From: Tnxman307 <tnxmanwiki@gmail.com>
Date: Tue, Dec 14, 2010 at 12:15
To: arbcom-l@lists.wikimedia.org


Hello,

I just wanted to draw attention to another possible sock of this user. [[User:Chester Markel]] is editing from the same range (71.131.0.0/19) as Karlsen. This (nominally) new user has demonstrated a familiarity unusual to new users. Since the Karlsen block has a "contact Arbcom" note, I thought I would pass this along directly instead of mailing the functionary list. My opinion is that it is a {{likely}} sock, along with [[User:Milo Rambaldi returns]] and [[User:Catherine Ødegård]]. What has stopped me from blocking the users is the variance in IPs and useragents. I don't know much about Peter Karlsen, but it is possible that he is tech-savvy enough to switch his OS and useragent to avoid detection. In my opinion, though, it's too coincidental to be mere happenstance. Thanks for your time.

-Tnxman307

_______________________________________________
arbcom-l mailing list
arbcom-l@lists.wikimedia.org
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/arbcom-l


----------
From: Risker <risker.wp@gmail.com>
Date: Sat, Jun 18, 2011 at 23:23
To: English Arbitration Committee mailing list <arbcom-l@lists.wikimedia.org>




This username is starting to raise a lot of red flags. I pulled the relevant threads in the various mailing lists, and Karlsen was blocked as a likely sock of John254. So yes, there is the technical ability to switch around. And Chester Markel's rather extreme interest in the Arbitration process, I think it's time to shut it down.

Any other considerations? Should I ask Tnxman307 to do the honours?

Risker/Anne

_______________________________________________
arbcom-l mailing list
arbcom-l@lists.wikimedia.org
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/arbcom-l



_______________________________________________
arbcom-l mailing list
arbcom-l@lists.wikimedia.org
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/arbcom-l


----------
From: Newyorkbrad <newyorkbrad@gmail.com>
Date: Sat, Jun 18, 2011 at 23:43
To: English Arbitration Committee mailing list <arbcom-l@lists.wikimedia.org>


Oy. This is the filing party in the Mick MacNee case, who has been
egging us on to expand the case to everyone under the sun.

Newyorkbrad

----------
From: Kirill Lokshin <kirill.lokshin@gmail.com>
Date: Sat, Jun 18, 2011 at 23:53
To: English Arbitration Committee mailing list <arbcom-l@lists.wikimedia.org>


A sockpuppetry finding would round out the case nicely, no? His conduct *is* under scrutiny too, after all.

Kirill

_______________________________________________
arbcom-l mailing list
arbcom-l@lists.wikimedia.org
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/arbcom-l


----------
From: Risker <risker.wp@gmail.com>
Date: Sat, Jun 18, 2011 at 23:54
To: English Arbitration Committee mailing list <arbcom-l@lists.wikimedia.org>


I'd kind of like for him not to continue participating, in the tradition of blocking John254 socks in the middle of cases...


Risker/Anne

_______________________________________________
arbcom-l mailing list
arbcom-l@lists.wikimedia.org
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/arbcom-l


----------
From: Risker <risker.wp@gmail.com>
Date: Sat, Jun 18, 2011 at 23:57
To: English Arbitration Committee mailing list <arbcom-l@lists.wikimedia.org>


Incidentally, see my exchange with him on his talk page from last night. He had posted a "notice" on WP:AN that Beta/Delta was now a party and suggesting that people come post at the RFAR. I removed it.

Risker/Anne

_______________________________________________
arbcom-l mailing list
arbcom-l@lists.wikimedia.org
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/arbcom-l


----------
From: Kirill Lokshin <kirill.lokshin@gmail.com>
Date: Sat, Jun 18, 2011 at 23:59
To: English Arbitration Committee mailing list <arbcom-l@lists.wikimedia.org>


My only concern would be that removing him this early in the process might somehow suggest that the case itself is not "legitimate".

Kirill

_______________________________________________
arbcom-l mailing list
arbcom-l@lists.wikimedia.org
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/arbcom-l


----------
From: Risker <risker.wp@gmail.com>
Date: Sun, Jun 19, 2011 at 00:06
To: English Arbitration Committee mailing list <arbcom-l@lists.wikimedia.org>


I think the last time he showed up in a case, we still proceeded, we just blocked the socks and added a finding. Realistically, I can't see not proceeding on the case; I think many of us saw this one coming (at least the Mick part) from quite a distance.

Risker/Anne

_______________________________________________
arbcom-l mailing list
arbcom-l@lists.wikimedia.org
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/arbcom-l


----------
From: Kirill Lokshin <kirill.lokshin@gmail.com>
Date: Sun, Jun 19, 2011 at 00:08
To: English Arbitration Committee mailing list <arbcom-l@lists.wikimedia.org>


Fair enough, although I don't believe he had *filed* the case the last time around. So long as I have your support for continuing with the case regardless, I have no objection to blocking him immediately.

Kirill

_______________________________________________
arbcom-l mailing list
arbcom-l@lists.wikimedia.org
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/arbcom-l


----------
From: Jonathan Clemens <clem4609@pacificu.edu>
Date: Sun, Jun 19, 2011 at 00:14
To: English Arbitration Committee mailing list <arbcom-l@lists.wikimedia.org>


I concur; the case has merits regardless of the filer.

Jonathan

_______________________________________________
arbcom-l mailing list
arbcom-l@lists.wikimedia.org
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/arbcom-l


----------
From: Risker <risker.wp@gmail.com>
Date: Sun, Jun 19, 2011 at 00:16
To: English Arbitration Committee mailing list <arbcom-l@lists.wikimedia.org>


It's probably a good idea to have a few more voices here first, because I've listed myself as inactive for the case proper (I expect the decision to come when I'm taking an Arbcom break the first two weeks of July), but I would certainly support neutralizing a known sock as early in any proceeding as possible.

Risker/Anne

_______________________________________________
arbcom-l mailing list
arbcom-l@lists.wikimedia.org
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/arbcom-l


----------
From: Michelle Kinney <shell.kinney@gmail.com>
Date: Sun, Jun 19, 2011 at 00:18
To: English Arbitration Committee mailing list <arbcom-l@lists.wikimedia.org>


The filing part really has nothing to do with the merits of the case;
if it's a sock, we should block it now before further issues start.

Shell

----------
From: Risker <risker.wp@gmail.com>
Date: Sun, Jun 19, 2011 at 01:06
To: English Arbitration Committee mailing list <arbcom-l@lists.wikimedia.org>


Okay, that's four arbitrators supporting the block then. I'll give it another hour or so, but will place the block myself (thus leaving the rest of you free to vote as you see fit in the case, without any hint of need to recuse), and in the interim I'm going to post whatever I can find to the checkuser wiki.

Incidentally, I have just done a confirming checkuser, and all of his IPs are within John254's range, and he is a VERY heavy user of AWB, just as several of the previous socks have been. I'm not seeing any bot accounts, but I will ask our functionary 'crats to verify and, if there are any that I've missed, ask them to deflag them and block. This will be a {{checkuserblock}} with referral to arbcom for any questions. Any thoughts on whether or not we should mention John254 with the block?

Risker/Anne

_______________________________________________
arbcom-l mailing list
arbcom-l@lists.wikimedia.org
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/arbcom-l


----------
From: Kirill Lokshin <kirill.lokshin@gmail.com>
Date: Sun, Jun 19, 2011 at 01:13
To: English Arbitration Committee mailing list <arbcom-l@lists.wikimedia.org>


I don't see any reason not to mention it. Given the high profile, people will speculate anyways; and we don't necessarily want the peanut gallery to run wild.

Kirill

_______________________________________________
arbcom-l mailing list
arbcom-l@lists.wikimedia.org
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/arbcom-l


----------
From: Roger Davies <roger.davies.wiki@gmail.com>
Date: Sun, Jun 19, 2011 at 02:03
To: arbcom-l@lists.wikimedia.org



Looks good to me too,

Roger

PS: See also new thread I'm about to post.

_______________________________________________
arbcom-l mailing list
arbcom-l@lists.wikimedia.org
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/arbcom-l


----------
From: Newyorkbrad <newyorkbrad@gmail.com>
Date: Sun, Jun 19, 2011 at 05:13
To: English Arbitration Committee mailing list <arbcom-l@lists.wikimedia.org>



----------
From: Cas Liber <casliber01@yahoo.com>
Date: Sun, Jun 19, 2011 at 08:06
To: English Arbitration Committee mailing list <arbcom-l@lists.wikimedia.org>


Indeed. Interesting. Although the need for a case appears clear. It is at times like this the refusal to accept review of Scott Mac's conduct is brought into sharp focus....though the parties in that case made up and moved on (interesting as it highlighted a juxtaposition of the role of arbcom as conduct review vs dispute resolution and the differences in outcomes)
Cas

From: Newyorkbrad <newyorkbrad@gmail.com>
To: English Arbitration Committee mailing list <arbcom-l@lists.wikimedia.org>
Sent: Sunday, 19 June 2011 7:13 PM
Subject: Re: [arbcom-l] Peter Karlsen - Another possible sock

_______________________________________________
arbcom-l mailing list
arbcom-l@lists.wikimedia.org
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/arbcom-l


----------
From: Newyorkbrad <newyorkbrad@gmail.com>
Date: Sun, Jun 19, 2011 at 09:13
To: English Arbitration Committee mailing list <arbcom-l@lists.wikimedia.org>



----------
From: Xeno <xenowiki@gmail.com>
Date: Sun, Jun 19, 2011 at 11:20
To: English Arbitration Committee mailing list <arbcom-l@lists.wikimedia.org>


Yes, and meanwhile the natives are getting restless. (see case and
evidence talk page)

I don't think any of us thinks the case needs to be 'procedurally'
closed (right?), so we should probably let everyone know that the show
must go on...

-x // mobile

----------
From: Risker <risker.wp@gmail.com>
Date: Sun, Jun 19, 2011 at 11:37
To: English Arbitration Committee mailing list <arbcom-l@lists.wikimedia.org>


As a suggestion only, you might want to "close" the workshop proposals from Chester Markel, with a note that if other editors wish to make the same or similar proposals, they are free to do so. However, I'm not going to go that far myself, and leave it to Kirill and the rest of the team to decide if this is a reasonable step.

Risker/Anne

_______________________________________________
arbcom-l mailing list
arbcom-l@lists.wikimedia.org
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/arbcom-l


----------
From: Xeno <xenowiki@gmail.com>
Date: Sun, Jun 19, 2011 at 12:01
To: English Arbitration Committee mailing list <arbcom-l@lists.wikimedia.org>


That sounds reasonable; something similar was suggested at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_tal...s_contributions

-x // mobile

_______________________________________________
arbcom-l mailing list
arbcom-l@lists.wikimedia.org
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/arbcom-l


----------
From: Xeno <xenowiki@gmail.com>
Date: Tue, Jun 21, 2011 at 10:06
To: English Arbitration Committee mailing list <arbcom-l@lists.wikimedia.org>


FYI I've done this.

https://secure.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/w...=20110621135000

-x

_______________________________________________
arbcom-l mailing list
arbcom-l@lists.wikimedia.org
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/arbcom-l


----------
From: Michelle Kinney <shell.kinney@gmail.com>
Date: Tue, Jun 21, 2011 at 10:14
To: English Arbitration Committee mailing list <arbcom-l@lists.wikimedia.org>


Good move. Probably easier than explaining to people that we actually
have brains and do think. I am entertained by the "tainted" meme; we
couldn't possibly be unbiased now! People never spin arbcom
evidence/proposals to look worse than they are. The horror!

Shell

I haven't read much of what's been posted, I was on leave from the asylum for a few days, but I'm back. Not for long, I hope.

This comment from Risker demonstrates the corruption of ArbComm, it's blatant within the mailing list, I don't see anyone objecting to the offer. I haven't check to see who actually blocked.

Arbitrators had supported a block for a sock who had filed a case. Risker had been inactive, and perhaps was not inclined to participate, so suggests that she block, instead of the others, so that the others may later vote without creating an *appearance* of bias.

But if there was a problem with bias, Risker's action would not change the reality, but only the appearance. She offered to help the other arbitrators conceal their position.

An ethical community will avoid not only bias but the appearance of bias. An unethical community will only avoid the appearance, if that.

It also hints that the checkuser wiki contains contains permanent IP information on WMF servers. That's not something the WMF explicitly says they won't do but it certainly runs counter to the jist of their data retention policy. Not that there's a policy statement on the Check user wiki. It's perfectly reasonable to store the IP information of long term disruptive users (assuming it is) but I can see this ruffling feathers 'twere it ever confirmed.

No shit......

On the other hand, I can't see that any regular reader or contributor here would even bother to feign surprise were that to be revealed.

Newp, but it will shock your average Wikipedian.

Well, yeah. OTOH, the wiki would be pretty much useless if it didn't do that.

You mean those cluless ones getting set to use the WUV tag on each other while the site they edit collects info on them, and selectively massages the bios, businesses, and viewpoints of its own elite?

Yeah, those ones would be shocked for sure. And don't tell them about Santa, either.

Well, I am about as average a Wikipedian as can be found, and it certainly didn't shock me.



Using that signature block was a mistake, i think.