From: (jayjg)
Date: Fri, 24 Aug 2007 18:32:38 -0400
Subject: [Arbcom-l] "Wikipedia's response to cyberstalking" - SlimVirgin
speaks out
On 8/24/07, Kirill Lokshin wrote:
> On 8/24/07, James Forrester wrote:
> > I seemingly didn't get sent the missive (unless she sent it to an old
> > address, or it was spam-killed by GMail...). Might I request a copy?
>
> It doesn't seem like you were included; I'm not sure how the list of
> recipients was compiled here.
It appears that the people on the "To:" list are Wikipedians who have
been cyberstalked as a result of their Wikipedia activities, and the
"Cc:" lists consists of most of the people on the ArbCom maillist and
Foundation. Perhaps she didn't have the e-mail addresses of the other
people on the ArbCom maillist or other Foundation members.
----------
From: (Dmcdevit)
Date: Fri, 24 Aug 2007 15:32:35 -0700
Subject: [Arbcom-l] [Fwd: The Skinny on SlimVirgin's
abusive sockpuppetry]
James Forrester wrote:
>
> A CU check to confirm isn't too hard a requirement for the executing
> EditMunger (or whatever term is given).
>
To be more specific, I spoke to (I think it was) Tim about this more
than a year ago, and this was his answer. Merging accounts is
uncontroversial, just a pain to code and not high on the priority list
(SUL may change things with that). However, there are any number of
reasons an IP may match while the IP's users do not, from as simple as
"two people can use the same computer" to more technical reasons, and
any number of reasons that the same person's IPs might not match. Could
anyone on a reasonably dynamic range ever prove they were someone else?
Merging will be potentially dangerous, and not likely to have a high
applicability to most users, anyway, since most will find it impossible
to prove their identity. Keep in mind SUL draws on email addresses and
matching passwords to identify matching accounts as well, but IPs don't
have those.
>> And misattributing edits presumably has significant
>> copyright implications.
>>
>
> Certainly, but OS for content (rather than reverted vandalism) has
> exactly the same problem.
Yes, but if we are not concerned about misattribution, then there is no
reason to develop the tool; we already have OS, if misattribution is
fine. This tool would likely see more use for merging edits by people
without privacy concerns, in any case; in which case, the danger of
misattribution is without any more than an aesthetic purpose.
Dominic
----------
From: (jayjg)
Date: Fri, 24 Aug 2007 18:37:21 -0400
Subject: [Arbcom-l] [Fwd: The Skinny on SlimVirgin's abusive
sockpuppetry]
On 8/24/07, Dmcdevit wrote:
> James Forrester wrote:
> >
> > A CU check to confirm isn't too hard a requirement for the executing
> > EditMunger (or whatever term is given).
> >
> To be more specific, I spoke to (I think it was) Tim about this more
> than a year ago, and this was his answer. Merging accounts is
> uncontroversial, just a pain to code and not high on the priority list
> (SUL may change things with that). However, there are any number of
> reasons an IP may match while the IP's users do not, from as simple as
> "two people can use the same computer" to more technical reasons, and
> any number of reasons that the same person's IPs might not match. Could
> anyone on a reasonably dynamic range ever prove they were someone else?
> Merging will be potentially dangerous, and not likely to have a high
> applicability to most users, anyway, since most will find it impossible
> to prove their identity. Keep in mind SUL draws on email addresses and
> matching passwords to identify matching accounts as well, but IPs don't
> have those.
I think many, many editors have either fixed IPs, or extremely stable
IPs. This is quite often true for people with high-speed access,
particularly cable. It would certainly be helpful in those cases.
----------
From: (James Forrester)
Date: Fri, 24 Aug 2007 23:38:12 +0100
Subject: [Arbcom-l] "Wikipedia's response to cyberstalking" - SlimVirgin
speaks out
On 24/08/07, Kirill Lokshin wrote:
> On 8/24/07, James Forrester wrote:
> > I seemingly didn't get sent the missive (unless she sent it to an old
> > address, or it was spam-killed by GMail...). Might I request a copy?
>
> It doesn't seem like you were included; I'm not sure how the list of
> recipients was compiled here.
Thinking about it, given that she didn't cc arbcom-l, I'd imagine that
this was deliberate. I hope that she would not be too upset by its
release to me and the other non-cc'ed members of the list.
> In any case:
[Snip usual comments on this area]
I don't see anything new in this e-mail.
I also am surprised by the apparent confusion on SV's part of the
Foundation and the community.
I note the normal emotional references. Sad as it may seem, it is
expressly our job not to ensure that people don't "end up in tears",
even though it is very sad that that happens, but instead to protect
the project from damage. Distasteful, yes, depressing, certainly, but
no-one sane ever said this job was easy.
Yrs,
--
James D. Forrester
----------
From: (Timothy Titcomb)
Date: Fri, 24 Aug 2007 18:47:23 -0400
Subject: [Arbcom-l] "Wikipedia's response to cyberstalking" - SlimVirgin
speaks out
On Aug 24, 2007, at 6:38 PM, James Forrester wrote:
> but no-one sane ever said this job was easy.
Anyone insane say it either?
Paul August
----------
From: (jayjg)
Date: Fri, 24 Aug 2007 18:51:17 -0400
Subject: [Arbcom-l] "Wikipedia's response to cyberstalking" - SlimVirgin
speaks out
On 8/24/07, James Forrester wrote:
> On 24/08/07, Kirill Lokshin wrote:
> > On 8/24/07, James Forrester wrote:
> > > I seemingly didn't get sent the missive (unless she sent it to an old
> > > address, or it was spam-killed by GMail...). Might I request a copy?
> >
> > It doesn't seem like you were included; I'm not sure how the list of
> > recipients was compiled here.
>
> Thinking about it, given that she didn't cc arbcom-l, I'd imagine that
> this was deliberate. I hope that she would not be too upset by its
> release to me and the other non-cc'ed members of the list.
>
> > In any case:
>
> [Snip usual comments on this area]
>
> I don't see anything new in this e-mail.
>
> I also am surprised by the apparent confusion on SV's part of the
> Foundation and the community.
>
> I note the normal emotional references. Sad as it may seem, it is
> expressly our job not to ensure that people don't "end up in tears",
> even though it is very sad that that happens, but instead to protect
> the project from damage. Distasteful, yes, depressing, certainly, but
> no-one sane ever said this job was easy.
That seems a minor part of the e-mail, which in the main is dealing
with much more serious issues and concerns. Are editors part of "the
project"? Do they need to be "protected from damage" as well? Or are
they simply disposable tools (of which there is never-ending supply)
with which we build the encyclopedia? Or is it simply a cost-benefit
analysis; "thanks for your help, but you're a bit more trouble than
you're worth right now, so we're sending you off on the ice flow to
starve. Nothing personal, mind, we like you and all, but we've got a
project to protect here".
----------
From: (James Forrester)
Date: Fri, 24 Aug 2007 23:55:22 +0100
Subject: [Arbcom-l] [Fwd: The Skinny on SlimVirgin's abusive
sockpuppetry]
On 24/08/07, Dmcdevit wrote:
> James Forrester wrote:
> >
> > A CU check to confirm isn't too hard a requirement for the executing
> > EditMunger (or whatever term is given).
> >
> To be more specific, I spoke to (I think it was) Tim about this more
> than a year ago, and this was his answer. Merging accounts is
> uncontroversial, just a pain to code and not high on the priority list
> (SUL may change things with that). However, there are any number of
> reasons an IP may match while the IP's users do not, from as simple as
> "two people can use the same computer" to more technical reasons, and
> any number of reasons that the same person's IPs might not match. Could
> anyone on a reasonably dynamic range ever prove they were someone else?
> Merging will be potentially dangerous, and not likely to have a high
> applicability to most users, anyway, since most will find it impossible
> to prove their identity. Keep in mind SUL draws on email addresses and
> matching passwords to identify matching accounts as well, but IPs don't
> have those.
The concept was that account merging would be different from the
anon-edit-merging. The former would be absolute (do all edits at
once), the latter would be for single edits. Two separate (but
related) tools to achieve a more suitable replacement for the current
(ab?)use of OS for this task. Right now we're OS anon edits based
entirely on someone's say-so that it was them and they want their
carelessness/etc. hushed up.
> > > And misattributing edits presumably has significant
> > > copyright implications.
> >
> > Certainly, but OS for content (rather than reverted vandalism) has
> > exactly the same problem.
>
> Yes, but if we are not concerned about misattribution, then there is no
> reason to develop the tool; we already have OS, if misattribution is
> fine. This tool would likely see more use for merging edits by people
> without privacy concerns, in any case; in which case, the danger of
> misattribution is without any more than an aesthetic purpose.
Sorry! To expand my point so as to remove confusion, I meant:
| Yes, certainly, faulty use of such a tool (that is, mis-attributing edits
| from one editor to another) would be a potential problem, but right now
| this use of OS to do this function, when done perfectly correctly,
| *always* creates this legal problem.
I hope this makes my point more clearly.
BTW, there was a thread about, amongst other items, Jay's OS actions
on SV's old edits back in June 2006 - the thread was called "Wikitruth
not living up to its name", for those who still have it in their
archives.
Yours,
--
James D. Forrester
----------
From: (Steve Dunlop)
Date: Fri, 24 Aug 2007 16:04:56 -0700
Subject: [Arbcom-l] [Fwd: The Skinny on SlimVirgin's abusive
sockpuppetry]
The difference is that the 1000 people to whom deleted revisions remain
available is a large enough group that there is no significant concern
about transparency. Indeed, there are Wikipedians who spend much of
their time looking for deleted material that they believe should not
have been deleted.
Steve
> -------- Original Message --------
> Subject: Re: [Arbcom-l] [Fwd: The Skinny on SlimVirgin's abusive
> sockpuppetry]
> From: jayjg
> Date: Fri, August 24, 2007 2:35 pm
> To: "Arbitration Committee mailing list" <arbcom-l at lists.wikimedia.org>
>
> On 8/24/07, charles.r.matthews wrote:
> > Steve's issue with Oversight is worth more discussion, though. Clearly Oversight is
----------
From: (Steve Dunlop)
Date: Fri, 24 Aug 2007 16:08:04 -0700
Subject: [Arbcom-l] [Fwd: The Skinny on SlimVirgin's abusive
sockpuppetry]
I could be mistaken but I believe that the developers quit reattributing
IP edits long before oversight became available. Reattribution was seen
as a service to those users who had not created an account when they
joined but who later wanted one and wanted their editing history to show
their early participation.
If I recall correctly, the last reattributions were fulfilled in early
2004, though there may be a few isolated later cases.
Tim Starling and Brion Vibber did most of the "oversight-like" work
prior to the tool being available so we could ask them if we really want
to gauge the extent of such work. I think it was quite rare.
Steve
----------
From: (James Forrester)
Date: Sat, 25 Aug 2007 00:11:43 +0100
Subject: [Arbcom-l] "Wikipedia's response to cyberstalking" - SlimVirgin
speaks out
On 24/08/07, jayjg wrote:
> Are editors part of "the project"? Do they need to be "protected
> from damage" as well? Or are they simply disposable tools (of
> which there is never-ending supply) with which we build the
> encyclopedia?
To an extent, we should try to keep long-term and especially
high-value users (like many people with whom we are accused of being
"unfairly lenient") on the site, if for no other reason than that we
(collectively) have expended a great deal of effort in enculturation
etc. and it is a waste to discard that investment. This is why Giano
is worth a thousand of me, for example - I can't research an article
for toffee. :-) However, there is a point where the evaluation turns,
and we have to do something. Names that come to mind include Wik and
172. We should not throw good social capital after bad.
This is the founding principle of Arbitration - that we're here not
for the individuals, but the project at large. It may sound very cold
and that's because it is.
> Or is it simply a cost-benefit analysis; "thanks for your help, but
> you're a bit more trouble than you're worth right now, so we're
> sending you off on the ice flow to starve. Nothing personal, mind,
> we like you and all, but we've got a project to protect here".
That is the exactly correct interpretation of my words, yes. I dislike
the unhelpful use of emotional rhetoric to derail me from agreeing,
though (ice flow, indeed!).
In a century or two we'll all be gone, but our duty is to ensure that
Wikipedia isn't. That's why what we do is important - and it's why I,
at least, have kept on doing this thankless task. :-) Our job is to be
dispassionate and careful, to avoid even the appearance of conflicts
of interest at all times, and never to bring the project into
disrepute.
Yours,
--
James D. Forrester
----------
From: (Steve Dunlop)
Date: Fri, 24 Aug 2007 16:14:01 -0700
Subject: [Arbcom-l] Confidentiality of arbcom-l discussions
It would appear that someone on this list has been leaking a portion of
the discussion to SV.
This is inappropriate.
I would hope that arbcom-l will remain a confidential space where we may
have open and frank discussions.
Steve
----------
From: (James Forrester)
Date: Sat, 25 Aug 2007 00:16:48 +0100
Subject: [Arbcom-l] Confidentiality of arbcom-l discussions
On 25/08/07, Steve Dunlop wrote:
> It would appear that someone on this list has been leaking a portion of
> the discussion to SV.
>
> This is inappropriate.
>
> I would hope that arbcom-l will remain a confidential space where we may
> have open and frank discussions.
Information security is not something which some members of our
community really seem to understand, no. I am disappointed that this
has reached this venue, however.
Yours,
--
James D. Forrester
----------
From: (Kirill Lokshin)
Date: Fri, 24 Aug 2007 19:21:27 -0400
Subject: [Arbcom-l] Confidentiality of arbcom-l discussions
On 8/24/07, James Forrester wrote:
> On 25/08/07, Steve Dunlop wrote:
> > It would appear that someone on this list has been leaking a portion of
> > the discussion to SV.
> >
> > This is inappropriate.
> >
> > I would hope that arbcom-l will remain a confidential space where we may
> > have open and frank discussions.
>
> Information security is not something which some members of our
> community really seem to understand, no. I am disappointed that this
> has reached this venue, however.
It's possible that SV has merely made a reasonable assumption based on
the fact that we were copied in on Jimbo's original mails, I suppose.
I don't see anything that necessarily indicates any subsequent
material has actually reached her.
For the benefit of James (and anyone else not copied in), SV appears
to be of the opinion that we cannot discuss the matter without her
participation:
---------- Forwarded message ----------
From: Slim Virgin
Date: Aug 24, 2007 7:06 PM
Subject: Re: Wikipedia's response to cyberstalking
To: Florence Devouard
Cc:<everyone from before>
On 8/24/07, Florence Devouard wrote:
>
>
> Thanks Sarah for this long email.
And thank you for your response, Ant.
>
> It is a bit difficult for me to fully estimate the extent of what you
> are talking about, because I do not know about most of the stories, and
> I do not know the stalker you are mentionning. Half of the people
> included in this list, I never talked with. As much as I would like to
> feel empathy, it is difficult when you do not know the people and do not
> know the stories.
Yes, I can see that. This goes to the heart of the problem. People who
are threatened, or accused of terrible things -- whether true, partly
true, or completely false -- often go to ground out of fear or
embarrassment. They'll tell a few close wikifriends, then they
disappear, change user names, or try to ignore it and put it behind
them. The result is the Foundation is left not knowing the full extent
of what has happened to them and the effect it's had on their lives.
There's also an attitude that we shouldn't let the troublemakers know
how much they affect us, and that's a sensible attitude up to a point,
but again, the result is that we're each of us left to deal with the
situation privately, and keep inside the hurt and distress, which are
considerable.
>
> Still... over the years, I followed by bits the stories of some of the
> people included in your email. I was told or they told me, of what they
> had to go through. And though you do not know this, there are also some
> similar stories on the other wikipedias.
>
> A lot of the concerns you have are to be addressed to the arbcom.
> However, you also raise the point the Foundation has failed to help you
> till now. I am not entirely sure how many people asked us help and did
> not get it.
>
> My question will be: how can we help you ?
>
> You mention "legal advice" and comment it was probably not given due to
> financial limitations. No, I do not think so. The issue was not so much
> financial than the fact we had no in-house legal counsel for several
> months. Those helping were "external" lawyers, most not in the USA, and
> I guess none specialized in cyberstalking. I would not have asked advice
> to any of them to help you guys.
>
> Now, we have one in-house lawyer, he is american and he has worked on
> internet issues in the past. Not sure he helped on such issues though,
> and not fully sure what his ability to deal with such topics would be.
> But we can ask. If we do, he will need some background, to tell us if
> something can be done at the legal level.
>
> Intuitively, I can not see how helping editors in trouble would increase
> our liability risk. But I am not a lawyer.
>
> How else can we help you ?
>
> ant
The way the Foundation can help is to create a culture of strong
support for Wikipedians who are under attack in these ways.
I'll give you one example from my own case where legal advice would
have been helpful. In trying to defend myself on the mailing list and
on Wikipedia, I found myself unable to do so adequately without
repeating the allegations, which in some cases were actionable libels.
I was bearing in mind that one day I might have to take legal action,
and I didn't want to do anything to jeopardize that.
I recalled that you can weaken your case legally if you contribute in
any way to the spread of the allegations. Therefore, I felt I had both
arms tied behind my back, because I couldn't easily say what was
false, or why it was false. I had to stay fairly tight-lipped, which
can end up looking suspicious. In fact, someone from the Foundation
once pointedly asked me on the mailing list why I wasn't taking legal
action, and of course I couldn't reply in any detail, and was left
feeling embarrassed and undermined.
Two things would have been incredibly helpful. First, to know that I
could have written to Brad or whoever the lawyer at the time was, for
just some basic advice: "Don't do X, don't do Y, but Z should be okay.
And here's a list of appropriate libel lawyers if you need to take it
further." I got the very strong impression the Foundation had no
interest in helping, and so I didn't even bother asking. Perhaps that
was *my* mistake, and nothing to do with the Foundation.
Secondly, it would have been helpful if board members, people who work
for the Foundation, and people on the ArbCom who are appointed by the
Foundation, understand that they mustn't do or say anything to make
things worse for the person being stalked. Don't ask them awkward
questions in public. Don't wonder out loud why they're not taking
legal action. Don't discuss the issues about them without them knowing
what's being said. Don't start discussions about them on IRC.
I'm currently being investigated (it seems) by the ArbCom, but I don't
know who's saying what. I don't see the e-mails. I don't even know if
my e-mails defending myself ever arrive. All I get is a response
telling me that my e-mail awaits the moderator, because the ArbCom
list is a private one. So I know that libellous material about me is
possibly being talked about and distributed (there are 28 people on
the ArbCom mailing list). But I'm unable to defend myself, and I'm not
allowed to say "Please bear in that what you're distributing may be
defamatory," in case I'm accused of making legal threats and banned.
I have to go along with the process, because I want to be able to
continue editing and helping to administer this site. But in
cooperating with it, I feel like a bit like a dog being made to carry
my own leash.
I think the Foundation could do a lot to create a culture in which
this kind of thing is absolutely unacceptable. If someone gets stalked
or harassed because they've volunteered as an editor or admin to
protect Wikipedia, good faith needs to be extended to that person
automatically, and they need strong public support, and no gossiping
about the allegations behind closed doors that they have no access to.
Sarah
----------
From: (Kirill Lokshin)
Date: Fri, 24 Aug 2007 21:42:44 -0400
Subject: [Arbcom-l] SlimVirgin sockpuppetry discussion on AN/I
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Adm...ckpuppet.28s.29A number of editors are, as expected, expressing concern over the use
of oversight in this case.
I think that we ought to make some public statement at this point,
even if only to the effect of "we're aware of this and are looking
into it".
Kirill
----------
From: (Dmcdevit)
Date: Fri, 24 Aug 2007 20:28:43 -0700
Subject: [Arbcom-l] SlimVirgin sockpuppetry discussion on AN/I
Kirill Lokshin wrote:
>
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Adm...ckpuppet.28s.29>
> A number of editors are, as expected, expressing concern over the use
> of oversight in this case.
>
> I think that we ought to make some public statement at this point,
> even if only to the effect of "we're aware of this and are looking
> into it".
>
> Kirill
>
I admit that I didn't (don't) like what came to light, but now it looks
like some Wikipedians are just being idiots and turning this into
another Essjay-esque internal public lynching, just for the hell of it.
The drama-mongers have found something sensational to latch onto,
encyclopedia or the real people behind these usernames be damned. And
how is this
<http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Log&type=block&page=User:Sweet_Blue_Water>
anything but vindictive?
Dominic
----------
From: (Matthew Brown)
Date: Fri, 24 Aug 2007 20:32:20 -0700
Subject: [Arbcom-l] SlimVirgin sockpuppetry discussion on AN/I
On 8/24/07, Dmcdevit wrote:
> And how is this
> <http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Log&type=block&page=User:Sweet_Blue_Water>
> anything but vindictive?
Well, yeah - although at least not harmful. Given that the account
hasn't edited for two years.
-Matt
-----------
From: (Josh Gordon)
Date: Fri, 24 Aug 2007 20:52:10 -0700
Subject: [Arbcom-l] SlimVirgin sockpuppetry discussion on AN/I
Is Cyde, like, 12 or something?
----------
From: (Kirill Lokshin)
Date: Fri, 24 Aug 2007 23:55:40 -0400
Subject: [Arbcom-l] SlimVirgin sockpuppetry discussion on AN/I
On 8/24/07, Josh Gordon wrote:
> Is Cyde, like, 12 or something?
No, he's rather older. Based on his message to SV
(http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:SlimVirgin&diff=prev&oldid=153453125),
I'm guessing there's been some bad blood between them -- although I
can't recall anything of that sort offhand -- and that likely caused
him to be needlessly vindictive here.
Kirill
----------
From: (Timothy Titcomb)
Date: Sat, 25 Aug 2007 03:27:38 -0400
Subject: [Arbcom-l] Fwd: Wikipedia e-mail from Judd Bagley
Begin forwarded message:
> From: The So-Called Blogger
> Date: August 25, 2007 7:19:42 AM EDT
> To: Paul August
> Subject: Wikipedia e-mail
>
> I'm the so-called blogger whose writing about SlimVirgin and Jayjg
> has caused such a stir.
>
> Much has been said about me ("WordBomb") on Wikipedia, pretty much
> all of it bad, almost none of it accurate. That's because my
> detractors have a voice here while I do not. Nor do those who might
> be inclined to defend me, for they tend to be labeled as "me" and
> stripped of their voices, as well.
>
> Why was I banned from Wikipedia about 20 minutes into my career as
> an editor here? Because I tried to raise awareness of some rather
> shocking corruption which happened to involve the friend of a
> powerful administrator.
>
> I've since been branded a stalker, a vandal and worse. Not once,
> but hundreds of times.
>
> When denied the ability to defend myself here, I started blogging
> about what I had seen and was learning. While every last item I
> published is 100% defensible, my blog was none-the-less pronounced
> an "attack site" and mention of it became a blockable offense.
>
> But as recent events demonstrate, I have information that needs to
> be examined, because its implications are great. And so, I'm
> formally asking for the opportunity to participate in whatever
> proceedings examining the claims against SlimVirgin and Jayjg may
> take place.
>
> Sincerely,
>
> Judd Bagley
-------
From: (Fred Bauder)
Date: Sat, 25 Aug 2007 09:00:42 +0000
Subject: [Arbcom-l] Wikipedia e-mail (Judd Bagley)
Judd,
We are investigating the information you provided and taking it seriously. You may submit additional material directly to
arbcom-l at lists.wikimedia.org
It would be helpful if you set forth your goals with respect to how you wish to interact with Wikipedia and what your complaints are regarding our coverage of information at issue.
Fred
-----------
From: (David Gerard)
Date: Sat, 25 Aug 2007 10:21:27 +0100
Subject: [Arbcom-l] Wikipedia e-mail (Judd Bagley)
On 25/08/07, Fred Bauder wrote:
> >-----Original Message-----
> >From: The So-Called Blogger
> >Sent: Saturday, August 25, 2007 01:17 AM
> >To: 'Fred Bauder'
> >Subject: Wikipedia e-mail
Anyone *not* get this?
- d.
-----------
From: (James Forrester)
Date: Sat, 25 Aug 2007 11:12:16 +0100
Subject: [Arbcom-l] SlimVirgin sockpuppetry discussion on AN/I
On 25/08/07, Kirill Lokshin wrote:
> On 8/24/07, Josh Gordon wrote:
> > Is Cyde, like, 12 or something?
>
> No, he's rather older. Based on his message to SV
> (http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:SlimVirgin&diff=prev&oldid=153453125),
> I'm guessing there's been some bad blood between them -- although I
> can't recall anything of that sort offhand -- and that likely caused
> him to be needlessly vindictive here.
It's yet another facet of the Slim/Kelly war that's been going on for
years. Cyde is a friend of Kelly's, and Kelly thinks Slim's actions
aren't always in the best interests of the project, and has said so.
Note that Jay, Bish, Tony Sidaway, etc. are considered other
participants in this on-going war. Neither side gives a very good
account of itself, and it would be better if they all grew up, but
there you go.
Yrs,
--
James D. Forrester
-----------
From: (James Forrester)
Date: Sat, 25 Aug 2007 11:20:14 +0100
Subject: [Arbcom-l] SlimVirgin sockpuppetry discussion on AN/I
On 25/08/07, Kirill Lokshin wrote:
>
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Adm...ckpuppet.28s.29>
> A number of editors are, as expected, expressing concern over the use
> of oversight in this case.
>
> I think that we ought to make some public statement at this point,
> even if only to the effect of "we're aware of this and are looking
> into it".
How about this:
"Official Statement:
The Arbitration Committee is aware of these allegations and has been
investigating them in great detail. The Committee is convinced that
SlimVirgin did not deliberately attempt to abusively use sock-puppets,
and that they are merely artefacts of a new user deciding which
account she should use.
Despite the provenance of these claims, it is always a matter of grave
concern when suggestions of abuse of high-level privileges, and so the
Committee will continue to investigate further and update the
community when it has something to report. Please be patient, however,
as it is more important for us to get the correct answer then issue a
response immediately.
By and for the Committee.
~~~~"
The main intent of this is to (a) calm people down, (b) get Slim off
point for the rabid attackers - it seems laughable to me that she
might have been "abusively" socking when there's only one example,
easily explained as a mistake, and © inform them that just because
what they're mainly focussing on is not worth considering, that
doesn't mean nothing will come of this.
Yours,
--
James D. Forrester
-----------
From: (Slim Virgin)
Date: Sat, 25 Aug 2007 04:32:31 -0500
Subject: [Arbcom-l] [Fwd: The Skinny on SlimVirgin's abusive
sockpuppetry]
Jimbo, I've now had a chance to look at the diffs regarding the Sweet Blue
Water account. Apologies to anyone who has seen this already. I've
sent it out to several people in response to the AN/I thread that Cyde
started,
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/WP:AN/I#SlimV...ckpuppet.28s.29but I'm sending it again as part of this thread too to make sure no
one misses it.
Sweet Blue Water
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contr...weet_Blue_Waterwas an early account I created a few weeks after I started
editing. I created it because I wasn't sure I wanted to carry on
editing with the SlimVirgin user name. I'd created Slim before I
realized how addictive WP was, and before I knew that I'd continue as
an editor.
When I realized I wanted to continue, I wondered about the
appropriateness of calling myself SlimVirgin (why I chose it in the
first place is a long story), so I thought maybe I should switch to
another user name.
I chose Sweet Blue Water and started editing with it to see how I felt
about it. I didn't try to hide that it was me, although I also didn't
announce it. I wasn't thinking in terms of sockpuppetry at all.
If you look at the diffs, there were no 3RR violations, no content
disputes, nothing that I gained any advantage in. The account made 27
edits in total, over a period of about a week in 2004/5. 16 of the
edits were to articles, 1 to article talk, and one to an FAC
discussion. I also made a couple of edits with the account to its user
and talk page in July and September 2005.
The only inappropriate diff is when I voted twice for 9/11 to become a
featured article. This was an error. I voted in support at 10:50 Jan 3
(UTC) as Sweet Blue Water. This was in the middle of the night my
time. I then went to bed and slept. When I woke up the next day, I
forgot that I'd voted for it with Sweet Blue Water, and I supported it
again with SlimVirgin 13 hours later at 23:23 Jan 3 (UTC).
I first noticed that I'd done this two days later. My intention was to
e-mail Raul654 if there was any chance of the article getting FA
status, and tell him Sweet Blue was me. But there were too many
legitimate objections, so it was pretty obvious it would fail and that
my double support had made no difference. It did, in fact, fail a few
days later, on Jan 10, 2005.
Because of that mistake, I decided I needed to make up my mind and
choose between Sweet Blue and Slim, which I did on Jan 5. I chose Slim
because I'd already started to identify with that account, whereas
Sweet Blue felt like a stranger. So SweetB got retired on Jan 5, 2005,
except for a few more posts on her user or talk page, but no more
article or article-talk edits.
I believe WordBomb's allegation is that oversight was abused to hide
this sockpuppetry, because an IP address that he says was mine made an
edit logged out, replying to a question that was asked of Sweet Blue.
And then that edit got oversighted. Therefore, there was a cover-up.
There's no truth in the claim that oversight was used to hide this.
When Wikipedia Review first started seriously trying to out me in or
around June 2006, I asked Jayjg to oversight some early edits of mine
that I felt might identify me, including some edits I'd made while
inadvertently logged out. I did this because some of the posts to
Wikipedia Review scared me, and at least one of them seemed to
threaten physical violence, so I was frightened.
I gave Jayjg the IP address, and he oversighted its edit(s). He
wouldn't have looked to see whether it looked like a SlimVirgin or a
Sweet Blue edit, because he didn't know about Sweet Blue. I didn't
even think to mention it, because I didn't realize I'd edited logged
out as that account. Or else I didn't recall that I had. I honestly
don't remember whether I realized at the time that I'd made that
logged-out edit, but my belief is that I didn't realize.
Jay is innocent of any wrong-doing in this. He was only trying to help
because I was worried about some of the people who were posting to
Wikipedia Review. If anyone is to be penalized for that, it should be
me, because I'm the one who made the request, although I also believe
this was a legitimate use of oversight. My fear of being identifed was
very real, and I had reason to be worried because of the nature of the
interest in me.
As for the 9/11 FA, I can only give my word that the double vote was a
simple mistake. I was a new editor, not as careful as I am now, not as
conscious of the policies, not as mindful of the implications of using
two accounts at once. But there was no intention to deceive.
The reason I don't want to post in public about this in response to
the AN/I thread is that I don't want to confirm the IP address was
mine. No matter
what WordBomb thinks he knows, I've never publicly confirmed or denied
any of Wikipedia Review's claims about my identity or location, and I
don't want to start now. I also don't want to give him the
satisfaction of seeing me having to post a long explanation about
something I did over two-and-a-half years ago. Anything I say in
public, he's likely to find a way to distort anyway.
That's it. If you have any questions, I'll be happy to answer them.
Sarah