Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 06:43, 26 November 2007

Time line as given by east718

The time line paragraph currently states 'The block received mixed support, and Durova stood firm," - but the link given for that statement does not seem to support it. It does not look like the block received any support. Perhaps east718 should clarify either the statement or the supporting link. Isarig (talk) 20:36, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

Secret mail list

Is this hosted on Misplaced Pages 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 Misplaced Pages, 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 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 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 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 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 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 Arbitrators will read both the Evidence and its talk page, in their entirety. Cbrown1023 talk 21:37, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

If the "list" is the "cyber-stalking" email list, then it isn't supervised by the foundation but by a Misplaced Pages editor, username SlimVirgin. Cla68 (talk) 01:05, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

There are two mailing lists being discussed here. Also, we do not know if the cyberstalking mailing list is also home to a few Foundation people as well. Cbrown1023 talk 03:01, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

I was briefly a subscriber to the Cyberstalking mailing list. For that time, no checkuser or other private information was shared. It was largely dominated by discussion of how to respond appropriately (i.e. differently and more effectively) to stalking and harassment of editors by outside forces such as Misplaced Pages Review, Brandt, ColScott, and others. I opted out after a while as the signal to noise ratio was too low for me to feel it was a beneficial use of my time. It was probably natural for Durova to send her evidence there, as she suspected !! was a reincarnation of a previous troll. Several participants have since expressed regret that they did not raise objections more forcefully at the time. I believe the Cyberstalking list has a good purpose and intent, although it came to encompass a lot of extraneous and unhelpful discussion as well (as any similar discussion forum will). If the list has been forked to an "investigations" sublist, as suggested by some in the evidence, that strikes me as an unhelpful and possible dangerous development. Blocks and such should be discussed and documented on Wiki whenever possible. In extraordinary circumstances evidence may need to be kept private, but those cases should be dealt with by Arbcom, who were elected for that purpose, rather than a group of self-selected investigators who may lack proper perspective. Thatcher131 02:18, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

You're fairly clearly stating that you feel that what Misplaced Pages Review and Brandt were doing/do constitutes stalking and harrassment. Are those really the right words to be used, since those are legal terms that are actionable by police agencies if they are actually occurring? If there really was more signal than noise going on in that forum, then aren't you really saying that it was filled with a lot of blather and little evidence of actual stalking and harrassment taking place? Is the paranoia that was feeding the establishment and maintenance of such a forum a contributor to what happened here in this case, and by extension, is what is feeding many of the pro-BADSITES crowd? Cla68 (talk) 02:34, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

I think that some of the participants on WR have stalked and/or harassed some Misplaced Pages editors. Obviously WR itself is not a stalker any more than it can have sockpuppet accounts; accounts and actions belong to people. And editors and admins have been stalked and harassed by people who have nothing at all to do with WR. However the fact remains that Misplaced Pages editors and admins have been stalked and harassed; it is not paranoia to try and discuss how to respond more effectively in the future. I will not further characterize exactly why I opted out, other than to say that I thought it was not the best use of my time, and obviously I don;t know anything about the list traffic recently. Thatcher131 02:57, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

I'd say that SlimVirgin needs to appear over here and explain this mailing list of hers since she's in charge of it and it's at the center of this case. I'll leave a request on her talk page. Cla68 (talk) 03:48, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

I agree that SlimVirgin's insight would be useful here. She removed without comment a request of mine to add her explanation to the issue, which at least confirms she's aware of this request. --krimpet⟲ 05:56, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

I'm sure she'll be along shortly. I also requested her addition as a party to the case. Even if that's disapproved, I'm sure she'll be more than able and willing to quickly answer the following questions here:

• • • Who are the members on that mailing list?
    • Is this list ever used by other participants to coordinate official actions besides Durova?
    • Is the list used to canvass supporters to go vote or give opinions at any RfC's, RfA's, or any other discussion or vote? Cla68 (talk) 06:16, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

If she does provide us with the names of members on that list, it'll be interesting to see if my name is on it. I signed up for it today and I assume, that as administrator, SlimVirgin is the one who would approve my addition to the list or not. Cla68 (talk) 06:43, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

Durova's initial "sleuthing" evidence regarding User:!!

Can we assume that all members of the arbitration committee have seen this email at this point, or should it be forwarded to the arbcomm mailing list? Is there any chance we can get permission from whomever necessary (Durova, I assume?) to enter it into the evidence section of this proceeding in a more public fashion? JavaTenor (talk) 22:09, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

• Yes, we have it. You would need Durova's permission to post it publicly. Mackensen (talk) 22:45, 25 November 2007 (UTC)
  • It is already posted publicly. Perhaps you meant her permission is needed to post it on Misplaced Pages. Isarig (talk) 22:47, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

• The fact that other sites violate privacy and copyright is not a great reason for us to follow suit, of course. Guy (Help!) 23:54, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

• I did not suggest we follow other sites' example, I merely corrected something which appears to be inaccurate. That said, whether or not there is copyright infringement or privacy violation involved in the posting of Durova's E-mail is far from clear. Isarig (talk) 01:05, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

• That was my assumption - thanks for confirming it, Mackensen. I would like to request that Durova authorize the release of the email as evidence, in the interest of on-wiki transparency. JavaTenor (talk) 01:02, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

Evidence for whom? Arbcom are the judges and they have it. Nosiness is not yet policy.--Doc 01:05, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

Whoa whoa whoa-- remember us, the community?? --Alecmconroy (talk) 01:07, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

(ec)Evidence for the community. The ArbCom are the judges, but this is not a hearing held in secret, using secret evidence. I think we've had quite enough of that in this case. Isarig (talk) 01:08, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

As above, evidence for the community, so it can fully understand what transpired in this case without having to rummage through talk page histories or do research on external sites. Even though ArbComm makes the final decision, I feel that transparency of process is important whenever possible. JavaTenor (talk) 01:32, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

A query

As many of you know, there's a pernicious rumor going around that I am affiliated with, or a supporter of, the website Encyclopedia Dramatica. Despite extreme efforts on my part, I have found myself unable to kill this falsehood-- it just keeps being reiterated no matter what I do. (just watch-- someone will reiterate it in response to this very query). Call me paranoid, but one explanation for why my insistences of innocence have fallen on deaf is could be the existence of "secret evidence" that, due to my ignorance of it, I have never had a chance to even question.

Would it be appropriate for me to ask-- have I been mentioned in any of these secret forums? If so, I would like to see what evidence has been amassed against me, so that I can actually have a chance to rebut it?

I imagine there may be many other individuals who similarly feel disturbed by secret proceedings and would like to see what discussions, speculations, evidence, and rumors have been spread about them in these forums. --Alecmconroy (talk) 23:01, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

• Tis is completely irrelevant to this case, but if you want to nail the allegation I guess you could always duck out of the argument on harassment links. Guy (Help!) 23:36, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

Maybe I'm just paranoid, but that sounds disturbingly like a "Yes, secret evidence was presented against you too, Alec". --Alecmconroy (talk) 23:37, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

• Yes, you are being paranoid. There are arbitrators on the list. Do you think they would stand for posses with ropes? Not hardly. Guy (Help!) 23:52, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

There appears to be an email list maintained by editors/admins, at least some of whom, judging by some of Durova's and other's comments, appear to be greatly in fear of supposed efforts by Misplaced Pages Review and other Misplaced Pages criticism websites to do grevious harm to them and Misplaced Pages. At least one editor (I won't mention any names) has proposed that participation in Misplaced Pages Review be considered as grounds for blacklisting in this community. I think most of us share the impression that this type of paranoia is, to say the least, immature and counterproductive. Taking that paranoia too far is apparently why we're here now in this case. Cla68 (talk) 01:16, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

On what basis were the two checkusers conducted on !!?

What reason did the checkuser's have for running two separate checks on the poor guy? Surely it wasn't because of the secret evidence, and if so, doesn't that call into serious question the judgement of these checkusers? 75.116.139.210 (talk) 04:26, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

Durova and Flonight in a pact together?

• Addendum to my evidence:

Please rest assured that Durova was not truthful about "Flonight" using checkuser information to block me, because according to the attached evidence, Flonight was not a checkuser until days after the said block was made. This makes Durova's claim a very bald illustration of a deceitful presentation to this community. Please see the attached link to evidence of Flonight becoming a checkuser days after the block of me. http://meta.wikimedia.org/search/?title=Requests_for_permissions&oldid=758421#Enwiki Truly yours, Songgarden Back in the U.S. on Nov. 26, 2007 71.142.240.138 (talk) 04:27, 26 November 2007 (UTC) 172.167.96.94 (talk) 04:42, 26 November 2007 (UTC)