Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 11:54, 28 November 2007

Arbitrators active on this case

To update this listing, edit this template and scroll down until you find the right list of arbitrators. If updates to this listing do not immediately show, try purging the cache.

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 Misplaced Pages is about, then others. --Tony Sidaway 16:35, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

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 Misplaced Pages 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 "Misplaced Pages is not a battleground". --Tony Sidaway 06:39, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

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. Durova 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)

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 Misplaced Pages 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 Misplaced Pages 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 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. (Misplaced Pages'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)

However we characterize the email, the act of posting it on Misplaced Pages was inflammatory. It was posted on Misplaced Pages 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 . If I've misunderstood you, and you agree that it should not have been posted on Misplaced Pages, 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 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.--Doc 13:56, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

The nature of the email is immaterial. I thought we were agreed that posting it to Misplaced Pages 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 ? " 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.--Doc 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 Misplaced Pages policy (IAR) can trump copyright law is absolutely false. Next you'll be telling me that our content guidelines and Misplaced Pages: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. 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. Durova 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. Durova 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.--Doc 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." 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. Misplaced Pages 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. Misplaced Pages 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 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.--Doc 16:04, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

"Misplaced Pages" is not a private entity. Mackensen may be confusing "Misplaced Pages" (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 Misplaced Pages 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 . 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.--Doc 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 20:23, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

So who were the five then? Giano (talk) 21:57, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

"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 Misplaced Pages, 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)

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)

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)

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. Durova 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. Misplaced Pages isn't a battleground. Durova 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. Durova 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. Durova 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. 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)

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: Misplaced Pages: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, Amerique 04:38, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

I didn't have anything to do with his actions there. Did you discuss it with him afterward? Durova 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. Amerique 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 Misplaced Pages:Administrators'_noticeboard/IncidentArchive328#Academy_Leader_Blocked, and I especially direct your attention to this comment by User:ElinorD. - Jehochman 04:56, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

Amerique has contacted me via email, and I have responded. - Jehochman 05:40, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

If there is any doubt:

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

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

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 Misplaced Pages 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)

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 !! 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".--Doc 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)

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. Durova 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)

Private correspondence <-> private content?_private_content?-2007-11-27T20:25:00.000Z">

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 Misplaced Pages:Copyrights: is this about privacy or confidentiality, or about copyright? -- !! ?? 20:25, 27 November 2007 (UTC)_private_content?"> _private_content?">

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 Misplaced Pages 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)

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)_private_content?"> _private_content?">

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 Misplaced Pages: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  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  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 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  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  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 Misplaced Pages: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 /_C\ 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 Misplaced Pages 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)

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.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 Misplaced Pages, 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)

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 Misplaced Pages, 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)

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)

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)