Wikipedia talk:Requests for arbitration/Durova/Proposed decision

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Contents

[edit] Arbitrators active on this case

Active:

  • Blnguyen
  • Charles Matthews
  • FloNight
  • Fred Bauder
  • Jdforrester
  • Jpgordon
  • Kirill Lokshin
  • Mackensen
  • Matthew Brown (Morven)
  • Paul August
  • Raul654
  • UninvitedCompany

Away/inactive:

  • Flcelloguy
  • Neutrality (Ben)
  • SimonP

To update this listing, edit this template and scroll down until you find the right list of arbitrators.


[edit] Finding 2 and remedy 2

In my opinion the major risk of fallout from this case lies in the discussion of the block, which got out of hand in numerous instances. In the circumstances, I would venture that if they were to pass in their current form we might at a future date look back with regret for the vague wording of finding 2 and remedy 2.

In particular, a finding is only as good as the evidence upon which it is based. I suggest that finding 2 should be refined so as to give specific examples, so that those at whom the remedy is aimed will better understand what constitutes "unseemly and provocative behavior". There seems to be some confusion about this on the workshop. --Tony Sidaway 15:04, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

I agree totally. I think my (3, I think?) comments on AN/I about this issue were in good faith and productive. Now I'm being admonished? I think the majority of people who commented were in step with AN/I standards and did not show "unseemly and provocative behavior" but we're all being lumped together. --W.marsh 15:39, 26 November 2007 (UTC)
We can tweak the wording a bit but I'm not in favor of us explicitly noting individual users since we are not going to give out individual remedies. We are asking for self-reflection from individuals about the way they participated in the discussion. Suggestions? FloNight♥♥♥ 16:15, 26 November 2007 (UTC)
Well, could you give out specific examples without naming names? The people who kept posting information that had to get oversighted, for example, seem in a different league than the participants who asked questions or tried to calm the situation down. Yet we're all being lumped together, or at least that's the impression I get. A call for self reflection is fine... but that's not what I get out of the word "admonishment"... am I off base here? --W.marsh 16:36, 26 November 2007 (UTC)
On second thoughts, a call for self-reflection isn't a bad thing. I can see why we might not want to name names in the circumstances. The way the block was discussed didn't reflect well on the community.
On the other hand, I do feel that the Committee could be a little more specific. Unnamed individuals are accused of engaging in "unseemly and provocative behavior", and by implication from proposed principle 4, "Decorum", this might have encompassed "personal attacks, incivility, assumptions of bad faith, trolling, harassment, and gaming the system." Some of these are far serious charges than others. Surely a way can be found of focussing the finding, in particular, so as to make it more acceptable to the community as a whole. I think W.marsh makes a valid general point (without my considering the nature of his own contributions to the debate). Some contributions were far more provocative, and far more likely to give the wrong impression of what Wikipedia is about, then others. --Tony Sidaway 16:35, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Drama

"Avoid excessive drama" sounds a bit euphemistic. Could this be worded in a clearer way? Catchpole (talk) 15:45, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

As I understand it, it's a well known Wikipedia formulation of the general injunction known as "Do not feed the trolls". --Tony Sidaway 16:40, 26 November 2007 (UTC)
It goes a bit further than that. Some people, whilst being generally well-intentioned, at times enter into discussions with pre-concieved notions, which does not help to shine light on the situation (or, at best, colours the light subsequently shone). This is not useful to the project, and certainly not to the community.
James F. (talk) 18:06, 26 November 2007 (UTC)
I spoke rather too loosely above. I was thinking that the excessive zeal shown by several involved parties (starting of course with Durova's zeal in pursuing the user whose username is a double-exclamation-mark) tends to foster division and make openings for those who want to damage the project, but your description is broader and at the same time more precise. The damage caused is deeper than just enabling trolls. It's covered, I think, by "Wikipedia is not a battleground". --Tony Sidaway 06:39, 27 November 2007 (UTC)
Look at the state of the rest of this page. Perhaps the arbitrators should practice what they preach. Catchpole 19:12, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Too swift

I understand the desire to resolve this quickly, yet it's been less than 24 hours since this case opened. There simply hasn't been time to assemble my evidence; no one can work this fast. I'll be standing for reconfirmation when this closes: the community has asked questions and deserves answers. DurovaCharge! 16:23, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

Poetic. 68.40.34.93 (talk) 17:55, 26 November 2007 (UTC)
Two wrongs ... Paul August ☎ 18:47, 26 November 2007 (UTC)
I agree with Durova. Sufficient time needs to be allowed for her to present her evidence. Paul August ☎ 18:47, 26 November 2007 (UTC)
Agreed. Now that Durova has resigned her bit, there is no immediately actionable remedy on the proposed decision, so there's no hurry. --Tony Sidaway 02:08, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Private correspondence

The proposed wording at present is:

Any uninvolved administrator may remove private correspondence that has been posted without the consent of the sender. Such material should be sent to the committee directly.

I would suggest that this is sending the wrong message. The originator of the correspondence is of course involved but it should go without saying that he may remove his own correspondence when inappropriately posted, whether he's an administrator or not.

So there are two points here:

  • you don't need to be an administrator to make an edit;
  • involved or not, anyone may remove such an item.

It would also be as well to require that permission to post such material on Wikipedia should be explicit. Posting private correspondence on a public forum should be regarded as exceptional and permission to do so should not be assumed by default. --Tony Sidaway 17:04, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

Except it was somehow public domain or GFDL? What about posting summaries of it or excerpts? Does fair use apply? • Lawrence Cohen 17:06, 26 November 2007 (UTC)
Anything released under the GFDL, or in the public domain, would seem by definition to not be "private correspondence." Fair use does not apply here, c.f. Mike Godwin's statement on Bastique (talk · contribs)'s talk page. Mackensen (talk) 17:08, 26 November 2007 (UTC)
Fair use is covered in the or (b) an expressed and justified claim that reproduction of the other authors' expression is lawful under the law of copyright part. Fair use does apply. In my opinion the context and many statements about the context of the email by Giano did exactly what Mike Godwin mentions as case (b). We should not ignore fair use. We should not ignore WP:IAR. We should ask "What best serves the WikiMedia mission?" Sending people who are trying to understand to Wikipedia Review to get information is not in the best interests of the WikiMedia Foundation; yet that was the consequence of deleting it from wikipedia. Doing something that has the appearance of a cover-up while we are fundraising can cause bad press that affects that fundraising. We should be more thoughtful in the future. WAS 4.250 (talk) 06:08, 27 November 2007 (UTC)


OK, I was curious about that. Thanks. Summaries are OK however? Would even quoting lone passages be forbidden? i.e. 1-3 sentences out of an entire email, as User:!! did in his evidence? • Lawrence Cohen 17:14, 26 November 2007 (UTC)
I'd advise anyone wishing to do so to consult the Foundation counsel on this prior to posting. --Tony Sidaway 17:15, 26 November 2007 (UTC)
Thanks, Tony. I await the opinion of the Foundation's learned counsel - please feel free to refer this to him.
FWIF, the diffs in my summary are mostly my contributions, licenced under the GFDL (you could try to claim that in the arrangement of the diffs as a collection for a particular purpose, I suppose, but it seems a bit of a stretch). I am not convinced that a serious claim to copyright could be made in respect of terms such as "ripened sock" "far too early" "insulate" "banhammer" "obscene trolling" "nasty side" "problem editor" or "gloating". I dare say someone could try to claim copyright in respect of the phrases "a troublemaker whose username is two exclamation points with no letters" "padded history of redirects, minor edits, and some DYK work" and "free range sarcasm and troublemaking": I think the quoted excerpts are fair use. If anyone is concerned on my behalf, I am happy for the whole thing to be quoted. -- !! ?? 17:51, 26 November 2007 (UTC)
Yes, because Mike Godwin is everyone's attorney. :rolleyes: Kelly Martin 17:48, 26 November 2007 (UTC)
The proposed edict is ill-founded in any of a number of different ways. It's overly broad, it will be viewed as antitransparent, and it will tend to create drama. It also privileges both administrators (as noted above) and the ArbCom without any reason for doing so. Hard cases make bad law; please step back and think about what you're doing before you do it. Frankly, I think there's no need for the ArbCom to legislate on this matter; the community can, and should be allowed to, develop a policy on this matter without the ArbCom's interference. Kelly Martin 17:47, 26 November 2007 (UTC)
It's really just a formulation of Foundation policy (which is binding on the community). The most important part of the principle is that "Such material should instead be sent directly to the Committee." This alternative being available, there is no reason to post private correspondence except to feed drama. --Tony Sidaway 18:17, 26 November 2007 (UTC)
  • A post to a mailing list published to the internet under by GNU Free Documentation License is firmly without copyright. Secondly, people would be better advised never to commit anything to paper or print which they would be ashamed for others to see. Especially unfounded libels. Giano (talk) 18:20, 26 November 2007 (UTC)
Giano, I don't think it's clear that the list itself contains GFDL content. There is a GNU logo on the list administration page, but that's because the list uses the GNU Mailman software. JavaTenor (talk) 19:07, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

(general comment/question) Is there an exception to posting an email communication when it's done to make a threat(s) while avoiding scrutiny of the community? If there isn't an exception in this type of case there should be for the sake of transparency. I remember this happening once, so it's not entirely hypothetical. R. Baley (talk) 18:31, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

From http://lists.wikia.com/mailman/listinfo/wpcyberstalking : This is also a hidden list, which means that the list of members is available only to the list administrator. There can be no expectation of privacy when you're shouting something to an undefined group of people. 166.165.134.86 (talk) 18:32, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

This conversation is going no-where. The post in question was not a private letter beginning "Dear Mom, I have something to tell' you...." It was a nasty vicious libelous post circulated by its author to many with no thought for the consequences. Is anybody disputing that? Giano (talk) 18:36, 26 November 2007 (UTC)
As a gesture of goodwill, you might perhaps want to consider withdrawing the word "libellous" per WP:NLT? David Mestel(Talk) 20:03, 26 November 2007 (UTC)
  • No, I don't think I do want to. The terms Duova used about one of the encyclopedia's most uncontroversial and gentle editors were libellous - I use the term as an adjective not a threat, I can think of no better adjective for such an unwarranted defamation of a character. Giano (talk) 20:39, 26 November 2007 (UTC)
Durova's statements about !! at least had the potential to be damaging to her reputation (although they turned out to be so ineptly argued that they hurt her reputation more than his). That's all that is required for the term "libellous" to properly apply to them, aside from being set down in written form. The use of the term in no way means that they are actionable libel, or that anyone is suing anyone for anything. (Wikipedia's article on "libel" rather sucks, actually. It doesn't even note the origin of the term.) In any case, Giano is in no standing to sue Durova for her libels of !!, unless (by some freak set of circumstances) Giano is !!'s legal guardian or something. If you don't know what a word means, perhaps you should research it before you jump to conclusions and end up banging your head upon it. Kelly Martin 21:24, 26 November 2007 (UTC)
I was merely suggesting that withdrawing it would be a gesture of goodwill, and might serve to calm down an already inflated situation. David Mestel(Talk) 19:45, 29 November 2007 (UTC)
However we characterize the email, the act of posting it on Wikipedia was inflammatory. It was posted on Wikipedia without the permission of Durova and accordingly was and remains removable. --Tony Sidaway 22:09, 26 November 2007 (UTC)
Thank you Tony, I think you may be repeating yourself. Giano (talk) 22:45, 26 November 2007 (UTC)
Apologies if that seems to be the case. I was responding to what appeared to me to be multiple attempts by you to imply that posting the email was justifiable because, by virtue of its being posted on a mailing list associated with a free content website, it was "firmly without copyright", and because it was "libellous" in nature [1] [2] . If I've misunderstood you, and you agree that it should not have been posted on Wikipedia, then I'm very pleased that we are both agreed on the substance and applicability of the proposed principle, and I again apologise for misreading your words. --Tony Sidaway 23:04, 26 November 2007 (UTC)
If Giano truly believes it was libellous, he should not have posted it himself, particularly not as its first publisher. SlimVirgin (talk)(contribs) 23:08, 26 November 2007 (UTC)
As I have repeatedly told you by email Slim, it is a little late for you to come here with words of moral wisdom. I think we are all done and dusted here. Good night. Turn off the lights when you have finished talking with each other. BTW Tony your slippers are nder the sofa. Giano (talk) 23:13, 26 November 2007 (UTC)
Yes, we're done, since we're agreed that it was inappropriate. --Tony Sidaway 23:58, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

Errm, private correspondance is private. There seems little justification for posting it on a top-20 website in any circumstances. To act in such a way only reflect badly on the person who discloses it. We are not some sort of religious sect which tries to control the actions of our members, we are (supposedly) trying to create an encyclopedia. Should things need to be discussed in confidence, there are plenty of ways in which they can be. Physchim62 (talk) 13:46, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

It was a nasty vicious libelous post circulated by its author to many with no thought for the consequences. Is anybody disputing that? Giano (talk) 18:36, 26 November 2007 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Giano II (talk • contribs)
Oh, I think so.--Docg 13:56, 27 November 2007 (UTC)
The nature of the email is immaterial. I thought we were agreed that posting it to Wikipedia was a mistake, which is what the "Private correspondence" principle currently being adopted in this case is about. --Tony Sidaway 14:36, 27 November 2007 (UTC)
  • It was not a mistake Tony, because as you will recall members of the Arbcom (we were told) has already reviewed and OKd it. Therefore it was important to find out publicly if this was true. Having now read it do you think that was true? We already knew some Admins had seem it and thought it was safe to block on that evidence, and Guy had seen it too and was saying how reliable Durova was. " 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" another editor said "They (the Arbcom) are not just going to let Durova block someone for the fun of it. There are certain issues that cannot be transparent here, this is a fact of the wiki. I have seen it happen a few times and when I investigated it was indeed correct not to discuss it publicly" (all these quotes are now conveniently removed by Guy) As far as I am aware we still do not know the full answer to how many Arbs, or even Jimbo himself, actually read it before the block. It was imperative to find out the truth if only to restore !!'s good name. Remember mud sticks and it had started to stick already. !! now has a completely clean name so I don't regret making that post public at all for that reason. Giano (talk) 14:57, 27 November 2007 (UTC)
    • You seem to be throwing a lot of mud yourself. "Having now read it do you think that was true [that arbcom members had OK'd it]? " No, I've seen utterly no evidence for that very serious allegation. If I had reason to believe that an arb had seen this, and explicitly endorsed it, I'd be calling for a resignation myself. But you seem to be "sleuthing" a bit to to come to that conclusion.--Docg 15:03, 27 November 2007 (UTC)
    • As a matter of fact, I have not seen the email. If Durova wants me to see it, she will send it to me. Giano, I think you're putting two and two together and getting five (which is, of course, what Durova herself seems to have done). --Tony Sidaway 15:41, 27 November 2007 (UTC)
  • Tony, perhaps you should start an AfD on WP:IAR. Whether or you you agree with Giano's posting, and whether or not it 'technically' violated some rule, there is always WP:IAR which trumps all rules. And it appears that Giano gave it careful consideration before invoking IAR and posting. And, regardless of any 'technical' violation, no personal information was revealed and the public was able to see the truly bad faith assumptions in the methods being used. There was nothing that needed to remain 'secret' or 'confidential' in that email and hanging your hat on a 'copyright violation' is a bit thin. Lsi john (talk) 15:11, 27 November 2007 (UTC)
The claim that an internal Wikipedia policy (IAR) can trump copyright law is absolutely false. Next you'll be telling me that our content guidelines and Wikipedia:No legal threats preclude the possibility of libel. Mackensen (talk) 15:26, 27 November 2007 (UTC)
And I don't believe for one single second that anyone is truly objecting to a copyright violation. There are far more egregious examples of copyright violation than Giano's. He didn't publish any trade secrets, or here-to-fore unpublished work which someone anticipated publishing for money/profit. And, its not about copyright law, its about wikipedia policy. Giano must face any lawsuit from Durova on his own. Let's keep our eye's on the ball here, we aren't really talking about international copyright laws, we're talking about violating a wikipedia policy/guideline which proscribes posting private correspondence on wiki pages. And, as such, citing IAR is certainly a valid response. Lsi john (talk) 16:17, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

Durova herself said that some members of the Arbcom had seen her evidence before the block. [3] These quotes below, now sadly removed by Guy, illustrate the climate and feeling before the Evidence became public. Your judging me with hindsight which is a marvellous thing.

  • I have placed an indefinite block on this account as a disruptive sockpuppet. Due to the nature of this investigation, our normal open discussion isn't really feasible. Please take to arbitration if you disagree with this decision. Thank you. DurovaCharge! 16:48, 18 November 2007 (UTC) This implies agreement by the Arbcom. We now know that is not the case.
  • Agree with Tom Harrison and Mercury. We clearly have a sock infestation. If disclosing details would hamper future sock ID techniques, it is better for ArcCom to review it confidentially. If someone is truly concerned, take it there. Complaining about it here is counterproductive. Crum375 (talk) 17:30, 18 November 2007 (UTC)
  • When I make a mistake I like to be the first to step forward to correct myself. It's very surprising that a few facts didn't come to light sooner, given the amount of time my report circulated and the people who had access to it. This is, in fact, not a first account. But it's a legitimate situation. I request early closure and archiving of this thread to protect that person's privacy. DurovaCharge! 18:06, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

I might add the person concerned was desperate to have his name cleared in the open, and knew before I posted the Evidence that I was going to do so, with his full permission. Giano (talk) 15:31, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

    • I completely concur with what Giano has posted above. Having read the posting in question (that Durova "circulated"), it completely clears User:!!, and condemns both the methods and practices of Durova, though the intent was the opposite. How any admin could have reviewed that "evidence", in combination with User:!!'s stellar record at DYK and other valuable contribs, and concluded that he was blockable is beyond the pale of good reason. The only prohibition to releasing the posting was that it embarassed an admin that, quite frankly, needed to be embarassed about the way in which she had conducted her "investigation." Mr Which??? 15:42, 27 November 2007 (UTC)
Sorry, Giano, I don't see it. Your reading of "evidence" seems to jump from actual diffs to the interpretation you seem to want, I'm assuming you've got more than this to support your thesis. There is no evidence here to support your very serious allegation that an arb explicitly OK'd this block on the basis of this evidence. That Duvora sent an email to a list that included some experienced wikipedians is not in doubt - that she foolishly took silence as agreement is also not in doubt. But I see no more. I trust you have something else to support this. As I say, it is a very serious allegation indeed.--Docg 15:40, 27 November 2007 (UTC)::
If I may, I think you're misunderstanding what Giano is saying. It appears to me that he's saying Durova implied she had such explicit approval from an Arbitrator, when she did not. He writes above, "This implies agreement by the Arbcom. We now know that is not the case." [emphasis added] I think you have perhaps just misunderstood a portion of Giano's point. Mr Which??? 15:46, 27 November 2007 (UTC)
It appears to me that I was mistaken to assume that Giano recognised that he had made an error. He persists in his belief that his actions were justified. It might not be a matter for this arbitration, but at some point it may be necessary to craft a remedy that will convince him of the error of his beliefs. --Tony Sidaway 15:46, 27 November 2007 (UTC)
Copyright protection has several important limits. First, facts and ideas are not protected, only original ways of expressing them, which would apply to an individual's expression within an e-mail. But there are limits to copyright protection, and these include:
Fair use.
Fair use occupies about half of the copyright statute and this concept grants limited rights to use others' works, regardless of approval. Admittedly, it is the least clear-cut limit to copyright because words like "fair" or "reasonable" cannot be defined with absolute precision. However, courts have often upheld that uses that advance criticism, education or scholarship are favored. Uses that generate income or interfere with an author's ability to earn a living are not favored. Did Giano generate or intend to generate income from his re-use of the original author's e-mail? Doubtful. Did Giano's re-posting impact the original author's ability to earn a living? That remains to be seen, but it is possible. In addition, fairness means crediting the original authors. Did Giano credit the original author? Absolutely.
Therefore, I would suggest that any claims of copyright protection that may be bandied about here are equally, potentially overwhelmingly, outweighed by "fair use" limits on copyright. Indeed, when a whistleblower voluntarily divulges e-mails to the media or to an auditor, have we ever seen them then prosecuted for copyright violation? I would enjoy reading about such a case, if one has ever existed in the history of jurisprudence. - SpamWatcher (talk) 15:47, 27 November 2007 (UTC)
This is all beside the point. Wikipedia is a private entity and is not obligated to host anything unless it wants to, subject to its own governance, and within the laws of the country in which the servers reside. Wikipedia does not permit fair use outside of the article namespace, nor does it permit the posting of private correspondence. If Giano had posted the material on an external site, then that would be a different matter. Mackensen (talk) 15:58, 27 November 2007 (UTC)
  • Thank you Spamwatcher. Well Mackensen it has certainly been driven to an external site now; and Doc however it is undeniable that Durova stated here [4] that some members of the Arbcom were shown her "report". She is clearly implying they saw no objection. She made the allegation not me! Personally I expect they never even bothered to read it, and let us all hope that is the truth. Giano (talk) 15:59, 27 November 2007 (UTC)
OK, that clears that up. Sorry, if I misunderstood. We have no reason to believe any arb signed off on this block.--Docg 16:04, 27 November 2007 (UTC)
"Wikipedia" is not a private entity. Mackensen may be confusing "Wikipedia" (a concept or a project) with the Wikimedia Foundation (a private entity). If you are saying that the Foundation in not obligated to host anything on Wikipedia unless it wants to, then I suggest you are coming dangerously close to identifying the Wikimedia Foundation as a publisher and not as an interactive computer service, which would suggest that Section 230 protections may be in question. Users of this service may post (and unpost) content all they want that may or may not qualify under "fair use" doctrine. However, until a formal take-down complaint about a piece of copyrighted content is filed with the Foundation, we should not confuse the topic of "governance" with "rights". Mackensen is a respected mind in this community, but he has dangerously explored an area here that I'm sure the Foundation would rather not test. - SpamWatcher (talk) 16:07, 27 November 2007 (UTC)
All that tells us is that said people were on that list and received it; silence is not consent. We've both read that email and we both know that it did not request anyone's opinion on the merits of a block. I've asked on your talk page that if you prove arbitrators (or other trusted users) were complicit in the block that you forward that evidence to the committee; otherwise I have to ask that you desist from making the allegation. Mackensen (talk) 16:06, 27 November 2007 (UTC)
Please read the above again. He's not claiming they did. He's saying that DUROVA implied that they did. He's seems to be saying that she was either being untruthful, or at least rather deceptive in doing so.
As for the copyvio stuff, it's very pertinent, as Giano was accused of violating copyright law, which SpamWatcher's post rather conclusively dismisses as an allegation. That WP is privately-owned has nothing to do with whether Giano infringed a copyright, as many have asserted in attacking him. Mr Which??? 16:43, 27 November 2007 (UTC)
  • Do you know what Mackensen to walk away from this project and some of those who I think of as its pedantic cunning crew right now would be the easiest thing in the world but I would not give anyone the pleasure of seeing my back. If people want to get rid of me they will have to do a bloody sight better than this. Giano (talk) 16:14, 27 November 2007 (UTC)


Mackensen, the following is especially for you. No, silence is not consent; but I'm assuming that we're to believe Durova's own claims about people who read and commented on the report (as opposed to merely seeing or "receiving" the report, which means nothing.) Here, on her ArbCom election page, she gives some information about people who she knows did read the report. She knows it because she discussed it with them and heard their "positive to enthusiastic" comments on it:
roughly two dozen people received the report. Those included people from the Foundation, and some (not all) members of ArbCom, and some people who had checkuser privileges. I did not run this through the Committee formally and received no explicit assurance that any checkuser had been run. I discussed the investigation in depth with roughly five people, all sleuths like myself. The information was actually very simple to disprove with one key fact one fact [sic]. None of the people who responded had access to that key fact. The responses I did receive ranged from positive to enthusiastic. I'm certain we all would have changed our minds immediately if that key information had been available to us. I'd really rather not name these people, because that would just cause them hassle and ultimately the responsibility for the decision rests with me. "
The responses I did receive ranged from positive to enthusiastic..." It's hard to tell from that somewhat diffuse text if these positive to enthusiastic responders included arbs, Foundation representatives, and/or CheckUsers. The text certainly can't be taken as evidence of anything like that. I do think, however, that it's evidence that blocking user:!! was discussed. What else would "we all" have changed our minds about..? "We all" were Durova and "roughly five people, all sleuths like myself." I'm not sure what or who "sleuths like myself" are. The report is cast in the form of a lecture from a teacher, strongly implying, to my mind, that Durova was, or is, still teaching her Sock Outing School, and these fellow sleuths are/were her students. Perhaps Jehochman can tell us if that is the case. Anyway. Stay with me, please, because I really am going somewhere: to the conclusion that these, perhaps junior, sock investigators or sleuths are on the face of it the most likely readers and commenters, since Durova "discussed the investigation in depth" with them. And if it wasn't them, it was some of the other, more senior wikipedians. In any case, the enthusiastic responders were trusted users. Trusted by Durova, to put it no more highly. I believe my reasoning answers your question whether Giano has evidence that trusted users were complicit in the block. Not answers it very usefully, perhaps, since Durova won't say who the sleuths were; but certainly it justifies Giano's claims that trusted users were complicit. Let me add a curiosity: whoever they were, they were better than me. I have private information, which I will share with any arbitrator on request, that Durova claimed that the reason I wasn't consulted was that I was less trustworthy than the people she did consult. This was a rather sudden reversal, as she had actually long been in the habit of consulting me on various matters. Ironically, the block and everything that followed on it would never have happened if she had consulted me, since I was well aware of the missing "key fact": the previous account of User:!!. Bishonen | talk 19:38, 27 November 2007 (UTC).
Whoever the alleged famous five are, I'm sure they are cringing with embarrassment right now. 'Outing' them wouldn't seem to serve any useful purpose. And I'm still not convinced that giving someone bad advice, either mitigates the advised, or is a hanging offence.--Docg 19:47, 27 November 2007 (UTC)
Truly? You are all very keen to hang me! Giano (talk) 20:03, 27 November 2007 (UTC)
Only because you wear that silly pink bathrobe. Lsi john (talk) 20:06, 27 November 2007 (UTC)
(Edit Conflict) Since you have asked, Bishonen, I will shine light on these matters. No, Durova did not discuss this investigation with me, neither in depth, nor in brief. I am a junior member on two mailing lists where investigations are discussed. I didn't see any in-depth discussion, nor a proposal to block !!, but I don't have time to read every message. These lists are less accurately characterized as a "Sock Outing School" than as "more senior wikipedians". - Jehochman Talk 20:23, 27 November 2007 (UTC)
So who were the five then? Giano (talk) 21:57, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

Un-indenting and responding to Bishonen. This is rather like deciphering Altschrift texts. As I've stated elsewhere, I believe there are two batches of communication. The first went to this private mailing list which included said notable figures. The text of the mail has since become known and it's clear that it didn't ask for an opinion on the merits of the block. The second batch are these "five people." I don't know who they are; I do know I wasn't one of them. My concern, as always, is to avoid painting with too broad a brush. Obviously it would be ideal if these people came forward, but there's no way to compel them without knowing who they are. I have reason to believe that no member of the Arbitration Committee expressed approval; I would be shocked if a checkuser had. Ultimately six people know the answer: Durova and the five. Arbcom has no power to compel testimony; all that we can do is state that the business is a shambles and move forward. Your comments demonstrate better than anything why self-selected groups like these are bad. You could have told Durova, if not who !! was, at least that he wasn't a troll. I didn't know who !! was, but I would have recognized the evidence as ridiculous, and would have put a quiet word in to Giano, asking who was moving his archives around (as if he'd let a troll!) Bishonen, I'm not sure this is the response you want, but this is how I see things. Can I be of further help? Mackensen (talk) 14:59, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

For the 100th time, she would not have asked me, because in the "evidence" she thought I was one of "the team" of socks, and that is something I would dearly love to see the evidence for. Giano (talk) 15:48, 28 November 2007 (UTC)
Indeed, and I didn't mean to imply that she would have; I'm saying that I would have asked you. "You" above means Bishonen. Mackensen (talk) 15:56, 28 November 2007 (UTC)
Replied here, thanks. I guess it was no accident I wasn't asked either. Bishonen | talk 16:30, 28 November 2007 (UTC).
I've decided I am realy not happy with some of the information and evidence that has been presented here, we are far from rapping this up. I have made a point [5] and we need it answering. Giano (talk) 16:51, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] "Care"

Proposed remedy one says: "Durova is admonished to exercise greater care when issuing blocks."

This seems a bit vague - what kind of care? -- !! ?? 18:54, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

  • It would be my hope that she (and other administrators) take the enumerated principles--which discuss responsiveness, good faith, and transparency--to heart. In her case the question at this point is perhaps academic. Mackensen (talk) 19:00, 26 November 2007 (UTC)
So I see. I was not aware of that development at the time. I still think "care" is a bit vague and could be linked more explicitly to the principles. This case is not so important for this particular block, as for its ramifications for the gathering of secret evidence and blocking of alleged "abusive sockpuppets". -- !! ?? 19:06, 26 November 2007 (UTC)
Gathering evidence wasn't the problem in this case; its grossly inappropriate application and the absence of transparency were. Examining one another's edits is part of the way in which we maintain Wikipedia, and we're seldom going to be aware that someone has examined our editing history, and in what depth. The principle is that if an action is to be taken its reasons should not be half-baked, but clear and transparent, so if a user is blocked the reason for the blocking should (usually) be readily apparent to all, subject to review and reversal.
There are exceptions to transparency, for certain actions under OTRS, oversight, checkuser and the like, where confidentiality, legal considerations, and so on dictate a different handling and the person taking them is one whose identity is known by the Foundation and who is deputized for that purpose). Even there, accountability applies either at Community level through dispute resolution in the case of OTRS edits, or at Foundation level, through the Ombudsman commission. --Tony Sidaway 02:00, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Remedies

As an arbitrator noted, proposed remedy 3 (Durova to stand for reconfirmation as admin) has been overtaken by events. I would suggest that proposed remedy 1 has also. It admonishes Durova to exercise greater care issuing blocks - something she will no longer be doing. Jd2718 (talk) 20:42, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

  • She could be one again. Converting into a general remedy might make sense, but sans the admonition. Mackensen (talk) 20:44, 26 November 2007 (UTC)
    • You mean that if she goes though RFA, and reacquires adminship, she must then stand for reconfirmation? →AzaToth 02:01, 27 November 2007 (UTC)
      No, that's remedy 3. The question was about remedy 1, "Durova is admonished to exercise greater care when issuing blocks", but mentioned the withdrawal of remedy 3 in passing. --Tony Sidaway 02:04, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Clarification on #7

I'm just curious as to whether or not this means what it seems to mean. Can Durova--say after a month or two--simply find a 'crat who is friendly with her, and summarily get her sysop back? If determing whether someone's desysop was controversial is at the "discretion" of the 'crat, that would seem to be the case. I don't really have a personal opinion one way or the other--I've never been blocked by Durova--but it would seem that this Arb case has stirred sufficient controversy to REQUIRE that she reapply through normal channels, if and when she wishes to have the sysop back. Mr Which??? 01:25, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

See remedy 4. Christopher Parham (talk) 01:28, 27 November 2007 (UTC)
(edit conflict) Proposed remedy no. 4 appears to address this inference. "Normal channels" in this context is Arbspeak for "through a new RfA." Newyorkbrad (talk) 01:33, 27 November 2007 (UTC)
Yes, proposed principle 7 is just boilerplate that states the general practice, while sometimes a case will carry a specific remedy saying, in effect, "but on this occasion the arbitration committee specifically rules that this administrator resigned in controversial circumstances." That's what has happened here. "Normal channels" is unclear and should really say explicitly "through an RFA". --Tony Sidaway 01:45, 27 November 2007 (UTC)
Thanks for the clarification. It seemed that #7 was providing a loophole to allow for quick regaining of the sysop, but I can see your point about #4 being pretty explicit in its requirement. Mr Which??? 01:47, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Just for the record

It surprised me greatly that the voting phase opened so soon after the case opened. This morning when I still hoped to present a defense I asked for more time. Received no response to either my post or the e-mails and two more arbitrators voted immediately afterward. So I resigned the tools. This was clearly moving forward in so hasty a manner that it denied the opportunity for defense. If the Committee means to be gracious by carving some loophole for me to regain the tools without community approval, I think that would be counterproductive - it gives exactly the appearance of back room dealing that has raised the community's concern. I haven't asked anyone for that. If the Committee wishes to prolong the case in any way, perhaps my comments to the Workshop would be helpful. Particularly the chilling effect that results from unruly and hyperbolic discussion. Otherwise, I ask the Committee to end this and close the drama. Let's move on. DurovaCharge! 03:39, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

"This was clearly moving forward in so hasty a manner that it denied the opportunity for defense." What goes around... east.718 at 03:44, November 27, 2007
...comes around. Excellent point. DEVS EX MACINA pray 03:59, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

Request you refactor. Two wrongs don't make a right. I've acknowledged the mistake and apologized. If you wish to bury the hatchet, please don't bury it in my back. Wikipedia isn't a battleground. DurovaCharge! 04:00, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

I apologize, I am still somewhat bitter about a good contributor leaving. My point stands though. east.718 at 04:05, November 27, 2007
I'm very sorry, and if I could undo that I would. DurovaCharge! 04:08, 27 November 2007 (UTC)
East has nothing to apologize for. What was said was true: when you make a clearly inappropriate block, that costs the project an outstanding editor, what goes around does come around. No one is burying a hatchet in your back. Rather, you're simply reaping the whirlwind that you yourself have sown, based on your secretive and highly questionable methods. To expect there to be no anger expressed at you as a result displays more than a bit of hubris. Mr Which??? 04:14, 27 November 2007 (UTC)
Everybody deserves civility and a fair trial-- even people who you feel didn't grant those rights to others. --Alecmconroy (talk) 04:22, 27 November 2007 (UTC) (and to add, even if she has been part of a secret militia, as far as I can tell, Durova hasn't demonstrated intentional incivility.) ---Alecmconroy (talk) 04:24, 27 November 2007 (UTC)
What else can I do to make this better? I've resigned the bit. Just now I've asked the Committee not to make it easier for me to get back, although they were moving toward that. If there's something else you want, please articulate it. DurovaCharge! 04:28, 27 November 2007 (UTC)
(ec)I'm not talking about incivility or an unfair trial. I'm talking about attempting to quell the commnity's justified anger at being deprived of a valuable editor based upon secretive and highly questionable methods. Not all anger is uncivil; not all quick "trials" (ArbCom isn't actually a trial) are unfair. [As for what you can do, Durova, you can allow people to be angry with you, without asking them to "refactor" or whatever.] Mr Which??? 04:30, 27 November 2007 (UTC)
Goading someone who has expressed a legitimate complaint about the speed of the process with "what goes around comes around" is not helpful. The purpose of dispute resolution is to right wrongs and resolve problems, not to perpetrate more wrongs or to have a "dig" at someone when he's down. --Tony Sidaway 06:32, 27 November 2007 (UTC)
!! is more than welcome to come back - there is a personal invitation from Jimbo himself on !!'s talk page (how many unfairly blocked editors get that treatment?), it's quite clear that !!'s reputation in this matter is completely untainted, and Durova has taken full responsibility for her error. It is now out of Durova's hands - only !! can decide if and when to return - so continuing to express anger at Durova accomplishes nothing. ATren (talk) 06:27, 27 November 2007 (UTC)
As Durova is no longer requesting more time, I have no objections to a speedy conclusion. Paul August ☎ 05:02, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Amerique/Academy Leader

You know, I was wondering how to bring up Jehochman's block of my alternate account User:Academy Leader in context of these events. I don't really know or care whether this was discussed off-site prior to him posting this rationale on ANI: Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/IncidentArchive328#Academy_Leader_Blocked, but par for the course lately, the account was blocked (with an autoblock that also affected "Amerique." ElinorD removed it) before any inquiry or fair warning was made to me personally. (The most recent offensive "incident" that seemed to precipitate the block being my leaving a kind note on User:Privatemusings talk page.) However, as the block seemed to have immediate popular support, both among posters to WP and WR, (to be judged by their relative lack of a response or interest) I decided not to contest it, and for what it is worth, intend to avoid further engagement in areas of policy "AL" was active in. (Though I feel the block was unnecessary, as I had long left trolling behind, and only continued to use the account in discussions where use of another account could have been considered deceptive.) No hard feelings on my part. Regards all, Ameriquedialectics 04:38, 27 November 2007 (UTC)
I didn't have anything to do with his actions there. Did you discuss it with him afterward? DurovaCharge! 04:43, 27 November 2007 (UTC)
I haven't had further contact with him beyond the unanswered messages on "AL's" talk page. But really, I've moved on. And this block saves me from any feeling of a moral obligation to respond to whatever disturbances still occur at WP:NPA as a consequence of my forking badsites. A blessing in disguise, as it were. Ameriquedialectics 04:50, 27 November 2007 (UTC)
I did not notice those messages or else I would have responded. My email is enabled, and you had another account. You also had the options of using {{unblock}} or emailing the unblock mailing list. For those unfamiliar with this case, there is a thorough presentation of evidence at Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/IncidentArchive328#Academy_Leader_Blocked, and I especially direct your attention to this comment by User:ElinorD. - Jehochman Talk 04:56, 27 November 2007 (UTC)
Amerique has contacted me via email, and I have responded. - Jehochman Talk 05:40, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

If there is any doubt:

"Good block. Wikipedia is not a role-playing game. --jpgordon∇∆∇∆ 16:25, 18 November 2007 (UTC)"[6]

Thanks. - Jehochman Talk 06:40, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Call for Recusal

I'm surprised to see that the arbiters who were involved in this have not recused themselves. It seems to me that a central element of this case involves the question of whether participating in a secret list to present secret evidence is an appropriate behavior for a member of the community. This presents the arbiters who DID engage in this behavior with a conflict of interest.

No arbiter, however fair, can reasonably be expected to impartially judge their own actions. I would strongly urge the arbiters who were involved to immediately recuse themselves. --Alecmconroy (talk) 04:16, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

The case is done. It's time to move on. east.718 at 04:27, November 27, 2007
The existence and operation of mailing lists external to Wikipedia does not seem to be considered by the arbitration committee to be an issue in this case. No principles, findings, or remedies have (yet) been raised on this matter. The question of recusal is therefore moot. --Tony Sidaway 05:14, 27 November 2007 (UTC)
Indeed. The most important issues raised by this incident must be dealt with outside of arbcom. "Moving on" includes dealing with those issues; but should not include unneeded drama. WAS 4.250 (talk) 09:56, 27 November 2007 (UTC)
Tony, that's baloney. It isn't moot. If any arbiters here were participants in the secret mailing list that Durova was using to seek validation for her "sleuthing" efforts and tenuously-justified indefinite blocks, then they shouldn't be sitting in this case. They should openly declare it and recuse themselves. If this case closes and then it comes out that any of the participating arbiters were on any of Durova's lists, they're going to have to answer for why they didn't declare this when they had the chance to. Cla68 (talk) 01:25, 28 November 2007 (UTC)
I admit I find this an unclear point. Here is what I know. Of the two lists, Cyberstalking and Investigations, only the latter could be called "Durova's." (Note: I'm not on either) I was aware of the circumstances which led to the creation of the former, and it emphatically was not a "sleuthing" list, at least not at the outset. The email in question, which detailed the evidence assembled by Durova, was sent to to cyberstalking, not investigations. No evidence has been brought forth (or leaked) that Durova solicited opinions concerning the merits of a block; I have read the email myself and find no such wording. This does not preclude the possibility of additional private messages--such things have been hinted at--but it does seem to exonerate the members of the list. If it was found that arbitrators had signed off on the evidence, or the block, then that might be a different matter. Absent such proof, however, you're asking arbitrators to recuse based on email of questionable provenance sent to a mailing list established for a different purpose, without being able to establish that they read the email. I would reiterate that I have seen no evidence (and would welcome such) that the "investigations" list played any role whatsoever. Feel free to correct me on the details, but I'm just not seeing it. Mackensen (talk) 01:37, 28 November 2007 (UTC)
Yes, had any arbitrator examined the email and commented upon whether it constituted evidence of blockable behavior, he should recuse. Sorry if I was unclear on that point.
east718 casts a much broader net: "It seems to me that a central element of this case involves the question of whether participating in a secret list to present secret evidence is an appropriate behavior for a member of the community."
And he specifically asks arbitrators on all closed mailing lists where Wikipedia-related evidence is exchanged to recuse themselves (presumably exempting arbcom-l!). This is why I addressed the fact that the Committee does not appear to consider such memberships to be an issue (I think it would be a little extraordinary if they did). --Tony Sidaway 15:30, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Wording of finding #1

Because two arbitrators have objected to the wording "No reasonable administrator would have blocked..." in proposed finding of fact 1, I suggest the alternative "It was not reasonable for an administrator to block..." which I think addresses the objection by changing the focus to the particular action rather than characterizing a person as reasonable or not.

The heading "Evaluation of the block" was taken from the Workshop where the block in question had previously been identified. If this is going to be the first mention of the block, then a more descriptive heading such as "Durova's block of !!" should be used. Newyorkbrad (talk) 06:02, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

You could change the wording to "Durova's block of !! was inappropriate and the evidence she had was inadequate to justify such a block."

By the way, I don't see the need for "Durova is admonished to exercise greater care when issuing blocks" when she voluntarily gave up her admin powers. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 59.189.58.115 (talk) 10:48, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

I don't think the wording is so bad, although it is may be a litlle legalistic. We are not judging Durova as a person in a criminal court, merely her actions is this case (maybe in other cases which were presented as evidence). Her actions were "unreasonable" as in "without legitimate reason". At least, that's the way I see it… How about "Durova's block of !! [was not/could not be] justified on the basis of the evidence that she supplied". Linguists, please! Physchim62 (talk) 13:55, 27 November 2007 (UTC)
I think the wording is actually needlessly offensive. "No reasonable administrator would have blocked" implies that any administrator that did block (i.e. Durova) is not reasonable i.e. is irrational). Now, whilst a decision to block on that evidence was certainly unreasonable, rational people sometime do unreasonable or unjustifiable things. Characterising the block as unreasonable is fine, taking that as evidence that the blocker is, more generally, an "unreasonable administrator" is not. Criticise the action, not the person. It is the difference between saying "your post seems idiotic" and "you are an idiot".--Docg 14:05, 27 November 2007 (UTC)
The wording was from a proposal of mine on the workshop and should not be blamed on the arbitrators. As I hope most editors realize, the form of words is a standard formulation that is used in findings of fact in other contexts, such as "no reasonable driver would have entered the intersection at that speed" (which doesn't mean that the particular driver is always unreasonable, just that he or she did an unreasonable thing in that instance). Needless to say, no offense of any kind is intended which is why I have now proposed an alternate wording that addresses this issue. Newyorkbrad (talk) 14:36, 27 November 2007 (UTC)
It is a curious paradox that the driver of the car in front is never reasonable. Indeed the severity of his unreasonableness is most frequently expressed in minutes of arc and yards of tarmacadam. His hopelessness is only rivalled by that of the driver of the car behind, whose mounting impatience can be measured in semitones, decibels and vulgarities. --Tony Sidaway 14:50, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

Would any other admins have blocked on the "evidence" as presented? Hands up, please.

Yes, Tony, we all have feet of clay. -- !! ?? 18:33, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Sleuthing and secrecy

Is the committee planning a general comment on sleuthing and secrecy in the findings of fact? I think to elide this would be a huge mistake. Something like "Durova's unremarkable sleuthing method in no way justified secrecy when confronted with good faith questions from other administrators." This might be prefaced by a general statement on sleuthing, but I don't know where the committee stands. While I'm at it, I'd suggest 3.2.2 and 3.3.2 are useless and in some ways off the mark. Marskell (talk) 18:42, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

(Durova's request for an extra few days is reasonable. This is flying, by ArbCom standards.) Marskell (talk) 18:43, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

I agree - there is no reason to rush Durova if she feels she needs time to formulate her evidence. I should be very happy indeed to see her post more evidence about her activities, and those of her fellow "sleuths", more generally. This event is not simply about my being block - that was just a catalyst.
I'm not entirely sure what a "general admonishment" is meant to achieve - "some of you were naughty, but we are not picking out examples; now, all of you just go and play nice, m'kay"? -- !! ?? 18:49, 27 November 2007 (UTC)
Plus it may serve to tar editors who were quite properly questioning a bad block. Marskell (talk) 19:04, 27 November 2007 (UTC)
I've withdrawn my request for more time. I posted that when three arbitrators had voted. Two more voted immediately afterward so I decided that with 1/3 of the Committee having already declared their opinion before my evidence was half finished, that sent a real message to the community that looked like no defense was possible. I resigned the bit then. And when I saw afterward that one arbitrator had agreed with the request for more time, I basically asked them to consider a couple of things that are already on the table and right now I'm leaving it at that. This arbitration is the worst of all worlds, in my view. It's still getting disruption from ban-evaders. I almost don't care if it's wrong. Haven't I been sorry enough? Please let this end. DurovaCharge! 19:46, 27 November 2007 (UTC)
If (you suspect) there are ban-evaders commenting, you might contact a couple of the arbitrators or a couple of admins you trust, present your reasoning, and ask them to deal with it. If you can cogently describe who the ban-evaders are without disclosing anyone's personal details, do so on AN/I. You have apologized at length, and I don't doubt that you are sorry this happened, but there is no admittance that your methodology and the insistence on secrecy were flawed. In fact, your oblique reference to ban-evaders now reinforces that the central lesson hasn't been learned. The Committee needs to make a comment on sleuthing and secrecy not to shame you, but to provide a proper caveat to any future investigations of the sort you pursue. Marskell (talk) 20:33, 27 November 2007 (UTC)
Exactly. That is my biggest issue with this whole thing: through it all, Durova will not admit that her super triple secret methodology was little more than something anyone with more than a few edits could figure out, and that there was a very high possibility of false-positives. I think if she would simply say unequivocally, "Both I and my methods were wrong" with no caveats about "ban-evaders" and the like, more people would be willing to forgive and forget--especially sans the sysop. Instead, we get complaints that this ArbCom is "the worst of all worlds." To me, apologies ring hollow in the face of the context in which they are placed by her other words. Mr Which??? 23:53, 27 November 2007 (UTC)
  • Oh, there are "ban evaders" present here, certainly. At least one, anyway; I've already blocked one (User:SpamWatcher) as an Awbrey sock. --jpgordon∇∆∇∆ 19:20, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Private correspondence <-> private content?

Why does proposed principles 3.1.2 and 3.1.6 talk about "private correspondence", and then proposed enforcement 3.4.1 talks about "private content"? Does the latter mean the same as the former, or is it meant to be wider?

I also don't really understand the link to Wikipedia:Copyrights: is this about privacy or confidentiality, or about copyright? -- !! ?? 20:25, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

In this very junior wikipedian's estimation, it's about whichever of the above will stick the best. Because I don't think it's truly about any of them. Though I both understand, and agree with, the general principle of keeping private things private, this was more about keeping embarrassing things secret and has little or nothing to do with copyright or privacy. Lsi john (talk) 20:35, 27 November 2007 (UTC)
No, it's about maintaining site policies which are intended to support the production of an encyclopedia, not the abuse of the wiki to conduct open warfare. --Tony Sidaway 20:41, 27 November 2007 (UTC)
Open warfare? Are you describing Durova's actions as "open warfare" on supposed Wikipedia Review sleeper agents, or are you using that phrase to describe editor's efforts to hold her accountable for her actions, or both? I assume you don't mean that in relation to Durova, because here actions were apparently meant to be kept as secret as possible. Cla68 (talk) 08:06, 28 November 2007 (UTC)
I refer to activities following the block on which the arbitration committee has now made two strongly supported findings of fact (5, "Subsequent discussion", and 7, "Giano"). Part of the disruptive activities was, according to the Committee, the posting of private correspondence. --Tony Sidaway 15:37, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

There is no private content without an expectation of privacy. Sending a letter or e-mail automatically means that it is not private: it was sent. See below, though: the owner is the person who receives the e-mail. Anyone remember the Brad the cad furore in London? There are loads of these. Basically, I can do what I will with an e-mail you send me, even without a GNU license on the mailing list (cough cough). Geogre (talk) 11:54, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

In which jurisdiction? A recent High Court ruling in the UK found that original expression in email enjoys copyright protection (Cembrit Blunn Ltd and Dansk Eternit Holding A/S versus Apex Roofing Services LLP and Alexander Leader, case no HC05C01951). I should be very, very interested in any finding, by any court in any jurisdiction, to the effect that the recipient of an email holds the copyright in the original expression of the sender. --Tony Sidaway 21:42, 28 November 2007 (UTC)
You may not misrepresent the words, claim them as your own, etc. In that regard, copyright adheres. However, a court ruling going back to George II in 1727 maintains that the disposal and right to reprint, publish, or destroy a letter adheres to the recipient. Thus, if I mail you a letter with a pithy story idea, and you steal the idea, I can say that I held copyright. If you decide to share the letter with other people, it was your right so to do, regardless of how de classe it is. This is an important distinction between copyright for profit or representation and copyright to reproduce. The "Brad the cad" furore involved, as I recall, a lady who wrote an admiring e-mail to "Brad" about the night of passion they had enjoyed in London (not, one hastens to add, in New York). He was a twenty-seven year old lawyer, as the New York Times recounts the case here (it is a pertinent article), I believe, and he forwarded the e-mail to his comrades. They forwarded it more. It thus made the rounds, and the young lady, whose name was signed to the e-mail, felt that she had been degraded by the propagation of this e-mail. Unfortunately, although "Brad" was reviled generally, she did not have standing in the British courts. She sent the e-mail. After that, it was his. The lesson drawn from this, of course, is that one should never write anything in an e-mail that one would not be prepared to defend publically. Utgard Loki (talk) 18:05, 29 November 2007 (UTC)
Thanks for that link. However it doesn't say anything about copyright at all, and very little about the case in question. More to the point, no court was involved in that instance at all, so there can have been no case law. So, could you cite this other, 1727 case? How would it stack up in the context of later legislation such as the various US copyright acts, including the more recent DMCA? --Tony Sidaway 15:07, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

Oh, gosh - that Brad - and his paramour. Not the one in New York, obviously.

Tony: are you by any chance an expert on intellectual property law? Or you, Utgard Loki? I admit, I am not either; however, I have just read the judgment of the case that Tony cites (for whatever a case in the English High Court is worth in this context) - a copy is available at BAILII - here - a fascinating case decided by Mr Justice Kitchin (formerly an IP silk at 8 New Square - a really top-notch IP set, incidentally - other recent tenants include Lord Justice Jacob, Sir Hugh Laddie, and Judge Michael Fysh QC).

From the report, that case arises from a dispute about fibre-cement roof slates which resemble natural slates, but which were alleged to be defective, curling excessively when exposed to moisture (not great for roof tiles in the UK). Anyway, some correspondence ("the Letter") between two of the defendants was leaked to the other party, who circulated copies of it (see para.3.). Interesting as it is, the case is all pretty derivative stuff.

Skipping to para.72 - "the Letter was clearly a private internal communication ... it was plainly not intended for circulation outside [the defendant companies]." From para.86 and 89, it seems clear that an expert witness was provided a copy of the letter (in confidence), but his engagement was terminated, and he was then engaged by the other party, to whom he leaked the letter. The claimants eventually sent a copy of the letter back to the defendants, as a demonstration of how weak their case was and to pressure them into settling (see para.116).

The defendants launched a claim for infringement of copyright and misuse of confidential information in relation to the Letter, but the claimants counterclaimed that the tiles were defective (which, in the event, it was held that they indeed were), and the IP claim became subsidiary to the main issue. Nevertheless, paras 233 to 264 consider the IP claims. It is pretty clear that the Letter is an "original literary work" and that copyright subsists in it. More importantly, the letter was confidential - it contained confidential information, was communicated in circumstances importing an obligation of confidence, and there was an unauthorised or wrongful use or disclosure of the information. It is clear that the information was private and confidential (para.243), and was communicated to the expert and then the claimant in a confidential manner (para.247, 248). The manager at the claiminat to whom the letter was provided "appreciated that he had taken possession of a confidential document".

Here come an important part - para.250 - which I will quote in full: "It is well settled that the public interest in the preservation of confidence may be outweighed by a countervailing public interest in favour of disclosure. A party who has received confidential information may have a just cause or excuse for disclosure and it may even be his duty to reveal what he knows."

The claimant said the Letter showed the defendant's bad faith, and so they were justified in making use of it. In this case, the judge was having none of that (paras.252-257). He also thought it was not "fair dealing" (para.258)

So, what does this first instance High Court decision have to do with the price of cheese, one may ask?

It is certainly clear, under English law, at least, that any copyright in a letter belongs to the person who writes it, not the person who receives it, and the recipient does not normally have a right to publish the letter (see, for example, Pope v Curl (1741) 2 Atk 342) or copy it (see, for example, British Oxygen v Liquid Air [1925] Ch 383). However, it is also clear that the recipient of a physical letter owns the paper on which it is written (see, for example, Oliver v Oliver (1861) 11 CBNS 139). Subject to concerns about confidentiality and legal privilege, the recipient can show the (physical) letter or communicate its contents to whom he likes (Philip v Pennell [1907] 2 Ch 577), or even display it in public - nailed to a lamp post or whatever. However, in special circumstances (for example, to refute personal imputations) the receipient of a letter may publish it (Lord and Lady Perceval v Phipps (1813) 2 Ves & B 19, and Labouchère v Hess (1897) 77 LT 5598). For more detail, I refer you to para.71 of Vol.9(2) of Halsbury's Laws. OK? -- !! ?? 20:04, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

As an aside in response to !!'s plaintive edit summary- cheese is depressingly expensive:(Merkinsmum 20:15, 29 November 2007 (UTC)
Thanks. I think we all have our opinions on whether the posting of the email served any useful purpose or was intended to do so (and I've discussed my opinion on this elsewhere). I wanted to know why Geogre claimed that "the owner is the person who receives the e-mail." I'm still not clear why he thinks this, but your analysis of the case, if correct, bears out my impression that, certainly in UK law, this is not the case. We'll have to wait and see what Geogre has to say about US copyright law. --Tony Sidaway 15:15, 30 November 2007 (UTC)
Tony: I am not sure why you are so interested in that case. To be clear: the copyright status of e-mails is not considered at all in the judgment. The very term "e-mail" does not appear once. The case does briefly discuss the general copyright status of a letter - an area that has been considered in many more authoritative cases since at least the 18th century - but spends much more time deciding whether the fibre-cement roof slates are defective, and whether the letter is and remains confidential.
Neither is the copyright status of an e-mail specifically mentioned in the paragraph from Halsbury that I mention above (although it does say that receipient of a letter may publish it in certain circumstances, even if the author retains copyright).
Perhaps you might like to visit your local library and pull out a copy of Laddie, Prescott and Vitoria's Modern Law of Copyright and Designs, hmm? Chapter 34A (The Internet) will be most relevant. -- !! ?? 19:20, 30 November 2007 (UTC)
I don't think that will be necessary. We've established that Geogre is talking tosh about the email. --Tony Sidaway 11:42, 1 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Observation on private correspondence

Current:

  • "2) 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."

Observation:

  • Summaries and refactors which do not breach copyright are not affected.

Explanation - If a copyright text is relevant to a case, and would (but for copyright) be posted, then it may instead be summarized or precis'ed, and the summary is permissible to post on-wiki. (Which is basically what we do in article space with many copyright texts, we refactor, summarize, extract key information, and rewrite them to convey the same information but without copyvio.) This reconciles any division between copyright and usual scrutiny of evidence.

This is a significant enough point that it may be worth mentioning in that principle. It means that copyright is not usually a "barrier" to evidence; it merely means the evidence cannot be presented in its full textual form. A summary, rewording, or description is unaffected.

(Note that this does not say that evidence "should" be presented because of this. It says simply, it is permissible to, and that this is not a complete barrier to it; it only prevents publication in its original wording.)

FT2 (Talk | email) 21:29, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

  • With the corollary that the real thing is sent to the committee. Mind you, the committee is and has always been loath to consider off-wiki evidence because of the reliability and context problems, but this is a reasonable approach. Mackensen (talk) 21:35, 27 November 2007 (UTC)
Agreed. I was under the impression that in most cases, the committee might have the original which they were unwilling to make public due to copyright issues, perhaps. My eye was more towards future cases where the same principle might arise, and to ensure a partial view was not made a precedent without further thought. FT2 (Talk | email) 21:59, 27 November 2007 (UTC)
  • FT2, to help quell the controversy could you possibly add a suitably refactored version of the document to the evidence page of this case? - Jehochman Talk 21:42, 27 November 2007 (UTC)
No, because Ive not seen it, nor sought to see it, nor has it ever been even close to being anywhere like in my possession. My apologies. This was purely an outside note on a proposal that needed a corollary pointing out, nothing more. FT2 (Talk | email) 21:57, 27 November 2007 (UTC)
Ahem - have you read this section of my evidence? It already contains a summary of the controversial "report". It doesn't quite achieve the full effect, but is, I hope, a fair summary.
I think all versions on-wiki have been oversighted now, but a couple of the you-know-whos (no, not Lord Voldemort) have copies. I have seen it, of course, although funnily enough Durova has not sent one to me for some reason. Mmm. -- !! ?? 22:01, 27 November 2007 (UTC)
Just clarifying - this section wasn't about whether the evidence is shown in this case or not, it was more to make sure that if a proposal was made (as seems likely), then this point was considered and (if appropriate) included, before it was signed off on as final. That's all. FT2 (Talk | email) 22:05, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

I was going to post similar concerns before this thread popped up. While emails (and similar correspondences) are certainly not copyright-ineligible, the basic principles of copyright are such that copyright pleas over email tend to be rather ludicrous, with exceptions for certain unorthodox exchanges. Perhaps the concern was voiced too late (the case blew through workshop rather fast, but I can't complain about speed), but if it wouldn't be too much trouble, I'd support modifying so as to remove or qualify the Wikipedia:Copyrights allusion. There are plenty of good reasons for keeping the majority of emails off-wiki: privacy rights, common courtesy, and sometimes protection of sensitive information, for example. Copyright just isn't one of them, in my view. — xDanielx T/C\R 07:33, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

There is copyright on letters. This much is clear. However, the kick is this: the ownership of a letter is the recipient and not the author. Why? Imagine "The Collected Letters of Dwight D. Eisenhower" being published before his death. Suppose one of those letters to Miss Kaye seemed endearing and he didn't want anyone to know. He could not call back that letter from her and assert ownership. It's hers. Therefore, she can give it to a publisher. When we on Wikipedia had to refactor (ugly word for summarizes, edit, and paraphrase), it's to protect the owner of the letter -- its recipient. In the case of e-mail, if no ISP or servers have any claim of control, the rights would belong to the recipient of the e-mail. If that person then sends it to the FBI, that person is not liable. Therefore, it might be graceless to forward, but it is hardly illegal. Geogre (talk) 11:51, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

Yup. Of course, the Foundation is entitle to ban what it wants from its servers, and Wikipedia is entitle to have, and enforce, a rule against it, but the legal stuff smells of bullshit. I will, naturally, defer to any qualified lawyer who is willing to give legal advice in their own name and on the record.--Docg 20:05, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Saying D. Lied

"Oppose:

1.The Uninvited Co., Inc. 21:21, 27 November 2007 (UTC) The real issues are the refusal to discuss the rationale for the block and the false claim of receiving prior approval from this committee."

-Uninvited Co- Is this quite what Durova said, you are saying she lied? Is this really what you are saying? Confused.Merkinsmum (talk) 22:34, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

Actually, did Durova say "Arbcom approved this" (which appears false per the proposed decision) or did she say "some Arbitrators know about this"? And diffs? Thatcher131 23:09, 27 November 2007 (UTC)
No, that's not quite what D said- maybe she was deliberately ambiguous about who approved, is the worst that can be said of her.[7]Merkinsmum (talk) 23:38, 27 November 2007 (UTC)
That, friends, is the point. It was a solo action, but she has attempted to spread the blame by saying, 1) Other people told me to, 2) Some/many/a few/one of the people who agreed with me were arbs, 3) (Later) Ok, they were just quiet about what I was going to do. She did not say that she had any assent, but, when pressed, that she had silence, which she took then for consent, and then for assent, and then scaled back again. She has refused to say who the people were, and yet she has wanted us to take it on faith that they existed and that they all agreed. It wouldn't matter, though: saying that the President of the United States and the War Czar both wanted me to make an edit would not cut ice on Wikipedia, and saying that I have most of ArbCom agreeing with me won't do it, either. If it isn't on-Foundation media, it isn't. Geogre (talk) 11:47, 28 November 2007 (UTC)
I am in full agreement with that. Which rather makes the whole e-mail thing a sideshow/smokescreen. An admin made a very bad block, which lacks any justification in terms of the blocked user's activities, or on-wiki consensus. That's the whole game here.--Docg 15:09, 28 November 2007 (UTC)
The block isn't the whole game. The evasiveness and unjustified secrecy that followed is why there was such an outcry. This had on-wiki effects, such as Durova suggesting that anyone who wanted to question her would have to go to ArbCom to do it. rspeer / ɹəədsɹ 20:18, 28 November 2007 (UTC)
True. The Committee, however (and, for that matter, the community) is limited by policy and convention in what it can do. We can admonish admins to be careful. We can tell them to show their working. We can throw the book at admins who do neither. We cannot dictate modes of communication. Mackensen (talk) 20:28, 28 November 2007 (UTC)
I do not believe that Durova lied. I believe that Durova somehow thought she had a mandate where none existed. I would imagine that she was tragically confident of the results of her investigation, and had the block turned out to have been wise, no one would have noticed or cared. The Uninvited Co., Inc. 06:08, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] 8. Blocking

8) 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.

Jp: How about this re-wording: "Following a block of an active/established editor...." ? That would prevent unnecessary requirements for notifying one-time accounts, etc, while still maintaining the original intent. Lsi john (talk) 23:07, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

I question the wisdom of this entire proposal. Historically we have not regarded blocking of an account as a major problem; a block can be reversed and we have tons of other editors in the meantime if something needs to be done. I wonder why we're now treating a quickly reversed, if unwise and unjustified, block as such a big deal that it needed an arbitration case and a proposal to desysop a very, very good administrator. --Tony Sidaway 19:25, 28 November 2007 (UTC)
Seems kinda pointless to me, too, but (in the new form) harmless. "It's serious; be careful; try to avoid it." --jpgordon∇∆∇∆ 19:29, 28 November 2007 (UTC)
I think Uninvited's comment in opposition is pretty sensible and matches the way in which we actually use blocks. In private conversations with arbitrators in the past I seem to recall being told that the arbitrators would really like administrators to be quicker to block and ban than they have been historically. This case shows that an unwise block followed by refusal to discuss it properly can do much damage, but the principle does not follow from the case, nor does it match Wikipedia policy.
Administrators are expected to use their best judgement. Whilst a hypothetical chilling effect might conceivably occur if ever there were to be massive abuse of blocking powers, an actual chilling effect is visible on many articles right now due to Administrators being unwilling or unable to deal with fractious, abusive editors. Currently we're dealing once again with the Winter Soldier article at arbitration, and I wonder if this is substantially because those who have edited the article disruptively have not been dealt with properly. Moreover this arbitration, which in Finding 5 recognises that the discussion was the occasion of provocative behavior, has itself been used as a platform for provocative and unjustified attacks on the arbitration committee itself. Wikipedia must have order. Those who want to play silly buggers should be blocked. That should start right here and now on this arbitration proceeding. --Tony Sidaway 20:44, 28 November 2007 (UTC)
The problem in this case is that Durova appears to have accorded herself the right to decide who should be blocked, and was unwilling to discuss her reasons more widely. All users should be open to constructive criticism, Durova merely wanted comments from those who she had reason to believe would already agree with her. The Arbitration Committee should also be open to constructive criticism, and has received a lot of it in this election period. Who's playing silly buggers? Physchim62 (talk) 20:51, 28 November 2007 (UTC)
I completely agree with you that Durova's behavior was inappropriate (this is covered in my comment). I also agree that the arbitration committee must accept criticism where given in good faith. That doesn't excuse the disruption of this process by others. It is at such disruption alone that I direct my final comment. --Tony Sidaway 21:20, 28 November 2007 (UTC)


Tony you relise that anyone trying what you suggest would get hit with acusations of wheel waring?Geni 02:52, 29 November 2007 (UTC)
No. Reversal of bad blocks after review is routine. We even have a template for a blocked user to request such a review on his talk page. --Tony Sidaway 15:22, 30 November 2007 (UTC)
How did that aproach work out for Zscout370?Geni 21:17, 1 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Urgent request

In view of the tenor and content of the warning issued at User_talk:!!#Change of mind, which I find astonishing under the circumstances, I strongly request that my proposed remedy number 1 from the workshop be incorporated in the final decision. Newyorkbrad (talk) 23:12, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

  • What the hell? Mackensen (talk) 23:14, 27 November 2007 (UTC)
    • "What the hell?" directed at Newyorkbrad's request? Or at the bizarre behavior at User talk:!!? —Wknight94 (talk) 23:17, 27 November 2007 (UTC)
      • The latter. Remedy proposed; I had thought it went without saying that we wished !! to continue. Not my best reaction, but even so...Mackensen (talk) 23:19, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] A point of clarification

Has the arbitration committee ever given prior permission for a block to be issued, where that permission has been granted in a form other than an arbitration result? Finding of Fact 3.1 doesn't make it clear. Hiding T 09:49, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

Practice is unclear. In the past, individual arbitrators have blocked on the basis of evidence presented to them outside of open cases, that much is clear. Administrators also act in accordance with arbitration rulings in the sense of "same circumstances, same response". The point of FF3.1 seems to be to emphasize that, even if certain arbitrators might have had access to the "report", it was never discussed by the Committee. Physchim62 (talk) 20:58, 28 November 2007 (UTC)
In response to Hiding, there have been instances where we have encouraged blocks to be placed outside the context of an arbitration result, often partially as a result of checkuser investigations, and often where unlawful conduct is involved. I cannot recall any case where we have done so where the block was for an established good-faith contributor. As Physchim62 notes, we do occasionally block users ourselves. Regarding the "report," it should be made clear that it in no way appeared to be any sort of request for permission to block someone. Instead it appeared to be documentation of a method of identifying troublemakers that we perhaps should aspire to or learn from. I declined to adopt any such aspirations and did not find it instructive, and therefore gave it no further thought. The Uninvited Co., Inc. 06:01, 29 November 2007 (UTC)
I get that you block people yourself, but there's always been a pretty clear line between an arbitrator acting as an admin and an arbitrator acting as an arbitrator. I think the problem I was having was that it wasn't clear that the arbitration committee had ever issued a block outside of an arb-com case. To my mind, that's the only forum in which the committee should speak. In all other instances it is simply members acting individually, sort of like how one law Lord or Supreme Court member might issue a statement or guide on an approach, but they don't speak for the whole body. I just wanted to clarify that the arbitration committee, as opposed to individual members, weren't in the habit of issuing or endorsing anything outside of arb-com cases. Maybe that needs to be a principle somewhere, if only to make it clear that if you ask an arbitrator if you should block someone based on x, that arbitrator is not speaking for the committee, and that the person asking should not infer anything to that extent. Hiding T 09:45, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] flagellum equus mortuus

OK, as a community we all have differing views on the validity 1) posting e-mails and 2) using off-wiki communications. That's not going to change. However, perhaps we can agree that attempts to 'out' the 'famous five' on one hand, or pursue Giano on the other, are not going to be fruitful/helpful. Durova has desysopped, the sleuthing practices discredited, and there's nothing left to do here. I'm calling for unity, and I'm calling for arbcom to close this case now. Does anyone else agree?--Docg 22:24, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

Yes. I have no remaining disputes with any of the named parties and will be happy to work with them in the future. - Jehochman Talk 22:26, 28 November 2007 (UTC)
Have the sleuthing practices been discredited? I have seen no such statement from the "sleuths". There is talk of improving the methods to ensure something like this will not happen again, but I have not seen Durova or any of her supporters come out and say that the sleuthing should be and will be stopped. I suggested a principle regarding this in the Workshop, but the committee has not seen fit to include it (or a number of similar proposals) in the final decision. Isarig (talk) 22:48, 28 November 2007 (UTC)
Such a statement would not be useful. The committee can only police admin actions not thought processes. That's my point. Some people think that there's a wider problem - some see no evidence - but it is immaterial because there is no effective remedy logically possible here.--Docg 22:56, 28 November 2007 (UTC)
Why is such a statment not helpful? If we all agree that sleuthing is bad and should be stopped, shouldn't that be one of the principles involved? Once we have a statement on the record, the next time this happens (and be assured that there will be a next time, given the level of support these actiivities have gotten from numerous administrators on these pages), we will avoid much of the "drame" by simply invoking that principle and dealing with the violators. Isarig (talk) 23:03, 28 November 2007 (UTC)
They did address it.. in a manner of speaking.. any on-wiki action by admins must be justified openly or to arbcom.. (paraphrased). That doesn't stop the sleuthing, but it defangs 'secret evidence' being used. Lsi john (talk) 23:01, 28 November 2007 (UTC)
But the whole point is that the sleuthing itself is egregious bad faith, and should be stopped. Isarig (talk) 23:03, 28 November 2007 (UTC)
Rubbish. Bad sleuthing is bad. Overzealous sleuthing is harmful. Paranoia is destructive. But is "sleuthing" genuinely uncovers disruption or harassment, "sleuthing" is useful. Not even Giano would disagree with that. Any remedy on "sleuthing" would be incoherent anyway.--Docg 23:08, 28 November 2007 (UTC)
I don't call your statement which I vehemently disagree with 'Rubbish' - kindly extend me the same courtesy. Your initial statement above was 'the sleuthing practices discredited' - but you clearly don't mean or agree with that. It appears what you mean is that the Durova's skills were lacking, that she practiced "bad sleuthing", but that "good sleuthing" is not only not discredited, but is acceptable and worthwhile- that's just dead wrong. There is no need for sleuthing, good or bad, on this project. If there is a violation of policies - block the user. If there isn’t, there's no need for preemptive action. That's the heart of the matter. Isarig (talk)
I'm actually annoyed at myself. I stupidly continued the conversation with you, when my initial post was indicating that I felt further conversation was unhelpful now - since the outstanding matters are ones that lack any consensus. Sorry. I am now following my own advice and discontinuing the conversation. There is no longer anything useful to be said - which is why this case should now close. Goodnight.--Docg 23:40, 28 November 2007 (UTC)
Isarig, I don't disagree with your feelings.. but so should robbery, rape, inner city vandalism and a myriad of other things. The point is, we can't control or legislate what people do at home, behind their own keyboards. We can only limit what the do on-wiki. So, as disgusting and in bad-faith as the 'sleuthing' is/was/may have been, we can only attempt to restrict what is done with the results. Lsi john (talk) 23:09, 28 November 2007 (UTC)
We can control what people do on-wiki, and just like we have a principle of blocking users for disruption or trolling, we can have a principle that we block users for sleuthing. Isarig (talk) —Preceding comment was added at 23:37, 28 November 2007 (UTC)
Well, you'd better block me then. Really, I'm unwatching this page.--Docg 23:40, 28 November 2007 (UTC)
It is indeed my proposal that self-proclaimed "sleuths" stop what they're doing, or be blocked. If you are practicing "sleuthing", please stop. Isarig (talk) 23:44, 28 November 2007 (UTC)
Sorry, Isarig, as strongly as I'm opposed to the bad faith that was used, I could not disagree with you more. Trying to legislate sleuthing (an offline research activity) is no different than legislating whether you can edit wiki in pink pajamas. Sleuthing can be done without an account and without logging in. Our ability to restrict someone's actions (in this scenario) begins when they log in and click 'edit' and not before. Anyone is welcome to sleuth to their hearts content, but they are not welcome to bring the product of bad-faith onto wiki, unless they are prepared to offer full disclosure to justify any actions they take based on that sleuthing. And, as someone pointed out above, sleuthing (when conducted in the proper manner) is merely detective work, and can be based in good-faith. Not 'all' sleuthing is bad.. just the type of sleuthing that occurred in this case. Lsi john (talk) 23:49, 28 November 2007 (UTC)
We'll have to agree to disagree on that last part. There is simply no need for preemptive sleuthing on a collaborative project such as this. When disruption occurs, you fix it, and block the disruptor. There is no need to spy on other editors looking for clues about how they might disrupt the encyclopedia in the future. We can't prevent people from sleauthing - but if we say that the product of the sleuthing (a process which is, by definition, an exhibition of bad faith) is unwelcome on-wiki, we will have swept the carpet from beneath the "sleuths". For if they can;t use the product of their "sleuthign" for any on-wiki activiities - why bother? Isarig (talk) 23:56, 28 November 2007 (UTC)
Note, you just added preemptive to sleuthing, changing the discussion. Not that it changes what we can do, but my statement was that not all sleuthing is bad. When sleuthing equates to good detective work, regarding identified suspicious/disruptive accounts, FT2 is one of the best sleuths around. Lsi john (talk) 00:14, 29 November 2007 (UTC)
perhaps it was not clear to you, but I was referring to preemptive sleuthing, which is what Durova did, all along. When the disruption has already occurred, there is no need for sleuthing - it is out there, in the open, and we know who did it. Isarig (talk) 04:33, 29 November 2007 (UTC)
Way back up to Doc's question/comment: I would agree, Doc. The "famous five" did not agree to Durova's actions, and I believe (on private information, no less!) that they did not agree that the methods were wonderful. Finding this five or hitting Giano is really to fall right into the dodge that Durova was rightfully blamed for. She wanted everyone to go after the others who "told her" that what she was doing was right. I find it difficult to believe that they did so, and I reject the notion that they would be responsible had they done so, as the full context of all the conversation would be necessary to determine that there is any shared culpability.
That said, is the "sleuthing" rejected? Well, that particular method wasn't so special, and this is another instance where believing Durova's claims won't profit anyone here at this time. I do not mean to malign her, but I do believe that, when the bad stuff hit the spinning room cooling device she excused the actions with a number of exaggerated or misguided statements, and these included assertions of the magic mojo of the methods. Those who have seen them have found them variously shabby.
Is the mental habit of believing that Wikipedia has been infiltrated with fifth columnists over? No. Having a finding that officially establishes that beginning with an assumption that all new users and all returning users are suspects and that they need to be proven to be spies or "sleeper agents" (actual language) is destructive and harmful to Wikipedia would be welcome. It might be a finding that is cited by trolls and disruptors, of course, but that should never stop us from making it clear that "vandal hunting" and "spy snooping" and the like are extremely scary trends. They presuppose a seriousness of the "opposition" that is likely not there, credit the opposition with unlimited energy, numbers, and unflagging motivation, and end up validating all of the worst claims this "opposition" can make. Like the terrorist whose goal is to create terror, they win if they get Wikipedia to be closed, paranoid, self-destructive, and paralyzed by suspicion. J. Edgar Hoover and Matthew Hopkins cause more damage than Abbie Hoffman and the witches. Geogre (talk) 13:06, 29 November 2007 (UTC)
Wow, that's the third time I've agreed with you today. (We must have a secret cabal). Paranoia is extremely damaging tot he project (whether that's in imagining scheming cabals, or of seeing Wikipedia Review demons under the bed). And MacCarthyism is a deeply unpleasant phenomena. Of course, let's not be naive - "sleuthing" can be helpful. Regularly, I encounter a seemingly libellous article and I start investigating those who have added to it. The difference is I start with "probably cause" and try to keep an open mind that I may be reading things wrong. If in doubt I ask for a second opinion (yes, often in IRC). But that's common sense. Sleuthing is fine, providing the sleuth maintains a sense of proportion and is actually competent. Durova patently failed both of those tests. If she also allowed herself to be influenced by bad advice, or misunderstood comments as a green light - then more fool her.--Docg 00:54, 30 November 2007 (UTC)
Geogre, I've come to respect your reasoning, so please help me see this clearly. We all seem to agree Durova did something wrong, and that it was a mistake of judgement and conduct. If she did share her analysis and collaborate with others like she has claimed, then they rightfully share culpability, and it's in our interests to find that out. If she didn't, then that was an "untruth", and that should be on record also. I don't see the argument for not answering this question either way. Please correct me. sNkrSnee | ¿qué? 13:20, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Giano this, Giano that

[edit] Giano banned for 90 days

No way..... if this passes, you all have officially lost it. --Reinoutr (talk) 23:55, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

If this passes, I'm done. Mr Which??? 23:57, 28 November 2007 (UTC)
Yep, me too. --Reinoutr (talk) 23:58, 28 November 2007 (UTC)
I don't think this (if this passes i'm done, etc)is a helpful approach to commenting on the proposal. Mercury 00:05, 29 November 2007 (UTC)
I don't think your comment is helpful as well. Glad that's cleared. --Reinoutr (talk) 00:07, 29 November 2007 (UTC)
It seems my comment started helpful discussion. ;) Mercury 00:23, 29 November 2007 (UTC)
Right. It's all about you, Mercury. You got Giano added as a party, against all common sense. You managed to deflect a bit of the focus of this ArbCom from Durova. Yeah, your comment was very helpful. It's all about you. Good show. Mr Which??? 00:28, 29 November 2007 (UTC)
I don't give a damn what you think is "helpful" Mercury. You did this, while attempting to deflect blame from your friend in this disaster, and now Uninvited has created two extremely divisive and disruptive proposals. And how exactly is telling the truth about what I will be doing if this passes "unhelpful"? I think that the ArbCom folks should know full well that they will be chasing off good users if they do this thing. Mr Which??? 00:10, 29 November 2007 (UTC)
You got meat to those accusations? I did not attempt to deflect blame, see my statement while this case was being considered. here it is. All involved no exceptions. Not even for Durova. Everyone. Mercury 00:23, 29 November 2007 (UTC)
Please also stay cool. Mercury 00:23, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

Ok, now with an argument then. Yes Giano should maybe, perhaps not have posted the email. But this is shooting the messenger, as the content of the mail was much more important to many people on Wikipedia than that fact. She sent the mail out to multiple people, knowing it might be forwarded. These proposed decisions are divisive and are not helping the project one bit. --Reinoutr (talk) 00:10, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

I think that he was not only justified, but was absolutely correct to do so. The only reason for suppression would be to avoid embarassment for a person who earned her embarassment. The good gained by allowing the community a peak behind the curtain of the sleuths far outweighs any possible technical violation posting the "investigation notes" constituted. Mr Which??? 00:14, 29 November 2007 (UTC)
Personally, I think its hilarious. I'm waiting for them to have a finding that No member of arbcom received the secret email pre-block.. like that'll happen. ;) Then again, I'm willing to wait and see if it has any real chance of passing... lets AGF and wait.. Lsi john (talk) 00:17, 29 November 2007 (UTC)
I think this may have just been a single ArbCom member using the PD page to workshop, as it appears now. It is hard to AGF when the debate has turned from the actual problem (Durova, her methods, etc.) to a tangentially-involved editor, who should never have been added as a party. Mr Which??? 00:22, 29 November 2007 (UTC)
He should be commended, not admonished. Proposals to sanction Giano will always be put forward, but they will fail because even the ArbCom recognise that the man is, more often than not - a hell of a lot more often than not, in fact - absolutely spot-on in his take on a particular issue. This is due to a combination of immense article-writing talent as well as a no-nonsense attitude that skirts the boundaries of WP:CIVIL, but in the immortal words of an independent political party in my country, "keeps the bastards honest". DEVS EX MACINA pray 00:24, 29 November 2007 (UTC)
Every Athens needs a Gadfly. Mr Which??? 00:29, 29 November 2007 (UTC)
BTW, the fact that Uninvited both crafted these two "proposals" and voted "oppose" on encouraging !! is well-noted. Mr Which??? 00:31, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Giano restricted for a period of one year

Because the proposal to ban Giano for 90 days above is such a sheer nonsense, I don't think anyone needs to worry about it being passed. It has no chance. I suggest, instead to have a careful look at the alternative remedy. Would the loss of Giano's contributions to the Wikipedia-space project be a net-loss or net-gain for the Wikipedia project. I dare anyone who think that his non-participation would make it better to make their case. --Irpen (talk) 00:42, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

Banned from editing projectspace? What, then, if he has a dispute with someone? If he can't resort to dispute resolution, the only other option left is to drive the person away from the article, which certainly isn't good. And this is only the sum of it assuming that people will have some clue, and allow him to edit projectspace in response to complaints about him. This would be an effective ban; the only thing left for him to do would be completely uncontroversial maitenance, which not everyone cares to do. -Amarkov moo! 00:42, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

If Giano is barred from Wikipedia space, how is he supposed to deal with Featured Article issues? Or dispute resolution as Amarkov says • Lawrence Cohen 00:49, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

  • If you'll read the proposed decision, you'll note an explicit exemption covering that very issue. We're not complete dunces. Mackensen (talk) 00:54, 29 November 2007 (UTC)
Sorry; I missed it by reading quickly. And you guys are doing the best you can, same as everyone. How would he do dispute resolution? • Lawrence Cohen 00:56, 29 November 2007 (UTC)
Probably by a motion to modify the previous case if the issue ever came up. We do that all the time. Mackensen (talk) 00:57, 29 November 2007 (UTC)
OK, thank you. • Lawrence Cohen 01:01, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

Amarkov, Lawrence, let's put our worries about Giano aside for a moment. Personally, I think he is a great Wikipedian, an asset to this project, responsible for much of its great content and for many Wikipolitical climate changes for better and a human being of utmost decency. But let's not worry about him for a moment. Jimbo made it clear that his view is that editors are expendable. Arbitrators' view seem to be that their first priority is to protect the Wikipedia as a whole rather than its individual users. So, let me repeat my question. Would ejecting Giano from the Wikipedia-space discussions on policy and other related matters be a net gain for the project or a net-loss. Arbitrators who support such remedy supposedly think that it would be a net-gain. I saw no reason why from the evidence, workshop, elsewhere. So, could the proponents of this remedy elaborate? (I also disagree strongly, but let's put this aside for now.) --Irpen (talk) 00:59, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

Giano is a necessary process in Wikipedia, an institution, just like the ArbCom's judicial role or Jimbo's constitutional monarch role. He arrives when the bullshit does, explodes fantastically, and the resulting explosion is swept out of the atmosphere (a la How To Stop An Exploding Man) and out of harm's way. Then, in the meantime, he is a fantastic editor, and any hindrance to his rights as a member of the Project is nothing short of mutinous. DEVS EX MACINA pray 01:02, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

The wording is absurdly moronic. Clearly nobody thought it through carefully. Based on the current wording, he cant even discuss articles unless they are already FA's, let alone utter a single syllable that isn't related do a FA. I truly hope someone shows some sign of life and stops that insanity. Lsi john (talk) 01:17, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

Was the over-the-top, 90-day block proposal written in order to make the softer, restricted editing option look more inviting to the arbitrators? In other words, were the two proposals submitted together as a psychological ploy to influence the arbitrators to vote for the less-restrictive option? Cla68 (talk) 01:55, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

Way to go, everyone. Amazing. By spending the last two days rabbiting on demanding information that was obviously never going be forthcoming and insisting that "obviously" someone on Arbcom had to have known, and arguing about something that the Arbcom had already received legal advice on, and egging Giano into continued participation - well, we see where things are now. Arbcom really had no choice but to defend itself when people were constantly screaming "collusion." And Arbcom, who now says this case was going to be before them no matter what (even though it wasn't filed until almost a week after the event, and much drama and possibly even the desysopping of Durova could have been avoided if a respected member of the community had stepped up to the plate much sooner) should also keep in mind that the publication of the email detailing reasons for the block (and the circumstances surrounding its creation) were critical in the community recognizing that faulty logic was being used in this, and perhaps other, blocks,and raised serious concerns about the manner in which harassment and stalking were being addressed by the community. The community as a whole had a right to know the basis on which !! was blocked, barring information covered by WMF privacy policy or the direct request of the user, not just "trusted" admins or Arbcom members. And now, administrators and editors alike are more likely to request and expect justification for apparently arbitrary or capricious blocks or other sysop actions, and administrators reviewing blocks are aware of the need to truly consider the background of each unblock request or block review. No less than four of the already-passed proposed principles of this case relate to the community's ability to review the evidence for itself.

Giano already left Wikipedia once when an unjustified block (since expunged) was placed on his original account. His behaviour here has been no more outrageous than that of other talented encyclopedia writers with a reputation for refusing to suffer fools gladly. The Arbcom may need to keep that in mind when this case is being used as a comparator in the future. Risker (talk) 02:05, 29 November 2007 (UTC)


XFD, AIV, RFA, PUI, Media copyright questions, Copyright problems, Graphic Lab all in the wikipedia namespace. Banning editors from them seems unreasonable. In adition since arbcom elections are in the wikipedia namespace it would in effect be disenfranchising an editor which sets a worrying precident.Geni

[edit] There should be no block/ban or anything for giano

What the?? He is to be blocked or banned because he wouldn't let an injustice be done to an innocent person without speaking out? -He should be given recognition for what he did. Someone on hiis talk page said he should be given a medal.Merkinsmum 00:55, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

I find it extremely unlikely that any block/ban would pass. If I thought otherwise, I would be drawing up to my full height (well, 5'10", but I'm old, now) and bombing some inboxes. However, the principle that "private e-mail should never be put on Wikipedia" could capture a mood, and it would be a horrid mistake. Although some people don't want the discussion to be bridged, because it's ugly, ArbCom has had to deal with a vaguely similar problem in the past. Admins.irc had been cited as the justification for blocks, and it had been shown to be filled with some venomous and improper language. In that case, Freenode apparently had a ruling that all Freenode traffic was private and could not be put on GFDL site. Giano showed clippings of logs. This is why you hear people talking about "why is it that we're always...." It's not always. It is two instances of misbehavior and a person pulling down the veil of secrecy.
However, let's be clear: this instance has nothing in common with that. First, there is no way to assert copyright on a sent e-mail. Second, there is no expectation of privacy to a sent e-mail: it belongs to the recipient. There is absolutely no violation of privacy, copyright, or anything else. It is utterly improper to rule that Wikipedia be more secret than the US, UK, or EU laws require. With no responsibility to be "private," it would be chilling and anti-Wikipedian to rule so, and yet I fear that the natural instinct of each man or woman to believe him or herself the only clever one, the natural instinct to fear for his or her own potential mistakes being shown, is going to garner votes. It would be blind and foolish for it to carry in any way. Geogre (talk) 13:18, 29 November 2007 (UTC)
Geogre, I suspect some concern comes from the ability to 'doctor' said private email with no chance of verifiability. And, for the record, I don't think anyone believes Giano doctored anything. Yet if the prohibition were removed, I could post my private communications with Durova and, should I choose a dark path, remove select statements I did not like, or alter their meaning. Then it would turn into a worse he-said/she-said mess. I'm not saying everyone would be that dishonorable, yet it is one possibility that must be anticipated. I believe some policy is necessary, and I believe some exceptions should be permitted. In this case, Giano = WP:IAR for the good health of the overall community by making this very public. The fact is SHIT An Ugly Situation happened and Giano helped make sure that it didn't get burried. And, like it or not, the public has more trust in public disclosure than in letting a few select admins handle it privately. So painful or not, Giano's actions were for the good of wikipedia. Lsi john (talk) 13:30, 29 November 2007 (UTC)
May I use my Can of worms analogy here? Mercury 13:50, 29 November 2007 (UTC)
Geogre, I respectfully disagree with you about the email release not being a violation of privacy, as I've expounded on above. Privacy was a condition of membership of that list. Whoever released it first violated that. I won't debate whether it was a good thing or not to breech privacy, but it's really not arguable that it wsa a breech, and we should not be arguing that it wasn't. We should be making the case it was necessary, if it was. ++Lar: t/c 13:56, 29 November 2007 (UTC)
What Lar said. Zocky | picture popups 13:58, 29 November 2007 (UTC)
So, no matter what the contents of the email, it should have been kept confidential? I believe that also implied, with the membership, was that the emails would contain reasonable and sound practices. By your reasoning, if the email had contained plans to take down or disrupt a wikipedia server, it should not have been released or made public? IMHO, blatent disregard of wikipedia AGF policy, among other things, releases any agreement of privacy on that list. Personally I think this is a bunch of smoke. The far-bigger crime was not acting immediately on the part of whichever arbcom members received said communication pre-block. How about some sanctions for whomever in authority allowed this travesty to begin in the first place? Lsi john (talk) 14:32, 29 November 2007 (UTC)
No, what I am saying is instead of saying "It wasn't private", which is false, the thing to say is "I acknowledge it was private, but I choose to explicitly violate privacy (and suffer whatever consequences may ensue) because of overriding reason X" If X is a good reason, all will be well in the end... (and that despite my preferring in general not to claim "the ends justify the means"... every maxim has exceptions) See my admittedly imperfect analogy about policemen (and volunteer firemen) running red lights, elsewhere. ++Lar: t/c 15:55, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Question for arbitrators

I don't agree with everything Giano has said or done over the past several days. In fact, I rarely agree with everything Giano says in the heat of a controversy. He has demonstrated love for this project (including through a superlative and much-needed post on an external site within the past couple of days) and his heart is very much in the right place, but his inability to pull himself back from the edge of a precipice can be maddening to those of us who greatly respect his work and his ideas and his principles.

Apart from other problematic aspects that I am sure will be noted by others, the "Giano restricted" remedy would prevent Giano from answering questions concerning his current candidacy for the Arbitration Committee, voting on or commenting about the election, or serving on the committee if elected. The 90-day ban remedy would also knock Giano out of the election, unless he is to be cast in the role of Eugene Debs. Is any or all of this intentional on the part of the arbitrators proposing or supporting these remedies? Newyorkbrad (talk) 01:51, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

It also means that an informed, helpful, edit by Giano to an xfD, Good Article Nominations, or wikiproject for that matter, would allow any zealous admin to block him. How is that going to help? It is a recipe for martyrdom. Admins blocking Giano (and I've done it) have always resulted in more of TEH DRAMA. I've got a feeling this remedy is a matter of arbs feeling "something must be done", even when they know the specific remedy will not actually help.--Docg 01:57, 29 November 2007 (UTC)
No, that's not intentional. If he's going to be Debs then I want a Pullman car to ride around in. We can either reword the remedy, or suspend it until after the election. Mackensen (talk) 01:59, 29 November 2007 (UTC)
Errmmm...Mackensen, even the proposal to suspend until after the election presupposes that Giano will not be one of the successful candidates. If he does manage to get himself appointed, he will by will of the community and that founder guy be required to participate on Wikipedia pages. Suggest rewording that the suspension at least considers the possibility. Risker (talk) 02:25, 29 November 2007 (UTC) Yeah, I know it's as likely as Dan Quayle being able to spell potatoe, but it is important that Arbcom be visibly impartial.>
To be honest, if Giano 'is elected, then the community has repudiated this decision and declared the community to be on crack. In such a case I suspect it would be set aside, but the newly constituted arbcom could do that by motion. Mackensen (talk) 02:29, 29 November 2007 (UTC)
No, I have a better idea, you strike out the remedy and forget it ever was proposed, or better yet, you vote against it. It is entirely unecessary and without merit. Focus on the issue at hand rather than shooting the messenger. DEVS EX MACINA pray 02:01, 29 November 2007 (UTC)
See, if you're trying to influence somebody, taking the position that person is an unjust idiot, and then telling him to substitute your opinion for his own, is really not the way to go about things. Mackensen (talk) 02:05, 29 November 2007 (UTC)
You're not an unjust idiot, Mackensen, I just think the ArbCom is overreacting here. Giano is far more vital to the project than he is detrimental, and he is detrimental only to those who are already causing trouble in the project. You may not agree with his methods, but penalising an ArbCom candidate, a multiple feature-article writer, and a nigh-irreplaceable Wikipedian institution like Giano is a mistake. DEVS EX MACINA pray 02:18, 29 November 2007 (UTC)
Mackensen, tell me somthing: If you're not a political institution, then why is it so predictable who is likely propose such measures against such people, and exactly who is going to support them? Not that I personally have much of a problem with that, ArbCom is bound to be political to an extent. It's just that acting politically while at the same time denying it seems particularly offensive. Zocky | picture popups 02:09, 29 November 2007 (UTC)
Zocky, that question is too broad to possibly give any kind of answer to. My own impression is that arbs, by and large, have consistent views on matters of policy and act accordingly. I don't call that political. If you do we'll have to differ there. As far as I know I personally have never voted on any decision concerning Giano (correct me if I'm wrong) or Durova, so I beg to be excused from personal hypocrisy, at the very least. Mackensen (talk) 02:19, 29 November 2007 (UTC)
Acting based on "views of policy" is kinda the same thing as "political". Politics is not just political parties and elections. The point is, the ArbCom should act here judicially, not politically. You should discuss whether anything that Giano did justifies such a sanction, not about whether you agree with his views on policy.
Consider this - because Giano was prevented in what he was doing, dozens of people had to go over to WR and Wikitruth and whatnot to see the evidence that Durova compiled on !!. Add to that that there was nothing in the "evidence" that required secrecy as Durova claimed at the time, and that she refused to provide it herself and continued to claim that several people were consulted first.
One more thing - in the whole kerfuffle about which list it was and whether there should be private or secret lists or whatever, we all seem to have forgotten that the email included a diff which implied that the recepients of that email act as meat puppets for each other on WP:AN, which in itself is actionable. The point is, publishing of that email was important for the project. It would have been best for everybody if Durova had done it herself at the time. Shooting the messanger for doing it for her when she refused is simply wrong. Preventing an experienced prolific editor from having a say in project matter is counterproductive. Silencing one of the most prominent voices of the political faction which is in minority in ArbCom is pure politics. Zocky | picture popups 02:38, 29 November 2007 (UTC)
If I'm acting politically then I'm a damn fool--this is political suicide. I do this because I think it's best for the project. Members of the community can flay me alive if it makes them feel better; I'm standing down anyway. Wikitruth is a good place for leaked email anyway; hell of a lot safer there. If someone had just leaked it there in the first place we wouldn't be having this conversation. This business about shooting the messenger is ridiculous, but it's been repeated enough it will stick. Mackensen (talk) 02:47, 29 November 2007 (UTC)
Coming late to the party, and finding the proceedings here near impossible to follow (is there a decision on Jarndyce and Jarndyce yet?), but I find that last statement incomprehensible. Are you really saying that Giano's offence was to post the information here rather than at one of sites which fed the "need for secrecy" paranoia in the first place? Would it help to set up a site for the publication and discussion of information that would lead to sanction if published here? I'm sure it would ease the strain of being an Arbitrator if all discussion took place off the site as it would all fall outside your remit. It appears the publisher of the "private" "email" has avoided any sanction for the comments contained in that document precisely because it was passed around off Wikipedia. The character assassination contained therein (yes, I've seen it at one of those sites which I never knew existed before this case) seems far worse than any rash statements made by Giano, yet it seems that because of the convenience of it being posted off the site it can be swept aside; this, despite the fact it has been confirmed as genuine and the author identified (this is precisely why Giano is coming under fire for posting it), and the mailing list seem to be confirmed to be concerned with Wikipedia activities and populated entirely by "senior editors". I was warned that this was a silly place before I started editing here, but now I see the evidence for myself. Andplus (talk) 09:06, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, this remedy won't make things better; it will make them worse. It would be a shame to lose yet another editor over this silliness.- Jehochman Talk 02:00, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

Not taking action against Giano for all the previous times when he has been rude, uncivil, insulting, and made extreme bad faith allegations against multiple administrators and arbitrators has also not made the project better. Other than pretending Giano doesn't exist or validating his WP:CIVIL exemption for another 6 months, do you have an alternative suggestion? Thatcher131 02:27, 29 November 2007 (UTC)
My suggestion is for you to come back when you have evidence that the harm brought upon the project by the hurt feelings of a few editors outweighs the good he has done in writing multiple wonderful articles. This project is still about creating a wonderful encyclopedia, right? Mr Which??? 02:36, 29 November 2007 (UTC)
Thatcher, the main consequence I see from Giano's actions in project matters is that several people who shouldn't be admins are no longer admins. I don't see that as net or any loss to the project. Zocky | picture popups 02:45, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] understandable frustration, but...

I think I understand some of the frustration that has brought arbitrators to proposing these drastic remedies and I absolutely find no fault in any of the arbitrators for having proposed them... but they truly go way too far in my view. I think it is no secret that Giano and I have had our differences over the years, but there is absolutely no question in my mind that he truly is here for the right reason, to build an encyclopedia. Should he have made a private email (that someone ELSE leaked to him, mind you) publicly available, repeatedly, and revert warred to keep it visible? Certainly not. I am convinced he truly knows better. But these remedies will not work. They will make matters worse in my view. The explicit clarification of the prohibition against revealing private mails, long overdue, and the sanctions that will be imposed should that sort of thing happen again, also long overdue, are completely sufficient without singling out Giano. I strongly urge the committee not to adopt any of these Giano specific remedies. ForgiveAndForget ++Lar: t/c 03:00, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

  • If I thought it would never happen again I would dismiss them all. We've been through this repeatedly. I'm sorry Lar, I agree with you on most things but not this. ForgiveAndForget breaks both ways. Mackensen (talk) 03:07, 29 November 2007 (UTC)
    • I absolutely understand. You've been pushed to the breaking point and beyond, and I bear you absolutely no ill will and a great deal of sympathy, but I do think that these remedies will not help. ++Lar: t/c 03:12, 29 November 2007 (UTC)
      • Well, as an alternative we can declare that WP:CIVILITY is not policy, but only a guideline, that users who receive emails own the copyright, and that dispute resolution is best conducted on user pages and noticeboards until User X is hounded into leaving or resigning. That's a stark choice. Mackensen (talk) 03:16, 29 November 2007 (UTC)
        • I'm not sure it's quite that dire. We neither of us want those things, but rather the opposites, and yet I just don't see these remedies as moving us in that direction. I've said what I want to say... and this is why I am standing for Steward, where the task is to understand the existing consensus and implement it impartially and correctly, letting the community determine the Right Thing, rather than for ArbCom, where the task is to reunite divisiveness and to, as a committee, determine the Right Thing when the community has failed to do so. There are those who deride what this current committee has accomplished rather than marvel at it, and there are those rare times times when I have had disagreements with your findings in the past but your task has been difficult and you all have acquitted yourselves exceedingly well. And yet.... and yet, I think you are wrong about this one particular thing. That's my last word and you have my best wishes. I leave it to your good judgement. ++Lar: t/c 03:26, 29 November 2007 (UTC)
          • I very much appreciate it Lar, and I thank you. Mackensen (talk) 03:28, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

I am glad to see that the tide has seemingly turned in this matter and what seems more likely to pass now is the "Giano reminded" remedy. ++Lar: t/c 15:41, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

And now it's not and we are back to the more draconian stuff? Sigh. Nothing has changed in my conviction that the sanction being considered will make matters worse rather than better. Sometimes the thing to do with dissidents is co-opt them. Giano is right much of the time. Put him on ArbCom, he'll HAVE to shape up. ++Lar: t/c 05:07, 30 November 2007 (UTC)
Out of the mouth of one of Wikipedia's greatest editors and future Steward, good sense willing. Take note, for heaven's sake. DEVS EX MACINA pray 05:10, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Giano's remedy for posting a private email greater than the Proposed Enforcement for restoring private content

The proposed enforcement states:[8] 1) Those 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. After 5 blocks, the maximum block shall increase to one month.

But the "Giano banned for 90 days" [9] and the "Giano restricted" [10] remedies differ and appear to be much harsher.

Why does "briefly blocked" not apply to Giano? Particularly as he was already blocked for his action? Uncle uncle uncle (talk) 01:58, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

And isn't that block under dispute, since it may have been performed by someone on Durova's "list"? Cla68 (talk) 02:07, 29 November 2007 (UTC)
In answer to a) because Giano did more than just post the email twice. In answer to b) that is irrelevant. I will repeat this as many times as I have to. The forum of the message is irrelevant. Durova's "list" and the people on it are not responsible for her unwise block; she is. The removal and oversighting of the email is supported by long Wikipedia tradition and policy as well as the Foundation's attorney. Giano was politely asked not to repost it after it was reverted and he did so again, with calculated deliberation. He also inserted a very insulting and bad faith comment into the proposed decision [11] and I was entirely ready to block him again if he repeated that edit.
I suggest that you look at Giano's talk page. Arbitrator Raul654 posted some thought-provoking comments from Kelly Martin's blog and asked a serious question about potential remedies. Giano's response was not, "I am usually right but yes, my methods are sometime over the top" but rather "I am always right when I call attention to problems and my methods are always appropriate." I frankly don't see how the civility and good faith policies can have any credibility if Giano is allowed to be as rude, abrasive and deliberately insulting as he often is. Thatcher131 02:24, 29 November 2007 (UTC)
Thank you for the reply. So the remedies apply to all the Giano findings of fact and not to only the private content posting. I read the the Raul FrankenGiano post and Giano's reply to it. It was unclear to me from reading your note that the second quote you have above is a paraphrase and not an actual quote of any statement made by Giano. Uncle uncle uncle (talk) 03:03, 29 November 2007 (UTC)
There are people who have their own issues with Giano. I should know. I was one once. Many are letting their personal enmity with Giano cloud their judgement. The benefit he brings to this project FAR outweighs any feelings he might hurt with his sometimes brusque demeanor. And the fact that he loves the project deeply should be noted as well. His passionate defense of the project on an outside website (that NYB cited previously) was something to behold, especially with what is now going on at this ArbCom. Mr Which??? 02:33, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] was the email not posted to a list on wikia which is under a GFDL license?

Please will someone who can confirm this for a fact answer this question? And what about the private email of PrivateMusings, which was not sent to a mailing list but sent solely to JzG and explicitly asked to be kept confidential, which JzG then passed on? Will he be banned in kind? Otherwise it will seem like there's one treatment for the clique, and another for everyone else, who can be accused erroneously and punished for things that the clique actually do.Merkinsmum 02:46, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

It is unlikely that an email sent toa private list would be released under the GFDL.Geni 02:48, 29 November 2007 (UTC)
Geni's right. The key question is publication. Mackensen (talk) 02:51, 29 November 2007 (UTC)
Legally, if someone sent it to him, its his to publish... though 'not' on wikipedia per local (wikipedia) regulations. The point is really that he broke the rules, not that he broke any laws. Lsi john (talk) 02:53, 29 November 2007 (UTC)
Not true. If I send you a letter you could potential sell on the original but you could not sell copies.Geni 02:54, 29 November 2007 (UTC)
The legal and copyright status of the email is a distraction. There is a long-standing tradition and policy that private communications can not be published on wiki without the consent of the sender. This has been an issue in several prior arbitration cases and other disputes of various kinds. As far as the law is concerned, I suggest that should you ever be fortunate enough to obtain the letters of someone famous, consult a real lawyer before writing a book with them. For us, here on Wikipedia, publishing private communications without permission is prohibited. Thatcher131 02:59, 29 November 2007 (UTC)
Umm... yeah. We get it already, Thatcher. You're really pissed that Giano violated a "long-standing tradition" of the project. You've mentioned it several times now. Mr Which??? 03:03, 29 November 2007 (UTC)
Forgive us for caring. Civility used to be one too. Mackensen (talk) 03:05, 29 November 2007 (UTC)
Mr. Which, until you decide to tell me (privately if you wish, and I will not pass it on) who you used to be, then I decline to give any further credence to your comments. Your note above, for example, asking for proof that Giano's conduct was more harmful than any of the drama he stirred up in past disputes, seems odd coming from someone with less than 500 edits all within the last month, who is in no position to know anything about Giano's past conduct. And, I'm not particularly pissed off about Giano's posting of the email, I just want editors to not get distracted by irrelevant piffle. Thatcher131 03:09, 29 November 2007 (UTC)
You mean "irrelevant piffle" like adding Giano as a party to a case that was about Durova? That kind of "irrelevant piffle"? If people thought what he had done was so awful, they should have started a separate case for him, not added him to this cut and dried case of gross admin misconduct. As for telling you who I used to be, it's not happening. Suffice it to say, this is the first time I've ever crossed paths with you. Mr Which??? 03:16, 29 November 2007 (UTC)
(e/c x2)MrWhich, I read Thatcher131 as simply rephrasing what I said above. Giano knew full well what he was doing, and what it would stir up. When I really look closely at the proposal and the 'cancellation' clause, I'm not sure it's as harsh as it first sounds. I still think it needs some tweaking.. but in reality I don't think Durova's actions were calculated, Giano's were. I'll leave it at that. Lsi john (talk) 03:11, 29 November 2007 (UTC)
(ec to Macckensen) What I wrote was brusque, but not uncivil. In my opinion, we need to decide if this project is about a bunch of editors holding hands singing freakin Kumbaya, or if it's about creating great content. Again, not uncivil, just brusque. (For the record, though I disagree with you vehemently on your desire to punish Giano in some way, I have appreciated how you have comported yourself both here and at your talkpage.) Mr Which??? 03:11, 29 November 2007 (UTC)
Ugh, that song! MrWhich, you've hit the nail on the head for me. The community has entrusted me with a number of positions (it may reconsider the wisdom of that), and I've tried to act accordingly. Giano is a top content editor. I wish he'd do the same. One quibble: I don't seek to "punish" Giano. I want to prevent this from happening again. I've witnessed and handled too many arbcom cases where his actions exacerbated the conflict. Mackensen (talk) 03:19, 29 November 2007 (UTC)
His actions helped resolved the conflict rather than exacerbated it. Thanks to his actions we have a handful less of particular admins that would otherwise be still adminning to the detriment of the project. You cannot say in all sincerity that if not Giano's actions, ArbCom would have still deadminned those fellows or ruled their "voluntary" resignations were under cloud. Less bad admins, more good to the project. --Irpen (talk) 04:25, 29 November 2007 (UTC)
Sure I can. I can say with equal certainity that if Giano hadn't acted as he did we would have closed this out two days earlier without mentioning him at all. Mackensen (talk) 04:34, 29 November 2007 (UTC)
GRBerry's post below answer this better than I possibly could. --Irpen (talk) 09:25, 29 November 2007 (UTC)


[edit] Private means private

If you are on a mailing list that has, as a condition of access, a requirement that you not republish, not share, emails that are sent to the list, it is hard to argue that the mail is not private. Regardless of how many people are on the list. Regardless of where the mail is hosted. Regardless of anything, really. Someone who was on that list, and who accepted that condition, chose to disregard that condition, chose to go back on their word, chose to pass it on. I don't see that as a debatable point, really, that person violated privacy in doing so. What is debatable perhaps (and which I choose not to debate) is whether to do so was in this case justifiable. At the point that it was passed on, the privacy was already broken. Giano was not on the list (unless I much miss my guess)... someone on the list passed it on. I don't know how many hands it went through before Giano got it. I am glad to see that ArbCom are reiterating the principle that republishing things that one agreed were to be kept private is not socially acceptable. But sanctioning just Giano may miss the mark of sanctioning whoever it was that passed it on in the first place (unless there is a technical flaw and the list itself is leaky or crackable, I couldn't say about that) ++Lar: t/c 03:10, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

Lar is right in speaking about "social acceptance". This is what solely governs the issue of publishing the originally non-public correspondence. The publication of such correspondence is purely an issue of ethics, not the policies (or laws in real life.) It is unethical in most cases. It is appropriate (and even right) in some exceptional ones. For example it is socially acceptable to publish threatening letters to request protection from the threat. An editor who finds an email in his inbox with a threat to be stabbed, raped, sued (NLT) or simply have his RL identity exposed and goes ahead and posts it to ANI to request an action is not doing anything inappropriate.
In this case, Giano got a hold of the letter where user:!! was accused in being an evil incarnate and a group of editors, that includes Giano, were accused of being !!'s accomplices. Inappropriate communication cannot be suppressed using a faulty excuse that it was "meant to be private". Under exceptional circumstances, IRC logs were posted and this made a change. Publishing of this utterly inappropriate post saved a yet unknown number of users from being thrown out of wikipedia by self-appointed "sleuths". Giano did nothing wrong and in fact facilitated another small improvement of the climate here. Admin who should not have been is not an admin anymore and sneaky "sleuthing" will likely be reduced. Same happened awhile ago when gossiping and abuse at #admins IRC was reduced sufficiently. Yes, it was also done by an ArbCom action that appointed more guards to the channel. But it would not have happened without the saga that preceded and we have to largely thank Giano for that change as well. --Irpen (talk) 04:40, 29 November 2007 (UTC)


Note, of course, if "private means private", then it's also immoral to forward the private email in question to anyone not on the original mailing list, including those members of the arbcom who've assured us that they weren't on that list. (A similar argument can be made for copyright.) It's interesting that the Arbcom have stated that the "correct" procedure would be forwarding the message to the arbcom list - essentially, they're saying they've usurped any expectation of privacy of communication between WP editors. --Bob Mellish (talk) 05:02, 29 November 2007 (UTC)
I absolutely agree with you. I'd however point out that while any breach of privacy is a breach of privacy, forwarding something on (with the understanding it will not go further) to a smallish committee (which has authority to act) for them to evaluate and possibly act on, is a bit smaller breach of privacy than publishing it to the whole world. Smaller yes, but as you say still a breach. Others make the point that sometimes ends justify the means, and I'm not arguing for or against that assertion in this case. I am merely making sure we are clear that it was a breach of privacy (by the original leaker, someone on the list, whoever they are, who apparently is going to not get any sanction, since it's not clear who they are, and by everyone else in the chain leading to it being posted on wiki). Sometimes smaller things have to get broken or bent in order to solve larger ones (a faulty but perhaps apt analogy: Police routinely run red lights while pursuing bad guys or rushing to the scene of an emergency, and we expect that. Sometimes so do non police, and sometimes the latter are taken to task for it, rightly or wrongly, and sometimes they are exonerated after matters are evaluated). Hope that clarifies matters. ++Lar: t/c 12:45, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Uninvited should explain his oppose of "!! Encouraged"

Just as Mackensen has "faced the music" (fortunately, not "Kumbaya", as he apparently dislikes that song intensely) for his positions, so should Uninvited. Opposing encouragement to the aggrieved party is, well, in my opinion at least, indefensible. Mr Which??? 03:23, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

This type of remedy provision in an ArbCom ruling is not and should not become routine, but it has been done before, for example in favor of Worldtraveller in the InShaneee case. In this case, the remedy is especially warranted by the considerations identified in the "Urgent request" thread above. Newyorkbrad (talk) 03:30, 29 November 2007 (UTC)
Can I suggest Bruckner? I can live with Bruckner. Mackensen (talk) 03:40, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

I don't believe that the committee should attempt to encourage people by issuing meaningless soliloquies as official remedies. I supported one in the Worldtraveler case against my better judgment, and have done so in other cases. The difference here is that Durova has already made a genuine and heartfelt effort to patch things up with !!, so there is all the less reason for us to attempt the same thing by proxy. The Uninvited Co., Inc. 05:43, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

Where have there been a full and complete apology given by Durova, and accepted by User:!!? I must say, circumstantially, your oppose of "!! Encouraged" followed shortly by your proposals to sanction Giano don't look good at all. Mr Which??? 06:17, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] "Genuine and heartfelt"

I understand what you mean about the meaningless soliloquies, Uninvited, but I have some trouble with the genuine and heartfelt effort. How do you figger? Neither of us can read hearts. And perhaps I've missed something. But, really... Durova's much-mentioned apology for the block on User:!!'s talkpage went in full: ""When I make a mistake I like to be the first to step forward and correct myself. I was wrong here. Sorry for the inconvenience." (eliciting an amazed "wow" from !!). Full disclosure: I said to Durova on November 19, in a long RT chat, that it was a terrible apology, a little worse even than the previous one that she'd posted on ANI, and she should refactor it for her own sake. She lashed out at me in anger, which ended our conversation, showing no interest in what I might have thought was wrong with it, and not changing its self-praising tenor in any way. Now please compare User:!!'s description of Durova's efforts to patch things up, at the top of his posted evidence (to me it frankly looks more like a matter of his efforts to patch things up):

"There has been much discussion on WP:ANI and a subpage (now archived), WP:AN, an RFC, and User talk:!! (since deleted) and Durova. Apart from a few posts in the latter two - some since deleted - and supporting the RFC, I have not participated; nor, most of the time, has Durova responded, even to questions posted on her own talk page. I e-mailed Durova to initiate a discussion about her actions. I am treating my discussions with Durova as confidential, but will disclose details to members of ArbCom privately on request, although there is not much to disclose: after making contact and some helpful initial discussion, I have now waited for over 4 days for a reply - a reply that I was told several times would be coming - and it is more than three days since we have exchanged words."[12] (Posted by !! on Nov 25.)
Did you perhaps request those details from User:!!, and find them to look genuine and so on? Or have you merely read what I have read? If the second, I think you're describing what you wish Durova's efforts had been. Bishonen | talk 08:34, 29 November 2007 (UTC).
This is my take as well, Bishonen. I could find nothing to support Uninvited's characterization, and thus the oppose, followed shortly by two proposals sanctioning Giano looked a bit ... I don't know ... suspicious, for lack of a more precise word. Mr Which??? 15:20, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Publishing of e-mails on-wiki

I agree with others above that discussion of copyright licensing technicalities or the mechanics of the mailing list that Durova posted to may be a digression. I think that as a general matter, almost all of us would agree that private communications should not be posted on Wikipedia without the consent of at least the sender (compare, other proposals considered and rejected in Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Hkelkar 2/Proposed decision).

The real issue is not whether editors should routinely be allowed to post e-mails and posts to private mailing lists on-wiki; the answer to that is of course not. It's whether the circumstances surrounding this matter created a WP:IAR situation that justified disregarding a rule that should still be enforced 99% of the time. I'm not opining on the answer, but at least I may have identified the question. Newyorkbrad (talk) 03:27, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

You have pounded the proverbial nail right on the head, Brad. And to that qeustion, regarding IAR, I answer a resounding AYE! MrWhich (talk • contribs) 03:33, 29 November 2007 (UTC)
Brad's got the thread, even if I disagree on his conclusion. I've seen too much evil done in the name of IAR to be a big fan anymore. If this was an isolated incident I'd probably let it go, and I suspect other arbs feel the same way. Mackensen (talk) 03:39, 29 November 2007 (UTC)
But I didn't offer an answer; I merely framed the question. It often is important to ask the right question; "no answer is what the wrong question begats." Newyorkbrad (talk) 03:46, 29 November 2007 (UTC)
Here's my problem, Mack: IAR is every bit as core (and, in my opinion, moreso) than CIV. IAR is about improving the encyclopedia. CIV is about letting everybody feel warm and fuzzy inside about each other. Mr Which??? 03:49, 29 November 2007 (UTC)
Absolutely, but does this improve the encyclopedia? This case deals, more or less, with internal governance. If I can stop being polite and reasonable for a moment, these cases suck. There. I don't see CIV that way; CIV is a community policy, whose purpose it is to make this a reasonable editing environment. IAR is about putting the encyclopedia first. From start to finish, this case was about putting things other than the encyclopedia first. We threw the book at Durova with good reason. Mackensen (talk) 03:56, 29 November 2007 (UTC)
I agree that these cases suck. And the reason I think that Giano's application of IAR in this case did improve the encyclopedia, is that it was done in defense of the reputation of a solid contributor in !!. Assuming good faith on Giano's part, his application of IAR here was completely acceptable, as it "outed" the devious methods being used by the "sleuths" to discredit a solid contributor to the encyclopedia. Mr Which??? 04:05, 29 November 2007 (UTC)
To be sure, the circulation of said "evidence" did a great deal to undercut this sleuthing operation. This is obvious. It may seem perverse that I have less trouble with it being posted on Wikitruth or WR than on Wikipedia. I've no more control over those entities (Hello!) than I do these private/secret mailing lists. It was a bad block and that was obvious from the outset. People were rightly skeptical. Worse, it was an arrogant block, because it referred people to an arbcom that had no idea what was going down. No disagreement on !!'s reputation. I crossed paths with him under his previous account, and even though we locked horns on policy I respected him and his contributions. Giano's cause is righteous, but I cannot accept his methods. Mackensen (talk) 04:13, 29 November 2007 (UTC)
Mackenson, it is a sad day when strong supporters of this project can see an arbitrator writing what you just did. Did you know that, as I write this, it has just been announced on our own "house organ" wiki-en-l that WR is undergoing unscheduled maintenance because of excessive demand? Does that not tell you that even staunch supporters of this project are finding the need to go outside the walls of Wikipedia to read what is going on here? Granted that there may sometimes be some dirty laundry that we as a project cannot bring ourselves to wash in public - at least in those cases, Arbcom has the influence to ask some senior wikipedians to help on immediate damage control. If this case had been filed as soon as Arbcom received the "blocking post," then it would not have been publicly revealed. Risker (talk) 04:23, 29 November 2007 (UTC)
The Committee received no "blocking post". By the time we had learned of this sorry affair, the drama had already spun out of control (and, even then, it took days for anyone to actually ask for our intervention, rather than—as some editors studiously did—insisting that the matter not be brought before us). Kirill 04:38, 29 November 2007 (UTC)
Well, I needed to make myself one of MONGO's margaritas after reading that. I am truly ashamed that this was kept from you; I'll admit that I kept hoping someone would ask for your intervention, but not feeling particularly empowered myself, it didn't occur to me to do it. On the other hand, did it not occur to any of you that perhaps it would be worthwhile asking Durova on what basis she had referred all questions to this committee? Had nobody told you of that? Would that have been overstepping the bounds of the committee to request such information? (That last is a question for my own education, I really have no idea.) Risker (talk) 04:55, 29 November 2007 (UTC)
Risker, this has been an open question for some time. My feeling is that the community would react negatively to an "active" arbcom, which sought its own cases. Should we have been more active? Maybe. Should the community have been faster to refer the matter to us? Again, maybe. There's no clear direction on this point. Mackensen (talk) 04:58, 29 November 2007 (UTC)
(ec to Mack) And, that, my new friend, is what I simply can not understand. All his "method" consisted of was his application of a core (perhaps the core) WP policy in IAR. And I think we both agree that the project was improved by his application of that policy. Would you mind outlining what part (other than his brusqueness) of his "methods" you don't agree with? How could he have accomplished his noble goal (defend his innocent friend/discredit !!'s accuser) without IARing and posting and reposting the content? Mr Which??? 04:26, 29 November 2007 (UTC)
No, I didn't know that; I've been busy responding to people. Why wasn't this case filed right away? Why didn't Giano do that? Why did it fall to Dmcdevit, recognizing the need, to do it? I've been asking for several days now that people who have information come forward. I can't make them, nor can you or anyone else. What would you have me, or any other arbitrator do? I have no doubt that our friends at WR are enjoying every minute, but let them have their fun. Note that arbcom didn't receive the "blocking post" until well after the shit hit the fan; I suspect I was one of the last people to know. To MrWhich, more than anything else I wish Giano had sent his evidence to the committee, or filed an RFAR. Dispute Resolution is a dead letter if people don't use it. I object to his manner, I object to his habit of making accusations without evidence, and for painting with a broad brush even when he knows better. I also object, in particular, to deliberately acting in a disruptive manner. Am I supposed to condone this? I might as well resign. Mackensen (talk) 04:33, 29 November 2007 (UTC)
  • "Why didn't Giano do that?" Because I was advising everybody that it would be too messy aand bad for the project. I fooloshly thought she would be quietly dealt with! Giano (talk) 09:06, 29 November 2007 (UTC)
  • "I wish Giano had sent his evidence to the committee" Because Durova already told us some Arbs had it. Stupid me, I thought they were all upfront and honest sharing it with each other. Lets' not forget that Jimbo already had it to! What did you want it? In triplicate before you acted? Giano (talk) 09:06, 29 November 2007 (UTC)
  • (undent) No one is asking for you to resign. I've said before, and I'll say again: I've appreciated what a standup guy you've been throughout this process. As for Giano, is he abrupt to the point of rudeness at times? Yes. Does he at times make rash accusations? Perhaps. Do either of those have anything to do with what he's being sanctioned for here? No. He's being sanctioned for IARing and in doing so improving the project by outing the devious methods used to improperly defame !! by Durova. That's what I have a big problem with.Mr Which??? 04:44, 29 November 2007 (UTC)
Mackenson, there is absolutely no call for you to resign. You have indeed been forthright here. As often happens in the real world, what started out looking like something small and containable has revealed several fault lines. Now, we could all pack up and leave, but that would not improve the project one iota. Instead, we need as an entire community to look at those fault lines and figure out how to bridge them and repair them. Increasing transparency and editor/admin relations is one area. Finding a way to get matters through dispute resolution systems quickly and effectively is another. Communication with Arbcom clearly needs to be improved, and I now better understand some of the wording in the "Responsibility" principle. But in order to do that, the community needs its leaders to help mend itself. A lot of us recognize that this has been an exceedingly difficult case for the arbitrators as individuals and as a committee; there is so much history here amongst many of you. Your collective continued participation at this level will be vital to not just healing the wounds but making Wikipedia a stronger organization. Risker (talk) 05:06, 29 November 2007 (UTC)
Brad does indeed have the right thread. The posting was only published after repeated requests and exhortations by several members of the community to see the evidence on which the block was based. Those multiple requests were rebuffed with various excuses like privacy (unclear whose), extant reviews by variously roughly two dozen high ranking Wikipedians (with enthusiastic support from five Wikipedians) and the need to protect secret sleuthing techniques. When the posting was finally revealed for all to see, it was immediately apparent that there was no basis for the block, no privacy violations, and no secret sleuthing technique revealed (one could even debate whether any sleuthing technique was revealed). And only the actual post would do, paraphrasing of the post would have missed the mark entirely. Nobody has owned up to having even given the post more than a cursory reading and certainly nobody has supported it. Despite the fact that the block had already been reversed, the damage to the project was in the lack of transparency for the block in the first place. Durova doesn't need any more books thrown at her, but every effort was made to persuade her to be forthright, knowing full well that the posting had already been leaked outside of the original group. I have to tell you, it would have been ten times worse if that post had been published on Wikitruth or Wikipedia Review before it was published here. Risker (talk) 04:05, 29 November 2007 (UTC)
I entirely agree with that framing of the issue Brad. My view on that question is that the convention that we don't post personal correspondence on-wiki is justifiably a blanket rule: it is asking for trouble to let individuals decide whether or not to break it solely on the criteria of whether or not they are "right" to do so.
Of course, a blanket rule doesn't necessitate blanket sanction, and the proper time to consider such matters is when deciding on what remedies to impose. --bainer (talk) 04:21, 29 November 2007 (UTC)
If Giano or anyone else needs to publish a private email, they can set up a blog, for free, and post. There's no compelling need to publish emails on Wikipedia itself. Once the document exists on an external website, I see no reason why we could not link to it within an on-wiki discussion, as long as the publication is not a legal copyright violation. Fair use allows publication of things for the purpose of critical commentary, which is what Giano was doing. On the other hand, Wikipedia has the right to set site standards, and one of them is that private emails may not be published here. - Jehochman Talk 14:22, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Proposal to Sever Giano II as a party to this case

Examination of Giano II's actions regarding posting of private evidence should be examined in a separate case, as it only serves to cloud this case with further drama and conflict when addressed in this case. Mr Which??? 03:51, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

Please use the workshop page. --Tony Sidaway 03:49, 29 November 2007 (UTC)
This is where the discussion was happening, so this is where I posted it. I will refactor it as a simple message, though. Mr Which??? 03:51, 29 November 2007 (UTC)
Here's fine. Traditionally arbitration cases deal with the matter as a whole, even if that results in multi-part decisions. I don't think anyone's interests would be served by a new, separate case. Mackensen (talk) 03:53, 29 November 2007 (UTC)
I believe Mackensen is correct here. If the ArbCom want to examine this issue and issue judgement, it should be part of this case, not separate. Cla68 (talk) 03:54, 29 November 2007 (UTC)
My thinking on this is that it would also allow that case to be delayed until the elections are over. This would remove the need for "suspension of remedies" and the like from this case. It greatly simplifies this case, and would also simplify the case to come--especially if Giano were to win a spot on the ArbCom. Mr Which??? 04:01, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Giano as an arbiter

By banning Giano from Wikipedia namespace, as Geni said, doesn't that mean that the ArbCom has just banned him running and serving if elected by the community, if this passes? Giano has not withdrawn his campaign which still appears to be up. Is he being barred from serving if the people choose him? • Lawrence Cohen 03:44, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

  • No. Please read the whole decision, which currently proposes suspending the remedy during the election, and eliminating it altogether if he's elected. Mackensen (talk) 03:46, 29 November 2007 (UTC)
Thanks. I saw that, but I was wondering in case that remedy didn't pass, and it left him just barred from running, but not banned. I wasn't sure what would happen then, if he didn't agree to withdraw his candidacy. Sorry I wasn't clear. • Lawrence Cohen 03:49, 29 November 2007 (UTC)
It's very unlikely that the remedy would pass without the corresponding enforcement clause. Not that we'd have much to lose from a transparently political act; we're being accused of such anyway. Mackensen (talk) 03:51, 29 November 2007 (UTC)
Sorry, I seriously didn't mean it that way. Everyone is doing the best they can... • Lawrence Cohen 03:55, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

"Please don't shoot the piano man arbitrator; he is doing his best." Newyorkbrad (talk) 03:59, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

In the worst case they can always redirect the WP:RFAR page to User_talk:Giano Uncle uncle uncle (talk) 04:18, 29 November 2007 (UTC)
Ah, some levity! Thanks for that, UUU! I needed a chuckle. Mr Which??? 04:19, 29 November 2007 (UTC)
Yeah, and then some joker will nominate WP:RFAR for deletion for being a cross-namespace redirect! Mackensen (talk) 04:20, 29 November 2007 (UTC)
IAR SNOW close. ++Lar: t/c 04:22, 29 November 2007 (UTC)
As speedy delete, while appointing Giano as the new God-king, right Lar? ;) Mr Which??? 04:29, 29 November 2007 (UTC)
Oh please, not Giano as the new god-king. He keeps the most absurd pictures on his user talk page, it would be horrible having to post there! (Although I did kind of like the pink Cadillac, now that I think about it....) Risker (talk) 04:34, 29 November 2007 (UTC)
I love that all-female marching band picture he has right now. Every time I look at it and read its caption, the 2007 Spumoni ArbCom roadshow, I start whistling marching band tunes and look around for a flag to wave. DEVS EX MACINA pray 04:40, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Last Minute Addition to Arbcom Case?? Arbcom Members on Secret List?? What about JeHochman??

I'm confused. Normally even contributors of opinion to the case cannot jump on board after it has been setup. Now, part way into the proceedings, and after Durova resigns, Giano is lumped in there, and assigned a punishment? No RFC? This is highly irregular. Imagine if you, Mackensen, were on trial for corruption, and halfway into the trial, they dragged your maid into the courtroom, and decided to give her a sentence too.

This is completely bizarre. If Arbcom want to make a case against Giano, then make a new RFC, and start a new Arbcom case. You don't just chuck another baby into the dirty bathwater of two other babies.

Speaking of which: Why nary a word about JeHochman??? No restriction?? No admonishment?? JeHochman was so zealous that he had an ANI for the same behavior the week before Durova's case came out, and during her case, he was blocking and AGF-ing and warning anyone who contested Durova??

According to moreshi, Mackensen was on the 2nd secret list of en-WPinvestigations. Doesn't this mean that Mackensen was on the secret list that got the email about !! to start with?? Why did he not recuse himself immediately?. And now, Mackensen's proposal (his odd proposal of a late entry with the apparent objective of punishment only - no discussion) to punish Giano gives a very strong impression of partisanship.

If the procedure was "send it to Arbcom" (not to publish the email online) but two members of Arbcom were on the secret list that convicted !!, then how could a fair assessment of blame have taken place under "secret" in Arbcom?? 85.5.180.9 (talk) 04:39, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

  • That's the first I've heard of me being on that list; I refute it utterly and call upon Moreschi to present his evidence. I'll also point out that I didn't propose the motion but merely supported it, but that's semantics. Mackensen (talk) 04:43, 29 November 2007 (UTC)
Fine, assuming you were not on that list, then why bring in a person to be 'tried' at the last minute, with no RFC, no discussion? Normally, a new Arbcom case should be made against him. This makes it look (pardon the AGF, but I'm giving you a bipartisan feedback) very much like "payback" for that Durova lost her tools. The case was about Durova and Jeh, and now Giano is chucked in there, for good measure? Precedent of this please? And why is there no admonishment of JeHochman? Not one word. No punishment either. This is all highly irregular.85.5.180.9 (talk) 04:48, 29 November 2007 (UTC)
Now look, first you've got evidence that I'm on that list, now you're allowing that it might not be the case. Which is it? This is academic; I know I'm not on, and have never been on, that list. Forgive me if I find this a dubious attempt to attack my credibility, not that I care overmuch. This case can look like whatever people want it to look like; the fact remains that dozens of editors have sharply criticized Durova without being added to the case, because criticism is a welcome part of the feedback cycle and we'd me mad to think otherwise. It is not unprecedented for editors to be added mid-stream; for my part I considered Giano part of the case from the outset, given his very public role throughout. Arbcom has always looked at the behavior of all parties; it would be highly irregular if we did not do so in this instance. Mackensen (talk) 04:54, 29 November 2007 (UTC)
Thank you for rexplaining that you were not a member of this list, Mr. Mackensen. But I cannot do other than assume that you 'aren't' on the list, if you said so, so what more can I do? I read offline information, which was verified on pipermail discussions by moreschi that there had been some sort of leak (which seemed to verify it), so it sounded plausible. You say youre not on it, so fine, great, next question. Please don't assume I'm flip-flopping when I choose to believe you, because I doubt you'd prefer me to challenge you, so 'next question'. Again, (and I've mentioned this three times now) why no punishment or even restriction for JeHochman, who's name shares this case? Not a word. Not an admonishment. Not a thing. Can you please explain this to me?85.5.180.9 (talk) 06:26, 29 November 2007 (UTC)
To respond to one of 85.5.180.9's questions, it's quite routine for the arbitration committee to add editors to a case (a good example is Night Gyr and Violetriga in Badlydrawnjeff). Moreover it's not unknown for an editor to be banned without being named as a party to the case at all (for instance, Petri Krohn in Digwuren). Arbcom has very, very broad powers which it has inherited from Jimbo Wales. --Tony Sidaway 04:57, 29 November 2007 (UTC)
Thanks much for that explaination Mr. Sidaway. I wasn't apprised of the adding procedure. This is highly irregular procedure in comparison to other generally accepted practices of arbitration and dispute settlement, in both the private and public sectors (in business arbitrations and in state-state and state-non/state arbitrations), to be frank. Did the Arbitration committee realize this? Mr. Wales is an important person on Wikipedia, to be sure, and from what I gather, he had absolute and total power over procedure and content. Still, that an entirely new scope for arbitration procedure should have been developed in this venue, is quite striking. 85.5.180.9 (talk) 06:26, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

There doesn't seem to be very much discussion on JeHochman's actions, or lack thereof, in relation to this case. If he did anything that merits discussion, then shouldn't it first should be presented on the evidence page for the arbitrators to consider? If there isn't any evidence that he did anything wrong, then I think he should be released as a party from this case. Cla68 (talk) 06:54, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

I would agree. I have plenty of gripes against Jehochman, but for the most part we are working them out through that time-honoured DR procedure of discussion. His includance in this case seems to be an example of casting the net wide, exactly the kind of behaviour that we are reproaching Durova for. I have presented evidence against Jehochman at a previous arbitration case, but I cannot see how it would be helpful to do so here. Physchim62 (talk) 14:12, 29 November 2007 (UTC)
The issue is moot since the Committee has made no findings and no remedies that are specific to him or that apply to all parties in the case. --Tony Sidaway 14:28, 29 November 2007 (UTC)
I think the committee believed I might be involved in these matters, or others similar, so they added me to the case. I welcome scrutiny of my behavior and am happy to be here because, as somebody wise told me, being named is also a way of being cleared. A small side issue was raised by Amerique,[13] but that seems to have died when I presented evidence that an arbitrator had endorsed my behavior in that matter.[14] - Jehochman Talk 14:36, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Note

Folks, I'm going to bed. I live in the Midwestern US; I have work tomorrow. I'm not sure why I wound up being spokesman tonight, but I've certainly enjoyed the engagement. I hope that it did some good. Please leave any requests for follow-up on my talk page where I can see it; I'll respond tomorrow as time permits. Best, Mackensen (talk) 04:41, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

Ok, I'll copy my above question on your talk page, because you are the guy to answer it. 85.5.180.9 (talk) 04:42, 29 November 2007 (UTC)
No, I'll reply here (see above). Mackensen (talk) 04:44, 29 November 2007 (UTC)
Mackensen, I think you know that I'm not exactly Giano's biggest fan. I'm the guy who gets on people's case if they say a mean word or fail to AGF of the screaming maniac in the corner, and he... isn't. I think he's often unnecessarily rude, acts primarily to protect his friends regardless of the merits, and deliberately goes for 'maximum drama' to promote his views. He also 'did the right thing' here.
Even after the block was reversed there were questions about what !! had done which made him look suspicious. Suggestions that maybe the 'mistake' was just thinking he was one banned sock-puppeteer when actually he might be a different one. People were saying that the evidence had 'looked damning'. That it 'seemed conclusive' until one previously unknown fact was added to the mix. In short, none of the people who received the report were (publicly) acknowledging its flaws until AFTER it was posted on-wiki. They (and it was several people) were still presenting it as a completely sound methodology which should continue to be used - just with the actual block at the end being more carefully considered. That needed to be countered... and in the same public arena where the claims had been made.
Would it have been better if Giano 'summarized' the contents and/or provided examples without actually posting the full message? Maybe... but then, he did do that, and people suggested that he was distorting the evidence... holding back the damning stuff about !! which surely must have also been in there. The only way to dispel the public doubts about !!, and the claims that this was solid evidence and procedure was to post it publicly. No, that shouldn't have been necessary, posting private correspondence is not a good thing, but the public accusations required a public refutation.
If something really needs to be private, and this case just did not, then nothing should be said about it on-wiki. It should be submitted to the ArbCom so they can run the case and take whatever action needed and release whatever information appropriate. That isn't what happened here. The block, the claims that !! was a 'bad guy', the statements about how solid the evidence was (even after the block was reversed)... all of it was done publicly on-wiki. The summaries about how !! had matched '7 criteria established through 28 links' (or whatever it was) were made publicly. Not quietly through ArbCom. To then turn around and say, 'ok this all has to be handled confidentially through ArbCom' after very publicly besmirching a user's reputation and promoting the validity of the methods used to do it was just perverse. The accusations and representations were made publicly. They needed to be addressed publicly. Could Giano have done that in a less disruptive way? Yes, but I'm not going to quibble. If we're going to start barring people (whether from the site or just sections of it) who aren't always perfectly civil and fair I've got a long list who'd go before Giano on those grounds. --CBD 10:00, 29 November 2007 (UTC)
Addenda - Oh, and regardless of the question of whether Giano should be censured or not... a ban from the 'Wikipedia:' and 'Wikipedia talk:' namespaces is completely unworkable. There's an exception there for featured article processes... and dispute resolution... and his ArbCom run. You'd need to add a couple dozen others to make it remotely sensible; AfD, MfD, TfD, IfD, AIV, RCU, RPP, MoS, every Wikiproject in existence, and a few thousand other pages there is no reason for him to NOT be editing. If you want to keep Giano out of arguments then bar him from discussions about blocks of other people and off-wiki communications. I can't recall any major dispute he has been in which hasn't involved one or both of those. While you're at it bar Jimbo from discussions about his own actions, JzG from anything involving external harassment, yourself from arguments with me (the only time I've ever seen you blow up), me from discussions about US politics (actually, I self-imposed that one a couple of years ago), et cetera. We've all got topics that we get touchy about and should spend less time around. --CBD 10:18, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Long thoughts on dispute resolution system and why Giano's actions were necessary

I think that some of the Arbitrator's are reading Giano's reply to Raul very similarly to how Thatcher is in #Giano's remedy for posting a private email greater than the Proposed Enforcement for restoring private content above. This is a misreading. One note that is not present in Giano's post is the "my methods are appropriate" note. A core point in his message is "By the time I make a big stink, there is already a real problem that needs to be addressed." (Those are paraphrases, not quotes.) He lacks faith in the ability of the existing systems (and staff) to actually address those problems. There are certainly multiple recent ArbComm cases, and things that should have been cases but aren't, to prove that the systems are not functioning well, and several real problems are being allowed to fester. I personally don't think Giano's method - making a big stink - is particularly helpful. But lets not pretend that the existing system is functioning much better than a tourniquet; there are far too many wounds in the community that have gone septic.

I'm an administrator. I have a method - saying "I will issue/overturn this block" - of forcing the committee to take some cases it really doesn't want to, and this method is not available to Giano or any other non-administrator. I've only used it once, and while I still don't know if the editor the case is named after will ultimately succeed here, I am certain that Wikipedia as a whole is better off because I did that than letting one group of partisan editors railroad someone with the opposing POV off the project. Similarly, Wikipedia is better off because of Giano's actions in this case. It may be clear to the Arbitrators that this case was always coming here, but that was not clear to anyone else. Jimbo knows how to make it clear to everyone that a case is coming here. He didn't do so publicly. Instead he tried to change the discussion very radically. Once he did that, everyone else had reason to expect that nothing meaningful was going to happen unless a big dramatic dispute occurred. Look also at Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Durova#Outside view by User:Jossi and Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Durova#Outside view by Ryan Postlethwaite. If you want to know why editors make big stinks when something is rotten in the state of Denmark, look long and hard at that diff and those two sections of the RfC. So long as statements like that and community commentary like that occurs, ordinary editors will be forced to make big stinks when there is clear evidence that something has gone drastically wrong in the power structure. The case of the community's rejection of the temporary arbitrator earlier this year is similar in all salient respects - attempting to brush something under a rug made the community raise a big stink so it couldn't be.

Only a few non-admin editors, like Giano, can make a big enough stink to cause an ArbComm case without finding themself blocked and all subsequential statements reverted as those by a banned editor well before the case opens. I point again to Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Durova#Outside view by Risker. Giano, with his content creation credentials, is not chilled from pointing out when the emperor is wearing no clothes. A lot of our editors are.

I know Giano has a history here. But I also notice that in that case, the principles and finding of fact #4 amount to saying that Giano was correct in the substance of the underlying dispute, but the remedies don't do anything to repair this. How do you expect him to believe the committee will actually deal with the real problems? If the evidence you have given him is that when there is a real problem, no action will be taken to fix it, how in the world do you expect him to believe otherwise?

Our dispute resolution process is failing at almost every level. CSN, which had real problems, was closed in favor of AN/I, which is even worse. We held Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Wikipedia:Requests for comment/User conduct (2nd nomination) recently because a lot of editors and administrators don't believe that the user conduct RfC is worthwhile. It closed as no consensus, which tells us that the community's acceptance of that stage of dispute resolution is tottering on the edge - especially because multiple people who kept it acknolwedge that it often produces poor outcomes and/or want it replaced, just want an alternative first. WP:AN/I is a snakepit with the nasty habit of focusing on the complainant and ignoring the complaint; especially when there is a power differential and the complainant is not an administrator. The complainant is, far too often, also at fault in the mess, making this easy to do. But this error in focusing is now a deplorable part of our administrative culture. I've seen similar failures by ArbComm of ignoring misbehavior of administrators while sanctioning editors, in a case that makes me as an administrator lack faith in the committee and be very very reluctant to bring any cases here, and you look set to make another one. I know of many editors who don't want to come to the committee, because they expect the pain of bringing a case here to be worse than the benefit gained. How are we going to solve this? I don't know. But we certainly aren't going to solve it by sanctioning Giano; so far as I can tell it was his actions that caused the dispute resolution system to really address the underlying problem, instead of sweeping it under the rug as Jimbo appeared to be attempting.

I don't enjoy participation in disputes; I said so in my RfA. I've been doing it more since then as I've grown more and more concerned about the damage being inflicted upon the encyclopedia, which I care about, by those who have been handling disputes. I don't enjoy taking three hours to write this post. But when I see the committee missing the forest for the trees, and doing so in a way that I sincerely believe will make Wikipedia a lot worse off, I have to speak up. The encyclopedia needs its content editors. It would not exist without them, and if the good ones leave subtle vandalism will quickly destroy any value Wikipedia provides for its readers. Anything that chills, drives off, or converts good content editors into vandals damages the encyclopedia. This is what Durova, and all those who act like her, have been doing. Giano made it impossible for us to ignore this when some were actively trying to do so, and now we propose sanctioning him for making us actually realize and address the problem. The proposals for sanctions on him are all1 major mistakes, and the passage of any of them will damage the encyclopedia in the same way that Durova's actions did. GRBerry 05:32, 29 November 2007 (UTC) 1 This was written before proposed remedy #8 "Giano reminded" was written, and does not apply to that proposed remedy. GRBerry 14:42, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for taking the time to post this. Yours was a much-needed voice of reason. Mr Which??? 06:04, 29 November 2007 (UTC)
I concur and would like to add..
Arbcom (or members of it) have voiced concern that "Giano keeps sticking his head up and that they have to deal with him over and over again"....
Ok, I don't think anyone disputes that Giano makes some pretty big waves... but if not Giano, then who or what? As far as I can tell, without Giano making the waves, we would have one hell of a lumpy lumpier carpet. I second the notion that Jossi's post to the RfC was anything but helpful (and I happen to both like and respect Jossi). So if we are going to Silence Giano, we better be prepared to put something in place to replace him. Lsi john (talk) 06:19, 29 November 2007 (UTC)
I concurr wholeheartedly with GRBerry and MrWhich's statements. Had Giano's expose of the email been with purely malicious intent, or to be childish or provocative, singularly, I could understand some kind of rebuke being made. But Giano was concerned that secret procedures not be continued, and for all intents and purposes seemed to be trying to make transparency and fair practices possible, where they appeared to be 'challenged' in some manner. While privacy was being alleged as a reason for protecting evidence, what appeared to be happening was some kind of coverup, not to protect the editor !!, but to cover up some procedures which various protagonists would rather not have had come to light. I'm honestly disappointed with what I'm seeing here. I hope that it isn't the standard practice for dispute settlement here. I urge the Arbcom to look into their hearts and do their best to support that good editors feel safe and protected by their decisions, so that an atmosphere of trust is able to heal from recent events, rather than scar into true damage.85.5.180.9 (talk) 06:37, 29 November 2007 (UTC)
  • I have no regrets what so ever. The document in question was not a private email but a post (referred to by its author as a "report") to a mailing list, who its members are we are not permitted to know. ("roughly two dozen people received the report. Those included people from the Foundation, and some (not all) members of ArbCom, and some people who had checkuser privileges." [15]) The report pertained 100% to Wikipedia editors, its intention being to instruct in the detection of socks. So flawed as a manual was that document it needed to be exposed. Remember it had circulated amongst the Wikipedia hierarchy for almost two weeks and no one had spotted its flaws furthermore an unjust block was made as a result of it. Would you rather it was still in use? I can tell you categorically if anyone had ever forwarded to me, as an Arb, such a load of rubbish, the private reply I would have sent back would have incinerated their computer and that is just what those members of the Arbcom to whom Durova claims she showed her report should have done too - long before this scandal broke. Giano (talk) 08:15, 29 November 2007 (UTC)
It would be surreal if Giano were to come out of this with the biggest bruise; although, sadly it would not be shocking. The chemotherapy creates sickness, but it also fights cancer. Don't stop the chemotherapy just because it makes you sick—the alternative is worse. daveh4h 08:38, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

Well said GRBerry. ViridaeTalk 09:50, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

I agree with GRBerry, Lsi John and Giano, and even anonymous. I have never before involved myself in a wiki-dispute, and this time only because it happened right in front of me, like a huge traffic accident. Except the way I saw it, it was completely the cop's fault, inexcusable in negligence and incompetence. And now the other cops are blaming the guy who spoke up for the victim, because they would have cleaned up their own mess without him making a stink, and they're writing him a ticket for disorderly conduct. Astonishing.

I hope some of you can recognize how awful this all looks enough to pray it doesn't get some off-site attention - you know, the actual world? I guarantee it's a hot story. This "issue" has been archived, distorted and fractured across so many obscure threads it's no longer coherent, and that doesn't look accidental. Durova has fallen on her wikisword (it's just a flesh wound), and we still don't know who else saw or approved this atrocity. It's almost a certainty that deliberate deception occured somewhere, but it's impossible to prove because we can't see evidence and no one will answer the real questions. And it's quite likely there's a serious conflict of interest, in that one or more of the same people deciding these questions and participating in discussions may also be implicated. There is circumstantial evidence of that last part, but I think it's against policy to link to it, so I guess we can't talk about that.

No wonder no one has come forward, and Durova has been fast-tracked through the system and straight into rehab. And "everyone" just wants it all to go away, which has been the only consistent message from the beginning. Anybody who even looked at that "seminar" once, and didn't immediately boggle sideways at the sheer paranoid incoherence, is tainted (and no, you didn't need to check any diffs!). Some of them may be the same ones running this "process" and railroading the whistleblower, and labelling dissenters as "trolls" for making them feel uncomfortable by pointing this out. And Jimbo has descended more than once to pronounce his opinion of troublemakers. So that's all very comforting too.

So now let's make an example out of Giano. Thing is, you're all so wikified, you've forgotten the greater lesson of teh internets - they're forever, and nothing is ever over. Win or lose, what you do today will still be here (?) whenever people start paying attention. No matter how long the tubes, you shove enough crap down there, it eventually all backs up again. sNkrSnee | ¿qué? 09:55, 29 November 2007 (UTC)


It's easy to get carried away with a "great crusade for justice" and not see the harm that it's doing. I think this is what has happened to a number of people here.
The arbitration committee has a difficult decision to make on how to move forward from that, and made it plain in its early findings that the problem here was not solely Durova's failure to discuss and justify her block of the user whose name is two exclamation marks, but also "unseemly and provocative behavior on the part of numerous participants" during the discussion of the block.
Since that finding one participant in particular has seen fit to make numerous false accusations against the arbitration committee itself (going well beyond legitimate criticism, I'm sure you'll agree) and to disrupt the arbitration by vandalizing the proposed decision page. On the other hand that editor is highly respected for his content work.
It's plain that the editor in question does not accept the dispute resolution policy, and believes that his own disruptive methods were necessary and appropriate in the circumstances (he has stated as much).
If he's right, we might as well all give up, because condoning such methods in any way is a recipe for anarchy. Wikipedia is faced with a user on a power trip. It is necessary to find a way to convince him of the folly of his ways without, if at all possible, alienating him further from the community.
In various recent discussions of these proposals concerning Giano, I've made no secret of the fact that I find the remedies proposed so far unnecessarily harsh. There is some truth in the statement that this is a matter for another arbitration, for the full breadth of Giano's disruption is not limited to the recent case. Accordingly, I recommend that the arbitration committee consider a strong admonishment to Giano, specifically requiring him to take all grievances concerning Wikipedia through the dispute resolution process. This is a pretty broad process with lots of options, up to and including the ultimate sanctions reserved to Jimbo and Arbcom. If he continues to act disruptively, then that disruption will be dealt with at a future date (and by a differently constituted arbitration committee). --Tony Sidaway 12:35, 29 November 2007 (UTC)
Perhaps I have missed something here, but where exactly has Giano "[vandalized] the proposed decision page"? I can't seem to find that in the page history or his contributions to Wikipedia space. Or does that comment refer to someone else?--Reinoutr (talk) 12:39, 29 November 2007 (UTC)
It's in the history. After a polite notice about his edit, he responded in a manner that made it plain that it was a deliberate edit and not a slip. --Tony Sidaway 12:45, 29 November 2007 (UTC)
See this link. Laying aside the rather minor point that only Arbitrators and clerks are permitted to edit the proposed decision page, is that comment in any way fair, reasonable, or necessary to the purpose of deciding how to respond to the block of user:!!? Thatcher131 12:47, 29 November 2007 (UTC)
Thanks, I went over both the history and his contributions, but must have missed that one two times :x, my bad.--Reinoutr (talk) 13:16, 29 November 2007 (UTC)
Tony, you're being ridiculous. The harm being done? If this weren't Wikipedia, you'd be right. If Wikipedia were set up to be run by the "clueful," then those clueful would need to protect themselves from the unclueful (although, if they're clueful, would they not have the basic clue that what has been offered to them in the Durova report is childishly simple and glaringly wrong and about to result in a huge stink)? Since there are neither copyright issues nor privacy issues with an e-mail that has been sent, even suggesting that there is something legal here verges on WP:NLT, which is a policy that Durova actually broke (and then recanted, to her credit, and I do not think she should suffer for that; unlike the block, it had no particular harm and therefore could be solved with apology). You're also introducing new clutter to the accusations and yet no evidence. If I had been forwarded the report, I might have made it a summary or paraphrase to avoid some of this distraction, but I would not have hesitated to put it up under fears of "harm" or legal threats. Giano's right. No campaign for justice, as I think the only solution necessary has already been taken, just true and false, right and wrong, logic and error. Giano was right. Durova was wrong. The wrong has lost the ability to block. No more is needed. Some people are discomfited by knowing that Other People know that they saw a bad report and didn't spot its weakness and foolishness. That's too bad, but it's not a matter for remedy. Geogre (talk) 12:54, 29 November 2007 (UTC)
An art historian, believing he has irrefutable evidence that certain paintings in a museum are forgeries, and finding that the museum management does not reply to his requests for investigation in a manner he feels is appropriate, accuses the management of corruption and slashes the painting with a knife, so that upon restoration, the expert conservators discover that he is in fact correct about the forgeries. Is this conduct that should be applauded? Giano's approach to dispute resolution may be seen at Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Giano and Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/InShaneee. Thatcher131 13:01, 29 November 2007 (UTC)
Bah, I really need to get off this page and do real life work. But, I have to point out that this isn't a good analogy. In our environment, a painting would be an article, and slashing it with a knife would be vandalizing it or deleting it, none of which Giano did. In an art museum, Giano would be the guy that posts a copy of an embarrassing confidential memo about Mona Lisa being fake on the bulletin board, or the guy that stands up at the meetings and says "oh, shut up, we all know that you don't know anything about renaissance" to the colleague running the investigation. Zocky | picture popups 13:09, 29 November 2007 (UTC)
Not really, no. The arbitrators already had the memo. What he's actually doing is working towards the ritual humiliation of someone who made a mistake. Giano's publishing of the email made no difference to the outcome of the arbitration, since the arbitrators already knew that the case for blocking was unacceptably weak. It has made for an absolute field day for trolls, though, which I guess satisfies the apparently insatiable desire for low drama that drives Wikipedia space these days. Guy (Help!) 14:53, 29 November 2007 (UTC)
Thatcher, I can't believe that you would make such a foolish analogy except out of passion. The equivalent action is precisely the one that has been taken repeatedly: the person who believes it to be a fraud writes an Op/Ed and then produces the museum's correspondence for a court case. Would you expect the museum to say, "Your honor, we demand that you stop these proceedings and sentence the plaintiff to jail for showing our private letters?"
Furthermore, you point vaguely to two gigantic events and say, "See Giano's response." Later, you say, "Multiple insults." It seems like you don't like Giano, and that's fine. We all have people we dislike. You think he's insulting. I'm sorry that's so. You think he's temperamental, it seems. Some of his supporters have said much the same. None of this, though, is germane to the "Giano blocked/banned/paroled," etc. None of it has anything to do with the Durova instance. They all seem to have to do with how much you dislike things he's said. Again, I'm perfectly genuine when I say that I am sorry that you are offended, but I really think we go our way on Wikipedia with people who dislike, and we don't support sanctions based on our private distaste. Arbitration cannot address feelings. It cannot address politeness. It cannot make people happy. All of those things are sub jure. All we can ask is that we look over the instances brought forward. None apply here. Geogre (talk) 13:28, 29 November 2007 (UTC)
As I remarked earlier, I don't think there's anything here that can't be solved by requiring Giano to use the dispute resolution policy. That is important, though. --Tony Sidaway 13:47, 29 November 2007 (UTC)
In some respects analogies are always foolish, and I certainly didn't spend any time polishing this one. I was also thinking of a bull in a china shop, and whether everyone would love the bull if it only smashed the cheap reproductions and not the good stuff. Moving on... I don't have any particular personal feelings one way or the other about Giano. We had an interesting interaction on Bishonen's talk page yesterday. Elsewhere in this case I have supported his request for information on the "about 5" editors who Durova claimed she had in depth discussions with about !!. However, I think Giano's approach to dispute resolution is often poisonous and corrosive. In this case he has accused arbitrators of corruption and collusion. He has repeatedly used the phrase "libellous accusations". He has a long history (on display at RFAR/Giano and RFAR/InShaneee, and probably the noticeboards) of contempt for the entire dispute resolution process, which is based on assumptions of good faith, civility, and respect for others. Whenever he thinks an admin has misused his or her authority, he raises hell on the noticeboards in the most dramatic and provocative way possible, ignoring the DR methods we commend to everyone else. This approach, if widely adopted, would bring Wikipedia down in ruins. Are we as a community prepared to embrace MONGO's repeated incivility toward certain others as long as he writes nice articles about National Parks? Should Deeceevoice be awarded a Giano Free Pass® because even though her manner is disruptive, she is largely correct about systemic bias? Can someone explain exactly how Private Musings' edits to project space were so much worse than Giano's recent contact that PM should be indefinitely banned twice (with considerable noticeboard support) while Giano gets praised? Even assuming Giano is always correct about the underlying issue (which is a matter of opinion on which people can disagree in good faith), can you honestly say that Giano's methods are encompassed by any policy or guideline, or that they would be tolerated from any other editor? Thatcher131 14:09, 29 November 2007 (UTC)
Unfortunately, WP:IAR, which is far from my favorite policy, endorses ignoring any rule that prevents the maintenance or improvement of Wikipedia. So yes, there is a policy encompassing his actions. The second paragraph of my original post in this section describes why Giano could have had good reason to it was necessary to ignore all rules and use the methods he did. If he believed his actions were necessary, IAR explicitly says to ignore the rules against the actions he took. In my mind a corollary of IAR is that anyone acting under it has accept that the community can disagree and override that action. It isn't as if Giano wasn't also trying the regular aspects of dispute resolution; see Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Durova#Outside view by Giano II, which is the first outside view that actually said there was a major problem.
There are other editors whose use of such methods would be tolerated. I don't believe that I'm one of them. Upon consideration, I don't want to name names. But the list in my head, based upon behavior I've see previously tolerated from them, includes at least one in each of the following categories: 1) current arbitrators, 2) current checkusers, 3) former arbitrators, 4) admins that have never had other special bits granted. I can't think of any other editors that were never admins that would be tolerated if they found a dispute the power structure wanted to sweep under the rug and made a big stink about it. But I find it very troubling that I don't know of any other editors without extra bits who could make a big enough stink to prevent a problem from being swept under the rug. GRBerry 15:17, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Final thoughts

Thinking and writing about this has already taken me more time than I can afford, so I'll stop. Here's just a few observations:

  • Privacy and copyright of emails are red herrings. ArbCom seems to be saying that private emails can under no circumstances be (re)published on Wikipedia, but rather sent to ArbCom to evaluate. Problems:
    • It makes it illegal to republish threatening emails on WP:AN.
    • Basing this on privacy concerns (instead of confidentiality) makes the ArbCom look hypocritical - privacy is already violated by sending the email to ArbCom, and what the ArbCom ends up protecting is secrecy, not privacy.
    • Taken to its logical conclusion, it leads to the absurd suggestion that it's better to hang our dirty laundry on WR and WikiTruth than to attempt to wash it at home.
  • To have the intended effect, the restriction on Giano would have to allow him to edit anything but WP:AN and arbitration pages unless he isn't directly involved. Even then, there are serious issues:
    • Is the fact that an experienced, prolific, and unproblematic-in-mainspace editor needs to be restricted from those places, a reflection on him or on those places?
    • The remedy as it stands is easy to subvert - he just needs to do something that gets him directly involved in whatever it is that he thinks is important enough for him to participate in. When he does, he will likely be on the right side of the argument again. The ArbCom will be forced to make escalating sanctions on him, and more drama and distrust will ensue.
    • Should we be protecting troll-hunting admins from prolific editors at all? Shouldn't it be the other way around? Both sides have the best of intentions, but which side is more likely to know what's good for the project? In short, why does Giano need to shout to be heard?
  • What does "they don't know about this list" followed by a diff to the question "how come all these people supported this block so soon" mean? Meat puppeting? WP:CANVASS? Why are we ignoring that?

That's it from me. Zocky | picture popups 12:31, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

Amen, Zocky. Additionally, as I have said, there is no copyright inherent in a letter that has been sent, nor is there privacy in an e-mail at all if there is a suspicion of a crime, nor any in an e-mail that has been sent. Once you send an e-mail, it's not owned by anyone but the recipient, and there is no control of it by the author whatsoever. Intercepting mail is criminal. Republishing it is venerable. Plainly speaking: all talk of privacy and the law, copyright, and the rest is utterly bogus, ill-informed, illogical, and detrimental. Those who support it, to be blunt, don't support Wikipedia or the idea of Wikipedia. Everything about Wikipedia is built on the model of the palimpsest and the open bazaar. No castles are allowed there, and no secrets. Geogre (talk) 12:38, 29 November 2007 (UTC)
In fairness to those objecting to Giano's post: most are not hanging their hats on copyright (though some are). Most are sticking more to the point and saying Giano deliberately broke our prohibition on such publications. The fact is, that policy is flawed and I don't believe it was specifically intended to prohibit this type of disclosure. Lsi john (talk) 13:17, 29 November 2007 (UTC)
If there is no legal prohibition on reposting received emails, since copyright belongs to the recipient (the same as postal mail), how would it be changed if the community wanted to change it to make publishing material like that acceptable? If the community decided it was fine, I thought no small group could stop and filibuster such things if no legal issues were involved. • Lawrence Cohen 14:24, 29 November 2007 (UTC)
Whilst I agree with those who have commented that the copyright issue is a red herring, I would like one question cleared up. Could you make it clear in what jurisdiction you believe that a recipient of a communication holds the copyright in original expression sent to him via post or email? I believe the operative jurisdictions on Wikipedia are most likely Florida and US Federal, and I am only familiar with UK law where, in normal circumstances, the recipient most definitely does not hold such copyright. It would be helpful to us all if you would cite case law or statute upon which you based your apparent belief that, if anyone, Giano or someone who passed it to him, rather than Durova, held the copyright in Durova's email. I have to say that it sounds a little odd. --Tony Sidaway 14:39, 29 November 2007 (UTC)
Tony, I think what people are saying is that the copy that was sent to the person then belongs to the person it was sent to, and that person is free to do with it as they please. The actual ideas expressed (and thus the ability to profit from them) belong to the writer of the note. But as long as Giano wasn't publishing the note for profit, he violated now copyrights. Mr Which??? 16:12, 29 November 2007 (UTC)
If that's really what is being claimed, that's fine. However it's still a most extraordinary statement, so I would still like to press for those making it to indicate which legislation or case law they're basing their statements on. My statements about UK law (which obviously doesn't apply here, I recognise) are based on Cembrit Blunn Ltd and Dansk Eternit Holding A/S versus Apex Roofing Services LLP and Alexander Leader, case no HC05C01951 in the High Court. I would like to see similar citations pertaining to Florida or Federal US law on this matter, bearing out the claim that the recipient of an email holds copyright of the original expression in the copy he receives. --Tony Sidaway 16:19, 29 November 2007 (UTC)
I don't think anyone is saying that. I know I'm not. I'm saying that, just as when one writes a note and posts it, the person they send it to has the legal right to share it with others, post it on a bulletin board, or whatever. They may not have the right to profit from the ideas contained in it, but once the letter passes into their possession, it's theirs to share with whomever they wish. The questio of whether they should ethically is quite a different matter altogether. However, even this doesn't apply to Giano's case, as the person who passed it to him most likely was either the initial leaker, or once removed from the initial leaker. Therefore, both ethically and legally Giano is in the clear on this one, in my view. Mr Which??? 17:42, 29 November 2007 (UTC)
Okay, that looks like yet a third formulation of the claim. On what case law or statute do you base your belief that "when one writes a note and posts it, the person they send it to has the legal right to share it with others, post it on a bulletin board, or whatever" as long as they don't profit from it? I'm not concerned with the ethics here (it's been discussed elsewhere and to repeat that here would be a distraction) but rather, on the legal basis upon which you make these, to me quite extraordinary, claims about the law. As you will see if you examine the high court judgement I have cited, this isn't the case in the UK, so if it's the case in the USA I'd like to see that so I can compare the two laws and understand the differences.--Tony Sidaway 17:56, 29 November 2007 (UTC)
Guys, do I need to link to red herring or do you know what the expression means? Zocky | picture popups 18:00, 29 November 2007 (UTC)
On second thought, I'm not sure that reading that "the phrase may relate to saving a hunted fox by dragging a smoked herring across its trail" is that likely to be helpful :) Zocky | picture popups 18:02, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

The way the Wikipedia hierarchy is treating this "private e-mail copyright/privacy" issue reminds me of how Diebold treated its leaked memos a while back, and look at how that ended up. *Dan T.* (talk) 14:35, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Votes for banning

So, if we don't want Giano to be put on any restrictions we need to put him on the ArbCom?

Putting Giano on the ArbCom is in my view the lesser of two evils, so if the vote on this RFAr comes to that I will be voting for him. Even though he does not have admin experience, has a (very) direct approach in conflict management, and putting him on ArbCom will effectively railroad all his time from improving articles.

I am even more strongly opposed to these sanctions being implemented, but since I will not burden this with too many words, I'll just strongly endorse what GRBerry wrote a few sections up.

ArbCom, don't make this a "Vote for Giano to the ArbCom if you don't want him banned from Wikipedia namespace" election. Losing an election for an ArbCom seat is not a sanctionable offence.

Sjakkalle (Check!) 14:18, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

In some ways, I think giving Giano the huge responsibility and workload of hearing and discussing arbitration cases might be beneficial for him, though there are also some potential drawbacks (one person I aired this opinion to expressed a very serious worry that he would not respect the confidentiality of arbitration discussions). Being an active arbitrator in any serious degree would be likely to curtail Giano's content output to a greater extent than any remedy proposed so far (with the possible exception of the 90 day ban) but I do think we'd end up with a better Giano and, possibly, a clearer idea about what arbitration is and is not. I felt the same way about Geogre's run for arbitration committee last year, and will support Giano's candidacy in the same spirit and for the same reasons. --Tony Sidaway 14:34, 29 November 2007 (UTC)
Though I have disagreed with you several times, and vociferously, on the issues raised here, I must say I've come to a grudging respect for you, Tony. You seem to have a good grasp of the facts and issues surrounding this case, even if I don't wholly agree with all of your interpretations of how those facts and issues should be addressed. Mr Which??? 14:50, 29 November 2007 (UTC)
You'd also end up with a far better Wikipedia (goes for both, IMO), which I think is the point. If you want to vote as a service to personal growth, hell, start with me, I got room to grow! sNkrSnee | ¿qué? 14:55, 29 November 2007 (UTC)
I was intending to vote for Giano, but publishing the private email gives rise to a concern that personal vindictiveness might override discretion and lead to further publication of information submitted privately to the committee, so now I won't be. Guy (Help!) 14:59, 29 November 2007 (UTC)
Remember that any new arbitrator will have access to the full archives of Arbcom;s private mailing list for the past 5 years. Thatcher131 15:01, 29 November 2007 (UTC)
(ec to JzG[Guy]) Good for you. If that's your intepretation of Giano's actions regarding this case, then your "interpreter" needs just a tweak or two, but it's certainly within your rights to misinterpret Giano's actions in this case, and then to base a vote in the ArbCom elections on it. Mr Which??? 15:07, 29 November 2007 (UTC)
Wow, I know Wikipedia isn't paper, but hadn't we better hurry up and buy a few more servers before Giano publishes 5 years' worth of confidential discussions? Your bad faith assumptions really raise the tone of the place, Guy and Thatcher. Bishonen | talk 15:18, 29 November 2007 (UTC).
Giano believes he did the right thing for the right reasons in publishing a private email and then republishing it after Cary removed it. He has also posted logs from the admins IRC channel when he believes they contained discussion that was inappropriate and brought discredit on the people involved in the discussion. Why is it an assumption of bad faith to wonder what Giano will do if he finds something similar in the Arbcom-L archives? Thatcher131 15:51, 29 November 2007 (UTC)
Because Giano, was, in fact, doing the "right thing", and Cary was in the wrong. There was simply no legitimate reason for that note not to be IARed into the public record. And it now appears that Cary might well have had a COI in deleting it, as he had been a member of the group the spurious note was sent to for "review." Mr Which??? 16:05, 29 November 2007 (UTC)
That does not answer my question as to why it is bad faith of me to wonder if he will do it again. In fact, you strengthen the argument that he may do so in the future. Thatcher131 16:52, 29 November 2007 (UTC)
Aren't you alleged to have done the same thing here? I don't know the case - are you denying it? In any event, I certainly don't think it's fair to say that Giano's actions were vindictive. Did you really mean that? sNkrSnee | ¿qué? 15:16, 29 November 2007 (UTC)
That explains a lot. Thanks for posting the link, Snee. I was curious as to why he posted as "Guy" here. Mr Which??? 15:27, 29 November 2007 (UTC)
I have no doubt that, if as arbitrator Giano ever published confidential discussions from arbcom-l, he'd be gone from Wikipedia before he could reach the off-button on his computer. For this reason, I think it's safe to support his bid for arbitrator. --Tony Sidaway 16:08, 29 November 2007 (UTC)
All of this may be moot. Arbcom is election and appointment from Jimbo. Given that within the last week Jimbo's given Giano a ban warning, it seems unlikely that he would approve his candidacy, no matter how successful. And then, of course, the drama will just continue. Marskell (talk) 16:21, 29 November 2007 (UTC)
If a candidate came in first, or with enough of a threshold to win, the community results mean nothing...? • Lawrence Cohen 16:33, 29 November 2007 (UTC)
That's correct. For example, in the ArbCom "elections" two rounds back, I got better results than a couple of the candidates who were actually selected by Jimbo. It's completely up to him; he can make arbitrators without community approval or input, and he is not bound by the results of the popularity contest we hold each winter. --jpgordon∇∆∇∆ 16:41, 29 November 2007 (UTC)
Unless Giano learns from this, I think he will eventually face quite stiff sanctions. The substantive result of this case is the finding that "[Giano]'s 's conduct in response to this matter exceeded the bounds of fair criticism. Areas of particular concern include personal attacks, on-wiki publication of private correspondence, a refusal to assume good faith, a lack of respect for project norms, and an unwillingness to resolve disputes utilizing the dispute resolution mechanism." That's a considerable advance on arbcom's former supine responses to his past provocations, and by its show of integrity in the face of extreme attack it bodes well for the future of the committee. I would still prefer to see him explicitly enjoined to follow dispute resolution process, but then that can be said to apply to all of us. --Tony Sidaway 16:36, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

Tony/Thather/Bish/et al - rather than speculating, I've gone ahead and asked Giano directly. Raul654 (talk) 16:39, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

It seems to me that his answer to Seraphimblade already indicates that he accepts that no Arbcom member could be allowed to disseminate confidential information. --MediaMangler (talk) 17:08, 29 November 2007 (UTC)
I don't know what "show" you were watching, but out here we only get the Integrity Channel in Italian. Of all the major players, I think Giano has by far the least to answer for, and I think many people agree his criticism was eminently fair. Perhaps something got lost in translation? sNkrSnee | ¿qué? 16:48, 29 November 2007 (UTC)
There is no integrity in making false accusations against the arbitration committee, vandalizing the proposed decision page, and other shows of contempt for dispute resolution. This arbitration committee has shown on this arbitration case an appreciation of a matter of great concern, to which in former cases it seems to have been blinded by various distractions. The dispute resolution process itself has long been under attack. Now, perhaps late in the day, the committee has explicitly recognised the danger this poses for Wikipedia. --Tony Sidaway 17:10, 29 November 2007 (UTC)
Don't know what the false accusations were, so won't comment. The "vandalism" was obvious and piffling, and caused no one any grief. I think ArbCom has been continually behind the curve on this one, and only accomodated a swell of opinion made possible by Giano's actions, which may discomfit some. Finally, if this is the dispute resolution process, then it needed attacking, and I thank Giano for it. Of course, you will see it differently. sNkrSnee | ¿qué? 17:53, 29 November 2007 (UTC)
The false accusation that was uppermost in my mind was that the committee was shielding arbitrators who should be "incriminated" (his word) and Giano's vandalism of an arbitration page was an expansion on that theme.
On your claim that Giano in some way led the curve and was in any way responsible for Durova being brought to arbitration, to my mind it seems to be simply false. It just isn't born out by the evidence. By the time Giano made his first comment in the matter on 20 November, considerable input from many administrators and other experienced editors had been received. Two days before, immediately afer Durova's announcement of the block, Newyorkbrad, Glasscobra, W.marsh, Majorly, EliminatorJR, Sam Blacketer, Bbatsell, Ryan Postlethwaite, Wizardman, Kwsn, The Rambling Man, Videmus Omnia, all commented negatively on it, particularly in the light of the blocked editor's exemplary reputation and Durova's unwillingness even to disclose the justification for the block.
A little over an hour after the announcement, Durova announced that she had made a mistake and unblocked. Later that evening, Swatjester criticised Durova severely for "a colossal failure to assume good faith". Moreschi, Bbatsell, Darkson, Ryan Postlethwaite, Amarkov, W.marsh and many others also criticised the secretive side of Durova's activities, and an extensive discussion of this practice followed.
On November 19, Durova was then criticised for blanking the discussion by Cla68, krimpet, Swatjester and East718, and a brief discussion followed.
At that point, discussion on all sides seemed to be pretty civil. Dispute resolution was working and Durova's conduct as an administrator was obviously under severe question by a very broad section of the community including some who, like Giano and Durova herself, are very highly respected editors.
Now Giano's actions and arguments, unfortunately, were driven by his tendency to think in terms of secret conspiracies, and such actions, not limited to Giano alone, have led to a lot of unnecessary drama in this case (which has been noted by the Committee in no less than two strongly supported proposed findings of fact in this case). It is, in part, this propensity to make a huge battle out of a conduct issue with an administrator of otherwise sterling reputation, that has led to the arbitration case. And that's why Giano is listed as a party and named in a finding. We can't go on like this. Wikipedia isn't a battleground, or shouldn't be, and sometimes editors need to be reminded of that.
Now look as you like, but you will not find any finding or remedy on the subject that Giano and some others have made the most of: the idea that discussing Wikipedia matters on a private mailing list is in some way illegitimate. It's a non-issue. Durova's error here was in failing to discuss her reasoning on the wiki when asked to do so, and giving the impression (which perhaps she had convinced herself was true) that her activities were under the aegis of the arbitration committee. It was in part her secretiveness that fed the paranoia that has characterised much of the public discussion in the past three or four days. While the workshop is replete with all kinds of dire principles, findings and sanctions concerning "sleuthing" and secret mailing lists, and hiding the identity of the alleged co-conspirators and whatnot, this is not going to be reflected in the final decision, because there's nothing in it. Giano has a tendency speak in terms of conspiracy theories, and sadly that has misled some otherwise sensible and level-headed editors. Fortunately it has not misled the arbitration committee, who are after all the most frequent target of Giano's wilder theories. --Tony Sidaway 19:19, 29 November 2007 (UTC)
No Tony, that is incorrect. Giano (talk) 19:39, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

The penalties proposed for Giano here are draconian, and punitive rather than preventative in nature. He posted in the intent of benefiting the encyclopedia, and he has stopped. Blocking him from editing for a number of days is clearly simple punishment, as there is no sign he will be disrupting during those days otherwise. Banning him from the entire policy area of Wikipedia goes against the basic principle that with very rare exceptions, we, Wikipedia editors, decide Wikipedia policy. He's not a vandal, he's a critic. And, of course, he's an excellent editor. --AnonEMouse (squeak) 20:43, 29 November 2007 (UTC)


That the Committee is "the most frequent target of Giano's wilder theories" is, in fact, incorrect Tony. IRC is the most frequent target of Giano's wilder theories, and IRC is not Arbcom. I'm not in Giano's camp or out of it, but I think we should be clear about what he has attacked. He has attacked off-site communication for on-site decisions, but he has not attacked the integrity of Arbcom per se. (AFAICS).
But again, much of this is moot because Jimbo is very probably not going to approve Giano to the Committee, whatever the election result. I presume Giano knows that. His continued candidacy is either a noble effort to keep the bastards honest or an ignoble excercise in POINT. Personally, I'll plead no contest. I think it's something of both. Marskell (talk) 20:53, 29 November 2007 (UTC)
I disagree that Giano's wilder theories center on IRC. What you're referring to above is merely the fact that he complains that he's often criticised on IRC, and he's factually correct, for what it's worth. Whether he has any expectation of his conduct not being criticised on forums where such matters are discussed is another question. The "wilder theories" to which I refer are Giano's theory, expressed shortly after the Carnildo RFA, that there was a conspiracy between arbitrators, bureaucrats and (extraordinarily) a Foundation director, to resysop Carnildo, and his more recently stated theories (I hope I have this one right, but these things are so mind-boggling that it's difficult to follow them sometimes) that the arbitration committee is shielding one of its own from exposure of some vaguely specified wrongdoing in the matter of Durova.
Giano may have a beef with offsite communications, but that's more in the manner of a quixotic quest, really. However much one may rail against it, we can't stop people discussing Wikipedia matter in private.
I don't think you understand the meaning of Do not disrupt Wikipedia to illustrate a point, which you appear to cite above, if you think it applies to Giano. He has acted disruptively, certainly the arbitrators and I agree with one another on that, but he has not done so in a way proscribed by any reaosnable reading of that guideline. In particular, his candidacy is in no way disruptive. --Tony Sidaway 21:46, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] arbitrary section break X13

Tony, Tony. I don't understand Do not disrupt? This isn't about me and you, of course, but I must say...: A person who, hypothetically, was privy to all of Wiki's history would probably call your presence on any dispute resolution process a form of disruption. What is Tony Sidaway but a dispute troll? (The handle, not the person—I don't know you.) Why are you here beyond having your sig attached to drama? Because you care about Wikipedia?
And no, sorry, if you take all of Giano's wrath, it has been directed at IRC in the main, not Arbcom. Show me the diffs where Giano is attacking the existence or integrity of Arbcom. Giano says a lot of things, so it's quite possible you'll find those diffs. But, consistenly, he has attacked decisions, whether real or imagined, that have ocurred on off-Wiki networks such as IRC. What is all of this but a quixotic (don't disagree) crusade against e-mail? Marskell (talk) 22:12, 29 November 2007 (UTC)
Not exactly hard to find. Kirill 23:32, 29 November 2007 (UTC)
Point taken, Kirill. I actually reverted that very edit. I would still argue that the primary target of Giano's wrath has been IRC, if you take his contributions in sum. Marskell (talk) 09:10, 30 November 2007 (UTC)
Our disagreement on WP:POINT is a minor thing so I'll let it pass.
On Giano's wilder edge, it is precisely those accusations and that ridiculous behavior that stick out like a sore thumb to me (and to others--Raul654 has called this phenomenon "FrankenGiano" on the proposed decision). I don't have to go looking for Giano's wild accusations, he makes them openly. I draw a distinction between those wild accusations and even wilder conduct (which arbcom has itself just described as having "exceeded the bounds of fair criticism"), and his legitimate, if wrongheaded and utterly doomed, crusade against the private exchange of opinion on Wikipedia-related matters. If he merely stuck to moaning about cliques in IRC or email we probably wouldn't have nearly so much drama. Such cliques undoubtedly exist, but there's nothing we can do about it. --Tony Sidaway 22:29, 29 November 2007 (UTC)
Oh Tony do put a sock in it, you sound as though you envy me. Giano (talk) 22:32, 29 November 2007 (UTC) I appologise Tony that was a very unkind remark. Giano (talk) 22:45, 29 November 2007 (UTC)
I'm going to apologize for my typos, before typing more. (A long and bad day, over here.)
"Giano's wilder edge." Tony, I don't disagree that he has a wilder edge, and I don't disagree that it has caused harm. And I share the opinion that if he were a member of Arbcom, Giano would actually be more mindful of how he communicates. But he won't become a member of Arbcom, because Jimbo will disapprove it (quite probably). That was the only point I wanted to make, posting to this thread.
Having received responses, I'll add that Giano's most "principle-full" comments are generally on the mark. I disagree with Tony that discussing and challenging off-site communication has no effect, for instance. What is the most destructive decision making process? It's e-mail. Plain e-mail: "will you block this person for me?" (Have I been privy to that?—yes, of course. What admin hasn't been?) You cannot police that. You can only create a sense of shame in admins. When they stoop to that, they should feel that they are doing wrong. Insofar as Giano's comments shame people who use off-site communications to make serious, on-site decisions, I applaud Giano's comments. But they could be better channelled. Giano's opinions, without Giano's presentation.
First point, last: our conversation on POINT does matter, Tony. You're not a stupid man and people will read your comments for insight. But obviously no one with any grasp of Wiki's history is unaware of why you're here. Marskell (talk) 23:23, 29 November 2007 (UTC)
Tangential, but why should Jimbo not approve Giano if he is elected? On the Committee he has pledged to be well-behaved, his voice will be one among many, and any transgression will be grounds for immediate "dismissal". It would be foolish not to appoint him. And imagine the fun if he is voted in but rejected. Andplus (talk) 00:14, 30 November 2007 (UTC)
Hmm, do you really mean to say that if I chat with someone on IRC or in email and say "look at this chap, he's in raging edit war across a couple of articles with X, and Y has warned him in vain, I think it's time to block" it would be wrong? I've probably done this dozens of times and I absolutely deny that it's wrong in any way. On the question of why I'm here in this arbitration case talk page, I've no idea what that has to do with our minor difference of opinion over WP:POINT. Frankly I'm not even sure I understand your point, and I don't care about it enough to investigate, but I do feel strongly that there's nothing at all disruptive about Giano's arbitration candidateship. --Tony Sidaway 00:19, 30 November 2007 (UTC)
Ah, I think I get it now, Marskell. You think I'm a troll and that I'm only posting on this page to make mischief. Well that's a rather extraordinary opinion and you're welcome to it. I don't think I've ever been called a Wikipedia troll before. --Tony Sidaway 00:32, 30 November 2007 (UTC)
I believe that the parallel that was being drawn was considerably more subtle than simply claiming you're "mak[ing] mischief." The point raised relating to Giano was that he "injects a stink" into every dispute resolution process he takes part in. Marskell was expressing an opinion that your contributions to dispute resolution could, by a reasonable person, be seen to create a similar "bad smell." You know, like when you lance a boil?
CygnetSaIad (talk) 00:48, 30 November 2007 (UTC)
Andplus, as noted, Jimbo has issued a ban warning to Giano recently. It just seems very unlikely that he would approve him.
I'll actually partly retract "What is Tony Sidaway but a dispute troll?". Having looked at your recent contribs, I notice healthy amounts of edits to article space. A lot more than when I last checked, about a year ago. I'll save further explanation for user talk, as we have enough tangents here. Marskell (talk) 09:15, 30 November 2007 (UTC)
Remember that when you checked last year I had spent some months as one of the only active clerks. I was also involved in arbitration enforcement matters (because nobody else seemed to want to do it). I freely admit that I had little energy left over for article writing at that time. --Tony Sidaway 15:48, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Re: Giano Reminded

Now this I could at least tepidly support. We could all (especially me) do well to remember that things go more smoothly when we're more civil with each other. Well-played, to whichever member of the ArbCom proposed it: it is a true middle ground between those of us who think Giano should never have even been a party to this case, and those who think he needs to be restricted. Those who believe he needs to be banned should probably take a look at his contributions to the project, and reconsider. Mr Which??? 15:33, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

Ditto. --AnonEMouse (squeak) 20:44, 29 November 2007 (UTC)
I'm not commenting on Giano or the remedy, however the notion that when we look at someone's contributions when deciding whether their behaviour is acceptable is flawed. Writing FA or producing DYKs does not excuse anyone from bad behaviour - or give them a 'free pass'. Indeed more should be expected from longstanding contributors, not less. That's the whole point of the "vested contributor" finding. Now, we may all disagree about if or how bad Giano's behaviour has been and whether it deserves sanction or not. That's a legitimate point for discussion. But let's all agree not to look at contributions in one area when assessing behaviour in another.--Docg 22:52, 29 November 2007

(UTC)

Interesting you mention that "vested contributor" finding. Frankly, I think aspects of it apply to both Durova and Giano, and possibly to quite a few other people who have played a role in this tableau. To be honest, I do not think it is entirely bad to have vested contributors; very few systems work without them. On one end of the scale, they are the driven individuals who work 70 hours or more a week to achieve their personal goals; on the other end, they are Cincinnatus-like characters who are only drawn into events as the result of an urgent plea. I'd venture to say that both Durova and Giano have made a lot of contributions to the encyclopedia, both in their article work and their actions when not writing. The question is more around how the community values their respective non-writing contributions. Risker (talk) 23:11, 29 November 2007 (UTC)
Vested contributor applies to lots of people. And we accept that people who contribute much will make more mistakes - just by arithmetical laws. But contributions don't earn rights to special treatment or to ignore our values that's all. And that goes for Giano, for me, for you, and for Durova too. I'm simply saying that Mouse's argument that "Those who believe he needs to be banned should probably take a look at his contributions to the project, and reconsider" is invalid. Either he needs sanctioned or he doesn't - the number of contributions should not be a factor.--Docg 23:24, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] No drama, just a statement

I'm not going to yell and scream. My user page and blog already contain all my yelling (well, more like joking) on this matter. But I do want to make one statement: if Giano is sanctioned in any way, I'm gone. Period. Not one more edit.

Now this statement will probably not make Jimbo or ArbCom shake in their books, or even their slippers. I'm not the best editor or the worst. A featured article, a couple good articles, a bunch of other edits. I'm eminently replaceable. But I don't want to be part of a project where truthtellers are punished.

Oh, one exception. No matter what happens, I will vote for Giano for ArbCom. I'm not sure if that technically qualifies as an edit. Casey Abell (talk) 16:03, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

At least myself and one other editor have echoed these sentiments above. And I'm sure that others would exit as well. However, the tide seems to be turning toward a simpler "Giano Reminded" solution, which I could certainly handle. Mr Which??? 16:08, 29 November 2007 (UTC)
Oh I hope so Whichy.Merkinsmum 16:11, 29 November 2007 (UTC)
I'm not certain what to make of this note. Were you hoping I would leave, or that the "Reminded" note would be all that passed? Sorry for being so easily confused... Mr Which??? 16:20, 29 November 2007 (UTC)
Does it make a difference? *poke* :) Lsi john (talk) 16:21, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, I'm fine with reminders. But a sanction of any kind means I'm outa here. Again, I don't expect Jimbo or ArbCom to lose their lunches over my comment. Casey Abell (talk) 16:12, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] On Wiki vs off Wiki

This is long winded, but I think this is what half this confusion currently is. If policy is being written that says the following basic scenario is not permitted:

  1. User mails myself or another person some information, which then ends up in my inbox.
  2. The mail says (fictional), "Lawrence Cohen, Giano, and Tony Sidaway are complete a-holes, and I'm going to send fake evidence to ANI and ArbCom that says they are doing this, this, and this, and I'm going to get them banned because I can't stand them. Also, please come vote stack on all the AfDs I've attached in this list with your following sock puppets (list of puppets)."
  3. If I directly repost this email to ANI verbatim, as a copy and paste, it's wrong.

Under what circumstances is it acceptable to release some of this information in public? Snippets? A summary? A rewording? Is the text private, or is the idea private? I think there has to be some accepted way to do this that wouldn't breach any theoretical, untested, or alleged copyright infractions. Yes, mailing to ArbCom is a possible course of action. But is the prohibition on posting the content and gist of the mail 1) due to copyright; 2) to prevent public scrutiny of the people mentioned in the mail--the people violating policy or being nasty, that is; 3) to limit who can enforce sanctions on the people in question, or all or none of the above. I just find it hard to believe that simply saying on a venue like ANI is a problem, or by posting the information to Checkuser.

"I got this mail in my inbox, which confirms that User:XXX and Admin:YYY are conspiring to harm User:ZZZ by presenting doctored information and votestacking with the following sockpuppets."

I guess my question is, if given evidence does not originate from raw text on Wikipedia, does this mean for it to be cleanly addressed it has to only go through ArbCom? I think that is my confusion and others' on this whole mess. Is the intention to protect copyrights, to limit who can enforce solutions on the problem, or to mitigate reputaation damage to the offending parties...? It might be helpful if there was a resolution posted on how off-Wiki evidence is supposed to be handled, and expressly why its supposed to be handled that way. We can all weigh in on why and how, but since half the people seem to mostly agree with what ArbCom wrote on the private correspondence section and half of us seem to have varying degrees of "I don't agree" maybe this should be cleared up too. If nothing else, so that everyone isn't just spinning in circles here and jabbering their opinions until the other side just gets sick of replying. • Lawrence Cohen 18:04, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

  • This is what I was trying to get at earlier/above (diff). But looking at the Arbcom's votes for the blanket prohibition of posting emails, there didn't seem to be any point in pursuing further. Thanks for bringing this up. R. Baley (talk) 19:40, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

Adding sections below here, just so its less muddled I guess. • Lawrence Cohen 18:05, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

Well, muddled or not, it conflicts with another proposed finding, which is that everybody is supposed to properly use the dispute resolution mechanism. Sending something directly to Arbcom skips a few steps, doesn't it? To be honest, I am not entirely sure thati s a problem, but it does create internal conflict in the proposed resolutions to this case. Risker (talk) 18:14, 29 November 2007 (UTC)
Such an email would be evidence of malicious intent and should be sent immediately to the arbitration committee. As you might imagine, I don't think the editor's feet would touch the ground, he'd be out of here so fast. Any further activity would, in my opinion, be unnecessary. He'd be gone in a flash. End of story. --Tony Sidaway 15:52, 30 November 2007 (UTC)
I've posted private emails to ArbCom in the past when I felt that they were worthy of the Committee's attention. I don't know what's become of them and, if I did, I wouldn't tell you, because that would stop them being private! Nor would I even like speculation of their contents to circulate, as the people named in them could not properly defend themselves in front of of the Community. We have a Committee of trusted users to deal with this sort of thing: if we don't trust them to deal with sensitive issues, there's really no point in being here at this discussion. Physchim62 (talk) 16:02, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Arbiter replies

Let me try and comment on the views above and below. In essence, both Risker and Jehochman are right. There's some tension here, but that's inevitable. I remind Dtobias that we do actually have internal content policies and that Wikipedia generally doesn't host documents (though Wikisource does). Mackensen (talk) 18:28, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

Would it be worth adding a motion in the decision to clear up how/when its acceptable to post info on-wiki? The current wording sounds like a blanket prohibition on anything, including possibly the ideas/gist of the message. • Lawrence Cohen 18:31, 29 November 2007 (UTC)
It might be better to hash out a flexible policy, as Jehochman suggests below. I think what we've set down reflects current policy and practice, but clarification never hurts. Mackensen (talk) 18:55, 29 November 2007 (UTC)
Thanks. What if the policy settled on conflicts with the ruling here which seems like a "no-never" wording? • Lawrence Cohen 19:00, 29 November 2007 (UTC)
Then I hope administrators use their heads. Mackensen (talk) 19:04, 29 November 2007 (UTC)
Ummmmm. Don't people collect diffs pretty regularly? Don't they quote essays from each other? Don't they put up all kinds of weird and wild stuff in their user spaces? Trying to fix the mercury isn't going to do any good, here, and it can do much, much harm. It's better to realize that this was the public airing of something that its author wanted an air of secrecy about. The issue of whether the secrecy was legitimate or not has been generally settled ("no"), so this is dancing a tango with polite/impolite. That remains sub jure. Content we all to be happy or unhappy and leave off the penalizing (reading Christmas carols lately). Geogre (talk) 21:09, 29 November 2007 (UTC)
Where has it been "settled" that the expectation of privacy of communication was illegitimate? --Tony Sidaway 21:35, 29 November 2007 (UTC)
We have any control on what people do with emails they get? If you send me an email, and I forward it to George, who sends it to Mackensen, who sends it to Jehochman, who sends it to Jimmy Wales, who emails you, and says, "Tony, what is this?", we have no control over it. Beyond that, if there is no allowance for private email on Wikipedia in any form, why haven't we removed !!'s evidence? • Lawrence Cohen 21:39, 29 November 2007 (UTC)
Control is not the issue here. Whether we have an expectation of confidentiality in a given instance is a matter of courtesy, commonsense, and even civility. These things do matter, because if we do not trust one another we will not be able to communicate with one another. It's because we do care about such things that you have to have a good reason to divulge private emails. The mere wish to embarrass someone, as seems to be the case here, is not a legitimate reason. --Tony Sidaway 21:59, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

Tony: do you really think Giano posted the e-mail in public just to cause embarrassment? Can't you think of some good-faith reasons instead? Perhaps he thought it was worth contradicting the many people who said this was "just" a 75 minute block, quickly over, no harm done; or that the "evidence" clearly showed grounds for suspicion, and that there was one magic piece of missing information without which the block would have been entirely reasonable.

Have you read the so-called "evidence"? -- !! ?? 19:41, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

I can't read Giano's mind, but having examined the state of the discussion during the days before he posted it, it's obvious that what little credence was given to Durova's block was quickly shredded in the days following. The posting of the email has been a massive sideshow, generating far more heat than light. It gave absolutely no information that was relevant to the block (the illegitimacy of which was clear within one hour of Durova's first announcement). So I presume that the only reason can have been to embarrass Durova. --Tony Sidaway 11:54, 1 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Everyone else

Refactor the email and repost a summary of what it says at WP:ANI, if you like. Forward the email to Arbcom. Post an exact copy on your own blog. Forward the email to a famous blogger, and then Slashdot and Digg the resulting post where they flame roast the sender. All of the above are fine. Only thing you can't do is post the original on Wikipedia. - Jehochman Talk 18:07, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

So by your thinking, User:!!'s refactoring of Durova's mail in his evidence section, with some text samples, and all the diffs in public, is totally fine, but a straight copy/paste was not? • Lawrence Cohen 18:11, 29 November 2007 (UTC)
Yes, not my thinking, just my understanding of Wikipedia's rules as they currently stand.- Jehochman Talk 18:13, 29 November 2007 (UTC)
It's totally preposterous for an information resource site for there to be things that aren't allowed to be posted here even if they're everywhere else in the world. *Dan T.* (talk) 18:20, 29 November 2007 (UTC)
But we don't allow spam, advocacy, fringe theories and all sorts of other stuff. Nothing requires us to provide a platform for people to post emails, especially when those emails can be refactored to present the essential points. - Jehochman Talk 18:24, 29 November 2007 (UTC)
The involved parties will then claim you're misquoting them, or taking them out of context, or selectively quoting things that support your side against theirs. *Dan T.* (talk) 18:26, 29 November 2007 (UTC)
Yes, that could be an issue. In that case the sender can choose to post their own email, or they can discuss the assertions point by point. The recipient could post the email to another website (even a free blog) and link to that, I think (and I am not a lawyer, so check with one first if you are concerned). Does anybody see a reason why that wouldn't be possible? - Jehochman Talk 18:31, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

The fact that this (area of) discussion (on loopholes) is even taking place highlights a need for a revamp of the rules. Lsi john (talk) 18:42, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

We can do that by heading over to the relevant policy and guideline discussion pages, or by proposing a new policy or guideline at the village pump. - Jehochman Talk 18:51, 29 November 2007 (UTC)
I think we're probably being premature with this. To my knowledge we've never had a case where there was any justification for a private communication, except perhaps one containing a death threat, to be publicised. Certainly not the one Giano repeatedly posted, for which the only purpose can have been to embarrass Durova. Nevertheless, the exercise itself may be interesting. --Tony Sidaway 22:47, 29 November 2007 (UTC)
"To my knowledge we've never had a case where there was any justification for a private communication, except perhaps one containing a death threat, to be publicised."
Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Durova and Jehochman/Evidence#What was in that damning report? • Lawrence Cohen 22:50, 29 November 2007 (UTC)
Please point to the finding to the effect that Giano's action was justified. --Tony Sidaway 00:02, 30 November 2007 (UTC)
Principles 3, 5, 8.1, 9.1 and Facts 2, 3, 3.1 and 4. Risker (talk) 00:24, 30 November 2007 (UTC)
Didn't say Giano's was justified, I pointed out (and have elsewhere) that while Giano's posting was Oversighted, and he was blocked for reposting it, no one has done a thing about User:!!'s modified reposting of the same material. Was User:!!'s reposting inappropriate? Unless I'm wrong, I'm taking it to mean that there is no problem with edited reposting of material. Someone correct me if I'm wrong? • Lawrence Cohen 00:10, 30 November 2007 (UTC)
Ah, I see. The double exclamation mark fellow has quoted parts of the argument by Durova in the private email. Since Giano has gone to considerable lengths to publish that email's contents, I can't see anything wrong with this fellow quoting parts of it in what is really a superfluous defence of his editing history. Unnecessary (the arbcom has seen the email and ruled that it's a load of tosh) but it would be unkind to deny him the right of rebuttal he clearly feels he needs. --Tony Sidaway 00:51, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

Thank you for the compliment, Tony: I'm glad you have now read my evidence. I only put it there 5 days before your comments.

I did try to avoid a "superfluous defence of [my] editing history" but rather to simply set out, in summary form, the nature of the allegations made by Durova - a summary seemed to be the only way to get this critical evidence into an appropriate public forum - and why those allegations are gravely mistaken. This was important, because at least one "senior" admin said "I saw the evidence, it was definitely suspicious"[16] Without seeing the "evidence", it is impossible to determine quite how "suspicious" it was not. -- !! ?? 19:59, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

Blocking anybody and not giving a good reason on Wikipedia is an abuse of administrator power. The precise nature and wording of Durova's reasons for blocking are irrelevant to the block's illegitimacy. She didn't give those reasons, or any defensible explanation of the block, on Wikipedia. That, and not the failure of judgement alone, was the abuse. Administrators are expected to have occasional lapses of judgement. Whether they have a habit of acting on poor judgement, and how they recover from inadvertent errors, is what counts. --Tony Sidaway 12:01, 1 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Wikipedia:Private correspondence

Based on comments from Mackensen, Jehochman, and others, I started this page. Please come help fill it out. Wikipedia:Private correspondence/WP:PRIVATE. • Lawrence Cohen 19:06, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Hard cases make bad law

I will just take a moment to remind everyone on all sides of this very complex and far-reaching case that the decisions of one Arbitration Committee panel are not binding on any future Arbcom processes, and that while they are reflective of the received understanding of Wikipedia policy, they are not themselves Wikipedia policy.

This is a very difficult case. As a community, we have identified many things that need to be changed or improved. Only a few of those things involve individual editors. It is our collective responsibility to actually make those changes. While our arbitrators, as individuals and as a committee, are amongst are longest serving and (one hopes) wisest editors, their role here is to interpret existing community standards and apply them to the facts of this case. It is not to create new policies or change current ones, although they are free to recommend that the community make such changes. Their only power at this time is to determine whether or not individual editors should be sanctioned, based on the specific set of facts provided to them. Let's take our time to review the policies and practices that are related to this case and decide whether they say what we as a community want them to say, or if we want to change course. There may be final decisions made in this case that we simply don't want to have apply in the future. Risker (talk) 18:55, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Un-named party to these proceedings/Who gave the email to Giano II

Sorry about the "drama", but I have just realised that there was another party to this ArbCom that has been missed and whom we may never know - the individual who passed a copy of Durova's report to Giano II. The motives may never be known, but two candidates to ArbCom have been severely compromised with one being desysopped and candidature withdrawn, and the other having sanctions discussed.

Both Durova and Giano II have been materially effected by the report being made public, even briefly, but it was neither of these parties that made the report available for posting. I urge the Arbs to possibly reconsider some of the proposals and decisions in the light that both editors may be partly the victims of an un-named individuals ploy. It may be that Giano II (who I believe was correct in posting the material as it likely effected the outcome of the ArbCom) knows who sent it, but still the consequences need not be visited upon him so harshly.

I apologise again for the drama and for prolonging this matter. LessHeard vanU (talk) 23:02, 29 November 2007 (UTC) Mark.

Well, it was me, of course. Who else? I did ask Durova to send me a copy in the hours after the block,[17] but she did not. If she had, I would have considered myself bound by the confidentiality I offered her when I tried to initiate an off-wiki discussion about the block. But she didn't.
Someone else sent the text of the e-mail (not the whole thing) to me in the aftermath of the block. I was stunned. I could not believe how laughably amateurish it was, nor indeed readily comprehend the bad-faith assumptions from start to end. Here's a troublemaker whose username is two exclamation points with no letters. I could not very well keep it to myself. Giano, indeed, was mentioned as player in the "team". I was then speaking to Durova off-wiki, and didn't want to prejudice our discussions mt disclosing the report, although it was rather galling to be told that Durova made a simple mistake based on my heinously "suspicious" activities. -- !! ?? 21:05, 30 November 2007 (UTC)
In light of the reasoning given I suppose there is some point in not posting it yourself, then. I do however feel that you may have considered the consequences of passing it to Giano. It seems that the disclosure of the content will result in the loss of another excellent contributor (another example of articlespace contributions being disregarded) to the encyclopedia.LessHeard vanU 12:37, 1 December 2007 (UTC)
Just as the arbitration committee can't make rulings to limit or control private off-wiki discussions. it cannot make rulings about exchange of information between individuals off-wiki. It's simply not something the arbitration committee can do anything about, any more than it can pass an ordinance against Wikipedians sneezing over food. The Committee's purposes are limited to regulating activities on the wiki. --Tony Sidaway 00:07, 30 November 2007 (UTC)
Weren't you arguing up above that the reason that there was no ruling about off-wiki activities was that it was a non-issue (rather than being outside the Committee's remit)? Andplus (talk) 00:20, 30 November 2007 (UTC)
It's a non-issue in the same sense that the color of my socks is a non-issue. Utterly beyond the remit of arbcom and frankly not of much interest even to other sock wearers. Of interest to Giano, perhaps, because he doesn't like the idea of Wikipedia matters being discussed off-wiki. --Tony Sidaway 00:35, 30 November 2007 (UTC)
We're still going to need you to reveal your socks just the same. sNkrSnee | ¿qué? 00:37, 30 November 2007 (UTC)
All my alternative accounts have been disclosed. I seldom use any except for testing bots. :) --Tony Sidaway 00:45, 30 November 2007 (UTC)
I just saw your reply. I meant socks in the same literal sense you did in your analogy, and Lis john below. sNkrSnee | ¿qué? 12:10, 1 December 2007 (UTC)
So, what color are your socks? Lsi john (talk) 00:38, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

I don't see any basis for it being beyond Arbcom's power to issue on-wiki sanctions against individuals for their off-wiki activity. —Random832 05:41, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

  • My point, imperfectly made, was that the sanctions against both Durova and Giano can be argued as being influenced by the outcries following the posting of the email - but it wasn't Giano who leaked the email. Both Durova and Giano have been effected by some third parties violation of trust, and their sanctions should reflect that. I am not concerned whether the person who leaked the mail is identified, only the effect on the parties named in this ArbCom.LessHeard vanU 13:50, 30 November 2007 (UTC)
    • Good point. Cla68 13:52, 30 November 2007 (UTC)
    • Giano and Giano alone is responsible for Giano's edits on Wikipedia. --Tony Sidaway 12:02, 1 December 2007 (UTC)
      • Including, of course, the ones in article space - you know, the encyclopedia. LessHeard vanU 12:37, 1 December 2007 (UTC)
        • And much credit accrues to him on account of the latter. --Tony Sidaway 18:31, 1 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Some thoughts (principles 9.1 and 11)

I've read this proposed decision properly for the first time, and two things struck me:

  • (1) The wording of principle 9.1 is unclear. I've read it several times and I still don't understand it. "A decisive response to on- and off-wiki harassment of Wikipedia editors should not come at the expense of actions which undermine the core values of the project or the goodwill of honest contributors." It is unclear here what a "decisive response" is, and the double negative "should not come at the expense of" sends me into a tailspin. The addition of "undermine" might even make this a triple negative. I think it is trying to say "make sure any responses to harassment, including gathering evidence for blocks and bans, do not contravene or undermine the core values of the project". Could an arbitrator clarify this?
  • (2) The draconian measures clause (principle 11) hasn't improved since the last time I read it in that previous case. It still comes across as some form of newspeak. I find that when such wording is being used and seriously discussed in the sometimes claustrophobic atmosphere of an ArbCom case, it is best to consider how the following would look if read by ordinary members of the public in a newspaper: "the Committee may be forced to adopt seemingly draconian measures as a last resort for preventing further damage to the project." I think most people's initial reaction would be either incomprehension or laughter. The phrase "seemingly draconian" just sends all the wrong sorts of messages. Trying to be firm and forceful (the 'draconian' bit), but fatally diluting the impact with several large qualifiers (the 'seemingly' and 'may' bit). In my opinion, most people reading something like principle 11 for the first time would either conclude that it was written by committee and that the clarity of the meaning had got lost somewhere along the way, or that the Project had become the be-all and end-all (the end justifies the means). Possibly both.

If the Committee really do think that the ends justify the means, then I would like to have that stated more clearly than is currently stated in the wording of principle 11. Plus the clarification of principle 9.1, which seems to have suffered from being a shortened and rewritten version of the initial principle 9. Carcharoth (talk) 23:20, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

I, too, think that principle 11 is very badly stated. It sounds like ArbCom saying "Hi. We're evil. Deal with it." It will invite future attacks against ArbCom. If you're trying to justify your actions, realize that such a statement will probably have the opposite of the intended effect. rspeer / ɹəədsɹ 04:03, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

It also has tones of self-martyrdom, exasperation, and comes across as trying to deflect the real responsibility for ArbCom's actions onto those being sanctioned. Imagine an exasperated arbitrator saying "but we have been reasonable and you've forced us to do this, but we aren't bad, really, because the measures are only seemingly draconian, and after all they are a last resort (you forced us to do this!), so it's your fault we are being forced to do this and, and... it's for the good of the project." ArbCom should take full responsibility for the sanctions they hand down and not use language like "may be forced to". As soon as you say you are being forced to do things, that aura of authority begins to slip. Carcharoth (talk) 05:13, 30 November 2007 (UTC)
That isn't even a double negative, let alone a triple. Carcharoth's interpretation is correct.
The word "draconian" doesn't mean evil, it means harsh. I don't see what is unreasonable about an observation that serious problems require drastic solutions. --Tony Sidaway 15:59, 30 November 2007 (UTC)
The problem comes with the use of the word "forced". As soon as you say you are being "forced" to do something, you abrogate a little of your own responsibility and pass it over to those doing the forcing. A stronger position would be to simply state clearly that serious problems require serious measures. No need to have any talk of "forcing". Carcharoth 23:12, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] I know opinions vary...

but it seems unfair to me that Giano is going to come off with more of an official spanking for revealing an abuse than Durova for creating one. I don't think I'm alone on that. sNkrSnee | ¿qué? 00:27, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

I know. It's absolutely ridiculous. But our chance to be heard isn't here, it's at the ArbCom elections voting phase. DEVS EX MACINA pray 00:29, 30 November 2007 (UTC)
or at the very least, our chance to be louder mimes. sNkrSnee | ¿qué? 00:31, 30 November 2007 (UTC)
I think the point is that Durova has already taken a large hit in terms of credibility and resigning adminship. There isn't really a lot else left to do there. Also, the FoF # 4 is pretty damning: "It was not reasonable for an administrator to block !! or take any other action based on this evidence, nor was the block justified by any other available evidence." - quite plainly saying that Durova was clearly wrong. Carcharoth (talk) 00:34, 30 November 2007 (UTC)
(ec to Snee)It's bullshit, plain and simple. That five ArbCom members have taken upon themselves to punish Giano with a 90-day block (which does extreme harm to the project) for basically pissing them off with his methods is beyond unacceptable. I fully recognize that Giano can be a pain in the ass. That doesn't matter. He's a damn good editor, and when he says it's a duck it's almost always a duck. The sooner the those five arbiters can look past their anger at Giano, and see that they've taken their collective eyes off the ball (Durova) in this case, the easier this case will become, and the better off the project will be. Mr Which??? 00:38, 30 November 2007 (UTC)
What Giano did wrong was to continue to escalate and inflame the issue well after the point where it was obvious that it would go to arbitration, to continue that behaviour throughout the arbitration even after it was obvious that Durova's sysop bit was history, and to continually refuse to allow any interpretation other than systemic evil. On the plus side, I think it showed that both Durova and Giano would be terrible arbitrators, so hopefully we'll avoid that mistake. Guy (Help!) 00:40, 30 November 2007 (UTC)
I think Giano aquitted himself just fine for the upcoming elections. I know that I wasn't planning on voting for him before this kefuffle. Now I am. He's the gadfly that the project needs biting its ass, reminding it what it is intended to be about: great content creation. Mr Which??? 00:49, 30 November 2007 (UTC)
I don't think Giano "continue to escalate and inflame the issue well after the point where it was obvious that it would go to arbitration, to continue that behaviour throughout the arbitration" as Guy claimed. When people have got aggro about the issues on his talk page, he has removed some arguments. I will be voting for Giano for arbcom, not as a backlash though but because he believes in justice and transparency, not just a clique smooching each other, and he is a good editor.Merkinsmum 14:34, 30 November 2007 (UTC)
If Giano revealed any abuse, the arbitration decision is curiously silent on the matter. Durova's ill-advised block and his failure to justify it properly were already known before the email was posted. The Committee itself, and not Giano, has clarified that Durova was not authorized to direct inquiries on the block to arbcom. --Tony Sidaway 00:44, 30 November 2007 (UTC)
(e/c)Tony, the last time I checked He was a She ... and I'm beginning to wonder if you are reading anything or simply replying to every possible thread. Lsi john (talk) 00:48, 30 November 2007 (UTC)
He didn't reveal it (I've never said otherwise) - he AMPLIFIED it. His speakers go to 11. As for the rest, you say binge, I say purge. sNkrSnee | ¿qué? 00:47, 30 November 2007 (UTC)
I was responding to the first sentence of the section. There is no evidence of abuse in the email that Giano published. Had Durova written that tosh in email about some other, abusive, editor, but then gone on to get positive checkuser results, and then (and only then) blocked, then there would be no problem. The abusive acts were blocking without good reason and then refusing to explain herself properly. Those acts were all carried out in plain view on the wiki. --Tony Sidaway 00:54, 30 November 2007 (UTC) (note, due to an edit conflict I've expanded this since Snickersnee's comment above)
Agreed, there was none IN it. The whole thing WAS it. sNkrSnee | ¿qué? 00:55, 30 November 2007 (UTC)
The entire "email" that she circulated was one long attack on the character and credibility of a respected user, !!, and as such needed to be shown the light of day, so that others could see the rot that permeated the techniques and methods of the secret society sleuths. The votestacking in support of blocks apparent in the last diff she provided is outrageous if that were the only evidence in the "email." The fact that it also contained ludicrous attempts to smear the name of a respected contributor made it far worse. Mr Which??? 01:02, 30 November 2007 (UTC)
Did Durova know that !! was a respected contributor? I rather doubt it. Mackensen (talk) 01:05, 30 November 2007 (UTC)
(ec)Yes, I believe she did. No one could review that edit history and see anything but a productive contributor--unless she became so deluded with her own sleuthing that she refused to see what would have bitten her in the ass had it been a wild animal. Mr Which??? 01:15, 30 November 2007 (UTC)
I'd like to hope that all contributors who write prolifically and well, develop collaborative relationships with other editors, and participate in valued wikiprojects like DYK are automatically considered to be respected contributors. If not, then perhaps I should go back to worrying if I clean up more unsourced trash in wrestling articles. Risker (talk) 01:09, 30 November 2007 (UTC)
My point is simply that Durova didn't know who !! was. There's a massive assumption of bad faith there, but it's a distinction that shouldn't be lost. Mackensen (talk) 01:13, 30 November 2007 (UTC)
No abuses were in the email. It was simply a farrago of weak inferences and laughable deductions. The abuse lay not in expressing her poorly justified opinions, it lay in acting on them without proper evidence, and then refusing to justify the actions. --Tony Sidaway 01:05, 30 November 2007 (UTC)
Could you possibly split a finer hair? Why do I already know the answer? But thank you for "farrago". sNkrSnee | ¿qué? 01:12, 30 November 2007 (UTC)
(ecx2)You don't think that referring to someone as a troll is abusive? What about claiming that he was a sockpuppet, under nefarious control? No attack there? Mr Which??? 01:15, 30 November 2007 (UTC)
No no, he's right, technically it's "conspiracy to commit abuse", until the actionable moment. Much nicer ring to it! sNkrSnee | ¿qué? 01:21, 30 November 2007 (UTC)
Expressing a laughably false and wrongheaded opinion is neither abusive, nor does it constitute conspiracy. --Tony Sidaway 01:49, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

This is one of the most DISGUSTING things I have ever seen on Wikipedia. And I am no fan of Giano. Holy. Motherfucking. Shit. I'm absolutely speechless. Is there any way to recall arbitrators? If not, my only edit will be to vote for Newyorkbrad for ArbCom and then I am fucking GONE. I've lost all desire to contribute to Wikipedia knowing that we have people with such demented perspectives in positions of power. One less administrator hounding you, so I guess it would be a net positive in your book, eh? Too bad your decisions themselves can't be net positives for the encyclopedia. It was nice knowing you folks. —bbatsell ¿? ✍ 02:11, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

  • I agree with you, Snickersee. No penalty to Giano is called for by the evidence, the law, or our policies. People are talking about his manner, not his actions, and they're talking about the past, not the present. This is, of course, inappropriate. I also agree that the issue with Durova is not over. Tony's correct that having a batty case is not an issue, but acting on it is. However, he's wrong to think that's that. If a person uses IRC to formulate on-wiki acts and then insists that the logs can't be published, then that person is being a bad user and an undesirable person for an admin (and, like Tom Joad, Giano will be there). If a person thinks that Wikipedia decisions can take place on e-mail and never be shown to anyone, then that person is a bad user and an undesirable admin (and Giano will be there). If a person believes that separate mailing lists will allow collective and collusive action against users for evidence not offered on Wikipedia, then that person is undesirable as a Wikipedia editor (and Giano will be there). What I wish all those trying to bridge these two would realize is that Giano isn't publishing anyone's e-mail barring their being asked and not coming forward, barring an offense not being in evidence, barring its direct relevance, and he has posted no IRC logs that didn't pertain directly to a case directly before arbitration and that showed direct evidence. So, is this man a menace to all private corresponders, and every private e-mail, every list that discusses Wikipedia, every IRC discussion? Of course not, and trying to say so is a mask. The fault is in anyone trying to use private justifications for Wikipedia actions. Many would have published this particular "e-mail" on Wikipedia, though perhaps with more obfuscation, but the substance would have been the same. Giano didn't feel that it was necessary, I gather, to pay lipservice to the holy power of abusive e-mail's "privacy" (when it went to a f*cking listserver!). He's right: it wasn't. The rest of us would have anyway. That's what people are upset about: Giano doesn't care about the nice-nice of people pretending that they're not revealing something private or keeping private something that is public. He dropped the charade the rest of us would have vaguely gestured toward, and that has some folks really pissed off. Geogre (talk) 12:11, 30 November 2007 (UTC)
Serious damage was done here by, I think we're all agreed, what amounted to an assumption of bad faith by Durova. In fact, Swatjester and many other editors said exactly that on Wikipedia:Administrators' Noticeboard/Incidents less than three hours after Durova announced her block.
Entering the discussion some two days after the block and while Durova's activities as an administrator were under severe question, Giano's activities are focussed on what, in this case, is of so little import that, to date, it has not figured in one single proposed principle, finding of fact, or remedy in this case. He has thus raised a sideshow that has served to prolong the dispute and provide a distraction from the issues of how administrators should make decisions about blocking, and how they should present their justifications to the community. His manner of perptrating this distraction was also, the Committee has determined, disruptive. --Tony Sidaway 16:08, 30 November 2007 (UTC)
Yeah, Tony, we can read you know :) You might notice though that the process is called Requests for Arbitration, not Requests for Gospel. There's a plausible possibility that the ArbCom could be mistaken. Zocky | picture popups 12:05, 1 December 2007 (UTC)
The arbitration committee can only go by Wikipedia policy. It would be a pretty massive (and frankly, very unwelcome) change in Wikipedia policy to try to legislate such off-wiki matters as closed mailing lists, private email discussions, and the like. It would also be rather unrealistic. Even if it were advisable to change Wikipedia policy to do this, it is the case that Wikipedia policy currently does not seek to control the off-wiki activities of its volunteers. --Tony Sidaway 18:36, 1 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Policing ArbCom elections

Could the ArbCom take a sensible course of action here and leave the policing of the ArbCom elections to those outside the ArbCom? There seems to be a feeling that sanctions against Giano are needed to prevent disruption of the elections. Please trust uninvolved admins active at the election pages to deal with that if such a situation arises. And anyway, there would be nothing stopping Giano running his campaign from his talk page, and having people put links from his questions page to his talk page. It would just give the impression that Giano was being gagged. A more sensible option would be a general reminder that all ArbCom election candidates are expected to behave with decorum and may be blocked if they post private materials, or are disruptive, etc. Carcharoth (talk) 00:52, 30 November 2007 (UTC)


[edit] Morven: Opposing the Remedy Suspended

I can't believe this.I literally had to clean my glasses and check again that Morven really wrote this: "Standing as a candidate does not give one an out for disruption, especially disruption that repeats a long-running pattern and which in my opinion was at least partially grandstanding for the election." Matthew Brown (Morven) (T:C) 00:11, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

My God. Let me quote you something, Morven. Proposed Principle 1: 1) Users are expected to assume good faith in their dealings with other editors, especially those with whom they have had conflicts in the past..

You think--nay, you assume--that Giano isn't in earnest? That he doesn't actually care about user:!!, one of his oldest friends? You accuse him of "Grandstanding" for the election?

And you don't think it matters if Giano's arbcom campaign, which has now acquired a genuine chance (since so many people apparently plan to vote for him in a spirit of protest) is hampered by these remedies?

This is disgusting. I'm ashamed to see arbitrator comments on such a level. I don't want anything more to do with this parody. Bishonen | talk 00:58, 30 November 2007 (UTC).

I completely concur. I nearly left a note on his page, but I was so angry I didn't feel I could keep from being overly profane. Mr Which??? 01:05, 30 November 2007 (UTC)
Arbitrators are expected to make judgements on conduct. It's their job. --Tony Sidaway 01:08, 30 November 2007 (UTC)
Conduct differs from motive. The disgusting part of Morven's comment was that he presumed to know Giano's motives. But I think you know that. And it doesn't appear that you care. Mr Which??? 01:17, 30 November 2007 (UTC)
lol Tony, so they've taken on mind reading as part of the Arbcom duties? Please. New low. RxS (talk) 01:48, 30 November 2007 (UTC)
Arbitrators do often use the "duck" principle in assigning motives.
As you know, I've stated several times on this page that I believe Giano's wish to be an arbitrator is genuine, but I can see that some experienced editors (and Morven is one such experienced editor) may find it curious that Giano's extremely disruptive and provocative behavior coincides with the beginning of the arbitration elections in which he is a candidate. So while the urge to disrupt may not have engendered the wish to be a candidate, it is conceivable that the political exigencies of the candidacy have engendered a wish to grandstand. I don't have an opinion on the latter but I think it could a reasonable inference. --Tony Sidaway 01:46, 30 November 2007 (UTC)
The idea that Giano's behavior has suddenly changed for the ArbCom elections seems out of line with this thesis that this is his typical "long-running pattern" of behavior. On the other hand, Morven acting despicably isn't something I'd seen to this point, so perhaps he's doing a bit of grandstanding himself? Christopher Parham (talk) 01:53, 30 November 2007 (UTC)
I was thinking the same thing, regarding your last bit. Mr Which??? 02:05, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

I don't think Giano was grandstanding...he's just passionate about things that make him angry. The block of !! and the alledged secret society that backed it simply infuriated him. I can understand, but I don't condone it. Needless to say...I think a simple caution is sufficient and if this type of response by Giano flares up again, then perhaps there should be some stiffer penalty.--MONGO (talk) 02:47, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

I'm undecided on the issue myself. I can see why reasonable people might decide either way, on the available evidence. --Tony Sidaway 16:11, 30 November 2007 (UTC)
For what it's worth, I've struck those words. Assuming Giano's motives is unnecessary, unproductive and unnecessarily unkind, and I apologise for it.. Matthew Brown (Morven) (T:C) 20:15, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Well now

Thank you FloNight[18]. Now we know where we all stand. It is worse to demonstrate the flawed evidence being developed by an administrator famous for her evidence development than it is to block a completely innocent and model editor, insinuate that Arbcom, Foundation representatives and other senior editors are complicit in the decision and not even bother to communicate the reasons for the block to the body to which all questions are referred. Did I miss anything here? Risker (talk) 01:19, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

yes, you forgot to remind everyone to get back to work. sNkrSnee | ¿qué? 01:24, 30 November 2007 (UTC)
Not yet decided; there are now 12 arbitrators on this case. ELIMINATORJR 01:25, 30 November 2007 (UTC)
I was aware that it wasn't decided; my comment was in response to such a flip-flop in thinking. No new evidence has come to light since FloNight voted the last time, except perhaps by reading these pages that arbitrators might see the exasperation of the community. Last night, Mackensen discussed the frustration of the Arbitration Committee because nobody was bringing this case here. After this, can people be blamed for staying as far away from these pages as humanly possible? An administrator blocks a respected contributor and while she is at it suggests that the closest things to governing bodies we have were aware if not supportive of her reasoning, and she gets a "run for RFA if you want your bit back." (Note to arbitrators: Has Durova herself ever sent you a copy of her little sockpuppet detection manual? Has she responded to your questions about it? Did she tell you (even in camera) with whom she had discussions about that information?) The editor who points out that the evidence wasn't worth wasting electrons on gets a 90-day block. Now tell me - why was Durova not instructed that she could not run for RFA again for, oh, say...six months or a year? Why was she not asked to step down from running her admin tutorial school? (Do you really want an admin with these decision-making skills teaching prospective admins?)

Now, it is not particularly in my nature to be punitive, and to be honest my preference would be for no further corrective measures to take place. But if corrective measures are indeed going to be imposed, they should be proportional. And right now, what I see is a lot of noise about Giano being tactless, but a lot more damage inflicted to the community and the encyclopedia by the attempted subrogation of the Foundation and Arbcom. Risker (talk) 03:19, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

(e/c)No, you caught it all. And I left a note on her page, thanking her for demonstrating the utter rot that DR on WP has become: more about personality conflict than building the encyclopedia. This is a ludicrous, farcical joke, that somehow, someway, 5 arbiters somehow think that punitively blocking one of the finest editors the project has, simply because they dislike his methods, is acceptable. Outrageous, and if the case closes as is, I'm taking me and my little 3,000 or so edits (total, not just this account), and finding somewhere more concerned with actual content creation. Citizendium, anyone? Mr Which??? 01:27, 30 November 2007 (UTC)
Just . . .wow. I guess that motion passes after all. didn't see the change to 12. R. Baley (talk) 01:30, 30 November 2007 (UTC)
If he is banned, I suggest a solidarity effort at least.. call on people to ban themselves from the Wiki for 90 days (except for ArbCom election voting of course, but that assumes the ArbCom doesn't nip THAT in the bud as well). My own contributions to the encyclopedia are unremarkable, and I doubt my loss will change anything, but I shall do it anyway. DEVS EX MACINA pray 01:39, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

Boneheadedness at the level these "arbitrators" have engaged in is utterly unacceptable. Given the history of recurrence of this boneheaded behavior, warnings are not enough. Etc etc. Sheesh, to think that I'd been under the impression that at least two of these six were intelligent human beings. -- Hoary (talk) 01:46, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

This place just gets worse every day. Do the arbitrators not see that if they ban Giano, the encyclopedia will definitely suffer? If Giano is banned, the encyclopedia will lose more than just Giano...please make this stop. --SGT Tex 02:05, 30 November 2007 (UTC)
I genuinely don't think the ones voting to ban him care. They don't like him or his methods, and are going to "punish" him, the consequences to the project be damned. Mr Which??? 02:08, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

Dear colleagues, please cut with the strike talk. You are not going to impress the ArbCom members by the threat of editor's exodus. First, it would make little difference, second, this is not what they worry about, third in any case Jimbo made his view clear that editors on this project are expendable. The exodus won't change anything, and threats of exodus would actually have an opposite effect.

If you want to really do something, try paying more attention to various policy pages, mostly hijacked by a small circle of non-writing admins, and stop ignoring RfAdms. By casting votes and promoting the content editors, you would make a difference. Same applies to the upcoming election. Wikipedia is by far less run by a Cabal than it used to a year ago, when another matter, also centered on Giano, made a change. Not big enough but it just shows that it is not hopeless. When rank-and-file editors take more active part in all sorts of Wikipedia-space pages, when IRC support means statistically less at RfAdm votes, the change happens.

BTW, Giano is not banned yet. This suspense drama is astonishingly bad taste but it has not fully unleashed yet. Have patience. --Irpen (talk) 03:19, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

Irpen: try paying more attention to various policy pages, mostly hijacked by a small circle of non-writing admins, and stop ignoring RfAdms Guilty as charged. I generally ignore the policy pages unless I have reason to read them and something in them strikes me as fatuous. On occasion I have then objected in the relevant talk page whereupon I've always been outnumbered, so there went an hour of my life. As for RfAdms, they're contests among usernames that may or may not be vaguely familiar to me but are virtually never more than vaguely familiar; I certainly have no inclination to check. I could of course simply see who my "wikifriends" are voting for and vote along with them, but I like to think I grew out of such behavior during my teens. Is my memory for names that much worse than yours, or do you actually study what goes on here, keeping scores on people ready for the time when they're put forward for bureaucracy or arbitration or whatever? -- Hoary (talk) 06:49, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

Well, here is my tip how to make an impact on RfAdms and minimizing the time wasted on studying various things about the candidate whose name is totally unfamiliar. First, don't waste time trying to vote on RfAdms where you vote won't matter, that is shoe-ins and obvious failures. If others already decided that candidate is passing (or s/he has no chance) your vote won't make a difference. Spend time only on RfA's that are in the range of 70 to 90 % of support votes. Now, if you cannot quickly figure anything from most obvious things, check the answer to question 2. If the user is not a content contributor, chances are s/he is on the Wikipedia for all the wrong reasons. To be sure, among the non-writing admins there is a very small share of good ones, but only small. Most of good admins are the writing ones and remembering this correlation when deciding on the vote is a good rule of thumb.

As for the "policy pages", I do not mean only the actual policy pages and their talks. I meant the entire Wikipedia projects space, certainly WP:AN and WP:ANI are also included. Make yourself heard and make a difference. It is by far more boring than writing content but IMO as admins must be pushed towards writing content, the content writers must be pushed to take part in the debates that shape the Wikipedia inner works. If this was in place, we would have had a somewhat different adminthink and certainly a very different ArbCom. --Irpen (talk) 08:05, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

I think the "non-writing admins" thing is a myth and somewhat of a calumny. However there are career bureaucrats who often seek adminship as a kind of badge, and seldom if ever do any article editing. I always oppose such applications. Only article editing exposes an editor to diverse enough opinions and situations to enable him to grow his Wikipedia antennae. Only a regular article editor should be considered a potential administrator. In fact, there should be no editors on Wikipedia who spend all their time in debates. --Tony Sidaway 16:16, 30 November 2007 (UTC)
I am pleased to see that from what I read above Tony agrees with me. --Irpen 18:06, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] How we're gonna deal with whistleblowers around here

Giano found evidence that showed Admin Misconduct. The community agreed that the evidence showed admin misconduct. Instead of being awarded a medal, he's being retaliated against? Awesome.

I know you youngin's round here probably won't remember this, but ya might read the article on the Pentagon Papers to see how people in my day dealt with the public revelation of the misconduct of the leadership.

Not to mention-- the refusal of the involved arbiters to recuse themselves is, well, inexcusable. --Alecmconroy (talk) 01:47, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Short, medium and long-term effects

I think some arbitrators may not be taking a long-term view here. A 90-day ban of Giano may send a strong message for the short and medium term, but in the long term (years, not months) the damage may be more subtle for the project as a whole. Arbcom may change, people may come and go, but the lingering effects of a decision like this will be harder to undo. I certainly can't predict the complete ramifications of a decision like this (which may not pass), but I urge the arbitrators to step back and look at the bigger picture. And then to step back again and look at the even bigger picture. At the very least, the evidence for this ban should be provided more clearly. Flonight talks about reviewing the evidence. I have been reviewing Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Durova and Jehochman/Evidence, and I can't find the evidence that was presented to support finding of fact #7 (Giano). If this ban is being proposed based on an accumulative effect of past behaviour, should this not be reviewed in a separate case? Carcharoth (talk) 02:58, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

This has been my point all along. If they want to string up Giano, they should find someone to start a case against him. I can think of six who would vote accept just on principle. And then we wouldn't be cluttering up a case that should have been about an incompetent administrator and their methods, with Giano's past peccadillos. Mr Which??? 04:22, 30 November 2007 (UTC)
Absolutely. I've suggested as much to Fred. I'll be interested to see his response. Hopefully an arbitrator will take up my proposal to defer consideration of Giano's actions to a separate case. That does seem the logical thing to do here. Carcharoth (talk) 04:38, 30 November 2007 (UTC)
While I agree in principle that we often aggregate too many matters into one case, that has nonetheless become our custom. There is nothing especially unique about this case. When disputes expand, we add people. I also agree that the finding #7 could do with some specific evidence. There is plenty from which to choose. As for the long term effect, I believe that we have already let civility as a core value erode too far. While there is a cost we have to restore boundaries. The Uninvited Co., Inc. 05:13, 30 November 2007 (UTC)
It's not the aggregation of several current issues into the one case, but more the way several arbitrators have referred to Giano's past behaviour. In fairness to Giano, if that past behaviour is what is at the core of this, then a fresh case would be better to address that as a whole. Carcharoth (talk) 05:17, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Protesting Giano ban

Arbitrators...it is a really bad idea to ban Giano. There is a strong probability that other FA level editors will quit outright. I really do encourage you to come up with a less draconian remedy. Please.--MONGO (talk) 03:02, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

Agreeing with MONGO. I am all for the rules being applied fairly and evenly but I don't see it in this case. I have not spoke out on this case as I feel that Durova taking a break from Adminning is the perfect resolution. This will only escalate the drama in more ways than you can possibly imagine. spryde | talk 03:17, 30 November 2007 (UTC)
    • Giano has been raising hell for over a year, and it looks like his pattern of extremely disruptive behavior will continue for the foreseeable future. A choice needs to be made. Are we going to accept a high level of disruption from a few people or are we going to settle disputes through reasoned discussion? The matter needs to be distinguished from whatever sets him off. A rampaging bull is not the fault of any particular red flag. Fred Bauder (talk) 03:59, 30 November 2007 (UTC)
      • Fred, if you have a problem with Giano, please file a separate case after this one has closed. You will have enough time to make your case come January, after all. You say the matter needs to be distinguished from whatever sets him off. To my mind, that means a separate ArbCom case away from the Durova business that set things off this time. I suggest the arbitrators find something they can agree on, such as a proposal to defer consideration of Giano's role in this (and earlier cases) to a new case to be filed in January after the ArbCom elections. Carcharoth (talk) 04:04, 30 November 2007 (UTC)
  • I'm not commenting on the proposed ban, or its merits. But really, threats that people will leave are both hollow and unhelpful. If we start deciding what's sanctionable behaviour on the basis of the number of GAs or FAs a user has, or worse, who they are friendly with and and what those people have contributed, we really are doomed. Whatever you think of Giano, the point about vested contributors needs to be heard. Judge a case, and behaviour on its merits - not on the power of the people involved. Anyway, people will not leave. Some good editors may feel they want to, but the good editors are addicts and they will return. Some time wasters will also threaten to leave, but these people are drama addicts and will stay for kicks. That's the point of saying 'Goodbye' it is not that we want people to go, it is just that we can't give in threats like that. Once we start, do we end up rewriting other policies because some important people threaten to leave unless we do? Do we ban someone to keep someone with more contributions from keeping a threat to leave? Can some editors hold us to ransom like that? Such appeasement is never a good practice? By all means strongly object to the ban - argue against it - but don't ask arbcom to let this be a criterion.--Docg 03:18, 30 November 2007 (UTC)
    • That's what I mean by a medium term view. I agree with you on a medium term scenario, but what will happen over years is less predictable. If the knock-on effects (not all of which will be visible straightaway - most good editors who leave do so quietly without any fuss) lead to a decline in top-end content over the next two years, say, then this will have harmed the project. The mantra "for the good of the project" should never be used lightly. In my view, if the ArbCom ends up banning Giano for 90 days, then that is a failure on all our parts. Giano, the arbcom and everyone who saw this coming but didn't do anything about it. That is what the "last resort" thing is really about. It is the ArbCom saying that they are at their wits end and have failed. Any ArbCom that ends up banning productive editors should take steps to see how they (the ArbCom) could be more proactive in preventing this sort of thing happenning again. It's not a mark of respect for the ArbCom that this may happen, but a blotting of the copy book. A harmonious ArbCom should be able to agree on fair, just remedies that gain the support of the community as well clear majorities of arbitrators. Carcharoth (talk) 03:29, 30 November 2007 (UTC)
In my 3+ years on this project, not once have I threatened or claimed to leave. I'm not grandstanding, I'm not seeking attention, I'm not asking ArbCom to ban someone so they won't lose me. There are far more valuable contributors and administrators than I. I'm simply stating that I am leaving the project because I have no faith in the strength of its community, and, more specifically in this case, in its arbitrators, to maintain its priorities — namely, to the encyclopedia. There are far more eloquent users already objecting to this proposed ban, and I have no desire to muddy the waters, but let's summarize what happened here:
  • Administrator compiles list of hyperbole, hysteria, and hypochondria against a very productive editor of the encyclopedia, who, because they don't play WikiPolitics, is deemed a sleeper sock.
  • Administrator distributes said list to secret listserv of other administrators and arbitrators, including Jimbo, and none object to blocking based on extraordinarily deficient evidence.
  • When the block is announced, and it is stated that all appeals must go to ArbCom, administrators object, Administrator refuses to send evidence.
  • Administrator reverses own block, gives a horrendous apology, then does not engage in further discussion. When the entire basis for the block — the list of "evidence" — is made known to Giano, he publishes it, as that is the only way we, as a community, could judge just how bad of a judgment call the block was. And it was terrible.
  • In response to Administrator making a terrible block on Tireless Contributor to the Encyclopedia, the arbitration committee, instead of responding to the terrible behavior by Administrator, decides to block another Tireless Contributor to the Encyclopedia for providing the information to the community that was absolutely needed in order for it to self-correct and which the Administrator refused to provide to anyone outside her trusted circle who would never deign it necessary to criticize her.
Any questions? The reason for such a large furor over this block was because Durova was so trusted — I know that in the past, whenever Durova said 'jump', I jumped, and it is absolutely my fault for misplacing my trust in her. Durova made these types of blocks routinely, and we all accepted them without question; now ALL are suspect. And yet rather than dealing with those blocks, or whether the community misbehaved in being so trusting without further evidence (and I would support any motion to add myself as a party to this case for being so negligent in the past), the committee bans one of its best contributors for something that was helpful to the community. The ban is entirely, and unquestioningly, spurious. And yet, if I were to appeal to Jimbo, I know that he would come down against Giano based on his past comments and his prejudices. This is simply one example out of many. Our sickness comes from the top-down, and, as I said above, I have lost all desire to contribute to a project that has so clearly misplaced its priorities. I'm standing up for myself, and I'm standing up for the project. I'm not showboating, I'm not grandstanding, I'm not asking for pats on the back or for the Committee to alter its course for my sake. I'm simply saying my piece, and I'm backing it up with action — I'm no longer a contributor to the project. If the Committee wishes to alter its course because it realizes how badly it is harming the project's goal of writing an encyclopedia, then wonderful. I know that it will have nothing to do with me. —bbatsell ¿? ✍ 03:41, 30 November 2007 (UTC)
Seeing as how the arbcom is divided right down the middle on that remedy, (and on what to do with Giano in general) I really wish you wouldn't lump us all together like that. Raul654 (talk) 03:48, 30 November 2007 (UTC)
It's not just the issue of what to do. The ArbCom has voted mostly together on the findings of fact: these describe Durova's fault as "having insufficient evidence" for her block, whereas Giano is apparently guilty of failure to assume good faith, personal attacks, etc. etc. Let's ignore the fact that most of the claims against Giano aren't supported by the evidence against him, which to date mainly focuses on the posting of the report. We've all seen Durova's report, which was a smear against a friendly, productive, and harmless editor, and yet it's Giano who you feel has problems assuming good faith? That said, your sensible reaction to the ban proposal is appreciated. Christopher Parham (talk) 03:57, 30 November 2007 (UTC)
You're right, I was a little loose with my wording, so take it as an "if the shoe fits" kind of thing. With that said, the decision of the committee represents the decision of the committee, and you're on it, even if you opposed. —bbatsell ¿? ✍ 04:04, 30 November 2007 (UTC)
Raul, the fact that this is even a close vote is what is flabbergasting. Yes, we know there's plenty of history and hot tempers flying around. And yes, the dispute resolution structure we have now made it practically impossible for what was from the outset an extremely egregious error to come to Arbcom to be addressed quickly and effectively. People knew it ought to have been here a lot sooner, but at that point Durova had tarred you with her brush and there was good reason within the community to be uncertain of Arbcom's ability to make a decision. I for one believe you, individually and as a group, were not involved in the decision to have blocked !! - I do assume good faith on that point. But it was some time before any of you (as individuals or speaking on behalf of the group) let us know that you'd been bushwhacked too. Did Giano push too hard? Maybe yes, maybe no. But there are bigger fish to fry than Giano here, and we as a community need you as our Arbcom to keep your eye on the big picture. There are only two real authority structures for this project, the Foundation and Arbcom - and the project needs both to be strong and vital and responsive. It's pretty clear Giano stands on the side of a strong Arbcom; after all, he's put himself forward as a candidate for it. That's more than 99% of the editors in this project can say. Risker (talk) 04:05, 30 November 2007 (UTC)
class dismissed. sNkrSnee | ¿qué? 03:47, 30 November 2007 (UTC)
Worst of all, the "deciding votes" are coming from arbiters who subscribed to Durova's "secret investigations list". If Giano is banned for exonerating !! because that exoneration embarassed Durova, it's clear the lunatics are running the asylum. --Alecmconroy (talk) 03:53, 30 November 2007 (UTC)
Thank you, Bbatsell (and Carcharoth below) - you have addressed my opinion on this situation eloquently. JavaTenor (talk) 05:54, 30 November 2007 (UTC)
  • One point that should be made here is that I saw the initial post Giano made of the evidence. If I hadn't seen that with my own eyes, I would not now understand why people were so upset by the block. Once I had seen that e-mail posted on-wiki, and Newyorkbrad had confirmed it was genuine, I fully understood why people were so upset by the block. ArbCom have confirmed that Durova's block of !! was totally unjustifiable, but the whole issue of whether investigations like this are justifiable without stronger evidence (as you have to have for Checkuser) is only addressed briefly in principle 9.1. That is the more pressing concern, I think. I hope an arbitrator sees what I wrote and clarifies what 9.1 is about. Carcharoth (talk) 04:00, 30 November 2007 (UTC)
    • Once again, for the avoidance of doubt, I feel compelled to add that I was sent a copy of the evidence e-mail only after I questioned the block. Newyorkbrad (talk) 04:04, 30 November 2007 (UTC)
      • Yes. Sorry I didn't make that clear. It was your confirmation though that convinced me, as otherwise what was posted just looked like a bad parody, and I had thought that someone might have sent Giano a fake. Carcharoth (talk) 04:19, 30 November 2007 (UTC)
Newyorkbrad, did you forward that email to the Arbcom? I have a great deal of respect for you; if you elected not to forward it to Arbcom, I would very much like to know what your reasoning was. Risker (talk) 04:09, 30 November 2007 (UTC)
I suspect this has been asked and answered, or volunteered before, but brad has logged off for the night, so you should try his talk page so he will see it in the morning. Thatcher131 04:15, 30 November 2007 (UTC)
Thanks, Thatcher, but I actually stayed on to make "one more edit" and did see this (and wrote up a long answer and got edit-conflicted). I agree that this would be a digression here so I'll post it to my talk instead. Newyorkbrad (talk) 04:29, 30 November 2007 (UTC)
Carcharoth, I think it is also covered in #5. The committee can't ban investigations or private evidence, so it needs to clarify that admins who use those methods and get it wrong are in trouble. Thatcher131 04:07, 30 November 2007 (UTC)
You are quite right, Thatcher. #5 does cover what I thought 9.1 was trying to say. Thanks for that. I'm still stumped by 9.1 though. What is that all about? How does it relate to this case? Carcharoth (talk) 04:14, 30 November 2007 (UTC)
Grammar problem? What if it said A decisive response to on- and off-wiki harassment of Wikipedia editors should not come at the expense of undermining the core values of the project or the goodwill of honest contributors. Thatcher131 04:17, 30 November 2007 (UTC)
The way I parse that is as follows: "decisive response [...] should not [...] interfere with the undermining of the core values..." I don't think that is what was meant. I interpret "at the expense of" to mean the decisive response overrides the undermining. I think what was meant was "should not result in the undermining....". I really hope we haven't seen 10 arbitrators sign up to something meaning the opposite to what they meant... :-) Carcharoth (talk) 04:26, 30 November 2007 (UTC)
The cost of a decisive response should not include undermining core values -- that's how I parse it, if you rearrange the clauses. Thatcher131 04:28, 30 November 2007 (UTC)
Yes. But the phrase "at the expense of" is also commonly used the opposite way (see below)! An oddity of the English language. Carcharoth (talk) 04:32, 30 November 2007 (UTC)
Or maybe "at the expense" can be rephrased as "A decisive response to on- and off-wiki harassment of Wikipedia editors should not take place if the resulting expense is the undermining [of] the core values of the project or the goodwill of honest contributors." - I think the problem here is that the "at the expense of" usually means one thing benefitting at the expense of something else. eg. "Shell (the oil company) Profits at the Expense of the Environment" (Greenpeace headline). Does that make my objection to the wording clearer? Carcharoth (talk) 04:32, 30 November 2007 (UTC)
The trick seems to be to replace "at" with "with". A decisive response to on- and off-wiki harassment of Wikipedia editors should not come at with the expense of undermining the core values of the project or the goodwill of honest contributors. Could someone politely suggest that to an arbitrator? Carcharoth (talk) 04:35, 30 November 2007 (UTC)
Frankly I think they mean the same thing. "Shell should not profit at the expense of the environment." "A decisive response should not come at the expense of our core values." I'm sure this will get read. I'll make Brad poke someone tomorrow if you still think it is a problem. Thatcher131 04:41, 30 November 2007 (UTC)
That doesn't quite work. The equivalents are "Shell should not profit at the expense of undermining the environment." and "A decisive response should not come at the expense of undermining our core values." It is the inclusion of "undermining" that turns the double negative into a triple negative. Carcharoth (talk) 04:50, 30 November 2007 (UTC)
(edit conflict) I think the idea of including this concept in the decision came from what was originally principle 9, which was taken from something in the workshop. Principle 9.1 was I gather intended as an attempt to restate 9 in a more succinct or accurate form, but I think the crux of the meaning was supposed to be in the same general ballpark. Newyorkbrad (talk) 04:43, 30 November 2007 (UTC)
Yeah, but the wording suffered from that tortuous process... :-) Carcharoth (talk) 04:50, 30 November 2007 (UTC)
"A decisive response should not come at the expense of undermining our core values." - Jehochman Talk 04:56, 30 November 2007 (UTC)
I get it now. Thatcher131 04:57, 30 November 2007 (UTC)
Suggestion: How about "A decisive response to on- and off-wiki harassment of Wikipedia editors should not include actions that undermine the core values of the project or the goodwill of honest contributors."? Newyorkbrad (talk) 05:03, 30 November 2007 (UTC)
  • (To Brad) Man, I hope god-king touches you with his sceptre after the community overwhelmingly endorses your candidacy. Mr Which??? 04:13, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

I wasn't trying to make a threat, and Doc's comments are appreciated, but I wasn't threatening...just making an observation. Fred Bauder...surely we have many editors that are more problematic than Giano...but there is no risk that they face an arbcom backed banning...that is a big deal..let's not lump Giano in with the harassers, stalkers and completely problematic editors. Yes, fine work does allow extra considerations...and yes, it doesn't give anyone the right to evade policy either...perhaps just disruption parole?--MONGO (talk) 04:32, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

I don't want my name associated with a ban on Giano. Other unbanned editors are more deserving of such threats. - Jehochman Talk 04:40, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

I certainly agree with this protest. Arbcom is missing the forest for the trees. Any decision they make should have a net benefit on the creation of this encyclopedia...banning a prolific editor will of course have a negative effect on that and there's no counter balancing positive. It'll mean an increase in drama, a decrease in the trust editors have in Arbcom and let a multitude of sins by other editors (some probably in positions of trust) go unpunished. The ban seems to be a visceral lashing out at a critical editor with no other justification (or effect) than punishment. It's a bad call, and a decision that will have a significant negative effect on Wikipedia. RxS (talk) 05:04, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

In my opinion (and I've not commented up to now), I think banning Giano would be a dreadful miscarriage of justice. I was involved in The Troubles arbitration case, a drawn-out and divisive case if ever there was one, where Giano decided to involve himself, for his own reasons, and while he was annoying in the extreme - and sexist to boot - he played an invaluable role in the case and brought much evidence to the table. As arbiter Paul August remarked of him at the time, "Gadflies are useful". I personally disliked the man at times, have called him a "troll", but he has been a prolific editor and valuable contributor to the project and we will be a lot worse off without him. He speaks his mind and speaks it rather loudly where others fear to, and sometimes that's exactly what's needed - Alison ❤ 05:37, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

Can anyone suggest a better thing to do than ban him? I can be persuaded that a ban is counterproductive, but on the other hand, Giano should not be untouchable merely because he's a good article contributor. He behaved, IMO, quite appallingly here - more so in other ways than for posting the email, though reposting it the number of times that he did was egregious - and I definitely do not like the fact that he considers doing the right thing, in his estimation, to excuse doing it in an uncivil a manner as he pleases.
I'll also admit that if this was the first time he'd done something like this, I would probably not be voting for anything quite as strong. It's the repeated nature of the problem that frustrates me enough to take stronger measures. Matthew Brown (Morven) (T:C) 07:34, 30 November 2007 (UTC)
Unfortunately, the consensus seems to be that he didn't act "quite appallingly here." AniMate 07:45, 30 November 2007 (UTC)
I would suggest starting fresh with an RFC, letting the community have a chance to give him feedback about his behavior. Requesting a new case about his behavior in general would also be nice. Letting people file evidence about whether his behavior is or is not problematic. etc. The alternative-- jumping past all dispute resolutions and going straight to sanctions-- that risks looking like retaliation, pure and simple, for embarassing powerful people. --Alecmconroy (talk) 07:50, 30 November 2007 (UTC)
Morven, I agree that Giano has repeatedly been disruptive at levels which have gotten some users long or even indefinite blocks. On the other hand there are users even more disruptive than him who are not blocked or have blocks quickly overturned. I don't 'like' Giano... though that probably sounds harsher than I intend, let's say I don't approve of his behavior. I certainly won't be voting for him for ArbCom despite agreeing almost entirely with his 'platform'. But to block him for this incident? Yes, he engaged in some incivility... but he was far from the biggest culprit in this case. JzG, Hu12, Crum375, and several others stepped well over the line. Heck, I'd say that Jimbo was no more civil than Giano in this case. Yes, Giano has engaged in far greater incivility and disruption in the past... and I wouldn't mind seeing Wikipedia's civility standards raised to a point where that would be unacceptable (though again, that applies to alot more people than Giano). However, no way no how is this the case to do it in. It gives a strong appearance of 'payback' on the part of some arbitrators and IMO a failure to consider the balance of events by the others. In this case Giano was a 'net positive'. The incivility he engaged in, the 'drama' he stirred up... were vastly outweighed by the fact that he banished all lingering doubts about !!'s innocence and demonstrated that this was NOT a minor mistake in the reading of otherwise sound evidence and procedure - as was being claimed even after the block was reversed. The arguments that 'posting e-mail' is utterly verbotten behavior that simply must be dealt with have left a bad taste in my mouth. Kla'quot cites a prior example below where no one said 'boo' about it and I recall others as well.
ArbCom could certainly note that he has a pattern of disruption. But in this case what he did was a net positive. This is not the time to block him. Would he still have been disruptive with less cause and less good to come from it? The past would seem to indicate yes. That's bad and should be grounds for concern, but a block is not appropriate here. Warn him that he should find less disruptive ways of making his points and that this incivility was only tolerated because it was less disruptive than the things it helped put a stop to. Someone who tries to incite a riot over a parking ticket should be tossed in a cell. Someone who 'rabble rouses' to bring a stop to witch-hunting should be thanked and at most told that there might have been other ways to handle it and he'd better not act that way the next time he gets a parking ticket. --CBD 09:27, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

I would like to add my name to those who oppose an editing ban on Giano. It is starting to look as if ArbCom has taken Giano's opposition personally. To many it appears that the party Giano has aggrieved is ArbCom itself and it is they who now sit in judgment on him. That cannot be equitable. It must now have become apparent to this Committee that there is virtually no Community support for the 90 day ban of Giano and that even some of his harshest critics oppose it. I disagree with Giano's methods, and I think he is wrong to believe that he would not have achieved the same (if not more) through making his point with equal force but more calmness and respect for the fact that others around him are trying their best. But are special measures needed to deal with him? Should Giano cross the line at any time and does something block worthy - revert warring, personal attacks etc. he may be blocked as any other user. But his voice is one that appears to speak for many on this project - it sounds loudly and harshly but it is ultimately for the Committee and others to decide whether to listen to it. I do not think this project is benefited by silencing it. I certainly do not see how we could possibly gain by preventing Giano from making the content contributions for which he is universally praised. Giano, whatever his faults, cares deeply about this project. The greatest drama in this incident seems not to have been caused by Giano's voice (however loud and incivil it has been at times) but by the growing view that there is an attempt to suppress that voice. WjBscribe 13:57, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

I'm reluctant to repeat myself (ya right! :) like I never repeat myself ) but I agree. Terrifically bad idea. See also Wikipedia_talk:Requests_for_arbitration/Durova_and_Jehochman/Proposed_decision#understandable_frustration, but.... For those that ask what is to be done with Giano (a completely fair question), I guess I'll repeat myself (again! :) ), sometimes the best thing to do with a reasoned and principled dissident, who happens to be right most of the time is to co-opt him. It may cost me votes in my own candidacy but I will be voting for Giano for arbcom. NOT as a protest, NOT just as a way to get a ban overturned, but because I actually think he will be a great arbitrator. Read the answers he gives... they are models of clarity and profound thinking... Yes there are a lot of issues in how Giano does things. My hope is that being an arbitrator will change that. And if not... consider it an experiment well tried. We've tried everything else. ++Lar: t/c 14:51, 30 November 2007 (UTC)
Lar, MONGO, and I agree... end of the world surely imminent. :] --CBD 18:52, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] editing flu

I'm with MONGO. I've added a protest banner to my page. All are welcome to it. I was going to have more free time the next few weeks and was going to get back to building articles out of my private to do list, and had two articles I wanted to drive to Featured status and was going to build them to nominate them in the 2nd week or so of December. I seem to have developed an editing flu now, though. I guess I'll just help on AfD and RC patrol instead until I feel healthier. • Lawrence Cohen 04:49, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

My Strike banner is GFDL or public domain or whatever.... I uploaded it so that those who felt that they didn't want the drama of "I'm leaving" but simply wanted to announce that they had reason for withdrawing services from this project could express that sentiment. I do not have a boss. I will not have one. We are equals who work together, or we do not work at all. Geogre (talk) 12:17, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Access levels and "controversial circumstances"

Although less dramatic than the current controversy over remedies, I noted the discussion between a couple of arbitrators concerning the "access level" principle (7 and 7.1), in which UninvitedCompany proposes replacing the formulation that an administrator who gives up adminship under "controversial circumstances" must go through a new RfA to get the tools back, while others who give up an adminship may be reinstated upon request to a bureaucrat. I believe that the difference in the various wordings proposed here is largely semantic.

The rule that an administrator (or bureaucrat, checkuser, etc.) who gives up an access level under certain circumstances may not have the privileges restored merely upon request originates from (ironically enough) the so-called Giano arbitration case (though that case, despite its name, ultimately had little to do directly with Giano). The original wording proposed by an arbitrator referred to editors who gave up adminship or other status "under [a] cloud." I was concerned that this wording could be offensive as applied in a given situation and could discourage voluntary resignation of the tools even when that might be in the best interests of the user and the project, and suggested a couple of other wordings that could be substituted, of which "under controversial circumstances" was chosen. ("... in the midst of a serious controversy" might have been more descriptive, if less pithy.) Interestingly enough, I also expected that the ArbCom's promulgation of a new rule in the course of a decision might be condemned as policy creation by the committee, but either because the rule accords well with common sense or because everyone was totally exhausted by the end of that particular arbitration, no one to my knowledge has ever said anything about it.

UninvitedCompany's rewording fairly accurately describes what might be considered controversial circumstances that would preclude regaining adminship or other status upon request. The classic example of resigning under controversial circumstances is an administrator who resigns while an arbitration case or non-frivolous request for arbitration is pending against him or her, and the committee has held that resignation under this circumstance constitutes "controversial circumstances" requiring a new RfA if the user wants to regain adminship (the Konstable, Husnock, and Philwelch cases are examples). What other circumstances might trigger the rule are not well defined and, in the absence of an arbitration case concerning the admin question, are generally left to bureaucrat discretion.

Given the other matters dividing the arbitrators in this case, I recommend the committee adopt the wording that has been used in the last several cases for purposes of this decision, and defer any refinement of the wording either to a later case when the issue is more squarely presented, or to an appropriate policy page. Newyorkbrad (talk) 04:58, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

I confess to always having hated this thing on principle. It seems incredibly counter-productive. If during an arbitration case an admin gets depressed by criticism (whether just or unjust) and lays down the tools, that seems like a good and understandable thing. The admin takes a break from admining, and everyone cools down. But saying that if they do so, they need an RfA to get the tools back is virtually saying they can't have them back. As few admins who are being criticised (even unfairly) by a section of the community would ever pass RfA. We know that for sure. So this rule effectively discourages admins from stepping down for a time. Or if they can't take the heat and do so, it heavily penalises them. Now, if an admin resigned in order to "escape justice" or prevent a possible de-admining, that would be different. However, there's absolutely nothing to stop the arbcom ruling that an user should not be an admin after they've laid down the tools. I'd really like this principle discontinued. An RfA should only be required if arbcom says the person is unfit to have the tools back on request - or if resigning the tools is part of some deal to avoid an arbitration case. In this case, it would be easy for the committee to rule as to whether Durova needs an RfA to continue as an admin - and fairer to do that based on her activities and a judgement of her suitability, rather than a decision to desysop taken in extreme circumstances. --Docg 09:49, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Proposal, remove Jehochman from the case name

This isn't about him at all anymore and never really was. Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Durova is more appropriate. • Lawrence Cohen 05:00, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

It might as well be called Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/We finally give Giano what for. It isn't even about Durova anymore. DEVS EX MACINA pray 05:04, 30 November 2007 (UTC)
I think if the case closes without any findings naming Jehochman the closing clerk can move it to just Durova. Unfortunately the redirects will have to stay as there are too many incoming links. Thatcher131 05:13, 30 November 2007 (UTC)
If there isn't any evidence that Jehochman did anything wrong, then his name should be removed as a party and from the title. Cla68 (talk) 06:40, 30 November 2007 (UTC)
Dmcdevit, who filed the case, is not clueless and is a member of the arbitrator's email list. James F. is opposed to closing the case in part because "We still haven't considered Jehochman". The implication to me is that there may be at least some smoke to clear up there. The evidence page is remarkably clear of the smoke however, so I have no clue what it might be. GRBerry 03:23, 1 December 2007 (UTC)
My initial statement, one of the longest, was designed to clear smoke. Hopefully that explanation was sufficient. The fact that additional members of the community have not stepped forward with substantial complaints against me might also be a consideration. There is a proposed finding of fact that I was not involved in the block of !!, but that could be said about most of us, so I don't see the need for it. (add) I also don't see a need to remove my name from the case. It is what it is. - Jehochman Talk 03:38, 1 December 2007 (UTC) (added at 03:48, 1 December 2007 (UTC))

[edit] Transparency

I apologize for intruding on the discussions of Arbcom, but I notice something troubling in the proposal here.

A statement of principle was expressed: "Administrators are expected to act in a reasonable and transparent manner". But that is all that was said. No findings of fact and no remedies associated with this key issue were expressed. But, a great many of the concerns of editors and administrators involved the secrecy issue and the star-chamber quality of the decision to block and the subsequent failure to identify members of the group who were in the 5 to 12 people who supported the block.

I believe that Arbcom should make findings of fact such as:


  • Durova's submission of evidence to an unofficial, unaccountable group of anonymous admins or editors for review was used to justify the block.
  • Durova's block of !! lacked appropriate and reasonable transparency.

I do not know that a remedy specifically to Durova is appropriate here. I believe that a remedy should be applied to the whole community of admins such as:

  • No admin may block a user without a reasonable, transparent description of the evidence used against that user, presented on the user's talk page.

Perhaps this should be part of an official policy.

On that note, it would be helpful for Arbcom to have a page listing all principle statements used in decisions to date. Perhaps there already is one, but I do not know about it. That list of previously identified principles should probably be included in the Wikipedia Guidelines and Policy Pages.

Regards, --Blue Tie (talk) 09:53, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Another thought about the posting of email

I twice removed Giano's postings of Durova's email message, but I did so with mixed feelings. After thinking quite a bit about it over the past few days, I am still mixed. About a year ago we had a days-long AN/I discussion about a community ban of an editor who had engaged in some bad use of sockpuppets. He had sent two email messages which, due to his own sloppiness, incriminated himself as a sockmaster. A respected administrator was in possession of one of the emails and distributed it to some other established users so they could confirm having seen proof of sockpuppetry. I had received a different email from the sock and posted its entire contents (which was one or two sentences long) on-wiki. There was no objection from anyone about this, even though the redistribution/publishing of the message was done without the consent of the sender and the messages had been sent as private communications rather than as mailing list postings.

If I was in the same position today, I suppose I would offer to forward the incriminating email to individuals who asked for it, instead of publishing it on-wiki. But I have a hard time explaining why the former is acceptable and the latter is not; in one instance I'd be using the site to publish a copyright violation and in the other instance I'd be using the site to conspire to publish a copyright violation. I also have a hard time explaining why what I did a year ago was a small error and what Giano did a few days ago is grounds for a lawsuit. I suppose what I'm saying here is that the desire to sanction Giano over That Email is not based in a hard-and-fast rule about copyright and we should not pretend that it is. Kla’quot (talk | contribs) 05:56, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

In the future, I'd suggest that a more "neutral" site like Wikileaks would be useful in cases like this. This shields the foundation from copyright lawsuits, prevents them from having the temptation to delete/oversite such content, and is far better than putting it on a site like WR or WT, thereby encouraging people into believing those sites are generally reliable. --Alecmconroy (talk) 06:01, 30 November 2007 (UTC)
In future I'd suggest not posting private data in an open forum. Anywhere. Email it to ArbCom. In this case the privacy violation was entirely gratuitous, since ArbCom already had the data. It added precisely nothing to the abritrators' understanding of the case, but created lots of drama and humiliated Durova even further. If that was Giano's aim, he succeeded admirably. Guy (Help!) 13:12, 30 November 2007 (UTC)
Bull. If it had been sent to other people than the original correspondent, it wasn't private. Private means private -- not "sort of private" and not "with people I like" and not "with my superiours." Private is private. There was no privacy violation, except Durova's, by sending on her own e-mail to other recipients. Once that was done, people kept e-mailing it. You want to punish the leakers, like Richard Nixon, you go right ahead and embrace his role. Utgard Loki 17:45, 30 November 2007 (UTC)
Yes, ArbCom already had the data, and had, at that time, publicly exhibited no interest in responding to the incident. And frankly, had ArbCom immediately opened the case and this was the only finding of fact related to the e-mail, I would have had no idea how absolutely baseless the accusations were and how terrible the decision-making of Durova is. Thankfully, I was able to review the deleted revisions before they were oversighted, and I now know how suspect all prior blocks by Durova based on the same method are. The fact that you view the e-mail as nonessential information to the community and the reaction by the community to that information as "drama" reveals more about you than anything else you've done in this case, and it pretty clearly reflects that you've lost your perspective. —bbatsell ¿? ✍ 17:50, 30 November 2007 (UTC)
Comments like this are why that just doesn't hold water. If you don't want something discussed in an open forum... then you don't make accusations and claims about it in that open forum. Even after the block was removed, you and others were claiming that the evidence was basically sound. It "was definitely suspicious". If you don't want people posting the proof that such a claim isn't true... don't make the claim. Giano wasn't the one who put this debacle into "an open forum". He defended !! and challenged the evidence and methodology in the same forum that the claims were made. --CBD 18:50, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] What Injury?

What injury did Giano's posting of the email cause? It is not really a copyright problem, if not because of being under GFDL then under Fair Use. (And certainly one may not claim copyright protection to avoid republication in the forum of a libelous publication!). And it has not caused editors en masse to leave the project. Did it cause quality in the encyclopedia to decline? Did it by itself injure the reputation of wikipedia?

We should be clear on what real injury is if we are going to think about where to place blame and penalty.

To me if there is any injury it was the secret application of an untested, unscientifically developed and biased discriminator list to a specific individual, without regard to the actual work of that editor, as justification of a permanent block along with the claim that this was a widely acclaimed (though secret) decision by some of the most respected members of the wikipedia leadership. Followed by, what was either an obvious cover-up or shamefully silly and idiotic actions that looked like a cover-up. THAT is what caused injury.

And in the face of that injury by cabal, contrary to all wikipedia standards, some strong action may be justified. Sometimes it is important for people to "Break all the rules" and in this case, something was rotten in Denmark and needed a strong fresh airing and disinfectant. Its unpleasant. But from the "Never Ending Story" --"It has to hurt if its going to heal".

I am generally someone who seeks peaceful measures to adjust conflict and obtain compromise. But sometimes .. not every day, but once in a while, you have to take stronger action.

I think that when you have an editor who does not cause contention and trouble in the article space, who creates articles and wikignomes a great deal, but once in a while creates a fuss over BAD APPLICATION of LEADERSHIP and POLICY you have a VALUABLE MEMBER and that should not be considered injury. --Blue Tie 14:35, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

There is much whingeing about "what if" going on. What if posting such made an identity public? What if it were without permission (intercepted)? What if.... What if the cow jumped over the moon. While it's fine that people want to try to create a rule about that, there is no harm done by the publication of what by rule must never have been private: the rationale for blocking a Wikipedia user. It's Wikipedia policy to make all block decisions public, to get reviews, to be uninvolved. Since the blocking admin steadfastly refused to provide the rationale, and yet because the secret e-mail had already been passed from hand to hand, Giano did what Durova was required to do. (This was before Durova gave up administrative status.) This took away the obfuscation, did not reveal anyone's identity, did not show an interception, etc. The harm was secrecy. The publishing was what admins are supposed to do anyway. It's more shameful that no one did it before Giano, but it's horrifying that Durova refused, point blank. She could have secrecy or administrative blocking privileges, but not both. Utgard Loki 17:43, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Block fo' Miltopia

Durova says "They don't know this list exists. [19]"

While this may be discussed elsewhere, I think I can be forgiven for missing it in the sprawling Byzantine mess of this arbitration. (Point me to it if it exists, please.) This suggests very strongly that in previous cases support, public on-wiki support, was drummed up via off-wiki communication. That's heady stuff, and clearly abusive in the "meatpuppets" sense if true. Comments? (Not shrieking "ZoMG!" style ones, but sensible ones if you can.)
CygnetSaIad (talk) 06:02, 30 November 2007 (UTC)


  • The link points to a query in which Privatemusings politely requests whether the Miltopia block has been discussed off-wiki. Strongly suggests the Miltopia block was discussed off-wiki somehow, but PM was unaware of the fact.
  • Also note that Private Musing is listed as a "they"-- so it seems !! wasn't the only one who had allegations made about him. I won't go so far as to say PM's behavior has been without problems, but there's high potential the actions surrounding his blocks may have been inspired by similar 'secret evidence'.
  • I know, in the back of my mind, I have a list of some occasions where "too many people" seemed to all weight in on the same issue a little too quickly-- just enough to make me worry about collusion. But all I have is nagging suspicion, so I won't insult anyone by enumerating them. --Alecmconroy (talk) 06:12, 30 November 2007 (UTC)
A few points, if I may:
  1. It's not as if people talking about Wikipedia in outside forums is anything new. Heck, Wikipedia even enables it, giving the 'Email this user' option, as well as quite a few official mailing lists and some officially-unofficial IRC channels and the like. Given the frankly sucky support the current version of MediaWiki has for discussion, it's not surprising at all.
  2. Although some people have suggested communication outside of Wikipedia is harmful, there is certainly no consensus against it. Giano, for instance, has been a strong advocate against such, but while his opinions on that topic have notable supporters I'd not say that a majority of active users or admins support it.
  3. "Meatpuppetry" (horrid word, but there you have it) tends to mean the recruitment of non-contributors to act as extra votes. Calling in established contributors is more frequently called "canvassing" and tends to be only frowned upon in the small number of places that we have vote-like things that we try hard to pretend aren't votes - e.g. deletion pages, requests for adminship. Outside of that, asking for extra opinions has a long history, and we even make it easier on-Wiki by having things like the admin noticeboards, RfCs, Village Pump, etc.
  4. Does anyone expect that any Wikipedia mailing list will NOT point people to relevant on-wiki discussion?
As Wikipedia continues to get bigger, I expect that there will become increasing numbers of external discussion forums, some public and others not. It's simply the nature of the thing.
Yes, there is always some concern that a specialist group will suffer from groupthink and not be critical enough of bad ideas. We should always keep that in mind. I don't think we can legislate it out of existence, either - there are plenty of places ON WIKIPEDIA where decisions are made by insular groups that can suffer the same problems. Matthew Brown (Morven) (T:C) 07:02, 30 November 2007 (UTC)
Matthew, correct me if I'm mistaken, but I don't think anyone claims that off-wiki communication is harmful. The claim is that justifying on-wiki actions by referring solely to off-wiki communication is harmful. Not at all the same thing. Zocky | picture popups 08:47, 30 November 2007 (UTC)
The danger comes when secrecy is added to communication. If a block occurs, and quickly seven people in a row respond with support, a passing editor will conclude that obviously the block was warranted-- what are the odds that seven people would all independently support a bad block?
Secret lists basically undermine this, because now we know that the seven voices might well not be independent at all-- rather, they could be seven people who are secretly working together, who knew the block was coming, and who were prepared to chime in with support.
That the dangerous thing about these secret lists. If reputable people aren't allowed to engage in them, then you can trust that seven voices are seven "doublechecks"-- seven independent voices. Now, when I hear seven voices, I'll can no longer just assume they're really seven independent viewpoints--- I have to always consider that what I'm hearing is the result of opinion-stacking-- that a group of people who believe in bigfoot have gotten together to try to make it look like all reasonable people believe in bigfoot.
I think we all knew this was a concern when dealing with unreputable users, but with it being engaged in by very reputable users, our ability to trust each other is going to be eroded-- with everyone constantly wondering who's part of what secret collusion.
Or-- maybe this has always been the case, I was the only one who didn't realize it. --Alecmconroy (talk) 09:09, 30 November 2007 (UTC)
The list does not ecxist to co-ordinate blocks and bans, as you have been told numerous times. Arbcom-l does that, of course. And IRC also discusses such matters, as do individual admins in private communication (you really must stop pretending that private = secret, incidentally, as this false premise weakens every part of your argument). Admins have always discussed blocks, deletions and protections in back channels, because it's better to avoid a mistake than have to undo it. Getting a sanity check on something before doing it is never bad, as far as I can see. Guy (Help!) 12:17, 30 November 2007 (UTC)
She wasn't "getting a sanity check" on her proposed block, JzG. It seemed that she was posting that message almost like instructions in her "investigative" methods. Mr Which??? 15:50, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Balance

The attack on !! in the email was a pretty through job, and one that would seem to breach many of the policies and guidelines that Giano is accused of breaching. In my opinion, it is worse than anything Giano did, as while I can see many of his comments resulting from a rush to comment before the discussion was sidelined, the mail was obviously complied at leisure (and distributed to a wider audience with at least two weeks to be considered and revised before it was made public). Unfortunately the character assassination of !! occurred off-site, so the Committee has no authority to issue sanctions against its author. Giano's offence was to post his comments on-site. Had he gone to another site, he could have viciously attacked all and sundry, and the community could have shaken its collective head in disgust and gone back to editing, safe in the knowledge that such horrible behaviour was outside the Committee's jurisdiction.

Unfortunately, the case came to Arbitration in this unequal state: Giano's actions could be dealt with because he kept his argument "in-house", Durova's could not because she took advantage of off-site communication.

As a result Durova escapes any meaningful sanction for her actions. The argument from her supporters seems to be that she was punished in having to resign her admin bit and being made to look foolish. An admin bit is not some shield that can be used to deflect a blow, something we can drop in lieu of a sanction. Should we issue Giano with an admin bit so he can be forced to give it up as punishment? As for being made to look foolish, I dare say that has happened to all of us at some point, but it is of our own making. That somebody points out how foolish we have been is perhaps unkind, but had we not been foolish they would not have had the opportunity. Aside from that, I would hope that the Committee is in the business of remedies rather than punishments.

For Giano, on the other hand, the Committee has almost unlimited scope to apply remedies. He has no admin bit to strip, he has no "off-site" justification for his actions, his actions clearly fall under the remit of the Committee. He can be banned, blocked, restricted and probably more. This does not mean it is right to apply such sanctions in the face of such an obvious deficiency the Committee's authority. Balance is important here, as is the message sent to the community by the decision (see my questions to Mackensen for the message I perceive as being sent from the proposed decision). I do not wish Durova punished: a remedy should not be a punishment. Instead, I would urge the Arbitrators to vote against any remedy for Giano that applies a more rigorous sanction to him than those applied to Durova, and I applaud those who have already done so.

As a side note, I found this while looking at Wikipedia:Former administrators, which seems to point to action being possible even when posting takes place off-site [20]. On the Former administrators page it says the action was carried out per an ArbCom decision. Perhaps one of the Arbitrators could clarify their jurisdiction. Andplus (talk) 11:09, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

So far as I know there is no 'on site' vs 'off site' distinction so long as the matter is Wikipedia related. Many people have been banned for actions taken off site. There is a question about an indefinite block for off-site harassment on the RFAr page right now. It's a fairly common practice. --CBD 11:22, 30 November 2007 (UTC)
My discussion with Mackensen seemed to indicate that he believed otherwise (see the initial statement that provoked my query and his reply) Andplus (talk) 11:26, 30 November 2007 (UTC)
Err... Durova's actions were blocking an editor for 75 minutes. That's it. That's not nice, shows bad judgment, and all that, but let's not forget what they were. When she found out she was wrong, she unblocked him herself. In exchange, Durova gave up her admin tools, for a period which has already been much longer than that, and the arbcom has ruled that she can't get them back just for asking for them, the way any other admin who steps down can. That's saying nothing about Giano, but "Durova escapes any meaningful sanction for her actions." is simply not true. --AnonEMouse (squeak) 15:13, 30 November 2007 (UTC)
That you view the only problem with Durova is "blocking an editor for 75 minutes" says more about you than anything else you could have posted. The problem was as much in how she came to that outrageous decision (blocking an experienced, excellent contributor without merit is NOT no big deal) as it was the decision itself. Your efforts to sweep scrutiny of these methods under the rug is not helpful at all. Mr Which??? 15:47, 30 November 2007 (UTC)
Hmm, it seems like you only read that sentence. This "gave up her admin tools" defence seems like a red herring. I thought the idea was that admins were here to serve the community rather than to parade their bit as a badge of rank. I can't imagine that a court of law would rule that a case should be dismissed because the defendant is giving up work. I wasn't referring to the block at all. At the least she showed bad judgement in her off-site post analysing !! activities too, not just in her block, and this is what I'm asking the Arbitrators to take in account when deciding whether it is fair to act against Giano for his actions on-site. Andplus 16:04, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] What in the world is going on in secret/private ???

People here who don't understand why the Durova incident was a big deal for some need to understand that it precipitated a crisis of confidence.

A year ago (27 December 2006) we were told on by Kelly Martin on Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard:

It seems that people have forgotten (or perhaps even never known) why #wikipedia-en-admins was created. The purpose was to have a forum where Foundation people (Jimbo, Brad, Danny, et al) could discuss high-priority issues requiring urgent action with trusted admins in a non-public place. Why non-public? Because these issues generally involved matters which were the subject of press attention or of threats of litigation, or otherwise prone to creating difficulties for the Wikimedia Foundation if not dealt with quickly and, as much as possible, quietly. Unfortunately, the channel was quickly compromised (there have been several instances of logs being leaked to various unscrupulous parties who have used them to try to create embarrassment or otherwise complicate the Foundation's efforts to avoid being embroiled in negative publicity or litigation), and as a result, such situations are now managed through other, even more secret, forums.

We could shut down the #wikipedia-en-admins channel, but that wouldn't get rid of the nonpublic backchannels. It would just change their names and disperse the participants somewhat. At least #wikipedia-en-admins is an obvious channel name; it is certainly more informative than one of its progenitors, #fluffykittens.

Major administrative decisions have been made, at times, in these backchannels. Some of them have been quite momentous. In most of those cases, the decisions that have been made have been decisions that could not possibly have been discussed, let alone made, on the public wiki, but nonetheless have had to be made. This is a situation where the exigencies of real life, a universe which is replete with dastardly beasts such as reporters, pundits, and attorneys, force us to dispense with a full and open public discussion because doing so is the only way to avoid a vicious nasty lawsuit that would at best cripple and at worst utterly destroy Wikipedia. You don't have to like this. I'm not really all that happy about it either. But it's the way things are, and it's not something that's going to go away any time soon.

So, anyway, that's the "vital information" that gets passed through IRC backchannels like #wikipedia-en-admins, and why it cannot be passed through the public noticeboards. If you're not an admin doing crisis management for the Foundation, then you probably don't need to be there. But it would rather nice of those of you who are not doing crisis management for the Foundation to at least afford the assumption of good faith to those who are. And keep in mind that there's always the chance that if you do see an admin do something inexplicable, it might be a crisis management action, and that perhaps a polite private inquiry should be your first line of action, instead of an incendiary post to one of the noticeboards. Kelly Martin (talk) 02:51, 27 December 2006 (UTC)

The Durova incident email we read, the description of its having been reviwed and approved, the agreement by many admins in the first hour that the block should not be overturned except by arbcom and that the evidence was such that it could not be given to the community for evaluation, and the frantic efforts to delete evidences needed by the community to evaluate the situation; all led people to doubt what we have been told about what goes on behind closed doors around here. It led to a crisis of confidence, a doubting that we were being told the truth, a doubting in the judgement of the people in charge of what goes on behind closed doors. Efforts to say take my word for it and to delete evidence strengthened the appearance that the words were different than the facts. You must understand that when someone questions whether you are lying saying "I am not lying" does not help. Evidence is needed. That is what is going on. WAS 4.250 13:55, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Fred's fifth disruption diff

[21]]. Another case of "Obscene trolling. Knows German" ? At least the investigation here isn't going off half-cocked. Andplus 14:16, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

Just in case Fred was unaware, that was a continuation of a line of banter between two editors who know each other. It was part of the jocularity surrounding discussion of the article Leck mich im Arsch, which very loosely translated means "kiss my butt." There was also a Fawlty Towers reference in that exchange. Risker 16:15, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Essay

My response to this case: Wikipedia:Kiss and make up. - Jehochman Talk 14:36, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

A noble and well-advised sentiment. Cla68 14:55, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] History

People have been going on about Giano's history of disruption, then they said that durova is being punished for making one bad ban. The thing is, she already had a history of making bad bans based on 'seekrit' (ie not based on checkuser or anything except her own subjective impressions) evidence. I'm just saying this in response to people going on about Giano's history.Merkinsmum 16:11, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] For the attention of Arbcom:- We, the undersigned, strongly object to Giano receiving any ban

Merkinsmum 16:10, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

Ermmm...all of the arbiters have voted, and the proposal did not succeed. Barring any additional changes in votes, none of the remedies proposed as against Giano have passed. Risker 14:52, 30 November 2007 (UTC)
Lol sorry, it all changes in a few hours! Respect is due for you then arbcom.:)Merkinsmum 16:10, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Please Fred, be reasonable

Fred, Giano isn't the villain in this episode and please stop trying to make it so: [22]. If you want a villain or villains, I suggest looking elsewhere. Cla68 15:00, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Clerk request

Could a non-recused clerk kindly update the implementation notes? (The case clerk, Cbrown1023, probably won't be online for a few more hours.) Newyorkbrad 15:59, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Plus ça change

Hey, arbs: check out Pentagon Papers. Richard Nixon wanted to hit the New York Times for publishing the leaked papers more than it wanted to hit the man who leaked them. The verdict of history has been different. The NYT has gone on to be the first paper of record, Ellsberg a respected man, and Nixon reviled. Utgard Loki 16:19, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Evidence Fred Bauder gave was a joke

Regarding a part of Fred Bauder's evidence of Giano's incivility, specifically this- it is complete nonsense to say that is incivility as Snickersnee is a friend of Giano and he was using the phrase in jest (firstly in reference to Durova's evidence on the Mozart canon and secondly British people use it as an example of American coarse speech and never intend it in an aggressive way as an American might use it). Gustav von Humpelschmumpel 16:36, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

  • You know that, but I'm reasonably knowledgeable about classical music and someone still had to explain the reference to me. Maybe Fred (who, like me, is an American and would consider that usage aggressive) should have asked, but maybe someone should tell him too. Mackensen (talk) 16:39, 30 November 2007 (UTC)
I already have done. Andplus 16:41, 30 November 2007 (UTC)
I'm familiar with the context, and I can agree that the diff quoted is not evidence of anything. Newyorkbrad 16:47, 30 November 2007 (UTC)
It is evidence of why certain people though Durova's evidence was sound! Giano 16:50, 30 November 2007 (UTC)
It seems to me this whole thing can in some way be blamed on mere linguistic and cultural misunderstandings of the way people talk to each other. If everyone understood those differences exist and make allowances for it then we could have avoided this whole palava in the first place. Gustav von Humpelschmumpel 16:52, 30 November 2007 (UTC)
No it seems to me as one avenue closes a more desperate scramble to find another emerges Giano 16:54, 30 November 2007 (UTC)
How many roads...? Mackensen (talk) 17:17, 30 November 2007 (UTC)
I'm American and know absolutely nothing about classical music, but I could tell by the context of that conversation that it was friendly banter. Sometimes all it takes is a little common sense to tell when something is a joke and when it's not. --SGT Tex
As I pointed out to Fred Bauder, ascribing it to malice in lieu of investigating further is precisely the kind of sloppy practice that sparked off this whole kurfuffle in the first place. Andplus 17:16, 30 November 2007 (UTC)
Clearly a joke. Kla’quot (talk | contribs) 17:41, 30 November 2007 (UTC)
Frankly, the only way that it could have been described as malicious is if the e-mail that is so central to this case had not been read by Mr. Bauder, as it is unbelievably clearly a reference to said e-mail. It saddens me that I have to actually ask this, but Mr. Bauder, have you actually bothered to read the evidence involved in this case? It's clear you didn't look at the context surrounding the diff you cherrypicked (or if you did, you brazenly ignored it), but if you haven't even read the e-mail that has so enraged the community, then you need to recuse yourself from this case. —bbatsell ¿? ✍ 17:43, 30 November 2007 (UTC)
waaaaay to assume good faith.--Docg 17:47, 30 November 2007 (UTC)
I don't have to assume good faith in the presence of evidence to the contrary, as I believe exists here. Feel free to review WP:AGF at your leisure. —bbatsell ¿? ✍ 17:56, 30 November 2007 (UTC)
I concur with Bbatsell here. If Bauder had read that e-mail, he would have known that the diff he pointed to was a joking reference between friends. I also concur regarding there being no need to AGF in clear evidence to the contrary. Mr Which??? 18:03, 30 November 2007 (UTC)
  • Point of clarification: I am not saying this to be nasty. Some of us love ambiguity and word games, and some of us don't. Let's be clear with section titles, with such a grave matter: The correct title to this should be "There is evidence that the diff Fred Bauder provided was intended as a joke." No one is accusing Fred's evidence of being poor to the point of being a joke. Let's do be as conciliatory as possible throughout (yes, "possible" is variable). Geogre 21:23, 30 November 2007 (UTC)
Yes, sorry if I wasn't clear there. Gustav von Humpelschmumpel 22:50, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Holy Mother of Troll!

I just realized that Giano deeply offended me, and wish to file a grievance!!! ...no, wait... I mean I just realized that Fred Bauder is blitheringly misunderstanding the exact same comment that Durova misrepresented when she burned poor !!, and then again later when she accused me of being an anti-German bigot! This is quite beyond belief and has to be an elaborate prank - hey, is my webcam on? HELLO?? Thank you for making this travesty an insane one. You people are one monkey short of Shakespeare. sNkrSnee | ¿qué? 00:38, 1 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] "tie breaking" the mistrial

I am surprised that Steve suggests to refer the tie-breaking votes to Jimbo, not a member of ArbCom. Deadlocked juries are not solved by the presiding judges casting the tie-breaking votes. Brad may correct me (IANAL and all) but a superior court does not get involved simply because the lower court failed to pass something. Since ArbCom decisions may be appealed to Jimbo, he plays a role of a higher than ArbCom Wikipedia judicial body. A result of the deadlocked jury is not referring the case to a higher court but a mistrial. Mistrtial outcome simply nullifies everything that happened in the court room and the solution is either dismissal or a complete trial de novo, if the prosecution sees more trouble justified.

If Giano bashers and the ArbCom members who are eager to hang him can't just accept the outcome, they have a choice to arbitrate Giano in one more case. That this is necessary if the focus is shifted from Durova and secrecy to Giano and the community with the sanctions also shifted towards the latter part was argued above by others as well. --Irpen 17:57, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee mentions the possibility of Jimbo's casting a tie-breaking vote when arbitrators are evenly split on a proposal, although oddly enough the actual Wikipedia:Arbitration policy does not contain this provision. In any event, this theoretical option has never actually been invoked, and there is not the least reason to believe that this would be a good first time for it. Newyorkbrad 18:05, 30 November 2007 (UTC)
I don't see that a tie has any real meaning, proposed remedies need a majority to pass: For this case, there are 12 active Arbitrators, so 7 votes are a majority. In this case none of the proposed remedies having to do with Giano have attained a majority, so don't they fail? RxS 18:10, 30 November 2007 (UTC)
Notice also that one of the supports is a "wimpy" support, while one of the opposes is a "strong" oppose. It is obvious to me that a "strong" oppose outweights a "wimpy" support, how could it not? What would be the purpose of saying "wimpy" or "strong" if such statements had no weight? Uncle uncle uncle 18:23, 30 November 2007 (UTC)
I didn't read the term "wimpy" in that way. As far as I can tell, those comments in the votes are describing the demurrals of other arbitrators as "wimpy". --Tony Sidaway 18:28, 30 November 2007 (UTC)
I don't believe I have ever seen a single term misconstrued in so many ways, as Fred's now infamous "wimpy, wimpy, wimpy" reference. Charles Morrow has a lot to answer for [23] Rockpocket 18:53, 30 November 2007 (UTC)
This looks like UninvitedCompany and Fred Bauder are trying to get their way by changing the rules. For the sake of Wikipedia, I rather hope they don't. (amended at 18:28; fudge the pronouns as necessary) rspeer / ɹəədsɹ 18:13, 30 November 2007 (UTC)
Fred should be excluded from this. My regrettable mistake. I corrected my original post with apologies to Fred. He did not suggest such a thing. --Irpen 18:16, 30 November 2007 (UTC)
Isn't it clear, Irpen. Jimbo's contentious dealings with Giano most likely make Uninvited certain of the outcome of such a referral. Mr Which??? 18:19, 30 November 2007 (UTC)
I agree with Irpen to the extent that it does seem unusual (and I doubt that Jimbo Wales would want to involve himself). However all of the arbitration committee's powers devolve from Jimbo so it does make sense. Comparing the arbitration committee to a court, and arbitration to a trial is nearly always misleading. --Tony Sidaway 18:26, 30 November 2007 (UTC)
True in a properly conducted trial only experts and the concerned get to speak and one knows exactly where one is. Giano 18:31, 30 November 2007 (UTC)
There are no trials on Wikipedia, never have been. Arbitration is simply a means of gathering information and making a decision on how to resolve conflicts that cannot be resolved by the community itself through the normal methods. There is a tension between allowing administrators great discretion in their actions and holding them accountable when they make a grave error. There is a tension between indulging the occasional disruptive activities of valued contributors and maintaining an orderly working environment. The arbitration committee has to decide on such issues. It reserves for itself great powers and great latitude, and those powers all derive from Jimbo Wales. --Tony Sidaway 18:38, 30 November 2007 (UTC)
Thank you Tony. Giano 18:40, 30 November 2007 (UTC)
It's hard to assume good faith on the proposal of referring to Jimbo when the member in concern didn't suggest the same course of action in other equally controversial case (BADSITE et. al.) where the committee couldn't reach a decision. KTC 18:41, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

While obviously assuming the good faith of Jimbo. Even if it'll be unintentional, he's not exactly the most unbiased person to resolve any resulting tiebreak given his prior well documented (if not necessarily agreed interpretation) interaction with Giano. KTC 18:41, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

Jimbo is the chief arbiter. He is the ultimate person to decide on all sanctions. If an editor cannot satisfy Jimbo that he's not acting disruptively, then that editor has the problem, not Jimbo. --Tony Sidaway 18:47, 30 November 2007 (UTC)
Giano is no devil and Jimbo is no god. The practice of never conceding that an error was made is a flaw not a virtue. --arkalochori |talk| 23:43, 30 November 2007 (UTC)
Wrong. Jimbo is a human being. He has biases, just like anyone else, and he makes grave errors, just like anyone else. (Please refer to Larry Sanger.) As such, referring ties to him in this particular case, when it would be unreasonable to expect him to be fair-minded, would seem to constitute a stacking of the deck against Giano. Mr Which??? 18:51, 30 November 2007 (UTC)
Jimbo and any system of sanctions doesn't operate in a vacuum. You also have the Foundation and the Community. Wikipedia (in this case en-wiki) got where it was today because of its community of editors, not because of Jimbo (though he and others played crucial roles in getting the project started and going). Jimbo has great power, but with great power comes great responsibility. Carcharoth 18:57, 30 November 2007 (UTC)
Your conclusion in the 3rd sentence depends on an assumption that Jimbo is so god like that he never actually make any mistake (erm, Essjay?) and that he can never be influenced by prior experience with the subject involved. Neither of these assumption holds as has been pointed out, considering Jimbo is a human being like the rest of us. KTC 19:02, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

(comment and ec x2)The problem is thinking in terms of 'tie' or 'stalemate', when (as it currently stands) it's actually a failed proposal -happens all the time. And just when I thought the drama was subsiding. . . R. Baley 18:58, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

Apparently, Uninvited is willing to suffer the drama if it means getting Giano. Mr Which??? 19:03, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

The relevant text in Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee was added by Mav on 15 November 2004,[24] and has sat there more or less the same ever since.[25] I have not found any discussion about it before it was added, nor indeed any comments (for or against) about it since then.

"the arbitration committee's powers devolve from Jimbo"? That is interesting, because Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee says:

“ Until the beginning of 2004, Jimbo Wales dealt with all serious disputes and was the only person with the authority to ban users who were not engaging in simple vandalism (straight-forward vandals could be blocked by any administrator). This role has now largely been passed to the Arbitration Committee. ”

So where does Jimbo's seemingly arbitrary power (to desysop at will, to pass casting votes in ArbCom cases, to refuse to accept Arbitrators selected by the community) derive from? He [co-]founded Wikipedia, of course, and funded it initially; but as I understand it, Wikipedia is now funded and operated by the Wikimedia Foundation - a separate non-profit charitable foundation, of which he is but one of the board members. Jimbo does not "own" Wikipedia. Why does Jimbo still exercise this limitless power, and not, say, Florence? Does Jimbo exercise (or even theoretically have) an unlimited fiat in Egnlish Wikibook and Wiktionary and Wikinews and Wikisource, or in the French or German or Russian or Greek or Hebrew or Vietnamese language versions of Wikipedia - or is it just the English Wikipedia that recognises his authority? Or is it simply that he has this power because we let him exercise it, and no-one has gainsaid it? Imperium, or auctoritas, or both, or neither? -- !! ?? 19:01, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

MrWhich, the fact that Jimbo is human and has biases is stipulated. This doesn't alter his position as the ultimate arbiter of English Wikipedia. I make no comment on whether it's appropriate to refer a tied arbitration result to him, or whether he would accept such a referral, but it certainly isn't out of order for the Committee, should it decide, to refer a case to him.
Carcharoth, although I wish you hadn't expressed your sentiment in terms of a movie based on a comic book, but I agree with it. I'm unclear whether it is intended to refute my statement that the arbitration committee's powers derive from Jimbo.
KTC, I don't make any such assumption.
 !!, you're spot on. He exercises such power because we do not gainsay his right to do so. --Tony Sidaway 19:06, 30 November 2007 (UTC)
So the power does not so much "devolve" from him because he has any inherent right to it: it is just exercised by him because no-one has yet said "no" and been able to make it stick?
And what about other Wikimedia projects? Is it only the English Wikipedia that recognises this? -- !! ?? 19:27, 30 November 2007 (UTC)
People "gainsay" his right to do so all the time (see the Zscout improper desysop and the furor it caused). He just desysops them (or bans them, if it's just a little editor) if he wants to, or insults them, if that's his pleasure that day. (See his response to Giano defying him--oh, wait, you can't. That was oversighted.) Mr Which??? 19:13, 30 November 2007 (UTC)
Point of information - Jimbo's response was not oversighted. It was on "User:!!"'s talk page, which vanished when "User:!!" did. But the response is back right now because "User:!!" is back and so is the talk page. I saw that change and was puzzled for a while. It's really quite hard sometimes to figure out what's going on with a Wikipedia controversy. The reflexive stonewalling of the powers-that-be interacts badly with the fragility of the pages. -- Seth Finkelstein 00:33, 1 December 2007 (UTC)
Certainly there are individuals who do not accept his authority. As a community, however, we do. And that is how we keep order in English Wikipedia. If you want to propose another way, feel free to do so. Start a new proposed policy for resolving disputes on English Wikipedia that doesn't involve an arbitration committee appointed by Jimbo. --Tony Sidaway 19:21, 30 November 2007 (UTC)
I note well that you didn't acknowledge his abuses of power. As for a proposal, how about this: Jimbo doesn't act as god-king anymore. The community elects the ArbCom, and the ArbCom makes the final decisions. Jimbo plays no role other than that of an admin/ checkuser/ bureaucrat/ editor. He doesn't break ties, and he doesn't arbitrarily overrule the will of the people in Arbcom elections. You do know what happens when SCOTUS goes 4-4 on a decision, right? Mr Which??? 19:31, 30 November 2007 (UTC)
I don't stipulate those actions by Jimbo as abuses of power, but our difference of opinion is a side issue which I'm ignoring so that we can keep to the point. Your characterization of Jimbo is incorrect. Jimbo appoints arbcom. Jimbo also acts as final resort of appeal to arbitration committee decisions. He may well break ties if he's asked by the arbitration committee to do so. Then again he may not. It's up to him. I neither know nor care what the Supreme Court of a foreign country does. Wikipedia is not a court of any country, nor does it house any such courts or anything similar to them. --Tony Sidaway 19:37, 30 November 2007 (UTC)
Ah, looks like I misread a proposal by you as a statement of the current status of Jimbo. If you want to make that proposal then I suggest you post it to the Village Pump. --Tony Sidaway 19:41, 30 November 2007 (UTC)
More along the line of the power are given to Jimbo from WMF for en.wp in recognition of his historic role in relation to this project. (There is actual wording I've read that stated this either on a foundation website, or posted by a board member, but I can't find it.) KTC 19:22, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

The WMF do not give Jimbo power on en.wp. The WMF are not a content provider and they do not police this community at all (except in legal matters). Jimbo's power derives from convention and ultimately the community. It would be perfectly reasonable for the community to remove or redefine his "ultimate arbitrator" role. But you'd need to agreement/consensus to change such a longstanding and central community policy. By all means try.--Docg 19:38, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

I don't believe that Jimbo added himself to the "Godkings subject to recall" category. Uncle uncle uncle 19:44, 30 November 2007 (UTC)
The WMF may not provide the content, but if they wanted to they can say you have to do this a certain way, and your only choice is either to leave the project (forking or otherwise), or go along with it. This site operate on a community consensus because that's how WMF let it operate. It doesn't mean they have to do it that way. KTC 04:35, 1 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Consensus

Consensus is supposed to be operative. That means that, when things are terribly split, there is not sufficient opinion for a change to the extant situation to take place. If the matter is "block/ban/burn/spindle X," then lacking consensus means leaving off (negative). If the matter is, "Reinstate/honor/thank/love/conjugate with X," then lacking consensus means not. In other words, ArbCom needs to be behind something, not 50/50 +SuperuserJimbo. Ridiculous, desperate, foolish, petty, useless stuff. Utgard Loki 19:40, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

The Arbitration Committee has never made decisions by consensus, but by majority vote. --Tony Sidaway 19:42, 30 November 2007 (UTC)
Way to dodge the main, more salient point. Mr Which??? 19:45, 30 November 2007 (UTC)
I'm not dodging it, I'm tackling it head-on. Geogre seems to assume above that the committee is bound to make decisions by consensus, and criticises a proposal on the grounds that it wouldn't be consistent with consensus. I shot his fox by stating this fact: that arbitration decisions have never been made by consensus. --Tony Sidaway 19:57, 30 November 2007 (UTC)
It's fox season? I thought it was deer and wabbit season. damn. Lsi john 19:59, 30 November 2007 (UTC)
Completely, wholeheartedly, unreservedly, AGREE. It's a desparate attempt to force a "remedy" for which there's not even a majority approval. Mr Which??? 19:45, 30 November 2007 (UTC)
This entire Durova cause and the decisions made by Arbcom. will, in fact, lead to a massive increase in puppet activity.
Right. <rolls eyes> Durova's methods were SO effective that the project will be lost without them... Mr Which??? 20:18, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

No more transparency and no more use of exisiting profiles for anything but vanilla work. Arbcom. people knew of what was going on all along and Durova knows that she had to fall on the sword to get back into it at a later date. To think Jimmy Wales was out of the loop is a pipe dream. Consensus does not work in a dictatorship. Those not agreeing get their hands cut off. The singing canary... I sing the body electric 68.103.243.60 20:15, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

Well, if I'm invoked, let's see what I have to say. Tony is as wrong as he can possibly be, but this is not surprising. Have ArbCom decisions been majority? Well, as a long term ArbCom member, Tony would know? In fact, ArbCom decisions have been by majority, but those without substantial consensus do not get implemented, as there is almost always considerable rewording, reversing, and recasting of votes to prevent such a situation. Never before have I seen (and I'm not a long time Arb, like Tony) ArbCom not only use a 50+1 for a block, but to, in fact, go reaching for bench players, recused players, and people who should be recused in order to break a tie. I have never seen that for anything, much less a block/ban. In this case, it looks like a minority of arbitrators pushing very, very, very, very hard to break ArbCom's legitimacy in order to get a privately desired result. Loki is wrong: decisions have used majority. Loki is right: default is to leave things as they are. Tony is entirely wrong: ArbCom avoids 50+1 situations. Tony is ludicrously wrong: ArbCom does not reach out for passersby to avoid a tie. Arbitrators trying to do this with an appeal to Jimbo, in particular, are hideously wrong, as Jimbo is implicated already, on multiple occasions, by expressing dismissive and corrosive opinions about Giano that he has had to (or wished to) apologize for. He would be, in any rational scheme, recusing, and I cannot imagine a world where he would want to endanger the dispute resolution process of Wikipedia and endanger hundreds, if not thousands, of article contributions for such a bullheaded, peevish, and petulant exercise as this. I have been wrong before, of course, but I'm not a long time ArbCom member. Geogre 21:02, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

There was a polite way of saying that, Geogre. You're mostly right anyway; the committee has avoided in the past adopting a measure with a slim majority. On the other hand, it's rare for the committee to be split so sharply. In any event, there aren't any ties here: the majority is 7, remedy 6 is 6-6, so fails completely. Mackensen (talk) 21:06, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

Believe it or not, that was my trying to be polite. For impolite, see below. I hate making anything anywhere near a threat, but at some point the hypocrisy of trying to penalize the publisher instead of the leak, but in the name of stopping a leak, of something that should not, by policy, have been private, is simply too much for the meekest, and at some point Tony trying to mount a triumphalist tone will get anyone annoyed. I'm sure he could have found a polite way, too, and I'm sure that your admonition to him would be understood. Anyone saying, "This is how we do it at ArbCom" who isn't at ArbCom is ridiculous, and anyone doing that who is at ArbCom is provocative or belligerant. Geogre 21:14, 30 November 2007 (UTC)
Fair enough. That'll be a hell of a fire. Mackensen (talk) 21:16, 30 November 2007 (UTC)
I don't think Geogre was being particularly rude, either. He's wrong, and obviously so (it's in the arbitration policy) but not rude. He also (as is his habit) falsely attributed to me a statement along the lines of "this is how we do it at arbcom". An understandable error if he's casting around for something to criticise and can't find anything. --Tony Sidaway 00:16, 1 December 2007 (UTC)
  • I changed my vote back to oppose to end the misguided and disruptive attempt to change the way proposals are passed. When I was a Clerk tie votes were never considered to be a factor in determining whether a vote passed. I will not be part of any attempt to ban an user by changing the rules midstream. FloNight♥♥♥ 00:02, 1 December 2007 (UTC)
Thank you. It is only behavior like that that can resolve what for some is a crisis of confidence in the leadership of Wikipedia. It is evidence that behind the closed doors there are trustworthy people with the sense and willingness to do the right thing. It is not necessary for all information that is secret/private to be revealed to the community (and thus to everyone); but it is necessary for the community to be able to trust that there are people who do have access who will do what is right. WAS 4.250 07:44, 1 December 2007 (UTC)
  • I'm disappointed to learn that you have continued to act in such an irresponsible manner, despite my warning, Uninvited Company, Inc., to the point that another Committee members described your efforts as "misguided and disruptive" while the case was ongoing. That is unprecedented in the history of this Committee. Your lack of decorum and bias, I challenge, has damaged this Committee's reputation. El_C 09:57, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Jimbo Recusal

Given Jimbo is already biased against Giano, wouldn't it be more appropriate for him to completely recuse here, and leave it to the committee that was mostly elected to deal with this? If something happens here that is against community consensus, whats the next recourse for the community? Recall the committee? Can that even be done? Lawrence Cohen • I support Giano. 21:07, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

  • As I've indicated above, I think this discussion will prove academic. If, on the other hand, you find yourself in opposition to the committee, your main options are to lead a revolt or fork the encyclopedia. I don't know what a revolt would look like; for it to be successful you'd need at least one steward on your side. Mackensen (talk) 21:11, 30 November 2007 (UTC)
    • Oh, come on, Mackensen. As Jimbo has honestly and correctly said, repeatedly, he's not Wikipedia. Giano has said nothing about revolt. I have talked of strikes, and that's my right. Someone disagreeing with ArbCom is not new. The project splitting down the seams over an ArbCom decision is the very definition of a bad ArbCom decision. It doesn't mean the matters aren't important -- they must be to cause such a split -- but it means that the framing, execution, and methods are, by definition, precisely the opposite of "arbitration." Geogre 21:17, 30 November 2007 (UTC)
      • I shudder to think at the very idea of a "revolt" involving stewards. I won't go into how exactly one would have to unfold but it would have to be a pretty brazen usurpation and I doubt it would last long as there are still other ways of securing access that stewards can't undo. I would hope we have never, and will never, select a steward who would even entertain such an idea seriously for even one second. I acknowledge that was just a rhetorical device but... ++Lar: t/c 23:32, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

For the purpose of clarity, and in no way impeaching the reputation of any member of this community, including Jimbo, please read the quote below from WP:Arbitration Committee:

“ Wales wrote: "The Arbitration Committee [...] can impose a solution that I'll consider to be binding, with of course the exception that I reserve the right of executive clemency and indeed even to dissolve the whole thing if it turns out to be a disaster. But I regard that as unlikely, and I plan to do it about as often as the Queen of England dissolves Parliament against their wishes, i.e., basically never, but it is one last safety valve for our values." – January 2004

In April 2007, Wales decreed that the committee could overturn any decision he makes in his traditional capacity within Wikipedia.

 ”

--Risker 21:15, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

Responding to Geogre's: "The project splitting down the seams over an ArbCom decision is the very definition of a bad ArbCom decision." I agree. I stand by what I said earlier. "A harmonious ArbCom should be able to agree on fair, just remedies that gain the support of the community as well clear majorities of arbitrators." Some arbitrator stances are clear on-wiki, and they won't ever come to agreement, but I hope I am right to presume that in most cases the arbitrators do try and come up with something they can agree on before moving to the voting phase. Or is the voting phase just trial and error until the arbitrators stumble on a wording they all agree on? I get the impression there is extensive on-list discussion behind what we see on-wiki, but maybe there is not enough and there should be more? Is it better to have the arbitrator disagreements out in the open, or not? Carcharoth 23:19, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

It's not trial and error. The fact that nearly all arbitration motions are unanimously passed shows you how hard they're trying. Sometimes they're split, but that's very rare. --Tony Sidaway 00:20, 1 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Issue resolved for this case

Note that arbitrator FloNight has changed her vote on the "Giano banned for 90 days" remedy, eliminating the tie and rendering the "Jimbo as tiebreaker" suggestion moot in this case. Newyorkbrad 00:10, 1 December 2007 (UTC)

Good call. A ban in this case would have made things worse, not better. --Tony Sidaway 00:13, 1 December 2007 (UTC)
FloNight has made a wise decision to help reduce the drama and to recognize that first instincts are usualy best. She has recognized the difference between arbitration and brinksmanship. Risker 01:52, 1 December 2007 (UTC)
I don't actually see any proposals that are tied at 5/5 or 6/6. Which is the proposal that is being referred to Jimbo for a possible tiebreaking vote? Cla68 07:54, 1 December 2007 (UTC)
That's because FloNight have switched (back), so it's now 5-7. The proposed remedies 6 of "Giano banned for 90 days" was initially 5-5 before FloNight switched to support from an initial oppose making it 6-4. Blnguyen and James F. then both voted oppose making 6-6. KTC 08:53, 1 December 2007 (UTC)
As I criticized her sharply for what I considered to be an extremely ill-conceived switch from oppose to support, with the vote tied at 5-5, so I will acknowledge her much wiser decision to pull the committee back from an indefensible brink. Mr Which??? 08:02, 1 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Geogre Blows the Whistle: Auto de Fe

One thing said over and over again, here, is accurate. I've said it several times. The few arbitrators wanting to impose sanctions on Giano II are reacting to their displeasure at past events, not present ones, and the "secret" stuff was no secret. Giano is being accused of publishing something that was in no way private.

  1. Giano did not intercept this message.
  2. I had seen it.
  3. A member of ArbCom or three had seen it.
  4. Several other people had seen it.
  5. At least four people forwarded it on.

If the punishment is going to be for the betrayal of "privacy" in the e-mail, then let's get the stack of bodies on the pyre to escalate. If this stuff passes, then I will be happy to name those I know who passed on this super secret open secret, and I will encourage them to out all the others who sent the mail to others.

Let's get the doors open, folks. You want to kill people over supposed "privacy?" Well, let's find out how private that private stuff was, how little different posting it was from what it was already doing. The only thing I gained from having it forwarded to me (several times) was a sense of dirtiness and shame at possessing such a vile document. Geogre 21:10, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

Crap. What people forward to one another is between them, the original posters, their conscience, and (unlikely) the law. What people post on Wikipedia is the concern of the community, arbcom and (unlikely) the Foundation. For someone who's so keen to seperate off-wiki from on-wiki communication, you should know that.--Docg 21:19, 30 November 2007 (UTC)
My concern is, if everyone (arbcom members?) on that list had such little regard for Durova's expertise that they simply deleted or dismissed her email, they should have seen this coming and done something long before now to prevent it. So, yes, I would like to know who is railing against Giano's actions and yet by silent complicity condoned Durova's actions. Lsi john 21:22, 30 November 2007 (UTC)
Stop trolling. I delete dozens of mailing list post each day. It is not a sign of contempt for the poster. Now you are just making stuff up to justify your inventions of bad faith. Stop it.--Docg 21:28, 30 November 2007 (UTC)
Gee, no bad faith there, right? I've seen several places that suggested it was deleted by individuals because it was of no value. I didn't say everyone did. And 'little regard for her expertise' is hardly contempt for her. The fact is, that email highlights her inability to make sound judgments and the ultimate finding was that she lost her sysops.. which I've been told was a foregone conclusion, though I'm not convinced of that. And I happen to think my concern is a valid one... if we are going to condemn Giano for his 'action', I think it's equally important to condemn others for their 'inactions' which could have prevented this tragedy. Lsi john 21:33, 30 November 2007 (UTC)
To Doc: you're right. This is why I feel that Giano's actions were in the right. Durova was doing on-wiki work under the screen of e-mail. Because of that, many (I mean many) recipients began forwarding the e-mail. They were, de facto, publishing the e-mail because it was a Wikipedia matter. I probably got it often because folks expected that I would shake loose the thunder. I don't have time for much thundering (evidence to the contrary notwithstanding), so I kept hoping it would come to naught. However, my policy really is that all actions on-wiki have to be because of on-wiki action. Because Durova had been violating that for months, when she acted on it with a particularly egregiously clean user, Giano made public what should have been on AN/I from the start (or RFCU). I do not want what Giano did done again. I didn't want it done the first time. That said, it was rebalancing and reinstating our policies to do so. It was making up for her mistake and, very importantly, robbing her of the mystery of "ArbCom needs me, because I'm vital for hundreds of ongoing investigations" language that had protected her from scrutiny and allowed therefore other "false positive" blocks. Blocking is a serious thing. We have policies about it because of this. If Giano has to have guilt to undoing Durova's misdeed, then all who failed to undo it should share in some of that guilt. That would include me.
To Lsi John: I don't think that you're trolling. I think the quiet word from several has been that people got the "portfolio" and ignored it. I don't know if that equals any attitude, though. Each person would have to answer for him or herself. I will answer for myself and what I saw: I am not interested in the mindset of hunting down vandals and socks. It gets into personalities far too quickly, for me, and I feel frustrated that we can be neither open to all nor have a proper firewall, and so we end up with nothing but tattling and accusing and hatefulness. Therefore, when someone comes to me with "X is a sock," I tend to ignore it. I ask, "What has the person done?" I still think that's what we have to answer. Has the user done something against policy? If so, warn, discuss, block, if necessary. If the person hasn't, then I'm not worried. Geogre 21:35, 30 November 2007 (UTC)
John wasn't trolling. Doc was way out of line in that accusation. Mr Which??? 21:53, 30 November 2007 (UTC)
Geogre, thanks for not shaking loose the thunder; and please try to restrain yourself from escalating the stack of bodies on the pyre. You know, by complete coincidence, I don't think that's even a mixed metaphor. If I can commend that statement, while not the one that started this section, I will. The decision is closing, and there is an excellent chance this will all end with a whimper rather than a bang. Let's try to encourage the peaceful solution, rather than making things more contentious. --AnonEMouse (squeak) 22:31, 30 November 2007 (UTC)
  • The truth, it appears, is that some members voting on this issue should be recusing themselves from the voting, albeit that is not happening. Therefore, it only makes sense that if at a later date, in fact, it is established that anyone of the voters

should not have been involved in the voting, I suspect the impending decision will be for naught. It seems to me that anyone not reading their mail should really understand the law, herein. If I do not respond to a facsimile service or mail service and do not appear in court, the presiding court will still rule, with or without me. Nice 22:55, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

  • Responding to what Doc said above about what was 'private' here, I'd like to repeat what CBD said earlier: "Giano wasn't the one who put this debacle into "an open forum". He defended !! and challenged the evidence and methodology in the same forum that the claims were made." In other words, Durova, by using the "e-mail" as support for her position in an open forum, made the e-mail (within reason) fair game as part of the parcel that could be criticised in that open forum. As soon as people start to justify on-wiki decisions with "stuff I can't show you" or "stuff I talked about on e-mail", then the discussion is killed stone dead, unless people say "and here is that same argument which I am now going to repeat on-wiki for everyone to see". Carcharoth 23:33, 30 November 2007 (UTC)
  • Nicespace: are you seriously suggesting that Arbitrators are duty bound to read AND LOOK INTO THE IMPLICATIONS OF every email to every list they are on and every email they receive? A comparison to receiving a legal notice is a poor one. Matthew Brown (Morven) (T:C) 00:11, 1 December 2007 (UTC)

Answer: Yes. See below.Nice 05:25, 1 December 2007 (UTC)

If Geogre wants to change Wikipedia policy to permit the posting of private emails once some arbitrary person has had it leaked to him, he's welcome to try. This isn't how we run things on Wikipedia at present. --Tony Sidaway 00:18, 1 December 2007 (UTC)
  • While 'nobody read it' is a potentially plausible scenario... it seems to be belied by some of the facts here. It has been reported that two people ran checkuser on !!. Unless there was some other reason for doing so, those two people presumably read the e-mail and found it compelling enough evidence to satisfy the checkuser policy requirement that the tool only be used when there is a "valid reason" to believe that the user has engaged in "violation of the policies". Note that the policy indicates that 'being an alternate account' is specifically not a reason to run checkuser... there has to be valid reason to believe the person has engaged in wrongdoing. Maybe someone could come to that conclusion if they read the e-mail and just accepted its claims at face value... but without reading it at all? There'd be nothing to prompt the checkuser runs. As it is, any 'validation' derived from that e-mail was clearly a mistake and not really sufficient to justify checkusering !!. --CBD 00:31, 1 December 2007 (UTC)
That's an interesting point. Forgive me for being out of it and asking some very beginner questions: Is there any "burden of suspicion" that has to be met before running a checkuser? How do we know a checkuser was run on !!? Who ran it? --Alecmconroy 00:36, 1 December 2007 (UTC)
See the evidence page. Moreschi and Durova both comment that two people ran checkuser on !! a couple of weeks prior to the block... that is, about the time the e-mail was sent out. I haven't heard anything about who they were, but clearly someone read the e-mail. As to 'burden of suspicion'... see the link to the checkuser policy page in my comment above. It basically just says a "valid reason" is needed and lists various things which aren't 'valid reasons' and what is - namely, "violation of the policies". No reasonable basis to believe someone is violating policy... no reason to run checkuser on them. (which seems fairly obvious) --CBD 00:56, 1 December 2007 (UTC)
You are mistaken, CBD. I make no such assertion. DurovaCharge! 01:20, 1 December 2007 (UTC)
To be clear-- does that mean there weren't CUs run, or jsut that you haven't asserted one way or the other. When Moreschi make the assertion, is he wrong? --Alecmconroy 01:34, 1 December 2007 (UTC)
Perhaps we've found our sleuths after all. Are there logs of who runs CUs and what their justifications were? --Alecmconroy 01:03, 1 December 2007 (UTC)
My view is that the people here were not in a position of needing to recuse, necessarily, because they really rather ignored Durova. She invoked them, but not by name, as a screen. I think that, ethically, they should have run loudly and openly from any suggestion of that. They should have made clear that no one can invoke the ArbCom, just as Kelly could not when she said that everyone "had been noticed" by ArbCom on AN/I, and just as Tony may not when he makes us all think that he knows how things really go here. I would be delighted to retract any implication I have ever made that I'm in charge, too.
If people need to recuse, it's because of prejudice to the case. When they have long histories of shaking their fists at one of the participants, as many have with Giano, it's a bad sign. Not everyone on ArbCom has perfect judgment, and it seems that not many even have calm in their hearts. They must be dispassionate to be arbitrating, and I suspect many are not. That, however, is a matter for their own shame and conscience to deal with.
I will say that Tony is either misinformed or intentionally deceptive in his characterization. An e-mail to a listserver is already not private. One to a GNU listserver is already GFDL (oops!). One to a GFDL/GNU listserver about Wikipedia matters that is then forwarded to dozens of hands has had its virginity long lost. One that does this and yet is cited as a reason for a Wikipedia block is invalidated by the very claim, and its privacy -- long ago lost like Mae West (who started clean as snow but drifted) -- is hardly a meaningful objection, much less a sanction.
It's the wrong tree being barked up, with the wrong hound, and for the wrong quarry. Geogre 00:33, 1 December 2007 (UTC)
I've been going to great lengths not to respond to your many misstatements of fact. I will simply respond to this by stating that I've noted your claim that there is no such thing as a private mailing list, and that I am aware that your claim is a false claim, and that one such private mailing list is that to which Durova posted. --Tony Sidaway 01:07, 1 December 2007 (UTC)


Geogre, you keep repeating that my action violated policy. What policy? Policy was silent, and I certainly have wished on many occasions that policy addressed these matters. What happened in practice was that hardly anyone cared as long as my actions were near-perfect, but the moment I made a genuine mistake the storm descended. It didn't matter how quickly I undid the block or how humbly sorry I was for it, or even that I've resigned my administratorship. If Giano's action had been necessary to reverse a block then I'd agree he acted toward some greater good, but that wasn't the case. I'd already acknowledged my error and done all I could to atone for it. Instead my good faith willingness to accept feedback and correction got abused for betrayal and ridicule. DurovaCharge! 00:37, 1 December 2007 (UTC)

I think, Durova, that your frustration comes from a misunderstanding about what all the outrage was about. It wasn't about "one bad block"-- admins make bad blocks all the time, and it's no big deal. If you look at the outpouring of outrage as merely being caused by one bad block, the whole thing since very unfair. You've made so many good blocks, you're bound to mess up sooner or later, and everyone should be allowed an oops or two. You even undid your own oops, in less than two hours! Why, then, all the fuss?
I would encourage you to see all the outrage that's come out isn't just because of the "one bad block"-- people are outraged at you for even engaging in those sorts of methods to begin with. People don't like it when there are secrets kept from them. It makes the community feel alienated. Particularly not in an ultra-open community environment like Wikipedia. People don't like it when someone says "Trust me", and it turns out they shouldn't have been trusted-- it makes them feel like they were fooled or scammed. People don't like it when somebody says "You're just a valuable member of the community and maybe even an admin, but this evidence is secret, you don't get to know". That upsets people alot. IT's not what people wanted Wikipedia to be.
The point is--you aren't sitting here bitless for a block, here's sitting here bitless for trying to create a secret court, with stacked court members, answerable only to arbcom. Even if you had turned out to be right about !!-- you still shouldn't have been doing what you were doing. Ya know?
That's my take on what the anthropomorphic voice of the community was saying at the RFC anyway. The danger is-- I don't think you or your allies realize that that's what the voice of the community was saying, so the secret/private list will continue to operate, it will continue to poison the community, and this drama will probably play out again sometime in the future. --Alecmconroy 00:44, 1 December 2007 (UTC)
Then wouldn't it be fair to extend some AGF? I pledged changes quickly and supported the policy proposal that began. That's as much as it's reasonable to expect of someone who operated in a gray area and had a good track record previously. DurovaCharge! 01:05, 1 December 2007 (UTC)
I'm probably not the person to argue with about that-- I tend to think you've had more than your fair share of the blame lumped on you already. You're a good person who took the project in a direction the community didn't want it to go, and you got yanked back hard-- probably even a little too hard.
Aside from the continue secrecy issues, I don't have anything bad to say about you, and even there, I realize there's some conflicting moral dilemmas. Whether it is moral to reveal who else was engaged in the same type of misbehavior as you is one of the great moral dilemmas of our species. I'd prefer it if you sided with "full disclosure for the good of the project", but I realize many many codes of ethics would instruct you to "not be a rat" also-- so I can't actually fault you too much for your continued silence. --Alecmconroy 01:14, 1 December 2007 (UTC)
This whole case has become so distorted that you pose that question seriously, and I respect you. What have things come to? DurovaCharge! 01:24, 1 December 2007 (UTC)

Durova: "how humbly sorry I was". Humbly sorry? I do recognize your strengths and spoke of you highly on several occasions. But humility, Durova, is I think not among your strengths. We discussed this earlier, awhile ago actually, in relation to your blocks of other users. In this case your non-apology apology to the aggrieved user was on the wrong points and very unconvinsing. --Irpen 00:48, 1 December 2007 (UTC)

Irpen, it is not easy for anyone to step forward and admit it when they're wrong. Especially to do so in public, and repeatedly, and to endeavor to make amends. That is my understanding of a humble apology. You may choose to accept it or not. DurovaCharge! 01:09, 1 December 2007 (UTC)
Durova, I totally accept that it is not easy to apologize. But to apologize for small matters and deliberately not mention the real issue looks worse than not to apologize at all. Read the non-apology apology. The problem was not the erroneous decision to block. I am, frankly, flabbergasted that you insist on not seeing what the real issue with your stand is. The problem was your choice to take your entire activity under the cover. Not just to take upon yourself the right to investigate users Wikipedia Review style on the whim, but to procreate the culture of secrecy and non-transparency. You still see nothing wrong with that. You just apologize for misreading the results of your investigation. The way you worked was wrong all along and I still don't see that you realize that. In fact we had the conversation along the same lines a long time ago. Back then you were also persisting in my having to take it off-line if I want to talk. Same secrecy, know-it-allness, self-righteousness. You admit to a mistake but you don't admit to the fact that your ways of doing things were all wrong all the time. Read again what George said. --Irpen 01:36, 1 December 2007 (UTC)


Not to beat the horse, but the point is what you apologized for. It's pretty clear that you apologized for making a bad block, not that you apologized for stepping WAY outside the boundaries of good decision making. And based on your current posts, you don't agree that you've made any significantly poor blocks in the past. And until you grasp that, I think the community will remain outraged. Lsi john 01:13, 1 December 2007 (UTC)
When the community shows me a significantly poor block I made in the past, I will apologize for it. A list of blocks got presented both here and at RFC. It was a poorly assembled list, but I addressed every one meticulously. If that's the worst anyone can lay at my feet then I had an above average record for blocking. DurovaCharge! 01:30, 1 December 2007 (UTC)
I'm glad that you're replying, Durova. You actually had had several "false positives" in the past with The Method. I do not mean to call into question your fundamental motives, although I reject wholeheartedly the mindset. Instead, the violation of policy was that of the blocking policy. All blocks made require that the reason for the block be reviewed or reviewable on Wikipedia. This would include reasoning. All blocks require warning. In emergency situations and in situations where there can be no doubt, a block may be instantaneous. However, blocking, then announcing, and then saying that the proof of the charge is secret (as is the charge) but is known to select others who may not be named is entirely against policy. I don't think we need methods for establishing proper Star Chambers, because I don't think we need a Star Chamber at all. I would rather have to defend articles manually than have any of my comrades (even my most beloved) running any opaque body, and this is, in fact, how our block policy has been set up. Did you notice the controversy about the establishment of WP:OFFICE? Did you see how very carefully it had to be done in order to not step across blocking policy? Policy is not silent: we have to have full reasoning and justification for each block, and each must be reviewable by all administrators, and not merely the "trusted" ones. Geogre 00:50, 1 December 2007 (UTC)
First, that particular report was experimental.  !! was the first block I had tried on that basis. What other false positives do you mean? My evidence responds to a series of challenges regarding other blocks I've made, and I think I do a good job of demonstrating that I've not only been very circumspect but I've even corrected blocks that other sysops had implemented in error. If perfection were required of administrators then we wouldn't have any. DurovaCharge! 01:02, 1 December 2007 (UTC)
Durova, not much I can add to the above, they are all fairly spot-on. However, I will agree with what I see in part of your statement.. Clearly some people had full knowledge of your methods and they remained silent. To that extent, you had their silent consent and I can see that would make you feel like a victim. However, you are taking the full wrath upon yourself by choice. Should you choose to share that wrath with other 'deserving' parties, you are clearly welcome to publish a list of names. Until then, you are taking the heat alone because you choose to. If you want to complain about it, sorry, no offense really, but I'm not interested. Lsi john 01:08, 1 December 2007 (UTC)
There are no other deserving parties. I wrote a report that was far below the quality of my usual research, made the mistake of blocking on that basis, and am paying a heavy price for it. In the immediate aftermath of the action I was stunned that I hadn't become aware of anything to disprove it sooner, since particular information that disproved it was well known in some circles. As I gained a bit more time and perspective I realized that I really hadn't considered all the angles properly when I undertook that report in the first place. It was my responsibility and not anybody else's to write a sound report and to follow up appropriately before actually taking action. At the time when I was doing that I was thinking in particular of how much damage Burntsauce had caused in between the first time I blocked him last April and when the arbitration finally happened half a year later. I was wrong to let that experience with one editor color my evaluation of another. DurovaCharge! 01:17, 1 December 2007 (UTC)
"The information was actually very simple to disprove with one key fact one fact. None of the people who responded had access to that key fact." But, the "key fact" that was missed was that the user under investigation was _not_ a sleeper sock puppet. It sounds silly to argue thus: I would not have said User:!! was a sleeper sock puppet if I had known User:!! was not a sleeper sock puppet. Uncle uncle uncle 02:28, 1 December 2007 (UTC)
Durova, it's not your call as to who is "deserving" of scrutiny-- that's for arbcom and the community. The question that's been posed to you is who else was involved. Who had "in-depth" discussions? who provided non-silent "positive to enthusiastic" feedback about your method. And what exactly did they say and do?
Once that evidence been revealed, it's up to RFCs and RFAr and voters for ARbcom Elections to decide who deserves what. But you can't seriously say, in esssence, "I have secret evidence that the people who were involved aren't deserving of any further scrutiny"-- you only get one secret evidence card per scandal. :) --Alecmconroy 01:29, 1 December 2007 (UTC)
What a chilling effect that would have if everyone who commented on a draft report were responsible to ArbCom for whatever the compiler did afterward. If a team of people had assembled it together, then certainly your request would be reasonable. It would also be reasonable if other people applied the same methods and blocked on that basis, but nobody did. It was a bad experiment, created by me, and acted upon by me. DurovaCharge! 01:37, 1 December 2007 (UTC)

Clearly this dialog isn't helping. I'll withdraw again. Apolgies if the attempt to clarify had unintended disruptive effects. DurovaCharge! 01:40, 1 December 2007 (UTC)

I am no one on wikipedia and my views are rarely considered valuable. But nevertheless, I would like to say: Let's leave Durova alone. She really has paid a heavy price. She is taking the full brunt of the responsibility. I suspect that she may have exaggerated when she said that others had supported or helped her. If not, she has now learned that her 'friends' and 'supporters' have abandoned her utterly when she needed their help. Either way, I think it would be good if this could just be closed and wikipedians would move on and edit articles. That's what I am going to do. --Blue Tie 01:46, 1 December 2007 (UTC)
Although I only know Durova vaguely (I opposed the community sanction noticeboard and she was a strong supporter who did a lot to try to make it work) I don't think that Durova will find that the community has abandoned her in any way. A visit to her talk page will show just how much regard she is held in as a community leader. She has erred and stepped down as an administrator (an act which I can say from experience probably cost her less than she expected). She isn't the only person hurt by this, of course. "!!" has been through a much worse experience, although I hope that he feels he can draw a line under it now. These are both good, hard-working and highly respected Wikipedians. Let's give them both the respect that they deserve, while not forgetting that this incident was bad for Wikipedia and avoidable. --Tony Sidaway 10:30, 1 December 2007 (UTC)
  • I will expound on my view from above:

If anyone holds themselves out to be, or has taken an oath of office as an officer of any court, they are bound to the responsibility of same. Not reading the mail is never an excuse for neglect of duty. You can claim that Arbcom. is not a court, but then the project looks a little silly with that view, does it not? The fact that any number of Arbcom. members received the said e-mail should be grounds for their recusing themselves from any vote in this cause. Nice 05:17, 1 December 2007 (UTC)

Nice, I think you're taking this analogy a little too far; actually a lot too far. While the individuals on the list may have been invited to join because of their roles, they were not actively representing Arbcom on the list. There is a significant difference between the responsibilities of the office to which members of the Arbitration Committee are appointed, and their activities as individual, well respected editors. Since you seem to like analogies to the legal system, think of it more as a judge reading the newspaper. She gets to skip any section she doesn't want to read, and how she subscribes to the paper and what sections she does or does not read has no bearing on whether or not she is qualified to carry out her duties in court. Risker 05:44, 1 December 2007 (UTC)
  • Of course, I must disagree with the above conflict with reality in, at least, the court system where I practice.

Wherever I hang my "shingle" is where any mail delivered with my name on it, is, in fact good service. We also have good faith that if counsel says it was mailed, it was mailed. I have been admonished many times by the court for failing to honor good and timely service. That is the law where I come from. Let's let it go as an "agree to disagree." My point in all of this is that Arbcom. members have a duty to read their mail if they want people to submit things to them. They also have a duty to be held accountable for their inaction, as well as, their actions. The sleuthing and sinister secrecy and the inaction of arbcom. members that should be recusing themselves from this casue is what is at the heart of Durova's unconscionable actions; not a bad block. Nice 14:58, 1 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Show your GOOD methods, then.

You've said that this "report" was far inferior to others you had presented. This brings up a point of curiosity, that I'm sure would be instructive: where are these other "reports"? Are they available for those of us who deplore your methods to review, or only for those who also "believe in bigfoot", as others have put it above? I know I'd like to see them for two reasons:

  1. I don't believe they were of much (if any) higher quality than the pile of horse excrement that was the "evidence" used against user:!!, when he was blocked.
  2. It could be illustrative of just how deeply flawed the "system" that this secret admin list was using.

As for Durova's "apology", anyone who has read it (well, anyone except Durova and her friends) doesn't find anything humble, or even much by way of a real apology in it. The fact that one of Durova's friends was able to get the Arbs to agree to wedge Giano into this case, has certainly distracted attention from the real issues here. We should be discussing what remedies we could see implemented that would prevent both horrendous blocks like the one Durova placed, as well as curb the paranoid investigative methods used by admins in secret mailing lists.Mr Which??? 02:35, 1 December 2007 (UTC)

  • Seriously? Nathan 02:51, 1 December 2007 (UTC)
  • It's not the way I would put it, and I don't agree with everything MrWhich said, but I have to say I also do not believe that any other method Durova is using is any better. After all we've read in the last week, one would have to be a fool to believe that. Zocky | picture popups 03:34, 1 December 2007 (UTC)
  • Addendum. Not only those methods are sloppy. Not only they are prone to produce false positives and there is nothing in them that any editor with 6+ months experience does not, this whole emphasis on the method's sloppiness misses the point. The primary sin of Durova and her friends is the whole concept of these undercover investigations, secret police mindset, working things out smoothly in the backroom and, when the milk spills, centering the effort on putting in back in the bottle threatening those outraged to shut up or else and when the dust settles return everything back to smooth operation among themselves who are smarter, love Wikipedia more and know better. Those who love Wikipedia, write it and I am glad to see Durova's recent shift towards what she was doing (and doing very well.) Perhaps Mercury would consider also paying more attention to this namespace. After all, this is what we are here for. --Irpen 04:20, 1 December 2007 (UTC)

Responding to original request in good faith. As may have been mentioned, Durova was the reason for the creation of the Sherlock Holmes Deductive Reasoning Award at Wikipedia:Personal user awards. She apparently took that praise a bit too much to heart, but still, she did do some good work. I didn't follow nearly all of them, but here are a few:

I think the more basic point is, no matter how good she was (or wasn't, or is, or isn't) at what she was doing, the community (or at least a significant portion thereof) objects to the fact that she was doing it in the first place. To use the now all-too-familiar example.. whether or not there are witches, we don't need to hunt them down before they get a chance to cast a spell. No matter how many 'guesses' you get right, getting even one 'guess' wrong completely wipes out your credibility. Don't act on guesses and don't assume its a vandal. Lsi john 04:38, 1 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Net 4 to close

Does that mean this will close tomorrow? Lawrence Cohen • I support Giano. 10:12, 1 December 2007 (UTC)

Yes, unless there are more oppose votes on the close it can be closed after twenty-four hours. Blnguyen and Morven haven't yet voted but it will still close without their votes. --Tony Sidaway 10:23, 1 December 2007 (UTC)
And now Morven has voted to close, so at most it will be 8-4 and a net close. I'd suggest closing it now, but given the flip-flopping that has happened elsewhere, the 24 hour period from the first motion to close seems sensible. I make that 14:11 today (1st December). Carcharoth 11:26, 1 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] a very late question

I just re-read Principle #2 (Private Correspondence ), which reads: "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."

My questions are:

  • What does "the contents" mean here? The verbatim contents, or does it include summaries and/or select portions as well?
  • Hypothetically, if someone lies about someone else in an email, and then denies or misrepresents it on WP, is that email still inadmissible on-site even for the purpose of proving an assertion about its contents?

I ask because it appears this will be adopted. Sorry if it's been addressed somewhere. sNkrSnee | ¿qué? 12:45, 1 December 2007 (UTC)

My understanding is that emails can be paraphrased and that Wikipedia accepts hearsay evidence, so this rule is not a complete obstacle to the truth coming out. - Jehochman Talk 15:09, 1 December 2007 (UTC)
Thanks. I'd like another confirmation re paraphrasing, as this could obviously come up again. As to hearsay, I don't really see how this would settle a dispute that would the be "a said/b said", without being able to introduce the only possible evidence (ie. "b" says "I did NOT say that, and no you can't publish my email.") Your thoughts? sNkrSnee | ¿qué? 15:15, 1 December 2007 (UTC)
In such a case the email could be sent to a neutral third party such as ArbCom wihtout violating confidentiality. The problems with publishing emails are that they include sensitive data (including email addresses, sometimes real names, and in the header fields all kinds of stuff including IP addresses); and that by publishing them and discussing the content and language we risk holding people to Wikipedia standards of behaviour for things that happen outside Wikipedia. There are probably other problems as well. Guy (Help!) 18:02, 1 December 2007 (UTC)
If somebody lies about somebody else in email, its contents aren't usually a matter for legitimate discussion on Wikipedia (we're not a general social forum). That is to say, if you find yourself discussing the contents of a private email on Wikipedia, you're probably not helping to improve the encyclopedia, so you should stop. --Tony Sidaway 15:19, 1 December 2007 (UTC)
I wish you would Tony! This subject has been done top death. Giano 15:23, 1 December 2007 (UTC)
So now Tony is confirming the opposite of Jehochman. I think it's pretty hard to believe you can't possibly imagine a relevant example, Tony. I already know how you feel about the one in question. sNkrSnee | ¿qué? 15:27, 1 December 2007 (UTC)
I don't say I cannot imagine an appropriate example, I'm just saying that in most cases it's inappropriate to discuss the content of private emails on Wikipedia. --Tony Sidaway 18:20, 1 December 2007 (UTC)

What you are saying, Tony, is that the editor who posts the dirty laundry he got his hands on to Wikipedia Review, a site whose sole goal is harm Wikipedia and its contributors, would come out clean and the editor who tries to make an effort so that we clean our own house ourselves needs to be hung. --Irpen 18:41, 1 December 2007 (UTC)

No. What I'm saying is that if you're discussing the contents of private emails on Wikipedia you're probably not helping to build an encyclopedia and should stop. Discussing the contents of private emails, which are necessarily content that is produced off site, can only rarely be useful in dealing with matters on site, that is to say, activities undertaken to construct the encyclopedia. This has nothing to do with the death penalty, whether figuratively or literally. --Tony Sidaway 18:52, 1 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] My apologies

After some private correspondence with a person I've come to respect during this kerfuffle, I've decided to withdraw from this discussion. For my own reasons, that shall remain private, I took a very personal interest in this case. I allowed my personal feelings to bubble to the surface on many occasions, which I should not have done. As I have posted numerous messages over several pages regarding this case, I wanted to make a general apology, instead of attempting to strike or refactor all of the offensive messages I have posted. To anyone I've wounded with my words, I abjectly apologize, without caveat. Mr Which??? 15:39, 1 December 2007 (UTC)


[edit] SUGGESTIONS: (In light of Durova case) Congressional Edit Case & Wikipedia Needs COI Warnings

(section moved to admin noticeboard)

[edit] Giano reminded passed 6-3?

Is that correct? I thought everything required a 4+ majority. Lawrence Cohen • I support Giano. 18:05, 1 December 2007 (UTC)

Remedies pass on a majority. My interpretation of the 6-3 vote is that, at the present time, it still fails because the majority is 7. The arbitration would pass with no remedy for Giano. --Tony Sidaway 18:09, 1 December 2007 (UTC)
Not quite. Abstentions reduce the number of active Arbitrators on an item; for that remedy, the number becomes 11, so the majority is, indeed, six. Kirill 18:11, 1 December 2007 (UTC)
[26] Giano 18:11, 1 December 2007 (UTC)

Ah. In addition, Remedy 2, General admonishment, is somewhat intensified in effect for Giano by virtue of Finding 7. It is in some ways (being an admonishment and not a reminder) stronger than Remedy 8. --Tony Sidaway 18:09, 1 December 2007 (UTC)

Ummmm.... I don't have anything at all to say about this, I'll just try to see if it's possible to get the last word in over Tony. Zocky | picture popups 07:06, 2 December 2007 (UTC)
Priceless! lol good luck. sNkrSnee | ¿qué? 07:10, 2 December 2007 (UTC)