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

Welcome, Guest! ( Log In | Register )

2 Pages V  1 2 >  
Reply to this topicStart new topic
> FACE-OFF: Gerard vs AC, with a Godwin thrown in for flavor
MaliceAforethought
post Wed 29th June 2011, 1:28am
Post #1


u Mad?
***

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



Bonus points if you spotted Carcharoth jumping ship when he saw it sinking

****************

From User.CoolHandLuke at gmail.com Sun Nov 29 00:48:45 2009
From: User.CoolHandLuke at gmail.com (Cool Hand Luke)
Date: Sat, 28 Nov 2009 18:48:45 -0600
Subject: [arbcom-l] David Gerard again - I move we remove his CU bit now
Message-ID: <8ec76cd10911281648qaca4d5dmf9b9b3eca5956cda@mail.gmail.com>

I hate to bring this up because it's circling Wikipedia Review, but I find
it even more troubling that Gerard's "joke" posts about Scientology, etc.
See:
http://davidgerard.co.uk/notes/2009/11/27/...-waste-of-skin/

Somebody posted a twitter message about about vandalism then on the page of
right-wing Australian bloger Andrew
Landeryou<http://twitter.com/jeamland/status/6096776618>.
In response, David Gerard
tweeted<http://twitter.com/davidgerard/status/6096819270>,
"mr landeryou has some history on wikipedia. (i did the sockpuppet
investigation.)" I think this troubling enough itself; it's unseemly for a
current checkuser to brag about catching somebody on Wikipedia, presumably
engaged in self-promotion. Andrew Landeryou sent Gerard an angry email
stating that Gerard should have talked to him before making the claim, then
adding a threat that Mr. Landeryou would investigate Gerard if he did it
again and it would be a "very unpleasant outcome for you, so I urge you to
Twit more carefully in future."

Gerard posts the whole thing, with headers, along with his original tweet.

Why does David Gerard still have checkuser? He used it a few weeks ago for
Amorrow, but prior to that had not used in eight months (and hardly any
checks for the last 17 months). I find Gerard's comments embarrassing to
Wikipedia and perhaps even chilling. Why would any notable person want to
edit Wikipedia when they know a loose cannon CU will publicly brag about
catching him or her later?

I move we remove his CU bit immediately. The rest (oversight, functionary
access), I don't feel so passionate about, but we have to send a signal to
the CU corp and the community that this crap is unacceptable.

Frank

----------
From marc at uberbox.org Sun Nov 29 00:57:14 2009
From: marc at uberbox.org (Marc A. Pelletier)
Date: Sat, 28 Nov 2009 19:57:14 -0500
Subject: [arbcom-l] David Gerard again - I move we remove his CU bit now
In-Reply-To: <8ec76cd10911281648qaca4d5dmf9b9b3eca5956cda@mail.gmail.com>
References: <8ec76cd10911281648qaca4d5dmf9b9b3eca5956cda@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <4B11C6EA.9060204@uberbox.org>

(cc'ed to Jimmy)

Cool Hand Luke wrote:
> I hate to bring this up because it's circling Wikipedia Review, but I
> find it even more troubling that Gerard's "joke" posts about
> Scientology, etc. See:
> http://davidgerard.co.uk/notes/2009/11/27/...-waste-of-skin/

Again?!

We need to show him the door. I'm sorry, but he's a liability for the
project(s) and his apparent status gives him the credibility to cause
real harm. It's a shame he's on so many rolodexes, but he still
blusters around as though he is speaking from the project when we are
consistently ashamed of his behavior.

He's had numerous chances before; we all tried several time to ask him
to tone his rhetoric down and he is unwilling or unable to. We need to
make it very clear that his behavior is unwelcome and unbecoming, and
that any pretension of speaking for the project is entirely illusory.

That he discusses his checkuser work is just the proverbial straw.

-- Coren / Marc
----------
From newyorkbrad at gmail.com Sun Nov 29 01:04:05 2009
From: newyorkbrad at gmail.com (Newyorkbrad (Wikipedia))
Date: Sat, 28 Nov 2009 20:04:05 -0500
Subject: [arbcom-l] David Gerard again - I move we remove his CU bit now
In-Reply-To: <4B11C6EA.9060204@uberbox.org>
References: <8ec76cd10911281648qaca4d5dmf9b9b3eca5956cda@mail.gmail.com>
<4B11C6EA.9060204@uberbox.org>
Message-ID: <c52819d30911281704n6215ab76s3f6227c22a658768@mail.gmail.com>

I'm also remarkably unimpressed by his posting the e-mail with the routing
information.

However, we probably do need to let him know we're considering action before
we finalize anything.

Newyorkbrad

On Sat, Nov 28, 2009 at 7:57 PM, Marc A. Pelletier <marc at uberbox.org> wrote:

> (cc'ed to Jimmy)
>
> Cool Hand Luke wrote:
> > I hate to bring this up because it's circling Wikipedia Review, but I
----------
From rlevse at cox.net Sun Nov 29 01:04:56 2009
From: rlevse at cox.net (rlevse at cox.net)
Date: Sat, 28 Nov 2009 20:04:56 -0500
Subject: [arbcom-l] David Gerard again - I move we remove his CU bit now
In-Reply-To: <4B11C6EA.9060204@uberbox.org>
Message-ID: <20091128200456.OOE5F.332690.imail@eastrmwml41>

Totally agree. See my posts from 6 months ago.

R
----------
From wizardmanwiki at gmail.com Sun Nov 29 01:05:32 2009
From: wizardmanwiki at gmail.com (Wizardman)
Date: Sat, 28 Nov 2009 20:05:32 -0500
Subject: [arbcom-l] David Gerard again - I move we remove his CU bit now
In-Reply-To: <20091128200456.OOE5F.332690.imail@eastrmwml41>
References: <4B11C6EA.9060204@uberbox.org>
<20091128200456.OOE5F.332690.imail@eastrmwml41>
Message-ID: <ef59f700911281705p4b170d14p60de903693645a4a@mail.gmail.com>

I third it.
~W

On Sat, Nov 28, 2009 at 8:04 PM, <rlevse at cox.net> wrote:

> Totally agree. See my posts from 6 months ago.
>
> R
----------
From marc at uberbox.org Sun Nov 29 01:13:13 2009
From: marc at uberbox.org (Marc A. Pelletier)
Date: Sat, 28 Nov 2009 20:13:13 -0500
Subject: [arbcom-l] David Gerard again - I move we remove his CU bit now
In-Reply-To: <ef59f700911281705p4b170d14p60de903693645a4a@mail.gmail.com>
References: <4B11C6EA.9060204@uberbox.org>
<20091128200456.OOE5F.332690.imail@eastrmwml41>
<ef59f700911281705p4b170d14p60de903693645a4a@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <4B11CAA9.1040109@uberbox.org>

Wizardman wrote:
> I third it.
> ~W


Money -> Mouth.

http://arbcom.en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Discus...re_David_Gerard

-- Coren / Marc
----------
From jayvdb at gmail.com Sun Nov 29 01:21:10 2009
From: jayvdb at gmail.com (John Vandenberg)
Date: Sun, 29 Nov 2009 12:21:10 +1100
Subject: [arbcom-l] David Gerard again - I move we remove his CU bit now
In-Reply-To: <c52819d30911281704n6215ab76s3f6227c22a658768@mail.gmail.com>
References: <8ec76cd10911281648qaca4d5dmf9b9b3eca5956cda@mail.gmail.com>
<4B11C6EA.9060204@uberbox.org>
<c52819d30911281704n6215ab76s3f6227c22a658768@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <deea21830911281721p6d625b04qb25e1da557dd601f@mail.gmail.com>

On Sun, Nov 29, 2009 at 12:04 PM, Newyorkbrad (Wikipedia)
<newyorkbrad at gmail.com> wrote:
> I'm also remarkably unimpressed by his posting the e-mail with the routing
> information.

The routing information only gives details about Google.

As far as I can see, the only private information is the email
address, the timezone, and the contents of the email.

This is cyber-gonzo encyclopedia writing.

> However, we probably do need to let him know we're considering action before
> we finalize anything.

We have a process. We should follow it.

Coren has started a vote on the arbcom wiki.

--
John Vandenberg
----------
From newyorkbrad at gmail.com Sun Nov 29 01:23:25 2009
From: newyorkbrad at gmail.com (Newyorkbrad (Wikipedia))
Date: Sat, 28 Nov 2009 20:23:25 -0500
Subject: [arbcom-l] David Gerard again - I move we remove his CU bit now
In-Reply-To: <deea21830911281721p6d625b04qb25e1da557dd601f@mail.gmail.com>
References: <8ec76cd10911281648qaca4d5dmf9b9b3eca5956cda@mail.gmail.com>
<4B11C6EA.9060204@uberbox.org>
<c52819d30911281704n6215ab76s3f6227c22a658768@mail.gmail.com>
<deea21830911281721p6d625b04qb25e1da557dd601f@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <c52819d30911281723y3a10e3bp384f965205a7b307@mail.gmail.com>

Does the process include telling the person we're considering sanctioning
that we are considering sanctioning him?

Newyorkbrad
----------
From: marc at uberbox.org (Marc A. Pelletier)
Date: Sat, 28 Nov 2009 20:27:47 -0500
Subject: [arbcom-l] David Gerard again - I move we remove his CU bit now
In-Reply-To: <c52819d30911281723y3a10e3bp384f965205a7b307@mail.gmail.com>
References: <8ec76cd10911281648qaca4d5dmf9b9b3eca5956cda@mail.gmail.com>
<4B11C6EA.9060204@uberbox.org>
<c52819d30911281704n6215ab76s3f6227c22a658768@mail.gmail.com>
<deea21830911281721p6d625b04qb25e1da557dd601f@mail.gmail.com>
<c52819d30911281723y3a10e3bp384f965205a7b307@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <4B11CE13.4040202@uberbox.org>

Newyorkbrad (Wikipedia) wrote:
> Does the process include telling the person we're considering
> sanctioning that we are considering sanctioning him?
>

Not officially, and the drama is probably not worth it. But really,
Brad, we've been spending the year telling him that he needs to tone it
down several notches, and Carc has complained officially about him (with
him being copied) in the past.

He's been warned -- repeatedly.

-- Coren / Marc
----------
From jayvdb at gmail.com Sun Nov 29 01:27:59 2009
From: jayvdb at gmail.com (John Vandenberg)
Date: Sun, 29 Nov 2009 12:27:59 +1100
Subject: [arbcom-l] [[Andrew Landeryou]]
Message-ID: <deea21830911281727j3e3f75cr22a5b43dfe4445f0@mail.gmail.com>

subject was: Re: [arbcom-l] David Gerard again - I move we remove his CU bit now

On Sun, Nov 29, 2009 at 11:48 AM, Cool Hand Luke
<User.CoolHandLuke at gmail.com> wrote:
> I hate to bring this up because it's circling Wikipedia Review, but I find
> it even more troubling that Gerard's "joke" posts about Scientology, etc.
> See:
> http://davidgerard.co.uk/notes/2009/11/27/...-waste-of-skin/
>
> Somebody posted a twitter message about about vandalism then on the page of
> right-wing Australian bloger Andrew Landeryou.? In response, David Gerard
> tweeted, "mr landeryou has some history on wikipedia. (i did the sockpuppet
> investigation.)"? I think this troubling enough itself; it's unseemly for a
> current checkuser to brag about catching somebody on Wikipedia, presumably
> engaged in self-promotion.? Andrew Landeryou sent Gerard an angry email
> stating that Gerard should have talked to him before making the claim, then
> adding a threat that Mr. Landeryou would investigate Gerard if he did it
> again and it would be a "very unpleasant outcome for you, so I urge you to
> Twit more carefully in future."
>
> Gerard posts the whole thing, with headers, along with his original tweet.

The BLP was prodded by 99.35.128.68 a day ago with e/s "not the
Premier of the USSR; prod"

https://secure.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/w...oldid=327069534

In addition to dealing with David Gerard, we need to monitor the
content aspect as it will likely be used as a weapon by one or more
camps.

It would be good to find out what checkuser David actually performed,
what actions were taken, etc.

--
John Vandenberg
----------
From rlevse at cox.net Sun Nov 29 01:29:29 2009
From: rlevse at cox.net (rlevse at cox.net)
Date: Sat, 28 Nov 2009 20:29:29 -0500
Subject: [arbcom-l] David Gerard again - I move we remove his CU bit now
In-Reply-To: <4B11CE13.4040202@uberbox.org>
Message-ID: <20091128202930.WXKDM.332877.imail@eastrmwml41>

That's an understatement. Time's up.

R

---- "Marc A. Pelletier" <marc at uberbox.org> wrote:
> Newyorkbrad (Wikipedia) wrote:
> > Does the process include telling the person we're considering
> > sanctioning that we are considering sanctioning him?
> >
>
> Not officially, and the drama is probably not worth it. But really,
> Brad, we've been spending the year telling him that he needs to tone it
> down several notches, and Carc has complained officially about him (with
> him being copied) in the past.
>
> He's been warned -- repeatedly.
>
> -- Coren / Marc
----------
From risker.wp at gmail.com Sun Nov 29 01:31:00 2009
From: risker.wp at gmail.com (Risker)
Date: Sun, 29 Nov 2009 01:31:00 +0000
Subject: [arbcom-l] David Gerard again - I move we remove his CU bit now
In-Reply-To: <20091128202930.WXKDM.332877.imail@eastrmwml41>
References: <4B11CE13.4040202@uberbox.org>
<20091128202930.WXKDM.332877.imail@eastrmwml41>
Message-ID: <eb45e7c0911281731n3df699e6p9d8765f40859989a@mail.gmail.com>

John's started a separate thread about this and the article about Andrew
Landeryou, in which he asks about David's self-reported checkusering
involving the subject of the article.

I can't see anything obvious based on edit summaries or usernames, but it
isn't anything that has been done in the past year.

Anne
----------
From marc at uberbox.org Sun Nov 29 01:31:35 2009
From: marc at uberbox.org (Marc A. Pelletier)
Date: Sat, 28 Nov 2009 20:31:35 -0500
Subject: [arbcom-l] David Gerard again - I move we remove his CU bit now
In-Reply-To: <4B11CE13.4040202@uberbox.org>
References: <8ec76cd10911281648qaca4d5dmf9b9b3eca5956cda@mail.gmail.com>
<4B11C6EA.9060204@uberbox.org>
<c52819d30911281704n6215ab76s3f6227c22a658768@mail.gmail.com>
<deea21830911281721p6d625b04qb25e1da557dd601f@mail.gmail.com>
<c52819d30911281723y3a10e3bp384f965205a7b307@mail.gmail.com>
<4B11CE13.4040202@uberbox.org>
Message-ID: <4B11CEF7.6070705@uberbox.org>

Marc A. Pelletier wrote:
>
> He's been warned -- repeatedly.
>

Put another way, if he doesn't have enough judgment to realize that his
latest exploits would not lead to this despite the number of times his
off-wiki behavior has been raised, he doesn't have the judgment to hold
a position of trust in the first place.

-- Coren / Marc
----------
From jayvdb at gmail.com Sun Nov 29 01:31:37 2009
From: jayvdb at gmail.com (John Vandenberg)
Date: Sun, 29 Nov 2009 12:31:37 +1100
Subject: [arbcom-l] David Gerard again - I move we remove his CU bit now
In-Reply-To: <4B11CE13.4040202@uberbox.org>
References: <8ec76cd10911281648qaca4d5dmf9b9b3eca5956cda@mail.gmail.com>
<4B11C6EA.9060204@uberbox.org>
<c52819d30911281704n6215ab76s3f6227c22a658768@mail.gmail.com>
<deea21830911281721p6d625b04qb25e1da557dd601f@mail.gmail.com>
<c52819d30911281723y3a10e3bp384f965205a7b307@mail.gmail.com>
<4B11CE13.4040202@uberbox.org>
Message-ID: <deea21830911281731w4ee87713m252519517aaa59bc@mail.gmail.com>

On Sun, Nov 29, 2009 at 12:27 PM, Marc A. Pelletier <marc at uberbox.org> wrote:
> Newyorkbrad (Wikipedia) wrote:
>> Does the process include telling the person we're considering
>> sanctioning that we are considering sanctioning him?

Yes, that is required.

> Not officially, and the drama is probably not worth it. ?But really,
> Brad, we've been spending the year telling him that he needs to tone it
> down several notches, and Carc has complained officially about him (with
> him being copied) in the past.
>
> He's been warned -- repeatedly.

This is the procedure we agreed upon:

Level II procedures may be used if (a) the account's behaviour is
inconsistent with the level of trust required for its associated
advanced permissions, and (b) no satisfactory explanation is
forthcoming.

The procedure for removal of permissions is as follows:

1. The initiating arbitrator will (a) leave a message on the
account's talk page, asking the account to contact arbcom-l, and (b)
send a similar message to the account by Wikipedia e-mail, if enabled.
2. The initiating arbitrator will then send a message to arbcom-l
(a) stating the name of the account, (b) briefly describing the issue,
providing examples of inappropriate conduct, and © recommending
removal of permissions.
3. The Committee will then schedule deliberations on the matter.
4. A request for removal of advanced permissions may be made once a
motion to do so has been endorsed by a majority of active arbitrators.
5. Once temporary removal has been approved, an arbitrator will
post a notice, including the text of the motion and the names of
arbitrators endorsing it, to the Meta-Wiki permissions page, the
Committee's noticeboard, the administrators' noticeboard, and the
user's talk page.

<https://secure.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/wiki/Wikipedia:Arbitration_Committee/Procedures#Level_II_procedures>

--
John Vandenberg
----------
From marc at uberbox.org Sun Nov 29 01:33:36 2009
From: marc at uberbox.org (Marc A. Pelletier)
Date: Sat, 28 Nov 2009 20:33:36 -0500
Subject: [arbcom-l] David Gerard again - I move we remove his CU bit now
In-Reply-To: <deea21830911281731w4ee87713m252519517aaa59bc@mail.gmail.com>
References: <8ec76cd10911281648qaca4d5dmf9b9b3eca5956cda@mail.gmail.com>
<4B11C6EA.9060204@uberbox.org>
<c52819d30911281704n6215ab76s3f6227c22a658768@mail.gmail.com>
<deea21830911281721p6d625b04qb25e1da557dd601f@mail.gmail.com>
<c52819d30911281723y3a10e3bp384f965205a7b307@mail.gmail.com>
<4B11CE13.4040202@uberbox.org>
<deea21830911281731w4ee87713m252519517aaa59bc@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <4B11CF70.6040306@uberbox.org>

John Vandenberg wrote:
> On Sun, Nov 29, 2009 at 12:27 PM, Marc A. Pelletier <marc at uberbox.org> wrote:
>
>> Newyorkbrad (Wikipedia) wrote:
>>
>>> Does the process include telling the person we're considering
>>> sanctioning that we are considering sanctioning him?
>>>
>
> Yes, that is required.
>
>
>> Not officially, and the drama is probably not worth it. But really,
>> Brad, we've been spending the year telling him that he needs to tone it
>> down several notches, and Carc has complained officially about him (with
>> him being copied) in the past.
>>
>> He's been warned -- repeatedly.
>>
>
> This is the procedure we agreed upon:
>
> Level II procedures may be used if (a) the account's behaviour is
> inconsistent with the level of trust required for its associated
> advanced permissions, and (b) no satisfactory explanation is
> forthcoming.
>

Good point. My brain associations have attached this to "admin" but it
obviously applies to the other bits too. I'll handle the notifications
given I don't remember having had spats with him in the past.

-- Coren / Marc
----------
From newyorkbrad at gmail.com Sun Nov 29 01:34:30 2009
From: newyorkbrad at gmail.com (Newyorkbrad (Wikipedia))
Date: Sat, 28 Nov 2009 20:34:30 -0500
Subject: [arbcom-l] David Gerard again - I move we remove his CU bit now
In-Reply-To: <deea21830911281731w4ee87713m252519517aaa59bc@mail.gmail.com>
References: <8ec76cd10911281648qaca4d5dmf9b9b3eca5956cda@mail.gmail.com>
<4B11C6EA.9060204@uberbox.org>
<c52819d30911281704n6215ab76s3f6227c22a658768@mail.gmail.com>
<deea21830911281721p6d625b04qb25e1da557dd601f@mail.gmail.com>
<c52819d30911281723y3a10e3bp384f965205a7b307@mail.gmail.com>
<4B11CE13.4040202@uberbox.org>
<deea21830911281731w4ee87713m252519517aaa59bc@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <c52819d30911281734h426a3ca0ud6e530dcf648e438@mail.gmail.com>

I agree that his post was unacceptable. Perhaps what we should be doing is
asking him to resign. Recall the 80,000 words of drama we avoided in
Raul654's case when he agreed to resign quietly when he realized where the
committee's discussion was going. A similar outcome might be for the best
here (although of course there is no guarantee whatsoever that David would
indeed agree to resign).

Newyorkbrad
----------
From User.CoolHandLuke at gmail.com Sun Nov 29 01:37:47 2009
From: User.CoolHandLuke at gmail.com (Cool Hand Luke)
Date: Sat, 28 Nov 2009 19:37:47 -0600
Subject: [arbcom-l] [[Andrew Landeryou]]
In-Reply-To: <deea21830911281727j3e3f75cr22a5b43dfe4445f0@mail.gmail.com>
References: <deea21830911281727j3e3f75cr22a5b43dfe4445f0@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <8ec76cd10911281737r5613ee11id1ada467732445a1@mail.gmail.com>

David Gerard believed in 2006 that Landeryou was behind several vandal socks
who, among other things, vandalized articles of an acquaintance.
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/private...ary/001485.html

Frank
----------
From risker.wp at gmail.com Sun Nov 29 01:40:12 2009
From: risker.wp at gmail.com (Risker)
Date: Sun, 29 Nov 2009 01:40:12 +0000
Subject: [arbcom-l] David Gerard again - I move we remove his CU bit now
In-Reply-To: <4B11CF70.6040306@uberbox.org>
References: <8ec76cd10911281648qaca4d5dmf9b9b3eca5956cda@mail.gmail.com>
<4B11C6EA.9060204@uberbox.org>
<c52819d30911281704n6215ab76s3f6227c22a658768@mail.gmail.com>
<deea21830911281721p6d625b04qb25e1da557dd601f@mail.gmail.com>
<c52819d30911281723y3a10e3bp384f965205a7b307@mail.gmail.com>
<4B11CE13.4040202@uberbox.org>
<deea21830911281731w4ee87713m252519517aaa59bc@mail.gmail.com>
<4B11CF70.6040306@uberbox.org>
Message-ID: <eb45e7c0911281740m317d022fid543902825d3a984@mail.gmail.com>

2009/11/29 Marc A. Pelletier <marc at uberbox.org>

> <snip>
>
> Good point. My brain associations have attached this to "admin" but it
> obviously applies to the other bits too. I'll handle the notifications
> given I don't remember having had spats with him in the past.
>
> -- Coren / Marc
>


Thanks, Marc. It's worthwhile to try to get him to step down rather than
remove the bits. We put that process in place for a lot of reasons, so it's
to our advantage to carry it out. I'll head over to the arbwiki now.

Anne
----------
From marc at uberbox.org Sun Nov 29 01:42:11 2009
From: marc at uberbox.org (Marc A. Pelletier)
Date: Sat, 28 Nov 2009 20:42:11 -0500
Subject: [arbcom-l] David Gerard again - I move we remove his CU bit now
In-Reply-To: <c52819d30911281734h426a3ca0ud6e530dcf648e438@mail.gmail.com>
References: <8ec76cd10911281648qaca4d5dmf9b9b3eca5956cda@mail.gmail.com>
<4B11C6EA.9060204@uberbox.org>
<c52819d30911281704n6215ab76s3f6227c22a658768@mail.gmail.com>
<deea21830911281721p6d625b04qb25e1da557dd601f@mail.gmail.com>
<c52819d30911281723y3a10e3bp384f965205a7b307@mail.gmail.com>
<4B11CE13.4040202@uberbox.org>
<deea21830911281731w4ee87713m252519517aaa59bc@mail.gmail.com>
<c52819d30911281734h426a3ca0ud6e530dcf648e438@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <4B11D173.5080609@uberbox.org>

Newyorkbrad (Wikipedia) wrote:
> I agree that his post was unacceptable. Perhaps what we should be
> doing is asking him to resign. Recall the 80,000 words of drama we
> avoided in Raul654's case when he agreed to resign quietly when he
> realized where the committee's discussion was going. A similar
> outcome might be for the best here (although of course there is no
> guarantee whatsoever that David would indeed agree to resign).
>

Of course. I never have objections to an honorable withdrawal; it is
reasonable to offer him the opportunity. But we also need to make it
clear that this is under controversial circumstances.

Seppuku rather than execution? Well, it worked for the 47 ronin.

-- Coren / Marc
----------
From marc at uberbox.org Sun Nov 29 01:43:46 2009
From: marc at uberbox.org (Marc A. Pelletier)
Date: Sat, 28 Nov 2009 20:43:46 -0500
Subject: [arbcom-l] [Fwd: Copy of your message to David Gerard: Please
Contact ArbCom]
Message-ID: <4B11D1D2.1070802@uberbox.org>

Also on talk page:

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=...oldid=327113023

-- Coren / Marc


-------- Original Message --------
Return-Path: <wiki at wikimedia.org>
X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.2.5 (2008-06-10) on
beryl.uberbox.org
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-6.6 required=5.0
tests=BAYES_00,RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED autolearn=ham version=3.2.5
X-Original-To: marc at uberbox.org
Delivered-To: marc at uberbox.org
Received: from wiki-mail.wikimedia.org (wiki-mail.wikimedia.org
[208.80.152.133]) by mail.uberbox.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id
E6B7E1070250 for <marc at uberbox.org>; Sat, 28 Nov 2009 20:40:01 -0500 (EST)
Received: from srv139.pmtpa.wmnet ([10.0.2.139]:38374) by
mchenry.wikimedia.org with smtp (Exim 4.69) (envelope-from
<marc at uberbox.org>) id 1NEYlc-0003c6-As for marc at uberbox.org; Sun, 29
Nov 2009 01:40:01 +0000
Received: by srv139.pmtpa.wmnet (sSMTP sendmail emulation); Sun, 29 Nov
2009 01:40:00 +0000
Date: Sun, 29 Nov 2009 01:40:00 +0000
To: Coren <marc at uberbox.org>
Subject: Copy of your message to David Gerard: Please Contact ArbCom
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-type: text/plain; charset=utf-8
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
X-Mailer: MediaWiki mailer
From: Coren <marc at uberbox.org>
Message-Id: <E1NEYlc-0003c6-As at mchenry.wikimedia.org>



Hello David,

Please contact ArbCom via its mailing list (arbcom-l at lists.wikimedia.org) at your earliest convenience.

-- Coren / Marc; for the Committee

--
This e-mail was sent by user "Coren" on the English Wikipedia to user "David Gerard". It has been automatically delivered and the Wikimedia Foundation cannot be held responsible for its contents.

The sender has not been given the recipient's email address, or any information about his/her e-mail account; and the recipient has no obligation to reply to this e-mail or take any other action that might disclose his/her identity. For further information on privacy, security, and replying, as well as abuse and removal from emailing, see <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Email>.
----------
From rlevse at cox.net Sun Nov 29 01:44:12 2009
From: rlevse at cox.net (rlevse at cox.net)
Date: Sat, 28 Nov 2009 20:44:12 -0500
Subject: [arbcom-l] David Gerard again - I move we remove his CU bit now
In-Reply-To: <deea21830911281731w4ee87713m252519517aaa59bc@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <20091128204412.TNKZA.332988.imail@eastrmwml41>

Following process is fine, but I'm saying he's gone too far too often.

R

---- John Vandenberg <jayvdb at gmail.com> wrote:
> On Sun, Nov 29, 2009 at 12:27 PM, Marc A. Pelletier <marc at uberbox.org> wrote:
> > Newyorkbrad (Wikipedia) wrote:
> >> Does the process include telling the person we're considering
> >> sanctioning that we are considering sanctioning him?
>
> Yes, that is required.
>
> > Not officially, and the drama is probably not worth it. ?But really,
> > Brad, we've been spending the year telling him that he needs to tone it
> > down several notches, and Carc has complained officially about him (with
> > him being copied) in the past.
> >
> > He's been warned -- repeatedly.
>
> This is the procedure we agreed upon:
>
> Level II procedures may be used if (a) the account's behaviour is
> inconsistent with the level of trust required for its associated
> advanced permissions, and (b) no satisfactory explanation is
> forthcoming.
>
> The procedure for removal of permissions is as follows:
>
> 1. The initiating arbitrator will (a) leave a message on the
> account's talk page, asking the account to contact arbcom-l, and (b)
> send a similar message to the account by Wikipedia e-mail, if enabled.
> 2. The initiating arbitrator will then send a message to arbcom-l
> (a) stating the name of the account, (b) briefly describing the issue,
> providing examples of inappropriate conduct, and © recommending
> removal of permissions.
> 3. The Committee will then schedule deliberations on the matter.
> 4. A request for removal of advanced permissions may be made once a
> motion to do so has been endorsed by a majority of active arbitrators.
> 5. Once temporary removal has been approved, an arbitrator will
> post a notice, including the text of the motion and the names of
> arbitrators endorsing it, to the Meta-Wiki permissions page, the
> Committee's noticeboard, the administrators' noticeboard, and the
> user's talk page.
>
> <https://secure.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/wiki/Wikipedia:Arbitration_Committee/Procedures#Level_II_procedures>
>
> --
> John Vandenberg
----------
From wizardmanwiki at gmail.com Sun Nov 29 01:44:49 2009
From: wizardmanwiki at gmail.com (Wizardman)
Date: Sat, 28 Nov 2009 20:44:49 -0500
Subject: [arbcom-l] David Gerard again - I move we remove his CU bit now
In-Reply-To: <4B11D173.5080609@uberbox.org>
References: <8ec76cd10911281648qaca4d5dmf9b9b3eca5956cda@mail.gmail.com>
<4B11C6EA.9060204@uberbox.org>
<c52819d30911281704n6215ab76s3f6227c22a658768@mail.gmail.com>
<deea21830911281721p6d625b04qb25e1da557dd601f@mail.gmail.com>
<c52819d30911281723y3a10e3bp384f965205a7b307@mail.gmail.com>
<4B11CE13.4040202@uberbox.org>
<deea21830911281731w4ee87713m252519517aaa59bc@mail.gmail.com>
<c52819d30911281734h426a3ca0ud6e530dcf648e438@mail.gmail.com>
<4B11D173.5080609@uberbox.org>
Message-ID: <ef59f700911281744v7d1ea489x1837a113b3f675fc@mail.gmail.com>

Hopefully someone will send him a message soon then. Give him a time limit
for a response though so this doesn't carry on forever.
~W

On Sat, Nov 28, 2009 at 8:42 PM, Marc A. Pelletier <marc at uberbox.org> wrote:

> Newyorkbrad (Wikipedia) wrote:
> > I agree that his post was unacceptable. Perhaps what we should be
> > doing is asking him to resign. Recall the 80,000 words of drama we
> > avoided in Raul654's case when he agreed to resign quietly when he
> > realized where the committee's discussion was going. A similar
> > outcome might be for the best here (although of course there is no
> > guarantee whatsoever that David would indeed agree to resign).
> >
>
> Of course. I never have objections to an honorable withdrawal; it is
> reasonable to offer him the opportunity. But we also need to make it
> clear that this is under controversial circumstances.
>
> Seppuku rather than execution? Well, it worked for the 47 ronin.
>
> -- Coren / Marc
-----------
From marc at uberbox.org Sun Nov 29 01:58:00 2009
From: marc at uberbox.org (Marc A. Pelletier)
Date: Sat, 28 Nov 2009 20:58:00 -0500
Subject: [arbcom-l] David Gerard again - I move we remove his CU bit now
In-Reply-To: <ef59f700911281744v7d1ea489x1837a113b3f675fc@mail.gmail.com>
References: <8ec76cd10911281648qaca4d5dmf9b9b3eca5956cda@mail.gmail.com>
<4B11C6EA.9060204@uberbox.org>
<c52819d30911281704n6215ab76s3f6227c22a658768@mail.gmail.com>
<deea21830911281721p6d625b04qb25e1da557dd601f@mail.gmail.com>
<c52819d30911281723y3a10e3bp384f965205a7b307@mail.gmail.com>
<4B11CE13.4040202@uberbox.org>
<deea21830911281731w4ee87713m252519517aaa59bc@mail.gmail.com>
<c52819d30911281734h426a3ca0ud6e530dcf648e438@mail.gmail.com>
<4B11D173.5080609@uberbox.org>
<ef59f700911281744v7d1ea489x1837a113b3f675fc@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <4B11D528.4010008@uberbox.org>

Wizardman wrote:
> Hopefully someone will send him a message soon then. Give him a time
> limit for a response though so this doesn't carry on forever.
> ~W

[Draft -- not sent]

Hello David,

You recent blog post (see link at the end) has come to the attention of
the Committee, and we are disappointed that you were unable or unwilling
to heed the concerns expressed by the arbitrators and other
functionaries over the past year. Such outbursts are completely
unacceptable as they reflect poorly on the project and, given your
status as a functionary, particularly damaging. In particular,
disclosing past checkuser results (especially with a bragging tone) and
publishing email including private information are not compatible with
the trust and decorum expected of holders of advanced rights.

Given the warnings you have already received on that subject, the
Committee is voting to suspend both checkuser and oversight permissions,
and to remove you from the func-l mailing list. It appears at this time
that the motion will carry, but we wanted to extend the opportunity of
stepping down willingly of your own volition beforehand to reduce the
likelihood of drama and the possible embarrassment.

If you have comments to offer, please respond to this email before Dec
2; at which point we will otherwise close the pending motion.

For the Committee, Marc A. Pelletier (Coren)

http://davidgerard.co.uk/notes/2009/11/27/...-waste-of-skin/


[end draft]

-- Coren / Marc
----------
From wizardmanwiki at gmail.com Sun Nov 29 02:00:48 2009
From: wizardmanwiki at gmail.com (Wizardman)
Date: Sat, 28 Nov 2009 21:00:48 -0500
Subject: [arbcom-l] David Gerard again - I move we remove his CU bit now
In-Reply-To: <4B11D528.4010008@uberbox.org>
References: <8ec76cd10911281648qaca4d5dmf9b9b3eca5956cda@mail.gmail.com>
<c52819d30911281704n6215ab76s3f6227c22a658768@mail.gmail.com>
<deea21830911281721p6d625b04qb25e1da557dd601f@mail.gmail.com>
<c52819d30911281723y3a10e3bp384f965205a7b307@mail.gmail.com>
<4B11CE13.4040202@uberbox.org>
<deea21830911281731w4ee87713m252519517aaa59bc@mail.gmail.com>
<c52819d30911281734h426a3ca0ud6e530dcf648e438@mail.gmail.com>
<4B11D173.5080609@uberbox.org>
<ef59f700911281744v7d1ea489x1837a113b3f675fc@mail.gmail.com>
<4B11D528.4010008@uberbox.org>
Message-ID: <ef59f700911281800p63083976g32036a72a96727e6@mail.gmail.com>

Looks good to me. I'd even move it up to the 1st, though that is reducing
the time quite a bit.
~W
----------
From User.CoolHandLuke at gmail.com Sun Nov 29 02:02:42 2009
From: User.CoolHandLuke at gmail.com (Cool Hand Luke)
Date: Sat, 28 Nov 2009 20:02:42 -0600
Subject: [arbcom-l] David Gerard again - I move we remove his CU bit now
In-Reply-To: <ef59f700911281800p63083976g32036a72a96727e6@mail.gmail.com>
References: <8ec76cd10911281648qaca4d5dmf9b9b3eca5956cda@mail.gmail.com>
<deea21830911281721p6d625b04qb25e1da557dd601f@mail.gmail.com>
<c52819d30911281723y3a10e3bp384f965205a7b307@mail.gmail.com>
<4B11CE13.4040202@uberbox.org>
<deea21830911281731w4ee87713m252519517aaa59bc@mail.gmail.com>
<c52819d30911281734h426a3ca0ud6e530dcf648e438@mail.gmail.com>
<4B11D173.5080609@uberbox.org>
<ef59f700911281744v7d1ea489x1837a113b3f675fc@mail.gmail.com>
<4B11D528.4010008@uberbox.org>
<ef59f700911281800p63083976g32036a72a96727e6@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <8ec76cd10911281802p3e696596hfd74e89ba6ab0ea3@mail.gmail.com>

Good to me too. Although I would second kicking it up to the 1st. Is the
2nd so that it doesn't collide with first day voting drama?

Frank
----------
From marc at uberbox.org Sun Nov 29 02:05:26 2009
From: marc at uberbox.org (Marc A. Pelletier)
Date: Sat, 28 Nov 2009 21:05:26 -0500
Subject: [arbcom-l] David Gerard again - I move we remove his CU bit now
In-Reply-To: <4B11D645.5040302@uberbox.org>
References: <8ec76cd10911281648qaca4d5dmf9b9b3eca5956cda@mail.gmail.com>
<c52819d30911281704n6215ab76s3f6227c22a658768@mail.gmail.com>
<deea21830911281721p6d625b04qb25e1da557dd601f@mail.gmail.com>
<c52819d30911281723y3a10e3bp384f965205a7b307@mail.gmail.com>
<4B11CE13.4040202@uberbox.org>
<deea21830911281731w4ee87713m252519517aaa59bc@mail.gmail.com>
<c52819d30911281734h426a3ca0ud6e530dcf648e438@mail.gmail.com>
<4B11D173.5080609@uberbox.org>
<ef59f700911281744v7d1ea489x1837a113b3f675fc@mail.gmail.com>
<4B11D528.4010008@uberbox.org>
<ef59f700911281800p63083976g32036a72a96727e6@mail.gmail.com>
<4B11D645.5040302@uberbox.org>
Message-ID: <4B11D6E6.8010303@uberbox.org>

Marc A. Pelletier wrote:
> Wizardman wrote:
>
>> Looks good to me. I'd even move it up to the 1st, though that is
>> reducing the time quite a bit.
>> ~W
>>
>
> It's a weekend; I didn't want to be unreasonable either.
>
> -- Coren / Marc
>
>

That being said, at least four of us said 1st or 48h. I'll set with Dec
1 as the deadline (which will still give two whole days including a weekday)

-- Coren / Marc
----------
From marc at uberbox.org Sun Nov 29 02:13:03 2009
From: marc at uberbox.org (Marc A. Pelletier)
Date: Sat, 28 Nov 2009 21:13:03 -0500
Subject: [arbcom-l] Motion regarding your recent blog post
Message-ID: <4B11D8AF.2040102@uberbox.org>

Hello David,

You recent blog post (see link at the end) has come to the attention of
the Committee, and we are disappointed that you were unable or unwilling
to heed the concerns expressed by the arbitrators and other
functionaries over the past year. Such outbursts are completely
unacceptable as they reflect poorly on the project and, given your
status as a functionary, are particularly damaging. In particular,
disclosing past checkuser results (especially in a bragging tone) and
publishing email including private information are not compatible with
the trust and decorum expected of holders of advanced rights.

Given the warnings you have already received on that subject, the
Committee is voting to suspend both checkuser and oversight permissions,
and to remove you from the func-l mailing list. It appears at this time
that the motion will carry, but we wanted to extend the opportunity of
stepping down of your own volition beforehand to reduce the likelihood
of drama and the possible embarrassment.

If you have comments to offer, please respond to this email before
2009-12-01; at which point we will otherwise close the pending motion.

For the Committee, Marc A. Pelletier (Coren)

ref: http://davidgerard.co.uk/notes/2009/11/27/...-waste-of-skin/
----------
From jayvdb at gmail.com Sun Nov 29 02:14:10 2009
From: jayvdb at gmail.com (John Vandenberg)
Date: Sun, 29 Nov 2009 13:14:10 +1100
Subject: [arbcom-l] David Gerard again - I move we remove his CU bit now
In-Reply-To: <4B11D62A.4040204@uberbox.org>
References: <8ec76cd10911281648qaca4d5dmf9b9b3eca5956cda@mail.gmail.com>
<deea21830911281721p6d625b04qb25e1da557dd601f@mail.gmail.com>
<c52819d30911281723y3a10e3bp384f965205a7b307@mail.gmail.com>
<4B11CE13.4040202@uberbox.org>
<deea21830911281731w4ee87713m252519517aaa59bc@mail.gmail.com>
<c52819d30911281734h426a3ca0ud6e530dcf648e438@mail.gmail.com>
<4B11D173.5080609@uberbox.org>
<ef59f700911281744v7d1ea489x1837a113b3f675fc@mail.gmail.com>
<4B11D528.4010008@uberbox.org> <4B11D62A.4040204@uberbox.org>
Message-ID: <deea21830911281814i5e325035s2d8c49126405b79a@mail.gmail.com>

I'm not opposed to this draft .. but .. ;-)

I dont think we should be focused on asking him to stand down _in
order to_ minimise drama. We should be asking him to stand down _in a
manner_ which minimises drama. i.e. he needs to admit that he has
been a twit, and accepts the consequences.

I doubt there will be drama if we did it ; I suspect that there will
be drama if he is allowed to frame it however he wants. even more
drama if there is no explanation at all.
----------
From marc at uberbox.org Sun Nov 29 02:14:32 2009
From: marc at uberbox.org (Marc A. Pelletier)
Date: Sat, 28 Nov 2009 21:14:32 -0500
Subject: [arbcom-l] Motion regarding your recent blog post
In-Reply-To: <4B11D8AF.2040102@uberbox.org>
References: <4B11D8AF.2040102@uberbox.org>
Message-ID: <4B11D908.6000306@uberbox.org>

[list only]

Marc A. Pelletier wrote:
> Hello David,
>

I went ahead despite the limited feedback given we intend to move
swiftly; the short delay makes it imperative that he is notified as
quickly as possible to give him the whole two days.

-- Coren / Marc
----------
From marc at uberbox.org Sun Nov 29 02:17:43 2009
From: marc at uberbox.org (Marc A. Pelletier)
Date: Sat, 28 Nov 2009 21:17:43 -0500
Subject: [arbcom-l] David Gerard again - I move we remove his CU bit now
In-Reply-To: <deea21830911281814i5e325035s2d8c49126405b79a@mail.gmail.com>
References: <8ec76cd10911281648qaca4d5dmf9b9b3eca5956cda@mail.gmail.com>
<deea21830911281721p6d625b04qb25e1da557dd601f@mail.gmail.com>
<c52819d30911281723y3a10e3bp384f965205a7b307@mail.gmail.com>
<4B11CE13.4040202@uberbox.org>
<deea21830911281731w4ee87713m252519517aaa59bc@mail.gmail.com>
<c52819d30911281734h426a3ca0ud6e530dcf648e438@mail.gmail.com>
<4B11D173.5080609@uberbox.org>
<ef59f700911281744v7d1ea489x1837a113b3f675fc@mail.gmail.com>
<4B11D528.4010008@uberbox.org> <4B11D62A.4040204@uberbox.org>
<deea21830911281814i5e325035s2d8c49126405b79a@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <4B11D9C7.7040507@uberbox.org>

John Vandenberg wrote:
> I'm not opposed to this draft .. but .. ;-)
>

Too late for but(t)s. :-)

At any rate, reducing drama pretty much implies that he shouldn't raise
it himself. I don't expect he'll go down quietly, though, and we're
more likely than not going to have to do so forcibly and publicly.
More's the pity.

-- Coren / Marc
-----------
From User.CoolHandLuke at gmail.com Sun Nov 29 02:56:52 2009
From: User.CoolHandLuke at gmail.com (Cool Hand Luke)
Date: Sat, 28 Nov 2009 20:56:52 -0600
Subject: [arbcom-l] David Gerard again - I move we remove his CU bit now
In-Reply-To: <deea21830911281814i5e325035s2d8c49126405b79a@mail.gmail.com>
References: <8ec76cd10911281648qaca4d5dmf9b9b3eca5956cda@mail.gmail.com>
<c52819d30911281723y3a10e3bp384f965205a7b307@mail.gmail.com>
<4B11CE13.4040202@uberbox.org>
<deea21830911281731w4ee87713m252519517aaa59bc@mail.gmail.com>
<c52819d30911281734h426a3ca0ud6e530dcf648e438@mail.gmail.com>
<4B11D173.5080609@uberbox.org>
<ef59f700911281744v7d1ea489x1837a113b3f675fc@mail.gmail.com>
<4B11D528.4010008@uberbox.org> <4B11D62A.4040204@uberbox.org>
<deea21830911281814i5e325035s2d8c49126405b79a@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <8ec76cd10911281856h1b73626fwaf487be0f00cd662@mail.gmail.com>

Yes, I think you are right that there will be *relatively* little drama if
we forcibly removed him. He's not in the middle of a Giano/Bishonen
intrigue, and would be hard pressed to frame this as ArbCom 2009
incompetence. His post was just plain stupid.

That said, it's still relative drama, and I agree that we would prefer him
to withdraw in a classy way like Raul654. However, he doesn't seem to like
us--I doubt he will want to make it drama-free, even for the sake of the
project. I think you're right that we should expect some kicking.

Frank




On Sat, Nov 28, 2009 at 8:14 PM, John Vandenberg <jayvdb at gmail.com> wrote:

> I'm not opposed to this draft .. but .. ;-)
>
> I dont think we should be focused on asking him to stand down _in
> order to_ minimise drama. We should be asking him to stand down _in a
> manner_ which minimises drama. i.e. he needs to admit that he has
> been a twit, and accepts the consequences.
>
> I doubt there will be drama if we did it ; I suspect that there will
> be drama if he is allowed to frame it however he wants. even more
> drama if there is no explanation at all.
----------
From rlevse at cox.net Sun Nov 29 03:53:44 2009
From: rlevse at cox.net (Randy Everette)
Date: Sat, 28 Nov 2009 22:53:44 -0500
Subject: [arbcom-l] David Gerard again - I move we remove his CU bit now
In-Reply-To: <4B11D9C7.7040507@uberbox.org>
References: <8ec76cd10911281648qaca4d5dmf9b9b3eca5956cda@mail.gmail.com> <deea21830911281721p6d625b04qb25e1da557dd601f@mail.gmail.com> <c52819d30911281723y3a10e3bp384f965205a7b307@mail.gmail.com> <4B11CE13.4040202@uberbox.org> <deea21830911281731w4ee87713m252519517aaa59bc@mail.gmail.com> <c52819d30911281734h426a3ca0ud6e530dcf648e438@mail.gmail.com> <4B11D173.5080609@uberbox.org> <ef59f700911281744v7d1ea489x1837a113b3f675fc@mail.gmail.com> <4B11D528.4010008@uberbox.org>
<4B11D62A.4040204@uberbox.org> <deea21830911281814i5e325035s2d8c49126405b79a@mail.gmail.com>
<4B11D9C7.7040507@uberbox.org>
Message-ID: <01ff01ca70a7$8bdfcdb0$a39f6910$@net>

But he can't say he didn't have his chance now.

R

-----Original Message-----
From: arbcom-l-bounces at lists.wikimedia.org
[mailto:arbcom-l-bounces at lists.wikimedia.org] On Behalf Of Marc A. Pelletier
Sent: Saturday, November 28, 2009 9:18 PM
To: English Arbitration Committee mailing list
Subject: Re: [arbcom-l] David Gerard again - I move we remove his CU bit now

John Vandenberg wrote:
> I'm not opposed to this draft .. but .. ;-)
>
-----------
From: szvest at gmail.com (Fayssal F.)
Date: Sun, 29 Nov 2009 11:02:05 +0000
Subject: [arbcom-l] David Gerard again - I move we remove his CU bit now
Message-ID: <2a8c5680911290302h177717b3p50b59d0c443dfb84@mail.gmail.com>

I am supporting every measure that has been taken so far. The unacceptable
behaviour of David shows that he's not fit for the trusting job (not
acceptable even for an admin). Imagine law enforcement officers bragging
online about their actions and ridiculing people via multiple venues
(twitter, blog, etc). It's a pity to see people in their 40's or so getting
themselves dragged into such childish attitudes.

That's was the real drama, not what would follow! Our job is to protect the
integrity of this project and this is what we should focus on.

Fayssal F.
----------
From dgerard at gmail.com Sun Nov 29 11:14:27 2009
From: dgerard at gmail.com (David Gerard)
Date: Sun, 29 Nov 2009 11:14:27 +0000
Subject: [arbcom-l] Please Contact ArbCom
In-Reply-To: <E1NEYlb-0003an-A3@mchenry.wikimedia.org>
References: <E1NEYlb-0003an-A3@mchenry.wikimedia.org>
Message-ID: <fbad4e140911290314ode8100v7fc4463eb32019d6@mail.gmail.com>

Cheers, and what on earth?


- d.



2009/11/29 Coren <marc at uberbox.org>:
> Hello David,
>
> Please contact ArbCom via its mailing list (arbcom-l at lists.wikimedia.org) at your earliest convenience.
>
> -- Coren / Marc; for the Committee
>
----------
From sydney.poore at gmail.com Sun Nov 29 12:15:37 2009
From: sydney.poore at gmail.com (FloNight)
Date: Sun, 29 Nov 2009 07:15:37 -0500
Subject: [arbcom-l] [Functionaries-en] Fwd: Motion regarding your recent
blog post
In-Reply-To: <deea21830911290405v2bec8237w4b737fb127687f4c@mail.gmail.com>
References: <4B11D8AF.2040102@uberbox.org>
<fbad4e140911290319v7a480584q432f14239e0389b5@mail.gmail.com>
<fbad4e140911290320x4b331038m4204439d6ac17645@mail.gmail.com>
<deea21830911290405v2bec8237w4b737fb127687f4c@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <16032ea0911290415s3a9f9bc9tfdf48318b4a35733@mail.gmail.com>

On Sun, Nov 29, 2009 at 7:05 AM, John Vandenberg <jayvdb at gmail.com> wrote:

> On Sun, Nov 29, 2009 at 10:46 PM, David Gerard <dgerard at gmail.com> wrote:
> > 2009/11/29 John Vandenberg <jayvdb at gmail.com>:
> >> David, do you want this discussion to be conducted on functionaries-en ?
> > Actually, it should be conducted publicly on the wiki.
>
> I'll take that as a yes.
>
> If you don't discuss it with us privately, the next action from the
> committee will be a motion on the noticeboard.


(ArbCom list only)

David has taken this pubic on his talk page.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Dav..._contact_ArbCom

He mentions the past caution but does it in a way that dismisses the
problem.

Sydney
----------
From jayvdb at gmail.com Sun Nov 29 12:24:59 2009
From: jayvdb at gmail.com (John Vandenberg)
Date: Sun, 29 Nov 2009 23:24:59 +1100
Subject: [arbcom-l] [Functionaries-en] Fwd: Motion regarding your recent
blog post
In-Reply-To: <16032ea0911290415s3a9f9bc9tfdf48318b4a35733@mail.gmail.com>
References: <4B11D8AF.2040102@uberbox.org>
<fbad4e140911290319v7a480584q432f14239e0389b5@mail.gmail.com>
<fbad4e140911290320x4b331038m4204439d6ac17645@mail.gmail.com>
<deea21830911290405v2bec8237w4b737fb127687f4c@mail.gmail.com>
<16032ea0911290415s3a9f9bc9tfdf48318b4a35733@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <deea21830911290424x2c0e8e3g9c3f563325e358a1@mail.gmail.com>

I say we publish? he can appeal. that is how the level II procedure works.

On Sun, Nov 29, 2009 at 11:15 PM, FloNight <sydney.poore at gmail.com> wrote:
> On Sun, Nov 29, 2009 at 7:05 AM, John Vandenberg <jayvdb at gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>> On Sun, Nov 29, 2009 at 10:46 PM, David Gerard <dgerard at gmail.com> wrote:
>> > 2009/11/29 John Vandenberg <jayvdb at gmail.com>:
>> >> David, do you want this discussion to be conducted on functionaries-en
>> >> ?
>> > Actually, it should be conducted publicly on the wiki.
>>
>> I'll take that as a yes.
>>
>> If you don't discuss it with us privately, the next action from the
>> committee will be a motion on the noticeboard.
>
> (ArbCom list only)
>
> David has taken this pubic on his talk page.
>
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Dav..._contact_ArbCom
>
> He mentions the past caution but does it in a way that dismisses the
> problem.
>
> Sydney
>
> _______________________________________________
> arbcom-l mailing list
> arbcom-l at lists.wikimedia.org
> https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/arbcom-l
>
----------
From rlevse at cox.net Sun Nov 29 12:34:30 2009
From: rlevse at cox.net (Randy Everette)
Date: Sun, 29 Nov 2009 07:34:30 -0500
Subject: [arbcom-l] [Functionaries-en] Fwd: Motion regarding your
recent blog post
In-Reply-To: <deea21830911290424x2c0e8e3g9c3f563325e358a1@mail.gmail.com>
References: <4B11D8AF.2040102@uberbox.org> <fbad4e140911290319v7a480584q432f14239e0389b5@mail.gmail.com> <fbad4e140911290320x4b331038m4204439d6ac17645@mail.gmail.com> <deea21830911290405v2bec8237w4b737fb127687f4c@mail.gmail.com> <16032ea0911290415s3a9f9bc9tfdf48318b4a35733@mail.gmail.com>
<deea21830911290424x2c0e8e3g9c3f563325e358a1@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <022101ca70f0$4c01f8a0$e405e9e0$@net>

Yep. Publish it.
----------
From jayvdb at gmail.com Sun Nov 29 12:37:43 2009
From: jayvdb at gmail.com (John Vandenberg)
Date: Sun, 29 Nov 2009 23:37:43 +1100
Subject: [arbcom-l] [Functionaries-en] Fwd: Motion regarding your recent
blog post
In-Reply-To: <022101ca70f0$4c01f8a0$e405e9e0$@net>
References: <4B11D8AF.2040102@uberbox.org>
<fbad4e140911290319v7a480584q432f14239e0389b5@mail.gmail.com>
<fbad4e140911290320x4b331038m4204439d6ac17645@mail.gmail.com>
<deea21830911290405v2bec8237w4b737fb127687f4c@mail.gmail.com>
<16032ea0911290415s3a9f9bc9tfdf48318b4a35733@mail.gmail.com>
<deea21830911290424x2c0e8e3g9c3f563325e358a1@mail.gmail.com>
<022101ca70f0$4c01f8a0$e405e9e0$@net>
Message-ID: <deea21830911290437j40d8646ncfc77228f5c4710@mail.gmail.com>

Ready to roll - minor changes being the stripped->revoked, and
mentioning level II procedures at the end.

Subject: David Gerard (we used "nichalp' )

For repeatedly failing to maintain proper decorum in public fora, and
for unwarranted dissemination of private data acquired using
privileged rights, checkuser and oversight rights are revoked from
{{user|David Gerard}}, and he is removed from the functionary list
effective immediately, in accordance with
[[Wikipedia:Arbitration_Committee/Procedures#Level_II_procedures|Level
II procedures]]. ~~~~

* Support: Cool Hand Luke, Coren, FloNight, John Vandenberg,
Newyorkbrad, Rlevse, Risker, Stephen Bain, Wizardman
* Oppose: None
* Abstain: None
* Not voting: Carcharoth, Roger Davies, Vassyana
* Inactive: FayssalF

Carcharoth could be placed under inactive as he has told us that he is
away for the weekend
----------
From sydney.poore at gmail.com Sun Nov 29 12:44:35 2009
From: sydney.poore at gmail.com (FloNight)
Date: Sun, 29 Nov 2009 07:44:35 -0500
Subject: [arbcom-l] [Functionaries-en] Fwd: Motion regarding your recent
blog post
In-Reply-To: <deea21830911290437j40d8646ncfc77228f5c4710@mail.gmail.com>
References: <4B11D8AF.2040102@uberbox.org>
<fbad4e140911290319v7a480584q432f14239e0389b5@mail.gmail.com>
<fbad4e140911290320x4b331038m4204439d6ac17645@mail.gmail.com>
<deea21830911290405v2bec8237w4b737fb127687f4c@mail.gmail.com>
<16032ea0911290415s3a9f9bc9tfdf48318b4a35733@mail.gmail.com>
<deea21830911290424x2c0e8e3g9c3f563325e358a1@mail.gmail.com>
<022101ca70f0$4c01f8a0$e405e9e0$@net>
<deea21830911290437j40d8646ncfc77228f5c4710@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <16032ea0911290444i6df6961egad47daab1ab45392@mail.gmail.com>

I agree that we publish the motion. But then what comes next?

We need to be ready to roll into the next phase.

Sydney
-----------
From jayvdb at gmail.com Sun Nov 29 12:47:15 2009
From: jayvdb at gmail.com (John Vandenberg)
Date: Sun, 29 Nov 2009 23:47:15 +1100
Subject: [arbcom-l] [Functionaries-en] Fwd: Motion regarding your recent
blog post
In-Reply-To: <16032ea0911290444i6df6961egad47daab1ab45392@mail.gmail.com>
References: <4B11D8AF.2040102@uberbox.org>
<fbad4e140911290319v7a480584q432f14239e0389b5@mail.gmail.com>
<fbad4e140911290320x4b331038m4204439d6ac17645@mail.gmail.com>
<deea21830911290405v2bec8237w4b737fb127687f4c@mail.gmail.com>
<16032ea0911290415s3a9f9bc9tfdf48318b4a35733@mail.gmail.com>
<deea21830911290424x2c0e8e3g9c3f563325e358a1@mail.gmail.com>
<022101ca70f0$4c01f8a0$e405e9e0$@net>
<deea21830911290437j40d8646ncfc77228f5c4710@mail.gmail.com>
<16032ea0911290444i6df6961egad47daab1ab45392@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <deea21830911290447l1acac01br118e1156fa382044@mail.gmail.com>

motion posted. meta request done.

Im about to request that he be removed from the lists.
-----------
From jayvdb at gmail.com Sun Nov 29 12:56:43 2009
From: jayvdb at gmail.com (John Vandenberg)
Date: Sun, 29 Nov 2009 23:56:43 +1100
Subject: [arbcom-l] [Functionaries-en] Fwd: Motion regarding your recent
blog post
In-Reply-To: <deea21830911290447l1acac01br118e1156fa382044@mail.gmail.com>
References: <4B11D8AF.2040102@uberbox.org>
<fbad4e140911290319v7a480584q432f14239e0389b5@mail.gmail.com>
<fbad4e140911290320x4b331038m4204439d6ac17645@mail.gmail.com>
<deea21830911290405v2bec8237w4b737fb127687f4c@mail.gmail.com>
<16032ea0911290415s3a9f9bc9tfdf48318b4a35733@mail.gmail.com>
<deea21830911290424x2c0e8e3g9c3f563325e358a1@mail.gmail.com>
<022101ca70f0$4c01f8a0$e405e9e0$@net>
<deea21830911290437j40d8646ncfc77228f5c4710@mail.gmail.com>
<16032ea0911290444i6df6961egad47daab1ab45392@mail.gmail.com>
<deea21830911290447l1acac01br118e1156fa382044@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <deea21830911290456h7264c478sffa7a890be7155cd@mail.gmail.com>

On Sun, Nov 29, 2009 at 11:47 PM, John Vandenberg <jayvdb at gmail.com> wrote:
> motion posted. ?meta request done.

tools removed by a steward.

> Im about to request that he be removed from the lists.

list admins notified.

--
John Vandenberg
----------
From dgerard at gmail.com Sun Nov 29 12:58:13 2009
From: dgerard at gmail.com (David Gerard)
Date: Sun, 29 Nov 2009 12:58:13 +0000
Subject: [arbcom-l] [Functionaries-en] Fwd: Motion regarding your recent
blog post
In-Reply-To: <deea21830911290451o748a13c0ta7c2a56e0aaa4362@mail.gmail.com>
References: <4B11D8AF.2040102@uberbox.org>
<fbad4e140911290319v7a480584q432f14239e0389b5@mail.gmail.com>
<fbad4e140911290320x4b331038m4204439d6ac17645@mail.gmail.com>
<deea21830911290405v2bec8237w4b737fb127687f4c@mail.gmail.com>
<deea21830911290451o748a13c0ta7c2a56e0aaa4362@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <fbad4e140911290458k7ccbcf27ma8a3780fc6a2c2c3@mail.gmail.com>

2009/11/29 John Vandenberg <jayvdb at gmail.com>:
> On Sun, Nov 29, 2009 at 11:05 PM, John Vandenberg <jayvdb at gmail.com> wrote:
>> On Sun, Nov 29, 2009 at 10:46 PM, David Gerard <dgerard at gmail.com> wrote:
>>> 2009/11/29 John Vandenberg <jayvdb at gmail.com>:
>>>> David, do you want this discussion to be conducted on functionaries-en ?
>>> Actually, it should be conducted publicly on the wiki.
>>
>> I'll take that as a yes.
>>
>> If you don't discuss it with us privately, the next action from the
>> committee will be a motion on the noticeboard.
>
> David decided to conduct this
User is offlineProfile CardPM
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
MaliceAforethought
post Wed 29th June 2011, 1:37am
Post #2


u Mad?
***

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



From jayvdb at gmail.com Mon Nov 30 01:04:10 2009
From: jayvdb at gmail.com (John Vandenberg)
Date: Mon, 30 Nov 2009 12:04:10 +1100
Subject: [arbcom-l] draft email to ComCom
In-Reply-To: <c52819d30911291653i2611ad1ds3bd37172ee5a09c8@mail.gmail.com>
References: <deea21830911290604h194b1a0fna23fe85674c51752@mail.gmail.com>
<deea21830911291632l5efe9849w99e3c464a45261ea@mail.gmail.com>
<c52819d30911291653i2611ad1ds3bd37172ee5a09c8@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <deea21830911291704q653ea343uda710cc87ed3a881@mail.gmail.com>

On Mon, Nov 30, 2009 at 11:53 AM, Newyorkbrad (Wikipedia)
<newyorkbrad at gmail.com> wrote:
> Given what's going on in the Functionaries-l thread, we should discuss
> whether to re-word the preamble of the motion before we do anything
> else.

I think we need to alert them promptly.
We could say that the wording of it is being disputed by WMF staff,
and we will let them know if it is amended.

> ?In particular, I am trying to figure out the genesis and nature
> of Mike's stated concerns.

your assistance there will be very helpful.
----------
From rlevse at cox.net Mon Nov 30 01:06:14 2009
From: rlevse at cox.net (rlevse at cox.net)
Date: Sun, 29 Nov 2009 20:06:14 -0500
Subject: [arbcom-l] draft email to ComCom
In-Reply-To: <deea21830911291704q653ea343uda710cc87ed3a881@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <20091129200614.JURJO.958224.imail@eastrmwml31>

Godwin has no standing to tell us what to do. I think it's possible someone, perhaps DG, asked him to intervene. Godwin has never tried to push us around before.

R

---- John Vandenberg <jayvdb at gmail.com> wrote:
> On Mon, Nov 30, 2009 at 11:53 AM, Newyorkbrad (Wikipedia)
> <newyorkbrad at gmail.com> wrote:
> > Given what's going on in the Functionaries-l thread, we should discuss
> > whether to re-word the preamble of the motion before we do anything
> > else.
>
> I think we need to alert them promptly.
> We could say that the wording of it is being disputed by WMF staff,
> and we will let them know if it is amended.
>
> > ?In particular, I am trying to figure out the genesis and nature
> > of Mike's stated concerns.
>
> your assistance there will be very helpful.
----------
From newyorkbrad at gmail.com Mon Nov 30 01:17:03 2009
From: newyorkbrad at gmail.com (Newyorkbrad (Wikipedia))
Date: Sun, 29 Nov 2009 20:17:03 -0500
Subject: [arbcom-l] draft email to ComCom
In-Reply-To: <deea21830911291704q653ea343uda710cc87ed3a881@mail.gmail.com>
References: <deea21830911290604h194b1a0fna23fe85674c51752@mail.gmail.com>
<deea21830911291632l5efe9849w99e3c464a45261ea@mail.gmail.com>
<c52819d30911291653i2611ad1ds3bd37172ee5a09c8@mail.gmail.com>
<deea21830911291704q653ea343uda710cc87ed3a881@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <c52819d30911291717h6ea7e8fn8150a71e50b639dd@mail.gmail.com>

I think we should leave out the preamble of the motion, just tell them
the decision itself.

Newyorkbrad

On 11/29/09, John Vandenberg <jayvdb at gmail.com> wrote:
> On Mon, Nov 30, 2009 at 11:53 AM, Newyorkbrad (Wikipedia)
> <newyorkbrad at gmail.com> wrote:
>> Given what's going on in the Functionaries-l thread, we should discuss
>> whether to re-word the preamble of the motion before we do anything
>> else.
>
> I think we need to alert them promptly.
> We could say that the wording of it is being disputed by WMF staff,
> and we will let them know if it is amended.
>
>> ?In particular, I am trying to figure out the genesis and nature
>> of Mike's stated concerns.
>
> your assistance there will be very helpful.
----------
From rlevse at cox.net Mon Nov 30 01:18:02 2009
From: rlevse at cox.net (rlevse at cox.net)
Date: Sun, 29 Nov 2009 20:18:02 -0500
Subject: [arbcom-l] draft email to ComCom
In-Reply-To: <c52819d30911291717h6ea7e8fn8150a71e50b639dd@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <20091129201802.VCF8E.958380.imail@eastrmwml31>

OK with me.

R

---- "Newyorkbrad (Wikipedia)" <newyorkbrad at gmail.com> wrote:
> I think we should leave out the preamble of the motion, just tell them
> the decision itself.
>
> Newyorkbrad
----------
From jayvdb at gmail.com Mon Nov 30 01:23:08 2009
From: jayvdb at gmail.com (John Vandenberg)
Date: Mon, 30 Nov 2009 12:23:08 +1100
Subject: [arbcom-l] draft email to ComCom
In-Reply-To: <c52819d30911291717h6ea7e8fn8150a71e50b639dd@mail.gmail.com>
References: <deea21830911290604h194b1a0fna23fe85674c51752@mail.gmail.com>
<deea21830911291632l5efe9849w99e3c464a45261ea@mail.gmail.com>
<c52819d30911291653i2611ad1ds3bd37172ee5a09c8@mail.gmail.com>
<deea21830911291704q653ea343uda710cc87ed3a881@mail.gmail.com>
<c52819d30911291717h6ea7e8fn8150a71e50b639dd@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <deea21830911291723l7d4aae13h663b37b85a5308e5@mail.gmail.com>

Brad,

the draft has three components:
1. the decision
2. the background, which is 100% factual
3. a note that this is subject to appeal, etc

precisely which bit should be cut ?

--
John Vandenberg
----------
From newyorkbrad at gmail.com Mon Nov 30 01:25:26 2009
From: newyorkbrad at gmail.com (Newyorkbrad (Wikipedia))
Date: Sun, 29 Nov 2009 20:25:26 -0500
Subject: [arbcom-l] draft email to ComCom
In-Reply-To: <deea21830911291723l7d4aae13h663b37b85a5308e5@mail.gmail.com>
References: <deea21830911290604h194b1a0fna23fe85674c51752@mail.gmail.com>
<deea21830911291632l5efe9849w99e3c464a45261ea@mail.gmail.com>
<c52819d30911291653i2611ad1ds3bd37172ee5a09c8@mail.gmail.com>
<deea21830911291704q653ea343uda710cc87ed3a881@mail.gmail.com>
<c52819d30911291717h6ea7e8fn8150a71e50b639dd@mail.gmail.com>
<deea21830911291723l7d4aae13h663b37b85a5308e5@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <c52819d30911291725n743da4e3t1d400122f79d5d44@mail.gmail.com>

In my view, the issue right now concerns the introduction to the
adopted motion ("For..."). That's the part I understand David is
factually disputing.

I'd like to see what other arbs have to say here too.

Newyorkbrad
-----------
From rlevse at cox.net Mon Nov 30 01:29:15 2009
From: rlevse at cox.net (rlevse at cox.net)
Date: Sun, 29 Nov 2009 20:29:15 -0500
Subject: [arbcom-l] draft email to ComCom
In-Reply-To: <c52819d30911291725n743da4e3t1d400122f79d5d44@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <20091129202915.75GR8.958510.imail@eastrmwml31>

We have plenty of evidence to support this on the page on him on arbwiki. THere's a link to it in my vote on the motion.

R

---- "Newyorkbrad (Wikipedia)" <newyorkbrad at gmail.com> wrote:
> In my view, the issue right now concerns the introduction to the
> adopted motion ("For..."). That's the part I understand David is
> factually disputing.
>
> I'd like to see what other arbs have to say here too.
>
> Newyorkbrad
----------
From jayvdb at gmail.com Mon Nov 30 01:42:53 2009
From: jayvdb at gmail.com (John Vandenberg)
Date: Mon, 30 Nov 2009 12:42:53 +1100
Subject: [arbcom-l] draft email to ComCom
In-Reply-To: <c52819d30911291725n743da4e3t1d400122f79d5d44@mail.gmail.com>
References: <deea21830911290604h194b1a0fna23fe85674c51752@mail.gmail.com>
<deea21830911291632l5efe9849w99e3c464a45261ea@mail.gmail.com>
<c52819d30911291653i2611ad1ds3bd37172ee5a09c8@mail.gmail.com>
<deea21830911291704q653ea343uda710cc87ed3a881@mail.gmail.com>
<c52819d30911291717h6ea7e8fn8150a71e50b639dd@mail.gmail.com>
<deea21830911291723l7d4aae13h663b37b85a5308e5@mail.gmail.com>
<c52819d30911291725n743da4e3t1d400122f79d5d44@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <deea21830911291742x181afa0dyc8b31405098ab832@mail.gmail.com>

On Mon, Nov 30, 2009 at 12:25 PM, Newyorkbrad (Wikipedia)
<newyorkbrad at gmail.com> wrote:
> In my view, the issue right now concerns the introduction to the
> adopted motion ("For..."). ?That's the part I understand David is
> factually disputing.

That is the _actual decision_, as published. They need to be aware of
what was actually published.

The third part explains that he is disputing it.

--
John Vandenberg
----------
From newyorkbrad at gmail.com Mon Nov 30 01:46:45 2009
From: newyorkbrad at gmail.com (Newyorkbrad (Wikipedia))
Date: Sun, 29 Nov 2009 20:46:45 -0500
Subject: [arbcom-l] draft email to ComCom
In-Reply-To: <deea21830911291742x181afa0dyc8b31405098ab832@mail.gmail.com>
References: <deea21830911290604h194b1a0fna23fe85674c51752@mail.gmail.com>
<deea21830911291632l5efe9849w99e3c464a45261ea@mail.gmail.com>
<c52819d30911291653i2611ad1ds3bd37172ee5a09c8@mail.gmail.com>
<deea21830911291704q653ea343uda710cc87ed3a881@mail.gmail.com>
<c52819d30911291717h6ea7e8fn8150a71e50b639dd@mail.gmail.com>
<deea21830911291723l7d4aae13h663b37b85a5308e5@mail.gmail.com>
<c52819d30911291725n743da4e3t1d400122f79d5d44@mail.gmail.com>
<deea21830911291742x181afa0dyc8b31405098ab832@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <c52819d30911291746o5737817fy7c6dc0d5bf1f2505@mail.gmail.com>

We now have a board member questioning the preamble also. I am not
convinced further publicizing it is the way to go.

Newyorkbrad
----------
From sydney.poore at gmail.com Mon Nov 30 09:12:01 2009
From: sydney.poore at gmail.com (FloNight)
Date: Mon, 30 Nov 2009 04:12:01 -0500
Subject: [arbcom-l] Wording of David Gerard motion
Message-ID: <16032ea0911300112o5fac8654h64dd6e32af9469b8@mail.gmail.com>

Do we want to tweak the wording of the motion to address the criticism
expressed by David, Mike, FT2, and Kat?

If so, could Newyorkbrad or someone else take a stab at re-writing it.

Sydney
----------
From: jayvdb at gmail.com (John Vandenberg)
Date: Mon, 30 Nov 2009 21:38:41 +1100
Subject: [arbcom-l] Wording of David Gerard motion
In-Reply-To: <16032ea0911300112o5fac8654h64dd6e32af9469b8@mail.gmail.com>
References: <16032ea0911300112o5fac8654h64dd6e32af9469b8@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <deea21830911300238x2e08db6cmd034149b2507fcb7@mail.gmail.com>

On Mon, Nov 30, 2009 at 8:12 PM, FloNight <sydney.poore at gmail.com> wrote:
> Do we want to tweak the wording of the motion to address the criticism
> expressed by David, Mike, FT2, and Kat?
>
> If so, could Newyorkbrad or someone else take a stab at re-writing it.

As far as I can see, the last three have not taken the time to review
the emails used as evidence.

I would appreciate it Mike looked at the email in question. Can we
send it to him?

--
John Vandenberg
-----------
From marc at uberbox.org Mon Nov 30 12:07:21 2009
From: marc at uberbox.org (Marc A. Pelletier)
Date: Mon, 30 Nov 2009 07:07:21 -0500
Subject: [arbcom-l] Wording of David Gerard motion
In-Reply-To: <16032ea0911300112o5fac8654h64dd6e32af9469b8@mail.gmail.com>
References: <16032ea0911300112o5fac8654h64dd6e32af9469b8@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <4B13B579.3010304@uberbox.org>

FloNight wrote:
> Do we want to tweak the wording of the motion to address the criticism
> expressed by David, Mike, FT2, and Kat?

I'm not opposed in principle if someone makes a good case that the
current wording is erroneous, but I note Mike has yet to address the
substance of my objection to his position.

I still stand by my position that saying "X is a sockpuppet" (however
you phrase it) *is* a disclosure of private information that is -- in
the context of preventing disruption (like SPI) -- an /acceptable/
disclosure, but that by saying anything of the sort years removed and
off-wiki you lose the protection afforded by the limited exceptions to
the privacy policy. Saying this when a real name is involved is worse;
and saying so when it's not even demonstrated is even more inappropriate.

I already explained this to Mike, but that particular email has gone
unreplied. (I've poked again just a few minutes ago).

-- Coren / Marc
------------
From jayvdb at gmail.com Mon Nov 30 12:24:31 2009
From: jayvdb at gmail.com (John Vandenberg)
Date: Mon, 30 Nov 2009 23:24:31 +1100
Subject: [arbcom-l] Wording of David Gerard motion
In-Reply-To: <4B13B579.3010304@uberbox.org>
References: <16032ea0911300112o5fac8654h64dd6e32af9469b8@mail.gmail.com>
<4B13B579.3010304@uberbox.org>
Message-ID: <deea21830911300424h5a462b37l1d1b9051b53fbf39@mail.gmail.com>

David has again used legal language.

https://secure.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/w...oldid=328738343

On Mon, Nov 30, 2009 at 11:07 PM, Marc A. Pelletier <marc at uberbox.org> wrote:
> FloNight wrote:
>> Do we want to tweak the wording of the motion to address the criticism
>> expressed by David, Mike, FT2, and Kat?
>
> I'm not opposed in principle if someone makes a good case that the
> current wording is erroneous, but I note Mike has yet to address the
> substance of my objection to his position.
>
> I still stand by my position that saying "X is a sockpuppet" (however
> you phrase it) *is* a disclosure of private information that is -- in
> the context of preventing disruption (like SPI) -- an /acceptable/
> disclosure, but that by saying anything of the sort years removed and
> off-wiki you lose the protection afforded by the limited exceptions to
> the privacy policy. ?Saying this when a real name is involved is worse;
> and saying so when it's not even demonstrated is even more inappropriate.
>
> I already explained this to Mike, but that particular email has gone
> unreplied. ?(I've poked again just a few minutes ago).
>
> -- Coren / Marc
----------
From newyorkbrad at gmail.com Mon Nov 30 12:35:28 2009
From: newyorkbrad at gmail.com (Newyorkbrad (Wikipedia))
Date: Mon, 30 Nov 2009 07:35:28 -0500
Subject: [arbcom-l] Wording of David Gerard motion
In-Reply-To: <16032ea0911300112o5fac8654h64dd6e32af9469b8@mail.gmail.com>
References: <16032ea0911300112o5fac8654h64dd6e32af9469b8@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <c52819d30911300435q3a1a444en5c6d1239695d0aaa@mail.gmail.com>

I will suggest something this morning and provide a rationale. I have
to go to a breakfast meeting but will turn to this as soon as I get to
my office afterwards.

Newyorkbrad

On 11/30/09, FloNight <sydney.poore at gmail.com> wrote:
> Do we want to tweak the wording of the motion to address the criticism
> expressed by David, Mike, FT2, and Kat?
>
> If so, could Newyorkbrad or someone else take a stab at re-writing it.
>
> Sydney
----------
From sydney.poore at gmail.com Mon Nov 30 12:38:22 2009
From: sydney.poore at gmail.com (FloNight)
Date: Mon, 30 Nov 2009 07:38:22 -0500
Subject: [arbcom-l] Wording of David Gerard motion
In-Reply-To: <4B13B579.3010304@uberbox.org>
References: <16032ea0911300112o5fac8654h64dd6e32af9469b8@mail.gmail.com>
<4B13B579.3010304@uberbox.org>
Message-ID: <16032ea0911300438n8c61d0fy93f1c4b18e837650@mail.gmail.com>

I agree that his use of the real name is not appropriate.

I'm not suggesting that we drop that aspect of the ruling but that we tweak
the wording as a way to be responsive to raised concerns.

I feel quite strongly that it is appropriate for the Arbitration Committee
to set standards for the way that the names of real people are linked to
accounts. This is a key aspect to the work that Checkusers do.

In this situation David linked the name of a real person to that of a sock
account. David did this in an inappropriate venue, and as a way to disparage
someone. He did this with no regard to the harm that could come to the
person by making this link. And when approached by the person, he revealed
their private correspondence and mocked them. I do not consider any of this
conduct appropriate for someone with special permissions.

If an editor wrote this comment on site today, we would oversight it if
requested?

Sydney

On Mon, Nov 30, 2009 at 7:07 AM, Marc A. Pelletier <marc at uberbox.org> wrote:

> FloNight wrote:
> > Do we want to tweak the wording of the motion to address the criticism
> > expressed by David, Mike, FT2, and Kat?
>
> I'm not opposed in principle if someone makes a good case that the
> current wording is erroneous, but I note Mike has yet to address the
> substance of my objection to his position.
>
> I still stand by my position that saying "X is a sockpuppet" (however
> you phrase it) *is* a disclosure of private information that is -- in
> the context of preventing disruption (like SPI) -- an /acceptable/
> disclosure, but that by saying anything of the sort years removed and
> off-wiki you lose the protection afforded by the limited exceptions to
> the privacy policy. Saying this when a real name is involved is worse;
> and saying so when it's not even demonstrated is even more inappropriate.
>
> I already explained this to Mike, but that particular email has gone
> unreplied. (I've poked again just a few minutes ago).
>
> -- Coren / Marc
>
-----------
From jayvdb at gmail.com Mon Nov 30 13:39:37 2009
From: jayvdb at gmail.com (John Vandenberg)
Date: Tue, 1 Dec 2009 00:39:37 +1100
Subject: [arbcom-l] Wording of David Gerard motion
In-Reply-To: <16032ea0911300438n8c61d0fy93f1c4b18e837650@mail.gmail.com>
References: <16032ea0911300112o5fac8654h64dd6e32af9469b8@mail.gmail.com>
<4B13B579.3010304@uberbox.org>
<16032ea0911300438n8c61d0fy93f1c4b18e837650@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <deea21830911300539o39790d5ne4b49493b563a74b@mail.gmail.com>

On Mon, Nov 30, 2009 at 11:38 PM, FloNight <sydney.poore at gmail.com> wrote:
> I agree that his use of the real name is not appropriate.
>
> I'm not suggesting that we drop that aspect of the ruling but that we tweak
> the wording as a way to be responsive to raised concerns.
>
> I feel quite strongly that it is appropriate for the Arbitration Committee
> to set standards for the way that the names of real people are linked to
> accounts. This is a key aspect to the work that Checkusers do.
>
> In this situation David linked the name of a real person to that of a sock
> account. David did this in an inappropriate venue, and as a way to disparage
> someone. He did this with no regard to the harm that could come to the
> person by making this link.? And when approached by the person, he revealed
> their private correspondence and mocked them. I do not consider any of this
> conduct appropriate for someone with special permissions.

We could default to the wording of Level II procedures:

"the account's behaviour is inconsistent with the level of trust
required for its associated advanced permissions"

https://secure.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/w...l_II_procedures

maybe that should be changed to "account _holder's_ behaviour".

> If an editor wrote this comment on site today, we would oversight it if
> requested?

This is an interesting way to look at it.

With YellowMonkey, we suppressed and gave a serious warning (iirc??).

https://secure.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/w...d=prev&unhide=1

An example of where I deleted, but did not suppress:

https://secure.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/w...d=prev&unhide=1

I deleted a large chunk of diffs in that effort.

https://secure.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/w...898%2C325580555

That was discussed here (and on ANI, but I cant be bothered finding the link):

https://secure.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/w...e_COI_vs_OUTING

--
John Vandenberg
----------
From jayvdb at gmail.com Mon Nov 30 13:46:08 2009
From: jayvdb at gmail.com (John Vandenberg)
Date: Tue, 1 Dec 2009 00:46:08 +1100
Subject: [arbcom-l] Wording of David Gerard motion
In-Reply-To: <deea21830911300238x2e08db6cmd034149b2507fcb7@mail.gmail.com>
References: <16032ea0911300112o5fac8654h64dd6e32af9469b8@mail.gmail.com>
<deea21830911300238x2e08db6cmd034149b2507fcb7@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <deea21830911300546v43923e39n8c77d5c59a59d42d@mail.gmail.com>

On Mon, Nov 30, 2009 at 9:38 PM, John Vandenberg <jayvdb at gmail.com> wrote:
> On Mon, Nov 30, 2009 at 8:12 PM, FloNight <sydney.poore at gmail.com> wrote:
>> Do we want to tweak the wording of the motion to address the criticism
>> expressed by David, Mike, FT2, and Kat?
>>
>> If so, could Newyorkbrad or someone else take a stab at re-writing it.
>
> As far as I can see, the last three have not taken the time to review
> the emails used as evidence.
>
> I would appreciate it Mike looked at the email in question. ?Can we
> send it to him?

Mike has now asked to see the email. If nobody has an issue about
that in the next 15 mins, I'll send the thread to him.

--
John Vandenberg
----------
From jayvdb at gmail.com Mon Nov 30 14:48:06 2009
From: jayvdb at gmail.com (John Vandenberg)
Date: Tue, 1 Dec 2009 01:48:06 +1100
Subject: [arbcom-l] Andrew Landeryou emails threads
Message-ID: <deea21830911300648y6d7f41edweb9aef4aebe5a696@mail.gmail.com>

Hi Mike & Jimmy,

Attached are the three relevant threads.

Jimmy, you can also read them here:

https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/private...ary/001480.html

https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/private...rch/003022.html

https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/private...rch/003125.html

--
John Vandenberg
-------------- next part --------------

thread: [Arbcom-l] "Australian politics vandal" slandering again


From dgerard at gmail.com Sun Jan 8 09:34:07 2006
From: dgerard at gmail.com (David Gerard)
Date: Sun, 8 Jan 2006 09:34:07 +0000
Subject: [Arbcom-l] "Australian politics vandal" slandering again
Message-ID: <fbad4e140601080134m324936dat919ff016a1b4c5ff at mail.gmail.com>

(to Jimbo, cc: AC because the troll may try to push it that far -
appears to be feeling his way.)

See [[Talk:Paula Rizzuto]]. This is the guy under 1000 sock names who
I've been tracking several months. His MO is to make slanderous
additions to Australian politics articles. In this case, he's created
an entire article about a minor Australian political figure and edited
it as [[User:StephenBengHo]], which is the name of her husband. Of
course, checkuser shows it to be the usual sock of 1000 heads.

I believe the sockpuppetteer to be a fellow called Andrew Landeryou,
whose ambition in life is to be a political headkicker for the right
in Victoria. (Though I wouldn't say that publicly without
confirmation.) He's seriously trying to use Wikipedia as an arena for
particularly stupid political games. His contributions are bad enough
that I locked [[Paula Rizzuto]] blank with {{deletedpage}}; I strongly
suggest this for other examples of his work, and to keep a very close
eye on any pages about current Australian political figures, major or
minor.

I put the above note on [[WP:ANI]] and it should probably go on any
relevant Australian, political or Australian political noticeboards or
project pages.


- d.


From dgerard at gmail.com Sun Jan 8 10:48:39 2006
From: dgerard at gmail.com (David Gerard)
Date: Sun, 8 Jan 2006 10:48:39 +0000
Subject: [Arbcom-l] Re: "Australian politics vandal" slandering again
In-Reply-To: <fbad4e140601080134m324936dat919ff016a1b4c5ff at mail.gmail.com>
References: <fbad4e140601080134m324936dat919ff016a1b4c5ff at mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <fbad4e140601080248p3615c879hdc4ee55051bdc0b7 at mail.gmail.com>

On 1/8/06, David Gerard <dgerard at gmail.com> wrote:

> I believe the sockpuppetteer to be a fellow called Andrew Landeryou,
> whose ambition in life is to be a political headkicker for the right
> in Victoria. (Though I wouldn't say that publicly without
> confirmation.)


This guy: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Andrew_Landeryou - the interest
in student politics was the dead giveaway.


- d.


From misfitgirl at gmail.com Sun Jan 8 13:15:17 2006
From: misfitgirl at gmail.com (Rebecca)
Date: Mon, 9 Jan 2006 00:15:17 +1100
Subject: [Arbcom-l] Re: "Australian politics vandal" slandering again
In-Reply-To: <fbad4e140601080248p3615c879hdc4ee55051bdc0b7 at mail.gmail.com>
References: <fbad4e140601080134m324936dat919ff016a1b4c5ff at mail.gmail.com>
<fbad4e140601080248p3615c879hdc4ee55051bdc0b7 at mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <530912670601080515n3e5e82e0kbc07213d840cd210 at mail.gmail.com>

Wow. This would be quite a development if it were true (incidentally, I had
a suspicion you might be talking about Landeryou when you mentioned that you
thought you'd identified the culprit). Are you familiar with Landeryou
outside of his Wikipedia article? (I'm not sure how long you've been living
in England)

I'd like to ask a couple of things, though, if you can share it (and I
understand entirely if you can't, though what is posted on this list stays
on this list), firstly, what makes you think it's Landeryou?

Secondly, you mentioned that he's got a bunch of sockpuppets - I'd be
curious if possible to know what some of these are, as to the best of our
knowledge StephenBengHo was a lone account, and I'm very interested to know
if he's related to the Crocodile Dundee vandal we've been tracking (and who
popped up about the same time).

-- ambi

On 1/8/06, David Gerard <dgerard at gmail.com> wrote:
>
> On 1/8/06, David Gerard <dgerard at gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > I believe the sockpuppetteer to be a fellow called Andrew Landeryou,
> > whose ambition in life is to be a political headkicker for the right
> > in Victoria. (Though I wouldn't say that publicly without
> > confirmation.)
>
>
> This guy: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Andrew_Landeryou - the interest
> in student politics was the dead giveaway.
>
>
> - d.
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/private.../attachment.htm



From dgerard at gmail.com Sun Jan 8 14:08:27 2006
From: dgerard at gmail.com (David Gerard)
Date: Sun, 8 Jan 2006 14:08:27 +0000
Subject: [Arbcom-l] Re: "Australian politics vandal" slandering again
In-Reply-To: <530912670601080515n3e5e82e0kbc07213d840cd210 at mail.gmail.com>
References: <fbad4e140601080134m324936dat919ff016a1b4c5ff at mail.gmail.com>
<fbad4e140601080248p3615c879hdc4ee55051bdc0b7 at mail.gmail.com>
<530912670601080515n3e5e82e0kbc07213d840cd210 at mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <fbad4e140601080608i635374c5mbbd9b6d9fb0990cb at mail.gmail.com>

On 1/8/06, Rebecca <misfitgirl at gmail.com> wrote:

> Wow. This would be quite a development if it were true (incidentally, I had
> a suspicion you might be talking about Landeryou when you mentioned that you
> thought you'd identified the culprit). Are you familiar with Landeryou
> outside of his Wikipedia article? (I'm not sure how long you've been living
> in England)
> I'd like to ask a couple of things, though, if you can share it (and I
> understand entirely if you can't, though what is posted on this list stays
> on this list), firstly, what makes you think it's Landeryou?


Turns out Paula Rizzuto is a friend of several friends, i.e. we share
a social circle. (This happens after a while.) So I'm now on her LJ
and she's on mine. She detailed her suspicions in a locked post.
There's a fake blog for her which appears to be Landeryou's work, and
the deleted article is based on the same material.

But there's nothing I could nail him on, so I'm not voicing my
suspicions out loud.


> Secondly, you mentioned that he's got a bunch of sockpuppets - I'd be
> curious if possible to know what some of these are, as to the best of our
> knowledge StephenBengHo was a lone account, and I'm very interested to know
> if he's related to the Crocodile Dundee vandal we've been tracking (and who
> popped up about the same time).


There's a pile of names all editing the same sort of posts from the IP
- appears to be a Comindico static IP. (Comindico outsource dial-up
connections from a pile of .au ISPs, and evidently do the same for
DSL.) I'll prepare a list later.

I mention it to this list because of the obvious concern over
defamatory living biographies on the wiki, and the Australian politics
vandal is doing it with malicious intent.


- d.


From dgerard at gmail.com Sun Jan 8 14:10:10 2006
From: dgerard at gmail.com (David Gerard)
Date: Sun, 8 Jan 2006 14:10:10 +0000
Subject: [Arbcom-l] Re: "Australian politics vandal" slandering again
In-Reply-To: <fbad4e140601080608i635374c5mbbd9b6d9fb0990cb at mail.gmail.com>
References: <fbad4e140601080134m324936dat919ff016a1b4c5ff at mail.gmail.com>
<fbad4e140601080248p3615c879hdc4ee55051bdc0b7 at mail.gmail.com>
<530912670601080515n3e5e82e0kbc07213d840cd210 at mail.gmail.com>
<fbad4e140601080608i635374c5mbbd9b6d9fb0990cb at mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <fbad4e140601080610q36c3da64u3d51eddf1d482f55 at mail.gmail.com>

On 1/8/06, David Gerard <dgerard at gmail.com> wrote:

> There's a fake blog for her which appears to be Landeryou's work, and
> the deleted article is based on the same material.


And I don't know Landeryou's work directly, but I am grossly
overexperienced in dealing with the type. Australian student politics
is used by the major parties as a training ground. It's just
unspeakably wonderful.


- d.

-------------- next part --------------
Thread: Darren Ray/Andrew Landeryou RFAr


From dgerard at gmail.com Thu Mar 16 13:36:11 2006
From: dgerard at gmail.com (David Gerard)
Date: Thu, 16 Mar 2006 13:36:11 +0000
Subject: [Arbcom-l] Darren Ray/Andrew Landeryou RFAr
Message-ID: <fbad4e140603160536y121624fcn at mail.gmail.com>

These guys are either the Australian Politics Vandal or are closely
associated. They are Labor Right hacks who spend all their time online
- Wikipedia and elsewhere - attempting to defame their perceived
enemies within Labor. We so don't need them in any way, shape or form.

(Australian politics: Labor is the large more-leftish party, Liberal
is the large more-rightish party. In Australia, the conservative
party, precisely analogous to the US Republicans or the UK Tories, is
called "Liberal." This doesn't make sense, but it's there.)

The correct ending in this case would be to find any suitable way to
ban both of them from Wikipedia, however it can be managed from this
RFAr.


- d.


From misfitgirl at gmail.com Mon Mar 20 05:43:02 2006
From: misfitgirl at gmail.com (Rebecca)
Date: Mon, 20 Mar 2006 16:43:02 +1100
Subject: [Arbcom-l] Darren Ray/Andrew Landeryou RFAr
In-Reply-To: <fbad4e140603160536y121624fcn at mail.gmail.com>
References: <fbad4e140603160536y121624fcn at mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <530912670603192143j38638964g8d41d8f2f2eb491c at mail.gmail.com>

Can you please finish this report and block these guys?

DarrenRay has fired up his AChan sockpuppet again, and it's frustrating
having to keep reverting him when I *know* it's a sockpuppet account.

-- ambi


From jayjg99 at gmail.com Mon Mar 20 17:18:33 2006
From: jayjg99 at gmail.com (jayjg)
Date: Mon, 20 Mar 2006 12:18:33 -0500
Subject: [Arbcom-l] Darren Ray/Andrew Landeryou RFAr
In-Reply-To: <530912670603192143j38638964g8d41d8f2f2eb491c at mail.gmail.com>
References: <fbad4e140603160536y121624fcn at mail.gmail.com>
<530912670603192143j38638964g8d41d8f2f2eb491c at mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <6a8d9d700603200918n16d05479qa8af135bd1bfb3d1 at mail.gmail.com>

Can't it just be blocked as a sockpuppet created to violate policy?

Jay.


From misfitgirl at gmail.com Tue Mar 21 05:08:33 2006
From: misfitgirl at gmail.com (Rebecca)
Date: Tue, 21 Mar 2006 16:08:33 +1100
Subject: [Arbcom-l] Darren Ray/Andrew Landeryou RFAr
In-Reply-To: <6a8d9d700603200918n16d05479qa8af135bd1bfb3d1 at mail.gmail.com>
References: <fbad4e140603160536y121624fcn at mail.gmail.com>
<530912670603192143j38638964g8d41d8f2f2eb491c at mail.gmail.com>
<6a8d9d700603200918n16d05479qa8af135bd1bfb3d1 at mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <530912670603202108m41083a49k56e9ca2e0ffe838c at mail.gmail.com>

No, it can't. I only know it's a sockpuppet because David got a conclusive
CheckUser result, although it's damned obvious in hindsight. It's also not
the only sockpuppet in action here.

Seriously, I'm just about at the end of my tether here. I'm having to spend
just about all the little wiki-time I have dealing with these idiots, and
it's got to the point where they're popping up on articles I've written just
to be a nuisance. I've known for days that there's bad-faith editing going
on here, but I can't actually *do* anything about it because I'm too
involved. So please, can *someone* do something about this, if David doesn't
have the time to finish the job? I can't take this much longer.

-- an increasingly stressed ambi


From theresaknott at gmail.com Tue Mar 21 15:35:23 2006
From: theresaknott at gmail.com (Theresa Knott)
Date: Tue, 21 Mar 2006 15:35:23 +0000
Subject: [Arbcom-l] Darren Ray/Andrew Landeryou RFAr
In-Reply-To: <530912670603202108m41083a49k56e9ca2e0ffe838c at mail.gmail.com>
References: <fbad4e140603160536y121624fcn at mail.gmail.com>
<530912670603192143j38638964g8d41d8f2f2eb491c at mail.gmail.com>
<6a8d9d700603200918n16d05479qa8af135bd1bfb3d1 at mail.gmail.com>
<530912670603202108m41083a49k56e9ca2e0ffe838c at mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <1bfe3eb0603210735y5f196e8cibc3483649ea3a6e9 at mail.gmail.com>

On 3/21/06, Rebecca <misfitgirl at gmail.com> wrote:
>
> No, it can't. I only know it's a sockpuppet because David got a conclusive
> CheckUser result, although it's damned obvious in hindsight. It's also not
> the only sockpuppet in action here.

David are you sure it's a sock? Ambi why is it obvious in hindsight?

I've had an email from Darren Ray stating that he is not running any
socks and that Adam Carr has met him and one of the socks he is being
accused of. Is there any possiblity of an error?

Theresa



From kelly.lynn.martin at gmail.com Tue Mar 21 16:28:47 2006
From: kelly.lynn.martin at gmail.com (Kelly Martin)
Date: Tue, 21 Mar 2006 10:28:47 -0600
Subject: [Arbcom-l] Darren Ray/Andrew Landeryou RFAr
In-Reply-To: <1bfe3eb0603210735y5f196e8cibc3483649ea3a6e9 at mail.gmail.com>
References: <fbad4e140603160536y121624fcn at mail.gmail.com>
<530912670603192143j38638964g8d41d8f2f2eb491c at mail.gmail.com>
<6a8d9d700603200918n16d05479qa8af135bd1bfb3d1 at mail.gmail.com>
<530912670603202108m41083a49k56e9ca2e0ffe838c at mail.gmail.com>
<1bfe3eb0603210735y5f196e8cibc3483649ea3a6e9 at mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <bd4c411e0603210828j5a187a95xd23fb9f7c277c8dd at mail.gmail.com>

On 3/21/06, Theresa Knott <theresaknott at gmail.com> wrote:
> On 3/21/06, Rebecca <misfitgirl at gmail.com> wrote:
> >
> > No, it can't. I only know it's a sockpuppet because David got a conclusive
> > CheckUser result, although it's damned obvious in hindsight. It's also not
> > the only sockpuppet in action here.
>
> David are you sure it's a sock? Ambi why is it obvious in hindsight?
>
> I've had an email from Darren Ray stating that he is not running any
> socks and that Adam Carr has met him and one of the socks he is being
> accused of. Is there any possiblity of an error?

Ok, short summary.

Darren has been editing via three different ISPs over the last month,
Internode, Telstra, and MyTelecom.

One of the IPs he used at Internode he used exclusively prior to March
1. After March 1, that IP has been used exclusively by 2006BC (except
for a user creation by BibiCass, who is likely the same person as
2006BC). The other one has edits by DarrenRay, BenjaminCass (probably
the same entity as BibiCass and 2006BC), and HamishJay as well as
several unsigned edits. There have been no edits from this IP since
February 28th.

The IP at Telstra was used by Userfreespeech up to and through March
1st, with edits consistent with DarrenRay's profile. On March 5th
this IP was being used by DarrenRay; later that evening the BibiCass
account was created via Internode. Starting on March 7th, AChan was
created on this IP and has been used for edits consistent with
DarrenRay's profile. Also on March 7th, the 2006BC account was
created via Internode. None of these edits are overlapping; rather,
they're notched.

The IP at MyTelecom has been used by DarrenRay (and assorted
sockpuppets, mostly in February) exclusively since March 7th. As best
I can tell, usage of the three accounts has NEVER overlapped, although
I'm not 100% certain.

There's too many coincidences here for it to be coincidental.

Kelly


From dmcdevit at cox.net Tue Mar 21 17:10:21 2006
From: dmcdevit at cox.net (Dmcdevit)
Date: Tue, 21 Mar 2006 09:10:21 -0800
Subject: [Arbcom-l] Darren Ray/Andrew Landeryou RFAr
In-Reply-To: <bd4c411e0603210828j5a187a95xd23fb9f7c277c8dd at mail.gmail.com>
References: <fbad4e140603160536y121624fcn at mail.gmail.com> <530912670603192143j38638964g8d41d8f2f2eb491c at mail.gmail.com> <6a8d9d700603200918n16d05479qa8af135bd1bfb3d1 at mail.gmail.com> <530912670603202108m41083a49k56e9ca2e0ffe838c at mail.gmail.com> <1bfe3eb0603210735y5f196e8cibc3483649ea3a6e9 at mail.gmail.com>
<bd4c411e0603210828j5a187a95xd23fb9f7c277c8dd at mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <4420337D.3020901 at cox.net>

That "BenjaminCass" account used by DarrenRay's is indeed interesting,
since I got an email from 2006BC asserting he's not a sockpuppet, he's a
separate person. *Named Benjamin Cass*. I don't know if everyone else
got the email, but he even gave me his phone number, and says he's knows
who Ambi is, and that she's a political opponent of his.

Dominic


From dgerard at gmail.com Tue Mar 21 17:37:50 2006
From: dgerard at gmail.com (David Gerard)
Date: Tue, 21 Mar 2006 17:37:50 +0000
Subject: [Arbcom-l] Darren Ray/Andrew Landeryou RFAr
In-Reply-To: <4420337D.3020901 at cox.net>
References: <fbad4e140603160536y121624fcn at mail.gmail.com>
<530912670603192143j38638964g8d41d8f2f2eb491c at mail.gmail.com>
<6a8d9d700603200918n16d05479qa8af135bd1bfb3d1 at mail.gmail.com>
<530912670603202108m41083a49k56e9ca2e0ffe838c at mail.gmail.com>
<1bfe3eb0603210735y5f196e8cibc3483649ea3a6e9 at mail.gmail.com>
<bd4c411e0603210828j5a187a95xd23fb9f7c277c8dd at mail.gmail.com>
<4420337D.3020901 at cox.net>
Message-ID: <fbad4e140603210937p6882f2b8t at mail.gmail.com>

On 21/03/06, Dmcdevit <dmcdevit at cox.net> wrote:

> That "BenjaminCass" account used by DarrenRay's is indeed interesting,
> since I got an email from 2006BC asserting he's not a sockpuppet, he's a
> separate person. *Named Benjamin Cass*. I don't know if everyone else
> got the email, but he even gave me his phone number, and says he's knows
> who Ambi is, and that she's a political opponent of his.


Precis:

Darren Ray (User:DarrenRay) and Ben Cass (|User:2006BC and a few other
names) are different people, working together in tandem.

They have each edited from each others' houses, but the pattern's pretty clear.

AChan is a sock of Darren Ray. Block forthwith.

Ben Cass is running and has run several other usernames.

I'm pretty much certain these guys are, together, the Australian
Politics Vandal or major components of that vandal.

They see EVERYTHING as their small political battle. I got a note on
my talk page from Ben Cass asking what my party political affiliation
was. What the fuck.

More detail later. I'll just shoot AChan now.


- d.

From dgerard at gmail.com Tue Mar 21 17:40:30 2006
From: dgerard at gmail.com (David Gerard)
Date: Tue, 21 Mar 2006 17:40:30 +0000
Subject: [Arbcom-l] Darren Ray/Andrew Landeryou RFAr
In-Reply-To: <fbad4e140603210937p6882f2b8t at mail.gmail.com>
References: <fbad4e140603160536y121624fcn at mail.gmail.com>
<530912670603192143j38638964g8d41d8f2f2eb491c at mail.gmail.com>
<6a8d9d700603200918n16d05479qa8af135bd1bfb3d1 at mail.gmail.com>
<530912670603202108m41083a49k56e9ca2e0ffe838c at mail.gmail.com>
<1bfe3eb0603210735y5f196e8cibc3483649ea3a6e9 at mail.gmail.com>
<bd4c411e0603210828j5a187a95xd23fb9f7c277c8dd at mail.gmail.com>
<4420337D.3020901 at cox.net>
<fbad4e140603210937p6882f2b8t at mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <fbad4e140603210940r88d592o at mail.gmail.com>

On 21/03/06, David Gerard <dgerard at gmail.com> wrote:

> More detail later. I'll just shoot AChan now.


I've blocked AChan indefinitely and DarrenRay 48 hours for using
sockpuppets to evade 3RR. I'm leaving notes on RFAr, ANI and his user
talk, the last noting he is still able to communicate with the AC via
email (you lucky people!).

My apologies to Ambi for taking so long on this!


- d.

From kelly.lynn.martin at gmail.com Tue Mar 21 17:47:13 2006
From: kelly.lynn.martin at gmail.com (Kelly Martin)
Date: Tue, 21 Mar 2006 11:47:13 -0600
Subject: [Arbcom-l] Darren Ray/Andrew Landeryou RFAr
In-Reply-To: <fbad4e140603210937p6882f2b8t at mail.gmail.com>
References: <fbad4e140603160536y121624fcn at mail.gmail.com>
<530912670603192143j38638964g8d41d8f2f2eb491c at mail.gmail.com>
<6a8d9d700603200918n16d05479qa8af135bd1bfb3d1 at mail.gmail.com>
<530912670603202108m41083a49k56e9ca2e0ffe838c at mail.gmail.com>
<1bfe3eb0603210735y5f196e8cibc3483649ea3a6e9 at mail.gmail.com>
<bd4c411e0603210828j5a187a95xd23fb9f7c277c8dd at mail.gmail.com>
<4420337D.3020901 at cox.net>
<fbad4e140603210937p6882f2b8t at mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <bd4c411e0603210947je389ad3u9867624f0b5b076b at mail.gmail.com>

On 3/21/06, David Gerard <dgerard at gmail.com> wrote:
> Precis:
>
> Darren Ray (User:DarrenRay) and Ben Cass (|User:2006BC and a few other
> names) are different people, working together in tandem.
>
> They have each edited from each others' houses, but the pattern's pretty clear.
>
> AChan is a sock of Darren Ray. Block forthwith.
>
> Ben Cass is running and has run several other usernames.
>
> I'm pretty much certain these guys are, together, the Australian
> Politics Vandal or major components of that vandal.
>
> They see EVERYTHING as their small political battle. I got a note on
> my talk page from Ben Cass asking what my party political affiliation
> was. What the fuck.
>
> More detail later. I'll just shoot AChan now.

Ban the lot of them for bringing an outside dispute into Wikipedia, then.

Kelly

From dgerard at gmail.com Tue Mar 21 18:09:58 2006
From: dgerard at gmail.com (David Gerard)
Date: Tue, 21 Mar 2006 18:09:58 +0000
Subject: [Arbcom-l] Darren Ray/Andrew Landeryou RFAr
In-Reply-To: <bd4c411e0603210947je389ad3u9867624f0b5b076b at mail.gmail.com>
References: <fbad4e140603160536y121624fcn at mail.gmail.com>
<530912670603192143j38638964g8d41d8f2f2eb491c at mail.gmail.com>
<6a8d9d700603200918n16d05479qa8af135bd1bfb3d1 at mail.gmail.com>
<530912670603202108m41083a49k56e9ca2e0ffe838c at mail.gmail.com>
<1bfe3eb0603210735y5f196e8cibc3483649ea3a6e9 at mail.gmail.com>
<bd4c411e0603210828j5a187a95xd23fb9f7c277c8dd at mail.gmail.com>
<4420337D.3020901 at cox.net>
<fbad4e140603210937p6882f2b8t at mail.gmail.com>
<bd4c411e0603210947je389ad3u9867624f0b5b076b at mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <fbad4e140603211009l50e94acdk at mail.gmail.com>

On 21/03/06, Kelly Martin <kelly.lynn.martin at gmail.com> wrote:
> On 3/21/06, David Gerard <dgerard at gmail.com> wrote:

> > More detail later. I'll just shoot AChan now.

> Ban the lot of them for bringing an outside dispute into Wikipedia, then.


Can do. But (a) that won't stop the Aus Politics Vandal (nothing else
has), (b) this is part of a WIDE-ranging slander campaign across the
blogosphere and wikisphere (they even hit Uncyclopedia!) and © I've
yet to flush out what names/IPs are being used by the third member of
the triumvirate, Andrew Landeryou.

An official AC ban (not block) of Darren Ray, Benjamin Cass and (if I
can find anything) Andrew Landeryou - as in, "they were also
officially banned from Wikipedia for these actions" - would severely
damage the political capital they hope to enhance with this shit,
which would probably slow them down a bit. Though I dunno if that
would be too expressly political for the AC. But they've been going at
this for *months* as the Aus Politics Vandal, and it's the one thing
that occurs to me that might affect their motivation to continue.


- d.

From theresaknott at gmail.com Tue Mar 21 19:16:08 2006
From: theresaknott at gmail.com (Theresa Knott)
Date: Tue, 21 Mar 2006 19:16:08 +0000
Subject: [Arbcom-l] Darren Ray/Andrew Landeryou RFAr
In-Reply-To: <4420337D.3020901 at cox.net>
References: <fbad4e140603160536y121624fcn at mail.gmail.com>
<530912670603192143j38638964g8d41d8f2f2eb491c at mail.gmail.com>
<6a8d9d700603200918n16d05479qa8af135bd1bfb3d1 at mail.gmail.com>
<530912670603202108m41083a49k56e9ca2e0ffe838c at mail.gmail.com>
<1bfe3eb0603210735y5f196e8cibc3483649ea3a6e9 at mail.gmail.com>
<bd4c411e0603210828j5a187a95xd23fb9f7c277c8dd at mail.gmail.com>
<4420337D.3020901 at cox.net>
Message-ID: <1bfe3eb0603211116m538f1fdfod38b0f4a36b6a901 at mail.gmail.com>

On 3/21/06, Dmcdevit <dmcdevit at cox.net> wrote:
> That "BenjaminCass" account used by DarrenRay's is indeed interesting,
> since I got an email from 2006BC asserting he's not a sockpuppet, he's a
> separate person. *Named Benjamin Cass*. I don't know if everyone else
> got the email,

No but the DarreenRay email sent to me said almost exactly the same thing.


If they are not the same person they are discussing the emails that
they intend to send.

Theresa

From theresaknott at gmail.com Tue Mar 21 19:19:08 2006
From: theresaknott at gmail.com (Theresa Knott)
Date: Tue, 21 Mar 2006 19:19:08 +0000
Subject: [Arbcom-l] Darren Ray/Andrew Landeryou RFAr
In-Reply-To: <4420337D.3020901 at cox.net>
References: <fbad4e140603160536y121624fcn at mail.gmail.com>
<530912670603192143j38638964g8d41d8f2f2eb491c at mail.gmail.com>
<6a8d9d700603200918n16d05479qa8af135bd1bfb3d1 at mail.gmail.com>
<530912670603202108m41083a49k56e9ca2e0ffe838c at mail.gmail.com>
<1bfe3eb0603210735y5f196e8cibc3483649ea3a6e9 at mail.gmail.com>
<bd4c411e0603210828j5a187a95xd23fb9f7c277c8dd at mail.gmail.com>
<4420337D.3020901 at cox.net>
Message-ID: <1bfe3eb0603211119q1c10fe12q7c1b10e80cbda984 at mail.gmail.com>

On 3/21/06, Dmcdevit <dmcdevit at cox.net> wrote:
> That "BenjaminCass" account used by DarrenRay's is indeed interesting,
but he even gave me his phone number

It wasn't <redacted> by any chance?


From dmcdevit at cox.net Tue Mar 21 19:32:03 2006
From: dmcdevit at cox.net (Dmcdevit)
Date: Tue, 21 Mar 2006 11:32:03 -0800
Subject: [Arbcom-l] Darren Ray/Andrew Landeryou RFAr
In-Reply-To: <fbad4e140603210937p6882f2b8t at mail.gmail.com>
References: <fbad4e140603160536y121624fcn at mail.gmail.com> <530912670603192143j38638964g8d41d8f2f2eb491c at mail.gmail.com> <6a8d9d700603200918n16d05479qa8af135bd1bfb3d1 at mail.gmail.com> <530912670603202108m41083a49k56e9ca2e0ffe838c at mail.gmail.com> <1bfe3eb0603210735y5f196e8cibc3483649ea3a6e9 at mail.gmail.com> <bd4c411e0603210828j5a187a95xd23fb9f7c277c8dd at mail.gmail.com> <4420337D.3020901 at cox.net>
<fbad4e140603210937p6882f2b8t at mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <442054B3.9010007 at cox.net>

Well, that's strange, because 2006BC was blocked by Essjay, using
CheckUser, as a confirmed sock of DarrenRay.

07:06, March 21, 2006 Essjay <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Essjay>
blocked "2006BC <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:2006BC> (contribs
<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/2006BC>)" with an
expiry time of indefinite ({{Sockchecked|DarrenRay}})

Which was what he emailed me about. Essjay seems to have gotten the same
email as me, and still thinks that 2006BC and DarrenRay *are* the same.
Or I'm reading it wrong. He left this message on 2006BC's talk page
(which should probably be protected if he keeps up the ranting there):

"I received your email; I am not making an international phone call at
my own expense to discuss sockpuppetry. You may plead your case to the
Arbitration Committee via email; I ran the checkuser, I saw the results,
I reviewed them with two other checkusers, and I blocked eight obvious
sockpupets. The evidence has been made available to the Arbitration
Committee, and the matter is in thier hands now. Essjay
<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Essjay> ^/Talk/
<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Essjay> ? /Contact/
<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Essjay/Contact> 08:54, 21 March 2006
(UTC)"

Utterly confused,
Dominic


From dmcdevit at cox.net Tue Mar 21 19:39:37 2006
From: dmcdevit at cox.net (Dmcdevit)
Date: Tue, 21 Mar 2006 11:39:37 -0800
Subject: [Arbcom-l] Darren Ray/Andrew Landeryou RFAr
In-Reply-To: <1bfe3eb0603211119q1c10fe12q7c1b10e80cbda984 at mail.gmail.com>
References: <fbad4e140603160536y121624fcn at mail.gmail.com> <530912670603192143j38638964g8d41d8f2f2eb491c at mail.gmail.com> <6a8d9d700603200918n16d05479qa8af135bd1bfb3d1 at mail.gmail.com> <530912670603202108m41083a49k56e9ca2e0ffe838c at mail.gmail.com> <1bfe3eb0603210735y5f196e8cibc3483649ea3a6e9 at mail.gmail.com> <bd4c411e0603210828j5a187a95xd23fb9f7c277c8dd at mail.gmail.com> <4420337D.3020901 at cox.net>
<1bfe3eb0603211119q1c10fe12q7c1b10e80cbda984 at mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <44205679.3050000 at cox.net>

No it's something else. Actually, it's a 10-digit number, not including
the country code 61, which strikes me as wrong (but maybe that's just
because I don't make international calls?). In any case, my college
phone card has much better uses than a call to Australia for this. :-)

Dominic

From dgerard at gmail.com Tue Mar 21 20:30:10 2006
From: dgerard at gmail.com (David Gerard)
Date: Tue, 21 Mar 2006 20:30:10 +0000
Subject: [Arbcom-l] Darren Ray/Andrew Landeryou RFAr
In-Reply-To: <1bfe3eb0603211116m538f1fdfod38b0f4a36b6a901 at mail.gmail.com>
References: <fbad4e140603160536y121624fcn at mail.gmail.com>
<530912670603192143j38638964g8d41d8f2f2eb491c at mail.gmail.com>
<6a8d9d700603200918n16d05479qa8af135bd1bfb3d1 at mail.gmail.com>
<530912670603202108m41083a49k56e9ca2e0ffe838c at mail.gmail.com>
<1bfe3eb0603210735y5f196e8cibc3483649ea3a6e9 at mail.gmail.com>
<bd4c411e0603210828j5a187a95xd23fb9f7c277c8dd at mail.gmail.com>
<4420337D.3020901 at cox.net>
<1bfe3eb0603211116m538f1fdfod38b0f4a36b6a901 at mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <fbad4e140603211230t59b67a08q at mail.gmail.com>

On 21/03/06, Theresa Knott <theresaknott at gmail.com> wrote:

> No but the DarreenRay email sent to me said almost exactly the same thing.
> If they are not the same person they are discussing the emails that
> they intend to send.


They're different people (real-life humans called Darren Ray and
Benjamin Cass), and they are definitely working in concert.


- d.


From misfitgirl at gmail.com Wed Mar 22 02:17:56 2006
From: misfitgirl at gmail.com (Rebecca)
Date: Wed, 22 Mar 2006 13:17:56 +1100
Subject: [Arbcom-l] Darren Ray/Andrew Landeryou RFAr
In-Reply-To: <fbad4e140603211230t59b67a08q at mail.gmail.com>
References: <fbad4e140603160536y121624fcn at mail.gmail.com>
<530912670603192143j38638964g8d41d8f2f2eb491c at mail.gmail.com>
<6a8d9d700603200918n16d05479qa8af135bd1bfb3d1 at mail.gmail.com>
<530912670603202108m41083a49k56e9ca2e0ffe838c at mail.gmail.com>
<1bfe3eb0603210735y5f196e8cibc3483649ea3a6e9 at mail.gmail.com>
<bd4c411e0603210828j5a187a95xd23fb9f7c277c8dd at mail.gmail.com>
<4420337D.3020901 at cox.net>
<1bfe3eb0603211116m538f1fdfod38b0f4a36b6a901 at mail.gmail.com>
<fbad4e140603211230t59b67a08q at mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <530912670603211817x729ad6cbkb402c19829c2e233 at mail.gmail.com>

I'm fairly sure that the Australian Politics Vandal is not the same user,
and I still think that, based on what David has said previously, Landeryou
is the likely candidate. That user was obsessed with two articles which Ray
has never touched, and the IP addresses (I had Essjay run a check last
night) don't match. As far as I can see, the Australian Politics Vandal
hasn't been around since Ericdu in late January. While the two are obviously
ideologically aligned, I don't think they're the same person.

Just to clear one other thing up, re Dmcdevit's email earlier saying he'd
received an email saying that DarrenRay "knew who I was" and that I "was a
political opponent of his". One of the targets of the Australian Politics
Vandal is a very minor political figure by the name of Paula Rizzuto, who
David knows personally. I reverted his attempts at slandering her, and if I
recall rightly may have nominated the article for deletion. On that basis,
this idiot came to the conclusion that I must have been Rizzuto, and has
been running around announcing this to all and sundry. Unsurprisingly, this
is complete nonsense. We don't even live in the same state.

-- ambi

-------------- next part --------------
From essjaywiki at gmail.com Tue Mar 21 09:53:32 2006
From: essjaywiki at gmail.com (- Essjay -)
Date: Tue, 21 Mar 2006 04:53:32 -0500
Subject: [Arbcom-l] DarrenRay sockpuppetry
Message-ID: <3f56c95e0603210153j4f2ceca6gc0b9cd9652a27b72 at mail.gmail.com>


As I said on RfAr, I'm providing my raw results here. They are attached as a
text file. I'm also maintaining a copy in case more checks need to be run.
I'm working on a breakdown to put into evidence.

I indefblocked a total of eight socks, I believe, as well as giving
DarrenRay a month block for using them all. I'm willing to unblock him (or
for someone else to do it) to participate in the arbitration, but am not
inclined to do so unless the committee requests it.

On two housekeeping notes, while I'm emailing in:

1) Thank you very much for granting me the permissions, I'm very honored to
be trusted with the responsibility.

2) Would it be possible to get write-access to arbcom-l for these
situations; I know read access is restricted due to the sensitive matters
discussed, but it would be helpful to be able to forward on results such as
this, especially since I'm the only checkuser who doesn't have write access
to the list already. Of course, I can always do as I've done in the past,
and put it in the moderated queue.

Essjay
-----
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Essjay
Wikipedia:The Free Encyclopedia
http://www.wikipedia.org/
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <a href="http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/private/arbcom-l/attachments/20060321/122fc6cb/attachment.htm" target="_
User is offlineProfile CardPM
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
MaliceAforethought
post Wed 29th June 2011, 2:05am
Post #3


u Mad?
***

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



From User.CoolHandLuke at gmail.com Mon Nov 30 14:51:39 2009
From: User.CoolHandLuke at gmail.com (Cool Hand Luke)
Date: Mon, 30 Nov 2009 08:51:39 -0600
Subject: [arbcom-l] Wording of David Gerard motion
In-Reply-To: <deea21830911300546v43923e39n8c77d5c59a59d42d@mail.gmail.com>
References: <16032ea0911300112o5fac8654h64dd6e32af9469b8@mail.gmail.com>
<deea21830911300238x2e08db6cmd034149b2507fcb7@mail.gmail.com>
<deea21830911300546v43923e39n8c77d5c59a59d42d@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <8ec76cd10911300651v25c94756l1a8fcaab7d4ecd02@mail.gmail.com>

Thanks, John.

I have no problem with more precisely describing how David Gerard's conduct
was improper, but I'm surprised and demoralized that a WMF official believes
that it was acceptable, whereas we're supposedly acting out of a grudge. In
my view, this was a more clear-cut decision than many we've made this year
(including JayJG and Raul654), yet this is the only one where anyone from
the foundation has intervened.

Frank
----------
From marc at uberbox.org Mon Nov 30 15:05:04 2009
From: marc at uberbox.org (Marc A. Pelletier)
Date: Mon, 30 Nov 2009 10:05:04 -0500
Subject: [arbcom-l] Wording of David Gerard motion
In-Reply-To: <8ec76cd10911300651v25c94756l1a8fcaab7d4ecd02@mail.gmail.com>
References: <16032ea0911300112o5fac8654h64dd6e32af9469b8@mail.gmail.com>
<deea21830911300238x2e08db6cmd034149b2507fcb7@mail.gmail.com>
<deea21830911300546v43923e39n8c77d5c59a59d42d@mail.gmail.com>
<8ec76cd10911300651v25c94756l1a8fcaab7d4ecd02@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <4B13DF20.7070604@uberbox.org>

Cool Hand Luke wrote:
> Thanks, John.
>
> I have no problem with more precisely describing how David Gerard's
> conduct was improper, but I'm surprised and demoralized that a WMF
> official believes that it was acceptable, whereas we're supposedly
> acting out of a grudge. In my view, this was a more clear-cut decision
> than many we've made this year (including JayJG and Raul654), yet this
> is the only one where anyone from the foundation has intervened.


I have requested intervention from Jimmy and Cary. I found those
accusations to be unacceptable, and that even with a disclaimer that he
is not wearing his counselor hat, they are damaging and prejudicial
coming from Mike.

And I know others have expressed those concerns to be privately.

We might be doomed to suffer this from the WR crowd, but we do not have
to accept being mistreated thusly by a foundation officer.

-- Coren / Marc
-----------
From sydney.poore at gmail.com Mon Nov 30 15:09:02 2009
From: sydney.poore at gmail.com (FloNight)
Date: Mon, 30 Nov 2009 10:09:02 -0500
Subject: [arbcom-l] Fwd: [Functionaries-en] Fwd: Motion regarding your
recent blog post
In-Reply-To: <16032ea0911300707w1036e271udc21e28a3fc10b81@mail.gmail.com>
References: <4b12d208.1067f10a.54e1.ffffcb58@mx.google.com>
<7d0f4c330911291856u1f7fd1edsdd6ba17abe050b9a@mail.gmail.com>
<4B13352B.70908@uberbox.org> <4B13AF70.3090704@uberbox.org>
<7d0f4c330911300422v5d07f4d1p53a99dffad335e4c@mail.gmail.com>
<deea21830911300517o7d5dbc5fwf73cb5c98b9509e5@mail.gmail.com>
<7d0f4c330911300539hb2f2e19i6d616871fd68ca1e@mail.gmail.com>
<16032ea0911300558r38680c5fr5e3d62643e7818b2@mail.gmail.com>
<7d0f4c330911300612t64eee07eyb6c89d8ace4796@mail.gmail.com>
<16032ea0911300707w1036e271udc21e28a3fc10b81@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <16032ea0911300709n49e2f650i5c66e47869b0076c@mail.gmail.com>

--------- Forwarded message ----------
From: FloNight <sydney.poore at gmail.com>
Date: Mon, Nov 30, 2009 at 10:07 AM
Subject: Re: [Functionaries-en] Fwd: Motion regarding your recent blog post
To: mnemonic at gmail.com


On Mon, Nov 30, 2009 at 9:12 AM, Mike Godwin <mnemonic at gmail.com> wrote:

> FloNight writes:
>
> In this situation David definitively linked the name of a real person to a
>> checkuser investigation which means that the person must be an user. There
>> was no supporting evidence for the claim. So, either David misremembered
>> that there was no evidence, or David decided to make a public accusation
>> without evidence. Either way, David was careless in the way that he outed
>> this person in a definitive way.
>>
>
> How do you reconcile this statement with FT2's statement here:
>
>
> "It should also be noted DBuckner publicly self disclosed his identity
> on-wiki 2 months before the RFC (see link here and probably other places).
> <
> http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=...les&oldid=24992
> 9690#Farewell_from_American_linguist<http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Jimbo_Wales&oldid=249929690#Farewell_from_American_linguist>>"
> ?
>
> David did this with no regard to the harm that could come to the person
>> by making this link. And when approached by the person, he revealed their
>> private correspondence and mocked them.
>>
>
> I'm not sure what you're referring to here, but this seems far afield from
> a checkuser issue.
>
>
>> When approached by ArbCom about our concern, rather than address the
>> actual issue, David attempted to take the discussion off topic and turn it
>> into a grudge match.
>>
>
> Is it possible that David interpreted this approach -- was it from ArbCom
> as a whole or just a particular member? -- as representing an
> already-existing "grudge"?
>
> Look, I understand that you may be impatient with people who are impatient
> with ArbCom, but so what? Impatience and irritation are not themselves sins.
>
>
>> I do not consider any of this conduct appropriate for someone with special
>> permissions.
>>
>
> Can you point me to an objectively stated standard that makes clear that
> this conduct is "inappropriate"? Because in the absence of such a standard
> it is hard for me not to interpret this statement as an expression of
> personal feeling rather than as application of neutral principles.
>
>
>> I support making the wording of the announcement better reflect the
>> Committee's actual concerns if the wording is not clear. And if David
>> contacts the Committee then I'll have my final decision reflect his input.
>>
>
> I think David probably should contact the Committee, but I hope his doing
> so is seen as an opportunity for constructive dialog rather than simply an
> excuse to reaffirm what strikes me as a one-sided decision arrived at
> without equitable process.
>
>
> --Mike
>

I was addressing David linking Landeryou name to a sock ring when as far as
I can tell there was no definitive evidence that Landeryou was involved.
I'm sorry if my formating did not make that clear.

ArbCom is elected by the Community to evaluated these situations and make a
decision about whether an user is acting within policy. We evaluate the
information and vote.

David himself has participated in and supported the authority of the
Arbitration Committee to make behind the scene decisions about selecting and
removing people from special permissions.

If you review my voting record over the past 3 years, you will see that my
approach is consistent.

Unpleasant reactions to ruling is all in a days work around this place.

Votes to separate users from their tools always gets a strong reaction from
the wikifriends of the user.

Votes to ban users have resulted in trolling and harassment.

Not pleasant to experience but someone has to do it.

Sydney
----------
From newyorkbrad at gmail.com Mon Nov 30 15:23:06 2009
From: newyorkbrad at gmail.com (Newyorkbrad (Wikipedia))
Date: Mon, 30 Nov 2009 10:23:06 -0500
Subject: [arbcom-l] David Gerard - potential amendment to motion - HIGH
PRIORITY
Message-ID: <c52819d30911300723p654c1842p453fcf8598a886ac@mail.gmail.com>

My thoughts on the current situation:

1. I take it, despite the criticism of the substance of our decision on
Functionaries-l, that we stand by the decision that David Gerard should no
longer be a Checkuser or Oversighter.

2. The concerns expressed over the preamble to our motion, specifically the
reference to "unwarranted dissemination of private data acquired using
privileged rights," were completely predictable. I had some qualms about
this wording on Saturday night, and when I saw David's response yesterday
morning, it was obvious that this would become an issue and that there
should be some focus on the wording.

3. I didn't have a chance to make this point yesterday morning, because the
decision that David's response was insufficient and we would go ahead and
publish the motion was made while I was either sleep or away from my
computer. Hindsight is 20:20 but in the absence of an immediate emergency
it would have been better to allow a little bit more time and achieve a
greater degree of consensus among us before making this decision. It is a
scientifically proven fact that I provide little if any useful input to this
list when I'm asleep, and I believe this goes equally for most of the other
arbitrators. Enough said on that.

4. Whether David's indecorous Tweet and blog post involved "dissemination
of private information" is a matter of how broadly or narrowly one
interprets that phrase. On the one hand, his writings could certainly (and
were certainly) read as stating or at least implying that he was relying on
information he obtained in his status as a Wikipedia functionary with
advanced access. On the other hand, there was no dissemination of IP
addresses or the like which is how some people seem to be narrowly
interpreting the phrase "private information."

5. There is no NEED to decide, for purpose of a motion removing David's
Checkuser and Oversight status, whether he "disseminated private
information" or whether his overstepping is best described in other ways.
By avoiding reference to dissemination of private data, we also avoid the
question of whether this issue falls within ArbCom's bailiwick in the first
instance or whether it was more the responsibility of either AUSC or the
Ombudsmen.

6. It is not clear to me whether David is asking us (or anyone) to
reconsider his Checkusership/Oversightship/Functionaryship, or merely to
have the allegation regarding access to private information withdrawn. I do
not know whether it would be worthwhile to clarify this.

7. It is not clear to me whether Mike Godwin has been in communication with
David on any of these issues. I do not know whether it would be worthwhile
to clarify this.

8. I think it is desirable that we remove the reference to dissemination of
private information obtained through privileged access from our formal
motion. This can be done most easily simply by making a neutral reference
to the events in question, without characterizing them. I offer a draft of
a motion below.

9. If we adopt a modification of the motion, we would need to consider
whether to provide an on-wiki explanation for the change. My current
thinking is no, but we can discuss this.

10. We should also consider whether to add some sort of thank you for the
service that David has provided to Wikipedia outside the problematic
aspects.

Newyorkbrad

DRAFT MOTION FOR DISCUSSION

The Arbitration Committee's motion of November 28-29, 2009 concerning David
Gerard is amended by deleting the words "and for unwarranted dissemination
of private data acquired using privileged rights" and substituting the words
"including the events of November 27, 2009"
----------
From User.CoolHandLuke at gmail.com Mon Nov 30 15:35:01 2009
From: User.CoolHandLuke at gmail.com (Cool Hand Luke)
Date: Mon, 30 Nov 2009 09:35:01 -0600
Subject: [arbcom-l] David Gerard - potential amendment to motion - HIGH
PRIORITY
In-Reply-To: <c52819d30911300723p654c1842p453fcf8598a886ac@mail.gmail.com>
References: <c52819d30911300723p654c1842p453fcf8598a886ac@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <8ec76cd10911300735t7beabf14pc36012b6dbeebb82@mail.gmail.com>

On Mon, Nov 30, 2009 at 9:23 AM, Newyorkbrad (Wikipedia) <
newyorkbrad at gmail.com> wrote:

> My thoughts on the current situation:
>
> 1. I take it, despite the criticism of the substance of our decision on
> Functionaries-l, that we stand by the decision that David Gerard should no
> longer be a Checkuser or Oversighter.
>
> 2. The concerns expressed over the preamble to our motion, specifically
> the reference to "unwarranted dissemination of private data acquired using
> privileged rights," were completely predictable. I had some qualms about
> this wording on Saturday night, and when I saw David's response yesterday
> morning, it was obvious that this would become an issue and that there
> should be some focus on the wording.
>
> 3. I didn't have a chance to make this point yesterday morning, because
> the decision that David's response was insufficient and we would go ahead
> and publish the motion was made while I was either sleep or away from my
> computer. Hindsight is 20:20 but in the absence of an immediate emergency
> it would have been better to allow a little bit more time and achieve a
> greater degree of consensus among us before making this decision. It is a
> scientifically proven fact that I provide little if any useful input to this
> list when I'm asleep, and I believe this goes equally for most of the other
> arbitrators. Enough said on that.
>
> 4. Whether David's indecorous Tweet and blog post involved "dissemination
> of private information" is a matter of how broadly or narrowly one
> interprets that phrase. On the one hand, his writings could certainly (and
> were certainly) read as stating or at least implying that he was relying on
> information he obtained in his status as a Wikipedia functionary with
> advanced access. On the other hand, there was no dissemination of IP
> addresses or the like which is how some people seem to be narrowly
> interpreting the phrase "private information."
>
> 5. There is no NEED to decide, for purpose of a motion removing David's
> Checkuser and Oversight status, whether he "disseminated private
> information" or whether his overstepping is best described in other ways.
> By avoiding reference to dissemination of private data, we also avoid the
> question of whether this issue falls within ArbCom's bailiwick in the first
> instance or whether it was more the responsibility of either AUSC or the
> Ombudsmen.
>
> 6. It is not clear to me whether David is asking us (or anyone) to
> reconsider his Checkusership/Oversightship/Functionaryship, or merely to
> have the allegation regarding access to private information withdrawn. I do
> not know whether it would be worthwhile to clarify this.
>
> 7. It is not clear to me whether Mike Godwin has been in communication
> with David on any of these issues. I do not know whether it would be
> worthwhile to clarify this.
>
> 8. I think it is desirable that we remove the reference to dissemination
> of private information obtained through privileged access from our formal
> motion. This can be done most easily simply by making a neutral reference
> to the events in question, without characterizing them. I offer a draft of
> a motion below.
>
> 9. If we adopt a modification of the motion, we would need to consider
> whether to provide an on-wiki explanation for the change. My current
> thinking is no, but we can discuss this.
>
> 10. We should also consider whether to add some sort of thank you for the
> service that David has provided to Wikipedia outside the problematic
> aspects.
>
> Newyorkbrad
>
> DRAFT MOTION FOR DISCUSSION
>
> The Arbitration Committee's motion of November 28-29, 2009 concerning David
> Gerard is amended by deleting the words "and for unwarranted dissemination
> of private data acquired using privileged rights" and substituting the words
> "including the events of November 27, 2009"
>
>

I do not have access to the ArbCom wiki, if this will be voted there, but I
*SUPPORT *the change and hope that we can pass it in an expedited manner.

Most functionaries do not appear to disagree that Gerard's post was bad
judgment, and I would rather hang the decision on that than split hairs
about the Platonic meaning of private information.

Frank
----------
From stephen.bain at gmail.com Mon Nov 30 15:37:41 2009
From: stephen.bain at gmail.com (Stephen Bain)
Date: Tue, 1 Dec 2009 02:37:41 +1100
Subject: [arbcom-l] David Gerard - potential amendment to motion - HIGH
PRIORITY
In-Reply-To: <c52819d30911300723p654c1842p453fcf8598a886ac@mail.gmail.com>
References: <c52819d30911300723p654c1842p453fcf8598a886ac@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <f30e42de0911300737l64b6aae3ibf91c7bd835dfa41@mail.gmail.com>

On Tue, Dec 1, 2009 at 2:23 AM, Newyorkbrad (Wikipedia)
<newyorkbrad at gmail.com> wrote:
>
> 4.? Whether David's indecorous Tweet and blog?post involved "dissemination
> of private information" is a matter of how broadly or narrowly one
> interprets that phrase.? On the one hand, his?writings could certainly (and
> were?certainly) read as stating or at least implying that he was relying on
> information he?obtained in his status as a Wikipedia functionary with
> advanced access.? On the other hand, there was no dissemination of IP
> addresses or the like which is how some people seem to be narrowly
> interpreting the phrase "private information."

Substitute "misuse" for "dissemination". The incident can be fairly
characterised as the use of data obtained by the CheckUser tool for
the purpose of attacking/criticising/etc Landeryou, a use case not
contemplated by the CheckUser policy. It is not necessary for
CheckUser data to be published for it to be misused.

--
Stephen Bain
stephen.bain at gmail.com
----------
From newyorkbrad at gmail.com Mon Nov 30 16:28:59 2009
From: newyorkbrad at gmail.com (Newyorkbrad (Wikipedia))
Date: Mon, 30 Nov 2009 11:28:59 -0500
Subject: [arbcom-l] David Gerard - potential amendment to motion - HIGH
PRIORITY
In-Reply-To: <f30e42de0911300737l64b6aae3ibf91c7bd835dfa41@mail.gmail.com>
References: <c52819d30911300723p654c1842p453fcf8598a886ac@mail.gmail.com>
<f30e42de0911300737l64b6aae3ibf91c7bd835dfa41@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <c52819d30911300828o770d5517mfbeb68868ac9a411@mail.gmail.com>

He'll still argue endlessly about the wording; I prefer my reformulation
which eliminates the issue entirely, while leaving the most recent basis for
our action clear.

Newyorkbrad
----------
From roger.davies.wiki at googlemail.com Mon Nov 30 16:35:17 2009
From: roger.davies.wiki at googlemail.com (Roger Davies)
Date: Mon, 30 Nov 2009 16:35:17 +0000
Subject: [arbcom-l] David Gerard - potential amendment to motion - HIGH
PRIORITY
In-Reply-To: <c52819d30911300828o770d5517mfbeb68868ac9a411@mail.gmail.com>
References: <c52819d30911300723p654c1842p453fcf8598a886ac@mail.gmail.com> <f30e42de0911300737l64b6aae3ibf91c7bd835dfa41@mail.gmail.com>
<c52819d30911300828o770d5517mfbeb68868ac9a411@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <4B13F445.3080106@gmail.com>


I agree with Brad here.

Roger


Newyorkbrad (Wikipedia) wrote:
> He'll still argue endlessly about the wording; I prefer my
> reformulation which eliminates the issue entirely, while leaving the
> most recent basis for our action clear.
>
> Newyorkbrad
-----------
From stephen.bain at gmail.com Mon Nov 30 16:37:46 2009
From: stephen.bain at gmail.com (Stephen Bain)
Date: Tue, 1 Dec 2009 03:37:46 +1100
Subject: [arbcom-l] David Gerard - potential amendment to motion - HIGH
PRIORITY
In-Reply-To: <c52819d30911300828o770d5517mfbeb68868ac9a411@mail.gmail.com>
References: <c52819d30911300723p654c1842p453fcf8598a886ac@mail.gmail.com>
<f30e42de0911300737l64b6aae3ibf91c7bd835dfa41@mail.gmail.com>
<c52819d30911300828o770d5517mfbeb68868ac9a411@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <f30e42de0911300837r76c34f4arb37fa61d0b6b7ee7@mail.gmail.com>

On Tue, Dec 1, 2009 at 3:28 AM, Newyorkbrad (Wikipedia)
<newyorkbrad at gmail.com> wrote:
> He'll still argue endlessly about the wording; I prefer my reformulation
> which eliminates the issue entirely, while leaving the most recent basis for
> our action clear.

Your modification would be my second choice. I will say that re your
point #9, removing a section would be more likely to prompt calls for
further explanation than would clarifying the existing motion by using
more precise language.

--
Stephen Bain
stephen.bain at gmail.com
----------
From risker.wp at gmail.com Mon Nov 30 17:16:41 2009
From: risker.wp at gmail.com (Risker)
Date: Mon, 30 Nov 2009 12:16:41 -0500
Subject: [arbcom-l] David Gerard - potential amendment to motion - HIGH
PRIORITY
In-Reply-To: <f30e42de0911300837r76c34f4arb37fa61d0b6b7ee7@mail.gmail.com>
References: <c52819d30911300723p654c1842p453fcf8598a886ac@mail.gmail.com>
<f30e42de0911300737l64b6aae3ibf91c7bd835dfa41@mail.gmail.com>
<c52819d30911300828o770d5517mfbeb68868ac9a411@mail.gmail.com>
<f30e42de0911300837r76c34f4arb37fa61d0b6b7ee7@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <eb45e7c0911300916i13b4ec3fi1b0dfd7689af8699@mail.gmail.com>

I am fine with NYB's proposed rewording. Like CHL, I do not have access to
the arbcom wiki so please include me in support. Let us take our time with
this, though; we can only do this once. Please note that there has been no
significant concern about this expressed onwiki; if anything, the response
has been positive. We should be cognizant of the opinion of the community
we represent as well, and shouldn't allow ourselves to be pulled into
unnecessary drama.

I also have no doubt whatsoever that David is getting full copies of all of
the emails to Functionaries-L; whether or not they are going out through
Mike or someone else is irrelevant, and we should keep this firmly in
mind.

The AUSC issue is a red herring; the AUSC reports to us, and we make
decisions based on their reports.

I too would have preferred a bit more talking before activating the motion;
however, what is done is done and this was an unequivocal vote to remove
David from these positions. I looked over his posts to functionaries-L and
found little useful criticism of the committee, some helpful historical or
technical information, a fair amount of drama mongering, and plenty of
pushes for us to get rid of vested contributors (yes, the irony!). I cannot
help wondering if it simply hasn't sunk in to some of the longterm vested
contributors that, bluntly, they are a significant part of the problem that
this iteration of the committee was elected to address.

Somewhat out of context, but brought a smile to my face: This post to
functionaries-L by David back in February: "And really. If checkusers
aren't trusted not to tell, they shouldn't be checkusers."
link<https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/private/functionaries-en/2009-February/000873.html>
---------
From marc at uberbox.org Mon Nov 30 17:17:50 2009
From: marc at uberbox.org (Marc A. Pelletier)
Date: Mon, 30 Nov 2009 12:17:50 -0500
Subject: [arbcom-l] David Gerard - potential amendment to motion - HIGH
PRIORITY
In-Reply-To: <c52819d30911300723p654c1842p453fcf8598a886ac@mail.gmail.com>
References: <c52819d30911300723p654c1842p453fcf8598a886ac@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <4B13FE3E.1080100@uberbox.org>

Newyorkbrad (Wikipedia) wrote:
> The Arbitration Committee's motion of November 28-29, 2009 concerning
> David Gerard is amended by deleting the words "and for unwarranted
> dissemination of private data acquired using privileged rights" and
> substituting the words "including the events of November 27, 2009"


I will support the motion, but I will comment on-wiki to the effect that
the Nov 27 event is viewed by members of the committee as misuse, but
that the opinions on whether, and how much, it constitutes dissemination
are more nuanced and that they were not pivotal in passing the motion
and thus reference to that aspect is best left off.

-- Coren / Marc
----------
From risker.wp at gmail.com Mon Nov 30 17:23:43 2009
From: risker.wp at gmail.com (Risker)
Date: Mon, 30 Nov 2009 12:23:43 -0500
Subject: [arbcom-l] David Gerard - potential amendment to motion - HIGH
PRIORITY
In-Reply-To: <4B13FE3E.1080100@uberbox.org>
References: <c52819d30911300723p654c1842p453fcf8598a886ac@mail.gmail.com>
<4B13FE3E.1080100@uberbox.org>
Message-ID: <eb45e7c0911300923r6a1791d8l67eca1946d380859@mail.gmail.com>

Keep in mind that the issue we are hearing from Mike isn't about the
"dissemination" vs "misuse" one....it is about the use of the term "private
data".

A
----------
From sydney.poore at gmail.com Mon Nov 30 17:16:10 2009
From: sydney.poore at gmail.com (FloNight)
Date: Mon, 30 Nov 2009 12:16:10 -0500
Subject: [arbcom-l] David Gerard - potential amendment to motion - HIGH
PRIORITY
In-Reply-To: <f30e42de0911300737l64b6aae3ibf91c7bd835dfa41@mail.gmail.com>
References: <c52819d30911300723p654c1842p453fcf8598a886ac@mail.gmail.com>
<f30e42de0911300737l64b6aae3ibf91c7bd835dfa41@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <16032ea0911300916h367f31fbwf66fd20f793613e6@mail.gmail.com>

On Mon, Nov 30, 2009 at 10:37 AM, Stephen Bain <stephen.bain at gmail.com>wrote:

> On Tue, Dec 1, 2009 at 2:23 AM, Newyorkbrad (Wikipedia)
> <newyorkbrad at gmail.com> wrote:
> >
> > 4. Whether David's indecorous Tweet and blog post involved
> "dissemination
> > of private information" is a matter of how broadly or narrowly one
> > interprets that phrase. On the one hand, his writings could certainly
> (and
> > were certainly) read as stating or at least implying that he was relying
> on
> > information he obtained in his status as a Wikipedia functionary with
> > advanced access. On the other hand, there was no dissemination of IP
> > addresses or the like which is how some people seem to be narrowly
> > interpreting the phrase "private information."
>
> Substitute "misuse" for "dissemination". The incident can be fairly
> characterised as the use of data obtained by the CheckUser tool for
> the purpose of attacking/criticising/etc Landeryou, a use case not
> contemplated by the CheckUser policy. It is not necessary for
> CheckUser data to be published for it to be misused.
>
> --
> Stephen Bain
> stephen.bain at gmail.com


I'm okay with Brad's wording.

My preference would be to tweak the wording so it still includes a concern
about naming a user. But I'm unclear as to what wording to use and I'm not
going to be around the rest of the day to work it out.

So, either approach is fine with me.

Sydney
----------
From marc at uberbox.org Mon Nov 30 17:25:49 2009
From: marc at uberbox.org (Marc A. Pelletier)
Date: Mon, 30 Nov 2009 12:25:49 -0500
Subject: [arbcom-l] David Gerard - potential amendment to motion - HIGH
PRIORITY
In-Reply-To: <eb45e7c0911300923r6a1791d8l67eca1946d380859@mail.gmail.com>
References: <c52819d30911300723p654c1842p453fcf8598a886ac@mail.gmail.com>
<4B13FE3E.1080100@uberbox.org>
<eb45e7c0911300923r6a1791d8l67eca1946d380859@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <4B14001D.6010609@uberbox.org>

Risker wrote:
> Keep in mind that the issue we are hearing from Mike isn't about the
> "dissemination" vs "misuse" one....it is about the use of the term
> "private data".


Yes, and I still believe he's completely wrong.

-- Coren / Marc
----------
From risker.wp at gmail.com Mon Nov 30 17:34:23 2009
From: risker.wp at gmail.com (Risker)
Date: Mon, 30 Nov 2009 12:34:23 -0500
Subject: [arbcom-l] David Gerard - potential amendment to motion - HIGH
PRIORITY
In-Reply-To: <4B14001D.6010609@uberbox.org>
References: <c52819d30911300723p654c1842p453fcf8598a886ac@mail.gmail.com>
<4B13FE3E.1080100@uberbox.org>
<eb45e7c0911300923r6a1791d8l67eca1946d380859@mail.gmail.com>
<4B14001D.6010609@uberbox.org>
Message-ID: <eb45e7c0911300934w3f609ce1wf0879a7a761b94d3@mail.gmail.com>

2009/11/30 Marc A. Pelletier <marc at uberbox.org>

> Risker wrote:
> > Keep in mind that the issue we are hearing from Mike isn't about the
> > "dissemination" vs "misuse" one....it is about the use of the term
> > "private data".
>
>
> Yes, and I still believe he's completely wrong.
>
>
>
For the record, so do I. I work with privacy legislation on a daily basis in
my workplace, and that would have been considered a breach here. Mind you,
we have a proper definition, not a vague concept.

Anne
----------
From: dgerard at gmail.com (David Gerard)
Date: Mon, 30 Nov 2009 21:30:09 +0000
Subject: [arbcom-l] A letter to arbcom over recent concerns
Message-ID: <fbad4e140911301330p64903beco3957446114632d69@mail.gmail.com>

We have a problem. But I'm willing to work towards a solution with
you, and I hope you're willing too. I've been in discussion with Mike
Godwin about how to resolve all this (and he is forwarding this to
functionaries-en for me).

I fully admit that I'm an acerbic pain in the arse, and have spent
most of this year on functionaries-en haranguing the 2009 arbcom about
what I think are its failings.

I understand that my tone as well as my substance has irritated some
of you - I hoped, however, that the criticisms would spur serious
thinking about what I perceive to be problems. I regret having
conveyed instead the impression that I can't work with you at all.

This will certainly be something we need much ongoing discussion of,
hopefully productive. I've stayed on the functionaries list because
it's important to the project and informs my ongoing volunteer work
for the Foundation.

So, I think we all agree that I could be a better, more diplomatic
collaborator, and I'm willing to try to do that.

There is, however, one thing that needs immediate resolution. Members
of the Arbitration Committee have issued the following
characterization of my use of checkuser and oversight powers:

"for unwarranted dissemination of private data acquired using
privileged rights."

This phrase is explicitly used as a reason for withdrawal of
"checkuser and oversight rights".

Apart from other disagreements with the 2009 Arbitration Committee
over the course of this year, this statement is not merely untrue, but
seriously defamatory. The clear implication is a violation of
checkuser privacy. As I work as a Unix systems administrator, this is
seriously problematic to my professional standing.

This is not merely hypothetical; thirty hours later, it's already
being taken as the case by Wikipedia Review, who are also discussing
in this thread how to spread it far and wide:

http://wikipediareview.com/index.php?showtopic=27610&st=20

And respected user Thatcher clearly took that as the implication on
Wikipedia itself:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_tal...rd#David_Gerard

You can see there's a problem there. There's actually no evidence to
support the obvious implication of your words. I have never disclosed
private information derived from checkuser or oversight powers, nor
would I.

I'm afraid I must require that the claim be withdrawn, and that those
who signed the motion state so on the wiki - an appropriate statement
such as this: "We accept that there is no evidence that David Gerard
has at any stage violated the privacy policy with regard to checkuser
or oversight in any manner. We did not at any stage intend any such
inference to be drawn, and withdraw any such implication unreservedly"
- would undo some of the damage to my reputation, and I'd regard it as
proof on your part of a good-faith belief in our potential to work
constructively together in the future.

You could add in a separate paragraph "We continue to have concerns as
to his suitability for holding the rights due to other concerns over
the year" or something like that - something that shows it's not a
violation of privacy, as it's being taken.

It's obviously fairly important to nip this in the bud sooner rather
than later, before more damage is done. This is in circulation now, as
a statement endorsed by Wikipedia's highest most authoritative body -
whose decisions are the subject of widespread tech site and tabloid
pages and have hit mainstream international new media. It'll be taken
seriously by any employer or reader to mean just what it seems to say,
as it was taken on Wikipedia.

This is quite a separate issue from any other disagreement with the
Arbitration Committee, which other issues may be discussed separately.
Again, I am willing to listen to other kinds of complaints, and can
certainly concede at the outset that there may be merit to the other
complaints. However, I hope you understand that I absolutely cannot
compromise on the above defamatory claim being withdrawn unreservedly,
because my professional career and livelihood will be affected if it's
left.

I've hardly used checkuser or oversight in the last several months,
except to deal with the latest Andrew Morrow flareup (and you'll need
people on the case for that), so that's not actually a worry.

However, I do want to keep working with you, in the future if not
immediately, and would like to open discussion toward that.


- d.
----------
From jayvdb at gmail.com Mon Nov 30 21:51:03 2009
From: jayvdb at gmail.com (John Vandenberg)
Date: Tue, 1 Dec 2009 08:51:03 +1100
Subject: [arbcom-l] A letter to arbcom over recent concerns
In-Reply-To: <fbad4e140911301330p64903beco3957446114632d69@mail.gmail.com>
References: <fbad4e140911301330p64903beco3957446114632d69@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <deea21830911301351n55dee8fai9e8184f609ae9aa8@mail.gmail.com>

the only clarification that I think it important is that he didnt
break the letter of the privacy policy.

On Tue, Dec 1, 2009 at 8:30 AM, David Gerard <dgerard at gmail.com> wrote:
> We have a problem. But I'm willing to work towards a solution with
> you, and I hope you're willing too. I've been in discussion with Mike
> Godwin about how to resolve all this (and he is forwarding this to
> functionaries-en for me).
>
> I fully admit that I'm an acerbic pain in the arse, and have spent
> most of this year on functionaries-en haranguing the 2009 arbcom about
> what I think are its failings.
>
> I understand that my tone as well as my substance has irritated some
> of you - I hoped, however, that the criticisms would spur serious
> thinking about what I perceive to be problems. I regret having
> conveyed instead the impression that I can't work with you at all.
>
> This will certainly be something we need much ongoing discussion of,
> hopefully productive. I've stayed on the functionaries list because
> it's important to the project and informs my ongoing volunteer work
> for the Foundation.
>
> So, I think we all agree that I could be a better, more diplomatic
> collaborator, and I'm willing to try to do that.
>
> There is, however, ?one thing that needs immediate resolution. Members
> of the Arbitration Committee have issued the following
> characterization of my use of checkuser and oversight powers:
>
> ?"for unwarranted dissemination of private data acquired using
> privileged rights."
>
> This phrase is explicitly used as a reason for withdrawal of
> "checkuser and oversight rights".
>
> Apart from other disagreements with the 2009 Arbitration Committee
> over the course of this year, this statement is not merely untrue, but
> seriously defamatory. The clear implication is a violation of
> checkuser privacy. As I work as a Unix systems administrator, this is
> seriously problematic to my professional standing.
>
> This is not merely hypothetical; thirty hours later, it's already
> being taken as the case by Wikipedia Review, who are also discussing
> in this thread how to spread it far and wide:
>
> http://wikipediareview.com/index.php?showtopic=27610&st=20
>
> And respected user Thatcher clearly took that as the implication on
> Wikipedia itself:
>
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_tal...rd#David_Gerard
>
> You can see there's a problem there. There's actually no evidence to
> support the obvious implication of your words. I have never disclosed
> private information derived from checkuser or oversight powers, nor
> would I.
>
> I'm afraid I must require that the claim be withdrawn, and that those
> who signed the motion state so on the wiki - an appropriate statement
> such as this: "We accept that there is no evidence that David Gerard
> has at any stage violated the privacy policy with regard to checkuser
> or oversight in any manner. We did not at any stage intend any such
> inference to be drawn, and withdraw any such implication unreservedly"
> - would undo some of the damage to my reputation, and I'd regard it as
> proof on your part of a good-faith belief in our potential to work
> constructively together in the future.
>
> You could add in a separate paragraph "We continue to have concerns as
> to his suitability for holding the rights due to other concerns over
> the year" or something like that - something that shows it's not a
> violation of privacy, as it's being taken.
>
> It's obviously fairly important to nip this in the bud sooner rather
> than later, before more damage is done. This is in circulation now, as
> a statement endorsed by Wikipedia's highest most authoritative body -
> whose decisions are the subject of widespread tech site and tabloid
> pages and have hit mainstream international new media. It'll be taken
> seriously by any employer or reader to mean just what it seems to say,
> as it was taken on Wikipedia.
>
> This is quite a separate issue from any other disagreement with the
> Arbitration Committee, which other issues may be discussed separately.
> Again, I am willing to listen to other kinds of complaints, and can
> certainly concede at the outset that there may be merit to the other
> complaints. ?However, I hope you understand that I absolutely cannot
> compromise on the above defamatory claim being withdrawn unreservedly,
> because my professional career and livelihood will be affected if it's
> left.
>
> I've hardly used checkuser or oversight in the last several months,
> except to deal with the latest Andrew Morrow flareup (and you'll need
> people on the case for that), so that's not actually a worry.
>
> However, I do want to keep working with you, in the future if not
> immediately, and would like to open discussion toward that.
>
>
> - d.
>
> _______________________________________________
> arbcom-l mailing list
> arbcom-l at lists.wikimedia.org
> https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/arbcom-l
>
----------
From newyorkbrad at gmail.com Mon Nov 30 22:08:44 2009
From: newyorkbrad at gmail.com (Newyorkbrad (Wikipedia))
Date: Mon, 30 Nov 2009 17:08:44 -0500
Subject: [arbcom-l] David Gerard - potential amendment to motion - HIGH
PRIORITY
In-Reply-To: <eb45e7c0911300934w3f609ce1wf0879a7a761b94d3@mail.gmail.com>
References: <c52819d30911300723p654c1842p453fcf8598a886ac@mail.gmail.com>
<4B13FE3E.1080100@uberbox.org>
<eb45e7c0911300923r6a1791d8l67eca1946d380859@mail.gmail.com>
<4B14001D.6010609@uberbox.org>
<eb45e7c0911300934w3f609ce1wf0879a7a761b94d3@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <c52819d30911301408q6f0bd5d4t2c39cc54292c7e8f@mail.gmail.com>

This has sat for some hours now, and everyone will have seen David's e-mail
demanding that we make an on-wiki statement that goes significantly farther
beyond what I've posted here. I am not at all happy with how this is going,
and frankly, I think that I am going to be a lot louder from now on about
making sure that these types of announcements do not get posted on wiki
until there is more time for people to review them in light of the most
current developments than this one had. In any event, thoughts at this
point, please?

Newyorkbrad
-----------
From User.CoolHandLuke at gmail.com Mon Nov 30 22:18:54 2009
From: User.CoolHandLuke at gmail.com (Cool Hand Luke)
Date: Mon, 30 Nov 2009 16:18:54 -0600
Subject: [arbcom-l] David Gerard - potential amendment to motion - HIGH
PRIORITY
In-Reply-To: <c52819d30911301408q6f0bd5d4t2c39cc54292c7e8f@mail.gmail.com>
References: <c52819d30911300723p654c1842p453fcf8598a886ac@mail.gmail.com>
<4B13FE3E.1080100@uberbox.org>
<eb45e7c0911300923r6a1791d8l67eca1946d380859@mail.gmail.com>
<4B14001D.6010609@uberbox.org>
<eb45e7c0911300934w3f609ce1wf0879a7a761b94d3@mail.gmail.com>
<c52819d30911301408q6f0bd5d4t2c39cc54292c7e8f@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <8ec76cd10911301418u50943bcds6255328dd1046a99@mail.gmail.com>

I dunno if anything was posted on the ArbCom wiki, but there are now seven
supports, a majority, if we include Stephen's as a "second choice," although
Risker cautions for more time in order to get it right.

Frank



On Mon, Nov 30, 2009 at 4:08 PM, Newyorkbrad (Wikipedia) <
newyorkbrad at gmail.com> wrote:

> This has sat for some hours now, and everyone will have seen David's e-mail
> demanding that we make an on-wiki statement that goes significantly farther
> beyond what I've posted here. I am not at all happy with how this is going,
> and frankly, I think that I am going to be a lot louder from now on about
> making sure that these types of announcements do not get posted on wiki
> until there is more time for people to review them in light of the most
> current developments than this one had. In any event, thoughts at this
> point, please?
>
> Newyorkbrad
----------
From newyorkbrad at gmail.com Mon Nov 30 22:20:07 2009
From: newyorkbrad at gmail.com (Newyorkbrad (Wikipedia))
Date: Mon, 30 Nov 2009 17:20:07 -0500
Subject: [arbcom-l] David Gerard - potential amendment to motion - HIGH
PRIORITY
In-Reply-To: <8ec76cd10911301418u50943bcds6255328dd1046a99@mail.gmail.com>
References: <c52819d30911300723p654c1842p453fcf8598a886ac@mail.gmail.com>
<4B13FE3E.1080100@uberbox.org>
<eb45e7c0911300923r6a1791d8l67eca1946d380859@mail.gmail.com>
<4B14001D.6010609@uberbox.org>
<eb45e7c0911300934w3f609ce1wf0879a7a761b94d3@mail.gmail.com>
<c52819d30911301408q6f0bd5d4t2c39cc54292c7e8f@mail.gmail.com>
<8ec76cd10911301418u50943bcds6255328dd1046a99@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <c52819d30911301420x1091f473jbd67a1d997a588ed@mail.gmail.com>

David Gerard I'm sure at this point would say that this is not good enough.
But I don't know whether there is anything a majority would support at this
point that would be good enough for him.

Newyorkbrad
----------
From wizardmanwiki at gmail.com Mon Nov 30 22:24:41 2009
From: wizardmanwiki at gmail.com (Wizardman)
Date: Mon, 30 Nov 2009 17:24:41 -0500
Subject: [arbcom-l] David Gerard - potential amendment to motion - HIGH
PRIORITY
In-Reply-To: <c52819d30911301420x1091f473jbd67a1d997a588ed@mail.gmail.com>
References: <c52819d30911300723p654c1842p453fcf8598a886ac@mail.gmail.com>
<4B13FE3E.1080100@uberbox.org>
<eb45e7c0911300923r6a1791d8l67eca1946d380859@mail.gmail.com>
<4B14001D.6010609@uberbox.org>
<eb45e7c0911300934w3f609ce1wf0879a7a761b94d3@mail.gmail.com>
<c52819d30911301408q6f0bd5d4t2c39cc54292c7e8f@mail.gmail.com>
<8ec76cd10911301418u50943bcds6255328dd1046a99@mail.gmail.com>
<c52819d30911301420x1091f473jbd67a1d997a588ed@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <ef59f700911301424l2259317exbf86f4d89f12ab40@mail.gmail.com>

It looks fine to me; it's about all we can do. If he's not happy with it, oh
well.
~W
----------
From User.CoolHandLuke at gmail.com Mon Nov 30 22:32:07 2009
From: User.CoolHandLuke at gmail.com (Cool Hand Luke)
Date: Mon, 30 Nov 2009 16:32:07 -0600
Subject: [arbcom-l] David Gerard - potential amendment to motion - HIGH
PRIORITY
In-Reply-To: <ef59f700911301424l2259317exbf86f4d89f12ab40@mail.gmail.com>
References: <c52819d30911300723p654c1842p453fcf8598a886ac@mail.gmail.com>
<4B13FE3E.1080100@uberbox.org>
<eb45e7c0911300923r6a1791d8l67eca1946d380859@mail.gmail.com>
<4B14001D.6010609@uberbox.org>
<eb45e7c0911300934w3f609ce1wf0879a7a761b94d3@mail.gmail.com>
<c52819d30911301408q6f0bd5d4t2c39cc54292c7e8f@mail.gmail.com>
<8ec76cd10911301418u50943bcds6255328dd1046a99@mail.gmail.com>
<c52819d30911301420x1091f473jbd67a1d997a588ed@mail.gmail.com>
<ef59f700911301424l2259317exbf86f4d89f12ab40@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <8ec76cd10911301432i5db35989p7c0b84aa4c6b68dc@mail.gmail.com>

That's eight. Should we just drop it in with a note that ArbCom wishes to
revise the original rationale and apologizes for any confusion?

I would be willing to go a bit farther, but not as far as David Gerard
demands. However, it's clear that even this revision is a stretch for some
of us. I think this is as good as we'll get in the near term, and would
like to replace the text ASAP.

Frank
----------
From jayvdb at gmail.com Mon Nov 30 22:32:11 2009
From: jayvdb at gmail.com (John Vandenberg)
Date: Tue, 1 Dec 2009 09:32:11 +1100
Subject: [arbcom-l] David Gerard - potential amendment to motion - HIGH
PRIORITY
In-Reply-To: <c52819d30911300723p654c1842p453fcf8598a886ac@mail.gmail.com>
References: <c52819d30911300723p654c1842p453fcf8598a886ac@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <deea21830911301432h551ae3cu9cda1dda2435fb24@mail.gmail.com>

On Tue, Dec 1, 2009 at 2:23 AM, Newyorkbrad (Wikipedia)
<newyorkbrad at gmail.com> wrote:
>...
>
> DRAFT MOTION FOR DISCUSSION
>
> The Arbitration Committee's motion of November 28-29, 2009 concerning David
> Gerard is amended by deleting the words "and for unwarranted dissemination
> of private data acquired using privileged rights" and substituting the words
> "including the events of November 27, 2009"

I can support this in principle, however the tweet is dated November 26, 2009.

I would much prefer that amend it to be more explicit and factual,
mentioning the tweet and the blog post.

How will this be implemented? Are we going to post the text of this
motion as-is, and then amend the prior text?

--
John Vandenberg
-----------
From jayvdb at gmail.com Mon Nov 30 22:36:04 2009
From: jayvdb at gmail.com (John Vandenberg)
Date: Tue, 1 Dec 2009 09:36:04 +1100
Subject: [arbcom-l] David Gerard - potential amendment to motion - HIGH
PRIORITY
In-Reply-To: <c52819d30911301420x1091f473jbd67a1d997a588ed@mail.gmail.com>
References: <c52819d30911300723p654c1842p453fcf8598a886ac@mail.gmail.com>
<4B13FE3E.1080100@uberbox.org>
<eb45e7c0911300923r6a1791d8l67eca1946d380859@mail.gmail.com>
<4B14001D.6010609@uberbox.org>
<eb45e7c0911300934w3f609ce1wf0879a7a761b94d3@mail.gmail.com>
<c52819d30911301408q6f0bd5d4t2c39cc54292c7e8f@mail.gmail.com>
<8ec76cd10911301418u50943bcds6255328dd1046a99@mail.gmail.com>
<c52819d30911301420x1091f473jbd67a1d997a588ed@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <deea21830911301436m3c1e103ax90573a11eaf51cb1@mail.gmail.com>

On Tue, Dec 1, 2009 at 9:20 AM, Newyorkbrad (Wikipedia)
<newyorkbrad at gmail.com> wrote:
> David Gerard I'm sure at this point would say that this is not good enough.
> But I don't know whether there is anything a majority would support at this
> point that would be good enough for him.

We should not be pandaing to his desires here. This alteration should
be merely to avoid escalation _while_ he mounts an appeal.

He has not provided any evidence that our wording was incorrect.

--
John Vandenberg
----------
From jayvdb at gmail.com Mon Nov 30 22:56:08 2009
From: jayvdb at gmail.com (John Vandenberg)
Date: Tue, 1 Dec 2009 09:56:08 +1100
Subject: [arbcom-l] Andrew Landeryou emails threads
In-Reply-To: <deea21830911300648y6d7f41edweb9aef4aebe5a696@mail.gmail.com>
References: <deea21830911300648y6d7f41edweb9aef4aebe5a696@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <deea21830911301456g52211d25h91d5f832b79c0c78@mail.gmail.com>

Wikipedia Review has found a post by David Gerard from 18:03, 21 March
2006 (UTC) where he states

"In addition, I'm now trying to work out what (if any) account Andrew
Landeryou is using."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Adm...and_sockpuppets

On Tue, Dec 1, 2009 at 1:48 AM, John Vandenberg <jayvdb at gmail.com> wrote:
> Hi Mike & Jimmy,
>
> Attached are the three relevant threads.
>
> Jimmy, you can also read them here:
>
> https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/private...ary/001480.html
>
> https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/private...rch/003022.html
>
> https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/private...rch/003125.html
>
> --
> John Vandenberg
>
----------
From marc at uberbox.org Mon Nov 30 23:38:25 2009
From: marc at uberbox.org (Marc A. Pelletier)
Date: Mon, 30 Nov 2009 18:38:25 -0500
Subject: [arbcom-l] A letter to arbcom over recent concerns
In-Reply-To: <deea21830911301351n55dee8fai9e8184f609ae9aa8@mail.gmail.com>
References: <fbad4e140911301330p64903beco3957446114632d69@mail.gmail.com>
<deea21830911301351n55dee8fai9e8184f609ae9aa8@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <4B145771.4020008@uberbox.org>

John Vandenberg wrote:
> the only clarification that I think it important is that he didnt
> break the letter of the privacy policy.
>

He did, but I am willing to downplay the part this had in the decision.

-- Coren / Marc
-----------
From marc at uberbox.org Mon Nov 30 23:41:13 2009
From: marc at uberbox.org (Marc A. Pelletier)
Date: Mon, 30 Nov 2009 18:41:13 -0500
Subject: [arbcom-l] A letter to arbcom over recent concerns
In-Reply-To: <fbad4e140911301330p64903beco3957446114632d69@mail.gmail.com>
References: <fbad4e140911301330p64903beco3957446114632d69@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <4B145819.2080208@uberbox.org>

Hello David,

This is to acknowledge that your email has been received, and that the
matter is under discussion by the Committee.

-- Coren / Marc
------------
From jayvdb at gmail.com Tue Dec 1 00:49:59 2009
From: jayvdb at gmail.com (John Vandenberg)
Date: Tue, 1 Dec 2009 11:49:59 +1100
Subject: [arbcom-l] A letter to arbcom over recent concerns
In-Reply-To: <4B145771.4020008@uberbox.org>
References: <fbad4e140911301330p64903beco3957446114632d69@mail.gmail.com>
<deea21830911301351n55dee8fai9e8184f609ae9aa8@mail.gmail.com>
<4B145771.4020008@uberbox.org>
Message-ID: <deea21830911301649m2e55540ev8762860d7eb2d0f1@mail.gmail.com>

On Tue, Dec 1, 2009 at 10:38 AM, Marc A. Pelletier <marc at uberbox.org> wrote:
> John Vandenberg wrote:
>> the only clarification that I think it important is that he didnt
>> break the letter of the privacy policy.
>>
>
> He did, but I am willing to downplay the part this had in the decision.

Err ... what I mean is that he didn't release actual CU data, and it
is worth clarifying that.

He said (offwiki) that a real world person "has some history on
wikipedia" and used his role as a checkuser of this history to
underscore that he is right. He does not publicly say what the "some
history" is. However we know David's own involvement within this
"some history".

The privacy policy talks about the actual data which is personally
identifiable, as opposed to the real world accusations of persons
without release of any private data. Combine that with his vague
comment, and it is not clear to me that he broke the letter of the
policy, and not worth trying to fight that battle when the WMF is
actively opposing us and unwilling to see that the tweet is
unacceptable use/release of information obtained with checkuser.

----

General Scope

This policy covers personally identifiable information collected or
stored by the Foundation on its servers in relation to the Projects
and their communities.

...

Release: Policy on Release of Data

It is the policy of Wikimedia that personally identifiable data
collected in the server logs, or through records in the database via
the CheckUser feature, or through other non-publicly-available
methods, may be released by Wikimedia volunteers or staff, in any of
the following situations:

1. In response to a valid subpoena or other compulsory request from
law enforcement,
2. With permission of the affected user,
3. When necessary for investigation of abuse complaints,
4. Where the information pertains to page views generated by a
spider or bot and its dissemination is necessary to illustrate or
resolve technical issues,
5. Where the user has been vandalizing articles or persistently
behaving in a disruptive way, data may be released to a service
provider, carrier, or other third-party entity to assist in the
targeting of IP blocks, or to assist in the formulation of a complaint
to relevant Internet Service Providers,
6. Where it is reasonably necessary to protect the rights, property
or safety of the Wikimedia Foundation, its users or the public.

Except as described above, Wikimedia policy does not permit
distribution of personally identifiable information under any
circumstances.
<http://wikimediafoundation.org/wiki/Privacy_policy>
----

Obviously "3" and "6" do not apply in this case, and I think that
arbitrators are taking extreme exception to 3.5 year old checkuser
information being used without any benefit for the project.

--
John Vandenberg
----------
From User.CoolHandLuke at gmail.com Tue Dec 1 01:22:41 2009
From: User.CoolHandLuke at gmail.com (Cool Hand Luke)
Date: Mon, 30 Nov 2009 19:22:41 -0600
Subject: [arbcom-l] David Gerard - potential amendment to motion - HIGH
PRIORITY
In-Reply-To: <deea21830911301436m3c1e103ax90573a11eaf51cb1@mail.gmail.com>
References: <c52819d30911300723p654c1842p453fcf8598a886ac@mail.gmail.com>
<4B13FE3E.1080100@uberbox.org>
<eb45e7c0911300923r6a1791d8l67eca1946d380859@mail.gmail.com>
<4B14001D.6010609@uberbox.org>
<eb45e7c0911300934w3f609ce1wf0879a7a761b94d3@mail.gmail.com>
<c52819d30911301408q6f0bd5d4t2c39cc54292c7e8f@mail.gmail.com>
<8ec76cd10911301418u50943bcds6255328dd1046a99@mail.gmail.com>
<c52819d30911301420x1091f473jbd67a1d997a588ed@mail.gmail.com>
<deea21830911301436m3c1e103ax90573a11eaf51cb1@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <8ec76cd10911301722n236eb153x452501914890ad2b@mail.gmail.com>

OK, well I'm home now and see there is not a parallel discussion on the
ArbCom wiki. Would prefer to put this up ASAP.

Unless someone tells me not to, I plan to change the text in one hour and
add a footnote after the clause. Below, the footnote would explain:

1. Revision approved by supporting arbitrators: Cool Hand Luke, Coren,
FloNight, John Vandenberg, Newyorkbrad, Risker, Roger Davies, Stephen Bain,
Wizardman

For the Arbitration Committee, ~~~~

I don't want to keep the original text up for any period after we've revised
it. This is a wiki. If they care what it said before, they can go through
the history.

Frank
----------
From newyorkbrad at gmail.com Tue Dec 1 01:38:55 2009
From: newyorkbrad at gmail.com (Newyorkbrad (Wikipedia))
Date: Mon, 30 Nov 2009 20:38:55 -0500
Subject: [arbcom-l] David Gerard - potential amendment to motion - HIGH
PRIORITY
In-Reply-To: <8ec76cd10911301722n236eb153x452501914890ad2b@mail.gmail.com>
References: <c52819d30911300723p654c1842p453fcf8598a886ac@mail.gmail.com>
<4B13FE3E.1080100@uberbox.org>
<eb45e7c0911300923r6a1791d8l67eca1946d380859@mail.gmail.com>
<4B14001D.6010609@uberbox.org>
<eb45e7c0911300934w3f609ce1wf0879a7a761b94d3@mail.gmail.com>
<c52819d30911301408q6f0bd5d4t2c39cc54292c7e8f@mail.gmail.com>
<8ec76cd10911301418u50943bcds6255328dd1046a99@mail.gmail.com>
<c52819d30911301420x1091f473jbd67a1d997a588ed@mail.gmail.com>
<deea21830911301436m3c1e103ax90573a11eaf51cb1@mail.gmail.com>
<8ec76cd10911301722n236eb153x452501914890ad2b@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <c52819d30911301738o49de098co7fcd800e7126041f@mail.gmail.com>

In the revision, change "November 27" to "November 26-27" per John V.

It might be best to publish the new motion as I wrote it, in addition
to revising the text, to make clear that we are deleting the original
allegation. (That's not a statement it was right or wrong, but tha
User is offlineProfile CardPM
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
MaliceAforethought
post Wed 29th June 2011, 2:21am
Post #4


u Mad?
***

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



From jayvdb at gmail.com Sun Nov 29 12:05:15 2009
From: jayvdb at gmail.com (John Vandenberg)
Date: Sun, 29 Nov 2009 23:05:15 +1100
Subject: [Functionaries-en] Fwd: Motion regarding your recent blog post
In-Reply-To: <fbad4e140911290320x4b331038m4204439d6ac17645@mail.gmail.com>
References: <4B11D8AF.2040102@uberbox.org>
<fbad4e140911290319v7a480584q432f14239e0389b5@mail.gmail.com>
<fbad4e140911290320x4b331038m4204439d6ac17645@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <deea21830911290405v2bec8237w4b737fb127687f4c@mail.gmail.com>

On Sun, Nov 29, 2009 at 10:46 PM, David Gerard <dgerard at gmail.com> wrote:
> 2009/11/29 John Vandenberg <jayvdb at gmail.com>:
>> David, do you want this discussion to be conducted on functionaries-en ?
> Actually, it should be conducted publicly on the wiki.

I'll take that as a yes.

If you don't discuss it with us privately, the next action from the
committee will be a motion on the noticeboard.

On Sun, Nov 29, 2009 at 10:20 PM, David Gerard <dgerard at gmail.com> wrote:
> ---------- Forwarded message ----------
> From: David Gerard <dgerard at gmail.com>
> Date: 2009/11/29
> Subject: Re: Motion regarding your recent blog post
> To: "Marc A. Pelletier" <marc at uberbox.org>
>
>
> What? I received a threat, I publicly posted it. If someone threatens
> someone online, that's the standard action to take.

You miss the point David. How did this start? It didn't start with
the threat directed at you.

Please explain why you disclosed on twitter that Mr. Landeryou had run
socks on Wikipedia over three years ago?

Also, I would like to see the evidence to back the assertion you made.
I'm not doubting that you have evidence .. it is just that we need to
evaluate it in order to measure our responses to this issue.

--
John Vandenberg
----------
From jayvdb at gmail.com Sun Nov 29 12:51:57 2009
From: jayvdb at gmail.com (John Vandenberg)
Date: Sun, 29 Nov 2009 23:51:57 +1100
Subject: [Functionaries-en] Fwd: Motion regarding your recent blog post
In-Reply-To: <deea21830911290405v2bec8237w4b737fb127687f4c@mail.gmail.com>
References: <4B11D8AF.2040102@uberbox.org>
<fbad4e140911290319v7a480584q432f14239e0389b5@mail.gmail.com>
<fbad4e140911290320x4b331038m4204439d6ac17645@mail.gmail.com>
<deea21830911290405v2bec8237w4b737fb127687f4c@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <deea21830911290451o748a13c0ta7c2a56e0aaa4362@mail.gmail.com>

On Sun, Nov 29, 2009 at 11:05 PM, John Vandenberg <jayvdb at gmail.com> wrote:
> On Sun, Nov 29, 2009 at 10:46 PM, David Gerard <dgerard at gmail.com> wrote:
>> 2009/11/29 John Vandenberg <jayvdb at gmail.com>:
>>> David, do you want this discussion to be conducted on functionaries-en ?
>> Actually, it should be conducted publicly on the wiki.
>
> I'll take that as a yes.
>
> If you don't discuss it with us privately, the next action from the
> committee will be a motion on the noticeboard.

David decided to conduct this publicly, so the motion has carried.

https://secure.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/w...rd#David_Gerard

--
John Vandenberg
----------
From agarrett at wikimedia.org Sun Nov 29 14:00:29 2009
From: agarrett at wikimedia.org (Andrew Garrett)
Date: Sun, 29 Nov 2009 14:00:29 +0000
Subject: [Functionaries-en] Fwd: Motion regarding your recent blog post
In-Reply-To: <deea21830911290451o748a13c0ta7c2a56e0aaa4362@mail.gmail.com>
References: <4B11D8AF.2040102@uberbox.org>
<fbad4e140911290319v7a480584q432f14239e0389b5@mail.gmail.com>
<fbad4e140911290320x4b331038m4204439d6ac17645@mail.gmail.com>
<deea21830911290405v2bec8237w4b737fb127687f4c@mail.gmail.com>
<deea21830911290451o748a13c0ta7c2a56e0aaa4362@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <130FB3E7-7453-4FE7-BDB0-7E01FF1DC65D@wikimedia.org>


On 29/11/2009, at 12:51 PM, John Vandenberg wrote:

> On Sun, Nov 29, 2009 at 11:05 PM, John Vandenberg <jayvdb at gmail.com> wrote:
>> On Sun, Nov 29, 2009 at 10:46 PM, David Gerard <dgerard at gmail.com> wrote:
>>> 2009/11/29 John Vandenberg <jayvdb at gmail.com>:
>>>> David, do you want this discussion to be conducted on functionaries-en ?
>>> Actually, it should be conducted publicly on the wiki.
>>
>> I'll take that as a yes.
>>
>> If you don't discuss it with us privately, the next action from the
>> committee will be a motion on the noticeboard.
>
> David decided to conduct this publicly, so the motion has carried.
>
> https://secure.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/w...rd#David_Gerard

You know, I don't think that "I'd like this to be discussed publicly" was intended to mean "I have nothing more to say in private, so please go ahead and announce that you've decided in your back room to remove my rights."

I think it actually meant "Let's have a sensible and reasoned discussion about what you think I did wrong, what my opinion is on it, in public, where anybody can see it and where anybody can discuss it".

I'm pretty sure this sort of thing is *not* why the arbitration committee has a mailing list, IRC channel and wiki.

Why can't we have this discussion somewhere public? Why can't we allow people other than the few arbcom members discuss this? Why does the arbitration committee make important project-level decisions with no community input (including some on policy!) in private, and then present them on the wiki as fait accompli?

--
Andrew Garrett
agarrett at wikimedia.org
http://werdn.us/
----------
From ft2.wiki at gmail.com Sun Nov 29 17:32:52 2009
From: ft2.wiki at gmail.com (FT2)
Date: Sun, 29 Nov 2009 17:32:52 -0000
Subject: [Functionaries-en] Fwd: Motion regarding your recent blog post
In-Reply-To: <130FB3E7-7453-4FE7-BDB0-7E01FF1DC65D@wikimedia.org>
References: <4B11D8AF.2040102@uberbox.org> <fbad4e140911290319v7a480584q432f14239e0389b5@mail.gmail.com> <fbad4e140911290320x4b331038m4204439d6ac17645@mail.gmail.com> <deea21830911290405v2bec8237w4b737fb127687f4c@mail.gmail.com> <deea21830911290451o748a13c0ta7c2a56e0aaa4362@mail.gmail.com>
<130FB3E7-7453-4FE7-BDB0-7E01FF1DC65D@wikimedia.org>
Message-ID: <4b12b045.0d67f10a.26ee.ffffc70b@mx.google.com>

I caught up with this on seeing the unsubscribe emails from this list, and
catching up now.

My initial impression is, before opining, could someone clarify a point for
me. The major reason given is that a functionary disseminated private data
acquired using privileged rights". Obviously if they did, the Committee is
(rightly) not going to tell others where to go looking for the private data.
But in this case everyone from Arbitrators onwards seems to concur it took
place in a blog post.

I don't see any specific CheckUser result disclosed in that post. Saying one
can verify socking because one did the checkuser case oneself, is not
private -- every Checkuser who {{confirms}} a finding of puppetry at SPI is
stating exactly that in public.

I also don't see a privileged email that was disclosed in this blog post.
The email appears to be between two Wikipedians, not quoted from a
non-public Wikimedia hosted list. A private email was sent from
User:Landeryou to User:David Gerard. There is no automatic required privacy
in that situation, except that the email may not be posted on the wiki for
copyright reasons.

Obviously there may well be matters I'm not aware of, leaving the above as
irrelevant. Or the blog post may have since been redacted to remove the
private material. But all current discussions seem to end up at that blog
post which doesn't seem to currently contain anything privileged.

Drama is one thing. Dissemination of private material is in a category of
its own. Can someone clarify for me, what exactly the " private data
_acquired using privileged rights_" refers to, or whether any was posted
that's since been removed? I think that would clear up any confusion I have.
Thanks.


Paul.
----------
From dwellmeister at googlemail.com Sun Nov 29 17:39:40 2009
From: dwellmeister at googlemail.com (Dweller)
Date: Sun, 29 Nov 2009 17:39:40 +0000
Subject: [Functionaries-en] Fwd: Motion regarding your recent blog post
In-Reply-To: <4b12b045.0d67f10a.26ee.ffffc70b@mx.google.com>
References: <4B11D8AF.2040102@uberbox.org>
<fbad4e140911290319v7a480584q432f14239e0389b5@mail.gmail.com>
<fbad4e140911290320x4b331038m4204439d6ac17645@mail.gmail.com>
<deea21830911290405v2bec8237w4b737fb127687f4c@mail.gmail.com>
<deea21830911290451o748a13c0ta7c2a56e0aaa4362@mail.gmail.com>
<130FB3E7-7453-4FE7-BDB0-7E01FF1DC65D@wikimedia.org>
<4b12b045.0d67f10a.26ee.ffffc70b@mx.google.com>
Message-ID: <CFF833E6-D102-4C82-B493-830A3FAE517E@gmail.com>

I had the same puzzled thoughts
I can only assume there's more to it than meets the eye
Dweller
----------
From user.jpgordon at gmail.com Sun Nov 29 18:24:24 2009
From: user.jpgordon at gmail.com (Josh Gordon)
Date: Sun, 29 Nov 2009 10:24:24 -0800
Subject: [Functionaries-en] Fwd: Motion regarding your recent blog post
In-Reply-To: <CFF833E6-D102-4C82-B493-830A3FAE517E@gmail.com>
References: <4B11D8AF.2040102@uberbox.org>
<fbad4e140911290319v7a480584q432f14239e0389b5@mail.gmail.com>
<fbad4e140911290320x4b331038m4204439d6ac17645@mail.gmail.com>
<deea21830911290405v2bec8237w4b737fb127687f4c@mail.gmail.com>
<deea21830911290451o748a13c0ta7c2a56e0aaa4362@mail.gmail.com>
<130FB3E7-7453-4FE7-BDB0-7E01FF1DC65D@wikimedia.org>
<4b12b045.0d67f10a.26ee.ffffc70b@mx.google.com>
<CFF833E6-D102-4C82-B493-830A3FAE517E@gmail.com>
Message-ID: <99c65f730911291024k78e94c99q6a30a160f7dc2585@mail.gmail.com>

There is. David has a habit of calling out ArbCom when they act childishly,
and the committee appears to have been looking for an excuse to take
revenge. Lacking a clear one, they picked a quite muddy one.
--
--jpgordon ::==( o )
----------
From ft2.wiki at gmail.com Sun Nov 29 18:43:23 2009
From: ft2.wiki at gmail.com (FT2)
Date: Sun, 29 Nov 2009 18:43:23 -0000
Subject: [Functionaries-en] Fwd: Motion regarding your recent blog post
In-Reply-To: <99c65f730911291024k78e94c99q6a30a160f7dc2585@mail.gmail.com>
References: <4B11D8AF.2040102@uberbox.org> <fbad4e140911290319v7a480584q432f14239e0389b5@mail.gmail.com> <fbad4e140911290320x4b331038m4204439d6ac17645@mail.gmail.com> <deea21830911290405v2bec8237w4b737fb127687f4c@mail.gmail.com> <deea21830911290451o748a13c0ta7c2a56e0aaa4362@mail.gmail.com> <130FB3E7-7453-4FE7-BDB0-7E01FF1DC65D@wikimedia.org> <4b12b045.0d67f10a.26ee.ffffc70b@mx.google.com> <CFF833E6-D102-4C82-B493-830A3FAE517E@gmail.com>
<99c65f730911291024k78e94c99q6a30a160f7dc2585@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <4b12c0cc.0d67f10a.28b9.ffffce68@mx.google.com>

Hmm.

Reluctant to speculate, especially words like that. Evidence counts.

Ex-arbs perform a useful function. They are the main check and balance in
this community, on the Committee. Under pressure and strain, and public
demands, Committee work is immensely stressful, and huge disagreements arise
internally. When anything happens Arbs get kicked and blamed for it. In that
pressure, poor decisions are going to happen from time to time, and part of
this list's role is to help the committee by catching some of those before
they explode publicly. Not one Arbcom has avoided a major mistake yet, but
the public expects perfection in their impossible role.

David Gerard is a highly outspoken ex-arb; he blogs and posts and
communicates and many people probably do wish he'd do so more tactfully or
be a bit less outspoken in his views. But he usually knows of what he speaks
and does. In the traditional words, he has a clue.

I've never known him to breach actual formal privacy (data acquired using
privileged access, such as non-public list emails, CU/OS derived data, etc).
I hope he hasn't here. But at present those with a clue say he has.

Paul.
----------
From risker.wp at gmail.com Sun Nov 29 18:48:16 2009
From: risker.wp at gmail.com (Risker)
Date: Sun, 29 Nov 2009 18:48:16 +0000
Subject: [Functionaries-en] Fwd: Motion regarding your recent blog post
In-Reply-To: <4b12b045.0d67f10a.26ee.ffffc70b@mx.google.com>
References: <4B11D8AF.2040102@uberbox.org>
<fbad4e140911290319v7a480584q432f14239e0389b5@mail.gmail.com>
<fbad4e140911290320x4b331038m4204439d6ac17645@mail.gmail.com>
<deea21830911290405v2bec8237w4b737fb127687f4c@mail.gmail.com>
<deea21830911290451o748a13c0ta7c2a56e0aaa4362@mail.gmail.com>
<130FB3E7-7453-4FE7-BDB0-7E01FF1DC65D@wikimedia.org>
<4b12b045.0d67f10a.26ee.ffffc70b@mx.google.com>
Message-ID: <eb45e7c0911291048q677c2968oea1d6a8c17a492dd@mail.gmail.com>

2009/11/29 FT2 <ft2.wiki at gmail.com>

> I caught up with this on seeing the unsubscribe emails from this list, and
> catching up now.
>
> My initial impression is, before opining, could someone clarify a point for
> me. The major reason given is that a functionary disseminated private data
> acquired using privileged rights". Obviously if they did, the Committee is
> (rightly) not going to tell others where to go looking for the private
> data.
> But in this case everyone from Arbitrators onwards seems to concur it took
> place in a blog post.
>
> I don't see any specific CheckUser result disclosed in that post. Saying
> one
> can verify socking because one did the checkuser case oneself, is not
> private -- every Checkuser who {{confirms}} a finding of puppetry at SPI is
> stating exactly that in public.
>

There is no public or private confirmation that Andrew Landeryou (the real
name of a person who is also the subject of a BLP) was editing Wikipedia
under any username; David had suspicions, but no checkuser result that he
shared with either the Arbitration Committee or the community confirmed
that. Note that this is in relation to an investigation that occurred in
early 2006, before checkuser requests were logged.


>
> I also don't see a privileged email that was disclosed in this blog post.
> The email appears to be between two Wikipedians, not quoted from a
> non-public Wikimedia hosted list. A private email was sent from
> User:Landeryou to User:David Gerard. There is no automatic required privacy
> in that situation, except that the email may not be posted on the wiki for
> copyright reasons.
>

There is no User:Landeryou, nor is there a User:Andrew Landeryou. There is
no confirmed evidence that Andrew Landeryou edited Wikipedia under any
username. Colleagues of his did edit Wikipedia inappropriately and were
sanctioned, and considerable effort was made to try to tie Andrew Landeryou
into their misbehaviour, but there was not sufficient evidence to do so. We
have no reason to believe that the email from Andrew Landeryou to David
Gerard was sent through the Wikimedia interface. Instead, it appears that
Andrew Landeryou sent the email to David Gerard following David's response (
*"**mr landeryou has some history on wikipedia. (i did the sockpuppet
investigation)*") to another tweeter named jeamland. That sockpuppet
investigation, from all evidence we can find, did *not* confirm Andrew
Landeryou was editing Wikipedia under any account.


>
> Obviously there may well be matters I'm not aware of, leaving the above as
> irrelevant. Or the blog post may have since been redacted to remove the
> private material. But all current discussions seem to end up at that blog
> post which doesn't seem to currently contain anything privileged.
>

There was never any onwiki link to Andrew Landeryou and any blocked or
otherwise sanctioned account, except for one ANI post
<https://secure.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/IncidentArchive83#DarrenRay_and_Ben_Cass_and_sockpuppets>that
revealed other people were abusing multiple accounts and that David was
"trying to work out what (if any) account Andrew Landeryou [was] using". For
that matter, all that exists in the Arbcom-L archives is speculation, that
David admitted to not be sufficient for any sanction, that certain blocked
accounts might possibly belong to Andrew Landeryou; even in 2006 the
evidence wasn't considered good enough. Other real-life colleagues of
Landeryou were found to be using socks and were sanctioned. There is no
doubt that there was disruption on the wiki, but there was never sufficient
information to link it to Andrew Landeryou personally.


>
> Drama is one thing. Dissemination of private material is in a category of
> its own. Can someone clarify for me, what exactly the " private data
> _acquired using privileged rights_" refers to, or whether any was posted
> that's since been removed? I think that would clear up any confusion I
> have.
> Thanks.


There has never been a direct link between (the real-life person) Andrew
Landeryou and any problem accounts made onwiki or on Arbcom-L; at most there
was suspicion. The results of the Landeryou aspect of that investigation
were inconclusive. David, almost four years after the fact, now states
conclusively and bluntly that Andrew Landeryou "has a history" on Wikipedia,
and strongly implies that that history involves inappropriate sockpuppetry.
Not only is he revealing information that he would only have had as someone
with special accesses, he is misrepresenting it. Bottom line, one may not
use private information obtained because of special access as a weapon
against someone on one's personal blog.

Incidentally, the trigger point for all of this off-wiki
back-and-forth was vandalism
in the BLP [[Andrew
Landeryou]]<http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Andrew_Landeryou&diff=prev&oldid=327069534>.
I'll let everyone think about how that relates.

Risker/Anne
----------
From fredbaud at fairpoint.net Sun Nov 29 18:50:14 2009
From: fredbaud at fairpoint.net (Fred Bauder)
Date: Sun, 29 Nov 2009 11:50:14 -0700 (MST)
Subject: [Functionaries-en] Fwd: Motion regarding your recent blog post
In-Reply-To: <99c65f730911291024k78e94c99q6a30a160f7dc2585@mail.gmail.com>
References: <4B11D8AF.2040102@uberbox.org>
<fbad4e140911290319v7a480584q432f14239e0389b5@mail.gmail.com>
<fbad4e140911290320x4b331038m4204439d6ac17645@mail.gmail.com>
<deea21830911290405v2bec8237w4b737fb127687f4c@mail.gmail.com>
<deea21830911290451o748a13c0ta7c2a56e0aaa4362@mail.gmail.com>
<130FB3E7-7453-4FE7-BDB0-7E01FF1DC65D@wikimedia.org>
<4b12b045.0d67f10a.26ee.ffffc70b@mx.google.com>
<CFF833E6-D102-4C82-B493-830A3FAE517E@gmail.com>
<99c65f730911291024k78e94c99q6a30a160f7dc2585@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <65220.66.243.192.74.1259520614.squirrel@webmail.fairpoint.net>

I was puzzled at first, but decided that declaring that someone was a
"waste of skin" actually is pretty outrageous.

If the Arbitration Committee were retaliating for David's criticisms they
would have said so, the better to intimidate you with, my dear...

Fred
----------
From ft2.wiki at gmail.com Sun Nov 29 18:52:28 2009
From: ft2.wiki at gmail.com (FT2)
Date: Sun, 29 Nov 2009 18:52:28 -0000
Subject: [Functionaries-en] Fwd: Motion regarding your recent blog post
In-Reply-To: <eb45e7c0911291048q677c2968oea1d6a8c17a492dd@mail.gmail.com>
References: <4B11D8AF.2040102@uberbox.org>
<fbad4e140911290319v7a480584q432f14239e0389b5@mail.gmail.com>
<fbad4e140911290320x4b331038m4204439d6ac17645@mail.gmail.com>
<deea21830911290405v2bec8237w4b737fb127687f4c@mail.gmail.com>
<deea21830911290451o748a13c0ta7c2a56e0aaa4362@mail.gmail.com>
<130FB3E7-7453-4FE7-BDB0-7E01FF1DC65D@wikimedia.org>
<4b12b045.0d67f10a.26ee.ffffc70b@mx.google.com>
<eb45e7c0911291048q677c2968oea1d6a8c17a492dd@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <4b12c2ed.0e67f10a.6af9.ffffcc03@mx.google.com>

Thanks for this Risker. Thinking this through - there's a lot of text here
smile.gif

Paul.



From: Risker [mailto:risker.wp at gmail.com]
Sent: 29 November 2009 18:48
To: ft2.wiki at gmail.com; Functionaries email list for the English Wikipedia
Subject: Re: [Functionaries-en] Fwd: Motion regarding your recent blog post
----------
From marc at uberbox.org Sun Nov 29 19:04:45 2009
From: marc at uberbox.org (Marc A. Pelletier)
Date: Sun, 29 Nov 2009 14:04:45 -0500
Subject: [Functionaries-en] Fwd: Motion regarding your recent blog post
In-Reply-To: <eb45e7c0911291048q677c2968oea1d6a8c17a492dd@mail.gmail.com>
References: <4B11D8AF.2040102@uberbox.org>
<fbad4e140911290319v7a480584q432f14239e0389b5@mail.gmail.com>
<fbad4e140911290320x4b331038m4204439d6ac17645@mail.gmail.com>
<deea21830911290405v2bec8237w4b737fb127687f4c@mail.gmail.com>
<deea21830911290451o748a13c0ta7c2a56e0aaa4362@mail.gmail.com>
<130FB3E7-7453-4FE7-BDB0-7E01FF1DC65D@wikimedia.org>
<4b12b045.0d67f10a.26ee.ffffc70b@mx.google.com>
<eb45e7c0911291048q677c2968oea1d6a8c17a492dd@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <4B12C5CD.6030709@uberbox.org>

Risker wrote:
>
>
> There has never been a direct link between (the real-life person)
> Andrew Landeryou and any problem accounts made onwiki or on Arbcom-L;
> at most there was suspicion. The results of the Landeryou aspect of
> that investigation were inconclusive. David, almost four years after
> the fact, now states conclusively and bluntly that Andrew Landeryou
> "has a history" on Wikipedia, and strongly implies that that history
> involves inappropriate sockpuppetry. Not only is he revealing
> information that he would only have had as someone with special
> accesses, he is misrepresenting it. Bottom line, one may not use
> private information obtained because of special access as a weapon
> against someone on one's personal blog.

I should add to this that a significant factor in our past warnings to
David, and towards the current removal of access, is the seriously
over-the-top rhetoric he uses in off-wiki venues. That he would call
someone a "waste of skin" is unacceptable enough in itself (especially
when it's done on the strength of an unsupported allegation of
disruption that would have occurred years in the past), but his status
as a functionary gave greatly increased prominence to such outbursts,
much to the detriment of the project.

Let us remember here that this is a person who makes appearances on
television as a purported authority on Wikipedia and speaks in a
quasi-official manner; associating the project with such pronouncements
raises the very real danger that he be quoted as one of the "voices" of
the project. That would not only place the project in serious disrepute
but opens the door to litigation.

-- Coren / Marc
----------
From user.jpgordon at gmail.com Sun Nov 29 19:18:51 2009
From: user.jpgordon at gmail.com (Josh Gordon)
Date: Sun, 29 Nov 2009 11:18:51 -0800
Subject: [Functionaries-en] Fwd: Motion regarding your recent blog post
In-Reply-To: <4B12C5CD.6030709@uberbox.org>
References: <4B11D8AF.2040102@uberbox.org>
<fbad4e140911290319v7a480584q432f14239e0389b5@mail.gmail.com>
<fbad4e140911290320x4b331038m4204439d6ac17645@mail.gmail.com>
<deea21830911290405v2bec8237w4b737fb127687f4c@mail.gmail.com>
<deea21830911290451o748a13c0ta7c2a56e0aaa4362@mail.gmail.com>
<130FB3E7-7453-4FE7-BDB0-7E01FF1DC65D@wikimedia.org>
<4b12b045.0d67f10a.26ee.ffffc70b@mx.google.com>
<eb45e7c0911291048q677c2968oea1d6a8c17a492dd@mail.gmail.com>
<4B12C5CD.6030709@uberbox.org>
Message-ID: <99c65f730911291118y6d28f66ubb3e6e7bda1616db@mail.gmail.com>

On Sun, Nov 29, 2009 at 11:04 AM, Marc A. Pelletier <marc at uberbox.org>wrote:

> Risker wrote:
> >
> >
> > There has never been a direct link between (the real-life person)
> > Andrew Landeryou and any problem accounts made onwiki or on Arbcom-L;
> > at most there was suspicion. The results of the Landeryou aspect of
> > that investigation were inconclusive. David, almost four years after
> > the fact, now states conclusively and bluntly that Andrew Landeryou
> > "has a history" on Wikipedia, and strongly implies that that history
> > involves inappropriate sockpuppetry. Not only is he revealing
> > information that he would only have had as someone with special
> > accesses, he is misrepresenting it. Bottom line, one may not use
> > private information obtained because of special access as a weapon
> > against someone on one's personal blog.
>
> I should add to this that a significant factor in our past warnings to
> David, and towards the current removal of access, is the seriously
> over-the-top rhetoric he uses in off-wiki venues. That he would call
> someone a "waste of skin" is unacceptable enough in itself (especially
> when it's done on the strength of an unsupported allegation of
> disruption that would have occurred years in the past), but his status
> as a functionary gave greatly increased prominence to such outbursts,
> much to the detriment of the project.
>
> Let us remember here that this is a person who makes appearances on
> television as a purported authority on Wikipedia and speaks in a
> quasi-official manner; associating the project with such pronouncements
> raises the very real danger that he be quoted as one of the "voices" of
> the project. That would not only place the project in serious disrepute
> but opens the door to litigation.
>
>
Ah. Has legal counsel advised this action?
--
--jpgordon ::==( o )
----------
From risker.wp at gmail.com Sun Nov 29 19:38:40 2009
From: risker.wp at gmail.com (Risker)
Date: Sun, 29 Nov 2009 19:38:40 +0000
Subject: [Functionaries-en] Fwd: Motion regarding your recent blog post
In-Reply-To: <65220.66.243.192.74.1259520614.squirrel@webmail.fairpoint.net>
References: <4B11D8AF.2040102@uberbox.org>
<fbad4e140911290319v7a480584q432f14239e0389b5@mail.gmail.com>
<fbad4e140911290320x4b331038m4204439d6ac17645@mail.gmail.com>
<deea21830911290405v2bec8237w4b737fb127687f4c@mail.gmail.com>
<deea21830911290451o748a13c0ta7c2a56e0aaa4362@mail.gmail.com>
<130FB3E7-7453-4FE7-BDB0-7E01FF1DC65D@wikimedia.org>
<4b12b045.0d67f10a.26ee.ffffc70b@mx.google.com>
<CFF833E6-D102-4C82-B493-830A3FAE517E@gmail.com>
<99c65f730911291024k78e94c99q6a30a160f7dc2585@mail.gmail.com>
<65220.66.243.192.74.1259520614.squirrel@webmail.fairpoint.net>
Message-ID: <eb45e7c0911291138p28cca1fdxf142c29803515735@mail.gmail.com>

2009/11/29 Fred Bauder <fredbaud at fairpoint.net>

> I was puzzled at first, but decided that declaring that someone was a
> "waste of skin" actually is pretty outrageous.
>

I agree with you, Fred.

>
> If the Arbitration Committee were retaliating for David's criticisms they
> would have said so, the better to intimidate you with, my dear...
>
> Well, I can assure you there is no intention (or reason) to want to
intimidate people on this list. As a group and individually, you have all
done some very important and valuable work, and we know that. We don't say
it often enough, either.

In fact, the timing of this couldn't have been much worse, from my
perspective. I was about to embark on some advance preparation for the new
crew coming in by asking for volunteers to help mentor new arbitrators with
checkuser and oversight tools, and by asking list admins if they wanted to
continue with those obligations, or if they would prefer to pass on that
particular torch.

Many of the people on this list have invested *years* on Wikipedia in
various roles. Your continued efforts in those roles are indeed appreciated;
however, we also respect that people can change their focus onwiki, or their
lives may take them in different directions. It's not a bad thing to say
"no, I don't want to feel obliged to run a mailing list" or "I'm no longer
interested in dealing with sockpuppetry investigations" or "I'd rather spend
my time with my family/other hobby/studies." It simply becomes more
difficult to simply step away when one has assumed serious responsibilities.


So...umm...rather than personally inquiring of people if they'd be willing
to act as CU/OS mentors, or if they'd like to drop listadmin
responsibilities, I'll just leave it here in this thread for response at
this point.

Risker/Anne
----------
From cooties at me.com Sun Nov 29 19:46:36 2009
From: cooties at me.com (Alison Cassidy)
Date: Sun, 29 Nov 2009 11:46:36 -0800
Subject: [Functionaries-en] Fwd: Motion regarding your recent blog post
In-Reply-To: <65220.66.243.192.74.1259520614.squirrel@webmail.fairpoint.net>
References: <4B11D8AF.2040102@uberbox.org>
<fbad4e140911290319v7a480584q432f14239e0389b5@mail.gmail.com>
<fbad4e140911290320x4b331038m4204439d6ac17645@mail.gmail.com>
<deea21830911290405v2bec8237w4b737fb127687f4c@mail.gmail.com>
<deea21830911290451o748a13c0ta7c2a56e0aaa4362@mail.gmail.com>
<130FB3E7-7453-4FE7-BDB0-7E01FF1DC65D@wikimedia.org>
<4b12b045.0d67f10a.26ee.ffffc70b@mx.google.com>
<CFF833E6-D102-4C82-B493-830A3FAE517E@gmail.com>
<99c65f730911291024k78e94c99q6a30a160f7dc2585@mail.gmail.com>
<65220.66.243.192.74.1259520614.squirrel@webmail.fairpoint.net>
Message-ID: <9CD94166-7F51-488B-8029-E4D12AF6D9F5@me.com>

It *is* pretty outrageous. And his earlier "dancing on skulls" remark
was offensive in the extreme & reflected badly upon us all, in my
opinion.

Having said that, David was one of the few people in the admin
community who had the fortitude and understanding to stand up to
Andrew Morrow, and to do so publicly. There are others, of course
(Josh, Dominic, Thatcher, Lar, John, etc) but I *will* always be
grateful for what he did, not just for me, but for the BLP subjects
and his other targets.

Jes' sayin' ..... He did a lot of good betimes, too.

-- Allie
-----------
From User.CoolHandLuke at gmail.com Sun Nov 29 19:48:53 2009
From: User.CoolHandLuke at gmail.com (Cool Hand Luke)
Date: Sun, 29 Nov 2009 13:48:53 -0600
Subject: [Functionaries-en] Fwd: Motion regarding your recent blog post
In-Reply-To: <65220.66.243.192.74.1259520614.squirrel@webmail.fairpoint.net>
References: <4B11D8AF.2040102@uberbox.org>
<fbad4e140911290319v7a480584q432f14239e0389b5@mail.gmail.com>
<fbad4e140911290320x4b331038m4204439d6ac17645@mail.gmail.com>
<deea21830911290405v2bec8237w4b737fb127687f4c@mail.gmail.com>
<deea21830911290451o748a13c0ta7c2a56e0aaa4362@mail.gmail.com>
<130FB3E7-7453-4FE7-BDB0-7E01FF1DC65D@wikimedia.org>
<4b12b045.0d67f10a.26ee.ffffc70b@mx.google.com>
<CFF833E6-D102-4C82-B493-830A3FAE517E@gmail.com>
<99c65f730911291024k78e94c99q6a30a160f7dc2585@mail.gmail.com>
<65220.66.243.192.74.1259520614.squirrel@webmail.fairpoint.net>
Message-ID: <8ec76cd10911291148g190601fbi69501d27495bf7d1@mail.gmail.com>

On Sun, Nov 29, 2009 at 12:50 PM, Fred Bauder <fredbaud at fairpoint.net>wrote:

> I was puzzled at first, but decided that declaring that someone was a
> "waste of skin" actually is pretty outrageous.
>
> If the Arbitration Committee were retaliating for David's criticisms they
> would have said so, the better to intimidate you with, my dear...
>
> Fred
>
>
>
I agree. I found this behavior quite chilling to the project. Why would
any famous person want to edit Wikipedia when a rogue CU might ridicule them
in response to vandalism on their own biography? I cannot imagine why
anyone would think that was an appropriate response.

I'm not opposed to restoring access to this list, if we think his role as
ArbCom critic on functionaries-l is indispensable, but his behavior is
completely inconsistent with holding CU and other advanced permissions.

Frank
----------
From marc at uberbox.org Sun Nov 29 19:52:23 2009
From: marc at uberbox.org (Marc A. Pelletier)
Date: Sun, 29 Nov 2009 14:52:23 -0500
Subject: [Functionaries-en] Fwd: Motion regarding your recent blog post
In-Reply-To: <99c65f730911291118y6d28f66ubb3e6e7bda1616db@mail.gmail.com>
References: <4B11D8AF.2040102@uberbox.org>
<fbad4e140911290319v7a480584q432f14239e0389b5@mail.gmail.com>
<fbad4e140911290320x4b331038m4204439d6ac17645@mail.gmail.com>
<deea21830911290405v2bec8237w4b737fb127687f4c@mail.gmail.com>
<deea21830911290451o748a13c0ta7c2a56e0aaa4362@mail.gmail.com>
<130FB3E7-7453-4FE7-BDB0-7E01FF1DC65D@wikimedia.org>
<4b12b045.0d67f10a.26ee.ffffc70b@mx.google.com>
<eb45e7c0911291048q677c2968oea1d6a8c17a492dd@mail.gmail.com>
<4B12C5CD.6030709@uberbox.org>
<99c65f730911291118y6d28f66ubb3e6e7bda1616db@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <4B12D0F7.6060509@uberbox.org>

Josh Gordon wrote:
>
> Ah. Has legal counsel advised this action?

No, we would have stated so explicitly if that was case. This is my own
informed opinion, although the chaos of jurisdictional disputes
complicates matters significantly and I wouldn't dare venture a guess at
how something like this would unfold beyond the fact that it'd be long,
complicated and would reflect poorly on Wikipedia regardless of what
happened in the end.

The point is simpler: David was *perceived* as representing the project
(despite the involved subtleties - the press isn't known for being
diligent at trying to understand such things clearly); a perception that
was reinforced greatly by his status as a functionary.

-- Coren / Marc
-----------
From ft2.wiki at gmail.com Sun Nov 29 19:56:11 2009
From: ft2.wiki at gmail.com (FT2)
Date: Sun, 29 Nov 2009 19:56:11 -0000
Subject: [Functionaries-en] Fwd: Motion regarding your recent blog post
In-Reply-To: <eb45e7c0911291138p28cca1fdxf142c29803515735@mail.gmail.com>
References: <4B11D8AF.2040102@uberbox.org> <fbad4e140911290319v7a480584q432f14239e0389b5@mail.gmail.com> <fbad4e140911290320x4b331038m4204439d6ac17645@mail.gmail.com> <deea21830911290405v2bec8237w4b737fb127687f4c@mail.gmail.com> <deea21830911290451o748a13c0ta7c2a56e0aaa4362@mail.gmail.com> <130FB3E7-7453-4FE7-BDB0-7E01FF1DC65D@wikimedia.org> <4b12b045.0d67f10a.26ee.ffffc70b@mx.google.com> <CFF833E6-D102-4C82-B493-830A3FAE517E@gmail.com> <99c65f730911291024k78e94c99q6a30a160f7dc2585@mail.gmail.com> <65220.66.243.192.74.1259520614.squirrel@webmail.fairpoint.net>
<eb45e7c0911291138p28cca1fdxf142c29803515735@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <4b12d1dc.0e67f10a.6d76.ffffca8f@mx.google.com>

One thing I hated when I was on the Committee, was the delicacy needed to
avoid egos, and the way that despite being our very best, elected for
fairness and the like, a few people were over willing to show bad faith,
accuse, or whatever. Stress does that.

So I would like to say on my part, that I don't see this thread as
"personal" or "political". Maybe I'm naive in that, but until shown
otherwise that's my impression. Fair concerns have been shown by arbs,
including at least one I know categorically doesn't ever play games, and
while the stated concerns included a dodgy point, I have no impression this
was due to malice or conspiracy. Every Arbcom's had major slipups, usually
due to stress, matters that slipped by without careful review, or whatever.
Undesirable but not malicious. Usually they kick themselves more than anyone
and worry how to explain it to others who _will_ assume bad faith. We don't
have to ABF here; we're more clued in than that. If I'm not being naive.

Dropping the [[WP:SOAPBOX]] on that point... what that means is - Risker,
if you feel something needs proposing, propose it in its own thread. Don't
sit worrying whether some backlash on one matter will cloud a fair response
to another.

'Kay?

Paul.
-----------
From ft2.wiki at gmail.com Sun Nov 29 19:56:55 2009
From: ft2.wiki at gmail.com (FT2)
Date: Sun, 29 Nov 2009 19:56:55 -0000
Subject: [Functionaries-en] Fwd: Motion regarding your recent blog post
Message-ID: <4b12d208.1067f10a.54e1.ffffcb58@mx.google.com>

Thanks again, Risker. Thinking this through, can you let me know if this
sounds about right.


1/ David has stated off wiki to a third party, that they are confirmed to
have been socking based on checkuser evidence.

2/ He doesn't give that alleged evidence out publicly (quite proper) but it
turns out that in fact the matter appears to have been years old and
unproven at best -- any evidence actually either doesn't exist or is at best
questionable. If he did have any good evidence, he hasn't shown the
Committee nor is it in the archives. There was past disruption related to
Landeryou but no clear evidence this was him either; at most suspicion.

3/ It's doubtful he revealed anything obtained via private information. The
notion that Landeryou may have operated accounts or had a past on Wikipedia
is public and covered in past on-wiki posts. Moreso, if it's accurate to say
no Checkuser evidence existed, then it's hard to see how he can have misused
any such private information.

To underline this, I imagine this example: a checkuser appointed in 2009,
who did not look up any private data nor any archives, makes a statement on
an off-wiki forum that X had a past on-wiki "because past CU investigations
said so". They are at worst misrepresenting a wiki matter publicly, and
should not do that... but they are 1/ doing so 100% off-wiki and 2/
crucially, could not be breaching (or disseminating) private data to do so.


Clearly one should not use their standing as a checkuser to bolster an
off-wiki matter, by implying evidence exists where it was inconclusive. But
that's not the same as breaching privacy. No actual breach would have taken
place, more just making an unfounded claim citing their CU standing, in an
off-wiki dispute. To that extent there may be an over-harsh claim being
made.

It sounds like the Committee's view is that he cannot both hold himself to
be an informal spokesperson and functionary -- both very important roles --
if, when he speaks publicly, he might also make poorly founded claims "as a
functionary".

If he _didn't_ breach privacy, then perhaps a formal decision telling him to
formally put his claim right and not make unsubstantiated wiki-claims in an
off-wiki dispute in future, might be enough? In other words a formal
warning that specified kinds of conduct off-wiki are a concern ("conduct
unbecoming") and seeking discussion of his view on his own conduct and an
understanding going forward.

I'd expect him to be told to put it right and not do it again. But I think
if this is what's up, the claim of breaching privacy may be on dodgy ground.
_If so_, admitting an appeal on that basis (and on the basis he didn't
discuss fully in private as requested), and discussing these issues before
reaching a further opinion, looks the safest and least "drama-filled" way to
fix it for all.

My $0.02 on it..... and thanks to the arbs for the time spent in carefully
explaining the factual basis of concern.


Paul.
----------
From lar at miltontrainworks.com Sun Nov 29 19:56:36 2009
From: lar at miltontrainworks.com (Larry Pieniazek)
Date: Sun, 29 Nov 2009 14:56:36 -0500
Subject: [Functionaries-en] Fwd: Motion regarding your recent blog post
In-Reply-To: <4b12c2ed.0e67f10a.6af9.ffffcc03@mx.google.com>
References: <4B11D8AF.2040102@uberbox.org> <fbad4e140911290319v7a480584q432f14239e0389b5@mail.gmail.com> <fbad4e140911290320x4b331038m4204439d6ac17645@mail.gmail.com> <deea21830911290405v2bec8237w4b737fb127687f4c@mail.gmail.com> <deea21830911290451o748a13c0ta7c2a56e0aaa4362@mail.gmail.com> <130FB3E7-7453-4FE7-BDB0-7E01FF1DC65D@wikimedia.org> <4b12b045.0d67f10a.26ee.ffffc70b@mx.google.com><eb45e7c0911291048q677c2968oea1d6a8c17a492dd@mail.gmail.com>
<4b12c2ed.0e67f10a.6af9.ffffcc03@mx.google.com>
Message-ID: <03d201ca712e$2002a900$15854d09@svl.ibm.com>

> -----Original Message-----
> From: functionaries-en-bounces at lists.wikimedia.org
> [mailto:functionaries-en-bounces at lists.wikimedia.org] On Behalf Of FT2
> Sent: Sunday, November 29, 2009 1:52 PM
> To: 'Functionaries email list for the English Wikipedia'
> Subject: Re: [Functionaries-en] Fwd: Motion regarding your
> recent blog post
>
> Thanks for this Risker. Thinking this through - there's a lot
> of text here
> smile.gif
>
> Paul.

Irony alert!

Larry Pieniazek
Hobby mail: Lar at Miltontrainworks dot com
----------
From dwellmeister at googlemail.com Sun Nov 29 20:01:57 2009
From: dwellmeister at googlemail.com (Dweller)
Date: Sun, 29 Nov 2009 20:01:57 +0000
Subject: [Functionaries-en] Fwd: Motion regarding your recent blog post
In-Reply-To: <9CD94166-7F51-488B-8029-E4D12AF6D9F5@me.com>
References: <4B11D8AF.2040102@uberbox.org>
<fbad4e140911290319v7a480584q432f14239e0389b5@mail.gmail.com>
<fbad4e140911290320x4b331038m4204439d6ac17645@mail.gmail.com>
<deea21830911290405v2bec8237w4b737fb127687f4c@mail.gmail.com>
<deea21830911290451o748a13c0ta7c2a56e0aaa4362@mail.gmail.com>
<130FB3E7-7453-4FE7-BDB0-7E01FF1DC65D@wikimedia.org>
<4b12b045.0d67f10a.26ee.ffffc70b@mx.google.com>
<CFF833E6-D102-4C82-B493-830A3FAE517E@gmail.com>
<99c65f730911291024k78e94c99q6a30a160f7dc2585@mail.gmail.com>
<65220.66.243.192.74.1259520614.squirrel@webmail.fairpoint.net>
<9CD94166-7F51-488B-8029-E4D12AF6D9F5@me.com>
Message-ID: <413FCC66-D15A-4403-80D6-53AEF80E9975@gmail.com>

My admittedly limited perception is that David has done a lot of good
for this project, some of which has been in unpleasant areas
I hope that some bridge building or at least public recognition of
this could be made.
Dweller
----------
From marc at uberbox.org Sun Nov 29 20:03:30 2009
From: marc at uberbox.org (Marc A. Pelletier)
Date: Sun, 29 Nov 2009 15:03:30 -0500
Subject: [Functionaries-en] Fwd: Motion regarding your recent blog post
In-Reply-To: <99c65f730911291157x40efe4c2v9f308a82c5482770@mail.gmail.com>
References: <4B11D8AF.2040102@uberbox.org>
<fbad4e140911290320x4b331038m4204439d6ac17645@mail.gmail.com>
<deea21830911290405v2bec8237w4b737fb127687f4c@mail.gmail.com>
<deea21830911290451o748a13c0ta7c2a56e0aaa4362@mail.gmail.com>
<130FB3E7-7453-4FE7-BDB0-7E01FF1DC65D@wikimedia.org>
<4b12b045.0d67f10a.26ee.ffffc70b@mx.google.com>
<eb45e7c0911291048q677c2968oea1d6a8c17a492dd@mail.gmail.com>
<4B12C5CD.6030709@uberbox.org>
<99c65f730911291118y6d28f66ubb3e6e7bda1616db@mail.gmail.com>
<4B12D0F7.6060509@uberbox.org>
<99c65f730911291157x40efe4c2v9f308a82c5482770@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <4B12D392.6090005@uberbox.org>

Josh Gordon wrote:
>
> Really? Do those with such perceptions really care a bean about
> inside-baseball stuff like "functionary" status?

I would expect not, for the most part, except for the cases when that
status is specifically being used to bolster a public statement (as
happened here).

Frankly, David is very much intelligent enough to be aware that his
position near the spotlight means his declarations reflect on the
project; and that such intemperate statements can cause significant
harm. That he failed to see this -- or refused to act accordingly -- is
the primary problem.

-- Coren / Marc
----------
From ft2.wiki at gmail.com Sun Nov 29 20:14:16 2009
From: ft2.wiki at gmail.com (FT2)
Date: Sun, 29 Nov 2009 20:14:16 -0000
Subject: [Functionaries-en] Fwd: Motion regarding your recent blog post
In-Reply-To: <03d201ca712e$2002a900$15854d09@svl.ibm.com>
References: <4B11D8AF.2040102@uberbox.org> <fbad4e140911290319v7a480584q432f14239e0389b5@mail.gmail.com> <fbad4e140911290320x4b331038m4204439d6ac17645@mail.gmail.com> <deea21830911290405v2bec8237w4b737fb127687f4c@mail.gmail.com> <deea21830911290451o748a13c0ta7c2a56e0aaa4362@mail.gmail.com> <130FB3E7-7453-4FE7-BDB0-7E01FF1DC65D@wikimedia.org> <4b12b045.0d67f10a.26ee.ffffc70b@mx.google.com><eb45e7c0911291048q677c2968oea1d6a8c17a492dd@mail.gmail.com> <4b12c2ed.0e67f10a.6af9.ffffcc03@mx.google.com>
<03d201ca712e$2002a900$15854d09@svl.ibm.com>
Message-ID: <4b12d619.0e67f10a.6b61.ffffd315@mx.google.com>

> -----Original Message-----
> Larry Pieniazek
> Sent: 29 November 2009 19:57
> To: 'Functionaries email list for the English Wikipedia'
> Subject: Re: [Functionaries-en] Fwd: Motion regarding your recent
> blog post
>
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: functionaries-en-bounces at lists.wikimedia.org
> > [mailto:functionaries-en-bounces at lists.wikimedia.org] On Behalf Of
> FT2
> > Sent: Sunday, November 29, 2009 1:52 PM
> > To: 'Functionaries email list for the English Wikipedia'
> > Subject: Re: [Functionaries-en] Fwd: Motion regarding your
> > recent blog post
> >
> > Thanks for this Risker. Thinking this through - there's a lot
> > of text here
> > smile.gif
> >
> > Paul.
>
> Irony alert!


It wasn't a complaint, was it! smile.gif

I value the disclosure. Why? Because sorting through for a few extra minutes
but knowing its comprehensive for review, trumps having a quick job because
the data's unreliable, inadequate or curtailed smile.gif

Paul.
----------
From lar at miltontrainworks.com Sun Nov 29 20:15:34 2009
From: lar at miltontrainworks.com (Larry Pieniazek)
Date: Sun, 29 Nov 2009 15:15:34 -0500
Subject: [Functionaries-en] Fwd: Motion regarding your recent blog post
In-Reply-To: <413FCC66-D15A-4403-80D6-53AEF80E9975@gmail.com>
References: <4B11D8AF.2040102@uberbox.org><fbad4e140911290319v7a480584q432f14239e0389b5@mail.gmail.com><fbad4e140911290320x4b331038m4204439d6ac17645@mail.gmail.com><deea21830911290405v2bec8237w4b737fb127687f4c@mail.gmail.com><deea21830911290451o748a13c0ta7c2a56e0aaa4362@mail.gmail.com><130FB3E7-7453-4FE7-BDB0-7E01FF1DC65D@wikimedia.org><4b12b045.0d67f10a.26ee.ffffc70b@mx.google.com><CFF833E6-D102-4C82-B493-830A3FAE517E@gmail.com><99c65f730911291024k78e94c99q6a30a160f7dc2585@mail.gmail.com><65220.66.243.192.74.1259520614.squirrel@webmail.fairpoint.net><9CD94166-7F51-488B-8029-E4D12AF6D9F5@me.com>
<413FCC66-D15A-4403-80D6-53AEF80E9975@gmail.com>
Message-ID: <040801ca7130$b90c9960$15854d09@svl.ibm.com>

Seconded...

Here is where I came out. I wish David hadn't posted what he did... I don't
have enough info to pass judgement on whether it was serious enough to merit
a "conduct unbecoming" removal, but I trust the judgment of those who do.

That said, we need iconoclasts and curmudgeons and pundits to keep things
sane. David has clue and if there is a way to keep him on this list (if he's
willing) I'd favor it.

Larry Pieniazek
Hobby mail: Lar at Miltontrainworks dot com
----------
From kat at mindspillage.org Sun Nov 29 20:34:22 2009
From: kat at mindspillage.org (Kat Walsh)
Date: Sun, 29 Nov 2009 15:34:22 -0500
Subject: [Functionaries-en] Fwd: Motion regarding your recent blog post
In-Reply-To: <4b12d208.1067f10a.54e1.ffffcb58@mx.google.com>
References: <4b12d208.1067f10a.54e1.ffffcb58@mx.google.com>
Message-ID: <8e253f560911291234v6ee60074jdfbde532e026eea9@mail.gmail.com>

On Sun, Nov 29, 2009 at 2:56 PM, FT2 <ft2.wiki at gmail.com> wrote:
> Thanks again, Risker. Thinking this through, can you let me know if this
> sounds about right.
>
>
> 1/ David has stated off wiki to a third party, that they are confirmed to
> have been socking based on checkuser evidence.
>
> 2/ He doesn't give that alleged evidence out publicly (quite proper) but it
> turns out that in fact the matter appears to have been years old and
> unproven at best -- any evidence actually either doesn't exist or is at best
> questionable. If he did have any good evidence, he hasn't shown the
> Committee nor is it in the archives. There was past disruption related to
> Landeryou but no clear evidence this was him either; at most suspicion.
>
> 3/ It's doubtful he revealed anything obtained via private information. The
> notion that Landeryou may have operated accounts or had a past on Wikipedia
> is public and covered in past on-wiki posts. Moreso, if it's accurate to say
> no Checkuser evidence existed, then it's hard to see how he can have misused
> any such private information.
>
> To underline this, I imagine this example: a checkuser appointed in 2009,
> who did not look up any private data nor any archives, makes a statement on
> an off-wiki forum that X had a past on-wiki "because past CU investigations
> said so". They are at worst misrepresenting a wiki matter publicly, and
> should not do that... but they are 1/ doing so 100% off-wiki and 2/
> crucially, could not be breaching (or disseminating) private data to do so.
>
>
> Clearly one should not use their standing as a checkuser to bolster an
> off-wiki matter, by implying evidence exists where it was inconclusive. But
> that's not the same as breaching privacy. No actual breach would have taken
> place, more just making an unfounded claim citing their CU standing, in an
> off-wiki dispute. To that extent there may be an over-harsh claim being
> made.
>
> It sounds like the Committee's view is that he cannot both hold himself to
> be an informal spokesperson and functionary -- both very important roles --
> if, when he speaks publicly, he might also make poorly founded claims "as a
> functionary".
>
> If he _didn't_ breach privacy, then perhaps a formal decision telling him to
> formally put his claim right and not make unsubstantiated wiki-claims in an
> off-wiki dispute in future, might be enough? ?In other words a formal
> warning that specified kinds of conduct off-wiki are a concern ("conduct
> unbecoming") and seeking discussion of his view on his own conduct and an
> understanding going forward.
>
> I'd expect him to be told to put it right and not do it again. But I think
> if this is what's up, the claim of breaching privacy may be on dodgy ground.
> _If so_, admitting an appeal on that basis (and on the basis he didn't
> discuss fully in private as requested), and discussing these issues before
> reaching a further opinion, looks the safest and least "drama-filled" way to

I think I agree with this post. It should be pretty crystal clear that
David actually misused access before anyone accuses him of it
publicly.

Am I misunderstanding the situation? I am getting from this that there
was never any confirmation of Landeryou's identity to disclose, and
David is stating his unproven suspicion as fact. Not fair or becoming,
maybe, but not a misuse of privileged access.

If you're going to sanction him for misconduct and think that alone
justifies it, go with that and stand behind it. (I don't agree, though
he'd be my edge case, but my opinion is only that.)

-Kat
just kibitzing, WMF hat firmly off, blah, blah, blah
User is offlineProfile CardPM
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
carbuncle
post Wed 29th June 2011, 2:27am
Post #5


Fat Cat
******

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



No wonder Gerard's leaking all this stuff now...
User is offlineProfile CardPM
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
MaliceAforethought
post Wed 29th June 2011, 2:30am
Post #6


u Mad?
***

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



From kat at mindspillage.org Sun Nov 29 20:34:56 2009
From: kat at mindspillage.org (Kat Walsh)
Date: Sun, 29 Nov 2009 15:34:56 -0500
Subject: [Functionaries-en] Fwd: Motion regarding your recent blog post
In-Reply-To: <99c65f730911291157x40efe4c2v9f308a82c5482770@mail.gmail.com>
References: <4B11D8AF.2040102@uberbox.org>
<deea21830911290405v2bec8237w4b737fb127687f4c@mail.gmail.com>
<deea21830911290451o748a13c0ta7c2a56e0aaa4362@mail.gmail.com>
<130FB3E7-7453-4FE7-BDB0-7E01FF1DC65D@wikimedia.org>
<4b12b045.0d67f10a.26ee.ffffc70b@mx.google.com>
<eb45e7c0911291048q677c2968oea1d6a8c17a492dd@mail.gmail.com>
<4B12C5CD.6030709@uberbox.org>
<99c65f730911291118y6d28f66ubb3e6e7bda1616db@mail.gmail.com>
<4B12D0F7.6060509@uberbox.org>
<99c65f730911291157x40efe4c2v9f308a82c5482770@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <8e253f560911291234h5f042cadj6e7a5abf826c66fb@mail.gmail.com>

On Sun, Nov 29, 2009 at 2:57 PM, Josh Gordon <user.jpgordon at gmail.com> wrote:

> Really? Do those with such perceptions really care a bean about
> inside-baseball stuff like "functionary" status?

In my experience, no, and they'll either fall asleep or hopelessly
botch it if you try to explain it. (I dread even having to explain
"administrator" to press, much less any more arcane functionary role.)
David is notable for being the strongly-opinionated (but
well-informed) voice of Wikimedia UK, not for being an en.wp
functionary.

-Kat
just kibitzing, WMF hat firmly off, blah, blah, blah.
----------
From carcharothwp at googlemail.com Sun Nov 29 20:46:49 2009
From: carcharothwp at googlemail.com (Carcharoth)
Date: Sun, 29 Nov 2009 20:46:49 +0000
Subject: [Functionaries-en] Fwd: Motion regarding your recent blog post
In-Reply-To: <8e253f560911291234h5f042cadj6e7a5abf826c66fb@mail.gmail.com>
References: <4B11D8AF.2040102@uberbox.org>
<deea21830911290451o748a13c0ta7c2a56e0aaa4362@mail.gmail.com>
<130FB3E7-7453-4FE7-BDB0-7E01FF1DC65D@wikimedia.org>
<4b12b045.0d67f10a.26ee.ffffc70b@mx.google.com>
<eb45e7c0911291048q677c2968oea1d6a8c17a492dd@mail.gmail.com>
<4B12C5CD.6030709@uberbox.org>
<99c65f730911291118y6d28f66ubb3e6e7bda1616db@mail.gmail.com>
<4B12D0F7.6060509@uberbox.org>
<99c65f730911291157x40efe4c2v9f308a82c5482770@mail.gmail.com>
<8e253f560911291234h5f042cadj6e7a5abf826c66fb@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <206791b10911291246p12e5587bn40215d6c50206bd5@mail.gmail.com>

On Sun, Nov 29, 2009 at 8:34 PM, Kat Walsh <kat at mindspillage.org> wrote:
> On Sun, Nov 29, 2009 at 2:57 PM, Josh Gordon <user.jpgordon at gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> Really? Do those with such perceptions really care a bean about
>> inside-baseball stuff like "functionary" status?
>
> In my experience, no, and they'll either fall asleep or hopelessly
> botch it if you try to explain it. (I dread even having to explain
> "administrator" to press, much less any more arcane functionary role.)
> David is notable for being the strongly-opinionated (but
> well-informed) voice of Wikimedia UK, not for being an en.wp
> functionary.

David is not the voice of Wikimedia UK. He is on ComCom, but not
associated with the new incarnation of Wikimedia UK. Hopefully all WMF
people know that by now, and are not giving anyone the impression
David is the voice of Wikimedia UK.

This caused confusion before (on wikinews). See here:

http://en.wikinews.org/wiki/Talk:U.K._Nati...K_press_officer

Carcharoth
-----------
From User.CoolHandLuke at gmail.com Sun Nov 29 20:51:41 2009
From: User.CoolHandLuke at gmail.com (Cool Hand Luke)
Date: Sun, 29 Nov 2009 14:51:41 -0600
Subject: [Functionaries-en] Fwd: Motion regarding your recent blog post
In-Reply-To: <8e253f560911291234v6ee60074jdfbde532e026eea9@mail.gmail.com>
References: <4b12d208.1067f10a.54e1.ffffcb58@mx.google.com>
<8e253f560911291234v6ee60074jdfbde532e026eea9@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <8ec76cd10911291251o1561afcap25bfc64a196b2c4a@mail.gmail.com>

A hypothetical.

Would it be appropriate for me to claim that "Gary Weiss is currently
editing Wikipedia (and I ran the checkusers proving it)"? Consider that,
unlike with Mr. Landeryou, we do know this on the basis of reliable if
illegally-obtained information that Gary Weiss *is *actually editing
Wikipedia. Would that justify me publicly singling him out?

I think not. We have actually discussed the matter, and that seemed to be
the consensus.

Suppose I go even farther and call Gary Weiss a waste of skin? Given my
position in the project, would that reflect well on Wikipedia? Yes or no?
This is not a difficult question.

Identifying named individuals who have edited Wikipedia requires privileged
information, and singling them out for abuse involves a breech of confidence
(not to mention common sense).

Frank


On Sun, Nov 29, 2009 at 2:34 PM, Kat Walsh <kat at mindspillage.org> wrote:

> On Sun, Nov 29, 2009 at 2:56 PM, FT2 <ft2.wiki at gmail.com> wrote:
> > Thanks again, Risker. Thinking this through, can you let me know if this
> > sounds about right.
> >
----------
From ft2.wiki at gmail.com Sun Nov 29 20:58:01 2009
From: ft2.wiki at gmail.com (FT2)
Date: Sun, 29 Nov 2009 20:58:01 -0000
Subject: [Functionaries-en] Fwd: Motion regarding your recent blog post
In-Reply-To: <206791b10911291246p12e5587bn40215d6c50206bd5@mail.gmail.com>
References: <4B11D8AF.2040102@uberbox.org> <deea21830911290451o748a13c0ta7c2a56e0aaa4362@mail.gmail.com> <130FB3E7-7453-4FE7-BDB0-7E01FF1DC65D@wikimedia.org> <4b12b045.0d67f10a.26ee.ffffc70b@mx.google.com> <eb45e7c0911291048q677c2968oea1d6a8c17a492dd@mail.gmail.com> <4B12C5CD.6030709@uberbox.org> <99c65f730911291118y6d28f66ubb3e6e7bda1616db@mail.gmail.com> <4B12D0F7.6060509@uberbox.org> <99c65f730911291157x40efe4c2v9f308a82c5482770@mail.gmail.com> <8e253f560911291234h5f042cadj6e7a5abf826c66fb@mail.gmail.com>
<206791b10911291246p12e5587bn40215d6c50206bd5@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <4b12e05a.0f67f10a.16a9.ffffd0cf@mx.google.com>

Indeed, Gerard isn't on the board of WM UK, but he's well known among those
who care, as the (informal) spokesperson for Wikimedia in that country.

For example in this year's National Portrait legal issue, which made mass
media worldwide, David was the person on prime time news, TV and radio
making the cogent case for WMF and DCoetzee, citing the figures, etc. Not
some other WM UK person (as far as I'm aware).

In that sense it's a fair description, in the eyes of third parties and the
media (who don't really care if it's ComCom or WM UK or whatever).

Paul.
-----------
From keegan.wiki at gmail.com Sun Nov 29 21:02:23 2009
From: keegan.wiki at gmail.com (Keegan Peterzell)
Date: Sun, 29 Nov 2009 15:02:23 -0600
Subject: [Functionaries-en] Fwd: Motion regarding your recent blog post
In-Reply-To: <4b12e05a.0f67f10a.16a9.ffffd0cf@mx.google.com>
References: <4B11D8AF.2040102@uberbox.org>
<4b12b045.0d67f10a.26ee.ffffc70b@mx.google.com>
<eb45e7c0911291048q677c2968oea1d6a8c17a492dd@mail.gmail.com>
<4B12C5CD.6030709@uberbox.org>
<99c65f730911291118y6d28f66ubb3e6e7bda1616db@mail.gmail.com>
<4B12D0F7.6060509@uberbox.org>
<99c65f730911291157x40efe4c2v9f308a82c5482770@mail.gmail.com>
<8e253f560911291234h5f042cadj6e7a5abf826c66fb@mail.gmail.com>
<206791b10911291246p12e5587bn40215d6c50206bd5@mail.gmail.com>
<4b12e05a.0f67f10a.16a9.ffffd0cf@mx.google.com>
Message-ID: <5844c9860911291302o1012ceb1j2dca13a8926f538f@mail.gmail.com>

Y'all quit flooding my inbox, it's interfering with the offers of porn.

--
~Keegan
----------
From risker.wp at gmail.com Sun Nov 29 21:02:42 2009
From: risker.wp at gmail.com (Risker)
Date: Sun, 29 Nov 2009 21:02:42 +0000
Subject: [Functionaries-en] Fwd: Motion regarding your recent blog post
In-Reply-To: <8ec76cd10911291251o1561afcap25bfc64a196b2c4a@mail.gmail.com>
References: <4b12d208.1067f10a.54e1.ffffcb58@mx.google.com>
<8e253f560911291234v6ee60074jdfbde532e026eea9@mail.gmail.com>
<8ec76cd10911291251o1561afcap25bfc64a196b2c4a@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <eb45e7c0911291302o187c2a8fv56449d6309a6f49@mail.gmail.com>

I have to agree with Cool Hand Luke here. In my opinion, any checkuser
information that hasn't been discussed on-wiki, for valid reasons, is
confidential and should not be revealed to an outside forum. Indeed, while
David's post to ANI in 2006 mentioning AL may have been acceptable at that
time, I would hope no checkuser would do that today, given our increasing
awareness of the sensitivity of the use of people's real names. That the
public statement David made doesn't even match the facts is a significantly
aggravating factor, and could potentially raise questions about the validity
of other checks, statements about accounts, and blocks he has made, not to
mention those of other checkusers.

That in this case the real name is also associated with a BLP that had just
been vandalised makes things that much worse.

Risker/Anne
----------
From: keegan.wiki at gmail.com (Keegan Peterzell)
Date: Sun, 29 Nov 2009 15:06:04 -0600
Subject: [Functionaries-en] Fwd: Motion regarding your recent blog post
In-Reply-To: <eb45e7c0911291302o187c2a8fv56449d6309a6f49@mail.gmail.com>
References: <4b12d208.1067f10a.54e1.ffffcb58@mx.google.com>
<8e253f560911291234v6ee60074jdfbde532e026eea9@mail.gmail.com>
<8ec76cd10911291251o1561afcap25bfc64a196b2c4a@mail.gmail.com>
<eb45e7c0911291302o187c2a8fv56449d6309a6f49@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <5844c9860911291306s763fb6bak47f230af15a87009@mail.gmail.com>

Thank you, Risker, now I missed a very important Viagra offer.

Take this to the wiki if we want to debate Gerard's status on en.wiki. CU
and OS is at the behest of the Committee, so the perfect playground is the
talk page for the announcement. I won't be playing, mom's mad at me because
I didn't make my bed.

On Sun, Nov 29, 2009 at 3:02 PM, Risker <risker.wp at gmail.com> wrote:

> I have to agree with Cool Hand Luke here. In my opinion, any checkuser
> information that hasn't been discussed on-wiki, for valid reasons, is
> confidential and should not be revealed to an outside forum. Indeed, while
----------
From ft2.wiki at gmail.com Sun Nov 29 21:13:25 2009
From: ft2.wiki at gmail.com (FT2)
Date: Sun, 29 Nov 2009 21:13:25 -0000
Subject: [Functionaries-en] Fwd: Motion regarding your recent blog post
In-Reply-To: <8ec76cd10911291251o1561afcap25bfc64a196b2c4a@mail.gmail.com>
References: <4b12d208.1067f10a.54e1.ffffcb58@mx.google.com> <8e253f560911291234v6ee60074jdfbde532e026eea9@mail.gmail.com>
<8ec76cd10911291251o1561afcap25bfc64a196b2c4a@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <4b12e3f6.0e67f10a.6af9.ffffd14c@mx.google.com>

On Behalf Of Cool Hand Luke
Sent: 29 November 2009 20:52
To: Functionaries email list for the English Wikipedia
Subject: Re: [Functionaries-en] Fwd: Motion regarding your recent blog post

A hypothetical.

Would it be appropriate for me to claim that "Gary Weiss is currently
editing Wikipedia (and I ran the checkusers proving it)"?? Consider that,
unlike with Mr. Landeryou, we do know this on the basis of reliable if
illegally-obtained information that Gary Weiss is actually editing
Wikipedia.? Would that justify me publicly singling him out?

I think not.? We have actually discussed the matter, and that seemed to be
the consensus.

Suppose I go even farther and call Gary Weiss a waste of skin?? Given my
position in the project, would that reflect well on Wikipedia?? Yes or no??
This is not a difficult question.

Identifying named individuals who have edited Wikipedia requires privileged
information, and singling them out for abuse involves a breech of confidence
(not to mention common sense).

Frank



Um.. we _haven't got_ any evidence whether he is one of any "named
individuals who have edited Wikipedia". Clearly no private information was
used or abused to back the claim either. We have an unsubstantiated claim,
but that's all.

Comes back to the same thing. It may be wrong to make an unsubstantiated
off-wiki claim that X was (an editor, a sock-user, whatever), and also to
back that with "I'm a checkuser so I know". But it doesn't amount to an
abuse or use of any private data. If the data doesn't exist, it can't be
used or misused, period, nor can it have had its confidence breached.
Nothing confidential was stated in public. At most it's making an
unsubstantiated claim.

The other point's more relevant: "Should someone make such claims off-wiki,
especially citing CU standing as substantiation"? Not a privacy issue, but a
conduct issue.

But I don't think one can make a consistent claim that both (A) no data or
evidence exists, and (B) the user disseminated the private data or evidence.
It either exists, or it doesn't. Stating merely "I ran CU work to look at
some matter" is not private, otherwise any CU posting at SPI would be in
breach. It is at most "conduct unbecoming" by making an unsubstantiated
off-wiki claim.

In brief, I don't think there can logically be a claim of disclosure of
private information that we've already been assured didn't exist in the
first place.

Thought experiment: I claim publicly that Barrack Obama edited Wikipedia
because Checkuser work says so. But there isn't such a check or data. Have I
breached any WMF private data or disclosed any non-public info? No, of
course not. I _have_ however made an unsubstantiated claim that I need to
publicly withdraw, and agree not to do again, and my conduct may get concern
from my peers. But privacy breach? No.


Paul.
----------
From dmcdevit at cox.net Sun Nov 29 21:18:36 2009
From: dmcdevit at cox.net (Dominic)
Date: Sun, 29 Nov 2009 14:18:36 -0700
Subject: [Functionaries-en] Fwd: Motion regarding your recent blog post
In-Reply-To: <eb45e7c0911291048q677c2968oea1d6a8c17a492dd@mail.gmail.com>
References: <4B11D8AF.2040102@uberbox.org> <fbad4e140911290319v7a480584q432f14239e0389b5@mail.gmail.com> <fbad4e140911290320x4b331038m4204439d6ac17645@mail.gmail.com> <deea21830911290405v2bec8237w4b737fb127687f4c@mail.gmail.com> <deea21830911290451o748a13c0ta7c2a56e0aaa4362@mail.gmail.com> <130FB3E7-7453-4FE7-BDB0-7E01FF1DC65D@wikimedia.org> <4b12b045.0d67f10a.26ee.ffffc70b@mx.google.com>
<eb45e7c0911291048q677c2968oea1d6a8c17a492dd@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <4B12E52C.6020707@cox.net>

Risker wrote:
>
> Note that this is in relation to an investigation that occurred in
> early 2006, before checkuser requests were logged.

I'd like to note note that CheckUser has been logged since the very
beginning or very near it (July 2005). At some point around October
2006?oldbies will remember that it was very buggy in the first year or
two?it went kaput and one consequence of that was the log disappeared
and had to be started over again. It is not lost though. I have the
CheckUser log from July 2005 to October 2006 in a text file, in case
anyone ever wants or needs it.

Dominic
----------
From ft2.wiki at gmail.com Sun Nov 29 21:23:41 2009
From: ft2.wiki at gmail.com (FT2)
Date: Sun, 29 Nov 2009 21:23:41 -0000
Subject: [Functionaries-en] Fwd: Motion regarding your recent blog post
In-Reply-To: <4B12E52C.6020707@cox.net>
References: <4B11D8AF.2040102@uberbox.org> <fbad4e140911290319v7a480584q432f14239e0389b5@mail.gmail.com> <fbad4e140911290320x4b331038m4204439d6ac17645@mail.gmail.com> <deea21830911290405v2bec8237w4b737fb127687f4c@mail.gmail.com> <deea21830911290451o748a13c0ta7c2a56e0aaa4362@mail.gmail.com> <130FB3E7-7453-4FE7-BDB0-7E01FF1DC65D@wikimedia.org> <4b12b045.0d67f10a.26ee.ffffc70b@mx.google.com> <eb45e7c0911291048q677c2968oea1d6a8c17a492dd@mail.gmail.com>
<4B12E52C.6020707@cox.net>
Message-ID: <4b12e65e.0d67f10a.25d4.ffffd01d@mx.google.com>

Maybe post it to Arbcom or the like? That's one of those things we should
have available, would have available if not for bugs, and could be very
easily lost.

Paul.


> -----Original Message-----
> From: functionaries-en-bounces at lists.wikimedia.org
> [mailto:functionaries-en-bounces at lists.wikimedia.org] On Behalf Of
> Dominic
> Sent: 29 November 2009 21:19
> To: Functionaries email list for the English Wikipedia
> Subject: Re: [Functionaries-en] Fwd: Motion regarding your recent
> blog post
>
> Risker wrote:
> >
> > Note that this is in relation to an investigation that occurred in
> > early 2006, before checkuser requests were logged.
>
> I'd like to note note that CheckUser has been logged since the very
> beginning or very near it (July 2005). At some point around October
> 2006-oldbies will remember that it was very buggy in the first year
> or
> two-it went kaput and one consequence of that was the log disappeared
> and had to be started over again. It is not lost though. I have the
> CheckUser log from July 2005 to October 2006 in a text file, in case
> anyone ever wants or needs it.
-----------
From User.CoolHandLuke at gmail.com Sun Nov 29 21:32:19 2009
From: User.CoolHandLuke at gmail.com (Cool Hand Luke)
Date: Sun, 29 Nov 2009 15:32:19 -0600
Subject: [Functionaries-en] Fwd: Motion regarding your recent blog post
In-Reply-To: <4b12e3f6.0e67f10a.6af9.ffffd14c@mx.google.com>
References: <4b12d208.1067f10a.54e1.ffffcb58@mx.google.com>
<8e253f560911291234v6ee60074jdfbde532e026eea9@mail.gmail.com>
<8ec76cd10911291251o1561afcap25bfc64a196b2c4a@mail.gmail.com>
<4b12e3f6.0e67f10a.6af9.ffffd14c@mx.google.com>
Message-ID: <8ec76cd10911291332x6eec97fbl289408e21919d6a3@mail.gmail.com>

Perhaps this is not clear to you, but David Gerard *did *run checks which he
tentatively believed to identify Landeryou.

At any rate, its patently absurd to suggest that CUs should be allowed to
make whatever claims they wish about named individuals, cite checkuser, yet
be excused because the claims are "unsubstantiated." David Gerard's conduct
is not excused if his statements are false--I think that rather aggravates
the inappropriateness of his remarks.

Call it "abuse of position" if you prefer.

Frank
-----------
From keegan.wiki at gmail.com Sun Nov 29 21:41:50 2009
From: keegan.wiki at gmail.com (Keegan Peterzell)
Date: Sun, 29 Nov 2009 15:41:50 -0600
Subject: [Functionaries-en] Fwd: Motion regarding your recent blog post
In-Reply-To: <8ec76cd10911291332x6eec97fbl289408e21919d6a3@mail.gmail.com>
References: <4b12d208.1067f10a.54e1.ffffcb58@mx.google.com>
<8e253f560911291234v6ee60074jdfbde532e026eea9@mail.gmail.com>
<8ec76cd10911291251o1561afcap25bfc64a196b2c4a@mail.gmail.com>
<4b12e3f6.0e67f10a.6af9.ffffd14c@mx.google.com>
<8ec76cd10911291332x6eec97fbl289408e21919d6a3@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <5844c9860911291341o41839740u7303661e761f5aa6@mail.gmail.com>

On Sun, Nov 29, 2009 at 3:32 PM, Cool Hand Luke <User.CoolHandLuke at gmail.com
> wrote:

> Call it "abuse of position" if you prefer.
>
> Frank


Might have been better if that was the phrasing here from the start.

The arbcom statement onwiki makes this very much more a clear case of straw
that broke the camel's back, particularly in not revealing the pertinent
details of this case. Sorta like the Raul654 situation; it wasn't one
thing, it was the culmination of many.

At least this is what I'm reading into, I'm a new kid to your mailing list.

I'm going to rake the leaves so that mom won't withhold dinner again.

--
~Keegan
-----------
From kat at mindspillage.org Sun Nov 29 22:46:14 2009
From: kat at mindspillage.org (Kat Walsh)
Date: Sun, 29 Nov 2009 17:46:14 -0500
Subject: [Functionaries-en] Fwd: Motion regarding your recent blog post
In-Reply-To: <8ec76cd10911291251o1561afcap25bfc64a196b2c4a@mail.gmail.com>
References: <4b12d208.1067f10a.54e1.ffffcb58@mx.google.com>
<8e253f560911291234v6ee60074jdfbde532e026eea9@mail.gmail.com>
<8ec76cd10911291251o1561afcap25bfc64a196b2c4a@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <8e253f560911291446k19a50b3ye428b02b6dc9a5dd@mail.gmail.com>

On Sun, Nov 29, 2009 at 3:51 PM, Cool Hand Luke
<User.CoolHandLuke at gmail.com> wrote:
> A hypothetical.
>
> Would it be appropriate for me to claim that "Gary Weiss is currently
> editing Wikipedia (and I ran the checkusers proving it)"?? Consider that,
> unlike with Mr. Landeryou, we do know this on the basis of reliable if
> illegally-obtained information that Gary Weiss is actually editing
> Wikipedia.? Would that justify me publicly singling him out?
>
> I think not.? We have actually discussed the matter, and that seemed to be
> the consensus.
>
> Suppose I go even farther and call Gary Weiss a waste of skin?? Given my
> position in the project, would that reflect well on Wikipedia?? Yes or no?
> This is not a difficult question.

No, of course it's not, so why did you ask it? I'm not disagreeing
with that; it's a dumb thing to do.

> Identifying named individuals who have edited Wikipedia requires privileged
> information,

Ah, I don't agree that this is true. If you've found someone out--or
are reasonably convinced you have--with publicly-available
information, I don't believe the information is privileged. (I could
identify people I know well who have particular subject-matter
interests and idiosyncratic ways of expression even if they choose to
be anonymous, though I may be unable to prove it to anyone else's
satisfaction. If I name them, I'm a jerk. I've done something stupid.
I should be tarred and feathered. But I didn't abuse privileged
information.) Again, as I understand it, he identified Landeryou
through public means and was unable to confirm it through privileged
means--am I mistaken?

and singling them out for abuse involves a breech of confidence
> (not to mention common sense).

I would agree with the common sense part.

Let me be clear about what my point is in being argumentative: David
may have done something dumb, unbecoming, unfair, not reflecting well
on Wikipedia, etc., etc., but I think saying someone mishandled
private information is a serious accusation and I don't want to see
him accused of it publicly unless that is without question what he
did.

-Kat
-----------
From jdforrester at gmail.com Sun Nov 29 22:47:37 2009
From: jdforrester at gmail.com (James Forrester)
Date: Sun, 29 Nov 2009 22:47:37 +0000
Subject: [Functionaries-en] Fwd: Motion regarding your recent blog post
In-Reply-To: <4b12e05a.0f67f10a.16a9.ffffd0cf@mx.google.com>
References: <4B11D8AF.2040102@uberbox.org>
<4b12b045.0d67f10a.26ee.ffffc70b@mx.google.com>
<eb45e7c0911291048q677c2968oea1d6a8c17a492dd@mail.gmail.com>
<4B12C5CD.6030709@uberbox.org>
<99c65f730911291118y6d28f66ubb3e6e7bda1616db@mail.gmail.com>
<4B12D0F7.6060509@uberbox.org>
<99c65f730911291157x40efe4c2v9f308a82c5482770@mail.gmail.com>
<8e253f560911291234h5f042cadj6e7a5abf826c66fb@mail.gmail.com>
<206791b10911291246p12e5587bn40215d6c50206bd5@mail.gmail.com>
<4b12e05a.0f67f10a.16a9.ffffd0cf@mx.google.com>
Message-ID: <4c0103810911291447j5095f65dsde0eac973bf99ff@mail.gmail.com>

2009/11/29 FT2 <ft2.wiki at gmail.com>:
> Indeed, Gerard isn't on the board of WM UK, but he's well known among those
> who care, as the (informal) spokesperson for Wikimedia in that country.
>
> For example in this year's National Portrait legal issue, which made mass
> media worldwide, David was the person on prime time news, TV and radio
> making the cogent case for WMF and DCoetzee, citing the figures, etc. Not
> some other WM UK person (as far as I'm aware).
>
> In that sense it's a fair description, in the eyes of third parties and the
> media (who don't really care ?if it's ComCom or WM UK or whatever).

... and to make this specifically on-topic, David isn't going to be
excluded from his semi-official role in communications (that's Jay's
call), and even if he were, many many journalists have David's mobile
and e-mail (and mine), and don't look at our Press Contacts pages.

If ArbCom thinks it can use Special:MakeSysop to change communications
policy and activity, they're seriously mistaken in this, as in other
things.

J.
--
James D. Forrester
jdforrester at wikimedia.org | jdforrester at gmail.com
[[Wikipedia:User:Jdforrester|James F.]]
-----------
From user.jpgordon at gmail.com Sun Nov 29 22:55:41 2009
From: user.jpgordon at gmail.com (Josh Gordon)
Date: Sun, 29 Nov 2009 14:55:41 -0800
Subject: [Functionaries-en] Fwd: Motion regarding your recent blog post
In-Reply-To: <4b12e3f6.0e67f10a.6af9.ffffd14c@mx.google.com>
References: <4b12d208.1067f10a.54e1.ffffcb58@mx.google.com>
<8e253f560911291234v6ee60074jdfbde532e026eea9@mail.gmail.com>
<8ec76cd10911291251o1561afcap25bfc64a196b2c4a@mail.gmail.com>
<4b12e3f6.0e67f10a.6af9.ffffd14c@mx.google.com>
Message-ID: <99c65f730911291455w76a8ef4bj3cda520c1515af75@mail.gmail.com>

Kinda reminds me of one of the rules of tournament poker: You can say
anything you want about your hand except the truth.

On Sun, Nov 29, 2009 at 1:13 PM, FT2 <ft2.wiki at gmail.com> wrote:

> On Behalf Of Cool Hand Luke
> Sent: 29 November 2009 20:52
> To: Functionaries email list for the English Wikipedia
> Subject: Re: [Functionaries-en] Fwd: Motion regarding your recent blog post
>
> A hypothetical.
>
> Would it be appropriate for me to claim that "Gary Weiss is currently
> editing Wikipedia (and I ran the checkusers proving it)"? Consider that,
> unlike with Mr. Landeryou, we do know this on the basis of reliable if
> illegally-obtained information that Gary Weiss is actually editing
> Wikipedia. Would that justify me publicly singling him out?
>
> I think not. We have actually discussed the matter, and that seemed to be
> the consensus.
>
> Suppose I go even farther and call Gary Weiss a waste of skin? Given my
> position in the project, would that reflect well on Wikipedia? Yes or no?
> This is not a difficult question.
>
> Identifying named individuals who have edited Wikipedia requires privileged
> information, and singling them out for abuse involves a breech of
> confidence
> (not to mention common sense).
>
> Frank
>
>
-----------
From keegan.wiki at gmail.com Sun Nov 29 23:25:20 2009
From: keegan.wiki at gmail.com (Keegan Peterzell)
Date: Sun, 29 Nov 2009 17:25:20 -0600
Subject: [Functionaries-en] Fwd: Motion regarding your recent blog post
In-Reply-To: <99c65f730911291455w76a8ef4bj3cda520c1515af75@mail.gmail.com>
References: <4b12d208.1067f10a.54e1.ffffcb58@mx.google.com>
<8e253f560911291234v6ee60074jdfbde532e026eea9@mail.gmail.com>
<8ec76cd10911291251o1561afcap25bfc64a196b2c4a@mail.gmail.com>
<4b12e3f6.0e67f10a.6af9.ffffd14c@mx.google.com>
<99c65f730911291455w76a8ef4bj3cda520c1515af75@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <5844c9860911291525i27f50c3bwd992517de9714da3@mail.gmail.com>

I agree for the most part with Josh, Kat, Paul, and Larry. Didn't y'all
have a band?

But seriously, social media being what it is, he didn't do anything to
breach the privacy policy. Kat makes the important point of how is this any
different. Twitter, for all its lameness, is used more amongst high profile
people than facebook. Mark Levin has tweeted about Wikipedia, and he hasn't
(on his word) himself edited it. That doesn't mean that an assistant didn't
do it from his office. This is a non-issue in the short term. As I stated
before, if this is the catalyst for a long term problem, so be it. The
UserRights are held by the committee, I think that this thread looks worse
here than it does to the community. We're being far too microscopic, what
other issues are there that would cause this? Post them onwiki or to here,
I'm certain you have your reasons and don't want to "go after" David, but
this email ping-pong amongst more than one list is not being productive
other than forming factions.

--
~Keegan
-----------
From User.CoolHandLuke at gmail.com Sun Nov 29 23:44:22 2009
From: User.CoolHandLuke at gmail.com (Cool Hand Luke)
Date: Sun, 29 Nov 2009 17:44:22 -0600
Subject: [Functionaries-en] Fwd: Motion regarding your recent blog post
In-Reply-To: <5844c9860911291525i27f50c3bwd992517de9714da3@mail.gmail.com>
References: <4b12d208.1067f10a.54e1.ffffcb58@mx.google.com>
<8e253f560911291234v6ee60074jdfbde532e026eea9@mail.gmail.com>
<8ec76cd10911291251o1561afcap25bfc64a196b2c4a@mail.gmail.com>
<4b12e3f6.0e67f10a.6af9.ffffd14c@mx.google.com>
<99c65f730911291455w76a8ef4bj3cda520c1515af75@mail.gmail.com>
<5844c9860911291525i27f50c3bwd992517de9714da3@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <8ec76cd10911291544j1df28032y9372dea9892f73a3@mail.gmail.com>

I can accept that the announcement might have been too aggressively worded,
but I cannot believe that you think we should not have removed his checkuser
rights.

This is different from abstractly tweeting about Wikipedia because he *bragged
about supposedly running checks on a real, named individual*--in response to
a comment about vandalism on this person's BLP!

David Gerard did not often use checkuser, and this public comment undermined
confidence in Wikipedia, and its checkusers volunteers. It was
unacceptable.

Frank
----------
From stephen.bain at gmail.com Mon Nov 30 00:14:47 2009
From: stephen.bain at gmail.com (Stephen Bain)
Date: Mon, 30 Nov 2009 11:14:47 +1100
Subject: [Functionaries-en] Fwd: Motion regarding your recent blog post
In-Reply-To: <5844c9860911291341o41839740u7303661e761f5aa6@mail.gmail.com>
References: <4b12d208.1067f10a.54e1.ffffcb58@mx.google.com>
<8e253f560911291234v6ee60074jdfbde532e026eea9@mail.gmail.com>
<8ec76cd10911291251o1561afcap25bfc64a196b2c4a@mail.gmail.com>
<4b12e3f6.0e67f10a.6af9.ffffd14c@mx.google.com>
<8ec76cd10911291332x6eec97fbl289408e21919d6a3@mail.gmail.com>
<5844c9860911291341o41839740u7303661e761f5aa6@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <f30e42de0911291614v4d01b215xc307cbf89d37942b@mail.gmail.com>

On Mon, Nov 30, 2009 at 8:41 AM, Keegan Peterzell <keegan.wiki at gmail.com> wrote:
>
> The arbcom statement onwiki makes this very much more a clear case of straw
> that broke the camel's back, particularly in not revealing the pertinent
> details of this case.

Pretty much. We actually voted in July to take much the same course of
action, but for reasons I forget we never followed through. The
catalyst that time was a fake news story he wrote attacking Gregory
Kohs, among other people, at the same time we were trying to stop Kohs
from being a dick and rehabilitate him. Nor was that an isolated
incident, as you can find him attacking Wikipedia critics all over the
internets. That and some other stuff.

Seeing how he doesn't use the tools anyway, his antics make him a net negative.

On Mon, Nov 30, 2009 at 5:43 AM, FT2 <ft2.wiki at gmail.com> wrote:
>
> David Gerard is a highly outspoken ex-arb; he blogs and posts and
> communicates and many people probably do wish he'd do so more tactfully or
> be a bit less outspoken in his views. But he usually knows of what he speaks
> and does. In the traditional words, he has a clue.

But no tact.

--
Stephen Bain
stephen.bain at gmail.com
-----------
From mnemonic at gmail.com Mon Nov 30 00:19:05 2009
From: mnemonic at gmail.com (Mike Godwin)
Date: Sun, 29 Nov 2009 16:19:05 -0800
Subject: [Functionaries-en] Fwd: Motion regarding your recent blog post
In-Reply-To: <8ec76cd10911291544j1df28032y9372dea9892f73a3@mail.gmail.com>
References: <4b12d208.1067f10a.54e1.ffffcb58@mx.google.com>
<8e253f560911291234v6ee60074jdfbde532e026eea9@mail.gmail.com>
<8ec76cd10911291251o1561afcap25bfc64a196b2c4a@mail.gmail.com>
<4b12e3f6.0e67f10a.6af9.ffffd14c@mx.google.com>
<99c65f730911291455w76a8ef4bj3cda520c1515af75@mail.gmail.com>
<5844c9860911291525i27f50c3bwd992517de9714da3@mail.gmail.com>
<8ec76cd10911291544j1df28032y9372dea9892f73a3@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <7d0f4c330911291619s3ee86968sc0474762c6b139a8@mail.gmail.com>

On Sun, Nov 29, 2009 at 3:44 PM, Cool Hand Luke <User.CoolHandLuke at gmail.com
> wrote:

>
> David Gerard did not often use checkuser, and this public comment
> undermined confidence in Wikipedia, and its checkusers volunteers. It was
> unacceptable.
>
>
I've been following this discussion, and it seems to me that the case for
removing David Gerard's
checkuser and oversight functions has not been made in any way that meets
what I as a lawyer would characterize as due-process and evidentiary
standards.

I have the impression that David has been an acerbic critic of ArbCom, and
that for this reason, the notion that David's "public comment undermined
confidence in Wikipedia, and its checkuser volunteers" has been used as a
pretext to punish someone that some members of ArbCom found annoying. Given
that it is one of my jobs to defend ArbCom and its prerogatives, this
particular exercise of authority leaves me extremely disappointed.

I would strongly advise the people responsible for this decision to
reconsider it. My understanding is that a triggering event for this
precipitous action was David's posting at <
http://notnews.today.com/2009/06/01/church...-wikipedia/>.
Please. This is embarrassing. It makes it harder for me to do my own work
defending the projects and ArbCom if Arbcom seems to act in a precipitous,
humorless, and intolerant manner. I need for ArbCom to have a reputation
both for fairness and for tolerance. Interpersonal quarrels, escalated by
claims of "undermining confidence" (pretty much an undocumentable charge and
an undisprovable one), should not be transmuted into policy decisions. It is
far more undermining of public confidence when this happens than anything
David Gerard has ever said, or could say.

Please communicate to all involved my strong personal and professional
preference that they reconsider this decision.


--Mike Godwin
General Counsel
Wikimedia Foundation
User is offlineProfile CardPM
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
MaliceAforethought
post Wed 29th June 2011, 2:41am
Post #7


u Mad?
***

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



From mnemonic at gmail.com Mon Nov 30 00:24:05 2009
From: mnemonic at gmail.com (Mike Godwin)
Date: Sun, 29 Nov 2009 16:24:05 -0800
Subject: [Functionaries-en] Fwd: Motion regarding your recent blog post
In-Reply-To: <f30e42de0911291614v4d01b215xc307cbf89d37942b@mail.gmail.com>
References: <4b12d208.1067f10a.54e1.ffffcb58@mx.google.com>
<8e253f560911291234v6ee60074jdfbde532e026eea9@mail.gmail.com>
<8ec76cd10911291251o1561afcap25bfc64a196b2c4a@mail.gmail.com>
<4b12e3f6.0e67f10a.6af9.ffffd14c@mx.google.com>
<8ec76cd10911291332x6eec97fbl289408e21919d6a3@mail.gmail.com>
<5844c9860911291341o41839740u7303661e761f5aa6@mail.gmail.com>
<f30e42de0911291614v4d01b215xc307cbf89d37942b@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <7d0f4c330911291624w6eb97b2bj5b6008a88fd62e9c@mail.gmail.com>

On Sun, Nov 29, 2009 at 4:14 PM, Stephen Bain <stephen.bain at gmail.com>wrote:

>
> On Mon, Nov 30, 2009 at 5:43 AM, FT2 <ft2.wiki at gmail.com> wrote:
> >
> > David Gerard is a highly outspoken ex-arb; he blogs and posts and
> > communicates and many people probably do wish he'd do so more tactfully
> or
> > be a bit less outspoken in his views. But he usually knows of what he
> speaks
> > and does. In the traditional words, he has a clue.
>
> But no tact.
>
>
When did this become become a capital offense? (In my experience, David is
rather more tactful than he needs to be in countless cases.)


--Mike
----------
From mnemonic at gmail.com Mon Nov 30 00:26:21 2009
From: mnemonic at gmail.com (Mike Godwin)
Date: Sun, 29 Nov 2009 16:26:21 -0800
Subject: [Functionaries-en] Fwd: Motion regarding your recent blog post
In-Reply-To: <f30e42de0911291614v4d01b215xc307cbf89d37942b@mail.gmail.com>
References: <4b12d208.1067f10a.54e1.ffffcb58@mx.google.com>
<8e253f560911291234v6ee60074jdfbde532e026eea9@mail.gmail.com>
<8ec76cd10911291251o1561afcap25bfc64a196b2c4a@mail.gmail.com>
<4b12e3f6.0e67f10a.6af9.ffffd14c@mx.google.com>
<8ec76cd10911291332x6eec97fbl289408e21919d6a3@mail.gmail.com>
<5844c9860911291341o41839740u7303661e761f5aa6@mail.gmail.com>
<f30e42de0911291614v4d01b215xc307cbf89d37942b@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <7d0f4c330911291626g6cbf7e01u2df5cf91b85028dc@mail.gmail.com>

On Sun, Nov 29, 2009 at 4:14 PM, Stephen Bain <stephen.bain at gmail.com>wrote:

>
> Pretty much. We actually voted in July to take much the same course of
> action, but for reasons I forget we never followed through. The
> catalyst that time was a fake news story he wrote attacking Gregory
> Kohs, among other people, at the same time we were trying to stop Kohs
> from being a dick and rehabilitate him. Nor was that an isolated
> incident, as you can find him attacking Wikipedia critics all over the
> internets. That and some other stuff.
>

"Fake news story" = parody. I'm astonished that writing parodies gets you
punished by ArbCom.


--Mike
-----------
From jayvdb at gmail.com Mon Nov 30 00:30:25 2009
From: jayvdb at gmail.com (John Vandenberg)
Date: Mon, 30 Nov 2009 11:30:25 +1100
Subject: [Functionaries-en] Fwd: Motion regarding your recent blog post
In-Reply-To: <7d0f4c330911291619s3ee86968sc0474762c6b139a8@mail.gmail.com>
References: <4b12d208.1067f10a.54e1.ffffcb58@mx.google.com>
<8e253f560911291234v6ee60074jdfbde532e026eea9@mail.gmail.com>
<8ec76cd10911291251o1561afcap25bfc64a196b2c4a@mail.gmail.com>
<4b12e3f6.0e67f10a.6af9.ffffd14c@mx.google.com>
<99c65f730911291455w76a8ef4bj3cda520c1515af75@mail.gmail.com>
<5844c9860911291525i27f50c3bwd992517de9714da3@mail.gmail.com>
<8ec76cd10911291544j1df28032y9372dea9892f73a3@mail.gmail.com>
<7d0f4c330911291619s3ee86968sc0474762c6b139a8@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <deea21830911291630g37d8cbc2hf4af06fbcd8720c4@mail.gmail.com>

Mike,

This the straw that pushed us over the edge:

http://davidgerard.co.uk/notes/2009/11/27/...-waste-of-skin/

The motion said:

"For repeatedly failing to maintain proper decorum in public fora, and
for unwarranted dissemination of private data acquired using
privileged rights,..."

Functionaries should not be using private info in their web 2.0 activities.

Functionaries should always be mindful of the real world effect of the
actions and words, both onwiki and offwiki.

Sometimes we cant avoid the real world effect.

In this case, David used three year old private information to take a
dig at someone.

David can appeal.

--
John Vandenberg
-----------
From rlevse at cox.net Mon Nov 30 00:31:43 2009
From: rlevse at cox.net (rlevse at cox.net)
Date: Sun, 29 Nov 2009 19:31:43 -0500
Subject: [Functionaries-en] Fwd: Motion regarding your recent blog post
In-Reply-To: <deea21830911291630g37d8cbc2hf4af06fbcd8720c4@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <20091129193143.LO5NP.957848.imail@eastrmwml31>

Precisely per John.

DG has a history of conduct unbecoming.

R
-----------
From mnemonic at gmail.com Mon Nov 30 00:34:26 2009
From: mnemonic at gmail.com (Mike Godwin)
Date: Sun, 29 Nov 2009 16:34:26 -0800
Subject: [Functionaries-en] Fwd: Motion regarding your recent blog post
In-Reply-To: <deea21830911291630g37d8cbc2hf4af06fbcd8720c4@mail.gmail.com>
References: <4b12d208.1067f10a.54e1.ffffcb58@mx.google.com>
<8e253f560911291234v6ee60074jdfbde532e026eea9@mail.gmail.com>
<8ec76cd10911291251o1561afcap25bfc64a196b2c4a@mail.gmail.com>
<4b12e3f6.0e67f10a.6af9.ffffd14c@mx.google.com>
<99c65f730911291455w76a8ef4bj3cda520c1515af75@mail.gmail.com>
<5844c9860911291525i27f50c3bwd992517de9714da3@mail.gmail.com>
<8ec76cd10911291544j1df28032y9372dea9892f73a3@mail.gmail.com>
<7d0f4c330911291619s3ee86968sc0474762c6b139a8@mail.gmail.com>
<deea21830911291630g37d8cbc2hf4af06fbcd8720c4@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <7d0f4c330911291634s79780d58g69bdbaa520ca8f51@mail.gmail.com>

Leaving aside the "proper decorum"(!) basis for punishment, can you identify
for me the private information that David Gerard revealed?

I am shocked that lack of "proper decorum" is a hanging offense, or part of
one.


--Mike
-----------
From rlevse at cox.net Mon Nov 30 00:38:03 2009
From: rlevse at cox.net (rlevse at cox.net)
Date: Sun, 29 Nov 2009 19:38:03 -0500
Subject: [Functionaries-en] Fwd: Motion regarding your recent blog post
In-Reply-To: <7d0f4c330911291634s79780d58g69bdbaa520ca8f51@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <20091129193803.VJI1V.957912.imail@eastrmwml31>

"Conduct unbecoming" has been used before, even by Jimbo.

R

---- Mike Godwin <mnemonic at gmail.com> wrote:
> Leaving aside the "proper decorum"(!) basis for punishment, can you identify
> for me the private information that David Gerard revealed?
>
> I am shocked that lack of "proper decorum" is a hanging offense, or part of
> one.
>
>
> --Mike
-----------
From ft2.wiki at gmail.com Mon Nov 30 00:38:17 2009
From: ft2.wiki at gmail.com (FT2)
Date: Mon, 30 Nov 2009 00:38:17 -0000
Subject: [Functionaries-en] Fwd: Motion regarding your recent blog post
In-Reply-To: <8ec76cd10911291544j1df28032y9372dea9892f73a3@mail.gmail.com>
References: <4b12d208.1067f10a.54e1.ffffcb58@mx.google.com> <8e253f560911291234v6ee60074jdfbde532e026eea9@mail.gmail.com> <8ec76cd10911291251o1561afcap25bfc64a196b2c4a@mail.gmail.com> <4b12e3f6.0e67f10a.6af9.ffffd14c@mx.google.com> <99c65f730911291455w76a8ef4bj3cda520c1515af75@mail.gmail.com> <5844c9860911291525i27f50c3bwd992517de9714da3@mail.gmail.com>
<8ec76cd10911291544j1df28032y9372dea9892f73a3@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <4b1313fa.0e67f10a.6b61.ffffda15@mx.google.com>

To clarify first -- nobody's endorsed untoward conduct. Relax smile.gif Let me try
summing up what I'm seeing in this thread:


Removing the emotive word "bragged" from Frank's post, and what we have is
David Gerard told a third party off-wiki, "You have unspecified history, and
I know this because I ran checks". As a bare statement of fact, the first
part ("You have unspecified history and I know it") was apparently
unsubstantiated, and the second part (disclosing publicly "I ran checks on
some matter") is not a breach of privacy policy.

He also spoke to that third party off-wiki in an insulting manner. He's got
(as various arbs note) a history himself related to such behavior. Not a
privacy matter, maybe better amenable to dialog. Strong capable advocates of
WMF and "voices of sanity" internally are hard to find and worth keeping if
a way can be found; perhaps he would agree to see sense on this.

Kat sums it up well. David believed he had identified Landeryou as some
editor via public evidence, but was unable to formally prove or disprove it
by checkuser. (And if he indeed couldn't prove or disprove it by checkuser
years ago, then any purported identification _must_ have been via public
record material in the first instance.) So no privacy breach in making the
statement. His mistake was to claim in public that the matter was like this
or that, and he had proven it, when it was unproven.

_Nobody_ here has faulted the decision to take functionary conduct
seriously. I'm seeing a collegial dialog here on that point. There's a view
that perhaps he is still of significant benefit and should not be thrown
away, or that his behaviour could be addressed by dialog, but no arguments.

The concern is purely that he is publicly stated to have distributed WMF
private data obtained via the tools. Others _will_ clearly understand from
the post that David Gerard -- an identifiable real-world individual -- took
actual data from CU/OS or some similar source, and passed it improperly to
one or more third parties, in breach of an explicit duty of privacy.

This impression given to the public is a very serious one to make about any
person. If that's not _exactly_ what's intended, then creating the
_impression_ he did so is a concern.

If Gerard conceded that his claim of history and identification on the blog
was unfounded, then the best outcome might be:

* David formally corrects his blog post to note the old statement was a
suspicion based on edits at the time but was not proven by checkuser or
otherwise.
* Arbcom amend the ruling to show the issue is purely about improper conduct
as a functionary, related to an unfounded claim off-wiki that cited
CheckUser findings that in fact didn't exist. However after discussion
Arbcom accepts that no privately obtained information was disclosed.
* (Optional) Arbcom and David have a discussion about his conduct and its
concerns, reflecting the apparently common view that he has significant net
value to the project and to this team but that his manner of speech and
conduct is a concern that's tending towards a perceived liability.



Paul.
----------
From mnemonic at gmail.com Mon Nov 30 00:40:50 2009
From: mnemonic at gmail.com (Mike Godwin)
Date: Sun, 29 Nov 2009 16:40:50 -0800
Subject: [Functionaries-en] Fwd: Motion regarding your recent blog post
In-Reply-To: <20091129193803.VJI1V.957912.imail@eastrmwml31>
References: <7d0f4c330911291634s79780d58g69bdbaa520ca8f51@mail.gmail.com>
<20091129193803.VJI1V.957912.imail@eastrmwml31>
Message-ID: <7d0f4c330911291640t2cd2b7e6qa46800a5917ce6d7@mail.gmail.com>

On Sun, Nov 29, 2009 at 4:38 PM, <rlevse at cox.net> wrote:

> "Conduct unbecoming" has been used before, even by Jimbo.
>
> R
>
>
Tell me what objective standard is meant by "conduct unbecoming" when you
use the term. Outside the Uniform Code of Military Justice, I don't know
what you might mean by it, but I do not think Jimmy used the term as the
basis for punishing someone who writes parodies.



--Mike
-----------
From User.CoolHandLuke at gmail.com Mon Nov 30 00:46:14 2009
From: User.CoolHandLuke at gmail.com (Cool Hand Luke)
Date: Sun, 29 Nov 2009 18:46:14 -0600
Subject: [Functionaries-en] Fwd: Motion regarding your recent blog post
In-Reply-To: <7d0f4c330911291634s79780d58g69bdbaa520ca8f51@mail.gmail.com>
References: <4b12d208.1067f10a.54e1.ffffcb58@mx.google.com>
<8e253f560911291234v6ee60074jdfbde532e026eea9@mail.gmail.com>
<8ec76cd10911291251o1561afcap25bfc64a196b2c4a@mail.gmail.com>
<4b12e3f6.0e67f10a.6af9.ffffd14c@mx.google.com>
<99c65f730911291455w76a8ef4bj3cda520c1515af75@mail.gmail.com>
<5844c9860911291525i27f50c3bwd992517de9714da3@mail.gmail.com>
<8ec76cd10911291544j1df28032y9372dea9892f73a3@mail.gmail.com>
<7d0f4c330911291619s3ee86968sc0474762c6b139a8@mail.gmail.com>
<deea21830911291630g37d8cbc2hf4af06fbcd8720c4@mail.gmail.com>
<7d0f4c330911291634s79780d58g69bdbaa520ca8f51@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <8ec76cd10911291646t1849f800n9628d687afe81808@mail.gmail.com>

On Sun, Nov 29, 2009 at 6:34 PM, Mike Godwin <mnemonic at gmail.com> wrote:

>
> Leaving aside the "proper decorum"(!) basis for punishment, can you
> identify for me the private information that David Gerard revealed?
>
> I am shocked that lack of "proper decorum" is a hanging offense, or part of
> one.
>
>
> --Mike
>
>
>
You believe that checkusers should be allowed to cite their checkuser access
in order to cast aspersions on named people? Why would any faintly notable
individual want to participate in such a project?

This isn't merely "improper decorum." Gerard's post--complete with the
attacks and email reposted with headers is an almost encyclopedic example of
how checkusers should *not* behave. I'm very disappointed that it's being
dismissed as a pretext for a personal dispute.

Again, I'm open to welcoming David Gerard to the functionaries list as an
institutional critic. Criticism is good, but his access to checkuser was and
is a large net negative.

Frank
----------
From mnemonic at gmail.com Mon Nov 30 00:48:36 2009
From: mnemonic at gmail.com (Mike Godwin)
Date: Sun, 29 Nov 2009 16:48:36 -0800
Subject: [Functionaries-en] Fwd: Motion regarding your recent blog post
In-Reply-To: <4b1313fa.0e67f10a.6b61.ffffda15@mx.google.com>
References: <4b12d208.1067f10a.54e1.ffffcb58@mx.google.com>
<8e253f560911291234v6ee60074jdfbde532e026eea9@mail.gmail.com>
<8ec76cd10911291251o1561afcap25bfc64a196b2c4a@mail.gmail.com>
<4b12e3f6.0e67f10a.6af9.ffffd14c@mx.google.com>
<99c65f730911291455w76a8ef4bj3cda520c1515af75@mail.gmail.com>
<5844c9860911291525i27f50c3bwd992517de9714da3@mail.gmail.com>
<8ec76cd10911291544j1df28032y9372dea9892f73a3@mail.gmail.com>
<4b1313fa.0e67f10a.6b61.ffffda15@mx.google.com>
Message-ID: <7d0f4c330911291648l1d7be39diaf421b8b5e4e6820@mail.gmail.com>

On Sun, Nov 29, 2009 at 4:38 PM, FT2 <ft2.wiki at gmail.com> wrote:

>
> The concern is purely that he is publicly stated to have distributed WMF
> private data obtained via the tools. Others _will_ clearly understand from
> the post that David Gerard -- an identifiable real-world individual -- took
> actual data from CU/OS or some similar source, and passed it improperly to
> one or more third parties, in breach of an explicit duty of privacy.
>

It's an implication that, frankly, I find incredible.


> This impression given to the public is a very serious one to make about any
> person. If that's not _exactly_ what's intended, then creating the
> _impression_ he did so is a concern.
>

I think so too. If David chose to challenge this impression in court, would
the relevant ArbCom members be able successfully to defend it (assuming an
English court had jurisdiction over them)?

There are really two issues here: was David Gerard punished fairly for a
*substantive* violation of administrative standards, and has he been
unfairly defamed by the implications of ArbCom's recent actions. My strong
suggestion is that ArbCom reconsider its decisions, which seem more like
arbitrariness than arbitration.


--Mike
-----------
From jayvdb at gmail.com Mon Nov 30 00:50:13 2009
From: jayvdb at gmail.com (John Vandenberg)
Date: Mon, 30 Nov 2009 11:50:13 +1100
Subject: [Functionaries-en] Fwd: Motion regarding your recent blog post
In-Reply-To: <7d0f4c330911291640t2cd2b7e6qa46800a5917ce6d7@mail.gmail.com>
References: <7d0f4c330911291634s79780d58g69bdbaa520ca8f51@mail.gmail.com>
<20091129193803.VJI1V.957912.imail@eastrmwml31>
<7d0f4c330911291640t2cd2b7e6qa46800a5917ce6d7@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <deea21830911291650i446bc343ld0a65bd2dd4d1e20@mail.gmail.com>

On Mon, Nov 30, 2009 at 11:40 AM, Mike Godwin <mnemonic at gmail.com> wrote:
>
>
> On Sun, Nov 29, 2009 at 4:38 PM, <rlevse at cox.net> wrote:
>>
>> "Conduct unbecoming" has been used before, even by Jimbo.
>>
>> R
>>
>
> Tell me what objective standard is meant by "conduct unbecoming" when you
> use the term. Outside the Uniform Code of Military Justice, I don't know
> what you might mean by it, but I do not think Jimmy used the term as the
> basis for punishing someone who writes parodies.

Mike, please stop reframing this as if it is about a parody.

We have held fire in previous instances, such as the parody. We tried
to talk to him privately, on this list, and via Jimmy.

Jimmy has all the emails involved, and has access to arbcom wiki.

David can appeal to Jimmy if he doesnt feel that we will listen to him.

--
John Vandenberg
-----------
From risker.wp at gmail.com Mon Nov 30 01:02:32 2009
From: risker.wp at gmail.com (Risker)
Date: Mon, 30 Nov 2009 01:02:32 +0000
Subject: [Functionaries-en] Fwd: Motion regarding your recent blog post
In-Reply-To: <7d0f4c330911291626g6cbf7e01u2df5cf91b85028dc@mail.gmail.com>
References: <4b12d208.1067f10a.54e1.ffffcb58@mx.google.com>
<8e253f560911291234v6ee60074jdfbde532e026eea9@mail.gmail.com>
<8ec76cd10911291251o1561afcap25bfc64a196b2c4a@mail.gmail.com>
<4b12e3f6.0e67f10a.6af9.ffffd14c@mx.google.com>
<8ec76cd10911291332x6eec97fbl289408e21919d6a3@mail.gmail.com>
<5844c9860911291341o41839740u7303661e761f5aa6@mail.gmail.com>
<f30e42de0911291614v4d01b215xc307cbf89d37942b@mail.gmail.com>
<7d0f4c330911291626g6cbf7e01u2df5cf91b85028dc@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <eb45e7c0911291702h360430b9m14fa8484f5ec5e7a@mail.gmail.com>

MIke, I'm going to put this very simply. This kind of behaviour may be
acceptable to the Wikimedia Foundation, but it is no longer acceptable on
its flagship project for a person with the highest levels of access to
flaunt that access in a public forum (both on Twitter and on his personal
blog) for the purpose of ridiculing a person who has complained that the BLP
article about him has been vandalised. Note that the person didn't complain
to David, he just took a side swipe when someone else pointed the complaint
out to him. I am disturbed that you seem to have no concern about this
behaviour, which is considerably worse than that exhibited by Bedford, an
administrator who was summarily desysopped by Jimmy, because of the "subject
of a BLP" angle.

We are not under any circumstances required to meet "legal evidentiary
standards" in order to remove access to privacy-related tools. The
Foundation has delegated the responsibility of access to these tools to the
Arbitration Committee, and this particular iteration of the Committee has
taken that responsibility very seriously from Day One. Nobody has any legal
right to acces to these tools, Mike, and your references to courtroom
standards are completley out of place. David has been asked to moderate the
public face of his behaviour on several occasions, and has failed to do so.
That he did so by (a) alleging that a specific person had been sanctioned on
Wikipedia for unacceptable behaviour (b) by referring to his own use of
privacy-related tools to make that allegation when © the reason this
person's name had come to his attention was someone letting him know that
the BLP about the person had been vandalised, pretty well sums up what the
problem is here.

There were no doubt plenty of checks done on the accounts David alleged were
this person; there were obviously quite a few done on the two people who
wound up topic-banned with their socks blocked. That there wasn't the
evidence to pursue this person was the reason that he wasn't brought into
the RFAR on the matter. So the matter should have stayed dead. If there
isn't enough evidence to prosecute someone by their RL name onwiki, there
certainly wasn't enough for David to make those accusations on Twitter.

I'm sure the WMF doesn't like all the decisions that various projects make.
It's kind of embarrassing to see Foundation staff opposing a project
decision that removes advanced tools form someone who has ridiculed a BLP
subject. Isn't that the #1 complaint that comes in?

Risker/Anne
-----------
From wizardmanwiki at gmail.com Mon Nov 30 01:04:51 2009
From: wizardmanwiki at gmail.com (Wizardman)
Date: Sun, 29 Nov 2009 20:04:51 -0500
Subject: [Functionaries-en] Fwd: Motion regarding your recent blog post
In-Reply-To: <eb45e7c0911291702h360430b9m14fa8484f5ec5e7a@mail.gmail.com>
References: <4b12d208.1067f10a.54e1.ffffcb58@mx.google.com>
<8e253f560911291234v6ee60074jdfbde532e026eea9@mail.gmail.com>
<8ec76cd10911291251o1561afcap25bfc64a196b2c4a@mail.gmail.com>
<4b12e3f6.0e67f10a.6af9.ffffd14c@mx.google.com>
<8ec76cd10911291332x6eec97fbl289408e21919d6a3@mail.gmail.com>
<5844c9860911291341o41839740u7303661e761f5aa6@mail.gmail.com>
<f30e42de0911291614v4d01b215xc307cbf89d37942b@mail.gmail.com>
<7d0f4c330911291626g6cbf7e01u2df5cf91b85028dc@mail.gmail.com>
<eb45e7c0911291702h360430b9m14fa8484f5ec5e7a@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <ef59f700911291704u31c2505cx9b4c5580e2dec794@mail.gmail.com>

I think Risker hit the nail on the head. I respectfully disagree with Mike's
concerns, and personally I see no reason to reconsider it.
~W
-----------
From ft2.wiki at gmail.com Mon Nov 30 01:06:54 2009
From: ft2.wiki at gmail.com (FT2)
Date: Mon, 30 Nov 2009 01:06:54 -0000
Subject: [Functionaries-en] Fwd: Motion regarding your recent blog post
In-Reply-To: <20091129193803.VJI1V.957912.imail@eastrmwml31>
References: <7d0f4c330911291634s79780d58g69bdbaa520ca8f51@mail.gmail.com>
<20091129193803.VJI1V.957912.imail@eastrmwml31>
Message-ID: <4b131aaf.0f67f10a.16a9.ffffd6cd@mx.google.com>

> -----Original Message-----
> On Behalf Of rlevse at cox.net
> Sent: 30 November 2009 00:38
>
> "Conduct unbecoming" has been used before, even by Jimbo.


First, an admission: - I like admins (and moreso our arbs and functionaries)
to act impeccably and be "role models" in the community. I added the conduct
sections to the relevant policies and take grossly poor conduct admins to
RFAR, which should underline that view. "Conduct unbecoming" is a valid
basis for concern and I commend Arbcom for taking a high standard of conduct
as "expected" and not merely "optional" for users on the wiki.

That said, extending this term to regulate _any/all_ off-wiki behaviour (ie
all conduct everywhere) is a very wide scope. It's a big shift. It allows in
effect, any conduct by any functionary anywhere on the planet, to be brought
on-wiki as a basis to remove elevated access.

If that's to be the case, it should be thought through... with guidance on
what may or may not be said, or what style adopted, on our blogs, facebook
pages, livejournals, etc.

To use myself as an example, suppose I have behaved impeccably in refusing
to comment on-wiki about a user who attacked me a while ago; may I call him
bluntly, a liar and an idiot off-wiki? Or am I obligated not to use such
terms?

Certainly some off-wiki conduct is unpermissible or an issue. No doubt of
it. But there's a lot more grey area too with off-wiki matters. There's also
the additional conflation in this case, of a claim related to on-wiki
matters too.

There's a "can of worms" issue here. It might warrant listing by the
Committee as a proposed norm for internal discussion (like other matters),
and more thorough consideration, before allowing a new ruling or extension
of an old one off-wiki, of this size, to be created just by precedent.

Worth highlighting and asking AC to consider it separately and explicitly,
with community feedback or such -- the full process used on other major
proposals -- before formally making this a norm.

Paul.
-----------
From rlevse at cox.net Mon Nov 30 01:07:02 2009
From: rlevse at cox.net (rlevse at cox.net)
Date: Sun, 29 Nov 2009 20:07:02 -0500
Subject: [Functionaries-en] Fwd: Motion regarding your recent blog post
In-Reply-To: <ef59f700911291704u31c2505cx9b4c5580e2dec794@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <20091129200702.BNBZK.958231.imail@eastrmwml31>

Here Here!

R

---- Wizardman <wizardmanwiki at gmail.com> wrote:
> I think Risker hit the nail on the head. I respectfully disagree with Mike's
> concerns, and personally I see no reason to reconsider it.
> ~W
----------
From jayvdb at gmail.com Mon Nov 30 01:12:13 2009
From: jayvdb at gmail.com (John Vandenberg)
Date: Mon, 30 Nov 2009 12:12:13 +1100
Subject: [Functionaries-en] Fwd: Motion regarding your recent blog post
In-Reply-To: <7d0f4c330911291648l1d7be39diaf421b8b5e4e6820@mail.gmail.com>
References: <4b12d208.1067f10a.54e1.ffffcb58@mx.google.com>
<8e253f560911291234v6ee60074jdfbde532e026eea9@mail.gmail.com>
<8ec76cd10911291251o1561afcap25bfc64a196b2c4a@mail.gmail.com>
<4b12e3f6.0e67f10a.6af9.ffffd14c@mx.google.com>
<99c65f730911291455w76a8ef4bj3cda520c1515af75@mail.gmail.com>
<5844c9860911291525i27f50c3bwd992517de9714da3@mail.gmail.com>
<8ec76cd10911291544j1df28032y9372dea9892f73a3@mail.gmail.com>
<4b1313fa.0e67f10a.6b61.ffffda15@mx.google.com>
<7d0f4c330911291648l1d7be39diaf421b8b5e4e6820@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <deea21830911291712t4cbe3650i1a8558854e7b8d57@mail.gmail.com>

On Mon, Nov 30, 2009 at 11:48 AM, Mike Godwin <mnemonic at gmail.com> wrote:
>
>
> On Sun, Nov 29, 2009 at 4:38 PM, FT2 <ft2.wiki at gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>> The concern is purely that he is publicly stated to have distributed WMF
>> private data obtained via the tools. Others _will_ clearly understand from
>> the post that David Gerard -- an identifiable real-world individual --
>> took
>> actual data from CU/OS or some similar source, and passed it improperly to
>> one or more third parties, in breach of an explicit duty of privacy.
>
> It's an implication that, frankly, I find incredible.
>
>>
>> This impression given to the public is a very serious one to make about
>> any
>> person. If that's not _exactly_ what's intended, then creating the
>> _impression_ he did so is a concern.
>
> I think so too. If David chose to challenge this impression in court, would
> the relevant ArbCom members be able successfully to defend it (assuming an
> English court had jurisdiction over them)?
>
> There are really two issues here: was David Gerard punished fairly for a
> *substantive* violation of administrative standards, and has he been
> unfairly defamed by the implications of ArbCom's recent actions. My strong
> suggestion is that ArbCom reconsider its decisions, which seem more like
> arbitrariness than arbitration.

David has said he thinks we have slandered him; you are continuing this.

You really need to tone it down, or it will escalate to a real world
court. Wouldn't that be fun.

Please ... Mike ... get a grip of the situation. arbcom didn't
support this because we are all twits.

He has retained his admin status. it is his use of information
obtained via checkuser that was the problem.

--
John Vandenberg
----------
From ft2.wiki at gmail.com Mon Nov 30 01:23:48 2009
From: ft2.wiki at gmail.com (FT2)
Date: Mon, 30 Nov 2009 01:23:48 -0000
Subject: [Functionaries-en] Fwd: Motion regarding your recent blog post
In-Reply-To: <eb45e7c0911291702h360430b9m14fa8484f5ec5e7a@mail.gmail.com>
References: <4b12d208.1067f10a.54e1.ffffcb58@mx.google.com> <8e253f560911291234v6ee60074jdfbde532e026eea9@mail.gmail.com> <8ec76cd10911291251o1561afcap25bfc64a196b2c4a@mail.gmail.com> <4b12e3f6.0e67f10a.6af9.ffffd14c@mx.google.com> <8ec76cd10911291332x6eec97fbl289408e21919d6a3@mail.gmail.com> <5844c9860911291341o41839740u7303661e761f5aa6@mail.gmail.com> <f30e42de0911291614v4d01b215xc307cbf89d37942b@mail.gmail.com> <7d0f4c330911291626g6cbf7e01u2df5cf91b85028dc@mail.gmail.com>
<eb45e7c0911291702h360430b9m14fa8484f5ec5e7a@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <4b131ea5.0f67f10a.1563.ffffd6ff@mx.google.com>

Respectfully and with regret, concur with Risker and others too, in almost
all ways. My sole concerns are:



1/ We should not make claims of a serious nature ourselves unless very well
founded. That's purely about the statement not the decision. The claim of
disseminating private CU data (or its strong implication) is a concern.
Wording amendment issue.



2/ Consider if there's a way to keep the good he does, or get agreement on
his conduct. Good and proven people are hard to find. Raised by several on
this list. If actual data leak didn't happen then perhaps this becomes
slightly possible to discuss.



Beyond that, and with regret, I concur. Risker says it for me. We do expect
the highest of conduct, we are a flagship, and if we want high standards we
need to start expecting them and not just mouthing the words. It's not a
problem to find that WMF is fine with someone but a specific project feels
there's a concern -- for example, OTRS may keep someone as part of their
team even if banned on some projects, I believe, if the list admins still
feel confidence.



And last, it is undeniable that Arbcom is our final arbiter here (save
Jimmy). They have the right to decide within reason, that given conduct just
isn't okay. That's their job to do. That they do it is just fine.



I'm fine critiquing poor decisions, and I speak up quickly if I fear I'm
seeing a decision that's substandard, but "being concerned about the conduct
and deeming it unacceptable" in this case, falls within fair discretion of
Arbcom on any reasonable basis.



Given the number of admin abuse cases I've brought, or I'm likely to bring,
I cannot now complain if tough standards are applied. What I would want to
see is that there is fairness, careful review, and so on in assessing hard
cases, and clarity about the exact explanation and reasoning.



It _does_ look like that has happened in this case, excepting the above two
points.



Paul.
------------
From kat at mindspillage.org Mon Nov 30 01:37:38 2009
From: kat at mindspillage.org (Kat Walsh)
Date: Sun, 29 Nov 2009 20:37:38 -0500
Subject: [Functionaries-en] Fwd: Motion regarding your recent blog post
In-Reply-To: <deea21830911291712t4cbe3650i1a8558854e7b8d57@mail.gmail.com>
References: <4b12d208.1067f10a.54e1.ffffcb58@mx.google.com>
<8e253f560911291234v6ee60074jdfbde532e026eea9@mail.gmail.com>
<8ec76cd10911291251o1561afcap25bfc64a196b2c4a@mail.gmail.com>
<4b12e3f6.0e67f10a.6af9.ffffd14c@mx.google.com>
<99c65f730911291455w76a8ef4bj3cda520c1515af75@mail.gmail.com>
<5844c9860911291525i27f50c3bwd992517de9714da3@mail.gmail.com>
<8ec76cd10911291544j1df28032y9372dea9892f73a3@mail.gmail.com>
<4b1313fa.0e67f10a.6b61.ffffda15@mx.google.com>
<7d0f4c330911291648l1d7be39diaf421b8b5e4e6820@mail.gmail.com>
<deea21830911291712t4cbe3650i1a8558854e7b8d57@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <8e253f560911291737xb7e7d4ck4b814ea96613711e@mail.gmail.com>

On Sun, Nov 29, 2009 at 8:12 PM, John Vandenberg <jayvdb at gmail.com> wrote:
> He has retained his admin status. ?it is his use of information
> obtained via checkuser that was the problem.

I've questioned this multiple times and no one has established this
fact clearly.

Arbcom is within its discretion to impose sanctions for conduct
violations that don't involve disclosure of private information; my
opinion on its appropriateness is almost completely irrelevant.

But it is completely unacceptable to make serious accusations that
someone (whose offwiki employment involves handling private
information, I note) has mishandled confidential information without
being able to back those accusations up very definitely.

What I understand is that the privileged information was near useless
as it could neither confirm nor deny suspicions about Landeryou's
identity, and that what DG posted is thus based on his suspicions and
on information acquired without privileged access. If I am wrong,
please correct me and I will be happy to stop arguing this point.

-Kat
----------
From mnemonic at gmail.com Mon Nov 30 02:11:01 2009
From: mnemonic at gmail.com (Mike Godwin)
Date: Sun, 29 Nov 2009 18:11:01 -0800
Subject: [Functionaries-en] Fwd: Motion regarding your recent blog post
In-Reply-To: <eb45e7c0911291702h360430b9m14fa8484f5ec5e7a@mail.gmail.com>
References: <4b12d208.1067f10a.54e1.ffffcb58@mx.google.com>
<8e253f560911291234v6ee60074jdfbde532e026eea9@mail.gmail.com>
<8ec76cd10911291251o1561afcap25bfc64a196b2c4a@mail.gmail.com>
<4b12e3f6.0e67f10a.6af9.ffffd14c@mx.google.com>
<8ec76cd10911291332x6eec97fbl289408e21919d6a3@mail.gmail.com>
<5844c9860911291341o41839740u7303661e761f5aa6@mail.gmail.com>
<f30e42de0911291614v4d01b215xc307cbf89d37942b@mail.gmail.com>
<7d0f4c330911291626g6cbf7e01u2df5cf91b85028dc@mail.gmail.com>
<eb45e7c0911291702h360430b9m14fa8484f5ec5e7a@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <7d0f4c330911291811h22307aecoe3fcfac593bda55e@mail.gmail.com>

On Sun, Nov 29, 2009 at 5:02 PM, Risker <risker.wp at gmail.com> wrote:

> MIke, I'm going to put this very simply.


Thanks. I appreciate your saving me from the complicated stuff.


> This kind of behaviour may be acceptable to the Wikimedia Foundation ....


I'm not speaking on behalf of the Wikimedia Foundation here, although I
don't hang my law degree at the door either. I'm just saying that I've been
a student of due process and justice systems and online culture for decades,
and what I'm seeing here disturbs me.


> , but it is no longer acceptable on its flagship project for a person with
> the highest levels of access to flaunt that access in a public forum (both
> on Twitter and on his personal blog) for the purpose of ridiculing a person
> who has complained that the BLP article about him has been vandalised.


[citation needed]


> Note that the person didn't complain to David, he just took a side swipe
> when someone else pointed the complaint out to him. I am disturbed that you
> seem to have no concern about this behaviour, which is considerably worse
> than that exhibited by Bedford, an administrator who was summarily
> desysopped by Jimmy, because of the "subject of a BLP" angle.
>

I don't pretend to know every decision Jimmy has ever made, or his reasons
for doing so, but I do know that Jimmy ultimately decided to delegate a
large degree of authority to individuals such as those on ArbCom precisely
because his own ability to make fair and consistent decisions simply
couldn't scale with the projects. Jimmy might make different decisions now
than he once made, or he might distinguish his prior decisions from yours.
I'm cc-ing him in case he has some thoughts on the matter.

We are not under any circumstances required to meet "legal evidentiary
> standards" in order to remove access to privacy-related tools.


Of course you're not. We are only required to be fair, reasonable, and
tolerant of diversity, because to do anything else would make us seem
arbitrary and capricious and intolerant and insulated.

Nobody has any legal right to acces to these tools, Mike, and your
> references to courtroom standards are completley out of place.


My references are not to "courtroom standards." In the Anglo-American system
of jurisprudence, at least, justice and equity are principles that are
supposed to operate outside the narrow confines of a courtroom.


> David has been asked to moderate the public face of his behaviour on
> several occasions, and has failed to do so.


My understanding is that he's been asked to be less sharp-tongued and
acerbic and parodic. If you want to create a bad impression about ArbCom --
and there seems to be a little too much concern about public perception here
-- by all means, silence the funny, critical people.

That he did so by (a) alleging that a specific person had been sanctioned on
> Wikipedia for unacceptable behaviour (b) by referring to his own use of
> privacy-related tools to make that allegation when © the reason this
> person's name had come to his attention was someone letting him know that
> the BLP about the person had been vandalised, pretty well sums up what the
> problem is here.
>

I have not yet seen a public posting in which this has been done, although I
have asked for a link more than once in this discussion. Why is no one
willing to show me the damning evidence?


> There were no doubt plenty of checks done on the accounts David alleged
> were this person; there were obviously quite a few done on the two people
> who wound up topic-banned with their socks blocked. That there wasn't the
> evidence to pursue this person was the reason that he wasn't brought into
> the RFAR on the matter. So the matter should have stayed dead. If there
> isn't enough evidence to prosecute someone by their RL name onwiki, there
> certainly wasn't enough for David to make those accusations on Twitter.
>

So you're saying that David tweeted an accusation in which (a) he accused
someone without evidence, and (b) he asserted that it was his access and
position as a checkuser that empowered him to make the accusation (or
otherwise informed him)? Please, please point me to the tweet in question.


> I'm sure the WMF doesn't like all the decisions that various projects make.
>


That's certainly true, but WMF isn't talking to you here.


> It's kind of embarrassing to see Foundation staff opposing a project
> decision that removes advanced tools form someone who has ridiculed a BLP
> subject. Isn't that the #1 complaint that comes in?
>

For future reference, when I speak as an official of the Foundation to
represent Foundation policy, I sign my full name and include my position on
Foundation staff. When I speak as my own self -- as a lawyer with a couple
of decades of experience at free-speech law and the law of online
communities, I sign as

--Mike


P.S. It's kind of embarrassing to see my status as an individual conflated
with my position at the Foundation, when so often editors and admins insist
on distinguishing their roles as Wikipedians from their roles in the rest of
their lives. Double standard much?
-----------
From mnemonic at gmail.com Mon Nov 30 02:13:43 2009
From: mnemonic at gmail.com (Mike Godwin)
Date: Sun, 29 Nov 2009 18:13:43 -0800
Subject: [Functionaries-en] Fwd: Motion regarding your recent blog post
In-Reply-To: <8e253f560911291737xb7e7d4ck4b814ea96613711e@mail.gmail.com>
References: <4b12d208.1067f10a.54e1.ffffcb58@mx.google.com>
<8ec76cd10911291251o1561afcap25bfc64a196b2c4a@mail.gmail.com>
<4b12e3f6.0e67f10a.6af9.ffffd14c@mx.google.com>
<99c65f730911291455w76a8ef4bj3cda520c1515af75@mail.gmail.com>
<5844c9860911291525i27f50c3bwd992517de9714da3@mail.gmail.com>
<8ec76cd10911291544j1df28032y9372dea9892f73a3@mail.gmail.com>
<4b1313fa.0e67f10a.6b61.ffffda15@mx.google.com>
<7d0f4c330911291648l1d7be39diaf421b8b5e4e6820@mail.gmail.com>
<deea21830911291712t4cbe3650i1a8558854e7b8d57@mail.gmail.com>
<8e253f560911291737xb7e7d4ck4b814ea96613711e@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <7d0f4c330911291813l5e281539mc476f449bd291fc4@mail.gmail.com>

On Sun, Nov 29, 2009 at 5:37 PM, Kat Walsh <kat at mindspillage.org> wrote:

> On Sun, Nov 29, 2009 at 8:12 PM, John Vandenberg <jayvdb at gmail.com> wrote:
> > He has retained his admin status. it is his use of information
> > obtained via checkuser that was the problem.
>
> I've questioned this multiple times and no one has established this
> fact clearly.
>

Kat, I keep pointing this out too, and nobody seems willing to provide
evidence of this "fact." At this point, I'm going to have to assume it's
because they can't.

But it is completely unacceptable to make serious accusations that
> someone (whose offwiki employment involves handling private
> information, I note) has mishandled confidential information without
> being able to back those accusations up very definitely.
>

I wholly agree about this. If David Gerard were Gregory Kohs, he'd be
issuing legal threats about this, I imagine.


> What I understand is that the privileged information was near useless
> as it could neither confirm nor deny suspicions about Landeryou's
> identity, and that what DG posted is thus based on his suspicions and
> on information acquired without privileged access.
>
> This is my understanding as well.


--Mike
-----------
From risker.wp at gmail.com Mon Nov 30 02:29:37 2009
From: risker.wp at gmail.com (Risker)
Date: Mon, 30 Nov 2009 02:29:37 +0000
Subject: [Functionaries-en] Fwd: Motion regarding your recent blog post
In-Reply-To: <8e253f560911291737xb7e7d4ck4b814ea96613711e@mail.gmail.com>
References: <4b12d208.1067f10a.54e1.ffffcb58@mx.google.com>
<8ec76cd10911291251o1561afcap25bfc64a196b2c4a@mail.gmail.com>
<4b12e3f6.0e67f10a.6af9.ffffd14c@mx.google.com>
<99c65f730911291455w76a8ef4bj3cda520c1515af75@mail.gmail.com>
<5844c9860911291525i27f50c3bwd992517de9714da3@mail.gmail.com>
<8ec76cd10911291544j1df28032y9372dea9892f73a3@mail.gmail.com>
<4b1313fa.0e67f10a.6b61.ffffda15@mx.google.com>
<7d0f4c330911291648l1d7be39diaf421b8b5e4e6820@mail.gmail.com>
<deea21830911291712t4cbe3650i1a8558854e7b8d57@mail.gmail.com>
<8e253f560911291737xb7e7d4ck4b814ea96613711e@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <eb45e7c0911291829n397eb5edh3e14cf4f23563068@mail.gmail.com>

Links for you:


From bogus@does.not.exist.com Thu Nov 19 15:02:24 2009
From: bogus@does.not.exist.com ()
Date: Thu, 19 Nov 2009 15:02:24 -0000
Subject: No subject
Message-ID: <mailman.25.1259548182.5260.functionaries-en@lists.wikimedia.org>


1. According to Wikipedia (at least at the moment) Andrew Landeryou is
the Premier of the USSR: http://bit.ly/77BEUC (specific revision
linked) 4:07
PM Nov 26th <http://twitter.com/jeamland/status/6096776618> from
Tweetie<http://www.atebits.com/>

David Gerard's response from his Twitter
account:<http://twitter.com/davidgerard>


1. @jeamland <http://twitter.com/jeamland> mr landeryou has some histor=
y
on wikipedia. (i did the sockpuppet investigation.) 4:09 PM Nov 26th
<http://twitter.com/davidgerard/status/6096819270> from web in reply to
jeamland <http://twitter.com/jeamland/status/6096776618>

jeamland:

1. @davidgerard <http://twitter.com/davidgerard> Mr. Landeryou has some
history full stop. 4:10 PM Nov 26th
<http://twitter.com/jeamland/status/6096839895> from
Tweetie<http://www.atebits.com/> in
reply to davidgerard <http://twitter.com/davidgerard/status/6096819270>

Gerard:

1. @jeamland <http://twitter.com/jeamland> well, yes 4:36 PM Nov 26th
<http://twitter.com/davidgerard/status/6097448743> from web in reply to
jeamland <http://twitter.com/jeamland/status/6096839895>
2. Andrew Landeryou appears to be a waste of skin.
http://is.gd/54RL0Please do forward. 12:42
PM Nov 27th <http://twitter.com/davidgerard/status/6122047699> from web
(link to his blog, given separately below)

http://davidgerard.co.uk/notes/2009/11/27/...pears-to-be-a-=
waste-of-skin/

Quoting, in full:

Andrew Landeryou appears to be a waste of skin.

I tweeted <http://twitter.com/davidgerard/status/6096819270> the following,
in a discussion with someone else:

@jeamland mr landeryou has some history on wikipedia. (i did the sockpuppet
investigation.)

Mr Landeryou saw fit to send me a threat for this:

Delivered-To: dgerard at gmail.com
Received: by 10.239.151.6 with SMTP id p6cs401193hbb;
Fri, 27 Nov 2009 06:27:38 -0800 (PST)
Return-Path: <landeryou at gmail.com>
Received-SPF: pass (google.com: domain of landeryou at gmail.com designates
10.229.39.69 as permitted sender) client-ip=3D10.229.39.69;
Authentication-Results: mr.google.com; spf=3Dpass (google.com: domain of
landeryou at gmail.com designates 10.229.39.69 as permitted sender) smtp.mail=
=3D
landeryou at gmail.com; dkim=3Dpass header.i=3Dlanderyou at gmail.com
Received: from mr.google.com ([10.229.39.69])
by 10.229.39.69 with SMTP id f5mr129158qce.107.1259332057425
(num_hops =3D 1);
Fri, 27 Nov 2009 06:27:37 -0800 (PST)
DKIM-Signature: v=3D1; a=3Drsa-sha256; c=3Drelaxed/relaxed;
d=3Dgmail.com; s=3Dgamma;
h=3Ddomainkey-signature:mime-version:sender:received:date
:x-google-sender-auth:message-id:subject:from:to:content-type;
bh=3D0G/XzHLlSo2SxTE1gp1Tl/TntKHZ7atJ1j9+z0HZb/s=3D;
b=3DFcUJCtkfTqLtC0mkJIREVbSziuWOyrIFgpkZpx2ctXFSee0cuYlkYhK+6GWHwn7=
mxk
fBP407ffpUin7OiLQScQuIMNl+hmxtnU5fCMxVY9+bHjQ2f0gY+hV86VJnhB7UYrkjE=
8
31uxhBtdTTurlqduNredG6vMOmqXWOmAc7/es=3D
DomainKey-Signature: a=3Drsa-sha1; c=3Dnofws;
d=3Dgmail.com; s=3Dgamma;
h=3Dmime-version:sender:date:x-google-sender-auth:message-id:subjec=
t
:from:to:content-type;
b=3DADFGNwK9B+mwBMHcPg6+CRAIPz4tSQGAbhH5swQM6XaPC8LZ/lCFTJAcvRphM1W=
Jln
+xVXRJ4oI33RVWx8w/SsY0+qLkWmxeXg0z2a8+zHFiWqOEIgriFG5zhBXiJAZ+Kkrqm=
S
8AtX0pozl7MCjoudYqcXmKZM/ZcaBtwgj7oyc=3D
MIME-Version: 1.0
Sender: landeryou at gmail.com
Received: by 10.229.39.69 with SMTP id f5mr129158qce.107.1259332057419; Fri=
,

27 Nov 2009 06:27:37 -0800 (PST)
Date: Sat, 28 Nov 2009 01:27:37 +1100
X-Google-Sender-Auth: 2eb9e638f8d73878
Message-ID:
Subject: Twit
From: Andrew Landeryou &editor at vexnews.lt;com>
To: dgerard at gmail.com
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=3D0016364275f7efd07804795b170=
8

--0016364275f7efd07804795b1708
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=3DISO-8859-1

dgerard at gmail.com

Mr Gerard,

I am told you made reference to me in your musings on Twitter. I don't know
you, would rather not have to become familiar with who you are and what on
Earth possessed you to comment so freely about me or to edit Wikipedia to
say absurd things about me.

Your entitled to your opinion of me but I think it might be best for you to
discuss claims you make about me with me first. If you don't, I'll promise
to return the favour after an investigation into exactly what ails you. And
that really would be a waste of time for me and a very unpleasant outcome
for you, so I urge you to Twit more carefully in future.

Yours sincerely





Andrew Landeryou

I look forward to an exchange involving pie charts.

*p.s.:* if you don=92t want your months-long-running Wikipedia shenanigans
remembered, it helps not to have done them. Oops, too late.


No commentary added.


Risker/Anne
----------
From: jayvdb at gmail.com (John Vandenberg)
Date: Mon, 30 Nov 2009 13:29:55 +1100
Subject: [Functionaries-en] Fwd: Motion regarding your recent blog post
In-Reply-To: <7d0f4c330911291811h22307aecoe3fcfac593bda55e@mail.gmail.com>
References: <4b12d208.1067f10a.54e1.ffffcb58@mx.google.com>
<8e253f560911291234v6ee60074jdfbde532e026eea9@mail.gmail.com>
<8ec76cd10911291251o1561afcap25bfc64a196b2c4a@mail.gmail.com>
<4b12e3f6.0e67f10a.6af9.ffffd14c@mx.google.com>
<8ec76cd10911291332x6eec97fbl289408e21919d6a3@mail.gmail.com>
<5844c9860911291341o41839740u7303661e761f5aa6@mail.gmail.com>
<f30e42de0911291614v4d01b215xc307cbf89d37942b@mail.gmail.com>
<7d0f4c330911291626g6cbf7e01u2df5cf91b85028dc@mail.gmail.com>
<eb45e7c0911291702h360430b9m14fa8484f5ec5e7a@mail.gmail.com>
<7d0f4c330911291811h22307aecoe3fcfac593bda55e@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <deea21830911291829w39d02187n28265b5b09f4ca86@mail.gmail.com>

On Mon, Nov 30, 2009 at 1:11 PM, Mike Godwin <mnemonic at gmail.com> wrote:
>...
>
> So you're saying that David tweeted an accusation in which (a) he accused
> someone without evidence, and (b) he asserted that it was his access and
> position as a checkuser that empowered him to make the accusation (or
> otherwise informed him)?? Please, please point me to the tweet in question.

in essence, yes. we have been linking to this all along, and David
linked to it in his public post on his talk page.

http://twitter.com/davidgerard/status/6096819270

http://davidgerard.co.uk/notes/2009/11/27/...-waste-of-skin/

part (a) - he wrote to arbcom-l in 2006 saying he didn't have
sufficient evidence to back up this claim.

part (b) - his twit only says "sockpuppet investigation". We know
that checkuser was involved, and the public knows him as a checkuser.

All of this is backed up by the email to Jimmy, cc:arbcom-l

Date: Sun, 8 Jan 2006 09:34:07 +0000
Subject: "Australian politics vandal" slandering again

--
John Vandenberg
----------
From mnemonic at gmail.com Mon Nov 30 02:48:20 2009
From: mnemonic at gmail.com (Mike Godwin)
Date: Sun, 29 Nov 2009 18:48:20 -0800
Subject: [Functionaries-en] Fwd: Motion regarding your recent blog post
In-Reply-To: <deea21830911291829w39d02187n28265b5b09f4ca86@mail.gmail.com>
References: <4b12d208.1067f10a.54e1.ffffcb58@mx.google.com>
<8ec76cd10911291251o1561afcap25bfc64a196b2c4a@mail.gmail.com>
<4b12e3f6.0e67f10a.6af9.ffffd14c@mx.google.com>
<8ec76cd10911291332x6eec97fbl289408e21919d6a3@mail.gmail.com>
<5844c9860911291341o41839740u7303661e761f5aa6@mail.gmail.com>
<f30e42de0911291614v4d01b215xc307cbf89d37942b@mail.gmail.com>
<7d0f4c330911291626g6cbf7e01u2df5cf91b85028dc@mail.gmail.com>
<eb45e7c0911291702h360430b9m14fa8484f5ec5e7a@mail.gmail.com>
<7d0f4c330911291811h22307aecoe3fcfac593bda55e@mail.gmail.com>
<deea21830911291829w39d02187n28265b5b09f4ca86@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <7d0f4c330911291848jbae3eb1n713f4dd98948cf8@mail.gmail.com>

On Sun, Nov 29, 2009 at 6:29 PM, John Vandenberg <jayvdb at gmail.com> wrote:

>
> http://twitter.com/davidgerard/status/6096819270
>
>
> http://davidgerard.co.uk/notes/2009/11/27/...-waste-of-skin/
>
> part (a) - he wrote to arbcom-l in 2006 saying he didn't have
> sufficient evidence to back up this claim.
>
> part (b) - his twit only says "sockpuppet investigation". We know
> that checkuser was involved, and the public knows him as a checkuser.
>

I daresay more of the public knows my middle name than knows David Gerard to
be a checkuser.

I've looked at his tweet, and I agree that somebody who has taken the
trouble to learn that David Gerard has special admin powers might infer,
possibly incorrectly, that David was invoking his special status as
checkuser in tweeting that one-liner. But it's also possible that David was
referring to his review of publicly available information as well. In any
case -- and this to me is the important point -- there's nothing in what
David said that actually reveals any private information.

What's more, when I look at the wiki discussion about this, I see that
ArbCom says its decision is not in fact based on this single tweet -- which
while I wouldn't endorse it strikes me as essentially innocuous -- but on
unspecified prior acts. Let's just say that, in general, if you want to
perceived as acting justly and fairly, you need to be specific about why
you're punishing a user. The gravamen of the complaint against David is
that he criticized ArbCom's decisionmaking. ArbCom seems to me to have
responded by making a decision of the sort that David is prone to criticize
-- vague, possibly personal, broad in its implications of unethical conduct.

If ArbCom were to ask my advice, I would advise ArbCom to issue a
clarification that, at minimum, indicates that there is no evidence that
David Gerard ever violated the rules binding checkusers.



--Mike
----------
From marc at uberbox.org Mon Nov 30 02:50:27 2009
From: marc at uberbox.org (Marc A. Pelletier)
Date: Sun, 29 Nov 2009 21:50:27 -0500
Subject: [Functionaries-en] Fwd: Motion regarding your recent blog post
In-Reply-To: <8e253f560911291446k19a50b3ye428b02b6dc9a5dd@mail.gmail.com>
References: <4b12d208.1067f10a.54e1.ffffcb58@mx.google.com>
<8e253f560911291234v6ee60074jdfbde532e026eea9@mail.gmail.com>
<8ec76cd10911291251o1561afcap25bfc64a196b2c4a@mail.gmail.com>
<8e253f560911291446k19a50b3ye428b02b6dc9a5dd@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <4B1332F3.30706@uberbox.org>

Kat Walsh wrote:
>
> Let me be clear about what my point is in being argumentative: David
> may have done something dumb, unbecoming, unfair, not reflecting well
> on Wikipedia, etc., etc., but I think saying someone mishandled
> private information is a serious accusation and I don't want to see
> him accused of it publicly unless that is without question what he
> did.
>

Then let /me/ be clear.

If you make an allegation - especially naming a real person - claiming
it is supported by your use of the tool, then you are disclosing private
information EVEN IF YOU ARE LYING THROUGH YOUR TEETH.

There is no way an editor or a person outside Wikipedia can make the
difference. As far as anyone can tell, when David says "X has a history
on enwp; I did the sockpuppet investigation" he is disclosing
information he could only have gotten through his access to personal
tools. That the information is *false* to boot is an additional fault,
not a mitigating factor!

-- Coren / Marc
----------
From fredbaud at fairpoint.net Mon Nov 30 02:51:48 2009
From: fredbaud at fairpoint.net (Fred Bauder)
Date: Sun, 29 Nov 2009 19:51:48 -0700 (MST)
Subject: [Functionaries-en] Fwd: Motion regarding your recent blog post
In-Reply-To: <eb45e7c0911291829n397eb5edh3e14cf4f23563068@mail.gmail.com>
References: <4b12d208.1067f10a.54e1.ffffcb58@mx.google.com>
<8ec76cd10911291251o1561afcap25bfc64a196b2c4a@mail.gmail.com>
<4b12e3f6.0e67f10a.6af9.ffffd14c@mx.google.com>
<99c65f730911291455w76a8ef4bj3cda520c1515af75@mail.gmail.com>
<5844c9860911291525i27f50c3bwd992517de9714da3@mail.gmail.com>
<8ec76cd10911291544j1df28032y9372dea9892f73a3@mail.gmail.com>
<4b1313fa.0e67f10a.6b61.ffffda15@mx.google.com>
<7d0f4c330911291648l1d7be39diaf421b8b5e4e6820@mail.gmail.com>
<deea21830911291712t4cbe3650i1a8558854e7b8d57@mail.gmail.com>
<8e253f560911291737xb7e7d4ck4b814ea96613711e@mail.gmail.com>
<eb45e7c0911291829n397eb5edh3e14cf4f23563068@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <49847.66.243.192.74.1259549508.squirrel@webmail.fairpoint.net>

OK, some nasty language, but no release of actual checkuser information,
just a claim that this person had edited improperly with multiple
accounts on Wikipedia and that he found evidence of that, but checkuser
is not mentioned. So, essentially, taunting.

Fred
------------
From marc at uberbox.org Mon Nov 30 02:55:12 2009
From: marc at uberbox.org (Marc A. Pelletier)
Date: Sun, 29 Nov 2009 21:55:12 -0500
Subject: [Functionaries-en] Fwd: Motion regarding your recent blog post
In-Reply-To: <7d0f4c330911291848jbae3eb1n713f4dd98948cf8@mail.gmail.com>
References: <4b12d208.1067f10a.54e1.ffffcb58@mx.google.com>
<8ec76cd10911291251o1561afcap25bfc64a196b2c4a@mail.gmail.com>
<4b12e3f6.0e67f10a.6af9.ffffd14c@mx.google.com>
<8ec76cd10911291332x6eec97fbl289408e21919d6a3@mail.gmail.com>
<5844c9860911291341o41839740u7303661e761f5aa6@mail.gmail.com>
<f30e42de0911291614v4d01b215xc307cbf89d37942b@mail.gmail.com>
<7d0f4c330911291626g6cbf7e01u2df5cf91b85028dc@mail.gmail.com>
<eb45e7c0911291702h360430b9m14fa8484f5ec5e7a@mail.gmail.com>
<7d0f4c330911291811h22307aecoe3fcfac593bda55e@mail.gmail.com>
<deea21830911291829w39d02187n28265b5b09f4ca86@mail.gmail.com>
<7d0f4c330911291848jbae3eb1n713f4dd98948cf8@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <4B133410.3000903@uberbox.org>

Mike Godwin wrote:
>
>
> The gravamen of the complaint against David is that he criticized
> ArbCom's decisionmaking.

I resent that unfounded accusation and I demand you withdraw it
immediately. I will *not* have you, or anyone else, question my
ethics. I have never had a dispute with David, nor would I ever so much
as *consider* stifling dissent or criticism. That you imply that it
might have been a factor -- let alone the driving factor.

Do not presume to gess at the gravamina behind my actions. If I state a
reason for
User is offlineProfile CardPM
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
MaliceAforethought
post Wed 29th June 2011, 2:49am
Post #8


u Mad?
***

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



From marc at uberbox.org Mon Nov 30 02:59:55 2009
From: marc at uberbox.org (Marc A. Pelletier)
Date: Sun, 29 Nov 2009 21:59:55 -0500
Subject: [Functionaries-en] Fwd: Motion regarding your recent blog post
In-Reply-To: <7d0f4c330911291856u1f7fd1edsdd6ba17abe050b9a@mail.gmail.com>
References: <4b12d208.1067f10a.54e1.ffffcb58@mx.google.com>
<8e253f560911291234v6ee60074jdfbde532e026eea9@mail.gmail.com>
<8ec76cd10911291251o1561afcap25bfc64a196b2c4a@mail.gmail.com>
<8e253f560911291446k19a50b3ye428b02b6dc9a5dd@mail.gmail.com>
<4B1332F3.30706@uberbox.org>
<7d0f4c330911291856u1f7fd1edsdd6ba17abe050b9a@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <4B13352B.70908@uberbox.org>

Mike Godwin wrote:
>
>
> Marc, if I'm a checkuser, and I say that I know you to be a pedophile
> based on my use of the tool, is the proper response to say I have
> "disclosed Marc's private information"?

Yes. Very much so.

Now, as it turns out, we _do_ have an exception to the prohibition on
disclosure that also covers this: protection of the encyclopedia. So
you'd still be correct to do so.

If you went on your blog and said that *years* after the putative
events, then you are not covered by that exception.

-- Coren / Marc
----------
From mnemonic at gmail.com Mon Nov 30 03:00:11 2009
From: mnemonic at gmail.com (Mike Godwin)
Date: Sun, 29 Nov 2009 19:00:11 -0800
Subject: [Functionaries-en] Fwd: Motion regarding your recent blog post
In-Reply-To: <7d0f4c330911291859m1818d7d2hab1c9440312453e@mail.gmail.com>
References: <4b12d208.1067f10a.54e1.ffffcb58@mx.google.com>
<5844c9860911291341o41839740u7303661e761f5aa6@mail.gmail.com>
<f30e42de0911291614v4d01b215xc307cbf89d37942b@mail.gmail.com>
<7d0f4c330911291626g6cbf7e01u2df5cf91b85028dc@mail.gmail.com>
<eb45e7c0911291702h360430b9m14fa8484f5ec5e7a@mail.gmail.com>
<7d0f4c330911291811h22307aecoe3fcfac593bda55e@mail.gmail.com>
<deea21830911291829w39d02187n28265b5b09f4ca86@mail.gmail.com>
<7d0f4c330911291848jbae3eb1n713f4dd98948cf8@mail.gmail.com>
<4B133410.3000903@uberbox.org>
<7d0f4c330911291859m1818d7d2hab1c9440312453e@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <7d0f4c330911291900x2315e8e4pa50b810a1199078d@mail.gmail.com>

On Sun, Nov 29, 2009 at 6:59 PM, Mike Godwin <mnemonic at gmail.com> wrote:

>
> Well, ALL CAPS certainly convinces me of the cool rationality behind the
> decisionmaking.
>
>
Sorry, I misspoke. I was referring to Marc's initial caps in I. Do. Not.
Lie. Please forgive my error.


--m
----------
From mnemonic at gmail.com Mon Nov 30 03:02:18 2009
From: mnemonic at gmail.com (Mike Godwin)
Date: Sun, 29 Nov 2009 19:02:18 -0800
Subject: [Functionaries-en] Fwd: Motion regarding your recent blog post
In-Reply-To: <14749c270911291859q11e7a15esadded6f02cfd38f2@mail.gmail.com>
References: <4b12d208.1067f10a.54e1.ffffcb58@mx.google.com>
<8ec76cd10911291332x6eec97fbl289408e21919d6a3@mail.gmail.com>
<5844c9860911291341o41839740u7303661e761f5aa6@mail.gmail.com>
<f30e42de0911291614v4d01b215xc307cbf89d37942b@mail.gmail.com>
<7d0f4c330911291626g6cbf7e01u2df5cf91b85028dc@mail.gmail.com>
<eb45e7c0911291702h360430b9m14fa8484f5ec5e7a@mail.gmail.com>
<7d0f4c330911291811h22307aecoe3fcfac593bda55e@mail.gmail.com>
<deea21830911291829w39d02187n28265b5b09f4ca86@mail.gmail.com>
<7d0f4c330911291848jbae3eb1n713f4dd98948cf8@mail.gmail.com>
<14749c270911291859q11e7a15esadded6f02cfd38f2@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <7d0f4c330911291902tb6e47cds739d47586a63d7df@mail.gmail.com>

On Sun, Nov 29, 2009 at 6:59 PM, Thatcher131 <thatcher131 at gmail.com> wrote:

>
> Que? The tweet says "(i did the sockpuppet investigation.)". One does
> not have to know anything about Wikipedia, checkuser or user rights
> management to understand that David is claiming to have personally
> investigated the subject's sockpuppetry.
>

And this is the only way to investigate sockpuppetry? That differs from my
understanding of things like "traceroute".



> Simple rule: Don't use private information obtained as a result of holding
> privileged access for personal gain.
>

I support this simple rule. I just don't understand what evidence there is
that David Gerard violated this simple rule.


--Mike
----------
From newyorkbrad at gmail.com Mon Nov 30 03:04:17 2009
From: newyorkbrad at gmail.com (Newyorkbrad (Wikipedia))
Date: Sun, 29 Nov 2009 22:04:17 -0500
Subject: [Functionaries-en] Fwd: Motion regarding your recent blog post
In-Reply-To: <7d0f4c330911291856u1f7fd1edsdd6ba17abe050b9a@mail.gmail.com>
References: <4b12d208.1067f10a.54e1.ffffcb58@mx.google.com>
<8e253f560911291234v6ee60074jdfbde532e026eea9@mail.gmail.com>
<8ec76cd10911291251o1561afcap25bfc64a196b2c4a@mail.gmail.com>
<8e253f560911291446k19a50b3ye428b02b6dc9a5dd@mail.gmail.com>
<4B1332F3.30706@uberbox.org>
<7d0f4c330911291856u1f7fd1edsdd6ba17abe050b9a@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <c52819d30911291904i7b594f47p3b88f67a36bbb015@mail.gmail.com>

Having carefully reviewed this thread, I will address with my ArbCom
colleagues (in the morning, after a night's sleep) the possibility of
rephrasing the preamble to the motion to address some of the concerns
raised here.

The suggestion that this action was taken in whole or part because
David Gerard has been critical of ArbCom, however, is objectionable
and is rejected, certainly by me and I think by all of us.

Newyorkbrad
-----------
From mnemonic at gmail.com Mon Nov 30 03:12:39 2009
From: mnemonic at gmail.com (Mike Godwin)
Date: Sun, 29 Nov 2009 19:12:39 -0800
Subject: [Functionaries-en] Fwd: Motion regarding your recent blog post
In-Reply-To: <c52819d30911291904i7b594f47p3b88f67a36bbb015@mail.gmail.com>
References: <4b12d208.1067f10a.54e1.ffffcb58@mx.google.com>
<8e253f560911291234v6ee60074jdfbde532e026eea9@mail.gmail.com>
<8ec76cd10911291251o1561afcap25bfc64a196b2c4a@mail.gmail.com>
<8e253f560911291446k19a50b3ye428b02b6dc9a5dd@mail.gmail.com>
<4B1332F3.30706@uberbox.org>
<7d0f4c330911291856u1f7fd1edsdd6ba17abe050b9a@mail.gmail.com>
<c52819d30911291904i7b594f47p3b88f67a36bbb015@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <7d0f4c330911291912k6485d275mdc4c3093251cbcbe@mail.gmail.com>

On Sun, Nov 29, 2009 at 7:04 PM, Newyorkbrad (Wikipedia) <
newyorkbrad at gmail.com> wrote:

>
> The suggestion that this action was taken in whole or part because
> David Gerard has been critical of ArbCom, however, is objectionable
> and is rejected, certainly by me and I think by all of us.
>
>
Please understand that I only chose to speak out because of how this affair
seems to me. If I were hired as a lawyer to make the case that David Gerard
had somehow harmed Wikipedia or the Wikimedia projects by this tweet, I
don't think I could do so. I strongly doubt the tweet's significance,
standing alone.

I'm inclined to say that there's greater risk of harm when sanctions are
based on generalized accusations of prior bad behavior -- and an absence of
specific documentation -- because that gives rise to the inference that
ArbCom is acting in an arbitrary and capricious manner. I regret very much
that this is how it seems to me. I would prefer to have the opposite
impression.

And I will say generally and personally that I would rather have one David
Gerard empowered to work on behalf of the projects than a thousand
"rehabilitated" Gregory Kohses. I had thought we tolerated David's acerbity
and wit and snarkiness against our enemies -- and, yes, we have enemies --
because we believed he had our projects' best interests at heart. To have
this reduced to a question of "personal gain" on David's part seems immoral
to me.


--m
----------
From ft2.wiki at gmail.com Mon Nov 30 03:12:48 2009
From: ft2.wiki at gmail.com (FT2)
Date: Mon, 30 Nov 2009 03:12:48 -0000
Subject: [Functionaries-en] Fwd: Motion regarding your recent blog post
In-Reply-To: <4B1332F3.30706@uberbox.org>
References: <4b12d208.1067f10a.54e1.ffffcb58@mx.google.com> <8e253f560911291234v6ee60074jdfbde532e026eea9@mail.gmail.com> <8ec76cd10911291251o1561afcap25bfc64a196b2c4a@mail.gmail.com> <8e253f560911291446k19a50b3ye428b02b6dc9a5dd@mail.gmail.com>
<4B1332F3.30706@uberbox.org>
Message-ID: <4b133831.0d67f10a.26ee.ffffd756@mx.google.com>

I see the case you're trying to make, but I can't buy it. We have at least 2
formally trained and qualified lawyers in this dialog. an analogy.


As a lawyer, Legal Eagle is arguing with Joseph Krantz (an identifiable
individual) on a public online forum. Mid-argument, he posts an entry on his
own blog, that says "Joseph Krantz has a history of drug abuse. I found that
out in our firm's files". The investigation reveals that in fact, his law
firm never handled the guy's affairs (that anyone can find evidence of), and
in fact no data about Joseph and drugs ever existed in their firm in the
first place.

Did Legal Eagle defame Joseph Krantz?
- Quite possibly, depending on the case.

Did Legal Eagle act grossly improperly, bring his firm and the law into
disrepute, and may be sanctioned?
- Yes.

Did Legal Eagle breach legal privacy/client confidentiality and disseminate
information acquired from the firm's confidential client files?
- Left for the lawyers on this list to opine if they'd like to try
presenting that case to a judge.


Paul.



> -----Original Message-----
> From: functionaries-en-bounces at lists.wikimedia.org
> [mailto:functionaries-en-bounces at lists.wikimedia.org] On Behalf Of
> Marc A. Pelletier
> Sent: 30 November 2009 02:50
> To: Functionaries email list for the English Wikipedia
> Subject: Re: [Functionaries-en] Fwd: Motion regarding your recent
> blog post
>
> Kat Walsh wrote:
> >
> > Let me be clear about what my point is in being argumentative:
> David
> > may have done something dumb, unbecoming, unfair, not reflecting
> well
> > on Wikipedia, etc., etc., but I think saying someone mishandled
> > private information is a serious accusation and I don't want to see
> > him accused of it publicly unless that is without question what he
> > did.
----------
From mnemonic at gmail.com Mon Nov 30 03:15:33 2009
From: mnemonic at gmail.com (Mike Godwin)
Date: Sun, 29 Nov 2009 19:15:33 -0800
Subject: [Functionaries-en] Fwd: Motion regarding your recent blog post
In-Reply-To: <4b133831.0d67f10a.26ee.ffffd756@mx.google.com>
References: <4b12d208.1067f10a.54e1.ffffcb58@mx.google.com>
<8e253f560911291234v6ee60074jdfbde532e026eea9@mail.gmail.com>
<8ec76cd10911291251o1561afcap25bfc64a196b2c4a@mail.gmail.com>
<8e253f560911291446k19a50b3ye428b02b6dc9a5dd@mail.gmail.com>
<4B1332F3.30706@uberbox.org>
<4b133831.0d67f10a.26ee.ffffd756@mx.google.com>
Message-ID: <7d0f4c330911291915p7373b10ld5849dc6864c4520@mail.gmail.com>

I hope you'll forgive me for not being able to follow this analogy or to see
how it's applicable.

I speak as someone who's identified sockpuppets (with reasonable certainty)
without ever using checkuser powers.


--Mike



On Sun, Nov 29, 2009 at 7:12 PM, FT2 <ft2.wiki at gmail.com> wrote:

> I see the case you're trying to make, but I can't buy it. We have at least
> 2
> formally trained and qualified lawyers in this dialog. an analogy.
>
>
----------
From marc at uberbox.org Mon Nov 30 03:15:38 2009
From: marc at uberbox.org (Marc A. Pelletier)
Date: Sun, 29 Nov 2009 22:15:38 -0500
Subject: [Functionaries-en] Fwd: Motion regarding your recent blog post
In-Reply-To: <7d0f4c330911291912k6485d275mdc4c3093251cbcbe@mail.gmail.com>
References: <4b12d208.1067f10a.54e1.ffffcb58@mx.google.com>
<8e253f560911291234v6ee60074jdfbde532e026eea9@mail.gmail.com>
<8ec76cd10911291251o1561afcap25bfc64a196b2c4a@mail.gmail.com>
<8e253f560911291446k19a50b3ye428b02b6dc9a5dd@mail.gmail.com>
<4B1332F3.30706@uberbox.org>
<7d0f4c330911291856u1f7fd1edsdd6ba17abe050b9a@mail.gmail.com>
<c52819d30911291904i7b594f47p3b88f67a36bbb015@mail.gmail.com>
<7d0f4c330911291912k6485d275mdc4c3093251cbcbe@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <4B1338DA.5050109@uberbox.org>

Mike Godwin wrote:
>
>
> And I will say generally and personally that I would rather have one
> David Gerard empowered to work on behalf of the projects than a
> thousand "rehabilitated" Gregory Kohses. I had thought we tolerated
> David's acerbity and wit and snarkiness against our enemies -- and,
> yes, we have enemies -- because we believed he had our projects' best
> interests at heart. To have this reduced to a question of "personal
> gain" on David's part seems immoral to me.

You'll find few -- on the Committee or on this list -- to disagree with
you there on relative merits.

But I cannot agree that improper behavior is made acceptable by the
worse behavior of others.

-- Coren / Marc
-----------
From mnemonic at gmail.com Mon Nov 30 03:18:04 2009
From: mnemonic at gmail.com (Mike Godwin)
Date: Sun, 29 Nov 2009 19:18:04 -0800
Subject: [Functionaries-en] Fwd: Motion regarding your recent blog post
In-Reply-To: <4b131ea5.0f67f10a.1563.ffffd6ff@mx.google.com>
References: <4b12d208.1067f10a.54e1.ffffcb58@mx.google.com>
<8e253f560911291234v6ee60074jdfbde532e026eea9@mail.gmail.com>
<8ec76cd10911291251o1561afcap25bfc64a196b2c4a@mail.gmail.com>
<4b12e3f6.0e67f10a.6af9.ffffd14c@mx.google.com>
<8ec76cd10911291332x6eec97fbl289408e21919d6a3@mail.gmail.com>
<5844c9860911291341o41839740u7303661e761f5aa6@mail.gmail.com>
<f30e42de0911291614v4d01b215xc307cbf89d37942b@mail.gmail.com>
<7d0f4c330911291626g6cbf7e01u2df5cf91b85028dc@mail.gmail.com>
<eb45e7c0911291702h360430b9m14fa8484f5ec5e7a@mail.gmail.com>
<4b131ea5.0f67f10a.1563.ffffd6ff@mx.google.com>
Message-ID: <7d0f4c330911291918n64e1a110t49cb2114bbacb8d@mail.gmail.com>

On Sun, Nov 29, 2009 at 5:23 PM, FT2 <ft2.wiki at gmail.com> wrote:

> Beyond that, and with regret, I concur. Risker says it for me. We do
> expect the highest of conduct, we are a flagship, and if we want high
> standards we need to start expecting them and not just mouthing the words.
> It?s not a problem to find that WMF is fine with someone but a specific
> project feels there?s a concern -- for example, OTRS may keep someone as
> part of their team even if banned on some projects, I believe, if the list
> admins still feel confidence.
>

It is precisely because I agree with you about the need for "the highest of
conduct" that I am troubled by what seems to me to be happening here, which
doesn't seem like "the highest" of anything.


> I?m fine critiquing poor decisions, and I speak up quickly if I fear I?m
> seeing a decision that?s substandard, but ?being concerned about the conduct
> and deeming it unacceptable? in this case, falls within fair discretion of
> Arbcom on any reasonable basis.
>

And yet the public perception of justice done derives from being particular
in the facts and principles on which decisions are made. If the public
perception, which is so highly stressed here, is important, then it seems to
me that a better case needs to be made for accusing David Gerard of doing
anything improper with private information. In addition, I believe a better
case needs to made that he acted improperly, by clearly understood objective
standards.

If you are right in your decisionmaking, these should be easy standards to
meet.


--Mike
----------
From marc at uberbox.org Mon Nov 30 03:19:44 2009
From: marc at uberbox.org (Marc A. Pelletier)
Date: Sun, 29 Nov 2009 22:19:44 -0500
Subject: [Functionaries-en] Fwd: Motion regarding your recent blog post
In-Reply-To: <4b133831.0d67f10a.26ee.ffffd756@mx.google.com>
References: <4b12d208.1067f10a.54e1.ffffcb58@mx.google.com>
<8e253f560911291234v6ee60074jdfbde532e026eea9@mail.gmail.com>
<8ec76cd10911291251o1561afcap25bfc64a196b2c4a@mail.gmail.com>
<8e253f560911291446k19a50b3ye428b02b6dc9a5dd@mail.gmail.com>
<4B1332F3.30706@uberbox.org>
<4b133831.0d67f10a.26ee.ffffd756@mx.google.com>
Message-ID: <4B1339D0.8020401@uberbox.org>

FT2 wrote:
> Did Legal Eagle breach legal privacy/client confidentiality and disseminate
> information acquired from the firm's confidential client files?
>

Interesting hypothetical. I do not know, and I would expect the correct
answer varies greatly between jurisdictions.

The *just* answer is, "yes", of course: the objective of privilege is
to encourage communication between client and lawyer, in the secure
knowledge that its contents will not be disseminated. The parallel to
checkuser data is imperfect, of course, since it is not voluntarily
disclosed information (except, perhaps, arguendo as a consequence of our
terms of use).

At any rate, I would expect any legal system that would not consider
this a breach to be flawed. Thankfully, ArbCom is not bound by such a
system.

-- Coren / Marc
----------
From thatcher131 at gmail.com Mon Nov 30 03:28:49 2009
From: thatcher131 at gmail.com (Thatcher131)
Date: Sun, 29 Nov 2009 22:28:49 -0500
Subject: [Functionaries-en] Fwd: Motion regarding your recent blog post
In-Reply-To: <7d0f4c330911291912k6485d275mdc4c3093251cbcbe@mail.gmail.com>
References: <4b12d208.1067f10a.54e1.ffffcb58@mx.google.com>
<8e253f560911291234v6ee60074jdfbde532e026eea9@mail.gmail.com>
<8ec76cd10911291251o1561afcap25bfc64a196b2c4a@mail.gmail.com>
<8e253f560911291446k19a50b3ye428b02b6dc9a5dd@mail.gmail.com>
<4B1332F3.30706@uberbox.org>
<7d0f4c330911291856u1f7fd1edsdd6ba17abe050b9a@mail.gmail.com>
<c52819d30911291904i7b594f47p3b88f67a36bbb015@mail.gmail.com>
<7d0f4c330911291912k6485d275mdc4c3093251cbcbe@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <14749c270911291928k45dd54f8gb83572e977148117@mail.gmail.com>

On Sun, Nov 29, 2009 at 10:12 PM, Mike Godwin <mnemonic at gmail.com> wrote:

>
>
> On Sun, Nov 29, 2009 at 7:04 PM, Newyorkbrad (Wikipedia) <
> newyorkbrad at gmail.com> wrote:
>
>>
>> The suggestion that this action was taken in whole or part because
>> David Gerard has been critical of ArbCom, however, is objectionable
>> and is rejected, certainly by me and I think by all of us.
>>
>>
> Please understand that I only chose to speak out because of how this affair
> seems to me. If I were hired as a lawyer to make the case that David Gerard
> had somehow harmed Wikipedia or the Wikimedia projects by this tweet, I
> don't think I could do so. I strongly doubt the tweet's significance,
> standing alone.
>


The argument, from my point of view (I have had no private conversations
with arbitrators about this) is not that "David has harmed the project" but
rather, "Based on David's behavior, we are uncomfortable with him continuing
to hold these advanced privileges and the air of authority that they convey
to some."

Thatcher
----------
From jayvdb at gmail.com Mon Nov 30 03:29:17 2009
From: jayvdb at gmail.com (John Vandenberg)
Date: Mon, 30 Nov 2009 14:29:17 +1100
Subject: [Functionaries-en] Fwd: Motion regarding your recent blog post
In-Reply-To: <7d0f4c330911291915p7373b10ld5849dc6864c4520@mail.gmail.com>
References: <4b12d208.1067f10a.54e1.ffffcb58@mx.google.com>
<8e253f560911291234v6ee60074jdfbde532e026eea9@mail.gmail.com>
<8ec76cd10911291251o1561afcap25bfc64a196b2c4a@mail.gmail.com>
<8e253f560911291446k19a50b3ye428b02b6dc9a5dd@mail.gmail.com>
<4B1332F3.30706@uberbox.org>
<4b133831.0d67f10a.26ee.ffffd756@mx.google.com>
<7d0f4c330911291915p7373b10ld5849dc6864c4520@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <deea21830911291929m5cda52capc92e1db44f2ffc2d@mail.gmail.com>

On Mon, Nov 30, 2009 at 2:15 PM, Mike Godwin <mnemonic at gmail.com> wrote:
>
> I hope you'll forgive me for not being able to follow this analogy or to see
> how it's applicable.
>
> I speak as someone who's identified sockpuppets (with reasonable certainty)
> without ever using checkuser powers.

Mike,

of course it is possible ... it happens at WP:SPI all the time.

but that is irrelevant.

as I said in my last email, David said he used checkuser; that fact is
recorded in an email sent to Jimmy and arbcom-l. David said that he
was going to tell us about the relevant emails, so he should have the
email in question. So should any arb from that period.

If you would like, we can send that email to you privately.

--
John Vandenberg
-----------
From keegan.wiki at gmail.com Mon Nov 30 03:45:31 2009
From: keegan.wiki at gmail.com (Keegan Peterzell)
Date: Sun, 29 Nov 2009 21:45:31 -0600
Subject: [Functionaries-en] Fwd: Motion regarding your recent blog post
In-Reply-To: <20091129215202.GKJVT.959469.imail@eastrmwml31>
References: <4B1332F3.30706@uberbox.org>
<20091129215202.GKJVT.959469.imail@eastrmwml31>
Message-ID: <5844c9860911291945m1567d1c7p2cce81cfd464dd51@mail.gmail.com>

As I sit here, eating my Cheesy Gordita Crunches and have a few beers
watching the Steelers/Ravens game in a classic battle of I Want Both Teams
to Lose, this thread is starting to annoy me because I missed another ad for
discount diabetic supplies.

This comes without my personal opinion on the situation, this is just my
personal observation of how things are going.

What we have are the factions going on that I tried to complain about
earlier, obviously my childlike tendencies put me at the kid's table where
I'm the adult and I can make other users give me mac and cheese. My
statement was misinterpreted, so let me clarify:

The announcement is /better/ than the discussion going on here. It's a
general statement of a pattern of neglect to follow the code of W
Wikipedia:Functionary. That's fine, as mentioned Raul654 resigned his
rights because of scrutiny as to his methodology of use over a period of
time, not just one instance.

What I see from here is that the inner circle that is it's not the
Arbitration committee or any checkuser or oversighter with the common sense
to stay away (mother said I didn't have any sense) in disagreement with the
decision. While Kat spoke with the mortarboard off, her opinion is
certainly deserving of respect of thought as well as the ex-Arbs and our
esteemed counsel.

This discussion would be much better handled on this list by the committee
by not outlining the one incident, but the multiple if that is the reason
for the decision, as it has been indicated in response to my post. Finding
the tweets is easy, but I'd rather not be hanged because I'm a smartass on
facebook.

In other words, either we all need to get along and respect both decisions
as well as criticism, or take this to AN/I for some real fun. But in
seriousness, this needs to be addressed onwiki between everyone on this list
if they feel that passionately. Drama isn't fun{{fact}}, but this is a
serious concern to some esteemed folk so why not make it a public debate if
the opposition is that strong.

I'm going to armwrestle my cat,go Titans.
--
~Keegan
-----------
From User.CoolHandLuke at gmail.com Mon Nov 30 03:45:56 2009
From: User.CoolHandLuke at gmail.com (Cool Hand Luke)
Date: Sun, 29 Nov 2009 21:45:56 -0600
Subject: [Functionaries-en] Fwd: Motion regarding your recent blog post
In-Reply-To: <7d0f4c330911291811h22307aecoe3fcfac593bda55e@mail.gmail.com>
References: <4b12d208.1067f10a.54e1.ffffcb58@mx.google.com>
<8e253f560911291234v6ee60074jdfbde532e026eea9@mail.gmail.com>
<8ec76cd10911291251o1561afcap25bfc64a196b2c4a@mail.gmail.com>
<4b12e3f6.0e67f10a.6af9.ffffd14c@mx.google.com>
<8ec76cd10911291332x6eec97fbl289408e21919d6a3@mail.gmail.com>
<5844c9860911291341o41839740u7303661e761f5aa6@mail.gmail.com>
<f30e42de0911291614v4d01b215xc307cbf89d37942b@mail.gmail.com>
<7d0f4c330911291626g6cbf7e01u2df5cf91b85028dc@mail.gmail.com>
<eb45e7c0911291702h360430b9m14fa8484f5ec5e7a@mail.gmail.com>
<7d0f4c330911291811h22307aecoe3fcfac593bda55e@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <8ec76cd10911291945h7160a8d5w3a26d5821d1438c1@mail.gmail.com>

On Sun, Nov 29, 2009 at 8:11 PM, Mike Godwin <mnemonic at gmail.com> wrote:

>
> My understanding is that he's been asked to be less sharp-tongued and
> acerbic and parodic. If you want to create a bad impression about ArbCom --
> and there seems to be a little too much concern about public perception here
> -- by all means, silence the funny, critical people.<https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/functionaries-en>
>
>

We haven't silenced him, we haven't banned him, and we haven't even
desysoped him. This would be a peculiar way to silence him in any
case--indeed, some of us predicted that he would act out publicly in
response.

You continue to accuse the committee--which acted unanimously--of advancing
an interpersonal grudge.

I would appreciate a more measured dialog; this was neither censorship nor
capriciousness.

Frank
----------
From risker.wp at gmail.com Mon Nov 30 03:49:46 2009
From: risker.wp at gmail.com (Risker)
Date: Mon, 30 Nov 2009 03:49:46 +0000
Subject: [Functionaries-en] Fwd: Motion regarding your recent blog post
In-Reply-To: <7d0f4c330911291900x2315e8e4pa50b810a1199078d@mail.gmail.com>
References: <4b12d208.1067f10a.54e1.ffffcb58@mx.google.com>
<f30e42de0911291614v4d01b215xc307cbf89d37942b@mail.gmail.com>
<7d0f4c330911291626g6cbf7e01u2df5cf91b85028dc@mail.gmail.com>
<eb45e7c0911291702h360430b9m14fa8484f5ec5e7a@mail.gmail.com>
<7d0f4c330911291811h22307aecoe3fcfac593bda55e@mail.gmail.com>
<deea21830911291829w39d02187n28265b5b09f4ca86@mail.gmail.com>
<7d0f4c330911291848jbae3eb1n713f4dd98948cf8@mail.gmail.com>
<4B133410.3000903@uberbox.org>
<7d0f4c330911291859m1818d7d2hab1c9440312453e@mail.gmail.com>
<7d0f4c330911291900x2315e8e4pa50b810a1199078d@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <eb45e7c0911291949r45a97ec8vc7c3c9126fe24e92@mail.gmail.com>

Mike, I do understand the difference between "Mike the guy whose opinion we
respect" and "Mike the WMF lawyer and staff member". What's confusing is
that your first post to this thread is signed off as follows:

"Please communicate to all involved my strong personal and professional
preference that they reconsider this decision.


--Mike Godwin
General Counsel
Wikimedia Foundation"

I think we had pretty good reason, based on that, to think you were speaking
in your official as well as your personal capacity.

It seems the key difference in perspective here is at what point we consider
information to have crossed into the "private" zone. The checkuser logs are
*private* logs. Checkusers and other functionaries are expected not to
release private information without due cause, that due cause being
protection of the project. When I was doing SPI checks last night, I
released some private information in order to protect the project. I also
withheld significantly more information, such as the names of other editors
on those IPs, even though I wound up checking some of them too to make sure
they weren't socks.

If I publicly post the fact of having checkusered one of those "innocent"
editors whom I found to be irritating for some reason, and I do so some
years down the road in a public forum, I believe that would be a violation
of the privacy policy in spirit at least, and quite possibly in letter as
well. I don't need to give out someone's IP to do that, all I have to do is
reveal information that is not publicly available, and is held in a
restricted-access log and a restricted access mailing list.

Now, you may not agree with me that what I have just mentioned is "private"
information. I am at a loss as to what else it could be considered -
confidential? non-public? - nonetheless, this was a bright line that should
not have been crossed, and certainly not under these circumstances.

Risker/Anne
-----------
From mnemonic at gmail.com Mon Nov 30 03:51:18 2009
From: mnemonic at gmail.com (Mike Godwin)
Date: Sun, 29 Nov 2009 19:51:18 -0800
Subject: [Functionaries-en] Fwd: Motion regarding your recent blog post
In-Reply-To: <eb45e7c0911291949r45a97ec8vc7c3c9126fe24e92@mail.gmail.com>
References: <4b12d208.1067f10a.54e1.ffffcb58@mx.google.com>
<7d0f4c330911291626g6cbf7e01u2df5cf91b85028dc@mail.gmail.com>
<eb45e7c0911291702h360430b9m14fa8484f5ec5e7a@mail.gmail.com>
<7d0f4c330911291811h22307aecoe3fcfac593bda55e@mail.gmail.com>
<deea21830911291829w39d02187n28265b5b09f4ca86@mail.gmail.com>
<7d0f4c330911291848jbae3eb1n713f4dd98948cf8@mail.gmail.com>
<4B133410.3000903@uberbox.org>
<7d0f4c330911291859m1818d7d2hab1c9440312453e@mail.gmail.com>
<7d0f4c330911291900x2315e8e4pa50b810a1199078d@mail.gmail.com>
<eb45e7c0911291949r45a97ec8vc7c3c9126fe24e92@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <7d0f4c330911291951s3d7c05d3y11814d3f12c21949@mail.gmail.com>

Risker, I understand that some people may infer that anything I say
represents the Foundation. I have made many choices, long before now, to
diminish the possibility of this mistaken inference. Please accept my
guidelines, as I've offered them below, as a rule of thumb.

Thanks.

--Mike



On Sun, Nov 29, 2009 at 7:49 PM, Risker <risker.wp at gmail.com> wrote:

> Mike, I do understand the difference between "Mike the guy whose opinion we
> respect" and "Mike the WMF lawyer and staff member". What's confusing is
> that your first post to this thread is signed off as follows:
>
>
> "Please communicate to all involved my strong personal and professional
> preference that they reconsider this decision.
>
>
> --Mike Godwin
> General Counsel
> Wikimedia Foundation"
>
> I think we had pretty good reason, based on that, to think you were
> speaking in your official as well as your personal capacity.
>
> It seems the key difference in perspective here is at what point we
> consider information to have crossed into the "private" zone. The checkuser
> logs are *private* logs. Checkusers and other functionaries are expected not
> to release private information without due cause, that due cause being
> protection of the project. When I was doing SPI checks last night, I
> released some private information in order to protect the project. I also
> withheld significantly more information, such as the names of other editors
> on those IPs, even though I wound up checking some of them too to make sure
> they weren't socks.
>
> If I publicly post the fact of having checkusered one of those "innocent"
> editors whom I found to be irritating for some reason, and I do so some
> years down the road in a public forum, I believe that would be a violation
> of the privacy policy in spirit at least, and quite possibly in letter as
> well. I don't need to give out someone's IP to do that, all I have to do is
> reveal information that is not publicly available, and is held in a
> restricted-access log and a restricted access mailing list.
>
> Now, you may not agree with me that what I have just mentioned is "private"
> information. I am at a loss as to what else it could be considered -
> confidential? non-public? - nonetheless, this was a bright line that should
> not have been crossed, and certainly not under these circumstances.
>
> Risker/Anne
>
-----------
From mnemonic at gmail.com Mon Nov 30 03:53:03 2009
From: mnemonic at gmail.com (Mike Godwin)
Date: Sun, 29 Nov 2009 19:53:03 -0800
Subject: [Functionaries-en] Fwd: Motion regarding your recent blog post
In-Reply-To: <7d0f4c330911291951s3d7c05d3y11814d3f12c21949@mail.gmail.com>
References: <4b12d208.1067f10a.54e1.ffffcb58@mx.google.com>
<eb45e7c0911291702h360430b9m14fa8484f5ec5e7a@mail.gmail.com>
<7d0f4c330911291811h22307aecoe3fcfac593bda55e@mail.gmail.com>
<deea21830911291829w39d02187n28265b5b09f4ca86@mail.gmail.com>
<7d0f4c330911291848jbae3eb1n713f4dd98948cf8@mail.gmail.com>
<4B133410.3000903@uberbox.org>
<7d0f4c330911291859m1818d7d2hab1c9440312453e@mail.gmail.com>
<7d0f4c330911291900x2315e8e4pa50b810a1199078d@mail.gmail.com>
<eb45e7c0911291949r45a97ec8vc7c3c9126fe24e92@mail.gmail.com>
<7d0f4c330911291951s3d7c05d3y11814d3f12c21949@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <7d0f4c330911291953l43fa904agf205426f04aa7b5@mail.gmail.com>

I should have added -- "going forward, as a rule of thumb".

I fully understand my contribution to this particular misunderstanding, and
I apologize.


--m
------------
From jayvdb at gmail.com Mon Nov 30 04:17:21 2009
From: jayvdb at gmail.com (John Vandenberg)
Date: Mon, 30 Nov 2009 15:17:21 +1100
Subject: [Functionaries-en] Fwd: Motion regarding your recent blog post
In-Reply-To: <7d0f4c330911291953l43fa904agf205426f04aa7b5@mail.gmail.com>
References: <4b12d208.1067f10a.54e1.ffffcb58@mx.google.com>
<7d0f4c330911291811h22307aecoe3fcfac593bda55e@mail.gmail.com>
<deea21830911291829w39d02187n28265b5b09f4ca86@mail.gmail.com>
<7d0f4c330911291848jbae3eb1n713f4dd98948cf8@mail.gmail.com>
<4B133410.3000903@uberbox.org>
<7d0f4c330911291859m1818d7d2hab1c9440312453e@mail.gmail.com>
<7d0f4c330911291900x2315e8e4pa50b810a1199078d@mail.gmail.com>
<eb45e7c0911291949r45a97ec8vc7c3c9126fe24e92@mail.gmail.com>
<7d0f4c330911291951s3d7c05d3y11814d3f12c21949@mail.gmail.com>
<7d0f4c330911291953l43fa904agf205426f04aa7b5@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <deea21830911292017i360dace3ic2561feff109a207@mail.gmail.com>

On Mon, Nov 30, 2009 at 2:53 PM, Mike Godwin <mnemonic at gmail.com> wrote:
>
> I should have added -- "going forward, as a rule of thumb".
>
> I fully understand my contribution to this particular misunderstanding, and
> I apologize.

Thank you Mike.

I was not looking forward to the Wikimedia Foundation defending David
Gerard against the Arbitration Committee, privately, publicly or in a
court of law. This, following on the heels of David claiming we had
slandered him, was a bit too bloody bizarre to believe, but impossible
to ignore.

If you think we should improve the wording to avoid litigation or
harm, we will take it on board. But please take a look at evidence
first.

If you think we should reconsider the decision, then the best response
is Davids own words:

"if you don?t want your months-long-running Wikipedia shenanigans
remembered, it helps not to have done them. Oops, too late."

--
John Vandenberg
User is offlineProfile CardPM
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
NuclearWarfare
post Wed 29th June 2011, 3:32am
Post #9


Senior Member
****

Group: Contributors
Posts: 382
Joined: Tue 23rd Dec 2008, 10:24pm
Member No.: 9,506

WP user page - talk
check - contribs



QUOTE(carbuncle @ Wed 29th June 2011, 2:27am) *

No wonder Gerard's leaking all this stuff now...

I would be quite surprised if Gerard was able to get access to the threads from the 2010/2011 Committee.
User is offlineProfile CardPM
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
EricBarbour
post Wed 29th June 2011, 3:44am
Post #10


blah
*********

Group: Regulars
Posts: 5,919
Joined: Mon 25th Feb 2008, 2:31am
Member No.: 5,066

WP user page - talk
check - contribs



It doesn't matter who he is, or what's in the posts.
It's crap--an intentional attempt to distract people.

If these were real dumps, there would absolutely be more damaging items
than any I've seen so far. He's being "selective". Meaning we are being bullshitted.
User is offlineProfile CardPM
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
MaliceAforethought
post Wed 29th June 2011, 3:48am
Post #11


u Mad?
***

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



QUOTE(EricBarbour @ Wed 29th June 2011, 3:44am) *

It doesn't matter who he is, or what's in the posts.
It's crap--an intentional attempt to distract people.

If these were real dumps, there would absolutely be more damaging items
than any I've seen so far. He's being "selective". Meaning we are being bullshitted.



Bugger off. I don't see you making any requests for whatever damaging shite you've been wanting.
User is offlineProfile CardPM
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
Malleus
post Wed 29th June 2011, 3:51am
Post #12


Fat Cat
******

Group: Contributors
Posts: 1,682
Joined: Mon 27th Oct 2008, 3:48pm
From: United Kingdom
Member No.: 8,716

WP user page - talk
check - contribs



QUOTE(EricBarbour @ Wed 29th June 2011, 4:44am) *

It doesn't matter who he is, or what's in the posts.
It's crap--an intentional attempt to distract people.

If these were real dumps, there would absolutely be more damaging items
than any I've seen so far. He's being "selective". Meaning we are being bullshitted.

I think the dumps are real, but they're extraordinarily selective, so I agree with you about being bullshitted.
User is offlineProfile CardPM
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
iii
post Wed 29th June 2011, 5:23am
Post #13


Member
***

Group: Contributors
Posts: 114
Joined: Wed 19th Jan 2011, 12:39am
Member No.: 38,992



QUOTE(Malleus @ Tue 28th June 2011, 11:51pm) *

QUOTE(EricBarbour @ Wed 29th June 2011, 4:44am) *

It doesn't matter who he is, or what's in the posts.
It's crap--an intentional attempt to distract people.

If these were real dumps, there would absolutely be more damaging items
than any I've seen so far. He's being "selective". Meaning we are being bullshitted.

I think the dumps are real, but they're extraordinarily selective, so I agree with you about being bullshitted.


Not veer off-topic or anything....

These leaks are selective because they are the topics that the WR community asked the forum moderator to post. The few exceptions to that rule, I'd wager to guess, have explanations if you ask the right people. It's pretty clear to see where the requests were made for the threads in this forum. If either of you want to see a particular bit of juiciness from the archive, I have pretty good anecdotal evidence that our leaker will oblige. Otherwise, your whining about not seeing what you want to see is just so much melodrama.
User is offlineProfile CardPM
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
MZMcBride
post Wed 29th June 2011, 5:23am
Post #14


Über Member
*****

Group: Regulars
Posts: 671
Joined: Wed 25th Mar 2009, 5:02am
Member No.: 10,962

WP user page - talk
check - contribs



QUOTE(Malleus @ Tue 28th June 2011, 11:51pm) *
I think the dumps are real, but they're extraordinarily selective, so I agree with you about being bullshitted.
Yes, I think that's what Carcharoth was trying to say.

I don't believe MaliceAforethought is Mr. Gerard or Iridescent, as has been suggested elsewhere on this site. Both of them are a few heads smarter than whoever is behind this account. I do think all of this is very strange and should be investigated, though. Someone who's smart enough to get access to the archives, but doesn't seem to be smart enough to do much else....
User is offlineProfile CardPM
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
Cla68
post Wed 29th June 2011, 5:36am
Post #15


Postmaster
*******

Group: Regulars
Posts: 1,763
Joined: Fri 18th Apr 2008, 5:53pm
Member No.: 5,761

WP user page - talk
check - contribs



According to those emails:

- Several of the arbs, Risker especially, did a good job calling out Mike Godwin on the crap he was trying to sell ArbCom
- The WMF staff don't appear to understand that they should be a little more careful about when they step into the en.WP ArbCom's business. The decision to do so on behalf of David Gerard, of all reasons, I think may haunt them in the future.
- ArbCom needs someone with professional management experience to mentor them on how to handle managerial decision-making. This episode with DG shouldn't have been so difficult to resolve. The WMF staff obviously isn't up to the task of providing this mentorship.
- Many Wikipedians are outright scared of Wikipedia Review. They are scared of what is said here and what the participants here may observe and report on. If these emails are genuine, it provides more evidence that the existence of WR immeasurably assists Wikipedia by providing greater transparency and checks and balances on abuses within it and by its power users.
User is offlineProfile CardPM
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
Herschelkrustofsky
post Wed 29th June 2011, 5:59am
Post #16


Member
*********

Group: Members
Posts: 5,199
Joined: Tue 18th Apr 2006, 12:05pm
From: Kalifornia
Member No.: 130

WP user page - talk
check - contribs



QUOTE(Cla68 @ Tue 28th June 2011, 10:36pm) *

If these emails are genuine, it provides more evidence that the existence of WR immeasurably assists Wikipedia by providing greater transparency and checks and balances on abuses within it and by its power users.
I agree, and it makes all that time I spend fighting spambots worthwhile.
User is offlineProfile CardPM
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
gomi
post Wed 29th June 2011, 6:05am
Post #17


Member
********

Group: Members
Posts: 3,022
Joined: Fri 17th Nov 2006, 6:38pm
Member No.: 565



The contemporaneous postings to David Gerard (T-C-L-K-R-D) 's talk page have been revision-deleted. The discussion of that massive rev-del is here.
User is offlineProfile CardPM
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
Malleus
post Wed 29th June 2011, 6:18am
Post #18


Fat Cat
******

Group: Contributors
Posts: 1,682
Joined: Mon 27th Oct 2008, 3:48pm
From: United Kingdom
Member No.: 8,716

WP user page - talk
check - contribs



QUOTE(iii @ Wed 29th June 2011, 6:23am) *

QUOTE(Malleus @ Tue 28th June 2011, 11:51pm) *

QUOTE(EricBarbour @ Wed 29th June 2011, 4:44am) *

It doesn't matter who he is, or what's in the posts.
It's crap--an intentional attempt to distract people.

If these were real dumps, there would absolutely be more damaging items
than any I've seen so far. He's being "selective". Meaning we are being bullshitted.

I think the dumps are real, but they're extraordinarily selective, so I agree with you about being bullshitted.


Not veer off-topic or anything....

These leaks are selective because they are the topics that the WR community asked the forum moderator to post. The few exceptions to that rule, I'd wager to guess, have explanations if you ask the right people. It's pretty clear to see where the requests were made for the threads in this forum. If either of you want to see a particular bit of juiciness from the archive, I have pretty good anecdotal evidence that our leaker will oblige. Otherwise, your whining about not seeing what you want to see is just so much melodrama.

I'm not whining about anything, just making an observation.
User is offlineProfile CardPM
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
Silver seren
post Wed 29th June 2011, 9:05am
Post #19


Senior Member
****

Group: Contributors
Posts: 470
Joined: Thu 30th Dec 2010, 2:09pm
Member No.: 36,940

WP user page - talk
check - contribs



QUOTE(gomi @ Wed 29th June 2011, 6:05am) *

The contemporaneous postings to David Gerard (T-C-L-K-R-D) 's talk page have been revision-deleted. The discussion of that massive rev-del is here.


That discussion is really interesting, actually.
User is offlineProfile CardPM
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
lilburne
post Wed 29th June 2011, 12:24pm
Post #20


Chameleon
*****

Group: Contributors
Posts: 890
Joined: Thu 17th Jun 2010, 11:42am
Member No.: 21,803

WP user page - talk
check - contribs



QUOTE(EricBarbour @ Wed 29th June 2011, 4:44am) *

It doesn't matter who he is, or what's in the posts.
It's crap--an intentional attempt to distract people.

If these were real dumps, there would absolutely be more damaging items
than any I've seen so far. He's being "selective". Meaning we are being bullshitted.



Probably not. It is unlikely that they are scheming behind the scenes to do down the masses. What we have is a bunch of people preferring those they know and have a friendly relationship with, to those they don't know or have a hostile relationship with. Same old same old.

What is amusing is the quasi legal tosh they resort to, and the attempts to be mega sleuths. It all reminds me of school in the late 1960s where they ran a prefects court. Kids would be dragged off to their common room once a week and reported for being out-of-bound, or overhead swearing, or smoking, or just generally being a cheeky bastard. They had a prosecutor, defence, and judge (head prefect), and a book of rules on procedure. Totally surreal, and hysterically funny.
User is offlineProfile CardPM
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post

2 Pages V  1 2 >
Reply to this topicStart new topic
1 User(s) are reading this topic (1 Guests and 0 Anonymous Users)
0 Members:

 

-   Lo-Fi Version Time is now: 29th 6 17, 12:39pm