Wikipedia talk:Requests for arbitration/Durova

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Contents

[edit] Additional statements

[edit] Statement by kmhebert

I feel that the behavior of high-level Wikipedians in this matter is extremely regrettable. The democratic nature of Wikipedia has been usurped by a handful of seemingly paranoid individuals. I move that the entire Wikipedia project be forked with one branch continuing to be arbitrated as at present and the other branch allowing for free editing and a completely open arbitration process. Undoubtedly the latter branch will become the true democratic, open Wikipedia as originally envisioned while the branch ruled by the self appoitned cabal will wither on the vine. I request a vote be taken on this motion. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Kmhebert (talk • contribs) 16:18, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Statement by Privatemusings

I am an indefinitely blocked user, and only currently permitted to edit in the arbitration matters pertaining to my appeal to the Arb Com to review the block. I've been angry, upset, belittled and invited to leave. I'm running out of gas.

Without prejudice as to the value of this case, I would like to note that the matter of a private mailing list discussing indefinite blocks is being explicitly discussed here and here in my ongoing arbitration case. See this thread for Durova's fairly substantial involvement in discussion of my block. Thank you, Privatemusings (talk) 12:33, 24 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Statement by uninvolved party Stephan Schulz (talk)

I would suggest to withdraw this request for now, or alternatively for the ArbCom to reject it without prejudice. There is a very active and productive RfC pertinent to this topic, and an action by ArbCom would be premature at this time. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 12:24, 24 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Statement by uninvolved party Alecmconroy

I concur-- insofar as this Arbcom applies to Durova, it's entirely unnecessary. She's an "Administrators open to recall" whose set her limit at 5 users. The count that have requested recall/desysop now stands at I believe 20+, so a new RFA is a certainty.

To file an Arbcom case now, demanding a forcible desysop, is to Assume Bad Faith, in essence "expecting her to reneg on her recall promise". There is no reason whatsoever to suspect this-- she'll agree to a new RFA, and in all likelyhood she'll pass it too. I'd suggest withdrawing the RFAr, or at least withdrawing her from it.

Having now read what purports to be a legitimate copy of "Durova's Sekret Evidence"-- it seems this behavior allegedly goes well beyond just Durova. There may be no cabal, but supposedly there is a secret mailing list, with a secret membership list, used to clandestinely coordinate actions. I have no idea if the allegations are true, but somebody around here better get to the bottom of this. --Alecmconroy (talk) 13:47, 24 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Statement by WAS 4.250

Issues
  1. Mistakes that cause disruption - People make mistakes that cause disruption. How much disruption is allowed before we say that regardless of your motives, you are bad for the project? Does the answer differ for admin vs. non-admin. I suggest that the answer boils down to "Are they a net asset or liability?" The problem with this answer is that it depends on the POV of the person answering; example: do they support your edits?
  2. Investigation of editors - There is currently a fierce fight to allow admins to investigate non-admins, but to condemn investigation of admins or investigation by non-admins. Accountability is important, as is privacy; but the two values conflict.
  3. Assume good faith - The super secret technique consisted of nothing other than assuming bad faith and demanding good faith belief in unseen evidence that turned out to be totally different than it was described as being. This is where the current war against WR has led.
  4. Cover-up - Information material to the evaluation of what actually happened was deleted and suppressed. Investigation into the so-called "complex investigation" has been decried as unneeded and mere drama; while the faulty investigation into innocent people has been held up as useful and necessary.
  5. Meat puppets attacking editors - Off site co-ordination between people of investigation into real life identities for the purpose of attacking them (defamation and blocking) and resulting in their outing is something shared by WR and the admins involved in this affair. Must we become the enemy to defeat them? WAS 4.250 (talk) 13:50, 24 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Statement by east718

I feel that this an unually divisive dispute within the community, and encourage the arbitrators to accept this case. The issues of admin-user parity and confidential evidence are also worth examining, despite the existence of a workable policy that is in development to address the latter. east.718 at 14:18, November 24, 2007

[edit] Statement by uninvolved party Hu12

I suggest either a voluntary withdrawal, or that ArbCom consider closing this case without prejudice in light of remedies already in progress. This really should serve as a last step in resolution, and having this case concurrent with the active RFC may be unproductive and possibly unnecessary.--Hu12 (talk) 14:30, 24 November 2007 (UTC)


[edit] Statement by JzG

The list of parties is rather too small. Durova made an error, for which she apologised, unblocked the editor, and said she would learn from it and not do it again. The reason the dispute has run this long is that some people seem unwilling to accept anything less than harsh punitive action.

It's not completely clear here what the supposed role of Jehochman was in this - I was on the original list to which Durova mailed her suspicions, and Jehochman was not. Of course I should have looked into it and told her she was wrong. My bad. That list is not a cabal, not focused on co-ordinating actions against anyone, and exists solely to discuss a single narrowly-defined problem which cannot easily be discussed on Wikipedia for privacy reasons. That list does include members of the arbitration committee including Jimbo. It's a bit embarrassing that none of us thought to tell Durova not to take action based on that discussion, but I don't think we were expecting her to, I don't think it was presented as "I think I should block this person, and will do so unless someone says no". Easy to be wise in hindsight.

One thing is abundantly clear: User:MyWikiBiz (Grgory Kohs) wants Durova and Jehochman out of the market. He is a competitor in the field of talking about Wikipedia, SEO and conflict of interest. His perspective is not quite the same as that of the average Wikipedia - which is why he's banned, I guess - and he has pursued a concerted campaign, with the able assistance of several Wikipedians who should know better, to damage Jehochman and Durova. Attempts to promote Kohs' theory caused significant escalation of the dispute.

Durova made a mistake, apologised, says she will learn from it, her reputation has taken a serious hit, she looks (and feels) very foolish, and I really fail to see what more needs to be done here. Do we need a blanket prohibition on admins privately discussing things? If so you'll need to shut down IRC. That may or may not be bad. Sometimes a second or third opinion is worth having. Guy (Help!) 14:51, 24 November 2007 (UTC)

  • Not re Dan's comment - WP:RBI is not "harsh punitive action" in the case of banned users, who are the people Dan's talking about. I have no idea why he's painting this in such terms. Guy (Help!) 09:18, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Statement by Dtobias

Guy's line about people being "unwilling to accept anything less than harsh punitive action" is amusing given that he is one of the more outspoken members of a faction that is all for "harsh punitive action" when it's aimed at those they see as The Enemy. To them, the main goal of our community is no longer to build an encyclopedia; it's to fight an open-ended War on Trolls, which is Wikipedia's answer to the outside society's War on Terror. Like in that other war, civil liberties should be considered a quaint old-fashioned notion that should be sacrificed to security (as defined and perceived by the rulers). If a few innocent people get harmed in the process, that's an acceptable loss; we must keep vigorously rooting out the evil conspiracy undermining Wikipedia, no matter how much conspiring and undermining we need to do in order to achieve that. Let's destroy the village in order to save it! *Dan T.* (talk) 15:02, 24 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Statement by Wikidemo (uninvolved)

Regarding the appropriateness and scope of the case:

I'm not sure exactly what ArbCom is being asked to decide. Private "investigations" that don't use administrative tools are anybody's prerogative. That's just browsing Wikipedia and we're all free to do that. The question is what one does with the information, and how one goes about doing it. I see three related issues for ArbCom. First, it's an ArbCom choice whether to accept evidence from her or anyone else, what the rules and limits may be on investigative techniques, whether the information may be secret, and whether there will be a rule on it or simply an ad-hoc decision in each case on what evidence to consider. It's a fair request (but one that does not necessarily compel an answer, and that does not require a case for an answer) that ArbCom clarify or justify its position. A second question is whether an individual administrator should be allowed to act on secret evidence that she herself has gathered or if there should be a firewall, with a neutral uninvolved administrator reviewing the evidence and making decisions on it. Or perhaps it could be simply disallowed to use secret evidence as the basis of a block or ban except through ArbCom or some other body. I have my opinions on this but it seems premature to argue them now. I don't think ArbCom is the right forum for deciding administrators' blocking policy. That is a matter for the ordinary policy consensus process, and indeed there is already a proposed policy for use of secret evidence. Third and finally, Durova has been accused of misjudgment but not misbehavior. It is undisputed that she has caught a number of persistent trolls and sockpuppets this way, and also undisputed that she has made some mistakes. There does not seem to be a policy in place though. It does not seem reasonable to sanction her for violating a rule that does not yet exist so if ArbCom believes her past error rate or methods to be inappropriate, the only viable choice would seem to be laying out the rules and assuming she will follow them. Also, to the extent de-sysopping is proposed as a remedy Durova has already agreed to stand for recall, and we should follow that process before (and probably to the exclusion of) an ArbCom review of her adminship. Wikidemo (talk) 14:49, 24 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Statement by Lar

Wikipedia:Requests_for_comment/Durova is listed as a prior step that has been tried. But that RfC hasn't even been properly certified yet (in my opinion anyway), and has hardly gotten to any consensus about what transpired or what should be done yet. Durova has stated running a proper RfC as a precondition to her recall, which some (including some parties to this case) have been requesting. Normally we wait for these things to get to resolution don't we? But perhaps matters are extraordinary. Are we to assume that if this RfAr goes forward, that RfC becomes moot (and I'm off the hook from trying to "clerk" it as Durova has requested I do)? Or is there a desire that it run first, run concurrently? What is the committee's pleasure in this? ++Lar: t/c 14:59, 24 November 2007 (UTC)

(Slightly out-of-place reply) Lar, generally user conduct RFCs are closed when an arbitration case on the same issue opens, so the editor doesn't have to defend (her)self in two forums simultaneously. And this case will open tomorrow barring a sudden change in the opinions of more than one Arbitrator. In this case I would leave it up to Durova to decide whether to move forward with both processes. Thatcher131 17:57, 24 November 2007 (UTC)
Nod (sorry for threading this :) ) I'll leave it to Durova to speak definitively but she indicated to me offline that she'd consider a recall vote unnecessary if the arb case goes forward. The RfC was initiated partly as a precondition to that recall (per her stated process), and partly for its own internal reasons, would be my take, but having it terminated or put in abeyance makes sense. ++Lar: t/c 21:19, 24 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Statement by Jossi

The community has responded to these issues already by creating Wikipedia:Confidential evidence. A better use of editors' time would be to focus on a constructive endeavor as upgrading that page to official policy, rather than spending a month in an ArbCom case. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 15:34, 24 November 2007 (UTC)

On second thoughts and after seeing the statements made by certain editors, I see the need for ArbCom to intervene and hear the case, with the hope that the acknowledgment by Durova that she erred is accepted and that the witch-hunt that this unfortunately has evolved into is put to a stop. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 20:54, 24 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Statement by Doc

Durova has been a fool - and is a patently incompetent "sleuth". But it doesn't need an arbcom case to establish that - it is an undisputed fact. And what possible remedy is there? Remedies are preventative, so the remedy should be to "de-sleuth" Durova: no more blocks from this admin unless there's a transparent reason. However, that remedy is effectively already in place. You need credibility to block someone for less than clear reasons - otherwise the block will be lifted in 10 seconds. Durova has no credibility left in this department - so there's no chance of future damage here. We have had a bad gaffe, but we have had an apology, and can be confident that this can't happen (from this admin) again. What more is there? (Except a baying for blood?)

If this case is taken though, I'd like arbcom to consider making a definitive statement on the posting of private e-mails. No remedies - just a statement for going forward.--Docg 15:55, 24 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Statement by Mercury

She apologized, and pledged not to do it again. I'm not sure what more could be done. However, I do urge the committee to accept this case to look as the user conduct of all involved. That is to say, there are some things that were done on wiki in response to the incident that were not acceptable. If it takes arbitration to remind us all what acceptable conduct it, then let us do this. This arbitration should not be limited to named parties.

[edit] Statement by MONGO

We're human and we make mistakes. The issue is a less about the mistake than it is about top secret information...I say top secret because, yes, in some cases, information about editors does need to remain top secret...the arbitration committee knows this to be true...why: to protect editors. That Durova made a critical error here is not to be overlooked...but this is not a pattern...if anything, the pattern is established by her exhaustive and excellent evidence she has previously presented in numerous arbitration cases as detailed here...help that has protected Wikipedia and it's editors from harm. Let's do what we can to mend the wounds of this error without forgetting about all the good. That Durova has also told us she will no longer do blocks based on top secret information without the approval of arbcom and that she has been participating in review of her actions is to be taken into consideration. If the case is accepted, the concurrent Rfc needs to be closed.--MONGO (talk) 17:11, 24 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Statement by GRBerry

I thought Wikipedia:Confidential evidence was intended to be the appropriate safeguards for sleuthing. That page hasn't gelled yet into a proposal that is close to ready, but discussion there has certainly been civil. Durova has been a participant in discussion on that talk page. GRBerry 17:21, 24 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Statement by Amerique

Requesting Jehochman's political block of legitimate SPA User:Academy Leader be reviewed and overturned in context of these events. His initial rationale for this block was provided here: Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/IncidentArchive328#Academy_Leader_Blocked. Ameriquedialectics 17:26, 24 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Statement by ElC

I'm not sure that we can call that, obviously leaked, email "private." Semi-private is more accurate. Which is why Office action by Foundation representative seemed hasty. The reason for this is that: first, the email was already circulated to "a group," not merely one or even two individuals. Secondly, it doesn't reveal anything too personal. It might be embarrassing in what it lacks, in what it was presumed to entail but didn't, but as far as the Foundation's privacy laws, while it might apply to the letter of the law, it is, I challenge, contrary to its spirit. That, prior to Office action, oversight was requested (by Jehochman on behalf of Durova), much like the contents of said email, doesn't inspire confidence.

As well, I was disturbed to witness Jimbo Wales seemingly picking sides in this disputes, especially because elections to this very Committee is ongoing, [1]and I hope that his own opinion will not unduly influence the Committee's findings (although it appears obvious that he opposes one particular candidate, who, incidentally, is one of the project's foremost FA contributors — since Jimbo is the one to confirm and to a certain extent select candidates to this Committee.... well, at any rate, it casts a rather ominous shadow over the fairness of election, from the outset).

Finally, I note that I almost ended up filing an arbitration request regarding Jehochman's block of Dreamguy, but in the end was able to resolve it informally to my satisfaction. As the admin who unblocked Dreamguy (and who also chastised the block reviewer for... well, simply not paying attention, seeing how the block was retroactive — the edits were too old to be applicable in policy convention), I request that no censure be placed on Jehochman for that reason. I assume he has learned his lesson and view the matter as closed. El_C 17:31, 24 November 2007 (UTC)

If only this dispute would be as simple and one-sided as Tony Sidaway's synopses hints. Alas, it is not, it is complex and multifaceted. El_C 18:53, 24 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Statement by Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles

I was previously blocked by Durova and later unblocked. In my case she was right that I did use two other accounts, but with her guidance I sought mentorship, abandoned all other accounts and have had a generally successful and pleasant return to our project. Durova, like all of us, is capable of making mistakes, but I have seen her act much faster than many to apologize and correct her mistakes. I believe she means well and does a good deal of good for our project and I have ultimately found that she can be fair and reasonable. Isn't a Request for Comment going on as well? Anyway, I think a corrected error that was apologized for has been blown out of proportion and to be honest watching these unsettling events unfold may turn people off from wanting to become administrators. It's a holiday weekend; can't we all just make peace and move on to improving articles? Sincerely, --Le Grand Roi des CitrouillesTally-ho! 17:44, 24 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Statement by Tony Sidaway

A number of editors have become, perhaps justifiably, hot under the collar about a bad block, and a number of others who really shouldn't be attempting dispute resolution in this arena (I speak from considerable personal experience) have been unwise enough to involve themselves. Time for a gentle restatement of the principles of dispute resolution, and some remedies for those who have been reminded too often but failed to take the hint. --Tony Sidaway 18:13, 24 November 2007 (UTC)

In particular, I'm looking at the interaction of the principals in another recently closed case, Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Sadi Carnot, the workshop phase of which seems to have shown some underlying bad blood on the part of some parties. In that case the parties were encouraged to "move forward from this unfortunate incident with a spirit of mutual understanding and forgiveness". Sadly this doesn't seem to have been possible, and perhaps for entirely understandable reasons. Gentle and judicious remedies may be of more help here than clouts over the lug-holes. --Tony Sidaway 19:13, 24 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Comment from Kelly Martin

Durova's "wikisleuthing" is inherently contradictory to Wikipedia's core principles (especially the assumption of good faith) and the necessity to have a collegial environment in order to foster collaboration, and must cease immediately and permanently. This business of seeking "Wikipedia Review spies" behind every edit is contrary to the open environment that Wikipedia is supposedly founded upon, is toxic, and will slowly poison the project (if it has not already). If someone from Wikipedia Review wants to edit the encyclopedia productively, let them. If Greg Kohser wants to edit Wikipedia productively, let him, too -- even if he does get paid for it. These petty vendettas are dumb, and Durova has made a career of pursing them far beyond the point where they benefit Wikipedia in any recognizable manner. The solution to bad speech is more speech; the solution to a bad edit is to improve it into a good edit, not to ban, expose, and humiliate the editor. Kelly Martin 20:33, 24 November 2007 (UTC)

Additionally, I oppose Swatjester's motion to close the RfC. The ArbCom should never undermine community process and should allow the RfC to continue at least until the point that it is evident that no community resolution will result therefrom. Kelly Martin 22:58, 24 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Statement by Tom Harrison

If the committee choses to prolong the dispute by taking this case, I hope they consider behavior that has fanned the flames and capitalized on Durova's mistake to settle grudges. But making mistakes, correcting them, and apologizing? The only way to improve on that pattern of behavior is to not make mistakes. If the committee has it in their power to impose that as a remedy, sign me up for a dose.

[edit] Procedural statement by Swatjester

Since this clearly is going to be accepted, once it is opened I'd ask that an uninvolved clerk close the RfC, which no longer serves any purpose. The relevant information can be transferred to the Evidence page, and the various calls for action can be transfered to the workshop. ⇒SWATJester Son of the Defender 22:44, 24 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Statement by Krimpet

There are several issues at hand here, all of which are more far-reaching than the single bad block by Durova.

The first is Jehochman and Durova's potential conflict of interest with their SEO activity - it's disturbing to have people with stakes in search engine optimization self-proclaiming themselves as "sleuths" trying to hunt for others with conflict of interest. Kohs was banned for having such a conflict of interest - probably justifiably so - but why do we seem to tolerate Jehochman and Durova doing the same thing? We need a clear consensus, somehow, on how these conflicts of interest should be handled, and apply it equally.

The second is Durova's "sleuthing." Kelly Martin and Doc summed it up quite well above - it's clear from the leaked evidence that Durova's methods are very inept and poisonous to the project and its community. If this had only applied to this single now-reversed block, this wouldn't have become such a big deal. But Durova has been a very prolific "sleuth" for quite a while, and we have no way of knowing how many innocent, encyclopedia-writing contributors she has driven away in her past overzealousness. And while it's quite likely that Durova herself will never make such a mistake again now that she's been through this scrutiny, are there other "sleuths" still doing the same thing?

Finally, there's the issue of the "private mailing list." While the use of private channels of communication is long-established here in the community, and have many important, legitimate uses, it seems clear that some of these channels are being used to witch-hunt users and justify administrative actions in the worst possible way. The #wikipedia-en-admins controversies already established that private communications like this should not be used to justify administrative actions such as blocks; the same should obviously apply to private mailing lists. There are important rare exceptions, such as dealing with stalkers, or when private OTRS/checkuser/oversight data is involved. But when it comes to "sleuthing" like this, privately circulated "evidence" should not be used as justification for a block.

Since this case is going to open soon, I urge ArbCom to consider all these issues, which have important ramifications for our project as a whole. --krimpet⟲ 23:30, 24 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Statement by Physchim62

It seems that there are two separate issues to consider here:

  1. Has either of these two admins, individually or together, taken actions which are so contrary to Wikipedia policy that they merit a sanction by this Committee?
  2. In the light of their actions does each of these two admins retain the confidence of the Community in their adminsitrative functions?

The Committee seems very likely to consider the first, given the controversy over Durova's actions. The second seems to be a matter for the community as a whole. Physchim62 (talk) 11:46, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Statement by Isarig

Now that the ArbCom case has been accepted and opened, it is high time that those members of the ArbCom who were on the mailing list and received Durova's "secret evidence" (see above, in the statement by JzG: "That list does include members of the arbitration committee including Jimbo".) in advance of the improper block step forward and disclose this. At a minimum, they should recuse themselves from the ArbCom case. Isarig (talk) 20:00, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Statement by Piotrus

Durova made a mistake. Yes. She apologized. Good. If she only explains what she will do differently know - learning from past mistakes - all will be fine, case closed.

One final word of warning: established editors are and should not be above the law. I hope this case will not scare people even more than they already are of "annoying" an established editors. They need to be investigated and punished just as newbies, maybe even more so, since a regular going "rogue" can do much more damage than a newbie (for the record, I don't think Durova has turned rogue; while she has apparently been to hasty with the ban her heart was in the right place).-- Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk 23:43, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Statement by The Land

For this project openness and transparency are vital pillars which make the community work. It is crucial that the users who administer the project (whether with admin tools or not) trust one another. It is vital for that trust that actions are taken and discussed openly on-Wiki.

I believe it is impossible to conduct our work with administrators refusing to allow the community to hold them to account. There can be no consensus if the wider community is denied the facts of the case. Where an administrator takes a decision based on off-wiki correspondence of whatever nature, the substance of the information and the grounds for the decision must be made available to the community as a whole. Doing otherwise opens up fear, uncertainty, doubt and division and is poisonous to Wikipedia.

I strongly urge the ArbCom to uphold the principle of community consensus by finding that, except in grave circumstances which threaten the project, "I have discussed this in secret" is no grounds for anything on Wikipedia. The Land (talk) 22:40, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Durova

(Apologies if poorly worded; I'm tired)

Clarification is requested to ensure the community correctly interprets principle #3 in this case. In past cases well-intentioned but unforeseen interpretations of a case principle have led to diverse interpretations and many problems. This one has the same potential so following discussion with Mackensen, I'm requesting clarification early on before any incorrect or assumptive meanings are accidentally drawn. The relevant sentence requiring clarification is:

"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."

There are several points of principle that may arise; I'd like to raise them all just to be safe.

  1. In the past, when arbcom has specified a process or a new principle in its cases, that has always been stated or understood to be a proposal, or ad-hoc process, which the community can review or finalize. Or it runs in parallel with the community's view. In other words, it's akin to "this is the starting point, until things get discussed more". Other than asserting Arbcom's right to be involved, rulings don't usually override future consensus by the community at large on the matter. However, a literal reading of this sentence might be taken to mean, "Arbcom has spoken; this is how confidential information is obligated to be handled. All (and future) community discussion futile. Matter decided."
    Evidence of need: posted today on a proposed policy talk page: "I think the "process" section is ... perhaps not necessary. ArbCom expressed in its ruling that all confidential evidence has to go through them, so it wouldn't seem to admit any other [approaches], not even a subset of ArbCom" [2]
    Clarification #1 - Confirmation that in general, when Arbcom makes decision in the form of a process, it's not intended to have a chilling effect on communal learning, or prevent the community considering, finding, and later rethinking, its own ways, over time. (In fact my understanding is that the community is actively encouraged to do so.)
  2. In the past, behavioral evidence has been used against certain sophisticated sockpuppet users. For example, some 60 socks of repeatedly-banned vandal HeadleyDown (AKA. KrishnaVindaloo, maypole, ...) have now been blocked. In proposed policy discussion, more than one person has commented that evidence against well known sockmasters often cannot be placed in public, since its first use would then be to allows the sockmaster to change their "give-away behaviors" ("not a suicide pact").
    Clarification #2 - does Arbcom confirm it now wants all such matters to be its domain now, and no actions of this kind decided by any other user or users?
    Clarification #3 - If so, is this to be a permanent ruling, or more an interim one until the community finds a better proposal that gets consensus. Ie, if the community develops a suitable consensus on an alternative means of handling "confidential information" would Arbcom need to be asked to sanction the communal proposal, before it could replace this ruling?
    Clarification #4 - is it necessary to ask #3? (Not a trivial question, it goes to the heart of how such rulings by Arbcom may be changed or removed, and Arbcom's view on their standing of process rulings it may make)
  3. Finally, if appropriate to ask, does the committee encourage or support the community in developing a more long term policy on handling of confidential information? (One is being developed, but the perceived announcement by Arbcom that it will exclusively handle such matters from now on, has led to question of its merit by a number of users and a diminishing of effort.)

In general what is being requested to be clarified is two things - 1) when Arbcom makes a ruling that will specify what some communal norm, process or conduct should be, how much can the community then develop it own answers going forward, and, 2) in this specific ruling does Arbcom really intend that all administrators who have sockpuppets they can identify via "give-away" behavior, should cease handling these from now on unless Arbcom (as opposed to other people) have reviewed each incident?

I'm fairly sure what Arbcom's ruling means :) and I'm fairly sure it's intended to mean commonsense applies. I feel though that it would be useful to have this sentence re-explained, to ensure no incorrect meanings are drawn causing conflict.

Apologies for presenting a few extreme interpretations. It is because such meanings might be drawn by well-intentioned users, that I'd like this important set of clarifications made asap :)

FT2 (Talk | email) 21:21, 1 December 2007 (UTC)

  • Let me respond to each in kind:
  1. Unless it specifically states otherwise, Arbcom rulings do not preclude the development of new policies. Arbcom rulings reflect policies as the committee understands them at that particular time. Arbcom does not, as a rule, create new policies, although it may reconcile conflicting policies.
  2. No, but the administrator should in those cases be able to state which banned user is being blocked, so that users have a point of reference.
  3. See #1, for the most part. If policy evolves in a different direction then the situation can change.
  4. See #1. Arbcom rulings are not court rulings, nor legislation. Arbcom rulings should not be understood as to prevent the development of new policies.
  • As I've said, this ruling reflects policy as we understood it, and I think there's consensus that only Arbcom ought to handle truly "secret" evidence. On the other hand, if a sock is obvious to one sysop, it'll probably be obvious to another. Common sense applies. Arbcom is not the grand clearing-house of sockpuppet investigations. Mackensen (talk) 21:35, 1 December 2007 (UTC)
The community is entirely free to develop a policy to handle matters involving confidential evidence (within reason); our rulings, in general, speak to what we consider to be the present state of Wikipedia convention and practice, and don't make assumptions about future developments.
As for what the principle itself means, there are really two implicit points:
  1. By long-standing tradition, the Committee has the authority to take actions based on evidence that, for various reasons, cannot be revealed to the community as a whole.
  2. Other individuals or groups do not have such authority (with certain narrow exceptions having to do with WMF-authorized work, and so forth).
Thus, users can't take action based on non-public evidence without consulting us and then refuse to explain their action to the community. The question of what sort of explanation the community considers sufficient is, of course, a question for the community as a whole rather than the Committee. If there is wide consensus to allow or disallow some particular option here, that's perfectly open to discussion.
Does that answer your questions, or did I miss something? Kirill 21:43, 1 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Durova, part II

I ask clarification in the application of the enforcement clause (link).

The decision says that "[t]hose edit-warring against an administrator following this ruling so as to restore private content without consent of its creator may be briefly blocked by any uninvolved administrator, up to a week in the event of repeated violations". However, as pointed out in this edit by Thebainer (talk), arbitration decisions generally only apply to the case they're made in (exceptions including a number of decisions in the BDJ case, etc.).

So, I ask, does this enforcement apply to the parties/involved users in this case, or all Wikipedians? Naturally, if it is the latter, it should be expected that the user be given a final warning if it can be reasonably assumed that the user wasn't aware of the decision. Daniel 23:32, 2 December 2007 (UTC)

The enforcement applies only to the particulars of this case. Paul August ☎ 15:46, 5 December 2007 (UTC)
Paul, I think your statement is ambiguous. Does "particulars" mean "particular facts" or "particular parties"? GRBerry 20:39, 5 December 2007 (UTC)
The general principle is that the principles, findings, remedies and enforcements of a given case apply only to that case. It is not intended that a case decision make new policy or be precedent setting. Thus the enforcement in this case is to be construed conservatively and narrowly, to apply only to the particular parties of this case, and only to the particular private content of this case. It is not intended to apply to other parties or other private content. Paul August ☎ 23:41, 5 December 2007 (UTC)
I'm sorry, I'm still unclear. Applies only to the parties in this case, and the private information cited in this case? Mercury 00:07, 6 December 2007 (UTC)
Yes. Paul August ☎ 17:13, 12 December 2007 (UTC)