Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 18:04, 29 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)

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 and we need it answering. Giano (talk) 16:51, 28 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)

• 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)

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?">

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)

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)

Yup. Of course, the Foundation is entitle to ban what it wants from its servers, and Misplaced Pages 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.--Doc 20:05, 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)

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.--Doc 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)

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)

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 Misplaced Pages 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. Misplaced Pages 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)

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)

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)

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?--Doc 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 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.--Doc 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.--Doc 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.--Doc 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.--Doc 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 Misplaced Pages 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 Misplaced Pages 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 Misplaced Pages 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)

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)

Giano this, Giano that

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 Misplaced Pages 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)

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 Misplaced Pages-space project be a net-loss or net-gain for the Misplaced Pages 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 Misplaced Pages 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 Misplaced Pages as a whole rather than its individual users. So, let me repeat my question. Would ejecting Giano from the Misplaced Pages-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 Misplaced Pages, 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 Misplaced Pages 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

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 Misplaced Pages" 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 Misplaced Pages 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)

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.--Doc 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 Misplaced Pages 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 Misplaced Pages. 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 Misplaced Pages 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 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)

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)

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

The proposed enforcement states: 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" and the "Giano restricted" 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 Misplaced Pages 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 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)

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 Misplaced Pages, 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)

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)

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)

"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." (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)

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 Misplaced Pages without the consent of at least the sender (compare, other proposals considered and rejected in Misplaced Pages: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 Misplaced Pages. 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 Misplaced Pages 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 Misplaced Pages 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 Misplaced Pages 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 Misplaced Pages 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, Misplaced Pages has the right to set site standards, and one of them is that private emails may not be published here. - Jehochman 14:22, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

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)

Giano as an arbiter

By banning Giano from Misplaced Pages 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)

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 Misplaced Pages, 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, but that seems to have died when I presented evidence that an arbitrator had endorsed my behavior in that matter. - Jehochman 14:36, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

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 'Misplaced Pages:' and 'Misplaced Pages 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)

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 Misplaced Pages 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, Misplaced Pages 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 Misplaced Pages:Requests for comment/Durova#Outside view by User:Jossi and Misplaced Pages: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 Misplaced Pages: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 Misplaced Pages: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 Misplaced Pages 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 Misplaced Pages 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 all 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) 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." ) The report pertained 100% to Misplaced Pages 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 Misplaced Pages 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. Viridae 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. Misplaced Pages 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 Misplaced Pages 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 " the proposed decision page"? I can't seem to find that in the page history or his contributions to Misplaced Pages 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 Misplaced Pages, you'd be right. If Misplaced Pages 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 Misplaced Pages:Requests for arbitration/Giano and Misplaced Pages: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 Misplaced Pages 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 Misplaced Pages 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 Misplaced Pages 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 Misplaced Pages. 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 Misplaced Pages: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)

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 Misplaced Pages, 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 Misplaced Pages or the idea of Misplaced Pages. Everything about Misplaced Pages 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 Misplaced Pages 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 Misplaced Pages 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)

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 Misplaced Pages 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 Misplaced Pages (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) 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 Misplaced Pages 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 Misplaced Pages 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 "'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 Misplaced Pages. --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)

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)

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)

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 Misplaced Pages, 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 way 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)