From: (Theresa Knott)
Date: Sat, 25 Aug 2007 12:31:55 +0100
Subject: [Arbcom-l] SlimVirgin sockpuppetry discussion on AN/I
In that discussion, some people have expressed concern over the lack
of oversight for the use of oversight. I think that is a valid point.
As far as I know, no one has ever checked any of the oversights I have
ever done., and I certainly have never checked any of the oversights
anyone else has done. If we were routinely checking each other's
decisions, then oversight errors would be far less likely. OTOH
reqeusts for oversight are getting far more frequent than I ever
thought likely. I don't want to check all oversights and so don't
want to check ones that have already been checked. We could set up
some sort of system on the oversight list. Request by, done by,
checked by.
----------
From: (Matthew Brown)
Date: Sat, 25 Aug 2007 04:32:53 -0700
Subject: [Arbcom-l] Wikipedia e-mail (Judd Bagley)
On 8/25/07, David Gerard wrote:
> Anyone *not* get this?
Not so far, though it may be in my spam folder.
-Matt
----------
From: (Theresa Knott)
Date: Sat, 25 Aug 2007 12:34:52 +0100
Subject: [Arbcom-l] [Fwd: The Skinny on SlimVirgin's abusive
sockpuppetry]
I've recieved an email from Judd Bagley. Has everyome else got one or
did he single me out?
Theresa
-----------
From: charles.r.matthews
Date: Sat, 25 Aug 2007 13:19:17 +0100
Subject: [Arbcom-l] SlimVirgin sockpuppetry discussion on AN/I
"James Forrester" wrote
> How about this:
>
> "Official Statement:
>
> The Arbitration Committee is aware of these allegations and has been
> investigating them in great detail.
I was quite interested, in SlimVirgin's roundrobin mail, that she referred to Jayjg's oversighter status as 'threatened'. Exactly where did that come from? What allegations are considered on this list is of course a confidential matter, for very good reasons, and any breach of that confidentiality is going to affect, first, the person against whom allegations are made.
>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.
But are we convinced of that? We have looked at Jay's side of this, plenty. I thought we were waiting for SV to reply to Jimbo's request, before plunging into that side of it.
> 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.
I would replace the second bit. I've spun out various forms of words already. The points I would want to see emphasized are (i) nothing of continuing relevance to our Arbitration function, and (ii) no intentional concealment of anything that was manifestly outside Oversight policy. But (ii) might not be enough for Steve and Kirill.
Charles
----------
From: charles.r.matthews
Date: Sat, 25 Aug 2007 13:25:42 +0100
Subject: [Arbcom-l] SlimVirgin sockpuppetry discussion on AN/I
"Theresa Knott" wrote
> In that discussion, some people have expressed concern over the lack
> of oversight for the use of oversight. I think that is a valid point.
Steve has said something on this. I mentioned the option of a Steward performing a specific inquiry into use of Oversight. Perhaps Steve's point could be accommodated by some wider brief? Anyway, while we are discussing measures that might reassure those outside the loop, announcing an inquiry sounds a propos.
Charles
----------
From: charles.r.matthews
Date: Sat, 25 Aug 2007 13:51:59 +0100
Subject: [Arbcom-l] SlimVirgin sockpuppetry discussion on AN/I
I wrote
> >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.
> But are we convinced of that? We have looked at Jay's side of this, plenty. I thought we were waiting for SV to reply to Jimbo's request, before plunging into that side of it.
I should modify that, having found the two mails SV wrote to us on the specific topic, amid the welter of email coming in overnight. It might be reasonable to say something along those lines. People on the list in other time zones may need time to get up to speed with it, too. Can I ask that the various other points I have raised be considered, also?
Charles
-----------
From: (Theresa Knott)
Date: Sat, 25 Aug 2007 13:57:06 +0100
Subject: [Arbcom-l] SlimVirgin sockpuppetry discussion on AN/I
On 8/25/07, charles.r.matthews wrote:
> I wrote
>
> > >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.
>
> > But are we convinced of that?
I suggest using the word "satisfied" rather than "convinced".
Convinced --> without a shadow of doubt, whereas satisfied indicates
weaker conviction.
Theresa
-----------
From: (James Forrester)
Date: Sat, 25 Aug 2007 14:36:51 +0100
Subject: [Arbcom-l] [Fwd: The Skinny on SlimVirgin's abusive
sockpuppetry]
On 25/08/07, Theresa Knott wrote:
> I've recieved an email from Judd Bagley. Has everyome else got one or
> did he single me out?
See the other thread (yes, we all got it).
Yours,
--
James D. Forrester
-----------
From: (Kirill Lokshin)
Date: Sat, 25 Aug 2007 10:17:06 -0400
Subject: [Arbcom-l] SlimVirgin sockpuppetry discussion on AN/I
On 8/25/07, charles.r.matthews wrote:
> "James Forrester" wrote
>
> > How about this:
> >
> > "Official Statement:
> >
> > The Arbitration Committee is aware of these allegations and has been
> > investigating them in great detail.
>
> I was quite interested, in SlimVirgin's roundrobin mail, that she referred to Jayjg's oversighter status as 'threatened'. Exactly where did that come from? What allegations are considered on this list is of course a confidential matter, for very good reasons, and any breach of that confidentiality is going to affect, first, the person against whom allegations are made.
>
> >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.
>
> But are we convinced of that? We have looked at Jay's side of this, plenty. I thought we were waiting for SV to reply to Jimbo's request, before plunging into that side of it.
>
> > 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.
>
> I would replace the second bit. I've spun out various forms of words already. The points I would want to see emphasized are (i) nothing of continuing relevance to our Arbitration function, and (ii) no intentional concealment of anything that was manifestly outside Oversight policy. But (ii) might not be enough for Steve and Kirill.
I have no problems with considering the concealment unintentional and
simply stating that neither Jay, nor anyone else who examined the
oversighted edits at that time, examined them deeply enough to realize
that there was anything problematic there. The question of intent is
really a minor one, in my view;.
What I would like to see us do here would be to admit that the
oversights did occur, that -- in hindsight -- there is some question
as to whether that was the best approach, and, if possible, to restore
SV's early editing history (which Brandt & Co. will doubtlessly
publish anyways) so that the community may examine it and make up its
own mind.
(But I realize that this last point may be too much for those of us
who think the oversight was a good idea to begin with.)
Kirill
----------
From: (FloNight)
Date: Sat, 25 Aug 2007 11:30:49 -0400
Subject: [Arbcom-l] SlimVirgin sockpuppetry discussion on AN/I
>
> > > 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.
> >
> > I would replace the second bit. I've spun out various forms of words
> already. The points I would want to see emphasized are (i) nothing of
> continuing relevance to our Arbitration function, and (ii) no intentional
> concealment of anything that was manifestly outside Oversight policy. But
> (ii) might not be enough for Steve and Kirill.
>
> I have no problems with considering the concealment unintentional and
> simply stating that neither Jay, nor anyone else who examined the
> oversighted edits at that time, examined them deeply enough to realize
> that there was anything problematic there. The question of intent is
> really a minor one, in my view;.
>
> What I would like to see us do here would be to admit that the
> oversights did occur, that -- in hindsight -- there is some question
> as to whether that was the best approach, and, if possible, to restore
> SV's early editing history (which Brandt & Co. will doubtlessly
> publish anyways) so that the community may examine it and make up its
> own mind.
>
> (But I realize that this last point may be too much for those of us
> who think the oversight was a good idea to begin with.)
>
> Kirill
Good statement with the change of the word to "satisfied".
I know quite a bit about this incident being that I was the person that made
the determination that Wordbomb/Bagley and sockpuppets should be indef
blocked. And that his complaints about other users sockpuppeting should not
be dealt with with indef blocks. He appealed the decision to Fred and later
to Jimbo. At that time we all agreed that Wordbom/Bagley was not a
reasonable person. That his methods of dealing with us was not appropriate.
That serious stalking and harassment was occurring on and off site.
For that reason I have concerns about undoing the oversight. We need to be
careful not to legitimize the claims of Bagley, Brandt, and the folks at
Wikiapedia Review. Part of the problem here is that these people want
attention for their Cause. They want to bring their outside fights on to
Wikipedia. That is the reason the Bagley is so upset with Sarah. She would
not let him pursue his grudge against Gary Weiss at Wikipedia. He was
determined to make her pay for this. So here we are,.. After 15 months of
research, he presents this Damning Evidence against SV and Jay. And spins it
in a way that makes it look like there has been horrific abuse.
Unless we make it a regular practice to go back and look at past oversights
and undo them, I feel that doing it in this case will add to the drama. Make
this incident seem more important than it really is.
I'm interested in listening to other opinions about this matter.
Take care,
Sydney
-----------
From: (James Forrester)
Date: Sat, 25 Aug 2007 16:35:20 +0100
Subject: [Arbcom-l] SlimVirgin sockpuppetry discussion on AN/I
On 25/08/07, Kirill Lokshin wrote:
> I have no problems with considering the concealment unintentional and
> simply stating that neither Jay, nor anyone else who examined the
> oversighted edits at that time, examined them deeply enough to realize
> that there was anything problematic there. The question of intent is
> really a minor one, in my view.
Agreed, absolutely.
> What I would like to see us do here would be to admit that the
> oversights did occur, that -- in hindsight -- there is some question
> as to whether that was the best approach, and, if possible, to restore
> SV's early editing history (which Brandt & Co. will doubtlessly
> publish anyways) so that the community may examine it and make up its
> own mind.
>
> (But I realize that this last point may be too much for those of us
> who think the oversight was a good idea to begin with.)
Regardless of whether anyone considers it "too much", I cannot see any
rational course of action that does not involve restoring all of these
edits. To fail so to do will not protect anyone's privacy at all, and
will only cause greater problems not only for the Committee and our
relationship with the community, but for Slim herself.
Yours,
--
James D. Forrester
----------
From: (Timothy Titcomb)
Date: Sat, 25 Aug 2007 11:40:18 -0400
Subject: [Arbcom-l] SlimVirgin sockpuppetry discussion on AN/I
On Aug 25, 2007, at 8:51 AM, <charles.r.matthews> wrote:
> I wrote
>
>>> 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.
>
>> But are we convinced of that? We have looked at Jay's side of
>> this, plenty. I thought we were waiting for SV to reply to Jimbo's
>> request, before plunging into that side of it.
>
> I should modify that, having found the two mails SV wrote to us on
> the specific topic, amid the welter of email coming in overnight.
> It might be reasonable to say something along those lines. People
> on the list in other time zones may need time to get up to speed
> with it, too. Can I ask that the various other points I have raised
> be considered, also?
Not even close to being "up to speed" yet, but I want to interject
something somewhere. This seems as good a place as any (any port in a
storm). We have Slim's explanation of the sockpupetry -- which I
accept. But before we dismiss that part of this, I think we have to
ask, and have answered: Has she used any other accounts?
Paul August
----------
From: (Timothy Titcomb)
Date: Sat, 25 Aug 2007 11:40:44 -0400
Subject: [Arbcom-l] SlimVirgin sockpuppetry discussion on AN/I
Yes
On Aug 25, 2007, at 8:57 AM, Theresa Knott wrote:
> On 8/25/07, charles.r.matthews wrote:
>> I wrote
>>
>>>> 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.
>>
>>> But are we convinced of that?
>
> I suggest using the word "satisfied" rather than "convinced".
> Convinced --> without a shadow of doubt, whereas satisfied indicates
> weaker conviction.
>
> Theresa
----------
From: (FloNight)
Date: Sat, 25 Aug 2007 11:50:54 -0400
Subject: [Arbcom-l] Confidentiality of arbcom-l discussions
On 8/24/07, 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.
>
> Steve
Curious about what makes you think so.
Sydney aka FloNight
-----------
From: (Fred Bauder)
Date: Sat, 25 Aug 2007 17:03:48 +0000
Subject: [Arbcom-l] [Fwd: The Skinny on SlimVirgin's
abusive sockpuppetry]
There are infractions of policy and appropriate action should be taken. The time they occurred affects what is appropriate. Which in the case of SlimVirgin would have been a stern warning and in the case of Jayjg, probably removal of the oversight tool.
I don't think we should endorse the partially successful campaign to out SlimVirgin.
However, it would be much better if people with something to hide chose not to assume critical administrative positions. It is an invitation to trouble. The eventual discovery provides a much better story than the hidden information ever could.
Fred
----------
From: (sannse)
Date: Sat, 25 Aug 2007 20:00:18 +0100
Subject: [Arbcom-l] Wikipedia e-mail (Judd Bagley)
Even I got it, inactive as I am. Dunno if that's as retired arbcom or
he also sent it to various admins...
(Hi again all by the way)
-- sannse
-----------
From: (Jimmy Wales)
Date: Fri, 24 Aug 2007 20:01:48 -0400
Subject: [Arbcom-l] Confidentiality of arbcom-l discussions
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.
I agree. But notice that she has been cc'd on parts of this from the
start...
----------
From: (David Gerard)
Date: Sat, 25 Aug 2007 23:00:11 +0100
Subject: [Arbcom-l] Confidentiality of arbcom-l discussions
On 25/08/07, Jimmy Wales wrote:
> 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.
> I agree. But notice that she has been cc'd on parts of this from the
> start...
Also, Jay's on this list ... are you going to say "you're not allowed
to say to other people that the AC is discussing you"? I can't see
that being workable. If a discussion is going to affect someone
directly and they know about it, you can hardly tell them they must
keep that secret.
- d.
----------
From: (Jimmy Wales)
Date: Sat, 25 Aug 2007 18:16:10 -0400
Subject: [Arbcom-l] [Fwd: Re: Wikipedia's response to cyberstalking]
Sending to arbcom-l in case anyone is not on this giant cc list. (IMG:
smilys0b23ax56/default/smile.gif)
-------- Original Message --------
Subject: Re: Wikipedia's response to cyberstalking
Date: Sat, 25 Aug 2007 02:46:36 -0500
From: Slim Virgin
To: <everyone from before>
I've now had a chance to look at the diffs regarding the Sweet Blue
Water account, which WordBomb has accused me of sockpuppeting with in
2004/5, and which I believe the ArbCom is looking into. My apologies
for the delay in sending this, but I've had a lot of e-mails to
respond to today.
Sweet Blue Water
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contr...weet_Blue_Waterwas an early account that 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 about it
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/WP:AN/I#SlimV...ckpuppet.28s.29is 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 any of you have questions, I'll be happy to answer them.
Sarah
On 8/24/07, Mantan Moreland wrote:
> Florence, you ask what can be done. For starters, I think it is important
> that Wikipedia and the Foundation, at the highest levels, recognize the
> seriousness of the problem and take a strong and proactive stance against
> the kind of concerted stalking campaign to which Slim has been subjected.
>
> In the case of Judd Bagley ("WordBomb" and sockpuppets) you have a corporate
> official, working for a small company that dislikes the editing of its
> article on Wikipedia, harassing editors and administrators. The head of that
> company has personally attacked Slim on message boards. That is the kind of
> company you are dealing with.
>
> Note I say "company." This is not the pajamadeen. This is a company on the
> warpath against Wikipedia.
>
> As if that was not enough, Overstock is actually a competitor of Wikipedia.
> I don't believe Slim mentioned that Overstock has a wiki called Omuse, which
> Bagley was hired to run.I believe the url is omuse.overstock.com.
>
> Some of what he has done is legally questionable (the spyware, the anonymous
> cyberstalking) and may be against the law.
>
> I think this needs to be dealt with at a high level, and that both Bagley
> and Overstock.com need to be warned to desist harassing Wikipedia and its
> editors.
>
> Bagley and Overstock have already paid a high price for behavior of this
> kind. It has received significant negative publicity in the media. But that
> is clearly not enough and has not stopped Bagley from continuing his
> activities, on behalf of this would-be competitor of Wikipedia, to undermine
> and disrupt Wikipedia..
>
> And now you have this AN/I. First he threatened Slim and now he is carrying
> out that threat, by the antisocialmedia.net item, and now an administrator
> has lamentably done Bagley's bidding by making an issue of it.
>
> Note the website to which the AN/I links. Somebody hates SlimVirgin so much
> that he set up another web page, so that people would not have to link to an
> "attack site."
>
> On 8/24/07, Florence Devouard wrote:
> > Slim Virgin wrote:
> > > Jimbo wrote to me and the ArbCom recently in response to yet another
> > > an allegation from WordBomb, a banned editor who in real life is Judd
> > > Bagley, the Vice-President of Social Media for Overstock.com.
> > >
> > > Bagley is a known cyberstalker. His latest allegation is that, when I
> > > first started at Wikipedia, I had a sockpuppet account. This follows
> > > allegations from Daniel Brandt that I work for MI5 and am being paid
> > > to edit Wikipedia. I don't know how these allegations tie together,
> > > but I've no doubt the synthesis is imaginative. WordBomb has told
> > > Jimbo he is about to have something about it published, implying
> > > mainstream media (he's already published it on his website). He's been
> > > threatening this kind of thing for over a year.
> > >
> > > I'm sending my response to the sockpuppet allegations in another
> > > e-mail, which I'll copy to everyone on this list. I've already told
> > > Jimbo that the MI5 allegation is pure fantasy.
> > >
> > > The reason I'm writing this is that I'm becoming increasingly
> > > concerned about the way Wikipedia responds when its editors and
> > > administrators are under attack. This issue has been raised many
> > > times, mostly by the people who've been cyberstalked, but the
> > > discussions don't lead anywhere. Here, again, we have a situation
> > > where a regular editor is being investigated (it appears) by the
> > > Arbitration Committee as a result of abuse from a banned editor, and
> > > is expected to spend time wading through nonsense on various attacks
> > > sites in order to defend herself. The bottom line is that it sometimes
> > > feel as if AGF and BLP apply to everyone except Wikipedians who are
> > > being attacked by banned editors.
> > >
> > > I therefore want to open up a discussion about this between the
> > > Foundation, the ArbCom, people who've expressed concern about
> > > cyberstalking, and the victims of it, most of whom are administrators
> > > who were targeted for doing their jobs. The consequences of the
> > > stalking have been very serious for us as individuals, but because we
> > > all live in our little bubbles and don't talk about it much, the
> > > seriousness of the situation has perhaps not struck home forcefully
> > > enough.
> > >
> > > The editors on this list include someone who has had to move house
> > > because of cyberstalking; someone who had to pretend that her mother
> > > had died in order to stop the harassment of her family; two people
> > > accused of being paid to edit Wikipedia by intelligence agencies;
> > > various people who've had their names, addresses, and photographs
> > > published; at least two people who've been named and accused of
> > > pedophilia; one person whose disabled father was threatened with
> > > violence; one person who had to stop editing because the stalkers were
> > > going to contact her employer with various allegations; one person who
> > > was investigated by the police after a stalker told his university
> > > that he might have murdered someone; a lawyer named for alleged
> > > inappropriate behavior; people named as having various sexual
> > > preferences that their friends or families don't know about; and
> > > people whose employment possibilities have been undermined, perhaps
> > > for the rest of their lives, because of the seriousness of the
> > > allegations against them.
> > >
> > > At least seven of us are women. Whether that makes any difference to
> > > the intensity of the stalking, I don't know. I feel it does, but I
> > > know others disagree. In my own case, my appearance has been discussed
> > > in detail, what kind of bra I wear, whether I've slept with people to
> > > get jobs in real life, whether I'm a whore, whether I enjoy having sex
> > > with young boys, and whether I'm worried about being raped.
> > >
> > > Most of the time, the police can't or won't help, because it involves
> > > the Web, and the laws governing cyberspace are complex and differ
> > > around the world. Libel lawyers are expensive, and the stalkers often
> > > don't have assets worth suing for anyway. So it's difficult to know
> > > how or whether to respond.
> > >
> > > Everyone accepts that there's a limit to how much the Foundation can
> > > help, primarily because of limited funds. But the lack of help seems
> > > to go beyond money issues. I'm not aware of anyone who has received
> > > even the most rudimentary legal advice, although maybe there has been
> > > help that I don't know about. I do know that a few people under attack
> > > have written expressing concern and received no response. Perhaps the
> > > issue is that the Foundation's legal position is that it's not a
> > > publisher, and therefore it can't be seen to involve itself in these
> > > situations. The problem with that position is that it leaves those
> > > under attack swinging in the wind.
> > >
> > > What's worse than that, though, is that editors who are attacked
> > > sometimes find themselves being accused again via the mailing list or
> > > the ArbCom. And the admins who help those editors end up in more
> > > trouble from the stalkers, then from the ArbCom again.
> > >
> > > In my own case, I've been attacked a lot because, as an administrator,
> > > I went to the assistance of editors who were being outed. I helped
> > > Iron Duke who was being outed by a banned user, who turned on me, and
> > > ended up posting a great deal of nonsense about me to Wikipedia Review
> > > (I won't name him because he and I have reached a rapprochement). The
> > > attacks on me from WordBomb stem from my helping Mantanmoreland, who
> > > was being outed by WordBomb. There are many other examples where the
> > > attacker switched his attention to the admin who blocked him for the
> > > original offence, and that admin became the main enemy.
> > >
> > > ElinorD and Quadell have been criticized for helping me. Jayjg has
> > > been threatened with losing oversight because he deleted some early
> > > edits of mine that I feared would identify me. This was after I
> > > received threats of violence from an obvious lunatic on Wikipedia
> > > Review who lives in the same country as me, yet the admin I turned to
> > > for help is now facing sanctions. MONGO ended up being desyopped
> > > because his response to being attacked was seen as inappropriate.
> > >
> > > Admins who deal with these situations need strong and consistent
> > > support from the Foundation and the ArbCom, and if they're not
> > > reacting as well as they might, they need constructive advice, not
> > > more criticism. Instead, we find ourselves being investigated, months
> > > or even years after the fact, when the details are long forgotten, and
> > > all that's remembered is the banned editors' increasingly ludicrous
> > > allegations. It seems to me that, if you say something loudly enough
> > > and often enough, someone from the Foundation or ArbCom will end up
> > > believing it. I'm sorry to say this, and I know it doesn't apply to
> > > the vast majority of you. But it only takes one or two.
> > >
> > > After my recent experience of being slashdotted based on the MI5
> > > allegation, I received more e-mails of support from Wikipedians than
> > > I've had time to reply to. They included people I know and like,
> > > people I barely know, people I don't know, and people I've been in
> > > serious content disputes with, who offered their unconditional
> > > support. The response was very moving, and it taught me that the
> > > overwhelming majority of this community is decent and honorable, and
> > > has no time for this nonsense. But it's the very, very small number of
> > > people who extend good faith to the troublemakers -- but not to the
> > > Wikpedian under attack -- who become the squeakiest wheels.
> > >
> > > Something has to change about this situation. It's only a matter of
> > > time before someone ends up being physically attacked, or even turns
> > > on themselves in distress. The stalking is *incredibly* upsetting, and
> > > the lack of support from the Foundation or ArbCom feels like the last
> > > straw. It's impossible to explain to people who've never experienced
> > > it how disorienting the situation can be. In my own case, when it
> > > first started, I'd find myself bursting into tears for no reason,
> > > losing sleep, not eating properly, worrying all the time, with a
> > > constant feeling of nausea in the pit of my stomach. In the end, I
> > > stopped reading the websites publishing it, and that helped a lot. Now
> > > I have to read it all again to defend myself to the ArbCom.
> > >
> > > I was going to include some background on WordBomb/Judd Bagley for
> > > those of you not familiar with him, but this e-mail is getting long,
> > > so I'll send it separately. The important point is that he is a
> > > *professional* spin doctor, who has been outed by the mainstream media
> > > for cyberstalking, so he has zero credibility. Yet for some reason his
> > > threats are being taken seriously by Wikipedia.
> > >
> > > I hope this e-mail stimulates a debate that leads to a change of
> > > mindset about defending Wikipedians. It's only going to get worse the
> > > more popular WP becomes, so we need a strategy. Any one of us might
> > > block the wrong person at the wrong time, and find ourselves in the
> > > middle of this nonsense, so please don't think: "There's no smoke
> > > without fire, and it could never happen to me." Not true.
> > >
> > > Sarah
> >
> >
> > Thanks Sarah for this long email.
> >
> > 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.
> >
> > 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
SlimVirgin socking (Part 3)
MaliceAforethought SlimVirgin socking (Part 3) 
