Bureaucrats, Check users, Interface administrators, Administrators (Semantic MediaWiki), Administrators, vuser
9,362
edits
Changes
MyWikiBiz, Author Your Legacy — Monday December 23, 2024
Jump to navigationJump to searchDirectory:Wikipedia ArbCom mailing list leak 2011 (view source)
Revision as of 02:32, 24 June 2011
, 02:32, 24 June 2011→SlimVirgin and Cirt
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/arbcom-l
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/arbcom-l
== SlimVirgin and Cirt ==
== Frank weighs in ==
From: Frank Bednarz <frank.bednarz@gmail.com>
From: Frank Bednarz <frank.bednarz@gmail.com>
>>
>>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> ______________
== SlimVirgin vs. Cirt ==
Subject: Concerns
------------------------
From: Sarah <slimvirgin@gmail.com>
Date: Mon, Jun 6, 2011 at 00:40
To: Cirt <cirt.wik@gmail.com>
Cirt, I have a concern I would like to raise with you by email. But I
would prefer that a third party be involved in that discussion. Is
there someone you can recommend that we could include in that
discussion, perhaps someone on the ArbCom or functionaries list, that
you could trust in terms of confidentiality?
Sarah
----------
From: cirt tric <cirt.wik@gmail.com>
Date: Mon, Jun 6, 2011 at 00:47
To: Sarah <slimvirgin@gmail.com>, cirt tric <cirt.wik@gmail.com>
Cc: Shell Kinney <shell.kinney@gmail.com>
Sarah,
Yes, the third party that I would like to be involved in the
discussion is Shell Kinney.
I have cc'd her on this email.
Yours,
Cirt
--
Cirt
Cirt.wik@gmail.com
<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Cirt >
----------
From: Sarah <slimvirgin@gmail.com>
Date: Mon, Jun 6, 2011 at 00:57
To: cirt tric <cirt.wik@gmail.com>
Cc: Shell Kinney <shell.kinney@gmail.com>
Hi Shell and Cirt,
First, I would like to check that Shell is willing to be a party to
this discussion.
Shell, the situation is that I believe Cirt has a COI in his editing,
one that needs to be sorted out. I would like to discuss it with him
in confidence, rather than on-wiki, to avoid unnecessary drama. But I
would also like a member of the Arbitration Committee, or a senior
functionary to be party to the discussion to avoid misunderstandings.
I asked Cirt to suggest someone, and he suggested you. Are you
willing?
Sarah
----------
From: cirt tric <cirt.wik@gmail.com>
Date: Mon, Jun 6, 2011 at 01:27
To: Sarah <slimvirgin@gmail.com>, cirt tric <cirt.wik@gmail.com>
Cc: Shell Kinney <shell.kinney@gmail.com>, Alison Cassidy <cooties@mac.com>
Sarah and Shell Kinney,
I would also like to have Alison as an additional third-party to this
conversation. Alison is a member of the functionaries list, as a
Checkuser and Oversighter on the English Wikipedia.
I have cc'd Alison to this email.
Thank you for your time.
Yours,
Cirt
--
----------
From: Sarah <slimvirgin@gmail.com>
Date: Mon, Jun 6, 2011 at 01:37
To: cirt tric <cirt.wik@gmail.com>
Cc: Shell Kinney <shell.kinney@gmail.com>
Cirt, I asked you to suggest the name of one third party, and you
added a name without my consent. Not that I mind, but you should have
asked first.
Now you have added a second name without my consent, and without
Shell's consent. And there's no indication that you won't continue to
add names.
I'm therefore withdrawing my suggestion of a private discussion
between three of us, because I can see it isn't going to work. I was
trying to do you a favour by discussing it privately, but you seem to
have a problem seeing that.
It seems clear that there is a significant COI problem that will have
to be addressed at some point, but I think now the best thing is to
discuss it privately with the ArbCom as a whole, or wait to see
whether someone else raises it again onwiki.
Sarah
----------
From: cirt tric <cirt.wik@gmail.com>
Date: Mon, Jun 6, 2011 at 01:39
To: Sarah <slimvirgin@gmail.com>
Cc: Shell Kinney <shell.kinney@gmail.com>
Sarah,
I would be willing to discuss the matter with the three of us, and add
no other parties.
Cirt, SlimVirgin, and Shell Kinney, as originally agreed to by you.
I will add no other parties.
Is that acceptable?
Yours,
Cirt
--
----------
From: Alison Cassidy <cooties@mac.com>
Date: Mon, Jun 6, 2011 at 01:47
To: cirt tric <cirt.wik@gmail.com>
Cc: Sarah <slimvirgin@gmail.com>, Shell Kinney <shell.kinney@gmail.com>
Hi all,
I have received this email and agree to be a party to this (tho' I'm seriously busy in RL right now )
Regards,
-- Allie (in work on a Sunday night)
----------
From: cirt tric <cirt.wik@gmail.com>
Date: Mon, Jun 6, 2011 at 01:48
To: Alison Cassidy <cooties@mac.com>, cirt tric <cirt.wik@gmail.com>
Cc: Sarah <slimvirgin@gmail.com>, Shell Kinney <shell.kinney@gmail.com>
Alison,
Sorry but if it is alright I think it will just be a private
discussion between myself, SlimVirgin, and Shell Kinney.
But I thank you for your time.
Yours,
Cirt
--
----------
From: Sarah <slimvirgin@gmail.com>
Date: Mon, Jun 6, 2011 at 01:58
To: cirt tric <cirt.wik@gmail.com>
Cc: Alison Cassidy <cooties@mac.com>, Shell Kinney <shell.kinney@gmail.com>
Sorry, Alison, as Cirt knows, I've told him and Shell it would in fact
be better discussed with the ArbCom as a whole. It was a mistake on my
part to suggest a discussion between just three of us.
Sarah
----------
From: Alison Cassidy <cooties@mac.com>
Date: Mon, Jun 6, 2011 at 02:01
To: Sarah <slimvirgin@gmail.com>
Cc: cirt tric <cirt.wik@gmail.com>, Shell Kinney <shell.kinney@gmail.com>
Oh, okay. Well, if you guys need anything - you know where I am
Regards,
-- Allie
----------
From: cirt tric <cirt.wik@gmail.com>
Date: Mon, Jun 6, 2011 at 07:49
To: Sarah <slimvirgin@gmail.com>
Cc: Shell Kinney <shell.kinney@gmail.com>
Sarah,
I will not add any other parties to the discussion, it can just be
myself, you, and Shell Kinney.
Is this agreeable to you?
Yours,
Cirt
--
----------
From: Sarah <slimvirgin@gmail.com>
Date: Mon, Jun 6, 2011 at 08:12
To: cirt tric <cirt.wik@gmail.com>
Cc: Shell Kinney <shell.kinney@gmail.com>
Can you explain why you seem to be promoting Dan Savage, Corbin Fisher, etc?
Seven DYKs about Savage in the course of a week -- two of which made
it onto the main page on the same day, with a third in the queue -- is
over the top by any standard. So it has brought the issue to a head
somewhat.
Sarah
----------
From: cirt tric <cirt.wik@gmail.com>
Date: Mon, Jun 6, 2011 at 08:18
To: Sarah <slimvirgin@gmail.com>
Cc: Shell Kinney <shell.kinney@gmail.com>
Sarah,
I have a family member in serious surgery today, and another close
family member going into serious surgery later this week.
Would it be possible for you to extend me a bit of good faith in light
of the stress I have been under lately, and especially with regard to
all of the good faith efforts I have made towards you in response to
your comments addressed to me on Wikipedia?
--
----------
From: Sarah <slimvirgin@gmail.com>
Date: Mon, Jun 6, 2011 at 08:24
To: cirt tric <cirt.wik@gmail.com>
Cc: Shell Kinney <shell.kinney@gmail.com>
Yes, of course, there's no rush for a response. I hope your family's
health issues work out okay.
Sarah
----------
From: cirt tric <cirt.wik@gmail.com>
Date: Mon, Jun 6, 2011 at 08:37
To: Sarah <slimvirgin@gmail.com>
Cc: Shell Kinney <shell.kinney@gmail.com>
Sarah,
I thank you for your empathy in this matter with my two family members.
I really appreciate that.
A lot.
Yours,
Cirt
--
----------
From: cirt tric <cirt.wik@gmail.com>
Date: Wed, Jun 8, 2011 at 23:00
To: Sarah <slimvirgin@gmail.com>, cirt tric <cirt.wik@gmail.com>
Cc: Shell Kinney <shell.kinney@gmail.com>
Sarah,
Shell has not responded in a few days.
Would it be alright if we tried out Checkuser/Oversighter Alison as a
third party instead?
Yours,
Cirt
--
----------
From: Michelle Kinney <shell.kinney@gmail.com>
Date: Sun, Jun 12, 2011 at 15:35
To: cirt tric <cirt.wik@gmail.com>
Cc: Sarah <slimvirgin@gmail.com>
Hey folks,
I apologize but you caught me during my vacation. I'm home now and
I'd be happy to help out if I can.
I want to make sure I understand the concerns, which are:
Cirt has created a number of articles lately focused on Dan Savage.
These articles were submitted for DYKs and several were accepted in a
short period of time.
Questions:
1) Are there any additional concerns by either of you that I haven't
picked up on?
2) How does Corbin Fisher fit in to this? The connection wasn't
immediately obvious between the two men.
3) Are any of the articles promotional in nature or in what other ways
are they contradicting the COI policy or causing COI concerns? Do we
have a list of which articles are affected?
4) Specifically for Cirt: Do you often create several articles on a
topic in quick succession or is this unusual? If you do this
regularly, could you point me at some previous examples?
5) What would everyone like to see as the outcome of this discussion?
Also, if there was any discussion of this on Wikipedia before it was
taken to email, could someone please point me in the general
direction?
If I've missed anything or if this issue is no longer a concern,
please let me know.
Regards,
Shell Kinney
----------
From: Sarah <slimvirgin@gmail.com>
Date: Sun, Jun 12, 2011 at 16:04
To: Michelle Kinney <shell.kinney@gmail.com>
Cc: cirt tric <cirt.wik@gmail.com>
Hi Michelle,
Thanks for the reply.
I was intending to ask Cirt whether he had any relationship with Dan
Savage or the Corbin Fisher company, or with people who might be
involved with them. The problem is that Cirt's interests seem to go
beyond what might be expected of a Wikipedian, and look as though they
have crossed the line into promotion (though I'm not trying to guess
at motive and I'm assuming good faith).
Corbin Fisher (a porn website) factors into this because Cirt wrote
what looked like a promotional piece about it,
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=...oldid=330446443
then managed to get it on the front page via DYK. This was one of
several articles other people raised as a concern. The series of
Savage articles and templates Cirt created were also raised: Cirt
suggested seven DYKs about Savage in the space of a week or so. Two
ended up on the front page on the same day.
I was hoping the three of us could have a constructive conversation
about it, with a view to resolving it.
However, there's now a request for arbitration, and Cirt has continued
editing in the same vein, so the time for sorting it out by e-mail may
have passed.
Sarah
----------
From: cirt tric <cirt.wik@gmail.com>
Date: Sun, Jun 12, 2011 at 17:46
To: Sarah <slimvirgin@gmail.com>
Cc: Michelle Kinney <shell.kinney@gmail.com>
Dear Shell and Sarah,
I do not have any association with the Corbin Fisher company or with Dan Savage.
I do not have conflict of interest associations with articles I write
about on Wikipedia.
To my knowledge, Shell, SlimVirgin has not presented either of us with
evidence that I have a conflict of interest.
The only "connection" between Corbin Fisher and Dan Savage is that
Jayen466 has called Corbin Fisher on WikiEN-l mailing list in multiple
posts a "gay porn" company (his words), and that Dan Savage is a
proponent of LGBT rights.
To Shell: Yes, I do have a pattern of creating a series of articles in
a short period of time on a similar topic.
You asked for an example. Bacon. I participated in multiple years on
the Bacon WikiCup (a smaller wikicup than the main one).
I created many articles about books relating to bacon. I then created
Template:Bacon. (similarly to the template creation in this recent
issue).
I succesfully got many of those bacon-related articles to DYK. I then
also successfully got many of those new bacon articles to GA quality.
If you check Template:Bacon you will see in the "books" section that
the majority of those articles are currently GA quality - and the
majority of the GA quality articles on that subset, were created by
myself.
Shell, if I recall correctly, even though it was obvious I was
particpating in a fun project on wikipedia the "bacon" wikicup - there
were those on Wikipedia Review that thought I was paid by some sort of
"bacon lobby" or something like that. They thought that there was no
way that I simply love and enjoy creating new articles within a small
topic, GA quality articles.
There is a lack of good faith going on here, Shell. Indeed, beyond
that, there is an assumption of BAD faith, without evidence of
conflict of interest or evidence about "promotion" activities.
Not sure how to address that, as it seems certain parties both here
and on Wikipedia Review have made up their minds - and will *assume*
there is a conflict of interest with all new articles I create
(example, bacon) regardless of whether or not this is the truth (it is
not).
Shell, it is very difficult indeed to prove a negative in this situation.
Your advice would and input would be appreciated, Shell.
--
----------
From: Sarah <slimvirgin@gmail.com>
Date: Sun, Jun 12, 2011 at 17:54
To: cirt tric <cirt.wik@gmail.com>
Cc: Michelle Kinney <shell.kinney@gmail.com>
Thanks for your reply, Cirt.
You say you have no association with the Corbin Fisher company or with
Dan Savage.
Could you also clarify whether you have a connection to anyone
associated with Corbin Fisher or Dan Savage?
And can you say what prompted you to write the Corbin Fisher article,
and to expand the santorum article and created the templates and DYKs,
etc?
Sarah
----------
From: cirt tric <cirt.wik@gmail.com>
Date: Sun, Jun 12, 2011 at 17:58
To: Sarah <slimvirgin@gmail.com>
Cc: Michelle Kinney <shell.kinney@gmail.com>
No, Sarah, I have no association with anyone associated with Corbin
Fisher or Dan Savage. I do not know how many other ways to phrase
that.
I already replied to Jayen on my talk page, explaining how I came by
the Corbin Fisher article and chose to write a new article on it.
Perhaps you did not see that.
Santorum: I chose to write about it because I had commentd in a prior
AFD and was aware of the article. I saw it went through 3 AFDs. I
thought that there must be more secondary source coverage of hte
topic. I expanded the article.
Like my prior pattern years ago with bacon - i wrote other articles
on the topic.
Like creating Template:Bacon, I created templates relating to this topic.
Like Bacon, I nominated those articles to DYK.
This appears like fishing.
This comes across as bad faith assumptions, before even hearing my answers.
Yours,
Cirt
--
----------
From: cirt tric <cirt.wik@gmail.com>
Date: Sun, Jun 12, 2011 at 18:01
To: Sarah <slimvirgin@gmail.com>
Cc: Michelle Kinney <shell.kinney@gmail.com>
Shell,
Sarah posted on wikipedia about a "COI" she felt I have, before first
asking me about this
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=...oldid=432809481
thoughts?
Yours,
Cirt
--
----------
From: cirt tric <cirt.wik@gmail.com>
Date: Sun, Jun 12, 2011 at 18:04
To: Sarah <slimvirgin@gmail.com>
Cc: Michelle Kinney <shell.kinney@gmail.com>
Corbin Fisher
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=...oldid=430962663
I came by this article organically, through my interest in the U.S.
Supreme Court Case, called Hustler Magazine v. Falwell. That Supreme
Court case was cited in another ongoing case at the time, Beck v.
Eiland-Hall, an article I successfully took to WP:GA status. Through
research on one of the free speech lawyers from that case, I improved
the article on attorney Marc Randazza. After performing research on
that article, I came by the topic of Corbin Fisher.
--
----------
From: Sarah <slimvirgin@gmail.com>
Date: Sun, Jun 12, 2011 at 18:14
To: cirt tric <cirt.wik@gmail.com>
Cc: Michelle Kinney <shell.kinney@gmail.com>
Cirt, you told me once that someone associated with Corbin Fisher
asked you to write that article, though not for money.
That is why I asked for this private exchange, with a third party to
witness it. I don't want to cause you harm, or add to public drama,
but there is clearly a serious issue here.
Sarah
----------
From: Michelle Kinney <shell.kinney@gmail.com>
Date: Sun, Jun 12, 2011 at 18:16
To: cirt tric <cirt.wik@gmail.com>, Sarah <slimvirgin@gmail.com>
Thank you both for your input.
I've looked at the arbitration case again for clarification and it
appears the concern there is the Santorum article itself and the
filing party has indicated that Cirt wouldn't need to participate. To
me, that seems different than there being a case against Cirt in
regards to a problem with his editing. Has there been prior dispute
resolution about COI concerns with regard to Cirt?
Having looked at Cirt's contributions, I do see many times that he's
contributed several articles on the same subject in a very short
period of time and nominated them all for DYK or even GA shortly
after. Without knowing that this seems to be Cirt's style, I can
understand why seeing an editor do this to any topic would look as if
there were some kind of shenanigans going on. Not many editors
improve an entire topic; it's much more common to see someone get a
single article to FA. Is there anything else in either of these two
recent areas that would indicate that there is some kind of COI or
other concern at play here?
Since Cirt says he has no association with either article, where do we
go from here?
Regards,
Michelle Kinney
----------
From: cirt tric <cirt.wik@gmail.com>
Date: Sun, Jun 12, 2011 at 18:22
To: Michelle Kinney <shell.kinney@gmail.com>
Cc: Sarah <slimvirgin@gmail.com>
Marc Randazza, the lawyer for Corbin Fisher, mentioned the topic to me
as a possible new article.
I have no "association" with him.
My prior contact with him was communication in order to obtain
free-use licenses for media files on an article, now GA quality, Beck
v. Eiland-Hall.
I told him I would not accept any form of payment for the article.
I told him I would just research the topic - and put in there what was
said in secondary sources.
I have also since disengaged from that article - others have put in
more content, and I am no longer watching that page.
--
----------
From: cirt tric <cirt.wik@gmail.com>
Date: Sun, Jun 12, 2011 at 18:23
To: Michelle Kinney <shell.kinney@gmail.com>
Cc: Sarah <slimvirgin@gmail.com>
Addendum: Those communications with Marc Randazza regarding free-use
image licenses, is documented in OTRS.
----------
From: Sarah <slimvirgin@gmail.com>
Date: Sun, Jun 12, 2011 at 18:42
To: cirt tric <cirt.wik@gmail.com>
Cc: Michelle Kinney <shell.kinney@gmail.com>
Okay, thank you. So it was not true that you came across the Corbin
Fisher article organically.
Cirt, look, you are saying that the lawyer of a porn company suggested
you write an article on his client. Both the lawyer and the porn
company are running businesses. And you agreed to use Wikipedia to
promote their businesses, and wrote an extremely positive article
about the company, which you got linked on the front page via DYK,
leading to a spike in readership to 4.8 thousand.
http://stats.grok.se/en/200912/Corbin_Fisher
You also created an article about the lawyer, and got that on the
front page too via DYK.
It raises the question of whether there's a similar situation
regarding Dan Savage and the seven DYKs about him. Did someone suggest
you write or expand those articles too?
I asked you about this privately, because I am ethically constrained.
You told me in private that someone associated with Corbin Fisher
asked you to write that article. I didn't even register at the time
what you were saying. I only recalled it when I saw Jayen ask you
about it recently.
So I can't mention this to others, but at the same time I'm concerned
about this use of Wikipedia to further commercial interests. That is
why I asked you for a private discussion with a third party you
trusted.
The question is: are you willing to be candid now, and can you suggest
a solution that will make the issue go away?
Sarah
----------
From: cirt tric <cirt.wik@gmail.com>
Date: Sun, Jun 12, 2011 at 19:17
To: Sarah <slimvirgin@gmail.com>
Cc: Michelle Kinney <shell.kinney@gmail.com>
Sarah,
My first communication with Marc Randazza was for the purpose of OTRS
confirmation of free-use licences for Wikimedia Commons files.
I improved the article about the individual Marc Randazza of my own initiative.
I did not intend to "promote" anyone's business.
If that was my intention, I would still be watching/editing the
[[Corbin Fisher]] page - but I am not.
Out of our communications for the OTRS confirmation, Marc Randazza
mentioned about the possibility of a new article for Corbin Fisher.
I (previously) made a habit of nominating all new articles and
articles I expand/improve to DYK.
So it is not unique that I nominated these to DYK.
To my knowledge the [[Corbin Fisher]] page is unique and the only time
I have written a new article or expanded an article on Wikipedia due
to a communication of this kind. But I note again that this
communication did not come from a conflict of interest - but rather
from prior communications with this person solely about OTRS
confirmation of free-use licensed media.
I have no association of any kind with Dan Savage.
No one suggested to me to write/expand the articles about books to
which he is the author - that was my own decision.
I am open to ideas you have about suggestions going forward.
Yours,
Cirt
--
----------
From: cirt tric <cirt.wik@gmail.com>
Date: Sun, Jun 12, 2011 at 20:09
To: Sarah <slimvirgin@gmail.com>
Cc: Michelle Kinney <shell.kinney@gmail.com>
Sarah,
As a sidenote - I have a good faith idea and proposal about how to
keep the "neologisms" removed fromTemplate:Dan Savage.
I am hesitant to propose it on wiki myself, but I will if you think it
is a good idea.
Make the template a pure "bibliography" template, as similar to for example:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Template:Neil_Gaiman
Then, naturally, the template would only include the published works
of the author, and not the neologisms.
Thoughts on the idea?
Yours,
Cirt
--
----------
From: Sarah <slimvirgin@gmail.com>
Date: Sun, Jun 12, 2011 at 20:26
To: cirt tric <cirt.wik@gmail.com>
Cc: Michelle Kinney <shell.kinney@gmail.com>
Cirt, you wrote: "No one suggested to me to write/expand the articles
about books to which he [Dan Savage] is the author - that was my own
decision."
Thank you for clarifying that.
Did anyone ask you to, or suggest that you ought to, write or expand
articles related to santorum, or any other issue Dan Savage is
involved in?
Sarah
----------
From: cirt tric <cirt.wik@gmail.com>
Date: Sun, Jun 12, 2011 at 20:30
To: Sarah <slimvirgin@gmail.com>
Cc: Michelle Kinney <shell.kinney@gmail.com>
Sarah,
No, no one suggested to me to write or expand articles related to
Sarah, what do you think about my good faith proposal to modify
Template:Dan Savage?
Yours,
Cirt
--
----------
From: Sarah <slimvirgin@gmail.com>
Date: Sun, Jun 12, 2011 at 20:54
To: cirt tric <cirt.wik@gmail.com>
Cc: Michelle Kinney <shell.kinney@gmail.com>
Thank you.
Yes, I think turning the Savage template into a bibliography would be
a good start. Anything that reduces Wikipedia's involvement in the
spread of "santorum" would help (a word we can only find used in two
sources, only one of which could be described as reliable).
As for the bigger picture, you look as though you're editing on behalf
of outside interests, both commercial and political, and not in the
interests of Wikipedia. The reality doesn't matter. That is what it
looks like and it has been going on for a long time.
You made hundreds of edits about Dan Savage and his ideas over a few
weeks, both on the English Wikipedia and elsewhere. Even after I asked
you on AN/I to stop doing anything that looked like promotion, you
continued doing it *even as that conversation was continuing*, which
is not acting in good faith.
When Jayen asked you onwiki why you created [[Corbin Fisher]], you
wrote: "I came by this article organically, through my interest in the
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=...oldid=430962663
Note: "... I improved the article on attorney Marc Randazza. After
But you didn't just come by it. Randazza -- Corbin Fisher's lawer --
asked you to write it. So that was not an honest response. And you
gave the same response in this email discussion.
The only thing that will help now is honesty. Asking people to assume
good faith of you means good faith has to be returned. Then hopefully
we can work out how to resolve things in everyone's interests, yours
included. That would mean no more editing that looks promotional.
Sarah
----------
From: Sarah <slimvirgin@gmail.com>
Date: Sun, Jun 12, 2011 at 21:10
To: cirt tric <cirt.wik@gmail.com>
Cc: Michelle Kinney <shell.kinney@gmail.com>
Also, I want to make one thing very clear. I see you're being
discussed again on Wikipedia Review. I want to make clear that I
distant myself from that completely and find it unacceptable.
The problem with it is that it will increase the feeling you have of
being under seige, and that makes finding a way forward harder,
because everything becomes more fraught. So it's very unfortunate.
That's why I want to emphasize that this email correspondence is not
something that will get back to Wikipedia Review, and that I
completely reject their attacks on you.
Sarah
----------
From: cirt tric <cirt.wik@gmail.com>
Date: Sun, Jun 12, 2011 at 23:41
To: Sarah <slimvirgin@gmail.com>
Cc: Michelle Kinney <shell.kinney@gmail.com>
Sarah,
I thank you for your expression of confidentiality, and for your
condemnation of Wikipedia Review.
I would not have come by to creating the Corbin Fisher article, if it
had not been for the correspondence with Marc Randazza which was
initiated by myself with the aim of getting OTRS confirmation for
free-use media files. My interpretation of this was an organic
process. This was to my recollection the only instance in which I ever
on Wikipedia created a new article due to a request by someone, and I
will never do it again.
As noted by Shell Kinney, I tend to edit within a topic area, and then
contribute lots of new GA quality content to that selfsame topic area
that I recently get interested in.
Yours,
Cirt
--
----------
From: cirt tric <cirt.wik@gmail.com>
Date: Sun, Jun 12, 2011 at 23:44
To: Sarah <slimvirgin@gmail.com>
Cc: Michelle Kinney <shell.kinney@gmail.com>
Sarah,
To be clear - would it be alright with you if I suggested, on
Wikipedia in a post, or took the initiative to reorganize the
Template:Dan Savage myself - to make it a bibliography template like
Template:Neil Gaiman - and remove the "neologisms", in the process?
Yours,
Cirt
--
----------
From: Sarah <slimvirgin@gmail.com>
Date: Mon, Jun 13, 2011 at 12:22
To: cirt tric <cirt.wik@gmail.com>
Cc: Michelle Kinney <shell.kinney@gmail.com>
Cirt, where do you see this email correspondence going, if anywhere?
My perspective is this:
I've asked you several times in the last three weeks to take seriously
the concerns that you're using Wikipedia to promote outside commercial
and political interests. I've done this in an effort to help you, but
after assuring me you would take the points on board, you continued as
before.
Examples:
1. I asked you on AN/I on May 27 to take seriously people's concerns.
I suggested to Jayen that he not file an RfC on you (as he wanted to
do) for at least six months to give you a chance to stop what you were
doing. You agreed. You wrote: "Thank you, SlimVirgin, for the wise
words. I will take your advice and try to make efforts to avoid
editing in the manner you describe."
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=...oldid=431257046
2. Even as that discussion was taking place, you were nominating yet
more Dan Savage articles for DYK, seven in the space of around a week,
two of which went on the main page on the same day with a third in the
queue, all of them extremely positive about Savage.
3. When I noticed this on June 6, I asked you on your talk page and
the DYK pages to agree again to stop making edits that looked
promotional, and not to keep asking for articles to be linked on the
main page. I wrote: "The way things are going there's a chance your
editing will end up at the ArbCom ..."
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=...55186#A_concern
4. I tried to open an email correspondence with you that same day, and
asked you to suggest a member of the ArbCom or functionaries list that
you trusted, so three of us could discuss what was happening. Again, I
did this in an effort to help you. You suggested Shell, but when I
began to ask you about the situation, you said you couldn't respond
because you had two sick family members to look after.
5. *That same day* you opened an FAC for yet another article that
looks promotional, ''Everything Takes Better with Bacon''.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Fea..._Bacon/archive1
You also continued making a large number of edits to Wikipedia and
other projects, and continued asking people behind the scenes to
intervene to help you with the santorum situation.
7. Inevitably, on June 12, someone filed an RfAr.
8. We re-started our email correspondence that day because Shell wrote
to us, during which you lied to me when I asked if you had a
connection to anyone associated with Corbin Fisher. You also accused
me of bad faith for asking. You eventually acknowledged that Corbin
Fisher's lawyer had asked you to write an article about his client,
but only after I told you I already knew about it.
So you see the problem. Unless you're willing to be completely
straightforward and suggest a way forward -- not just regarding the
santorum situation -- I don't see what else I can do.
Also, I was concerned to see Brad refer on WP to other dispute
resolution that was going on. Was he referring to this, or is there
something else happening in parallel?
Sarah
----------
From: cirt tric <cirt.wik@gmail.com>
Date: Mon, Jun 13, 2011 at 12:31
To: Sarah <slimvirgin@gmail.com>
Cc: Michelle Kinney <shell.kinney@gmail.com>
Dear Sarah,
You said I "lied" to you, but unfortunately we have a
misscommunication about that. I do not have any "association" with
Marc Randazza, and I only came into contact with him through getting
OTRS confirmation for a file on Commons.
Contacting him for OTRS confirmation for a file on Commons --> Email
correspondence about the file --> Successfully got OTRS confirmation
--> He emailed about Corbin Fisher --> I researched it and wrote the
article --> When objections came up about my revert (my one (1)
revert) --> I stated I would no longer edit the page --> I referred
the matter to Wikipedia:Neutral point of view/Noticeboard myself,
voluntarily as my own initiative.
You frame it as if I only nominate to DYK articles that I wish to
"promote" - and yet fail to mention or acknowledge what I have said in
my prior emails - that I nominate all new articles I create to DYK
(prior to my good faith telling you I will never contribute to DYK
again).
And Sarah, it seems you refuse to acknowledge or appreciate the
literally numerous steps at extensions of good faith I have extended
towards you.
1. I removed my self noms from DYK.
2. I requested they not be considered.
3. I removed them a 2nd time.
4. I requested my nom in the queue not be considered.
5. I stated I will never edit DYK again.
I told you that I have a similar pattern of writing GA quality
articles from scratch and creating them within a narrow topic - I gave
you the example of the "Bacon WikiCup". I showed you how I created
Template:Bacon - a similar pattern to template creation recently.
I would like Shell's opinion on this - as unfortunately, Sarah, I feel
that your lack of good faith and your degradation in tone is
unfortunately becoming inappropriate.
Yours,
Cirt
--
----------
From: Sarah <slimvirgin@gmail.com>
Date: Mon, Jun 13, 2011 at 12:53
To: cirt tric <cirt.wik@gmail.com>
Cc: Michelle Kinney <shell.kinney@gmail.com>
If you see your responses as honest, we have a big problem here. What
you're saying is that, unless people ask you a question in exactly the
right way, with exactly the right words, they will get misleading
answers.
If a lawyer asks you to write an article about his client, a
commercial enterprise, and you write one that by any standard is a PR
piece, it means you have violated Wikipedia's rules about neutrality,
and perhaps also its rules about COI.
When concerns about the PR nature of that article arise, and another
Wikipedian asks you whether you are "associated" with the company, the
honest answer would be, "I am not associated with them, no, but I was
in touch with their lawyer about another Wikipedia matter, and during
the course of that he suggested I write the article."
Another honest answer would have been: "I'm sorry, but I'm not willing
to discuss that."
But playing around with the definition of "associated with" is like
Bill Clinton during the Lewinsky affair arguing about the meaning of
"is".
I'm happy to bow out of this correspondence, Cirt, because nothing
will come of it without honesty.
Sarah
----------
From: cirt tric <cirt.wik@gmail.com>
Date: Mon, Jun 13, 2011 at 12:59
To: Sarah <slimvirgin@gmail.com>
Cc: Michelle Kinney <shell.kinney@gmail.com>
Sarah,
You are right.
I should have said, "I am not associated with them, no, but I was in
It was not my intentional to make the article promotional.
My actual motivation was notability and satisfying WP:NOTE.
Sometimes, the two may seem similar, but that is unfortunate and not a
true reading of what I attempt to do.
What I do with my new article creation was (when I was contributing to
DYK which I will not do anymore ever again) -
1. Research the article.
2. Write the article with secondary sources.
3. Find the most notable / noteworthy sourced fact in the article
and/or most interesting DYK hook.
4. Suggest that hook at DYK.
This is not an attempt at promotion, just an attempt at successfully
getting it through DYK.
DYK reviewers will not accept a hook if it is deemed as "boring".
And an article will be removed from DYK consideration if it is at AFD.
So my primary motivation in writing a new article is to
comprehensively cover the topic - and put the most "notable" info in
the lede, so as to satisfy notability requirements for Wikipedia.
I hope you will respond regarding:
1) My on-wikipedia good faith efforts towards you, which I mentioned repeatedly.
2) The same pattern I exhibit with creating new articles on other
topics - like bacon and books about bacon.
Yours,
Cirt
--
----------
From: Sarah <slimvirgin@gmail.com>
Date: Mon, Jun 13, 2011 at 13:03
To: cirt tric <cirt.wik@gmail.com>
Cc: Michelle Kinney <shell.kinney@gmail.com>
Okay, thank you. So what is the story with Dan Savage, santorum, etc?
Please be forthcoming without waiting for me to ask exactly the right
question.
Sarah
----------
From: cirt tric <cirt.wik@gmail.com>
Date: Mon, Jun 13, 2011 at 13:06
To: Sarah <slimvirgin@gmail.com>
Cc: Michelle Kinney <shell.kinney@gmail.com>
Sarah,
I have responded about that already.
I will respond about it again, in detail, to you.
But first I would like a show of good faith and a response to my
questions in my prior emails.
Would that be alright with you?
Can you respond acknowledging my good faith efforts? My quitting DYK
and pledging to never edit there in the future? My telling you about
the simillarity to writing multiple GAs on bacon articles? My telling
you I nominate all new articles I create to DYK, prior to saying I
will nominate nothing to DYK again?
Yours,
Cirt
--
----------
From: Sarah <slimvirgin@gmail.com>
Date: Mon, Jun 13, 2011 at 13:08
To: cirt tric <cirt.wik@gmail.com>
Cc: Michelle Kinney <shell.kinney@gmail.com>
Please explain whether you have been in touch with Dan Savage at any
point throughout this process, or with anyone associated (in any sense
of the word) with Savage and/or the santorum neologism situation.
As for your good faith efforts, Cirt, you only respond to concerns
when someone challenges you. You do not self-regulate.
Sarah
----------
From: cirt tric <cirt.wik@gmail.com>
Date: Mon, Jun 13, 2011 at 13:15
To: Sarah <slimvirgin@gmail.com>
Cc: Michelle Kinney <shell.kinney@gmail.com>
Sarah,
I have tried to contact Dan Savage - in order to obtain permission for
a free-use image. This was *after* my expansion of the article
"santorum". I got back one initial response from a representative, but
then no further responses. That is the extent of all communication.
Sarah, would you rather I was unwilling to make good faith efforts?
Would you rather I saw all those supporting me at WT:DYK after I left
and made my good faith request to remove my DYKs - and came back
there, and fought to have my DYKs put back?
Would you rather I continued to edit Corbin Fisher, and reverted more
than the single one time?
Would you rather I had not posted about articles where concerns were
raised, to Wikipedia:Neutral point of view/Noticeboard?
You see, Sarah, when concerns are raised to me, I try quite hard to
show good faith efforts to improve myself, and to respond to the
situation, and indeed reach out with good faith efforts towards you
yourself, Sarah.
Sarah, I have gotten over 150 articles to DYK. That is a lot to walk
away from without objection from me. But I have done so. I have stated
I will never edit DYK again. Surely I would hope you can see that as a
display of good faith towards you.
Yours,
Cirt
--
----------
From: Sarah <slimvirgin@gmail.com>
Date: Mon, Jun 13, 2011 at 13:23
To: cirt tric <cirt.wik@gmail.com>
Cc: Michelle Kinney <shell.kinney@gmail.com>
So what prompted you to expand the santorum article fivefold and
create all the other articles and templates?
Sarah
----------
From: cirt tric <cirt.wik@gmail.com>
Date: Mon, Jun 13, 2011 at 13:24
To: Sarah <slimvirgin@gmail.com>
Cc: Michelle Kinney <shell.kinney@gmail.com>
Sarah,
I will respond, but can you acknowledge my good faith efforts?
Yours,
Cirt
--
----------
From: Sarah <slimvirgin@gmail.com>
Date: Mon, Jun 13, 2011 at 13:28
To: cirt tric <cirt.wik@gmail.com>
Cc: Michelle Kinney <shell.kinney@gmail.com>
As I said, your good-faith efforts take place only in response to
time-consuming challenges. You do not self-regulate, and it's
self-regulation that's needed.
Please answer the key question: "what prompted you to expand the
----------
From: cirt tric <cirt.wik@gmail.com>
Date: Mon, Jun 13, 2011 at 13:31
To: Sarah <slimvirgin@gmail.com>
Cc: Michelle Kinney <shell.kinney@gmail.com>
Sarah,
Your assumption about my good-faith efforts is inaccurate.
Actually, perhaps you were unaware that when I create new articles - I
make it a practice of notifying talk pages of numerous different
WikiProjects about them - specifically in order to self-regulate and
get additional feedback?
Yours,
Cirt
--
----------
From: Sarah <slimvirgin@gmail.com>
Date: Mon, Jun 13, 2011 at 13:42
To: cirt tric <cirt.wik@gmail.com>
Cc: Michelle Kinney <shell.kinney@gmail.com>
My ex-husband's nephew, when he was six, used to run up to visitors to
the house, punch them in the stomach, then shout "oops, sorry!", and
run away. That's what this reminds me of.
Self-regulation means NOT writing a PR piece about a company at the
request of the company's lawyer. It means NOT creating hundreds of
links to articles about santorum to tarnish the name of a living
person, writing PR pieces about unknown restaurants, filing seven DYKs
about the same freelance writer, or punching visitors in the stomach.
Self-regulation doesn't mean doing those things, but notifying
wikiprojects for feedback.
Sarah
----------
From: cirt tric <cirt.wik@gmail.com>
Date: Mon, Jun 13, 2011 at 13:48
To: Sarah <slimvirgin@gmail.com>
Cc: Michelle Kinney <shell.kinney@gmail.com>
Sarah,
I understand.
I said already to you in his email exchange that I will never again
write an article on Wikipedia if requested to do so by someone
offsite.
I stated I will never again edit DYK. The latter is actually a big
deal for me, due to my prior involvement there over the years. It
actually is a big gesture of good faith.
Yours,
Cirt
--
----------
From: Sarah <slimvirgin@gmail.com>
Date: Mon, Jun 13, 2011 at 13:51
To: cirt tric <cirt.wik@gmail.com>
Cc: Michelle Kinney <shell.kinney@gmail.com>
----------
From: cirt tric <cirt.wik@gmail.com>
Date: Mon, Jun 13, 2011 at 13:51
To: Sarah <slimvirgin@gmail.com>
Cc: Michelle Kinney <shell.kinney@gmail.com>
Sarah,
27 December 2010
I commented "Keep" on an AFD for the "santorum" article
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=...oldid=404433554
16 April 2011
I was on a vacation visiting a friend, while driving I think I heard
something on the radio about the topic, this reminded me about the
prior attempts to get the page deleted from Wikipedia.
26 April 2011
I did not get back from my vacation until late April, at which point I
was busy with personal life issues and did not have time to research
the subject matter.
9 May 2011
1st edit to the page
edited the page to add a link to Wiktionary
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=...oldid=428299847
after that I just focused on citing the uncited stuff on the page at
first, I was still in a period of my life where I did not have a lot
of time to edit Wikipedia
10 May 2011
I began to have more free time in my life due to personal issues,
classes finished up, break from real-life work, and had a major
falling out with a woman I was seeing - so I had some more time.
I started to expand the article with the aim of satisfying notability
so that there would not be future AFDs on the page and attempts to get
the material deleted and disappeared from Wikipedia
My main attempt throughout all this was notability, satisfying WP:NOTE
and making sure the article would survive a future potential AFD.
Again, that is a similar pattern I exhibit with all new article
creation and expansion - the first thing I do in the course of
research and writing - is to try to show notability, satisfy WP:NOTE,
and make sure the page will be retained in a result at a potential at
AFD. I did this with the "santorum" page, I do this with "bacon" topic
and articles on books about bacon, I do this will all articles I
create or expand.
My motivation to create all the other articles and templates = was the
exact same process I do when I create new articles on a subject, as
with the "bacon" topic.
Yours,
Cirt
--
----------
From: Sarah <slimvirgin@gmail.com>
Date: Mon, Jun 13, 2011 at 13:58
To: cirt tric <cirt.wik@gmail.com>
Cc: Michelle Kinney <shell.kinney@gmail.com>
Your explanation doesn't cover:
(a) that you expanded the santorum article exactly fivefold, which
suggests you were doing it for DYK
(b) all the other Dan Savage articles, DYKs, and templates you created
on Wikipedia, Wikinews, and elsewhere.
© that the press was reporting Rick Santorum might stand for president.
I think if someone were to write a detailed timeline about this,
covering all your edits to santorum/Savage related articles, on
Wikipedia and elsewhere, during this period, it would be shocking. So
please explain why there was so much activity around this issue at
this time.
----------
From: Michelle Kinney <shell.kinney@gmail.com>
Date: Mon, Jun 13, 2011 at 13:58
To: cirt tric <cirt.wik@gmail.com>
Cc: Sarah <slimvirgin@gmail.com>
Okay, I think we've got way off on a tangent here.
Sarah, Cirt has answered your questions multiple times, suggested ways
forward and even made what appear to be rather large concessions due
to your concerns. He has clarified that he has no interest in
improving articles outside of his interest in Wikipedia and that the
practices you object to are standard behavior for him. If you still
disagree with what he's said, then we seem to have an impasse here. I
will point out that Cirt's experience with a contact suggesting
articles is not at all uncommon and happens frequently through OTRS
tickets or even the IRC help channel.
You have said multiple times that these articles seem promotional -
can you give some specifics that would help Cirt identify what exactly
you are objecting to? You're asking that he self-regulate, however, I
think it's clear that Cirt doesn't understand what it is that you
would like to see change and is trying to do things that he thinks
will resolve the problem. If we can come up with specific actions or
behaviors that you have long-term concerns with, this would hopefully
give Cirt something to work with and we can see if he can then take
that and apply it successfully.
Shell Kinney
----------
From: Sarah <slimvirgin@gmail.com>
Date: Mon, Jun 13, 2011 at 14:01
To: Michelle Kinney <shell.kinney@gmail.com>
Cc: cirt tric <cirt.wik@gmail.com>
Michelle, I asked you a question earlier that you may not have seen.
When Brad referred to other dispute resolution, was he referring to
this email exchange, or is there something else going on in parallel?
Sarah
----------
From: Michelle Kinney <shell.kinney@gmail.com>
Date: Mon, Jun 13, 2011 at 14:05
To: Sarah <slimvirgin@gmail.com>
Cc: cirt tric <cirt.wik@gmail.com>
No one other than yourself, Cirt and I knows about this email
exchange. Brad (and the other Arbs) seem to be focusing on the
question of the article and outside influences rather than any one
person's behavior, so if I had to guess, I'd say he was referring to
the current RfC.
Shell Kinney
----------
From: cirt tric <cirt.wik@gmail.com>
Date: Mon, Jun 13, 2011 at 14:09
To: Michelle Kinney <shell.kinney@gmail.com>
Cc: Sarah <slimvirgin@gmail.com>
Sarah,
Before expansion
9 May 2011
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=...oldid=428317643
characters = 10,399
After expansion
5 days later
14 May 2011
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=...oldid=429128319
characters = 29,774
The article was expanded less than 3 times in the 5 day period.
It would not have been eligible for DYK.
It was not my intention to bring it to DYK.
My intention was to show notability and make sure the article would
not be deleted at a subsequent AFD.
Yours,
Cirt
--
----------
From: Sarah <slimvirgin@gmail.com>
Date: Mon, Jun 13, 2011 at 14:25
To: cirt tric <cirt.wik@gmail.com>
Cc: Michelle Kinney <shell.kinney@gmail.com>
Michelle, you seem to be saying that the Corbin Fisher piece was not
PR, and that it's standard to write long promotional pieces about
commercial companies because the company lawyer asks you to. But
that's far from standard. No Wikipedian should be doing this.
Please look at the article. If it isn't PR, then I don't know what is.
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=...oldid=330035705
Sarah
----------
From: Michelle Kinney <shell.kinney@gmail.com>
Date: Mon, Jun 13, 2011 at 14:35
To: Sarah <slimvirgin@gmail.com>
Cc: cirt tric <cirt.wik@gmail.com>
No, I'm saying that it's not odd to have a subject or their
representative contact a Wikipedia whether through OTRS or even other
channels like the IRC help channel. Sometimes editors become
interested in the subject and write on it; other times they help out a
subject or representative who's already tried to start an article an
had trouble with it. I don't think the Wikipedians who work in these
areas have any intention of writing promotional pieces and I've seen
many of them spend a lot of time talking folks out of promotional
writing (or making it clear that their company/band etc. doesn't
qualify at all).
Could you point out anything specific in the article at that time that
strikes you as promotional? As a whole, the article doesn't strike me
as most promotional pieces I see on a daily basis and it has been
changed very little since the diff you linked to
<http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Corbin_Fisher&diff=cur&oldid=330035705 >
even though 35 different users have touched the article. If there
was an overly promotional tone, I would have expected to see some kind
of tagging or at least changes to fix this during the two years the
article has been in place. Additionally, there seem to be several
times that Cirt has gone back and removed poorly sourced or overly
promotional language, for example
<http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Corbin_Fisher&diff=394181851&oldid=394178237 >.
Maybe if we can look at some of the things that strike you as
promotional, Cirt will have a better idea of your concerns and we can
improve the article at the same time.
Shell Kinney
----------
From: Sarah <slimvirgin@gmail.com>
Date: Mon, Jun 13, 2011 at 14:44
To: Michelle Kinney <shell.kinney@gmail.com>
Cc: cirt tric <cirt.wik@gmail.com>
Yes, but that's not what happened here. The Corbin Fisher lawyer was
not having trouble with the article (the article didn't exist). He was
not in touch with OTRS or IRC help. He was not in touch with Cirt to
ask for help with a problem. He simply asked Cirt to create an article
about his client.
Okay, I can see I'm flogging a dead horse here. I began this email
exchange in the hope of heading off an ArbCom case, so I was acting in
Cirt's interests. Instead, there is obfuscation, misleading answers,
and now I'm being asked to explain the most obvious things, so I'm
giving up.
Michelle, do you intend to recuse from the case? You do seem to be
taking Cirt's side, and you voted to decline the case before any of
the evidence was posted.
Sarah
----------
From: cirt tric <cirt.wik@gmail.com>
Date: Mon, Jun 13, 2011 at 14:46
To: Sarah <slimvirgin@gmail.com>
Cc: Michelle Kinney <shell.kinney@gmail.com>
Sarah,
Do you have further suggestions on how I can improve my editing in the
future, going forwards?
Do you think my pledge to cease editing DYK is a good first step?
Yours,
Cirt
--
----------
From: Michelle Kinney <shell.kinney@gmail.com>
Date: Mon, Jun 13, 2011 at 14:52
To: Sarah <slimvirgin@gmail.com>
Cc: cirt tric <cirt.wik@gmail.com>
I've only asked you for some specifics so that we can move forward on
identifying and working on the issues. You've said the article is
"obviously" promotional, yet 35 other editors and myself aren't seeing
it - asking you for clarification doesn't seem to be too much to ask
here. If you're not interested in continuing to work to resolve the
problem, you're certainly welcome to handle it in other ways or let it
go.
Sadly, we always have to accept or decline before any evidence is seen
and must base our decision on what we have available to us. I think
my reasons for declining were clear in my response there, but if you
have any questions, I'd be happy to answer them.
Shell Kinney
----------
From: Sarah <slimvirgin@gmail.com>
Date: Mon, Jun 13, 2011 at 15:11
To: cirt tric <cirt.wik@gmail.com>
Cc: Michelle Kinney <shell.kinney@gmail.com>
Cirt, are you willing to forward copies of your correspondence with
Corbin Fisher's lawyer, either to me and Michelle, or to other
uninvolved established editors or members of the ArbCom?
By uninvolved, I mean people not personally supportive of you, or
involved in editing articles with you, but people who could act as
entirely neutral witnesses.
Sarah
----------
From: cirt tric <cirt.wik@gmail.com>
Date: Mon, Jun 13, 2011 at 16:05
To: Sarah <slimvirgin@gmail.com>
Cc: Michelle Kinney <shell.kinney@gmail.com>
Sarah,
I do not feel comfortable releasing an email without the permission of
the other party.
I am not sure I have all the correspondence from two years ago.
Yours,
Cirt
--
----------
From: Sarah <slimvirgin@gmail.com>
Date: Mon, Jun 13, 2011 at 16:18
To: cirt tric <cirt.wik@gmail.com>
Cc: Michelle Kinney <shell.kinney@gmail.com>
I didn't ask you to release it, but copy it in confidence to two
neutral ArbCom members or editors for verification. Perhaps you could
ask the lawyer's permission. If you explain the issue to him, he's
likely to be sympathetic.
----------
From: cirt tric <cirt.wik@gmail.com>
Date: Mon, Jun 13, 2011 at 16:20
To: Sarah <slimvirgin@gmail.com>
Cc: Michelle Kinney <shell.kinney@gmail.com>
Sarah,
I will try to get in touch with him and ask him.
Yours,
Cirt
--
----------
From: cirt tric <cirt.wik@gmail.com>
Date: Mon, Jun 13, 2011 at 19:12
To: Sarah <slimvirgin@gmail.com>
Cc: Michelle Kinney <shell.kinney@gmail.com>
Sarah,
I am sorry but Mr. Marc Randazza got back to me and he does not wish
to show others our private email correspondence.
Yours,
Cirt
--
----------
From: Sarah <slimvirgin@gmail.com>
Date: Mon, Jun 13, 2011 at 19:13
To: cirt tric <cirt.wik@gmail.com>
Cc: Michelle Kinney <shell.kinney@gmail.com>
You're still in a position to show people your side of the
correspondence. It's what you said that matters, not what he said.
----------
From: Michelle Kinney <shell.kinney@gmail.com>
Date: Mon, Jun 13, 2011 at 19:15
To: Sarah <slimvirgin@gmail.com>
Cc: cirt tric <cirt.wik@gmail.com>
Sarah,
What exactly do you expect to achieve with this line of questioning?
My understanding was that everyone wanted to work towards resolving
this. You haven't responded to my latest email.
Shell Kinney
----------
From: Sarah <slimvirgin@gmail.com>
Date: Mon, Jun 13, 2011 at 19:25
To: Michelle Kinney <shell.kinney@gmail.com>
Cc: cirt tric <cirt.wik@gmail.com>
Michell, I asked you if you intended to recuse from the case, and you
didn't respond, so I'm not sure there's more to say. You ought to
recuse in my view because it's clear you're not a neutral party.
In asking Cirt to show someone else the correspondence, I'm offering
him the chance to show that, when he agreed to the lawyer's request to
write an article about the lawyer's client, nothing happened that
violated Wikipedia's policies or guidelines.
In the meantime, we ought to agree
== Malleus ==
== Malleus ==
