Wikipedia talk:Requests for arbitration/Durova/Proposed decision

message: I understand the desire to resolve this quickly, yet it's been less than 24 hours since this case opened.  There simply hasn't been time to assemble my evidence; no one can work this fast.  I'll be standing for reconfirmation when this closes: the community has asked questions and deserves answers. DurovaCharge! 16:23, 26 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Poetic. 68.40.34.93 (talk) 17:55, 26 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Two wrongs ... Paul August ☎ 18:47, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

text: I agree with Durova. Sufficient time needs to be allowed for her to present her evidence. Paul August ☎ 18:47, 26 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  Agreed.  Now that Durova has resigned her bit, there is no immediately actionable remedy on the proposed decision, so there's no hurry. --Tony Sidaway 02:08, 27 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Too swift

message: As an arbitrator noted, proposed remedy 3 (Durova to stand for reconfirmation as admin) has been overtaken by events. I would suggest that proposed remedy 1 has also. It admonishes Durova to exercise greater care issuing blocks - something she will no longer be doing. Jd2718 (talk) 20:42, 26 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Remedies 

message: I'm just curious as to whether or not this means what it seems to mean. Can Durova--say after a month or two--simply find a 'crat who is friendly with her, and summarily get her sysop back? If determing whether someone's desysop was controversial is at the "discretion" of the 'crat, that would seem to be the case. I don't really have a personal opinion one way or the other--I've never been blocked by Durova--but it would seem that this Arb case has stirred sufficient controversy to REQUIRE that she reapply through normal channels, if and when she wishes to have the sysop back. Mr Which??? 01:25, 27 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: See remedy 4. Christopher Parham (talk) 01:28, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

text: (edit conflict) Proposed remedy no. 4 appears to address this inference. "Normal channels" in this context is Arbspeak for "through a new RfA." Newyorkbrad (talk) 01:33, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

text: Yes, proposed principle 7 is just boilerplate that states the general practice, while sometimes a case will carry a specific remedy saying, in effect, "but on this occasion the arbitration committee specifically rules that this administrator  resigned in controversial circumstances."  That's what has happened here.  "Normal channels" is unclear and should really say explicitly "through an RFA". --Tony Sidaway 01:45, 27 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks for the clarification. It seemed that #7 was providing a loophole to allow for quick regaining of the sysop, but I can see your point about #4 being pretty explicit in its requirement. Mr Which??? 01:47, 27 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Clarification on #7 

message: :You know, I was wondering how to bring up Jehochman's block of my alternate account User:Academy Leader in context of these events. I don't really know or care whether this was discussed off-site prior to him posting this rationale on ANI: Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/IncidentArchive328#Academy_Leader_Blocked, but par for the course lately, the account was blocked (with an autoblock that also affected "Amerique." ElinorD removed it) before any inquiry or fair warning was made to me personally. (The most recent offensive "incident" that seemed to precipitate the block being my leaving a kind note on User:Privatemusings talk page.) However, as the block seemed to have immediate popular support, both among posters to WP and WR, (to be judged by their relative lack of a response or interest) I decided not to contest it, and for what it is worth, intend to avoid further engagement in areas of policy "AL" was active in. (Though I feel the block was unnecessary, as I had long left trolling behind, and only continued to use the account in discussions where use of another account could have been considered deceptive.) No hard feelings on my part. Regards all, Ameriquedialectics 04:38, 27 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I didn't have anything to do with his actions there.  Did you discuss it with him afterward? DurovaCharge! 04:43, 27 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I haven't had further contact with him beyond the unanswered messages on "AL's" talk page. But really, I've moved on. And this block saves me from any feeling of a moral obligation to respond to whatever disturbances still occur at WP:NPA as a consequence of my forking badsites. A blessing in disguise, as it were. Ameriquedialectics 04:50, 27 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I did not notice those messages or else I would have responded.  My email is enabled, and you had another account.  You also had the options of using  or emailing the unblock mailing list.  For those unfamiliar with this case, there is a thorough presentation of evidence at Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/IncidentArchive328#Academy_Leader_Blocked,  and I especially direct your attention to  this comment by User:ElinorD.   - Jehochman  Talk 04:56, 27 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Amerique has contacted me via email, and I have responded. - Jehochman  Talk 05:40, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

text: "Good block. Wikipedia is not a role-playing game. --jpgordon∇∆∇∆ 16:25, 18 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Amerique/Academy Leader

message: Because two arbitrators have objected to the wording "No reasonable administrator would have blocked..." in proposed finding of fact 1, I suggest the alternative "It was not reasonable for an administrator to block..." which I think addresses the objection by changing the focus to the particular action rather than characterizing a person as reasonable or not.
The heading "Evaluation of the block" was taken from the Workshop where the block in question had previously been identified. If this is going to be the first mention of the block, then a more descriptive heading such as "Durova's block of !!" should be used. Newyorkbrad (talk) 06:02, 27 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't think the wording is so bad, although it is may be a litlle legalistic. We are not judging Durova as a person in a criminal court, merely her actions is this case (maybe in other cases which were presented as evidence). Her actions were "unreasonable" as in "without legitimate reason". At least, that's the way I see it… How about "Durova's block of !! [was not/could not be] justified on the basis of the evidence that she supplied". Linguists, please! Physchim62 (talk) 13:55, 27 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I think the wording is actually needlessly offensive. "No reasonable administrator would have blocked" implies that any administrator that did block (i.e. Durova) is not reasonable i.e. is irrational). Now, whilst a decision to block on that evidence was certainly unreasonable, rational people sometime do unreasonable or unjustifiable things. Characterising the block as unreasonable is fine, taking that as evidence that the blocker is, more generally, an "unreasonable administrator" is not. Criticise the action, not the person. It is the difference between saying "your post seems idiotic" and "you are an idiot".--Docg 14:05, 27 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The wording was from a proposal of mine on the workshop and should not be blamed on the arbitrators. As I hope most editors realize, the form of words is a standard formulation that is used in findings of fact in other contexts, such as "no reasonable driver would have entered the intersection at that speed" (which doesn't mean that the particular driver is always unreasonable, just that he or she did an unreasonable thing in that instance). Needless to say, no offense of any kind is intended which is why I have now proposed an alternate wording that addresses this issue. Newyorkbrad (talk) 14:36, 27 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  It is a curious paradox that the driver of the car in front is never reasonable.  Indeed the severity of his unreasonableness is most frequently expressed in minutes of arc and yards of tarmacadam.  His hopelessness is only rivalled by that of the driver of the car behind, whose mounting impatience can be measured in semitones, decibels and vulgarities. --Tony Sidaway 14:50, 27 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Wording of finding #1 

message: "Oppose:
1.The Uninvited Co., Inc. 21:21, 27 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Actually, did Durova say "Arbcom approved this" (which appears false per the proposed decision) or did she say "some Arbitrators know about this"?  And diffs? Thatcher131 23:09, 27 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: No, that's not quite what D said- maybe she was deliberately ambiguous about who approved, is the worst that can be said of her.Merkinsmum (talk) 23:38, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

text: That, friends, is the point.  It was a solo action, but she has attempted to spread the blame by saying, 1) Other people told me to, 2) Some/many/a few/one of the people who agreed with me were arbs, 3) (Later) Ok, they were just quiet about what I was going to do.  She did not say that she had any assent, but, when pressed, that she had silence, which she took then for consent, and then for assent, and then scaled back again.  She has refused to say who the people were, and yet she has wanted us to take it on faith that they existed and that they all agreed.  It wouldn't matter, though: saying that the President of the United States and the War Czar both wanted me to make an edit would not cut ice on Wikipedia, and saying that I have most of ArbCom agreeing with me won't do it, either.  If it isn't on-Foundation media, it isn't.  Geogre (talk) 11:47, 28 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I am in full agreement with that. Which rather makes the whole e-mail thing a sideshow/smokescreen. An admin made a very bad block, which lacks any justification in terms of the blocked user's activities, or on-wiki consensus. That's the whole game here.--Docg 15:09, 28 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The block isn't the whole game. The evasiveness and unjustified secrecy that followed is why there was such an outcry. This had on-wiki effects, such as Durova suggesting that anyone who wanted to question her would have to go to ArbCom to do it. rspeer / ɹəədsɹ  20:18, 28 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: True. The Committee, however (and, for that matter, the community) is limited by policy and convention in what it can do. We can admonish admins to be careful. We can tell them to show their working. We can throw the book at admins who do neither. We cannot dictate modes of communication. Mackensen (talk) 20:28, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

text: I do not believe that Durova lied.  I believe that Durova somehow thought she had a mandate where none existed.  I would imagine that she was tragically confident of the results of her investigation, and had the block turned out to have been wise, no one would have noticed or cared.  The Uninvited Co., Inc. 06:08, 29 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Saying D. Lied

message: In view of the tenor and content of the warning issued at User_talk:!!#Change of mind, which I find astonishing under the circumstances, I strongly request that  my proposed remedy number 1 from the workshop be incorporated in the final decision. Newyorkbrad (talk) 23:12, 27 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Urgent request 

message: Has the arbitration committee ever given prior permission for a block to be issued, where that permission has been granted in a form other than an arbitration result? Finding of Fact 3.1 doesn't make it clear. Hiding T  09:49, 28 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Practice is unclear. In the past, individual arbitrators have blocked on the basis of evidence presented to them outside of open cases, that much is clear. Administrators also act in accordance with arbitration rulings in the sense of "same circumstances, same response". The point of FF3.1 seems to be to emphasize that, even if certain arbitrators might have had access to the "report", it was never discussed by the Committee. Physchim62 (talk) 20:58, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

text: In response to Hiding, there have been instances where we have encouraged blocks to be placed outside the context of an arbitration result, often partially as a result of checkuser investigations, and often where unlawful conduct is involved.  I cannot recall any case where we have done so where the block was for an established good-faith contributor.  As Physchim62 notes, we do occasionally block users ourselves.  Regarding the "report," it should be made clear that it in no way appeared to be any sort of request for permission to block someone.  Instead it appeared to be documentation of a method of identifying troublemakers that we perhaps should aspire to or learn from. I declined to adopt any such aspirations and did not find it instructive, and therefore gave it no further thought.  The Uninvited Co., Inc. 06:01, 29 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I get that you block people yourself, but there's always been a pretty clear line between an arbitrator acting as an admin and an arbitrator acting as an arbitrator.  I think the problem I was having was that it wasn't clear that the arbitration committee had ever issued a block outside of an arb-com case.  To my mind, that's the only forum in which the committee should speak.  In all other instances it is simply members acting individually, sort of like how one law Lord or Supreme Court member might issue a statement or guide on an approach, but they don't speak for the whole body.  I just wanted to clarify that the arbitration committee, as opposed to individual members, weren't in the habit of issuing or endorsing anything outside of arb-com cases. Maybe that needs to be a principle somewhere, if only to make it clear that if you ask an arbitrator if you should block someone based on x, that arbitrator is not speaking for the committee, and that the person asking should not infer anything to that extent.  Hiding T  09:45, 30 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  A point of clarification 

message: === Giano banned for 90 days===
No way..... if this passes, you all have officially lost it. --Reinoutr (talk) 23:55, 28 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: If this passes, I'm done. Mr Which??? 23:57, 28 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Yep, me too. --Reinoutr (talk) 23:58, 28 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't think this (if this passes i'm done, etc)is a helpful approach to commenting on the proposal. Mercury 00:05, 29 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't think your comment is helpful as well. Glad that's cleared. --Reinoutr (talk) 00:07, 29 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It seems my comment started helpful discussion. ;) Mercury 00:23, 29 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Right. It's all about you, Mercury. You got Giano added as a party, against all common sense. You managed to deflect a bit of the focus of this ArbCom from Durova. Yeah, your comment was very helpful. It's all about you. Good show. Mr Which??? 00:28, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

text: I don't give a damn what you think is "helpful" Mercury. You did this, while attempting to deflect blame from your friend in this disaster, and now Uninvited has created two extremely divisive and disruptive proposals. And how exactly is telling the truth about what I will be doing if this passes "unhelpful"? I think that the ArbCom folks should know full well that they will be chasing off good users if they do this thing. Mr Which??? 00:10, 29 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: You got meat to those accusations?  I did not attempt to deflect blame, see my statement while this case was being considered.  here it is.  All involved no exceptions.  Not even for Durova.  Everyone. Mercury 00:23, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

text: Please also stay cool. Mercury 00:23, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

text: I think that he was not only justified, but was absolutely correct to do so. The only reason for suppression would be to avoid embarassment for a person who earned her embarassment. The good gained by allowing the community a peak behind the curtain of the sleuths far outweighs any possible technical violation posting the "investigation notes" constituted. Mr Which??? 00:14, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

text: Personally, I think its hilarious. I'm waiting for them to have a finding that No member of arbcom received the secret email pre-block.. like that'll happen. ;) Then again, I'm willing to wait and see if it has any real chance of passing... lets AGF and wait..  Lsi john (talk) 00:17, 29 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I think this may have just been a single ArbCom member using the PD page to workshop, as it appears now. It is hard to AGF when the debate has turned from the actual problem (Durova, her methods, etc.) to a tangentially-involved editor, who should never have been added as a party. Mr Which??? 00:22, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

text: He should be commended, not admonished.  Proposals to sanction Giano will always be put forward, but they will fail because even the ArbCom recognise that the man is, more often than not - a hell of a lot more often than not, in fact - absolutely spot-on in his take on a particular issue.  This is due to a combination of immense article-writing talent as well as a no-nonsense attitude that skirts the boundaries of WP:CIVIL, but in the immortal words of an independent political party in my country, "keeps the bastards honest".  DEVS EX MACINA pray 00:24, 29 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Every Athens needs a Gadfly. Mr Which??? 00:29, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

text: BTW, the fact that Uninvited both crafted these two "proposals" and voted "oppose" on encouraging !! is well-noted. Mr Which??? 00:31, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

text: Banned from editing projectspace? What, then, if he has a dispute with someone? If he can't resort to dispute resolution, the only other option left is to drive the person away from the article, which certainly isn't good. And this is only the sum of it assuming that people will have some clue, and allow him to edit projectspace in response to complaints about him. This would be an effective ban; the only thing left for him to do would be completely uncontroversial maitenance, which not everyone cares to do. -Amarkov moo! 00:42, 29 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Sorry; I missed it by reading quickly. And you guys are doing the best you can, same as everyone. How would he do dispute resolution? • Lawrence Cohen 00:56, 29 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Probably by a motion to modify the previous case if the issue ever came up. We do that all the time. Mackensen (talk) 00:57, 29 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: OK, thank you. • Lawrence Cohen 01:01, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

text: Was the over-the-top, 90-day block proposal written in order to make the softer, restricted editing option look more inviting to the arbitrators?  In other words, were the two proposals submitted together as a psychological ploy to influence the arbitrators to vote for the less-restrictive option? Cla68 (talk) 01:55, 29 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Giano this, Giano that

message: No way..... if this passes, you all have officially lost it. --Reinoutr (talk) 23:55, 28 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: If this passes, I'm done. Mr Which??? 23:57, 28 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Yep, me too. --Reinoutr (talk) 23:58, 28 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't think this (if this passes i'm done, etc)is a helpful approach to commenting on the proposal. Mercury 00:05, 29 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't think your comment is helpful as well. Glad that's cleared. --Reinoutr (talk) 00:07, 29 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It seems my comment started helpful discussion. ;) Mercury 00:23, 29 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Right. It's all about you, Mercury. You got Giano added as a party, against all common sense. You managed to deflect a bit of the focus of this ArbCom from Durova. Yeah, your comment was very helpful. It's all about you. Good show. Mr Which??? 00:28, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

text: I don't give a damn what you think is "helpful" Mercury. You did this, while attempting to deflect blame from your friend in this disaster, and now Uninvited has created two extremely divisive and disruptive proposals. And how exactly is telling the truth about what I will be doing if this passes "unhelpful"? I think that the ArbCom folks should know full well that they will be chasing off good users if they do this thing. Mr Which??? 00:10, 29 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: You got meat to those accusations?  I did not attempt to deflect blame, see my statement while this case was being considered.  here it is.  All involved no exceptions.  Not even for Durova.  Everyone. Mercury 00:23, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

text: Please also stay cool. Mercury 00:23, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

text: I think that he was not only justified, but was absolutely correct to do so. The only reason for suppression would be to avoid embarassment for a person who earned her embarassment. The good gained by allowing the community a peak behind the curtain of the sleuths far outweighs any possible technical violation posting the "investigation notes" constituted. Mr Which??? 00:14, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

text: Personally, I think its hilarious. I'm waiting for them to have a finding that No member of arbcom received the secret email pre-block.. like that'll happen. ;) Then again, I'm willing to wait and see if it has any real chance of passing... lets AGF and wait..  Lsi john (talk) 00:17, 29 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I think this may have just been a single ArbCom member using the PD page to workshop, as it appears now. It is hard to AGF when the debate has turned from the actual problem (Durova, her methods, etc.) to a tangentially-involved editor, who should never have been added as a party. Mr Which??? 00:22, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

text: He should be commended, not admonished.  Proposals to sanction Giano will always be put forward, but they will fail because even the ArbCom recognise that the man is, more often than not - a hell of a lot more often than not, in fact - absolutely spot-on in his take on a particular issue.  This is due to a combination of immense article-writing talent as well as a no-nonsense attitude that skirts the boundaries of WP:CIVIL, but in the immortal words of an independent political party in my country, "keeps the bastards honest".  DEVS EX MACINA pray 00:24, 29 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Every Athens needs a Gadfly. Mr Which??? 00:29, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

text: BTW, the fact that Uninvited both crafted these two "proposals" and voted "oppose" on encouraging !! is well-noted. Mr Which??? 00:31, 29 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Giano banned for 90 days

message: Because the proposal to ban Giano for 90 days above is such a sheer nonsense, I don't think anyone needs to worry about it being passed. It has no chance. I suggest, instead to have a careful look at the alternative remedy. Would the loss of Giano's contributions to the Wikipedia-space project be a net-loss or net-gain for the Wikipedia project. I dare anyone who think that his non-participation would make it better to make their case. --Irpen (talk) 00:42, 29 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Banned from editing projectspace? What, then, if he has a dispute with someone? If he can't resort to dispute resolution, the only other option left is to drive the person away from the article, which certainly isn't good. And this is only the sum of it assuming that people will have some clue, and allow him to edit projectspace in response to complaints about him. This would be an effective ban; the only thing left for him to do would be completely uncontroversial maitenance, which not everyone cares to do. -Amarkov moo! 00:42, 29 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Sorry; I missed it by reading quickly. And you guys are doing the best you can, same as everyone. How would he do dispute resolution? • Lawrence Cohen 00:56, 29 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Probably by a motion to modify the previous case if the issue ever came up. We do that all the time. Mackensen (talk) 00:57, 29 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: OK, thank you. • Lawrence Cohen 01:01, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

text: Was the over-the-top, 90-day block proposal written in order to make the softer, restricted editing option look more inviting to the arbitrators?  In other words, were the two proposals submitted together as a psychological ploy to influence the arbitrators to vote for the less-restrictive option? Cla68 (talk) 01:55, 29 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Giano restricted for a period of one year

message: I think I understand some of the frustration that has brought arbitrators to proposing these drastic remedies and I absolutely find no fault in any of the arbitrators for having proposed them... but they truly go way too far in my view. I think it is no secret that Giano and I have had our differences over the years, but there is absolutely no question in my mind that he truly is here for the right reason, to build an encyclopedia. Should he have made a private email (that someone ELSE leaked to him, mind you) publicly available, repeatedly, and revert warred to keep it visible? Certainly not. I am convinced he truly knows better. But these remedies will not work. They will make matters worse in my view. The explicit clarification of the prohibition against revealing private mails, long overdue, and the sanctions that will be imposed should that sort of thing happen again, also long overdue, are completely sufficient without singling out Giano.  I strongly urge the committee not to adopt any of these Giano specific remedies. ForgiveAndForget ++Lar: t/c 03:00, 29 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: And now it's not and we are back to the more draconian stuff? Sigh. Nothing has changed in my conviction that the sanction being considered will make matters worse rather than better. Sometimes the thing to do with dissidents is co-opt them. Giano is right much of the time. Put him on ArbCom, he'll HAVE to shape up. ++Lar: t/c 05:07, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

text: Out of the mouth of one of Wikipedia's greatest editors and future Steward, good sense willing.  Take note, for heaven's sake.  DEVS EX MACINA pray 05:10, 30 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  understandable frustration, but... 

message: I understand what you mean about the meaningless soliloquies, Uninvited, but I have some trouble with the genuine and heartfelt effort. How do you figger? Neither of us can read hearts. And perhaps I've missed something. But, really... Durova's  much-mentioned apology for the block on User:!!'s talkpage went in full: ""When I make a mistake I like to be the first to step forward and correct myself. I was wrong here. Sorry for the inconvenience." (eliciting an amazed "wow" from !!). Full disclosure: I said to Durova on November 19, in a long RT chat, that it was a terrible apology, a little worse even than the previous one that she'd posted on ANI, and she should refactor it for her own sake. She lashed out at me in anger, which ended our conversation, showing no interest in what I might have thought was wrong with it, and not changing its self-praising tenor in any way. Now please compare User:!!'s description of Durova's efforts to patch things up, at the top of his posted evidence (to me it frankly looks more like a matter of his efforts to patch things up):
:::"There has been much discussion on WP:ANI and a subpage (now archived), WP:AN, an RFC, and User talk:!! (since deleted) and Durova.  Apart from a few posts in the latter two - some since deleted - and supporting the RFC, I have not participated; nor, most of the time, has Durova responded, even to questions posted on her own talk page.  I e-mailed Durova to initiate a discussion about her actions.  I am treating my discussions with Durova as confidential, but will disclose details to members of ArbCom privately on request, although there is not much to disclose:  after making contact and some helpful initial discussion, I have now waited for over 4 days for a reply - a reply that I was told several times would be coming - and it is more than three days since we have exchanged words." (Posted by !! on Nov 25.) 
::Did you perhaps request those details from User:!!, and find them to look genuine and so on? Or have you merely read what I have read? If the second, I think you're describing what you wish Durova's efforts had been. Bishonen | talk 08:34, 29 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: This is my take as well, Bishonen. I could find nothing to support Uninvited's characterization, and thus the oppose, followed shortly by two proposals sanctioning Giano looked a bit ... I don't know ... suspicious, for lack of a more precise word. Mr Which??? 15:20, 29 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: "Genuine and heartfelt"

message: Examination of Giano II's actions regarding posting of private evidence should be examined in a separate case, as it only serves to cloud this case with further drama and conflict when addressed in this case. Mr Which??? 03:51, 29 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Please use the workshop page. --Tony Sidaway 03:49, 29 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: This is where the discussion was happening, so this is where I posted it. I will refactor it as a simple message, though. Mr Which??? 03:51, 29 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Here's fine. Traditionally arbitration cases deal with the matter as a whole, even if that results in multi-part decisions. I don't think anyone's interests would be served by a new, separate case. Mackensen (talk) 03:53, 29 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I believe Mackensen is correct here.  If the ArbCom want to examine this issue and issue judgement, it should be part of this case, not separate. Cla68 (talk) 03:54, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

text: My thinking on this is that it would also allow that case to be delayed until the elections are over. This would remove the need for "suspension of remedies" and the like from this case. It greatly simplifies this case, and would also simplify the case to come--especially if Giano were to win a spot on the ArbCom. Mr Which??? 04:01, 29 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Proposal to Sever Giano II as a party to this case

message: By banning Giano from Wikipedia namespace, as Geni said, doesn't that mean that the ArbCom has just banned him running and serving if elected by the community, if this passes? Giano has not withdrawn his campaign which still appears to be up. Is he being barred from serving if the people choose him? • Lawrence Cohen 03:44, 29 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks. I saw that, but I was wondering in case that remedy didn't pass, and it left him just barred from running, but not banned. I wasn't sure what would happen then, if he didn't agree to withdraw his candidacy. Sorry I wasn't clear. • Lawrence Cohen 03:49, 29 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It's very unlikely that the remedy would pass without the corresponding enforcement clause. Not that we'd have much to lose from a transparently political act; we're being accused of such anyway. Mackensen (talk) 03:51, 29 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Sorry, I seriously didn't mean it that way. Everyone is doing the best they can... • Lawrence Cohen 03:55, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

text: In the worst case they can always redirect the WP:RFAR page to User_talk:Giano  Uncle uncle uncle (talk) 04:18, 29 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Ah, some levity! Thanks for that, UUU! I needed a chuckle. Mr Which??? 04:19, 29 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Yeah, and then some joker will nominate WP:RFAR for deletion for being a cross-namespace redirect! Mackensen (talk) 04:20, 29 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: IAR SNOW close. ++Lar: t/c 04:22, 29 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: As speedy delete, while appointing Giano as the new God-king, right Lar? ;) Mr Which??? 04:29, 29 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Oh please, not Giano as the new god-king. He keeps the most absurd pictures on his user talk page, it would be horrible having to post there!  (Although I did kind of like the pink Cadillac, now that I think about it....)   Risker (talk) 04:34, 29 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I love that all-female marching band picture he has right now.  Every time I look at it and read its caption, the 2007 Spumoni ArbCom roadshow, I start whistling marching band tunes and look around for a flag to wave.  DEVS EX MACINA pray 04:40, 29 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Giano as an arbiter 

message: I'm confused.  Normally even contributors of opinion to the case cannot jump on board after it has been setup.  Now, part way into the proceedings, and after Durova resigns, Giano is lumped in there, and assigned a punishment?  No RFC?  This is highly irregular.  Imagine if you, Mackensen, were on trial for corruption, and halfway into the trial, they dragged your maid into the courtroom, and decided to give her a sentence too.
This is completely bizarre.  If Arbcom want to make a case against Giano, then make a new RFC, and start a new Arbcom case.  You don't just chuck another baby into the dirty bathwater of two other babies.
Speaking of which: Why nary a word about JeHochman???  No restriction?? No admonishment??  JeHochman was so zealous that he had an ANI for the same behavior the week before Durova's case came out, and during her case, he was blocking and AGF-ing and warning anyone who contested Durova??
According to moreshi, Mackensen was on the 2nd secret list of en-WPinvestigations.  Doesn't this mean that Mackensen was on the secret list that got the email about !! to start with??  Why did he not recuse himself immediately?.  And now, Mackensen's proposal (his odd proposal of a late entry with the apparent objective of punishment only - no discussion) to punish Giano gives a very strong impression of partisanship.  
If the procedure was "send it to Arbcom" (not to publish the email online) but two members of Arbcom were on the secret list that convicted !!, then how could a fair assessment of blame have taken place under "secret" in  Arbcom?? 85.5.180.9 (talk) 04:39, 29 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  Fine, assuming you were not on that list, then why bring in a person to be 'tried' at the last minute, with no RFC, no discussion? Normally, a new Arbcom case should be made against him.  This makes it look (pardon the AGF, but I'm giving you a bipartisan feedback) very much like "payback" for that Durova lost her tools.  The case was about Durova and Jeh, and now Giano is chucked in there, for good measure?  Precedent of this please?  And why is there no admonishment of JeHochman?  Not one word.  No punishment either.  This is all highly irregular.85.5.180.9 (talk) 04:48, 29 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Now look, first you've got evidence that I'm on that list, now you're allowing that it might not be the case. Which is it? This is academic; I know I'm not on, and have never been on, that list. Forgive me if I find this a dubious attempt to attack my credibility, not that I care overmuch. This case can look like whatever people want it to look like; the fact remains that dozens of editors have sharply criticized Durova without being added to the case, because criticism is a welcome part of the feedback cycle and we'd me mad to think otherwise. It is not unprecedented for editors to be added mid-stream; for my part I considered Giano part of the case from the outset, given his very public role throughout. Arbcom has always looked at the behavior of all parties; it would be highly irregular if we did not do so in this instance. Mackensen (talk) 04:54, 29 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  Thank you for rexplaining that you were not a member of this list, Mr. Mackensen.  But I cannot do other than assume that you 'aren't' on the list, if you said so, so what more can I do?  I read offline information, which was verified on pipermail discussions by moreschi that there had been some sort of leak (which seemed to verify it), so it sounded plausible.  You say youre not on it, so fine, great, next question.  Please don't assume I'm flip-flopping when I choose to believe you, because I doubt you'd prefer me to challenge you, so 'next question'.  Again, (and I've mentioned this three times now) why no punishment or even restriction for JeHochman, who's name shares this case?  Not a word.  Not an admonishment.  Not a thing.  Can you please explain this to me?85.5.180.9 (talk) 06:26, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

text: To respond to one of 85.5.180.9's questions, it's quite routine for the arbitration committee to add editors to a case (a good example is Night Gyr and Violetriga in Badlydrawnjeff).  Moreover it's not unknown for an editor to be banned without being named as a party to the case at all (for instance, Petri Krohn in Digwuren).  Arbcom has very, very broad powers which it has inherited from Jimbo Wales.  --Tony Sidaway 04:57, 29 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  Thanks much for that explaination Mr. Sidaway.  I wasn't apprised of the adding procedure.  This is highly irregular procedure in comparison to other generally accepted practices of arbitration and dispute settlement, in both the private and public sectors (in business arbitrations and in state-state and state-non/state arbitrations), to be frank.  Did the Arbitration committee realize this?  Mr. Wales is an important person on Wikipedia, to be sure, and from what I gather, he had absolute and total power over procedure and content.  Still, that an entirely new scope for arbitration procedure should have been developed in this venue, is quite striking. 85.5.180.9 (talk) 06:26, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

text: I would agree. I have plenty of gripes against Jehochman, but for the most part we are working them out through that time-honoured DR procedure of discussion. His includance in this case seems to be an example of casting the net wide, exactly the kind of behaviour that we are reproaching Durova for. I have presented evidence against Jehochman at a previous arbitration case, but I cannot see how it would be helpful to do so here. Physchim62 (talk) 14:12, 29 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  The issue is moot since the Committee has made no findings and no remedies that are specific to him or that apply to all parties in the case. --Tony Sidaway 14:28, 29 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  I think the committee believed I might be involved in these matters, or others similar, so they added me to the case.  I welcome scrutiny of my behavior and am happy to be here because, as somebody wise told me, being named is also a way of being cleared.  A small side issue was raised by Amerique, but that seems to have died when I presented evidence that an arbitrator had endorsed my behavior in that matter. - Jehochman  Talk 14:36, 29 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Last Minute Addition to Arbcom Case??  Arbcom Members on Secret List?? What about JeHochman?? 

message: Thinking and writing about this has already taken me more time than I can afford, so I'll stop. Here's just a few observations:
*Privacy and copyright of emails are red herrings. ArbCom seems to be saying that private emails can under no circumstances be (re)published on Wikipedia, but rather sent to ArbCom to evaluate. Problems:
**It makes it illegal to republish threatening emails on WP:AN.
**Basing this on privacy concerns (instead of confidentiality) makes the ArbCom look hypocritical - privacy is already violated by sending the email to ArbCom, and what the ArbCom ends up protecting is secrecy, not privacy.
**Taken to its logical conclusion, it leads to the absurd suggestion that it's better to hang our dirty laundry on WR and WikiTruth than to attempt to wash it at home.
*To have the intended effect, the restriction on Giano would have to allow him to edit anything but WP:AN and arbitration pages unless he isn't directly involved. Even then, there are serious issues:
**Is the fact that an experienced, prolific, and unproblematic-in-mainspace editor needs to be restricted from those places, a reflection on him or on those places?
**The remedy as it stands is easy to subvert - he just needs to do something that gets him directly involved in whatever it is that he thinks is important enough for him to participate in. When he does, he will likely be on the right side of the argument again. The ArbCom will be forced to make escalating sanctions on him, and more drama and distrust will ensue.
**Should we be protecting troll-hunting admins from prolific editors at all? Shouldn't it be the other way around? Both sides have the best of intentions, but which side is more likely to know what's good for the project? In short, why does Giano need to shout to be heard?
*What does "they don't know about this list" followed by a diff to the question "how come all these people supported this block so soon" mean? Meat puppeting? WP:CANVASS? Why are we ignoring that?
That's it from me. Zocky | picture popups 12:31, 29 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Amen, Zocky.  Additionally, as I have said, there is no copyright inherent in a letter that has been sent, nor is there privacy in an e-mail at all if there is a suspicion of a crime, nor any in an e-mail that has been sent.  Once you send an e-mail, it's not owned by anyone but the recipient, and there is no control of it by the author whatsoever.  Intercepting mail is criminal.  Republishing it is venerable.  Plainly speaking: all talk of privacy and the law, copyright, and the rest is utterly bogus, ill-informed, illogical, and detrimental.  Those who support it, to be blunt, don't support Wikipedia or the idea of Wikipedia.  Everything about Wikipedia is built on the model of the palimpsest and the open bazaar.  No castles are allowed there, and no secrets.  Geogre (talk) 12:38, 29 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: In fairness to those objecting to Giano's post: most are not hanging their hats on copyright (though some are). Most are sticking more to the point and saying Giano deliberately broke our prohibition on such publications. The fact is, that policy is flawed and I don't believe it was specifically intended to prohibit this type of disclosure. Lsi john (talk) 13:17, 29 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: If there is no legal prohibition on reposting received emails, since copyright belongs to the recipient (the same as postal mail), how would it be changed if the community wanted to change it to make publishing material like that acceptable? If the community decided it was fine, I thought no small group could stop and filibuster such things if no legal issues were involved. • Lawrence Cohen 14:24, 29 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  Whilst I agree with those who have commented that the copyright issue is a red herring, I would like one question cleared up.  Could you make it clear in what jurisdiction you believe that a recipient of a communication holds the copyright in original expression sent to him via post or email?  I believe the operative jurisdictions on Wikipedia are most likely Florida and US Federal, and I am only familiar with UK law where, in normal circumstances, the recipient most definitely does not hold such copyright.  It would be helpful to us all if you would cite case law or statute upon which you based your apparent belief that, if anyone, Giano or someone who passed it to him, rather than Durova, held the copyright in Durova's email.  I have to say that it sounds a little odd.  --Tony Sidaway 14:39, 29 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Tony, I think what people are saying is that the copy that was sent to the person then belongs to the person it was sent to, and that person is free to do with it as they please. The actual ideas expressed (and thus the ability to profit from them) belong to the writer of the note. But as long as Giano wasn't publishing the note for profit, he violated now copyrights. Mr Which??? 16:12, 29 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  If that's really what is being claimed, that's fine.  However it's still a most extraordinary statement, so I would still like to press for those making it to indicate which legislation or case law they're basing their statements on.  My statements about UK law (which obviously doesn't apply here, I recognise) are based on Cembrit Blunn Ltd and Dansk Eternit Holding A/S versus Apex Roofing Services LLP and Alexander Leader, case no HC05C01951 in the High Court.  I would like to see similar citations pertaining to Florida or Federal US law on this matter, bearing out the claim that the recipient of an email holds copyright of the original expression in the copy he receives. --Tony Sidaway 16:19, 29 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  I don't think anyone is saying that. I know I'm not. I'm saying that, just as when one writes a note and posts it, the person they send it to has the legal right to share it with others, post it on a bulletin board, or whatever. They may not have the right to profit from the ideas contained in it, but once the letter passes into their possession, it's theirs to share with whomever they wish. The questio of whether they should ethically is quite a different matter altogether. However, even this doesn't apply to Giano's case, as the person who passed it to him most likely was either the initial leaker, or once removed from the initial leaker. Therefore, both ethically and legally Giano is in the clear on this one, in my view. Mr Which??? 17:42, 29 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  Okay, that looks like yet a third formulation of the claim.  On what case law or statute do you base your belief that "when one writes a note and posts it, the person they send it to has the legal right to share it with others, post it on a bulletin board, or whatever" as long as they don't profit from it?  I'm not concerned with the ethics here (it's been discussed elsewhere and to repeat that here would be a distraction) but rather, on the legal basis upon which you make these, to me quite extraordinary, claims about the law. As you will see if you examine the high court judgement I have cited, this isn't the case in the UK, so if it's the case in the USA I'd like to see that so I can compare the two laws and understand the differences.--Tony Sidaway 17:56, 29 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Guys, do I need to link to red herring or do you know what the expression means? Zocky | picture popups 18:00, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

text: On second thought, I'm not sure that reading that "the phrase may relate to saving a hunted fox by dragging a smoked herring across its trail" is that likely to be helpful :) Zocky | picture popups 18:02, 29 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Final thoughts 

message: I'm not going to yell and scream. My user page and blog already contain all my yelling (well, more like joking) on this matter. But I do want to make one statement: if Giano is sanctioned in any way, I'm gone. Period. Not one more edit.
Now this statement will probably not make Jimbo or ArbCom shake in their books, or even their slippers. I'm not the best editor or the worst. A featured article, a couple good articles, a bunch of other edits. I'm eminently replaceable. But I don't want to be part of a project where truthtellers are punished.
Oh, one exception. No matter what happens, I will vote for Giano for ArbCom. I'm not sure if that technically qualifies as an edit. Casey Abell (talk) 16:03, 29 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: At least myself and one other editor have echoed these sentiments above. And I'm sure that others would exit as well. However, the tide seems to be turning toward a simpler "Giano Reminded" solution, which I could certainly handle. Mr Which??? 16:08, 29 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Oh I hope so Whichy.Merkinsmum 16:11, 29 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm not certain what to make of this note. Were you hoping I would leave, or that the "Reminded" note would be all that passed? Sorry for being so easily confused... Mr Which??? 16:20, 29 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Does it make a difference? *poke* :) Lsi john (talk) 16:21, 29 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  No drama, just a statement 

message: Let me try and comment on the views above and below. In essence, both Risker and Jehochman are right. There's some tension here, but that's inevitable. I remind Dtobias that we do actually have internal content policies and that Wikipedia generally doesn't host documents (though Wikisource does). Mackensen (talk) 18:28, 29 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Would it be worth adding a motion in the decision to clear up how/when its acceptable to post info on-wiki? The current wording sounds like a blanket prohibition on anything, including possibly the ideas/gist of the message. • Lawrence Cohen 18:31, 29 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It might be better to hash out a flexible policy, as Jehochman suggests below. I think what we've set down reflects current policy and practice, but clarification never hurts. Mackensen (talk) 18:55, 29 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks. What if the policy settled on conflicts with the ruling here which seems like a "no-never" wording? • Lawrence Cohen 19:00, 29 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Then I hope administrators use their heads. Mackensen (talk) 19:04, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

text: Ummmmm.  Don't people collect diffs pretty regularly?  Don't they quote essays from each other?  Don't they put up all kinds of weird and wild stuff in their user spaces?  Trying to fix the mercury isn't going to do any good, here, and it can do much, much harm.  It's better to realize that this was the public airing of something that its author wanted an air of secrecy about.  The issue of whether the secrecy was legitimate or not has been generally settled ("no"), so this is dancing a tango with polite/impolite.  That remains sub jure.  Content we all to be happy or unhappy and leave off the penalizing (reading Christmas carols lately).  Geogre (talk) 21:09, 29 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  Where has it been "settled" that the expectation of privacy of communication was illegitimate?  --Tony Sidaway 21:35, 29 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: We have any control on what people do with emails they get? If you send me an email, and I forward it to George, who sends it to Mackensen, who sends it to Jehochman, who sends it to Jimmy Wales, who emails you, and says, "Tony, what is this?", we have no control over it. Beyond that, if there is no allowance for private email on Wikipedia in any form, why haven't we removed !!'s evidence? • Lawrence Cohen 21:39, 29 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  Control is not the issue here.  Whether we have an expectation of confidentiality in a given instance is a matter of courtesy, commonsense, and even civility.  These things do matter, because if we do not trust one another we will not be able to communicate with one another.  It's because we do care about such things that you have to have a good reason to divulge private emails.  The mere wish to embarrass someone, as seems to be the case here, is not a legitimate reason. --Tony Sidaway 21:59, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

text: I can't read Giano's mind, but having examined the state of the discussion during the days before he posted it, it's obvious that what little credence was given to Durova's block was quickly shredded in the days following.  The posting of the email has been a massive sideshow, generating far more heat than light.  It gave absolutely no information that was relevant to the block (the illegitimacy of which was clear within one hour of Durova's first announcement).  So I presume that the only reason can have been to embarrass Durova. --Tony Sidaway 11:54, 1 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Arbiter replies

message: Based on comments from Mackensen, Jehochman, and others, I started this page. Please come help fill it out. Wikipedia:Private correspondence/WP:PRIVATE. • Lawrence Cohen 19:06, 29 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: [[Wikipedia:Private correspondence]]

message: I will just take a moment to remind everyone on all sides of this very complex and far-reaching case that the decisions of one Arbitration Committee panel are not binding on any future Arbcom processes, and that while they are reflective of the received understanding of Wikipedia policy, they are not themselves Wikipedia policy.  
This is a very difficult case.  As a community, we have identified many things that need to be changed or improved.  Only a few of those things involve individual editors. It is our collective responsibility to actually make those changes.  While our arbitrators, as individuals and as a committee, are amongst are longest serving and (one hopes) wisest editors, their role here is to interpret existing community standards and apply them to the facts of this case.  It is not to create new policies or change current ones, although they are free to recommend that the community make such changes.  Their only power at this time is to determine whether or not individual editors should be sanctioned, based on the specific set of facts provided to them. Let's take our time to review the policies and practices that are related to this case and decide whether they say what we as a community want them to say, or if we want to change course.  There may be final decisions made in this case that we simply don't want to have apply in the future.  Risker (talk) 18:55, 29 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Hard cases make bad law 

message: Could the ArbCom take a sensible course of action here and leave the policing of the ArbCom elections to those outside the ArbCom? There seems to be a feeling that sanctions against Giano are needed to prevent disruption of the elections. Please trust uninvolved admins active at the election pages to deal with that if such a situation arises. And anyway, there would be nothing stopping Giano running his campaign from his talk page, and having people put links from his questions page to his talk page. It would just give the impression that Giano was being gagged. A more sensible option would be a general reminder that all ArbCom election candidates are expected to behave with decorum and may be blocked if they post private materials, or are disruptive, etc. Carcharoth (talk) 00:52, 30 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Policing ArbCom elections 

message: Thank you FloNight. Now we know where we all stand. It is worse to demonstrate the flawed evidence being developed by an administrator famous for her evidence development than it is to block a completely innocent and model editor, insinuate that Arbcom, Foundation representatives and other senior editors are complicit in the decision and not even bother to communicate the reasons for the block to the body to which all questions are referred.  Did I miss anything here?  Risker (talk) 01:19, 30 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: yes, you forgot to remind everyone to get back to work.  sNkrSnee | ¿qué? 01:24, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

text: Not yet decided; there are now 12 arbitrators on this case. ELIMINATORJR 01:25, 30 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I was aware that it wasn't decided; my comment was in response to such a flip-flop in thinking.  No new evidence has come to light since FloNight voted the last time, except perhaps by reading these pages that arbitrators might see the exasperation of the community.  Last night, Mackensen discussed the frustration of the Arbitration Committee because nobody was bringing this case here.  After this, can people be blamed for staying as far away from these pages as humanly possible? An administrator blocks a respected contributor and while she is at it suggests that the closest things to governing bodies we have were aware if not supportive of her reasoning, and she gets a "run for RFA if you want your bit back." (Note to arbitrators:  Has Durova herself ever sent you a copy of her little sockpuppet detection manual? Has she responded to your questions about it? Did she tell you (even in camera) with whom she had discussions about that information?) The editor who points out that the evidence wasn't worth wasting electrons on gets a 90-day block.  Now tell me - why was Durova not instructed that she could not run for RFA again for, oh, say...six months or a year?  Why was she not asked to step down from running her admin tutorial school? (Do you really want an admin with these decision-making skills teaching prospective admins?)   Now, it is not particularly in my nature to be punitive, and to be honest my preference would be for no further corrective measures to take place.  But if corrective measures are indeed going to be imposed, they should be proportional. And right now, what I see is a lot of noise about Giano being tactless, but a lot more damage inflicted to the community and the encyclopedia by the attempted subrogation of the Foundation and Arbcom.  Risker (talk) 03:19, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

text: (e/c)No, you caught it all. And I left a note on her page, thanking her for demonstrating the utter rot that DR on WP has become: more about personality conflict than building the encyclopedia. This is a ludicrous, farcical joke, that somehow, someway, 5 arbiters somehow think that punitively blocking one of the finest editors the project has, simply because they dislike his methods, is acceptable. Outrageous, and if the case closes as is, I'm taking me and my little 3,000 or so edits (total, not just this account), and finding somewhere more concerned with actual content creation. Citizendium, anyone? Mr Which??? 01:27, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

text: Just . . .wow.  I guess that motion passes after all. didn't see the change to 12.  R. Baley (talk) 01:30, 30 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: If he is banned, I suggest a solidarity effort at least.. call on people to ban themselves from the Wiki for 90 days (except for ArbCom election voting of course, but that assumes the ArbCom doesn't nip THAT in the bud as well).  My own contributions to the encyclopedia are unremarkable, and I doubt my loss will change anything, but I shall do it anyway.  DEVS EX MACINA pray 01:39, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

text: This place just gets worse every day.  Do the arbitrators not see that if they ban Giano, the encyclopedia will definitely suffer?  If Giano is banned, the encyclopedia will lose more than just Giano...please make this stop. Tex02:05, 30 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I genuinely don't think the ones voting to ban him care. They don't like him or his methods, and are going to "punish" him, the consequences to the project be damned. Mr Which??? 02:08, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

text: Irpen: try paying more attention to various policy pages, mostly hijacked by a small circle of non-writing admins, and stop ignoring RfAdms Guilty as charged. I generally ignore the policy pages unless I have reason to read them and something in them strikes me as fatuous. On occasion I have then objected in the relevant talk page whereupon I've always been outnumbered, so there went an hour of my life. As for RfAdms, they're contests among usernames that may or may not be vaguely familiar to me but are virtually never more than vaguely familiar; I certainly have no inclination to check. I could of course simply see who my "wikifriends" are voting for and vote along with them, but I like to think I grew out of such behavior during my teens. Is my memory for names that much worse than yours, or do you actually study what goes on here, keeping scores on people ready for the time when they're put forward for bureaucracy or arbitration or whatever? -- Hoary (talk) 06:49, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

text: I think the "non-writing admins" thing is a myth and somewhat of a calumny.  However there are career bureaucrats who often seek adminship as a kind of badge, and seldom if ever do any article editing.  I always oppose such applications.  Only article editing exposes an editor to diverse enough opinions and situations to enable him to grow his Wikipedia antennae.  Only a regular article editor should be considered a potential administrator.  In fact, there should be no editors on Wikipedia who spend all their time in debates. --Tony Sidaway 16:16, 30 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I am pleased to see that from what I read above Tony agrees with me. --Irpen 18:06, 30 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Well now 

message: Giano found evidence that showed Admin Misconduct.  The community agreed that the evidence showed admin misconduct.   Instead of being awarded a medal, he's being retaliated against?   Awesome.  
I know you youngin's round here probably won't remember this, but ya might read the article on the Pentagon Papers to see how people in my day dealt with the public revelation of the misconduct of the leadership.   
Not to mention--  the refusal of the involved arbiters to recuse themselves is, well, inexcusable. --Alecmconroy (talk) 01:47, 30 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: How we're gonna deal with whistleblowers around here

message: I think some arbitrators may not be taking a long-term view here. A 90-day ban of Giano may send a strong message for the short and medium term, but in the long term (years, not months) the damage may be more subtle for the project as a whole. Arbcom may change, people may come and go, but the lingering effects of a decision like this will be harder to undo. I certainly can't predict the complete ramifications of a decision like this (which may not pass), but I urge the arbitrators to step back and look at the bigger picture. And then to step back again and look at the even bigger picture. At the very least, the evidence for this ban should be provided more clearly. Flonight talks about reviewing the evidence. I have been reviewing Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Durova and Jehochman/Evidence, and I can't find the evidence that was presented to support finding of fact #7 (Giano). If this ban is being proposed based on an accumulative effect of past behaviour, should this not be reviewed in a separate case? Carcharoth (talk) 02:58, 30 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: This has been my point all along. If they want to string up Giano, they should find someone to start a case against him. I can think of six who would vote accept just on principle. And then we wouldn't be cluttering up a case that should have been about an incompetent administrator and their methods, with Giano's past peccadillos. Mr Which??? 04:22, 30 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Absolutely. I've suggested as much to Fred. I'll be interested to see his response. Hopefully an arbitrator will take up my proposal to defer consideration of Giano's actions to a separate case. That does seem the logical thing to do here. Carcharoth (talk) 04:38, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

text: While I agree in principle that we often aggregate too many matters into one case, that has nonetheless become our custom.  There is nothing especially unique about this case.  When disputes expand, we add people.  I also agree that the finding #7 could do with some specific evidence.  There is plenty from which to choose.  As for the long term effect, I believe that we have already let civility as a core value erode too far.  While there is a cost we have to restore boundaries.  The Uninvited Co., Inc. 05:13, 30 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It's not the aggregation of several current issues into the one case, but more the way several arbitrators have referred to Giano's past behaviour. In fairness to Giano, if that past behaviour is what is at the core of this, then a fresh case would be better to address that as a whole. Carcharoth (talk) 05:17, 30 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Short, medium and long-term effects 

message: I'm with MONGO. I've added a protest banner to my page. All are welcome to it. I was going to have more free time the next few weeks and was going to get back to building articles out of my private to do list, and had two articles I wanted to drive to Featured status and was going to build them to nominate them in the 2nd week or so of December. I seem to have developed an editing flu now, though. I guess I'll just help on AfD and RC patrol instead until I feel healthier. • Lawrence Cohen 04:49, 30 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: My Strike banner is GFDL or public domain or whatever....  I uploaded it so that those who felt that they didn't want the drama of "I'm leaving" but simply wanted to announce that they had reason for withdrawing services from this project could express that sentiment.  I do not have a boss.  I will not have one.  We are equals who work together, or we do not work at all.  Geogre (talk) 12:17, 30 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: editing flu

message: Although less dramatic than the current controversy over remedies, I noted the discussion between a couple of arbitrators concerning the "access level" principle (7 and 7.1), in which UninvitedCompany proposes replacing the formulation that an administrator who gives up adminship under "controversial circumstances" must go through a new RfA to get the tools back, while others who give up an adminship may be reinstated upon request to a bureaucrat. I believe that the difference in the various wordings proposed here is largely semantic.
The rule that an administrator (or bureaucrat, checkuser, etc.) who gives up an access level under certain circumstances may not have the privileges restored merely upon request originates from (ironically enough) the so-called Giano arbitration case (though that case, despite its name, ultimately had little to do directly with Giano). The original wording proposed by an arbitrator referred to editors who gave up adminship or other status "under [a] cloud." I was concerned that this wording could be offensive as applied in a given situation and could discourage voluntary resignation of the tools even when that might be in the best interests of the user and the project, and suggested a couple of other wordings that could be substituted, of which "under controversial circumstances" was chosen. ("... in the midst of a serious controversy" might have been more descriptive, if less pithy.) Interestingly enough, I also expected that the ArbCom's promulgation of a new rule in the course of a decision might be condemned as policy creation by the committee, but either because the rule accords well with common sense or because everyone was totally exhausted by the end of that particular arbitration, no one to my knowledge has ever said anything about it.
UninvitedCompany's rewording fairly accurately describes what might be considered controversial circumstances that would preclude regaining adminship or other status upon request. The classic example of resigning under controversial circumstances is an administrator who resigns while an arbitration case or non-frivolous request for arbitration is pending against him or her, and the committee has held that resignation under this circumstance constitutes "controversial circumstances" requiring a new RfA if the user wants to regain adminship (the Konstable, Husnock, and Philwelch cases are examples). What other circumstances might trigger the rule are not well defined and, in the absence of an arbitration case concerning the admin question, are generally left to bureaucrat discretion.
Given the other matters dividing the arbitrators in this case, I recommend the committee adopt the wording that has been used in the last several cases for purposes of this decision, and defer any refinement of the wording either to a later case when the issue is more squarely presented, or to an appropriate policy page. Newyorkbrad (talk) 04:58, 30 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I confess to always having hated this thing on principle. It seems incredibly counter-productive. If during an arbitration case an admin gets depressed by criticism (whether just or unjust) and lays down the tools, that seems like a good and understandable thing. The admin takes a break from admining, and everyone cools down. But saying that if they do so, they need an RfA to get the tools back is virtually saying they can't have them back. As few admins who are being criticised (even unfairly) by a section of the community would ever pass RfA. We know that for sure. So this rule effectively discourages admins from stepping down for a time. Or if they can't take the heat and do so, it heavily penalises them. Now, if an admin resigned in order to "escape justice" or prevent a possible de-admining, that would be different. However, there's absolutely nothing to stop the arbcom ruling that an user should not be an admin after they've laid down the tools. I'd really like this principle discontinued. An RfA should only be required if arbcom says the person is unfit to have the tools back on request - or if resigning the tools is part of some deal to avoid an arbitration case. In this case, it would be easy for the committee to rule as to whether Durova needs an RfA to continue as an admin - and fairer to do that based on her activities and a judgement of her suitability, rather than a decision to desysop taken in extreme circumstances. --Docg 09:49, 30 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Access levels and "controversial circumstances" 

message: This isn't about him at all anymore and never really was. Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Durova is more appropriate. • Lawrence Cohen 05:00, 30 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It might as well be called Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/We finally give Giano what for.  It isn't even about Durova anymore.  DEVS EX MACINA pray 05:04, 30 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I think if the case closes without any findings naming Jehochman the closing clerk can move it to just Durova.  Unfortunately the redirects will have to stay as there are too many incoming links. Thatcher131 05:13, 30 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: If there isn't any evidence that Jehochman did anything wrong, then his name should be removed as a party and from the title. Cla68 (talk) 06:40, 30 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Dmcdevit, who filed the case, is not clueless and is a member of the arbitrator's email list.  James F. is opposed to closing the case in part because "We still haven't considered Jehochman".  The implication to me is that there may be at least some smoke to clear up there.  The evidence page is remarkably clear of the smoke however, so I have no clue what it might be.  GRBerry 03:23, 1 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: My initial statement, one of the longest, was designed to clear smoke.  Hopefully that explanation was sufficient.  The fact that additional members of the community have not stepped forward with substantial complaints against me might also be a consideration.  There is a proposed finding of fact that I was not involved in the block of !!, but that could be said about most of us, so I don't see the need for it. (add) I also don't see a need to remove my name from the case.  It is what it is. - Jehochman  Talk 03:38, 1 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Proposal, remove Jehochman from the case name 

message: I apologize for intruding on the discussions of Arbcom, but I notice something troubling in the proposal here. 
A statement of principle was expressed: "Administrators are expected to act in a reasonable and transparent manner".  But that is all that was said.  No findings of fact and no remedies associated with this key issue were expressed.  But, a great many of the concerns of editors and administrators involved the secrecy issue and the star-chamber quality of the decision to block and the subsequent failure to identify members of the group who were in the 5 to 12 people who supported the block.
I believe that Arbcom should make findings of fact such as:
 
*Durova's submission of evidence to an unofficial, unaccountable group of anonymous admins or editors for review was used to justify the block.
*Durova's block of !! lacked appropriate and reasonable transparency.
I do not know that a remedy specifically to Durova is appropriate here.  I believe that a remedy should be applied to the whole community of admins such as:
*No admin may block a user without a reasonable, transparent description of the evidence used against that user, presented on the user's talk page.
Perhaps this should be part of an official policy. 
On that note, it would be helpful for Arbcom to have a page listing all principle statements used in decisions to date. Perhaps there already is one, but I do not know about it.  That list of previously identified principles should probably be included in the Wikipedia Guidelines and Policy Pages. 
Regards, --Blue Tie (talk) 09:53, 30 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Transparency

message: I twice removed Giano's postings of Durova's email message, but I did so with mixed feelings. After thinking quite a bit about it over the past few days, I am still mixed. About a year ago we had a days-long AN/I discussion about a community ban of an editor who had engaged in some bad use of sockpuppets. He had sent two email messages which, due to his own sloppiness, incriminated himself as a sockmaster. A respected administrator was in possession of one of the emails and distributed it to some other established users so they could confirm having seen proof of sockpuppetry. I had received a different email from the sock and posted its entire contents (which was one or two sentences long) on-wiki. There was no objection from anyone about this, even though the redistribution/publishing of the message was done without the consent of the sender and the messages had been sent as private communications rather than as mailing list postings. 
If I was in the same position today, I suppose I would offer to forward the incriminating email to individuals who asked for it, instead of publishing it on-wiki. But I have a hard time explaining why the former is acceptable and the latter is not; in one instance I'd be using the site to publish a copyright violation and in the other instance I'd be using the site to conspire to publish a copyright violation. I also have a hard time explaining why what I did a year ago was a small error and what Giano did a few days ago is grounds for a lawsuit. I suppose what I'm saying here is that the desire to sanction Giano over That Email is not based in a hard-and-fast rule about copyright and we should not pretend that it is. Kla’quot (talk | contribs) 05:56, 30 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: In the future, I'd suggest that a more "neutral" site like Wikileaks would be useful in cases like this.  This shields the foundation from copyright lawsuits, prevents them from having the temptation to delete/oversite such content, and is far better than putting it on a site like WR or WT, thereby encouraging people into believing those sites are generally reliable.   --Alecmconroy (talk) 06:01, 30 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  In future I'd suggest not posting private data in an open forum.  Anywhere.  Email it to ArbCom.  In this case the privacy violation was entirely gratuitous, since ArbCom already had the data.  It added precisely nothing to the abritrators' understanding of the case, but created lots of drama and humiliated Durova even further.  If that was Giano's aim, he succeeded admirably.  Guy (Help!) 13:12, 30 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Bull. If it had been sent to other people than the original correspondent, it wasn't private. Private means private -- not "sort of private" and not "with people I like" and not "with my superiours." Private is private. There was no privacy violation, except Durova's, by sending on her own e-mail to other recipients. Once that was done, people kept e-mailing it. You want to punish the leakers, like Richard Nixon, you go right ahead and embrace his role. Utgard Loki 17:45, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

text:  Yes, ArbCom already had the data, and had, at that time, publicly exhibited no interest in responding to the incident. And frankly, had ArbCom immediately opened the case and this was the only finding of fact related to the e-mail, I would have had no idea how absolutely baseless the accusations were and how terrible the decision-making of Durova is. Thankfully, I was able to review the deleted revisions before they were oversighted, and I now know how suspect all prior blocks by Durova based on the same method are. The fact that you view the e-mail as nonessential information to the community and the reaction by the community to that information as "drama" reveals more about you than anything else you've done in this case, and it pretty clearly reflects that you've lost your perspective. —bbatsell ¿? ✍ 17:50, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

text: Comments like this are why that just doesn't hold water. If you don't want something discussed in an open forum... then you don't make accusations and claims about it in that open forum. Even after the block was removed, you and others were claiming that the evidence was basically sound. It "was definitely suspicious". If you don't want people posting the proof that such a claim isn't true... don't make the claim. Giano wasn't the one who put this debacle into "an open forum". He defended !! and challenged the evidence and methodology in the same forum that the claims were made. --CBD 18:50, 30 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Another thought about the posting of email 

message: What injury did Giano's posting of the email cause?  It is not really a copyright problem, if not because of being under GFDL then under Fair Use. (And certainly one may not claim copyright protection to avoid republication in the forum of a libelous publication!).  And it has not caused editors en masse to leave the project.  Did it cause quality in the encyclopedia to decline?  Did it by itself injure the reputation of wikipedia?  
We should be clear on what real injury is if we are going to think about where to place blame and penalty. 
To me if there is any injury it was the secret application of an untested, unscientifically developed and biased discriminator list to a specific individual, without regard to the actual work of that editor, as justification of a permanent block along with the claim that this was a widely acclaimed (though secret) decision by some of the most respected members of the wikipedia leadership.  Followed by, what was either an obvious cover-up or shamefully silly and idiotic actions that looked like a cover-up.  THAT is what caused injury. 
And in the face of that injury by cabal, contrary to all wikipedia standards, some strong action may be justified. Sometimes it is important for people to "Break all the rules" and in this case, something was rotten in Denmark and needed a strong fresh airing and disinfectant.  Its unpleasant.  But from the "Never Ending Story" --"It has to hurt if its going to heal".
I am generally someone who seeks peaceful measures to adjust conflict and obtain compromise.  But sometimes .. not every day, but once in a while, you have to take stronger action.   
I think that when you have an editor who does not cause contention and trouble in the article space, who creates articles and wikignomes a great deal, but once in a while creates a fuss over BAD APPLICATION of LEADERSHIP and POLICY you have a VALUABLE MEMBER and that should not be considered injury. --Blue Tie 14:35, 30 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: There is much whingeing about "what if" going on.  What if posting such made an identity public?  What if it were without permission (intercepted)?  What if....  What if the cow jumped over the moon.  While it's fine that people want to try to create a rule about that, there is no harm done by the publication of what by rule must never have been private: the rationale for blocking a Wikipedia user.  It's Wikipedia policy to make all block decisions public, to get reviews, to be uninvolved.  Since the blocking admin steadfastly refused to provide the rationale, and yet because the secret e-mail had already been passed from hand to hand, Giano did what Durova was required to do.  (This was before Durova gave up administrative status.)  This took away the obfuscation, did not reveal anyone's identity, did not show an interception, etc.  The harm was secrecy.  The publishing was what admins are supposed to do anyway.  It's more shameful that no one did it before Giano, but it's horrifying that Durova refused, point blank.  She could have secrecy or administrative blocking privileges, but not both.  Utgard Loki 17:43, 30 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: What Injury?

message: The attack on !! in the email was a pretty through job, and one that would seem to breach many of the policies and guidelines that Giano is accused of breaching. In my opinion, it is worse than anything Giano did, as while I can see many of his comments resulting from a rush to comment before the discussion was sidelined, the mail was obviously complied at leisure (and distributed to a wider audience with at least two weeks to be considered and revised before it was made public). Unfortunately the character assassination of !! occurred off-site, so the Committee has no authority to issue sanctions against its author. Giano's offence was to post his comments on-site. Had he gone to another site, he could have viciously attacked all and sundry, and the community could have shaken its collective head in disgust and gone back to editing, safe in the knowledge that such horrible behaviour was outside the Committee's jurisdiction. 
Unfortunately, the case came to Arbitration in this unequal state: Giano's actions could be dealt with because he kept his argument "in-house", Durova's could not because she took advantage of off-site communication. 
As a result Durova escapes any meaningful sanction for her actions. The argument from her supporters seems to be that she was punished in having to resign her admin bit and being made to look foolish. An admin bit is not some shield that can be used to deflect a blow, something we can drop in lieu of a sanction. Should we issue Giano with an admin bit so he can be forced to give it up as punishment? As for being made to look foolish, I dare say that has happened to all of us at some point, but it is of our own making. That somebody points out how foolish we have been is perhaps unkind, but had we not been foolish they would not have had the opportunity. Aside from that, I would hope that the Committee is in the business of remedies rather than punishments.
For Giano, on the other hand, the Committee has almost unlimited scope to apply remedies. He has no admin bit to strip, he has no "off-site" justification for his actions, his actions clearly fall under the remit of the Committee. He can be banned, blocked, restricted and probably more. This does not mean it is right to apply such sanctions in the face of such an obvious deficiency the Committee's authority. Balance is important here, as is the message sent to the community by the decision (see my questions to Mackensen for the message I perceive as being sent from the proposed decision). I do not wish Durova punished: a remedy should not be a punishment. Instead, I would urge the Arbitrators to vote against any remedy for Giano that applies a more rigorous sanction to him than those applied to Durova, and I applaud those who have already done so.
As a side note, I found this while looking at Wikipedia:Former administrators, which seems to point to action being possible even when posting takes place off-site . On the Former administrators page it says the action was carried out per an ArbCom decision. Perhaps one of the Arbitrators could clarify their jurisdiction. Andplus (talk) 11:09, 30 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: So far as I know there is no 'on site' vs 'off site' distinction so long as the matter is Wikipedia related. Many people have been banned for actions taken off site. There is a question about an indefinite block for off-site harassment on the RFAr page right now. It's a fairly common practice. --CBD 11:22, 30 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: My discussion with Mackensen seemed to indicate that he believed otherwise (see the initial statement that provoked my query and his reply) Andplus (talk) 11:26, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

text: Err... Durova's actions were blocking an editor for 75 minutes. That's it. That's not nice, shows bad judgment, and all that, but let's not forget what they were. When she found out she was wrong, she unblocked him herself. In exchange, Durova gave up her admin tools, for a period which has already been much longer than that, and the arbcom has ruled that she can't get them back just for asking for them, the way any other admin who steps down can. That's saying nothing about Giano, but "Durova escapes any meaningful sanction for her actions." is simply not true. --AnonEMouse (squeak) 15:13, 30 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: That you view the only problem with Durova is "blocking an editor for 75 minutes" says more about you than anything else you could have posted. The problem was as much in how she came to that outrageous decision (blocking an experienced, excellent contributor without merit is NOT no big deal) as it was the decision itself. Your efforts to sweep scrutiny of these methods under the rug is not helpful at all. Mr Which??? 15:47, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

text: Hmm, it seems like you only read that sentence. This "gave up her admin tools" defence seems like a red herring. I thought the idea was that admins were here to serve the community rather than to parade their bit as a badge of rank. I can't imagine that a court of law would rule that a case should be dismissed because the defendant is giving up work. I wasn't referring to the block at all. At the least she showed bad judgement in her off-site post analysing !! activities too, not just in her block, and this is what I'm asking the Arbitrators to take in account when deciding whether it is fair to act against Giano for his actions on-site. Andplus 16:04, 30 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Balance 

message: People here who don't understand why the Durova incident was a big deal for some need to understand that it precipitated a crisis of confidence.
A year ago (27 December 2006) we were told on by Kelly Martin on Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard:
The Durova incident email we read, the description of its having been reviwed and approved, the agreement by many admins in the first hour that the block should not be overturned except by arbcom and that the evidence was such that it could not be given to the community for evaluation, and the frantic efforts to delete evidences needed by the community to evaluate the situation; all led people to doubt what we have been told about what goes on behind closed doors around here. It led to a crisis of confidence, a doubting that we were being told the truth, a doubting in the judgement of the people in charge of what goes on behind closed doors. Efforts to say take my word for it and to delete evidence strengthened the appearance that the words were different than the facts. You must understand that when someone questions whether you are lying saying "I am not lying" does not help. Evidence is needed. That is what is going on. WAS 4.250 13:55, 30 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  What in the world is going on in secret/private ??? 

message: ]. Another case of "Obscene trolling. Knows German" ? At least the investigation here isn't going off half-cocked. Andplus 14:16, 30 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Just in case Fred was unaware, that was a continuation of a line of banter between two editors who know each other. It was part of the jocularity surrounding discussion of the article Leck mich im Arsch, which very loosely translated means "kiss my butt."  There was also a Fawlty Towers reference in that exchange.  Risker 16:15, 30 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Fred's fifth disruption diff

message: My response to this case: Wikipedia:Kiss and make up. - Jehochman  Talk 14:36, 30 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: A noble and well-advised sentiment. Cla68 14:55, 30 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Essay

message: People have been going on about Giano's history of disruption, then they said that durova is being punished for making one bad ban.  The thing is, she already had a history of making bad bans based on 'seekrit' (ie not based on checkuser or anything except her own subjective impressions) evidence.  I'm just saying this in response to people going on about Giano's history.Merkinsmum 16:11, 30 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: History

message: Merkinsmum 16:10, 30 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Ermmm...all of the arbiters have voted, and the proposal did not succeed. Barring any additional changes in votes, none of the remedies proposed as against Giano have passed. Risker 14:52, 30 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Lol sorry, it all changes in a few hours!  Respect is due for you then arbcom.:)Merkinsmum 16:10, 30 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: For the attention of Arbcom:- We, the undersigned, strongly object to Giano receiving any ban

message: Fred, Giano isn't the villain in this episode and please stop trying to make it so: .  If you want a villain or villains, I suggest looking elsewhere. Cla68 15:00, 30 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Please Fred, be reasonable

message: Could a non-recused clerk kindly update the implementation notes? (The case clerk, Cbrown1023, probably won't be online for a few more hours.) Newyorkbrad 15:59, 30 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Clerk request 

message: Hey, arbs: check out Pentagon Papers.  Richard Nixon wanted to hit the New York Times for publishing the leaked papers more than it wanted to hit the man who leaked them.  The verdict of history has been different.  The NYT has gone on to be the first paper of record, Ellsberg a respected man, and Nixon reviled.  Utgard Loki 16:19, 30 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Plus ça change 

message: I just realized that Giano deeply offended me, and wish to file a grievance!!! ...no, wait... I mean I just realized that Fred Bauder is blitheringly misunderstanding the exact same comment that Durova misrepresented when she burned poor !!, and then again later when she accused me of being an anti-German bigot! This is quite beyond belief and has to be an elaborate prank - hey, is my webcam on? HELLO?? Thank you for making this travesty an insane one. You people are one monkey short of Shakespeare.  sNkrSnee | ¿qué? 00:38, 1 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Holy Mother of Troll!

message: Given Jimbo is already biased against Giano, wouldn't it be more appropriate for him to completely recuse here, and leave it to the committee that was mostly elected to deal with this? If something happens here that is against community consensus, whats the next recourse for the community? Recall the committee? Can that even be done? Lawrence Cohen • I support Giano. 21:07, 30 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It's not trial and error. The fact that nearly all arbitration motions are unanimously passed shows you how hard they're trying.  Sometimes they're split, but that's very rare. --Tony Sidaway 00:20, 1 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Jimbo Recusal

message: Note that arbitrator FloNight has changed her vote on the "Giano banned for 90 days" remedy, eliminating the tie and rendering the "Jimbo as tiebreaker" suggestion moot in this case. Newyorkbrad 00:10, 1 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Good call.  A ban in this case would have made things worse, not better. --Tony Sidaway 00:13, 1 December 2007 (UTC)

text: FloNight has made a wise decision to help reduce the drama and to recognize that first instincts are usualy best.  She has recognized the difference between arbitration and brinksmanship.  Risker 01:52, 1 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't actually see any proposals that are tied at 5/5 or 6/6.  Which is the proposal that is being referred to Jimbo for a possible tiebreaking vote? Cla68 07:54, 1 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: That's because FloNight have switched (back), so it's now 5-7. The proposed remedies 6 of "Giano banned for 90 days" was initially 5-5 before FloNight switched to support from an initial oppose making it 6-4. Blnguyen and James F. then both voted oppose making 6-6. KTC 08:53, 1 December 2007 (UTC)

text: As I criticized her sharply for what I considered to be an extremely ill-conceived switch from oppose to support, with the vote tied at 5-5, so I will acknowledge her much wiser decision to pull the committee back from an indefensible brink. Mr Which??? 08:02, 1 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Issue resolved for this case

message: You've said that this "report" was far inferior to others you had presented. This brings up a point of curiosity, that I'm sure would be instructive: where are these other "reports"? Are they available for those of us who deplore your methods to review, or only for those who also "believe in bigfoot", as others have put it above? I know I'd like to see them for two reasons:
# I don't believe they were of much (if any) higher quality than the pile of horse excrement that was the "evidence" used against user:!!, when he was blocked.
# It could be illustrative of just how deeply flawed the "system" that this secret admin list was using.
As for Durova's "apology", anyone who has read it (well, anyone except Durova and her friends) doesn't find anything humble, or even much by way of a real apology in it. The fact that one of Durova's friends was able to get the Arbs to agree to wedge Giano into this case, has certainly distracted attention from the real issues here. We should be discussing what remedies we could see implemented that would prevent both horrendous blocks like the one Durova placed, as well as curb the paranoid investigative methods used by admins in secret mailing lists.Mr Which??? 02:35, 1 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Show your GOOD methods, then. 

message: Does that mean this will close tomorrow? Lawrence Cohen • I support Giano. 10:12, 1 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, unless there are more oppose votes on the close it can be closed after twenty-four hours. Blnguyen and Morven haven't yet voted but it will still close without their votes.  --Tony Sidaway 10:23, 1 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: And now Morven has voted to close, so at most it will be 8-4 and a net close. I'd suggest closing it now, but given the flip-flopping that has happened elsewhere, the 24 hour period from the first motion to close seems sensible. I make that 14:11 today (1st December). Carcharoth 11:26, 1 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Net 4 to close 

message: I just re-read Principle #2 (Private Correspondence ), which reads: "In the absence of permission from the author (including of any included prior correspondence) or their lapse into public domain, the contents of private correspondence, including e-mails, should not be posted on-wiki. See Wikipedia:Copyrights."
My questions are:
* What does "the contents" mean here? The verbatim contents, or does it include summaries and/or select portions as well?
* Hypothetically, if someone lies about someone else in an email, and then denies or misrepresents it on WP, is that email still inadmissible on-site even for the purpose of proving an assertion about its contents?
I ask because it appears this will be adopted. Sorry if it's been addressed somewhere.  sNkrSnee | ¿qué? 12:45, 1 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: My understanding is that emails can be paraphrased and that Wikipedia accepts hearsay evidence, so this rule is not a complete obstacle to the truth coming out. - Jehochman  Talk 15:09, 1 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  Thanks. I'd like another confirmation re paraphrasing, as this could obviously come up again. As to hearsay, I don't really see how this would settle a dispute that would the be "a said/b said", without being able to introduce the only possible evidence (ie. "b" says "I did NOT say that, and no you can't publish my email.") Your thoughts?  sNkrSnee | ¿qué? 15:15, 1 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  In such a case the email could be sent to a neutral third party such as ArbCom wihtout violating confidentiality.  The problems with publishing emails are that they include sensitive data (including email addresses, sometimes real names, and in the header fields all kinds of stuff including IP addresses); and that by publishing them and discussing the content and language we risk holding people to Wikipedia standards of behaviour for things that happen outside Wikipedia.  There are probably other problems as well. Guy (Help!) 18:02, 1 December 2007 (UTC)

text: If somebody lies about somebody else in email, its contents aren't usually a matter for legitimate discussion on Wikipedia (we're not a general social forum).  That is to say, if you find yourself discussing the contents of a private email on Wikipedia, you're probably not helping to improve the encyclopedia, so you should stop. --Tony Sidaway 15:19, 1 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I wish you would Tony! This subject has been done top death. Giano 15:23, 1 December 2007 (UTC)

text: So now Tony is confirming the opposite of Jehochman. I think it's pretty hard to believe you can't possibly imagine a relevant example, Tony. I already know how you feel about the one in question.  sNkrSnee | ¿qué? 15:27, 1 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  I don't say I cannot imagine an appropriate example, I'm just saying that in most cases it's inappropriate to discuss the content of private emails on Wikipedia.  --Tony Sidaway 18:20, 1 December 2007 (UTC)

text: No.  What I'm saying is that if you're discussing the contents of private emails on Wikipedia you're probably not helping to build an encyclopedia and should stop.  Discussing the contents of private emails, which are necessarily content that is produced off site, can only rarely be useful in dealing with matters on site, that is to say, activities undertaken to construct the encyclopedia.  This has nothing to do with the death penalty, whether figuratively or literally. --Tony Sidaway 18:52, 1 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  a very late question 

message: After some private correspondence with a person I've come to respect during this kerfuffle, I've decided to withdraw from this discussion. For my own reasons, that shall remain private, I took a very personal interest in this case. I allowed my personal feelings to bubble to the surface on many occasions, which I should not have done. As I have posted numerous messages over several pages regarding this case, I wanted to make a general apology, instead of attempting to strike or refactor all of the offensive messages I have posted. To anyone I've wounded with my words, I abjectly apologize, without caveat. Mr Which??? 15:39, 1 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  My apologies 

message: Is that correct? I thought everything required a 4+ majority. Lawrence Cohen • I support Giano. 18:05, 1 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Remedies pass on a majority.  My interpretation of the 6-3 vote is that, at the present time, it still fails because the majority is 7.  The arbitration would pass with no remedy for Giano. --Tony Sidaway 18:09, 1 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Not quite. Abstentions reduce the number of active Arbitrators on an item; for that remedy, the number becomes 11, so the majority is, indeed, six. Kirill 18:11, 1 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  Giano 18:11, 1 December 2007 (UTC)

text: Ummmm.... I don't have anything at all to say about this, I'll just try to see if it's possible to get the last word in over Tony. Zocky | picture popups 07:06, 2 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Priceless! lol good luck.  sNkrSnee | ¿qué? 07:10, 2 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Giano reminded passed 6-3?