Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 17:57, 20 November 2007

Thread moved in from WP:ANI. cut paste

Indefinite block of an established editor

This section has been blanked as a courtesy Please do not continue to edit it.

Blanked text at .

Question "courtesy blanking"

If an administrator makes a serious mistake, as Durova did here, does this fall under the "courtesy blanking" guidelines? I thought courtesy blanking was to protect the identities or other personal information of editors, not to put an admin's mistake out of plain sight. Is this a common practice and, if so, doesn't it threaten our goal of promoting transparency and accountability for our actions? Cla68 (talk) 02:17, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

Personally, I think hiding away discussion like this only gives trolls the recognition they crave by seemingly confirming their claims of conspiracy and secrecy, instead of simply being open about everything that has gone on and heading off silly conspiracy theories at the pass. Also, if the "courtesy" is being extended to !!, it would probably be most courteous to leave the discussion public (though closed/archived), so that his innocence in the matter is made clear. --krimpet⟲ 02:22, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

(edit conflicted)My request was specifically to courtesy blank for that editor's privacy so that any doubts about my own actions could continue to be discussed on their own merits, without collateral damage. I'm not sure that what happened really was all that serious a mistake. Blocks get overturned all the time. I overturned my own action in 75 minutes, opened the thread here myself to invite scrutiny, and extended prompt apologies. The action itself turned out to be mistaken, but was neither hasty nor superficial. Nobody bats .1000. And I wish to emphasize (in case any lingering doubt exists), the editor I blocked is very much a productive individual in good standing. Durova 02:24, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

You're saying that it was courtesy blanked out of concern for the wrongfully-blocked editor? Cla68 (talk) 02:31, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

Yes, out of respect for his privacy. I requested it and other editors agreed. I specifically opened my own actions to scrutiny twice: first in starting this enormous thread and then in requesting that my own behavior remain under scrutiny after his had withstood it. From your own opening post to this subthread, it seems you agree that was the right thing to do. Durova 02:41, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

What privacy? You killed any expectations of privacy with sleuthing. Not to mention there were no private details revealed above. ⇒SWATJester 04:53, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

Echoing Swatjester's rationale, I don't agree that courtesy blanking was the right thing to do here. For Durova to say that it was out of respect for the wronged editor is laughably disingenuous. I'd like to hear Crum375's explanation for why he blanked the discussion. Cla68 (talk) 06:08, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

The only person such a blanking helps is Durova herself. east.718 at 06:31, November 19, 2007

Hi, does User:!! want it blanked? It may be a naive question, but it would seem this should be his decision. Has anyone asked him? • Lawrence Cohen 06:13, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

He wasn't available at the time when I requested the blanking, but it seemed like the right thing to do. From the tone of his comments afterward I see no reason to question that. Rather than reopen that, please refactor the portions of this thread that pertain to him and concentrate on my actions if there's any more to be said. He's no longer under scrutiny. Whether I ought to be is not for me to decide. Durova 06:31, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

Sorry, wasn't trying to cast any aspertions either way. I was just thinking the whole question of blanking could be wrapped up immediately if he said a simply yay/nay to that. From reading all this the only thing I was curious about was the unanswered question (I saw it asked several times, by various folks, including !! on his talk page) of who saw the evidence. • Lawrence Cohen 06:33, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

If he wants it unblanked, then by all means fulfill his request. My only intention was to diminish any lingering suspicions regarding him by inviting criticism to focus on myself. To other posters at this thread, WP:AGF shouldn't need to be mentioned. Durova 09:28, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

Followup

It seems to me that this was a colossal failure to assume good faith, and that Durova has forgotten that this is an encyclopedia, not a practice ground for sleuthing. This is not the first time this has happened: "Sleuthing" evidence that Durova was not prepared to bring to the public drove Alkivar from the project. Durova, I would like to see some statement from you that you are going to stop accusing editors and blocking them without presenting any public evidence, and I mean "public" as in fully transparent, not only to those you deem worthy. ⇒SWATJester 19:22, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

I have to go along with this. Even if this user is Willy on Wheels, Karmafist, myself, or the Devil incarnate, there would be no reason to block until the account actually did something disruptive (such as create abusive sockpuppets, run at RFA under false pretences, or something). This appears to have been a botched attempt at killing a goose that's laying really splendid golden eggs (ouch, that's not hugely polite, my apologies to !!, but you get my point). At the very least we need reassurances that This Will Not Happen Again. Moreschi 19:42, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

""Sleuthing" evidence that Durova was not prepared to bring to the public drove Alkivar from the project." Really? I thought he left because a RfA found against him and desysopped him. Darkson (Yabba Dabba Doo!) 19:48, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

He left before the decision was rendered, because of the evidence. ⇒SWATJester 19:49, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

If the evidence was against him, and the desysopped was likely (as it seemed to be), why does it matter if he left before the RfC was closed? The evidence against him seemed pretty thorough, with or without Durova's. Darkson (Yabba Dabba Doo!) 19:56, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

Agreed with Darkson here. Alkivar was going to be desysopped with or without the *puppetry allegations, and it should have happened months (if not years) before it did. —bbatsell ¿? ✍ 20:00, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

Actually I've never claimed that Alkivar ran any sockpuppets. I've explicitly stated that I have no reason to believe he ever used a sock. There were other serious concerns about his conduct. Durova 20:39, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

He was going to be desysopped. He wasn't going to be driven from the project, as is where we are now. ⇒SWATJester 20:06, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

Sorry, but that's naive. Alkivar was taking his cues from a banned use,r probably the most prolific and disruptive sockpuppeteer currently active. Durova's evidence was not made public but was presented by email to arbitrators, and the arbitrators reviewed it independently. He left because he knew what was coming. I regret that, we probably all do, including Durova, but it's useless to blame Durova for the fact that Alkivar was dancing to Barber's tune, any more than it's her fault that Burntsauce was doing so. Guy (Help!) 22:26, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

I'm with SWATJester 100% here. I don't think you can go and block a respected editor indef, announce it on AN/I then refuse to comment on any evidence, realise you've messed up and offer a two line apology and expect people to be satisfied here. Revealing your investigation techniques doesn't strike me as being a very good reason to direct everyone to ArbCom rather than allowing transparency in your block. Ryan Postlethwaite 19:49, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

Yeah... You can't tell people that you MUST be taken to Arbcom or you will refuse to do anything. If there's some reason that only Arbcom can be given the evidence, then go to them BEFORE you block, don't block and make other people go through Arbcom to challenge it. -Amarkov moo! 19:54, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

She sent her "report" to ArbCom before blocking !!. She says she got approval from ArbCom members to block the user as a violation of WP:SOCK. Nishkid64 (talk) 19:59, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

Unfortunately, it was precisely these assumptions that allowed Burntsauce to cause serious damage to the project for half a year. Dannycali was also indeffed as a long term sockpuppet. Such things do exist, and I pledge to work on better checks and balances to reduce false positives such as this one in the future. My report had been in circulation for two weeks among some very senior people and I acted on the reasonable belief that any false positives would have come to light before this. If there's anything more to be said on the matter, please do this editor the courtesy of archiving this discussion out of respect for his privacy and focusing any criticisms on my actions alone. He shouldn't need to be a part of this. Durova 20:01, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

It is precisely relevant to this discussion. ⇒SWATJester 20:04, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

However, !! apparently did little but work hard on articles. I've seen no evidence that a single edit he made was considered disruptive... whereas with people like Burntsauce, who made some productive edits, you never had to look too far to find disruptive edits too. Where is evidence of any of this for User:!!? I apologize if I've missed it. --W.marsh 20:07, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

We keep hearing about these "senior editors". But WHERE are they? Why don't any of these senior editors come forward and confirm this? -Amarkov moo! 20:05, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

I'll go ahead and say what I've heard plenty of people saying on IRC: It's disturbing that an editor so heavily involved in the SEO field, would use some "proprietary" investigative techniques on Misplaced Pages, ruin people's Misplaced Pages experience, and then refuse to provide any evidence to support the allegations out of a fear that those uber-valuable methods will become public. I don't find that acceptable in the slightest. I'd like to hear what Durova has to say about this, and what her plans are for future sleuthing. Forget about "pledging to reduce false positives". Why are you sleuthing in the first place? Why, as it appears, is it your mission to hunt down other editors using private evidence? ⇒SWATJester 20:04, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

To Swatjester: bizarre conversations like that are one reason why I oppose admin channel IRC on principle. Durova 20:09, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

That's not relevant and it won't wash. If we lose !! because of this it will take a good deal more than a few lines of rather weaselly apology for collective anger to be assuaged. I have great respect for you, Durova, but I think this shows we need a change of method. Somewhere wires got crossed - we need to make sure that doesn't happen again. Moreschi 20:17, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

While dissociating myself from the more extreme implications in SWATJester's report of what's being said on IRC, and acknowledging that some of the motivation for your actions have been spelled out in your candidate statement for the ArbCom elections, I'd like to see either a statement about what extra checks and balances you intend to employ if you continue your activity in this direction, or at the very least an acknowledgment that public distress in this case seems to indicate that you need to sharply reverse course in terms of sock-hunting. Relata refero (talk) 20:24, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

(edit conflicted)Something in Nishkid's statement requires correction: I did not send the report to ArbCom as a body. I did circulate it in ways that some arbcom members saw it. Nor do I say I got specific approval from ArbCom members to block: I circulated a report that roughly two dozen trusted people saw and no one objected. Please, Nish, clarify these things before speaking on my behalf. This puts me in an awkward position regarding sensitive information. If such posts continue I will only point out that some representations are not my words. Durova 20:06, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

It appears I misinterpreted Durova's statements in our discussion. I assumed it was sent to all ArbCom members, instead of individual members, and I thought approval was received before the block was enacted. Nishkid64 (talk) 20:15, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

I agree with many of the critical points raised above, and in addition the attempt partially shift the blame to nameless senior people is pretty poor form. RxS (talk) 20:09, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

It's pretty poor form to characterize things that way. At any rate, if there are serious concerns about my conduct and discretion I have no objection to having my actions scrutinized by people who have full access to the facts. Either ArbCom or the Foundation would be appropriate. Durova 20:14, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

Or, you could just explain who these nameless "senior editors" ARE, so that they can confirm what you're saying. -Amarkov moo! 20:17, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

I think it's a pretty easy characterization: I circulated a report that roughly two dozen trusted people saw and no one objected. In addition you seem to be saying that outside of this 2 dozen people you won't allow your actions to be scrutinized, that's not the way things work here. RxS (talk) 20:25, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

A more specific summary of the due diligence you conducted would reveal no private information at all but would allow the community a much better understanding of the procedure you undertook in making this block. I find it impossible to believe that there is a compelling reason not to provide this detail (i.e. on date I sent a summary of my investigation to names, who responded positively on date).Christopher Parham (talk) 20:19, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

Isn't this case supposed to be closed as resolved, why are we still talking. This is a Secret 20:21, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

The issue is manifestly not resolved, in that a serious error was made and we have no understanding of why it was made or what will be done to prevent exactly the same mistake from being made again. Christopher Parham (talk) 20:23, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

(ec) More to the point; that !! had a more than pristine record, with a history of DYK involvement and that this was instrumental in their unblocking. It just looked severely wrong and people were willing to express their shock and surprise here. Had it been some nameless account with a mediocre past, I'm sure the outcome would have been very different and we wouldn't be discussing it. They would have been gone - QED - with no recourse open to them. I'd really like to know a little more about what went wrong here so we can ensure it doesn't recur. Not everyone is afforded the level of 'justice', if you like, that this editor received - Alison 20:29, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

A review of the Burntsauce and Dannycali histories would shed some light on that. It's not much of a secret that some banned editors do build up sockpuppets for long term use and attempt to mimic legitimate Wikipedians by doing some useful work. That's how, in spite of their disruption, both accounts survived for over half a year. They might still be editing if I hadn't examined them. What happened in this investigation was a rather odd set of coincidences lined up. Durova 20:37, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

That's perfectly understandable, but I hope you realise in the absence of any actual ability to scrutinize your methodology, the community is justifiably concerned. Simply put, the basis of any admin action must be satisfactory and timely review; otherwise, however much your intentions might be trusted by all of us, we will always have doubts about your unilateral actions. Relata refero (talk) 20:52, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

Excellent point. That's why I've pledged to route these things directly through ArbCom in the future. Durova 17:49, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

How's this for a resolution? In the future I'll send such reports to the Committee formally and let them act. And if I happen to be on the Committee I'll let another member act. I don't want to create drama and I respect consensus. Durova 20:24, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

If you truly don't want to cause drama, why can't we hear one of these people you discussed the block with corroborate what you've said? That would pretty much kill the drama. -Amarkov moo! 20:28, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

Well if I'd been a better dramatist I certainly would have lined up some people to me-too this thread. Hadn't anticipated the necessity. That's not my style. Durova 20:31, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

Seems you are doing OK on the drama front. More to the point. I'm sure that you blocked in good faith and that you did seek lots of feedback from sensible admins before blocking. The worry is that this might happen again and that's why so many people are fired up about this. Spartaz 20:36, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

Sounds like a good idea. To do otherwise, as you did, makes it look like unilateralism. I'm sure that's not the case, but it certainly looks that way. And yeah, the flipside is that ArbCom is so bunged up anyway that it could be some time before they act upon it - Alison 20:36, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

It's a problem we need to get better at addressing as a site: some banned users refuse to go away, and not all of the sockpuppets they create are throwaway accounts. We're dealing with a situation here where a core of people share tactics and operate as a team. Probably most people who read the noticeboards regularly get that impression. One of the things I've been working on doing is to reverse engineer these people's playbook in a way that lets us identify them and act upon the problem. Such accounts are simpler to identify than to address because they do look legitimate to a superficial browse, and because they'd likely write a better playbook if they knew where their mistakes are. I do my very best to avoid false positives and I pledge absolutely to correct myself as quickly as possible when I make a mistake. In the future, situations where a substantial part of the evidence needs to be confidential are situations I'll route through ArbCom. I hope that satisfies reasonable concerns. Durova 20:48, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

(ec)Routing through ArbCom is a sensible first move; some scrutiny is better than none. I'd just say that I'd like to know that the actual "reverse-engineered playbook" has been scrutinized by those who are trusted by the community to ensure that drama of this sort is minimized. Relata refero (talk) 20:57, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

It strikes me that this was a similar situation as what happened with Melsaran. Evidence was uncovered as part of an investigation and it was reported to ArbCom. However, given the potentially confidential nature of the evidence and the fact that there was no ongoing disruption, would it not have been best for an Arbitrator to make the block, specifically stating that they were doing so for the ArbCom, based on confidential evidence, as that is part of the reason ArbCom exists (to deal with such evidence)? Mr.Z-man 20:54, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

You're right, and I realize that now. Will do. That was how we handled Runcorn/Poetlister, for instance. Durova 20:58, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

(blanked post by sock of Amorrow)

The key difference with Melsaran was that the evidence was supplied to ArbCom and they took the decision, with the result that the block stuck despite concerns over it. Sam Blacketer (talk) 20:59, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

With respect to: This account has been blocked indefinitely for violations of WP:SOCK. the WP:SOCK page states:

The general rule is: one editor, one account. Do not use multiple accounts to create the illusion of greater support for an issue, to mislead others, to create controversy, or to circumvent a block. Do not ask your friends to create accounts to support you or anyone else. Multiple accounts are not for collusion, evasion, disruption, or misuse.

Would it be possible in the future to be more specific on what part of the policy is being violated? (Among creating the illusion of greater support for an issue, misleading others, creating controversy, or to circumventing a block.)

Of course I am not requesting the revealing of proprietary sleuthing techniques or any other information that the community at large need not be privy to. Uncle uncle uncle (talk) 21:23, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

• Durova, I wish you'd discussed it with me, though that was just bad luck. But is it necessary to change the subject above to the point of using terms like "banned users", " throwaway accounts, "share tactics and operate as a team", "these people's playbook", "look legitimate to a superficial browse", in a thread about the blameless User!! ? Don't you see how it makes a certain guilt by association stickily adhere to him? I hope you know by now how little that editor deserves such an aura. A good strong apology (I hve a low opinion of the apologies you did post) would be a lot better than irrelevancies about evidence needing to be confidential (qué? evidence of?) and how "we" need to get better at finding abusers. What does any of that have to do with User:!! ? Bishonen | talk 22:00, 18 November 2007 (UTC).
  • When I first reversed the block I made an apology to this board and requested that the thread be closed out of respect for that editor's privacy. When the thread reopened I promptly requested courtesy blanking of that older portion so that any concerns could address my actions alone. I also delivered a prompt apology at that editor's user talk and reversed the block exactly one hour and fifteen minutes after implementation, which was as swiftly as I could verify the new information that came to light. After speaking to Bishonen by chat I have also archived my own user talk as a courtesy to this editor and, via a different intermediary, I have offered to communicate with this person by either e-mail or chat client, although I doubt that much more could be added to the corrective action and apologies I've already extended. Sockuppet investigations and blood tests sometimes yield false positives. Even checkuser results can yield false positives. About two months ago an administrator got blocked due to a false positive checkuser. That instance took longer than this to correct and the individual who performed the block did not reverse themselves with apologies. If this person informs me himself of other things I can do to set things right I'll certainly do all that I can within reason, but I have received no direct reply to these overtures. In the absence of any direct reply, I think the measures I've already taken are more than reasonable. Durova 22:25, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

• Agree completely. I saw the evidence, it was definitely suspicious, but I can see where it went wrong. Unfortunate, but there does not seem to be any lasting damage, the editor was interrupted only briefly and a sincere apology has been given. What more are we supposed to do now? Guy (Help!) 22:29, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

You're supposed to stop doing things like this. Nothing you in particular have done in terms of blocking recently has reduced drama at all. Relata refero (talk) 05:56, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

Nothing. Durova has apologised and taken a reputation hit that means it is unlikely to happen again. Other than slight curiosity as to the identity of the half dozen admins I think we have reached case case closed move on and go find some copyvios or something.Geni 22:39, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

(blanked post by sock of Amorrow)

Perhaps you missed part of the discussions. I had assembled a seven point report with 28 diffs and had circulated it for two weeks before acting. Obviously the methodology needs improvement, but the fact that it ultimately proved to be mistaken doesn't mean the approach was either hasty or superficial. I've pledged specific improvements so this doesn't happen again. Durova 01:42, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

• The one thing that remains to be seen, in my view, is what Durova has done to correct an apparently flawed methodology for uncovering sockpuppets. When a blood test has the potential for false positives, doctors don't use it as the sole basis for initiating potentially devastating treatment in situations that are not time critical. My issue with Durova's response to date is that it casts this as the inconvenient byproduct of an effective process rather than as the result of a flawed process which requires correction. Additional oversight by the ArbCom is not likely to be a solution -- oversight by a handful of experienced editors was not sufficient to catch the errors in this instance, why would that be sufficient going forward? Christopher Parham (talk) 23:14, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

The question here isn't "was Durova wrong to have blocked !!", we already know the answer to that. The question here is why are we supporting a continuous failure to assume good faith, and what place does "sleuthing" have on this project? I thought we were here to write encyclopedias, not to dig up dirt on other editors, certainly not to character assassinate them with evidence that won't be made public by someone heavily involved in the SEO industry using their proprietary tactics. That's just wrong to me. We don't answer to them, we answer to the community, and the community is obviously NOT O.K. with private sleuthing being used without revealing the evidence and the methods involved. ⇒SWATJester 23:08, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

Responding to a couple of the recent posts, the corrective measures I'm taking have little to do with whatever effect today's events have on my reputation. Editors who contribute legitmately shouldn't be put on the spot. We all want to minimize that and I'll do my part, although not to the extreme extent one or two people suggest of giving up sockpuppet investigations. In a recent conversation about the 500+ JB196 socks I mentioned that I'd really like to be spending more time on other things, but the net good to the project of rooting out one Burntsauce probably exceeds the net good of creating one featured article: the damage being done by that individual was really quite extensive. Other than that, the points being raised at this stage of the discussion are repetitions of things that have already been addressed quite a few times to the satisfaction of most people. I'm sure the sockpuppeteers and their supporters would be delighted if fewer investigations were performed, but there's no need for such a radical and detrimental solution. Durova 23:52, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

Durova did the same thing to me the other day when she indefinitely blocked me for being a sockpuppet of MyWikiBiz on the basis of "secret evidence." This excuse about not publically revealing her propriatary techniques so the trolls don't catch on all sounds quite clever and responsible until one realizes that she doesn't have the faintest clue of what she's doing. Expect much more of the same if Durova makes her way onto the Arbitration Committee, when puzzled observers can assure themselves that, as an arbitrator,Durova must know something that they don't. She doesn't. Based as they are upon an appeal to her track record, rather than to any evidence, her acccusations have proven too unreliable to be of any value.24.19.33.82 00:18, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

I think Durova has the ability to be fair and reasonable. She blocked me previously for using two other accounts, which admittedly I did, but after I demonstrated that I could operate constructively with only my main account, seek mentorship through adopt-a-user, check in with her, alter various other editing habits, etc. she has allowed me to be unblocked and since being unblocked I have received some barnstars and much positive experiences with other editors.. Since being unblocked I have also unfortunately experienced some on-Wiki harrassment from a few accounts (two of which, thus far, checkusers proved were indeed sockpuppets or sockpuppeters and others of which were blocked for invility and personal attacks) and so I can understand why some would want to limit on-Wiki posting of evidence, because it's hard to resist the viciousness of some of the more disruptive editors and their socks. Anyway, I hope that helps. Best, --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles 00:48, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

It seems to me (and quite possibly many others) that the main problem here is the patent lack of transparency in regards to Durova's sockpuppet "investigative techniques". I can see Durova's logic in not revealing methodology on-wiki, but why can't she provide a syllabus of it through e-mail to established users who ask, especially users who are very logical and will all but eliminate the falsity coming from these methods?  !! has many, many DYKs and should be treated like a jewel, not like a criminal in disguise. What's more unnerving is the issue Alison brought up: What if a sporadically-editing, obscure, new user was one of the "false positives"? They very well could have been the next Newyorkbrad. For that reason more than any else, Durova, in my opinion, needs to recuse herself from sockpuppet hunting until her methodology for which has been reviewed by a sensible user. —Animum (talk) 01:20, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

Normally I do offer to circulate this type of report among trusted users upon request. Most editors who submit private evidence do not make such an offer, nor do they make it known that they have submitted any evidence privately. In this instance I stopped doing so almost immediately because new information came in that showed up a flaw in the result. Durova 12:13, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

Maybe instead of calling for her recusal, we could ask that she discuss with the Arbitration Committee her investigative blocks prior to blocking? --Iamunknown 01:26, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

Iamunknown, I've already pledged to route future investigations of this type through them and let them handle it. Or, if elected, I'll let another arbitrator act upon my investigations as proof to the community that I'm not being the lone ranger. Incidentally, TOR nodes keep posting cricitisms of my actions to this thread. It's become a rather good honeypot for that purpose. ;) Durova 01:38, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

It appears User:!! has been ennulled unblocked with an explaination. I doubt there is any one here who hasn't made well intentioned errors. Lets close this and focus efforts on more productive channels--Hu12 (talk) 01:45, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

Agreed, and with a note to Krimpet: please do not restore posts that originate from TOR nodes. I think it's a fair assumption that the person would use a legitimate account if he or she had any. As my previous post explains, the blanking was not accidental. Durova 01:53, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

Why remove the post, when this only gives trolls more to lap up? It would make more sense to rebut the post, or at least leave it be and let people decide for themselves if it's just baseless trolling. Though, if this user was in fact blocked by you as a sockpuppet using similar proprietary detection methods which have now proven to be faulty in at least one instance, I think it's reasonable to at least acknowledge this person's concerns. --krimpet⟲ 02:29, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

The above post was one of two TOR node posts that Krimpet restored to this thread today. Here's the other. If the user had reasonable and legitimate concerns then, after the first blanking if not before, he or she would surely have signed onto a legitimate account. Most of my investigations and sitebans have stood up to extensive scrutiny, and in unusual instances such as this I correct myself swiftly. Per WP:DUCK, TOR node posts to a thread such as this are very unlikely to be legitimate. Please do not restore such posts again without consensus support. Durova 02:38, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

It seems to me that there is one reason why the user in question might well need to use TOR: if their IP was blocked about a week ago. It seems to me that that is, according to the diffs actually exactly what the IPs complaining about! At least in this case, TOR node posts to a thread such as this are not unlikely to be legitimate. This is precisely the kind of slapdash thinking/repeating of conventional-wisdom-talking-points we cannot afford. Relata refero (talk) 06:10, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

The user has been referred to the proper venues: ArbCom and the Foundation. The individual's refusal to pursue normal options does not validate the complaint in the slightest. It would be a strange day when the refusal to seek a legitimate unblock becomes an excuse to violate WP:SOCK. Durova 17:54, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

(blanked 2 posts by sock of Amorrow)

• I see this IP doesn't come from a TOR node. A separate thread at AN is discussing the issue of TOR blankings. If this is a good faith post, then please overwrite the signature from your regular account or IP address. The two posts above were the second and third edits ever from that IP, and in order to reduce a drama-ridden thread it would be better to have clear accountability. Durova 03:49, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

I am still concerned about this incident. It is a not-widely-known statistical fact that if you have a population with 5% incidence of a condition, and a test that is 95% accurate in detecting the condition, a person who is selected at random and tests positive has only a 50 percent chance of actually having that condition. In other words, running a "test" on random users will result in an unacceptably high number of false positives. Durova, do you realize this? Kla’quot (talk | contribs) 03:48, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

There's a flawed assumption in that analysis: what makes you suppose I run these tests randomly? The other due diligence methods pursued, and methods to improve them further, have already been discussed at length here. Suffice it to say that false positives are rare, I make diligent efforts to make them still rarer, and I correct errors promptly. What more can you reasonably ask? Durova 03:52, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

My question, which you did not answer, was a question, not an assumption. You don't have to get defensive about it, and I would still appreciate an answer. Can you clarify what you mean by "false positives are rare" - do you have a number that you can share with us?Kla’quot (talk | contribs) 04:00, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

What I responded to was the query, In other words, running a "test" on random users will result in an unacceptably high number of false positives. Durova, do you realize this? The whole question is problematic on several levels. It simply doesn't correlate to what I actually do well enough to be answerable. Kinda like saying, "Are you aware of the risks that commuter trains pose to your daily commute?" to someone who works from home and doesn't live in a region serviced by commuter trains, and doesn't particularly want to discuss how or where they get their work done. Durova 04:34, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

I doubt it's possible to make a meaningful assessment of your rate of false positives, given the samples available and the potential for future cases to differ materially from past ones due to puppeteers changing their behavior. Christopher Parham (talk) 05:24, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

(ec)(Reply to Durova) Actually it's like asking that question of someone who's arrived at work with what looks like a train ticket sticking out of their pocket. You've said, in a strangely roundabout way, that you don't pick users at random and run tests on them. That's great, however you still haven't reassured me about whether the underlying statistical phenomenon, which comes up time and time again in things like cancer screening and drug testing policy, manifests itself in the kind of evidence that you collect. The math is so counter-intuitive that the vast majority of people get it wrong. I'm not questioning your intentions or your character, which in 100% of my previous interactions with you has never seemed less than stellar. Designing test methods in a way that will give a low and quantifiable number of false positives is difficult. Knowing that someone as smart as you misread the evidence, I'm afraid that giving the same evidence to ArbCom is likely to have the same result. Kla’quot (talk | contribs) 05:41, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

Well, without getting into too many specifics I'll lay out some differences between this and my arbcom evidence. For the Alkivar case I was preparing a three part presentation. The first was on Burntsauce, the second on Alkivar, and the third didn't fully materialize because the research generated some unintended results. During the third part of the investigation I implemented what appeared to be a routine block that precipitated the the Eyrian arbitration case. Eyrian's own conduct in the aftermath overshadows the work I was doing in that portion (except for the Dannycali block). The Alkivar portion of that presentation was a six page text file of description and dozens of diffs, distilled from original notes that ran to about 30 pages, and the Alkivar evidence itself implemented some more definitive methodologies. The Burntsauce evidence was on a par with that. So while I wouldn't call two pages and 28 diffs superficial or hasty, it wasn't as extensive or as conclusive. With regard to statistical analysis, I don't think there are enough stable variables here or a large enough sample size to really make that useful. What matters from my perspective is that this does generate mostly accurate results and we've been good about correcting the errors swiftly. I'd love to get the false positives down to zero. Everyone would. It takes a lot of hard work to locate and implement specific improvements. Durova 06:04, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

I don't know why you're bringing up the previous Arbcom case. I didn't ask about that case and have never gone anywhere near it. I am disappointed that your response when asked to clarify what you meant by "rare" was to repeat your assertion with its original level of vagueness. I only hope that the people whom you ask to act on your evidence will read my concerns and understand them more than you do. Kla’quot (talk | contribs) 09:01, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

I apologize if that response missed the point of your question. We seem to be operating from different paradigms. If I understand you, you want a statistical clarification. I've attempted to convey that the question is framed in ways that make not useful. If that's an unsatisfactory answer then the basic dilemma is this: in order to begin answering it I'd have to correlate it more closely to the actual field conditions it attempts to describe. You seem to regard that as digressive and I definitely regard it as treading on sensitive territory. Then if we got that far, we'd be stuck with too small a sample size to parse statistically. Comparing two different sock investigations can be like comparing apples and oranges. What I want to ask in return is why you place such weight on framing the question in these terms when the good results are valuable, the false positives are uncommon, and the errors get corrected quickly. Durova 09:58, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

I do appreciate your response. Let me try this again: I asked two compltely separate questions. : First question: "It is a not-widely-known statistical fact that if you have a population with 5% incidence of a condition, and a test that is 95% accurate in detecting the condition, a person who is selected at random and tests positive has only a 50 percent chance of actually having that condition." This is a mathematical fact. I asked you whether you are aware that this fact exists. I was expecting something like, "I completely understand what you are talking about" or "I didn't know that." Second question: You have repeatedly asserted that false positives are "rare." What is your definition of rare? I was hoping for an answer like, "In the past 6 months my methods have led to blocks of 100 accounts and only 1 of them has asked to be unblocked." Please do not reply by saying that false positives are rare. Kla’quot (talk | contribs) 10:31, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

You appear to be asking that Durova be perfect. Why? One mistake is now known, and it was swiftly rectified. 99 blocks which were not mistakes, stand. Other blocks in which Durova's investigation played a part, also stand. The group of individuals most focused on abusing Misplaced Pages right now are resourceful and determined. It will not be especially helpful to tell them the ways in which they betray themselves, for obvious reasons. Of course the best solution for all concerned would be for them to go away and leave us alone, but since they refuse to do that, and since they are resourceful, determined, devious and obsessive there are likely to be very occasional errors. As long as they are repaired swiftly and we both apologise and learn from them I fail to see the need for further debate. Sure, it would be better if such false positives never happened. The way to get there is by the banned abusers going away. Since we can't make them do that, all we can do is watch. You saw the damage Burntsauce did, and that also had the regrettable side-effect of bringing down Alkivar. Nobody is happy about that. For reasons I can't fathom, a few people seem to give encouragement to these banned users off-wiki. For reasons I also can't fathom, but which may not be entirely unrelated, we seem to be engaging in a witch-hunt here. Apart from apologising and swiftly reversing the block, what else is Durova supposed to do? Guy (Help!) 11:41, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

You seem to not acknowledge that the community has almost universally expressed concern that this particular block was of an editor with several positive contributions, indeed someone who appears a near-ideal user. If it happened to someone with a more dicey record, like 90% of the users on the 'pedia, most of us would have let it slide. What this means is that of the 99 blocks that 'stand', in your reasoning, we have no way of knowing for certain, absent the normal discussion and scrutiny, that they are in fact all justified. They may well be, and (in my opinion) probably are; but we can't assume that. We have checks and balances, scrutiny and noticeboards, for precisely this reason. If we start seeing 'banned users' or their enablers under every bush in a paranoid manner, the project will suffer. And it appears that that's what happening. This is not the first time that this is being said. If you are genuinely interested in reducing drama, then you need to take the community along with you. It seems you haven't, or have gone too far. Can we agree on that? Relata refero (talk) 12:33, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

Quite the contrary, Relata. Please do not speculate on decisions to which you were not a party. Durova 17:48, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

Why would I need to "acknowledge" something that Durova made clear right up front, with the original post to this noticeboard? The correct response here was what Durova did, which was to reverse the block, apologise, and learn from the experience. It is not clear to me what else is expected from this continued debate. The cause of the problem is very clear: long-term abuse by determined and unscrupulous people. Be on your guard, everyone, and "trust but verify". I really don't see what this debate is achieving at this point. Guy (Help!) 13:38, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

While I'm sure Durova has learned from the experience I don't believe he has satisfactorily committed to, in the future, taking simple steps that would prevent easily-avoided errors like this one; possible measures include reviving the apparently forgotten practice of corresponding with a user before indefinitely blocking them. What the debate achieves is to establish whether or not we think such measures would be useful in the future. Christopher Parham (talk) 00:12, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

No, dash it, Guy, what you need to acknowledge is our concern that the only reason that the unblock happened this time is because the user's as near ideal as can be. All of us are worried that if it wasn't an ideal user, we wouldn't even be here. (We're also a little guilty, perhaps.) The cause of this problem is not long-term abuse, it is overzealous enforcement. We all know that one extreme is as bad as the other, history and experience will tell all of us so, and the community seems to think we've swung too far towards the enforcement extreme. So lessen up a bit, OK? This is more drama than any of us want. Also we don't want too many productive users scared off the project. Relata refero (talk) 14:08, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

Per this check, I average about one apology a month for all purposes, whether block related or not. That's roughly one every 1000 edits. And with regard to the first question, I'm stunned to see a pop quiz in basic statistics here that wasn't intended analogously. Durova 12:03, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

If you don't understand why my first question is relevant to this case, I suggest reading our nice article on Prosecutor's fallacy. Kla’quot (talk | contribs) 07:37, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

Durova, to refuse to answer some of the editor's questions here and say that if anyone has a problem with your methods to "take it to the ArbCom" isn't very helpful. The overworked ArbCom doesn't have to get involved if you'll answer to the concerned editors on this page. Would you please answer the following questions?

• How do you decide who will be a target of your sleuthing?
• What methods do you use to sleuth editors?
• What is your rate of false positives and how do you know when you get a false positive?
• Who are the ArbCom members that you mail your evidence to, or is it to the entire ArbCom?
• Why do you feel that you should act "behind the scenes" with the ArbCom over these matters, when you could just as well post your observations and proposed actions here or at AN, which I've seen other admins do?
• Do you share your evidence with the accused editor and ask for an explanation before taking action on their account? Cla68 (talk) 08:15, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

In light of these previous questions there's some room for doubt about whether that list is assembled in good faith. If it was in good faith, could you clarify? Why do you repeat a series of questions, most or all of which I've provided reasonable justification for declining to answer onsite, without any new reason for answering them? Durova 09:58, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

Your "justification" may seem reasonable to yourself: not to many others. You appear to have appointed yourself as the Misplaced Pages Bureau of Investigation, and treat the criticisms of little admins with disdain. As I have mentioned to you on several occasions, if you methods are so secret, for @@@@'s sake don't shout about them! Otherwise we might just conclude that your spouting self-agrandiziung rubbish which is detrimental to the project. Given your repeted blanking of contributions to this page (four since 10:00 UTC today), I have warned you to stop. If you continue to user your editing privileges in such a controversial manner, you will only have yourself to blamew if they are suspended. Physchim62 (talk) 12:34, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

If any one doubts that Durova is in the business of self-agrandisement, they should take a look at this edit from her talk page, coming just two minutes after she semiprotected it (for the first time). Physchim62 (talk) 13:56, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

This discussion is beginning to generate more heat than light. shoy ( _words) 14:28, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

Fair enough, we can always move it to Misplaced Pages:Requests for comment/Durova if you think that would be more helpful. Physchim62 (talk) 18:24, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

To the admitted block-evading IP editor who keeps trying to post here: you have already been advised repeatedly of the legitimate options for pursuing an unblock. Refusal to try normal venues is not an excuse to violate policy, nor does persistent policy violation strengthen your complaint. This noticeboard needed semiprotection for several hours due to your disruption, during which time legitimate unregistered users were unable to access it. Please demonstrate respect for those people by making your case to ArbCom or the Foundation, if there is any case to be made. Your conduct here is likely to be weighed in their decision and it would strengthen your own position to demonstrate that you are amenable to feedback, by following this advice. Durova 20:55, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

User:Songgarden Durova 21:51, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

Are you OUT of your MIND? Semi-protecting the AN/I because an IP editor YOU are in a dispute with is posting things that you disagree with? Are you so blinded in your quest to sleuth everyone on this project and to CYA in this admitted mistake you've made that you would disrupt one of the single most active pages on the project, screwing over EVERY SINGLE IP EDITOR who wants to make a post here for....over 7 hours? ⇒SWATJester 22:04, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

In all due respect, it appears we've got Amorrow futzing around on TOR nodes. As it has been previously stated on this board and others, Amorrow's presence on Misplaced Pages is damaging beyond the simple fact that he is banned.—Ryūlóng (竜龍) 22:49, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

Proprietary Sleuthing vs Checkuser: I notice that multiple posts on this page by user:Songgarden were blanked by Durova and tagged as made sockpuppets of User:Amorrow, but FloNight who is a checkuser has flagged user:Songgarden as a sockpuppet of user:Once and Forever.

Both of the Main Accounts (Once and Forever) and (Amorrow) are indefinitely blocked users, and therefore their sockpuppets should be blocked and their posts may be blanked. But, why was the Songgarden account originally blocked as a sockpuppet of Amorrow instead of blocked as a sockpuppet of Once and Forever?

Were proprietary sleuthing methods used to make the incorrect determination that Songgarden was Amorrow?

Was a checkuser used in making the original determination?

Am I mistaken that a pledge was made to work on better checks and balances to reduce false positives in the future and immediately there was another mixup? I agree that a bad apple and a bad orange are both bad fruit - but why call one the other when tools are available to differentiate them (and the original flagging as Amorrow didn't save any work, because FloNight still performed a checkuser and fixed up the user page with the correct information) Uncle uncle uncle (talk) 23:04, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

Just a minor point. FloNight is not a checkuser - see Special:listusers. Though she may of course have been acting on information given to her by a checkuser. WjBscribe 23:11, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

If anyone objects, go ahead and change the designations. Either way, the editor was very decidedly banned and had no legitimate "dispute" to pursue. The contention that banned editors who exploit TOR nodes and are obviously being disruptive are somehow immune from post blanking until an absolute dead-on ID is established has been tried before at this site and earns no traction at all. Again, I'm flattered that such people respect my volunteer work enough to go to such lengths. If I weren't good at this they wouldn't care. Durova 23:50, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

All these people you've wrongly blocked are lining up to complain about you, and you see that as evidence that you're doing a good job?

The problem isn't that you want to keep banned users off Misplaced Pages, or that you want to hunt sockpuppets. Several good administrators are supporting you because they agree with those goals. The problem is that you don't know what the heck you're doing.

Whether your techniques are inherently unsound, or you're just making atrociously poor use of them, we can't know. What we know is that your answers are wrong as often as they're right, and your aggression in pursuing them is driving good people away from the project at an alarming rate. For the good of the encyclopedia, you should step away from this investigatory role to which you've assigned yourself, for which your unwillingness to expose your methodologies to scrutiny and arrogant refusal to entertain the possibility of error makes you uniquely unsuited.24.19.33.82 04:40, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

Section break

Please forgive me if this seems a diversion at first, but I'm trying to get my head around the process here for duck-sniffing. I'm easily confused, so if we can focus discussion tightly here, that would help me.

1. Some comments were blanked by Durova w/ comments "blanked TOR node post"
   • Am I missing something in the discussions to that point, or were these being blanked simply for being TOR nodes?
   • Misplaced Pages:Administrators'_noticeboard#Proxy_posting_for_banned_and_blocked_users_operating_through_Tor_nodes isn't too enlightening, either.
2. Further posts were blanked by Durova as "blanking admitted block-evading posts."
   • Again, I'm not seeing anything presented that suggests this is a banned user, just a blocked one.
   • We don't generally just blank block-evading IPs, do we?
3. Then some items are blanked as being from a particular banned user.
   • Some to-and-fro on talk suggests this wasn't a sock of a banned user, or at the very least not He-Who-Who-Must-Not-Be-Named.

While this user's comments were not tremendously helpful, I'm not seeing any justification for the agressive blanking. So...

1. How much tolerance do we have for blanking?
2. How clearly does someone have to "smell" like a banned user?
3. Is the A-name being used as a magic word to slam shut discussion?

152.91.9.144 (talk) 23:39, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

• It is not minor that a non-checkuser is taking on a sock/synthetic role of a checkuser.

I am not a sock of anyone and, in fact, it appears that Once and Forever is a sock of an established user? I do not care. I came here in good faith; can establish a German IP and I like the name Songgarden. I have been blocked and falsely positively accused of being a sockpuppet by a person that promised not to do same. Please unblock. Truly yours, Songgarden. Deutschland November 20, 2007. 217.81.37.228 (talk) 23:40, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

This will be my last attempt at sucking some sense out of this... from Durova's comments above:

1. "he editor was very decidedly banned" still appears to be at best ex post facto. All that flows on from this can't ignore that.
2. "lattered that such people" re-affirms the judgement, which depends on facts not yet in evidence. (Emphasis mine)
3. "If I weren't good at this they wouldn't care." I'm boggled by this comment. Isn't it possible (however remotely) that people care because Durova isn't that good? Not suggesting either way, just that I find the fact that errors were made sliding off the proverbial ducks's back in that mann frightening.

152.91.9.144 (talk) 00:01, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

It is perhaps a case for: http://meta.wikimedia.org/Ombudsman_commission

No checkuser done; no record of same. False positive? Hardly. Swept under rug as Durova has made countless similar block mistakes Care.less? 65.87.39.20 (talk) 00:32, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

Good excuses for her question number 76, she has. Then maybe she will unblock

Songgarden for lack of evidence like she did for some of the other poor souls out there. How many more are there? Too many. 219.11.80.69 (talk) 03:10, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

False positives

I think a better way to look at the issue of false positives is to ask yourself how you would have reacted, in your first few weeks or months of editing, if you had been incorrectly blocked as a "false positive"? Depending on the response to that question, does this mean that more oversight is needed of such sleuthing practices? Carcharoth (talk) 00:54, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

Are there any other false positives in the block logs here? • Lawrence Cohen 01:01, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

A few, give me a minute to find the links. Kwsn (Ni!) 01:07, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

, , , , and . There may be more of them. Kwsn (Ni!) 01:10, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

More: and . Kwsn (Ni!) 01:19, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

It seems to me that the pattern forming here is that it's okay to block an account if a particular admin has suspicion that they are someone else that is blocked, and in order to justify the block, the name of the previously-blocked user is appended to the current user. Conversely, if a blocked user's IP address or favorite subject areas come into convergence with that of another user (good or bad), the assumption is made that the second user is a bad agent, and is subject to blocking. I thought this was the encyclopedia that anyone can edit, but it seems that there's more time being spent watching the metadata associated with users' edits, rather than actually improving the encyclopedia. When I signed up for my Misplaced Pages account over a year ago, I don't remember consenting to all of this probing and checking and accusation related to my account. Serious question... do you even have the legal right to be spending so many resources toward surveillance of users, rather than fulfilling the legal mission of the Wikimedia Foundation -- building a free, open-source encyclopedia. If contributors only knew they were subject to so much monitoring, I'm not sure as many would still participate in this project. - CinnamonGirl (talk) 01:50, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

mmmmhhhh ehheh, and Mr./Ms. User: Songgarden is still showing blocked as a sock of Amorrow? Not right is it? 89.19.7.50 (talk) 02:04, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

(reply to Cinnamongirl) Durova is a volunteer, so the Foundation is not spending resources per se on her activities. What she is doing seems perfectly legal to me. And yes, whenever you click the Submit button you do sign up to have everything you contribute to the site be analyzed by anyone. I am not defending the quality of her results (actually as you can see above I have lots of concerns about it), but it is within her rights to do the kind of data-gathering that she does. Kla’quot (talk | contribs) 03:01, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

This pattern of action by Durova needs to be curbed; it is too open to abuse, has too little oversight, and possesses the capability to do harm, which should be minimized above all. Of course, it's already too late for that. east.718 at 02:19, November 20, 2007

CopyVio Alert

I've done my own research (take it to ArbCom) and determined that this entire script is a copyvio, and requires immediate deletion. Evidence

 CROWD:  A witch!  A witch!  A witch!  We've got a witch!  A witch!
 VILLAGER #1:  We have found a witch, might we burn her?
 CROWD:  Burn her!  Burn!
 BEDEMIR:  How do you know she is a witch?
 VILLAGER #2:  She looks like one.
 BEDEMIR:  Bring her forward.
 WITCH:  I'm not a witch.  I'm not a witch.
 BEDEMIR:  But you are dressed as one.
 WITCH:  They dressed me up like this.
 CROWD:  No, we didn't... no.
 WITCH:  And this isn't my nose, it's a false one.
 BEDEMIR:  Well?
 VILLAGER #1:  Well, we did do the nose.

At least they gave their "witch" a public hearing. I think the Inquisition is overdue, not that I expect it. sNkrSnee | t.p. 02:54, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

Can we take a step back from the Durova-bashing a bit?

As an outside observer who has been following this thread for the last couple of days I am just appalled at what this has turned into. Durova is a volunteer just like everyone else here and in her long line of service has she created a pattern of abuse that calls for such blatant lack of good faith? No, on the contrary her contributions shows a tireless worker who cares about the greater good of the project. Yes she is human just like everyone else and no one is infallible in judgment or action. In the midst of all the commentary above it is clear that little have noticed that her blocking was not a snapped or irrational judgment but one that she tried, in good faith, to based on evidence and fact checking. Yes those "facts" were ultimately wrong and she has since made several good faith attempts at reconciling that with both an apology and corrective action to prevent further mistakes. If you have questions or concerns about her methodology then inquire with her via email or on her talk page. But there is nothing that she has done that warrants the severity of a public lynching and it would be more worthwhile for the crowd of people here to work on the task of writing an encyclopedia instead of contributing to what this thread has become. Agne/ 03:19, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

I agree with Agne27. Remember, Durova blocked me twice before, so one might think I would be hard-pressed to defend her, but admittedly she was right that I did use two other accounts (I haven't since and have no intentions of ever doing so again) and since she unblocked me I found her to be understanding, fair, and willing to listen and make helpful suggestions. I therefore do believe that she means well and I fear that we are being distracted now from focusing our efforts on other editors who use proxy editors or who harrass their fellow editors in disruptive manners. We have all made a mistake sooner or later and we should commend those who do what they can to acknowledge and correct their mistakes, especially when they're more apt to do good in the long-run. Best, --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles 03:40, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

While I agree that the block was in good faith, I still think that it was irresponsible in that Durova failed to take basic precautions which a reasonably careful person would have used. I don't believe that the corrective action taken thus far will do anything to prevent further mistakes because it doesn't dissuade the sort of negligence that led to this error. The damage done by this incident undermines Durova's positive work to the extent that if incidents like this are to be a commonplace, Durova's work is a net detriment to the project. Christopher Parham (talk) 03:54, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

I disagree. In fact I would say that throughout this incident Durova has conducted herself with the utmost integrity and humility. After two weeks of patient research and observation she made a decision that she thought would best serve the project by limiting the potential long term and devastating disruption of another Burntsauce-like sockpuppet. She was open minded enough to post her action here for outside scrutiny and to consider the differing evidence presented by others. Because of that she was able to quickly correct her mistake before the editor in question was largely inconvenienced. That takes a lot of humility to admit one's mistake and to take quick and decisive action to remedied it. If you believe that there is more that she could do to prevent future mistakes then I encourage you to continue discussing that with her personally. That is far more productive than anything this thread could produce. There is nothing more to be accomplished here then a needless public lynching which certainly doesn't benefit the project. Agne/ 04:15, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

I don't dispute Durova's integrity and humility. Christopher Parham (talk) 04:25, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

The question here is, essentially, "Should users spend their time trying to uncover sockpuppetry using secret methods?" I don't think anyone doubts that such methods are fine to confirm sockpuppetry. But we don't let checkusers run checks without a good reason to suspect misconduct already, and Arbcom doesn't get to pick up cases that aren't first brought to them. Should we or should we not apply the same scrutiny to other opaque processes? That needs to be decided. -Amarkov moo! 04:01, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

I agree that your question is worthy of discussion, but at the appropriate policy page, not here at AN/I. This thread is already overly long and inconvenient to those who wish to browse the board. How about moving that fine discussion elsewhere? - Jehochman 04:07, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

Agree, totally. Agne/ 04:15, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

Oops, I thought I mentioned that. Yeah, the issue is no longer Durova, really, and this discussion is therefore pointless now. -Amarkov moo! 04:46, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

To follow up, I'd have in mind an explicit commitment that before blocking any account with meaningful positive contributions, Durova will (1) contact the account describing his concerns (from the blocking policy: "administrators should generally ensure that users are aware of policies, and give them reasonable opportunity to adjust their behaviour accordingly, before blocking") and (2) raise his concerns about the editor on a community noticeboard for general comment before blocking. Christopher Parham (talk) 04:25, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

For a mistake that lasted all of 75 minutes, we as a community have probably spent at least 75 hours of time debating this. Debate can help produce beneficial changes, but at some point it needs to end. I think this thread has come to the end. Everyone, back to work, or else Jimbo is going to dock your pay. - Jehochman 03:45, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

QUOTING from Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles: "We have all made a mistake sooner or later" Hear, hear! A message to that effect ought to be carved in stone over the Misplaced Pages Portal. (Wherever it is.) Wanderer57 (talk) 03:53, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

There is nothing confirmed about my presence here as a sockpuppet save for my being blocked under false positive pretenses. I do not use TOR and I come here from all over the world. I am guilty because she says so? I am still blocked as a sock of some banned user that I have never heard of and I, quite frankly, like the User name: Songgarden. There is no checkuser and no evidence confirming anything and I am only one of many victims that have fallen from grace because of your Diva Durova. (See above list.) Please unblock me and unprotect my pages.

Thank you, User: Songgarden 172.189.24.234 (talk) 04:44, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

Jehochman, it may have been a 75 minute block, but it drove !! from the project. How would you like it if I were to block you for being a "disruptive" sock and then not say of who and how I know this. Kwsn (Ni!) 04:57, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

"Bashing" etc

Maybe I have something wrong, I don't know any of the players. Here's how I see it: Durova banned a user for opaque reasons, a user so uncommonly righteous that people of consequence were moved to question it. Durova demured, insisting that her secret evidence was a lock, and invoking AGF by saying: "I will be more than happy to explain my research to the arbitration committee. Please take this there if that is your opinion. WP:AGF, please: I don't do something this bold without very good reasons." Ten minutes later she preemptively AGFs her expected detractors, saying: "This has been a tough call, but in my opinion a necessary one. I am very confident my research will stand up to scrutiny. I am equally confident that anything I say here will be parsed rather closely by some disruptive banned sockpuppeteers. If I open the door a little bit it'll become a wedge issue as people ask for more information, and then some rather deep research techniques would be in jeopardy. As I've said this before, take me to arbitration if you want to challenge this." That part has been blanked in one heckuva courtesy, so I don't blame you if you missed it.

Exactly 1hr10m later Durova concedes it's all been a mistake, which is a remarkably short time to disprove all that evidence. In a blaze of non-accountability, she "apologizes" by using the word (only) in the title, claims she likes to be the first to fix her own mistakes, then appears to blame her faulty research on unnamed colleagues for not fixing her mistake sooner (I thought she liked to do that?), and requests early closure and archiving to protect the OTHER person's privacy! On the page we can still see, she claims that even though this one was an error, the accuracy of her secret methods is not in question. She's asked to explain how she determines this, and responds by saying that the question doesn't make any sense to her. Whatever it is she's doing, and she says it's a secret, she seems to intend to keep doing it.

Remember, this only got picked up because the user in question was apparently a saint. A lot of people are troubled by the realization that, if this had been a regular human, it probably would have passed without comment, as Durova was urging. If it can (almost) happen to him, it could happen to a lot of less exemplary users, like me. Please note that I have made no assumptions regarding the sincerity of Durova's initial judgement, because it isn't relevant. But I do find this episode very disturbing, and her interpretation of other people's reasonable criticism of her behaviour as flattering proof that she's "good at this" is completely stunning.

If I have something wrong, please explain; if I've been unclear, please ask. But I don't think it all happened the way it's now being described above, and I don't think this is about public lynchings, but private ones. sNkrSnee | t.p. 05:13, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

It seems that you are extending the soapboxing on your talk page to this discussion. Even with the best intentions, it is very easy to make mistakes on WP. Please hawk your sour grapes elsewhere. --Mathsci (talk) 09:59, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

Thank you for those excellent links. Sadly, I was unable to find your point. I'm pleased that my user page facilitated your perfunctory evaluation of my opinion, though I note that "soapboxing" traditionally involves proselytizing an argument, rather than declining to do so. I regret that I am unable to offer a response to any of your relevant comments. Ever thine, sNkrSnee | t.p. 11:08, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

Jeez, if every single mistake was exposed to this (more often than not overly-dramtic) witchhunt discussion there wouldn't be any room left on the servers for articles. Darkson (Yabba Dabba Doo!) 13:09, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

This is NOT a problem merely because Durova blocked mistakenly. It's that she blocked, refused to provide any reasons why, continually invoked the presence of a few dozen nameless senior editors to explain why we shouldn't ask for evidence, and then somehow managed to realize that the block was mistaken 70 minutes later. Assuming good faith, I say that she truly did realize that her evidence was faulty. But if this guy had been less perfect, many fewer people would have questioned it, she wouldn't have reinvestigated, and a user would be blocked wrongly because of evidence nobody saw. That is much, much more serious than your average "oh look I was wrong". -Amarkov moo! 14:27, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

70 minutes after the block, Majorly sent me a clue, and I explained to Durova that she really had made a mistake, and that the block needed to be lifted immediately. That explains the rapid reversal. Any other questions I can answer?

I believe that ordinary administrator blocks should be based on public evidence. If something is so sensitive that it cannot be handled publicly, then the info should be passed to Arbcom or a Checkuser for action. Those folks are organized to handle secret evidence, and they operate under strict controls. I explained this to Durova, and she agreed immediately. She's stated that she will follow this rule, and most folks have agreed. Would it be useful to record this rule in our written policies? Like this: - Jehochman 15:08, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

Jehochman, there is no "consensus" for that addition. If there was, there would be no one complaining about it. Kwsn (Ni!) 15:37, 20 November 2007 (UTC) Struck after re-reading. Kwsn (Ni!) 17:00, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

• I think we have an administrator (Durova) that has taken on the world with an ego the size of the world. I believe there are some places where executions were stopped when it was determined that innocent people were being executed. The above list is going to get longer if she is not stopped. It is not an isolated event from what I can see. Now it is up to the world to look at what she is really doing. Her lack of evidence and cover up, herein, is very much akin to obstruction of justice.

From Spain, I am ErgoEgo (talk) 15:39, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

Problems with Durova require ongoing monitoring and follow-up

• • NOTE: KnowledgeofSelf has reverted this, so I will copy it on some editor's talk page. Censorship??**

I have a pretty serious example of how Durova caused serious damage to another editor, and I can provide it privately, but only if it is treated confidentially, and is to be taken seriously (why.not.relax@gmail.com). I beg to differ at the above sentiment that Durova has integrity. She takes half truths, expounds them as condemning facts, rushes to judgement and makes sure the person has no say in the matter, and gets the most serious punishment possible. In my case, she made false allegations online, one particularly serious (both totally false) and then she did her best to make sure I received no assistance. Why do I know this? Because I got assistance, through some pretty high channels. The people helping me told me she complained, and tried to claim that I had done X and Y, and she sent "email evidence" to prove it, which I'd already provided to them, as part of the dossier, so she got ignored.

My case isnt really important, because I no longer desire to contribute here (I wrote some unique articles in my area of expertise). I was a good faith occasional expert editor. I wasn't just bitten. I spent a huge expensive amount of work-time dealing with dealing with the mess this caused. Durova didn't start my case, but she sure did finish it. I was already dealing with a false accusation, which she managed to make worse. Afterwards, she took special care to try to prevent others from helping repair what was an obvious mistake.

As a part of my healing process, I've sometimes looked at Misplaced Pages's internal politics, while drinking my coffee. From what I read online, she does this kind of "follow up" a lot. It is pure vindictiveness, and not against vandals or even socks. It is anyone who she has pinpointed as "bad".

What is important about the !! case is that this be not taken as a one-off mistake, and I caution you not to interpret it as such. Recall that the only reason that Durova removed the ban and the accusation, was that she was challenged, and harshly, due to the spotless reputation of !! This is of course a very rare case. If you people want to be sure that this isn't a repeating phenomenon (which it is) then I suggest someone take some time and follow up on this. Given the harshness of her behavior, someone needs to monitor her. She needs to be told by someone in a position of authority that this was wrong, and that if she does it again, that there will be repercussions that will be enforced. If this isn't done, she'll just keep doing it. She thinks that it is perfectly fine.

The real question is: Do you?

(Restored for 85.5.180.48 (talk · contribs) who was blanking other people's comments and got reverted - - Jehochman 16:52, 20 November 2007 (UTC))

TO JEHOCHMAN: Young man, I dont even write on here, and your sneaky antics make me SO mad, that I will do so. I wasn't blanking anyone's comments. There was probably an edit conflict (odd that you mistook that for my supposedly impersonating Durova). If so, where is your so-called good faith? I can answer that. You know damned well that I didn't blank anyone's comments, and you know damned well I didn't impersonate Durova. If you aren't a liar, then you seem to have had some sort of hallucination. (see, I assume good faith). I have another question here, please. Why is this conversation off the ANI board? So it can be hidden? It should be back there, and apparently Mr. Hochman, as well as trying to silence me (thanks to Bishonen for protesting this, by the way) has done his level best to hide this important dialogue about a lady who makes quite a bit of trouble on here. I strongly suggest this conversation go back on ANI, where it gets the attention it deserves.85.5.180.48 (talk) 17:40, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

Durova needs to be desysoped

The answer here is very simple, Durova has to be desysoped. I am extremely surprised that she has not been already. This type of behaviour is completely unnaceptable. Giano (talk) 17:09, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

Giano, is this a request for recall? If so, you should probably post it on the main board as I doubt many people are watching this subpage. Videmus Omnia 17:23, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

Not a re-call, she needs firing! Giano (talk) 17:33, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

Comment from IP that JeHochman tried to sneaky-ban: THIS CONVERSATION NEEDS TO GO BACK ON THE REGULAR ADMINISTRATOR BOARD, WHERE IT BELONGS AND WILL BE DULY ARCHIVED. Why does JeHochman get to move this to some offsite location? I find that really suspicious. Not only did he hide it, but he basically blocked me to shut me up. He blocked me in a manner which did not allow me to make comment, which is the normal means of blocking an IP (or anyone). He needs to be audited frequently, just as she does. And I'm not any of the socks they are going to accuse me of being, either. I have a name, and a phone number, and I can give those, to the right people. 85.5.180.48 (talk) 17:44, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

Giano, if you're serious about this, and the amount of opacity in Durova's actions and the lack of accountability certainly is outrageous, it's probably better to have a sort of "executive summary" of the situation (all that tit and tat, above) along with a call for the aggrieved and others to open ArbCom action. It's not about the rights of any one IP editor or any one long time editor: it is about Misplaced Pages operating by its founding principles, keeping everything in the light. While some may feel, "Oh! She was perfect past all parallel -- / Of any modern female saint’s comparison; / So far above the cunning powers of hell, / Her guardian angel had given up his garrison," in truth neither Durova nor anyone else can work with secret evidence in secret notices to secretly selected secret ArbCom members to perform a public action. If it's a "false positive," we're destroying a solid contributor, engendering ill will, and justifying everything the people on the "Bad Sites" say. It's not a matter for a subsection of a subpage. Utgard Loki (talk) 17:57, 20 November 2007 (UTC)