From: (Durova)
Date: Mon, 26 Nov 2007 21:05:05 -0800
Subject: [Arbcom-l] FW: Hello from Durova
Five of you voted before I could complete my evidence. That action alone
sends an extremely strong message.
I don't ask for a special provision to get the tools back directly from a
'crat. If that was intended as a kind gesture, I thank you, but I think it
also sends the wrong signal about back door channels and community
accountability.
So at this point, dragging this out would probably be counterproductive. If
you wish to prolong this for any reason at all, please consider:
*I would appreciate it if perhaps you decided I've already been admonished
enough.
*I don't know whether you've revisited this since I posted, but one of
Kirill's comments misses an important point of relevant policy I helped
write last summer. That's probably because the section title is vague.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Req...violated_policyThanks for the kind words,
Lise
On Nov 26, 2007 8:33 PM, Paul August wrote:
> I agree that we should slow this case down.
>
> Paul August
----------
From: (David Gerard)
Date: Tue, 27 Nov 2007 08:34:15 +0000
Subject: [Arbcom-l] FW: Hello from Durova
On 26/11/2007, Durova wrote:
> Respectfully, please slow down this case. The rushed shift to voting exerts
> enormous pressure. I haven't had time to address legitimate concerns. I
> was up past three in the morning on this and got up after four hours' sleep.
> No one can assemble evidence this fast while fielding related matters in
> multiple fora. It just isn't humanly possible.
I suspect that (a) both Durova and Jehochman feel they're getting
railroaded (b) they have some justification for feeling this way.
- d.
----------
From: mackensen(Charles Fulton)
Date: Tue, 27 Nov 2007 07:12:25 -0500
Subject: [Arbcom-l] FW: Hello from Durova
Drama-laden arbitrations like these need to be resolved very quickly, if
only to stanch the bleeding. I regret that Durova feels ill-treated but her
conduct before and during the affair do not inspire in me feelings of
compassion. She's had as much time as anyone else to post evidence--more,
really, as she instigated the affair. What, exactly, does she intend to
bring forth, that would have bearing on the case as framed? Most of the
evidence posted is irrelevant to the case anyway; we're not examining prior
blocks and no one has yet indicated a desire to. This concern about
"reconfirmation" is ludicrous--Durova cannot seriously be considering an
RfA-style referendum. The experience would be searing and her resignation
has removed, in large part, any expectation that she undergo it.
Sorry, perhaps I'm annoyed, but I'm not convinced.
Charles
----------
From: (FloNight)
Date: Tue, 27 Nov 2007 07:22:44 -0500
Subject: [Arbcom-l] FW: Hello from Durova
On Nov 27, 2007 7:12 AM, Charles Fulton wrote:
> Drama-laden arbitrations like these need to be resolved very quickly, if
> only to stanch the bleeding. I regret that Durova feels ill-treated but her
> conduct before and during the affair do not inspire in me feelings of
> compassion. She's had as much time as anyone else to post evidence--more,
> really, as she instigated the affair. What, exactly, does she intend to
> bring forth, that would have bearing on the case as framed? Most of the
> evidence posted is irrelevant to the case anyway; we're not examining prior
> blocks and no one has yet indicated a desire to. This concern about
> "reconfirmation" is ludicrous--Durova cannot seriously be considering an
> RfA-style referendum. The experience would be searing and her resignation
> has removed, in large part, any expectation that she undergo it.
>
> Sorry, perhaps I'm annoyed, but I'm not convinced.
>
> Charles
I think that she intended to have a recall-driven RFA soon after the
case closed. It appears that she dropped her admin bit to stall for
time since we were closing the case rapidly.
My concern is that she still does not seem to fully appreciate her
error and what caused reasonable users to get upset with her.
Sydney
----------
From: (James Forrester)
Date: Tue, 27 Nov 2007 12:49:34 +0000
Subject: [Arbcom-l] FW: Hello from Durova
On 27/11/2007, FloNight wrote:
> On Nov 27, 2007 7:12 AM, Charles Fulton wrote:
> > This concern about "reconfirmation" is ludicrous--Durova cannot
> > seriously be considering an RfA-style referendum. The experience
> > would be searing and her resignation has removed, in large part, any
> > expectation that she she undergo it.
> >
> > Sorry, perhaps I'm annoyed, but I'm not convinced.
>
> I think that she intended to have a recall-driven RFA soon after the
> case closed. It appears that she dropped her admin bit to stall for
> time since we were closing the case rapidly.
>
> My concern is that she still does not seem to fully appreciate her
> error and what caused reasonable users to get upset with her.
My concern is similar; that the project is ill-served in losing her,
but that her current course will result in both that and further drama
(reconfirmation would have indeed been an absolute blood-bath; a
suicidal RfA attempt in the next few weeks would be, if anything
worse).
I think that at this point we have a duty (to her, but more generally,
to the project) to *privately* advise her on the best next steps.
Closing the case in the next few days would probably aid this best,
but we should bring her into the loop on our thoughts.
Yours,
--
James D. Forrester
----------
From: (Newyorkbrad (Wikipedia))
Date: Tue, 27 Nov 2007 08:36:42 -0500
Subject: [Arbcom-l] Durova case wording
To the Arbitration Committee:
On the proposed decision page for the Durova case, two arbitrators had
raised a concern about the wording. I have suggested a slightly revised
wording on the proposed decision talkpage. This e-mail is just to point
anyone interested in that direction, because I am sure it is easy to miss it
in the midst of the other discussions surrounding this case.
Best regards,
Newyorkbrad
----------
From: (Fred Bauder)
Date: Tue, 27 Nov 2007 09:44:33 -0500 (EST)
Subject: [Arbcom-l] Durova case wording
I have changed this to reflect Newyorkbrad's suggestion. Please change my
vote back if you change the wording back.
Fred
----------
From: (Charles Fulton)
Date: Tue, 27 Nov 2007 09:51:47 -0500
Subject: [Arbcom-l] Durova case wording
The revised wording is fine.
----------
From: (Kirill Lokshin)
Date: Tue, 27 Nov 2007 09:52:46 -0500
Subject: [Arbcom-l] giano
On Nov 27, 2007 9:44 AM, jayjg wrote:
> On Nov 26, 2007 9:58 PM, Kirill Lokshin wrote:
> > On Nov 26, 2007 9:29 PM, Jimmy Wales <jwales at wikia.com> wrote:
> >
> > 1. The purpose and scope of the forum have not been clearly defined; or,
> at
> > least, the apparent contents of it -- such as have leaked, in any case
> --
> > are at odds with the given description.
>
> Actually, the purpose and scope of the forum have been fairly clearly
> defined, and I believe are now even stated on the signup page.
>
> > If it's just a list to discuss
> > cyberstalking, why are investigative reports being directed there (as
> > opposed to, say, this list, which is actually in a position to act on
> them)?
>
> Because it's an unmoderated forum where, ultimately, anyone can post
> whatever they like. The fact that Durova's posting of an "education in
> identifying sockpuppets" was not really the topic of the forum likely
> contributed to the fact that most of the members ignored it.
Perhaps; but there's conflicting public statements being made regarding the
volume of "investigative" traffic on the list.
> > There have been vague statements regarding a possible relationship
> between
> > the cyberstalking list and the investigations list, which aggravate
> this.
>
> I'm not even sure what the "investigations list" is.
wpinvestigations-l; I believe there was some correspondence from it
forwarded here as part of Durova's harassment complaint recently. JzG keeps
mentioning that it was spun off the cyberstalking list to reduce volume;
whether or not that's accurate, I have no idea, but statements like that are
adding to the confusion.
> > 2. Beyond this is the fact that the apparent membership of the
> cyberstalking
> > list includes a number of people known for espousing a rather
> unforgiving
> > attitude towards anyone they view as supporting the stalking. Coupled
> with
> > the extremely wide brush with which anyone opposing the anti-linking
> faction
> > in the BADSITES debates was painted, and the increase in "midnight
> > knock"-type blocks, there is now a (perfectly reasonable, in my opinion)
> > fear among many editors that they'll be the next ones to be removed from
> the
> > project, and that plans for such removals are being discussed on the
> list.
> >
> > 3. On a more technical note, the process by which new members are
> admitted
> > (or not) to the list -- blackballing, essentially, if I understand the
> > description correctly -- furthers the impression that there must be
> > something covert being discussed; else, why all the precautions to avoid
> > admitting someone undesirable to the existing members?
>
> That seems like a strange objection; you wonder why victims of
> stalking would be cautious about who they would want to discuss their
> experiences with?
Not an objection, really, just a comment about why people are agitated.
Kirill
----------
From: (Charles Fulton)
Date: Tue, 27 Nov 2007 10:29:52 -0500
Subject: [Arbcom-l] giano
That's the obvious implication here, and I'm deeply uncomfortable with it.
If people want to discuss cyberstalking that's fine and proper, but this
kind of investigation needs to be left to the Committee as a
body--especially if these self-selected inquisitors are going to blithely
refer questions about the block to us after the fact!
The damage goes fairly deep here. By claiming that various
officials--arbitrators, checkusers, stewards--had seen and approved of the
evidence (a misleading claim), Durova has tarnished the credibility of these
bodies. I don't know how to repair that damage.
Charles
----------
From: (jayjg)
Date: Tue, 27 Nov 2007 10:32:45 -0500
Subject: [Arbcom-l] giano
On Nov 27, 2007 10:29 AM, Charles Fulton wrote:
> That's the obvious implication here, and I'm deeply uncomfortable with it.
> If people want to discuss cyberstalking that's fine and proper, but this
> kind of investigation needs to be left to the Committee as a
> body--especially if these self-selected inquisitors are going to blithely
> refer questions about the block to us after the fact!
We don't know if Durova is on the second, "investigations" list. Guy
says it's "in its infancy", so we don't know if it has done any
investigations yet, but it seems unlikely.
Malice's note: Okay class, how many days did it take AC to "forget" about the investigations list?-----------
From: morven (Matthew Brown)
Date: Tue, 27 Nov 2007 07:33:12 -0800
Subject: [Arbcom-l] giano
On Nov 27, 2007 7:22 AM, Kirill Lokshin wrote:
> "Another list does exist. It was set up to take some of the side-issue
> traffic out of the main list which had reached over 3,000 posts in about
> nine or ten weeks. This list is also private, but in its infancy."
>
> Unless I'm horribly misinterpreting this -- and if I am, I doubt I'm the
> only one -- JzG's statement necessarily implies that the cyberstalking list
> was seeing a significant amount of traffic on whatever topics the
> investigations list was created to cover.
>
> (Or is this talking about some *other* mailing list that hasn't even been
> mentioned yet? I hope the rabbit hole is not quite that deep.)
No, it's the same list. However, the investigations list never got
off the ground in any meaningful sense. It saw about 25 threads and
little meaningful.
I was invited to join and did so in the hope that I could dissuade
people from doing anything rash. Alas, Durova did not run her block
past anyone before doing it.
-Matt
----------
From: mackensen(Charles Fulton)
Date: Tue, 27 Nov 2007 10:38:12 -0500
Subject: [Arbcom-l] Durova et al.
We may need additional wording concerning the difference between internal
and external policies. Specifically, someone is claiming that IAR permits
the posting of copyrighted material (e.g. private correspondence). This is a
dangerous line of thinking, and I've seen it elsewhere--users getting banned
under No Legal Threats because they called a BLP libelous.
Charles
----------
From: (Durova)
Date: Tue, 27 Nov 2007 12:08:47 -0800
Subject: [Arbcom-l] FW: Hello from Durova
I've just posted to the proposed decision talk page, and I don't want to
appear like I'm saying one thing in private and another in public.
I've slept less than nine hours of the last fifty. Well-meaning people are
sending me diffs of continued ban-evading trolling that regards this case.
My thought yesterday when I resigned the bit was to let this end quietly and
then maybe open an RFC on myself after things calm down.
I see no new proposals based upon the things I've asked the Committee to
consider. So if that isn't going to be forthcoming please let this end. If
loose ends remain then maybe put the decision up for review afterward when
the storm has passed.
Thank you. And I really think everyone on the Committee means well.
-Lise
----------
From: mackensen (Charles Fulton)
Date: Wed, 28 Nov 2007 11:51:34 -0500
Subject: [Arbcom-l] Finishing up Durova et al
At the moment, there's not much left to pass that's been proposed in the
Durova case. Fred's wording on blocking has four supports; it needs two
more. All the rest of the principles pass. All the current findings pass.
All the remedies pass, and so does the enforcement provision.
I had a productive private conversation with Giano this morning; I'm left
wishing we could better reconcile his public and private utterances. If
we're going to move any specific additional principles, findings, and
remedies, we should do it now or not at all, and close the case. The
personal correspondence principle and remedy is targeted at him anyway; we
could add a finding that Giano posted private correspondence without the
consent of the sender. We might also consider an additional remedy,
acknowledging Giano's not entirely negative or positive role in forcing the
issue, while requesting that in the future he try to work through the
standard dispute resolution mechanisms. He is, after all, running for
arbcom.
I have no doubt this committee could pass a harsher remedy, but I doubt we
could make it stick. Even if we're right it looks awful. Establishing in
principle now gives us an out if this happens again; that the committee
should have done so earlier is a historical accident, the costs of which we
probably shouldn't pass on to Giano.
Those are my thoughts, at any rate.
Charles
----------
From: (Steve Dunlop)
Date: Wed, 28 Nov 2007 11:10:36 -0700
Subject: [Arbcom-l] Finishing up Durova et al
> I had a productive private conversation with Giano this morning; I'm left
> wishing we could better reconcile his public and private utterances. If
> we're going to move any specific additional principles, findings, and
> remedies, we should do it now or not at all, and close the case.
Yes.
Giano can be fairly lucid in private conversation. I think that the
extensive history of people trying to work with him (I number myself
among this group) testifies to the fact that his apparent
approachability does not equate to a willingness to change.
Steve
----------
From: (jayjg)
Date: Wed, 28 Nov 2007 13:23:15 -0500
Subject: [Arbcom-l] Finishing up Durova et al
On Nov 28, 2007 1:10 PM, Steve Dunlop <steve-dunlop at nerstrand.net> wrote:
> > I had a productive private conversation with Giano this morning; I'm left
> > wishing we could better reconcile his public and private utterances. If
> > we're going to move any specific additional principles, findings, and
> > remedies, we should do it now or not at all, and close the case.
>
> Yes.
>
> Giano can be fairly lucid in private conversation. I think that the
> extensive history of people trying to work with him (I number myself
> among this group) testifies to the fact that his apparent
> approachability does not equate to a willingness to change.
>
> Steve
Now why on earth would he ask this question out of the blue?
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=...oldid=174406448I think I can guess...
----------
From: (Sean Barrett)
Date: Wed, 28 Nov 2007 10:40:28 -0800
Subject: [Arbcom-l] Finishing up Durova et al
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1
jayjg wrote:
> Now why on earth would he ask this question out of the blue?
>
>
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=...oldid=174406448>
> I think I can guess...
Take a look at the deletion log in the page history.
----------
From: (jayjg)
Date: Wed, 28 Nov 2007 13:52:35 -0500
Subject: [Arbcom-l] Finishing up Durova et al
> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
> Hash: SHA1
>
> jayjg wrote:
> > Now why on earth would he ask this question out of the blue?
> >
> >
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=...oldid=174406448> >
> > I think I can guess...
>
> Take a look at the deletion log in the page history.
Oh, I know the story of that article, it has been used quite regularly
by Wikipedia Review editors to troll SlimVirgin, but the question is
why Giano would suddenly take an interest in it.
----------
From: (Mark Pellegrini)
Date: Wed, 28 Nov 2007 13:57:52 -0500
Subject: [Arbcom-l] Finishing up Durova et al
He probably saw it mentioned on WR, went to the talk page, saw "This
article and its talk page are permanently protected. In order to request
a change, please ask at the administrators' noticeboard.", which is
basically an invitation to ask why.
-Mark
----------
From: (jayjg)
Date: Wed, 28 Nov 2007 14:24:52 -0500
Subject: [Arbcom-l] Finishing up Durova et al
If he saw it mentioned on WR, then he also saw they were trolling her
with the article.
----------
From: (charles.r.matthews)
Date: Wed, 28 Nov 2007 22:35:07 +0000
Subject: [Arbcom-l] Jehochman
Well, the Adam Cuerden thing turns out not really to be a laughing matter: see the Matthew Hoffman thread at AN/I. Basically he's a bent admin.
And Jehochman is mixed up in the worst of it (in short, a rather suspect 72 hour block upgraded to indefinite with two lies in the block log).
In the D&J case, then, we also need to look closely at Jehochman's role.
Charles
----------
From: (David Gerard)
Date: Wed, 28 Nov 2007 22:43:28 +0000
Subject: [Arbcom-l] Jehochman
On 28/11/2007, <charles.r.matthews> wrote:
> Well, the Adam Cuerden thing turns out not really to be a laughing matter: see the Matthew Hoffman thread at AN/I. Basically he's a bent admin.
Bent as in corrupt, or just crap? The ANI discussion reads like a
rather too clue-resistant one rather than anything involving
incontrovertible bad faith. Perhaps I missed something.
> And Jehochman is mixed up in the worst of it (in short, a rather suspect 72 hour block upgraded to indefinite with two lies in the block log).
Is that from looking over every edit? (Jehochman isn't mentioned in
the ANI thread.)
- d.
----------
From: (jayjg)
Date: Wed, 28 Nov 2007 17:50:54 -0500
Subject: [Arbcom-l] Jehochman
On Nov 28, 2007 5:35 PM, <charles.r.matthews> wrote:
> Well, the Adam Cuerden thing turns out not really to be a laughing matter: see the Matthew Hoffman thread at AN/I. Basically he's a bent admin.
>
> And Jehochman is mixed up in the worst of it (in short, a rather suspect 72 hour block upgraded to indefinite with two lies in the block log).
Wait a minute, Moreschi was the one who said it was a sock and
approved the block. Jehochman only voiced approval after the indef had
been done. Are you sure you don't mean "Moreschi is mixed up in the
worst of it"?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Adm...:MatthewHoffman>
> In the D&J case, then, we also need to look closely at Jehochman's role.
On what grounds? What role did he play? I'm not seeing anything.
-----------
From: (charles.r.matthews)
Date: Thu, 29 Nov 2007 10:57:48 +0000
Subject: [Arbcom-l] [Fwd: RE: Adam Cuerden, elsewhere (recently)]
Communication from El C, relevant to Adam Cuerden, Jehochman and whatever the El C business is/was. I'll admit to a degree of confusion.
Charles
> From: El C
> Date: 2007/11/28 Wed PM 11:13:37 GMT
> To: Charles Matthews
> Subject: RE: Adam Cuerden, elsewhere (recently)
>
> Remember the admin whom I mentioned declined the unblock review and rubber-stamped the week-long pseudo-3rr diffs that were used by Jehochman as grounds to block Dreamguy (see my and Dmcdevit's statements in Requests for arbitration/Durova and Jehochman)? Well, that was Adam Cuerden, whose completely irrelevant response to the unblock request was "Plenty of evidence that trouble has been caused by this user" (!) (see User_talk:DreamGuy#Block). And while Jehochman apologized for the oversight, not a word for Adam, still.
>
> To quote the pertinent excerpt from my approved unblock request a few hours later: "As for Adam Cuerden's declining the request, I'm not sure how to respond to that, except to note that reviewing unblock requests isn't a mere formality, or limited to the most obvious cases. More judicious, informed, and informative/informational review is needed."
>
> All of this (that is, including your incident) may not mean much beyond a reminder to keep the spirit of the rules much closer to heart, but if similar sets of trouble continue, then, in my mind, there would be certainly greater cause for concern.
>
> Regards,
> ElC
-----------
From: (David Gerard)
Date: Thu, 29 Nov 2007 11:12:59 +0000
Subject: [Arbcom-l] [Fwd: RE: Adam Cuerden, elsewhere (recently)]
DreamGuy has been harassing other users on the wiki, notably Elonka,
for the past year or so. (A charming habit of logging out to harass as
an IP when too much attention was being called to his username.) When
blocked by others, he was usually unblocked by Bishonen or Geogre, who
are notably also Giano's most prominent defenders - which may help
explain his attention to this case. Elonka was considering an arbcom
case, but couldn't commit the time but mostly mudslinging it would
entail (and DreamGuy's done a fine line in mud).
If you want to dive into this one, there's a lot of bad behaviour to
be tabled that hasn't come up as yet in the present case.
- d.
----------
From: (Newyorkbrad (Wikipedia))
Date: Thu, 29 Nov 2007 10:36:53 -0500
Subject: [Arbcom-l] Fwd: Giano
To the Arbitration Committee:
I am forwarding an e-mail from an anonymous editor that I received last
night regarding the Durova case.
Best regards,
Newyorkbrad
---------- Forwarded message ----------
From: Anon Editor <ae8342 at gmail.com>
Date: Nov 28, 2007 8:54 PM
Subject: Giano
To: newyorkbrad
To the committee,
Please consider: If you reread Durova's email, you will see that the problem
wasn't just the poor evidence, but the assumptions and insinuations it made
of at least three people, primarily Giano. The entire email was based on
the premise that Giano was leading WR in revolt against Wikipedia.
The widespread reaction against Durova has indeed been overwrought, although
I think it can be understood as a response to a certain "shoot on sight"
approach that I don't believe has been helpful. If two people had a right
to be offended, however, they were Giano and !!.
This may not have been obvious from the email, since it wasn't Durova's
point. It was the underlying assumption, however, and probably the reason
Giano reacted so strongly. Perhaps a closer look at this would provide a
better understanding of Giano's actions.
Regards,
Anon
----------
From: mackensen(Charles Fulton)
Date: Thu, 29 Nov 2007 14:52:41 -0500
Subject: [Arbcom-l] Durova
We're not doing anyone any favors keeping this open any longer. The
community has taken the hint and started crafting a policy on private
correspondence; this may actually produce something fruitful. In the
meantime, I think the only substantial area of disagreement is Giano. For my
own part, I'm not prepared, at this point, to go any farther than reminding
him, but given the principles and findings already adopted, I'm content.
If we could get some votes on the remaining remedies I think we could look
at closing the case.
Charles
-----------
From: (charles.r.matthews)
Date: Thu, 29 Nov 2007 20:08:05 +0000
Subject: [Arbcom-l] Durova
"Charles Fulton" wrote
> We're not doing anyone any favors keeping this open any longer. The
> community has taken the hint and started crafting a policy on private
> correspondence; this may actually produce something fruitful. In the
> meantime, I think the only substantial area of disagreement is Giano. For my
> own part, I'm not prepared, at this point, to go any farther than reminding
> him, but given the principles and findings already adopted, I'm content.
>
> If we could get some votes on the remaining remedies I think we could look
> at closing the case.
Oppose hasty closing. For one thing, I've only started voting myself.
Charles
----------
From: (David Gerard)
Date: Thu, 29 Nov 2007 20:09:27 +0000
Subject: [Arbcom-l] Durova
On 29/11/2007,<charles.r.matthews> wrote:
> "Charles Fulton" wrote
> > If we could get some votes on the remaining remedies I think we could look
> > at closing the case.
> Oppose hasty closing. For one thing, I've only started voting myself.
Has Durova actually had a chance to respond at all? I suspect she's
feeling more than a little railroaded here.
- d.
----------
From: (Dmcdevit)
Date: Thu, 29 Nov 2007 12:17:43 -0800
Subject: [Arbcom-l] Durova
Charles Fulton wrote:
> We're not doing anyone any favors keeping this open any longer. The
> community has taken the hint and started crafting a policy on private
> correspondence; this may actually produce something fruitful. In the
> meantime, I think the only substantial area of disagreement is Giano.
> For my own part, I'm not prepared, at this point, to go any farther
> than reminding him, but given the principles and findings already
> adopted, I'm content.
>
> If we could get some votes on the remaining remedies I think we could
> look at closing the case.
Well, I'll make a final comment then. They are nice principles and
findings. You will have decided that admins should act reasonably
transparently and that poorly thought-out blocks have a chilling effect,
that encyclopedic contributions do not excuse disruptive behavior, that
dispute resolution is preferred to unbridled criticism across all
available forums, and that draconian measures may be called for when
there is no other solution to disruption.
At the end of the day though, Durova, who already has resigned anyway,
needs to go through normal channels to become an admin again, Giano is
reminded to be more civil, and Jehochman isn't even mentioned. It's not
a very impressive set of solutions. They don't live up to the ambitious
principles. In fact, there's not a tough decision among them. This, in
my opinion, is ArbCom's continual failing with regard to Giano and other
sensational cases: the inability to make a tough but necessary decision
and simply stick to it.
Dominic
----------
From: (jayjg)
Date: Thu, 29 Nov 2007 15:18:27 -0500
Subject: [Arbcom-l] Durova
On Nov 29, 2007 2:52 PM, Charles Fulton <mackensen> wrote:
> We're not doing anyone any favors keeping this open any longer. The
> community has taken the hint and started crafting a policy on private
> correspondence; this may actually produce something fruitful.
So far it looks like a strawman; the original "Lawrence Cohen" version
advised people to post private correspondence on their blog, or better
yet, send it to a famous blogger, Slashdot, or Digg, explaining that
they were all "fine". Ethical issues aside, I really don't like it
when people who have been editing for 3 months get themselves into the
thick of Wikipedia controversy and then decide they should write
policies.
-----------
From: (Paul August)
Date: Thu, 29 Nov 2007 16:41:43 -0500
Subject: [Arbcom-l] Durova
Mark, if by "talk page proposals" you are referring to Durova saying
"I've just posted to the proposed decision talk page", then I
believe she is referring to the diff I posted below namely:
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?
title=Wikipedia_talk:Requests_for_arbitration/Durova_and_Jehochman/
Proposed_decision&diff=174060733&oldid=174060661
Paul August
On Nov 29, 2007, at 4:08 PM, Mark Pellegrini wrote:
> What talk page proposals is she talking about?
>
> -Mark
-----------
From: (charles.r.matthews)
Date: Thu, 29 Nov 2007 22:00:01 +0000
Subject: [Arbcom-l] Durova
Dmcdevit wrote
>This, in
> my opinion, is ArbCom's continual failing with regard to Giano and other
> sensational cases: the inability to make a tough but necessary decision
> and simply stick to it.
The ban remedy was recently at 4-4, with 11 active Arbitrators. I think encouraging people to vote on this is the way forward.
I don't see that belabouring those who will carry the can, one way or another, progresses things. There are some strong feelings being expressed from the sidelines. OK. Some of you guys could have had a vote here.
Charles
----------
From: (charles.r.matthews)
Date: Thu, 29 Nov 2007 22:20:36 +0000
Subject: [Arbcom-l] Durova
Can I make a couple of entirely personal points about this business?
If Durova is not sleeping, she needs to see a doctor. We are incompetent to help her.
I have voted to ban Giano for three months. I think if he spends the next three months on Wikipedia, he'll be worse off as a person. This I genuinely believe, based on 53 years on this planet, many of which have been interesting but not great to live through.
My 0.02 euros.
Charles
-----------
From: (Jimmy Wales)
Date: Thu, 29 Nov 2007 14:36:56 -0800
Subject: [Arbcom-l] Durova
Dmcdevit wrote:
> At the end of the day though, Durova, who already has resigned anyway,
> needs to go through normal channels to become an admin again, Giano is
> reminded to be more civil, and Jehochman isn't even mentioned. It's not
> a very impressive set of solutions. They don't live up to the ambitious
> principles. In fact, there's not a tough decision among them. This, in
> my opinion, is ArbCom's continual failing with regard to Giano and other
> sensational cases: the inability to make a tough but necessary decision
> and simply stick to it.
I have to agree with Dominic here. Giano needs more than just a
reminder, particularly as this case is widely watched and good people in
the community will be looking to it for cues about what social norms are
expected on the site.
If we send the signal that it is perfectly ok to post private email
publicly (even though we ruled against that quite firmly in the past, or
am I mistaken?) and that it is ok to engage in mockery of a person
including comparing them to Hitler and Goebbels, then we should not be
surprised at the kind of culture we get as a result.
Just to be sure I am clear: I will not act separately or in
contradiction to the arbcom in the matter of Giano, period. I make my
comments as encouragement for those members of the committee inclined to
go easy on Giano to at least rethink it one good time.
--Jimbo
----------
From: (FloNight)
Date: Thu, 29 Nov 2007 18:05:39 -0500
Subject: [Arbcom-l] Durova
On Nov 29, 2007 5:36 PM, Jimmy Wales wrote:
> Dmcdevit wrote:
> > At the end of the day though, Durova, who already has resigned anyway,
> > needs to go through normal channels to become an admin again, Giano is
> > reminded to be more civil, and Jehochman isn't even mentioned. It's not
> > a very impressive set of solutions. They don't live up to the ambitious
> > principles. In fact, there's not a tough decision among them. This, in
> > my opinion, is ArbCom's continual failing with regard to Giano and other
> > sensational cases: the inability to make a tough but necessary decision
> > and simply stick to it.
>
> I have to agree with Dominic here. Giano needs more than just a
> reminder, particularly as this case is widely watched and good people in
> the community will be looking to it for cues about what social norms are
> expected on the site.
>
> If we send the signal that it is perfectly ok to post private email
> publicly (even though we ruled against that quite firmly in the past, or
> am I mistaken?) and that it is ok to engage in mockery of a person
> including comparing them to Hitler and Goebbels, then we should not be
> surprised at the kind of culture we get as a result.
>
> Just to be sure I am clear: I will not act separately or in
> contradiction to the arbcom in the matter of Giano, period. I make my
> comments as encouragement for those members of the committee inclined to
> go easy on Giano to at least rethink it one good time.
>
> --Jimbo
I can't support a 90 day ban now but will if he acts disruptive again
before the case closes.
I can support something like 7.2 if it is put in place now except for
pages related to the election, FA, and normal dispute resolation. I
also think we need to specify a warning is given first and then 3
uninvolved admins need to sign off on the blocks on his talk page NOT
AN/I.
I'm going out to dinner and can't write it up now. If no one else has
done it, I will when I get home.
Sydney
-----------
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 
