The Wikipedia Review: A forum for discussion and criticism of Wikipedia
Wikipedia Review Op-Ed Pages

Welcome, Guest! ( Log In | Register )

 
Reply to this topicStart new topic
> Moar Durova (Jan 2010), A wild Kohs appears! (that bloke gets around)
MaliceAforethought
post Fri 22nd July 2011, 2:51pm
Post #1


u Mad?
***

Group: Contributors
Posts: 206
Joined: Tue 21st Jun 2011, 6:54am
From: Wonderland
Member No.: 57,801



************
*3 years later*
************

From: nadezhda.durova at gmail.com (Durova)
Date: Tue, 26 Jan 2010 22:00:11 -0800
Subject: [arbcom-l] Risker

There is another reason I request no further contact with Risker.

It is necessary to state in advance that no one has breached confidence. A
lot of people talk to me. When a variety of people each say a little bit,
each within their proper discretion, it is possible to learn a lot. The
non-arbitrators who handled parts of this matter probably know less than I
do because a key piece of information is that User:!!, whom I blocked in
2007, told me himself that his prior username was <redacted>. Checkuser caught
him socking late in 2009. Risker intervened. And by implementing a
creative interpretation of the socking policy the Committee found him not to
have violated policy even though he was using one of his current accounts to
disrupt the featured article review process with sarcastic comments.

Considering Risker's involvement in the Durova RfC and the Durova
arbitration case, she ought to have recused. Instead she terminated the SPI
after the result came in.

Last year's arbitrators who tidied up the remaining loose ends probably
hoped I wouldn't find out. I already knew. Just as I knew about Geogre's
socking long before I said anything about it. I'm a smart cookie. And
also, in my own way, a very patient and forgiving person.

Consider what could have happened if I had told Cirt the whole picture. It
was not a wise thing when another Wikipedia arbitrator went to the
individual who had filed the SPI request and insinuated that his queries
were improper. Cirt has thanked me many times over for mentoring him; now
he is an arbitrator and checkuser at Wikinews. None of his confidentiality
pledges would have been breached by blowing the whistle on that very strong
appearance of coverup.

If I wanted to raise a stink about this I already would have. Of course
there is also the possibility that somebody else will put together the same
chain of events. Last year when the arbcom mailing list logs that preceded
the Durova arbitration case leaked openly, I stepped forward to quiet that
developing drama. Probably no one other than I could have done so.
Afterward I asked the 2009 Arbitration Committee to return a portion of my
good name that the Durova arbitration case had taken away. The request, I
believe, was valid on its merits yet it was declined. If the 2010 Committee
is more amenable I would step forward again to halt drama again, even to
protect Risker.

If the current arbitrators are interested in further discussion I would be
happy to hold a dialog. I have always been willing to shoulder a proper
share of culpability for the block of !!; it was a bad block. But that
arbitration was a kangaroo court. I can be very patient. Meanwhile I ask
only that Risker cease to remind me of her existence.

-Lise

P.S. I can also demonstrate the identity of Wikileaker. Probably with
enough conclusiveness for the Committee to finally take action.
-----------

From:(Carcharoth)
Date: Wed, 27 Jan 2010 11:42:10 +0000
Subject: [arbcom-l] Risker

To cut a long story short, at some point in the middle of last year
Risker inadvertently sent an e-mail to Durova that was meant for the
list, and it (understandably) upset Durova a great deal. Ever since
then, she refuses to have anything to do with Risker, but can't keep
it in perspective.

There are other things as well, but I think that was the point where
things broke down irreversibly (from Durova's viewpoint anyway).
Durova filing that RFAR naming Risker and Geogre last year didn't
help, and the business about !! (which was reignited when Cirt filed
an SPI against Disinfoboxman) doesn't help either.

We know there is nothing nefarious going on, but from the outside I
can sort of understand how someone could see this all as some massive
cover-up. Ottava's rantings along those lines didn't help either.

But somehow we have to draw a line under all this. And tell Durova and
others to drop this as well.

Durova's claim that she can identify Wikileaker does sound
interesting, and may be worth pursuing, but coupled with her missing
the point on other matters, she may be barking up the wrong tree there
as well.

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

From: (Kenneth Kua/ArbCom)
Date: Wed, 27 Jan 2010 20:35:34 +0800
Subject: [arbcom-l] Risker

Is it just me or the whole world seems to know who is Wikileaker except the
Committee? We are getting this claim like almost every week.

Given what she had wrote in her original email to us, I won't be surprised
if the name 'Risker' comes out in her claim.

Kenneth/MD

On Wed, Jan 27, 2010 at 7:42 PM, Carcharoth <carcharothwp at googlemail.com>wrote:

> Durova's claim that she can identify Wikileaker does sound
------------

From: (Roger Davies)
Date: Wed, 27 Jan 2010 13:12:49 +0000
Subject: [arbcom-l] Risker

Hi Lise:

Thanks for your second message. As you may be aware, committee time is
at a premium just now and this, as currently presented, is a bit too
complicated for us to react to promptly and coherently. To move this
forward, I suggest is that you break your message down into components,
each with their own numbered and descriptive sub-heading. Under each
sub-heading please provide:

1. a brief summary of facts (say, 100 words);
2. a statement of the relief you seek/action you would like us to take;
3. a link (not diffs at this stage) to the key stuff (ie RfC:Durova,
RfAr:MZMcBride 2 etc)
4. a brief statement saying whether or not it has previously been before
the committee and, if yes, a summary of either (i) what *new* evidence
you will be relying on; (ii) what *new* reasons you have for requesting
the committee revisit or (iii) your reasons for believing the
committee's previous determination was flawed.

We can then look at this item by item and let you know what we can do in
each particular instance.

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

From: (Gregory Kohs)
Date: Wed, 27 Jan 2010 10:19:05 -0500
Subject: [arbcom-l] Fwd: First Pitch

Regarding the recent claims by Lise "Durova" Broer that she still bears some
level of anxiety about how I "harassed" her with a silly Cafe Press
storefront that sold all of ONE UNIT of merchandise (a $2.50 lapel button,
sold to myself)... one would wonder why she would engage with me so
delightfully as recently as July 2009?

Perhaps she's manipulating MZMcBride and the ArbCom. I know manipulators,
trust me.

Enjoy the following...

Greg

---------- Forwarded message ----------
From: Durova
Date: Fri, Jul 10, 2009 at 4:41 PM
Subject: Re: First Pitch
To: Gregory Kohs


Cheers, and you're welcome.

On Fri, Jul 10, 2009 at 1:19 PM, Gregory Kohs wrote:

> Thank you for your work on the photo. You're good, and quick!
>
> In appreciation of your work:
>
> Transaction ID: 5D673966E6170731F Placed on Jul. 10, 2009 Payment For
> Quantity Price Musella Foundation For Brain Tumor Research & Information,
> Inc 1 $10.00 USD Subtotal: $10.00 USD Sales Tax: $0.00 USD
> Total Amount: $10.00 USD
> Talk to you soon!
>
> Greg
>
>
> On Fri, Jul 10, 2009 at 12:13 PM, Durova wrote:
>
>> Assuming WMF isn't to your taste, this would be fine.
>>
>> http://www.virtualtrials.com/Musella.cfm
>>
>>
>> On Fri, Jul 10, 2009 at 9:08 AM, Gregory Kohs wrote:
>>
>>> Yes, exactly -- the attachment of the baseball pitcher. I doubt a higher
>>> rez scan is even available. I don't want you doing it for free, unless that
>>> is your yearning. At least, let me make a $10 donation to the humanitarian
>>> charity of your choice!
>>>
>>> Greg
>>>
>>> On Fri, Jul 10, 2009 at 11:48 AM, Durova wrote:
>>>
>>>> 11:48 AM Durova: You're asking about the backyard photo?
>>>> 11:49 AM I'd do it for free, although you won't get much quality from
>>>> 87K. Would suggest a higher resolution scan.
----------

From: (Carcharoth)
Date: Wed, 27 Jan 2010 15:40:21 +0000
Subject: [arbcom-l] Fwd: First Pitch

I'd question who is doing the manipulation here.

I would say that we should tell Durova that Kohs has submitted
evidence, and ask Kohs if we can pass this "evidence" on to Durova. It
will upset her, but she has a right to see it. Unless we think that it
will inflame things even more, and that a better option is to ignore
their "evidence" and tell them both to stay away from each other (this
is similar to how the Kohs-Shankbone spat was handled).

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

From: (KnightLago)
Date: Wed, 27 Jan 2010 10:43:22 -0500
Subject: [arbcom-l] Fwd: First Pitch

I like the latter approach. Less drama all around.

KL

On Wed, Jan 27, 2010 at 10:40 AM, Carcharoth wrote:
> I'd question who is doing the manipulation here.
-----------

From: (Kirill Lokshin)
Date: Wed, 27 Jan 2010 10:54:03 -0500
Subject: [arbcom-l] Fwd: First Pitch

On Wed, Jan 27, 2010 at 10:43 AM, KnightLago <KnightLago at gmail.com> wrote:

> I like the latter approach. Less drama all around.


Indeed. This is totally irrelevant to anything we're actually concerned
with, in any case.

Kirill
------------

From: (Newyorkbrad)
Date: Wed, 27 Jan 2010 12:54:37 -0500
Subject: [arbcom-l] Fwd: First Pitch

I agree that this entire subject is a digression and should not receive much
more of our attention.

I will add, though, that I consider Durova's most recent comments about
Risker (on Durova's talkpage) to be highly offensive. We are probably
better off not acknowledging them either, so venting for the moment.

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

From: (Carcharoth)
Date: Wed, 27 Jan 2010 18:23:26 +0000
Subject: [arbcom-l] Fwd: First Pitch

Oh my goodness. Durova is completely over the top on her talk page
(which makes it all the sadder), but I had to laugh out loud when I
got to the roasting marshmallows point on Durova's talk page. It was
so ludicrous I couldn't help myself. Yeah, venting here is best, but
Risker, if you feel this is getting too much, just say so and we can
do something (slowly, but we can do something).

Really, what is needed is for Durova to find someone else that agrees
with her, and get an RfC going so she can get some feedback on this.
She keeps coming to the committee to complain about a sitting
arbitrator, because she knows it will take a long time before our
patience snaps, and she also knows the community would look at her in
a funny way if she did ever manage to get an RfC going.

Just in the interests of dialling things down a notch, is there any
chance that you (Risker) would consider only dealing with Durova if
absolutely necessary? It might be a bad precedent, but if we know
there are sore points, it might be best to avoid them if possible.

Or maybe just ban Durova from the arbitration pages and this mailing
list because she can't bear the sight of Risker and that is the only
way to have them avoid each other?

Or do nothing (per Brad).

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

From: (Carcharoth)
Date: Wed, 27 Jan 2010 18:37:51 +0000
Subject: [arbcom-l] Risker

On Wed, Jan 27, 2010 at 6:29 PM, Roger Davies wrote:

> In essence, Durova has explicitly asked for the case to vacated
> and was dropping hints that she could be re-sysopped without an RfA.

She has been pretty consistent she doesn't want the tools back. She
wants her "good name" back, though she fails to realise every time she
does something like this, she pushes it lower in people's estimation
again. Or maybe she does realise and thinks being principled is the
right way to go.

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

From: (Roger Davies)
Date: Wed, 27 Jan 2010 19:00:38 +0000
Subject: [arbcom-l] Fwd: First Pitch

Greg:

While you may have only sold one Durova button, did you have other
Durova-branded items on display? And, if so, what were they?

Roger Davies
-----------

From: (David Yellope)
Date: Wed, 27 Jan 2010 14:30:37 -0500
Subject: [arbcom-l] Risker

She doesn't WANT the tools at all, that's the thing. It really sticks in her
craw that ArbCom had basically decided to accept a case, what the findings
should be, and what the end result should be before the case was filed (the
"If I submit a case, is it going to go through?" statements from members on
the list, etcetera).

And unfortunately, she has proof of all this. The WikiLeaker sent her
edited/redacted logs of the ArbCom mailing list discussions.

On Wed, Jan 27, 2010 at 1:45 PM, Roger Davies wrote:

> Carcharoth wrote:
>
> On Wed, Jan 27, 2010 at 6:29 PM, Roger Davies wrote:
>
>
>
> In essence, Durova has explicitly asked for the case to vacated
> and was dropping hints that she could be re-sysopped without an RfA.
>
>
> She has been pretty consistent she doesn't want the tools back. She
> wants her "good name" back, though she fails to realise every time she
> does something like this, she pushes it lower in people's estimation
> again. Or maybe she does realise and thinks being principled is the
> right way to go.
>
> Carcharoth
>
>
> I think the sub-text of that is that she wants us to confess the 2007 case
> was a kangeroo trial and to remove the "under a cloud" sanction. That means
> she would get the tools without an RfA. And it's also means she wouldn't
> have to go through an RfA (in which, given her capacity for polarising
> people, there is no certainly she'd pass). I'll see if I can find the email
> where she raised it.
>
> Roger
-------------

From: (Cool Hand Luke)
Date: Wed, 27 Jan 2010 13:59:13 -0600
Subject: [arbcom-l] Risker

...Except that none of the case was decided in advance. NYB drafted the
findings publicly, and he was not a subscriber to arbcom-l at the time.

The problem here was one that we frequently deal with: how to take a case *sua
sponte*. That's not a problem with the fairness of the findings against
her--which I contend were fair.

Frank
-------------

From: (Gregory Kohs)
Date: Wed, 27 Jan 2010 14:57:07 -0500
Subject: [arbcom-l] Fwd: First Pitch

I loaded up with just about 90% of whatever Cafe Press offers its vendors,
in terms of blank merchandise templates. Of course, the "branding" is
entirely virtual. No products are actually manufactured until a sale is
transacted. The "display" items are simply photo-shopped renderings. It's
all automated. Are you not familiar with Cafe Press?

Products may have included:


- T-shirts <http://www.cafepress.com/make/custom-t-shirts>
- Hoodies and
Sweatshirts<http://www.cafepress.com/make/custom-hoodies-sweatshirts>
- Underwear and
Panties<http://www.cafepress.com/make/custom-underwear-and-panties>
- Baseball Jerseys<http://www.cafepress.com/make/custom-baseball-jerseys>
- Mugs <http://www.cafepress.com/make/custom-mugs>
- Travel Mugs <http://www.cafepress.com/make/custom-travel-mugs>
- Water Bottles <http://www.cafepress.com/make/custom-water-bottles>
- Tote Bags - Beach Bags <http://www.cafepress.com/make/custom-tote-bags>
- Photo Calendars <http://www.cafepress.com/make/custom-calendars>
- Stickers <http://www.cafepress.com/make/custom-stickers>
- Greeting Cards <http://www.cafepress.com/make/custom-greeting-cards>

Apparel

- T-shirts <http://www.cafepress.com/make/custom-t-shirts>
- Hoodies and
Sweatshirts<http://www.cafepress.com/make/custom-hoodies-sweatshirts>
- Tank Tops <http://www.cafepress.com/make/custom-tank-tops>
- Baseball Jerseys<http://www.cafepress.com/make/custom-baseball-jerseys>
- Golf Shirts <http://www.cafepress.com/make/custom-golf-shirts>
- Underwear and
Panties<http://www.cafepress.com/make/custom-underwear-and-panties>
- Maternity and Plus
Sizes<http://www.cafepress.com/make/custom-maternity-plus-sizes>

Accessories

- Tote Bags <http://www.cafepress.com/make/custom-tote-bags>
- Messenger Bags <http://www.cafepress.com/make/custom-messenger-bags>
- Aprons <http://www.cafepress.com/make/custom-aprons>
- Hats <http://www.cafepress.com/make/custom-hats>
- Teddy Bears <http://www.cafepress.com/make/custom-teddy-bears>
- Pet Gifts <http://www.cafepress.com/make/custom-pet-gifts>
- Bibs <http://www.cafepress.com/make/custom-bibs>

For Home

- Water Bottles <http://www.cafepress.com/make/custom-water-bottles>
- Pillows <http://www.cafepress.com/make/custom-pillows>
- Clocks <http://www.cafepress.com/make/custom-clocks>
- Magnets <http://www.cafepress.com/make/custom-magnets>
- Travel Mugs <http://www.cafepress.com/make/custom-travel-mugs>
- Flip Mino <http://www.cafepress.com/make/custom-flip-mino>
- Flip Mino HD <http://www.cafepress.com/make/custom-flip-mino-hd>
- Keepsake Box <http://www.cafepress.com/make/custom-keepsake-box>
- Framed Tiles <http://www.cafepress.com/make/custom-framed-tiles>
- Coasters <http://www.cafepress.com/make/custom-coasters>
- Ornaments <http://www.cafepress.com/make/personalized-ornaments>

For Office

- Poster Printing <http://www.cafepress.com/make/poster-printing>
- Custom Art Prints <http://www.imagekind.com/create/?IKSrc=CafePress>
- Stickers <http://www.cafepress.com/make/custom-stickers>
- Buttons <http://www.cafepress.com/make/custom-buttons>
- Mousepads <http://www.cafepress.com/make/custom-mousepads>
- Note Cards <http://www.cafepress.com/make/custom-notecards>
- Postcards <http://www.cafepress.com/make/custom-postcards>
- Journals <http://www.cafepress.com/make/custom-journals>
- Banners <http://www.cafepress.com/make/custom-banners>
- Yard Signs <http://www.cafepress.com/make/custom-yard-signs>

I cannot recall which merchandise lines I chose to exclude from my
storefront, and I can't even be certain that today's wide array of available
quality goods matches what was available back in 2007. Am I on trial? May
I participate within the "courtroom"? I could wear my tastefully-designed
"Durova for ArbCom" political button, no?

Greg
-------------

From: (Cool Hand Luke)
Date: Wed, 27 Jan 2010 14:03:37 -0600
Subject: [arbcom-l] Risker

Oh, and I should add that wherever the logs came from (I'm tired of blaming
everything on Wikileaker given that others have probably leaked and that
Wikileaker seemed to brag about his own leaks), the logs were posted and are
available to Durova via Proab. Proab really, really doesn't like Kirill,
who he villainizes in this case and in his own.

Frank
----------

From: (Durova)
Date: Wed, 27 Jan 2010 15:39:34 -0800
Subject: [arbcom-l] Risker

This is a busy time for all of us and I can be patient until a better time
arises. Thank you.

-Lise

On Wed, Jan 27, 2010 at 5:12 AM, Roger Davies wrote:
>
> Hi Lise:
>
> Thanks for your second message. As you may be aware, committee time is at a
-----------

From: (Roger Davies)
Date: Thu, 28 Jan 2010 01:11:57 +0000
Subject: [arbcom-l] Risker

Lise:

Thank you for your message, which has been noted. In the meantime, of
course, the October 2009 determination still stands. (For ease of
reference, I have appended it below.)

Roger


<Decision>

Dear Durova

*Request for vacation of case
*
Thank you for the various messages you have sent us about your 2007
arbitration case, requesting its vacation. We have now had an
opportunity to review all the matters you have raised and we have
made a determination.

In essence, all the evidence suggests that the damage to your
reputation occurred during the widespread discussions in many fora
that took place between 18 November 2007 when you blocked (and
subsequently unblocked) User:!! and the opening of the arbitration
case on 25 November. Your refusal to discuss your rationale during
these early stages alienated many reasonable editors and played a
significant part into turning a relatively minor incident into a
major event. For this reason, the committee has determined that
vacating the decision would be inappropriate.

You have raised further issues in your correspondence, suggesting
that the case was irregular in a number of ways to the point of
being procedurally flawed. Each of these issues has been carefully
investigated and we will respond to them individually. We see that
in some instances you refer to emails leaked from the ArbCom
archives and note they do not necessarily present a complete picture
of discussions which took place.

(1) It is not in dispute that Dmcdevit opened the case in response
to general promptings by ArbCom. The question here is whether the
outcome would have been different had the case been opened by
another filing party. Given the basic facts of the case were never
much in dispute, it is unlikely that Dmcdevit's filing influenced
the outcome.

(2) The outcome of the case was not pre-determined. The final
decision arose largely out of the workshop.

(3) The case did indeed move quickly. It was however a
straightforward case and the facts were never in serious dispute.
Whether the expeditious handling of this case did you a kindness or
a disservice is a matter of conjecture, though it seems unlikely
that keeping it open would have affected the Final Decision.
Moreover, it is clear from your own emails that you were unable to
keep up with the onslaught of comment (for instance, nearly five
hundred posts to the workshop page alone in the first twenty-four
hours). Given that feelings were running high, it seems unlikely
that your responses on the side issues would have done anything
other than provoke further rounds of accusations. The situation is
best summarised by Fred Bauder, who wrote you at the time saying: "I
don't think we will provide definitive resolution over all matters."

(4) We do not believe that the participation of Geogre and Utgard
Loki had any effect on the Final Decision.

(5) We do not accept your allegations regarding Mackensen and
Risker, finding the evidence you put forward unpersuasive.

It is a matter of considerable concern to us that you are subject to
periodic harassment and, unfortunately, this happens too often to
high-profile editors, especially female editors. We note though that
vacating the case will not cause the attack articles on various
websites to be withdrawn. We will however be happy to courtesy blank
the case pages should you wish us to do so.

The Arbitration Committee,

Supporting: Carcaroth, Cool Hand Luke, Coren, FayssalF, FloNight,
Rlevse, Roger Davies, Wizardman
Opposing: None
Recusing: John Vandenberg, Risker, Vassyana
Not voting: Newyorkbrad, Stephen Bain

</Decision>
----------

From: (Roger Davies)
Date: Thu, 28 Jan 2010 02:04:28 +0000
Subject: [arbcom-l] Fwd: First Pitch

Greg:

Okay, I now understand how it works. A few more questions for you. (And
no you're not on trial: this is an information gathering exercise.)

What is the background, by the way? Where did this take place? And when?

Can you also please clarify the thong business (I understand from your
WR posts that it is not in dispute that one was on display/available.)


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

From: laralove (Lara Taylor)
Date: Wed, 27 Jan 2010 22:21:18 -0500
Subject: [arbcom-l] RFAR/MZMcBride

Hello,

I am writing to express my disgust regarding Durova's unsubstantiated
"evidence" against MZ and her edits wrt Risker. The issue with Kohs and the
Cafe Press thong is over-the-top. It's a real stretch for that to be
considered "unwanted sexual attention". The thong is one of many default
choices available on Cafe Press, yet she's using this to play victim by
making it sound like Kohs' intention was to sexually harass her. It's just
absurd. And her claim: "]MZMcBride] renews the obnoxious suggestion that the
Arbitration Committee should hold a woman culpable because a sitebanned
editor once sold underwear with her portrait on it." is a fantastic example
of the absurdity.

Considering her hyperbolic reaction, MZ's concern regarding her (in)ability
to be objective in this case is not far-fetched, and his claim that she
tends to involve herself in drama that doesn't have anything to do with her
is demonstrably true as well. I mean, consensus is nearly impossible to
achieve at this point on WP, but I'm pretty sure you could gain consensus in
a poll regarding Durova's over-involvement in drama. Not only
over-involvement, but her tendency to exaggerate for dramatic affect. For
example, referring to Kohs as being "sitebanned" as opposed to just
"banned". By understanding of the former being for cases such as Amorrow.
Unnecessary exaggeration.

Furthermore, this "no means no" thing she's doing now over Risker's edits to
her talk page is utterly ridiculous.[1][2] Disgusting, really.
Particularly when you consider it is coming from a woman who is
ultra-sensitive to sexual references (such as the thong issue and her
reaction to a Kegel exercise joke on BN, for example). Using an anti-rape
slogan out of its standard context... it's just grossly offensive.

[1]
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=...oldid=340394259
[2]
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=...oldid=340281628

Regards,
Lara
-----------

From: (Gregory Kohs)
Date: Wed, 27 Jan 2010 22:35:55 -0500
Subject: [arbcom-l] Fwd: First Pitch

Background:
http://wikipediareview.com/index.php?s=&sh...indpost&p=61441

Read the whole thread, too... it's a hoot.

A thong was one of the 40 or so products available at the "Durova for
ArbCom" storefront.

One day, if you have even an 80 IQ, you'll discover that Durova
over-inflates all of her accomplishments, and over-reacts to all of her
criticisms. Happy reading!

Greg
----------

From: (Carcharoth)
Date: Thu, 28 Jan 2010 07:20:16 +0000
Subject: [arbcom-l] My secondary account

"No Name Given" looks like a newbie, but it could be a fake. Dunno. Sorry.

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

From: (Fritz Poll)
Date: Thu, 28 Jan 2010 07:47:10 +0000
Subject: [arbcom-l] RFAR/MZMcBride

Broadly speaking, I have to say that I agree with the substance of Lara's
e-mail

Fred
-----------

From: (Carcharoth)
Date: Thu, 28 Jan 2010 07:57:36 +0000
Subject: [arbcom-l] RFAR/MZMcBride

Sure, I do too. Was just noting the way she slipped in a defense of
Kohs there, with semantics over the use of the words 'banned' and
'sitebanned'. I think Kohs can be a perfectly reasonable guy, but he
had his chance and blew it. He seems to think he can manipulate
people, and he does still exert some influence, as this episode has
shown. We should be encouraging him to disengage, and encouraging
others not to be influenced by him (as he is nothing more than a
distraction at this point). But Lara will not accept that in any shape
or form, so there is no point telling her that.

Carcharoth

On Thu, Jan 28, 2010 at 7:47 AM, Fritz Poll wrote:
> Broadly speaking, I have to say that I agree with the
-----------

From: (Jimmy Wales)
Date: Thu, 28 Jan 2010 15:34:27 +0100
Subject: [arbcom-l] Fwd: FW: facebook message from Mr Gregory Kohs

Just FYI, since the committee may be considering Mr. Kohs track record
regarding harassment of Durova. It is fairly common for him to contact
anyone with whom he sees I am doing business, or anyone he feverishly
imagines that I may be dating. He seems to be suggesting that the
Durova event was one small thing. It is, though, exactly within his
normal patterns of behavior.

Upon professional advice, I do not respond or acknowledge Kohs in any
way. I believe it would be much better if everyone took the same
approach - the key concept in stalker management is de-escalation. We
are unfortunately not well suited to not allowing someone to have a
battle - there is always someone in the community for him to argue with,
which keeps his war-on-Wikipedia alive and entertaining for him. I have
no solution to offer about that!

-------- Original Message --------
Subject: FW: facebook message from Mr Gregory Kohs
Date: Thu, 28 Jan 2010 14:06:06 +0100
From: Waser Stephane
To: 'Jimmy Wales'
CC: Roth Katrin



Dear Jimmy,
For your information, Mr Kohs has sent Simon (our art director from the
agency) the message below.
We don't want to bother you with this neither want to make a big story
out of it, however thought it might be of interest to you to be informed.
On our side, we have informed the team at the agency and internal staff
to watch out for such message, in particular on our facebook official site.
He might drop further messages, so we are aware and ready to manage any
negative comment.
We are more than ever convinced that you are an excellent ambassador for
Maurice Lacroix and are honoured of seeing you these days in Davos.
It's great what you do.
Have a successful time,
Stephane

*Maurice Lacroix



------------------------------------------------------------------------
*From:* Thomas Bunnell
*Sent:* Wednesday, January 27, 2010 8:13 PM
*To:* Waser Stephane
*Subject:* facebook message

Hi Stephane,

Just thought you should know Simon got sent a unusual message from
someone called Gregory Kohs on his facebook account last night

It?s a bit weird, and it?s obviously from someone who has it in for
Jimmy, and possibly may know him,

as follows,

"Boy, were you ever duped by that fraud Jimmy Wales. I feel sorry for you.

Too late to turn back now, though! Good luck with your "ambassador"."

I don?t think it?s anything worth pursuing ? there are a lot of weird
people out there but thought it best you know in case your team also get
anything through

Best

Thomas

*Thomas Bunnell*
------------

From: (Steve Smith)
Date: Thu, 28 Jan 2010 10:40:23 -0400
Subject: [arbcom-l] Fwd: FW: facebook message from Mr Gregory Kohs

When I threw my name into the 2008 WMF election ring (against Kohs) he
immediately called my work and spoke to my somewhat befuddled boss (I wasn't
party to the conversation, but I gather it had something to do with my
having blocked one of his sockpuppets, which he viewed as a conflict of
interest in that we were running against each other). I think he's harmless
and fine the use of "stalker" a little strong (though perhaps Jimmy's
experience suggests that it isn't), but there's no doubt that he can be a
bit of a jackass.
-----------

From: (KnightLago)
Date: Thu, 28 Jan 2010 09:50:14 -0500
Subject: [arbcom-l] Fwd: FW: facebook message from Mr Gregory Kohs

I disagree Steve. Take a step back. He called your work! He took the time to
find out where you worked, track down the number, and then actually called.
I mean, what is your definition of the word stalker?

KL
------------

From: (Steve Smith)
Date: Thu, 28 Jan 2010 10:59:12 -0400
Subject: [arbcom-l] Fwd: FW: facebook message from Mr Gregory Kohs

It's semantics, but I'd say there has to be some kind of threatening
undertone, which I don't think there was here (as far as I know, he didn't
imply to my boss that I should be fired or anything). As for finding out
where I worked, I believe I mentioned it on my user page at the time, so I
have a hard time finding that too chilling.

Andrew Morrow's a stalker. Greg Kohs, at least in my experience, is a
decent guy who sometimes behaves like a monumental jackass where Wikipedia,
and especially Jimmy Wales, are involved.
----------

From: (Carcharoth)
Date: Thu, 28 Jan 2010 15:11:58 +0000
Subject: [arbcom-l] Fwd: FW: facebook message from Mr Gregory Kohs

Would you phone Greg Kohs's work to talk to his boss? It clearly
crosses a line, and I can't believe that anyone would do something
like that for innocent purposes. You use existing means of
communication to contact someone, and you don't step outside that (to
invade their privacy) without good reason. Period.

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

From: (Steve Smith)
Date: Thu, 28 Jan 2010 11:14:49 -0400
Subject: [arbcom-l] Fwd: FW: facebook message from Mr Gregory Kohs

Well, he was actually calling to talk to me, but I wasn't in. Anyway, this
conversation has probably exceeded its useful life, and that's probably my
fault. I just think we need to do a better job distinguishing between the
dangerous and the merely unpleasant, and that my knowledge of Kohs places
him, at his worst, in that second category.
------------

From: (Steve Smith)
Date: Thu, 28 Jan 2010 11:16:58 -0400
Subject: [arbcom-l] Fwd: FW: facebook message from Mr Gregory Kohs

Wait, didn't you guys unban him last year for a time? Why would you do that
if you considered him a stalker?

(To be clear, I'm very much on-side that re-banning him was the right
decision. I just don't think he's a threat to editors' well-being.)
----------

From: (Carcharoth)
Date: Thu, 28 Jan 2010 15:23:14 +0000
Subject: [arbcom-l] Fwd: FW: facebook message from Mr Gregory Kohs

I don't think I realised he called your work. I also recall at the
time we unbanned him, that he was being pretty reasonable. He then
reverted to type. His obsession with Jimmy is concerning. Some of his
posts to various websites, I can understand, but to then approach
people working with Jimmy (like he just did) and leave them with the
impression that he is a nutter, well, he is his own worst enemy.

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

From: (Steve Smith)
Date: Thu, 28 Jan 2010 11:26:00 -0400
Subject: [arbcom-l] Fwd: FW: facebook message from Mr Gregory Kohs

I can agree with that; I've suggested to him before that he's much more
credible as a critic when he doesn't fixate on Jimmy. He does not seem to
have taken that to heart.
------------

From: (Cool Hand Luke)
Date: Thu, 28 Jan 2010 09:42:43 -0600
Subject: [arbcom-l] Fwd: FW: facebook message from Mr Gregory Kohs

At least he didn't contact your associates and tell them not to sleep with you.

Frank
------------

From: (Steve Smith)
Date: Thu, 28 Jan 2010 11:44:08 -0400
Subject: [arbcom-l] Fwd: FW: facebook message from Mr Gregory Kohs

My associates generally have pretty inflexible policies on the subject, so I
don't think it would have much mattered. Did he do that to Jimbo?
----------

From: (Cool Hand Luke)
Date: Thu, 28 Jan 2010 09:46:44 -0600
Subject: [arbcom-l] Fwd: FW: facebook message from Mr Gregory Kohs

Yes, a few months before we unbanned him. That unban completely baffled me.

Frank
----------

From: (Steve Smith)
Date: Thu, 28 Jan 2010 11:48:35 -0400
Subject: [arbcom-l] Fwd: FW: facebook message from Mr Gregory Kohs

Geez. Greg Kohs would do all humanity, including himself, a favour if he
forgot Jimbo existed.
----------

From: (KnightLago)
Date: Thu, 28 Jan 2010 10:51:12 -0500
Subject: [arbcom-l] Fwd: FW: facebook message from Mr Gregory Kohs

Yeah. He has been socking on Jimbo's talk page recently too. I have blocked
a couple of his socks, and am watching another one.

KL
-----------

From: (Carcharoth)
Date: Thu, 28 Jan 2010 15:54:54 +0000
Subject: [arbcom-l] Fwd: FW: facebook message from Mr Gregory Kohs

It helped make a few things clearer. And his behaviour reduces the
chance of future unbans. One of the reasons behind some conditional
unbans is to keep your friends close, but your enemies closer still.

Carcharoth
User is offlineProfile CardPM
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
NuclearWarfare
post Fri 22nd July 2011, 3:19pm
Post #2


Senior Member
****

Group: Contributors
Posts: 382
Joined: Tue 23rd Dec 2008, 10:24pm
Member No.: 9,506

WP user page - talk
check - contribs



Could !!'s username be redacted please? I believe Somey had redacted it in the previous thread, and it seems only proper to continue that here.
User is offlineProfile CardPM
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
MaliceAforethought
post Fri 22nd July 2011, 3:27pm
Post #3


u Mad?
***

Group: Contributors
Posts: 206
Joined: Tue 21st Jun 2011, 6:54am
From: Wonderland
Member No.: 57,801



From: (Durova)
Date: Thu, 28 Jan 2010 19:13:48 -0800
Subject: [arbcom-l] MZMcBride arbitration case

Roger,

MZMcBride has been casting aspersions upon me for weeks. I edit openly
under my real name; he does not. His aspersions are entirely consistent
with victim-blaming. Not one arbitrator or clerk has asked him to refactor
or substantiate with diffs. Yet the clerks and arbitrators diligently
silence me based upon a speculative misreading of my words.

The case clerk allowed half an hour to both respond at my talk page and
produce a statement of twenty-six diffs. Of course that was impossible.
Now you demand even greater precision--along the lines of a direct quote to
say "She was asking for it". You know that quote does not exist. Yet I
asked MZMcBride twice to offer any alternate explanation for his actions,
and he refused to provide any.

The only arbitrator I asked to recuse was the one who intervened. Her
comments imply that I ought to be grateful the Committee does not also
sanction me.

There's another phrase in addition "blaming the victim" that's becoming
relevant to this arbitration case. It's called "double standards".

Every aspersion that MZMcBride has cast upon my motives and character should
have been handled with exactly the same stringency that the Committee has
exercised toward me.

Wikipedia's Arbitration Committee has allowed my name to be dragged through
the mud one time too many.

-Lise

On Wed, Jan 27, 2010 at 8:32 PM, Roger Davies wrote:

>
> Lise:
>
> The widespread concern over your now-redacted case filing is that it makes
> two unrelated allegations is such proximity that the casual reader will
> conflate them.
>
> To get things very clear, I wished to establish that you are not in fact
> alleging that MZMcBride colluded with Greg Kohs during the thong incident. I
> assume from your responses that you are not alleging this. If my assumption
> is inaccurate, please tell me.
>
> I would like to spend a few minutes exploring the gender-bias issue you
> have raised. Surely, the concept of victim-blaming involves the premise that
> "XYZ only happened to you because you did ABC"? Typically, in a sexual
> context, the allegation would be framed thus: "XYZ was sexually assaulted
> because he/she was dressed provocatively".
>
> Now I have not seen MZMcBride suggest anywhere that you brought the thong
> incident upon yourself (though if I have missed it, please point me to the
> diff). Instead, he appears to be responding to a COATRACK allegation and
> suggesting that part of your motivation in bringing a case against him is
> because of an unrelated dispute between you and Greg Kohs. I cannot honestly
> see how this position indicates gender-bias on the part of MZMcBride.
>
> If, however, you have clear evidence of gender-bias, please point us to it
> and we will act on it. Please bear mind though that we have real life
> obligations to MZMcBride and if your very serious allegations cannot be
> substantiated we shall have to say so and make findings accordingly.
>
> I understand your time demands, but anything you can do to provide an
> urgent response would be appreciated.
>
> Roger
>
> PS: This is in response also to your very recent message in the Risker
> thread on this list:
>
> Thinking over your other note regarding yesterday's evidence, maybe that
> carried an explanation of yesterday's strange behavior by Ryan Postlethwaite
> and others.
>
> Did the clerks and arbitrators actually misread my posts so badly that they
> supposed I was trying to accuse MZMcBride of colluding with Greg Kohs to
> sell the thong underwear?
>
>
>
>
> Durova wrote:
>
> Roger,
>
> Your reaction is surprising; did you read the evidence expecting to find an
> accusation that MZMcBride colluded with Kohs in the Cafe Press store? I
> never intended to assert such a thing.
>
> The problem is how MZMcBride reacted when he was informed of it:
> MZMcBride's behavior is indistinguishable from blaming the victim.
>
> Is there something that needs to be clarified about how victim-blaming is a
> problem when it follows a bias incident and the person who is blaming is an
> administrator?
>
> -Lise
>
>
>
>>
>> On Wed, Jan 27, 2010 at 4:43 AM, Roger Davies wrote:
>>
>>>
>>> Hi Lise:
>>>
>>> Thank you for your message.
>>>
>>> While the thong incident was utterly inexcusable, I have not yet seen any
>>> evidence from you directly connecting MZMcBride to these particular
>>> activities of Mr Kohs. As you may know, there is a longstanding principle
>>> that the more serious the allegation the higher the burden of proof that
>>> must be provided to support it. We would expect appropriately solid evidence
>>> in this instance and would be grateful to see it.
>>>
>>> Needless to say, in view of the potential for serious real life
>>> implications for MZMcBride, this is not appropriate for public discussion.
>>>
>>>
>>> Roger Davies
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> Durova wrote:
>>>
>>> The next link I was planning to add was an offsite post by Mr. Kohs
>>> last month where he admitted to having sold underwear that had my face on
>>> it. If there is any doubt about the truthfulness of that assertion, please
>>> notify me and I will search for it. The on wiki diffs were easier and
>>> quicker to obtain.
>>>
>>> In addition to the following request that the Committee redact the
>>> accusations which it prevents me from rebutting, I request a formal
>>> statement from the Committee or one of its members that my statement was
>>> moved procedurally and not due to any impropriety on my part. The tone of
>>> the notification does not convey the appropriate impression.
>>>
>>>
>>> http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=...oldid=340264181
>>>
>>> Please also note my response.
>>> May the Committee's deliberations reflect that the submission was
>>> posted under extreme time pressure per an explicit demand from the case
>>> clerk, and that I had voluntarily redacted sensitive names although the case
>>> clerk had not requested redaction. I respectfully request that the slurs
>>> upon my integrity and character be likewise moved to the Committee's private
>>> wiki, since you prevent me from using publicly available information to
>>> rebut them. This handling has been very one sided: the attacks accumulated
>>> for weeks without any response from the arbitrators or clerks; it is only
>>> the defense that is concealed. Twenty-six diffs substantiated everything in
>>> that evidence submission. I have made no personal attacks and have violated
>>> no policy. I have no reason to be ashamed. There are sixteen other
>>> arbitrators who are welcome to handle this matter. I repeat for the fourth
>>> time, Risker, the request that you recuse from anything having to do with
>>> me. Durova <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Durova>*403* 04:19, 27
>>> January 2010 (UTC) Risker's ongoing refusal to acknowledge my requests
>>> for her recusal is becoming a serious problem. The context--for the new
>>> arbitrators who may be unfamiliar with it--is that I have ample evidence
>>> that she submitted a serious falsehood in a formal statement to the
>>> Committee regarding me last year. I do not wish to renew that grievance; I
>>> seek to have nothing to do with her.
>>>
>>> I have, of course, retained an offsite copy of today's evidence
>>> submission as well as all relevant correspondence.
>>>
>>> -Lise
------------

From: (Durova)
Date: Thu, 28 Jan 2010 20:43:50 -0800
Subject: [arbcom-l] Risker

In response to the RFAR I filed, Risker alleged that certain questions of
mine were directed not at her but to the Committee as a whole. I answered
point by point, citing numerous instances in which my queries had indeed
been directed to her.

Both her claim and my response were posted onsite; diffs can be obtained.

I will not be hypocritical and publish other people's emails, but I
certainly can publish my own. Either her recollection is so poor that she
is not fit to hold the position of arbitrator, or her misrepresentation was
deliberate fabrication.

If you insist upon pushing this point further, I am certainly capable of
proving it. To as wide an audience as necessary.

-Lise

On Wed, Jan 27, 2010 at 8:10 PM, Roger Davies wrote:

>
> Lise:
>
> I'm glad that is in no doubt.
>
> May I draw your attention to item (5)? This says "We do not accept your
> allegations regarding ... Risker, finding the evidence you put forward
> unpersuasive".
>
> In the light of this, I ask you to be considerably more circumspect in your
> dealings with, and comments about, Risker, who is an editor and arbitrator
> in good standing.
>
> I've replied to your second and third paragraphs in a separate message in
> the McBride thread.
>
> Roger
-----------

From: (KnightLago)
Date: Fri, 29 Jan 2010 10:04:24 -0500
Subject: [arbcom-l] MZMcBride arbitration case

<list only>

I am not adopting Durova's here, but I think she has a point in regard to
Risker intervening. Risker, I think you should avoid taking any actions in
regard to Durova. She is clearly fixated on you. So any action you take,
regardless of its validity, is going to be seen in Durova's eyes as picking
on her. Which means more DRAMA.

KL
------------
From: (Cool Hand Luke)
Date: Fri, 29 Jan 2010 10:09:39 -0600
Subject: [arbcom-l] MZMcBride arbitration case

I agree that this should be avoided for the sake of reducing drama, but I
strongly disagree with Durova's oft-repeated demands that Risker (or
FloNight, or whoever) recuse. She sometimes seems to make this demand when
she believes a particular arbitrator will disagree with her.

COI note: Durova asked me to recuse on the Scientology case because I was an
"SPA" on Wikisource. Meaning, apparently, that I would be two sympathetic
to Scientologists because I'm a beer snob jack Mormon interested in Utah
history.

Frank
-------------

From: (KnightLago)
Date: Fri, 29 Jan 2010 11:17:51 -0500
Subject: [arbcom-l] MZMcBride arbitration case

I am not calling for Risker to recuse. Recusal is something only Risker can
decide on in this type of situation. I am just saying let's mitigate further
DRAMA when we can.

KL
-------------

From: (Roger Davies)
Date: Fri, 29 Jan 2010 20:07:06 +0000
Subject: [arbcom-l] MZMcBride arbitration case

Lise:

Thanks for your message. As it happens, I don't know what other evidence
you have to support your allegation that MZMcBride's comments are
consistent with victim-blaming, which is why I asked for it. The fact is
that the arbitration pages of a top five website are an inappropriate
venue for making unsubstantiated allegations: the applicable policy
([[WP:NPA]]), says "... some types of comments are absolutely /never/
acceptable: ... Accusations about personal behavior that lack evidence.
Serious accusations require serious evidence."

Now, no one is suggesting that MZMcBride's behaviour has been perfect
and he may well have added to the drama but what he has done does not
seem to amount to sexually-oriented harassment. What makes this
particular allegation so serious is the strong likelihood that it could
cause lasting real life harm to MZMcBride. I don't see any application
of double standards here.

Roger


Durova wrote:
> Roger,
>
> MZMcBride has been casting aspersions upon me for weeks. I edit
-------------

From: (Roger Davies)
Date: Fri, 29 Jan 2010 21:08:30 +0000
Subject: [arbcom-l] Risker

Lise:

I don't have all the facts of all your allegations at my fingertips so
I'm not clear what emails you are referring to or what the basis of this
particular allegation aganst Risker is. What I am puzzled about is what
this has to do with the MZMcBride allegations and why her comments about
them on your talk page prompted this response:

If Risker were trapped in a burning building with a malfunctioning
phone that could only contact me, of course I would alert the fire
department immediately. If our positions were reversed I would roast
marshmallows and await my doom. My opinion of her integrity really
is that dismal. And marshmallows are delicious.

This does seem to me to be an extraordinary thing for you to claim on
your talk page (watched as you say by 426 people). It is, in my view, a
personal attack and I must ask you please to be more careful in future.

Roger


Durova wrote:
> In response to the RFAR I filed, Risker alleged that certain questions
------------

From: (Durova)
Date: Fri, 29 Jan 2010 15:09:54 -0800
Subject: [arbcom-l] MZMcBride arbitration case

Roger,

You agree that Greg Kohs's behavior toward me is "utterly inexcusable". You
also say "no one is suggesting that MZMcBride's behaviour has been
perfect".

Now read my onsite posts about MZMcBride very carefully. The first two
times I spelled out a pattern, gave the name of something that pattern is
consistent with, and asked MZMcBride to identify what differentiated his
conduct from that. The third time, per a direct demand from the case clerk,
I added diffs in formal evidence. I never posted onsite that MZMcBride is
victim blaming: I stated that his behavior was consistent with that and I
had twenty-six diffs to back it up.

Have you redacted any of the times MZMcBride impugned my motives or
character? Have you warned him? Have you done anything at all?

Every communication shifts ground. First the case clerk orders me to post
evidence; now you're calling it a policy violation that I obeyed. Maybe you
should be talking to your clerk.

There are terms for this. Double standards is one of them. Selective
enforcement is another. They're already on people's lips from a couple of
recent RFARs.

Are you trying to intimidate me?

-Lise

P.S. For a fellow who's following up on the aftermath of an "utterly
inexcusable" bias incident, you're acting like your sensitivity training was
done with a case of Pabst Blue Ribbon beer.
------------

From: (Fritz Poll)
Date: Fri, 29 Jan 2010 23:12:15 +0000
Subject: [arbcom-l] MZMcBride arbitration case

I am getting very bored of these e-mails

(just a passing thought)

Fred
-----------

From: (KnightLago)
Date: Fri, 29 Jan 2010 18:16:04 -0500
Subject: [arbcom-l] MZMcBride arbitration case

As am I. I think we have reached the point that replies to these emails are
no longer beneficial. I suggest we step back and let things cool down.

KL
-----------

From: (Durova)
Date: Fri, 29 Jan 2010 15:51:48 -0800
Subject: [arbcom-l] Risker

Roger,

Under this week's circumstances I really should not be obligated to prove
beyond reasonable doubt why it was inappropriate for the only arbitrator
whose recusal I have requested to step in on a sensitive matter involving
me. Prior to this incident I had requested her recusal three times from
anything having to do with me. Nonetheless, here it is.

The bulk of this was originally cc'd to the Arbitration Committee mailing
list. Following is a stattement I posted to RFAR on 28 July 2009. The
quote from Risker was verbatim, what she had claimed the previous day.

The fact that she spoke falsely on the matter I am most capable of
disproving casts doubt on everything else she asserts. Your opinion may
differ, but mine is not unjustified.

-Lise

--

With regard to Risker's statement: *Risker*: "Once I became aware of the
seriousness of the concerns being discussed, I provided the Committee with
additional information (most of which is in this statement) and then recused
from the discussion of this matter. As Durova posted her questions about me
to the Arbitration Committee as a whole, and not to me alone, I felt it was
a violation of my recusal to respond outside of the walls of the Committee."
*Me, to Risker*: (Full text and headers available to the Committee upon
request).

1. "Risker, is there anything you need to tell me? Anything at all?" - Email
to Risker 12 May 2009, received no reply

There appears to be at least one email missing from this sequence.

2. "Also, as the arbitrators are aware from previous email, I have specific
concerns regarding Risker and more than once I have invited her to discuss
them. She has never replied to the invitations for dialog." - Sent to the
Committee, 22 June 2009

3. "Would gladly follow up with Risker when the schedule frees up a little.
It's an issue that falls in the 'important but not urgent' category." Sent
to the Committee, 22 June 2009

4. "Occasionally there's a conversation that either takes a while to hold,
or else is best delayed. There's a concern I've been chewing on for several
months now. It's not easy to raise in a few words and--at least
potentially--it hits pretty close to home. Fortunately it falls into the
important but not urgent category." Sent to Risker directly in reply to a
message from her, 23 June 2009

Risker indicated off-wiki reasons for delay on 23 June, which appeared
likely to be brief.

Events get pressed forward by other people, such as a Wikipedia Review
thread and other matters.

5. "I could have started an RFAR the other day; I didn't. Geogre's unblock
of Peter Damian was almost a play-for-play repeat of Geogre's use of the
tools leading up to the Geogre-William M. Connolley arbitration. If it had
been my intention to seek vengeance I would have followed up by posting
evidence onsite. Starting with Geogre, and then other things. This was the
matter I was asking Risker to discuss last month. By the time she responded
I had accepted a commitment that would have been hard to juggle with that
difficult conversation.... (mentioning unrelated matters) Was hoping to get
past the current phase of that before resuming with Risker.... Now events
have overtaken on another holiday weekend. I've got plans for a barbecue
today, and can put that off for about six hours if Risker wants to talk."
Sent to the Committee, 4 July 2009

Risker replies in a way that suggests a weekend-long delay.

6. "There wasn't quite this urgency before the Committee looked into the
matter, but enjoying my holiday is a bit less important than having a say
before the Committee declares this closed. The one thing that held me back
for months, Risker, was that I wasn't certain you knew that Geogre was
operating Utgard Loki. Circumstances didn't look good, but in light of your
exchange with Yellowmonkey it would have been difficult to raise the issue
without reference to you. I know how hard it is to being on the receiving
end of public accusations and public wrath about things that are worse than
I've actually done, and I didn't want to take the chance of putting you in
that position. At least not without trying to talk to you first. You didn't
try to talk to me before you took your opinion public in November 2007. I've
endeavored to do better by you." Sent to Risker, cc'd to the Committee 4
July 2009

7. "Am interested in understanding and reconciliation, if that's possible...
There's an essay Risker wrote in user space about a year ago, about Giano.
It's a good essay, and it carries a spirit worth replicating here.
*For a lot of difficult-to-quantify reasons, many people consider Giano a
community leader, or at least a high-profile editor. He edits in a fishbowl
that many of us cannot imagine... With the eyes of the wiki on him, any tiny
misstep is magnified beyond all reasonable value, and the reaction is
equally excessive.*[6]<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Risker/Giano%27s_block>(written
by Risker)

There are other things to say, but I sure hope I can finally get a sliver of
that understanding. Am willing to reciprocate." Sent to Cool Hand Luke, cc'd
to the Committee 4 July 2009

8. "Are the two entirely separable? That's the question that's held me back.
This is going to be a bit subtle, so bear with a complex example. Two months
ago I was trying to take the pulse of that at FloNight's user talk. You can
read the following thread two ways. On one level, I was raising a sharp
criticism of the Scientology case and not winning any awards for diplomacy.
But the example that drew both Risker and Geogre into the discussion wasn't
accidental: I wanted to see what they would do. Geogre makes a false claim
in Risker's presence that she never contradicts:

Geogre claims: "You've ... I mean Cirt's... be proven "right" because I quit
arguing with FAR?"[7]<http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:FloNight&oldid=287661031#Query>

Although actually he argued extensively at FAR...on his other
account.[8]<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Featured_article_review/Augustan_literature/archive1>

And at the FAR for another of his articles, also under discussion at
FloNight's user
talk.[9]<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Featured_article_review/A_Tale_of_a_Tub/archive1>

The last post of the Geogre account to an actual featured article review
occurred on 10 December
2007:[10]<http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Featured_article_review/1755_Lisbon_earthquake/archive1&diff=prev&oldid=176906834>

Yet as Utgard Loki he had continued participating, right up until a month
and a half before the conversation at FloNight's user
talk:[11]<http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Featured_article_review/Restoration_comedy&diff=prev&oldid=277636759>16
March 2009

So if Risker was unaware that Utgard Loki and Geogre were the same person,
then this is a discussion about Geogre. It would be more than a little
surprising if she didn't suspect, in view of how frequently they post to
each others' user talk pages. They're close; they collaborate. Perhaps she's
unusually loyal and trusting.

[editing for space, concerns repeated elsewhere]

*Those are misgivings I don't want to have, and which probably no one but
Risker is in a position to disclose.* [boldface added] And if this is wrong
and she has a convincing reason for not having guessed that Geogre was
Utgard Loki (even after she mistook one for the other, and a functionary
raised it to her attention, and she replied how similar their syntax is),
well then I hope to never have this discussion again." Sent to the
Committee, 4 July 2009

9. "Lastly, there's reason to suspect that Risker knew about the socking,
benefitted from it, and lied to a functionary to conceal it. I don't want to
overstate the weight of that suspicion, which is why I had held off for
months on discussing any of this. Wanted to talk it over with her one on
one, but events have overtaken that. Really, I'd like to find a way to
reconcile." Sent to the Committee, 4 July 2009

After 4 July Risker made no further overtures. I was not cc'd on any other
response she may have made to the Committee nor was I notified when she
posted to this RFAR. On at least nine separate occasions I have expressed a
desire for discussion with her and on two occasions she replied to delay
discussion. Per her latter delay it appeared she would resume a direct
discussion on or about July 6, but she never did. Thus it is difficult to
see how she reached a conclusion that my questions were for the Committee as
a whole rather than to her, or how in any way she might be ethically
constrained from corresponding with me (especially since she already had
begun). The desire for a direct, discreet, and conciliatory dialog was
something I explicitly expressed many times, both directly to her and in
full view of the Committee. She is an arbitrator; I am a former
administrator under formal admonishment. It appears she is being taken
completely at her word, in a manner that makes my actions appear impetuous.
My records contradict her assertions. I am at a loss for what else to do.
Durova <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Durova>*285<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Durova>
* 04:10, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

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

-Lise
------------

From: (Newyorkbrad)
Date: Fri, 29 Jan 2010 18:59:22 -0500
Subject: [arbcom-l] Risker

(List only, at least for now)

I am completely at a loss to understand how this convoluted history could
possibly justify Durova's on-wiki suggestion that a fellow Wikipedian would
gladly abandon her in a burning building.

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

From: (Fritz Poll)
Date: Sat, 30 Jan 2010 00:03:15 +0000
Subject: [arbcom-l] Risker

Hm. I am beginning to think that the McBride case should look to sanction
all involved parties, including the filer. Perhaps I'm alone in this, but
this behaviour is highly disruptive

Fred
-----------

From: (Carcharoth)
Date: Sat, 30 Jan 2010 00:12:11 +0000
Subject: [arbcom-l] Risker

Brad, you misunderstood Durova's post about the burning building. It
was inappropriate (wildly so), but Durova was saying that she (Durova)
would stay in the burning building, rather than ask Risker to help
her. She never said Risker or herself would leave anyone in the
building. She said she would rather die than contact Risker for help.
Which is still inappropriate, but not what you are saying she said.
Just saying.

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

From: (Carcharoth)
Date: Sat, 30 Jan 2010 00:14:03 +0000
Subject: [arbcom-l] Risker

I could try and calm her down? She does listen to me sometimes. I'm
reluctant to do so only because she can sometimes turn on those she is
friendly with, for little reason. I respect her and the image work she
does a great deal, but I think she does lack people who will step in
and tell her when she has gone too far (people she will listen to
anyway). Trouble is, she will know that I'm approaching her because of
what I've seen on this list.

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

From: (Newyorkbrad)
Date: Fri, 29 Jan 2010 19:21:33 -0500
Subject: [arbcom-l] Risker

I read it as meaning she wouldn't bother calling Risker because she knows
Risker wouldn't bother to help. Not that parsing it too finely is helpful
here.

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

From: (Carcharoth)
Date: Sat, 30 Jan 2010 00:36:58 +0000
Subject: [arbcom-l] Risker

I see now it can be read several ways. Might be worth pointing that
out to Durova. I take Roger's point about appeasement, but I would
still like to contact her and ask her to calm down. I would then
recuse from the case. I'm going inactive in February, but my recusal
would probably be best here in any case - that alone might cause
Durova to see where she is heading (I would like to tell her privately
that she is heading for real trouble here if she keeps pressing this,
and wanting to do that is reason enough for recusal, I think - whether
everyone here is OK with me saying that to her is another matter -
I've been avoiding her since this all blew up).

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

From: (Kenneth Kua/ArbCom)
Date: Sat, 30 Jan 2010 08:50:16 +0800
Subject: [arbcom-l] Risker

If I read this with the username redacted, why does that sound like
MZMcBride as well?

Kenneth/MD

On Sat, Jan 30, 2010 at 8:45 AM, Roger Davies wrote:

> Hmmm. That approach comes with problems. She's likely to take the "real
> trouble" thing as a direct threat/intimidation and blast it all over
> Wikipedia, perhaps combined with allegations of ArbCom cooking up a bogus
> case before a kangeroo court, besmirching her good name, and all the stuff
> we had last year about it sabotaging her picture work.
>
> Roger
--------------

From: (Cool Hand Luke)
Date: Fri, 29 Jan 2010 21:50:30 -0600
Subject: [arbcom-l] Risker

"Might be worth pointing that out to Durova."

No, it would not.

I've never disagreed so strongly with such a qualified suggestion. By any
interpretation, it's such a bizarre worldview that querying it seems
completely unproductive. I don't have any suggestions though. I try to
ignore remarks like this, and that doesn't seem to work with Durova.

Frank
------------

From: (Cool Hand Luke)
Date: Fri, 29 Jan 2010 21:58:05 -0600
Subject: [arbcom-l] MZMcBride arbitration case

Sounds good to me. Let this one go unanswered. She will remember it
though.

Frank

On Fri, Jan 29, 2010 at 5:16 PM, KnightLago wrote:

> As am I. I think we have reached the point that replies to these emails are
-------------

From: (Roger Davies)
Date: Sun, 31 Jan 2010 04:13:10 +0000
Subject: [arbcom-l] RfC: ArbCom 3

Roger Davies wrote:
>
> I see Durova has started an RfC, calling for checks and balances.
>
> Roger
Link:
https://secure.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/w...ion_Committee_3


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

From: (KnightLago)
Date: Sun, 31 Jan 2010 00:09:15 -0500
Subject: [arbcom-l] RfC: ArbCom 3

She has since moved it to her user space and removed the notices she placed
about it. Anybody know what she is up to?

KL
------------

From: (Risker)
Date: Sun, 31 Jan 2010 00:13:41 -0500
Subject: [arbcom-l] RfC: ArbCom 3

Yes. Phillippe from the Foundation talked to her and persuaded her that this
was "not the right time", and she'll talk to him before rolling it out
again. I'll follow up further later.

Risker/Anne
-------------

From: (Marc A. Pelletier)
Date: Sun, 31 Jan 2010 10:14:42 -0500
Subject: [arbcom-l] RfC: ArbCom 3

On 31/01/2010 12:09 AM, KnightLago wrote:
> She has since moved it to her user space and removed the notices she
> placed about it. Anybody know what she is up to?


Everything hinges around "Appeals blah blah blah not by the same body".
She is, incidentally, right on the principle but the only thing he
likely truly cares about is getting another parent to ask about the chip
on her shoulder.

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

From: (Fritz Poll)
Date: Sun, 31 Jan 2010 16:22:16 +0000
Subject: [arbcom-l] RfC: ArbCom 3

On the PD page of the arbwiki, I proposed an additional sanction for Durova
along the lines of the Abd restriction. This RfC, which reeks of
self-interest beneath a veneer of "what is best for Wikipedia" only
strengthens my view that this additional sanction is required. The more she
gets involved in Arbcom cases, the more she gets annoyed when she is
"ignored" and the more drama this causes

Fred

On Sun, Jan 31, 2010 at 4:00 PM, Roger Davies wrote:

>
> Except she's missing the essential ... the overwhelming majority of BASC
> appeals (95%) are from community bans/sanctions.
>
> And where appeals do arise from ArbCom decisions, they're often heard by
> arbitrators who weren't on the committee at the time of the original
> decision. For instance, the current BASC is all 2010 arbs.
>
> Roger
-------------

From: (KnightLago)
Date: Sun, 31 Jan 2010 11:23:46 -0500
Subject: [arbcom-l] RfC: ArbCom 3

Well said.

KL

On Sun, Jan 31, 2010 at 11:22 AM, Fritz Poll wrote:

> On the PD page of the arbwiki, I proposed an additional sanction for Durova
-----------

From: (Fritz Poll)
Date: Sun, 31 Jan 2010 16:30:01 +0000
Subject: [arbcom-l] RfC: ArbCom 3

FYI:
https://secure.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/arbc...Durova_remedies

<https://secure.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/arbcom-en/wiki/Case_talk:MZMcBride_2/Proposed_decision#Durova_remedies>
Fred
----------

From: (Risker)
Date: Sun, 31 Jan 2010 12:13:29 -0500
Subject: [arbcom-l] RfC: ArbCom 3

To make this clear, I understand *entirely* where Fred is coming from, and
generally speaking I agree that this finding/remedy is going to have to be
made at some point.

However, to make it in this particular case, where she is the only person
who bothered to file the case, and where she is the only person who has
given any significant evidence, essentially knocks out the underpinnings of
the case against MZM. It's a bit contradictory to say she should mind her
own business, when her not doing so is likely to result in some form of
restriction on an admin. The case against MZM isn't particularly strong to
start with, since it is essentially a "conduct unbecoming"/poor judgment
case that is inherently subjective. Weakening it further by suggesting that
the initiating party shouldn't have done so is, well....

Risker/Anne
----------

From: (Fritz Poll)
Date: Sun, 31 Jan 2010 17:22:29 +0000
Subject: [arbcom-l] RfC: ArbCom 3

We examine what is brought to our attention, and that's what we've done with
MZM. That does not, in my opinion, provide a carte blanche for her to do
what she's been doing during the case in terms of unsubstantiated
allegations and a "me me me" exercise - in these circumstances, I feel a
sanction can be appropriate. The filing party here has not *made* the case,
since the case could have been brought by anybody with the same result - all
I'm saying is that this particular editor should not have done the filing.

I see where you're coming from, Risker - I just think enough is enough on
this particular issue.

Fred
User is offlineProfile CardPM
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
thekohser
post Fri 22nd July 2011, 5:35pm
Post #4


Member
*********

Group: Regulars
Posts: 10,274
Joined: Thu 1st Feb 2007, 10:21pm
Member No.: 911



Gee whiz, I am funny:
QUOTE
I cannot recall which merchandise lines I chose to exclude from my
storefront, and I can't even be certain that today's wide array of available
quality goods matches what was available back in 2007. Am I on trial? May
I participate within the "courtroom"? I could wear my tastefully-designed
"Durova for ArbCom" political button, no?

Greg
User is offlineProfile CardPM
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
thekohser
post Fri 22nd July 2011, 5:43pm
Post #5


Member
*********

Group: Regulars
Posts: 10,274
Joined: Thu 1st Feb 2007, 10:21pm
Member No.: 911



I also enjoyed how the handsome Steve Smith framed up this:
QUOTE
When I threw my name into the 2008 WMF election ring (against Kohs) he
immediately called my work and spoke to my somewhat befuddled boss

...but then later backtracked to explain:
QUOTE
Well, he was actually calling to talk to me, but I wasn't in.


And, do you notice how nobody seems to think it was an actual problem when two candidates were running for the board of trustees of a Top 10 website's foundation, but one candidate blocked the other person's access to that election process?



Lastly, I found the cult-like devotion of the Maurice LaCroix folks to be mesmerizing:
QUOTE
Jimmy...

We are more than ever convinced that you are an excellent ambassador for
Maurice Lacroix and are honoured of seeing you these days in Davos.
It's great what you do.
Have a successful time,
Stephane

*Maurice Lacroix
User is offlineProfile CardPM
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
SpiderAndWeb
post Fri 22nd July 2011, 8:22pm
Post #6


Junior Member
**

Group: Contributors
Posts: 56
Joined: Tue 28th Jun 2011, 5:02pm
Member No.: 58,319



QUOTE

At least he didn't contact your associates and tell them not to sleep with you.


What's this all about?
User is offlineProfile CardPM
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
thekohser
post Fri 22nd July 2011, 9:02pm
Post #7


Member
*********

Group: Regulars
Posts: 10,274
Joined: Thu 1st Feb 2007, 10:21pm
Member No.: 911



QUOTE(SpiderAndWeb @ Fri 22nd July 2011, 4:22pm) *

QUOTE

At least he didn't contact your associates and tell them not to sleep with you.


What's this all about?


That's the old bit about me sending a note to Wendy Diamond on Facebook, when it was clear to me that Jimbo's "protection" of her BLP was causing stars to form in her eyes. She took offense at my warning that Jimbo may not be helping her out of the goodness of his heart, Jimbo took offense, I realized that I had crossed a line, I apologized, and Wendy fully accepted my apology and we continued to chat on Facebook about a couple of other things, such as her (claimed non-)association with other Wikipedia accounts.

Background info.
User is offlineProfile CardPM
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
The Joy
post Sat 23rd July 2011, 2:42am
Post #8


I am a millipede! I am amazing!
********

Group: Members
Posts: 3,838
Joined: Sat 17th Feb 2007, 2:25am
From: The Moon
Member No.: 982



QUOTE(NuclearWarfare @ Fri 22nd July 2011, 11:19am) *

Could !!'s username be redacted please? I believe Somey had redacted it in the previous thread, and it seems only proper to continue that here.


His former username has been mentioned on this forum many, many times. I don't think redacting will help. I don't even understand why we are going to this trouble. It's no big secret. I understand he asked for the redacting (and I don't mind that), but it really is closing the barn door after the proverbial horse has bolted. If people want to find out his original user name, they can find it fairly easy.

Oh, well. Whatever makes him happy. shrug.gif
User is offlineProfile CardPM
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
Sarcasticidealist
post Thu 28th July 2011, 4:00am
Post #9


Head exploded.
******

Group: Regulars
Posts: 1,662
Joined: Tue 22nd Jan 2008, 1:54am
From: Fredericton, New Brunswick, Canada
Member No.: 4,536

WP user page - talk
check - contribs



QUOTE(thekohser @ Fri 22nd July 2011, 2:43pm) *

I also enjoyed how the handsome Steve Smith framed up this:
QUOTE
When I threw my name into the 2008 WMF election ring (against Kohs) he
immediately called my work and spoke to my somewhat befuddled boss

...but then later backtracked to explain:
QUOTE
Well, he was actually calling to talk to me, but I wasn't in.
I'm not going to accept that description as "backtracking" - you called to speak to me. I was not in, so you spoke to my boss. "Clarification", I'll grant you.

QUOTE
And, do you notice how nobody seems to think it was an actual problem when two candidates were running for the board of trustees of a Top 10 website's foundation, but one candidate blocked the other person's access to that election process?
First of all, I'll note that when you raised this with me, I immediately undid my block, and I consider blocking in the first place to have been an ill-considered error on my part; I don't think it's fair to say that "nobody seems to think it was an actual problem...". But I don't believe I was blocking your access to the election process - the block would have been in effect on English Wikipedia, while the election process was over on Meta.
User is offlineProfile CardPM
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
Milton Roe
post Thu 28th July 2011, 4:01pm
Post #10


Known alias of J. Random Troll
*********

Group: Regulars
Posts: 10,209
Joined: Thu 28th Feb 2008, 1:03am
Member No.: 5,156

WP user page - talk
check - contribs



QUOTE(Sarcasticidealist @ Wed 27th July 2011, 9:00pm) *

QUOTE(thekohser @ Fri 22nd July 2011, 2:43pm) *

I also enjoyed how the handsome Steve Smith framed up this:
QUOTE
When I threw my name into the 2008 WMF election ring (against Kohs) he
immediately called my work and spoke to my somewhat befuddled boss

...but then later backtracked to explain:
QUOTE
Well, he was actually calling to talk to me, but I wasn't in.
I'm not going to accept that description as "backtracking" - you called to speak to me. I was not in, so you spoke to my boss. "Clarification", I'll grant you.

Well, what did Kohs say to your boss? Inquiring minds want to know. That you waste all your time at work editing an on-line encyclopedia? That he'd like to collect the money you borrowed from his cousin Joe and never returned? That he thinks you're so good-looking, he's thinking of trying bisexuality like Gore Vidal? That he wanted to leave a call-back number? That he thinks you might be molesting his children? What?

Let's not let this hang out there looking like it might possibly be harassment, if it wasn't. But if it was, let's hear it. Stop with the innuendo.
User is offlineProfile CardPM
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
thekohser
post Thu 28th July 2011, 5:07pm
Post #11


Member
*********

Group: Regulars
Posts: 10,274
Joined: Thu 1st Feb 2007, 10:21pm
Member No.: 911



QUOTE(Milton Roe @ Thu 28th July 2011, 12:01pm) *

That he wanted to leave a call-back number?

To my memory, this was the closest of your options to the truth. I think Steve will agree.

Steve, I agree with your points about "clarification" and about the En-WP vs. Meta aspect of the deal.

However, I still believe that nobody really gave a damn that you blocked another candidate in the election, because (at least to my knowledge) nobody on the Election Committee or anywhere else ever thought to devise a forward-looking policy -- or even to discuss the need for such a policy -- so that future elections wouldn't be so marred. It would be like a city police commissioner running for mayor, but locking up every one of his opponents for ticky-tack breakage of laws. (Okay, it's not exactly like that, since the Wikimedia Foundation is just a website operator that has virtually no impact on 99.99% of people's lives, but still...)

biggrin.gif
User is offlineProfile CardPM
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
No one of consequence
post Thu 28th July 2011, 5:28pm
Post #12


I want to stare at the seaside and do nothing at all
*****

Group: Regulars
Posts: 635
Joined: Fri 23rd Feb 2007, 2:34am
Member No.: 1,010

WP user page - talk
check - contribs



QUOTE(thekohser @ Thu 28th July 2011, 5:07pm) *

nobody...ever thought to devise a forward-looking policy -- or even to discuss the need for such a policy

And this is surprising because?
User is offlineProfile CardPM
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
Sarcasticidealist
post Fri 29th July 2011, 11:30pm
Post #13


Head exploded.
******

Group: Regulars
Posts: 1,662
Joined: Tue 22nd Jan 2008, 1:54am
From: Fredericton, New Brunswick, Canada
Member No.: 4,536

WP user page - talk
check - contribs



QUOTE(thekohser @ Thu 28th July 2011, 2:07pm) *
To my memory, this was the closest of your options to the truth. I think Steve will agree.
Probably the closest. Bearing in mind that I wasn't party to the conversation between Greg and my boss, and that my boss seemed a little confused about the whole thing when he mentioned it to me later, my impression is that Greg told my boss about his objections to my having blocked him. I don't think there was an explicit request (relayed to me, at least) that I call back; in any event, I'm pretty sure that I didn't call back.

The long and the short of it is that there was nothing even remotely stalker-ish about Greg's call, which I think was the point I made on the ArbCom list.
User is offlineProfile CardPM
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
thekohser
post Sat 30th July 2011, 1:21am
Post #14


Member
*********

Group: Regulars
Posts: 10,274
Joined: Thu 1st Feb 2007, 10:21pm
Member No.: 911



QUOTE(Sarcasticidealist @ Fri 29th July 2011, 7:30pm) *

The long and the short of it is that there was nothing even remotely stalker-ish about Greg's call, which I think was the point I made on the ArbCom list.

Well, there wasn't anything stalker-ish about my call, and so that's why I rather emphatically object to how you first framed it to your ArbCronies:

QUOTE
When I threw my name into the 2008 WMF election ring (against Kohs) he
immediately called my work and spoke to my somewhat befuddled boss


I didn't "immediately" call anyone when you threw your name into the election ring. I tried to contact you when you BLOCKED me in the middle of an election for a multi-million dollar organization's board, in which you were also running. Your work location appeared to me to be the most readily accessible way to contact you. The fact that your boss answered your point of contact number was entirely unexpected for me, and practically unwanted, but I didn't want to be a little child and just hang up when I learned that he wasn't you.

I still say it's a stretch to say that how you later (and now) present the situation is "clarifying" your first position, rather than "back-pedaling"... but it's really not worth fighting over now. By your working in concert with those ArbCronies, you had more problems than I'll hopefully ever know.

Don't sweat it.
User is offlineProfile CardPM
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post

Reply to this topicStart new topic
1 User(s) are reading this topic (1 Guests and 0 Anonymous Users)
0 Members:

 

-   Lo-Fi Version Time is now: 21st 8 14, 12:07pm