Misplaced Pages

Please discuss the matter at this page's entry on the Miscellany for Deletion page.

You are welcome to edit this page, but please do not blank, merge, or move this page (without knowing exactly what you are doing), or remove this notice, while the discussion is in progress. For more information, read the Guide to Deletion."

If it appears that I'm trying to get my comments to "stand out" that was certainly not my intention. And to be a bit more frank than usual, that contention appears a bit wild-eyed. (With respect to NS, whom I find normally quite good.) I've made the attempt have the current contents of the page quite neutral, and I don't believe that I've stated much of an opinion at all anywhere on the issues.
CygnetSaIad (talk) 05:10, 23 November 2007 (UTC)

I've now replaced the redirect as an attempt at calming nerves. My reading was that this was a good idea, perhaps it's not. So, rather than re-hashing any other issues here, can we get consensus on how awful it will actually be if this is opened? - CygnetSaIad (talk) 05:28, 23 November 2007 (UTC)

I'm backing off from this. I'm... not thinking clearly, and have just made a big-ol hypocrite of myself (making things worse and all). Maybe a formal RfC page is what we need, maybe not, but me trying to trying to force how I feel it should be handled is clearly wrong, regardless of the initial concern. -- Ned Scott 05:37, 23 November 2007 (UTC)

I'd think that all the debate about this speaks for itself that we clearly need an RFC. ⇒SWATJester 05:39, 23 November 2007 (UTC)

Ned Scott, drama hates you when you starve it. Hater. I clearly can't read policy, I'd just like there to be one place to meaningfully have what I consider a legitimate debate, and this has already been through the bumpers (are they all like this?). That's my bit! sNkrSnee | t.p. 05:56, 23 November 2007 (UTC)

I support the opening of this RfC. Cla68 (talk) 05:58, 23 November 2007 (UTC)

Evidence of "bad blocks"

I notice that on the main page of this RfC it lists a block of NearestAvailableNewt (NAN). Anyway, Durova was right that NAN was a sockpuppet, just not a JB196 sock as AndyJones admitted. Because AndyJones is a constructive editor (I have personally found him friendly and helpful), Durova lifted the block, but again, the assumption that NAN was a sock was correct. Best, --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles 05:49, 23 November 2007 (UTC)

It's perfectly permissible to have alternate accounts. If this was a legitimate alternate account of a user, then a block of the account was indeed a "bad block". Videmus Omnia 05:56, 23 November 2007 (UTC)

That account had some questionable use of language, however (see , , , , etc.) and appeared in one of the Eyrian/Burntsauce AfDs immediately after Burntsauce and as NAN's very first edit (see and note that Burntsauce was banned by the arbitration comittee and Eyrian is currently being discussed by the committee after a checkuser turned up multiple IPs and accounts used by him), which admittedly did look suspicious. Again, though, after AndyJones, whom I consider one of my favorite fellow Wikipedians, acknowledged that the account was his, Durova lifted the block and as far as I can tell they both acted with each other cordially. Please do keep in mind, that I too have been blocked and later unblocked by Durova, but I have come to recognize that she does a lot of good, is understanding, willing to compromise, etc. Best, --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles 06:20, 23 November 2007 (UTC)

It's perfectly permissible to have alternate accounts. . No, it is not. See WP:SOCK ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 16:18, 23 November 2007 (UTC)

That policy does not forbid all uses of alternate accounts. Videmus Omnia 16:36, 23 November 2007 (UTC)

There is a difference between: "it is perfectly permissible" and "the use se of alternate accounts is not encouraged". And that difference is not trivial. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 16:46, 23 November 2007 (UTC)

Issues

1. Mistakes that cause disruption - People make mistakes that cause disruption. How much disruption is allowed before we say that regardless of your motives, you are bad for the project? Does the answer differ for admin vs. non-admin. I suggest that the answer boils down to "Are they a net asset or liability?" The problem with this answer is that it depends on the POV of the person answering; example: do they support your edits?
2. Investigation of editors - There is currently a fierce fight to allow admins to investigate non-admins, but to condemn investigation of admins or investigation by non-admins. Accountability is important, as is privacy; but the two values conflict.
3. Assume good faith - The super secret technique consisted of nothing other than assuming bad faith and demanding good faith belief in unseen evidence that turned out to be totally different than it was described as being. This is where the current war against WR has led.
4. Cover-up - Information material to the evaluation of what actually happened was deleted and suppressed. Investigation into the so-called "complex investigation" has been decried as unneeded and mere drama; while the faulty investigation into innocent people has been held up as useful and necessary.
5. Meat puppets attacking editors - Off site co-ordination between people of investigation into real life identities for the purpose of attacking them (defamation and blocking) and resulting in their outing is something shared by WR and the admins involved in this affair. Must we become the enemy to defeat them? WAS 4.250 (talk) 08:03, 23 November 2007 (UTC)

'fudging' at the start

Hi this is not to criticise the person who started writing out this much needed RfC, but I think it should be set out like a normal RfC. The banner thing at the top might be ok but the paragraph or so in italics about how a mistake may or may not have been made, before the facts are laid out, is unnecessary and may in fact sway the reader. This should be set out like any other RfC in my humble opinion. In an RfC the facts speak for themselves and that gives clarity to the proceedings, any comments and views go 'after' the facts have been laid out. But I'm loathe to tinker with what you've writtten but feel that passage is unnecessary. However, kudos again for starting this RfC:)Merkinsmum (talk) 13:47, 23 November 2007 (UTC)

Hi I just looked at it again and it does use a proper form it's just that the style of writing is (understandably) tentative. Plus saying that previous debate has been 'fruitless' to me may prejudice the reader against it but that's just my view.

This RfC is about Durova, if there really is going to be an RfC it should be about her actions (not whethher other editors should get back to work etc- if people have that view they can write it in 'views' at the end, rather than desired outcomes.)

I'm not that personally involved, I just like to see things done properly and an RfC about an individual, discuss them. It would also keep the discussion a bit more focussed. Possible rewrite based on my basic knowledge of the situ and options;

Statement of the dispute

Following concern regarding a recent block of an established user, dissatisfaction of Durova's investigations of suspected sock puppet were aired.

This discussion culminated is the posting of material that may constitute a breach of confidential material as well as possible abuse of oversight privileges. (was this posting, or use of oversight by Durova? If not, shouldn't be in this RfC about Durova )

Desired outcome (request for recall needn't involve an RfC should it, that should have a separate venue, just be a request on user talk or something. So I altered that bit.)

• That wider examination of the methods used in Durova's investigations occur,
• That the extent to which her actions were endorsed by those administrators who received copies of the report on !! be made known.
• That preventative measures to ensure this doesn't happen again occur (for instance a temporary block or temporary de-sysop, or permanent de-sysop if the abuses are deemed sufficiently serious, protracted and widespread.)

Merkinsmum (talk) 14:17, 23 November 2007 (UTC)

Durova herself has requested that recalls go through the RfC process. I shall certainly add a header to that effect should it be removed from the main debate. Physchim62 (talk) 15:22, 23 November 2007 (UTC)

Undefined page

I don't support this strangely undefinable page. It's designated "draft" at the top, yet, by name, it's in Misplaced Pages space. That makes no sense. You don't keep drafts in Misplaced Pages space, you keep them in your userspace. I've asked Cygnet salad on his/her talk to either move this oddity into his/her userspace, or remove the "draft" banner. Bishonen | talk 17:56, 23 November 2007 (UTC).

"Clerking"

Since an RfC is a precondition of initiating the voluntary recall process under Durova's conditions (remember, she is free to set up conditions however she likes, voluntary recall is just that, voluntary, and if the community does not get satisfaction from how it goes or what conditions it is conducted under, there are other processes available to the community they can use, before, during, or after), and since I have clerked voluntary recalls in the past, Durova has asked me to "clerk" this RfC, should it go forward.

The meaning there would presumably be to make sure that the typical format was followed, that the certification happened normally, and so forth. Normally RfCs are not clerked per se, interested parties work amicably to keep things orderly. So I guess what I would offer would be to be a backstop, that if that wasn't happening, I would try to help make it go smoothly, more than doing anything particularly intrusive. If this RfC does go forward, and if it leads to an eventual recall process beginning, I am willing to clerk that too if asked.

Clerking an RfC is not something we normally do I don't think, but I think it might be helpful in this case since there seems to be a number of different venues and threads and so forth. It also seems the page itself needs some work.

Clerking a recall is something done fairly often, although not always. It is completely up to the person being recalled (remember, again, this is a voluntary process) how the recall is handled, and who clerks it.

Full disclosure:

• Durova has asked me to perform CUs privately in the past, and when I thought the correlation was indicative of a probable connection, I have carried them out for her and shared the results appropriate to share with admins. One of the blocks that is being cited as information in this case is one that she placed and then corrected based on information I gave her.
• I was one of the people that received Durova's writeup of the information and possible correlations surrounding the ID '!!' ... to my regret I read that writeup over somewhat cursorily, thought it was interesting, and didn't act further on it (as opposed to suggesting to Durova that it wasn't something I would be comfortable blocking on, which is what I WISH I had said instead of saying nothing)

++Lar: t/c 21:42, 23 November 2007 (UTC)