Printable Version of Topic

Posted by: Wikileaker

Please see http://wikipediareview.com/index.php?showtopic=15878 posted on my behalf for the background.

----

[Arbcom-l] Appeal of earlier case from February 2008.

joshua zelinsky <zelinsky@gmail.com> Sun, Jan 11, 2009 at 6:39 PM
Reply-To: Arbitration Committee mailing list <arbcom-l@lists.wikimedia.org>
To: arbcom-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Cc: newyorkbrad@gmail.com, jzelinsk@bu.edu
I'm a drafting a request to appeal the earlier decision from February
2008. It would be useful to know if the ArbCom would prefer that an
appeal of that case occur in public or in private. Given that the
primary finding of fact is now public there's substantially less
reason in that regard to handle the matter privately. However, some
evidence will inevitably need to remain private. Moreover, any public
appeal will have serious potential to create drama given that part of
the evidence in the case involves a still unexplained largescale leak
of data from the ArbCom which included the leak of specific IP
addresses and the outing of another editor. I therefore completely
understand if the ArbCom wishes to have any such further discussion to
occur by email. If the ArbCom would let me know whether it prefers a
private or public discussion I would appreciate it.

Regards,

Joshua Zelinsky

_______________________________________________
Arbcom-l mailing list
Arbcom-l@lists.wikimedia.org
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/arbcom-l
rlevse@cox.net <rlevse@cox.net> Sun, Jan 11, 2009 at 7:02 PM
Reply-To: Arbitration Committee mailing list <arbcom-l@lists.wikimedia.org>
To: Arbitration Committee mailing list <arbcom-l@lists.wikimedia.org>
Cc: newyorkbrad@gmail.com
What case is he talking about? what is this guy's wiki name?

R

Carcharoth <carcharothwp@googlemail.com> Sun, Jan 11, 2009 at 7:07 PM
Reply-To: Arbitration Committee mailing list <arbcom-l@lists.wikimedia.org>
To: Arbitration Committee mailing list <arbcom-l@lists.wikimedia.org>
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:JoshuaZ
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Completed_requests#February_08

* JoshuaZ (heard privately by AC) Decided February 5, 2008
o Parties: JoshuaZ (talk · contribs), Gothnic (talk · contribs), Miles
Naismith (talk · contribs)
o In response to a finding by the Arbitration Committee that he
engaged in abusive use of multiple user accounts, JoshuaZ voluntarily
resigned his administrator tools on February 5, 2008. Per the usual
practice that occurs when administrator's voluntarily give up their
tools when faced with potential sanctions by the Arbitration
Committee, JoshuaZ cannot have the tools returned by simply asking for
them back. Additionally, JoshuaZ must contact the Arbitration
Committee for permission to have a RFA.

Presumably there is an off-wiki record or summary of the deliberations
so that new arbs can review what happened?

Carcharoth

FloNight <sydney.poore@gmail.com> Sun, Jan 11, 2009 at 7:16 PM
Reply-To: Arbitration Committee mailing list <arbcom-l@lists.wikimedia.org>
To: Arbitration Committee mailing list <arbcom-l@lists.wikimedia.org>
Not a good record.

Sydney

John Vandenberg <jayvdb@gmail.com> Sun, Jan 11, 2009 at 7:18 PM
Reply-To: Arbitration Committee mailing list <arbcom-l@lists.wikimedia.org>
To: Arbitration Committee mailing list <arbcom-l@lists.wikimedia.org>
On Mon, Jan 12, 2009 at 10:07 AM, Carcharoth
<carcharothwp@googlemail.com> wrote:
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:JoshuaZ
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Completed_requests#February_08
>
> * JoshuaZ (heard privately by AC) Decided February 5, 2008
> o Parties: JoshuaZ (talk · contribs), Gothnic (talk · contribs), Miles
> Naismith (talk · contribs)
> o In response to a finding by the Arbitration Committee that he
> engaged in abusive use of multiple user accounts, JoshuaZ voluntarily
> resigned his administrator tools on February 5, 2008. Per the usual
> practice that occurs when administrator's voluntarily give up their
> tools when faced with potential sanctions by the Arbitration
> Committee, JoshuaZ cannot have the tools returned by simply asking for
> them back. Additionally, JoshuaZ must contact the Arbitration
> Committee for permission to have a RFA.
>
> Presumably there is an off-wiki record or summary of the deliberations
> so that new arbs can review what happened?

https://secure.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/arbcom-en/wiki/Wpuser:JoshuaZ

--
John Vandenberg

Randy Everette <rlevse@cox.net> Sun, Jan 11, 2009 at 7:20 PM
Reply-To: Arbitration Committee mailing list <arbcom-l@lists.wikimedia.org>
To: Arbitration Committee mailing list <arbcom-l@lists.wikimedia.org>
Not a good record at all.

r/
Randy Everette

Sam Blacketer <sam.blacketer@googlemail.com> Sun, Jan 11, 2009 at 7:22 PM
Reply-To: Arbitration Committee mailing list <arbcom-l@lists.wikimedia.org>
To: Arbitration Committee mailing list <arbcom-l@lists.wikimedia.org>
On Mon, Jan 12, 2009 at 12:07 AM, Carcharoth <carcharothwp@googlemail.com> wrote:


Presumably there is an off-wiki record or summary of the deliberations
so that new arbs can review what happened?


This was the case which was partially leaked to WR; the leak was from a page on the arbcom wiki. Almost all of the details are in the mailing list archive but you may have to search for them. We had wanted it kept confidential because Joshua was one of the admins particularly disliked on WR.

The long and short of it was that checkuser evidence linked JoshuaZ to two accounts (Gothnic and Miles Naismith) which appeared to be sockpuppets designed to swing deletion debates. Joshua strongly disputed the finding and claimed his university computer must have had a spider programme put on it.

That's where the use of the term 'appeal' causes me problems. It sounds like Joshua is asking us to declare the findings wrong and exonerate him, which would presumably mean he regains admin status automatically. On a procedural ground I don't know what new reason there could be to reconsider the original case, and on a practical ground, the issue of whether Joshua should be resysoped can be dealt with separately by him asking us for permission to start an RfA.

--
Sam Blacketer


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

David Gerard <dgerard@gmail.com> Sun, Jan 11, 2009 at 7:28 PM
Reply-To: Arbitration Committee mailing list <arbcom-l@lists.wikimedia.org>
To: Arbitration Committee mailing list <arbcom-l@lists.wikimedia.org>
2009/1/12 Sam Blacketer <sam.blacketer@googlemail.com>:

> That's where the use of the term 'appeal' causes me problems. It sounds like
> Joshua is asking us to declare the findings wrong and exonerate him, which
> would presumably mean he regains admin status automatically. On a procedural
> ground I don't know what new reason there could be to reconsider the
> original case, and on a practical ground, the issue of whether Joshua should
> be resysoped can be dealt with separately by him asking us for permission to
> start an RfA.


The trouble in the JoshuaZ case was that he'd always seemed a good and
honest fellow and doing something like this would be utterly out of
character, but the evidence was rock-solid and damning and anyone else
claiming their computer must have been hacked would have been told "go
away."

The additional quirk is that there's clear motivation for people to
mess him about in such a manner, so the idea isn't *utterly*
ludicrous. And many people would really like to think the best of him.

I dunno, has he moved off Windows yet?


- d.

FloNight <sydney.poore@gmail.com> Sun, Jan 11, 2009 at 7:33 PM
Reply-To: Arbitration Committee mailing list <arbcom-l@lists.wikimedia.org>
To: Arbitration Committee mailing list <arbcom-l@lists.wikimedia.org>

These appeals the the Committee is getting happen every year when
there is a change in who is on the Committee.

Sam's summary is accurate. Joshua was not happy. But the evidence was
rock solid and for us to believe it was not him, then we had to accept
a complicated situation happened.

In the beginning, he agreed it looked bad and understood why we were
asking him to explain. He offered to resign. But later he started
disputing it and it got messy.

Sydney

Sydney

Newyorkbrad (Wikipedia) <newyorkbrad@gmail.com> Sun, Jan 11, 2009 at 7:55 PM
Reply-To: Arbitration Committee mailing list <arbcom-l@lists.wikimedia.org>
To: Arbitration Committee mailing list <arbcom-l@lists.wikimedia.org>
I'm no technical expert, but in light of JoshuaZ's past record, the blatantly unsubtle nature of the behavior, and the extreme animus displayed against him by various people, I was unable to conclude by a sufficient quantum of evidence that Joshua had in fact been sockpuppeting rather than being victimized in some admittedly hard-to-understand fashion.

My willingness to extend good faith to this extent was openly derided by practically everybody both on the committee and elsewhere, and everyone else voted to give him the choice of either resigning quietly or being desysopped.

Newyorkbrad



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

Charles Fulton <mackensen@gmail.com> Sun, Jan 11, 2009 at 8:18 PM
Reply-To: Arbitration Committee mailing list <arbcom-l@lists.wikimedia.org>
To: Arbitration Committee mailing list <arbcom-l@lists.wikimedia.org>
I would recommend against any appeal unless JoshuaZ (or another
editor) has new material facts to bring to the case. The evidence
reviewed in early 2008 was conclusive enough to warrant his
desysopping, which the committee was prepared to order if he did not
resign (the desire being to avoid a public spectacle). His email gives
no indication as to what circumstances have changed.

Charles

Risker <risker.wp@gmail.com> Sun, Jan 11, 2009 at 8:23 PM
Reply-To: Arbitration Committee mailing list <arbcom-l@lists.wikimedia.org>
To: Arbitration Committee mailing list <arbcom-l@lists.wikimedia.org>


2009/1/12 Charles Fulton <mackensen@gmail.com>

I would recommend against any appeal unless JoshuaZ (or another
editor) has new material facts to bring to the case. The evidence
reviewed in early 2008 was conclusive enough to warrant his
desysopping, which the committee was prepared to order if he did not
resign (the desire being to avoid a public spectacle). His email gives
no indication as to what circumstances have changed.


I concur here. There's nothing to appeal without some evidence of changed circumstances. It does not appear that he is asking for permission to proceed to RFA or even to be given his tools back.


Risker

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

Carcharoth <carcharothwp@googlemail.com> Sun, Jan 11, 2009 at 8:26 PM
Reply-To: Arbitration Committee mailing list <arbcom-l@lists.wikimedia.org>
To: Arbitration Committee mailing list <arbcom-l@lists.wikimedia.org>
He says he is drafting an appeal. At the least we should read what he
has to say (I would suggest in private first), though a preliminary
note of advice saying that he needs to have new evidence for any
overturn, and needs to make crystal clear the basis of any appeal,
might help. Strictly, though, this is not his appeal, and we shouldn't
be talking about declining it out out hand. His e-mail is really only
asking whether the appeal should be public or private, not "will you
listen to my appeal".

Carcharoth

Carcharoth <carcharothwp@googlemail.com> Sun, Jan 11, 2009 at 8:28 PM
Reply-To: Arbitration Committee mailing list <arbcom-l@lists.wikimedia.org>
To: Arbitration Committee mailing list <arbcom-l@lists.wikimedia.org>

Yes, but he hasn't actually submitted an appeal yet. It is entirely
possible there *is* new evidence. He is asking whether the appeal
should be private or public. We can't reject his appeal before he has
filed it. Seriously. That is prejudging the appeal. I say ask him to
submit his appeal privately, and advise him that new evidence will be
needed, not a rehashing of the old case.

Carcharoth

jayjg <jayjg99@gmail.com> Sun, Jan 11, 2009 at 9:31 PM
Reply-To: Arbitration Committee mailing list <arbcom-l@lists.wikimedia.org>
To: Arbitration Committee mailing list <arbcom-l@lists.wikimedia.org>


On Sun, Jan 11, 2009 at 7:33 PM, FloNight <sydney.poore@gmail.com> wrote:



These appeals the the Committee is getting happen every year when
there is a change in who is on the Committee.

Sam's summary is accurate. Joshua was not happy. But the evidence was
rock solid and for us to believe it was not him, then we had to accept
a complicated situation happened.


A complicated situation for which he says he has proof, based on which accounts edited from what IPs, and when he was on campus or not. I don't think think the evidence for any of this survives, assuming it existed in the first place. I'd like to believe him, but that would be based more on his insistence of his innocence than anything else. I'm not sure what kind of precedent that would set.


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

jayjg <jayjg99@gmail.com> Sun, Jan 11, 2009 at 9:34 PM
Reply-To: Arbitration Committee mailing list <arbcom-l@lists.wikimedia.org>
To: Arbitration Committee mailing list <arbcom-l@lists.wikimedia.org>


On Sun, Jan 11, 2009 at 7:55 PM, Newyorkbrad (Wikipedia) <newyorkbrad@gmail.com> wrote:

I'm no technical expert, but in light of JoshuaZ's past record, the blatantly unsubtle nature of the behavior, and the extreme animus displayed against him by various people, I was unable to conclude by a sufficient quantum of evidence that Joshua had in fact been sockpuppeting rather than being victimized in some admittedly hard-to-understand fashion.


The conspiracy he suggested was, quite frankly, quite beyond the abilities or interests of the various people who expressed animus towards him. I always thought a more likely scenario was someone who was close to him personally (e.g. a roommate or sibling) messing around on his computer occasionally, but he flatly rejected that as a possibility.


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

Cas Liber <casliber01@yahoo.com> Sun, Jan 11, 2009 at 9:37 PM
Reply-To: Arbitration Committee mailing list <arbcom-l@lists.wikimedia.org>
To: Arbitration Committee mailing list <arbcom-l@lists.wikimedia.org>
Ok, I am not that literate with these things technical; how easy would it be and what would someone have to do to make 'socks' like this appear?
Cas

From: Newyorkbrad (Wikipedia) <newyorkbrad@gmail.com>
To: Arbitration Committee mailing list <arbcom-l@lists.wikimedia.org>
Sent: Monday, January 12, 2009 11:55:12 AM
Subject: Re: [Arbcom-l] Appeal of earlier case from February 2008.



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

jayjg <jayjg99@gmail.com> Sun, Jan 11, 2009 at 9:54 PM
Reply-To: Arbitration Committee mailing list <arbcom-l@lists.wikimedia.org>
To: Arbitration Committee mailing list <arbcom-l@lists.wikimedia.org>
It would be difficult, in my opinion. Joshua's main contention was that someone external had managed to plant a "rootkit" on his laptop computer, which meant that they could take control of the computer when they wanted to. This rootkitter then used his rootkit abilities solely to create a couple of sockpuppets, which would edit intermittently in support of Joshua, as a means of discrediting him when they were eventually found to be sockpuppets (one of the accounts in question edited for a period of over a year). Joshua explained the fact that the sockpuppets sometimes !voted on various things before he did by also stating that he would prepare materials in advance locally on his computer before editing Wikipedia, and the alleged rootkitter would see those documents, and then use the sockpuppets to quickly !vote on various things before Joshua had a chance to actually do so.

I'm sure Joshua's appeal will go into this at much greater length.


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

FT2 <ft2.wiki@gmail.com> Sun, Jan 11, 2009 at 9:57 PM
Reply-To: Arbitration Committee mailing list <arbcom-l@lists.wikimedia.org>
To: Arbitration Committee mailing list <arbcom-l@lists.wikimedia.org>
Quick summary. Some of this has been covered by others of course.

JoshuaZ was a rock solid well trusted admin. In 2008 it was discovered that two other accounts appeared to be his socks. The evidence was damning. The accounts were on multiple IPs, on multiple occasions, via multiple ISPs, in multiple locations. Some edited before, some after.

It is a mark of how utterly surprised arbs/ex-arbs/Jimmy were that the matter was reviewed as it was. Over a period of weeks the case was gone over repeatedly, with explanations sought, immense good faith for possibilities. None stacked up and there was a feeling also that some points the answers were a bit of a concern - they didn't actually answer the point. Even so he did not seem technically very skilled (or was faking it), he had enemies who would have loved to engineer a fall... immense attempts far beyond any usual case were made to try and find what had happened. But the conclusion each time was "Occams Razor" - socking.

By mutual agreement JoshuaZ desysopped to allow us to investigate, because it was inevitable, and probably to save face a bit (if wrong then good, if right then no harm done). It was "under a shadow" though - he would not have got it back without consent and the consent was not there.

His conduct so far as is known was otherwise fine, nobody has suggested more wrongdoing before or since, and a year has passed. He's asking for his bit back, I guess. He is either a very patient game player, or is genuinely capable of a new leaf. He may well be the latter, he may not. His socking was ironically not that huge a deal in terms of damage and extent - some high profile DRVs, none really making huge difference probably. It was doing it at all that was the problem.

Its been a year. I'd be okay letting him go via RFA (with a brief talk page note from us on the circumstances if asked). If the community trusts him, fine. But if he asks us, ourselves.... that's more difficult, to do it without the community having some input as to whether he has regained any trust. Would need thought. But RFA is very harsh and often very unforgiving.

Thoughts?

Paul.


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

FT2 <ft2.wiki@gmail.com> Sun, Jan 11, 2009 at 10:01 PM
Reply-To: Arbitration Committee mailing list <arbcom-l@lists.wikimedia.org>
To: Arbitration Committee mailing list <arbcom-l@lists.wikimedia.org>

Ah yes. Forgot that.



The purported hacker/cracker started a year beforehand, putting in a years work to terminally harm and discredit Joshua. But in that time did nothing to actually make the socks visible. The two socks did not do things to get noticed. What they did was stay low profile and stack votes... for a year, until discovered. It would have been a most unusual and dedicated discrediter, to take that route for that time with no apparent action to try and be noticed.....



Paul.


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

Cas Liber <casliber01@yahoo.com> Sun, Jan 11, 2009 at 10:36 PM
Reply-To: Arbitration Committee mailing list <arbcom-l@lists.wikimedia.org>
To: Arbitration Committee mailing list <arbcom-l@lists.wikimedia.org>
Oh dear, that doesn't look good (the timing of the votes, that is).

I guess my take would be that the socking is pretty much an open secret, so that if there is no new evidence, it can be wieghed up at RfA as to whether he has the community's trust (as that is the issue).

Cas

From: jayjg <jayjg99@gmail.com>
To: Arbitration Committee mailing list <arbcom-l@lists.wikimedia.org>
Sent: Monday, January 12, 2009 1:54:46 PM




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

Marc A. Pelletier <marc@uberbox.org> Sun, Jan 11, 2009 at 11:32 PM
Reply-To: Arbitration Committee mailing list <arbcom-l@lists.wikimedia.org>
To: Arbitration Committee mailing list <arbcom-l@lists.wikimedia.org>
jayjg wrote:
> It would be difficult, in my opinion. Joshua's main contention was
> that someone external had managed to plant a "rootkit" on his laptop
> computer, which meant that they could take control of the computer
> when they wanted to. This rootkitter then used his rootkit abilities
> solely to create a couple of sockpuppets, which would edit
> intermittently in support of Joshua, as a means of discrediting him
> when they were eventually found to be sockpuppets (one of the accounts
> in question edited for a period of over a year). Joshua explained the
> fact that the sockpuppets sometimes !voted on various things before he
> did by also stating that he would prepare materials in advance locally
> on his computer before editing Wikipedia, and the alleged rootkitter
> would see those documents, and then use the sockpuppets to quickly
> !vote on various things before Joshua had a chance to actually do so.
>
> I'm sure Joshua's appeal will go into this at much greater length.

I'm going to give my two cents here, because that is my actual field of
direct expertise.

This scenario as described, while technically possible, is
_extraordinarily_ unlikely; exponentially so over long periods of time.

- The amount of remote control described is unusual (mostly, zombie code
allows a number of well-defined, and very specialized actions [send
mail, connect to IRC controller, open proxy]); it is possible to subvert
the remote desktop mechanism but that has obvious side effects that are
difficult to hide, and whose likelihood of detection increases swiftly
as time passes.

- The login cookies would have conflicted; such that over the period of
alleged abuse, he would have found himself logged out repeatedly without
apparent reason. Conflicts of editing periods would have made this all
the more visible because he would then be logged in _as his attacker_;
surely seeing a talk page not his own would have rung bells.

- Any abuse would have had to occur while his computer is turned on, but
unattended. Laptops are rarely left running, and tend to have
conservative power saving settings. This would mean his attackers
would, at the very least, need to synchronize themselves very well and
yet avoid detection over large periods of time.

All of those could have been circumvented if someone took the time to
write a very well designed trojan specifically for the purpose. This
requires a level of skill and resources to do properly (otherwise it
gets found fast). In my 15-odd year career /specifically/ in this
domain, I can tell you that I have seen exactly _three_ custom trojans
made to attack a specific computer/person. In those three cases, the
targets were two banks and a government agency; I haven't so much as
_heard_ about this level of effort being deployed for "lesser" targets
where the potential gains are worth the incredible risk and required effort.

-- Coren / Marc

Risker <risker.wp@gmail.com> Sun, Jan 11, 2009 at 11:44 PM
Reply-To: Arbitration Committee mailing list <arbcom-l@lists.wikimedia.org>
To: Arbitration Committee mailing list <arbcom-l@lists.wikimedia.org>


2009/1/12 Marc A. Pelletier <marc@uberbox.org>

Thanks for that, Marc. Your description and background information certainly helps me to better understand the (un)likelihood of someone other than Joshua having the ability, motivation, and tenacity to carry out a longterm campaign to affect a few Wikipedia articles or adversely affect the reputation of a single Wikipedian.

Risker

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

Cool Hand Luke <User.CoolHandLuke@gmail.com> Mon, Jan 12, 2009 at 2:22 AM
Reply-To: Arbitration Committee mailing list <arbcom-l@lists.wikimedia.org>
To: Arbitration Committee mailing list <arbcom-l@lists.wikimedia.org>
Does he even want an RFA? I think it would cause a circus. If that's what he wants, I'd be happy to oblige, but he seems like a reasonable person and I think he knows his chances at RFA at this point. I doubt that he could ever be promoted without abandoning the account and restarting.

I corresponded with JoshuaZ about this last March. I sympathize with NYB; it's completely at odds with his character, and not even rational. I looked into the edit timing issue in connection with his rootkit hypothesis (this was just off of Mantanmoreland at the time, and I like making graphs), but it seemed unremarkable to me. Could dig it up if anyone cares.

In defense of JoshuaZ's putative rootkit hypothesis, I doubt an imitator would need to know JoshuaZ's documents to predict what sorts of things he would vote on. These were very contentious DRVs of BLP deletions where the subject preferred deletion. Moreover (as I'm sure he'll point out), his socks skipped over at least one of the major DRVs--Seth Finkelstein. Also--as he told me last year--he was relatively ambivilant about the Barbara Schwarz DRV (which concerned a borderline attack article IMO), although both of his socks had already weighted in forcefully. Compared to the Schwarz biography, JoshuaZ was indignant that Finkelstein got deleted, but his socks were no where to be seen in that DRV, which was two days after Gothnic weighed in on the Brandt 2 DRV.

Still incredibly unlikely to me, but I wanted to mention it.

Frank






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



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

David Gerard <dgerard@gmail.com> Mon, Jan 12, 2009 at 3:44 AM
Reply-To: Arbitration Committee mailing list <arbcom-l@lists.wikimedia.org>
To: Arbitration Committee mailing list <arbcom-l@lists.wikimedia.org>
2009/1/12 Cas Liber <casliber01@yahoo.com>:

> Ok, I am not that literate with these things technical; how easy would it be
> and what would someone have to do to make 'socks' like this appear?


Take over his computer remotely without him noticing and really,
really want to fuck his life up.

It's theoretically possible.


- d.

David Gerard <dgerard@gmail.com> Mon, Jan 12, 2009 at 3:45 AM
Reply-To: Arbitration Committee mailing list <arbcom-l@lists.wikimedia.org>
To: Arbitration Committee mailing list <arbcom-l@lists.wikimedia.org>
2009/1/12 Marc A. Pelletier <marc@uberbox.org>:

> I'm going to give my two cents here, because that is my actual field of
> direct expertise.
> This scenario as described, while technically possible, is
> _extraordinarily_ unlikely; exponentially so over long periods of time.


Yeah. The main argument for the unlikely scenario is that it's just
unbelievable Joshua would do anything like this. I still don't quite
believe it.


- d.

John Vandenberg <jayvdb@gmail.com> Mon, Jan 12, 2009 at 4:51 AM
Reply-To: Arbitration Committee mailing list <arbcom-l@lists.wikimedia.org>
To: Arbitration Committee mailing list <arbcom-l@lists.wikimedia.org>
On Mon, Jan 12, 2009 at 9:39 AM, joshua zelinsky <zelinsky@gmail.com> wrote:
> I'm a drafting a request to appeal the earlier decision from February
> 2008. It would be useful to know if the ArbCom would prefer that an
> appeal of that case occur in public or in private. Given that the
> primary finding of fact is now public there's substantially less
> reason in that regard to handle the matter privately. However, some
> evidence will inevitably need to remain private. Moreover, any public
> appeal will have serious potential to create drama given that part of
> the evidence in the case involves a still unexplained largescale leak
> of data from the ArbCom which included the leak of specific IP
> addresses and the outing of another editor. I therefore completely
> understand if the ArbCom wishes to have any such further discussion to
> occur by email. If the ArbCom would let me know whether it prefers a
> private or public discussion I would appreciate it.

It is hard to imagine how he will explain it. I am not convinced that
it is not in his character to have done this. He must know that his
voice is seen as a rabid inclusionist, and deleting admins will take
this into account. Thus, having another unknown voice would be very
handy.

However as this is the first transgression by this user, these 84
edits wouldnt be enough for me to permanently desysop the account. If
he was happy to have these accounts linked publicly with his as
"suspected socks", I think that a one year desysop is more than
sufficient.

In his first email he disclosed User:Rookwood and User:CyberDalek as
socks, but said there was a third.

CyberDalek does not exist. Cyberdalek looks like the account he is
referring to.

Does anyone know about this third account? He said "the account had
maybe a handful of edits 2 years ago, and I don't recall its name
unfortunately" If he can recall the name and disclose it (to an arb
or a trusted third party), and it isnt Gothnic or Miles Naismith, that
does help his case (imo) if he can prove he is the operator of it (a
dev can do a password reset).

For his own sake I think we should tell him to submit a rough draft of
the appeal (an outline) privately to the committee so we can give him
some feedback. Timing might be important; if he can wait until a year
after the desysop, I would be more inclined to consider resysop.

If we do wish to consider the appeal, it would be helpful to do it
publicly. An public unraveling now will allow the details to become
public if he wants that, which will lessen the drama if we dont
resysop and he does wish to submit to RFA at a later time.

--
John Vandenberg

Sam Blacketer <sam.blacketer@googlemail.com> Mon, Jan 12, 2009 at 5:36 AM
Reply-To: Arbitration Committee mailing list <arbcom-l@lists.wikimedia.org>
To: Arbitration Committee mailing list <arbcom-l@lists.wikimedia.org>

My first thought was that the socking was at such a low level that if Joshua had simply admitted it, said he regretted it and wouldn't do it again, then we should have closed the case there. Instead, Joshua's indignant response and belief in a frankly ludicrous conspiracy theory led me to take a harsher view.
Not having followed Joshua's subsequent actions I don't know whether he has stayed on the rails since, but I still think that, rather than rehash the same largely technical issue from a year ago, the real issue is whether he would be a good admin in the future.

--
Sam Blacketer



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

Marc A. Pelletier <marc@uberbox.org> Mon, Jan 12, 2009 at 7:12 AM
Reply-To: Arbitration Committee mailing list <arbcom-l@lists.wikimedia.org>
To: Arbitration Committee mailing list <arbcom-l@lists.wikimedia.org>
John Vandenberg wrote:
> It is hard to imagine how he will explain it. I am not convinced that
> it is not in his character to have done this. He must know that his
> voice is seen as a rabid inclusionist, and deleting admins will take
> this into account. Thus, having another unknown voice would be very
> handy.
>
Mind you, I am of course not opposed to hearing his request. He may,
indeed, make a compelling argument.

For that matter, someone else mentioned on the thread that this one year
"break" may have been sufficient either; that's also a reasonable argument.

I guess what I'm trying to say is: I see no reason to reject his
request out of hand.

-- Coren / Marc

John Vandenberg <jayvdb@gmail.com> Mon, Jan 12, 2009 at 7:30 AM
Reply-To: Arbitration Committee mailing list <arbcom-l@lists.wikimedia.org>
To: Arbitration Committee mailing list <arbcom-l@lists.wikimedia.org>
On Mon, Jan 12, 2009 at 10:18 AM, John Vandenberg <jayvdb@gmail.com> wrote:
> https://secure.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/arbcom-en/wiki/Wpuser:JoshuaZ

While this may not change the verdict much, I have found a pretty
clear mistake in the behavioral evidence compiled.

https://secure.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/arbcom-en/wiki/Wpuser_talk:JoshuaZ#dot_dot_dot

Roger Davies <roger.davies.wiki@googlemail.com> Mon, Jan 12, 2009 at 7:44 AM
Reply-To: roger.davies.wiki@gmail.com, Arbitration Committee mailing list <arbcom-l@lists.wikimedia.org>
To: Arbitration Committee mailing list <arbcom-l@lists.wikimedia.org>
John Vandenberg wrote:
> For his own sake I think we should tell him to submit a rough draft of
> the appeal (an outline) privately to the committee so we can give him
> some feedback. Timing might be important; if he can wait until a year
> after the desysop, I would be more inclined to consider resysop.
>
> If we do wish to consider the appeal, it would be helpful to do it
> publicly. An public unraveling now will allow the details to become
> public if he wants that, which will lessen the drama if we dont
> resysop and he does wish to submit to RFA at a later time.
>
I agree with all of that.

Roger

Carcharoth <carcharothwp@googlemail.com> Mon, Jan 12, 2009 at 11:22 AM
Reply-To: Arbitration Committee mailing list <arbcom-l@lists.wikimedia.org>
To: Arbitration Committee mailing list <arbcom-l@lists.wikimedia.org>
On Mon, Jan 12, 2009 at 12:44 PM, Roger Davies
<roger.davies.wiki@googlemail.com> wrote:
> John Vandenberg wrote:
>> For his own sake I think we should tell him to submit a rough draft of
>> the appeal (an outline) privately to the committee so we can give him
>> some feedback. Timing might be important; if he can wait until a year
>> after the desysop, I would be more inclined to consider resysop.
>>
>> If we do wish to consider the appeal, it would be helpful to do it
>> publicly. An public unraveling now will allow the details to become
>> public if he wants that, which will lessen the drama if we dont
>> resysop and he does wish to submit to RFA at a later time.
>>
> I agree with all of that.

Me too. In these sort of threads, when do we have enough consensus to
point at someone and say "you write to him", and should we delegate
the task of writing what is actually said? Thrashing out and agreeing
precise wording will quickly become unworkable in threads like this. A
brief discussion and plans, and then delegate someone to write an
e-mail. Is that a good way to address these threads where some initial
contact is made before a formal appeal?

Carcharoth

Risker <risker.wp@gmail.com> Tue, Jan 13, 2009 at 12:57 PM
Reply-To: Arbitration Committee mailing list <arbcom-l@lists.wikimedia.org>
To: Arbitration Committee mailing list <arbcom-l@lists.wikimedia.org>

I'd be happy to consider an appeal, provided there is new information.

To take this in a slightly different direction, though: If JoshuaZ had not been a well-respected administrator, would the result here have been different? Runcorn/Poetlister was permanently desysopped and banned outright for (somewhat more successfully) attempting to influence consensus based decisions. Most non-admin users would have been subject to a rather lengthy block (weeks or months) and then watched closely on their return, possibly with intermittent checkusering.

Nonetheless, I am hoping that JoshuaZ has turned a new leaf.

Risker

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

FT2 <ft2.wiki@gmail.com> Tue, Jan 13, 2009 at 2:42 PM
Reply-To: Arbitration Committee mailing list <arbcom-l@lists.wikimedia.org>
To: Arbitration Committee mailing list <arbcom-l@lists.wikimedia.org>

Although all admin socking is serious, in the scale of things, Runcorn/Poetlister was considerably more serious compared to this. Runcorn's activities included mass stacking of several dozen AFDs, RFAs and the ACE2006 election; covertly softening many blocks to allow more socking, hardened edit warring with socks, and using the admin account for edit warring and to procure the indef block/effective community ban of a user under false pretences (the user impeded actions of another sock).



While JoshuaZ too was a gross breach of trust, they weren't very comparable. It may not make much practical difference though.


Paul.






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



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

Peter Casey <vassyana@gmail.com> Tue, Jan 13, 2009 at 5:37 PM
Reply-To: Arbitration Committee mailing list <arbcom-l@lists.wikimedia.org>
To: Arbitration Committee mailing list <arbcom-l@lists.wikimedia.org>
Looking over things, a few things stand out very strongly:

The explanation provided by JoshuaZ relies on a scenario so vastly unlikely that it doesn't even come close to only straining belief. It's quite bluntly outright farcical.

I've spoken with a friend who works in computer security for a living. I did not disclose that I was asking for Wikipedia purposes nor did I provide any other specific details. I asked her specifically about a rootkit that would permit the viewing of documents and either remote system control or stealth proxying without detection over a long period of time. She described it as remotely possible, but extremely improbable. I asked how likely it would be if it specifically targeted a single person/computer. She told me that absent a scenario of someone being specifically pointed to a trojan-infected executable, I would be more likely to win a state lottery multiple times.

The sockpuppet accounts show up across multiple IPs on multiple providers. Obviously this would be damning for just about anyone else who got caught in such a situation, Can you imagine the scornful replies that most users would receive if caught with such evidence and they provided a must-have-been-an-evil-hacker reply?

The socks edited within the normal time period of JoshuaZ's editing patterns (which are fairly consistant). See:
http://en.wikichecker.com/user/?t=Gothnic
http://en.wikichecker.com/user/?t=Miles+Naismith
http://en.wikichecker.com/user/?t=JoshuaZ&l=5000

By all means, let him file an appeal, but the evidence seems very conclusive and the previous explanation he offered is quite bluntly unbelievable.

Pete (Vassyana)

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

Stephen Bain <stephen.bain@gmail.com> Tue, Jan 13, 2009 at 10:31 PM
Reply-To: Arbitration Committee mailing list <arbcom-l@lists.wikimedia.org>
To: Arbitration Committee mailing list <arbcom-l@lists.wikimedia.org>
On Mon, Jan 12, 2009 at 11:55 AM, Newyorkbrad (Wikipedia)
<newyorkbrad@gmail.com> wrote:
> I'm no technical expert, but in light of JoshuaZ's past record, the
> blatantly unsubtle nature of the behavior, and the extreme animus displayed
> against him by various people, I was unable to conclude by a sufficient
> quantum of evidence that Joshua had in fact been sockpuppeting rather than
> being victimized in some admittedly hard-to-understand fashion.

It came as a surprise to me too, as it did to the rest of the
Committee, I suspect. I think it's fair to say though that this
feeling of surprise led us to suspend belief, as it were, much more
readily than we would have for any other editor. I didn't put much
stock in the behavioural evidence (I rarely do, it's too easy to fake)
but the CheckUser evidence was pretty clear, and if not for that
surprise, it would likely have been an open and shut case.

Joshua did advance a number of possible explanations for the CheckUser
evidence aside from sockpuppetry, and they were all plausible.
However, Joshua was the only one able to provide any evidence in
relation to them (as they all involved some malicious intrusion into
his computer or his Internet connection) which he did not do. It was
put to him that either university or commercial tech support services
would be able to help with this evidence if he was not able to obtain
any, but he seemed resistant to the idea (this should all be in the
mailing list archives).

At this point the ball remains in his court, and there is no need for
us to do anything until he puts it back in ours, either by gathering
such evidence, or by admitting the puppetry and apologising; I myself
would be receptive to either.

--
Stephen Bain
stephen.bain@gmail.com

Carcharoth <carcharothwp@googlemail.com> Tue, Jan 13, 2009 at 10:46 PM
Reply-To: Arbitration Committee mailing list <arbcom-l@lists.wikimedia.org>
To: Arbitration Committee mailing list <arbcom-l@lists.wikimedia.org>
On Wed, Jan 14, 2009 at 3:31 AM, Stephen Bain <stephen.bain@gmail.com> wrote:

<snip>

> At this point the ball remains in his court, and there is no need for
> us to do anything until he puts it back in ours, either by gathering
> such evidence, or by admitting the puppetry and apologising; I myself
> would be receptive to either.

Agree.

Has anyone actually e-mailed him yet about whether his proposed appeal
should be private or public? If not, should what Stephen wrote about
"admitting the puppetry and apologising" be included in some form?

I think the main points so far are:

1) Need new evidence, as previous evidence still appears rock-solid
2) Private submission first is best, with public appeal later if needed
3) Admission of sockpuppetry, even at this late stage, is still an option

Anything else, and what should be said in reply from the above?

Carcharoth

Dominic <dmcdevit@cox.net> Thu, Jan 15, 2009 at 9:58 AM
Reply-To: Arbitration Committee mailing list <arbcom-l@lists.wikimedia.org>
To: Arbitration Committee mailing list <arbcom-l@lists.wikimedia.org>
Carcharoth wrote:
> On Mon, Jan 12, 2009 at 12:44 PM, Roger Davies
> <roger.davies.wiki@googlemail.com> wrote:
>
>> John Vandenberg wrote:
>>
>>> For his own sake I think we should tell him to submit a rough draft of
>>> the appeal (an outline) privately to the committee so we can give him
>>> some feedback. Timing might be important; if he can wait until a year
>>> after the desysop, I would be more inclined to consider resysop.
>>>
>>> If we do wish to consider the appeal, it would be helpful to do it
>>> publicly. An public unraveling now will allow the details to become
>>> public if he wants that, which will lessen the drama if we dont
>>> resysop and he does wish to submit to RFA at a later time.

(I apologize if this message seems outdated, or is superseded later
events; I'm currently in Bangladesh writing offline to be sent next time
I get internet.)

My experience was that last time when Joshua was disputing the
sockpuppetry, he tended to come up with a new explanation every few
days, hoping one would stick. You need to be careful giving him too much
hope. I think that, barring some kind of earthshattering new evidence
that I can't yet imagine, nothing Joshua can present will persuade
ArbCom that he didn't use sockpuppets. Rather, he should construct an
appeal that argues that he is no longer a problem as an admin, and that
we can trust him to do the project good with his buttons back.
Personally, I don't like forcing people to apologize or admit
wrongdoing, but part of Joshua's problem the first time around was that
once ArbCom had already determined conclusively he had used sockpuppets,
he continued to produce agonized arguments against the accusation, when
a simple statement to the effect that he had made a mistake would have
served him better. I'm afraid that the timing of the appeal suggests
that he is simply going to try out his old arguments against the finding
on new people, rather than make a case for forgiveness. Whether or not
he is going to be owning up to anything (all signs point to "not") we'd
want to make sure he doesn't fall into that trap again, because it'll
just frustrate him and ArbCom.

Dominic

FloNight <sydney.poore@gmail.com> Thu, Jan 15, 2009 at 11:23 AM
Reply-To: Arbitration Committee mailing list <arbcom-l@lists.wikimedia.org>
To: Arbitration Committee mailing list <arbcom-l@lists.wikimedia.org>

I agree with Dominic. After his original agreement to quietly resign,
he changed his mind and started on a campaign to defend himself. Since
we were doing it by email and the threads were dropped and started
over and over it was difficult getting final closure. He was not happy
with the way the situation was concluded.

I think the timing of the request is because he wants to float the
idea before the new members. But in his defense, a substantial period
of time has gone by.

Sydney

John Vandenberg <jayvdb@gmail.com> Fri, Jan 16, 2009 at 5:49 AM
Reply-To: Arbitration Committee mailing list <arbcom-l@lists.wikimedia.org>
To: Arbitration Committee mailing list <arbcom-l@lists.wikimedia.org>
I have written a draft reply on arbwiki which is covering a lot of
territory as I hope to guide him to submit a feasible appeal. I think
he needs to know we do support him, but we are likely to uphold the
current remedy unless his appeal has some substance.

Also, I dont think we have yet given Joshua a courtesy email, so I
think we need to push this one out soon.

https://secure.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/arbcom-en/wiki/Wpuser:JoshuaZ/2009_reply_to_initial_request

--
John Vandenberg

Peter Casey <vassyana@gmail.com> Fri, Jan 16, 2009 at 6:02 AM
Reply-To: Arbitration Committee mailing list <arbcom-l@lists.wikimedia.org>
To: Arbitration Committee mailing list <arbcom-l@lists.wikimedia.org>
Good draft. I support a reply like this.

Pete (Vasssyana)


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

John Vandenberg <jayvdb@gmail.com> Fri, Jan 16, 2009 at 5:36 PM
Reply-To: Arbitration Committee mailing list <arbcom-l@lists.wikimedia.org>
To: Arbitration Committee mailing list <arbcom-l@lists.wikimedia.org>
On Fri, Jan 16, 2009 at 9:02 PM, Peter Casey <vassyana@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Fri, Jan 16, 2009 at 5:49 AM, John Vandenberg <jayvdb@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>> I have written a draft reply on arbwiki which is covering a lot of
>> territory as I hope to guide him to submit a feasible appeal. I think
>> he needs to know we do support him, but we are likely to uphold the
>> current remedy unless his appeal has some substance.
>>
>> Also, I dont think we have yet given Joshua a courtesy email, so I
>> think we need to push this one out soon.
>>
>>
>> https://secure.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/arbcom-en/wiki/Wpuser:JoshuaZ/2009_reply_to_initial_request

> Good draft. I support a reply like this.

I'd like a few more comments on this one before I send it. Esp.
comments from the 2009 arbs who were active on that 2008 case.

Trim anything you dont like; we need to get out a response soon.

Newyorkbrad (Wikipedia) <newyorkbrad@gmail.com> Fri, Jan 16, 2009 at 5:54 PM
Reply-To: Arbitration Committee mailing list <arbcom-l@lists.wikimedia.org>
To: Arbitration Committee mailing list <arbcom-l@lists.wikimedia.org>
I was the lone (and apparently, by consensus, very misguided) internal dissenter in 2008, so my thoughts on this one may not count for much. But for what it's worth:

- the "g'day" greeting is confusing/unfamiliar to Americans

- the reference to "high waves in the sea of [unrelated] drama" strikes me as unnecessary

- change "We would you like" to "We would like you"

- change "the year" to "a full year" (I don't believe there is any prior referent for "THE year")

- some apostrophes are missing ("dont")

- and of course, the draft treats the socking as established, which may be part of what the new evidence relates to, so I don't want to prejudge

Newyorkbrad


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

Carcharoth <carcharothwp@googlemail.com> Fri, Jan 16, 2009 at 6:06 PM
Reply-To: Arbitration Committee mailing list <arbcom-l@lists.wikimedia.org>
To: Arbitration Committee mailing list <arbcom-l@lists.wikimedia.org>
On Fri, Jan 16, 2009 at 10:54 PM, Newyorkbrad (Wikipedia)
<newyorkbrad@gmail.com> wrote:

I already did some light copyediting, so these posts will have crossed slightly.

> - the "g'day" greeting is confusing/unfamiliar to Americans
>
> - the reference to "high waves in the sea of [unrelated] drama" strikes me
> as unnecessary

Agree. Leaving to John to change. We should, when drama strikes, NOT
get distracted from the mundane stuff.

> - change "We would you like" to "We would like you"

Already done! :-)

> - change "the year" to "a full year" (I don't believe there is any prior
> referent for "THE year")

Needs to be clearer in any case, as I thought it meant wait until end
of 2009. To make it crystal-clear, I would look up the date and put
that in the e-mail.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Completed_requests#February_08

That page says "Decided February 5, 2008", so I'd say "February 6,
2009" would be the earliest filing date for an appeal. It doesn't
appear that a year before appealing was mentioned anywhere. So this
may be largely symbolic.

I might add this before John gets back. That's what a wiki is for anyway! :-)

> - some apostrophes are missing ("dont")

I think I spotted most of them.

> - and of course, the draft treats the socking as established, which may be
> part of what the new evidence relates to, so I don't want to prejudge

What wasn't mentioned was "if you admit to socking and apologise, you
may get an easier ride from us and/or the community". Probably because
there is no easy way to say that. Maybe somewhere (in general, not
just this case) it should be stated that admission of guilt is looked
upon favorably by the Arbitration Committee? If indeed it is.

I'll leave John to make any substantive changes. John, please review
my changes before sending!

Carcharoth

Carcharoth <carcharothwp@googlemail.com> Fri, Jan 16, 2009 at 6:14 PM
Reply-To: Arbitration Committee mailing list <arbcom-l@lists.wikimedia.org>
To: Arbitration Committee mailing list <arbcom-l@lists.wikimedia.org>
On Fri, Jan 16, 2009 at 11:06 PM, Carcharoth
<carcharothwp@googlemail.com> wrote:
> On Fri, Jan 16, 2009 at 10:54 PM, Newyorkbrad (Wikipedia)
> <newyorkbrad@gmail.com> wrote:

<snip>

The temptation was too great. I incorporated Brad's other suggestions,
and they are now awaiting review by John. The bit below is I think the
only bits still unresolved.

>> - and of course, the draft treats the socking as established, which may be
>> part of what the new evidence relates to, so I don't want to prejudge
>
> What wasn't mentioned was "if you admit to socking and apologise, you
> may get an easier ride from us and/or the community". Probably because
> there is no easy way to say that. Maybe somewhere (in general, not
> just this case) it should be stated that admission of guilt is looked
> upon favorably by the Arbitration Committee? If indeed it is.

Having said that, I think the current draft is fine as is, and ready to go.

Posted by: Wikileaker

John Vandenberg <jayvdb@gmail.com> Fri, Jan 16, 2009 at 9:22 PM
Reply-To: Arbitration Committee mailing list <arbcom-l@lists.wikimedia.org>
To: joshua zelinsky <zelinsky@gmail.com>
Cc: Arbitration Committee mailing list <arbcom-l@lists.wikimedia.org>
Hi Joshua,

Thanks for dropping us a line before dumping this on our lap, and we
are sorry that you havent heard from us until now.

As you know, the arbcom desk has been busy recently, but in the
background there have been nearly 30 emails discussing your situation,
bringing the 2009 committee up to speed on your case, and considering
how to proceed.

The committee has a new process to confirm receipt of incoming emails,
but it looks like you have missed out on the courtesy "we have
received your email" email. Our apologies for that.

On Mon, Jan 12, 2009 at 9:39 AM, joshua zelinsky <zelinsky@gmail.com> wrote:
> I'm a drafting a request to appeal the earlier decision from February
> 2008. It would be useful to know if the ArbCom would prefer that an
> appeal of that case occur in public or in private. Given that the
> primary finding of fact is now public there's substantially less
> reason in that regard to handle the matter privately.

We would like you to submit a rough draft of your appeal privately to
the committee so that we can give you some feedback on the best next
step. This is in order to avoid allowing others turning any public
discussion into a circus which would jeopardise your relatively stable
role in the community.

We only need an outline, but more detail won't hurt.

We are most interested in any new evidence you wish to present,
whether you have a new position, and what options you are interested
in pursuing.

> However, some evidence will inevitably need to remain private.

If there is any new private evidence, could you broadly describe it in
the initial draft appeal request as opposed to providing us with the
specifics.

> Moreover, any public
> appeal will have serious potential to create drama given that part of
> the evidence in the case involves a still unexplained largescale leak
> of data from the ArbCom which included the leak of specific IP
> addresses and the outing of another editor. I therefore completely
> understand if the ArbCom wishes to have any such further discussion to
> occur by email. If the ArbCom would let me know whether it prefers a
> private or public discussion I would appreciate it.

If the committee does recommend that an appeal is an appropriate
course of action, our current feeling is that it would be helpful to
do it publicly in order to brush away some cobwebs and let the
community know a little more about the situation in order to stand you
in good stead if you do wish to submit to RFA at a later time.

Note that there has already been a little discussion about the timing
of an appeal. We are quite keen on looking forward, as you are still
well respected by the committee despite the messy situation of the
socks, but it may be more efficient to take this slowly and file your
appeal after a year has elapsed since the case was officially decided
(February 5, 2008). I mention this only so that you appreciate that
we may move more slowly on this case, in order maximise the chances of
getting it done right. But, we will be guided by you on that as well
as we don't yet know what you have in mind. We look forward to your
reply.

--
John Vandenberg

Randy Everette <rlevse@cox.net> Fri, Jan 16, 2009 at 9:28 PM
Reply-To: Arbitration Committee mailing list <arbcom-l@lists.wikimedia.org>
To: Arbitration Committee mailing list <arbcom-l@lists.wikimedia.org>
Well Done John.

r/
Randy Everette

-----Original Message-----
From: arbcom-l-bounces@lists.wikimedia.org
[mailto:arbcom-l-bounces@lists.wikimedia.org] On Behalf Of John Vandenberg
Sent: Friday, January 16, 2009 9:22 PM
To: joshua zelinsky
Cc: Arbitration Committee mailing list
Subject: Re: [Arbcom-l] Appeal of earlier case from February 2008.


John Vandenberg <jayvdb@gmail.com> Fri, Jan 16, 2009 at 10:40 PM
Reply-To: Arbitration Committee mailing list <arbcom-l@lists.wikimedia.org>
To: Arbitration Committee mailing list <arbcom-l@lists.wikimedia.org>
On Sat, Jan 17, 2009 at 8:54 AM, Newyorkbrad (Wikipedia)
<newyorkbrad@gmail.com> wrote:
> I was the lone (and apparently, by consensus, very misguided) internal
> dissenter in 2008, so my thoughts on this one may not count for much. But
> for what it's worth:

Brad, dissent views are the most important ;-)

I had give your email lots of though before sending earlier, and wrote
the bulk of this reply, but didnt get time to send it before having to
head offline. It was also less necessary to send this email at the
time because Carcharoth tidied up my draft fixing the problems you had
raised.

> - the "g'day" greeting is confusing/unfamiliar to Americans

Regarding "G'day", I dont mind dropping it in order to be more formal,
but I would prefer to be a bit less formal to Joshua, to ensure he
feels like he is getting the personal touch, which I feel is warranted
given his continued service to the project. It is especially
admirable that he has continued to use his real identity -- he could
easily be a sysop by now if he had started another account. He has
also waited a year; I am guessing he is also keeping timing in mind.

I'm not keen on being unAustralian in order to suit Americans
understanding of the wider world.

I also use "hoi" often as a greeting in my typical correspondence; it
is a Dutch word that has more meaning than "Hi".

Josh is a smart guy. I expect he would value real interaction that
crosses cultural boundaries.

> - the reference to "high waves in the sea of [unrelated] drama" strikes me
> as unnecessary

The intention was to be a bit informal, and point out that our
response has been delayed by priorities. It was dropped by Carcharoth
when he tweaked it for me.

> ....
>
> - and of course, the draft treats the socking as established, which may be
> part of what the new evidence relates to, so I don't want to prejudge

It is intentional that I mention that the socking decision is
currently upheld by the 2009 committee, because it appears that your
opinion is still in a minority, and I think he needs to realise his
chances are no greater this year if we are being asked to re-evaluate
the same evidence as presented to the 2008 committee. This also helps
him realise that his best bet is to come clean if he is responsible
and was wondering how we would respond to that.

Risker <risker.wp@gmail.com> Sat, Jan 17, 2009 at 1:14 AM
Reply-To: Arbitration Committee mailing list <arbcom-l@lists.wikimedia.org>
To: Arbitration Committee mailing list <arbcom-l@lists.wikimedia.org>
I am fine with this too.

Risker

2009/1/16 John Vandenberg <jayvdb@gmail.com>



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

John Vandenberg <jayvdb@gmail.com> Sat, Jan 17, 2009 at 1:47 AM
Reply-To: Arbitration Committee mailing list <arbcom-l@lists.wikimedia.org>
To: Arbitration Committee mailing list <arbcom-l@lists.wikimedia.org>
On Sat, Jan 17, 2009 at 4:14 PM, Risker <risker.wp@gmail.com> wrote:
> I am fine with this too.

Which part ? My spelling mistakes? :-)

> 2009/1/16 John Vandenberg <jayvdb@gmail.com>
>>
>> On Sat, Jan 17, 2009 at 8:54 AM, Newyorkbrad (Wikipedia)
>> <newyorkbrad@gmail.com> wrote:
>> > I was the lone (and apparently, by consensus, very misguided) internal
>> > dissenter in 2008, so my thoughts on this one may not count for much.
>> > But
>> > for what it's worth:
>>
>> Brad, dissent views are the most important ;-)

ugh. *dissenting

>> I had give your email lots of though before sending earlier, and wrote

I had given your email lots of thought...

Sorry for my errors in the last email.

Cas Liber <casliber01@yahoo.com> Sat, Jan 17, 2009 at 6:52 AM
Reply-To: Arbitration Committee mailing list <arbcom-l@lists.wikimedia.org>
To: Arbitration Committee mailing list <arbcom-l@lists.wikimedia.org>
ditto
Cas

From: Risker <risker.wp@gmail.com>
To: Arbitration Committee mailing list <arbcom-l@lists.wikimedia.org>
Sent: Saturday, January 17, 2009 5:14:42 PM
Subject: Re: [Arbcom-l] Appeal of earlier case from February 2008.



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

Carcharoth <carcharothwp@googlemail.com> Sat, Jan 17, 2009 at 7:48 AM
Reply-To: Arbitration Committee mailing list <arbcom-l@lists.wikimedia.org>
To: Arbitration Committee mailing list <arbcom-l@lists.wikimedia.org>
On Sat, Jan 17, 2009 at 6:47 AM, John Vandenberg <jayvdb@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Sat, Jan 17, 2009 at 4:14 PM, Risker <risker.wp@gmail.com> wrote:
>> I am fine with this too.
>
> Which part ? My spelling mistakes? :-)

Well, there was still a missing apostrophe in the "havent". We will
need to watch those with you! :-) Haven't checked yet, but I might
have missed that in the copyedit. About Hi and G'day and Hoi, I use Hi
(informal) and Dear Mr/Ms/Forename./Username (formal), using what they
signed themselves as mostly. It took me a while to get used to "Hoi"
as it is too close to (the rude) "Hey (you)" for my liking.

Carcharoth

John Vandenberg <jayvdb@gmail.com> Sat, Jan 17, 2009 at 9:04 AM
Reply-To: Arbitration Committee mailing list <arbcom-l@lists.wikimedia.org>
To: Arbitration Committee mailing list <arbcom-l@lists.wikimedia.org>
On Sat, Jan 17, 2009 at 10:48 PM, Carcharoth
<carcharothwp@googlemail.com> wrote:
> On Sat, Jan 17, 2009 at 6:47 AM, John Vandenberg <jayvdb@gmail.com> wrote:
>> On Sat, Jan 17, 2009 at 4:14 PM, Risker <risker.wp@gmail.com> wrote:
>>> I am fine with this too.
>>
>> Which part ? My spelling mistakes? :-)
>
> Well, there was still a missing apostrophe in the "havent". We will
> need to watch those with you! :-) Haven't checked yet, but I might
> have missed that in the copyedit.

Yes please.

I also miss words out occasionally, and I often cant see this even
when reviewing unless I take a break and come back to it.

The draft containing words appearing in the wrong order was due to
moving words around as I was phrasing it. I dont think I do that
often, but then I may just be not seeing it for looking.

> About Hi and G'day and Hoi, I use Hi
> (informal) and Dear Mr/Ms/Forename./Username (formal), using what they
> signed themselves as mostly.

Hi is formal for me unless it is followed by "mate". :-)

Dear is reserved for someone who expects respect, like a councillor,
or someone that can bury me in paperwork, like a solicitor or lawyer
(even my own; I've yet to find one I would want to have a beer with,
present company excluded of course).

I smile whenever I see Dear Username. something about that
combination is very odd.

> It took me a while to get used to "Hoi"
> as it is too close to (the rude) "Hey (you)" for my liking.

I've seen others who react badly to this as well, so I avoid using Hoi
in wiki except with people who know me already.

Thanks for your feedback.

--
John Vandenberg

Posted by: It's the blimp, Frank

Coren's refutation of JoshuaZ' s conspiracy scenario is persuasive.

Posted by: SpiderAndWeb

I disagree.

Back in the day I played pranks on multiple friends using Subzero, which gave me complete and indefinite remote desktop access to their computers. I used it for harmless and immediately obvious antics, but I could easily have waited for them to be away and then dicked around on their Wikipedia account, had I been so inclined.

Anyone calling such use of such a trojan "_extraordinarily_ unlikely" reveals extreme ignorance of these matters.

Posted by: It's the blimp, Frank

Do you normally leave your laptop running and unattended?

Posted by: SpiderAndWeb

QUOTE(It's the blimp, Frank @ Thu 7th July 2011, 2:00am)

Posted by: trenton

Interesting to see how active jackass David Gerard is on all these matters. All thanks to a Jimbeau appointment years ago.

Posted by: trenton

Posted by: lilburne

QUOTE(It's the blimp, Frank @ Thu 7th July 2011, 3:00am)