By popular request, some fallout from Climategate:
Subject: [arbcom-l] ChrisO's retirement and blocking
------------------------
From: Joshua Zelinsky <zelinsky@gmail.com>
Date: Fri, Oct 15, 2010 at 10:33
To: Arbitration Committee mailing list <arbcom-l@lists.wikimedia.org>, "Newyorkbrad (Wikipedia)" <newyorkbrad@gmail.com>
I had a disturbing discussion with ChrisO concerning his recent
retirement. He claims that his IP addresses were blocked without cause
as part of an "enforced retirement" by some ArbCom members. This is
obviously a claim that if true causes serious concern. I'm therefore
emailing the ArbCom to inquire about this. I am using email rather
than doing this publicly to minimize drama. Is there any basis to the
claim?
Thanks,
Josh Zelinsky
_______________________________________________
arbcom-l mailing list
arbcom-l@lists.wikimedia.org
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/arbcom-l----------
From: Michelle Kinney <shell.kinney@gmail.com>
Date: Fri, Oct 15, 2010 at 10:47
To: English Arbitration Committee mailing list <arbcom-l@lists.wikimedia.org>
<list-only>
Disturbing indeed. Do we start telling people that ChrisO started socking?
Shell Kinney
----------
From: David Yellope <dyellope.wiki@gmail.com>
Date: Fri, Oct 15, 2010 at 10:50
To: English Arbitration Committee mailing list <arbcom-l@lists.wikimedia.org>, zelinsky@gmail.com
No. That is not correct, Josh.
ChrisO claimed RTV with his account, but then immediately created a new account and went on to edit articles in areas that he was not allowed to edit due to prior sanctions on the ChrisO account.
_______________________________________________
arbcom-l mailing list
arbcom-l@lists.wikimedia.org
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/arbcom-l----------
From: Joshua Zelinsky <zelinsky@gmail.com>
Date: Fri, Oct 15, 2010 at 16:03
To: David Yellope <dyellope.wiki@gmail.com>
Cc: English Arbitration Committee mailing list <arbcom-l@lists.wikimedia.org>
Thanks for the clarification about what happened.
JZ
----------
From: Randy Everette <rlevse@cox.net>
Date: Fri, Oct 15, 2010 at 16:18
To: English Arbitration Committee mailing list <arbcom-l@lists.wikimedia.org>
<list only>
Which is precisely why the ChrisO ruling in the CC case was an abomination. While he claimed RTV, he didn’t. He abused it and socked, yet the ruling left the community think he did something clean. This is why I asked a couple days ago about this here on arb-l, “What did the community know� Yet no one answered. Now we really need to answer this. I’m perfectly willing to state my two cents about this onwiki, but I’d like to hear from others first. In fact, I was going to post about this onwiki tonight til I saw this new and related thread.
R
From: arbcom-l-bounces@lists.wikimedia.org [mailto:arbcom-l-bounces@lists.wikimedia.org] On Behalf Of David Yellope
Sent: Friday, October 15, 2010 10:50 AM
To: English Arbitration Committee mailing list; zelinsky@gmail.com
Subject: Re: [arbcom-l] ChrisO's retirement and blocking
_______________________________________________
arbcom-l mailing list
arbcom-l@lists.wikimedia.org
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/arbcom-l----------
From: Carcharoth <carcharothwp@googlemail.com>
Date: Sat, Oct 16, 2010 at 00:38
To: English Arbitration Committee mailing list <arbcom-l@lists.wikimedia.org>
I think the reluctance to go further was because ChrisO did seem to
have experienced genuine harassment from Don Murphy (or rather from
his minions). If I'm wrong on that, someone should correct me. I'm not
saying it excuses the socking, but ChrisO *had* asked for help with
this earlier in the year, and it is possible he presumed we knew about
this already. He should still have asked, but if he asked right now
for the RTV to be undone, I think all the necessary restrictions are
in place. The problem is, due to the harassment, he wanted (may still
want) to resume editing under a new name, but he also wants to return
to editing the areas he edited previously, and doesn't seem to realise
that this will lead to renewed harassment.
Carcharoth
----------
From: Randy Everette <rlevse@cox.net>
Date: Sat, Oct 16, 2010 at 08:40
To: English Arbitration Committee mailing list <arbcom-l@lists.wikimedia.org>
I think the community has a right to know about his abuse, lying, and
socking. Fozzie already told the guy that emailed us. Even sadder is the
extremely deceptive CC case finding on this. It reinforces ChrisO's
deception. The record should be set straight.
R
[mailto:arbcom-l-bounces@lists.wikimedia.org] On Behalf Of Carcharoth
Sent: Saturday, October 16, 2010 12:38 AM
----------
From: Roger Davies <roger.davies.wiki@gmail.com>
Date: Sat, Oct 16, 2010 at 09:08
To: arbcom-l@lists.wikimedia.org
We always have internal splits over what to do when people ostensibly walk away. Partly because if we say anything too scathing, they come back and spend the rest of their lives trying to Set It Straight.
Roger
_______________________________________________
arbcom-l mailing list
arbcom-l@lists.wikimedia.org
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/arbcom-l----------
From: Randy Everette <rlevse@cox.net>
Date: Sat, Oct 16, 2010 at 10:04
To: roger.davies.wiki@gmail.com, English Arbitration Committee mailing list <arbcom-l@lists.wikimedia.org>
Deceiving the community and passing a motion that aides the deception and furthers the rampant abuse of RTV isn’t right either. Someone can come up with a carefully worded stmt on this or I’ll do it myself.
R
From: arbcom-l-bounces@lists.wikimedia.org [mailto:arbcom-l-bounces@lists.wikimedia.org] On Behalf Of Roger Davies
Sent: Saturday, October 16, 2010 9:09 AM
To: arbcom-l@lists.wikimedia.org
_______________________________________________
arbcom-l mailing list
arbcom-l@lists.wikimedia.org
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/arbcom-l----------
From: Carcharoth <carcharothwp@googlemail.com>
Date: Sat, Oct 16, 2010 at 16:07
To: English Arbitration Committee mailing list <arbcom-l@lists.wikimedia.org>
To be fair, if we are doing a statement on Polargeo, we should
probably do one on ChrisO as well. Widening to other loose ends, I
don't however, think we should make any public statement about the
GJP/M4 stuff until it is much clearer what has happened or is
happening there (I see there is a thread about this that I should
read).
Carcharoth
----------
From: Risker <risker.wp@gmail.com>
Date: Sat, Oct 16, 2010 at 17:28
To: English Arbitration Committee mailing list <arbcom-l@lists.wikimedia.org>
Umm. There's a big difference between announcing the result of a motion - which is what the Polargeo situation is - and making "statements".
We haven't done a formal motion or taken a formal decision on ChrisO; his situation has simply been managed as fairly routine socking. I can't speak for everyone here, but I'm not inclined to do more with it.
And given the GJP/M4 stuff and the reason that it's so sensitive right now, frankly I think we would be violating at least the spirit of [[WP:NLT]] to make any public comment.
RIsker/Anne
_______________________________________________
arbcom-l mailing list
arbcom-l@lists.wikimedia.org
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/arbcom-l----------
From: <rlevse@cox.net>
Date: Sat, Oct 16, 2010 at 17:49
To: English Arbitration Committee mailing list <arbcom-l@lists.wikimedia.org>
Well, I find the chriso ruling totally unacceptable. It's false, condones RTV abuse, and basically lying to the community, and you want to do nothing with it? I'm stunned this abomination even passed. He socks 3 hours after lying saying he was vanishing when he knew he wasn't, get's blocked for all he did, stabs Avi in the back, and the ruling says he used RTV in an okay manner and IF he comes back (which he did right away) he merely has to contact arbcom????? Come on people, he had this planned from the beginning and used it to evade sanctions and arbcom bought this line of bullshit hook, line, and sinker! Now it's time to spit this right back in his face and tell the community the truth.
R
----------
From: Carcharoth <carcharothwp@googlemail.com>
Date: Sat, Oct 16, 2010 at 20:15
To: English Arbitration Committee mailing list <arbcom-l@lists.wikimedia.org>
I suppose you are right. But some people will see the Polargeo motion
and there will be internal and external calls for us to vote on
similar motions on the other loose ends in the case (namely, ChrisO
and the GJP/M4 stuff). As you saw from my previous e-mail, I agree
with you about the GJP/M4 stuff, but am suggesting that we could ask
those involved where things may need looking at to avoid controversial
situations (that was what I meant by my reference to "gardening
leave"). In other words, put people in limbo until the legal stuff is
sorted and then return to look at it. That may not be practical, but
it is a suggestion to break any deadlock we may have here.
More to the point, is anyone actually taking note of the allegation in
the other thread that ScienceApologist did know who Usher was? Or is
the conjecture here that SA knew who Probivouac was, but didn't know
that he was Usher? And the point that if he didn't know who Usher was,
why exactly were people talking about these matters to him anyway?
What reason would they have had to talk to him. For example, how do we
know that Usher didn't just blackmail people into giving him the
information he wanted?
Apologies for bringing this up in the wrong thread, but people have
gone silent in the other thread.
Carcharoth
----------
From: <rlevse@cox.net>
Date: Sat, Oct 16, 2010 at 20:21
To: English Arbitration Committee mailing list <arbcom-l@lists.wikimedia.org>
There's a HUGE difference with the ChrisO finding and the others...the finding is factually wrong on its face, deceptive to the community, and condones RTV -- and there are a few outside of us who already know this. Not to mention it lets ChrisO get away with purposely evading sanctions.
I simply can't stomach condoning this.
R
----------
From: Risker <risker.wp@gmail.com>
Date: Sat, Oct 16, 2010 at 20:22
To: English Arbitration Committee mailing list <arbcom-l@lists.wikimedia.org>
Thanks for explaining "gardening leave"....I'm still not entirely sure I understand. Do you mean that we just not respond?
It's the weekend and a lot of people are busy, I suspect. I've not really been available much today. Lots of emails to think about. Or perhaps not think about, I haven't decided which.
I have no idea why anyone is connecting the fact that ScienceApologist had his entire userspace deleted (all 9 archives plus a subpage or two) to Proabivouac or Usher or anything other than clearing out his userspace. This strikes me as rather absurd conspiracy theorizing. Should I worry every time I delete one of my userspace pages that someone is going to accuse me later of being an evildoer? Oh wait, nevermind. That already happens, even without deleting userspace pages. ;-)
Risker/Anne
_______________________________________________
arbcom-l mailing list
arbcom-l@lists.wikimedia.org
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/arbcom-l----------
From: Carcharoth <carcharothwp@googlemail.com>
Date: Sat, Oct 16, 2010 at 20:53
To: English Arbitration Committee mailing list <arbcom-l@lists.wikimedia.org>
I thought "gardening leave" was a well-understood term. I've almost
certainly misused it, as it really means putting someone on leave
until their contract expires, rather than sacking them (and having to
pay them off). What I really meant is unofficially tell people to not
do anything until it is clear what the outcome will be here. Tell the
people who allegations have been against that we are aware of these
allegations but doing nothing until the lawsuit is resolved, and then
we may do our own investigation at that point. As I said, that might
not be practical, but it is the only thing I can think of. Failing
that, then yeah, leave it unresolved, like many other things we end up
not dealing with. It's not like we can claim to deal with everything
that comes our way - we frequently discuss and then hit a brick wall
or go round in circles and end up doing nothing. The fact that we've
discussed and tried to work out what to do, at least leaves my
conscience clear.
I thought the point was that even without the deletion of the user
pages, that SA knew who Usher was because Usher outed him. Or did
ATren just make that up? I've looked at the WR thread and the deleted
archive page, and it seems SA would know who Proabivouac was, but I
still don't understand why he would talk to Usher?
Atren said this: "But again, whether SA knew who Proabivouac was is
immaterial -- sharing personal data (whatever it is) about anonymous
or pseudonymous editors is an act that should NOT be treated lightly.
The connection to Proab is significant, but not necessary."
Remember, we came down like a ton of bricks on MZMcBride for passing
stuff to Gregory Kohs.
SA may not have shared personal data, but who did he think this Usher
person was and what exactly was going on? Anyway, we don't really have
enough information to go further, and I doubt it would be sensible for
anyone to ask SA about this. I'm going to drop the matter for now,
while still noting my feeling that this isn't really resolved at our
end and could be picked up again at some future point. I'd still like
to know when the lawsuit is likely to be resolved, and whether it is
conceivable that Usher is (again) exerting pressure on those he seems
to have wrapped round his little finger.
Carcharoth
----------
From: Risker <risker.wp@gmail.com>
Date: Sat, Oct 16, 2010 at 21:13
To: English Arbitration Committee mailing list <arbcom-l@lists.wikimedia.org>
Well, I'm not going to speculate there as to what their relationship is. However, this whole "it was private information" business seems to be put to rest, now that we have heard from NW that what he "shared" was that the two parties had different work IPs. That's not particularly private, is it? When it's being used to explain that they're not socks? I've read the privacy policy and the checkuser policy many times over in the past few weeks, and I'm not seeing how this is violating it. What's on-wiki in the SPI, including the information revealed by both M4 and GJP, is far more revelatory, and even then it seems a lot of editors didn't believe it, given the fact that there continued to be the belief they were socks up to two months after the SPI.
As to how long this could take - most civil cases take a couple of years to wind through the system. (Canada's a bit worse than the US, but civil cases don't get before a judge for at least 3 years here, and usually it's closer to 5 years.) I can't see this one being resolved very quickly, particularly given the FLDS connection.
Risker/Anne
_______________________________________________
arbcom-l mailing list
arbcom-l@lists.wikimedia.org
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/arbcom-l----------
From: Carcharoth <carcharothwp@googlemail.com>
Date: Sat, Oct 16, 2010 at 20:07
To: English Arbitration Committee mailing list <arbcom-l@lists.wikimedia.org>
Actually, ChrisO didn't manage to evade sanctions. He was topic banned
along with everyone else.
----------
From: <rlevse@cox.net>
Date: Sat, Oct 16, 2010 at 21:30
To: English Arbitration Committee mailing list <arbcom-l@lists.wikimedia.org>
He was attempting to and at one time he was not on the topic ban list. And then why is supposed to contact arbcom? That was put in at the point in time the other sanctions were taken off the table due to the mentality "if he disappears there's no reason to sanction him".
And none of that makes the rest of this issue okay...that he didn't RTV, etc etc
R
----------
From: Roger Davies <roger.davies.wiki@gmail.com>
Date: Sat, Oct 16, 2010 at 23:18
To: English Arbitration Committee mailing list <arbcom-l@lists.wikimedia.org>
On 17/10/2010 01:22, Risker wrote:
<snip>
<snip>
Agreed, the deleting of the archives is not in itself very significant. What is significant is the discovery that SA and TU were corresponding off-wiki as long ago as May 2007. Absent explanation, this makes SA's assertion that he didn't know who Usher was or that he was corresponding with him in July/August 2010 somewhat less plausible. Again, it's yet another piece of circumstantial evidence/coincidence that supports the "leaked information" hypothesis.
Roger
_______________________________________________
arbcom-l mailing list
arbcom-l@lists.wikimedia.org
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/arbcom-l----------
From: Carcharoth <carcharothwp@googlemail.com>
Date: Sun, Oct 17, 2010 at 09:40
To: English Arbitration Committee mailing list <arbcom-l@lists.wikimedia.org>
I'm no longer sure they were corresponding. Proabivouac said he
"confirmed" SA's credentials, but I think that refers merely to
detective work, not direct correspondence. One of the things I would
do is ask SA directly if he had corresponded with Proabivouac, when,
and when he corresponded with Usher, and when he realised they were
the same person. But I don't have much confidence that we would get
honest answers, or that anything could be proven. And any questioning
like that shouldn't be done until the lawsuit issues are resolved, and
that could take years apparently. Which is annoying. I don't really
know where things should go from here. What I really want is some
confirmation that all involved have learnt lessons from this and will
change how they do things going forward. Then I'd be happy that we had
dealt with this as far as we can. Which is why I am returning once
again to the idea that we need to issue an internal statement to all
checkusers, oversighters, arbcom clerks and SPI clerks to beware of
people like Usher, and mention some other "banned means banned" people
to make the point more general.
Carcharoth
----------
From: Roger Davies <roger.davies.wiki@gmail.com>
Date: Sun, Oct 17, 2010 at 09:54
To: arbcom-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Yes, it's one of these things you can read either way. Though the peanut gallery will go for the obvious explanation, mates since May 2007.
Roger
_______________________________________________
arbcom-l mailing list
arbcom-l@lists.wikimedia.org
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/arbcom-l----------
From: Risker <risker.wp@gmail.com>
Date: Sun, Oct 17, 2010 at 10:04
To: roger.davies.wiki@gmail.com, English Arbitration Committee mailing list <arbcom-l@lists.wikimedia.org>
This is all getting rather tiresome. It's pretty obvious that there are people on this list who won't believe ScienceApologist regardless of what he says, which may well reflect the mindset of portions of the community. So let's get down to brass tacks. Do you want to indefinitely block him until this matter is resolved, or not? Really, those are the only two options, and all this "well maybe this, but what if that..." is just so much gossip on our part.
Risker/Anne
_______________________________________________
arbcom-l mailing list
arbcom-l@lists.wikimedia.org
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/arbcom-l----------
From: Roger Davies <roger.davies.wiki@gmail.com>
Date: Sun, Oct 17, 2010 at 10:01
To: English Arbitration Committee mailing list <arbcom-l@lists.wikimedia.org>
One really obvious thing to do is to write to ATren along the following lines:
It is not in dispute that Science Apologist was in contact with Timothy Usher. What is disputed is what was said.
The Arbitration Committee is keen to get to the bottom of this and your help in doing so would be appreciated.
Do you have any direct evidence that demonstrates that personally identifying information - for example, names, addresses, phone numbers, IP addresses and so on - was given to Usher by Science Apologist?
I would write to him myself but I am not the best person given my role in his topic ban. But I think we should write very soon.
Roger
_______________________________________________
arbcom-l mailing list
arbcom-l@lists.wikimedia.org
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/arbcom-l----------
From: Roger Davies <roger.davies.wiki@gmail.com>
Date: Sun, Oct 17, 2010 at 10:15
To: Risker <risker.wp@gmail.com>
Cc: English Arbitration Committee mailing list <arbcom-l@lists.wikimedia.org>
It probably reflects the mindset of a great many in the community and the last thing we want is this blowing into an on-wiki fire we can't put out.
On what basis do we block Science Apologist? For talking to Usher? He says he didn't know? For revealing private information? He says he didn't. For making legal theats? He hasn't made any. For being the defendant in a law suit? That's not covered by policy.
Roger
_______________________________________________
arbcom-l mailing list
arbcom-l@lists.wikimedia.org
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/arbcom-l----------
From: Carcharoth <carcharothwp@googlemail.com>
Date: Sun, Oct 17, 2010 at 10:59
To: English Arbitration Committee mailing list <arbcom-l@lists.wikimedia.org>
What is clear is that he (SA) can't leverage being a defendant in a
lawsuit during on-wiki discussions. The issue of whether the defendent
in a lawsuit should continue editing Wikipedia has always been unclear
and depends largely on the conduct of said defendent. Sometimes you
have counter-suits as well, though that doesn't seem to be happening
here. What I have in mind here is when the National Portrait Gallery
sent a legal letter to someone whose name I forget, he then published
that letter and roused the community against the NPG (the situation is
not exactly analogous, as the NPG was not a fellow editor and they
were in different countries as well). It is that sort of thing that I
think ScienceApologist needs to avoid doing. It is already clear that
versions of what is going on here are circulating off-wiki among
several editors and groups of editors, so we should keep in mind that
whatever we say will doubtless spread off-wiki.
Carcharoth
On Sun, Oct 17, 2010 at 3:15 PM, Roger Davies
----------
From: Risker <risker.wp@gmail.com>
Date: Sun, Oct 17, 2010 at 11:07
To: English Arbitration Committee mailing list <arbcom-l@lists.wikimedia.org>
Carcharoth, I'm going to ask you to please not add any tangents here. If the committee believes this is a serious situation then it needs to be addressed directly and promptly. Roger, Shell and I are NOT in a position to contact ATren. Are you willing to do it, perhaps using the phrasing that Roger has suggested?
Risker/Anne
_______________________________________________
arbcom-l mailing list
arbcom-l@lists.wikimedia.org
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/arbcom-l----------
From: Roger Davies <roger.davies.wiki@gmail.com>
Date: Sun, Oct 17, 2010 at 11:25
To: arbcom-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Yes, Carcharoth would be a good choice.
Failing which, perhaps Randy might oblige?
Roger
_______________________________________________
arbcom-l mailing list
arbcom-l@lists.wikimedia.org
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/arbcom-l----------
From: Marc A. Pelletier <marc@uberbox.org>
Date: Sun, Oct 17, 2010 at 11:39
To: arbcom-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Actually, that's besides the point as far as I'm concerned. The reason I think intervention at this point is ill-advised is that - at no point - did anyone make an allegation of *specific* misbehavior. Even starting an investigation on "He did something wrong! Ban him!" is iffy in the best of cases.
I believe the proper term is "Failure to state a claim upon which relief can be granted."
-- Coren / Marc
_______________________________________________
arbcom-l mailing list
arbcom-l@lists.wikimedia.org
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/arbcom-l----------
From: Roger Davies <roger.davies.wiki@gmail.com>
Date: Sun, Oct 17, 2010 at 12:00
To: arbcom-l@lists.wikimedia.org
They've actually made a very specific claim of misbehaviour - passing on personally identifying information - which is prohibited both by WMF policy and by our local outing policy and the implicit relief is removing the alleged outer from circulation to prevent them from repeating the behaviour.
Roger
_______________________________________________
arbcom-l mailing list
_______________________________________________
arbcom-l mailing list
arbcom-l@lists.wikimedia.org
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/arbcom-l----------
From: Michelle Kinney <shell.kinney@gmail.com>
Date: Sun, Oct 17, 2010 at 13:18
To: English Arbitration Committee mailing list <arbcom-l@lists.wikimedia.org>
If we could try to go back to assuming good faith here for a bit, I'm
actually a bit more concerned about what Brandon told NuclearWarfare.
But hey, why discuss this rationally when we can continue to make
emotional appeals and cloud the situation with a variety of other
non-issues? Would you care to explain why you feel so strongly that
this situation doesn't deserve looking into at all? You've
single-handedly shot down every suggestion made by several other Arbs.
Shell
----------
From: Carcharoth <carcharothwp@googlemail.com>
Date: Sun, Oct 17, 2010 at 13:32
To: English Arbitration Committee mailing list <arbcom-l@lists.wikimedia.org>
Well, I'm not going to make any contact until it is clear what the
committee think should be done. As far as I can tell, discussion
appears to be continuing. The point about personally identifying
information being passed on, is that it is difficult for someone who
thinks their information has been passed on, to say what has been
passed on (if they knew, they would say so). So it is difficult to
distinguish between a genuine allegation and one that has no basis. We
would normally find out by further questioning, but this is difficult
with the spectre of this lawsuit hanging over everything.
----------
From: Randy Everette <rlevse@cox.net>
Date: Sun, Oct 17, 2010 at 15:10
To: English Arbitration Committee mailing list <arbcom-l@lists.wikimedia.org>
I have to agree with Marc. Barring the revelation of specific info, there are insufficient grounds upon which to block SA.
I also agree it’s worth someone contacting SA along the lines Roger suggests.
R
From: arbcom-l-bounces@lists.wikimedia.org [mailto:arbcom-l-bounces@lists.wikimedia.org] On Behalf Of Marc A. Pelletier
Sent: Sunday, October 17, 2010 11:39 AM
On 17/10/2010 10:04 AM, Risker wrote:
_______________________________________________
arbcom-l mailing list
arbcom-l@lists.wikimedia.org
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/arbcom-l----------
From: Risker <risker.wp@gmail.com>
Date: Sun, Oct 17, 2010 at 15:48
To: English Arbitration Committee mailing list <arbcom-l@lists.wikimedia.org>
Fair comment, I suppose, although I've not been the only one hesitant to have an investigation, or to pursue an investigation without some sort of idea of what private information was supposedly disclosed; Coren, Frank and KnightLago have indicated similarly. I don't believe, however, that having a huge discussion that comes to no conclusion is particularly helpful either, though. So let's start with this.
Checkusers only have two "private" pieces of information accessible to them as a result of their permission: IP data and user agent data. User agent data is only useful if there is something to compare it to; we have no indication whatsoever that anyone, even Usher, had that information or a process in which to compare UAs. We also know that both GJP and M4 revealed their own IP addresses on-wiki prior to the exchange in which Usher was involved. Indeed, we know that one of the IPs that GJP revealed led directly to his office; that wasn't even on our project, it was on Meta. Even revealing geolocation data linked to the IPs is fairly useless; their edits located them to a fairly circumscribed geographic area with a large population, they both had indicated they were from Texas on their userpages, and they used a lot of Opera Mini, which does not geolocate effectively even at the best of times. Checkusers *don't* have access to people's RL names, addresses, businesses, dates of birth, or other private or confidential information, so there is no reasonable prospect that such information was revealed.
So far, nobody has identified any private information that has been passed to Usher. Lar, who knows the policy, has not responded to requests from both myself and KnightLago to identify what private information is alleged to have been released. ATren has not been asked, and there now seems to be some hesitation in asking him directly what private information he has been told has been released. NuclearWarfare was asked what he passed on, and it is information that does not fall under privacy policy or checkuser policy.
So what, exactly, would be the purpose of the investigation? Regardless of what answers we get, they will not be believed by those who are making the allegations. Perhaps others might find this article interesting, but I'll pull out the key quote from it:
" In a series of studies in 2005 and 2006, researchers at the University of Michigan found that when misinformed people, particularly political partisans, were exposed to corrected facts in news stories, they rarely changed their minds. In fact, they often became even more strongly set in their beliefs. Facts, they found, were not curing misinformation. Like an underpowered antibiotic, facts could actually make misinformation even stronger."
With ScienceApologist, the only range of "solutions" is to block indefinitely or not block indefinitely. As Roger points out, we have no indication that he provided any private information, or that he even had any to provide.
With Brandon, the only relevant question is "did you give out IP data to any non-checkusers?" because that is the only private information to which he has access as a checkuser. Will he believed if he says "no"? By the committee? By those who are spreading these rumours?
Now, obviously, if any checkuser actually handed out IP data, their tenure would be extremely short. But there's no indication at all, from anyone, that *any* checkuser revealed IP (or UA) data; if he had received such, I have little doubt NuclearWarfare would have said so - unless we want to assume bad faith about him. The reaction to these unfounded allegations, however, which are clearly intended to strike as an emotional appeal ("a FEMALE editor") , has focused not on the actual information that is supposed to have been passed on, but on communication issues, on incorrect interpretations of what does and does not constitute private information under our policies, and an incomplete understanding of the behavioural standards that have been developed by the community and the checkusers within the structures of our polices in order to address reasonable concerns about sockpuppetry and inappropriate alternate accounts.
So. Here are a few things that may be relevant to investigate:
Contributions for Minor4th (particularly the earliest ones), her admitted sock Loquitor, and her {{likely}} sock Hope4Kids (she denies this is her sock, but CU data in July showed it to be likely). Wikistalk results.
GregJackP and his sock BlueSooner. Note BlueSooner's deleted contributions, particularly User:BlueSooner/Natalie Malonis and [[Coram Non Judice (blog]]. I'd send you to read the Coram Non Judice blog, but it has now been restricted to registered users. It focused on two basic topics: FLDS and Menominee native Americans. Note that GregJackP has a userbox on his userpage indicating that he is (part) Menominee, and he has written extensively about this and other tribes. (I think CHL saw the blog before it was closed off, perhaps he can comment.)
User:Hugh McBryde's suppressed edits to his talk page, where he is linking User:BlueSooner to "TxBluesMan", the author of the Coram Non Judice blog, and also raising Natalie Malonis' name. Please recall that I reported earlier that Natalie Malonis and GregJackP both requested suppression of that data, and the page was blanked but only one edit with the "outing" information was removed at the time of the original request, until after we were informed of Usher's activities. [A reminder was sent out to all oversighters after that was identified, to look in depth at page histories. This appears to have been a systemic error which involved a mostly-inactive oversighter, after an attempt at discussion on the mailing list faltered. This occurred a few weeks before we moved to OTRS, where non-completed responses are easy to track.]
If you're highly motivated, you can google any or all of "Natalie Malonis", "GregJackP", the three bloggers named as defendants. I'd suggest using an anonymizer like ninjaproxy.com if you go to their blogs, which no doubt collect IP information.
I assume good faith of the people here; while I might not agree with everyone, or even think there's some naivete, I do know that everyone on this list does care about the project. I do not share that good faith about the people who have initiated this campaign of rumour and innuendo.
Risker/Anne
_______________________________________________
arbcom-l mailing list
arbcom-l@lists.wikimedia.org
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/arbcom-l----------
From: David Yellope <dyellope.wiki@gmail.com>
Date: Sun, Oct 17, 2010 at 16:33
To: English Arbitration Committee mailing list <arbcom-l@lists.wikimedia.org>
I tend to agree with Risker:
Those of you with long memories on the Committee will remember that me and SA have a history, so to speak, (the Fringe Science arbitration case which I was responsible for enforcing sanctions at AE,). I'm generally not inclined to give him the benefit of doubt here.. but let's look at the facts.
A) SA is accused by Minor4th/GregJackP of leaking personal details to Timothy Usher, who conspired with the defendants to defame GregJackP
B) Having looked at the situation, there ARE inconsistencies with both Minor/GregJackP's story (considering the amount of information they voluntarily disclosed, here and on Meta, not to mention the SPI that were failed, and the fact that the FLDS folks were trying to out them ), and SA's story as well (his relationship with Usher).
C) Hampering any investigation is a multi-million dollar lawsuit. Any of the details of which we can learn on this list would then be subject to discovery. This is a subject I'm sure all the parties have thought of, or at least their lawyers have made them aware of.
D) While there is a broad outline of what was supposed to have happened, we have no information as to the specifics, which is what we'd need to nail this down and prove or disprove these allegations,
Suggestions:
Regarding ScienceApologist:
I think that we could have a private word with him and state that we think it's best if he restricts any further discussions with Usher to the lawsuit that they are both defendants in, and nothing Wikipedia related, that ignorance will no longer be considered a defense. This would also serve the goal of making him aware that if we DO receive specifics of any violations of Wikipedia's outing policies, that the sanctions will be quick and severe. I don't think he's going to tell us he DID what they were saying, and we couldn't trust a no answer.
Regarding the accusers (Lar, Atren, Thegoodlocust, Abd):
I'm thinking of writing the four of them a letter. We are aware of the allegations made against ScienceApologist in the lawsuit. Lay out the details (that before we can take action, we need specifics (who, when, where, what.. etcetera). If we have them, we can act. Also, suggest that we've noticed a few comments in other places that would lead to sanctions if made on Wikipedia, and STRONGLY suggest that if they absolutely must continue to make them, that they do so elsewhere, that any such activities on-WP will be viewed in the most unfavorable ways.
Regarding Brandon (the CU in question):
I think this is a matter for the AUSC. With the Committee's approval, I suggest that the AUSC (Committee and Non-Committee members alike), write a formal request to Brandon requesting the details of any CU he has run in this area, and who he shared them with.
Regarding NW: (The conduit between the CU and SA/Usher)
Well, we know what he said he shared (and that squares with the information known). I know he has voluntarily relinquished the tools. I suggest that we do not make it "under a cloud", and that he can get the tools back upon request.
_______________________________________________
arbcom-l mailing list
arbcom-l@lists.wikimedia.org
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/arbcom-l----------
From: Kirill Lokshin <kirill.lokshin@gmail.com>
Date: Sun, Oct 17, 2010 at 16:39
To: English Arbitration Committee mailing list <arbcom-l@lists.wikimedia.org>
Agreed. Here's an updated draft for a letter to ATren:
"In regard to your concerns about ScienceApologist and Timothy Usher, the Arbitration Committee is conducting an internal inquiry into the matter. We are very keen to get to the bottom of the situation, and your help in doing so would be appreciated.
That ScienceApologist was in contact with Usher appears to be undisputed. However, the nature of the information that may have been communicated between them is currently unknown. Further, we have not yet been able to determine whether ScienceApologist knew of Usher's "activities" at the time they corresponded.
Unless we can obtain concrete evidence that addresses these issues, it will be difficult, if not impossible, to determine whether anything improper took place.
Do you have any direct evidence to show that personally identifying information -- for example, names, addresses, phone numbers, IP addresses and so forth -- was given to Usher by ScienceApologist? If so, please send it to arbcom-l@lists.wikimedia.org. If you have evidence regarding any other points, or suggestions for lines of inquiry that we can pursue, we'd appreciate hearing those as well."
I'm happy to send this to him, assuming nobody sees any particular reason not to.
Kirill
_______________________________________________
arbcom-l mailing list
arbcom-l@lists.wikimedia.org
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/arbcom-l----------
From: Michelle Kinney <shell.kinney@gmail.com>
Date: Sun, Oct 17, 2010 at 16:44
To: English Arbitration Committee mailing list <arbcom-l@lists.wikimedia.org>
That sounds like it just about covers everything.
Shell
----------
From: Risker <risker.wp@gmail.com>
Date: Sun, Oct 17, 2010 at 16:54
To: English Arbitration Committee mailing list <arbcom-l@lists.wikimedia.org>
I suggest we avoid the word "investigation". Instead, something like "Jimmy Wales and Risker have forwarded your recent to the committee, and we would appreciate your clarification on several points."
I'd also like to hear from Frank particularly on the wording of this. We know that anything we send to ATren is extremely likely to be in the hands of GregJackP and Minor4th within minutes, and we do not want to give them the excuse to subpoena our archives.
Risker/Anne
_______________________________________________
arbcom-l mailing list
_______________________________________________
arbcom-l mailing list
arbcom-l@lists.wikimedia.org
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/arbcom-l----------
From: Kirill Lokshin <kirill.lokshin@gmail.com>
Date: Sun, Oct 17, 2010 at 16:59
To: English Arbitration Committee mailing list <arbcom-l@lists.wikimedia.org>
I rather doubt that anything we do at this point will greatly affect the chances that they'll subpoena the archives; if we investigate, then they'll want to see the results, and if we don't, they'll be looking for evidence of the cover-up.
Kirill
_______________________________________________
arbcom-l mailing list
arbcom-l@lists.wikimedia.org
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/arbcom-l----------
From: <rlevse@cox.net>
Date: Sun, Oct 17, 2010 at 16:59
To: English Arbitration Committee mailing list <arbcom-l@lists.wikimedia.org>
Be very wary of ATren, I don't trust him one bit. For one thing, he was way too eager to get to us.
R
----------
From: Newyorkbrad <newyorkbrad@gmail.com>
Date: Sun, Oct 17, 2010 at 17:10
To: English Arbitration Committee mailing list <arbcom-l@lists.wikimedia.org>
I hate to do this, but can I ask that we table doing anything
official-sounding in this matter until I get home tomorrow and have an
opportunity to catch up on what is happening? We have competing
obligations here to satisfy our internal responsibilities on Wikipedia
and not to unnecessarily compound a real-world legal dispute, and how
we proceed needs to be carefully evaluated with both concerns in mind.
Newyorkbrad
----------
From: Marc A. Pelletier <marc@uberbox.org>
Date: Sun, Oct 17, 2010 at 18:52
To: roger.davies.wiki@gmail.com, English Arbitration Committee mailing list <arbcom-l@lists.wikimedia.org>
*What* personally identifying information?
-- Coren / Marc
_______________________________________________
arbcom-l mailing list
arbcom-l@lists.wikimedia.org
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/arbcom-l----------
From: Kirill Lokshin <kirill.lokshin@gmail.com>
Date: Thu, Oct 21, 2010 at 00:06
To: English Arbitration Committee mailing list <arbcom-l@lists.wikimedia.org>
Brad, did you ever get the chance to take a look at this?
Kirill
_______________________________________________
arbcom-l mailing list
arbcom-l@lists.wikimedia.org
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/arbcom-l----------
From: Newyorkbrad <newyorkbrad@gmail.com>
Date: Thu, Oct 21, 2010 at 02:50
To: English Arbitration Committee mailing list <arbcom-l@lists.wikimedia.org>
Yes; please see the "pending items" thread.
Newyorkbrad
----------
From: Jimmy Wales <jwales@wikia-inc.com>
Date: Thu, Oct 21, 2010 at 03:38
To: arbcom-l@lists.wikimedia.org
It is a UK-only term as far as I know. (IMG:
smilys0b23ax56/default/smile.gif)
----------
From: Newyorkbrad <newyorkbrad@gmail.com>
Date: Thu, Oct 21, 2010 at 16:46
To: English Arbitration Committee mailing list <arbcom-l@lists.wikimedia.org>
Agreed. I learned it (and lots of other Britishisms) from "Yes, Minister."
Newyorkbrad
_______________________________________________
arbcom-l mailing list
arbcom-l@lists.wikimedia.org
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/arbcom-l----------
From: Cool Hand Luke <User.CoolHandLuke@gmail.com>
Date: Thu, Oct 21, 2010 at 18:13
To: English Arbitration Committee mailing list <arbcom-l@lists.wikimedia.org>
Yes indeed. The Coram Non Judice was probably pulled down because the topics of interest overlapping with BlueSooner and GregJackP were extensive. There were posts about all manner of FLDS topics, several about the Menominee tribe, and the Oklahoma Sooners (and a profile for a "BlueSooner" on a sports fan site would show that BlueSooner was the same age as the person behind GregJackP.
I believe one of the reasons the site was pulled down was that it strongly correlated the link between GregJackP and TxBluesMan.
I think this is likely a source of information--Usher contacted Hugh McBryde in any case, and McBride had accurately identified Malonis' account and the BlueSooner account. Usher could have got it from McBryde in person, or gleaned it from the unoversighted edits. He might have noticed that Hugh McBryde was a frequent commentator and object of ridicule on Coram Non Judice and that BlueSooner had edited his user page by the same name. This would have led to the edits.
Frank
_______________________________________________
arbcom-l mailing list
arbcom-l@lists.wikimedia.org
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/arbcom-l----------
From: Cool Hand Luke <User.CoolHandLuke@gmail.com>
Date: Thu, Oct 21, 2010 at 18:25
To: English Arbitration Committee mailing list <arbcom-l@lists.wikimedia.org>
I agree with Risker in re: "investigation" and "inquiry" in the first sentence. I like Kirill's draft otherwise.
Note that I have been friendly with ATren on-wiki since the THF case in 200X. He's probably disappointed that I'm not with him on this; he suggested to me that "at minimum" we should ban SA and permanently desysop NW. I asked him what information he thought SA leaked, and he replied that the essential issue is that SA was conversing with Usher and probably lied about knowing Usher. I disagree with ATren that this alone is grounds to sanction SA.
I tend to think that SA is not being fully truthful about Usher, but I also believe he didn't have anything to give him that he didn't already have. Their original conversation was about how Usher believed the accounts were socks--which they sincerely believed. In the course of trying to prove they're socks, Usher discovered their identity. I do believe that SA did not intend that (and probably didn't even imagine it would happen).
Frank
_______________________________________________
arbcom-l mailing list
arbcom-l@lists.wikimedia.org
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/arbcom-l
Leaks and Drama and Vanishing, Oh my!, Toto, I don't think we're in Kansas anymore
