Printable Version of Topic

Posted by: MaliceAforethought

From: (Risker)
Date: Mon, 3 Aug 2009 17:28:09 +0000
Subject: [arbcom-en-b] URGENT - Jimbo-Bishonen case - proposing a "hold
everything" position

Well, folks - with FT2 going about opening the RFC against Bishonen, this
situation has gone to Hades in a handbasket. If we decline the case, it's
likely that evidence will be adduced at the RFC that we will be bashed for
ignoring if we proceed with just this motion. One of the desired outcomes
is for Jimmy to have the opportunity to reconsider his pledge to cease use
of the block button, which I suspect is one of the main motivators for the
RFC.

The same problem arises if we open a case now while the RFC is running;
information is being collated at a separate forum and would need to be
considered prior to opening a case. It wouldn't surprise me if someone
formally opens an RFC against Jimmy within the next day or so.

In addition, we have Jimmy leaving on holiday imminently and not being
available to participate if we open a case, or if someone starts an RFC.

I propose that we formally put this RFAR into a holding pattern for at least
a week until we see where the RFC goes.

My own previously expressed preference that we not have a full case has been
wavering very badly in the last few days; I still am uncomfortable with the
idea that Arbcom will delineate Jimmy's role, but there are just way too
many behavioural issues (on the part of a whole pile of people) to hope that
the current motion is going to solve anything.

Please note - we must make a decision on this quite quickly, we are now in
the unenviable position of having a motion passed and ready to enact within
about 18 hours, while also having a majority of active committee members
voting to open a case.

Risker
----------

From: (Carcharoth)
Date: Mon, 3 Aug 2009 18:34:25 +0100
Subject: [arbcom-en-b] URGENT - Jimbo-Bishonen case - proposing a "hold
everything" position

> Please note - we must make a decision on this quite quickly, we are now in
> the unenviable position of having a motion passed and ready to enact within
> about 18 hours, while also having a majority of active committee members
> voting to open a case.

That requires people to say whether they are accepting to decide by
motion (which has happened before) or declining to deal with by
motion, or rejecting entirely, or accepting entirely.

I suspect it is possible to deal with part of this by motion, and
accept other parts for a full case. That might be silly, though.

My view is that we need to ruthlessly *separate* out the issues, and
shout at the people who are insisting on conflating everything into
one enormous case that would presumably involve Geogre, Risker,
Durova, FT2, Bishonen, Jimmy and goodness knows who else (sorry to
mention you again, there, Risker).

We may also need to find out what this other evidence is that John is
talking about.

So, yes, I agree, hold for now, OR, ride out the storm.

Carcharoth
----------

From: (Fayssal F.)
Date: Mon, 3 Aug 2009 17:58:29 +0000
Subject: [arbcom-en-b] URGENT - Jimbo-Bishonen case - proposing a "hold
everything" position

I am a bit confused. Which case are we talking about? Forgive my ignorance.

Fayssal F.
----------

From: (Fayssal F.)
Date: Mon, 3 Aug 2009 19:25:32 +0000
Subject: [arbcom-en-b] URGENT - Jimbo-Bishonen case - proposing a "hold
everything" position

I sent an e-mail to Bishonen telling her that I can only accept a full case
if there is evidence of any old feuds. She said that there is no real fued
but said all that she knows is that Jimmy and Giano dislike eachother. I am
done with the present case as it is presented now.

Fayssal F.

On Mon, Aug 3, 2009 at 6:41 PM, Risker wrote:

> Fayssal, this is about the case currently on RFAR *requests for a case*.
>
> Risker
>
> On 03/08/2009, Fayssal F. wrote:
> > I am a bit confused. Which case are we talking about? Forgive my
> ignorance.
----------

From: (Risker)
Date: Sat, 22 Aug 2009 04:41:49 +0000
Subject: [arbcom-en-b] Jimbo and checkuser

For those of you about to start your break, and those of you well into it,
this is something to ponder. It seems that Jimmy decided to do a checkuser
on [[User:David Tombe]] (who posted to Jimbo's talk page), after reading a
related ANI report where someone alleged that IP edits made to the thread
about [[User:David Tombe]] were indeed Tombe himself. Prior to Jimmy's CU,
two editors were quite adamant that the IPs involved were *not* Tombe, who
was known to edit from the UK due to previously logged out edits. The IPs
whose posts were reverted on ANI were from the US.

Here is Jimbo's checkuser log:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:CheckUser/Log?cuSearchType=initiator&cuSearch=Jimbo+Wales&year=&month=-1&cuSearchSubmit=%C2%A0%C2%A0Search%C2%A0%C2%A0

I can more or less live with Jimmy's self-checks, but actively checkusering
someone who posts on his page before responding to him, under the aegis of a
"legitimate" question at ANI that had already been discounted, really is not
up to the standards we expect of our checkusers.

Tombe had also posted to my talk page yesterday and I was delaying a
response to him because I didn't want to get in the middle of this one; it
could easily head our way, either as an unblock/unban request or a full
case.

Thoughts?

Risker/Anne
----------

From: (John Vandenberg)
Date: Sat, 22 Aug 2009 18:55:14 +1000
Subject: [arbcom-en-b] Jimbo and checkuser

On Sat, Aug 22, 2009 at 2:41 PM, Risker<risker.wp at gmail.com> wrote:
> For those of you about to start your break, and those of you well into it,
> this is something to ponder.? It seems that Jimmy decided to do a checkuser
> on [[User:David Tombe]] (who posted to Jimbo's talk page), after reading a
> related ANI report where someone alleged that IP edits made to the thread
> about [[User:David Tombe]] were indeed Tombe himself. Prior to Jimmy's CU,
> two editors were quite adamant that the IPs involved were *not* Tombe, who
> was known to edit from the UK due to previously logged out edits. The IPs
> whose posts were reverted on ANI were from the US.

It looks like there havent been any comments since then; here is ANI
at the time that Jimmy ran the CU.

https://secure.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Incidents&action=history&offset=20090822021305

> Here is Jimbo's checkuser log:
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:CheckUser/Log?cuSearchType=initiator&cuSearch=Jimbo+Wales&year=&month=-1&cuSearchSubmit=%C2%A0%C2%A0Search%C2%A0%C2%A0
>
> I can more or less live with Jimmy's self-checks, but actively checkusering
> someone who posts on his page before responding to him, under the aegis of a
> "legitimate" question at ANI that had already been discounted, really is not
> up to the standards we expect of our checkusers.

It isnt good. "training myself" is not a good reason to check
someone, and it isnt a legitimate question. Irrespective of whether
the check was necessary, we should make a point that the CU log entry
should be accurate.

--
John Vandenberg
-----------

From: (Randy Everette)
Date: Sat, 22 Aug 2009 07:26:19 -0400
Subject: [arbcom-en-b] Jimbo and checkuser

It is concerning.

r/
Randy Everette
----------

From: (Fayssal F.)
Date: Sat, 22 Aug 2009 12:18:45 +0000
Subject: [arbcom-en-b] Jimbo and checkuser

'training himself' or the whole checking in itself? and why?
Fayssal F.

On Sat, Aug 22, 2009 at 11:26 AM, Randy Everette wrote:

> It is concerning.
----------

From: (Cas Liber)
Date: Sat, 22 Aug 2009 22:39:37 -0700 (PDT)
Subject: [arbcom-en-b] Jimbo and checkuser

what a mess. In Tombe I see hints of Abd - these walls of text which frustrate other editors greatly.

Yeah, not happy either but to the point where we want to take action? Not sure. We can give it to the AUSC, wonder what Thatcher will think.I

Cas
----------

From: (Fayssal F.)
Date: Sun, 23 Aug 2009 14:35:27 +0000
Subject: [arbcom-en-b] Jimbo and checkuser

This is why we have AUSC. I don't understand why ArbCom should deal with
stuff like this directly.
Fayssal F.

On Sun, Aug 23, 2009 at 5:39 AM, Cas Liber wrote:

> what a mess. In Tombe I see hints of Abd - these walls of text
-----------

From: (Carcharoth)
Date: Mon, 24 Aug 2009 02:56:01 +0100
Subject: [arbcom-en-b] Jimbo and checkuser

Feels like passing the buck, but yeah, let's see what AUSC think.

They may just pass the buck back to us.

Carcharoth
----------

From: (Carcharoth)
Date: Mon, 24 Aug 2009 11:11:48 +0100
Subject: [arbcom-en-b] Jimbo and checkuser

[brought this back on-list - does something need to be set to "reply
to list" on that list?]

Yes, but they are still a subcommittee. The full committee would still
have to endorse their conclusions and deal with any appeals. I think
we can still ask them to prepare a report on something like this, but
they are unlikely to feel like they can issue any warnings or
remedies, maybe only pass recommendations to us.

Risker, I think you are on AUSC, aren't you. Did you come here rather
than there for the reasons I stated above, or was it something else?
Maybe the possibility that this needs to be treated holistically, as a
whole, with other considerations?

Carcharoth

On Mon, Aug 24, 2009 at 3:08 AM, Cas Liber wrote:
> I know, but isn't review of checkuser and oversight tools exactly their brief?
> Cas

Posted by: SpiderAndWeb

Was Jimbo's abuse of CU ever even mentioned on-wiki?

At least as a result of this incident, he "promised" to never use the block button again... http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Log&page=User:196.212.0.35&type=block. What a joke.

Posted by: No one of consequence

It's been a long time, but I don't think this was ever referred to AUSC, and this is the first I can remember hearing about it.

Of course, Jimbo would not be the only person to run a CU against someone who posted to his talk page.

Posted by: chrisoff

What's this about? Why is Risker mixed up in just about everything?

I want to know how Risker/Bishonen/Geogre are related. Do the emails clear that up?

Posted by: Kelly Martin

Risker is a political junkie, so she puts her finger into every controversial pie. She seeks out and amplifies drama by her very nature.

Posted by: Ottava

I support Jimbo's CUing of an IP on his user talk page, but I support it for CUing IPs in general or having a bot that automatically compares IPs for potential socking. I loathe that people log out to ask questions that they want to hide from any ramifications of. I don't care how someone tries to say it is necessary.

Posted by: MaliceAforethought

We have a winner! Seriously, Risker shows up on the list at a rate 10 times higher than the other idiots put together (except maybe NYB).

Posted by: RMHED

You would've been right at home in the old DDR.

Posted by: Giano

I've always assumed that all the CUs check out of pure curiousity when they are bored or have nothing better to do, that has certainly been my experience of them. I kow that Gerard has checked me a few times without justification.

Giacomo

Posted by: RMHED

Given Risker's age, her James Blunt obsession and her likely boredom with her job is it any wonder she seems to love the arbcom attention. When she's not being a drama whore she's most likely wearing out the batteries of her vibrator.

Posted by: lonza leggiera

The account JW checkusered in this incident appears to have been that of a logged-in user (viz. David Tombe) rather than just that of an IP. https://secure.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/wiki/User_talk:Jimbo_Wales/Archive_49#Topic_Ban_following_non-involvement the discussion which apparently induced JW to do it.

Posted by: David Tombe

Regarding the checkuser in August 2009, the sequence of events was triggered off because I was suggesting on the talk page of the "Speed of Light" article that the significance of the speed of light, as was revealed in James Clerk-Maxwell's 1861 paper "On Physical Lines of Force", was being played down in the main article. At the request of an opposing editor, an administrator unilaterally imposed a page ban, even though it was outside his remit to do so. I therefore asked Jimbo Wales to look into what appeared to be an administrative abuse. Mr. Wales submitted an appeal on my behalf to the arbitration committee. I have no idea why Mr. Wales decided to do a checkuser in the circumstances, but from reading the leaks above, it seems like it caused a storm in a teacup. The arbitration committee then escalated the page ban to a full physics topic ban for one year.