Ask the Leaker, Go ask Malice, I think he'll know Options

[lenovo]

I'd like to see the behind-the-scenes discussions of User:Durova's block of User:!! on 18 November 2007, and the ensuing arbcom case "Requests for arbitration/Durova" opened 25 November 2007, closed 1 December 2007.

This post has been edited by lenovo: Tue 5th July 2011, 8:01am

[Somey]

There certainly are a lot of requests!

We got one from the "peanut gallery" earlier today via e-mail. Around July 20, 2009 there was an arbitration request involving User:Bishonen and Jimbo, after Jimbo blocked Bishonen for (I would assume) stirring up more "Giano-related drama." I believe we covered it in this thread, and possibly a couple of others, and it probably dragged on for a couple of weeks on the mailing list(s).

I'm guessing the underlying rationale for the request is either to find out if the ArbCom ever maintained a "hands-off" policy towards Jimbo (I would assume so, personally), or to find out what led to Jimbo's apparent claim that he would stop blocking people after this happened... or maybe both, the person didn't say specifically.

[thekohser]

I'd like to see the behind-the-scenes discussions of User:Durova's block of User:!! on 18 November 2007, and the ensuing arbcom case "Requests for arbitration/Durova" opened 25 November 2007, closed 1 December 2007.

Oh, yeah! BUMP!

[Abd]

I'd like to see the behind-the-scenes discussions of User:Durova's block of User:!! on 18 November 2007, and the ensuing arbcom case "Requests for arbitration/Durova" opened 25 November 2007, closed 1 December 2007.

Oh, yeah! BUMP!

Well, whatever Malice thinks. I'll agree this is of substantial interest.

I saw Durova as getting one very raw deal here. She'd made a mistake (probably!), but corrected it within 40 minutes, as I recall. Compare that to admins who make a mistake and never admit it.

The big flap was that there was a Sekrit Mailing List! Hah! What did people expect? There are secret mailing lists, there is IRC, not logged except for individual logs, and one or two whole wikis, at least, that are private.

Durova was a very straight shooter, as far as I could tell. She'd become involved in obsessive pursuit of socks, but I see ArbComm as defending that with others, or at least unconcerned about it, as a common practice.

ArbComm did not stand up for Durova. So why not? How was the committee divided on this, if it was?

[NuclearWarfare]

Weren't the Durova/!! threads leaked a year or two back?

[SpiderAndWeb]

I'd like to see the behind-the-scenes discussions of User:Durova's block of User:!! on 18 November 2007, and the ensuing arbcom case "Requests for arbitration/Durova" opened 25 November 2007, closed 1 December 2007.

Oh, yeah! BUMP!

Well, whatever Malice thinks. I'll agree this is of substantial interest.

I saw Durova as getting one very raw deal here. She'd made a mistake (probably!), but corrected it within 40 minutes, as I recall. Compare that to admins who make a mistake and never admit it.

The big flap was that there was a Sekrit Mailing List! Hah! What did people expect? There are secret mailing lists, there is IRC, not logged except for individual logs, and one or two whole wikis, at least, that are private.

Durova was a very straight shooter, as far as I could tell. She'd become involved in obsessive pursuit of socks, but I see ArbComm as defending that with others, or at least unconcerned about it, as a common practice.

ArbComm did not stand up for Durova. So why not? How was the committee divided on this, if it was?

The biggest problem is that her "evidence" turned out to be laughably specious, and her arrogance and recalcitrance when asked to reveal her "sleuthing" methods and to promise to be more transparent in the future did not help her case.

I have nothing against Durova in particular -- she wasn't the first admin to allow a siege mentality to overwhelm her better judgement, nor was she last -- but I also don't think her treatment was unusually unfair.

[Abd]

The biggest problem is that her "evidence" turned out to be laughably specious, and her arrogance and recalcitrance when asked to reveal her "sleuthing" methods and to promise to be more transparent in the future did not help her case.

I have nothing against Durova in particular -- she wasn't the first admin to allow a siege mentality to overwhelm her better judgement, nor was she last -- but I also don't think her treatment was unusually unfair.

It was a mob, with pitchforks. Durova had methods of discovering socking that she did not want to reveal. She made a mistake, and admitted it practically immediately. I fully understand why she did not want to reveal her methods, and blocking based on private evidence was the mistake, and especially blocking without misbehavior on the part of the "sock." Yet the crowd that condemned her frequently support banning socks just because they are socks.

She made a mistake, and resigned, to avoid what she saw as inevitable disruption from the screaming mob. She eventually realized the implications: the screaming mob was Wikipedia. That's why she retired, to be sure.

You are right, SpiderAndWeb, it wasn't "unusual." That's Wikipedia! It eats those who serve it.

[SpiderAndWeb]

You are right, SpiderAndWeb, it wasn't "unusual." That's Wikipedia! It eats those who serve it.

No arguments there.

[SB_Johnny]

There certainly are a lot of requests!

We got one from the "peanut gallery" earlier today via e-mail. Around July 20, 2009 there was an arbitration request involving User:Bishonen and Jimbo, after Jimbo blocked Bishonen for (I would assume) stirring up more "Giano-related drama." I believe we covered it in this thread, and possibly a couple of others, and it probably dragged on for a couple of weeks on the mailing list(s).

I'm guessing the underlying rationale for the request is either to find out if the ArbCom ever maintained a "hands-off" policy towards Jimbo (I would assume so, personally), or to find out what led to Jimbo's apparent claim that he would stop blocking people after this happened... or maybe both, the person didn't say specifically.

I think any discussion where Jimbo is directly involved would help straighten out what his real status is, though in my experience he tends to keep a lid on the weirdness when he's on a mailinglist or other public/leaky forum.

[Somey]

So there's material going all the way back to late 2005? That's around the time when Dave Gerard would have been claiming that he had User:Lir "under control" or "gainfully distracted" (or whatever he supposedly claimed at the time) on Uncyclopedia, thinking all the while that I was him.

Still, I doubt he would have posted any details regarding what he did when I found out about those suspicions and objected, so there's probably no point in looking it up - given that there are obviously far more important things in all that material.

[The Joy]

So there's material going all the way back to late 2005? That's around the time when Dave Gerard would have been claiming that he had User:Lir "under control" or "gainfully distracted" (or whatever he supposedly claimed at the time) on Uncyclopedia, thinking all the while that I was him.

Still, I doubt he would have posted any details regarding what he did when I found out about those suspicions and objected, so there's probably no point in looking it up - given that there are obviously far more important things in all that material.

Gerard does love dancing on skulls, though. I can't imagine him not bragging about it. I suppose he would do it on IRC and not on a mailing list since IRC in 2005 was the "hip" thing to do.

[Guido den Broeder]

Some data.


20080707 Indefinite block by Future Perfect at Sunrise on the false accusation of legal threats
20080801 Unblocked by Prodego
20080905 Indefinite block by Prodego on the false accusation of legal threats
20080909 Unblocked by Mangojuice after massive protests

This relates to the Abigor affair. He made legal threats against me, not the other way around.


20081023 Fourth block by Davidruben over CFS, evidence falsified

Administrator Davidruben belongs to the other side of a (still continuing) conflict over content. He kept falsely accusing me of editwarring. All these blocks as well as their length were heavily contested by CFS editors as well as other administrators.


20081219 Banned by William M. Connolley, no evidence of wrongdoing provided, falsely claiming the existence of a community ban in response to a complaint by me about mass deletions and editwarring by WLU on the topic of CFS

William M. Connolley banned me after I asked him not to editwar over spelling with another user (where he was in the wrong). He also belongs to the other side of the same conflict over content on CFS, and kept editing and removing my talk page contributions. A community majority asked for my unban, but were ignored by ArbCom.


20090521 Unblocked by ArbCom member Cool Hand Luke
20090521 Topic ban by Cool Hand Luke for CFS, no evidence of wrongdoing provided

ArbCom member Cool Hand Luke belongs to the other side of the same edit conflict over content.


20090601 Rebanned by Rlevse on the request of William M. Connolley, falsely claiming that I violated the conditions of the unban. This despite hard evidence by other users to the contrary
20090801 Email blocked by Rlevse, falsely claiming that I was evading my ban through email

Administrator William M. Connolly was subsequently desysopped for similar abuse of tools.
ArbCom-member Rlevse was subsequently banned for many kinds of abuse, and is currently evading their ban with sockpuppets.

20101219 Unban request filed
20110217 Unban request denied by PhilKnight, despite satisfying the condition of trouble-free editing on other projects (for many years, in fact)

This post has been edited by Guido den Broeder: Wed 6th July 2011, 11:40am

[Sololol]

A proposal: the massive volume makes the emails difficult to understand unless you've the requisite knowledge of actors and background. What about having a thread maintained by one of the knowledgeable regulars in which people could suggest summaries of interesting findings for inclusion in the first post (e.g., "Storing Checkuser data privately/forever is an accepted practice", "Basketofpuppies is Bstone", etc.) ? I can't imagine casual readers sifting through the emails and drama histories to sufficiently understand some of the most important bits.

This post has been edited by Sololol: Wed 6th July 2011, 4:12pm

[melloden]

A proposal: the massive volume makes the emails difficult to understand unless you've the requisite knowledge of actors and background. What about having a thread maintained by one of the knowledgeable regulars in which people could suggest summaries of interesting findings for inclusion in the first post (e.g., "Storing Checkuser data privately/forever is an accepted practice", "Basketofpuppies is Bstone", etc.) ? I can't imagine casual readers sifting through the emails and drama histories to sufficiently understand some of the most important bits.

Also, can we just strip away the headers and the encrypted fields, so it just shows who the email is from? That clutter takes up a lot of room.

[Shalom]

Malice, can you please fish out the archives on Cool3 in February 2010, and in particular, how ArbCom concluded that the new "Cool three" was a different person than the original "Cool3" before Thekohser compromised the Cool3 account?

I continue to harbor suspicion that "Cool three" really was legit, despite being told that he/she was an impostor trying to get adminship for the cheap.

A look at Arbcom-L threads would enlighten us on that piece of history.

Look around mid February 2010, per this RFA (see question 6 especially):

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=...oldid=342933240

[A Horse With No Name]

However, I remain to be convinced that the horse has been replaced in the stable after the barn door has been closed. Or has it?

To borrow a line from Stephen Sondheim: I'm still here!

[Bishonen]

There certainly are a lot of requests!

We got one from the "peanut gallery" earlier today via e-mail. Around July 20, 2009 there was an arbitration request involving User:Bishonen and Jimbo, after Jimbo blocked Bishonen for (I would assume) stirring up more "Giano-related drama." I believe we covered it in this thread, and possibly a couple of others, and it probably dragged on for a couple of weeks on the mailing list(s).

I'm guessing the underlying rationale for the request is either to find out if the ArbCom ever maintained a "hands-off" policy towards Jimbo (I would assume so, personally), or to find out what led to Jimbo's apparent claim that he would stop blocking people after this happened... or maybe both, the person didn't say specifically.

I think any discussion where Jimbo is directly involved would help straighten out what his real status is, though in my experience he tends to keep a lid on the weirdness when he's on a mailinglist or other public/leaky forum.

I had read and write access to the relevant bits of ArbCom-L at the time (for fairness between the two parties, as Jimbo could walk in and out of the list discussion at his convenience). See http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=...oldid=303165818, which the committee agreed with. Letting me in as temporary list member was an act of trust which I appreciated: I certainly won't post any quotes from it.

But I simply must comment on "he tends to keep a lid on the weirdness when he's on a mailinglist or other public/leaky forum": nope, no lid in this case. I think he was too angry for lids.

As for "Giano-related drama", Giano was hardly involved at all.
Bishonen.

[Vigilant]

Merkey!
Merkey!
Merkey!

"Hey! Nobody says the 'M' word!"

[thekohser]

Malice, can you please fish out the archives on Cool3 in February 2010, and in particular, how ArbCom concluded that the new "Cool three" was a different person than the original "Cool3" before Thekohser compromised the Cool3 account?

I continue to harbor suspicion that "Cool three" really was legit, despite being told that he/she was an impostor trying to get adminship for the cheap.

A look at Arbcom-L threads would enlighten us on that piece of history.

Look around mid February 2010, per this RFA (see question 6 especially):

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=...oldid=342933240

+1

It is rather strange that this important event has (thus far) been absent from the leaks. Maybe the leaker is "Cool three"?

[The Joy]

I am curious about Alienus (T-C-L-K-R-D) and the arb case against him. His arbcom case ran from July 6th 2006 to August 20th 2006.