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/COFSRelevant 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=259264460Shutterbug 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/COFSThey'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...uctosecornsyrupI'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_suspendedTory 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_evidenceAs 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
ARBSCI case
MaliceAforethought ARBSCI case 
