Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Durova/Evidence

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.

Evidence presented by east718 (to be expanded)

Timeline of events

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

• 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 hours 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.

Moreschi's comments

Checkuser

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)

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)

Evidence presented by Durova

Checkuser

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)

Userblocks under challenge:

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) -
• Dieseltruckdude (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) - properly blocked per a checkuser by Lar.[11] 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.[12][13] Then I added that I'd withdraw the block upon clarification or withdrawal.[14] 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).[15] So I blocked the Mattsanchez account per WP:SOCK and left a message.[16] I responded to the editor's query[17] and promptly unblocked both accounts when clarification was forthcoming.[18][19]
• WikiGnosis (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Yanxfan421324 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Tankred (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• LionheartX (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• V-train (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Evidence presented by Amarkov

Durova agreed to recall

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 ([20]), 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." ([21])

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 edorser[sic] 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 ([22]), but has not yet consented to begin reconfirmation.

Secret mailing list

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.

Evidence presented by ElC

Durova cultivates needless secrecy

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).^[23] 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.^[24]
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. ^[25]
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. ^[26][27]

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)

{Write your assertion here}

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.

Evidence presented by {your user name}

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

{Write your assertion here}

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}

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.