Revision as of 00:29, 28 November 2007

Case Opened on 18:13, 25 November 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 Misplaced Pages:Requests for arbitration#Requests for clarification, and report violations of remedies at Misplaced Pages:Administrators' noticeboard/Arbitration enforcement.

Involved parties

• Durova (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA)
• Jehochman (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA)
• Dmcdevit (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) (filing party)
• Giano II (talk · contribs)

Requests for comment

• Misplaced Pages:Requests for comment/Durova
• Misplaced Pages:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents/Indefinite block of an established editor

Statement by Durova

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. Durova 16:31, 24 November 2007 (UTC)

Re: Lar's statement since RFCs normally close when arbitration starts, let's go with custom there. Durova 16:36, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

Statement Jehochman

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." 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 Misplaced Pages: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 ?" 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. Misplaced Pages 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 11:06, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

Statement by Dmcdevit

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 . This incident, of which there has been much discussion at Misplaced Pages:Requests for comment/Durova and Misplaced Pages: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 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)

Preliminary decisions

Arbitrators' opinion on hearing this matter (6/0/0/0)

• Accept. James F. (talk) 14:04, 24 November 2007 (UTC)
• Accept. There are several issues here which need looking into. Paul August ☎ 14:26, 24 November 2007 (UTC)
• Accept. Matthew Brown (Morven) (T:C) 14:44, 24 November 2007 (UTC)
• Accept. FloNight♥♥♥ 14:49, 24 November 2007 (UTC)
• Accept. Kirill 16:10, 24 November 2007 (UTC)
• Accept. The Uninvited Co., Inc. 03:46, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

Temporary injunction (none)

Final decision (none yet)

All numbering based on /Proposed decision (vote counts and comments are there as well)

Principles

Findings of fact

Remedies

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.

Enforcement

Log of blocks and bans

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.

• Misplaced Pages Arbitration cases