Case Opened on 18:13, 25 November 2007 (UTC)
Case Closed on 17:25, 1 December 2007 (UTC)
Please do not edit this page directly unless you wish to become a participant in this case. Only add a statement here after the case has begun if you are named as a party; otherwise, your statement may be placed on the talk page, and will be read in full. Evidence, no matter who can provide it, is very welcome at /Evidence. Evidence is more useful than comments.
Arbitrators, the parties, and other editors may suggest proposed principles, findings, and remedies at /Workshop. That page may also be used for general comments on the evidence. Arbitrators will then vote on a final decision in the case at /Proposed decision.
Once the case is closed, editors may add to the #Log of blocks and bans as needed, but it should not be edited otherwise. Please raise any questions at Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration#Requests for clarification, and report violations of remedies at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Arbitration enforcement.
I'm not happy about this, but I feel it may be the only way to proceed from the current situation, and I think the arbitrators agree with me. The scope of this case is primarily the recent actions and the pattern of poor judgment shown by Durova and Jehochman as a result of their methods ("sleuthing"). Recently, Durova blocked !! based on a suspicion of being a banned user reincarnated. It soon became clear that the block had no merit, and had been based on a secret report of unconvincing evidence she had written and circulated privately; initially she refused to justify the block on-wiki and immediately referred any objections to ArbCom instead [1]. This incident, of which there has been much discussion at Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Durova and Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents/Indefinite block of an established editor serves to bring attention to what seems to be a pattern of confidential "investigations" of editors, blocking of editors without providing evidence publicly or being responsive to criticism, and what seems to be a poor quality of actual evidence--based on assumptions of bad faith and leaps of logic. Durova and Jehochman are self-proclaimed "sleuths."
!!'s block turns out to have been the second block by Durova that week of an established user as a sock puppet [2][3] giving no rationale whatsoever and then retracting it and apologizing "for the inconvenience." Other similar issues are noted at the RFC. Jehochman often works with Durova, and is described by many of the same methods as hers. There have been issues like his recent block of DreamGuy on what turned out to be no recent edits at all, and the refusal to give evidence for the block. There are further secret reports and accusations by both of these editors that the Arbitration Committee is in possession of that serve to further confirm the pattern and disturb me greatly. The Arbitration Committee is possibly the only body well-placed to solve this dispute both because of their being the most well-informed on the extent of the problems here and the community's lack of useful signal-to-noise ratio for sensational cases like this. I ask that the Committee open a case to examine it. Dmcdevit·t 11:46, 24 November 2007 (UTC)
Interrupting a short wikibreak to make a statement here. It surprises me that this was initiated just a few hours after the RFC on my conduct got certified. I have always welcomed the Committee's scrutiny and continue to welcome it. DurovaCharge! 16:31, 24 November 2007 (UTC)
Dmcdevit expressed concerns to me in private just two days ago. I agreed with him, and took action under the good faith presumption that Dmcdevit was correct. He is not aware of this yet, but I have stopped taking advice from Durova, my former admin coach. In fact, I have accepted User:Physchim62's offer to provide new admin training, and User:El C has also agreed to provide guidance on request. You will notice in my recent logs that I have been spending time at CAT:CSD. That is the first step prescribed to me by P62.
My block of DreamGuy was supported by evidence. The unblock request was denied by User:Adam Cuerden who stated, "Plenty of evidence that trouble has been caused by this user." [4] I don't think DreamGuy needs to be litigated again because I have recused myself from further dealings with him. Durova was not involved in this incident, nor was this an "investigation". I originally became involved because DreamGuy asked me for protection from people who were harassing him. There was no "sleuthing" involved here.
I was neither involved in investigating nor blocking User:!!. After seeing comments on Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents, I contacted User:Majorly to learn what had happened, and then immediately told Durova to unblock !!. Please understand that I am not Durova, and Durova is not me. We often disagree and usually act independently.
In regards to the IP 24 matter that was being handled privately, a settlement was mediated by User:WJBscribe. He told me that he was reporting to Arbcom. I consider this matter fully resolved and feel that rehashing the matter might cause this person to resume harassing me, or may encourage copy cats. I respectfully request that any further discussion be handled confidentially via email.
A more significant point is that editors should be freely encouraged to come to Arbcom and file confidential reports of cyberstalking and harassment without fear of retaliation. I cannot emphasize enough that "blaming the victim", no matter how defective their report may be, is wrong and has a chilling effect. If a report has gaps in logic and confirmation bias, it can be stashed away and a polite reply can be sent, "The Arbcom has decided not to act on this report at this time." The fact that a case has been brought against me in part for filing such a report sends the wrong signal to others who might need to file reports in the future.
I'd like to shed light on an issue that has been the subject of conspiracy theories. I am the one who requested oversight of the private email. "These four deleted revisions contain a copy of a user email that was posted to the site without permission. The author asked me to request oversight." Posting a lengthy letter without permission of the author is an obvious copyright violation. Copyright violation is one of the stated reasons for oversight. I encourage the committee to investigate the release and publication of that confidential email. Editors should be able to collaborate offline without fear that their private comments will appear on site.
Lastly, in Krimpet's remarks below there is an ad hominem argument against me, "why do we seem to tolerate Jehochman and Durova doing the same thing [as Kohs]?" I am not doing the same thing as Kohs, which Krimpet could have discovered if she had contacted me, rather than repeating after Kohs. I am concerned that Krimpet may trust Kohs more than a fellow administrator. I am unclear where Krimpet gets these ideas because I've never called myself a "sleuth." No, I'm just an ordinary editor. Wikipedia is the encyclopedia that anyone can edit (except those who are banned). Krimpet and Kohs have suggested that people can be excluded because of their profession. I disagree strongly and would like Arbcom to make a clear statement that people of all professions are welcome to participate and that statements such as Krimpet's are not allowed.
Thank you for your consideration of my remarks. - Jehochman Talk 11:06, 25 November 2007 (UTC)
1) Giano II (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) is added as a party to this matter.
All numbering based on /Proposed decision (vote counts and comments are there as well)
1) Users are expected to assume good faith in their dealings with other editors, especially those with whom they have had conflicts in the past.
2) 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.
3) Users are responsible for the editorial and administrative actions they undertake, and must be willing and prepared to discuss the reasons for their actions in a timely manner. If a user feels that they cannot justify their actions in public, they are obliged to refrain from that action altogether or to bring the matter before the Arbitration Committee. This does not apply to users carrying out official tasks as authorized by the Foundation or the Committee (including, but not limited to, CheckUser, OverSight, and OTRS activity).
4) Wikipedia users are expected to behave reasonably and calmly in their interactions with other users, to keep their cool when editing, and to avoid acting in a manner that brings the project into disrepute. Unseemly conduct — including, but not limited to, personal attacks, incivility, assumptions of bad faith, trolling, harassment, and gaming the system — is prohibited. Users should not respond to such behavior in kind; concerns regarding the actions of other users should be brought up in the appropriate forums.
5) Administrators are expected to act in a reasonable and transparent manner. Even when reversed, administrative actions that appear arbitrary or capricious, or are based on poor methodology and evidence, have a chilling effect on people's willingness to contribute to Wikipedia.
6) Any uninvolved administrator may remove private correspondence that has been posted without the consent of any of the creators. Such material should instead be sent directly to the Committee.
7) Users who give up their sysop (or other) powers and later return and request them back may have them back automatically, provided they did not leave under controversial circumstances. Users who do leave under controversial circumstances must go through the normal channels to get them back. Determining whether a user left under controversial circumstances is, in most cases, to be left up to bureaucrats' discretion.
8.1) Blocking is a serious matter. Administrators should be exceedingly careful when blocking. Blocks should be made only if other means are not likely to be effective.
9.1) A decisive response to on- and off-wiki harassment of Wikipedia editors should not come at the expense of actions which undermine the core values of the project or the goodwill of honest contributors.
11) Editors are encouraged to engage in frank discussion of matters affecting the project, and are encouraged to share even those facts and opinions which demonstrate the shortcomings of the project, its policies, its decision making structure, and its leaders. Such discourse is limited by policies such as no personal attacks, no legal threats, and the expectation that even difficult situations will be resolved in a dignified fashion. Editors who have genuine grievances against others are expected to avail themselves of the dispute resolution mechanism rather than engage in unbridled criticism across all available forums.
12) In cases where all reasonable attempts to control disruption have failed, the Committee may be forced to adopt seemingly Draconian measures as a last resort for preventing further damage to the project.
13) Editors are expected to make mistakes, suffer occasional lapses of judgement, and ignore all rules from time to time in well-meaning furtherance of the project's goals. However, strong or even exceptional contributions to the encyclopedia do not excuse repeated violations of basic policy.
1) Durova (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) has edited Wikipedia since October 2005 and has been an administrator since October 17, 2006. In addition to contributing content, she has been active with respect to dispute resolution issues, including active participation at the former community sanctions noticeboard, proposing and overseeing the community enforceable mediation process, and providing useful input in arbitration cases.
2) On November 18, 2007, Durova announced on WP:ANI that she had indefinitely blocked !! (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) as a disruptive sockpuppet, stating that the grounds for the block could not be discussed on-wiki and that any appeal must be routed to the Arbitration Committee.
3.1) The Arbitration Committee gave no prior approval to Durova to block !!. Durova did not have the consent of the Committee to direct discussion of the block to the Committee.
4) The evidence compiled by Durova, viewed as individual items and as a whole, was insufficient to justify blocking !! (talk · contribs) or taking any other action against him. It was not reasonable for an administrator to block !! or take any other action based on this evidence, nor was the block justified by any other available evidence.
5) The discussion of the block and the evidence was extensive and marked by unseemly and provocative behavior on the part of numerous participants.
6) Durova (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) voluntarily gave up her sysop access ([5]).
7) Giano II (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)'s conduct in response to this matter exceeded the bounds of fair criticism. Areas of particular concern include personal attacks, on-wiki publication of private correspondence, a refusal to assume good faith, a lack of respect for project norms, and an unwillingness to resolve disputes utilizing the dispute resolution mechanism.
Note: All remedies that refer to a period of time, for example to a ban of X months or a revert parole of Y months, are to run concurrently unless otherwise stated.
1) Durova is admonished to exercise greater care when issuing blocks.
2) The participants in the various discussions regarding this matter are admonished to act with proper decorum and to avoid excessive drama.
4) Durova gave up her sysop access under controversial circumstances and must get it back through normal channels.
5) !! (talk · contribs) is strongly encouraged to look past this extremely regrettable incident and to continue contributing high-quality content to Wikipedia under the account name of his choice.
8) Giano is reminded that Wikipedia is a collaborative project which necessarily rests on good will between editors. The Committee asks that Giano consider the effect of his words on other editors, and to work towards the resolution of a dispute rather than its escalation within the boundaries of the community's policies, practices, and conventions.
1) Those edit-warring against an administrator following this ruling so as to restore private content without consent of its creator may be briefly blocked by any uninvolved administrator, up to a week in the event of repeated violations. After 5 blocks, the maximum block shall increase to one month.
Log any block, ban or extension under any remedy in this decision here. Minimum information includes name of administrator, date and time, what was done and the basis for doing it.