Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 13:42, 28 December 2007

Arbiters who are admins on the IRC admin channel

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

OK, here is some more to start with:

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

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

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

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

Jurisdiction issues and the consequences

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Access levels

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Related discussions

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

Developments

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

RtV does NOT justify the deletion of usertalk pages

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Clerk response

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

How about Lar's comment:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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