Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Durova/Workshop

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is a page for working on Arbitration decisions. The Arbitrators, parties to the case, and other editors may draft proposals and post them to this page for review and comments. Proposals may include proposed general principles, findings of fact, remedies, and enforcement provisions—the same format as is used in Arbitration Committee decisions. The bottom of the page may be used for overall analysis of the /Evidence and for general discussion of the case.

Any user may edit this workshop page. Please sign all suggestions and comments. Arbitrators will place proposed items they believe should be part of the final decision on the /Proposed decision page, which only Arbitrators may edit, for voting.

Contents 1 Motions and requests by the parties 1.1 Move to add parties 1.2 The Mailing list 1.3 Move to add parties 1.4 Jehochman dismissed 2 Proposed temporary injunctions 2.1 Template 2.2 Template 2.3 Template 2.4 Template 3 Questions to the parties 3.1 Question to Durova from Kwsn 3.2 Question to Durova from Wikidemo 3.3 Question to Durova from Random832 3.4 Questions to Durova from Giano 3.5 Questions to Durova from Alecmconroy 3.6 Questions to the arbitrators 3.6.1 Recusal 3.6.2 Parties 3.6.3 Scope of arbitration 4 Proposed final decision 4.1 Proposed principles 4.1.1 Assume good faith 4.1.2 Responsiveness 4.1.3 Private correspondence 4.1.4 Courtesy 4.1.4.1 Decorum 4.1.5 Blocking 4.1.6 Responsibility 4.1.6.1 Responsibility 4.1.6.2 Responsibility 4.1.6.3 Responsibility 4.1.7 Administrative discretion 4.1.7.1 Administrative discretion 4.1.8 Recall 4.1.8.1 Recall 4.1.9 External discussion 4.1.10 Freedom to report perceived cyberstalking and harassment 4.1.11 Responses to harassment and stalking; perspective 4.1.12 Accusations of administrator misconduct 4.1.12.1 Accusations of misconduct 4.1.13 Loutishness discouraged 4.1.14 "Sleuthing" 4.1.15 Stalking and harassment are legal problems 4.1.16 Bigfoot 4.1.17 Private evidence 4.1.18 Good intentions 4.1.19 Article development is our mission 4.1.20 Banned editors 4.1.21 Sleuthing 4.1.22 Chilling effect 4.1.23 Second accounts 4.1.24 No one is exempt from policy 4.1.25 Wikipedia Review style investigations are controversial 4.1.26 {template} 4.1.27 {template} 4.1.28 {template} 4.1.29 {template} 4.2 Proposed findings of fact 4.2.1 Durova 4.2.2 Durova's block of User:!! 4.2.3 User:!! 4.2.4 Evaluation of the block 4.2.5 Reversal of the block 4.2.6 Good faith 4.2.7 External mailing lists 4.2.7.1 External mailing lists 4.2.8 Durova infiltrated outside communities as a "spy" 4.2.9 Giano violated policy 4.2.10 Reposting private communication 4.2.11 Achieving closure 4.2.12 Durova has responded to concerns 4.2.13 Jehochman and !! 4.2.14 Sleuthing method failed to assume good faith 4.2.15 Durova's investigation methodology is flawed and unremarkable 4.2.16 Other Innocent Users blocked; A Pattern of Sleuthing 4.2.17 Additional Involved Individuals 4.2.18 Template 4.3 Proposed remedies 4.3.1 User:!! encouraged 4.3.2 Durova restricted 4.3.2.1 Durova restricted 4.3.3 Durova desysopped 4.3.4 Durova resigned under a cloud 4.3.5 Giano placed on probation 4.3.6 Giano placed on probation 4.3.7 Durova's "sleuthing" 4.3.8 Durova restricted on blocking 4.3.8.1 Durova restricted on blocking 4.3.9 Durova must be reconfirmed 4.3.10 Others involved revealed 4.3.11 Others involved restricted 4.3.12 Others involved restricted 4.3.13 Others involved desysopped 4.3.14 Durova banned 4.3.15 Durova thanked 4.3.16 !! is thanked 4.3.17 Giano II is thanked 4.4 Proposed enforcement 4.4.1 Template 4.4.2 Template 4.4.3 Template 4.4.4 Template 4.4.5 Template 4.5 Analysis of evidence 4.5.1 Template 4.5.2 Template 4.5.3 Template 4.5.4 Template 4.5.5 Template 4.5.6 Template 4.5.7 Template 4.6 General discussion

[edit] Motions and requests by the parties

[edit] Move to add parties

1) Request User:Giano_II be added to list of parties.

Comment by Arbitrators:

I don't see that this case has anything to do with Giano. Paul August ☎ 06:23, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

If this makes me a party as well, then I consent. Mercury 04:05, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

Give the arbitrators some credit. This isn't helping. El_C 04:12, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

That has nothing to do with the amount of credit I give the arbitrators. Your comment was not helping. Mercury 04:20, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

2) Request User:SlimVirgin be added to list of parties.

Comment by Arbitrators:

I don't see that this case has anything to do with SlimVirgin. Paul August ☎ 06:24, 26 November 2007 (UTC)F

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

SlimVirgin is the administrator of the CyberStalking email list, hosted on Wikia servers(?), that is a key piece of evidence in this case. Cla68 (talk) 06:08, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

Further comment...if there are any ArbCom members on that list, and they don't willingly come forward and recuse themselves, then SlimVirgin would know who they are. Cla68 (talk) 06:46, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

You can't subpoena people on Wikipedia. -- Ned Scott 06:51, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

I can't see that there is any reason to add SlimVirgin to this case. I suggest that Cla68 take a gander at Proposed Principle #1...already commented on by three arbitrators.--MONGO (talk) 08:12, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

That SV was owner of that list is just a historical accident, she was the original person who raised concerns about inability to manage harassment in the current climate. Ownership has now been transferred. The lead in setting the agenda for that list was and remains Jimbo. Guy (Help!) 09:54, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

Thank you. As soon as Jimbo confirms that we can move on with it. Cla68 (talk) 11:39, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] The Mailing list

2) The community demands that those on this failed and discredited mailing list behaves in a more responsible fashion in future and reads all of its posts thoroughly.

Comment by Arbitrators:

This is silly and unrealistic. Paul August ☎ 19:07, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

Comment by parties:

Propose and support. Giano (talk) 17:01, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

Comment by others:

The committee can no more demand that people read their mail than it can demand the streets of Paris are painted pink. I subscribe to a number of mailing lists and, when I'm busy, I routinely delete screeds of posts unread. Sins of omission do not exist in voluntary communities.--Doc^g 19:14, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

Agreed. The reason I never ended up being set up for this mailing list to receive its emails, and perhaps that this is the reason why Bishonen and Geogre also never ended up setting themselves up for it —did I mention they, too, were both invited to the list? Well I'm doing it now— is because I knew that, if its volume would be even one tenth of wikien-l, then I'd rather view it more selectively on a webpage (i.e. only those emails threads that immediately David Gerard my attention). Otherwise, like Doc, I'd end up deleting many, many threads like an idiot from my inbox. Currently, I read about one percent of wikien-l, but the first time I subscribed to it, I forgot to turn off my email access. Which sucked. Here I was deleting tens upon tens of threads I'd never care to read and more were popping up still while I was doing so. In closing, choosing to not-read email threads from a mailing list is an inalienable right! El_C 21:43, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Move to add parties

3) Request User:Mercury and User:JzG be added to list of parties

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Mercury said it on the 1st motion. "If this makes me a party as well, then I consent." Well we should grant his wish. Making Giano an involved party while turning a blind eye on the other side seems like a case of blatant double-standard. JzG admitted that he is on the mailing list. [1] He also tried to manipulate discussion. [2] Both tried to shut down the AN/I thread and attacked dissenters. There are also convincing reasons to believe that both are on the mailing list. (see !!'s evidence for details)--Certified.Gangsta (talk) 09:10, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Jehochman dismissed

4) Jehochman is dismissed as a party.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Unnecessary. Hopefully I have helped clear up any issues involving me, or appearing to involve me. - Jehochman ^Talk 03:54, 1 December 2007 (UTC)

Comment by others:

Proposed. There's nothing against him here Kwsn (Ni!) 07:05, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Proposed temporary injunctions

[edit] Template

1)

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

[edit] Template

2)

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

[edit] Template

3)

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

[edit] Template

4)

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

[edit] Questions to the parties

[edit] Question to Durova from Kwsn

Q. Other than to not reveal the "methods of investigation", was there any other reason why you didn't post the email? Kwsn (Ni!) 19:42, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

Yes. When I first found out that I had been wrong about !! I received a hint that he had changed usernames for privacy reasons. The editor himself confirmed that some time later when we made contact. I was, of course, deeply ashamed of the mistake. And sorry for it. What had happened (and I'll be posting more about this elsewhere, so be patient please) was that I hadn't anticipated a particular scenario when I drew up the method. It was based on observations that had held consistent in previous cases and I was coming off a string of successes, so I got sloppy and overconfident. The method could have been refined, correlated with firmer evidence, and probably become useful. It was the product of months of work and that work got gutted by some people who acted in haste and anger. This is the result of sending material to trusted Wikipedians: eventually one of them can't be trusted. I wish every person who reads these words and doubts them would head over to WikiProject wrestling and undo JB196 damage to ten articles before deciding quite how wrong I was. I'll give a barnstar to anyone who does that and provides diffs. Now, pretty much on principle, I don't want that report on Wikipedia because it was obtained and distributed by deception and coercion. Durova^Charge! 08:11, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

How do you know that your prior results with the report are successful? The report came off to everyone else as having shoddy techniques that do absolutely nothing to establish anyone's guilt of anything, merely establish a failure to assume good faith on the part of the sleuths, and a BITE-y view of worthwhile contributors. In fact, your techniques can be summarized like this: "Any editor who uses edit summaries, does DYKs, and contributes in beneficial ways to Wikipedia is highly suspicious". How is a good method of investigation? It stands to reason that you obviously would not want that report on Wikipedia because it calls into question the complete and utter lack of worth in determining whether someone is a potential hidden troll. It seems to me that you are refusing to acknowledge that what you call "people who acted in haste and anger" are people who are very disturbed and shocked by your actions, and yet other than a half hearted apology, and a vague statement that you will stand for recall, you don't seem ready to admit the full extent of your error.⇒SWATJester ^{Son of the Defender} 08:21, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Question to Durova from Wikidemo

I have seen Durova's efforts being successful, and indispensable. She halted an administrator's attempt to disrupt an ArbCom hearing via sockpuppets, sparing the project a lot of disruption. If she was shooting from the hip there she was quite a sure shot. See generally Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Eyrian/Evidence. With that as a background, a question for Durova: in your estimation how many times have you gotten it right when you blocked an account for sockpuppetry or other faking? In how many of those cases did your disputed evidence-gathering techniques play a role? How many times did you get it wrong? In how many cases was that due to a faulty evidentiary conclusion (as opposed to clicking the wrong button or some other mistake)? A list of examples would be useful. I'm trying to get a sense of the magnitude of the error rate. Wikidemo (talk) 09:49, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Question to Durova from Random832

(Spoiler warning: I have seen the e-mail, so has probably anyone else who cares to, and my questions make reference to its content.)

Q. Do you feel that the fact that my second edit had an edit summary, and I was using section headers, links, tables, etc, within the first dozen or so, mean I should be a suspect? Or was wikimarkup (which hasn't substantially changed) somehow easier for newbies to learn in 2004 than it is now?—Random832 04:27, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

It would mean one of two things: either you knew wikis and had some coding skills or you had a previous account. The early monobook edits vs. some other things you took longer to try lead me toward the former conclusion. My antenna would have been raised a little by the particular edit you mention, but unless it correlated with several other things I wouldn't have placed much weight in it. Durova^Charge! 09:11, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

Q. Do you think there are certain opinions that cannot be legitimately held by a user acting in good faith? I'm asking because you used !!'s positions in various debates to paint him as "helping the team". —Random832 04:27, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

Heh, good call on my hubris in using that example as a case study. Scold me good. Yet you've also posed an excellent question in any context. On one level I've seen many examples. They happen whenever some editor decides a personal goal carves a special exemption from basic core policies. So if I wanted to proselytize my religion I couldn't tread on WP:NPOV. In terms of site management debates, people have a right to criticize and speak openly. I don't think it's much of a secret that some types of discussions see interference from people who act in bad faith. I made a critical mistake in that report of supposing that a history which satisfied all the criteria I had developed would be acting in bad faith. That's on me; I'll learn from it. Durova^Charge! 09:11, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Questions to Durova from Giano

Your friends Durova seem to want me here, so here I am. Let's get started. The team? Durova, in your evidence you mention the word "team" twice both times in connection with me and User: !! One of the reasons I was no doubt forwarded your libels. (please note I use that word as a noun only not a legal threat we will come to summaries such as this [3] later) now lets investigate what you meant by team. When !! moved my archives (with my permission) [4]. The banter on my page about it was clearly amongst a group of old friends [5] which is exactly what we are. Does any sensible trustworthy person think that group of people talking sound like a team of socks at work?

Yet you say "They are team players - Here's the sock moving all of Giano's talk archives" and again later "Here's the sock helping the team, along with some free range sarcasm and troublemaking" the attendant link is straight to a conversation I was involved with. So Durova what was in store for the team when User:!! was no longer around. Did you want me disposed of and out of the way too, and why the hurry now? I have been here for almost four years. What of all the other "Team players" in that list of diffs? - I won't drag their innocent names into this mess which is entirely of your creating - but I would love to know what evidence you have for banding all those people together as a team.

We will not bother (just at the moment) to explore you knowledge classical music, where you describe User:!! as performing "obscene trolling ". For now, please just answer my initial questions above. Giano (talk) 13:05, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Questions to Durova from Alecmconroy

Elsewhere I've posted a list of questions still are unanswered about this issue. Here I will add just one more.

In the past month or two, I have experienced an inexplicable Assumption of Bad Faith against me. Many people who I did not even know came to discussions somehow already assuming I was affiliated with a particular BADSITE. These falsehoods had no truth whatsoever, but they seem to be rather widespread. In the light of day, the situation seems very similar to sort of Assumption of Bad Faith towards User:!!, and it leads me to wonder if there was a similar cause.

Durova, I'll just ask point blank: was I ever discussed on either secret list?

If yes (or other nondenial), I would very much like to see whatever assertions have been made against me, so I can set the record straight. Given the quality and style of the "evidence" we've seen, it's reasonable to expect that !! was not the only user who was falsely accused of wrongdoing on the secret list. --Alecmconroy (talk) 16:50, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Questions to the arbitrators

[edit] Recusal

The claim was made that "roughly two dozen people received the report. Those included people from the Foundation, and some (not all) members of ArbCom" [6]

A clerk has recused himself from this case due to participation in the original ANI thread.[7]

What circumstances, if any, related to the report would cause a member of Arbcom to recuse themselves from this case? Uncle uncle uncle (talk) 19:46, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

Durova sent her evidence to a mailing list set up for the purpose of discussing how to respond more effectively to stalking and harassment of editors. A couple of Arbitrators are on the list, as well as Jimbo. (I used to subscribe but opted out some time ago.) I don't think that simply receiving the email would be grounds for recusal. If an Arbitrator had said, "Great evidence, block away!" that would indeed be; however that seems unlikely to have happened and there are enough people willing to say so if it had that I don't think it is an issue. Thatcher131 02:23, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

I beg to differ. If an Arbitrator had said, "Great evidence, block away!" that would be grounds for making them a party to the proceedings, and facing similar consequences as those being contemplated for Durova. But anyone on that list, a list whose very existence and usage is the subject of numerous proposed remedies and principles, should immediately recuse him/herself, as they have a glaring conflict of interest. Isarig (talk) 04:41, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

How would we know whether or not the Arbitrator has said that? ⇒SWATJester ^{Son of the Defender} 05:58, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

If any arbitrator rules on this case and then it later comes out that they were on "that list" then I think they should expect, at least, to be asked some tough questions. Cla68 (talk) 06:03, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

And yet, the damage would already be done. ⇒SWATJester ^{Son of the Defender} 08:22, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

I would expect any Arbitrator on that list to immediately recuse themselves, precisely because we don't know what, if anything, they did with the "secret evidence". Someone (I believe it was Giano) said they know who got the "secret evidence" - it is quite obvious the full list of recipients is going to come out sooner or later. Isarig (talk) 15:37, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

Would the arbitrators who were on Durova's email list please identify themselves below? If they have already identified themselves elsewhere please add the link here. Cla68 (talk) 23:49, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

• 1.
• 2.
• 3.

[edit] Parties

We currently have just three parties. I am not even sure why Dmcdevit is listed as a party, save for being the one who brought the issue formally before ArbCom.

Given the locus of the dispute, I would have no objection to being added as a party, if thought fit.

I also wonder whether others who received the initial e-mail (when we know who they are) or commented on the initial block, or, indeed, who have been involved in the war against "abusive sockpuppets" should be added. Some people are likely to be included in all three categories. It is not something I know very much about, but I am sure others can suggest some names. -- !! ?? 22:53, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

The editor who filed the case is often included as a party for purposes of receiving notices and the like. This does not imply that he or she had any direct role in the underlying dispute. In view of your role in this matter, I am sure there would be no objection to your listing yourself as a party on the case page, or asking the Clerk for this case, Cbrown1023, to do so. Newyorkbrad (talk) 00:26, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

Thanks, Newyorkbrad. I was really asking the Arbitrators for a view. From my perspective, I think the people who Durova claimed were "positive to enthusistic" about blocking me - not to mention the people who rushed to defend the block at WP:ANI (and I suspect several of them many be the same people) - bear some of the responsibility.

I'm not sure why SlimVirgin is mentioned below - as far as I can see, she has taken no part in this at all. -- !! ?? 18:48, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

Since SlimVirgin is the administrator of the "secret" email list which is one of the central pieces of evidence in this case, should she be added as a party to this case? Cla68 (talk) 06:04, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

I went ahead and requested her addition. The request allows for it to be disapproved if not accepted. Cla68 (talk) 06:09, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

That doesn't make much sense. Ask yourself, what is the point of being named a party in an arbcom case? It's to be subject to the rulings made from the case. None of these rulings would even effect SlimVirgin, especially given that this mailing list is off-wiki. What would be the point? -- Ned Scott 06:13, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

Do people get sanctioned for off-Wikipedia actions? • Lawrence Cohen 06:34, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

Yes, they have, especially when, as in this case, their off-wiki actions have had on-wiki affects. Cla68 (talk) 06:38, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

... -- Ned Scott 06:52, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

Let me elaborate, none of this has to do with Slim's actions. Slim did not block anyone. Maintaining a mailing list, or even discussing certain topics, does not make you responsible for the actions of other people. To think that SlimVirgin should be a party to this case is really absurd. -- Ned Scott 06:54, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

Cla68's ongoing witch hunt on SlimVirgin are growing tiresome. I suggest that if he feels she was behind his unsuccessful admin bid or continues to harbor some sort of vindictiveness for other percieved wrongs, then he follow the normal dispute resolution process for a resolution to this "problem".--MONGO (talk) 08:08, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

Agree with Ned Scott's statement at 06:54, 26 Nov. ⇒SWATJester ^{Son of the Defender} 08:23, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Scope of arbitration

Would ArbCom consider a clarification or preliminary ruling so as to lay out the scope of this case? People have raised quite a few issues here, some duplicating active consensus discussions elsewhere. In particular, there is the RFC on Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Durova at which Durova's judgment, and the proprietary of using confidential evidence, are both under discussion. There is the proposed guideline on confidential evidence here. And there is the likely recall and subsequent reconfirmation of Durova.

If we all know what's under consideration it could save us all from a lot of extra work duplicating efforts here and also on these other pages, particularly if ArbCom is considering rulings that would override consensus we may reach elsewhere. Specifically:

• Is Arbcom considering sanctions against Durova? If so, is a ban, block, or de-sysop without permission for re-application through RfA on the table? Durova has said she would agree to a recall (here). Thus, unless ArbCom is prepared to issue any of the above, any sanction against Durova would be moot.
• Accepting any reasonably credible factual evidence offered to date in a light most unfavorable to Durova, is there enough there to justify banning, blocking, or oversighted de-Sysop? If not, perhaps we can get a preliminary ruling on that issue.
• Is ArbCom contemplating a decision prohibiting (or endorsing) the use of confidential evidence, or the maintenance of confidentiality? If so would it do so in a way that overrides a consensus we might reach on the proposed policy page?

Thanks, Wikidemo (talk) 14:36, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Proposed final decision

[edit] Proposed principles

[edit] Assume good faith

1) Users are expected to assume good faith in their dealings with other editors, especially those whom they have had conflicts with in the past.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Proposed. Adapted from Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Armenia-Azerbaijan 2. Mackensen (talk) 19:35, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

Possibly redundant to 4.1 below. Kirill 20:04, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

Yes. Paul August ☎ 06:34, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

Comment by parties:

Endorse. And if I failed to assume enough of it, I very much regret the mistake. Durova^Charge! 09:12, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

Comment by others:

Support, and I think that should be a "have had." Marskell (talk) 12:16, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

I've corrected to "have had". Paul August ☎ 19:13, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Responsiveness

2) Administrators must be willing and prepared to discuss the reasons for their administrative actions in a timely manner.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Proposed. Adapted from Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/InShaneee. Mackensen (talk) 19:35, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

Could be rolled in with "Responsibility", below, into a single principle. Kirill 20:04, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

Yes. Paul August ☎

Comment by parties:

I made a bad call. Thought this would be like Eyrian and a few others who realized the gig was up. Did my best to apologize and atone for the mistake once I realized it. Durova^Charge! 09:14, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

Comment by others:

[edit] Private correspondence

3) In the absence of permission from the author (including of any included prior correspondence) or their lapse into public domain, the contents of private correspondence, including e-mails, should not be posted on-wiki. See Wikipedia:Copyrights.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Proposed. Adapted from Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Hkelkar 2. Mackensen (talk) 19:35, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

Let's not shoot the messenger. Paul August ☎ 06:37, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

The messenger could just as easily have emailed the arbitration committee, and he's well aware of that. He deliberately chose a provocative course, knowing full well that you are not supposed to post private communications on-wiki. The committee has ruled on this time and time again. Giano's a respected editor and he knows the ropes; it would be disrespectful to him to pretend that he does not. Mackensen (talk) 13:21, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia has no whistle-blowing policy, although the Arbitration Committee does make a point of protecting people who contact it. There can be no anonymity for people who post documents on site. If the community wants to clarify this it's free to do so, but ArbCom can't make new policy. Mackensen (talk) 14:38, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

Comment by parties:

There are ways to go about things and ways not to. If the report no longer held investigative value I could be convinced to release it as an example of a lesson learned. As this week has shown, I'm not too proud to eat crow when I've erred. But the coercive manner this was done is, in my opinion, a violation of WP:BAN#Outside influence. I get very stubborn when people try that approach. Durova^Charge! 09:21, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

Question to Dan: by your logic I would also be free to publish harassing e-mails I've received. If the Pentagon Papers analogy applies to a mistake made in good conscience that was promptly apologized for with proactive steps for atonement, then surely the same reasoning applies a series of attempts at intimidation that continued after the recipient demanded no further contact and for which the aggressor has not acknowledged. Does that spark your righteous anger also? The thing about standing on principle is that principles are neutral: if they have any meaning they apply on all sides. Durova^Charge! 15:35, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

When I received death threats in email from another editor, I published them on the wiki. (They were also submitted to appropriate legal authorities and provided to the Foundation.) Said user was subsequently banned for life from all Wikimedia projects. While your defamatory tissue of paranoid delusions against !! are certainly not on a par with death threats, are you saying that this was an inappropriate response on my part? Keep in mind that you did effectively defame !! with your allegations, and you also directly harmed him by blocking him on their basis; in my mind your unclean hands defeat, both morally and legally, any right to demand control over the public discussion of those statements. The right to forbid (or compel) their publication, in my mind, lies with !!, not with you. In effect, what I'm saying is that you surrendered some of your own rights against the community when you breached both !!'s and the community's expectation of fair treatment by creating a slandered tissue of nonsense against !!, distributed it through private channels, used it as an excuse to block him, and refused to further discuss your reasons. This is basic social contract theory, and I think social contract theory is a very strong argument in discussions of governance in a voluntary society such as Wikipedia. Kelly Martin 15:51, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

Agree with proposal. I strongly encourage Durova to voluntarily release the email. Perhaps it can be placed on a subpage within this case. The email is already publicly available at unseemly venues. It would be far better to publish it here, with instructive comments, as a lesson for others. Try to make something good out of this. - Jehochman ^Talk 15:56, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

Comment by others:

Oppose -- The posting of such emails may be considered fair use, particularly where such postings constitute legitimate whistleblowing related to disruptive on-wiki conduct. Of course, any non-public information concerning the identity of particular editors should be redacted prior to posting such e-mails. John254 22:26, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

• Legitimate whistleblowing can be mailed to ArbCom without risking violation of privacy. Posting private emails without permission is wrong on several levels, not least breach of copyright. Guy (Help!) 23:12, 25 November 2007 (UTC)
• Support. JzG is dead on. As well, we're not in the business of whistleblowing. ⇒SWATJester ^{Son of the Defender} 00:30, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

John is spot-on. The purpose of copyright is to allow authors to profit from the truit of their labor, not to keep incriminating or embarassing material out of the public eye. Durova may have had the letter of the law on her side when she sent that DMCA takedown notice to the Foundation, but such action was against the spirit of the law, and it was most certainly against the principles of Wikipedia, which is based on openness. 64.222.148.12 (talk) 14:20, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

Do you intend to bring Giano into this? (in which case he should be notified) Otherwise, none of the parties posted e-mails, which would make this principle seem out of place. Jd2718 (talk) 00:38, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

Fair use does not apply in non-article-space. No emails can be added to Wikipedia without consent from the author(s). Daniel 00:42, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

I concede that any posting of an unpublished email on a Wikipedia user page would violate our fair use policy, expressly failing non-free content criteria 4 and non-free content criteria 9. However, in exceptional circumstances such as those presented in this case, it is in the interests of the encyclopedia to override the non-free content criteria per Wikipedia:Ignore all rules, in order to expose egregious administrative misconduct. WP:IAR, of course, does not exempt us from compliance with fair use law; however, I would contend that the posting of the email in question was permissible under American legal standards of fair use. See Fair_use#Purpose_and_character and Fair_use#Effect_upon_work.27s_value, both of which factors would favor a finding of fair use, since the emails were posted for non-commercial purposes, and since the effect of the posting on the market value of the email was negligible, as Durova never intended market the email commercially. Moreover, the portion of the email that was posted didn't contain private information concerning anyone. The blocking of Giano II, and the protection of his talk page, were completely unjustified. John254 02:20, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

Fair use is a weak argument here, I would justify the principle more on the grounds of respecting privacy and privileged communication. The corrollary is that people who misuse (or use bad judgement in) privileged communications may lose the privilege. Thatcher131 02:25, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

Oppose. There are cases of legitimate whistleblowing that shouldn't be stifled by hidebound application of rules, as real-world courts have acknowledged in cases from the Pentagon Papers to the leaked Diebold memos. Here, the infamous "attack sites" have served a valuable function by keeping the leaked message visible, and any attempt to continue suppressing it here is a case of shutting a barn door after the horse has left. *Dan T.* (talk) 14:31, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

Reply to Durova: I wouldn't have any objection to your republishing those emails, so nobody can pin a label of hypocrisy on me for that. My objection on the mailing list was to Kamryn getting kicked off it for criticizing you; it doesn't imply that I favor any action against you for publishing that message to that list, whether accidentally or intentionally. *Dan T.* (talk) 15:46, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

Oppose there are cases of legitimate publications of E-mails Alex Bakharev (talk) 22:40, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

Oppose. First, there may indeed be cases of legitimate publication of emails. A user who receives harassing emails sent through WP servers may post such emails to the admin board to request the ban of the offender. Most rank and file editors do not know and never corresponded with anyone from wikipower structure (they get my envy on this) and posting the proof of harassment to ANI is the speediest way to get it acted upon. Further, the emails with gossip, slander, frivolous plotting aimed against a particular victim may get leaked, like happened here, and no one should write such emails in the first place if only for the fear of it being leaked if one's ethics does not preclude the person from engaging into such activity. Most importantly, this principle sends a wrong message that it is still OK to gossip, slander, assume bad faith and call names as long as it is not done in public. Just do not do or say things you would feel embarrassed if they are publicized. The whole argument that there was anything in that email that would help trolls to avoid detection is nonsense. All super-secret principles used to determine that !! was not a new account are widely known to anyone. Durova should not have been writing that email in the first place. In fact, she should not have been investigating editors. The community expressed that such investigations have no place in Wikipedia by showing a consensus in shutting down the WP:RFI, an investigation board where Durova once reigned. This harmful principle is the continuation of the opposition of certain parties to calls aimed at ending the IRC gossip (or email-list gossip) as this mandatory secrecy is used to justify the impunity. These calls to seal private IRC or e-lists with the exception of the checkuser and ArbCom lists have all the same faulty logic. Basically, don't do improper things anywhere and then you won't be ashamed if anything gets leaked. (And, if you are not a complete fool, do not ever assume that anything sent through internet would remain private in the first place.) --Irpen (talk) 23:08, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

Support. Public disclosure of an email sent in confidence is a problem in any form, in any context. There are very few exceptions, even publicizing alleged misbehavior. Email is enabled on Wikipedia for the express purpose of allowing private communication. If everybody felt free to publicize emails when they thought they would make the sender look bad we would have no trust and no privacy. "Whistleblower" laws (of which Wikipedia has no equivalent) are typically extremely limited in scope and only cover exceptional cases. Wikidemo (talk) 10:11, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

Oppose: There are many issues folded into one, here. First, not all e-mail is the same. E-mail to a list carries no "privacy" to begin with. Second, e-mail showing criminal actions has been deemed liable in US courts over and over (see Karl Rove try to claim that GNC e-mail is private?). Third, e-mail posted to a GNU-licensed list server is already GFDL and copyleft, so there isn't even a ghost of a pretence of an argument that there is some ownership of the words. Fourth, when any person sends an actual letter, the letter belongs to the recipient, not the sender. This is an ancient copyright ruling, going back to the 18th c. when pirate "letters" were published. Thus, any recipient may pass on any e-mail to whomever he or she chooses, and then each recipient owns it. Fifth, the very heart of what Durova did wrong was use "you can't quote me" methods for performing an action on Wikipedia. It is the very practice that resulted in all the harms. Had she worked on-Wiki, she would have gotten review, would have gotten input, would have given redress to the accused, and, coincidentally, Wikipedia's blocking policy proscribes exactly that. Therefore, there is 1) no legal reasoning for ruling against whistle blowing, 2) no logical reasoning for ruling against it, 3) no practical reasoning for ruling against it, 4) a powerful good to be had by maintaining transparency in administrators' actions, and particularly when it comes to blocks. Geogre (talk) 13:07, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

If we're going to analogize the question of setting Wikipedia behavior standards to the much more serious situation of how the law handles privacy, email to some lists is unquestionably confidential. Ownership of the server is not relevant to the issue nor is copyright the basis of privacy. Whistleblowing generally only covers certain kinds of illegal activity by the employer. Is anyone claiming that Giano was exposing illegal conduct by his employer? I thought not. Durova's actions weren't even against any Wikipedia policy or guidelines, much less illegal. Giano came upon an email he wasn't even supposed to have, and published it. Whether that was originally intended to incite and create scandal, it did and he knew it when he did it. The reason for censuring disclosure of private emails on Wikipedia is pretty obvious. We want to avoid provocation, scandal mongering, and respect privacy. If anyone felt free to post email not addressed to him, whenever he thought it showed evidence of bad behavior on Wikipeda, we would become an unruly place indeed. This is an issue that could well have been dealt with inside ArbCom where it belonged. Wikidemo (talk) 18:56, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

• It just hit me: Durova has no right to protest the release of this e-mail. Any one of the several recipients could release it without repercussion. And as one apparently did (to another website), it then becomes part of the public domain. As such, this proposal is without merit, and has no bearing on the current ArbCom case in the least. Mr Which^??? 19:08, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Courtesy

4) Wikipedia users are expected to behave reasonably and calmly in their dealings with other users. Insulting and intimidating other users harms the community by creating a hostile environment. Personal attacks are not acceptable.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Proposed. Adapted from Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Armenia-Azerbaijan 2. Mackensen (talk) 19:35, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

Prefer the newer version below. Kirill 20:01, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

[edit] Decorum

4.1) Wikipedia users are expected to behave reasonably and calmly in their interactions with other users, to keep their cool when editing, and to avoid acting in a manner that brings the project into disrepute. Unseemly conduct—including, but not limited to, personal attacks, incivility, assumptions of bad faith, trolling, harassment, and gaming the system—is prohibited. Users should not respond to such behavior in kind; concerns regarding the actions of other users should be brought up in the appropriate forums.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Wording from most recent cases. Kirill 20:01, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

Comment by parties:

Endorse. Durova^Charge! 09:22, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

Comment by others:

Endorse - seems to be a good reasonable principle Alex Bakharev (talk) 22:43, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

Oppose: "Decorum" is a ridiculous concept to bring to bear here. To say that we should be nice is to state the obvious, but indecorousness is no crime. Disruption remains the crime, and disruption is demonstrable by its consequences. We should never allowed the most offended person to be our moral center. Doing so, invites every form of "political correctness," censorship, and the rictus of a group trying not to think bad thoughts. Yes, all should be polite. No, we must never encode decorum as a requirement unless we are prepared to define precisely what is decorous and what is not. Geogre (talk) 13:11, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Blocking

5) Blocking is a serious matter. Administrators should be exceedingly careful when blocking. Blocks should be made only if other means are not likely to be effective; prior discussion or warnings should generally precede all blocks. Blocks should be used only to prevent damage or disruption to Wikipedia, and if there could be any reasonable doubt about whether a block is appropriate, other administrators and/or the community should be consulted. Following a block, the blocked editor should be notified of the block on their talk page, and additional notification on site may be appropriate to seek community input.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Proposed. Adapted from Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Betacommand. Mackensen (talk) 19:35, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

Yes. Paul August ☎ 06:38, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

Comment by parties:

May I suggest that something be added with the regard to the willingness to remedy and own up to one's mistake, once made? This week's events could have a chilling effect of discouraging sysops from putting their actions up at administrative noticeboards or reversing and apologizing once they recognize a mistake. I failed at some proactive measures, but I've taken a hard drubbing for proactive corrective measures. The laundry list of blocks where I reversed myself, for instance, really seems to have been assembled on the supposition that open-minded review is presumptively wrong. Durova^Charge! 09:30, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

Comment by others:

I agree that blocking is a serious matter, having been blocked myself (by Durova), but because she did unblock me and has been pleasant, encouraging, and helpful ever since, I see no reason to maintain a grudge. Heck, she even accidentally blocked herself once, something other admins have done by accident as well. So, she's hardly the only admin to ever make accidental blocks out of God knows how many good blocks. Yes, people should be careful, but occasional mistakes that are quickly corrected and apologized for should be forgiven. --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 02:44, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

A step in the right direction but perhaps needs strengthening a point. Exceptionally poor blocks should lead to quick desysopping. --Irpen (talk) 23:11, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

In general, yes. Blocking is a last resort and should be to prevent ongoing misbehavior. However, abusive sockpuppets, sockpuppets of banned users, trolls, and disruptive SPA accounts are blocked without any need to show a likelihood future misbehavior. No warning is necessary, or advisable, before blocking these accounts. Prior discussion is not always practical in the case of blocking exceptionally disruptive behavior. AN/I has a voluntary process of allowing administrators to post a message announcing a block and asking other administrators for comment. Between this and block review, many administrators in practice will act when they are reasonably certain a block is warranted, even if there is some amount of doubt. If you set the bar too high for blocks it that more disruptive behavior continues for a longer time before someone does anything about it, if at all. "If there is any reasonable doubt" is a far too restrictive standard. There is always reason for doubt, especially in hindsight by one questioning what turns out to be a bad block. Some amount of error is inevitable when making blocking decisions. It is a trade off. Wikidemo (talk) 10:24, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

The only "chilling effect" which seems relevant here is the fact that if users think they can be blocked indefinitely for spurious reasons, simply because a particular admin doesn't like them, they will not contribute to the project in the first place. The likes of Durova could succeed in killing Wikipedia far more effectively than any trolls. As for the "laundry list" of Durova's mistakes (which only includes those committed since the start of the month), Durova appears to have forgotton that open-minded review is the norm on Wikipedia, a norm which she obviously wished to excuse herself from. Physchim62 (talk) 11:44, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

Is there any evidence that Durova made the block because she disliked the user? That would be a different matter. As long as we have blocks there will be an error rate, and some administrators more accurate than others. Blocking to settle scores or as a weapon to gain advantage on content issues is a different thing entirely, and the chilling effect far greater.Wikidemo (talk) 19:04, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

We cannot know anything about her likes or dislikes (she won't tell as she won't tell the names of her 5 "fellow-sleuths") but we could reasonably infer that the investigation was prompted by her finding some of the remarks left by !! highly disagreeable with her. Disagreement over matters is not a legitimate reason to launch an attack an stab an editor in the back. This reminds me of two self-appointed fairuse enforces who, after any editor disagreed with them in any discussion on any issue, went ahead to study the image upload logs of their opponents and challenged as many of their images as possible for policy compliance nominating them for deletion (also some sort of "sleuthing") as a retribution for the disagreement on unrelated matters. This is a very similar situation. Looking through upload logs of known copyvio uploaders is legitimate. Studying the upload log with the sole purpose to take a revenge of the user on an unrelated matter is not. In Skyring and Coolcat cases ArbCom specifically defined that following the editor who has given no indication of bad faith with the sole intention to cause the editor grief falls under WP:HARRASS. Investigating abusive editors is legitimate. Investigating editors who have not shown any problematic behavior of any sort is a different matter. Durova's very launching of this investigation is deplorable. That none of those who read her report admonished her is deplorable. We are not Wikipedia Review and can't tolerate our editors acting like the WR does. --Irpen (talk) 18:51, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Responsibility

6) Users are responsible for the editorial and administrative actions they undertake. If a user feels that external concerns prevent them from justifying their actions in public, they are obliged to refrain from that action altogether or to bring the matter before the Arbitration Committee.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Proposed. This perhaps breaks new ground, but is I think implied by the block policy and anticipates Wikipedia:Confidential evidence. Mackensen (talk) 19:42, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

Comment by parties:

Endorse, with allowance for the concerns below. I have pledged not only to bring confidential evidence to the Committee formally in future, but to let the Committee act upon it as a body so that the community's legitimate concern about adequate review is satisfied. Durova^Charge! 09:32, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

Comment by others:

The core concept is valid but this is overstated. For example, it would imply that an OTRS respondent could not edit an article based on an OTRS request without consulting ArbCom. Newyorkbrad (talk) 20:56, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

No, and ditto for checkusers. We'll clarify that. Mackensen (talk) 20:58, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

Same Concern above. ⇒SWATJester ^{Son of the Defender} 00:21, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

To strong and unworkable Alex Bakharev (talk) 22:58, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Responsibility

6.1) Users are responsible for the editorial and administrative actions they undertake, and must be willing and prepared to discuss the reasons for their actions in a timely manner. If a user feels that external concerns prevent them from justifying their actions in public, they are obliged to refrain from that action altogether or to bring the matter before the Arbitration Committee.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Rolling in some other points. Kirill 20:09, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

Comment by parties:

I'll let others work out the fine points. Strongly endorse the basic concept. Durova^Charge! 09:33, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

Comment by others:

Same concern as in 6. Newyorkbrad (talk) 20:56, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

Ditto. ⇒SWATJester ^{Son of the Defender} 00:18, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

Obliged to refrain is a bit difficult. I can foresee some instances where an action is required urgently, particularly in response to an OTRS ticket. I have no problem at all with informing ArbCom and the office at the time, and noting that it has been referred to them for review. Guy (Help!) 09:56, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

Oppose To strong Alex Bakharev (talk) 22:58, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Responsibility

6.2) Users are responsible for the editorial and administrative actions they undertake, and must be willing and prepared to discuss the reasons for their actions in a timely manner. If a user feels that external concerns prevent them from justifying their actions in public, and is not carrying out official Foundation responsibilities, they are obliged to refrain from that action altogether or to bring the matter before the Arbitration Committee.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Better? This is not intended to hinder the activities of checkusers, oversighters, and the OTRS crowd, particularly as this case didn't really involve them. Mackensen (talk) 21:15, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

Slightly reordered clauses; but this is good, overall. Kirill 21:25, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

Comment by parties:

Per 6.0 and 6.1. Durova^Charge! 09:34, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

Comment by others:

As a matter of semantics, are checkuser and oversight considered "Foundation responsibilities"? I know they require Foundation identification verification and the like, but I have not previously heard that particular term used. Newyorkbrad (talk) 21:27, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

Possibly "is not acting under the authority of the Foundation" would be a better wording; but I wonder if a more explicit version may not be simpler. Kirill 22:28, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

Same concern as NewYorkBrad.⇒SWATJester ^{Son of the Defender} 00:21, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Responsibility

6.3) Users are responsible for the editorial and administrative actions they undertake, and must be willing and prepared to discuss the reasons for their actions in a timely manner. If a user feels that they cannot justify their actions in public, they are obliged to refrain from that action altogether or to bring the matter before the Arbitration Committee. This does not apply to users carrying out official tasks as authorized by the Foundation or the Committee (including, but not limited to, checkuser, oversight, and OTRS activity).

Comment by Arbitrators:

Really, really explicit. Kirill 22:28, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

I didn't intend "external" in that sense; I can see where that would be misinterpreted. I've shortened the clause to remove the mention. Mackensen (talk) 23:40, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

Comment by parties:

Per 6.0 and 6.1. Durova^Charge! 09:34, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

Comment by others:

Is the reference to "external concerns" meaningful? It seems to imply that there are conversely "internal concerns" that this wouldn't apply to, but I've got no idea what "external" or "internal" would mean in context. Unless internal concerns are also "official tasks"?87.254.68.249 (talk) 22:56, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

To put it another way, suppose that the situation was replayed with only the wording above as guidance. Suppose the blocking admin felt that they didn't want to give their reasons because they didn't want to divulge their secret investigative methods. That's a reason they might regard as "internal" to the project. It's a reason that hypothetically they regard as "internal" to their duties as an admin. Would they expect it to be considered an "external concern"?87.254.68.249 (talk) 23:33, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

Which part does the "This does not apply to users carrying out official tasks [...]" clause apply to? The first sentence, the second, or both? Daniel 23:58, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

The second part, mainly, as that's the practical one; but there may be cases where even the first part isn't applicable to official actions. Kirill 00:02, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

Much better than the previous versions. ⇒SWATJester ^{Son of the Defender} 00:18, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

Generally yes. Concerned about possibility of gaming, but in general ArbCom is elected to deal with delicate situations; self-selected investigators may lack the proper perspective on their investigations to take action. Any action that can't be justified by on-wiki evidence and discussion/consensus shouldn't be taken by the person proposing it. Thatcher131 02:30, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

This is fair and should not hamper necessary actions. What about the situation where one contacts a CheckUser for a quick check of an obvious sockpuppet and receives a list of others, also unambiguously abusive sockpuppets? I'm guessing that would be acceptable since one can say "per CheckUser" and note, if necessary, the identity of the CU performing the request? That's the only situation that springs immediately to mind where there is sufficient urgency as to make waiting for ArbCom problematic. Guy (Help!) 10:06, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

What is the scope of "editorial" actions and how would the proposal apply? If construed broadly, it would not make sense for "editorial" actions to be subject to this approach. HG | Talk 19:19, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

Still oppose per above Alex Bakharev (talk) 22:58, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

Let's cut out the attempt to be so broad. We're talking about sanctioning an administrator for a bad block, not about laying "responsibility" on all edits everywhere on the project. People do not have to justify their edits publicly and bring arbitration cases every time they are not ready to do so. Anyone heard of WP:BRD consensus edits? Nor do we hold editors responsible for the consequences of each edit they make. What does being responsible even mean? Responsible to whom? Moral responsibility? To say a person is responsible for X is to beg the very question we are trying to answer: will we sanction Durova for a bad block? It adopts the conclusion as the premise. The real proposal here is: "Administrators should not issue blocks based on evidence they are not prepared to discuss. The only forum for one with evidence too sensitive to disclose is an ArbCom case." That is a fair proposal but it is not current policy. There is no policy on secret evidence now, so the only rule is common sense. We may punish an administrator for lack of common sense, but it makes no sense to punish an administrator based on a policy that does not exist. Moreover, I don't think ArbCom should be in the business of legislating new policies. That is the job of the consensus process. There is such a process going on at WP:SECRET with respect to secret evidence but none of the proposals under consideration are as restrictive as this one. They all give exceptions, and they all treat ArbCom as a reviewing body for disputed administrative actions, not as the first and only body authorized to take them. If ArbCom were to claim for itself the exclusive right to review secret evidence, that would risk overruling a new policy on the subject, a rather bold move. Wikidemo (talk) 10:54, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

You guys are being a bit weird, here. The rule as proposed is good and has my full support. Arguing a slippery slope is silly. You may edit based on any darned thing. You may edit based on any knowledge whatever. You may not block or protect or revert based on information that you are not willing to share. There is no dark fear here. Wikipedia functions by material in the open, by discussion, and not ever by power and secrecy. Please do not imagine some "if a terrorist has a bomb would you torture him to save 800,000,000 lives if you have only five seconds" scenario to oppose what is plain sense. Edit away! Repair away! Enforce power (block, protect, ban, delete) only with completely transparent reasoning. No, you don't have to reveal that Wes Anderson contacted you to ask that Owen Wilson's habits be cut out, but you can say, "Per correspondence with the subject" or even "BLP" (doesn't OFFICE still exist)? Silly chaffe arguments here. Geogre (talk) 13:16, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Administrative discretion

7) Administrators are normally afforded wide discretion to block users who they believe are a danger to the project.

Comment by Arbitrators:

It may be possible to bundle this with other principles, but this is accurate, subject to the usual requirements for discussion. Mackensen (talk) 19:50, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

(To Amarkov). See principle above ("responsibility"). You can't have this without the other. Mackensen (talk) 19:52, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

Comment by parties:

It's easy to play Monday morning quarterback. Agree very much with Amarkov's proviso of willingness to unblock. The catch here was that the user also wanted privacy, so a 75 minute block wasn't so much the problem as the attention that ensued. Durova^Charge! 09:37, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

Comment by others:

Stolen from Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Sadi Carnot#Administrative discretion and proposed. This is an important facet of this case. east.718 at 19:47, November 25, 2007

This presumes that such users can be unblocked easily if it turns out they aren't a danger to the project. If blocks are based on evidence that most people aren't allowed to see, it is much harder to unblock them, so the wide discretion in blocking them must be reduced as well. Since this case involves blocks mostly based on secret evidence, I'm not quite sure why this principle is important here. -Amarkov moo! 20:18, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

I agree with the foregoing, but special rules for acting on secret evidence is an exception to the broad rule, one that has not yet been delineated under Wikipedia policy. We may want to make policy by consensus, not arbitration principles.Wikidemo (talk) 10:57, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

Sits a little strange with #5 above. Physchim62 (talk) 11:47, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Administrative discretion

7.1 Administrators are normally afforded wide discretion in their administrative actions.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Proposed. Obviously administrators have discretion over deletion and page protection as well, subject to the principles of responsability and responsiveness mentioned above. It would be ironic if administrative discretion were to be limited to the most potentially contraversial of administrative actions. Physchim62 (talk) 11:46, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

Oppose: "Discretion" seems to mean "license" in this regard. We do not have license. We have discretion within the policies. It isn't because we believe someone might be a threat, in the future, but only when a person is a demonstrated threat, and that is what's at the heart of this case. "I believe I have found someone who has done nothing wrong but who acts like someone who did do something wrong, but I'm not sure which of them, but it doesn't matter, and I'm going to block indefinitely" is so plainly out of bounds that covering any of this with the magic pixie dust of "discretion" is an insult to all of us who have blocked with discretion (i.e. with only a 2nd warning). Geogre (talk) 13:19, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

I didn't mean this to cover things with magic pixie dust, merely to point out that the Community cannot forsee every possible problem when it writes policy. Administrators have to make decisions from time to time, everybody should recognise this. This case is not a question of a single bad call, however bad that was and however much experience Durova had as an administrator. For me, she has betrayed the trust and discretion which the Community has invested her with. I am glad that she has finally agreed to relinquish her administrative tools and seek confirmation that that she still has the Community's confidence (or not) to use them. Physchim62 (talk) 13:32, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

Yikes, 7 and 7.1 are as dangerous as they are vague. Not to mention not in line with practice (as this current event shows). One thing that's proved over and over at AN/I, RFC, RFA, RFAR, you name it, is that admins don't have wide discretion in their actions. And a final decision that admins have wide discretion who they can block as a perceived threat to the project would be not only unsupported by current practice, but also pretty outrageous and a ticket to mayhem. RxS (talk) 06:22, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Recall

8) Category:Wikipedia administrators open to recall contains those administrators who have agreed to stand for reconfirmation of their status under certain conditions. Participation in this category is entirely voluntary, and administrators may set any conditions that they wish. However, when their conditions are met, administrators are expected to abide by their promise to stand for reconfirmation.

Comment by Arbitrators:

It is meaningless, in the sense of the term that you're using. A promise to stand for recall is only as good as the administrator's word. Kirill 20:03, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

Recall has no standing. It's a voluntary undertaking. Mackensen (talk) 20:21, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Proposed. If we don't have this, then recall is meaningless, as people could always just change their conditions when something bad comes up. -Amarkov moo! 19:58, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

False dichotomy in the rationale for including this here. Any administrator that the community perceives as going back on their word about willingness to be recalled will be taken to task by the community without there needing to be an ArbCom ruling about this entirely voluntary process. Kirill and Mackensen have it just right. I will say I feel the statement is an accurate characterisation of general perception about voluntary recall, though... the expectation is that of the community, not of any particular body such as ArbCom. ++Lar: t/c 21:13, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

I think this should be included. Administrator recall may be entirely voluntary but administrator responsibility is not. If you give a pledge and fail to honour it, the fact that you did not have to give the pledge in the first place is not a justification for going back on your word. Sam Blacketer (talk) 21:32, 25 November 2007 (UTC) Struck after the confirmation from Newyorkbrad below; this is no longer relevant. Sam Blacketer (talk) 09:26, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

Agreed, if the recall procedure is not acknowledged by Arbcom and Durova fails to adhere to her recall promise, it will be time to classify the recall page under "historical". --Cpt. Morgan (Reinoutr) (talk) 21:37, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

Recall is indeed meaningless, at least in the sense of being entirely unenforceable. Just as well, or we would probably have more witch-hunts. Guy (Help!) 23:23, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

Whatever merits this proposal may or may not have had, it appears to be moot now that Durova has indicated that she will stand for a new RfA at the end of this case. Whether the RfA should take place now, as a couple of editors have suggested elsewhere, or await the end of this arbitration case is not within the scope of the committee's responsibility and/or is not an issue warranting review. Newyorkbrad (talk) 03:47, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Recall

8.1) Category:Wikipedia administrators open to recall contains those administrators who have agreed to stand for reconfirmation of their status under certain conditions. Participation in this category is entirely voluntary, and administrators may set any conditions that they wish. However, an administrator who ignores calls for recall can be considered to have violated the trust of the community.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

FYI: I never pledged to join it during my original RFA. Durova^Charge! 09:51, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

Comment by others:

Proposed rewording. --Hemlock Martinis (talk) 00:19, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

I don't really agree with this. It's not even clear if the community supports the idea of recall, let alone whether signing up for a category can be seen as making a meaningful commitment. Christopher Parham (talk) 00:45, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

Same comment as on 8, above. Newyorkbrad (talk) 03:48, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

I think the meaningful committment is violated if they promised to join the category during their RfA and back out after a significant dispute has arisen. Without the former, the community may not have any expectation that they will be in the category, without the latter we don't leave room for changed circumstances. Not sure that it is critical here. GRBerry 04:41, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

As above, this is now irrelevant, but had it have been relevant it would have been a worse wording than the original. "Violated the trust of the community" is a very strong statement to make. Sam Blacketer (talk) 09:26, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

Support Recall should be meaningful Alex Bakharev (talk) 23:02, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

It is meaningless. This is why I have never participated in it, either as a proponent or as a voice calling for recall. It has no actual standing, no teeth, and really doesn't promise anything. I understand that this proposal is an attempt to lend it meaning, to prevent people having one foot in, one foot out, but, well, it's rather too late. It's another form of the term limits debate we had in the US in the 1980's. Geogre (talk) 13:22, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] External discussion

9) Users are free to discuss Wikipedia-related matters using any forum or medium of their choice. However, they must be aware that such external discussions cannot serve as a justification for taking action in the absence of on-wiki discussion or official authorization.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Address the "secret mailing list" issue more explicitly; could be worded better. Kirill 20:17, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

I think the "responsibility" principle implies this, but yes. No extant policy restricts behavior; it's hard to image how one could. Mackensen (talk) 20:20, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

Comment by parties:

I take full responsibility for my own decision. Durova^Charge! 09:52, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

Comment by others:

The caveat placed in the Responsibility principle for checkuser, oversight etc. should also be applied here, in my opinion. Where private data is involved which cannot be revealed to anyonw who has not recieved the appropriate 'clearance', decisions made by consensus of the applicable groups/mailing lists (especially arbcom-l) are justification aplenty, and in practice they can't be overruled by anyone else without that private information. Thoughts? Daniel 00:13, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

Hence the "or official authorization" part. Kirill 00:14, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

A consensus formed on checkuser-l, oversight-l, arbcom-l, otrs-en-l etc. is, for Wikipedia purposes, an "official authorization"? Daniel 00:16, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

Arbcom-l, certainly. The others are probably in a bit of a gray area (as there's no provision, technically, for say a "consensus of checkusers" to authorize something); but it's probably a moot point, as I'm not aware of those lists being used in such a manner. Kirill 00:19, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

If an incident arises with private data and a request for review initiated, I would assume that it is taken to the appropriate mailing list for discussion and consensus. At the end, consensus pops out, and that's what generally stands as the result. Or maybe I'm off the mark here (I'll defer to your knowledge being on three [four?] of the ones I cited). Daniel 00:21, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

Are administrators allowed to confer and deliberate on administrative actions by IRC, in person, or by email? Does ArbCom communicate offline? If so, we should not make a pronouncement that it is forbidden. Surely there are reasons for closed door hearings. If there is a circumstance where it is okay to hold discussions in secret and limited to trusted participants, it is discussing what to do with sockpuppets (and trolls, and stalkers, etc) Wikidemo (talk) 11:03, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

Oppose as unnecessary. The "justification" for an action comes from Wikipedia's core principles, usually the fact that Wikipedia is a project to create an encyclopedia and not a MMORPG or a self-perpetuating Process. This PP is also redundant to "responsability" and "responsiveness" above. I would say that almost any form of discussion is better than no discussion at all; but see "Bigfoot" below. Physchim62 (talk) 11:48, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

Support: This should be a gimme. Again, folks, let's not start talking about "what if...uh...someone...uh." Even arbcom-l is justified on-Wikipedia and comes from Wikipedia actions. There is no legitimacy for any action taken on secret evidence of secret offenses of potential actions, and there is no reason for any volunteer to do work here if what the various BADSITES sites say is true. Secret discussion for on-Wikipedia action legitimates everything they say. It cannot be. We went through this already in the discussion of the misuse of admins.irc, and I thought the ruling there was ambiguously stated but clear in intent: no private cadres acting on Wikipedia without on-Wikipedia evidence, deliberation, review, and action. Geogre (talk) 13:26, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Freedom to report perceived cyberstalking and harassment

10) Users are free to file confidential reports of cyberstalking and harassment with Arbcom without fear that the report could be used against themselves.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

This is the only thing I want to propose. It is necessary because I have been criticized for filing such a report in my capacity as an individual editor (no admin tools were used to prepare the report). In the absence of bad faith, filing such a report can never be the basis for any sort of complaint against the filing party. - Jehochman ^Talk 21:24, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

(reply to Christopher Parham) The arbitrators have the evidence, and if they don't understand what I am talking about, they can email me for clarification. - Jehochman ^Talk 21:33, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

Comment by others:

Do you plan to submit evidence that would explain why this is relevant? Christopher Parham (talk) 21:26, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

If so, is ArbCom the only place (other than the Foundation lawyer and employees) where a user may file such a report?Wikidemo (talk) 11:04, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

Oppose as unnecssary. I would also add that it goes against the principle that the Arbitration Committee examines the actions of all parties to a case, including the party who files the RfAr. If Durova's now-infamous report had been sent confidentially to the Arbitration Committee, arbitrators would have been justified in asking themselves what criteria she was using in other blocks, given that this was the sort of justification she was capable of using in such a case. Frivolous or bad-faith accusations are also disruptive to Wikipedia. Physchim62 (talk) 11:49, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Responses to harassment and stalking; perspective

11) Efforts to respond forcefully to incidents of on- and off-wiki harassment and stalking of Wikipedia editors and to extend support to editors victimized by these practices are extremely important. It is also appropriate to be watchful for banned users who continue to attempt to disrupt Wikipedia. However, users engaged in efforts to combat these problems should remain mindful that the vast majority of editors would never engage in such practices. The conclusion that an editor is dangerous to Wikipedia and its contributors should only be reached on a substantial weight of credible evidence. If an administrator perceives that a genuine emergency situation exists, the Arbitration Committee or in appropriate cases the Office should be consulted.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Yes. Paul August ☎ 19:25, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

I have struck the last sentence per discussion. Paul August ☎ 19:30, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

Comment by parties:

"When you start accusing everyone of being in on a conspiracy, you shouldn't be surprised if they decide to confirm your paranoia by banding together against you." —khaosworks Applicable all around, both as a social dynamic and as a caution. WP:CABAL#On_Wikipedia_and_the_Cabal Durova^Charge! 09:54, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

Comment by others:

Proposed. Newyorkbrad (talk) 21:40, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

If a genuine emergency situation existed, I think that would actually justify taking action immediately instead of consulting Arbcom or the Foundation. A user who might at some point become disruptive is not a genuine emergency situation, ever. -Amarkov moo! 23:07, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

The last sentence of the proposal may be expendible. Newyorkbrad (talk) 23:58, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

I'd work on the phrasing, but yes. Marskell (talk) 19:27, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

Full support. --Irpen (talk) 23:17, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

Support with modification. Everything is fine, except that "substantial weight of credible evidence" is too simple of a standard. I think that is fine as a minimum standard, but there should be a higher standard in some cases. The harm to the project that we are seeking to avoid by instituting a block should be weighted against how likely it is that the block is mistaken, and the harm that would be caused by a mistaken block. Blocking to prevent a vast imminent potential disruption should proceed on a lower standard of proof than blocking merely to enforce a ban when no disruption is indicated. Similarly, blocking a brand new user who has made only one edit to Wikipedia, but a contentious one, should have a lower standard than blocking long-term productive editor (who presumably has a lot to lose). Wikidemo (talk) 11:15, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

Perhaps add "at the earliest possible opportunity" to the last sentence. An administrator is, of couse, allowed to make a short block (eg 48 hours) while consultation is taking place. Physchim62 (talk) 11:50, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

Yeah.... The problem is that we already do lend support to those harassed, and this is an off-wiki matter. The moment we bridge that to Wikipedia itself and allow fears to substitute for evidence, we're doomed. The moment we begin looking for people who might be allies with other people who might be the people who did the harassment, we're in trouble. I would only say that all evidence has to be not only credible but on-Wikipedia. The most pernicious real stalker that I can recall was eventually dealt with by police -- the ones with badges -- and courts -- the ones with judges -- and not by "sleuthing" on Wikipedia. It was really quite, quite clear when he returned here. In general, if a person is so subtle that one can only prove it privately, then one is not being particularly criminal. We need to triple enforce RFA, but that's another matter. Geogre (talk) 13:32, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Accusations of administrator misconduct

12) Accusation of administrator misconduct is a serious matter. Such accusations, whether direct or implied (such as by speculative questions), must not be made unless there is strong evidence for doing so. As with other community standards, administrators in particular are expected to model proper behavior by refraining from such speculations.

Comment by Arbitrators:

What does this have to do with the matter at hand? Kirill 22:25, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

Are either of these users selling their services as Wikipedia admins? Are either of them using their not inconsiderable influence to eliminate their competitors?[8] Raymond Arritt (talk) 22:31, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

It's a fair question. Mackensen (talk) 22:38, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

So is "When did you stop beating your wife?" Raymond Arritt (talk) 22:40, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

Well, when did you? Be serious. Mackensen (talk) 22:42, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

I don't see this as being particularly relevant to this case. Yes accusations of administrator misconduct are serious matters. But with greater power and authority, comes greater liability to be answerable. Paul August ☎ 19:43, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

Comment by parties:

Right here, Mackensen. Twelve days ago. Durova^Charge! 09:58, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

Comment by others:

Proposed. Raymond Arritt (talk) 22:22, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

Oppose - as noted above, this has nothing to do with this case. Furthermore, being an administrator is supposedly "No big deal" - and allegations of administrator misconduct are made on a daily basis at AN/I - some with strong evidence, some without. This is not a court martial, and we are not 'questioning a Marine officer with an impeccable service record.' Isarig (talk) 22:33, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

Nothing to do with this case? How does an accusation made against the parties -- which made in the thick of the debate on the matter being decided here -- have nothing to do with this case? Raymond Arritt (talk) 22:36, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

Why? Criticism of admins should have no more restrictions than criticism of anyone else. -Amarkov moo! 23:05, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

Amarkov says it right, why should admins be exempt from criticism? Kwsn (Ni!) 00:12, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

This gets to the heart of the matter. I hope Mackensen reconsiders his appallingly flippant response. --Tony Sidaway 01:01, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

This really should be "accusations of misconduct", of any kind. But otherwise I think it touches on both the problems with Durova's actions and some problems with the response to them, and would be a perfectly reasonable principle. The point being, caution is needed when making accusations as even if withdrawn the social damage can be great. Christopher Parham (talk) 02:20, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

Comment: I note that the proposer has already broken his own stricture by not including the evidence which went before his citation. He is criticizing an administrator (myself) using selective citation out of context! For the record, Jehochman quickly responded quickly and positively to the diff which is linked, Durova has never even admitted that there may be concerns over her possible conflict of interest. Physchim62 (talk) 11:34, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

Agree with Amarkov, no reason to differentiate accusations of administrative misconduct from accusations of editorial misconduct. GRBerry 17:51, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

Oppose: This seems to be about "I was called a bad name." Well, it's a pity, but it's not relevant to this matter. Furthermore, the question (out of context and full of pain and shock) was exactly the kind of thing that can arise when people operate on "you can't see it" evidence and "you can't know it" justifications. Once people announce that they have secret sources, secret reasons, and secret correspondents, people who aren't awed by history may ask the most amazing (and insulting) questions. It was a bad question, but it's a question propelled by the bad action. Geogre (talk) 13:37, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Accusations of misconduct

12.1) Accusations of misconduct are serious matters. Such accusations, whether direct or implied (such as by speculative questions), must not be made unless there is strong evidence for doing so. As with other community standards, administrators in particular are expected to model proper behavior by refraining from such speculations.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Proposed as an alternative to 12 per Parham et al. Jd2718 (talk) 05:00, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

What is "strong evidence"? Physchim62 (talk) 14:18, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

I don't think I can answer. And I don't think this should be a principle. #12 above was worse, but it doesn't make this one right. Jd2718 (talk) 19:54, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Loutishness discouraged

13) Loutish behavior is strongly discouraged. Persistent louts may be sanctioned.

Comment by Arbitrators:

See "Decorum" above; I would hope that this would be covered by the prohibition on unseemly behavior. Kirill 01:27, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

We must not have a repetition of the appalling behavior that led to this case. --Tony Sidaway 01:22, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

The hounding of Durova and Jehochman is some of the worst I have seen. "Lack of decorum" isn't quite the phrase. --Tony Sidaway 01:32, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

"Hounding"? "Flippant"? "Appaling behaviour"? Lack of decorum seems to be the correct phrase to describe those terms at least. Zocky | picture popups 03:44, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

You're joking, of course. That comment doesn't help. We can't address problems of conduct by decrying honest attempts to describe it. --Tony Sidaway 14:07, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

No, I'm not joking. Your comments on this page rank up there with the worst assumptions of bad faith that transpired in this whole kerfuffle. Zocky | picture popups 19:31, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

Please adjust your spectacles. I chall cling to my charitable assumption that you're (still) joking. --Tony Sidaway 05:37, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

Tony, I honestly thought you were talking about Durova's and Jehochman's behaviour here, until I reread you comments. In fact, Tony, I've seen you be pretty loutish youself, and on a number of occasions. Pot, kettle? Physchim62 (talk) 11:53, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] "Sleuthing"

14) Self-appointed "sleuthing" - conducting investigations against editors in good standing who have not committed any violation of WP policy is founded in a presumption of bad faith, and as such is antithetical to the principles of Wikipedia and should not be done.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Proposed. Isarig (talk) 01:26, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

Support, but needs to be worded a bit better. ⇒SWATJester ^{Son of the Defender} 06:10, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

No, poking around as much as we want is a basic freedom of Wikipedia. That is why edit histories, logs, etc., are public. Further, investigations into misbehavior are not AGF violations. To say that is to say we should not investigate anything. Nor are accusations based on credible evidence. AGF is accusing someone of bad faith without reasonable evidence of the same.Wikidemo (talk) 11:21, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

No, poking around as much as we want and launching investigations needs a legitimate reason to begin with and must have a legitimate purpose. !! showed no sign to be a problematic user and gave no reason of being investigated. "Further investigation into misbehavior are not AGF violations." But in an absence of misbehavior, investigations are not only violations of AGF but also of privacy policy. I am not talking about clicking on the contribution of a POV pusher to see what other articles he attacked. I am not talking about checking a log of a copyright violator either to see whether there are other copyvios. I am talking about studying the entire contribution pattern of a legitimate editor who has not done anything bad in order to reveal something that the editor chose to keep private, like that he is a returning user under a different name and what that former name is. --Irpen (talk) 19:03, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

This arbcom case is not for making some kind of moral policy. Wikipedia seems to have rather flawed definition of "privacy". No matter how much you don't want people to "investigate" you, you run that risk by editing on Wikipedia (which publishes everything you do to the public). What happened to !! was messed up, and we should respect his privacy, you can't go screaming at people for gathering information that they are allowed to gather. Again, the "investigation" is not the issue, only the actions taken by the investigation.

If anything, Durova's methods would normally mean that the privacy of those being investigated are kept private. Had the community just calmed down instead of acting like an insane mob, we would have come to the same conclusions and !!'s private information would have been a lot less exposed (the real irony of the situation). -- Ned Scott 20:21, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

I don't see the link between investigating a user and bad faith. The assumption of bad faith in this case occurred not when the investigation was undertaken, but when the results of that investigation were used justify blocking a user without evidence of any violation of WP policy by that user. Similarly, there's no damage done in "sleuthing"-out a link between accounts, even if it reveals the real life identity of a user -- in fact, prohibiting it can only give people a false sense of security, since there's no way real way to prevents this. This issue is what is done with the information gleaned -- if it's used to continue harassing a user after a account change, or made public when the user doesn't wish it to be, that's a problem, but it'd be a problem no matter how the information was obtained, and is already addressed by other principles. jhf 12:35, 1 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Stalking and harassment are legal problems

15) Stalking and harassment are legal problems. As such, they need to be handled under the supervision of competent Office staff. Volunteers should not engage in amateur police work, including Arbcom itself.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Proposed. - Jehochman ^Talk 03:26, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

Comment by others:

Oppose -- Regardless of whether particular instances of stalking and harassment are or are not legal problems, when such activities occur on-wiki administrators and the Arbitration Committee can, should, and will deal with them by warning, blocking, and/or banning the offending users. The Arbitration Committee may also consider cases in which there is compelling evidence that a user has been engaging in off-wiki stalking and harassment of other Wikipedia editors. John254 03:38, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

Stalking and harassment can rise to the level of being legal problems, but it may sometimes be necessary for editors, administrators, and/or the Arbitration Committee to deal with the on-wiki effects of such conduct. Good judgment is always necessary and, in appropriate cases, input from the Office and/or the Arbitration Committee should be sought. The proposed principle is not necessarily relevant to the block of !!, however. As much as we would like to see good order kept on Wikipedia and all of our policies followed, a sense of perspective should be maintained. There is an order of magnitude difference between investigating the possibility that a new account represents the reappearance of someone who has engaged in off-wiki harassment and stalking of editors and their families, as opposed to investigating the possibility that an editor might be the reappearance of someone who was asked to leave Wikipedia because he or she made too many inappropriate edits to an article. Newyorkbrad (talk) 03:53, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

Oppose, presumes something that may not actually be correct in all situations. ⇒SWATJester ^{Son of the Defender} 06:10, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Bigfoot

16) If someone believes they have evidence that Bigfoot exists, it should be reviewed by people other than a self-selected group of Bigfoot believers.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Proposed. Thatcher131 03:49, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

Support. Couldn't have put it better myself. --Hemlock Martinis (talk) 05:00, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

Yes Kwsn (Ni!) 05:07, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

Beautiful ;) Kla’quot (talk | contribs) 07:07, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

There is no Bigfoot.--MONGO (talk) 08:00, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

Probably not the best possible wording, but the spirit is right. Skeptical review is needed. Refusal to be transparently open to skeptical review is unwiki. GRBerry 13:49, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

Yes, if only because we must think of the children. Marskell (talk) 19:36, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

Are you equating a belief that there are disruptive trolls and abusive sockpuppets with a belief in bigfoot? Wikipedia (and nearly every other Internet site with user submissions) has a long history of crafty miscreants playing sophisticated deception games. Bigfoot may not exist but JB196 certainly does. Wikidemo (talk) 11:25, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

No equating of any sort here. The matter at hand is different. Users who shift their wikipedia activity from content creation to policing tend to deal with real trolls more than others. That experience hardens them up and they tend to treat most everyone the same way they treat trolls. If users with such attitude tend to discuss their investigations and hypothesize on the reasons behind what they see exclusively among themselves, no surprise that they would come up with conclusions that would tend to be less forgiving and miss the "one crucial fact" that anyone whose mind is untainted by an evolved attitude would immediately see. --Irpen (talk) 19:10, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

Amend: Those who do the review are not automatically assumed to be Bigfoots themselves. Agreed otherwise. Utgard Loki (talk) 15:55, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

Comment: perhaps this should be amended to "if someone spots something moving in the bushes and believes this is Bigfoot, then before he/she uses his/her gun to shoot it down, perhaps the action should be reviewed by people other than Bigfoot-believers"? 131.111.8.96 (talk) 19:15, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

Only relevant if someone wishes to act on said evidence. -- Ned Scott 20:08, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Private evidence

17) Blocks and bans should generally not be made on the basis of private evidence. Administrators who block or ban on the basis of private evidence should be willing to share their evidence with any other administrator who asks in good faith to review the evidence. (Evidence derived from Checkuser, Oversight, OTRS, the Foundation and ArbCom is not private but privileged. Blocks made on the basis of privileged evidence are subject to review by others with the same access.)

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

I was practicing something very much like that, and look at the drama that ensued when someone leaked it. Durova^Charge! 10:02, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

Comment by others:

One problem here seems to be that Durova shared her conclusions with a group that was too small and that was largely self-selected on the basis of a belief in Bigfoot. If the evidence is so sensitive that it can not be shared with other admins who want to review the block, the matter should probably be referred to ArbCom. Thatcher131 03:49, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

The idea behind this is good, but redefining words is not a good idea. No matter what an Arbcom decision says, "private evidence" will continue to mean any evidence that is not widely revealed, and a decision using a different definition will be confusing at best, abused at worse. -Amarkov moo! 04:11, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

The point of private vs privileged is to make a distinction between checkuser/OTRS/oversight/ArbCom/Foundation evidence, which are subject to review by others in the same position, and evidence and conclusions of an "ordinary" admin lacking such access. It;s a more specific restatement of 6.3 more or less, but I wanted to be more specific. Can you think of better wording? Thatcher131 04:19, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

I can't think of how to word it better right now, but Arbcom isn't a legal body; creating special legal definitions for words won't work here. -Amarkov moo! 04:26, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

I very much like the distinction between private and privileged, and I hope that others who have made other principles and findings in this case will utilize this distinction where appropriate. ⇒SWATJester ^{Son of the Defender} 06:17, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

All CheckUser evidence is private. People have been blocked on the basis of privileged evidence ever since CheckUser was instituted, if not before. It is of course the case that such blocks are open to review by others with the same access. The point about referral to ArbCom is a red herring - there were arbitrators and CheckUsers on the list to which Durova circulated the email. Those of us who received it and did not tell Durova it was not actionable, are feeling a bit foolish, but the proposal above does not actually address the core problem which was that Durova made a bad call. Guy (Help!) 09:39, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

The word "generally" could make this proposal irrelevant. In any case, wouldn't private evidence occasionally be required to deal with unusual cases? It seems to me that the case concerns the proper judgments and procedures for using private evidence, not whether a large scale operation like Wikimedia may occasionally need to rely on such evidence. HG | Talk 19:18, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Good intentions

18) It is perfectly possible for a user acting in good faith to behave inappropriately. While some allowance is made for motive, users must not expect that misbehavior will have no consequences merely because they meant no harm.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Applies to a number of the editors involved here. Kirill 05:13, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

Comment by parties:

Maybe something about extending AGF in all directions. That is, good faith in someone you've chosen to defend doesn't justify demonizing people on the other side. There can be a wide range of reasonable opinions, and perspective matters a great deal in that. Durova^Charge! 10:05, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

Comment by others:

The road to hell is littered..... ⇒SWATJester ^{Son of the Defender} 06:18, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Article development is our mission

19) Creating and developing content for articles is the point of editing Wikipedia, as opposed to working on back channels such as administration and investigating others. Editors such as User:!! and User:Giano II, who create great material, are examples of what sort of content creation everyone should be doing.

Comment by Arbitrators:

True enough; but, as has been pointed out many times, good behavior in one area doesn't justify bad behavior in another. Kirill 13:06, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Suggested, in regards to what and who has been affected here. • Lawrence Cohen 06:41, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

Irrelevant to the case. Even administrative tasks aid the mainspace, and in their own way are just as vital to edits made to the mainspace. -- Ned Scott 07:03, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

Disagree, the project doesn't exist for the purpose of administering it, it exists to provide content for people to look at and learn from. Administration facilitates this, but quality content writing/editing is what it's really (at least should be) all about. Cla68 (talk) 07:13, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

Nice strawman argument there. Administrative tasks (not just the ones that require sysop access) are vital to Wikipedia, and we would not be able to operate without the project namespace. It literally would be impossible to develop articles on the scale that we do, and allow them to reach the quality they can, without these things. -- Ned Scott 10:01, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

Irrelevant and dangerous. It suggests that, for example, individuals like User:Jon Awbrey should not be banned however disruptive they become if they have created decent content. Some editors create decent content but are congenitally unable to work collaboratively, and in some circumstances it will always be necessary to ask them, regretfully, to leave. Giano gets a lot of slack because of his content creation, this is as it should be, but this is not an indefinite license to troll, as this proposal infers. Guy (Help!) 09:44, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

I didn't infer that, or intend to, really. It was simply a statement that people should be here to build an encyclopedia, and that the content those two created are examples of what everyone should be aiming for. If someone habitually trolls they should get the boot whether they're a 5 edit person or a 5 year person, right, with no exceptions, admin or otherwise. I agree with you on that. • Lawrence Cohen 14:15, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

(Guy and Lawrence, please look up the meaning of "infer". The word you mean here is "imply". Paul August ☎ 19:58, 26 November 2007 (UTC))

JzG, Lawrence's statement does not state that good content writers will "get more slack," it just reaffirms that our main purpose here is content. That's it. I know of one editor who has written six featured articles (FA), but displays such disruptive behavior that he has had three RfCs opened on him and he was desysopped by an ArbCom ruling. And I know of another who has written four FAs but was taken to task and discredited for using a sockpuppet to vote twice in a featured article nomination. This statement doesn't mean that they or any other prolific content writer who breaks the rules will get "more slack." Cla68 (talk) 00:12, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

Suggesting that any of the parties in this arbitration case don't already know this is a bit much. -- Ned Scott 06:04, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Banned editors

20) Enabling banned users to evade their bans and continue to abuse Wikipedia for their own ends fosters a culture of paranoia and is divisive. If Wikipedians believe an editor has been unjustly banned then they should work with ArbCom to appeal the ban. If an appeal is not successful, Wikipedians are expected to abide by that consensus and not collaborate with the banned users (Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Alkivar).

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Please refactor, Guy. Please refactor the whole thing. The good intentions are palpable, but it's one of the most profoundly mistaken speculations at this arbitration. Durova^Charge! 10:07, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

Speaks to the reasons some of us are somewhat paranoid. Feel free to change it. It does not, of course, apply to the case of !! specifically, but to the general poisonous atmosphere. Guy (Help!) 10:33, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

Reinoutr, I'm under a lot of pressure right now to be more forthcoming. I could answer that question in a way that doesn't require people to take the conclusion on faith. Durova^Charge! 15:50, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

Comment by others:

This is one of the eight hundred pound gorillas in this particular room. If people were not so sympathetic to certain abusers of the project, then Durova's rather paranoid approach would probably never have arisen in the first place. Guy (Help!) 09:51, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

Exactly who "enabled banned users to evade their bans"? Opposing the blocking of editors based on flimsy evidence is not the same as enabling abuse of the site. --Reinoutr (talk) 10:50, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

Sounds like you're trying to tell editors who they're allowed to talk to or be friends with. Sounds like you're saying that the way to end the "culture of paranoia" is to get more paranoid about the bogeymen that are under every rock and the fellow-travelers collaborating with them. Sounds like you're insisting on treating banned users as unpersons, except when you drag them out to be the subject of a Two Minute Hate. If my mom were a banned editor, would I no longer be allowed to talk to her? *Dan T.* (talk) 15:21, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

Oppose per Dtobias. Also, I don't know why Alkivar's case is linked, since he was not found by ArbCom to have collaborated with banned users. --Hemlock Martinis (talk) 18:05, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

Oppose as irrelevant and unnecessary. If users were not being indefinitely blocked on the basis of lamentable witch hunts, very few people would see the need to step in. Physchim62 (talk) 11:55, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Sleuthing

21) Even when reversed, inappropriate blocks based on poor methodology and evidence have a chilling affect on people's willingness to contribute to Wikipedia.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Can be expanded on. Kirill 13:09, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

Yes. Paul August ☎ 20:08, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Proposed. I strongly encourage the arbitrators to read over this outside view at the RfC by a self-described "little editor." It was rapidly endorsed by many. It's not just that a mistake was made here but that the process by which "sleuths" go looking for people creates a climate of anxiety. Also per SwatJester under the first question: "In fact, your techniques can be summarized like this: 'Any editor who uses edit summaries, does DYKs, and contributes in beneficial ways to Wikipedia is highly suspicious'. How is that a good method of investigation?" Marskell (talk) 13:03, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

Agree with Marskel. Everyone, and especially Arbitrators, should read that view and learn from it. Everyone who participates in these "secret" conversations should learn from it that they are damaging Wikipedia and creating the environment they dislike. Reversing blocks is trivially easy; repairing the damage they do is very difficult. GRBerry 13:53, 26 November 2007 (UTC) Clarified by striking a clause prone to misinterpretation and adding second sentence, which is what I meant. GRBerry 20:11, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

Yes, absolutely! However, the chilling effect is vastly affected by the reason for the mistake, the likelihood of it recurring, the possibility of an apology and reconciliation, and other factors. Sloppiness is not nearly as chilling as using administrative tools in support of illegitimate ends, a much more common reason for sanctioning administrators.Wikidemo (talk) 11:33, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

There are different kinds of sloppiness. Arriving to a wrong conclusion from the evidence kind of sloppiness may be forgiven. Sloppy compliance with the blocking policy in general is not. The Durova's block was "sloppy" not just because she made a mistaken conclusion from what she saw, but in her overall pattern of conduct: secretive investigations, refusal to discuss, declining to confer and promoting some exclusive circles of "trusted sleuths" while there is no indication at all that those are indeed "trusted" by the community. --Irpen (talk) 19:19, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Chilling effect

22) Administrators are expected to act in a reasonable and transparent manner. Even when reversed, administrative actions that appear arbitrary or capricious, or are based on poor methodology and evidence, have a chilling effect on people's willingness to contribute to Wikipedia.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Somewhat expanded from the above; blocks are merely the most obvious symptom of this problem. Kirill 13:09, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

Yes. Paul August ☎ 20:09, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

Comment by parties:

I've made some pledges to the community, which I plan to assemble in an organized manner for this arbitration, to address that legitimate concern. Part of my evidence demonstrates a track record of proactive steps in that area to correct mistaken blocks other administrators had made. There's a WP:AGF side to this issue also: I think Wikipedians share a responsibility to discourage hasty conclusions and inflammatory surmises. The community's tolerance of over-the-top reactions was a major reason legitimate concerns didn't get addressed more fully, and sooner. I pretty much restricted myself to answering candidate questions after the first day because calm discussion elsewhere was no longer possible. I realized my error, stepped back from it, and apologized in 75 minutes. How many of the other people whose actions also contributed to a chilling effect have demonstrated second thoughts about their own decisions, even after a full week? Durova^Charge! 16:00, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

You've apologized for this specific mistake but you have yet (AFAIK) admitted that the methodology involved was simplistic, not worth the insistence on secrecy, and of little net benefit to the project given the "false positives" it can easily produce. And note that this point of principle isn't specific to Durova and !!: it's meant as a caution to anyone making assumptions on flimsy evidence. Marskell (talk) 19:25, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

Comment by others:

I can live with this one as well. Indeed, it's not just the blocks—it can be as simple as a rollback of a good faith edit because an admin has decided you're suspicious. (And good catch on affect/effect.) Marskell (talk) 13:34, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

I support this principle, and believe it encapsulates my concerns quite well. Risker (talk) 21:02, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

Yes, I would only add that the chilling effect is worsened if Wikipedia/ArbCom does not hold administrators thoroughly accountable in a reasonable and predictable (i.e., policy-consistent) manner. I would like to think Durova can agree to this, even if the manner of holding Durova accountable is yet to be determined. HG | Talk 23:25, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Second accounts

23) Second accounts after the first account has been abandoned are allowed under policy provided the first account has not been banned.

23.1) New accounts after the previous one has been abandoned are allowed under policy provided no sanctions exist on any previous ones.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Could be better worded, but yes. Unless users are under some kind of previous sanction, they are not obliged to disclose past accounts. Mackensen (talk) 13:48, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

(To Kelly). Well, are you using them all at once? Mackensen (talk) 14:15, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

I've been alternating amongst them over the past year, although certainly not on a daily basis. Which sock I pick up to use at any given time is a matter of whim. I use my main account only when I specifically want the gravitas associated with it to be used, or when I'm too lazy to log out and back in with a different one. I should note that my experiences using these accounts suggest to me that y'all really need to pay more attention to Risker's outside view on the RfC; several of my socks were threatened with sanctions for patently absurd things, including one that was threatened with a block (by an admin) for deleting a welcome template from its talk page. Kelly Martin 14:20, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

Oh, and don't bother checkusering me. You'll only find the account I created to test some api.php code. I recently rotated my home IP (someone was DDoSing me), and I use my Verizon Wireless access (which draws on a freakishly huge pool of IPs) for edits using the socks so as to make it difficult for some nosy "sleuther" to tie my socks back to me. Kelly Martin 14:24, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

You know me better than that. Mackensen (talk) 14:25, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

Indeed, I do know you better than that. But there are others with checkuser rights I trust not so much as you. Kelly Martin 15:13, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

Comment by parties:

Agree strongly, with a requested adjustment. The current wording is vulnerable to gaming. Abandonment of a first account for a second one shouldn't become a wedge to legitimize conduct that would otherwise be blockable or bannable. That was not the case in this instance by any means, but principles need to apply to all situations. Durova^Charge! 16:10, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

Comment by others:

Proposed, just some thoughts. Kwsn (Ni!) 13:35, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

What about third, fourth, and fifth accounts? I have a couple dozen accounts "in good standing" on Wikipedia at the moment.... and I'm not the only one with multiple socks. Kelly Martin 14:08, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

This brings back bad memories of the Sadi Carnot case… of course second accounts are allowed under these circumstances: WP:USERNAME even encourages them under certain circumstances, and WP endorses the "right to disappear". Physchim62 (talk) 14:25, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

• One of my biggest concerns about letting anyone block on the basis of finding second accounts, is that it seems to stem from a general paranoid platform known as "sleuthing." In my case, my account was blocked in error, then blocked in error again, only to have Durova lie about the nature of same, as part of her cover up. The "checkuser" evidence of my second account could not have been completed by "Flonight" because "Flonight" did not have the checkuser approval until days later. In any case, the paranoid actions around second accounts is at the root of this cause, in my opinion. I present my account of this while I am still an indef. blocked editor. Please forgive the use of an anon. IP It is not a TOR node.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Durova_and_Jehochman/Evidence#Evidence_presented_by_User:_Songgarden Thank you for your consideration, Songgarden In the U.S.A. Today... 172.141.3.216 (talk) 14:59, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

Proposed 22.1. Kwsn (Ni!) 16:20, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

There is nothing in our policy about multiple accounts that says one must stop using one account before another, only that they don't use both accounts in the same discussions or in some other misleading/disruptive way and/or to evade blocks, etc. The wording needs to be changed. -- Ned Scott 06:11, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

Please read WP:SOCK for the actual statement here (though that policy is unstable, partly on account of this incident perhaps)Wikidemo (talk) 11:35, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] No one is exempt from policy

24) No one, admin or otherwise, is exempt from policy, has a free pass, or is allowed to freely violate policy in a negative way, whether they have five edits or five years time on Wikipedia. If an action is unacceptable for a veteran user to do, it is unacceptable for a brand new user to do it, and if an action is unacceptable for a new user to do it, it is unacceptable for a veteran to do it.

24.1) No one, admin or otherwise, is exempt from policy, has a free pass, or is allowed to freely violate policy in a negative way, whether they have five edits or five years time on Wikipedia. If an action is unacceptable for a veteran user to do, it is unacceptable for a brand new user to do it, and if an action is unacceptable for a new user to do it, it is unacceptable for a veteran to do it. Anyone who does violate policy in a negative way should have the same sanctions placed, regardless of their status as admins or tenure.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Since lack of an even playing field seems to be a concern? To clear up Guy's confusion about my #20 point above that everyone should be aiming to make maximum quality content and emulate those who do so (in their content creation). Or just because you can create 10 Featured Articles, or resolved 10 Admin issues in a week, you have no right to be a jerk and can expect to be held equally responsible for misdeeds as any other user. • Lawrence Cohen 14:23, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

This proposal has several diverse clauses. Regarding exemption from policy, this proposal would need to be reconciled with the general exemption incorporated within policy, i.e. WP:IAR, as well as the exemption for Mr. Wales (and arguably those acting on his behalf). HG | Talk 19:25, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

I reworded it. I think thats what I meant, based on what I read here. In other words, if someone violates copyright, or launches personal attacks with edits #1-#10, and picks up a 48 hour block for that, then someone who also violates copyright or launches personal attacks on edits #50,001-#50,010 should also be blocked 48 hours. • Lawrence Cohen 20:56, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Wikipedia Review style investigations are controversial

25) Engaging into a meticulous microscopic study of the editing activity of the legitimate editors in order to reveal the information about them that editors are unwilling to make public is highly controversial. While legitimate under exceptional circumstances of particularly problematic users, such activity should be generally avoided and its results should not be publicized except when forwarded directly to ArbCom.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Proposed by Irpen. To make sure we have moral grounds to condemn what WR is doing we have to take a stand towards this activity by Wikipedia mainstream editors. Only exceptionally problematic editors can be investigated and user !! clearly was not one of them. That he spoke on several issues in a way disagreeable to Durova is not a legit excuse to investigate him. Such investigations, if not condemned, could be used as a killer-tool for instance to destroy the content opponents, RfA opposers, etc. --Irpen (talk) 20:59, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

Agree in principle, might need a rewording for clarity and grammar Alex Bakharev (talk) 23:09, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

I think this should be passed under this title so that the other would-be "investigators" know what they're becoming.—Random832 18:23, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] {template}

26)

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

[edit] {template}

27)

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

[edit] {template}

28)

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

[edit] {template}

29)

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

[edit] Proposed findings of fact

[edit] Durova

1) Durova (talk • contribs • blocks • protects • deletions • moves • rights) has edited Wikipedia since October 2005 and has been an administrator since October 17, 2006. In addition to contributing content, she has been active with respect to dispute resolution issues, including active participation at the former community sanctions noticeboard, proposing and overseeing the community enforceable mediation process, and providing useful input in arbitration cases.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Yes. Paul August ☎ 20:14, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Proposed. Newyorkbrad (talk) 20:36, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Durova's block of User:!!

2) On November 18, 2007, Durova announced on WP:ANI that she had indefinitely blocked !! (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · block user · block log) as a disruptive sockpuppet, stating that the grounds for the block could not be discussed on-wiki and that any appeal must be routed to the Arbitration Committee.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Yes. Paul August ☎ 20:15, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

Comment by parties:

Yup. Bad call. Mea culpa. Durova^Charge! 10:08, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

Comment by others:

Proposed. Newyorkbrad (talk) 20:39, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

May want to add that there was apparently no discussion with !! prior to the block, a fact which I find unfortunate and unnecessary, esp. when the circumstantial nature of the evidence is weighed against the editor's positive contributions (shaky evidence + many positive contributions = give the person a chance to defend themselves before blocking). —Wknight94 (talk) 04:18, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

That's referred to in (5) below, but could be added here as well. There is always an issue in drafting findings as to how detailed one should be (to oversimplify, the difference between the Fred approach and the Kirill approach :) ). Newyorkbrad (talk) 05:03, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

Ah, there it is, thanks. —Wknight94 (talk) 05:31, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

This is correct.--MONGO (talk) 07:54, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] User:!!

3) A review of User:!!'s editing prior to the block reflects no problematic edits of any nature. User:!! had received no warnings and had been involved in no incidents of any kind, but had made substantial content contributions including the creation of many articles listed on Wikipedia:Did you know? as well as active participation in maintaining the DYK page itself.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Yes. Paul August ☎ 20:16, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Proposed. Newyorkbrad (talk) 20:42, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

This, or something like it, should be put into the findings of fact: we now have something giving an overview of Durova's history and contributions to the project, we really need to have something for !!, as well. --Jeffrey O. Gustafson - Shazaam! - <*> 01:04, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Evaluation of the block

4) The evidence compiled by Durova, viewed as individual items and as a whole, was insufficient to justify blocking User:!! or taking any other action against him. No reasonable administrator would have blocked User:!! or taken any other action based on this evidence, nor was the block justified by any other available evidence.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Yes. Paul August ☎ 20:18, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Proposed. Newyorkbrad (talk) 20:48, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

I have a problem with "reasonable" in the statement "No reasonable administrator would have blocked User:!!".

Reasonable has multiple meanings including: rational, able to reason, of sound judgement, and sensible.

As Durova appears to be rational and able to reason, "of sound judgement" or "sensible" would be better than "reasonable" in the proposal above.

I recommend changing the statement to: "No administrator of sound judgement would have blocked User:!!"Uncle uncle uncle (talk) 07:07, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

Support: wording is appropriately strong. Re Uncle's comment, "No administrator acting reasonably..." might suffice. Marskell (talk) 13:42, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Reversal of the block

5) After Durova announced her block of User:!! a number of editors questioned the block and provided additional information to Durova both on ANI and off-wiki. Durova reversed the block 75 minutes after it was imposed, using the unblock summary "false positive", and apologized to User:!!. Durova has acknowledged that she erred in this matter by failing to contact User:!! before blocking him.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Yes. Paul August ☎ 20:19, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

Comment by parties:

Factual. Durova^Charge! 10:09, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

Comment by others:

Proposed. Newyorkbrad (talk) 20:54, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

A bad call (a very bad call indeed) submitted for review and quickly reversed. --Tony Sidaway 01:03, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

During the 75 minutes Durova responded to calls to review the block by referring editors to ArbCom. I don't know if that should be mentioned, but it does help fill in the picture. Jd2718 (talk) 05:53, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Good faith

6) Although Durova's block of User:!! was gravely misguided and has caused substantial disruption, she apparently acted in good faith in the sense that she believed the block was in the best interests of the encyclopedia at the time she imposed it.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Good faith towards the encyclopedia, yes, but not towards the editor. Mackensen (talk) 21:13, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

Yes, I believe that Durova was doing what she though to be in the best interests of the encyclopedia. Paul August ☎ 06:21, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Proposed. Newyorkbrad (talk) 21:11, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

Responding to Mackensen, my point is that the administrator was pursuing what she thought of as a worthwhile action, rather than a deliberately destructive one. Of course one of the many reasons this was a bad block was the failure to WP:AGF with respect to User:!!'s positive contributions. Newyorkbrad (talk) 21:15, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

You know something? I reckon this is a case for Hanlon's razor. Guy (Help!) 23:28, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

If I block an account for simple vandalism, I act in good faith. To say it is "not good faith" towards the user in question is not really getting us anywhere.--Doc^g 01:08, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

Except that you block vandals for vandalism, and !! was blocked for writing DYK entries. Zocky | picture popups 04:15, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

On rereading, "best interests of the project" would probably be a better wording. Newyorkbrad (talk) 06:36, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

Concur...but she was way off the mark this once.--MONGO (talk) 07:53, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

No, this will mask the fact that, editor-to-editor, there was an extreme lack of AGF. She may have had the good of the project in mind, but clearly did not have AGF wrt the individual. Marskell (talk) 19:33, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

The proposal says that Durova acted in good faith, an issue orthogonal to whether she committed an AGF violation in doing so. At any rate, a good faith accusation that someone is a banned sockpuppet is not an AGF violation. It may be a false accusation due to a mistake, but that mistake does not turn AGF compliance into an AGF violation. That would be a misunderstanding of AGF Wikidemo (talk) 11:49, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

yes it is. Interpreting every little thing in the worst light possible (he used an edit summary, he must be someone who's been around for a while - he disagreed with desysopping Zscout370, he must be an ED spy - he referenced a Mozart song, obscene trolling and "showing his true colors") when they can just as well be interpreted as the actions of an honest editor is absolutely a failure to AGF. She assumed that !! was not acting in good faith, it doesn't _get_ much more clearly not-AGF than that.—Random832 16:36, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

No one has produced any evidence of malice in relation to the block of !!. However, I would strike the words "acted in good faith in the sense that she", as assume good faith usually refers to other users, with bad faith towards the encyclopedia being termed disruption or vandalism Durova obviously did not intend to disrupt or vandalize the encyclopedia, even if her actions turned out to be quite disruptive in the end. Physchim62 (talk) 11:57, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] External mailing lists

7) The Committee is aware of the existence of a number of external mailing lists used for discussion of various Wikipedia-related topics. As these lists have no official standing and are not operated by the Wikimedia Foundation, the Committee has no authority over them.

Comment by Arbitrators:

What people discuss in their living rooms is their own business. Kirill 20:42, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Oppose -- Off-wiki communications are within the jurisdiction of, and may furnish cause for sanction by, the Arbitration Committee when such communications directly result in substantial on-wiki disruption. If an editor were to, say, set up a mailing list for the purpose of votestacking AFD discussions or requests for adminship, such usage of the list would correctly be regarded as actionable misconduct. John254 21:06, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

This is only true to the extent that Arbcom can't shut down or regulate the content of such lists. As John254 says, they can and should take what action they can if private forums are causing on-Wiki disruption. That's what they did with ED.-Amarkov moo! 21:11, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

Not in terms of policy, yes. Doesn't mean the ArbCom can't condemn, see [9]. Even if we can't stop these lists proliferating, doesn't mean we can't say they're a bad idea. Moreschi ^{If you've written a quality article...} 21:33, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

I support this finding. Guy (Help!) 23:28, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

Support. Wikipedians have freedom of association offsite as a basic civil liberty. Trying to stop people from emailing their friends is dumb. Kla’quot (talk | contribs) 00:08, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

Support per Moreschi. We can condemn them, but we cannot control them. ⇒SWATJester ^{Son of the Defender} 00:39, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

comment; Do you even realize what you're supporting? If this passes, then we are saying that no-one can ever get in trouble on wikipedia for their behavior on (for example) WR or ED; or for massive off-wiki canvassing; or for any number of other things. When conduct in any other forum has a direct impact on Wikipedia, the users engaging in such conduct can and should have consequences for it here.—Random832 02:22, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

To clarify - this is a proposal to give free rein to anyone who uses external sites to coordinate behavior that is harmful to wikipedia. That the behavior in this instance is (some would argue) less harmful than that in some other high-profile cases is immaterial; this proposal fails to distinguish between them.—Random832 03:33, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

Hmm? All the proposal says is that we have no authority over these lists; it makes no comment regarding what we can and can't do to deal with on-wiki disruption. Kirill 03:36, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] External mailing lists

7.1) The Committee is aware of the existence of a number of external mailing lists used for discussion of various Wikipedia-related topics. As these lists have no official standing and are not operated by the Wikimedia Foundation, the Committee has no authority over them. Actions on Wikipedia prompted or influenced by such lists are within the Committee's authority, and evidence from such lists may be considered when relevant.

7.2) Wikimedia Foundation English Wikipedia

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

7.2 minor correction, which hopefully is correct. - Jehochman ^Talk 04:56, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

Not at all correct. Internal mailing lists are not generally specific to a project on a technical level, for one; but, more importantly, the lists in question are indeed outside the Foundation's authority, not merely our own. Kirill 04:58, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

Comment by others:

Obvious clarification to propose, given the discussion above. GRBerry 04:52, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Durova infiltrated outside communities as a "spy"

8) Durova has stated that she has infiltrated outside groups and communities as a spy.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Farcical. Did you notice the wink? And if I somehow did, how would that action alone fall within ArbCom's discretion while everything else there is beyond its reach? Durova^Charge! 10:12, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

Comment by others:

Submitted, came to light on her RFC and Arbcom canidate page. • Lawrence Cohen 21:37, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

There seems to be some confusion about which site it is that we are editing, and which site the arbitration committee has authority over. The answer to both of those is en.wikipedia.org. Now, to the best of my knowledge, Wikipedia Review is not part of this website. The question becomes, how is this finding of fact relevant? Picaroon (t) 21:42, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

(edit conflict) The diff that you link to here is followed by a smiley, and I do not believe that it was intended seriously. Newyorkbrad (talk) 21:43, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

Reply to both Newyorkbrad and Picaroon: I know, I asked her on her candidate page if it was a true statement or not. I wanted to give her a chance to confirm or disavow that as it seems relevant to all the secret and covert operations hubbub. • Lawrence Cohen 21:44, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

Agree with NYB - pretty sure that was a joke. JavaTenor (talk) 22:20, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

It's relevant inasmuch as it shows how Durova treats this as a sleuthing experience, as some sort of espionage, instead of encyclopedia building. ⇒SWATJester ^{Son of the Defender} 00:40, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

I think you're reading a little bit too much into that. You can't make such a judgement based on one person's sense of humor. -- Ned Scott 07:11, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

Based on her repeated actions, I can exactly make such a judgment, such as her "sherlock holmes barnstar" and multiple invokings of it as authority, her repeated insistence on "sleuthing", a term that implies a detective or spy, and the above comment. Seems to me that I can make EXACTLY that kind of judgment, and I'm reading into it what is obvious. ⇒SWATJester ^{Son of the Defender} 08:04, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

SO?--MONGO (talk) 07:51, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

Depends what the question means. If it's "So what if somebody makes a joke?", I absolutely agree. If you mean "So what if somebody does likely illegal and certainly unethical stuff on behalf of Wikipedia?", then the answer is indef banning, as precedents have established. But since everybody seems to agree that this is a joke, it's nothing that needs arbitrating on. Zocky | picture popups 12:34, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

Umm...not to suggest that I think Wikipedia Review is a worthwhile place for people to spend their time, but why should any editor's outside affiliations (regardless of any associated ulterior motives) be an issue here? Think big picture, folks. Condemning a person's memberships is wrong according to our own policies. Let us not descend this slippery slope any further. Risker (talk) 18:34, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Giano violated policy

9) Giano's statements attempted improper influence. [10]

Comment by Arbitrators:

You meant a different policy, perhaps? Or a different diff? The cited comment is pretty clearly a threat of on-wiki actions rather than outside ones. Kirill 04:04, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

It seems I'm doing things backwards today. Corrected. Mercury 04:10, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

I see no violation pf policy here. Paul August ☎ 06:18, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

As Paul. I'm not seeing it here. Mackensen (talk) 13:19, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

Comment by parties:

The wording outside influence refers to threats of action outside normal site processes and specifically includes onsite coercion. Attempts to coerce actions of users through threats of actions outside the Wikipedia processes, whether onsite or offsite, are grounds for immediate banning. The spirit of the exception is to make sure people don't holler for a ban just because someone said they'd report such-and-such at a regular noticeboard or initiate an RFC. Here's the discussion that brought that into policy. Durova^Charge! 10:20, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

Comment by others:

Proposed. Mercury 03:54, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

Giano is not a party to the proceeding and has not been notified. Newyorkbrad (talk) 04:05, 26 November 2007 (UTC) (I see that Mercury has just proposed adding him, above, even as I was typing this. Newyorkbrad (talk) 04:07, 26 November 2007 (UTC))

I don't quite see the problem here; Giano's hope that Durova would provide the community with more detail about what happened, rather than having that information come from outside sources, seems perfectly reasonable. The information Giano is talking about posting would be perfectly acceptable for him to post (more acceptable than, say, the content of the email that in fact was posted). What sort of "improper influence" do you imagine Giano is trying to wield here? Christopher Parham (talk) 04:28, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

That is quite innocuous and not a problem. Anyone who would think any aspect of this should remain secret doesn't have their head on straight; the disinfectant we need is the light of day on all toxic aspects, which definitely includes the reviewers that didn't do a decent job of review. GRBerry 04:56, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

What does improper influence mean? • Lawrence Cohen 07:00, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

This should be reworded as "Giano did a bad bad thing". Recommend also that the appropriate remedy be "Giano shall be sent to bed without any Spumoni." Seriously, conclusory findings without elaboration, such as "Giano violated policy" or "Giano attempted improper influence" (or the even worse amendment, "Giano's statements attempted improper influence" -- how can "statements" attempt to do anything?) are useless for any purpose. Kelly Martin 15:07, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

Utterly ludicrous. Physchim62 (talk) 11:58, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Reposting private communication

10) Giano reposted private email with the intent to disrupt. [11] (this link does not appear to be working anymore, shall I fix it?)

10.1)Giano reposted private email with disruptive result after a warning.[12]

10.2)Giano reposted private email without author consent.

Comment by Arbitrators:

I see no intent to disrupt. Let's not shoot the messenger. Paul August ☎ 06:16, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

Intent is less important than effect here; it was disruptive, it was against policy, there were better ways to accomplish this. If he didn't realize there would be a "shitstorm" from posting a private communication the first time, he certainly did when he re-posted it. I think Giano knew full well what he was doing; he's an old hand here. Still, "intent" is bad wording here. Mackensen (talk) 13:25, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

re 10.1: There was a brouhaha. Not all brouhahas are bad. Nor were Giano's actions the primary cause of the brouhaha. I don't believe he acted with malice toward the project, nor do I think his acts here have in fact harmed the project. One could make a reasonable argument that they have had the beneficial effect of increasing community awareness of the issues involved. Paul August ☎ 20:41, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Proposed. Mercury 05:10, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

10.1 first preference, 10.2 second preference. Reworded. Mercury 13:33, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

No evidence that I can see of intent. Rather, it seems more likely that the intent was the obvious one: to make widely known the weakness of the report. Christopher Parham (talk) 05:15, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

You do not see the edit summary? Mercury 05:18, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

I've seen it and don't see what it has to do with intent; obviously Giano was aware that the edit war would be seen as disruptive but that is quite different from seeking to cause disruption. You are assuming bad faith where I do not believe that assumption is reasonable or fair. Christopher Parham (talk) 05:21, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

Look at it in context with the prior reversion and the warning. I may need to be more specific in my evidence from now on, I'll correct that in the morning. Regards, Mercury 05:24, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

I'm well aware of the context; there's still nothing to support your extraordinary claim of bad faith. People acting in good faith do disruptive things all the time, usually without knowing the potential for disruption, but sometimes in full knowledge that they will be seen as disruptive and sometimes in willful ignorance of that fact. c.f. your protection of the active ANI discussion. Christopher Parham (talk) 05:38, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

What I "see" is a clear conflict of interest in your moving that Giano be added to this ArbCom, given that Durova nommed you for admin, and Giano was attempting to make her "secret" evidence known in his actions that you claim "violated policy." I think you should immediately strike your motion, and--if you wish--open a separate ArbCom request, in which Giano is the main party, and you are the complainant. This request is about Durova and Jehochman, not you or Giano. Mr Which^??? 05:28, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

Refer to my statement here. Mercury 05:30, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

Your statement even more clearly demonstrates you COI, and your intent to "get" Giano for exposing that e-mail's contents to the light of examination. I repeat, this ArbCom is not about Giano. Mr Which^??? 05:40, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

Disagree with "intent to disrupt". The right solution to this mess was to clean it up by bringing it into the light. Attempts to keep anything secret only made it worse. I think those who tried for secrecy were acting in what they thought the best interests of the encyclopedia are; they were just extremely wrong. Coverups are not viable. GRBerry 05:36, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

Of 10.0 through 10.2, 10.2 is best. Responsibility for causing disruptive effect is properly assigned to Durova in this case, probably also the secret list as a whole. I don't think the intent of disruption is properly charged against anyone in this mess. GRBerry 18:00, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

Not sure how you can speak to intent, we can't read minds and he hasn't specifically indicated what his intent was. He was in a tug of war trying to get evidence out, so that's a better bet as to his intentions...but I don't see how intents can be reduced to a finding of fact unless he states what they were. Findings of fact are better suited to someones actions than what might have been going though his mind at the time. RxS (talk) 05:45, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

He intended to make the course of events more transparent. I'm sure he knew that doing so would cause disruption, as any reasonable person would, but that was not why he did it. -Amarkov moo! 06:00, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

I don't really agree with the things Giano has done, but that's not really fair to say about him. There is a big difference in between knowing that there will be a shitstorm and the shitstorm being the goal. -- Ned Scott 07:16, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

That editor's propensity for causing severe disruption, in the face of repeated warnings, is now well established. He knew what he was doing. We don't condone it so we shouldn't give the appearance of doing so. It would only encourage him to further excesses. --Tony Sidaway 14:14, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

Giano's disruption here was certainly no worse than any of the disruptions I caused during my tenure as an administrator, Tony, and I don't recall you clamoring for my sanction then. Righteous indignance has its place, and if disruption flows from it it is because the situation itself is disruptive. Don't shoot the messenger. Kelly Martin 15:12, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

Whistleblowing is an honorable tradition which should be protected. *Dan T.* (talk) 15:27, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

Whereas privacy violation is not. You ignore the well-publicised fact that this mail was already in the possession of ArbCom and Jimbo. Guy (Help!) 00:49, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

While I wouldn't say that Giano was right to post the email on-wiki, I wouldn't say he did it with intention to disrupt. We can't have PFF 6 and this one. Physchim62 (talk) 11:59, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

Whistleblowing is not carte blanche to violate the expected privacy of every communication you think shows that someone did something wrong. That would have a chilling effect - nobody would ever talk about anything by email. Per our article on whistleblowing an "external whistleblower" (one who reports wrongdoing to the public, as opposed to going through channels) is one who reasonably believes that there is a violation and that the established challenges will not correct it. Giano would only be entitled to expose a private email to all of Wikipedia if he felt that ArbCom could not give it a fair hearing. Failing that, it was simply grandstanding to cast things in a bad light.Wikidemo (talk) 12:02, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

The problem with your claim is that we have established processes (RFC, for example) that involve the whole community rather than a limited group such as ArbCom, and that cannot function without everyone having access to the evidence. When "the public" and the proper "channels" are one and the same, your distinction breaks down entirely. —Random832 15:03, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Achieving closure

11) Wikipedia lacks an effective mechanism for achieving closure of allegations of abuse, leading to endlessly prolonged debate. Such debates are vulnerable to bad-faith manipulation. The community is encouraged to design a mechanism for recording claims of abuse, and the outcome of any investigation, with due regard to the potential to immortalise abuse and trolling.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Here's a problem. A banned user comes up with a mad theory that Durova and Jehochman are in some way conflicted due to the work they do. The idea is pretty obviously fatuous, but any attempt to prevent its repeated assertion is condemned as "censorship" or "chilling". We need to draw a careful and clear distinction between chilling, and refusing to endlessly rehash the same stupidity. Guy (Help!) 10:28, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

Actually this might be a very good idea, although it should never prevent people from having their say. --Reinoutr (talk) 11:04, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Durova has responded to concerns

12) After the immediate unblocking, there was a long discussion of what went on in which Durova's wider actions came under examination. Durova responded fairly and constructively to concerns which were raised and showed willingness to change her behaviour.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Additional to 5) above, I want to recognise that despite the storm of criticism and controversy, Durova has behaved admirably when other users raised good faith concerns about her administrative actions. Sam Blacketer (talk) 10:50, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

She was willing to lift the block and she agreed to let more people review her evidence in future cases yes. That is true. But she still does not seem to understand that her "method" was fundamentally flawed and has expressed regret that now that it was exposed, she will not be able to use this "method" in the future. [13]. I find that worrying. --Reinoutr (talk) 11:06, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

Agree with Reinoutr; I don't see any evidence that she realizes the method was just plain wrong, instead of just the action in this case. Nor do I see any evidence that she has made a serious attempt to repair the damage that she has already inflicted upon Wikipedia. Accordingly, I think the second sentence of this proposed finding is false. GRBerry 18:39, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

Oppose, per above. No she hasn't. Until she responds to the stupidity of the method, she's responded to nothing. Marskell (talk) 22:07, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

She certainly has not responded to my & Jehochman's concerns. Completely ignored is more like it. ^[14] El_C 22:16, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

Silly boy. You know that the only adequate response is ritual suicide. Guy (Help!) 00:47, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

Oppose per Marskell and GrBerry. ⇒SWATJester ^{Son of the Defender} 01:08, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

I would say "to a number of the concerns which were raised": she didn't address them all, by any means. Physchim62 (talk) 12:00, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Jehochman and !!

13) There is no evidence that Jehochman (talk • contribs • blocks • protects • deletions • moves • rights) played any role in the decision to block !!.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

I had no role in the investigation nor the blocking of !!. After seeing Newyorkbrad's opposition, I contacted User:Majorly offwiki to learn what had happened. I explained to Durova that she had made a mistake. She then lifted the block. - Jehochman ^Talk 14:35, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

Comment by others:

Proposed. Newyorkbrad (talk) 12:57, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

No evidence as of yet. That's not to say there's no evidence to be found. Moreschi ^{If you've written a quality article...} 13:36, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

WP:AGF anyone? I have been public and vociferous in my criticisms of Jehochman (I've also made them in private to the user concerned) but I cannot see what his supposed involvement in this block could possibly be. Physchim62 (talk) 14:27, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

None at all, as stated. Guy (Help!) 00:46, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

So long as the sekret list of sekret reviewers is unknown, "lack of evidence is no evidence of a lack" is the only logical conclusion, but Jehochman has not been named as a party, so there should be no need to clear him or her of charges that have not been levelled. His or her behaviour otherwise may have been good or bad, but it's not really the subject. Utgard Loki (talk) 15:59, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Sleuthing method failed to assume good faith

14) The sleuthing method was fatally flawed due to failure to assume good faith on the part of an editor suspected, instead being based on an assumption of bad faith. It is impossible to tell how many other, lesser known, editors were also improperly blocked based on this fundamentally incorrect assumption.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Proposed; to me this is the core problem, and needs to be clearly stated as a finding of fact. GRBerry 18:47, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

No. One need not have proof of bad faith before investigating suspicious activity. If the investigation turns up convincing evidence of misconduct, saying there was misconduct is not an AGF violation either. Wikidemo (talk) 12:05, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

The problem is that it did not in fact turn up any evidence that would convince anyone who was not already assuming bad faith (nor, indeed, could these particular methods _ever_ have provided anything of any real substance), and this has, to my knowledge, been acknowledged by all sides.—Random832 14:58, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

Durova's evidence did turn up convincing evidence of misconduct - it convinced Durova. That's a mistake in judgement, not a violation of good faith. Wikidemo (talk) 19:18, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

Wrong on the face of it. No one, assuming good faith of User:!! could possibly have reached the same conclusion. One had to assume bad faith from his first edits onward to reach her conclusions. Why the defense of the indefensible, WD? Mr Which^??? 19:32, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

So you're saying Durova acted in bad faith by believing her own evidence? That is no improvement, faith-wise. The reason should be clear why we accept a sincere accusation of sockpuppetry as made in good faith, rather than portrayed as an AGF violation. Turning the tables on the accuser, particularly in cases of trolling and sockpuppetry, chills necessary attempts to root out misbehavior. It gives the trolls yet another tool in their ploys to disrupt the project. There has to be some safe ground in making good faith accusations. That is true in almost any form of dispute resolution on or off Wikipedia. Frivolous or bad faith accusations are taken very seriously; good faith accusations get a full hearing and the accuser is not punished merely for being mistaken. Wikidemo (talk) 19:53, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

"Giving good faith accusations a full hearing" is all fine. However, a "full hearing" cannot generally be secret. Secret hearing can only be justified under truly exceptional circumstances, both in RL and in WP, and there was nothing here to warrant any secrecy. There was no urgency to block either as even Durova with her mindset shifted towards suspecting most anyone could not have concluded that there was an immediate danger to Wikipedia from not blocking !!. As such, the accuser here is not punished for "being mistaken". The accuser is punished for the fundamentally flawed and dangerous approach to policing Wikipedia that violates a number existing policies. --Irpen (talk) 19:29, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

Wikidemo - NOBODY is saying that Durova did not act in good faith. They're saying she started from the a priori assumption that !! did not act in good faith. This much is obvious from the evidence, as without that, she could not have drawn the conclusion she did from the evidence she had. —Random832 17:31, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Durova's investigation methodology is flawed and unremarkable

15) The investigation methodology as described by Durova in her email is both unsophisticated and fundamentally flawed. The techniques used are unremarkable, well known and widely publicly discussed.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Proposed. This goes to the heart of the matter, and the answers provided by Durova on this page indicate that she still doesn't understand this. Could maybe use rewording by a native speaker. Zocky | picture popups 19:02, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

Absolutely! Trying to pretend that there is anything non-trivial in that new editors don't sign talk page entries, don't use edit summaries and mess the wiki-markup is an outright nonsense. Smart trolls who return to troll from new accounts know better and adjust their first edits accordingly. Stupid trolls don't and get banned sooner. I know a troll who returned under 100s of usernames and IPs and anyone who knows him recognizes him at once because the guy just don't have intelligence to start anew unconspicuously. I am not afraid of spilling any beans by saying so, because he just don't have brains to act differently. Same with the case in point. There is nothing nontrivial in Durova's "super-secret" techniques revealed in this email that anyone with a smallest bit of intelligence does not know already. --Irpen (talk) 23:36, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

Not only are they not secret, and widely discussed, they don't even work. ⇒SWATJester ^{Son of the Defender} 01:09, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

Irrelevant. Guy (Help!) 00:46, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

It is relevant because the supposed non-triviality and superiority of this "methodology" was used to justify the super-secrecy. --Irpen (talk) 01:13, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

I would suggest phrasing it just like that: "Durova's unremarkable sleuthing method in no way justified secrecy." Marskell (talk) 12:19, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

It seems like the special powers of the mysterious technique was cited by Durova repeatedly as an explanation for why the accused had no right to see the evidence or know the charge. It should be irrelevant, as ArbCom should officially, clearly, and definitively reassert that private evidence of any sort may not be used for performing blocks on Wikipedia. Information that comes from truly private sources is the purview of OFFICE, not administrators, and is reviewed (and therefore isn't secret). However, if any vestige of the rationale of special powers to special investigations remains as any shred of a justification for a block, then it becomes important to say that these methods were nowhere near the level of sophistication or esoterica to qualify. The first (no private evidence, spelled out in neon) is best. Utgard Loki (talk) 15:56, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

Weak oppose, full details on Durova's methods are not widely known, only a single e-mail with a general description. In theory, her methods did work in that she found a user who was on their second account, but the actual failure was the evaluation of her evidence. In any case, I think it's inappropriate for users who are just mad about this whole thing to go slamming things they still don't know the full story on. -- Ned Scott 20:00, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

She found a user who was on his/her second account, yes (nevermind that the methods used for that would have said I was on my second account when I first started in 2004). She also detailed methods for establishing that someone who is a second account is, rather than a legitimate user on a new account, one of the enemies of Wikipedia, such as the "obscene trolling in german" and "gloating", and of course "helping out the team" (which team apparently includes Giano and Zscout370), and it is THESE methods that involve a dangerous assumption of bad faith. She also has not explained how she chose him as a target, and IMO the only plausible choices among what she mentioned in the email are the positions he took in various recent high-profile debates. Note also that, as the email purported to be a tutorial in how to investigate, it can therefore be assumed to be a full explanation of how her 'methods' work, rather than a description of how she "unmasked" !! in particular. —Random832 17:39, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Other Innocent Users blocked; A Pattern of Sleuthing

16) {text of proposed finding of fact}

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Block based on no evidence of any wrongdoing

I am writing this from a neutral IP. I travel the world and have written to all Parties of my block asking them why? I was blocked as a puppet of “Amorrow” by Durova. I was then blocked as a puppet of “Once and Forever.” By “FlowNight”? Once and Forever is evidently a sock of an established user. (No relation to me.) I am not related to any of the above. I am legitimate user and editor; at last understanding, I was welcome here. My privacy is quite important. Durova blocked and protected based on nothing first, then, again, nothing second. She thought of me as a threat to her election, perhaps, however that is no excuse for her behavior. I like my name and I am still indef. blocked/protected. Thanks, Songgarden…….. from a safe place. (Unsigned, timestamp added by El_C) 23:25, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

• Addendum to my evidence:

Please rest assured that Durova was not truthful about "Flonight" using checkuser information to block me, because according to the attached evidence, Flonight was not a checkuser until days after the said block was made. This makes Durova's claim a very bald illustration of a deceitful presentation to this community. Please see the attached link to evidence of Flonight becoming a checkuser days after the block of me. http://meta.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Requests_for_permissions&oldid=758421#Enwiki Truly yours, Songgarden Back in the U.S. on Nov. 26, 2007 71.142.240.138 (talk) 04:27, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

I am adding this from a U.S. IP. Not TOR. Thank you, Songgarden. 172.203.6.137 (talk) 21:33, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Additional Involved Individuals

17) Approximately five individuals, who have yet to be named publicly, actively participated in the process leading up to the block of !! through in-depth discussions in which they endorsed the block.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Proposed, based on Durova's statements. [15] I think it's important to remember that there are unnamed individuals who probably should be considered parties in this case. --Alecmconroy (talk) 03:50, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

17b) Durova intentionally misled the community by claiming that her block of !! had been discussed in-depth with approximately five individuals. In actuality, no such discussions occurred.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Proposed in order to be thorough, but I highly doubt this to be true. --Alecmconroy (talk) 03:50, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

I prefer this version to the one above. I don't think any discussion actually took place, but that Durova merely implied that it did to put herself in a better light. It wouldn't be the first time that Durova has used such tactics, as the Committee is well aware. Physchim62 (talk) 12:03, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

Is it in evidence that Durova claimed there was discussion? I didn't get the impression even at the time that she claimed anything more than "there was no objection", which was probably technically true. ++ nevermind, I see your diff now. However, I don't think this was a widely-repeated claim, or any systematic attempt to mislead. —Random832 14:27, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Template

18) {text of proposed finding of fact}

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

[edit] Proposed remedies

Note: All remedies that refer to a period of time, for example to a ban of X months or a revert parole of Y months, are to run concurrently unless otherwise stated.

[edit] User:!! encouraged

1) !! (talk · contribs) is strongly encouraged to look past this extremely regrettable incident and to continue contributing high-quality content to Wikipedia under the account name of his choice.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Yes. Paul August ☎ 20:46, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

Comment by parties:

In the spirit of apology, I endorse. Durova^Charge! 10:27, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

Comment by others:

Proposed. Newyorkbrad (talk) 21:02, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

Just to note, he may have already. I hope so. Majorly (talk) 22:08, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

Absolutely.--MONGO (talk) 07:43, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

Yes. (I'm agreeing with MONGO on something? Better check the temperature down in Hell...) *Dan T.* (talk) 15:29, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

Of course. Marskell (talk) 22:10, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

Support, of course, but out of curiosity why is Durova's endorsement "in the spirit of apology" rather than in the spirit of "this editor contributes high quality content and deserves better"? Seems off to me. ⇒SWATJester ^{Son of the Defender}

Without question, Endorse. This is one of the worst things about this whole issue. Anything that we can do to save a high quality editor unjustly accused is a must. Mr Which^??? 23:38, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

!! has been a prolific contributor to Wikipedia. We need you! Nishkid64 (talk) 00:38, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

!! may have walked off not for the block, but for other reasons. If he wishes to invoke right to vanish and come back with a different account, I trust that all would be encouraging and delighted to see it. In fact, to avoid being associated with this episode, it may be the best way. Utgard Loki (talk) 15:52, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Durova restricted

2) Durova is prohibited from issuing any further blocks on the basis of evidence which cannot be disclosed to all administrators. Should she violate this prohibition, she may be subject to emergency desysopping by any steward, and the block reversed immediately.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Proposed. There's no reason to permit the massive disruption caused by the highly inappropriate block of !! to be repeated. John254 21:15, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

Why only administrators? If the reasons for a block can't be revealed publicly, to everyone, she really shouldn't be making it herself. -Amarkov moo! 21:16, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

There's a difference between reasons and evidence: for instance, the reason may be "horrific personal attacks" and the evidence may be deleted edits. Christopher Parham (talk) 21:22, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

Oh. Didn't make that distinction. Never mind, then. -Amarkov moo! 23:12, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

As a matter of procedure, there is no precedent for advance authorization of emergency desysopping by stewards. Stewards may be from projects other than En-wiki and have no familiarity with issues arising here. There is precedent language from other cases (e.g., remedy 2.1 in the Badlydrawnjeff case) providing that ArbCom will consider summary desysopping if warranted, that could be utilized if this is the remedy selected. Newyorkbrad (talk) 21:20, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

There are a substantial number of stewards who have sufficient experience with the English Wikipedia as to be able to effectuate this remedy correctly. Of course, those stewards who indeed have "have no familiarity with issues arising here" should not attempt such enforcement. Additionally, it is true that there is no precedent for permitting emergency desysopping as a remedy; however, I contend that it is justified due to the extraordinary circumstances of this case, and the substantial potential for further disruption if Durova were to ever make another block of a similar character. John254 21:49, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

While I fully mostly support the first part of this proposal, wording of 'emergency desysoping' part doesn't seem appropriate to me. Differences between sufficient/insufficient evidence could be quite subjective, no hasty measure is appropriate here. In addition, proposed measure cannot be called emergency desysopping at all, because emergency desysoppings are only for cases when either you desysop the admin, or (s)he will continue making inappropriate things right here and right now. MaxSem^{(Han shot first!)} 22:21, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

While I agree with Newyorkbrad that the term should be summary desysopping, I have to disagree with MaxSem, given the repeat bad blocks by Durova, there is every reason to think that in another case, they will continue to happen without emergency desysopping. ⇒SWATJester ^{Son of the Defender} 00:49, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

I think any restrictions should partially anticipate the discussion on Wikipedia:Confidential evidence. In that, if it becomes policy or whatever, Durova would then be under its restrictions if they differ from any from this arbcom case. On that same note, it should be made clear that this applies to all admins, and not just Durova. -- Ned Scott

07:21, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

As a practical matter, this conditional sanction seems quite difficult to monitor and ensure follow-through. It is also likely to create more work, if not drama, for others. HG | Talk 23:44, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

Support. This is effectively the admin equivalent of a topic ban. I can't see that the stewards would have any difficulty in enforcing this remedy should that be necessary. The fact that all admins might be subject to policy restrictions in the future is irrelevant at the moment. Physchim62 (talk) 12:04, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Durova restricted

2.1) Durova is prohibited from issuing any further blocks on the basis of evidence not available to all administrators. Should she violate this prohibition, the block will be reversed immediately and she may be subject to additional sanctions by the Arbitration Committee.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Reworded John524's proposal. I changed the reviewer to ArbCom and broadened the scope under which ArbCom can act. I also tinkered with the evidence requirement. --Hemlock Martinis (talk) 00:08, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

Support concurrently with 3 (i.e. it would take effect if she ever were to regain adminship). ⇒SWATJester ^{Son of the Defender} 01:02, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

Moot. Durova has resigned the sysop bit. Guy (Help!) 00:45, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Durova desysopped

3) Durova's administrative privileges are revoked. She may reapply at any time via the usual means or by appeal to this committee

Comment by Arbitrators:

Durova has posted to the evidence page that, following the arbitration case, she will fullfill her obligations and stand for reconfirmation. I think that renders this consideration moot. Mackensen (talk) 00:52, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Proposed Durova held 'evidence' for two weeks, carefully considered it, and took wrong action. Bad judgment trumps good faith. Of course she can edit, but ArbCom should not be asking the community to trust her with the tools. Jd2718 (talk) 00:03, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

How is the arbitration committee, by not desysopping her, "asking the community to trust her with the tools"? I don't see how them not desysopping her would mean they are asking the community to trust her, since community trust is not the only thing that factors into committee decisions to desysop. If it was, the arbitrators wouldn't require some desysopped users (eg Alkivar) to only ask the committee to regain adminship, as opposed to asking the committee or filing a request for adminship (which determines community trust). So, your latter sentence doesn't really follow. Picaroon (t) 00:17, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

It's a fair question. Firstly, the behavior was intentional (the mistake was not). And that behavior constitutes a breech of community trust meriting consideration of desysyopping. Secondly, the proposals to restrict her (2.0 and 2.1, above) ask the community to believe that Durova's methods were wrong but her judgment is sound. I don't think that's a fair thing to put back at the community. Does that answer your question? (If not, perhaps I've misworded something) Jd2718 (talk) 00:57, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

Support. Adminship is a position of trust, and Durova appears to have lost the trust of the community through her poor judgment. --Hemlock Martinis (talk) 00:12, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

Support. Durova hasn't promised to end this behavior, i.e. her "sleuthing". Cla68 (talk) 00:51, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

Support, and any recall is irrelevant to this sanction. ⇒SWATJester ^{Son of the Defender} 01:02, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

Should be considered if there is clear evidence of an ongoing pattern of poor judgement. If not, desysopping Durova in the circumstances would only encourage the recent appalling behavior towards her. --Tony Sidaway 01:18, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

It's not about her, it's about the project, which is why we seek to correct problem behavior, not punish it. Her behavior included the use of her admin tools and she hasn't promised to end the problematic behavior. Thus, corrective action is necessary. Any "appalling" action directed towards her as a result can be dealt with under applicable policies. Cla68 (talk) 01:26, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia does not care if you make promises or not, it only cares about what you actually do. You cannot predict the future, so you cannot say that Durova will not improve. -- Ned Scott 07:24, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

Unfortunately, Durova herself does not understand that "it only cares what you actually do", as she still has not acknowledged that her "sleuthing" methods are simply flawed (she only apologized for this specific block). --Reinoutr (talk) 07:30, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

We only know that they are flawed in this situation (the Committee will likely get evidence of other situations, so that they can evaluate this). Regardless, it still doesn't matter if she apologizes or makes a statement acknowledged anything, it only matters what she does. Evidence can be secret, but block logs are always public. -- Ned Scott 07:37, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

I'd much rather a voluntary action be taken by Durova, at the very least promising to hang up her Sherlock Holmes hat for good, if not resigning her bit. However, she has continued to back up her methods and justify her toxic "sleuthing" behavior, and a preventative desysopping may unfortunately be the only way to go. --krimpet? 01:33, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

Oppose as I believe that she has done more good for the project than bad and her efforts to correct any mistakes rapidly and politely are commendable. Best, --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 02:50, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

Support. While Arbcom decisions are not the equivalent of case law and are (wisely) not binding on future cases, there are a lot of suggestions that Durova is not the only person who has been "sleuthing" in this manner; from what can be gathered, this email was in part a tutorial on how such sleuthing is done. It is very important that editors within the community be reassured that such behaviour will not be tolerated. While it may be somewhat harsh for Durova, she has been the most ardent and visible proponent and practitioner of these intensive investigations. A proposal that she could start another RFA six months after the close of the case may be reasonable. Risker (talk) 03:38, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

Moot point now, as Durova has resigned her adminship.[16] Risker (talk) 19:16, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

Disagree with Mackensen The possibility of recall is irrelevant in my opinion. If she should be desysopped, it may be better for Wikipedia if the Committee does it than if we have the extra drama of a recall process. The Committee should decide which path is better. GRBerry 05:01, 26 November 2007 (UTC) Adjusted by adding third sentence, tweaking second. GRBerry 14:41, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

Now moot as drafted, replacement proposed below. GRBerry 19:26, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

Oppose We don't punish editors for breaking non-existent rules. Given the lack of guidance for such situations, Durova did what she did was best, and that's all she was required to do at that time. All that is left is if the community still trusts her, and that would be where the recall would come in. Please do not misunderstand the committee's role in all of this. -- Ned Scott 07:28, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

Oppose No pattern of bad admin actions has been established. The bad block of User:!! appears to be an aberration, not just one of many bad admin decisions.--MONGO (talk) 07:45, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

Oppose It is my opinion that Durova should resign her adminship, but for such an act to be meaningful it must be voluntary on her part. If ArbCom takes her bit, it risks making her a martyr, further embittering her and her allies. I have strongly urged her to resign, and hope that she does so, but I think it would be a grave mistake for the ArbCom to forcibly strip her of adminship. Kelly Martin 13:47, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

Durova's reconfirmation is a path of less potential drama than an arbcom desysop, but even a reconfirmation has potential for ugliness and would not help us to put this affair behind us. It is sometimes better for a valued member of the community to choose the path of greatest dignity. But the choice would be made by Durova herself. --Tony Sidaway 14:38, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

Moot. Durova has resigned the sysop bit. Guy (Help!) 00:45, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Durova resigned under a cloud

3.1) Durova's resigned her administrative privileges while under a cloud, and bureaucrats should not simply regrant them upon request. She may reapply by application to the Committee or via the usual process after ____.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Proposed, reflecting the change in circumstances. I don't care a great deal what goes in the blank, but it obviously should be filled in. GRBerry 19:26, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

On the proposed page they are saying she has to ask the community to come back as an admin. • Lawrence Cohen 19:29, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Giano placed on probation

4) Giano is indefinitely placed on general probation. For good cause he may be blocked from editing for improper influence. The first block one week in length, with any subsequent block being indefinite. Blocks made under this remedy are to be recorded at Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Durova and Jehochman#Log of blocks and bans.

4.1)Giano is indefinitely placed on general probation. He may be blocked from editing for improper influence. The first block one week in length, with any subsequent block being indefinite. Blocks made under this remedy are to be recorded at Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Durova and Jehochman#Log of blocks and bans.

Comment by Arbitrators:

At some point the community will have to decide whether the righteousness of one's cause excuses improper behavior, and whether the Arbitration Committee should maintain double standards. If that's what the community wants, then so be it, but such a stance is not reflected in our policies. That being said this remedy is a non-starter. No administrator-enforced probation involving Giano could ever be enforced, regardless of merit. Mackensen (talk) 13:17, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

"Improper influence"? I can make no sense of this. Paul August ☎ 20:49, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Adapted and proposed. Mercury 03:58, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

Giano is not a party to the proceeding and has not been notified. Newyorkbrad (talk) 04:05, 26 November 2007 (UTC) (I see that Mercury has just proposed adding him, above, even as I was typing this. Newyorkbrad (talk) 04:08, 26 November 2007 (UTC))

Way too general, "general probation" and "good cause" are so vague as to be meaningless. It's not clear that he's done anything that would justify any sanction from Arbcom. RxS (talk) 04:17, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

Oppose Unsupported, and IMO unsupportable. The troubling behavior from Giano that is visible in this case is solely the posting of material to which he didn't have copyright, so any remedy regarding him should be restricted to copyright issues. GRBerry 05:04, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

Er....why? ⇒SWATJester ^{Son of the Defender} 06:23, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

4.1 reworded. Mercury 05:12, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

What is improper influence? • Lawrence Cohen 06:42, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

Good question. Zocky | picture popups 06:49, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

Oppose Both.--MONGO (talk) 08:45, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

I oppose this sanction--and all others as well--of Giano for simply posting the contents of an e-mail that should have been public once the block againt !! was laid. Mr Which^??? 12:30, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

Oppose Shooting the messenger. Kelly Martin 13:48, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

I don't see how Giano's propensity for making malicious accusations against administrators would render probation unenforceable. His accusations can be safely ignored. To prevent a repetition of the recent brawl, some extensive measures are required, including but not limited to Giano. --Tony Sidaway 14:23, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

Oppose. He deserves a medal, parades in his honor, and a street named afer him, not any kind of punishment. *Dan T.* (talk) 15:30, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

Oppose. Giano had a moral duty to publicly post evidence he knew would exonerate !!. Publicly reposting private emails without the author's consent may generally be against the rules of etiquette, but if so, this would definite be a case of Ignore All Rules. Even though !! had been unblocked, if the evidence was not released for public inspection, !! reputation would have been indelibly stained. --Alecmconroy (talk) 10:56, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Giano placed on probation

5) Giano is indefinitely placed on probation. He may be blocked from editing for reposting private communication. The first block one week in length, with any subsequent block being indefinite. Blocks made under this remedy are to be recorded at Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Durova and Jehochman#Log of blocks and bans.

Comment by Arbitrators:

No. Paul August ☎ 20:53, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Proposed. Mercury 05:11, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

It has already been demonstrated that he can be indef blocked for reposting emails. This remedy is thus meaningless. Zocky | picture popups 05:13, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

Indef for that purpose was only until it was resolved. This remedy adds a consequence in a separate context. Mercury 05:16, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

No evidence that such a remedy is warranted, or even that Giano has necessarily done anything wrong. Furthermore, indefinite probation is quite extreme. ⇒SWATJester ^{Son of the Defender} 08:05, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

Oppose--MONGO (talk) 08:44, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

Is Mercury really asking us to place one of our best and most prolific contributors on indefinite probation over his own mentor's mistake? Really? Giano may be hard to deal with, but his contributions are invaluable compared to Durova's "sleuthing." AniMate 09:07, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

AniMate? Seriously. I had intended to post evidence regarding all parties. A good deal of people had behaved badly. It appears folks had already taken care of posting on the editors directly concerned, so I did not need to post on them. You post insinutes that I am coming to the defense of Durova and Jehochman. simply not true and your post stinks looks of bad faith.(removed borderline edit) Mercury 11:03, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

Support this 'circus act', as Giano calls it, was turned from a one-ring show to Barnum and Bailey by him breaking copyright, for one, and in general being an arse. Bad actions on one side do not beget bad actions on the other side, and Giano has shown time and time again he's not willing to contribute to the project politely. If this RFAR is going to have successful ends, all actions need to be considered. David Fuchs ^(talk) 12:31, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

Oppose Shooting the messenger, as above. Kelly Martin 13:48, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

Much of the problem here has been the mode by which the message has been conveyed and the manner in which it has been delivered. --Tony Sidaway 14:40, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

Oppose. He deserves a medal, parades in his honor, and a street named afer him, not any kind of punishment. *Dan T.* (talk) 15:31, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

What, for publishing private email? Novel. Guy (Help!) 12:00, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

• No Guy it was a post not an email, and a post to GNU mailing list at that, as you very well know. Even if it were not, if I found a letter telling that someone was about to have their knees broken I would deserve a commendation for showing the police that letter. There would be no "copyright" or "privacy." What I find worrying is that after you had read such dreadful information you said: "Can I suggest that rather than demanding things we can't have (names) or speculating, we wait for ArbCom? Durova is in direct contact with several arbitrators and CheckUsers at the moment, and her past investigation skills are held in some regard. Durova is not one to block lightly. Guy (Help!) 17:29, 18 November 2007 (UTC).

So really Guy I would think very carefully before I open my mouth again if I were you. Oh and before you apoplexy yet again again that quote was unblanked this morning [17]. Tough old world isn't it? Giano (talk) 12:21, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

• The email list is not GFDL, the server software might be GNU but the contents is not freely licensed. You did not take it to "the police" (i.e. ArbCom), you posted it publicly. Don't post private emails publicly. I stand by my comment: hysterical arm-waving does nothing to aid calm handling of tricky situations. Thank you for taking time out of your busy day to patronise me, I'm off to the airport. Guy (Help!) 12:49, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

Oppose, Giano had reasons to believe that reposting the E-mail he acted for the good of the project and within its guidelines. Alex Bakharev (talk) 06:41, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

It may not be within the NFCC policy, but there is a precedent for publicly posting copyrighted evidence for an ongoing Arbcom case. (notably recently: screenshot of Michael Moore's website) - The copyright issue is a red herring, and any supposed privacy that an email falsely accusing an innocent wikipedian of stuff with no valid evidence has is, quite simply, not related to what Giano got in trouble for. —Random832 17:45, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Durova's "sleuthing"

6) The arbcom strongly urges to Durova to distance herself publicly from any future "sleuthing".

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

The proposal is vague. I don't understand what counts as "sleuthing" and what doesn't. - Jehochman ^Talk 06:50, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

Comment by others:

Proposed, as she still does not seem to understand what was wrong with her methods (or at least has nowhere expressed such understanding) and has not stated anywhere that she will be more careful in her future investigations (she only has suggested she will contact more other people before imposing blocks based on such evidence). --Reinoutr (talk) 07:11, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

Oppose She most certainly has stated that she will be more careful in her future investigations (in just about every discussion thread that she has commented on, in fact). Even having seen the "secret e-mail" and being shocked that she would block over something so flimsy, this ignores every accurate sock she has found, and is not likely an accurate reflection of her over-all skills. -- Ned Scott 07:32, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

Oppose...no reason to believe that one bad call is precident setting.--MONGO (talk) 07:47, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

There's plenty of evidence that this has been more than just one bad call. Furthermore, sleuthing is not the point of this project; it's not even tangential to the point of this project. ⇒SWATJester ^{Son of the Defender} 08:06, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

I'd like to see such evidence on the aptly named evidence page of this arbcom case, then. And if you really believe complex vandalism and troll investigations are not important to Wikipedia, then I'm not sure what to say except we would be worse off if no one did it. It certainly is related to the project. The ironic thing is that the Committee itself is one such example of this. -- Ned Scott 08:50, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

The Committee is sanctioned to do so through elections and appointment by Jimbo. The question Arb needs to answer here: can any admin take up these crusades? There was no process by which Durova was delegated the task of systematically combing through the edits of good faith contributors. Marskell (talk) 13:55, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

The Committee has authority to act on these things, but that does not mean that their elections had anything to do with the right to access what anyone can access, even without an admin bit. This has nothing to do with the collection of information, but it has everything to do with what someone does with that information. If people want to be offended that someone collected information about them that was public (such as contribution logs) then you shouldn't be editing on a wiki that publishes your every action. -- Ned Scott 06:20, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

Indeed, this is a novel line of argument. Contributions of all editors are available for anyone to view (or "comb through") as they see fit, and there's presently no policy that prohibits or even discourages doing so (and in fact Wikipedia:User_contributions strongly implies otherwise). Perhaps Marskell believes that it would be helpful to institute a policy that prohibits editors from reviewing the contributions of other editors; while there may be arguments for or against such a policy innovation, this is not the appropriate venue for such a discussion. Raymond Arritt (talk) 06:32, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

Let me clarify. Clearly, there is an expectation that when someone joins the Committee they will be privy to information that others are not, including other admins. We can accept that. There is no such expectation in an admin-to-admin conversation on AN/I. Durova insisted that her methodology and the evidence of this particular case was of such a sensitive nature that she could not share it with users of equal status. The Committee needs to clarify if this is ever so, regardless of the particulars of this case. If we'd been talking about not revealing someone's name and address, of course secrecy would have been understandable; but that wasn't the situation at all.

Yes, you might be combing through my contributions right now and that's perfectly your right (perhaps collating all the times I've typed "fuck" and deciding I'm a disruptive user) but if after doing so you claimed a sense of entitlement over users of equal status, I'd criticize on the same grounds I have above. (Note I use "status" for lack of a better word; good faith editors are of the same general status, admin or not.) Marskell (talk) 08:10, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

Oppose - The wording "distance herself publicly" is an open invitation to continue in secret. —Random832 18:22, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Durova restricted on blocking

7) Before placing a block on any account, other than those based on the most obvious sort of vandalism, Durova is to seek the input from other administrators at an appropriate, on-wiki forum, e.g. WP:ANI.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Proposed. As long as she fails to understand what was wrong, extreme scrutiny is in place. --Reinoutr (talk) 07:15, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

Oppose...vague and not necessary. No pattern of bad admin actions has been presented.--MONGO (talk) 07:48, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

I beg to differ. Every single block she has made using private evidence is in question here. ⇒SWATJester ^{Son of the Defender} 08:09, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

This proposal is not limited to blocks about private evidence. The way it is worded, she would not be able to block an editor for breaking the 3RR. -- Ned Scott 08:13, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

Oppose too broad- if this were instated, might as well remove her privileges totally. I agree much more with 6) above as a reasonable restriction. David Fuchs ^(talk) 12:32, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

Moot. Durova has resigned the sysop bit. Guy (Help!) 00:44, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Durova restricted on blocking

7.1) Before placing a block on any account on the basis of sockpuppetry accusations, Durova is to seek the input from other administrators at an appropriate, on-wiki forum, e.g. WP:ANI.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

A refinement, based on the comment by Ned Scott. --Reinoutr (talk) 08:39, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

Not workable...some sockpuppet information, if posted publically, would alert sockpuppets of banned editors how we were able to identify them...making it easier for them to evade future blocks by not repeating recognizable actions. Durova has blocked many ban evaders in the past and posting this information publically would be a net loss to the community.--MONGO (talk) 09:25, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

Believe it or not, the "methods" that were "revealed" by the document of Durova were so painfully obvious that there is not the faintest danger of exposing anything to these "sockpuppets of banned editors". It is hard to believe that it was "months of work" (according to Durova) to "develop" these methods. In addition, there are plenty of other administrators who could apply such blocks. --Reinoutr (talk) 09:40, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

Moot. Durova has resigned the sysop bit. Guy (Help!) 00:43, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Durova must be reconfirmed

8) Per the concerns of the Wikipedia community, Durova must undergo another RFA in order to regain sysop powers.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Propsed, as alternative to desysopping. Nwwaew (Talk Page) (Contribs) (E-mail me)(public computer) 12:26, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

She's committed to a reconfirmation pending the results of the arbcom case. Kwsn (Ni!) 19:04, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

Moot. Durova has resigned the sysop bit. Guy (Help!) 00:43, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

Moot. ArbCom has formally approved "controversial circumstances" surrounding her resignation which means she has to undergo a formal RfA to have them restored. Cla68 (talk) 01:50, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Others involved revealed

9.1) Any editor who reviewed Durova's evidence and endorsed her block of !! must publicly reveal this fact, so that the community can help prevent any future errors similar to the banning of !!.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

* Proposed. This should be a given, I would hope. --Alecmconroy (talk) 09:38, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

Unworkable, the outside communication is not within the committee's ambit. Additionally, how will they find out who reviewed, and who received evidence? There is no way to do this here. Mercury 13:13, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

Actually, outside communication which is about on-wiki behavior and is meant to influence on-wiki behavior is well within the community and the committee's jurisdictions-- our rules cover off-wiki behavior all the time, it's actually kinda scary that you didn't know that. See WP:CANVASS for one example.

As to the actual problem of how to find out who the others are-- I believe that ship has already sailed, but let's imagine it hasn't, and let's imagine Arbcom decided it really did want to implement one of these sanctions. The first thing you do is ask Durova, and she'll happily clarify who the five "sleuths" she was referring to were-- end of story. Or, Arbcom could ask Guy to provide them with an email list-- I don't think Guy would outright lie to arbcom, do you? And of course, he could provide them access to the investigations list, assuming the contents haven't yet been purged. And there are a thousand other ways.

We get to the bottom of people actively engaged in bad-faith actions all the time-- I have no doubt we can easily get to the bottom of good-faith errors in judgment. --Alecmconroy (talk) 14:06, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

Any human being is entitled to respond to a request for a confidential opinion. He cannot be compelled to publish that opinion. See also the proposed principle on Responsibility which looks set to pass unanimously. Administrators are grown-ups and can be assumed to have made their own decisions, and must be prepared to justify them without appealing to invisible friends. --Tony Sidaway 17:32, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Others involved restricted

9.2) Any admin who reviewed Durova's evidence and endorsed her block of !! is to seek the input from other administrators at an appropriate, on-wiki forum (e.g. WP:ANI) before placing a block on any account, other than those based on the most obvious sort of vandalism.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

* Proposed. Anyone who looked at the "evidence" and saw an indef block needs to have their work double-checked by other admins. --Alecmconroy (talk) 09:38, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

This one is unworkable. Anyone would be unable to prove who saw and approved of the block. Mercury 13:11, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

Not at all! The people themselves can prove it-- it's their duty to, in fact. And then you have the membership of the special investigative email list, which would substantiate the allegation. And Durova's knows, of course, who she was referring to when she referred to enthusiastic support.

Now granted, if you assumed the that the people involved are hardened criminals who have all taken an oath of silence and will never admit their errors, and who will tell baldfaced lies and fabricate false evidence in order to protect themselves-- in that sort of dystopia, it might be very difficult to find out who the "others involved" were.

But I really don't think anyone's acting in that bad of faith-- sure, people are going to reluctant to own up to their role in encouraging the erroneous block, but I don't believe arbiters and administrators are going to outright lie about this. --Alecmconroy (talk) 13:24, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Others involved restricted

9.3) Any admin who reviewed Durova's evidence and endorsed her block of !! is prohibited from issuing any further blocks on the basis of evidence not available to all administrators. Should they violate this prohibition, the block will be reversed immediately and they may be subject to additional sanctions by the Arbitration Committee.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Proposed. Anyone who looked at the "evidence" and saw an indef block cannot again be trusted to evaluate secret evidence. --Alecmconroy (talk) 09:38, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

So all members of this mailing list should be banned from blocking? That probably includes a lot that didn't even read the email or do anything about it. This remedy is disproportionate and unenforcable. Ryan Postlethwaite 12:55, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

I suppose someone could make the argument that even participating in a secret list is a problem, but my proposal here is far more narrowly tailored. I intend it only to potentially apply to those individuals who actively endorsed the block after reviewing the evidence through "in depth" discussions. As you note, merely having been potentially exposed to the evidence doesn't prove endorsement, and therefore doesn't prove a lapse in judgment. But, unless Durova's lying, her block was enthusiastically encouraged-- and it's not fair for her to to take all the blame for the lack of judgment while the people who encouraged her hide away, refusing to own up to their role in the block. --Alecmconroy (talk) 13:31, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

Unworkable per 9.2. Mercury 13:12, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Others involved desysopped

9.3) Any admin who reviewed Durova's evidence and endorsed her block of !! shall have their administrative privileges revoked. They may reapply at any time via the usual means or by appeal to this committee.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

* Proposed, but not necessarily supported, depending on who the others involved turn out to be, and whether there's evidence of a pattern of abuse of tools. --Alecmconroy (talk) 09:38, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

You want to desysop Jimbo and some arbitrators? That should be interesting. Guy (Help!) 11:57, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

I initially support Durova on her initial AN/I thread on good faith. Should I go ahead and turn in the tools now? Mercury 13:10, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

That depends. Did you see and comment on the evidence prior to the block? If not, then this section doesn't apply to you. If yes, I would hope you would come forward and share a copy of the email you wrote back to Durova after seeing her evidence and any other comments you made about the evidence, so the community and arbcom could assess whether your comment reflect "reasonable" judgment or not. --Alecmconroy (talk)

[edit] Durova banned

9) Durova banned for making legal threats.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Durova sent a DMCA takedown notice to the Foundation Office to have That Posting removed. The purpose of copyright is not to keep embarassing material out of the public eye, a tactic that Scientology delighted to use with great gusto. Such action has a chilling effect on public discussion and people have been banned for attempting to suppress discussion before. I propose that Durova be banned until she recants on the takedown note. 64.222.148.12 (talk) 14:26, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

Endorse if true. (please tell me you're not copying from the 'playbook' of some of wikipedia's worst enemies, Durova) —Random832 14:53, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

Unnecessary and unhelpful piling on at this point. Oppose on the merits as well. Even assuming Durova had sent a formal DMCA notice requesting take-down of the material, which is not at all clear, this is a statutory right in the case of alleged copyright violations, and specifically is not a prohibited legal threat within the meaning of the legal threats policy. Note that I am not opining on the copyright status of the letter, whether it ultimately should have been allowed to be posted, or whether any user acted wisely under the circumstances in seeking to have it removed, but simply on the proposal to sanction Durova. Newyorkbrad (talk) 15:04, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

Yes it is within the policy. A threat to sue (by definition present in such a takedown notice) is outstanding, therefore the user is not allowed to edit. I'm really hoping that this is NOT actually true (that no such notice was sent), but if it is the policy certainly applies. The right to sue is also a statutory right, claiming that the NLT policy does not apply to things that are statutory rights makes the policy a dead letter. If you think that applying NLT somehow interferes with someone's statutory rights you misunderstand how the policy works. There is no statutory right to edit Wikipedia. —Random832 15:23, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

Oppose. Brad's right, it's clearly not covered under NLT. That said, Durova should withdraw her copyright claim and permit the publication of the "evidence"-- the prohibition is extremely counterproductive and only serves to contribute to the perception that we're "hiding something". IT also forces good editors to go to bad sites. --Alecmconroy (talk) 15:28, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

(edit conflict, meant to reword my second response above) Yes it is within the policy, in so far as the policy is intended to "prevent the difficult situation where a person is both seeking to be collaborative partner and also setting themselves up as litigatious [sic] adversary (in general those two roles are mutually exclusive)." - if Durova is indeed setting herself up as a litigious adversary, she should NOT be continuing to edit. —Random832 15:31, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

My reading of the spirit of WP:NLT is that people are required to choose between real-word legal processes (including DMCA takedown notices) and wiki processes (including editing), and cannot under any circumstances use both. A block for that reason is explicitly NOT a sanction, and is (always) automatically lifted if there are no longer any legal threats or actions outstanding. —Random832 15:42, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

No comment on any of this, because the case is basically done, and unless Durova or the WMF says she issued a takedown we'll never know, and some of this is over my head. But I have asked at WP:NLT in this thead why DMCA takedown notices wouldn't be covered under NLT, since they're... a legal threat by definition. "Take down my work or I sue you." Comment there? • Lawrence Cohen 16:40, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

Because if they aren't actually received by the recipient, then the copyright complainant cannot claim that they gave due notice of the infringement. In addition, the standardized language of DMCA takedowns and the fact that for them to be effective they basically need to be directly sent to the foundation, eliminates the chilling effect of other legal threats. DMCA takedowns basically are enforcing our copyright principles anyway, and once the foundation receives the takedown, reviews it, and takes down the infringing content, there is no longer a legal threat, because the complaint is over. Therefore it's not really in our interests to block over DMCA takedown notices. ⇒SWATJester ^{Son of the Defender} 18:55, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

Well, if was a takedown, it looks like, they are in fact required to inform Giano if this was the case, to allow him to send a counter-notice. —Random832 18:47, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

Inappropriate. The only reason people are blocked for legal threats is to keep legal discussion off-wiki. As it is now, there doesn't seem to be any outstanding legal issues regarding Durova's copyright. The only discussion Durova has said about the content of those messages have been related to the case at hand, and none of her messages indicate any plan of further legal action or threat. I'm not even sure if a formal takedown notice can even be seen as a threat, as it is nothing more than a copyright holder making a request that we respect their work. If I say "hey, you need to take that down, it's mine and the law says you can't do that" I'm not making a legal threat, I'm making a copyright issue known. -- Ned Scott 04:15, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

I would not recommend to act on a hearsay. Lets wait until the allegations of the legal threat are either found to be true or false Alex Bakharev (talk) 06:30, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Durova thanked

10) Durova is thanked for her hard work during her tenure as a sysop.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

I think not, we need to know which 5 admins or Arbs (fellow sleuths or whatever they were) she discussed this terrible block with before we think about thanking her for her remarkable services. Giano (talk) 21:42, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

Comment by others:

Proposed. Recognises that Durova has had a previously good history as an administrator and that she is still in good standing within the community. It might also help to show that the committee was not planning to desysop her before she resigned. Ryan Postlethwaite 21:37, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

No. The committee made a mistake in thanking people previously, and should not repeat that mistake. GRBerry 21:48, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

If the Arbs had backed Durova up, when by her own words some of them knew of her plans to block User:!! and did nothing to object to or stop it, in fact those who responded were 'enthusiastic' about the spying tactics, this and other stuff that's happened on wikipedia would have made it into the media for sure, IMHO.Merkinsmum (talk) 21:52, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

Ryan, are you serious? I grew up in a country whose government saw fit to spy on its citizens, and the idea of being discussed on a secret mailing list by the self-appointed Guardians for contributing here disturbs me greatly. 64.222.148.12 (talk) 22:49, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

Are you serious? Wikipedia is not real life, arbcom is not government, and to suggest that "Wikisleuthing" is somehow on the same level as government espionage is ridiculous. Can we try to maintain some perspective here? ATren (talk) 23:20, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

Same premises, same mindset, same outcomes. Disgusting altogether.64.222.148.12 (talk) 23:29, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

Same outcomes? Has !! been imprisoned? Tortured? Executed?!! ;-) ATren (talk) 23:53, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

No, what would happen is that you would guard your tongue very carefully always, because your friend might turn out to be a spy. And if you weren't considered reliable, you might be denied admission to university or your emlpoyment might be at risk. This winky smiley of yours there is entirely misplaced. 64.222.148.12 (talk) 03:26, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

Ryan, I respect you a lot, but I think this is misguided. I am certain Durova is a very nice person, and that her intent was not malicious. But "thanking" a person who has chased off an established editor on some of the flimsiest evidence I've ever seen negates (at least for the moment) nearly all the good work she has done here, in my view. Richard Nixon did lots of good things in office (China anyone? Withdrawal from the hellhole of Vietnam?), but no one "thanked" him as he boarded the plane. His transgression outweighed his good deeds in that moment. In retrospect, history has been relatively kinder to him, and I think this will be the case with Durova. But at this time, a proposal that the ArbCom "thank" Durova is a bit misguided, I think. Regards, Mr Which^??? 23:32, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

And here, Durova is being compared to Nixon! I wonder who she'll be compared to next? ;-) Perspective, people. ATren (talk) 23:57, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

It's called an analogy.:) And they're not saying she's like Nixon etc, just that the principle is vaguely analogous. And the 64 etc IP just said it all disturbed him because of his background.Merkinsmum (talk) 00:12, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

I find it ironic that you just committed Reductio ad Hitlerum in your own post, by comparing my Nixon analogy to Godwin's Law. As pointed out by Merkinsmum (I didn't know those had mums), it was simply a bit analogous to the situation at hand. Mr Which^??? 01:13, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

No, it's not analogy, it's hyperbole. Durova donated thousands of hours to a project she loves. She made some mistakes which caused some inconvenience for some good faith editors, and she's since apologized profusely for her errors in judgement. To mention her in the same breath as corrupt dictatorships and impeached presidents is inaccurate and unfair. She made mistakes, she apologized, she resigned, and in the end very little irreparable harm was done, so why don't you just leave her alone and stop making such inflammatory analogies? ATren (talk) 01:32, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

Ryan, I would suggest posting a Barnstar on her page stating what you posted above and other editors with similar sentiments can add their names to it. Cla68 (talk) 01:46, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

I agree with this proposal. -- Ned Scott 04:10, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

She made a mistake, and that is the only reason that we are here. It may be that there was no need to do anything about her mistakes, but we are here because many, many people were bothered by it. Igoring all of that concern and thanking her in the arbitration case goes too far. If you appreciate her work, then tell her that yourself. -Amarkov moo! 04:18, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

I think the point in thanking someone in an arbcom case is to let others know that, while an editor did something wrong, that is not the sum of their edits. An attempt to balance the picture painted of an editor, in a way. The intention is not to "ignore" anyone's concerns, but rather, to acknowledge those concerns and still be fair. I don't think this is vital to this case, but given how easy people can get the wrong impression here, I don't think it's a bad idea. -- Ned Scott 05:07, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

Strong Oppose. Considering that her hard work led to this whole affair in the first place, I don't believe this is appropriate. --Hemlock Martinis (talk) 05:52, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

Now that !! has decided to leave the project because of Durova's actions, I've changed this to strongly oppose. --Hemlock Martinis (talk) 19:08, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

Support I think Durova worked quite hard and certainly deserves thanking for her service. One stupid error of judgment cannot nullify months of hard work Alex Bakharev (talk) 06:23, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

Support. Sure, she has made mistakes (I doubt any of us could legitimately say he or she has not) and she took proactive steps to apologize and correct them. I appreciate that she unblocked me and I also notice that some of her blocks on socks and disruptive accounts were indeed on target and valid and applaud her efforts to improve articles and upload pictures. Best, --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 06:32, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] !! is thanked

11) User:!! is thanked for his dedication to Wikipedia, and for continuing to create encyclopedia content of the highest quality.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Needed, if the party that caused this unfortunate mess is being thanked. The people caught in the crossfire should be thanked as well. • Lawrence Cohen 14:35, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Giano II is thanked

12) User:Giano II is thanked for his dedication to Wikipedia, and for continuing to create encyclopedia content of the highest quality.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Needed, if the party that caused this unfortunate mess is being thanked. The people caught in the crossfire should be thanked as well. • Lawrence Cohen 14:35, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

The general culture of punishing whistle-blowers should be discouraged. Even if an incident will "eventually come to light", having it come up sooner is beneficial. Who knows when later will occur? Certainly, whistle-blowing will always cause drama (especially in the business world). --健次(derumi)^talk 16:36, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

Well, it all depends on how the end result of any whistle blowing plays out, doesn't it? In this case, are the people who are upset about the whistle blowing of the Durova mail upset because it made Durova look very, very foolish and naive, or because the whistle blowing apparently forced the current state of the ArbCom case, her admin status, and her ArbCom candidacy? The end result of whistle blowing is really what matters, in real life, politics, government, and business. Look at Enron. Whistle blowers there stopped crimes, but at the same token, a great many people likely lost their jobs much sooner than they would have otherwise. I think that is comparable to what happened here with Durova and her inappropriate digging into and outing of other editors. The end result (no adminship, community sanction, and so on) was apparently just expedited when Giano showed what she was up to. • Lawrence Cohen 16:55, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

While people did lose their jobs sooner, the fallout would have been greater if the accounting inflation was allowed to continue until it was obvious to outsiders. I'm not at all certain that Enron could be a comparison; their top people would have also been allowed to stockpile more personal fortunes, and I doubt that anything similar to that could happen had the situation here continued. --健次(derumi)^talk 17:14, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

The end result is not good, ridiculous posturing by disgruntled, uncivil editors, and now a mistaken belief (which most on Wikipedia would not agree with, and which ArbCom explicitly forbade) that it is okay to publish private emails if you think they show evidence of something. Giano was making inappropriate comments then and now. If other people follow suit we will have a real mess, a site far less conducive to editing. If this chills the urge to investigate and aggressively block sockpuppets it will be a field day for trolling. The sole positive result, the end of the unreliable investigations, could have been achieved in a more dignified, proper way. ArbCom would have produced the same result if he had sent the letter to them privately. Giano's stunt added nothing to that. All it did was precipitate the circus.Wikidemo (talk) 17:22, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Proposed enforcement

[edit] Template

1) {text of proposed enforcement}

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

[edit] Template

2) {text of proposed enforcement}

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

[edit] Template

3) {text of proposed enforcement}

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

[edit] Template

4) {text of proposed enforcement}

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

[edit] Template

5) {text of proposed enforcement}

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

[edit] Analysis of evidence

Place here items of evidence (with diffs) and detailed analysis

[edit] Template

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

[edit] Template

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

[edit] Template

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

[edit] Template

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

[edit] Template

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

[edit] Template

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

[edit] Template

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

[edit] General discussion

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others: