Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 22:47, 25 November 2007

Create your own section to provide evidence in, and do not edit anyone else's section. Keep your evidence to a maximum of 1000 words and 100 diffs. Evidence longer than this will be refactored or removed entirely.

Anyone, whether directly involved or not, may add evidence to this page. Create your own section and do not edit in anybody else's section. Please limit your main evidence to a maximum 1000 words and 100 diffs and keep responses to other evidence as short as possible. A short, concise presentation will be more effective; posting evidence longer than 1000 words will not help you make your point. Over-long evidence that is not exceptionally easy to understand (like tables) will be trimmed to size or, in extreme cases, simply removed by the Clerks without warning - this could result in your important points being lost, so don't let it happen. Stay focused on the issues raised in the initial statements and on diffs which illustrate relevant behavior.

It is extremely important that you use the prescribed format. Submitted evidence should include a link to the actual page diff in question, or to a short page section; links to the page itself are insufficient. Never link to a page history, an editor's contributions, or a log for all actions of an editor (as those will have changed by the time people click on your links), although a link to a log for a specific article or a specific block log can be useful. Please make sure any page section links are permanent. See simple diff and link guide.

This page is not for general discussion - for that, see the talk page. If you think another editor's evidence is a misrepresentation of the facts, cite the evidence and explain how it is incorrect within your own section. Please do not try to re-factor the page or remove evidence presented by others. If something is put in the wrong place, leave it for the Arbitrators or Clerks to move.

Arbitrators may analyze evidence and other assertions at /Workshop. /Workshop provides for comment by parties and others as well as Arbitrators. After arriving at proposed principles, findings of fact or remedies, Arbitrators vote at /Proposed decision. Only Arbitrators may edit /Proposed decision.

Evidence presented by east718 (to be expanded)

Timeline of events

On November 18, Durova (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) blocked !! (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) as a "disruptive sockpuppet." According to her, because of "the sensitive nature of investigation", she would "not be discussing the reasons through normal channels". She then placed a statement to WP:ANI stating that she had done so, and it would not be advisable to discuss the block openly and directing people towards the arbitration committee for redress. The block received mixed support, and Durova stood firm, but unblocked !! 75 minutes later with the summary "false positive". She then apologized at ANI and requested suppression of the discussion, citing privacy concerns. Durova later revealed that she had circulated her evidence to "roughly two dozen trusted people" two weeks prior, and received no opposition. Durova claimed that she had so much faith in the strength of her evidence, that she could not forsee any disagreement. The text of the email was later posted by Giano II (talk · contribs), but has since been oversighted.

Durova has mistakenly blocked users in the past

• Songgarden (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) - blocked without evidence.
• NearestAvailableNewt (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) - unblocked 65 minutes after blocking as a "sleeper sock".
• Dieseltruckdude (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) - unblocked 63 minutes after blocking as a checkuser-confirmed sockpuppet of Eyrian.
• Mattsanchez (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) - unblocked more than 13 hours after blocking as a sockpuppet.
• WikiGnosis (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) - unblocked 15 hours after blocking as a sockpuppet of JB196.
• Yanxfan421324 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) - unblocked 77 minutes after blocking as a sockpuppet of JB196.
• Tankred (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) - unblocked 62 minutes after blocking as a sockpuppet of VinceB.
• LionheartX (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) - unblocked more than seven hours after blocking as an "admitted sockpuppet of indef blocked user".
• V-train (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) - unblocked seven minutes later.

Moreschi's comments

Checkuser

I have been told that checkuser was run, twice, by two different checkusers, on !! a couple of weeks before Durova blocked. Don't think this is widely known. If this was done, it was presumably done at Durova's instigation, and the results must surely have been negative. Given this, why did Durova go ahead and block anyway?

Having read Durova's statement below - grunt. Head not talking to body, it seems. Happens everywhere, WP being no exception. How much drama could have been avoided? Moreschi 19:40, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

Private mailing list

This is very, very real. The existence of this is very solid. The morality is far more dubious. Moreschi 19:10, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

Ok, fine, let's get this out of the way. What we've got here is a secret mailing list used by a few admins, one or two checkusers, and a couple of arbitrators (not to mention a steward/Foundation person). They're all frenetically discussing difficult blocks, confidential information, and private evidence in a rabid atmosphere of sockpuppet paranoia. Not healthy. Moreschi 20:37, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

Please note that I would not have so much of a problem with a private mailing list that everyone knew existed, rather like the IRC channel #wikipedia-en-admins - private, but everyone knows it exists. Moreoever, access to that channel is essentially guaranteed on passing RFA. This mailing list is secret (as opposed to private) and membership is completely self-selecting. The air of paranoia also leaves a bad taste in the mouth. Half the stuff just doesn't need to be kept quite so quiet, it's all a bit ridiculous. So MMORPG-esque. Really. Moreschi 20:41, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

Yes, I know what people do in their living rooms is there own business. That does not mean what they do there is healthy, nor does it mean we cannot pass moral judgment upon what they do. There's sufficient evidence to suggest that without the atmosphere that mailing list fostered, this block would never have happened. We should at least state that such secret fora are frowned upon, and that whenever possible, non-checkuser evidence claiming to prove sockpuppetry should be made public before being acted upon. There's no reason that Durova's initial evidence could have been posted on ANI, as there was no question of !!'s personal privacy being breached. The only risk was that Durova might be made to look foolish. That happened anyway, and this way we've lost a great contributor. Private discussions can be held accountable, after a fashion, and made subject to scrutiny. This doesn't hold true for secret mailing lists - very simple reason, no one knows they exist. Moreschi 21:25, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

Also, it's possible that two of the arbitrators working on this case had the opportunity to see Durova's evidence some time before it was acted upon, as members of this mailing list. Did they, in fact, read it? If so, I believe they should recuse. Moreschi 21:25, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

Two mailing lists

BTW, we've got two private mailing lists here - one relating specifically to investigations, and one relating to cyberstalking, both hosted by Wikia (AFAIK). Both are probably largely filled with the same people. To which one did Durova's email go? Investigations, surely? Then again, perhaps not. Enlighten? Moreschi 21:52, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

Cyberstalking it was, then. Now, I can comprehend a cyberstalking mailing list, I suppose. People do get stalked on enwiki - we all know about Daniel Brandt and SlimVigin + many others. Doesn't appear to have been used exclusively for its intended purpose, however. What I really don't understand is why we need an investigations one. This seems...excessive. Overkill. Perhaps the arbcom could suggest an addition to WP:NOT? "Misplaced Pages is not a detective game"? Urge discussion of claims of sockpuppetry to be made as public as possible? Really, I don't think we need controversial blocks, private evidence, all sorts - hidden away by a self-selecting crowd into corners.

Role of Cary Bass

And that's another thing that's been bugging me. He appears to have been quite closely involved in this whole private-investigations scene, yet he later went on to block Giano on privacy grounds (which seems strange) to get Durova's email off enwiki. Moreschi 22:09, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

Evidence presented by Durova

Checkuser

Moreschi states that two checkusers were performed on the !! account a couple of weeks before I blocked, and speculates that these were done at my request. I did circulate the report to some people who had checkuser, but none informed me about a test if they ran one. I promptly acknowledged full responsibility for that mistake, once I knew I had blocked in error. Durova 19:33, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

Userblocks under challenge:

The claims that I have abused the blocking tool do little more than demonstrate that I do proactive followup on my own blocks.

• Songgarden (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) - Properly blocked and still blocked. Obvious throwaway sock, as noted in the block note. My guess as to the sockmaster was a little off. Confirmed by FloNight as Once and Forever per checkuser.
• NearestAvailableNewt (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) -
• Dieseltruckdude (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) - Properly blocked per a checkuser by Lar. I unblocked because Lar's initial statement of the sockmaster account was unclear. So I confirmed that information and hit the button to reblock. My Internet connection must have had a glitch at that point because the reblock didn't register.
• Mattsanchez (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) - Properly blocked. This is an alternate account of Bluemarine. Bluemarine had made this edit. I blocked, linking to the edit and the policy. Then I added that I'd withdraw the block upon clarification or withdrawal. Afterward the same editor (who admits to being Matt Sanchez logged onto the Mattsanchez account and made 13 edits in evasion of the block (Nov. 1-2). So I blocked the Mattsanchez account per WP:SOCK and left a message. I responded to the editor's query and promptly unblocked both accounts when clarification was forthcoming.
• WikiGnosis (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) - Properly blocked I indeffed the account as a disruptive sock, then tried a good faith unblock. The account continued to be disruptive and three more administrators intervened in the next four days. Checkuser came back as likely for MyWikiBiz and the community agreed to ban.
• Yanxfan421324 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) A 77 minute block on an account that had been inactive for 5 days and had only 4 total edits in its history. I had received a request from SirFozzie to protect his user space from vandalism by sockpuppets of JB196. This account had left a strange post there. Lid noticed that the editing pattern was different from the other accounts I blocked in response to the request. So I agreed and unblocked.
• Tankred (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) I accidentally clicked on the wrong username when I was blocking a sockpuppet of a blocked editor. Tankred had posted to the same thread. I reversed this with apologies in 58 minutes and the editor thanked me for the swift correction.
• LionheartX (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) A tangled situation that had been wrong for two months when I found it and that I set right in two weeks. The editor used multiple accounts legitimately, but both of the others were already indeffed. One of the previous indefs had been done by mistake as a WP:SOCK violation and two unblock requests on that other account had been denied. Full analysis is here.
• V-train (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) Six months after the Tankred block I accidentally clicked on the wrong username while intending to block another user for edit warring. Fixed the error 7 minutes later and apologized.

Evidence presented by Amarkov

Durova agreed to recall

As stated on her page about adminship (User talk:Durova/Admin), Durova has agreed to stamd for reconfirmation under the terms outlined when she originally added herself to Category:Administrators open to recall, after an RfC on her has been opened. She added herself to the category on 28 October 2006 (), at which time the category page stated "These administrators are willing to stand for re-confirmation of adminship if six editors in good standing request it.", with good standing defined as "having over 500 mainspace edits and over one month of tenure." ()

An RfC has since been opened on Durova (Misplaced Pages:Requests for comment/Durova), and the conditions have been met.The outside view by Cla68, stating "Consider any endorsements to this statement to also be formal endorsements for a recall of her admin privileges unless the edorser states otherwise." Twenty-three users have endorsed this view, with only two stating that their endorsements did not extend to recall. She accepts that the RfC has been properly certified (), but has not yet consented to begin reconfirmation.

Secret mailing list

As evidenced in Durova's email (not sure it would be appropriate to link it here, I will do so if someone asks), there is a mailing list intended to be secret, whose purpose is to combat sockpuppets of banned users.

Evidence presented by ElC

Durova cultivates needless secrecy

This case is epitomized by needless secrecy, up to and including the use of the Foundation's privacy laws to hide key material (and including such a request remaining secret, to boot). The existence of this secrecy is unnecessary and distracting. Durova, thus far, declined to:

1. Address why none of the editors & admins in good standing who can be seen to be close to User:!! were consulted prior to the block.
2. The nature, makeup, and composition of the secret mailing list; she is responsible for actively seeking all of them to come together and agree to reveal: 'I was sent the email,' no reason for continuing to keep secret who these folks are. It isn't a crime to have been sent this email. It isn't as if they had the power to prevent it from being circulated. So why the secrecy? Transparency is to be encouraged.
3. The email itself. There's nothing personal in that semi-private, leaked email that would deem the application of privacy laws (and yet, these were applied, questionably). Just do the honourable thing and release the thing publicly, already. Enough is enough.

It all makes review more convoluted and melodramatic, facilitates suspicion, mistrust, acrimony, and a poisonous atmosphere, all for naught. El_C 20:33, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

Wait, it's that mailing list?(!) Because I'm a member! Granted, I keep forgetting to find a dedicated email address for it, and therefore thus far yet to participate (I thought they'd be a webpage or something; mailing lists are just so inbox-intensive), but at the event, I know who the members are. That email, then, was a misuse of that list, which was to be about real-life harassment, stalking, and other serious matters. El_C 22:44, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

I take full blame for everything that happened. Had I only remembered to find an email address for that list, I could have seen that email, told Durova who User:!! was, and prevent the whole from ever happening. That sucks! El_C 22:47, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

Evidence presented by Reinoutr

People who received the secret mailing

Durova has stated that she sent the "secret evidence" to "roughly two dozen trusted people" "in ways that some arbcom members saw it". . At least two people have acknowledged receiving the "secret evidence" prior to the blocking of User:!! (talk · contribs).

• Lar (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) :
• JzG (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) :
• Jimbo Wales (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) : (according to JzG)

P.S. If there are other diffs out there showing that other specific people received Durova's mailing, please feel free to add them to this section.

--Cpt. Morgan (Reinoutr) (talk) 20:45, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

Evidence presented by !!

• There has been much discussion on WP:ANI and a subpage (now archived), WP:AN, an RFC, and User talk:!! (since deleted) and Durova. Apart from a few posts in the latter two - some since deleted - and supporting the RFC, I have not participated; nor, most of the time, has Durova responded, even to questions posted on her own talk page.

• I e-mailed Durova to initiate a discussion about her actions. I am treating my discussions with Durova as confidential, but will disclose details to members of ArbCom privately on request, although there is not much to disclose: after making contact and some helpful initial discussion, I have now waited for over 4 days for a reply - a reply that I was told several times would be coming - and it is more than three says since we have exchanged words.

Timeline

The block

• I was indefinitely blocked by Durova at 16:45 on 18 November 2007, for "Abusing sock puppet accounts".
• I had no warning that this would happen - nothing on my talk page, no private e-mail or message. It was a complete surprise, and a total shock. I trust a review of my contributions will reveal the falsity of that allegation. But more concerning is the process - so far as I understand it - that led to the block.
• After blocking me, Durova posted a notice of the block on my talk page (currently deleted, so I can't post a diff). She did not disclose the basis for her block, save that I was an abusive sockpuppet, and referred all questions to ArbCom. She posted a similar message on WP:ANI.

• I am now going to take you through what happened in the next hour or so. Apologies if this reportage is boring, but it shows how many people questioned the block during that period, and also who supported it.

Calls to justify or review #1-4

• Just 9 minutes after Durova posted on WP:ANI, Newyorkbrad queried the basis for the block and asked for evidence. He could see "no disruptive edits of any nature and no warnings of any kind".
• Within a few more minutes, GlassCobra - "no transgressions of any kind on the part of this use" - and W.marsh - "can't be here purely to be disruptive" - similarly expressed concern, and Majorly condemned a "Grossly poor block".

Durova #2

• Durova again asked everyone to assume her good faith, said that she had "very good reasons", and that all queries must go to ArbCom.

Calls to justify or review #5-6

• EliminatorJR and Sam Blacketer joined the group questioning the block. By 17:12, less than half an hour after the block, six people had expressed concern, although no-one unblocked.

Refer to ArbCom #1-2, calls to justify or review #7

• Until(1 == 2) was the first to support Durova's repeated insistence that any concerns could only be considered by ArbCom. Geni quickly disagreed, but Mercury agreed, and suggested that everyone should assume Durova's good faith and send the block to ArbCom.

Durova #3

• Durova repeated her certainty that she was right. "I am very confident my research will stand up to scrutiny. ... More than half a dozen administrators have already seen this research."

Refer to ArbCom #3, calls to justify or review #8

• Tom harrison said Durova was being reasonable. Sam Blacketer objected that WP:AGF applied to !! as much as to Durova. Ryan Postlethwaite asked why the details were being kept secret, for privacy reasons, or just to keep Durova's methods secret.

Refer to ArbCom #4-5

• JzG said that Durova was "in direct contact with several arbitrators and CheckUsers at the moment", and "is not one to block lightly". Crum375 agreed with Tom Harrison and Mercury, pointing out that Misplaced Pages has a "sock infestation", and that complaining about the secrecy of the block was "counterproductive".

Calls to justify or review #8-14

• Bbatsell and Akhilleus wanted the evidence checked by a third party.
• Wizardman could see "no evidence of disruption" but did not know the underlying information, and just wanted the situation sorted out quickly..
• Newyorkbrad returned, asking an Arbitrator to review the situation immediately.
• Kwsn wanted to know who the sock's master was.
• The Rambling Man pointed to my "thousands of excellent contributions", and said he thought I had exercised a right to disappear from a previous account and had then returned.
• Videmus Omnia wanted to see diffs to demonstrate the disruption, or to identify a "bad hand" to go with this "good hand" account.

• Less than an hour and a quarter after the block, Physchim62 demanded some evidence but soon retracted the demand because...

Unblock

• 75 minutes after imposing an indefinite block, and despite her previous protestations as to the unimpeachability of her evidence, Durova unblocked. The unblocking summary simply said that the block was a "false positive". She also posted "with apologies" on WP:ANI." In the act of apologising on WP:ANI, she confirmed that this was not a first account - seemingly as a justification for the "false positive" - and also mentioned "the amount of time my report circulated and the people who had access to it". She also posted an apology on User talk:!! which has since been overlaid with blankings and deletions, but it read in full:

"When I make a mistake I like to be the first to step forward and correct myself. I was wrong here. Sorry for the inconvenience."

• I don't know precisely what happened to make Durova change her mind - I would guess that some editors (perhaps ones listed above) who were aware or guessed that I had edited under a different account previously disclosed this previous account to Durova (without my consent, but I can understand why they were moved to do so). By now, of course, the genie was out of the bottle - I had abandoned my account for legitimate personal reasons (which I will disclose to ArbCom privately on request) but that was now all in vain.

Aftermath

• The thread on WP:ANI was quickly removed and then "courtesy blanked", ostensibly for my benefit, although a link to the original discussion in the page history was quickly added, so anyone who wanted to could read it anyway.

• The debate triggered by this chain of events continued at WP:ANI, and was eventually transferred to its own (very long) subpage. It also spilled out into various other places, such as User talk:Durova and User talk:Giano II. Durova disclosed that

• a "report" had been "in circulation for two weeks among some very senior people",
• "some arbcom members saw it",
• and "roughly two dozen trusted people saw and no one objected".

• Separately, Durova claimed that the evidence leading to the block was supported "positive to enthusiastic" by "roughly five people, all sleuths like myself".

• As far as I am aware, Durova has not named these "senior editors". However, it seems clear that one was JzG, as he admitted "I saw the evidence, it was definitely suspicious". Lar has also come forward and stated that he was one of the editors consulted, expressing regret that he read the material "somewhat cursorily." Nonone else has seen fit to admit their complicity in Durova's investigation and block.

What was in that damning report?

What was Durova's "very good reasons" for her block? Giano II eventually posted it on the subpage, where it was deleted by JzG shortly afterwards. Giano II reposted it on his talk page, where it was repeatedly deleted. Giano was threatened and then blocked for re-posting it, and told by Jimmy Wales that he was trolling, and therefore unlikely to "last much longer at Misplaced Pages". Since this threat, the report is not available on Misplaced Pages. However, a large number of editors (including several members of ArbCom) will have received copies from its original mailing by Durova, and others will have received copies from her or from others afterwards.

As the posting of the full "evidence" circulated widely by Durova seems beset by issues of confidentiality and alleged claims of copyright, I will post a summary.

• !! was "a troublemaker whose username is two exclamation points with no letters", a "ripened sock" with a "padded history of redirects, minor edits, and some DYK work"

• These first four edits were evidence that this was not a first account:

• !! did wikignome work "far too early", in order to make positive contributions that would "insulate" against the "banhammer". !!'s crime was to create redirects and stubs. For example,

• !! was accused of "Obscene trolling" (in German!) in this edit:

• And !! was then condemned for being too much of a good Samaritan for moving Giano's talk page archives:

• Here is the "nasty side" of !!, on Bishonen's talk page:

• And a normal "problem editor" is supposed to get in trouble first with the WP:3RR first, but User:!! unusually indulged in some "free range sarcasm and troublemaking" instead:

• And finally, this was evidence of "gloating":

In summary, !! was clearly not a first account for a new and unexperienced editor, was too helpful to fellow editors and worked too hard on mundane tasks. The so-called "obscene trolling in German" relates to a new article created by Raul654 on a composition by Mozart. The "free range sarcasm and troublemaking" refers to some unhappiness unhappy with Jimbo Wales's deus ex machina desysop of Zscout370. The "gloating" arose in relation to a discussion on the Signpost talk page about interviews.

Now, I am aware that Durova has been active in rooting out sockpuppets of banned and blocked editors, and has been actively involved in a number of ArbCom cases. I would not attempt to evaluate the results of these endeavours - they are not matters that I have taken much interest in, as I have always tried to concentrate on creating new encyclopedic content and on projects to foster a productive community, such as WP:DYK, where I am well-known.

However, the level of assumptions of bad faith shown in that report is difficult for me to comprehend - how can such innocent activities can be seen in such a bad light? It leads me to seriously doubt Durova's judgment.

I am also aware that several other indefinite blocks imposed by Durova without warning have been overturned in short order - block log - User:NearestAvailableNewt is a case in point, I believe.

Evidence presented by Guy

Mailing list

The mailing list to which Durova sent the email is not secret, merely private. It is hosted by Wikia. Its purpose is not "to combat sockpuppets of banned users", its purpose is to discuss how to more effectively manage the issue of harassment on Misplaced Pages. It is clear to those of us in this group that the current methods used to combat harassment are ineffective, due to a number of factors including, for example, the practice by some editors of reflex reversion of any removal of a link to external harassment anywhere in Misplaced Pages, thus raising the profile to high levels immediately; and the inability of some to comprehend the seriousness of harassment to its victims.

The group includes a number of long-standing editors, mostly female, who have experienced harassment as a result of their on-wiki actions. It also includes some past and present members of the arbitration committee, some active administrators, CheckUsers and one or two others. I think most of us have OTRS access. It is private for the sole reason that much of what is discussed is essentially private - for example, some pseudonymous editors contribute under their real names, and have shared private information to help establish context. It's not some kind of super-secret cabal. The cabal is found, as it always was, on #wikipedia-en-cabal, but if I reveal this I will have to kill you.

I'm not quite sure how I ended up on that list, and I'll acknowledge that there is a bit of noise and a fair bit of hurt being shared there, but it is definitely not a covert replacement of "votes for banning".

It does, of course, involve a certain amount of discussion of the MO of some banned users who are serial ban evaders and have engaged in, supported or enabled harassment.

The arbitrators already know about the list and its makeup. It has been discussed, I believe, on the arbcom-l list well before this incident.

Another list

Another list does exist. It was set up to take some of the side-issue traffic out of the main list which had reached over 3,000 posts in about nine or ten weeks. This list is also private, but in its infancy.

Giano

Giano posted the contents of a private email of which Giano was not a recipient. I like to think that nay editor posting, without permission of the sender, the content of private emails, would be censured for it - see Misplaced Pages:Requests_for_arbitration/Hkelkar_2#Private_correspondence

Evidence presented by Krimpet

Private mailing lists hosted by Wikia

Wikia does appear to host several peripheral Misplaced Pages-related lists outside the jurisdiction of the Wikimedia Foundation on lists.wikia.com. Among them is WpCyberstalking, "a private unarchived mailing for the discussion of Misplaced Pages and cyberstalking," administrated by User:SlimVirgin - this appears to be the list JzG was referring to. CMoreschi asserts there is in fact two mailing lists, though I cannot locate any information on the other one he is referring to.

I think this opens up a huge privacy-related can of worms, unfortunately. Isn't Wikia supposed to be a separate entity from the WMF? Are they bound to the same privacy and access to nonpublic data policies? How do we know the sensitive data being released is being kept safe from prying eyes? I'm not even sure I feel safe on this project anymore. :/ --krimpet⟲ 22:28, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

Evidence presented by {your user name}

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

{Write your assertion here}

Place argument and diffs which support your assertion; for example, your first assertion might be "So-and-so engages in edit warring", which should be the title of this section. Here you would show specific edits to specific articles which show So-and-so engaging in edit warring.

{Write your assertion here}

Place argument and diffs which support the second assertion; for example, your second assertion might be "So-and-so makes personal attacks", which should be the title of this section. Here you would show specific edits where So-and-so made personal attacks.