*********************************************
*Wherein AC finally finds out who's in on the sekret list *
*********************************************
From: (Dmcdevit)
Date: Tue, 13 Nov 2007 13:34:06 -0800
Subject: [Arbcom-l] El C
Ugh, I'm really starting to get concerned about this. Jehochman has only
been an admin for a month, and has already been embroiled in quite a bit
of controversy. Recently he blocked an editor for a week at the behest
of anther forum-shopping edit warrior, and offered no evidence of any
reason, except the month old diffs dredged up by the reporter. He wasn't
unblocked until El C and I (who don't often agree!) got a lot of evasive
rhetoric back, but nothing substantive. This is apparently why he calls
El C "hardly an uninvolved party." You also will remember the
disagreement over Jehochman's indef-block of Sadi Carnot.
I'm concerned the Greg Kohs stuff is being used to give him carte blanch
here in unrelated matters. Several people in the community are concerned
over his accusations of various accounts being Kohs, and even Sarah, who
he has quoted in other emails recently to the list and who nominated him
at RfA a month ago has made this very telling comment:
<http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Incidents&diff=prev&oldid=170904534>.
Check out the rest of the comments on that ANI thread from other trusted
admins (WJBscribe, too). This being the thread that was just blanked; I
think we need to keep in mind that a lot of sane people are concerned
that Jehochman is a new admin and a loose cannon, and ArbCom covering it
up is frustrating.
Dominic
-----------
From: (Kirill Lokshin)
Date: Tue, 13 Nov 2007 16:45:29 -0500
Subject: [Arbcom-l] El C
I do agree that things are getting out of hand, but I don't think that
Jehochman being a loose cannon is the underlying problem here. Certainly, I
get the sense that he's been encouraged to take up this particular approach.
Does anyone know what this "Wikipedia Investigations (
wpinvestigations-l at wikia.com)" business is all about, incidentally?
Kirill
-----------
From: (James Forrester)
Date: Tue, 13 Nov 2007 21:40:58 +0000
Subject: [Arbcom-l] El C
Should we alter Sadi Carnot, expanding to include Jehochman's other
actions, and severely slap his wrists? It's not closed yet.
Yours,
--
James D. Forrester
----------
From: (FloNight)
Date: Tue, 13 Nov 2007 16:54:39 -0500
Subject: [Arbcom-l] El C
In a nutshell, the idea is to share investigative techniques and
finding about some of our most disruptive and persistent ban users.
I'm on this newly started email list as well as some other trusted and
experienced users such as arbs and CUs. I'm watching to make sure the
group doesn't get over enthusiastic. If they do then they will be
reigned in.
Sydney
-----------
From: (David Gerard)
Date: Tue, 13 Nov 2007 22:02:34 +0000
Subject: [Arbcom-l] El C
On 13/11/2007, Dmcdevit wrote:
> Ugh, I'm really starting to get concerned about this. Jehochman has only
> been an admin for a month, and has already been embroiled in quite a bit
> of controversy. Recently he blocked an editor for a week at the behest
> of anther forum-shopping edit warrior, and offered no evidence of any
> reason, except the month old diffs dredged up by the reporter. He wasn't
> unblocked until El C and I (who don't often agree!) got a lot of evasive
> rhetoric back, but nothing substantive. This is apparently why he calls
> El C "hardly an uninvolved party." You also will remember the
> disagreement over Jehochman's indef-block of Sadi Carnot.
JEHochman is not a bad guy, but attracts controversy because he's an
SEO marketer who has made admin on Wikipedia. Given those two jobs, he
spends quite a lot of time working diplomatically with both (and
closely with Durova). So trouble goes out of its way to find him.
> I'm concerned the Greg Kohs stuff is being used to give him carte blanch
> here in unrelated matters. Several people in the community are concerned
> over his accusations of various accounts being Kohs, and even Sarah, who
> he has quoted in other emails recently to the list and who nominated him
> at RfA a month ago has made this very telling comment:
> <http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Incidents&diff=prev&oldid=170904534>.
> Check out the rest of the comments on that ANI thread from other trusted
> admins (WJBscribe, too). This being the thread that was just blanked; I
> think we need to keep in mind that a lot of sane people are concerned
> that Jehochman is a new admin and a loose cannon, and ArbCom covering it
> up is frustrating.
So ask for info from Durova, who works closely with him - she's a fair
bit more reliable.
- d.
----------
From: (David Gerard)
Date: Tue, 13 Nov 2007 22:03:28 +0000
Subject: [Arbcom-l] El C
On 13/11/2007, James Forrester wrote:
> Should we alter Sadi Carnot, expanding to include Jehochman's other
> actions, and severely slap his wrists? It's not closed yet.
Speak to him first, he's quite happy to take clue on board.
- d.
---------
From: (Kirill Lokshin)
Date: Tue, 13 Nov 2007 17:12:59 -0500
Subject: [Arbcom-l] El C
On Nov 13, 2007 4:54 PM, FloNight wrote:
> In a nutshell, the idea is to share investigative techniques and
> finding about some of our most disruptive and persistent ban users.
>
> I'm on this newly started email list as well as some other trusted and
> experienced users such as arbs and CUs. I'm watching to make sure the
> group doesn't get over enthusiastic. If they do then they will be
> reigned in.
Ok, that's good.
Kirill
----------
From: (Dmcdevit)
Date: Tue, 13 Nov 2007 14:14:38 -0800
Subject: [Arbcom-l] El C
David Gerard wrote:
> On 13/11/2007, James Forrester wrote:
>
>
>> Should we alter Sadi Carnot, expanding to include Jehochman's other
>> actions, and severely slap his wrists? It's not closed yet.
>>
>
>
> Speak to him first, he's quite happy to take clue on board.
>
>
I have. My impression is that he's reasonable one-on-one, and then turns
around and continues the rhetorical games on-wiki anyway.
Dominic
----------
From: (Kirill Lokshin)
Date: Tue, 13 Nov 2007 17:16:01 -0500
Subject: [Arbcom-l] El C
> Should we alter Sadi Carnot, expanding to include Jehochman's other
> actions, and severely slap his wrists? It's not closed yet.
We could do that, and deal with Physchim62 as well; but I think it would
dilute the major point of the decision (that actions like Sadi Carnot's are
thoroughly unwelcome) for relatively little benefit. They've done nothing
so egregious that we can't wait to act on it, I think.
Kirill
------------
From: (Kirill Lokshin)
Date: Wed, 14 Nov 2007 08:22:54 -0500
Subject: [Arbcom-l] Fwd: Wikipedia e-mail - Jehochman
Also copied to the private wiki.
Kirill
---------- Forwarded message ----------
From: FT2
Date: Nov 14, 2007 7:50 AM
Subject: RE: Wikipedia e-mail - Jehochman
To: Kirill Lokshin
Hi Kirril,
I don't know anything about the current allegations on Jehochman, Durova,
and various IP editors. The little I know is from policy page editing, and
the one post that caught my eye. So I probably have little to contribute
right now.
------- General
I have come across Jehochman several times on the project pages.
I have no reason at all to doubt his good faith, but his views, judgements
(including judgement of how to approach matters), comments, and proposals...
I find them often significantly below those of his peers. Then obviously
this week there was the matter posted on ANI, and the matters that showed.
Not knowing what will help, I'm going to recap both here, although it may be
none of this is significant and others will know more.
------- My experience on policy pages
Prior to this week, my main experience of him has been on policy talk pages.
I do a lot of policy editing and he's repeatedly caught my attention as a
"person you know is trying but in fact is getting in the way" and wish would
either figure out where others are at, or go edit somewhere else. Policy
editing is about
improving an 80% job to be a 90% job, and requires a good insight into
what's already there and where it falls down, and good drafting skills.
Jehochman routinely misunderstands, regularly opposes in places experienced
other editors don't, then proposes weak alternatives or problems that derail
the existing conversation. I have no reason to doubt good faith, but I wish
his skills were stronger or his recognition of his need to learn was
greater. I get the impression he overrates his insight and experience.
Opposition is useful, and valid, but on policy judgements, he's weak and
doesn't seem to realize it.
Three examples:
1)
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=...king_policy&oldid=169073498#Indef_blocks
Blocking policy is often misunderstood when it comes to indef blocks. These
are often interpreteted as bans, rather than a simple "remove until matter
is resolved". Much confusion. An addition was clearly needed (see
[[WP:INDEF]]). Note Jehochman's response on the talk page section above, in
which he states he _doesn't see the point_ of it ("won't be upset" if the
"whole thing" is deleted).
As stated, it's minor and was resolved, but the idea that he _doesn't see
the point_ in having [[WP:BLOCK]] clarify to users and admins what this most
serious kind of block actually means, is disquieting.
2)
Jehochman's edits to [[WT:COI]] seem to routinely somehow miss the mark. For
example, the post that is <s>...</s> at:
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=...lict_of_interest&oldid=170399266#COI_being_used_as_a_sole_justification_for_deletion
and
3)
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=...lict_of_interest&oldid=170399266#Nutshell
where his first comment is reasonable but thereafter his proposals are
fairly unhelpful (though note he does have the grace to notice this
appropriately rather than edit war, which is a Very Good Thing in his
favor).
As I have said, minor stuff... but so often, it seems he's the one person to
make a comment that just misses the point. Against that he _may_ well make
many comments which are helpful; I can't judge if that's so as I don't track
his other work.
More generally, I get the impression (subjectively) this isn't just about
"policy". It's more about his judgement and sense of where things are at and
how to address them, generally. I think he probably has weak judgement on
what's said, why its said, when to ask, or when/how to intervene. But that's
my reading between the lines on it. I suspect he probably jumps in at times
when a wiser admin wouldn't, and may not realise he's making more of a mess
(or not helping).
That in itself is a mild pain but not an actionable problem. I mention it
since I have no idea what arbcom is looking at, and you have asked for "any
sort of information you think may be of interest to us". The above is a
general "feeling I have", nothing more. On the bell curve of admin competent
judgement, my impression is he's below par but not damagingly so.
------- The recent ANI post.
Then, a few days ago, an IP editor posted a complaint on ANI. It contained
specific claims said to be backed up by DIFFs, and denial of wrongdoings, so
I did some checking of my own.
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=...ators%27_noticeboard/Incidents&oldid=170890043#Bizarre_behavior_from_Jehochman
On review I found there had been some discussion of concern by other admins
over Jehochman's actions recently. This had involved at least 2 other
respected administrators one of whom (El C) had taken the matter to the
point that an arbcom hearing was mentioned as a serious likelihood due to
"lack of confidence in judgement as a sysop"
[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Jehochman&oldid=1707088
31#Arbitration]. This, from a respected administrator, is not trivial.
Note that my own experience (above) is also related to concerns over
Jehochman's _judgement_ .... mild though they are by comparison.
Anyhow...
The first diff cited by this IP user at ANI, unambiguously shows Jehochman
asking the IP user whether they are a sockpuppet of [[user:El C]]
[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Jehochman&diff=17070345
3&oldid=170703309].
The misjudgement of handling here is significant -- for example, one might
ask the admin in private, or by email, and certainly one would ask the admin
on _their_ talk page, not the possible IP sock on theirs. A note on El C's
own talk page, would have been more suitable as a venue if a question of
"good hand bad hand" was going to be raised against another administrator.
And such allegations should not be made without thought and possibly
discussion, or more evidence. Again, misjudgement and mishandling. Even if
El C did use an IP, there were many better ways to handle the question, and
bad faith was not the right first assumption.
The next diff led to a talk page discussion between El C and Jehochman in
which El C expresses explicit serious concerns over the latter's "judgement
as a sysop"
[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Jehochman&diff=17070432
3&oldid=170704004] and that he is "shaken by how offensive [Jehochman's]
conduct has been thus far"
[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Jehochman&diff=17070601
0&oldid=170705463].
On reading the original post, I found that Jehochman had himself deleted the
post that was critical of him.
Even if the user was "banned" (which was not evidenced there and it sounded
like there was some question on the matter as I recall), I feel that good
judgement would rarely have an admin removing criticism of themselves placed
on ANI for communal review, by someone they evidently have a dispute with,
who has asked in reasonable tone and presented verifiable diffs. The
perception of COI would be significant.
Admin judgement should take that into account. Jehochman apparently did not
think of it, or ignored it.
-------
In essence, that's what I have seen. Blanking criticisms at ANI, asking an
_IP_ if it's a sock of a respected admin, poor intervention in policy
debates...
These probably aren't entirely good things to see going on. Possibly there
are many _good_ interventions and I'm just seeing the inevitable poor
quality few. Who knows?
But in the end, it's not any specific incident so much as a general
long-standing impression and feeling, that he needs a clue more often... and
for someone who blocks or makes allegations and works with topics like COI,
blocking, and other incidents at ANI, that's not a good thing to feel.
In the end, that is still my main concern.
It's clearly small beans compared to the other allegations of puppetry and
such.
Best,
FT2.
----------
From: (Kirill Lokshin)
Date: Wed, 14 Nov 2007 08:27:18 -0500
Subject: [Arbcom-l] Jehochman
On Nov 14, 2007 12:09 AM, Daniel wrote:
> Heya Kirill,
>
> I saw your note on ANI, but I nearly missed it (I'm compiling some
> evidence now).
>
> A suggestion: as with the Nathanrdotcom case which was similarily
> conducted via email, would it be possible to add a notice to WP:RFAR or the
> open tasks template instructing people how to give evidence? Just a thought,
> because some may miss the ANI posting which will be archived in 24h anyways.
>
> Cheers,
>
> DB
>
Is it worth doing this, or should we try to keep things under wraps?
Kirill
---------
From: (Kirill Lokshin)
Date: Thu, 15 Nov 2007 10:47:41 -0500
Subject: [Arbcom-l] Fwd: Hi
Curiouser and curiouser.
Kirill
---------- Forwarded message ----------
From: Durova
Date: Nov 15, 2007 10:29 AM
Subject: Fwd: Hi
To: Kirill Lokshin
Cc: Jonathan Hochman
Kirill,
I contacted El C in good faith very shortly before Jonathan suggested he
might be the IP editor we were searching for. Then I helped Jonathan with
background research for his evidence. I sincerely hope Jonathan's
conclusion is mistaken, but I have found no flaw that would disprove
it. The evidence, although circumstantial, was strong enough that I
consider it worthy of the Committee's attention. I hope Sarah cooperates
because her information is better than ours.
Temporary restrictions until the matter can be fully investigated may be the
best option here.
If El C actually was the editor who harassed me, then I wholeheartedly
oppose Jonathan's request for outright leniency. Sinus problems do not turn
decent men into cyberstalkers and a senior administrator who harasses me
would (and probably has) harassed unknown numbers of other people. The use
of open proxies makes it unlikely that we would be able to identify or
remedy the problem if it recurs. Most editors are easier targets than I
am. It is my considered opinion that the best interests of the project
would not be served by allowing such a problem to continue. I have too much
respect for other women to endorse Jonathan's request.
-Lise
---------- Forwarded message ----------
From: El C
Date: Nov 15, 2007 12:20 AM
Subject: Re: Hi
To: Durova
Hi and sorry for the delay.
Following minor sinus surgery, I developed serious and unexpected
post-op complications. Will be out of commission for the foreseeable
future. Hope to speak to everyone then.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
ps. this note is being copied across to many emails. Sorry, I wasn't
able to devote individual attention to all/any emails at this time,
there were too many and my access is rather limited.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
pps.. looks like I switched the Hebrew/English version of this note in
a few places. Oops // ???? ?????? ?? ?????? ???????\????? ???? ??????.
????
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
On Nov 13, 2007 11:44 PM, Durova wrote:
> You posted a question about the recent ANI thread. Is there anything
you'd like to ask me?
>
> We really haven't interacted much at all outside of the Giovanni33-John
Smith's arbitration case, and I was a bit concerned by your recent post to
my user talk page.
>
> A banned editor named Greg Kohs (Wikipedia Review) has been spreading wild
accusations about Jehochman and myself. I'd be happy to address any
concerns you may have about that.
>
> Also, if you'd like a behind-the-scenes look at the Alkivar case I have a
"trusted user" version of my evidence you can view. Except for some e-mails
and a couple of things like that it's the bulk of my evidence. You may find
it illuminating.
>
> The privacy surrounding the Alkivar case may have raised some questions
from your perspective. Actually it'd be a relief to me if you saw the
difference between the kind of sysop he was and what I think you are. You
and I had a difference of opinion on a policy application, and reasonable
people can disagree on these things.
>
> Best regards,
> Durova
----------
From: (Theresa Knott)
Date: Thu, 15 Nov 2007 20:36:12 +0000
Subject: [Arbcom-l] Fwd: Hi
<snip>
> I contacted El C in good faith very shortly before Jonathan suggested he
> might be the IP editor we were searching for. Then I helped Jonathan with
> background research for his evidence. I sincerely hope Jonathan's
> conclusion is mistaken, but I have found no flaw that would disprove it.
Where is the evidence she is talking about? Has she posted it to this list?
Theresa
---------
Date: Thu, 15 Nov 2007 15:57:56 -0500
Subject: [Arbcom-l] Fwd: Hi
On Nov 15, 2007 3:36 PM, Theresa Knott wrote:
> <snip>
> > I contacted El C in good faith very shortly before Jonathan suggested he
> > might be the IP editor we were searching for. Then I helped Jonathan
> with
> > background research for his evidence. I sincerely hope Jonathan's
> > conclusion is mistaken, but I have found no flaw that would disprove it.
>
> Where is the evidence she is talking about? Has she posted it to this
> list?
It was posted by Jonathan, but is probably still in the moderation
queue. Presumably it'll get through once somebody goes through
today's mail. <Malice's note: Jehochman sends email in html format; the archives don't support>
(Either that or we need more moderators.)
Kirill
----------
From: dgerard at gmail.com (David Gerard)
Date: Thu, 15 Nov 2007 21:17:05 +0000
Subject: [Arbcom-l] Fwd: Hi
On 15/11/2007, Kirill Lokshin wrote:
> It was posted by Jonathan, but is probably still in the moderation queue.
> Presumably it'll get through once somebody goes through today's mail.
> (Either that or we need more moderators.)
*cough* I've just cleared the queue.
Any more volunteers, please speak up!
(The load is pretty light. Just clear the spam and let through
anything by a human.)
- d.
----------
From: (David Gerard)
Date: Thu, 15 Nov 2007 21:43:22 +0000
Subject: [Arbcom-l] [Fwd: User:24.19.33.82]
On 14/11/2007, Jonathan Hochman wrote:
> Kirill, I request that the case be named Merops Ornatus after our mystery editor.
Checkuser on the IP shows no known usernames - all edits in the CU
database are from the IP only. User-agent is:
Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; U; PPC Mac OS X Mach-O; en-US; rv:1.8.1.9)
Gecko/20071025 Firefox/2.0.0.9
The IP is c-24-19-33-82.hsd1.mn.comcast.net (24.19.33.82).
I'd love JEHochman and Durova to include the full headers of the
emails, in case the senders were foolish enough to leave a trail ...
- d.
-----------
From: (Theresa Knott)
Date: Thu, 15 Nov 2007 22:14:59 +0000
Subject: [Arbcom-l] [Fwd: User:24.19.33.82]
On Nov 14, 2007 3:41 PM, Jonathan Hochman wrote:
>
> Kirill, I request that the case be named Merops Ornatus after our mystery
> editor.
>
> See also [[User:Merops ornatus]], a sock puppet with an interest in the
> Giano case.
Note that this sockpuppet's only edit was on the 1st January 2007.
Merops Ornatus is the latin name for an Australian bird. I don't know
how common this bird is, but it seems to me to be perfectly possible
that this IP and the above user account are not related at all.
Theresa
----------
From: (jayjg)
Date: Thu, 15 Nov 2007 17:23:34 -0500
Subject: [Arbcom-l] [Fwd: User:24.19.33.82]
On Nov 15, 2007 5:14 PM, Theresa Knott wrote:
> On Nov 14, 2007 3:41 PM, Jonathan Hochman wrote:
> >
> > Kirill, I request that the case be named Merops Ornatus after our mystery
> > editor.
> >
> > See also [[User:Merops ornatus]], a sock puppet with an interest in the
> > Giano case.
>
> Note that this sockpuppet's only edit was on the 1st January 2007.
> Merops Ornatus is the latin name for an Australian bird. I don't know
> how common this bird is, but it seems to me to be perfectly possible
> that this IP and the above user account are not related at all.
>
> Theresa
The IP is Comcast and geolocates to Seattle, which means it's probably
User:Gnetwerker, a Wikipedia Review admin if I'm not mistaken (and
certainly a Wikipedia Review regular). He got all of his user and
sockpuppet pages deleted in June/July, claiming he had left Wikipedia
- in my experience sockpuppeters do that to confuse the trail before
returning.
In any event, I know where El C lives, and it's nowhere near Seattle.
-----------
From: (Kirill Lokshin)
Date: Tue, 20 Nov 2007 11:26:47 -0500
Subject: [Arbcom-l] Investigation of IP
On Nov 20, 2007 10:36 AM, Jonathan Hochman wrote:
> Kirill-
>
> I am very disturbed by Sarah's reactions:
>
>
>
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=...oldid=172712880>
>
>
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=...oldid=172678709>
> Can you tell me whether this situation has been handled or not? We
> need guidance on how to handle this editor, because the disruption
> just keeps continuing. I am very troubled that Sarah seems to be
> protecting this person, and that the disruption seems to be focusing
> on Durova's Arbcom candidacy.
The Committee has not acted on the material submitted to us at this time.
It's worth noting that we do not, as a matter of doctrine, have any way of
compelling editors to provide evidence; so what we have at this point is
largely speculative.
(As for candidacy disruption and such: Durova's recent behavior has not
exactly helped in stabilizing the situation.)
Kirill
-----------
From: (Newyorkbrad (Wikipedia))
Date: Wed, 21 Nov 2007 12:09:54 -0500
Subject: [Arbcom-l] Fwd: Wikipedia e-mail
To the Arbitration Committee:
I am forwarding an e-mail from User:Bus stop, below. I do not have the
information needed to respond and was wondering if perhaps any arbitrators
might know what is being referred to.
Newyorkbrad
---------- Forwarded message ----------
From: Bus stop <PaintHell at gmail.com>
Date: Nov 21, 2007 12:04 PM
Subject: Wikipedia e-mail
To: Newyorkbrad
User:Newyorkbrad, Wikipedia Arbitration Committee Clerk,
Is the administrator, User:Durova, permitted to claim on her Talk page that
I have sent her "nasty" e-mails?
It is linked to here:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Dur...#Help_with_HelpPlease scroll down to the section below "Help_with_Help" because the
section, "Bus_stop," cannot be linked to directly, for technological
reasons.
In point of fact I have never sent her ANY e-mails.
Is it permissible for an administrator to claim to have received harassing
e-mails from an editor if the reality is that she has never received ANY
e-mails from that editor?
Let User:Durova forward to the Wikipedia Arbitration Committee any e-mails
that she thinks came from me. Alternatively, let User:Durova issue a
correction on her Talk page saying that she has not received any e-mail from
User:Bus stop.
Falsehood is hardly a basis for justice. If I have to abide by the law, let
the administrator also abide by the law. She is currently claiming on her
Talk page that I have sent her nasty e-mails. I have never sent her ANY
e-mails.
I cannot refute her claim because my account is blocked. Another
administrator, User:Dweller, requested of her that my account be unblocked.
Durova's response to Dweller was that my account should not be unblocked
because I sent her nasty e-mails. But in point of fact that is 100% untrue.
I have never sent an e-mail to Durova.
Let User:Durova stick to the truth if she wants to make a case for my
account being blocked.
Bus stop
------------
From: morven(Matthew Brown)
Date: Wed, 21 Nov 2007 14:08:16 -0800
Subject: [Arbcom-l] Fwd: Wikipedia e-mail
I think it exceedingly likely that Durova is being trolled; I cannot
tell whether this 'Bus stop' is part of it, or whether people are
playing games to try and get Durova to block innocent-ish accounts.
I don't doubt Durova has received the emails; I am not so sure they
actually come from who they appear to have come from.
-Matt
------------
From: (FloNight)
Date: Wed, 21 Nov 2007 17:16:50 -0500
Subject: [Arbcom-l] Fwd: Wikipedia e-mail
If I'm reading it correctly, Durova indicates further down in the
thread in her archived talk page that most of the emails were copies
of emails that other users got and forwarded to her. This seems likely
based on the nitpicking from this user about the wording of her remark
there.
Sydney
------------
From: (Dmcdevit)
Date: Thu, 22 Nov 2007 00:00:02 -0800
Subject: [Arbcom-l] Merops ornatus - El C
Okay, I tried to give some time to wait for others to comment here
because I don't want to look like I'm on a crusade, and I'm not, but I
don't think I can keep this in anymore, especially with the recent
developments regarding Durova blocking on an "investigation" similar to
this. This so-called research by Jehochman is so flimsy it's almost
offensive. It's confirmation bias stacked on top of rhetoric.
This is serious. El C has criticized Jehochman and Durova both, and
usually rightly, for making decisions involving accusations of
wrongdoing based on little evidence and acting rashly. Of all people,
I'm probably the least likely to be agreeing with him, and not butting
heads, but on this issue he's spot on. Of course, the response is more
secret evidence sent to arbcom outright accusing El C of being some
persistent banned troll. The leap of logic chilling. While his
ridiculous block of DreamGuy and the poor response to it was bad enough,
this is massively out of line. And he has been pretending to have
reolved the issue amicably with El C all while he was preparing this
report. I've added my own snarky comments below but I would *really*
like to know what we can do about Durova/Jehochman's independent
investigations, passing around secret evidence, and blocking without and
public discussions or evidence, often mistakenly. I fear it has already
gone too far.
Jonathan Hochman wrote:
>
> There's a surprise at the end. Per El C's own disclosures, and an IM
> chat I had with Bishonen before all this started, some of El C's
> erratic behavior may be the result of a temporary medical condition.
>
Note the well-poisoning here. I don't know what erratic behavior he's
talking about (El C recently is the most sane I've seen him in a while,
if still touchy).
>
> 2. Motive - dislikes both myself and Durova.
>
This describes any number of people, and potentially me, at least, based
on what Jehochman's idea of "dislike" is.
>
> 2a. Durova:
>
> El C held a grudge against Durova from the Giovanni33-John Smith's
> case.
>
Note that no such evidence is offered. Instead, he seems to not be able
to distinguish criticism from "holding a grudge."
>
> 2b. Myself:
>
> El C has several reasons to be hostile towards me. (1) I criticized
> Bishonen for reverting a Penwhale block without proper discussion. El
> C's reaction was extremely critical.
>
Critical = hostile? Keep in mind when he says "hostile" he means that he
thinks it is bad enough for El C to create a serious of trolling
sockpuppets on open proxies to harass them. You'd think he'd have more
than that.
>
> (2) I recently blocked DreamGuy for 7 days. El C was furious.
>
Me too! Or at least, he only demonstrates critical, but not "furious"
anyway. My comments were probably not much less "furious" by his
standard than El C's.
>
> 2. See below for details on DreamGuy
>
> 2c. Durova and I don't hold grudges:
>
>
<snip self-congratulatory irrelevant goop>
>
>
> Durova also has a reputation for fairness.
>
<again>
>
>
>
> 3. Technological savvy.
>
> El C blocks many open proxies.
>
Me too!
>
>
>
>
> DreamGuy blocked for sock puppetry and edit warring, El C's response
>
>
> El C vigorously opposed the block of DreamGuy.
>
Me too!
>
> (1) I finally relented to El C's browbeating.
>
This bit is bordering on dishonesty. It was a bad block. Ill-founded and
with no evidence to support it. When El C and I pointed this out to him
on ANI, he became evasive and only barely relented to /reason/.
>
> (2) I permitted El C to unblock DreamGuy to avoid useless conflict,
>
i.e. No amount of our asking resulted in his able to give any backing
for the block, and so he backed off.
>
> *1. Browbeating and assuming bad faith*
>
>
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=...oldid=170547272 > <http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Incidents&diff=prev&oldid=170547272>
> -- "simply bizarre"
>
> El C likes to use the word "bizarre". Keep watching, it will also be
> used by the IP Editor.
>
Wow, it's such a rare and distinctive word that even _I_ used it in that
thread before the IP.
<http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Incidents&diff=prev&oldid=170681879>
I wonder if Jehochman has considered the possibility that his behavior
*is* bizarre?
> Plays dumb, refuses to follow links or see the evidence:
>
> a.
>
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=...oldid=170570542 > <http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Arbitration_enforcement&diff=prev&oldid=170570542>
>
>
> b.
>
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=...oldid=170577555 > <http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration&diff=prev&oldid=170577555>
>
>
> c.
>
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=...oldid=170578732 > <http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Suspected_sock_puppets/Dreamguy_2&diff=prev&oldid=170578732>
>
>
> d.
>
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=...oldid=170631607 > <http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Incidents&diff=170632199&oldid=170631607>
> -- "Is Jehochman playing games?"
>
Again, this is an astounding claim. El C was not playing dumb here any
more than I did. Jehochman *never,* to this day, gave any reason for the
block besides diffs from last month brought up by DreamGuy's opponent in
edit warring. He wasn't playing dumb, he was rightfully dumbfounded.
>
>
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=...oldid=170669227 > <http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk%3ADreamGuy&diff=170670174&oldid=170669227>
> --
>
> This is not a polite way to treat somebody who has backed down from an
> argument.
>
Again, guilt by exaggeration. Impoliteness does not translate to the
accusations being made, no matter how serious they are.
> ****
> I suggest we assume the most favorable set of conditions with regard
> to El C's motives. I request that the editor be subject to whatever
> temporary, hopefully voluntary controls that the committee deems
> appropriate.
This entire report was an exercise in not assuming the best of motives.
This suggestion at the end is almost comedic. I don't know if we should
simply let the open accusations stand.
Dominic
Durova block of !! (Nov/Dec 2007) Including backstory on the hidden list, and AC acting on those "investigations"
MaliceAforethought Durova block of !! (Nov/Dec 2007) Including backstory on the hidden list 
