Nutters - what happens when you let anyone edit, or why boners like Rodhullandemu shouldn't try digging for my info Options

[MaliceAforethought]

Subject: [arbcom-l] RH&E / Usenet
------------------------

From: Roger Davies <roger.davies.wiki@gmail.com>
Date: Mon, Mar 28, 2011 at 14:37
To: Phil Nash <phnash@blueyonder.co.uk>, English Arbitration Committee mailing list <arbcom-l@lists.wikimedia.org>


Hi Phil

In strict confidence

The attention of the Committee has been drawn to Usenet posts. Because of the nature of these posts, we have a responsibility under Foundation policy to enquire about them and would therefore would appreciate your comments in confidence.

These posts were made over many years by a contributor calling themselves Phil Nash, Philip Howard Nash or variants, and using a series of screen names, including "Witt", "The Janitor of Lunacy" and "Reality Surgeon". The number of similarities between the Usenet posts and your account go far beyond merely sharing a name. For example, the educational details here:

http://groups.google.com/group/alt.activis...158276ede2faca1

closely correlate with information you have provided on your Wikipedia user pages. Additionally, the Usenet contributor appears to suffer from chronic ill health.

Perhaps the most concerning aspect of this is the following disclosure of a conviction for possession of child pornography:

http://groups.google.com/group/uk.politics...1dd709b9a3072c1

Per longstanding policy, the Committee never raises nor comments on such matters on-wiki (and indeed normally suppresses such discussion there); nor will we pass on the information off-wiki. Nevertheless, your immediate attention to the above would be appreciated.

For the Arbitration Committee,

Roger Davies
cc ArbCom


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


----------
From: Roger Davies <roger.davies.wiki@gmail.com>
Date: Mon, Mar 28, 2011 at 15:52
To: English Arbitration Committee mailing list <arbcom-l@lists.wikimedia.org>


<lo>

I do not propose to reply to this.

Roger



On 28/03/2011 20:43, Phil Nash wrote:
Roger;

when I am already seriously suicidal, having this thrown at me doesn't help in the slightest and I am not going to respond until I have taken legal, but more importantly, medical, advice. It may be that I will have to go into hospital after all, for my own protection, and I will be looking into that tomorrow. The advice is for my benefit and is not intended to constitute a legal threat.

Meanwhile, you should not assume that everything on Usenet is necessarily true, nor that it emanates from myself.

Phil

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


----------
From: Jonathan Clemens <clem4609@pacificu.edu>
Date: Mon, Mar 28, 2011 at 16:02
To: English Arbitration Committee mailing list <arbcom-l@lists.wikimedia.org>


Well, that went about as expected. Now the ball is in his court on this, such as it is.

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

----------
From: Xeno <xenowiki@gmail.com>
Date: Mon, Mar 28, 2011 at 16:05
To: English Arbitration Committee mailing list <arbcom-l@lists.wikimedia.org>


Since he keeps alluding to suicide, I support keeping him blocked indefinitely.

-x

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


----------
From: John Vandenberg <jayvdb@gmail.com>
Date: Mon, Mar 28, 2011 at 17:07
To: English Arbitration Committee mailing list <arbcom-l@lists.wikimedia.org>


I agree.

--
John Vandenberg

----------
From: David Yellope <dyellope.wiki@gmail.com>
Date: Mon, Mar 28, 2011 at 17:08
To: English Arbitration Committee mailing list <arbcom-l@lists.wikimedia.org>


Agreed.

Just gotta figure a way to say it publicly

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


----------
From: <philknight@mail.com>
Date: Mon, Mar 28, 2011 at 18:37
To: arbcom-l@lists.wikimedia.org



Suggest something along the lines of:

"Following recent correspondence between RH&E and ArbCom, the committee believes that in his current mental state that it would be in neither his best interests to continue editing, nor the best interests of the project."

Maybe?

Phil

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


----------
From: Xeno <xenowiki@gmail.com>
Date: Mon, Mar 28, 2011 at 18:40
To: English Arbitration Committee mailing list <arbcom-l@lists.wikimedia.org>


It's really tricky. I'd prefer to avoid saying 'recent correspondence' - correspondence is privileged and even this vague statement kindof characterizes the correspondence and gets people speculating.

I'd also like to avoid saying 'his best interests' - we've already been hammered for trying to act in his best interests before.

I don't have an alternative to offer, though. =|

-x

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


----------
From: Jonathan Clemens <clem4609@pacificu.edu>
Date: Mon, Mar 28, 2011 at 18:42
To: English Arbitration Committee mailing list <arbcom-l@lists.wikimedia.org>


It's a sticky wicket, really. Privacy laws vary from jurisdiction to jurisdiction, so no matter what we say, it would probably be impermissible *somehwere*.

Hey, since we're appointing new Audit Subcommittee members, let's turf this to them, and ask THEM to explain it appropriately to the community... :-)

Jonathan

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


----------
From: John Vandenberg <jayvdb@gmail.com>
Date: Mon, Mar 28, 2011 at 18:45
To: English Arbitration Committee mailing list <arbcom-l@lists.wikimedia.org>


We could create a /Motions page with a draft or two, and hammer out
the wording there. That gives the community a focal point to see us
working through the issue, the outcome of which is inevitable. He can
also provide one final statement there by emailing it to clerks-l.

----------
From: Cool Hand Luke <User.CoolHandLuke@gmail.com>
Date: Mon, Mar 28, 2011 at 20:05
To: English Arbitration Committee mailing list <arbcom-l@lists.wikimedia.org>


No; this simultaneously reveals information he might consider privileged, and it's highly patronizing to boot.

Given his lame public response to the evidence, I don't think we need to say much. Maybe something like "After further discussion, the committee indefinitely extends the block of User:Rodhullandemu, who may appeal by email after X months. We have already communicated this decision to him."

Frank

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


----------
From: Michelle Kinney <shell.kinney@gmail.com>
Date: Mon, Mar 28, 2011 at 21:11
To: English Arbitration Committee mailing list <arbcom-l@lists.wikimedia.org>
Cc: Cool Hand Luke <User.CoolHandLuke@gmail.com>


I think that's a good way to go.

Shell

----------
From: John Vandenberg <jayvdb@gmail.com>
Date: Mon, Mar 28, 2011 at 21:30
To: English Arbitration Committee mailing list <arbcom-l@lists.wikimedia.org>


I've taken CHL's draft, added that our decision is based on
discussions with Rodhullandemu, replaced 'block' with 'ban' and
stipulated that the ban can only ArbCom can hear the appeal, and wont
do so until 12 months has elapsed. I would also support an appeal in 6
months, if someone feels that is more appropriate. IMO he is unlikely
to provide a good appeal to this committee.

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

"After further private discussion with User:Rodhullandemu, the
committee indefinitely bans User:Rodhullandemu. Rodhullandemu may
appeal the ban after 12 months by emailing the committee.

This decision has been communicated to Rodhullandemu privately and
posted to User talk:Rodhullandemu."

----------
From: Xeno <xenowiki@gmail.com>
Date: Mon, Mar 28, 2011 at 21:32
To: English Arbitration Committee mailing list <arbcom-l@lists.wikimedia.org>


On Mar 28, 2011, at 9:11 PM, Michelle Kinney <shell.kinney@gmail.com>
wrote:
Yep.

Hopefully the community's uncharacteristic enquitude continues.

-x // mobile

----------
From: Xeno <xenowiki@gmail.com>
Date: Mon, Mar 28, 2011 at 21:41
To: English Arbitration Committee mailing list <arbcom-l@lists.wikimedia.org>


Slightly prefer CHL's version - I see where you are going with this
(not leaving loose ends), but I think less is more here.

The finality of a ban will surely just stir things up on all sides.

-x // mobile

----------
From: John Vandenberg <jayvdb@gmail.com>
Date: Mon, Mar 28, 2011 at 21:55
To: English Arbitration Committee mailing list <arbcom-l@lists.wikimedia.org>


On Tue, Mar 29, 2011 at 12:41 PM, Xeno <xenowiki@gmail.com> wrote:
>..
CHL's doesnt say how many months he will be blocked for, so that is a
detail which needs to be addressed.
We have nine days to address this. We should be able to vote through
a few alternative motions.
His acting like either someone who is suicidal or an pompous idiot.
An appeal to the community is not appropriate, and we need to make that clear.

--
John Vandenberg

----------
From: Jonathan Clemens <clem4609@pacificu.edu>
Date: Mon, Mar 28, 2011 at 21:55
To: English Arbitration Committee mailing list <arbcom-l@lists.wikimedia.org>


I agree with Xeno that a ban might create problems--I think we want to be very careful crafting this.

How about something along the lines of "a ban for cause per established policies, unrelated to the actions which prompted the recent case regarding revocation of administrator privileges"? That way, we make it clear that his actions were strongly trending "desysop", but that the ban is for unspecified unrelated conduct. I hope...

Jonathan

----------
From: John Vandenberg <jayvdb@gmail.com>
Date: Mon, Mar 28, 2011 at 22:01
To: English Arbitration Committee mailing list <arbcom-l@lists.wikimedia.org>


Here is the current block log.
(del/undel) 2011-03-25T05:09:21 Roger Davies (talk | contribs | block) changed block settings for Rodhullandemu (talk | contribs) with an expiry time of indefinite (account creation blocked, e-mail blocked, cannot edit own talk page) ‎ (Turn off Wikipedia email for now. Refer queries to Arbitration Committee) (unblock | change block)
(del/undel) 2011-03-16T03:40:23 Risker (talk | contribs | block) blocked Rodhullandemu (talk | contribs) (account creation blocked, cannot edit own talk page) with an expiry time of indefinite ‎ (refer queries to Arbitration Committee) (unblock | change block)


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


----------
From: Phil Nash <phnash@blueyonder.co.uk>
Date: Mon, Mar 28, 2011 at 19:30
To: roger.davies.wiki@gmail.com
Cc: arbcom-l@lists.wikimedia.org


Please cite Foundation policy, because I can't see it. All I see is [[Wikipedia:Child protection]], and that does not apply to me. Throwing additional mud is all very well, but you should be aware that (a) I am not a pedophile (b) neither have I ever advocated, or supported, pedophilia, on Wikipedia and © you shouldn't assume that even if I take a stance on Usenet, even discounting forgeries claiming to be me, that is not part of [[participant observation]] of a phenomenon worthy of academic research, and er, I may not actually believe in what I say, but say it to elicit a response from the population I'm studying. You may disagree with my research methods, and so may my academic peers, but in order to infiltrate suspect communities, sometimes a simulacrum of "belonging" assists in drilling down to the reality of the situation. But all I've done is to cite research from others, and put an "Aunt Sally" position, ready to be knocked down, to little effect. My government-supported infiltration of some newsgroups and IRC channels actually resulted in more convictions prior to [[Operation Ore]] than they could ever have hoped for. If there was any fault, it was that nobody told the Manchester Police of my operational status, and that is a major failure of the system.

Meanwhile, all of this has nothing at all to do with my contributions to Wikipedia; I've long-since retired from the intelligence community, largely due to being hung out to dry 14 years ago. My pension may be small, but assured, and sadly, deferred for a couple of years. Until then, I must struggle.

As regards confidentiality, I am still plausibly deniable as an operative, becase "Phil Nash" is not necessarily my real name, so in real terms, this is going to go nowhere unless you want to press the point locally. Up to you.

Phil

----- Original Message -----

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


----------
From: Phil Nash <phnash@blueyonder.co.uk>
Date: Mon, Mar 28, 2011 at 19:47
To: roger.davies.wiki@gmail.com
Cc: arbcom-l@lists.wikimedia.org


I'll just add this: I've moved on from the work I was doing 14 years ago, and have retired from that, and most other stuff. Look at my Wikipedia/Commons contributions, and if you can see any agenda beyond keeping the project on track, feel free to kick me into touch. But please don't do it on the basis of unsubstantiated, incredible and irrelevant material. My desysop was shameful enough without bringing up stale material, and this new stuff reeks of paranoia.

Cheers.

PS:If I'm not responding within a week, I'm in hospital.

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


----------
From: Roger Davies <roger.davies.wiki@gmail.com>
Date: Tue, Mar 29, 2011 at 00:42
To: arbcom-l@lists.wikimedia.org



I don't think we should or need say anything about the block.

The case page announcement merely needs amending to say that the case is suspended indefinitely (to remove the 7th April deadline).

Roger

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


----------
From: Roger Davies <roger.davies.wiki@gmail.com>
Date: Tue, Mar 29, 2011 at 00:44
To: arbcom-l@lists.wikimedia.org



Another two responses from him are on their way through the moderation pipeline.

They present, at best, a somewhat confused and contradictory picture.

Roger

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


----------
From: Kenneth Kua/ArbCom <kenneth@planetkh.com>
Date: Tue, Mar 29, 2011 at 02:17
To: roger.davies.wiki@gmail.com, English Arbitration Committee mailing list <arbcom-l@lists.wikimedia.org>


The email sounds to me that he will probably not stop there, even if he were to be banned.

Kenneth/MD

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


----------
From: Kirill Lokshin <kirill.lokshin@gmail.com>
Date: Tue, Mar 29, 2011 at 04:17
To: English Arbitration Committee mailing list <arbcom-l@lists.wikimedia.org>


<list only>

Ah, the intelligence operative excuse. I don't think we've seen this one for a while, have we?

Kirill



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


----------
From: Marc A. Pelletier <marc@uberbox.org>
Date: Tue, Mar 29, 2011 at 07:15
To: English Arbitration Committee mailing list <arbcom-l@lists.wikimedia.org>


So, there are only two possibilities left; he is either delusional or has lost all sense of perspective in his bullshit.

-- Coren / Marc


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


----------
From: Newyorkbrad <newyorkbrad@gmail.com>
Date: Tue, Mar 29, 2011 at 07:25
To: English Arbitration Committee mailing list <arbcom-l@lists.wikimedia.org>


I don't recall having ever seen it, actually.

Newyorkbrad

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


----------
From: Jonathan Clemens <clem4609@pacificu.edu>
Date: Tue, Mar 29, 2011 at 09:57
To: English Arbitration Committee mailing list <arbcom-l@lists.wikimedia.org>


Ah, I was under the impression Kirill was speaking in general, not with direct application to RH&E.

Ultimately, this is too much BS. Were he in the US, I'd prefer to require self-identification to the foundation and the completion of a clean background check suitable for employment in a child care agency for him to return to editing.

As is, his online persona seems to be a house of car... err, lies.

Jonathan

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


----------
From: Cas Liber <casliber01@yahoo.com>
Date: Tue, Mar 29, 2011 at 14:02
To: English Arbitration Committee mailing list <arbcom-l@lists.wikimedia.org>


<snip>
<snip>
Partly the latter - showing a lack of empathy in that folks would believe him, and partly telling stories.

Reminds me of Mattisse in htat under pressure, the level of disturbance in thinking becomes very apparent.

Very interesting when you interview people like this IRL too.
Cas



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


----------
From: Elen of the Roads <elenoftheroads@gmail.com>
Date: Tue, Mar 29, 2011 at 16:58
To: English Arbitration Committee mailing list <arbcom-l@lists.wikimedia.org>


He has hinted it several times

Elen of the Roads

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


----------
From: Newyorkbrad <newyorkbrad@gmail.com>
Date: Tue, Mar 29, 2011 at 17:02
To: English Arbitration Committee mailing list <arbcom-l@lists.wikimedia.org>


I've seen him refer to intelligence service several times, but not as an excuse for anything. I thought Kirill was referring to some other user or case. Ah well, doesn't really matter; thanks for clarifying.

Newyorkbrad


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


----------
From: Elen of the Roads <elenoftheroads@gmail.com>
Date: Tue, Mar 29, 2011 at 17:24
To: English Arbitration Committee mailing list <arbcom-l@lists.wikimedia.org>


He definitely says he spent time in the US working for the UK government in some secret capacity.

I wonder if he was kidnapped by aliens - that's the big thing that's missing from his cv

Elen of the Roads

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


----------
From: Kirill Lokshin <kirill.lokshin@gmail.com>
Date: Tue, Mar 29, 2011 at 17:29
To: English Arbitration Committee mailing list <arbcom-l@lists.wikimedia.org>


Maybe we should ask him if he ever ran into SlimVirgin while in the service.
That part is classified. He'd have to kill us if we found out.

Kirill

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


----------
From: Elen of the Roads <elenoftheroads@gmail.com>
Date: Tue, Mar 29, 2011 at 17:50
To: English Arbitration Committee mailing list <arbcom-l@lists.wikimedia.org>


I have proposed alternate wording https://secure.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/arbc...h_block_not_ban

I do not believe it is necessary to state terms for unblock onwiki.

Elen of the Roads





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


----------
From: Roger Davies <roger.davies.wiki@gmail.com>
Date: Wed, Mar 30, 2011 at 01:27
To: arbcom-l@lists.wikimedia.org


The thing that strikes me about RH&E is the knee-jerk "I'm too ill/I'm suicidal" response whenever challenged. What's all that about, Cas? What's the mechanism? Just deflection?

Roger

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


----------
From: Cas Liber <casliber01@yahoo.com>
Date: Wed, Mar 30, 2011 at 16:17
To: "roger.davies.wiki@gmail.com" <roger.davies.wiki@gmail.com>, English Arbitration Committee mailing list <arbcom-l@lists.wikimedia.org>



<snip>
<snip>

The common theme in all his correspondence is /his/ hard work, /his/ health i.e. "I'm having a hard time and you don't care". There is not /any/ consideration of the other side at all, which is interesting.

it illustrates a fairly profound lack of empathy of knowing or caring about his obligations (role of admin), or problem it puts us in (threat of suicide and letting him edit). Admittedly this gets worse when a person is stressed (even reasonable folks can lose empathy (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/smile.gif)))
Cas





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

[Silver seren]

That's the legal threat? That's what they were telling me was so important that his block had to be expanded to indefinite? It's not a legal threat at all, or it's a poor one at best, and definitely not one that the community would support an indefinite ban for.

No, this is not right at all.

And all of those personal attacks. Do private communications with personal attacks become real personal attacks once they're revealed? I think they do.

I can't believe this. All of my suspicions are 100% realized and even more than I would have ever thought possible.

[MaliceAforethought]

Subject: [arbcom-l] Fwd: Arbcom (from Rodhullandemu)
------------------------

From: Newyorkbrad <newyorkbrad@gmail.com>
Date: Thu, Mar 3, 2011 at 21:49
To: Arbitration Committee mailing list <arbcom-l@lists.wikimedia.org>


Forwarded with permission, and without comment.

Newyorkbrad

---------- Forwarded message ----------
From: Rodhullandemu <wikimail@blueyonder.co.uk>
Date: Thu, Mar 3, 2011 at 9:38 PM
Subject: Arbcom
To: Newyorkbrad <newyorkbrad@gmail.com>


I note that you are prepared to take a middle position, which is very fair of you; however, we are both lawyers and know how to play hardball if necessary.

This is my position, from which I am not prepared to deviate:

1. Rodhullandemu is prepared to voluntarily relinquish his admin privileges, backdated to their removal by ArbCom, and to be reinstated in full on 1 April 2011. This will give him time to emerge from the winter months, and do some meaningful edits in the meantime without being under the pressure of fighting the constant tide of vandalism.

2. Rodhullandemu is prepared to accept a voluntary and indefinite interaction ban with Malleus Fatuorum, enforceable by blocks by any uninvolved administrator.

That's all.

Cheers.

RH&E

--
This e-mail was sent by user "Rodhullandemu" on the English Wikipedia to user "Newyorkbrad". 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>.


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


----------
From: Risker <risker.wp@gmail.com>
Date: Thu, Mar 3, 2011 at 21:55
To: English Arbitration Committee mailing list <arbcom-l@lists.wikimedia.org>






Erm, no to #1 - a one-month desysop will not change the behavioural pattern here. In the alternative, he could return to RFA on April 1, if he likes. The lack of opposition to the fact of his desysop (as opposed to the process of his desysop) leads me to believe that we cannot take it for granted that he continues to enjoy the support of the community in the admin role.

#2 I'd be fine with.

Risker/Anne


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


----------
From: Jonathan Clemens <clem4609@pacificu.edu>
Date: Thu, Mar 3, 2011 at 22:05
To: English Arbitration Committee mailing list <arbcom-l@lists.wikimedia.org>


While it's nice that he's talking, I just cannot see ever allowing him to have the bit back in light of the new evidence--whether he's a liar, kiddie porn convict, or adopted the persona of someone else. The real question is whether and how he is entirely banned, what we're willing to disclose in public to make the community go easier on us for doing the right thing, and how much we want to refine our procedures.

What on earth is his bargaining position? What does he offer us? I think a fair counterproposal is that he posts a humiliatingly abject apology, withdraws the case with prejudice, and resigns the tools forever, in exchange for us not posting the evidence page on-wiki.

I note he still says he's a lawyer. Wonder what he'd say if we asked him if he'd ever been convicted of anything?

Jonathan


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


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


----------
From: John Vandenberg <jayvdb@gmail.com>
Date: Thu, Mar 3, 2011 at 22:06
To: English Arbitration Committee mailing list <arbcom-l@lists.wikimedia.org>


I would be willing to accept a six month temp desysop, in order to get
this off our collective plate.
If we did that, we'd cop a lot of flack from the people who agree he
is a bad sysop, but it lays the framework for a case if he returns to
his old ways once he gets the tools back.

--
John Vandenberg

----------
From: Cool Hand Luke <User.CoolHandLuke@gmail.com>
Date: Thu, Mar 3, 2011 at 22:09
To: English Arbitration Committee mailing list <arbcom-l@lists.wikimedia.org>





RFA for him was suggested at the request--he doesn't even need to wait a month; the motion left the door wide open. To that suggestion he replied:

@HJ Mitchell: Are you crazy? Admins who combat vandalism as a career do not make friends. Reality, please! Rodhull andemu

I don't think he sees RFA as an option. I am willing to tell him we'd give it a fresh look after 6 or 12 months, but one month is a non-starter for me.

Of course, this is all contingent on the USENET issue not blowing up.

Frank


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


----------
From: Roger Davies <roger.davies.wiki@gmail.com>
Date: Thu, Mar 3, 2011 at 22:16
To: arbcom-l@lists.wikimedia.org




On 04/03/2011 03:09, Cool Hand Luke wrote:
>snip>

Yes, I'd go along with that, dependent of course on radically improved civility, less biteyness etc. Whether it tackles the tension between his take on WP:IAR and WP:INVOLVED is another matter.

Roger







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


----------
From: Roger Davies <roger.davies.wiki@gmail.com>
Date: Thu, Mar 3, 2011 at 22:18
To: arbcom-l@lists.wikimedia.org



I think he's seeing far less drama at the case than he was hoping for. In fact, now the case is getting underway, the tumult has gorn.

Roger


On 04/03/2011 03:05, Jonathan Clemens wrote:
<snip>

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


----------
From: Kirill Lokshin <kirill.lokshin@gmail.com>
Date: Thu, Mar 3, 2011 at 22:22
To: English Arbitration Committee mailing list <arbcom-l@lists.wikimedia.org>


Horrible, horrible idea, in my opinion. The absolutely last thing we want to do at this point is to create written evidence that we might be willing to let him be an admin again; if push comes to shove, he might prove perfectly willing to take us down with him.

Kirill

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


----------
From: Roger Davies <roger.davies.wiki@gmail.com>
Date: Thu, Mar 3, 2011 at 22:27
To: arbcom-l@lists.wikimedia.org



Well, at this precise point, when the link between RH&E and "Witt" has not been established, it's a reasonable thing to discuss.

If and when we get an admission about the link, the whole landscape changes completely.

Roger

_______________________________________________
arbcom-l mailing list

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


----------
From: Kirill Lokshin <kirill.lokshin@gmail.com>
Date: Thu, Mar 3, 2011 at 22:28
To: English Arbitration Committee mailing list <arbcom-l@lists.wikimedia.org>


I rather doubt a hostile press would bother to make so fine a distinction.

Kirill

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


----------
From: Risker <risker.wp@gmail.com>
Date: Thu, Mar 3, 2011 at 22:27
To: English Arbitration Committee mailing list <arbcom-l@lists.wikimedia.org>


While I don't agree with Kirill's suggestions on how to deal with the usenet stuff (which seems guaranteed to blow up in our faces and is more likely to lead to another "Arbcom-L leaks" concern within the community)....I am inherently loathe to open the door to returning the bits to him at this point; however, I could probably live with our standard "decision can be appealed in 6 months" language in the final decision.


Risker/Anne

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


----------
From: Cool Hand Luke <User.CoolHandLuke@gmail.com>
Date: Thu, Mar 3, 2011 at 23:07
To: English Arbitration Committee mailing list <arbcom-l@lists.wikimedia.org>



Standard language is fine with me; he doesn't merit special treatment one way or the other. I would consider it for drastic improvement even though it looks dismal right now.

Frank


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


----------
From: John Vandenberg <jayvdb@gmail.com>
Date: Thu, Mar 3, 2011 at 23:07
To: English Arbitration Committee mailing list <arbcom-l@lists.wikimedia.org>


...
He & Malleus are currently doing their best to show us why this is necessary

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

--
John Vandenberg

----------
From: David Yellope <dyellope.wiki@gmail.com>
Date: Thu, Mar 3, 2011 at 23:22
To: English Arbitration Committee mailing list <arbcom-l@lists.wikimedia.org>


2) Yes.

1) We can review in six months, or if he truly thinks there will be a great wind that will sweep out arbs who oppressed him, twelve months from now, but anything that gives him the mop back without RfA is a nonstarter

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


----------
From: Cas Liber <casliber01@yahoo.com>
Date: Thu, Mar 3, 2011 at 23:48
To: English Arbitration Committee mailing list <arbcom-l@lists.wikimedia.org>


Agree with Kirill - remember there was virtually no community opposition to what is in effect a (likely) permanent desysop.
<snip>



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


----------
From: Newyorkbrad <newyorkbrad@gmail.com>
Date: Fri, Mar 4, 2011 at 19:48
To: Arbitration Committee mailing list <arbcom-l@lists.wikimedia.org>




Some feedback would be welcome; I am not prepared to wait much longer for a reaction, given the obloquy I have already suffered. ElenoftheRoads has indicated that she will be unavailable for a couple of days- that's unacceptable when she seems to to have taken on the role of prosecutor. Wikipedia is 24/7, and although I don't work to those standards, otherwise I would be dead, it is not beyond the wit and capability of ArbCom to ensure that its victims are kept informed as to what is going on.

I'll just say this: I've offered ArbCom an olive branch that will result in a mutually satisfactory result for all parties, and avoid much future embarassment on both sides. I do not expect to be beaten over the head with that offer of peace; I expect it to be taken seriously, and avoid further and unnecessary community criticism of ArbCom. In this sense, for the benefit of Wikipedia, I am prepared to stand by that offer. In short, ArbCom can take it or leave it.

Cheers,

RH&E
----- Original Message -----
From: Newyorkbrad
To: Rodhullandemu
Sent: Friday, March 04, 2011 2:44 AM
Subject: Re: Arbcom

Would you like me to forward this to the full Arbitration Committee? Obviously I can't respond unilaterally.

Newyorkbrad





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


----------
From: Jonathan Clemens <clem4609@pacificu.edu>
Date: Fri, Mar 4, 2011 at 19:55
To: English Arbitration Committee mailing list <arbcom-l@lists.wikimedia.org>


While he's right--we should respond at some point--I think we have little to lose by thinking things through thoroughly.

Time is not on his side. Assuming the Usenet posts aren't going to leak and/or being independently rediscovered, it's not particularly /not/ on our side, either.

I'd recommend a neutrally worded message saying that we are considering his offer and discussing it.

Jonathan



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


----------
From: Newyorkbrad <newyorkbrad@gmail.com>
Date: Fri, Mar 4, 2011 at 20:04
To: Arbitration Committee mailing list <arbcom-l@lists.wikimedia.org>


His reply; I won't be responding again, though someone else should write him when we have something to say

Newyorkbrad

I expected better than silence. Even a holding position would have been better than nothing. However, I am not prepared to deviate from my olive branch position, which would seem to be acceptable to the community at large.

Over to you.

Cheers,

RH&E
----- Original Message -----
From: Newyorkbrad
To: Phil Nash
Sent: Saturday, March 05, 2011 12:50 AM
Subject: Re: Arbcom

Dear Rodhullandemu:

I forwarded your e-mail to the committee, last night, and it has been under discussion. I think someone (I am not a spokesman for the committee in this matter) will get back to you in due course, hopefully in the near future. However, I do not think it is either appropriate or helpful for you to issue ultimatums, nor do I understand what it is you are threatening to do.

Newyorkbrad


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


----------
From: Michelle Kinney <shell.kinney@gmail.com>
Date: Fri, Mar 4, 2011 at 21:38
To: English Arbitration Committee mailing list <arbcom-l@lists.wikimedia.org>
Cc: phnash@blueyonder.co.uk


Phil,

Thank you for contacting us; the Committee is currently discussing
your offer. Developing consensus among 18 or so people via mailing
list isn't terribly efficient, so we appreciate your patience.

Shell Kinney

----------
From: Michelle Kinney <shell.kinney@gmail.com>
Date: Fri, Mar 4, 2011 at 21:41
To: English Arbitration Committee mailing list <arbcom-l@lists.wikimedia.org>


Absolutely not. As others have suggested, I'd be prepared to accept a
6 month and then he can ask for them back process.
No problems with this and I do think it's a good idea.

Shell Kinney

----------
From: Jonathan Clemens <clem4609@pacificu.edu>
Date: Fri, Mar 4, 2011 at 22:05
To: English Arbitration Committee mailing list <arbcom-l@lists.wikimedia.org>


And just to be clear... by "ask for them back", you mean "ask for them from the community via RfA", right?

Given all that's transpired--original cause, unhelpful wikilawyering/defiant replies, past statements that have come to light--I'm not seeing any way we can give them back by ArbCom fiat.

Jonathan

----------
From: Risker <risker.wp@gmail.com>
Date: Fri, Mar 4, 2011 at 22:10
To: English Arbitration Committee mailing list <arbcom-l@lists.wikimedia.org>


Just because he appeals, doesn't mean his appeal will be successful. But a door should be left open a crack for him to at least have the opportunity to put forward a case in the future illustrating that his methodology has changed.

We have resysopped in the past, usually where the critical issue was a one-off and the individual was able to demonstrate understanding of why it was not acceptable. Other times we've referred to RFA, and many times there has been no appeal.

Risker/Anne

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


----------
From: Jonathan Clemens <clem4609@pacificu.edu>
Date: Fri, Mar 4, 2011 at 22:19
To: English Arbitration Committee mailing list <arbcom-l@lists.wikimedia.org>


I'm all for leaving a theoretical door open if it will help resolve the matter, and we give all sorts of "may appeal in six months" out to people we all know there is no way short of a collective fit of insanity we'd ever let back in. As long as we're on the same page that this is the sort of door we're going to leave open, I'm OK with that.

Jonathan

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


----------
From: John Vandenberg <jayvdb@gmail.com>
Date: Fri, Mar 4, 2011 at 22:35
To: English Arbitration Committee mailing list <arbcom-l@lists.wikimedia.org>


The current vague voting on the option to allow an appeal in six
months is six vs two/three, if I've understood peoples comments so
far.

support
-------

John Vandenberg (supporting more liberal six month automatic
retooling, if necessary)

Cool Hand Luke

Roger Davies

Risker

Michelle Kinney

Jonathan Clemens "I'm all for leaving a theoretical door open"

oppose
------

Kirill "The absolutely last thing we want to do at this point is to
Cas Liber: per Kirill

unsure
------
David Yellope "We can review in six months"/"anything that gives him
--
John Vandenberg

----------
From: David Yellope <dyellope.wiki@gmail.com>
Date: Fri, Mar 4, 2011 at 22:42
To: English Arbitration Committee mailing list <arbcom-l@lists.wikimedia.org>


That means that I don't think there's anyway we give it back to him ourselves, but he can ask us in six months or go to RfA at any time.

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


----------
From: John Vandenberg <jayvdb@gmail.com>
Date: Fri, Mar 4, 2011 at 22:49
To: David Yellope <dyellope.wiki@gmail.com>
Cc: English Arbitration Committee mailing list <arbcom-l@lists.wikimedia.org>


So you support a "no, but you can ask ArbCom for the tools again in six months"?

If so, we are seven vs two in favour of that response.

----------
From: Jonathan Clemens <clem4609@pacificu.edu>
Date: Fri, Mar 4, 2011 at 22:56
To: English Arbitration Committee mailing list <arbcom-l@lists.wikimedia.org>


Our next decision is whether and how to reply to his self-styled "olive branch"

I suggest we reply "We are not interested in your proposed terms at this time, and are continuing to prepare for the public case you've requested. "

Jonathan

----------
From: David Yellope <dyellope.wiki@gmail.com>
Date: Fri, Mar 4, 2011 at 23:04
To: English Arbitration Committee mailing list <arbcom-l@lists.wikimedia.org>


This is what I suggest:

"Hi Phil:

After review, we do not think that giving back the tools automatically at this time is a good idea. We are willing to offer the compromise of allowing you to ask the Committee in six months to have your tools reinstated, as well as asking for the tools back at RFA. Of course, we can still continue with the public case we've requested, should you prefer."

And should we decide to inquire about the Phil Nash.Witt thing:

"Also, evidence has been placed before the Committee that ties someone with a similar name and similar background to you on Usenet. Could you confirm this is you?"

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


----------
From: Jonathan Clemens <clem4609@pacificu.edu>
Date: Fri, Mar 4, 2011 at 23:11
To: English Arbitration Committee mailing list <arbcom-l@lists.wikimedia.org>


I like that approach, along with the "witt" query in the same email.

I'd suggest "... before the Committee of another Phil Nash who practiced law in Liverpool and posted repeatedly to Usenet. ..." Give him a bit more of the specifics, but not enough to be an overt threat.

Jonathan

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


----------
From: Cool Hand Luke <User.CoolHandLuke@gmail.com>
Date: Fri, Mar 4, 2011 at 23:31
To: English Arbitration Committee mailing list <arbcom-l@lists.wikimedia.org>


I think simply asking him if he was Witt (sample email addresses) would be better. More biographical details aren't really important as the identity with Witt (and I suspect these increase the likelihood of an non-useful answer). That said, I agree with Roger's suggestion of asking whether the Phil Nash Commons connection should be pulled down.

Frank

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


----------
From: John Vandenberg <jayvdb@gmail.com>
Date: Fri, Mar 4, 2011 at 23:31
To: English Arbitration Committee mailing list <arbcom-l@lists.wikimedia.org>


as well as [..] RFA -> in addition to the option of an RFA at your choosing.
This works.
I would also I'd prefer that it was a bit more explicitly. Another option is
".. on Usenet, who has used 'Witt' and other aliases over the last
decade or more."

--
John Vandenberg

----------
From: Phil Nash <phnash@blueyonder.co.uk>
Date: Sat, Mar 5, 2011 at 00:10
To: Michelle Kinney <shell.kinney@gmail.com>


Consensus to desysop me wasn't so slow, and I see no reason why a reasonable offer to save face for all involved should not achieve the same level of urgency, if the ultimate benefit of the encyclopedia is to be considered.

RH&E

----------
From: Michelle Kinney <shell.kinney@gmail.com>
Date: Sat, Mar 5, 2011 at 00:13
To: Phil Nash <phnash@blueyonder.co.uk>
Cc: English Arbitration Committee mailing list <arbcom-l@lists.wikimedia.org>


Perhaps not, but it did take several days whereas we've had your
emails for less than 24 hours now. This is our top priority and we
will be getting back with an answer as soon as possible.

Shell Kinney

----------
From: Jonathan Clemens <clem4609@pacificu.edu>
Date: Sat, Mar 5, 2011 at 00:32
To: English Arbitration Committee mailing list <arbcom-l@lists.wikimedia.org>


(list only)

I do not care for his pressing for a quick response while simultaneously needling us: https://secure.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/w...oldid=417196794

He appears to be trying to keep the pressure up on us rather than approach a "face saving" in good faith.

Jonathan



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


----------
From: Roger Davies <roger.davies.wiki@gmail.com>
Date: Sat, Mar 5, 2011 at 01:27
To: arbcom-l@lists.wikimedia.org


I'm a bit concerned that we're permitting RH&E to set the agenda. The core issue is not that we have a dispute with RH&E that requires resolving but that he has engaged in problematic behaviour over a long period.

Therefore, and before we do anything else, we must provide RH&E with details with diffs of sample behaviour and provide him with an opportunity to respond.

The easiest way to do this is by Helen posting her evidence once she's back. More fundamentally, his reaction to the evidence is likely to guide us how best to proceed.

Roger

_______________________________________________
arbcom-l mailing list

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


----------
From: John Vandenberg <jayvdb@gmail.com>
Date: Sat, Mar 5, 2011 at 01:39
To: roger.davies.wiki@gmail.com, English Arbitration Committee mailing list <arbcom-l@lists.wikimedia.org>


On Sat, Mar 5, 2011 at 5:27 PM, Roger Davies
I agree with this, except that delaying proceedings is giving him and
others opportunity to throw rocks in public.
If it speeds up the process, I think someone else can send him Helen's
evidence, if we are all happy with it.

--
John Vandenberg

----------
From: Roger Davies <roger.davies.wiki@gmail.com>
Date: Sat, Mar 5, 2011 at 01:41
To: arbcom-l@lists.wikimedia.org



On further reflection, agreeing to reconsider the tools in six months opens the door to:

* Allegations that our original decision was profoundly flawed and we offered the six months purely as a face-saving exercise;
* Six months of campaigning by RH&E for a return of the tools by ArbCom
* Revisit of the "tainted process" discussion in six months time (you guys are acting as prosecutor, judge, executioner, AND parole board)

Having thought about it more, the only circumstances I'd consider this route are if we get an unambiguous acknowledgement from RH&E that his conduct has fallen well short of admin standards and that the desysopping was correct.

He won't of course be in a position to make an informed decision on this until he's seen the evidence. So, for the time being, I'm opposed to this route.

Roger

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


----------
From: Michelle Kinney <shell.kinney@gmail.com>
Date: Sat, Mar 5, 2011 at 01:46
To: roger.davies.wiki@gmail.com, English Arbitration Committee mailing list <arbcom-l@lists.wikimedia.org>


Hmm. I hadn't thought about that. Given his continued pointy
comments and mis-characterizations on wiki, this does seem a bit more
like "Make it go away so I can continue to climb the reichstag while
making you guys look like asses" or something along those lines.
While we aren't elected to be popular, Rod was the one that determined
not to handle this privately or even appropriately. So please change
me to a straight no on his admin tools proposal, but yes, you need an
interaction ban, clearly.

Shell

----------
From: John Vandenberg <jayvdb@gmail.com>
Date: Sat, Mar 5, 2011 at 01:52
To: roger.davies.wiki@gmail.com, English Arbitration Committee mailing list <arbcom-l@lists.wikimedia.org>


On Sat, Mar 5, 2011 at 5:41 PM, Roger Davies
The arbcom motion would need to have wording that removed this possibility.
I dont see this working out in his favour.
There would also be six months for the community to find good reasons
why he shouldnt be given the tools.
epic fail as executioner in that sequence.
I agree he needs to see the evidence first.

----------
From: Jonathan Clemens <clem4609@pacificu.edu>
Date: Sat, Mar 5, 2011 at 01:55
To: English Arbitration Committee mailing list <arbcom-l@lists.wikimedia.org>


Yeah, unless there's clear consensus that we MUST give him an "appeal in six months" out, I'd say we should toe the line with "at any time via a new RfA", like we said in the first place. I'm willing to be outvoted, but my first preference is to stick with the previous sanction.

Consider the balance of power here: I'm not seeing how he can damage us or the project any more than he already has, while we hold the power to destroy his reputation and essentially force him off the project without using any tools or non-public information. The reason we're not even seriously contemplating that is that we're all decent human beings who are STILL, despite all the crap that's been lobbed at us, trying to resolve this with as little harm to anyone as possible. At the same time, there is no particular cause for us to either hurry or appease his ridiculous demands. The fundamental facts of the case are solid: he's not suitable to hold the administrator tools, hasn't been for a good long while, and now that we've deprived him of that venue to vent hostility on others, he's focusing his energy on *defeating* us. Not preserving the project, acknowledging personal misdeeds or mistakes.

Jonathan

----------
From: John Vandenberg <jayvdb@gmail.com>
Date: Sat, Mar 5, 2011 at 02:01
To: English Arbitration Committee mailing list <arbcom-l@lists.wikimedia.org>


On Sat, Mar 5, 2011 at 5:55 PM, Jonathan Clemens <clem4609@pacificu.edu> wrote:
> ... he's focusing his energy on *defeating* us. Not preserving the project, acknowledging personal misdeeds or mistakes.

I'm pretty sure he thinks he is doing this to preserve the fundamental
values of the project, and teaching us a lesson at the same time.

--
John Vandenberg

----------
From: Roger Davies <roger.davies.wiki@gmail.com>
Date: Sat, Mar 5, 2011 at 03:04
To: John Vandenberg <jayvdb@gmail.com>
Cc: English Arbitration Committee mailing list <arbcom-l@lists.wikimedia.org>



I don't think anyone else should send Helen's evidence unless we agree
as a committee to adopt it (which would require it to be completely
re-written and then a formal vote).

However, a lot of the rock-throwing will stop once the evidence is out
there.

People are only going on about process because they have not been given
tangible credible reasons for desysopping and therefore the desysop
decision looks as if it was done on a whim. In this instance, the truth
- that RH&E has demonstrated ample behaviour over the years incompatible
with having the tools, that this behaviour was escalating frequency, and
that this had somehow slipped almost entirely under the community's
radar - is a complete defence to all the process arguments.

Roger

----------
From: Kenneth Kua/ArbCom <kenneth@planetkh.com>
Date: Sat, Mar 5, 2011 at 06:20
To: roger.davies.wiki@gmail.com, English Arbitration Committee mailing list <arbcom-l@lists.wikimedia.org>


And add on that we'll be accused of doing back-door deals. He claimed that the date is non-negotiable, so there's a chance that he might not even accept the 6 months. April 1 would be sentenced served as the case probably would close later than that and by then he gets his tools back instantly.

For me, it's a No Deal. This guy's got a lot more to lose than we do if we turn down his offer.

Kenneth/MD

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


----------
From: Cool Hand Luke <User.CoolHandLuke@gmail.com>
Date: Sat, Mar 5, 2011 at 11:53
To: "roger.davies.wiki" <roger.davies.wiki@gmail.com>, English Arbitration Committee mailing list <arbcom-l@lists.wikimedia.org>



I agree with this approach, as I said somewhere.




I think this is mostly true, although some appear actually concerned about the process.

I also agree with your point about the 6 months reconsideration. I'm not a wikishrink, but he does seem to be exhibiting warning signs of Ottava Syndrome. He would be best served by a clean break from ArbCom; it may be best if his ability to appeal is no more than implicit.

Frank



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


----------
From: <philknight@mail.com>
Date: Sat, Mar 5, 2011 at 13:34
To: arbcom-l@lists.wikimedia.org



I'm not a fan of the 6 months deal either.

We've received a lot of criticism for not handling things on-wiki, and this would probably just attract more.

Also, what happens if after 6 months he has made thousands of edits reverting vandalism with no significant blunders?

Phil

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


----------
From: Marc A. Pelletier <marc@uberbox.org>
Date: Sat, Mar 5, 2011 at 16:05
To: English Arbitration Committee mailing list <arbcom-l@lists.wikimedia.org>


I'm at the point where I no longer care what he believes. I am opposed
to any form of appeasement at this time; he will be given an opportunity
to make his case at the RFAr he demanded.

-- Coren / Marc

----------
From: Iridescent Wikipedia <iridescentwiki@yahoo.co.uk>
Date: Sat, Mar 5, 2011 at 16:13
To: English Arbitration Committee mailing list <arbcom-l@lists.wikimedia.org>


What he (Marc) said. Whatever one thinks of the Arbcom-as-final-arbiter structure, it's the structure Wikipedia currently has, and part of the unwritten contract one agrees to in participating on Wikipedia is an acceptance of that structure. Negotiating implies that his ramblings have equal status to the formal decisions of Arbcom, and sets a horrible precedent—every desysopped admin, blocked editor and serial crank will be complaining that they deserve the same right to choose the terms of their own parole. It's no secret that I think there ought to be a separate AppealCom to handle stuff like this and take away Arbcom's combined cop-judge-jury role, but unless and until that change happens Wikipedia is a dictatorship with Arbcom as the Politburo, and if he doesn't like it I'm sure Citizendium would be glad to have him.


From: Marc A. Pelletier <marc@uberbox.org>
To: English Arbitration Committee mailing list <arbcom-l@lists.wikimedia.org>
Sent: Sat, 5 March, 2011 21:05:08


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


----------
From: Phil Nash <phnash@blueyonder.co.uk>
Date: Sat, Mar 5, 2011 at 21:02
To: Michelle Kinney <shell.kinney@gmail.com>


You can delay as much as you like; you still aren't going to paper over the cracks. Meanwhile, I am out of Wikipedia, with much sadness, but necessarily in the face of the injustice and indignity to which I have been subjected. The ArbCom members need to have mirrors in front of them on a daily basis, to which they address the question "Are you doing the right thing, or merely following the herd?" If they aren't prepared to be extremely careful in answering that question, they do not deserve their positions.

Meanwhile, I have no more time for fools.

Cheers,

----------
From: Michelle Kinney <shell.kinney@gmail.com>
Date: Sun, Mar 6, 2011 at 05:56
To: Phil Nash <phnash@blueyonder.co.uk>


While ArbCom hasn't prepared a formal statement yet, to keep you up to
date, my feeling from the discussions is that it is unlikely we will
accept your offer and will proceed with the case where you can discuss
the evidence publicly.

Shell Kinney

----------
From: <philknight@mail.com>
Date: Sun, Mar 6, 2011 at 19:12
To: wikimail@blueyonder.co.uk
Cc: arbcom-l@lists.wikimedia.org



We have now had an opportunity to consider your offer of your (i) voluntarily relinquishing your administrator privileges with effect from 26 February 2011 with reinstatement in full on 1 April 2011 and (ii) accepting a voluntary and indefinite interaction ban with Malleus Fatuorum.

At this point, given that a case has been initiated in public, we believe that it is not in anyone's best interests to further additional speculation by concluding the case in private. As such, your offer is declined, and the public case will be opened shortly.

Phil Knight



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


----------
From: Xeno <xenowiki@gmail.com>
Date: Sun, Mar 6, 2011 at 19:17
To: English Arbitration Committee mailing list <arbcom-l@lists.wikimedia.org>


Thanks for emailing him.

As a best practice, Brad's prefix to us - even though it did not convey much - should probably have been trimmed.

-x

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


----------
From: <philknight@mail.com>
Date: Sun, Mar 6, 2011 at 19:18
To: arbcom-l@lists.wikimedia.org



Thanks for letting me know.

Phil


_______________________________________________


arbcom-l mailing list

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


----------
From: Phil Nash <phnash@blueyonder.co.uk>
Date: Sun, Mar 6, 2011 at 19:40
To: philknight@mail.com
Cc: roger.davies.wiki@gmail.com, Jimmy Wales <jwales@wikia-inc.com>, Newyorkbrad <newyorkbrad@gmail.com>, Michelle Kinney <shell.kinney@gmail.com>, Elen of the Roads <elenoftheroads@gmail.com>, arbcom-l@lists.wikimedia.org


Given the Arbitration Committee's unwillingness to provide me with adequate or any evidence against me, on request, or to substantiate its own case without right of reply, the subsequent community outrage as to the procedures involved, the unjustified refusal of Arbiters to recuse themselves from further proceedings, when they are clearly already biased against me, followed by Jimbo's hasty evaluation of the issue without even considering any detailed comments from me, sorry, but I'm not going to take part in that unseemly circus.

My offer could, and should, have been seen to avoid further embarrassment all round. If that is not the position of ArbCom, then sorry, but I have little sympathy with it. I'm just fed up of being bullied and abused, and will not take it any more. It's bad enough to be a survivor of sexual and other abuse in real life, without having to suffer similar in a virtual environment.

Rodhullandemu. Ex-editor of Wikipedia, with no thanks whatsoever.


----- Original Message -----

----------
From: Xeno <xenowiki@gmail.com>
Date: Sun, Mar 6, 2011 at 20:15
To: English Arbitration Committee mailing list <arbcom-l@lists.wikimedia.org>, Jimmy Wales <jwales@wikia-inc.com>


<list & Jimmy only>

I don't see the need to reply, or change course. He asked for the hearing, the community is now expecting a hearing, and one is necessary if we want to be able to extract any value from a community-wide discussion on handling similar cases.

-x // mobile

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

[EricBarbour]

And for how long did he edit Wikipedia? Since August 2007, yes?

And for how long was he an administrator on en-wiki? Since January 2008, yes?

Who voted for him? Leprechauns and fairies?

Phil's nuts---and Arbcom is pathetic.

Just another Wiki-Day. (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/angry.gif)

[MaliceAforethought]

That's the legal threat? That's what they were telling me was so important that his block had to be expanded to indefinite? It's not a legal threat at all, or it's a poor one at best, and definitely not one that the community would support an indefinite ban for.

No, this is not right at all.

And all of those personal attacks. Do private communications with personal attacks become real personal attacks once they're revealed? I think they do.

I can't believe this. All of my suspicions are 100% realized and even more than I would have ever thought possible.

You guessed wrong.

Subject: Re: [arbcom-l] "The initial cause of the block is contained within diffs that were oversighted"
------------------------

From: Elen of the Roads <elenoftheroads@gmail.com>
Date: Fri, Apr 1, 2011 at 19:22
To: Phil Nash <phnash@blueyonder.co.uk>
Cc: English Arbitration Committee mailing list <arbcom-l@lists.wikimedia.org>


I do believe you're actually becoming delusional....or do you not remember making onwiki threats to do yourself in. I mean, I'm glad you didn't carry them out, but I'm a bit worried if you don't recall making them.


Elen of the Roads



On 2 April 2011 00:14, Phil Nash <phnash@blueyonder.co.uk> wrote:
Incorrect. The oversighted diffs were in relation to a completely different matter from my initial indef block.

Please try to keep up, Elen. All this will have its obvious conclusion in due course, and once in a hole, it's probably a great idea to throw away the spade and stop digging. You've done enough damage already, both to me, ArbCom and Wikipedia, and your poor husband, probably now abed, might appreciate a cuddle; unless he's already given up on that, of course. Please prove him, and me, wrong.

Many regards

Phil


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


----------
From: Frank Bednarz <frank.bednarz@gmail.com>
Date: Fri, Apr 1, 2011 at 19:33
To: English Arbitration Committee mailing list <arbcom-l@lists.wikimedia.org>


I think this conversation with him serves no purpose. Tune it out, plz.

Frank


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


----------
From: John Vandenberg <jayvdb@gmail.com>
Date: Fri, Apr 1, 2011 at 19:34
To: English Arbitration Committee mailing list <arbcom-l@lists.wikimedia.org>


probably best to not respond further as it is getting quite personal;
diminishing returns and all that. At the end of the day, our ongoing
communications responsibility is to the community, and we have no
reason to explain ourselves to him.

--
John Vandenberg

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

----------
From: Elen of the Roads <elenoftheroads@gmail.com>
Date: Fri, Apr 1, 2011 at 19:37
To: English Arbitration Committee mailing list <arbcom-l@lists.wikimedia.org>


Quite. His concern about confidentiality was reasonable, but the rest is going nowhere....and he's just mailed me again. I'll fwd to you guys but not respond I think

Elen of the Roads

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


----------
From: Elen of the Roads <elenoftheroads@gmail.com>
Date: Fri, Apr 1, 2011 at 19:41
To: English Arbitration Committee mailing list <arbcom-l@lists.wikimedia.org>, Cas Liber <casliber01@yahoo.com>


Actually, this is the most reasonable statement I've seen in a while. It confirms that he has been using Wikipedia as a support mechanism (which we thought), and I think the 'unintended consequences' are actually to him, as he hints, while continuing to bluster about consequences to us.

If Casliber is about, I'd be interested in his take/advice on responding.


Elen of the Roads



---------- Forwarded message ----------
From: Phil Nash <phnash@blueyonder.co.uk>
Date: 2 April 2011 00:36
Subject: Re: "The initial cause of the block is contained within diffs that were oversighted"
To: Elen of the Roads <elenoftheroads@gmail.com>


You're right, for once. My indef block on 16 March was for a suicide note. It's a shame that rather than getting helpful advice, and consideration, I was shut out of the only therapy I have known that takes up my time constructively since I was forced to give up work due to my health problems. That's not Wikipedia's problem; but the way I have been treated in general, is, and to quote you "this isn't going to go away". My later block on 25 March removed WP email, but of course, that is too late and too little, since all it does it prevent me from contacting WP editors who have expressed support for me, of which there have been many.

I'm wondering if you really understand how much this all means, and how this incident is going to have unforeseen consequences way beyond ArbCom flexing its muscles. If you don't, then sorry, you've missed the point.

Regards,

Phil


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


----------
From: Newyorkbrad <newyorkbrad@gmail.com>
Date: Fri, Apr 1, 2011 at 20:02
To: English Arbitration Committee mailing list <arbcom-l@lists.wikimedia.org>


I wish I could tell him -- but I shouldn't -- how hard we worked to bend over backwards to make this work for him. It's not as if he was blocked, or even desysopped, the first or second or tenth time he acted up......

It's all very, very sad.

Newyorkbrad



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


----------
From: Elen of the Roads <elenoftheroads@gmail.com>
Date: Fri, Apr 1, 2011 at 20:10
To: English Arbitration Committee mailing list <arbcom-l@lists.wikimedia.org>


You could try, but I don't think he'd grok what you were saying.


Elen of the Roads

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


----------
From: Marc A. Pelletier <marc@uberbox.org>
Date: Fri, Apr 1, 2011 at 20:08
To: English Arbitration Committee mailing list <arbcom-l@lists.wikimedia.org>


At this point, Brad, what's left only serves to demonstrate how troublesome such accommodations can end up being. Either he is milking faux-disability for all its worth, or he's genuinely insufficiently coherent for continued contribution to the project. In both cases, his continued presence is -- at best -- a time and effort sink.

-- Coren / Marc


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

[Tarc]

Maybe we should ask him if he ever ran into SlimVirgin while in the service.
That part is classified. He'd have to kill us if we found out.

(IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/biggrin.gif)

[trenton]

From: Kirill Lokshin <kirill.lokshin@gmail.com>
Date: Tue, Mar 29, 2011 at 17:29
To: English Arbitration Committee mailing list <arbcom-l@lists.wikimedia.org>


Maybe we should ask him if he ever ran into SlimVirgin while in the service.
That part is classified. He'd have to kill us if we found out.

Kirill

(IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/laugh.gif)

edit: Damn you, Tarc, for beating me (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/wink.gif)

This post has been edited by trenton:

[carbuncle]

From: Roger Davies <roger.davies.wiki@gmail.com>
Date: Thu, Mar 3, 2011 at 22:27
To: arbcom-l@lists.wikimedia.org



Well, at this precise point, when the link between RH&E and "Witt" has not been established, it's a reasonable thing to discuss.

If and when we get an admission about the link, the whole landscape changes completely.

Roger


----------
From: Kirill Lokshin <kirill.lokshin@gmail.com>
Date: Thu, Mar 3, 2011 at 22:28
To: English Arbitration Committee mailing list <arbcom-l@lists.wikimedia.org>


I rather doubt a hostile press would bother to make so fine a distinction.

Kirill

Paging a hostile press...hostile press to the lobby phone please....

[The Adversary]

From: Kirill Lokshin <kirill.lokshin@gmail.com>
Date: Tue, Mar 29, 2011 at 17:29
To: English Arbitration Committee mailing list <arbcom-l@lists.wikimedia.org>


Maybe we should ask him if he ever ran into SlimVirgin while in the service.
That part is classified. He'd have to kill us if we found out.

Kirill

(IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/laugh.gif)

edit: Damn you, Tarc, for beating me (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/wink.gif)

(IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/tongue.gif) I´ll 3.rd that one!

But Mods, could you please put this thread out of public view? A named person (possibly incorrect, but still)..and obvious issues... this forum, perhaps?

Or just tarpit it. Please?

[Silver seren]

I would agree that this should not be in such an obvious place when it discusses things like mental instability of a named person, among other things. It's just not appropriate.

[MaliceAforethought]

I would agree that this should not be in such an obvious place when it discusses things like mental instability of a named person, among other things. It's just not appropriate.

Let me see if I got this straight: Bashing the Arbitrary Committee is right as rain, but nobody ought to mess with your heroes. If some git told me his usenet flame wars were secret intelligence actions, I'd call him a nutter too.

[EricBarbour]

I would agree that this should not be in such an obvious place when it discusses things like mental instability of a named person, among other things. It's just not appropriate.

Let me see if I got this straight: Bashing the Arbitrary Committee is right as rain, but nobody ought to mess with your heroes. If some git told me his usenet flame wars were secret intelligence actions, I'd call him a nutter too.

And I, also, have difficulty seeing why the Nutter (and his emu) deserves "special treatment".

Anyone remember this?
Howzabout this?
Or this blast from the past?

[Silver seren]

If the info was just about the case between him and Arbcom and essentially just about on-wiki stuff, that would be fine, but not when it involves rather personal issues that can have a negative effect on him personally.

[powercorrupts]

Since he keeps alluding to suicide, I support keeping him blocked indefinitely.

-x

Was that a kiss?

[powercorrupts]

The real story behind all this is how much these people want to keep hold of the indefinite nature of their power.

[powercorrupts]

I currently stand indicted, convicted, and due for sentence on charges of
"distributing indecent images of children" contrary to the Protection of
Children Act 1987. I have only pleaded guilty on legal advice on the basis that no
jury is likely to acquit me. Yet the images whereof I stand convicted are, by any
standard, simple nudity with no suggestion of sexual activity.

Typically Rod misses his wood for the trees. I think it's the distribution that's the particularly salient legal issue here old son, and the suggestion of sexual activity.

[MZMcBride]

I currently stand indicted, convicted, and due for sentence on charges of
"distributing indecent images of children" contrary to the Protection of
Children Act 1987. I have only pleaded guilty on legal advice on the basis that no
jury is likely to acquit me. Yet the images whereof I stand convicted are, by any
standard, simple nudity with no suggestion of sexual activity.

For reference, this quote is from <http://groups.google.com/group/uk.politics...1dd709b9a3072c1>. Clarifying, as this confused me for a minute.

[Encyclopedist]

I currently stand indicted, convicted, and due for sentence on charges of
"distributing indecent images of children" contrary to the Protection of
Children Act 1987. I have only pleaded guilty on legal advice on the basis that no
jury is likely to acquit me. Yet the images whereof I stand convicted are, by any
standard, simple nudity with no suggestion of sexual activity.

Typically Rod misses his wood for the trees. I think it's the distribution that's the particularly salient legal issue here old son, and the suggestion of sexual activity.

You people seem to be able to believe anything you read. However, if you examine the ArbCom thread with proper care, you'll note that they did not regard it as proved that "Witt" and I am the same person, and we are talking about a Usenet thread now twelve years old, and without headers that unequivocally link that posting to me. I deny that I have ever posted as "Witt", and you prove it if you can. Meanwhile, my solicitor is a good friend of mine from way back, and works weekends in urgent cases. Time, I think to put up or shut up.

I currently stand indicted, convicted, and due for sentence on charges of
"distributing indecent images of children" contrary to the Protection of
Children Act 1987. I have only pleaded guilty on legal advice on the basis that no
jury is likely to acquit me. Yet the images whereof I stand convicted are, by any
standard, simple nudity with no suggestion of sexual activity.

For reference, this quote is from <http://groups.google.com/group/uk.politics...1dd709b9a3072c1>. Clarifying, as this confused me for a minute.

I'll just add that I have no convictions beyond a couple of minor motoring when I was an improverished student in the early 1970s and should have checked my tyres for tread depth and had a nearside wing mirror. D'oh!

[powercorrupts]

I currently stand indicted, convicted, and due for sentence on charges of
"distributing indecent images of children" contrary to the Protection of
Children Act 1987. I have only pleaded guilty on legal advice on the basis that no
jury is likely to acquit me. Yet the images whereof I stand convicted are, by any
standard, simple nudity with no suggestion of sexual activity.

Typically Rod misses his wood for the trees. I think it's the distribution that's the particularly salient legal issue here old son, and the suggestion of sexual activity.

You people seem to be able to believe anything you read. However, if you examine the ArbCom thread with proper care, you'll note that they did not regard it as proved that "Witt" and I am the same person, and we are talking about a Usenet thread now twelve years old, and without headers that unequivocally link that posting to me. I deny that I have ever posted as "Witt", and you prove it if you can. Meanwhile, my solicitor is a good friend of mine from way back, and works weekends in urgent cases. Time, I think to put up or shut up.

I currently stand indicted, convicted, and due for sentence on charges of
"distributing indecent images of children" contrary to the Protection of
Children Act 1987. I have only pleaded guilty on legal advice on the basis that no
jury is likely to acquit me. Yet the images whereof I stand convicted are, by any
standard, simple nudity with no suggestion of sexual activity.

For reference, this quote is from <http://groups.google.com/group/uk.politics...1dd709b9a3072c1>. Clarifying, as this confused me for a minute.

I'll just add that I have no convictions beyond a couple of minor motoring when I was an improverished student in the early 1970s and should have checked my tyres for tread depth and had a nearside wing mirror. D'oh!

So Witt was another Phil Nash on Usenet around the same time? Or were you never on Usenet.

[Encyclopedist]

I currently stand indicted, convicted, and due for sentence on charges of
"distributing indecent images of children" contrary to the Protection of
Children Act 1987. I have only pleaded guilty on legal advice on the basis that no
jury is likely to acquit me. Yet the images whereof I stand convicted are, by any
standard, simple nudity with no suggestion of sexual activity.

Typically Rod misses his wood for the trees. I think it's the distribution that's the particularly salient legal issue here old son, and the suggestion of sexual activity.

You people seem to be able to believe anything you read. However, if you examine the ArbCom thread with proper care, you'll note that they did not regard it as proved that "Witt" and I am the same person, and we are talking about a Usenet thread now twelve years old, and without headers that unequivocally link that posting to me. I deny that I have ever posted as "Witt", and you prove it if you can. Meanwhile, my solicitor is a good friend of mine from way back, and works weekends in urgent cases. Time, I think to put up or shut up.

I currently stand indicted, convicted, and due for sentence on charges of
"distributing indecent images of children" contrary to the Protection of
Children Act 1987. I have only pleaded guilty on legal advice on the basis that no
jury is likely to acquit me. Yet the images whereof I stand convicted are, by any
standard, simple nudity with no suggestion of sexual activity.

For reference, this quote is from <http://groups.google.com/group/uk.politics...1dd709b9a3072c1>. Clarifying, as this confused me for a minute.

I'll just add that I have no convictions beyond a couple of minor motoring when I was an improverished student in the early 1970s and should have checked my tyres for tread depth and had a nearside wing mirror. D'oh!

How am I supposed to answer that? I have no way of knowing. However, if you Google for "Phil Nash", or "Philip Nash", it's clearly not an uncommon name. I'm not the detective here, and I have nothing to prove, or more importantly, disprove. You can suspect all you like, but without evidence, there's nothing on stilts.