********************
*And finally, the !! block*
********************
Malice's note: Bonus points if you noticed the difference between the AC responding to the Alkivar "evidence" and the same kind of "evidence" when used against !!.From: (Matthew Brown)
Date: Thu, 22 Nov 2007 01:18:13 -0800
Subject: [Arbcom-l] Merops ornatus - El C
I hadn't looked at this in detail yet - it was simply too much to take
in when I had read it earlier.
I do agree that this is flimsy in the extreme, and unlikely IMO.
Should someone have a word with the both of them about jumping to conclusions?
-Matt
----------
From: (Dmcdevit)
Date: Thu, 22 Nov 2007 02:07:01 -0800
Subject: [Arbcom-l] Merops ornatus - El C
Matthew Brown wrote:
> I hadn't looked at this in detail yet - it was simply too much to take
> in when I had read it earlier.
>
> I do agree that this is flimsy in the extreme, and unlikely IMO.
>
> Should someone have a word with the both of them about jumping to conclusions?
>
> -Matt
>
I'm afraid it may already be past that point. There have been
innumerable threads about different incidents related to this
"sleuthing" issue. Part of the issue seems to be that Durova's entire
image and her only real activity on Wikipedia seems to be these
investigations and tracking banned users. And her overbearing and
dismissive personality makes it hard for even reasonable people to get
through. As you probably know, Durova recently blocked an established
user, !!, who had made immense content additions, and refused to give
and reasons whatsoever on-wiki, saying she had discussed it privately
with some undisclosed people. Some of those people may be on this list.
Of course, while she may have figured out that this account is is not
new--it is the new account of {redacted WP username}, a respected former administrator
and a good writer--she never seemed to have taken the last step and
figured out just what banned user this is, and what the account did
wrong besides not being new.
She simply blocked an extremely productive user who has now left, for
now. It's not the first time
(<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:NearestAvailableNewt#Indefinite_block>
and
<http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Durova&diff=prev&oldid=171014750>)
and indeed, this troll that Jehochman accuses El C of being was
previously accused of being Greg Kohs. And there's no question that
she's doing behind-the-scenes coaching of other admins and
admin-hopefuls
(http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Durova&diff=prev&oldid=170105889)
and so I don't think it is unreasonable to be including Jehochman here.
Sometimes it is hard to tell where the one ends and the other begins.
A wide variety of trusted people are rightly concerned about all this,
and I think an arbitration case may already be int he works. Is that the
best way to solve this, or is there some other action ArbCom can do to
put an end to this?
Dominic
-----------
From: (Kirill Lokshin)
Date: Thu, 22 Nov 2007 12:04:19 -0500
Subject: [Arbcom-l] Merops ornatus - El C
On Nov 22, 2007 5:07 AM, Dmcdevit wrote:
> I'm afraid it may already be past that point. There have been
> innumerable threads about different incidents related to this
> "sleuthing" issue. Part of the issue seems to be that Durova's entire
> image and her only real activity on Wikipedia seems to be these
> investigations and tracking banned users. And her overbearing and
> dismissive personality makes it hard for even reasonable people to get
> through. As you probably know, Durova recently blocked an established
> user, !!, who had made immense content additions, and refused to give
> and reasons whatsoever on-wiki, saying she had discussed it privately
> with some undisclosed people. Some of those people may be on this list.
> Of course, while she may have figured out that this account is is not
> new--it is the new account of {redacted WP username}, a respected former administrator
> and a good writer--she never seemed to have taken the last step and
> figured out just what banned user this is, and what the account did
> wrong besides not being new.
It's all gone to hell in a handbasket, basically. If the evidence snippets
Giano posted are representative of the whole -- and I suspect they may well
be -- !! was basically blocked for knowing his way around and being helpful
(which, apparently, is an obvious sign of a ban-evading sock).
I see two major issues that we need to consider here:
1. Can we do anything about this? Coming down hard on Durova herself would
be possible, but I'm not sure that it would really solve the underlying
problem. Do we have any idea who else was involved? In the absence of any
other indication, I'd suspect that the evidence was distributed to some or
all of the people on this "Wikipedia Investigations" list we've seen
mentioned. My gut feeling is that the best thing we could do here would be
to outlaw that list specifically, and unauthorized private investigation
groups in general; but I'm not sure that we have any useful authority to do
so.
2. Do we want to act in the absence of a complaint? So far, nobody has
contacted us regarding this matter, either formally or informally. Should
we jump in with a closed investigation? Or even open a case unilaterally?
Kirill
----------
From: (Kirill Lokshin)
Date: Thu, 22 Nov 2007 13:07:19 -0500
Subject: [Arbcom-l] Merops ornatus - El C
Heh. Looks like Giano posted what appears to be the entirety of the
"evidence" (albeit briefly, as it was soon deleted by JzG):
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=...65950&diff=prevIt's nothing more than speculation and misunderstanding coupled with
monumental assumptions of bad faith; Durova's seeing a potential WR troll in
every new account, apparently.
I think we're going to have to act here.
Kirill
-----------
From: (David Gerard)
Date: Thu, 22 Nov 2007 18:13:04 +0000
Subject: [Arbcom-l] Merops ornatus - El C
On 22/11/2007, Kirill Lokshin wrote:
> Heh. Looks like Giano posted what appears to be the entirety of the
> "evidence" (albeit briefly, as it was soon deleted by JzG):
>
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=...65950&diff=prevJzG felt that posting purported private email was pure dramatising and
also just emailed me asking if this was oversightable. I suspect not,
though I haven't answered him yet.
(This sort of thing is essentially a user-RFC with the wrong heading.
Does a witch-hunt having a lot of people along count as justification
for this sort of dramatising?)
- d.
----------
From: (Kirill Lokshin)
Date: Thu, 22 Nov 2007 13:17:27 -0500
Subject: [Arbcom-l] Merops ornatus - El C
On Nov 22, 2007 1:13 PM, David Gerard wrote:
> On 22/11/2007, Kirill Lokshin wrote:
>
> > Heh. Looks like Giano posted what appears to be the entirety of the
> > "evidence" (albeit briefly, as it was soon deleted by JzG):
> >
>
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=...65950&diff=prev>
>
> JzG felt that posting purported private email was pure dramatising and
> also just emailed me asking if this was oversightable. I suspect not,
> though I haven't answered him yet.
>
> (This sort of thing is essentially a user-RFC with the wrong heading.
> Does a witch-hunt having a lot of people along count as justification
> for this sort of dramatising?)
The drama will keep building until something productive happens, at this
point. We need someone to bring a RFAR, really.
Kirill
----------
From: (David Gerard)
Date: Thu, 22 Nov 2007 18:20:06 +0000
Subject: [Arbcom-l] Merops ornatus - El C
On 22/11/2007, Kirill Lokshin wrote:
> The drama will keep building until something productive happens, at this
> point. We need someone to bring a RFAR, really.
Huh. Let's see.
- d.
-----------
From: (jayjg)
Date: Thu, 22 Nov 2007 14:05:50 -0500
Subject: [Arbcom-l] Merops ornatus - El C
On Nov 22, 2007 12:04 PM, Kirill Lokshin wrote:
> On Nov 22, 2007 5:07 AM, Dmcdevit wrote:
>
> > I'm afraid it may already be past that point. There have been
> > innumerable threads about different incidents related to this
> > "sleuthing" issue. Part of the issue seems to be that Durova's entire
> > image and her only real activity on Wikipedia seems to be these
> > investigations and tracking banned users. And her overbearing and
> > dismissive personality makes it hard for even reasonable people to get
> > through. As you probably know, Durova recently blocked an established
> > user, !!, who had made immense content additions, and refused to give
> > and reasons whatsoever on-wiki, saying she had discussed it privately
> > with some undisclosed people. Some of those people may be on this list.
> > Of course, while she may have figured out that this account is is not
> > new--it is the new account of {redacted WP username}, a respected former administrator
> > and a good writer--she never seemed to have taken the last step and
> > figured out just what banned user this is, and what the account did
> > wrong besides not being new.
>
> It's all gone to hell in a handbasket, basically. If the evidence snippets
> Giano posted are representative of the whole -- and I suspect they may well
> be -- !! was basically blocked for knowing his way around and being helpful
> (which, apparently, is an obvious sign of a ban-evading sock).
>
> I see two major issues that we need to consider here:
>
> 1. Can we do anything about this? Coming down hard on Durova herself would
> be possible, but I'm not sure that it would really solve the underlying
> problem. Do we have any idea who else was involved? In the absence of any
> other indication, I'd suspect that the evidence was distributed to some or
> all of the people on this "Wikipedia Investigations" list we've seen
> mentioned. My gut feeling is that the best thing we could do here would be
> to outlaw that list specifically, and unauthorized private investigation
> groups in general; but I'm not sure that we have any useful authority to do
> so.
I'm not sure of all the places she sent her evidence, but one of them
was the Cyberstalking list, apparently as a case study in how to
recognize a sockpuppet. She was correct in the sense that it was
obviously a new account of an experienced editor, but she certainly
didn't propose blocking the account on that list, much less get any
agreement for doing so.
----------
From: (Paul August)
Date: Thu, 22 Nov 2007 14:17:00 -0500
Subject: [Arbcom-l] Durova's methods
I have considerable respect for Durova, and I am convinced she has
been acting with the best of intentions, but I believe the block of
User:!! raises serious questions about Durova's methods. Whether or
not an ArbCom case is brought, I think those methods need a close
examination by us.
At my request Durova sent me a copy of the "report" she repaired on
User:!!. I have now read it and with Durova's permission I am
forwarding:
Paul August
P.S. Sorry for the unitentional double post to some.
Begin forwarded message:
> From: Durova
> Date: November 20, 2007 8:51:44 PM EST
> To: "Paul August"
> Subject: Re: Wikipedia e-mail
>
> No I didn't. I sent it to the cyberstalking mailing list. And I
> discussed it by chat and e-mail with a few other sleuths. Received
> about five responses that ranged from positive to enthusiastic.
>
> At the time when I acted I thought if any error this obvious were
> in the report, someone would have noticed it and brought it to my
> attention. Obviously that was a mistake on my part: I should have
> been more proactive. Apparently this user's original account was
> an open secret in some circles.
>
> I've pledged in future to not only route this kind of thing through
> ArbCom formally, but to let ArbCom act upon it. If I happen to
> join the Committee I'll still route it formally and I'll let
> another arbitrator act upon it, to be certain of avoiding the
> appearance of playing Judge Roy Bean.
>
> Lesson learned!
>
> -Lise
>
> On Nov 20, 2007 3:29 PM, Paul August <paulaugust.wp at gmail.com> wrote:
> Thanks. You didn't send this to the ArbCom Mailing list, before you
> blocked did you?
>
> Paul August
>
> On Nov 20, 2007, at 1:42 PM, Durova wrote:
>
> > For you, certainly. I'm ashamed of it now, and it's a good lesson
> > in humility that I actually used this as a case study. I'd been
> > trying to reverse engineer the WR playbook to spot their long term
> > socks. Obviously this system is flawed.
> >
> > Tell me if there's anything else I can say on the matter. A few of
> > the arbitrators have sent me queries in the last couple of days. I
> > made an honest mistake, thinking that I'd done adequate diligence,
> > but I hadn't considered all the angles and there were some checks I
> > could have performed better. Reversed myself in 75 minutes with
> > apologies and pledged some improvements to make sure this doesn't
> > happen again. Nobody bats .1000.
> >
> > -Lise
> > ******
> > Nobody's put their finger on this yet in a systematic way. Maybe
> > it's for lack of time; maybe people's brains are wired
> > differently. I need to show you not just what Wikipedia Review is
> > doing to us, but how they're doing it. And I'm setting this forth
> > as a brief seminar so you can do more than recognize when it's
> > presented to you; you can find these signs yourselves.
> >
> > The one thing I have to ask is that you all be very tight lipped
> > about this.
> >
> > First, the good news:
> >
> > 1. They're working from the same playbook.
> > 2. They don't know this list exists.
> >
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=...Administrators%> > 27_noticeboard/Incidents&diff=167325580&oldid=167325471
> >
> > Now, the case study:
> >
> > Here's a troublemaker whose username is two exclamation points with
> > no letters. !!
> >
> > It's what I would call "ripened sock" - a padded history of
> > redirects, minor edits, and some DYK work. Some of the folks at WR
> > do this to game the community's good faith. I can tell immediately
> > that it's not the user's first account. Soon you'll see the
> > telltale signs as quickly as I do.
> >
> > A. In their efforts to deceive us, they forget that new users
> > haven't learned edit summaries and wikimarkup.
> > Edit summary on the first edit:
> >
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?
> > title=Jack_Kerr&diff=prev&oldid=141874955
> >
> > Correct use of page links on the second edit:
> >
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?
> > title=Ben_Brocklehurst&diff=prev&oldid=141877151
> >
> > Knows how to create line references on the third edit:
> >
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?
> > title=Claude_Pompidou&diff=prev&oldid=142914869
> >
> > Creates an appropriately formatted stub on the fourth edit:
> >
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?
> > title=Colin_Rimer&diff=prev&oldid=142927003
> >
> > B. They do wikignome work far too early in the account history to
> > be genuine wikignomes. The purpose is to pad the account history
> > with a track record of positive contributions that will insulate
> > them against the banhammer later on.
> > Redirects a page on the seventh edit:
> >
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=%C3%8Ele-St-> > Louis&diff=prev&oldid=144015208
> >
> > This user favors redirects and stub creations. Others do RC patrol
> > or copyediting. They continue for days, weeks, or perhaps a few
> > months playing "useful editor."
> >
> > C. Many of them tip their hands occasionally during the preparation
> > phase.
> > Obscene trolling; knows German:
> >
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php ?
> > title=User_talk:Academic_Challenger&diff=prev&oldid=156788817
> >
> > This user slips for the joy of trolling. Others let down their
> > guard momentarily for WR-related incidents. Look for behavior that
> > seems out of character such as a sudden cluster of talk page posts
> > or odd edit summaries.
> >
> > D. They are team players.
> > Here's the sock moving all of Giano's talk archives. No stranger
> > is this much of a good Samaritan.
> >
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?
> > title=User_talk:Giano_II&diff=prev&oldid=162747326
> >
> > Now the moves.
> >
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=...iano_archive_5_> > %282006%29&diff=prev&oldid=163062162
> >
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=..._talk:Giano_II/> > archive_5&diff=prev&oldid=163062161
> >
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=...iano_archive_6_> > %282007%29&diff=prev&oldid=163062164
> >
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=..._talk:Giano_II/> > archive_6&diff=prev&oldid=163062163
> >
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=...iano_archive_7_> > %282007%29&diff=prev&oldid=163062167
> >
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=..._talk:Giano_II/> > archive_7&diff=prev&oldid=163062166
> >
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User:Giano_II/> > archive_4&diff=prev&oldid=163062248
> >
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=..._talk:Giano_II/> > archive_4&diff=prev&oldid=163062247
> >
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User:Giano_II/> > archive_3&diff=prev&oldid=163062253
> >
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=..._talk:Giano_II/> > archive_3&diff=prev&oldid=163062252
> >
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User:Giano_II/> > archive_2&diff=prev&oldid=163062257
> >
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=..._talk:Giano_II/> > archive_2&diff=prev&oldid=163062256
> >
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=..._talk:Giano_II/> > archive_1&diff=prev&oldid=163062262
> >
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User:Giano_II/> > archive_1&diff=prev&oldid=163062263
> >
> > E. They grow bold when they believe the account has ripened into
> > the appearance of a legitimate editor.
> > I doubt Bishonen knew what this account really was. By now it
> > looks legit to most editors. The nasty side shows itself, though:
> >
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?
> > title=User_talk:Bishonen&diff=prev&oldid=162335262
> >
> > F. When the sock is fully ripened it heads over to disputes and
> > takes extremist positions for no apparent reason.
> > This rocket-to-the-sky pattern among ripened socks contrasts
> > against sincere but troubled editors, who follow an arc with some
> > visible cause and effect.
> >
> > For contrast:
> > A regular problem editor will decide Wikipedia has problems after
> > breaking 3RR and getting turned down for an unblock request.
> > A ripened sock heads doesn't need to be coaxed to the dark side; it
> > just heads over to a discussion and screams foul while its own
> > reputation is clean as a whistle.
> > So by the time Jimbo does something controversial, most Wikipedians
> > don't get more than a sense of vague unease about this account's
> > behavior. The sock is fully ripened, the account well established,
> > and the troll has teammates to create or obstruct consensus if
> > anyone intervenes. I have a hunch the skilled trolls wait for
> > events that they know will cause a lot of flurried attention onsite
> > so the sudden launching of full implementation is less likely to be
> > noticed in the crowd.
> >
> > Here's the sock helping the team, along with some free range
> > sarcasm and troublemaking:
> >
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?
> > title=Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration&diff=prev&oldid=168176874
> >
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=...Administrators%> > 27_noticeboard/Incidents/
> > My_desysop_of_Zscout370&diff=prev&oldid=168213973
> >
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?
> > title=Wikipedia_talk:Wikipedia_Signpost&diff=prev&oldid=168209114
> >
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?
> > title=Wikipedia_talk:Requests_for_comment/
> > Jimbo_Wales&diff=prev&oldid=168487235
> >
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php ?
> > title=User_talk:Penwhale&diff=prev&oldid=168631084
> >
> > G Many trolls can't resist the temptation to gloat.
> > Still doubt me?
> >
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?
> > title=User_talk:Llywrch&diff=prev&oldid=168171012
> >
> >
> > Looking ahead:
> > Foremost, please keep mum! Many of these mistakes can be corrected
> > and these people are very patient. They will change tactics and
> > get even more careful if they realize how we spot them.
> >
> >
> > -Durova
> >
> > On Nov 20, 2007 9:21 AM, Paul August wrote:
> > Hi Durova
> >
> > Could you please send me a copy of your "report" on User:!! ?
> >
> > Thanks
> >
> > Paul August
-----------
From: (Kirill Lokshin)
Date: Thu, 22 Nov 2007 14:28:05 -0500
Subject: [Arbcom-l] Durova's methods
On Nov 22, 2007 2:17 PM, Paul August wrote:
> I have considerable respect for Durova, and I am convinced she has
> been acting with the best of intentions, but I believe the block of
> User:!! raises serious questions about Durova's methods. Whether or
> not an ArbCom case is brought, I think those methods need a close
> examination by us.
The assumption underlying this entire report is that a new account with an
obviously experienced user behind it is always bad. If it's being
disruptive, it's a WR troll; if it's *not* being disruptive, it's a WR troll
trying to build up a reputation. This is more akin to the old method of
finding a witch by seeing if she floats than anything I'd expect to see in a
serious investigation.
Kirill
-----------
From: (jayjg)
Date: Thu, 22 Nov 2007 15:31:51 -0500
Subject: [Arbcom-l] Merops ornatus - El C
On Nov 22, 2007 1:20 PM, David Gerard wrote:
> On 22/11/2007, Kirill Lokshin wrote:
>
> > The drama will keep building until something productive happens, at this
> > point. We need someone to bring a RFAR, really.
>
>
> Huh. Let's see.
Giano's going wild. He's reposted the e-mail on his Talk: page, and
highlighted it in some color I'm having trouble naming - peach
perhaps?
-----------
From: (David Gerard)
Date: Thu, 22 Nov 2007 20:34:16 +0000
Subject: [Arbcom-l] Merops ornatus - El C
On 22/11/2007, jayjg wrote:
> On Nov 22, 2007 1:20 PM, David Gerard wrote:
> > On 22/11/2007, Kirill Lokshin wrote:
> > > The drama will keep building until something productive happens, at this
> > > point. We need someone to bring a RFAR, really.
> > Huh. Let's see.
> Giano's going wild. He's reposted the e-mail on his Talk: page, and
> highlighted it in some color I'm having trouble naming - peach
> perhaps?
Has the document been certified undoctored by the original sender?
Giano's track record on post-editing earth-shattering revelations is
not great.
- d.
-----------
From: (jayjg)
Date: Thu, 22 Nov 2007 15:39:49 -0500
Subject: [Arbcom-l] Merops ornatus - El C
On Nov 22, 2007 3:34 PM, David Gerard wrote:
>
> On 22/11/2007, jayjg wrote:
> > On Nov 22, 2007 1:20 PM, David Gerard wrote:
> > > On 22/11/2007, Kirill Lokshin wrote:
>
> > > > The drama will keep building until something productive happens, at this
> > > > point. We need someone to bring a RFAR, really.
>
> > > Huh. Let's see.
>
> > Giano's going wild. He's reposted the e-mail on his Talk: page, and
> > highlighted it in some color I'm having trouble naming - peach
> > perhaps?
>
>
> Has the document been certified undoctored by the original sender?
> Giano's track record on post-editing earth-shattering revelations is
> not great.
I'm not sure, but Paul has posted a version to this list, so you could compare.
Giano's conducting a Grand Inquisition here
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Adm...urova_subthreadand possibly other places.
-----------
From: dmcdevit at cox.net (Dmcdevit)
Date: Thu, 22 Nov 2007 12:42:21 -0800
Subject: [Arbcom-l] Merops ornatus - El C
Kirill Lokshin wrote:
>
> The drama will keep building until something productive happens, at
> this point. We need someone to bring a RFAR, really.
>
> Kirill
I think I would be willing to do this, if I knew that it was going to be
accepted. A rejected case sitting around will just be more drama though.
Shall I?
Dominic
Malice's note: Nothing to see here. This certainly isn't anything like gaming the system and off-wiki coordination. Of course not.-----------
From: (Paul August)
Date: Thu, 22 Nov 2007 15:43:47 -0500
Subject: [Arbcom-l] Merops ornatus - El C
On Nov 22, 2007, at 3:34 PM, David Gerard wrote:
> On 22/11/2007, jayjg wrote:
>> On Nov 22, 2007 1:20 PM, David Gerard wrote:
>>> On 22/11/2007, Kirill Lokshin wrote:
>
>>>> The drama will keep building until something productive happens,
>>>> at this
>>>> point. We need someone to bring a RFAR, really.
>
>>> Huh. Let's see.
>
>> Giano's going wild. He's reposted the e-mail on his Talk: page, and
>> highlighted it in some color I'm having trouble naming - peach
>> perhaps?
>
>
> Has the document been certified undoctored by the original sender?
> Giano's track record on post-editing earth-shattering revelations is
> not great.
You are free to compare it with the copy of it that I forwarded to
the list earlier today. They seem identical to me.
Paul August
-----------
From: (Kirill Lokshin)
Date: Thu, 22 Nov 2007 16:05:55 -0500
Subject: [Arbcom-l] Merops ornatus - El C
On Nov 22, 2007 3:42 PM, Dmcdevit wrote:
> Kirill Lokshin wrote:
> >
> > The drama will keep building until something productive happens, at
> > this point. We need someone to bring a RFAR, really.
> >
> > Kirill
>
> I think I would be willing to do this, if I knew that it was going to be
> accepted. A rejected case sitting around will just be more drama though.
> Shall I?
Can't speak for anyone else, obviously, but I'd be all for this.
Kirill
----------
From: (Paul August)
Date: Thu, 22 Nov 2007 16:19:08 -0500
Subject: [Arbcom-l] Merops ornatus - El C
On Nov 22, 2007, at 3:42 PM, Dmcdevit wrote:
> Kirill Lokshin wrote:
>>
>> The drama will keep building until something productive happens, at
>> this point. We need someone to bring a RFAR, really.
>>
>> Kirill
>
> I think I would be willing to do this, if I knew that it was going
> to be
> accepted. A rejected case sitting around will just be more drama
> though.
> Shall I?
>
> Dominic
I am very concerned about the investigations and blocks carried out
by Jehochman and Durova (for Durova please see the "Durova's methods"
thread). What would the scope of the case you are considering
presenting be?
Paul August
-----------
From: (Kirill Lokshin)
Date: Thu, 22 Nov 2007 16:25:06 -0500
Subject: [Arbcom-l] Merops ornatus - El C
On Nov 22, 2007 4:19 PM, Paul August wrote:
>
> On Nov 22, 2007, at 3:42 PM, Dmcdevit wrote:
>
> > Kirill Lokshin wrote:
> >>
> >> The drama will keep building until something productive happens, at
> >> this point. We need someone to bring a RFAR, really.
> >>
> >> Kirill
> >
> > I think I would be willing to do this, if I knew that it was going
> > to be
> > accepted. A rejected case sitting around will just be more drama
> > though.
> > Shall I?
> >
> > Dominic
>
> I am very concerned about the investigations and blocks carried out
> by Jehochman and Durova (for Durova please see the "Durova's methods"
> thread). What would the scope of the case you are considering
> presenting be?
I think this would essentially be a "figure out what's going on" case.
Trying to specify an exact scope before we have all the information is
probably going to be counterproductive.
Kirill
----------
From: (Paul August)
Date: Thu, 22 Nov 2007 16:33:52 -0500
Subject: [Arbcom-l] Merops ornatus - El C
On Nov 22, 2007, at 12:04 PM, Kirill Lokshin wrote:
> If the evidence snippets Giano posted are representative of the
> whole -- and I suspect they may well be -- !! was basically blocked
> for knowing his way around and being helpful (which, apparently, is
> an obvious sign of a ban-evading sock).
As I've now posted to the list, the complete text of Durova's report,
you can now confirm for yourself that Giano's snippets are
representitive.
Paul August
----------
From: (Paul August)
Date: Thu, 22 Nov 2007 16:36:53 -0500
Subject: [Arbcom-l] Merops ornatus - El C
On Nov 22, 2007, at 4:25 PM, Kirill Lokshin wrote:
> On Nov 22, 2007 4:19 PM, Paul August wrote:
>
> On Nov 22, 2007, at 3:42 PM, Dmcdevit wrote:
>
> > Kirill Lokshin wrote:
> >>
> >> The drama will keep building until something productive happens, at
> >> this point. We need someone to bring a RFAR, really.
> >>
> >> Kirill
> >
> > I think I would be willing to do this, if I knew that it was going
> > to be
> > accepted. A rejected case sitting around will just be more drama
> > though.
> > Shall I?
> >
> > Dominic
>
> I am very concerned about the investigations and blocks carried out
> by Jehochman and Durova (for Durova please see the "Durova's methods"
> thread). What would the scope of the case you are considering
> presenting be?
>
> I think this would essentially be a "figure out what's going on"
> case. Trying to specify an exact scope before we have all the
> information is probably going to be counterproductive.
Well, with some reluctance, I would probably support such a case.
Paul August
----------
From: morven(Matthew Brown)
Date: Thu, 22 Nov 2007 15:53:12 -0800
Subject: [Arbcom-l] Merops ornatus - El C
On Nov 22, 2007 11:05 AM, jayjg wrote:
> I'm not sure of all the places she sent her evidence, but one of them
> was the Cyberstalking list, apparently as a case study in how to
> recognize a sockpuppet. She was correct in the sense that it was
> obviously a new account of an experienced editor, but she certainly
> didn't propose blocking the account on that list, much less get any
> agreement for doing so.
I agree with jay's account of this. I'm on the WP-investigations list
(as much to keep tabs on them as anything else) and not much
discussion happened there either. I feel Durova interpreted silence
as agreement, rather than simply most people not having the time or
inclination to check it all out.
Durova may have taken this in private to others, but I'm not aware of any.
She has mentioned before getting leads from people supposedly inside
the Wikipedia Review cabal. I feel that she's being played; they've
probably fed her some deliberate 'good' leads over time, just to set
her up to do some spectacularly wrong things.
-Matt
-----------
From: (Charles Ainsworth)
Date: Thu, 22 Nov 2007 19:05:47 -0800 (PST)
Subject: [Arbcom-l] Use of Oversight on Durova's discussion page
Could someone with Oversight authority go to this
page:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Adm...ighted_edits.3Fand post the name of the oversight admin who used the
oversight function on Giano's edits on that page?
There's some question as to whether the oversight
function was used appropriately for the situation.
Thank you,
Chuck
Wikipedia user: Cla68
-----------
From: morven (Matthew Brown)
Date: Thu, 22 Nov 2007 20:00:48 -0800
Subject: [Arbcom-l] Use of Oversight on Durova's discussion page
It does sound as if these oversights were outside of policy. OTOH,
I'm not sure handing a head on a platter to Giano and Cla68 does
anyone any good.
-Matt
-----------
From: (Fred Bauder)
Date: Thu, 22 Nov 2007 23:10:07 -0500 (EST)
Subject: [Arbcom-l] Use of Oversight on Durova's discussion page
Blnguyen, but it is pretty ugly shit that Giano posted.
Fred
-----------
From: (Paul August)
Date: Thu, 22 Nov 2007 23:30:20 -0500
Subject: [Arbcom-l] Use of Oversight on Durova's discussion page
On Nov 22, 2007, at 11:10 PM, Fred Bauder wrote:
> Blnguyen, but it is pretty ugly shit that Giano posted.
Giano posted Durova's "evidence". I wouldn't call her evidence "ugly
shit", but it is clearly flimsy and unconvincing.
Paul August
------------
From: (Blnguyen)
Date: Fri, 23 Nov 2007 15:19:29 +1030
Subject: [Arbcom-l] Use of Oversight on Durova's discussion page
I've always usually oversighted emails. That's ok isn't it?
On Nov 23, 2007 3:00 PM, Paul August wrote:
>
> On Nov 22, 2007, at 11:10 PM, Fred Bauder wrote:
>
> > Blnguyen, but it is pretty ugly shit that Giano posted.
>
> Giano posted Durova's "evidence". I wouldn't call her evidence "ugly
> shit", but it is clearly flimsy and unconvincing.
>
> Paul August
-----------
From: (Blnguyen)
Date: Fri, 23 Nov 2007 17:13:16 +1030
Subject: [Arbcom-l] Use of Oversight on Durova's discussion page
Ok, I read the oversight policy again and yes, the oversight does not
fall in the official scope of the oversighting policy. I instinctively
oversighted the last time emails were published on an arb case
[against the banner telling people not to do so] and instinctively did
so again. I should have acquainted myself with the rules more
thoroughly and thus am accountable for my error. If I get sent to work
on CSD and image deletion for a while for my errors, then so be it.
As to whether this is abuse on my part, I think that my record on-wiki
shows that I am a strong admirer of !! and his previous reincarnation,
with whom I worked happily at DYK and who copyedited my FAs over the
last 18 months, so I think I can say with a clear conscience that I
did not oversight the revisions in question to cover up Durova's
unfortunate mistake on !!.
Thanks,
-----------
From: morven (Matthew Brown)
Date: Thu, 22 Nov 2007 23:00:00 -0800
Subject: [Arbcom-l] Use of Oversight on Durova's discussion page
If you post on that thread saying what you did and why I will back you
up and I'm sure others will.
-Matt
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 
