The ArbCom mailing list has a leak, SlimVirgin wants to call a plumber Options

[Aloft]

There's been an absolutely fascinating discussion taking place on the WT:RFARB page. SlimVirgin is publically accusing James Forrester of leaking ArbCom mailing list information to Kelly Martin. This one has all the key players coming out of the woodwork.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_tal...Confidential.3F

Here are some highlights:

...it's definitely true that someone leaked information about posts I had sent to the ArbCom to Kelly Martin and Cyde. Cyde actually told me himself on one occasion that he knew what I had written to ArbCom...The bottom line is that the ArbCom does need to get its own house in order... what we do know is that someone from the ArbCom is forwarding material to some irresponsible people, who are in turn alluding to it publicly, and spreading it around in e-mails.

Please, take your paranoia and be gone from here with it; it has become tedious and annoying.

It's likely to continue being tedious and annoying, so try to get used to it.

Sarah, I've regularly agreed with you in the past, but you seem to be really jumping at straws lately. This allegation that arbcom-l is leaking has been dreamed up out of nowhere, and has zero substance behind it.

It really doesn't matter who the leaker is; that person clearly doesn't have the courage to step forward. What is clear is that reform of some kind is needed, because the community has very little faith in the arbitration committee because of this kind of thing

... you can't substantiate any of that, and those you are accusing can't refute it. By all means ask JamesF - but do it privately. Or report the matter to the Foundation. This is not the way to go. You cannot hide behind a pseudonym and make actionable accusations about identifiable people - that's what our BLP policy is all about. Now take this elsewhere - or I will delete this page per WP:BLP

This post has been edited by Aloft: Sun 2nd December 2007, 3:45am

[tarantino]

So Slim's accusing Jdforrester of leaking ArbCom-l emails to Kelly, and perhaps others.

!! says he provided Durova's "evidence" to Giano.

And Rebecca contends that fifty people saw it before Giano did.

Interesting.

[Jonny Cache]

So Slim's accusing Jdforrester of leaking ArbCom-l emails to Kelly, and perhaps others.

!! says he provided Durova's "evidence" to Giano.

And Rebecca contends that fifty people saw it before Giano did.

Interesting.

I guess that puts Jdforrester in the running for the John Dean Prize — yes, it's the same damned LavaLamp™, no offence, Moulton.

Jonny

[Somey]

Perhaps they should start a special mailing list for people who want to plug "leaks"... They could call it en-wikipedia-plumbers-l. Hey, maybe we should start one ourselves!

Wait, maybe that would be sort of self-defeating... Uh, never mind.

As long as we're on the subject, what do you all think of this video? It seems like certain quasi-governmental privacy groups are taking the position that people should be responsible for preserving their own online privacy. Presumably Slimmy hasn't managed to convince enough people that websites people post to using screen names they've used on other sites in the past, which can be linked to their real identities via Google searches, should be responsible for that.

[Miltopia]

Rebecca on her arbcom questions also said Durova is a LIAR

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Arb...tion_from_Cla68

Note the reference (in the original poster's linked comments) to Slim as "Sarah" even though she FREAKS when people do this normally. I bet she gasped in her well-used computer chair.

This post has been edited by Miltopia: Sun 2nd December 2007, 6:13am

[Aloft]

Slim sez, "What is clear is that reform of some kind is needed, because the community has very little faith in the arbitration committee because of this kind of thing." If someone besides her had said this, JayJG would be all over it with his twenty questions game: "Who has little faith? Who are these members of the community? Do you have diffs? Who has said that?" No such treatment for his pal Slimmy though.
--
Another gem:

SlimVirgin, if anyone is to resign at this point, it should probably be you. Your aggressive mudslinging is serving no benefit to this encyclopedia and its community other than tearing it to shreds.

Nice. And accurate. People are becoming aware of her sneaky backstabbing tactics, and want no part of it.

[GlassBeadGame]

As long as we're on the subject, what do you all think of this video? It seems like certain quasi-governmental privacy groups are taking the position that people should be responsible for preserving their own online privacy. Presumably Slimmy hasn't managed to convince enough people that websites people post to using screen names they've used on other sites in the past, which can be linked to their real identities via Google searches, should be responsible for that.

Only way it could be funnier is if in addition to the "Sarah" one guy called her "Slim" and another "Linda." Did you notice the name tag on the guy who asked what color her underwear was today? It was "Jay."

[Somey]

I also couldn't help noticing that User:Irpen, upon wondering why David Gerard is still on the ArbCom list despite not having been "vetted" by the community (which I suppose is a fairly appropriate term, come to think of it), got hounded by the likes of Tony Sidaway and others about how ol' Dave is super-trusted by the community and was, at one point, "the only checkuser."

Of course, if Dave actually were trustworthy with the tools, and not a sneaky, dishonest, and persistent abuser of CheckUser information specifically, I wouldn't even be here on this forum. I even have proof now that he was the one who created the User:Lir account on Uncyclopedia, and the idea that someone other than him would have made the four other attack accounts there against me at the same time is essentially preposterous - and not only that, he definitely told them we had matching IP addresses, which of course was quite simply a lie. The chance that two people on Iowa's largest residential DSL provider might share an IP address during a 2-month period are, quite simply, negligible and laughable. The man was lying about WP checkuser results, which he gave to Uncyclopedians, to cover his ass - there just isn't any other way to explain it.

And I never even made a single edit to Wikipedia, either!

So if he's the most trustworthy they've got, or even in the top 1000, that's really saying something. Something very, very bad.

[Castle Rock]

Rebecca on her arbcom questions also said Durova is a LIAR

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Arb...tion_from_Cla68

Note the reference (in the original poster's linked comments) to Slim as "Sarah" even though she FREAKS when people do this normally. I bet she gasped in her well-used computer chair.

No its the other name that she freaks out about. She signs all her emails as "Sarah." It's just kind of weird to use something other than the screen name on Wikipedia, say someone always calls you "Scott" instead of "Miltopia," it just feels off.

[Miltopia]

LOL, I sign(ed) my Wikipedia emails as Scott, maybe she and I have a common way of thinking.

Just out of curiousity, how'd you know my name? I'm not worried anything, I actually LOVE my IRL name.

[Castle Rock]

Of course, if Dave actually were trustworthy with the tools, and not a sneaky, dishonest, and persistent abuser of CheckUser information specifically, I wouldn't even be here on this forum. I even have proof now that he was the one who created the User:Lir account on Uncyclopedia, and the idea that someone other than him would have made the four other attack accounts there against me at the same time is essentially preposterous - and not only that, he definitely told them we had matching IP addresses, which of course was quite simply a lie. The chance that two people on Iowa's largest residential DSL provider might share an IP address during a 2-month period are, quite simply, negligible and laughable. The man was lying about WP checkuser results, which he gave to Uncyclopedians, to cover his ass - there just isn't any other way to explain it.

That is really bizarre. Why did he even decide that you were Lir in the first place, any reason other than pure power tripping?

LOL, I sign(ed) my Wikipedia emails as Scott, maybe she and I have a common way of thinking.

Just out of curiousity, how'd you know my name? I'm not worried anything, I actually LOVE my IRL name.

You sent me an email about the lovable Samsara and his antics.

This post has been edited by Castle Rock: Sun 2nd December 2007, 6:45am

[Miltopia]

OMG, I didn't realize who you were.

Samsara is a douche. Is there a thread about Wikipedia user Anomo here that I could read up on for fun?

[gomi]

No its the other name that she freaks out about.

You mean "Linda Mack, Cambridge University drop-out, former (disgraced) Pierre Salinger aide, who seems to have had a dark hand in the post-Locherbie investigations, is suspected by some of having a tie to intelligence agencies, and is now possibly from Swalwell, Alberta" -- that SlimVirgin/Sarah McEwan/Linda Mack? Is that what makes her freak out?

[Somey]

That is really bizarre. Why did he even decide that you were Lir in the first place, any reason other than pure power tripping?

Who knows? Maybe he was just bored that day. Though apparently he was under the impression that the population of the state of Iowa was roughly 300 people, rather than 3 million. And that two cities that are 160 miles away from each other are actually "right next door"... Of course, Lir can write fairly well when he tries to, and I can write fairly well, though I'd say that our respective senses of humor are completely different. Also, he's much more of a negativist than I am, not to mention a total left-wing verbal-bomb-thrower when it comes to politics, which I'm really not all that interested in.

Ah well... according to his infamous online diary, Lir is now in Texas, doing some sort of post-graduate work that apparently includes teaching college-level history courses. I can just imagine some of the WP old-timers spitting Diet Coke into their monitors on hearing that...

To be honest, those events aren't something I enjoy discussing, mostly because I'm still somewhat embarrassed that I lost my cool over the incident. (And the records are presumably still there, if people know where to look.) But any time I see someone go on about how "trustworthy" Dave is, well... it is to laugh!

[Daniel Brandt]

... you can't substantiate any of that, and those you are accusing can't refute it. By all means ask JamesF - but do it privately. Or report the matter to the Foundation. This is not the way to go. You cannot hide behind a pseudonym and make actionable accusations about identifiable people - that's what our BLP policy is all about. Now take this elsewhere - or I will delete this page per WP:BLP

Doc is my hero today. This is a classic one-liner about everything that's wrong with Wikipedia. Now then, if it had the force of NLG (no legal threats), wouldn't that be terrific? You violate NLG in some vague, obscure way, and you get banned indefinitely. That's always been ridiculous — it's like saying Wikipedia is above the law.

Banning a screen name for making an actionable statement against an identifiable person makes a lot of sense. The identifiable person has little recourse against a screen name, and proscribing such behavior by screen names would tend to place Wikipedia inside the law. An instant ban would be appropriate in such a case, if only to protect the Foundation.

What I'm suggesting is that Wikipedia has had it backwards all this time. Legal threats are appropriate in civil society. It's a safety valve, and it keeps folks from strapping on six-shooters like they did in the Wild West. But for a screen name to go after an identifiable person is something that ought to be zapped instantly. It has no place in civil society. Instead of letting off pressure, it increases pressure. This is not good for the Foundation in the long run. It drives people like me to seek revenge on the entire Wikipedia project.

Unfortunately (or fortunately), no new policies will work for Wikipedia at this point. First they have to find some way to zap rogue admins as effectively and as quickly as rogue admins can now zap mere editors. When was the last time an admin was blocked by another admin? How long did it last — minutes or hours? There is simply no effective way to stop an admin. Jimbo is a joke, and ArbCom is a circus.

[guy]

Don't forget it was David Gerard who refused to give Poetlister his phone number so she could call him to prove her innocence; it was David Gerard who re-blocked Poetlister without checking the evidence when someone unblocked her; it was David Gerard who admitted her innocence as soon as Charles Matthews made him look at the evidence.

[Proabivouac]

Banning a screen name for making an actionable statement against an identifiable person makes a lot of sense. The identifiable person has little recourse against a screen name, and proscribing such behavior by screen names would tend to place Wikipedia inside the law. An instant ban would be appropriate in such a case, if only to protect the Foundation.

I couldn't agree more.

If vigorously acted upon, this could reverse this poisonous trend of administrators and editors scrambling for cover while others try to out them. A few people have been genuinely stalked off-site, but the much more common concern, not just for biography subjects but for regular editors, is that one will be damaged by what's said about them on Wikipedia.

Key, though, is that *all* editors be protected. It can't be overlooked here that the person Doc is defending just happens to be an arbitrator.

This post has been edited by Proabivouac: Sun 2nd December 2007, 1:49pm

[AB]

The identifiable person has little recourse against a screen name

Not everyone who uses pseudonyms is unwilling to hear and possibly
address complaints.

[Somey]

Not everyone who uses pseudonyms is unwilling to hear and possibly address complaints.

Presumably that goes without saying, given that the person making the aforementioned statement did so under the name "Doc glasgow."

[Alkivar]

Not everyone who uses pseudonyms is unwilling to hear and possibly address complaints.

Presumably that goes without saying, given that the person making the aforementioned statement did so under the name "Doc glasgow."

what did doc do? he's always been an easily approachable person on irc... maybe i can get him to revisit whatever happened?