Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Durova and Shoemaker's Holiday

Case Opened on 9 March 2010 (UTC)

Case Closed on 14 March 2010 (UTC)

Durova and Shoemaker's Holiday
You have apparently accidentally removed the template and all instructions for setting up an arbitration case from the arbitration pages, so forgive me if this isn't perfect. Shoemaker's Holiday talk 22:04, 9 March 2010 (UTC)

Involved parties



 * Confirmation that all parties are aware of the request


 * Durova:
 * PeterSymonds:
 * Rlevse:
 * Blurpeace:


 * Confirmation that other steps in dispute resolution have been tried


 * First invitation to initiate conduct RfC.
 * Second invitation to initiate conduct RfC.

Statement by Shoemaker's Holiday
I left Wikipedia over harassment by Durova. Durova had been continually hounding me over tiny issues for months; the final straw being when I politely pointed out a bizarre decision by her in a set nomination, here, she cursed me out for 15 minutes on Skype. See http://wikidwatch.blogspot.com/2010/03/why-to-avoid-wikipedia.html

Durova is in the habit of maliciously false claims in order to attack me. In this very case, she claims she had permission to post e-mails. She did not. She had permission to republish the log in which she falsely claims I boasted about gaming the system, which now admits does not exist. ("For two days I've searched for a log where he made that disclosure. It may have happened in voice so there isn't any log [...]") She instead falsely claimed permission to post material in which I vented about the Matthew Hoffman case.

This is not the first time she has falsely claimed permission. I have asked a user involved with the oversighting of it to comment on an incident on Commons in which health details - revealed here under a pseudonym - were quoted there attached to my own name by her, and she falsely claimed the right to reveal them on the basis that I had mentioned them at another project. [These posts have been oversighted; they are discussed here; and I have asked the person who got them oversighted to comment here.]

Going back to her claims about me gaming the system: Since the log doesn't exist, one must ask then how she could get information from a former Committee member about it "on the basis of [Shoemaker's self-disclosure"]. If she doesn't have the log, how could she prove self-disclosure? Does the committee freely reveal information about cases to uninvolved parties?

Furthermore, when challenged to substantiate her claims, which also included a false claim I edited the log I posted, she simply began repeatedly asking for the thread to be closed.

She has shown herself willing to lie and mislead both administrators and arbitrators in order to attack me, even on this case page. Evidently, if I want to quote something, she calls in an oversighter, removing quotes and even links to quotes, (neither of which is, in fact, permitted under WP:OVERSIGHT), and then uses it to attack me. However, If she wants to quote things, she merely has to falsely claim I gave permission.

Rlevse's oversights of the link above, which substantially inflamed the situation, are being considered by the oversight list. Brief consideration may be appropriate here.

As for the proposal: Well, it's typical Arbcom dodging of the issues. But I can live with it, since it's better than having Arbcom poke fun of me for being harassed in their decline votes, or suggesting that I just need an apology to go back to being her scapegoat.

That said, I will have to seek a similar restriction on commons.

Statement by Durova
Shoemaker's Holiday and I have shared credit on roughly twenty featured pictures and sounds. May neither of us touch them again? The proposed wording, literally written, could have us both blocked or sitebanned for reverting routine vandalism or reorganizing our user galleries. Durova 412 06:11, 12 March 2010 (UTC)

@Cool Hand Luke (re: Iridescent): Copied from my user page.

Per Iridescent: 4.4% of total en:wiki featured content.

Iridescent raises a good point about how this would hamper my work. Examples:


 * The WikiCup asked me to judge this year. Although I declined that invitation I've given input at proposals there.  A routine comment would be "We tried that idea last year and dropped it for 2010 due to [types of problems], which might be resolved with [specific changes] for 2011."  Shoemaker's Holiday was one of last year's finalists at the Cup.  So any mention of last year's dynamics could be an oblique comment on him.


 * See Featured picture candidates/Cavalry At Balaklava, a current featured picture candidate. Yesterday I supported, then another reviewer said my support rationale was inexact: I had been trying to avoid mentioning an artist that Shoemaker had restored.  Today I followed up posted the obvious name.  If the motion passes I wouldn't risk that.


 * I would like to renew a proposal to change the "Picture of the day" section at Wikipedia's main page. The idea would to add featured sounds to the queue and rename it "Media of the day".  In past discussions that's come close to implementation.  That could help the featured sound program to grow, which would be wonderful.  Shoemaker's Holiday gave excellent input in past discussions and he's contributed more featured sounds than any other editor.

Realistically, think of the email traffic this motion would generate for the arbitrators. I've been walking on eggshells for five months. I've avoided this person and he remains belligerent. This motion generates new ways for him to lodge complaints. Durova 412 19:42, 12 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Roger Davies's revision helps. Would it be possible to reword from "comment upon" to "disparage"?  If it were possible to refer to his work in positive ways that would free up productive encyclopedic discussion.  Durova 412 04:53, 14 March 2010 (UTC)

Statement by SirFozzie
I have recused on this, because of knowledge of the parties, and because quite frankly, I have strong feelings on this. Shoemaker's Holiday, respectfully, you need to drop the WP:STICK, and walk away. I see no way this case will be accepted, nor any reason it SHOULD be accepted. Seriously, your behavior in this issue is disruptive here and it needs to end, and quickly. SirFozzie (talk) 21:54, 9 March 2010 (UTC)


 * Shoemaker, again, with all due respect.. you are NOT getting it. You are doing the equivalent of emotional blackmail here (that you won't edit here unless the Committee sanctions Durova out of your area. Also.. please note I'm saying it's the equivalent of.. I'm not accusing you of blackmail). I'll be one of the first to admit you have done a lot of quality work in the area of Featured Picture candidates, etcetera, and I'd be saddened if you decline to contribute any further.. but this crusade does you no good, on or off-wiki. If it's causing you this much trauma/stress.. then please, walk away for your own good. SirFozzie (talk) 22:15, 9 March 2010 (UTC)

Statement by Privatemusings
The link to shoemakers blog should never have been oversighted - I think Rlevse should apologise for that bungle.

The content of the skype chat is rather upsetting, and I can understand why Shoemaker felt bad - I think Durova should apologise for her part.

Shoe needs to be mindful of the bad habit that it's easy to get into where you leave, come back, leave, come back etc. etc. - it's probably unhealthy - but I hope clearing the air on some of this might be useful. Privatemusings (talk) 22:07, 9 March 2010 (UTC)

Statement by JzG
I was hoping Shoemaker's Holiday could be persuaded to withdraw this and seek some alternative means of resolving the issue. It's not actionable here, for sure, and the claims of harassment are exaggerated and not appropriate. Clearly SH feels hurt and angry and there may be something that can be done about that either through voluntary actions or some kind of dispute resolution process but this is just not arbitration material. Guy (Help!) 22:17, 9 March 2010 (UTC)
 * @MZMcbride: Have you not noticed how Durova has taken on board the comments in that RFC? She is now, if anything, more likely to assume good faith to excess than to hastily judge someone. That RFC is completely irrelevant to this case, which is a bilateral dispute between two former friends who seem to have had a falling out and one at least wants to play that out on Wikipedia. Guy (Help!) 19:26, 10 March 2010 (UTC)

Request by PeterSymonds
Please remove me as a party to this case; I wish for no involvement. My only involvement was the closure of the AN discussion, which has no bearing on anything relating to this request for arbitration. If there is a misconception that Durova solicited my closure off-wiki, please be assured that is not the case, as I explained here. Peter Symonds ( talk ) 22:28, 9 March 2010 (UTC)

Statement by Juliancolton
I admire and respect both of the primary parties, so it's hard for me to take sides here. However, I'd just like to note that I wouldn't be so quick to reject this case if I were an arb. After several months, no resolution or compromise is in sight, and it's having a negative impact on multiple areas of the project (and indeed spilling into other projects now). I'm not especially familiar with the details of the ongoing quarrel between Shoe and Durova, but having had seen logs of one particular conversation of theirs, I can understand the reason for frustration on Shoe's part. At the same time, I'm left wondering why this dispute has dragged on for so long, and why it keeps getting stirred up. This is just a preliminary statement, and I'll add more details in time. – Juliancolton  &#124; Talk 22:34, 9 March 2010 (UTC)
 * @ arbitrators opining to decline: How else do you feel this dispute is going to be resolved? It's not limited to off-wiki discourse, as evident by the multiple threads at various admin noticeboards. This ongoing quarrel is harming the project, causing prolific contributors grief, and shows no sign of letting up. – Juliancolton  &#124; Talk 04:44, 10 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Shell captures my thoughts nicely. The purpose of the Arbitration Committee is to help resolve harmful disputes; if this isn't a harmful dispute, I don't know what is. – Juliancolton  &#124; Talk 14:40, 10 March 2010 (UTC)

Statement by Mitchazenia
Ok, this was not something I expected. I had just yesterday mentioned that I hadn't seen Shoe in months, but I have been around during the major off-wiki disputes. I really haven't talk to Durova in almost a week, mostly due to Skype technology problems. However, I think there is a point where we have to say enough is enough, but demanding community sanctions to places where you work, especially in the featured contribution department isn't going to help, and honestly. Shoe, I respect you, and I listen to you all the time, but man, its time to end this, just put it behind, get a fresh start, maybe a new username, and just go on. It's not that hard, and dealing with it in other ways helps :) - I am adding that I won't declare a side, maybe except that of a black hole somewhere in the next galaxy. I don't wanna be accused of supporting Durova while senile. - Mitch32(We the people in order to form a more perfect union.) 22:43, 9 March 2010 (UTC)

Statement by Mbz1
It feels to me that Shoemaker's Holiday is put in a corner, with no exit. He posted to AN/I with no result, the link to Skype talk was removed, he was prohibited to use his user/talk pages to say why he left, and now he posted here. Maybe this is not the right place to ask for the resolution, yet the most important thing is a person, who needs some understanding. Dear Durova, I would like to appeal to you, please. You said: "I am a former sailor: on rare occasions when it's really deserved I speak like one." Everybody is different. Some people are hurt by a sailor's language more than others. Please do consider an apology. Just think about this: You could make a person feel better, you could make all that case to go away in a flash, you could make the user come back to Wikipedia and Commons, and you could make many users, who care about both of you to be very happy. Thank you, Durova!--Mbz1 (talk) 22:57, 9 March 2010 (UTC)

I agree with Julian. It is a rather an unusual situation involving two very valuable contributors. IMO the situation should be talked over, and talked over in an open. Otherwise sooner or later it will come back. I still have a great hope on Durova, who could make it go away with only one sentence. --Mbz1 (talk) 04:54, 10 March 2010 (UTC)

Statement by Blurpeace
This stems from a mutually insignificant misunderstanding, in my opinion. Shoemaker has blown the situation entirely out of proportion and should have stepped away from the horse carcass long ago. I suggest that both parties, especially Durova, apologize to one another, and we move onto more important things. As for being named a party, I request that I be removed. I have no interest in enabling this "drama". Blurpeace 01:01, 10 March 2010 (UTC)

Statement by Sole Soul
One arbitrator said in a recent case "The idea that creating good content means that you can get away with poor behavior needs to stop". Well, will see if this case even got accepted. Sole Soul (talk) 01:44, 10 March 2010 (UTC)

Statement by AGK
The conversation that Shoemaker's Holiday published to his blog on March 6th is very concerning. All else being equal, Durova should never have treated SH the way she did. But to take this matter to arbitration now would be premature. You could both try putting your differences aside and just editing; or alternatively pursue mediation. AGK 01:25, 10 March 2010 (UTC)

Statement by Dtobias
The "H" Word, "harassment", gets way overused here, and on Wikipedia-critic sites as well. I've seen the Skype conference transcript that's at the center of the Durova/Shoemaker dispute, and my opinion of it has always been that neither party comes off particularly well in it, with lots of overreactions, unreasonableness, and drama-queening all around. Take two chill pills and call me in the morning, both of you. I'm not sure exactly what the ArbCom can do other than perhaps issuing sanctions requiring them to lay off one another. *Dan T.* (talk) 03:12, 10 March 2010 (UTC)

Statement by Cirt
I respect the featured content work by both Shoemaker's Holiday and by Durova. This is an unfortunate situation, but I must say I agree with the comment below, by arbitrator. Cirt (talk) 03:33, 10 March 2010 (UTC)
 * This comment by  seems like a good idea, unfortunately. -- Cirt (talk) 23:40, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

Query from SandyGeorgia
Shoemaker's Holiday said: "In this egregious attack, she vowed, because I made a polite comment about a strange restoration choice: To prevent me getting the scanner she had promised to arrange through Wikipedia grant, which was necessary for me continuing work." This is not a pretty situation. Perhaps keeping communication on Wiki would be good advice for Durova (and the 80-at-a-time Wiki editors I hear who join her on Skype), but I'm really curious about why Shoemaker has the impression that Durova is empowered to grant him access to Wikipedia funds.
 * 1) Why is Shoemaker getting a grant from Wikipedia for his work?  Could I-- or any of the nominators and reviewers and delegates who work so hard at FAC to put Wiki's best work on the mainpage-- get a cup of coffee, or maybe some journal subscriptions?
 * 2) Why is Durova, or why does she think she is, in a position to facilitate that grant?
 * 3) Why is court held off-Wiki, whether on Skype or IRC, such that this ugliness spills over to Wiki, partially obscured?

Sandy Georgia (Talk) 06:31, 10 March 2010 (UTC)

Comment by MZMcBride
This is the latest in a long string of incidents involving Durova. The Arbitration Committee has no issue accepting cases without prior dispute resolution, though in this case, there is Requests for comment/Durova, among other pages, I imagine.

Durova's behavior has been particularly egregious lately, nearly leading to a formal caution in a recent case and a proposal was put forth, by an Arbitrator, to restrict her from Arbitration cases in general. Her contributions in the project space truly are that bad.

The writing is on the wall and has been for ages. The fact that there are three recusals really speaks volumes: nobody is willing to man up and deal with this problematic user properly, for whatever reason. Probably as she'll go on an unholy tirade accusing people of sexual harassment and whatever else in order to obfuscate scrutiny of her own behavior. This isn't a lack of good faith on my part, mind you, she's actually done this. She went as far as to compare someone posting on her talk page to rape. Seriously.

Who knows. Perhaps the newer Arbitrators have more fight in them and are willing to do the job that needs to be done. Steve Smith? KnightLago? Hersfold? Ball is in your court. --MZMcBride (talk) 07:32, 10 March 2010 (UTC)

Statement by Luna Santin
I know these attract quite a few comments, sometimes, so I'll keep this short and to the point: unless I'm missing something big, I don't think Rlevse or PeterSymonds can be considered active parties in this case (and I'm not sure about Blurpeace, either). Certainly someone might argue that Rlevse's use of suppression was a mistaken interpretation of policy or precedent, but given a read of discussion both prior to and following the action on oversight-l, I don't think a reasonable person would claim Rlevse was acting in bad faith. Likewise, I'm not sure that PeterSymonds is described as having done anything but archive a discussion thread.

Beyond that, I would describe this whole situation as unfortunate in the extreme.

Statement by Jehochman
If the parties won't back down, or volunteer for mediation, please accept this case and resolve it finally. Jehochman Talk 14:05, 10 March 2010 (UTC)


 * To the concerns of Durova and Iridescent about definitions: let's avoid instruction creep. I think most clueful administrators can tell when somebody is trying to get somebody else's goat.  If Durova and Shoemaker have worked on a piece of content together in the past, I think either is free to make good faith changes to that content, such as reverting vandalism.  However, if one makes a change, the other ought not revert or otherwise comment on it, and neither should do anything else provocative. We can't concisely define provocative in this motion because each situation is unique, and a clever editor can usually find a way to be provocative in spite of any formal restrictions.  We have to have some faith in the administrators responsible for enforcing the motion.  Jehochman Talk 13:58, 12 March 2010 (UTC)

Comment by uninvolved Ncmvocalist
I respect both parties in this case, but must agree with FayssalF in the most strongest of terms. Even getting mutually acceptable arbitrators as informal mediators would be useful, and much of the evidence is probably going to be private anyhow. I'd suggest that arbitrators look beyond the bait being dangled by users who have agendas here; nothing good is likely to come from accepting a formal onwiki case. Ncmvocalist (talk) 14:25, 10 March 2010 (UTC)

Comment by sort-of-not-really involved The_ed17
I am also really curious if someone can answer SandyGeorgia's first two questions, but that isn't very relevant to this case.

I am a member of Durova's chat on Skype, though I rarely log on anymore. At the time of the final flare-up, I heard about this dispute from both sides. From that knowledge and what I have read here, I firmly believe that both sides have blown this out of proportion. Durova significantly overreacted to Shoe's comment while he has overreacted ever since. Having said that, I urge Arbcom to decline this case. Simply put, no decision you render here can have a positive impact, as it will not force the two to work out their differences to a point where they can at least work in the same general area. Hopefully they will see that in the grand scheme of things, this isn't important; put water under the bridge, folks, and go back to your encyclopedic missions. — Ed  (talk  •  majestic titan)  16:18, 10 March 2010 (UTC)

Comment by Nsk92
I urge the ArbCom to accept this case. The underlying dispute has been nasty and prolonged, with no end in sight. It is clear that standard venues, like AN/I, are not going to help here. Similarly, this dispute is not about any page or article, so there is nothing really to mediate here. Instead, the dispute is entirely about conduct, primarily off-wiki conduct. WP:HARASSMENT specifically covers off-wiki harassment and says: "Off-wiki harassment will be regarded as an aggravating factor by administrators and is admissible evidence in the dispute-resolution process, including Arbitration cases. In some cases, the evidence will be submitted by private email. As is the case with on-wiki harassment, off-wiki harassment can be grounds for blocking, and in extreme cases, banning. Off-wiki privacy violations shall be dealt with particularly severely." If there was indeed, some off-wiki harassment here, as Shoemaker's Holiday alleges, that certainly falls under the purview of the Arbitration Committee and constitutes sanctionalble conduct. It is pretty clear that the parties themselves are unable to settle this conflict (on or off wiki). An Arbiration case, even if no-one is seriously punished but only editors reminded/editors admonished/editors encouraged type remedies are adopted, would still bring the dispute to some kind of closure and allow Shoemaker's Holiday to come back to the project. Plus I think that some sort of a general statement from ArbCom regarding off-wiki conflicts (IRC, Skype, whatever) on wiki-related matters would be useful. Nsk92 (talk) 17:14, 10 March 2010 (UTC)

Comment by Will Beback
This is an ongoing dispute which the parties are unable to resolve on their own and which is affecting multiple areas of the project. Mediation seems unlikely to succeed since it concerns behavior rather than content. Perhaps this could be addressed by motion rather than a full case.  Will Beback   talk    17:35, 10 March 2010 (UTC)

Comment by SB_Johnny
While I don't think either party looks squeaky-clean in this situation, I think a couple principles bear looking into here. First, while this does involve "off-wiki-stuff", I don't think this bears any less relation to the project than what came up with MZMcBride several weeks ago, which was also, technically, off-wiki. Wikivoices is at least as "meshed" with Wikipedia as is Wikipedia Review, and I think if MZ had dodged questions about that issue to the same extent that Durova has in this case, he would have been quickly subject to a motion.

The apparent claims of copyright over the skype log, combined with the "offsite" jargon and Durova's (carefully partial) responses both here and on the noticeboards is creating a toxic atmosphere that needs a thorough airing out. Secret satellite societies (including mailinglists and perhaps now "semi-closed skype communities") have never been good for Wikipedia in the end, and shouldn't be permitted to gain the sort of political clout that's in evidence here. -- SB_Johnny &#124; talk 19:20, 10 March 2010 (UTC)

Quick insert by Ks0stm
To the arbs (in particular Mailer Diablo and Cool Hand Luke): I thought this said off-wiki attacks could be considered in Arbitration cases. Ks0stm (T•C•G) 19:55, 10 March 2010 (UTC)

Comment by FloNight
I ask ArbCom to open a case now. ArbCom is aware that there are long term issues related to both parties. I see no reason to delay opening the case for user conduct RFCs. The thread at AN/I documents the issue related to precipitating event. I agree with the contributors that say that this has spilled over into multiple areas on site and is disrupting the functioning of key areas of Wikipedia. This needs to be resolved with a permanent solution as soon as possible.

For several years now, SH has struggled to find a way to be a good contributor. SH has a lot to offer as a contributor but the editing environment at Wikipedia makes it difficult for him. I think the best way to help him is to open a case and develop a plan for him to execute when he runs into situations where he needs help. FloNight&#9829;&#9829;&#9829;&#9829; 21:21, 10 March 2010 (UTC)

Comment by the outside looking in, NonvocalScream
Can I suggest the use of technical features for both parties? I know that each mail client has a black/blocklist, skype has an ignore feature, IRC has an ignore command, comments on talk pages can be overlooked by parties, and undone on individual talk pages, by the individual. This is addressed directly to the parties: Respectfully, Can the two of you use these features to wall off the other? NonvocalScream (talk) 22:26, 10 March 2010 (UTC)

@ the motion: With respect to the committee and the parties, I think this motion is draconian. Both parties are heavy content generators. Is there no other way? NonvocalScream (talk) 20:21, 13 March 2010 (UTC)

Comment by Tom Harrison
Per Query from SandyGeorgia above, grants from Wikipedia? Tom Harrison Talk 23:45, 10 March 2010 (UTC)

Comment by Varlaam
I have had my own small episode with Durova, but in her defence, she has given me some helpful advice when other folks were not forthcoming. Varlaam (talk) 04:50, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

Comment by Mr.Z-man
I don't really have any comments on the case, but what I see is a dispute between 2 wiki users, about wiki activities. The fact that the communication medium that most of it took place on was not on-wiki doesn't seem like it should be especially relevant. Mr.Z-man 05:06, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

Comment by Giano
If this case is accepted, and I doubt it will be. It will only be another whitewash. The same usual people being covered for by the same usual people. Nothing positive will come of it, we will just see more feet of clay and others buried in the clay. Oversight and it's use has been so devalued and debased, it is now just another toy to be used at whim to help out one's friends - accept that, and you will find life at wikipedia far more tolerable.  Giano  23:02, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

Comment by Xavexgoem
It's pretty clear that the motion below will suffice. I fear parties to this dispute are looking for closure, and there is no process on WP for that. Xavexgoem (talk) 05:14, 12 March 2010 (UTC)

The motion should be made clear that this applies ONLY to en-wiki interactions, and that problems starting on Commons cannot be adjudicated here, because of Commons' effect on other wikis. That needs to be stated explicitly, or the motion becomes dangerously gameable (as in: we could lose two of our best featured editors) Xavexgoem (talk) 05:47, 12 March 2010 (UTC)

Comment by Iridescent
If the motion as currently proposed goes through, someone needs to define "in any way" and "indirectly" from the beginning. Durova, in particular, has work scattered throughout the entire project, and it's not fair to expect either party to check the entire history not only of every article on which they comment, but of every image included in it. With a loose enough definition of "indirectly", I'll wager I could link Durova to at least 20% of the pages on the project.

Comment II: do the pair of you realise how ridiculous this looks? – iride  scent  13:08, 12 March 2010 (UTC)

Comment by Slaunger
Shoemaker mentions that a request for oversight has been submitted and accepted regarding a post Durova made on Commons a while ago relating to Shoemaker. I can confirm that this is the case, and that I submitted the request. I filed a similar request immediately after the post was originally done, which was rejected back then. My reason for requesting oversight was that in my perception it contained personal details of a sensitive nature. Both requests have been initiated by me personally, but before making the second request I first asked Shoemaker's offline if he perceived the posts as problematic concerning private details. He confirmed they were perceived as such. I feel a little uneasy to be posting here at all, as I am a dedicated Commons user unfamiliar with the process and circuitry here. Moreover, I am uncertain how relevant Commons affairs are here. --Slaunger (talk) 17:40, 12 March 2010 (UTC)

Clerk notes

 * This area is used for notes by non-recused Clerks.

Arbitrators' opinion on hearing this matter (2/3/4/3)

 * Recuse SirFozzie (talk) 21:51, 9 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Recuse But may participate in a non arb role with evidence. — Rlevse • Talk  • 01:04, 10 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Decline Shoemaker's Holiday, you are stating here and above that "the worst of the harassment happened over Skype. All such evidence is censored." I am deeply concerned that such a thing could be censored. But then, why have it on-wiki if it happened on skype?! Censorship or —whatever one would call it— doesn't change anything. A friendly note to all parties involved: You used to be very good friends and worked together to enhance the encyclopedia. That was your objective back then (I was invited once to WP:Not the Wikipedia Weekly which was hosted by Durova and yourself on Skype itself). What changed? Focus on that objective and forget about your personal ones. We appreciate both your works but I believe the best approach is to handle it wisely between you two. This cannot be arranged by an ArbCom decision at the time being. Try formal or informal mediation first. -- FayssalF  -  Wiki me up®  01:12, 10 March 2010 (UTC)
 * @JulianColton:
 * Proposal A) User:Durova/Shoemaker's Holiday or User:Shoemaker's Holiday/Durova for mediation purposes. For better results I'd suggest that mediation discussions remain limited to Durova and SH (nobody else).
 * Proposal B) both users know how to contact eachother off-wiki and settle their dispute.
 * Proposal C) file a request for mediation.
 * I'd personally prefer A or B if the users decide to keep it private. C is too formal for this case. But it is up to the parties.
 * Let me be blunt here, Julian. Do you believe that ArbCom should spend its time on a simple (yes, this is simple as most other similar cases get rejected and directed towards mediation to say the least) user/user dispute which most of it happened off-wiki? Yes, such disputes surely harm the project somehow but only and mainly because the parties insist on pushing them forward and I believe that accepting these kind of cases would be much more harmful. In theory, very experienced users —who used to be friends for a couple of years; cooperating, collaborating on articles and pictures together, presenting ArbCom cases together, proposing mediation for others, etc...— are able to fix their disputes. If these experienced and old friends users can't make an effort to mediate then who would do it?!
 * Now, I got a simple solution D. If I were Durova I'd just apologize to SH. And then, SH would just say "fine, let's go work on a picture or article". So who is not wanting any of the above 4 proposals?! -- FayssalF  -  Wiki me up®  06:17, 10 March 2010 (UTC)


 * Question to the parties After today's events I must ask the 2 parties if they'd accept Newyorkbrad's motion proposal below. If not, then we would be left with one option; that is of a full arbitration case. -- FayssalF  -  Wiki me up®  22:44, 11 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Recuse - But may comment in my role as the oversighter who completed the majority of the suppressions to which this matter refers, to provide a description of the relevant actions and discussions without revealing the contents of the suppressed edits. Risker (talk) 01:43, 10 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Decline. No on-site dispute resolution needed. I agree with FayssalF in full. Cool Hand Luke 02:59, 10 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Accept This is clearly spilling over in multiple areas and since its ongoing, that seems to be an indication that perhaps the community doesn't see a way out of this. There have been comments from others that both editors involved may have been problematic elsewhere; diffs would be appropriate. Shell   babelfish 08:39, 10 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Accept: broadly per Shell.   Roger Davies  talk 09:25, 10 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Decline - I see nothing sanctionable here; unpleasant interactions over Skype are regrettable, but as I understand it they can be blocked easily enough. While I appreciate the parties' desire for sunlight here, I don't see how a case will accomplish anything but increase the unpleasantness.  Finally, I note that allegations of abuse of oversight should be brought to WP:AUSC. Steve Smith (talk) 16:28, 10 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Response to MZMcBride: the RFC cited was almost entirely about the affair, which is thankfully long since dealt with.  This RFAR is about a specific dispute between Durova and Shoemaker's Holiday.  If you believe that there is a pattern of long-term problem behaviour with Durova, I'd encourage you to initiate a new RFC and then, if concerns persist, a RFAR.  The value of user conduct RFCs is not only in that they can actually resolve disputes (generally, in my experience, they don't) but that they can crystallize issues and provide some clarity of exactly what behaviour is at issue and how it fits within community norms by the time it reaches ArbCom. Steve Smith (talk) 18:57, 10 March 2010 (UTC)


 * Once upon a time there were two star footballers who were once in the same team and were great friends, who worked towards a common goal. One of them got transferred out of the team, and then something very unpleasant happened between the two footballers that soured the relationship to the point that they were not on talking terms, even to the extent of one backing out of the international team because he feels there is no way for them to be working together. When it came to the day where the teams of the two footballers were playing against each other, one of them was still angry at the other that he refused to shake the other's hand, but under the same field for the same ball the game went through for 90 minutes without incident in the end.
 * The referee doesn't issue a yellow card to either of the two footballers for whatever has happened outside the pitch. He can only show the yellow card if some incident occured as a result on the pitch itself. My suggestion is for the parties to disengage, cool off tensions, and perhaps attempt mediation if it is feasible. Decline. - Mailer Diablo 19:46, 10 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Yes, but I think this is Handbags rather than something more sinister (such as match fixing), which then the sports body would have stepped in. It looks pretty pointless to open a full case for something like this. - Mailer Diablo 20:12, 10 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Comment: I have carefully considered all of the statements by the parties and others. Apart from the parties' valued and appreciated contributions to the featured content process, every aspect of this matter is miserable and wretched. I will not support opening an arbitration case in this matter, because I believe that doing so may be damaging to the well-being of one or more participants. I would support a motion directing that the two principal parties refrain from commenting about each other and have nothing further to do with each other. Newyorkbrad (talk) 21:48, 11 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Comment - I understand the community's call for us to open a case here. People are tired of the drama caused by this primary school dispute. I am too. However, the reality is a case is not going to achieve much. A case would be a month of he said she said about things that for the most part happened off Wikipedia. In the end, we would likely ban them both from interacting with each other anyway. I think it may be best to enact a motion as Brad suggests, and let the parties move on. KnightLago (talk) 23:29, 11 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Recuse. Carcharoth (talk) 12:09, 13 March 2010 (UTC)

Proposed Motion
Text of motion prior to copy-edit, with deletions struckthrough and additions underlined, at 04:35, 14 March 2010 (UTC)

The Arbitration Committee notes and deplores the acrimonious nature of the dispute between Shoemaker's Holiday and Durova, and the way it has been needlessly prolonged and intensified on- and off-wiki by both parties, and resolves that:

a) While noting the provisions in paragraph (b):


 * i) Shoemaker's Holiday shall not in any way interact neither communicate with nor comment upon either directly or indirectly Durova or her featured content work on any page in the English Wikipedia.


 * ii) Durova shall not in any way interact neither communicate with nor comment upon either directly or indirectly Shoemaker's Holiday or his featured content work on any page in the English Wikipedia.


 * iii) Both parties are expressly prohibited from responding in kind to perceived violations of sections (i) and (ii) above and should instead report the perceived violation to the Arbitration Committee by email.

b) Both parties may, within reason, comment within the same pages (for example, in the Featured Pictures topic area and similar) providing their comments do not relate directly or indirectly to the other party. They may also, within reason, revert blatant third-party vandalism to each others' or shared works.

c) Should either Shoemaker's Holiday or Durova violate the letter or spirit of these restrictions, they may be blocked by any uninvolved administrator for short periods of up to one week; after the third such violation, the maximum block length shall be one year. All blocks shall be logged below. Appeals of any blocks may be made to the Arbitration Committee.

Final Decision
The Arbitration Committee notes and deplores the acrimonious nature of the dispute between Shoemaker's Holiday and Durova, and the way it has been needlessly prolonged and intensified on- and off-wiki by both parties, and resolves that:

a) While noting the provisions in paragraph (b):


 * i) Shoemaker's Holiday shall neither communicate with nor comment upon either directly or indirectly Durova on any page in the English Wikipedia.


 * ii) Durova shall neither communicate with nor comment upon either directly or indirectly Shoemaker's Holiday on any page in the English Wikipedia.


 * iii) Both parties are expressly prohibited from responding in kind to perceived violations of sections (i) and (ii) above and should instead report the perceived violation to the Arbitration Committee by email.

b) Both parties may, within reason, comment within the same pages (for example, in the Featured Pictures topic area and similar) providing their comments do not relate directly or indirectly to the other party. They may also, within reason, revert blatant third-party vandalism to each others' or shared works.

c) Should either Shoemaker's Holiday or Durova violate the letter or spirit of these restrictions, they may be blocked by any uninvolved administrator for short periods of up to one week; after the third such violation, the maximum block length shall be one year. All blocks shall be logged below. Appeals of any blocks may be made to the Arbitration Committee.

(There being 16 arbitrators, six of whom are either inactive or recused, the majority is 6) ~ Amory  (u • t • c) 14:02, 12 March 2010 (UTC)


 * Support
 * 1)   Roger Davies  talk 03:52, 12 March 2010 (UTC)
 * @Xavexgoem. Copyedited to add "the English". This was based on standard wording but now duly clarified for the special circumstances of this case.  Roger Davies  talk 07:48, 12 March 2010 (UTC)
 * @Nonvocalscream. I've just further copyedited this motion to clarify its thrust, which is on communication and commentary.  Roger Davies  talk 04:35, 14 March 2010 (UTC)
 * 1) KnightLago (talk) 04:03, 12 March 2010 (UTC)
 * 2) Necessary due to the continued&mdash;and under the circumstances, baffling&mdash;escalation. Cool Hand Luke 13:36, 12 March 2010 (UTC)
 * @Iridescent: I honestly doubt that Durova could be linked to 20 percent of the content on this site. At any rate, this alleged figure is immaterial because we're asking them not to comment on each other's work. If an editor adds a citation to an article once categorized by the other party, that does not imaginably comment on the other's work. On the other hand, if one radically revises a work that the other party brought to featured status, that may be a problem&mdash;especially if they make a comment like "this is rubbish," thereby indirectly commenting on the work of another. There are gray areas, no doubt, but we would be better off if we could get rid of even the blatant on-site attacks.
 * @Durova: I think this is an implausible interpretation, but I don't think we're worse off if you decide to interpret the restrictions so broadly. The kernel of it is commentary; avoid commenting on SH and his work. Cool Hand Luke 14:53, 12 March 2010 (UTC)
 * 1) I am very saddened to witness experienced Wikipedia editors arrive to this situation. To be sincere, it reminds me of primary schools' disputes but here we go with this motion. Because probably one or both of you are stubborn you had to wait for someone else to fix it when you could have just promised yourselves to leave eachother alone. For me, you both have done it wrong all along... You've done the same things you accuse eachother of violating. One more thing, you have done great work with your featured content but you've wasted much of the time of other people with this case. -- FayssalF  -  Wiki me up®  02:59, 13 March 2010 (UTC)
 * 2) Steve Smith (talk) 01:22, 14 March 2010 (UTC)
 * 3) With the hopes we can all go back to doing something more productive now. Hers fold  (t/a/c) 04:12, 14 March 2010 (UTC)
 * 4) Per many of the other arbitrators' comments. Please note that this motion is intended to help solve a problem rather than to create new ones, and is to be interpreted and enforced in the spirit of reasonableness for that purpose. Wikilawyerish attempts by anyone to trace a convoluted path between Durova and Shoemakers Holiday on some page for the purpose of claiming that the restriction has been violated will be unwelcome. On a personal level, I strongly urge the parties to use their best efforts to turn the page and move beyond the types of deeply undesirable interactions that have taken place here. Newyorkbrad (talk) 10:55, 14 March 2010 (UTC)
 * 5) Echoing Newyorkbrad, wikilawyering will only cause further tension, so please remember the spirit of this motion and deescalating the situation is most important. Shell   babelfish 15:10, 14 March 2010 (UTC)


 * Oppose


 * Abstain
 * 1) I sincerely hope that the two parties can actually reconcile, but I'm won't object to this for now given the circumstances. - Mailer Diablo 10:47, 14 March 2010 (UTC)


 * Recuse
 * 1) Recused. Further, I will sayeth not. SirFozzie (talk) 03:57, 12 March 2010 (UTC)
 * 2) Recused. — Rlevse •  Talk  • 11:06, 12 March 2010 (UTC)
 * 3) Recused. Carcharoth (talk) 12:13, 13 March 2010 (UTC)
 * 4) Recused. Kirill [talk] [prof] 15:53, 13 March 2010 (UTC)

Log of blocks, bans, and restrictions
Log any block, restriction, 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.
 * Blocked and  for one week each for this. Steve Smith (talk) 21:01, 31 March 2010 (UTC)