Wikipidiots atwitter about Arbcom-L leak, Heads (and eyes) will roll Options

[Herschelkrustofsky]

Kirill, who unlike KW is not a moron, said the following:

Our internal deliberations are not the main concern, in my opinion; as you suggest, their being published is more a cause for embarrassment than a real threat to the project. The larger issue is the various material (including evidence, complaints, requests for assistance, and so forth) submitted by other editors; in many cases, this correspondence includes personal information (real names, addresses, telephone numbers, ages) whose release could have negative consequences for editors and non-editors with no relation to the Committee.

I would like to request that one of the legions of our members or lurkers that are active participants in that Wikipedia talk:Arbitration Committee discussion post the following response to Kirill: our posting rules prohibit the release of addresses, telephone numbers, or employers, and Mr. or Ms. Maliceaforethought has agreed to abide by those rules. We don't intend to facilitate any stalking in the Real-World sense. However, the embarassment that Kirill mentions may have an important therapeutic effect. As SB Johnny put in on that very same WP discussion page,

... perhaps a better solution might be to always talk in public, since everything I've seen seems to be about some people trying to manipulate other people, which isn't really such a great thing for the ideals that most people in this community seem to ascribe to.

And from those members of the Community™ who do not subscribe to those ideals, I am looking forward to an updated "Son of BADSITES" campaign.

[Wikileaker]

Hey MaliceAforethought,

As you can see from my editing history, I was the last person to grab the mailing list and wiki archives, although I was far too lazy to collate and release it.

I admire your initiative and hope to see the new stuff from the archives soon.

[Jack Merridew]

Give me a wink and I'll load the other dumps.

Please, post it all. If WR is too difficult to use, post it on a Blogspot blog or somesuch.

Yes, yes, yes; post it. somewhere. let it all hang out

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=...oldid=436116729

--user:puputan

[radek]

A new member to the Review has posted several threads from the putatively secret Arbcom-L mailing list.

The Wikipidiots are not amused.

This appears to be confirmation that the leaks are real. Or have I misread that discussion.

Frankly, it couldn't have happened to a better bunch. Remember when they threw the book at the EEML people for what was little more than schmoozing with a very little bit of canvassing tossed in. They showed no concern for the privacy of that material, in fact they abused it, selecting, in the RfAr based on it, only the juiciest excerpts, cherry-picked to make list participants look as bad as possible.

They really wanted to nail anyone collaborating off-wiki. Well, they collaborate off-wiki. Of course, they are the good guys, right?

They seem quite certain it's an arb. I have no idea how they could be so certain, all it would take is one compromised computer, or someone who hacks the mail server.

I admit that my first emotional reaction was a profound sense of irony. But 1) it's not a nice feeling to have and 2) they aren't all exactly the same people as the ones that were on the ArbCom back then.

[MZMcBride]

Carcharoth posted a statement on his user page that he asked I reference here.

[MZMcBride]

I admit that my first emotional reaction was a profound sense of irony. But 1) it's not a nice feeling to have and 2) they aren't all exactly the same people as the ones that were on the ArbCom back then.

This is important to note, in my opinion. I certainly wouldn't want to have the contents of my inbox scattered across the Internet. This situation has some distinct differences, obviously.

I remember the contents of Sarah Palin's Yahoo! e-mail account being posted by WikiLeaks and it didn't sit well with me then. This site (Wikipedia Review) has been huge on privacy in a lot of areas, but this is one area where a breach of privacy is being actively encouraged.

I also remember (much more recently) all of Sarah Palin's e-mails as governor of Alaska being released. I still don't understand what the hell that was about. People say things in private that they wouldn't say in public. That's no revelation. But being able to not worry about what you're saying constantly also allows for a much more efficient, less stressful workflow.

Yes, there are differences between private communication by private parties and public communication by public officials. In a lot of ways, the Arbitration Committee is a group of public individuals. That's something to consider academically, I suppose.

Eliot Spitzer's advice should be heeded: "Never write when you can talk. Never talk when you can nod. And never put anything in an e-mail." For the wiki-world and ArbCom in particular, e-mail was inescapable. But this is (yet another) very good lesson in the dangers of electronic communications today.

None of what I'm saying is particularly new or even interesting, but I felt it should still be noted. Even though I'm as curious as the next person about what's in the archives and I'd like to see ArbCom abolished, that doesn't make any of this something I would want to experience on the other end.

[tarantino]

Here is a statement from an anonymous onlooker.

The failure of the leaker to follow up on this statement suggests to me an inside job:

I am also serious about the matters pertaining to the other arbs.
There are aspect to Casliber's resignation and John Vandenberg's
resignation that were not made public. There were aspects to Kirill's
resignation last year, and also Coren's resignation, that were not
made public. In each and *every* case (not just this one), you have to
ask yourself whether the electorate were fully informed, or able to be
fully informed, when they went to the polling booths (or at least
point to where full and frank disclosure of any necessary facts had
already been made and/or corroborated by those who know the
circumstances of the departures and any other non-public matters - if
Vassyana popped up and ran for election, for instance, would the
electorate need to know the circumstances of his departure? What about
Sam Blacketer?).

If the leaker were really anti-ArbCom - as opposed to anti-Malleus, anti-Ottava and anti-Usher, following up on this aspect would be priority number one. The only arb he doesn't seem to like is FT2 - but we already knew he'd fallen out of favor.

So perhaps someone would consider pressing him on this. Personally, I think WR is being manipulated. If ArbCom winds up "not looking that bad", well consider you only see what the leaker wants you to see. If the premise of a wide-open breach convinces you that there must be nothing more to see, that's effective disinformation indeed.

[Kelly Martin]

Of course MaliceAforethought is doing this for some motive of his (or her) own, and of course it would be helpful for us to ascertain what those motives are, since (as noted) it's possible that MA will exclude or redact material that doesn't advance his agenda(s).

That said, I don't care. If the ArbCom is concerned about the possible effect of incomplete disclosure by MA, its only options are to attempt to completely discredit MA, or to make a full disclosure of its own. They're obviously not going to do the latter, and while they're clearly attempting the former it's unlikely that the attempt will ultimately succeed. Even if they did make a supposedly full disclosure, their history of misrepresentation will lead at least some of us to distrust that the disclosure was, indeed, full; at least some of us would assume, their earnest assurance notwithstanding, that some critical bits would be held back. The parts that have been disclosed so far have done quite a bit to support the observation that the ArbCom routinely engages in both misrepresentation and misdirection in its dealings with the community, with outside parties, and even amongst themselves.

[The Adversary]

Here is a reflection from Seth Finkelstein:

Hmm. I was going to say that the odd selection of material leaked argued against an insider trying to do damage. But then I realized that one could turn that around, and say the odd selection of material leaked argued for an insider, but not trying to do damage. That is, the people who have come off the worst from this have essentially been those who are troublesome cases for ArbCom. It does sort of look like what one would get if a frustrated prosecutor or police officer started leaking private documents about annoying court cases. That's just a speculation. But it's an intriguing thought.

[Milton Roe]

Carcharoth posted a statement on his user page that he asked I reference here.

Might as well post it:

Note on the off-wiki June 2011 publication of posts from the arbcom-l mailing list: Some of what I wrote on the arbcom-l mailing list while I was an arbitrator has been published in various forums on Wikipedia Review (starting in June 2011, along with many other posts from the archives), I've been following some of those threads and the responses and analysis there. The following is a brief general response on my part, and is likely to be all I have to say on the matter unless I am asked directly about a specific issue. From what I've seen so far, while some of the correct conclusions are being drawn in some of the Wikipedia Review threads, in some discussions people are going off on a tangent and/or misunderstanding things because context is missing, or they are cherry-picking things to draw conclusions they want to reach. My view is that unless the wider context is included, any analysis of these archives (some of which I have not seen either) should be treated with caution, especially considering the source and the selective method of release of the posts.

Carcharoth is one of the admins I've noted in the past for his lack of being a WP:DICK (which makes him stand out). But his statement above is kind of useless. No piece of information is ever as useful as it would be without "wider context", but since this is a bunch of secret leaks, we're not going to get that, and are unlikely to in the foreseeable future. So the idea that we should not draw any conclusions in the meantime is rather silly. We'll never have all the information we need for any purpose anywhere, on this planet, in this life. We're stuck with the job of thinking with the information we DO have, in the meantime. That is all. It's a continuous fact-of-life and it's inescapable.

If Carcharoth has any information he'd like to add to help WR put this arbcom-l information "in wider context" he's welcome to post it. Otherwise, quit whining. You can't keep some bunch of crap secret, then complain that people are apt to fill in (strange 17-minute) gaps for themselves, when they find out the rest of it. What exactly do you expect? The gaps are YOUR fault. Nobody's going to keep an open mind and suspend judgment due to lack of information, when YOU-ALL are the one withholding it.

This is very reminiscent of the govenment, which normally "classifies" its crimes, lies, and mistakes-- then goes off on a tangent about espionage and national security when somebody finds out some of the dirt. Sorry, but nobody should be deflected from finding out about malice and incompetence, when secrecy is not the real issue and never was. When secrecy is mere coverup for crimes, lies and mistakes, it should be seen as what it is, which is abetting, further lying, and coverup that propagates error in the future, including all future damage that will be caused. Such secrecy is no more deserving of respect than the confidences kept by any person of ill-will and ill-action. Which is to say, it's not. It requires sunlight as disinfectant. We'd like to hear all those whitehouse tapes.

Fuck you with the partial transcripts we already have, Tricky Dicks.

[EricBarbour]

Here is a statement from an anonymous onlooker.

Personally, I think WR is being manipulated.

I'm starting to suspect this may be correct. If those were truly honest leaks, don't you think the WMF and current ArBlubberers would be somewhat more angry and demonstrative? Instead, we get an objection from Coren, and near-total silence from everyone else. Yes, someone's pulling a dirty trick.

(If anyone wants a REAL slab of dirt, PM me. Courtesy of their "archenemy" Tim Usher, as it happens.)

[Kelly Martin]

I'm starting to suspect this may be correct. If those were truly honest leaks, don't you think the WMF and current ArBlubberers would be somewhat more angry and demonstrative? Instead, we get an objection from Coren, and near-total silence from everyone else. Yes, someone's pulling a dirty trick.

That would imply a remarkable degree of heartlessness with respect to the leak regarding the former arbcommer who was blackmailed into resigning (the content of which has been suppressed even here, for good cause, but which was posted and visible for several hours). If this is all just a "dirty trick" on Wikipedia Review, then they are just heartless bastards who will fry one of their own just for a few yuks. Which, to me, suggests that David Gerard is behind it somehow or another.

[LessHorrid vanU]

I'm starting to suspect this may be correct. If those were truly honest leaks, don't you think the WMF and current ArBlubberers would be somewhat more angry and demonstrative? Instead, we get an objection from Coren, and near-total silence from everyone else. Yes, someone's pulling a dirty trick.

That would imply a remarkable degree of heartlessness with respect to the leak regarding the former arbcommer who was blackmailed into resigning (the content of which has been suppressed even here, for good cause, but which was posted and visible for several hours). If this is all just a "dirty trick" on Wikipedia Review, then they are just heartless bastards who will fry one of their own just for a few yuks. Which, to me, suggests that David Gerard is behind it somehow or another.

I love you.

[EricBarbour]

I love you.

I'll take that as a "yeah, it's probably Gerard".

[MZMcBride]

Carcharoth posted a statement on his user page that he asked I reference here.

Might as well post it:

Note on the off-wiki June 2011 publication of posts from the arbcom-l mailing list: Some of what I wrote on the arbcom-l mailing list while I was an arbitrator has been published in various forums on Wikipedia Review (starting in June 2011, along with many other posts from the archives), I've been following some of those threads and the responses and analysis there. The following is a brief general response on my part, and is likely to be all I have to say on the matter unless I am asked directly about a specific issue. From what I've seen so far, while some of the correct conclusions are being drawn in some of the Wikipedia Review threads, in some discussions people are going off on a tangent and/or misunderstanding things because context is missing, or they are cherry-picking things to draw conclusions they want to reach. My view is that unless the wider context is included, any analysis of these archives (some of which I have not seen either) should be treated with caution, especially considering the source and the selective method of release of the posts.

Carcharoth is one of the admins I've noted in the past for his lack of being a WP:DICK (which makes him stand out). But his statement above is kind of useless. No piece of information is ever as useful as it would be without "wider context", but since this is a bunch of secret leaks, we're not going to get that, and are unlikely to in the foreseeable future. So the idea that we should not draw any conclusions in the meantime is rather silly. We'll never have all the information we need for any purpose anywhere, on this planet, in this life. We're stuck with the job of thinking with the information we DO have, in the meantime. That is all. It's a continuous fact-of-life and it's inescapable.

If Carcharoth has any information he'd like to add to help WR put this arbcom-l information "in wider context" he's welcome to post it. Otherwise, quit whining. You can't keep some bunch of crap secret, then complain that people are apt to fill in (strange 17-minute) gaps for themselves, when they find out the rest of it. What exactly do you expect? The gaps are YOUR fault. Nobody's going to keep an open mind and suspend judgment due to lack of information, when YOU-ALL are the one withholding it.

This is very reminiscent of the govenment, which normally "classifies" its crimes, lies, and mistakes-- then goes off on a tangent about espionage and national security when somebody finds out some of the dirt. Sorry, but nobody should be deflected from finding out about malice and incompetence, when secrecy is not the real issue and never was. When secrecy is mere coverup for crimes, lies and mistakes, it should be seen as what it is, which is abetting, further lying, and coverup that propagates error in the future, including all future damage that will be caused. Such secrecy is no more deserving of respect than the confidences kept by any person of ill-will and ill-action. Which is to say, it's not. It requires sunlight as disinfectant. We'd like to hear all those whitehouse tapes.

Fuck you with the partial transcripts we already have, Tricky Dicks.

Carc asked me to post a response to your post (which he described as baiting, and I'd tend to agree). This will be the last time I proxy for Mr. Carcharoth for now. You're free to e-mail him as you see fit.

1) Unlike those reading WR, I can compare what is being released with
the copies of the posts I received at the time, and I can draw
conclusions from this (and the responses to the "requests" being made
of 'Malice') that those without copies of what was said elsewhere on
the mailing list (in the wider context) cannot.

2) About the offer to post to WR, thanks but no thanks.

I'll note that I'd completely forgotten that Mr. Carcharoth is no longer an Arbitrator, and I think many others have forgotten this or don't realize it. His term expired in December 2010, (among other things) removing all his access to the archives, etc.

[MZMcBride]

I love you.

I'll take that as a "yeah, it's probably Gerard".

There are some clues in MaliceAforethought's posts, but I don't think most of them point to Mr. Gerard.

[Kelly Martin]

At this point I think Carcaroth is attempting to create the belief that the leaks are fabricated, without actually saying as much. Given that, and some other things that have happened, I also believe that Carcaroth is more than capable of posting on WR if he wants to, using any of the number of secret socks he almost certainly has here. Don't act surprised, we know that virtually everyone on the ArbCom has at least one account here.

[SpiderAndWeb]

At this point I think Carcaroth is attempting to create the belief that the leaks are fabricated, without actually saying as much. Given that, and some other things that have happened, I also believe that Carcaroth is more than capable of posting on WR if he wants to, using any of the number of secret socks he almost certainly has here. Don't act surprised, we know that virtually everyone on the ArbCom has at least one account here.

Link?

If true then this approach is truly bizarre, as if the leaks were fabricated the Committee would have jumped on that explanation instantly when the drama re Malleus and Iridescent first appeared on-wiki.

[SB_Johnny]

Well an Arb's email was hacked a few months ago, I realised it when the esteemed Arb began trying to sell me viagra; I emailed him to negotiate a better price; he said his account had been hacked and that was the end of the story. I'm sure the Arbcom know all about it. I'm not sure of the exact dates because I deleted the email in case it was a virus, anyway it hardly seemed important at the time. I only remembered it recently because a nephew left his account open in an Australian internet cafe and he suddenly began trying to sell me vigra too - why do these people think I need viagra? Giacomo (talk) 22:02, 2 July 2011 (UTC)

I got some of those from a certain WR contributor a few months ago as well....