Wikipedia talk:Requests for comment/Durova

message: Please, please, don't add sections like "this RfC is a disgrace!11!" for thirty people to vote (yes VOTE) in support of.  Equally don't add section like "Durova is satanic! ZOMG!!1" for fifteen people to vote on.  Instead, carefull construction of the chain of events, without emotive language, to allow everything to come together peacefully is much preferred.  Thank you. CygnetSaIad (talk) 03:18, 23 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  What not to do 

message: 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 CitrouillesTally-ho! 05:49, 23 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: 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  Talk  05:56, 23 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: 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 CitrouillesTally-ho! 06:20, 23 November 2007 (UTC)

text: That policy does not forbid all uses of alternate accounts. Videmus Omnia  Talk  16:36, 23 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  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)
replies: text: I do not know everyone above and on the multiple and multiple pages about Durova's actions but the above comments I have seen seem to be a major problem.  With the overwhelming problems of socks why on earth are legitimate editors, for whatever reason, allowed to have multiple account that do not at least connect to their main account?  Wouldn't something like this be a good idea?  Better yet, why not just make it one user=one account period?  I have watch the ANI board and the BLP board to help me learn things and I have to say, right now the major thing I feel I have learned of late is socks used by any editor is a problem that causes major controversialist behavior both good and bad, but lately mostly bad. What I am trying to say, hopefully clear enough to understand, is that shouldn't all socks be treated the same way?  I just want to say that if this was done then maybe a lot of what is going of late, and not just with Durova, would stop a lot of all of this. Of course this is just my opinion but I want to say that to me, I don't understand why anyone is allowed the use of socks.  It just seems silly.  Thanks for listening to me.  --CrohnieGalTalk 22:19, 24 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: There are many, many reasons a user might want to make an alternative account. If it is used legitimately, there's no reason to ban the use of it. Not only will in involve all the current disruptive sockpuppets, we'll have to start needlessly finding other legit accounts. Seems pointless to me, when there are better things to do. Also, it will be impossible to enforce. Majorly (talk) 22:34, 24 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Evidence of "bad blocks"

message: #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?
#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.  
#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.
#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. 
#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)
thread_title:  Issues 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: That's not at all an accurate characterisation of what Durova has stated, and I'm not sure that additional headers of any sort are needed. It is more accurate to state that, under HER process, there needs to be a normal RfC first, and then recall can commence. Remember, every recallable admin can set whatever process they like, as it's purely voluntary. My particular process is different, in fact it's rather the other way around, should a recall be certified against me, an RfC is a subsequent possible outcome, not a predecessor. But that's my perogative. Remember the community can completely disregard a particular admin's stated process and move to other kinds of dispute resolution. ++Lar: t/c 16:00, 24 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: 'fudging' at the start

message: I don't support this strangely undefinable page. It's designated "draft" at the top, yet, by name, it's in Wikipedia space. That makes no sense. You don't keep drafts in Wikipedia 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)
thread_title: Undefined page

message: (outdent)Please do assume good faith here as well. "Durova's Clerk" is not a particularly useful or accurate term, in my view. The RfC has been certified. I supported that, when it was clear that was what the community wanted. I have no standing to "rule" on anything and I never said I did. That's mischaracterising what Durova asked me to do which was to help make things go smoothly. Remember that when she first asked, this RfC was a nonstandard jumble, which Bishonen, IIRC, said should not go forward in Wikipedia space, and which many other people were also suggesting needed reorganising. That happened, mostly due to the efforts of others, not me, but if it hadn't I would have been making more suggestions than I did. 
My sole remaining concern is that we have a number of "evidentiary" things that are going to be subject to link rot, and for which we should be linking to diffs or history instead of named pages. For example, in Wikipedia:Requests_for_comment/Durova#Evidence of trying and failing to resolve the dispute, point 1 links to  Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents/Indefinite block of an established editor. That's *already* a bad link!!! Fortunately someone has set up a redirect to Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive330 for it, but I'd suggest that a better link might be to a relevant history entry (such as, perhaps   ... which one exactly I am not sure), because redirects get deleted from time to time. Ditto for points 2, 3 and 4  User talk:Durova/Archive 38#Recall,  User talk:Durova#Recall, and User_talk:Durova/Archive_38#!! ought to link to history entries as pages get archived. I suggest,  and  as capturing all of the discussion but I'm not sure, it's not my evidence. 
This sort of analysis of what exactly the right version to preserve for the benefit of future readers (who might come here a year from now or whatever) is what I've been asking for all along, nothing more. I find it a bit dismaying that people say things like "process wonkery" or that I show a bias here because I ask for things to be easy for future readers to find. That's really a mischaracterisation of what I've been trying to do. I would ask that someone that has standing in raising the complaint review my suggested history links, decide whether they are suitable, and modify the points accordingly... (point 5 seems fine to me already) There may be some benefit to carrying out a similar review of the links given in Wikipedia:Requests_for_comment/Durova#Users_certifying_the_basis_for_this_dispute I hope that helps clarify matters. For the record I don't think that (should this RfC carry on in parallel with the ArbCom case, something that is not clear to me) Durova will be claiming it was malformed at this point and declining recall on that basis. If she declines recall I would expect that it would be because it was superceded by the ArbCom case itself. But I do not speak for her, and I never have. ++Lar: t/c 15:17, 25 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Suggested fixes

message: Do we need them, like in a 'normal' RfC, and if so "at least two people need to show that they tried to resolve a dispute with this sysop and have failed. This must involve the same dispute, not different disputes. "
do we have this bit/people yet?  I can't as I've not been actively involved.Merkinsmum (talk) 22:11, 23 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes. This is a normal RfC. Any admin can close it if it hasn't had the proper certifications within two days. I am going to abstain from any comments, supports, outside views, etc, except to make processy sorts of statements, as I have already done. If at the end of two days, evidence of attempts to resolve the dispute haven't been given per normal requirements, I'll be closing this RfC myself... On the other hand, if it does get certified (and I expect it will), it needs to run to the normal conclusion of an RfC before the recall process, if any, starts. That's my interpretation of Durova's chosen process (based in part on her mails to me asking me to clerk). If that process isn't followed, it is my interpretation of Durova's chosen process that she will not consider a recall request valid, and will not heed such a request, and the community will need to resolve this matter outside of the (completely voluntary, remember) recall process. Of course I am subject to correction in this (by Durova) if I've misinterpreted this. ++Lar: t/c 22:22, 23 November 2007 (UTC)

text: It's a kind of odd situation in that this is a request for the admin's recall, as opposed to a dispute per se. I think it's fair to say at least two people have requested the recall (and she has not responded to those requests made elsewhere), also the RfC format was specified by Durova as a condition for that recall. Videmus Omnia  Talk  22:16, 23 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: No, it is not. It is a normal RfC. See above. A recall, if any, comes later. ++Lar: t/c 22:22, 23 November 2007 (UTC)

text: I agree. I think the formal requirements are not specifically necessary as Durova has listed this venue as a requisite for her voluntary recall. If she is sincere in that offer, given the large number of voices who have raised a concern, she will not require strict formality here.. if she is insincere or looking for a way to back out of her offer, then of course we would need to get all legalistic and formal. Lsi john (talk) 22:21, 23 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: That is incorrect in my view. ++Lar: t/c 22:22, 23 November 2007 (UTC)

text:  Indeed. Let the RfC run its course and then proceed to next step if needed. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 22:25, 23 November 2007 (UTC)

text: It could depend on your definition of 'dispute'. My dispute with Durova involves her frequent public allegations and actions against numerous people, including myself. It also involves her failure to acknowledge her mistakes. It involves her inability to directly answer questions related to her mistakes and wrongful actions and accusations. My dispute with her involves her inability to accept responsibility for 'loose and casual' reading of things, and then harshly acting based on a mis-reading and mis-interpretation. To that end, my dispute with her involves the current situation as well as past actions. Lsi john (talk) 22:17, 23 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  This is not a venue to resolve your dispute with an editor. This is an RfC on Durova, to which you can add your statement and let others endorse or not. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 22:20, 23 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Indeed, which I have done. ;) Lsi john (talk) 22:22, 23 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  Then leave it at that, and let the community comment. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 22:24, 23 November 2007 (UTC)

text:  And please avoid making pile-in statements in your endorse !vote. You can have your say in your section. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 22:31, 23 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I think we could try and make it a normal RfC, i.e. include other possible options like a temporary block or suspension, rather than permanent recall.  But we need nominees who've discussed the same dispute with Durova, rather than general disapproval, for that.Merkinsmum (talk) 23:54, 23 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It is my read of Durova's wishes, subject to correction by Durova if I got them wrong, that this very much needs to be a normal RfC, with a normal consensus driven outcome, rather than a recall petition formatted as an RfC. The recall, if any, would come later. ++Lar: t/c 03:33, 24 November 2007 (UTC)

text: I can assure you right away that no-one is going to get blocked for this. Ryan Postlethwaite 23:56, 23 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: You decide that then, irrespective of consensus and so on?  There seems to be a lot of that about.:)  What I meant is a temporary block or desysopping, surely that's more lenient than being desysopped permanently, although there are a fair few people calling for that.Merkinsmum (talk) 02:40, 24 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: We don't give blocks out as punishment, they should be protective to the encyclopedia. A block in this case would merely serve as a smack in the face for Durova and would not be protective in the slightest. Irrespective of consensus, it's completely against the blocking policy. Ryan Postlethwaite 03:06, 24 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: So was the block of !! Majorly (talk) 22:27, 24 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Nominees or whatever they're called

message: ... see Wikipedia:Confidential evidence ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 22:59, 23 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  For something constructive.... 

message: I just read this entire thing, to try to catch up (the related pages too). Durova on her /admin page said that if 5 editors ask for her to recall, she would then have to be reconfirmed at RFA again. Has that changed? If so, has Durova requested new conditions on it? If not her, who? What is the actual process now? I think thats the last confusing bit about all this as she has kept understandably mum. • Lawrence Cohen 23:57, 23 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Each and every admin who willingly participates in the recall process, which is completely voluntary, and is intended to supplant, not supercede, other dispute resolution mechanisms, is welcome to set up whatever terms/conditions/processes they like. (for example mine are at user:Lar/Accountability and are subject to change at any time) The check on this is that since this is a supplantive process, you always have the opportunity to go straight to arbcom or whatever. But if you want Durova to stand by her word to be recallable, you have to conform to her process. Her process as she outlined it to me when she asked me to clerk (and this is subject to correction by her if I misunderstood anything) is first do a standard RfC, and get to a consensus of the community about what should be done. It is entirely possible that, at that point, the community will have reached a consensus and the matter is settled. But at the end of the process, if the community (of editors in good standing by her definition) has at least the prerequisite number of members who feel a recall is warranted, at that point she will initiate the recall process. I hope that helps clarify matters but what it boils down to is this: First do a standard RfC, please. This RfC is gradually mutating into a standard one, with some nudges by me and others, and some good faith efforts by the participants to help move it in that direction... so thanks for that.Again, if anyone feels any recallable admin is playing fast and loose with the rules for how they can be recalled, use another process instead.  Hope that helps.  ++Lar: t/c 03:26, 24 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Confusing - what is the recall process? 

message: Hello - the start of this RFC is set as 19:08, November 22, 2007 at the top of the corresponding RFC page.  Here is the post that added the starting time: .  How was that time arrived at?  Was the page created before the initial post at 03:08, 23 November 2007?  Has it been possible to post to the RFC since 19:08, November 22, 2007? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Uncle uncle uncle (talk • contribs) 04:47, 24 November 2007
:You are confused by the fact that the RfC template uses UTC (Coordinated Universal Time), while the edit history shows edit times in your configured time zone. There is no conflict, both time stamps correspond to the same point in time. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 12:48, 24 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: In my view, the exact time of the start of the RfC only matters if there is reason to believe that the certification of the basis of the dispute isn't going to happen within the allotted time. I personally would not set the start time until after the last time that the RfC was deleted/moved/redirected/etc, and until after it was in a normal form (not a "draft") because as Uncle*3 seems to be implying, it needs to be actually postable by participants, and formatted in a usable format, to be a valid start time. ++Lar: t/c 13:25, 24 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Ahoy, it was the time zone difference.  Thanks. Uncle uncle uncle (talk) 16:02, 24 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: When did the RFC start?

message: Here are some Durova quotes which interested me, presented without comment. Haukur (talk) 12:49, 24 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Sherlock Holmes 

message: This RFC is MOSTLY about transparency -vs- secrecy.  There are some unanswered questions that I think the community has the need (and the right) to know.
1.  What was the "secret evidence" that was emailed?  
:This is relevant to considering Durova's behavior.  If the evidence was generally sound, it's less of a big deal.  If the evidence was completely tenuous, it's a reason to question her judgment.  The community has a right and a need to know which it is.  The Enemies of the Project already have a copy, so there's no harm in letting the rest of us see it to-- either post it here, or people will wind up going to look for it at the BADSITES, and nobody wants that.
2.  Precisely who was the secret evidence emailed to?
:A full list of the names that the evidence was emailed to should be furnished.  If Durova picked a representative sample of unbiased, respected admins, then that speaks to her credit.  If she picked a select group which seemed predisposed to have an opinion, that suggests her judgment might be poor.  The community needs to know which it is.
3.  Person by person, what were the responses that Durova received back?
:If everyone emailed back endorsing the block, Durova had good reason to suspect her logic was correct.  If everyone emailed back opposing the block but Durova ignored them, that points to poor judgment.  The community needs to know what the feedback was.
:Relatedly, if anyone noticed the evidence was erroneous, they should be commended.  If anyone endorsed the block, failing to see that the evidence was in error, we should know it, so that the community can devote a little more scrutiny to their judgment in the future, to prevent this sort of thing happening again.
These should be non-controversial requests for information. I trust answers will be forthcoming. Let me reiterate-- I see this more as what NASA does after a shuttle explodes--  not trying to question motives or assign blame, so much as seeing where the system broke down, and how it can be fixed. --Alecmconroy (talk) 13:07, 24 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: (An aside- Hi Alec, just to say that that's not necessarily wholly what it's about, personally I just don't like someone acting as if they are above the rules, above using the huge amount of facilities we have for dispute resolution.  Not just this block, but over several blocks. What went on behind the scenes isn't so important to me as how the other editor was treated.  Although of course it was also a huge lack of assumption of good faith and a perceived belief that there are some editors who don't deserve civility, even if they aren't vandals or anything.  I also wonder why Durova chose !! to pick on, was it just his name?  If he were a sophisticated sleeper troll, he would have chosen a more insipid name.  Anyway, everyone please answer Alec's questions.)   —Preceding unsigned comment added by Merkinsmum (talk • contribs) 14:01, 24 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: *Names? I know who some of those who received the "evidence" were, am I allowed to say? or will I be blocked again. Giano (talk) 14:18, 24 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It'd be better for Durova to do that, honestly, insofar as it will help us assess her stance on the whole opacity-vs-transparency.  --Alecmconroy (talk) 14:30, 24 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Unanswered questions

message: FYI, a related ArbCom case request has been opened . Cla68 (talk) 13:34, 24 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Several people, including myself, have mentioned this RfC. Some have suggested it should run its course first. Some, including myself, have asked for clarity as to whether the RfAr will supercede this or what. Knowing the ArbCom's pleasure would be helpful. I think finishing certification is nevertheless a useful exercise even if it ultimately is moot, material gathered may be of use elsewhere. ++Lar: t/c 15:05, 24 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Please, you're the only one who thinks that this RfC isn't certified. It's clearly a valid RfC. Can we get off of this now?⇒SWATJester Son of the Defender 06:01, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

text: Certification was designed to ensure that RfCs brought for spurious reasons could promptly be removed, without accusations of not following the process. Treating it as a roadblock in the way of perfectly valid concerns is silly. -Amarkov moo! 06:18, 25 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Absolutely agree. Who's doing that? Suggesting that linkrot is bad isn't quite the same thing as throwing up roadblocks, in my view. ++Lar: t/c 16:06, 25 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: ArbCom request

message: quoting from main page
:It is reasonable to consider a policy on use of secret evidence.  Some questions to answer include: Is gathering it allowed?  How?  When may it be used, if ever, and subject to what limitations?  By whom?  Whether we adopt such a policy or not the place to talk about that is on the village pump or policy proposal page, not an RfC on a particular administrator's conduct.  
:Wikidemo (talk) 13:24, 24 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I think there are policy pages saying some secret evidence is ok.  (You'd have to ask a fan of it to point you to them.)  The probably with this particular intelligence gathering was that it was, erm, not very good.  I think it would be pretty impossible to spot a sleeper troll, and since they do good work in the meantime, it's not really worth trying, given the level of fear/paranoia it would engender among any editors who heard of it, who wouldn't know if they were going to be the next ones to be falsely banned at random.Merkinsmum (talk) 14:13, 24 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Google is my friend- Wikipedia:Confidential_evidence and WP:SECRET.  Of course these policies can change at any time!:)Merkinsmum (talk) 14:17, 24 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Sorry those say they are proposed policy, not policy, and the pages seem to have been started on 20th November, probably in response to that incident.:)Merkinsmum (talk) 14:28, 24 November 2007 (UTC)

text: IMHO, Secret Evidence, if it is to be used at all, should be used against someone who has broken rules in a public way - for instance, if they're going to be banned for 48 hours, extending it to a week or something based on secret evidence that they're preparing to do other things. If you're a productive member of the community, is being a sockpuppet seriously worth banning? It seems to be similar to some state's laws about underaged drinking - if you give your kid a sip of wine at home, nobody'll bust down your door, but if you get pulled over for drunk driving with a 12 year old in the car drunk next to you, you're going to get a MUCH heftier fine. Kuronue | Talk 17:27, 24 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Secret evidence reply

message: My personal experience with Durova was positive so far. She was helpful, insightful and resolved even disputes I was involved in by providing tips about which project or noticeboard to alert to get involved in a problem resolution that will or should be acceptable by everybody. However, found several disputes where people that were involved complaint about Durova. The complaints were sometimes justified, sometimes questionable and sometime flat out bs. I also realized that she has a lot of very committed people how flat out hate her for one reason or another. There are long pages about her all over the Internet. I read a bunch of them and a pattern reoccured time and again.
Durova is overly protective sometimes when it comes to Wikipedia. Her commitment to Wikipedia is a very serious one and is also important in her real-life. You could say that WP:COI applies to her when it comes to Wikipedia itself (figure of speech used for comparison). This means that her motivation and drive is a good thing, but can have the opposite effect than indented if unleashed without control. 
The "weapons" provided to her and to any other Wikipedia admin actually, are to powerful to allow their uncontrolled use. I don't believe that the occasional hasty use of those "weapons" is guided by malicious intent on her part. I am not so sure about this, when it comes to some other admins on Wikipedia. 
Cops have guns and the right to use them, if necessary. Cops also have to go through a clear defined process, if they have to use it to kill. Furthermore are cops almost in every case working in groups or at least with one additional partner. That partner is not only there for backup from a firepower perspective, but also as a second opinion to reduce the risk of misjudgement by a single person. 
Things like permanent bans of an account should always include the need of a second opinion = second admin to get involved, who also needs to agree on the ban. Choice of second admin should not an option available, to prevent clique building of like-minded admins. There are several ways how to make sure that this backup and 2nd opinion process is not being skewed, such as a rotation system that generates partners for a limited time for every admin per random drawing. That second admin will get a reasonable amount of time to review and conclude after he got notified by the admin who wants to perform the ban. After a specified time passes without the second admin responding, a backup admin should take over who is also to be selected during the random drawings. 
Let it take a week for this process to go through. If a block is urgent like self defense or crime in process in real life, an admin should be able and allowed to act on it immediately of course. However, such a block would be flagged as "temporary" and "requires acknowledgement by second admin" or something like that. It means that the other admin still has to provide his approval or disapproval after the fact happened. 
If there is no immediate reason for blocking somebody right at that moment and a delay for getting the second admin involved would not make a difference, don't block the user, but put a warning up on the user talk page that the admin wants to ban this account and that the second admin was contacted to give his approval. This alone might solve the problem right there already and the to be blocked user will change his attitude, because he knows that it is getting serious now and that the talk is over.  
Those approvals and disapproval's should go on each admins "record". An admin who builds a track with many "immediate blocking" that than get rejected by the second admin  needs to get reviewed and maybe removed from the position as admin or go through another admin coaching or something like that. 
This would still give admins the power to act when necessary, but does not provide them with a Carte Blanche to do whatever they like until somebody complains openly. At that time is evidence might be vague already or not existing anymore. An objective look at the situation might became impossible by that time as well. My proposed process ensures that a review happens right or close to the time when the incident occurred. 
This is my take on this. --roy<sac> Talk! .oOo. 20:15, 24 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: If it's simply a case of vandalism or something there's always time to give warnings before a block.  If the editor has done absolutely nothing to deserve it except be the unfortunate target of someone's paranoia, obviously that's wrong.  Obviously if someone is being really destructive that's a different matter, but blocking on suspicion alone, with no real evidence, can never be ok.  Oh and if an admin disagrees with another admin, (who is part of the clique that's always backed up by Slim, Jimbo etc) it might feel like they could be in trouble themselves given the prevailing climate, and be accused of wheel warring. There are a lot of editors/admins thhat will always agree with those above them, as it is (and I can understand that temptation.)Merkinsmum (talk) 20:56, 24 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I am actually aware of the "clique" problem. That's why did I propose the random drawing system to prevent that rogue admins just act in packs and back each other up. The system should reduce issues and debates as this one. I have friends on both sides of the fence regarding Durova and will not become part of that discussion, but I noticed a general issue because of it and just wanted to help to improve on it. I threw it out there to think about. Not more and not less :). Cheers! --roy<sac> Talk! .oOo. 22:44, 26 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  General Flaw in the System and Suggestion for a Solution 

message: If by "cabal" it is meant an exclusive group that makes decisions privately despite not publicly proclaiming power, of course there is. Otherwise Durova lied when she said that she circulated the evidence among an exclusive group of people, or I'm completely out of the loop and there was a Sooper Sekrit EvidenceTM team publicly declared. Even if for some reason you deny this, stating "there is no cabal" as if it's impossible to deny makes no sense. -Amarkov moo! 06:35, 25 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  "There is no cabal" 

message: If any editor issues a DMCA/copyright notice to Wikipedia, is that a violation of WP:NLT? • Lawrence Cohen 16:44, 25 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Not necessarily. I've run into this situation before with images, when a photographer (who also happens to be a Wikipedian) has some of their work posted here by someone else without their consent. It would be different if Durova had posted it on Wikipedia herself, then tried to withdraw the GFDL license. That's not the case here. Videmus Omnia  Talk  17:01, 25 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: (edit conflict) Probably if they weren't part of the in-crowd.:)  Mind you Durova does have a point that she didn't write that email intending it to be issued under the GFDL, or to be on wikipedia, only to go on the mailing list/email involved.  Mind you I think it can be seen as fair use to an extent.17:06, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

text: It probably is a violation of NLT even if it's a valid legal threat.  The point to the NLT policy is not to say that Wikipedia is above the law, but merely that making threats is inappropriate, and especially inappropriate when trying to get one's way.  The most typical case is the, "I'll sue you!  You reverted my edits" sort of nonsense, but the same would be true, at a much higher level, of "Don't say what I said."  In mine, above, I tried to reason out a bit of whether there was something actually illegal about the posting.  It certainly wasn't entirely kosher, but the "evidence" probably didn't have much of an expectation of privacy, since it had already gone to a "list" of recipients.  Think, though, of actual surface mail.  If you receive a letter from someone telling you that he was planning on punching someone else in the nose, would he be able to sue you for showing that letter to the police (or the person who owned the threatened nose)?  Once the mail is received, it is no longer protected the way it would have been if it had remained on the user's computer.  At any rate, making the threat in order to make the embarrassing "evidence" go away is not good behavior and probably does violate NLT.  I don't think that she should suffer consequences for the threat, but I do think it foolish in the extreme to honor the threat.  Geogre (talk) 21:18, 25 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: [[WP:NLT]]?

message: I just reverted the closure of the RfC that was done bye  . I will not revert again, but this closure is patent nonsense and only refutes the communities right to speak on this part. Durova HERSELF stated RfC as part of the recall procedure. --Cpt. Morgan (Reinoutr) (talk) 21:09, 25 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Good revert, this needs to stay open until the recall component of the RFC is resolved. She can indicate that the recall can go ahead or that she will not honor the recall commitment she made but until then keep it open...but either way she'd have to say that this RFC did or did not meet her requirements. I don't mean to make it a hostage to the recall but the process is what she defined. RxS (talk) 21:27, 25 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Recent closure of this RfC 

message: I've asked Durova directly about this on her election page, since that is where she said it. That is very scary. Is this typically done? • Lawrence Cohen 21:18, 25 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Joke or not, it has nothing to do with the discussion at hand. This is not a lets-find-anything-we-don't-like-about-Durova-RfC. -- Ned Scott 05:33, 26 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Actually, question 73 is *directly* about the issue that got her into this mess, it isn't just a random 'oh, let's find anything' thing; I was reading it because I was trying to find out what her justification was and how she was improving to fit better with an open encyclopedia, and I found she was evasive and she made a comment that, with everything else that had already started, really worried me. This was not random nitpicky stuff; this was her directly addressing this issue in a way that made me decide she needs to stand for recall. This did indeed have something to do directly with the discussion at hand, and I was actually rather hoping I'd find a response that made me say she's developing more open, verifiable methods. I'm simply not seeing it, and instead, I saw that comment, and while she might not be all 'inner circle', I bet it's true that she does have an unidentifiable sockpuppet over there intentionally to try and link WR contributors to their WP account and then pay them some special attention. --Thespian (talk) 08:10, 26 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: ... yeah, right, Durova who has been pretty damn protective of just about everything regarding her tactics is actually going to TELL US that she has a spy (a sockpuppet can only exist if she's there twice, by the way) on Wikipedia Review. -- Ned Scott 08:32, 26 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Thank you for taking my concerns seriously and avoiding sarcasm. --Thespian (talk) 08:37, 26 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm sorry, I understand your concern, but regarding that comment specifically, I don't understand the point of making a big deal out of it. -- Ned Scott 08:40, 26 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Infiltrating outside groups and communities as a "spy" 

message: Now that this RfC is more than 48 hours old, and therefore certified, I've started the formal recall thread on Durova's talk page.  It's here . Cla68 (talk) 21:30, 25 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Formal recall started

message: For those interested, Durova has now unveiled her new and improved gameplan here. The answer to my own question is: "3-card Monte". sNkrSnee | t.p. 01:01, 26 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  I found the goalpost