From s____thearbitrator at gmail.com Tue Jan 5 18:10:44 2010
From: s____thearbitrator at gmail.com
Date: Tue, 5 Jan 2010 14:10:44 -0400
Subject: [arbcom-l] Question for new arbitrators

It wasn't the first thing I did - I had a troll through some of the high
profile cases first - but I did get round to that. My favourite of the
limited mentions of me was an e-mail from FT2 in which I was mentioned as
tangentially connected to the Good Olfactory situation. The long and the
short of it is that I got checkusered because I shared a name with [[{redacted, WP BLP subject}]] and have edited his article. The checkuser discovered that I
was, just as I claimed, editing from New Brunswick, which FT2 correctly
noted was a long way from any of the other universities involved in the
case.

What he didn't mention is that one of those other universities, the
<redacted> (one of the accounts involved had a <redacted> e-mail
address), is one at which I was a student for several years, and which is
located in my home town. I even edited from there some this summer.

Anyway, the conclusion that I was entirely unrelated to the situation was
the correct one, but the coincidences ran a little deeper than reported.

There is no reason that any of you would care about any of this.

On Tue, Jan 5, 2010 at 2:02 PM, David Yellope <dyellope.wiki at gmail.com>wrote:

> Yes, not a good showing by the Old Guard there. I think I owe you an
> apology, I think I remember a couple heated discussions on IRC during and
> after that.
>
> As I said, that shows what too much openness would do. If the Old Guard
> thought there was a pitchforks and torches lynch mob then, if those posts on
> ArbCom-L had been made public, it would have been 15x worse.
>
>
> On Tue, Jan 5, 2010 at 1:00 PM, Newyorkbrad (Wikipedia) <
> newyorkbrad at gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> I assumed that you would run straight to find out what the heck we were
>> thinking in the Mantanmoreland case, just as I'm sure CHL did exactly the
>> same thing a year ago.
>>
>> Newyorkbrad
>>
>> On Tue, Jan 5, 2010 at 12:40 PM, David Yellope <dyellope.wiki at gmail.com>wrote:
>>
>>> Have to admit, when I realized I had been elected, the first thought was
>>> "Gee.. I wonder what was said about me during the MM case".... (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/smile.gif)
>>>
>>>
>>> On Tue, Jan 5, 2010 at 12:29 PM, Hersfold <hersfoldwiki at gmail.com>wrote:
>>>
>>>> Ok, figured it out. Let me at those biscuits!
>>>>
>>>> ----
>>>> User:Hersfoldhersfoldwiki at gmail.com
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Risker wrote:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> 2010/1/5 Carcharoth <carcharothwp at googlemail.com>
>>>>
>>>>> Or you go back to the e-mail you got when you were first subscribed,
>>>>> note the password and your e-mail address, follow the links, keep
>>>>> trying until you get in, and then start reading. Let us know when you
>>>>> finish. When you get back here, all the biscuits will be gone.
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Well, not all the biscuits. We'll probably not bother with the Social
>>>> Teas.
>>>>
>>>> The email would have been sent to you within a very short time after the
>>>> announcement of this year's appointments, and it would have come directly
>>>> from the mailman software. Let us know if you can't find it, and one of us
>>>> will walk you through getting a new password.
>>>>
>>>> Risker/Anne
----------
From carcharothwp at googlemail.com Fri Feb 26 06:09:23 2010
From: carcharothwp at googlemail.com (Carcharoth)
Date: Fri, 26 Feb 2010 06:09:23 +0000
Subject: [arbcom-l] Good Olfactory (redux infinitum)
Message-ID: <206791b11002252209m525133c5yc00b7a3f838191c2@mail.gmail.com>

FT2 asked asked on functionaries what happened with the Good Olfactory
situation. My view on what happened is that we came close to doing
something, but while there was a strong case, there was enough doubt
and inefficiency that this got dropped through inaction. If this did
all happen just before the new arbs came in (I can't remember), would
one of them like to review that and give fresh opinions? If so, I can
dig out some links, and I will say that we are taking another look at
this (note that Good Olfactory commented at a recent arbitration
request, though I can't remember which one).

Carcharoth
-----------
From User.CoolHandLuke at gmail.com Fri Feb 26 13:23:23 2010
From: User.CoolHandLuke at gmail.com (Cool Hand Luke)
Date: Fri, 26 Feb 2010 07:23:23 -0600
Subject: [arbcom-l] Good Olfactory (redux infinitum)
In-Reply-To: <206791b11002252209m525133c5yc00b7a3f838191c2@mail.gmail.com>
References: <206791b11002252209m525133c5yc00b7a3f838191c2@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <8ec76cd11002260523x35ad488dp80ee86c5160773b6@mail.gmail.com>

Yeah. There's a pretty good case. Timing, interests, and some emails
apparently match. Both have ties to New Zealand and Canada. No overlap (he
quit Snocrates and started Good Ol' Factory), but he apparently lied on his
RFA about his prior account.

I was asking Good Ol'Factory questions to see if he had a satisfactory
explaination. It was a "I know him it real life and just happened to start
editing after he quit" kind of thing. He's a prolific contributor in a
topic I'm familiar with (Mormonism). Probably the most prolific non-Mormon
who works on the topic, and he does good NPOV. I'm recused as I don't want
to see him leave, but FT2 has apparently been working on this for over a
year. Has his supposed real world identity (with an AUTOBIO issue, which
FT2 thinks is a COI issue on his Mormon editing, but I don't think
professional expertise in Mormonism should disqualify one from editing the
topic) and FT2 apparently does not want to let it drop.

I would also add that Jordan Smith, a fellow in Kansas City, has been
pushing this theory. Smith has sent a lot of material on both me and Good
Ol'Factory to the Foundation. He believed the accounts were linked because
both of them opposed him on the Temple Lot articles. He accuses us of
harassing him.

Frank
----------
From ft2.wiki at gmail.com Sat Feb 27 08:46:18 2010
From: ft2.wiki at gmail.com (FT2)
Date: Sat, 27 Feb 2010 08:46:18 -0000
Subject: [arbcom-l] Good Olfactory - suggested approach for an email
Message-ID: <4b88dbdc.0f67f10a.2d58.2280@mx.google.com>

Unless there is some very novel explanation, try this approach:

(Didn't want to post this on funcs-en as it contains his old account name
"s_____" and his real-world information, and he is a {yada yada} person in
real life.)





DRAFT:





Dear Good Olfactory,



Apologies for the delay in returning to the sock case. It's been in limbo a
long time now (these issues were first raised almost 18 months ago, around
the time of your RFA as Good Olfactory).



In brief, it's pretty clear you were Snocrates and Zopoorific. You were also
S_____, your real world identity, and (very likely) Beigestudent. Possibly
others too but we stopped counting at four socks. Identifying the socks also
meant proving the sock-user was the same one person, which we have done:
you are {redacted...},
which is of course where the Alberta, Harvard, and NZ connections of these
socks come from. You also attempted to deceive Wizardman, when he wrote as
a sitting arbitrator, you used admin tools in a content dispute, you lied at
RFA about having prior accounts, you posted notes to yourself, and so on.



The rest of the evidence is compelling. You made a large number of very
obvious sock-user mistakes. Because you have a history of hardened deception
these are not being explained in detail, but it's had many independent
eyeballs, including some of our most experienced non-arbcom sock checkers.
If you would like it independently reviewed by a mutually trusted
functionary or someone who has never seen the evidence before (eg on some
other project), that can be arranged.



Adminship is based on trust. You don't have that on Wikipedia any more.



Our interest is that you don't sock, and don't stack, and don't use
Wikipedia to push POV on your interests.



In simple terms, you must resign or will be desysopped, and some explanation
at AC/N will need to be given. Desysoppings get interest and there is a
chance others will find the same real-world tie-ups and evidence we found,
because none of it is especially buried. We can try to word it in a way
that gets least attention, but we cannot avoid explaining it.



The least public way to handle this would be if you resigned, stating
something like "following discussion with Arbcom", and we'll post a brief
summary something like this:



"Following investigation, administrator Good Olfactory was confirmed as a
reincarnation of Snocrates and Zoporific, and as such had misled the
community at RFA and elsewhere, edit/POV warred, and used tools in a content
matter. Following this confirmation, Good Olfactory has resigned his
adminship. He may regain them by <whatever>. In recognition of his past
contributions, and his wish to continue contributing, he will be allowed to
continue editing under this one account only, if the community permits it
and subject to any restrictions the community may wish to impose."



"The Committee notes that the case should have been addressed much sooner,
perhaps as long ago as 2008, but due to potential privacy reasons and lack
of certainty at the time of initial review, it was not. "



Your other known accounts account would not be identified publicly, but will
be blocked discreetly in some weeks time.



Being realistic, an appeal or denial is very unlikely to be believed and a
review is unlikely to conclude differently, because the evidence dos not
look even remotely borderline. We are amenable to requests that would help
this be as trouble-free for you as possible. If you edit legitimately and
without socking you may be able to come back eventually as an admin in good
standing. However if you sock again, then you are likely to be banned from
the site.



Your response and "where we go from here" is awaited.



xxx



For the Arbitration Committee.
----------
From carcharothwp at googlemail.com Sat Feb 27 10:48:15 2010
From: carcharothwp at googlemail.com (Carcharoth)
Date: Sat, 27 Feb 2010 10:48:15 +0000
Subject: [arbcom-l] Good Olfactory - suggested approach for an email
In-Reply-To: <4b88dbdc.0f67f10a.2d58.2280@mx.google.com>
References: <4b88dbdc.0f67f10a.2d58.2280@mx.google.com>
Message-ID: <206791b11002270248g414381fpf609c7fd20bdde9c@mail.gmail.com>

<removing FT2 from the address line - he does set things up so his
address goes in there>

If some arbitrators who have not looked at this before could review
this and see if they agree with FT2's suggested approach, as well as
reviewing all the material listed here:

https://secure.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/arbc...:Good_Olfactory

And the material *not* listed there (in various e-mails), then we
might be able to get this one moving again.

Really, the one thing stopping this from being finally reviewed and
concluded is pulling together the different e-mail reports and
threads. If I get time, I will try and dig up links to the archives,
and try and lay it all out clearly on the arbwiki page (both Thatcher
and FT2 and Daniel all sent in material relating to this, and it gets
confusing).

But I won't be able to do that until tonight, so if someone else wants
to make a start, that would help. I also need to work out how to link
to archives from functionaries-en.

Carcharoth
----------
From ft2.wiki at gmail.com Sat Feb 27 15:30:16 2010
From: ft2.wiki at gmail.com (FT2)
Date: Sat, 27 Feb 2010 15:30:16 -0000
Subject: [arbcom-l] Good Olfactory - suggested approach for an email
Message-ID: <4b893a8b.0e67f10a.750c.37e3@mx.google.com>

Side note: -

Actually best not mention "Harvard" -- it begs the question. The Harvard
connection is his accounts' email addresses, which aren't visible on the
wiki and were noticed during a review of private data at a WMF election.

Paul.
----------
From User.CoolHandLuke at gmail.com Sat Feb 27 18:25:07 2010
From: User.CoolHandLuke at gmail.com (Cool Hand Luke)
Date: Sat, 27 Feb 2010 12:25:07 -0600
Subject: [arbcom-l] Good Olfactory - suggested approach for an email

I am intentionally copying FT2 here because I am advocating on this case,
and clearly have to recuse (being, among other things, the person who Jordan
Smith threatens in the same breath as this user).

{Redacted} is an expert on Mormon studies, but unlike the vast majority of
editors in this topic, he is not a faithful Mormon himself--in fact, he
tends to neutralize articles by trimming hagiography. If the committee
agrees that his identity is confirmed, he has clearly violated COI on
several occasions when he has cited his own work, ect. However, I do not
think it's the case that he has a COI on all of Mormonism. If that were so,
no expert could ever edit in their area of expertise; this would be a great
loss to the project, especially for an editor as prolific and beneficial as
Good Ol'Factory.

I make no argument on how you should handle the alleged sockpuppetry in
regards to his adminship, but I do strongly believe that topic banning this
user would be a large net negative for the encyclopedia.

I also believe that FT2's proposed email is highly offensive to an editor
who has made well over one hundred thousand useful contributions. Our
volunteer editors should not be treated this way, even if they did lie on
RFA to gain access to tools (which they have used productively). I'm
especially disturbed by the cavalier disregard for the user's privacy;
saying that a public explaination "cannot be helped." A significant reason
for this privacy being that an unbalanced ex-convict sends frequent missives
and phone calls to WMF, continually obsessing about the user. (Ask Cary
Bass.)

If the committee desires that he be desysopped, he should be given an
opportunity to request desysop without providing a public condemnation to
his stalker.

Frank
----------
From kirill.lokshin at gmail.com Sat Feb 27 19:36:15 2010
From: kirill.lokshin at gmail.com (Kirill Lokshin)
Date: Sat, 27 Feb 2010 14:36:15 -0500
Subject: [arbcom-l] Good Olfactory - suggested approach for an email
In-Reply-To: <8ec76cd11002271025g78cd1867m14163d268fdccde8@mail.gmail.com>
References: <4b893a8b.0e67f10a.750c.37e3@mx.google.com>
<8ec76cd11002271025g78cd1867m14163d268fdccde8@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <3f797b9a1002271136v38885444hbe967c3942adc348@mail.gmail.com>

<list only>

On Sat, Feb 27, 2010 at 1:25 PM, Cool Hand Luke <User.CoolHandLuke at gmail.com
> wrote:

> If the committee desires that he be desysopped, he should be given an
> opportunity to request desysop without providing a public condemnation to
> his stalker.


Indeed. The whole purpose of having someone resign rather than be
desysopped is to allow them to save face; a public condemnation afterwards
would make the approach pointless.

Kirill
----------
From ft2.wiki at gmail.com Sat Feb 27 19:45:51 2010
From: ft2.wiki at gmail.com (FT2)
Date: Sat, 27 Feb 2010 19:45:51 +0000
Subject: [arbcom-l] Good Olfactory - suggested approach for an email
In-Reply-To: <8ec76cd11002271025g78cd1867m14163d268fdccde8@mail.gmail.com>
References: <4b893a8b.0e67f10a.750c.37e3@mx.google.com>
<8ec76cd11002271025g78cd1867m14163d268fdccde8@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <e71d9fab1002271145w19f9b865s7cd1a7af05c9ea58@mail.gmail.com>

All reasonable points. The problem is that this isn't about his good edits,
or his stalker.

This is someone who lied to the community, and to those investigating, and
who has a huge amount to lose if others dig. There are claims of tool
abuse. It wasn't accidental and it wasn't a "once off". I agree it can be
offensive to write and tell a user "you lied and we need to talk about it",
and I agree he has a stalker (Jordan Smith) who is to be discouraged. But
neither of those made him do what he did.

To recap my suggestion, although I'm not one of those who has to make a
decision on it: -

- I can't see an easy way to avoid some announcement. Arbcom gets
hammered when there is a suspicion of concealing such things and too many
people have a suspicon of him and resignations get eyeballs, so if he steps
down with nothing said, one would expect rumors that he was pushed and
claims of "Arbcom protection/gaming"may be a result. It could be done (and
wider speculation ignored), but I am not sure if it would avoid a lot of
drama or any fallout.

- I'm also concerned to not encourage people to dig - and nothing makes
that more likely than allowing any perception that Arbcom hid something. The
post drafted was very much a "nothing to see here" to deter attention.
Silence doesn't deter digging. he has a hell of a lot more to lose if the
digging gets somewhere - and everything that's known, including that he is a
major legal scholar with a reputation for honesty to protect - is at risk if
digging happens. It's not very deeply concealed. Bluntly it may be better
AC discloses at a basic level and it looks boring, than it says nothing and
someone is encouraged to dig. This could be a big problem, best avoided.
Perhaps raise this with him and ask what he prefers?

- If an announcement were made, I would not advocate a topic ban. I'm
with Frank on this, he does a huge amount that's valuable. Point this out
and let the community decide if there's a concern. They tend to make such
decisions fairly thoughtfully when I've looked.

Hopefully this clarifies my thinking.
Paul.
----------
From User.CoolHandLuke at gmail.com Sat Feb 27 20:28:51 2010
From: User.CoolHandLuke at gmail.com (Cool Hand Luke)
Date: Sat, 27 Feb 2010 14:28:51 -0600
Subject: [arbcom-l] Good Olfactory - suggested approach for an email
In-Reply-To: <e71d9fab1002271145w19f9b865s7cd1a7af05c9ea58@mail.gmail.com>
References: <4b893a8b.0e67f10a.750c.37e3@mx.google.com>
<8ec76cd11002271025g78cd1867m14163d268fdccde8@mail.gmail.com>
<e71d9fab1002271145w19f9b865s7cd1a7af05c9ea58@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <8ec76cd11002271228s444f7402m2ec6f0580527ac32@mail.gmail.com>

On Sat, Feb 27, 2010 at 1:45 PM, FT2 <ft2.wiki at gmail.com> wrote:

>
>
> - I'm also concerned to not encourage people to dig - and nothing makes
> that more likely than allowing any perception that Arbcom hid something. The
> post drafted was very much a "nothing to see here" to deter attention.
> Silence doesn't deter digging. he has a hell of a lot more to lose if the
> digging gets somewhere - and everything that's known, including that he is a
> major legal scholar with a reputation for honesty to protect - is at risk if
> digging happens. It's not very deeply concealed. Bluntly it may be better
> AC discloses at a basic level and it looks boring, than it says nothing and
> someone is encouraged to dig. This could be a big problem, best avoided.
> Perhaps raise this with him and ask what he prefers?
>
>
>
>
I think you're wrong on this point, and I think its patronizing and wrong to
make the decision for him.

If I was in his shoes, I would prefer that there be no announcement with an
understanding of the risks of exposure. Unless there's another JoshuaZ-type
leak, I actually think those risks are minimal--or smaller than the feeding
frenzy of an AC/N announcement. Have there ever been a quiet desysop
announcement? Discretely posting about Pastor Theo's desysop, for example,
led to his old accounts and real-world identity becoming public knowledge
within minutes. Good Olfactory has at least a fighting chance by dropping
the tools himself.

Honestly, people suspect an ArbCom cover-up no matter what we do, and your
proposed solution is no less of a coverup than mine is (quietly blocking the
identity-bearing accounts, for example). Most of this noise about coverups
doesn't go anywhere.

If we care about the user, we should give him the option to have an
announcement or not, with full understanding of the risks either way.
Without this option, he will probably fight the accusations--a public
condemnation is not a good way out for a someone who has a dedicated "fan"
like Jordan Smith.

As a final note, given Mike Godwin's recent dismay over posting potentially
damaging conclusions about David Gerard, I should hope that even an
involuntary desysop announcement would be less detailed as what you
proposed.

Frank
----------
From ft2.wiki at gmail.com Sat Feb 27 20:41:26 2010
From: ft2.wiki at gmail.com (FT2)
Date: Sat, 27 Feb 2010 20:41:26 +0000
Subject: [arbcom-l] Good Olfactory - suggested approach for an email
In-Reply-To: <8ec76cd11002271228s444f7402m2ec6f0580527ac32@mail.gmail.com>
References: <4b893a8b.0e67f10a.750c.37e3@mx.google.com>
<8ec76cd11002271025g78cd1867m14163d268fdccde8@mail.gmail.com>
<e71d9fab1002271145w19f9b865s7cd1a7af05c9ea58@mail.gmail.com>
<8ec76cd11002271228s444f7402m2ec6f0580527ac32@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <e71d9fab1002271241r4b8acf11mafb1e5afc9ee85ad@mail.gmail.com>

I'd go with most of that, frank. Same concerns, different perspectives. The
point is he needs to understand how much is at risk. (Sounds familiar...?)

He won't be able to, if he thinks he can bluff it with the Committee. He's a
fluent concealer but a naive sock-user and his activities are transparent.
He probably doesn't realize that he could genuinely have issues reaching
off-wiki.

I'm not thinking of a JoshuaZ leaker here. I'm worried that "admin steps
down" gets eyeballs, and enough users know there were suspicions about him
and Snocrates to raise interests whether thats why. Others then who like to
show misconduct and coverups will investigate, primarily to prove wrongdoing
by Arbcom. In the process they may out him and prove a notable figure lied
on-wiki.

If he knows how much is known and the realities of the situation then
chooses, sure. My /advice/ then would be we try and explain to him that a
modest announcement (to sound boring) may be better than a quiet stepping
down, but it would need his co-operation.


Anyhow, nuff said, that's my concern.

Paul (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/smile.gif)
----------
From User.CoolHandLuke at gmail.com Sat Feb 27 21:08:39 2010
From: User.CoolHandLuke at gmail.com (Cool Hand Luke)
Date: Sat, 27 Feb 2010 15:08:39 -0600
Subject: [arbcom-l] Good Olfactory - suggested approach for an email
In-Reply-To: <e71d9fab1002271241r4b8acf11mafb1e5afc9ee85ad@mail.gmail.com>
References: <4b893a8b.0e67f10a.750c.37e3@mx.google.com>
<8ec76cd11002271025g78cd1867m14163d268fdccde8@mail.gmail.com>
<e71d9fab1002271145w19f9b865s7cd1a7af05c9ea58@mail.gmail.com>
<8ec76cd11002271228s444f7402m2ec6f0580527ac32@mail.gmail.com>
<e71d9fab1002271241r4b8acf11mafb1e5afc9ee85ad@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <8ec76cd11002271308q40d31008nf2b4a4425ea03b4f@mail.gmail.com>

On Sat, Feb 27, 2010 at 2:41 PM, FT2 <ft2.wiki at gmail.com> wrote:

> I'd go with most of that, frank. Same concerns, different perspectives. The
> point is he needs to understand how much is at risk. (Sounds familiar...?)
>


Actually, your whole approach here does sound familiar, which I find
inappropriate because this user is not Poetlister. He has not appropriated
names and images from other people, and he edits Wikipedia because he enjoys
(and is good at) creating content--this is not as a form of online roleplay
for him. Nobody has suggested that he has socked since he started the Good
Olfactory account in February 2008 (that's two years).




>
> He won't be able to, if he thinks he can bluff it with the Committee. He's
> a fluent concealer but a naive sock-user and his activities are transparent.
> He probably doesn't realize that he could genuinely have issues reaching
> off-wiki.
>
> I'm not thinking of a JoshuaZ leaker here. I'm worried that "admin steps
> down" gets eyeballs, and enough users know there were suspicions about him
> and Snocrates to raise interests whether thats why. Others then who like to
> show misconduct and coverups will investigate, primarily to prove wrongdoing
> by Arbcom. In the process they may out him and prove a notable figure lied
> on-wiki.
>
>

If I was this user, I would take a wiki-break of at least two weeks, and
retire the tools citing that reason (account security, a legitimate concern
given recent events). Once I return, I would just neglect to ask for them
back. If anyone asked, I would say that I'm happy as a content contributor
and that I don't miss the hassle of people screeching at me on ANI over
"abuse," so have never bothered to ask for them back.

As for the "others," you yourself are one of the more prominent users in
that category (cf. Geogre). If the ArbCom takes more discrete action than
what you have outlined, I hope that you will respect the decision.



> If he knows how much is known and the realities of the situation then
> chooses, sure. My /advice/ then would be we try and explain to him that a
> modest announcement (to sound boring) may be better than a quiet stepping
> down, but it would need his co-operation.
>
>
> Anyhow, nuff said, that's my concern.
>
> Paul (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/smile.gif)
>
>
Your proposed email will not secure his cooperation. I do believe that an
arbitrator can draft something workable, however.

Frank
----------
From KnightLago at gmail.com Sat Feb 27 21:59:32 2010
From: KnightLago at gmail.com (KnightLago)
Date: Sat, 27 Feb 2010 16:59:32 -0500
Subject: [arbcom-l] Fwd: Good Olfactory - suggested approach for an email
In-Reply-To: <8ec76cd11002271308q40d31008nf2b4a4425ea03b4f@mail.gmail.com>
References: <4b893a8b.0e67f10a.750c.37e3@mx.google.com>
<8ec76cd11002271025g78cd1867m14163d268fdccde8@mail.gmail.com>
<e71d9fab1002271145w19f9b865s7cd1a7af05c9ea58@mail.gmail.com>
<8ec76cd11002271228s444f7402m2ec6f0580527ac32@mail.gmail.com>
<e71d9fab1002271241r4b8acf11mafb1e5afc9ee85ad@mail.gmail.com>
<8ec76cd11002271308q40d31008nf2b4a4425ea03b4f@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <b82ef2a01002271359x5fb718d9k4fb60f892f959854@mail.gmail.com>

<Forwarded so this should be list only>

Is there any further reason for FT2 to participate in this? Do we just want
to tell him the committee will handle it and thank him for his assistance?
Admin socking sounds like something the entire committee should be looking
into/voting on anyway. And we should be drafting our own email telling the
subject what we want done in the end.

KL
----------
From newyorkbrad at gmail.com Sat Feb 27 22:10:46 2010
From: newyorkbrad at gmail.com (Newyorkbrad)
Date: Sat, 27 Feb 2010 17:10:46 -0500
Subject: [arbcom-l] Fwd: Good Olfactory - suggested approach for an email
In-Reply-To: <b82ef2a01002271359x5fb718d9k4fb60f892f959854@mail.gmail.com>
References: <4b893a8b.0e67f10a.750c.37e3@mx.google.com>
<8ec76cd11002271025g78cd1867m14163d268fdccde8@mail.gmail.com>
<e71d9fab1002271145w19f9b865s7cd1a7af05c9ea58@mail.gmail.com>
<8ec76cd11002271228s444f7402m2ec6f0580527ac32@mail.gmail.com>
<e71d9fab1002271241r4b8acf11mafb1e5afc9ee85ad@mail.gmail.com>
<8ec76cd11002271308q40d31008nf2b4a4425ea03b4f@mail.gmail.com>
<b82ef2a01002271359x5fb718d9k4fb60f892f959854@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <c52819d31002271410y262c7c02i20742574220fcc29@mail.gmail.com>

How strong is the evidence of socking?

Is there any evidence of misconduct in the recent past?

Is there a case to be made for doing nothing at all?

Newyorkbrad
----------
From KnightLago at gmail.com Sat Feb 27 22:16:53 2010
From: KnightLago at gmail.com (KnightLago)
Date: Sat, 27 Feb 2010 17:16:53 -0500
Subject: [arbcom-l] Fwd: Good Olfactory - suggested approach for an email
In-Reply-To: <c52819d31002271410y262c7c02i20742574220fcc29@mail.gmail.com>
References: <4b893a8b.0e67f10a.750c.37e3@mx.google.com>
<8ec76cd11002271025g78cd1867m14163d268fdccde8@mail.gmail.com>
<e71d9fab1002271145w19f9b865s7cd1a7af05c9ea58@mail.gmail.com>
<8ec76cd11002271228s444f7402m2ec6f0580527ac32@mail.gmail.com>
<e71d9fab1002271241r4b8acf11mafb1e5afc9ee85ad@mail.gmail.com>
<8ec76cd11002271308q40d31008nf2b4a4425ea03b4f@mail.gmail.com>
<b82ef2a01002271359x5fb718d9k4fb60f892f959854@mail.gmail.com>
<c52819d31002271410y262c7c02i20742574220fcc29@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <b82ef2a01002271416l1866e2cag2f1956f7724a591e@mail.gmail.com>

Could someone who knows provide an executive summary of what occurred? Brad,
I was thinking the same thing. If this is a couple years in the past, and
nothing untoward has happened since, I am not sure we want to actually do
anything.

KL
----------
From KnightLago at gmail.com Sat Feb 27 22:39:26 2010
From: KnightLago at gmail.com (KnightLago)
Date: Sat, 27 Feb 2010 17:39:26 -0500
Subject: [arbcom-l] Fwd: [Functionaries-en] (was Good Olfactory) Info on,
and closing functionaries
Message-ID: <b82ef2a01002271439i1a21be2cvbcb2a0e23d744bcc@mail.gmail.com>

This is the type of stuff that should not be discussed on functionaries. In
the future can we start directing people to email us directly? Where do we
stand on the new mailing lists?

---------- Forwarded message ----------
From: FT2 <ft2.wiki at gmail.com>
Date: Sat, Feb 27, 2010 at 2:38 AM
Subject: Re: [Functionaries-en] Good Olfactory
To: Functionaries email list for the English Wikipedia <
functionaries-en at lists.wikimedia.org>


To recap where it got to, the latest I have is that it's pretty much proven
beyond any doubt that:

1. Good Olfactory == Snocrates == Zoporific == more than one other account
prior to these, which also edited identically, and which were also proven
beyond any doubt to be the same person.
3. It's not his brother, friend, co-worker, or anyone else. It's the same
one person.
4. The proof of this is in Arbcom's hands. It includes identical
non-fakeable data, work locations, identical styles and mannerisms,
identical uncommon interests, same wording at RFA, and strikingly exact edit
timings (attached) and verification IPs that perfectly match each other for
years despite the claim of the socks to be halfway round the world from each
other. To protect the user's real-world data it's not recirculated here; if
any arb has any doubt please check the evidence or ask me to clarify.
5. Anything that he has said to the contrary is therefore deception or
untruth, take your pick.
6. If desysop is required, a hint to the wise and a batch of evidence will
suffice. Not least to avoid stirring Jordan Smith, who is troublesome.

His actions include:

* "Lying" at his RFA when asked if he had any prior accounts (Thatcher email
26 oct)
* "Talking to himself", apparently also including using one sock to remove
templates related to another.
* Using admin tools on [[Temple Lot]] where he had a content interest (same)
* (Apparently) admin actions in any way connected to Mormonism, which would
be a COI
* Snocrates was never blocked or banned, but was caught socking in the
middle of his RFA and retired or abandoned the account. This is not a
banned user who gained adminship but someone with a past who gained
adminship under false pretenses..... since his RFA as Snocrates failed in
February 2008 due to socking, I suspect that the disclosure of his prior
account would have been "material" in July of 2008 (thatcher 26 oct)
* Applied for the roommate defense and was unblocked (thatcher 26 oct) -
this was also an untruth as an admin, although it was long ago. Had he been
known to have lied at his Feb RFA he would surely have failed his July RFA.
* More disturbingly when approached by Wizardman in November 2009 (writing
as a sitting arb), GO continued to lie. Each of the following statements is
demonstrably "beyond reasonable doubt" untrue: -

1/ "I did not lie in my RFA" (yes he did)
2/ "Good Olfactory has been my first and only account" (no it isn't, it's at
least his 5th)
3/ "I am Mike Robertson" (no he isn't)


The end view on this list was that someone should approach GO and tactfully
suggest the evidence was non-rebuttable and he needed to disclose and step
down, failing which AC would do it for him. It was then moved to arb-l and
presumably further email and discussion took place.

Paul.
----------
From KnightLago at gmail.com Sat Feb 27 22:58:09 2010
From: KnightLago at gmail.com (KnightLago)
Date: Sat, 27 Feb 2010 17:58:09 -0500
Subject: [arbcom-l] Fwd: Good Olfactory - suggested approach for an email
In-Reply-To: <b82ef2a01002271416l1866e2cag2f1956f7724a591e@mail.gmail.com>
References: <4b893a8b.0e67f10a.750c.37e3@mx.google.com>
<8ec76cd11002271025g78cd1867m14163d268fdccde8@mail.gmail.com>
<e71d9fab1002271145w19f9b865s7cd1a7af05c9ea58@mail.gmail.com>
<8ec76cd11002271228s444f7402m2ec6f0580527ac32@mail.gmail.com>
<e71d9fab1002271241r4b8acf11mafb1e5afc9ee85ad@mail.gmail.com>
<8ec76cd11002271308q40d31008nf2b4a4425ea03b4f@mail.gmail.com>
<b82ef2a01002271359x5fb718d9k4fb60f892f959854@mail.gmail.com>
<c52819d31002271410y262c7c02i20742574220fcc29@mail.gmail.com>
<b82ef2a01002271416l1866e2cag2f1956f7724a591e@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <b82ef2a01002271458n2043a97fl508ef86f4d383e8b@mail.gmail.com>

I missed it the first time around, but
https://secure.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/arbc...od_Olfactoryhas
a decent summary.

KL
----------
From User.CoolHandLuke at gmail.com Sat Feb 27 23:48:03 2010
From: User.CoolHandLuke at gmail.com (Cool Hand Luke)
Date: Sat, 27 Feb 2010 17:48:03 -0600
Subject: [arbcom-l] Fwd: Good Olfactory - suggested approach for an email
In-Reply-To: <b82ef2a01002271458n2043a97fl508ef86f4d383e8b@mail.gmail.com>
References: <4b893a8b.0e67f10a.750c.37e3@mx.google.com>
<8ec76cd11002271025g78cd1867m14163d268fdccde8@mail.gmail.com>
<e71d9fab1002271145w19f9b865s7cd1a7af05c9ea58@mail.gmail.com>
<8ec76cd11002271228s444f7402m2ec6f0580527ac32@mail.gmail.com>
<e71d9fab1002271241r4b8acf11mafb1e5afc9ee85ad@mail.gmail.com>
<8ec76cd11002271308q40d31008nf2b4a4425ea03b4f@mail.gmail.com>
<b82ef2a01002271359x5fb718d9k4fb60f892f959854@mail.gmail.com>
<c52819d31002271410y262c7c02i20742574220fcc29@mail.gmail.com>
<b82ef2a01002271416l1866e2cag2f1956f7724a591e@mail.gmail.com>
<b82ef2a01002271458n2043a97fl508ef86f4d383e8b@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <8ec76cd11002271548t1f8ba601u4535bb1ca5db1e73@mail.gmail.com>

Short summary:

See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Req...p/Snocrates(his
prior account's RFA, which died when his sock puppetry emerged).

Evidence linking all of these accounts is strong, IMO, but all the earlier
socks were abandoned when he started Good Olfactory on February 2008.

S_____ was mostly abandoned on September 29,
2007 (just
9 edits after that date until November, mostly wrapping up). On
September 30, Snocrates
emerged.<http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Contributions&dir=prev&contribs=user&target=Snocrates>
Zaporific edited simultaneous to Snocrates for two weeks in February
2008.<http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Contributions&target=Zoporific>
This was confirmed by
CU<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Suspected_sock_puppets/Snocrates>,
with some sock abuse issues, obviously killing his RFA. Two days
later, on February
16, 2008, Good Olfactory started
up<http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Contributions&dir=prev&target=Good+Olfactory>,
as prolific as ever.

The Jordan Smith stuff started in December
2007<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Temple_Lot#Church_burning_incident>,
so I would not be surprised that he would not like to claim an account under
his real name (S_____). That said, he never claimed any of the accounts
when asked at RFA<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Requests_for_adminship/Good_Olfactory>in
July 2008 (nominated by Wizardman, BTW):

*Optional Question from
NuclearWarfare<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:NuclearWarfare>
*
*5.* May we please have the account names of your former accounts? *A.* I've
had no former accounts on WP; the previous wiki experience referred to was
on non-WP wikis. Good
Ol?factory<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Good_Olfactory>
(talk) <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Good_Olfactory> 14:30, 21
July 2008 (UTC)
If there are more recent issues, perhaps FT2 could summarize those.

NB, that the S_____ {redacted} was associated with the University of
{redacted, some place up north} as was (I believe) our own {redacted}.

Frank
----------
From carcharothwp at googlemail.com Sun Feb 28 02:04:54 2010
From: carcharothwp at googlemail.com (Carcharoth)
Date: Sun, 28 Feb 2010 02:04:54 +0000
Subject: [arbcom-l] Fwd: [Functionaries-en] (was Good Olfactory) Info on,
and closing functionaries
In-Reply-To: <b82ef2a01002271439i1a21be2cvbcb2a0e23d744bcc@mail.gmail.com>
References: <b82ef2a01002271439i1a21be2cvbcb2a0e23d744bcc@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <206791b11002271804u2cd81448j710df8309652e4ef@mail.gmail.com>

Not sure. I think we sort of agreed to bundle the restructuring in
with the upcoming CU/OS elections, but do we want to do it sooner, and
if so, what are the formal steps (including a committee vote) that are
needed?

Carcharoth

On Sat, Feb 27, 2010 at 10:39 PM, KnightLago <KnightLago at gmail.com> wrote:
> This is the type of stuff that should not be discussed on functionaries. In
> the future can we start directing people to email us directly? Where do we
> stand on the new mailing lists?
-----------
From carcharothwp at googlemail.com Sun Feb 28 02:16:23 2010
From: carcharothwp at googlemail.com (Carcharoth)
Date: Sun, 28 Feb 2010 02:16:23 +0000
Subject: [arbcom-l] Fwd: Good Olfactory - suggested approach for an email
In-Reply-To: <b82ef2a01002271458n2043a97fl508ef86f4d383e8b@mail.gmail.com>
References: <4b893a8b.0e67f10a.750c.37e3@mx.google.com>
<8ec76cd11002271025g78cd1867m14163d268fdccde8@mail.gmail.com>
<e71d9fab1002271145w19f9b865s7cd1a7af05c9ea58@mail.gmail.com>
<8ec76cd11002271228s444f7402m2ec6f0580527ac32@mail.gmail.com>
<e71d9fab1002271241r4b8acf11mafb1e5afc9ee85ad@mail.gmail.com>
<8ec76cd11002271308q40d31008nf2b4a4425ea03b4f@mail.gmail.com>
<b82ef2a01002271359x5fb718d9k4fb60f892f959854@mail.gmail.com>
<c52819d31002271410y262c7c02i20742574220fcc29@mail.gmail.com>
<b82ef2a01002271416l1866e2cag2f1956f7724a591e@mail.gmail.com>
<b82ef2a01002271458n2043a97fl508ef86f4d383e8b@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <206791b11002271816w615dfb44h9755e9cfcffabc60@mail.gmail.com>

That arbwiki page (unless someone updated it) doesn't include much
that was sent to this mailing and to functionaries.

On the overall matter, we first need to ascertain whether *as a
committee* we agree with the conclusions reached by FT2 and Thatcher
and others. I don't think there has ever been a formal committee vote
on that.

If action is needed, I suggest binning FT2's draft (for reasons I hope
are obvious) and someone here drafting something. More along the lines
of what Frank suggested. Giving Good Olfactory the options of quiet
resignation with no announcement, or desysopping (if the formal vote
passes) with an announcement. Saying the choice is up to him (largely
due to the stalker issue), and briefly explaining the effect a
noticeboard announcement might have, but stressing that the choice is
his and his alone.

Carcharoth

On Sat, Feb 27, 2010 at 10:58 PM, KnightLago <KnightLago at gmail.com> wrote:
> I missed it the first time around, but
-----------
From kenneth at planetkh.com Sun Feb 28 03:48:35 2010
From: kenneth at planetkh.com (Kenneth Kua/ArbCom)
Date: Sun, 28 Feb 2010 11:48:35 +0800
Subject: [arbcom-l] Fwd: [Functionaries-en] (was Good Olfactory) Info on,
and closing functionaries
In-Reply-To: <206791b11002271804u2cd81448j710df8309652e4ef@mail.gmail.com>
References: <b82ef2a01002271439i1a21be2cvbcb2a0e23d744bcc@mail.gmail.com>
<206791b11002271804u2cd81448j710df8309652e4ef@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <ff56241002271948udcba9a7p18cea0cbf83fbeda@mail.gmail.com>

We can kill three birds in one stone, by making the major announcements at
one go :

1. Restructuring of mailing lists. It has been proposed that Oversight-l
would be switched to OTRS, and perhaps a local address be set up and the
current one freed up for global projects. Checkuser-en-l also might be set
up. Shut down or retire funct-l at the same time.
2. Earlier elections for new CU/OS.
3. Revival of the December 2009 motion regarding the regaining of CU/OS
tools by former CU/OS users. Given the recent events where arbitrators
object to a former CU/OS in regaining his tools, my worry is that if we go
by the conventional method of removal, there will be most likely a ruckus no
less than what happened last year. Given that it failed by one vote, we
might want to get this passed, and then be able to have the discretion to
direct him to run for the CU/OS elections (given his rationale, very
unlikely the community will ever accept him again).

Kenneth/MD