From carcharothwp at googlemail.com Tue Apr 21 11:04:54 2009
From: carcharothwp at googlemail.com (Carcharoth)
Date: Tue, 21 Apr 2009 12:04:54 +0100
Subject: [arbcom-l] Abd and JzG - case name and other issues
Message-ID: <206791b10904210404o77afc5ecxada7936e983e216e@mail.gmail.com>

Anyone have any idea what the case name should be for the "Abd and
JzG" request? I'll ask on clerks-l as well. I'll do that separately
and discussion of that should probably be there, because I want to
raise a couple of points here.

1) I was re-reading Jehochman's statement (which I had skimmed this
morning when deciding whether to accept or not), and wondered what he
meant by "diff connoisseurs". I was more than a bit taken aback to
find that he had put in an Easter Egg link to my user page. I'm not
sure if that is a backhanded compliment or something, but I do wish
that if people want to mention me (or anyone) by name, they do so
openly and not hide the name behind a link.

2) Jehochman also says "The committee, especially you newcomers,
should read through Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Matthew Hoffman
and try to avoid repeating those blunders. At present, the opinions at
Wikipedia:Requests for comment/JzG 3 seem to favor JzG's
interpretation of matters. The committee should respect community
opinions. If we, the community, have gotten it wrong, don't take this
out on JzG. Use the opportunity to set down clearer standards." -
putting aside the tone of that request from Jehochman, I agree that we
should examine the RfC closely, but the general point of whether we
should go with our judgment or that expressed at the RfC, should be
addressed. My view is that we can agree or disagree with opinions
expressed at the RfC, but need to be very clear *why* we agree or
disagree.

3) The discussion Jehochman refers to was part of a clarification
request, archived here:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_tal...larification.29

In his statement, JzG (Guy) says: "I was criticised by one arbitrator
for asking for review of something as obvious as a topic ban on Jed
Rothwell". I believe he is referring to my comments at that
clarification request, but he may have misunderstood what I meant
there. I may try and clarify that with Guy at some point.

Noting here that I've talked with Abd in the past (in various places,
including my talk pages) - more so than I've interacted with Guy. But
have interacted with both to some extent, so hopefully that
perspective will be helpful (not sure how aware people are here of
Abd's style and approach).

Carcharoth
----------
From kirill.lokshin at gmail.com Tue Apr 21 12:23:47 2009
From: kirill.lokshin at gmail.com (Kirill Lokshin)
Date: Tue, 21 Apr 2009 08:23:47 -0400
Subject: [arbcom-l] Durova
In-Reply-To: <OF2EC7643F.62168782-ON8025759F.0042BE7E-8025759F.0042BE89@chapmancentral.co.uk>
References: <OF2EC7643F.62168782-ON8025759F.0042BE7E-8025759F.0042BE89@chapmancentral.co.uk>
Message-ID: <3f797b9a0904210523t6c62e1d3kd64f216aaf828aee@mail.gmail.com>

On Tue, Apr 21, 2009 at 8:09 AM, <Guy.Chapman at spamcop.net> wrote:

> I don't want to say this in the open, but I have looked back in my email
> archives for reasons why Durova seems to have decided to become involved in
> Abd's crusade against me.
>
> I found a couple of very odd emails I had long forgotten basically asking
> me to come out in the open and admit that I hate her. I don't, I never
> did. This was, of course, about the incident that led to her resigning the
> sysop bit over the block of !!, plus a mailing list which I was persuaded to
> "own" but dropped when it turned into a slanging match between her and
> Sarah. I suspect she thinks I was taking Sarah's side in what was obviously
> a long-standing and acrimonious dispute, but I wasn't.
>
> Jimmy will probably remember the problems on the private mailing list. I
> think Durova felt as if some of us had hung her out to dry. This was, to
> put it mildly, not a happy time for her, and there is no doubt that the
> trolls had a field day.
>
> Anyway, for what it's worth (not a lot) there is the history; you can have
> the full detail if you want but you probably don't. I've had pretty close
> to nothing to do with her since, not deliberately, it's just worked out that
> way.
>
> Guy (JzG)


This is to confirm that we've received your note.

Regards,
Kirill
----------
From stephen.bain at gmail.com Tue Apr 21 13:43:02 2009
From: stephen.bain at gmail.com (Stephen Bain)
Date: Tue, 21 Apr 2009 23:43:02 +1000
Subject: [arbcom-l] Abd and JzG - case name and other issues
In-Reply-To: <206791b10904210404o77afc5ecxada7936e983e216e@mail.gmail.com>
References: <206791b10904210404o77afc5ecxada7936e983e216e@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <f30e42de0904210643g4bc04ee3n928c90df1773baa0@mail.gmail.com>

On Tue, Apr 21, 2009 at 9:04 PM, Carcharoth <carcharothwp at googlemail.com> wrote:
> Anyone have any idea what the case name should be for the "Abd and
> JzG" request? I'll ask on clerks-l as well.

Commented there.

On a related note, presuming the request is accepted, I'd like to do
the drafting on this one.

--
Stephen Bain
stephen.bain at gmail.com
----------
From carcharothwp at googlemail.com Tue Apr 21 13:54:22 2009
From: carcharothwp at googlemail.com (Carcharoth)
Date: Tue, 21 Apr 2009 14:54:22 +0100
Subject: [arbcom-l] Abd and JzG - case name and other issues
In-Reply-To: <f30e42de0904210643g4bc04ee3n928c90df1773baa0@mail.gmail.com>
References: <206791b10904210404o77afc5ecxada7936e983e216e@mail.gmail.com>
<f30e42de0904210643g4bc04ee3n928c90df1773baa0@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <206791b10904210654h64ab4a9bre6909c5c42d25ba7@mail.gmail.com>

On Tue, Apr 21, 2009 at 2:43 PM, Stephen Bain <stephen.bain at gmail.com> wrote:
> On Tue, Apr 21, 2009 at 9:04 PM, Carcharoth <carcharothwp at googlemail.com> wrote:
>> Anyone have any idea what the case name should be for the "Abd and
>> JzG" request? I'll ask on clerks-l as well.
>
> Commented there.
>
> On a related note, presuming the request is accepted, I'd like to do
> the drafting on this one.

That's OK with me. I was never going to volunteer for this one anyway.
I'm still waiting for a little tiddler of a case to come along that is
ripe for arbitration, but not too overwhelming. I will let the big
fishes of Abd and JzG and ARBMAC2 carry on downstream. :-)

Would it be possible to briefly review how Prem Rawat 2 went? Stuff
like how long it took, whether concerns on talk pages were addressed,
and any immediate aftermath or effects? Including Vassyana's e-mail on
that topic, of course.

I realise we need to close cases, and not review how the process went,
but at least one item of discussion on the mailing list a week or so
after the close of each case would be good, IMO.

Carcharoth
----------
From carcharothwp at googlemail.com Tue Apr 21 16:05:26 2009
From: carcharothwp at googlemail.com (Carcharoth)
Date: Tue, 21 Apr 2009 17:05:26 +0100
Subject: [arbcom-l] Abd and JzG - case name and other issues
In-Reply-To: <206791b10904210404o77afc5ecxada7936e983e216e@mail.gmail.com>
References: <206791b10904210404o77afc5ecxada7936e983e216e@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <206791b10904210905q12d28f8cxaa79eb7a98079e18@mail.gmail.com>

Was checking on the WP:RFAR thread and noticed FloNight's acceptance comment:

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=...oldid=285250175

"Accept to look at all involved parties, if you commented about this
request, this means you. FloNight??? 16:00, 21 April 2009 (UTC)"

That will have some people scratching their heads. Flo, do you mind if
I ask if that comment is aimed at any of those commenting in
particular?

Carcharoth
----------
From sydney.poore at gmail.com Tue Apr 21 16:27:51 2009
From: sydney.poore at gmail.com (FloNight)
Date: Tue, 21 Apr 2009 12:27:51 -0400
Subject: [arbcom-l] Abd and JzG - case name and other issues
In-Reply-To: <206791b10904210905q12d28f8cxaa79eb7a98079e18@mail.gmail.com>
References: <206791b10904210404o77afc5ecxada7936e983e216e@mail.gmail.com>
<206791b10904210905q12d28f8cxaa79eb7a98079e18@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <16032ea0904210927i4b39c093wf81f23f7f133f464@mail.gmail.com>

I want to make it clear that we look at everyone as needed to resolve
the dispute. I'm not going to pre-judge who is involved and who isn't
especially with the comments still trickling in.

Sydney
----------
From newyorkbrad at gmail.com Tue Apr 21 17:05:48 2009
From: newyorkbrad at gmail.com (Newyorkbrad (Wikipedia))
Date: Tue, 21 Apr 2009 13:05:48 -0400
Subject: [arbcom-l] Abd and JzG - case name and other issues
In-Reply-To: <206791b10904210654h64ab4a9bre6909c5c42d25ba7@mail.gmail.com>
References: <206791b10904210404o77afc5ecxada7936e983e216e@mail.gmail.com>
<f30e42de0904210643g4bc04ee3n928c90df1773baa0@mail.gmail.com>
<206791b10904210654h64ab4a9bre6909c5c42d25ba7@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <c52819d30904211005o11dcababg4e54727a16a0bf4d@mail.gmail.com>

I'd be glad to see a post-mortem on our recent cases. I had tried one
earlier this year on the cases I've drafted since I joined the committee,
but it didn't get much feedback, so I'm not sure how productive others think
that type of reflection might be.

I'm glad to let Steve B. do the drafting in Abd-JzG, but in general I feel
underutilized and that I should be taking on more cases, so I hope I'll be
in a position to do another decision at some point soonish.

Newyorkbrad
----------
From carcharothwp at googlemail.com Tue Apr 21 17:14:52 2009
From: carcharothwp at googlemail.com (Carcharoth)
Date: Tue, 21 Apr 2009 18:14:52 +0100
Subject: [arbcom-l] Abd and JzG - case name and other issues
In-Reply-To: <c52819d30904211005o11dcababg4e54727a16a0bf4d@mail.gmail.com>
References: <206791b10904210404o77afc5ecxada7936e983e216e@mail.gmail.com>
<f30e42de0904210643g4bc04ee3n928c90df1773baa0@mail.gmail.com>
<206791b10904210654h64ab4a9bre6909c5c42d25ba7@mail.gmail.com>
<c52819d30904211005o11dcababg4e54727a16a0bf4d@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <206791b10904211014p6ce098c9u3fa23a12ecdaa38c@mail.gmail.com>

Well, you could always politely sidle up to one of the arbs with two
cases pending, point to something in the background, grab one of their
cases and run...

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=...sks&action=view

Currently, that would be Wizardman (though he has said he might have
Aitas ready soon).

You could also offer to help with one of the cases. And we could make
the doubling up of arbs more official. Currently it is only Roger and
CHL listed together for Scientology. I offered to help Fayssal with
the Ryulong case, but have been absconding to the Aitias case instead.
I also offered to help Coren with the Tang Dynasty case, but haven't
got round to that yet. I know Vassyana has been helping John with
diffs in date delinking. Not sure how Kirill is doing with West Bank.

Carcharoth
----------
From jayvdb at gmail.com Tue Apr 21 23:24:10 2009
From: jayvdb at gmail.com (John Vandenberg)
Date: Wed, 22 Apr 2009 09:24:10 +1000
Subject: [arbcom-l] Abd and JzG - case name and other issues
In-Reply-To: <c52819d30904211005o11dcababg4e54727a16a0bf4d@mail.gmail.com>
References: <206791b10904210404o77afc5ecxada7936e983e216e@mail.gmail.com>
<f30e42de0904210643g4bc04ee3n928c90df1773baa0@mail.gmail.com>
<206791b10904210654h64ab4a9bre6909c5c42d25ba7@mail.gmail.com>
<c52819d30904211005o11dcababg4e54727a16a0bf4d@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <deea21830904211624g4849b73ema6c2c633535e4f1@mail.gmail.com>

On Wed, Apr 22, 2009 at 3:05 AM, Newyorkbrad (Wikipedia)
<newyorkbrad at gmail.com> wrote:
> I'd be glad to see a post-mortem on our recent cases.? I had tried one
> earlier this year on the cases I've drafted since I joined the committee,
> but it didn't get much feedback, so I'm not sure how productive others think
> that type of reflection might be.
>
> I'm glad to let Steve B. do the drafting in Abd-JzG, but in general I feel
> underutilized and that I should be taking on more cases, so I hope I'll be
> in a position to do another decision at some point soonish.

We could start a /Post_mortem page on arbcomwiki to collate opinions
on how each case went. We could also start providing a similar
/Post_mortem page on enwiki, however before we do that, either we
would need to have a good idea of how it will work, or we should ask
the community to formulate a plan.

--
John Vandenberg
----------
From carcharothwp at googlemail.com Tue Apr 21 23:33:21 2009
From: carcharothwp at googlemail.com (Carcharoth)
Date: Wed, 22 Apr 2009 00:33:21 +0100
Subject: [arbcom-l] Abd and JzG - case name and other issues
In-Reply-To: <deea21830904211624g4849b73ema6c2c633535e4f1@mail.gmail.com>
References: <206791b10904210404o77afc5ecxada7936e983e216e@mail.gmail.com>
<f30e42de0904210643g4bc04ee3n928c90df1773baa0@mail.gmail.com>
<206791b10904210654h64ab4a9bre6909c5c42d25ba7@mail.gmail.com>
<c52819d30904211005o11dcababg4e54727a16a0bf4d@mail.gmail.com>
<deea21830904211624g4849b73ema6c2c633535e4f1@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <206791b10904211633p2a9bbdc6md00d4a10faac13e@mail.gmail.com>

On Wed, Apr 22, 2009 at 12:24 AM, John Vandenberg <jayvdb at gmail.com> wrote:
> On Wed, Apr 22, 2009 at 3:05 AM, Newyorkbrad (Wikipedia)
> <newyorkbrad at gmail.com> wrote:
>> I'd be glad to see a post-mortem on our recent cases.? I had tried one
>> earlier this year on the cases I've drafted since I joined the committee,
>> but it didn't get much feedback, so I'm not sure how productive others think
>> that type of reflection might be.
>>
>> I'm glad to let Steve B. do the drafting in Abd-JzG, but in general I feel
>> underutilized and that I should be taking on more cases, so I hope I'll be
>> in a position to do another decision at some point soonish.
>
> We could start a /Post_mortem page on arbcomwiki to collate opinions
> on how each case went. ?We could also start providing a similar
> /Post_mortem page on enwiki, however before we do that, either we
> would need to have a good idea of how it will work, or we should ask
> the community to formulate a plan.

Outsourcing? I *like* that idea! :-)

Anything involving digging through old cases, tidying up pages,
post-mortem, etc, etc, should be outsourced as much as possible.
Please remind me of that next time you see me digging through diffs
and cases from months or years earlier... [a little birdy once told me
they had read *all* the ArbCom cases ever - every single one!]

Carcharoth
----------
From newyorkbrad at gmail.com Tue Apr 21 23:38:23 2009
From: newyorkbrad at gmail.com (Newyorkbrad (Wikipedia))
Date: Tue, 21 Apr 2009 19:38:23 -0400
Subject: [arbcom-l] Abd and JzG - case name and other issues
In-Reply-To: <206791b10904211633p2a9bbdc6md00d4a10faac13e@mail.gmail.com>
References: <206791b10904210404o77afc5ecxada7936e983e216e@mail.gmail.com>
<f30e42de0904210643g4bc04ee3n928c90df1773baa0@mail.gmail.com>
<206791b10904210654h64ab4a9bre6909c5c42d25ba7@mail.gmail.com>
<c52819d30904211005o11dcababg4e54727a16a0bf4d@mail.gmail.com>
<deea21830904211624g4849b73ema6c2c633535e4f1@mail.gmail.com>
<206791b10904211633p2a9bbdc6md00d4a10faac13e@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <c52819d30904211638y2bab1717u9fe01fbc54e0954a@mail.gmail.com>

Back to Abd-JzG for a moment - I've asked a question in the voting section
on case acceptance that we might want to discuss before the case opens.

Newyorkbrad
----------
From sam.blacketer at googlemail.com Tue Apr 21 23:39:29 2009
From: sam.blacketer at googlemail.com (Sam Blacketer)
Date: Wed, 22 Apr 2009 00:39:29 +0100
Subject: [arbcom-l] Abd and JzG - case name and other issues
In-Reply-To: <206791b10904211633p2a9bbdc6md00d4a10faac13e@mail.gmail.com>
References: <206791b10904210404o77afc5ecxada7936e983e216e@mail.gmail.com>
<f30e42de0904210643g4bc04ee3n928c90df1773baa0@mail.gmail.com>
<206791b10904210654h64ab4a9bre6909c5c42d25ba7@mail.gmail.com>
<c52819d30904211005o11dcababg4e54727a16a0bf4d@mail.gmail.com>
<deea21830904211624g4849b73ema6c2c633535e4f1@mail.gmail.com>
<206791b10904211633p2a9bbdc6md00d4a10faac13e@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <e75b49f70904211639r196bb6c1iafcf59e5e70ec201@mail.gmail.com>

Alert to the appearance of a lengthy comment by JzG, who certainly appears
to be "sick of it" to quote the conclusion:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_tal...lic_consumption

--
Sam Blacketer
----------
From carcharothwp at googlemail.com Tue Apr 21 23:43:08 2009
From: carcharothwp at googlemail.com (Carcharoth)
Date: Wed, 22 Apr 2009 00:43:08 +0100
Subject: [arbcom-l] Abd and JzG - case name and other issues
In-Reply-To: <e75b49f70904211639r196bb6c1iafcf59e5e70ec201@mail.gmail.com>
References: <206791b10904210404o77afc5ecxada7936e983e216e@mail.gmail.com>
<f30e42de0904210643g4bc04ee3n928c90df1773baa0@mail.gmail.com>
<206791b10904210654h64ab4a9bre6909c5c42d25ba7@mail.gmail.com>
<c52819d30904211005o11dcababg4e54727a16a0bf4d@mail.gmail.com>
<deea21830904211624g4849b73ema6c2c633535e4f1@mail.gmail.com>
<206791b10904211633p2a9bbdc6md00d4a10faac13e@mail.gmail.com>
<e75b49f70904211639r196bb6c1iafcf59e5e70ec201@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <206791b10904211643q188c6d12yd912c50043c33a51@mail.gmail.com>

Thanks. Why people switch to the talk page, I don't know. Sure, it is
a meta point in a way, but it fragments things. If he wants to work on
Robert Hooke, he should do so. I sympathise with feeling unable to
disengage and move back or towards editing articles.

Carcharoth
----------
From szvest at gmail.com Wed Apr 22 01:17:32 2009
From: szvest at gmail.com (Fayssal F.)
Date: Wed, 22 Apr 2009 01:17:32 +0000
Subject: [arbcom-l] Abd and JzG - case name and other issues
Message-ID: <2a8c5680904211817x44633a2dyac895a96806f4f9c@mail.gmail.com>

Good question. On a side note, I've recused myself... I clashed with Abd
last year because of his general attitude and long repeated posts on an
unrelated case. I'd say the same about the general attitude of Guy
(overzealousness) though we've never clashed. Incidentally, both their
statements are accurate.

Fayssal F.
----------
From newyorkbrad at gmail.com Wed Apr 22 10:07:46 2009
From: newyorkbrad at gmail.com (Newyorkbrad (Wikipedia))
Date: Wed, 22 Apr 2009 06:07:46 -0400
Subject: [arbcom-l] Brad's request at Adb JzG
In-Reply-To: <78A81E03B901410597220CE75EEA5A32@EveretteCentral>
References: <78A81E03B901410597220CE75EEA5A32@EveretteCentral>
Message-ID: <c52819d30904220307g20c70b69w2007c2a9005eb75f@mail.gmail.com>

I'm not as convinced as everyone that this case will be productive.
But 11-0 to accept is a pretty impressive margin, and Abd has rejected
my idea for a resolution, so the case should open. Can we just please
make sure it doesn't drag along for months?

Newyorkbrad

On 4/22/09, Randy Everette <rlevse at cox.net> wrote:
> RE:
>
> Question. JzG's comments above suggest that while he does not believe his
> use of administrator tools on Cold fusion
> <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cold_fusion> was inappropriate, he
> anticipates that in the future other administrators will be watching the
> page, with the implication that he will not need to be the admin to take any
> action that might be required. JzG, are you prepared to make a commitment
> not to take further administrator action on Cold fusion
> <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cold_fusion> or closely related articles?
> Other commenters, if JzG agreed to make such a commitment, would that
> resolve this dispute in your view and end the need for a case? I would hold
> off on opening the case until this avenue is explored. Newyorkbrad
> <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Newyorkbrad> (talk
> <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Newyorkbrad> ) 22:55, 21 April 2009
> (UTC)
>
>
>
> This won't solve the problem. Both users have far deepers issues than what
> went on at Cold Fusion and when it opens I'm pretty sure we'll gets lots
> more info than just Cold Fusion related matters. And we should not turn the
> evidence away as it'll show their patterns more clearly.
>
>
>
> r/
>
> Randy Everette
>
>
>
>
-----------
From rlevse at cox.net Wed Apr 22 10:22:36 2009
From: rlevse at cox.net (Randy Everette)
Date: Wed, 22 Apr 2009 06:22:36 -0400
Subject: [arbcom-l] Brad's request at Adb JzG
In-Reply-To: <c52819d30904220307g20c70b69w2007c2a9005eb75f@mail.gmail.com>
References: <78A81E03B901410597220CE75EEA5A32@EveretteCentral>
<c52819d30904220307g20c70b69w2007c2a9005eb75f@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <58EB40DE644E4168B2BCA0F2E8506860@EveretteCentral>

Not dragging along for months is something I wish for all cases.

r/
Randy Everette
-----------
From carcharothwp at googlemail.com Wed Apr 22 11:01:55 2009
From: carcharothwp at googlemail.com (Carcharoth)
Date: Wed, 22 Apr 2009 12:01:55 +0100
Subject: [arbcom-l] Brad's request at Adb JzG
In-Reply-To: <c52819d30904220307g20c70b69w2007c2a9005eb75f@mail.gmail.com>
References: <78A81E03B901410597220CE75EEA5A32@EveretteCentral>
<c52819d30904220307g20c70b69w2007c2a9005eb75f@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <206791b10904220401o5b5fc116s7c2bbac8ae6af31a@mail.gmail.com>

I need to refresh my memory of what is controversial about these two
editors (or rather, the controversial bits that I haven't seen
before). I suspect the case will have five themes:

1) JzG's actions and attitude to criticisms
2) Abd's attitude and approach to dispute resolution
3) Appropriate use of the spam blacklist if content disputes are involved
4) The relationship between en-Wikipedia and sister projects that impact us
5) Copyvio claims and claims of bias for the two websites in question

[points 1 and 2 are admin actions, editor behaviour, and DR conduct]
[point 3 is partly cold fusion and partly a general spam vs content principle]
[point 4 covers the difference between the local and meta blacklists]
[point 5 is partly cold fusion and partly general copyright principles]

I've also been reviewing my talk page archives, and I have been
involved in several incidents involving these users before (one long
thread at ANI about a set of JzG's blocks, and trying to make sense of
long posts by Abd to my talk page). My stance on JzG's approach (not
always the best approach, but sometimes needed) and on Abd's approach
(long-winded but kernels of wisdom there) shouldn't be a surprise to
anyone who is aware of the previous interactions. I have never, to my
knowledge, been involved with the cold fusion disputes or any of the
spam or blacklist disputes.

Incidentally, JzG uses his OTRS work in his defence, but then tries to
put the meta spam blacklist discussion out of bounds. Guy's OTRS work
was mentioned here:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Req...n/C68-FM-SV#JzG

We probably need to be clear on how actions on OTRS and meta (and, for
a complete listing of sister projects that have an impact on
en-Wikipedia, Commons) are viewed from our perspective and what we can
say and do (if anything) about such actions. I suspect we can commend
and/or condemn them, but nothing actionable.

Carcharoth
----------
From rlevse at cox.net Fri Apr 24 19:53:36 2009
From: rlevse at cox.net (Randy Everette)
Date: Fri, 24 Apr 2009 15:53:36 -0400
Subject: [arbcom-l] Arb for ABD JZG PD
Message-ID: <C92F8A468C874BA4BB8D5514A12B9C7A@EveretteCentral>

Who'd doing the PD for this?



r/

Randy Everette



-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/private.../attachment.htm

From risker.wp at gmail.com Fri Apr 24 20:09:43 2009
From: risker.wp at gmail.com (Risker)
Date: Fri, 24 Apr 2009 16:09:43 -0400
Subject: [arbcom-l] Arb for ABD JZG PD
In-Reply-To: <C92F8A468C874BA4BB8D5514A12B9C7A@EveretteCentral>
References: <C92F8A468C874BA4BB8D5514A12B9C7A@EveretteCentral>
Message-ID: <eb45e7c0904241309j2dd7e1b3lc70f862d1f0d012d@mail.gmail.com>

I believe Stephen Bain volunteered for this one.

Risker

2009/4/24 Randy Everette <rlevse at cox.net>

> Who?d doing the PD for this?
>
>
>
> *r/*
>
> *Randy Everette*
-----------
From kirill.lokshin at gmail.com Sun Apr 26 03:52:04 2009
From: kirill.lokshin at gmail.com (Kirill Lokshin)
Date: Sat, 25 Apr 2009 23:52:04 -0400
Subject: [arbcom-l] Status of "Aitias" and "Abd and JzG"
Message-ID: <3f797b9a0904252052h7d0b5052ve6c820d3713313f7@mail.gmail.com>

Wizardman, are you still on track to have a decision in the "Aitias" case up
by Monday? Or would it be better to slip the milestone dates by a week?
Stephen, any idea of a timeline in the "Abd and JzG" case? (Please feel free
to pick a random date; we can always slip it if it turns out to be
unrealistic.)

Kirill
-----------
From roger.davies.wiki at googlemail.com Sun Apr 26 07:17:22 2009
From: roger.davies.wiki at googlemail.com (Roger Davies)
Date: Sun, 26 Apr 2009 08:17:22 +0100
Subject: [arbcom-l] Abd case
In-Reply-To: <002D0AF2DD2B404097F4AB3C03714B96EB6A91@EMEA-EXCHANGE03.internal.sungard.corp>
References: <002D0AF2DD2B404097F4AB3C03714B96EB6A91@EMEA-EXCHANGE03.internal.sungard.corp>
Message-ID: <49F40A82.2000106@gmail.com>

Retrieved from auto-discard.

Roger


Guy.Chapman at sungard.com wrote:
>
> I will respond and add evidence but I do not know when I will find the
> time to do so
>
> One of the reasons Abd's crusade is particularly vexing is that, as I
> hope people will point out, I've been fairly inactive on Wikipedia
> lately, I've been well below normal wiki activity levels all year and
> a lot of the time I have had to spend on Wikipedia has been dominated
> by Abd's continual raising of the same complaint and the same request
> for removal of the same links from the blacklists.
>
> My starting point will be
> http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=...it=500&offset=0
> and an analysis of:
>
> a) Who starts the threads
>
> b) What the consensus is
>
> c) Whether each complaint rehashes a prior complaint
>
> d) Relative volume of comment: Abd, me, rest-of-world
>
> Please ask one of the clerks if they would not mind posting the above
> to the /evidence page, the 3G bandwidth here is too slow to open the
> archives let alone edit.
>
> I'd also like to request a temporary injunction banning Abd from
> commenting on me outside the case, including discussing the disputed
> sites on the blacklist, to give the others there a rest. I think they
> are as tired of him as I am.
>
> Incidentally, I was amused by the suggestion that it is somehow
> uncivil to say Abd has ADHD. He has a userbox on
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Abd which says it with apparent
> pride. Maybe if I'd noticed that earlier I'd have given him a wide
> berth, or started proceedings to restrict him from wearing everybody
> out with his endless repetitions - these have definitely not only been
> aimed at me.
>
> For context, I have an office consolidation in full flow right now
> with a move date in early May, and right after that I'm due to head
> off to France. The move includes links to stock exchanges and support
> for live trades. We (<redacted>) acquired <redacted>
> (<redacted>) and we are closing three offices in
> <redacted> and moving over 200 staff into <redacted>
> This is <redacted>'s largest office worldwide, <redacted> was our
> largest acquisition, and this is the largest consolidation we have
> undertaken. My part of this deal includes commissioning three new EMC
> SANs and delivering software and hardware projects totalling just
> under $4m - small beer for some but two years ago I was the IT bloke
> in an office of 100 people, now I am being called by VMware and EMC to
> take part in their customer councils because we have one of the
> busiest virtual environments in the world, and it's all my own work.
> I'm proud of it, but it is hard work right now.
>
> Guy
>
> *Guy Chapman *? Senior Engineer, Enterprise Storage and Virtual
> Infrastructure ? <redacted>
----------
From djbeetstra at hotmail.com Sun Apr 26 08:47:47 2009
From: djbeetstra at hotmail.com (Dirk Beetstra)
Date: Sun, 26 Apr 2009 09:47:47 +0100
Subject: [arbcom-l] Jzg and Abd
Message-ID: <COL0-DAV243977DD3630B06A36EB05C3700@phx.gbl>

Dear Arbcom,

In the case of Jzg and Abd one of the crucial points seems to be if JzG a)
rightfully blacklisted newenergytimes.com, b) if he should have done that
and c) if that is abuse control or content control. I have some off-wiki
data, which colours it a bit further. JzG is probably not aware of this, so
his reasons for blacklisting may have been based on a less complete picture.

During the first de-blacklisting request there was discussion (archived
here:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/MediaWiki_tal...chives/February
_2009#newenergytimes.com ). Durova there mentions that Steven Krivit came
to her to ask for de-listing. Arguments against de-listing include some
very old Steven Krivit edits (3-4 years old, using [[User:Stevenkrivit]] as
account), and a relatively negative reliable sources noticeboard discussion
(http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard/Archive
_14#www.newenergytimes.com). Steven Krivit also participates in the
discussion, now using account [[User:StevenBKrivit]] (which may be called
socking, though it may just be a case where the editor forgot the password
of the old account, etc. etc.; 'fresh start'?).

I later declined that request, citing abuse (I have discussed this on-wiki
in the current ArbCom) and a small, recent case of cross-wiki spamming (6
additions by an IP). I say there, that if the spamming was only this (the
additions by the IP) this may have been enough to meta blacklist this. My
language there was a bit strong, I think that we would have been more
careful, actually, maybe reverting (though the additions don't seem too bad)
and seeing if it did not return. But what was said was said.

Shortly after my decline I received an email from Steve Krivit, using an
email address on newenergytimes.com:

Dirk,


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/MediaWiki_tal...wenergytimes.co
m <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/MediaWiki_talk:Spam-blacklist>

You wrote: "This user adds the link to 6 different wikis, and has
only added this link. If there were no further additions, that would have
been enough to meta blacklist this."

I agree with you. Please add the blacklist to Meta.

Steve

Thinking this was a bit strange, I asked Steven to mail this to OTRS, to get
it into an official channel (my thought was, that Steve Krivit wanted to
protect his site against abuse by third parties (Joe jobs), etc.). He did
that, but with:

Dirk,

I'm not sure that there is a need for further enforcement. I was
just voicing my support for your decision.

I can assure you that the "POV pusher" is voluntarily abiding by and
respecting the rules now that he understands them because the "POV pusher"
was me.

I added those links before I even knew what Wiki spamming was and
how Wikipedia is not the place for "POV pushing," and that I was a "POV
pusher."

I did not know this when I corrected information on the pages for
Martin Fleischmann and Stanley Pons or when I listed New Energy Times
internationally as an external resource for the cold fusion pages. I thought
my site *was* a good external resource. I thought I was *improving* and
*helping* Wikipedia by providing the links to my site. But I now understand
that I was in error because my actions were verbotten, forbidden by the
rules. I do not wish to ignore the rules.

You said "that would have been enough to meta blacklist this." I
wish to full comply with the rules and the consequences of breaking those
rules. I therefore accept and support your judgement now that I fully
understand the purpose of Wikipedia and how it is supposed to work.

I hold myself accountable, and thus concur with you to meta
blacklist my site.

Thank you for your volunteer efforts on behalf of Wikipedia.

Steve

This is a massive MEA CULPA about this. But the de-listing request was
already closed, and over, and I had no reason to actually meta-blacklist the
site (and no-one on OTRS found it necessery either on this basis). Abd is
aware that I have communicated off-wiki with Steve Krivit, and I have
mentioned, again off-wiki, to him that if there was a properly backed-up
request from e.g. a wikiproject stating use etc. then I would use this mail
as an additional reason to de-blacklist (probably asking an OTRS member to
de-list citing the ticket or something like that).

However, another de-blacklisting was filed by Abd. Abd was here, IMHO,
mainly citing procedural errors, not really talking about the past abuse. I
recused from declining or endorsing, but stating that there was abuse in the
past which may have been enough reason for blacklisting. That argument was
ignored (and as I said, I recused, I may not agree with the final decision,
but will live with the analysis of an independent reviewer there), there was
no back-up from an appropriate wikiproject or from knowledgeable editors in
the field, so that was for me not a reason to ask OTRS to participate.

But, now the ArbCom case. One of the key questions is, if the blacklisting
by JzG was proper (or at least within policy/guideline), or if he (or
someone else) never, whatever the abuse, should have added this site the
blacklist. I now review and collate data (and there is more, but I will
already go way over 1000 words for some other parts of evidence). Part of
the analysis is that [[User:Stevenkrivit]] added the link way back in
2005/2006/2007 in spammy ways, and now there is the recent case of
[[User:76.126.194.190]], who also turns out to be Steve Krivit. IMHO, Steve
Krivit should have known about conflict of interest by now (I do not know if
he was actually warned for COI somewhere, but if he is using different
accounts he may never have seen it!), still these are the edits the accounts
perform. That part of the information makes me now even slowly get to the
conclusion to call this 'long term abuse by a site owner' (but that
76.126.194.190 = Steve Krivit is not known on-wiki, I can't say that, and as
far as I know, have never said it), and even if I ignore [[User:Pcarbonn]]'s
use of this link, I might actually start to consider that if abuse persists,
that this is becoming a proper reason to blacklist it (the link is spammed).
I think that the evidence that is on wiki already would be enough to show
that there is abuse, but that this information is showing more that the site
was abused and therefore blacklisting on those terms may be (or have been)
appropriate as a form of abuse control (question remains: should it really
have been done?).

I do not know the OTRS ticket number, but e.g. Versageek and Mike Lifeguard
are aware of the mail, as there have been short on-IRC discussions on this
(I asure that no names were mentioned in public channels)

I'd like to hear from ArbCom how to handle this information (or should a
clerk handle this on-wiki in some way). I grant ArbCom full right to use
this mail how they want (and I understand that if my first decision to
decline blacklisting on basis of abuse is also deemed wrong may have further
implications for me). Please strip all personal information from this mail
where needed. I hope I have been clear enough, but if ArbCom needs further
information or communication about this subject, this email address is
available, as is my wiki-email function or the usual on-wiki ways of
communicating. I am a bit busy in the next days, may not respond quickly.

Kind regards,

Dirk.

----------
D.J.Beetstra
<redacted>

E-mail (private): djbeetstra at hotmail.com
Large Email: djbeetstra at gmail.com
ICQ: 33938284
MSN: djbeetstra at hotmail.com
Yahoo!: beetstra_dirk at yahoo.com
------------
From casliber01 at yahoo.com Sun Apr 26 09:13:45 2009
From: casliber01 at yahoo.com (Cas Liber)
Date: Sun, 26 Apr 2009 02:13:45 -0700 (PDT)
Subject: [arbcom-l] Abd case
In-Reply-To: <49F40A82.2000106@gmail.com>
References: <002D0AF2DD2B404097F4AB3C03714B96EB6A91@EMEA-EXCHANGE03.internal.sungard.corp>
<49F40A82.2000106@gmail.com>
Message-ID: <630417.99232.qm@web62007.mail.re1.yahoo.com>


How do we feel about an injunction on abd?
Cas
----------
From jayvdb at gmail.com Sun Apr 26 09:24:09 2009
From: jayvdb at gmail.com (John Vandenberg)
Date: Sun, 26 Apr 2009 19:24:09 +1000
Subject: [arbcom-l] Abd case
In-Reply-To: <630417.99232.qm@web62007.mail.re1.yahoo.com>
References: <002D0AF2DD2B404097F4AB3C03714B96EB6A91@EMEA-EXCHANGE03.internal.sungard.corp>
<49F40A82.2000106@gmail.com>
<630417.99232.qm@web62007.mail.re1.yahoo.com>
Message-ID: <deea21830904260224h3c0f99c8hf125e2fe544b3017@mail.gmail.com>

On Sun, Apr 26, 2009 at 7:13 PM, Cas Liber <casliber01 at yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> How do we feel about an injunction on abd?
> Cas

What sort of injunction? prevent him from raising issues about JzG?

Prevent him from using posts of length greater than 100 words, and
only 10 such missives per day?

--
John Vandenberg
-----------
From jayvdb at gmail.com Sun Apr 26 09:29:05 2009
From: jayvdb at gmail.com (John Vandenberg)
Date: Sun, 26 Apr 2009 19:29:05 +1000
Subject: [arbcom-l] Abd case
In-Reply-To: <deea21830904260224h3c0f99c8hf125e2fe544b3017@mail.gmail.com>
References: <002D0AF2DD2B404097F4AB3C03714B96EB6A91@EMEA-EXCHANGE03.internal.sungard.corp>
<49F40A82.2000106@gmail.com>
<630417.99232.qm@web62007.mail.re1.yahoo.com>
<deea21830904260224h3c0f99c8hf125e2fe544b3017@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <deea21830904260229s42cc5c1eqda364a506dcd71cf@mail.gmail.com>

On Sun, Apr 26, 2009 at 7:24 PM, John Vandenberg <jayvdb at gmail.com> wrote:
> On Sun, Apr 26, 2009 at 7:13 PM, Cas Liber <casliber01 at yahoo.com> wrote:
>>
>> How do we feel about an injunction on abd?
>> Cas
>
> What sort of injunction? ?prevent him from raising issues about JzG?

ffs, he is at it again:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Adm...:Spam-blacklist

--
John Vandenberg