MyWikiBiz

Changes

Directory:Wikipedia ArbCom mailing list leak 2011 (view source)

Revision as of 20:43, 27 June 2011

111,479 bytes added ,  20:43, 27 June 2011
Noindex search
Line 1: Line 1:  +
{{NOINDEX}}
 +
 
== Introductions ==
 
== Introductions ==
   Line 2,370: Line 2,372:  
Eric
 
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 [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
 +
 +
_______________________________________________
 +
arbcom-l mailing list
 +
arbcom-l@lists.wikimedia.org
 +
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/arbcom-l
 +
 +
== Rodhullandemu ==
 +
Subject: [arbcom-l] RH&E / Usenet
 +
------------------------
 +
 +
From: Roger Davies <roger.davies.wiki@gmail.com>
 +
Date: Mon, Mar 28, 2011 at 14:37
 +
To: Phil Nash <phnash@blueyonder.co.uk>, English Arbitration Committee mailing list <arbcom-l@lists.wikimedia.org>
 +
 +
 +
Hi Phil
 +
 +
In strict confidence
 +
 +
The attention of the Committee has been drawn to Usenet posts.  Because of the nature of these posts, we have a responsibility under Foundation policy to enquire about them and would therefore would appreciate your comments in confidence.
 +
 +
These posts were made over many years by a contributor calling themselves Phil Nash, Philip Howard Nash or variants, and using a series of screen names, including "Witt", "The Janitor of Lunacy" and "Reality Surgeon". The number of similarities between the Usenet posts and your account go far beyond merely sharing a name. For example, the educational details here:
 +
 +
http://groups.google.com/group/alt.activis...158276ede2faca1
 +
 +
closely correlate with information you have provided on your Wikipedia user pages. Additionally, the Usenet contributor appears to suffer from chronic ill health.
 +
 +
Perhaps the most concerning aspect of this is the following disclosure of a conviction for possession of child pornography:
 +
 +
http://groups.google.com/group/uk.politics...1dd709b9a3072c1
 +
 +
Per longstanding policy, the Committee never raises nor comments on such matters on-wiki (and indeed normally suppresses such discussion there); nor will we pass on the information off-wiki. Nevertheless, your immediate attention to the above would be appreciated.
 +
 +
For the Arbitration Committee,
 +
 +
Roger Davies
 +
cc ArbCom
 +
 +
 +
_______________________________________________
 +
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: Mon, Mar 28, 2011 at 15:52
 +
To: English Arbitration Committee mailing list <arbcom-l@lists.wikimedia.org>
 +
 +
 +
<lo>
 +
 +
I do not propose to reply to this.
 +
 +
Roger
 +
 +
 +
 +
On 28/03/2011 20:43, Phil Nash wrote:
 +
Roger;
 +
 +
when I am already seriously suicidal, having this thrown at me doesn't help in the slightest and I am not going to respond until I have taken legal, but more importantly, medical, advice. It may be that I will have to go into hospital after all, for my own protection, and I will be looking into that tomorrow. The advice is for my benefit and is not intended to constitute a legal threat.
 +
 +
Meanwhile, you should not assume that everything on Usenet is necessarily true, nor that it emanates from myself.
 +
 +
Phil
 +
 +
_______________________________________________
 +
arbcom-l mailing list
 +
arbcom-l@lists.wikimedia.org
 +
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/arbcom-l
 +
 +
 +
----------
 +
From: Jonathan Clemens <clem4609@pacificu.edu>
 +
Date: Mon, Mar 28, 2011 at 16:02
 +
To: English Arbitration Committee mailing list <arbcom-l@lists.wikimedia.org>
 +
 +
 +
Well, that went about as expected.  Now the ball is in his court on this, such as it is.
 +
 +
Jonathan
 +
_______________________________________________
 +
arbcom-l mailing list
 +
arbcom-l@lists.wikimedia.org
 +
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/arbcom-l
 +
 +
----------
 +
From: Xeno <xenowiki@gmail.com>
 +
Date: Mon, Mar 28, 2011 at 16:05
 +
To: English Arbitration Committee mailing list <arbcom-l@lists.wikimedia.org>
 +
 +
 +
Since he keeps alluding to suicide, I support keeping him blocked indefinitely.
 +
 +
-x
 +
 +
_______________________________________________
 +
arbcom-l mailing list
 +
arbcom-l@lists.wikimedia.org
 +
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/arbcom-l
 +
 +
 +
----------
 +
From: John Vandenberg <jayvdb@gmail.com>
 +
Date: Mon, Mar 28, 2011 at 17:07
 +
To: English Arbitration Committee mailing list <arbcom-l@lists.wikimedia.org>
 +
 +
 +
I agree.
 +
 +
--
 +
John Vandenberg
 +
 +
----------
 +
From: David Yellope <dyellope.wiki@gmail.com>
 +
Date: Mon, Mar 28, 2011 at 17:08
 +
To: English Arbitration Committee mailing list <arbcom-l@lists.wikimedia.org>
 +
 +
 +
Agreed.
 +
 +
Just gotta figure a way to say it publicly
 +
 +
_______________________________________________
 +
arbcom-l mailing list
 +
arbcom-l@lists.wikimedia.org
 +
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/arbcom-l
 +
 +
 +
----------
 +
From: <philknight@mail.com>
 +
Date: Mon, Mar 28, 2011 at 18:37
 +
To: arbcom-l@lists.wikimedia.org
 +
 +
 +
 +
Suggest something along the lines of:
 +
 +
"Following recent correspondence between RH&E and ArbCom, the committee believes that in his current mental state that it would be in neither his best interests to continue editing, nor the best interests of the project."
 +
 +
Maybe?
 +
 +
Phil
 +
 +
_______________________________________________
 +
arbcom-l mailing list
 +
arbcom-l@lists.wikimedia.org
 +
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/arbcom-l
 +
 +
 +
----------
 +
From: Xeno <xenowiki@gmail.com>
 +
Date: Mon, Mar 28, 2011 at 18:40
 +
To: English Arbitration Committee mailing list <arbcom-l@lists.wikimedia.org>
 +
 +
 +
It's really tricky. I'd prefer to avoid saying 'recent correspondence' - correspondence is privileged and even this vague statement kindof characterizes the correspondence and gets people speculating.
 +
 +
I'd also like to avoid saying 'his best interests' - we've already been hammered for trying to act in his best interests before.
 +
 +
I don't have an alternative to offer, though. =|
 +
 +
-x
 +
 +
_______________________________________________
 +
arbcom-l mailing list
 +
arbcom-l@lists.wikimedia.org
 +
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/arbcom-l
 +
 +
 +
----------
 +
From: Jonathan Clemens <clem4609@pacificu.edu>
 +
Date: Mon, Mar 28, 2011 at 18:42
 +
To: English Arbitration Committee mailing list <arbcom-l@lists.wikimedia.org>
 +
 +
 +
It's a sticky wicket, really.  Privacy laws vary from jurisdiction to jurisdiction, so no matter what we say, it would probably be impermissible *somehwere*.
 +
 +
Hey, since we're appointing new Audit Subcommittee members, let's turf this to them, and ask THEM to explain it appropriately to the community... :-)
 +
 +
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: Mon, Mar 28, 2011 at 18:45
 +
To: English Arbitration Committee mailing list <arbcom-l@lists.wikimedia.org>
 +
 +
 +
We could create a /Motions page with a draft or two, and hammer out
 +
the wording there.  That gives the community a focal point to see us
 +
working through the issue, the outcome of which is inevitable.  He can
 +
also provide one final statement there by emailing it to clerks-l.
 +
 +
----------
 +
From: Cool Hand Luke <User.CoolHandLuke@gmail.com>
 +
Date: Mon, Mar 28, 2011 at 20:05
 +
To: English Arbitration Committee mailing list <arbcom-l@lists.wikimedia.org>
 +
 +
 +
No; this simultaneously reveals information he might consider privileged, and it's highly patronizing to boot.
 +
 +
Given his lame public response to the evidence, I don't think we need to say much.  Maybe something like "After further discussion, the committee indefinitely extends the block of User:Rodhullandemu, who may appeal by email after X months.  We have already communicated this decision to him."
 +
 +
Frank
 +
 +
_______________________________________________
 +
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: Mon, Mar 28, 2011 at 21:11
 +
To: English Arbitration Committee mailing list <arbcom-l@lists.wikimedia.org>
 +
Cc: Cool Hand Luke <User.CoolHandLuke@gmail.com>
 +
 +
 +
I think that's a good way to go.
 +
 +
Shell
 +
 +
----------
 +
From: John Vandenberg <jayvdb@gmail.com>
 +
Date: Mon, Mar 28, 2011 at 21:30
 +
To: English Arbitration Committee mailing list <arbcom-l@lists.wikimedia.org>
 +
 +
 +
I've taken CHL's draft, added that our decision is based on
 +
discussions with Rodhullandemu, replaced 'block' with 'ban' and
 +
stipulated that the ban can only ArbCom can hear the appeal, and wont
 +
do so until 12 months has elapsed. I would also support an appeal in 6
 +
months, if someone feels that is more appropriate. IMO he is unlikely
 +
to provide a good appeal to this committee.
 +
 +
https://secure.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/arbc...ndemu_indef_ban
 +
 +
"After further private discussion with User:Rodhullandemu, the
 +
committee indefinitely bans User:Rodhullandemu. Rodhullandemu may
 +
appeal the ban after 12 months by emailing the committee.
 +
 +
This decision has been communicated to Rodhullandemu privately and
 +
posted to User talk:Rodhullandemu."
 +
 +
----------
 +
From: Xeno <xenowiki@gmail.com>
 +
Date: Mon, Mar 28, 2011 at 21:32
 +
To: English Arbitration Committee mailing list <arbcom-l@lists.wikimedia.org>
 +
 +
 +
On Mar 28, 2011, at 9:11 PM, Michelle Kinney <shell.kinney@gmail.com>
 +
wrote:
 +
Yep.
 +
 +
Hopefully the community's uncharacteristic enquitude continues.
 +
 +
-x // mobile
 +
 +
----------
 +
From: Xeno <xenowiki@gmail.com>
 +
Date: Mon, Mar 28, 2011 at 21:41
 +
To: English Arbitration Committee mailing list <arbcom-l@lists.wikimedia.org>
 +
 +
 +
Slightly prefer CHL's version - I see where you are going with this
 +
(not leaving loose ends), but I think less is more here.
 +
 +
The finality of a ban will surely just stir things up on all sides.
 +
 +
-x // mobile
 +
 +
----------
 +
From: John Vandenberg <jayvdb@gmail.com>
 +
Date: Mon, Mar 28, 2011 at 21:55
 +
To: English Arbitration Committee mailing list <arbcom-l@lists.wikimedia.org>
 +
 +
 +
On Tue, Mar 29, 2011 at 12:41 PM, Xeno <xenowiki@gmail.com> wrote:
 +
>..
 +
CHL's doesnt say how many months he will be blocked for, so that is a
 +
detail which needs to be addressed.
 +
We have nine days to address this.  We should be able to vote through
 +
a few alternative motions.
 +
His acting like either someone who is suicidal or an pompous idiot.
 +
An appeal to the community is not appropriate, and we need to make that clear.
 +
 +
--
 +
John Vandenberg
 +
 +
----------
 +
From: Jonathan Clemens <clem4609@pacificu.edu>
 +
Date: Mon, Mar 28, 2011 at 21:55
 +
To: English Arbitration Committee mailing list <arbcom-l@lists.wikimedia.org>
 +
 +
 +
I agree with Xeno that a ban might create problems--I think we want to be very careful crafting this.
 +
 +
How about something along the lines of "a ban for cause per established policies, unrelated to the actions which prompted the recent case regarding revocation of administrator privileges"?  That way, we make it clear that his actions were strongly trending "desysop", but that the ban is for unspecified unrelated conduct.  I hope...
 +
 +
Jonathan
 +
 +
----------
 +
From: John Vandenberg <jayvdb@gmail.com>
 +
Date: Mon, Mar 28, 2011 at 22:01
 +
To: English Arbitration Committee mailing list <arbcom-l@lists.wikimedia.org>
 +
 +
 +
Here is the current block log.
 +
(del/undel) 2011-03-25T05:09:21 Roger Davies (talk | contribs | block) changed block settings for Rodhullandemu (talk | contribs) with an expiry time of indefinite (account creation blocked, e-mail blocked, cannot edit own talk page) ‎ (Turn off Wikipedia email for now. Refer queries to Arbitration Committee) (unblock | change block)
 +
(del/undel) 2011-03-16T03:40:23 Risker (talk | contribs | block) blocked Rodhullandemu (talk | contribs) (account creation blocked, cannot edit own talk page) with an expiry time of indefinite ‎ (refer queries to Arbitration Committee) (unblock | change block)
 +
 +
 +
_______________________________________________
 +
arbcom-l mailing list
 +
arbcom-l@lists.wikimedia.org
 +
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/arbcom-l
 +
 +
 +
----------
 +
From: Phil Nash <phnash@blueyonder.co.uk>
 +
Date: Mon, Mar 28, 2011 at 19:30
 +
To: roger.davies.wiki@gmail.com
 +
Cc: arbcom-l@lists.wikimedia.org
 +
 +
 +
Please cite Foundation policy, because I can't see it. All I see is [[Wikipedia:Child protection]], and that does not apply to me. Throwing additional mud is all very well, but you should be aware that (a) I am  not a pedophile (b) neither have I ever advocated, or supported, pedophilia, on Wikipedia and © you shouldn't assume that even if I take a stance on Usenet, even discounting forgeries claiming to be me, that is not part of [[participant observation]] of a phenomenon worthy of academic research, and er, I may not actually believe in what I say, but say it to elicit a response from the population I'm studying. You may disagree with my research methods, and so may my academic peers, but in order to infiltrate suspect communities, sometimes a simulacrum of "belonging" assists in drilling down to the reality of the situation. But all I've done is to cite research from others, and put an "Aunt Sally" position, ready to be knocked down, to little effect. My government-supported infiltration of some newsgroups and IRC channels actually resulted in more convictions prior to [[Operation Ore]] than they could ever have hoped for. If there was any fault, it was that nobody told the Manchester Police of my operational status, and that is a major failure of the system.
 +
 +
Meanwhile, all of this has nothing at all to do with my contributions to Wikipedia; I've long-since retired from the intelligence community, largely due to being hung out to dry 14 years ago. My pension may be small, but assured, and sadly, deferred for a couple of years. Until then, I must struggle.
 +
 +
As regards confidentiality, I am still plausibly deniable as an operative, becase "Phil Nash" is not necessarily my real name, so in real terms, this is going to go nowhere unless you want to press the point  locally. Up to you.
 +
 +
Phil
 +
 +
----- Original Message -----
 +
 +
_______________________________________________
 +
arbcom-l mailing list
 +
arbcom-l@lists.wikimedia.org
 +
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/arbcom-l
 +
 +
 +
----------
 +
From: Phil Nash <phnash@blueyonder.co.uk>
 +
Date: Mon, Mar 28, 2011 at 19:47
 +
To: roger.davies.wiki@gmail.com
 +
Cc: arbcom-l@lists.wikimedia.org
 +
 +
 +
I'll just add this: I've moved on from the work I was doing 14 years ago, and have retired from that, and most other stuff. Look at my Wikipedia/Commons contributions, and if you can see any agenda beyond keeping the project on track, feel free to kick me into touch. But please don't do it on the basis of unsubstantiated, incredible and irrelevant material. My desysop was shameful enough without bringing up stale material, and this new stuff reeks of paranoia.
 +
 +
Cheers.
 +
 +
PS:If I'm not responding within a week, I'm in hospital.
 +
 +
_______________________________________________
 +
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: Tue, Mar 29, 2011 at 00:42
 +
To: arbcom-l@lists.wikimedia.org
 +
 +
 +
 +
I don't think we should or need say anything about the block.
 +
 +
The case page announcement merely needs amending to say that the case is suspended indefinitely (to remove the 7th April deadline).
 +
 +
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: Tue, Mar 29, 2011 at 00:44
 +
To: arbcom-l@lists.wikimedia.org
 +
 +
 +
 +
Another two responses from him are on their way through the moderation pipeline.
 +
 +
They present, at best, a somewhat confused and contradictory picture.
 +
 +
Roger
 +
 +
_______________________________________________
 +
arbcom-l mailing list
 +
arbcom-l@lists.wikimedia.org
 +
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/arbcom-l
 +
 +
 +
----------
 +
From: Kenneth Kua/ArbCom <kenneth@planetkh.com>
 +
Date: Tue, Mar 29, 2011 at 02:17
 +
To: roger.davies.wiki@gmail.com, English Arbitration Committee mailing list <arbcom-l@lists.wikimedia.org>
 +
 +
 +
The email sounds to me that he will probably not stop there, even if he were to be banned.
 +
 +
Kenneth/MD
 +
 +
_______________________________________________
 +
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: Tue, Mar 29, 2011 at 04:17
 +
To: English Arbitration Committee mailing list <arbcom-l@lists.wikimedia.org>
 +
 +
 +
<list only>
 +
 +
Ah, the intelligence operative excuse.  I don't think we've seen this one for a while, have we?
 +
 +
Kirill
 +
 +
 +
 +
_______________________________________________
 +
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: Tue, Mar 29, 2011 at 07:15
 +
To: English Arbitration Committee mailing list <arbcom-l@lists.wikimedia.org>
 +
 +
 +
So, there are only two possibilities left; he is either delusional or has lost all sense of perspective in his bullshit.
 +
 +
-- Coren / Marc
 +
 +
 +
_______________________________________________
 +
arbcom-l mailing list
 +
arbcom-l@lists.wikimedia.org
 +
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/arbcom-l
 +
 +
 +
----------
 +
From: Newyorkbrad <newyorkbrad@gmail.com>
 +
Date: Tue, Mar 29, 2011 at 07:25
 +
To: English Arbitration Committee mailing list <arbcom-l@lists.wikimedia.org>
 +
 +
 +
I don't recall having ever seen it, actually.
 +
 +
Newyorkbrad
 +
 +
_______________________________________________
 +
arbcom-l mailing list
 +
arbcom-l@lists.wikimedia.org
 +
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/arbcom-l
 +
 +
 +
----------
 +
From: Jonathan Clemens <clem4609@pacificu.edu>
 +
Date: Tue, Mar 29, 2011 at 09:57
 +
To: English Arbitration Committee mailing list <arbcom-l@lists.wikimedia.org>
 +
 +
 +
Ah, I was under the impression Kirill was speaking in general, not with direct application to RH&E.
 +
 +
Ultimately, this is too much BS.  Were he in the US, I'd prefer to require self-identification to the foundation and the completion of a clean background check suitable for employment in a child care agency for him to return to editing.
 +
 +
As is, his online persona seems to be a house of car... err, lies.
 +
 +
Jonathan
 +
 +
_______________________________________________
 +
arbcom-l mailing list
 +
arbcom-l@lists.wikimedia.org
 +
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/arbcom-l
 +
 +
 +
----------
 +
From: Cas Liber <casliber01@yahoo.com>
 +
Date: Tue, Mar 29, 2011 at 14:02
 +
To: English Arbitration Committee mailing list <arbcom-l@lists.wikimedia.org>
 +
 +
 +
<snip>
 +
<snip>
 +
Partly the latter - showing a lack of empathy in that folks would believe him, and partly telling stories.
 +
 +
Reminds me of Mattisse in htat under pressure, the level of disturbance in thinking becomes very apparent.
 +
 +
Very interesting when you interview people like this IRL too.
 +
Cas
 +
 +
 +
 +
_______________________________________________
 +
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: Tue, Mar 29, 2011 at 16:58
 +
To: English Arbitration Committee mailing list <arbcom-l@lists.wikimedia.org>
 +
 +
 +
He has hinted it several times
 +
 +
Elen of the Roads
 +
 +
_______________________________________________
 +
arbcom-l mailing list
 +
arbcom-l@lists.wikimedia.org
 +
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/arbcom-l
 +
 +
 +
----------
 +
From: Newyorkbrad <newyorkbrad@gmail.com>
 +
Date: Tue, Mar 29, 2011 at 17:02
 +
To: English Arbitration Committee mailing list <arbcom-l@lists.wikimedia.org>
 +
 +
 +
I've seen him refer to intelligence service several times, but not as an excuse for anything.  I thought Kirill was referring to some other user or case.  Ah well, doesn't really matter; thanks for clarifying.
 +
 +
Newyorkbrad
 +
 +
 +
_______________________________________________
 +
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: Tue, Mar 29, 2011 at 17:24
 +
To: English Arbitration Committee mailing list <arbcom-l@lists.wikimedia.org>
 +
 +
 +
He definitely says he spent time in the US working for the UK government in some secret capacity.
 +
 +
I wonder if he was kidnapped by aliens - that's the big thing that's missing from his cv
 +
 +
Elen of the Roads
 +
 +
_______________________________________________
 +
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: Tue, Mar 29, 2011 at 17:29
 +
To: English Arbitration Committee mailing list <arbcom-l@lists.wikimedia.org>
 +
 +
 +
Maybe we should ask him if he ever ran into SlimVirgin while in the service.
 +
That part is classified.  He'd have to kill us if we found out.
 +
 +
Kirill
 +
 +
_______________________________________________
 +
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: Tue, Mar 29, 2011 at 17:50
 +
To: English Arbitration Committee mailing list <arbcom-l@lists.wikimedia.org>
 +
 +
 +
I have proposed alternate wording https://secure.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/arbc...h_block_not_ban
 +
 +
I do not believe it is necessary to state terms for unblock onwiki.
 +
 +
Elen of the Roads
 +
 +
 +
 +
 +
 +
_______________________________________________
 +
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: Wed, Mar 30, 2011 at 01:27
 +
To: arbcom-l@lists.wikimedia.org
 +
 +
 +
The thing that strikes me about RH&E is the knee-jerk "I'm too ill/I'm suicidal" response whenever challenged. What's all that about, Cas? What's the mechanism? Just deflection?
 +
 +
Roger
 +
 +
_______________________________________________
 +
arbcom-l mailing list
 +
arbcom-l@lists.wikimedia.org
 +
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/arbcom-l
 +
 +
 +
----------
 +
From: Cas Liber <casliber01@yahoo.com>
 +
Date: Wed, Mar 30, 2011 at 16:17
 +
To: "roger.davies.wiki@gmail.com" <roger.davies.wiki@gmail.com>, English Arbitration Committee mailing list <arbcom-l@lists.wikimedia.org>
 +
 +
 +
 +
<snip>
 +
<snip>
 +
 +
The common theme in all his correspondence is /his/ hard work, /his/ health i.e. "I'm having a hard time and you don't care". There is not /any/ consideration of the other side at all, which is interesting.
 +
 +
it illustrates a fairly profound lack of empathy of knowing or caring about his obligations (role of admin), or problem it puts us in (threat of suicide and letting him edit). Admittedly this gets worse when a person is stressed (even reasonable folks can lose empathy ))
 +
Cas
 +
 +
 +
 +
 +
Subject: [arbcom-l] Fwd: Arbcom (from Rodhullandemu)
 +
------------------------
 +
 +
From: Newyorkbrad <newyorkbrad@gmail.com>
 +
Date: Thu, Mar 3, 2011 at 21:49
 +
To: Arbitration Committee mailing list <arbcom-l@lists.wikimedia.org>
 +
 +
 +
Forwarded with permission, and without comment.
 +
 +
Newyorkbrad
 +
 +
---------- Forwarded message ----------
 +
From: Rodhullandemu <wikimail@blueyonder.co.uk>
 +
Date: Thu, Mar 3, 2011 at 9:38 PM
 +
Subject: Arbcom
 +
To: Newyorkbrad <newyorkbrad@gmail.com>
 +
 +
 +
I note that you are prepared to take a middle position, which is very fair of you; however, we are both lawyers and know how to play hardball if necessary.
 +
 +
This is my position, from which I am not prepared to deviate:
 +
 +
1. Rodhullandemu is prepared to voluntarily relinquish his admin privileges, backdated to their removal by ArbCom, and to be reinstated in full on 1 April 2011. This will give him time to emerge from the winter months, and do some meaningful edits in the meantime without being under the pressure of fighting the constant tide of vandalism.
 +
 +
2. Rodhullandemu is prepared to accept a voluntary and indefinite interaction ban with Malleus Fatuorum, enforceable by blocks by any uninvolved administrator.
 +
 +
That's all.
 +
 +
Cheers.
 +
 +
RH&E
 +
 +
--
 +
This e-mail was sent by user "Rodhullandemu" on the English Wikipedia to user "Newyorkbrad". It has been automatically delivered and the Wikimedia Foundation cannot be held responsible for its contents.
 +
 +
The sender has not been given the recipient's email address, or any information about his/her e-mail account; and the recipient has no obligation to reply to this e-mail or take any other action that might disclose his/her identity. For further information on privacy, security, and replying, as well as abuse and removal from emailing, see <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Email>.
 +
 +
 +
_______________________________________________
 +
arbcom-l mailing list
 +
arbcom-l@lists.wikimedia.org
 +
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/arbcom-l
 +
 +
 +
----------
 +
From: Risker <risker.wp@gmail.com>
 +
Date: Thu, Mar 3, 2011 at 21:55
 +
To: English Arbitration Committee mailing list <arbcom-l@lists.wikimedia.org>
 +
 +
 +
 +
 +
 +
 +
Erm, no to #1 - a one-month desysop will not change the behavioural pattern here. In the alternative, he could return to RFA on April 1, if he likes. The lack of opposition to the fact of his desysop (as opposed to the process of his desysop) leads me to believe that we cannot take it for granted that he continues to enjoy the support of the community in the admin role.
 +
 +
#2 I'd be fine with.
 +
 +
Risker/Anne
 +
 +
 +
_______________________________________________
 +
arbcom-l mailing list
 +
arbcom-l@lists.wikimedia.org
 +
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/arbcom-l
 +
 +
 +
----------
 +
From: Jonathan Clemens <clem4609@pacificu.edu>
 +
Date: Thu, Mar 3, 2011 at 22:05
 +
To: English Arbitration Committee mailing list <arbcom-l@lists.wikimedia.org>
 +
 +
 +
While it's nice that he's talking, I just cannot see ever allowing him to have the bit back in light of the new evidence--whether he's a liar, kiddie porn convict, or adopted the persona of someone else.  The real question is whether and how he is entirely banned, what we're willing to disclose in public to make the community go easier on us for doing the right thing, and how much we want to refine our procedures.
 +
 +
What on earth is his bargaining position?  What does he offer us?  I think a fair counterproposal is that he posts a humiliatingly abject apology, withdraws the case with prejudice, and resigns the tools forever, in exchange for us not posting the evidence page on-wiki.
 +
 +
I note he still says he's a lawyer.  Wonder what he'd say if we asked him if he'd ever been convicted of anything?
 +
 +
Jonathan
 +
 +
 +
_______________________________________________
 +
arbcom-l mailing list
 +
arbcom-l@lists.wikimedia.org
 +
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/arbcom-l
 +
 +
 +
_______________________________________________
 +
arbcom-l mailing list
 +
arbcom-l@lists.wikimedia.org
 +
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/arbcom-l
 +
 +
 +
----------
 +
From: John Vandenberg <jayvdb@gmail.com>
 +
Date: Thu, Mar 3, 2011 at 22:06
 +
To: English Arbitration Committee mailing list <arbcom-l@lists.wikimedia.org>
 +
 +
 +
I would be willing to accept a six month temp desysop, in order to get
 +
this off our collective plate.
 +
If we did that, we'd cop a lot of flack from the people who agree he
 +
is a bad sysop, but it lays the framework for a case if he returns to
 +
his old ways once he gets the tools back.
 +
 +
--
 +
John Vandenberg
 +
 +
----------
 +
From: Cool Hand Luke <User.CoolHandLuke@gmail.com>
 +
Date: Thu, Mar 3, 2011 at 22:09
 +
To: English Arbitration Committee mailing list <arbcom-l@lists.wikimedia.org>
 +
 +
 +
 +
 +
 +
RFA for him was suggested at the request--he doesn't even need to wait a month; the motion left the door wide open.  To that suggestion he replied:
 +
 +
@HJ Mitchell: Are you crazy? Admins who combat vandalism as a career do not make friends. Reality, please! Rodhull andemu
 +
 +
I don't think he sees RFA as an option.  I am willing to tell him we'd give it a fresh look after 6 or 12 months, but one month is a non-starter for me.
 +
 +
Of course, this is all contingent on the USENET issue not blowing up.
 +
 +
Frank
 +
 +
 +
_______________________________________________
 +
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: Thu, Mar 3, 2011 at 22:16
 +
To: arbcom-l@lists.wikimedia.org
 +
 +
 +
 +
 +
On 04/03/2011 03:09, Cool Hand Luke wrote:
 +
>snip>
 +
 +
Yes, I'd go along with that, dependent of course on radically improved civility, less biteyness etc. Whether it tackles the tension between his take on WP:IAR and WP:INVOLVED is another matter.
 +
 +
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: Thu, Mar 3, 2011 at 22:18
 +
To: arbcom-l@lists.wikimedia.org
 +
 +
 +
 +
I think he's seeing far less drama at the case than he was hoping for. In fact, now the case is getting underway, the tumult has gorn.
 +
 +
Roger
 +
 +
 +
On 04/03/2011 03:05, Jonathan Clemens wrote:
 +
<snip>
 +
 +
_______________________________________________
 +
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, Mar 3, 2011 at 22:22
 +
To: English Arbitration Committee mailing list <arbcom-l@lists.wikimedia.org>
 +
 +
 +
Horrible, horrible idea, in my opinion.  The absolutely last thing we want to do at this point is to create written evidence that we might be willing to let him be an admin again; if push comes to shove, he might prove perfectly willing to take us down with him.
 +
 +
Kirill
 +
 +
_______________________________________________
 +
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: Thu, Mar 3, 2011 at 22:27
 +
To: arbcom-l@lists.wikimedia.org
 +
 +
 +
 +
Well, at this precise point, when the link between RH&E and "Witt" has not been established, it's a reasonable thing to discuss.
 +
 +
If and when we get an admission about the link, the whole landscape changes completely.
 +
 +
Roger
 +
 +
_______________________________________________
 +
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: Thu, Mar 3, 2011 at 22:28
 +
To: English Arbitration Committee mailing list <arbcom-l@lists.wikimedia.org>
 +
 +
 +
I rather doubt a hostile press would bother to make so fine a distinction.
 +
 +
Kirill
 +
 +
_______________________________________________
 +
arbcom-l mailing list
 +
arbcom-l@lists.wikimedia.org
 +
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/arbcom-l
 +
 +
 +
----------
 +
From: Risker <risker.wp@gmail.com>
 +
Date: Thu, Mar 3, 2011 at 22:27
 +
To: English Arbitration Committee mailing list <arbcom-l@lists.wikimedia.org>
 +
 +
 +
While I don't agree with Kirill's suggestions on how to deal with the usenet stuff (which seems guaranteed to blow up in our faces and is more likely to lead to another "Arbcom-L leaks" concern within the community)....I am inherently loathe to open the door to returning the bits to him at this point; however, I could probably live with our standard "decision can be appealed in 6 months"  language in the final decision.
 +
 +
 +
Risker/Anne
 +
 +
_______________________________________________
 +
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, Mar 3, 2011 at 23:07
 +
To: English Arbitration Committee mailing list <arbcom-l@lists.wikimedia.org>
 +
 +
 +
 +
Standard language is fine with me; he doesn't merit special treatment one way or the other.  I would consider it for drastic improvement even though it looks dismal right now.
 +
 +
Frank
 +
 +
 +
_______________________________________________
 +
arbcom-l mailing list
 +
arbcom-l@lists.wikimedia.org
 +
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/arbcom-l
 +
 +
 +
----------
 +
From: John Vandenberg <jayvdb@gmail.com>
 +
Date: Thu, Mar 3, 2011 at 23:07
 +
To: English Arbitration Committee mailing list <arbcom-l@lists.wikimedia.org>
 +
 +
 +
...
 +
He & Malleus are currently doing their best to show us why this is necessary
 +
 +
https://secure.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/w...iginal_research
 +
 +
--
 +
John Vandenberg
 +
 +
----------
 +
From: David Yellope <dyellope.wiki@gmail.com>
 +
Date: Thu, Mar 3, 2011 at 23:22
 +
To: English Arbitration Committee mailing list <arbcom-l@lists.wikimedia.org>
 +
 +
 +
2) Yes.
 +
 +
1) We can review in six months, or if he truly thinks there will be a great wind that will sweep out arbs who oppressed him, twelve months from now, but anything that gives him the mop back without RfA is a nonstarter
 +
 +
_______________________________________________
 +
arbcom-l mailing list
 +
arbcom-l@lists.wikimedia.org
 +
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/arbcom-l
 +
 +
 +
----------
 +
From: Cas Liber <casliber01@yahoo.com>
 +
Date: Thu, Mar 3, 2011 at 23:48
 +
To: English Arbitration Committee mailing list <arbcom-l@lists.wikimedia.org>
 +
 +
 +
Agree with Kirill - remember there was virtually no community opposition to what is in effect a (likely) permanent desysop.
 +
<snip>
 +
 +
 +
 +
_______________________________________________
 +
arbcom-l mailing list
 +
arbcom-l@lists.wikimedia.org
 +
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/arbcom-l
 +
 +
 +
----------
 +
From: Newyorkbrad <newyorkbrad@gmail.com>
 +
Date: Fri, Mar 4, 2011 at 19:48
 +
To: Arbitration Committee mailing list <arbcom-l@lists.wikimedia.org>
 +
 +
 +
 +
 +
Some feedback would be welcome; I am not prepared to wait much longer for a reaction, given the obloquy I have already suffered. ElenoftheRoads has indicated that she will be unavailable for a couple of days- that's unacceptable when she seems to to have taken on the role of prosecutor. Wikipedia is 24/7, and although I don't work to those standards, otherwise I would be dead, it is not beyond the wit and capability of ArbCom to ensure that its victims are kept informed as to what is going on.
 +
 +
I'll just say this: I've offered ArbCom an olive branch that will result in a mutually satisfactory result for all parties, and avoid much future embarassment on both sides. I do not expect to be beaten over the head with that offer of peace; I expect it to be taken seriously, and avoid further and unnecessary community criticism of ArbCom. In this sense, for the benefit of Wikipedia, I am prepared to stand by that offer. In short, ArbCom can take it or leave it.
 +
 +
Cheers,
 +
 +
RH&E
 +
----- Original Message -----
 +
From: Newyorkbrad
 +
To: Rodhullandemu
 +
Sent: Friday, March 04, 2011 2:44 AM
 +
Subject: Re: Arbcom
 +
 +
Would you like me to forward this to the full Arbitration Committee?  Obviously I can't respond unilaterally.
 +
 +
Newyorkbrad
 +
 +
 +
 +
 +
 +
_______________________________________________
 +
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, Mar 4, 2011 at 19:55
 +
To: English Arbitration Committee mailing list <arbcom-l@lists.wikimedia.org>
 +
 +
 +
While he's right--we should respond at some point--I think we have little to lose by thinking things through thoroughly.
 +
 +
Time is not on his side.  Assuming the Usenet posts aren't going to leak and/or being independently rediscovered, it's not particularly  /not/ on our side, either.
 +
 +
I'd recommend a neutrally worded message saying that we are considering his offer and discussing it.
 +
 +
Jonathan
 +
 +
 +
 +
_______________________________________________
 +
arbcom-l mailing list
 +
arbcom-l@lists.wikimedia.org
 +
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/arbcom-l
 +
 +
 +
----------
 +
From: Newyorkbrad <newyorkbrad@gmail.com>
 +
Date: Fri, Mar 4, 2011 at 20:04
 +
To: Arbitration Committee mailing list <arbcom-l@lists.wikimedia.org>
 +
 +
 +
His reply; I won't be responding again, though someone else should write him when we have something to say
 +
 +
Newyorkbrad
 +
 +
I expected better than silence. Even a holding position would have been better than nothing. However, I am not prepared to deviate from my olive branch position, which would seem to be acceptable to the community at large.
 +
 +
Over to you.
 +
 +
Cheers,
 +
 +
RH&E
 +
----- Original Message -----
 +
From: Newyorkbrad
 +
To: Phil Nash
 +
Sent: Saturday, March 05, 2011 12:50 AM
 +
Subject: Re: Arbcom
 +
 +
Dear Rodhullandemu:
 +
 +
I forwarded your e-mail to the committee, last night, and it has been under discussion.  I think someone (I am not a spokesman for the committee in this matter) will get back to you in due course, hopefully in the near future.  However, I do not think it is either appropriate or helpful for you to issue ultimatums, nor do I understand what it is you are threatening to do.
 +
 +
Newyorkbrad
 +
 +
 +
_______________________________________________
 +
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, Mar 4, 2011 at 21:38
 +
To: English Arbitration Committee mailing list <arbcom-l@lists.wikimedia.org>
 +
Cc: phnash@blueyonder.co.uk
 +
 +
 +
Phil,
 +
 +
Thank you for contacting us; the Committee is currently discussing
 +
your offer.  Developing consensus among 18 or so people via mailing
 +
list isn't terribly efficient, so we appreciate your patience.
 +
 +
Shell Kinney
 +
 +
----------
 +
From: Michelle Kinney <shell.kinney@gmail.com>
 +
Date: Fri, Mar 4, 2011 at 21:41
 +
To: English Arbitration Committee mailing list <arbcom-l@lists.wikimedia.org>
 +
 +
 +
Absolutely not.  As others have suggested, I'd be prepared to accept a
 +
6 month and then he can ask for them back process.
 +
No problems with this and I do think it's a good idea.
 +
 +
Shell Kinney
 +
 +
----------
 +
From: Jonathan Clemens <clem4609@pacificu.edu>
 +
Date: Fri, Mar 4, 2011 at 22:05
 +
To: English Arbitration Committee mailing list <arbcom-l@lists.wikimedia.org>
 +
 +
 +
And just to be clear... by "ask for them back", you mean "ask for them from the community via RfA", right?
 +
 +
Given all that's transpired--original cause, unhelpful wikilawyering/defiant replies, past statements that have come to light--I'm not seeing any way we can give them back by ArbCom fiat.
 +
 +
Jonathan
 +
 +
----------
 +
From: Risker <risker.wp@gmail.com>
 +
Date: Fri, Mar 4, 2011 at 22:10
 +
To: English Arbitration Committee mailing list <arbcom-l@lists.wikimedia.org>
 +
 +
 +
Just because he appeals, doesn't mean his appeal will be successful.  But a door should be left open a crack for him to at least have the opportunity to put forward a case in the future illustrating that his methodology has changed.
 +
 +
We have resysopped in the past, usually where the critical issue was a one-off and the individual was able to demonstrate understanding of why it was not acceptable. Other times we've referred to RFA, and many times there has been no appeal.
 +
 +
Risker/Anne
 +
 +
_______________________________________________
 +
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, Mar 4, 2011 at 22:19
 +
To: English Arbitration Committee mailing list <arbcom-l@lists.wikimedia.org>
 +
 +
 +
I'm all for leaving a theoretical door open if it will help resolve the matter, and we give all sorts of "may appeal in six months" out to people we all know there is no way short of a collective fit of insanity we'd ever let back in.  As long as we're on the same page that this is the sort of door we're going to leave open, I'm OK with that.
 +
 +
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: Fri, Mar 4, 2011 at 22:35
 +
To: English Arbitration Committee mailing list <arbcom-l@lists.wikimedia.org>
 +
 +
 +
The current vague voting on the option to allow an appeal in six
 +
months is six vs two/three, if I've understood peoples comments so
 +
far.
 +
 +
support
 +
-------
 +
 +
John Vandenberg (supporting more liberal six month automatic
 +
retooling, if necessary)
 +
 +
Cool Hand Luke
 +
 +
Roger Davies
 +
 +
Risker
 +
 +
Michelle Kinney
 +
 +
Jonathan Clemens "I'm all for leaving a theoretical door open"
 +
 +
oppose
 +
------
 +
 +
Kirill "The absolutely last thing we want to do at this point is to
 +
Cas Liber: per Kirill
 +
 +
unsure
 +
------
 +
David Yellope "We can review in six months"/"anything that gives him
 +
--
 +
John Vandenberg
 +
 +
----------
 +
From: David Yellope <dyellope.wiki@gmail.com>
 +
Date: Fri, Mar 4, 2011 at 22:42
 +
To: English Arbitration Committee mailing list <arbcom-l@lists.wikimedia.org>
 +
 +
 +
That means that I don't think there's anyway we give it back to him ourselves, but he can ask us in six months or go to RfA at any time.
 +
 +
_______________________________________________
 +
arbcom-l mailing list
 +
arbcom-l@lists.wikimedia.org
 +
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/arbcom-l
 +
 +
 +
----------
 +
From: John Vandenberg <jayvdb@gmail.com>
 +
Date: Fri, Mar 4, 2011 at 22:49
 +
To: David Yellope <dyellope.wiki@gmail.com>
 +
Cc: English Arbitration Committee mailing list <arbcom-l@lists.wikimedia.org>
 +
 +
 +
So you support a "no, but you can ask ArbCom for the tools again in six months"?
 +
 +
If so, we are seven vs two in favour of that response.
 +
 +
----------
 +
From: Jonathan Clemens <clem4609@pacificu.edu>
 +
Date: Fri, Mar 4, 2011 at 22:56
 +
To: English Arbitration Committee mailing list <arbcom-l@lists.wikimedia.org>
 +
 +
 +
Our next decision is whether and how to reply to his self-styled "olive branch"
 +
 +
I suggest we reply "We are not interested in your proposed terms at this time, and are continuing to prepare for the public case you've requested. "
 +
 +
Jonathan
 +
 +
----------
 +
From: David Yellope <dyellope.wiki@gmail.com>
 +
Date: Fri, Mar 4, 2011 at 23:04
 +
To: English Arbitration Committee mailing list <arbcom-l@lists.wikimedia.org>
 +
 +
 +
This is what I suggest:
 +
 +
"Hi Phil:
 +
 +
After review, we do not think that giving back the tools automatically at this time is a good idea. We are willing to offer the compromise of allowing you to ask the Committee in six months to have your tools reinstated, as well as asking for the tools back at RFA. Of course, we can still continue with the public case we've requested, should you prefer."
 +
 +
And should we decide to inquire about the Phil Nash.Witt thing:
 +
 +
"Also, evidence has been placed before the Committee that ties someone with a similar name and similar background to you on Usenet. Could you confirm this is you?"
 +
 +
_______________________________________________
 +
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, Mar 4, 2011 at 23:11
 +
To: English Arbitration Committee mailing list <arbcom-l@lists.wikimedia.org>
 +
 +
 +
I like that approach, along with the "witt" query in the same email.
 +
 +
I'd suggest "... before the Committee of another Phil Nash who practiced law in Liverpool and posted repeatedly to Usenet. ..."  Give him a bit more of the specifics, but not enough to be an overt threat.
 +
 +
Jonathan
 +
 +
_______________________________________________
 +
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: Fri, Mar 4, 2011 at 23:31
 +
To: English Arbitration Committee mailing list <arbcom-l@lists.wikimedia.org>
 +
 +
 +
I think simply asking him if he was Witt (sample email addresses) would be better.  More biographical details aren't really important as the identity with Witt (and I suspect these increase the likelihood of an non-useful answer).  That said, I agree with Roger's suggestion of asking whether the Phil Nash Commons connection should be pulled down.
 +
 +
Frank
 +
 +
_______________________________________________
 +
arbcom-l mailing list
 +
arbcom-l@lists.wikimedia.org
 +
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/arbcom-l
 +
 +
 +
----------
 +
From: John Vandenberg <jayvdb@gmail.com>
 +
Date: Fri, Mar 4, 2011 at 23:31
 +
To: English Arbitration Committee mailing list <arbcom-l@lists.wikimedia.org>
 +
 +
 +
as well as [..] RFA -> in addition to the option of an RFA at your choosing.
 +
This works.
 +
I would also I'd prefer that it was a bit more explicitly.  Another option is
 +
".. on Usenet, who has used 'Witt' and other aliases over the last
 +
decade or more."
 +
 +
--
 +
John Vandenberg
 +
 +
----------
 +
From: Phil Nash <phnash@blueyonder.co.uk>
 +
Date: Sat, Mar 5, 2011 at 00:10
 +
To: Michelle Kinney <shell.kinney@gmail.com>
 +
 +
 +
Consensus to desysop me wasn't so slow, and I see no reason why a reasonable offer to save face for all involved should not achieve the same level of urgency, if the ultimate benefit of the encyclopedia is to be considered.
 +
 +
RH&E
 +
 +
----------
 +
From: Michelle Kinney <shell.kinney@gmail.com>
 +
Date: Sat, Mar 5, 2011 at 00:13
 +
To: Phil Nash <phnash@blueyonder.co.uk>
 +
Cc: English Arbitration Committee mailing list <arbcom-l@lists.wikimedia.org>
 +
 +
 +
Perhaps not, but it did take several days whereas we've had your
 +
emails for less than 24 hours now.  This is our top priority and we
 +
will be getting back with an answer as soon as possible.
 +
 +
Shell Kinney
 +
 +
----------
 +
From: Jonathan Clemens <clem4609@pacificu.edu>
 +
Date: Sat, Mar 5, 2011 at 00:32
 +
To: English Arbitration Committee mailing list <arbcom-l@lists.wikimedia.org>
 +
 +
 +
(list only)
 +
 +
I do not care for his pressing for a quick response while simultaneously needling us: https://secure.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/w...oldid=417196794
 +
 +
He appears to be trying to keep the pressure up on us rather than approach a "face saving" in good faith.
 +
 +
Jonathan
 +
 +
 +
 +
_______________________________________________
 +
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: Sat, Mar 5, 2011 at 01:27
 +
To: arbcom-l@lists.wikimedia.org
 +
 +
 +
I'm a bit concerned that we're permitting RH&E to set the agenda. The core issue is not that we have a dispute with RH&E that requires resolving but that he has engaged in problematic behaviour over a long period.
 +
 +
Therefore, and before we do anything else, we must provide RH&E with details with diffs of sample behaviour and provide him with an opportunity to respond.
 +
 +
The easiest way to do this is by Helen posting her evidence once she's back. More fundamentally, his reaction to the evidence is likely to guide us how best to proceed.
 +
 +
Roger
 +
 +
_______________________________________________
 +
arbcom-l mailing list
 +
 +
_______________________________________________
 +
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, Mar 5, 2011 at 01:39
 +
To: roger.davies.wiki@gmail.com, English Arbitration Committee mailing list <arbcom-l@lists.wikimedia.org>
 +
 +
 +
On Sat, Mar 5, 2011 at 5:27 PM, Roger Davies
 +
I agree with this, except that delaying proceedings is giving him and
 +
others opportunity to throw rocks in public.
 +
If it speeds up the process, I think someone else can send him Helen's
 +
evidence, if we are all happy with it.
 +
 +
--
 +
John Vandenberg
 +
 +
----------
 +
From: Roger Davies <roger.davies.wiki@gmail.com>
 +
Date: Sat, Mar 5, 2011 at 01:41
 +
To: arbcom-l@lists.wikimedia.org
 +
 +
 +
 +
On further reflection, agreeing to reconsider the tools in six months opens the door to:
 +
 +
* Allegations that our original decision was profoundly flawed and we offered the six months purely as a face-saving exercise;
 +
* Six months of campaigning by RH&E for a return of the tools by ArbCom
 +
* Revisit of the "tainted process" discussion in six months time (you guys are acting as prosecutor, judge, executioner, AND parole board)
 +
 +
Having thought about it more, the only circumstances I'd consider this route are if we get an unambiguous acknowledgement from RH&E that his conduct has fallen well short of admin standards and that the desysopping was correct.
 +
 +
He won't of course be in a position to make an informed decision on this until he's seen the evidence. So, for the time being, I'm opposed to this route.
 +
 +
Roger
 +
 +
_______________________________________________
 +
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: Sat, Mar 5, 2011 at 01:46
 +
To: roger.davies.wiki@gmail.com, English Arbitration Committee mailing list <arbcom-l@lists.wikimedia.org>
 +
 +
 +
Hmm.  I hadn't thought about that.  Given his continued pointy
 +
comments and mis-characterizations on wiki, this does seem a bit more
 +
like "Make it go away so I can continue to climb the reichstag while
 +
making you guys look like asses" or something along those lines.
 +
While we aren't elected to be popular, Rod was the one that determined
 +
not to handle this privately or even appropriately.  So please change
 +
me to a straight no on his admin tools proposal, but yes, you need an
 +
interaction ban, clearly.
 +
 +
Shell
 +
 +
----------
 +
From: John Vandenberg <jayvdb@gmail.com>
 +
Date: Sat, Mar 5, 2011 at 01:52
 +
To: roger.davies.wiki@gmail.com, English Arbitration Committee mailing list <arbcom-l@lists.wikimedia.org>
 +
 +
 +
On Sat, Mar 5, 2011 at 5:41 PM, Roger Davies
 +
The arbcom motion would need to have wording that removed this possibility.
 +
I dont see this working out in his favour.
 +
There would also be six months for the community to find good reasons
 +
why he shouldnt be given the tools.
 +
epic fail as executioner in that sequence.
 +
I agree he needs to see the evidence first.
 +
 +
----------
 +
From: Jonathan Clemens <clem4609@pacificu.edu>
 +
Date: Sat, Mar 5, 2011 at 01:55
 +
To: English Arbitration Committee mailing list <arbcom-l@lists.wikimedia.org>
 +
 +
 +
Yeah, unless there's clear consensus that we MUST give him an "appeal in six months" out, I'd say we should toe the line with "at any time via a new RfA", like we said in the first place.  I'm willing to be outvoted, but my first preference is to stick with the previous sanction.
 +
 +
Consider the balance of power here: I'm not seeing how he can damage us or the project any more than he already has, while we hold the power to destroy his reputation and essentially force him off the project without using any tools or non-public information.  The reason we're not even seriously contemplating that is that we're all decent human beings who are STILL, despite all the crap that's been lobbed at us, trying to resolve this with as little harm to anyone as possible.  At the same time, there is no particular cause for us to either hurry or appease his ridiculous demands.  The fundamental facts of the case are solid: he's not suitable to hold the administrator tools, hasn't been for a good long while, and now that we've deprived him of that venue to vent hostility on others, he's focusing his energy on *defeating* us.  Not preserving the project, acknowledging personal misdeeds or mistakes.
 +
 +
Jonathan
 +
 +
----------
 +
From: John Vandenberg <jayvdb@gmail.com>
 +
Date: Sat, Mar 5, 2011 at 02:01
 +
To: English Arbitration Committee mailing list <arbcom-l@lists.wikimedia.org>
 +
 +
 +
On Sat, Mar 5, 2011 at 5:55 PM, Jonathan Clemens <clem4609@pacificu.edu> wrote:
 +
> ... he's focusing his energy on *defeating* us.  Not preserving the project, acknowledging personal misdeeds or mistakes.
 +
 +
I'm pretty sure he thinks he is doing this to preserve the fundamental
 +
values of the project, and teaching us a lesson at the same time.
 +
 +
--
 +
John Vandenberg
 +
 +
----------
 +
From: Roger Davies <roger.davies.wiki@gmail.com>
 +
Date: Sat, Mar 5, 2011 at 03:04
 +
To: John Vandenberg <jayvdb@gmail.com>
 +
Cc: English Arbitration Committee mailing list <arbcom-l@lists.wikimedia.org>
 +
 +
 +
 +
I don't think anyone else should send Helen's evidence unless we agree
 +
as a committee to adopt it (which would require it to be completely
 +
re-written and then a formal vote).
 +
 +
However, a lot of the rock-throwing will stop once the evidence is out
 +
there.
 +
 +
People are only going on about process because they have not been given
 +
tangible credible reasons for desysopping and therefore the desysop
 +
decision looks as if it was done on a whim.  In this instance, the truth
 +
- that RH&E has demonstrated ample behaviour over the years incompatible
 +
with having the tools, that this behaviour was escalating frequency, and
 +
that this had somehow slipped almost entirely under the community's
 +
radar - is a complete defence to all the process arguments.
 +
 +
Roger
 +
 +
----------
 +
From: Kenneth Kua/ArbCom <kenneth@planetkh.com>
 +
Date: Sat, Mar 5, 2011 at 06:20
 +
To: roger.davies.wiki@gmail.com, English Arbitration Committee mailing list <arbcom-l@lists.wikimedia.org>
 +
 +
 +
And add on that we'll be accused of doing back-door deals. He claimed that the date is non-negotiable, so there's a chance that he might not even accept the 6 months. April 1 would be sentenced served as the case probably would close later than that and by then he gets his tools back instantly.
 +
 +
For me, it's a No Deal. This guy's got a lot more to lose than we do if we turn down his offer.
 +
 +
Kenneth/MD
 +
 +
_______________________________________________
 +
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: Sat, Mar 5, 2011 at 11:53
 +
To: "roger.davies.wiki" <roger.davies.wiki@gmail.com>, English Arbitration Committee mailing list <arbcom-l@lists.wikimedia.org>
 +
 +
 +
 +
I agree with this approach, as I said somewhere.
 +
 +
 +
 +
 +
I think this is mostly true, although some appear actually concerned about the process.
 +
 +
I also agree with your point about the 6 months reconsideration.  I'm not a wikishrink, but he does seem to be exhibiting warning signs of Ottava Syndrome.  He would be best served by a clean break from ArbCom; it may be best if his ability to appeal is no more than implicit.
 +
 +
Frank
 +
 +
 +
 +
_______________________________________________
 +
arbcom-l mailing list
 +
arbcom-l@lists.wikimedia.org
 +
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/arbcom-l
 +
 +
 +
----------
 +
From: <philknight@mail.com>
 +
Date: Sat, Mar 5, 2011 at 13:34
 +
To: arbcom-l@lists.wikimedia.org
 +
 +
 +
 +
I'm not a fan of the 6 months deal either.
 +
 +
We've received a lot of criticism for not handling things on-wiki, and this would probably just attract more.
 +
 +
Also, what happens if after 6 months he has made thousands of edits reverting vandalism with no significant blunders?
 +
 +
Phil
 +
 +
_______________________________________________
 +
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: Sat, Mar 5, 2011 at 16:05
 +
To: English Arbitration Committee mailing list <arbcom-l@lists.wikimedia.org>
 +
 +
 +
I'm at the point where I no longer care what he believes.  I am opposed
 +
to any form of appeasement at this time; he will be given an opportunity
 +
to make his case at the RFAr he demanded.
 +
 +
-- Coren / Marc
 +
 +
----------
 +
From: Iridescent Wikipedia <iridescentwiki@yahoo.co.uk>
 +
Date: Sat, Mar 5, 2011 at 16:13
 +
To: English Arbitration Committee mailing list <arbcom-l@lists.wikimedia.org>
 +
 +
 +
What he (Marc) said. Whatever one thinks of the Arbcom-as-final-arbiter structure, it's the structure Wikipedia currently has, and part of the unwritten contract one agrees to in participating on Wikipedia is an acceptance of that structure. Negotiating implies that his ramblings have equal status to the formal decisions of Arbcom, and sets a horrible precedent—every desysopped admin, blocked editor and serial crank will be complaining that they deserve the same right to choose the terms of their own parole. It's no secret that I think there ought to be a separate AppealCom to handle stuff like this and take away Arbcom's combined cop-judge-jury role, but unless and until that change happens Wikipedia is a dictatorship with Arbcom as the Politburo, and if he doesn't like it I'm sure Citizendium would be glad to have him.
 +
 +
 +
From: Marc A. Pelletier <marc@uberbox.org>
 +
To: English Arbitration Committee mailing list <arbcom-l@lists.wikimedia.org>
 +
Sent: Sat, 5 March, 2011 21:05:08
 +
 +
 +
_______________________________________________
 +
arbcom-l mailing list
 +
arbcom-l@lists.wikimedia.org
 +
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/arbcom-l
 +
 +
 +
----------
 +
From: Phil Nash <phnash@blueyonder.co.uk>
 +
Date: Sat, Mar 5, 2011 at 21:02
 +
To: Michelle Kinney <shell.kinney@gmail.com>
 +
 +
 +
You can delay as much as you like; you still aren't going to paper over the cracks. Meanwhile, I am out of Wikipedia, with much sadness, but necessarily in the face of the injustice and indignity to which I have been subjected. The ArbCom members need to have mirrors in front of them on a daily basis, to which they address the question "Are you doing the right thing, or merely following the herd?" If they aren't prepared to be extremely careful in answering that question, they do not deserve their positions.
 +
 +
Meanwhile, I have no more time for fools.
 +
 +
Cheers,
 +
 +
----------
 +
From: Michelle Kinney <shell.kinney@gmail.com>
 +
Date: Sun, Mar 6, 2011 at 05:56
 +
To: Phil Nash <phnash@blueyonder.co.uk>
 +
 +
 +
While ArbCom hasn't prepared a formal statement yet, to keep you up to
 +
date, my feeling from the discussions is that it is unlikely we will
 +
accept your offer and will proceed with the case where you can discuss
 +
the evidence publicly.
 +
 +
Shell Kinney
 +
 +
----------
 +
From: <philknight@mail.com>
 +
Date: Sun, Mar 6, 2011 at 19:12
 +
To: wikimail@blueyonder.co.uk
 +
Cc: arbcom-l@lists.wikimedia.org
 +
 +
 +
 +
We have now had an opportunity to consider your offer of your (i) voluntarily relinquishing your administrator privileges with effect from 26 February 2011 with reinstatement in full on 1 April 2011 and (ii) accepting a voluntary and indefinite interaction ban with Malleus Fatuorum.
 +
 +
At this point, given that a case has been initiated in public, we believe that it is not in anyone's best interests to further additional speculation by concluding the case in private. As such, your offer is declined, and the public case will be opened shortly.
 +
 +
Phil Knight
 +
 +
 +
 +
_______________________________________________
 +
arbcom-l mailing list
 +
arbcom-l@lists.wikimedia.org
 +
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/arbcom-l
 +
 +
 +
----------
 +
From: Xeno <xenowiki@gmail.com>
 +
Date: Sun, Mar 6, 2011 at 19:17
 +
To: English Arbitration Committee mailing list <arbcom-l@lists.wikimedia.org>
 +
 +
 +
Thanks for emailing him.
 +
 +
As a best practice, Brad's prefix to us - even though it did not convey much - should probably have been trimmed.
 +
 +
-x
 +
 +
_______________________________________________
 +
arbcom-l mailing list
 +
arbcom-l@lists.wikimedia.org
 +
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/arbcom-l
 +
 +
 +
----------
 +
From: <philknight@mail.com>
 +
Date: Sun, Mar 6, 2011 at 19:18
 +
To: arbcom-l@lists.wikimedia.org
 +
 +
 +
 +
Thanks for letting me know.
 +
 +
Phil
 +
 +
 +
_______________________________________________
 +
 +
 +
arbcom-l mailing list
 +
 +
_______________________________________________
 +
arbcom-l mailing list
 +
arbcom-l@lists.wikimedia.org
 +
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/arbcom-l
 +
 +
 +
----------
 +
From: Phil Nash <phnash@blueyonder.co.uk>
 +
Date: Sun, Mar 6, 2011 at 19:40
 +
To: philknight@mail.com
 +
Cc: roger.davies.wiki@gmail.com, Jimmy Wales <jwales@wikia-inc.com>, Newyorkbrad <newyorkbrad@gmail.com>, Michelle Kinney <shell.kinney@gmail.com>, Elen of the Roads <elenoftheroads@gmail.com>, arbcom-l@lists.wikimedia.org
 +
 +
 +
Given the Arbitration Committee's unwillingness to provide me with adequate or any evidence against me, on request, or to substantiate its own case without right of reply, the subsequent community outrage as to the procedures involved, the unjustified refusal of Arbiters to recuse themselves from further proceedings, when they are clearly already biased against me, followed by Jimbo's hasty evaluation of the issue without even considering any detailed comments from me, sorry, but I'm not going to take part in that unseemly circus.
 +
 +
My offer could, and should, have been seen to avoid further embarrassment all round. If that is not the position of ArbCom, then sorry, but I have little sympathy with it. I'm just fed up of being bullied and abused, and will not take it any more. It's bad enough to be a survivor of sexual and other abuse in real life, without having to suffer similar in a virtual environment.
 +
 +
Rodhullandemu. Ex-editor of Wikipedia, with no thanks whatsoever.
 +
 +
 +
----- Original Message -----
 +
 +
----------
 +
From: Xeno <xenowiki@gmail.com>
 +
Date: Sun, Mar 6, 2011 at 20:15
 +
To: English Arbitration Committee mailing list <arbcom-l@lists.wikimedia.org>, Jimmy Wales <jwales@wikia-inc.com>
 +
 +
 +
<list & Jimmy only>
 +
 +
I don't see the need to reply, or change course. He asked for the hearing, the community is now expecting a hearing, and one is necessary if we want to be able to extract any value from a community-wide discussion on handling similar cases.
 +
 +
-x // mobile
 +
 +
_______________________________________________
 +
arbcom-l mailing list
 +
arbcom-l@lists.wikimedia.org
 +
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/arbcom-l
 +
 +
 +
Subject: Re: [arbcom-l] "The initial cause of the block is contained within diffs that were oversighted"
 +
------------------------
 +
 +
From: Elen of the Roads <elenoftheroads@gmail.com>
 +
Date: Fri, Apr 1, 2011 at 19:22
 +
To: Phil Nash <phnash@blueyonder.co.uk>
 +
Cc: English Arbitration Committee mailing list <arbcom-l@lists.wikimedia.org>
 +
 +
 +
I do believe you're actually becoming delusional....or do you not remember making onwiki threats to do yourself in. I mean, I'm glad you didn't carry them out, but I'm a bit worried if you don't recall making them.
 +
 +
 +
Elen of the Roads
 +
 +
 +
 +
On 2 April 2011 00:14, Phil Nash <phnash@blueyonder.co.uk> wrote:
 +
Incorrect. The oversighted diffs were in relation to a completely different matter from my initial indef block.
 +
 +
Please try to keep up, Elen. All this will have its obvious conclusion in due course, and once in a hole, it's probably a great idea to throw away the spade and stop digging. You've done enough damage already, both to me, ArbCom and Wikipedia, and your poor husband, probably now abed, might appreciate a cuddle; unless he's already given up on that, of course. Please prove him, and me, wrong.
 +
 +
Many regards
 +
 +
Phil
 +
 +
 +
_______________________________________________
 +
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, Apr 1, 2011 at 19:33
 +
To: English Arbitration Committee mailing list <arbcom-l@lists.wikimedia.org>
 +
 +
 +
I think this conversation with him serves no purpose. Tune it out, plz.
 +
 +
Frank
 +
 +
 +
_______________________________________________
 +
arbcom-l mailing list
 +
arbcom-l@lists.wikimedia.org
 +
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/arbcom-l
 +
 +
 +
----------
 +
From: John Vandenberg <jayvdb@gmail.com>
 +
Date: Fri, Apr 1, 2011 at 19:34
 +
To: English Arbitration Committee mailing list <arbcom-l@lists.wikimedia.org>
 +
 +
 +
probably best to not respond further as it is getting quite personal;
 +
diminishing returns and all that.  At the end of the day, our ongoing
 +
communications responsibility is to the community, and we have no
 +
reason to explain ourselves to him.
 +
 +
--
 +
John Vandenberg
 +
 +
_______________________________________________
 +
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: Fri, Apr 1, 2011 at 19:37
 +
To: English Arbitration Committee mailing list <arbcom-l@lists.wikimedia.org>
 +
 +
 +
Quite.  His concern about confidentiality was reasonable, but the rest is going nowhere....and he's just mailed me again.  I'll fwd to you guys but not respond I think
 +
 +
Elen of the Roads
 +
 +
_______________________________________________
 +
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: Fri, Apr 1, 2011 at 19:41
 +
To: English Arbitration Committee mailing list <arbcom-l@lists.wikimedia.org>, Cas Liber <casliber01@yahoo.com>
 +
 +
 +
Actually, this is the most reasonable statement I've seen in a while.  It confirms that he has been using Wikipedia as a support mechanism (which we thought), and I think the 'unintended consequences' are actually to him, as he hints, while continuing to bluster about consequences to us.
 +
 +
If Casliber is about, I'd be interested in his take/advice on responding.
 +
 +
 +
Elen of the Roads
 +
 +
 +
 +
---------- Forwarded message ----------
 +
From: Phil Nash <phnash@blueyonder.co.uk>
 +
Date: 2 April 2011 00:36
 +
Subject: Re: "The initial cause of the block is contained within diffs that were oversighted"
 +
To: Elen of the Roads <elenoftheroads@gmail.com>
 +
 +
 +
You're right, for once. My indef block on 16 March was for a suicide note. It's a shame that rather than getting helpful advice, and consideration, I was shut out of the only therapy I have known that takes up my time constructively since I was forced to give up work due to my health problems. That's not Wikipedia's problem; but the way I have been treated in general, is, and to quote you "this isn't going to go away". My later block on 25 March removed WP email, but of course, that is too late and too little, since all it does it prevent me from contacting WP editors who have expressed support for me, of which there have been many.
 +
 +
I'm wondering if you really understand how much this all means, and how this incident is going to have unforeseen consequences way beyond ArbCom flexing its muscles. If you don't, then sorry, you've missed the point.
 +
 +
Regards,
 +
 +
Phil
 +
 +
 +
_______________________________________________
 +
arbcom-l mailing list
 +
arbcom-l@lists.wikimedia.org
 +
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/arbcom-l
 +
 +
 +
----------
 +
From: Newyorkbrad <newyorkbrad@gmail.com>
 +
Date: Fri, Apr 1, 2011 at 20:02
 +
To: English Arbitration Committee mailing list <arbcom-l@lists.wikimedia.org>
 +
 +
 +
I wish I could tell him -- but I shouldn't -- how hard we worked to bend over backwards to make this work for him.  It's not as if he was blocked, or even desysopped, the first or second or tenth time he acted up......
 +
 +
It's all very, very sad.
 +
 +
Newyorkbrad
 +
 +
 +
 +
_______________________________________________
 +
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: Fri, Apr 1, 2011 at 20:10
 +
To: English Arbitration Committee mailing list <arbcom-l@lists.wikimedia.org>
 +
 +
 +
You could try, but I don't think he'd grok what you were saying.
 +
 +
 +
Elen of the Roads
 +
 +
_______________________________________________
 +
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: Fri, Apr 1, 2011 at 20:08
 +
To: English Arbitration Committee mailing list <arbcom-l@lists.wikimedia.org>
 +
 +
 +
At this point, Brad, what's left only serves to demonstrate how troublesome such accommodations can end up being.  Either he is milking faux-disability for all its worth, or he's genuinely insufficiently coherent for continued contribution to the project.  In both cases, his continued presence is -- at best -- a time and effort sink.
 +
 +
-- Coren / Marc
     
Retrieved from "https://mywikibiz.com/Special:MobileDiff/138125...138191"