From: (Slim Virgin)
Date: Thu, 23 Aug 2007 19:39:15 -0500
Subject: [Arbcom-l] [Fwd: The Skinny on SlimVirgin's abusive
sockpuppetry]

Jimbo, I don't read WordBomb's website and I've stopped reading
Wikipedia Review because I find it very upsetting. I've also asked my
wikifriends not to tell me if those sites are saying anything about
me, so I have no idea what you're talking about, and I don't want to
have to pour through their nonsense to find out.

Would you please tell me what *your* exact concerns are? Not theirs,
but yours. I'm certainly willing to "come clean" as you put it,
because I haven't done anything I need to hide from you.

I hope you're bearing in mind that WordBomb (Judd Bagley) is insane
and very unpleasant, even worse than Brandt.

As for trying to avoid "publication," WordBomb publishes his various
allegations on his website, Wikipedia Review, and investors' websites
all the time. He's been threatening me with "publication" of some
terrible thing since mid-2006, and to this day I don't know what he
means. I've pasted one of his e-mails to me below, this one from 12
months ago, where he said "[his] plan is to present these data in a
rather high profile venue where you can't silence us." If he's not
managed to find a "high profile venue" in 12 months, he can't have
much of a story.

I recall he wrote a similar e-mail to you, accusing you of sockpuppetry.

Sarah

From: Becky Beckett
Date: Aug 28, 2006 2:44 AM
Subject: we need to talk.
To: Sarah


Slim,
As I'm sure you know by now, we've been doing some homework. And not
too long ago, we "cracked the code" you might say, on you and your
activities on WP. At this point, we have what I think is a complete
picture, including your various sockpuppets (several, including Jon513
and Szero, both of which were mentioned publicly yesterday I believe),
anonymous IPs (in London, Edinburgh, NYC, etc), proxies (many). You
get the idea. And you've done everything you've banned others for
doing. We have the diffs.

We also have long past wikidumps, which have been available for
download in their original form, complete with many since
"oversighted" pages nicely intact (talk about an oversight!).

All in all, Slim, it's very unlikely that you'll make it through this
one. Right now, our plan is to present these data in a rather high
profile venue where you can't silence us, so please just accept that
there's not much you can do, and Jimbo will find himself under a bit
of pressure to make changes, especially with what's afoot.

That said, I hope you understand that I don't have anything against
you per se. I have things I want, and you stand in the way, so I now
I'm removing you. At the same time, there's no reason we can't
co-exist under specific circumstances.

And that's what I want to discuss with you.

If I don't hear back, I'll assume you'd rather take your chances on
what's coming.

WordBomb
----------

From: (Timothy Titcomb)
Date: Thu, 23 Aug 2007 22:39:16 -0400
Subject: [Arbcom-l] [Fwd: The Skinny on SlimVirgin's abusive
sockpuppetry]

On Aug 23, 2007, at 10:25 PM, jayjg wrote:

> It wasn't a straight question

Jay, it was as straight a question as I know how to ask.

Paul August
-----------

From: charles.r.matthews
Date: Fri, 24 Aug 2007 8:46:22 +0100
Subject: [Arbcom-l] [Fwd: The Skinny on SlimVirgin's
abusive sockpuppetry]
Message-ID: <20070824074622.QCUI219.aamtaout01-winn.ispmail.ntl.com@smtp.ntlworld.com>

jayjg wrote

> On 8/23/07, charles.r.matthews wrote:
> > jayjg wrote
> >
> > > On 8/23/07, Timothy Titcomb wrote:
> > > >
> > > > On Aug 23, 2007, at 5:20 PM, jayjg wrote:
> > > >
> > > > > It is quite clear to me that there was a genuine and well-founded fear
> > > > > of stalking, including many attempts to discover her name and
> > > > > location. Subsequent events have borne that out, to an unprecedented
> > > > > degree. It is also clear that that was the primary issue and reason
> > > > > for asking for oversight. I can't really comment on the other, as I
> > > > > don't know anything about it.
> > > >
> > > > Jay, do you think all of your oversights of SlimVirgin's edits were
> > > > entirely appropriate and within policy?
> >
> > > Paul, do you think it is appropriate to oversight edits which
> > > personally identify an editor when it is clear that she has a genuine
> > > and well founded fear of stalking, including (but hardly restricted
> > > to) many attempts by scary and threatening individuals to discover her
> > > name and location?
> >
> > Err ... considering how many people on this list have already alluded to how serious a matter they consider this, do you really have to answer a straight question with a rhetorical one? You know, if it was all quite as simple as you make out (Brandt and cohorts are crazies - which is fair enough with me - so ends justify the means on WP, which is not what I think), you would not be having to write so many mails redefining the issues.
>
> It wasn't a straight question, it was premised on all sorts of
> assumptions, and I haven't been "writ[ing] so many mails redefining
> the issues." And my argument hasn't been that "the ends justifies the
> means" either.

You know, you are annoying me and possibly others here. Let's look at it, then. Paul asked this:

> > > > Jay, do you think all of your oversights of SlimVirgin's edits were
> > > > entirely appropriate and within policy?

This is a straight question. You could have answered 'Yes' to that. You have been arguing exactly that, I think.

"... it was premised on all sorts of assumptions..."

Bollocks. You were jumping to the conclusion it was loaded.

This is not wikien, and you can drop the tricks of advocacy here. They are more divisive than you imagine, I believe. We all have the mails to look at. We all have the Oversight policy to look at. We all have some potentially messy to look at. We all, I take it, have a stake in Wikipedia's basic integrity.

Charles
----------

From: (Matthew Brown)
Date: Fri, 24 Aug 2007 00:58:07 -0700
Subject: [Arbcom-l] [Fwd: The Skinny on SlimVirgin's abusive
sockpuppetry]

On 8/23/07, David Gerard <dgerard at gmail.com> wrote:
> FWIW: As an oversighter, I'd probably have zapped them in the
> circumstances for the reason stated, without worrying too deeply about
> them on an individual basis.

I have to agree with David here; I'd have likely oversighted them as
well, and probably would not have done any extensive investigation as
to the context. I would have read the contributions, of course.

-Matt
----------

From: (James Forrester)
Date: Fri, 24 Aug 2007 11:02:58 +0100
Subject: [Arbcom-l] [Fwd: The Skinny on SlimVirgin's abusive
sockpuppetry]

On 24/08/07, Matthew Brown wrote:
> On 8/23/07, David Gerard wrote:
> > FWIW: As an oversighter, I'd probably have zapped them in the
> > circumstances for the reason stated, without worrying too deeply about
> > them on an individual basis.
>
> I have to agree with David here; I'd have likely oversighted them as
> well, and probably would not have done any extensive investigation as
> to the context. I would have read the contributions, of course.

"Not worrying too deeply about them on an individual basis" is a
rather different thing from zapping all edits without reading them,
which is what appears to have occurred here. OTOH, I think Jay's
actions were entirely in good faith, despite them being violations of
policy, and I think that there is potential to see Jay as being a
victim of circumstance and confusion here.

Remember that when we use Oversight to conceal real, non-vandalism
edits, we violate the GFDL and potentially put the Foundation into hot
water. OS for vandalism is fine, and I only read such things to check
that I'm not being fooled by an idiot requester, but for content...
eurgh. I personally am very cautious when requests to OS come in, but
that's my nature anyway. :-)

Speaking from a PR point of view (internal PR as much as anything
else), the best thing to do would be for us to admit that the base of
the allegations, but not the hyperbole, are correct, and apologise for
this. I think we should probably restore the edits, given that their
secrecy has been entirely compromised, and so it merely works to
traduce our name and character without benefit.

I do not think we should chastise Slim for asking for the OS - I don't
think that she engineered Jay into hiding malfeasance. Jay should
consider his position in his own terms and as to how that affects the
Committee and the community, but that is something for him and him
alone; I will not give counsel.

Yours,
--
James D. Forrester
----------

From: (David Gerard)
Date: Fri, 24 Aug 2007 11:10:21 +0100
Subject: [Arbcom-l] [Fwd: The Skinny on SlimVirgin's abusive
sockpuppetry]

On 24/08/07, James Forrester wrote:

> I do not think we should chastise Slim for asking for the OS - I don't
> think that she engineered Jay into hiding malfeasance.


I would agree (FWIW). Having nutcases this persistent after one is ...
a really special experience. Slim hasn't done anything warranting the
sort of rubbish she gets from this class of sociopathic troll.


> Jay should
> consider his position in his own terms and as to how that affects the
> Committee and the community, but that is something for him and him
> alone; I will not give counsel.


I don't think Jay has done anything wrong, and indeed the edit-hiding
is IMO arguably within oversight policy, i.e. information too
dangerous or sensitive to be accessible even to admins. (Though also
arguably not, of course.)

On a personal level I'd wonder at the point of the information hiding
to this extent. I've had such persistent crazies after me before and
at a certain point I said "this is me, fuck you," got on with doing
what I was doing and left them to discredit themselves. Mind you, I
still don't widely advertise my home address or employer.


- d.
----------

From: charles.r.matthews
Date: Fri, 24 Aug 2007 14:32:45 +0100
Subject: [Arbcom-l] [Fwd: The Skinny on SlimVirgin's
abusive sockpuppetry]

"James Forrester" wrote

> Speaking from a PR point of view (internal PR as much as anything
> else), the best thing to do would be for us to admit that the base of
> the allegations, but not the hyperbole, are correct, and apologise for
> this.

Mmm, I could have been clearer about PR. What I meant, really, is that I was asked to talk to ABC about Essjay at a few minutes notice, and if I hadn't been able to talk to Sandra in the Office about the party line, damage might have been added to rather than limited. 'Press release' is really the shorthand for having the story half-written and fully spun.

Where are we? I think four points.

(A) The oversighting in question is arguably within normal practice.
(B) We all support the idea that WP's editors are entitled to edit without any private information being revealed, and that Oversight is properly used to support that entitlement.
© The ArbCom is now satisfied that the content of the oversighted edits, in relation to any possible Arbitration matters, has been taken into account.

Leaves:

(D) Call in a Steward. Formally, since it seems clear that we (Arbs) are not agreed on whether Jayjg's status as Oversighter needs to change, we can refer the matter to an uninvolved Steward (per Wikipedia:Oversight). This would be to settle a specific point: whether the oversighted edits contained bad-faith sockpuppet edits, and if so whether any action need follow.

Charles
-----------

From: (jayjg)
Date: Fri, 24 Aug 2007 09:35:39 -0400
Subject: [Arbcom-l] [Fwd: The Skinny on SlimVirgin's abusive
sockpuppetry]

On 8/24/07, charles.r.matthews wrote:
> jayjg wrote
>
> > On 8/23/07, charles.r.matthews wrote:
> > > jayjg wrote
> > >
> > > > On 8/23/07, Timothy Titcomb wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > On Aug 23, 2007, at 5:20 PM, jayjg wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > > It is quite clear to me that there was a genuine and well-founded fear
> > > > > > of stalking, including many attempts to discover her name and
> > > > > > location. Subsequent events have borne that out, to an unprecedented
> > > > > > degree. It is also clear that that was the primary issue and reason
> > > > > > for asking for oversight. I can't really comment on the other, as I
> > > > > > don't know anything about it.
> > > > >
> > > > > Jay, do you think all of your oversights of SlimVirgin's edits were
> > > > > entirely appropriate and within policy?
> > >
> > > > Paul, do you think it is appropriate to oversight edits which
> > > > personally identify an editor when it is clear that she has a genuine
> > > > and well founded fear of stalking, including (but hardly restricted
> > > > to) many attempts by scary and threatening individuals to discover her
> > > > name and location?
> > >
> > > Err ... considering how many people on this list have already alluded to how serious a matter they consider this, do you really have to answer a straight question with a rhetorical one? You know, if it was all quite as simple as you make out (Brandt and cohorts are crazies - which is fair enough with me - so ends justify the means on WP, which is not what I think), you would not be having to write so many mails redefining the issues.
> >
> > It wasn't a straight question, it was premised on all sorts of
> > assumptions, and I haven't been "writ[ing] so many mails redefining
> > the issues." And my argument hasn't been that "the ends justifies the
> > means" either.
>
> You know, you are annoying me and possibly others here. Let's look at it, then. Paul asked this:
>
> > > > > Jay, do you think all of your oversights of SlimVirgin's edits were
> > > > > entirely appropriate and within policy?
>
> This is a straight question. You could have answered 'Yes' to that. You have been arguing exactly that, I think.

There's a context to everything though, isn't there? One cannot
"reframe" questions unless they have a frame to begin with. And I
reject that initial framing.

But if you want more direct: Under the circumstances *of course* the
oversights were appropriate.

>
> "... it was premised on all sorts of assumptions..."
>
> Bollocks. You were jumping to the conclusion it was loaded.

Not really; among many other things, there have been
accusations/insunations of conflict of interest, and unwarranted use
of oversight to conceal evidence of bad behavior - that behavior
consisting either of "bringing external conflicts onto Wikipedia" or
sockpuppeting.

> This is not wikien, and you can drop the tricks of advocacy here. They are more divisive
> than you imagine, I believe. We all have the mails to look at. We all have the Oversight
> policy to look at. We all have some potentially messy to look at. We all, I take it, have a
> stake in Wikipedia's basic integrity.

Well, here's the "crisis" we're trying to deal with; it appears that
when SlimVirgin first started editing *three years ago* she tried out
several accounts, before eventually settling on the SlimVirgin
account. The other accounts were used extremely rarely, and certainly
not used actively in over 2.5 years. In 2006 SV started being stalked
by some sociopathic individuals *purely as a result of her supporting
the activities and principles of Wikipedia*. It's not the heirs or
friends of Pierre Salinger (if they exist) who are upset with here,
it's people who have been banned from Wikipedia for extremely bad
behavior, and are looking for ways of discrediting it or destroying
it. In response to this stalking, SV asked that some personally
identifying edits, including edits from her IP, be oversighted, which
is one of the main things oversight was designed for. I oversighted
those edits. Since then those sociopathic individuals have continued
their "outing" crusade against SlimVirgin (among others), hoping to
pin some sort of malefeasance of any sort on her. They've now got
their "smoking gun"; when she first started editing 3 years ago she
wrote some negative (but in all likelihood true) things about Pierre
Salinger, and she probably used an alternate account for a couple of
dozen edits. I'm surprised the New York Times hasn't used this as its
front page lead today.

This is Judd Bagley et al we're talking about here, and just the
latest in a long sequence of "smoking guns" they've "discovered",
including all sorts of sockpuppet claims. Judd even claimed to have
discovered that Jimbo himself was sockpuppeting. I don't know whether
to laugh or weep at the seriousness being accorded their spin.
-----------

From: (jayjg)
Date: Fri, 24 Aug 2007 09:44:34 -0400
Subject: [Arbcom-l] [Fwd: The Skinny on SlimVirgin's abusive
sockpuppetry]

On 8/24/07, David Gerard wrote:
> On 24/08/07, James Forrester wrote:
>
> > I do not think we should chastise Slim for asking for the OS - I don't
> > think that she engineered Jay into hiding malfeasance.
>
>
> I would agree (FWIW). Having nutcases this persistent after one is ...
> a really special experience. Slim hasn't done anything warranting the
> sort of rubbish she gets from this class of sociopathic troll.
>
>
> > Jay should
> > consider his position in his own terms and as to how that affects the
> > Committee and the community, but that is something for him and him
> > alone; I will not give counsel.
>
>
> I don't think Jay has done anything wrong, and indeed the edit-hiding
> is IMO arguably within oversight policy, i.e. information too
> dangerous or sensitive to be accessible even to admins. (Though also
> arguably not, of course.)
>
> On a personal level I'd wonder at the point of the information hiding
> to this extent. I've had such persistent crazies after me before and
> at a certain point I said "this is me, fuck you," got on with doing
> what I was doing and left them to discredit themselves. Mind you, I
> still don't widely advertise my home address or employer.

Well, you're not a woman, for one thing, who might find some of the
threats made on WR particularly by Scott Grayban, to be extremely
unsettling. In addition, the sheer volume of nasty accusations being
alleged regarding "SlimVirgin" might well make her effectively
unemployable, were they attached to her real name; and that's a very
serious, real-world consequence. And keep in mind, these are people
who went as far as calling up people they think are her old work
colleagues and boyfriends from 20 years ago in an attempt to out her;
that's seriously disturbed.
-----------

From: (jayjg)
Date: Fri, 24 Aug 2007 09:52:24 -0400
Subject: [Arbcom-l] [Fwd: The Skinny on SlimVirgin's abusive
sockpuppetry]

On 8/24/07, charles.r.matthews wrote:
> "James Forrester" wrote
>
> > Speaking from a PR point of view (internal PR as much as anything
> > else), the best thing to do would be for us to admit that the base of
> > the allegations, but not the hyperbole, are correct, and apologise for
> > this.
>
> Mmm, I could have been clearer about PR. What I meant, really, is that I was asked to talk to ABC about Essjay at a few minutes notice, and if I hadn't been able to talk to Sandra in the Office about the party line, damage might have been added to rather than limited. 'Press release' is really the shorthand for having the story half-written and fully spun.
>
> Where are we? I think four points.
>
> (A) The oversighting in question is arguably within normal practice.
> (B) We all support the idea that WP's editors are entitled to edit without any private information being revealed, and that Oversight is properly used to support that entitlement.
> © The ArbCom is now satisfied that the content of the oversighted edits, in relation to any possible Arbitration matters, has been taken into account.
>
> Leaves:
>
> (D) Call in a Steward. Formally, since it seems clear that we (Arbs) are not agreed on whether Jayjg's status as Oversighter needs to change, we can refer the matter to an uninvolved Steward (per Wikipedia:Oversight). This would be to settle a specific point: whether the oversighted edits contained bad-faith sockpuppet edits, and if so whether any action need follow.
>

Charles, here's a direct question for you; is it in any way clear or
obvious that those oversighted edits on the Talk:Leifern page were
supposed to have come been made by "Sweet Blue Water", rather than
"SlimVirgin"? Had someone come to you, and said "This is my IP,
Wikipedia logged me out a few times and exposed my IP, could you
please oversight the edits I made while logged out?" would *you* have
gone back to the conversation from over a year before, and attempted
to reconstruct the chain of events that led to that comment being left
on that Talk: page? Or would you just have assumed that this was a
comment made by "SlimVirgin" while logged out?
-----------

From: (Kirill Lokshin)
Date: Fri, 24 Aug 2007 11:10:51 -0400
Subject: [Arbcom-l] [Fwd: The Skinny on SlimVirgin's abusive
sockpuppetry]

On 8/24/07, jayjg wrote:
> Charles, here's a direct question for you; is it in any way clear or
> obvious that those oversighted edits on the Talk:Leifern page were
> supposed to have come been made by "Sweet Blue Water", rather than
> "SlimVirgin"? Had someone come to you, and said "This is my IP,
> Wikipedia logged me out a few times and exposed my IP, could you
> please oversight the edits I made while logged out?" would *you* have
> gone back to the conversation from over a year before, and attempted
> to reconstruct the chain of events that led to that comment being left
> on that Talk: page? Or would you just have assumed that this was a
> comment made by "SlimVirgin" while logged out?

Had the question only been one of removing IP edits, your take on it
would be reasonable; but it wasn't. You oversighted a number of
non-IP edits -- essentially all of Slimv's editing history, for one --
at the same time. Had the only intent been a concealment of an
exposed IP address, this would have been entirely unnecessary.

In all honesty, I don't know what exactly SV asked you to do, or how
she framed her request; but it's clear from the result that it was
more complex than "could you please oversight the edits I made while
logged out".

Kirill
-----------

From: (charles.r.matthews)
Date: Fri, 24 Aug 2007 16:20:19 +0100
Subject: [Arbcom-l] [Fwd: The Skinny on SlimVirgin's
abusive sockpuppetry]

jayjg wrote

> There's a context to everything though, isn't there? One cannot
> "reframe" questions unless they have a frame to begin with. And I
> reject that initial framing.
>
> But if you want more direct: Under the circumstances *of course* the
> oversights were appropriate.

And within policy? You see, some people actually believe that policy for tools such as Oversight is not to be treated as a matter of convenience, IAR, call it what you will. It is taken as read that you thought they were justified.

> > "... it was premised on all sorts of assumptions..."
> >
> > Bollocks. You were jumping to the conclusion it was loaded.
>
> Not really; among many other things, there have been
> accusations/insunations of conflict of interest, and unwarranted use
> of oversight to conceal evidence of bad behavior - that behavior
> consisting either of "bringing external conflicts onto Wikipedia" or
> sockpuppeting.

Oh, just leave it to the modern sophists to come out with this sort of thing. Or perhaps I have been corrupted, as Paul has, by the study of mathematics. Less experience of weasel words such as 'yes', 'no', 'true' and so on, you see. How they can be 'taken out of context'. Deconstruct away, but actually straight answers work better.

> > This is not wikien, and you can drop the tricks of advocacy here. They are more divisive
> > than you imagine, I believe. We all have the mails to look at. We all have the Oversight
> > policy to look at. We all have some potentially messy to look at. We all, I take it, have a
> > stake in Wikipedia's basic integrity.

> Well, here's the "crisis" we're trying to deal with; it appears that
> when SlimVirgin first started editing *three years ago* she tried out
> several accounts, before eventually settling on the SlimVirgin
> account. The other accounts were used extremely rarely, and certainly
> not used actively in over 2.5 years. In 2006 SV started being stalked
> by some sociopathic individuals *purely as a result of her supporting
> the activities and principles of Wikipedia*. It's not the heirs or
> friends of Pierre Salinger (if they exist) who are upset with here,
> it's people who have been banned from Wikipedia for extremely bad
> behavior, and are looking for ways of discrediting it or destroying
> it.

Quite right. Brandt certainly wants to discredit Wikipedia. I have no further insight into his thought processes, but it seems that whether WP has an article on him, or not, is hardly a concern of his, as long as some leverage comes from that. I assume this instrumentalism applies across the board.

>In response to this stalking, SV asked that some personally
> identifying edits, including edits from her IP, be oversighted, which
> is one of the main things oversight was designed for. I oversighted
> those edits. Since then those sociopathic individuals have continued
> their "outing" crusade against SlimVirgin (among others), hoping to
> pin some sort of malefeasance of any sort on her. They've now got
> their "smoking gun"; when she first started editing 3 years ago she
> wrote some negative (but in all likelihood true) things about Pierre
> Salinger, and she probably used an alternate account for a couple of
> dozen edits. I'm surprised the New York Times hasn't used this as its
> front page lead today.
>
> This is Judd Bagley et al we're talking about here, and just the
> latest in a long sequence of "smoking guns" they've "discovered",
> including all sorts of sockpuppet claims. Judd even claimed to have
> discovered that Jimbo himself was sockpuppeting. I don't know whether
> to laugh or weep at the seriousness being accorded their spin.

Yes, but the point at issue is not really how to fight these people, but how to ensure that Wikipedia is _not_discredited in the process. Laugh or weep is up to you, but I actually made the point a short while ago in a private email that oversighting is giving a hostage to fortune, if someone else has already noted the diffs and recorded them. Give Brandt credit for doing something like that, and we get a distinctly worse picture. A cover-up! Such a well-known riff and so useful to anyone who really does want to get at Wikipedia's reputation.

Charles
-----------

From: (charles.r.matthews)
Date: Fri, 24 Aug 2007 16:43:51 +0100
Subject: [Arbcom-l] [Fwd: The Skinny on SlimVirgin's
abusive sockpuppetry]

jayjg wrote

> Charles, here's a direct question for you; is it in any way clear or
> obvious that those oversighted edits on the Talk:Leifern page were
> supposed to have come been made by "Sweet Blue Water", rather than
> "SlimVirgin"? Had someone come to you, and said "This is my IP,
> Wikipedia logged me out a few times and exposed my IP, could you
> please oversight the edits I made while logged out?" would *you* have
> gone back to the conversation from over a year before, and attempted
> to reconstruct the chain of events that led to that comment being left
> on that Talk: page? Or would you just have assumed that this was a
> comment made by "SlimVirgin" while logged out?

"Direct question". In other words two questions, the second hypothetical. If the first should read "...were supposed to have been made...", it still reads like an odd exercise from a modal logic book to me.

Answers:

(i) I don't know whether it is "in any way clear or obvious"?

(ii) I should say that I'm not experienced at Oversight. I think I've used the power just once. I'm quite willing to be guided by David or Matthew as to 'normal practice'. Which of course may differ from 'best practice'. I would certainly have slowed down at this point and wondered what I was doing. The appropriate policy speaks of

"Removal of nonpublic personal information such as phone numbers, home addresses, workplaces or identities of pseudonymous or anonymous individuals who have not made their identity public."

And

"Oversight is for material that should not be available even to an admin."

Charles
----------

From: (David Gerard)
Date: Fri, 24 Aug 2007 17:00:05 +0100
Subject: [Arbcom-l] [Fwd: The Skinny on SlimVirgin's abusive
sockpuppetry]

On 24/08/07, charles.r.matthews wrote:

> (ii) I should say that I'm not experienced at Oversight. I think I've used the power just once. I'm quite willing to be guided by David or Matthew as to 'normal practice'. Which of course may differ from 'best practice'.


*cough* Well, it may ...


> I would certainly have slowed down at this point and wondered what I was doing. The appropriate policy speaks of
> "Removal of nonpublic personal information such as phone numbers, home addresses, workplaces or identities of pseudonymous or anonymous individuals who have not made their identity public."
> And
> "Oversight is for material that should not be available even to an admin."


Remember that Oversight exists because deleted info was clearly
leaking to Wikipedia Review / WikiTruth, i.e. via an admin. The
SlimVirgin harassment material arguably (as I noted before) may fall
into this class.


- d.
----------

From: (Jimmy Wales)
Date: Fri, 24 Aug 2007 12:07:45 -0400
Subject: [Arbcom-l] [Fwd: The Skinny on SlimVirgin's abusive
sockpuppetry]

Well, SV, if you could please just visit the link in question.

It contains what appears to be a pretty clear confirmation of sockpuppetry:
http://antisocialmedia.net/?p=115

Sweet Water Blue

I need either an equally compelling analysis showing how his argument is
mistaken... a flat public denial... or a confession. Or something.

Slim Virgin wrote:
> Jimbo, I don't read WordBomb's website and I've stopped reading
----------

From: charles.r.matthews
Date: Fri, 24 Aug 2007 17:08:41 +0100
Subject: [Arbcom-l] [Fwd: The Skinny on SlimVirgin's
abusive sockpuppetry]

"David Gerard" wrote

> Remember that Oversight exists because deleted info was clearly
> leaking to Wikipedia Review / WikiTruth, i.e. via an admin. The
> SlimVirgin harassment material arguably (as I noted before) may fall
> into this class.

Sure. I noted that at least this arguability seems to be common ground, in a previous mail. Since it is plausibly argued, it is "arguable". Perhaps you'd like to read the previous chapter of the Ayers-Matthews treatise on Wikipedia (ie the one before the one I sent you), where in a masterly turn of phrase it is pointed out that WP policy is path-dependent? You have to know why the policy was written, to know what everyone thinks it means. This is just such a case.

Charles
-----------

From: (jayjg)
Date: Fri, 24 Aug 2007 12:21:16 -0400
Subject: [Arbcom-l] [Fwd: The Skinny on SlimVirgin's abusive
sockpuppetry]

On 8/24/07, Kirill Lokshin wrote:
> On 8/24/07, jayjg wrote:
> > Charles, here's a direct question for you; is it in any way clear or
> > obvious that those oversighted edits on the Talk:Leifern page were
> > supposed to have come been made by "Sweet Blue Water", rather than
> > "SlimVirgin"? Had someone come to you, and said "This is my IP,
> > Wikipedia logged me out a few times and exposed my IP, could you
> > please oversight the edits I made while logged out?" would *you* have
> > gone back to the conversation from over a year before, and attempted
> > to reconstruct the chain of events that led to that comment being left
> > on that Talk: page? Or would you just have assumed that this was a
> > comment made by "SlimVirgin" while logged out?
>
> Had the question only been one of removing IP edits, your take on it
> would be reasonable; but it wasn't. You oversighted a number of
> non-IP edits -- essentially all of Slimv's editing history, for one --
> at the same time. Had the only intent been a concealment of an
> exposed IP address, this would have been entirely unnecessary.

But the *accusation* is that the IP edits were oversighted to conceal
a "Sweet Blue Water" sockpuppet. How does "Slimv" factor into that?

>
> In all honesty, I don't know what exactly SV asked you to do, or how
> she framed her request; but it's clear from the result that it was
> more complex than "could you please oversight the edits I made while
> logged out".

Of course, it was more than just the IP edits she wanted oversighted.
But again, this "crisis" was supposed to be about concealing a
sockpuppet, not other issues which, I might add, were already
discussed at length in the past, soon after they were made.
Malice's note: Translation - You can't get me for that because nobody outside this cabal knows about it.
----------

From: (jayjg)
Date: Fri, 24 Aug 2007 12:23:52 -0400
Subject: [Arbcom-l] [Fwd: The Skinny on SlimVirgin's abusive
sockpuppetry]

On 8/24/07, charles.r.matthews wrote:
> jayjg wrote
>
> > There's a context to everything though, isn't there? One cannot
> > "reframe" questions unless they have a frame to begin with. And I
> > reject that initial framing.
> >
> > But if you want more direct: Under the circumstances *of course* the
> > oversights were appropriate.
>
> And within policy? You see, some people actually believe that policy for tools such
> as Oversight is not to be treated as a matter of convenience, IAR, call it what you will.
> It is taken as read that you thought they were justified.

Oversighting revealed IPs or other personally identifying information?
It's what oversight was designed to do.
----------

From: (jayjg)
Date: Fri, 24 Aug 2007 12:30:01 -0400
Subject: [Arbcom-l] [Fwd: The Skinny on SlimVirgin's abusive
sockpuppetry]

On 8/24/07, Jimmy Wales wrote:
> Well, SV, if you could please just visit the link in question.
>
> It contains what appears to be a pretty clear confirmation of sockpuppetry:
> http://antisocialmedia.net/?p=115

Jimbo, I don't think it's a good idea to suggest people visit Judd
Bagley's website; he's well-known for nasty tricks involving capturing
IPs.

>
> Sweet Water Blue
>
> I need either an equally compelling analysis showing how his argument is
> mistaken... a flat public denial... or a confession. Or something.

What's the difference? Why is it important? It was an account that
made a couple of dozen edits almost 3 years ago, when SlimVirgin first
started editing. Do you think anyone, outside of Judd's buddies, will
think this really is newsworthy? If it's confirmed, what would the New
York Times headline be:
"Revealed: One of Wikipedia's 1000 administrators used a second
account for making a few edits 3 years ago!!!"
Malice's note: Cue superhero music from a kid's cartoon "Jayjg to the rescue!"
----------

From: (Josh Gordon)
Date: Fri, 24 Aug 2007 09:33:32 -0700
Subject: [Arbcom-l] [Fwd: The Skinny on SlimVirgin's abusive
sockpuppetry]

I guess I'm just clueless. I can't understand why there's a fuss here.

Yes, Slim used sockpuppets, three years ago, in a way she shouldn't have.

In the process, she inadvertently disclosed her home IP or something of the
sort.

In an apparently vain attempt to suppress this personally identifying
information, Jay oversighted some entries.

I think it's better to err on the side of protecting members of our
community, regardless of the fallout. Perhaps I am naive.


--
--jpgordon ????
----------

From: charles.r.matthews
Date: Fri, 24 Aug 2007 17:34:42 +0100
Subject: [Arbcom-l] [Fwd: The Skinny on SlimVirgin's
abusive sockpuppetry]

jayjg wrote

> Oversighting revealed IPs or other personally identifying information?
> It's what oversight was designed to do.

Quite possibly. But aren't you still ducking the point, about what the _policy_ is? If the policy were drawn up to include a concept of revealed IPs, your point would be clear. It doesn't. This could of course be a flaw in the drafting of the policy. In which case, I suppose, we'd be better off if it did mention revealed IPs.

Charles
----------

From: (David Gerard)
Date: Fri, 24 Aug 2007 17:37:06 +0100
Subject: [Arbcom-l] [Fwd: The Skinny on SlimVirgin's abusive
sockpuppetry]

On 24/08/07, charles.r.matthews wrote:
> jayjg wrote

> > Oversighting revealed IPs or other personally identifying information?
> > It's what oversight was designed to do.

> Quite possibly. But aren't you still ducking the point, about what the _policy_ is? If the policy were drawn up to include a concept of revealed IPs, your point would be clear. It doesn't. This could of course be a flaw in the drafting of the policy. In which case, I suppose, we'd be better off if it did mention revealed IPs.


We've always gone by "information so sensitive not even admins should
be able to see it", that including personal info and so forth. We've
generally assumed that to include revealed IPs.


- d.
----------

From: charles.r.matthews
Date: Fri, 24 Aug 2007 17:38:29 +0100
Subject: [Arbcom-l] [Fwd: The Skinny on SlimVirgin's
abusive sockpuppetry]

jayjg wrote

> What's the difference? Why is it important?

Hey, Jay! There another J here, Jimmy Wales. You may remember him best for his role in founding Wikipedia, the online encyclopedia.

Really, who died and gave you the job of deciding what is and isn't important for Jimbo to know in relation to SlimVirgin or anything else? Jeez.

Charles
----------

From: (Josh Gordon)
Date: Fri, 24 Aug 2007 09:38:50 -0700
Subject: [Arbcom-l] [Fwd: The Skinny on SlimVirgin's abusive
sockpuppetry]

On 8/24/07, David Gerard wrote:
>
> We've always gone by "information so sensitive not even admins should
> be able to see it", that including personal info and so forth. We've
> generally assumed that to include revealed IPs.


Indeed; one must assume that the sensitivities of checkuser are a subset of
the sensitivities dealt with by oversight. It makes little sense to have the
checkuser rules regarding disclosure, otherwise.

--
--jpgordon ????