Statement by uninvolved party Stephan Schulz (talk)

I would suggest to withdraw this request for now, or alternatively for the ArbCom to reject it without prejudice. There is a very active and productive RfC pertinent to this topic, and an action by ArbCom would be premature at this time. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 12:24, 24 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Statement by uninvolved party Alecmconroy

I concur-- insofar as this Arbcom applies to Durova, it's entirely unnecessary. She's an "Administrators open to recall" whose set her limit at 5 users. The count that have requested recall/desysop now stands at I believe 20+, so a new RFA is a certainty.

To file an Arbcom case now, demanding a forcible desysop, is to Assume Bad Faith, in essence "expecting her to reneg on her recall promise". There is no reason whatsoever to suspect this-- she'll agree to a new RFA, and in all likelyhood she'll pass it too. I'd suggest withdrawing the RFAr, or at least withdrawing her from it. --Alecmconroy (talk) 13:47, 24 November 2007 (UTC)

Statement by uninvolved party Hu12

I suggest either a voluntary withdrawal, or that ArbCom consider closing this case without prejudice in light of remedies already in progress. This really should serve as a last step in resolution, and having this case concurrent with the active RFC may be unproductive and possibly unnecessary.--Hu12 (talk) 14:30, 24 November 2007 (UTC)

Statement by JzG

The list of parties is rather too small. Durova made an error, for which she apologised, unblocked the editor, and said she would learn from it and not do it again. The reason the dispute has run this long is that some people seem unwilling to accept anything less than harsh punitive action. Guy (Help!) 14:40, 24 November 2007 (UTC)

* Accept. James F. (talk) 14:04, 24 November 2007 (UTC)
* Accept. There are several issues here which need looking into. Paul August ☎ 14:26, 24 November 2007 (UTC)
* Accept Matthew Brown (Morven) (T:C) 14:44, 24 November 2007 (UTC)

Perhaps we could add "Wikipedia is not a game of Clue" to WP:NOT.

Guy's line about people being "unwilling to accept anything less than harsh punitive action" is amusing given that he is one of the more outspoken members of a faction that is all for "harsh punitive action" when it's aimed at those they see as The Enemy. To them, the main goal of our community is no longer to build an encyclopedia; it's to fight an open-ended War on Trolls, which is Wikipedia's answer to the outside society's War on Terror. Like in that other war, civil liberties should be considered a quaint old-fashioned notion that should be sacrificed to security (as defined and perceived by the rulers). If a few innocent people get harmed in the process, that's an acceptable loss; we must keep vigorously rooting out the evil conspiracy undermining Wikipedia, no matter how much conspiring and undermining we need to do in order to achieve that. Let's destroy the village in order to save it! *Dan T.* (talk) 15:02, 24 November 2007 (UTC)

Has anyone else noticed that Jehochman has been distancing himself from Durova since it happened [to the extent that he joined in the criticism of her]? He knows what's going to happen, and doesn't want to get dragged down with her. It's so amusing to watch her little meatpuppet act like he didn't completely support her when it happened

btw the title is a bit misleading; it has not been 'opened'

Duvora has been a fool - and is a patently incompetent "sleuth". But it doesn't need an arbcom case to establish that - it is an undisputed fact.

Another thought: we should watch this in the light of the upcoming Arbcom elections.

It's obvious that the reason Giano is going after Durova so much because she's his opponent in the election. Newyorkbrad is against her too, but far more subtly. Quite the Senator Palpatine.

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

Newyorkbrad has recused himself, "(because of my participation in the original ANI thread concerning User:!!)."

oh, AS-IF. When did talking in the ANI thread disqualify anyone?

That's code for "the Arbcom loves Durova, and I don't want to be on her deathwish list if or when she isn't booted from here to eternity"

Well, she's still got fans, obviously Somebody posts this very nice message supporting her Arb-com Campaign with a link to the "official shop" and East718 blocks him for a week!

Maybe we can interest him in a "Durova for Arb-com" button?

Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles makes a plea for Holiday Peace...

Does anybody else find it....odd ....that his signature is in the same style as Durova's, with the "Talley-ho" replacing "Charge!"??

Somehow....I have no proof of this, but his story of being blocked and being brought back to the fold by the Divine Miss D just....doesn't sound true....

Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles makes a plea for Holiday Peace...

Does anybody else find it....odd ....that his signature is in the same style as Durova's, with the "Talley-ho" replacing "Charge!"??

Somehow....I have no proof of this, but his story of being blocked and being brought back to the fold by the Divine Miss D just....doesn't sound true....

Comment from Kelly Martin

Durova's "wikisleuthing" is inherently contradictory to Wikipedia's core principles (especially the assumption of good faith) and the necessity to have a collegial environment in order to foster collaboration, and must cease immediately and permanently. This business of seeking "Wikipedia Review spies" behind every edit is contrary to the open environment that Wikipedia is supposedly founded upon, is toxic, and will slowly poison the project (if it has not already). If someone from Wikipedia Review wants to edit the encyclopedia productively, let them. If Greg Kohser wants to edit Wikipedia productively, let him, too -- even if he does get paid for it. These petty vendettas are dumb, and Durova has made a career of pursing them far beyond the point where they benefit Wikipedia in any recognizable manner. The solution to bad speech is more speech; the solution to a bad edit is to improve it into a good edit, not to ban, expose, and humiliate the editor. Kelly Martin 20:33, 24 November 2007 (UTC)

Another thought: we should watch this in the light of the upcoming Arbcom elections.

It's obvious that the reason Giano is going after Durova so much because she's his opponent in the election. Newyorkbrad is against her too, but far more subtly. Quite the Senator Palpatine.

Right at the start of this debacle I suggested that this whole thing might have been an elaborate plot to provoke Giano into a reaction hoping that this would put people off voting for him. Durova may have made her evidence so patently stupid that she knew if would provoke a strong reaction against her, amounting to something of a lynchmob. People would then recoil from this and cast Giano et al as the aggressors and Durova as the wronged victim who was just trying to do what is "right" by Wikipedia. I am sure Mr. Wales and others close to him don't want Giano on the Arbcom.

You forget that Jimbo is only guided by the vote, and not beholden to it. That is my reason for not participating in this particular election, it doesn't matter how many or how well a candidate is supported it does not mean Jimbo will allow them elected.

Another thought: we should watch this in the light of the upcoming Arbcom elections.

It's obvious that the reason Giano is going after Durova so much because she's his opponent in the election. Newyorkbrad is against her too, but far more subtly. Quite the Senator Palpatine.

But if a majority wanted Giano on the Arbcom and then Wales went against that that would be yet more fodder pointing to corruption and a power clique controllling Wikipedia which would be bad news for Mr Wales and the clique (if it exists).

I don't get it. Someone was blocked because of secret magical evidence that nobody knows about, the evidence turns out to be faulty... and nobody cares? I mean, that's happened before, certainly, but never quite so blatantly...

The first is Jehochman and Durova's potential conflict of interest with their SEO activity - it's disturbing to have people with stakes in search engine optimization self-proclaiming themselves as "sleuths" trying to hunt for others with conflict of interest. Kohs was banned for having such a conflict of interest - probably justifiably so - but why do we seem to tolerate Jehochman and Durova doing the same thing? We need a clear consensus, somehow, on how these conflicts of interest should be handled, and apply it equally.

She has spoken!


She's no stranger to the Ways of the Arbcom, she's used the get-out-of-jail-via-wikibreak card.

Jimbo did a horrible thing when he created Wikipedia's arbitration committee. And apparently it was intentional, because he hasn't even tried to get rid of it.

Am I the only one here who feels sorry for her? Take away her adminship, fine. But to have to go through a public arb com free-for-all; that's probably the worst punishment possible.

No, to go through what Poetlister and others have gone through on Durova's say-so is worse. A

At least Durova has done something to deserve it.

Am I the only one here who feels sorry for her?

The game of Pin the Stigma on the Donkey has been playing on Wikipedia for so long, who among us cannot feel a pang of hurt for the Donkey du Jour?

The game of Pin the Stigma on the Donkey has been playing on Wikipedia for so long, who among us cannot feel a pang of hurt for the Donkey du Jour?

I'm confused. She's the one holding the pin, sticking it in, and she got caught drawing blood.

Ah, Jimbo can invoke "soopersekrit" evidence...

Didn't last year's top vote getter (I seem to remember it being "Can't Sleep Clown will eat me") not get appointed by the God-King?

Private mailing list

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)

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)

What people discuss in their living rooms is their own business. Kirill 20:42, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

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....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)

Secret mail list

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

If you are referring to the Arbitration Committee's private mailing list, then yes. See mail:Arbcom-l. Cbrown1023 talk 21:07, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

I believe he's referring to Durova's secret mailing list, which explicitly excludes some, but not all, of the Arbiters. --Alecmconroy (talk) 21:09, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

Yes, I'm referring to this secret mail list everyone keeps talking about. I was wondering if its hosted by Wikipedia, like the arbcom list is. • Lawrence Cohen 21:10, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, I see what you mean now. Cbrown1023 talk 21:17, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

Hosted by Wikia. Moreschi If you've written a quality article... 21:18, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

Er... checkuser and private info is released on a third party website like that? • Lawrence Cohen 21:20, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

Shrug. Not released, it's a private mailing list. Hosted by this third party, yes. Moreschi If you've written a quality article... 21:21, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

How do you know this? Isarig (talk) 21:23, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

Them that asks no questions isn't told a lie. Watch the wall, my darling, while the gentlemen go by! Moreschi If you've written a quality article... 21:26, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

I would appreciate a straight answer. Isarig (talk) 21:28, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

I would dearly love to give you a straight answer. Not going to happen right now, though. Moreschi If you've written a quality article... 21:30, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

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

Possibly. The presence of a steward/Foundation person on that list would suggest so. Moreschi If you've written a quality article... 21:26, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

Would you mind posting this extra info on the evidence page? • Lawrence Cohen 21:27, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

The Arbitrator will read both the Evidence and its talk page, in their entirety. Cbrown1023 talk 21:37, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

The mailing list to which Durova sent the email is not secret, merely private. It is hosted by Wikia. Its purpose is not "to combat sockpuppets of banned users", its purpose is to discuss how to more effectively combat harassment on Wikipedia. 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 present practice of reflex reversion of any removal of a link to external harassment anywhere in Wikipedia.

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.

I'm not quite sure how I ended up 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. Guy (Help!) 21:49, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

I would hazard a guess that the "Steward/Foundation person" is Jimbo, considering that it's also hosted at Wikia and Jimbo has been quick to defend people like Durova in recent days.

Two mailing lists

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)