Wikipedia talk:Requests for arbitration/Durova/Workshop

message: Its pretty clear that its meaningless (if a person just refuses, changes their mind, or anything else), but if someone ran an RFA and stated something like "I bind myself to be open for recall, etc., as a condition of this RFA," would that be enforceable? Not terribly relevant to the case, but I'm curious to what extent the lack of enforceability goes to. Thanks. • Lawrence Cohen 23:29, 25 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Doubtful. Recall has no basis in policy, it is entirely voluntary. Arbcom is not here to enforce agreements between users, or make sure people stick to their word.--Docg 23:46, 25 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Oh, I know. I was just curious if anything like a completely binding statement by someone existed like that, on-wiki. Like, "If elected, I will stand for RFA, and if my certification is met but I refuse to accept it, or attempt to revoke this recall procedure later, I authorize the community ahead of time to proceed with a recall regardless, and waive any right to take this back later." But if not, then not. The way recall is done is certainly not enforceable, yes.  • Lawrence Cohen 23:50, 25 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I'd say then that the ArbCom could "admonish" someone for not sticking to their word, but not take any formal action if someone reneges on their recall agreement. Cla68 (talk) 01:50, 26 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Recall question 

message: I proposed desysopping Durova. Mackeson pointed out that Durova has announced that she will stand for RFA once this case closes. So I'd like to strike the proposal. Can I do that? (others have already commented) Jd2718 (talk) 02:59, 26 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It's unnecessary, the arbitrators are aware and will make their proposals on the Proposed Decision page accordingly. ⇒SWATJester Son of the Defender 08:13, 26 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Different recall question 

message: The ultimate fate of Durova an myself are trivial questions.  The larger concern is how will Wikipedia handle cyberstalking and harassment.  We have one group of editors who use this site for trolling.  Another group has formed to hunt the trolls.  Unfortunately, this leads to vigilante style justice, with mistakes like the one that happened with Durova and !!.  Troll hunting also creates a caustic, non-collegial environment.  
The most direct solution for this problem is to route persistent cyberstalking and harassment problems to the Foundation Office where they can be investigated and dealt with by volunteers under strict supervision of competent legal staff.   
The advantages of this solution include:
#  No longer can a group of trolls reinforce and protect each other by stacking consensus.  Office operates on the legal definition of what is allowed and what isn't.  There's no voting.
#  Office investigations are private and legally compliant (amateur sleuthing may not be).
#  If harassment arises to the level of being a legal problem, Office is better prepared to deal with the appropriate authorities.
#  Amateur sleuths can instead focus their efforts on editorial problems, like conflict of interest, pseudoscience, fringe theories and POV pushing.  These are important problems where we need to apply more effort as encyclopedia editors.
#  The secret mailing lists can be reconstituted under strict Office control for accountability.
#  Harassment reports filed with Office will be completely separate from editing disputes handled by Arbcom.  I have personally experienced the very uneasy feeling of filing a harassment report with Arbcom, only to have that report used against me in another incident.  That should never happen to anyone, ever.  
That's my proposal.  Hopefully we can all learn something from this dispute and make Wikipedia a better place. Let's not use Durova as a scapegoat for a problem that is much larger than her own activities. - Jehochman  Talk 03:42, 26 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Jehochman, without any prejudice to this idea, may I suggest that you post this on the discussion page of WP:HARASS as well as here?  More editors from the broad spectrum of the encyclopedia go to that page than frequent Arbcom pages; it will provide a wider opportunity for discussion.  Risker (talk)  —Preceding comment was added at 04:09, 26 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  On the other hand, WP:HARASS covers a large variety of behaviors, many of which aren't the sort of thing that needs special Office attention.  For example, WP:STALK has little to do with actual stalking. JavaTenor (talk) 04:50, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

text: Perhaps I'm merely jaded from seeing this proposed before, but it strikes me as something that would enable editors to escape the Committee's legitimate scrutiny of their actions by crying "harassment". Kirill 05:02, 26 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Just redirect the secret mailing lists to output only to /dev/null and call it a day.  Some harassement reports are a form of harassment, and do not merit super-secret-special handling.  The office can't deal with the scope of the poisonous politics around here, and the mailing lists are as far as I can tell making things worse, not better.  GRBerry 05:10, 26 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Making Wikipedia Better

message: Does Arbcom have the ability to compel Durova to reveal things to them or face consequences (e.g. the names of the people [who need to be added as parties] she has claimed endorsed her proposed block, etc)? —Random832 15:39, 28 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I have been thinking on this, one cowardly individual frightened to come forward I can believe but five all with the same lack of courage, I don't buy it.  So we have two options either Durova made the whole thing up and consulted no-one or she is taking the rap to keep the sleuthing society in action.  Now if it is the latter to whom are they reporting and answerable and are they using Durova's "methods" of detection?  Are as we speak dozens of new editors none of us have ever heard of, and who don't know the form for appeals etc. being banished.  This is a ludicrous situation and we must have some answers.  Someone knows the truth somewhere. Giano (talk) 16:47, 28 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The word "cowardly" was unfortunately chosen, and I think if there was a sleuthing society continuing to make such blocks we would have heard about it.  The question of who the five editors were who discussed the block with Durova, assuming they exist, is a fair one, but I see no way to compel Durova to answer the question.  We can not issue subpoenas and jail people for contempt of court for refusing to answer our questions.  The most you could do is to hold this unanswered question over Durova's head should she ever submit herself to RFA again. Thatcher131 17:17, 28 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: In extreme cases, there are methods for compelling people to respond—see, for example, Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Eyrian—but they are not really suitable for use on users in good standing, for what I hope are fairly obvious reasons. Kirill 17:19, 28 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I see nothing obvious Kirill. I'll go sleuthing myself then. Now I'm officially an involved party it is in my interest to find out what is going on. No stone unturned. Giano (talk) 17:30, 28 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Ah, I forgot the case hasn't been closed yet.  Here is the method I was referring to. Kirill 17:39, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

text: Giano, you are assuming that these people are acting as badly as Durova did. I agree with Kirill here: if they were, we'd know about it. Physchim62 (talk) 17:36, 28 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: For the record, Giano politely rsvp'd her at her talkpage informing her of this thread and requesting input. That comment was deleted without response as "not helpful". With respect, I don't see the basis for assuming that if there were something going on we'd know about it. At all. sNkrSnee | ¿qué? 18:07, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

text: I can't speak for whether or not any arbcom member regards the people who endorsed the block as important enough to ask Durova who they were.  But if an arbiter felt it was important enough to ask, and she were to decide to side with her sleuth friends at the expense of Wikipedia, that would certainly justify indef block until she changed her mind.   But it's an open question whether an arbcom member actually wants to know who else endorsed the block of !! or whether they consider that trivial and unimportant. --Alecmconroy (talk) 18:11, 28 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Or that they already know, or know that they don't want to know, and certainly that they don't want us to know. I'm pretty sure it's not because they feel it's too trivial. sNkrSnee | ¿qué? 18:16, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

text:  One possibility neglected by Giano above: that Durova misunderstood silence for assent. Guy (Help!) 13:08, 29 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Except those she did discuss it with were positive and entheusiastic for the block  Giano (talk) 13:33, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

text: Ah you mean the possibility that she misunderstood silence for "in depth discussion" and "positive to enthusiastic responses" . --Reinoutr (talk) 13:31, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

text: Well, except for the fact that there is a long tradition that editorial misconduct is dealt with by editorial sanctions and admin misconduct is dealt with by desysopping.  Refusing to answer questions about an admin matter is certainly grounds for desysopping, and even stating that the former admin can not seek adminship again without the committee's approval, but refusing to answer questions about an admin matter has not been previously used to justify editorial blocks.  And of course, the committee may feel (as I do) that merely giving bad advice is not actionable, in which case there is no purpose served (other than embarrassing people and subjecting them to further attacks) by demanding the identification of those people who gave the bad advice. Thatcher131 18:30, 28 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: "subjecting them to further attacks" have they been attacked then? Giano (talk) 18:39, 28 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: No, but Durova has, far out of proportion to her offense.  I don't believe it is helpful to expose users with even less culpability in the matter to the same firestorm. Thatcher131 18:54, 28 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  Just look at that rudeness of Anonymous and Durova. Are they not accusing me of belonging to the same society that Mackensen took such offence to this afternoon? Never mind I'm not sensitive, we do have a word in Europe though for secret societies up to something dodgy- anyone want to know what? Giano (talk) 18:44, 28 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I fear that this is trending in an unhelpful direction and suggest that all of these types of analogies be dropped forthwith by all concerned. Newyorkbrad (talk) 19:09, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

text:  (ec) There's a lot of sloppy and unfortunate analogies being made.  There is also a critical difference between the members of the Cyberstalking list, who may or may not have read the sleuthing message and at worst are guilty of failing to give Durova good advice to back off, and the "around 5" people that Durova discussed !! in depth with.  I think it is reasonable to ask who those people were, and were they only guilty of giving Durova bad advice, or do they have a history of other questionable activities.  If the former, then I don't think they should be exposed except by their own choice.  If the latter, a public or private examination may be in order.  But I think that any individual or group who had a history of making bad blocks of this type would have been ferretted out by now.  With all due respect, I don't think there is any "there" there.  (But if Durova would give the names privately to Arbcom, and Arbcom could assure us that no similar cases were lurking around, I would be most pleased.) Thatcher131 19:15, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

text: So would I, because I suspect while they are still out there doing whatever they do some-one is unable to move on! Giano (talk) 19:17, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

text: I can tell you with 100% certaincy that Durova will not be blocked over this issue, so please stop with the empty threats. -- Ned Scott 04:57, 29 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Are you clairvoyant, or have you overthrown the current God-king and taken  over Wikipedia, single-handedly? Isarig (talk) 05:03, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

text: Supporters of Durova were making veiled threats. Something like "If you bring this to ArbCom, remember that they look at the behavior of all parties involved". There was also a strong general feeling that the person who brought the issue to ArbCom first would be derided as unreasonable and stirring up controversy. rspeer / ɹəədsɹ  06:07, 29 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Withholding evidence 

message: Apparently proposing a remedy against Mercury is trolling while proposing a remedy against Giano is not. This is classic.--Certified.Gangsta (talk) 10:36, 29 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Just to clarify, Mercury is not the one harassing? Mercury 10:48, 29 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: No. User:LionheartX. I just started a new AN/I thread about that matter, but I doubt anyone would care.--Certified.Gangsta (talk) 10:51, 29 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Apology accepted.  Sometimes I get frustrated while discussing. Its easy enough to do.  Regards, Mercury 10:53, 29 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Double standard