************
*3 years later*
************
From: nadezhda.durova at gmail.com (Durova)
Date: Tue, 26 Jan 2010 22:00:11 -0800
Subject: [arbcom-l] Risker
There is another reason I request no further contact with Risker.
It is necessary to state in advance that no one has breached confidence. A
lot of people talk to me. When a variety of people each say a little bit,
each within their proper discretion, it is possible to learn a lot. The
non-arbitrators who handled parts of this matter probably know less than I
do because a key piece of information is that User:!!, whom I blocked in
2007, told me himself that his prior username was <redacted>. Checkuser caught
him socking late in 2009. Risker intervened. And by implementing a
creative interpretation of the socking policy the Committee found him not to
have violated policy even though he was using one of his current accounts to
disrupt the featured article review process with sarcastic comments.
Considering Risker's involvement in the Durova RfC and the Durova
arbitration case, she ought to have recused. Instead she terminated the SPI
after the result came in.
Last year's arbitrators who tidied up the remaining loose ends probably
hoped I wouldn't find out. I already knew. Just as I knew about Geogre's
socking long before I said anything about it. I'm a smart cookie. And
also, in my own way, a very patient and forgiving person.
Consider what could have happened if I had told Cirt the whole picture. It
was not a wise thing when another Wikipedia arbitrator went to the
individual who had filed the SPI request and insinuated that his queries
were improper. Cirt has thanked me many times over for mentoring him; now
he is an arbitrator and checkuser at Wikinews. None of his confidentiality
pledges would have been breached by blowing the whistle on that very strong
appearance of coverup.
If I wanted to raise a stink about this I already would have. Of course
there is also the possibility that somebody else will put together the same
chain of events. Last year when the arbcom mailing list logs that preceded
the Durova arbitration case leaked openly, I stepped forward to quiet that
developing drama. Probably no one other than I could have done so.
Afterward I asked the 2009 Arbitration Committee to return a portion of my
good name that the Durova arbitration case had taken away. The request, I
believe, was valid on its merits yet it was declined. If the 2010 Committee
is more amenable I would step forward again to halt drama again, even to
protect Risker.
If the current arbitrators are interested in further discussion I would be
happy to hold a dialog. I have always been willing to shoulder a proper
share of culpability for the block of !!; it was a bad block. But that
arbitration was a kangaroo court. I can be very patient. Meanwhile I ask
only that Risker cease to remind me of her existence.
-Lise
P.S. I can also demonstrate the identity of Wikileaker. Probably with
enough conclusiveness for the Committee to finally take action.
-----------
From:(Carcharoth)
Date: Wed, 27 Jan 2010 11:42:10 +0000
Subject: [arbcom-l] Risker
To cut a long story short, at some point in the middle of last year
Risker inadvertently sent an e-mail to Durova that was meant for the
list, and it (understandably) upset Durova a great deal. Ever since
then, she refuses to have anything to do with Risker, but can't keep
it in perspective.
There are other things as well, but I think that was the point where
things broke down irreversibly (from Durova's viewpoint anyway).
Durova filing that RFAR naming Risker and Geogre last year didn't
help, and the business about !! (which was reignited when Cirt filed
an SPI against Disinfoboxman) doesn't help either.
We know there is nothing nefarious going on, but from the outside I
can sort of understand how someone could see this all as some massive
cover-up. Ottava's rantings along those lines didn't help either.
But somehow we have to draw a line under all this. And tell Durova and
others to drop this as well.
Durova's claim that she can identify Wikileaker does sound
interesting, and may be worth pursuing, but coupled with her missing
the point on other matters, she may be barking up the wrong tree there
as well.
Carcharoth
------------
From: (Kenneth Kua/ArbCom)
Date: Wed, 27 Jan 2010 20:35:34 +0800
Subject: [arbcom-l] Risker
Is it just me or the whole world seems to know who is Wikileaker except the
Committee? We are getting this claim like almost every week.
Given what she had wrote in her original email to us, I won't be surprised
if the name 'Risker' comes out in her claim.
Kenneth/MD
On Wed, Jan 27, 2010 at 7:42 PM, Carcharoth <carcharothwp at googlemail.com>wrote:
> Durova's claim that she can identify Wikileaker does sound
------------
From: (Roger Davies)
Date: Wed, 27 Jan 2010 13:12:49 +0000
Subject: [arbcom-l] Risker
Hi Lise:
Thanks for your second message. As you may be aware, committee time is
at a premium just now and this, as currently presented, is a bit too
complicated for us to react to promptly and coherently. To move this
forward, I suggest is that you break your message down into components,
each with their own numbered and descriptive sub-heading. Under each
sub-heading please provide:
1. a brief summary of facts (say, 100 words);
2. a statement of the relief you seek/action you would like us to take;
3. a link (not diffs at this stage) to the key stuff (ie RfC:Durova,
RfAr:MZMcBride 2 etc)
4. a brief statement saying whether or not it has previously been before
the committee and, if yes, a summary of either (i) what *new* evidence
you will be relying on; (ii) what *new* reasons you have for requesting
the committee revisit or (iii) your reasons for believing the
committee's previous determination was flawed.
We can then look at this item by item and let you know what we can do in
each particular instance.
Roger
------------
From: (Gregory Kohs)
Date: Wed, 27 Jan 2010 10:19:05 -0500
Subject: [arbcom-l] Fwd: First Pitch
Regarding the recent claims by Lise "Durova" Broer that she still bears some
level of anxiety about how I "harassed" her with a silly Cafe Press
storefront that sold all of ONE UNIT of merchandise (a $2.50 lapel button,
sold to myself)... one would wonder why she would engage with me so
delightfully as recently as July 2009?
Perhaps she's manipulating MZMcBride and the ArbCom. I know manipulators,
trust me.
Enjoy the following...
Greg
---------- Forwarded message ----------
From: Durova
Date: Fri, Jul 10, 2009 at 4:41 PM
Subject: Re: First Pitch
To: Gregory Kohs
Cheers, and you're welcome.
On Fri, Jul 10, 2009 at 1:19 PM, Gregory Kohs wrote:
> Thank you for your work on the photo. You're good, and quick!
>
> In appreciation of your work:
>
> Transaction ID: 5D673966E6170731F Placed on Jul. 10, 2009 Payment For
> Quantity Price Musella Foundation For Brain Tumor Research & Information,
> Inc 1 $10.00 USD Subtotal: $10.00 USD Sales Tax: $0.00 USD
> Total Amount: $10.00 USD
> Talk to you soon!
>
> Greg
>
>
> On Fri, Jul 10, 2009 at 12:13 PM, Durova wrote:
>
>> Assuming WMF isn't to your taste, this would be fine.
>>
>>
http://www.virtualtrials.com/Musella.cfm>>
>>
>> On Fri, Jul 10, 2009 at 9:08 AM, Gregory Kohs wrote:
>>
>>> Yes, exactly -- the attachment of the baseball pitcher. I doubt a higher
>>> rez scan is even available. I don't want you doing it for free, unless that
>>> is your yearning. At least, let me make a $10 donation to the humanitarian
>>> charity of your choice!
>>>
>>> Greg
>>>
>>> On Fri, Jul 10, 2009 at 11:48 AM, Durova wrote:
>>>
>>>> 11:48 AM Durova: You're asking about the backyard photo?
>>>> 11:49 AM I'd do it for free, although you won't get much quality from
>>>> 87K. Would suggest a higher resolution scan.
----------
From: (Carcharoth)
Date: Wed, 27 Jan 2010 15:40:21 +0000
Subject: [arbcom-l] Fwd: First Pitch
I'd question who is doing the manipulation here.
I would say that we should tell Durova that Kohs has submitted
evidence, and ask Kohs if we can pass this "evidence" on to Durova. It
will upset her, but she has a right to see it. Unless we think that it
will inflame things even more, and that a better option is to ignore
their "evidence" and tell them both to stay away from each other (this
is similar to how the Kohs-Shankbone spat was handled).
Carcharoth
-----------
From: (KnightLago)
Date: Wed, 27 Jan 2010 10:43:22 -0500
Subject: [arbcom-l] Fwd: First Pitch
I like the latter approach. Less drama all around.
KL
On Wed, Jan 27, 2010 at 10:40 AM, Carcharoth wrote:
> I'd question who is doing the manipulation here.
-----------
From: (Kirill Lokshin)
Date: Wed, 27 Jan 2010 10:54:03 -0500
Subject: [arbcom-l] Fwd: First Pitch
On Wed, Jan 27, 2010 at 10:43 AM, KnightLago <KnightLago at gmail.com> wrote:
> I like the latter approach. Less drama all around.
Indeed. This is totally irrelevant to anything we're actually concerned
with, in any case.
Kirill
------------
From: (Newyorkbrad)
Date: Wed, 27 Jan 2010 12:54:37 -0500
Subject: [arbcom-l] Fwd: First Pitch
I agree that this entire subject is a digression and should not receive much
more of our attention.
I will add, though, that I consider Durova's most recent comments about
Risker (on Durova's talkpage) to be highly offensive. We are probably
better off not acknowledging them either, so venting for the moment.
Newyorkbrad
------------
From: (Carcharoth)
Date: Wed, 27 Jan 2010 18:23:26 +0000
Subject: [arbcom-l] Fwd: First Pitch
Oh my goodness. Durova is completely over the top on her talk page
(which makes it all the sadder), but I had to laugh out loud when I
got to the roasting marshmallows point on Durova's talk page. It was
so ludicrous I couldn't help myself. Yeah, venting here is best, but
Risker, if you feel this is getting too much, just say so and we can
do something (slowly, but we can do something).
Really, what is needed is for Durova to find someone else that agrees
with her, and get an RfC going so she can get some feedback on this.
She keeps coming to the committee to complain about a sitting
arbitrator, because she knows it will take a long time before our
patience snaps, and she also knows the community would look at her in
a funny way if she did ever manage to get an RfC going.
Just in the interests of dialling things down a notch, is there any
chance that you (Risker) would consider only dealing with Durova if
absolutely necessary? It might be a bad precedent, but if we know
there are sore points, it might be best to avoid them if possible.
Or maybe just ban Durova from the arbitration pages and this mailing
list because she can't bear the sight of Risker and that is the only
way to have them avoid each other?
Or do nothing (per Brad).
Carcharoth
------------
From: (Carcharoth)
Date: Wed, 27 Jan 2010 18:37:51 +0000
Subject: [arbcom-l] Risker
On Wed, Jan 27, 2010 at 6:29 PM, Roger Davies wrote:
> In essence, Durova has explicitly asked for the case to vacated
> and was dropping hints that she could be re-sysopped without an RfA.
She has been pretty consistent she doesn't want the tools back. She
wants her "good name" back, though she fails to realise every time she
does something like this, she pushes it lower in people's estimation
again. Or maybe she does realise and thinks being principled is the
right way to go.
Carcharoth
-----------
From: (Roger Davies)
Date: Wed, 27 Jan 2010 19:00:38 +0000
Subject: [arbcom-l] Fwd: First Pitch
Greg:
While you may have only sold one Durova button, did you have other
Durova-branded items on display? And, if so, what were they?
Roger Davies
-----------
From: (David Yellope)
Date: Wed, 27 Jan 2010 14:30:37 -0500
Subject: [arbcom-l] Risker
She doesn't WANT the tools at all, that's the thing. It really sticks in her
craw that ArbCom had basically decided to accept a case, what the findings
should be, and what the end result should be before the case was filed (the
"If I submit a case, is it going to go through?" statements from members on
the list, etcetera).
And unfortunately, she has proof of all this. The WikiLeaker sent her
edited/redacted logs of the ArbCom mailing list discussions.
On Wed, Jan 27, 2010 at 1:45 PM, Roger Davies wrote:
> Carcharoth wrote:
>
> On Wed, Jan 27, 2010 at 6:29 PM, Roger Davies wrote:
>
>
>
> In essence, Durova has explicitly asked for the case to vacated
> and was dropping hints that she could be re-sysopped without an RfA.
>
>
> She has been pretty consistent she doesn't want the tools back. She
> wants her "good name" back, though she fails to realise every time she
> does something like this, she pushes it lower in people's estimation
> again. Or maybe she does realise and thinks being principled is the
> right way to go.
>
> Carcharoth
>
>
> I think the sub-text of that is that she wants us to confess the 2007 case
> was a kangeroo trial and to remove the "under a cloud" sanction. That means
> she would get the tools without an RfA. And it's also means she wouldn't
> have to go through an RfA (in which, given her capacity for polarising
> people, there is no certainly she'd pass). I'll see if I can find the email
> where she raised it.
>
> Roger
-------------
From: (Cool Hand Luke)
Date: Wed, 27 Jan 2010 13:59:13 -0600
Subject: [arbcom-l] Risker
...Except that none of the case was decided in advance. NYB drafted the
findings publicly, and he was not a subscriber to arbcom-l at the time.
The problem here was one that we frequently deal with: how to take a case *sua
sponte*. That's not a problem with the fairness of the findings against
her--which I contend were fair.
Frank
-------------
From: (Gregory Kohs)
Date: Wed, 27 Jan 2010 14:57:07 -0500
Subject: [arbcom-l] Fwd: First Pitch
I loaded up with just about 90% of whatever Cafe Press offers its vendors,
in terms of blank merchandise templates. Of course, the "branding" is
entirely virtual. No products are actually manufactured until a sale is
transacted. The "display" items are simply photo-shopped renderings. It's
all automated. Are you not familiar with Cafe Press?
Products may have included:
- T-shirts <http://www.cafepress.com/make/custom-t-shirts>
- Hoodies and
Sweatshirts<http://www.cafepress.com/make/custom-hoodies-sweatshirts>
- Underwear and
Panties<http://www.cafepress.com/make/custom-underwear-and-panties>
- Baseball Jerseys<http://www.cafepress.com/make/custom-baseball-jerseys>
- Mugs <http://www.cafepress.com/make/custom-mugs>
- Travel Mugs <http://www.cafepress.com/make/custom-travel-mugs>
- Water Bottles <http://www.cafepress.com/make/custom-water-bottles>
- Tote Bags - Beach Bags <http://www.cafepress.com/make/custom-tote-bags>
- Photo Calendars <http://www.cafepress.com/make/custom-calendars>
- Stickers <http://www.cafepress.com/make/custom-stickers>
- Greeting Cards <http://www.cafepress.com/make/custom-greeting-cards>
Apparel
- T-shirts <http://www.cafepress.com/make/custom-t-shirts>
- Hoodies and
Sweatshirts<http://www.cafepress.com/make/custom-hoodies-sweatshirts>
- Tank Tops <http://www.cafepress.com/make/custom-tank-tops>
- Baseball Jerseys<http://www.cafepress.com/make/custom-baseball-jerseys>
- Golf Shirts <http://www.cafepress.com/make/custom-golf-shirts>
- Underwear and
Panties<http://www.cafepress.com/make/custom-underwear-and-panties>
- Maternity and Plus
Sizes<http://www.cafepress.com/make/custom-maternity-plus-sizes>
Accessories
- Tote Bags <http://www.cafepress.com/make/custom-tote-bags>
- Messenger Bags <http://www.cafepress.com/make/custom-messenger-bags>
- Aprons <http://www.cafepress.com/make/custom-aprons>
- Hats <http://www.cafepress.com/make/custom-hats>
- Teddy Bears <http://www.cafepress.com/make/custom-teddy-bears>
- Pet Gifts <http://www.cafepress.com/make/custom-pet-gifts>
- Bibs <http://www.cafepress.com/make/custom-bibs>
For Home
- Water Bottles <http://www.cafepress.com/make/custom-water-bottles>
- Pillows <http://www.cafepress.com/make/custom-pillows>
- Clocks <http://www.cafepress.com/make/custom-clocks>
- Magnets <http://www.cafepress.com/make/custom-magnets>
- Travel Mugs <http://www.cafepress.com/make/custom-travel-mugs>
- Flip Mino <http://www.cafepress.com/make/custom-flip-mino>
- Flip Mino HD <http://www.cafepress.com/make/custom-flip-mino-hd>
- Keepsake Box <http://www.cafepress.com/make/custom-keepsake-box>
- Framed Tiles <http://www.cafepress.com/make/custom-framed-tiles>
- Coasters <http://www.cafepress.com/make/custom-coasters>
- Ornaments <http://www.cafepress.com/make/personalized-ornaments>
For Office
- Poster Printing <http://www.cafepress.com/make/poster-printing>
- Custom Art Prints <http://www.imagekind.com/create/?IKSrc=CafePress>
- Stickers <http://www.cafepress.com/make/custom-stickers>
- Buttons <http://www.cafepress.com/make/custom-buttons>
- Mousepads <http://www.cafepress.com/make/custom-mousepads>
- Note Cards <http://www.cafepress.com/make/custom-notecards>
- Postcards <http://www.cafepress.com/make/custom-postcards>
- Journals <http://www.cafepress.com/make/custom-journals>
- Banners <http://www.cafepress.com/make/custom-banners>
- Yard Signs <http://www.cafepress.com/make/custom-yard-signs>
I cannot recall which merchandise lines I chose to exclude from my
storefront, and I can't even be certain that today's wide array of available
quality goods matches what was available back in 2007. Am I on trial? May
I participate within the "courtroom"? I could wear my tastefully-designed
"Durova for ArbCom" political button, no?
Greg
-------------
From: (Cool Hand Luke)
Date: Wed, 27 Jan 2010 14:03:37 -0600
Subject: [arbcom-l] Risker
Oh, and I should add that wherever the logs came from (I'm tired of blaming
everything on Wikileaker given that others have probably leaked and that
Wikileaker seemed to brag about his own leaks), the logs were posted and are
available to Durova via Proab. Proab really, really doesn't like Kirill,
who he villainizes in this case and in his own.
Frank
----------
From: (Durova)
Date: Wed, 27 Jan 2010 15:39:34 -0800
Subject: [arbcom-l] Risker
This is a busy time for all of us and I can be patient until a better time
arises. Thank you.
-Lise
On Wed, Jan 27, 2010 at 5:12 AM, Roger Davies wrote:
>
> Hi Lise:
>
> Thanks for your second message. As you may be aware, committee time is at a
-----------
From: (Roger Davies)
Date: Thu, 28 Jan 2010 01:11:57 +0000
Subject: [arbcom-l] Risker
Lise:
Thank you for your message, which has been noted. In the meantime, of
course, the October 2009 determination still stands. (For ease of
reference, I have appended it below.)
Roger
<Decision>
Dear Durova
*Request for vacation of case
*
Thank you for the various messages you have sent us about your 2007
arbitration case, requesting its vacation. We have now had an
opportunity to review all the matters you have raised and we have
made a determination.
In essence, all the evidence suggests that the damage to your
reputation occurred during the widespread discussions in many fora
that took place between 18 November 2007 when you blocked (and
subsequently unblocked) User:!! and the opening of the arbitration
case on 25 November. Your refusal to discuss your rationale during
these early stages alienated many reasonable editors and played a
significant part into turning a relatively minor incident into a
major event. For this reason, the committee has determined that
vacating the decision would be inappropriate.
You have raised further issues in your correspondence, suggesting
that the case was irregular in a number of ways to the point of
being procedurally flawed. Each of these issues has been carefully
investigated and we will respond to them individually. We see that
in some instances you refer to emails leaked from the ArbCom
archives and note they do not necessarily present a complete picture
of discussions which took place.
(1) It is not in dispute that Dmcdevit opened the case in response
to general promptings by ArbCom. The question here is whether the
outcome would have been different had the case been opened by
another filing party. Given the basic facts of the case were never
much in dispute, it is unlikely that Dmcdevit's filing influenced
the outcome.
(2) The outcome of the case was not pre-determined. The final
decision arose largely out of the workshop.
(3) The case did indeed move quickly. It was however a
straightforward case and the facts were never in serious dispute.
Whether the expeditious handling of this case did you a kindness or
a disservice is a matter of conjecture, though it seems unlikely
that keeping it open would have affected the Final Decision.
Moreover, it is clear from your own emails that you were unable to
keep up with the onslaught of comment (for instance, nearly five
hundred posts to the workshop page alone in the first twenty-four
hours). Given that feelings were running high, it seems unlikely
that your responses on the side issues would have done anything
other than provoke further rounds of accusations. The situation is
best summarised by Fred Bauder, who wrote you at the time saying: "I
don't think we will provide definitive resolution over all matters."
(4) We do not believe that the participation of Geogre and Utgard
Loki had any effect on the Final Decision.
(5) We do not accept your allegations regarding Mackensen and
Risker, finding the evidence you put forward unpersuasive.
It is a matter of considerable concern to us that you are subject to
periodic harassment and, unfortunately, this happens too often to
high-profile editors, especially female editors. We note though that
vacating the case will not cause the attack articles on various
websites to be withdrawn. We will however be happy to courtesy blank
the case pages should you wish us to do so.
The Arbitration Committee,
Supporting: Carcaroth, Cool Hand Luke, Coren, FayssalF, FloNight,
Rlevse, Roger Davies, Wizardman
Opposing: None
Recusing: John Vandenberg, Risker, Vassyana
Not voting: Newyorkbrad, Stephen Bain
</Decision>
----------
From: (Roger Davies)
Date: Thu, 28 Jan 2010 02:04:28 +0000
Subject: [arbcom-l] Fwd: First Pitch
Greg:
Okay, I now understand how it works. A few more questions for you. (And
no you're not on trial: this is an information gathering exercise.)
What is the background, by the way? Where did this take place? And when?
Can you also please clarify the thong business (I understand from your
WR posts that it is not in dispute that one was on display/available.)
Roger
-----------
From: laralove (Lara Taylor)
Date: Wed, 27 Jan 2010 22:21:18 -0500
Subject: [arbcom-l] RFAR/MZMcBride
Hello,
I am writing to express my disgust regarding Durova's unsubstantiated
"evidence" against MZ and her edits wrt Risker. The issue with Kohs and the
Cafe Press thong is over-the-top. It's a real stretch for that to be
considered "unwanted sexual attention". The thong is one of many default
choices available on Cafe Press, yet she's using this to play victim by
making it sound like Kohs' intention was to sexually harass her. It's just
absurd. And her claim: "]MZMcBride] renews the obnoxious suggestion that the
Arbitration Committee should hold a woman culpable because a sitebanned
editor once sold underwear with her portrait on it." is a fantastic example
of the absurdity.
Considering her hyperbolic reaction, MZ's concern regarding her (in)ability
to be objective in this case is not far-fetched, and his claim that she
tends to involve herself in drama that doesn't have anything to do with her
is demonstrably true as well. I mean, consensus is nearly impossible to
achieve at this point on WP, but I'm pretty sure you could gain consensus in
a poll regarding Durova's over-involvement in drama. Not only
over-involvement, but her tendency to exaggerate for dramatic affect. For
example, referring to Kohs as being "sitebanned" as opposed to just
"banned". By understanding of the former being for cases such as Amorrow.
Unnecessary exaggeration.
Furthermore, this "no means no" thing she's doing now over Risker's edits to
her talk page is utterly ridiculous.[1][2] Disgusting, really.
Particularly when you consider it is coming from a woman who is
ultra-sensitive to sexual references (such as the thong issue and her
reaction to a Kegel exercise joke on BN, for example). Using an anti-rape
slogan out of its standard context... it's just grossly offensive.
[1]
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=...oldid=340394259[2]
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=...oldid=340281628Regards,
Lara
-----------
From: (Gregory Kohs)
Date: Wed, 27 Jan 2010 22:35:55 -0500
Subject: [arbcom-l] Fwd: First Pitch
Background:
http://wikipediareview.com/index.php?s=&sh...indpost&p=61441Read the whole thread, too... it's a hoot.
A thong was one of the 40 or so products available at the "Durova for
ArbCom" storefront.
One day, if you have even an 80 IQ, you'll discover that Durova
over-inflates all of her accomplishments, and over-reacts to all of her
criticisms. Happy reading!
Greg
----------
From: (Carcharoth)
Date: Thu, 28 Jan 2010 07:20:16 +0000
Subject: [arbcom-l] My secondary account
"No Name Given" looks like a newbie, but it could be a fake. Dunno. Sorry.
Carcharoth
-----------
From: (Fritz Poll)
Date: Thu, 28 Jan 2010 07:47:10 +0000
Subject: [arbcom-l] RFAR/MZMcBride
Broadly speaking, I have to say that I agree with the substance of Lara's
e-mail
Fred
-----------
From: (Carcharoth)
Date: Thu, 28 Jan 2010 07:57:36 +0000
Subject: [arbcom-l] RFAR/MZMcBride
Sure, I do too. Was just noting the way she slipped in a defense of
Kohs there, with semantics over the use of the words 'banned' and
'sitebanned'. I think Kohs can be a perfectly reasonable guy, but he
had his chance and blew it. He seems to think he can manipulate
people, and he does still exert some influence, as this episode has
shown. We should be encouraging him to disengage, and encouraging
others not to be influenced by him (as he is nothing more than a
distraction at this point). But Lara will not accept that in any shape
or form, so there is no point telling her that.
Carcharoth
On Thu, Jan 28, 2010 at 7:47 AM, Fritz Poll wrote:
> Broadly speaking, I have to say that I agree with the
-----------
From: (Jimmy Wales)
Date: Thu, 28 Jan 2010 15:34:27 +0100
Subject: [arbcom-l] Fwd: FW: facebook message from Mr Gregory Kohs
Just FYI, since the committee may be considering Mr. Kohs track record
regarding harassment of Durova. It is fairly common for him to contact
anyone with whom he sees I am doing business, or anyone he feverishly
imagines that I may be dating. He seems to be suggesting that the
Durova event was one small thing. It is, though, exactly within his
normal patterns of behavior.
Upon professional advice, I do not respond or acknowledge Kohs in any
way. I believe it would be much better if everyone took the same
approach - the key concept in stalker management is de-escalation. We
are unfortunately not well suited to not allowing someone to have a
battle - there is always someone in the community for him to argue with,
which keeps his war-on-Wikipedia alive and entertaining for him. I have
no solution to offer about that!
-------- Original Message --------
Subject: FW: facebook message from Mr Gregory Kohs
Date: Thu, 28 Jan 2010 14:06:06 +0100
From: Waser Stephane
To: 'Jimmy Wales'
CC: Roth Katrin
Dear Jimmy,
For your information, Mr Kohs has sent Simon (our art director from the
agency) the message below.
We don't want to bother you with this neither want to make a big story
out of it, however thought it might be of interest to you to be informed.
On our side, we have informed the team at the agency and internal staff
to watch out for such message, in particular on our facebook official site.
He might drop further messages, so we are aware and ready to manage any
negative comment.
We are more than ever convinced that you are an excellent ambassador for
Maurice Lacroix and are honoured of seeing you these days in Davos.
It's great what you do.
Have a successful time,
Stephane
*Maurice Lacroix
------------------------------------------------------------------------
*From:* Thomas Bunnell
*Sent:* Wednesday, January 27, 2010 8:13 PM
*To:* Waser Stephane
*Subject:* facebook message
Hi Stephane,
Just thought you should know Simon got sent a unusual message from
someone called Gregory Kohs on his facebook account last night
It?s a bit weird, and it?s obviously from someone who has it in for
Jimmy, and possibly may know him,
as follows,
"Boy, were you ever duped by that fraud Jimmy Wales. I feel sorry for you.
Too late to turn back now, though! Good luck with your "ambassador"."
I don?t think it?s anything worth pursuing ? there are a lot of weird
people out there but thought it best you know in case your team also get
anything through
Best
Thomas
*Thomas Bunnell*
------------
From: (Steve Smith)
Date: Thu, 28 Jan 2010 10:40:23 -0400
Subject: [arbcom-l] Fwd: FW: facebook message from Mr Gregory Kohs
When I threw my name into the 2008 WMF election ring (against Kohs) he
immediately called my work and spoke to my somewhat befuddled boss (I wasn't
party to the conversation, but I gather it had something to do with my
having blocked one of his sockpuppets, which he viewed as a conflict of
interest in that we were running against each other). I think he's harmless
and fine the use of "stalker" a little strong (though perhaps Jimmy's
experience suggests that it isn't), but there's no doubt that he can be a
bit of a jackass.
-----------
From: (KnightLago)
Date: Thu, 28 Jan 2010 09:50:14 -0500
Subject: [arbcom-l] Fwd: FW: facebook message from Mr Gregory Kohs
I disagree Steve. Take a step back. He called your work! He took the time to
find out where you worked, track down the number, and then actually called.
I mean, what is your definition of the word stalker?
KL
------------
From: (Steve Smith)
Date: Thu, 28 Jan 2010 10:59:12 -0400
Subject: [arbcom-l] Fwd: FW: facebook message from Mr Gregory Kohs
It's semantics, but I'd say there has to be some kind of threatening
undertone, which I don't think there was here (as far as I know, he didn't
imply to my boss that I should be fired or anything). As for finding out
where I worked, I believe I mentioned it on my user page at the time, so I
have a hard time finding that too chilling.
Andrew Morrow's a stalker. Greg Kohs, at least in my experience, is a
decent guy who sometimes behaves like a monumental jackass where Wikipedia,
and especially Jimmy Wales, are involved.
----------
From: (Carcharoth)
Date: Thu, 28 Jan 2010 15:11:58 +0000
Subject: [arbcom-l] Fwd: FW: facebook message from Mr Gregory Kohs
Would you phone Greg Kohs's work to talk to his boss? It clearly
crosses a line, and I can't believe that anyone would do something
like that for innocent purposes. You use existing means of
communication to contact someone, and you don't step outside that (to
invade their privacy) without good reason. Period.
Carcharoth
-----------
From: (Steve Smith)
Date: Thu, 28 Jan 2010 11:14:49 -0400
Subject: [arbcom-l] Fwd: FW: facebook message from Mr Gregory Kohs
Well, he was actually calling to talk to me, but I wasn't in. Anyway, this
conversation has probably exceeded its useful life, and that's probably my
fault. I just think we need to do a better job distinguishing between the
dangerous and the merely unpleasant, and that my knowledge of Kohs places
him, at his worst, in that second category.
------------
From: (Steve Smith)
Date: Thu, 28 Jan 2010 11:16:58 -0400
Subject: [arbcom-l] Fwd: FW: facebook message from Mr Gregory Kohs
Wait, didn't you guys unban him last year for a time? Why would you do that
if you considered him a stalker?
(To be clear, I'm very much on-side that re-banning him was the right
decision. I just don't think he's a threat to editors' well-being.)
----------
From: (Carcharoth)
Date: Thu, 28 Jan 2010 15:23:14 +0000
Subject: [arbcom-l] Fwd: FW: facebook message from Mr Gregory Kohs
I don't think I realised he called your work. I also recall at the
time we unbanned him, that he was being pretty reasonable. He then
reverted to type. His obsession with Jimmy is concerning. Some of his
posts to various websites, I can understand, but to then approach
people working with Jimmy (like he just did) and leave them with the
impression that he is a nutter, well, he is his own worst enemy.
Carcharoth
-----------
From: (Steve Smith)
Date: Thu, 28 Jan 2010 11:26:00 -0400
Subject: [arbcom-l] Fwd: FW: facebook message from Mr Gregory Kohs
I can agree with that; I've suggested to him before that he's much more
credible as a critic when he doesn't fixate on Jimmy. He does not seem to
have taken that to heart.
------------
From: (Cool Hand Luke)
Date: Thu, 28 Jan 2010 09:42:43 -0600
Subject: [arbcom-l] Fwd: FW: facebook message from Mr Gregory Kohs
At least he didn't contact your associates and tell them not to sleep with you.
Frank
------------
From: (Steve Smith)
Date: Thu, 28 Jan 2010 11:44:08 -0400
Subject: [arbcom-l] Fwd: FW: facebook message from Mr Gregory Kohs
My associates generally have pretty inflexible policies on the subject, so I
don't think it would have much mattered. Did he do that to Jimbo?
----------
From: (Cool Hand Luke)
Date: Thu, 28 Jan 2010 09:46:44 -0600
Subject: [arbcom-l] Fwd: FW: facebook message from Mr Gregory Kohs
Yes, a few months before we unbanned him. That unban completely baffled me.
Frank
----------
From: (Steve Smith)
Date: Thu, 28 Jan 2010 11:48:35 -0400
Subject: [arbcom-l] Fwd: FW: facebook message from Mr Gregory Kohs
Geez. Greg Kohs would do all humanity, including himself, a favour if he
forgot Jimbo existed.
----------
From: (KnightLago)
Date: Thu, 28 Jan 2010 10:51:12 -0500
Subject: [arbcom-l] Fwd: FW: facebook message from Mr Gregory Kohs
Yeah. He has been socking on Jimbo's talk page recently too. I have blocked
a couple of his socks, and am watching another one.
KL
-----------
From: (Carcharoth)
Date: Thu, 28 Jan 2010 15:54:54 +0000
Subject: [arbcom-l] Fwd: FW: facebook message from Mr Gregory Kohs
It helped make a few things clearer. And his behaviour reduces the
chance of future unbans. One of the reasons behind some conditional
unbans is to keep your friends close, but your enemies closer still.
Carcharoth
Moar Durova (Jan 2010), A wild Kohs appears! (that bloke gets around)
MaliceAforethought Moar Durova (Jan 2010) 
