Anyone, whether directly involved or not, may add evidence to this page. Create your own section and do not edit in anybody else's section. Please limit your main evidence to a maximum 1000 words and 100 diffs and keep responses to other evidence as short as possible. A short, concise presentation will be more effective; posting evidence longer than 1000 words will not help you make your point. Over-long evidence that is not exceptionally easy to understand (like tables) will be trimmed to size or, in extreme cases, simply removed by the Clerks without warning - this could result in your important points being lost, so don't let it happen. Stay focused on the issues raised in the initial statements and on diffs which illustrate relevant behavior.

It is extremely important that you use the prescribed format. Submitted evidence should include a link to the actual page diff in question, or to a short page section; links to the page itself are insufficient. Never link to a page history, an editor's contributions, or a log for all actions of an editor (as those will have changed by the time people click on your links), although a link to a log for a specific article or a specific block log can be useful. Please make sure any page section links are permanent. See simple diff and link guide.

This page is not for general discussion - for that, see the talk page. If you think another editor's evidence is a misrepresentation of the facts, cite the evidence and explain how it is incorrect within your own section. Please do not try to re-factor the page or remove evidence presented by others. If something is put in the wrong place, leave it for the Arbitrators or Clerks to move.

Arbitrators may analyze evidence and other assertions at /Workshop. /Workshop provides for comment by parties and others as well as Arbitrators. After arriving at proposed principles, findings of fact or remedies, Arbitrators vote at /Proposed decision. Only Arbitrators may edit /Proposed decision.

Timeline of events[edit]

On November 18, Durova (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) blocked !! (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) as a "disruptive sockpuppet." According to her, because of "the sensitive nature of [the] investigation", she would "not be discussing the reasons [for blocking] through normal channels".^[1] She then placed a statement to WP:ANI stating that she had done so, and it would not be advisable to discuss the block openly and directing people towards the arbitration committee for redress.^[2] The block received mixed support, and Durova stood firm,^[3] but unblocked !! 75 minutes later with the summary "false positive".^[4] She then apologized at ANI and requested suppression of the discussion, citing privacy concerns.^[5] Durova later revealed that she had circulated her evidence to "roughly two dozen trusted people" two weeks prior,^[6] and received no opposition.^[7] Durova claimed that she had so much faith in the strength of her evidence, that she could not forsee any disagreement.^[8] The text of the email was later posted by Giano II (talk · contribs),^[9] but has since been oversighted.

Durova has mistakenly blocked users in the past[edit]

• Songgarden (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) - blocked without evidence.
• NearestAvailableNewt (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) - unblocked 65 minutes after blocking as a "sleeper sock".
• Dieseltruckdude (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) - unblocked 63 minutes after blocking as a checkuser-confirmed sockpuppet of Eyrian.
• Mattsanchez (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) - unblocked more than 13 hours after blocking as a sockpuppet.
• WikiGnosis (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) - unblocked 15 hours after blocking as a sockpuppet of JB196.
• Yanxfan421324 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) - unblocked 77 minutes after blocking as a sockpuppet of JB196.
• Tankred (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) - unblocked 62 minutes after blocking as a sockpuppet of VinceB.
• LionheartX (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) - unblocked more than seven days after blocking as an "admitted sockpuppet of [an] indef blocked user".
• V-train (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) - unblocked seven minutes later.

Checkuser[edit]

I have been told that checkuser was run, twice, by two different checkusers, on !! a couple of weeks before Durova blocked. Don't think this is widely known. If this was done, it was presumably done at Durova's instigation, and the results must surely have been negative. Given this, why did Durova go ahead and block anyway?

Having read Durova's statement below - grunt. Head not talking to body, it seems. Happens everywhere, WP being no exception. How much drama could have been avoided? Moreschi ^{If you've written a quality article...} 19:40, 25 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Private mailing list[edit]

This is very, very real. The existence of this is very solid. The morality is far more dubious. Moreschi ^{If you've written a quality article...} 19:10, 25 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, fine, let's get this out of the way. What we've got here is a secret mailing list used by a few admins, one or two checkusers, and a couple of arbitrators (not to mention a steward/Foundation person). They're all frenetically discussing difficult blocks, confidential information, and private evidence in a rabid atmosphere of sockpuppet paranoia. Not healthy. Moreschi ^{If you've written a quality article...} 20:37, 25 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Please note that I would not have so much of a problem with a private mailing list that everyone knew existed, rather like the IRC channel #wikipedia-en-admins - private, but everyone knows it exists. Moreoever, access to that channel is essentially guaranteed on passing RFA. This mailing list is secret (as opposed to private) and membership is completely self-selecting. The air of paranoia also leaves a bad taste in the mouth. Half the stuff just doesn't need to be kept quite so quiet, it's all a bit ridiculous. So MMORPG-esque. Really. Moreschi ^{If you've written a quality article...} 20:41, 25 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I know what people do in their living rooms is there own business. That does not mean what they do there is healthy, nor does it mean we cannot pass moral judgment upon what they do. There's sufficient evidence to suggest that without the atmosphere that mailing list fostered, this block would never have happened. We should at least state that such secret fora are frowned upon, and that whenever possible, non-checkuser evidence claiming to prove sockpuppetry should be made public before being acted upon. There's no reason that Durova's initial evidence could have been posted on ANI, as there was no question of !!'s personal privacy being breached. The only risk was that Durova might be made to look foolish. That happened anyway, and this way we've lost a great contributor. Private discussions can be held accountable, after a fashion, and made subject to scrutiny. This doesn't hold true for secret mailing lists - very simple reason, no one knows they exist. Moreschi ^{If you've written a quality article...} 21:25, 25 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Also, it's possible that two of the arbitrators working on this case had the opportunity to see Durova's evidence some time before it was acted upon, as members of this mailing list. Did they, in fact, read it? If so, I believe they should recuse. Moreschi ^{If you've written a quality article...} 21:25, 25 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Two mailing lists[edit]

BTW, we've got two private mailing lists here - one relating specifically to investigations, and one relating to cyberstalking, both hosted by Wikia (AFAIK). Both are probably largely filled with the same people. To which one did Durova's email go? Investigations, surely? Then again, perhaps not. Enlighten? Moreschi ^{If you've written a quality article...} 21:52, 25 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Cyberstalking it was, then. Now, I can comprehend a cyberstalking mailing list, I suppose. People do get stalked on enwiki - we all know about Daniel Brandt and SlimVigin + many others. Doesn't appear to have been used exclusively for its intended purpose, however. What I really don't understand is why we need an investigations one. This seems...excessive. Overkill. Perhaps the arbcom could suggest an addition to WP:NOT? "Wikipedia is not a detective game"? Urge discussion of claims of sockpuppetry to be made as public as possible? Really, I don't think we need controversial blocks, private evidence, all sorts - hidden away by a self-selecting crowd into corners.

Role of Cary Bass[edit]

And that's another thing that's been bugging me. He appears to have been quite closely involved in this whole private-investigations scene, yet he later went on to block Giano on privacy grounds (which seems strange) to get Durova's email off enwiki. Moreschi ^{If you've written a quality article...} 22:09, 25 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Final[edit]

So, we've got a private mailing list (hosted on Wikia, did Angela play a role in setting these up?), stuffed to the brim with the English Wikipedia's top men and women. Allegedly used for the purpose of dealing with cyberstalking, it all soon degenerates into slagging off users we don't like (prime example being Krimpet for blocking MONGO) where they can't reply. I unblocked MONGO on that occasion, but whatever the merits of that block, Krimpet did not deserve to be so strongly attacked in a venue where reply is impossible. All still fairly innocuous, though.

Except now Durova thinks it's a good idea to use this mailing list for sockpuppet investigations that have zilch to do with harassment. The "evidence" against !! is posted to this mailing list. What happens at this point? Does no one see it's all wrong? Does no one, out of all these prestigious editors, object to the flawed logic? Evidently not. Well, no one reads everything in their inbox, but in fact, some editors seem to agree. This all seems like such a good idea that another private mailing list is created, specifically devoted to "investigations", filled with exactly the same self-selected clique. To what one admin described as "bitterness, anger and wikipolitics" concerning the cyberstalking mailing list, is now added absolutely manic sockpuppet paranoia. About a week later !! gets blocked, seemingly out of the blue, and the shit hits the fan.

Then we get the Giano saga. Doubtless publishing that email was iniquitous, but no one seems to have pointed out that it should never have been private in the first place - there were no privacy issues involved, only vanity issues. So, we get a whole flurry of drama, with Jimbo threatening to ban Giano, and Cary Bass blocking him indef until he recants. All justifiable, I suppose, but it's the double roles here that really bite. Can you really claim to be impartial in this manner on Wikipedia when you're also participating in these private mailing lists that gave us this block? For it is this aura of secrecy fostered by these mailing lists that has led to the block, it is the endless wikipolitics being played and sockpuppet mania being fuelled in back alleyways that had lead to this. This gives Wikipedia Review food for a thousand threads, not all of it unjustified. It's the incompetence that hurts more than the lack of principle.

Hypocrisy is the word here: who was it that famously wrote "There must be no cabal, there must be no elites, there must be no hierarchy or structure"? I'm not sure I even approve of that statement - there's certainly a role for cabal and elites in this wiki of ours. But if you do have principles you might as well stick to them - not set up private mailing lists hosted on your other company that seem largely concerned with MMORPG-esque "investigations" (how ludicrous it all is) and attacking Bad Admin of the Week. But Christ, if you're going down the Machiavelli route you must do so competently. What a massive botch this has been.

Durova does not deserve to be lynched alone for this, because it's not all her fault. The medium has influenced the message with a vengeance - an aura of unncessary secrecy, backstage maneuvers, and a deadly hushed seriousness has been created by others, not just by her alone. Oh, sure, we'll lynch Durova - but this isn't all her fault - and those who are now trying to cover up, not by protecting Durova, but by protecting the mechanism that gave us this broken mentality, need investigation.

And the result? Massive drama, complete waste of time, and if we don't lose the creator of over 100 top-notch DYKs, it'll be by the grace of God alone. And why? Because somehow we decided that discussing blocks backstage was a good idea. Oh, hang on, haven't we been here before...Moreschi ^{If you've written a quality article...} 00:35, 26 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

None of this is actionable, of course, but that's really how it's all panned out. Moreschi ^{If you've written a quality article...}

Checkuser[edit]

Moreschi states that two checkusers were performed on the !! account a couple of weeks before I blocked, and speculates that these were done at my request. I did circulate the report to some people who had checkuser, but none informed me about a test if they ran one. I promptly acknowledged full responsibility for that mistake, once I knew I had blocked in error. Durova^Charge! 19:33, 25 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Userblocks under challenge:[edit]

The claims that I have abused the blocking tool do little more than demonstrate that I do proactive followup on my own blocks.

• Songgarden (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) - Properly blocked and still blocked. Obvious throwaway sock, as noted in the block note. My guess as to the sockmaster was a little off. Confirmed by FloNight as Once and Forever per checkuser.[10]
• NearestAvailableNewt (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) - I got this one wrong and corrected myself with apologies in 65 minutes. The sysop who owned the account accepted the apology here. Here's how that came about: I was doing peripheral research for the Alkivar arbitration case and noticed this account's first edit was to vote delete on an in popular culture deletion discussion right after Burntsauce.[11] The next edit by this account reviewed a popular culture article with the words Complete fucking bollocks. Delete.[12] and two other edits in the short account history also used off color language.[13][14] Those things looked looked like yet another of JB196's 500+ sockpuppets. As soon as AndyJones informed me that the account was his own it was obvious that he was just being playful in his own user space. This resolved amicably with zero drama.
• Dieseltruckdude (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) - Properly blocked per a checkuser by Lar.[15] I unblocked because Lar's initial statement of the sockmaster account was unclear. So I confirmed that information and hit the button to reblock. My Internet connection must have had a glitch at that point because the reblock didn't register.
• Mattsanchez (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) - Properly blocked. This is an alternate account of Bluemarine. Bluemarine had made this edit. I blocked, linking to the edit and the policy.[16][17] Then I added that I'd withdraw the block upon clarification or withdrawal.[18] Afterward the same editor (who admits to being Matt Sanchez logged onto the Mattsanchez account and made 13 edits in evasion of the block (Nov. 1-2).[19] So I blocked the Mattsanchez account per WP:SOCK and left a message.[20] I responded to the editor's query[21] and promptly unblocked both accounts when clarification was forthcoming.[22][23]
• WikiGnosis (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) - Properly blocked I indeffed the account as a disruptive sock, then tried a good faith unblock. The account continued to be disruptive and three more administrators intervened in the next four days. Checkuser came back as likely for MyWikiBiz and the community agreed to ban.[24]
• Yanxfan421324 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) A 77 minute block on an account that had been inactive for 5 days and had only 4 total edits in its history. I had received a request from SirFozzie to protect his user space from vandalism by sockpuppets of JB196.[25] This account had left a strange post there.[26] Lid noticed that the editing pattern was different from the other accounts I blocked in response to the request.[27] So I agreed and unblocked.[28]
• Tankred (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) I accidentally clicked on the wrong username when I was blocking a sockpuppet of a blocked editor. Tankred had posted to the same thread.[29] I reversed this with apologies in 58 minutes[30] and the editor thanked me for the swift correction.[31]
• LionheartX (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) A tangled situation that had been wrong for two months when I found it and that I set right in two weeks. The editor used multiple accounts legitimately, but both of the others were already indeffed. One of the previous indefs had been done by mistake as a WP:SOCK violation and two unblock requests on that other account had been denied.[32][33][34] Full analysis is here.
• V-train (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) Six months after the Tankred block I accidentally clicked on the wrong username while intending to block another user for edit warring. Fixed the error 7 minutes later and apologized.

Compare the above examples to how I handled this request from an IP[35][36] who had been blocked by mistake a month earlier by a different administrator[37] and whose two unblock requests had already been denied. I restored editing privileges and extended apologies on behalf of my fellow administrators for the failure of the normal review system.[38] The editor thanked me for helping.[39]

Reconfirmation[edit]

Recall is a voluntary process at the administrator's discretion. My offer to be open for recall had no declaration about time frame. So I'm clarifying that now.

I will stand for reconfirmation at WP:RFA when this case concludes if I am still a sysop then. If there really is a compelling case to desysop me, then the people who advocate it have nothing to lose by allowing a reasonable interval for me to present evidence and for the community to review it.

If the RFC had progressed at a normal pace it would still be at its early stages as of this writing. Durova^Charge! 03:43, 26 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Also worth noting, the RFC on me was filed by an admitted alternate account [40][41] of an established editor who has chosen not to step forward on his or her main account. Those who demand full disclosure may wish to demand full disclosure equally.

Three of the six editors who certified RFC had interactions at previous arbitrations where I was active recently. None of these people posted evidence against me any of in those cases.

• Wikipedia:Requests_for_comment/Durova#Users_certifying_the_basis_for_this_dispute
• Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Sadi_Carnot#Involved_parties
• Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/COFS#Statement_by_Lsi_john, Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/COFS/Workshop#WP:AGF_trumps_WP:COI
• Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Alkivar#Alkivar_desysopped, Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Alkivar/Workshop#Durova_added_to_list_of_involved_parties

Durova^Charge! 10:58, 26 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Mailing lists[edit]

Questions about Wikipedia's mailing lists are red herrings. I assume full responsibility for the block of !! No one told me to do it: that was my decision.

Oversight[edit]

Cary Bass's use of oversight in this matter was, to the best of my knowledge, fully compliant with the copyright violation clause of Wikipedia:Oversight#Policy. I own copyright on the report that Giano II posted, the report explicitly requested nondistribution, and he never asked me for permission to repost it. And in response to this speculation, I made no legal threat. I simply pointed to the relevant policy and provided diffs.

Giano[edit]

Per WP:BAN#Outside_influence Giano's statements violated policy.[42][43][44][45][46]

Attempts to coerce actions of users through threats of actions outside the Wikipedia processes, whether onsite or offsite, are grounds for immediate banning.

I extended several polite overtures and apologized to him for the offense I had given.[47][48][49][50] Also, I asked two editors to strikethrough statements they had made in my defense at Giano's talk page as a gesture of goodwill.[51][52]

After Giano posted the report he and Snickersnee engaged in a conversation that looked like a long slur upon part of my ethnic heritage. Highlights follow:

Please bring me back two egg mayonnaise, a prawn Goebbels, a Hermann Goering and four Colditz salads. sNkrSnee | t.p. 19:20, 22 November 2007 (UTC)[53][reply]

Right! We have had the laugh now let us stop yodelling to each other, take the combs from under our noses and cease goose stepping and ask the serious question.[54]

When I told Cary Bass how this looked to my reading Giano archived the material without apology.[55][56] Striking through a portion of this per clarification.

Fairness[edit]

Nobody bats 1.000. 75 minutes after I implemented the block on !! I lifted it. The reason I didn't act even sooner is because that was how long it took to receive and confirm new evidence. Risker voiced an understandable concern at RFC: how would an editor without friends and a strong contribution history fare? Not much differently.

To expand on the Cwiki example mentioned above, the account had only about 200 edits when another administrator blocked.[57] Cwiki contacted me on an IP address a month later after two requests for unblock had already been denied. Look at how the editor begins the appeal:

i have been blocked for being a suspected sock puppet of awilliamson. i see you unblocked elizabeth87 who you thought was falsely accused. i was hoping to convince you that i have been falsely accused as well. [58]

He's right: I did unblock Elizabeth87[59] even though that account had an even shorter history: twelve edits total and no activity in months.[60] I unblocked Cwiki also because I found evidence that weighed in his favor.

Newyorkbrad[edit]

Newyorkbrad has recused himself from clerking this case and made some noticeboard comments about my actions last week. In case there is any doubt about his conduct in light of the upcoming arbitration election, he has my highest respect, so much so that when I first decided to run I asked Jimbo to choose Newyorkbrad over me if it ever came down to the two of us. Last month I informed Brad that I had made that request. Brad seemed surprised; he shouldn't be. Durova^Charge! 06:04, 26 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Haste[edit]

In the week since I made a bad block I have opened an ANI thread to scrtinize the decision, reversed myself, apologized, answered questions, and pledged specific improvements. Many of those actions remain unknown to Wikipedians who haven't worked with me closely. A variety of issues - both valid and questionable - remain unaddressed. I have not had any adequate venue to respond.

• I abandoned the ANI thread within one day after it opened because the signal to noise ratio rendered it useless.
• The RFC opened at the outset of Thanksgiving weekend and became obsolete twelve hours after it got certified.
• This arbitration moved to voting less than 24 hours after it opened. The arbitrators have disregarded my request for adequate time to complete an evidence presentation.

Now this moves toward a reconfirmation vote of my administratorship on a basis that denies uninvolved Wikipedians the chance to weigh all sides. I was never compelled to make myself open to recall: I thought it was fair. I also thought it was right to step forward and assume responsibility for my actions. That earned slim goodwill. Certainly there are upstanding Wikipedians who criticize me fairly, yet there has also been some very unequal applications of principles here.

I resign the tools. Durova^Charge! 18:36, 26 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Durova agreed to recall[edit]

As stated on her page about adminship (User talk:Durova/Admin), Durova has agreed to stamd for reconfirmation under the terms outlined when she originally added herself to Category:Administrators open to recall, after an RfC on her has been opened. She added herself to the category on 28 October 2006 ([61]), at which time the category page stated "These administrators are willing to stand for re-confirmation of adminship if six editors in good standing request it.", with good standing defined as "having over 500 mainspace edits and over one month of tenure." ([62])

An RfC has since been opened on Durova (Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Durova), and the conditions have been met.The outside view by Cla68, stating "Consider any endorsements to this statement to also be formal endorsements for a recall of her admin privileges unless the endorser states otherwise." Twenty-three users have endorsed this view, with only two stating that their endorsements did not extend to recall. She accepts that the RfC has been properly certified ([63]), but has not yet consented to begin reconfirmation.

Secret mailing list[edit]

As evidenced in Durova's email (not sure it would be appropriate to link it here, I will do so if someone asks), there is a mailing list intended to be secret, whose purpose is to combat sockpuppets of banned users.

Durova cultivates needless secrecy[edit]

This case is epitomized by needless secrecy, up to and including the use of the Foundation's privacy laws to hide key material (and including such a request remaining secret, to boot).^[64] The existence of this secrecy is unnecessary and distracting. Durova, thus far, declined to:

1. Address why none of the editors & admins in good standing who can be seen to be close to User:!! were consulted prior to the block.^[65]
2. The nature, makeup, and composition of the secret mailing list; she is responsible for actively seeking all of them to come together and agree to reveal: 'I was sent the email,' no reason for continuing to keep secret who these folks are. It isn't a crime to have been sent this email. It isn't as if they had the power to prevent it from being circulated. So why the secrecy? Transparency is to be encouraged. ^[66]
3. The email itself. There's nothing personal in that semi-private, leaked email that would deem the application of privacy laws (and yet, these were applied, questionably). Just do the honourable thing and release the thing publicly, already. Enough is enough. ^[67][68]

It all makes review more convoluted and melodramatic, facilitates suspicion, mistrust, acrimony, and a poisonous atmosphere, all for naught. El_C 20:33, 25 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Wait, it's that mailing list?(!) Because I'm a member! Granted, I keep forgetting to find a dedicated email address for it, and therefore thus far yet to participate (I thought they'd be a webpage or something; mailing lists are just so inbox-intensive), but at the event, I know who the members are. That email, then, was a misuse of that list, which was to be about real-life harassment, stalking, and other serious matters. El_C 22:44, 25 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I take full blame for everything that happened. Had I only remembered to find an email address for that list, I could have seen that email, told Durova who User:!! was, and prevent the whole from ever happening. That sucks! El_C 22:47, 25 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

JzG is ignoring my argument about the email, he should at least address my points if he's to repeat the spiritless latter of the law. El_C 22:51, 25 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

People who received the secret mailing[edit]

Durova has stated that she sent the "secret evidence" to "roughly two dozen trusted people" "in ways that some arbcom members saw it". [69]. Of several people we now know they have received the "secret evidence" prior to the blocking of User:!! (talk · contribs), and .

• Lar (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) : [70]
• JzG (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) : [71]
• Jimbo Wales (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) : (according to JzG) [72]
• SlimVirgin (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) : Maintains the mailing list [73]

P.S. If there are other diffs out there showing that other specific people received Durova's mailing, please feel free to add them to this section.

Durova's confidence in her methods[edit]

To this day (26th of November), Durova fails to understand that the "method" she used, which according to her was the "product of months of work" was inherently flawed as she has stated that, if it hadn't been "gutted by some people who acted in haste and anger", "the method could have been refined, correlated with firmer evidence, and probably become useful." [74]

The report[edit]

In that same diff, she states that she doesn't "want that report on Wikipedia because it was obtained and distributed by deception and coercion." Let me repeat... deception and coercion. There better be some evidence for those accusations... [75]

--Cpt. Morgan (Reinoutr) (talk)

• There has been much discussion on WP:ANI and a subpage (now archived), WP:AN, an RFC, and User talk:!! (since deleted and undeleted) and Durova. Apart from a few posts in the latter two and supporting the RFC, I have not participated; nor, most of the time, has Durova responded, even to questions posted on her own talk page.

• I e-mailed Durova to initiate a discussion about her actions. I am treating my discussions with Durova as confidential, but will disclose details to members of ArbCom privately on request, although there is not much to disclose: after making contact and some helpful initial discussion, I have now waited for over 4 days for a reply - a reply that I was told several times would be coming - and it is more than three days since we have exchanged words.

Timeline[edit]

The block

• I was indefinitely blocked by Durova at 16:45 on 18 November 2007, for "Abusing sock puppet accounts".[76]
• I had no warning that this would happen - nothing on my talk page, no private e-mail or message. It was a complete surprise, and a total shock. I trust a review of my contributions[77] will reveal the falsity of that allegation. But more concerning is the process - so far as I understand it - that led to the block.
• After blocking me, Durova posted a notice of the block on my talk page.[78] She did not disclose the basis for her block, save that I was an abusive sockpuppet, and referred all questions to ArbCom. She posted a similar message on WP:ANI.[79]

• I am now going to take you through what happened in the next hour or so. Apologies if this reportage is boring, but it shows how many people questioned the block during that period, and also who supported it.

Calls to justify or review #1-4

• Just 9 minutes after Durova posted on WP:ANI, Newyorkbrad queried the basis for the block and asked for evidence. He could see "no disruptive edits of any nature and no warnings of any kind".[80]
• Within a few more minutes, GlassCobra - "no transgressions of any kind on the part of this use" [81] - and W.marsh - "can't be here purely to be disruptive" [82] - similarly expressed concern, and Majorly condemned a "Grossly poor block".[83]

Durova #2

• Durova again asked everyone to assume her good faith, said that she had "very good reasons", and that all queries must go to ArbCom.[84]

Calls to justify or review #5-6

• EliminatorJR [85] and Sam Blacketer [86] joined the group questioning the block. By 17:12, less than half an hour after the block, six people had expressed concern, although no-one unblocked.

Refer to ArbCom #1-2, calls to justify or review #7

• Until(1 == 2) was the first to support Durova's repeated insistence that any concerns could only be considered by ArbCom.[87] Geni quickly disagreed,[88] but Mercury agreed, and suggested that everyone should assume Durova's good faith and send the block to ArbCom.[89]

Durova #3

• Durova repeated her certainty that she was right. "I am very confident my research will stand up to scrutiny. ... More than half a dozen administrators have already seen this research."[90]

Refer to ArbCom #3, calls to justify or review #8

• Tom harrison said Durova was being reasonable.[91] Sam Blacketer objected that WP:AGF applied to !! as much as to Durova.[92] Ryan Postlethwaite asked why the details were being kept secret: for privacy reasons, or just to keep Durova's methods secret.[93]

Refer to ArbCom #4-5

• JzG said that Durova was "in direct contact with several arbitrators and CheckUsers at the moment", and "is not one to block lightly".[94] Crum375 agreed with Tom Harrison and Mercury, pointing out that Wikipedia has a "sock infestation", and that complaining about the secrecy of the block was "counterproductive".[95]

Calls to justify or review #8-14

• Bbatsell [96] and Akhilleus [97] wanted the evidence checked by a third party.
• Wizardman could see "no evidence of disruption" but did not know the underlying information, and just wanted the situation sorted out quickly.[98].
• Newyorkbrad returned, asking an Arbitrator to review the situation immediately.[99]
• Kwsn wanted to know who the sock's master was.[100]
• The Rambling Man pointed to my "thousands of excellent contributions", and said he thought I had exercised a right to disappear from a previous account and had then returned.[101]
• Videmus Omnia wanted to see diffs to demonstrate the disruption, or to identify a "bad hand" to go with this "good hand" account.[102]

• Less than an hour and a quarter after the block, Physchim62 demanded some evidence [103] but soon retracted the demand[104] because...

Unblock

• 75 minutes after imposing an indefinite block, and despite her previous protestations as to the unimpeachability of her evidence, Durova unblocked. The unblocking summary simply said that the block was a "false positive".[105] She also posted "with apologies" on WP:ANI."[106] In the act of apologising on WP:ANI, she confirmed that this was not a first account - seemingly as a justification for the "false positive" - and also mentioned "the amount of time my report circulated and the people who had access to it". She also posted an apology on User talk:!!, which read in full:[107]

"When I make a mistake I like to be the first to step forward and correct myself. I was wrong here. Sorry for the inconvenience."

• I don't know precisely what happened to make Durova change her mind - I would guess that some editors (perhaps ones listed above) who were aware or guessed that I had edited under a different account previously disclosed this previous account to Durova (without my consent, but I can understand why they were moved to do so). By now, of course, the genie was out of the bottle - I had abandoned my account for legitimate personal reasons (which I will disclose to ArbCom privately on request) but that was now all in vain.

Aftermath

• The thread on WP:ANI was quickly removed[108] and then "courtesy blanked", [109] ostensibly for my benefit, although a link to the original discussion in the page history was quickly added, so anyone who wanted to could read it anyway.

• The debate triggered by this chain of events continued at WP:ANI, and was eventually transferred to its own (very long) subpage. It also spilled out into various other places, such as User talk:Durova and User talk:Giano II. Durova disclosed that

• a "report" had been "in circulation for two weeks among some very senior people",[110]
• "some arbcom members saw it",[111]
• and "roughly two dozen trusted people saw and no one objected".[112]

• Separately, Durova claimed that the evidence leading to the block was supported "positive to enthusiastic" by "roughly five people, all sleuths like myself".[113]

• As far as I am aware, Durova has not named these "senior editors". However, it seems clear that one was JzG, as he admitted "I saw the evidence, it was definitely suspicious".[114] Lar has also come forward and stated that he was one of the editors consulted, expressing regret that he read the material "somewhat cursorily."[115] No-one else has seen fit to admit their complicity in Durova's investigation and block.

What was in that damning report?[edit]

What were Durova's "very good reasons" for her block? Giano II eventually posted the "evidence" on the subpage, where it was deleted by JzG shortly afterwards[116] and then oversighted by Blnguyen.[117] Giano II reposted it on his talk page, where it was repeatedly deleted (although Mercury has helpfully added a diff to it in the edit history below which seems to have been oversighted now). Giano was threatened and then blocked for re-posting it, and told by Jimmy Wales that he was trolling, and therefore unlikely to "last much longer at Wikipedia".[118] Since this threat, the report is not available on Wikipedia (except for certain periods of the recent edit history of User talk:Giano II which seem to have been oversighted now). However, a large number of editors (including several members of ArbCom) will have received copies from its original mailing by Durova, and others will have received copies from her or from others afterwards.

As the posting of the full "evidence" circulated widely by Durova seems beset by issues of confidentiality and alleged claims of copyright, I will post a summary.

• !! was "a troublemaker whose username is two exclamation points with no letters", a "ripened sock" with a "padded history of redirects, minor edits, and some DYK work"

• These first four edits were evidence that this was not a first account: [119] [120] [121] [122]

• !! did wikignome work "far too early", in order to make positive contributions that would "insulate" against the "banhammer". !!'s crime was to create redirects and stubs. For example, [123]

• !! was accused of "Obscene trolling" (in German!) in this edit: [124]

• And !! was then condemned for being too much of a good Samaritan for moving Giano's talk page archives: [125] [126] [127] [128] [129] [130] [131] [132] [133] [134] [135] [136] [137] [138] [139]

• Here is the "nasty side" of !!, on Bishonen's talk page: [140]

• And a normal "problem editor" is supposed to get in trouble first with the WP:3RR first, but User:!! unusually indulged in some "free range sarcasm and troublemaking" instead: [141] [142] [143] [144] [145]

• And finally, this was evidence of "gloating": [146]

In summary, !! was clearly not a first account for a new and inexperienced editor, was too helpful to fellow editors, and worked too hard on mundane tasks. The so-called "obscene trolling in German" relates to a new article created by Raul654 on a composition by Mozart. The "free range sarcasm and troublemaking" refers to some unhappiness with Jimbo Wales's deus ex machina desysop of Zscout370. The "gloating" arose in relation to a discussion on the Signpost talk page about interviews.[147]

Now, I am aware that Durova has been active in rooting out sockpuppets of banned and blocked editors, and has been actively involved in a number of ArbCom cases. I would not attempt to evaluate the results of these endeavours - they are not matters that I have taken much interest in, as I have always tried to concentrate on creating new encyclopedic content and on projects to foster a productive community, such as WP:DYK, where I am well-known.

However, the level of assumptions of bad faith shown in that report is difficult for me to comprehend - how can such innocent activities can be seen in such a bad light? It leads me to seriously doubt Durova's judgment.

I am also aware that several other indefinite blocks imposed by Durova without warning have been overturned in short order - block log - User:NearestAvailableNewt is a case in point, I believe.

The Dirty (two) Dozen, and The Famous (roughly) Five[edit]

It is clear that Durova circulated her "evidence" to a mailing list composed of the great and the good. She herself has said that "roughly two dozen people received the report. Those included people from the Foundation, and some (not all) members of ArbCom, and some people who had checkuser privileges. I did not run this through the Committee formally and received no explicit assurance that any checkuser had been run. I discussed the investigation in depth with roughly five people, all sleuths like myself. ... The responses I did receive ranged from positive to enthusiastic." [148]

However, it is not clear to me:

• how many people is "roughly 5"? 4? 5? 4½? 5⅔?
• who are these people who were "positive to enthusiastic"?
• and what were they "positive to enthusiastic" about? The block? The evidence?

In fact, Geni asked for Durova to name names as soon as Durova said that "More than half a dozen administrators have already seen this research".[149] (Answer came their none.)

I am not sure what would be worse: that "roughly 5" people were "positive to enthusiastic" about the evidence (please hold up your hands, positive to enthusiastic people); or that in fact "roughly 5" people were not "positive to enthusiastic" at all.

It is notable that only five people supported the block on WP:ANI (support, in the sense of not demanding that Durova either unblock immediately, or provide evidence, or both). A few of these names seem to have become closely involved with this whole saga. Perhaps they are the same "roughly" five people mentioned by Durova? Or perhaps there is an overlap? Or perhaps not.

1. Until(1 == 2) agreed that certain issues should be considered in private by ArbCom,[150] (later caveated that he was sure that Durova must have good evidence[151])
2. Mercury agreed that the block should be reviewed by ArbCom.[152]
3. Tom harrison thought referring to ArbCom was reasonable.[153]
4. JzG also wanted to wait for ArbCom.[154]
5. Crum375 agreed with Tom Harrison and Mercury, wanting ArbCom to review the evidence on account of a "sock infestation".[155]

Mailing list[edit]

The mailing list to which Durova sent the email is not secret, merely private. It is hosted by Wikia as a matter of convenience; we could just as well have used Yahoo Groups or anything else. It's genesis was in a rambling email discourse circulated to an ever wider group of people, that became unmanageable. Setting up an email list was a matter of simple administrative convenience. Its purpose is not "to combat sockpuppets of banned users", its purpose is to discuss how to more effectively manage the issue of harassment on Wikipedia. I have placed the list charter on the subscription page. It is clear to those of us in this group that the current methods used to combat harassment are ineffective, due to a number of factors including, for example, the practice by some editors of reflex reversion of any removal of a link to external harassment anywhere in Wikipedia, thus raising the profile to high levels immediately; and the inability of some to comprehend the seriousness of harassment to its victims.

The group includes a number of long-standing editors, mostly female, who have experienced harassment as a result of their on-wiki actions. It also includes some past and present members of the arbitration committee, some active administrators, CheckUsers and one or two others. I think most of us have OTRS access. It is private for the sole reason that much of what is discussed is essentially private - for example, some pseudonymous editors contribute under their real names, and have shared private information to help establish context. It's not some kind of super-secret cabal. The cabal is found, as it always was, on #wikipedia-en-cabal, but if I reveal this I will have to kill you.

Reinoutr's evidence above should be struck as purely speculative. The arbitrators have, I believe, the full list of members of the list - if not, I will email it. Some people do not want to be publicly identified, as they have been victims of harassment. We do not publish a list of OTRS volunteers either. This is no big deal. I'm not quite sure how I ended up being invited on that list, and I'll acknowledge that there is a bit of noise and a fair bit of hurt being shared there, but it is definitely not a covert replacement of "votes for banning". It does, of course, involve a certain amount of discussion of the MO of some banned users who are serial ban evaders and have engaged in, supported or enabled harassment.

The arbitrators already know about the list and its makeup. It has been discussed, I believe, on the arbcom-l list well before this incident.

Although the list was originally owned by SlimVirgin (as a principal target of harassment for a long time and initiator of the email chain), it is not now. Leadership of the list lies with Jimbo, and pretty much always did.

For the record, I think Durova screwed up. So does Durova. I think she made too big a deal of the supporting evidence and forgot the direct evidence which is rightly the start point of any investigation - that is, one only investigates if one as already identified a problem. The email should not have been sent. Can we stop beating Durova up, now?

Another list[edit]

Another list does exist. It was set up to take some of the side-issue traffic out of the main list which had reached over 3,000 posts in about nine or ten weeks. This list is also private, but in its infancy.

Giano[edit]

Giano posted the contents of a private email of which Giano was not a recipient. I like to think that nay editor posting, without permission of the sender, the content of private emails, would be censured for it - see Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Hkelkar_2#Private_correspondence

Cary Bass briefly blocked Giano to prevent further violations, and unblocked once there was an assurance that this would not happen again.

Hanlon's razor[edit]

Hanlon's razor states: Never attribute to malice that which can be adequately explained by stupidity. Boy does Durova ever look stupid here. But not evil. Guy (Help!) 23:30, 25 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Some points[edit]

Alecmconroy asks:

• What are the secret lists? We know there are two, and that one is WpCyberstalking, the other is still secret.

Nobody has any way of knowing ow many lists, groups, cabals, associations, bands of friends or other loose groupings of Wikipedia editors exist. There is no way to enumerate these, no way to control them, and no particular reason to care.

• Who has participated in this secret list? We know a few names. The other names are apparently known, but have not been made public yet.

And won't be, without their consent, for reasons which are inherently obvious from the title of the list.

• When did this secret list behavior begin?

When the first list servers were set up, I'd imagine. One of the longest-running closed lists is arbcom-l.

• When did the special secret "investigations" list get created? Why was it created instead of just using the other list?

11/10/2007. It was set up to manage noise on the cyberstalking list.

• Who were the two dozen people who reviewed the evidence against !!?

I have no idea who reviewed it, it would be a mistake to say that every recipient reviewed it, I saw it and did not look at it in any detail; does that make me one of the two dozen?

• Who provided the responses that ranged from "positive to enthusiastic"?

No idea.

• Who were the five sleuths who were actively involved in gathering evidence against !!?

No idea.

• Who is the "steward/Foundation person" who participated in the secret lists?

You'd have to ask Jimbo that. Since not one of the poeple involved was involved in any official capacity whatsoever, I am not sure why it would be relevant.

• Who were the arbiters who participated in the secret lists?

They know, and so will the other arbitrators. They did not participate ex-officio as arbitrators so it has no particular relevance.

• Why were the other arbiters not allowed to participate in the list?

Who said they weren't? Did any of them ask? Please give details.

• Who made the final decision about which arbiters were going to be allowed on the secret lists and which were not?

See above.

• What were the full content of the emails on the two secret lists? The one we know about wasn't archived, but undoubtedly, copies still exist.

None of your business. Are you going to give me the contents of your email inbox on demand? I'd offer to give you mine, but I can pretty much guarantee it would bore you to death. Today alone I received over 750 emails, the vast majority of which were dull beyond imagining.

• Were the secret lists ever used for stealth canvassing? There are several polls that, in the light of day, now seem very suspicious.

No.

• Are the secret lists still being used to coordinate behavior even now? Do people intend to continue the use of secret lists in the future?

No, they never were and still aren't. They are a forum for past and present victims of harassment to discuss the problem of harassment and the mounting problem of people who assume bad faith of everyone who does not open their doors to the whole world on demand. Strange though it may seem, victims of harassment are not always comfortable with presenting details of that harassment for the prurient interests of all comers. People are funny that way.

Private mailing lists hosted by Wikia[edit]

Wikia does appear to host several peripheral Wikipedia-related lists outside the jurisdiction of the Wikimedia Foundation on lists.wikia.com. Among them is WpCyberstalking, "a private unarchived mailing for the discussion of Wikipedia and cyberstalking," administrated by User:SlimVirgin - this appears to be the list JzG was referring to. CMoreschi asserts there is in fact two mailing lists, though I cannot locate any information on the other one he is referring to.

I think this opens up a huge privacy-related can of worms, unfortunately. Isn't Wikia supposed to be a separate entity from the WMF? Are they bound to the same privacy and access to nonpublic data policies? How do we know the sensitive data being released is being kept safe from prying eyes? I'm not even sure I feel safe on this project anymore. :/ --krimpet⟲ 22:28, 25 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Also, in response to Moreschi's "final words": Moreschi provided this conversation to me and I was shocked at the venomous witch-hunting targeted directly at me on this list, with no way to rebut their allegations; was I at one point close to suffering the same fate as !!? How many other Wikipedians have been targeted in this manner? This isn't a way to write an encyclopedia; it's a way to run a middle-school clique. :( --krimpet⟲ 01:17, 26 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Block based on no evidence of any wrongdoing[edit]

I am writing this from a neutral IP. I travel the world and have written to all Parties of my block asking them why? I was blocked as a puppet of “Amorrow” by Durova. I was then blocked as a puppet of “Once and Forever.” By “FlowNight”? Once and Forever is evidently a sock of an established user. (No relation to me.) I am not related to any of the above. I am legitimate user and editor; at last understanding, I was welcome here. My privacy is quite important. Durova blocked and protected based on nothing first, then, again, nothing second. She thought of me as a threat to her election, perhaps, however that is no excuse for her behavior. I like my name and I am still indef. blocked/protected. Thanks, Songgarden…….. from a safe place. (Unsigned, timestamp added by El_C) 23:25, 25 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Addendum to my evidence:

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

Reasons for Cary Bass's block of Giano[edit]

Cary Bass objected to Giano's posting of Durova's email message, and blocked Giano for repeatedly posting it. It has been said that Cary's rationale was based on privacy concerns, however Cary was quite clear at the time that his objection was on grounds of a) compassion, and b) copyright. Cary made what I thought was an excellent attempt to reason with Giano before giving him a formal block warning. He posted to Giano's talk page, "I've removed the text of the email once again out of consideration of the user who wrote it. Leaving it there is cruel to both her and the subject of the email. Please don't put it back. Besides the fact that the user can, in fact, claim copyright on the email she sent, the email was, in fact, stupid and embarrassing; the actions she took without anyone responding to the email were irresponsible and careless. Your putting it here further adds to her public humiliation--whether that is your intent or not--only makes the situation horribly worse. Her behavior has been questionable, I completely agree. I promise you it will be addressed. This is not the way."[156]

Foundation involvement was not necessary[edit]

Considering the number of people who were watching the pages to which Giano was posting the email, I don't know why Cary felt he had to act in an official Foundation capacity. Giano was about two postings away from being blockable for edit warring or 3RR anyway. The community easily handles cases in which someone repeatedly posts material whose fair use rationale is questionable.

Note: I am certainly not advocating any conspiracy theories about Cary being threatened or pushed around. Given how quickly it all happened, my impression then and now is that Cary panicked and used a sledgehammer (his Foundation role) when a flyswatter (his en-wiki Administrator role) would have worked. Kla’quot (talk | contribs) 01:06, 26 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Quite a day. The Secret Militia is real after all--- I heard claims so many times, and until today, I never believed them. But rather than focusing on the secrets of the past, let me point out how many secrets are still being kept.

Continued secrecy[edit]

• What are the secret lists?

Answered. WpCyberstalking, a large list, and wpinvestigations-l,a much smaller one.

• Who has participated in this secret list?

Answered: According to Moreschi, the investigations list consisted of: Durova, Gnangarra, Herby, Jonathan Hochman, JzG, Lar, Sarah Ewart, SlimVirgin , and arbiters FloNight, Matthew Brown(Morven), and foundation employee Cary Bass/Bastique.

• When did this secret list behavior begin?

• When did the special secret "investigations" list get created? Why was it created instead of just using the other list?

(According to Guy, the list was created 11/10/2007 in order to "manage noise" on the cyberstalking list.

• Who were the two dozen people who reviewed the evidence against !!?

potentially answered: Durova posted the evidence to the cyberstalking list. No one has yet admitted to reading it in any depth.

• Who provided the responses that ranged from "positive to enthusiastic"?

Incredibly important, but totally stonewalled

• Who were the five sleuths who were actively involved in gathering evidence against !!?

Incredibly important, but totally stonewalled

• Who is the "steward/Foundation person" who participated in the secret lists?

Presumable answered: We can assume this is Cary Bass/Bastique.

• Who were the arbiters who participated in the secret lists?

Answered: Matthew Brown(Morven) and FloNight

• Why were the other arbiters not allowed to participate in the list?

• Who made the final decision about which arbiters were going to be allowed on the secret lists and which were not?

Potentially answered: Slimvirgin maintains the Cyberstalking list, JzG maintains the investigative list. The cyberstalking list mentions that any current member has the right of veto over new members.

• What were the full content of the emails on the two secret lists? The cyberstalking list wasn't archived, but undoubtedly, copies still exist.

• Were the secret lists ever used for stealth canvassing? There are several polls that, in the light of day, now seem very suspicious.

• Are the secret lists still being used to coordinate behavior even now? Do people intend to continue the use of secret lists in the future?

Steps forward[edit]

• Anyone who participated on the secret lists should come forward. Their actions, both past and future, deserve more scrutiny. Also, we have an election coming up, and I (and many other editors) have a right to know who has been in involved in secret lists. Ideally the people will come forward themselves, but if they refuse to do so within a reasonable amount of time, their involvement should be revealed all the same.
• Assuming !! requests it, anyone who actively participated in the investigation against him should be added to this arbitration as a party.
• This case involves a fundamental question about whether a secret list of this sort is appropriate, and whether the users who participated in a secret list should be censured. Any arbiter who himself participated in the secret list should immediately recuse themselves.
• Copies of the all of the secret emails still exist in the hands of multiple users. The full content of these emails should be forwarded to the arbcom mailing list, so that the arbs who didn't make the list can review the behavior for themselves.
• The community should learn the identities of the five individuals who had "in-depth discussions" about the block.
• The community should learn the identities of any individuals who "postively to enthusiastically" endorsed the block.

--Alecmconroy (talk) 02:11, 26 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Most of the points I wanted to make have already been covered. In connection with Durova's evidence that comments on Giano's talkpage appeared to her "like a long slur upon part of my ethnic heritage," however, I think it is important to note that the references to Germans or Germany appear to be based on the comment "knows German" in the evidence e-mail, and that the first of the quoted comments is from a famous scene in "The Germans" episode of Fawlty Towers. This case is difficult enough without adding yet another level of misunderstanding. Newyorkbrad (talk) 02:19, 26 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I just noticed my comment is cited as evidence. I wish to confirm Newyorkbrad's explanation, and also that it is hilarious. sNkrSnee | t.p. 02:30, 26 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Durova assumed bad faith on the part of two (or more) editors[edit]

While I'm quite sure that Durova felt that her investigation and block of User:!! was for the benefit of the project, it nevertheless involved an unwarranted assumption that !! was acting in bad faith.

In addition, if the email posted (and then oversighted) was accurate, Durova not only assumed bad faith on !!'s part, but also alleged that a different editor was aiding and abbeting !!'s supposed sockpuppetry. The email mentions a third editor as probably not knowing what !! really was; to read between the lines a bit, this comment apparently means that the editor was unwittingly aiding !!'s alleged sockpuppetry. The assumption that other editors were knowingly or unknowingly supporting !!'s supposed sockpuppetry is problematic, to say the least.

I'm sorry to refer to a document that Durova wishes to keep private, especially since I wasn't a recipient; but the email, and the mailing lists, are obviously an important part of the case--if there were no email, this would just be a straightforward case about a bad block. It would be very helpful for this case and for the community at large if Durova would release the email--it would help the cause of transparency.

Giano und Snickersee[edit]

In her evidence above, Durova refers to a conversation in fake German between Giano and Snickersee. Durova apparently interpreted this conversation as a hurtful reference to her ethnic heritage, but it should be obvious that (as Newyorkbrad says), this is a satiric riff on !!'s "trolling" at Leck mich im arsch. --Akhilleus (talk) 02:39, 26 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Private email posted on wiki[edit]

Giano reposted private email with the intent to disrupt. [157]

Puzzled[edit]

Can anyone tell me why this arbitration is about Durova *and* Jehochman? I can't see his name anywhere. Keith Henson (talk) 04:20, 27 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Durova and Jehochman/Workshop

Durova has no copyright on the oversighted email[edit]

The email containing the "evidence" was posted to a Wikia mailing group. All Wikia's content is licenced under the GFDL. Therefore, Cary Bass broke the Oversight policy very seriously and maliciously by oversighting the email. Also, Durova is deliberately misleading people with her claims of holding copyright on the letter. 77.105.60.219 (talk) 20:40, 27 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This is false. Mailing list content (whether on Wikimedia or Wikia) should not be assumed to be released under a free license. Angela. 14:08, 28 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

If it is set forth to other people in the form of communication, it becomes their property, to do with as they please. Clearly at least one of them was keen on releasing it, at which point it became part of the public domain. This brouhaha about copyright violations would be humorous if it weren't being used to distract from the very real problems with having semi-fulltime sleuths appointing themselves to use flawed investigative techniques to "out" solid contributors. Mr Which^??? 14:22, 28 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I want to make clear that my disagreement with Angela's assessment of copyright is meant in no way to support the anon IP's assertions regarding the intent of either Cary Bass or Durova. I believe both are acting in good faith, even if I disagree with the conclusions they reach while doing so. Mr Which^??? 14:34, 28 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that the email is now the (rightful) property of its (original) recipients. However, that does not mean that they can do as they please. Compare with a book that you buy in a shop: you are now the owner of that book, but copyright law still says you cannot copy or republish it. -- Eugène van der Pijll (talk) 18:41, 28 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The comparison with the book is flawed. The prohibition to republish a book that you physically own follows from the need to protect the profits of the copyright owner, the publisher, which is the main basis of the copyright law. Incriminating letters that get leaked, however, are routinely published. When one publishes the letter that got in one's possession (for example one is the recipient), the involved issue is not the copyright but trust, that is not law but ethics. The recipient who publishes the letter sent to him with the author's implied expectation of trust acts unethically but not illegally. Publishing letters which do not involve any relationship of trust between the author and the recipient is not even unethical. It is entirely legitimate and even appropriate to publish threatening letters to request protection as no relationship of trust could be normally expected when any threats are involved in the first place. Giano got a hold of the letter where user:!! was accused in being an evil incarnate and a group of editors, that includes Giano, are accused of being !!'s accomplices. This assumption excludes the possibility that Giano, who possesses the letter, and Durova, who wrote it, are in any relationship that involve any kind of mutual trust. Giano did not violate Durova's trust by posting this letter in any way. --Irpen (talk) 20:24, 28 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

That's what I find so disturbing about the overwhelming support the ArbCom showed Mercury's flawed (major COI in having been nommed to adminship by Durova) proposal that Giano be added as a party to this case. If anything, Giano should have been allowed his own ArbCom (which I don't support, but would have been at least defensible) for potentially violating WP policy in posting it. As you state, there's nothing illegal, or even unethical, about what Giano did. The only reason I can think of to hide this communique from the community is that there's a misguided wish to insulate Durova from further--and very well-earned--criticism. Mr Which^??? 20:37, 28 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

A better title for this section would be "The quoting of Durova's Email was a 'fair use'". Durova does have copyright, but copyright doesn't mean you "own" the words-- it means you have a right to recoup damages under some very limited circumstances. Giano's posting in no way flew in the face of copyright law and any lawyer that, after serious contemplation and study, believes Durova has a case against the foundation isn't worth the paper his degree is printed on.

(Mind you, that isn't to attack whoever in the foundation removed the email-- erring on the safe side until you've had time to consider the matter completely would be wise standard practice).

If anyone wants to attack Giano for posting evidence in order to exonerate his friend, they're going to have to look beyond copyright law and ethics-- Giano was on firm ground in both arenas. --Alecmconroy (talk) 20:47, 28 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Let's not be silly. Reposting private communications, whether you're the recipient or you came across it some other way, is a breach of privacy, disruptive, and not the kind of games we need to have on Wikipedia. This is an encyclopedia, not a political scandal rag. Anyone so paranoid that they accuse ArbCom of playing politics should question whether they're taking everything too seriously. Incidentally, the evidence page is not for threaded discussions, but the case is over at this point, like much of the rest of the public comments, things seem to have broken down here. Wikidemo (talk) 20:58, 28 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

OK, "breach of privacy" is a fair issue to discuss but let's throw out the nonsense copyright talk from this thing as it obviously does not apply, OK? So, you say there is a "breach" of privacy. The notion of "privacy breach" can only be applicable when there can reasonably exist any expectation of privacy to be breached in the first place. Could Durova have a legitimate expectation of privacy with respect to the content of the post sent to an e-list whose full list participants she does not even know? She does not even know the number of recipients either. Having any expectation of privacy under these circumstances is outright foolish and when there is no expectation, there is no breach. But there is more to it. Anyone unjustly accused in that post, be it !!, Giano or any other unnamed members of the !!'s gang that Durova saw, are certainly not involved in any kind of relationship with Durova that involves trust of any sort.

Here is a simple rule of thumb for you, Wikidemo. Just don't say things that if published would make one look bad. Don't say them in public and don't say them in private, in emails, over IRC, in "private list posts". It is as easy as that. I would not like to see my email inbox or outbox published simply because it would reveal some personal stuff that is no one else's business. But there is nothing there that would make me look ashamed. I do not say in private anything that would be inappropriate to say in public. I do not run "secret investigations" that, if published, would make me look bad. I do not maintain secret logs on people. Durova would be well-advised to do just that and if she did, we won't be having these conversations all along.

But coming back to the "breach of privacy", there was none because

1. There cannot be a reasonable expectation of privacy if one posts to the list of unidentified number of unknown people
2. Giano and !! do not owe any privacy expectations to the person who mounts a secret attack on their characters.

--Irpen (talk) 21:16, 28 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

If you find out the "secret evidence" is as crazy as Durova's secret evidence was, you have a moral duty to the project publish it, period. If anyone can find some rule that suggested otherwise, it's a time to Ignore All Rules. --Alecmconroy (talk) 21:23, 28 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Alecmconroy is just provoking, but that disruptive attitude is what made this case such a mess. The "expectation of privacy" principle is not applicable, and not a good standard here. That's a legal concept based on all kinds of things that are not present on Wikipedia. The relationship is through the project. Anyone participating int he project needs to honor its rules. One is that you don't republish private communications. In that context it is more than reasonable to expect that private communication will not be republished on Wikipedia, and we can enforce that expectation by insiting people adhere to that behavior. Durova's purpose in keeping it private was not to avoid looking bad, but to prevent what she thought was a valuable sockpuppet-fighting tool from being released and thereby losing its value. Right or wrong, it's not up to vigilantes to try to expose people by posting their communications. ArbCom is clear on that, and says anyone who does that again with this particular message will be blocked. Wikidemo (talk) 21:30, 28 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It may well be Wikipedia isn't the place to have published it. But thank god someone published it somewhere, or none of this would have ever come to light. --Alecmconroy (talk) 22:42, 28 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Alecmconroy, you are not really helping, sorry. Wikidemo, do you notice how you shift the emphasis time and again in this discussion? Once the copyright issue was shown to be a bullshit one, you tried to invoke "breach of privacy". Once it has been explained that something cannot be "breached" when there is none to be expected, you shift it to, yet, unidentified "rules of this project", that supposedly exist and prohibit publishing the private communication, regardless of what's in this communication.

Similarly to the copyright excuse being inapplicable, similarly the "breach" being inapplicable, this new line is just as false. Publishing of personal communication is an ethics issue. Period. It is unethical in most cases, it is excusable in some. Inappropriate communication cannot be suppressed using a faulty excuse that it was "meant to be private". Under exceptional circumstances, IRC logs were posted and this made a change. Publishing of this utterly inappropriate post saved a yet unknown number of users from being thrown out of wikipedia by self-appointed "sleuths". And show me the provision of the policy under which the little editor who finds an email in his inbox with a threat to be stabbed, raped, sued (NLT) or simply have his RL identity exposed and goes ahead and posts it to ANI to request an action "will be blocked".

Durova's conduct has no excuse. The consequence of that horrific post's being brought to light (desysopping of Durova and shame on her accomplices) sent an exactly correct (and strong) message that would not eliminate, but at least diminish the future accidents of abuse by the Wikipedia secret police of self-appointed users who, coincidentally, do not contribute a single bit of content to this project. --Irpen (talk) 23:43, 28 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Horrific? Equated to rape and stabbing? Someone needs to tone it down just a bit. It was a simple effort to deal with a suspected sockpuppet. I am not shifting anything. I never called reposting the email a copyright violation in the first place. Copyright is beside the point. It is a breach of confidence, pure and simple. We expect private email emails to remain private. Someone broke that faith, a serious disruption. It is utterly wrong to "save" Wikipedia from things by violating private communications just because one disagrees with them. All this vigilante freedom rider stuff, it's corrosive to the project. That is all. Wikidemo (talk) 11:10, 29 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Assuming the published E-mail was genuine Durova's conduct while in good faith was exceptionally stupid. I lived a half of my life in the Soviet Union and confirm that the excessive secrecy is the ideal breeding ground for stupidity of all sort. Giano publishing the E-mail saved the community from the repeats of the unneeded drama that we were bound to have if the stupidity was not stop. I thought it is self-evident but since it is a subject of discussion I think it is worth to have an arbcom decision that Wikipedia is a community-driven project so every participant has the right to seek the community protection by publishing any forms of threats and character assasinantions in Emails, chat logs, instant messages, etc. so far as the published info does not violate privacy of other editors. Alex Bakharev (talk) 00:34, 29 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Consequences of the posting of the evidence against User:!![edit]

I refer to the email sent by Durova to various parties, and then posted by Giano II and subsequently removed and oversighted, which I understand the ArbCom has sight. There are claims that the actions by Durova were a simple matter of an misunderstanding, quickly rectified and apologised for, by both Durova herself and others. The misunderstandings were in the interpretation of the results of an investigation by Durova, the lack of critical (in both senses) response to the email report containing the results and conclusions, and the execution of an indef block based on the contents of the report.

I would state that my view of the evidence presented in the report and viewed by other parties was the prime cause for the subsequent reaction to the reasons given by Durova in relation to her actions. There is a paucity of examples of trolling, indications of unfounded interpretations of other interactions, and an excess of leading commentary and comment. Concern regarding the blocking of a blameless editor was fermented into alarm when viewed in conjunction with the material on which the block was based, and also the reasons given for the information not being released to the community when the block was enacted and reported upon.

I content that, notwithstanding any questions regarding the legitimacy of publishing the report, the bringing the report (albeit briefly) to the attention of the community focused this ArbCom on the premises of the conducting of secretive investigations, the preparation and limited circulation of reports of such findings, the lack of any mechanism of stops and checks, and the absence of any kind of accountability among a small self selected group within Wikipedia. To this point I state that the posting of the email report was of vital interest and import to the community, that it outweighed any qualms regarding the viability of the posting, and that circumstances permitted (or indeed demanded) the posting of the report. LessHeard vanU (talk) 21:29, 29 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The Availability of the report to Giano II[edit]

Giano II was not an intended (by Durova) recipient of the above mentioned report. It was therefore passed to him by either an intended recipient, or a confidant of an intended recipient. Whatever sanction is considered against Giano, there is a party whose conduct has violated various principles and whose motives are extemely dubious who has not faced sanctions. However poorly/bravely Giano has acted, it has been under the prompting by an un-named party. LessHeard vanU (talk) 22:51, 29 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

My opening statement contains most of what I need to say. - Jehochman ^Talk 03:51, 1 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

No issue with Krimpet[edit]

In my opening comments I took issue with something User:Krimpet said. We have used the most simple form of dispute resolution--discussion--to resolve that misunderstanding. I feel that Krimpet and I are now on good terms. - Jehochman ^Talk 03:45, 1 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

before using the last evidence template, please make a copy for the next person

{Write your assertion here}[edit]

Place argument and diffs which support your assertion; for example, your first assertion might be "So-and-so engages in edit warring", which should be the title of this section. Here you would show specific edits to specific articles which show So-and-so engaging in edit warring.

{Write your assertion here}[edit]

Place argument and diffs which support the second assertion; for example, your second assertion might be "So-and-so makes personal attacks", which should be the title of this section. Here you would show specific edits where So-and-so made personal attacks.

before using the last evidence template, please make a copy for the next person

{Write your assertion here}[edit]

Place argument and diffs which support your assertion; for example, your first assertion might be "So-and-so engages in edit warring", which should be the title of this section. Here you would show specific edits to specific articles which show So-and-so engaging in edit warring.

{Write your assertion here}[edit]

Place argument and diffs which support the second assertion; for example, your second assertion might be "So-and-so makes personal attacks", which should be the title of this section. Here you would show specific edits where So-and-so made personal attacks.

before using the last evidence template, please make a copy for the next person

{Write your assertion here}[edit]

Place argument and diffs which support your assertion; for example, your first assertion might be "So-and-so engages in edit warring", which should be the title of this section. Here you would show specific edits to specific articles which show So-and-so engaging in edit warring.

{Write your assertion here}[edit]

Place argument and diffs which support the second assertion; for example, your second assertion might be "So-and-so makes personal attacks", which should be the title of this section. Here you would show specific edits where So-and-so made personal attacks.

before using the last evidence template, please make a copy for the next person

{Write your assertion here}[edit]

Place argument and diffs which support your assertion; for example, your first assertion might be "So-and-so engages in edit warring", which should be the title of this section. Here you would show specific edits to specific articles which show So-and-so engaging in edit warring.

{Write your assertion here}[edit]

Place argument and diffs which support the second assertion; for example, your second assertion might be "So-and-so makes personal attacks", which should be the title of this section. Here you would show specific edits where So-and-so made personal attacks.