The Wikipedia Review: A forum for discussion and criticism of Wikipedia
Wikipedia Review Op-Ed Pages

Welcome, Guest! ( Log In | Register )

3 Pages V  1 2 3 >  
Reply to this topicStart new topic
> Durova block of !! (Nov/Dec 2007) Including backstory on the hidden list, and AC acting on those "investigations"
MaliceAforethought
post Tue 12th July 2011, 5:23pm
Post #1


u Mad?
***

Group: Contributors
Posts: 206
Joined: Tue 21st Jun 2011, 6:54am
From: Wonderland
Member No.: 57,801



*******************************************
*Backstory: An "investigation" and how AC responds*
*******************************************

From: (FloNight)
Date: Sat, 3 Nov 2007 18:09:30 -0400
Subject: [Arbcom-l] Fwd: The Alkivar/Burnsauce/JB196 connection

Durova is supplying evidence of planned disruptive editing between
Alkivar, Burntsauce, and JB196. These and other evidence Durova
forwarded shows Alkivar being deceptive rather than merely clueless.
:-(

She and other editors want us to take action against Burntsauce in the
Requests for arbitration/Alkivar case before it closes as it will be
the quickest way to deal with Burntsauce.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_tal...sion#Burntsauce

Sydney

---------- Forwarded message ----------
From: Durova
Date: Nov 3, 2007 5:51 PM
Subject: The Alkivar/Burnsauce/JB196 connection
To: FloNight

The Alkivar/Burntsauce/JB196 connection

Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence, so please be
understanding about the length and tardiness of this presentation. I
am asserting that both Alkivar, Burntsauce, and JB196 conspire to
vandalize articles, that they have done so for a long time, and that
Alkivar has misused his sysop tools on behalf of JB196 in full
knowledge of the impropriety of his actions.

I can supplement this larger amounts of equally compelling evidence
upon request, but I think this is enough to establish the fundamentals
beyond reasonable doubt.

******

JB196 has spent months giving proxy edit instructions to both Alkivar
and Burntsauce through IP addresses and throwaway socks. He goes to
their user talk pages and gives a terse comment with a link, usually
to a wrestling article.

For example:

FractionDecibel
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=...oldid=151830960

A JB196 sock:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:FractionDecibel

Regarding wrestler Terry Gerin
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Terry_Gerin

More examples, briefly ? Alkivar:

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=...oldid=141362380
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=...oldid=140763653
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=...oldid=135879883
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=...oldid=135428437
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=...oldid=135455187
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=...oldid=135484225
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=...oldid=135838757
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=...oldid=135879194
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=...oldid=136223962
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=...oldid=132486071
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=...oldid=132494826
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=...oldid=132494826

Many more exist, but that should convey the idea.

Alkivar has never asked for these posts to stop or blocked the socks.
Instead, when a well-meaning Wikipedians gives a friendly heads up,
he rebuffs it and implicitly acknowledges that he both knows and
approves of JB196's activity.

The heads up:
22 May 2007
You do realise that Sasquatch Fate
[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/Sasquatch_Fate ]
is JB196 [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:JB196], and that by doing
what you have done you have played in to his hands, and this will only
encourage him. However as a responsible admin I'm sure you will check
through his contributions as this sock and make a report to get him
banned. It might also be worth considering that JB196 keeps creating
account to inform Burntsauce when [[WP:PW]] members revert BS's
deletions and that maybe by you then locking the pages you are simply
encouraging one of the most reviled vandals in Wikipedia history.
[[User:Darrenhusted|Darrenhusted]] 14:15, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=...oldid=132683585

Reply by Alkivar:
And perhaps if you bothered to read policy you'd see regardless of the
fact he's a troll... HE'S RIGHT IN THIS CASE. Source the comments,
discuss the content on the talk page... and I'll unprotect... It's
that simple. [[User:Alkivar|<font
color="#FA8605">'''ALKIVAR'''</font>]][[User_talk:Alkivar|™]]
<span style="font-size:130%; background:yellow; border:1px solid
black;">☢</span> 22:31, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=...oldid=132687164



Look how Alkivar interacts with JB196 just a few days later:

29 May 2007
The sock appears and directs him to the Steve Blackman article, a
wrestling biography.
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=...oldid=134435572

JB196 adds a second wrestling biography: Adrian Adonis.
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=...oldid=134482033

?refines the request?
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=...oldid=134482912

And Alkivar explicitly admits that he has protected an article at the
request of this banned vandal.
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=...oldid=134482972

Here's the protection itself.
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=...oldid=134482378

And after protection, Alkivar even reverts to JB196's vandalized version.
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=...oldid=134482498

Backing up in time just a little bit, here's the edit warring that
JB196 had been doing on that article:
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=...oldid=134455158

Here's Burntsauce's cooperation to that edit war.
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=...oldid=132742880
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=...oldid=131119292

And here's JB196's marching order to Burntsauce regarding that. The
IP later god indeffed as an open proxy.
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=...oldid=134448055

Now just in case anyone still has a shred of good faith left for
Alkivar, look at what followed on his own user talk page:

JB196 thanks him for misusing the tools.
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=...oldid=134484140

Yummifruitbat identifies that as "a blatant ban-evading sock of
JB196'' and asks Alkivar to block.
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=...oldid=134484393

But Alkivar doesn't block. Yummifruitbat has to file a report.
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=...oldid=134483885

SirFozzie follows up with another good faith post.
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=...oldid=134485300

?Which JB196 is arrogant enough to reply to.
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=...oldid=134485300

And here's the post where the sock even admits he's JB196.
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=...oldid=134480982

And does as much damage as possible to various articles in the interim
before Ryulong actually blocks the account.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/Radarman1
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=...=User:Radarman1

And in spite of all these events and alerts, Alkivar never undoes his
reversion to the banned vandal's version of the article.
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=...oldid=134482498

Or responds to the multiple heads up he got from Wikipedians in good
standing. Alkivar just deletes the thread without reply.
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=...oldid=135838757

But two days after the old sockpuppet got shut down, a new incarnation
of JB196 comes over to Alkivar's talk page with a new set of marching
orders: the Rodney Begnaud wrestling biography.
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=...oldid=135079974

Now Alkivar doesn't march to every order he receives. He tends to
show up when both JB196 and Burntsauce are having trouble getting
their vandalism to stick, and misuse the tools to make sure the edit
war ends their way. The real way this disruption ring operates is
that JB196 runs around to a lot of articles causing trouble, and if he
thinks he needs backup from a second editor he gets Burntsauce to
oblige. Let's take a look at that Rodney Begnaud example.

Four minutes before the post to Alkivar, JB196 asks Burntsauce for help.
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=...oldid=135217479

Burntsauce had already pitched in for JB196 several times at that
page. Massive deletion here.
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=...oldid=128720579
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=...oldid=133209111

After other editors re-add material, JB196 deletes it again.
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=...oldid=135308427
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=...oldid=135383284

And yes, that really is JB196. He can't resist the temptation to
troll the RFA of his nemesis SirFozzie.
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=...oldid=138298068

So when JB196 can't get his way alone, Burntsauce marches to those
orders and proxy edits.
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=...oldid=135723422
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=...oldid=135804635
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=...oldid=135804816
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=...oldid=135804908
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=...oldid=135805346
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=...oldid=135945865

Finally Alkivar steps in to delete the image, giving a dubious fair
use rationale.
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=...oldid=136842473
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=...oldid=136872794

Yet ? this digression is too odd to pass up ? at the same time
Alkivar's own image uploads are getting speedy deleted because he
provided no fair use rationale at all.
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=...oldid=143289477
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=...oldid=143362108
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=...oldid=143362337

To round this out, here's a sampling of some other JB196 marching
orders to Burntsauce:
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=...oldid=141510739
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=...oldid=141509255
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=...oldid=141504409
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=...oldid=141277071
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=...oldid=141276752
----------

From kirill.lokshin at gmail.com Sat Nov 3 23:15:31 2007
From: kirill.lokshin at gmail.com (Kirill Lokshin)
Date: Sat, 3 Nov 2007 19:15:31 -0400
Subject: [Arbcom-l] Fwd: The Alkivar/Burnsauce/JB196 connection
In-Reply-To: <16032ea0711031509sd5c8598i6a00350098380ca7@mail.gmail.com>
References: <a01006d90711031451o5820737y77dd124a2d10330d@mail.gmail.com>
<16032ea0711031509sd5c8598i6a00350098380ca7@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <3f797b9a0711031615l7c9d472dx5fa8608045fea413@mail.gmail.com>

On 11/3/07, FloNight <sydney.poore at gmail.com> wrote:
>
> Durova is supplying evidence of planned disruptive editing between
> Alkivar, Burntsauce, and JB196. These and other evidence Durova
> forwarded shows Alkivar being deceptive rather than merely clueless.
> :-(
>
> She and other editors want us to take action against Burntsauce in the
> Requests for arbitration/Alkivar case before it closes as it will be
> the quickest way to deal with Burntsauce.
>
>
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_tal...sion#Burntsauce


Yeah, looks like that may be needed. On a more concerning note, this may
mean that we need additional measures regarding Alkivar himself; the current
findings address only the simple abuse of the tools, and make no mention of
conspiring with a banned user. Perhaps we ought to explicitly note that and
consequently forbid Alkivar from seeking the tools without our approval.

Kirill
----------

From: (James Forrester)
Date: Sun, 4 Nov 2007 00:29:01 +0000
Subject: [Arbcom-l] Fwd: The Alkivar/Burnsauce/JB196 connection

On 03/11/2007, Kirill Lokshin <kirill.lokshin at gmail.com> wrote:
> Yeah, looks like that may be needed. On a more concerning note, this may
> mean that we need additional measures regarding Alkivar himself; the current
> findings address only the simple abuse of the tools, and make no mention of
> conspiring with a banned user. Perhaps we ought to explicitly note that and
> consequently forbid Alkivar from seeking the tools without our approval.

OK, my proposal would be to add (+) or change (~) the following:

P:
+ It is rarely possible to determine with complete certainty whether
several editors with very similar behaviour are sock-puppets, meat
puppets, or acquaintances who happen to edit Wikipedia. In such cases,
remedies may be fashioned which are based on the behavior of the user
rather than their identity. Editors who edit with the same agenda and
make the same types of disruptive edits may be treated as a single
editor.

FoF:
+ Burntsauce has been advancing the disruptive agenda of the
community-banned vandal JB196.
+ Burntsauce is very likely to be either a meat- or sock-puppet of
another banned user, per evidence submitted privately to the
Committee.

R:
+ Burntsauce is banned as a meat-puppet of JB196.
~ 'Alkivar desysoped', change "either through the usual means or by
appeal" to just "through appeal".

Durova also submitted the remedy:

+ For proxy editing, conspiracy, and misuse of sysop powers on the
behalf of a sitebanned vandal, Alkivar is banned indefinitely from
Wikipedia.

... which is possible, but I think would be difficult to make stick
with the community without some serious evidence (or, at least,
supporting FoFs!).

Is this a sensible commit? No point putting it up if there's no appetite for it.

Yours,
--
James D. Forrester
----------

From: (FloNight)
Date: Sat, 3 Nov 2007 20:32:17 -0400
Subject: [Arbcom-l] Fwd: The Alkivar/Burnsauce/JB196 connection

Looks good.

When I voted a few minutes ago I already added another Desyop remedy
requiring him to appeal to the Committee.

Sydney
----------

From: (Kirill Lokshin)
Date: Sat, 3 Nov 2007 20:33:05 -0400
Subject: [Arbcom-l] Fwd: The Alkivar/Burnsauce/JB196 connection

On 11/3/07, James Forrester wrote:
>
> Durova also submitted the remedy:
>
> + For proxy editing, conspiracy, and misuse of sysop powers on the
> behalf of a sitebanned vandal, Alkivar is banned indefinitely from
> Wikipedia.
>
> ... which is possible, but I think would be difficult to make stick
> with the community without some serious evidence (or, at least,
> supporting FoFs!).


Weren't we limiting bans to a year? ;-)

But I think this *could* be made to stick with a FoF to the effect that
we've received convincing evidence that Alkivar has conspired with JB196 to
disrupt the project.

Kirill
-----------

From: (David Gerard)
Date: Sun, 4 Nov 2007 00:33:45 +0000
Subject: [Arbcom-l] Fwd: The Alkivar/Burnsauce/JB196 connection

On 04/11/2007, James Forrester wrote:

> Durova also submitted the remedy:
> + For proxy editing, conspiracy, and misuse of sysop powers on the
> behalf of a sitebanned vandal, Alkivar is banned indefinitely from
> Wikipedia.
> ... which is possible, but I think would be difficult to make stick
> with the community without some serious evidence (or, at least,
> supporting FoFs!).
> Is this a sensible commit? No point putting it up if there's no appetite for it.


You'd need convincing public evidence. Deadminning would mitigate the
damage; if he keeps doing stupid things after that, it'd be easy.

I must say, this doesn't accord with the Alkivar I know. I wonder WTF
led him to this happy land of crack. I suspect he considered
Burntsauce a cohort from AFD and didn't think too much further. This
is all most disconcerting to see.


- d.
----------

From: (James Forrester)
Date: Sun, 4 Nov 2007 00:38:33 +0000
Subject: [Arbcom-l] Fwd: The Alkivar/Burnsauce/JB196 connection

On 04/11/2007, David Gerard wrote:
> On 04/11/2007, James Forrester wrote:
>
> > Durova also submitted the remedy:
> > + For proxy editing, conspiracy, and misuse of sysop powers on the
> > behalf of a sitebanned vandal, Alkivar is banned indefinitely from
> > Wikipedia.
> > ... which is possible, but I think would be difficult to make stick
> > with the community without some serious evidence (or, at least,
> > supporting FoFs!).
> > Is this a sensible commit? No point putting it up if there's no appetite for it.
>
>
> You'd need convincing public evidence. Deadminning would mitigate the
> damage; if he keeps doing stupid things after that, it'd be easy.

Yeah, I think it's not worth it for the long-term benefit for the project.

> I must say, this doesn't accord with the Alkivar I know. I wonder WTF
> led him to this happy land of crack. I suspect he considered
> Burntsauce a cohort from AFD and didn't think too much further. This
> is all most disconcerting to see.

Absolutely. I thought Alkivar was somewhat-sound. This is making me
re-evaluate many (you all suck! I'm not talking to you lot no more!
;-)).

Yrs,
--
James D. Forrester
----------

From: (David Gerard)
Date: Sun, 4 Nov 2007 00:43:26 +0000
Subject: [Arbcom-l] Fwd: The Alkivar/Burnsauce/JB196 connection

On 04/11/2007, James Forrester wrote:
> On 04/11/2007, David Gerard wrote:

> > I must say, this doesn't accord with the Alkivar I know. I wonder WTF
> > led him to this happy land of crack. I suspect he considered
> > Burntsauce a cohort from AFD and didn't think too much further. This
> > is all most disconcerting to see.

> Absolutely. I thought Alkivar was somewhat-sound. This is making me
> re-evaluate many (you all suck! I'm not talking to you lot no more!
> ;-)).


I've known him to have shaky judgement ... but not actual malice.


- d.
----------

From: (FloNight)
Date: Sat, 3 Nov 2007 20:43:45 -0400
Subject: [Arbcom-l] Fwd: The Alkivar/Burnsauce/JB196 connection

What if we also restrict him to editing with one account and make him
tell the Committee if he changes user names.

This hopefully will stop him from doing something stupid like edit
with a sock account.

Sydney
----------

From: (James Forrester)
Date: Sun, 4 Nov 2007 00:52:57 +0000
Subject: [Arbcom-l] Fwd: The Alkivar/Burnsauce/JB196 connection

On 04/11/2007, FloNight wrote:
> Looks good.
>
> When I voted a few minutes ago I already added another Desyop remedy
> requiring him to appeal to the Committee.

OK, done. Feel free to vote. :-)

Yrs,
--
James D. Forrester
----------

From: mindspillage.org (Kat Walsh)
Date: Mon, 5 Nov 2007 12:27:51 -0500
Subject: [Arbcom-l] Alkivar

I don't understand why the evidence regarding Alkivar must remain
secret, or what sort of sophisticated techniques Durova is using that
can't be shared.

Could someone please explain it more clearly? It's not at all clear
from the previous messages on the list.

I can understand if someone who submits evidence wants to remain
anonymous, but I don't see what is so sensitive about the evidence
itself that we must not share it. It's definitely not clear to people
outside the AC -- which brings on the usual drama; i.e., the drama has
already started and people are starting to question why it shouldn't
be public. And I can't give a good explanation.

-Kat
----------

From: (Dmcdevit)
Date: Mon, 05 Nov 2007 18:15:28 -0800
Subject: [Arbcom-l] Alkivar

Kat Walsh wrote:
> I don't understand why the evidence regarding Alkivar must remain
> secret, or what sort of sophisticated techniques Durova is using that
> can't be shared.

I echo this sentiment. I am already starting to hear people dissatisfied
with the proposals that look draconian without public evidence, and
there is nothing here that looks like it needed to be private, so the
resentment from well-meaning people who don't understand will be the
Committee's own doing.

Dominic
----------

From: (charles.r.matthews)
Date: Tue, 6 Nov 2007 11:08:30 +0000
Subject: [Arbcom-l] Alkivar

Dmcdevit wrote

> I am already starting to hear people dissatisfied
> with the proposals that look draconian without public evidence, and
> there is nothing here that looks like it needed to be private, so the
> resentment from well-meaning people who don't understand will be the
> Committee's own doing.

There is some onus on the AC. It begins, though, with Alkivar, surely. We are very likely giving out a desysopping here (I've just voted); and the AC is saying it will possibly revoke that. So Alkivar is presumably going to need to meet the points brought forward against his admin actions. It makes some sense to do this in private, first? In the scenario that this is later cleared up, that is kinder, if of course less transparent.

Charles
----------

From: (Timothy Titcomb)
Date: Tue, 6 Nov 2007 15:09:51 -0500
Subject: [Arbcom-l] Alkivar

Given what I remember of what I've read, I see no problem with
making the evidence public. What are the reasons why we should not?
In any case I am satisfied with my vote to desysop based upon on-wiki
evidence.

Paul August
----------

From: (Kirill Lokshin)
Date: Tue, 6 Nov 2007 15:54:10 -0500
Subject: [Arbcom-l] Alkivar

On 11/6/07, Timothy Titcomb wrote:
>
>
> On Nov 5, 2007, at 12:27 PM, Kat Walsh wrote:
>
> > I don't understand why the evidence regarding Alkivar must remain
> > secret, or what sort of sophisticated techniques Durova is using that
> > can't be shared.
> >
> > Could someone please explain it more clearly? It's not at all clear
> > from the previous messages on the list.
> >
> > I can understand if someone who submits evidence wants to remain
> > anonymous, but I don't see what is so sensitive about the evidence
> > itself that we must not share it. It's definitely not clear to people
> > outside the AC -- which brings on the usual drama; i.e., the drama has
> > already started and people are starting to question why it shouldn't
> > be public. And I can't give a good explanation.
> >
> > -Kat
>
> Given what I remember of what I've read, I see no problem with
> making the evidence public. What are the reasons why we should not?
> In any case I am satisfied with my vote to desysop based upon on-wiki
> evidence.
>
> Paul August


Making the evidence public will likely teach our banned friend not to be
quite so obvious in instructing his proxies the next time around; but I'm
not sure if (possibly) delaying that -- he'll eventually figure it out on
his own, I'm sure -- is a sufficient reason to keep this under wraps. I
think that at least the general points could be revealed without
compromising anything important.

Kirill
User is offlineProfile CardPM
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
MaliceAforethought
post Tue 12th July 2011, 5:44pm
Post #2


u Mad?
***

Group: Contributors
Posts: 206
Joined: Tue 21st Jun 2011, 6:54am
From: Wonderland
Member No.: 57,801



*************************************
*The secret "investigation" list gets harassed*
* A wild Kohs appears *
*************************************

From: (Kirill Lokshin)
Date: Tue, 13 Nov 2007 10:46:57 -0500
Subject: [Arbcom-l] Please look into this incident

On Nov 13, 2007 9:28 AM, Durova <nadezhda.durova> wrote:

> I received a series of harassing e-mails late into the night that used my
> real name, attempted to intimidate me, and continued after I had requested
> no further contact. I'll be forwarding you the e-mails in my next message.
>
> Jehochman, Daniel, Bishonen, and I all blocked an IP address for trolling
> over two days. Now, according to Sarah, this person has revealed himself as
> an editor in (otherwise/previously) good standing of 3.5 years. She can
> fill you in on the details regarding that.
>
> I'm convinced this person was fronting for Greg Kohs (Wikipedia Review) and that
> this was part of an elaborate scheme to joe job Jehochman and myself.
>
> I'll be forwarding the e-mails and some diffs to you in a moment. Please
> have the Committee look at this. At the very least this was a serious lapse
> in judgement. I think it's e-mail harassment.
>
> I don't think the e-mails I received were written by Greg Kohs: the prose
> style is different and the person misspells my name. I am not in a position
> to evaluate this because I don't know who this user is, but if the Committee
> agrees that these messages come from this longstanding editor, I ask the
> Committee to ban this person for harassment. This is way over the line.
>
> -Durova
>

We'll look into it.

Kirill
-----------

From: (Kirill Lokshin)
Date: Tue, 13 Nov 2007 10:48:09 -0500
Subject: [Arbcom-l] Please look into this incident


---------- Forwarded message ----------
From: Durova <nadezhda.durova>
Date: Nov 13, 2007 9:29 AM
Subject: Fwd: this also looks silly
To: Kirill Lokshin


forwarding

-Durova

---------- Forwarded message ----------
From: Durova <nadezhda.durova>
Date: Nov 13, 2007 4:24 AM
Subject: Fwd: this also looks silly
To: wpinvestigations-l at wikia.com


Except for the final e-mail I've forwarded all of this to Cary Bass and
FloNight already.

-Durova

---------- Forwarded message ----------
From: Merops Ornatus <merops_ornatus at yahoo.com>
Date: Nov 12, 2007 1:51 AM
Subject: Re: this also looks silly
To: Durova <nadezhda.durova>


And how should we handle your bad blocks of innocent editors, public IPs
and careless false charges against Mr. Kohs (or what Jonathan would call
"BLP violations," were they said of himself?)

How about apppointment to ArbCom! Yes, ArbCom needs a good sleuth, alright!
Someone who will carefully examine all the evidence and make sure to get it
right each and every time! You're just the one, Lisa. I'm convinced.

Now go tell the nice people I'm "harassing" you, as you promised. What a
joke.

----- Original Message ----
From: Durova <nadezhda.durova>
To: Merops Ornatus
Sent: Monday, November 12, 2007 1:38:32 AM
Subject: Re: this also looks silly

I repeat: air your grievances with the Wikimedia Foundation or the
arbitration commitee.. Do not contact me again. I will not reply to
further messages and will handle them as harassment.

On Nov 12, 2007 1:35 AM, Merops Ornatus wrote:

> What appropriate channels? I don't know what you're talking about.
>
> -M.O.
>
>
> ----- Original Message ----
> From: Durova <nadezhda.durova>
> To: Merops Ornatus
> Sent: Monday, November 12, 2007 1:16:37 AM
> Subject: Re: this also looks silly
>
> I have already referred you to the appropriate channels. Please direct
> your attentions there and do not contact me again.
>
> On Nov 12, 2007 1:08 AM, Merops Ornatus wrote:
>
> > "I ask for a 1 year fill-in position on the Committee?because an editor
> > with sleuthing skill is an asset to the Committee. It's important to
> > weigh evidence critically and get each decision right ."
> >
> > -M.O.
> >
> > p.s. Block evasion?how the hell else am I supposed to communicate when
> > my user talk page is s-protected? Think about that.
-----------

From: (Kirill Lokshin)
Date: Tue, 13 Nov 2007 10:49:03 -0500
Subject: [Arbcom-l] Please look into this incident

---------- Forwarded message ----------
From: Durova <nadezhda.durova>
Date: Nov 13, 2007 9:29 AM
Subject: Fwd: User:24.19.33.82
To: Kirill Lokshin


forwarding

-Durova

---------- Forwarded message ----------
From: Durova <nadezhda.durova>
Date: Nov 13, 2007 4:26 AM
Subject: Fwd: User:24.19.33.82
To: wpinvestigations-l at wikia.com


The rest of the correspondence.

-Durova

---------- Forwarded message ----------
From: Merops Ornatus
Date: Nov 12, 2007 12:43 AM
Subject: User:24.19.33.82
To: nadezhda.durova


Hi Lisa,

I know for a fact that User:24.19.33.82 has nothing to do with Greg Kohs.
You've really blown it here, and comments such as?

"I'll call this a WP:DUCK block: I've been blocking Wikipedia Review socks for a
year and am pretty good at spotting them."

"With experience one gets quite good at this."

?will make you look awfully stupid if the true identity of
User:24.19.33.82comes out.

How do I know this? Because that's my current IP (for now.) My aim was only
to edit anonymously like any other IP. So please let me do so. Otherwise,
I'm forced to prove how badly you and Jonathan have messed this up in order
to get unblocked. Unblocking the IP's yourself (which belong to public
commercial establishments, you shouldn't be blocking them for 3 months
anyway) with some summary like "benefit of the doubt" would be a face-saving
way for you to avoid this.

-M.O.
----------

From: kirill.lokshin at gmail.com (Kirill Lokshin)
Date: Tue, 13 Nov 2007 10:49:57 -0500
Subject: [Arbcom-l] Please look into this incident

---------- Forwarded message ----------
From: Durova
Date: Nov 13, 2007 9:52 AM
Subject: Fwd: [Wikipedia Investigations-l] Could we get a few
eyesonanANIthread?
To: Kirill Lokshin


Forwarding the thread from the investigations list. Please note Sarah's
posts that describe the Wikipedian account involved: it's 3.5 years old.
Jehochman had a chat with Sarah shortly after these posts and he thinks he
can identify which editor she means by some information Sarah was aware of
that most people wouldn't know. I'll follow up on this with a more
organized presentation of the diffs I posted here.

-Durova

---------- Forwarded message ----------
From: Jonathan Hochman <jeh at jehochman.com>
Date: Nov 13, 2007 6:10 AM
Subject: Re: [Wikipedia Investigations-l] Could we get a few
eyesonanANIthread?
To: Wikipedia Investigations <wpinvestigations-l at wikia.com>


WJBsribe has protected ANI for IP trolling. We should have less disturbance
today.

Durova wrote:

Viridae in contact with Kohs:
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=...oldid=171098561


More attempted joe jobbing. For the record, I'm sitting at home in San
Diego and haven't set foot in Florida in ten years.
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=...oldid=171159694

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=...oldid=171161908


-Durova
On Nov 13, 2007 5:22 AM, Durova wrote:

> I apologize if you dislike the tone. No disrespect toward anyone on this
> list was intended. Being one of the two people who got targeted, naturally
> I'm a little hot under the collar right now. I see Kohs's fingerprints all
> over this.
>
> Viridae admitted on ANI that he'd conferred with Kohs about this
> incident. This editor of 3.5 years certainly could have contacted me in
> an appropriate manner either before or during the incident. Even in the
> best good faith scenario, this is someone who squandered a good reputation
> to troll and then stood idly by while a banned long term vandal continued
> the trolling.
>
> I want the Foundation or ArbCom to look into this because the e-mails I
> received didn't seem to be from Kohs. I don't ask anyone to disclose
> information to me that they've promised not to tell. At the same time, I
> *do* very much want the people who do know who this user is to compare the
> harassment I received against other information.
>
> I've forwarded this person's e-mails to the list. If anyone who needs
> them doesn't have them, please let me know and I'll forward again.
>
> -Durova
> On Nov 13, 2007 5:05 AM, Sarah Ewart wrote:
>
> > I don't really like the tone of that questioning. Please remember that
> > we are all on the same side: Wikipedia's side. I made an agreement
> > and promised this person that I would not "out" their account if they
> > revealed it to me because I thought it was in Wikipedia's best interest to
> > put an end to the disruption and settle the question about whether it was
> > Kohs or some other banned user. This is why I am not identifying the
> > account. But as I told Lar privately, I have no problems with others
> > identifying the account themselves and dealing with it as they feel is
> > appropriate. I rarely make a promise on Wikipedia but when I do I stand by
> > it. I do not support people harassing you, via email or any other forum, I
> > am, after all, the person who disabled Armed Blowfish's email access
> > entirely because her harassment of you and I have endured regular
> > questioning about that action ever since. I only agreed to confidentiality
> > in this case so as to rule out Kohs and other banned people as the source of
> > the original dispute.
> >
> > No. They don't admit to any such things. They strongly protest that they
> > are proxying for Kohs. I asked them a few minutes ago about emails sent to
> > you but they haven't replied yet. The only thing they have admitted to is
> > making the edits signed by the IP *24.19.33.82*
> >
> >
> > ----- Original Message -----
> > *From:* Durova
> > *To:* Wikipedia Investigations <wpinvestigations-l at wikia.com>
> > *Sent:* Tuesday, November 13, 2007 11:51 PM
> > *Subject:* Re: [Wikipedia Investigations-l] Could we get a few
> > eyesonanANIthread?
> >
> > Am I correct in gathering that this person is admitting to proxying and
> > trolling for Kohs, and to harassing me by e-mail at Kohs's request?
> >
> > Do they have any excuse at all for this behavior?
> >
> > On Nov 13, 2007 4:49 AM, Sarah Ewart wrote:
> >
> > > They claim that
> > > http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contr...ons/24.19.33.82 is the
> > > only one that belongs to this person. Or rather, the edits signed by as
> > > that IP. I take it they may have used open proxies after they were blocked
> > > but they signed all their comments with that IP; at least, that is what they
> > > say. They also said that they think some of those other IPs and the
> > > usernames may belong to Kohs.
> > >
> > >
> > > ----- Original Message -----
> > > *From:* Durova
> > > *To:* Wikipedia Investigations <wpinvestigations-l at wikia.com>
> > > *Sent:* Tuesday, November 13, 2007 11:42 PM
> > > *Subject:* Re: [Wikipedia Investigations-l] Could we get a few eyes
> > > onanANIthread?
> > >
> > > FWIW, Kohs tried to run for ArbCom last year while he was banned, then
> > > tried to file a complaint against the two editors who blanked his candidacy
> > > attempt.
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > I'll get the candidacy diffs in a moment. His request for
> > > investigation afterward was how I first encountered him, and as we all know
> > > he's the kind who holds a grudge.
> > >
> > > -Durova
> > >
> > > On Nov 13, 2007 4:34 AM, Durova wrote:
> > >
> > > > And the account could have been sold or compromised. Here are the
> > > > three addresses I blocked last night. Several others continued to troll the
> > > > ANI discussion.
> > > >
> > > > http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contr...ons/24.19.33.82
> > > > http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contr.../208.64.241.252
> > > > http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contr...s/71.231.104.63
> > > >
> > > > -Durova
> > > >
> > > > On Nov 13, 2007 4:26 AM, Larry Pieniazek
> > > > wrote:
> > > >
> > > > > Don't forget that the self identification could be a sham. (joe
> > > > > job?) Any email can claim to be anyone, and without some digging, (which I
> > > > > personally don't have technical skills for but would love to read more
> > > > > about) you can't prove anything (well I guess you COULD ask for an innocuous
> > > > > edit to their user page that includes some phrase or something)
> > > > >
> > > > > If this hasn't been CUed already??? Someone send me probable cause
> > > > > and remind me of the IP again and I'll run a check.
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > Larry Pieniazek
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > ------------------------------
> > > > > *From:* wpinvestigations-l-bounces at wikia.com [mailto:wpinvestigations-l-bounces at wikia.com]
> > > > > *On Behalf Of *Durova
> > > > > *Sent:* Tuesday, November 13, 2007 7:22 AM
> > > > > *To:* Wikipedia Investigations
> > > > > *Subject:* Re: [Wikipedia Investigations-l] Could we get a few
> > > > > eyes on anANIthread?
> > > > >
> > > > > Well then, I'd advocate indeffing that original account for
> > > > > e-mail harassment. Shall I forward our entire conversation to this list?
> > > > > This was an obvious setup: a simple self-identification would have resolved
> > > > > everything. This person feigned ignorance when I referred him/her to ArbCom
> > > > > and the Foundation.
> > > > > If I pulled a stunt like that and harassed a woman late into the
> > > > > night, using her real name and refusing to stop after she repeatedly asked
> > > > > me to cease contact, I'd expect to be banned in a heartbeat. That's way
> > > > > over the line.
> > > > >
> > > > > -Durova
> > > > > On Nov 13, 2007 3:16 AM, Sarah Ewart wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > > I really need to rephrase what I wrote before. I was in total
> > > > > > shock and
> > > > > > should have written it differently since we are on the internet
> > > > > > and there is
> > > > > > always the possibility, however remote, that anyone is anyone
> > > > > > else.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Their regular account is not blocked or banned and they have
> > > > > > been editing
> > > > > > Wikipedia for about three-and-a-half years. Their regular
> > > > > > account has
> > > > > > never (that I know of) been accused of being Greg Kohs or Dereks
> > > > > > and knowing
> > > > > > the regular account and the identity of the real life person
> > > > > > behind that
> > > > > > account, I find the
> > > > > > suggestion tenuous at best and very unrealistic.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > ----- Original Message -----
> > > > > > From: "Herby" <herbythyme>
> > > > > > To: "Wikipedia Investigations" < wpinvestigations-l at wikia.com>
> > > > > > Sent: Tuesday, November 13, 2007 9:34 PM
> > > > > > Subject: Re: [Wikipedia Investigations-l] Could we get a few
> > > > > > eyes on an
> > > > > > ANIthread?
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > > The misspelling interest me. People tend to be pretty
> > > > > > consistent with
> > > > > > > things like that particularly names. My spelling mistakes and
> > > > > > style (or
> > > > > > > lack of it) will become quite obvious over time. I certainly
> > > > > > think a
> > > > > > > peek at the users would be interesting.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > As to Durova's point - nothing apparent at present - you do
> > > > > > have such
> > > > > > > fun on en wp with such things don't you. (maybe I'll go
> > > > > > withdraw the
> > > > > > > RfA:))
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > On Tue, 13 Nov 2007 21:20:44 +1100, "Sarah Ewart"
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > said:
> > > > > > >> Thanks Herby for checking it out. Muchly appreciated.
> > > > > > >>
> > > > > > >> For what it's worth I've received more emails since last
> > > > > > night and they
> > > > > > >> said
> > > > > > >> that they knew my email address from previous emails we've
> > > > > > exchanged and
> > > > > > >> from (unidentified) mailing lists. Whether that is true or
> > > > > > not remains to
> > > > > > >> be
> > > > > > >> seen. They insist their account is in "good standing" and in
> > > > > > no way
> > > > > > >> related
> > > > > > >> to Greg Kohs or any other banned user. They suggested they
> > > > > > might be
> > > > > > >> willing
> > > > > > >> to identify themselves to me, so I offered them a deal to
> > > > > > reveal their
> > > > > > >> account name to me (just for the record, one I fully intend
> > > > > > to honor) and
> > > > > > >> I'm very curious to see if they decide to take me up on it.
> > > > > > >>
> > > > > > >> Durova, their emails to me misspelled your name as well
> > > > > > (spelled as Lisa)
> > > > > > >> but the last one I received tonight had it correct.
> > > > > > >>
> > > > > > >> -Sarah
> > > > > > >>
> > > > > > >> ----- Original Message -----
> > > > > > >> From: "Herby" <herbythyme>
> > > > > > >> To: "Wikipedia Investigations" < wpinvestigations-l at wikia.com
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >> Sent: Tuesday, November 13, 2007 8:51 PM
> > > > > > >> Subject: Re: [Wikipedia Investigations-l] Could we get a few
> > > > > > eyes on an
> > > > > > >> ANIthread?
> > > > > > >>
> > > > > > >>
> > > > > > >> > For what it's worth there has been no CU interest in that
> > > > > > IP (log
> > > > > > >> > covers
> > > > > > >> > just short of a year). And if I'm not supposed to have
> > > > > > disclosed that
> > > > > > >> > you didn't see it!
> > > > > > >> >
> > > > > > >> > On Tue, 13 Nov 2007 01:26:18 -0800, "Durova"
> > > > > > >> >
> > > > > > >> > said:
> > > > > > >> >> Comes frm Seattle, uses Comcast. Possibly Dereks1x.
> > > > > > >> >>
> > > > > > >> >> I had been thinking it could be Kohs himself spoofing the
> > > > > > location.
> > > > > > >> >> Kohs
> > > > > > >> >> is
> > > > > > >> >> a manager for <redacted>
> > > > > > and could have
> > > > > > >> >> the
> > > > > > >> >> technical skill for that maneuver.
> > > > > > >> >>
> > > > > > >> >> But when the IP harassed me by e-mail and tried to
> > > > > > intimidate me it
> > > > > > >> >> spelled
> > > > > > >> >> my name wrong. Kohs has always been diligent about
> > > > > > getting my name
> > > > > > >> >> right.
> > > > > > >> >> I don't deal with Dereks1x very often so he probably
> > > > > > hasn't gotten up
> > > > > > >> >> to
> > > > > > >> >> speed yet. And the prose style was quite differentfrom
> > > > > > Kohs: blunter,
> > > > > > >> >> more
> > > > > > >> >> aggressive.
> > > > > > >> >>
> > > > > > >> >> -Durova
> > > > > > >> >>
> > > > > > >> >> On Nov 13, 2007 12:58 AM, Herby < herbythyme >
> > > > > > wrote:
> > > > > > >> >>
> > > > > > >> >> > Would seem worth a friendly CU taking a look at users on
> > > > > > that IP
> > > > > > >> >> > maybe?
> > > > > > >> >> >
> > > > > > >> >> > Cheers
> > > > > > >> >> >
> > > > > > >> >> > On Tue, 13 Nov 2007 10:30:46 +1100, "Sarah Ewart"
> > > > > > >> >> >
> > > > > > >> >> > said:
> > > > > > >> >> > > The IP sent me two emails last night, just ranting
> > > > > > about Durova
> > > > > > >> >> > and
> > > > > > >> >> > JH,
> > > > > > >> >> > > nothing important, but they emailed me directly and
> > > > > > not through
> > > > > > >> >> > > WP.
> > > > > > >> >> > > My
> > > > > > >> >> > > email address isn't private by any means but I would
> > > > > > think a
> > > > > > >> >> > > random
> > > > > > >> >> > > IP
> > > > > > >> >> > > who just stumbled into a situation would find it
> > > > > > rather difficult
> > > > > > >> >> > > to
> > > > > > >> >> > find
> > > > > > >> >> > > and they had no doubts that it was me and not another
> > > > > > Sarah.
> > > > > > >> >> > >
> > > > > > >> >> > > ----- Original Message -----
> > > > > > >> >> > > From: Durova
> > > > > > >> >> > > To: Wikipedia Investigations
> > > > > > >> >> > > Sent: Tuesday, November 13, 2007 9:34 AM
> > > > > > >> >> > > Subject: [Wikipedia Investigations-l] Could we get a
> > > > > > few eyes on
> > > > > > >> >> > > an
> > > > > > >> >> > > ANIthread?
> > > > > > >> >> > >
> > > > > > >> >> > >
> > > > > > >> >> > > The IP editor who's been causing trouble here has
> > > > > > been posting
> > > > > > >> >> > > again.
> > > > > > >> >> > > Could someone remove the post per WP:BLOCK?
> > > > > > >> >> > >
> > > > > > >> >> > >
> > > > > > >> >> > http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Adm..._from_Jehochman
> > > > > >
> > > > > > >> >> > >
> > > > > > >> >> > > Also, very strange comments from Viridae here.
> > > > > > >> >> > >
> > > > > > >> >> > > -Durova
> > > > > > >> >> > >
> > > > > > >> >> > >
> > > > > > >> >> > >
> > > > > > >> >> >
> > > > > > ------------------------------------------------------------------------------
> > > > > > >> >> > >
> > > > > > >> >> > >
> > > > > > >> >> > > _______________________________________________
> > > > > > >> >> > > wpinvestigations-l mailing list
> > > > > > >> >> > > wpinvestigations-l at wikia.com
----------

From: (Kirill Lokshin)
Date: Tue, 13 Nov 2007 10:50:47 -0500
Subject: [Arbcom-l] Please look into this incident

---------- Forwarded message ----------
From: Durova
Date: Nov 13, 2007 10:46 AM
Subject: evidence re: Greg Kohs and an established Wikipedian
To: Kirill Lokshin
Cc: Jonathan Hochman


This evidence shows Greg Kohs (Wikipedia Review) concocted a scheme to discredit
Jehochman and myself with the assistance of an established Wikipedian. One
or the other (probably the Wikipedian) harassed me by e-mail. The community
banned the Wikipedian's IP address for trolling and harassment yesterday. I
ask the Committee to identify the main account and extend the ban there
too. Under normal conditions I would seek some kind of dialog and polite
resolution, but a fellow who harasses one woman late at night over the
Internet probably does the same to others, and most victims would leave
Wikipedia rather than step forward as I am doing.

Now in order to demonstrate that this Wikipedian was proxying for a banned
editor's disruptive agenda, it's necessary to show the banned editor's
MO. Kohs
takes an intense interest in my offsite publications. He's posted
comments to the interview I did at YouTube and every column I've written.
He usually starts a new Wikipedia Review thread each time one of my columns
comes out and he even posts comments to my comments on other people's
articles. Some representative examples follow.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Stq6MindK94
http://searchengineland.com/070807-085103.php
http://searchengineland.com/070717-113550.php
http://searchengineland.com/070911-083723.php
http://wikipediareview.com/index.php?showtopic=12783
http://searchengineland.com/070627-094651.php

And as an example of the type of coordinated attack Kohs orchestrates, he
and his buddies astroturfed a glowing review into an indictment of
Wikipedia.
http://news.stepforth.com/blog/2007/07/how...e-wikipedia.php
http://news.stepforth.com/blog/2007/08/is-...dia-corrupt.php

I suspect Kohs launched this attack now to discredit me during the
election. He's the sort of fellow who holds a grudge and he tried to run
for ArbCom himself while he was banned by Jimbo Wales. The attempt didn't
get very far:
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=...&oldid=86305792
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=...&oldid=86367482
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=...&oldid=86412438
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=...&oldid=86419237
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=...&oldid=86420980

Rather than take no for an answer, Kohs lodged a noticeboard complaint and
tried to discredit two Wikipedians in good standing who had removed his
attempted candidacy. This was how I first encountered Kohs - by answering
his request for investigation:

On October 25 Kohs started trying to lodge spurious COI allegations against
Jehochman and myself:
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=...oldid=166925363

and tried to network the concept:
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=...oldid=166925545

and pretty much admits who he is:
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=...oldid=166964430

Moving ahead to yesterday's noticeboard thread, here's the recent drama. As
you can see, it regurgitates Kohs's allegations.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Adm..._from_Jehochman

I blocked 3 IP addresses in connection with this as probable Kohs socks. It
might be fair for someone to shorten these blocks since the IPs turned out
to be throwaways. According to Sarah, the editor who contacted her claimed
the 24.19.33.82 address as his own and said that the others were Kohs socks.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contr...ons/24.19.33.82
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contr.../208.64.241.252
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contr...s/71.231.104.63

Viridae admits he was in contact with Kohs about this incident. Sarah says
the Wikipedian who contacted her has been around for 3.5 years and Viridae's
account history goes back only as far as April 2006, but I find it
disturbing toe see an administrator putting so much faith in a banned
vandal.
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=...oldid=171098561

More attempted joe jobbing. For the record, I'm not in Orlando as the IP
suggests. I'm sitting at home in San Diego and haven't set foot in Florida
in ten years.
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=...oldid=171159694
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=...oldid=171161908

and a frivolous checkuser request.
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=...oldid=171094602

Bottom line here, whoever this Wikipedian is, the person could have
contacted me to ask my side of the story. Instead, at a minimum, this
person trolled and proxied on behalf of a long term vandal. The community
agreed to a siteban on that IP address for harassment and disruption. I ask
the Committee to confirm the sockmaster account from Sarah and ratify the
community's ban on the main account.

-Durova
----------

From: (Kirill Lokshin)
Date: Tue, 13 Nov 2007 11:05:58 -0500
Subject: [Arbcom-l] Please look into this incident

---------- Forwarded message ----------
From: Jonathan Hochman
Date: Nov 13, 2007 10:59 AM
Subject: IP Harasser and Viridae
To: kirill.lokshin, Durova


Hi Kirill,

Durova asked me to email evidence directly to you.

The email below is Kohs' allegation that Durova and I profit from Wikipedia,
remarks that are parroted by the IP Editor.[
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=...oldid=170699257]
"As a consultant with what looks to be money riding on your participation in
this endeavor."

Kohs send me this email after we posted at [
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:COI_analyst] . I blocked COI analyst
as a sockpuppet. [
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=...ser:COI_analyst
]
==========================================
On 10/25/07, Gregory Kohs wrote:
> Here's your e-mail.
>
> I think it's pretty clear that now that you and Lise are personally
engaging
> your careers in public discussions of Conflict of Interest in Wikipedia,
you
> should disengage your roles from the Wikipedia:COI area. You know it's
> hypocritical to argue anything otherwise.
>
> Cheers! And, best of luck with capitalizing on Wikipedia for personal
> gain. Jimbo does it, so we're just following a great example.
>
> --
> Gregory Kohs
>
>
==========================================

Here is a prior attempt by Kohs to gain influence through me (Jun 28, 2007):
===========================================
The following request was submitted from JEHochman.com:
*************
source: Other
name1: Gregory Kohs
company: <redacted>
position: Corporate Marketer
website: <redacted>
phone1: <redacted>
email: <redacted>
Consultation: Consultation
comments: Jonathan, before we get into an all-out war on that blog post
about editing Wikipedia, might I offer a truce? Your website here is full
of typos and grammatical errors. I could help you copyedit the entire site.
Gratis. You\'d owe me nothing in return. Unless, you\'d feel compelled
to help me understand how/why Google is picking up <redacted> pages so
relatively well, and (more importantly) how we could get them even stronger.
I\'m not a \"bad guy\", and I can easily see you\'re not, either.
contact: E-Mail
*************
============================================

Here's a conversation I had with User:Sarah about Viridae's involvement:
============================================
*me:* Another topic. We have an issue with Viridae.
Do you think I should contact Viridae politely and ask for an explanation?
* **Ewart:* about what?
the ani thing?
* me: *About contacting Greg Kohs for advice rather than asking me to
clarify.
And why Viridae, of all 1300+ admins, was the one to restore that thread.
The odds of that are very low.
Per Occam's Razor, it is much more likely that somebody told Viridae about
the thread and asked for help getting it to stick.
* **Ewart:* i thought he explained on ani
he said, "I contacted Greg directly and asked whether the IPs were his or
not."
* me: *That's an odd thing to do.
Viridae had concerns about my actions, but didn't ask me even one little
question.
Why is Viridae going to Greg Kohs for advice?
* **Ewart:* but you have done so, too.
* me: *I have never contacted Greg Kohs.
Ewart: i dont see where he is going to Kohs for advice
* me: *He pesters me once in a while.
* Ewart: *you've spoken to him on the phone, though, and you've asked him
if particular socks are his
they both edit WR
* **me:* How do you know?
How do you know what I said to Greg Kohs?
* Ewart: *know what? i said three things there. you said
* **me:* Be careful not to believe misrepresentations posted by Kohs, or
people under his influence.
Greg called me on the phone and attempted to bribe me.
* **Ewart:* you said that you asked him and he said that COI analyst or
whatever it was called was his
oh yes? to do what?
* me: *He's clever.
He's capable of contacting Wikipedians and trying to gain influence over
their actions.
Are you friends with Viridae?
Sent at 9:25 AM on Tuesday
* **me:* If so, could you tell me whether a quiet conversation with Viridae
might help clear my concerns?
I don't know Viridae at all.
Sent at 9:28 AM on Tuesday
* me: *Hello?
Ewart: yes
* me: *Do you think I should have a chat with Viridae?
Sent at 9:50 AM on Tuesday
* Ewart: *i answered you already.
...if you think you should have a chat with him then go ahead...
* **me:* I didn't receive that.
* Ewart: *Sent at 1:28 AM on Wednesday
sarahewart: i get along okay with Viridae but he isnt a friend of mine and I
have never had off-wikipedia correspondence with him. I dont think we have
ever even posted on each others talk pages. the only place i remember
talking to him is on ANI. if you think you should have a chat with him then
go ahead. but i still can't see where he said he asked kohs for advice about
anything.


Sent at 1:32 AM on Wednesday
jehochman: Hello?
* **me:* How odd, that didn't come through. Glad I asked again.
Thanks. TTYL.
=====================================================
Important Clarification: Greg Kohs did call me on the phone. He did not
try to bribe me on the call. The bribe attempt was the email dated June 28.
My bad punctuation has created an ambiguity. This should read: "Greg
called me on the phone, and he [separately] attempted to bribe me."

Summary:Viridae admits to contacting Greg Kohs to determine if the IP Editor
is him:
[
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=...oldid=171098561]
As It is very odd that Viridae turns to a banned user to get clarification.
I would think Viridae would contact me if he was concerned about my
involvement. I have not yet received any communication from Viridae.

Kohs' story has been relayed to both Sarah and Viridae. Viridae refers to
my contacts with Kohs, [
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=...oldid=171098671].
The nature of my contacst with Kohs are not common knowledge. Kohs appears
to have also provided this story to the IP Editor. Sarah tells us that she
has received email from the IP Editor. Sarah repeated Kohs' story to me via
chat. "*Me:* ...Why is Viridae going to Greg Kohs for advice?* **Ewart:* but
you have done so, too." Actually, as the email above shows, Kohs came to
me. The idea that I went to Kohs is a fiction in Kohs mind.

Viridae, who admits to maintaining correspondence with Kohs, was the one
among 1300+ administrators who restores the IP Editor's ANI thread. [
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=...oldid=170890784]
The probability of that happening without deliberate coordination seems
remote. It is much more likely that either Kohs or the IP Editor sent a
message to Viridae asking him to defend the thread.

A community ban of the IP Editor was discussed at the ANI thread with no
objections raised. [
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Adm...mail_harassment]
I request that Sarah reveal the identity of the banned editor. An
administrator should not agree to keep confidential the identity of a banned
user who has engaged in harassment.

Viridae's adminiship should be reconsidered based on his behavior as a proxy
for Kohs.

Best regards,
Jonathan
--
Jonathan E. Hochman
-----------

From: (Kirill Lokshin)
Date: Tue, 13 Nov 2007 11:13:37 -0500
Subject: [Arbcom-l] Please look into this incident

I've copied all of this material to the private wiki (
https://secure.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/arbc...ember_2007%29);
in retrospect, that may have been a better thing to do from the start.

Kirill
----------

From: (charles.r.matthews)
Date: Tue, 13 Nov 2007 16:56:02 +0000
Subject: [Arbcom-l] Please look into this incident

Well, Mr. Kohs is quite a poisonous person. I'm somewhat concerned now as to what Viridae thinks he is doing.

Charles
-----------

From: (jayjg)
Date: Tue, 13 Nov 2007 12:43:42 -0500
Subject: [Arbcom-l] Please look into this incident

On Nov 13, 2007 11:56 AM, <charles.r.matthews> wrote:
> Well, Mr. Kohs is quite a poisonous person. I'm somewhat concerned now as to what Viridae thinks he is doing.
>
> Charles

Viridae is a Wikipedia Review regular; he has made 157 posts there.
-----------

From: (Kirill Lokshin)
Date: Tue, 13 Nov 2007 12:52:28 -0500
Subject: [Arbcom-l] Please look into this incident

On Nov 13, 2007 12:43 PM, jayjg wrote:

> On Nov 13, 2007 11:56 AM, <charles.r.matthews> wrote:
> > Well, Mr. Kohs is quite a poisonous person. I'm somewhat concerned now
> as to what Viridae thinks he is doing.
> >
> > Charles
>
> Viridae is a Wikipedia Review regular; he has made 157 posts there.

Didn't he blank some arbitration case after a request on WR? Or am I
confusing him with someone else?

Kirill
-----------

From: kirill.lokshin at gmail.com (Kirill Lokshin)
Date: Tue, 13 Nov 2007 15:45:57 -0500
Subject: [Arbcom-l] El C

On Nov 13, 2007 3:25 PM, Jonathan Hochman <jehochman.com> wrote:

> Kirill,
>
> El C is dragging up the ANI thread from yesterday which was archived.
> Could you possibly let him know that we have submitted this matter to ArbCom
> for review, and that further discussions at ANI are misguided. Thank you.
>
>
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Adm...ehochman_thread
>
>
> The IP Editor specifically contacted El C and asked him to get involved.
> This is something that concerns me. El C is hardly an uninvolved party, so
> he should not be conducting his own investigation.
>

Done:
https://secure.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/w...oldid=171278562
.

Regards,
Kirill
-----------

From: (Kirill Lokshin)
Date: Tue, 13 Nov 2007 16:07:11 -0500
Subject: [Arbcom-l] Wikipedia e-mail - Jehochman

On Nov 13, 2007 3:58 PM, FT2 wrote:

> Depending what's being discussed, I * may * have some valid input.
>
> Are you able to give any indication what sort of evidence is relevant?
> What sort of matter is under discussion? So I can decide if anything Ive
> seen of his activity etc is germane?
>
> (For example, is it "general conduct", "reliability of judgement",
> "ability to express self", understanding of policy", "use of tools" ... or
> is it just taken over by arbcom for drama reduction?)
>
We've just begun to collate the various statements we've received on this
affair; at this point, the exact scope of our investigation is not precisely
defined. Please feel free to submit any sort of information you think may
be of interest to us.

Regards,
Kirill
User is offlineProfile CardPM
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
MaliceAforethought
post Tue 12th July 2011, 6:21pm
Post #3


u Mad?
***

Group: Contributors
Posts: 206
Joined: Tue 21st Jun 2011, 6:54am
From: Wonderland
Member No.: 57,801



*********************************************
*Wherein AC finally finds out who's in on the sekret list *
*********************************************

From: (Dmcdevit)
Date: Tue, 13 Nov 2007 13:34:06 -0800
Subject: [Arbcom-l] El C

Ugh, I'm really starting to get concerned about this. Jehochman has only
been an admin for a month, and has already been embroiled in quite a bit
of controversy. Recently he blocked an editor for a week at the behest
of anther forum-shopping edit warrior, and offered no evidence of any
reason, except the month old diffs dredged up by the reporter. He wasn't
unblocked until El C and I (who don't often agree!) got a lot of evasive
rhetoric back, but nothing substantive. This is apparently why he calls
El C "hardly an uninvolved party." You also will remember the
disagreement over Jehochman's indef-block of Sadi Carnot.

I'm concerned the Greg Kohs stuff is being used to give him carte blanch
here in unrelated matters. Several people in the community are concerned
over his accusations of various accounts being Kohs, and even Sarah, who
he has quoted in other emails recently to the list and who nominated him
at RfA a month ago has made this very telling comment:
<http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Incidents&diff=prev&oldid=170904534>.
Check out the rest of the comments on that ANI thread from other trusted
admins (WJBscribe, too). This being the thread that was just blanked; I
think we need to keep in mind that a lot of sane people are concerned
that Jehochman is a new admin and a loose cannon, and ArbCom covering it
up is frustrating.

Dominic
-----------

From: (Kirill Lokshin)
Date: Tue, 13 Nov 2007 16:45:29 -0500
Subject: [Arbcom-l] El C

I do agree that things are getting out of hand, but I don't think that
Jehochman being a loose cannon is the underlying problem here. Certainly, I
get the sense that he's been encouraged to take up this particular approach.

Does anyone know what this "Wikipedia Investigations (
wpinvestigations-l at wikia.com)" business is all about, incidentally?

Kirill
-----------

From: (James Forrester)
Date: Tue, 13 Nov 2007 21:40:58 +0000
Subject: [Arbcom-l] El C

Should we alter Sadi Carnot, expanding to include Jehochman's other
actions, and severely slap his wrists? It's not closed yet.

Yours,
--
James D. Forrester
----------

From: (FloNight)
Date: Tue, 13 Nov 2007 16:54:39 -0500
Subject: [Arbcom-l] El C

In a nutshell, the idea is to share investigative techniques and
finding about some of our most disruptive and persistent ban users.

I'm on this newly started email list as well as some other trusted and
experienced users such as arbs and CUs. I'm watching to make sure the
group doesn't get over enthusiastic. If they do then they will be
reigned in.

Sydney
-----------

From: (David Gerard)
Date: Tue, 13 Nov 2007 22:02:34 +0000
Subject: [Arbcom-l] El C

On 13/11/2007, Dmcdevit wrote:

> Ugh, I'm really starting to get concerned about this. Jehochman has only
> been an admin for a month, and has already been embroiled in quite a bit
> of controversy. Recently he blocked an editor for a week at the behest
> of anther forum-shopping edit warrior, and offered no evidence of any
> reason, except the month old diffs dredged up by the reporter. He wasn't
> unblocked until El C and I (who don't often agree!) got a lot of evasive
> rhetoric back, but nothing substantive. This is apparently why he calls
> El C "hardly an uninvolved party." You also will remember the
> disagreement over Jehochman's indef-block of Sadi Carnot.


JEHochman is not a bad guy, but attracts controversy because he's an
SEO marketer who has made admin on Wikipedia. Given those two jobs, he
spends quite a lot of time working diplomatically with both (and
closely with Durova). So trouble goes out of its way to find him.


> I'm concerned the Greg Kohs stuff is being used to give him carte blanch
> here in unrelated matters. Several people in the community are concerned
> over his accusations of various accounts being Kohs, and even Sarah, who
> he has quoted in other emails recently to the list and who nominated him
> at RfA a month ago has made this very telling comment:
> <http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Incidents&diff=prev&oldid=170904534>.
> Check out the rest of the comments on that ANI thread from other trusted
> admins (WJBscribe, too). This being the thread that was just blanked; I
> think we need to keep in mind that a lot of sane people are concerned
> that Jehochman is a new admin and a loose cannon, and ArbCom covering it
> up is frustrating.


So ask for info from Durova, who works closely with him - she's a fair
bit more reliable.


- d.
----------

From: (David Gerard)
Date: Tue, 13 Nov 2007 22:03:28 +0000
Subject: [Arbcom-l] El C

On 13/11/2007, James Forrester wrote:

> Should we alter Sadi Carnot, expanding to include Jehochman's other
> actions, and severely slap his wrists? It's not closed yet.


Speak to him first, he's quite happy to take clue on board.


- d.
---------

From: (Kirill Lokshin)
Date: Tue, 13 Nov 2007 17:12:59 -0500
Subject: [Arbcom-l] El C

On Nov 13, 2007 4:54 PM, FloNight wrote:

> In a nutshell, the idea is to share investigative techniques and
> finding about some of our most disruptive and persistent ban users.
>
> I'm on this newly started email list as well as some other trusted and
> experienced users such as arbs and CUs. I'm watching to make sure the
> group doesn't get over enthusiastic. If they do then they will be
> reigned in.


Ok, that's good.

Kirill
----------

From: (Dmcdevit)
Date: Tue, 13 Nov 2007 14:14:38 -0800
Subject: [Arbcom-l] El C

David Gerard wrote:
> On 13/11/2007, James Forrester wrote:
>
>
>> Should we alter Sadi Carnot, expanding to include Jehochman's other
>> actions, and severely slap his wrists? It's not closed yet.
>>
>
>
> Speak to him first, he's quite happy to take clue on board.
>
>

I have. My impression is that he's reasonable one-on-one, and then turns
around and continues the rhetorical games on-wiki anyway.

Dominic
----------

From: (Kirill Lokshin)
Date: Tue, 13 Nov 2007 17:16:01 -0500
Subject: [Arbcom-l] El C

> Should we alter Sadi Carnot, expanding to include Jehochman's other
> actions, and severely slap his wrists? It's not closed yet.


We could do that, and deal with Physchim62 as well; but I think it would
dilute the major point of the decision (that actions like Sadi Carnot's are
thoroughly unwelcome) for relatively little benefit. They've done nothing
so egregious that we can't wait to act on it, I think.

Kirill
------------

From: (Kirill Lokshin)
Date: Wed, 14 Nov 2007 08:22:54 -0500
Subject: [Arbcom-l] Fwd: Wikipedia e-mail - Jehochman

Also copied to the private wiki.

Kirill

---------- Forwarded message ----------
From: FT2
Date: Nov 14, 2007 7:50 AM
Subject: RE: Wikipedia e-mail - Jehochman
To: Kirill Lokshin

Hi Kirril,
I don't know anything about the current allegations on Jehochman, Durova,
and various IP editors. The little I know is from policy page editing, and
the one post that caught my eye. So I probably have little to contribute
right now.

------- General

I have come across Jehochman several times on the project pages.

I have no reason at all to doubt his good faith, but his views, judgements
(including judgement of how to approach matters), comments, and proposals...
I find them often significantly below those of his peers. Then obviously
this week there was the matter posted on ANI, and the matters that showed.

Not knowing what will help, I'm going to recap both here, although it may be
none of this is significant and others will know more.


------- My experience on policy pages

Prior to this week, my main experience of him has been on policy talk pages.
I do a lot of policy editing and he's repeatedly caught my attention as a
"person you know is trying but in fact is getting in the way" and wish would
either figure out where others are at, or go edit somewhere else. Policy
editing is about
improving an 80% job to be a 90% job, and requires a good insight into
what's already there and where it falls down, and good drafting skills.
Jehochman routinely misunderstands, regularly opposes in places experienced
other editors don't, then proposes weak alternatives or problems that derail
the existing conversation. I have no reason to doubt good faith, but I wish
his skills were stronger or his recognition of his need to learn was
greater. I get the impression he overrates his insight and experience.
Opposition is useful, and valid, but on policy judgements, he's weak and
doesn't seem to realize it.

Three examples:

1)
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=...king_policy&old
id=169073498#Indef_blocks

Blocking policy is often misunderstood when it comes to indef blocks. These
are often interpreteted as bans, rather than a simple "remove until matter
is resolved". Much confusion. An addition was clearly needed (see
[[WP:INDEF]]). Note Jehochman's response on the talk page section above, in
which he states he _doesn't see the point_ of it ("won't be upset" if the
"whole thing" is deleted).

As stated, it's minor and was resolved, but the idea that he _doesn't see
the point_ in having [[WP:BLOCK]] clarify to users and admins what this most
serious kind of block actually means, is disquieting.

2)
Jehochman's edits to [[WT:COI]] seem to routinely somehow miss the mark. For
example, the post that is <s>...</s> at:
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=...lict_of_interes
t&oldid=170399266#COI_being_used_as_a_sole_justification_for_deletion

and

3)
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=...lict_of_interes
t&oldid=170399266#Nutshell
where his first comment is reasonable but thereafter his proposals are
fairly unhelpful (though note he does have the grace to notice this
appropriately rather than edit war, which is a Very Good Thing in his
favor).


As I have said, minor stuff... but so often, it seems he's the one person to
make a comment that just misses the point. Against that he _may_ well make
many comments which are helpful; I can't judge if that's so as I don't track
his other work.

More generally, I get the impression (subjectively) this isn't just about
"policy". It's more about his judgement and sense of where things are at and
how to address them, generally. I think he probably has weak judgement on
what's said, why its said, when to ask, or when/how to intervene. But that's
my reading between the lines on it. I suspect he probably jumps in at times
when a wiser admin wouldn't, and may not realise he's making more of a mess
(or not helping).

That in itself is a mild pain but not an actionable problem. I mention it
since I have no idea what arbcom is looking at, and you have asked for "any
sort of information you think may be of interest to us". The above is a
general "feeling I have", nothing more. On the bell curve of admin competent
judgement, my impression is he's below par but not damagingly so.


------- The recent ANI post.

Then, a few days ago, an IP editor posted a complaint on ANI. It contained
specific claims said to be backed up by DIFFs, and denial of wrongdoings, so
I did some checking of my own.

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=...ators%27_notice
board/Incidents&oldid=170890043#Bizarre_behavior_from_Jehochman

On review I found there had been some discussion of concern by other admins
over Jehochman's actions recently. This had involved at least 2 other
respected administrators one of whom (El C) had taken the matter to the
point that an arbcom hearing was mentioned as a serious likelihood due to
"lack of confidence in judgement as a sysop"
[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Jehochman&oldid=1707088
31#Arbitration]. This, from a respected administrator, is not trivial.

Note that my own experience (above) is also related to concerns over
Jehochman's _judgement_ .... mild though they are by comparison.

Anyhow...

The first diff cited by this IP user at ANI, unambiguously shows Jehochman
asking the IP user whether they are a sockpuppet of [[user:El C]]
[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Jehochman&diff=17070345
3&oldid=170703309].

The misjudgement of handling here is significant -- for example, one might
ask the admin in private, or by email, and certainly one would ask the admin
on _their_ talk page, not the possible IP sock on theirs. A note on El C's
own talk page, would have been more suitable as a venue if a question of
"good hand bad hand" was going to be raised against another administrator.
And such allegations should not be made without thought and possibly
discussion, or more evidence. Again, misjudgement and mishandling. Even if
El C did use an IP, there were many better ways to handle the question, and
bad faith was not the right first assumption.

The next diff led to a talk page discussion between El C and Jehochman in
which El C expresses explicit serious concerns over the latter's "judgement
as a sysop"
[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Jehochman&diff=17070432
3&oldid=170704004] and that he is "shaken by how offensive [Jehochman's]
conduct has been thus far"
[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Jehochman&diff=17070601
0&oldid=170705463].

On reading the original post, I found that Jehochman had himself deleted the
post that was critical of him.

Even if the user was "banned" (which was not evidenced there and it sounded
like there was some question on the matter as I recall), I feel that good
judgement would rarely have an admin removing criticism of themselves placed
on ANI for communal review, by someone they evidently have a dispute with,
who has asked in reasonable tone and presented verifiable diffs. The
perception of COI would be significant.

Admin judgement should take that into account. Jehochman apparently did not
think of it, or ignored it.


-------

In essence, that's what I have seen. Blanking criticisms at ANI, asking an
_IP_ if it's a sock of a respected admin, poor intervention in policy
debates...

These probably aren't entirely good things to see going on. Possibly there
are many _good_ interventions and I'm just seeing the inevitable poor
quality few. Who knows?

But in the end, it's not any specific incident so much as a general
long-standing impression and feeling, that he needs a clue more often... and
for someone who blocks or makes allegations and works with topics like COI,
blocking, and other incidents at ANI, that's not a good thing to feel.

In the end, that is still my main concern.

It's clearly small beans compared to the other allegations of puppetry and
such.


Best,


FT2.
----------

From: (Kirill Lokshin)
Date: Wed, 14 Nov 2007 08:27:18 -0500
Subject: [Arbcom-l] Jehochman

On Nov 14, 2007 12:09 AM, Daniel wrote:

> Heya Kirill,
>
> I saw your note on ANI, but I nearly missed it (I'm compiling some
> evidence now).
>
> A suggestion: as with the Nathanrdotcom case which was similarily
> conducted via email, would it be possible to add a notice to WP:RFAR or the
> open tasks template instructing people how to give evidence? Just a thought,
> because some may miss the ANI posting which will be archived in 24h anyways.
>
> Cheers,
>
> DB
>

Is it worth doing this, or should we try to keep things under wraps?

Kirill
---------

From: (Kirill Lokshin)
Date: Thu, 15 Nov 2007 10:47:41 -0500
Subject: [Arbcom-l] Fwd: Hi

Curiouser and curiouser.

Kirill
---------- Forwarded message ----------
From: Durova
Date: Nov 15, 2007 10:29 AM
Subject: Fwd: Hi
To: Kirill Lokshin
Cc: Jonathan Hochman


Kirill,

I contacted El C in good faith very shortly before Jonathan suggested he
might be the IP editor we were searching for. Then I helped Jonathan with
background research for his evidence. I sincerely hope Jonathan's
conclusion is mistaken, but I have found no flaw that would disprove
it. The evidence, although circumstantial, was strong enough that I
consider it worthy of the Committee's attention. I hope Sarah cooperates
because her information is better than ours.

Temporary restrictions until the matter can be fully investigated may be the
best option here.
If El C actually was the editor who harassed me, then I wholeheartedly
oppose Jonathan's request for outright leniency. Sinus problems do not turn
decent men into cyberstalkers and a senior administrator who harasses me
would (and probably has) harassed unknown numbers of other people. The use
of open proxies makes it unlikely that we would be able to identify or
remedy the problem if it recurs. Most editors are easier targets than I
am. It is my considered opinion that the best interests of the project
would not be served by allowing such a problem to continue. I have too much
respect for other women to endorse Jonathan's request.

-Lise



---------- Forwarded message ----------
From: El C
Date: Nov 15, 2007 12:20 AM
Subject: Re: Hi
To: Durova


Hi and sorry for the delay.

Following minor sinus surgery, I developed serious and unexpected
post-op complications. Will be out of commission for the foreseeable
future. Hope to speak to everyone then.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
ps. this note is being copied across to many emails. Sorry, I wasn't
able to devote individual attention to all/any emails at this time,
there were too many and my access is rather limited.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

pps.. looks like I switched the Hebrew/English version of this note in
a few places. Oops // ???? ?????? ?? ?????? ???????\????? ???? ??????.
????
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------


On Nov 13, 2007 11:44 PM, Durova wrote:
> You posted a question about the recent ANI thread. Is there anything
you'd like to ask me?
>
> We really haven't interacted much at all outside of the Giovanni33-John
Smith's arbitration case, and I was a bit concerned by your recent post to
my user talk page.
>
> A banned editor named Greg Kohs (Wikipedia Review) has been spreading wild
accusations about Jehochman and myself. I'd be happy to address any
concerns you may have about that.
>
> Also, if you'd like a behind-the-scenes look at the Alkivar case I have a
"trusted user" version of my evidence you can view. Except for some e-mails
and a couple of things like that it's the bulk of my evidence. You may find
it illuminating.
>
> The privacy surrounding the Alkivar case may have raised some questions
from your perspective. Actually it'd be a relief to me if you saw the
difference between the kind of sysop he was and what I think you are. You
and I had a difference of opinion on a policy application, and reasonable
people can disagree on these things.
>
> Best regards,
> Durova
----------

From: (Theresa Knott)
Date: Thu, 15 Nov 2007 20:36:12 +0000
Subject: [Arbcom-l] Fwd: Hi

<snip>
> I contacted El C in good faith very shortly before Jonathan suggested he
> might be the IP editor we were searching for. Then I helped Jonathan with
> background research for his evidence. I sincerely hope Jonathan's
> conclusion is mistaken, but I have found no flaw that would disprove it.

Where is the evidence she is talking about? Has she posted it to this list?

Theresa
---------

Date: Thu, 15 Nov 2007 15:57:56 -0500
Subject: [Arbcom-l] Fwd: Hi

On Nov 15, 2007 3:36 PM, Theresa Knott wrote:

> <snip>
> > I contacted El C in good faith very shortly before Jonathan suggested he
> > might be the IP editor we were searching for. Then I helped Jonathan
> with
> > background research for his evidence. I sincerely hope Jonathan's
> > conclusion is mistaken, but I have found no flaw that would disprove it.
>
> Where is the evidence she is talking about? Has she posted it to this
> list?


It was posted by Jonathan, but is probably still in the moderation
queue. Presumably it'll get through once somebody goes through
today's mail. <Malice's note: Jehochman sends email in html format; the archives don't support>

(Either that or we need more moderators.)

Kirill
----------

From: dgerard at gmail.com (David Gerard)
Date: Thu, 15 Nov 2007 21:17:05 +0000
Subject: [Arbcom-l] Fwd: Hi

On 15/11/2007, Kirill Lokshin wrote:

> It was posted by Jonathan, but is probably still in the moderation queue.
> Presumably it'll get through once somebody goes through today's mail.
> (Either that or we need more moderators.)


*cough* I've just cleared the queue.

Any more volunteers, please speak up!

(The load is pretty light. Just clear the spam and let through
anything by a human.)


- d.
----------

From: (David Gerard)
Date: Thu, 15 Nov 2007 21:43:22 +0000
Subject: [Arbcom-l] [Fwd: User:24.19.33.82]

On 14/11/2007, Jonathan Hochman wrote:

> Kirill, I request that the case be named Merops Ornatus after our mystery editor.

Checkuser on the IP shows no known usernames - all edits in the CU
database are from the IP only. User-agent is:

Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; U; PPC Mac OS X Mach-O; en-US; rv:1.8.1.9)
Gecko/20071025 Firefox/2.0.0.9

The IP is c-24-19-33-82.hsd1.mn.comcast.net (24.19.33.82).

I'd love JEHochman and Durova to include the full headers of the
emails, in case the senders were foolish enough to leave a trail ...


- d.
-----------

From: (Theresa Knott)
Date: Thu, 15 Nov 2007 22:14:59 +0000
Subject: [Arbcom-l] [Fwd: User:24.19.33.82]

On Nov 14, 2007 3:41 PM, Jonathan Hochman wrote:
>
> Kirill, I request that the case be named Merops Ornatus after our mystery
> editor.
>
> See also [[User:Merops ornatus]], a sock puppet with an interest in the
> Giano case.

Note that this sockpuppet's only edit was on the 1st January 2007.
Merops Ornatus is the latin name for an Australian bird. I don't know
how common this bird is, but it seems to me to be perfectly possible
that this IP and the above user account are not related at all.

Theresa
----------

From: (jayjg)
Date: Thu, 15 Nov 2007 17:23:34 -0500
Subject: [Arbcom-l] [Fwd: User:24.19.33.82]

On Nov 15, 2007 5:14 PM, Theresa Knott wrote:
> On Nov 14, 2007 3:41 PM, Jonathan Hochman wrote:
> >
> > Kirill, I request that the case be named Merops Ornatus after our mystery
> > editor.
> >
> > See also [[User:Merops ornatus]], a sock puppet with an interest in the
> > Giano case.
>
> Note that this sockpuppet's only edit was on the 1st January 2007.
> Merops Ornatus is the latin name for an Australian bird. I don't know
> how common this bird is, but it seems to me to be perfectly possible
> that this IP and the above user account are not related at all.
>
> Theresa

The IP is Comcast and geolocates to Seattle, which means it's probably
User:Gnetwerker, a Wikipedia Review admin if I'm not mistaken (and
certainly a Wikipedia Review regular). He got all of his user and
sockpuppet pages deleted in June/July, claiming he had left Wikipedia
- in my experience sockpuppeters do that to confuse the trail before
returning.

In any event, I know where El C lives, and it's nowhere near Seattle.
-----------

From: (Kirill Lokshin)
Date: Tue, 20 Nov 2007 11:26:47 -0500
Subject: [Arbcom-l] Investigation of IP

On Nov 20, 2007 10:36 AM, Jonathan Hochman wrote:

> Kirill-
>
> I am very disturbed by Sarah's reactions:
>
>
> http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=...oldid=172712880
>
>
> http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=...oldid=172678709
>
> Can you tell me whether this situation has been handled or not? We
> need guidance on how to handle this editor, because the disruption
> just keeps continuing. I am very troubled that Sarah seems to be
> protecting this person, and that the disruption seems to be focusing
> on Durova's Arbcom candidacy.


The Committee has not acted on the material submitted to us at this time.
It's worth noting that we do not, as a matter of doctrine, have any way of
compelling editors to provide evidence; so what we have at this point is
largely speculative.

(As for candidacy disruption and such: Durova's recent behavior has not
exactly helped in stabilizing the situation.)

Kirill
-----------
From: (Newyorkbrad (Wikipedia))
Date: Wed, 21 Nov 2007 12:09:54 -0500
Subject: [Arbcom-l] Fwd: Wikipedia e-mail

To the Arbitration Committee:

I am forwarding an e-mail from User:Bus stop, below. I do not have the
information needed to respond and was wondering if perhaps any arbitrators
might know what is being referred to.

Newyorkbrad

---------- Forwarded message ----------
From: Bus stop <PaintHell at gmail.com>
Date: Nov 21, 2007 12:04 PM
Subject: Wikipedia e-mail
To: Newyorkbrad

User:Newyorkbrad, Wikipedia Arbitration Committee Clerk,

Is the administrator, User:Durova, permitted to claim on her Talk page that
I have sent her "nasty" e-mails?

It is linked to here:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Dur...#Help_with_Help

Please scroll down to the section below "Help_with_Help" because the
section, "Bus_stop," cannot be linked to directly, for technological
reasons.

In point of fact I have never sent her ANY e-mails.

Is it permissible for an administrator to claim to have received harassing
e-mails from an editor if the reality is that she has never received ANY
e-mails from that editor?

Let User:Durova forward to the Wikipedia Arbitration Committee any e-mails
that she thinks came from me. Alternatively, let User:Durova issue a
correction on her Talk page saying that she has not received any e-mail from
User:Bus stop.

Falsehood is hardly a basis for justice. If I have to abide by the law, let
the administrator also abide by the law. She is currently claiming on her
Talk page that I have sent her nasty e-mails. I have never sent her ANY
e-mails.

I cannot refute her claim because my account is blocked. Another
administrator, User:Dweller, requested of her that my account be unblocked.
Durova's response to Dweller was that my account should not be unblocked
because I sent her nasty e-mails. But in point of fact that is 100% untrue.
I have never sent an e-mail to Durova.

Let User:Durova stick to the truth if she wants to make a case for my
account being blocked.

Bus stop
------------

From: morven(Matthew Brown)
Date: Wed, 21 Nov 2007 14:08:16 -0800
Subject: [Arbcom-l] Fwd: Wikipedia e-mail

I think it exceedingly likely that Durova is being trolled; I cannot
tell whether this 'Bus stop' is part of it, or whether people are
playing games to try and get Durova to block innocent-ish accounts.

I don't doubt Durova has received the emails; I am not so sure they
actually come from who they appear to have come from.

-Matt
------------

From: (FloNight)
Date: Wed, 21 Nov 2007 17:16:50 -0500
Subject: [Arbcom-l] Fwd: Wikipedia e-mail

If I'm reading it correctly, Durova indicates further down in the
thread in her archived talk page that most of the emails were copies
of emails that other users got and forwarded to her. This seems likely
based on the nitpicking from this user about the wording of her remark
there.

Sydney
------------

From: (Dmcdevit)
Date: Thu, 22 Nov 2007 00:00:02 -0800
Subject: [Arbcom-l] Merops ornatus - El C

Okay, I tried to give some time to wait for others to comment here
because I don't want to look like I'm on a crusade, and I'm not, but I
don't think I can keep this in anymore, especially with the recent
developments regarding Durova blocking on an "investigation" similar to
this. This so-called research by Jehochman is so flimsy it's almost
offensive. It's confirmation bias stacked on top of rhetoric.

This is serious. El C has criticized Jehochman and Durova both, and
usually rightly, for making decisions involving accusations of
wrongdoing based on little evidence and acting rashly. Of all people,
I'm probably the least likely to be agreeing with him, and not butting
heads, but on this issue he's spot on. Of course, the response is more
secret evidence sent to arbcom outright accusing El C of being some
persistent banned troll. The leap of logic chilling. While his
ridiculous block of DreamGuy and the poor response to it was bad enough,
this is massively out of line. And he has been pretending to have
reolved the issue amicably with El C all while he was preparing this
report. I've added my own snarky comments below but I would *really*
like to know what we can do about Durova/Jehochman's independent
investigations, passing around secret evidence, and blocking without and
public discussions or evidence, often mistakenly. I fear it has already
gone too far.

Jonathan Hochman wrote:
>
> There's a surprise at the end. Per El C's own disclosures, and an IM
> chat I had with Bishonen before all this started, some of El C's
> erratic behavior may be the result of a temporary medical condition.
>

Note the well-poisoning here. I don't know what erratic behavior he's
talking about (El C recently is the most sane I've seen him in a while,
if still touchy).
>
> 2. Motive - dislikes both myself and Durova.
>

This describes any number of people, and potentially me, at least, based
on what Jehochman's idea of "dislike" is.
>
> 2a. Durova:
>
> El C held a grudge against Durova from the Giovanni33-John Smith's
> case.
>
Note that no such evidence is offered. Instead, he seems to not be able
to distinguish criticism from "holding a grudge."
>
> 2b. Myself:
>
> El C has several reasons to be hostile towards me. (1) I criticized
> Bishonen for reverting a Penwhale block without proper discussion. El
> C's reaction was extremely critical.
>

Critical = hostile? Keep in mind when he says "hostile" he means that he
thinks it is bad enough for El C to create a serious of trolling
sockpuppets on open proxies to harass them. You'd think he'd have more
than that.
>
> (2) I recently blocked DreamGuy for 7 days. El C was furious.
>

Me too! Or at least, he only demonstrates critical, but not "furious"
anyway. My comments were probably not much less "furious" by his
standard than El C's.
>
> 2. See below for details on DreamGuy
>
> 2c. Durova and I don't hold grudges:
>
>
<snip self-congratulatory irrelevant goop>
>
>
> Durova also has a reputation for fairness.
>
<again>
>
>
>
> 3. Technological savvy.
>
> El C blocks many open proxies.
>

Me too!
>
>
>
>
> DreamGuy blocked for sock puppetry and edit warring, El C's response
>
>
> El C vigorously opposed the block of DreamGuy.
>

Me too!
>
> (1) I finally relented to El C's browbeating.
>

This bit is bordering on dishonesty. It was a bad block. Ill-founded and
with no evidence to support it. When El C and I pointed this out to him
on ANI, he became evasive and only barely relented to /reason/.
>
> (2) I permitted El C to unblock DreamGuy to avoid useless conflict,
>

i.e. No amount of our asking resulted in his able to give any backing
for the block, and so he backed off.
>
> *1. Browbeating and assuming bad faith*
>
> http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=...oldid=170547272
> <http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Incidents&diff=prev&oldid=170547272>
> -- "simply bizarre"
>
> El C likes to use the word "bizarre". Keep watching, it will also be
> used by the IP Editor.
>

Wow, it's such a rare and distinctive word that even _I_ used it in that
thread before the IP.
<http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Incidents&diff=prev&oldid=170681879>
I wonder if Jehochman has considered the possibility that his behavior
*is* bizarre?

> Plays dumb, refuses to follow links or see the evidence:
>
> a.
> http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=...oldid=170570542
> <http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Arbitration_enforcement&diff=prev&oldid=170570542>
>
>
> b.
> http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=...oldid=170577555
> <http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration&diff=prev&oldid=170577555>
>
>
> c.
> http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=...oldid=170578732
> <http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Suspected_sock_puppets/Dreamguy_2&diff=prev&oldid=170578732>
>
>
> d.
> http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=...oldid=170631607
> <http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Incidents&diff=170632199&oldid=170631607>
> -- "Is Jehochman playing games?"
>

Again, this is an astounding claim. El C was not playing dumb here any
more than I did. Jehochman *never,* to this day, gave any reason for the
block besides diffs from last month brought up by DreamGuy's opponent in
edit warring. He wasn't playing dumb, he was rightfully dumbfounded.
>
> http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=...oldid=170669227
> <http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk%3ADreamGuy&diff=170670174&oldid=170669227>
> --
>
> This is not a polite way to treat somebody who has backed down from an
> argument.
>

Again, guilt by exaggeration. Impoliteness does not translate to the
accusations being made, no matter how serious they are.
> ****
> I suggest we assume the most favorable set of conditions with regard
> to El C's motives. I request that the editor be subject to whatever
> temporary, hopefully voluntary controls that the committee deems
> appropriate.

This entire report was an exercise in not assuming the best of motives.
This suggestion at the end is almost comedic. I don't know if we should
simply let the open accusations stand.

Dominic
User is offlineProfile CardPM
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
MaliceAforethought
post Tue 12th July 2011, 6:49pm
Post #4


u Mad?
***

Group: Contributors
Posts: 206
Joined: Tue 21st Jun 2011, 6:54am
From: Wonderland
Member No.: 57,801



********************
*And finally, the !! block*
********************
Malice's note: Bonus points if you noticed the difference between the AC responding to the Alkivar "evidence" and the same kind of "evidence" when used against !!.


From: (Matthew Brown)
Date: Thu, 22 Nov 2007 01:18:13 -0800
Subject: [Arbcom-l] Merops ornatus - El C

I hadn't looked at this in detail yet - it was simply too much to take
in when I had read it earlier.

I do agree that this is flimsy in the extreme, and unlikely IMO.

Should someone have a word with the both of them about jumping to conclusions?

-Matt
----------

From: (Dmcdevit)
Date: Thu, 22 Nov 2007 02:07:01 -0800
Subject: [Arbcom-l] Merops ornatus - El C

Matthew Brown wrote:
> I hadn't looked at this in detail yet - it was simply too much to take
> in when I had read it earlier.
>
> I do agree that this is flimsy in the extreme, and unlikely IMO.
>
> Should someone have a word with the both of them about jumping to conclusions?
>
> -Matt
>

I'm afraid it may already be past that point. There have been
innumerable threads about different incidents related to this
"sleuthing" issue. Part of the issue seems to be that Durova's entire
image and her only real activity on Wikipedia seems to be these
investigations and tracking banned users. And her overbearing and
dismissive personality makes it hard for even reasonable people to get
through. As you probably know, Durova recently blocked an established
user, !!, who had made immense content additions, and refused to give
and reasons whatsoever on-wiki, saying she had discussed it privately
with some undisclosed people. Some of those people may be on this list.
Of course, while she may have figured out that this account is is not
new--it is the new account of {redacted WP username}, a respected former administrator
and a good writer--she never seemed to have taken the last step and
figured out just what banned user this is, and what the account did
wrong besides not being new.

She simply blocked an extremely productive user who has now left, for
now. It's not the first time
(<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:NearestAvailableNewt#Indefinite_block>
and
<http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Durova&diff=prev&oldid=171014750>)
and indeed, this troll that Jehochman accuses El C of being was
previously accused of being Greg Kohs. And there's no question that
she's doing behind-the-scenes coaching of other admins and
admin-hopefuls
(http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Durova&diff=prev&oldid=170105889)
and so I don't think it is unreasonable to be including Jehochman here.
Sometimes it is hard to tell where the one ends and the other begins.

A wide variety of trusted people are rightly concerned about all this,
and I think an arbitration case may already be int he works. Is that the
best way to solve this, or is there some other action ArbCom can do to
put an end to this?

Dominic
-----------

From: (Kirill Lokshin)
Date: Thu, 22 Nov 2007 12:04:19 -0500
Subject: [Arbcom-l] Merops ornatus - El C

On Nov 22, 2007 5:07 AM, Dmcdevit wrote:

> I'm afraid it may already be past that point. There have been
> innumerable threads about different incidents related to this
> "sleuthing" issue. Part of the issue seems to be that Durova's entire
> image and her only real activity on Wikipedia seems to be these
> investigations and tracking banned users. And her overbearing and
> dismissive personality makes it hard for even reasonable people to get
> through. As you probably know, Durova recently blocked an established
> user, !!, who had made immense content additions, and refused to give
> and reasons whatsoever on-wiki, saying she had discussed it privately
> with some undisclosed people. Some of those people may be on this list.
> Of course, while she may have figured out that this account is is not
> new--it is the new account of {redacted WP username}, a respected former administrator
> and a good writer--she never seemed to have taken the last step and
> figured out just what banned user this is, and what the account did
> wrong besides not being new.


It's all gone to hell in a handbasket, basically. If the evidence snippets
Giano posted are representative of the whole -- and I suspect they may well
be -- !! was basically blocked for knowing his way around and being helpful
(which, apparently, is an obvious sign of a ban-evading sock).

I see two major issues that we need to consider here:

1. Can we do anything about this? Coming down hard on Durova herself would
be possible, but I'm not sure that it would really solve the underlying
problem. Do we have any idea who else was involved? In the absence of any
other indication, I'd suspect that the evidence was distributed to some or
all of the people on this "Wikipedia Investigations" list we've seen
mentioned. My gut feeling is that the best thing we could do here would be
to outlaw that list specifically, and unauthorized private investigation
groups in general; but I'm not sure that we have any useful authority to do
so.

2. Do we want to act in the absence of a complaint? So far, nobody has
contacted us regarding this matter, either formally or informally. Should
we jump in with a closed investigation? Or even open a case unilaterally?

Kirill
----------

From: (Kirill Lokshin)
Date: Thu, 22 Nov 2007 13:07:19 -0500
Subject: [Arbcom-l] Merops ornatus - El C

Heh. Looks like Giano posted what appears to be the entirety of the
"evidence" (albeit briefly, as it was soon deleted by JzG):
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=...65950&diff=prev

It's nothing more than speculation and misunderstanding coupled with
monumental assumptions of bad faith; Durova's seeing a potential WR troll in
every new account, apparently.

I think we're going to have to act here.

Kirill
-----------

From: (David Gerard)
Date: Thu, 22 Nov 2007 18:13:04 +0000
Subject: [Arbcom-l] Merops ornatus - El C

On 22/11/2007, Kirill Lokshin wrote:

> Heh. Looks like Giano posted what appears to be the entirety of the
> "evidence" (albeit briefly, as it was soon deleted by JzG):
> http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=...65950&diff=prev


JzG felt that posting purported private email was pure dramatising and
also just emailed me asking if this was oversightable. I suspect not,
though I haven't answered him yet.

(This sort of thing is essentially a user-RFC with the wrong heading.
Does a witch-hunt having a lot of people along count as justification
for this sort of dramatising?)


- d.
----------

From: (Kirill Lokshin)
Date: Thu, 22 Nov 2007 13:17:27 -0500
Subject: [Arbcom-l] Merops ornatus - El C

On Nov 22, 2007 1:13 PM, David Gerard wrote:

> On 22/11/2007, Kirill Lokshin wrote:
>
> > Heh. Looks like Giano posted what appears to be the entirety of the
> > "evidence" (albeit briefly, as it was soon deleted by JzG):
> >
> http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=...65950&diff=prev
>
>
> JzG felt that posting purported private email was pure dramatising and
> also just emailed me asking if this was oversightable. I suspect not,
> though I haven't answered him yet.
>
> (This sort of thing is essentially a user-RFC with the wrong heading.
> Does a witch-hunt having a lot of people along count as justification
> for this sort of dramatising?)


The drama will keep building until something productive happens, at this
point. We need someone to bring a RFAR, really.

Kirill
----------

From: (David Gerard)
Date: Thu, 22 Nov 2007 18:20:06 +0000
Subject: [Arbcom-l] Merops ornatus - El C

On 22/11/2007, Kirill Lokshin wrote:

> The drama will keep building until something productive happens, at this
> point. We need someone to bring a RFAR, really.


Huh. Let's see.


- d.
-----------

From: (jayjg)
Date: Thu, 22 Nov 2007 14:05:50 -0500
Subject: [Arbcom-l] Merops ornatus - El C

On Nov 22, 2007 12:04 PM, Kirill Lokshin wrote:
> On Nov 22, 2007 5:07 AM, Dmcdevit wrote:
>
> > I'm afraid it may already be past that point. There have been
> > innumerable threads about different incidents related to this
> > "sleuthing" issue. Part of the issue seems to be that Durova's entire
> > image and her only real activity on Wikipedia seems to be these
> > investigations and tracking banned users. And her overbearing and
> > dismissive personality makes it hard for even reasonable people to get
> > through. As you probably know, Durova recently blocked an established
> > user, !!, who had made immense content additions, and refused to give
> > and reasons whatsoever on-wiki, saying she had discussed it privately
> > with some undisclosed people. Some of those people may be on this list.
> > Of course, while she may have figured out that this account is is not
> > new--it is the new account of {redacted WP username}, a respected former administrator
> > and a good writer--she never seemed to have taken the last step and
> > figured out just what banned user this is, and what the account did
> > wrong besides not being new.
>
> It's all gone to hell in a handbasket, basically. If the evidence snippets
> Giano posted are representative of the whole -- and I suspect they may well
> be -- !! was basically blocked for knowing his way around and being helpful
> (which, apparently, is an obvious sign of a ban-evading sock).
>
> I see two major issues that we need to consider here:
>
> 1. Can we do anything about this? Coming down hard on Durova herself would
> be possible, but I'm not sure that it would really solve the underlying
> problem. Do we have any idea who else was involved? In the absence of any
> other indication, I'd suspect that the evidence was distributed to some or
> all of the people on this "Wikipedia Investigations" list we've seen
> mentioned. My gut feeling is that the best thing we could do here would be
> to outlaw that list specifically, and unauthorized private investigation
> groups in general; but I'm not sure that we have any useful authority to do
> so.

I'm not sure of all the places she sent her evidence, but one of them
was the Cyberstalking list, apparently as a case study in how to
recognize a sockpuppet. She was correct in the sense that it was
obviously a new account of an experienced editor, but she certainly
didn't propose blocking the account on that list, much less get any
agreement for doing so.
----------

From: (Paul August)
Date: Thu, 22 Nov 2007 14:17:00 -0500
Subject: [Arbcom-l] Durova's methods

I have considerable respect for Durova, and I am convinced she has
been acting with the best of intentions, but I believe the block of
User:!! raises serious questions about Durova's methods. Whether or
not an ArbCom case is brought, I think those methods need a close
examination by us.

At my request Durova sent me a copy of the "report" she repaired on
User:!!. I have now read it and with Durova's permission I am
forwarding:

Paul August

P.S. Sorry for the unitentional double post to some.


Begin forwarded message:

> From: Durova
> Date: November 20, 2007 8:51:44 PM EST
> To: "Paul August"
> Subject: Re: Wikipedia e-mail
>
> No I didn't. I sent it to the cyberstalking mailing list. And I
> discussed it by chat and e-mail with a few other sleuths. Received
> about five responses that ranged from positive to enthusiastic.
>
> At the time when I acted I thought if any error this obvious were
> in the report, someone would have noticed it and brought it to my
> attention. Obviously that was a mistake on my part: I should have
> been more proactive. Apparently this user's original account was
> an open secret in some circles.
>
> I've pledged in future to not only route this kind of thing through
> ArbCom formally, but to let ArbCom act upon it. If I happen to
> join the Committee I'll still route it formally and I'll let
> another arbitrator act upon it, to be certain of avoiding the
> appearance of playing Judge Roy Bean.
>
> Lesson learned!
>
> -Lise
>
> On Nov 20, 2007 3:29 PM, Paul August <paulaugust.wp at gmail.com> wrote:
> Thanks. You didn't send this to the ArbCom Mailing list, before you
> blocked did you?
>
> Paul August
>
> On Nov 20, 2007, at 1:42 PM, Durova wrote:
>
> > For you, certainly. I'm ashamed of it now, and it's a good lesson
> > in humility that I actually used this as a case study. I'd been
> > trying to reverse engineer the WR playbook to spot their long term
> > socks. Obviously this system is flawed.
> >
> > Tell me if there's anything else I can say on the matter. A few of
> > the arbitrators have sent me queries in the last couple of days. I
> > made an honest mistake, thinking that I'd done adequate diligence,
> > but I hadn't considered all the angles and there were some checks I
> > could have performed better. Reversed myself in 75 minutes with
> > apologies and pledged some improvements to make sure this doesn't
> > happen again. Nobody bats .1000.
> >
> > -Lise
> > ******
> > Nobody's put their finger on this yet in a systematic way. Maybe
> > it's for lack of time; maybe people's brains are wired
> > differently. I need to show you not just what Wikipedia Review is
> > doing to us, but how they're doing it. And I'm setting this forth
> > as a brief seminar so you can do more than recognize when it's
> > presented to you; you can find these signs yourselves.
> >
> > The one thing I have to ask is that you all be very tight lipped
> > about this.
> >
> > First, the good news:
> >
> > 1. They're working from the same playbook.
> > 2. They don't know this list exists.
> > http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=...Administrators%
> > 27_noticeboard/Incidents&diff=167325580&oldid=167325471
> >
> > Now, the case study:
> >
> > Here's a troublemaker whose username is two exclamation points with
> > no letters. !!
> >
> > It's what I would call "ripened sock" - a padded history of
> > redirects, minor edits, and some DYK work. Some of the folks at WR
> > do this to game the community's good faith. I can tell immediately
> > that it's not the user's first account. Soon you'll see the
> > telltale signs as quickly as I do.
> >
> > A. In their efforts to deceive us, they forget that new users
> > haven't learned edit summaries and wikimarkup.
> > Edit summary on the first edit:
> > http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?
> > title=Jack_Kerr&diff=prev&oldid=141874955
> >
> > Correct use of page links on the second edit:
> > http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?
> > title=Ben_Brocklehurst&diff=prev&oldid=141877151
> >
> > Knows how to create line references on the third edit:
> > http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?
> > title=Claude_Pompidou&diff=prev&oldid=142914869
> >
> > Creates an appropriately formatted stub on the fourth edit:
> > http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?
> > title=Colin_Rimer&diff=prev&oldid=142927003
> >
> > B. They do wikignome work far too early in the account history to
> > be genuine wikignomes. The purpose is to pad the account history
> > with a track record of positive contributions that will insulate
> > them against the banhammer later on.
> > Redirects a page on the seventh edit:
> > http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=%C3%8Ele-St-
> > Louis&diff=prev&oldid=144015208
> >
> > This user favors redirects and stub creations. Others do RC patrol
> > or copyediting. They continue for days, weeks, or perhaps a few
> > months playing "useful editor."
> >
> > C. Many of them tip their hands occasionally during the preparation
> > phase.
> > Obscene trolling; knows German:
> > http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php ?
> > title=User_talk:Academic_Challenger&diff=prev&oldid=156788817
> >
> > This user slips for the joy of trolling. Others let down their
> > guard momentarily for WR-related incidents. Look for behavior that
> > seems out of character such as a sudden cluster of talk page posts
> > or odd edit summaries.
> >
> > D. They are team players.
> > Here's the sock moving all of Giano's talk archives. No stranger
> > is this much of a good Samaritan.
> > http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?
> > title=User_talk:Giano_II&diff=prev&oldid=162747326
> >
> > Now the moves.
> > http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=...iano_archive_5_
> > %282006%29&diff=prev&oldid=163062162
> > http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=..._talk:Giano_II/
> > archive_5&diff=prev&oldid=163062161
> > http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=...iano_archive_6_
> > %282007%29&diff=prev&oldid=163062164
> > http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=..._talk:Giano_II/
> > archive_6&diff=prev&oldid=163062163
> > http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=...iano_archive_7_
> > %282007%29&diff=prev&oldid=163062167
> > http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=..._talk:Giano_II/
> > archive_7&diff=prev&oldid=163062166
> > http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User:Giano_II/
> > archive_4&diff=prev&oldid=163062248
> > http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=..._talk:Giano_II/
> > archive_4&diff=prev&oldid=163062247
> > http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User:Giano_II/
> > archive_3&diff=prev&oldid=163062253
> > http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=..._talk:Giano_II/
> > archive_3&diff=prev&oldid=163062252
> > http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User:Giano_II/
> > archive_2&diff=prev&oldid=163062257
> > http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=..._talk:Giano_II/
> > archive_2&diff=prev&oldid=163062256
> > http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=..._talk:Giano_II/
> > archive_1&diff=prev&oldid=163062262
> > http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User:Giano_II/
> > archive_1&diff=prev&oldid=163062263
> >
> > E. They grow bold when they believe the account has ripened into
> > the appearance of a legitimate editor.
> > I doubt Bishonen knew what this account really was. By now it
> > looks legit to most editors. The nasty side shows itself, though:
> > http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?
> > title=User_talk:Bishonen&diff=prev&oldid=162335262
> >
> > F. When the sock is fully ripened it heads over to disputes and
> > takes extremist positions for no apparent reason.
> > This rocket-to-the-sky pattern among ripened socks contrasts
> > against sincere but troubled editors, who follow an arc with some
> > visible cause and effect.
> >
> > For contrast:
> > A regular problem editor will decide Wikipedia has problems after
> > breaking 3RR and getting turned down for an unblock request.
> > A ripened sock heads doesn't need to be coaxed to the dark side; it
> > just heads over to a discussion and screams foul while its own
> > reputation is clean as a whistle.
> > So by the time Jimbo does something controversial, most Wikipedians
> > don't get more than a sense of vague unease about this account's
> > behavior. The sock is fully ripened, the account well established,
> > and the troll has teammates to create or obstruct consensus if
> > anyone intervenes. I have a hunch the skilled trolls wait for
> > events that they know will cause a lot of flurried attention onsite
> > so the sudden launching of full implementation is less likely to be
> > noticed in the crowd.
> >
> > Here's the sock helping the team, along with some free range
> > sarcasm and troublemaking:
> > http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?
> > title=Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration&diff=prev&oldid=168176874
> > http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=...Administrators%
> > 27_noticeboard/Incidents/
> > My_desysop_of_Zscout370&diff=prev&oldid=168213973
> > http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?
> > title=Wikipedia_talk:Wikipedia_Signpost&diff=prev&oldid=168209114
> > http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?
> > title=Wikipedia_talk:Requests_for_comment/
> > Jimbo_Wales&diff=prev&oldid=168487235
> > http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php ?
> > title=User_talk:Penwhale&diff=prev&oldid=168631084
> >
> > G Many trolls can't resist the temptation to gloat.
> > Still doubt me?
> > http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?
> > title=User_talk:Llywrch&diff=prev&oldid=168171012
> >
> >
> > Looking ahead:
> > Foremost, please keep mum! Many of these mistakes can be corrected
> > and these people are very patient. They will change tactics and
> > get even more careful if they realize how we spot them.
> >
> >
> > -Durova
> >
> > On Nov 20, 2007 9:21 AM, Paul August wrote:
> > Hi Durova
> >
> > Could you please send me a copy of your "report" on User:!! ?
> >
> > Thanks
> >
> > Paul August
-----------

From: (Kirill Lokshin)
Date: Thu, 22 Nov 2007 14:28:05 -0500
Subject: [Arbcom-l] Durova's methods

On Nov 22, 2007 2:17 PM, Paul August wrote:

> I have considerable respect for Durova, and I am convinced she has
> been acting with the best of intentions, but I believe the block of
> User:!! raises serious questions about Durova's methods. Whether or
> not an ArbCom case is brought, I think those methods need a close
> examination by us.


The assumption underlying this entire report is that a new account with an
obviously experienced user behind it is always bad. If it's being
disruptive, it's a WR troll; if it's *not* being disruptive, it's a WR troll
trying to build up a reputation. This is more akin to the old method of
finding a witch by seeing if she floats than anything I'd expect to see in a
serious investigation.

Kirill
-----------

From: (jayjg)
Date: Thu, 22 Nov 2007 15:31:51 -0500
Subject: [Arbcom-l] Merops ornatus - El C

On Nov 22, 2007 1:20 PM, David Gerard wrote:
> On 22/11/2007, Kirill Lokshin wrote:
>
> > The drama will keep building until something productive happens, at this
> > point. We need someone to bring a RFAR, really.
>
>
> Huh. Let's see.

Giano's going wild. He's reposted the e-mail on his Talk: page, and
highlighted it in some color I'm having trouble naming - peach
perhaps?
-----------

From: (David Gerard)
Date: Thu, 22 Nov 2007 20:34:16 +0000
Subject: [Arbcom-l] Merops ornatus - El C

On 22/11/2007, jayjg wrote:
> On Nov 22, 2007 1:20 PM, David Gerard wrote:
> > On 22/11/2007, Kirill Lokshin wrote:

> > > The drama will keep building until something productive happens, at this
> > > point. We need someone to bring a RFAR, really.

> > Huh. Let's see.

> Giano's going wild. He's reposted the e-mail on his Talk: page, and
> highlighted it in some color I'm having trouble naming - peach
> perhaps?


Has the document been certified undoctored by the original sender?
Giano's track record on post-editing earth-shattering revelations is
not great.


- d.
-----------

From: (jayjg)
Date: Thu, 22 Nov 2007 15:39:49 -0500
Subject: [Arbcom-l] Merops ornatus - El C

On Nov 22, 2007 3:34 PM, David Gerard wrote:
>
> On 22/11/2007, jayjg wrote:
> > On Nov 22, 2007 1:20 PM, David Gerard wrote:
> > > On 22/11/2007, Kirill Lokshin wrote:
>
> > > > The drama will keep building until something productive happens, at this
> > > > point. We need someone to bring a RFAR, really.
>
> > > Huh. Let's see.
>
> > Giano's going wild. He's reposted the e-mail on his Talk: page, and
> > highlighted it in some color I'm having trouble naming - peach
> > perhaps?
>
>
> Has the document been certified undoctored by the original sender?
> Giano's track record on post-editing earth-shattering revelations is
> not great.

I'm not sure, but Paul has posted a version to this list, so you could compare.

Giano's conducting a Grand Inquisition here
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Adm...urova_subthread
and possibly other places.
-----------

From: dmcdevit at cox.net (Dmcdevit)
Date: Thu, 22 Nov 2007 12:42:21 -0800
Subject: [Arbcom-l] Merops ornatus - El C

Kirill Lokshin wrote:
>
> The drama will keep building until something productive happens, at
> this point. We need someone to bring a RFAR, really.
>
> Kirill

I think I would be willing to do this, if I knew that it was going to be
accepted. A rejected case sitting around will just be more drama though.
Shall I?

Dominic
Malice's note: Nothing to see here. This certainly isn't anything like gaming the system and off-wiki coordination. Of course not.
-----------

From: (Paul August)
Date: Thu, 22 Nov 2007 15:43:47 -0500
Subject: [Arbcom-l] Merops ornatus - El C

On Nov 22, 2007, at 3:34 PM, David Gerard wrote:

> On 22/11/2007, jayjg wrote:
>> On Nov 22, 2007 1:20 PM, David Gerard wrote:
>>> On 22/11/2007, Kirill Lokshin wrote:
>
>>>> The drama will keep building until something productive happens,
>>>> at this
>>>> point. We need someone to bring a RFAR, really.
>
>>> Huh. Let's see.
>
>> Giano's going wild. He's reposted the e-mail on his Talk: page, and
>> highlighted it in some color I'm having trouble naming - peach
>> perhaps?
>
>
> Has the document been certified undoctored by the original sender?
> Giano's track record on post-editing earth-shattering revelations is
> not great.

You are free to compare it with the copy of it that I forwarded to
the list earlier today. They seem identical to me.

Paul August
-----------

From: (Kirill Lokshin)
Date: Thu, 22 Nov 2007 16:05:55 -0500
Subject: [Arbcom-l] Merops ornatus - El C

On Nov 22, 2007 3:42 PM, Dmcdevit wrote:

> Kirill Lokshin wrote:
> >
> > The drama will keep building until something productive happens, at
> > this point. We need someone to bring a RFAR, really.
> >
> > Kirill
>
> I think I would be willing to do this, if I knew that it was going to be
> accepted. A rejected case sitting around will just be more drama though.
> Shall I?


Can't speak for anyone else, obviously, but I'd be all for this.

Kirill
----------

From: (Paul August)
Date: Thu, 22 Nov 2007 16:19:08 -0500
Subject: [Arbcom-l] Merops ornatus - El C

On Nov 22, 2007, at 3:42 PM, Dmcdevit wrote:

> Kirill Lokshin wrote:
>>
>> The drama will keep building until something productive happens, at
>> this point. We need someone to bring a RFAR, really.
>>
>> Kirill
>
> I think I would be willing to do this, if I knew that it was going
> to be
> accepted. A rejected case sitting around will just be more drama
> though.
> Shall I?
>
> Dominic

I am very concerned about the investigations and blocks carried out
by Jehochman and Durova (for Durova please see the "Durova's methods"
thread). What would the scope of the case you are considering
presenting be?

Paul August
-----------

From: (Kirill Lokshin)
Date: Thu, 22 Nov 2007 16:25:06 -0500
Subject: [Arbcom-l] Merops ornatus - El C

On Nov 22, 2007 4:19 PM, Paul August wrote:

>
> On Nov 22, 2007, at 3:42 PM, Dmcdevit wrote:
>
> > Kirill Lokshin wrote:
> >>
> >> The drama will keep building until something productive happens, at
> >> this point. We need someone to bring a RFAR, really.
> >>
> >> Kirill
> >
> > I think I would be willing to do this, if I knew that it was going
> > to be
> > accepted. A rejected case sitting around will just be more drama
> > though.
> > Shall I?
> >
> > Dominic
>
> I am very concerned about the investigations and blocks carried out
> by Jehochman and Durova (for Durova please see the "Durova's methods"
> thread). What would the scope of the case you are considering
> presenting be?


I think this would essentially be a "figure out what's going on" case.
Trying to specify an exact scope before we have all the information is
probably going to be counterproductive.

Kirill
----------

From: (Paul August)
Date: Thu, 22 Nov 2007 16:33:52 -0500
Subject: [Arbcom-l] Merops ornatus - El C

On Nov 22, 2007, at 12:04 PM, Kirill Lokshin wrote:

> If the evidence snippets Giano posted are representative of the
> whole -- and I suspect they may well be -- !! was basically blocked
> for knowing his way around and being helpful (which, apparently, is
> an obvious sign of a ban-evading sock).

As I've now posted to the list, the complete text of Durova's report,
you can now confirm for yourself that Giano's snippets are
representitive.

Paul August
----------

From: (Paul August)
Date: Thu, 22 Nov 2007 16:36:53 -0500
Subject: [Arbcom-l] Merops ornatus - El C

On Nov 22, 2007, at 4:25 PM, Kirill Lokshin wrote:

> On Nov 22, 2007 4:19 PM, Paul August wrote:
>
> On Nov 22, 2007, at 3:42 PM, Dmcdevit wrote:
>
> > Kirill Lokshin wrote:
> >>
> >> The drama will keep building until something productive happens, at
> >> this point. We need someone to bring a RFAR, really.
> >>
> >> Kirill
> >
> > I think I would be willing to do this, if I knew that it was going
> > to be
> > accepted. A rejected case sitting around will just be more drama
> > though.
> > Shall I?
> >
> > Dominic
>
> I am very concerned about the investigations and blocks carried out
> by Jehochman and Durova (for Durova please see the "Durova's methods"
> thread). What would the scope of the case you are considering
> presenting be?
>
> I think this would essentially be a "figure out what's going on"
> case. Trying to specify an exact scope before we have all the
> information is probably going to be counterproductive.

Well, with some reluctance, I would probably support such a case.

Paul August
----------

From: morven(Matthew Brown)
Date: Thu, 22 Nov 2007 15:53:12 -0800
Subject: [Arbcom-l] Merops ornatus - El C


On Nov 22, 2007 11:05 AM, jayjg wrote:
> I'm not sure of all the places she sent her evidence, but one of them
> was the Cyberstalking list, apparently as a case study in how to
> recognize a sockpuppet. She was correct in the sense that it was
> obviously a new account of an experienced editor, but she certainly
> didn't propose blocking the account on that list, much less get any
> agreement for doing so.

I agree with jay's account of this. I'm on the WP-investigations list
(as much to keep tabs on them as anything else) and not much
discussion happened there either. I feel Durova interpreted silence
as agreement, rather than simply most people not having the time or
inclination to check it all out.

Durova may have taken this in private to others, but I'm not aware of any.

She has mentioned before getting leads from people supposedly inside
the Wikipedia Review cabal. I feel that she's being played; they've
probably fed her some deliberate 'good' leads over time, just to set
her up to do some spectacularly wrong things.

-Matt
-----------

From: (Charles Ainsworth)
Date: Thu, 22 Nov 2007 19:05:47 -0800 (PST)
Subject: [Arbcom-l] Use of Oversight on Durova's discussion page

Could someone with Oversight authority go to this
page:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Adm...ighted_edits.3F


and post the name of the oversight admin who used the
oversight function on Giano's edits on that page?
There's some question as to whether the oversight
function was used appropriately for the situation.
Thank you,

Chuck
Wikipedia user: Cla68
-----------

From: morven (Matthew Brown)
Date: Thu, 22 Nov 2007 20:00:48 -0800
Subject: [Arbcom-l] Use of Oversight on Durova's discussion page

It does sound as if these oversights were outside of policy. OTOH,
I'm not sure handing a head on a platter to Giano and Cla68 does
anyone any good.

-Matt
-----------

From: (Fred Bauder)
Date: Thu, 22 Nov 2007 23:10:07 -0500 (EST)
Subject: [Arbcom-l] Use of Oversight on Durova's discussion page

Blnguyen, but it is pretty ugly shit that Giano posted.

Fred
-----------

From: (Paul August)
Date: Thu, 22 Nov 2007 23:30:20 -0500
Subject: [Arbcom-l] Use of Oversight on Durova's discussion page

On Nov 22, 2007, at 11:10 PM, Fred Bauder wrote:

> Blnguyen, but it is pretty ugly shit that Giano posted.

Giano posted Durova's "evidence". I wouldn't call her evidence "ugly
shit", but it is clearly flimsy and unconvincing.

Paul August
------------

From: (Blnguyen)
Date: Fri, 23 Nov 2007 15:19:29 +1030
Subject: [Arbcom-l] Use of Oversight on Durova's discussion page

I've always usually oversighted emails. That's ok isn't it?

On Nov 23, 2007 3:00 PM, Paul August wrote:
>
> On Nov 22, 2007, at 11:10 PM, Fred Bauder wrote:
>
> > Blnguyen, but it is pretty ugly shit that Giano posted.
>
> Giano posted Durova's "evidence". I wouldn't call her evidence "ugly
> shit", but it is clearly flimsy and unconvincing.
>
> Paul August
-----------

From: (Blnguyen)
Date: Fri, 23 Nov 2007 17:13:16 +1030
Subject: [Arbcom-l] Use of Oversight on Durova's discussion page

Ok, I read the oversight policy again and yes, the oversight does not
fall in the official scope of the oversighting policy. I instinctively
oversighted the last time emails were published on an arb case
[against the banner telling people not to do so] and instinctively did
so again. I should have acquainted myself with the rules more
thoroughly and thus am accountable for my error. If I get sent to work
on CSD and image deletion for a while for my errors, then so be it.

As to whether this is abuse on my part, I think that my record on-wiki
shows that I am a strong admirer of !! and his previous reincarnation,
with whom I worked happily at DYK and who copyedited my FAs over the
last 18 months, so I think I can say with a clear conscience that I
did not oversight the revisions in question to cover up Durova's
unfortunate mistake on !!.

Thanks,
-----------

From: morven (Matthew Brown)
Date: Thu, 22 Nov 2007 23:00:00 -0800
Subject: [Arbcom-l] Use of Oversight on Durova's discussion page

If you post on that thread saying what you did and why I will back you
up and I'm sure others will.

-Matt
User is offlineProfile CardPM
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
thekohser
post Tue 12th July 2011, 6:53pm
Post #5


Member
*********

Group: Regulars
Posts: 10,274
Joined: Thu 1st Feb 2007, 10:21pm
Member No.: 911



Wow, what a bunch of lunatics. Durova's so worked up that an IP in Seattle could possibly be me, because it's a Comcast IP, and I work for Comcast, and I'm so smart that I just might be able to "spoof" the IP address, not considering that (at the time) Comcast had about 14 million residential households as customers.

Hochman is off his rocker. He called this offer to barter services a "bribe" and "bribery":
QUOTE
Jonathan, before we get into an all-out war on that blog post
about editing Wikipedia, might I offer a truce? Your website here is full
of typos and grammatical errors. I could help you copyedit the entire site.
Gratis. You'd owe me nothing in return. Unless, you'd feel compelled
to help me understand how/why Google is picking up (Centiare or Wikipedia Review) pages so
relatively well, and (more importantly) how we could get them even stronger.
I'm not a "bad guy", and I can easily see you're not, either.


Then he calls for Viridae to have his administrator's bit reconsidered, all for the high crime of... wait for it... TALKING to me!

This is probably the best leak yet, as it shows how two smart people -- Lise Broer and Jonathan Hochman -- went bonkers in the service of Wikipedia.

Hey, Malice... how come this didn't come up when you did your much earlier search for "Kohs-related" messages?


And there's still this classic from Durova:
QUOTE
Nobody bats .1000.


Actually, Lise, just about everybody from Little League on up to MLB bats at least .1000.

This post has been edited by thekohser: Tue 12th July 2011, 6:57pm
User is offlineProfile CardPM
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
MaliceAforethought
post Tue 12th July 2011, 8:14pm
Post #6


u Mad?
***

Group: Contributors
Posts: 206
Joined: Tue 21st Jun 2011, 6:54am
From: Wonderland
Member No.: 57,801



From: (Dmcdevit)
Date: Thu, 22 Nov 2007 23:38:04 -0800
Subject: [Arbcom-l] Durova + Jehochman arbitration

<changing topic>

Paul August wrote:
> On Nov 22, 2007, at 3:42 PM, Dmcdevit wrote:
>
>
>> Kirill Lokshin wrote:
>>
>>> The drama will keep building until something productive happens, at
>>> this point. We need someone to bring a RFAR, really.
>>>
>>> Kirill
>>>
>> I think I would be willing to do this, if I knew that it was going
>> to be
>> accepted. A rejected case sitting around will just be more drama
>> though.
>> Shall I?
>>
>> Dominic
>>
>
> I am very concerned about the investigations and blocks carried out
> by Jehochman and Durova (for Durova please see the "Durova's methods"
> thread). What would the scope of the case you are considering
> presenting be?
>

I suppose I should lay out the recent occurrences, note that there are
more reports and evidence of Durova's and Jehochman's methods that
ArbCom and I know of privately, and, given all of the problems we've
been discussing and the community's lack of useful signal-to-noise ratio
for sensational cases like this, ask that ArbCom resolve it. Sound good?

Dominic
-----------

From dmcdevit at cox.net Fri Nov 23 08:08:49 2007
From: dmcdevit at cox.net (Dmcdevit)
Date: Fri, 23 Nov 2007 00:08:49 -0800
Subject: [Arbcom-l] Durova + Jehochman arbitration
In-Reply-To: <4746835C.7010901@cox.net>
References: <473C3328.3070904@jehochman.com> <47453702.20409@cox.net> <42f90dc00711220118i371f28cen1c5ee2619e9755a1@mail.gmail.com> <474554C5.1030601@cox.net> <3f797b9a0711220904l763cebc6kd0ab817cb279ba04@mail.gmail.com> <3f797b9a0711221007g43589464pd6885b01c48da5d7@mail.gmail.com> <fbad4e140711221013k592b7f03o353ceff5d9b40c06@mail.gmail.com> <3f797b9a0711221017m74f09da4jbf15dc6a053a9d6f@mail.gmail.com> <4745E9AD.1000003@cox.net> <B601A437-4805-4F7F-BC28-C153F1A0A250@gmail.com>
<4746835C.7010901@cox.net>
Message-ID: <47468A91.1060601@cox.net>

Also, as an addendum, I wasn't sure whether to include Jehochman or not
but had that concern resolved as I was writing the previous email.
Jehocham messaged me on IRC to ask about a checkuser for a troll. Seemed
fine enough, happens to me a lot, and the account was indeed suspicious.
(User:CygnetSaIad, involved in the Durova RFC and other drama
immediately after creation, but I couldn't immediately figure out the
culprit.) It wasn't obvious from the checkuser, so I asked if he had a
suspect; if it was a known Australian, that would be a very good lead,
and anyone else... it would be much easier to check against a suspect
than searching entire ISPs for old banned users.

His suspect was, amazingly, Giano. Say what you will about Giano or El
C, but neither of them have any reason to be primary suspects in these
troll investigations. It's insane.

<Jehochman> The account that started the Durova RFC is an
admitted sock:
<Jehochman>
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=...&oldid=76947478
<Dmcsleep> Hm. Do you have any suspects?
<Jehochman> Giano II is one suspect.
<Dmcsleep> what?
<Jehochman> I don't want to go on a fishing expedition.
<Jehochman> What do I need to provide to do this properly. Please
bear with me I am inexperienced.
* Dmcsleep sighs.
<Jehochman> Giano II posted material today that had to be
oversighted. After that happened, he disappeared, and this sock started
the RFC on Durova.
<Dmcsleep> Do you seriously suspect one of the most experienced
and productive writers on Wikipedia of creating a disruptive sockpuppet?
On what grounds? It's a serious accusation, even if you are making it
casually, which is a bit disheartening.
<Jehochman> The sock shows tremendous familiarity and experience
with Wikipedia. It's a senior editor. The sock started 21 September
2006. It's been around.
<Jehochman> I am fitting the profile, and the motive with the
available suspects.
<Jehochman> This is not an easy investigation. I wish I had
another suspect, but I don't.

After this I basically tried to give him a reality check and told him to
try to stick to articles for a bit. We'll see.

Dominic
------------

From: (David Gerard)
Date: Fri, 23 Nov 2007 08:11:33 +0000
Subject: [Arbcom-l] Durova + Jehochman arbitration

On 23/11/2007, Dmcdevit wrote:


> <Jehochman> Giano II posted material today that had to be
> oversighted. After that happened, he disappeared, and this sock started
> the RFC on Durova.
> <Dmcsleep> Do you seriously suspect one of the most experienced
> and productive writers on Wikipedia of creating a disruptive sockpuppet?
> On what grounds? It's a serious accusation, even if you are making it
> casually, which is a bit disheartening.


Uh, last time there was ArbCom drama involving Giano II, I looked and
found a couple of alternate accounts that he was playing silly buggers
on talk pages with. So, not so far fetched.


- d.
-----------

From: (Matthew Brown)
Date: Fri, 23 Nov 2007 00:30:27 -0800
Subject: [Arbcom-l] Durova + Jehochman arbitration

On Nov 23, 2007 12:11 AM, David Gerard wrote:
> Uh, last time there was ArbCom drama involving Giano II, I looked and
> found a couple of alternate accounts that he was playing silly buggers
> on talk pages with. So, not so far fetched.

I wouldn't be surprised either. However, one should really have
ironclad evidence before saying anything.

-Matt
------------

From: (charles.r.matthews)
Date: Fri, 23 Nov 2007 12:12:21 +0000
Subject: [Arbcom-l] Durova + Jehochman arbitration

On a tangent - but I have been very concerned about mission creep at WP:COI, where the same pair are apparently arguing rather instrumentally about the "conflict of interest" guideline.

Charles
------------

From: (Jimmy Wales)
Date: Fri, 23 Nov 2007 08:54:06 -0500
Subject: [Arbcom-l] Use of Oversight on Durova's discussion page

If it isn't within Oversight policy as currently stated, it should be.

--Jimbo
-----------

From: (James Forrester)
Date: Fri, 23 Nov 2007 14:44:36 +0000
Subject: [Arbcom-l] Merops ornatus - El C

On 22/11/2007, jayjg wrote:
> I'm not sure of all the places she sent her evidence, but one of them
> was the Cyberstalking list

Sorry, forgive me... did I miss some announcement? This is the first
I've heard of a list devoted to cyber-stalking (presumably from
context as part of the Wikimedia community, but not an open list).
What is it's membership? I'd imagine that I'd be quite interested in
participating.

Yrs,
--
James D. Forrester
------------

From: (jayjg)
Date: Fri, 23 Nov 2007 09:47:17 -0500
Subject: [Arbcom-l] Use of Oversight on Durova's discussion page

Cla68 is an unusual case; a good article writer who is also a complete
and utter troll. He regularly proxies for Bagley and WR, but his other
contributions are impossible to ignore. It's hard to know what to do
with him, but giving into his demands to know who oversighted what
surely isn't one of them. The oversight logs were made private for a
good reason, and that hasn't changed.

On Nov 22, 2007 11:00 PM, Matthew Brown wrote:
> It does sound as if these oversights were outside of policy. OTOH,
> I'm not sure handing a head on a platter to Giano and Cla68 does
> anyone any good.
>
> -Matt
-----------

From: (jayjg)
Date: Fri, 23 Nov 2007 09:51:39 -0500
Subject: [Arbcom-l] Merops ornatus - El C

On Nov 23, 2007 9:44 AM, James Forrester wrote:
> On 22/11/2007, jayjg wrote:
> > I'm not sure of all the places she sent her evidence, but one of them
> > was the Cyberstalking list
>
> Sorry, forgive me... did I miss some announcement? This is the first
> I've heard of a list devoted to cyber-stalking (presumably from
> context as part of the Wikimedia community, but not an open list).
> What is it's membership? I'd imagine that I'd be quite interested in
> participating.
>
> Yrs,
> --
> James D. Forrester
> jdforrester at wikimedia.org | jdforrester at gmail.com
> [[Wikipedia:User:Jdforrester|James F.]]

I don't know the full membership. SlimVirgin is the moderator, you
could write her.
------------

From: (David Gerard)
Date: Fri, 23 Nov 2007 15:07:28 +0000
Subject: [Arbcom-l] Merops ornatus - El C

On 23/11/2007, James Forrester wrote:

> Sorry, forgive me... did I miss some announcement? This is the first
> I've heard of a list devoted to cyber-stalking (presumably from
> context as part of the Wikimedia community, but not an open list).
> What is it's membership? I'd imagine that I'd be quite interested in
> participating.


Remember that big cc list a couple of months ago about cyberstalking,
that arbcom-l was added to? It was made into a proper list and the
arbcom were invited if they wished.


- d.
-----------

From: (James Forrester)
Date: Fri, 23 Nov 2007 15:44:05 +0000
Subject: [Arbcom-l] Merops ornatus - El C

On 23/11/2007, David Gerard wrote:
> On 23/11/2007, James Forrester wrote:
>
> > Sorry, forgive me... did I miss some announcement? This is the first
> > I've heard of a list devoted to cyber-stalking (presumably from
> > context as part of the Wikimedia community, but not an open list).
> > What is it's membership? I'd imagine that I'd be quite interested in
> > participating.
>
> Remember that big cc list a couple of months ago about cyberstalking,
> that arbcom-l was added to? It was made into a proper list and the
> arbcom were invited if they wished.

Oh. Well, I wasn't invited (or CC'ed in on the long sequence of
e-mails, for that matter). Perhaps it was an oversight. Will contact
Sarah.

Yrs,
--
James D. Forrester
-----------

From: (Jimmy Wales)
Date: Fri, 23 Nov 2007 11:05:51 -0500
Subject: [Arbcom-l] Use of Oversight on Durova's discussion page

The oversighter in question owned up to it on wiki so it ends up being a
dead letter anyway.

jayjg wrote:
> Cla68 is an unusual case; a good article writer who is also a complete
> and utter troll. He regularly proxies for Bagley and WR, but his other
> contributions are impossible to ignore. It's hard to know what to do
> with him, but giving into his demands to know who oversighted what
> surely isn't one of them. The oversight logs were made private for a
> good reason, and that hasn't changed.
>
> On Nov 22, 2007 11:00 PM, Matthew Brown <morven> wrote:
>> It does sound as if these oversights were outside of policy. OTOH,
>> I'm not sure handing a head on a platter to Giano and Cla68 does
>> anyone any good.
>>
>> -Matt
-----------

From: (jayjg)
Date: Fri, 23 Nov 2007 11:36:00 -0500
Subject: [Arbcom-l] Use of Oversight on Durova's discussion page

Regarding the oversighting, yes, regarding Cla68, no. He's back to his
usual self, making gratuitous snotty comments about the Sweet Blue
Water incident:
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=...oldid=172036189

trying to make as much drama as possible about the 75 minute Durova
blocking of !!, with 25 separate posts to this page:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Adm...ablished_editor

Threatening admins with de-sysopping and making spurious COI claims over it:
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=...oldid=173136733

Pushing for a Signpost article on it:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Wik...munity_reaction
-----------

From: (David Gerard)
Date: Fri, 23 Nov 2007 16:45:14 +0000
Subject: [Arbcom-l] Use of Oversight on Durova's discussion page

On 23/11/2007, jayjg wrote:

> Regarding the oversighting, yes, regarding Cla68, no. He's back to his
> usual self, making gratuitous snotty comments about the Sweet Blue


Material for an arbitration case? Suggested penalty: no edits to
Wikipedia: page space for a year.


- d.
-----------

From: (Cary Bass)
Date: Fri, 23 Nov 2007 12:45:58 -0500
Subject: [Arbcom-l] Giano II

I will be blocking Giano II if he continues to replace Durova's letter
on his user page. He's way over the line with civility, and he's
trolling. I'm doing my best to try to cool down a very bad and
polarizing situation; and he's making the situation indefinitely worse.

--
Cary Bass
Volunteer Coordinator
-----------

From: (Matthew Brown)
Date: Fri, 23 Nov 2007 09:56:05 -0800
Subject: [Arbcom-l] Giano II

Giano really, really wants to be a martyr all over again.

-Matt
-----------

From: (David Gerard)
Date: Fri, 23 Nov 2007 17:57:31 +0000
Subject: [Arbcom-l] Giano II

On 23/11/2007, Matthew Brown wrote:

> Giano really, really wants to be a martyr all over again.


This is definitely in the class of deliberate drama that's harmful to
the community.


- d.
----------

From: (David Gerard)
Date: Fri, 23 Nov 2007 17:59:09 +0000
Subject: [Arbcom-l] Giano II

On 23/11/2007, David Gerard wrote:
> On 23/11/2007, Matthew Brown wrote:

> > Giano really, really wants to be a martyr all over again.

> This is definitely in the class of deliberate drama that's harmful to
> the community.


Aaand there he goes:

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=...oldid=173316398

A Foundation block, no less.


- d.
----------

From: (jayjg)
Date: Fri, 23 Nov 2007 13:05:10 -0500
Subject: [Arbcom-l] Giano II

On Nov 23, 2007 12:59 PM, David Gerard wrote:
> On 23/11/2007, David Gerard wrote:
> > On 23/11/2007, Matthew Brown wrote:
>
> > > Giano really, really wants to be a martyr all over again.
>
> > This is definitely in the class of deliberate drama that's harmful to
> > the community.
>
>
> Aaand there he goes:
>
> http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=...oldid=173316398
>
> A Foundation block, no less.
>
>
>
> - d.

It's a terrible shame, he's a very good article writer. He reminds me
in some ways of Cla68, to be honest, except that Cla68 is malicious,
whereas Giano is hot-heated and stubborn.
----------

From: (Kirill Lokshin)
Date: Fri, 23 Nov 2007 13:08:52 -0500
Subject: [Arbcom-l] Giano II

On Nov 23, 2007 12:59 PM, David Gerard wrote:

> On 23/11/2007, David Gerard wrote:
> > On 23/11/2007, Matthew Brown wrote:
>
> > > Giano really, really wants to be a martyr all over again.
>
> > This is definitely in the class of deliberate drama that's harmful to
> > the community.
>
>
> Aaand there he goes:
>
>
> http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=...oldid=173316398
>
> A Foundation block, no less.


Not to put to fine a point on it: since when is "incivility" and "trolling"
a matter which provokes the Foundation into involving itself directly? This
block was a horrible idea; not only because it makes Giano much more of a
martyr-figure than he already was -- although that's bad enough -- but also
because turning this into a Foundation-level issue will *increase* the
drama, not decrease it.

Kirill
----------

From: (Josh Gordon)
Date: Fri, 23 Nov 2007 10:11:40 -0800
Subject: [Arbcom-l] Giano II

yeah, but we get to wash our hands of it now. Over our heads.
----------

From: (Kirill Lokshin)
Date: Fri, 23 Nov 2007 13:15:06 -0500
Subject: [Arbcom-l] Giano II

On Nov 23, 2007 1:11 PM, Josh Gordon wrote:

> yeah, but we get to wash our hands of it now. Over our heads.


I doubt it'll work out quite that well, actually. Cary may be able to crack
down brutally enough to keep a lid on things, but the WMF office isn't
really set up well to manage a community issue like this over the long term.


(Not to mention that, frankly, the idea of arbitrary WMF crackdowns becoming
a first line of defense is not one I'm particularly comfortable with.)

Kirill
----------

From: (charles.r.matthews)
Date: Fri, 23 Nov 2007 18:30:04 +0000
Subject: [Arbcom-l] Giano II

"Kirill Lokshin" wrote

> On Nov 23, 2007 1:11 PM, Josh Gordon wrote:
>
> > yeah, but we get to wash our hands of it now. Over our heads.
>
>
> I doubt it'll work out quite that well, actually. Cary may be able to crack
> down brutally enough to keep a lid on things, but the WMF office isn't
> really set up well to manage a community issue like this over the long term.
>
>
> (Not to mention that, frankly, the idea of arbitrary WMF crackdowns becoming
> a first line of defense is not one I'm particularly comfortable with.)

I was thinking of answering Jimbo's thought piece on the age limit for thoughts of my own, on the constitutional position of the AC wrt the WMF. We may be about to find out more on this than we want.

So, if Giano wants to appeal this block: can he do it direct to us? Direct to Jimbo who can ask us to take the case? Or should we suggest to Cary that we would take the case under an injunction to stop him doing the exact thing he has been?

That is assuming we don't entirely want to duck this.

Charles
----------

From: (FloNight)
Date: Fri, 23 Nov 2007 13:35:13 -0500
Subject: [Arbcom-l] Giano II

Cary already unblocked after Giano promised not to re-post it.

Sydney
----------

From: (Kirill Lokshin)
Date: Fri, 23 Nov 2007 13:54:02 -0500
Subject: [Arbcom-l] Giano II

I think the fundamental problem is that our usual lethargy has progressed to
the point that the WMF office is now moving more effectively to curb
community unrest than we are. In the long term, actions like this will give
the impression that the Committee is impotent and unable to maintain order
within the community. I think an outcome of that sort should be avoided, as
it will significantly undermine any authority we claim to hold.

As a practical matter, I think we need to develop a doctrine by which we
will take up matters unilaterally, without waiting for someone to appeal.
We have already done this, albeit in a haphazard fashion, with some issues (
e.g. pedophile advocacy); I think we now need to generalize it.

An initial idea: allow any Arbitrator to open a "request for comments"
(under the purview of the Committee) on some issue. (The terminology could
be different to avoid confusion with RFCs, I suppose.) The stated purpose
of this would be to help the Committee determine whether a full proceeding
was needed to resolve some issue. On a practical level, it would allow
discussion to centralize in a place where it could be easily contained, as
well as furthering the impression of the Committee being responsive to
community issues.

Kirill
----------

From: (charles.r.matthews)
Date: Fri, 23 Nov 2007 19:06:48 +0000
Subject: [Arbcom-l] Giano II

"Kirill Lokshin" wrote

> I think the fundamental problem is that our usual lethargy has progressed to
> the point that the WMF office is now moving more effectively to curb
> community unrest than we are.

But that's wrong. We are metaphorical magistrates, not policemen.

>In the long term, actions like this will give
> the impression that the Committee is impotent and unable to maintain order
> within the community. I think an outcome of that sort should be avoided, as
> it will significantly undermine any authority we claim to hold.

Order is maintained by admins. With 100 admins to an Arbitrator, what else?

> As a practical matter, I think we need to develop a doctrine by which we
> will take up matters unilaterally, without waiting for someone to appeal.
> We have already done this, albeit in a haphazard fashion, with some issues (
> e.g. pedophile advocacy); I think we now need to generalize it.

Trouble ahead. We should not in any case be drama-driven. That's too reactive. The pedophile thing is manageable now because it's a running cull and deliberately a bit scary for the POV pushers.

Charles
Malice's note: Ah Charles, it was a nice try mate. Too bad it didn't pan out.
----------

From: (Fred Bauder)
Date: Fri, 23 Nov 2007 14:12:53 -0500 (EST)
Subject: [Arbcom-l] Giano II

Giano's behavior is a long standing problem. Sustained successful trolling
with support. Supposedly, his contributions excuse it.

Fred
----------

From:(Fred Bauder)
Date: Fri, 23 Nov 2007 14:15:07 -0500 (EST)
Subject: [Arbcom-l] Giano II

> On Nov 23, 2007 1:11 PM, Josh Gordon wrote:
>
>> yeah, but we get to wash our hands of it now. Over our heads.
>
>
> I doubt it'll work out quite that well, actually. Cary may be able to
> crack down brutally enough to keep a lid on things, but the WMF office
> isn't really set up well to manage a community issue like this over the
> long term.
>
>
> (Not to mention that, frankly, the idea of arbitrary WMF crackdowns
> becoming a first line of defense is not one I'm particularly comfortable
> with.)
>
> Kirill

You are correct. Dealing with Giano is our job. Really, your job, I would
have banned him months ago.

Fred
----------

From: (Kirill Lokshin)
Date: Fri, 23 Nov 2007 14:16:31 -0500
Subject: [Arbcom-l] Giano II

On Nov 23, 2007 2:06 PM, <charles.r.matthews> wrote:

> "Kirill Lokshin" wrote
>
> > I think the fundamental problem is that our usual lethargy has
> progressed to
> > the point that the WMF office is now moving more effectively to curb
> > community unrest than we are.
>
> But that's wrong. We are metaphorical magistrates, not policemen.
>

It's probably not very useful to try and find an exact parallel for us at
this point. We are a dispute resolution body, yes; but, in practice, we're
also a privilege-oversight body, a take-care-of-sensitive-issues body, a
deal-with-misbehaving-admins body, and other things. I think the
expectation among the community, at least, is that our mission covers
"keeping order" in a general sense, and that we should be stepping in to
deal with major explosions of drama.


> >In the long term, actions like this will give
> > the impression that the Committee is impotent and unable to maintain
> order
> > within the community. I think an outcome of that sort should be
> avoided, as
> > it will significantly undermine any authority we claim to hold.
>
> Order is maintained by admins. With 100 admins to an Arbitrator, what
> else?
>

Admins are the first line, yes. But there's fifteen Arbitrators, and only
one Cary; by that principle, we should certainly come earlier in the chain
than the WMF.

(In all honesty, I think that any situation that forces the WMF to step into
the community-management role will be seen as a failure to maintain order on
our part, regardless of the constitutional semantics of it. And building a
reputation for such failures will severely impede our ability to operate, I
think.)


> > As a practical matter, I think we need to develop a doctrine by which we
> > will take up matters unilaterally, without waiting for someone to
> appeal.
> > We have already done this, albeit in a haphazard fashion, with some
> issues (
> > e.g. pedophile advocacy); I think we now need to generalize it.
>
> Trouble ahead. We should not in any case be drama-driven. That's too
> reactive. The pedophile thing is manageable now because it's a running cull
> and deliberately a bit scary for the POV pushers.


I think that we need to try and minimize drama, overall. Letting the
fighting go on because there's nobody to play adult on the playground
doesn't seem particularly useful, even if the alternative would be reactive.

Kirill
----------

From: (Fred Bauder)
Date: Fri, 23 Nov 2007 14:18:38 -0500 (EST)
Subject: [Arbcom-l] Giano II

>> > > Giano really, really wants to be a martyr all over again.
>>
>> > This is definitely in the class of deliberate drama that's harmful
>> to the community.
>>
>>
>> Aaand there he goes:
>>
>>
>> http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=...oldid=173316398
>>
>> A Foundation block, no less.
>
>
> Not to put to fine a point on it: since when is "incivility" and
> "trolling" a matter which provokes the Foundation into involving itself
> directly? This block was a horrible idea; not only because it makes
> Giano much more of a martyr-figure than he already was -- although
> that's bad enough -- but also because turning this into a
> Foundation-level issue will *increase* the drama, not decrease it.
>
> Kirill

The reason the Deus ex machina is in operation is because we did not deal
with him adequately. By we, I mean the entire administrative community.
He's been running wild for months.

Fred
----------

From: (Cary Bass)
Date: Fri, 23 Nov 2007 15:17:53 -0500
Subject: [Arbcom-l] Giano II

As a follow up (in case you were not already aware), Giano had promised
not to repost the letter, etc. etc. and I unblocked him and unprotected
his talk page.

Cary Bass wrote:
> I will be blocking Giano II if he continues to replace Durova's letter
> on his user page. He's way over the line with civility, and he's
> trolling. I'm doing my best to try to cool down a very bad and
> polarizing situation; and he's making the situation indefinitely worse.

--
Cary Bass
---------

From: (Paul August)
Date: Fri, 23 Nov 2007 15:29:23 -0500
Subject: [Arbcom-l] Use of Oversight on Durova's discussion page


On Nov 22, 2007, at 11:00 PM, Matthew Brown wrote:

> It does sound as if these oversights were outside of policy.

I agree.

Paul August
----------

From: (Paul August)
Date: Fri, 23 Nov 2007 15:36:32 -0500
Subject: [Arbcom-l] Use of Oversight on Durova's discussion page

Although Blnguyen use of oversight was outside policy, and as a
practical matter added to the drama level, his admission and
explanation:

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=...Administrators%
27_noticeboard/Incidents/
Indefinite_block_of_an_established_editor&diff=173242552&oldid=173233348

showed courage and was the honorable thing to do. It has helped the
situation greatly. I think he deserves a lot of credit for this
action, and our thanks.

Paul August

----------

From: (charles.r.matthews)
Date: Fri, 23 Nov 2007 20:45:11 +0000
Subject: [Arbcom-l] Giano II

"Kirill Lokshin" wrote

> I think that we need to try and minimize drama, overall. Letting the
> fighting go on because there's nobody to play adult on the playground
> doesn't seem particularly useful, even if the alternative would be reactive.

Well, we could be pro-active. Probably the most pro-active thing we could do would be to announce that we are lowering the bar for acceptance of cases, take just about anything for a couple of months, and chop off a whole lot of heads.

I will say, re Giano, that (way back when) I voted for a sanction for Giano, alongside Fred; no one else did. I got the usual Bishonen/Geogre pile-up on my Talk page, of course. And lived to tell the tale. I didn't then realise some of the background (I had only part of the Kelly+IRC picture, which was aggravating things). In order to clamp down on the "drama" that is really sporadic faction-fighting, I think we'd need a very clear of the factions we are talking about, and the objectives of a crack-down. Just being up to the hip in bans isn't a criterion of success.

Charles
----------

From: (Jimmy Wales)
Date: Fri, 23 Nov 2007 15:59:59 -0500
Subject: [Arbcom-l] Giano II

This happened before I knew about it, so it really is an "office" action.

The block was righteous, I wish that I had been the one to do it
instead, though.
----------

From: (Jimmy Wales)
Date: Fri, 23 Nov 2007 16:19:54 -0500
Subject: [Arbcom-l] Giano II

Kirill Lokshin wrote:
> It's probably not very useful to try and find an exact parallel for us
> at this point. We are a dispute resolution body, yes; but, in practice,
> we're also a privilege-oversight body, a take-care-of-sensitive-issues
> body, a deal-with-misbehaving-admins body, and other things. I think
> the expectation among the community, at least, is that our mission
> covers "keeping order" in a general sense, and that we should be
> stepping in to deal with major explosions of drama.

I am just brainstorming here because I agree with both of you.

We should be above drama, a more reflective and thoughtful body guiding
longterm policy. And we do have the generally unquestioned authority to
hand out punishments that stick, punishments that matter to people: bans
and de-adminnings.

But there is a problem with drama mongers, and it seems to me to be
getting worse rather than better, even though I am not as dire as some
people are about it. (The world of wikipedia has always been going
straight to hell in a handbasket but never quite seems to get there.)

And the admins themselves, being equal to each other by definition, are
having a hard time dealing with it. This is particular true when other
admins are involved, but it is even true when the user in question
(Giano in this instance, Dan T. is another one) is not an admin but
still a user of sufficient longstanding that an actual block is a
political act of sorts.

> (In all honesty, I think that any situation that forces the WMF to step
> into the community-management role will be seen as a failure to maintain
> order on our part, regardless of the constitutional semantics of it.
> And building a reputation for such failures will severely impede our
> ability to operate, I think.)

I agree with this completely.

> I think that we need to try and minimize drama, overall. Letting the
> fighting go on because there's nobody to play adult on the playground
> doesn't seem particularly useful, even if the alternative would be
> reactive.

Sometimes I have been accused of generating drama by stepping in firmly
to tell people to relax, including blocks and desysopping if necessary,
but I think (though I am open to other views) that on average my actions
have tended to have a calming effect, if by nothing other than shock and
awe in the worst cases. (Remember the big night of the pedophile
userbox war... at least we stopped the drama around that issue.)

Sometimes a wrong ruling is better than no ruling at all, particularly
when it is made clear that anything which is done can be undone upon
further reflection.

--Jimbo
----------

From: (Fred Bauder)
Date: Fri, 23 Nov 2007 16:25:21 -0500 (EST)
Subject: [Arbcom-l] Giano II

> "Kirill Lokshin" wrote
>
>> I think that we need to try and minimize drama, overall. Letting the
>> fighting go on because there's nobody to play adult on the playground
>> doesn't seem particularly useful, even if the alternative would be
>> reactive.
>
> Well, we could be pro-active. Probably the most pro-active thing we
> could do would be to announce that we are lowering the bar for
> acceptance of cases, take just about anything for a couple of months,
> and chop off a whole lot of heads.
>
> I will say, re Giano, that (way back when) I voted for a sanction for
> Giano, alongside Fred; no one else did. I got the usual Bishonen/Geogre
> pile-up on my Talk page, of course. And lived to tell the tale. I didn't
> then realise some of the background (I had only part of the Kelly+IRC
> picture, which was aggravating things). In order to clamp down on the
> "drama" that is really sporadic faction-fighting, I think we'd need a
> very clear of the factions we are talking about, and the objectives of a
> crack-down. Just being up to the hip in bans isn't a criterion of
> success.
>
> Charles

Success would be a change in behavior. Meat to hungry lions doesn't work
though.

Fred
----------

From: (Jimmy Wales)
Date: Fri, 23 Nov 2007 16:25:12 -0500
Subject: [Arbcom-l] Giano II

I think there is drama on all sides of several factional wars, and I
have not seen any of these factional wars where I think either side has
anything other than personal blahblahblah he said she said blahblahblah
to back themselves up.

We would want to be careful not to accidentally "take sides".

I have been wanting to issue a general announcement of a crackdown on
civility, taking out several obvious difficult users at once as a form
of "green light" for others to do the same, but have also been persuaded
that me doing it might send the opposite signal: that such actions
require an extraordinary intervention.

Giano would have been a nice test case, had it been done by an ordinary
admin, rather than Cary using his office account.


--Jimbo
User is offlineProfile CardPM
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
trenton
post Tue 12th July 2011, 8:29pm
Post #7


Member
***

Group: Contributors
Posts: 161
Joined: Fri 12th Sep 2008, 10:21pm
Member No.: 8,237



QUOTE(thekohser @ Tue 12th July 2011, 1:53pm) *

This is probably the best leak yet, as it shows how two smart people -- Lise Broer and Jonathan Hochman -- went bonkers in the service of Wikipedia.


Did you just call Durova smart?????
User is offlineProfile CardPM
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
Piperdown
post Tue 12th July 2011, 8:33pm
Post #8


Fat Cat
******

Group: Regulars
Posts: 1,613
Joined: Mon 10th Sep 2007, 3:09pm
Member No.: 2,995



QUOTE
Sometimes a wrong ruling is better than no ruling at all..
--Jimbo


A real winnner running Wikipedia.
User is offlineProfile CardPM
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
thekohser
post Tue 12th July 2011, 8:35pm
Post #9


Member
*********

Group: Regulars
Posts: 10,274
Joined: Thu 1st Feb 2007, 10:21pm
Member No.: 911



QUOTE(trenton @ Tue 12th July 2011, 4:29pm) *

QUOTE(thekohser @ Tue 12th July 2011, 1:53pm) *

This is probably the best leak yet, as it shows how two smart people -- Lise Broer and Jonathan Hochman -- went bonkers in the service of Wikipedia.


Did you just call Durova smart?????


Before Wikipedia made her bonkers, certainly.
User is offlineProfile CardPM
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
Piperdown
post Tue 12th July 2011, 8:37pm
Post #10


Fat Cat
******

Group: Regulars
Posts: 1,613
Joined: Mon 10th Sep 2007, 3:09pm
Member No.: 2,995



QUOTE
Giano's behavior is a long standing problem. Sustained successful trolling
with support. Supposedly, his contributions excuse it --- Fred



Perhaps if Giano were a batshit insane useful englishman like, uh, what was that Bicycle Helmet guy's name, he wouldn't have been blocked, but told to go on a peaceful hiatus to let his meds kick back in.

Oh yes, Guy Chapman. Almost forgot.
User is offlineProfile CardPM
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
InkBlot
post Tue 12th July 2011, 8:38pm
Post #11


Junior Member
**

Group: Contributors
Posts: 64
Joined: Fri 18th Aug 2006, 1:35pm
Member No.: 343

WP user page - talk
check - contribs



QUOTE
From: (jayjg)
Date: Fri, 23 Nov 2007 09:47:17 -0500
Subject: [Arbcom-l] Use of Oversight on Durova's discussion page

Cla68 is an unusual case; a good article writer who is also a complete
and utter troll. He regularly proxies for Bagley and WR, but his other
contributions are impossible to ignore. It's hard to know what to do
with him, but giving into his demands to know who oversighted what
surely isn't one of them.

...


It's a terrible shame, he(Giano)'s a very good article writer. He reminds me
in some ways of Cla68, to be honest, except that Cla68 is malicious,
whereas Giano is hot-heated and stubborn.


In the middle of a complete meltdown, Jayjg goes after...Cla68? Buhwaaah? Did you forget to send him a Christmas card last year or something?
User is offlineProfile CardPM
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
carbuncle
post Tue 12th July 2011, 8:38pm
Post #12


Fat Cat
******

Group: Regulars
Posts: 1,601
Joined: Sun 30th Mar 2008, 4:48pm
Member No.: 5,544



QUOTE
Jehochman routinely misunderstands, regularly opposes in places experienced
other editors don't, then proposes weak alternatives or problems that derail
the existing conversation
. I have no reason to doubt good faith, but I wish
his skills were stronger or his recognition of his need to learn was
greater. I get the impression he overrates his insight and experience.
Opposition is useful, and valid, but on policy judgements, he's weak and
doesn't seem to realize it.

A tactic that continues to work for him most of the time.
User is offlineProfile CardPM
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
Piperdown
post Tue 12th July 2011, 8:42pm
Post #13


Fat Cat
******

Group: Regulars
Posts: 1,613
Joined: Mon 10th Sep 2007, 3:09pm
Member No.: 2,995



QUOTE(thekohser @ Tue 12th July 2011, 8:35pm) *

QUOTE(trenton @ Tue 12th July 2011, 4:29pm) *

QUOTE(thekohser @ Tue 12th July 2011, 1:53pm) *

This is probably the best leak yet, as it shows how two smart people -- Lise Broer and Jonathan Hochman -- went bonkers in the service of Wikipedia.


Did you just call Durova smart?????


Before Wikipedia made her bonkers, certainly.


Scholars now believe that her idol, Joan of Arc, had temporal lobe epilepsy, also known as bonkers. Could explain much of the most dramatic activity on Wikipedia from a number of its notable admins.

QUOTE(InkBlot @ Tue 12th July 2011, 8:38pm) *

QUOTE
From: (jayjg)
Date: Fri, 23 Nov 2007 09:47:17 -0500
Subject: [Arbcom-l] Use of Oversight on Durova's discussion page

Cla68 is an unusual case; a good article writer who is also a complete
and utter troll. He regularly proxies for Bagley and WR, but his other
contributions are impossible to ignore. It's hard to know what to do
with him, but giving into his demands to know who oversighted what
surely isn't one of them.

...


It's a terrible shame, he(Giano)'s a very good article writer. He reminds me
in some ways of Cla68, to be honest, except that Cla68 is malicious,
whereas Giano is hot-heated and stubborn.


In the middle of a complete meltdown, Jayjg goes after...Cla68? Buhwaaah? Did you forget to send him a Christmas card last year or something?


The context of which is that Jayjg himself oversighted somethings he shouldn't have. Not a coincidence that these comments were directed towards those who busted him.
User is offlineProfile CardPM
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
MaliceAforethought
post Tue 12th July 2011, 8:45pm
Post #14


u Mad?
***

Group: Contributors
Posts: 206
Joined: Tue 21st Jun 2011, 6:54am
From: Wonderland
Member No.: 57,801



*******************
*Finally the Durova RfC*
*******************

From: (FloNight)
Date: Fri, 23 Nov 2007 17:28:14 -0500
Subject: [Arbcom-l] Requests_for_comment/Durova

FYI: There is an RFC against Durova. It is the first step in her
self-defined admin recall process.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Req..._comment/Durova

Makes for interesting reading.

Sydney
----------

From: mackensen(Charles Fulton)
Date: Fri, 23 Nov 2007 18:55:25 -0500
Subject: [Arbcom-l] Requests_for_comment/Durova

If I'm reading all this right, Durova told interested parties to "ask
Arbcom." As discussed elsewhere, we've reserved this sort of jack-bootery
for pedophiles and other nasty sorts, and we've usually signed off on the
block beforehand (at least via IRC). I don't believe Durova cleared this
with Arbcom beforehand; I would have been extremely hesitant to agree to
such a block given the evidence. Did Durova discuss this block with anyone
on this list, and did anyone on this list give their imprimatur as an
arbitrator?

Charles
----------

From: (Josh Gordon)
Date: Fri, 23 Nov 2007 16:55:05 -0800
Subject: [Arbcom-l] Requests_for_comment/Durova

Actually, as far as I can tell, the result she got was silence.

On Nov 23, 2007 3:55 PM, Charles Fulton <mackensen> wrote:

> If I'm reading all this right, Durova told interested parties to "ask
> Arbcom." As discussed elsewhere, we've reserved this sort of jack-bootery
> for pedophiles and other nasty sorts, and we've usually signed off on the
> block beforehand (at least via IRC). I don't believe Durova cleared this
> with Arbcom beforehand; I would have been extremely hesitant to agree to
> such a block given the evidence. Did Durova discuss this block with anyone
> on this list, and did anyone on this list give their imprimatur as an
> arbitrator?
>
> Charles
----------

From: (Jimmy Wales)
Date: Fri, 23 Nov 2007 20:58:10 -0500
Subject: [Arbcom-l] Requests_for_comment/Durova

Charles Fulton wrote:
> If I'm reading all this right, Durova told interested parties to "ask
> Arbcom." As discussed elsewhere, we've reserved this sort of
> jack-bootery for pedophiles and other nasty sorts, and we've usually
> signed off on the block beforehand (at least via IRC). I don't believe
> Durova cleared this with Arbcom beforehand; I would have been extremely
> hesitant to agree to such a block given the evidence. Did Durova discuss
> this block with anyone on this list, and did anyone on this list give
> their imprimatur as an arbitrator?

I did not, and I believe that no one did.

Here is how I see this, for what it is worth, and opinions may
legitimately vary:

1. The block was a bad block, even given the evidence.

2. The evidence is good, valid, and proved quite conclusively that the
user in question was not a newbie but rather an experienced user. The
right response to this would be alarm (!! is not exactly a soothing
username either) and then asking Jimbo or an ArbCom member to privately
contact the person for an explanation. Not a block.

3. Durova (over)acted in good faith under the influence of SlimVirgin
and other users who are hardline and (frankly) a bit paranoid about
infiltration by WR and similar trolls.

4. The block was for exactly 75 minutes. As soon as Durova realized her
mistake (quickly) she unblocked and started apologizing massively to
everyone. This is evidence of good faith.

5. I have gotten several emails about this from people who have been fed
false information... the usual nonsense. Durova allegedly libeled
people, and oversight covered it up. The usual: Jimbo has a friend who
is under special protection, admin abuse, yadda yadda yadda.

6. Durova is under no special protection from me, and I think the bad
block warrants a tiny slap on the wrist if it comes to that. A finding
of fact that the block was bad, and "Durova is to exercise caution in
similar situations in the future."

7. There has been more drama about this than is warranted, mostly
because it is a great playground for our usual drama queens.

Durova is:

a) a friend of SlimVirgin (she's a spy!) - Brandt/Wordbomb trolls
b) writing for SEO blogs (nevermind that she is publicizing the
Wikipedia party line, she's a spammer!) - Kohs trolling
c) on the "wrong side" against Giano (aieee!)

So she's managed to upset all the usual suspects.

--Jimbo
----------

From: (Jimmy Wales)
Date: Fri, 23 Nov 2007 20:59:13 -0500
Subject: [Arbcom-l] Requests_for_comment/Durova

Josh is right. She sent out the evidence, no one listened, she wrongly
took that as a greenlight.

As for me, I plead drowning. I have 953 unread emails from the
cyberstalking mailing list alone.
----------

From: (Kirill Lokshin)
Date: Fri, 23 Nov 2007 21:09:20 -0500
Subject: [Arbcom-l] Requests_for_comment/Durova

On Nov 23, 2007 8:58 PM, Jimmy Wales wrote:

> 2. The evidence is good, valid, and proved quite conclusively that the
> user in question was not a newbie but rather an experienced user. The
> right response to this would be alarm (!! is not exactly a soothing
> username either) and then asking Jimbo or an ArbCom member to privately
> contact the person for an explanation. Not a block.
>
> 3. Durova (over)acted in good faith under the influence of SlimVirgin
> and other users who are hardline and (frankly) a bit paranoid about
> infiltration by WR and similar trolls.
>

Yes, I think this is the essential practical point here. All these new
mailing lists that seem to have sprung up over the past few months are
largely self-selected in their membership, and their analysis of evidence
seems to be pretty strongly colored by the purpose of the list. They're
fine as places for discussion, but they shouldn't be treated as bodies that
apply stamps of approval to something, or that make decisions regarding
blocking and other sanctions.

7. There has been more drama about this than is warranted, mostly
> because it is a great playground for our usual drama queens.
>
> Durova is:
>
> a) a friend of SlimVirgin (she's a spy!) - Brandt/Wordbomb trolls
> b) writing for SEO blogs (nevermind that she is publicizing the
> Wikipedia party line, she's a spammer!) - Kohs trolling
> c) on the "wrong side" against Giano (aieee!)
>
> So she's managed to upset all the usual suspects.


Also, unfortunately, (d) upset !! (who happens to be a major content
producer) sufficiently that he may have left the project; so the whole
"admins are oppressing the content editors" crowd is out in force as well.

(But, really, this whole mess is basically a demonstration of how a
succession of small mistakes -- and poorly-thought-out attempts at damage
control -- can snowball into a big deal.)

Kirill
----------

From: (FloNight)
Date: Fri, 23 Nov 2007 21:27:46 -0500
Subject: [Arbcom-l] Requests_for_comment/Durova

I went back and looked after this went down.

I got the email on the mailing list the week I was on vacation with my husband.

Durova also upset some reasonable editors by her original refusal to
discuss the block on wiki, instead telling her admin peers to talk to
ArbCom.

This came across as being uncollaborative and somewhat self important,
I think. That is part of the reason that otherwise reasonable editors
were still talking about it days later.

Sydney
-----------

From: (Jimmy Wales)
Date: Fri, 23 Nov 2007 21:38:19 -0500
Subject: [Arbcom-l] Requests_for_comment/Durova

FloNight wrote:
> This came across as being uncollaborative and somewhat self important,
> I think. That is part of the reason that otherwise reasonable editors
> were still talking about it days later.

I think the word "self important" as a perception here is important.

I think there is probably a good corollary to the (content-space) old
saying of "Be bold!"

As an admin, the rule of thumb could be:

"When in doubt, do nothing. It's a wiki. You can always block them and
clean up their mess tomorrow. Sleep on it. Ask a friend."

The key here is "when in doubt". I think for all of us, when we have
made an error (my big one was Essjay) there was an alarm bell that was
not heeded. A good nights sleep and asking a friend might help.

Slow to act, quick to forgive.

--Jimbo
-----------

From: (Steve Dunlop)
Date: Fri, 23 Nov 2007 21:47:11 -0700
Subject: [Arbcom-l] Requests_for_comment/Durova

Jimbo wrote:
> The key here is "when in doubt". I think for all of us, when we have
> made an error (my big one was Essjay) there was an alarm bell that was
> not heeded. A good nights sleep and asking a friend might help.

While wise counsel in general, I disagree that this is the lesson we
should take from this.

Fundamentally, any process for identifying "sleeper trolls" -- i.e.
reincarnations of banned users, users created deliberately to game the
system, get admin status to sell on ebay, WR accounts, Bagley, etc etc
etc -- will produce false positives. There isn't enough data to get it
right, and all the checkusering and edit pattern analysis and so on is
not going to distinguish someone who edited as an anon for six weeks
before creating an account from an account being groomed.

I have made a number of mistakes in this area myself in the past. It's
amazing what you convince yourself of.

I don't think we've formed a consensus as a project that the collateral
damage done by something like what Durova is engaging in is worth it.
If we were willing to endure collateral damage on that scale, measures
such as requiring identity confirmation in certain situations (as an
example; this is not something I advocate) would be more effective in
producing a more trusted user base than engaging in pattern recognition
on the edit history.

I think we have to refocus the civility discussion on specific actions:
"here is the line, cross it at your peril." No more
Zomg!troll/karmafist/Lir/Wik/24/CheeseDreams/Bagley/whoever. For one
thing, by the time the pattern becomes clear, too much damage has been
done.

Steve
----------

From: (Dmcdevit)
Date: Sat, 24 Nov 2007 03:58:08 -0800
Subject: [Arbcom-l] Durova + Jehochman arbitration

Okay, the case is up at
<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration#Durova_and_Jehochman>.
My personal preference is that you accept the case as soon as
reasonable, to deflect the inevitable drama coming my way, but that's up
to you. ;-) I'm hoping I've framed the case well enough that it doesn't
tur out too crazily.

Dominic
-----------

From: jehochman(Jonathan Hochman)
Date: Sat, 24 Nov 2007 10:26:13 -0500
Subject: [Arbcom-l] Fwd: Wowsers

I suppose this evidence needs to be considered given the point that
JzG has made.

---------- Forwarded message ----------
From: Gregory Kohs
Date: Nov 22, 2007 11:53 PM
Subject: Wowsers
To: Jonathan Hochman, Jimmy Wales


Publishing private emails on Wikipedia without permission of the
author is a big no-no. An editor who does that may be sanctioned.
Additionally, publishing somebody's private email address so they can
be spammed or harassed may result in a siteban. A better path would be
emailing the evidence to Arbcom and asking them to review any
concerns. - Jehochman

You're pulling out all the stops, not to have your mentor Durova embarrassed.

What's Wikipedia's "no-no" policy on libeling another person by name
on site, then not providing any evidence of the claim? Recall that
Durova said I "gave misleading information to journalists" and it put
me in a fit. Her refusal to provide evidence led me to design a
campaign to discredit her modus operandi. How do you think that's
been working out for her lately?

Jonathan, I'm telling you -- you would be very wise to just put down
the shovel for a month and just watch what happens before you come
back. The hole you're in is only getting deeper. Is Wikipedia really
THIS important to you? Is being on the obviously losing side of an
argument THAT important to you?

Jimmy, I'm telling you -- when I complained back about eight months
ago (shortly after you kindly unblocked my account, and I began to
make helpful contributions to harmless articles about the Czech Air
Force, a highway in Michigan, and an Arizona performance artist) that
Durova was making falsified defamatory comments about my integrity
with journalists, you jumped to her side -- even without evidence.
Now, her evidentiary practices are being roundly LAUGHED AT (not
evaluated, mind you -- but, laughed at), and you're still coming to
her aid, and I'm stuck out in the cold, still wondering why Durova was
allowed to make libel and fraudulent claims so central a part of her
repertoire.

You've both heard my opinions multiple times. Looking at how Durova
has currently made both of you the butt of jokes, only eight months
after I complained to you about how her claims cannot be trusted, I
can only say, "I told you so."

Jimbo and Jonathan, back in August 2006, Jimmy said to me, "Greg, be
quiet for a minute, listen to me, and you might learn something." I
believe I'm now in a position to say the exact same thing to both of
you. I have several ideas that would readily improve the environment
and reputation of Wikipedia, and if you want to hear them, maybe we
could have a conference call sometime this weekend, or whenever it's
convenient for everyone.

Greg
----------

From: (Jonathan Hochman)
Date: Sat, 24 Nov 2007 13:13:10 -0500
Subject: [Arbcom-l] Just to be clear

Just to be perfectly clear in case this is not obvious already: any
and all issues I have ever had with El C are fully resolved. Please
consider my past statement withdrawn.

If anyone is concerned about anything I circulate to this private
mailing list, you can tell me to stop, and I will. Thank you.

--
Jonathan Hochman
Malice's note: Watch as the wild Jehochman attempts to backpedal and slink away when caught out of it's territory with it's arse exposed.
----------

From: (Jimmy Wales)
Date: Sat, 24 Nov 2007 17:04:36 -0500
Subject: [Arbcom-l] Requests_for_comment/Durova

Steve Dunlop wrote:
> I don't think we've formed a consensus as a project that the collateral
> damage done by something like what Durova is engaging in is worth it.

While I certainly agree with that, in reading over Dmcdevit's statement
in the Durova and Jehochman case, I wonder if I might be in the minority
on something, and ask the ArbCom to set me straight if I am wrong.

When a good user is wrongly blocked, what is the proper response from
other users (admins and non-admins)?

My view is that the best response is absolute calm. An improper block
can always be reversed, and instantly. The right thing to do is to
politely raise the concern with the blocking admin, and discuss the case
in a spirit of goodwill all around. Even the blockee and the blocker
should be expected to exhibit goodwill, a bedrock assumption that "a
mistake has been made" rather than a jump toward drama and hysteria.

In this particular case, the block was bad. Lots of things went wrong
to cause the block to be bad. She should have approached the user first
to inquire discreetly. She should have gotten approval from the ArbCom
or at least from an Arbiter or me acting independently. (I doubt any of
us would have given it, and would have of course advised talking to the
user first... if for no other reason than to glean more information first.)

But after the block was shown to be bad, instant and thorough apology
was given, the block was lifted after 75 minutes, etc.

My point is that the "collateral damage" was not from the bad block: bad
blocks are going to happen from time to time, with 1,000 admins, every
now and then one of them is going to flake and do something stupid or
angry, even the good ones.

The "collateral damage" was from the conspiracy-theorizing and drama
mongering from the usual braying crowd.

Am I in the minority here in that I view the bad block as basically no
big deal?

--Jimbo

p.s. Separately, I think the sleuthing was pretty good, other than the
assumption of bad faith that permeates it. She did find and prove quite
conclusively (and correctly) that the user was not a newbie, and the
behavior of the account is more or less exactly what we would expect of
a "sleeper" trying to get adminship. This was sufficient to raise an
eyebrow, and such users are certainly worth keeping an eye on.

In this case, if I had seen the evidence, I would have concluded that it
would be necessary to ask the user privately "what's up? obviously you
are not a newbie. no problem if you are a returning user for some
reason, do you mind telling me who?" The block was not justified, the
assumption of bad faith was not justified. But the sleuthing was pretty
good.
Malice's note: Let me see if I understand mate: harassing innocent users due to one's paranoia is "no big deal". Gotcha.
----------

From: mackensen(Charles Fulton)
Date: Sat, 24 Nov 2007 17:27:09 -0500
Subject: [Arbcom-l] Requests_for_comment/Durova

What concerns me is that Durova acted in secret, without consulting the
committee, and then when the shit justifiably hit the fan referred inquiries
to the committee! As far as I know the committee was not consulted ahead of
time, and it is my sense that if Durova had run the matter past the
committee we would have urged extreme caution. The nature of this action
dilutes the committee's authority and impairs our ability to conduct our own
investigations.

It's not just a bad block. It's a bad block that proceeded from faulty
assumptions, encouraged by an environment that I can only characterize as
amateur and paranoid, to judge by the outcomes. This is not healthy, and
this isn't the first time we've seen a bad block arise from these sorts of
circumstances.

Some people are framing the debate in terms of WR and Gregory Kohs. I
frankly couldn't care less. This isn't a war, our administrators are not
soldiers, and at the end of the day we've lost a good contributor rightly
angered at Durova's peremptory treatment of him. Yes, Durova successfully
recognized a returning account. The logical leap from returning account to
banned user is shattering. Even long-term checkusers aren't that cynical and
paranoid, although they have every reason to be.

This isn't right, and if brushed off as a one-time incident will reoccur.

Charles
----------

From: (Dmcdevit)
Date: Sat, 24 Nov 2007 14:48:57 -0800
Subject: [Arbcom-l] Requests_for_comment/Durova

Jimmy Wales wrote:
> While I certainly agree with that, in reading over Dmcdevit's statement
> in the Durova and Jehochman case, I wonder if I might be in the minority
> on something, and ask the ArbCom to set me straight if I am wrong.
>

No, I think we can agree on this.

> My view is that the best response is absolute calm. An improper block
> can always be reversed, and instantly. The right thing to do is to
> politely raise the concern with the blocking admin, and discuss the case
> in a spirit of goodwill all around. Even the blockee and the blocker
> should be expected to exhibit goodwill, a bedrock assumption that "a
> mistake has been made" rather than a jump toward drama and hysteria.
>
> In this particular case, the block was bad. Lots of things went wrong
> to cause the block to be bad. She should have approached the user first
> to inquire discreetly. She should have gotten approval from the ArbCom
> or at least from an Arbiter or me acting independently. (I doubt any of
> us would have given it, and would have of course advised talking to the
> user first... if for no other reason than to glean more information first.)
>
> But after the block was shown to be bad, instant and thorough apology
> was given, the block was lifted after 75 minutes, etc.
>
The issue is broader than this block. It has happened a lot, and it is
the result of a particular mindset that has affected Durova and others
and it seems that no matter how many past bad blocks she made (and there
were others) she just chalks is up to "false positives" and notes how
hard this sleuthing business is. She wasn't going to change her behavior
once this blew over, in my opinion. As well, having read what she said,
the closest she ever got to "thorough apology" was apologizing "for the
inconvenience" to the innocent, regular editor she had just banned
without warning as a sockpuppet of an unnamed troll.
>
> The "collateral damage" was from the conspiracy-theorizing and drama
> mongering from the usual braying crowd.
>
> Am I in the minority here in that I view the bad block as basically no
> big deal?

A bad block in isolation would not have been a big deal. I think this
one was rightly a big deal, as part of a general pattern. That doesn't
mean that the drama-mongerers weren't out in force, but there was still
substance to the complaint. I also think this block, even in isolation,
was sort of a bigger deal than most. !! turns out to be one of our more
productive and established article editors, and seems to think that his
previous username (his real name) will put him at risk if outed, and now
he has indicated his wish to leave. I don't believe he will end up
leaving for good, but it's worth considering the affects of the block
that can't be taken back.

Dominic
-----------

From: (David Gerard)
Date: Sat, 24 Nov 2007 23:23:26 +0000
Subject: [Arbcom-l] Requests_for_comment/Durova

On 24/11/2007, Dmcdevit wrote:

> A bad block in isolation would not have been a big deal. I think this
> one was rightly a big deal, as part of a general pattern. That doesn't
> mean that the drama-mongerers weren't out in force, but there was still
> substance to the complaint. I also think this block, even in isolation,
> was sort of a bigger deal than most. !! turns out to be one of our more
> productive and established article editors, and seems to think that his
> previous username (his real name) will put him at risk if outed, and now
> he has indicated his wish to leave. I don't believe he will end up
> leaving for good, but it's worth considering the affects of the block
> that can't be taken back.


The problem is that Durova's not entirely wrong. We do in actual fact
have fairly organised groups of people trying to fuck up the
encyclopedia for commercial gain. Durova's very good at spotting them.
Now, she may need to tone it down considerably, but she is not chasing
phantoms.


- d.
----------

From: (jayjg)
Date: Sat, 24 Nov 2007 19:04:27 -0500
Subject: [Arbcom-l] Requests_for_comment/Durova

> Yes, I think this is the essential practical point here. All these new
> mailing lists that seem to have sprung up over the past few months are
> largely self-selected in their membership, and their analysis of evidence
> seems to be pretty strongly colored by the purpose of the list. They're
> fine as places for discussion, but they shouldn't be treated as bodies that
> apply stamps of approval to something, or that make decisions regarding
> blocking and other sanctions.

As has been pointed out more than once, Durova got no approval to
block from *anyone* on the list.
----------

From: (Kirill Lokshin)
Date: Sat, 24 Nov 2007 19:05:10 -0500
Subject: [Arbcom-l] Requests_for_comment/Durova

On Nov 24, 2007 5:27 PM, Charles Fulton <mackensen> wrote:

> What concerns me is that Durova acted in secret, without consulting the
> committee, and then when the shit justifiably hit the fan referred inquiries
> to the committee! As far as I know the committee was not consulted ahead of
> time, and it is my sense that if Durova had run the matter past the
> committee we would have urged extreme caution. The nature of this action
> dilutes the committee's authority and impairs our ability to conduct our own
> investigations.


Yes. The block -- taken by itself -- was a big mistake; but I doubt things
would have blown up quite so spectacularly if not for Durova's misguided
insistence on not discussing anything.

Kirill
----------

From: (Kirill Lokshin)
Date: Sat, 24 Nov 2007 19:07:16 -0500
Subject: [Arbcom-l] Requests_for_comment/Durova

> > Yes, I think this is the essential practical point here. All these new
> > mailing lists that seem to have sprung up over the past few months are
> > largely self-selected in their membership, and their analysis of
> evidence
> > seems to be pretty strongly colored by the purpose of the list. They're
> > fine as places for discussion, but they shouldn't be treated as bodies
> that
> > apply stamps of approval to something, or that make decisions regarding
> > blocking and other sanctions.
>
> As has been pointed out more than once, Durova got no approval to
> block from *anyone* on the list.


That may be true, but it's not really the point I'm making. The question
shouldn't have been asked of a self-selected list in the first place.

Kirill
----------

From: (jayjg)
Date: Sat, 24 Nov 2007 19:14:01 -0500
Subject: [Arbcom-l] Requests_for_comment/Durova

> That may be true, but it's not really the point I'm making. The question
> shouldn't have been asked of a self-selected list in the first place.

I understand your point, but I don't think it's relevant in this case,
because as far as I can tell she didn't ask the "self-selected list"
anything to begin with.
----------

From: (Kirill Lokshin)
Date: Sat, 24 Nov 2007 19:18:05 -0500
Subject: [Arbcom-l] Requests_for_comment/Durova

> I understand your point, but I don't think it's relevant in this case,
> because as far as I can tell she didn't ask the "self-selected list"
> anything to begin with.

I was under the impression that her report had been distributed to one of
the new mailing lists (see also her comments about WR not knowing about the
list); but maybe I'm misunderstanding something here.

Kirill
----------

From: (jayjg)
Date: Sat, 24 Nov 2007 19:19:38 -0500
Subject: [Arbcom-l] Requests_for_comment/Durova

> I was under the impression that her report had been distributed to one of
> the new mailing lists (see also her comments about WR not knowing about the
> list); but maybe I'm misunderstanding something here.

She sent it to the list; she didn't ask the list if she should block !!
----------

From: (Kirill Lokshin)
Date: Sat, 24 Nov 2007 19:22:58 -0500
Subject: [Arbcom-l] Requests_for_comment/Durova

> She sent it to the list; she didn't ask the list if she should block !!
>

Ah, ok; I see your point now.

Kirill
-----------

From: (Jimmy Wales)
Date: Sat, 24 Nov 2007 19:36:47 -0500
Subject: [Arbcom-l] Requests_for_comment/Durova

Kirill Lokshin wrote:
> Yes. The block -- taken by itself -- was a big mistake; but I doubt
> things would have blown up quite so spectacularly if not for Durova's
> misguided insistence on not discussing anything.

Even a comment of "It looks like it could be a sleeper account by
someone who knows a lot about Wikipedia for a newbie. My block is out
of an abundance of caution, and I hope people will take this up with the
ArbCom." would have been better, yes.

It would have still been a bad move, of course.

--Jimbo
----------

From: (Jimmy Wales)
Date: Sat, 24 Nov 2007 19:40:10 -0500
Subject: [Arbcom-l] Requests_for_comment/Durova

Kirill Lokshin wrote:
> I was under the impression that her report had been distributed to one
> of the new mailing lists (see also her comments about WR not knowing
> about the list); but maybe I'm misunderstanding something here.

She sent it to the cyberstalking mailing list. I am on that list, and
it has 974 unread messages right now. So I never saw it and my guess is
that most of the people on that list find it as overwhelming as I do.

I don't think she asked that list and felt that she had approval from
that list. She sent the report, no one seemed to say anything, she took
that (for some reason) as tacit approval.

It would be fine for us to formally say that while it can in some
(rare!) cases be fine to have private evidence and to consult with the
ArbCom privately about things, particular when there is an interest in
avoiding useless public drama when one is concerned about something but
not sure... it is not ok to shovel stuff on us without warning. smile.gif
----------

From: (FloNight)
Date: Sat, 24 Nov 2007 19:13:01 -0500
Subject: [Arbcom-l] Requests_for_comment/Durova

On Nov 24, 2007 7:07 PM, Kirill Lokshin <kirill.lokshin at gmail.com> wrote:
> That may be true, but it's not really the point I'm making. The question
> shouldn't have been asked of a self-selected list in the first place.
>
> Kirill

Why? I do not agree with the idea that users should not collaborate
with each other by email. Personally, I much prefer email to IRC
channels for lengthy discussions about banned users.

Sydney
----------

From: (David Gerard)
Date: Sun, 25 Nov 2007 01:12:52 +0000
Subject: [Arbcom-l] Requests_for_comment/Durova

On 25/11/2007, FloNight <sydney.poore> wrote:
> On Nov 24, 2007 7:07 PM, Kirill Lokshin wrote:

> > That may be true, but it's not really the point I'm making. The question
> > shouldn't have been asked of a self-selected list in the first place.

> Why? I do not agree with the idea that users should not collaborate
> with each other by email. Personally, I much prefer email to IRC
> channels for lengthy discussions about banned users.


Yes. You're not going to stop editors talking to each other however
they please. The working definition of "cabal" for wikidrama queens
appears to be "group I'm not in."


- d.
----------

From: mackensen(Charles Fulton)
Date: Sat, 24 Nov 2007 20:16:12 -0500
Subject: [Arbcom-l] Durova + Jehochman arbitration

We will need to resolve this case as swiftly as possible--two to three
days--to avoid additional drama. A month-long case doesn't bear thinking.
Given sufficient evidence, I think the areas of interest are (1)
administrative discussion, (2) secret evidence, and (3) the role of the
arbitration committee. Giano's posting of emails falls under (2).

I think some reasonable outcomes would be these:

1. Asserting that "secret evidence" may not be used to justify a block
without the consent of the Arbitration Committee or other group held
responsible to the community. This is inline (or was), with the developing
consensus at Wikipedia:Confidential evidence.

2. Emails may not be posted to WP without the consent of the sender. I think
we ruled on this in Hkelkar 2.

3. Some kind of reprimand for Durova; possibly forcing the admin recall
process to go forward. Ordering an RfA itself would be cruel.

Charles
----------

From: (jayjg)
Date: Sat, 24 Nov 2007 20:19:13 -0500
Subject: [Arbcom-l] Requests_for_comment/Durova

On Nov 24, 2007 7:13 PM, FloNight wrote:
> On Nov 24, 2007 7:07 PM, Kirill Lokshin wrote:
> > That may be true, but it's not really the point I'm making. The question
> > shouldn't have been asked of a self-selected list in the first place.
> >
> > Kirill
>
> Why? I do not agree with the idea that users should not collaborate
> with each other by email. Personally, I much prefer email to IRC
> channels for lengthy discussions about banned users.

Yes, and this was the point I didn't address. Durova didn't ask for
advice on whether she should block !!, but there would have been
nothing wrong with her doing so. Indeed, it's probably a good idea for
people to get input from others before making blocking decisions.
----------

From: (Kirill Lokshin)
Date: Sat, 24 Nov 2007 20:21:57 -0500
Subject: [Arbcom-l] Requests_for_comment/Durova

> Yes. You're not going to stop editors talking to each other however
> they please. The working definition of "cabal" for wikidrama queens
> appears to be "group I'm not in."


Indeed; but such discussion shouldn't be cited as a reason for doing
anything in and of itself. "We discussed it on $secretMailingList" isn't a
justification for a block any more so than "We discussed it on IRC".

(Aside from that, one drawback of such lists is that they tend to provide a
response colored by the self-selected nature of the list. If you're looking
into blocking a potential WR sleeper account, you'd expect different
responses from asking a list of people gathered out of concern over
WR-driven stalking versus asking a list of, say, random admins.)

Kirill
----------

From: (Kirill Lokshin)
Date: Sat, 24 Nov 2007 20:26:02 -0500
Subject: [Arbcom-l] Durova + Jehochman arbitration

> We will need to resolve this case as swiftly as possible--two to three
> days--to avoid additional drama. A month-long case doesn't bear thinking.
> Given sufficient evidence, I think the areas of interest are (1)
> administrative discussion, (2) secret evidence, and (3) the role of the
> arbitration committee. Giano's posting of emails falls under (2).
>
> I think some reasonable outcomes would be these:
>
> 1. Asserting that "secret evidence" may not be used to justify a block
> without the consent of the Arbitration Committee or other group held
> responsible to the community. This is inline (or was), with the developing
> consensus at Wikipedia:Confidential evidence.
>
> 2. Emails may not be posted to WP without the consent of the sender. I
> think we ruled on this in Hkelkar 2.
>
> 3. Some kind of reprimand for Durova; possibly forcing the admin recall
> process to go forward. Ordering an RfA itself would be cruel.


Those look fine. I'd also add:

4. A general admonition that we're not here for drama (probably worked in
with "deliberately provocative editing", or something of the sort).

Whether we actually need to deal with the major participants more harshly,
I'm not sure. As a practical matter, trying to agree on sanctions for some
of these established editors will probably cause the case to drag out.

Kirill
----------

From: (FloNight)
Date: Sat, 24 Nov 2007 20:59:16 -0500
Subject: [Arbcom-l] Durova + Jehochman arbitration

> Whether we actually need to deal with the major participants more harshly,
> I'm not sure. As a practical matter, trying to agree on sanctions for some
> of these established editors will probably cause the case to drag out.
>
> Kirill

We really need to be careful not to handcuff our diligent and CAREFUL
sockpuppet hunters. Looking for really problematic banned users socks
and quickly blocking them without a lot of fanfare is a good thing.
This happens quite often under our enforcement provisions, I think.

According to my reading of the threads on the RFC and the new policy
talk pages, some users are trying to say that no sock accounts of
banned users should be blocked until an on site discussion happens and
the sock account is found to be disruptive. This is too restrictive, I
think.

The problem with Durova is that she is not being careful enough now. I
don't know if she has gotten over confident and sloppy or if she is
just not good at doing the work.

Let's not over react to her mistake and make a general rule that over
involves us in work that careful admins can do.

Sydney
----------

From: mackensen(Charles Fulton)
Date: Sat, 24 Nov 2007 21:29:01 -0500
Subject: [Arbcom-l] Durova + Jehochman arbitration

The community can sort that out for itself, I think. Certainly checkuser
activities won't be affected. I don't see any reason to rule on sock policy;
we should do that on Privatemusings.

Charles
----------

From: (Dmcdevit)
Date: Sat, 24 Nov 2007 18:40:41 -0800
Subject: [Arbcom-l] Requests_for_comment/Durova

jayjg wrote:
>
> I understand your point, but I don't think it's relevant in this case,
> because as far as I can tell she didn't ask the "self-selected list"
> anything to begin with.
>

In fact, her characterization of the report on-wiki as having asked the
opinion of others seems more than a little disingenuous. Read over the
actual report forwarded to the list by Paul and you'll see that it was
some sort of lesson in uncovering sockpuppets with Durova using !! as an
example, and basically presupposing his guilt, not asking for input.
This was one of the most surprising aspects for me (and the
"self-important" description does ring true after reading it).

Dominic
----------

From: (David Gerard)
Date: Sun, 25 Nov 2007 01:39:38 +0000
Subject: [Arbcom-l] Durova + Jehochman arbitration

On 25/11/2007, Charles Fulton <mackensen> wrote:

> 3. Some kind of reprimand for Durova; possibly forcing the admin recall
> process to go forward. Ordering an RfA itself would be cruel.

I strongly suggest that throwing her to the trolls would not be in the
best interests of the project. We need someone, or preferably
someones, doing what she does; an arbcom action that is seen to
penalise that (rather than admonishing not to do it that much) is
feeding the trolls.


- d.
----------

From: mackensen (Charles Fulton)
Date: Sat, 24 Nov 2007 21:48:15 -0500
Subject: [Arbcom-l] Durova + Jehochman arbitration

I think the trolls have gorged themselves; we have to look to our own
processes and structures regardless. As I've indicated, I don't think any
individual sanctions would be practical in this case.
-----------

From: (Josh Gordon)
Date: Sat, 24 Nov 2007 18:48:22 -0800
Subject: [Arbcom-l] Durova + Jehochman arbitration

Agreed. I don't see need for reprimand; the damage is done, and we'd just be
salting the wound. The worst error was taking silence for consent.

--
--jpgordon ????
-----------

From: (Dmcdevit)
Date: Sat, 24 Nov 2007 18:48:40 -0800
Subject: [Arbcom-l] Durova + Jehochman arbitration

David Gerard wrote:
>
> I strongly suggest that throwing her to the trolls would not be in the
> best interests of the project. We need someone, or preferably
> someones, doing what she does; an arbcom action that is seen to
> penalise that (rather than admonishing not to do it that much) is
> feeding the trolls.
>

If we need someone doing what she does, we need someone to do it *well*.
Giving her a free pass will also not accomplish that, especially if she
continues.

Dominic
----------

From: (Steve Dunlop)
Date: Sat, 24 Nov 2007 20:25:53 -0700
Subject: [Arbcom-l] Durova + Jehochman arbitration

I agree with David. Also, I don't believe it is wise to do anything
that legitimizes the "admin recall" process. Before long we're going to
see people expected to make a commitment to "admin recall" during RFA,
which will further politicize the behavior of admins.

Steve
----------

From: mackensen(Charles Fulton)
Date: Sat, 24 Nov 2007 22:30:53 -0500
Subject: [Arbcom-l] Durova + Jehochman arbitration

Durova legitimized this admin recall business by agreeing to it in the first
place. I've never liked the concept; agreeing to it suggests that you
wouldn't know when to resign. On the other hand, I think we need to be clear
on whether an arbitration case supersedes any open RfCs concerning any
involved parties. Some people have suggested that it does, and we've forced
the issue by starting this case.

Charles
----------

From: (Steve Dunlop)
Date: Sat, 24 Nov 2007 20:32:24 -0700
Subject: [Arbcom-l] Durova + Jehochman arbitration

I think it's important to make it clear that we don't support the
"midnight knock" business and didn't issue a pass. Her investigative
methods weren't unique enough or specific enough to warrant the secrecy.
Durova's perceptive -- an extremely token wrist slap should be enough
to get her to be more careful in the future.

Steve
User is offlineProfile CardPM
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
trenton
post Tue 12th July 2011, 8:59pm
Post #15


Member
***

Group: Contributors
Posts: 161
Joined: Fri 12th Sep 2008, 10:21pm
Member No.: 8,237



QUOTE(Jimbeau)
The block was righteous, I wish that I had been the one to do it
instead, though.


GG, Jimbeau. Also speaking of yourself in the third person. Classy.
User is offlineProfile CardPM
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
MaliceAforethought
post Tue 12th July 2011, 9:35pm
Post #16


u Mad?
***

Group: Contributors
Posts: 206
Joined: Tue 21st Jun 2011, 6:54am
From: Wonderland
Member No.: 57,801



From: (David Gerard)
Date: Sun, 25 Nov 2007 15:13:37 +0000
Subject: [Arbcom-l] Durova + Jehochman arbitration

On 25/11/2007, Dmcdevit wrote:
> David Gerard wrote:

> > I strongly suggest that throwing her to the trolls would not be in the
> > best interests of the project. We need someone, or preferably
> > someones, doing what she does; an arbcom action that is seen to
> > penalise that (rather than admonishing not to do it that much) is
> > feeding the trolls.

> If we need someone doing what she does, we need someone to do it *well*.
> Giving her a free pass will also not accomplish that, especially if she
> continues.


Oh, definitely. She needs to take a deep breath and do stuff a bit
more calmly, for sure. At the *minimum*, "The AC asks Durova to please
act more calmly, and to assume better faith insofar as is reasonable"
or similar.


- d.
----------

From: (Jonathan Hochman)
Date: Sun, 25 Nov 2007 07:58:54 -0500
Subject: [Arbcom-l] Formal complaint against Dmcdevit

Arbcom mailing list:

Dmcdevit has accused me of wrongdoing, in part for filing a cyberstalking
report with Arbcom about an incident involving Greg Kohs or a copycat
attacking me.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/WP:RFAR#Statement_by_Dmcdevit
"There are further secret reports and accusations by both of these editors
that the Arbitration Committee is in possession of that serve to further
confirm the pattern and disturb me greatly."

My public response:

"In regards to the IP 24 matter that was being handled privately, a
settlement was mediated by User:WJBscribe. He told me that he was reporting
to Arbcom. I consider this matter fully resolved and feel that rehashing the
matter might cause this person to resume harassing me, or may encourage copy
cats. I respectfully request that any further discussion be handled
confidentially via email.

A more significant point is that editors should be freely encouraged
to come to Arbcom and file confidential reports of cyberstalking and
harassment without fear of retaliation. I cannot emphasize enough that
"blaming the victim", no matter how defective their report may be, is
wrong and has a chilling effect. If a report has gaps in logic and
confirmation bias, it can be stashed away and a polite reply can be
sent, "The Arbcom has decided not to act on this report at this time."
The fact that a case has been brought against me in part for filing
such a report sends the wrong signal to others who might need to file
reports in the future. "

My private response:

I am hopeful that Arbcom will correct this error as quickly as possible. My
request is that Dmcdevit not use my cyberstalking report as grounds to
complain against me, and that the events surround IP24 not be discussed
publicly. When I file a confidential report with Arbcom, I expect
confidentiality. The way this has been handled is totally unacceptable. I
would like confirmation that Dmcdevit has been removed from the Arbcom
mailing list for the duration of this case since he is a named party, and
there is now an issue of potential wrongdoing by him. It hardly seems fair
for a named party to be in on the discussions of the case.

Thank you.
-Jonathan
--
Jonathan Hochman
----------

From: (Kirill Lokshin)
Date: Sun, 25 Nov 2007 11:31:52 -0500
Subject: [Arbcom-l] Formal complaint against Dmcdevit

A formal and impersonal way of opening desired cases -- without the fig leaf
of having an arbitrator emeritus "request" arbitration -- would avoid such
questions.

Kirill
----------

From: (James Forrester)
Date: Sun, 25 Nov 2007 18:29:56 +0000
Subject: [Arbcom-l] Formal complaint against Dmcdevit

On 25/11/2007, Kirill Lokshin wrote:
> A formal and impersonal way of opening desired cases -- without the fig leaf
> of having an arbitrator emeritus "request" arbitration -- would avoid such
> questions.

Yes, but however we do it (a set of "investigators", an
especially-recused Arbitrator, or just a plain summons from us) would
have difficulties in carrying out our duty to the project and
community, including:

* meaning that individual "prosecutions" (eurgh) would succeed or fail
on the ability of whomever is the "prosecutor" that time around,
rather than on our collective judgement (which is generally going to
be better);
* restricting our flexibility - if there is someone with a role to
bring evidence, the rest of us would have to step back from that
position;
* being a significant change from how we've been doing this for 4
years now; people don't like such change in "bedrock" institutions;
and
* moving us further along the "court" concept, something of which I'm
not terribly in favour.

In this particular case, I think a robust response to JEHochman is
appropriate (along the lines of "just because you show your idiocy in
private doesn't mean that we can't think you an idiot and thus doubt
seriously your judgement). Should I go ahead, or would others prefer a
more mealy-mouthed response?

Yrs,
--
James D. Forrester
-----------

From: (Kirill Lokshin)
Date: Sun, 25 Nov 2007 15:19:11 -0500
Subject: [Arbcom-l] Formal complaint against Dmcdevit

> In this particular case, I think a robust response to JEHochman is
> appropriate (along the lines of "just because you show your idiocy in
> private doesn't mean that we can't think you an idiot and thus doubt
> seriously your judgement). Should I go ahead, or would others prefer a
> more mealy-mouthed response?


That's fine with me. I doubt it'll be necessary to air all the dirty
laundry here in public, in any case; a general comment regarding the
reasonableness of the "reports" we've received should suffice.

Kirill
----------

From: (Dmcdevit)
Date: Sun, 25 Nov 2007 13:57:43 -0800
Subject: [Arbcom-l] Formal complaint against Dmcdevit

For me, the behavior with the real chilling effect is that every person
that crosses Jehochman's path gets a report drawn up against them. I
guess I should have expected this, but considering that my statement
specifically didn't specify any of the non-public accusations he had
made, this complaint is particularly annoying. What confidentiality was
breached by my statement? The closest he got was my comment where I said
nothing confidential, only that "There are further secret reports and
accusations by both of these editors that the Arbitration Committee is
in possession of." Apparently for that "there is now an issue of
potential wrongdoing" by me and I should be removed from the list. El C
and Giano were both in direct conflict with Jehochman on-wiki about his
or Durova's blocks. Is there a point where we stop thinking that his
accusations against people are not based on incompetence so much as
actual attempts to silence critics?

Dominic
-----------

From: (Casey Brown)
Date: Sun, 25 Nov 2007 16:54:14 -0500
Subject: [Arbcom-l] FW: Hello from Durova

Most likely this was sent to both of you, but my anti-virus software
disagrees. Sending it again just in case. ;-)

_____

From: Casey Brown
Sent: Sunday, November 25, 2007 4:53 PM
To: 'Durova'
Cc: 'arbcom-l at wikipedia.org'
Subject: RE: Hello from Durova

Adding additional parties: Additional users do not need to be added to the
parties list, per se, any user can be subject to a decision or sanction by
the Arbitration Committee whether they are on the parties' listing or not.
However, if you still think more users should be added as parties, you can
make a motion on the Workshop page:
<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Durova_and_
Jehochman/Workshop#Motions_and_requests_by_the_parties>.

Handling of evidence: I'm afraid I'll probably need more explanation on
this. Evidence can be either posted on-wiki or sent privately to the
Arbitrators. What else to do you need to know about this?

Scope of the case: What are you referring to here? What is the scope of
this case? I do not believe there any further clarification on this other
than what Dmcdevit said when he filed the case with "The scope of this case
is primarily the recent actions and the pattern of poor judgment shown by
[[User:Durova|Durova]] and [[User:Jehochman|Jehochman]] as a result of their
methods ("sleuthing")", unless you file a motion for clarification.
Normally, cases do not have set "scopes", they just take into account all
evidence, statements, and proposals and view what has been happening on
Wikipedia.

"There was a recent matter handled privately that Dmcdevit alludes to. Will
there be separate follow-up on that or is it going to become part of this
case?" I do not know what exactly you are referring to here, it may be best
to contact Dmcdevit about it personally.

Regarding evidence, you are always free to e-mail it to the Arbitrators.
But you are correct in thinking that you should post as much on-wiki as
possible.

_____

From: Durova
Sent: Sunday, November 25, 2007 2:05 PM
To: Casey Brown
Subject: Re: Hello from Durova

Adding additional parties, handling of evidence, and the scope of the case.
There was a recent matter handled privately that Dmcdevit alludes to. Will
there be separate follow-up on that or is it going to become part of this
case?

And I'm under fire regarding confidential evidence, but some of the evidence
that would go in my favor would be borderline at best to post onsite. I'm
considering posting my evidence from the Alkivar case into user space, if
nobody minds. Seems the damage has already been done regarding any
exploitive potential.

Also, some things came to my attention that I didn't know this morning. In
particular, I've just recently read Jehochman's RFAR statement. He says
he's stopped taking advice from me, but didn't inform me about that. We
ended our coaching/mentorship relationship before his RFA but I wasn't aware
he had stopped taking all advice, if that's what his statement means. This
morning he posted a statement to Dmcdevit to a mailing list where I
subscribe and I don't think Dmcdevit is on it. That puts me in an awkward
position because Jehochman is accused of being my meatpuppet and I thought
it was poor judgement to post the complaint there. So I immediately
replied at the list thread and asked him to send it to Dmcdevit or the
arbitration committee directly, and added a few words to clarify that I
hadn't been aware Jehochman was writing that. He followed my suggestion,
and shortly afterward I found Jehochman's statement that he isn't taking
advice from me anymore. I sent him the quote by chat and asked him to
explain, since it doesn't appear honest. He hasn't replied.

So I'm caught between a rock and a hard place. Only thing to do is inform
you of this immediately after I discover it. Please tell the committee.
I've been very much out of the loop these last couple of weeks.
Thanks for the help,
-Durova
On Nov 25, 2007 10:36 AM, Casey Brown wrote:
Yes, I'm going to be the clerk for this case. Feel free to ask me any
questions you have, but I'm about to run out the door, so I'll have to
answer them upon my return.

-----Original Message-----
From: Durova
Sent: Sunday, November 25, 2007 1:33 PM
To: Cbrown1023
Subject: Hello from Durova

So you're the clerk on this case?

I'd like to ask a few procedural questions about proper procedure.

Thanks,
-Durova
-----------

From: (James Forrester)
Date: Mon, 26 Nov 2007 00:44:10 +0000
Subject: [Arbcom-l] Formal complaint against Dmcdevit

On 25/11/2007, Jonathan Hochman wrote:

> I am hopeful that Arbcom will correct this error as quickly as possible. My
> request is that Dmcdevit not use my cyberstalking report as grounds to
> complain against me, and that the events surround IP24 not be discussed
> publicly. When I file a confidential report with Arbcom, I expect
> confidentiality. The way this has been handled is totally unacceptable. I
> would like confirmation that Dmcdevit has been removed from the Arbcom
> mailing list for the duration of this case since he is a named party, and
> there is now an issue of potential wrongdoing by him. It hardly seems fair
> for a named party to be in on the discussions of the case.

Jonathan,

I'm afraid that we are not convinced by your argument. No
confidentiality has been broken, nor, indeed, has it come close to
being so. In this particular case, Dominic has made allusion to the
comments you sent to us which called into doubt in his mind that your
methods and attitude can lead you in some circumstances to jump to
conclusions not supported by evidence, and then to act thereupon; this
is a concern that is troubling and is worthy of consideration by us.
Obviously we will not be discussing publicly the report beyond what
has been said, as it is not likely to be necessary for us to so do in
the course of our duties.

It would be grossly unfair and disrespectful to the community for us
to have a case but not even mention publicly that we might use items
provided in private as comment on other matters, and it would violate
our primary purpose (i.e., to protect the project) to ignore it merely
because it came to light in circumstances other than provision of
evidence for a case.

Dominic has not erred in his actions, and continues to enjoy the full
confidence of the Committee, remaining on the list. I appreciate that
you may feel disappointed in this, but I cannot see how we can be
asked to disregard items in our cognisance merely because they were
submitted for other reasons.

Yours,
--
James D. Forrester
-----------

From: (Jonathan Hochman)
Date: Sun, 25 Nov 2007 21:25:43 -0500
Subject: [Arbcom-l] Formal complaint against Dmcdevit

Thank you for that clarification. I was under the impression that the
report would be discussed publicly. I regret the unnecessary drama
that I have caused.

Had I known that such a report could be used in such a way, I would
have kept it to myself.

Sincerely,
Jonathan
-----------

From: (Kirill Lokshin)
Date: Sun, 25 Nov 2007 22:38:37 -0500
Subject: [Arbcom-l] Formal complaint against Dmcdevit

On Nov 25, 2007 9:25 PM, Jonathan Hochman wrote:

> Thank you for that clarification. I was under the impression that the
> report would be discussed publicly. I regret the unnecessary drama
> that I have caused.
>
> Had I known that such a report could be used in such a way, I would
> have kept it to myself.


And now this gem:

"Stalking and harassment as legal problems. As such, they need to be handled
under the supervision of competent Office staff. Volunteers should not
engage in amateur police work, including Arbcom itself."

(
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=...ldid=173814415)


Kirill
-----------

From: (James Forrester)
Date: Mon, 26 Nov 2007 09:50:16 +0000
Subject: [Arbcom-l] Fwd: Durova arbitration hearing

See below. I imagine we'd rather he e-mailed his concerns to us privately?

Yrs,

J.

---------- Forwarded message ----------
From: Gregory Kohs
Date: 26 Nov 2007 03:44
Subject: Durova arbitration hearing
To: jdforrester


Is there a feasible way, where I might be unblocked on Wikipedia for a
single purpose -- to contribute my testimony to the ArbCom hearing
about Durova and Jehochman? Both of these individuals made defamatory
and/or false statements about me on Wikipedia's pages, to which they
never provided evidence to support their attacks on me.

Durova said that I gave "misleading information to journalists", which
she has never retracted, but the journalist in question (Brian
Bergstein) has said was irrelevant to his story about me.

Jehochman said that I was deeply involved with a recent account from
the Orbitz holding company, which I was not. He apologized to me
off-line and he semi-retracted his statement -- but the evidence still
stands that he was just making this up and published it on Wikipedia
nonetheless.

I don't want to pile on to the discussion, but I feel that this
hearing is a one-time opportunity to finally engage these two with my
evidence that they have libeled me without sufficient evidence to
support their claims. Please let me know if there is some way I can
participate.

Kindly,

Greg
-----------

From: (Matthew Brown)
Date: Mon, 26 Nov 2007 01:58:30 -0800
Subject: [Arbcom-l] Fwd: Durova arbitration hearing

On Nov 26, 2007 1:50 AM, James Forrester wrote:
> See below. I imagine we'd rather he e-mailed his concerns to us privately?

Indeed. He just wants to come back and stir the drama some more. If
there's some untrue things up about him on WP, we should remove them
of course.

-Matt
----------

From: (Jonathan Hochman)
Date: Mon, 26 Nov 2007 01:47:51 -0500
Subject: [Arbcom-l] Formal complaint against Dmcdevit

James and all-

After a couple days of long hours fending off abuse and trolling, and then
staying up all night to try to figure out who's doing it, I suspect my
judgment was impaired by the time I hit the send button on that report.

The mob chasing Durova had me very upset also. She's a friend. I don't like
seeing her get treated that way, and contacted Dmcdevit looking for help. I
hope you all can understand that bad judgment in those situations does not
mean bad judgment all the time. If nothing else, appreciate that I have not
used the tools at those low moments.

My goal is to edit on a full stomach and a good night's rest. When that's
the case, things are fine. Sorry for my behavior.

-Jonathan
-----------

From: (James Forrester)
Date: Mon, 26 Nov 2007 12:50:17 +0000
Subject: [Arbcom-l] Wikipedia e-mail: CONFIDENTIAL Re Durova

Physchim62/Nigel,

Thank you for bringing this to our attention; the commentary is
particularly helpful.

I have copied in the rest of the Committee.

Yrs,
--
James D. Forrester
jdforrester at wikimedia.org | jdforrester at gmail.com
[[Wikipedia:User:Jdforrester|James F.]]

On 26/11/2007, Physchim62 <nigelwheatley> wrote:
> Durova and the ISTIA/Jennifer Powell case
>
> IMPORTANT NOTE: Jennifer Powell has, subsequent to the events described here, threatened to bring a criminal complaint against the Foundation (under French law) for not taking sufficient action to remve her name and the name of her employer (ISTIA) from the site.
>
> == I. Thread at AN/I ==
>
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Adm...29#Legal_threat
>
> http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=...&action=history
>
> The thread is now blanked from the archives but, despite Powell's repeated requests, not oversighted.
>
> I've just received this direct threat of a lawsuit.[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Durova&diff=prev&oldid=123003956] Please handle it appropriately. DurovaCharge! 16:04, 15 April 2007 (UTC)
> :Since that's the only edit by that account, would a checkuser be worthwhile to identify the real editor involved, or do you already know? TenOfAllTrades(talk) 16:08, 15 April 2007 (UTC)
> :It came less than half an hour after I posted a followup comment to [[Wikipedia:Community_sanction_noticeboard#Proposed_community_ban_for_Jennifer_P
owell]]. That editor has sent me nearly a dozen e-mails in the last day and a half, including after I sent a direct request for no further contact. It would be good if we could reach a swift closure to that discussion before it escalates any further. DurovaCharge! 16:35, 15 April 2007 (UTC)
> :She's now harrassing editors at home [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Community_sanction_noticeboard&curid=9413741&diff=123013991&oldid=123013486]. I move that a uninvolved admin closes and supports the community ban. Any further complaints by this editor should be sent to the foundation. I get the impression that once you go beyond the puff that the organisation is actually a one-man band and that's why she's is fighting so hard about this - nothing else makes any sense. --Fredrick day 17:03, 15 April 2007 (UTC)
> :You can be fairly sure that if a user fights that hard to keep an article we probably shouldn't have it. Well sourced articles on notable subjects tend to speak for themselves. --kingboyk 17:12, 15 April 2007 (UTC)
> :This leads to what I call the "Reverse Psychology Principle of Wikipedia": If you really, really want an article deleted, you should argue vehemently and obnoxiously in favor of keeping it. If you really, really want an article kept, you should argue vehemently and obnoxiously in favor of deleting it (ala Daniel Brandt). So, if deep in their hearts Powell wants the article on her organization deleted, and Brandt wants the article on himself kept, then they're pursuing a brilliantly inspired strategy for this. *Dan T.* 02:50, 16 April 2007 (UTC)
> :It's all written down in policy, but I'll paraphrase everything for anybody uncertain - Anybody suffering harassment over and above that which can comfortably be dealt with by the administrators here or on any other Wikimedia site needs to contact the Foundation (I'd suggest e-mailing User:Bastique and possibly also Jimmy Wales) to report what's happening. I'd also suggest refraining from posting the phone number(s) being used, just in case these reports are designed to inflame the situation (as unlikely as it seems). Finally, and yes, it's ?ber dramatic but if anybody feels intimidated by these phone calls, report them to the relevant authorities, nobody needs to suffer shit like this. -- Nick t 17:17, 15 April 2007 (UTC)
> :I have not been involved with the community ban discussion, and the harrassment is absolutely unacceptable. I'm going to close the discussion with the consensus that the user is banned. Full disclosure: I apparently blocked one the user's sockpuppets as a username violation (the name was unacceptably long) before I was aware there was a ban discussion going on. Natalie 18:22, 15 April 2007 (UTC)
> ::Done, and in process of blocking all the sockpuppets. I'm presently tagging the Istia account as the puppeteer; please correct me if I'm wrong. Natalie 18:35, 15 April 2007 (UTC)
> ::All the accounts listed in the CN discussion have been tagged, the few that weren't already indef blocked have been blocked. Two questions: should I tag the IPs, and am I correct in remembering that Jennifer Powell applied for and received a username change? Natalie 19:52, 15 April 2007 (UTC)
> ::Two: see the asterisks after the respective username entries at the top of the ban discussion. -- Ben?TALK/HIST 20:04, 15 April 2007 (UTC)
> ::Irishguy blocked one of the name changes and I just got the other one. One last one: IGet-back-world respect is still not blocked and there seemed to be some question of whether that account was a sock/meatpuppet or not. Not sure what to do about that one. Natalie 20:22, 15 April 2007 (UTC)
> :The AFD is here: [[Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/International Services Trade Information Agency]]. I'll add a note for the closer, if nobody else does it first (have to attend to some jobs outside). --kingboyk 19:14, 15 April 2007 (UTC)
> ::I can close it, but don't we need a five-day period to pass, or can we eschew that per rampant sockpuppetry? ?210physicq © 19:25, 15 April 2007 (UTC)
> ::I haven't examined it properly yet, but there's always WP:SNOW or WP:CSD, or indeed any number of criteria that might be used. Let me know what you want to do, in the meantime I'll have a read. --kingboyk 19:42, 15 April 2007 (UTC)
> :ohmy.gifK, discounting the sockpuppets and anon IPs, there's still several people advocating keep: Egfrank (talk ? contribs), Cumbrowski (talk ? contribs), Russeasby (talk ? contribs), TonyTheTiger (talk ? contribs), and Alkivar (talk ? contribs). I think then that WP:SNOW is out of the question. If you want to close it early citing disruption that's your call. In the meantime I'll add that notice. --kingboyk 19:48, 15 April 2007 (UTC)
> ::That seems like too much discussion among non-sockpuppets for a speedy close. I know there was some suggestion of relisting, which might be the way to go. Natalie 19:52, 15 April 2007 (UTC)
> ::That might not be a bad idea. --kingboyk 19:54, 15 April 2007 (UTC)
> :Keep in mind, Durova, you won't be sued for editing and administrating wikipedia. Anyone who would even try would be laughed out of the attorney's office, and anyone who tried to do it themselves would very likely be sanctioned for frivolous suits. (the exception to this being defamation/libel cases, but that's not the case here). ? SWATJester On Belay! 19:28, 15 April 2007 (UTC)
> ::Thanks for the good word. I doubt that was a serious threat but I consider it important to nip this in the bud. Regarding the Foundation, however, I am very deeply disappointed in the response to my previous request for assistance when another user made a personal threat against me. I'll discuss details of that instance off-wiki, but I will point out here that in the past few days I've also blocked an editor who threatened suicide and gotten a community ban on a self-confessed psychiatric patient who had developed a sexual fixation on me. The community's support has been superb and I appreciate it very much. Bear my experience in mind the next time you wonder why there aren't more female Wikipedians. DurovaCharge! 23:29, 15 April 2007 (UTC)
>
> == II. Email exchange between Jennifer Powell and Durova ==
> This is, according to Ms. Powell, the last part of the email exchange between herself and Durova which is referred to in that thread.
>
> === A: Powell to Durova, 2007-04-15 ===
> I am not Get-Back-World-Respect! I have not been involved in arbitration and mediation! I am not the person that he is claiming I am!
>
> What can I do!
>
> I have quit Wikipedia, to end this argument, and he made up a falsehood about me for a "complete ban". In my real name!
>
> Can Irish Guy practice defamation of my REAL NAME like this? CAN he?
>
> WHAT can I do?
>
> Thanks,
>
> Jennifer
>
> === B: Durova to Powell, 2007-04-15, 2:55PM ===
> I've referred you elsewhere enough times that it rather surprises me you continue to write me at all. The inbox of my personal e-mail account is not the Wikimedia Foundation's complaint department. Please cease these communications.
>
> === C: Powell to Durova, 2007-04-15, 10:37PM ===
> Durova,
>
> I'm sure you don't appreciate me writing you, but bear with me.
>
> I did not write the "I will sue you" note. If I was going to sue someone, quite seriously, it would not be you. And suing in such a mob scene doesn't necessarily solve any problems. I don't know how many people you deal with in a day, but I'd like you to please consider the possibility that this was someone else.
>
> I'm getting a mediator for this situation. I didn't know that this was and option ? and I should have done it before.
>
> Kindly don't get affected by the mass-hysteria, and say that I'm "harrassing you" by sending this email. This situation is clearly out of control. I'm simply trying to defend myself.
>
> Thank you,
> JP
>
> == III. Commentary by Physchim62 ==
> Three questions strike me here:
>
> 1. Why did Durova take the legal threat to ANI in the first place? No one would have objected to her blocking the account herself under WP:NLT. She could similarly have taken the initiative to request a checkuser, given the likelihood that the message came from a troll.
>
> 2. Why did Durova publically associate the message with Powell, on the basis of private email messages which couldn't be reviewed? Powell claims that "a dozen emails" having been exchanged is a gross exaggeration. The only other reason to connect Powell to the message was the fact that Powell was, at that time, being dragged before the CSN. Durova supported Powell's community ban.
>
> 3. Why, after having brought up the email conversation, did Durova not mention that Powell had flatly (but politely) denied being the source of legal threat? I'm afraid that the simplest explanation is that this was just a ruse to get Powell banned from Wikipedia, based on "evidence" which could not be scrutinised.
>
> Powell was banned from Wikipedia, a community ban that was overturned on appeal to Jimbo Wales. A checkuser run by the Foundation office exonerated her from any responsability for the legal threats to Durova.
>
> While Durova only bears a small part of the responsability for the larger ISTIA fiasco, I think her actions are illustrative of the methods which she has been using for months. The same traits appear again and again:
> *action based on evidence which will simply not support the conclusions that she draws from it
> *portrayal of that evidence in such a way as to make scrunity difficult if not impossible
> *avoidance of discussion of her actions in other ways, such as the emphasis on the "harrassment" which she supposedly receives on a habitual basis
> *a blatent inability to assume good faith on the part of users with whom she deals
> I hope that you will agree that she has become a liability to Wikipedia in her role as an administrator, and that you will take the appropriate action.
>
-----------

From: (Kirill Lokshin)
Date: Mon, 26 Nov 2007 09:15:34 -0500
Subject: [Arbcom-l] Durova et al.

The workshop has gotten swelled up with lots of proposals (many of which are
tangential to the main matter here). Trying to collect some thoughts
regarding a (pretty minimalist, admittedly) possible decision:

Principles:
1. Decorum (4.1) [and maybe Assume good faith (1) as well?]
2. Responsibility (6.3)
3. Chilling effect (21)
4. Private correspondence (3)

Findings:
1. Durova made a bad block
2. Subsequent discussion got out of hand [and perhaps explicitly name Giano
as fanning the flames?]

Remedies:
1. Durova admonished to take greater care with blocks
2. Everyone admonished to avoid causing drama
3. Acknowledge Durova's intention to stand for RFA again after the case

Is this missing anything major? We should probably try to move forward on
this case sooner rather than later.

Kirill
-----------

From: (Charles Fulton)
Date: Mon, 26 Nov 2007 09:18:45 -0500
Subject: [Arbcom-l] Durova et al.

I'm adding those to Proposed Decision just now. I think that's about right.
I don't think naming Giano is necessary, but we need to mention that morass.

It might also be said that Durova resigning could have ended this, but that
a number of sysops (even now) don't see why that should have been necessary.
This is troubling.

Charles
-----------

From: (Charles Fulton)
Date: Mon, 26 Nov 2007 09:23:15 -0500
Subject: [Arbcom-l] Durova et al.

I've added the principles and one FoF, but I've got to run. Feel free to add
the rest.
-----------

From: (Kirill Lokshin)
Date: Mon, 26 Nov 2007 09:32:18 -0500
Subject: [Arbcom-l] Durova et al.

On Nov 26, 2007 9:23 AM, Charles Fulton <mackensen> wrote:

> I've added the principles and one FoF, but I've got to run. Feel free to
> add the rest.

Done. Hopefully I haven't been too terse here.

Kirill
------------

From: (Charles Fulton)
Date: Mon, 26 Nov 2007 09:41:50 -0500
Subject: [Arbcom-l] Durova et al.

I wonder, would it make sense to lock the workshop now that we're moving to
vote? I suppose we'd be accused of suppressing free speech, but it serves no
useful purpose now.
-----------

From: (Kirill Lokshin)
Date: Mon, 26 Nov 2007 09:43:58 -0500
Subject: [Arbcom-l] Durova et al.

On Nov 26, 2007 9:41 AM, Charles Fulton wrote:

> I wonder, would it make sense to lock the workshop now that we're moving
> to vote? I suppose we'd be accused of suppressing free speech, but it serves
> no useful purpose now.


If it gets particularly out of hand, perhaps; but unless we're willing to
lock the case's talk pages as well, we're not going to prevent people from
saying their piece at this point.

Kirill
----------

From: (jayjg)
Date: Mon, 26 Nov 2007 09:45:40 -0500
Subject: [Arbcom-l] Use of Oversight on Durova's discussion page

On Nov 23, 2007 11:45 AM, David Gerard wrote:
> On 23/11/2007, jayjg wrote:
>
> > Regarding the oversighting, yes, regarding Cla68, no. He's back to his
> > usual self, making gratuitous snotty comments about the Sweet Blue
>
>
> Material for an arbitration case? Suggested penalty: no edits to
> Wikipedia: page space for a year.
>

He's having a grand old time on the Durova-Jehochman case; now that
he's discovered that SlimVirgin runs the cyberstalking maillist, he's
all over it, with multiple oh-so-polite comments on the RFA talk page:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_tal...ochman/Evidence

He's even signed up for the list himself, and is insisting that
various arbitrators will have to recuse, because they are on the list.
----------

From: sydney.poore (FloNight)
Date: Mon, 26 Nov 2007 09:57:57 -0500
Subject: [Arbcom-l] Durova et al.

On Nov 26, 2007 9:43 AM, Kirill Lokshin wrote:
>
> On Nov 26, 2007 9:41 AM, Charles Fulton <mackensen> wrote:
>
> > I wonder, would it make sense to lock the workshop now that we're moving
> to vote? I suppose we'd be accused of suppressing free speech, but it serves
> no useful purpose now.
>
>
> If it gets particularly out of hand, perhaps; but unless we're willing to
> lock the case's talk pages as well, we're not going to prevent people from
> saying their piece at this point.
>
> Kirill

Let's try to avoid locking the workshop page. Quickly voting and
closing the case is best.

Sydney
----------

From: mackensen (Charles Fulton)
Date: Mon, 26 Nov 2007 09:59:45 -0500
Subject: [Arbcom-l] Durova et al.

Do we want to address Cary's actions? It's a minefield if we do, but the
precedent if we don't is problematic.

Charles
------------

From: (David Gerard)
Date: Mon, 26 Nov 2007 15:10:23 +0000
Subject: [Arbcom-l] Durova et al.

On 26/11/2007, Charles Fulton <mackensen at gmail.com> wrote:

> It might also be said that Durova resigning could have ended this, but that
> a number of sysops (even now) don't see why that should have been necessary.
> This is troubling.


I must say I don't see why she should either, fwiw. Let's say it's
less than intuitively obvious why that would help.


- d.
-----------

From: (jayjg)
Date: Mon, 26 Nov 2007 10:11:27 -0500
Subject: [Arbcom-l] Durova et al.

In this section Kelly Martin rather proudly discusses her use of many
sockpuppets, which she also asserts cannot be found via checkuser.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Req...Second_accounts

Does anyone find this troubling?
-----------

From: (David Gerard)
Date: Mon, 26 Nov 2007 15:11:38 +0000
Subject: [Arbcom-l] Durova et al.

On 26/11/2007, Charles Fulton <mackensen at gmail.com> wrote:

> Do we want to address Cary's actions? It's a minefield if we do, but the
> precedent if we don't is problematic.


See note on [[User talk:Bastique]], with comment from Mike Godwin. If
someone has private email that's evidence, they can send it to the
arbcom instead of deliberately and repeatedly being disruptive to make
their point.


- d.
------------

From: mackensen(Charles Fulton)
Date: Mon, 26 Nov 2007 10:14:04 -0500
Subject: [Arbcom-l] Durova et al.

That note confirms our own views on the matter.

On Nov 26, 2007 10:11 AM, David Gerard wrote:

> On 26/11/2007, Charles Fulton wrote:
>
> > Do we want to address Cary's actions? It's a minefield if we do, but the
> > precedent if we don't is problematic.
>
>
> See note on [[User talk:Bastique]], with comment from Mike Godwin. If
> someone has private email that's evidence, they can send it to the
> arbcom instead of deliberately and repeatedly being disruptive to make
> their point.
>
>
> - d.

User is offlineProfile CardPM
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
MaliceAforethought
post Tue 12th July 2011, 9:57pm
Post #17


u Mad?
***

Group: Contributors
Posts: 206
Joined: Tue 21st Jun 2011, 6:54am
From: Wonderland
Member No.: 57,801



From: (Kirill Lokshin)
Date: Mon, 26 Nov 2007 10:15:30 -0500
Subject: [Arbcom-l] Durova et al.

On Nov 26, 2007 10:11 AM, jayjg wrote:

> In this section Kelly Martin rather proudly discusses her use of many
> sockpuppets, which she also asserts cannot be found via checkuser.
>
>
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Req...Second_accounts
>
> Does anyone find this troubling?


Meh. Starting another witchhunt would be distinctly unhelpful at this
point; we can deal with her if/when the issue comes up in a substantive
matter.

Kirill
-----------

From: (jayjg)
Date: Mon, 26 Nov 2007 10:18:35 -0500
Subject: [Arbcom-l] Durova et al.

> Meh. Starting another witchhunt would be distinctly unhelpful at this
> point; we can deal with her if/when the issue comes up in a substantive
> matter.

I wasn't suggesting "another witchhunt", I was asking if anyone found
it troubling.
-----------

From: (David Gerard)
Date: Mon, 26 Nov 2007 15:20:23 +0000
Subject: [Arbcom-l] Durova et al.

On 26/11/2007, jayjg wrote:

> I wasn't suggesting "another witchhunt", I was asking if anyone found
> it troubling.


It doesn't actually help in trying to get the sockpuppet armies under
control, no. But that's something to address more generally.


- d.
-----------

From: mackensen(Charles Fulton)
Date: Mon, 26 Nov 2007 10:28:53 -0500
Subject: [Arbcom-l] Fwd: Urgent and private for the mailing list

Forwarding at Giano's request. I'm pretty sure that the logo in question
refers to the mailman software itself, and that emails delivered via that
interface are not subject to the same license.

Charles

---------- Forwarded message ----------
From: G MZ <solebaciato at googlemail.com>
Date: Nov 26, 2007 10:24 AM
Subject: Urgent and private for the mailing list
To: mackensen, Timothy Titcomb


OK you wanted me to email private evidence, lets see if it works better than
me posting it on the site. Giacomo

Durova's email was sent to this list:
http://www.webcitation.org/5TdnT9Lhy

Note the GNU logo on the bottom of the page.

By posting it to the list, she was releasing it under the GNU free license
applicable under the list.
----------

From: (David Gerard)
Date: Mon, 26 Nov 2007 15:34:53 +0000
Subject: [Arbcom-l] Fwd: Urgent and private for the mailing list

On 26/11/2007, Charles Fulton wrote:

> Forwarding at Giano's request. I'm pretty sure that the logo in question
> refers to the mailman software itself, and that emails delivered via that
> interface are not subject to the same license.


If he really believes that and isn't just trying to take the prize for
disingenuous statement of the year, he's too stupid to be let loose on
a free content licensed site.


- d.
-----------

From: (jayjg)
Date: Mon, 26 Nov 2007 10:38:38 -0500
Subject: [Arbcom-l] Fwd: Urgent and private for the mailing list

> If he really believes that and isn't just trying to take the prize for
> disingenuous statement of the year, he's too stupid to be let loose on
> a free content licensed site.
>

He's only echoing what has already been "proven" on Wikipedia Review.
------------

From: (Charles Fulton)
Date: Mon, 26 Nov 2007 10:44:18 -0500
Subject: [Arbcom-l] Durova et al.

I'm contemplating an additional FoF and remedy:

Finding of fact:

=== Posting of private correspondence ===
{{user|Giano}} posted private correspondence without the consent of the
sender. While the committee acknowledges Giano's desire to aid a fellow
editor it cannot approve of the method used.

=== Removal of private correspondence ===
Any arbitrator may remove private correspondence that has been posted
without the consent of the sender. Such material should be sent to the
committee directly.

We need to establish this, particularly given the Foundation's stance.
Either we do it ourselves or they do it for us. I'd prefer the latter.

Charles
-----------

From: (Sean Barrett)
Date: Mon, 26 Nov 2007 07:45:25 -0800
Subject: [Arbcom-l] Fwd: Urgent and private for the mailing list

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1

Charles Fulton wrote:
> Forwarding at Giano's request. I'm pretty sure that the logo in question
> refers to the mailman software itself, and that emails delivered via
> that interface are not subject to the same license.

I find it impossible to believe he is that stupid, which means his
statement is a malicious lie that deserves to be publicly noted as such.

- --
Sean Barrett
-----------

From: (Kirill Lokshin)
Date: Mon, 26 Nov 2007 10:49:01 -0500
Subject: [Arbcom-l] Durova et al.


On Nov 26, 2007 10:44 AM, Charles Fulton wrote:

> I'm contemplating an additional FoF and remedy:
>
> Finding of fact:
>
> === Posting of private correspondence ===
> {{user|Giano}} posted private correspondence without the consent of the
> sender. While the committee acknowledges Giano's desire to aid a fellow
> editor it cannot approve of the method used.
>
> === Removal of private correspondence ===
> Any arbitrator may remove private correspondence that has been posted
> without the consent of the sender. Such material should be sent to the
> committee directly.
>
> We need to establish this, particularly given the Foundation's stance.
> Either we do it ourselves or they do it for us. I'd prefer the latter.


Why only arbitrators?

(Beyond that, I'm not convinced that we need to get into this issue beyond
the principle we already have. The general instruction will be enough to
cover anyone that removes such stuff; and poking at Giano's behavior further
will almost certainly cause more drama at this point.)

Kirill
-----------

From: (Charles Fulton)
Date: Mon, 26 Nov 2007 10:50:59 -0500
Subject: [Arbcom-l] Durova et al.

I don't trust the administrator body in general with a remedy like that. If
you think it's clear enough then maybe I'm being over-sensitive, but having
an unenforced principle does little good.
------------

From kirill.lokshin at gmail.com Mon Nov 26 15:52:56 2007
From: kirill.lokshin at gmail.com (Kirill Lokshin)
Date: Mon, 26 Nov 2007 10:52:56 -0500
Subject: [Arbcom-l] Durova et al.
On Nov 26, 2007 10:50 AM, Charles Fulton <mackensen> wrote:

> I don't trust the administrator body in general with a remedy like that.
> If you think it's clear enough then maybe I'm being over-sensitive, but
> having an unenforced principle does little good.


Well, I expect that we'll do whatever we feel to be necessary regardless of
whether we've passed a formal remedy to that effect, in any case.

Kirill
------------

From: (James Forrester)
Date: Mon, 26 Nov 2007 16:32:29 +0000
Subject: [Arbcom-l] Fwd: Urgent and private for the mailing list

On 26/11/2007, Sean Barrett wrote:
> Charles Fulton wrote:
> > Forwarding at Giano's request. I'm pretty sure that the logo in question
> > refers to the mailman software itself, and that emails delivered via
> > that interface are not subject to the same license.
>
> I find it impossible to believe he is that stupid, which means his
> statement is a malicious lie that deserves to be publicly noted as such.

I would be wary of holding him up to our, highly IT-literate, concept
of how mailman will display its code's licence, and using this as
"proof" that he is acting maliciously. Groupthink can be a powerful
debilitator.

Yrs,
--
James D. Forrester
-----------

From: (James Forrester)
Date: Mon, 26 Nov 2007 16:35:58 +0000
Subject: [Arbcom-l] Durova et al.

On 26/11/2007, Kirill Lokshin wrote:
> On Nov 26, 2007 10:50 AM, Charles Fulton <mackensen at gmail.com> wrote:
> > I don't trust the administrator body in general with a remedy like that.
> > If you think it's clear enough then maybe I'm being over-sensitive, but
> > having an unenforced principle does little good.
>
> Well, I expect that we'll do whatever we feel to be necessary regardless of
> whether we've passed a formal remedy to that effect, in any case.

Indeed. I would make the remedy enforceable by any sysop (perhaps with
an enforcement along the lines of "Those edit-warring against a sysop
following this ruling so as to restore private content without consent
of its creator may be blocked by any uninvolved sysop for up to a
month"), but I don't think calling Giano specifically on this is
necessary, nor in the interests of the project.

Yrs,
--
James D. Forrester
-----------

From: (FloNight)
Date: Mon, 26 Nov 2007 11:36:22 -0500
Subject: [Arbcom-l] Fwd: Urgent and private for the mailing list

Likely Giano is repeating what others said was fact since it supported
his side of the dispute.

Sydney
-------------

From: (Charles Fulton)
Date: Mon, 26 Nov 2007 11:43:27 -0500
Subject: [Arbcom-l] Durova et al.

Would others on this list support the remedy and enforcement, minus the
finding of fact? I'm happy to move them, but a failure to pass such a remedy
would be worse than not making it at all.
------------

From: (Kirill Lokshin)
Date: Mon, 26 Nov 2007 11:44:29 -0500
Subject: [Arbcom-l] Durova et al.

On Nov 26, 2007 11:43 AM, Charles Fulton wrote:

> Would others on this list support the remedy and enforcement, minus the
> finding of fact? I'm happy to move them, but a failure to pass such a remedy
> would be worse than not making it at all.


Fine with me.

Kirill
------------

From: (Dmcdevit)
Date: Mon, 26 Nov 2007 08:49:36 -0800
Subject: [Arbcom-l] Durova et al.

> Is this missing anything major? We should probably try to move
> forward on this case sooner rather than later.
>

Will there be nothing about Jehochman in the decision? To be honest,
Durova made the single biggest mistake, but Jehochman's comments
throughout indicate to me that he is an even more worrisome "sleuth." I
also think that the issue of sleuthing should be addressed directly,
particularly with respect to the assumption of bad faith it is founded
upon, the secret evidence, and the refusal to justify blocks on-wiki.

Dominic
------------

From: (Charles Fulton)
Date: Mon, 26 Nov 2007 11:52:21 -0500
Subject: [Arbcom-l] Durova et al.

I have posted both the remedy and enforcement provision.

Charles
-----------

From: (Kirill Lokshin)
Date: Mon, 26 Nov 2007 11:52:31 -0500
Subject: [Arbcom-l] Durova et al.

> Will there be nothing about Jehochman in the decision? To be honest,
> Durova made the single biggest mistake, but Jehochman's comments
> throughout indicate to me that he is an even more worrisome "sleuth." I
> also think that the issue of sleuthing should be addressed directly,
> particularly with respect to the assumption of bad faith it is founded
> upon, the secret evidence, and the refusal to justify blocks on-wiki.


Well, "Responsibility" essentially prohibits acting based on "secret
evidence" without our consent. Do we need to go further?

Kirill
-----------

From: (charles.r.matthews)
Date: Mon, 26 Nov 2007 17:04:44 +0000
Subject: [Arbcom-l] Durova et al.

"Charles Fulton" wrote

> I'm contemplating an additional FoF and remedy:
>
> Finding of fact:
>
> === Posting of private correspondence ===
> {{user|Giano}} posted private correspondence without the consent of the
> sender. While the committee acknowledges Giano's desire to aid a fellow
> editor it cannot approve of the method used.
>
> === Removal of private correspondence ===
> Any arbitrator may remove private correspondence that has been posted
> without the consent of the sender. Such material should be sent to the
> committee directly.
>
> We need to establish this, particularly given the Foundation's stance.
> Either we do it ourselves or they do it for us. I'd prefer the latter.

The second has gone up as a remedy. Isn't it more like a principle, though?

Charles
-----------

From: (Charles Fulton)
Date: Mon, 26 Nov 2007 12:06:17 -0500
Subject: [Arbcom-l] Durova et al.

Feel free to move it if you think it's more appropriate as a principle.
-----------

From: (Paul August)
Date: Mon, 26 Nov 2007 12:39:07 -0500
Subject: [Arbcom-l] Fwd: Urgent and private for the mailing list

> If he really believes that and isn't just trying to take the prize for
> disingenuous statement of the year, he's too stupid to be let loose on
> a free content licensed site.

I don't think our editors need to be knowledgeable in all things, or
even all such things (if so then I'm too stupid as well).

Paul August
----------

From: (Charles Fulton)
Date: Mon, 26 Nov 2007 12:43:20 -0500
Subject: [Arbcom-l] Fwd: Urgent and private for the mailing list

Well, this list also runs through mailman; I hope no arbitrator (a position
Giano is presently seeking) would treat the messages sent here as released
under the GFDL.
----------

From: (Paul August)
Date: Mon, 26 Nov 2007 12:46:12 -0500
Subject: [Arbcom-l] Fwd: Urgent and private for the mailing list

> I find it impossible to believe he is that stupid, which means his
> statement is a malicious lie that deserves to be publicly noted as
> such.

This is a complete misreading of the situation. Giano is simply a
technical neophyte.

Paul August
----------

From: paulaugust.wp at gmail.com (Paul August)
Date: Mon, 26 Nov 2007 12:58:35 -0500
Subject: [Arbcom-l] Durova et al.

On Nov 26, 2007, at 9:59 AM, Charles Fulton wrote:

> Do we want to address Cary's actions? It's a minefield if we do,
> but the precedent if we don't is problematic.

I think that is a serious matter which needs serious consideration.

Paul August
----------

From: (Charles Fulton)
Date: Mon, 26 Nov 2007 13:00:02 -0500
Subject: [Arbcom-l] Durova et al.

In part we're addressing this by making it explicit that the posting of
private communications without the author's consent is unacceptable.
----------

From: (Paul August)
Date: Mon, 26 Nov 2007 13:17:00 -0500
Subject: [Arbcom-l] Durova et al.

On Nov 26, 2007, at 9:57 AM, FloNight wrote:

> Let's try to avoid locking the workshop page. Quickly voting and
> closing the case is best.

I appreciate the desire to end this quickly. But we should also end
this well. There are several issues which could benefit from looking
into looking into Durova's other blocks, e.g the Cary issue, "secret
lists", "sleuthing", the potential dangers of a siege mentality, and
what about Jehochman?

Paul August
----------

From: (Paul August)
Date: Mon, 26 Nov 2007 13:18:22 -0500
Subject: [Arbcom-l] Durova et al.

On Nov 26, 2007, at 10:18 AM, jayjg wrote:

> On Nov 26, 2007 10:15 AM, Kirill Lokshin wrote:
>>
>> On Nov 26, 2007 10:11 AM, jayjg wrote:
>>
>>> In this section Kelly Martin rather proudly discusses her use of
>>> many
>>> sockpuppets, which she also asserts cannot be found via checkuser.
>>>
>>>
>> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Req...or_arbitration/
>> Durova_and_Jehochman/Workshop#Second_accounts
>>>
>>> Does anyone find this troubling?
>>
>>
>> Meh. Starting another witchhunt would be distinctly unhelpful at
>> this
>> point; we can deal with her if/when the issue comes up in a
>> substantive
>> matter.
>
> I wasn't suggesting "another witchhunt", I was asking if anyone found
> it troubling.

I find it troubling. (And I agree with Kirill)

Paul August
----------

From: (jayjg)
Date: Mon, 26 Nov 2007 13:25:39 -0500
Subject: [Arbcom-l] Durova et al.

On Nov 26, 2007 1:17 PM, Paul August wrote:
>
> On Nov 26, 2007, at 9:57 AM, FloNight wrote:
>
> > Let's try to avoid locking the workshop page. Quickly voting and
> > closing the case is best.
>
> I appreciate the desire to end this quickly. But we should also end
> this well. There are several issues which could benefit from looking
> into looking into Durova's other blocks, e.g the Cary issue, "secret
> lists", "sleuthing", the potential dangers of a siege mentality, and
> what about Jehochman?
>
> Paul August

In my view much of what you are referring to is outside the purview of
the Committee, and the more issues you try to put into this case the
more likely it is that the Committee will be deadlocked and the case
will drag out interminably.
----------

From: (Paul August)
Date: Mon, 26 Nov 2007 13:31:05 -0500
Subject: [Arbcom-l] Fwd: Urgent and private for the mailing list

On Nov 26, 2007, at 12:43 PM, Charles Fulton wrote:

> Well, this list also runs through mailman; I hope no arbitrator (a
> position Giano is presently seeking) would treat the messages sent
> here as released under the GFDL.

For myself, I'm just barely smart enough to realize that, so I will
not have to resign as arbiter on that account ;-) As for Giano, I
think he could be brought up to speed quickly enough -- on that point
at least. ;-)

Paul August
----------

From: mackensen(Charles Fulton)
Date: Mon, 26 Nov 2007 13:33:24 -0500
Subject: [Arbcom-l] Fwd: Urgent and private for the mailing list

Fair enough smile.gif

I already told him as much, but it doesn't appear he believed me...
----------

From: (Paul August)
Date: Mon, 26 Nov 2007 13:34:33 -0500
Subject: [Arbcom-l] Durova et al.

On Nov 26, 2007, at 1:25 PM, jayjg wrote:

> On Nov 26, 2007 1:17 PM, Paul August wrote:
>>
>> On Nov 26, 2007, at 9:57 AM, FloNight wrote:
>>
>>> Let's try to avoid locking the workshop page. Quickly voting and
>>> closing the case is best.
>>
>> I appreciate the desire to end this quickly. But we should also end
>> this well. There are several issues which could benefit from looking
>> into looking into Durova's other blocks, e.g the Cary issue, "secret
>> lists", "sleuthing", the potential dangers of a siege mentality, and
>> what about Jehochman?
>>
>> Paul August
>
> In my view much of what you are referring to is outside the purview of
> the Committee, and the more issues you try to put into this case the
> more likely it is that the Committee will be deadlocked and the case
> will drag out interminably.

Yes I understand and take this point. But we need to strike a balance.

Paul August
----------

From: (Cary Bass)
Date: Mon, 26 Nov 2007 13:38:51 -0500
Subject: [Arbcom-l] Durova

Durova asked me to desysop her today via private correspondence, and I
have carried out her request.

Please see:
<http://meta.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special%3ALog&type=rights&user=Bastique&page=User%3ADurova%40enwiki>

I leave it to you to make the appropriate changes on the Arbitration.

--
Cary Bass
-----------

From: mackensen(Charles Fulton)
Date: Mon, 26 Nov 2007 13:43:31 -0500
Subject: [Arbcom-l] Durova

Sad that it came to this, but much better than the reconfirmation.

Probably the best course of action is a finding stating that Durova resigned
her sysop bit and a remedy that she may re-apply via RfA at any time. We can
throw in an access levels principle if it's necessary.

Charles
----------

From: (Steve Dunlop)
Date: Mon, 26 Nov 2007 11:52:20 -0700
Subject: [Arbcom-l] Durova

Precedent among the 'crats is that individuals who resign "under a
cloud" may not have their bit back for the asking. Are we trying to
change this?

Steve
----------

From: mackensen (Charles Fulton)
Date: Mon, 26 Nov 2007 13:54:27 -0500
Subject: [Arbcom-l] Durova

I'm not; the remedy I've proposed is adopted from the Giano case which set
the precedent. They're free to apply at RfA unless we specifically forbid it
(as we did with Guanaco), what they may not do is simply ask for it back.

Charles
-----------

From: (Sean Barrett)
Date: Mon, 26 Nov 2007 11:56:43 -0800
Subject: [Arbcom-l] Fwd: Urgent and private for the mailing list

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1

Paul August wrote:
> On Nov 26, 2007, at 10:34 AM, David Gerard wrote:
>
>> On 26/11/2007, Charles Fulton <mackensen>wrote:
>>
>>> Forwarding at Giano's request. I'm pretty sure that the logo in
>>> question
>>> refers to the mailman software itself, and that emails delivered
>>> via that
>>> interface are not subject to the same license.
>>
>> If he really believes that and isn't just trying to take the prize for
>> disingenuous statement of the year, he's too stupid to be let loose on
>> a free content licensed site.
>
> I don't think our editors need to be knowledgeable in all things, or
> even all such things (if so then I'm too stupid as well).
>
> Paul August

Perhaps we should also point out that documents written in Microsoft
Word are not subject to Microsoft's licenses.

Further multiplication of examples are left as an exercise....

- --
Sean Barrett
----------

From: (Sean Barrett)
Date: Mon, 26 Nov 2007 12:11:19 -0800
Subject: [Arbcom-l] Fwd: Urgent and private for the mailing list

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1

Paul August wrote:
> On Nov 26, 2007, at 10:45 AM, Sean Barrett wrote:
>
>> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
>> Hash: SHA1
>>
>> Charles Fulton wrote:
>>> Forwarding at Giano's request. I'm pretty sure that the logo in
>>> question
>>> refers to the mailman software itself, and that emails delivered via
>>> that interface are not subject to the same license.
>> I find it impossible to believe he is that stupid, which means his
>> statement is a malicious lie that deserves to be publicly noted as
>> such.
>
> This is a complete misreading of the situation. Giano is simply a
> technical neophyte.
>
> Paul August

Are you seriously trying to tell me that Technical Neophyte Giano
sincerely believes that if I used mailman to send my book manuscript to
my publisher, I would have inadvertently licensed my entire book under
the GFL? Seriously?

Maybe he is that stupid. I wouldn't have dared suggest it, but you
obviously think so.

There is nothing "technical" about this situation. Someone who
sincerely believes that using a particular mail client causes complete
loss of ownership of intellectual property is dangerously ignorant and
should not be allowed to work in an environment where such property
rights are important -- i.e. Wikipedia.

And please feel free to put that shoe on any foot it fits.

- --
Sean Barrett
----------

From: (Steve Dunlop)
Date: Mon, 26 Nov 2007 13:19:37 -0700
Subject: [Arbcom-l] Fwd: Urgent and private for the mailing list


> > This is a complete misreading of the situation. Giano is simply a
> > technical neophyte.
> >
> > Paul August

It seems to me that Giano seized upon an evidently plausible argument
which, were it to be true, would further his immediate objective. That
is what he does, and in large measure it is why he is involved in so
much drama. It's like he suffers from an extreme case of confirmation
bias in his thinking. I don't think he stopped to consider the
implications of his assertion about Mailman. He's not stupid, or
devious, just impetuous.

Steve
-----------

From: (Paul August)
Date: Mon, 26 Nov 2007 15:59:00 -0500
Subject: [Arbcom-l] Fwd: Urgent and private for the mailing list

I've told him too.

Paul August
----------

From: (Paul August)
Date: Mon, 26 Nov 2007 16:08:06 -0500
Subject: [Arbcom-l] Durova

I agree with Charles. The main significance of the "the cloud" is
that the crats should not re-sysop on their own. It does not preclude
re-sysopping via an RFA -- in my view, generally the preferable
route -- or ArbCom.

Paul August
----------

From: (Paul August)
Date: Mon, 26 Nov 2007 16:19:47 -0500
Subject: [Arbcom-l] Fwd: Urgent and private for the mailing list
>
> Are you seriously trying to tell me that Technical Neophyte Giano
> sincerely believes that if I used mailman to send my book
> manuscript to
> my publisher, I would have inadvertently licensed my entire book under
> the GFL? Seriously?

I don't think Giano has any idea what "mailman" is.

Paul August
----------

From: (David Gerard)
Date: Tue, 27 Nov 2007 00:09:39 +0000
Subject: [Arbcom-l] Fwd: OTRS request

These are Giano II's repostings of Durova's email. Is this
oversightable in your view?

(cc'd to AC for their consideration also)

note to AC: really, if the AC doesn't slap Giano *hard* for this he'll
do it again next time. Remember that this is a repetition of his
behaviour from last go-round: his idea of "devastating" evidence
spammed across the wiki until he gets blocked for it. He has form.


- d.

---------- Forwarded message ----------
From: Durova
Date: 26 Nov 2007 22:54
Subject: OTRS request
To: David Gerard


http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=...oldid=173314496
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=...oldid=173311820

Please ask Mike Godwin to approve Oversighting these.

Thanks.
-Durova
-----------

From mgodwin at wikimedia.org Tue Nov 27 00:14:03 2007
From: mgodwin at wikimedia.org (Mike Godwin)
Date: Mon, 26 Nov 2007 19:14:03 -0500
Subject: [Arbcom-l] OTRS request

This is my view regarding the reposting of e-mail in Talk pages:

"Although we encourage self-expression by users on their talk pages,
we do not allow reproduction of other authors' expression on talk
pages, absent (a) the other authors' permission or (b) an expressed
and justified claim that reproduction of the other authors' expression
is lawful under the law of copyright."

I'd approve oversighting under the above analysis. Does this help?


--Mike
-----------

From: (David Gerard)
Date: Tue, 27 Nov 2007 00:28:31 +0000
Subject: [Arbcom-l] OTRS request

Good enough for me - oversight log notes this.

(cc to oversight-l, Durova)


- d.
----------

From: (Fred Bauder)
Date: Mon, 26 Nov 2007 19:32:46 -0500 (EST)
Subject: [Arbcom-l] OTRS request

Mike,

Yes, it does help as one of our arbitrators oversighted those edits, which
is not strictly within the instances cited in the rules as oversightable,
except as a copyright violation. Giano must be experienced, and hopefully,
you have better things to do than study up on that particular personality
and his vociferous supporters.

Fred
----------

From: (jayjg)
Date: Mon, 26 Nov 2007 19:37:51 -0500
Subject: [Arbcom-l] Use of Oversight on Durova's discussion page

On Nov 26, 2007 9:45 AM, jayjg wrote:
> On Nov 23, 2007 11:45 AM, David Gerard wrote:
> > On 23/11/2007, jayjg wrote:
> >
> > > Regarding the oversighting, yes, regarding Cla68, no. He's back to his
> > > usual self, making gratuitous snotty comments about the Sweet Blue
> >
> >
> > Material for an arbitration case? Suggested penalty: no edits to
> > Wikipedia: page space for a year.
> >
>
> He's having a grand old time on the Durova-Jehochman case; now that
> he's discovered that SlimVirgin runs the cyberstalking maillist, he's
> all over it, with multiple oh-so-polite comments on the RFA talk page:
>
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_tal...ochman/Evidence
>
> He's even signed up for the list himself, and is insisting that
> various arbitrators will have to recuse, because they are on the list.
>

And yet another gratuitous dig at SlimVirgin:

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=...oldid=174014249
----------

From: (Jimmy Wales)
Date: Mon, 26 Nov 2007 21:32:26 -0500
Subject: [Arbcom-l] Durova et al.

Paul August wrote:
> I appreciate the desire to end this quickly. But we should also end
> this well. There are several issues which could benefit from looking
> into looking into Durova's other blocks, e.g the Cary issue, "secret
> lists", "sleuthing", the potential dangers of a siege mentality, and
> what about Jehochman?

Yes, we need a firm ruling that Wikipedia does not bar editors from
talking to either other, privately or publicly, and that the
cyberstalking list is not, and has never been, a "secret list" in the
sense intended.

The cyberstalking mailing list is a place where people are discussing a
wide range of proposals for dealing with a very real issue. They
deserve privacy, because they have been physically, financially, and
emotionally threatened and tormented.

So yes, we need to look into the issue of "secret lists" if only to
dispel the current witch hunt.
----------

From: (Durova)
Date: Mon, 26 Nov 2007 08:45:10 -0800
Subject: [Arbcom-l] FW: Hello from Durova

Respectfully, please slow down this case. The rushed shift to voting exerts
enormous pressure. I haven't had time to address legitimate concerns. I
was up past three in the morning on this and got up after four hours'
sleep. No one can assemble evidence this fast while fielding related
matters in multiple fora. It just isn't humanly possible.

The people who disrupted the ANI discussion have had a week to paint me as a
bogey. Some of their ideas gained traction among well-meaning Wikipedians
and other people have raised thoughtful questions. In order to
substantiate the answers I'm digging through thousands of edits manually.
I've been baited and mocked the whole while.

I'm standing for reconfirmation when this ends. How can the average editor
reached an informed decision on the basis of:
1. An ANI thread that became so disruptive I abandoned it after the first
day in order to minimize the drama?
2. An RFC that became obsolete twelve hours after it opened, and that
coincided with a major holiday?
3. An arbitration that went to voting less than a day after it opened?

-Durova
----------

From: (Fred Bauder)
Date: Mon, 26 Nov 2007 23:26:32 -0500 (EST)
Subject: [Arbcom-l] FW: Hello from Durova

Durova,

I want you to know that I am grateful for the great work you have done,
and that I hope you continue to find a home here. We have discussed this
case a great deal, but I don't think we will provide definitive resolution
over all matters.

Fred
----------

From: (Paul August)
Date: Mon, 26 Nov 2007 23:33:34 -0500
Subject: [Arbcom-l] FW: Hello from Durova

I agree that we should slow this case down.

Paul August
----------

From: morven (Matthew Brown)
Date: Mon, 26 Nov 2007 20:44:46 -0800
Subject: [Arbcom-l] FW: Hello from Durova

On Nov 26, 2007 8:33 PM, Paul August wrote:
> I agree that we should slow this case down.

I as well; there's nothing wrong with going to voting so early, since
the facts seem uncomplicated, but let's not produce a hasty conclusion
when a better one might be found with a little more time.

In the longer run, we have to devise a method of reducing the trolling
and irrelevancy on Evidence & Workshop pages and their respective talk
pages. None of them should be free-for-all forums.

-Matt
----------

From: (Fred Bauder)
Date: Tue, 27 Nov 2007 00:06:46 -0500 (EST)
Subject: [Arbcom-l] FW: Hello from Durova

Pretty simple really, limit input to parties. If their own ass is not on
the line, they wouldn't be quite so bold.

Fred
-----------

From: morven (Matthew Brown)
Date: Mon, 26 Nov 2007 21:56:26 -0800
Subject: [Arbcom-l] FW: Hello from Durova


On Nov 26, 2007 9:06 PM, Fred Bauder wrote:
> Pretty simple really, limit input to parties. If their own ass is not on
> the line, they wouldn't be quite so bold.

Should we do this for only controversial cases or for all of them?

-Matt
User is offlineProfile CardPM
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
Rhindle
post Tue 12th July 2011, 10:04pm
Post #18


Senior Member
****

Group: Contributors
Posts: 324
Joined: Mon 30th Jun 2008, 8:51pm
Member No.: 6,834



QUOTE(Piperdown @ Tue 12th July 2011, 1:33pm) *

QUOTE
Sometimes a wrong ruling is better than no ruling at all..
--Jimbo


A real winnner running Wikipedia.


He must have been on the Casey Anthony jury. Is he still in Florida?
User is offlineProfile CardPM
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
MaliceAforethought
post Tue 12th July 2011, 10:34pm
Post #19


u Mad?
***

Group: Contributors
Posts: 206
Joined: Tue 21st Jun 2011, 6:54am
From: Wonderland
Member No.: 57,801



From: (Durova)
Date: Mon, 26 Nov 2007 21:05:05 -0800
Subject: [Arbcom-l] FW: Hello from Durova

Five of you voted before I could complete my evidence. That action alone
sends an extremely strong message.

I don't ask for a special provision to get the tools back directly from a
'crat. If that was intended as a kind gesture, I thank you, but I think it
also sends the wrong signal about back door channels and community
accountability.

So at this point, dragging this out would probably be counterproductive. If
you wish to prolong this for any reason at all, please consider:

*I would appreciate it if perhaps you decided I've already been admonished
enough.

*I don't know whether you've revisited this since I posted, but one of
Kirill's comments misses an important point of relevant policy I helped
write last summer. That's probably because the section title is vague.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Req...violated_policy

Thanks for the kind words,
Lise
On Nov 26, 2007 8:33 PM, Paul August wrote:

> I agree that we should slow this case down.
>
> Paul August
----------

From: (David Gerard)
Date: Tue, 27 Nov 2007 08:34:15 +0000
Subject: [Arbcom-l] FW: Hello from Durova

On 26/11/2007, Durova wrote:

> Respectfully, please slow down this case. The rushed shift to voting exerts
> enormous pressure. I haven't had time to address legitimate concerns. I
> was up past three in the morning on this and got up after four hours' sleep.
> No one can assemble evidence this fast while fielding related matters in
> multiple fora. It just isn't humanly possible.


I suspect that (a) both Durova and Jehochman feel they're getting
railroaded (b) they have some justification for feeling this way.


- d.
----------

From: mackensen(Charles Fulton)
Date: Tue, 27 Nov 2007 07:12:25 -0500
Subject: [Arbcom-l] FW: Hello from Durova

Drama-laden arbitrations like these need to be resolved very quickly, if
only to stanch the bleeding. I regret that Durova feels ill-treated but her
conduct before and during the affair do not inspire in me feelings of
compassion. She's had as much time as anyone else to post evidence--more,
really, as she instigated the affair. What, exactly, does she intend to
bring forth, that would have bearing on the case as framed? Most of the
evidence posted is irrelevant to the case anyway; we're not examining prior
blocks and no one has yet indicated a desire to. This concern about
"reconfirmation" is ludicrous--Durova cannot seriously be considering an
RfA-style referendum. The experience would be searing and her resignation
has removed, in large part, any expectation that she undergo it.

Sorry, perhaps I'm annoyed, but I'm not convinced.

Charles
----------

From: (FloNight)
Date: Tue, 27 Nov 2007 07:22:44 -0500
Subject: [Arbcom-l] FW: Hello from Durova

On Nov 27, 2007 7:12 AM, Charles Fulton wrote:
> Drama-laden arbitrations like these need to be resolved very quickly, if
> only to stanch the bleeding. I regret that Durova feels ill-treated but her
> conduct before and during the affair do not inspire in me feelings of
> compassion. She's had as much time as anyone else to post evidence--more,
> really, as she instigated the affair. What, exactly, does she intend to
> bring forth, that would have bearing on the case as framed? Most of the
> evidence posted is irrelevant to the case anyway; we're not examining prior
> blocks and no one has yet indicated a desire to. This concern about
> "reconfirmation" is ludicrous--Durova cannot seriously be considering an
> RfA-style referendum. The experience would be searing and her resignation
> has removed, in large part, any expectation that she undergo it.
>
> Sorry, perhaps I'm annoyed, but I'm not convinced.
>
> Charles

I think that she intended to have a recall-driven RFA soon after the
case closed. It appears that she dropped her admin bit to stall for
time since we were closing the case rapidly.

My concern is that she still does not seem to fully appreciate her
error and what caused reasonable users to get upset with her.

Sydney
----------

From: (James Forrester)
Date: Tue, 27 Nov 2007 12:49:34 +0000
Subject: [Arbcom-l] FW: Hello from Durova

On 27/11/2007, FloNight wrote:
> On Nov 27, 2007 7:12 AM, Charles Fulton wrote:
> > This concern about "reconfirmation" is ludicrous--Durova cannot
> > seriously be considering an RfA-style referendum. The experience
> > would be searing and her resignation has removed, in large part, any
> > expectation that she she undergo it.
> >
> > Sorry, perhaps I'm annoyed, but I'm not convinced.
>
> I think that she intended to have a recall-driven RFA soon after the
> case closed. It appears that she dropped her admin bit to stall for
> time since we were closing the case rapidly.
>
> My concern is that she still does not seem to fully appreciate her
> error and what caused reasonable users to get upset with her.

My concern is similar; that the project is ill-served in losing her,
but that her current course will result in both that and further drama
(reconfirmation would have indeed been an absolute blood-bath; a
suicidal RfA attempt in the next few weeks would be, if anything
worse).

I think that at this point we have a duty (to her, but more generally,
to the project) to *privately* advise her on the best next steps.
Closing the case in the next few days would probably aid this best,
but we should bring her into the loop on our thoughts.

Yours,
--
James D. Forrester
----------

From: (Newyorkbrad (Wikipedia))
Date: Tue, 27 Nov 2007 08:36:42 -0500
Subject: [Arbcom-l] Durova case wording

To the Arbitration Committee:

On the proposed decision page for the Durova case, two arbitrators had
raised a concern about the wording. I have suggested a slightly revised
wording on the proposed decision talkpage. This e-mail is just to point
anyone interested in that direction, because I am sure it is easy to miss it
in the midst of the other discussions surrounding this case.

Best regards,
Newyorkbrad
----------

From: (Fred Bauder)
Date: Tue, 27 Nov 2007 09:44:33 -0500 (EST)
Subject: [Arbcom-l] Durova case wording

I have changed this to reflect Newyorkbrad's suggestion. Please change my
vote back if you change the wording back.

Fred
----------

From: (Charles Fulton)
Date: Tue, 27 Nov 2007 09:51:47 -0500
Subject: [Arbcom-l] Durova case wording

The revised wording is fine.
----------

From: (Kirill Lokshin)
Date: Tue, 27 Nov 2007 09:52:46 -0500
Subject: [Arbcom-l] giano

On Nov 27, 2007 9:44 AM, jayjg wrote:

> On Nov 26, 2007 9:58 PM, Kirill Lokshin wrote:
> > On Nov 26, 2007 9:29 PM, Jimmy Wales <jwales at wikia.com> wrote:
> >
> > 1. The purpose and scope of the forum have not been clearly defined; or,
> at
> > least, the apparent contents of it -- such as have leaked, in any case
> --
> > are at odds with the given description.
>
> Actually, the purpose and scope of the forum have been fairly clearly
> defined, and I believe are now even stated on the signup page.
>
> > If it's just a list to discuss
> > cyberstalking, why are investigative reports being directed there (as
> > opposed to, say, this list, which is actually in a position to act on
> them)?
>
> Because it's an unmoderated forum where, ultimately, anyone can post
> whatever they like. The fact that Durova's posting of an "education in
> identifying sockpuppets" was not really the topic of the forum likely
> contributed to the fact that most of the members ignored it.


Perhaps; but there's conflicting public statements being made regarding the
volume of "investigative" traffic on the list.


> > There have been vague statements regarding a possible relationship
> between
> > the cyberstalking list and the investigations list, which aggravate
> this.
>
> I'm not even sure what the "investigations list" is.


wpinvestigations-l; I believe there was some correspondence from it
forwarded here as part of Durova's harassment complaint recently. JzG keeps
mentioning that it was spun off the cyberstalking list to reduce volume;
whether or not that's accurate, I have no idea, but statements like that are
adding to the confusion.


> > 2. Beyond this is the fact that the apparent membership of the
> cyberstalking
> > list includes a number of people known for espousing a rather
> unforgiving
> > attitude towards anyone they view as supporting the stalking. Coupled
> with
> > the extremely wide brush with which anyone opposing the anti-linking
> faction
> > in the BADSITES debates was painted, and the increase in "midnight
> > knock"-type blocks, there is now a (perfectly reasonable, in my opinion)
> > fear among many editors that they'll be the next ones to be removed from
> the
> > project, and that plans for such removals are being discussed on the
> list.
> >
> > 3. On a more technical note, the process by which new members are
> admitted
> > (or not) to the list -- blackballing, essentially, if I understand the
> > description correctly -- furthers the impression that there must be
> > something covert being discussed; else, why all the precautions to avoid
> > admitting someone undesirable to the existing members?
>
> That seems like a strange objection; you wonder why victims of
> stalking would be cautious about who they would want to discuss their
> experiences with?


Not an objection, really, just a comment about why people are agitated.

Kirill
----------

From: (Charles Fulton)
Date: Tue, 27 Nov 2007 10:29:52 -0500
Subject: [Arbcom-l] giano

That's the obvious implication here, and I'm deeply uncomfortable with it.
If people want to discuss cyberstalking that's fine and proper, but this
kind of investigation needs to be left to the Committee as a
body--especially if these self-selected inquisitors are going to blithely
refer questions about the block to us after the fact!

The damage goes fairly deep here. By claiming that various
officials--arbitrators, checkusers, stewards--had seen and approved of the
evidence (a misleading claim), Durova has tarnished the credibility of these
bodies. I don't know how to repair that damage.

Charles
----------

From: (jayjg)
Date: Tue, 27 Nov 2007 10:32:45 -0500
Subject: [Arbcom-l] giano

On Nov 27, 2007 10:29 AM, Charles Fulton wrote:
> That's the obvious implication here, and I'm deeply uncomfortable with it.
> If people want to discuss cyberstalking that's fine and proper, but this
> kind of investigation needs to be left to the Committee as a
> body--especially if these self-selected inquisitors are going to blithely
> refer questions about the block to us after the fact!

We don't know if Durova is on the second, "investigations" list. Guy
says it's "in its infancy", so we don't know if it has done any
investigations yet, but it seems unlikely.
Malice's note: Okay class, how many days did it take AC to "forget" about the investigations list?
-----------

From: morven (Matthew Brown)
Date: Tue, 27 Nov 2007 07:33:12 -0800
Subject: [Arbcom-l] giano

On Nov 27, 2007 7:22 AM, Kirill Lokshin wrote:
> "Another list does exist. It was set up to take some of the side-issue
> traffic out of the main list which had reached over 3,000 posts in about
> nine or ten weeks. This list is also private, but in its infancy."
>
> Unless I'm horribly misinterpreting this -- and if I am, I doubt I'm the
> only one -- JzG's statement necessarily implies that the cyberstalking list
> was seeing a significant amount of traffic on whatever topics the
> investigations list was created to cover.
>
> (Or is this talking about some *other* mailing list that hasn't even been
> mentioned yet? I hope the rabbit hole is not quite that deep.)

No, it's the same list. However, the investigations list never got
off the ground in any meaningful sense. It saw about 25 threads and
little meaningful.

I was invited to join and did so in the hope that I could dissuade
people from doing anything rash. Alas, Durova did not run her block
past anyone before doing it.

-Matt
----------

From: mackensen(Charles Fulton)
Date: Tue, 27 Nov 2007 10:38:12 -0500
Subject: [Arbcom-l] Durova et al.

We may need additional wording concerning the difference between internal
and external policies. Specifically, someone is claiming that IAR permits
the posting of copyrighted material (e.g. private correspondence). This is a
dangerous line of thinking, and I've seen it elsewhere--users getting banned
under No Legal Threats because they called a BLP libelous.

Charles
----------

From: (Durova)
Date: Tue, 27 Nov 2007 12:08:47 -0800
Subject: [Arbcom-l] FW: Hello from Durova

I've just posted to the proposed decision talk page, and I don't want to
appear like I'm saying one thing in private and another in public.

I've slept less than nine hours of the last fifty. Well-meaning people are
sending me diffs of continued ban-evading trolling that regards this case.
My thought yesterday when I resigned the bit was to let this end quietly and
then maybe open an RFC on myself after things calm down.

I see no new proposals based upon the things I've asked the Committee to
consider. So if that isn't going to be forthcoming please let this end. If
loose ends remain then maybe put the decision up for review afterward when
the storm has passed.

Thank you. And I really think everyone on the Committee means well.
-Lise
----------

From: mackensen (Charles Fulton)
Date: Wed, 28 Nov 2007 11:51:34 -0500
Subject: [Arbcom-l] Finishing up Durova et al

At the moment, there's not much left to pass that's been proposed in the
Durova case. Fred's wording on blocking has four supports; it needs two
more. All the rest of the principles pass. All the current findings pass.
All the remedies pass, and so does the enforcement provision.

I had a productive private conversation with Giano this morning; I'm left
wishing we could better reconcile his public and private utterances. If
we're going to move any specific additional principles, findings, and
remedies, we should do it now or not at all, and close the case. The
personal correspondence principle and remedy is targeted at him anyway; we
could add a finding that Giano posted private correspondence without the
consent of the sender. We might also consider an additional remedy,
acknowledging Giano's not entirely negative or positive role in forcing the
issue, while requesting that in the future he try to work through the
standard dispute resolution mechanisms. He is, after all, running for
arbcom.

I have no doubt this committee could pass a harsher remedy, but I doubt we
could make it stick. Even if we're right it looks awful. Establishing in
principle now gives us an out if this happens again; that the committee
should have done so earlier is a historical accident, the costs of which we
probably shouldn't pass on to Giano.

Those are my thoughts, at any rate.

Charles
----------

From: (Steve Dunlop)
Date: Wed, 28 Nov 2007 11:10:36 -0700
Subject: [Arbcom-l] Finishing up Durova et al


> I had a productive private conversation with Giano this morning; I'm left
> wishing we could better reconcile his public and private utterances. If
> we're going to move any specific additional principles, findings, and
> remedies, we should do it now or not at all, and close the case.

Yes.

Giano can be fairly lucid in private conversation. I think that the
extensive history of people trying to work with him (I number myself
among this group) testifies to the fact that his apparent
approachability does not equate to a willingness to change.

Steve
----------

From: (jayjg)
Date: Wed, 28 Nov 2007 13:23:15 -0500
Subject: [Arbcom-l] Finishing up Durova et al

On Nov 28, 2007 1:10 PM, Steve Dunlop <steve-dunlop at nerstrand.net> wrote:
> > I had a productive private conversation with Giano this morning; I'm left
> > wishing we could better reconcile his public and private utterances. If
> > we're going to move any specific additional principles, findings, and
> > remedies, we should do it now or not at all, and close the case.
>
> Yes.
>
> Giano can be fairly lucid in private conversation. I think that the
> extensive history of people trying to work with him (I number myself
> among this group) testifies to the fact that his apparent
> approachability does not equate to a willingness to change.
>
> Steve

Now why on earth would he ask this question out of the blue?

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=...oldid=174406448

I think I can guess...
----------

From: (Sean Barrett)
Date: Wed, 28 Nov 2007 10:40:28 -0800
Subject: [Arbcom-l] Finishing up Durova et al


-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1

jayjg wrote:
> Now why on earth would he ask this question out of the blue?
>
> http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=...oldid=174406448
>
> I think I can guess...

Take a look at the deletion log in the page history.
----------

From: (jayjg)
Date: Wed, 28 Nov 2007 13:52:35 -0500
Subject: [Arbcom-l] Finishing up Durova et al

> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
> Hash: SHA1
>
> jayjg wrote:
> > Now why on earth would he ask this question out of the blue?
> >
> > http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=...oldid=174406448
> >
> > I think I can guess...
>
> Take a look at the deletion log in the page history.

Oh, I know the story of that article, it has been used quite regularly
by Wikipedia Review editors to troll SlimVirgin, but the question is
why Giano would suddenly take an interest in it.
----------

From: (Mark Pellegrini)
Date: Wed, 28 Nov 2007 13:57:52 -0500
Subject: [Arbcom-l] Finishing up Durova et al

He probably saw it mentioned on WR, went to the talk page, saw "This
article and its talk page are permanently protected. In order to request
a change, please ask at the administrators' noticeboard.", which is
basically an invitation to ask why.

-Mark
----------

From: (jayjg)
Date: Wed, 28 Nov 2007 14:24:52 -0500
Subject: [Arbcom-l] Finishing up Durova et al

If he saw it mentioned on WR, then he also saw they were trolling her
with the article.
----------

From: (charles.r.matthews)
Date: Wed, 28 Nov 2007 22:35:07 +0000
Subject: [Arbcom-l] Jehochman

Well, the Adam Cuerden thing turns out not really to be a laughing matter: see the Matthew Hoffman thread at AN/I. Basically he's a bent admin.

And Jehochman is mixed up in the worst of it (in short, a rather suspect 72 hour block upgraded to indefinite with two lies in the block log).

In the D&J case, then, we also need to look closely at Jehochman's role.

Charles
----------

From: (David Gerard)
Date: Wed, 28 Nov 2007 22:43:28 +0000
Subject: [Arbcom-l] Jehochman

On 28/11/2007, <charles.r.matthews> wrote:

> Well, the Adam Cuerden thing turns out not really to be a laughing matter: see the Matthew Hoffman thread at AN/I. Basically he's a bent admin.


Bent as in corrupt, or just crap? The ANI discussion reads like a
rather too clue-resistant one rather than anything involving
incontrovertible bad faith. Perhaps I missed something.


> And Jehochman is mixed up in the worst of it (in short, a rather suspect 72 hour block upgraded to indefinite with two lies in the block log).


Is that from looking over every edit? (Jehochman isn't mentioned in
the ANI thread.)


- d.
----------

From: (jayjg)
Date: Wed, 28 Nov 2007 17:50:54 -0500
Subject: [Arbcom-l] Jehochman

On Nov 28, 2007 5:35 PM, <charles.r.matthews> wrote:
> Well, the Adam Cuerden thing turns out not really to be a laughing matter: see the Matthew Hoffman thread at AN/I. Basically he's a bent admin.
>
> And Jehochman is mixed up in the worst of it (in short, a rather suspect 72 hour block upgraded to indefinite with two lies in the block log).

Wait a minute, Moreschi was the one who said it was a sock and
approved the block. Jehochman only voiced approval after the indef had
been done. Are you sure you don't mean "Moreschi is mixed up in the
worst of it"?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Adm...:MatthewHoffman

>
> In the D&J case, then, we also need to look closely at Jehochman's role.

On what grounds? What role did he play? I'm not seeing anything.
-----------

From: (charles.r.matthews)
Date: Thu, 29 Nov 2007 10:57:48 +0000
Subject: [Arbcom-l] [Fwd: RE: Adam Cuerden, elsewhere (recently)]

Communication from El C, relevant to Adam Cuerden, Jehochman and whatever the El C business is/was. I'll admit to a degree of confusion.

Charles

> From: El C
> Date: 2007/11/28 Wed PM 11:13:37 GMT
> To: Charles Matthews
> Subject: RE: Adam Cuerden, elsewhere (recently)
>
> Remember the admin whom I mentioned declined the unblock review and rubber-stamped the week-long pseudo-3rr diffs that were used by Jehochman as grounds to block Dreamguy (see my and Dmcdevit's statements in Requests for arbitration/Durova and Jehochman)? Well, that was Adam Cuerden, whose completely irrelevant response to the unblock request was "Plenty of evidence that trouble has been caused by this user" (!) (see User_talk:DreamGuy#Block). And while Jehochman apologized for the oversight, not a word for Adam, still.
>
> To quote the pertinent excerpt from my approved unblock request a few hours later: "As for Adam Cuerden's declining the request, I'm not sure how to respond to that, except to note that reviewing unblock requests isn't a mere formality, or limited to the most obvious cases. More judicious, informed, and informative/informational review is needed."
>
> All of this (that is, including your incident) may not mean much beyond a reminder to keep the spirit of the rules much closer to heart, but if similar sets of trouble continue, then, in my mind, there would be certainly greater cause for concern.
>
> Regards,
> ElC
-----------

From: (David Gerard)
Date: Thu, 29 Nov 2007 11:12:59 +0000
Subject: [Arbcom-l] [Fwd: RE: Adam Cuerden, elsewhere (recently)]

DreamGuy has been harassing other users on the wiki, notably Elonka,
for the past year or so. (A charming habit of logging out to harass as
an IP when too much attention was being called to his username.) When
blocked by others, he was usually unblocked by Bishonen or Geogre, who
are notably also Giano's most prominent defenders - which may help
explain his attention to this case. Elonka was considering an arbcom
case, but couldn't commit the time but mostly mudslinging it would
entail (and DreamGuy's done a fine line in mud).

If you want to dive into this one, there's a lot of bad behaviour to
be tabled that hasn't come up as yet in the present case.


- d.
----------

From: (Newyorkbrad (Wikipedia))
Date: Thu, 29 Nov 2007 10:36:53 -0500
Subject: [Arbcom-l] Fwd: Giano

To the Arbitration Committee:

I am forwarding an e-mail from an anonymous editor that I received last
night regarding the Durova case.

Best regards,
Newyorkbrad


---------- Forwarded message ----------
From: Anon Editor <ae8342 at gmail.com>
Date: Nov 28, 2007 8:54 PM
Subject: Giano
To: newyorkbrad

To the committee,

Please consider: If you reread Durova's email, you will see that the problem
wasn't just the poor evidence, but the assumptions and insinuations it made
of at least three people, primarily Giano. The entire email was based on
the premise that Giano was leading WR in revolt against Wikipedia.

The widespread reaction against Durova has indeed been overwrought, although
I think it can be understood as a response to a certain "shoot on sight"
approach that I don't believe has been helpful. If two people had a right
to be offended, however, they were Giano and !!.

This may not have been obvious from the email, since it wasn't Durova's
point. It was the underlying assumption, however, and probably the reason
Giano reacted so strongly. Perhaps a closer look at this would provide a
better understanding of Giano's actions.

Regards,
Anon
----------

From: mackensen(Charles Fulton)
Date: Thu, 29 Nov 2007 14:52:41 -0500
Subject: [Arbcom-l] Durova

We're not doing anyone any favors keeping this open any longer. The
community has taken the hint and started crafting a policy on private
correspondence; this may actually produce something fruitful. In the
meantime, I think the only substantial area of disagreement is Giano. For my
own part, I'm not prepared, at this point, to go any farther than reminding
him, but given the principles and findings already adopted, I'm content.

If we could get some votes on the remaining remedies I think we could look
at closing the case.

Charles
-----------

From: (charles.r.matthews)
Date: Thu, 29 Nov 2007 20:08:05 +0000
Subject: [Arbcom-l] Durova

"Charles Fulton" wrote

> We're not doing anyone any favors keeping this open any longer. The
> community has taken the hint and started crafting a policy on private
> correspondence; this may actually produce something fruitful. In the
> meantime, I think the only substantial area of disagreement is Giano. For my
> own part, I'm not prepared, at this point, to go any farther than reminding
> him, but given the principles and findings already adopted, I'm content.
>
> If we could get some votes on the remaining remedies I think we could look
> at closing the case.

Oppose hasty closing. For one thing, I've only started voting myself.

Charles
----------

From: (David Gerard)
Date: Thu, 29 Nov 2007 20:09:27 +0000
Subject: [Arbcom-l] Durova


On 29/11/2007,<charles.r.matthews> wrote:
> "Charles Fulton" wrote

> > If we could get some votes on the remaining remedies I think we could look
> > at closing the case.

> Oppose hasty closing. For one thing, I've only started voting myself.


Has Durova actually had a chance to respond at all? I suspect she's
feeling more than a little railroaded here.


- d.
----------

From: (Dmcdevit)
Date: Thu, 29 Nov 2007 12:17:43 -0800
Subject: [Arbcom-l] Durova

Charles Fulton wrote:
> We're not doing anyone any favors keeping this open any longer. The
> community has taken the hint and started crafting a policy on private
> correspondence; this may actually produce something fruitful. In the
> meantime, I think the only substantial area of disagreement is Giano.
> For my own part, I'm not prepared, at this point, to go any farther
> than reminding him, but given the principles and findings already
> adopted, I'm content.
>
> If we could get some votes on the remaining remedies I think we could
> look at closing the case.

Well, I'll make a final comment then. They are nice principles and
findings. You will have decided that admins should act reasonably
transparently and that poorly thought-out blocks have a chilling effect,
that encyclopedic contributions do not excuse disruptive behavior, that
dispute resolution is preferred to unbridled criticism across all
available forums, and that draconian measures may be called for when
there is no other solution to disruption.

At the end of the day though, Durova, who already has resigned anyway,
needs to go through normal channels to become an admin again, Giano is
reminded to be more civil, and Jehochman isn't even mentioned. It's not
a very impressive set of solutions. They don't live up to the ambitious
principles. In fact, there's not a tough decision among them. This, in
my opinion, is ArbCom's continual failing with regard to Giano and other
sensational cases: the inability to make a tough but necessary decision
and simply stick to it.

Dominic
----------

From: (jayjg)
Date: Thu, 29 Nov 2007 15:18:27 -0500
Subject: [Arbcom-l] Durova

On Nov 29, 2007 2:52 PM, Charles Fulton <mackensen> wrote:
> We're not doing anyone any favors keeping this open any longer. The
> community has taken the hint and started crafting a policy on private
> correspondence; this may actually produce something fruitful.

So far it looks like a strawman; the original "Lawrence Cohen" version
advised people to post private correspondence on their blog, or better
yet, send it to a famous blogger, Slashdot, or Digg, explaining that
they were all "fine". Ethical issues aside, I really don't like it
when people who have been editing for 3 months get themselves into the
thick of Wikipedia controversy and then decide they should write
policies.
-----------

From: (Paul August)
Date: Thu, 29 Nov 2007 16:41:43 -0500
Subject: [Arbcom-l] Durova

Mark, if by "talk page proposals" you are referring to Durova saying
"I've just posted to the proposed decision talk page", then I
believe she is referring to the diff I posted below namely:

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?
title=Wikipedia_talk:Requests_for_arbitration/Durova_and_Jehochman/
Proposed_decision&diff=174060733&oldid=174060661

Paul August


On Nov 29, 2007, at 4:08 PM, Mark Pellegrini wrote:

> What talk page proposals is she talking about?
>
> -Mark
-----------

From: (charles.r.matthews)
Date: Thu, 29 Nov 2007 22:00:01 +0000
Subject: [Arbcom-l] Durova

Dmcdevit wrote

>This, in
> my opinion, is ArbCom's continual failing with regard to Giano and other
> sensational cases: the inability to make a tough but necessary decision
> and simply stick to it.

The ban remedy was recently at 4-4, with 11 active Arbitrators. I think encouraging people to vote on this is the way forward.

I don't see that belabouring those who will carry the can, one way or another, progresses things. There are some strong feelings being expressed from the sidelines. OK. Some of you guys could have had a vote here.

Charles
----------

From: (charles.r.matthews)
Date: Thu, 29 Nov 2007 22:20:36 +0000
Subject: [Arbcom-l] Durova

Can I make a couple of entirely personal points about this business?

If Durova is not sleeping, she needs to see a doctor. We are incompetent to help her.

I have voted to ban Giano for three months. I think if he spends the next three months on Wikipedia, he'll be worse off as a person. This I genuinely believe, based on 53 years on this planet, many of which have been interesting but not great to live through.

My 0.02 euros.

Charles
-----------

From: (Jimmy Wales)
Date: Thu, 29 Nov 2007 14:36:56 -0800
Subject: [Arbcom-l] Durova

Dmcdevit wrote:
> At the end of the day though, Durova, who already has resigned anyway,
> needs to go through normal channels to become an admin again, Giano is
> reminded to be more civil, and Jehochman isn't even mentioned. It's not
> a very impressive set of solutions. They don't live up to the ambitious
> principles. In fact, there's not a tough decision among them. This, in
> my opinion, is ArbCom's continual failing with regard to Giano and other
> sensational cases: the inability to make a tough but necessary decision
> and simply stick to it.

I have to agree with Dominic here. Giano needs more than just a
reminder, particularly as this case is widely watched and good people in
the community will be looking to it for cues about what social norms are
expected on the site.

If we send the signal that it is perfectly ok to post private email
publicly (even though we ruled against that quite firmly in the past, or
am I mistaken?) and that it is ok to engage in mockery of a person
including comparing them to Hitler and Goebbels, then we should not be
surprised at the kind of culture we get as a result.

Just to be sure I am clear: I will not act separately or in
contradiction to the arbcom in the matter of Giano, period. I make my
comments as encouragement for those members of the committee inclined to
go easy on Giano to at least rethink it one good time.

--Jimbo
----------

From: (FloNight)
Date: Thu, 29 Nov 2007 18:05:39 -0500
Subject: [Arbcom-l] Durova

On Nov 29, 2007 5:36 PM, Jimmy Wales wrote:
> Dmcdevit wrote:
> > At the end of the day though, Durova, who already has resigned anyway,
> > needs to go through normal channels to become an admin again, Giano is
> > reminded to be more civil, and Jehochman isn't even mentioned. It's not
> > a very impressive set of solutions. They don't live up to the ambitious
> > principles. In fact, there's not a tough decision among them. This, in
> > my opinion, is ArbCom's continual failing with regard to Giano and other
> > sensational cases: the inability to make a tough but necessary decision
> > and simply stick to it.
>
> I have to agree with Dominic here. Giano needs more than just a
> reminder, particularly as this case is widely watched and good people in
> the community will be looking to it for cues about what social norms are
> expected on the site.
>
> If we send the signal that it is perfectly ok to post private email
> publicly (even though we ruled against that quite firmly in the past, or
> am I mistaken?) and that it is ok to engage in mockery of a person
> including comparing them to Hitler and Goebbels, then we should not be
> surprised at the kind of culture we get as a result.
>
> Just to be sure I am clear: I will not act separately or in
> contradiction to the arbcom in the matter of Giano, period. I make my
> comments as encouragement for those members of the committee inclined to
> go easy on Giano to at least rethink it one good time.
>
> --Jimbo

I can't support a 90 day ban now but will if he acts disruptive again
before the case closes.

I can support something like 7.2 if it is put in place now except for
pages related to the election, FA, and normal dispute resolation. I
also think we need to specify a warning is given first and then 3
uninvolved admins need to sign off on the blocks on his talk page NOT
AN/I.

I'm going out to dinner and can't write it up now. If no one else has
done it, I will when I get home.

Sydney
-----------

User is offlineProfile CardPM
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
MaliceAforethought
post Tue 12th July 2011, 10:39pm
Post #20


u Mad?
***

Group: Contributors
Posts: 206
Joined: Tue 21st Jun 2011, 6:54am
From: Wonderland
Member No.: 57,801



QUOTE(thekohser @ Tue 12th July 2011, 6:53pm) *

Hey, Malice... how come this didn't come up when you did your much earlier search for "Kohs-related" messages?


Only searched recent months. You're quite the popular topic.
User is offlineProfile CardPM
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post

3 Pages V  1 2 3 >
Reply to this topicStart new topic
1 User(s) are reading this topic (1 Guests and 0 Anonymous Users)
0 Members:

 

-   Lo-Fi Version Time is now: 21st 9 17, 12:18pm