Difference between revisions of "Directory:Wikipedia ArbCom mailing list leak 2011"

MyWikiBiz, Author Your Legacy — Tuesday December 24, 2024
Jump to navigationJump to search
(→‎Malleus: Climategate)
Line 2,371: Line 2,371:
  
  
 +
 +
_______________________________________________
 +
arbcom-l mailing list
 +
arbcom-l@lists.wikimedia.org
 +
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/arbcom-l
 +
 +
== Climate and Josh Zelinsky ==
 +
Subject: [arbcom-l] ChrisO's retirement and blocking
 +
------------------------
 +
 +
From: Joshua Zelinsky <zelinsky@gmail.com>
 +
Date: Fri, Oct 15, 2010 at 10:33
 +
To: Arbitration Committee mailing list <arbcom-l@lists.wikimedia.org>, "Newyorkbrad (Wikipedia)" <newyorkbrad@gmail.com>
 +
 +
 +
I had a disturbing discussion with ChrisO concerning his recent
 +
retirement. He claims that his IP addresses were blocked without cause
 +
as part of an "enforced retirement" by some ArbCom members. This is
 +
obviously a claim that if true causes serious concern. I'm therefore
 +
emailing the ArbCom to inquire about this. I am using email rather
 +
than doing this publicly to minimize drama.  Is there any basis to the
 +
claim?
 +
 +
Thanks,
 +
 +
Josh Zelinsky
 +
 +
_______________________________________________
 +
arbcom-l mailing list
 +
arbcom-l@lists.wikimedia.org
 +
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/arbcom-l
 +
 +
----------
 +
From: Michelle Kinney <shell.kinney@gmail.com>
 +
Date: Fri, Oct 15, 2010 at 10:47
 +
To: English Arbitration Committee mailing list <arbcom-l@lists.wikimedia.org>
 +
 +
 +
<list-only>
 +
 +
Disturbing indeed.  Do we start telling people that ChrisO started socking?
 +
 +
Shell Kinney
 +
 +
----------
 +
From: David Yellope <dyellope.wiki@gmail.com>
 +
Date: Fri, Oct 15, 2010 at 10:50
 +
To: English Arbitration Committee mailing list <arbcom-l@lists.wikimedia.org>, zelinsky@gmail.com
 +
 +
 +
No. That is not correct, Josh.
 +
 +
ChrisO claimed RTV with his account, but then immediately created a new account and went on to edit articles in areas that he was not allowed to edit due to prior sanctions on the ChrisO account.
 +
 +
_______________________________________________
 +
arbcom-l mailing list
 +
arbcom-l@lists.wikimedia.org
 +
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/arbcom-l
 +
 +
 +
----------
 +
From: Joshua Zelinsky <zelinsky@gmail.com>
 +
Date: Fri, Oct 15, 2010 at 16:03
 +
To: David Yellope <dyellope.wiki@gmail.com>
 +
Cc: English Arbitration Committee mailing list <arbcom-l@lists.wikimedia.org>
 +
 +
 +
Thanks for the clarification about what happened.
 +
 +
JZ
 +
 +
----------
 +
From: Randy Everette <rlevse@cox.net>
 +
Date: Fri, Oct 15, 2010 at 16:18
 +
To: English Arbitration Committee mailing list <arbcom-l@lists.wikimedia.org>
 +
 +
 +
<list only>
 +
 +
Which is precisely why the ChrisO ruling in the CC case was an abomination. While he claimed RTV, he didn’t. He abused it and socked, yet the ruling left the community think he did something clean. This is why I asked a couple days ago about this here on arb-l, “What did the community know”? Yet no one answered. Now we really need to answer this. I’m perfectly willing to state my two cents about this onwiki, but I’d like to hear from others first. In fact, I was going to post about this onwiki tonight til I saw this new and related thread.
 +
 +
R
 +
 +
 +
From: arbcom-l-bounces@lists.wikimedia.org [mailto:arbcom-l-bounces@lists.wikimedia.org] On Behalf Of David Yellope
 +
Sent: Friday, October 15, 2010 10:50 AM
 +
To: English Arbitration Committee mailing list; zelinsky@gmail.com
 +
Subject: Re: [arbcom-l] ChrisO's retirement and blocking
 +
 +
_______________________________________________
 +
arbcom-l mailing list
 +
arbcom-l@lists.wikimedia.org
 +
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/arbcom-l
 +
 +
 +
----------
 +
From: Carcharoth <carcharothwp@googlemail.com>
 +
Date: Sat, Oct 16, 2010 at 00:38
 +
To: English Arbitration Committee mailing list <arbcom-l@lists.wikimedia.org>
 +
 +
 +
I think the reluctance to go further was because ChrisO did seem to
 +
have experienced genuine harassment from Don Murphy (or rather from
 +
his minions). If I'm wrong on that, someone should correct me. I'm not
 +
saying it excuses the socking, but ChrisO *had* asked for help with
 +
this earlier in the year, and it is possible he presumed we knew about
 +
this already. He should still have asked, but if he asked right now
 +
for the RTV to be undone, I think all the necessary restrictions are
 +
in place. The problem is, due to the harassment, he wanted (may still
 +
want) to resume editing under a new name, but he also wants to return
 +
to editing the areas he edited previously, and doesn't seem to realise
 +
that this will lead to renewed harassment.
 +
 +
Carcharoth
 +
 +
----------
 +
From: Randy Everette <rlevse@cox.net>
 +
Date: Sat, Oct 16, 2010 at 08:40
 +
To: English Arbitration Committee mailing list <arbcom-l@lists.wikimedia.org>
 +
 +
 +
I think the community has a right to know about his abuse, lying, and
 +
socking. Fozzie already told the guy that emailed us. Even sadder is the
 +
extremely deceptive CC case finding on this. It reinforces ChrisO's
 +
deception. The record should be set straight.
 +
 +
R
 +
[mailto:arbcom-l-bounces@lists.wikimedia.org] On Behalf Of Carcharoth
 +
Sent: Saturday, October 16, 2010 12:38 AM
 +
 +
----------
 +
From: Roger Davies <roger.davies.wiki@gmail.com>
 +
Date: Sat, Oct 16, 2010 at 09:08
 +
To: arbcom-l@lists.wikimedia.org
 +
 +
 +
 +
We always have internal splits over what to do when people ostensibly walk away. Partly because if we say anything too scathing, they come back and spend the rest of their lives trying to Set It Straight.
 +
 +
Roger
 +
 +
_______________________________________________
 +
arbcom-l mailing list
 +
arbcom-l@lists.wikimedia.org
 +
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/arbcom-l
 +
 +
 +
----------
 +
From: Randy Everette <rlevse@cox.net>
 +
Date: Sat, Oct 16, 2010 at 10:04
 +
To: roger.davies.wiki@gmail.com, English Arbitration Committee mailing list <arbcom-l@lists.wikimedia.org>
 +
 +
 +
Deceiving the community and passing a motion that aides the deception and furthers the rampant abuse of RTV isn’t right either. Someone can come up with a carefully worded stmt on this or I’ll do it myself.
 +
 +
R
 +
 +
From: arbcom-l-bounces@lists.wikimedia.org [mailto:arbcom-l-bounces@lists.wikimedia.org] On Behalf Of Roger Davies
 +
Sent: Saturday, October 16, 2010 9:09 AM
 +
To: arbcom-l@lists.wikimedia.org
 +
 +
_______________________________________________
 +
arbcom-l mailing list
 +
arbcom-l@lists.wikimedia.org
 +
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/arbcom-l
 +
 +
 +
----------
 +
From: Carcharoth <carcharothwp@googlemail.com>
 +
Date: Sat, Oct 16, 2010 at 16:07
 +
To: English Arbitration Committee mailing list <arbcom-l@lists.wikimedia.org>
 +
 +
 +
To be fair, if we are doing a statement on Polargeo, we should
 +
probably do one on ChrisO as well. Widening to other loose ends, I
 +
don't however, think we should make any public statement about the
 +
GJP/M4 stuff until it is much clearer what has happened or is
 +
happening there (I see there is a thread about this that I should
 +
read).
 +
 +
Carcharoth
 +
 +
----------
 +
From: Risker <risker.wp@gmail.com>
 +
Date: Sat, Oct 16, 2010 at 17:28
 +
To: English Arbitration Committee mailing list <arbcom-l@lists.wikimedia.org>
 +
 +
 +
Umm. There's a big difference between announcing the result of a motion - which is what the Polargeo situation is - and making "statements".
 +
 +
We haven't done a formal motion or taken a formal decision on ChrisO; his situation has simply been managed as fairly routine socking. I can't speak for everyone here, but I'm not inclined to do more with it.
 +
 +
And given the GJP/M4 stuff and the reason that it's so sensitive right now, frankly I think we would be violating at least the spirit of [[WP:NLT]] to make any public comment.
 +
 +
RIsker/Anne
 +
 +
_______________________________________________
 +
arbcom-l mailing list
 +
arbcom-l@lists.wikimedia.org
 +
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/arbcom-l
 +
 +
 +
----------
 +
From: <rlevse@cox.net>
 +
Date: Sat, Oct 16, 2010 at 17:49
 +
To: English Arbitration Committee mailing list <arbcom-l@lists.wikimedia.org>
 +
 +
 +
Well, I find the chriso ruling totally unacceptable. It's false, condones RTV abuse, and basically lying to the community, and you want to do nothing with it? I'm stunned this abomination even passed. He socks 3 hours after lying saying he was vanishing when he knew he wasn't, get's blocked for all he did, stabs Avi in the back, and the ruling says he used RTV in an okay manner and IF he comes back (which he did right away) he merely has to contact arbcom????? Come on people, he had this planned from the beginning and used it to evade sanctions and arbcom bought this line of bullshit hook, line, and sinker! Now it's time to spit this right back in his face and tell the community the truth.
 +
 +
R
 +
 +
----------
 +
From: Carcharoth <carcharothwp@googlemail.com>
 +
Date: Sat, Oct 16, 2010 at 20:15
 +
To: English Arbitration Committee mailing list <arbcom-l@lists.wikimedia.org>
 +
 +
 +
I suppose you are right. But some people will see the Polargeo motion
 +
and there will be internal and external calls for us to vote on
 +
similar motions on the other loose ends in the case (namely, ChrisO
 +
and the GJP/M4 stuff). As you saw from my previous e-mail, I agree
 +
with you about the GJP/M4 stuff, but am suggesting that we could ask
 +
those involved where things may need looking at to avoid controversial
 +
situations (that was what I meant by my reference to "gardening
 +
leave"). In other words, put people in limbo until the legal stuff is
 +
sorted and then return to look at it. That may not be practical, but
 +
it is a suggestion to break any deadlock we may have here.
 +
 +
More to the point, is anyone actually taking note of the allegation in
 +
the other thread that ScienceApologist did know who Usher was? Or is
 +
the conjecture here that SA knew who Probivouac was, but didn't know
 +
that he was Usher? And the point that if he didn't know who Usher was,
 +
why exactly were people talking about these matters to him anyway?
 +
What reason would they have had to talk to him. For example, how do we
 +
know that Usher didn't just blackmail people into giving him the
 +
information he wanted?
 +
 +
Apologies for bringing this up in the wrong thread, but people have
 +
gone silent in the other thread.
 +
 +
Carcharoth
 +
 +
----------
 +
From: <rlevse@cox.net>
 +
Date: Sat, Oct 16, 2010 at 20:21
 +
To: English Arbitration Committee mailing list <arbcom-l@lists.wikimedia.org>
 +
 +
 +
There's a HUGE difference with the ChrisO finding and the others...the finding is factually wrong on its face, deceptive to the community, and condones RTV -- and there are a few outside of us who already know this. Not to mention it lets ChrisO get away with purposely evading sanctions.
 +
 +
I simply can't stomach condoning this.
 +
 +
R
 +
 +
----------
 +
From: Risker <risker.wp@gmail.com>
 +
Date: Sat, Oct 16, 2010 at 20:22
 +
To: English Arbitration Committee mailing list <arbcom-l@lists.wikimedia.org>
 +
 +
 +
 +
 +
 +
Thanks for explaining "gardening leave"....I'm still not entirely sure I understand. Do you mean that we just not respond?
 +
 +
 +
It's the weekend and a lot of people are busy, I suspect. I've not really been available much today. Lots of emails to think about. Or perhaps not think about, I haven't decided which.
 +
 +
I have no idea why anyone is connecting the fact that ScienceApologist had his entire userspace deleted (all 9 archives plus a subpage or two) to Proabivouac or Usher or anything other than clearing out his userspace. This strikes me as rather absurd conspiracy theorizing. Should I worry every time I delete one of my userspace pages that someone is going to accuse me later of being an evildoer? Oh wait, nevermind. That already happens, even without deleting userspace pages.  ;-)
 +
 +
Risker/Anne
 +
 +
 +
 +
 +
 +
 +
 +
_______________________________________________
 +
arbcom-l mailing list
 +
arbcom-l@lists.wikimedia.org
 +
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/arbcom-l
 +
 +
 +
----------
 +
From: Carcharoth <carcharothwp@googlemail.com>
 +
Date: Sat, Oct 16, 2010 at 20:53
 +
To: English Arbitration Committee mailing list <arbcom-l@lists.wikimedia.org>
 +
 +
 +
I thought "gardening leave" was a well-understood term. I've almost
 +
certainly misused it, as it really means putting someone on leave
 +
until their contract expires, rather than sacking them (and having to
 +
pay them off). What I really meant is unofficially tell people to not
 +
do anything until it is clear what the outcome will be here. Tell the
 +
people who allegations have been against that we are aware of these
 +
allegations but doing nothing until the lawsuit is resolved, and then
 +
we may do our own investigation at that point. As I said, that might
 +
not be practical, but it is the only thing I can think of. Failing
 +
that, then yeah, leave it unresolved, like many other things we end up
 +
not dealing with. It's not like we can claim to deal with everything
 +
that comes our way - we frequently discuss and then hit a brick wall
 +
or go round in circles and end up doing nothing. The fact that we've
 +
discussed and tried to work out what to do, at least leaves my
 +
conscience clear.
 +
I thought the point was that even without the deletion of the user
 +
pages, that SA knew who Usher was because Usher outed him. Or did
 +
ATren just make that up? I've looked at the WR thread and the deleted
 +
archive page, and it seems SA would know who Proabivouac was, but I
 +
still don't understand why he would talk to Usher?
 +
 +
Atren said this: "But again, whether SA knew who Proabivouac was is
 +
immaterial -- sharing personal data (whatever it is) about anonymous
 +
or pseudonymous editors is an act that should NOT be treated lightly.
 +
The connection to Proab is significant, but not necessary."
 +
 +
Remember, we came down like a ton of bricks on MZMcBride for passing
 +
stuff to Gregory Kohs.
 +
 +
SA may not have shared personal data, but who did he think this Usher
 +
person was and what exactly was going on? Anyway, we don't really have
 +
enough information to go further, and I doubt it would be sensible for
 +
anyone to ask SA about this. I'm going to drop the matter for now,
 +
while still noting my feeling that this isn't really resolved at our
 +
end and could be picked up again at some future point. I'd still like
 +
to know when the lawsuit is likely to be resolved, and whether it is
 +
conceivable that Usher is (again) exerting pressure on those he seems
 +
to have wrapped round his little finger.
 +
 +
Carcharoth
 +
 +
----------
 +
From: Risker <risker.wp@gmail.com>
 +
Date: Sat, Oct 16, 2010 at 21:13
 +
To: English Arbitration Committee mailing list <arbcom-l@lists.wikimedia.org>
 +
 +
 +
Well, I'm not going to speculate there as to what their relationship is. However, this whole "it was private information" business seems to be put to rest, now that we have heard from NW that what he "shared" was that the two parties had different work IPs. That's not particularly private, is it? When it's being used to explain that they're not socks?  I've read the privacy policy and the checkuser policy many times over in the past few weeks, and I'm not seeing how this is violating it. What's on-wiki in the SPI, including the information revealed by both M4 and GJP, is far more revelatory, and even then it seems a lot of editors didn't believe it, given the fact that there continued to be the belief they were socks up to two months after the SPI.
 +
 +
 +
As to how long this could take - most civil cases take a couple of years to wind through the system. (Canada's a bit worse than the US, but civil cases don't get before a judge for at least 3 years here, and usually it's closer to 5 years.) I can't see this one being resolved very quickly, particularly given the FLDS connection.
 +
 +
Risker/Anne
 +
 +
 +
 +
 +
 +
_______________________________________________
 +
arbcom-l mailing list
 +
arbcom-l@lists.wikimedia.org
 +
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/arbcom-l
 +
 +
 +
----------
 +
From: Carcharoth <carcharothwp@googlemail.com>
 +
Date: Sat, Oct 16, 2010 at 20:07
 +
To: English Arbitration Committee mailing list <arbcom-l@lists.wikimedia.org>
 +
 +
 +
Actually, ChrisO didn't manage to evade sanctions. He was topic banned
 +
along with everyone else.
 +
 +
----------
 +
From: <rlevse@cox.net>
 +
Date: Sat, Oct 16, 2010 at 21:30
 +
To: English Arbitration Committee mailing list <arbcom-l@lists.wikimedia.org>
 +
 +
 +
He was attempting to and at one time he was not on the topic ban list. And then why is supposed to contact arbcom? That was put in at the point in time the other sanctions were taken off the table due to the mentality "if he disappears there's no reason to sanction him".
 +
 +
And none of that makes the rest of this issue okay...that he didn't RTV, etc etc
 +
 +
R
 +
 +
----------
 +
From: Roger Davies <roger.davies.wiki@gmail.com>
 +
Date: Sat, Oct 16, 2010 at 23:18
 +
To: English Arbitration Committee mailing list <arbcom-l@lists.wikimedia.org>
 +
 +
 +
 +
On 17/10/2010 01:22, Risker wrote:
 +
 +
<snip>
 +
 +
 +
<snip>
 +
 +
Agreed, the deleting of the archives is not in itself very significant. What is significant is the discovery that SA and TU were corresponding off-wiki as long ago as May 2007. Absent explanation, this makes SA's assertion that he didn't know who Usher was or that he was corresponding with him in July/August 2010 somewhat less plausible. Again, it's yet another piece of circumstantial evidence/coincidence that supports the "leaked information" hypothesis.
 +
 +
Roger
 +
 +
_______________________________________________
 +
arbcom-l mailing list
 +
arbcom-l@lists.wikimedia.org
 +
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/arbcom-l
 +
 +
 +
----------
 +
From: Carcharoth <carcharothwp@googlemail.com>
 +
Date: Sun, Oct 17, 2010 at 09:40
 +
To: English Arbitration Committee mailing list <arbcom-l@lists.wikimedia.org>
 +
 +
 +
I'm no longer sure they were corresponding. Proabivouac said he
 +
"confirmed" SA's credentials, but I think that refers merely to
 +
detective work, not direct correspondence. One of the things I would
 +
do is ask SA directly if he had corresponded with Proabivouac, when,
 +
and when he corresponded with Usher, and when he realised they were
 +
the same person. But I don't have much confidence that we would get
 +
honest answers, or that anything could be proven. And any questioning
 +
like that shouldn't be done until the lawsuit issues are resolved, and
 +
that could take years apparently. Which is annoying. I don't really
 +
know where things should go from here. What I really want is some
 +
confirmation that all involved have learnt lessons from this and will
 +
change how they do things going forward. Then I'd be happy that we had
 +
dealt with this as far as we can. Which is why I am returning once
 +
again to the idea that we need to issue an internal statement to all
 +
checkusers, oversighters, arbcom clerks and SPI clerks to beware of
 +
people like Usher, and mention some other "banned means banned" people
 +
to make the point more general.
 +
 +
Carcharoth
 +
 +
----------
 +
From: Roger Davies <roger.davies.wiki@gmail.com>
 +
Date: Sun, Oct 17, 2010 at 09:54
 +
To: arbcom-l@lists.wikimedia.org
 +
 +
 +
 +
Yes, it's one of these things you can read either way. Though the peanut gallery will go for the obvious explanation, mates since May 2007.
 +
 +
Roger
 +
 +
_______________________________________________
 +
arbcom-l mailing list
 +
arbcom-l@lists.wikimedia.org
 +
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/arbcom-l
 +
 +
 +
----------
 +
From: Risker <risker.wp@gmail.com>
 +
Date: Sun, Oct 17, 2010 at 10:04
 +
To: roger.davies.wiki@gmail.com, English Arbitration Committee mailing list <arbcom-l@lists.wikimedia.org>
 +
 +
 +
This is all getting rather tiresome.  It's pretty obvious that there are people on this list who won't believe ScienceApologist regardless of what he says, which may well reflect the mindset of portions of the community. So let's get down to brass tacks. Do you want to indefinitely block him until this matter is resolved, or not?  Really, those are the only two options, and all this "well maybe this, but what if that..." is just so much gossip on our part.
 +
 +
Risker/Anne
 +
 +
_______________________________________________
 +
arbcom-l mailing list
 +
arbcom-l@lists.wikimedia.org
 +
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/arbcom-l
 +
 +
 +
----------
 +
From: Roger Davies <roger.davies.wiki@gmail.com>
 +
Date: Sun, Oct 17, 2010 at 10:01
 +
To: English Arbitration Committee mailing list <arbcom-l@lists.wikimedia.org>
 +
 +
 +
 +
One really obvious thing to do is to write to ATren along the following lines:
 +
It is not in dispute that Science Apologist was in contact with Timothy Usher. What is disputed is what was said.
 +
 +
The Arbitration Committee is keen to get to the bottom of this and your help in doing so would be appreciated.
 +
 +
Do you have any direct evidence that demonstrates that personally identifying information - for example, names, addresses, phone numbers, IP addresses and so on - was given to Usher by Science Apologist?
 +
I would write to him myself but I am not the best person given my role in his topic ban. But I think we should write very soon.
 +
 +
Roger
 +
 +
_______________________________________________
 +
arbcom-l mailing list
 +
arbcom-l@lists.wikimedia.org
 +
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/arbcom-l
 +
 +
 +
----------
 +
From: Roger Davies <roger.davies.wiki@gmail.com>
 +
Date: Sun, Oct 17, 2010 at 10:15
 +
To: Risker <risker.wp@gmail.com>
 +
Cc: English Arbitration Committee mailing list <arbcom-l@lists.wikimedia.org>
 +
 +
 +
 +
It probably reflects the mindset of a great many in the community and the last thing we want is this blowing into an on-wiki fire we can't put out.
 +
 +
On what basis do we block Science Apologist? For talking to Usher? He says he didn't know? For revealing private information? He says he didn't. For making legal theats? He hasn't made any. For being the defendant in a law suit? That's not covered by policy.
 +
 +
Roger
 +
 +
_______________________________________________
 +
arbcom-l mailing list
 +
arbcom-l@lists.wikimedia.org
 +
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/arbcom-l
 +
 +
 +
----------
 +
From: Carcharoth <carcharothwp@googlemail.com>
 +
Date: Sun, Oct 17, 2010 at 10:59
 +
To: English Arbitration Committee mailing list <arbcom-l@lists.wikimedia.org>
 +
 +
 +
What is clear is that he (SA) can't leverage being a defendant in a
 +
lawsuit during on-wiki discussions. The issue of whether the defendent
 +
in a lawsuit should continue editing Wikipedia has always been unclear
 +
and depends largely on the conduct of said defendent. Sometimes you
 +
have counter-suits as well, though that doesn't seem to be happening
 +
here. What I have in mind here is when the National Portrait Gallery
 +
sent a legal letter to someone whose name I forget, he then published
 +
that letter and roused the community against the NPG (the situation is
 +
not exactly analogous, as the NPG was not a fellow editor and they
 +
were in different countries as well). It is that sort of thing that I
 +
think ScienceApologist needs to avoid doing. It is already clear that
 +
versions of what is going on here are circulating off-wiki among
 +
several editors and groups of editors, so we should keep in mind that
 +
whatever we say will doubtless spread off-wiki.
 +
 +
Carcharoth
 +
 +
On Sun, Oct 17, 2010 at 3:15 PM, Roger Davies
 +
 +
----------
 +
From: Risker <risker.wp@gmail.com>
 +
Date: Sun, Oct 17, 2010 at 11:07
 +
To: English Arbitration Committee mailing list <arbcom-l@lists.wikimedia.org>
 +
 +
 +
Carcharoth, I'm going to ask you to please not add any tangents here. If the committee believes this is a serious situation then it needs to be addressed directly and promptly.  Roger, Shell and I are NOT in a position to contact ATren. Are you willing to do it, perhaps using the phrasing that Roger has suggested?
 +
 +
Risker/Anne
 +
 +
_______________________________________________
 +
arbcom-l mailing list
 +
arbcom-l@lists.wikimedia.org
 +
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/arbcom-l
 +
 +
 +
----------
 +
From: Roger Davies <roger.davies.wiki@gmail.com>
 +
Date: Sun, Oct 17, 2010 at 11:25
 +
To: arbcom-l@lists.wikimedia.org
 +
 +
 +
 +
Yes, Carcharoth would be a good choice.
 +
Failing which, perhaps Randy might oblige?
 +
 +
Roger
 +
 +
_______________________________________________
 +
arbcom-l mailing list
 +
arbcom-l@lists.wikimedia.org
 +
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/arbcom-l
 +
 +
 +
----------
 +
From: Marc A. Pelletier <marc@uberbox.org>
 +
Date: Sun, Oct 17, 2010 at 11:39
 +
To: arbcom-l@lists.wikimedia.org
 +
 +
 +
Actually, that's besides the point as far as I'm concerned.  The reason I think intervention at this point is ill-advised is that - at no point - did anyone make an allegation of *specific* misbehavior.  Even starting an investigation on "He did something wrong!  Ban him!" is iffy in the best of cases.
 +
 +
I believe the proper term is "Failure to state a claim upon which relief can be granted."
 +
 +
-- Coren / Marc
 +
 +
 +
_______________________________________________
 +
arbcom-l mailing list
 +
arbcom-l@lists.wikimedia.org
 +
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/arbcom-l
 +
 +
 +
----------
 +
From: Roger Davies <roger.davies.wiki@gmail.com>
 +
Date: Sun, Oct 17, 2010 at 12:00
 +
To: arbcom-l@lists.wikimedia.org
 +
 +
 +
 +
They've actually made a very specific claim of misbehaviour - passing on personally identifying information - which is prohibited both by WMF policy and by our local outing policy and the implicit relief is removing the alleged outer from circulation to prevent them from repeating the behaviour.
 +
 +
Roger
 +
 +
_______________________________________________
 +
arbcom-l mailing list
 +
 +
_______________________________________________
 +
arbcom-l mailing list
 +
arbcom-l@lists.wikimedia.org
 +
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/arbcom-l
 +
 +
 +
----------
 +
From: Michelle Kinney <shell.kinney@gmail.com>
 +
Date: Sun, Oct 17, 2010 at 13:18
 +
To: English Arbitration Committee mailing list <arbcom-l@lists.wikimedia.org>
 +
 +
 +
If we could try to go back to assuming good faith here for a bit, I'm
 +
actually a bit more concerned about what Brandon told NuclearWarfare.
 +
But hey, why discuss this rationally when we can continue to make
 +
emotional appeals and cloud the situation with a variety of other
 +
non-issues?  Would you care to explain why you feel so strongly that
 +
this situation doesn't deserve looking into at all?  You've
 +
single-handedly shot down every suggestion made by several other Arbs.
 +
 +
Shell
 +
 +
----------
 +
From: Carcharoth <carcharothwp@googlemail.com>
 +
Date: Sun, Oct 17, 2010 at 13:32
 +
To: English Arbitration Committee mailing list <arbcom-l@lists.wikimedia.org>
 +
 +
 +
Well, I'm not going to make any contact until it is clear what the
 +
committee think should be done. As far as I can tell, discussion
 +
appears to be continuing. The point about personally identifying
 +
information being passed on, is that it is difficult for someone who
 +
thinks their information has been passed on, to say what has been
 +
passed on (if they knew, they would say so). So it is difficult to
 +
distinguish between a genuine allegation and one that has no basis. We
 +
would normally find out by further questioning, but this is difficult
 +
with the spectre of this lawsuit hanging over everything.
 +
 +
----------
 +
From: Randy Everette <rlevse@cox.net>
 +
Date: Sun, Oct 17, 2010 at 15:10
 +
To: English Arbitration Committee mailing list <arbcom-l@lists.wikimedia.org>
 +
 +
 +
I have to agree with Marc. Barring the revelation of specific info, there are insufficient grounds upon which to block SA.
 +
 +
I also agree it’s worth someone contacting SA along the lines Roger suggests.
 +
 +
R
 +
 +
From: arbcom-l-bounces@lists.wikimedia.org [mailto:arbcom-l-bounces@lists.wikimedia.org] On Behalf Of Marc A. Pelletier
 +
Sent: Sunday, October 17, 2010 11:39 AM
 +
 +
On 17/10/2010 10:04 AM, Risker wrote:
 +
 +
_______________________________________________
 +
arbcom-l mailing list
 +
arbcom-l@lists.wikimedia.org
 +
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/arbcom-l
 +
 +
 +
----------
 +
From: Risker <risker.wp@gmail.com>
 +
Date: Sun, Oct 17, 2010 at 15:48
 +
To: English Arbitration Committee mailing list <arbcom-l@lists.wikimedia.org>
 +
 +
 +
Fair comment, I suppose, although I've not been the only one hesitant to have an investigation, or to pursue an investigation without some sort of idea of what private information was supposedly disclosed;  Coren, Frank and KnightLago have indicated similarly. I don't believe, however, that having a huge discussion that comes to no conclusion is particularly helpful either, though. So let's start with this.
 +
 +
Checkusers only have two "private" pieces of information accessible to them as a result of their permission: IP data and user agent data. User agent data is only useful if there is something to compare it to; we have no indication whatsoever that anyone, even Usher, had that information or a process in which to compare UAs. We also know that both GJP and M4 revealed their own IP addresses on-wiki prior to the exchange in which Usher was involved. Indeed, we know that one of the IPs that GJP revealed led directly to his office; that wasn't even on our project, it was on Meta. Even revealing geolocation data linked to the IPs is fairly useless; their edits located them to a fairly circumscribed geographic area with a large population, they both had indicated they were from Texas on their userpages, and they used a lot of Opera Mini, which does not geolocate effectively even at the best of times. Checkusers *don't* have access to people's RL names, addresses, businesses, dates of birth, or other private or confidential information, so there is no reasonable prospect that such information was revealed.
 +
 +
So far, nobody has identified any private information that has been passed to Usher. Lar, who knows the policy, has not responded to requests from both myself and KnightLago to identify what private information is alleged to have been released. ATren has not been asked, and there now seems to be some hesitation in asking him directly what private information he has been told has been released. NuclearWarfare was asked what he passed on, and it is information that does not fall under privacy policy or checkuser policy.
 +
 +
So what, exactly, would be the purpose of the investigation? Regardless of what answers we get, they will not be believed by those who are making the allegations. Perhaps others might find this article interesting, but I'll pull out the key quote from it:
 +
 +
" In a series of studies in 2005 and 2006, researchers at the University of Michigan found that when misinformed people, particularly political partisans, were exposed to corrected facts in news stories, they rarely changed their minds. In fact, they often became even more strongly set in their beliefs. Facts, they found, were not curing misinformation. Like an underpowered antibiotic, facts could actually make misinformation even stronger."
 +
 +
 +
 +
 +
 +
With ScienceApologist, the only range of "solutions" is to block indefinitely or not block indefinitely. As Roger points out, we have no indication that he provided any private information, or that he even had any to provide.
 +
 +
With Brandon, the only relevant question is "did you give out IP data to any non-checkusers?" because that is the only private information to which he has access as a checkuser. Will he believed if he says "no"? By the committee? By those who are spreading these rumours?
 +
 +
Now, obviously, if any checkuser actually handed out IP data, their tenure would be extremely short. But there's no indication at all, from anyone, that *any* checkuser revealed IP (or UA) data; if he had received such, I have little doubt NuclearWarfare would have said so - unless we want to assume bad faith about him. The reaction to these unfounded allegations, however, which are clearly intended to strike as an emotional appeal ("a FEMALE editor") , has focused not on the actual information that is supposed to have been passed on, but on communication issues, on incorrect interpretations of what does and does not constitute private information under our policies, and an incomplete understanding of the behavioural standards that have been developed by the community and the checkusers within the structures of our polices in order to address reasonable concerns about sockpuppetry and inappropriate alternate accounts.
 +
 +
So. Here are a few things that may be relevant to investigate:
 +
 +
Contributions for Minor4th (particularly the earliest ones), her admitted sock Loquitor, and her {{likely}} sock Hope4Kids (she denies this is her sock, but CU data in July showed it to be likely).  Wikistalk results.
 +
 +
GregJackP and his sock BlueSooner. Note BlueSooner's deleted contributions, particularly User:BlueSooner/Natalie Malonis and [[Coram Non Judice (blog]]. I'd send you to read the Coram Non Judice blog, but it has now been restricted to registered users. It focused on two basic topics:  FLDS and Menominee native Americans. Note that GregJackP has a userbox on his userpage indicating that he is (part) Menominee, and he has written extensively about this and other tribes. (I think CHL saw the blog before it was closed off, perhaps he can comment.)
 +
 +
User:Hugh McBryde's suppressed edits to his talk page, where he is linking User:BlueSooner to "TxBluesMan", the author of the Coram Non Judice blog, and also raising Natalie Malonis' name. Please recall that I reported earlier that Natalie Malonis and GregJackP both requested suppression of that data, and the page was blanked but only one edit with the "outing" information was removed at the time of the original request, until after we were informed of Usher's activities. [A reminder was sent out to all oversighters after that was identified, to look in depth at page histories. This appears to have been a systemic error which involved a mostly-inactive oversighter, after an attempt at discussion on the mailing list faltered. This occurred a few weeks before we moved to OTRS, where non-completed responses are easy to track.]
 +
 +
If you're highly motivated, you can google any or all of "Natalie Malonis", "GregJackP", the three bloggers named as defendants. I'd suggest using an anonymizer like ninjaproxy.com if you go to their blogs, which no doubt collect IP information.
 +
 +
I assume good faith of the people here; while I might not agree with everyone, or even think there's some naivete, I do know that everyone on this list does care about the project. I do not share that good faith about the people who have initiated this campaign of rumour and innuendo.
 +
 +
Risker/Anne
 +
 +
 +
 +
 +
 +
 +
 +
 +
 +
 +
 +
 +
 +
 +
 +
 +
 +
_______________________________________________
 +
arbcom-l mailing list
 +
arbcom-l@lists.wikimedia.org
 +
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/arbcom-l
 +
 +
 +
----------
 +
From: David Yellope <dyellope.wiki@gmail.com>
 +
Date: Sun, Oct 17, 2010 at 16:33
 +
To: English Arbitration Committee mailing list <arbcom-l@lists.wikimedia.org>
 +
 +
 +
I tend to agree with Risker:
 +
 +
Those of you with long memories on the Committee will remember that me and SA have a history, so to speak, (the Fringe Science arbitration case which I was responsible for enforcing sanctions at AE,). I'm generally not inclined to give him the benefit of doubt here.. but let's look at the facts.
 +
 +
A) SA is accused by Minor4th/GregJackP of leaking personal details to Timothy Usher, who conspired with the defendants to defame GregJackP
 +
B) Having looked at the situation, there ARE inconsistencies with both Minor/GregJackP's story (considering the amount of information they voluntarily disclosed, here and on Meta, not to mention the SPI that were failed, and the fact that the FLDS folks were trying to out them ), and SA's story as well (his relationship with Usher).
 +
C) Hampering any investigation is a multi-million dollar lawsuit. Any of the details of which we can learn on this list would then be subject to discovery. This is a subject I'm sure all the parties have thought of, or at least their lawyers have made them aware of.
 +
D) While there is a broad outline of what was supposed to have happened, we have no information as to the specifics, which is what we'd need to nail this down and prove or disprove these allegations,
 +
 +
Suggestions:
 +
 +
Regarding ScienceApologist:
 +
I think that we could have a private word with him and state that we think it's best if he restricts any further discussions with Usher to the lawsuit that they are both defendants in, and nothing Wikipedia related, that ignorance will no longer be considered a defense. This would also serve the goal of making him aware that if we DO receive specifics of any violations of Wikipedia's outing policies, that the sanctions will be quick and severe. I don't think he's going to tell us he DID what they were saying, and we couldn't trust a no answer.
 +
 +
Regarding the accusers (Lar, Atren, Thegoodlocust, Abd):
 +
I'm thinking of writing the four of them a letter. We are aware of the allegations made against ScienceApologist in the lawsuit.  Lay out the details (that before we can take action, we need specifics (who, when, where, what.. etcetera). If we have them, we can act. Also, suggest that we've noticed a few comments in other places that would lead to sanctions if made on Wikipedia, and STRONGLY suggest that if they absolutely must continue to make them, that they do so elsewhere, that any such activities on-WP will be viewed in the most unfavorable ways.
 +
 +
Regarding Brandon (the CU in question):
 +
I think this is a matter for the AUSC. With the Committee's approval, I suggest that the AUSC (Committee and Non-Committee members alike), write a formal request to Brandon requesting the details of any CU he has run in this area, and who he shared them with.
 +
 +
Regarding NW: (The conduit between the CU and SA/Usher)
 +
Well, we know what he said he shared (and that squares with the information known). I know he has voluntarily relinquished the tools. I suggest that we do not make it "under a cloud", and that he can get the tools back upon request.
 +
 +
 +
 +
_______________________________________________
 +
arbcom-l mailing list
 +
arbcom-l@lists.wikimedia.org
 +
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/arbcom-l
 +
 +
 +
----------
 +
From: Kirill Lokshin <kirill.lokshin@gmail.com>
 +
Date: Sun, Oct 17, 2010 at 16:39
 +
To: English Arbitration Committee mailing list <arbcom-l@lists.wikimedia.org>
 +
 +
 +
Agreed.  Here's an updated draft for a letter to ATren:
 +
 +
"In regard to your concerns about ScienceApologist and Timothy Usher, the Arbitration Committee is conducting an internal inquiry into the matter.  We are very keen to get to the bottom of the situation, and your help in doing so would be appreciated.
 +
 +
That ScienceApologist was in contact with Usher appears to be undisputed.  However, the nature of the information that may have been communicated between them is currently unknown.  Further, we have not yet been able to determine whether ScienceApologist knew of Usher's "activities" at the time they corresponded.
 +
 +
Unless we can obtain concrete evidence that addresses these issues, it will be difficult, if not impossible, to determine whether anything improper took place.
 +
 +
Do you have any direct evidence to show that personally identifying information -- for example, names, addresses, phone numbers, IP addresses and so forth -- was given to Usher by ScienceApologist?  If so, please send it to arbcom-l@lists.wikimedia.org.  If you have evidence regarding any other points, or suggestions for lines of inquiry that we can pursue, we'd appreciate hearing those as well."
 +
 +
I'm happy to send this to him, assuming nobody sees any particular reason not to.
 +
 +
Kirill
 +
 +
_______________________________________________
 +
arbcom-l mailing list
 +
arbcom-l@lists.wikimedia.org
 +
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/arbcom-l
 +
 +
 +
----------
 +
From: Michelle Kinney <shell.kinney@gmail.com>
 +
Date: Sun, Oct 17, 2010 at 16:44
 +
To: English Arbitration Committee mailing list <arbcom-l@lists.wikimedia.org>
 +
 +
 +
That sounds like it just about covers everything.
 +
 +
Shell
 +
 +
----------
 +
From: Risker <risker.wp@gmail.com>
 +
Date: Sun, Oct 17, 2010 at 16:54
 +
To: English Arbitration Committee mailing list <arbcom-l@lists.wikimedia.org>
 +
 +
 +
I suggest we avoid the word "investigation".  Instead, something like "Jimmy Wales and Risker have forwarded your recent to the committee, and we would appreciate your clarification on several points."
 +
 +
I'd also like to hear from Frank particularly on the wording of this. We know that anything we send to ATren is extremely likely to be in the hands of GregJackP and Minor4th within minutes, and we do not want to give them the excuse to subpoena our archives.
 +
 +
Risker/Anne
 +
 +
_______________________________________________
 +
arbcom-l mailing list
 +
 +
 +
_______________________________________________
 +
arbcom-l mailing list
 +
arbcom-l@lists.wikimedia.org
 +
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/arbcom-l
 +
 +
 +
----------
 +
From: Kirill Lokshin <kirill.lokshin@gmail.com>
 +
Date: Sun, Oct 17, 2010 at 16:59
 +
To: English Arbitration Committee mailing list <arbcom-l@lists.wikimedia.org>
 +
 +
 +
I rather doubt that anything we do at this point will greatly affect the chances that they'll subpoena the archives; if we investigate, then they'll want to see the results, and if we don't, they'll be looking for evidence of the cover-up.
 +
 +
Kirill
 +
 +
_______________________________________________
 +
arbcom-l mailing list
 +
arbcom-l@lists.wikimedia.org
 +
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/arbcom-l
 +
 +
 +
----------
 +
From: <rlevse@cox.net>
 +
Date: Sun, Oct 17, 2010 at 16:59
 +
To: English Arbitration Committee mailing list <arbcom-l@lists.wikimedia.org>
 +
 +
 +
Be very wary of ATren, I don't trust him one bit. For one thing, he was way too eager to get to us.
 +
 +
R
 +
 +
----------
 +
From: Newyorkbrad <newyorkbrad@gmail.com>
 +
Date: Sun, Oct 17, 2010 at 17:10
 +
To: English Arbitration Committee mailing list <arbcom-l@lists.wikimedia.org>
 +
 +
 +
I hate to do this, but can I ask that we table doing anything
 +
official-sounding in this matter until I get home tomorrow and have an
 +
opportunity to catch up on what is happening?  We have competing
 +
obligations here to satisfy our internal responsibilities on Wikipedia
 +
and not to unnecessarily compound a real-world legal dispute, and how
 +
we proceed needs to be carefully evaluated with both concerns in mind.
 +
 +
Newyorkbrad
 +
 +
----------
 +
From: Marc A. Pelletier <marc@uberbox.org>
 +
Date: Sun, Oct 17, 2010 at 18:52
 +
To: roger.davies.wiki@gmail.com, English Arbitration Committee mailing list <arbcom-l@lists.wikimedia.org>
 +
 +
 +
*What* personally identifying information?
 +
 +
-- Coren / Marc
 +
 +
 +
_______________________________________________
 +
arbcom-l mailing list
 +
arbcom-l@lists.wikimedia.org
 +
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/arbcom-l
 +
 +
 +
----------
 +
From: Kirill Lokshin <kirill.lokshin@gmail.com>
 +
Date: Thu, Oct 21, 2010 at 00:06
 +
To: English Arbitration Committee mailing list <arbcom-l@lists.wikimedia.org>
 +
 +
 +
Brad, did you ever get the chance to take a look at this?
 +
 +
Kirill
 +
 +
_______________________________________________
 +
arbcom-l mailing list
 +
arbcom-l@lists.wikimedia.org
 +
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/arbcom-l
 +
 +
 +
----------
 +
From: Newyorkbrad <newyorkbrad@gmail.com>
 +
Date: Thu, Oct 21, 2010 at 02:50
 +
To: English Arbitration Committee mailing list <arbcom-l@lists.wikimedia.org>
 +
 +
 +
Yes; please see the "pending items" thread.
 +
 +
Newyorkbrad
 +
 +
----------
 +
From: Jimmy Wales <jwales@wikia-inc.com>
 +
Date: Thu, Oct 21, 2010 at 03:38
 +
To: arbcom-l@lists.wikimedia.org
 +
 +
 +
It is a UK-only term as far as I know.
 +
 +
----------
 +
From: Newyorkbrad <newyorkbrad@gmail.com>
 +
Date: Thu, Oct 21, 2010 at 16:46
 +
To: English Arbitration Committee mailing list <arbcom-l@lists.wikimedia.org>
 +
 +
 +
Agreed.  I learned it (and lots of other Britishisms) from "Yes, Minister."
 +
 +
Newyorkbrad
 +
 +
 +
_______________________________________________
 +
arbcom-l mailing list
 +
arbcom-l@lists.wikimedia.org
 +
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/arbcom-l
 +
 +
 +
----------
 +
From: Cool Hand Luke <User.CoolHandLuke@gmail.com>
 +
Date: Thu, Oct 21, 2010 at 18:13
 +
To: English Arbitration Committee mailing list <arbcom-l@lists.wikimedia.org>
 +
 +
 +
 +
Yes indeed.  The Coram Non Judice was probably pulled down because the topics of interest overlapping with BlueSooner and GregJackP were extensive.  There were posts about all manner of FLDS topics, several about the Menominee tribe, and the Oklahoma Sooners (and a profile for a "BlueSooner" on a sports fan site would show that BlueSooner was the same age as the person behind GregJackP.
 +
 +
I believe one of the reasons the site was pulled down was that it strongly correlated the link between GregJackP and TxBluesMan.
 +
 +
 +
 +
 +
I think this is likely a source of information--Usher contacted Hugh McBryde in any case, and McBride had accurately identified Malonis' account and the BlueSooner account.  Usher could have got it from McBryde in person, or gleaned it from the unoversighted edits.  He might have noticed that Hugh McBryde was a frequent commentator and object of ridicule on Coram Non Judice and that BlueSooner had edited his user page by the same name.  This would have led to the edits.
 +
 +
Frank
 +
 +
_______________________________________________
 +
arbcom-l mailing list
 +
arbcom-l@lists.wikimedia.org
 +
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/arbcom-l
 +
 +
 +
----------
 +
From: Cool Hand Luke <User.CoolHandLuke@gmail.com>
 +
Date: Thu, Oct 21, 2010 at 18:25
 +
To: English Arbitration Committee mailing list <arbcom-l@lists.wikimedia.org>
 +
 +
 +
I agree with Risker in re: "investigation" and "inquiry" in the first sentence.  I like Kirill's draft otherwise.
 +
 +
Note that I have been friendly with ATren on-wiki since the THF case in 200X.  He's probably disappointed that I'm not with him on this; he suggested to me that "at minimum" we should ban SA and permanently desysop NW.  I asked him what information he thought SA leaked, and he replied that the essential issue is that SA was conversing with Usher and probably lied about knowing Usher.  I disagree with ATren that this alone is grounds to sanction SA.
 +
 +
I tend to think that SA is not being fully truthful about Usher, but I also believe he didn't have anything to give him that he didn't already have.  Their original conversation was about how Usher believed the accounts were socks--which they sincerely believed.  In the course of trying to prove they're socks, Usher discovered their identity.  I do believe that SA did not intend that (and probably didn't even imagine it would happen).
 +
 +
Frank
  
 
_______________________________________________
 
_______________________________________________

Revision as of 02:43, 24 June 2011

Introductions

Subject: [arbcom-l] Introduction

From: Jonathan Clemens <clem4609@pacificu.edu> Date: Fri, Dec 17, 2010 at 17:22 To: arbcom-l@lists.wikimedia.org


All,

This email should serve two purposes: first, to make sure I changed my email address correctly (more on that in a bit), and secondly to provide a bit of an introduction and brief CV on myself.

While I tend to have all my email sent to jclemens@jclemens.org, that's a domain-name-sans-mailserver ever since every ISP started blocking tcp/25 inbound, so I use one of my other two email addresses (school and personal ISP) as outgoing. So, I guess I need to use a mail address where incoming and outgoing match.

I'm Jonathan Clemens. Up until June, I was employed by Intel Corporation, where I had been an information security practitioner (professional staff or first-line manager) since 1999. Previously, I'd worked full-time IT jobs for World Vision (2 years) and Unisys (3 years). I'm 39 at the moment, and currently in graduate school to become a Physician Assistant. The differences between that and medical school are of interest only to those within the field. I'm leaving the IT realm for medicine for a number of reasons; ask offline if you care.

I currently work as a volunteer EMT/Firefighter here in Oregon while going to school, but I've lived most of my adult life in Washington state, though born and raised in Alaska. In addition to my undergraduate degree in computer information systems, I have an M.Div. from Pepperdine. I've been married 15 years, and my wife and I have three kids, the older two of whom are in Boy Scouts.

I've been on the 'net since it was BITNET (in 1987) and ARPAnet (in 1988), and am fully conversant in Windows, Mac, and Linux, in addition to a bunch of oddball operating systems that no one actually uses anymore.

I hope my eclectic background brings something unique to the committee for this coming year.

Jonathan _______________________________________________ arbcom-l mailing list arbcom-l@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/arbcom-l

From: David Yellope <dyellope.wiki@gmail.com> Date: Fri, Dec 17, 2010 at 20:47 To: English Arbitration Committee mailing list <arbcom-l@lists.wikimedia.org>


Ah, another techie guy (Technical Support engineer for EMC)

Welcome Jonathan.

_______________________________________________ arbcom-l mailing list arbcom-l@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/arbcom-l


From: Carcharoth <carcharothwp@googlemail.com> Date: Fri, Dec 17, 2010 at 21:24 To: English Arbitration Committee mailing list <arbcom-l@lists.wikimedia.org>


The e-mail came through. Does that mean the changes worked? You seem to be moving from north to south along the US West Coast. California next? :-)

The nice thing about running through background stuff like this (not that anyone is obliged to do this at all) is that it does give those on the committee an idea of the diversity in geographical, professional and personal backgrounds. For comparison, some of what I've divulged about my background on this mailing list (though I don't give my name on-wiki) is the following:

Name: Christopher Kreuzer Age: 33 (born 1977) Location: Twickenham, London, UK Education: Undergraduate sciences degree 1995-1999 (Chemistry in final two years) Employment: Writing, keywording and cataloging (science photography), 2000-present Interests: Chess, Tolkien, Science, History

Jonathan talked about eclectic backgrounds. Looking back on the past two years, I'm not sure how much my background actually helped when it came to arbitration. Certainly from what was said on the election pages it looks like the new committee will have a fairly diverse background, and hopefully that will help, though the most important thing seems to be people willing to do things and/or organise their time effectively to do what they are best suited to doing. Well, that and a flair for dispute resolution, of course.

Carcharoth

From: Risker <risker.wp@gmail.com> Date: Fri, Dec 17, 2010 at 22:16 To: English Arbitration Committee mailing list <arbcom-l@lists.wikimedia.org>


Well, I'm Risker, My real-world name is Anne Clin, but I do not use it on-wiki and request that you not do so either. I respond to either Risker or Anne on the mailing lists.

This is a photo of me taken by Sage Ross at the NYC Wikiconference in 2009.

I work in health care administration and have a rather enormous portfolio, but it has given me lots of life experience that I've put to good use. (Dealing with difficult people, simplifying messages, getting along with people one doesn't actually like, etc...)

Right now I'm not quite myself; I had an emergency appendectomy on Wednesday night, and am just finding my feet. Luckily my advance planning to get all the new arbs up and running on the various lists and the arbwiki meant I just had to hit "send" a lot of times.

Best,

Risker/Anne

_______________________________________________ arbcom-l mailing list arbcom-l@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/arbcom-l


From: Newyorkbrad <newyorkbrad@gmail.com> Date: Fri, Dec 17, 2010 at 22:18 To: English Arbitration Committee mailing list <arbcom-l@lists.wikimedia.org>


In case any of the new folks are interested and haven't seen it before, here's my real-world bio:

http://www.ganfershore.com/sub/ira-brad-matetsky.jsp

(I just posted this on Functionaries-l as well, but I'm not sure whether the discussion will centralize there or here.)

Regards, Newyorkbrad/IBM


_______________________________________________ arbcom-l mailing list arbcom-l@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/arbcom-l


From: Frank Bednarz <frank.bednarz@gmail.com> Date: Fri, Dec 17, 2010 at 22:24 To: English Arbitration Committee mailing list <arbcom-l@lists.wikimedia.org>


Did you ever know a software guy called Steven McGeady, who has a wikipedia biography? I don't think you overlapped much, and Intel's a big place, but I'll be curious if I don't ask.

Frank

On Dec 17, 2010 3:22 PM, "Jonathan Clemens" <clem4609@pacificu.edu> wrote:

_______________________________________________ arbcom-l mailing list arbcom-l@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/arbcom-l


From: Jonathan Clemens <clem4609@pacificu.edu> Date: Fri, Dec 17, 2010 at 23:11 To: English Arbitration Committee mailing list <arbcom-l@lists.wikimedia.org>


Nope, at the time he left Intel, I wasn't anyone important. I knew people who knew him, but my career hadn't really taken off until after he left.

Jonathan


_______________________________________________ arbcom-l mailing list arbcom-l@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/arbcom-l


From: Elen of the Roads <elenoftheroads@gmail.com> Date: Sat, Dec 18, 2010 at 06:48 To: English Arbitration Committee mailing list <arbcom-l@lists.wikimedia.org>


Risker

Hope you're feeling better soon

Elen


_______________________________________________ arbcom-l mailing list arbcom-l@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/arbcom-l


From: Elen of the Roads <elenoftheroads@gmail.com> Date: Sat, Dec 18, 2010 at 06:53 To: English Arbitration Committee mailing list <arbcom-l@lists.wikimedia.org>


Local Government officer in Bradford, Yorkshire here. Currently looking at the snow, and sending messages from the Council's Twitter account (anything you ever want to know about gritting and refuse collection.....)

Real name is Helen Clipsom - rather people didn't throw the surname around, as it's a bit unusual, but feel free to google me. I turn up taking parti in boring local government discussions about new technology etc.

Elen/Helen

_______________________________________________ arbcom-l mailing list arbcom-l@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/arbcom-l


From: <philknight@mail.com> Date: Sat, Dec 18, 2010 at 08:34 To: arbcom-l@lists.wikimedia.org


Yes, hope you're feeling better soon, and all of your help to the new arbs is much appreciated.

Phil

_______________________________________________ arbcom-l mailing list arbcom-l@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/arbcom-l


From: Cas Liber <casliber01@yahoo.com> Date: Sat, Dec 18, 2010 at 08:36 To: English Arbitration Committee mailing list <arbcom-l@lists.wikimedia.org>


-->Anne - gawd, 2nd appendicitis of people on func-l in two weeks (!)

-->(H)elen - gosh, that's alot of bangles on your facebook acct

cheers (nice to be back) thankfully cooler here after a few hot and sticky days...and the aussies are doing better in the cricket too... Cas

To: English Arbitration Committee mailing list <arbcom-l@lists.wikimedia.org> Sent: Sat, 18 December, 2010 10:48:14 PM


_______________________________________________ arbcom-l mailing list arbcom-l@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/arbcom-l


From: Jonathan Clemens <clem4609@pacificu.edu> Date: Sat, Dec 18, 2010 at 12:49 To: English Arbitration Committee mailing list <arbcom-l@lists.wikimedia.org>


Sorry to say, I won't be able to help the rest of you keep up the trend. Lost mine a dozen years ago.

Jonathan

_______________________________________________ arbcom-l mailing list arbcom-l@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/arbcom-l


From: John Vandenberg <jayvdb@gmail.com> Date: Sat, Dec 18, 2010 at 17:06 To: English Arbitration Committee mailing list <arbcom-l@lists.wikimedia.org>


I intend to keep mine.

More info about me here:

http://wikimedia.org.au/wiki/User:Jayvdb

I'm about to go on holidays until the first week of Jan, and will have only limited internet during that period.

-- John Vandenberg

From: Michelle Kinney <shell.kinney@gmail.com> Date: Sat, Dec 18, 2010 at 18:31 To: English Arbitration Committee mailing list <arbcom-l@lists.wikimedia.org>


My bio's pretty boring I'm afraid (that's what comes of letting somebody else do it): http://www.dotconcepts.net/users/michelle-kinney

Additionally, I'm 34 with 4 kids, 2 dogs (if the little one really counts as a dog), a hamster and a herd of cats (I work with animal rescue). When I'm not doing artisty stuff, I run a web development business and in my spare time help out with a variety of charities. Most of my contact info in on Wiki (along with a few more personal details), while my phone and usual hours are on the Arb wiki. I'm notoriously horrible at remembering to set my status on IMs and IRC, so please don't get offended if I don't answer - I'm not ignoring you, I'm probably asleep

Shell Kinney

From: Carcharoth <carcharothwp@googlemail.com> Date: Mon, Dec 20, 2010 at 09:38 To: English Arbitration Committee mailing list <arbcom-l@lists.wikimedia.org>


Since we seem to be doing biographies of some sort, I hope Jimmy won't mind me pointing out this interview published in 'The Independent' today (I spotted the link on his talk page):

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/people/p...re-2164840.html

Carcharoth

From: Kenneth Kua/ArbCom <kenneth@planetkh.com> Date: Mon, Dec 20, 2010 at 15:23 To: English Arbitration Committee mailing list <arbcom-l@lists.wikimedia.org>


Kenneth Kua, based in Singapore, currently working in Operations at a large multi-national transporation company.

Too lazy to write a profile these days. Don't keep a Facebook account either, glad I didn't since I saw my colleague getting sacked for a related matter, after someone sought revenge. (This happens more often to ArbCom than you think!)

Kenneth/MD

_______________________________________________ arbcom-l mailing list arbcom-l@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/arbcom-l


From: Xeno <xenowiki@gmail.com> Date: Wed, Dec 22, 2010 at 21:29 To: English Arbitration Committee mailing list <arbcom-l@lists.wikimedia.org>


I'm from the General Toronto Area and work at a financial institution. Before that I sold IT security products.

I used to run a BBS back in the early 90s. When I got onto the Internet (back when dialup charged by the hour), I spent an awful lot of time on a MUD called Realms of Despair (which lead to some hefty connection fees). I had a fairly lengthy addiction to World of Warcraft as well. And then came Wikipedia...

I'm an avid video gamer, and writing/editing articles on video games is what drew me into Wikipedia (unfortunately, I don't do much of that anymore).

I've got a three-year-old boy that keeps me on my toes. I maintain a blog at http://xenocidic.com, but I've not written anything there in a while (and it's really mostly only of interest to video gamers, and more specifically, Xbox 360).

I'm on vacation until the 29th, so won't really be contributing much in the way of discussion, but I am keeping on top of all the emails that are going out over the list so I can hit the ground running when I'm back to work.

Looking forward to working with you guys.

Have a safe and happy holidays =)

-xeno

_______________________________________________ arbcom-l mailing list arbcom-l@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/arbcom-l

Frank weighs in

From: Frank Bednarz <frank.bednarz@gmail.com> Date: Thu, Jun 16, 2011 at 16:02 Subject: Re: [arbcom-l] Political activism RfAr (Cirt, Shell, SlimVirgin correspondence) To: English Arbitration Committee mailing list <arbcom-l@lists.wikimedia.org>


Kirill is not the right person.

Assuming her position is as you characterized it, I probably disagree with her. I have particular views on COI (namely, it's usually invoked counter-productively).

I also have pretty good anti-Cirt bona fides (or so Cirt and Durova imagine). I will try to find some time to figure it out.

Frank

On Jun 16, 2011 5:04 AM, "Iridescent Wikipedia" <REDACTED> wrote: > <lo> > > I wouldn't call myself a friend of any kind, but we get on reasonably well; > because we both work in 19th century English history we run into each other > quite a lot. That said, I'm not sure I'm the best one to deal with this one. My > interpretation of that exchange is that Slim is trying to leverage the fact that > Cirt made massively POV edits with an undeclared COI (probably true), into a > broader principle that nobody can ever make an edit about anything with which > they have a real world connection. (This would have obvious implications for the > trench-war her and her close circle have been fighting for years to keep any > positive mention of Lyndon LaRouche out of Wikipedia.) While I think Cirt has > acted fairly indefensibly here, I'm very publicly associated with lobbying to > explicitly allow editing by employees, PR agencies etc provided it complies with > Wikipedia rules (the anomaly by which User:JustinBieberFan can write reams > of puffery and be welcomed into Wikipedia, but if > User:JustinBieber'sPressAgency makes a minor correction to a typo the > account will immediately be hardblocked makes no sense to me). > > > The best person to talk her down would probably be someone like Kyrill or Coren, > who have made recent public anti-Cirt comments so can't be painted by Slim and > Jayjg as All Part Of The Conspiracy. > > > > > > > ________________________________ > From: Michelle Kinney <shell.kinney@gmail.com> > To: English Arbitration Committee mailing list <arbcom-l@lists.wikimedia.org> > Sent: Thu, 16 June, 2011 1:14:47 > Subject: Re: [arbcom-l] Political activism RfAr (Cirt, Shell, SlimVirgin > correspondence) > > <list only> > > Does anyone have a close enough relationship with Sarah that they > could try coaxing her out of the Spiderman suit? > > Shell > > On Wed, Jun 15, 2011 at 20:07, Sarah <slimvirgin@gmail.com> wrote: >> Xeno has posted publicly that he has read the email exchange, and sees >> no grounds for Shell Kinney's recusal. And since reading it, Roger has >> also voted to decline the case, which implies that the seriousness of >> it may not have been understood. >> >> This is therefore a formal request that the Committee require Shell's >> recusal, and that members who have declined to accept the case >> reconsider. If this is not granted, I would like to find an appeals >> mechanism whereby the position of the Committee can be reviewed by >> uninvolved parties. >> >> The reason I request this is that this situation strikes at the heart >> of what Wikipedia is and will become. Do you want administrators >> creating PR pieces about commercial interests at the request of people >> involved with those interests? And when asked about it, not being >> forthcoming? If you don't want that, please accept this case. >> >> Cirt's editing has for many years triggered concerns that he is >> editing to the benefit of outside political and commercial interests. >> The email exchange between Shell, Cirt, and myself provides the first >> evidence that Cirt created one of the disputed articles -- [[Corbin >> Fisher]], about a porn company -- at the request of the company's >> lawyer, and the result was a PR piece by any reasonable standard. >> http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=...oldid=330035705 >> The exchange also shows him being less than honest about this. >> >> The exchange further shows Shell failing to take the issue seriously, >> and arguing that, even if the arbitration case went ahead, we could >> not inform the Committee privately about Corbin Fisher without Cirt's >> permission. That was accompanied by Shell declining the case. It seems >> clear from this that Shell involved herself; came down on Cirt's side; >> and recommended possibly keeping the rest of the Committee in the dark >> about a key issue unless Cirt himself allowed it to be passed on. This >> surely provides sufficient grounds for recusal. >> >> If the Committee does not hear this case, you leave the community with >> no adequate dispute resolution process to deal with it. The Corbin >> Fisher evidence cannot be made public. Therefore, editors taking part >> in a user RfC would not be able to factor it in, would not know that >> Cirt had (in my view) been less than honest about this on Wikipedia, >> and would not be able to view Cirt's other statements in that light. >> Only the Committee is in a position to take this into account. >> >> Finally, I would ask that Committee members not continue to discuss >> this correspondence onwiki. Shell and I discussed it on wiki in >> outline, each sent it to the Committee privately, and from them on, as >> I understood it, all discussion of it would be in private. >> >> Sarah >> >> >>>> On 15 June 2011 03:06, Sarah <slimvirgin@gmail.com> wrote: >>>>> >>>>> Shell Kinney says she has forwarded this email correspondence between >>>>> Shell, Cirt, and myself to the Committee. I'm doing the same to make sure >>>>> all are received in the order they were sent. >>>>> >>>>> I do not mind that the existence of this discussion is public, but I would >>>>> prefer not to see all the contents become public. I think Cirt's admission >>>>> about creating an article at the request of a company lawyer would damage >>>>> Cirt considerably, particularly on Wikipedia Review, and people would > assume >>>>> the very worst about it. On the other hand, it's clearly relevant to this >>>>> case. So my request is that, if the case is accepted, the ArbCom regard it >>>>> as private evidence to be factored in, but not raised publicly. >>>>> >>>>> The key points: >>>>> >>>>> 1. Cirt acknowledged that in December 2009 he created Corbin Fisher, >>>>> an article about a gay porn company, at the request of the Corbin Fisher >>>>> lawyer, Marc Randazza. He says he did this without any personal gain. The >>>>> article was clearly promotional in tone. See -- >>>>> http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=...oldid=330446443 >>>>> >>>>> He also got it on the main page via DYK. See the readership spike -- >>>>> http://stats.grok.se/en/200912/Corbin_Fisher >>>>> >>>>> Corbin Fisher is one of several articles and DYKs that have caused >>>>> concern about Cirt's editing. When Jayen asked about it in May on > Wikipedia, >>>>> Cirt replied that he had created it after coming by it "organically" -- >>>>> >>>>>http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk%3ACirt&action=historysubmit&diff=430962892&oldid=430962663 >>>>>3 >>>>> >>>>> It raises the question of whether he has created other articles that would >>>>> benefit outside parties, at the request of those parties. This need not be >>>>> for Cirt's personal gain. It could simply be that Cirt's enthusiasm for >>>>> editing Wikipedia has been of benefit to others. The point is not the >>>>> motive. The point is that promotion is occurring for whatever reason. This >>>>> is of particular concern given that Cirt's involvement in DYK often leads > to >>>>> main-page exposure for his articles. >>>>> >>>>> 2. Shell Kinney responded to this with: "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," and >>>>> that the article didn't strike her as overly promotional (though it clearly >>>>> was). >>>>> >>>>> 3. I asked Cirt if he would forward to Shell and me -- or to any other >>>>> uninvolved editors or ArbCom members -- the correspondence he had with >>>>> Randazza about this. He first said he was not sure he had it all, then said >>>>> he had asked Randazza and the latter declined his consent. >>>>> >>>>> 4. Shell responded that she could not see the point of the line of >>>>> questioning, or why I was raising a two-year-old issue not flagged by any >>>>> other editor. Note: Corbin Fisher has been flagged by several editors, >>>>> and raised on wikiEN-l. >>>>> >>>>> I am concerned about Shell's attitude, particularly as the correspondence >>>>> was accompanied by her declining the case. I therefore feel she should >>>>> recuse. >>>>> >>>>> A note about forwarding gmails. I've used the gmail "forward all" button, >>>>> which doesn't forward material that was copied and pasted from another >>>>> gmail. It means a couple of sentences are missing, but nothing of import. > If >>>>> you see something apparently cut off in mid-sentence, that's the reason. I >>>>> can forward another set of the correspondence simply by hitting "forward" > if >>>>> you want that too, though it will give the correspondence back to front. >>>>> >>>>> Sarah >> >> _______________________________________________ >> arbcom-l mailing list >> arbcom-l@lists.wikimedia.org >> https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/arbcom-l >> > > ______________

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

From: Iridescent Wikipedia <REDACTED> Date: Tue, Jun 7, 2011 at 16:52 Subject: [arbcom-l] Fw: Requesting advice To: arbcom-l@lists.wikimedia.org


<list only>

For info. While I think a clean start in this case would be a good thing if it worked, I think it has the potential to lead to a really nasty situation.both when Sandstein & co spot the new account and a block-unblock-reblock wheelwar starts, and when Pedro and pals start accusing us of strangling Malleus and hiding his corpse in the foundations of Jimbo's luxury mansion because he Got Too Close To The Truth.and am doing my best to point out the many pitfalls he's headed for if he goes down this route. (If I flat out tell him not to, he'll ignore me; if I persuade him why it won't work, that's another matter.) His style is so distinctive, I don't see how a clean start could possibly work; while Frank is right that my sock guesses are often wildly off, I didn't need a checkuser to be sure of that one the moment I spotted it.

Forwarded Message ----

From: Eric <REDACTED> To: Iridescent Wikipedia <REDACTED> Sent: Tue, 7 June, 2011 20:23:26 Subject: Re: Requesting advice

I've got no objections to you forwarding this on to ArbCom, but as you found the other account so easily I have to assume that others would as well, so probably not much point. I don't want to waste any more of your or anyone else's time over this, as I've got absolutely no motivation to invent a new personality to go with a new account.

On 07/06/11 19:58, Iridescent Wikipedia wrote:

That wording's confusing; what's intended is "...should not return to old topic areas previously identified as problematic". I don't think there are any areas in which it would apply to you - it's aimed at people like the Ireland POV-pushers returning in new identities to remove "British Isles" again once their original accounts have been told to stop. There are a lot of people who disagree with you over tone, but (AFAIK) no problem topics for you as such.

If you're happy for me to forward this (the Arbcom list doesn't leak, so you don't need to worry on that score) I can get a quick yea-or-nay from The Cabal as to whether anyone foresees any problems. While Arbcom isn't a governing body etc etc etc, if none of the 18 have any issue it's vanishingly unlikely a complaint from anyone else would be taken seriously.

________________________________ From: Eric <REDACTED> To: Iridescent Wikipedia <REDACTED> Sent: Tue, 7 June, 2011 19:27:10 Subject: Re: Requesting advice

"Clean-start accounts should not return to old topic areas ..." is an unrealistically broad-brush exclusion as far as I'm concerned, so that's not an option. So it looks like it's goodbye to William, and if I want to edit wikipedia I'm going to have to stick with my basket-case account.

Thanks anyway

On 07/06/11 16:43, Iridescent Wikipedia wrote:

If you mean "William Leadford", that's fairly easy to detect (I spotted it without using any advanced permissions of any kind), so don't expect it to stay secret for long if/when the sudden disappearance of "Malleus" prompts all three of the WR crowd, Giano and Bishonen's clique, and the Defenders Of The Wiki to start sleuthing. As Geogre, Mattisse and RH&E have kindly demonstrated, it's far harder than you'd think to operate a "clean" account without being identified; since the person behind the account has the same writing style and the same interests, to evade detection you're having effectively to create a new personality, not just a new name. If you're going to pretend that hard to be someone you're not, it's unlikely to be worth the effort.

If you're going to go ahead and kill the Malleus account to make a fresh start, I'd strongly recommend identifying the new account to Arbcom. Plenty of people would love to catch you "evading scrutiny", and if you've identified the new account to Arbcom then it greatly reduces the chance of any unpleasantness down the line. To fall under the "clean start" protection, you need not only to abandon the old account altogether, but not return to any old fights. This is harder to do than it sounds, and is why Mattisse's repeated clean starts invariably eventually wound up blocked.

I imagine you're already aware of it, but before you do anything drastic have a read of the official policy on the matter, and decide whether you can actually work within those restrictions:

If you decide to make a fresh start, you can discontinue the old account(s) and create a new one that becomes the only account you use. Clean-start accounts should not return to old topic areas, editing patterns, or behavior previously identified as problematic, and should be careful not to do anything that looks like an attempt to evade scrutiny. A clean start is permitted only if there are no active bans, blocks, or sanctions in place against the old account. Discontinuing the old account means it will not be used again; it should note on its user page that it is inactive.for example, with the Template:Retired tag.to prevent the switch being seen as an attempt to sock puppet. It is strongly recommended that you inform the Arbitration Committee (in strictest confidence if you wish) of the existence of previous accounts before standing for adminship or functionary positions. Failure to do so is likely to be considered deceptive.

________________________________ From: Eric <REDACTED> To: Iridescent Wikipedia <REDACTED> Sent: Mon, 6 June, 2011 23:25:33 Subject: Requesting advice

I apologise for adding once again to your email burden, but I'm looking for a little bit of guidance.

I've long thought that the Malleus account is a hopeless basket case, and it sometimes gets overwhelmed with copyedit requests, most of which to be honest are on topics that I really couldn't give a monkey's about. So to give me some quiet time, and a potential exit strategy, I set up an alternate account well over a year ago now. The two accounts never edit the same pages, and the alternate account never edits on anything other than article pages or article talk pages. You may remember my Nunez99 account that focused on Welsh towns and villages? This one is rather similar, although not geography related.

I won't compromise you by telling you what the account name is, but my question is this; should I reveal this account to ArbCom or should I keep shtum?

Eric


_______________________________________________ arbcom-l mailing list arbcom-l@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/arbcom-l

Climate and Josh Zelinsky

Subject: [arbcom-l] ChrisO's retirement and blocking

From: Joshua Zelinsky <zelinsky@gmail.com> Date: Fri, Oct 15, 2010 at 10:33 To: Arbitration Committee mailing list <arbcom-l@lists.wikimedia.org>, "Newyorkbrad (Wikipedia)" <newyorkbrad@gmail.com>


I had a disturbing discussion with ChrisO concerning his recent retirement. He claims that his IP addresses were blocked without cause as part of an "enforced retirement" by some ArbCom members. This is obviously a claim that if true causes serious concern. I'm therefore emailing the ArbCom to inquire about this. I am using email rather than doing this publicly to minimize drama. Is there any basis to the claim?

Thanks,

Josh Zelinsky

_______________________________________________ arbcom-l mailing list arbcom-l@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/arbcom-l

From: Michelle Kinney <shell.kinney@gmail.com> Date: Fri, Oct 15, 2010 at 10:47 To: English Arbitration Committee mailing list <arbcom-l@lists.wikimedia.org>


<list-only>

Disturbing indeed. Do we start telling people that ChrisO started socking?

Shell Kinney

From: David Yellope <dyellope.wiki@gmail.com> Date: Fri, Oct 15, 2010 at 10:50 To: English Arbitration Committee mailing list <arbcom-l@lists.wikimedia.org>, zelinsky@gmail.com


No. That is not correct, Josh.

ChrisO claimed RTV with his account, but then immediately created a new account and went on to edit articles in areas that he was not allowed to edit due to prior sanctions on the ChrisO account.

_______________________________________________ arbcom-l mailing list arbcom-l@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/arbcom-l


From: Joshua Zelinsky <zelinsky@gmail.com> Date: Fri, Oct 15, 2010 at 16:03 To: David Yellope <dyellope.wiki@gmail.com> Cc: English Arbitration Committee mailing list <arbcom-l@lists.wikimedia.org>


Thanks for the clarification about what happened.

JZ

From: Randy Everette <rlevse@cox.net> Date: Fri, Oct 15, 2010 at 16:18 To: English Arbitration Committee mailing list <arbcom-l@lists.wikimedia.org>


<list only>

Which is precisely why the ChrisO ruling in the CC case was an abomination. While he claimed RTV, he didn’t. He abused it and socked, yet the ruling left the community think he did something clean. This is why I asked a couple days ago about this here on arb-l, “What did the community know”? Yet no one answered. Now we really need to answer this. I’m perfectly willing to state my two cents about this onwiki, but I’d like to hear from others first. In fact, I was going to post about this onwiki tonight til I saw this new and related thread.

R


From: arbcom-l-bounces@lists.wikimedia.org [1] On Behalf Of David Yellope Sent: Friday, October 15, 2010 10:50 AM To: English Arbitration Committee mailing list; zelinsky@gmail.com Subject: Re: [arbcom-l] ChrisO's retirement and blocking

_______________________________________________ arbcom-l mailing list arbcom-l@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/arbcom-l


From: Carcharoth <carcharothwp@googlemail.com> Date: Sat, Oct 16, 2010 at 00:38 To: English Arbitration Committee mailing list <arbcom-l@lists.wikimedia.org>


I think the reluctance to go further was because ChrisO did seem to have experienced genuine harassment from Don Murphy (or rather from his minions). If I'm wrong on that, someone should correct me. I'm not saying it excuses the socking, but ChrisO *had* asked for help with this earlier in the year, and it is possible he presumed we knew about this already. He should still have asked, but if he asked right now for the RTV to be undone, I think all the necessary restrictions are in place. The problem is, due to the harassment, he wanted (may still want) to resume editing under a new name, but he also wants to return to editing the areas he edited previously, and doesn't seem to realise that this will lead to renewed harassment.

Carcharoth

From: Randy Everette <rlevse@cox.net> Date: Sat, Oct 16, 2010 at 08:40 To: English Arbitration Committee mailing list <arbcom-l@lists.wikimedia.org>


I think the community has a right to know about his abuse, lying, and socking. Fozzie already told the guy that emailed us. Even sadder is the extremely deceptive CC case finding on this. It reinforces ChrisO's deception. The record should be set straight.

R [2] On Behalf Of Carcharoth Sent: Saturday, October 16, 2010 12:38 AM

From: Roger Davies <roger.davies.wiki@gmail.com> Date: Sat, Oct 16, 2010 at 09:08 To: arbcom-l@lists.wikimedia.org


We always have internal splits over what to do when people ostensibly walk away. Partly because if we say anything too scathing, they come back and spend the rest of their lives trying to Set It Straight.

Roger

_______________________________________________ arbcom-l mailing list arbcom-l@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/arbcom-l


From: Randy Everette <rlevse@cox.net> Date: Sat, Oct 16, 2010 at 10:04 To: roger.davies.wiki@gmail.com, English Arbitration Committee mailing list <arbcom-l@lists.wikimedia.org>


Deceiving the community and passing a motion that aides the deception and furthers the rampant abuse of RTV isn’t right either. Someone can come up with a carefully worded stmt on this or I’ll do it myself.

R

From: arbcom-l-bounces@lists.wikimedia.org [3] On Behalf Of Roger Davies Sent: Saturday, October 16, 2010 9:09 AM To: arbcom-l@lists.wikimedia.org

_______________________________________________ arbcom-l mailing list arbcom-l@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/arbcom-l


From: Carcharoth <carcharothwp@googlemail.com> Date: Sat, Oct 16, 2010 at 16:07 To: English Arbitration Committee mailing list <arbcom-l@lists.wikimedia.org>


To be fair, if we are doing a statement on Polargeo, we should probably do one on ChrisO as well. Widening to other loose ends, I don't however, think we should make any public statement about the GJP/M4 stuff until it is much clearer what has happened or is happening there (I see there is a thread about this that I should read).

Carcharoth

From: Risker <risker.wp@gmail.com> Date: Sat, Oct 16, 2010 at 17:28 To: English Arbitration Committee mailing list <arbcom-l@lists.wikimedia.org>


Umm. There's a big difference between announcing the result of a motion - which is what the Polargeo situation is - and making "statements".

We haven't done a formal motion or taken a formal decision on ChrisO; his situation has simply been managed as fairly routine socking. I can't speak for everyone here, but I'm not inclined to do more with it.

And given the GJP/M4 stuff and the reason that it's so sensitive right now, frankly I think we would be violating at least the spirit of WP:NLT to make any public comment.

RIsker/Anne

_______________________________________________ arbcom-l mailing list arbcom-l@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/arbcom-l


From: <rlevse@cox.net> Date: Sat, Oct 16, 2010 at 17:49 To: English Arbitration Committee mailing list <arbcom-l@lists.wikimedia.org>


Well, I find the chriso ruling totally unacceptable. It's false, condones RTV abuse, and basically lying to the community, and you want to do nothing with it? I'm stunned this abomination even passed. He socks 3 hours after lying saying he was vanishing when he knew he wasn't, get's blocked for all he did, stabs Avi in the back, and the ruling says he used RTV in an okay manner and IF he comes back (which he did right away) he merely has to contact arbcom????? Come on people, he had this planned from the beginning and used it to evade sanctions and arbcom bought this line of bullshit hook, line, and sinker! Now it's time to spit this right back in his face and tell the community the truth.

R

From: Carcharoth <carcharothwp@googlemail.com> Date: Sat, Oct 16, 2010 at 20:15 To: English Arbitration Committee mailing list <arbcom-l@lists.wikimedia.org>


I suppose you are right. But some people will see the Polargeo motion and there will be internal and external calls for us to vote on similar motions on the other loose ends in the case (namely, ChrisO and the GJP/M4 stuff). As you saw from my previous e-mail, I agree with you about the GJP/M4 stuff, but am suggesting that we could ask those involved where things may need looking at to avoid controversial situations (that was what I meant by my reference to "gardening leave"). In other words, put people in limbo until the legal stuff is sorted and then return to look at it. That may not be practical, but it is a suggestion to break any deadlock we may have here.

More to the point, is anyone actually taking note of the allegation in the other thread that ScienceApologist did know who Usher was? Or is the conjecture here that SA knew who Probivouac was, but didn't know that he was Usher? And the point that if he didn't know who Usher was, why exactly were people talking about these matters to him anyway? What reason would they have had to talk to him. For example, how do we know that Usher didn't just blackmail people into giving him the information he wanted?

Apologies for bringing this up in the wrong thread, but people have gone silent in the other thread.

Carcharoth

From: <rlevse@cox.net> Date: Sat, Oct 16, 2010 at 20:21 To: English Arbitration Committee mailing list <arbcom-l@lists.wikimedia.org>


There's a HUGE difference with the ChrisO finding and the others...the finding is factually wrong on its face, deceptive to the community, and condones RTV -- and there are a few outside of us who already know this. Not to mention it lets ChrisO get away with purposely evading sanctions.

I simply can't stomach condoning this.

R

From: Risker <risker.wp@gmail.com> Date: Sat, Oct 16, 2010 at 20:22 To: English Arbitration Committee mailing list <arbcom-l@lists.wikimedia.org>



Thanks for explaining "gardening leave"....I'm still not entirely sure I understand. Do you mean that we just not respond?


It's the weekend and a lot of people are busy, I suspect. I've not really been available much today. Lots of emails to think about. Or perhaps not think about, I haven't decided which.

I have no idea why anyone is connecting the fact that ScienceApologist had his entire userspace deleted (all 9 archives plus a subpage or two) to Proabivouac or Usher or anything other than clearing out his userspace. This strikes me as rather absurd conspiracy theorizing. Should I worry every time I delete one of my userspace pages that someone is going to accuse me later of being an evildoer? Oh wait, nevermind. That already happens, even without deleting userspace pages. ;-)

Risker/Anne




_______________________________________________ arbcom-l mailing list arbcom-l@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/arbcom-l


From: Carcharoth <carcharothwp@googlemail.com> Date: Sat, Oct 16, 2010 at 20:53 To: English Arbitration Committee mailing list <arbcom-l@lists.wikimedia.org>


I thought "gardening leave" was a well-understood term. I've almost certainly misused it, as it really means putting someone on leave until their contract expires, rather than sacking them (and having to pay them off). What I really meant is unofficially tell people to not do anything until it is clear what the outcome will be here. Tell the people who allegations have been against that we are aware of these allegations but doing nothing until the lawsuit is resolved, and then we may do our own investigation at that point. As I said, that might not be practical, but it is the only thing I can think of. Failing that, then yeah, leave it unresolved, like many other things we end up not dealing with. It's not like we can claim to deal with everything that comes our way - we frequently discuss and then hit a brick wall or go round in circles and end up doing nothing. The fact that we've discussed and tried to work out what to do, at least leaves my conscience clear. I thought the point was that even without the deletion of the user pages, that SA knew who Usher was because Usher outed him. Or did ATren just make that up? I've looked at the WR thread and the deleted archive page, and it seems SA would know who Proabivouac was, but I still don't understand why he would talk to Usher?

Atren said this: "But again, whether SA knew who Proabivouac was is immaterial -- sharing personal data (whatever it is) about anonymous or pseudonymous editors is an act that should NOT be treated lightly. The connection to Proab is significant, but not necessary."

Remember, we came down like a ton of bricks on MZMcBride for passing stuff to Gregory Kohs.

SA may not have shared personal data, but who did he think this Usher person was and what exactly was going on? Anyway, we don't really have enough information to go further, and I doubt it would be sensible for anyone to ask SA about this. I'm going to drop the matter for now, while still noting my feeling that this isn't really resolved at our end and could be picked up again at some future point. I'd still like to know when the lawsuit is likely to be resolved, and whether it is conceivable that Usher is (again) exerting pressure on those he seems to have wrapped round his little finger.

Carcharoth

From: Risker <risker.wp@gmail.com> Date: Sat, Oct 16, 2010 at 21:13 To: English Arbitration Committee mailing list <arbcom-l@lists.wikimedia.org>


Well, I'm not going to speculate there as to what their relationship is. However, this whole "it was private information" business seems to be put to rest, now that we have heard from NW that what he "shared" was that the two parties had different work IPs. That's not particularly private, is it? When it's being used to explain that they're not socks? I've read the privacy policy and the checkuser policy many times over in the past few weeks, and I'm not seeing how this is violating it. What's on-wiki in the SPI, including the information revealed by both M4 and GJP, is far more revelatory, and even then it seems a lot of editors didn't believe it, given the fact that there continued to be the belief they were socks up to two months after the SPI.


As to how long this could take - most civil cases take a couple of years to wind through the system. (Canada's a bit worse than the US, but civil cases don't get before a judge for at least 3 years here, and usually it's closer to 5 years.) I can't see this one being resolved very quickly, particularly given the FLDS connection.

Risker/Anne



_______________________________________________ arbcom-l mailing list arbcom-l@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/arbcom-l


From: Carcharoth <carcharothwp@googlemail.com> Date: Sat, Oct 16, 2010 at 20:07 To: English Arbitration Committee mailing list <arbcom-l@lists.wikimedia.org>


Actually, ChrisO didn't manage to evade sanctions. He was topic banned along with everyone else.

From: <rlevse@cox.net> Date: Sat, Oct 16, 2010 at 21:30 To: English Arbitration Committee mailing list <arbcom-l@lists.wikimedia.org>


He was attempting to and at one time he was not on the topic ban list. And then why is supposed to contact arbcom? That was put in at the point in time the other sanctions were taken off the table due to the mentality "if he disappears there's no reason to sanction him".

And none of that makes the rest of this issue okay...that he didn't RTV, etc etc

R

From: Roger Davies <roger.davies.wiki@gmail.com> Date: Sat, Oct 16, 2010 at 23:18 To: English Arbitration Committee mailing list <arbcom-l@lists.wikimedia.org>


On 17/10/2010 01:22, Risker wrote:

<snip>


<snip>

Agreed, the deleting of the archives is not in itself very significant. What is significant is the discovery that SA and TU were corresponding off-wiki as long ago as May 2007. Absent explanation, this makes SA's assertion that he didn't know who Usher was or that he was corresponding with him in July/August 2010 somewhat less plausible. Again, it's yet another piece of circumstantial evidence/coincidence that supports the "leaked information" hypothesis.

Roger

_______________________________________________ arbcom-l mailing list arbcom-l@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/arbcom-l


From: Carcharoth <carcharothwp@googlemail.com> Date: Sun, Oct 17, 2010 at 09:40 To: English Arbitration Committee mailing list <arbcom-l@lists.wikimedia.org>


I'm no longer sure they were corresponding. Proabivouac said he "confirmed" SA's credentials, but I think that refers merely to detective work, not direct correspondence. One of the things I would do is ask SA directly if he had corresponded with Proabivouac, when, and when he corresponded with Usher, and when he realised they were the same person. But I don't have much confidence that we would get honest answers, or that anything could be proven. And any questioning like that shouldn't be done until the lawsuit issues are resolved, and that could take years apparently. Which is annoying. I don't really know where things should go from here. What I really want is some confirmation that all involved have learnt lessons from this and will change how they do things going forward. Then I'd be happy that we had dealt with this as far as we can. Which is why I am returning once again to the idea that we need to issue an internal statement to all checkusers, oversighters, arbcom clerks and SPI clerks to beware of people like Usher, and mention some other "banned means banned" people to make the point more general.

Carcharoth

From: Roger Davies <roger.davies.wiki@gmail.com> Date: Sun, Oct 17, 2010 at 09:54 To: arbcom-l@lists.wikimedia.org


Yes, it's one of these things you can read either way. Though the peanut gallery will go for the obvious explanation, mates since May 2007.

Roger

_______________________________________________ arbcom-l mailing list arbcom-l@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/arbcom-l


From: Risker <risker.wp@gmail.com> Date: Sun, Oct 17, 2010 at 10:04 To: roger.davies.wiki@gmail.com, English Arbitration Committee mailing list <arbcom-l@lists.wikimedia.org>


This is all getting rather tiresome. It's pretty obvious that there are people on this list who won't believe ScienceApologist regardless of what he says, which may well reflect the mindset of portions of the community. So let's get down to brass tacks. Do you want to indefinitely block him until this matter is resolved, or not? Really, those are the only two options, and all this "well maybe this, but what if that..." is just so much gossip on our part.

Risker/Anne

_______________________________________________ arbcom-l mailing list arbcom-l@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/arbcom-l


From: Roger Davies <roger.davies.wiki@gmail.com> Date: Sun, Oct 17, 2010 at 10:01 To: English Arbitration Committee mailing list <arbcom-l@lists.wikimedia.org>


One really obvious thing to do is to write to ATren along the following lines: It is not in dispute that Science Apologist was in contact with Timothy Usher. What is disputed is what was said.

The Arbitration Committee is keen to get to the bottom of this and your help in doing so would be appreciated.

Do you have any direct evidence that demonstrates that personally identifying information - for example, names, addresses, phone numbers, IP addresses and so on - was given to Usher by Science Apologist? I would write to him myself but I am not the best person given my role in his topic ban. But I think we should write very soon.

Roger

_______________________________________________ arbcom-l mailing list arbcom-l@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/arbcom-l


From: Roger Davies <roger.davies.wiki@gmail.com> Date: Sun, Oct 17, 2010 at 10:15 To: Risker <risker.wp@gmail.com> Cc: English Arbitration Committee mailing list <arbcom-l@lists.wikimedia.org>


It probably reflects the mindset of a great many in the community and the last thing we want is this blowing into an on-wiki fire we can't put out.

On what basis do we block Science Apologist? For talking to Usher? He says he didn't know? For revealing private information? He says he didn't. For making legal theats? He hasn't made any. For being the defendant in a law suit? That's not covered by policy.

Roger

_______________________________________________ arbcom-l mailing list arbcom-l@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/arbcom-l


From: Carcharoth <carcharothwp@googlemail.com> Date: Sun, Oct 17, 2010 at 10:59 To: English Arbitration Committee mailing list <arbcom-l@lists.wikimedia.org>


What is clear is that he (SA) can't leverage being a defendant in a lawsuit during on-wiki discussions. The issue of whether the defendent in a lawsuit should continue editing Wikipedia has always been unclear and depends largely on the conduct of said defendent. Sometimes you have counter-suits as well, though that doesn't seem to be happening here. What I have in mind here is when the National Portrait Gallery sent a legal letter to someone whose name I forget, he then published that letter and roused the community against the NPG (the situation is not exactly analogous, as the NPG was not a fellow editor and they were in different countries as well). It is that sort of thing that I think ScienceApologist needs to avoid doing. It is already clear that versions of what is going on here are circulating off-wiki among several editors and groups of editors, so we should keep in mind that whatever we say will doubtless spread off-wiki.

Carcharoth

On Sun, Oct 17, 2010 at 3:15 PM, Roger Davies

From: Risker <risker.wp@gmail.com> Date: Sun, Oct 17, 2010 at 11:07 To: English Arbitration Committee mailing list <arbcom-l@lists.wikimedia.org>


Carcharoth, I'm going to ask you to please not add any tangents here. If the committee believes this is a serious situation then it needs to be addressed directly and promptly. Roger, Shell and I are NOT in a position to contact ATren. Are you willing to do it, perhaps using the phrasing that Roger has suggested?

Risker/Anne

_______________________________________________ arbcom-l mailing list arbcom-l@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/arbcom-l


From: Roger Davies <roger.davies.wiki@gmail.com> Date: Sun, Oct 17, 2010 at 11:25 To: arbcom-l@lists.wikimedia.org


Yes, Carcharoth would be a good choice. Failing which, perhaps Randy might oblige?

Roger

_______________________________________________ arbcom-l mailing list arbcom-l@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/arbcom-l


From: Marc A. Pelletier <marc@uberbox.org> Date: Sun, Oct 17, 2010 at 11:39 To: arbcom-l@lists.wikimedia.org


Actually, that's besides the point as far as I'm concerned. The reason I think intervention at this point is ill-advised is that - at no point - did anyone make an allegation of *specific* misbehavior. Even starting an investigation on "He did something wrong! Ban him!" is iffy in the best of cases.

I believe the proper term is "Failure to state a claim upon which relief can be granted."

-- Coren / Marc


_______________________________________________ arbcom-l mailing list arbcom-l@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/arbcom-l


From: Roger Davies <roger.davies.wiki@gmail.com> Date: Sun, Oct 17, 2010 at 12:00 To: arbcom-l@lists.wikimedia.org


They've actually made a very specific claim of misbehaviour - passing on personally identifying information - which is prohibited both by WMF policy and by our local outing policy and the implicit relief is removing the alleged outer from circulation to prevent them from repeating the behaviour.

Roger

_______________________________________________ arbcom-l mailing list

_______________________________________________ arbcom-l mailing list arbcom-l@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/arbcom-l


From: Michelle Kinney <shell.kinney@gmail.com> Date: Sun, Oct 17, 2010 at 13:18 To: English Arbitration Committee mailing list <arbcom-l@lists.wikimedia.org>


If we could try to go back to assuming good faith here for a bit, I'm actually a bit more concerned about what Brandon told NuclearWarfare. But hey, why discuss this rationally when we can continue to make emotional appeals and cloud the situation with a variety of other non-issues? Would you care to explain why you feel so strongly that this situation doesn't deserve looking into at all? You've single-handedly shot down every suggestion made by several other Arbs.

Shell

From: Carcharoth <carcharothwp@googlemail.com> Date: Sun, Oct 17, 2010 at 13:32 To: English Arbitration Committee mailing list <arbcom-l@lists.wikimedia.org>


Well, I'm not going to make any contact until it is clear what the committee think should be done. As far as I can tell, discussion appears to be continuing. The point about personally identifying information being passed on, is that it is difficult for someone who thinks their information has been passed on, to say what has been passed on (if they knew, they would say so). So it is difficult to distinguish between a genuine allegation and one that has no basis. We would normally find out by further questioning, but this is difficult with the spectre of this lawsuit hanging over everything.

From: Randy Everette <rlevse@cox.net> Date: Sun, Oct 17, 2010 at 15:10 To: English Arbitration Committee mailing list <arbcom-l@lists.wikimedia.org>


I have to agree with Marc. Barring the revelation of specific info, there are insufficient grounds upon which to block SA.

I also agree it’s worth someone contacting SA along the lines Roger suggests.

R

From: arbcom-l-bounces@lists.wikimedia.org [4] On Behalf Of Marc A. Pelletier Sent: Sunday, October 17, 2010 11:39 AM

On 17/10/2010 10:04 AM, Risker wrote:

_______________________________________________ arbcom-l mailing list arbcom-l@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/arbcom-l


From: Risker <risker.wp@gmail.com> Date: Sun, Oct 17, 2010 at 15:48 To: English Arbitration Committee mailing list <arbcom-l@lists.wikimedia.org>


Fair comment, I suppose, although I've not been the only one hesitant to have an investigation, or to pursue an investigation without some sort of idea of what private information was supposedly disclosed; Coren, Frank and KnightLago have indicated similarly. I don't believe, however, that having a huge discussion that comes to no conclusion is particularly helpful either, though. So let's start with this.

Checkusers only have two "private" pieces of information accessible to them as a result of their permission: IP data and user agent data. User agent data is only useful if there is something to compare it to; we have no indication whatsoever that anyone, even Usher, had that information or a process in which to compare UAs. We also know that both GJP and M4 revealed their own IP addresses on-wiki prior to the exchange in which Usher was involved. Indeed, we know that one of the IPs that GJP revealed led directly to his office; that wasn't even on our project, it was on Meta. Even revealing geolocation data linked to the IPs is fairly useless; their edits located them to a fairly circumscribed geographic area with a large population, they both had indicated they were from Texas on their userpages, and they used a lot of Opera Mini, which does not geolocate effectively even at the best of times. Checkusers *don't* have access to people's RL names, addresses, businesses, dates of birth, or other private or confidential information, so there is no reasonable prospect that such information was revealed.

So far, nobody has identified any private information that has been passed to Usher. Lar, who knows the policy, has not responded to requests from both myself and KnightLago to identify what private information is alleged to have been released. ATren has not been asked, and there now seems to be some hesitation in asking him directly what private information he has been told has been released. NuclearWarfare was asked what he passed on, and it is information that does not fall under privacy policy or checkuser policy.

So what, exactly, would be the purpose of the investigation? Regardless of what answers we get, they will not be believed by those who are making the allegations. Perhaps others might find this article interesting, but I'll pull out the key quote from it:

" In a series of studies in 2005 and 2006, researchers at the University of Michigan found that when misinformed people, particularly political partisans, were exposed to corrected facts in news stories, they rarely changed their minds. In fact, they often became even more strongly set in their beliefs. Facts, they found, were not curing misinformation. Like an underpowered antibiotic, facts could actually make misinformation even stronger."



With ScienceApologist, the only range of "solutions" is to block indefinitely or not block indefinitely. As Roger points out, we have no indication that he provided any private information, or that he even had any to provide.

With Brandon, the only relevant question is "did you give out IP data to any non-checkusers?" because that is the only private information to which he has access as a checkuser. Will he believed if he says "no"? By the committee? By those who are spreading these rumours?

Now, obviously, if any checkuser actually handed out IP data, their tenure would be extremely short. But there's no indication at all, from anyone, that *any* checkuser revealed IP (or UA) data; if he had received such, I have little doubt NuclearWarfare would have said so - unless we want to assume bad faith about him. The reaction to these unfounded allegations, however, which are clearly intended to strike as an emotional appeal ("a FEMALE editor") , has focused not on the actual information that is supposed to have been passed on, but on communication issues, on incorrect interpretations of what does and does not constitute private information under our policies, and an incomplete understanding of the behavioural standards that have been developed by the community and the checkusers within the structures of our polices in order to address reasonable concerns about sockpuppetry and inappropriate alternate accounts.

So. Here are a few things that may be relevant to investigate:

Contributions for Minor4th (particularly the earliest ones), her admitted sock Loquitor, and her Template:Likely sock Hope4Kids (she denies this is her sock, but CU data in July showed it to be likely). Wikistalk results.

GregJackP and his sock BlueSooner. Note BlueSooner's deleted contributions, particularly User:BlueSooner/Natalie Malonis and Coram Non Judice (blog. I'd send you to read the Coram Non Judice blog, but it has now been restricted to registered users. It focused on two basic topics: FLDS and Menominee native Americans. Note that GregJackP has a userbox on his userpage indicating that he is (part) Menominee, and he has written extensively about this and other tribes. (I think CHL saw the blog before it was closed off, perhaps he can comment.)

User:Hugh McBryde's suppressed edits to his talk page, where he is linking User:BlueSooner to "TxBluesMan", the author of the Coram Non Judice blog, and also raising Natalie Malonis' name. Please recall that I reported earlier that Natalie Malonis and GregJackP both requested suppression of that data, and the page was blanked but only one edit with the "outing" information was removed at the time of the original request, until after we were informed of Usher's activities. [A reminder was sent out to all oversighters after that was identified, to look in depth at page histories. This appears to have been a systemic error which involved a mostly-inactive oversighter, after an attempt at discussion on the mailing list faltered. This occurred a few weeks before we moved to OTRS, where non-completed responses are easy to track.]

If you're highly motivated, you can google any or all of "Natalie Malonis", "GregJackP", the three bloggers named as defendants. I'd suggest using an anonymizer like ninjaproxy.com if you go to their blogs, which no doubt collect IP information.

I assume good faith of the people here; while I might not agree with everyone, or even think there's some naivete, I do know that everyone on this list does care about the project. I do not share that good faith about the people who have initiated this campaign of rumour and innuendo.

Risker/Anne









_______________________________________________ arbcom-l mailing list arbcom-l@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/arbcom-l


From: David Yellope <dyellope.wiki@gmail.com> Date: Sun, Oct 17, 2010 at 16:33 To: English Arbitration Committee mailing list <arbcom-l@lists.wikimedia.org>


I tend to agree with Risker:

Those of you with long memories on the Committee will remember that me and SA have a history, so to speak, (the Fringe Science arbitration case which I was responsible for enforcing sanctions at AE,). I'm generally not inclined to give him the benefit of doubt here.. but let's look at the facts.

A) SA is accused by Minor4th/GregJackP of leaking personal details to Timothy Usher, who conspired with the defendants to defame GregJackP B) Having looked at the situation, there ARE inconsistencies with both Minor/GregJackP's story (considering the amount of information they voluntarily disclosed, here and on Meta, not to mention the SPI that were failed, and the fact that the FLDS folks were trying to out them ), and SA's story as well (his relationship with Usher). C) Hampering any investigation is a multi-million dollar lawsuit. Any of the details of which we can learn on this list would then be subject to discovery. This is a subject I'm sure all the parties have thought of, or at least their lawyers have made them aware of. D) While there is a broad outline of what was supposed to have happened, we have no information as to the specifics, which is what we'd need to nail this down and prove or disprove these allegations,

Suggestions:

Regarding ScienceApologist: I think that we could have a private word with him and state that we think it's best if he restricts any further discussions with Usher to the lawsuit that they are both defendants in, and nothing Wikipedia related, that ignorance will no longer be considered a defense. This would also serve the goal of making him aware that if we DO receive specifics of any violations of Wikipedia's outing policies, that the sanctions will be quick and severe. I don't think he's going to tell us he DID what they were saying, and we couldn't trust a no answer.

Regarding the accusers (Lar, Atren, Thegoodlocust, Abd): I'm thinking of writing the four of them a letter. We are aware of the allegations made against ScienceApologist in the lawsuit. Lay out the details (that before we can take action, we need specifics (who, when, where, what.. etcetera). If we have them, we can act. Also, suggest that we've noticed a few comments in other places that would lead to sanctions if made on Wikipedia, and STRONGLY suggest that if they absolutely must continue to make them, that they do so elsewhere, that any such activities on-WP will be viewed in the most unfavorable ways.

Regarding Brandon (the CU in question): I think this is a matter for the AUSC. With the Committee's approval, I suggest that the AUSC (Committee and Non-Committee members alike), write a formal request to Brandon requesting the details of any CU he has run in this area, and who he shared them with.

Regarding NW: (The conduit between the CU and SA/Usher) Well, we know what he said he shared (and that squares with the information known). I know he has voluntarily relinquished the tools. I suggest that we do not make it "under a cloud", and that he can get the tools back upon request.


_______________________________________________ arbcom-l mailing list arbcom-l@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/arbcom-l


From: Kirill Lokshin <kirill.lokshin@gmail.com> Date: Sun, Oct 17, 2010 at 16:39 To: English Arbitration Committee mailing list <arbcom-l@lists.wikimedia.org>


Agreed. Here's an updated draft for a letter to ATren:

"In regard to your concerns about ScienceApologist and Timothy Usher, the Arbitration Committee is conducting an internal inquiry into the matter. We are very keen to get to the bottom of the situation, and your help in doing so would be appreciated.

That ScienceApologist was in contact with Usher appears to be undisputed. However, the nature of the information that may have been communicated between them is currently unknown. Further, we have not yet been able to determine whether ScienceApologist knew of Usher's "activities" at the time they corresponded.

Unless we can obtain concrete evidence that addresses these issues, it will be difficult, if not impossible, to determine whether anything improper took place.

Do you have any direct evidence to show that personally identifying information -- for example, names, addresses, phone numbers, IP addresses and so forth -- was given to Usher by ScienceApologist? If so, please send it to arbcom-l@lists.wikimedia.org. If you have evidence regarding any other points, or suggestions for lines of inquiry that we can pursue, we'd appreciate hearing those as well."

I'm happy to send this to him, assuming nobody sees any particular reason not to.

Kirill

_______________________________________________ arbcom-l mailing list arbcom-l@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/arbcom-l


From: Michelle Kinney <shell.kinney@gmail.com> Date: Sun, Oct 17, 2010 at 16:44 To: English Arbitration Committee mailing list <arbcom-l@lists.wikimedia.org>


That sounds like it just about covers everything.

Shell

From: Risker <risker.wp@gmail.com> Date: Sun, Oct 17, 2010 at 16:54 To: English Arbitration Committee mailing list <arbcom-l@lists.wikimedia.org>


I suggest we avoid the word "investigation". Instead, something like "Jimmy Wales and Risker have forwarded your recent to the committee, and we would appreciate your clarification on several points."

I'd also like to hear from Frank particularly on the wording of this. We know that anything we send to ATren is extremely likely to be in the hands of GregJackP and Minor4th within minutes, and we do not want to give them the excuse to subpoena our archives.

Risker/Anne

_______________________________________________ arbcom-l mailing list


_______________________________________________ arbcom-l mailing list arbcom-l@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/arbcom-l


From: Kirill Lokshin <kirill.lokshin@gmail.com> Date: Sun, Oct 17, 2010 at 16:59 To: English Arbitration Committee mailing list <arbcom-l@lists.wikimedia.org>


I rather doubt that anything we do at this point will greatly affect the chances that they'll subpoena the archives; if we investigate, then they'll want to see the results, and if we don't, they'll be looking for evidence of the cover-up.

Kirill

_______________________________________________ arbcom-l mailing list arbcom-l@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/arbcom-l


From: <rlevse@cox.net> Date: Sun, Oct 17, 2010 at 16:59 To: English Arbitration Committee mailing list <arbcom-l@lists.wikimedia.org>


Be very wary of ATren, I don't trust him one bit. For one thing, he was way too eager to get to us.

R

From: Newyorkbrad <newyorkbrad@gmail.com> Date: Sun, Oct 17, 2010 at 17:10 To: English Arbitration Committee mailing list <arbcom-l@lists.wikimedia.org>


I hate to do this, but can I ask that we table doing anything official-sounding in this matter until I get home tomorrow and have an opportunity to catch up on what is happening? We have competing obligations here to satisfy our internal responsibilities on Wikipedia and not to unnecessarily compound a real-world legal dispute, and how we proceed needs to be carefully evaluated with both concerns in mind.

Newyorkbrad

From: Marc A. Pelletier <marc@uberbox.org> Date: Sun, Oct 17, 2010 at 18:52 To: roger.davies.wiki@gmail.com, English Arbitration Committee mailing list <arbcom-l@lists.wikimedia.org>


  • What* personally identifying information?

-- Coren / Marc


_______________________________________________ arbcom-l mailing list arbcom-l@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/arbcom-l


From: Kirill Lokshin <kirill.lokshin@gmail.com> Date: Thu, Oct 21, 2010 at 00:06 To: English Arbitration Committee mailing list <arbcom-l@lists.wikimedia.org>


Brad, did you ever get the chance to take a look at this?

Kirill

_______________________________________________ arbcom-l mailing list arbcom-l@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/arbcom-l


From: Newyorkbrad <newyorkbrad@gmail.com> Date: Thu, Oct 21, 2010 at 02:50 To: English Arbitration Committee mailing list <arbcom-l@lists.wikimedia.org>


Yes; please see the "pending items" thread.

Newyorkbrad

From: Jimmy Wales <jwales@wikia-inc.com> Date: Thu, Oct 21, 2010 at 03:38 To: arbcom-l@lists.wikimedia.org


It is a UK-only term as far as I know.

From: Newyorkbrad <newyorkbrad@gmail.com> Date: Thu, Oct 21, 2010 at 16:46 To: English Arbitration Committee mailing list <arbcom-l@lists.wikimedia.org>


Agreed. I learned it (and lots of other Britishisms) from "Yes, Minister."

Newyorkbrad


_______________________________________________ arbcom-l mailing list arbcom-l@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/arbcom-l


From: Cool Hand Luke <User.CoolHandLuke@gmail.com> Date: Thu, Oct 21, 2010 at 18:13 To: English Arbitration Committee mailing list <arbcom-l@lists.wikimedia.org>


Yes indeed. The Coram Non Judice was probably pulled down because the topics of interest overlapping with BlueSooner and GregJackP were extensive. There were posts about all manner of FLDS topics, several about the Menominee tribe, and the Oklahoma Sooners (and a profile for a "BlueSooner" on a sports fan site would show that BlueSooner was the same age as the person behind GregJackP.

I believe one of the reasons the site was pulled down was that it strongly correlated the link between GregJackP and TxBluesMan.



I think this is likely a source of information--Usher contacted Hugh McBryde in any case, and McBride had accurately identified Malonis' account and the BlueSooner account. Usher could have got it from McBryde in person, or gleaned it from the unoversighted edits. He might have noticed that Hugh McBryde was a frequent commentator and object of ridicule on Coram Non Judice and that BlueSooner had edited his user page by the same name. This would have led to the edits.

Frank

_______________________________________________ arbcom-l mailing list arbcom-l@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/arbcom-l


From: Cool Hand Luke <User.CoolHandLuke@gmail.com> Date: Thu, Oct 21, 2010 at 18:25 To: English Arbitration Committee mailing list <arbcom-l@lists.wikimedia.org>


I agree with Risker in re: "investigation" and "inquiry" in the first sentence. I like Kirill's draft otherwise.

Note that I have been friendly with ATren on-wiki since the THF case in 200X. He's probably disappointed that I'm not with him on this; he suggested to me that "at minimum" we should ban SA and permanently desysop NW. I asked him what information he thought SA leaked, and he replied that the essential issue is that SA was conversing with Usher and probably lied about knowing Usher. I disagree with ATren that this alone is grounds to sanction SA.

I tend to think that SA is not being fully truthful about Usher, but I also believe he didn't have anything to give him that he didn't already have. Their original conversation was about how Usher believed the accounts were socks--which they sincerely believed. In the course of trying to prove they're socks, Usher discovered their identity. I do believe that SA did not intend that (and probably didn't even imagine it would happen).

Frank

_______________________________________________ arbcom-l mailing list arbcom-l@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/arbcom-l

Retrieved from "https://mywikibiz.com/index.php?title=Directory:Wikipedia_ArbCom_mailing_list_leak_2011&oldid=138126"