From: (Kirill Lokshin)
Date: Mon, 26 Nov 2007 10:15:30 -0500
Subject: [Arbcom-l] Durova et al.
On Nov 26, 2007 10:11 AM, jayjg wrote:
> 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_accounts>
> Does anyone find this troubling?
Meh. Starting another witchhunt would be distinctly unhelpful at this
point; we can deal with her if/when the issue comes up in a substantive
matter.
Kirill
-----------
From: (jayjg)
Date: Mon, 26 Nov 2007 10:18:35 -0500
Subject: [Arbcom-l] Durova et al.
> Meh. Starting another witchhunt would be distinctly unhelpful at this
> point; we can deal with her if/when the issue comes up in a substantive
> matter.
I wasn't suggesting "another witchhunt", I was asking if anyone found
it troubling.
-----------
From: (David Gerard)
Date: Mon, 26 Nov 2007 15:20:23 +0000
Subject: [Arbcom-l] Durova et al.
On 26/11/2007, jayjg wrote:
> I wasn't suggesting "another witchhunt", I was asking if anyone found
> it troubling.
It doesn't actually help in trying to get the sockpuppet armies under
control, no. But that's something to address more generally.
- d.
-----------
From: mackensen(Charles Fulton)
Date: Mon, 26 Nov 2007 10:28:53 -0500
Subject: [Arbcom-l] Fwd: Urgent and private for the mailing list
Forwarding at Giano's request. I'm pretty sure that the logo in question
refers to the mailman software itself, and that emails delivered via that
interface are not subject to the same license.
Charles
---------- Forwarded message ----------
From: G MZ <solebaciato at googlemail.com>
Date: Nov 26, 2007 10:24 AM
Subject: Urgent and private for the mailing list
To: mackensen, Timothy Titcomb
OK you wanted me to email private evidence, lets see if it works better than
me posting it on the site. Giacomo
Durova's email was sent to this list:
http://www.webcitation.org/5TdnT9LhyNote the GNU logo on the bottom of the page.
By posting it to the list, she was releasing it under the GNU free license
applicable under the list.
----------
From: (David Gerard)
Date: Mon, 26 Nov 2007 15:34:53 +0000
Subject: [Arbcom-l] Fwd: Urgent and private for the mailing list
On 26/11/2007, Charles Fulton wrote:
> Forwarding at Giano's request. I'm pretty sure that the logo in question
> refers to the mailman software itself, and that emails delivered via that
> interface are not subject to the same license.
If he really believes that and isn't just trying to take the prize for
disingenuous statement of the year, he's too stupid to be let loose on
a free content licensed site.
- d.
-----------
From: (jayjg)
Date: Mon, 26 Nov 2007 10:38:38 -0500
Subject: [Arbcom-l] Fwd: Urgent and private for the mailing list
> If he really believes that and isn't just trying to take the prize for
> disingenuous statement of the year, he's too stupid to be let loose on
> a free content licensed site.
>
He's only echoing what has already been "proven" on Wikipedia Review.
------------
From: (Charles Fulton)
Date: Mon, 26 Nov 2007 10:44:18 -0500
Subject: [Arbcom-l] Durova et al.
I'm contemplating an additional FoF and remedy:
Finding of fact:
=== Posting of private correspondence ===
{{user|Giano}} posted private correspondence without the consent of the
sender. While the committee acknowledges Giano's desire to aid a fellow
editor it cannot approve of the method used.
=== Removal of private correspondence ===
Any arbitrator may remove private correspondence that has been posted
without the consent of the sender. Such material should be sent to the
committee directly.
We need to establish this, particularly given the Foundation's stance.
Either we do it ourselves or they do it for us. I'd prefer the latter.
Charles
-----------
From: (Sean Barrett)
Date: Mon, 26 Nov 2007 07:45:25 -0800
Subject: [Arbcom-l] Fwd: Urgent and private for the mailing list
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1
Charles Fulton wrote:
> Forwarding at Giano's request. I'm pretty sure that the logo in question
> refers to the mailman software itself, and that emails delivered via
> that interface are not subject to the same license.
I find it impossible to believe he is that stupid, which means his
statement is a malicious lie that deserves to be publicly noted as such.
- --
Sean Barrett
-----------
From: (Kirill Lokshin)
Date: Mon, 26 Nov 2007 10:49:01 -0500
Subject: [Arbcom-l] Durova et al.
On Nov 26, 2007 10:44 AM, Charles Fulton wrote:
> I'm contemplating an additional FoF and remedy:
>
> Finding of fact:
>
> === Posting of private correspondence ===
> {{user|Giano}} posted private correspondence without the consent of the
> sender. While the committee acknowledges Giano's desire to aid a fellow
> editor it cannot approve of the method used.
>
> === Removal of private correspondence ===
> Any arbitrator may remove private correspondence that has been posted
> without the consent of the sender. Such material should be sent to the
> committee directly.
>
> We need to establish this, particularly given the Foundation's stance.
> Either we do it ourselves or they do it for us. I'd prefer the latter.
Why only arbitrators?
(Beyond that, I'm not convinced that we need to get into this issue beyond
the principle we already have. The general instruction will be enough to
cover anyone that removes such stuff; and poking at Giano's behavior further
will almost certainly cause more drama at this point.)
Kirill
-----------
From: (Charles Fulton)
Date: Mon, 26 Nov 2007 10:50:59 -0500
Subject: [Arbcom-l] Durova et al.
I don't trust the administrator body in general with a remedy like that. If
you think it's clear enough then maybe I'm being over-sensitive, but having
an unenforced principle does little good.
------------
From kirill.lokshin at gmail.com Mon Nov 26 15:52:56 2007
From: kirill.lokshin at gmail.com (Kirill Lokshin)
Date: Mon, 26 Nov 2007 10:52:56 -0500
Subject: [Arbcom-l] Durova et al.
On Nov 26, 2007 10:50 AM, Charles Fulton <mackensen> wrote:
> I don't trust the administrator body in general with a remedy like that.
> If you think it's clear enough then maybe I'm being over-sensitive, but
> having an unenforced principle does little good.
Well, I expect that we'll do whatever we feel to be necessary regardless of
whether we've passed a formal remedy to that effect, in any case.
Kirill
------------
From: (James Forrester)
Date: Mon, 26 Nov 2007 16:32:29 +0000
Subject: [Arbcom-l] Fwd: Urgent and private for the mailing list
On 26/11/2007, Sean Barrett wrote:
> Charles Fulton wrote:
> > Forwarding at Giano's request. I'm pretty sure that the logo in question
> > refers to the mailman software itself, and that emails delivered via
> > that interface are not subject to the same license.
>
> I find it impossible to believe he is that stupid, which means his
> statement is a malicious lie that deserves to be publicly noted as such.
I would be wary of holding him up to our, highly IT-literate, concept
of how mailman will display its code's licence, and using this as
"proof" that he is acting maliciously. Groupthink can be a powerful
debilitator.
Yrs,
--
James D. Forrester
-----------
From: (James Forrester)
Date: Mon, 26 Nov 2007 16:35:58 +0000
Subject: [Arbcom-l] Durova et al.
On 26/11/2007, Kirill Lokshin wrote:
> On Nov 26, 2007 10:50 AM, Charles Fulton <mackensen at gmail.com> wrote:
> > I don't trust the administrator body in general with a remedy like that.
> > If you think it's clear enough then maybe I'm being over-sensitive, but
> > having an unenforced principle does little good.
>
> Well, I expect that we'll do whatever we feel to be necessary regardless of
> whether we've passed a formal remedy to that effect, in any case.
Indeed. I would make the remedy enforceable by any sysop (perhaps with
an enforcement along the lines of "Those edit-warring against a sysop
following this ruling so as to restore private content without consent
of its creator may be blocked by any uninvolved sysop for up to a
month"), but I don't think calling Giano specifically on this is
necessary, nor in the interests of the project.
Yrs,
--
James D. Forrester
-----------
From: (FloNight)
Date: Mon, 26 Nov 2007 11:36:22 -0500
Subject: [Arbcom-l] Fwd: Urgent and private for the mailing list
Likely Giano is repeating what others said was fact since it supported
his side of the dispute.
Sydney
-------------
From: (Charles Fulton)
Date: Mon, 26 Nov 2007 11:43:27 -0500
Subject: [Arbcom-l] Durova et al.
Would others on this list support the remedy and enforcement, minus the
finding of fact? I'm happy to move them, but a failure to pass such a remedy
would be worse than not making it at all.
------------
From: (Kirill Lokshin)
Date: Mon, 26 Nov 2007 11:44:29 -0500
Subject: [Arbcom-l] Durova et al.
On Nov 26, 2007 11:43 AM, Charles Fulton wrote:
> Would others on this list support the remedy and enforcement, minus the
> finding of fact? I'm happy to move them, but a failure to pass such a remedy
> would be worse than not making it at all.
Fine with me.
Kirill
------------
From: (Dmcdevit)
Date: Mon, 26 Nov 2007 08:49:36 -0800
Subject: [Arbcom-l] Durova et al.
> Is this missing anything major? We should probably try to move
> forward on this case sooner rather than later.
>
Will there be nothing about Jehochman in the decision? To be honest,
Durova made the single biggest mistake, but Jehochman's comments
throughout indicate to me that he is an even more worrisome "sleuth." I
also think that the issue of sleuthing should be addressed directly,
particularly with respect to the assumption of bad faith it is founded
upon, the secret evidence, and the refusal to justify blocks on-wiki.
Dominic
------------
From: (Charles Fulton)
Date: Mon, 26 Nov 2007 11:52:21 -0500
Subject: [Arbcom-l] Durova et al.
I have posted both the remedy and enforcement provision.
Charles
-----------
From: (Kirill Lokshin)
Date: Mon, 26 Nov 2007 11:52:31 -0500
Subject: [Arbcom-l] Durova et al.
> Will there be nothing about Jehochman in the decision? To be honest,
> Durova made the single biggest mistake, but Jehochman's comments
> throughout indicate to me that he is an even more worrisome "sleuth." I
> also think that the issue of sleuthing should be addressed directly,
> particularly with respect to the assumption of bad faith it is founded
> upon, the secret evidence, and the refusal to justify blocks on-wiki.
Well, "Responsibility" essentially prohibits acting based on "secret
evidence" without our consent. Do we need to go further?
Kirill
-----------
From: (charles.r.matthews)
Date: Mon, 26 Nov 2007 17:04:44 +0000
Subject: [Arbcom-l] Durova et al.
"Charles Fulton" wrote
> I'm contemplating an additional FoF and remedy:
>
> Finding of fact:
>
> === Posting of private correspondence ===
> {{user|Giano}} posted private correspondence without the consent of the
> sender. While the committee acknowledges Giano's desire to aid a fellow
> editor it cannot approve of the method used.
>
> === Removal of private correspondence ===
> Any arbitrator may remove private correspondence that has been posted
> without the consent of the sender. Such material should be sent to the
> committee directly.
>
> We need to establish this, particularly given the Foundation's stance.
> Either we do it ourselves or they do it for us. I'd prefer the latter.
The second has gone up as a remedy. Isn't it more like a principle, though?
Charles
-----------
From: (Charles Fulton)
Date: Mon, 26 Nov 2007 12:06:17 -0500
Subject: [Arbcom-l] Durova et al.
Feel free to move it if you think it's more appropriate as a principle.
-----------
From: (Paul August)
Date: Mon, 26 Nov 2007 12:39:07 -0500
Subject: [Arbcom-l] Fwd: Urgent and private for the mailing list
> If he really believes that and isn't just trying to take the prize for
> disingenuous statement of the year, he's too stupid to be let loose on
> a free content licensed site.
I don't think our editors need to be knowledgeable in all things, or
even all such things (if so then I'm too stupid as well).
Paul August
----------
From: (Charles Fulton)
Date: Mon, 26 Nov 2007 12:43:20 -0500
Subject: [Arbcom-l] Fwd: Urgent and private for the mailing list
Well, this list also runs through mailman; I hope no arbitrator (a position
Giano is presently seeking) would treat the messages sent here as released
under the GFDL.
----------
From: (Paul August)
Date: Mon, 26 Nov 2007 12:46:12 -0500
Subject: [Arbcom-l] Fwd: Urgent and private for the mailing list
> I find it impossible to believe he is that stupid, which means his
> statement is a malicious lie that deserves to be publicly noted as
> such.
This is a complete misreading of the situation. Giano is simply a
technical neophyte.
Paul August
----------
From: paulaugust.wp at gmail.com (Paul August)
Date: Mon, 26 Nov 2007 12:58:35 -0500
Subject: [Arbcom-l] Durova et al.
On Nov 26, 2007, at 9:59 AM, 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.
I think that is a serious matter which needs serious consideration.
Paul August
----------
From: (Charles Fulton)
Date: Mon, 26 Nov 2007 13:00:02 -0500
Subject: [Arbcom-l] Durova et al.
In part we're addressing this by making it explicit that the posting of
private communications without the author's consent is unacceptable.
----------
From: (Paul August)
Date: Mon, 26 Nov 2007 13:17:00 -0500
Subject: [Arbcom-l] Durova et al.
On Nov 26, 2007, at 9:57 AM, FloNight wrote:
> Let's try to avoid locking the workshop page. Quickly voting and
> closing the case is best.
I appreciate the desire to end this quickly. But we should also end
this well. There are several issues which could benefit from looking
into looking into Durova's other blocks, e.g the Cary issue, "secret
lists", "sleuthing", the potential dangers of a siege mentality, and
what about Jehochman?
Paul August
----------
From: (Paul August)
Date: Mon, 26 Nov 2007 13:18:22 -0500
Subject: [Arbcom-l] Durova et al.
On Nov 26, 2007, at 10:18 AM, jayjg wrote:
> On Nov 26, 2007 10:15 AM, Kirill Lokshin wrote:
>>
>> On Nov 26, 2007 10:11 AM, jayjg wrote:
>>
>>> 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...or_arbitration/ >> Durova_and_Jehochman/Workshop#Second_accounts
>>>
>>> Does anyone find this troubling?
>>
>>
>> Meh. Starting another witchhunt would be distinctly unhelpful at
>> this
>> point; we can deal with her if/when the issue comes up in a
>> substantive
>> matter.
>
> I wasn't suggesting "another witchhunt", I was asking if anyone found
> it troubling.
I find it troubling. (And I agree with Kirill)
Paul August
----------
From: (jayjg)
Date: Mon, 26 Nov 2007 13:25:39 -0500
Subject: [Arbcom-l] Durova et al.
On Nov 26, 2007 1:17 PM, Paul August wrote:
>
> On Nov 26, 2007, at 9:57 AM, FloNight wrote:
>
> > Let's try to avoid locking the workshop page. Quickly voting and
> > closing the case is best.
>
> I appreciate the desire to end this quickly. But we should also end
> this well. There are several issues which could benefit from looking
> into looking into Durova's other blocks, e.g the Cary issue, "secret
> lists", "sleuthing", the potential dangers of a siege mentality, and
> what about Jehochman?
>
> Paul August
In my view much of what you are referring to is outside the purview of
the Committee, and the more issues you try to put into this case the
more likely it is that the Committee will be deadlocked and the case
will drag out interminably.
----------
From: (Paul August)
Date: Mon, 26 Nov 2007 13:31:05 -0500
Subject: [Arbcom-l] Fwd: Urgent and private for the mailing list
On Nov 26, 2007, at 12:43 PM, Charles Fulton wrote:
> Well, this list also runs through mailman; I hope no arbitrator (a
> position Giano is presently seeking) would treat the messages sent
> here as released under the GFDL.
For myself, I'm just barely smart enough to realize that, so I will
not have to resign as arbiter on that account ;-) As for Giano, I
think he could be brought up to speed quickly enough -- on that point
at least. ;-)
Paul August
----------
From: mackensen(Charles Fulton)
Date: Mon, 26 Nov 2007 13:33:24 -0500
Subject: [Arbcom-l] Fwd: Urgent and private for the mailing list
Fair enough (IMG:
smilys0b23ax56/default/smile.gif)
I already told him as much, but it doesn't appear he believed me...
----------
From: (Paul August)
Date: Mon, 26 Nov 2007 13:34:33 -0500
Subject: [Arbcom-l] Durova et al.
On Nov 26, 2007, at 1:25 PM, jayjg wrote:
> On Nov 26, 2007 1:17 PM, Paul August wrote:
>>
>> On Nov 26, 2007, at 9:57 AM, FloNight wrote:
>>
>>> Let's try to avoid locking the workshop page. Quickly voting and
>>> closing the case is best.
>>
>> I appreciate the desire to end this quickly. But we should also end
>> this well. There are several issues which could benefit from looking
>> into looking into Durova's other blocks, e.g the Cary issue, "secret
>> lists", "sleuthing", the potential dangers of a siege mentality, and
>> what about Jehochman?
>>
>> Paul August
>
> In my view much of what you are referring to is outside the purview of
> the Committee, and the more issues you try to put into this case the
> more likely it is that the Committee will be deadlocked and the case
> will drag out interminably.
Yes I understand and take this point. But we need to strike a balance.
Paul August
----------
From: (Cary Bass)
Date: Mon, 26 Nov 2007 13:38:51 -0500
Subject: [Arbcom-l] Durova
Durova asked me to desysop her today via private correspondence, and I
have carried out her request.
Please see:
<http://meta.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special%3ALog&type=rights&user=Bastique&page=User%3ADurova%40enwiki>
I leave it to you to make the appropriate changes on the Arbitration.
--
Cary Bass
-----------
From: mackensen(Charles Fulton)
Date: Mon, 26 Nov 2007 13:43:31 -0500
Subject: [Arbcom-l] Durova
Sad that it came to this, but much better than the reconfirmation.
Probably the best course of action is a finding stating that Durova resigned
her sysop bit and a remedy that she may re-apply via RfA at any time. We can
throw in an access levels principle if it's necessary.
Charles
----------
From: (Steve Dunlop)
Date: Mon, 26 Nov 2007 11:52:20 -0700
Subject: [Arbcom-l] Durova
Precedent among the 'crats is that individuals who resign "under a
cloud" may not have their bit back for the asking. Are we trying to
change this?
Steve
----------
From: mackensen (Charles Fulton)
Date: Mon, 26 Nov 2007 13:54:27 -0500
Subject: [Arbcom-l] Durova
I'm not; the remedy I've proposed is adopted from the Giano case which set
the precedent. They're free to apply at RfA unless we specifically forbid it
(as we did with Guanaco), what they may not do is simply ask for it back.
Charles
-----------
From: (Sean Barrett)
Date: Mon, 26 Nov 2007 11:56:43 -0800
Subject: [Arbcom-l] Fwd: Urgent and private for the mailing list
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1
Paul August wrote:
> On Nov 26, 2007, at 10:34 AM, David Gerard wrote:
>
>> On 26/11/2007, Charles Fulton <mackensen>wrote:
>>
>>> Forwarding at Giano's request. I'm pretty sure that the logo in
>>> question
>>> refers to the mailman software itself, and that emails delivered
>>> via that
>>> interface are not subject to the same license.
>>
>> If he really believes that and isn't just trying to take the prize for
>> disingenuous statement of the year, he's too stupid to be let loose on
>> a free content licensed site.
>
> I don't think our editors need to be knowledgeable in all things, or
> even all such things (if so then I'm too stupid as well).
>
> Paul August
Perhaps we should also point out that documents written in Microsoft
Word are not subject to Microsoft's licenses.
Further multiplication of examples are left as an exercise....
- --
Sean Barrett
----------
From: (Sean Barrett)
Date: Mon, 26 Nov 2007 12:11:19 -0800
Subject: [Arbcom-l] Fwd: Urgent and private for the mailing list
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1
Paul August wrote:
> On Nov 26, 2007, at 10:45 AM, Sean Barrett wrote:
>
>> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
>> Hash: SHA1
>>
>> Charles Fulton wrote:
>>> Forwarding at Giano's request. I'm pretty sure that the logo in
>>> question
>>> refers to the mailman software itself, and that emails delivered via
>>> that interface are not subject to the same license.
>> I find it impossible to believe he is that stupid, which means his
>> statement is a malicious lie that deserves to be publicly noted as
>> such.
>
> This is a complete misreading of the situation. Giano is simply a
> technical neophyte.
>
> Paul August
Are you seriously trying to tell me that Technical Neophyte Giano
sincerely believes that if I used mailman to send my book manuscript to
my publisher, I would have inadvertently licensed my entire book under
the GFL? Seriously?
Maybe he is that stupid. I wouldn't have dared suggest it, but you
obviously think so.
There is nothing "technical" about this situation. Someone who
sincerely believes that using a particular mail client causes complete
loss of ownership of intellectual property is dangerously ignorant and
should not be allowed to work in an environment where such property
rights are important -- i.e. Wikipedia.
And please feel free to put that shoe on any foot it fits.
- --
Sean Barrett
----------
From: (Steve Dunlop)
Date: Mon, 26 Nov 2007 13:19:37 -0700
Subject: [Arbcom-l] Fwd: Urgent and private for the mailing list
> > This is a complete misreading of the situation. Giano is simply a
> > technical neophyte.
> >
> > Paul August
It seems to me that Giano seized upon an evidently plausible argument
which, were it to be true, would further his immediate objective. That
is what he does, and in large measure it is why he is involved in so
much drama. It's like he suffers from an extreme case of confirmation
bias in his thinking. I don't think he stopped to consider the
implications of his assertion about Mailman. He's not stupid, or
devious, just impetuous.
Steve
-----------
From: (Paul August)
Date: Mon, 26 Nov 2007 15:59:00 -0500
Subject: [Arbcom-l] Fwd: Urgent and private for the mailing list
I've told him too.
Paul August
----------
From: (Paul August)
Date: Mon, 26 Nov 2007 16:08:06 -0500
Subject: [Arbcom-l] Durova
I agree with Charles. The main significance of the "the cloud" is
that the crats should not re-sysop on their own. It does not preclude
re-sysopping via an RFA -- in my view, generally the preferable
route -- or ArbCom.
Paul August
----------
From: (Paul August)
Date: Mon, 26 Nov 2007 16:19:47 -0500
Subject: [Arbcom-l] Fwd: Urgent and private for the mailing list
>
> Are you seriously trying to tell me that Technical Neophyte Giano
> sincerely believes that if I used mailman to send my book
> manuscript to
> my publisher, I would have inadvertently licensed my entire book under
> the GFL? Seriously?
I don't think Giano has any idea what "mailman" is.
Paul August
----------
From: (David Gerard)
Date: Tue, 27 Nov 2007 00:09:39 +0000
Subject: [Arbcom-l] Fwd: OTRS request
These are Giano II's repostings of Durova's email. Is this
oversightable in your view?
(cc'd to AC for their consideration also)
note to AC: really, if the AC doesn't slap Giano *hard* for this he'll
do it again next time. Remember that this is a repetition of his
behaviour from last go-round: his idea of "devastating" evidence
spammed across the wiki until he gets blocked for it. He has form.
- d.
---------- Forwarded message ----------
From: Durova
Date: 26 Nov 2007 22:54
Subject: OTRS request
To: David Gerard
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=...oldid=173314496http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=...oldid=173311820Please ask Mike Godwin to approve Oversighting these.
Thanks.
-Durova
-----------
From mgodwin at wikimedia.org Tue Nov 27 00:14:03 2007
From: mgodwin at wikimedia.org (Mike Godwin)
Date: Mon, 26 Nov 2007 19:14:03 -0500
Subject: [Arbcom-l] OTRS request
This is my view regarding the reposting of e-mail in Talk pages:
"Although we encourage self-expression by users on their talk pages,
we do not allow reproduction of other authors' expression on talk
pages, absent (a) the other authors' permission or (b) an expressed
and justified claim that reproduction of the other authors' expression
is lawful under the law of copyright."
I'd approve oversighting under the above analysis. Does this help?
--Mike
-----------
From: (David Gerard)
Date: Tue, 27 Nov 2007 00:28:31 +0000
Subject: [Arbcom-l] OTRS request
Good enough for me - oversight log notes this.
(cc to oversight-l, Durova)
- d.
----------
From: (Fred Bauder)
Date: Mon, 26 Nov 2007 19:32:46 -0500 (EST)
Subject: [Arbcom-l] OTRS request
Mike,
Yes, it does help as one of our arbitrators oversighted those edits, which
is not strictly within the instances cited in the rules as oversightable,
except as a copyright violation. Giano must be experienced, and hopefully,
you have better things to do than study up on that particular personality
and his vociferous supporters.
Fred
----------
From: (jayjg)
Date: Mon, 26 Nov 2007 19:37:51 -0500
Subject: [Arbcom-l] Use of Oversight on Durova's discussion page
On Nov 26, 2007 9:45 AM, jayjg wrote:
> 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/Evidence>
> He's even signed up for the list himself, and is insisting that
> various arbitrators will have to recuse, because they are on the list.
>
And yet another gratuitous dig at SlimVirgin:
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=...oldid=174014249----------
From: (Jimmy Wales)
Date: Mon, 26 Nov 2007 21:32:26 -0500
Subject: [Arbcom-l] Durova et al.
Paul August wrote:
> I appreciate the desire to end this quickly. But we should also end
> this well. There are several issues which could benefit from looking
> into looking into Durova's other blocks, e.g the Cary issue, "secret
> lists", "sleuthing", the potential dangers of a siege mentality, and
> what about Jehochman?
Yes, we need a firm ruling that Wikipedia does not bar editors from
talking to either other, privately or publicly, and that the
cyberstalking list is not, and has never been, a "secret list" in the
sense intended.
The cyberstalking mailing list is a place where people are discussing a
wide range of proposals for dealing with a very real issue. They
deserve privacy, because they have been physically, financially, and
emotionally threatened and tormented.
So yes, we need to look into the issue of "secret lists" if only to
dispel the current witch hunt.
----------
From: (Durova)
Date: Mon, 26 Nov 2007 08:45:10 -0800
Subject: [Arbcom-l] FW: Hello from Durova
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.
The people who disrupted the ANI discussion have had a week to paint me as a
bogey. Some of their ideas gained traction among well-meaning Wikipedians
and other people have raised thoughtful questions. In order to
substantiate the answers I'm digging through thousands of edits manually.
I've been baited and mocked the whole while.
I'm standing for reconfirmation when this ends. How can the average editor
reached an informed decision on the basis of:
1. An ANI thread that became so disruptive I abandoned it after the first
day in order to minimize the drama?
2. An RFC that became obsolete twelve hours after it opened, and that
coincided with a major holiday?
3. An arbitration that went to voting less than a day after it opened?
-Durova
----------
From: (Fred Bauder)
Date: Mon, 26 Nov 2007 23:26:32 -0500 (EST)
Subject: [Arbcom-l] FW: Hello from Durova
Durova,
I want you to know that I am grateful for the great work you have done,
and that I hope you continue to find a home here. We have discussed this
case a great deal, but I don't think we will provide definitive resolution
over all matters.
Fred
----------
From: (Paul August)
Date: Mon, 26 Nov 2007 23:33:34 -0500
Subject: [Arbcom-l] FW: Hello from Durova
I agree that we should slow this case down.
Paul August
----------
From: morven (Matthew Brown)
Date: Mon, 26 Nov 2007 20:44:46 -0800
Subject: [Arbcom-l] FW: Hello from Durova
On Nov 26, 2007 8:33 PM, Paul August wrote:
> I agree that we should slow this case down.
I as well; there's nothing wrong with going to voting so early, since
the facts seem uncomplicated, but let's not produce a hasty conclusion
when a better one might be found with a little more time.
In the longer run, we have to devise a method of reducing the trolling
and irrelevancy on Evidence & Workshop pages and their respective talk
pages. None of them should be free-for-all forums.
-Matt
----------
From: (Fred Bauder)
Date: Tue, 27 Nov 2007 00:06:46 -0500 (EST)
Subject: [Arbcom-l] FW: Hello from Durova
Pretty simple really, limit input to parties. If their own ass is not on
the line, they wouldn't be quite so bold.
Fred
-----------
From: morven (Matthew Brown)
Date: Mon, 26 Nov 2007 21:56:26 -0800
Subject: [Arbcom-l] FW: Hello from Durova
On Nov 26, 2007 9:06 PM, Fred Bauder wrote:
> Pretty simple really, limit input to parties. If their own ass is not on
> the line, they wouldn't be quite so bold.
Should we do this for only controversial cases or for all of them?
-Matt
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 
