Wikipedia talk:Requests for comment/Durova

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Discussions on this page may escalate into heated debate. Please try to keep a cool head when commenting here. See also: Wikipedia:Etiquette.

Contents 1 What not to do 2 Redirect? 3 Evidence of "bad blocks" 4 Issues 5 'fudging' at the start 6 Undefined page 7 "Clerking" 7.1 Suggested fixes 8 Nominees or whatever they're called 9 For something constructive.... 10 Confusing - what is the recall process? 11 When did the RFC start? 12 The "secret evidence" against !! email 13 Sherlock Holmes 14 Unanswered questions 15 ArbCom request 16 Secret evidence reply 17 General Flaw in the System and Suggestion for a Solution 18 bad blocks 18.1 Lets get some things clear 19 "There is no cabal" 20 Discussion of Zocky's View 21 What is the OFFICIAL status of the evidence? 21.1 WP:NLT? 22 Closing this RfC?? 23 Arbcom case started 24 Recent closure of this RfC 25 Infiltrating outside groups and communities as a "spy" 26 Formal recall started 27 I found the goalpost

[edit] What not to do

Please, please, don't add sections like "this RfC is a disgrace!11!" for thirty people to vote (yes VOTE) in support of. Equally don't add section like "Durova is satanic! ZOMG!!1" for fifteen people to vote on. Instead, carefull construction of the chain of events, without emotive language, to allow everything to come together peacefully is much preferred. Thank you.
CygnetSaIad (talk) 03:18, 23 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Redirect?

While I understand you want to centralize all of these discussions, making a "formal" RfC page is a bad idea at this point. The AN/I sub page is pretty much serving that purpose now. -- Ned Scott 04:17, 23 November 2007 (UTC)

Which is being protected, oversighted, still having ppl ask for recall on Durova's talk, etc. - CygnetSaIad (talk) 04:26, 23 November 2007 (UTC)

It was protected once, and oversighting would effect the RfC page if the same conditions applied. You don't get to start your own page just to stand out, so please use the AN/I subpage like everyone else. -- Ned Scott 04:50, 23 November 2007 (UTC)

If CygnetSaIad wants to initiate an RfC, they're within their rights to do so. Videmus Omnia ^Talk 04:51, 23 November 2007 (UTC)

It is not within his rights to take his comments and thoughts and try to make them higher than everyone else's. If such a right existed, people would probably be having font-size wars on their comments on talk pages. The community is already discussing this matter. -- Ned Scott 04:57, 23 November 2007 (UTC)

Numerous people are complaining that this belongs at RfC, and an RfC apparently is one of Durova's conditions for recall. If you don't want to see this RfC, then don't look at it, but you don't get to judge whether there gets to be one or not. Videmus Omnia ^Talk 05:00, 23 November 2007 (UTC)

Then use the page move button on the AN/I subpage and move it to an RfC subpage (something I actually suggested once for the MfD of Wikipedia:Spoiler). My point is that the request for comment already exists, and is far already in-progress. If you don't want to see the AN/I subpage as an RfC, then don't look at it, but you don't get to give free passes to any editor who wants to start additional pages just to get attention to their view. -- Ned Scott 05:04, 23 November 2007 (UTC)

• That's not an entirely unacceptable solution in some ways. Part of the point of the "formal" opening was to do some summerising as well as satisfying the recall requirements. Extensive refactoring would be required, if you're putting yourself forward, Ned. - CygnetSaIad (talk) 05:13, 23 November 2007 (UTC)

::::::::"This miscellaneous page is being considered for deletion in accordance with Wikipedia's deletion policy.

Please discuss the matter at this page's entry on the Miscellany for Deletion page.

You are welcome to edit this page, but please do not blank, merge, or move this page (without knowing exactly what you are doing), or remove this notice, while the discussion is in progress. For more information, read the Guide to Deletion."

That's from the MfD notice on the front page, which you apparently initiated. I don't see your point. sNkrSnee | t.p. 05:23, 23 November 2007 (UTC)

Sorry, I'm quite tired and obviously misunderstood your complaint. I still disagree, but I apologize. sNkrSnee | t.p. 05:27, 23 November 2007 (UTC)

If it appears that I'm trying to get my comments to "stand out" that was certainly not my intention. And to be a bit more frank than usual, that contention appears a bit wild-eyed. (With respect to NS, whom I find normally quite good.) I've made the attempt have the current contents of the page quite neutral, and I don't believe that I've stated much of an opinion at all anywhere on the issues.
CygnetSaIad (talk) 05:10, 23 November 2007 (UTC)

I've now replaced the redirect as an attempt at calming nerves. My reading was that this was a good idea, perhaps it's not. So, rather than re-hashing any other issues here, can we get consensus on how awful it will actually be if this is opened? - CygnetSaIad (talk) 05:28, 23 November 2007 (UTC)

I'm backing off from this. I'm... not thinking clearly, and have just made a big-ol hypocrite of myself (making things worse and all). Maybe a formal RfC page is what we need, maybe not, but me trying to trying to force how I feel it should be handled is clearly wrong, regardless of the initial concern. -- Ned Scott 05:37, 23 November 2007 (UTC)

I'd think that all the debate about this speaks for itself that we clearly need an RFC. ⇒SWATJester ^{Son of the Defender} 05:39, 23 November 2007 (UTC)

Ned Scott, drama hates you when you starve it. Hater. I clearly can't read policy, I'd just like there to be one place to meaningfully have what I consider a legitimate debate, and this has already been through the bumpers (are they all like this?). That's my bit! sNkrSnee | t.p. 05:56, 23 November 2007 (UTC)

I support the opening of this RfC. Cla68 (talk) 05:58, 23 November 2007 (UTC)

I agree, Ned, but at this point it's probably too late. The RfC is opened and it's not going away. I've made a couple proposals to redirect our efforts towards a possible recall (I don't support it, but if some editors do that's the proper venue) and the possible adoption of rules regarding secret evidence (already in progress). The best we can hope for is that drama on this page and AN/I will die down in favor of these more productive approaches. Wikidemo (talk) 13:28, 24 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Evidence of "bad blocks"

I notice that on the main page of this RfC it lists a block of NearestAvailableNewt (NAN). Anyway, Durova was right that NAN was a sockpuppet, just not a JB196 sock as AndyJones admitted. Because AndyJones is a constructive editor (I have personally found him friendly and helpful), Durova lifted the block, but again, the assumption that NAN was a sock was correct. Best, --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 05:49, 23 November 2007 (UTC)

It's perfectly permissible to have alternate accounts. If this was a legitimate alternate account of a user, then a block of the account was indeed a "bad block". Videmus Omnia ^Talk 05:56, 23 November 2007 (UTC)

That account had some questionable use of language, however (see [1], [2], [3], [4], etc.) and appeared in one of the Eyrian/Burntsauce AfDs immediately after Burntsauce and as NAN's very first edit (see [5] and note that Burntsauce was banned by the arbitration comittee and Eyrian is currently being discussed by the committee after a checkuser turned up multiple IPs and accounts used by him), which admittedly did look suspicious. Again, though, after AndyJones, whom I consider one of my favorite fellow Wikipedians, acknowledged that the account was his, Durova lifted the block and as far as I can tell they both acted with each other cordially. Please do keep in mind, that I too have been blocked and later unblocked by Durova, but I have come to recognize that she does a lot of good, is understanding, willing to compromise, etc. Best, --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 06:20, 23 November 2007 (UTC)

It's perfectly permissible to have alternate accounts. . No, it is not. See WP:SOCK ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 16:18, 23 November 2007 (UTC)

That policy does not forbid all uses of alternate accounts. Videmus Omnia ^Talk 16:36, 23 November 2007 (UTC)

There is a difference between: "it is perfectly permissible" and "the use se of alternate accounts is not encouraged". And that difference is not trivial. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 16:46, 23 November 2007 (UTC)

I do not know everyone above and on the multiple and multiple pages about Durova's actions but the above comments I have seen seem to be a major problem. With the overwhelming problems of socks why on earth are legitimate editors, for whatever reason, allowed to have multiple account that do not at least connect to their main account? Wouldn't something like this be a good idea? Better yet, why not just make it one user=one account period? I have watch the ANI board and the BLP board to help me learn things and I have to say, right now the major thing I feel I have learned of late is socks used by any editor is a problem that causes major controversialist behavior both good and bad, but lately mostly bad. What I am trying to say, hopefully clear enough to understand, is that shouldn't all socks be treated the same way? I just want to say that if this was done then maybe a lot of what is going of late, and not just with Durova, would stop a lot of all of this. Of course this is just my opinion but I want to say that to me, I don't understand why anyone is allowed the use of socks. It just seems silly. Thanks for listening to me. --CrohnieGal^Talk 22:19, 24 November 2007 (UTC)

There are many, many reasons a user might want to make an alternative account. If it is used legitimately, there's no reason to ban the use of it. Not only will in involve all the current disruptive sockpuppets, we'll have to start needlessly finding other legit accounts. Seems pointless to me, when there are better things to do. Also, it will be impossible to enforce. Majorly (talk) 22:34, 24 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Issues

1. Mistakes that cause disruption - People make mistakes that cause disruption. How much disruption is allowed before we say that regardless of your motives, you are bad for the project? Does the answer differ for admin vs. non-admin. I suggest that the answer boils down to "Are they a net asset or liability?" The problem with this answer is that it depends on the POV of the person answering; example: do they support your edits?
2. Investigation of editors - There is currently a fierce fight to allow admins to investigate non-admins, but to condemn investigation of admins or investigation by non-admins. Accountability is important, as is privacy; but the two values conflict.
3. Assume good faith - The super secret technique consisted of nothing other than assuming bad faith and demanding good faith belief in unseen evidence that turned out to be totally different than it was described as being. This is where the current war against WR has led.
4. Cover-up - Information material to the evaluation of what actually happened was deleted and suppressed. Investigation into the so-called "complex investigation" has been decried as unneeded and mere drama; while the faulty investigation into innocent people has been held up as useful and necessary.
5. Meat puppets attacking editors - Off site co-ordination between people of investigation into real life identities for the purpose of attacking them (defamation and blocking) and resulting in their outing is something shared by WR and the admins involved in this affair. Must we become the enemy to defeat them? WAS 4.250 (talk) 08:03, 23 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] 'fudging' at the start

Hi this is not to criticise the person who started writing out this much needed RfC, but I think it should be set out like a normal RfC. The banner thing at the top might be ok but the paragraph or so in italics about how a mistake may or may not have been made, before the facts are laid out, is unnecessary and may in fact sway the reader. This should be set out like any other RfC in my humble opinion. In an RfC the facts speak for themselves and that gives clarity to the proceedings, any comments and views go 'after' the facts have been laid out. But I'm loathe to tinker with what you've writtten but feel that passage is unnecessary. However, kudos again for starting this RfC:)Merkinsmum (talk) 13:47, 23 November 2007 (UTC)

Hi I just looked at it again and it does use a proper form it's just that the style of writing is (understandably) tentative. Plus saying that previous debate has been 'fruitless' to me may prejudice the reader against it but that's just my view.

This RfC is about Durova, if there really is going to be an RfC it should be about her actions (not whethher other editors should get back to work etc- if people have that view they can write it in 'views' at the end, rather than desired outcomes.)

I'm not that personally involved, I just like to see things done properly and an RfC about an individual, discuss them. It would also keep the discussion a bit more focussed. Possible rewrite based on my basic knowledge of the situ and options;

Statement of the dispute

Following concern regarding a recent block of an established user, dissatisfaction of Durova's investigations of suspected sock puppet were aired.

This discussion culminated is the posting of material that may constitute a breach of confidential material as well as possible abuse of oversight privileges. (was this posting, or use of oversight by Durova? If not, shouldn't be in this RfC about Durova )

Desired outcome (request for recall needn't involve an RfC should it, that should have a separate venue, just be a request on user talk or something. So I altered that bit.)

• That wider examination of the methods used in Durova's investigations occur,
• That the extent to which her actions were endorsed by those administrators who received copies of the report on !! be made known.
• That preventative measures to ensure this doesn't happen again occur (for instance a temporary block or temporary de-sysop, or permanent de-sysop if the abuses are deemed sufficiently serious, protracted and widespread.)

Merkinsmum (talk) 14:17, 23 November 2007 (UTC)

Durova herself has requested that recalls go through the RfC process. I shall certainly add a header to that effect should it be removed from the main debate. Physchim62 (talk) 15:22, 23 November 2007 (UTC)

That's not at all an accurate characterisation of what Durova has stated, and I'm not sure that additional headers of any sort are needed. It is more accurate to state that, under HER process, there needs to be a normal RfC first, and then recall can commence. Remember, every recallable admin can set whatever process they like, as it's purely voluntary. My particular process is different, in fact it's rather the other way around, should a recall be certified against me, an RfC is a subsequent possible outcome, not a predecessor. But that's my perogative. Remember the community can completely disregard a particular admin's stated process and move to other kinds of dispute resolution. ++Lar: t/c 16:00, 24 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Undefined page

I don't support this strangely undefinable page. It's designated "draft" at the top, yet, by name, it's in Wikipedia space. That makes no sense. You don't keep drafts in Wikipedia space, you keep them in your userspace. I've asked Cygnet salad on his/her talk to either move this oddity into his/her userspace, or remove the "draft" banner. Bishonen | talk 17:56, 23 November 2007 (UTC).

[edit] "Clerking"

Since an RfC is a precondition of initiating the voluntary recall process under Durova's conditions (remember, she is free to set up conditions however she likes, voluntary recall is just that, voluntary, and if the community does not get satisfaction from how it goes or what conditions it is conducted under, there are other processes available to the community they can use, before, during, or after), and since I have clerked voluntary recalls in the past, Durova has asked me to "clerk" this RfC, should it go forward.

The meaning there would presumably be to make sure that the typical format was followed, that the certification happened normally, and so forth. Normally RfCs are not clerked per se, interested parties work amicably to keep things orderly. So I guess what I would offer would be to be a backstop, that if that wasn't happening, I would try to help make it go smoothly, more than doing anything particularly intrusive. If this RfC does go forward, and if it leads to an eventual recall process beginning, I am willing to clerk that too if asked.

Clerking an RfC is not something we normally do I don't think, but I think it might be helpful in this case since there seems to be a number of different venues and threads and so forth. It also seems the page itself needs some work.

Clerking a recall is something done fairly often, although not always. It is completely up to the person being recalled (remember, again, this is a voluntary process) how the recall is handled, and who clerks it.

Full disclosure:

• Durova has asked me to perform CUs privately in the past, and when I thought the correlation was indicative of a probable connection, I have carried them out for her and shared the results appropriate to share with admins. One of the blocks that is being cited as information in this case is one that she placed and then corrected based on information I gave her.
• I was one of the people that received Durova's writeup of the information and possible correlations surrounding the ID '!!' ... to my regret I read that writeup over somewhat cursorily, thought it was interesting, and didn't act further on it (as opposed to suggesting to Durova that it wasn't something I would be comfortable blocking on, which is what I WISH I had said instead of saying nothing)

++Lar: t/c 21:42, 23 November 2007 (UTC)

I think this is taking the clerking concept a little too far I'm afraid. You're right, RFCs don't have clerks and there's nothing that makes this one any different. I understand that this RFC is part of a process Durova has defined in any recall attempt but that doesn't change the nature of the RFC itself. I suppose to put it another way, we're all "clerks" in the RFC process (or none of us are). Certainly if a recall occurs it's up to Durova to decide if it should be clerked and who fills that role. RxS (talk) 06:52, 24 November 2007 (UTC)

Well I'd say it is certainly true that everyone (interested) has a responsibility to make sure that any given RfC flows smoothly. Durova has asked me to do what I'm trying to do, make sure this one flows smoothly as well. I, therefore, won't be making any statements, or supporting any views, as much as I might want to, in order to preserve as much impartiality as is practical. That doesn't preclude anyone else from also trying to make sure the RfC flows smoothly as well, just as you say. I don't see my taking this special sort of interest/role as changing the nature of the RfC in any way. ++Lar: t/c 13:21, 24 November 2007 (UTC)

I've never heard of clerking and have no opinion, but your disclosure indicates two perceived conflicts of interest. Isn't there someone more removed? sNkrSnee | t.p. 07:18, 24 November 2007 (UTC)

I'm sorry, but do you even understand what conflict of interest means? COI does not equal any and all past interactions with a user. What on earth would Lar have to gain by being biased, in any way? There's no motivation, nothing to gain, and no reason to believe he would cover for Durova or attempt to manipulate the process unfairly. -- Ned Scott 08:00, 24 November 2007 (UTC)

Your confident tone made me doubt myself, so I checked:

..."Any situation where strong relationships can develop may trigger a conflict of interest. Conflict of interest can be personal, religious, political, academic, financial, and legal. It is not determined by area, but is created by relationships that involve a high level of personal commitment to, involvement with, or dependence upon, a person, subject, idea, tradition, or organization.

Closeness to a subject does not mean you're incapable of being neutral, but it may incline you towards some bias. Be guided by the advice of other editors. If editors on a talk page suggest in good faith that you may have a conflict of interest, try to identify and minimize your biases, and consider withdrawing from editing the article. As a rule of thumb, the more involvement you have with a topic in real life, the more careful you should be with our core content policies''." Wikipedia:Conflict_of_interest#Examples

Since he says he has a past working relationship, was a recipient, and performed checkusers, it seems mostly on point. sNkrSnee | t.p. 08:32, 24 November 2007 (UTC)

My role, as much as I'd like to participate in the substantive parts of this, will be confined to procedural. If you see any bias in the way it's carried out, raise that as an issue and let the rest of the community decide about it. ++Lar: t/c 13:21, 24 November 2007 (UTC)

I notice you are already involved in a strictly procedural attempt to decertify this Rfc on the main page [[6]]. Is this how you intend to remain neutral? sNkrSnee | t.p. 14:33, 24 November 2007 (UTC)

I am not sure I would agree with the characterisation that I am "attempting to get the RfC decertified". It is not, as of yet, actually certified, in my view, and I am trying to assist would be certifiers to do so in a manner that will withstand scrutiny. It is required that the certifiers be involved in the dispute and that they can show good faith attempts to resolve the dispute by other means first. I'd posit that, for example, ALKIVAR, will have a hard time showing he is involved in THIS dispute or that he has done anything in good faith to try to resolve THIS dispute by other means. I personally believe at this point that this RfC can and will be certified but it's not there yet. ++Lar: t/c 14:51, 24 November 2007 (UTC)

Lar, I've never seen an RfC "clerked" before either; under what authority are you appointing yourself in this role? Videmus Omnia ^Talk 07:36, 24 November 2007 (UTC)

Raptor Jesus. It's a janitor's job, and he's free to do it if he wants. -- Ned Scott 08:00, 24 November 2007 (UTC)

Videus Omnia, see above. And it's not something I "want" to do :) ... rather something I was asked to do. ++Lar: t/c 13:21, 24 November 2007 (UTC)

It appears to me that someone is trying to use Lar to exert some control, albeit small, over this RfC. In spite of that, I think Lar is acting in good faith. Cla68 (talk) 13:25, 24 November 2007 (UTC)

(ec) I don't think anyone is questioning your motivations, Lar. It just doesn't look so hot for the person under RFC to pick their own "clerk". What a clerk actually does is sort of vague, but obviously, the thing that would make people uneasy is the image of a defendant picking her own prosecutor or her own judge, ya know? I'm not saying that's what's actually going on, mind you, I think I'm just sort of putting to words the apprehension others express above.

Even if you maintain the appearance of impartiality by remaining silent during the discussion, the mere fact that Durova would ask you, of all the people on the project, to serve as "clerk" means you're never going to be seen as impartial, you're going to be viewed as cherry-picked. I'd just accept it, and join in the discussion-- if you try to act with some authority beyond a mere participant, it'll probably just turn into a dramafest. --Alecmconroy (talk) 13:30, 24 November 2007 (UTC)

What a "clerk" does in an RfC is actually very vague indeed since no one has ever attempted to do it before. I admit of some considerable trepidation at being asked to do it, but I am going to strive very hard to be impartial. I will let the community decide if my efforts aided or hindered the process. But my read of Durova's statements to me is that if this RfC is not 'by the book', she won't count it as a valid precondition to a recall. That could be a misinterpretation on my part (of a private email... she's free to reveal it but I won't without her say so) of her request, of course. She's also free to correct me but I gather her approach is going to be to wait till everything is certified, organised and clearly delineated, before she responds. ++Lar: t/c 14:51, 24 November 2007 (UTC)

If Durova uses the reasoning that this RfC wasn't "by the book" in order to refuse to submit to the recall procedure that she signed up to, what are you going to do, beyond feeling used? I think you made a good faith mistake in accepting her request. Cla68 (talk) 14:54, 24 November 2007 (UTC)

Mostly feel used, I suppose, thanks for caring! :) . However there is no harm in actually doing it by the book, it's not hard. And if it is done by the book (to my satisfaction, which also is not hard to do) you can count on my voice being raised strenuously to point that out, should she subsequently refuse to undergo recall. I think we're on a side issue here, as I said before I think this RfC (if it goes forward, there is now an RfAr) can be certified by the book, for far less effort than is being expended in resisting doing so. ++Lar: t/c 15:08, 24 November 2007 (UTC)

Lar, I think you're trying to do the right thing, but you should consider removing yourself from this "clerk" role. I also share the concern that you're fueling a perception of "cherry-picking" here. Videmus Omnia ^Talk —Preceding comment was added at 15:19, 24 November 2007 (UTC)

We're now at about 5x the effort on resisting finding and citing the diffs to support certification as would have been spent on finding them. Maybe I should just go find and cite them myself despite my preference not to. They're out there. Asking for my removal suggests (to me, perhaps) that you would not accept ANYONE trying to see that this was done by the book. Or maybe this is all moot, with the RfAr commenced and apparently about to be accepted. ++Lar: t/c 15:25, 24 November 2007 (UTC)

I think the main point here is that "clerking" an RFC has no meaning, and Durova has no more right to assign a clerk to this (or any other) than I do. And more to the point, judging whether this is done by the book is not solely any one persons job. You (or anyone else) can be as involved as they want but there's no basis to claim that you are the authority to judge if it's being done by the book. I don't want to sound obstructive (or overly critical) here but I think it's important to make that clear. RxS (talk) 15:32, 24 November 2007 (UTC)

I think those are valid points, insofar as they go. I've certainly never claimed any special authority from the community in this regard... And I also think it's instructive to separate out what the community wants (presumably, resolution to the dispute using whatever method or methods are best suited to the task) from what Durova wants (this RfC run a certain way, as a precursor to commencing a recall). Recall is not the only method for dispute resolution by any means, and in particular in this case it may be moot with an RfAr commencing. But if the community wants Durova to undergo recall, this RfC has to be done properly first or she won't accept the outcome (again, my read). Now, the community may not CARE whether she accepts the outcome... remember that discussion at CAT:WAOR has clarified that if some admin is being unreasonably obstructive to block a recall going forward, it doesn't stop resolution of the issues, as the community has other recourses, and that admin will be judged (negatively) in the court of public opinion for it. What I find so ironic about this all is that doing the certification phase properly at this point (under my judgement, and others may well differ about it) would take a lot less effort than has been expended in resisting doing so. I'm baffled by that. ++Lar: t/c 15:56, 24 November 2007 (UTC)

At the risk of appearing to hound you (which I don't mean to do) I think there's a distinction to be made here. Durova or you may interpret or accept the RFC in the context of her recall requirements, but you alone can't decide for the community that it's valid or not as a RFC. In other words, she can decide for herself whether it satisfies her purposes. I'm not even sure we disagree about that but it's a fine line but an important one. I also agree that a lot of time is being spent on this but I'm talking in meta terms just as much as for this particular RFC...I think naming clerks for RFCs is a bad road to start down. RxS (talk) 16:58, 24 November 2007 (UTC)

Well, just out of curiosity, how is an RFC "done improperly?" It's pretty basic-- they file an RFC. Two users certify-- done. Five users request a recall-- done. (I believe the count is actually like 20). At this point, the ball is in Durova's court on the recall issue-- does she stand by the promise or does she not?

Might as well known sooner rather than later, so I'd talk to your client and find out now exactly what's the scoop. I'm sure you're just trying your best, but this whole talk of "Durova's Appointed Advocate" won't fly-- it's a relationship between with her and the community: she can't cede her responsibilities to you. --Alecmconroy (talk) 16:23, 24 November 2007 (UTC)

I believe Lar has said that there needs to be a better completion of the [7] section. Uncle uncle uncle (talk) 16:28, 24 November 2007 (UTC)

U*3: :) Yes. And I think it's fairly trivial to do so, actually. There might be those that say "it is obvious to everyone that we tried to resolve it" but an RfC is also something that may be referred to much later... when it's no longer obvious to everyone at all. So why not do it if it's not hard?

Alec: I'm not her advocate. That wasn't what she asked for. She asked for someone (me specifically since I've done similar things before) to impartially make sure the RfC proceeded normally... that's not advocacy. In my judgement it has changed a lot (to the good) already, from a rather unformed and non standard screed to a very standard appearing RfC. It just has a loose end (in my view) around certification. I'm at this point baffled at the resistance to supplying the needed diffs (which is what the form asks for) or at least more well structured evidence. I think Chris's section comes closest to that now. ++Lar: t/c 16:49, 24 November 2007 (UTC)

(Outdent) Durova herself has already stated (in her ArbCom statement) that her RfC has been certified - your services are no longer needed in that regards, Lar. Isarig (talk) 16:53, 24 November 2007 (UTC)

I believe you are referring to this [8] diff (remember, diffs are very useful for the historical record) I'm not sure it's her place to say that this RfC is or isn't certified per se, any more than anyone else's individually. And for me to now stop suggesting that it needs better certification than it has would be to give undue weight to her words, which is precisely what I do not wish to do, and suggests that you are misunderstanding what I've been asked to try to do. But I see motion in the right direction on certification, and I won't revert someone moving this from uncertified to certified at Wikipedia:Requests_for_comment/User_conduct#Use_of_administrator_privileges. ++Lar: t/c 17:20, 24 November 2007 (UTC)

I completely disagree with you about the interpretation of your role here, but appreciate your willingness to back off the overly legalistic (in my view) approach to the certification. I have accordingly moved this to 'certified' status. Isarig (talk) 17:29, 24 November 2007 (UTC)

I am not sure whether it is relevant whether you agree with it or not, actually. For the record, Durova has just reiterated to me her desire (paraphrased) that I work to keep this an orderly proceeding, and that I "clerk" it with an eye for what would be most useful to uninvolved Wikipedians who might come here, now or later, looking for information and background to make their own minds up. If you have a problem with that, or if you see that as "overly legalistic" then I'm not sure quite what further to say, because that is what everyone of good faith ought to want from any RfC. ++Lar: t/c 17:50, 24 November 2007 (UTC)

It is indeed irrelevant what I agree with, or what you agree with, or what Durova agrees with. This is a community project, and your self-appointed (or Durova-selected) role is useful only insofar as it facilitates the community process. That process has run its course as far as certification goes, with numerous editors telling you that you are not helping, and culminating with Durova's statement that the RfC has been certified, and with your agreement to have it listed as such. Time to move on. Isarig (talk) 17:55, 24 November 2007 (UTC)

Since we are talking about what my own perception of my role is, my agreement with myself is probably more relevant than yours. And I absolutely agree with myself, as per usual. Now that that's cleared up, I'd reiterate that Durova has asked me that I work to keep this an orderly proceeding, and that I "clerk" it with an eye for what would be most useful to uninvolved Wikipedians who might come here, now or later, looking for information and background to make their own minds up. If you have a problem with the notion that this is something that is worthwhile to be doing, and in fact something everyone should be doing, I'd be very interested in hearing why. Otherwise, as you say, time to move on (from badgering me about this). ++Lar: t/c 20:39, 24 November 2007 (UTC)

Your agreement with yourself is relevant only to your psychological well-being. It has absolutely no bearing on this process. Now that we have that cleared up, let's clear up another thing: what Durova has asked you to do has likewise no relevance to this process. This is, again, a community process, with well established guidelines and precedents. I am fully in agreement with you that this process needs to be carried out in a way that useful to uninvolved Wikipedians who might come here, now or later, looking for information and background to make their own minds up. I disagree that what you were doing, prior to agreeing that it can be certified, was part of that useful process. Now, let's move on. Isarig (talk) 21:22, 24 November 2007 (UTC)

Lar, if there's more you'd like to see here at the RFC, do speak up. Letting the thing go, only to have Durova say that she's no longer an admin open to recall because you've "ruled" because somebody forgot some bit of protocol-- used a salad fork instead of a dinner fork--- that won't fly. Hopefully that's not what's going down, but this role of "Durova's Clerk" is very odd, so AGF and all, it's only logical for people to be a tad suspicious. --Alecmconroy (talk) 08:21, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Suggested fixes

(outdent)Please do assume good faith here as well. "Durova's Clerk" is not a particularly useful or accurate term, in my view. The RfC has been certified. I supported that, when it was clear that was what the community wanted. I have no standing to "rule" on anything and I never said I did. That's mischaracterising what Durova asked me to do which was to help make things go smoothly. Remember that when she first asked, this RfC was a nonstandard jumble, which Bishonen, IIRC, said should not go forward in Wikipedia space, and which many other people were also suggesting needed reorganising. That happened, mostly due to the efforts of others, not me, but if it hadn't I would have been making more suggestions than I did.

My sole remaining concern is that we have a number of "evidentiary" things that are going to be subject to link rot, and for which we should be linking to diffs or history instead of named pages. For example, in Wikipedia:Requests_for_comment/Durova#Evidence of trying and failing to resolve the dispute, point 1 links to Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents/Indefinite block of an established editor. That's *already* a bad link!!! Fortunately someone has set up a redirect to Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive330 for it, but I'd suggest that a better link might be to a relevant history entry (such as, perhaps [9] ... which one exactly I am not sure), because redirects get deleted from time to time. Ditto for points 2, 3 and 4 User talk:Durova/Archive 38#Recall, User talk:Durova#Recall, and User_talk:Durova/Archive_38#!! ought to link to history entries as pages get archived. I suggest, [10] and [11] as capturing all of the discussion but I'm not sure, it's not my evidence.

This sort of analysis of what exactly the right version to preserve for the benefit of future readers (who might come here a year from now or whatever) is what I've been asking for all along, nothing more. I find it a bit dismaying that people say things like "process wonkery" or that I show a bias here because I ask for things to be easy for future readers to find. That's really a mischaracterisation of what I've been trying to do. I would ask that someone that has standing in raising the complaint review my suggested history links, decide whether they are suitable, and modify the points accordingly... (point 5 seems fine to me already) There may be some benefit to carrying out a similar review of the links given in Wikipedia:Requests_for_comment/Durova#Users_certifying_the_basis_for_this_dispute I hope that helps clarify matters. For the record I don't think that (should this RfC carry on in parallel with the ArbCom case, something that is not clear to me) Durova will be claiming it was malformed at this point and declining recall on that basis. If she declines recall I would expect that it would be because it was superceded by the ArbCom case itself. But I do not speak for her, and I never have. ++Lar: t/c 15:17, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Nominees or whatever they're called

Do we need them, like in a 'normal' RfC, and if so "at least two people need to show that they tried to resolve a dispute with this sysop and have failed. This must involve the same dispute, not different disputes. "

do we have this bit/people yet? I can't as I've not been actively involved.Merkinsmum (talk) 22:11, 23 November 2007 (UTC)

Yes. This is a normal RfC. Any admin can close it if it hasn't had the proper certifications within two days. I am going to abstain from any comments, supports, outside views, etc, except to make processy sorts of statements, as I have already done. If at the end of two days, evidence of attempts to resolve the dispute haven't been given per normal requirements, I'll be closing this RfC myself... On the other hand, if it does get certified (and I expect it will), it needs to run to the normal conclusion of an RfC before the recall process, if any, starts. That's my interpretation of Durova's chosen process (based in part on her mails to me asking me to clerk). If that process isn't followed, it is my interpretation of Durova's chosen process that she will not consider a recall request valid, and will not heed such a request, and the community will need to resolve this matter outside of the (completely voluntary, remember) recall process. Of course I am subject to correction in this (by Durova) if I've misinterpreted this. ++Lar: t/c 22:22, 23 November 2007 (UTC)

It's a kind of odd situation in that this is a request for the admin's recall, as opposed to a dispute per se. I think it's fair to say at least two people have requested the recall (and she has not responded to those requests made elsewhere), also the RfC format was specified by Durova as a condition for that recall. Videmus Omnia ^Talk 22:16, 23 November 2007 (UTC)

No, it is not. It is a normal RfC. See above. A recall, if any, comes later. ++Lar: t/c 22:22, 23 November 2007 (UTC)

I agree. I think the formal requirements are not specifically necessary as Durova has listed this venue as a requisite for her voluntary recall. If she is sincere in that offer, given the large number of voices who have raised a concern, she will not require strict formality here.. if she is insincere or looking for a way to back out of her offer, then of course we would need to get all legalistic and formal. Lsi john (talk) 22:21, 23 November 2007 (UTC)

That is incorrect in my view. ++Lar: t/c 22:22, 23 November 2007 (UTC)

Indeed. Let the RfC run its course and then proceed to next step if needed. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 22:25, 23 November 2007 (UTC)

It could depend on your definition of 'dispute'. My dispute with Durova involves her frequent public allegations and actions against numerous people, including myself. It also involves her failure to acknowledge her mistakes. It involves her inability to directly answer questions related to her mistakes and wrongful actions and accusations. My dispute with her involves her inability to accept responsibility for 'loose and casual' reading of things, and then harshly acting based on a mis-reading and mis-interpretation. To that end, my dispute with her involves the current situation as well as past actions. Lsi john (talk) 22:17, 23 November 2007 (UTC)

This is not a venue to resolve your dispute with an editor. This is an RfC on Durova, to which you can add your statement and let others endorse or not. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 22:20, 23 November 2007 (UTC)

Indeed, which I have done. ;) Lsi john (talk) 22:22, 23 November 2007 (UTC)

Then leave it at that, and let the community comment. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 22:24, 23 November 2007 (UTC)

And please avoid making pile-in statements in your endorse !vote. You can have your say in your section. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 22:31, 23 November 2007 (UTC)

I think we could try and make it a normal RfC, i.e. include other possible options like a temporary block or suspension, rather than permanent recall. But we need nominees who've discussed the same dispute with Durova, rather than general disapproval, for that.Merkinsmum (talk) 23:54, 23 November 2007 (UTC)

It is my read of Durova's wishes, subject to correction by Durova if I got them wrong, that this very much needs to be a normal RfC, with a normal consensus driven outcome, rather than a recall petition formatted as an RfC. The recall, if any, would come later. ++Lar: t/c 03:33, 24 November 2007 (UTC)

I can assure you right away that no-one is going to get blocked for this. Ryan Postlethwaite 23:56, 23 November 2007 (UTC)

You decide that then, irrespective of consensus and so on? There seems to be a lot of that about.:) What I meant is a temporary block or desysopping, surely that's more lenient than being desysopped permanently, although there are a fair few people calling for that.Merkinsmum (talk) 02:40, 24 November 2007 (UTC)

We don't give blocks out as punishment, they should be protective to the encyclopedia. A block in this case would merely serve as a smack in the face for Durova and would not be protective in the slightest. Irrespective of consensus, it's completely against the blocking policy. Ryan Postlethwaite 03:06, 24 November 2007 (UTC)

So was the block of !! Majorly (talk) 22:27, 24 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] For something constructive....

... see Wikipedia:Confidential evidence ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 22:59, 23 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Confusing - what is the recall process?

I just read this entire thing, to try to catch up (the related pages too). Durova on her /admin page said that if 5 editors ask for her to recall, she would then have to be reconfirmed at RFA again. Has that changed? If so, has Durova requested new conditions on it? If not her, who? What is the actual process now? I think thats the last confusing bit about all this as she has kept understandably mum. • Lawrence Cohen 23:57, 23 November 2007 (UTC)

Each and every admin who willingly participates in the recall process, which is completely voluntary, and is intended to supplant, not supercede, other dispute resolution mechanisms, is welcome to set up whatever terms/conditions/processes they like. (for example mine are at user:Lar/Accountability and are subject to change at any time) The check on this is that since this is a supplantive process, you always have the opportunity to go straight to arbcom or whatever. But if you want Durova to stand by her word to be recallable, you have to conform to her process. Her process as she outlined it to me when she asked me to clerk (and this is subject to correction by her if I misunderstood anything) is first do a standard RfC, and get to a consensus of the community about what should be done. It is entirely possible that, at that point, the community will have reached a consensus and the matter is settled. But at the end of the process, if the community (of editors in good standing by her definition) has at least the prerequisite number of members who feel a recall is warranted, at that point she will initiate the recall process. I hope that helps clarify matters but what it boils down to is this: First do a standard RfC, please. This RfC is gradually mutating into a standard one, with some nudges by me and others, and some good faith efforts by the participants to help move it in that direction... so thanks for that.Again, if anyone feels any recallable admin is playing fast and loose with the rules for how they can be recalled, use another process instead. Hope that helps. ++Lar: t/c 03:26, 24 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] When did the RFC start?

Hello - the start of this RFC is set as 19:08, November 22, 2007 at the top of the corresponding RFC page. Here is the post that added the starting time: [12]. How was that time arrived at? Was the page created before the initial post at 03:08, 23 November 2007? Has it been possible to post to the RFC since 19:08, November 22, 2007? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Uncle uncle uncle (talk • contribs) 04:47, 24 November 2007

You are confused by the fact that the RfC template uses UTC (Coordinated Universal Time), while the edit history shows edit times in your configured time zone. There is no conflict, both time stamps correspond to the same point in time. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 12:48, 24 November 2007 (UTC)

In my view, the exact time of the start of the RfC only matters if there is reason to believe that the certification of the basis of the dispute isn't going to happen within the allotted time. I personally would not set the start time until after the last time that the RfC was deleted/moved/redirected/etc, and until after it was in a normal form (not a "draft") because as Uncle*3 seems to be implying, it needs to be actually postable by participants, and formatted in a usable format, to be a valid start time. ++Lar: t/c 13:25, 24 November 2007 (UTC)

Ahoy, it was the time zone difference. Thanks. Uncle uncle uncle (talk) 16:02, 24 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] The "secret evidence" against !! email

From what I understand, the full text of Durova's secret evidence has been posted, but since oversighted. During the time it was up, many people read it, and it's widely accepted that the "bad people" now know it's contents. Now that the genie's out of the bottle, may I strongly recommend that the text be reposted, so that the community can judge for itself the validity of Durova's reasoning.

As is, the text of the email is, in a way, "secret evidence" being used against Durova now-- people have claimed it's evidence of bad faith, but I'm skeptical and would feel far more comfortable assessing it myself. --Alecmconroy (talk) 12:25, 24 November 2007 (UTC)

It's available at an obvious place. If you don't have enough clue to find it, then you don't have enough clue to interpret it. WAS 4.250 (talk) 13:26, 24 November 2007 (UTC)

Right-- but see, I don't want to GO to those obvious places. You set foot in there and your branded for life, plus, I don't trust those obvious places' testimony. --Alecmconroy (talk) 13:33, 24 November 2007 (UTC)

You can read the site without signing in or editing the site. And last I looked, the item in question was the same as what Newyorkbrad said he had received as e-mail. WAS 4.250 (talk) 14:00, 24 November 2007 (UTC)

Okay, I gave in and read "Durova's Sekret Evidence". The source I got it from is of course, utterly untrustworthy. But if it's true-- OMG. It's worse than I possibly could have feared. The road to hell is paved with good intentions-- but in this case, it looks like the signposts include a "secret mailing list" used for clandestine collaboration, and the principle evidence of sleeper socks being good faith edits.

I hope somebody more powerful than me decides to get to the bottom of this. What is this mailing list no one knows about? Who's on the list? What else has the list been used for? Who else has been blocked on the basis of this kind of paranoia?. --Alecmconroy (talk) 14:46, 24 November 2007 (UTC)

Just to be clear, I received the e-mail after the block, when I asked on-wiki for an explanation of what evidence supported it. Newyorkbrad (talk) 15:21, 24 November 2007 (UTC)

i read Durova's presentation of what she called a case history here and don't really see why others shouldn't, since it is well...there. I don't know why Durova didn't make it her business to let everyone see it at some point in this. Nor do I know why she doesn't stand down.

It's hard to see how anyone who fancies herself as a detective could present the things presented as obscene trolling or a nasty side in good faith. A few clicks deep, context is provided and they are in an utterly different light.

Kinda disturbing that the methodology may well have been to look at people who disagreed with jimbo wales in the zscout desysop and work backwards from there.

i've (mostly copy)edited quite a while very sporadically and don't have an account and never had and don't know any of you really besides seeing your names around, fwiw. Nor am i affiliated with other websites. Just a plain anon. My IP seems to have just changed again, which is unfortunate, but whatever. 86.42.122.96 (talk) 18:28, 24 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Sherlock Holmes

Here are some Durova quotes which interested me, presented without comment. Haukur (talk) 12:49, 24 November 2007 (UTC)

• "You happen to be dealing with the administrator for whom the Sherlock Holmes Deductive Reasoning Award was created." -- [13]

• "As the editor for whom the Sherlock Holmes Deductive Reasoning Award was created, I have no need for such repostings. You may trust that I have already read those diffs and reached my conclusions." -- [14]

• "Since this editor challenges my administrative competence and logical reasoning, the reviwing editor may find it informative that this week I received the Sherlock Holmes deductive reasoning award[15] and the Barnstar of Diligence[16] in connection to a different investigation. I stand by my block" -- [17]

• "I identify serious behavioral patterns rigorously verified with extensive diffs to support my assessment that Ilena knew exactly what she was doing and was playing dumb to exploit Wikipedia's WP:AGF policy. As the editor for whom the Sherlock Holmes Deductive Reasoning Award was created, I am skilled and experienced at that sort of investigation." -- [18]

• "I have no doubt that the contents would justify my analysis and actions. Mr. Kohs, you happen to be dealing with the gullible nimrod for whom the Sherlock Holmes Deductive Reasoning Award was created. " -- [19]

• Haukur (talk) 12:49, 24 November 2007 (UTC)

I created that for her because she deserved it for the specific case that I was awarding it for. She does have the skills. But as she herself put it, hubris became a factor. Skill is not a replacement for objectivity. WAS 4.250 (talk) 13:33, 24 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Unanswered questions

This RFC is MOSTLY about transparency -vs- secrecy. There are some unanswered questions that I think the community has the need (and the right) to know.

1. What was the "secret evidence" that was emailed?

This is relevant to considering Durova's behavior. If the evidence was generally sound, it's less of a big deal. If the evidence was completely tenuous, it's a reason to question her judgment. The community has a right and a need to know which it is. The Enemies of the Project already have a copy, so there's no harm in letting the rest of us see it to-- either post it here, or people will wind up going to look for it at the BADSITES, and nobody wants that.

2. Precisely who was the secret evidence emailed to?

A full list of the names that the evidence was emailed to should be furnished. If Durova picked a representative sample of unbiased, respected admins, then that speaks to her credit. If she picked a select group which seemed predisposed to have an opinion, that suggests her judgment might be poor. The community needs to know which it is.

3. Person by person, what were the responses that Durova received back?

If everyone emailed back endorsing the block, Durova had good reason to suspect her logic was correct. If everyone emailed back opposing the block but Durova ignored them, that points to poor judgment. The community needs to know what the feedback was.

Relatedly, if anyone noticed the evidence was erroneous, they should be commended. If anyone endorsed the block, failing to see that the evidence was in error, we should know it, so that the community can devote a little more scrutiny to their judgment in the future, to prevent this sort of thing happening again.

These should be non-controversial requests for information. I trust answers will be forthcoming. Let me reiterate-- I see this more as what NASA does after a shuttle explodes-- not trying to question motives or assign blame, so much as seeing where the system broke down, and how it can be fixed. --Alecmconroy (talk) 13:07, 24 November 2007 (UTC)

(An aside- Hi Alec, just to say that that's not necessarily wholly what it's about, personally I just don't like someone acting as if they are above the rules, above using the huge amount of facilities we have for dispute resolution. Not just this block, but over several blocks. What went on behind the scenes isn't so important to me as how the other editor was treated. Although of course it was also a huge lack of assumption of good faith and a perceived belief that there are some editors who don't deserve civility, even if they aren't vandals or anything. I also wonder why Durova chose !! to pick on, was it just his name? If he were a sophisticated sleeper troll, he would have chosen a more insipid name. Anyway, everyone please answer Alec's questions.) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Merkinsmum (talk • contribs) 14:01, 24 November 2007 (UTC)

• Names? I know who some of those who received the "evidence" were, am I allowed to say? or will I be blocked again. Giano (talk) 14:18, 24 November 2007 (UTC)

It'd be better for Durova to do that, honestly, insofar as it will help us assess her stance on the whole opacity-vs-transparency. --Alecmconroy (talk) 14:30, 24 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] ArbCom request

FYI, a related ArbCom case request has been opened [20]. Cla68 (talk) 13:34, 24 November 2007 (UTC)

Several people, including myself, have mentioned this RfC. Some have suggested it should run its course first. Some, including myself, have asked for clarity as to whether the RfAr will supercede this or what. Knowing the ArbCom's pleasure would be helpful. I think finishing certification is nevertheless a useful exercise even if it ultimately is moot, material gathered may be of use elsewhere. ++Lar: t/c 15:05, 24 November 2007 (UTC)

Please, you're the only one who thinks that this RfC isn't certified. It's clearly a valid RfC. Can we get off of this now?⇒SWATJester ^{Son of the Defender} 06:01, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

Certification was designed to ensure that RfCs brought for spurious reasons could promptly be removed, without accusations of not following the process. Treating it as a roadblock in the way of perfectly valid concerns is silly. -Amarkov moo! 06:18, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

Absolutely agree. Who's doing that? Suggesting that linkrot is bad isn't quite the same thing as throwing up roadblocks, in my view. ++Lar: t/c 16:06, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Secret evidence reply

quoting from main page

It is reasonable to consider a policy on use of secret evidence. Some questions to answer include: Is gathering it allowed? How? When may it be used, if ever, and subject to what limitations? By whom? Whether we adopt such a policy or not the place to talk about that is on the village pump or policy proposal page, not an RfC on a particular administrator's conduct.

Wikidemo (talk) 13:24, 24 November 2007 (UTC) (as proposer)

Well, yes and no. Just because we didn't have an explicit policy on it, that doesn't mean it doesn't reflect on her judgment. There are lots of things an editor shouldn't do that might not be explicitly forbidden by policy.

As I said in my statement, I don't hold her particular slip up against her as much as I hold her willingness to assume the role of a member of a "secret tribunal". It doesn't much matter what the policies say-- it's just a bad idea, and if you intend to block based on secret evidence (outside of arbcom), I personally don't trust you to have admin tools.

I guess the point I'm making is that-- after a mistake, it's important to know people have learned from their mistake and won't repeat it. Here, (in my view) the mistake wasn't blocking !!, the mistake was acting on secret evidence to begin with.

The situation is sort of analogous to an drunk driver-- if you drive while drunk, you're engaging in a very risky behavior that's very likely to hurt innocent people. If someone drives drunk and they run a red light and get into an accident-- when I ask them what they did wrong, I don't want to hear "I should have stopped at that red light". I want to hear "I shouldn't drink and drive, because I realize that doing that is dangerous".

Durova's definitely admitted her specific mistake about !!-- "should have stopped at that red light". But I don't know that she understands there was anything wrong with the general principle of acting on secret evidence ("Drinking and Driving"). --Alecmconroy (talk) 14:00, 24 November 2007 (UTC)

I think there are policy pages saying some secret evidence is ok. (You'd have to ask a fan of it to point you to them.) The probably with this particular intelligence gathering was that it was, erm, not very good. I think it would be pretty impossible to spot a sleeper troll, and since they do good work in the meantime, it's not really worth trying, given the level of fear/paranoia it would engender among any editors who heard of it, who wouldn't know if they were going to be the next ones to be falsely banned at random.Merkinsmum (talk) 14:13, 24 November 2007 (UTC)

Google is my friend- Wikipedia:Confidential_evidence and WP:SECRET. Of course these policies can change at any time!:)Merkinsmum (talk) 14:17, 24 November 2007 (UTC)

Sorry those say they are proposed policy, not policy, and the pages seem to have been started on 20th November, probably in response to that incident.:)Merkinsmum (talk) 14:28, 24 November 2007 (UTC)

IMHO, Secret Evidence, if it is to be used at all, should be used against someone who has broken rules in a public way - for instance, if they're going to be banned for 48 hours, extending it to a week or something based on secret evidence that they're preparing to do other things. If you're a productive member of the community, is being a sockpuppet seriously worth banning? It seems to be similar to some state's laws about underaged drinking - if you give your kid a sip of wine at home, nobody'll bust down your door, but if you get pulled over for drunk driving with a 12 year old in the car drunk next to you, you're going to get a MUCH heftier fine. Kuronue | Talk 17:27, 24 November 2007 (UTC)

Any amount of secret evidence is ok, *up to the point where you actually do something*. At that point, you have to put all the cards on the table, or at least sufficient cards to get people to agree your actions were ok. (Granted, there are some small exceptions for OTRS, Oversight, Arbcom, Medcom, and Board - that's gotten to be quite a list, actually...:-/ ). That's how a consensus system works. --Kim Bruning (talk) 01:24, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] General Flaw in the System and Suggestion for a Solution

My personal experience with Durova was positive so far. She was helpful, insightful and resolved even disputes I was involved in by providing tips about which project or noticeboard to alert to get involved in a problem resolution that will or should be acceptable by everybody. However, found several disputes where people that were involved complaint about Durova. The complaints were sometimes justified, sometimes questionable and sometime flat out bs. I also realized that she has a lot of very committed people how flat out hate her for one reason or another. There are long pages about her all over the Internet. I read a bunch of them and a pattern reoccured time and again.

Durova is overly protective sometimes when it comes to Wikipedia. Her commitment to Wikipedia is a very serious one and is also important in her real-life. You could say that WP:COI applies to her when it comes to Wikipedia itself (figure of speech used for comparison). This means that her motivation and drive is a good thing, but can have the opposite effect than indented if unleashed without control.

The "weapons" provided to her and to any other Wikipedia admin actually, are to powerful to allow their uncontrolled use. I don't believe that the occasional hasty use of those "weapons" is guided by malicious intent on her part. I am not so sure about this, when it comes to some other admins on Wikipedia.

Cops have guns and the right to use them, if necessary. Cops also have to go through a clear defined process, if they have to use it to kill. Furthermore are cops almost in every case working in groups or at least with one additional partner. That partner is not only there for backup from a firepower perspective, but also as a second opinion to reduce the risk of misjudgement by a single person.

Things like permanent bans of an account should always include the need of a second opinion = second admin to get involved, who also needs to agree on the ban. Choice of second admin should not an option available, to prevent clique building of like-minded admins. There are several ways how to make sure that this backup and 2nd opinion process is not being skewed, such as a rotation system that generates partners for a limited time for every admin per random drawing. That second admin will get a reasonable amount of time to review and conclude after he got notified by the admin who wants to perform the ban. After a specified time passes without the second admin responding, a backup admin should take over who is also to be selected during the random drawings.

Let it take a week for this process to go through. If a block is urgent like self defense or crime in process in real life, an admin should be able and allowed to act on it immediately of course. However, such a block would be flagged as "temporary" and "requires acknowledgement by second admin" or something like that. It means that the other admin still has to provide his approval or disapproval after the fact happened.

If there is no immediate reason for blocking somebody right at that moment and a delay for getting the second admin involved would not make a difference, don't block the user, but put a warning up on the user talk page that the admin wants to ban this account and that the second admin was contacted to give his approval. This alone might solve the problem right there already and the to be blocked user will change his attitude, because he knows that it is getting serious now and that the talk is over.

Those approvals and disapproval's should go on each admins "record". An admin who builds a track with many "immediate blocking" that than get rejected by the second admin needs to get reviewed and maybe removed from the position as admin or go through another admin coaching or something like that.

This would still give admins the power to act when necessary, but does not provide them with a Carte Blanche to do whatever they like until somebody complains openly. At that time is evidence might be vague already or not existing anymore. An objective look at the situation might became impossible by that time as well. My proposed process ensures that a review happens right or close to the time when the incident occurred.

This is my take on this. --roy<sac> ^Talk! .oOo. 20:15, 24 November 2007 (UTC)

If it's simply a case of vandalism or something there's always time to give warnings before a block. If the editor has done absolutely nothing to deserve it except be the unfortunate target of someone's paranoia, obviously that's wrong. Obviously if someone is being really destructive that's a different matter, but blocking on suspicion alone, with no real evidence, can never be ok. Oh and if an admin disagrees with another admin, (who is part of the clique that's always backed up by Slim, Jimbo etc) it might feel like they could be in trouble themselves given the prevailing climate, and be accused of wheel warring. There are a lot of editors/admins thhat will always agree with those above them, as it is (and I can understand that temptation.)Merkinsmum (talk) 20:56, 24 November 2007 (UTC)

I am actually aware of the "clique" problem. That's why did I propose the random drawing system to prevent that rogue admins just act in packs and back each other up. The system should reduce issues and debates as this one. I have friends on both sides of the fence regarding Durova and will not become part of that discussion, but I noticed a general issue because of it and just wanted to help to improve on it. I threw it out there to think about. Not more and not less :). Cheers! --roy<sac> ^Talk! .oOo. 22:44, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] bad blocks

Why does everyone seem to be so afraid of bad blocks? I noticed Risker's statement "When a small contributor has to think about the social implications of improving content, there is a problem" and many others just like it. If you've been on Wikipedia for a few years, there's a good chance you've gotten wrongly blocked. This is a wiki, for crying out loud, and not fearing mistakes is one of the best things about Wikipedia. Lets say you do get blocked, so what. It's only a problem when you STAY blocked, even when the confusion has been cleared. I'll admit I've been very very pissed by being blocked in the past, but that's just an emotion that passes. People need to stop being so over-sensitive and overdramatic. The great thing about being blocked is that no matter how blocked you are, there's always a way to communicate to someone, and get things fixed. I think people are so mad here because we have placed emotional value on blocks, beyond just the initial reaction. The difference between a real Wikipedians and a sockpuppet is that Wikipedians get unblocked. They make noise and post unblock templates. They e-mail and contact other people. If a block has gotten you so emotional that you have decided to leave WIkipedia, well then .. Wikipedia isn't a place for crybabies. Forget the ego, we're here to edit. -- Ned Scott 01:21, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

No way I'll ever agree with this. Some of the "evidence" from Durova showed that User:!! was already disgruntled and annoyed with some portion of the culture here. For people like that, one block with no accompanying explanation could put such a person over the edge forever. Hell, at times, I'm one poorly-worded complaint away from walking away forever. "There's a good chance you've gotten wrongly blocked" is a total fallacy. If you look around, you'll find most people have never been blocked at all, let alone wrongly blocked. This is a very flawed sentiment IMHO. —Wknight94 (talk) 01:34, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

The flaw in this logic is that User:!! took offense to a mistake, instead of something actually directed at him personally. If I said something to someone, and it upset them, but then I said "oh crap, I thought you were Frank! What I said did not apply to you at all." and they are still upset, well that's just lame. Why have hurt feelings because, for a moment, someone thought you were Frank? -- Ned Scott 02:05, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

I am guessing you didn't see the evidence. There were no typos or transposed numbers or mistaken identity. In fact, I'm still not sure what the missing link was that caused Durova to unblock. In the evidence, she gave just a few talk page diffs from User:!! and claimed that those were evidence of him being part of a conspiracy. The rest of !!'s edits were just cover. That's right, the fantastic articles and DYKs flowing out of this account like water out of a faucet were merely to cover up the conspiracy. It was paranoia that was unsettling at best, downright terrifying at worst. —Wknight94 (talk) 02:56, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

I saw it all unfold. Something went wrong, duh. Had Durova not unblocked !!, I would be with all of you, demanding blood. Don't get caught up in whole "omg" shockingness of it all. I have no sympathy for Wikipedians who simply have their egos bruised, and nothing else. -- Ned Scott 03:40, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

So you think that if someone who has done nothing wrong (no prior blocks) and everything right (as a prolific new article writer) suddenly gets blocked indefinitely by a long-time respected admin with no explanation and only a note to say "contact ArbCom", and then the person later learns that they were called an obscene troll and sockpuppet biding time for some massive disruption ---- that person should just shake it off? Well that's an assertion that leaves me thinking no response would do any good. —Wknight94 (talk) 04:07, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

Ned, you're a prolific editor who has made many personal links into the community. Editors like me, who spend as much time in a week on Wikipedia as many of the "regulars" spend in a single evening, fully recognizing that our contributions are minor but (it is hoped) still appreciated, exist on a different plane. Will anyone in the entire community go to AN/I and say "WTF?" if I get blocked? If Durova, or any one of several other administrators, had blocked me last week as a sockpuppet, would anyone have been willing to do the unblock? You know the answers to those questions, and so do I. Take a look at all those alleged sockpuppets of JB196 and half a dozen of the other "known" vandals, and tell me you are 100% certain not a single good-faith editor was misidentified. And if they protested their innocence, that they were treated with respect and unblocked. Who am I going to email, Ned? If I email you, will you unblock me? You don't know me from Adam, and neither do most admins. Wikipedia may not be for crybabies, but it is also not Australian rules football. Risker (talk) 01:42, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

This is simply incorrect. I've actually stuck my neck out more than once for editors I've never even crossed paths with before, regardless of their edit counts. Other people do the same. You'll find many Wikipedians who look at the merits of the block, and not at the level of involvement of who was blocked. If you post an unblock request saying "I think there's been a mistake" you will find someone to help you. It's extremely rare that this doesn't happen. -- Ned Scott 02:00, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

Ned, I believe that you may well have given me a fair shake. Unfortunately, if I was blocked as a sockpuppet, my email would have been disabled, so I could not have called on your assistance. I would have been forced to go to the unblock-en-l list and revealed my IRL IP address if I wanted to be unblocked. For you, it isn't an issue as you have always edited under your RL name. For me, it poses very definite risks. Risker (talk) 02:21, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

Many editors, such as myself, also provide non-email contact information (such as my AIM screen name, which is "Ned Scott"). None the less, you always have the unblock template, and there's no reason why you'd have to give your IP address via the unblock e-mail list. Lurk around WP:AN/I every so often and you'll see what I mean. -- Ned Scott 02:30, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

For an example of how a new user gets treated in the unblock IRC channel, look at this. Videmus Omnia ^Talk 02:35, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

I do not doubt that you can find an asshole on IRC, I simply doubt that people are unable to find/contact at least one person that would be willing to help them. -- Ned Scott 02:45, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

The question is how many people even try, and how many simply just give up and leave? Videmus Omnia ^Talk 02:50, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

I disagree. I myself have been a victim of these idiotic sock-hunting blocks, you don't know how frustrating and infuriating it is unless you've been subjected to it. There's no justice when blocking admins engage in off-wiki canvassing to decline blocks unblock requests and therefore convert blocked editors into "banned" editors. For an educational experience, look at 24.19.33.82 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · block user · block log); I'm bringing that one up at the Jehochman/Durova RFAR when it is accepted. Videmus Omnia ^Talk 02:10, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

What happened was unacceptable, and no one is saying Durova didn't fuck up, because she really fucked up. And as an established editor, I understand the frustrations of admin-clicks or groupthink deciding such things. What I'm trying to say is that if someone, without presenting evidence, is going to come along and say "this guy who we have no reason to believe is bad.. yeah he's bad", and that user challenges that; the likelihood of finding someone to stand up for you is extremely high. -- Ned Scott 02:16, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

For editors with some experience, maybe. For editors just getting started, bubkes. Videmus Omnia ^Talk 02:19, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

Who the hell are you to decide this for us? For starters, I don't normally look at people's contribs when I'm talking to them, and have no real way of telling how "wiki-nerd-hard-core" they are or not. There's so many editors, and with so many views, that being around long or not doesn't mean much of anything. There are some users who I've gotten an impression of from a discussion, then was like "oh wow, they've been here since 2004" but knowing they've been here since 2004 didn't change my evaluation of their comments then and there. Not only that, but some editors here that I really like have been here for less than a year, for some only a few months. Others only edit a few times a month, and I hold their opinions with a high amount of respect. If you want to continue to assume the worst of the community then you have no place criticizing an admin for assuming the worst in a blocking situation. -- Ned Scott 02:25, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

See my reply above. Videmus Omnia ^Talk 02:44, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

1) Who are you to say he's not? 2) It's not about you. 3) The people it's about can't speak here by definition. 4) That's what the current question of !! stands for.

Please indicate where I lost you. sNkrSnee | t.p. 02:53, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

To parts 1 and 2, in what context are these? To part three, yes, lets speculate some more. Part 4's sentence doesn't make sense. -- Ned Scott 03:42, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

wow sNkrSnee | t.p. 04:18, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

Alright, way to be a dick. I very literally mean that I don't understand what you mean when you say "Who are you to say he's not?". Who's he, and what am I saying they're not? I can't even disagree with you, because I have no idea what the heck you are saying. Do. you. understand. ? -- Ned Scott 04:34, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

okay then, way to be envious. Are you (Ned) unable to read what you (Ned) wrote right above my (me) comment? I can't write shorter sentences. I see no further point to this. Users questioning my phallubility should consider my own lined-out comments at the page top, and the friendly note I left on Ned's talk page, now deleted as "junk". [[21]] sNkrSnee | t.p. 05:26, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

I apologies about the talk page comment, it was another situation where I did not understand the context of your message completely, and thought maybe you were being sarcastic. -- Ned Scott 05:34, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

Accepted, comments struck as courtesy. sNkrSnee | t.p. 13:07, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Lets get some things clear

In no way are we going to let Durova block under these same conditions again. Not being all pissed off doesn't mean we will learn nothing from this. The point most of you are missing is how to correct the situation, as well as to what needs correction. No matter how you feel about it, off-wiki evidence is more and more a reality here, with BLPs and investigations, and even anti-vandal bot code. Is the issue that Durova did an investigation, or is the issue that no one else was consulted, or that there wasn't some way additional people could have reasonable access to what was going on? Someone was acting alone and leaving people in the dark, and we all agree that shouldn't be done. -- Ned Scott 03:51, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

Ned, the main problem here is that there was absolutely no need for this case to be handled confidentially and secretly. There's nothing confidential in the "evidence", neither "techniques" nor "facts". There certainly are cases when things need to be done off-wiki, and it's a good thing that we're now discussing an actual guideline on how these should be handled. But this wasn't such a case, not even close. There was a deeply logically flawed, cliquish and near-paranoid thought process involved, and saying "oops, sorry, got one wrong" doesn't really do much to remedy the situation. Some people have lost enough trust in Durova personally to demand her recall. I'm not sure either way. It's questionable whether desysopping should ever be punitive, and I don't think Durova can do much damage herself. But the real divisive issue lies in the refusal of a number of admins to acknowledge that what Durova did wasn't a simple routine mistake, and the failure to understand (or at least failure to admit) that neither her nor them should contemplate doing similar things in the future. Zocky | picture popups 04:12, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

I don't think anyone is claiming that this was a simple mistake. The only thing she shouldn't be doing is doing something like this alone. That, more than anything, is where things went wrong. However, people are taking other elements to an extreme, taking offense to the very idea of off wiki-evidence and investigation, which is something hardly isolated to Durova. A lot of us supporting Durova are doing so under the assumption that we will develop a better way to deal with this, and that these events are not repeated. What else do people want? A public stoning? I guess some of us just assumed everyone was on the same page when it came to not letting the same thing happen again. -- Ned Scott 04:32, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

Ned, there are thirty people signed under the statement "A bad block was made for 75 minutes. It was reversed and an apology given." Close this RfC and go back to editing. Enough drama." That's a description of a routine mistake. Zocky | picture popups 04:38, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

Look. Plain and simple, In no way are we going to let Durova block under these same conditions again. Not being all pissed off doesn't mean we will learn nothing from this. The point most of you are missing is how to correct the situation, as well as to what needs correction. No matter how you feel about it, off-wiki evidence is more and more a reality here, with BLPs and investigations, and even anti-vandal bot code. Is the issue that Durova did an investigation, or is the issue that no one else was consulted, or that there wasn't some way additional people could have reasonable access to what was going on? Someone was acting alone and leaving people in the dark, and we all agree that shouldn't be done.

No one, repeat, NO ONE, wants this to happen again, especially Durova. Pull your head out of your ass and look at the only productive work being done to make this better. -- Ned Scott 05:17, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

I am getting out of line here, I apologies. -- Ned Scott 05:36, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

On second thought, I have to disagree with the "the only wrong thing was acting alone" bit. She was investigating a completely undisruptive user account in some imagined secret detective role. Apart from wasting her own time, this produces distrust, resentment, and yes, drama. There's nothing to be gained from doing it, even if done as teamwork, and much to be lost, especially if done as teamwork. It needs to stop. When an account is disruptive, by all means, deal with it. Just don't go after people who're simply editing the encyclopedia. Zocky | picture popups 04:55, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

Incase you didn't realize it, people make judgement calls about other editors all the time, even if they don't act upon them. Being a "respected Wikipedian" does not make you some magical elf that can never be questioned. If you are offended that someone cross referenced your edits in an indiscriminate process that wasn't personal in any way, whoopty doo, a lot of good that will accomplish. Again, people need to leave their egos at the door. -- Ned Scott 05:17, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

Mmmm... I read the evidence, and to me it looked quite personal, and the process that led to it IMO wasn't indiscriminate. If you think that this was an impersonal and indiscriminate process, then we'll just have to agree to disagree. Zocky | picture popups 05:30, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

I don't quite understand. While vague, the description Durova gave of her process seemed to indicate she was just matching editing patterns, and I am unaware of any other dispute Durova or User:!! had other than this incident. -- Ned Scott 05:40, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

(ec*2)Concur with Zocky completely. I'll also add that I'm unhappy with how the block was carried out.  !! has done many positive things here and has earned the right to be treated with more respect than he was. A block with no preparation, no explanation, no expectation that it would ever end, and instead, just a stone-cold note to contact ArbCom, is not the way to treat someone unless they have been caught absolutely red-handed with checkuser evidence of some kind (even then, there would be a note that checkuser has caught them). There was no reason to hurry this block. It's not as though !! had been proven to be a user prone to releasing personal info or a move vandal or something of that nature. He was essentially just an account that Durova didn't like the smell of. —Wknight94 (talk) 04:46, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

"He was essentially just an account that Durova didn't like the smell of." oh come off it, it's statements like that that make these matters worse. Again, you're not telling us anything that we don't already know. This situation was unacceptable, but I hate to disappoint very one and tell them that you don't have to fight, bitch, and moan to make it better. Am I the only one who likes that idea? -- Ned Scott 05:21, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

Wouldn't these sentiments be better expressed on the RFC and RFArb pages? Sniping at each other isn't apt to do much good at this point. RxS (talk) 05:42, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

Yes, I apologize. These sections were an excuse for Ned to go thrashing about and I should have recognized that earlier. My bad. —Wknight94 (talk) 15:04, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

Err, I might have gotten off topic, but my original intention was to discuss why we sometimes feel that blocking is so offendable. It certainly was not there so I could go "thrashing about". The second subsection was a failed attempt by me to point out that those who are "supporting" Durova are not endorsing what happened, and to let others know that even if we don't appear mad, we still agree with the bulk of you about many things in this situation. -- Ned Scott 23:01, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] "There is no cabal"

If by "cabal" it is meant an exclusive group that makes decisions privately despite not publicly proclaiming power, of course there is. Otherwise Durova lied when she said that she circulated the evidence among an exclusive group of people, or I'm completely out of the loop and there was a Sooper Sekrit Evidence^TM team publicly declared. Even if for some reason you deny this, stating "there is no cabal" as if it's impossible to deny makes no sense. -Amarkov moo! 06:35, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Discussion of Zocky's View

Reassembled from RFC page'

Not much of a view, more of an observation of a fatal flaw of this RFC. This is a very important issue that requires community discussion, but the problem is that not everybody here is playing with a full pack of cards. Some people have seen the confidential evidence that was sent to a mailing list with detailed justification for the block of !!, and others haven't. This causes people to talk past each other. Some people are outraged by the content of that email, and are basing their views on it. Others who haven't seen the email, or even don't know there was an email involved, are naturally puzzled and dismayed by the outrage.

It's impossible at this time to say who has seen the "evidence" and thought it wasn't that outrageous, and who hasn't seen it at all and is basing their judgment on partial information, so the RFC is useless for gauging community opinion. In addition, the discussion under these conditions is likely to be dramatic and divisive, even if everyone tries their best to keep calm.

The "evidence" can't be published on Wikipedia, and it can't be linked to off-site. That decision is not going to be changed without Durova herself publishing it. That would be the best way forward, but I can understand that she would find it hard to do, and we probably have no right to demand it from her. I'm not happy about this, but in the circumstances, closing this RFC and concentrating on the RFAR case seems the best thing to do. Zocky | picture popups 06:53, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

Durova is an administrator of the project who performed admin actions in her role as an admin. The community has every right to demand she publish what evidence she used, who she consulted about that evidence, what their responses were, and what she did about it. If she refuses to furnish any of that information, of course we can hold it against her, but we can't fault the RFC itself. --Alecmconroy (talk) 07:59, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

Response to Alecmconroy: It's not about faulting the RFC, it's about the problem that the "evidence" has been seen by some and not the others. The "evidence" is a major part of the problem here, and it's IMO impossible to have a meaningful conversation about the case in this circumstances. Zocky | picture popups 08:17, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

So, what you're saying is that since only a few people have been able to see the evidence, it's not fair to judge Durova on the basis of secret "secret evidence"?  :) I love irony.

However, note that in this case, Durova has the secret evidence, she can publish it in her own defense at any given point. The evidence has already been published, many people have seen it, and anyone who wants to can easily find it.

There isn't going to be an "you forgot to tag base so it's a do over" type of way to declare the RFC invalid. We're here, we're commenting, it's valid. If Durova chooses to reveal her evidence, her mailing list, and her feedback, the community will give her feedback on that. If Durova chooses not to, the community will give her feedback on that. Either way, this IS an RFC, the opinions being offered ARE valid ones that should be listened to.

If you're concerned that the lack of being able to directly publish the evidence is handicapping her and biasing her, I would encourage you to just publish a copy here to the talk page. As a strong Durova supporter, no one would accuse you of trying to be disruptive or trying to harass. --Alecmconroy (talk) 08:37, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

Ahem, you should actually read my comments on this and other pages connected to this case. Whoever gave you the idea that I'm anybody's "strong supporter"? My motivation for that comment is exactly what I stated - we're trying to reason with people who say "there's nothing wrong", but they actually don't know what is wrong, and we're unable to tell them what is wrong, because we can't publish the "evidence". It's no way to hold a conversation. Zocky | picture popups —Preceding comment was added at 08:44, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

I thought about this further while putting away the dishes just now. Alec, what you did is you half-read somebody's opinion about something, classified that somebody into a nicely delineated category, and invented a half-paranoid story to fit that image. Rather ironic, considering the circumstances, no? Zocky | picture popups 08:51, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

Actually what I did was far less bad-faith and far-more plain stupidity-- I got my wires crossed and thought the reply to my dissent came from someone other than you. and when I was replying it, the "second person" I was addressing wasn't you, Zocky. I didn't make assumptions about you, Zocky, based on your authorship of the comment, I incorrectly parsed who made the comment in the first place. My apologies for the whole thing-- this is why I should always drink two cups of coffee before replying. --Alecmconroy (talk) 09:09, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] What is the OFFICIAL status of the evidence?

Does anybody know what the official status is now, regarding posting of the relevant evidence? It exists on at least two "BADSITES", and in many diffs. Whether or not some of the pages have been oversighted, there's many which haven't been. On the other hand, there's the incident with Giano. Note I'm not going to do "recon-by-fire" myself, that's too provocative. I'll ask the Wikimedia Foundation, but I want to ask here too as an alternate, and perhaps a little insurance (Disclosure - I'm asking in my capacity as a columnist) -- Seth Finkelstein (talk) 12:50, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

Seth, you know better than that. "Official"? Picture a man pointing to the left and the right and looking straight ahead and saying "Go that way." The Foundation is "separate" from the community and the community is a self governing semi-anarchy. WAS 4.250 (talk) 13:27, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, but I've got to do "due diligence" in investigation even if I have a very good idea of what will be the result. One thing I've found in terms of being a journalist, if you don't want to rewrite press releases or kick easy targets, there's a lot of dealing with people who will blow you off or blow smoke at you. I'll probably have to do an hour of work on this point, plus annoy Foundation people, in order to back up two sentences. It sure puts all the hype about "citizen journalism" into perspective :-(. -- Seth Finkelstein (talk) 13:54, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

For what it is worth, User:Lar says he was asked by User:Durova to have the e-mail you are talking about oversighted on the bases of privacy and copyright, which are both considerations under our oversight rules, I believe; so he passed on the request. However, neither reason holds up to scrutiny for reasons I don't care to go into; but one can start with fair use and the WikiMedia Mission statement. One more bad judgement by Durova; and one more bad judgement by management (making people go to sites that are called untrustworthy to get information on an important current issue facing Wikipedia makes Wikipedia/Wikimedia management look trustworthy how?) WAS 4.250 (talk) 13:45, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

Eh? I think you may have me confused with someone else, as I had nothing to do with any oversighting, the first I heard of it, it had already been done. I'd appreciate it if you researched this further and corrected that statement. ++Lar: t/c 14:55, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

Indeed, that's helpful, thank you - one point I'm trying to nail down is the copyright and "DMCA issues" here. -- Seth Finkelstein (talk) 13:54, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

When I saw the DMCA comment, I assumed that Durova had sent the foundation something that was interpreted as a DMCA take-down letter; but that would require Durova to threaten the Foundation with a lawsuit. I suspect it is a matter of wanting to eat a cake and still have it afterwords. If she did send such a thing, she should at the least not be an admin; and if she did not and merely asked that Wikipedia abide by its oversight rules, then the DMCA comment is more cover-up. Or at least incompetence. WAS 4.250 (talk) 14:03, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

WAS4.250, I wasn't aware of that. Is that common knowledge? Seems significant, as either claim would require an admission of the authenticity of the document (I think!?). Sorry if stating the obvious. sNkrSnee | t.p. 14:16, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

Newyorkbrad already verified the authenticity of the document. WAS 4.250 (talk) 14:24, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

Knew that, didn't realize that was "official", but I'm mostly clueless about personalities. Thanks for clarifying. sNkrSnee | t.p. 14:28, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

Seth- User:Cary Bass oversighted the info when it was posted on Giano's page and temporarily blocked him, saying there was a DMCA involved. She said the action was endorsed by the Wikimedia Foundation, for which she works, so you really need to ask Durova direct and/or them if you want to use it (if you don't want difficulties.:))Merkinsmum (talk) 14:34, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

Cary Bass is a "he". See http://wikimediafoundation.org/wiki/User:Cary_Bass WAS 4.250 (talk) 14:57, 25 November 2007

Has it actually been OVERSIGHTED? I still see plenty of copies in the history of User_talk:Giano_II (Oh no, Jehovah!) -- Seth Finkelstein (talk) 15:08, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

It was oversighted from the AN/I thread, but not from Giano's page. Christopher Parham (talk) 15:40, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

We wouldn't know now lol- if you look at my talk page and that of User:Mercury (if the comments haven't gone) we were confused because it seemed that edits occurred at the same time we were editing, which weren't made by us, not using the normal editing facilities the rest of us use. But you're right, the email is back in the edit history now, if it ever went. Lol very confusing! Of course if it had or hadn't been used at some point, we could only ever take their word for it as we'd never know.Merkinsmum (talk) 15:44, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

Snickersnee- a lot of comment went on about how the user was embarrassed by this email she wrote, which was a mistake she made, so please take it down, or words to that effect. I don't know how much of the discussion has now been oversighted.:)Merkinsmum (talk) 14:40, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

Thanks Merkinsum, I saw some of that but was still uncertain it had been formally pronounced authentic, which I know it was presumed to be, but most was from third parties. You've now answered that for me in your comment to Seth, and I appreciate that. sNkrSnee | t.p. 14:47, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

Oh, my goodness. This is a replay of the core issue of the Kelly Martin use of admins.irc. In both cases, the users are attempting to act on Wikipedia while all the while saying, "You can't quote me!" Given that the e-mail was passed from hand to hand, by the time it got to Giano, it would have carried no expectation of privacy. Because it was supposedly sent to a list of individuals, it again loses the expectation of privacy. However, from our point of view, we have the critical issue of whether or not people can use nothing but e-mail, which is the case with Durova, and continually say, "My evidence is secret, and you can't report what evidence I have." Durova used e-mail for every element of this mistake: the motivation, the evidence, the analysis, the "review," the apology, the forgiveness, but not the act. The act was on-Wikipedia. The act had on-Wikipedia consequences, concerned Wikipedia users, and continued to harm the editing atmosphere. While Giano should have made a paraphrase or summary to avoid even the appearance of quoting an e-mail, the fundamental act remains both correct and for the good of Wikipedia (and good for Durova, as it allows her to get better advice, better parameters set to her acts, better counseling, because the audience is no longer "those already agreeing" and now the dissenting and consequently educational voices). There is no crime involved (no expectation of privacy), no impropriety to Wikipedia (it was an act needed), and yet there is a violation of "no legal threats" by Durova (by e-mail, of course, where it can't be quoted, of course). The critical issues cannot be uncovered and discussed without first getting rid of this "you can't quote me: it's a secret forum" habit. Geogre (talk) 15:29, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

Either (a) Durova used a legal threat levied at the Foundation to suppress an informed discussion of her conduct or (b) Cary Bass overstepped his authority by acting as if a legal threat had been made when none had. Either way, something smells bad here. If the former, it speaks very badly of Durova: she needs to own up to her own mistaken actions, take full responsibility for them, make a complete and full allocution, and offer such amends as can be offered. If the latter, Cary should be, at the very least, reprimanded by the Foundation for putting them at legal risk. Regardless, you would think that by now Wikipedia would have learned that trying to sweep the subject of dispute under a rug serves no purpose. Oversighting away embarrassing evidence -- of any sort -- just fans the flames more. I don't know whether Durova or Cary is more to blame in this situation, but it's a bad situation nonetheless. Kelly Martin 16:30, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] WP:NLT?

If any editor issues a DMCA/copyright notice to Wikipedia, is that a violation of WP:NLT? • Lawrence Cohen 16:44, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

Not necessarily. I've run into this situation before with images, when a photographer (who also happens to be a Wikipedian) has some of their work posted here by someone else without their consent. It would be different if Durova had posted it on Wikipedia herself, then tried to withdraw the GFDL license. That's not the case here. Videmus Omnia ^Talk 17:01, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Probably if they weren't part of the in-crowd.:) Mind you Durova does have a point that she didn't write that email intending it to be issued under the GFDL, or to be on wikipedia, only to go on the mailing list/email involved. Mind you I think it can be seen as fair use to an extent.17:06, 25 November 2007 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Merkinsmum (talk • contribs)

It probably is a violation of NLT even if it's a valid legal threat. The point to the NLT policy is not to say that Wikipedia is above the law, but merely that making threats is inappropriate, and especially inappropriate when trying to get one's way. The most typical case is the, "I'll sue you! You reverted my edits" sort of nonsense, but the same would be true, at a much higher level, of "Don't say what I said." In mine, above, I tried to reason out a bit of whether there was something actually illegal about the posting. It certainly wasn't entirely kosher, but the "evidence" probably didn't have much of an expectation of privacy, since it had already gone to a "list" of recipients. Think, though, of actual surface mail. If you receive a letter from someone telling you that he was planning on punching someone else in the nose, would he be able to sue you for showing that letter to the police (or the person who owned the threatened nose)? Once the mail is received, it is no longer protected the way it would have been if it had remained on the user's computer. At any rate, making the threat in order to make the embarrassing "evidence" go away is not good behavior and probably does violate NLT. I don't think that she should suffer consequences for the threat, but I do think it foolish in the extreme to honor the threat. Geogre (talk) 21:18, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Closing this RfC??

Should we close this RfC, because it may degenerate into a flame war?? I'm trying to WP:AGF here, but from what I read at a recent MfD about a request for comments page, someone said these turn into battlegrounds to make personal attacks, and cause ill will amongst editors.

It's certainly true that this is controversial; however, I'm not sure whether this should be closed and tagged as

This Wikipedia page is currently inactive and is retained primarily for historical interest. A historical page usually is one that is no longer maintained or no longer relevant, or one for which consensus is unclear. If you want to revive discussion regarding the subject, you should seek broader input via a forum such as the proposals page of the village pump.

and then protected to prevent further editing.

I haven't commented in this, purely because of the amount of controversy this whole scenario has generated. --Solumeiras ^talk 16:43, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

Trying to shut down discussions in progress will only lead to more drama. Most likely, people will wheel war over the protect. Best case scenario from your point of view, the protection would stay and people would just shift the discussion elsewhere, where they would also discuss feeling put out by the RFC being shut down. --Alecmconroy (talk) 16:46, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

• My mistake suggesting this. The only thing I was trying to avoid was drama, and I didn't realize I was only going to cause more.

Adding the page to Wikipedia:Protected titles, or courtesy blanking are probably the only realistic alternatives for this page. --Solumeiras ^talk 16:49, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

Why in the world would you "courtesy blank" this discussion? You can't make a problem go away by throwing a rug over it. Kelly Martin 17:34, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

Disagree, this RFC is a mandatory step in Durova's recall commitment. There are is a fairly large number of editors asking for a recall, so this should go forward for a little while longer.(edited to add: or until she states that the RFC has fulfilled the recall precondition). In addition, the Arbcom case will likely have a different focus so that shouldn't be a basis for closure. RxS (talk) 16:55, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

Unfortunately, agree it shouldn't be closed. Unless Durova outright says she isn't standing for the recall, can it be assumed that its underway as 20 people have now asked for this? • Lawrence Cohen 17:37, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

This contribution by Durova from the Request for Arbitration page is probably relevant to this discussion. Davewild (talk) 17:55, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

Durova's opinion on when to close her own RFC isn't really something worth considering. (though I understand of course why you posted the link). Far more troubling to me is Lar's summary of Durova's position-- that she is no longer an admin open to recall.

Hopefully that's not true-- but if it is... much bad. if you have an "I promise to submit to a recall vote" pledge, only to yell "Psyche!!" when such a request actually appears!?! That strikes me as the kind of thing that makes mobs gather up pitchforks and torches, although maybe not-- we'll see. --Alecmconroy (talk) 18:35, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

And I shouldn't have to say this, but believe it or not, I'm actually scared this might come up, so let me add the disclaimer: When I talk about pitchforks and torches, I am NOT speaking literally, I am not threatening violence-- I'm just evoking a classic film image of civil unrest. I shouldn't have to say this-- but in the current climate, I do.

I do not think that you've at all accurately summarised what I said, Alecmconroy. Again, I would leave it to Durova to speak for herself but my interpretation of what she said to me was that in this case, a recall vote was unnecessary in light of there being an arbcom case active already. That's not at all the same thing as not being open to recall. I suspect many of us open to recall may not have thought through the exact implications of an arbcom case starting up concurrently to another process (the recall process or in her case, a precursor to it) executing, and maybe we should all go clarify what we would do in this case, maybe it's less of an outlier case than thought. Work through an example though ... if arbcom says "you're not an admin any more", what's the point of a voluntary process also coming out to the same outcome? The process has always been subservient to arbcom after all, and pointing out that a recall to take away one's adminship is unnecessary if it's already been taken away doesn't strike me as going back on one's word. I hope that clarifies matters, and I really do wish you'd be careful to try not to give the appearance of trying to put words in my mouth. ++Lar: t/c 18:58, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

I think the problem is that the scope and the outcome of the Arbcom case isn't known at this point. Another difference is that Arbcom will decide the outcome of the case, in the recall the community will decide, so there's a real difference in the 2 processes. She's commited to recall and until that process is completed or withdraws from that commitment the 2 processes are separate. And on another point, I don't think Recall is subservient to Arbcom, at least in the sense that it can void a Recall result. RxS (talk) 19:08, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

Yes and no, I'd say... if a recall failed, but ArbCom deadmined, that's a void of the recall (which failed). If a recall succeeded, but ArbCom said "we see no reason to remove the bit" I'd tend to expect the recalled admin to proceed to the next step of their defined process, whatever it was, anyway, regardless of ArbCom's finding of no reason. I think we're a ways into hypotheticals though, and again I'd look to Durova to clarify what she intends to do and then let the community decide what they think about it. ++Lar: t/c 19:26, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

(ec)Yeah, if anything I'd say Arbcom is subservient to the Community in general. For example-- can arbcom unilaterally MAKE someone an admin on their own, without that person also doing an RFA? I think not, right? It would see that both Arbcom and Community must assent to someone being an admin-- either channel can revoke the privilege. --Alecmconroy (talk) 19:29, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

Hmm... not to put too fine a point on it, but at this time, the community cannot, in general, revoke the adminship priv. It seemingly takes ArbCom to do that. The exception is for the relatively small minority of admins (130 out of 1400+) who have said they are willing to voluntarily submit themselves to the will of the community, using a process of their own choosing. For the vast majority of admins, that is not the case. No value judgement is intended by that statement. ++Lar: t/c 20:18, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

Lar, I'm sorry if I incorrectly summarized your summary of Durova, and actually very happy to hear that you think my summary is incorrect. That good-- I didn't want it to be true. I apologize for the miscommunication-- I know Durova and the community are playing a bit of the telephone game right now, and you're sorta caught in the middle. I'm sure Durova's feeling overwhelmed-- in some ways, she's unfortunately finding herself as the focal point of a major project-wide debate about a lot of different issues-- things will be easier for communication wise when she find the time to join in the conversation, instead of sending messages to the community back and forth through you.

I'm really glad to hear you think there was a miscommunication-- as I said "Hopefully that's not true" that Durova isn't going to submit to recall. When I saw you say Durova felt a recall vote would be unnecessary if a case was opened and then a case was opened, I assumed Durova now felt a recall vote wasn't going to happen.

In my eyes, the criteria for a recall process has been met. She wanted an RFC, there's an RFC. She wanted 5 votes, she's gotten 20. And now we, as a community, see whether or not her word was good.

When this first started, I never seriously considered she might not go forward with a recall. Durova has always been trustworthy in my dealings with her. I actually got mad at someone for even suggesting she might not be true to her word on this. But, a lot of people with more experience than me have predict she's not assenting to a recall. The clerkship thing did a lot to make me question my faith. Your comment SEEMED to be the last nail in the coffin, but I'm really happy to hear you say you think there was a miscommunication and that she hasn't already decided to go back on the recall promise. --Alecmconroy (talk) 19:24, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Arbcom case started

The arbCm case has been opened. This RfC should be closed. I would do this myself, but I understand that there is an editor already clerking this. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 18:43, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

Disagree, this RFC servers a dual purpose. As I wrote above this RFC is a prerequisite to her commitment to the recall process. And as discussed further up the page, there's really no meaning to the term "clerking" an RFC....in any event this should remain open until Durova accepts the RFC part of her recall commitment fulfilled or she chooses to withdraw the recall commitment. RxS (talk) 18:51, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

I have no special standing to close this, if Jossi is referring to me, any more than anyone else in particular does. (we all do, to the same greater or lesser extent) I am starting to regret the use of the term "clerk" for what I was asked to do, as it's apparently carrying far too much implied meaning in the minds of others, way more meaning than I intended it to have... the intended meaning was just to help shepherd the RfC along and make sure it was neat and tidy (that, for example, the certification would stand up to scrutiny in future, and that links weren't rotted, and that the sections were organised correctly, and so forth... things anyone could do if they chose to). If someone is asking my personal opinion about closing it, I have none. I leave it to ArbCom and the general community to decide. ++Lar: t/c 19:03, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

I know, I feel like I'm over doing the clerk thing but I feel it's important to make that point. It's certainly not meant to be critical here, I just think once a concept gets it's claws into the bureaucracy it takes dynamite to get it out... RxS (talk) 19:20, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

What term (if any) should I use to refer to what it was I was asked to do? I'm very open here, if it can reduce confusion. Note that if we get to a recall petition, what is done (tracking and certifying the petitioners as being in good standing under the recallee's provisions) will be called clerking then, because that's what it has been called before. That's assuming, of course, that if it gets to that, that Durova actually wants that formality and doesn't just accept at least 6 of the people here calling for recall as being "in good standing" under her criteria. ++Lar: t/c 20:52, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

Arbcom is Durova's mates isn't it? At least here the outcome is a bit more open to ordinary editor's views. Arbcom will be some of the same people who endorsed her action at the time, won't it (no offence meant)? By rights, those who endorsed her action would I hope recuse from arbitrating it.Merkinsmum (talk) 19:25, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

OMG-- there were ARBS who are on the mailing list? I know I shouldn't be so shrill and dramatic but... jesus. Yeah, any arb who even knew about a secret mailing list, participated in it, and didn't object to the !! block-- should be serving as parties, not as arbiters. --Alecmconroy (talk) 19:48, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

Plus, surely an RfC should reach a real conclusion before an ArbCom is started? Arbcom comes after any RfC's usually, doesn't it, rather than meaning an RfC gets ignored? Or have I got that wrong?Merkinsmum (talk) 19:30, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

I do not believe that this RfC should be closed simply because the ArbCom has accepted a case over the same subject. The ArbCom may take months to resolve this issue, whereas this RfC might come to a conclusion before then. In fact, I suspect the main reason why some people are pressuring for this RfC to be "closed" or "suspended" is that Durova's commitment to stand for recall requires a "completed RfC" before the recall can begin; suspending the RfC will allow the matter to be drawn out indefinitely and avoid the recall election, even though dozens of editors have called for it. It is my considered opinion that if this RfC is suspended, closed, or otherwise terminated, Durova should immediately stand for recall in accordance with her prior pledge. Using procedural maneuvering to avoid one's promises is dishonorable. Kelly Martin 19:49, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

I think an immediate reconfirmation vote would be a bad idea: it would be unfortunate for Durova to give up the bit, stand for recall and get it back, and have the AC take it away again. I don't think the community recall process is made unnecessary by the arbitration proceeding, but it certainly can be overridden by it and recall ought to stand in abeyance until the arbcom comes to a decision. I don't think this case is likely to take months. Christopher Parham (talk) 20:06, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

Arcom is surely going to review Durova's actions and they'll likely decide whether she will retain her tools. I question some but not all, mind you, of those who have asked her to step down voluntarily....seems that there have been some that simply want to settle an old score, and that's pretty shitty.--MONGO (talk) 19:57, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

Wow, talk about poisoning the well. For the record, I have no bad blood with Durova. In fact, I barely know who Durova is and have certainly never encountered her in my travels on the wiki. What little I do know about her is hearing people bitch about her in other fora. So watch where you sling that tar-filled brush, MONGO. Kelly Martin 23:09, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

MONGO, I don't know whether or not you're referring to me, perhaps not.. perhaps I'm beneath your radar.. I acknowledge bad blood between Durova and myself.. she raked me over the coals and and helped to turn wikipedia into a hostile environment.. simply because I dared speak out strongly against her methods on WP:CSN, when she was trying to lynch someone else without any real evidence or due process. But to assume that I'm now acting in bad faith, if indeed you are, would be bad faith on your part. Is an assault or rape victim's testimony any less valid because they are personally and emotionally vested? Hardly, and if you remove everyone from the 'complaint list' who has ever had a first-hand negative experience with Durova, then, of course, you'll be left with Durova is a good admin?

For me, it's not what she did to me, nor the hostile environment she helped create for me here, it's that she continues to do the same thing to others and refuses to acknowledge anything flawed about her methods or practices. Even on the rare occasions when she acknowledges a mistake, she avoids taking responsibility for the mistake and gives no indication that she's been chastened by any of the mistakes. She simply 'reverts' the block, says 'oops mistake', and expects us to take that as an apology. And she is STILL making statements like this

Interrupting a short wikibreak to make a statement here. It surprises me that this was initiated just a few hours after the RFC on my conduct got certified. I have always welcomed the Committee's scrutiny and continue to welcome it. DurovaCharge! 16:31, 24 November 2007 (UTC)

That does not have the ring of contrition to me. It has the sound of someone convinced they are infallible and that they'll be vindicated upon close scrutiny. So, to those of you who say 'she has apologized', I point to her opening statement at arbcom and ask how that bears any resemblance to an acknowledgment of flawed methods.

. In my opinion, she abuses her position and she is unworthy to be an admin. I came to that opinion after several months of dealing with her, and subsequently scanning her user & article talkpage discussions to see if I was alone in my opinion. I spoke out before and I'm here now only to point out that this is NOT a single-event but an on-going pattern of mistakes, carelessness, BadFaith and improper public accusations. Lsi john (talk) 21:31, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

All of my previous dealings with Durova have been fairly positive. But I am, upon learning more about how she has acted...extremely saddened and disappointed. I think the fact so many people who were neutral or positive before needs to be taken into account; indeed, I want complete accountability, openness and verifiability in this as I want it in all other parts of Wikipedia, and I'm...well, terribly disillusioned right now. I'd like to know some basic things, like why it's ok for her to have sockpuppetted herself into the 'inner circle' of Wikipedia review, and to forward all their mailings to Arbcom, and not see that that is just as dishonest as a WR editor sockpuppetting here; the only difference is she hasn't been caught yet (if her claim that she's done this is true). To be honest, the whole thing has me wondering what the hell is wrong with people on both sides of this issue, but I really love Wikipedia, and never once thought that Wikipedia Review was anything but a bunch of cranks, and now....well, you know what? I think they might have a point. I want Durova to submit to a recall vote because I believe it's the right thing to do. --Thespian (talk) 20:37, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

What? She "infiltrated" outside websites as a spy...?? • Lawrence Cohen 20:40, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

Perhaps it was meant as a joke, but I no longer have any idea what to think. Diff. --Thespian (talk) 21:03, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

All my previous interactions with Durova have been completely positive as well, but it seems every five minutes, another revelation of a new allegation. It seems like the existence of a underground militia, secret evidence, and secret mailings is now, crazily enough, a fact. Durova's own posting claims that sitting Arbcom members are also participating in this little militia. Now we have the claim of sockpuppeting and infiltrating WR?!? Thank god all this is coming out now, at a time when evidently most of the Arbcom seats still haven't been captured by said militia. --Alecmconroy (talk) 21:07, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

I think this should be closed at this point as more concrete action is going on at arbitration. Should the AC not remove Durova's bit, we are all perfectly capable of passing judgment on whether or not she is honoring her recall commitment. I imagine that if minor technical grounds turn out to be the deciding point many people will find her behavior distasteful. Christopher Parham (talk) 20:02, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

Pretty shitty indeed. And to assume ill motives for the closing is as shitty. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 20:03, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

If Durova publicly states she's not up for recall and no comments will change her mind, then perhaps we should think about closing it. If Durova states that this RFC has met her requirements and she will stand for recall, we should think about closing. Absent those two conditions, Durova deserves to be provided with more feedback from the community in order to help her make a decision whether to stand by the recall pledge or not-- nobody should try to interfere with that communication process or shut it down prematurely. --Alecmconroy (talk) 20:06, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

Agree with Alec. Durova set the RFC as a condition for her recall to happen. Unless she states to the RFC that recall won't happen, why would the RFC close? It was her process choice, shouldn't the closing for the recall portion of the RFC be her decision alone? • Lawrence Cohen 20:20, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

I could conceive of an RFC continuing beyond her request for a closure, but I can't fathom the RFC closing while she's still actively seeking comments to decide whether or not to assent to the recall pledge. --Alecmconroy (talk) 20:59, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

Any editor closing this RfC will be responsible for a LOT of shit hitting the fan. Please consider that and be prepared to take the consequences if you decide to close it anyway. Don't use "policies" to stop the community from speaking out. This is a special situation, which can be dealt with in ways that deviate from "policy". In the arbcom case, the arbcom gets to say their share. In the RfC, the community gets to say its share. Please also remember that the RfC is here because Durova herself named it as part of her so-called "recall procedure". Think twice, no thrice before closing this. --Cpt. Morgan (Reinoutr) (talk) 20:39, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

• Yes, what happened to editors having their say in a Request for Comment? Why would it go straight to arbcom, I don't get it?Merkinsmum (talk) 21:04, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Recent closure of this RfC

I just reverted the closure of the RfC that was done bye Solumeiras (talk · contribs) [22]. I will not revert again, but this closure is patent nonsense and only refutes the communities right to speak on this part. Durova HERSELF stated RfC as part of the recall procedure. --Cpt. Morgan (Reinoutr) (talk) 21:09, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

Good revert, this needs to stay open until the recall component of the RFC is resolved. She can indicate that the recall can go ahead or that she will not honor the recall commitment she made but until then keep it open...but either way she'd have to say that this RFC did or did not meet her requirements. I don't mean to make it a hostage to the recall but the process is what she defined. RxS (talk) 21:27, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Infiltrating outside groups and communities as a "spy"

I've asked Durova directly about this on her election page, since that is where she said it. That is very scary. Is this typically done? • Lawrence Cohen 21:18, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

• If that is really true... my god, what has Wikipedia become than... we are actually harrassing other sites now? --Cpt. Morgan (Reinoutr) (talk) 21:21, 25 November 2007 (UTC)
  • This is unprecedented, will we need to request that a representative from Wikipedia Review or other criticism websites appear before our ArbCom board to present evidence? Cla68 (talk) 21:28, 25 November 2007 (UTC)
    • I presumed she was half joking lol, though no doubt she has read those sites to 'inform' herself of their methods.:)Merkinsmum (talk) 21:33, 25 November 2007 (UTC)
      • She made the comment after the shit had already started on ANI. Not really the time to make bad jokes in my opinion. --Cpt. Morgan (Reinoutr) (talk) 21:34, 25 November 2007 (UTC)
        • Even so, it's reasonably clear to me that it was a joke. JavaTenor (talk) 23:16, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

Joke or not, it has nothing to do with the discussion at hand. This is not a lets-find-anything-we-don't-like-about-Durova-RfC. -- Ned Scott 05:33, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

Actually, question 73[23] is *directly* about the issue that got her into this mess, it isn't just a random 'oh, let's find anything' thing; I was reading it because I was trying to find out what her justification was and how she was improving to fit better with an open encyclopedia, and I found she was evasive and she made a comment that, with everything else that had already started, really worried me. This was not random nitpicky stuff; this was her directly addressing this issue in a way that made me decide she needs to stand for recall. This did indeed have something to do directly with the discussion at hand, and I was actually rather hoping I'd find a response that made me say she's developing more open, verifiable methods. I'm simply not seeing it, and instead, I saw that comment, and while she might not be all 'inner circle', I bet it's true that she does have an unidentifiable sockpuppet over there intentionally to try and link WR contributors to their WP account and then pay them some special attention. --Thespian (talk) 08:10, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

... yeah, right, Durova who has been pretty damn protective of just about everything regarding her tactics is actually going to TELL US that she has a spy (a sockpuppet can only exist if she's there twice, by the way) on Wikipedia Review. -- Ned Scott 08:32, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

Thank you for taking my concerns seriously and avoiding sarcasm. --Thespian (talk) 08:37, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

I'm sorry, I understand your concern, but regarding that comment specifically, I don't understand the point of making a big deal out of it. -- Ned Scott 08:40, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Formal recall started

Now that this RfC is more than 48 hours old, and therefore certified, I've started the formal recall thread on Durova's talk page. It's here [24]. Cla68 (talk) 21:30, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] I found the goalpost

For those interested, Durova has now unveiled her new and improved gameplan here. The answer to my own question is: "3-card Monte". sNkrSnee | t.p. 01:01, 26 November 2007 (UTC)