Wikipedia talk:Requests for arbitration/Durova/Evidence

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Contents

[edit] Time line as given by east718

The time line paragraph currently states 'The block received mixed support, and Durova stood firm,[1]" - but the link given for that statement does not seem to support it. It does not look like the block received any support. Perhaps east718 should clarify either the statement or the supporting link. Isarig (talk) 20:36, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Secret mail list

Is this hosted on Wikipedia servers? • Lawrence Cohen 20:45, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

If you are referring to the Arbitration Committee's private mailing list, then yes. See mail:Arbcom-l. Cbrown1023 talk 21:07, 25 November 2007 (UTC)
I believe he's referring to Durova's secret mailing list, which explicitly excludes some, but not all, of the Arbiters. --Alecmconroy (talk) 21:09, 25 November 2007 (UTC)
Yes, I'm referring to this secret mail list everyone keeps talking about. I was wondering if its hosted by Wikipedia, like the arbcom list is. • Lawrence Cohen 21:10, 25 November 2007 (UTC)
Yeah, I see what you mean now. Cbrown1023 talk 21:17, 25 November 2007 (UTC)
Hosted by Wikia. Moreschi If you've written a quality article... 21:18, 25 November 2007 (UTC)
Er... checkuser and private info is released on a third party website like that? • Lawrence Cohen 21:20, 25 November 2007 (UTC)
Shrug. Not released, it's a private mailing list. Hosted by this third party, yes. Moreschi If you've written a quality article... 21:21, 25 November 2007 (UTC)
How do you know this? Isarig (talk) 21:23, 25 November 2007 (UTC)
Them that asks no questions isn't told a lie. Watch the wall, my darling, while the gentlemen go by! Moreschi If you've written a quality article... 21:26, 25 November 2007 (UTC)
I would appreciate a straight answer. Isarig (talk) 21:28, 25 November 2007 (UTC)
I would dearly love to give you a straight answer. Not going to happen right now, though. Moreschi If you've written a quality article... 21:30, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

If this list exists, and checkuser and private information is released on it, are all the people on this list vetted by the Wikimedia Board to have access to that information? • Lawrence Cohen 21:24, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

Possibly. The presence of a steward/Foundation person on that list would suggest so. Moreschi If you've written a quality article... 21:26, 25 November 2007 (UTC)
Would you mind posting this extra info on the evidence page? • Lawrence Cohen 21:27, 25 November 2007 (UTC)
The Arbitrators will read both the Evidence and its talk page, in their entirety. Cbrown1023 talk 21:37, 25 November 2007 (UTC)
If the "list" is the "cyber-stalking" email list, then it isn't supervised by the foundation but by a Wikipedia editor, username SlimVirgin. Cla68 (talk) 01:05, 26 November 2007 (UTC)
There are two mailing lists being discussed here. Also, we do not know if the cyberstalking mailing list is also home to a few Foundation people as well. Cbrown1023 talk 03:01, 26 November 2007 (UTC)
I was briefly a subscriber to the Cyberstalking mailing list. For that time, no checkuser or other private information was shared. It was largely dominated by discussion of how to respond appropriately (i.e. differently and more effectively) to stalking and harassment of editors by outside forces such as Wikipedia Review, Brandt, ColScott, and others. I opted out after a while as the signal to noise ratio was too low for me to feel it was a beneficial use of my time. It was probably natural for Durova to send her evidence there, as she suspected !! was a reincarnation of a previous troll. Several participants have since expressed regret that they did not raise objections more forcefully at the time. I believe the Cyberstalking list has a good purpose and intent, although it came to encompass a lot of extraneous and unhelpful discussion as well (as any similar discussion forum will). If the list has been forked to an "investigations" sublist, as suggested by some in the evidence, that strikes me as an unhelpful and possible dangerous development. Blocks and such should be discussed and documented on Wiki whenever possible. In extraordinary circumstances evidence may need to be kept private, but those cases should be dealt with by Arbcom, who were elected for that purpose, rather than a group of self-selected investigators who may lack proper perspective. Thatcher131 02:18, 26 November 2007 (UTC)
You're fairly clearly stating that you feel that what Wikipedia Review and Brandt were doing/do constitutes stalking and harrassment. Are those really the right words to be used, since those are legal terms that are actionable by police agencies if they are actually occurring? If there really was more signal than noise going on in that forum, then aren't you really saying that it was filled with a lot of blather and little evidence of actual stalking and harrassment taking place? Is the paranoia that was feeding the establishment and maintenance of such a forum a contributor to what happened here in this case, and by extension, is what is feeding many of the pro-BADSITES crowd? Cla68 (talk) 02:34, 26 November 2007 (UTC)
I think that some of the participants on WR have stalked and/or harassed some Wikipedia editors. Obviously WR itself is not a stalker any more than it can have sockpuppet accounts; accounts and actions belong to people. And editors and admins have been stalked and harassed by people who have nothing at all to do with WR. However the fact remains that Wikipedia editors and admins have been stalked and harassed; it is not paranoia to try and discuss how to respond more effectively in the future. I will not further characterize exactly why I opted out, other than to say that I thought it was not the best use of my time, and obviously I don;t know anything about the list traffic recently. Thatcher131 02:57, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

I'd say that SlimVirgin needs to appear over here and explain this mailing list of hers since she's in charge of it and it's at the center of this case. I'll leave a request on her talk page. Cla68 (talk) 03:48, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

I agree that SlimVirgin's insight would be useful here. She removed without comment a request of mine to add her explanation to the issue, which at least confirms she's aware of this request. --krimpet⟲ 05:56, 26 November 2007 (UTC)
I'm sure she'll be along shortly. I also requested her addition as a party to the case. Even if that's disapproved, I'm sure she'll be more than able and willing to quickly answer the following questions here:
      • Who are the members on that mailing list?
      • Is this list ever used by other participants to coordinate official actions besides Durova?
      • Is the list used to canvass supporters to go vote or give opinions at any RfC's, RfA's, or any other discussion or vote? Cla68 (talk) 06:16, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

If she does provide us with the names of members on that list, it'll be interesting to see if my name is on it. I signed up for it today and I assume, that as administrator, SlimVirgin is the one who would approve my addition to the list or not. Cla68 (talk) 06:43, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

Have you been a victim of cyberstalking and or harassment...as that is why the forum exists I believe.--MONGO (talk) 09:06, 26 November 2007 (UTC)
I usually don't reply to editors I don't respect, but in this case a good question has been asked. The problem is what is defined as stalking or harassment? I believe that stalking or harassment is defined by whatever legal definition exists in that part of the world where the alleged victim resides. In my two years in Wikipedia, I've only heard of one case that fits that description, and that was by a jackass from California that was harassing female admins in the project. If I understand right, he was banned from Wikipedia Review about the same time that he was banned from here, and deservedly so. So, if harassment is that much more pervasive, why wasn't I made aware of it, why keep it secret on a confidential mailing list? Why not publicize it so we could all be aware of it and fight it? Is harassment really that pervasive? How often have legal authorities been notified? How often has what has been labled as harassment actually been nothing more than sharp criticism of certain editors/admins actions in the project? Durova appears to have believed that Wikipedia Review is an imminent menace that required constant watch to ensure that they wouldn't destroy the project. How many others share this view? According to what I've heard, that list of others might include several arbitrators, who I hope will identify and recuse themselves soon. Cla68 (talk) 11:53, 26 November 2007 (UTC)
I see...well, it hard to claim you have been harassed if you are yourself adding to harassment. One only need look at WP:HARASS to be able to see some definitions. The fellow you mention is simply the worst, but hardly the only.--MONGO (talk) 19:15, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

Can someone please clarify the copyright status of posts through such mailing lists as a matter of urgency. Does the author expressly or impliedly licence such posts under the GFDL or any other licence? -- !! ?? 17:44, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

Copyright and archives of the Secret Mailing Lists
It is not a violation of copyright law to redistribute the mailing list postings here on a Wikipedia talk page. This would be a decided fair use. We are a not-for-profit, quoting emails of absolutely no commercial value, for the purpose of commenting and discussing the content of the emails. It doesn't get any fairer use than that.
Additionally, posting an email to a Wikia list implies that the author has already given at least some limited permission to redistribute the content, and collections of that content are considered archives under US law There is no way, in heaven or on earth, redistributing the emails will ever be a valid copyright copyright claim. Also, because of Wikipedia:No Legal Threats, anyone wishing to pursue a copyright claim against Wikipedia would have to forego their continued participation in the project.
If you're worried about copyright law squelching your ability to quote mailing list emails-- you can stop worrying. It won't. I promise.
BUT-- just because a copyright claim is invalid, that doesn't mean it would necessarily be okay to redistribute the emails on-wiki. The foundation might decide to prohibit republication-- they might, for example, choose to interpret fair use far far far more conservatively than a real-world court actually would. Or perhaps they would choose to forbid such emails being posted on-wiki because of the amount of schisms it might cause in the community.
So the answer is-- if you want to post emails on-wiki, better check with the higher-ups-- they seem to be forbidding it. But in the hypothetical where you run you own website and make all the content-decisions for it-- post away, and you can sleep easy at night--- there's no actionable copyright claim here. --Alecmconroy (talk) 18:09, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Durova's initial "sleuthing" evidence regarding User:!!

Can we assume that all members of the arbitration committee have seen this email at this point, or should it be forwarded to the arbcomm mailing list? Is there any chance we can get permission from whomever necessary (Durova, I assume?) to enter it into the evidence section of this proceeding in a more public fashion? JavaTenor (talk) 22:09, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

  • Yes, we have it. You would need Durova's permission to post it publicly. Mackensen (talk) 22:45, 25 November 2007 (UTC)
    • It is already posted publicly. Perhaps you meant her permission is needed to post it on Wikipedia. Isarig (talk) 22:47, 25 November 2007 (UTC)
  • The fact that other sites violate privacy and copyright is not a great reason for us to follow suit, of course. Guy (Help!) 23:54, 25 November 2007 (UTC)
  • I did not suggest we follow other sites' example, I merely corrected something which appears to be inaccurate. That said, whether or not there is copyright infringement or privacy violation involved in the posting of Durova's E-mail is far from clear. Isarig (talk) 01:05, 26 November 2007 (UTC)
  • That was my assumption - thanks for confirming it, Mackensen. I would like to request that Durova authorize the release of the email as evidence, in the interest of on-wiki transparency. JavaTenor (talk) 01:02, 26 November 2007 (UTC)
Evidence for whom? Arbcom are the judges and they have it. Nosiness is not yet policy.--Docg 01:05, 26 November 2007 (UTC)
Whoa whoa whoa-- remember us, the community?? --Alecmconroy (talk) 01:07, 26 November 2007 (UTC)
(ec)Evidence for the community. The ArbCom are the judges, but this is not a hearing held in secret, using secret evidence. I think we've had quite enough of that in this case. Isarig (talk) 01:08, 26 November 2007 (UTC)
As above, evidence for the community, so it can fully understand what transpired in this case without having to rummage through talk page histories or do research on external sites. Even though ArbComm makes the final decision, I feel that transparency of process is important whenever possible. JavaTenor (talk) 01:32, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] A query

As many of you know, there's a pernicious rumor going around that I am affiliated with, or a supporter of, the website Encyclopedia Dramatica. Despite extreme efforts on my part, I have found myself unable to kill this falsehood-- it just keeps being reiterated no matter what I do. (just watch-- someone will reiterate it in response to this very query). Call me paranoid, but one explanation for why my insistences of innocence have fallen on deaf is could be the existence of "secret evidence" that, due to my ignorance of it, I have never had a chance to even question.

Would it be appropriate for me to ask-- have I been mentioned in any of these secret forums? If so, I would like to see what evidence has been amassed against me, so that I can actually have a chance to rebut it?

I imagine there may be many other individuals who similarly feel disturbed by secret proceedings and would like to see what discussions, speculations, evidence, and rumors have been spread about them in these forums. --Alecmconroy (talk) 23:01, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

So long as you wear your "Wikipedia" hat when you are editing or participating here, that would not be a problem anyway. Fred Bauder (talk) 19:26, 26 November 2007 (UTC)
That's how it should be perhaps, but that's not how it is in practice. The fact, if people believe you have an affiliation with a BADSITE, they cease to Assume Good Faith, and they are far more tolerant of incivility directed at you.
At the MONGO3 RFC, something very unusual happened. Many editors who I had never previously interacted with showed up already "knowing" I was affiliated with ED-- they said as much. I found this very perplexing, since as far as I knew, no one had ever presented any serious evidence whatsoever even suggesting that I was associated with ED. But, now that I know about the existence of "secret lists" for the discussion of "secret evidence" that people are affiliated with BADSITES, I immediately wonder: Has there been any secret evidence presented against me?.
If there was such evidence, as I strongly suspect there was, then it seems the false accusations supported by "secret evidence" against an innocent editor (!!) was not just an isolated incident. --Alecmconroy (talk) 20:16, 26 November 2007 (UTC)


  • Tis is completely irrelevant to this case, but if you want to nail the allegation I guess you could always duck out of the argument on harassment links. Guy (Help!) 23:36, 25 November 2007 (UTC)
Maybe I'm just paranoid, but that sounds disturbingly like a "Yes, secret evidence was presented against you too, Alec". --Alecmconroy (talk) 23:37, 25 November 2007 (UTC)
  • Yes, you are being paranoid. There are arbitrators on the list. Do you think they would stand for posses with ropes? Not hardly. Guy (Help!) 23:52, 25 November 2007 (UTC)
Sadly, yes, I believe that at least some of the current arbitrators would be just peachy with the idea of "posses with ropes". Kelly Martin 07:13, 26 November 2007 (UTC)
Good sources claim that two arbiters actually are members of the posse. I won't name them, just in case the speculation is false, but no, supposedly this cancer does extend all the way into part of arbcom. --Alecmconroy (talk) 16:53, 26 November 2007 (UTC)
There is no cancer. There is no conspiracy. There is no posse. There is no rope. There is no cabal. There is also apparently no chance that you, Alec, will ever believe this. Guy (Help!) 22:05, 28 November 2007 (UTC)
There appears to be an email list maintained by editors/admins, at least some of whom, judging by some of Durova's and other's comments, appear to be greatly in fear of supposed efforts by Wikipedia Review and other Wikipedia criticism websites to do grevious harm to them and Wikipedia. At least one editor (I won't mention any names) has proposed that participation in Wikipedia Review be considered as grounds for blacklisting in this community. I think most of us share the impression that this type of paranoia is, to say the least, immature and counterproductive. Taking that paranoia too far is apparently why we're here now in this case. Cla68 (talk) 01:16, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

Alec...it's pretty easy to not be seen as affiliated with ED...cease arguing about being able to link to that website or in favor of seeing an article about that website recreated on Wikipedia. Cla68, Wikipedia Review has been used repeatedly as a forum to post evidence that goes way beyond the mere mention of bad admin actions or other issues..it has been openly used as a platform to disrupt this website...let's not be coy about that.--MONGO (talk) 09:11, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

So, if Alec will just stop legitimately challenging your point of view, you'll stop encouraging groundless speculation about him? And all he has to do is shut up and let you and Guy win fair and square? Really, I'm sorry if I have this wrong. Do I? If not, I think his prediction just came true. sNkrSnee | ¿qué? 16:41, 26 November 2007 (UTC)
I'm not encouraging anything...I'm just making a suggestion as to why so many might believe he has certain affiliations.--MONGO (talk) 19:01, 26 November 2007 (UTC)
It's fallacious to assume that everybody who opposes you works for ED or WR. --Hemlock Martinis (talk) 19:04, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] On what basis were the two checkusers conducted on !!?

What reason did the checkuser's have for running two separate checks on the poor guy? Surely it wasn't because of the secret evidence, and if so, doesn't that call into serious question the judgement of these checkusers? 75.116.139.210 (talk) 04:26, 26 November 2007 (UTC)


[edit] Durova and Flonight in a pact together?

  • Addendum to my evidence:

Please rest assured that Durova was not truthful about "Flonight" using checkuser information to block me, because according to the attached evidence, Flonight was not a checkuser until days after the said block was made. This makes Durova's claim a very bald illustration of a deceitful presentation to this community. Please see the attached link to evidence of Flonight becoming a checkuser days after the block of me. http://meta.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Requests_for_permissions&oldid=758421#Enwiki Truly yours, Songgarden Back in the U.S. on Nov. 26, 2007 71.142.240.138 (talk) 04:27, 26 November 2007 (UTC) 172.167.96.94 (talk) 04:42, 26 November 2007 (UTC)


[edit] Questions, Answers, and the Unanswered

(transmuted in to a threaded conversation based on responses on the evidence pages)

  • What are the secret lists? We know there are two, and that one is WpCyberstalking, the other is still secret. -Alecmconroy
Nobody has any way of knowing ow many lists, groups, cabals, associations, bands of friends or other loose groupings of Wikipedia editors exist. There is no way to enumerate these, no way to control them, and no particular reason to care.Guy
There's just no way we could ever know?? Well, I didn't ask about ALL the lists-- I asked about the lists that was used by a group of editors to decide to block !!. The name of that list isn't even remotely unknowable, for you know it. Choosing not to publicly reveal it is just more secrecy-- and as this case has shown, secrecy is the last thing we need.
The reason to care is because we DO have rules about stealth canvassing and off-wiki coordination and collusion. --Alecmconroy (talk) 05:18, 27 November 2007 (UTC)
  • Who has participated in this secret list? We know a few names. The other names are apparently known, but have not been made public yet. -Alecmconroy
And won't be, without their consent, for reasons which are inherently obvious from the title of the list. Guy
For better or for worse, I actually don't think that's true-- the list is going to be published, but everyone agrees that it would be better for people to come forward themselves and talk about their roles. --Alecmconroy (talk) 05:18, 27 November 2007 (UTC)
  • When did this secret list behavior begin? -Alecmconroy
When the first list servers were set up, I'd imagine. One of the longest-running closed lists is arbcom-l. Guy
Again, I'm referring not to any conceivable list that could ever have existed-- I'm referring to the specific list that was dedicated to sleuthing. --Alecmconroy (talk) 05:18, 27 November 2007 (UTC)
  • When did the special secret "investigations" list get created? Why was it created instead of just using the other list? -Alecmconroy
11/10/2007. It was set up to manage noise on the cyberstalking list. Guy
What is "managing noise"?? Were the participants of the main cyberstalking list not trustworthy enough to be privy to the contents of the "investigative" list?
  • Who were the two dozen people who reviewed the evidence against !!? -Alecmconroy
I have no idea who reviewed it, it would be a mistake to say that every recipient reviewed it, I saw it and did not look at it in any detail; does that make me one of the two dozen? Guy
Well, this may well be a question for Durova. Either people helped and encouraged her to ban !! or she lied in order to mislead the community by making them think other "senior people" had reviewed the evidence and endorsed the block. Durova may be overzealous, but she has never shown herself to be a liar, so my bet is on the former.
It's important that the people who endorsed the block be revealed publicly, so that we can review their contributions. Even though they didn't personally execute the block, their judgement has been shown to have been every bit as flawed as Durova's was. --Alecmconroy (talk) 05:18, 27 November 2007 (UTC)
  • Who is the "steward/Foundation person" who participated in the secret lists?-Alecmconroy
You'd have to ask Jimbo that. Since not one of the poeple involved was involved in any official capacity whatsoever, I am not sure why it would be relevant. Guy
How do you figure nobody was acting in their official capacity? They were discussing official business. They used official tools. They were assembled together because of their roles as wikipedia editors? Just because they hosted on the Wikia domain instead of the Wikipedia domain?


  • Who were the arbiters who participated in the secret lists?-Alecmconroy
They know, and so will the other arbitrators. They did not participate ex-officio as arbitrators so it has no particular relevance. Guy
Although I am an arbiter, I don't know which, if any, other arbiters are a member of either of these lists. As far as I know, no information about the membership of those lists has been made available to any arbiter.Paul August ☎ 19:26, 29 November 2007 (UTC)
If their official status was irrelevant, why was Durova so quick to invoke their status in explaining her behavior?
The relevance is that we're trying to consider here whether or not it was appropriate for Durova and the others to act as they did. We can't expect the arbiters who were "in on it" to be impartial on the matter-- they have to recuse.
  • Why were the other arbiters not allowed to participate in the list? -Alecmconroy
Who said they weren't? Did any of them ask? Please give details.
Well, good point. I suppose when there are secret lists, no one is ever forbidden, they're just "not invited". So why wasn't the FULL arbitration comittee invited to participate in the two list? --Alecmconroy (talk) 05:18, 27 November 2007 (UTC)
  • Who made the final decision about which arbiters were going to be allowed on the secret lists and which were not?-Alecmconroy
See above.Guy
Still unanswered. It's a list. Somebody decided who made the list and who didn't. Who is that person? --Alecmconroy (talk) 05:18, 27 November 2007 (UTC)
  • What were the full content of the emails on the two secret lists? The one we know about wasn't archived, but undoubtedly, copies still exist. -Alecmconroy
None of your business. Are you going to give me the contents of your email inbox on demand? I'd offer to give you mine, but I can pretty much guarantee it would bore you to death. Today alone I received over 750 emails, the vast majority of which were dull beyond imagining.Guy
Yeah, if someone's an administrator discussing Wikipedia business, the 100% _are_ the business of Arbcom and the community. Now, if you don't care if the community trusts you, that's fine-- but if you want to have a position that requires trust, their a limit to what kind of privacy rights you can reasonably assert while still expecting the community to trust you.
If somebody using the list to spread lies or present evidence against me-- it's 100% my business. The same goes for !!-- don't you think he has a right to know who all was secretly getting together to falsely accuse him of wrongdoing? --Alecmconroy (talk) 05:18, 27 November 2007 (UTC)
  • Were the secret lists ever used for stealth canvassing? There are several polls that, in the light of day, now seem very suspicious. -Alecmconroy
No.Guy
Obviously, there's been a lot of suggestion otherwise. --Alecmconroy (talk) 05:18, 27 November 2007 (UTC)
  • Are the secret lists still being used to coordinate behavior even now? Do people intend to continue the use of secret lists in the future? -Alecmconroy
No, they never were and still aren't. They are a forum for past and present victims of harassment to discuss the problem of harassment and the mounting problem of people who assume bad faith of everyone who does not open their doors to the whole world on demand. Strange though it may seem, victims of harassment are not always comfortable with presenting details of that harassment for the prurient interests of all comers. People are funny that way.Guy
Your summary of the lists as little more than a support group does not jibe with the known facts. The lists was used to collaborate and coordinate self-described "sleuthing". Proposed bans were discussed, acted upon, and defended. Your denial of this suggests that no significant change has taken place in the use of the list since its existence was revealed. --Alecmconroy (talk) 05:18, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

My response to your responses is the same in every case: enjoy your witch hunt. You are telling me in great detail what that list is about, but I am on it, as is Jimbo and members of the arbitration committee, and I am telling you that you are quite wrong. Guy (Help!) 08:49, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

Well, that's the danger about having a secret list, alright. People tend to assume it's secret for a reason-- otherwise what would you be hiding. If the people on the list didn't do anything wrong by being on the list, why still refuse to admit it. You refuse to reveal the name of the second list. The arbiters who were involved have refused to come forward and discuss recusal so far. The individuals who endorsed the block still have refused to come forward.
The solution to people accusing you of secretive skulduggery is to stop being secretive. It's entirely plausible that nothing untoward ever happened on the list other than the one presentation of secret evidence against !!. It's entirely plausible that everyone who endorsed the block should get nothing more than a warning to be more careful and more transparent in the future. But the longer people try to hide the facts, the more people assume there's something there worth hiding. --Alecmconroy (talk) 10:00, 27 November 2007 (UTC)
Private <> secret. Guy (Help!) 11:15, 27 November 2007 (UTC)
Guy, you have to understand that there are some reasonable concerns here. You were on the list, you had seen the "evidence" and you still came out in support of Durova's block, speaking of her "investigation skills" and saying she is "not one to block lightly".[2] This doesn't inspire confidence in the list. Haukur (talk) 10:27, 27 November 2007 (UTC)
Yes, I got it wrong too. I didn't read it properly. I'm guessing most of us did not, since we weren't expecting Durova to block the editor. I was reacting to the assumption of ill-faith, and the obvious fact that this was not a new user. The block was quickly fixed, though, as soon as someone with the ever-elusive Clue came along. Guy (Help!) 11:15, 27 November 2007 (UTC)
Okay, so--- let me get this 100% straight, to be sure I'm not misunderstanding you. You didn't approve of the block, you didn't endorse it, you didn't discuss it in-depth? When Arbcom or Jimbo goes to Durova and asks who the "five sleuths" she was referring to, she's not going to list you among them, she's going to tell us "Nope-- Guy saw the evidence, but he never approved of the block ". And when the email archives of the list are published (presumably off-wiki), they're not going to show any messages where you approve of blocking !!. --Alecmconroy (talk) 14:11, 27 November 2007 (UTC)
Alec, what Guy says is correct. Whoever the other five editors were, they were not on the cyberstalking list. Durova did not post a proposal to block !! — she posted only the "case study" you saw, where she wrote up an example of how she spots sockpuppets. I didn't look at the links at the time and I doubt many people did.
I don't think it makes sense to pressure Durova into saying who the five editors were who responded positively — and for the record, I don't know who they were. She has already lost her tools over a simple mistake, one that was undone within 75 minutes and then apologized for. That's all anyone can do. SlimVirgin (talk)(contribs) 06:06, 28 November 2007 (UTC)
It's unfortunate that those five editors, if Durova was telling the truth and which we should assume is the case, haven't had the integrity to come forward on their own. If we ever do learn who they are, we can ask them some direct questions about their thought processes behind their support for Durova's discredited "sleuthing" techniques. Cla68 (talk) 06:36, 28 November 2007 (UTC)
I believe you are misreading the case. I believe Durova mistook silence for assent, or perhaps mistook agreement form some that yes, many of these might be indicative of a sockpuppet or returning user (which, of course !! was), for assent to a block. Guy (Help!) 13:52, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

It's possible Durova mistook silence for assent. It's is not possible Durova mistook silence for "in depth" discussions and "enthusiastic" endorsement. Stonewalling and secrecy are not going to solve this. --Alecmconroy (talk) 14:26, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

She was in a state of mind that led her to believe that evidence of being too good a Wikipedian was evidence of being a bad Wikipedian. She was capable of mistaking black for white at that moment in time. She has had a painful return to reality since then; but at that time she was certainly capable of grossly misinterpreting what people said to her. WAS 4.250 (talk) 14:42, 28 November 2007 (UTC)
It's possible she made misinterpretations, but I don't see her actually hallucinating "in depth discussions" and "enthusiastic endorsements". This is why it's so important that the emails she received (and interpreted as endorsements) be submitted to the community and the arbcom. Secrecy engenders paranoia. If the emails don't contain endorsement, but merely were misinterpreted, why would people still be hiding them????? --Alecmconroy (talk) 15:02, 28 November 2007 (UTC)
They don't want to go through what Durova just went through; and they tell themselves that it is really for the best anyway because that would just prolong unneeded drama. They are sure what is best for them is best for Wikipedia; and why hurt Wikipedia by possibly depriving Wikipedia of their admin efforts that protect it from evil outside forces. Which makes people that try to force them into the open unknowingly helping the bad guys. That's one theory anyway. WAS 4.250 (talk) 15:42, 28 November 2007 (UTC)
Yeah, as I've said elsewhere-- I'm sure it's motivated more by a desire for "secrecy to protect the project" than any sort of nefariousness. But, public lack of confidence and the appearance of impropriety are issues worth considering, and the existence of secrecy automatically leads to many problems.
Plus, I'm sure they don't want to go through the kind of RFC that Durova went through. But they have a duty to, ya know? When you're a child playing playing baseball, and you accidently break a neighbor's window, you don't run home and hide-- hoping that mom and dad never find out what you did... You don't blame it all on the batter, and point the finger at her, and force her to keep mum about who all was involved. If you're a responsible tyke, you own up to it. You admit what you did, you apologize to the neighbor, and you accept the consequences (which will undoubtedly be a token consequence).
The rest of Durova's team of sleuths has decided to run home and hide, letting Durova take the blame, rather standing up and saying "Yeah, I shouldn't have been playing baseball in a way likely to break windows" and agreeing to sacrifice part of their allowance.  !! deserves some apologies. The community deserves some information about which admins need to have their judgment examined a little bit more closely. --Alecmconroy (talk) 16:39, 28 November 2007 (UTC)
Alec, you have now been told by many people, many times, that your interpretation of what happened is wrong. You are continuing to assert your wrong interpretation regardless. Durova is taking the heat because it was her call, and hers alone. End of story. Guy (Help!) 16:50, 28 November 2007 (UTC)
That's not you're call to make, Guy. The community and the committee get to decide whether Durova alone should bear the heat or not. --Alecmconroy (talk) 16:53, 28 November 2007 (UTC)
I might add, in all probability, the reason sleuths don't want to come forward is because they suspect that the community might, in fact, feel that the other sleuths are partially responsible or that their judgment is impaired. --Alecmconroy (talk) 16:56, 28 November 2007 (UTC)
The reason said sleuths don't come forward is because they don't exist, at least not in the form you represent. Guy (Help!) 22:03, 28 November 2007 (UTC)
I don't personally believe that she's a liar, but if that were the case-- yeah, we'd better make sure she never gets her tools back. Personally though, I doubt she hallucinated or fabricated the endorsements. --Alecmconroy (talk) 22:39, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

<<<<She said "roughly five"; so suppose there were 4 worth mentioning and a fifth who she is sure would support, but is away. Now suppose these 4 said to her

  1. "I see you are working hard! Keep it up! Good work"
  2. "Looks like he's a sock to me"
  3. "Wow, you are sure some super detective!"
  4. ""Do you think he should be banned? You are the expert here, I'll agree with your judgement."

Suppose that to her at that moment in time, all she could hear was these four support me enthusiastically, I can't let them down, I know they want me to ban. WAS 4.250 (talk) 23:13, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

A very astute observation my dear WAS 4.250. - Jehochman Talk 23:37, 28 November 2007 (UTC)
That's a lot of conjecture and doesn't really resolve the issue. You know what would solve it? Two things: 1) Durova provides the names and responses from those five, or 2) the five display some personal integrity and come forward on their own and explain what they said and why. I prefer the second option and, in accordance with WP:AGF, assume that the five will be forthcoming shortly, so I'll start a new section for them to speak below. Cla68 (talk) 23:45, 28 November 2007 (UTC)
(ec)Totally possible that they said something innocuous that was misinterpreted, such as:
"I see you are working hard! Keep it up!"
But suppose they said things like:
"This is an absolutely iron-clad case-- you should indef block him immediately. If you don't block him, I will. I have never seen a more clear-cut case, and I would stake my reputation on the fact that this is a WR troll."
Which one is closer to the truth? The answer we've been given so far is basically "none of you business". Well, I think it is the project's business which one it was.
Given that nobody will fess up to having had an in-depth conversation with her about it, given the total stonewalling-- I'm guessing it's the later. If it were innocuous, someone would have revealed it by now, and Durova would have said "Okay, here's the five people I was talking about, but if you look at their email, you'll see I was totally mistaken about what they meant". Given that that hasn't happened, I tend to assume there's something people would rather the community not see. And perhaps the stonewall will succeed, and then we'll NEVER know what our admins actually said about blocking poor !!. --Alecmconroy (talk) 23:44, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] The "Sleuthing Five" speak

Would the five editors who Durova said supported her proposed block please identify and explain yourselves here? Thank you. Cla68 (talk) 23:46, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

I asked Durova to let the five know that this section was created and waiting for their input, and emailed a request for the five to come here to both the secret CyberStalking and Investigations email lists. So I believe that, whoever they are, they've been notified. Cla68 (talk) 08:03, 29 November 2007 (UTC)
One idea might be to start throwing people in the lake - if they float it's generally not a good sign. (Seriously, whoever these alleged people are, they are highly embarrassed now and unlikely to do give the same careless advice again, so what is gained by forcing them to 'fess up?). Yours User:J McCarthy 09:03, 29 November 2007 (UTC)
The community deserves to know the truth. Who knows, maybe they're still going around sleuthing more innocent editors? They need to have the guts to do the right thing and face whatever consequences. Being highly embarassed doesn't mean they should get away with this kind of poor judgment. If they reveal themselves, the community would scutinize their conducts more closely, which could prevent further administrative abuse.--Certified.Gangsta (talk) 09:19, 29 November 2007 (UTC)
If we confess our sins....? OK, I'm Spartacus.--Docg 09:24, 29 November 2007 (UTC)
Okay, so now Doc thinks I'm a troll just because I proposed a remedy against Mercury? This is great. It's classic.--Certified.Gangsta (talk) 09:53, 29 November 2007 (UTC)
Perhaps that may be du to the fact of, I'm not disruptive. I don't know. :) Mercury 10:44, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

See Wikipedia_talk:Requests_for_arbitration/Durova_and_Jehochman/Workshop#Double_standard. I apologize for my action and take full responsibility.--Certified.Gangsta (talk) 10:50, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

Please everyone, this space is reserved for the "Sleuthing Five" to speak to the community. This podium belongs to them and they've been notified as to where it is located. We'll wait out here in the audience in silence until they step up to it. Cla68 (talk) 23:50, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Sleuths actually speak

Sleuth 1: <insert discussion here>
Sleuth 2: <insert discussion here>
Sleuth 3: <insert discussion here>
Sleuth 4: <insert discussion here>
Sleuth 5: <insert discussion here>

[edit] Can we stop now please?

- Just a suggestion to everyone - this ship has sailed, the train has left the station, and the fat lady is three quarters of the way through her aria now. Continuing this discussion in this forum isn' t likely to produce more answers. Risker (talk) 05:22, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

The ship has sunk, the train has derailed and the fat lady has lost her voice - however, there is still lessons to be learned; on what rocks did the ship founder, how were the tracks mislaid, and what would have stopped Madam from catching a cold? LessHeard vanU (talk) 21:57, 27 November 2007 (UTC)
We're listening to bad opera on a broken speaker at this point. There are better things to do. Wikidemo (talk) 21:02, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Character evidence

I have no involvement with the current dispute and no diffs regarding it to present. But in the past I have seen Durova act as a great mediator, and help with numerous community issues. I wonder if I or somebody should present such diffs, to show that whatever errors she might have made recently were only an exception to the rule - a human error we are all entitled to every now and often? -- Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk 22:06, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

It's not a single-item exception. No disrespect to her contributions, which I'm sure are many, they don't excuse the methods and practices and overall bad-faith she has been using. And, I believe she has already been 'acknowledged' by arbcom in the findings page. Lsi john (talk) 22:23, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

Durova has done substantial valuable work before, a small cross-section of which is mentioned in my workshop proposal that has been incorporated into the proposed decision, and I see her already starting to help the project in other areas this week. Though she as well as others will benefit if she changes the focus of some of her efforts, she remains a valued Wikipedian. Newyorkbrad (talk) 02:10, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

I do not enjoy this, but if this section exists, I think I'm obligated: Durova claimed to have "fixed her mistakes", one of the worst which was concluding that "knowing German" somehow implicates a "troll". She then characterized my and Giano's reprise of Fawlty Towers "The Germans" episode (on his talk page) [[3]] as a prolonged indulgence in ethnic bigotry in her "evidence" before ArbCom[[4]], demonstrating that she had in fact not learned from even her silliest mistake. She did not ask me for clarification, nor inform me of her misrepresentation, until I found it by chance. I pointed out how very wrong this was (I was not the first), to which she responded only by striking through her comments, failed to in any way apologize to me, and instead suggested that I owed her an apology![[5]] Another user advised her to reconsider, and she archived that whole thread within a day, without comment. Since then she has not communicated with me, other than to delete my comments from her talk page. I consider the episode to be a supreme demonstration of continued bad faith assumptions. sNkrSnee | ¿qué? 04:59, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

She may well be driven from the Wikipedia by this mob action. Jimbo and others at that level are aware of this situation. It will be interesting to see if Durova switches her efforts to Wikia where they would be supported and appreciated. I half way wonder if the intent is to let the really obnoxious people take over, drive out the useful and productive people and crash the Wikipedia. Just speculation. Keith Henson (talk) 05:05, 29 November 2007 (UTC)
Please stop being unnecessarily divisive. Are you inviting the debate to begin anew? Even Durova agrees that she screwed the pooch on this one. If you choose not to see the other times, thats up to you, but there are others equally as opined that hold a different view. I think Durova is not going anywhere and ponder, if you will, how many unknown productive people have been driven away due to these methods? Can you be sure it is zero? Lsi john (talk) 05:28, 29 November 2007 (UTC)
It's a pathological person who would be driven away by a 75 minute block. Heck, it a pathological case who would *notice* a 75 minute block. In any case, who cares? Wikipedia is in a shrinking phase, you don't *need* productive people. It would be better served by blocking everyone for a month. Keith Henson (talk) 05:55, 29 November 2007 (UTC)
I was referring to new editors, or otherwise sensitive (pathological if you must) individuals who would not choose to suffer the abuse for the 'good' of the encyclopedia, but have, instead, simply left, or heard about the politics here and never came to begin with. My point is, there are countless possibilities and if you are willing to chaff out the 'pathological' high-quality contributors, that's your choice, but not mine. Lsi john (talk) 06:05, 29 November 2007 (UTC)
(ec) If I got blocked 2 minutes ago for 5 minutes, I would probably notice the block. That doesn't make me pathological, any more than if it would if I felt a pressing need to categorize everyone with an opinion that differs from mine as part of a mob or cabal. --健次(derumi)talk 06:07, 29 November 2007 (UTC)
I come from an era where blocks would be assumed to be some hardware or software failure. You try again later. Keith Henson (talk) 15:16, 29 November 2007 (UTC)
I remember getting punchcard training and wishing one day I, too, can be rich enough to have a 10mb drive. Nowadays we can try again quickly. Here, we can look up our own block log. --健次(derumi)talk 18:55, 29 November 2007 (UTC)
That's not just an idle speculation you're writing. That's a thinly veiled, mean-spirited accusation against several editors who you won't even specify. rspeer / ɹəədsɹ 05:59, 29 November 2007 (UTC)
Hkhenson, I think you might find more value in a dictionary than an encyclopedia. sNkrSnee | ¿qué? 06:05, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

OK, let me go into meta mode here. (Apply to this communication recursively.)

Humans communications through an all text interface are known to go off the rails into flame wars. Something very much like what's going on here happened to Usenet decades ago. Why is not understood though there is some speculation about it. What's really strange is that some people are as different as night from day between what they are like in person and how they come across in print.

Attacking people in print does hurt. You are going to be attacked eventually if you say or do anything. You will be misunderstood or make some kind of error and people will jump on you for it. It may be related to the way our tribal ancestors increased their relative status by pulling down some other tribe member who had failed in some way. If you have an opinion about anything and you say it, you better be willing to take the hurtful flame when people disagree and attack you.

The other factor is that it has become harder to actually do productive work. Does anyone know how to get a count of productive edits vs wiki politics? (Talk pages, user pages and this sort of discussion.) A graph by months for the past few years would be extremely interesting.

I said more about this on Dorova's talk page [6] if you are interested. Before you flame me for this meta about trying to understand humans or flame Dorova more for her error consider this:

"Wikipedia is built on us trusting each other and on human understanding and forgiveness of errors." -- Jimbo Wales March 2007.

Best wishes, Keith Henson (talk) 15:16, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

I see from your linked post that you have high regard for the "powerful mental tools" you possess, and that you consider Durova's critics to be an attention-seeking paleolithic lynch mob. I also see that you have bridged from smearing innocent parties as "pathological" to "going meta" without any intermediate step. I might have missed something important, but I wasn't inclined to look further. Perhaps you could turn some of that analysis inwards? Sorry to presume. sNkrSnee | ¿qué? 15:46, 29 November 2007 (UTC)
Re "analysis inwards" I said: "Apply to this communication recursively" i.e., to itself. I freely admit that evolutionary psychology mental tools go a long way toward *understanding* communication problems without solving them. Even discussing the subject offends a lot of people. That's not a big deal compared to understanding the origin of war and knowing that what would prevent wars isn't within the range of possibility. That's a real bummer. [7]
Re paleolithic, like it or not, that's the EEA for humans. It's when our psychological traits were selected (evolved). If you don't think we should be "peering behind self-serving notions about our moral and social values to reveal the darker side of human nature" go to capture bonding and vote to delete the article. You could even put the evolutionary psychology article up for deletion. Unfortunately ignoring the "darker side" doesn't make it go away.
Sorry if you take offense, but don't be concerned about trashing me. I've been trashed by professionals. Keith Henson (talk) 17:44, 29 November 2007 (UTC)
I call it rhetoric. The hint was 'meta mode'. I'm sure there is a law or corollary that applies, I was never much interested in remembering all the names. Lsi john (talk) 15:59, 29 November 2007 (UTC)
I found the meta analysis useful and interesting. There is obviously some strange mob behavior going on here. Wikidemo (talk) 18:07, 29 November 2007 (UTC)


[edit] Request for more evidence, clarification

I posted this to the mailing list, but it probably should be listed here too: There's been a lot of speculation about what I mean and what I think the community and the arbcom is entitled to. Let me set it straight. Assuming Durova is not lying, here's what we know:

1. According to Durova, she posted her "evidence" to the cyberstalking list, roughly two weeks prior to the block (exact date would be nice).

You've been given it many times, Alec. November 3.

2. Although the email does not EXPLICILTLY propose blocking !!, it certainly accuses him of blockable behavior. Any reasonable person who read it in any depth should have anticipated a block, and if they disagreed, they should have warned her against instituting a block.

No one seems to have read it in any depth, and I suspect most did not read it at all.

3. According to Durova, she had "in depth" discussions with "five sleuths" who "enthusaistically endorsed" the block. According to multiple sources, these "in depth" discussions didn not occur on the cyberstalking list-- they occured elsewhere-- either on the investigation list, through email, or somwhere else.

That's correct. If they occurred, it wasn't on the cyberstalking list. But also not on the investigations list, so far as I know.

4. The community and the arbcom committie have a right to know who the "sleuths" were that "endorsed" the block, and what text did they use whe discussing that blacok. (or alernatively, if Durova lied and there were no such people).

Well, I don't think you can argue anyone has a right. It's not enforceable, and a right that's not enforceable isn't a right in any important sense. If I make a block, I'm responsible for it, even if I've had in-depth discussions with a thousand other admins about it. SlimVirgin (talk)(contribs) 22:02, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

We have to know for a couple reasons:

  • To scrutinize further actions from the individiuals to make sure they don't repeat the lapse of judgment.
  • To re-evaluage their past behavior to "double-check" for any lapse in judgment.
  • So that the electorate can decide whether or not the comments have any weight in the coming arbcom elections.

So, the emails that I feel are requested are specifically the discussions of !! in which "five sleuths" decided to "enthusastically" endorse a block.

I can only repeat that I have seen no such e-mails, and I'm not aware of anyone who has. SlimVirgin (talk)(contribs) 22:02, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

At this point ,there can be no doubt that these people are aware that they have been asked to step forward. The fact that this hasn't happened leads to various conclusions-- all bad:

  • Perhaps the people do not exist, Durova's statements are just a pack of falsehoods.
  • Perhaps the people do exist and their emails were misinterpreted and don't show any misjudgment-- but htese people don't trust the community & the committee to properly assess this fact.
  • Perhaps the email really do show direct lack of judgment, but hte people wish to hide their misjudgment so as to avoid embarassment.
  • Perhaps the emails show lack of judgment, and people are willing to hide this fact from the community in order to increase their chances of being elected to arbcom.

Thus far, people have been content to refer to people just as "five sleuths"-- but there are individuals who CLAIM the know the identities of the 'sleuths'.

Really? Who has made that claim and where? SlimVirgin (talk)(contribs) 22:02, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

Thus far, we haven't devolved to that level of discussion, and I personally don't know, I won't make any specific accusations about what I do not know. But some people know (or else think they know) you can bet that before voting starts, specific accusations are going to start flying. I'm not endorsing that behavior, I'm just predicting it's a little future scenario.

The best thing for everyone is for people to step up, trust the committie and the community, and say "yep-- I endorsed the block, it was a mistake, I'm sorry, and I won't do it again".

-Alecmconroy (talk) 23:05, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

Perception is reality.. as long as the cabal is perceived, it is real. Lsi john (talk) 23:11, 29 November 2007 (UTC)
Well, this indicates that the "report" was circulated on the cyberstalking list on [Saturday] 3 November, and that there was positive feedback from outside the list ("private e-mails and chats"). -- !! ?? 23:50, 29 November 2007 (UTC)
Perhaps these five people are hardworking well-intentioned volunteer editors who do not want to be dragged through the mud to face the same incivility and recriminations that Durova did. Let's hope ArbCom closes down this witch hunt as soon as possible. Wikidemo (talk) 00:41, 30 November 2007 (UTC)
That's entirely possible. If the durova or her five friends had identified themselves and their reasoning to the entire arbcom and arbcom confirmed there was no problems whatsoever, that would go along way to assuaging my concerns. --Alecmconroy (talk) 01:24, 30 November 2007 (UTC)
Despite the complaints from various quarters that there is a witch-hunt, and the hysterical comparisons to the Gestapo and the HUAC, there has been no attempt to see whether any admins float or sink, or to lock them up in a concentration camp, or to hunt out the associates of political subversives.
Have you actually read Durova's so-called "evidence" against me? Have you? If five self-appointed "sleuths" (or "senior editors", or whatever else they may be) were in fact "positive to enthusiastic" about that scandalous report, then I think we ought to know who they are, because their judgement is clearly suspect. Similarly, I think we ought to know if there were not in fact five such supportive editors, as Durova has claimed that there are, or if Durova misinterpreted some vague comments or plain silence as positive to enthusiastic support. -- !! ?? 00:56, 30 November 2007 (UTC)
But they weren't. So that's alright then. Guy (Help!) 01:00, 30 November 2007 (UTC)
How would you know? Durova says they were. --Alecmconroy (talk) 01:07, 30 November 2007 (UTC)
(edit conflict -- addressed to !!) And you need to put a lid on your vendetta or else you'll end up getting yourself banned for a legitimate reason this time. You haven't done anything but prosecute this case ever since your 75 minute block ten days ago now. Please pipe down, move on, and try to contribute to the encyclopedia.Wikidemo (talk) 01:05, 30 November 2007 (UTC)
Wow, that was bizarre. I'm speechless. -- !! ?? 20:39, 30 November 2007 (UTC)
So unbelievably inappropriate.  !! was attacked, and if he tries to find out who decided he should banned, you'll ban him for asking the question? NOT cool.  !! is the victim here, and he is owed apologies, not threats. --Alecmconroy (talk) 01:09, 30 November 2007 (UTC)
ArbCom is in process of admonishing the participants to be more civil. I'm cautioning !!, not advocating that he be banned. He's received his apologies and does not have special status here just for suffering a bad block. When the case is done he becomes just another editor. Just how long is he going to go around stirring up trouble because he's upset? I've been improperly blocked too, so have many of us. That's no excuse for poisoning the water here.Wikidemo (talk) 01:32, 30 November 2007 (UTC)
"Put a lid on" "vendetta" "or else": Those are what we call threats. "You haven't done anything but prosecute": absurd, as !! hasn't prosecuted, but even more absurd because !! gave up his account for feeling that he could not edit due to this "false positive." You believe that an apology should have glossed over the crimes and cleared up all issues? What you propose is both harassing, inappropriate, impolite, and illogical, and it would perpetrate a separate crime. "The five" are irrelevant except that fools (and I use that word precisely) believe Durova's claim that her having failed to get stopped by them is some form of justification for her actions. In fact, the only reason for knowing about "the five" (weren't they the villains in Baldur's Gate II: Throne of Bhaal?) is to be absolutely sure that they realize what Durova did not: they cannot block on secret evidence. If they know this and failed to give reply to her because they understood that every part of the endeavor was misguided, then that would be good. However, comments like yours highlight the possibility that there are people who think that, for example, Dick Cheney needed only apologize for shooting his "friend" in the face, that an apology stops all issues. Apologies remove the harms of words. More is necessary to remove the harms of blocks. More still is to remedy a wholly inappropriate mentality that may or may not be behind other blocks of less well-connected and saintly users. I don't know when I've seen someone say something so wrong in an ArbCom talk than you just have, Wikidemo. Geogre (talk) 11:08, 30 November 2007 (UTC)
Wow, that was bizarre. I'm speechless.Wikidemo (talk) 11:39, 30 November 2007 (UTC)
With respect, !!, you're being somewhat obtuse. It is not a case of either there were five editors whose response to a block proposal was positive to enthusiastic, or there were no such editors and Durova is making it up. A far, far more likely scenario is that she ran her "case study" past some people who said, "wow, Durova, thanks for your hard work" (or some such, possibly without even having read it), and Durova heard, "Yes, please go and block !!"
The fact is that anyone who looked at those links closely would have realized that !! was probably someone known to Giano and some of the other editors he interacted with. From that fact alone, I think it's safe to conclude that no senior editors reviewed the material carefully, and that Durova just made a bad mistake, for which she has apologized and resigned her adminship. Given that the harm done to you was minimal (you were not "outed" in any way by Durova's actions, or prevented from editing for any appreciable length of time), and the price paid by Durova was high, I'm unclear about the purpose of further pursuit. Perhaps you could clarify? SlimVirgin (talk)(contribs) 01:26, 30 November 2007 (UTC)
With respect, SlimVirgin, I do not pose a dichotomous "either/or" situation above: I agree, there are at least three possible interpretations of the chain of events - (i) the "famous 5" exist and did support the block; (ii) the "famous 5" exist but did not explicitly support the block; (iii) the "famous 5" do not exist. I think each answer has important implications - either for the "famous 5", or for Durova.
I am quite tempted to respond to your "further pursuit" question by not answering (do I risk being criticised for "prolonging the pursuit", or for not answering your question?). But I shall answer: as to the "harm" done to me - I freely admit, the 75 minute block itself was not a great inconvenience. A bloody great shock, but not an inconvenience. And the apology proffered was pretty perfunctory. No, as my evidence points out, the fact of the block is not as important as the (deficient) reasoning behind the block, and a culture in which an admin feels able to impose an indefinite block without warning on a good-faith contributor. Added to which, the block was supported by several people - at least one of whom, it turns out, had seen the so-called "evidence", and considered it "suspicious". Well.
You also say that I have not been "outed" in any way. As I explain in my evidence, several people - including Durova - have in effect "outed" me by confirming that this not my first account. Some had already (including Newyorkbrad, it seems) guessed; others already knew because I had told them. But that particular genie is now well and truly out of the bottle. I had abandoned my account for legitimate personal reasons which I will not discuss here. That is now all in vain, and I will have to either walk away from Wikipedia, or start with a new account. This present debacle does little to encourage me to do the latter. -- !! ?? 20:39, 30 November 2007 (UTC)
"It is not a case of either there were five editors whose response to a block proposal was positive to enthusiastic, or there were no such editors and Durova is making it up."
There's all kinds of possibilities-- Most innocent, some distubiing, a tiny few nefarious, with lots in between. Don't you think the entire Arbcom and the voters deserve to know what evidence exists, so that they can determine for themselves what the situation is-- insttead of having to endlessly guess what lies behind the curtains of secrecy? --Alecmconroy (talk) 01:30, 30 November 2007 (UTC)
The ArbCom may know already, and I don't know which voters you mean. The problem with talking about seeing "the evidence" is that none of us knows whether there is any evidence. Durova does not wish to say who the five editors were. All I know is that Durova did not ask for feedback from the cyberstalking list about blocking !!. Furthermore, she said after the block that she had not been referring to the cyberstalking list when she made her comment about the five editors. Therefore, we are left not knowing where to look for evidence or what would constitute it, and given the five editors have not made themselves known, the best guess is that Durova misinterpreted whatever those five people said to her. She should not have done that, and if she were still an admin, she would be in danger of sanctions. But she isn't, and there's nothing else that can be taken from her, admin-wise. Therefore, this really does look like beating a dead horse for the purpose of stirring things. SlimVirgin (talk)(contribs) 02:14, 30 November 2007 (UTC)
"The ArbCom may know already, and I don't know which voters you mean."
Arbiters have said they do not know-- they have a right to.
The voters I refer to are the members of the community who deserve to know whether the people they're voting for in the upcoming arbcom elections shared Durova's faulty judgment and flawed techniques.
"There's nothing else that can be taken from her, admin-wise"
If a memeber of arbcom asked, and Durova continually refused to explain who else was involved in blocking !!, an indef block would be in order. I doubt that will come to pass, but hiding the truth from an arbiter, if they want it, is not something a member of the community can reasonably do.
For the record while I have you here-- you proabably ought to tell the community, SV, if you ever express any opinion to Durova about !! prior to his blocking? Obviously, you didn't do so on-list, but you probably ought to explicitly deny being one of the five sleuths before someone goes crazy and just accuses you of it. There are lots of "over-zealous" people running around, and while I may look like the most zealous of anyone, I sometimes feels as if I'm holding back a dam of incendiary accusations that's going to burst the second people truly conclude nobody's going to come forward voluntarily. --Alecmconroy (talk) 02:39, 30 November 2007 (UTC)
Alec, just to be really clear here, because yhou seem incredibly determined not to hear this however it is put to you: nobody ventured an opinion because DUROVA NEVER ASKED FOR ANY OPINION ON BLOCKING. THE REASON THAT NOBODY WILL "COME FORWARD" IS BECAUSE THERE IS NOBODY TO COME FORWARD. Durova gave no hint that she was intending to block. We cannot show you the email in which she did not give any hint of intention to block because there is (obviously) no such email. You are demanding something you cannot have because it does not exist, and the only person I see making incendiary accusations is you. Guy (Help!) 02:54, 30 November 2007 (UTC)
Listen, Mister Shouty. :) . If Durova says that there were no indepth conversation and no five sleuths, that's one thing. So far as I know, she stands by her statements about "indepth discussion" about !! with "five sleuths" and receiving "enthusiastic" responses. If her statement is true, she or they should go email the entire Arbcom who the five people were, and let them review the situation and decide whether or not to add them as parties, issue warnings, etc. On the other hand, if her statements were false, and there never was any indepth discussions and no five sleuths, she needs to say so, and accept the conquences.
In the mean time-- "you must never ever doubt what nobody is sure about". You don't run Durova's inbox, you don't know her statements about "in depth" conversations are false, so don't insist they are. --Alecmconroy (talk) 03:05, 30 November 2007 (UTC)
Alec, to answer your question above, I did not express any view about whether !! should be blocked, on or offlist. I can only repeat (and this must be the sixth or so time I've said it) that Durova did not say she intended to block !! and did not ask anyone on that list for feedback about a block of !!. You're requesting evidence that Guy and I are not in possession of. As for your point that, if there was no in-depth discussion with five sleuths, Durova ought to say so and face the consequences, if that were the case, the consequence would have been desysopping. And that has been achieved. As has losing the chance to stand for ArbCom. All that is left for her to do is hand you her head on a stick. SlimVirgin (talk)(contribs) 05:27, 30 November 2007 (UTC)
First off, thanks for your direct answer to the question about your own involvement.
You say I'm "requesting evidence that Guy and I are not in possession of"-- fair enough. But somebody's in possession of it. Durova at a minimum, most likely Durova + five.
As for your point that, if there was no in-depth discussion with five sleuths, Durova ought to say so and face the consequences, if that were the case, the consequence would have been desysopping. And that has been achieved.
De-sysopping is a regretable response to a lack of judgement-- it is not a punishment. But if it came to light that Durova ACTIVELY lied and fabricated evidence to justify her block??? Making up consultations that never occurred??? Lying even still-- letting us debate ALL this time about the subject, without fessing up. That wouldn't be an "oops", bad judgment call-- that would be a INTENTIONAL disruptive trolling on a scale worthy of a WR sock, and if I found out that was what was had gone one, I for would call for a community ban, and I'm sure I wouldn't be alone.
However-- I don't think she made them up, so no worries. --Alecmconroy (talk) 05:43, 30 November 2007 (UTC)
I agree that Durova should have been clearer in her posts about who she received a positive or enthuiastic endorsement of the block from, and that she shouldn't have posted that she had evidence, but that it was secret. That was all part and parcel of the errors surrounding the block. However, the reason she's not explaining any further now is almost certainly because of the giant fuss that a very small number of people (chiefly you) are raising. Withdrawing from the discussion is probably wise on her part, and I think you need to allow her to retreat and recover. Please consider: a 75-minute block was made of a contributor who clearly was using a second account, and who didn't even notice the block because he was offline. As a result, the blocking admin overturned the block, apologized, was subjected to serious criticism on AN/I, was faced with an RfC, had to give evidence to an RfAr, withdrew from the ArbCom election, and gave up her adminship. Come on, please be fair. If you're a reasonable person making a reasonable point, you'll see that this has gone as far as it can go. SlimVirgin (talk)(contribs) 06:44, 30 November 2007 (UTC)
Well, except for half of ArbCom trying to take it farther by banning Giano for his whistleblowing. rspeer / ɹəədsɹ 08:08, 30 November 2007 (UTC)
s/whistleblowing/disruption/. Guy (Help!) 19:14, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

Durova did not say she intended to block !! and did not ask anyone on that list for feedback about a block of !!.

I can't believe those of you who start attacking !! AGAIN. I'm actually ashamed for you. I know you don't care. The end. sNkrSnee | ¿qué? 01:56, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

!!, has Durova forwarded to you the secret dossier she compiled on you as you've requested? Cla68 (talk) 04:59, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

I agree with Snickersnee, here: attacking the victim reminds me again of Harry Whittington: you want the victim to apologize for getting in the way of the bird shot!
To stop some of the really contorted defenses of Durova, and I hope to increase the shame on those attacking !! above, let me give a summary of what I have inferred from the never-made-clear-from-the-one-trying-to-say-it's-everyone-else's-fault "dossier."
Durova used e-mail for most of her Wikipedia discussions. This is an inherent problem. It was why I was going to vote (no lectures on "not a vote," please) to oppose the arbcom run. Using e-mail for Wikipedia decision forming and justification is exactly as bad as using "unquotable" IRC channels for it.
Durova told all correspondents that they must not ever quote the e-mails, that it was very important.
Durova did these posts to multiple lists of secret recipients of secret topics, and therefore those who were on one might not even know which list she is referring to in the "chase the ball, Rover" defense she's offered.
Specific, one-to-one e-mail about this block has not been mentioned by Durova. It might exist, and it might not.
Durova has admitted that she did not discuss a block, or announce a block, but that she got silence about the matter. Even a five year old learns that silence is not consent ("Mom, can I get a BB gun?" "What was that, Sweetie?" "Cool, she didn't say no!").
The presence or absence of private conversation is outside of our consideration. However, using such matters for an on-Wikipedia decision is damnable. I have even accidentally (I promise) offered a guideline for the "private evidence" discussion. If you use private discussion as your reasoning, rationale, or evidence for any on-Wikipedia action, you need to pretend none of it ever existed and duplicate the case and win review for it on Wikipedia. If you fail to do that, then the "private" e-mail is germane and wholly appropriate to Wikipedia. Barring revealing IP's and real life or other identities, putting something like that up would be necessitated by the Wikipedia action, and the fault lies with the person who performed the action on-Wiki without on-Wiki justification. Make all reasoning on-wiki, and no big deal.
So, if you are here trying to blame the victim because you believe you saw some of the e-mail, relax. There is no reason to believe you did. No one has stepped forward to say that he or she saw exactly what Durova characterized as the assented stuff, and there is no compelling reason to believe that anyone did see it. In other words, it is simply more likely (and I hate to look like I'm smearing Durova here, but this is what things look like) that she exaggerated or misrepresented the consensual nature of her "support" before acting as a form of excuse.
If she won't name the names, and no one among the names will say what was going on, I think it's actually likely that there are no names that fit the bill.
However, if anyone, and I mean anyone, thinks that an apology is enough, all I can say is that such a person is either being a dunderhead or really being self-deceiving. The harm was not an insult, and so an apology is not sufficient. The harm was intolerable methods for a block excused in the name of rooting out hordes of supposed spies who, while doing nothing wrong, were about to do some wrong some day. Future Crime requires precogs to detect, and those are genetic mutant drug addicts. I would doubt anyone in a hurry to claim to be one. We must make both the intent and the method and the action roundly condemned, and "the five" would do well to support the condemnation, as I don't believe more than two were even partakers of the mindset. Geogre (talk) 11:26, 30 November 2007 (UTC)
Gosh, you nailed it there. Absolutely correct.--Docg 11:40, 30 November 2007 (UTC)
Geogre or !!, what actual harm was done to !! by a 75-minute block that he didn't even notice?
I'm not defending it, and I'm certainly not defending blocking people on the basis of a few links showing knowledge of wiki, but at the same time, talk of it being a "crime" etc, is surely hyperbole. What more can be done in response to it, apart from what's been done already? SlimVirgin (talk)(contribs) 17:56, 30 November 2007 (UTC)
Speaking only for myself-- one month ago I had a certain concept of what an admin was and what an arbiter was. When I saw the mop, the words that accompanied had weight. When somebody said "I rand this by an arbiter", I, agree or disagree, took it pretty seriously.
Now, that sort of trust the community had in the leadership has been damaged. The "secret lists" and the psychotic evidence have forced a lot of us to see that at least SOME of the emperors have no clothes. Maybe other people stopped Assuming Clothed Emperors a while ago, but for me, Durova's evidence means the next time and admin or an arbiter speaks, I don't have the luxury of taking it at face value, I have to do a totally separate calculation about whether skulduggery might be involved.
That's the damage that's been done. Long after the 75 min block was lifted, the damage to community trust contniues. --Alecmconroy 20:56, 30 November 2007 (UTC)
Please stop trying to spread the secret-lists meme. The lists are private, not secret. As for the damage, Durova made a block for no obvious reason then didn't post the evidence. I've not known an admin to do that before, unless it was a situation the ArbCom or OFFICE were actively involved in, and then it's usually one of them that makes that kind of post. Or if there are BLP reasons, an admin will often say please e-mail me for the evidence. But for an admin to say "I've blocked x but I'm not going to tell you why, and I also won't say why I can't tell you" is actually unheard of, so far as I recall. It's because of those mistakes that Durova apologized and resigned her adminship, which was the honorable thing to do. There's no reason to allow that to affect your view of any other admin.
I'd really appreciate hearing from Geogre or !! about what actual harm the block did to !!. I've been doing my best to explain what happened (insofar as I know), and yet exactly the same posts keep appearing, as though people are paying no attention to the facts. So I seem to be missing what people actually want to happen here. SlimVirgin (talk)(contribs) 21:08, 30 November 2007 (UTC)
Arbcom-l is private. Cyberstalkings and Investigations were secret-- just look at Durova's evidence, where she write "The good news: [...] they don't know this list exists." [8]. --Alecmconroy 21:50, 30 November 2007 (UTC)
I believe I understand what harm the block did to !!, and it's not too hard to recognize if you think about it. If he wants to go on editing Wikipedia normally, he has to lose his contribution history. You should understand how highly contribution histories are valued on Wikipedia, and !! in particular had a rather stellar history to lose. If he kept using the username !!, he would go on being a focus of attention and a thorn in the side of an influential group of admins. That's an unfortunate situation to be in if you just want to edit the encyclopedia. rspeer / ɹəədsɹ 21:34, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Arbitrary section break
[outdent] How is it not secret? Its membership list is not public (unlike private lists such as arbcom-l). Its existence was not generally known before this incident. You've gone to some lengths to close the barn door on the fact that it is your list - its description page on Wikia no longer lists an owner (or, did not as of the last time I saw it, when someone pointed that out). The name of the second list (the one other than WpCyberstalking) is, as far as I can tell, still not known. There is a VERY clear difference between these secret lists and the actual private lists that are run by wikimedia - certainly its existence is known now, so it's not "secret" anymore by that hair-splitting definition, but it remains a list for a secret group of people accountable to no-one, rather than e.g. an elected body such as ArbCom.—Random832 21:27, 30 November 2007 (UTC)
And FORGET whether it harmed !!. That's entirely irrelevant. It harmed the ENCYCLOPEDIA by so gravely insulting a fine content editor that he does not wish to contribute anymore. And for as much as Durova might want to fall on her sword to protect the group, the fact remains that she was NOT the only person involved, and everyone else involved has refused to apologize or even admit their involvement.—Random832 21:34, 30 November 2007 (UTC)
That was why I asked the question. I'm not seeing why a 75-minute block that !! didn't even notice would be such a grave insult. Perhaps I'm so used to being insulted on Wikipedia that my skin has grown too thick or something, but I honestly don't see why this was anything more than irritating. And I stress again: this is not a defence of Durova's actions. But we need to keep the thing in proportion and stay constructive. So my question to !! (or Geogre) is: what actual harm was done to !! that has not been resolved by the resignation, and what would you like to see happen now?
As for Durova "falling on her sword," that is absolute nonsense. There's currently no evidence that anyone else was involved in this. SlimVirgin (talk)(contribs) 21:39, 30 November 2007 (UTC)
Everyone on that list is involved, though most may only be tangentially involved (if we take Durova at her word, there are at least five who are more heavily involved). It's not specific actions, it's a culture of paranoia. If you look hard enough for WR spies, you will always find them, whether they exist or not, and every indication is that a large number of people there were leaving no stone unturned. And, "you take your victim as you find him". Wasn't that a proposed principle in a recent case? It's perfectly forseeable that someone will be insulted by an unjustifiable indefinite block, so she's responsible for how he took it, and if he took it more badly than you think you would have, tough luck. —Random832 21:45, 30 November 2007 (UTC)
And, as a sidenote, it cannot be stressed enough that this was not a 75-minute block. A 75-minute block is when you fill in the expiry box with "75 minutes". It was an indefinite block.—Random832 21:45, 30 November 2007 (UTC)
I will repeat here what I have said on wiki-en-l in a very similar discussion:
“ There were additional errors in judgment, not just an erroneous block. First off is the quality of evidence used to make the block. Then Durova referred questions to Arbcom, but failed to send them the information on which her decision was based. She suggested that the evidence was private and revealed secret techniques for sockpuppet identification, neither of which were correct. And she implied that foundation representatives, arbcom members, and checkusers were all well aware of the situation, which was only partially true; some may have been aware and some not, but only in their capacity as established editors who were on a mailing list, rather than in their official capacities. This was a serious error in judgment on Durova's part, and it seems to me she has recognized this herself. ”
I will let !! and those who know him speak to what harm he himself may have suffered. The bulk of the damage was done to the community and its ability to have faith in its institutions. From the very start, the Foundation and Arbcom were made to appear complicit in this block; the community had every reason to believe that they had been provided with the information used to make the block, so why would anyone have emailed it to them? Please keep in mind that Durova has never sent them a copy of the email, that was sent to them by "someone not involved in the dispute" according to Kirill Lokshin - and four days after the fact, within a few hours of Giano posting it on-wiki. Some other editors have rambled on about how this behaviour has all been necessary to eradicate banned users and harassers and stalkers. I'm sorry, but to me linking lowlifes to this block paints !! with the same brush.

This was never just an "oops" block of a good user, who was doing nothing more than being part of the community and building the encyclopedia. Risker 22:31, 30 November 2007 (UTC)


I replied above over an hour ago.[9] If you want press this line of questioning, we will have to take this somewhere less public. -- !! ?? 21:43, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

SlimVirgin, one thing that you have still left unaddressed is how you are the administrator of WpCyberstalking - the Mailman page explicitly identified the sole administrator as "slimvirgin at gmail.com" until it was changed after its existence went public - and you yourself have been responsible for some of the most deplorable uses of the list, slinging mud at and defaming contributors to this project in a closed forum - I'm looking right at a post by you calling me a "troll enabler" and exhorting "Let the Krimpets block the good editors and unblock the stalkers." It is this kind of secret behavior that has the project up in arms, and why this matter goes far beyond the single unfortunate block of !!. --krimpet⟲ 21:49, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

Better be careful - you're disclosing private correspondence, there - and that could embarass the wrong people. —Random832 21:51, 30 November 2007 (UTC)
I'm not posting the actual much longer content of the email, as that would clearly be disruptive and a violation of privacy and copyright. But I do think people should be aware that the list's administrator not only condones the witch hunting and mud-flinging; she actively partakes in it. --krimpet⟲ 22:02, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] From !!

(copied from above) With respect, SlimVirgin, I do not pose a dichotomous "either/or" situation above: I agree, there are at least three possible interpretations of the chain of events - (i) the "famous 5" exist and did support the block; (ii) the "famous 5" exist but did not explicitly support the block; (iii) the "famous 5" do not exist. I think each answer has important implications - either for the "famous 5", or for Durova.

I am quite tempted to respond to your "further pursuit" question by not answering (do I risk being criticised for "prolonging the pursuit", or for not answering your question?). But I shall answer: as to the "harm" done to me - I freely admit, the 75 minute block itself was not a great inconvenience. A bloody great shock, but not an inconvenience. And the apology proffered was pretty perfunctory. No, as my evidence points out, the fact of the block is not as important as the (deficient) reasoning behind the block, and a culture in which an admin feels able to impose an indefinite block without warning on a good-faith contributor. Added to which, the block was supported by several people - at least one of whom, it turns out, had seen the so-called "evidence", and considered it "suspicious". Well.

You also say that I have not been "outed" in any way. As I explain in my evidence, several people - including Durova - have in effect "outed" me by confirming that this not my first account. Some had already (including Newyorkbrad, it seems) guessed; others already knew because I had told them. But that particular genie is now well and truly out of the bottle. I had abandoned my account for legitimate personal reasons which I will not discuss here. That is now all in vain, and I will have to either walk away from Wikipedia, or start with a new account. This present debacle does little to encourage me to do the latter. -- !! ?? 20:39, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

Sorry, I didn't see your response earlier. I can see that if you feel outed, it's more than annoying. I accept that. I hope, however, you'll look to see how that happened. It was people who knew who you were who were discussing it in public. In fairness to Durova, as soon as she saw she had messed up, she tried to close the discussion down, I believe to take the spotlight off you, but was several times reverted. Now, maybe there are issues I don't know about. Perhaps those people tried to discuss with Durova privately and she refused. Perhaps if her apology was perfunctory, that prolonged your sense of injustice.
There are people involved in this who are clearly acting in good faith, and people who are using it for the purpose of trolling. I feel the onus is on the good-faith actors to be as constructive as possible, and to say what you want to see happen -- and it has to be do-able. You say you'd like to know who the five were. So would I, but only for curiosity's sake; I wouldn't want to see anything happen to them. But we're not being told, and we're unlikely to be told. So is there anything else you would like to see happen now, so that we can move forward? SlimVirgin (talk)(contribs) 22:15, 30 November 2007 (UTC)
(to !!) I didn't guess on my own; someone a few weeks before the block told me of his own speculation, and I thought for a minute and found it plausible and mentally nodded and then forgot about it, the matter being of no importance except insofar as it was nice to know that a good contributor had not really vanished but might still be under another guise still with us. Newyorkbrad 22:21, 30 November 2007 (UTC)
(to SV) Please enumerate which of us that have participated actively at the various pages regarding this ArbCom have been "trolling", or retract that bad faith statement. While everyone has their own reasons for participating, I'm sure (I know I have mine), it is not yours to accuse people of trolling, without explicit evidence to support the accusation. Provide this, or retract. Mr Which??? 08:18, 1 December 2007 (UTC)

!!, has Durova sent you the secret dossier she compiled on you as you've requested her to do? Cla68 05:35, 1 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Canvassing

  • Were the secret lists ever used for stealth canvassing? There are several polls that, in the light of day, now seem very suspicious.
No.
Not sure who's answering, as it's not signed or dated - I expect it's Durova. But, is it not true that the email, before going into stuff about !!, SPECIFICALLY make reference to the very same list it was posted to having been used to canvass for support statements of the block of Miltopia? —Random832 05:17, 30 November 2007 (UTC)
It was Guy he said so on Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Durova and Jehochman/Evidence-- I refactored it into a threaded discussion. --Alecmconroy (talk) 05:23, 30 November 2007 (UTC)