From: (David Gerard)
Date: Sun, 25 Nov 2007 15:13:37 +0000
Subject: [Arbcom-l] Durova + Jehochman arbitration
On 25/11/2007, Dmcdevit wrote:
> David Gerard wrote:
> > I strongly suggest that throwing her to the trolls would not be in the
> > best interests of the project. We need someone, or preferably
> > someones, doing what she does; an arbcom action that is seen to
> > penalise that (rather than admonishing not to do it that much) is
> > feeding the trolls.
> If we need someone doing what she does, we need someone to do it *well*.
> Giving her a free pass will also not accomplish that, especially if she
> continues.
Oh, definitely. She needs to take a deep breath and do stuff a bit
more calmly, for sure. At the *minimum*, "The AC asks Durova to please
act more calmly, and to assume better faith insofar as is reasonable"
or similar.
- d.
----------
From: (Jonathan Hochman)
Date: Sun, 25 Nov 2007 07:58:54 -0500
Subject: [Arbcom-l] Formal complaint against Dmcdevit
Arbcom mailing list:
Dmcdevit has accused me of wrongdoing, in part for filing a cyberstalking
report with Arbcom about an incident involving Greg Kohs or a copycat
attacking me.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/WP:RFAR#Statement_by_Dmcdevit"There are further secret reports and accusations by both of these editors
that the Arbitration Committee is in possession of that serve to further
confirm the pattern and disturb me greatly."
My public response:
"In regards to the IP 24 matter that was being handled privately, a
settlement was mediated by User:WJBscribe. He told me that he was reporting
to Arbcom. I consider this matter fully resolved and feel that rehashing the
matter might cause this person to resume harassing me, or may encourage copy
cats. I respectfully request that any further discussion be handled
confidentially via email.
A more significant point is that editors should be freely encouraged
to come to Arbcom and file confidential reports of cyberstalking and
harassment without fear of retaliation. I cannot emphasize enough that
"blaming the victim", no matter how defective their report may be, is
wrong and has a chilling effect. If a report has gaps in logic and
confirmation bias, it can be stashed away and a polite reply can be
sent, "The Arbcom has decided not to act on this report at this time."
The fact that a case has been brought against me in part for filing
such a report sends the wrong signal to others who might need to file
reports in the future. "
My private response:
I am hopeful that Arbcom will correct this error as quickly as possible. My
request is that Dmcdevit not use my cyberstalking report as grounds to
complain against me, and that the events surround IP24 not be discussed
publicly. When I file a confidential report with Arbcom, I expect
confidentiality. The way this has been handled is totally unacceptable. I
would like confirmation that Dmcdevit has been removed from the Arbcom
mailing list for the duration of this case since he is a named party, and
there is now an issue of potential wrongdoing by him. It hardly seems fair
for a named party to be in on the discussions of the case.
Thank you.
-Jonathan
--
Jonathan Hochman
----------
From: (Kirill Lokshin)
Date: Sun, 25 Nov 2007 11:31:52 -0500
Subject: [Arbcom-l] Formal complaint against Dmcdevit
A formal and impersonal way of opening desired cases -- without the fig leaf
of having an arbitrator emeritus "request" arbitration -- would avoid such
questions.
Kirill
----------
From: (James Forrester)
Date: Sun, 25 Nov 2007 18:29:56 +0000
Subject: [Arbcom-l] Formal complaint against Dmcdevit
On 25/11/2007, Kirill Lokshin wrote:
> A formal and impersonal way of opening desired cases -- without the fig leaf
> of having an arbitrator emeritus "request" arbitration -- would avoid such
> questions.
Yes, but however we do it (a set of "investigators", an
especially-recused Arbitrator, or just a plain summons from us) would
have difficulties in carrying out our duty to the project and
community, including:
* meaning that individual "prosecutions" (eurgh) would succeed or fail
on the ability of whomever is the "prosecutor" that time around,
rather than on our collective judgement (which is generally going to
be better);
* restricting our flexibility - if there is someone with a role to
bring evidence, the rest of us would have to step back from that
position;
* being a significant change from how we've been doing this for 4
years now; people don't like such change in "bedrock" institutions;
and
* moving us further along the "court" concept, something of which I'm
not terribly in favour.
In this particular case, I think a robust response to JEHochman is
appropriate (along the lines of "just because you show your idiocy in
private doesn't mean that we can't think you an idiot and thus doubt
seriously your judgement). Should I go ahead, or would others prefer a
more mealy-mouthed response?
Yrs,
--
James D. Forrester
-----------
From: (Kirill Lokshin)
Date: Sun, 25 Nov 2007 15:19:11 -0500
Subject: [Arbcom-l] Formal complaint against Dmcdevit
> In this particular case, I think a robust response to JEHochman is
> appropriate (along the lines of "just because you show your idiocy in
> private doesn't mean that we can't think you an idiot and thus doubt
> seriously your judgement). Should I go ahead, or would others prefer a
> more mealy-mouthed response?
That's fine with me. I doubt it'll be necessary to air all the dirty
laundry here in public, in any case; a general comment regarding the
reasonableness of the "reports" we've received should suffice.
Kirill
----------
From: (Dmcdevit)
Date: Sun, 25 Nov 2007 13:57:43 -0800
Subject: [Arbcom-l] Formal complaint against Dmcdevit
For me, the behavior with the real chilling effect is that every person
that crosses Jehochman's path gets a report drawn up against them. I
guess I should have expected this, but considering that my statement
specifically didn't specify any of the non-public accusations he had
made, this complaint is particularly annoying. What confidentiality was
breached by my statement? The closest he got was my comment where I said
nothing confidential, only that "There are further secret reports and
accusations by both of these editors that the Arbitration Committee is
in possession of." Apparently for that "there is now an issue of
potential wrongdoing" by me and I should be removed from the list. El C
and Giano were both in direct conflict with Jehochman on-wiki about his
or Durova's blocks. Is there a point where we stop thinking that his
accusations against people are not based on incompetence so much as
actual attempts to silence critics?
Dominic
-----------
From: (Casey Brown)
Date: Sun, 25 Nov 2007 16:54:14 -0500
Subject: [Arbcom-l] FW: Hello from Durova
Most likely this was sent to both of you, but my anti-virus software
disagrees. Sending it again just in case. ;-)
_____
From: Casey Brown
Sent: Sunday, November 25, 2007 4:53 PM
To: 'Durova'
Cc: 'arbcom-l at wikipedia.org'
Subject: RE: Hello from Durova
Adding additional parties: Additional users do not need to be added to the
parties list, per se, any user can be subject to a decision or sanction by
the Arbitration Committee whether they are on the parties' listing or not.
However, if you still think more users should be added as parties, you can
make a motion on the Workshop page:
<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Durova_and_
Jehochman/Workshop#Motions_and_requests_by_the_parties>.
Handling of evidence: I'm afraid I'll probably need more explanation on
this. Evidence can be either posted on-wiki or sent privately to the
Arbitrators. What else to do you need to know about this?
Scope of the case: What are you referring to here? What is the scope of
this case? I do not believe there any further clarification on this other
than what Dmcdevit said when he filed the case with "The scope of this case
is primarily the recent actions and the pattern of poor judgment shown by
[[User:Durova|Durova]] and [[User:Jehochman|Jehochman]] as a result of their
methods ("sleuthing")", unless you file a motion for clarification.
Normally, cases do not have set "scopes", they just take into account all
evidence, statements, and proposals and view what has been happening on
Wikipedia.
"There was a recent matter handled privately that Dmcdevit alludes to. Will
there be separate follow-up on that or is it going to become part of this
case?" I do not know what exactly you are referring to here, it may be best
to contact Dmcdevit about it personally.
Regarding evidence, you are always free to e-mail it to the Arbitrators.
But you are correct in thinking that you should post as much on-wiki as
possible.
_____
From: Durova
Sent: Sunday, November 25, 2007 2:05 PM
To: Casey Brown
Subject: Re: Hello from Durova
Adding additional parties, handling of evidence, and the scope of the case.
There was a recent matter handled privately that Dmcdevit alludes to. Will
there be separate follow-up on that or is it going to become part of this
case?
And I'm under fire regarding confidential evidence, but some of the evidence
that would go in my favor would be borderline at best to post onsite. I'm
considering posting my evidence from the Alkivar case into user space, if
nobody minds. Seems the damage has already been done regarding any
exploitive potential.
Also, some things came to my attention that I didn't know this morning. In
particular, I've just recently read Jehochman's RFAR statement. He says
he's stopped taking advice from me, but didn't inform me about that. We
ended our coaching/mentorship relationship before his RFA but I wasn't aware
he had stopped taking all advice, if that's what his statement means. This
morning he posted a statement to Dmcdevit to a mailing list where I
subscribe and I don't think Dmcdevit is on it. That puts me in an awkward
position because Jehochman is accused of being my meatpuppet and I thought
it was poor judgement to post the complaint there. So I immediately
replied at the list thread and asked him to send it to Dmcdevit or the
arbitration committee directly, and added a few words to clarify that I
hadn't been aware Jehochman was writing that. He followed my suggestion,
and shortly afterward I found Jehochman's statement that he isn't taking
advice from me anymore. I sent him the quote by chat and asked him to
explain, since it doesn't appear honest. He hasn't replied.
So I'm caught between a rock and a hard place. Only thing to do is inform
you of this immediately after I discover it. Please tell the committee.
I've been very much out of the loop these last couple of weeks.
Thanks for the help,
-Durova
On Nov 25, 2007 10:36 AM, Casey Brown wrote:
Yes, I'm going to be the clerk for this case. Feel free to ask me any
questions you have, but I'm about to run out the door, so I'll have to
answer them upon my return.
-----Original Message-----
From: Durova
Sent: Sunday, November 25, 2007 1:33 PM
To: Cbrown1023
Subject: Hello from Durova
So you're the clerk on this case?
I'd like to ask a few procedural questions about proper procedure.
Thanks,
-Durova
-----------
From: (James Forrester)
Date: Mon, 26 Nov 2007 00:44:10 +0000
Subject: [Arbcom-l] Formal complaint against Dmcdevit
On 25/11/2007, Jonathan Hochman wrote:
> I am hopeful that Arbcom will correct this error as quickly as possible. My
> request is that Dmcdevit not use my cyberstalking report as grounds to
> complain against me, and that the events surround IP24 not be discussed
> publicly. When I file a confidential report with Arbcom, I expect
> confidentiality. The way this has been handled is totally unacceptable. I
> would like confirmation that Dmcdevit has been removed from the Arbcom
> mailing list for the duration of this case since he is a named party, and
> there is now an issue of potential wrongdoing by him. It hardly seems fair
> for a named party to be in on the discussions of the case.
Jonathan,
I'm afraid that we are not convinced by your argument. No
confidentiality has been broken, nor, indeed, has it come close to
being so. In this particular case, Dominic has made allusion to the
comments you sent to us which called into doubt in his mind that your
methods and attitude can lead you in some circumstances to jump to
conclusions not supported by evidence, and then to act thereupon; this
is a concern that is troubling and is worthy of consideration by us.
Obviously we will not be discussing publicly the report beyond what
has been said, as it is not likely to be necessary for us to so do in
the course of our duties.
It would be grossly unfair and disrespectful to the community for us
to have a case but not even mention publicly that we might use items
provided in private as comment on other matters, and it would violate
our primary purpose (i.e., to protect the project) to ignore it merely
because it came to light in circumstances other than provision of
evidence for a case.
Dominic has not erred in his actions, and continues to enjoy the full
confidence of the Committee, remaining on the list. I appreciate that
you may feel disappointed in this, but I cannot see how we can be
asked to disregard items in our cognisance merely because they were
submitted for other reasons.
Yours,
--
James D. Forrester
-----------
From: (Jonathan Hochman)
Date: Sun, 25 Nov 2007 21:25:43 -0500
Subject: [Arbcom-l] Formal complaint against Dmcdevit
Thank you for that clarification. I was under the impression that the
report would be discussed publicly. I regret the unnecessary drama
that I have caused.
Had I known that such a report could be used in such a way, I would
have kept it to myself.
Sincerely,
Jonathan
-----------
From: (Kirill Lokshin)
Date: Sun, 25 Nov 2007 22:38:37 -0500
Subject: [Arbcom-l] Formal complaint against Dmcdevit
On Nov 25, 2007 9:25 PM, Jonathan Hochman wrote:
> Thank you for that clarification. I was under the impression that the
> report would be discussed publicly. I regret the unnecessary drama
> that I have caused.
>
> Had I known that such a report could be used in such a way, I would
> have kept it to myself.
And now this gem:
"Stalking and harassment as legal problems. As such, they need to be handled
under the supervision of competent Office staff. Volunteers should not
engage in amateur police work, including Arbcom itself."
(
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=...ldid=173814415)Kirill
-----------
From: (James Forrester)
Date: Mon, 26 Nov 2007 09:50:16 +0000
Subject: [Arbcom-l] Fwd: Durova arbitration hearing
See below. I imagine we'd rather he e-mailed his concerns to us privately?
Yrs,
J.
---------- Forwarded message ----------
From: Gregory Kohs
Date: 26 Nov 2007 03:44
Subject: Durova arbitration hearing
To: jdforrester
Is there a feasible way, where I might be unblocked on Wikipedia for a
single purpose -- to contribute my testimony to the ArbCom hearing
about Durova and Jehochman? Both of these individuals made defamatory
and/or false statements about me on Wikipedia's pages, to which they
never provided evidence to support their attacks on me.
Durova said that I gave "misleading information to journalists", which
she has never retracted, but the journalist in question (Brian
Bergstein) has said was irrelevant to his story about me.
Jehochman said that I was deeply involved with a recent account from
the Orbitz holding company, which I was not. He apologized to me
off-line and he semi-retracted his statement -- but the evidence still
stands that he was just making this up and published it on Wikipedia
nonetheless.
I don't want to pile on to the discussion, but I feel that this
hearing is a one-time opportunity to finally engage these two with my
evidence that they have libeled me without sufficient evidence to
support their claims. Please let me know if there is some way I can
participate.
Kindly,
Greg
-----------
From: (Matthew Brown)
Date: Mon, 26 Nov 2007 01:58:30 -0800
Subject: [Arbcom-l] Fwd: Durova arbitration hearing
On Nov 26, 2007 1:50 AM, James Forrester wrote:
> See below. I imagine we'd rather he e-mailed his concerns to us privately?
Indeed. He just wants to come back and stir the drama some more. If
there's some untrue things up about him on WP, we should remove them
of course.
-Matt
----------
From: (Jonathan Hochman)
Date: Mon, 26 Nov 2007 01:47:51 -0500
Subject: [Arbcom-l] Formal complaint against Dmcdevit
James and all-
After a couple days of long hours fending off abuse and trolling, and then
staying up all night to try to figure out who's doing it, I suspect my
judgment was impaired by the time I hit the send button on that report.
The mob chasing Durova had me very upset also. She's a friend. I don't like
seeing her get treated that way, and contacted Dmcdevit looking for help. I
hope you all can understand that bad judgment in those situations does not
mean bad judgment all the time. If nothing else, appreciate that I have not
used the tools at those low moments.
My goal is to edit on a full stomach and a good night's rest. When that's
the case, things are fine. Sorry for my behavior.
-Jonathan
-----------
From: (James Forrester)
Date: Mon, 26 Nov 2007 12:50:17 +0000
Subject: [Arbcom-l] Wikipedia e-mail: CONFIDENTIAL Re Durova
Physchim62/Nigel,
Thank you for bringing this to our attention; the commentary is
particularly helpful.
I have copied in the rest of the Committee.
Yrs,
--
James D. Forrester
jdforrester at wikimedia.org | jdforrester at gmail.com
[[Wikipedia:User:Jdforrester|James F.]]
On 26/11/2007, Physchim62 <nigelwheatley> wrote:
> Durova and the ISTIA/Jennifer Powell case
>
> IMPORTANT NOTE: Jennifer Powell has, subsequent to the events described here, threatened to bring a criminal complaint against the Foundation (under French law) for not taking sufficient action to remve her name and the name of her employer (ISTIA) from the site.
>
> == I. Thread at AN/I ==
>
>
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Adm...29#Legal_threat>
>
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=...&action=history>
> The thread is now blanked from the archives but, despite Powell's repeated requests, not oversighted.
>
> I've just received this direct threat of a lawsuit.[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Durova&diff=prev&oldid=123003956] Please handle it appropriately. DurovaCharge! 16:04, 15 April 2007 (UTC)
> :Since that's the only edit by that account, would a checkuser be worthwhile to identify the real editor involved, or do you already know? TenOfAllTrades(talk) 16:08, 15 April 2007 (UTC)
> :It came less than half an hour after I posted a followup comment to [[Wikipedia:Community_sanction_noticeboard#Proposed_community_ban_for_Jennifer_Powell]]. That editor has sent me nearly a dozen e-mails in the last day and a half, including after I sent a direct request for no further contact. It would be good if we could reach a swift closure to that discussion before it escalates any further. DurovaCharge! 16:35, 15 April 2007 (UTC)
> :She's now harrassing editors at home [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Community_sanction_noticeboard&curid=9413741&diff=123013991&oldid=123013486]. I move that a uninvolved admin closes and supports the community ban. Any further complaints by this editor should be sent to the foundation. I get the impression that once you go beyond the puff that the organisation is actually a one-man band and that's why she's is fighting so hard about this - nothing else makes any sense. --Fredrick day 17:03, 15 April 2007 (UTC)
> :You can be fairly sure that if a user fights that hard to keep an article we probably shouldn't have it. Well sourced articles on notable subjects tend to speak for themselves. --kingboyk 17:12, 15 April 2007 (UTC)
> :This leads to what I call the "Reverse Psychology Principle of Wikipedia": If you really, really want an article deleted, you should argue vehemently and obnoxiously in favor of keeping it. If you really, really want an article kept, you should argue vehemently and obnoxiously in favor of deleting it (ala Daniel Brandt). So, if deep in their hearts Powell wants the article on her organization deleted, and Brandt wants the article on himself kept, then they're pursuing a brilliantly inspired strategy for this. *Dan T.* 02:50, 16 April 2007 (UTC)
> :It's all written down in policy, but I'll paraphrase everything for anybody uncertain - Anybody suffering harassment over and above that which can comfortably be dealt with by the administrators here or on any other Wikimedia site needs to contact the Foundation (I'd suggest e-mailing User:Bastique and possibly also Jimmy Wales) to report what's happening. I'd also suggest refraining from posting the phone number(s) being used, just in case these reports are designed to inflame the situation (as unlikely as it seems). Finally, and yes, it's ?ber dramatic but if anybody feels intimidated by these phone calls, report them to the relevant authorities, nobody needs to suffer shit like this. -- Nick t 17:17, 15 April 2007 (UTC)
> :I have not been involved with the community ban discussion, and the harrassment is absolutely unacceptable. I'm going to close the discussion with the consensus that the user is banned. Full disclosure: I apparently blocked one the user's sockpuppets as a username violation (the name was unacceptably long) before I was aware there was a ban discussion going on. Natalie 18:22, 15 April 2007 (UTC)
> ::Done, and in process of blocking all the sockpuppets. I'm presently tagging the Istia account as the puppeteer; please correct me if I'm wrong. Natalie 18:35, 15 April 2007 (UTC)
> ::All the accounts listed in the CN discussion have been tagged, the few that weren't already indef blocked have been blocked. Two questions: should I tag the IPs, and am I correct in remembering that Jennifer Powell applied for and received a username change? Natalie 19:52, 15 April 2007 (UTC)
> ::Two: see the asterisks after the respective username entries at the top of the ban discussion. -- Ben?TALK/HIST 20:04, 15 April 2007 (UTC)
> ::Irishguy blocked one of the name changes and I just got the other one. One last one: IGet-back-world respect is still not blocked and there seemed to be some question of whether that account was a sock/meatpuppet or not. Not sure what to do about that one. Natalie 20:22, 15 April 2007 (UTC)
> :The AFD is here: [[Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/International Services Trade Information Agency]]. I'll add a note for the closer, if nobody else does it first (have to attend to some jobs outside). --kingboyk 19:14, 15 April 2007 (UTC)
> ::I can close it, but don't we need a five-day period to pass, or can we eschew that per rampant sockpuppetry? ?210physicq © 19:25, 15 April 2007 (UTC)
> ::I haven't examined it properly yet, but there's always WP:SNOW or WP:CSD, or indeed any number of criteria that might be used. Let me know what you want to do, in the meantime I'll have a read. --kingboyk 19:42, 15 April 2007 (UTC)
> :(IMG:
smilys0b23ax56/default/ohmy.gif)K, discounting the sockpuppets and anon IPs, there's still several people advocating keep: Egfrank (talk ? contribs), Cumbrowski (talk ? contribs), Russeasby (talk ? contribs), TonyTheTiger (talk ? contribs), and Alkivar (talk ? contribs). I think then that WP:SNOW is out of the question. If you want to close it early citing disruption that's your call. In the meantime I'll add that notice. --kingboyk 19:48, 15 April 2007 (UTC)
> ::That seems like too much discussion among non-sockpuppets for a speedy close. I know there was some suggestion of relisting, which might be the way to go. Natalie 19:52, 15 April 2007 (UTC)
> ::That might not be a bad idea. --kingboyk 19:54, 15 April 2007 (UTC)
> :Keep in mind, Durova, you won't be sued for editing and administrating wikipedia. Anyone who would even try would be laughed out of the attorney's office, and anyone who tried to do it themselves would very likely be sanctioned for frivolous suits. (the exception to this being defamation/libel cases, but that's not the case here). ? SWATJester On Belay! 19:28, 15 April 2007 (UTC)
> ::Thanks for the good word. I doubt that was a serious threat but I consider it important to nip this in the bud. Regarding the Foundation, however, I am very deeply disappointed in the response to my previous request for assistance when another user made a personal threat against me. I'll discuss details of that instance off-wiki, but I will point out here that in the past few days I've also blocked an editor who threatened suicide and gotten a community ban on a self-confessed psychiatric patient who had developed a sexual fixation on me. The community's support has been superb and I appreciate it very much. Bear my experience in mind the next time you wonder why there aren't more female Wikipedians. DurovaCharge! 23:29, 15 April 2007 (UTC)
>
> == II. Email exchange between Jennifer Powell and Durova ==
> This is, according to Ms. Powell, the last part of the email exchange between herself and Durova which is referred to in that thread.
>
> === A: Powell to Durova, 2007-04-15 ===
> I am not Get-Back-World-Respect! I have not been involved in arbitration and mediation! I am not the person that he is claiming I am!
>
> What can I do!
>
> I have quit Wikipedia, to end this argument, and he made up a falsehood about me for a "complete ban". In my real name!
>
> Can Irish Guy practice defamation of my REAL NAME like this? CAN he?
>
> WHAT can I do?
>
> Thanks,
>
> Jennifer
>
> === B: Durova to Powell, 2007-04-15, 2:55PM ===
> I've referred you elsewhere enough times that it rather surprises me you continue to write me at all. The inbox of my personal e-mail account is not the Wikimedia Foundation's complaint department. Please cease these communications.
>
> === C: Powell to Durova, 2007-04-15, 10:37PM ===
> Durova,
>
> I'm sure you don't appreciate me writing you, but bear with me.
>
> I did not write the "I will sue you" note. If I was going to sue someone, quite seriously, it would not be you. And suing in such a mob scene doesn't necessarily solve any problems. I don't know how many people you deal with in a day, but I'd like you to please consider the possibility that this was someone else.
>
> I'm getting a mediator for this situation. I didn't know that this was and option ? and I should have done it before.
>
> Kindly don't get affected by the mass-hysteria, and say that I'm "harrassing you" by sending this email. This situation is clearly out of control. I'm simply trying to defend myself.
>
> Thank you,
> JP
>
> == III. Commentary by Physchim62 ==
> Three questions strike me here:
>
> 1. Why did Durova take the legal threat to ANI in the first place? No one would have objected to her blocking the account herself under WP:NLT. She could similarly have taken the initiative to request a checkuser, given the likelihood that the message came from a troll.
>
> 2. Why did Durova publically associate the message with Powell, on the basis of private email messages which couldn't be reviewed? Powell claims that "a dozen emails" having been exchanged is a gross exaggeration. The only other reason to connect Powell to the message was the fact that Powell was, at that time, being dragged before the CSN. Durova supported Powell's community ban.
>
> 3. Why, after having brought up the email conversation, did Durova not mention that Powell had flatly (but politely) denied being the source of legal threat? I'm afraid that the simplest explanation is that this was just a ruse to get Powell banned from Wikipedia, based on "evidence" which could not be scrutinised.
>
> Powell was banned from Wikipedia, a community ban that was overturned on appeal to Jimbo Wales. A checkuser run by the Foundation office exonerated her from any responsability for the legal threats to Durova.
>
> While Durova only bears a small part of the responsability for the larger ISTIA fiasco, I think her actions are illustrative of the methods which she has been using for months. The same traits appear again and again:
> *action based on evidence which will simply not support the conclusions that she draws from it
> *portrayal of that evidence in such a way as to make scrunity difficult if not impossible
> *avoidance of discussion of her actions in other ways, such as the emphasis on the "harrassment" which she supposedly receives on a habitual basis
> *a blatent inability to assume good faith on the part of users with whom she deals
> I hope that you will agree that she has become a liability to Wikipedia in her role as an administrator, and that you will take the appropriate action.
>
-----------
From: (Kirill Lokshin)
Date: Mon, 26 Nov 2007 09:15:34 -0500
Subject: [Arbcom-l] Durova et al.
The workshop has gotten swelled up with lots of proposals (many of which are
tangential to the main matter here). Trying to collect some thoughts
regarding a (pretty minimalist, admittedly) possible decision:
Principles:
1. Decorum (4.1) [and maybe Assume good faith (1) as well?]
2. Responsibility (6.3)
3. Chilling effect (21)
4. Private correspondence (3)
Findings:
1. Durova made a bad block
2. Subsequent discussion got out of hand [and perhaps explicitly name Giano
as fanning the flames?]
Remedies:
1. Durova admonished to take greater care with blocks
2. Everyone admonished to avoid causing drama
3. Acknowledge Durova's intention to stand for RFA again after the case
Is this missing anything major? We should probably try to move forward on
this case sooner rather than later.
Kirill
-----------
From: (Charles Fulton)
Date: Mon, 26 Nov 2007 09:18:45 -0500
Subject: [Arbcom-l] Durova et al.
I'm adding those to Proposed Decision just now. I think that's about right.
I don't think naming Giano is necessary, but we need to mention that morass.
It might also be said that Durova resigning could have ended this, but that
a number of sysops (even now) don't see why that should have been necessary.
This is troubling.
Charles
-----------
From: (Charles Fulton)
Date: Mon, 26 Nov 2007 09:23:15 -0500
Subject: [Arbcom-l] Durova et al.
I've added the principles and one FoF, but I've got to run. Feel free to add
the rest.
-----------
From: (Kirill Lokshin)
Date: Mon, 26 Nov 2007 09:32:18 -0500
Subject: [Arbcom-l] Durova et al.
On Nov 26, 2007 9:23 AM, Charles Fulton <mackensen> wrote:
> I've added the principles and one FoF, but I've got to run. Feel free to
> add the rest.
Done. Hopefully I haven't been too terse here.
Kirill
------------
From: (Charles Fulton)
Date: Mon, 26 Nov 2007 09:41:50 -0500
Subject: [Arbcom-l] Durova et al.
I wonder, would it make sense to lock the workshop now that we're moving to
vote? I suppose we'd be accused of suppressing free speech, but it serves no
useful purpose now.
-----------
From: (Kirill Lokshin)
Date: Mon, 26 Nov 2007 09:43:58 -0500
Subject: [Arbcom-l] Durova et al.
On Nov 26, 2007 9:41 AM, Charles Fulton wrote:
> I wonder, would it make sense to lock the workshop now that we're moving
> to vote? I suppose we'd be accused of suppressing free speech, but it serves
> no useful purpose now.
If it gets particularly out of hand, perhaps; but unless we're willing to
lock the case's talk pages as well, we're not going to prevent people from
saying their piece at this point.
Kirill
----------
From: (jayjg)
Date: Mon, 26 Nov 2007 09:45:40 -0500
Subject: [Arbcom-l] Use of Oversight on Durova's discussion page
On Nov 23, 2007 11:45 AM, David Gerard wrote:
> On 23/11/2007, jayjg wrote:
>
> > Regarding the oversighting, yes, regarding Cla68, no. He's back to his
> > usual self, making gratuitous snotty comments about the Sweet Blue
>
>
> Material for an arbitration case? Suggested penalty: no edits to
> Wikipedia: page space for a year.
>
He's having a grand old time on the Durova-Jehochman case; now that
he's discovered that SlimVirgin runs the cyberstalking maillist, he's
all over it, with multiple oh-so-polite comments on the RFA talk page:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_tal...ochman/EvidenceHe's even signed up for the list himself, and is insisting that
various arbitrators will have to recuse, because they are on the list.
----------
From: sydney.poore (FloNight)
Date: Mon, 26 Nov 2007 09:57:57 -0500
Subject: [Arbcom-l] Durova et al.
On Nov 26, 2007 9:43 AM, Kirill Lokshin wrote:
>
> On Nov 26, 2007 9:41 AM, Charles Fulton <mackensen> wrote:
>
> > I wonder, would it make sense to lock the workshop now that we're moving
> to vote? I suppose we'd be accused of suppressing free speech, but it serves
> no useful purpose now.
>
>
> If it gets particularly out of hand, perhaps; but unless we're willing to
> lock the case's talk pages as well, we're not going to prevent people from
> saying their piece at this point.
>
> Kirill
Let's try to avoid locking the workshop page. Quickly voting and
closing the case is best.
Sydney
----------
From: mackensen (Charles Fulton)
Date: Mon, 26 Nov 2007 09:59:45 -0500
Subject: [Arbcom-l] Durova et al.
Do we want to address Cary's actions? It's a minefield if we do, but the
precedent if we don't is problematic.
Charles
------------
From: (David Gerard)
Date: Mon, 26 Nov 2007 15:10:23 +0000
Subject: [Arbcom-l] Durova et al.
On 26/11/2007, Charles Fulton <mackensen at gmail.com> wrote:
> It might also be said that Durova resigning could have ended this, but that
> a number of sysops (even now) don't see why that should have been necessary.
> This is troubling.
I must say I don't see why she should either, fwiw. Let's say it's
less than intuitively obvious why that would help.
- d.
-----------
From: (jayjg)
Date: Mon, 26 Nov 2007 10:11:27 -0500
Subject: [Arbcom-l] Durova et al.
In this section Kelly Martin rather proudly discusses her use of many
sockpuppets, which she also asserts cannot be found via checkuser.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Req...Second_accountsDoes anyone find this troubling?
-----------
From: (David Gerard)
Date: Mon, 26 Nov 2007 15:11:38 +0000
Subject: [Arbcom-l] Durova et al.
On 26/11/2007, Charles Fulton <mackensen at gmail.com> wrote:
> Do we want to address Cary's actions? It's a minefield if we do, but the
> precedent if we don't is problematic.
See note on [[User talk:Bastique]], with comment from Mike Godwin. If
someone has private email that's evidence, they can send it to the
arbcom instead of deliberately and repeatedly being disruptive to make
their point.
- d.
------------
From: mackensen(Charles Fulton)
Date: Mon, 26 Nov 2007 10:14:04 -0500
Subject: [Arbcom-l] Durova et al.
That note confirms our own views on the matter.
On Nov 26, 2007 10:11 AM, David Gerard wrote:
> On 26/11/2007, Charles Fulton wrote:
>
> > Do we want to address Cary's actions? It's a minefield if we do, but the
> > precedent if we don't is problematic.
>
>
> See note on [[User talk:Bastique]], with comment from Mike Godwin. If
> someone has private email that's evidence, they can send it to the
> arbcom instead of deliberately and repeatedly being disruptive to make
> their point.
>
>
> - d.
Durova block of !! (Nov/Dec 2007) Including backstory on the hidden list, and AC acting on those "investigations"
MaliceAforethought Durova block of !! (Nov/Dec 2007) Including backstory on the hidden list 
