ARBSCI case Options

[MaliceAforethought]

From: (Durova)
Date: Mon, 8 Dec 2008 12:41:43 -0800
Subject: [Arbcom-l] RFAR, Scientology, and Jossi

This morning I opened a request for arbitration on the Scientology disputes,
naming Jossi as one of the parties.

Jossi has posted to RFAR requesting that his name be removed from the case.
His rationale is that his only involvement is a couple of posts to AE.

However, Jossi has pursued questionable tactics offsite to undermine Cirt
for some time. During Cirt's RFA I received a credible report that Jossi
had attempted to canvass opposes to Cirt via email. For several months
Jossi contacted me privately, mostly regarding Cirt, and upon later review I
developed serious concerns about Jossi's side of the correspondence. I
believe these matters are pertinent to the requested case, and there is no
other venue than arbitration that is capable of reviewing them.

Please retain Jossi on the list of named parties.

Thank you,
Lise
----------

From: (David Gerard)
Date: Mon, 8 Dec 2008 20:46:32 +0000
Subject: [Arbcom-l] RFAR, Scientology, and Jossi

Remember that Cirt notified the AC that he had credible fears for his
personal safety due to Jossi's actions.
----------

From: (jayjg)
Date: Mon, 8 Dec 2008 16:04:51 -0500
Subject: [Arbcom-l] RFAR, Scientology, and Jossi

Whether or not he is deemed a party will ultimately depend on whether or not
there is any credible evidence that he is involved in a substantial way. I
don't think it's a particularly good precedent to add people as parties to
cases based on "a credible report" about
e-mail canvassing, and Durova's "serious concerns" about e-mail
correspondence she had with jossi.

Regarding the case itself, I've looked it over, and am unclear as to why it
is required at this point.
----------

From: (Charles Matthews)
Date: Mon, 08 Dec 2008 22:35:18 +0000
Subject: [Arbcom-l] RFAR, Scientology, and Jossi

jayjg wrote:
> Whether or not he is deemed a party will ultimately depend on whether
> or not there is any credible evidence that he is involved in a
> substantial way. I don't think it's a particularly good precedent to
> add people as parties to cases based on "a credible report" about
> e-mail canvassing, and Durova's "serious concerns" about e-mail
> correspondence she had with jossi.
>
> Regarding the case itself, I've looked it over, and am unclear as to
> why it is required at this point.
I have voted to accept, and advocated for a free hand to include
people. Given this is scientology, and not anything routine, I think we
should take a good look.

Charles
----------

From: (David Gerard)
Date: Mon, 8 Dec 2008 23:35:01 +0000
Subject: [Arbcom-l] RFAR, Scientology, and Jossi

2008/12/8 Charles Matthews:

> I have voted to accept, and advocated for a free hand to include
> people. Given this is scientology, and not anything routine, I think we
> should take a good look.


I strongly suggest a checkusering of all pro-Scientology editors in
the dispute, 'cos I bet you (on historical evidence) half are socks or
CoS IPs.

- d.
----------

From: (David Gerard)
Date: Thu, 11 Dec 2008 20:44:44 +0000
Subject: [Arbcom-l] COFS sock checks

Anyone mind me following up this one?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Req...kuser/Case/COFS

Relevant to the present Scientology case, where they're trying to get
a writer of several featured articles kicked off the topic.

Note that pro-Scientology editors on Wikipedia are a hotbed of
sockpuppetry and Church of Scientology editors.

I suggest I do it because I know a lot about them, but a second person
to do so as well would be good.

If anyone says "you shouldn't do that", could they please do so?


- d.
----------

From: (Josh Gordon)
Date: Thu, 11 Dec 2008 13:07:16 -0800
Subject: [Arbcom-l] COFS sock checks

A quick look indicates to me that it's going to be very similar to the
results I got from the first COFS arbcom. Shutterbug, Prosmodix, TaborG,
and DerFlipper have editing from the same CofS IPS (and their recommended
open proxies, I think.). Misou unrelated, and Shrampes on a series of open
proxies (or equivalent; sdfree.net is basically an open proxy, and we had an
argument over this the first COFS arb.)
----------

From: (David Gerard)
Date: Thu, 11 Dec 2008 21:20:24 +0000
Subject: [Arbcom-l] COFS sock checks

2008/12/11 Josh Gordon :
> A quick look indicates to me that it's going to be very similar to the
> results I got from the first COFS arbcom. Shutterbug, Prosmodix, TaborG,
> and DerFlipper have editing from the same CofS IPS (and their recommended
> open proxies, I think.). Misou unrelated, and Shrampes on a series of open
> proxies (or equivalent; sdfree.net is basically an open proxy, and we had an
> argument over this the first COFS arb.)

* Block all the open proxies
* The editing patterns are the same
* Why aren't these people just being blocked?

- d.
----------

From: (Josh Gordon)
Date: Thu, 11 Dec 2008 17:51:01 -0800
Subject: [Arbcom-l] COFS sock checks

Seems to me we shouldn't even need a full case; this should just be an
arbitration enforcement issue.
As far as the proxies are concerned, I'm not entirely sure that's what they
are (for a couple of them), and the when I blocked sdfree.net, it eventually
got overturned (it's not a proxy-for-the-sake-of-anonymity, it's a free
dialup ISP.)
----------

From: (David Gerard)
Date: Fri, 12 Dec 2008 08:23:59 +0000
Subject: [Arbcom-l] COFS sock checks

2008/12/12 Josh Gordon:

> Seems to me we shouldn't even need a full case; this should just be an
> arbitration enforcement issue.

I'm surprised at the lack of comment from arbitrators to my message so far.

- d.
----------

From: (Charles Matthews)
Date: Fri, 12 Dec 2008 08:51:45 +0000
Subject: [Arbcom-l] COFS sock checks

David Gerard wrote:
> 2008/12/12 Josh Gordon:
>
>
>> Seems to me we shouldn't even need a full case; this should just be an
>> arbitration enforcement issue.
>>
>
>
> I'm surprised at the lack of comment from arbitrators to my message so far.
>
>
Since the blocking of proxies doesn't prevent the use of accounts, it
seems to me that David could block the proxies in question (after
investigation of their exact status).

Charles
----------

From: (Matthew Brown)
Date: Fri, 12 Dec 2008 00:57:36 -0800
Subject: [Arbcom-l] COFS sock checks

What part of it are you surprised at?

No big shock that there's rampant socking going on. Before, we've
blocked editors from the same free ISP who are editing similar
articles similarly, for that matter; I would be inclined to do the
same thing again here.

What's everyone's judgment now about whether this is actually
something that needs a case? I'm now leaning more towards a motion or
clarification; surely this is something that admins, with checkuser
assistance, can handle?

-Matthew
----------

From: (jayjg)
Date: Fri, 12 Dec 2008 09:20:37 -0500
Subject: [Arbcom-l] COFS sock checks

That seems like a reasonable approach; block the socks, clarify
on-Wikipedia.
----------

From: (David Gerard)
Date: Fri, 12 Dec 2008 14:40:02 +0000
Subject: [Arbcom-l] COFS sock checks

2008/12/12 jayjg:

> That seems like a reasonable approach; block the socks, clarify
> on-Wikipedia.


I should point out that it may be an idea for me to avoid such blocks
myself - I'm a prominent critic of Scientology.


- d.
----------

From: (Newyorkbrad (Wikipedia))
Date: Fri, 12 Dec 2008 11:18:17 -0500
Subject: [Arbcom-l] COFS sock checks

Given that there is already a case open, we should probably just let it
proceed. If appropriate, we can get a brief proposed decision written and
posted very quickly after the one week for evidence submissions has
elapsed. I don't plan to write this one myself but would be glad to comment
on a draft before or after it is posted.

I didn't vote on accepting the case, but I think there were concerns that
went well beyond the socking issue (I haven't investigated the legitimacy of
the concerns in any detail myself, though).

Newyorkbrad
----------

From: (David Gerard)
Date: Fri, 12 Dec 2008 16:44:40 +0000
Subject: [Arbcom-l] COFS sock checks

2008/12/12 Newyorkbrad (Wikipedia):

> I didn't vote on accepting the case, but I think there were concerns that
> went well beyond the socking issue (I haven't investigated the legitimacy of
> the concerns in any detail myself, though).


Cirt has written a lot of featured articles on Scientology, not to
mention Wikinews reports. The Scientologists aren't happy about this
and are trying to get him voted off the island.


- d.
----------

From: (YellowMonkey)
Date: Mon, 15 Dec 2008 16:40:49 +1030
Subject: [Arbcom-l] COFS sock checks

What are thet blocks needed? I'll get someone to do them, or do it myself
----------

From: (Jimmy Wales)
Date: Mon, 15 Dec 2008 12:43:36 +0530
Subject: [Arbcom-l] COFS sock checks

David Gerard wrote:
> 2008/12/12 jayjg :
>
>> That seems like a reasonable approach; block the socks, clarify
>> on-Wikipedia.
>
>
> I should point out that it may be an idea for me to avoid such blocks
> myself - I'm a prominent critic of Scientology.

Strong support for that.
----------

From: (Richard Symonds)
Date: Sat, 20 Dec 2008 14:42:53 -0000
Subject: [Arbcom-l] Private evidence for the 'Scientology' arbcom case

Hello folks,

I have recently been in discussion, via email, with Shutterbug, an involved party in this case. I am an uninvolved administrator. I was emailing Shutterbug to ask about her photography skills - I am an amateur photographer, and I enjoy swapping photos and techniques with other photographers.

When I received my first email from Shutterbug, I thought that I might use her e-mail address to find online galleries of her work - if I searched the first part of her email address, it's usually used as a username on other sites. My own email address is directly linked to my previous Wikipedia username. I did a few google searches, but found no photo galleries.

What I did find was not what I expected to find. Shutterbug's email address is cofsll at gmail.com, which, from my searches, I think may refer to 'Church of Scientology - Louanne Lee'. The email address is used several times to post strong pro-scientology articles on websites, under the name 'Louanne'. The comment at http://portland.indymedia.org/en/2008/08/3...3.shtml?discuss is an example, and she seems to post a lot at http://scientologymyths.wordpress.com/. There are also mentions of both her and a gentleman known as 'Terryeo' on anti-scientology sites as employees of the Church, employees who frequent the online environment in order to post news articles or spread rumours about anti-scientologists. I have not heard of Terryeo before this, but he might be related to a Wikipedia user of the same or a similar name.

I can supply more links if you require, but I wanted to make sure that the committee was aware of the link between Shutterbug, Louanne Lee and Scientology.

Kind regards,

Richard Symonds

User: Chase me ladies, I'm the Cavalry
----------

From: (Stephen Bain)
Date: Sun, 21 Dec 2008 13:41:00 +1100
Subject: [Arbcom-l] Private evidence for the 'Scientology' arbcom case

On Sun, Dec 21, 2008 at 1:42 AM, Richard Symonds wrote:
>
> I can supply more links if you require, but I wanted to make sure that the
> committee was aware of the link between Shutterbug, Louanne Lee and
> Scientology.

Thanks Richard, we have received this email.

--
Stephen Bain
----------

From: (John Vandenberg)
Date: Sun, 21 Dec 2008 22:46:15 +1100
Subject: [Arbcom-l] Fwd: [Oversight-l] Shutterbug has published my real name
connected to my username

David Gerard recommended that I forward this on as evidence...

Today I oversighted an edit which outs user:Fahrenheit451 to be "Tom
Smith", a person mentioned throughout the Evidence page already.

"...not to forget the Tom Smith arguments of Fahrenheit451. Shutterbug
(talk) 01:27, 21 December 2008 (UTC)"

I am still not convinced that Shutterbug knew that user:Fahrenheit451
was Tom Smith; Tom hasnt yet confirmed that they knew his username -
if they didnt before, they do now.

--
John Vandenberg

---------- Forwarded message ----------
From: John Vandenberg
Date: Sun, Dec 21, 2008 at 6:52 PM
Subject: Re: [Oversight-l] Shutterbug has published my real name
connected to my username
To: Tom Smith
Cc: Requests to permanently remove personal information from the
English Wikipedia <oversight-l at lists.wikimedia.org>


On Sun, Dec 21, 2008 at 6:27 PM, tom smith wrote:
> John Vandenberg wrote:
>> On Sun, Dec 21, 2008 at 5:17 PM, tom smith wrote:
>>> Shutterbug is a scientologist who has a history of tendentious editing
>>> on Wikipedia. The CofS views me as an enemy because I have done radio
>>> interviews exposing criminal activity in the cofs. Shutterbug evidently
>>> has been directed to Fair Game me.
>>> Shutterbug has violated wikipedia policy here by publishing my real name
>>> along with my Wikipedia username:
>>> http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=...oldid=259264460
>>> I request that this be permanently removed and the appropriate action
>>> taken against Shutterbug.
>>>
>>> Best regards,
>>> Tom Smith as Fahrenheit451
>>
>> Caution is needed here; if I oversight that edit, it then becomes
>> obvious to all who followed the recent edits, especially Shutterbug,
>> that Tom Smith is Fahrenheit451.
>>
>> Are you _sure_ that he is outing you, because it could easily just be
>> him referring to your evidence. It is only a vague linkage. If you
>> know that he knows what your wikipedia username is, then it might be
>> worth oversighting, but a very stern warning email from me could also
>> do the trick.
>>
>> --
>> John Vandenberg
>>
> Hi John,
> Scientology's Office of Special Affairs knows who I am. Shutterbug is one of
> their "helpers" and has done something similar before, but in a more subtle
> manner where the intent was not clear. This situation is rather overt. Note
> that the sentence in question is put outside the main body of the previous
> paragraph. From the content and context, he is clearly trying to connect my
> real name to my Wikipedia username.
>
> "...not to forget the Tom Smith arguments of Fahrenheit451. Shutterbug (talk)
> 01:27, 21 December 2008 (UTC)"
>
> I would like to see it oversighted. A warning email would only give him
> gratification, which he would pass along to his handlers who would laugh at it.
> No warning, please. Just oversight.
> Also, could you please notify this administrator who started an Arbitration on
> some of the problem scientology editors, which includes Shutterbug? He is
> Durova at nadezhda.durova at gmail.com He is aware of it, but should be informed
> of how it is dealt with.

I have oversighted these edits. This is what it looks like:

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=...oldid=259264460

Shutterbug should really be warned, or issued a block, but I'll leave
that as something to be discussed. Hopefully they get the hint.

--
John Vandenberg
----------

From: (Randy Everette)
Date: Sun, 21 Dec 2008 06:59:41 -0500
Subject: [Arbcom-l] Fwd: [Oversight-l] Shutterbug has published my real
nameconnected to my username

Suggestion-when we do this, can we mention which case this is in reference
to, either in the subject line or in the first sentence of the body?

r/
Randy Everette
----------

From: (Marc A. Pelletier)
Date: Sun, 21 Dec 2008 12:51:52 -0500
Subject: [Arbcom-l] in re Scientology

Hey,

I have had concerns expressed to me that the Cirt/Jossi dispute should
be severed from the Scientology case because the scope is quite
different. I've looked into it a bit and I would tend to agree. I
don't think severing aspects of a live case is or was commonly done, but
I expect it should be doable with a little clerk help.

Given, especially, the concerned expressed over omnibus cases in the
past (SV/Cla/et al. come to mind), I think we should seriously entertain
the possibility. Thoughts?

-- Coren / Marc
----------

From: (Kirill Lokshin)
Date: Sun, 21 Dec 2008 13:13:51 -0500
Subject: [Arbcom-l] in re Scientology

On Sun, Dec 21, 2008 at 12:51 PM, Marc A. Pelletier wrote:

> Hey,
>
> I have had concerns expressed to me that the Cirt/Jossi dispute should
> be severed from the Scientology case because the scope is quite
> different. I've looked into it a bit and I would tend to agree. I
> don't think severing aspects of a live case is or was commonly done, but
> I expect it should be doable with a little clerk help.
>
> Given, especially, the concerned expressed over omnibus cases in the
> past (SV/Cla/et al. come to mind), I think we should seriously entertain
> the possibility. Thoughts?


The Cirt/Jossi dispute has nothing to do with the Scientology dispute, as
far as I can tell; but I wasn't aware that anyone was intending on including
it in the decision to begin with. Just because something has been brought
up doesn't mean that we need to deal with it in the present case.

Kirill
----------

From: (Newyorkbrad (Wikipedia))
Date: Sun, 21 Dec 2008 13:34:26 -0500
Subject: [Arbcom-l] in re Scientology

If issues come up in a case, and we think a remedy is required, it makes
little difference whether it's adopted in that case or a new one is opened.

The key issue always is whether the parties have fair notice of what issues
we are reviewing and what actions are being considered.

Newyorkbrad
----------

From: (David Gerard)
Date: Sun, 21 Dec 2008 18:44:29 +0000
Subject: [Arbcom-l] in re Scientology

2008/12/21 Marc A. Pelletier:

> I have had concerns expressed to me that the Cirt/Jossi dispute should
> be severed from the Scientology case because the scope is quite
> different. I've looked into it a bit and I would tend to agree. I
> don't think severing aspects of a live case is or was commonly done, but
> I expect it should be doable with a little clerk help.


(speaking here as an expert on Scientology, and someone Cirt's been
asking advice of on how to deal with this stuff)

Cirt v. Jossi goes back to Prem Rawat-related articles. (Jossi is a
follower of Prem Rawat, though whether he admits or denies this
appears to depend on which month it is - he's explicitly denied it on
wikien-l and admitted it on the wiki.) Cirt has expressed serious
worries of threats of outing he's received from Jossi, which have been
forwarded at length to the arbcom previously, and apparently ignored.

The current arbitration case smells like a semi-official Scientology
operation. Shutterbug is a CoS staffer. He wouldn't be editing here
without official imprimatur. Cirt is the author and driver of several
featured articles on Scientology and many reports on Wikinews that
have had the CoS hopping mad. The goal of the present case is to get
Cirt voted off the island.

Warnings, cautionary notes, etc. won't work on a CoS operation.
Previous example is User:AI.

The Scientology-related sockpuppet farm *still* hasn't been cleared.
Someone else needs to (a) run the checkuser (b) get a second checkuser
to go through it © block the sock farm. I should not do any of these
as a well-known critic of Scientology. See CoS supporters on the
workshop already demanding I be removed from this list because this is
a Scientology-related case ...

Clean up the blatant sockpuppetry going on, and the whole case will
simplify hugely.

- d.
----------

From: (Randy Everette)
Date: Sun, 21 Dec 2008 13:49:58 -0500
Subject: [Arbcom-l] in re Scientology

It should be dealt with now, in this case or separately. Not doing so will
only delay the inevitable.

r/
Randy Everette
----------

From: (Randy Everette)
Date: Sun, 21 Dec 2008 13:53:26 -0500
Subject: [Arbcom-l] in re Scientology

Where is the info on the CoS sock farms? Which RFCUs etc? I can run the
checks and Jpgordon would be a good backup checker.

r/
Randy Everette
----------

From: (David Gerard)
Date: Sun, 21 Dec 2008 19:07:50 +0000
Subject: [Arbcom-l] in re Scientology

2008/12/21 Randy Everette:

> Where is the info on the CoS sock farms? Which RFCUs etc? I can run the
> checks and Jpgordon would be a good backup checker.


A message on checkuser-l from late October from Brian McNeil:

===
New proxy for y'all to block? [address]

This came to light checkusering user Shutterbug after some Church of
Scientology related disruption. Already blocked on nl.wp was the
giveaway.
===

An RFCU page on the topic:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Req...kuser/Case/COFS


They're using an open proxy system to try to supply plausible
deniability. Some addresses do in fact trace back to CoS-owned IPs.

If you see an edit from a CoS-owned IP, it's official work. No
exceptions, no matter what claims of a staffer doing it in their
"spare time." There is no such thing as spare time from a CoS
computer. Access to the internet from CoS computers is *incredibly*
restricted.


See also:

* Checkuser on TaborG, Shrampes and Derflipper (feel free to rerun the CU)
* http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Req...rbitration/COFS
* http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Sus...uctosecornsyrup

I'll forward this to the CU list as well if there's anything I've forgotten.


- d.
----------

From: (David Gerard)
Date: Sun, 21 Dec 2008 19:11:38 +0000
Subject: [Arbcom-l] in re Scientology

2008/12/21 Randy Everette:

> Where is the info on the CoS sock farms? Which RFCUs etc? I can run the
> checks and Jpgordon would be a good backup checker.


As I noted to checkuser-l as well:

===
The editors in question are making various lame excuses as to why
they're sharing almost-open proxies, CoS computers, etc. To any
checkuser these are fairly obviously on the level of "my dog ate my
IP."

If it's blindingly obvious to you, I suggest getting a second opinion
then blocking like an anvil falling from the sky. Then notify
arbcom-l.
===


- d.
----------

From: (jayjg)
Date: Sun, 21 Dec 2008 14:41:02 -0500
Subject: [Arbcom-l] Fwd: [Oversight-l] Shutterbug has published my real
name connected to my username

On Sun, Dec 21, 2008 at 6:46 AM, John Vandenberg wrote:

> David Gerard recommended that I forward this on as evidence...
>
> Today I oversighted an edit which outs user:Fahrenheit451 to be "Tom
> Smith", a person mentioned throughout the Evidence page already.
>
> "...not to forget the Tom Smith arguments of Fahrenheit451. Shutterbug
> (talk) 01:27, 21 December 2008 (UTC)"
>
> I am still not convinced that Shutterbug knew that user:Fahrenheit451
> was Tom Smith; Tom hasnt yet confirmed that they knew his username -
> if they didnt before, they do now.
>
> --
> John Vandenberg

It seems to me that this would be ground for an indefinite block.
----------

From: (Randy Everette)
Date: Sun, 21 Dec 2008 15:26:38 -0500
Subject: [Arbcom-l] Fwd: [Checkuser-l] Fwd: in re Scientology

Jpgordon's results in RFCU/COFS are confirmed.

I also found new accounts Shutterbug1 and TaborGer. And on a range check of
ns1.scientology, Su-Jada, Leahjenine.

Proxies are definitely in use.

I want to look into this more too.

r/
Randy Everette
----------

From: (John Vandenberg)
Date: Mon, 22 Dec 2008 08:12:17 +1100
Subject: [Arbcom-l] Fwd: [Oversight-l] Shutterbug has published my real
name connected to my username

On Mon, Dec 22, 2008 at 6:41 AM, jayjg <jayjg99 at gmail.com> wrote:
> It seems to me that this would be ground for an indefinite block.

And if sanctioned by the organisation, which is possible, would extend
to blocking the entire organisation, and putting the case to bed quite
quickly.

But we _need_ Tom Smith to first explain why he believes that CoS knew
that his username was Fahrenheit451, otherwise this is a red herring.

--
John
----------

From: (David Gerard)
Date: Sun, 21 Dec 2008 21:21:29 +0000
Subject: [Arbcom-l] Fwd: [Oversight-l] Shutterbug has published my real
name connected to my username

2008/12/21 John Vandenberg:

>> It seems to me that this would be ground for an indefinite block.

> And if sanctioned by the organisation, which is possible, would extend
> to blocking the entire organisation, and putting the case to bed quite
> quickly.


Based on past behaviour, I think this would be the ideal outcome of
the present case.

If you want public expert opinion, I'd ask [[David Touretzky]]
([[User:Touretzky]]).


> But we _need_ Tom Smith to first explain why he believes that CoS knew
> that his username was Fahrenheit451, otherwise this is a red herring.


Because outing critics is something the CoS do as a matter of routine.
Again, ask Dave Touretzky.

Anything involving Scientology rapidly resembles Alice through the
Looking Glass with added gory CGI in short order. I'll try to help
back up my more on-the-face-of-it outrageous assertions.


- d.
----------

From: (John Vandenberg)
Date: Mon, 22 Dec 2008 08:26:51 +1100
Subject: [Arbcom-l] Fwd: [Oversight-l] Shutterbug has published my real
name connected to my username

On Mon, Dec 22, 2008 at 8:21 AM, David Gerard wrote:
> 2008/12/21 John Vandenberg:
>
>>> It seems to me that this would be ground for an indefinite block.
>
>> And if sanctioned by the organisation, which is possible, would extend
>> to blocking the entire organisation, and putting the case to bed quite
>> quickly.
>
>
> Based on past behaviour, I think this would be the ideal outcome of
> the present case.
>
> If you want public expert opinion, I'd ask [[David Touretzky]]
> ([[User:Touretzky]]).
>
>
>> But we _need_ Tom Smith to first explain why he believes that CoS knew
>> that his username was Fahrenheit451, otherwise this is a red herring.
>
>
> Because outing critics is something the CoS do as a matter of routine.
> Again, ask Dave Touretzky.
>
> Anything involving Scientology rapidly resembles Alice through the
> Looking Glass with added gory CGI in short order. I'll try to help
> back up my more on-the-face-of-it outrageous assertions.

I dont doubt that they _could_ have know his username, but we need to
know for sure, otherwise we are engineering an outcome that suits us.
The oversighted diff is vague; someone needs to chat with Tom and
understand why he thinks they knew the link.

--
John Vandenberg
----------

From: (David Gerard)
Date: Sun, 21 Dec 2008 21:39:15 +0000
Subject: [Arbcom-l] Fwd: [Oversight-l] Shutterbug has published my real
name connected to my username

2008/12/21 John Vandenberg:

> I dont doubt that they _could_ have know his username, but we need to
> know for sure, otherwise we are engineering an outcome that suits us.
> The oversighted diff is vague; someone needs to chat with Tom and
> understand why he thinks they knew the link.

You could just ask him :-) "We're investigating this in relation to
the current CoS case. We need to know ... to work out what action is
appropriate in this case. You can email me and I can email other arbs
individually if you're worried about information escaping." Something
like that.

Fahrenheit451 is a bit jumpy and paranoid about the CoS, as is Cirt.
This is for good reason: they go after critics in a bloody rabid
fashion. They actually got me fired from a job once. (Being a critic
had helped me *get* a job earlier, with a boss tolerant-to-encouraging
of me working on the website at work ;-) ) So try to be gentle and
reassuring.

I understand Dave Touretzky is way busy at present. But for general
CoS methods, you could really do with reading this interview with
[[Tory Christman]], a featured article on Wikinews by Cirt.
High-quality work like this is why the CoS are so desperate in the
present case to *throw any mud they can* to see if any can be made to
stick.

http://en.wikinews.org/wiki/YouTube_accoun...itics_suspended

Tory used to work for the CoS doing the sockpuppet account setups,
during the era of the [[sporgery]]. She knows precisely what they do
and how. If you look at this case and look at the checkuser record,
you *will* see parallels to the present case.


[it occurs to me that I should write up the non-private portions of
these emails to put publicly on the case. The question is whether
saying what the checkuser evidence has revealed to other checkers so
far - CoS IPs, massive geographical changes in IP, etc - would be (a)
a Foundation privacy violation (b) considered somehow unfair on en:wp
in some way. But I shall try to get writing stuff up. In my COPIOUS
free time.]


- d.
----------

From: (Cool Hand Luke)
Date: Sun, 21 Dec 2008 15:57:00 -0600
Subject: [Arbcom-l] in re Scientology

Is there previous discussion of Jossi's alleged outing threats? I thought
that he was already outed because Smeeglova was tied to a known individual,
or am I mistaken? Where have these threats been discussed?

Jossi has posted a retirement message on his talk page. Durova has a
summary of their history, which looks accurate to me, but I haven't looked
at it in-depth.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Durova/S.../Jossi_evidence

As a declaration of personal biases, I think the many of the
anti-Scientologists on Wikipedia are no less COI and biased than Jossi is
sometimes alleged to be. That said, I've been impressed with Cirt; (s)he's
often broken with the more extreme anti-Scientologists, and I think (s)he
makes a good faith effort toward NPOV.

CHL

[MaliceAforethought]

From: (David Gerard)
Date: Sun, 21 Dec 2008 22:13:50 +0000
Subject: [Arbcom-l] in re Scientology

2008/12/21 Cool Hand Luke:

> As a declaration of personal biases, I think the many of the
> anti-Scientologists on Wikipedia are no less COI and biased than Jossi is
> sometimes alleged to be. That said, I've been impressed with Cirt; (s)he's
> often broken with the more extreme anti-Scientologists, and I think (s)he
> makes a good faith effort toward NPOV.


[editor hat on for a tick]

Speaking as the founder of WikiProject Scientology and a strident
critic with extremely strong opinions on the matter, I must say that
our Scientologist contributors have helped make our
Scientology-related articles better and more NPOV, even if their edits
tend not to stand. The trouble is when they pull crap like this.

WIkipedia's writing on Scientology is a resource that never really
existed before - it's an example of why (in my opinion) NPOV is
Wikipedia's greatest innovation, far more radical than just letting
anyone edit the website. Before, you'd have pro-Scientology
information sorely lacking in matters of profound concern, and
critical information that was detailed and well-referenced but so
bitter it was all but unreadable.

(This is why the attacks then shift to severe querulousness on the
sources, and attempts to get those arbitrated against. Think of
Wikipedia as a game, and the CoS OSA operatives as people tasked to
win that game for Ron.)

And I know just what you mean about the critics *headdesk* Many lose
sight of NPOV because they're that pissed off. Which is
understandable, but not helpful in this context.


- d.
----------

From: (David Gerard)
Date: Sun, 21 Dec 2008 22:24:37 +0000
Subject: [Arbcom-l] in re Scientology

2008/12/21 Cool Hand Luke:

> Is there previous discussion of Jossi's alleged outing threats? I thought
> that he was already outed because Smeeglova was tied to a known individual,
> or am I mistaken? Where have these threats been discussed?

The Smee connection wasn't public until quite recently. Jossi was
trying to hold this over Cirt should he ever become an admin. (He
did, and Jossi didn't follow through on his threats.)

- d.
----------

From: (John Vandenberg)
Date: Mon, 22 Dec 2008 09:35:10 +1100
Subject: [Arbcom-l] Fwd: [Oversight-l] Shutterbug has published my real
name connected to my username

On Mon, Dec 22, 2008 at 8:39 AM, David Gerard wrote:
> 2008/12/21 John Vandenberg :
>
>> I dont doubt that they _could_ have know his username, but we need to
>> know for sure, otherwise we are engineering an outcome that suits us.
>> The oversighted diff is vague; someone needs to chat with Tom and
>> understand why he thinks they knew the link.
>
> You could just ask him :-) "We're investigating this in relation to
> the current CoS case. We need to know ... to work out what action is
> appropriate in this case. You can email me and I can email other arbs
> individually if you're worried about information escaping." Something
> like that.

I'm on the road shortly, so .. no can do. Someone else?

--
John Vandenberg
----------

From: (David Gerard)
Date: Sun, 21 Dec 2008 22:57:10 +0000
Subject: [Arbcom-l] Fwd: [Oversight-l] Shutterbug has published my real
name connected to my username

2008/12/21 John Vandenberg :
> On Mon, Dec 22, 2008 at 8:39 AM, David Gerard wrote:
>> 2008/12/21 John Vandenberg :

>>> I dont doubt that they _could_ have know his username, but we need to
>>> know for sure, otherwise we are engineering an outcome that suits us.
>>> The oversighted diff is vague; someone needs to chat with Tom and
>>> understand why he thinks they knew the link.

>> You could just ask him :-) "We're investigating this in relation to
>> the current CoS case. We need to know ... to work out what action is
>> appropriate in this case. You can email me and I can email other arbs
>> individually if you're worried about information escaping." Something
>> like that.

> I'm on the road shortly, so .. no can do. Someone else?


Should be a 2008 sitting arb.


- d.
----------

From: (Cool Hand Luke)
Date: Sun, 21 Dec 2008 16:59:36 -0600
Subject: [Arbcom-l] in re Scientology

On Sun, Dec 21, 2008 at 4:24 PM, David Gerard wrote:

> 2008/12/21 Cool Hand Luke:
>
> > Is there previous discussion of Jossi's alleged outing threats? I
> thought
> > that he was already outed because Smeeglova was tied to a known
> individual,
> > or am I mistaken? Where have these threats been discussed?
>
>
> The Smee connection wasn't public until quite recently. Jossi was
> trying to hold this over Cirt should he ever become an admin. (He
> did, and Jossi didn't follow through on his threats.)
>
>
> - d.
>
>
Well, he didn't need to because Kelly Martin outed him on WR. For what it's
worth, Yellow Monkey said that it seemed like an open secret anyway.
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/private...ber/021691.html

When were the threats discussed? It's outrageous behavior if true, but I
haven't found the thread.

CHL
----------

From: (David Gerard)
Date: Sun, 21 Dec 2008 23:07:13 +0000
Subject: [Arbcom-l] in re Scientology

2008/12/21 Cool Hand Luke:
> On Sun, Dec 21, 2008 at 4:24 PM, David Gerard wrote:

> When were the threats discussed? It's outrageous behavior if true, but I
> haven't found the thread.


Looking through my archive (cheers to Gmail), Durova emailed FT2 a
pile of stuff (as Office 2007 .docx) dated Fri, Mar 28, 2008 - I got a
copy too.

I'm now not sure (because I can't find them in my archive) if they in
fact went to the whole arbcom or just to FT2, so I probably have to
apologise for getting strident over the lack of action on these.

FT2 - do you remember getting these, and/or see them in your own archives?

I'd look on the arbcom-l private web archive, but searching the
archive is an exercise in pain.


- d.
----------

From: (Stephen Bain)
Date: Mon, 22 Dec 2008 11:36:23 +1100
Subject: [Arbcom-l] in re Scientology

On Mon, Dec 22, 2008 at 9:59 AM, Cool Hand Luke wrote:
>
> When were the threats discussed? It's outrageous behavior if true, but I
> haven't found the thread.

There's some in "Prem Rawat Arbitration Case - Email from Cirt", some
in "Jossi vs Cirt". All the Prem Rawat threads from April.

IIRC we warned Jossi off in private (privately for Cirt's benefit),
concurrently with closing the case.

--
Stephen Bain
----------

From: (Cool Hand Luke)
Date: Sun, 21 Dec 2008 19:18:02 -0600
Subject: [Arbcom-l] in re Scientology

On Sun, Dec 21, 2008 at 5:07 PM, David Gerard wrote:

> 2008/12/21 Cool Hand Luke:
> > On Sun, Dec 21, 2008 at 4:24 PM, David Gerard wrote:
>
> > When were the threats discussed? It's outrageous behavior if true, but I
> > haven't found the thread.
>
>
> Looking through my archive (cheers to Gmail), Durova emailed FT2 a
> pile of stuff (as Office 2007 .docx) dated Fri, Mar 28, 2008 - I got a
> copy too.
>
> I'm now not sure (because I can't find them in my archive) if they in
> fact went to the whole arbcom or just to FT2, so I probably have to
> apologise for getting strident over the lack of action on these.
>
> FT2 - do you remember getting these, and/or see them in your own archives?
>
> I'd look on the arbcom-l private web archive, but searching the
> archive is an exercise in pain.
>
>
> - d.
>


Does anyone mind if I ask Durova if she can forward this material? Either
to the whole ArbCom, or just to me. I'm really curious about this. I have
a little experience in fringe religion things (including Scientology). It
strikes me as out of character for Jossi, but Durova has posted a long
history between these two users, so it merits a closer look.

This sort of intimidation does a lot to undermine our project, by detering
current and potential future contributors. We should have zero tolerance
for it, so I think we should look at the behavior even if it's now mooted
due to Jossi's apparent departure.

Thanks for the ref, Stephen. Why hasn't the archive search been updated
since January? Can this be fixed?

Frank
----------

From: (Randy Everette)
Date: Mon, 22 Dec 2008 05:54:28 -0500
Subject: [Arbcom-l] Proxy checks on COFS/Scientology cases

Results of proxy checks, courtesy of East718, on Scientology case. I'll be
taking care of this tonight (have to go to work now). I give East the IPs,
without any other info, and he runs these for me as I don't have all the
neat special software that he does for this.

r/
Randy Everette

-----Original Message-----
From: east.718
Sent: Monday, December 22, 2008 2:38 AM
To: Randy Everette
Subject: Re: Proxy check

Hi R,

198.147.225.0/24 - not a proxy, but a free dialup ISP; softblocking will
result in some collateral damage

65.19.143.2 - confirmed, 65.19.128.0/18 = AS6939 = Hurricane Electric
Internet Services and should be hardblocked (alternatively,
65.19.143.0/29 if CU detects a lot of legit editors on the /18, it's
certainly possible)

67.212.67.74 - confirmed, 67.212.64.0/19 = AS10929 = Netelligent and
should be hardblocked

205.227.165.151 - 205.224.0.0/14 is WAY too large to scan, and it
belongs to Level 3, so it'll be providing connectivity for everything
from dial-up customers to corporate servers... 205.227.165.0/24 belongs
to the Church of Scientology and has mostly shared IP addresses and
webservers (ws.churchofscientology.org is one)... 205.227.165.151 is not
an open proxy

205.234.219.91 - confirmed, 205.234.128.0/17 = AS23352 = Server Central
and should be hardblocked

209.190.85.117 - wasn't able to connect; unlikely it's a compromised
server; no legit editor should be popping up on 209.190.85.0/24 though,
which should probably be hardblocked

202.64.77.113 - not an open proxy, but likely a shared transparent proxy
for customers of PacNet (HK/Singapore ISP)

212.227.29.132 - confirmed, 212.227.20.0/22, 212.227.24.0/22 and
212.227.28.0/23 should be hardblocked

Best of luck with whatever socks you're trying to stomp on. :-)

-Eric

On 12/21/2008 3:46 PM, Randy Everette wrote:
>
> East:
>
> I need some serious proxy checking done. I also suspect behind the
> scenes collaboration. Here we go:
>
> 198.147.225.x
>
> 198.147.225.33 especially
>
> 65.19.143.2 [City: Rancho Cordova, California]
>
> 67.212.67.74 Germany [City: ]
>
> 205.227.165.151 the whole range
>
> 205.234.219.91
>
> 209.190.85.117
>
> 202.64.77.113
>
> 202.64.77.113
>
> 212.227.29.132
>
> Thanks, let me know what you find.
>
> **r/**
>
> **Randy Everette**
----------

From: (Durova)
Date: Mon, 22 Dec 2008 10:23:25 -0800
Subject: [Arbcom-l] Fwd: Jossi etc.

Forwarding per David Gerard's suggestion.

-Lise

---------- Forwarded message ----------
From: David Gerard
Date: Mon, Dec 22, 2008 at 3:29 AM
Subject: Re: Jossi etc.
To: Durova


Oh - and I'm carefully refraining from checkusering in this case myself.

I note the second IP is an Amazon Compute Cloud IP and should be
blocked in any case.


- d.



2008/12/22 Durova:
> Hi David,
>
> A couple of odd IP addresses showed up today and took an interest in me,
> along with 'v for vendetta'. Considering the timing of my ArbCom evidence
> and Jossi's departure, do you think it's worth a checkuser? Whois from
> different continents, but that's not too hard to fake if someone has the
> right skills.
>
> 83.203.93.165 (talk ? contribs ? WHOIS ? RDNS ? RBLs ? block user ? block
> log ? checkip)
> 67.202.1.188 (talk ? contribs ? WHOIS ? RDNS ? RBLs ? block user ? block
log
> ? checkip)
>
>
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Adm...board/Incidents
>
> Best wishes,
> Lise
-----------

From: (Daniel Bryant)
Date: Tue, 23 Dec 2008 08:35:02 +1030
Subject: [Arbcom-l] Fwd: Wikipedia e-mail

I would strongly suggest you do something to stop this POINTy nonsense by
John, who has disrupted this case enough with his patently offensive
proposals to date without pulling shit like this. I have told Cirt I have
forwarded it to you, so he's expecting an answer from *you*, rather than me.

---------- Forwarded message ----------
From: Cirt
Date: Tue, Dec 23, 2008 at 7:07 AM
Subject: Wikipedia e-mail
To: Daniel


Dear Daniel,

Jossi made a motion at the Scientology Arbitration Case to undelete my old
talk pages as Smee/Smeelgova. <
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=...oldid=257423173
>

Three arbitrators weighed in already against this: <
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=...d=257426165>,
<
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=...d=257857383>,
<
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=...oldid=258252722
>

Now User:John254 has started a DRV thread on these deleted userpages: <
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Del...0talk:Smeelgova
>

Durova has already explained the situation to John254 at the DRV page, and
noted that his actions are bordering on WP:POINT. I would appreciate your
input on this.

Thank you for your time.

Yours,
Cirt

---
This e-mail was sent by user "Cirt" on the English Wikipedia to user
"Daniel". It has been automatically delivered and the Wikimedia Foundation
cannot be held responsible for its contents.
-----------

From: (Randy Everette)
Date: Mon, 22 Dec 2008 18:21:25 -0500
Subject: [Arbcom-l] Fwd: Wikipedia e-mail

David Gerard and I have commented. If he persists, I have no problem
blocking him. An admin should close that DRV right away.

r/
Randy Everette
_____

> From: arbcom-l-bounces at lists.wikimedia.org
> [mailto:arbcom-l-bounces at lists.wikimedia.org] On Behalf Of Daniel Bryant
> Sent: Monday, December 22, 2008 5:05 PM
> To: arbcom-l at lists.wikimedia.org
> Subject: [Arbcom-l] Fwd: Wikipedia e-mail

> I would strongly suggest you do something to stop this POINTy nonsense by
> John, who has disrupted this case enough with his patently offensive
-----------

From: (John Vandenberg)
Date: Wed, 24 Dec 2008 05:03:10 +1000
Subject: [Arbcom-l] in re Scientology

On 12/22/08, Cool Hand Luke wrote:
> On Sun, Dec 21, 2008 at 5:07 PM, David Gerard wrote:
>
> >
> > 2008/12/21 Cool Hand Luke :
> > > On Sun, Dec 21, 2008 at 4:24 PM, David Gerard wrote:
> >
> >
> > > When were the threats discussed? It's outrageous behavior if true, but
> I
> > > haven't found the thread.
> >
> >
> > Looking through my archive (cheers to Gmail), Durova emailed FT2 a
> > pile of stuff (as Office 2007 .docx) dated Fri, Mar 28, 2008 - I got a
> > copy too.
> >
> > I'm now not sure (because I can't find them in my archive) if they in
> > fact went to the whole arbcom or just to FT2, so I probably have to
> > apologise for getting strident over the lack of action on these.
> >
> > FT2 - do you remember getting these, and/or see them in your own archives?
> >
> > I'd look on the arbcom-l private web archive, but searching the
> > archive is an exercise in pain.
> >
> >
> >
> > - d.
> >
>
>
> Does anyone mind if I ask Durova if she can forward this material? Either
> to the whole ArbCom, or just to me. I'm really curious about this. I have
> a little experience in fringe religion things (including Scientology). It
> strikes me as out of character for Jossi, but Durova has posted a long
> history between these two users, so it merits a closer look.
>
> This sort of intimidation does a lot to undermine our project, by detering
> current and potential future contributors. We should have zero tolerance
> for it, so I think we should look at the behavior even if it's now mooted
> due to Jossi's apparent departure.
>
> Thanks for the ref, Stephen. Why hasn't the archive search been updated
> since January? Can this be fixed?

I am also interested in seeing this, as I have had a hand in opening
up this can of worms upside down.

For reference, here is the "Prem Rawat Arbitration Case - Email from
Cirt" thread

https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/private...rch/017949.html

And here is the "Jossi vs Cirt" thread split across two months and not
threaded normally.

https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/private...rch/018022.html
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/private...ril/018029.html
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/private...ril/018031.html

This April thread is also relevant.

https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/private...ril/018626.html

I'm certainly getting the impression that Jossi was throwing his
weight around, and even from reading only the Jossi/Cirt exchange it
seems likely that Jossi was not shy about this intent being to ensure
that Cirt was never resysoped. However I know many admins who will go
to similar lengths to ensure that certain contributors never obtain
sysop, for good or ill, and for varied reasons. Usually with more
tact. (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/hrmph.gif)

--
John Vandenberg
-------------

From: (Risker)
Date: Tue, 23 Dec 2008 14:21:18 -0500
Subject: [Arbcom-l] in re Scientology

For what it's worth, I was aware of the Cirt = Smee/Smeelgova link within a
day or two of Cirt starting to edit. Anyone with familiarity of the
Scientology area would have picked it up almost immediately, although I'm
not quite sure why it came to my attention. The link was definitely an open
secret at the time I was developing evidence for the *Tango* case in
April/08.

Risker
-----------

From: (Randy Everette)
Date: Wed, 24 Dec 2008 12:07:17 -0500
Subject: [Arbcom-l] FW: Wikipedia e-mail

Forwarding from Cirt by request.

r/
Randy Everette

-----Original Message-----
From: Cirt
Sent: Tuesday, December 23, 2008 5:01 PM
To: Rlevse
Subject: Wikipedia e-mail

Dear Rlevse,

When I reviewed Durova's evidence about Jossi
<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Durova/Scientology_arbitration/Jossi_evid
ence> before she published it on site, I was able to infer from an oblique
mention she had made that Jossi disclosed personal details to her about me,
without my prior permission. Of course Durova wanted to double check with me
first before posting her evidence on site, to make sure she was not saying
more than I had consented to.

I told her I had disclosed that information to Jossi in a private email when
we were discussing stuff that had nothing to do with Wikipedia - in my
earlier encounters with Jossi before I realized what a problem he was.

Needless to say, I am shocked and quite upset that he disclosed personal
details about myself "in real life" and my work to someone else in an email,
information I had told him on the assumption that it was private and
sensitive info and that he would keep my confidence.

Please forward this along to the active Arbitrators list.

Thank you for your time.

Yours,
Cirt
---
This e-mail was sent by user "Cirt" on the English Wikipedia to user
"Rlevse". It has been automatically delivered and the Wikimedia Foundation
cannot be held responsible for its contents.
-----------

From: (Newyorkbrad (Wikipedia))
Date: Tue, 6 Jan 2009 21:51:24 -0500
Subject: [Arbcom-l] Drafting

Who wants to do the drafting in RfAr/Scientology and RfAr/G.-M. Cupertino?

I would be glad to take on Cupertino if no one else volunteers (it's been a
couple of months since I've written a case). I hesitate a bit to suggest
that I do it because it's a pretty straightforward one-party case that could
be a good stepping stone if one of the new arbitrators wants to take it on.
On the other hand, the remedies probably will include some length of ban,
and I would like a certain heckler (not to drop Doc/Scott's name) to see
that yes I can actually write one of those if I have to.

In any event, we should move this one to voting as soon as the one week for
evidence presentation is finished.

Newyorkbrad
----------

From: (Cas Liber)
Date: Tue, 6 Jan 2009 18:53:45 -0800 (PST)
Subject: [Arbcom-l] Drafting

much appreciated Brad, I am swamped
Cas
----------

From: (Carcharoth)
Date: Wed, 7 Jan 2009 03:03:01 +0000
Subject: [Arbcom-l] Drafting

Suggest Cupertino be used as a simple case to walk some of the new
arbs (including me) through the process, though I'm sure we will all
develop our own styles.

Carcharoth
-----------

From: (Carcharoth)
Date: Wed, 7 Jan 2009 03:04:43 +0000
Subject: [Arbcom-l] Drafting

Something like writing down your thoughts as you go through the
process of reviewing the case and drafting the proposal. Which pages
do you refer to for boilerplate stuff, and which direction do you
approach things from?

Carcharoth
-----------

From: (Wizardman)
Date: Tue, 6 Jan 2009 22:12:48 -0500
Subject: [Arbcom-l] Drafting

I'd love to handle the G.-M case, though it could also be a group effort,
since it looks open-and-shut to me. Writing the decisions is something I'd
like to do as I get more experienced.
~W
----------

From: (Newyorkbrad (Wikipedia))
Date: Tue, 6 Jan 2009 22:15:54 -0500
Subject: [Arbcom-l] Drafting

I'm spoiled because I have most of the precedents in my head after doing too
many of these things, but there are three basic tricks I can think of for
finding relevant language from past cases when that is needed:

1. There is a page with some standard clauses and wordings posted on the
arb-wiki.

2. There is a page on-wiki [[WP:RfAr/C]] listing completed cases with a
short summary of the remedies adopted. One can scan this looking for a
similar type of case to the one being discussed.

3. The proposals on the workshop will often refer to relevant prior
decisions.

As for direction of approach, it varies from one case to another and one
arbitrator to another, so I'm hesitant to lay down any firm rules.
Cupertino will be the rare case in which all the statements and evidence and
workshop proposals can be reviewed in a half hour. Most cases are not like
that.

Newyorkbrad
----------

From: (Newyorkbrad (Wikipedia))
Date: Sat, 10 Jan 2009 23:35:37 -0500
Subject: [Arbcom-l] Drafting

Following up on this as Kirill doesn't officially become
<s>nagger-in-chief</s> coordinator until tomorrow. I know Wizardman
volunteered to do a draft in RfAr/G.-M. Cupertino, but I don't recall
anyone volunteering in Scientology. Anyone interested?

Newyorkbrad
----------

From: (Kirill Lokshin)
Date: Sat, 10 Jan 2009 23:37:28 -0500
Subject: [Arbcom-l] Drafting

On Sat, Jan 10, 2009 at 11:35 PM, Newyorkbrad (Wikipedia) wrote:

> Following up on this as Kirill doesn't officially become
> <s>nagger-in-chief</s> coordinator until tomorrow. I know Wizardman
> volunteered to do a draft in RfAr/G.-M. Cupertino, but I don't recall
> anyone volunteering in Scientology. Anyone interested?


And if you are, please feel free to list yourself at
http://arbcom.en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Coordi...ses_in_progress

Kirill
----------

From: (Roger Davies)
Date: Sun, 11 Jan 2009 06:16:54 +0000
Subject: [Arbcom-l] Drafting

Kirill Lokshin wrote:
> On Sat, Jan 10, 2009 at 11:35 PM, Newyorkbrad (Wikipedia) wrote:
>
> Following up on this as Kirill doesn't officially become
> <s>nagger-in-chief</s> coordinator until tomorrow. I know Wizardman
> volunteered to do a draft in RfAr/G.-M. Cupertino, but I don't recall
> anyone volunteering in Scientology. Anyone interested?
>
>
> And if you are, please feel free to list yourself at
> http://arbcom.en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Coordi...ses_in_progress

I've taken it and listed meself.

Roger
-----------

From: (Roger Davies)
Date: Wed, 21 Jan 2009 15:08:54 +0000
Subject: [arbcom-l] Emergency desysopping etc

I'm beavering away on Scientology but once that's out of the way does
anyone mind if I try to fuse the two existing closely related proposals:

http://arbcom.en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Discussion_board#Agenda item:
Determine procedure for emergency rights removal
<http://arbcom.en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Discussion_board#Agenda%20item:%20Determine%20procedure%20for%20emergency%20rights%20removal>
http://arbcom.en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Propos...l_of_privileges

into one concise proposal?


Roger
-----------

From: (Newyorkbrad (Wikipedia))
Date: Fri, 30 Jan 2009 10:46:52 -0500
Subject: [arbcom-l] PHG

It's not like a recusal for conflict of interest ... but for the cases that
started before the new arbitrators joined, they have the choice of whether
to be active or inactive. (Well, theoretically, we all have that in any
case....) Just check your status on the proposed decision talkpage and let
the Clerks know if it needs to be changed, one way or the other. This goes
for everyone who hasn't already voted, on the Fringe Science case as well
and I believe Scientology as well.

Newyorkbrad
-----------

From: (Chin-Yu Chen)
Date: Fri, 30 Jan 2009 20:17:15 -0500
Subject: [arbcom-l] Cirt's concern re: Scientology case

Cirt recently e-mailed me concerns; I wish to ask for what should be done
regarding this complaint.

Full text as follows:

---------- Forwarded message ----------
From: cirt tric
Date: Thu, Jan 29, 2009 at 5:46 PM
Subject: Re: Wikipedia e-mail
To: Chin-Yu Chen , cirt tric


Dear Penwhale,

Thank you for your response.

There is a second issue that should also be addressed by a Clerk of the
arbitration committee in the Scientology case:

Both Jayen466 and Justallofthem have made posts to the Evidence page of the
case in an essay-like format, unsupported by any Diffs or secondary sources.
I request that these be removed or moved to the talk page by a Clerk of the
arbitration committee.

A while back, an expert on Scientology, Tory Christman, posted expert
evidence in the Scientology case on the evidence page, in an essay-format <
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=...oldid=260278540
>

In response, the SPA User:Justallofthem complained that Tory Christman's
evidence was in an essay-format and unsupported by Diffs or evidence to
secondary sources: <
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=...d=260457828>
Tory Christman later removed her own evidence section for other reasons: <
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=...oldid=261206536
>

Now, Justallofthem and Jayen466 have both recently posted their own
essay-format posts to the Evidence page of the Scientology case, unsupported
by Diffs or other secondary sources: Justallofthem's post <
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=...d=265427482>,
Jayen466's post: <
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=...oldid=267201742
>

This certainly seems hypocritical in light of Justallofthem's prior
complaint.

In any event, both of their evidence sections contain posts by them in an
essay-format, unsupported by any secondary sources or Diffs. I request that
you look into this and perhaps remove those posts or move them to the talk
page.

I have emailed this to you instead of posting a request on site, as
unfortunately both Jayen466 and Justallofthem tend to use my onsite posts in
this Arbitration case as an excuse to escalate drama and snipe back at me. I
wanted to avoid this possible escalation of drama, and so I chose to email
you instead.

Thank you for your time.

Yours,
Cirt
-----------

From: (Marc A. Pelletier)
Date: Fri, 30 Jan 2009 20:44:29 -0500
Subject: [arbcom-l] Cirt's concern re: Scientology case

Chin-Yu Chen wrote:
> Cirt recently e-mailed me concerns; I wish to ask for what should be
> done regarding this complaint.
>

Durova has also expressed similar concerns on AC/C/N, asking clerks to
clean things up a bit. I've taken a look and I'm inclined to agree.

Show of hand quick vote on leaving a note for the clerks:

"Clerks, please help maintain the clarity and relevance of evidence in
''Scientology'' by moving inappropriate commentary to the talk page,
paying particular attention to sections that do not provide relevant
evidence. ~~~, ''for the Committee'', ~~~~~"

? This will give the clerks the appropriate leeway and a diff to point at.

-- Coren / Marc
-----------

From: (Roger Davies)
Date: Sat, 31 Jan 2009 01:53:39 +0000
Subject: [arbcom-l] Cirt's concern re: Scientology case

I'd like all this stuff removed. (It's currently stranding at 80 A4
pages of "evidence" so the more pruning the better.) Anyone object?


Roger
-----------

From: (Randy Everette)
Date: Fri, 30 Jan 2009 22:02:18 -0500
Subject: [arbcom-l] Cirt's concern re: Scientology case

I'd like it removed and that note posted, support both moves.

r/
Randy Everette
-----------

From: (Marc A. Pelletier)
Date: Fri, 30 Jan 2009 22:27:52 -0500
Subject: [arbcom-l] Cirt's concern re: Scientology case

Randy Everette wrote:
> I'd like it removed and that note posted, support both moves.
>
> r/
> Randy Everette
>

Given the fact that this is basically uncontroversial, I've asked the
clerks to proceed. (In my own name, though, not as the committee).

-- Coren / Marc
----------

From: (Peter Casey)
Date: Fri, 30 Jan 2009 23:14:36 -0500
Subject: [arbcom-l] Cirt's concern re: Scientology case

I am recused in this particular case, so no comment there. However, I would
like to explicitly encourage clerks to clean up evidence pages in this
fashion (removing non-evidence and general commentary to the evidence talk
page) and as well as encourage clerks to aggressively redact/refactor
personal attacks, soapboxing, etc. I believe that arb pages need more
aggressive management to cut down/out the nonsense.

Pete (Vassyana)
-----------

From: (Risker)
Date: Sat, 31 Jan 2009 05:24:28 +0000
Subject: [arbcom-l] Cirt's concern re: Scientology case

2009/1/31 Peter Casey

> I am recused in this particular case, so no comment there. However, I would
> like to explicitly encourage clerks to clean up evidence pages in this
> fashion (removing non-evidence and general commentary to the evidence talk
> page) and as well as encourage clerks to aggressively redact/refactor
> personal attacks, soapboxing, etc. I believe that arb pages need more
> aggressive management to cut down/out the nonsense.
>
> Pete (Vassyana)
>
>
I am inactive on this case; however, I agree that Pete's comments are good
general principles for *all* cases. Evidence pages are for evidence; they
aren't intended to be a sanctioned opportunity to deride opponents or
publish one's op-ed piece. I'd be in favour of giving clerks more latitude
in this direction. This also speaks, to some extent, to the issue of
increasing the number of clerks, because monitoring of articles will become
more labour intensive.

This might be an area where comments on past experience from our ex-arbs
might be useful.

(As an aside, I'd like to see a spot on the evidence page where we, as arbs,
can ask neutral observers to develop evidence. I think of the charts and
graphs that Frank and Carcharoth have developed, fact-based and objective,
and would like to encourage similar contributions from others.)

Risker
-----------

From: (Roger Davies)
Date: Sat, 31 Jan 2009 14:48:07 +0000
Subject: [arbcom-l] Cumulus Clouds matter

Quick thoughts:

1. The first thing to do is to bollock Raul, then we can disclose stuff
to the functionaries list. Can you write a strong draft bollocking?
(It'll take 24 hrs for everyone here to approve it.)

2. There's a load of stuff I need to write up to supplement to my
initial timeline/report, covering October/November activity, which makes
it even clearer. I haven't got time to do this immediately as I must get
the Scientology thing finished but to avoid double-handling it's
probably best if I do it.


Roger
----------

From: (Cool Hand Luke)
Date: Sat, 31 Jan 2009 17:55:01 -0600
Subject: [arbcom-l] Cirt's concern re: Scientology case

Wow. This is amazing. I don't know that ArbCom has *ever* done this
before, but we all seem to agree that it should be done.

Question: what happens when parties fight with the clerks, insisting that it
*is* evidence? I always assumed that the potential for semantic fights is
the reason ArbCom didn't do it before.

Frank
----------

From: (Randy Everette)
Date: Sat, 31 Jan 2009 19:10:42 -0500
Subject: [arbcom-l] Cirt's concern re: Scientology case

When parties fight the clerks or are otherwise disruptive we let the clerks
handle. They usually get blocked.

r/
Randy Everette
-----------

From: (Roger Davies)
Date: Sun, 01 Feb 2009 00:15:50 +0000
Subject: [arbcom-l] Cirt's concern re: Scientology case

It can't be too difficult to define evidence: statement of facts
supported by times, dates, and diffs. Rebuttals of statements of fact
should also be with diffs.
I'm bored with opinion and speculation.


Roger
------------

From: (Cool Hand Luke)
Date: Sat, 31 Jan 2009 18:49:40 -0600
Subject: [arbcom-l] Cirt's concern re: Scientology case

Tell me, is Jimbo's section in the Mantanmoreland
case<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Mantanmoreland/Evidence#Evidence_presented_by_Jimbo_Wales>evidence?
I didn't think so at the time, but I somehow doubt the clerks
would remove it.

This is a politically easy case because the "evidence" is posted by putative
Scientologists with low status in the community. I only want to take this
course this if we do it all the way. We should agree that the words of
Jimbo himself would be removed without diffs. No breaks for vested admins.

Frank
----------

From: (Carcharoth)
Date: Sun, 1 Feb 2009 00:59:11 +0000
Subject: [arbcom-l] Cirt's concern re: Scientology case

I posted a narrative account in the Betacommand case back in May or
June 2008, cos I didn't have time to do diffs. Not ideal, I know, but
we shouldn't totally discourage reasonable stuff, even if diffless. It
can provide leads or insights that diffs don't always do. And clerks
should actively *help* people, not just enforce the rules. Help
explain how diffs work, how to link to a section of a block log (what
do you mean you don't know how to do that?) or a run of logged
actions, in a permanent way. And help people preset their evidence in
a better way. Adversarial clerking may do more damage than good.

In my opinion, a designated arbitrator should also watch over cases as
evidence is provided, and help guide those presenting evidence.
Working with the clerks.

Carcharoth
-----------

From: (Carcharoth)
Date: Sun, 1 Feb 2009 00:59:36 +0000
Subject: [arbcom-l] Cirt's concern re: Scientology case

present, not preset
-----------

From: (Peter Casey)
Date: Sun, 1 Feb 2009 01:20:06 -0500
Subject: [arbcom-l] Cirt's concern re: Scientology case

I would just move things from the main evidence page to the evidence talk
page, where general comments and observations are more appropriate. Nothing
would be lost in terms of information or posts, barring the need to
refactor/redact personal attacks and the like. I would be uncomfortable with
removing the comments completely in most cases. My thought was this was
allow us to keep the evidence page focused specifically on evidence.
Insightful commentaries, smart analysis or effective rebuttals would still
be available for consideration.

Pete
----------

From: (Cool Hand Luke)
Date: Mon, 9 Feb 2009 17:45:40 -0600
Subject: [arbcom-l] Opinions on what ArbCom have done so far (January to
mid-February 2009)

I wish some of our pending cases would get resolved before moving on to
introspection.

I know people are signed up for Scientology and date linking, but I'm pretty
well-acquainted with those. Maybe I could jointly write one of them with
the assignees them to speed up the process. Me and Randy did that with PHG,
and I liked the results.

No objection to asking functionaries though.

Frank
----------

From: (Roger Davies)
Date: Mon, 09 Feb 2009 23:53:30 +0000
Subject: [arbcom-l] Opinions on what ArbCom have done so far (January
to mid-February 2009)

I've got the principles and FOF for Scientology in advanced draft state.
I was waiting for the evidence questions that Durova raised to be resolved.

Roger