Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Durova

I think by now, everyone recognizes that Durova made an extremely big mistake when blocking !!, used evidence which looks lacking to say the least, then refused to let the community look at that evidence citing her technique for finding socks would be found out. However, this was one mistake, and as a community, we should accept that move on. I think it's clear that Durova's pride has been hit here, and it seems clear that she realizes her error of judgment in this situation and has already made proactive moves to insure that this does not happen again. Administrators are not perfect and we all make mistakes, I'd suggest that Durova is still an administrator in good standing within the community. Her excellent work in her tenure as a sysop far out-weighs the negatives that have occurred over the last week. For all those calling for recall, please try and look beyond this one incident, and realize that there are plenty of other administrators here that have mistakes that are just as bad, if not worse and more frequently, yet they haven't been forcibly recalled by ArbCom or the community. The one thing I urge Durova to do is to explain all actions to the community when requested. Unless there is an extremely serious concern that makes presentation to the community completely inappropriate, then she should give the community the evidence and let them decide what course of action to take.

Users who endorse this summary (sign with ~~~~):

1. Ryan Postlethwaite 17:18, 23 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
2. —Wknight94 (talk) 17:33, 23 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
3. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 17:35, 23 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
4. - Jehochman ^Talk 17:39, 23 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
5. Davewild (talk) 18:03, 23 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
6. Ksy92003(talk) 18:08, 23 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
7. Jeffpw (talk) 18:13, 23 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
8. Iamunknown 18:27, 23 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
9. Durova made one mistake, out of numerous good admin actions. If we desysopped an admin every time one made a mistake, we'd have none left. Acalamari 19:21, 23 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
10. Excellently put by Ryan. I would encourage Durova to be more open about her methods and put more trust into the Wikipedia community. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 21:06, 23 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
11. Agathoclea (talk) 21:28, 23 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
12. Franamax (talk) 21:31, 23 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
13. This is a Secret ^account 21:50, 23 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
14. Darkson (Yabba Dabba Doo!) 22:16, 23 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
15. Agne^Cheese/^Wine 22:33, 23 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
16. Húsönd 03:27, 24 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
17. Support that she should present her evidence to the community to decide what action to take. Bjewiki (Talk) 03:48, 24 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
18. — xDanielx ^T/_C\^R 03:50, 24 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
19. -- Ned Scott 03:58, 24 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
20. In conjunction with Jossi's statement above. —Animum (talk) 04:45, 24 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
21. Well put.-- _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk} 04:56, 24 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
22. Sage words, although Durova has lost a significant amount of credibility. east.718 at 07:57, November 24, 2007
23. Enough is enough, already. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 08:41, 24 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
24. Durova had a tendency to get emotionally tied up into her decisions and sometime struggles to see outside points of view. I hope that she will learn the lessons from this incident. A good editor driven away, her own personal credibility shattered and all because she refused to discuss her methods widely - even with other admins. The good thing was that she reversed herself very quickly but had she been willing to put her evidence up for discussion in advance this would all have been avoided in the first place.
    Spartaz ^Humbug! 09:13, 24 November 2007 (UTC)[reply
    ]
25. --MONGO (talk) 10:01, 24 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
26. Punishment is an entire day listening to
    Doc^g 11:32, 24 November 2007 (UTC)[reply
    ]
27. --Cailil ^talk 12:39, 24 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
28. Endorse except that I take no position on the soundness of her methods or what she should do in the future beyond being careful. Wikidemo (talk) 13:06, 24 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
29. --
    Love 17:34, 24 November 2007 (UTC)[reply
    ]
30. William M. Connolley (talk) 20:03, 24 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
31. . Thanks,
    SqueakBox 17:08, 25 November 2007 (UTC)[reply
    ]
32. Thank you for bringing perspective back into the debate. —Kurykh 18:45, 25 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
33. PeaceNT (talk) 05:46, 26 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Durova gathered a huge pile of diffs on an innocent editor, she then added a vicious narrative designed to put a false interpretation on the diffs. She discussed her findings in secret with "5 fellow sleuths" and then blocked an innocent man. She refused to explain her evidence or give her reasons. Following the posting of that evidence it has been found that the evidence was at best ridiculous at worst bordering on the wicked. He narrative was clearly designed to suit her own beliefs rather than the evidence provided by the diffs. She knew fully what she was doing. In spite of her powerful friends she cannot be trusted with Admin tools as next time she may be able to keep her ridiculous evidence secret and innocent editor banned.

Users who endorse this summary (sign with ~~~~):

1. talk) 19:07, 23 November 2007 (UTC)[reply
   ]
2. Everyking (talk) 19:42, 23 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
3. Lsi john (talk) 21:09, 23 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
4. Cla68 (talk) 21:19, 23 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
5. Majorly (talk) 21:30, 23 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
6. Videmus Omnia ^Talk 21:43, 23 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
7. Ripberger (talk) 22:15, 23 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
8. --
   ⟲ 22:17, 23 November 2007 (UTC)[reply
   ]
9. talk) 22:25, 23 November 2007 (UTC)[reply
   ]
10. -Amarkov moo! 22:40, 23 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
11. Tim Q. Wells 22:41, 23 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
12. • Lawrence Cohen 22:47, 23 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
13. Support with some reservations: I'm not sure what "She knew fully what she was doing" means. I'm also ambivalent as to whether she should be desysopped. Haukur (talk) 22:50, 23 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
14. *Dan T.* (talk) 02:03, 24 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
15. Christopher Parham (talk) 02:33, 24 November 2007 (UTC) [with similar reservations as Hauker, but I think the statements of fact that precede the last two sentences are unfortunately accurate]. Christopher Parham (talk) 02:33, 24 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
16. Bjewiki (Talk) 03:47, 24 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
17.  ALKIVAR™ ☢ 05:41, 24 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
18. Duk 06:45, 24 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
19. Kuronue | Talk 07:38, 24 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
20. east.718 at 07:58, November 24, 2007
21. Caniago Have reservations about some aspects of Giano's description, but I agree with the key point: Durova should be desysopped. (Caniago (talk) 11:01, 24 November 2007 (UTC))[reply]
22. Support with reservations, as expressed by Haukur above -Ferkelparade π 11:39, 24 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
23. Support with reservations. I haven't seen evidence of evil intent, but the poor judgment is enough to justify asking her to hop through the hoop of a fresh RFA. --Alecmconroy (talk) 12:19, 24 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
24. Support but agree with sentiments expressed by Haukur. Seraphim ^Whipp 12:57, 24 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
25. There is no place in Wikipedia for people who want to be Magnum P.I. Nothing good ever came out of a witchhunt, especially of an editor who is clearly doing no harm. Durova needs to find another hobby; perhaps she should take up helping to write an encyclopedia, for a change. Kelly Martin 13:49, 24 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
26. Failure to trust the community (in the manner of the investigations and the providing of evidence) which she is supposed to be serving leads to reciprocal mistrust by the community. LessHeard vanU (talk) 13:58, 24 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
27. Surreal as it is for me to be agreeing with both Giano & Kelly, they're absolutely right - if there's no sign of abuse, and the evidence is so complicated that no-one can understand it, than this is a bad error of judgement that serves no purpose other than to give WR something to laugh at for a few days, and the air won't be cleared until a fresh RFA gets the arguments out of the system. —
    iridescent 00:43, 25 November 2007 (UTC)[reply
    ]
28. Certainly an MO I have seen from her before, at least in parts. --JustaHulk (talk) 04:33, 25 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
29. sNkrSnee | t.p. 14:53, 25 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
30. rspeer / ɹəədsɹ 17:12, 25 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
31. Mailer Diablo (talk) 17:13, 25 November 2007 (UTC)[reply
    ]
32. Beit Or 20:54, 25 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
33. Viridae^Talk 22:20, 25 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
34. JavaTenor (talk) 23:15, 25 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
35. Mike H. Celebrating three years of being hotter than Paris 05:11, 26 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
36. Deor (talk) 05:16, 26 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
37. --
    Tex 19:02, 26 November 2007 (UTC)[reply
    ]

Durova shouldn't be allowed to act as a 'loose cannon' and block people questionably, something I gather she has been doing for quite some time, no matter how much people back her up after the fact. We have quite reliable methods for discovering socks etc with Checkuser, and these random guesses can not possibly have the same level of accuracy. Regardless of whether the person is a sock, they did not edit particularly wrongly, and in fact made good edits. There's no way of determining a sleeper account from other sites until they make disruptive edits, anyway in the meantime their edits may be helpful, and they can be dealt with if they ever become active crusaders for the other team, not that I particularly am into such characterisations of events. Anyway, in this case the action was erroneous. There seem to be a lot of hasty blocks going on recently. To me the amateur sleuthing is not as much of a problem as that no-one should be immune to following the dispute resolution and other formal processes we have on wikipedia, for a start it is not only bad form, but leads to decisions such as this one because there's more room for human error and overly hasty decision making when people act almost unilaterally in this way, without input of the whole community being regularly sought. I feel a temporary block is in order just so Durova is made fully aware that she is not above the law and does not quickly return to her own ways.Merkinsmum (talk) 18:32, 23 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Users who endorse this summary

1. Merkinsmum (talk) 18:32, 23 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
2. Lsi john (talk) 21:10, 23 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
3. *Dan T.* (talk) 02:03, 24 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
4. Kuronue | Talk 07:38, 24 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
5. Not the block, but the principles of community consensus being prime. LessHeard vanU (talk) 14:00, 24 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
6. Not the block also, as this is more serious and deserves more than "block and carry on". The main point is that Wikipedia needs no death squad or secret police, no matter what a fun hobby such may be. --JustaHulk (talk) 04:37, 25 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I have several problems with Durova's actions. One is that the !! block is apparently not the first time she wrongly blocked someone, i.e. there is a pattern of abuse. Another is that she was using a "secret" mailing list and has refused to reveal who was on it. Another problem is her mindset revealed in her email that she regards positive contributions to the project as evidence of evil intent. Another problem is that she has some severe paranoia that a Wikipedia criticism website (Wikipedia Review) is somehow trying to secretly take over Wikipedia. The biggest problem is that she hasn't promised to completely stop this behavior. Thus, I'm formally calling for her admin privileges to be revoked and that she pass through another RfA in order to get them back. Consider any endorsements to this statement to also be formal endorsements for a recall of her admin privileges unless the endorser states otherwise. Cla68 (talk) 21:16, 23 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Users who endorse this summary:

1. Cla68 (talk) 21:16, 23 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
2. Isarig (talk) 21:18, 23 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
3. Lsi john (talk) 21:20, 23 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
4. talk) 22:25, 23 November 2007 (UTC)[reply
   ]
5. *Dan T.* (talk) 02:06, 24 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
6. Mike H. Celebrating three years of being hotter than Paris 03:32, 24 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
7. Everyking (talk) 03:43, 24 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
8. Tim Q. Wells (talk) 03:47, 24 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
9.  ALKIVAR™ ☢ 05:41, 24 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
10. Duk 06:46, 24 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
11. Videmus Omnia ^Talk 06:59, 24 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
12. Except for the nature of the biggest problem. sNkrSnee | t.p. 10:42, 24 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
13. Ferkelparade π 11:40, 24 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
14. I can't call her actions "abusive"-- she's never given me any indication to doubt her good faith. But her actions in multiple cases do seem "erroneous" or "unwise", and we should double check if she still has community trust. --Alecmconroy (talk) 12:16, 24 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
15. If the communtity as a whole have faith in her admin abilities, then she will pass rfa again. Personally, I don't have this faith after this incident and the uncovering that this has happened previously. (De)adminship should be no big deal. Seraphim ^Whipp 13:02, 24 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
16. I am ambivalent in regard to Recall/RfA, and am content to by guided by community consensus, but otherwise... LessHeard vanU (talk) 14:04, 24 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
17. I was previously willing to assume that Durova would get the message that her Wikisleuthing is a bad idea, and stop doing it, and we could all move on. This hasn't happened. She has only vowed to "improve" it, and she is still blindly confident that it works. As it seems by now that it will take a recall to get her to resume discussion with the community, I support it. rspeer / ɹəədsɹ 19:31, 24 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
18. I concur with all of the above. Durova's apparent paranoia is inconsistent with the collegial attitude that Wikipedia editors must have in order to successfully benefit the encyclopedia. I also strongly believe that, consistent with the oft-repeated (and even more oft-ignored) maxim that "adminship is no big deal", Durova should be relieved of those privileges, at least for a time, until she demonstrates that her intent at Wikipedia is collaborative instead of combative. Renouncing her commitment to "wikisleuthing" would be a big step in that direction. Kelly Martin 19:51, 24 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
19. (No comment on recall at this time.) Failure to
    GRBerry 02:31, 25 November 2007 (UTC)[reply
    ]
20. Agree and also endorse recall as there were multiple instances of poor judgment and for the reason mentioned by Rspeer above. - TwoOars (Rev) 12:18, 25 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
21. Endorse recall. • Lawrence Cohen 17:36, 25 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
22. I concur with Rspeer and GRBerry's comments. --健次(derumi)^talk 17:59, 25 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
23. Endorse all. Jd2718 (talk) 19:07, 25 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
24. Beit Or 20:55, 25 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
25. Deor (talk) 05:18, 26 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
26. Johnbod (talk) 13:56, 26 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
27. --
    Tex 19:03, 26 November 2007 (UTC)[reply
    ]

She has publically stated that she enjoys wiki-sleuthing and that she enjoys training new wiki-sleuths to help them uncover long-term vandals. Most of these witch hunts are conducted on her own and based on targets she has selected. I'm sure that she gets it right sometimes... but the real question is.. how many times should she be allowed to get it (publically) wrong, before she is reined in and slowed down? Lsi john (talk) 21:21, 23 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Users who endorse this summary:

1. Lsi john (talk) 21:19, 23 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
2. I am aware of the history between Durova and Lsi john (with whom I had a prior brief but very satisfying series of interactions), and of Lsi john's feelings of frustration and exasperation. I endorse Lsi johns comments regarding his inability to obtain a meaningful response from Durova, being symptomatic of a failure to communicate by Durova. I would prefer Lsi john to provide diffs or references, however. LessHeard vanU (talk) 14:12, 24 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
3. I too am well aware of the unjustified heartache that Durova fed Lsi john. My own experience with Durova is that she would be investigator, prosecutor, judge, jury, and executioner and, IMO, she lacks the peepul skilz for any but perhaps the first two. --JustaHulk (talk) 04:13, 25 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I would like to take a critical look at some of the things that have been said in Durova's defence. The first is the idea that her block of !! was a completely isolated incident.

Looking through Durova's block log I noticed another block which had some things in common with the !! incident. Recap follows but I suggest you read through some of the surrounding diffs to get the full context (and please correct anything I got wrong).

• Following some previous discussion involving a dispute between
  User:LionheartX (since renamed to User:Master of the Oríchalcos) and User:Certified.Gangsta [edited to add: he has added his side of the story below, I encourage you to read it], LionheartX thanks Durova for her advice and asks for her help with his perceived problems with the other user. "Can you do something about this?"[10]

• Durova replies, sarcastically, I suppose: "Yes I can" and blocks LionheartX indefinitely "Per
  WP:SOCK".[11]

• LionheartX explains that there is no
  WP:SOCK issue since the only reason his previous account was indefinitely blocked is because he lost the password to it and started over. He also expresses regret for his conflict with Certified.Gangsta and offers apologies.[12]

• Durova replies, telling LionheartX that he is making a "semantic distinction" and that "Wikilawyering is pointless". She refuses to lift the block.[13]

• Now LionheartX stays blocked for a week despite making every effort to explain the issue to Durova.

• Finally, eight days into the indefinite block, Durova grudgingly admits that the block was wrong and that there is no
  WP:AGF please."[14]

I'm sure Durova is a nice person - I think she just got a bit overzealous in trying to defend the wiki against perceived opponents and a bit overconfident in her analytical skills. She's probably learned a lot from this about how Wikipedia works. As have we all. Haukur (talk) 22:06, 23 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Users who endorse this summary:

1. Haukur (talk) 22:07, 23 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
2. As you say, it is a long pattern of mistakes and failure to acknowledge them. Lsi john (talk) 22:11, 23 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
3. Majorly (talk) 22:15, 23 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
4. talk) 22:26, 23 November 2007 (UTC)[reply
   ]
5. Cla68 (talk) 23:11, 23 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
6. I'm not sufficiently familiar with the LionheartX situation to comment on that portion, but I agree with the !!-related portion. This incident casts some question on what appears to be Durova's excessive faith in her own investigative skills, and makes me skeptical of the need to use secret evidence in situations where no personal privacy is violated. I'll probably say more in a statement later. JavaTenor (talk) 00:19, 24 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
7. *Dan T.* (talk) 02:07, 24 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
8. It's by far from the first time that this admin has banned hastily.Merkinsmum (talk) 02:36, 24 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
9. Her "mistakes" add up and show she's a tad inept. Mike H. Celebrating three years of being hotter than Paris 03:31, 24 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
10. Everyking (talk) 03:48, 24 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
11.  ALKIVAR™ ☢ 05:42, 24 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
12. Tim Q. Wells (talk) 05:50, 24 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
13. Duk 06:50, 24 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
14. Videmus Omnia ^Talk 06:59, 24 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
15. Durova's blocks have been problematic. east.718 at 08:00, November 24, 2007
16. Seraphim ^Whipp 13:05, 24 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
17. I am also not familiar with the LionheartX case, however I think your analysis that there is a pattern of mistakes, not just one, is spot on. Kla’quot (talk | contribs) 16:04, 24 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
18. rspeer / ɹəədsɹ 19:20, 24 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
19. --健次(derumi)^talk 18:02, 25 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Let's say someone had blocked Durova for being an abusive sockpuppet, and then refused to give any evidence, or provide someone else to confirm that it should remain secret. Would we have just said "oh, well, people make mistakes" and moved on? No. Everyone would be furious, and justifiably so. So why, when she does the same to another editor, are we supposed to just let it lie?

Users who endorse this summary:

1. -Amarkov moo! 22:40, 23 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
2. I agree with this, those types of "secret" blocks cause way too much drama, I'm not supporting Durova recall request though, as it was a misunderstanding in her part This is a Secret ^account 22:44, 23 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
3. Lsi john (talk) 23:10, 23 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
4. Good point. Cla68 (talk) 23:11, 23 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
5. This is the problem with excessive, unnecessary use of secret evidence. JavaTenor (talk) 00:22, 24 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
6. *Dan T.* (talk) 02:08, 24 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
7. Merkinsmum (talk) 02:36, 24 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
8. Agreed. Mike H. Celebrating three years of being hotter than Paris 03:30, 24 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
9. Tim Q. Wells (talk) 03:45, 24 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
10. Everyking (talk) 03:48, 24 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
11.  ALKIVAR™ ☢ 05:42, 24 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
12. Videmus Omnia ^Talk 07:00, 24 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
13. sNkrSnee | t.p. 10:34, 24 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
14. Ferkelparade π 11:40, 24 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
15. And good faith concerns have been labelled as "drama". Seraphim ^Whipp 13:07, 24 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
16. Majorly (talk) 15:13, 24 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
17. talk) 15:49, 24 November 2007 (UTC)[reply
    ]
18. Concur. Sometimes difficult decisions have to be made, but one must never be unwilling to discuss the rationale and evidence therefor. Kelly Martin 16:04, 24 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
19. LessHeard vanU (talk) 17:05, 24 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
20. Just as appalling as Durova's actions have been the attempts by others to marginalize discussion of them. rspeer / ɹəədsɹ 19:12, 24 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
21. Risker (talk) 19:13, 24 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
22. Reversing a change to the database is trivial. Reversing a change to one or more user's feelings and experience of Wikipedia and its administrators is very difficult.
    GRBerry 02:35, 25 November 2007 (UTC)[reply
    ]
23. - TwoOars (Rev) 12:08, 25 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
24. Mailer Diablo (talk) 17:14, 25 November 2007 (UTC)[reply
    ]
25. --健次(derumi)^talk 18:04, 25 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
26. --
    Tex 19:03, 26 November 2007 (UTC)[reply
    ]

LionheartX's oldest account was User:RevolverOcelotX, an account notorious for its nonsensical edits and strongly pro-China, anti-Taiwan stance in the summer of 2006. An account that should've been blocked for 3RR, POV-pushing, disruption, trolling, personal attack, canvassing, harassment, and basically all the violations you can think of in wikipedia. He continued to edit aggressively; however, because several biased editors from WikiProject:China patronized him and disregard his unacceptable behaviors.

His favorite target was me. The first harassment campaign occured in July, 2006 when he committed userspace harassment and repeatedly accused me of vandalism on my talkpage. To anyone uninvolved, it was clear that the issue was a content dispute that could be resolved in the article's talkpage. Unfortunately, he refused to talk and continued to advocate his perverted POV in Taiwan-China issues. These are some of the diffs. of his earliest harassment campaign. [15] [16] [17] [18] [19] [20] [21] In this instance, LionheartX (then known as RevolverOcelotX) attempted to add a 3RR warning on my talkpage as sort of a "brand of shame" when it was obvious that

1. 1 I did not violate 3RR.
2. 2 The only one who is violating 3RR is himself.

This instance drove me to the brink of mental breakdown. Then he attempted to report me for 3RR for reverting his groundless accusation. At this time, I sought help from User:Bishonen, who was (and still is) sort of a mentor of mine. (and probably the only admin I trust) [22] LionheartX responded by wikistalking my contribution and spamming Bishonen's talkpage. [23] [24] Eventually Bishonen responded my telling LionheartX to stop harassing me on my talkpage. [25] LionheartX refused to listen and continued to claim validity of his warning templates. [26] And another admin told him to leave my page alone [27]

At the same time, LionheartX also contacted another admin [28] in order to keep his groundless warning templates on my talkpage.--

The next day, I logged in and realized I was blocked for 3RR for editing my own talkpage by User:Alex Bakharev whom LionheartX previously contacted. It was clearly unjustified and Alex later apologized in my block log for this poor judgment. [29]

After more violations and poor behaviors, I reported LionheartX on AN/I and wrote a report on my talkpage. [30] [31] This resulted in the 2nd harassment campaign. (I didn't list out all the diffs, but you get the picture) [32] And nothing productive came out of the AN/I discussion.

After that, RevolverOcelotX disappeared for a while after Andrew Norman suggested banning him. He resurfaced in October using his first sockpuppet User:RaGnaRoK SepHír0tH and immediately got back to his disturbing editing pattern. I sought help from Bishonen [33]. LionheartX's sock stalked my contribution and spammed Bish's talkpage yet again [34] and userspace harassment [35] [36] which I later removed. Eventually this sock was blocked indefinitely by arbitrator Dmcdevit [37] who remarked on his userpage that "Surprisingly enough, people who, within one day of editing, engage in stalking and massive edit wars across many pages without productive edits, and are merely reincarnations of earlier problem users, aren't welcome here. Maybe I could have been more accurate in my block log, but I think you are a troll, and I don't use that word lightly." as the basis of the block and subsequent unblock request were reviewed twice and both turned down (the page was then protected by Dmcdevit). [38] (Dmcdevit's elaborate the indef. block) Interestingly enough, when I first asked RaGnaRoK_SepH%C3%ADr0tH whether he is connected to RevolverOcelotX, he refused to answer directly, but when he was indef. blocked, he claimed that he "somehow" lost his password. It is also worth noting that User:Jiang and User:enochlau, both admins and members of WikiProject:China, spoke in support of this sock on User talk:RaGnaRoK_SepHír0tH. Nevertheless, Dmcdevit couldn't be more clear that this user is indef. blocked NOT only for sockpuppeting but trolling and overall disruptive behavior.

Unfortunately, good things don't last long. LionheartX then created the block-evading sock

When all the socks were indef. blocked after much discussion on AN/I and Tiger's abuse of the unblock template [45], User talk:Guardian Tiger, he ignored consensus to block him by creating a new sock User talk:ApocalypticDestroyer's, which was immediately blocked; however, this time, the userpage was not protected. User:Ben Aveling began to chit-chat with the sock on the talkpage User talk:ApocalypticDestroyer's and attempted to get him unblocked. [46], which was turned down by the community. The chit-chat ended when the talkpage was protected [47].

Unfortunately, once again, RevolverOcelotX had a new sock. This time the infamous LionheartX. This time however, the community rewarded him for his utter disregard of the banning policy and

After I discovered the new sock, I contacted Nlu [48] while Ben Aveling shamelessly patronize the new sock. Apparently, Lion thought it is somehow more acceptable to create indef. block-evading sock than ban-evading sock. (which is in truth the same thing) [49] I sough advice from Bishonen and Durova, LionheartX responded by spamming her page. [50] This traumatic experience almost pushed me out of wikipedia. The sockpuppet violation is obvious even to a novice without actually going through checkuser, yet no admin seemed to have the guts to do it. Durova and Bishonen had the courage to do the right thing [51] [52]

I don't know how or why LionheartX managed to get unblocked after so many instances of harassment and policy violations not to mention blatant disregard of policy. I don't understand why wikipedia wanted to reward someone for his persistant creation of new sockpuppets. Maybe behind-the-scene scheme orchestrated by members of WikiProject:China?? I really don't know.

When my arbCom case with Ideogram was opened. (it was filed by Durova) Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Certified.Gangsta-Ideogram. Both me and Bishonen believed that LionheartX should also be sanctioned in the arbCom case. Arbitrators considered that to be out of the scope, however. Nevertheless, he continued to canvass extensively to get pro-China editors to make statements against me in the arbCom case. Wikipedia_talk:Requests_for_arbitration/Certified.Gangsta-Ideogram (note that at least 3 editors mentioned in their statements that they were recruited by LionheartX) User:Wl219 User:HongQiGong User:yuje in order to make the arbcom case a anti-Certified.Gangsta campaign) LionheartX also submitted one-sided evidence to push his political agenda in the arbCom case then accused the arbitrators of ignoring his evidence. [[53]] It is truly lamentable that this user is still allow to roam freely in wikipedia.

Like I said at the start, I don't know the specifics of the !! block. I don't care about the specifics of the !! block. But what I do know is, Durova was absolutely right when she blocked LionheartX. In fact, after reading the evidence maybe someone should do the right thing and block LionheartX now. What's the point of this long rant? Please do not draw parallel between the !! incident and the LionheartX incident ever again. Thank you--

1. -- --
   talk) 06:50, 24 November 2007 (UTC)[reply
   ]

1. Kuronue | Talk 07:36, 24 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
2. sNkrSnee | t.p. 10:38, 24 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
3. Very well put. Ferkelparade π 11:41, 24 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
4. Indeed. Lsi john (talk) 14:51, 24 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
5. Majorly (talk) 15:28, 24 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
6. Videmus Omnia ^Talk 15:42, 24 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
7. *Dan T.* (talk) 16:47, 24 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
8. With the caveat that it does not appear that Durova used any admin privilege in assembling the information, or drawing conclusions from it, or indeed circulating her "findings" to whomever. LessHeard vanU (talk) 17:10, 24 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Confidential evidence is a proposal that has grown out of this incident. It is likely that discussion, or something similar, will be sufficient to resolve most if not all of the concerns left by this situation. Durova has stumbled into one of those mostly-unexplored grounds on Wikipedia, and I believe handled herself better than most probably would. This would have happened eventually, and is less a matter of wrong doing and more a matter of everyone needing a way to better handle these situations. You can't fault Durova for an eventual growing pain of Wikipedia (unless she refuses to learn from it, which is very unlikely, and something we can't know at this point). -- Ned Scott 04:27, 24 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Users who endorse this summary:

I'll not comment on the specifics of this case but what I see as the critical meta issue involved. We can all agree that long-term socks of banned users are a clear and present danger. We can also agree that, sometimes, robust investigation and secrecy are necessary (think Amorrow). My question: why Durova? If she's acting as a kind of super-admin, on what authority is she doing so? Has it been delegated from the Foundation? Has she stood in some forum beyond RfA and been vested with private investigator tools? Does she have advanced IT degrees that have been verified? Personally, I lust after power and have a soft spot for secret agents—send me this clandestine methodology!

So no, I don't have a problem per se with a trusted user arguing "sorry folks, I can't provide you the evidence in this case." I do have a problem not knowing on what authority such a statement can be made. Marskell (talk) 11:10, 24 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Users who endorse this summary

1. Marskell (talk) 11:10, 24 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
2. Good point - Ferkelparade π 11:44, 24 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
3. Agreed - It's fair to ask that there be a policy on secret investigations and some rules on who is entitled to conduct them (without prejudice to the possibility that Durova should be that person).Wikidemo (talk) 13:13, 24 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
4. Majorly (talk) 15:33, 24 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
5. The community should decide who has the extra trust to perform these tasks. LessHeard vanU (talk) 19:01, 24 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
6. rspeer / ɹəədsɹ 19:36, 24 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
7. This is a Secret ^account 20:54, 24 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
8. - TwoOars (Rev) 12:05, 25 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

(see also my comment above on the recall issue)

Let me preface this by saying Durova is undoubtedly a kind, intelligent, and valuable member of the project. Nobody debates that, nobody questions that. Nothing that is said should be interpreted as disparaging her character.

I think there are two real tensions at work here. One is this whole notion of secret evidence and secret mailing lists. It's a very anti-wiki concept.

Normally, if an admin blocked somebody, but patently refused to give any grounds whatsoever for the block, we'd call it abuse and it'd be immediately overturned. If someone opened a user conduct RFC and immediately emailed 12 handpicked individuals to notify them, we'd call it stealth canvassing. If someone then refused to allow anyone BUT those 12 people to even comment on the RFC, we'd throw a fit. And then, if somebody refused to even allow the user under comment to even read the RFC comments, we'd call it a travesty.

That's basically what the "secret evidence" presented to a "secret mailing list court" issue is. A user-conduct RFC that's stealth-canvassed where the user under review doesn't get to see the evidence, doesn't get to rebut the evidence, and nobody but the canvassed users get to comment.

The uproar over this isn't just over the fact that Durova screwed up and convicted one innocent editor. The uproar is: how many other innocent editors might have also been convicted but never exonerated? And even if not-- is the "secret evidence, secret court" even a legitimate way for individual admins to be doing things in the first place? That, I think, is a big part of what the issue is about.

"Secret evidence" presented to a "secret mailing list court" basically removes any effective oversight. And that's a recipe for disaster-- just as it already has been.

I myself would say that "secret evidence" is to be loathed at all costs, used only in absolutely essential cases, and that only the people able to make decisions based on "secret evidence" should be the board or perhaps the entirety of the arbcom (but definitely not any single individual).

In general, I would encourage everyone to abandon practice of submitting, relying on, or accepting claims of, "secret evidence" until they see such evidence for themselves.

As unluck would have it, Durova and I had a discussion on the mailing list about "secret evidence" a scant three days before the !! block. I strongly warned of the dangers of secret evidence, further cementing my role as annoying project Cassandra.

No matter what her future status, I'd strongly discourage Durova from acting on secret evidence. If you absolutely can't prove a case without using secret evidence, my suggestion would be to sit tight, remember there is no deadline, and submit it to the arbcom mailing list and get the committee as a whole to rule on it.

--Alecmconroy (talk) 11:34, 24 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Users who endorse this summary

1. Ferkelparade π 11:46, 24 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
2. I agree that the use of secret evidence to make blocking decisions is extremely undesirable and conflicts with basic Wiki philosophy. If we cannot reach consensus with what is publically available, then there is no consensus. While that may be unsatisfactory, it is not a real problem - if a user account is not acting disruptively, then there is no present problem. If it is, on the other hand, we don't need secret evidence - the behavior is out in the open. I don't think that the risk (as opposed to the probability) of a sock slipping through is big enough to regularly rely on non-open evidence. We must balance it against the risk not only to editors, but also the risk to admins applying it, and to the project as a whole. This whole discussion, necessary as it is, is certainly neither pleasant to Durova nor directly furthering the goal of the project. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 12:09, 24 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
3. I'm gonna endorse with something I learned in my US Government class. In real life, the Court can't use any evidence that hasn't been presented in court and that the defendant hasn't been able to cross-examine. Evidence can't be used against you if you were never made aware of that evidence, such as if it was tainted or obtained illegally. According to United States law, in Court, the defendant has the legal right to cross-examine any and all evidence against them, and any form of evidence can't be used if the defendant has that right removed. Ksy92003(talk) 14:54, 24 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
4. Lsi john (talk) 15:00, 24 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
5. The last thing we need around here is
   star chambers. *Dan T.* (talk) 16:39, 24 November 2007 (UTC)[reply
   ]
6. As I've said elsewhere, I saw nothing in the evidence presented in this circumstance that required it be kept secret. JavaTenor (talk) 18:57, 24 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
7. Cla68 (talk) 00:30, 25 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
8. rspeer / ɹəədsɹ 03:28, 25 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
9. This addresses my biggest concern. --健次(derumi)^talk 18:30, 25 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

(see also my comment above on the meta-issue of secret evidence)

I can't hold the error itself against Durova-- everybody makes mistakes. The mistake isn't the issue. The use of "secret evidence, secret court" in the first place, however, is really trouble. Blocking based on secret evidence that you refuse to discuss is, in effect, to declare yourself a 1-person court whose decisions cannot be reviewed by an other admins. You effect singlehandedly declare yourself to be a tribunal inferior only to the full Arbcom. I'm sure Durova had pure motives for trying to assume this role, but that's just not what the role of an admin is-- and trying to assert that role is troubling enough that I would join the others asking that she face recall, in order to see if the community still has confidence in her.

(I find it entirely plausible that the community WILL reaffirm her-- she does a LOT of good, and if she'd promise not to repeat this kind of secret evidence behavior, I think I would almost certainly support her staying on with the bit myself. But all that is a conversation that should happen.)

I have faith that, now that enough people have asked for a recall process to reassess the community's confidence in her, that Durova will fulfill her word and assent to such a process. Her having given her word she would assent, I won't even insult her integrity by pretending there is any possibility of anything else happening except a recall process proceeding. I will say, in the abstract, that hypotheticaly speaking, some admin in the future did refuse to obey a promise to assent to recall, then his word wouldn't be worth the paper it's printed on, and if you can't trust an admin to keep their word, that's an immediate desysopping. But Durova's never given me even the slightest inclination to suspect she's not trustworthy, and I outright refuse to believe she would go back on her word on this issue. To those above suggesting that she is actively refusing to let a recall proceed, I'm encouraging AGF, and accept she's probably just time time to sort things out, reading over comments, discussing with friends, before sitting down and stating her assent. --Alecmconroy (talk) 12:01, 24 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Users who endorse this summary

1. (I would like to expand on the first point later.) LessHeard vanU (talk) 17:19, 24 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
2. I agree with Durova recall, while I don't support it, many trusted members of the community does, so she should do it. This is a Secret ^account 21:26, 24 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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.

Users who endorse this summary

1. Wikidemo (talk) 13:24, 24 November 2007 (UTC) (as proposer)[reply]
2. I'm gonna endorse with something I learned in my US Government class. In real life, the Court can't use any evidence that hasn't been presented in court and that the defendant hasn't been able to cross-examine. Evidence can't be used against you if you were never made aware of that evidence, such as if it was tainted or obtained illegally. According to United States law, in Court, the defendant has the legal right to cross-examine any and all evidence against them, and any form of evidence can't be used if the defendant has that right removed. Ksy92003(talk) 14:52, 24 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

   Sorry but that's not true at all. Secret evidence is used against defendants. It's not terribly common but it does happen, particularly in cases involving national security. I'd be happy to provide examples but you can easily find them if you snoop into cases alleging espionage or, more recently, "terrorism". --ElKevbo (talk) 15:49, 24 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

   And in civil cases analogous to Wikipedia's situation (ongoing sabotage) evidence is withheld or submitted secretly all the time under the rubric of a protective order. Anyway, we're threading the discussion, which we aren't supposed to do. Wikidemo (talk) 16:21, 24 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

3. John Carter (talk) 16:41, 24 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
4. With some reservations. The issue in a user RfC should only be whether a subject acted badly. But since there's currently no decision on where the line should be drawn... -Amarkov moo! 19:24, 24 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
5. Good point Wikidemo. I'm not sure how I feel about secret evidence but I am sure that this isn't the place to be discussing it--Cailil ^talk 19:34, 24 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
6. This is a Secret ^account 20:55, 24 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
7. Agree, but would like to point out that anyone is allowed to gather evidence, but it's the action one takes based on that evidence that is key in all of this. -- Ned Scott 00:46, 25 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

There are four aspects of the actions taken by Durova that have raised disquiet;

• The gathering of information surreptitiously, with the intent of proving a plan to violate Wikipedia by individuals.
• The passing of such information to favoured respondents for comment.
• Acting upon information so gathered.
• The inference that the information (and thus the method) gathered was of such secrecy that any dispute of the ban needed to be placed with ArbCom.

In my view in respect of policies, custom and practice, the first, third and fourth points are not prohibited by Wikipedia, but generally discouraged unless considered absolutely necessary. The second point of requesting advice from others is properly encouraged by Wikipedia. It may be needed to gather "evidence" without raising the suspicion (or tainting the good name) of an editor. Information so gathered must be made available to third parties for review and comment. If the conclusion is that there is an immediate risk to Wikipedia then a block may be sanctioned without further discussion or warning to the editor concerned. There may be a requirement that the information gathered should only be available to trusted members of the community, less the methods be found out and made gameable.

What has become obvious is that no one person should be permitted to enact all four points in respect of one "investigation"/contibutor(s). No person should be slueth/prosecuter/judge/jury/executioner (and appellant judge). The need for each action to be scrutinised (and not by those chosen by the individual, but rather the community) is paramount.

Durova's failing in this and possibly other cases is not to consider the likelihood that they are too involved in the case to be objective. This is a serious failure of judgement. It is also very poor judgement to have embarked on such a course of action(s) without providing the community the option of considering whether these actions were either required or would benefit Wikipedia overall. Of most concern, in my view, is that Durova has seemed unwilling to consider that her actions may not have been in the interests of Wikipedia, and has intimated that concerns raised by individuals is "disruption" or "drama". This does not indicate the application of sound judgement.

Users who endorse this summary

1. LessHeard vanU (talk) 17:57, 24 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
2. Well said. Lsi john (talk) 17:58, 24 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
3. This sort of process is extremely prone to confirmation bias in the absence of a devil's advocate. JavaTenor (talk) 18:55, 24 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
4. Risker (talk) 19:10, 24 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
5. rspeer / ɹəədsɹ 19:22, 24 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
6. talk) 19:23, 24 November 2007 (UTC)[reply
   ]
7. Secret evidence will occasionally be necessary, unfortunately. -Amarkov moo! 19:27, 24 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
8. Majorly (talk) 20:46, 24 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
9. Cla68 (talk) 00:31, 25 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
10. Videmus Omnia ^Talk 03:15, 25 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
11. Duk 06:27, 25 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
12. - TwoOars (Rev) 12:06, 25 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
13. Seraphim ^Whipp 12:23, 25 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
14. Rudget _talk 14:06, 25 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
15. --健次(derumi)^talk 18:33, 25 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
16. Beit Or 20:52, 25 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
17. Deor (talk) 05:28, 26 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

On the surface, Durova's actions should not affect me whatsoever. The fact is, though, I am exactly the type of editor at risk of being considered a sockpuppet based on the types of investigations being carried out by Durova and others. Last night, when reviewing the statements of candidates for Arbcom, I "followed the links" to a wrestling article and found poor quality, unsourced content. I thought for a very long time before correcting this; I knew I risked being accused as just another JB196 sockpuppet. When a small contributor has to think about the social implications of improving content, there is a problem. If a serious longterm contributor of voluminous high quality content such as !! is being subjected to sockpuppetry accusations, heaven only knows how many small editors who unknowingly worked on the "wrong" article or topic area have been summarily indefinitely blocked or banned as sockpuppets for making otherwise acceptable content edits on articles or subjects that have at some point been edited by an abusive user.

The encyclopedia would benefit greatly if Durova (and quite a few other longterm contributors to Wikipedia) got back to focusing on the quality of content being added to this project, and spent much less time worrying about who does what. Our readers do not care one whit who adds information to articles; they care only that the information is correct.

Users who endorse this summary

1. Risker (talk) 18:17, 24 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
2. talk) 18:30, 24 November 2007 (UTC)[reply
   ]
3. Videmus Omnia ^Talk 18:38, 24 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
4. Excellent statement. You have hit the nail on the head about a particular concern I have been thinking about. Seraphim ^Whipp 18:46, 24 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
5. LessHeard vanU (talk) 18:47, 24 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
6. As I've said elsewhere - if Durova had picked an editor with a less clearly exemplary history, that editor might still be blocked. JavaTenor (talk) 18:53, 24 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
7. Absolutely. Everyking (talk) 19:16, 24 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
8. rspeer / ɹəədsɹ 19:37, 24 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
9. The proper time to investigate someone for sockpuppetry is after they start being disruptive. -Amarkov moo! 19:50, 24 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
10. *Dan T.* (talk) 19:54, 24 November 2007 (UTC
11. True, it must make a lot of editors (myself included) feel unsafe, it seems like some admins are above the law and Durova was backed up by Jimbo, Slim etc regardless of her actions, and people were told off on ANI just for questioning her treatment of other editors.Merkinsmum (talk) 20:45, 24 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
12. Majorly (talk) 20:47, 24 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
13. and I have less than 1000 edits myself, so I'm even more scared. Kuronue | Talk 21:18, 24 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
14. Indeed. Community enforcers with paranoid attitudes have significantly degraded the quality of the editor experience on Wikipedia, especially for newer editors. "Assume good faith" applies whether the editor in question has 1 edit or 100,000. (Arguably, it's even more important to be applied for the editor with one edit.) Unfortunately, this breaks when Wikipedia has self-appointed police officers sniffing about looking for evidence of maliciousness in people who are just trying to improve the encyclopedia, and actually finding it, even when it's not there. Durova is by no means the only self-appointed wikicop who assumes bad faith of everyone not known to her to be saintly -- such attitudes are widespread in Wikipedia's so-called "vandal patrollers" -- but the egregiousness of this particular breach is startling. I doubt the Wikipedia community has the cojones to deal with the real problem here, and I'm not sure that making an example of Durova would help, since it seems likely to me that she, and other like-minded individuals, will just take it as confirmation of the righteousness of her efforts and of the widening corruption in the community (evidence of this is evident further up). Nor do I think that the community is willing to tell a majority of its members that they're fucking things up and to please stop. (I should clarify that by "community" I do not mean all editors. My experience is that most editors do not consider themselves a part of the community; they're just people who occasionally edit Wikipedia on topics that interest them. By "community" I mean the people who have made Wikipedia a daily, consistent part of their lives.) There doesn't seem to be a good way to get from where Wikipedia is now to where it needs to be. Pity. Kelly Martin 21:44, 24 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Reply to some of Kelly's comments- I agree with most of your arguments but I don't think the majority of editors are f**king up. The majority of the editors are those non-admins and non-cliqued admins who simply don't have the power (or often the inclination) to f.up in these particular ways.:)Merkinsmum (talk) 22:25, 24 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

15. Excellent statement of the implications this all had and still has on other contributors. ---
    talk) 21:45, 24 November 2007 (UTC)[reply
    ]
16. 100%, per my AN/I comment: "If the only way you can tell a good article from a bad one is by finding out who did it, you're doing something wrong, and it probably doesn't end in "pedia". (someone plz fix numbering thx!) sNkrSnee | t.p. 23:15, 24 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
17. Directly on point. Lsi john (talk) 23:28, 24 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
18. 100% agreed. —bbatsell ¿? ✍ 23:30, 24 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
19. I think this is one that both sides agree on This is a Secret ^account 23:43, 24 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
20. You brought up my major concern in this case. If !! was not such a well respected editor, and people jumped to his defense, he might still be blocked indefinitely. Bjewiki (Talk) 00:14, 25 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
21. Tim Q. Wells (talk) 00:20, 25 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
22. Cla68 (talk) 00:32, 25 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
23. Durova should definitely pay attention to that final paragraph. Mike H. Celebrating three years of being hotter than Paris 00:45, 25 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
24. Absolutely. Beautifully said. Sure we can forgive but we need assurances that the horrible display of paranoia demonstrated here does not recur - from Durova or anyone. Wikipedia is not the Salem witch trials. —Wknight94 (talk) 01:14, 25 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
25. With any edit, the most important issue is does this increase the quality of the encyclopedia? Who the person behind the IP/username actually is comes far behind this in the scale of importance.
    GRBerry 02:43, 25 November 2007 (UTC)[reply
    ]
26. Hear hear. --JustaHulk (talk) 03:54, 25 November 2007 (UTC)[reply
    ]
27. Agreed that we should get back to work building an encyclopedia, and create an environment for those uninterested in policy and meta-issues to do so in peace. However, that means vigorous enforcement of rules, not just checks on the actions of enforcers.Wikidemo (talk) 04:18, 25 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
28. Duk 06:26, 25 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
29. Haemo (talk) 07:15, 25 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
30. The inquisition should end. --Alecmconroy (talk) 07:56, 25 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
31. This is why the problem is not just, "A bad block was made for 75 minutes." Kla’quot (talk | contribs) 08:32, 25 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
32. Agree Davewild (talk) 09:14, 25 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
33. henrik•talk 09:19, 25 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
34. - TwoOars (Rev) 12:10, 25 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
35. --健次(derumi)^talk 18:39, 25 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
36. Endorse. Jd2718 (talk) 19:06, 25 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
37. Beit Or 20:50, 25 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
38. Viridae^Talk 23:11, 25 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
39. Could not agree more.
    talk) 08:37, 26 November 2007 (UTC)[reply
    ]
40. Moreschi ^{If you've written a quality article...} 12:44, 26 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
41. Johnbod (talk) 13:58, 26 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
42. As another "small" editor with only ~1,500 edits, yet having somehow managed to get FA, A-class and GAs, this is probably the most sensible thing I've seen in Wikipedia space in a long time. Carre (talk) 17:45, 26 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
43. --
    Tex 19:04, 26 November 2007 (UTC)[reply
    ]

There is no cabal. Admins shouldn't act like there is. People make mistakes. Allowances can be made. Community consensus serves as a check on all.

Users who endorse this summary

1. Hiding T 22:14, 24 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
2. -- Ned Scott 01:02, 25 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

1. Support closing...arbcom is likely to take the case in a day or two anyway.--MONGO (talk) 07:08, 25 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
2. —Wknight94 (talk) 15:07, 25 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Dissenting view

1. 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)[reply]

Let's take this to talk. --Alecmconroy (talk) 08:23, 25 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The implication that 20 highly powered people saw this, but no identification of them aside from their own confirmation has seriously worried me. Wikipedia should be transparent, and while I understand that during investigation, some secrecy is needed, if you cannot present your evidence publically, it should not be used. That may be fine in a corporate environment, but not in an environment where, if I want to, I can read 30 months of edits to an article, every edit a person has done, etc. It smacks of cabal. Being told 'I have proof. You can't see it. Just trust me.' goes far against

Users who endorse this summary

1. --Thespian (talk) 11:23, 25 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
2. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 11:26, 25 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
3. - TwoOars (Rev) 12:12, 25 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
4. Yes, yes, a thousand times yes. Alecmconroy (talk) 14:52, 25 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Right now, our discussion is limited by the fact that the community still does not have a complete picture of what went on "behind the scenes". To facilitate such transparency and to help the community better provide accurate feedback on this issue, Durova should take the following actions:

1. She should confirm (or deny) that the "evidence" text circulating was actually written by her.
2. She should renounce any copyright claim or "legal threat" against the foundation, and, in her role as copyright holder, grant them permission to publish the email if they so choose. Or if she has already done so, she should publicly clarify this point. (Whether the foundation actually decides to allow it to be published on-wiki is a separate issue.)
3. She should provide the community with a complete list of the Wikipedia editors to whom she privately emailed the evidence.
4. She should provide a summary of how each editor responded. Who else endorsed the block-- even though they didn't actually perform the block, the error belongs to them also. Did anyone warn her against the block?

Users who endorse this summary

1. --Alecmconroy (talk) 15:07, 25 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
2. Precisely. Transparency about these things will help to provide resolution about this situation. Seraphim ^Whipp 15:54, 25 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
3. —Wknight94 (talk) 17:31, 25 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
4. Endorse actions 1 and 2 at the least. Action 4, I would prefer that the editors in question step forward themselves, if they are so willing. JavaTenor (talk) 17:41, 25 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The fundamental problem is that Durova's wikisleuthing activities are founded in a presumption of bad faith. There is no other possible conclusion when one editor goes over another editor's contributions with a fine-tooth comb, seeking evidence that the second editor is affiliated in some way with a nebulous exterior force committed to destroying Wikipedia, when that second editor's edits have been nothing but beneficial to the encyclopedia.

This fundamental assignment of bad faith to a good faith editor was then compounded by some very dramatic secrecy. Durova's claims to have evidence proving that !! was, in fact, some evil villain bent on destroying Wikipedia, but refusing to share that evidence except with other "trusted parties", is a further assumption of bad faith of everyone on Wikipedia. It was Durova's declaration that she does not trust her fellow Wikipedians to fairly evaluate her arguments.

Durova's conduct has been beyond the pale and cannot be lightly excused. Unblocking !! was a step in the right direction, but the damage has been done and a simple unblock and "oops, my bad" will not undo it. Blocking an editor who is demonstrably not only doing no wrong but who is clearly actively improving the encyclopedia is bad. Combining allegations that said user is a malicious troll -- even if promptly retracted -- is far worse.

It is my considered opinion that Durova must renounce her "wikisleuthing" permanently and repudiate the practice entirely. She should also relinquish her adminship, as a gesture of good will to the community of editors she has wronged by her actions. Unfortunately, I do not believe she will do so voluntarily, and the effect will not be the same if she is forced to do so by the ArbCom. Forcibly removing her adminship bears the risk of making her into a martyr. So while I fully believe that Durova should step down as an admin, I do not believe that she should be forced to do so. (Sadly, I do not believe that she will do so, which makes this a sad day for Wikipedia.)

The witchhunts must stop. Wikipedia cannot continue with roving squads of enforcers nosing about looking for boojums behind every edit. Writing an encyclopedia is a collaborative process, and an environment filled with suspicion and distrust will not encourage collaboration. Quite simply, the witchhunts must stop. I have no doubt that there are people editing Wikipedia with ulterior motives. And, quite frankly, I don't care. If they are improving the encyclopedia, I don't care if they also post on Wikipedia Review. If they are being paid to edit, I also don't care. All that matters is the quality of their edits.

I continue to have grave concerns about Wikipedia's vandal patrollers. Fundamentally, the problem with having dedicated vandalism patrollers -- people whose primary, even only, activity within the Wikipedia sphere is finding and removing vandalism -- is that these people tend to develop a very negative attitude about editors. It remains my belief that dedicated vandal fighters are, in general, bad for Wikipedia. We need vandalism management, certainly, but I remain convinced that everyone involved in the project should have at least some minimal level of engagement with the content creation process. Sadly, it pains me to see that, increasingly, Wikipedia's "leadership" (such as it is) seems to be increasingly drawn from people whose connection to the content creation process is tenuous at best.

Something needs to be done to improve the collaborative environment at Wikipedia. As Risker points out in his comments, having innocent editors blocked on unfounded suspicion of malicious intent chills contribution from casual editors. As so much of the real improvement at Wikipedia is made by casual editors (those who edit infrequently, amassing perhaps only a dozen edits a week but in those dozen edits contributing substantially to the real content of the encyclopedia), Wikipedia cannot afford to allow such contributors to be discouraged from editing. If Wikipedia is forced to choose between casual content editors and dedicated vandalism patrollers, I say that Wikipedia should side with the casual content editors.

Editors who endorse this summary:

1. Well said. Isarig (talk) 16:04, 25 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
2. --
   talk) 16:31, 25 November 2007 (UTC)[reply
   ]
3. I agree with all but the 6th paragraph. I think it's too broad a generalisation to think that all vandal patrollers develop negative attitudes about editors because it depends partly on the kind of person the patroller is too. If we didn't have dedicated vandal patrollers, then the 'pedia could end up littered full of libellous material about living people. Seraphim ^Whipp 16:38, 25 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
4. With apologies to
   Nietzsche, "He who who fights with monsters might take care lest he thereby become a monster." Not that Durova is a monster, but she (and others) seem to have acquired many of the characteristics of the "enemy" they claim to be fighting. Videmus Omnia ^Talk 16:53, 25 November 2007 (UTC)[reply
   ]
5. We have met the enemy and it is us. *Dan T.* (talk) 17:57, 25 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
6. Well said. --Alecmconroy (talk) 18:43, 25 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
7. I've said very similar things, on Durova's talkpage, in one form or another and been threatened with investigation. Lsi john (talk) 21:00, 25 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
8. Cla68 (talk) 23:41, 25 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
9. Moreschi ^{If you've written a quality article...} 12:43, 26 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Editors who endorse the environment portions of this summary:

1. I agree that the environment has become too poisonous and paranoid and also that folks should get more in tune with content creation. Per Seraphim Whipp though, I can't get behind the idea that dedicated vandal hunters don't hold a valuable place here. I even support them being made administrators. Furthermore - and why I split this off into another section entirely - I don't agree that Durova should relinquish her adminship. She has gotten the message loud and clear and is unlikely to ever make this mistake again. I also don't think she needs to stop looking for wrongdoers, but she definitely should not be doing any blocks based on her own sleuthing. Her judgment has clearly become clouded as Kelly Martin has stated so someone else should be making the final decisions. —Wknight94 (talk) 18:03, 25 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
2. Endorse per Seraphim Whipp and Wknight94. --健次(derumi)^talk 18:47, 25 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
3. Endorse- this is supposed to be 'the free encyclopedia anyone can edit' -and poor !! was banned for appearing too nice!!:)Merkinsmum (talk) 19:03, 25 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This RFC should be closed ASAP, let arbcom take it's role, adding to this case is becoming a pointless dramafest and we don't need anymore of that crap. This is a Secret ^account 20:54, 25 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Editors who endorse this summary:

Comments

• Please realize that Durova herself has named RfC as part of her so-called "recall procedure". That is the reason this RfC was started in the first place. Because SHE said that should happen. I strongly oppose closure. --
  talk) 21:17, 25 November 2007 (UTC)[reply
  ]
  • Well it doesn't seem it would happen, her recall for some reason This is a Secret ^account 21:32, 25 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Durova has resigned her admin status.[67] Suggest this RFC be closed now. ArbCom is about to decide that she has to earn it back from the community here. What else is there here to do now? Its pretty clear that almost no one supports her actions and sleuthing of innocent users, including ArbCom. Thanks. Lets go make articles. • Lawrence Cohen 19:09, 26 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Editors who endorse this summary:

1. • Lawrence Cohen 19:09, 26 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
2. Endorse - this was only started as she specified it as her preferred route to action a recall. Johnbod (talk) 19:12, 26 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
3. Close Davewild (talk) 19:14, 26 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
4. per Johnbod. There are still questions, but not here. sNkrSnee | ¿qué? 19:17, 26 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
5. Endorse. A user RfC is intended to give feedback to the user. That feedback has been given and received. There is no longer any useful or constructive purpose to keeping this open. Lsi john (talk) 19:17, 26 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
6. Shudde ^talk 19:19, 26 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
7. Endorse. Risker (talk) 19:19, 26 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
8. Close.--MONGO (talk) 19:26, 26 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
9. Close. --Thespian (talk) 19:28, 26 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
10. Can be closed. Any further discussion should be on the general problem of the sleuthing methods, which it appears several users may be using, not on this individual alone.
    GRBerry 19:30, 26 November 2007 (UTC)[reply
    ]
11. Close. If she's resigned now there's no reason to rub it in further. Kuronue | Talk 19:33, 26 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
12. Eloquently put Lawrence.
    talk) 19:37, 26 November 2007 (UTC)[reply
    ]
13. Close. Anyone know how to do this in an RFC?
    Spartaz ^Humbug! 19:42, 26 November 2007 (UTC)[reply
    ]
14. Agreed. Bjewiki (Talk) 19:43, 26 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
15. Good enough then. I take her resignation as confirmation that's she's heard the feedback here-- no reason to keep hitting her over the head with it then. There's a lot still to be answered about the secret lists, but that belongs elsewhere on wikipedia, not just a durova rfc. It's not fair to lay all the blame just on Durova-- people set up a kangaroo court that was bound to convict the innocent, everyone involved shares the blame, not just the one admin who was unlucky enough to do the actual block. --Alecmconroy (talk) 19:54, 26 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

All signed comments and talk not related to a vote or endorsement, should be directed to this page's discussion page.

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.