no official relationship between Wikipedia and IRC (by design, it would seem, on account of legal concerns). There is no clarity about what the #admin channel for, and who should have access to it. Should it be limited to current admins? Should it be available to ex-admins too, or indeed any editors in good standing? And if it is being used to formulate consensus for taking admin actions on-wiki, shouldn't it be logged and transparent?

Reading User:David Gerard's comments above, I have a second concern: he says he is on the ArbCom mailing list, as a former arbitrator. I had forgotten that non-Arbitrators have access to the ArbCom mailing list (I seem to remember User:Kelly Martin calling herself an "arbitrator emeritus". And someone is bound to ask for a diff now). Who else, other than the current members of ArbCom, have access to the list (is there a list somewhere?)? Should they? -- ALoan (Talk) 16:13, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

I beleive there is over 20 of them, and when somthing interests them they all but in and have a say, which is why they can't reach concensus on this problem at all, they say they can't abolish the channel, but they could easily abolish the admins who use it, and of course the members of their own comittee who like to make such questionable use of it. Giano 16:18, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

All former ex-arbitrators in good standing are permitted access, as are certain other trusted persons (people with oversight, checkuser). I should think the committee is capable of cleaning its own house. Mackensen (talk) 16:21, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

I for one appreciate all the cleaning help I can get ;-) Paul August ☎ 18:27, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

The committee have proven themselves far from capable of cleaning any house let alone their own, in short they appear incompetent. Now, how many are on that list, precise number please? Giano 16:28, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

Ginao, I one called you a knight errant, I now see you are getting back at me ;-) Paul August ☎ 18:31, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

I'm not a list-admin so I don't have the exact number, but I suspect you can count as well as I can. Take the current committee, add all former members plus Jimbo, throw on a checkuser or two, subtract Kelly Martin since she unsubscribed when she resigned her adminship and other offices, and you have your potential list. Mackensen (talk) 16:31, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

No No NO we don't want throw in one or two, we want how many, and perhaps who, then we could amuse ourselves laughing at how many use the "secret channel". Why not ask David Gerard he runs the list doesn't he? He's bound to know. Giano 16:35, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

The subscriber's list is available to every member of the list. There are 29 members of the ArbCom mailing list. Paul August ☎ 18:38, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

Well, I'm sure the ArbCom is capable of looking after itself, but then we peons have an legitimate interest in knowing who is copied in on the internal ruminations of what is essentially Wikipedia's highest decision making body, and which is privy to the most sensitive information about all sorts of topics.

There is no mention of an ArbCom mailing list at Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee or Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration, or indeed m:Mailing_lists/overview. But, given what you say, it seems rather odd that there are more people on the list who are not members of ArbCom than those there are (12 current members listed at Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee, compared to 21 former members on the same page - less one - plus more from Wikipedia:Oversight and "one or two" from m:CheckUser policy). Given the overlap between the various categories, presumably the list at Wikipedia:Oversight is quite close? -- ALoan (Talk) 16:52, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

I think the names of those participating in the arbcom mailing list and the arbcom IRC channel should be public. Most input is useful. Although occasionally former arbitrators can weigh in with old issues I would rather not revisit. Fred Bauder 18:15, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

I agree with Fred. Paul August ☎ 18:41, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

The committee's internal mailing list is private, as is the committee's IRC channel. Subscriber lists for neither are published. The Uninvited Co., Inc. 18:13, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

But why can't we just know who the recipients are? Surely that can be transparent - I know who the director of MI5 is so I'm sure the members of the ARBCOM mailing list can demonstrate similar openeness to the wiki community. --Mcginnly | Natter 18:18, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

Oh, I was not aware that there was an ArbCom IRC channel too. Something else that is not mentioned on any of the ArbCom pages. Anyway, I'm not sure why the names on the participants need to be kept "secret". For example, m:CheckUser policy mention a similiary-sensitive closed list, checkuser-l.

Fine, the contents of the ArbCom list e-mails are private, and I am not asking to be able to read them or for them to be logged publicly (although it may be interesting to look back on them in 30 or 60 or 100 years) but Mackensen (who, I understand, participates on the list as a former arbitrator) has essentially told us the answer anyway: "All former ex-arbitrators in good standing are permitted access, as are certain other trusted persons (people with oversight, checkuser)." plus the current members of ArbCom, of course. So why not have a public list of people who are on the mailing list? -- ALoan (Talk) 18:30, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

I'm sure they have very good reasons ALoan, why the names of those who govern us are on a peice of paper known only to he who guards the list, and incidentally decides not only what is allowed to be on it, but even more crucially WHEN! These things are not to be discussed openly, but I do happen to know "he who guards the list" did a check-user on me very recently, while performing himself yet another wrong and again reverted block of me. Obviously he felt I was a serious risk to the Encyclopedia, on the other hand perhaps he was just curious - who knows! Giano 19:41, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

---

I've added a new section to WP:AC called Mailing list, which lists the current subscribers to the ArbCom mailing list. Paul August ☎ 19:55, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

break 5

why are we discussing IRC? IRC is off-wiki. AC has no jurisdiction there, we have no jurisdiction there, case closed. If there are problems, spell out in giant letters somewhere that IRC channels, even if called "wiki" have serve no official function on wikipedia, whatsoever. I've been an admin two years, and I've never been tempted to look into IRC. It's not part of Wikipedia, period. The AC must be out of its mind considering accepting evidence from IRC logs. Are they bored? Have they considered the difficulties, such as identity-theft and verifiability? Leave IRC alone, but crack down on anyone that takes IRC-feuds onto Wikipedia. dab (𒁳) 16:47, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

As long as that IRC channel bears Wikipedia's name, and is, or is seen to be, an official organ of Wikipedia administration, then Wikipedia needs to be responsible for that IRC's actions. If on the other hand that channel were to be no longer affiliated with the encyclopedia, by changing its name, and by suitable public statements of disaffiliation, then the encyclopedia could wash its hands of any responsibility. Paul August ☎ 19:00, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

I'd like to clarify a few things for the purposes of this discussion:

• There are 272 people with access to the #wikipedia-en-admins channel which constitutes about 25% of all English Wikipedia administrators. I'm not aware of any Wikipedia administrators asking for access for the very first time and not being given it (however I believe there have been instances where channel occupants have had their access revoked due to abuse).
• These days there are usually between 40 and 50 people in the channel at any one time.
• James Forrester is not the "self proclaimed owner of the channel". He is the IRC Group Contact for the Wikimedia Foundation, and in that WMF-sanctioned role he is the person authorised to deal with Freenode on behalf of the Foundation.
• If Wikimedia/the ArbCom requested (e.g. through James Forrester) that the admins channel be shut down, then there would be absolutely nothing (apart maybe from goodwill on the part of Freenode) to stop people from creating an identical channel and picking up where they left off. The IRC channel is not a service of the Wikimedia Foundation, and as such the Foundation only has peripheral authority through the fact that several of those with high-level access on IRC are also deeply involved in one way or another with the Foundation or Wikipedia.
• I think I got given operator access in this channel because I asked for it, to fix some faulty channel mode:s or something like that. From there, I have just done the occasional access-giving to admins new to IRC. Rarely have I had to use my operator access to op myself in order to diffuse a situation. I am more hesitant to kick or ban people from the channel, or remove their access, because they are admins. But I've always been a devotee of civility, as some on the WikiEN-l mailing list might know, and I'm happy to enforce a stricter level of civility in the channel into the future.
• The channel is more useful than some people are giving it credit. At least twice in the last week I have found the channel useful to discuss extremely sensitive matters, which would be entirely inappropriate to discuss in larger, more public channels like #wikipedia.
• I would like to know what this new position of the ArbCom means when it comes to IRC logging. At the moment, public logging of #wikipedia-en-admins is strictly prohibited. How are the ArbCom going to take into account statements made on IRC if such logs which they take into account cannot be posted as part of their decisions?

I hope some of that made sense to someone. - Mark 16:49, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

Re: arbcom... Logging and showing the log publicly isn't allowed, however private logging and mailing the logs to the private arbcom list is acceptable. (eg. many users probably have automatic IRC logging turned on for all channels) --Interiot 16:56, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

But they're not exactly good evidence, since they can be so easily redacted. --jpgordon^∇∆∇∆ 17:03, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

Let alone altered or falsified outright. On-wiki the diffs do not lie. There is no such guarantee with any logs, especially when logs are furnished by parties with vested interests. The last logs I saw being circulated were three statements by James taken entirely out of context. If that's all that's being distributed, why in the world would ArbCom get involved and try to mete out punishment when they know so little of the situation? --Cyde Weys 17:15, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

No that is not "all that's being distributed". The many logs I've seen have been apparently complete and unedited, and some have been independently verified. Paul August ☎ 19:08, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

However, the logs posted publicly were redacted, and that's what most people have seen. The decision to supply complete logs to the committee came after multiple people on the mailing list pointed out the severe problems that redacted evidence posed. Mackensen (talk) 19:11, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

Because folks who think they've been wronged are threatening to hold their breath until they turn blue because it's unfair to them. SirFozzie 17:44, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

It applies to both sides. Everyone just needs to let it go. However, there's one person in particular who can't seem to do that, and as a result, it just goes on, and on ... Cyde Weys 17:49, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

"Numerous incidents involving gross incivility on the IRC channel have been brought to the Arbitration Committee's attention. We consider such behavior absolutely unacceptable; to ensure that it does not continue" - Cyde are you really suggesting that this is all a terrible fit-up and the ArbCom have been mislead? Hardly credible - I'd like to know why Freenode prevent public logging, perhaps there's some means by which they will make an exception for us - we could then release the logs in something akin to the 30 year rule - except 30 days perhaps, this would bring transparency to the channel, but preserve the immediate effectiveness of it for private deliberations. --Mcginnly | Natter 17:52, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

Much worse things have been said on-wiki than anything the ArbCom has looked at from the #admins channel. ArbCom didn't seriously take any actions against the on-wiki stuff and they aren't seriously taking any actions against the #admins stuff either. This is just an advisement message. And no, the thirty day thing wouldn't work. Some of the stuff dealt with is stuff that needs to stay private over legal lifetimes — that is, decades. The only possible way for public logging to work would be for someone to go through and redact everything that cannot be said in public. I don't see that as being workable. Alternatively, #admins could be opened up and a new channel for dealing with private issues could be started elsewhere. I don't think that would solve the accusations of cannibalism, however. --Cyde Weys 17:58, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

I don't think Cyde knows what logs the ArbCom members have seen. Paul August ☎ 19:18, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

So do we ever get to know what logs have been considered in reaching any given ruling? The standard seems to be "discussing off-wiki is okay, but it must be justified on-wiki". --Cyde Weys 20:01, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

Given the leaky nature of the channel I would have thought anything that sensitive should be confined to emails anyway. What other arguments are there against publicising the logs? --Mcginnly | Natter 18:03, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

If much worse things have been said on-wiki then where are the law-suits?--Mcginnly | Natter 18:06, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

You're conflating two separate and highly different issues. One issue is common incivility against other Wikipedians (which happens on and off wiki). There are no legal ramifications. The other issue is stuff that must be discussed privately to avoid legal complications. This is not ever discovered on-wiki. As for the leaky nature of logs — yes, that is why, largely, other channels are being used to handle the tricky legal issues. --Cyde Weys 18:38, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

I'm afraid this is all getting very nastily near to the truth for Cyde! Giano 17:55, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

I would like to clarify that Freenode no longer uses the concept of "group contacts" for channels with no official relationship to the thing being discussed. I don't believe that any change to the logging policy is being proposed at this point. While I could be mistaken (and would welcome a link to the salient Freenode policy if I am) I believe that the logging policy is a tradition carried over from #wikipedia rather than a Freenode matter. I would hope that everyone involved in the channel would adhere to the highest standards of Wikilove. Be excellent to one another and to those not present. If there are any current and ongoing problems with misuse of the channel, I would welcome any logs emailed to me privately. The Uninvited Co., Inc. 18:05, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

I would hope so too, but this has demonstrably not been the case - so, in your opinion public logging is possible? I'd be a lot happier with a published, unredacted log for everyone to see and comment and be judged by. --Mcginnly | Natter 18:10, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

I don't believe that additional logging is warranted unless there is still a problem. I am unconvinced that there is a present or ongoing problem at this point, since the users of the channel largely cleaned up their act in the wake of the recent public criticism of the channel. I repeat my offer to investigate any logs emailed to me privately that show a present and ongoing problem. The Uninvited Co., Inc. 18:17, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

That's all well and good, but the point is I'm still in a position where I, and every other non-admin - just has to take your word for it. What I've seen over the past months, leads me to believe that there are personalities at wikipedia, in positions of trust, that abuse that trust. with 1000 admins you'd expect a few rotten apples - but when ArbCOM are implicated - you'd expect resignations really. It seems they are unable to police even themselves, let alone the rest of us - I'd prefer to be in a wikipedia, where behaviour like that isn't condoned by the authorities. --Mcginnly | Natter 18:35, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

Step right up to WP:RFA; if you ask I'll probably nominate you myself. Got a problem with the process there? So do I; visit Wikipedia:WikiProject on Adminship and make yourself heard to help get it fixed. Want to join the channel but not an admin? Become one of the trusted non-admins in the channel by making your case to any chanop. I'm not convinced that the arbitration committee is implicated in anything other than inaction brought about chiefly by jurisdictional concerns. Until recently we treated IRC as completely outside our jurisdiction. Obviously, this is changing. The Uninvited Co., Inc. 18:49, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

ArbCom isn't implicated. There's one person making lunatic claims that are wholly unsupported by any evidence. The channel is being watched by a multitude of people. --Cyde Weys 18:40, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

Well you wont mind the logs being made public from now on then. I think I'd like to be one of the multitude --Mcginnly | Natter 18:42, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

Sure. Any chance you'll open up your correspondence? I'm certain you've nothing to hide either. How about the other commentators on this thread? Come on, give us your emails. Phone conversations would be good to. Talk to your wife about Wikipedia before bed? We'll need that to, thanks! Please transcribe private thoughts on a section of your userpage as you have them as well. This is an open project, after all. Call it reducto ad absurdum if you must, but where does it end? Mackensen (talk) 18:46, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

Even #wikipedia doesn't allow logging. It would hardly make sense to have the private admins channel logged, but not the general users channel. Go try to get logging allowed in #wikipedia first, and then we can talk. --Cyde Weys 18:48, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

Cyde, you know damn well there's evidence - it's been submitted to the ArbCom - again, do you think it was a fit-up? Your mates got caught conspiring in the most reprehensible way, and the best we can come up with is "people have been quite naughty on both side - please stop. For those of you looking on we're going to keep the doors shut for legal reasons, but just trust us everything is going to be ok from now on." mmmmm -And for that matter - no, I'd have no problem with any of my wikipedia business being made public, in fact, wait a minute - it has! I don't use back channel communications.--Mcginnly | Natter 18:50, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

And we're just going to have to trust that last assertion? Mackensen (talk) 18:54, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

Wow, I think if this damning evidence of conspiracy that you spoke of actually did exist, the ArbCom might take some action. As it is, all they're talking about is minding civility on the channel. Stop repeating this hurtful, false, and unsupported accusation. It's not helping anything. You haven't even seen this so-called "evidence", merely blindly repeating something you've heard from others. It's wrong. Stop repeating it. It's little more than vicious gossipy rumors. --Cyde Weys 18:56, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

I wouldn't make the same assumption Cyde is making here. It is possible that the ArbCom has choosen not to act yet, for other reasons than lack of evidence. Paul August ☎ 19:37, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

You should assume good faith until it is proven that doing so is untenable yes. My point is that I can't do that now with certain individuals. I'm not looking for complete transparency (from your comment above Mac) - I see the necessity of private communication - but this channel has been abused, to correct the public perception of it, no amount of assurances are really going to work and the scramble to protect it just adds fuel to the suspicion that there's something wrong with it. Let's make a clean breast of things, lets have some openeness, frankness, honesty and integrity. --Mcginnly | Natter 19:01, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

Indeed, no amount of arguing to the contrary will convince people of the innocence of the accused. Mackensen (talk) 19:03, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

break 6

"But this channel has been abused" — Can you please, please, offer up some evidence to support this assertion? And especially the assertion of, "Your mates got caught conspiring in the most reprehensible way." These are very bold statements, but they also happen to be unsupported. It's not a good idea to make damaging and controversial assertions without evidence. Until you have more to go on than "But someone else said it", please desist. --Cyde Weys 19:06, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

Cyde, I'm not here to trade insults or argue semantics with you. I have seen the logs and we could argue whether conspiring to remove an editor from wikipedia might be considered grossly uncivil. - The whole problem with substantiated arguments is precisely what I'm arguing - make the logs public, and everyone gets to see the behaviour, remove the rather convenient - "you can't substantiate that accusation" because no-one can publish the log. --Mcginnly | Natter 19:08, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

Please forward these logs to me then, so that I might review the evidence (and compare it against my own logs to make sure it is accurate). --Cyde Weys 19:09, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

Or at least clarify what it is that you're talking about. If these are the logs regarding Giano's block, well yes, I've seen them and I'm dismayed by them, and steps are being taken. This, I believe, has already been discussed. If you have something new, say so. The Uninvited Co., Inc. 19:22, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

That's still not very clear. That could be any of a dozen times. Which block are we talking about? I at least want to go through my logs and see if I can find any of this evidence of a vast conspiracy. --Cyde Weys 19:37, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

I think the best thing now is for Cyde to become cylent, and allow the arbcom to finish their deliberations. Giano 19:32, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

And I think the same would apply to you as well. SirFozzie 19:40, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

• Oh, fun. Cyde's back to the "I demand evidence! (If you give it to me, I will block you.)" <sigh> Then we get to "if there were evidence, ArbCom would do something" from one head, while another announces dismissively that ArbCom can't do anything and that no one on the channel has to give a rat's fig what ArbCom says about who is or is not an op there. This kind of spirit of cooperation, this level of self-examination, this desire to make sure only the highest standards of behavior are upheld by administrators is, in fact, what keeps this "drama" ongoing. If the actors would only leave the stage, we might at least get a new play. Geogre 00:19, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

Whatever, I'm honoring Cowman's closing of this thread (even though it's been overturned by Fred) and I'm refusing to continue with this mudfight. It's as plain as day to me that this isn't going anywhere productive. --Cyde Weys 01:30, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

We really could do better than this. Giano (and Geogre too, for that matter) whenever you feel moved to make a personal attack on someone, please consider not doing so. And if goes without saying that if anybody really is engaged in some kind of conspiracy against Giano, they should also knock if off. While people are engaging in these gross and unacceptable personal attacks they are not helping Wikipedia. --Tony Sidaway 09:39, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

• "if anybody really is engaged in some kind of conspiracy against Giano" "if???" You are behind the times Tony! However, you always have been a little out of touch with the mood of things here, anyway having proved my point beyond all reasonable doubt, I have now cancelled all wikipedia donations, and advise others to the same. Donating our time is enough from now onwards, if the money is ro be wasted in this fashion [1]. The whole thing is now ridiculous if you, Cyde, Mackensen and your friends want to inhabit a private world of spite then you may, so long as it is poweless and all opinions which eminate from it are shunned, ignored or laughed off, then what the hell. The place and its occupants are now thoroughly discredited. I don't see there is a lot more to say, and unless I am yet again commented on and attacked, I shallbe saying very little more on the subject. I shall not be funding but ignoring the actions and views of all IRCadmins and their non-nadmin cronies from now on. As far as I'm concerned they are in effect de-sysoped as they have forfeited all respect. I advise all others to do the same, thus leaving wikipedia a better place. Giano 10:17, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

Please consider carefully your use of language above. This isn't a school playground, it isn't about one faction or another "winning", being discredited, or whatever; as always it's about the continuation of behavior that is obviously damaging the community and the encyclopedia. If you've given money to the Foundation in the past, as a fellow editor I say thank you. All such donations are voluntary but nonetheless welcome. I'm just asking you, next time you feel that you should make a personal attack like this, to reconsider. That's all. It's no more than Wikipedia policy expects of all editors. That includes you. --Tony Sidaway 10:18, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

Go tell it to IRC Tony, you have more credence there. Giano 10:31, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

• Within moments of the advising Tony to tell it to IRC admins he was indeed on the channel denouncing me yet again, denying any wrong doing on the IRC admin channel. Apparently I'm a fantasist. Where I wonder are the amazing new policemen? - well I told you nothing would change, but I did rather think they might behave themselves for longer than half an hour. They just cannot help themselves, so within seconds of me saying publicly all over this site I was through with the subject, they are all up to their old tricks. What would happen if I quote the logs here? Do I have your permission to quote your words, Tony, Doc Glasgow, and Phil Boswell? Giano 12:50, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

• If you can manufacture some kind of conspiracy out of what I have been saying in the admins channel today, you are more than welcome to try. So long as you quote everything I said, providing proper context (timestamps would be nice also), without any kind of elision, summarising or editorialising, fire away. HTH HAND —Phil | Talk 13:54, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

Do you really think I'm daft enough to give you the timestamps! Giano

Whilst trying to answer a question about how this whole thing started I said on IRC "Doc_glasgow> The problem is, that when people believfe [sic] Giano has a free pass, they DO conspire, from a sense of injustice, to find a way to convince the community to act and stop his nastiness". I stand by that remark as my impression of what has happened. I was not 'denouncing you' in secret. There is a vicious circle: 1) your incivility isn't dealt with. 2) People feel aggrieved and discuss it. 3) You get paranoid and indulge in more incivility. I said nothing I haven't said on-wiki before. I have posted this analysis on an arbcom talk page in the past. Why anyone felt it helpful to send you the logs I have no idea! But that person out to be booted, not for breaching confidence, but for trying to stir up trouble and feed trolling. You are appearing like a fantasist, you are seemingly paranoid, and you are being quite nasty. And please don't try to have a civility contest with me - you lose.--Doc^g 13:35, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

I don't need to Doc - you do a fine job yourself. Giano 13:51, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

You have my permission to quote anything I've said or will say on #wikipedia or #wikipedia-en-admins. (Those are the only channels I visit, and indeed I plan to keep my involvement with #wikipedia-en-admins to the strictest minimum in future.) Bishonen | talk 15:36, 17 January 2007 (UTC).

Yes, you're a fantasist. This isn't a secret, nor does stating this as a fact amount to a personal attack. You have repeated false claims of a conspiracy, most of them made up out of whole cloth, some of them supported by dubious readings of purloined logs. Please stop. It is harming Wikipedia and the community, --Tony Sidaway 13:12, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

Let nobody say you weren't warned, lets see who dares to block you for personal attacks. lets see where your free pass is. Come on Mackensen where are you?, what you Kylu? Lar? have you an opinion Giano 13:27, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

As it happens I'm working on the Harzburg Front. Since I've never blocked anybody for personal attacks and as I've stated openly that I don't support such blocks I cannot begin to fathom what you're trying to prove here. Mackensen (talk) 13:33, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

I'm proving that the new policing by yourself is none too imptressive - is it? Of course this whole business is just another example of the IRC goading that one has to contend with, they say these things on IRC to infuriate (they succeed) . Sadly their days on their poisonous channel though are now numbered. I shall not insult any of the above (as they would like me to) I'm sure all other editors can see exactly what sort of people they are, without my adjectives. Giano 13:58, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

No, you're not, actually. Nothing was said in the channel today that in any way contravenes civility. Go ahead, post all the logs you want, because there's nothing there. What goading? What are you even talking about? Mackensen (talk) 14:02, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

I am not responding to your bait any longer. We obviously have very different interpretations of civility. I cannot be bothered to argue with you and your cohorts any longer. The channel is doomed, it has lost all creditability along with those of you who inhabit it. Please just stay away from me, do not comment on me and if possible do not discuss me on your sordid channel, that way their will be peace on wikipedia. Thank you Giano 14:12, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

Nothing would give me or anyone else any greater pleasure. I daresay no one on that channel wants the least bit to do with you and would gladly stay out of your way. In turn, of course, you have to stay out of theirs. I'm not baiting and I'm not goading; I'm asking honestly and with restraint how you think civility was breached this morning. If you're not willing to answer that's fine but don't then turn around and criticize me for not doing anything about it. Yours, Mackensen (talk) 14:17, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

You had your chance - now go away and leave me alone - please! Giano 14:19, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

Sorry to be prolonging this thread here, but this is a direct response to what Mackensen says above. Mackensen, I don't understand your thinking when you insist that Giano should quote the log for today, or when you ask that he show how civility was breached (which is in turn hardly to be done without quoting). Aren't you asking rather a lot ? Tony Sidaway, the person who (in my opinion) did make attacks this morning, has been asked for permission to quote his words, but hasn't replied. Consequently Giano would be banned if he did quote them. Wouldn't he? Bishonen | talk 17:29, 17 January 2007 (UTC).

I think the question has been rendered moot. I have the impression that Giano would like to leave the matter where it sits, and I want to respect that wish. However, since you asked, allow me to clarify: I didn't ask Giano to post logs, though it's quite obvious he has them. A private communication would have been more than sufficient. I was mainly asking for clarification as he had me (and, still has me) at a disadvantage. Again, I've reviewed the logs from this morning on my own, and I see nothing–from any party–that rises to the level of a personal attack or would be construed by an uninvolved party as incivility. However, if you'll note below, I've taken the step of banning all further discussion regarding, mention of, or inference to Giano and these related matters. Under the circumstances, it isn't possible for those things to be mentioned without someone taking offence, and I've had more than enough drama this month. I should think we all have. Yours, Mackensen (talk) 17:59, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

To clarify, in my opinion not one word that I have said about Giano on that channel comes close to being a personal attack, I consider none of the words I have uttered about Giano on that channel or anywhere else to be confidential. Nothing I have said there about the ongoing problematic behavior of Giano and one or two editors, to wit, their baseless personal attacks and their fantasies of a conspiracy, is other than what I have said on the wiki. Giano is a problem editor as long as he continues to launch false and baseless attacks on other editors. We have to recognise this fact in order to achieve a solution. --Tony Sidaway 11:25, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

---

I'm hoping that draws a line under it all. Please, just stop now, it's not getting anyone anywhere. You think other people actually enjoy this? You think it makes us feel one jot better about contributing? You think it improves the mood or the tone? Think about the impact you have on others. If you have to do this, go and do it at arbitration and agree a settlement for once and for all. Let us have our encyclopedia back. Please, simply end it now. No more words. Thank you. Hiding Talk 12:20, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

Suggestion

Wikipedia talk:Off-wiki policy discussion is probably a better place for this, although Wikipedia talk:Off-wiki discussion would be a better name for it. Can I ask that those involved here mosey over there so that we can try to acutally work out a stable solution?
brenneman 01:41, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

If ArbCom cannot deal with this, why are we having this conversation? Only tempers are flying. If Jdforrestor controls the wikimedia channels, can we not have a simple appointment process for channel operators who can deal with off-wiki civility issues off-the-wiki? It is as simple as that, otherwise I do not see anything other than hypocrisy. — Nearly Headless Nick 13:56, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

Notice

Per Giano's (and, frankly, my own) wishes, I have banned all in-channel discussion of him and related disputes, regardless of content and motive. We're at the point where good faith simply cannot be assumed, and it's time to move on. We have articles to write; an encyclopedia to build. Yours, Mackensen (talk) 14:29, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

Mackensen, I think this is a very good idea, and want to thank you for doing this. Paul August ☎ 19:51, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

Suggestion (2nd)

I haven't read all the above, but David Gerard did emphasise that the WMF and Wikipedia organisations like ArbCom have no jurisdiction over wikipedia IRC channels, which is fair enough, though I wonder whether they are allowed to use wikipedia in the channel name if this is the case. Maybe the names should be changed to include the qualification 'unofficial'?

My main point is that if they are unofficial and Wikipedia has no jurisdiction there, doesn't that place the wikipedia IRC channels in the same class of organisations, like Wikipedia Review, Wikitruth, Uncyclopedia and similar critical, humorous and attack organsiations, that are clustered around the behemoth that is Wikipedia? ie. Related to but not really part of it? If someone set up a website staffed by Wikipedia admins for Wikipedia admins to go to to get advice about admin actions on Wikipedia, would that be any different from the wikipedia IRC admin channel (apart from not being IRC)? If not, then I suggest leaving the IRC channels to stand or fall on their own merits, and simply make clear, here, on Wikipedia, that these IRC channels exist, but they are not official. Make them ex-officio, if indeed they ever were official. Then, if the IRC channels get a reputation for being closed and cliquey, and/or the wrong place to go to (I don't know the truth of this, as I've never been there), they will start to wither and die, and people will learn (or be prompted) to use on-wiki processes instead. Carcharoth 18:33, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

• This seems a sensible reading of the situation. My only quibble is purely grammatical: ex-officio doesn't mean what you think it means. IRC channels don't exist by virtue of any office, unless you're implying that administrators have, ex-officio, an expectation to entry in one or more channels. Mackensen (talk) 18:38, 17 January 2007 (UTC)
  • Presumably they will be handing Wikipedia's money back accordingly. Giano 18:42, 17 January 2007 (UTC)
    • As they've never received any in the first place (that I'm aware of) that should prove a simple exercise. Mackensen (talk) 18:43, 17 January 2007 (UTC)
      • Oh dear, I do hope the cheque [2] didn't bounce. Giano 18:57, 17 January 2007 (UTC)
        • WMF gave a donation to Freenode, which is a free, open-source IRC network that provides much more than simply #wikimedia channels — it is in fact the largest FOSS IRC network in the world. None of the donation went to the people who you feel have wronged or conspired against you, it went towards the upkeep of an organization with similar goals as Wikipedia. Regards, —bbatsell ¿? 19:01, 17 January 2007 (UTC)
        • Interesting, I didn't know about that. Well, go take it up with the Foundation if you like. As that donation was in the name of the Foundation, it would also include all the channels for the other-language Wikipedias. Mackensen (talk) 19:04, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

• Well I think it was a lovely charitable idea, I wonder who thought of it, and in spite of constant appeals the foundation can afford to give money away. Giano 19:12, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

• This is one reasonable approach to take. Paul August ☎ 19:57, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

• • It is only reasonable if you start from the point that the channel is of net detriment to Wikipedia. Perhaps some dispassionate person should do a cost-benefit analysis to the project. I'd strong suspect that the net benefit is immense. (That's not to deny there may be some costs and problems.) I handle OTRS - in many instances I need help, second opinions, or oversight. I can't request that on-wiki for obvious reasons. I could e-mail, but that's inefficient. I'd have to e-mail dozens of people to guarantee a response - and each wouldn't know if it has been dealt with by the time they are reading it. The admins' channel allows me to call on, and discuss the issue, with a cross section of trusted people, and they is normally someone in there with the time to assist. (And yes, before someone points it out, some OTRS issues cannot be discussed even in that channel). Killing the channel would lose that, and I'm not convinced it would stop incivility. Frankly, I've experienced more incivility on-wiki.--Doc^g 20:16, 17 January 2007 (UTC)
  • Disaffiliating it would not mean killing it. And the issues with that channel are more than incivility. Paul August ☎ 20:26, 17 January 2007 (UTC)
    • Well then I don't understand. If you disaffiliate it, what is the intention? If it is to discourage its use, then you lose the benefits or at least decrease them. You also forfeit some level of control. Will arbcom still watch over a disaffiliated channel. And wouldn't the 'issues' still continue? Either the intention is to diminish/discourage the channel's use - in which case you are saying it is a net loss to Wikipedia. Is it? Or you are not intending to diminish its use - in which case, what's the point?--Doc^g 20:39, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

• "Will arbcom still watch over a disaffiliated channel" Please someone, anyone tell me I have not just read that phrase, after all that has been said, all the lies told, is Doc seriously suggesting that the arbcom have indeed been watching over the channel all the time? This whole thing is sickening me. Giano 21:46, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

• Giano, the way I read Doc G, he is referring to the way ArbCom members are currently watching the channel. Things are being done, by the looks of it. Even if it is not precisely what you want done, can you consider stepping back for a bit to let things settle down? Then things can be reviewed in a month or so. Constant argument is not productive. Unless something really bad happens, please let things calm down. Carcharoth 21:59, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

I stepped back once today - remember? Giano 22:04, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

I'm afraid I haven't been following the whole thing that closely, so no, I don't remember. Carcharoth 22:25, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

Jurisdiction over #wikipedia-en-admins

Copied from Wikipedia talk:Off-wiki policy discussion

• #wikipedia-en-admins was proposed [3], given specific mandates [4] and announced on the WikiEN mailing list [5]. It continues, by all accounts, to be a place intended for discussion among wikipedia admins for wikipedia issues. The foundation donates money to irc in recognition of its importance to wikipedia. [6] All actions there, including who becomes channel ops, should be accountable to the arbcom and the wikipedia community. The latest posting by the arbcom only partially acknowledges this [7], they need to do better. To start with, a complete review of channel ops should be done - on wiki and transparently (for the #wikipedia-en-admins channel only). --Duk 05:04, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

If WMF and Wikipedia organisations like ArbCom have no jurisdiction over #wikipedia-en-admins then who does? The operators of the channel? If so, then the wikipedia community should choose who these people are (for the #wikipedia-en-admins channel only). --Duk 19:22, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

• There's a flaw in your reasoning. The Foundation donated money to Freenode recognizing the importance of all IRC channels, and not just the English-language ones. #wikipedia-en-admins is a comparatively small operation (#wikipedia, for example, usually has at least 250-300 people in it). Mackensen (talk) 19:31, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

I didn't intent to say the money was in recognition of #wikipedia-en-admins in particular. Yes, I should have been clearer. donates money to irc in recognition of its importance --Duk 19:35, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

I think you need to read between the lines of the post you linked to. The post says: "We hope it [the donation] will help the servers to keep running smoothly" - ie. there had been problems with the servers (which also explains why it was a one-off donation). The post also ends with: "We also renew our condoleances for the death, 2 months ago, of FreeNode founder, aka Lilo." - this refers to the death of Rob Levin. My reading of the post is that the donation is to help Freenode through a difficult period following the death of its founder. The Wikimedia Foundation is big enough now to stand on its own two feet (and maybe Freenode is as well, I don't really know), but consider what might have happened if Jimbo had died suddenly (Rob Levin was knocked down by a car while cycling) during the first year or two of Wikipedia. Imagine the chaos that could have caused, and how a donation might have helped. Carcharoth 21:34, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

Who runs the #wikipedia-en-admins channel and who do they answer to in that regard? What is the chain of command? And is the following quote correct? --Duk 21:05, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

...as per Freenode policy, any channel with the word Wikipedia in it is an official, sanctioned to, and belonging to the Foundation channel. It doesn't matter who wants to put what there, if its not offical, it can't go there... [8]

If I remember correctly, it's James_F. But who cares. Just shut the damn channel down already. —Pilotguy (ptt) 21:22, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

[Bah, edit conflicts.]

Try /cs access #wikipedia-en-admins list, but the highlights (in no particular order) are myself, Dmcdevit, Essjay, Jimmy, Angela, Mark Ryan, Mackensen, sannse, Uninvited Company, David Gerard, Kat, and FloNight. The "top dogs" are Essjay, Jimmy, and myself. I'm in eventual command of all Wikimedia IRC channels, by virtue of being "Group Contact Chair". The quote is correct, ish. We have an odd relationship with Freenode - I'm "officially unofficial", as it were.

James F. (talk) 21:29, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

Hi James (may I call you "Group Contact Chair"?) - just out of idle curiousity, just to humour me - which of those names above are not on the arbcom mailing list? Giano 22:07, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

I don't know about the others, but I'm certainly not involved with the arbcom in any respect, beyond voting in the elections. - Mark 01:49, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

Then you've done a wonderful job managing 99% of the irc channels. #Wikipedia-en-admins is a special case - it holds a unique amount of power and influence, has special status from the way it was set up, and it has cause this incredible mess.

Do you answer to the community with regards to irc, the arbcom?

I'd like to suggest that the admin community from en and commons select the ops for this channel to serve under your leadership. I think that would address many of the fears, some of the pathological symptoms the arbcom has acknowledged, and maybe some of the underlying illness too.--Duk 21:57, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

I would disagree that the channel holds "power and influence" - the people who hang out there have wiki-priviledges, and have influence through people's trust in them. It also hardly has "special status" - there are quite a few private invite-only Wikimedia-related IRC channels; this is merely the most publically-known.

I can control the channel (in the technical sense), but I cannot control the people - I feel that a great deal of the concern in the channel is actually mis-placed, and should be directed at the members of our community with whom some have issues.

In my rôle of Group Contact Chair, I "answer" neither to the community (IRC, enwiki, metawiki, mailing-list, or otherwise), nor to the Arbitration Committee; in the end, I suppose I answer to the Board, but that is something that has never come up, so I'm not sure that there's a conceptual framework with which all interlocutors readily agree.

I worry about accepting a concept of having a formal hold of who the "admin community" of a wiki is and isn't - were I to fail to talk to someone (through my ignorance), would it be seen as a snub of said community's ideals? I'd feel uncomfortable, I suppose - it's not my (currently) place to deign to designate the aristocracy of a wikicommunity. Note, BTW, that I'm a member of the Committee whose noting of fears you reference. :-)

James F. (talk) 19:35, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

(The following comments on the above by Duk have been moved out of the body of James F's comments where they were originally embedded, in order to make it possible (for me at least!) to read James F's comments. In the following, I am inserting a brief reference to the paragraph to which Duk responds so that the context of Duk's comments can be understood. --Tony Sidaway 13:01, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

I would disagree that the channel holds "power and influence"...

Then we disagree. The channel does hold a special place, not only in the way it was set up, but in who gets invited there. And also because of the special problems it has caused.--Duk 23:14, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

I can control the channel (in the technical sense), but I cannot control the people...'

You can control who the ops are, correct? --Duk 23:14, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

In my rôle of Group Contact Chair, I "answer" neither to the community (IRC, enwiki, metawiki, mailing-list, or otherwise), nor to the Arbitration Committee...

Agree, its murky, I don't envy your position. But now it has come up, in a big way. This channel is different since it was discussed and set up in WikEN-L, and the foundation partially funds it. --Duk 23:14, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

I worry about accepting a concept of having a formal hold of who the "admin community" of a wiki is and isn't...

We *do* have a formal admin community - it's here on the wiki. Come on James. --Duk 23:14, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

The the channel in question (and possibly more, as you say) is an invitation only place that has accountability designed out it by virtue of secrecy and no logging. In reality, like minded friends go there and interact. It crackles with social energy. The arbcom (some of whom are regulars in that channel) has found "incidents involving gross incivility", only grudgingly after months of non-stop work by the victims, one of whom was threatened with banning while defending himself. They haven't yet corroborated (or denied) the allegations of character assassination and conspiracy. A quote from one of our articles (and I'm not implying criminal activity, this is just conceptual) - Under the common law the crime of conspiracy was capable of infinite growth, able to accommodate any new situation and to criminalize it if the level of threat to society was sufficiently great. So what's the level of threat when a secret, closed group allegedly gangs up on and trys to drive away some of wikipedia's greatest contributers? What other cases have there been where the victims weren't lucky enough to see the logs? What consequences have been given to the people responsible for this "gross incivility"? What is going to happen next time - when the victims probably won't be lucky enough to see the logs

This isn't about on-wiki-incivility on vs. off-wiki-incivility. When it happens on wiki people get a chance to hear each other and are therefore on a level playing field to resolve conflict. When "incivility" happens in irc and the victim isn't there, it can be predatory and destructive, opinions and minds can be poisoned against the victim, who might never know why everybody starts treating her worse and worse and worse. --Duk 23:14, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

There have been numerous completely false and extremely damaging allegations of a conspiracy. The problem is that these absurd allegations have been taken seriously when they should--in the interests of the encyclopedia and the well-being of the community--have been rightly derided. The channel poses no threat to Wikipedia; indeed without this channel and others like it the work of Wikipedia administrators would be more difficult. --Tony Sidaway 13:07, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

You know very well what has been going on, in addition to other matters, certain admins have arranged for editors to be wrongly blocked by other less experienced admins. The arbcom is aware of it, and are dealing with it (or have you been shown an arbcom mailing list which denies this?). Stop denying what you know to be true. Multiple logs have proved that the admins channel has been abused in a disgraceful way. The arbcom are only making this situation worse by allowing this matter to drag on, and people like yourself to make false and ridiculous speeches from decrepit and rotting platforms. Giano 15:01, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

For the avoidance of doubt, I hereby refute absolutely Giano's false and damaging accusations. --Tony Sidaway 21:34, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

<-

Tony, I think you mean "deny" or "reject" (that is, assert the falsity of) rather than "refute" (that is, prove the falsity of). But which "accusations" were you "refuting", by the way:

• that there were numerous incidents of gross incivility on the IRC admins channel?
• that more experienced admins on the IRC admins channel encouraged less experienced admins to block certain editors in a manner that was widely considered wrong?
• that the IRC admins channel has been abused in a disgraceful way?

And do you have any means of demonstrating that the "accusations" are false, other than bare assertion? -- ALoan (Talk) 21:47, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

Arbitrary section break at Ideogram

Giano's assertion "that more experienced admins on the IRC admins channel encouraged less experienced admins to block certain editors in a manner that was widely considered wrong" appears to refer to Kylu blocking him. There is no supporting evidence. The fact that Giano continues to make this assertion indicates his paranoia-distorted reality. Simply believing such a thing could occur is an insult to Kylu's intelligence. It was this absurd assertion and Giano's subsequent refusal to admit he could be wrong that have earned him my enmity. --Ideogram 00:15, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

There may have been gross incivility on IRC, as there is sometimes on this wiki. On IRC, I've never witnessed anything approaching the casual and gross incivility that I have seen on the wiki--that's surprising but it's true. The other two accusations are wild, unsubstantiated and obviously have no place on Wikipedia or indeed in any sane forum. Of course there is no need to demonstrate their falsehood. This isn't a kangaroo court. --Tony Sidaway 22:56, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

• With respect, it's not a "wild, unsubstantiated" accusation. While the "evidence" is fairly thin (logs copied from wikitruth indeed) barring a refutation from Kmartin I've got no reason to doubt the veracity. And *cough* I'm well aware of the casual nature of "I thought it was a compromised account" malarky used as a justification for abuse of checkuser privledges. It's well and truly beyond the terms a of "good faith" when the high-level privledges are used for personal gain. - brenneman 23:03, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

• I've examined the purported log and see no evidence, not even "thin" evidence suggesting abuse of checkuser in that log. Kelly mentions that SlimVirgin complained to the ombudsman committee. Presumably they would have ruled on the matter if there had been any substance to it.

• Now you say that you're well aware of the casual nature of "I thought it was a compromised account" malarky used as a justification for abuse of checkuser privledges. This suggests that you believe that abuse of checkuser is widespread. Please take your evidence to the appropriate forum.

• You say, further, that high-level privledges are used for personal gain. That's an even more serious accusation than the original one made against Kelly. Please don't be shy, take your evidence to the Ombudsman's Committee. Or are you just making further wild, unsubstantiated accusations? --Tony Sidaway 00:10, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

The members of Arbcom seem convinced that there has been gross incivility on IRC, even if you have not witnessed it (I have not been on the channel, so have not either). In the absence of evidence either way, those of us who are not privy to the sort of private communications that convinced the Arbcom that there was gross incivility we will just have to recognise that you and Giano (and others) are making contrary assertions on these points too, unless or until Arbcom or another authoritiative decision-maker concludes one way or the other.

But do you really think that your colourful adjectives (not just "accusations" or even "false accusations", but "damaging" and "wild" ones too; and I see that you say above that "allegations" are "absurd" and "derided" ) are helpful? It seems a bit contradictory to use such colourful language in one breath, and then complain about "juvenile taunting" in another. -- ALoan (Talk) 23:19, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

Tony, I'm guessing that this situation is doubly hurtful to you, since you've campaigned for openness (a year ago on WikiEn-L with regards to an admin-only mailing list) and offered permission to publish all your comments from #wikipedia-en-admins. Very commendable and consistent. Maybe you're worried about guilt by association of what the arbdom calls "Numerous incidents involving gross incivility", but the closed nature of the channel is preventing you from defending yourself, or from showing that the channel isn't always such a bad place. It could be worse - this discussion could be going on in a secret channel you're excluded from, where some of your worst enemies are grossly and uncivilly maligning you. Secrecy and censorship suck.

But still, the main problem here isn't "Numerous incidents involving gross incivility", as bad as that is. Sometimes tempers flair and people get grossly uncivil, sometimes in self-defense. When it happens on wiki, back and forth communications and a road to dispute resolution is still open, people hear each other. However, when it happen behinds people's backs, in a secret closed meeting room of like minded admins with no intent of dispute resolution, then it's destructive in nature and corrupts our leadership and our culture. People who go down that road should take a long look at themselves and ask whether they are really interested in creating a free encyclopedia, or if they are more interested in power and status and destroying their enemies. --Duk 20:29, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

• I'm afraid Tony's mouth is only part of the problem. The crux is the arbcom itself, who are so ashamed of some of their members behaviour in this matter (and equally importantly the behaviour of some of their closest friends) they cannot reach agreement on how to solve the problem. If they had a grain of common sense, and feeling for wikipedia, the matter would now be firmly closed and finished, but they are torn between their loyalty to each other, and their duty to wikipedia. I suppose they should all resign if they can't reach agreement, but I don't think they have quite enough honour between them for that! So they will allow this to drag on rather than finish the totally discredited #wikipedia-en-admins which is the obvious solution. I had dropped this matter, but the arbcom's friends (i.e. Tony) cannot help themselves, they are so afraid that their power base is going to be completely destroyed they have to keep digging away seemingly unaware it is the admin channel's justly deserved grave they are digging. Giano 20:57, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

Ideogram, your assertion linking Giano and Kylu is fortunately false. Neither of them thinks resp does what you state. :-) --Kim Bruning 00:38, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

If you don't mind, I'd like to hear that from Giano. --Ideogram 00:42, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

We do need to do something about problem editors on the wiki. This kind of juvenile taunting is never acceptable on Wikipedia. --Tony Sidaway 21:15, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

Hello, Tony! I see you are trying to calm the debate in your own inimitable style again. -- ALoan (Talk) 21:35, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

Tony has a temper. His phrasing is often inflammatory. I would not try to defend Tony in these matters.

I am far more concerned with Giano's behavior. ALoan, as someone friendly to Giano, I would ask you to advise him, publicly, to avoid inflammatory posts such as this, this, this, "cowardice", this, this, indeed about eighty percent of Giano's contributions to this thread.

I have no desire to side with Giano's "enemies" but his behavior has earned him my enmity all by itself. --Ideogram 23:36, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

Ut oh, is that a declaration of bad faith? --Kim Bruning 00:46, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

I would advise anyone, Giano included, to avoid making inflamatory comments. He has been treated abominably, and it is nothing short of remarkable that he is still here, writing excellent articles on a daily basis: that is a testimony to his dedication to this project. He often expresses himself forcefully, sometimes too forcefully, and he makes many allegations, some of which are or turn out to be entirely justified and others for which I have not seen the evidence. Along the way, he makes some very good points which should be answered and addressed. Perhaps his style of debate can be counter-productive, but I doubt there is much a comment from me would do about that.

I am sorry to see you talking of "enemies" or "enmity" - try to feel the Wikilove. You will not like me saying it, but perhaps you should get back to basics by delving into mainspace some more and writing some articles? -- ALoan (Talk) 11:27, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

Frankly, my point is that you will not get far criticizing people who dislike Giano since anyone can see you are quick to rush to his defense. You would have far more credibility (and probably be more effective) offering your advice to people who already trust you. --Ideogram 11:34, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the advice. I don't think I have been particularly quick to rush to Giano's defence - my contributions to this debate have been relatively sparse compared to some others - although clearly it looks different to you. You may not be aware that Giano and I have fallen out quite seriously at least once, but I will not hide the fact that I consider his contributions to be immensely valuable, nor that I think that the rumpus over the last 6 months or so has been caused largely by the way Giano has been treated, rather than the way that he has treated others. He is not perfect; none of us are. I am not convinced that he really needs me to defend him anyway - he is quite able to put his own view across. It should not be forgotten that he is not to only person to have suffered at the hands of those who are said to have been grossly uncivil on IRC, although the "Giano" label as a shorthand for this whole mess inevitably means that the conversation returns to him.

But, gosh, I am rather upset with the implication that you don't think I am credible, or that [you don't think] you can trust me. Anyway, Lord Nolan now looks a bit better. So many articles to write, so little time. -- ALoan (Talk) 12:23, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

I apologize. ALoan, I do think you are a good guy, and that you mean well. I only mean to say that I doubt your objectivity where Giano is concerned. --Ideogram 00:02, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

[I have been away, and have clarified my earlier comment above, by the way, but I think you knew what I meant.] Well, thanks again - I guess I can live with being a "good guy", even if everyone ignores me as far as Giano is concerned. I doubt whether any of the people here are entirely objective; anyway, which of my comments above do you disagree with? -- ALoan (Talk) 12:50, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

It's not that I necessarily disagree with anything you have said, I simply want to suggest that your words will have much greater impact if you point out ways Giano could improve rather than trying to influence people who dislike Giano. "Only Nixon can go to China". --Ideogram 01:45, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

My impression of AGF is that we should assume we are all here to improve the encyclopedia even though we may disagree on how to get there. I don't see any part of AGF that requires me to respect everyone or even pretend to respect everyone. If it does, I will simply have to leave. --Ideogram 00:56, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

Jurisdiction over #wikipedia-en-admins (section break)

• What I find strange about this whole thing is your stance that the whole channel is (insert hyperbole here). It's a channel, no different than many on wiki pages, and there are various contributors to it. Taking the fact that there has been some bad behavior (actually I've not really personally seen it, I just take that on faith based on the number of people that have said as much) and equating that with a need to completely shut it down is equivalent to saying the fact that there has been some terrible behavior on wiki means the whole wiki needs to be shut down. Not very many people nor evidence back your claims that everyone in the channel is behaving terribly, nor that the whole channel and all it's participants are disgraced. In fact claiming that all participants in the channel are deplorable people as you have essentially done, just reflects poorly on you. The reality is some relatively small percentage of the discussion there ranges from terrible and regrettable to not helpful. Hopefully the current efforts will be enough to clean up the channel, and allow the useful efforts there to go on. - Taxman ^Talk 22:35, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

• It dosen't matter if the "terrible" (which means what? just "incivility"?) accounts for 5% or 50% of that channel's activities, because we, the community, are not able to tell. If you wish to speak about "evidence" (which is not sensitive — and it is not) backing up anything, it needs to become publicly available. Otherwise, invoking the word feels rather absurd. It was interesting to see how the Committee became divided over this issue, and how those whom I consider the more sensible arbitrators (before any of this happned) opposed the wildly pro-IRC "remedies" against Giano. But nevertheless, as a body, the Committee has been —and remains— far too equivocal, which, by extension, reflects poorly on it/you. El_C 00:37, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

...where some of your worst enemies are grossly and uncivilly maligning you: Wow, Duk - that's some paranoia (no offense). First, this is the internet, not real life - nobody's worst enemies exist online. Secondly, are people grossly and uncivilly maligning you/anybody? And if so, how do you know? Personally, I've never been in an admin-only channel/list and never will, but I've never assumed that people are even thinking about me in one - I'm simply not that important and, respectfully, neither are most other non-persistant-vandals. 〈REDVEЯS〉 21:01, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

Please go read the very first sentence of this section; Numerous incidents involving gross incivility on the IRC channel have been brought to the Arbitration Committee's attention. This statement is from the arbcom. There isn't a problem with paranoid people imagining things - instead, there's a problem with documented events that people are blind to, even when written down and explained (no offense, VEЯS). --Duk 21:21, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

• Thank you for your input Taxman. I remember well how you promoted Carnildo to adminship when it was quite clearly against consensus, and how the usual leading names from the channel trotted out to say what a good idea it was. While I'm here it would be interesting to know what exactly Tony Sidaway is doing in the channel anyway as he is not an admin. Giano 07:21, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

• Interesting that you jump straight to ad hominem instead of addressing the argument. It's clear from your biting sarcasm that you're not really interested in helping things improve, but that you're so emotionally tied up in conflict you don't see your part in causing problems. At least I made a good faith decision in consultation with other bureaucrats and can feel good about making a decision in the best interests of the project, and that my behavior throughout carried in it not the least bit of incivility. Can you say as much? But clearly it's not going to be fruitful to continue discussion. Steve brings a link to some pretty insightful words. - Taxman ^Talk 14:20, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

• Perhaps Taxman, it is for others to see their parts in this. It is always convenient to shoot the messenger but in this instance the messenger is refusing to lie down and die. The channel has been abused, if people gather to discuss others in secret places, they cannot be surprised if they are accused of nefarious deeds, especially if they carry out some very strange acts following those secretive discussions. Giano 15:09, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

• I didn't think so. It is perfectly possible to give criticism while not engaging in behavior as bad or worse than those you are pointing the finger at. If you had maintained civility then there would probably be less controversy surrounding this, and more productive discussion, because the facts appear to speak for themselves. - Taxman ^Talk 18:13, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

Taxman, I realize that you don't know with any precision what has actually been going on in the admin channel, and still to a certain extent goes on. The evidence situation makes the discussion absurd, as El C says: the actual events must not be presented or discussed. I despair when I see the necessarily vague descriptions of "gross incivility", "character assassination" and "conspiracy" dismissed as "paranoia" above, and when I see you sarcastically suggest "(insert hyperbole here)". All I can do is make some bald, non-evidence-supported statements, and you, Taxman (and you, dear reader), will have to decide if they bear the stamp of truth, and if I have any personal credibility. Thus: I know what goes on in the way of character assassination in en-admins because I've been ganged up on and attacked to my face, and I've seen others ganged up on and attacked behind their backs. I've seen admins asking for help in getting Giano blocked. The most distasteful thing I've seen there is the way instant decency has broken out when Jimmy Wales has dropped into the channel, and been as instantly withdrawn when he has left. I've sent my record of a couple of incidents to the arbcom, logged by myself and without one pixel edited, removed, or added; that's how the "numerous incidents involving gross incivility" were brought to their attention. (Perhaps other people have sent logs also, I wouldn't know. One neutral person, at my request, submitted his own logs for the same times as mine, and I hope that the two versions were compared.) Please don't shoot the messenger Giano—he wasn't there, though he is a victim of the bad channel culture—better shoot the witness if you don't believe me. One thing I've noticed is that when people actually manage to get hold of those or similar logs (not apparently a startlingly difficult feat, as many log the channel 24/7), they tend to stop saying "paranoia" and "hyperbole" and start saying "I'm shocked", and "I had no idea". (Quoting an arbitrator—I won't name him, but perhaps he'll name himself.) And here's an expressive small item on my talk.

Even if these things are true, why do I rake up the past, now that measures for cleanup are being taken? Several reasons: the channel isn't very clean, in my opinion—I've just decided not to go there any more, as there's now precious little support to be had, with both Bunchofgrapes and Rebecca having given it up in disgust. The new chanops no doubt do their best, in an authoritarian manner, to keep it civil; but they're not always there, and the more effective and proactive of them are far from always there. Is a channel that needs so much policing worth trying to keep on course? Its own culture is bad. Social meeting-places do develop cultures of their own—to say so is not indeed to claim that the members of it are all bad people, as you suggest in your reductio ad absurdum above. This one has a troubled past. In the very last exchange I saw in channel, yesterday, the policing was merely pushing the tone of discourse (in, as it happens, a discussion of Giano) from attack to insinuation. Secondly, the abusive chanops are still chanops, though they've chosen not to be active at the moment. The arbcom is, as far as I can gather, leaving them free to resume these leading roles at any moment of their choice. This, to me, is offensive—I actually find it hard to believe—and it seems to me a good reason to either shut down the channel, or open it to all. Bishonen | talk 17:23, 23 January 2007 (UTC).

• Mcginnley raised this matter on my talk page, and I have responded there. Mackensen (talk) 18:03, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

• And I have replied to your response there. Bishonen | talk 05:24, 24 January 2007 (UTC).

• Note that I accepted from the outset that such behavior was going on, so you don't need to convince me. Terrible behavior goes on on wiki too. Should we shut the whole thing down? Deal with the behavior, don't throw out what's valuable. And no, I don't have any problem with removing chanops from people that have been shown to abuse them. I would hope that would be the norm, and yes, I would agree that's a problem if it's not happening. But it's also not shooting the messenger to point out that the way the message is delivered is making the problem worse. - Taxman ^Talk 18:13, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

• I'm disappointed that you insist on the margin rather than the center. Bishonen | talk 19:11, 23 January 2007 (UTC).

• I'll just note that my disgust with the culture of #wikipedia-en-admins was a major motivator for my resigning as an administrator -- anything that distanced me from the goings-on in there seemed like a good thing. I know I only spent time in there to try to reign in the abuses of a few people like Tony Sidaway and Kelly Martin -- people the community here would not trust as sysops but who, last I saw, still were among the most frequent chatters in the channel (and Kelly was still one of the chanops). I'm glad I no longer have access -- it was like a prison sentence. —Bunchofgrapes (talk) 20:05, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

• Get real Taxman and put your own house in order first, This messenger refuses to be polite to <personal attack removed again> who feel they can be as abusive as they like in the secrecy of their own disgusting channel, and then scream incivility when anyone publicly answers them back or rebukes them on wiki. The arbcom are too reticent to deal with these people, so that leaves me no choice but to handle them in my own way, at least I'm still here which is more than many of their victims are, so perhaps my way is best for wikipedia. Giano 18:48, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

• I would hope the incongruity of refusing to be polite (while insulting others) at the same time as pointing out the incivility of others is not lost on anyone. You're just as bad as they are. Pray tell why should your behavior be ignored, while others are sanctioned for the same thing? Just because you're still here doesn't mean all your actions are helpful, or that there aren't better ways of approaching it. But again it's clear you aren't interested in following the civility policy, so I'll do my best not to respond further. I think my points have been made. - Taxman ^Talk 19:03, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

• It is a huge pity Taxman, but I suspect your hostility to me comes from these two edits here: [9] and [10]. Taxman you need to get over it, as you yourself say of me above "you are so emotionally tied up in conflict you don't see your part in causing problems" perhaps it is not me that needs to do some serious soul searching! Giano 19:23, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

• There was no intended hostility in any of my comments. In fact I'm not sure how you could claim any, and most certainly not remotely in comparison to the level of yours. I was simply pointing out a problem in the most constructive way I could. We can carry this on at someone's talk page instead, but this is not the place. - Taxman ^Talk 19:59, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

• Regarding my reversion of your edit here [11] personal? personal? nobody's supposed to know I'm talking about!they're defined only by their cowardice! and of course the incidents to which I refer, are all of-wiki. You people can't have it both ways. Giano 20:02, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

Oh well, I've been reverted again, it seems they do know who I'm talking about, and do want it both ways! One rule for them and one for the rest of us it seems. Giano 10:10, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

I find it patently absurd to say that something with Wikipedia in it's name is not under the jurisdiction of the same authorities that police Wikipedia. If it isn't going to be answerable to these authorities than frankly I don't think it should bear the Wikipedia name, and should be usurped, or deleted. However, I'll also say that attacking the venue of the discourse is also patently absurd. People are people, and the people that are acting up on the admin channel would not be better people without it, I'm sure I can say. Cheers, ✎ Peter M Dodge ( Talk to Me • Neutrality Project ) 17:39, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

Jurisdiction over #wikipedia-en-admins (not incivility but conspiracy is the core)

It's outright strange that so many people concentrate on incivility of #wikipedia-en-admins while omitting the real problem. The channel has become a venue where certain current and former admins and (amazingly) assisted by sitting ArbCom members conspire how to give a Wikipedia an enema (sic!) and rid it from the editors who oppose them. There is a log from the last year somewhere out there where the self-styled "arbitrator emeritus" discusses with a then (and still now) sitting ArbCom member how to "get rid of Irpen" through a "slow and grinding process" with another ArbCom member (still sitting as well) who professes a chairmanship of the channel watching and proclaiming that "idiots should go". ArbCom has been made aware of that log, they tell me. Still no action. There is plenty of evidence about blocks orchestrated via the channel and I saw no desysopping and instead we concentrate on "incivility". Big deal! I am not worried about incivility. I am by far more worried about teaming up to find an excuse to block Giano (or Irpen or Ghirlandajo) and the names of the conspirators are well known.

Anyway, I am going to act at this point. Within days I will submit a case to ArbCom backed up by evidence of the orchestrated blocks. We will see what comes out of that.

In the meanwhile, please drop the nonsense about incivility. Whoever wants to discuss manners, go to alt.fan.miss-manners or other fora. Time to address admin abuse, violations of existing blocking policies and broken RfAdm. --Irpen 20:22, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

• Let me note that while I've otherwise withdrawn from this discussion, I support Irpen's intention to seek arbitration and will of course recuse myself from public (and private) discussion of the matter. Mackensen (talk) 20:39, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

• This instant archiving [12] of threads pertaining to these discussions is becoming not only tiresome but deeply irritating, and it is going to stop. I have been asked to clarify elsewhere what I understand by the term conspiracy. As I understand it, a conspiracy is two or more people discussing in a secret place how best to deal with a third party not privy to those discussions. Of course in a place like Wikipedia some people i e the Arbcom should have a private place to discuss matters. There is no need for every "quickly come lately liitle admin" to require such a place. I am delighted Mackensen intends to recuse, it is so unseemly when as in the last aborted "Giano case" arbcom members such as J Forrester were forced to recuse after they had already (with strange haste) voted. I very much hope Irpen's case will prove that he was not only unjustly blocked, but that strange things (which the arbcom accept, but we are not allowed to mention) have happened on that channel. I won't comment further on the details of that case, as Thatcher seems to be concerned by Sub judice rules, but of course we all know (don't we Thatcher?) these things don't apply on wiki - so no worries there. It is such a pity we have to have these repeated and damaging cases because the arbcom, whose members are so numerous and clandestine (why is there not a readily available list of those entitled to receive and pass comment on the arbcom mailing list?) fail to deal once and for all with the notorious abuses which have taken place and are taking place in the designated "admin channel." Giano 21:56, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

Thanks, but I've already been taken to the woodshed [13]. If the real issue is conspiracy resulting in misuse of admin tools, my thought was to archive this 150kb monstrosity and open a new discussion on the real issue [14]. Obviously you and Irpen disagree [15]. I would like to note in passing that I do not and never have used IRC, and furthermore have a very low opinion after it was reported someone on the regular channel was canvassing people to oppose my RFA. I regret any missteps. Thatcher131 22:07, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

Arbcom mailing list membership disscussion

• It is interesting to note that the ArbCom mailing list's member list is private. There's really no good reason it should be. ✎ Peter M Dodge ( Talk to Me • Neutrality Project ) 22:03, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

• WP:AC#Mailing list. FreplySpang 22:05, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

• That's not a mailman members list. With chanops in the admin channel that aren't even admins, I think it warrants a look as to whether there's people in the ArbCom kitchen that aren't cooks, too. Transparency is vital to the health of the wiki. Of course, the actual discussions should never be made public, as they are made in confidence and often contain confidential information of various sorts (from what I gather), but there is no good reason a list of the members of the list could not be made public. Cheers, ✎ Peter M Dodge ( Talk to Me • Neutrality Project ) 22:14, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

• Peter, I recently added the usernames of all the subscribers of that list at the link Freply gave above: WP:AC#Mailing list. So a list of the members of that list is now publicly available. Paul August ☎ 22:55, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

• Did you forget Rebecca, or is she not on it? Musical Linguist 23:01, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

• Rebecca is not currently subscribed to the list. Paul August ☎ 23:23, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

• There are many good reasons. ArbCommers are frequently privy to checkuser information and other sensitive details. Chick Bowen 22:11, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

• Or did you mean that the member list itself is private? In which case, as FreplySpang indicates, it isn't. Chick Bowen 22:13, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

• 28! That is not a committee, it is a parliament, and seemingly a hung one. Giano 22:20, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

A couple thoughts regarding some of the membership listed:

• Essjay - I respect and trust Essjay greatly, but he isn't an Arbitrator, so should he really be on the list?
• Mindspillage - Didn't Kat step down from Arbcom?

I do appreciate the gesture of transparency, though, Paul. Cheers, ✎ Peter M Dodge ( Talk to Me • Neutrality Project ) 23:04, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

You're welcome. Quoting from that list's information page: Subscriptions (allowing posting to and receiving from the mailing list) are limited to current and former Arbitrators, and Jimbo Wales. Essjay is an exception. Paul August ☎ 23:30, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

Why is Essjay an exception? ✎ Peter M Dodge ( Talk to Me • Neutrality Project ) 23:32, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

I could be wrong but it could have to do with one of the many hats Essjay wears. Essjay is a bloody valuable contributor and I can see why he'd be the exception if anyone was going to be. Round my way we always have an exception that proves the rule, and I guess in this instance Essjay is that proof. Hope that helps. Personally, I'd hate to see Wikipedia get that far up its own arse it couldn't have exceptions to rules. But I guess I'm a rules are made to be broken kind of person. That's why I have a great fear of writing rules down. I take it there's no chance people are just going to let this whole issue die quietly? (cf stage two of dispute resolution.) Hiding Talk 00:46, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

I'm not contesting it, but I am interested in knowing what the reason is. Cheers, ✎ Peter M Dodge ( Talk to Me • Neutrality Project ) 01:20, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

If memory serves, Essjay was added at about the same time he became the first non-arbitrator on en to get checkuser (I'm fairly sure he is still the only one). It was decided since the arbcom mailing list was the primary venue to discuss checkuser related activities, it was logical for him to have access. A secondary benefit to this was that we thought he would provide valuable insight into other committee discussions. Raul654 01:59, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

Redux is a checkuser who has never been an arbitrator. NoSeptember 08:02, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

Fair enough. Thanks for clearing that up. Cheers, 02:35, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

Thank you very much, Paul, for adding that list. I am still not entirely clear why past members of Arbcom remain on the list. (Nor, indeed, why the address of the list or its page at http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/ needs to be obfuscated: a google for "arbcom mailing list" is not all that difficult.) -- ALoan (Talk) 20:25, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

Past members are included so they can help us discuss issues, which they sometimes do. This gives us a bit more memory and insight than we would otherwise have. Board members and Jimbo serve the same function. Fred Bauder 23:26, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

Thanks, Fred. That makes a degree of sense, given the turnover of personnel; on the other hand, I am sure that there are plenty of other editors and admins who could help in discussing issues and who would provide equally useful "memory and insight". Will former Arbitrators stay on the list in perpetuity? Perhaps the same "memory and insight" could be achieved by keep them on the list for a term of, say, a year after they leave Arbcom? The bottom line is that access to the mailing list gives an enhanced level of access to confidential information and to the decision makers. I just does not seem right to me that people who are not on Arbcom should be on the Arbcom mailing list. -- ALoan (Talk) 23:38, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

Jurisdiction over #wikipedia-en-admins (Section break 2)

A friendly pointer to step two of the dispute resolution process. Hiding Talk 22:48, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

Well for the past 4 hours it was mostly irrelavent stuff in the channel with some discussion abot currentdate template, DYK and Cplot, im never in the channel when most of the conflect occurs though Jaranda ^{wat's sup} 00:28, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

Just a suggestion from someone on the outside of this whole thing, but this discussion may benefit from being on a subpage, with a link from here. HighInBC ^{(Need help? Ask me)} 20:41, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

Some facts

1. Giano, Irpen, Bishonen, and Ghirlandajo (among others) have made many enemies.
2. Those enemies talk about them behind their backs, including ways to get rid of them.
3. Changing or shutting down #wikipedia-en-admins will not change either of the above.

--Ideogram 01:47, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

They don't care who discusses them and how much. The problem is the abusive blocks that violate our policies. What needs done most urgently is punishment for abusive blocks. If the channel continues to run, but abusive blockers get de-adminned, the abuse would stop at once. --Irpen 01:57, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

Very well, I look forward to an in-depth discussion of abusive blocks in your RFAr. --Ideogram 02:07, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

Ideogram, this is what makes people say that you're trolling. The dang RFAR's have been launched already. They are in the past tense. If you read the first line of this discussion, you'd see that Fred Bauder announces a result. Do not look forward to new RFAR's, please. I am convinced that ArbCom's solutions will not solve matters, but I hope I'm wrong. If I am, there won't be another RFAR unless people keep poking and acting abusively. Do not ask for all prior arguments to be repeated. They have been, already, at least twice. Geogre 12:26, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

1. As noted below, you apparently don't know what I'm talking about.
2. There are a lot of people here who love to repeat themselves, yourself included. If you're going to do that, I'm going to exercise my right to ask you to repeat what's important instead of everything. --Ideogram 22:47, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

I don't say this lightly, but I am getting close to filing a request at arbitration simply to get this thread to stop. Wikipedia is not a battleground. Hiding Talk 16:14, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

Frank discussion and debate is important. Paul August ☎ 17:45, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

I believe he's referring to this section where Irpen announces his intent to launch a new ArbCom soon. --InkSplotch 14:44, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

Ideogram: When there's wikidrama, there's always 2 sides, could you provide a list of people on the other side of the fence too? Perhaps we can mediate. --Kim Bruning 00:05, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

My impression is that Giano et. al.'s "enemies" are not really well organized; they became enemies at different times for different reasons. Giano, and some others, insist there is some kind of organized conspiracy out to "get" them. Perhaps it would be best to ask them for the names.

That said, it does seem that Tony Sidaway and Kelly Martin's names keep popping up, and from what I have seen I do have to admit they seem to be part of the problem. Geogre in particular seems to believe Fred Bauder is part of the problem, but I don't agree.

Cyde Weys appears to have drawn a great deal of hostility, but I am not sure what specifically he could do to help defuse the situation.

From my perspective, Mackensen has already been trying to moderate the situation. The fact that Giano has been attacking him only lowers my opinion of Giano. --Ideogram 00:30, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

Some conditionals

Note that these are all if/thens. If the "ifs" aren't right, then the "thens" won't follow.

1. If en.admins.irc has non-administrators at en. on it who have been implicated in several cases of bad behavior,
2. If the composition of the channel is entirely outside of the scope of ArbCom, as David Gerrard says,
3. If James Forrester must agree to any change in ops and composition of the channel and will not do so,
4. If the channel's additional ops are the only ones who can police against malicious talk (because the previous ones were participating or approving of it),
5. If the channel's "vital functions" are easily replicated by WP:AN/I and the mailing list and e-mail,
6. If these other venues are usually superior but never inferior to the IRC,
7. Then we are looking at an unnecessary chat forum that has, built into it, persistent bad behavior which is entirely unrelated to Wikipedia rules and regulations.

Therefore, this is the equivalent of a MySpace "Friends" circle. While ArbCom can do nothing about it, we can. Wikipedia pages currently give users their access to the channel. We do not allow links to MySpace and Friendster and Facebook "Friends" pages and web forums of that nature even in our articles, and we darn sure don't need to have our namespace pages linking to any. If we remove all links to en.admins.irc, then the current cast of characters can have the isolation and pride that they seem to seek, and we needn't worry what they call their chat room. Geogre 12:26, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

Some observations. For ease of replying, I've changed your list to a numbered one. Number three is incorrect, as James agreed to and did appoint additional channel ops, including several sitting arbitrators. Furthermore, op access has been removed from at least one of the users in question, and the others are not active as ops. Number four is misleading; informed of the new rules, every person is responsible for his or her own behavior. Ops are the only people who can kick. A corresponding argument for the encyclopedia would be that only administrators can police malicious talk, because they have the power to block. That would do a disservice to all the conscientious non-administrators on this site. Number five is also incorrect, for reasons that I and others have asserted elsewhere but will do here. Some things cannot be conducted on WP:ANI, or must be conducted faster than e-mail allows. Checkuser and oversight are two of these functions. ORTS complaints are another. The functionaries who perform these tasks have made it clear that they prefer IRC over other mediums. Number six is a question of taste, and I think my answer to five covers it. The official uses of the channel are important and must be protected. Mackensen (talk) 14:45, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

Checkuser and oversight communications are important parts of Wikipedia and should be fully within the control of either the Wikipedia community and its governing bodies (arbcom) or the Wikimedia Foundation or both. It is contradictory and irresponsible to claim it is both seperate and a vital organ. Transparency or responsibility or both. As it is there is a lack of transparency, a lack of accepting responsibility, and a claim that it is important to Wikipedia. This should be considered unacceptable. WAS 4.250 16:53, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

I'm not sure I understand you. If you're asserting that all checkuser and oversight requests must be made publicly then I'm afraid that I must flat-out disagree with you, end of discussion. The checkusers and oversighters themselves are of course subject to the authority of the arbcom, the foundation, and foundation-appointed ombudsmen, and any improper use of those tools would be dealt with severely. Mackensen (talk) 16:58, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

I am not "asserting that all checkuser and oversight requests must be made publicly". Transparency or responsibility or both. If Wikipedia choses to make a vital Wikipedia function nontransparent then it should accept responsibility (and establish whatever mechanisms are appropriate to the task) rather than make claims that it is not responsible. WAS 4.250 18:17, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

If I grasp him fully he seems to think that having CU or OS on IRC at all somehow makes them irresponsible and uncontrollable. I'm not a fan of some of the IRC channels surrounding wikipedia, but saying IRC somehow pollutes or corrupts the checkusers os patent nonsense. Cheers, ✎ Peter M Dodge ( Talk to Me • Neutrality Project ) 17:04, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

I am not asserting "that having CU or OS on IRC at all somehow makes them irresponsible and uncontrollable". I am saying that claims that Wikipedia can not be responsible for activity that is vital to Wikipedia is a nonsense. The excuses for failing to enact mechanisms appropriate to the task are poorly thought out. We don't own it - so move the vital talk to a place we do own. Arbcom says it isn't on Wikipedia so they lack jurisdiction - well what of Wikipedia Review and our rules about offsite harrassment? WAS 4.250 18:17, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

Well, first of all, arbcom hasn't said that–they've indicated a willingness to consider off-wiki behavior when it has an impact on the encyclopedia. Second of all, the channels belong to Wikimedia and are governed by someone responsible to them (which is, yes, a simplification of a complicated situation, but that's how it works out). Mackensen (talk) 18:20, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

Channel composition questioned

If every user who logs in to the channel is faced with the message: "Allowed topics are only limited to the checkuser, oversight issues as well as other issues that require confidentiality", the whole thing would become harmless instantly.

And, besides, several individuals who are allowed to log in to that channel and even have sysop powers there, namely Tony Sidaway, Kelly Martin and NullC should not be anywhere near such confidential discussions as being able to take part in them requires a significant degree of the community trust which these individuals do not enjoy whatsoever. Tony and Kelly being forced to quit all their privileges specifically because of their abusing them should not be on a confidential channel.

I request Mackensen, a sysop appointed to improve the order of the channel, explain to us all while these three users are still in there. Thank you. --Irpen 17:17, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

Irpen, why are you continuing to discuss the channel when you agree with my statement above that "coordination" is going to happen whether the channel exists or not? Why can't you concentrate on the abusive blocking issue which you assert is what is really important here? --Ideogram 23:00, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

• Let me attempt a response here. There are both official and unofficial uses to the channel. The former are the most important and mainly the ones I've already mentioned. For these to be of any real use, of course, require the presence of trusted users, mainly sysops. Being a sysop is not, and never has been, a requirement for entry into that channel. The high degree of overlap between the two bodies speaks well of the community. Any time you have a concentration of users there will be discussion; some of it important, some of it not. I don't see much value in restricting the free flow of discussion beyond mandating that nothing untoward or unkind be said. Now, returning to your main point, this is a sticky matter and I would like ask that good faith be assumed as I tackle it. First of all, Tony Sidaway and NullC do not possess "sysop powers" on that channel. The former's were removed, without protest, several days ago. NullC has them because his nick is linked with Mindspillage's; I haven't seen him there in some time.
• Moving on to the second point, IRC access has not been removed because no cause has been given. I'm well aware that members of the community do not trust said individuals to use admin tools, and they no longer have those tools. As they have not abused their access to the channel by demonstrably violating its rules (in particular, those rules governing confidentiality) they have not been removed. Now, if the forthcoming arbitration case were to find that any user, not just those who have been singled out, was responsible for the off-wiki coordination of a bad block, that would of course be a different matter. Yours, Mackensen (talk) 17:58, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

• On no Mackensen! Don't you try and pin everything onto Irpen's forth coming case, while I'm sure that will prove very interesting indeed, your channel was being abused long before that sequence of events. Giano 18:20, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

• First of all, it isn't *my* channel. Up until a week ago my access there was no higher than anyone else's, and I've not been implicated in any sordid goings-on. Let's not even start down that road. Second of all, I will indeed await the verdict of bodies responsible to the community before acting. While I do not agree that the committee has oversight over the channels, if it was the opinion of the committee than an unethical coordination of blocking or other such abuses had taken place I would remove access, or argue at least for such removal (mind you, I'm but one of several ops), because I trust the arbitrators' judgement in these matters. As I'm apparently not trustworthy on these matters, in your view, I can't begin to imagine why you think I should make such a call myself. Mackensen (talk) 18:26, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

• If they have access to the administrator channel while not being a) adminstrators, or b) trusted members of the overall community, there's a problem. I'll ask again - if those two can have access to the channel, why can't I? --badlydrawnjeff talk 19:04, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

• I have no personal objections, provided you're willing to abide by the privacy policy. That's non-negotiable. Let me ask one question: since you're not an administrator, nor involved with clerking, ORTS, or anything like that, why do you want access? Mackensen (talk) 19:21, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

• Oversight, mostly. As a regular user, I can no longer trust what goes on in there. Regardless, my petition is more because people are in there who don't belong. Either everyone should have the access, or it should be limited to only admins as assumed. --badlydrawnjeff talk 19:36, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

Everyone with access currently, is either an admin on a wikimedia project and/or was one when they were given access. You Jeff, are neither of these. pschemp | talk 19:31, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

Sure, and I can accept that. However, if the channel is for administrators, non-admins should not have access. Just because someone couldn't be bothered to remove them from the channel when they were removed here is no reason to keep them around. --badlydrawnjeff talk 19:36, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

The only former admins with access currently are ones who gave up admin tools volunatarily. Under those circumstances, I don't think they should be removed from the channel. I suspect you will disagree, but frankly their admin experience is just as valuable a resource as anyone else's. pschemp | talk 20:10, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

Given who they are and the circumstances surrounding their "voluntary" demotion, I disagree. Someone else I might not, but if you think many of us lower beings consider Tony or Kelly's experience to be a valuable resource, well... --badlydrawnjeff talk 20:35, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

If you have a problem with a specific person, take it to Arbcom. I however, am speaking in generalities and would like you to kindly refrain from putting names in my mouth. I answered your question in a fair and civil manner, so I'm done here. pschemp | talk 20:47, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

Wait a minute. You have seen the very same logs mailed to ArbCom since you are at the ArbCom mailing list. And from those logs you don't see that "unethical coordination of blocking or other such abuses had taken place" yet? The additional ArbCom case should not have been necessary and I am forced to write it only because our ArbCom seems not decisive (or lazy) or wants to wash its hands off, I don't know. But you have seen the logs. Don't you see the coordination in them? --Irpen 18:32, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

Another point, I don't understand NullC's nicj being "linked" to anyone else's as an excuse for anything. Mindspillage is respected by many (myself included) despite I disagreed with her at times. She can log in all right with her own nick. NullC is not an admin, he is not a "trusted member of the community". Why is he there?

Finally, as far as Kelly goes, I understand from your message that NotACow is not only allowed to log in but she is still a sysop. I am familiar with at least two occasions of the checkuser misuse by this individual (and perhaps there were more). Moreover, her ArbCom voting showed convincingly that the user is one of the least trusted by the editor's community. What's more? Her personal blog is full of attacks on Wikipedia users. Why is she allowd to log in? And to be a sysop too? We are all looking forward to find out. --Irpen 18:36, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

Irpen: NullC is not an admin, he is not a "trusted member of the community". Why is he there? NullC is an admin on Commons. I do not support his using an identity linked to Mindspillage's, but NullC is not the only admin on Commons (who is not him or herself an admin on en:wp) that has access to #wikipedia-en-admins. There are others. I support that and think it is appropriate. There have been instances when action on commons was required, and having someone there that was an admin on commons was beneficial. Some of the people who were granted access on the basis of being admins on commons have subsequently become admins on en:wp but that's besides the point. Commons admins are as trustworthy as en:wp admins and it is appropriate that they have access as well, in my view. I won't address the rest. ++Lar: t/c 19:54, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

• I agree with Badlydrawnjeff: Tony Sidaway, Kelly Martin are neither a) adminstrators, nor b) trusted members of the overall community. They should have their access completely removed. Johntex\^talk 23:02, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

Channel composition questioned - continued

I'll address all points here. Please bear with me. Yes, I've seen the logs that arbcom has seen; I emailed several myself. I've reviewed them and offered commentary. I'm not convinced that coordination took place. I'm not calling anyone a liar; I'm simply stating that in my considered opinion I don't think that's what happen. I see ill-considered and hasty actions, but I don't see malice. That's another reason for you to wait for arbcom; they might well see things differently.

NullC is a commons admin and has some kind of developer access. If he's not a trusted member of community then this is news to me. I'm aware that his kicking of Bishonen from the channel is highly controversial but as her access was restored I see no lasting damage. I would prefer that Greg not exercise ops in the future.

I haven't seen Kelly Martin log in for well over a week at this point. Her blog is no more malicious than other user's blogs (whom I'll not name in the interest of kindness) but that's no excuse for past harm done. If there have been actual concrete checkuser violations they were not brought to my attention so I can't comment on them. As she's no longer a checkuser I'm not concerned about any future damage. She hasn't been removed because no one has seen fit to. Mackensen (talk) 18:55, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

Do you have access to do so? Can you see fit to do so with a formal complaint? Is this formal enough, or do you prefer a different format? --badlydrawnjeff talk 19:04, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

• This is all very odd, only a few days ago Mackensen was furious [16] when I said check user abuses took place, apparently I had no honnour for even daring to suggest such things were done by members of the sacred channel - what's changed? Giano 19:09, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

• If you'll read the part where I said I hadn't heard about them, it might help you out. Note also that I took your comments as a general allegation since you didn't name names. Context is everything. Mackensen (talk) 19:16, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

• name names -- When the arbcom acknowledged misbehavior in this channel they didn't identify who the perps were - why? --Duk 19:23, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

• Go ask the arbcom. Mackensen (talk) 19:29, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

• Ok.
  ARBCOM, who engaged in any of the Numerous incidents involving gross incivility on the IRC channel? --Duk 19:39, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

• Is that an appology I'm hearing there Mackensen? Seems I'm not so wrong after all doesn't it? Giano 19:32, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

• I apologize for not being omniscient. You didn't substantiate your allegations, stating only that given what else went on in there it wouldn't surprise, or words to that effect. For that matter, the allegations still haven't been substantiated, and until I'm told differently by someone in the know, I will continue to call them just that. Mackensen (talk) 19:40, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

So, Mackensen, do I read it that the widely known cases of checkuser misuse by Kelly are not known to you? --Irpen 19:52, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

• Maybe I'm the last person on the project to know. No one sends me memos about these things. No, I'm not aware of these widely known abuses. I'm aware of allegations, to be sure, but I've never seen them substantiated. Mackensen (talk) 19:55, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

Oh Mackensen, how much more of all this do you think peole are going to beleive. Is any editor's true identity safe in that bloody channel? Yes or No? Giano 20:04, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

Checkuser and IRC are two different things. IRC users should get a cloak to avoid disclosing their IP address. --Interiot 20:12, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

Let me brief you then, Mackensen, about some. Here is one most widely known one that I found accidentally. I was merely googling for the ("checkuser abuse" +ombudsman) string prompted by our exchange at your talk. Much more can be found by just googling, btw. If you need more evidence, just ask. --Irpen 20:04, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

• I was familiar with that conversation, yes. I've seen it posted before. If she was removed over it then it's news to me, and I think I would have heard. Mackensen (talk) 20:18, 24 January 2007 (UTC)
• As I understand it, checkuser can be used on reasonable suspicion that someone is using a sockpuppet to damage wikipedia (see m:Checkuser#Use of the tool)... it's never required formally going through Wikipedia:Requests for checkuser. --Interiot 20:24, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

Is there an indication in that conversation that there was such a reasonable suspicion? --Irpen 20:25, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

As a fragment of conversation, it doesn't seem like Kelly's original suspicions were the subject of discussion. Has there been any other discussion or evidence which credibly suggests that Kelly acted inappropriatly outside of that log? Was a case filed with the Obudsman? Was there an outcome posted anywhere? --InkSplotch 21:13, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

• There was a concern that the account had been compromised, apparently. That's happened before, by the way, like when HolyRomanEmperor "died." Checkuser evidence was used to figure out what the hell was actually going on. Mackensen (talk) 20:27, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

Mackensen, please be serious. --Irpen 21:00, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

• No, I think I'll just shoot my mouth off for laughs. I like nothing better than taking hits for the arbitration committee and having my credibility, commitment, and heavens knows what else questioned on a daily basis. I'm having an absolute blast out here. Mackensen (talk) 21:04, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

Is that supposed to mean that you seriously believe that in that particular instance Kelly thought that the account in question has been compromised and that's why she ran a checkuser on one of the most well-known editors in this community? --Irpen 21:08, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

I suggest it as a possibility. How am I, or anyone, supposed to deduce from that log why the checkuser was run? You've suggested one possibility, I've suggested another. Thanks for the support, Mackensen (talk) 21:12, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

Yes, but do you seriously believe in what you are suggesting being really the case? Or are you just hypothesizing here? --Irpen 21:16, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

I suggest it as a highly plausible alternative. Let's say you're right: what benefit would a checkuser derive in this instance? Mackensen (talk) 21:18, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

Oh, I can think of countless much more plausible reasons. I can't look inside Kelly's head to know which one of them applied in this case. I have my own version but I would rather not write it on the public page. Whatever it is, as our WP:AGF policy wisely says, "[The Assume Good Faith] guideline does not require that editors continue to assume good faith in the presence of evidence to the contrary." --Irpen 21:31, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

Do you have any evidence to justify your apparent wholesale abandonment of good faith in the case of Kelly Martin? --Tony Sidaway 22:14, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

You must be joking, Tony. Aren't you? --Irpen 22:17, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

You know I'm not. I find your behavior here very far from a laughing matter. --Tony Sidaway 22:42, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

Channel composition questioned - continued (arbitrary section break)

• I ask that all editors think carefully before making serious accusations of abuse of Wikipedia powers. --Tony Sidaway 21:07, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

• Thanks for that Tony - we've thought. Why don't you go and do something useful for once like write a page. We've all heard quite enough from you to last a lifetime. Giano 21:35, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

• Why don't you go and do something useful for once like write a page. You first.
• We've all heard quite enough from you to last a lifetime. "We"? Are you royalty? --Calton | Talk 22:00, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

What, Giano write a page? Something like, say, Palazzo Beneventano del Bosco, you mean? Or Silvia, Duchess of Aosta? What a good idea. Perhaps some others would like to emulate him and add some decent content. -- ALoan (Talk) 22:23, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

Et tu, Calton... The most commonly repeated accusation against Giano (an unfair one, IMO, but everybody who's heard the rumours knows better, no doubt) runs something like "Just because you write those admittedly brilliant Featured articles all the time, it doesn't mean you get to be rude to people!" It's a refreshing novelty to see somebody instead tell him to "go and do something useful for once like write a page." If you wish to become better informed about his contributions, User:Giano/Favourites might be a place to start. And yes, "We all" is how crowned heads usually refer to themselves. Bishonen | talk 22:33, 24 January 2007 (UTC).

My comment did not, does not, have never been, and are not intended in the slightest to be dependent on whatever contributions Giano has or hasn't made in the past: I don't know what they are and I DON'T CARE. They're dependent on his disruptive, bad-faith, and complete-waste-of-time bollocks he's been inflicting on this page for the last umpteen days RIGHT NOW. I don't give a rat's ass if he's spend his time before this walking on water: he's being a disruptive waste of time RIGHT NOW, and his past contributions are not nor should be a "Get Out of Jail Free" card for being a disruptive waste of time RIGHT NOW. Is that clear, or do I require butcher paper and crayons to draw a picture? --Calton | Talk 23:10, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

God, and people call me uncivil. Ideogram, stop reverting my comments, it is considered trolling Giano 19:20, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

You think it's trolling. That doesn't make it trolling. Are you capable of making that distinction? --Ideogram 22:29, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

I'm trying to read through the invective here. (caps is a good clue that people are getting steamed :-)). Aloan is talking about articles made today, y'know ;-) . --Kim Bruning 23:54, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

How many articles someone has written is not relevant. Giano et. al. love to assert how admins have no standing higher than other users. When pushed, they might grudgingly give them equal status. But comments like "Why don't you go and do something useful for once like write a page" (which we have seen before) indicate that Giano et. al. clearly consider people who write articles (i.e. themselves) to be superior to anyone who helps out the encyclopedia in any other way. --Ideogram 23:40, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

I agree with Tony, and propose that the same apply to all secret, invitation only places with no accountability - where the accused never get the chance to defend themselves, or even hear the charges. --Duk 21:46, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

Absolutely. It must apply everywhere and at all times. I would warn Duk, however, that his recent statements are beginning to look like veiled accusations. --Tony Sidaway 22:17, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

OK, I think I see what you mean now. I made a few comments directed to you. I did not mean to imply that you've done anything wrong. Sorry if I gave that impression. --Duk 00:05, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

I didn't take your comments to be specifically directed at me. I'd say that the problem is a fairly widespread and wholly false assumption that the admins channel has been used for launching or coordinating activity that subverts Wikipedia's purpose in some way. Your recent comments could be viewed as advancing that assumption. You referred, for instance, to a place where "the accused never get a chance to defend themselves, or even hear the charges." That's a very distorted way of saying that on the admins channel sometimes matters are discussed concerning people who are not present on the channel at the time. The idea that this leads to campaigns of persecution against certain users is completely baseless. Nobody who would engage in such nonsense would be tolerated on that channel for one minute. --Tony Sidaway 11:35, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

Tony, it is what it is. the accused never get a chance to defend themselves, or even hear the charges is a perfectly accurate statement if that's what happenes. Are you saying that this never happens? Why did first rate editors have to receive leaked logs in order to pursue their grievance? --Duk 12:17, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

There is no court, there is no accused, there are no charges. It's a channel used for the discussion of matters related to the administration of Wikipedia. Your above statement is simply a distorted way of saying that someone has leaked logs with the intention of making mischief, and has had considerable success. --Tony Sidaway 12:34, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

It sometimes makes me wonder whether Tony lives in the same world as the rest of us when his posts are like this utter denial of reality. Where have you been, Tony? --Irpen 14:44, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

1. Say something substantive.
2. Don't try to speak for the rest of us. --Ideogram 00:09, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

To Tony, do you reject the arbcom's statement? Have they been duped by this "mischief making" due to their over active imagination? Why did it take months to start dealing with this problem? Why has it still not been dealt with openly and with accountability? Where is the leadership? --Duk 17:19, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

I am begining to suspect that Tony is trying emulate a small bread product preceded by his first initial.(5) -- ALoan (Talk) 22:26, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

It's amazing that you keep digging long after the game is up. Can you just give it up. David D. (Talk) 22:48, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

I have only one thing to say to all those who are still at this debate.... turnip. turnip, Turnip TURNIP, turnip TURNIP T-U-R-N-I-P.--Doc^g 23:05, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

Confidentiality of the matters discussed at the channel questioned

Comment by Piotrus: I have said several times that any and all problems with IRC will be fixed if the discussions will be logged and publicly available. Simple and elegant solution, if I may say so.-- _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk}  23:02, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

Will you be requiring the same of OTRS then, because the channel was set up for related reasons. How about WP:OFFICE? TIA HAND —Phil | Talk 17:41, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

Phil, has anyone said anything to this matter? Please do not put anything in other people's mouth.

There is no evidence that confidential matters were ever discussed at #admins and since many of its members enjoy not just zero but negative community trust, lack of discussions there that require true confidentiality at #admins is rather a good thing.

No one ever requested making public the logs of arbcom's IRC and mailing list, so please no straw man arguments here. --Irpen 18:03, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

Irpen: There is no evidence that confidential matters were ever discussed at #admins - I assert that the need for confidential discussion is identified there, although it is usually continued in private channels, that the details or reasons for the need are sometimes presented in enough detail that confidentiality is required, and futher that the time pressure is sometimes such that no other mechanism to initiate such discussiones is suitable. This is not the first time I have made such an assertion. Do you question my statement? ++Lar: t/c 18:45, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

I question that the channel with the presence of multiple notorious users whose ethics are doubted by many in the community is an appropriate forum to discuss confidential matters. That's for one. Second, I see no evidence that confidential matters are ever discussed there. I've seen much of the discussions that are evil but not confidential. To make sure I recently requested access to #admins, but I was refused. So, I have no reason yet to change my mind. --Irpen 18:51, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

Besides, Lar, your own inciting Kylu to block Giano when you did not want to do it yourself was not a confidential matter either. --Irpen 18:52, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

Please stick to the topic of the assertion I made... a simple assertion that there are confidential matters discussed there. I say there are. You say there are not. Either I am incorrect in my asssesment of that based on what is available to me (and I have access to the channel) or you are incorrect in your assessment of what is available to you (and you do not currently have such access... are you an admin on commons or en:wp in good standing? if so, contact me for access) or one of us is lying. I believe you are honestly mistaken in your statements about confidentiality, not that you are deliberately lying about it. Are you calling me a liar, then, or do you think I have misinterpreted the information I have available to me? The rest of your response to me is not relevant, focus on that one point please, because it was the only point in your statement I focused on. ++Lar: t/c 19:04, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

Lar, I am not an admin and I don't want to be an admin. Since several non-admins have access to the channel, I thought they could use one more voice. Apparently, you find Kelly, Tony and NullC more trustworthy to keep channel's secrets than myself. Fine by me, no grudges.

Second, I question that the channel, where the presence of the notorious abusers is so well-known, is the proper forum to discuss confidential matters even if such were discussed. That I think that such matters are not in fact discussed there is a separate issue.

Finally, do not brush aside the very relevant question of connection between secrecy and corruption. Only because you thought that your communication with Kylu will not be revealed, you did something you should not have done and you would not have done in the open, that is advise a newbie admin to block an established editor in violation of the blocking policy.

There was no need for that discussion to take place at the confidential channel whatsoever. WP:ANI is specifically appropriate for such discussions. --Irpen 19:18, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

Irpen: Apparently, you find Kelly, Tony and NullC more trustworthy to keep channel's secrets than myself. Fine by me, no grudges. - We all have to evaluate who we trust and who we do not. You already, in your opposition of me for steward, indicated you didn't, so be it, no grudges, but note in turn that my trust of your evaluative ability and your tendency to do the right thing is not the highest. I don't think you are a deliberate liar but I do think you often come to erroneous conclusions that precipitate incorrect actions on your part. ++Lar: t/c 19:34, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

Irpen: Second, I question that the channel, where the presence of the notorious abusers is so well-known, is the proper forum to discuss confidential matters even if such were discussed. That I think that such matters are not in fact discussed there is a separate issue. - But it is the issue I am challenging. Not any of the rest. Third time then. I say there are confidential matters discussed there. Do you call me a liar or do you think I have misinterpreted things or do you think it is possible that you have? Please answer this direct question. ++Lar: t/c 19:34, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

Irpen: :Finally, do not brush aside the very relevant question of connection between secrecy and corruption. Only because you thought that your communication with Kylu will not be revealed, you did something you should not have done and you would not have done in the open, that is advise a newbie admin to block an established editor in violation of the blocking policy. - I flatly reject that characterisation of what transpired. As, I note, I have done repeatedly. That is not at all what happened. Do you call me a liar, or do you think it is possible that you are mischaracterising based on incomplete or faulty information? ++Lar: t/c 19:34, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

I am not calling you anything. Just explain what took place in that incident. And why it took place at IRC and not at WP:ANI. Or was it confidential?

Also, please in general terms give an example of what type of confidential matters are discussed in the channel, where that discussions appropriate in the presence of, say, Kelly, who has been shown to have violated multiple policies and whose ArbCom voting showed that she is not the least bit trusted by the community. Also, please give your best estimate of what percentage of the channel's bandwidth is occupied by the confidential discussions. --Irpen 19:41, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

I'm not going to comment about the value of the channel or the behavior of the parties that keep getting mentioned. I will say for a fact that Lar never incited Kylu to do anything, and to say that he did is a total misinterpretation of the events that did happen. I was on IRC at the time. Lar is a responsible person with a kind heart who doesn't have a malicious bone in his body. Kylu is a responsible person with a kind heart, and completely able to make decisions on her own. Whatever else has gone on in the admins channel, stop accusing Lar or Kylu of being involved. Bastiq▼e ^demandez 21:37, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

• I have tried to stay out of this conversation, but all this talk of "kind hearts" is too revolting for words. Now watch my lips and believe what I'm telling you Kylu and Lar were (I don't say now) in this up to their necks. Kylu had never heard of me until she blocked me - why? Who convinced her? Did Lar not know how to work his magic buttons? Now get real! Giano 21:47, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

Do you really expect people to believe something just because you said so? --Ideogram 00:41, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

That's just wrong. The events were on Lar's talk page. He had to ask a non-involved individual to look at it. And stop attacking people and mischaracterising people. You're completely wrong. You don't know the first thing about what happened. You don't know the first thing about the people involved. Bastiq▼e ^demandez 22:06, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

Wrong Giano 22:23, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

You think your comment was so brilliant, so self-evidently true, that you insist it must be retained? Fine, I'll let you display your stupidity and arrogance for all to see. --Ideogram 22:32, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

Bastique, we would not be having all these discussions if Lar had solicited the opinions of non-involved admins at WP:ANI rather than in an all-secretive #admins IRC channel. The matter did not involve any checkuser data, any personal info or required confidentiality for any other reason. This is exactly what's wrong with the very existence of this channel. There is no "all-secret" admin-only stuff. There is secret ArbCom stuff. There is secret checkuser stuff but not admin stuff. More at User_talk:Lar#that_sad_incident --Irpen 22:13, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

Maybe, this discussion should be merged with User_talk:Lar#that_sad_incident and continued there. Just a suggestion so that we can stay on the topic of the overall damage that this channel causes to the Wikipedia. That long ago incident is really not the worst thing that came out of it, especially since that block has now been expunged from the log by the ArbCom's decision. --Irpen 21:51, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

Irpen, you said in response to me above that the channel is not important. Can you explain why you are still arguing about it? Are you capable of focusing on what is important? --Ideogram 00:20, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

I said that the channel is unnecessary and harmful, not unimportant. Unfortunately, the abuse that comes due to its existence makes the issue important. --Irpen 00:22, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

I said the abuse would happen whether the channel exists or not. Do you disagree? --Ideogram 00:26, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

I do think that there will be much less abuse. If the official #admin channel channel does not exist, Kelly or JamesF can still start their own private channel, true enough. But I doubt that, say, Kylu, will be going to Kelly's channel to get advise on her administrative actions. This channel will have no semiofficial connection to Wikipedia and new admins will not go there as well. Of course there may be 5 or seven current regulars who will be at the new channel, true. But there will be much less harm that they will be able to do. --Irpen 00:36, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

I happen to agree that #admin should have no official status. If the Wikipedia foundation has no real control over it, it should not have any official connection with Wikipedia. --Ideogram 00:44, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

The arbcom has indicated it wants the channel cleaned up, and it has taken steps to try to reduce the chance that the problems that previously occurred will happen again. --Interiot 01:41, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

Interjecting others' statements with placing comments in the middle

Please stop rearranging my comments. Doing so gives a false appearance to the discussion. I am going to put them back in the order I had them, properly interspersed, so it is clear to other readers that you are not addressing the issue but instead are mischaracterising matters that are in the end not relevant to your assertion that there is no confidential material discussed there. Once my comments stay where I put them I might address your latest mischaracterisations. ++Lar: t/c 19:47, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

I must insist that you not interject my statements with your comments. --Irpen 19:50, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

Interjection is a perfectly valid discussion technique. I strongly prefer that you not revert the ordering that I make remarks in. For to duplicate each assertion so that the remark can be hung in the proper place is wasteful of time and space. I will do so if you insist on being petty in this matter though, as it is very important that my comments are associated with the particular statement they apply to, just as yours in turn could be if I expounded at length. ++Lar: t/c 19:56, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

Please confine yourself to your own comments and ensure that you do not split other editors' comments without their consent. If you need to quote an excerpt, do that, but within your own comment space. Thx. El_C 19:59, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

(outdent) Do you have a cite to justify that? It's a common enough practice. ++Lar: t/c 20:01, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

If the other user objects to it, then it is not permitted. El_C 20:13, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

Basically, you are prohibited from modifying a comment (including it being split) if the author of said comment object to that. An added problem is that you are making it difficult for others to participate in the now-semi-signed thread. Again, please quote pertinent excerpts within your own designated comment space. Please be respectful of the integrity of other users' comments. Thx again. El_C 20:27, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

Do you have a cite for that? I'll happily comply with Irpen's request but I wasn't aware that it wasn't permitted. That's rather strong language. I can't even remember it being discouraged, much less forbidden. ++Lar: t/c 20:32, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

No, I do not have a cite for that, nor do I feel one is needed. Please take it to WP:AN if you wish to facilitate a discussion on the matter or to contest my decision here. Once again, you are not permitted to split another user's comment if they object to it; in that event, you must limit yourself to quoting excerpts in your own comment. Thx once again. El_C 20:43, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

Since Irpen did ask politely, I did so, but it's now clear that you're just trying to impose some arbitrary rule, that you don't have a basis for, on me, with no more authority or standing (to make a "decision", as you put it) in the matter than I have, and with no specific previous consensus on the matter that you can reference. That's fine as long as we're clear on that point. It's not worth pursuing further, you've shown enough of your methods already. ++Lar: t/c 20:48, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

You said you're going to revert him, so I felt it necessary to step in. Now, if you feel that you have a basis to question my "methods," please take this to the appropriate channels. Thx again for your patience. El_C 20:58, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

El_C: You said you're going to revert him - Do you have a cite for that? He reverted me, it is true, but I only rearranged things and then asked that he not rearrange them back, I never reverted or said I would. I'm done here though, as you're not likely to admit that you're rulesmongering here. ++Lar: t/c 21:06, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

Yes: Please stop rearranging my comments. Doing so gives a false appearance to the discussion. I am going to put them back in the order I had them, properly interspersed, so it is clear to other readers that you are not addressing the issue but instead are mischaracterising matters that are in the end not relevant to your assertion that there is no confidential material discussed there. Once my comments stay where I put them I might address your latest mischaracterisations. ++Lar: t/c 19:47, 25 January 2007 (UTC) El_C 21:12, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

Lar, WP:TALK, as a guideline, does not directly prohibit interspersing comments but it does (on my reading) strongly discourage it. And, as a voice from the peanut gallery, I find interspersed comments hard to follow as I tend to group comments by signatures. --InkSplotch 22:51, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

Can we discuss the issue instead, that is IRC channel? Please let's put a line on this discussion. I asked, Lar said he will comply. No more to it. --Irpen 21:14, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

I have no idea why Lar opts to make such a simple issue so complicated. Same with me creating this subpage and his objection that I didn't delete-restore the entire history of the thread(!). If there is more to his objections than meets the eye, and it increasingly appears that there is, this, indeed, is not the venue. I'd appreciate it if he were to refrain from mischaracterizing my position. El_C 21:27, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

---

Reply to Tony: Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Kelly Martin - Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Kelly Martin2 - Johntex\^talk 23:13, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

• Now you've really lost me. The first RFC seems to be a heap of fuss over the deletion of some useless templates by Kelly Martin. The second RFC seems to be a similar heap of fuss over a declaration by Kelly Martin that she intended to block editors who persistently placed unlicensed material on Wikipedia. Both of these actions are well with admin discretion. No suggestion of abuse of administrator powers, or indeed anything that a good administrator wouldn't do. --Tony Sidaway 11:45, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

I don't see any point to bringing up Kelly Martin again. As Geogre is so fond of pointing out, the subject has been beaten to death, repeatedly. If he and others are so irritated at being forced to repeat themselves, they can damn well shut up. --Ideogram 11:53, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

#wikipedia-en-functionaries opened

Well, since no one took me up on it I've made my own fork. #wikipedia-en-functionaries now exists as a place for discussion of the administration of the English wikipedia. Access is open to those interested in the matter. It isn't meant as a social channel, and it is asked that banter be kept to a minimum. Ask me or Interiot (talk) for access. Regards, Mackensen (talk) 19:49, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

Not a bad idea. Do we have a #wikipedia-en-cabal yet? --tjstrf talk 21:23, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

I think so, but I've never been there, so obviously it's a front! Mackensen (talk) 21:23, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

Yep that channel exists, it's created as a replacement of en-admins with logging allowed. Jaranda ^{wat's sup} 04:28, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

The channel isn't access-controlled in order to form a cabal, it's access-controlled to encourage discussion to center on helping out wikipedia, and discourage banter. And the channel aims to have a more diverse range of people than #wikipedia-en-admins, so it's potentially less cabalist anyway. --Interiot 23:00, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

Are people who aren't sysops allowed? By the way, for anyone curious, this whole discussion has reached 196,000 characters. Picaroon 23:05, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

Yes, anyone who will use the channel for discussion that improves the encyclopedia, and keeps most banter elsewhere, is welcome. --Interiot 00:08, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

Think of this as opt-in. The goal is an improved signal/noise ratio for on-topic discussion. Making people take an extra step (once) might help. I repeat what Interiot said; anyone is welcome. Mackensen (talk) 02:56, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

What's your nick there? --badlydrawnjeff talk 03:41, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

Please stop deleting each others' comments

A number of people have been deleting each others comments off this page. Please don't do that. It's rude and abusive. Georgewilliamherbert 22:52, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

Thank you. I will be happy to comply with this policy if everyone else does. --Ideogram 22:55, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

No. You need to comply with this policy, as does everyone else, period. "If they do" is unacceptable. It's not just you, but you can't do it just because they did, unless you all want to be blocked together. Georgewilliamherbert 23:00, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

I protested several times when it was done to me. Since there was no sanction applied, I was forced to conclude it was permissible under policy. I guarantee you I will not delete any more comments from this page, but if anyone else tries to delete my comments I will come running to you and I will expect you to do something about it. --Ideogram 23:06, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

Tu quoque still doesn't hold any water. Be the bigger person, Ideogram. -- nae'blis 03:19, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

Where were you and your fancy latin when my comments were being deleted? --Ideogram 03:36, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

(resetting indent) Paying attention elsewhere. It's likely that if all the prior acts were properly handled right now, you all would be blocked. Do you really want that? Georgewilliamherbert 03:50, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

Do you want me to give you the diffs for how long this has been going on before I decided to respond in kind? If I hadn't responded in kind would I still be "being the bigger person"? --Ideogram 03:56, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

As I said: if we look at the history, you're likely to be blocked immediately. You can either take the warnings now as what's been stated - a final line in the sand warning, for all parties... or you're likely to be blocked in short order.

This is not fair or balanced - it's reacting to what's going on now that you all do have others' attention. The behavior that got attention has to stop. Georgewilliamherbert 04:04, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

Who's more familiar with the history, you or me? And given that at least five people have removed my comments because they disliked me I would be quite happy to take a block if we are all blocked for the same period of time. I have not nor will I ever remove any comments from talk pages (other than my own) since you have asserted this policy. If someone does it to me in the future, I will simply bring it to your attention. I really don't understand what you are asking of me that I haven't already promised. --Ideogram 04:11, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

You threatened above to keep it up if someone else does it to you. That is unacceptable. That will get you both blocked. If you refrain from doing so in the future, and bring it to people's attention, you have nothing to worry about, and nothing to complain about. Georgewilliamherbert 04:17, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

No, I did not mean to say that.

Here, check this out. This one doesn't even involve me. --Ideogram 04:20, 27 January 2007 (UTC)