From ft2.wiki at gmail.com Thu Feb 25 04:26:17 2010
From: ft2.wiki at gmail.com (FT2)
Date: Thu, 25 Feb 2010 04:26:17 -0000
Subject: [arbcom-l] Checkuser
Message-ID: <4b85fbeb.0c58560a.2c69.21ed@mx.google.com>

I am still up to eyebrows on real-world matters.

However I think it's worth a wikibreak-break to do some deeper digging on
the Poetlister reincarnation. It took considerable work last time and a
dozen socks were visible as a result. These are checks that unlike a couple
of cases since October, can't easily be done via just asking someone to do 1
or 2 CU dumps to review and analyze.

Hence notifying that if acceptable, I will ask for the CU bit back for a
little while (to work on this case only).

Paul.
----------
From risker.wp at gmail.com Thu Feb 25 04:53:27 2010
From: risker.wp at gmail.com (Risker)
Date: Wed, 24 Feb 2010 23:53:27 -0500
Subject: [arbcom-l] Checkuser
In-Reply-To: <4b85fbeb.0c58560a.2c69.21ed@mx.google.com>
References: <4b85fbeb.0c58560a.2c69.21ed@mx.google.com>
Message-ID: <eb45e7c1002242053j5a8c0164t36885036f857744a@mail.gmail.com>

<list only>

I hate to say this, but I am opposed to FT2 doing any work on this case.
Despite repeated requests for background information ever since I have been
elected, he has completely ignored all requests. I do not, to be honest,
really think that he is the right person to be doing these kinds of
investigations for that reason.

Risker/Anne
----------
From stevethearbitrator at gmail.com Thu Feb 25 04:55:23 2010
From: stevethearbitrator at gmail.com (Steve Smith)
Date: Thu, 25 Feb 2010 04:55:23 +0000
Subject: [arbcom-l] Checkuser
In-Reply-To: <eb45e7c1002242053j5a8c0164t36885036f857744a@mail.gmail.com>
References: <4b85fbeb.0c58560a.2c69.21ed@mx.google.com>
<eb45e7c1002242053j5a8c0164t36885036f857744a@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <68683abb1002242055v7e2ebeb1n40bbe7493ca9415f@mail.gmail.com>

<list only>

Um, that message wasn't list only, Anne.

On Thu, Feb 25, 2010 at 4:53 AM, Risker <risker.wp at gmail.com> wrote:

> <list only>
>
> I hate to say this, but I am opposed to FT2 doing any work on this case.
----------
From ft2.wiki at gmail.com Thu Feb 25 04:57:55 2010
From: ft2.wiki at gmail.com (FT2)
Date: Thu, 25 Feb 2010 04:57:55 -0000
Subject: [arbcom-l] Checkuser
In-Reply-To: <eb45e7c1002242053j5a8c0164t36885036f857744a@mail.gmail.com>
References: <4b85fbeb.0c58560a.2c69.21ed@mx.google.com>
<eb45e7c1002242053j5a8c0164t36885036f857744a@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <4b860357.0338560a.749d.495c@mx.google.com>

This is a bit of an "out of the blue" matter. I'm not at all clear what
repeated requests for background on what, may have been "completely
ignored". Can you clarify?

Paul.
----------
From carcharothwp at googlemail.com Thu Feb 25 05:07:04 2010
From: carcharothwp at googlemail.com (Carcharoth)
Date: Thu, 25 Feb 2010 05:07:04 +0000
Subject: [arbcom-l] Checkuser
In-Reply-To: <68683abb1002242055v7e2ebeb1n40bbe7493ca9415f@mail.gmail.com>
References: <4b85fbeb.0c58560a.2c69.21ed@mx.google.com>
<eb45e7c1002242053j5a8c0164t36885036f857744a@mail.gmail.com>
<68683abb1002242055v7e2ebeb1n40bbe7493ca9415f@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <206791b11002242107s7366fd9ex9e12fa444133cdf6@mail.gmail.com>

<facepalm>

Indeed (about it not being list only).

But I agree with Risker. One person to ask about this would be John
Vandenberg. FT2 seems to personalise this all too much (witness his
post to functionaries where he seems to want to intimidate and harass
the hardcore sockmasters). They (some of them) may do that, but trying
to instill apprehension in them in turn is descending to their level.

I'm also concerned that other checkusers, following FT2's lead, think
this sort of attitude is acceptable.

Carcharoth
----------
From risker.wp at gmail.com Thu Feb 25 05:09:39 2010
From: risker.wp at gmail.com (Risker)
Date: Thu, 25 Feb 2010 00:09:39 -0500
Subject: [arbcom-l] Checkuser
In-Reply-To: <4b860357.0338560a.749d.495c@mx.google.com>
References: <4b85fbeb.0c58560a.2c69.21ed@mx.google.com>
<eb45e7c1002242053j5a8c0164t36885036f857744a@mail.gmail.com>
<4b860357.0338560a.749d.495c@mx.google.com>
Message-ID: <eb45e7c1002242109o47a57579yf185eb750f97b1e5@mail.gmail.com>

FT2, I asked you for complete information at least three times, including in
December 2009 after I had been appointed, and at least twice after you
resigned from the Committee; you never came through and each time you
wandered off into other topics without addressing my question. I know
FloNight also asked you for complete information on a few occasions before
that. When I didn't seem to be getting responses from you, I asked other
checkusers who had been involved in the investigation, and they all told me
you had provided them with only compartmentalised information (not
necessarily a bad course of action, given some of the circumstances). There
is almost no information on the arbwiki. There is also no copy of the email
that you sent to Poetlister anywhere to be found in any of the official
channels.

I do consider this to be a problem. Poetlister is going to be a continuing
problem for years to come, and all of us are likely to disappear at some
point.

My apologies for accidentally including you, FT2; your name did not show up
in my "send to" list.

Risker/Anne
----------
From stevethearbitrator at gmail.com Thu Feb 25 05:10:27 2010
From: stevethearbitrator at gmail.com (Steve Smith)
Date: Thu, 25 Feb 2010 05:10:27 +0000
Subject: [arbcom-l] Checkuser
In-Reply-To: <206791b11002242107s7366fd9ex9e12fa444133cdf6@mail.gmail.com>
References: <4b85fbeb.0c58560a.2c69.21ed@mx.google.com>
<eb45e7c1002242053j5a8c0164t36885036f857744a@mail.gmail.com>
<68683abb1002242055v7e2ebeb1n40bbe7493ca9415f@mail.gmail.com>
<206791b11002242107s7366fd9ex9e12fa444133cdf6@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <68683abb1002242110t5d466b53g6e2eba2ba5ed0632@mail.gmail.com>

This may or may not be the time and place to bring things up, but FT2 left
ArbCom under circumstances that looked a little odd to outsiders. Is there
some relevant background here that new arbs might be unaware of?
----------
From hersfoldwiki at gmail.com Thu Feb 25 05:12:07 2010
From: hersfoldwiki at gmail.com (Hersfold)
Date: Thu, 25 Feb 2010 00:12:07 -0500
Subject: [arbcom-l] Checkuser
In-Reply-To: <206791b11002242107s7366fd9ex9e12fa444133cdf6@mail.gmail.com>
References: <4b85fbeb.0c58560a.2c69.21ed@mx.google.com> <eb45e7c1002242053j5a8c0164t36885036f857744a@mail.gmail.com> <68683abb1002242055v7e2ebeb1n40bbe7493ca9415f@mail.gmail.com>
<206791b11002242107s7366fd9ex9e12fa444133cdf6@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <4B8606A7.2010302@gmail.com>

Agreed. We're not playing a game of good cop/bad cop, we're trying to
prevent disruption. Allowing it to continue for a week just so that the
sockmaster's next incarnation is delayed a week (since for serial
sockers like this, it's not going to delay them by much) is entirely
unproductive.

And I wouldn't blame Risker for the email faux pas - the reply-to header
on FT2's email includes his address for some reason. I checked it
myself, and his address was automatically filled in. There ought to be
some way to fix that in the list's settings.

----
User:Hersfold
hersfoldwiki at gmail.com
----------
From carcharothwp at googlemail.com Thu Feb 25 05:48:41 2010
From: carcharothwp at googlemail.com (Carcharoth)
Date: Thu, 25 Feb 2010 05:48:41 +0000
Subject: [arbcom-l] Checkuser
In-Reply-To: <68683abb1002242110t5d466b53g6e2eba2ba5ed0632@mail.gmail.com>
References: <4b85fbeb.0c58560a.2c69.21ed@mx.google.com>
<eb45e7c1002242053j5a8c0164t36885036f857744a@mail.gmail.com>
<68683abb1002242055v7e2ebeb1n40bbe7493ca9415f@mail.gmail.com>
<206791b11002242107s7366fd9ex9e12fa444133cdf6@mail.gmail.com>
<68683abb1002242110t5d466b53g6e2eba2ba5ed0632@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <206791b11002242148n57011481w35b9f051e357d4fe@mail.gmail.com>

It wasn't about the Poetlister stuff. It was what it looked like from
the outside (I hope): FT2 not handling pressure from the community
well (over the Peter Damian matters), dissembling and avoiding or
postponing things, and wanting to write reams and reams to explain
things when he was being told he needed to keep thing simple, and
trying to set up some special process to deal with what was going on.
----------
From stevethearbitrator at gmail.com Thu Feb 25 06:07:44 2010
From: stevethearbitrator at gmail.com (Steve Smith)
Date: Thu, 25 Feb 2010 06:07:44 +0000
Subject: [arbcom-l] Checkuser
In-Reply-To: <206791b11002242148n57011481w35b9f051e357d4fe@mail.gmail.com>
References: <4b85fbeb.0c58560a.2c69.21ed@mx.google.com>
<eb45e7c1002242053j5a8c0164t36885036f857744a@mail.gmail.com>
<68683abb1002242055v7e2ebeb1n40bbe7493ca9415f@mail.gmail.com>
<206791b11002242107s7366fd9ex9e12fa444133cdf6@mail.gmail.com>
<68683abb1002242110t5d466b53g6e2eba2ba5ed0632@mail.gmail.com>
<206791b11002242148n57011481w35b9f051e357d4fe@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <68683abb1002242207s7e0331a7s5c6ecb64a4ba6552@mail.gmail.com>

Thanks for that Carch. I'm not really sure how I see that as being "under a
cloud"; from your description, it seems like people thought that he wasn't
doing a very good job - the kind of thing that in real life gets people
fired "without cause", as distinct from Sam (and arguably Cas), who would
have been fired "with cause". But it doesn't appear to have much bearing on
the Poetlister thing or anything else currently facing ArbCom, so I guess
there's no need to debate hypotheticals. Or at least there wouldn't be, in
some situations.

On Thu, Feb 25, 2010 at 5:48 AM, Carcharoth <carcharothwp at googlemail.com>wrote:

> It wasn't about the Poetlister stuff. It was what it looked like from
> the outside (I hope): FT2 not handling pressure from the community
> well (over the Peter Damian matters), dissembling and avoiding or
> postponing things, and wanting to write reams and reams to explain
> things when he was being told he needed to keep thing simple, and
> trying to set up some special process to deal with what was going on.
>
> From this distance (over a year ago now), I would say that both ArbCom
> and the community lost patience with that, and essentially lost
> confidence in him, both literally and metaphorically. Ever since then,
> things have at times been a bit awkward. The most awkward moment for
> me being when he got rather upset at something I said that he thought
> had been said to him by me on functionaries (it was actually a reply
> to a functionaries e-mail, by me, changing the address to ArbCom with
> him copied in) and he then used some rather strong language in an
> e-mail back to me, also copied in to ArbCom.
>
> The matters with Geogre and Jehochman didn't help either.
>
> Which is not to detract from the good work he does (I've corresponded
> with him since then), but to provide the background from my
> perspective.
>
> The other, unspoken matter, is that FT2 is the only arbitrator to have
> resigned under something that might be called a cloud, but to still
> retain the tools. Contrasting the situation with Sam Blacketer, and
> with arbs who resigned in good standing, it has never been clear
> exactly what FT2's status is. The closest would probably be Casliber.
> Ultimately, I've come to the conclusion that the circumstances
> surrounding the resignation of each arbitrator are different, so
> comparisons don't always help.
>
> Carcharoth
----------
From risker.wp at gmail.com Thu Feb 25 06:24:43 2010
From: risker.wp at gmail.com (Risker)
Date: Thu, 25 Feb 2010 01:24:43 -0500
Subject: [arbcom-l] Checkuser
In-Reply-To: <206791b11002242148n57011481w35b9f051e357d4fe@mail.gmail.com>
References: <4b85fbeb.0c58560a.2c69.21ed@mx.google.com>
<eb45e7c1002242053j5a8c0164t36885036f857744a@mail.gmail.com>
<68683abb1002242055v7e2ebeb1n40bbe7493ca9415f@mail.gmail.com>
<206791b11002242107s7366fd9ex9e12fa444133cdf6@mail.gmail.com>
<68683abb1002242110t5d466b53g6e2eba2ba5ed0632@mail.gmail.com>
<206791b11002242148n57011481w35b9f051e357d4fe@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <eb45e7c1002242224t17eb40abnbecee943c336a54@mail.gmail.com>

In response to Steve's question, I think each of us will have a slightly
different "take" on the situation. One must remember the background here: a
majority of the committee was brand new; the arbcom mailing list hadn't been
split yet so we were being bombarded by some of the former arbs trying to
push us in certain directions or being blatantly disdainful of us; the
community was in an uproar about FT2; Thatcher (whom I think was the one
non-arb who had the respect of just about everyone) had resigned his tools
directly in response to FT2's actions, he had just filed a "case" himself,
but expressed the opinion that he would be able to participate in its
adjudication (this was the one that resulted in only Arbcom as a committee
blocking Giano, and SlimVirgin being temporarily desysopped); the community
"arbcom support" poll had him at about 25% confidence (compared to over 50%
for everyone else on the committee); and that's just what I can remember off
the top of my head.

The first order of business for our iteration of the committee was trying to
"straighten out" that whole mess related to FT2 and Peter Damien, and
serious efforts were made on multiple occasions to try to get information
from him. Whether or not it was intentional on his part, he repeatedly
failed to answer direct questions and to provide a wide range of irrelevant
information and come up with complex plans to "solve" the problem. Finally,
I had a 4-hour-long IRC chat with him where I simply kept refocusing him on
the options for action and distilled them down with him. After he agreed
with all of the options that he considered to be acceptable, I posted them
to the arb-only gmail mailing list without including my own opinion. The
options he considered acceptable really weren't going to cut it with the
community, but it was important to make sure that he had the opportunity to
voice what he felt he could accept. At or about the same time, we started a
vote on the arbwiki (it should be in an early archive of the discussion
board) in which we expressed whether or not we had confidence in him
continuing.

Ultimately, FT2 "stepped down" but retained his CU and OS tools. At the
time, I think many of us were relieved that we had made it through that
apparent crisis situation. On reflecting back to that time, I suspect if the
committee had been a little less green, or had had a few "successes" under
its belt already, we would have gone the distance and removed his tools as
well; however, I don't think we really discussed that possibility at the
time, and I am pretty sure none of us felt confident enough to press the
issue when it became clear that FT2 had no intention of giving them up.
Remember, the 2009 intake was about as diverse a group as ever got elected
to arbcom, and few of us had really worked together before, so there was no
real history or any pre-formed alliances.

As I say, I think each of us will have a different perspective on this, and
our views are going to be tempered by the events of the past year.

Risker/Anne
----------
From stevethearbitrator at gmail.com Thu Feb 25 06:42:24 2010
From: stevethearbitrator at gmail.com (Steve Smith)
Date: Thu, 25 Feb 2010 06:42:24 +0000
Subject: [arbcom-l] Checkuser
In-Reply-To: <eb45e7c1002242224t17eb40abnbecee943c336a54@mail.gmail.com>
References: <4b85fbeb.0c58560a.2c69.21ed@mx.google.com>
<eb45e7c1002242053j5a8c0164t36885036f857744a@mail.gmail.com>
<68683abb1002242055v7e2ebeb1n40bbe7493ca9415f@mail.gmail.com>
<206791b11002242107s7366fd9ex9e12fa444133cdf6@mail.gmail.com>
<68683abb1002242110t5d466b53g6e2eba2ba5ed0632@mail.gmail.com>
<206791b11002242148n57011481w35b9f051e357d4fe@mail.gmail.com>
<eb45e7c1002242224t17eb40abnbecee943c336a54@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <68683abb1002242242m22cdc6b8rdd0c7265c686fb00@mail.gmail.com>

Thanks for the background, Risker - I've found most of what you're talking
about, but what was this business with Thatcher?
----------
From stevethearbitrator at gmail.com Thu Feb 25 06:45:06 2010
From: stevethearbitrator at gmail.com (Steve Smith)
Date: Thu, 25 Feb 2010 06:45:06 +0000
Subject: [arbcom-l] Checkuser
In-Reply-To: <68683abb1002242242m22cdc6b8rdd0c7265c686fb00@mail.gmail.com>
References: <4b85fbeb.0c58560a.2c69.21ed@mx.google.com>
<eb45e7c1002242053j5a8c0164t36885036f857744a@mail.gmail.com>
<68683abb1002242055v7e2ebeb1n40bbe7493ca9415f@mail.gmail.com>
<206791b11002242107s7366fd9ex9e12fa444133cdf6@mail.gmail.com>
<68683abb1002242110t5d466b53g6e2eba2ba5ed0632@mail.gmail.com>
<206791b11002242148n57011481w35b9f051e357d4fe@mail.gmail.com>
<eb45e7c1002242224t17eb40abnbecee943c336a54@mail.gmail.com>
<68683abb1002242242m22cdc6b8rdd0c7265c686fb00@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <68683abb1002242245v72487b55u13013b613a06a068@mail.gmail.com>

As well, is the "tools break" he's on now genuinely voluntary? He's
characterized it as such in his e-mails, but now he seems to be asking if
we're okay with them taking the tools back.

On Thu, Feb 25, 2010 at 6:42 AM, Steve Smith
<stevethearbitrator at gmail.com>wrote:

> Thanks for the background, Risker - I've found most of what you're talking
> about, but what was this business with Thatcher?
----------
From risker.wp at gmail.com Thu Feb 25 07:02:30 2010
From: risker.wp at gmail.com (Risker)
Date: Thu, 25 Feb 2010 02:02:30 -0500
Subject: [arbcom-l] Checkuser
In-Reply-To: <68683abb1002242245v72487b55u13013b613a06a068@mail.gmail.com>
References: <4b85fbeb.0c58560a.2c69.21ed@mx.google.com>
<eb45e7c1002242053j5a8c0164t36885036f857744a@mail.gmail.com>
<68683abb1002242055v7e2ebeb1n40bbe7493ca9415f@mail.gmail.com>
<206791b11002242107s7366fd9ex9e12fa444133cdf6@mail.gmail.com>
<68683abb1002242110t5d466b53g6e2eba2ba5ed0632@mail.gmail.com>
<206791b11002242148n57011481w35b9f051e357d4fe@mail.gmail.com>
<eb45e7c1002242224t17eb40abnbecee943c336a54@mail.gmail.com>
<68683abb1002242242m22cdc6b8rdd0c7265c686fb00@mail.gmail.com>
<68683abb1002242245v72487b55u13013b613a06a068@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <eb45e7c1002242302y4b987a6apc677fab1d91d2fab@mail.gmail.com>

The tools break is genuinely voluntary, and as of this writing he is still
in a position where he could go to meta right now and ask for them back. At
the time that he advised us of the break, either I or one of the other
arbitrators did promise that, if there were any changes for requesting
return of tools, he would be informed prior to them being implemented.
You'll recall that we sent a proposal to Functionaries a while back that
does indeed change the rules; he was personally copied on that proposal,
which was in keeping with our prior undertaking to him. (I haven't forgotten
about this, but will pull stuff together on it some time in late March or
early April.)

As to the Thatcher issue, as I recall it, Thatcher felt that FT2 was not
being truthful with respect to the Peter Damien issue (in particular the
timing of FT2 becoming aware that David Gerard had oversighted some of FT2's
edits during his arbcom candidacy). Apparently he and FT2 had a very heated
telephone exchange on that point, and that was apparently the last straw for
Thatcher; this was in November 2008, as I recall, and there was something on
the RFAR page relating to FT2 and PD. I'm not sure how much is publicly
said, though.

Risker/Anne
----------
From ft2.wiki at gmail.com Thu Feb 25 07:16:14 2010
From: ft2.wiki at gmail.com (FT2)
Date: Thu, 25 Feb 2010 07:16:14 -0000
Subject: [arbcom-l] Checkuser
In-Reply-To: <eb45e7c1002242109o47a57579yf185eb750f97b1e5@mail.gmail.com>
References: <4b85fbeb.0c58560a.2c69.21ed@mx.google.com>
<eb45e7c1002242053j5a8c0164t36885036f857744a@mail.gmail.com>
<4b860357.0338560a.749d.495c@mx.google.com>
<eb45e7c1002242109o47a57579yf185eb750f97b1e5@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <4b8623c1.1438560a.4539.23cb@mx.google.com>

I'm not offended, I appreciate knowing so I can deal with it if there's an
issue. I would not have minded being deliberately CCed but I'm glad for the
accidental inclusion. I didn't realize you felt you lacked information.



However I think you're incorrect, at least as far as I can recall. I've
checked both my email and IRC logs for all discussion on or off lists
mentioning Poetlister, and find you were sent an exceedingly thorough
summary of the case along with arbs John Vandenberg and Josh Gordon, on 6
Sept 2008. You replied the same day.



According to Gmail the only other email where your name and a Poetlister
information request coexist is a request on 17 Nov 2009 that "someone" could
look into an ANI thread on a possible reincarnation.



I've looked further.



. I find that a copy of my main email to Poetlister was CCed to John
Vandenberg, Josh Gordon, Rlevse, Thatcher on 13 Sept 2008.

. A wrap-up summary was sent to Arbcom-l on 20 Sept 2008.

. In the thread on "collective memory" I sent an email on 21 July
2009 suggesting that we needed to improve records on known sock users,
either in mailing list archives or on the Arbcom wiki. I cited Poetlister as
an example. The suggestion was declined, primarily because (in Roger's
words) "I am hearing you but not agreeing with you... Yes, of course, there
are advantages to succinct central notes on problem users but we don't need
huge files detailing everything. Plus, know consider this, can you imagine
the consequences if we were forced to disclose the whole lot with a court
order? Can you imagine what the press would say? Can you imagine what
editors would say? Secret dossiers is instruction creep on a massive scale."
The same response was made in the thread "Greg Kohs unban" - "I also believe
that retaining extensive detailed information is incompatible with the wiki
philosophy. And, no, I don't think that the means justifies the end." The
suggestion was either declined or did not get consensus.

. Details of how Poetlister socks might be spotted and confirming he
doesn't (so far as I know) use IRC were posted to func-en on 22 Nov 2009
when a suspected case came up.

. I also offered - the only ex-arb from last year - to collate and
send a full copy of the private list to AC. The offer was forcibly declined
by strong consensus as you know and nobody on the Committee has followed up
on the offer since.





To put Poetlister in context. During the investigation, I was in contact
with and informing Cary and Jimbo. They have full details of the
investigation, which was /not/ primarily an enwiki matter. I informed a
number of arbs as a courtesy but this was not an English Wikipedia case
(though obviously highly relevant to it). Poetlister was primarily socking
at Wikiquote at the time. It was at Wikiquote that he had his checkuser and
three admin accounts.



People that came into the real-world discussion included two Directors
within the UK civil service, including their Director of Ministerial
Business and Parliamentary Accountability and a business serving the
transsexual community that relied upon discretion to survive. The case
contained potentially explosive information for media drama. We had had a
leaker not 4 months earlier. The leak included data from the Arbcom wiki.
The care taken and avoiding placing data where it might be leaked, meant
that not one thing leaked from this inquiry, then or (so far as I can tell)
ever.



The main Poetlister case on enwiki was his unban in May 2008. This was fully
written up. It's on Arbwiki at [[wpuser:Poetlister]] (I think). The abusive
checkuser and admin case that you are asking about was cross project, and
written up on Meta. Further details of the kind relevant to enwiki and
future cases, and a large part of the private material with full
explanations, were provided. They have never been unavailable to Arbcom, as
described above. Questions on func-en have been answered when asked. IRC
logs show no requests for information by you from October 2008 onwards via
that medium. (I declined to provide extensive detail to FloNight due to a
third party concern that she might not be trustworthy in the case. I have no
knowledge if that's well founded or false, but did not take the risk.) I
have no recollection or record of being asked to copy AC with any "emails",
or any arbitrator request to write up the case for Arbcom. The times I've
been asked about the case have mostly been on the functionaries list and in
reply to off-list emails about possible socks. They appear to have been
consistently answered.



In the meantime at least the main part of your missing information is
addressed. The information on arbwiki was never asked to be written up, was
a leak liability, and when I suggested doing so in 2009 was declined by an
arb. The email sent to Poetlister was never an enwiki or Arbcom email but
nonetheless has been in the possession of 3 arbs and Cary since the day it
was sent, and had been "sanity checked" prior to sending. A summary of the
case was sent to you and others off-list in 2008 and you replied. Details on
the practicalities of Poetlister sock spotting were sent off-list to Arbs
when a possible sock was mentioned.



If you still feel that I have ignored any request for information or that
Arbcom is missing some kinds of details, please let me know. But I cannot
find any requests of the type you seem to be describing. We have only had
dialog on email and (at times) IRC but neither seem to show any such
conversation. If you can email me dates and email titles, or let me know if
they were on IRC and (if you keep logs) when they took place, I'll have
another look.





I hope this satisfies your concerns. If you still feel you had asked for
other information and I hadn't answered as you wished, please link me to
your request (I should have full records of emails and IRC) and I'll check
again.



Paul.

From ft2.wiki at gmail.com Thu Feb 25 09:13:53 2010
From: ft2.wiki at gmail.com (FT2)
Date: Thu, 25 Feb 2010 09:13:53 -0000
Subject: [arbcom-l] Checkuser
References: <4b85fbeb.0c58560a.2c69.21ed@mx.google.com>
<eb45e7c1002242053j5a8c0164t36885036f857744a@mail.gmail.com>
<4b860357.0338560a.749d.495c@mx.google.com>
<eb45e7c1002242109o47a57579yf185eb750f97b1e5@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <4b863f53.0c07560a.347e.7777@mx.google.com>

Quick update:


Kirill also got a fairly comprehensive summary of the case (email 26 Aug
2008) explaining why Arbcom was not being given full details. This and the
follow-up email were copied to Arbcom on the private list on the same day
("Fwd: A heads-up on a case"). I've sought to make this list's emails
available to the Committee last year. Either way there are more than a few
2008 Arbs and ex-arbs who are still serving or active and have copies.

Full details of Poetlister's real-world identity and how exactly he was
identified were provided off-list in full to Jimmy and Cary, and (as Risker
correctly states) compartmentalized where disclosed to users. Obviously some
users will have been curious, but I cannot find any sign of a formal request
for that information ever being made, and around 2008 - 2009 the level of
information referenced (which included his government workplace, named
co-workers, religious activities, his likely-concealed sexual fetishes,
family, a third party business, and possible legal implications), would have
been too sensitive to distribute even to the committee, for reasons
explained in the last email, and speaking as it does to Poetlister's
real-world life, family, and so on.

A full summary of the case was emailed to Jimmy (cc Cary) on 26 Aug 2008
titled "Cato de-checkuser" which explained how the case evolved, how exactly
the socks were identified and people who had checked the evidence.

Although compartmentalized, most of the significant steps were checked to
ensure appropriate handling. For example various emails were reviewed by
John Vandenberg, Wikiquote checkuser Aphaia, and others, the need to remove
access from Cato prior to any WR "outing" was confirmed with then-arb James
Forrester, the identification of Poetlister via on-wiki evidence was proven
by Sam Blacketer who reached the same identity from a cold standing start
and no information in 48 hours, approval to decheckuser was asked of and
granted/requested by Jimmy on Sept 4 2008 after reviewing the case evidence,
a full briefing was sent to Jay Walsh on 3 Sept in case it hit the media
following WR's publication of Poetlister's personal details, an update
related to Selwood's actions and a copy of the external emails to the
Director concerned was copied to Jimmy/Cary/Jay on 11 Sept 2008, and so on.
A list of those consulted is on the case writeup at Meta.

A couple of details weren't included, the main ones being Selwood's emails
(friend of the girl whose pictures Poetlister used), the names of people
involved at Poetlister's workplace, Poetlister losing his job (apparently
due to Selwood contacting Poetlister's employer), and summary of the actions
of WR users which are probably well known.

As can be seen these are now 1.5+ years old and unlikely to be the kind of
information relevant to the community. If they did come up again, then
(being real world not wiki editing matters) Cary Bass/Jay Walsh/Mike
Godwin/Jimmy would likely deal with them directly and they have the details.


Paul.
----------
From kenneth at planetkh.com Thu Feb 25 14:23:44 2010
From: kenneth at planetkh.com (Kenneth Kua/ArbCom)
Date: Thu, 25 Feb 2010 22:23:44 +0800
Subject: [arbcom-l] Checkuser
In-Reply-To: <4b8623c1.1438560a.4539.23cb@mx.google.com>
References: <4b85fbeb.0c58560a.2c69.21ed@mx.google.com>
<eb45e7c1002242053j5a8c0164t36885036f857744a@mail.gmail.com>
<4b860357.0338560a.749d.495c@mx.google.com>
<eb45e7c1002242109o47a57579yf185eb750f97b1e5@mail.gmail.com>
<4b8623c1.1438560a.4539.23cb@mx.google.com>
Message-ID: <ff56241002250623u4096ddf4j68b863f3d59cb06c@mail.gmail.com>

<List-Only>

I ran a simple Google, and it looks like some of these stuff went out in the
public back in 2008 :

http://www.theregister.co.uk/2008/09/19/wi...ndal/print.html

Seems like a certain few names appear over and over when we deal with cases
of outing/harassment that involves putting someone elses' ricebowls in
jeopardy.

Kenneth/MD
----------
From User.CoolHandLuke at gmail.com Thu Feb 25 15:47:57 2010
From: User.CoolHandLuke at gmail.com (Cool Hand Luke)
Date: Thu, 25 Feb 2010 09:47:57 -0600
Subject: [arbcom-l] Checkuser
In-Reply-To: <4b863f53.0c07560a.347e.7777@mx.google.com>
References: <4b85fbeb.0c58560a.2c69.21ed@mx.google.com>
<eb45e7c1002242053j5a8c0164t36885036f857744a@mail.gmail.com>
<4b860357.0338560a.749d.495c@mx.google.com>
<eb45e7c1002242109o47a57579yf185eb750f97b1e5@mail.gmail.com>
<4b863f53.0c07560a.347e.7777@mx.google.com>
Message-ID: <8ec76cd11002250747m4a3d4020m7a7e908278135c91@mail.gmail.com>

I have somewhat different concerns than Anne, and it is only fair to
confront you with them so that you can respond.

First and foremost, I want to know: did you call or encourage others to call
Baxter and/or his wife and/or their places of employment? Second, this:

Formal email.
CC to Cary Bass for information.
-----



I have been considering my email to you, which you surely knew to expect. I
have also considered your email.


So... please read what follows and believe it. You have no opening for
significant negotiation. Despite its tone, this email is aiming for hope. It
is a statement how I feel, and advance information on the actions I propose
to take and events that may pass, depending whether you voluntarily address
these matterst yourself, or whether you show you wish to unrepentantly hang
round this place where you have abused so many people's trust and identities
already, and keep those you most deceived (your family and on and offline
friends) in ignorance of your true abusive activities when online, and
therefore it needs extreme measures to obtain forcible removal. The choice
is yours. This note is for information, and to assist that decision.


It's also to emphasize the scale of your betrayal. People who trusted and
helped, of the project goals, of your work colleagues, innocent
transvestites and friends who couldn't complain because of your
manipulations, and of your own wife and children. The latter are each
victims, but nobody speaks for them and your emails continue to express the
hope that you'll continue to deceive them in all your actions. Any normal
human would recoil on moral horror at this trail and feel an ethical
obligation to compel an honest ending by any reasonable means within the
law.


=== Part 1 ===

Let's start with the latest, "OMG HACKING!!!".

Unfortunately Michael (and I think we can drop your nickname here, both John
and Aphaia have known who you are since July) but you are the "boy who cried
wolf".

You have used proxies nonstop, and you used them after promising FloNight
you wouldn't. You have played games, telling this person this thing and that
person that thing even after the events of last weekend. You manipulate and
you lie and you betray yourself and others you love. You have provided zero
evidence this is anything more than another "please pity me!". Anyone can
claim that their email is hacked, add some IPs or something they claim was
on their computer and try to make it plausible. Suddenly "I was hacked!".

It's almost certainly just today's game. I also note you appear to yourself
have hacked (misused without authorization) other people's accounts at WR,
according to rumor. So I'm addressing this matter in a separate email.


=== Part 2 ===

I have watched this case a long time now, and I've watched your behavior
carefully. Based on that, I have drawn some conclusions.

My conditions to you are simple. I will state them once, below. Failure to
take this seriously will lead to the events changing from your rules and
WR's rules, to my rules. Hide one thing now or later, lie or evade once, and
the gloves come off. Believe me, you don't want to test that . That's the
advantage of being a volunteer rather than an employee. My only formal
obligation is my own conscience, and the law.

I guarantee you will prefer to follow this instruction to the last letter,
Mike. I also guarantee with zero regret, that any failure of complete
compliance will result in pain and quite likely more real and difficult
unavoidable results than anything you ever wrote when you pretended to be
Taxwoman, because I plan to clean up thoroughly, and to do that I'll
probably end up ripping your ego apart.

My reason is simple: compassion, and disgust of abuse. You have done this so
long that you don't know how to change it. You are driving yourself to
destruction. I'm your last offramp before law enforcement and the press. If
you don't take action yourself, you're about to get a helping hand, and if
Cary wants my resignation over it, I'll have no compunction handing in my
resignation if that's what it takes to get rid of this abusIve behavior for
good. So don't even start to think anyone has the ability to put pressure
otherwise on me. Your wife is a lawyer and by the time this is done, don't
think about legal action, because the only legal action will be if she wants
rid of you. You have me to deal with, Michael, which is exactly what your
aliases asked of me in December. And I'm focused and determined. I'm the one
non-bribable, non-distractable person in the frame.

My message is blunt, and you can discuss and email others all you like, but
right here and now, it's comply or face the consequences. We'll get to that
soon enough below.


=== Part 3 ===

You're intelligent and a manipulator, which means you recognize
impossibility to manipulate when you see it. This is it. I know the games
have continued since Saturday, and I know you're trying to manipulate John
and Aphaia.

I don't often talk in these terms. I don't wish to now, but there are some
who understand no language other than force. You have abused others, and
your response to others trying to prevent your abuse and to all other
communication, has been to do it more, to new victims, with more attempts to
hide it at others' cost, and more hardened. Even your response this last 5
days has been manipulation. I don't know any way exists to say "you must not
do this harm to our users and members of the public" without a degree of
forcefulness and pressure.

You have repeatedly tried to sidestep every chance of honesty and avoid
publicly admitting the socking. In doing that you have been continuing to
leave people in doubt, which is a form of abuse. By the omission of you
admitting this, you have caused prolonged pain to the community. Users like
Shalom and Lar took huge effort -- all abused -- to defend you.

There are many web pages that Tarantino and Proabivouac have not found, yet,
that confirmed identity, deception, guilt. They also haven't found many
other things. They made errors like confusing your wife and sister. They
don't know about your children, whose names you put in the public domain and
used as covers (which would disgust most people including your family). They
don't recognize that the <redacted>' IP means <redacted>'s employer is legitimately
fair to be brought into the frame to ascertain just what it extended to.
Your word or purported explanations mean nothing, by the way.


=== Part 4: Conditions ===

This is the tough bit, that you knew was coming. The conditions. What you
have to do to get away from this with anything intact. The bad news is, you
have a choice: complete abject confession online to your online games, or
exposure in your /offline/ world - it goes "real world" as the only way to
kill it. You don't get to keep both. Choose which.

My conditions are actually quite simple and reasonable. Name every sock of
yours, on every WMF wiki, publicly and under your "name". Apologize to all
you have abused (publicly for wiki users) in a way that we and others here
can be 100% sure you have done so. Then (if ever allowed onto any WMF wiki
in future) do not ever abuse again, whether in one year or ten, and don't
"just experiment" wondering if we'll notice. We will eventually and when we
do, we'll have to reopen everything. Those are my requirements (details
below).

The flip side, for fair warning:

Lie once, fail on any point (whether known now or found later), evade once,
play once more after this is over, and all deals are off. Patience is
history. I'll give you exact details how to meet my requirements and that's
all. As with "RachelBrown's" idiotic story "adulterers fucking anonymous",
I'll tell you what to do, and you either do it or not, but the
responsibility is yours either way. You have a deadline below, and I'll
repeat everything as often as you need to hear it, and consider concerns all
the way till then. One minute after that, gloves come off all the way,
without any further warning, starting with <redacted>'s workplace for evidence,
and the Department of Health, and probably unavoidably, ending with family
or someone will inform the police. Do you actually love your family, or need
them? Or are they toys too? Sacrifice your fictions, games and abuses for
yourself and them. Put right the abuses you have done over the last 3 years
and you may survive, or take complete responsibility for any unfortunate
results of forcible removal. I don't know <redacted>, but she seems tough, and
people don't like being deceived. I don't know what settlement you'd get,
but I bet it won't include the things in real life you care most about. Risk
it if you like. Your call. And watch me not minding if it hurts you to put
this all right.

I need to be convinced you mean it, but so far by your actions since
Saturday, I am only convinced you are into denial and games instead. You
are trying to now rather obviously use John and Aphaia who are out on a limb
to help you, and still trying to "game" that rather than be honest.


== Part 5: Exact requirements ===

Let me be absolutely clear what you need to do.



1. I expect you to name every one of your WMF wiki socks and WR accounts,
publicly with recognizable attribution, on any WMF wiki, as Cato or
Poetlister. You'll notice I have carefully avoided saying which socks I know
of. Capice?

2. Next, to each person you hurt by stacking or accusations you knew were
false, a proper credible apology that says at a minimum "Dear <name>. I
apologize for the harm I did by <named action> under the names <list of
relevant socks> at <wikipage link>", to each on their talk page. When you
agree I'll send you a list. The 'immortality bubble' bursts right here.

3. Last, a 300+ word (I'll count them) formal email apology to each victim
whose pictures or names you used for WMF wiki related purposes. That was a
disgusting action so this one will need work. These emails are to be cc'ed
to anticabal (for WR) and myself + Lar (for WMF communities) to ensure
genuine sending. There is also to be a global apology to the Wiki community
and WR, for the harm you have done, to post on any WMF wiki under a known
"name". Those victims you can't contact, you are to send to Jodie Lynn with
the request to forward them. Any who don't reply (eg false addresses), I may
request resending to a specified address. You're used to long emails for
yourself and you write thousands of edits for your own purposes. Now you can
write them for others instead. You may sign them by a pseudonym.

4. I'm then done with you, so long as you're not abusive. If any project
will have you, they can.



Yes doing this is going to hurt and humiliate you. I couldn't care less. No,
avoiding hurt is not an option in life. You're about to feel every last
person you abused over 3 years, right now. You like editing, you don't mind
others hurting when you edit, so we're going to edit my way a bit, if you
want me to believe in any way that the matter is closed. The lesson here is,
a wrong isn't closed or an abuser off the hook till it's put right and they
commit not to repeat.

And on a religious basis, you're religious Jewish, right? Judaism matters to
you, hypocrite? Your "Yom Kippur" is coming up, when you can't be right with
God unless you put right all matters where you have wronged human beings?
(Advantages of editing on religion, you learn these odd facts.) That's what
this email's about. Last 3 Yom Kippurs you lied when you said you had. This
time so help me, you had better not.

Then when that's done you can fuck off to number 74 to reminiscence with
<redacted list of family names> and the
family. Or did you think I might be guessing at knowing far more than you
thought? You put all that information on the web.

By Monday noon EDT (ie Sept 15, 5pm UK, 6pm UTC I think), if you haven't
complied with at least #1 and are visibly in progress on #2 and #3, or
there's one sock you haven't named, or I ever see one abusive edit after
that from you under any name or proxy, the gloves come off for good with no
more warning. We can talk as much as you like before then, but when that's
over, we're done talking and I move on without further discussion if I don't
see a disclosure that I feel is honest and complete.

Failure to name any known sock, will negate my hope that you can be
redeemed. Failure to apologize convincingly to any user will negate my hope
that you can be redeemed. Failure to cease your squalid abuse again or smell
it again in our lifetimes will negate my hope you can be redeemed. Discovery
of untruthful or partial disclosure at any later time will negate my hope
you can be redeemed. There will be no warnings. My hope you can finally be
honest and break this habit of abusing our users and others, is all that
keeps me from pursuing this all the way to the end.


=== Part 6: Other victims ===

Others have contacted <redacted> and your workplace -- shit happens, too bad, you
did expect that, right? As for me, I plan to inform the last major group of
victims, your family, not out of malice, but because they are ultimately the
only ones who can prevent future abuse here, and recidivism.

You yourself dragged your wife <redacted>, her employer <redacted>, and your son
<sigh also redacted> into this by yourself; they are in some ways the biggest victims of
all and deserve to no longer be lied to or left ignorant of being taken as
victims, as your co-worker Giselle, the beautician Nes, your boss Guy, the
boudoir's owner Jodie Lynn whose business you placed at risk, and the rest
were.


=== Part 7: Other matters ===

You are of course able to pass round this email. I can't stop you. But if
any words from it get back to me, or word that someone has been told what I
said in a biased manner, I will disclose to the sender the whole email,
intact, so they can read the selective citation in context and recognize
your gaming. One chance to keep this email private, Mike. Otherwise it'll
probably end up posted on WR, full and uncensored, completely beyond my
control. But that's your decision. I myself will keep this private between
us unless needed, as an incentive to take the chance offered seriously.

I'll also be keeping tabs on you, across the wikis, now and then, in future.
If you edit on any WMF project, now or ten years time, I will expect you to
immediately give the local checkusers CC checkuser-l a disclosure of your
username and a link to an information page I will provide. The local
checkusers may set conditions, that's up to them. If you have complied,
don't abuse, and multiple accounts aren't in use, all will be well. If you
edit without disclosure then I may decide at any time to disclose for you,
and there may be serious problems. I'm watchful and patient; I may not say
anything for a while before doing so. This is my own personal requirement of
you, so I can be sure others will have the information needed to protect
their own project from anything but good honest editing.


=== Summary ===

Email done. Now get busy. When the deadline is over, if all terms are not
fully complied with then the gloves come off without warning, and your
family etc, get to know what's up. You dragged your wife <redacted>, her
employer <redacted>, and your son <redacted> into this. Same with your co-worker
<redacted>, the beautician <redacted>, your boss <redacted>, the boudoir's owner <redacted>
whose business you placed at risk, and the rest. You have done some good,
but you hurt countless users here, and caused unknown numbers of others to
leave or be seen unfairly. They and others have the right to know, if there
is any likelihood it will continue.

Believe me, it will be better to own up on-wiki, apologize, and take your
medicine online, than have it come to meet you in your offline life. It's
numbered 1 to 4 above and now it's time to get going on them.


You may call me by nickname, or by the name I use at Arbcom, or the name I
use at OTRS. Any is fine.


I have been told by several sources that this is an accurate email sent to
Baxter. Apparently it was sent on September 13, *after* Poetlister had
already been outed on Wikipedia Review. If someone had asked me who had
written this, I would have guessed Timothy Usher. I am not convinced that
this email is lawful, and it is certainly does not seem like a proportional
response to the problem. You ought not threaten to ruin someone's life for
their disruption of a website.

I hope you do not intend to make good any of your threats in this email.

Frank


From carcharothwp at googlemail.com Thu Feb 25 16:30:35 2010
From: carcharothwp at googlemail.com (Carcharoth)
Date: Thu, 25 Feb 2010 16:30:35 +0000
Subject: [arbcom-l] Checkuser
In-Reply-To: <8ec76cd11002250747m4a3d4020m7a7e908278135c91@mail.gmail.com>
References: <4b85fbeb.0c58560a.2c69.21ed@mx.google.com>
<eb45e7c1002242053j5a8c0164t36885036f857744a@mail.gmail.com>
<4b860357.0338560a.749d.495c@mx.google.com>
<eb45e7c1002242109o47a57579yf185eb750f97b1e5@mail.gmail.com>
<4b863f53.0c07560a.347e.7777@mx.google.com>
<8ec76cd11002250747m4a3d4020m7a7e908278135c91@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <206791b11002250830k60b79497v1a0639706c9e2ea7@mail.gmail.com>

<list only>

Interesting. Frank, can I ask what your source was for this e-mail, or
is that confidential? Do you know if Cary Bass was indeed copied in on
it?

Carcharoth

<snipping e-mail, because the less copies of things like that floating
around the better>
----------
From User.CoolHandLuke at gmail.com Thu Feb 25 16:43:58 2010
From: User.CoolHandLuke at gmail.com (Cool Hand Luke)
Date: Thu, 25 Feb 2010 10:43:58 -0600
Subject: [arbcom-l] Checkuser
In-Reply-To: <206791b11002250830k60b79497v1a0639706c9e2ea7@mail.gmail.com>
References: <4b85fbeb.0c58560a.2c69.21ed@mx.google.com>
<eb45e7c1002242053j5a8c0164t36885036f857744a@mail.gmail.com>
<4b860357.0338560a.749d.495c@mx.google.com>
<eb45e7c1002242109o47a57579yf185eb750f97b1e5@mail.gmail.com>
<4b863f53.0c07560a.347e.7777@mx.google.com>
<8ec76cd11002250747m4a3d4020m7a7e908278135c91@mail.gmail.com>
<206791b11002250830k60b79497v1a0639706c9e2ea7@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <8ec76cd11002250843m3925bee8wbf4cda6bd7cc1a98@mail.gmail.com>

Cary is supposed to have been copied, yes.

John Vandenburg confirmed the content as bitwise identical to the update
copy he and several others received. I discussed this with him and NYB in
August. Randy may also have a copy; he was supposedly copied, but I have
not asked Randy about it.

I was preparing a motion that we remove CU from him, but I kept stalling
because I was a little afraid to do so, and I doubted myself. A half dozen
people had been copied, including foundation folks. I thought the email was
violently objectionable, but no one else seemed to mind. Maybe I'm bonkers?

When he dropped his bit, I thought it was just as well to let sleeping dogs
lie. But I cannot in good conscience allow him to regain the bit unless he
can shows that this was some fantastic mistake. I cannot imagine why we
should let him have CU again, and even if he was given that bit, I want him
far, far away from Poetlister and any other dispute he has personalized
(Headley Down, for example).

Frank
----------
From ft2.wiki at gmail.com Thu Feb 25 17:18:30 2010
From: ft2.wiki at gmail.com (FT2)
Date: Thu, 25 Feb 2010 17:18:30 -0000
Subject: [arbcom-l] Checkuser
In-Reply-To: <8ec76cd11002250747m4a3d4020m7a7e908278135c91@mail.gmail.com>
References: <4b85fbeb.0c58560a.2c69.21ed@mx.google.com>
<eb45e7c1002242053j5a8c0164t36885036f857744a@mail.gmail.com>
<4b860357.0338560a.749d.495c@mx.google.com>
<eb45e7c1002242109o47a57579yf185eb750f97b1e5@mail.gmail.com>
<4b863f53.0c07560a.347e.7777@mx.google.com>
<8ec76cd11002250747m4a3d4020m7a7e908278135c91@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <4b86b0e8.1067f10a.060a.ffff882b@mx.google.com>

Quickly and easily answered:



1. No, I have never called nor had any offline contact with Baxter nor his
wife. I put considerable effort into /deterring/ others from outing him or
doing so, when I heard the rumor WR was planning to out him publicly.
Despite and during his outing at WR I did all I could to avoid further
damaging information being released, which (as you can see from WR threads
related to demands to disclose proof of other purloined identities) has at
times led to claims that further information wasn't known, which was fine by
me.



2. I did contact Baxter's workplace. This was around June, well before any
WR outing. The context for doing so was that a "Guy Goodman" was apparently
being impersonated as were others of his staff. Guy Goodman was not given
any details of the case nor anything about Baxter that would allow him to
identify Baxter. The entire matter was anonymized to the point that he was
not even given a way to know if "the person who may be impersonating him"
was inside or outside the civil service. He was unhappy at this, but that
was the condition I gave. He had Cary as a contact if he needed it.

The first that his employing department knew of his identity or even his
department was when Selwood (or WR users) contacted them directly (unknown
in advance to me). I first became aware they knew this information when I
heard that Baxter was already suspended due to complaints to his employer by
Chris Selwood, the boyfriend of the girl whose pictures he had used. I asked
Chris if it was true and was given the investigator's details by Chris
Selwood himself directly. Because the users making the complaints were
likely to pass on misinformation, and the matter was under investigation, it
became necessary to speak very briefly to the Director reviewing the matter.
WMF were "in the loop" on this.

I am willing to forward some of the relevant emails and snips to the
Committee if desired, to see the care involved, but would emphasize this was
not actually an enwiki case; it was a Wikimedia/Wikiquote case and I was
answerable to Cary and Jimmy directly rather than this project's Arbcom.
This case had the potential to devastate the entire WMF projects and many
lives (see below). More than any other it was a case that needed very
deliberate and careful investigation and calculated "closing down". Given
the circumstances, the drama containment led to far lower follow-on than
might have been expected. WMF were content with the actions taken.



3. You didn't need to "be told by several sources". I CC'ed the final
version myself to John Vandenberg, Cary, Aphaia, Josh Gordon, David Gerard
(then in good standing), Thatcher -- a 2008 arb, a 2009 arb, an ex arb, a
wikiquote checkuser and WMF. I had also discussed and agreed beforehand that
I would be sending an exceptionally "heavyweight" email of a completely
uncharacteristic manner, with the gloves off, that he would feel.



This was for very good reasons, which you may or may not agree with, but
others did. A lot of the time arbs are frustrated that other users don't
"get" how serious or sensitive an issue is, and expect handling that (from
an Arbcom perspective) is generally considered naive, unworkable, or not for
the best. This is a case where you may not fully realize how bad it was on
the brink of getting. A quick summary:
<Yah, the email really cuts off here in the archive. Comes through full in the following thread.>
----------
From User.CoolHandLuke at gmail.com Thu Feb 25 17:37:34 2010
From: User.CoolHandLuke at gmail.com (Cool Hand Luke)
Date: Thu, 25 Feb 2010 11:37:34 -0600
Subject: [arbcom-l] Checkuser
In-Reply-To: <4b86b0e8.1067f10a.060a.ffff882b@mx.google.com>
References: <4b85fbeb.0c58560a.2c69.21ed@mx.google.com>
<eb45e7c1002242053j5a8c0164t36885036f857744a@mail.gmail.com>
<4b860357.0338560a.749d.495c@mx.google.com>
<eb45e7c1002242109o47a57579yf185eb750f97b1e5@mail.gmail.com>
<4b863f53.0c07560a.347e.7777@mx.google.com>
<8ec76cd11002250747m4a3d4020m7a7e908278135c91@mail.gmail.com>
<4b86b0e8.1067f10a.060a.ffff882b@mx.google.com>
Message-ID: <8ec76cd11002250937p3b1701dck1938369c2a50f621@mail.gmail.com>

<list only>

I have some reservations with authorizing a checkuser who investigates users
in real life "beyond arbcom."

Reading his explaination, it sounds like *Heart of Darkness*. FT2 is Agent
Kurtz way up the river, operating beyond any civilized control or
oversight. We executives in Amsterdam just have no idea what it's really
like out there, and we cannot judge him for his acts.

No.

If he requests checkuser, I will move for it to be removed. If it is not, I
will resign.

Incidentally, I think Mike should be clued into the work he's supposedly
doing on behalf of the Foundation, with their supposed involvement,
supervision, and support.

Frank





On Thu, Feb 25, 2010 at 11:18 AM, FT2 <ft2.wiki at gmail.com> wrote:

> Quickly and easily answered:
>
>
>
> 1. No, I have never called nor had any offline contact with Baxter nor his
> wife. I put considerable effort into /deterring/ others from outing him or
> doing so, when I heard the rumor WR was planning to out him publicly.
> Despite and during his outing at WR I did all I could to avoid further
> damaging information being released, which (as you can see from WR threads
> related to demands to disclose proof of other purloined identities) has at
> times led to claims that further information wasn't known, which was fine
> by
> me.
>
>
>
> 2. I did contact Baxter's workplace. This was around June, well before any
> WR outing. The context for doing so was that a "Guy Goodman" was apparently
> being impersonated as were others of his staff. Guy Goodman was not given
> any details of the case nor anything about Baxter that would allow him to
> identify Baxter. The entire matter was anonymized to the point that he was
> not even given a way to know if "the person who may be impersonating him"
> was inside or outside the civil service. He was unhappy at this, but that
> was the condition I gave. He had Cary as a contact if he needed it.
>
> The first that his employing department knew of his identity or even his
> department was when Selwood (or WR users) contacted them directly (unknown
> in advance to me). I first became aware they knew this information when I
> heard that Baxter was already suspended due to complaints to his employer
> by
> Chris Selwood, the boyfriend of the girl whose pictures he had used. I
> asked
> Chris if it was true and was given the investigator's details by Chris
> Selwood himself directly. Because the users making the complaints were
> likely to pass on misinformation, and the matter was under investigation,
> it
> became necessary to speak very briefly to the Director reviewing the
> matter.
> WMF were "in the loop" on this.
>
> I am willing to forward some of the relevant emails and snips to the
> Committee if desired, to see the care involved, but would emphasize this
> was
> not actually an enwiki case; it was a Wikimedia/Wikiquote case and I was
> answerable to Cary and Jimmy directly rather than this project's Arbcom.
> This case had the potential to devastate the entire WMF projects and many
> lives (see below). More than any other it was a case that needed very
> deliberate and careful investigation and calculated "closing down". Given
> the circumstances, the drama containment led to far lower follow-on than
> might have been expected. WMF were content with the actions taken.
>
>
>
> 3. You didn't need to "be told by several sources". I CC'ed the final
> version myself to John Vandenberg, Cary, Aphaia, Josh Gordon, David Gerard
> (then in good standing), Thatcher -- a 2008 arb, a 2009 arb, an ex arb, a
> wikiquote checkuser and WMF. I had also discussed and agreed beforehand
> that
> I would be sending an exceptionally "heavyweight" email of a completely
> uncharacteristic manner, with the gloves off, that he would feel.
>
>
>
> This was for very good reasons, which you may or may not agree with, but
> others did. A lot of the time arbs are frustrated that other users don't
> "get" how serious or sensitive an issue is, and expect handling that (from
> an Arbcom perspective) is generally considered naive, unworkable, or not
> for
> the best. This is a case where you may not fully realize how bad it was on
> the brink of getting. A quick summary:
>
> From a WMF project perspective:
>
> * A user had access to every secret piece of information, every identifying
> data, that was available. OTRS gets numerous emails under real names,
> describing real issues, legal claims, harassment, threats, and other
> matters. Poetlister had access to the OTRS system. Checkuser is WMF's
> private server logs of users and IPs. Poetlister had unfettered access to
> the Checkuser system for anyone who was checked, or any checks run, for
> several months.
>
> * You can imagine the fallout of a malicious media disclosure that a user
> banned for threats, socking, framing others, and bad faith activity, had
> infiltrated WMF and had free access to a gamut of WMF private data (as it
> would be portrayed). It would have caused havoc and long term damage to the
> project, and massively affected a large part of the trust WMF relies upon
> from its volunteers. (Chinese editors? Editors on contentious topics or
> with
> enemies?)
>
> * Another drama, this one with even more legs than Essjay. Banned British
> cross-dressing civil servant trusted with sensitive user data for months.
> You've seen how much drama came just from concealing Law. This one would
> run
> and run worldwide.
>
> * WR were still digging for information that was missing. Poetlister was
> still supremely confident in his ability to "pull the wool" or bluff or
> "get
> away with interacting", rather than being inclined to disengage, which
> would
> provoke the hornets to dig.
>
> * From a WR perspective, a huge coup. You've seen how much mileage some
> there try to make from non-events or minor issues. This one has legs.
>
> * From a Media perspective, major worldwide write-up. We're big news.
>
> * From Baxter's perspective, probably destruction of his job, marriage, and
> effectively his life. Unlike most threats this was actively being
> threatened. He had evaded and deceived each time, he ignored warnings and
> promised to avoid doing wrong while doing wrong.
>
> * From Baxter's wife's perspective, loss of professional job. She allowed
> him to edit from a (very sensitive) location she had access to. This was
> discoverable. WR just missed finding that out.
>
> * From The Boudoir and its proprietor's perspective, their business depends
> upon discretion. An entire business was at risk.
>
> * For those hiding their transvestite activities, it placed them at risk of
> an unwilling leap into the spotlight.
>
>
> Even as Baxter was in the middle of all this and being reported to his
> workplace by Selwood and "outed" by Proabivouac, his promises and replies
> to
> wikiquote and wikisource were meaningless; we (John Vandenberg, Aphaia and
> myself) were continually catching him out in new lies and gaming related to
> the project.
>
> He was an exceptionally skilled and hard to detect socker, and knew it.
> Hence he had no actual incentive to cease at all. For him (as we concluded)
> it was of the essence that he prove he could outmanouver or evade us (the
> community, WMF etc). It was something he had to prove to himself, with no
> scruples, and no regard to cost. There is some kind of deep rooted disorder
> there that means he responds to shows of strength and not rule-bound
> requests nor sympathy/empathy for loved ones, nor very strongly to right
> and
> wrong - sociopathy, or whatever; I'm no therapist but that was a common
> impression.
>
> It was in this context and after seeing he still remained unrepentantly
> trying to play us off against each other with misleading claims that the
> email was drafted and sent. It was calculated to be one that could not be
> ignored, and that made clear that he was thoroughly beaten on his own turf,
> the stakes raised too high to game with, and submission and departure the
> only remedy.
>
> (Although reincarnation was expected he would return knowing
> psychologically
> that he had been beaten last time, a significant change.)
>
>
> The decision to go "very heavyweight" was made with others, it was beyond
> Arbcom and not an enwiki matter. I can understand if you would be
> uncomfortable with it. I'm flexible. I can help others endlessly in
> mediation with great sensitivity; perhaps once in five years when nothing
> less will do, I can put the fear of God into someone to try and avert them
> from the brink of a self-made catastrophe. That was the unspoken intent of
> that email. You may judge for yourself if I would actually carry out any
> threat, and indeed my intention as a whole, by reference to my action in
> protecting his privacy even as I drafted it.
>
> The problem was that /if/ he was allowed to believe he could squeeze and
> get
> away with it, he /would/ destroy his own life and potentially many other
> things including those round him (whom he apparently did not act as if he
> cared about). It was better he was placed in fear of being hammered and not
> do so, if that could be done in an email, although it was always likely his
> obsession and lack of remorse would lead to a return. I have never written
> like that before. I don't expect to need to do so again. But I know how to
> do it, and I was comfortable enough that it had to be done, that those
> involved in the case - whether colleagues, other project functionaries, or
> WMF, were openly copied in on what was said at that time.
>
> I would have no hesitation telling Poetlister exactly where things stand,
> as
> a means to deter him. He knows I'm one of few who can call him
> categorically
> on his actions. However I defend utterly his privacy, so far as I can,
> because keeping Wiki matters out of the "real world" is a major project
> principle and the right thing.
>
>
> Paul.
----------
From risker.wp at gmail.com Thu Feb 25 18:12:04 2010
From: risker.wp at gmail.com (Risker)
Date: Thu, 25 Feb 2010 13:12:04 -0500
Subject: [arbcom-l] Checkuser
In-Reply-To: <4b8623c1.1438560a.4539.23cb@mx.google.com>
References: <4b85fbeb.0c58560a.2c69.21ed@mx.google.com>
<eb45e7c1002242053j5a8c0164t36885036f857744a@mail.gmail.com>
<4b860357.0338560a.749d.495c@mx.google.com>
<eb45e7c1002242109o47a57579yf185eb750f97b1e5@mail.gmail.com>
<4b8623c1.1438560a.4539.23cb@mx.google.com>
Message-ID: <eb45e7c1002251012t15f8da5bj4fc42dad127d6190@mail.gmail.com>

What you sent me back in September 2008 was the draft of the public
announcement that went on Meta, for the purpose of my copy-editing it for
you. There was nothing non-public in it, because it was expressly designed
for public consumption. (Incidentally, that didn't come up in my own gmail
search for "Poetlister" so I wouldn't be relying all that much on gmail
search for anything.) I was largely off-list for most of July 2009, so I
cannot comment on what you were saying at that time, nor Roger's response.
John Vandenberg was, in 2008, acting in his role as a Wikisource checkuser;
that project has much different rules for checkuser use and
information-sharing, and John is scrupulous in following those rules; the
fact that he was later elected to the enwp Arbitration Committee did not
release him from his obligations under Wikisource. I remain extremely
concerned that you refused to share information as requested with a sitting
arbitrator; frankly, it makes me wonder what you're holding back from
currently sitting arbitrators.

I'm sorry, but I simply don't buy that there was nothing more to tell the
enwp Arbitration Committee. Your primary role at that time was as an enwp
arbitrator and, as an extension of that, checkuser; that you collaborated
with others on other projects is useful but largely irrelevant. What I have
always been looking for are the hallmarks that could lead us to future
Poetlister accounts - patterns of editing behaviour, favoured topics, and so
on. The Arbitration Committee was blocking someone whose account was
unblocked as, essentially, a honeypot, and the sitting Arbcom of the time
should have been made fully aware of all of the activities relating to that
observation process.

Risker/Anne
----------
From stevethearbitrator at gmail.com Thu Feb 25 18:18:54 2010
From: stevethearbitrator at gmail.com (Steve Smith)
Date: Thu, 25 Feb 2010 18:18:54 +0000
Subject: [arbcom-l] Checkuser
In-Reply-To: <eb45e7c1002251012t15f8da5bj4fc42dad127d6190@mail.gmail.com>
References: <4b85fbeb.0c58560a.2c69.21ed@mx.google.com>
<eb45e7c1002242053j5a8c0164t36885036f857744a@mail.gmail.com>
<4b860357.0338560a.749d.495c@mx.google.com>
<eb45e7c1002242109o47a57579yf185eb750f97b1e5@mail.gmail.com>
<4b8623c1.1438560a.4539.23cb@mx.google.com>
<eb45e7c1002251012t15f8da5bj4fc42dad127d6190@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <68683abb1002251018gcdf56e9s3b08a9c7a01be7a4@mail.gmail.com>

Frank, did you cut out the last line of FT2's e-mail? Because I'm pretty
sure it must have been "You've got to ask yourself one question: Do I feel
lucky? Well, do you, punk?"

This is not somebody we want with any advanced permissions. I don't want
him as admin, frankly, but I don't think we actually have grounds to desysop
him.


From kenneth at planetkh.com Thu Feb 25 19:12:48 2010
From: kenneth at planetkh.com (Kenneth Kua/ArbCom)
Date: Fri, 26 Feb 2010 03:12:48 +0800
Subject: [arbcom-l] Checkuser
In-Reply-To: <68683abb1002251018gcdf56e9s3b08a9c7a01be7a4@mail.gmail.com>
References: <4b85fbeb.0c58560a.2c69.21ed@mx.google.com>
<eb45e7c1002242053j5a8c0164t36885036f857744a@mail.gmail.com>
<4b860357.0338560a.749d.495c@mx.google.com>
<eb45e7c1002242109o47a57579yf185eb750f97b1e5@mail.gmail.com>
<4b8623c1.1438560a.4539.23cb@mx.google.com>
<eb45e7c1002251012t15f8da5bj4fc42dad127d6190@mail.gmail.com>
<68683abb1002251018gcdf56e9s3b08a9c7a01be7a4@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <ff56241002251112y4900a70dv2c1e131cb2d15878@mail.gmail.com>

We have the right to ask him to run for the communal OS/CU elections that he
helped to create, no?

Kenneth/MD
----------
From risker.wp at gmail.com Thu Feb 25 19:29:36 2010
From: risker.wp at gmail.com (Risker)
Date: Thu, 25 Feb 2010 14:29:36 -0500
Subject: [arbcom-l] Checkuser
In-Reply-To: <ff56241002251112y4900a70dv2c1e131cb2d15878@mail.gmail.com>
References: <4b85fbeb.0c58560a.2c69.21ed@mx.google.com>
<eb45e7c1002242053j5a8c0164t36885036f857744a@mail.gmail.com>
<4b860357.0338560a.749d.495c@mx.google.com>
<eb45e7c1002242109o47a57579yf185eb750f97b1e5@mail.gmail.com>
<4b8623c1.1438560a.4539.23cb@mx.google.com>
<eb45e7c1002251012t15f8da5bj4fc42dad127d6190@mail.gmail.com>
<68683abb1002251018gcdf56e9s3b08a9c7a01be7a4@mail.gmail.com>
<ff56241002251112y4900a70dv2c1e131cb2d15878@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <eb45e7c1002251129la0a9a65o7a96684d1e9100c0@mail.gmail.com>

Well, anyone who runs in the election has to pass vetting by arbcom, and I
don't think FT2 can do that.

Actually, let me review the rules on retaining CU and OS for resigning arbs,
before going further.

Risker/Anne
----------
From ft2.wiki at gmail.com Thu Feb 25 19:36:29 2010
From: ft2.wiki at gmail.com (FT2)
Date: Thu, 25 Feb 2010 19:36:29 -0000
Subject: [arbcom-l] Checkuser
In-Reply-To: <eb45e7c1002251012t15f8da5bj4fc42dad127d6190@mail.gmail.com>
References: <4b85fbeb.0c58560a.2c69.21ed@mx.google.com>
<eb45e7c1002242053j5a8c0164t36885036f857744a@mail.gmail.com>
<4b860357.0338560a.749d.495c@mx.google.com>
<eb45e7c1002242109o47a57579yf185eb750f97b1e5@mail.gmail.com>
<4b8623c1.1438560a.4539.23cb@mx.google.com>
<eb45e7c1002251012t15f8da5bj4fc42dad127d6190@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <4b86d13f.0d67f10a.200e.ffff91a3@mx.google.com>

Risker,

You're mistaken, I'm afraid. This was not an enwiki matter. You have cited
John's role as being bound by another project's norms and hence why he was
not bound by enwiki rules in the case. The same applies here. Arbcom was
made aware of most issues relevant to enwiki (and others as needed over
time), but was not "in on the whole case". That is completely appropriate in
this case, as some aspects probably should not be disclosed locally.

Second, I was in no way acting "in the role of" an enwiki user or
arbitrator. The case was primarily one of cross-wiki investigation based
upon edits and website checking. "Wondering what was held back" is
speculative insinuation and insulting given the degree of voluntary
consultation. You know the privacy basis in this case. If you need
reassurance please speak to Cary or Jimmy, or let me know what you're
missing. Keeping this case "tight" prevented harm to the wider projects. WMF
was copied in on numerous developments, insights, decisions and external
contacts directly and kept in the loop.


As best I can tell, your concerns are:

1/ You don't like that you and our Arbcom don't have every last detail of
the 2008 WMF investigation - understandable but accurate. "Not an Arbcom or
enwiki case". Sensitive as heck too. You do have evidence that there was a
great deal of consultation with WMF and individual users both on arb-l and
within different projects. You have dates/times of the (considerable) data
provided to this project's Arbcom by email. You have a bunch of
informational and discussional emails. I'm not actually sure what you think
you might be missing.

2/ You stated you had made "repeated requests for background information
ever since I have been elected". You added you have asked for "complete
information at least three times including in December 2009". I cannot find
these, nor can I find any trace of having "completely ignored all requests".
Please supply me details to find what you're referring to or retract these
claims.

3/ You apparently suggest that hallmarks ("giveaways") are missing, that
might be used to identify him. But you and others on the committee have been
given the main hallmarks already, long ago, in great detail. Other details
were provided to the functionaries list immediately upon request. The
problem is, there just aren't that many clearcut ones, beyond a sense of
"knowing what to look for" which is quite hard to describe. It comes from 4
months solid immersion in his "real world". I've passed on what I can but
most is a "felt sense" of stuff that is hard to describe. There are probably
odd giveaways that'll come to mind from time to time and can gladly be
pointed out when they do. The Poetlister page on the arb wiki details his
formal editing interests in depth; the emails of 22 Nov 2009 (first request)
detail other information. My suggestion of writing up in full how Poetlister
(and other similar sock-users) operates for Arbcom was vetoed by the
Committee itself in July 2009.


I note for the record that WNF, and AC2008, both appeared content at the
handling (or at the least no significant concerns were expressed in any
email I can find). They knew large parts were kept off Arbcom-l, and they
knew why. I didn't hear complaints. I also point out the email "Poetlister
wrap-up" dated ~ 20 Sept 2008 (and others) which gave the extra background
Arbcom would expect to need.

Please let me know the details of the requests unmet, if any.


Paul.
----------
From hersfoldwiki at gmail.com Thu Feb 25 21:27:25 2010
From: hersfoldwiki at gmail.com (Hersfold)
Date: Thu, 25 Feb 2010 16:27:25 -0500
Subject: [arbcom-l] Checkuser
In-Reply-To: <4B86B7C7.3080806@gmail.com>
References: <4b85fbeb.0c58560a.2c69.21ed@mx.google.com> <eb45e7c1002242053j5a8c0164t36885036f857744a@mail.gmail.com> <4b860357.0338560a.749d.495c@mx.google.com> <eb45e7c1002242109o47a57579yf185eb750f97b1e5@mail.gmail.com> <4b863f53.0c07560a.347e.7777@mx.google.com> <8ec76cd11002250747m4a3d4020m7a7e908278135c91@mail.gmail.com> <4b86b0e8.1067f10a.060a.ffff882b@mx.google.com> <8ec76cd11002250937p3b1701dck1938369c2a50f621@mail.gmail.com>
<4B86B7C7.3080806@gmail.com>
Message-ID: <4B86EB3D.40801@gmail.com>

Agree as well. He's taken a flying leap over the line dividing what's
acceptable and what's not. Recommend we contact the stewards to let them
know he no longer has access to any restricted-access tool on en.wiki
----------
From User.CoolHandLuke at gmail.com Thu Feb 25 21:48:09 2010
From: User.CoolHandLuke at gmail.com (Cool Hand Luke)
Date: Thu, 25 Feb 2010 15:48:09 -0600
Subject: [arbcom-l] Cary, Jimbo, WMF,
I have some questions on the conduct of FT2
Message-ID: <8ec76cd11002251348y7c30d848n68aa9212251b771@mail.gmail.com>

FT2 has suggested that he will again request checkuser rights on the English
Wikipedia so that he can renew his investigation of banned sock master
Poetlister, who has just been discovered again by Alison.

At least one arbitrator opposes due to his lack of candor to ArbCom about
the 2008 investigation of Poetlister, among other things. I oppose because
I am disturbed by the email he sent, threatening real world embarrassment if
Poetlister did not accede to FT2's demands, which included writing letters
of apology to his presumed victims. I found these passages disturbing,
among others:

I also guarantee with zero regret, that any failure of complete compliance
> will result in pain and quite likely more real and difficult unavoidable
> results than anything you ever wrote when you pretended to be Taxwoman,
> because I plan to clean up thoroughly, and to do that *I'll probably end
> up ripping your ego apart.*


*They don't know about your children*, whose names you put in the public
> domain and used as covers (which would disgust most people including your
> family). They don't recognize that the Decherts' IP means *Gill's employer
> is legitimately fair to be brought into* the frame to ascertain just what
> it extended to.


One minute after that, gloves come off all the way, without any further
> warning, *starting with Gillian's workplace for evidence, and the
> Department of Health,* and probably unavoidably, *ending with family or
> someone will inform the police. Do you actually love your family, or need
> them? Or are they toys too?*


In this email, he claimed that it was advantageous that he was a volunteer
rather than an employee because "[m]y only formal obligation is my own
conscience, and the law."

However, in response to our questions, FT2 claims that he was acting outside
of ArbCom, and was working for the interests of the Foundation, citing
several reasons the Foundation would want it taken care of. "I was
answerable to Cary and Jimmy directly rather than this project's Arbcom," he
says. He claims to have been in constant "consultation with WMF," and that
drafts of his email were circulated prior to his sending. "WMF were 'in the
loop' on this" and "WMF were content with the actions taken."

He says that we should ask Jimbo and Cary if we are skeptical, which I am.

Is it true that FT2 was acting for the Foundation? If not, I do not see any
possible body he was answerable to. It strikes me as vigilante.

Frank
----------
From kirill.lokshin at gmail.com Thu Feb 25 21:54:35 2010
From: kirill.lokshin at gmail.com (Kirill Lokshin)
Date: Thu, 25 Feb 2010 16:54:35 -0500
Subject: [arbcom-l] Checkuser
In-Reply-To: <4B86EB3D.40801@gmail.com>
References: <4b85fbeb.0c58560a.2c69.21ed@mx.google.com>
<eb45e7c1002242053j5a8c0164t36885036f857744a@mail.gmail.com>
<4b860357.0338560a.749d.495c@mx.google.com>
<eb45e7c1002242109o47a57579yf185eb750f97b1e5@mail.gmail.com>
<4b863f53.0c07560a.347e.7777@mx.google.com>
<8ec76cd11002250747m4a3d4020m7a7e908278135c91@mail.gmail.com>
<4b86b0e8.1067f10a.060a.ffff882b@mx.google.com>
<8ec76cd11002250937p3b1701dck1938369c2a50f621@mail.gmail.com>
<4B86B7C7.3080806@gmail.com> <4B86EB3D.40801@gmail.com>
Message-ID: <3f797b9a1002251354u5079d97eg51c4fd5099d5096d@mail.gmail.com>

Well, let's not be hasty here. We're not in a position to make an
informed decision on the matter until we hear from Cary et al; if FT2 was,
indeed, acting on the instructions of WMF staff, then that changes matters
considerably.

Kirill
----------
From newyorkbrad at gmail.com Thu Feb 25 21:57:18 2010
From: newyorkbrad at gmail.com (Newyorkbrad)
Date: Thu, 25 Feb 2010 16:57:18 -0500
Subject: [arbcom-l] Checkuser
In-Reply-To: <3f797b9a1002251354u5079d97eg51c4fd5099d5096d@mail.gmail.com>
References: <4b85fbeb.0c58560a.2c69.21ed@mx.google.com>
<4b860357.0338560a.749d.495c@mx.google.com>
<eb45e7c1002242109o47a57579yf185eb750f97b1e5@mail.gmail.com>
<4b863f53.0c07560a.347e.7777@mx.google.com>
<8ec76cd11002250747m4a3d4020m7a7e908278135c91@mail.gmail.com>
<4b86b0e8.1067f10a.060a.ffff882b@mx.google.com>
<8ec76cd11002250937p3b1701dck1938369c2a50f621@mail.gmail.com>
<4B86B7C7.3080806@gmail.com> <4B86EB3D.40801@gmail.com>
<3f797b9a1002251354u5079d97eg51c4fd5099d5096d@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <c52819d31002251357y3cd5f5f4y4592b9daf5340c96@mail.gmail.com>

We can look into deeper issues and discuss at length, but at this time, is
there a consensus that we would rather not have FT2 involved in any
further checkuser activities relating to Poetlister?

Newyorkbrad
----------
From kirill.lokshin at gmail.com Thu Feb 25 22:04:06 2010
From: kirill.lokshin at gmail.com (Kirill Lokshin)
Date: Thu, 25 Feb 2010 17:04:06 -0500
Subject: [arbcom-l] Checkuser
In-Reply-To: <c52819d31002251357y3cd5f5f4y4592b9daf5340c96@mail.gmail.com>
References: <4b85fbeb.0c58560a.2c69.21ed@mx.google.com>
<eb45e7c1002242109o47a57579yf185eb750f97b1e5@mail.gmail.com>
<4b863f53.0c07560a.347e.7777@mx.google.com>
<8ec76cd11002250747m4a3d4020m7a7e908278135c91@mail.gmail.com>
<4b86b0e8.1067f10a.060a.ffff882b@mx.google.com>
<8ec76cd11002250937p3b1701dck1938369c2a50f621@mail.gmail.com>
<4B86B7C7.3080806@gmail.com> <4B86EB3D.40801@gmail.com>
<3f797b9a1002251354u5079d97eg51c4fd5099d5096d@mail.gmail.com>
<c52819d31002251357y3cd5f5f4y4592b9daf5340c96@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <3f797b9a1002251404w17864449w39f7f49997bb8e8d@mail.gmail.com>

I'm not willing to make a decision one way or the other until I get more
information.

Kirill
----------
From risker.wp at gmail.com Thu Feb 25 22:11:00 2010
From: risker.wp at gmail.com (Risker)
Date: Thu, 25 Feb 2010 17:11:00 -0500
Subject: [arbcom-l] Checkuser
In-Reply-To: <3f797b9a1002251404w17864449w39f7f49997bb8e8d@mail.gmail.com>
References: <4b85fbeb.0c58560a.2c69.21ed@mx.google.com>
<4b863f53.0c07560a.347e.7777@mx.google.com>
<8ec76cd11002250747m4a3d4020m7a7e908278135c91@mail.gmail.com>
<4b86b0e8.1067f10a.060a.ffff882b@mx.google.com>
<8ec76cd11002250937p3b1701dck1938369c2a50f621@mail.gmail.com>
<4B86B7C7.3080806@gmail.com> <4B86EB3D.40801@gmail.com>
<3f797b9a1002251354u5079d97eg51c4fd5099d5096d@mail.gmail.com>
<c52819d31002251357y3cd5f5f4y4592b9daf5340c96@mail.gmail.com>
<3f797b9a1002251404w17864449w39f7f49997bb8e8d@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <eb45e7c1002251411v2cb3e2f1n283a13bd658e1057@mail.gmail.com>

Kirill, FT2 suggests in various responses on this thread that you were
playing some sort of "overseeing" role and/or received personal updates
about the situation; could you perhaps fill us in a bit here? I'm not
suggesting that you actually did play any role, given how he's tried to make
my copy-editing foray of a public statement into some sort of special secret
knowledge.


Risker/Anne

From hersfoldwiki at gmail.com Thu Feb 25 21:27:25 2010
From: hersfoldwiki at gmail.com (Hersfold)
Date: Thu, 25 Feb 2010 16:27:25 -0500
Subject: [arbcom-l] Checkuser
In-Reply-To: <4B86B7C7.3080806@gmail.com>
References: <4b85fbeb.0c58560a.2c69.21ed@mx.google.com> <eb45e7c1002242053j5a8c0164t36885036f857744a@mail.gmail.com> <4b860357.0338560a.749d.495c@mx.google.com> <eb45e7c1002242109o47a57579yf185eb750f97b1e5@mail.gmail.com> <4b863f53.0c07560a.347e.7777@mx.google.com> <8ec76cd11002250747m4a3d4020m7a7e908278135c91@mail.gmail.com> <4b86b0e8.1067f10a.060a.ffff882b@mx.google.com> <8ec76cd11002250937p3b1701dck1938369c2a50f621@mail.gmail.com>
<4B86B7C7.3080806@gmail.com>
Message-ID: <4B86EB3D.40801@gmail.com>

Agree as well. He's taken a flying leap over the line dividing what's
acceptable and what's not. Recommend we contact the stewards to let them
know he no longer has access to any restricted-access tool on en.wiki
----------
From User.CoolHandLuke at gmail.com Thu Feb 25 21:48:09 2010
From: User.CoolHandLuke at gmail.com (Cool Hand Luke)
Date: Thu, 25 Feb 2010 15:48:09 -0600
Subject: [arbcom-l] Cary, Jimbo, WMF,
I have some questions on the conduct of FT2
Message-ID: <8ec76cd11002251348y7c30d848n68aa9212251b771@mail.gmail.com>

FT2 has suggested that he will again request checkuser rights on the English
Wikipedia so that he can renew his investigation of banned sock master
Poetlister, who has just been discovered again by Alison.

At least one arbitrator opposes due to his lack of candor to ArbCom about
the 2008 investigation of Poetlister, among other things. I oppose because
I am disturbed by the email he sent, threatening real world embarrassment if
Poetlister did not accede to FT2's demands, which included writing letters
of apology to his presumed victims. I found these passages disturbing,
among others:

I also guarantee with zero regret, that any failure of complete compliance
> will result in pain and quite likely more real and difficult unavoidable
> results than anything you ever wrote when you pretended to be Taxwoman,
> because I plan to clean up thoroughly, and to do that *I'll probably end
> up ripping your ego apart.*


*They don't know about your children*, whose names you put in the public
> domain and used as covers (which would disgust most people including your
> family). They don't recognize that the Decherts' IP means *{wife's name redacted}'s employer
> is legitimately fair to be brought into* the frame to ascertain just what
> it extended to.


One minute after that, gloves come off all the way, without any further
> warning, *starting with {wife's name redacted}'s workplace for evidence, and the
> Department of Health,* and probably unavoidably, *ending with family or
> someone will inform the police. Do you actually love your family, or need
> them? Or are they toys too?*


In this email, he claimed that it was advantageous that he was a volunteer
rather than an employee because "[m]y only formal obligation is my own
conscience, and the law."

However, in response to our questions, FT2 claims that he was acting outside
of ArbCom, and was working for the interests of the Foundation, citing
several reasons the Foundation would want it taken care of. "I was
answerable to Cary and Jimmy directly rather than this project's Arbcom," he
says. He claims to have been in constant "consultation with WMF," and that
drafts of his email were circulated prior to his sending. "WMF were 'in the
loop' on this" and "WMF were content with the actions taken."

He says that we should ask Jimbo and Cary if we are skeptical, which I am.

Is it true that FT2 was acting for the Foundation? If not, I do not see any
possible body he was answerable to. It strikes me as vigilante.

Frank
----------
From kirill.lokshin at gmail.com Thu Feb 25 21:54:35 2010
From: kirill.lokshin at gmail.com (Kirill Lokshin)
Date: Thu, 25 Feb 2010 16:54:35 -0500
Subject: [arbcom-l] Checkuser
In-Reply-To: <4B86EB3D.40801@gmail.com>
References: <4b85fbeb.0c58560a.2c69.21ed@mx.google.com>
<eb45e7c1002242053j5a8c0164t36885036f857744a@mail.gmail.com>
<4b860357.0338560a.749d.495c@mx.google.com>
<eb45e7c1002242109o47a57579yf185eb750f97b1e5@mail.gmail.com>
<4b863f53.0c07560a.347e.7777@mx.google.com>
<8ec76cd11002250747m4a3d4020m7a7e908278135c91@mail.gmail.com>
<4b86b0e8.1067f10a.060a.ffff882b@mx.google.com>
<8ec76cd11002250937p3b1701dck1938369c2a50f621@mail.gmail.com>
<4B86B7C7.3080806@gmail.com> <4B86EB3D.40801@gmail.com>
Message-ID: <3f797b9a1002251354u5079d97eg51c4fd5099d5096d@mail.gmail.com>

Well, let's not be hasty here. We're not in a position to make an
informed decision on the matter until we hear from Cary et al; if FT2 was,
indeed, acting on the instructions of WMF staff, then that changes matters
considerably.

Kirill
----------
From newyorkbrad at gmail.com Thu Feb 25 21:57:18 2010
From: newyorkbrad at gmail.com (Newyorkbrad)
Date: Thu, 25 Feb 2010 16:57:18 -0500
Subject: [arbcom-l] Checkuser
In-Reply-To: <3f797b9a1002251354u5079d97eg51c4fd5099d5096d@mail.gmail.com>
References: <4b85fbeb.0c58560a.2c69.21ed@mx.google.com>
<4b860357.0338560a.749d.495c@mx.google.com>
<eb45e7c1002242109o47a57579yf185eb750f97b1e5@mail.gmail.com>
<4b863f53.0c07560a.347e.7777@mx.google.com>
<8ec76cd11002250747m4a3d4020m7a7e908278135c91@mail.gmail.com>
<4b86b0e8.1067f10a.060a.ffff882b@mx.google.com>
<8ec76cd11002250937p3b1701dck1938369c2a50f621@mail.gmail.com>
<4B86B7C7.3080806@gmail.com> <4B86EB3D.40801@gmail.com>
<3f797b9a1002251354u5079d97eg51c4fd5099d5096d@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <c52819d31002251357y3cd5f5f4y4592b9daf5340c96@mail.gmail.com>

We can look into deeper issues and discuss at length, but at this time, is
there a consensus that we would rather not have FT2 involved in any
further checkuser activities relating to Poetlister?

Newyorkbrad
----------
From kirill.lokshin at gmail.com Thu Feb 25 22:04:06 2010
From: kirill.lokshin at gmail.com (Kirill Lokshin)
Date: Thu, 25 Feb 2010 17:04:06 -0500
Subject: [arbcom-l] Checkuser
In-Reply-To: <c52819d31002251357y3cd5f5f4y4592b9daf5340c96@mail.gmail.com>
References: <4b85fbeb.0c58560a.2c69.21ed@mx.google.com>
<eb45e7c1002242109o47a57579yf185eb750f97b1e5@mail.gmail.com>
<4b863f53.0c07560a.347e.7777@mx.google.com>
<8ec76cd11002250747m4a3d4020m7a7e908278135c91@mail.gmail.com>
<4b86b0e8.1067f10a.060a.ffff882b@mx.google.com>
<8ec76cd11002250937p3b1701dck1938369c2a50f621@mail.gmail.com>
<4B86B7C7.3080806@gmail.com> <4B86EB3D.40801@gmail.com>
<3f797b9a1002251354u5079d97eg51c4fd5099d5096d@mail.gmail.com>
<c52819d31002251357y3cd5f5f4y4592b9daf5340c96@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <3f797b9a1002251404w17864449w39f7f49997bb8e8d@mail.gmail.com>

I'm not willing to make a decision one way or the other until I get more
information.

Kirill
----------
From risker.wp at gmail.com Thu Feb 25 22:11:00 2010
From: risker.wp at gmail.com (Risker)
Date: Thu, 25 Feb 2010 17:11:00 -0500
Subject: [arbcom-l] Checkuser
In-Reply-To: <3f797b9a1002251404w17864449w39f7f49997bb8e8d@mail.gmail.com>
References: <4b85fbeb.0c58560a.2c69.21ed@mx.google.com>
<4b863f53.0c07560a.347e.7777@mx.google.com>
<8ec76cd11002250747m4a3d4020m7a7e908278135c91@mail.gmail.com>
<4b86b0e8.1067f10a.060a.ffff882b@mx.google.com>
<8ec76cd11002250937p3b1701dck1938369c2a50f621@mail.gmail.com>
<4B86B7C7.3080806@gmail.com> <4B86EB3D.40801@gmail.com>
<3f797b9a1002251354u5079d97eg51c4fd5099d5096d@mail.gmail.com>
<c52819d31002251357y3cd5f5f4y4592b9daf5340c96@mail.gmail.com>
<3f797b9a1002251404w17864449w39f7f49997bb8e8d@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <eb45e7c1002251411v2cb3e2f1n283a13bd658e1057@mail.gmail.com>

Kirill, FT2 suggests in various responses on this thread that you were
playing some sort of "overseeing" role and/or received personal updates
about the situation; could you perhaps fill us in a bit here? I'm not
suggesting that you actually did play any role, given how he's tried to make
my copy-editing foray of a public statement into some sort of special secret
knowledge.


Risker/Anne
----------
From hersfoldwiki at gmail.com Thu Feb 25 22:14:45 2010
From: hersfoldwiki at gmail.com (Hersfold)
Date: Thu, 25 Feb 2010 17:14:45 -0500
Subject: [arbcom-l] Checkuser
In-Reply-To: <3f797b9a1002251354u5079d97eg51c4fd5099d5096d@mail.gmail.com>
References: <4b85fbeb.0c58560a.2c69.21ed@mx.google.com> <eb45e7c1002242053j5a8c0164t36885036f857744a@mail.gmail.com> <4b860357.0338560a.749d.495c@mx.google.com> <eb45e7c1002242109o47a57579yf185eb750f97b1e5@mail.gmail.com> <4b863f53.0c07560a.347e.7777@mx.google.com> <8ec76cd11002250747m4a3d4020m7a7e908278135c91@mail.gmail.com> <4b86b0e8.1067f10a.060a.ffff882b@mx.google.com> <8ec76cd11002250937p3b1701dck1938369c2a50f621@mail.gmail.com> <4B86B7C7.3080806@gmail.com>
<4B86EB3D.40801@gmail.com>
<3f797b9a1002251354u5079d97eg51c4fd5099d5096d@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <4B86F655.1050700@gmail.com>

Even if he was acting on behalf of the Foundation, does that excuse what
reads as threats and blackmail? With all the crap we keep having to deal
with from Usher and Amorrow - some of which has directly impacted two
members of our Committee already - I'm certainly not willing to condone
such behavior, no matter who rubber-stamps it.

----
User:Hersfold
hersfoldwiki at gmail.com



Kirill Lokshin wrote:
> Well, let's not be hasty here. We're not in a position to make an
> informed decision on the matter until we hear from Cary et al; if FT2
> was, indeed, acting on the instructions of WMF staff, then that
> changes matters considerably.
----------
From User.CoolHandLuke at gmail.com Thu Feb 25 22:15:41 2010
From: User.CoolHandLuke at gmail.com (Cool Hand Luke)
Date: Thu, 25 Feb 2010 16:15:41 -0600
Subject: [arbcom-l] Checkuser
In-Reply-To: <3f797b9a1002251354u5079d97eg51c4fd5099d5096d@mail.gmail.com>
References: <4b85fbeb.0c58560a.2c69.21ed@mx.google.com>
<4b860357.0338560a.749d.495c@mx.google.com>
<eb45e7c1002242109o47a57579yf185eb750f97b1e5@mail.gmail.com>
<4b863f53.0c07560a.347e.7777@mx.google.com>
<8ec76cd11002250747m4a3d4020m7a7e908278135c91@mail.gmail.com>
<4b86b0e8.1067f10a.060a.ffff882b@mx.google.com>
<8ec76cd11002250937p3b1701dck1938369c2a50f621@mail.gmail.com>
<4B86B7C7.3080806@gmail.com> <4B86EB3D.40801@gmail.com>
<3f797b9a1002251354u5079d97eg51c4fd5099d5096d@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <8ec76cd11002251415i68eb70b5l93f325d2070c5208@mail.gmail.com>

If this was at the actual direction of WMF (in spite of FT2's email's
disclaimer to the contrary), I'll eat my hat, but I have asked anyway.

Frank
----------
From cary at wikimedia.org Thu Feb 25 22:20:17 2010
From: cary at wikimedia.org (Cary Bass)
Date: Thu, 25 Feb 2010 14:20:17 -0800
Subject: [arbcom-l] Cary, Jimbo, WMF,
I have some questions on the conduct of FT2
In-Reply-To: <8ec76cd11002251348y7c30d848n68aa9212251b771@mail.gmail.com>
References: <8ec76cd11002251348y7c30d848n68aa9212251b771@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <4B86F7A1.6090807@wikimedia.org>

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1

Frank:

I remember FT2 involved in some activities involving Poetlister that I
remember telling him that whatever he wanted to share with me he
should share with the rest of arbcom--and not me. (I was previously
included in some "detective" work by another user, and the event left
me in <note: cuts off here in archive, not a redaction>

More specifically he was not acting in my interest and was not doing
anything that I've personally instructed him to do. He was certainly
not acting on direction of the Wikimedia Foundation.

Any email I may have received from FT2 at the time, unless it was
directed specifically from me would have probably remained unread and
archived. I have a hard time reading FT2's email as it is. And I
certainly never asked that he be answerable to me.

I neither asked for this email nor would I have considered its
contents if and when I read it.

Cary

Cool Hand Luke wrote:
> FT2 has suggested that he will again request checkuser rights on
> the English Wikipedia so that he can renew his investigation of
> banned sock master Poetlister, who has just been discovered again
> by Alison.
- --
Cary Bass
Volunteer Coordinator, Wikimedia Foundation

Support Free Knowledge: http://wikimediafoundation.org/wiki/Donate
----------
From User.CoolHandLuke at gmail.com Thu Feb 25 22:28:35 2010
From: User.CoolHandLuke at gmail.com (Cool Hand Luke)
Date: Thu, 25 Feb 2010 16:28:35 -0600
Subject: [arbcom-l] Checkuser
In-Reply-To: <4B86F655.1050700@gmail.com>
References: <4b85fbeb.0c58560a.2c69.21ed@mx.google.com>
<eb45e7c1002242109o47a57579yf185eb750f97b1e5@mail.gmail.com>
<4b863f53.0c07560a.347e.7777@mx.google.com>
<8ec76cd11002250747m4a3d4020m7a7e908278135c91@mail.gmail.com>
<4b86b0e8.1067f10a.060a.ffff882b@mx.google.com>
<8ec76cd11002250937p3b1701dck1938369c2a50f621@mail.gmail.com>
<4B86B7C7.3080806@gmail.com> <4B86EB3D.40801@gmail.com>
<3f797b9a1002251354u5079d97eg51c4fd5099d5096d@mail.gmail.com>
<4B86F655.1050700@gmail.com>
Message-ID: <8ec76cd11002251428g521e9fcdqa69e6a6fa99c29b0@mail.gmail.com>

As we learned from the OrangeMarlin case, FT2 tends to confuse silence with
support, and he doesn't hear objections well (John Vandenburg told me that
most of his suggestions for revisions in the Poetlister case were ignored).
Given the amount of email the foundation people go through, I doubt that
anyone was closely monitoring him.

Frank
----------
From kirill.lokshin at gmail.com Thu Feb 25 22:36:39 2010
From: kirill.lokshin at gmail.com (Kirill Lokshin)
Date: Thu, 25 Feb 2010 17:36:39 -0500
Subject: [arbcom-l] Checkuser
In-Reply-To: <eb45e7c1002251411v2cb3e2f1n283a13bd658e1057@mail.gmail.com>
References: <4b85fbeb.0c58560a.2c69.21ed@mx.google.com>
<8ec76cd11002250747m4a3d4020m7a7e908278135c91@mail.gmail.com>
<4b86b0e8.1067f10a.060a.ffff882b@mx.google.com>
<8ec76cd11002250937p3b1701dck1938369c2a50f621@mail.gmail.com>
<4B86B7C7.3080806@gmail.com> <4B86EB3D.40801@gmail.com>
<3f797b9a1002251354u5079d97eg51c4fd5099d5096d@mail.gmail.com>
<c52819d31002251357y3cd5f5f4y4592b9daf5340c96@mail.gmail.com>
<3f797b9a1002251404w17864449w39f7f49997bb8e8d@mail.gmail.com>
<eb45e7c1002251411v2cb3e2f1n283a13bd658e1057@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <3f797b9a1002251436o5cbeeba5od009ca74dadca0c3@mail.gmail.com>

It wasn't anything particularly significant; I was informed of the overall
course of the investigation, but not of the specifics of FT2's interactions
with Poetlister.

The relevant emails were forwarded by FT2 to the private arbcom list shortly
after our discussion, but since most people here don't have access to that,
I'll forward them again.

Kirill
On Thu, Feb 25, 2010 at 5:11 PM, Risker <risker.wp at gmail.com> wrote:

> Kirill, FT2 suggests in various responses on this thread that you were
> playing some sort of "overseeing" role and/or received personal updates
----------
From kirill.lokshin at gmail.com Thu Feb 25 22:38:40 2010
From: kirill.lokshin at gmail.com (Kirill Lokshin)
Date: Thu, 25 Feb 2010 17:38:40 -0500
Subject: [arbcom-l] Checkuser
In-Reply-To: <4B86F655.1050700@gmail.com>
References: <4b85fbeb.0c58560a.2c69.21ed@mx.google.com>
<eb45e7c1002242109o47a57579yf185eb750f97b1e5@mail.gmail.com>
<4b863f53.0c07560a.347e.7777@mx.google.com>
<8ec76cd11002250747m4a3d4020m7a7e908278135c91@mail.gmail.com>
<4b86b0e8.1067f10a.060a.ffff882b@mx.google.com>
<8ec76cd11002250937p3b1701dck1938369c2a50f621@mail.gmail.com>
<4B86B7C7.3080806@gmail.com> <4B86EB3D.40801@gmail.com>
<3f797b9a1002251354u5079d97eg51c4fd5099d5096d@mail.gmail.com>
<4B86F655.1050700@gmail.com>
Message-ID: <3f797b9a1002251438l583cdad0l56a9c31b9a695b73@mail.gmail.com>

Our involvement with CU use exists only because the WMF has delegated that
role to us. If the WMF authorized FT2 actions directly, then U believe they
lie outside our remit.

Kirill

On Thu, Feb 25, 2010 at 5:14 PM, Hersfold <hersfoldwiki at gmail.com> wrote:

> Even if he was acting on behalf of the Foundation, does that excuse what
> reads as threats and blackmail? With all the crap we keep having to deal
> with from Usher and Amorrow - some of which has directly impacted two
> members of our Committee already - I'm certainly not willing to condone such
> behavior, no matter who rubber-stamps it.
>
> ----
> User:Hersfoldhersfoldwiki at gmail.com
----------
Date: Thu, 25 Feb 2010 16:31:22 -0600
Subject: [arbcom-l] Cary, Jimbo, WMF,
I have some questions on the conduct of FT2
In-Reply-To: <4B86F7A1.6090807@wikimedia.org>
References: <8ec76cd11002251348y7c30d848n68aa9212251b771@mail.gmail.com>
<4B86F7A1.6090807@wikimedia.org>
Message-ID: <8ec76cd11002251431n39884a87gaa3e28cd7a70c775@mail.gmail.com>

Thank you, Cary. That's about the level of (non-)involvement that I
figured.

Frank



On Thu, Feb 25, 2010 at 4:20 PM, Cary Bass <cary at wikimedia.org> wrote:

> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
> Hash: SHA1
>
> Frank:
>
> I remember FT2 involved in some activities involving Poetlister that I
----------
From kirill.lokshin at gmail.com Thu Feb 25 22:40:23 2010
From: kirill.lokshin at gmail.com (Kirill Lokshin)
Date: Thu, 25 Feb 2010 17:40:23 -0500
Subject: [arbcom-l] Fwd: Correspondence with FT2 re: Poetlister
Message-ID: <3f797b9a1002251440g3013d550o7ab8d1cee17faa0b@mail.gmail.com>

---------- Forwarded message ----------
From: FT2 <ft2.wiki at gmail.com>
Date: Tue, Aug 26, 2008 at 12:56 AM
Subject: A heads-up on a case
To: Kirill Lokshin <kirill.lokshin at gmail.com>

Hi Kirill,

This email is to fill you in (briefly) on a serious case I've been working
on in the background. I have kept it off-list and told very few people,
since it has serious "real life" impact on a person if it leaks. Also
because I want to have time to dig up the rest of the evidence I am morally
sure is there, in one area.

I have identified a substantial part of Poetlister's new sock ring. It
includes some very serious socking, but the high level socking is apparently
on wikiquote not enwiki. I haven't found any enwiki admin socks yet. The
checkusers there (aphaia) know of it and have agreed to keep it quiet while
I'm still looking into it.

I have also identified Poetlister in "real life" from his edits, beyond
possibility of doubt, and identified on-wiki evidence tying most of the old
socks to that specific person. I know what the names "runcorn", "newport"
and (probably) "brownlee" mean, and their real life connection to the person
concerned. I have made a prediction end of July, about the socks' August
editing, and it happened. I have had cross-wiki checkuser done by a steward
with no prior connection to any of this, and it gave corroberating evidence.
Poetlister was idiotic. One post he made, encoded his real life identity(!).
I spotted it and realized it was not "meaningless text". He's learned a lot
since then; it's very unlikely he would make that mistake these days. It's
subtle, I dont know if others will spot it, but it's public information.
Knowing that, everything else fitted as well, and knwoing what to look for,
further very solid evidence connecting the socks to that person, has been
easy to find.



I'm keeping this case completely off-list. Because of the seriousness of the
elevated socks, and the community's past reaction, I won't do anything till
until I'm ready. I need another 2-3 weeks I think, mid-September. I will
then disclose the entirety of evidence, including identifying evidence from
his edits and public posts, to a number of users whom I utterly trust beyond
even normal sane standards.

My reason for this approach is:

1/ Poetlister has a checkuser account on Wikiquote with access beyond admin,
and I am still researching if that's his only such high level account. I
have one other that's a worrying suspect. I want to check that out, first.

2/ I dont want any chance of leakage until I have looked into all the
evidence. Poet's a very skilled sock user. Once its public, no further
evidence is likely to be available.

3/ Unlike most cases, this case is based on evidence that ties each account
to the same specific real-life person. To name the evidence is to ID a
specific real-life person who could well be divorced, fired, and/or face
legal action, given clarity on what they have really got up to (eg
impersonation of multiple real people in their close work and social life).
No matter what they have done on-wiki, they don't deserve that. Its still
"just a website". So I am going exceedingly careful with the evidence and
will not post it on wiki. Instead I'll present it to several other
"heavyweights" to review and opinion on, in lieu.

4/ He's an exceedingly skilled sock-user and when its done, it needs to be
done properly and beyond doubt, and beyond comeback.

Tentative disclosure list when its time:

* enwiki arbcom -- yourself, newyorkbrad, flonight, jpgordon, and a couple
of other sitting arbs...

* others -- rlevse and thatcher, and probably two stewards or cu's from
other projects with no prior connection.

* wquote/wsource checkusers -- jayvdb and aphaia...

(As an aside, I've talked to one other person about it, in overview: Lar
(today) understands there is a case and the reasons I wont be putting the
evidence in public and probably wont show him it either. He is not aware of
the personal information itself nor has he any information to work it out. I
felt that having him be aware of the issue would help. He says he will
endorse that there are very good reasons the evidence should not be public.
I felt that was necessary to address up front, for drama reduction. Cary is
aware also, endorses the approach, but as he hasnt himself seen the evidence
he says he will not act until I feel ready to show credible others, who
endorse it, which is fair.)

I have handled this on my own so far because of its sensitivity, but its got
close enough to disclosure to give you a heads-up on it, as to what's going
on. Let me know any questions, and please keep this utterly to yourself a
while longer.

Thanks,

Paul.
----------
From kirill.lokshin at gmail.com Thu Feb 25 22:40:38 2010
From: kirill.lokshin at gmail.com (Kirill Lokshin)
Date: Thu, 25 Feb 2010 17:40:38 -0500
Subject: [arbcom-l] Fwd: Correspondence with FT2 re: Poetlister
Message-ID: <3f797b9a1002251440n36562438mecde0e9d9a3427c8@mail.gmail.com>

---------- Forwarded message ----------
From: Kirill Lokshin <kirill.lokshin at gmail.com>
Date: Tue, Aug 26, 2008 at 8:56 AM
Subject: Re: A heads-up on a case
To: FT2 <ft2.wiki at gmail.com>


On Tue, Aug 26, 2008 at 1:56 AM, FT2 <ft2.wiki at gmail.com> wrote:
>
> Hi Kirill,
>
> This email is to fill you in (briefly) on a serious case I've been working
> on in the background. I have kept it off-list and told very few people,
> since it has serious "real life" impact on a person if it leaks. Also
> because I want to have time to dig up the rest of the evidence I am morally
> sure is there, in one area.
>
> I have identified a substantial part of Poetlister's new sock ring. It
> includes some very serious socking, but the high level socking is apparently
> on wikiquote not enwiki. I haven't found any enwiki admin socks yet. The
> checkusers there (aphaia) know of it and have agreed to keep it quiet while
> I'm still looking into it.
>
> I have also identified Poetlister in "real life" from his edits, beyond
> possibility of doubt, and identified on-wiki evidence tying most of the old
> socks to that specific person. I know what the names "runcorn", "newport"
> and (probably) "brownlee" mean, and their real life connection to the person
> concerned. I have made a prediction end of July, about the socks' August
> editing, and it happened. I have had cross-wiki checkuser done by a steward
> with no prior connection to any of this, and it gave corroberating evidence.
> Poetlister was idiotic. One post he made, encoded his real life identity(!).
> I spotted it and realized it was not "meaningless text". He's learned a lot
> since then; it's very unlikely he would make that mistake these days. It's
> subtle, I dont know if others will spot it, but it's public information.
> Knowing that, everything else fitted as well, and knwoing what to look for,
> further very solid evidence connecting the socks to that person, has been
> easy to find.
>
> I'm keeping this case completely off-list. Because of the seriousness of
> the elevated socks, and the community's past reaction, I won't do anything
> till until I'm ready. I need another 2-3 weeks I think, mid-September. I
> will then disclose the entirety of evidence, including identifying evidence
> from his edits and public posts, to a number of users whom I utterly trust
> beyond even normal sane standards.
>
> My reason for this approach is:
>
> 1/ Poetlister has a checkuser account on Wikiquote with access beyond
> admin, and I am still researching if that's his only such high level
> account. I have one other that's a worrying suspect. I want to check that
> out, first.
>
> 2/ I dont want any chance of leakage until I have looked into all the
> evidence. Poet's a very skilled sock user. Once its public, no further
> evidence is likely to be available.
>
> 3/ Unlike most cases, this case is based on evidence that ties each account
> to the same specific real-life person. To name the evidence is to ID a
> specific real-life person who could well be divorced, fired, and/or face
> legal action, given clarity on what they have really got up to (eg
> impersonation of multiple real people in their close work and social life).
> No matter what they have done on-wiki, they don't deserve that. Its still
> "just a website". So I am going exceedingly careful with the evidence and
> will not post it on wiki. Instead I'll present it to several other
> "heavyweights" to review and opinion on, in lieu.
>
> 4/ He's an exceedingly skilled sock-user and when its done, it needs to be
> done properly and beyond doubt, and beyond comeback.
>
> Tentative disclosure list when its time:
>
> * enwiki arbcom -- yourself, newyorkbrad, flonight, jpgordon, and a couple
> of other sitting arbs...
>
> * others -- rlevse and thatcher, and probably two stewards or cu's from
> other projects with no prior connection.
>
> * wquote/wsource checkusers -- jayvdb and aphaia...
>
> (As an aside, I've talked to one other person about it, in overview: Lar
> (today) understands there is a case and the reasons I wont be putting the
> evidence in public and probably wont show him it either. He is not aware of
> the personal information itself nor has he any information to work it out. I
> felt that having him be aware of the issue would help. He says he will
> endorse that there are very good reasons the evidence should not be public.
> I felt that was necessary to address up front, for drama reduction. Cary is
> aware also, endorses the approach, but as he hasnt himself seen the evidence
> he says he will not act until I feel ready to show credible others, who
> endorse it, which is fair.)
>
> I have handled this on my own so far because of its sensitivity, but its
> got close enough to disclosure to give you a heads-up on it, as to what's
> going on. Let me know any questions, and please keep this utterly to
> yourself a while longer.
>
> Thanks for the heads-up.

Out of curiosity, why is Cary not involved more directly? If Poetlister has
a checkuser account, then he must have provided evidence of his identity to
the WMF. I would argue that a user improperly gaining access to restricted
WMF information (i.e. the checkuser tool) is something that's far more
serious than mere socking, and needs to be handled in a "wrath from on high"
fashion.

Kirill
----------
From kirill.lokshin at gmail.com Thu Feb 25 22:41:05 2010
From: kirill.lokshin at gmail.com (Kirill Lokshin)
Date: Thu, 25 Feb 2010 17:41:05 -0500
Subject: [arbcom-l] Fwd: Correspondence with FT2 re: Poetlister
Message-ID: <3f797b9a1002251441g6067f6bas10b4538e52611f37@mail.gmail.com>

---------- Forwarded message ----------
From: FT2 <ft2.wiki at gmail.com>
Date: Tue, Aug 26, 2008 at 10:02 AM
Subject: Re: A heads-up on a case
To: Kirill Lokshin <kirill.lokshin at gmail.com>


Cary has been involved since day #1 almost. We've worked in the sense he
knows roughly where Im at, and I have consulted his wishes at critical
junctures. He is bound by 2 things -- he has to stay above the user debate,
and, he cannot act without exceptional evidence, and when the case is
closed. Given past Poetlister dramatics, it needs extraordinary evidence.
Which I have.



I'm still looking at serious high level sock possibilities at the moment,
and Im hence I'm not yet ready to go public on what I have. Cary would
rather action was taken only when ready, and especially, a sock user like
this may need watching a while for behavior, or evidence, or activity
purposes, or to ID other important socks.



Cato is now de-OTRS'ed and removed from the OTRS wiki and list, and as soon
as I have drafted up a post, will probably be removed from Checkuser.
Unfortunately the timing is delicate. I heard he's going to be outed as
socking by others, so I've had to move 2-3 weeks earlier than Iwas really
ready to.

As for CU abuse -- about 6 weeks ago, once I was sure of Cato, I briefed
wikiquote Checkuser Aphaia. He is aware of some of the matters in the
evidence. He emailed me Catos' complete checkuser log, and apart from one
check (verifying his own sock's proxy, what's new), it was used
legitimately. He is closely watching that log, and I am fairly sure Cato
isokay for that reason. The checks are legitimate, hence not a concern, or
if not (and almost all of his checks in the past were), then Aphaia will
pull the plug, and we'll learn a new sock.

Paul.
----------
From kirill.lokshin at gmail.com Thu Feb 25 22:41:31 2010
From: kirill.lokshin at gmail.com (Kirill Lokshin)
Date: Thu, 25 Feb 2010 17:41:31 -0500
Subject: [arbcom-l] Fwd: Correspondence with FT2 re: Poetlister
Message-ID: <3f797b9a1002251441n140418b4l6ca04a9c6b87f610@mail.gmail.com>

---------- Forwarded message ----------
From: FT2 <ft2.wiki at gmail.com>
Date: Tue, Aug 26, 2008 at 7:34 PM
Subject: Fwd: Draft for discussion - poetlister
To: Josh Gordon <user.jpgordon at gmail.com>, Kirill Lokshin <
kirill.lokshin at gmail.com>


(previously sent an hour ago to FloNight, Rlevse, Smoddy, Jayvdb, Thatcher -
apologies, 40 hrs without sleep, I missed jpgordon and kirill off the CC
list who know about it)



---------- Forwarded message ----------
From: FT2 <ft2.wiki at gmail.com>
Date: Wed, Aug 27, 2008 at 1:02 AM
Subject: Draft for discussion - poetlister
To: <sydney.poore at gmail.com>, <rlevse at cox.net>, smoddy at gmail.com, <
jayvdb at gmail.com>, <thatcher131 at gmail.com>


We have yet to review the evidence, but this is a rough outline what I am
thinking towards, based on todays chat to be sent to Cary.

---

Dear Cary,

We the undersigned, all experienced users with access beyond sysop, would
like to advise you of our concern as follows:

1. There is a very high probability that Poetlister is the sockmaster of a
past sock-puppet ring that engaged in abusive editing (the "runcorn sock
ring")

2. There is a very high probability that Poetlister is identified as Michael
Baxter, resident London England, based on at least two independent inquiries
by two different people (FT2 and Sam Blacketer)following completely
different approaches.

3. There is a significant to high probability taking the evidence as a
whole, that Michael Baxter (or at worst, a person very closely connected by
marriage or residence) is also the owner-operator of most or all of the
following accounts on various Wikis:- Cato (a checkuser), Yehudi (a sysop),
Bedivere, Habashia, Whipmaster, and the still-active socks from the old
ring, Londoneye, Newport, Brownlee, Taxwoman et al. Other possible socks are
under examination, including the possibility of others with elevanted
status, but are unlikely to be confirmed or rejected in the next 2 weeks.

4. There is significant evidence, taken as a whole, that Cato is operated by
the same person as Poetlister.

5. With high probability, there is considerable to strong evidence for each
of the following statements as being substantively true: (a) Abusive actions
have been identified as performed by Cato, to the extent they may seriously
breach the standard of conduct that wikiquote users would expected of a
checkuser, (b) there is significant chance that these are not noted by the
communities where he edits or holds privileges, purely due to his wilful
concealment of this connection and © had there been honesty, as the
community mistakenly in good faith believes there to be, then they would be
grossly disturbed by this.

6. There is also a significant possibility based on behavior and likely
track record, that Cato may have falsely identified to Office, breaching a
fundamental aspect of trust.

In light of the above, we the undersigned ask that

* WMF Office temporarily suspend Cato's elevated privileges pending
re-verification of identity,

* If Cato does re-identify, to take steps that it will be in person with a
local representative such as David Gerard, and difficult to falsify,

* If the identity provided is indeed "Baxter" or associated with Baxter's
family or addresses from his biography, that steps be taken to inquire why
the poetlister/cato connection was concealed, and the findings presented
(without personal detail) to the community

* That Cato be asked without detail or explanation, to specify any
connection he/she may have with any of the above named accounts.

Suggested form of wording:

<list of endorsing users>

---

In brief, we see evidence indicating A probably == B, so we want office's
help to verify if A==B or not. We dont need to know who A is, just to have
them check if A == B and if A identified accurately. We have a half dozen
people cary trusts close to where Cato seems to live. The reason is, a valid
concerrn has been raised, he has been asked to re-identify, to meet that
concern. Once reidentified, if the concerns are groundless, privileges will
be returned immediately .

The concerns are not being judged, just his factual name on his factual
documentation. If however, it turns out his factual documentation says
"Baxter" then he may have some questions to answer at that point, but not
otherwise. The concerns are private and by email to Cato, "a number of
experienced users have expressed a concern that you are a sock puppet of
Poetlister, whose name with a high degree of probability, is known. We would
like to reverify ID to check if that is so. If it does not, then we will
have no further question and your privileges will be resumed forthwith."

cato has provided identification to Cary in the past. If Cary has Cato's
details on record, then its easier. We tell Cary the same, and he says "let
me check my file... yes, you're right, Cato is Baxter, which does support
your concerns" (or not). We then report to the community that an inquiry at
office shows that 1. cato == poet or poets family, 2. cato/poet have jointly
acted abusively, and leave it to the community to act. We dont need to do
more. They can judge. Our role in all of this, would be simply to get a
yes/no commonality, between [baxter-poet] and [cato], and say "no problem"
or "yes problem". The community can handle any problem once thats done, we
arent involved there.

All we need to do is the one bit they cant - a formal request to office to
check cato against the name baxter, based on a view that 1/ evidence
suggests abusive puppetry and a past history of abusive puppetry, and 2/
this can be confirmed or denied with high probability, if name = baxter and
probably not so if not.


That's roughly what I am getting from last night. Thoughts?

From kirill.lokshin at gmail.com Thu Feb 25 22:43:32 2010
From: kirill.lokshin at gmail.com (Kirill Lokshin)
Date: Thu, 25 Feb 2010 17:43:32 -0500
Subject: [arbcom-l] Checkuser
In-Reply-To: <3f797b9a1002251436o5cbeeba5od009ca74dadca0c3@mail.gmail.com>
References: <4b85fbeb.0c58560a.2c69.21ed@mx.google.com>
<4b86b0e8.1067f10a.060a.ffff882b@mx.google.com>
<8ec76cd11002250937p3b1701dck1938369c2a50f621@mail.gmail.com>
<4B86B7C7.3080806@gmail.com> <4B86EB3D.40801@gmail.com>
<3f797b9a1002251354u5079d97eg51c4fd5099d5096d@mail.gmail.com>
<c52819d31002251357y3cd5f5f4y4592b9daf5340c96@mail.gmail.com>
<3f797b9a1002251404w17864449w39f7f49997bb8e8d@mail.gmail.com>
<eb45e7c1002251411v2cb3e2f1n283a13bd658e1057@mail.gmail.com>
<3f797b9a1002251436o5cbeeba5od009ca74dadca0c3@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <3f797b9a1002251443w6f535618x9643478c4f199c92@mail.gmail.com>

Now forwarded.

Kirill
On Thu, Feb 25, 2010 at 5:36 PM, Kirill Lokshin <kirill.lokshin at gmail.com>wrote:

> It wasn't anything particularly significant; I was informed of the overall
> course of the investigation, but not of the specifics of FT2's interactions
> with Poetlister.
----------
From ft2.wiki at gmail.com Thu Feb 25 23:16:31 2010
From: ft2.wiki at gmail.com (FT2)
Date: Thu, 25 Feb 2010 23:16:31 -0000
Subject: [arbcom-l] Checkuser
References: <4b85fbeb.0c58560a.2c69.21ed@mx.google.com>
<eb45e7c1002242053j5a8c0164t36885036f857744a@mail.gmail.com>
<4b860357.0338560a.749d.495c@mx.google.com>
<eb45e7c1002242109o47a57579yf185eb750f97b1e5@mail.gmail.com>
<4b8623c1.1438560a.4539.23cb@mx.google.com>
<eb45e7c1002251012t15f8da5bj4fc42dad127d6190@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <4b8704d2.0e67f10a.1b5a.ffff9b94@mx.google.com>

I should probably add one thing, re-reading my email.

There is no formal process or precedent for a possible rogue cross-wiki case
with OTRS and checkuser. It and OTRS are WMF supplied tools, and the primary
targets at risk were wikiquote, and then the wider communities and entire
cross-community projects.

There could be no risk, however slight, of slipping or leaking allowed;
information was compartmentalized and "briefing emails" were used with the
intent of bringing people like Jimmy, Jay Walsh, and Cary up to date when
the position was certain. A number of major emails were also consulted with
users and/or CCed as needed, ensure their contents could be vouched for.

Users in high standing are expected to make good judgment. I judged it was
best handled quietly and privately as a cross-wiki project not as an arb.
Arbcom had leaked only that year. The wiki most affected (wikiquote) was to
a large extent actively hostile to enwiki as a perceived "bigger bully"
community and approaching it "as an arb" would have led to a brick wall. A
lot of tact and soothing of historical feathers was needed for co-operation.

In the end this was accepted and worked well. The case was very thoroughly
investigated, the evidence routinely reviewed 2 or 3 times over by
uninvolved peers, and full briefings and various key evidence given to those
who might have to handle the public and WMF aspects, when something imminent
was going to come of it, and to selected arbs, and other site functionaries.


It was an unusual and exceptional case capable of doing immense damage. That
damage was averted. If any fault had been found in its handling, I would
have taken full responsibility for it. In part, that's why it was so
carefully done. As it happened feedback was fairly universally positive.


Paul.
----------
From hersfoldwiki at gmail.com Thu Feb 25 23:19:55 2010
From: hersfoldwiki at gmail.com (Hersfold)
Date: Thu, 25 Feb 2010 18:19:55 -0500
Subject: [arbcom-l] Checkuser
In-Reply-To: <3f797b9a1002251438l583cdad0l56a9c31b9a695b73@mail.gmail.com>
References: <4b85fbeb.0c58560a.2c69.21ed@mx.google.com> <eb45e7c1002242109o47a57579yf185eb750f97b1e5@mail.gmail.com> <4b863f53.0c07560a.347e.7777@mx.google.com> <8ec76cd11002250747m4a3d4020m7a7e908278135c91@mail.gmail.com> <4b86b0e8.1067f10a.060a.ffff882b@mx.google.com> <8ec76cd11002250937p3b1701dck1938369c2a50f621@mail.gmail.com> <4B86B7C7.3080806@gmail.com>
<4B86EB3D.40801@gmail.com> <3f797b9a1002251354u5079d97eg51c4fd5099d5096d@mail.gmail.com> <4B86F655.1050700@gmail.com>
<3f797b9a1002251438l583cdad0l56a9c31b9a695b73@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <4B87059B.80305@gmail.com>

With Cary's response, this is now a non-issue, but if I found I was part
of an organization (even as a volunteer) that had directly authorized
threats of harm like the one quoted in this thread, then yes, I would do
what I could to put a stop to that.

----
User:Hersfold
hersfoldwiki at gmail.com
----------
From User.CoolHandLuke at gmail.com Fri Feb 26 04:38:45 2010
From: User.CoolHandLuke at gmail.com (Cool Hand Luke)
Date: Thu, 25 Feb 2010 22:38:45 -0600
Subject: [arbcom-l] Checkuser
In-Reply-To: <c52819d31002251357y3cd5f5f4y4592b9daf5340c96@mail.gmail.com>
References: <4b85fbeb.0c58560a.2c69.21ed@mx.google.com>
<eb45e7c1002242109o47a57579yf185eb750f97b1e5@mail.gmail.com>
<4b863f53.0c07560a.347e.7777@mx.google.com>
<8ec76cd11002250747m4a3d4020m7a7e908278135c91@mail.gmail.com>
<4b86b0e8.1067f10a.060a.ffff882b@mx.google.com>
<8ec76cd11002250937p3b1701dck1938369c2a50f621@mail.gmail.com>
<4B86B7C7.3080806@gmail.com> <4B86EB3D.40801@gmail.com>
<3f797b9a1002251354u5079d97eg51c4fd5099d5096d@mail.gmail.com>
<c52819d31002251357y3cd5f5f4y4592b9daf5340c96@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <8ec76cd11002252038p419ab863r6881d0bbb2a8cbca@mail.gmail.com>

So, to build on NYB's suggestion: Now that Cary has answered, should we tell
FT2 that we do not want him to have checkuser for investigating Poetlister?

Frank



On Thu, Feb 25, 2010 at 3:57 PM, Newyorkbrad <newyorkbrad at gmail.com> wrote:

> We can look into deeper issues and discuss at length, but at this time, is
> there a consensus that we would rather not have FT2 involved in any
> further checkuser activities relating to Poetlister?
>
> Newyorkbrad
----------
From carcharothwp at googlemail.com Fri Feb 26 05:00:45 2010
From: carcharothwp at googlemail.com (Carcharoth)
Date: Fri, 26 Feb 2010 05:00:45 +0000
Subject: [arbcom-l] Checkuser
In-Reply-To: <8ec76cd11002252038p419ab863r6881d0bbb2a8cbca@mail.gmail.com>
References: <4b85fbeb.0c58560a.2c69.21ed@mx.google.com>
<4b863f53.0c07560a.347e.7777@mx.google.com>
<8ec76cd11002250747m4a3d4020m7a7e908278135c91@mail.gmail.com>
<4b86b0e8.1067f10a.060a.ffff882b@mx.google.com>
<8ec76cd11002250937p3b1701dck1938369c2a50f621@mail.gmail.com>
<4B86B7C7.3080806@gmail.com> <4B86EB3D.40801@gmail.com>
<3f797b9a1002251354u5079d97eg51c4fd5099d5096d@mail.gmail.com>
<c52819d31002251357y3cd5f5f4y4592b9daf5340c96@mail.gmail.com>
<8ec76cd11002252038p419ab863r6881d0bbb2a8cbca@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <206791b11002252100r307bc1cbsd5170f6910f13682@mail.gmail.com>

I would say we should tell FT2 not to get involved in the Poetlister
investigations, full stop, but then that may not work as we may get
those who do the investigations wanting to ask him questions. I would
say tell FT2 that his role is restricted to advising others about this
and that his e-mails to others about this need to be copied to us
(i.e. he is restricted to a "desk role"). And provisionally decline
his request for the CU tools to be given back as there are concerns
being expressed about his conduct (he should be allowed to see those
concerns and respond to them), and then work out how to deal with what
happens if FT2 kicks up a fuss about that. This has the potential to
be a huge drain in time and resources if FT2 fights this, but I think
a line needs to be drawn here.

Carcharoth
----------
From jwales at wikia-inc.com Fri Feb 26 10:31:55 2010
From: jwales at wikia-inc.com (Jimmy Wales)
Date: Fri, 26 Feb 2010 10:31:55 +0000
Subject: [arbcom-l] Cary, Jimbo, WMF,
I have some questions on the conduct of FT2
In-Reply-To: <8ec76cd11002251348y7c30d848n68aa9212251b771@mail.gmail.com>
References: <8ec76cd11002251348y7c30d848n68aa9212251b771@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <4B87A31B.5090309@wikia-inc.com>

The particular email you quote below, I have to my knowledge never seen
before. How did you obtain it? It was written to Poetlister, and he
shared it with others? Or FT2 showed it to you?

I haven't searched my archives, which are seriously incomplete anyway,
but it is possible that FT2 sent me this email and for reasons of tl;dr,
I could have missed it. Had I seen it before he sent it, I would have
advised against sending it. However, I don't think I was ever sent
this, since I do generally read stuff that people send me.

I was aware of FT2's investigation of Poetlister, including some details
though of course not all details I suppose.

I would say that, as with any volunteer looking into anything, there's
not generally a need to keep everyone posted on everything, nor for
everything that an ArbCom member does to be an official ArbCom action -
but of course anything which might reflect negatively on ArbCom or
Wikipedia in general ought to be strongly avoided and would be
legitimate grounds for dismissal from ArbCom, either by a vote of
ArbCom, or by me in my traditional role. (Though, these days of course,
it'd be extremely unlikely that I'd do anything like that without at
least the informal support of the majority of ArbCom and, probably, no
very strong objections.)

I don't think the email quoted below reflects well on FT2, although I
should add that, written differently, the core of it is actually valid
to a significant extent. That is to say, there are cases of extreme
sockpuppetry and bad behavior (especially harassment) that I think are
properly subject to public disclosure along with the associated
embarrassment, and that gently and with kindness offering to someone
that they'd likely be better off if they stopped misbehaving before it
came to that is an ok thing to do.
----------
From marc at uberbox.org Fri Feb 26 14:28:52 2010
From: marc at uberbox.org (Marc A. Pelletier)
Date: Fri, 26 Feb 2010 09:28:52 -0500
Subject: [arbcom-l] Poetgate and FT2 (was: Checkuser)
In-Reply-To: <3f797b9a1002251436o5cbeeba5od009ca74dadca0c3@mail.gmail.com>
References: <4b85fbeb.0c58560a.2c69.21ed@mx.google.com> <8ec76cd11002250747m4a3d4020m7a7e908278135c91@mail.gmail.com> <4b86b0e8.1067f10a.060a.ffff882b@mx.google.com> <8ec76cd11002250937p3b1701dck1938369c2a50f621@mail.gmail.com> <4B86B7C7.3080806@gmail.com>
<4B86EB3D.40801@gmail.com> <3f797b9a1002251354u5079d97eg51c4fd5099d5096d@mail.gmail.com> <c52819d31002251357y3cd5f5f4y4592b9daf5340c96@mail.gmail.com> <3f797b9a1002251404w17864449w39f7f49997bb8e8d@mail.gmail.com> <eb45e7c1002251411v2cb3e2f1n283a13bd658e1057@mail.gmail.com>
<3f797b9a1002251436o5cbeeba5od009ca74dadca0c3@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <4B87DAA4.6060401@uberbox.org>

Kirill Lokshin wrote:
> It wasn't anything particularly significant; I was informed of the
> overall course of the investigation, but not of the specifics of FT2's
> interactions with Poetlister.
>
> The relevant emails were forwarded by FT2 to the private arbcom list
> shortly after our discussion, but since most people here don't have
> access to that, I'll forward them again.
>
> Kirill

I should point out that, a few times during FT2's handling of the
matter, he has come to me for "sanity checks" on some results, or on
ways to move forward. I stated so explicitly when he published his
report on meta in the end. This includes the proposed email to
Poetperson, although I cannot honestly remember if it is exactly that
which we have seen (but the essence is there).

I read his email as: "Look. We figured you out. Pack your things and
go away completely now or we'll have to prove what we know publicly to
get rid of you, and chances are you'll get smeared since most of the
proof relies on knowledge of your real life identity."

Not unlike Jimmy, I think this was a reasonable attempt at giving him an
"out". I told Paul, back then, that the email was bold but not unlikely
to serve its purpose with minimal drama. Given that Poetperson was
causing serious damage by impersonating real-life coworker's family
members, that he was abusing many of our projects, and that he was both
unrepentant and unwilling to back off I would have supported the
necessary disclosure to get rid of that menace. (And, indeed, I urged
Paul to forward much of that information to the authorities in the UK if
it came to that since it was clear that we were dealing with a criminal).

-- Coren / Marc
----------
From User.CoolHandLuke at gmail.com Fri Feb 26 15:23:41 2010
From: User.CoolHandLuke at gmail.com (Cool Hand Luke)
Date: Fri, 26 Feb 2010 09:23:41 -0600
Subject: [arbcom-l] Poetgate and FT2 (was: Checkuser)
In-Reply-To: <4B87DAA4.6060401@uberbox.org>
References: <4b85fbeb.0c58560a.2c69.21ed@mx.google.com>
<8ec76cd11002250937p3b1701dck1938369c2a50f621@mail.gmail.com>
<4B86B7C7.3080806@gmail.com> <4B86EB3D.40801@gmail.com>
<3f797b9a1002251354u5079d97eg51c4fd5099d5096d@mail.gmail.com>
<c52819d31002251357y3cd5f5f4y4592b9daf5340c96@mail.gmail.com>
<3f797b9a1002251404w17864449w39f7f49997bb8e8d@mail.gmail.com>
<eb45e7c1002251411v2cb3e2f1n283a13bd658e1057@mail.gmail.com>
<3f797b9a1002251436o5cbeeba5od009ca74dadca0c3@mail.gmail.com>
<4B87DAA4.6060401@uberbox.org>
Message-ID: <8ec76cd11002260723j505f9e01p97b98062fc486b1a@mail.gmail.com>

On Fri, Feb 26, 2010 at 8:28 AM, Marc A. Pelletier <marc at uberbox.org> wrote:

> Kirill Lokshin wrote:
> > It wasn't anything particularly significant; I was informed of the
> > overall course of the investigation, but not of the specifics of FT2's
> > interactions with Poetlister.
> >
> > The relevant emails were forwarded by FT2 to the private arbcom list
> > shortly after our discussion, but since most people here don't have
> > access to that, I'll forward them again.
> >
> > Kirill
>
> I should point out that, a few times during FT2's handling of the
> matter, he has come to me for "sanity checks" on some results, or on
> ways to move forward. I stated so explicitly when he published his
> report on meta in the end. This includes the proposed email to
> Poetperson, although I cannot honestly remember if it is exactly that
> which we have seen (but the essence is there).
>
> I read his email as: "Look. We figured you out. Pack your things and
> go away completely now or we'll have to prove what we know publicly to
> get rid of you, and chances are you'll get smeared since most of the
> proof relies on knowledge of your real life identity."
>
> Not unlike Jimmy, I think this was a reasonable attempt at giving him an
> "out". I told Paul, back then, that the email was bold but not unlikely
> to serve its purpose with minimal drama. Given that Poetperson was
> causing serious damage by impersonating real-life coworker's family
> members, that he was abusing many of our projects, and that he was both
> unrepentant and unwilling to back off I would have supported the
> necessary disclosure to get rid of that menace. (And, indeed, I urged
> Paul to forward much of that information to the authorities in the UK if
> it came to that since it was clear that we were dealing with a criminal).
>
> -- Coren / Marc
>
>
>
>
I was not aware that you got a copy of this message. Heretofore, I have not
spoken to anyone who confesses that they endorsed this message. John
Vandenburg told me that he wanted FT2 to tone it down, but that most of his
suggestions were unheaded. If you are telling me that you *supported *the
use of blackmail (in the casual sense, although I'm not certain than it was
not blackmail in the legal sense as well), then I severely question your
judgment.

Yes, he needed to show Poetlister that he had his number, but frankly,
everyone had his number. On September 13, 2008, the myth of Poetlister was
thoroughly exploded, and he was already widely reviled on WR, and his name
was already splattered all over the site. [WR links follow, and I think none
are public] Here his identity is
discussed<http://wikipediareview.com/index.php?showtopic=20205&st=440&p=127390&#entry127390>(note
that FT2 was aware of this--he made the next post). Here
his workplace and club hangouts are
discussed<http://wikipediareview.com/index.php?showtopic=20205&st=480&p=127441&#entry127441>,
here Dechert LLP was
discussed<http://wikipediareview.com/index.php?showtopic=20205&st=960&p=128554&#entry128554>(I
also happen to know that Proab understood that this was his wife's
former
workplace). All of this happened days *before* FT2 issued his threats.

Even if FT2 had to prove that he had Baxter's number, the overt threats were
entirely surplus, and his demands were far beyond what was necessary to
protect our project. They reflect an apparent personal involvement in this
case, and this sort of involvement is a character trait of FT2.

At any rate, I'm not suggesting that we formally sanction him for anything,
but I do modestly suggest that he should not have checkuser back. Do you
disagree?

Frank
----------
From User.CoolHandLuke at gmail.com Fri Feb 26 16:02:04 2010
From: User.CoolHandLuke at gmail.com (Cool Hand Luke)
Date: Fri, 26 Feb 2010 10:02:04 -0600
Subject: [arbcom-l] Poetgate and FT2 (was: Checkuser)
In-Reply-To: <8ec76cd11002260723j505f9e01p97b98062fc486b1a@mail.gmail.com>
References: <4b85fbeb.0c58560a.2c69.21ed@mx.google.com>
<4B86B7C7.3080806@gmail.com> <4B86EB3D.40801@gmail.com>
<3f797b9a1002251354u5079d97eg51c4fd5099d5096d@mail.gmail.com>
<c52819d31002251357y3cd5f5f4y4592b9daf5340c96@mail.gmail.com>
<3f797b9a1002251404w17864449w39f7f49997bb8e8d@mail.gmail.com>
<eb45e7c1002251411v2cb3e2f1n283a13bd658e1057@mail.gmail.com>
<3f797b9a1002251436o5cbeeba5od009ca74dadca0c3@mail.gmail.com>
<4B87DAA4.6060401@uberbox.org>
<8ec76cd11002260723j505f9e01p97b98062fc486b1a@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <8ec76cd11002260802j1cd80969p5392ffcfea69b83b@mail.gmail.com>

Incidentally, FT2 has been emailing me individually explaining why he did
not post the message to ArbCom at the time (fear of leaks and potential harm
to the subject). I replied that I understood that and also understood the
detail he gathered in proving Baxter's identity, but that I found the
threats unnecessary. (I just posted a similar argument here). He responded
as follows. I asked to post it here, for your consideration as a rebuttal.
I remain unpersuaded, but everyone should consider his views:


Thanks,

Sometimes hearing that others (who weren't involved) understand the score
makes a big difference. This email meant a lot, in those terms. I see you
can see the picture as it was, also.

If I saw an email written that way I'd be concerned too. So on reflection it
is right you ask about it, once it comes to awareness.

An answer to that last unspoken question is, I didn't think anything less
would do it. Baxter was superb at brinksmanship and recovering from backlash
(his cratship on wikiquote and possible return to WR at the time proved
that), and at politicking behind the scenes, getting supporters, and finding
allies who disliked his opponents and proposing himself as also attacked by
them to make common cause of "divide and conquer". His solution was bluff
and gaming and he is adept at gauging how to manipulate and whether others
can be foiled.

Whatever was done of any "usual" nature, he would try and return, covertly
if needed, eventually overtly if necessary or on WR. He knew as well as
anyone it was "just a website" and he doesn't fully connect
cause/effect/consequences. I'm fairly sure in his mind that the issue was
"solved" merely by regrouping a bit and do it again but better.

He knows our and WR's norms and what can be done, and figured it as a safe
bet. He's use to that kind of calculation, and he's right. For the project's
sake and (even if he can't handle the thought) his own sake and his wife and
family, that was a disaster in the making. He would re-sock, probably get
another elevated account or 3, and who knows where that would end up for him
and for the project, in all the ways and reasons you know were in my mind.

His attempts to recover would provoke WR and Proabivouac is the genuine
thing, he outs, and he likes outing, and likes "causes". Seeing harm come to
Baxter would be a success for him. Baxter needed to quit trying to recover
for tjhat reason too.

I worded the email deliberately for that context, for an extreme necessity
in a good cause, to play on the one thing that might carry weight -- the
idea that one of the arbs was possibly even more ruthless than himself, who
secretly wanted to skip by Marquis of Queensbury rules, would not be nice
and refined, wouldn't give a thought for any excuses or alibis, and wanted
nothing more than to rip him apart if he didn't do exactly as directed that
moment. I gave a convincing portrayal of "psycho", because quite simply
that's about the only thing that might have given him apprehension at a gut
level, when his brain says "go ahead and have a go". The thought that
there's someone worse than Proabivouac and WR, who doesn't give a damn for
the excuses and alibis, who knows the rest (but he can't work out how or how
much they know), and who would hammer him with it if he dared blink wrongly
again.

My impression of Poetlister and people of that kind is that they don't think
deep down of the future. They'll get away with it; it's impulse and
obsession, the inclination of the moment, and there's a disconnect between
their actions and the wider possible consequences. Fear and the unknown and
viciously hostile is perhaps the one thing that would carry weight. So I
explained to others I would be sending an uncharacteristically strong email,
and gave him an email in those terms.

It wouldn't stop the obsession, but it might keep him away and make it
easier next time. With people like that, on a first encounter they either
decide they can "top" you, or you can "top" them, and they will try every
way they can to make it "them on top". That's when the worst injuries can
happen. I worded that email to make clear from the get-go that between
Baxter and I, it wasn't worth even trying to fight it, just accede and
submit. Much simpler.

Unknown to him, at the same time, I was also talking with WR users in GChat
that it was wrong to allow him to be outed further, could harm his wife and
kids, and within the project I was preventing the rest of the personal data
in the case from being in the hands of one person (except possibly
Jimmy/Cary) who might misuse it in future.


Paul.
----------
From marc at uberbox.org Fri Feb 26 20:29:34 2010
From: marc at uberbox.org (Marc A. Pelletier)
Date: Fri, 26 Feb 2010 15:29:34 -0500
Subject: [arbcom-l] Poetgate and FT2
In-Reply-To: <8ec76cd11002260723j505f9e01p97b98062fc486b1a@mail.gmail.com>
References: <4b85fbeb.0c58560a.2c69.21ed@mx.google.com> <8ec76cd11002250937p3b1701dck1938369c2a50f621@mail.gmail.com> <4B86B7C7.3080806@gmail.com>
<4B86EB3D.40801@gmail.com> <3f797b9a1002251354u5079d97eg51c4fd5099d5096d@mail.gmail.com> <c52819d31002251357y3cd5f5f4y4592b9daf5340c96@mail.gmail.com> <3f797b9a1002251404w17864449w39f7f49997bb8e8d@mail.gmail.com> <eb45e7c1002251411v2cb3e2f1n283a13bd658e1057@mail.gmail.com> <3f797b9a1002251436o5cbeeba5od009ca74dadca0c3@mail.gmail.com> <4B87DAA4.6060401@uberbox.org>
<8ec76cd11002260723j505f9e01p97b98062fc486b1a@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <4B882F2E.3070406@uberbox.org>

Cool Hand Luke wrote:
>
> If you are telling me that you /supported /the use of blackmail (in
> the casual sense, although I'm not certain than it was not blackmail
> in the legal sense as well), then I severely question your judgment.

I very much disagree with that qualification, and I am more than a
little offended by it. There is no reasonable meaning of "blackmail"
which apply to this that would not equally apply to any legitimate
application of authority this very committee routinely makes, and given
the considerably pejorative associations of that word I would much
prefer you reformulate.

I'll not hide the fact that I still believe that Paul has been unfairly
maligned and railroaded in the past, in no small part by members of this
committee, for reasons which are -- generously -- described as
political. I decided against raising a needless fuss over any of it,
but I saw how that particular saussage was made, and I'll eat none of it
tyvm.

That being said, Paul /does/ involve himself too much into matters where
he has no legitimate cause to be involved, and has an overly inflated
idea of his own importance as Defender of the Wiki (not unlike Durova)
and I did try repeatedly to ask him to keep a much lower profile and to
stop taking it upon himself to make those grandiose investigations.
Does that amount to misuse of the tools or breach of trust? I most
certainly do not think so.

-- Coren / Marc

From User.CoolHandLuke at gmail.com Fri Feb 26 23:47:02 2010
From: User.CoolHandLuke at gmail.com (Cool Hand Luke)
Date: Fri, 26 Feb 2010 17:47:02 -0600
Subject: [arbcom-l] Poetgate and FT2
In-Reply-To: <4B882F2E.3070406@uberbox.org>
References: <4b85fbeb.0c58560a.2c69.21ed@mx.google.com>
<4B86EB3D.40801@gmail.com>
<3f797b9a1002251354u5079d97eg51c4fd5099d5096d@mail.gmail.com>
<c52819d31002251357y3cd5f5f4y4592b9daf5340c96@mail.gmail.com>
<3f797b9a1002251404w17864449w39f7f49997bb8e8d@mail.gmail.com>
<eb45e7c1002251411v2cb3e2f1n283a13bd658e1057@mail.gmail.com>
<3f797b9a1002251436o5cbeeba5od009ca74dadca0c3@mail.gmail.com>
<4B87DAA4.6060401@uberbox.org>
<8ec76cd11002260723j505f9e01p97b98062fc486b1a@mail.gmail.com>
<4B882F2E.3070406@uberbox.org>
Message-ID: <8ec76cd11002261547y4e609b3dg1e24e0b050046ba6@mail.gmail.com>

On Fri, Feb 26, 2010 at 2:29 PM, Marc A. Pelletier <marc at uberbox.org> wrote:

> Cool Hand Luke wrote:
> >
> > If you are telling me that you /supported /the use of blackmail (in
> > the casual sense, although I'm not certain than it was not blackmail
> > in the legal sense as well), then I severely question your judgment.
>
> I very much disagree with that qualification, and I am more than a
> little offended by it. There is no reasonable meaning of "blackmail"
> which apply to this that would not equally apply to any legitimate
> application of authority this very committee routinely makes, and given
> the considerably pejorative associations of that word I would much
> prefer you reformulate.
>
>
This committee is not in the business of telling users that we will "rip
apart their ego." We don't lecture users about how they understand "no
language other than force." Nor do we tell about how we have discovered
"names you put in the public domain and used as covers (which would disgust
most people including your family)," and menacingly mention that Tarantino
and Proabivouac have not yet found them.

We *do not call user's employers*, nor do we "recognize that [their] IP
means [their spouse's] employer is legitimately fair to be brought into the
frame to ascertain just what it extended to." *In fact, we fucking ban
users for doing that.* We have done that, in the last year.

We don't demand that users write apology letters to people offsite.
Typically, we only impose such requirements in order for them to be
unbanned. We do not say that failing to adhere to our wishes will result in
"gloves com[ing] off all the way, without any further warning, *starting
with [your spouse's] workplace for evidence, and [your employer], and
probably unavoidably, ending with family or someone will inform the police*."
We don't condemn them by writing "*Do you actually love your family, or need
them? Or are they toys too?*" We don't threaten, "Risk it if you like. Your
call. And watch me not minding if it hurts you to put this all right."

We do not say, "I plan to inform the last major group of victims, your
family, not out of malice, but because they are ultimately the only ones who
can prevent future abuse here, and recidivism." " *If all terms are not
fully complied with then the gloves come off without warning, and your
family etc, get to know what's up*."

In sort, we do not threaten to expose people off site if they do not adhere
to our wishes. I don't care if you think the term "blackmail" is unkind.
He was not saying that *someone else* would harm Poetlister one day; the
whole email is about how FT2 *will* hurt him if he does not meet the
deadline. Blackmail is what that was. If I had gotten such a message from
Daniel Brandt, I don't think anyone would balk at this characterization.

I don't know whether FT2 did that due to a momentary slip-up, illusions of
grandeur, or actual malice. I don't care whether his motivations were good
or bad. I simply cannot give my imprimatur on him doing any sort of
investigation on our site.

Unless you actually disagree on this point, it's not worth discussing (and
even then, I suspect you may be alone in dissent). No one is proposing any
public or even private admonishment.

FT2's mandate has lapsed, and it's unlikely he will be elected to a position
of trust again. Past is past, and I'm more than happy to leave everything
in this state.

I don't have a political axe to grind here; these are my sincere thoughts on
the Poetlister matter.

Frank
----------
From ft2.wiki at gmail.com Sat Feb 27 16:50:20 2010
From: ft2.wiki at gmail.com (FT2)
Date: Sat, 27 Feb 2010 16:50:20 -0000
Subject: [arbcom-l] Checkuser
In-Reply-To: <eb45e7c1002242109o47a57579yf185eb750f97b1e5@mail.gmail.com>
References: <4b85fbeb.0c58560a.2c69.21ed@mx.google.com>
<eb45e7c1002242053j5a8c0164t36885036f857744a@mail.gmail.com>
<4b860357.0338560a.749d.495c@mx.google.com>
<eb45e7c1002242109o47a57579yf185eb750f97b1e5@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <4b894d4e.0d67f10a.786e.3936@mx.google.com>

Risker,

On Thursday you emailed the Committee a rather negative view on my request,
which I gather I wasn't intended to see, on the grounds of a number of
statements which I've asked about. You repeated them twice since and I've
asked for details or retraction 3 times now. Yet nothing's been forthcoming.

Perhaps you've been busy? If so please don't let this linger.

When you have a moment, could you confirm either that the claims were a
mistake, or else give me details (email copies, IRC logs, etc)?

Thanks,

Paul.
----------
From stevethearbitrator at gmail.com Sat Feb 27 21:53:54 2010
From: stevethearbitrator at gmail.com (Steve Smith)
Date: Sat, 27 Feb 2010 21:53:54 +0000
Subject: [arbcom-l] Poetgate and FT2
In-Reply-To: <8ec76cd11002261547y4e609b3dg1e24e0b050046ba6@mail.gmail.com>
References: <4b85fbeb.0c58560a.2c69.21ed@mx.google.com>
<3f797b9a1002251354u5079d97eg51c4fd5099d5096d@mail.gmail.com>
<c52819d31002251357y3cd5f5f4y4592b9daf5340c96@mail.gmail.com>
<3f797b9a1002251404w17864449w39f7f49997bb8e8d@mail.gmail.com>
<eb45e7c1002251411v2cb3e2f1n283a13bd658e1057@mail.gmail.com>
<3f797b9a1002251436o5cbeeba5od009ca74dadca0c3@mail.gmail.com>
<4B87DAA4.6060401@uberbox.org>
<8ec76cd11002260723j505f9e01p97b98062fc486b1a@mail.gmail.com>
<4B882F2E.3070406@uberbox.org>
<8ec76cd11002261547y4e609b3dg1e24e0b050046ba6@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <68683abb1002271353r4e5e4350s4b6d6a2153487c92@mail.gmail.com>

My thoughts match Frank's. FT2's e-mail matches the profile of the "power
hungry badmin" so often reviled at WR, only less subtle. I don't want him
to have checkuser back, and if he insists on seeking it back I would happily
support a motion to deny his request.
----------
From KnightLago at gmail.com Sat Feb 27 23:39:38 2010
From: KnightLago at gmail.com (KnightLago)
Date: Sat, 27 Feb 2010 18:39:38 -0500
Subject: [arbcom-l] Poetgate and FT2
In-Reply-To: <68683abb1002271353r4e5e4350s4b6d6a2153487c92@mail.gmail.com>
References: <4b85fbeb.0c58560a.2c69.21ed@mx.google.com>
<c52819d31002251357y3cd5f5f4y4592b9daf5340c96@mail.gmail.com>
<3f797b9a1002251404w17864449w39f7f49997bb8e8d@mail.gmail.com>
<eb45e7c1002251411v2cb3e2f1n283a13bd658e1057@mail.gmail.com>
<3f797b9a1002251436o5cbeeba5od009ca74dadca0c3@mail.gmail.com>
<4B87DAA4.6060401@uberbox.org>
<8ec76cd11002260723j505f9e01p97b98062fc486b1a@mail.gmail.com>
<4B882F2E.3070406@uberbox.org>
<8ec76cd11002261547y4e609b3dg1e24e0b050046ba6@mail.gmail.com>
<68683abb1002271353r4e5e4350s4b6d6a2153487c92@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <b82ef2a01002271539y29e0fe55u4e7030fc5b9b7f06@mail.gmail.com>

I do not support him regaining CU.

KL
----------
From jwales at wikia-inc.com Tue Mar 2 13:07:43 2010
From: jwales at wikia-inc.com (Jimmy Wales)
Date: Tue, 02 Mar 2010 08:07:43 -0500
Subject: [arbcom-l] Poetgate and FT2
In-Reply-To: <8ec76cd11002261547y4e609b3dg1e24e0b050046ba6@mail.gmail.com>
References: <4b85fbeb.0c58560a.2c69.21ed@mx.google.com> <4B86EB3D.40801@gmail.com> <3f797b9a1002251354u5079d97eg51c4fd5099d5096d@mail.gmail.com> <c52819d31002251357y3cd5f5f4y4592b9daf5340c96@mail.gmail.com> <3f797b9a1002251404w17864449w39f7f49997bb8e8d@mail.gmail.com> <eb45e7c1002251411v2cb3e2f1n283a13bd658e1057@mail.gmail.com> <3f797b9a1002251436o5cbeeba5od009ca74dadca0c3@mail.gmail.com> <4B87DAA4.6060401@uberbox.org> <8ec76cd11002260723j505f9e01p97b98062fc486b1a@mail.gmail.com> <4B882F2E.3070406@uberbox.org>
<8ec76cd11002261547y4e609b3dg1e24e0b050046ba6@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <4B8D0D9F.50004@wikia-inc.com>

On 2/26/10 6:47 PM, Cool Hand Luke wrote:
> I don't know whether FT2 did that due to a momentary slip-up,
> illusions of grandeur, or actual malice. I don't care whether his
> motivations were good or bad. I simply cannot give my imprimatur on
> him doing any sort of investigation on our site.

Just to be sure I was 100% clear the other day (I've been offline for
several days due to a computer crash and illness) - I agree with you
completely on this.

There are situations in which it could very much be ok to warn a user
that continued misbehavior onsite could lead to offsite consequences.
My own view is that such warnings should come at the point in which it
would already be perfectly ok for us to publish the facts, and should be
done as a humanitarian kindness and especially in cases where we think
it is likely to be effective.

But this was really not ok at all.
----------
From ft2.wiki at gmail.com Thu Mar 18 18:34:06 2010
From: ft2.wiki at gmail.com (FT2)
Date: Thu, 18 Mar 2010 18:34:06 -0000
Subject: [arbcom-l] Follow up
References: <4b85fbeb.0c58560a.2c69.21ed@mx.google.com>
<eb45e7c1002242053j5a8c0164t36885036f857744a@mail.gmail.com>
<4b860357.0338560a.749d.495c@mx.google.com>
<eb45e7c1002242109o47a57579yf185eb750f97b1e5@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <4ba27224.13dbf10a.1935.0c1e@mx.google.com>

Risker,



This is a formal email request for a response to my requests of 25 Feb, 27
Feb, and 10 March.



I have granted the utmost of good faith that you were busy or otherwise. We
have never had an issue before and I hope not to have one now. I cannot
understand why, having made a serious conduct allegation as an arbitrator
and been told it is very likely negative and inaccurate, you have not seen
fit to follow up any of the multiple requests both on arb-l and privately,
to provide reasonable details and substantiate it.



Emails are below. You made a claim to your colleagues that that I had acted
wrongly, a claim which was unsubstantiated or grossly mistaken at best,
knowingly untruthful at worst. I would not like to assume the latter but I'm
running out of ideas what's up - a person who in good faith makes a negative
claim and is told it is probably inaccurate and asked to recheck and provide
details by the party they are talking about, simply does not let it tarry
this way.



There were _no_ occasions I can find where the matters you firmly state
happened, took place. I've asked you to provide details backing these
negative claims multiple times and you've ignored all such requests on every
occasion (4 so far), instead reaffirming and embellishing without
substantiation before falling silent.



This becomes doubly serious since it is a matter where by your own admission
you did not even intend me to know such a claim was being made (email 25
Feb).



Risker, you have been a diligent, careful, and thoughtful arb, in my
experience. I am at a loss what is going on. Hopefully you will do as was
asked in February and take the few minutes needed to provide solid checkable
details of the claim, or a retraction.



In my own searches I can find nothing. It is _very_ unlikely that I missed
such requests, both from a log/archive viewpoint (the logs are very likely
to be complete and are unlikely to be poorly searched) and also
behaviourally (I am usually very responsive if a matter I was involved in
needs discussion, the mailing lists evidence this regularly).



Please take this as a formal request, to which the reply should either be
timely specific details I can check, or a formal retraction.



A record of emails is below. My regrets that such an email is needed, and
assurances it does not imply any kind of "personal issue".





Paul.







EMAIL DIALOG:



=== Risker, Feb 25 ===



I hate to say this, but I am opposed to FT2 doing any work on this case.
Despite repeated requests for background information ever since I have been
elected, he has completely ignored all requests. I do not, to be honest,
really think that he is the right person to be doing these kinds of
investigations for that reason.



=== FT2, Feb 25 ===



This is a bit of an "out of the blue" matter. I'm not at all clear what
repeated requests for background on what, may have been "completely
ignored". Can you clarify?



=== Risker, Feb 25 ===



FT2, I asked you for complete information at least three times, including in
December 2009 after I had been appointed, and at least twice after you
resigned from the Committee; you never came through and each time you
wandered off into other topics without addressing my question. I know
FloNight also asked you for complete information on a few occasions before
that. When I didn't seem to be getting responses from you, I asked other
checkusers who had been involved in the investigation, and they all told me
you had provided them with only compartmentalised information (not
necessarily a bad course of action, given some of the circumstances) [...]



=== FT2, Feb 25 ===



I'm not offended, I appreciate knowing so I can deal with it if there's an
issue. I would not have minded being deliberately CCed but I'm glad for the
accidental inclusion. I didn't realize you felt you lacked information.



However I think you're incorrect, at least as far as I can recall [...]
According to Gmail the only other email where your name and a Poetlister
information request coexist is a request on 17 Nov 2009 that "someone" could
look into an ANI thread on a possible reincarnation.



I've looked further [...details snipped...]



Further details of the kind relevant to enwiki and future cases, and a large
part of the private material with full explanations, were provided. They
have never been unavailable to Arbcom, as described above. Questions on
func-en have been answered when asked. IRC logs show no requests for
information by you from October 2008 onwards via that medium [...] I have no
recollection or record of being asked to copy AC with any "emails", or any
arbitrator request to write up the case for Arbcom. The times I've been
asked about the case have mostly been on the functionaries list and in reply
to off-list emails about possible socks. They appear to have been
consistently answered.



[...]



If you still feel that I have ignored any request for information or that
Arbcom is missing some kinds of details, please let me know. But I cannot
find any requests of the type you seem to be describing. We have only had
dialog on email and (at times) IRC but neither seem to show any such
conversation. If you can email me dates and email titles, or let me know if
they were on IRC and (if you keep logs) when they took place, I'll have
another look.



I hope this satisfies your concerns. If you still feel you had asked for
other information and I hadn't answered as you wished, please link me to
your request (I should have full records of emails and IRC) and I'll check
again.



=== Risker, Feb 25 ===



(request ignored)



=== FT2, 27 Feb ===



On Thursday you emailed the Committee a rather negative view on my request,
which I gather I wasn't intended to see, on the grounds of a number of
statements which I've asked about. You repeated them twice since and I've
asked for details or retraction 3 times now. Yet nothing's been forthcoming.



Perhaps you've been busy? If so please don't let this linger.



When you have a moment, could you confirm either that the claims were a
mistake, or else give me details (email copies, IRC logs, etc)?



=== Risker ===



(email ignored, no response)



=== FT2 (off-list) 10 March ===



Risker,

You've repeated these claims which I can't find a single trace of.



Can you please do your archive digging and provide me with either email/log
details I can check out, or retraction.



It's been 2 weeks now. I responded to yours with full details the same day
it was sent. I have willingly assumed you may be busy (although I am too).
Can I have the same back as a courtesy response please? Thanks



=== Risker ===



(email ignored, no response to 18 March)
----------
From stevethearbitrator at gmail.com Thu Mar 18 18:38:04 2010
From: stevethearbitrator at gmail.com (Steve Smith)
Date: Thu, 18 Mar 2010 18:38:04 +0000
Subject: [arbcom-l] Follow up
In-Reply-To: <4ba27224.13dbf10a.1935.0c1e@mx.google.com>
References: <4b85fbeb.0c58560a.2c69.21ed@mx.google.com>
<eb45e7c1002242053j5a8c0164t36885036f857744a@mail.gmail.com>
<4b860357.0338560a.749d.495c@mx.google.com>
<eb45e7c1002242109o47a57579yf185eb750f97b1e5@mail.gmail.com>
<4ba27224.13dbf10a.1935.0c1e@mx.google.com>
Message-ID: <68683abb1003181138y7c2a4916q6e55caba3f165378@mail.gmail.com>

Er, your timing on this is really bad - Risker just went inactive because of
a family crisis. You couldn't have known that, of course, but you should
probably let this rest until you see her moved back into the active column.

On Thu, Mar 18, 2010 at 6:34 PM, FT2 <ft2.wiki at gmail.com> wrote:

> Risker,
>
>
>
> This is a formal email request for a response to my requests
----------
From marc at uberbox.org Thu Mar 18 18:44:38 2010
From: marc at uberbox.org (Marc A. Pelletier)
Date: Thu, 18 Mar 2010 14:44:38 -0400
Subject: [arbcom-l] Follow up
In-Reply-To: <4ba27224.13dbf10a.1935.0c1e@mx.google.com>
References: <4b85fbeb.0c58560a.2c69.21ed@mx.google.com> <eb45e7c1002242053j5a8c0164t36885036f857744a@mail.gmail.com> <4b860357.0338560a.749d.495c@mx.google.com> <eb45e7c1002242109o47a57579yf185eb750f97b1e5@mail.gmail.com>
<4ba27224.13dbf10a.1935.0c1e@mx.google.com>
Message-ID: <4BA27496.6070605@uberbox.org>

FT2 wrote:
>
> Risker,
>
>
>
> This is a formal email request for a response to my requests of 25
> Feb, 27 Feb, and 10 March.
>
>
>

Paul, this is quite possibly the worst possible time to ask anything of
Risker ever. She's just been through a serious family emergency; and I
would request that you hold on on this at least until she returns to
active status on-wiki.

-- Coren / Marc
----------
From ft2.wiki at gmail.com Thu Mar 18 18:55:01 2010
From: ft2.wiki at gmail.com (FT2)
Date: Thu, 18 Mar 2010 18:55:01 -0000
Subject: [arbcom-l] Follow up
In-Reply-To: <68683abb1003181138y7c2a4916q6e55caba3f165378@mail.gmail.com>
References: <4b85fbeb.0c58560a.2c69.21ed@mx.google.com>
<eb45e7c1002242053j5a8c0164t36885036f857744a@mail.gmail.com>
<4b860357.0338560a.749d.495c@mx.google.com>
<eb45e7c1002242109o47a57579yf185eb750f97b1e5@mail.gmail.com>
<4ba27224.13dbf10a.1935.0c1e@mx.google.com>
<68683abb1003181138y7c2a4916q6e55caba3f165378@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <4ba27709.0fdbf10a.0c70.0d67@mx.google.com>

Thanks, and sure. I know something of Risker's family stuff and I would not
ask her response if that side of life has just got bad. By the same token I
hope she will not tarry when she can reply, of course.

I wish her and the family all good luck, and will try to catch her on IRC to
express the same. Family are a bit above and beyond website work. Thanks for
letting me know (and thanks to Marc for the same).


Paul.
----------
From User.CoolHandLuke at gmail.com Thu Mar 18 19:16:50 2010
From: User.CoolHandLuke at gmail.com (Cool Hand Luke)
Date: Thu, 18 Mar 2010 14:16:50 -0500
Subject: [arbcom-l] Follow up
In-Reply-To: <4ba27224.13dbf10a.1935.0c1e@mx.google.com>
References: <4b85fbeb.0c58560a.2c69.21ed@mx.google.com>
<eb45e7c1002242053j5a8c0164t36885036f857744a@mail.gmail.com>
<4b860357.0338560a.749d.495c@mx.google.com>
<eb45e7c1002242109o47a57579yf185eb750f97b1e5@mail.gmail.com>
<4ba27224.13dbf10a.1935.0c1e@mx.google.com>
Message-ID: <8ec76cd11003181216m3a7f45aen887c2fa73397251b@mail.gmail.com>

Apart from your atrocious timing, I don't appreciate you singling Risker out
for a view which enjoys majority support among the arbitrators.

I have no idea why Risker opposes you investigating the Poetlister matter,
and I don't know what information she might have had in mind, but it hardly
matters as a strong majority of the committee shares this basic position.

Speaking for myself, I found your prior conduct in the Poetlister case
hair-raising. You already know that. Please move on.

Frank
----------
From ft2.wiki at gmail.com Thu Mar 18 21:03:05 2010
From: ft2.wiki at gmail.com (FT2)
Date: Thu, 18 Mar 2010 21:03:05 -0000
Subject: [arbcom-l] Follow up
In-Reply-To: <8ec76cd11003181216m3a7f45aen887c2fa73397251b@mail.gmail.com>
References: <4b85fbeb.0c58560a.2c69.21ed@mx.google.com>
<eb45e7c1002242053j5a8c0164t36885036f857744a@mail.gmail.com>
<4b860357.0338560a.749d.495c@mx.google.com>
<eb45e7c1002242109o47a57579yf185eb750f97b1e5@mail.gmail.com>
<4ba27224.13dbf10a.1935.0c1e@mx.google.com>
<8ec76cd11003181216m3a7f45aen887c2fa73397251b@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <4ba2951e.021bf30a.68c3.0e70@mx.google.com>

Actually, Frank, what I don't like is being singled out by you in a heated
manner merely for requesting a response to allegations raised by an arb that
they declined to substantiate. I'm on good terms with Risker having chatted
often and know her past family situation. Characterizing a request as if
it's an attack is plain out of order, moreso as others had explained before
you and I was agreeable. Back off my case.

Risker opposed claiming that questions she alleged went unanswered, that I
cannot find any trace of. I'm a capable searcher so the likelihood is she
was mistaken. So I asked for more details, but none were provided. She was
then unresponsive. Please don't characterize seeking a response as "singling
out" or untoward. It's a very reasonable follow-up to an ignored serious
statement.

Risker herself made the allegation. Who else should be asked to check it?
How long should one wait before expecting a seeming-inaccurate claim to be
supported by something I can check or by retraction? What else should be
done when the claim seems to be unsupported and yet the person making a
negative claim becomes merely unresponsive?

Perhaps you think I knew of the timing, and that she went inactive this
morning? She wasn't inactive before work when I checked. Had Risker
responded on 25 Feb, 27 Feb, 10 March, or any other time, it wouldn't have
been needed. I am sorry for Risker's family (as stated I know a bit of
what's up and we've been friendly throughout). Barring unfortunate timing,
the email follow-up was reasonable. But I would like an answer when her
circumstances allow her time. As always serious real-world matters should
come before hobbyist editing.


The rest I'll address separately, because you still don't seem to have a
grasp of the scale of the potential issue as it was in 2008, nor the
exceptionality, nor the actual measures to act ethically and carefully. It
potentially saved a great many _very_ serious and long-term badly harmful
real-world things from happening to many people. You're also too careless
with personal data and may have done great harm to MB by your assumption
"you knew best" that I had carefully avoided, if arb-l ever leaks again.

Paul.
----------
From ft2.wiki at gmail.com Thu Mar 18 21:49:21 2010
From: ft2.wiki at gmail.com (FT2)
Date: Thu, 18 Mar 2010 21:49:21 -0000
Subject: [arbcom-l] Follow up
In-Reply-To: <8ec76cd11003181216m3a7f45aen887c2fa73397251b@mail.gmail.com>
References: <4b85fbeb.0c58560a.2c69.21ed@mx.google.com>
<eb45e7c1002242053j5a8c0164t36885036f857744a@mail.gmail.com>
<4b860357.0338560a.749d.495c@mx.google.com>
<eb45e7c1002242109o47a57579yf185eb750f97b1e5@mail.gmail.com>
<4ba27224.13dbf10a.1935.0c1e@mx.google.com>
<8ec76cd11003181216m3a7f45aen887c2fa73397251b@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <4ba29fe4.1090cc0a.52f1.1b59@mx.google.com>

Frank,

Turning to your comments on the Poetlister email (which I kept off list due
to containing his private info and you yourself carelessly put right back on
the record for all the future, in trying to make a point - you could have
asked me privately if needed why it was not on arb-l).

We can rehash the background but the bottom line is, he himself, and WMF,
faced a very serious meltdown. The risk was not "theoretical", it was
happening right then and there. It was reasonably likely to result in major
impact to his family, people he impersonated, businesses, the UK government
body he worked at, a number of people whose fetishes might have been
exploded publicly, his wife, his kids, his religious community. It was also
likely to cause a trust meltdown and media problem for WMF - breach of trust
on that scale (rogue CU/OTRS) would be very damaging internally and
externally, and be replicated around the world.

You are naive if you do not see how serious it could have got. You are
ignorant if you are unaware that he was not disengaging, but was trying to
"play his way out of the box" and provoking the problems. There were lives,
communities, businesses, on a wide field, all being directly imminently
imperilled. The email I sent was designed to force immediate unconditional
backing down and cessation, and it did so. Perhaps no other approach would
have done that without further attempts to game or wangle. If I were shamed
of the approach I would not have immediately copied the email to those I
did, including individual arbs, ex arbs, future arbs, checkusers on other
wikis, and individuals at WMF.

You are aware at that time I said an uncharacteristic strong email would be
sent to force resolution. None of those very experienced individuals I
copied it to expressed a concern to me in 2008. In the 18 months since then,
no remotely similar case has arisen with such issues. MB backed down and as
a result the case closed without worldwide drama and further tabloid-driven
harm. If you want to pick up one single atypical matter that was well
judged, and say it alarms you, feel free. But do not represent it as being
typical, hidden, causeless, or without careful thought and peer disclosure
and scope for review at the time. It was none of those. It was a quite
exceptional case needing quite exceptional steps. (The measures taken also
included deliberately affirming sole personal responsibility so that at
worst, WMF and all others could disown it.)

That someone was willing to make that decision in an honourable manner and
with integrity, disclosing for review, and simultaneously negotiating in the
background to try and protect the guy's identity -- that may have made the
difference to many lives and also to the wellbeing and credibility of WMF. I
hope such a matter will never come up again. Criticizing 18 months later,
after the crisis is averted, is easy. As you say, moving on.

You may well consider it a "hair raising" approach. I expect you to also see
it in its context, with the risks of harm, the personality of MB, the prior
and post disclosures made (which speak to openness on that very email), the
simultaneous work done to prevent him being "outed", the lack of any other
remotely parallel case, and the fact this was one item 18 months ago, when
you do.

We can disagree whether this approach was or was not best in 2008 - the
event is long past. But we would probably agree that such an approach is
usually fraut, over-risky, skirted close to the edge of personal legality,
and there will almost never be cases where such an approach is desirable,
and to be glad it worked out so well given the exploding crisis it was
planned to permanently head off -- which would be my position too.


Paul.
----------
From User.CoolHandLuke at gmail.com Thu Mar 18 22:24:09 2010
From: User.CoolHandLuke at gmail.com (Cool Hand Luke)
Date: Thu, 18 Mar 2010 17:24:09 -0500
Subject: [arbcom-l] Follow up
In-Reply-To: <4ba29fe4.1090cc0a.52f1.1b59@mx.google.com>
References: <4b85fbeb.0c58560a.2c69.21ed@mx.google.com>
<eb45e7c1002242053j5a8c0164t36885036f857744a@mail.gmail.com>
<4b860357.0338560a.749d.495c@mx.google.com>
<eb45e7c1002242109o47a57579yf185eb750f97b1e5@mail.gmail.com>
<4ba27224.13dbf10a.1935.0c1e@mx.google.com>
<8ec76cd11003181216m3a7f45aen887c2fa73397251b@mail.gmail.com>
<4ba29fe4.1090cc0a.52f1.1b59@mx.google.com>
Message-ID: <8ec76cd11003181524q49a78aedr3067c94cdbd47f35@mail.gmail.com>

I don't mind bring your punchball, but I do think I should note that
my copy of your shocking missive to Poetlister came from a
disreputable source, such that it did not occur to me that the
arbitrators would pose additional risk. In addition, I had explicit
permission from Poetlister to post it to ArbCom-l.

Frank
----------
From ft2.wiki at gmail.com Fri Mar 19 01:44:45 2010
From: ft2.wiki at gmail.com (FT2)
Date: Fri, 19 Mar 2010 01:44:45 -0000
Subject: [arbcom-l] Follow up
In-Reply-To: <8ec76cd11003181524q49a78aedr3067c94cdbd47f35@mail.gmail.com>
References: <4b85fbeb.0c58560a.2c69.21ed@mx.google.com>
<eb45e7c1002242053j5a8c0164t36885036f857744a@mail.gmail.com>
<4b860357.0338560a.749d.495c@mx.google.com>
<eb45e7c1002242109o47a57579yf185eb750f97b1e5@mail.gmail.com>
<4ba27224.13dbf10a.1935.0c1e@mx.google.com>
<8ec76cd11003181216m3a7f45aen887c2fa73397251b@mail.gmail.com>
<4ba29fe4.1090cc0a.52f1.1b59@mx.google.com>
<8ec76cd11003181524q49a78aedr3067c94cdbd47f35@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <4ba2d710.5124cc0a.2ee1.241a@mx.google.com>

If MB passed it round then that's his unrestricted choice and up to him. I
tried to pick people who wouldn't leak while ensuring high level peer
review. My concern is the risk posed by placing that material where the
personal data becomes more visible, _permission or not_. As you yourself
agreed in your earlier email, there were very good reasons to keep it off
the list, the snippets should have been redacted and you should have
consulted first. (Your words, not mine.) I spent weeks trying to find ways
to keep that same information utterly private. You should have thought
twice, taken a "good faith" stance that there probably _was_ a reason, and
asked first.

Not unreasonably, we agree on most things. We agree on the need to keep it
off-list, the need back then for unbreakable proof, and the need to
"thoroughly explode" any doubts (your term) and that he needed to know we
"had his number" (your term). The only point we seem to disagree on, in
fact, is the one email.

One view is that the tone was inappropriate. The other is that it's highly
undesirable but the harm if he had not been made to stop on the instant
would have been far greater in the real-world, harming him as well as many
others, and that no other approach was likely to get that level of immediate
actual and unconditional disengagement and withdrawal.

You may not like it but it minimized the harm to him and others by procuring
a sudden utter disengagement and a confirmation of socks. This in turn meant
I never had to present any evidence related to MB himself and could simply
state that the user had confirmed it on-site [+diffs]. Again your words, it
needed immense _public_ proof because the past block had become "legendary"
and any subsequent claims would be treated as dubious. Think about it coldly
and without rosy glasses. This is someone who had fought the entire enwiki
Arbcom (who were right about him all along) and won completely, last time
they tried that, and was expert at persuading other wikis and other sites he
was being attacked unfairly, and was willing to entertain widespread serious
harm to win. That is what he was /still/ trying to do via John and Aphaia
when I wrote. If you need the dots joined to see the problems in actually
removing him from CU-WQ in the climate of 2008 without incurring exposure,
further third party digging, or much real-world harm, say so. That's the
reality.

You've seen evidence of same-time peer disclosure. You haven't seen the
efforts to try and covertly prevent MB being outed (which I'll show Jimmy if
you want verification). You know it's an exceptional case unique in WMF
history. You might not like it, but you know it's 18 months ago, it was
grave, the likely harm was massive, it worked, and its old. If you have a
concern over it, then the easiest resolution is probably a friendly comment
"Glad it worked, see what you were aiming for, too risky and edge-skirting
for me, no more emails like that please", and that would probably be that. A
friendly manner. Would that be a good way to resolve it for you?


The point is, you didn't need to write at all much less in that tone. Steve
and Marc had explained and I'd already responded agreeably. Anyone could see
today was a case of genuine unfortunate timing. Then you wrote in a heated
accusatory manner as if Risker had been attacked, utter indifference whether
a serious and negative claim was accurate or not, a tone of bad faith as if
even wishing for a response and backup was inappropriate, dragging
Poetlister into it, etc. No good came of it. Consider approaching people
fairly. You wrote accusingly while others wrote fairly. They got a simple
thank you. I found it hard to write a thank you to you this time.

Paul.

From User.CoolHandLuke at gmail.com Fri Mar 19 02:13:26 2010
From: User.CoolHandLuke at gmail.com (Cool Hand Luke)
Date: Thu, 18 Mar 2010 21:13:26 -0500
Subject: [arbcom-l] Follow up
In-Reply-To: <4ba2d710.5124cc0a.2ee1.241a@mx.google.com>
References: <4b85fbeb.0c58560a.2c69.21ed@mx.google.com>
<eb45e7c1002242053j5a8c0164t36885036f857744a@mail.gmail.com>
<4b860357.0338560a.749d.495c@mx.google.com>
<eb45e7c1002242109o47a57579yf185eb750f97b1e5@mail.gmail.com>
<4ba27224.13dbf10a.1935.0c1e@mx.google.com>
<8ec76cd11003181216m3a7f45aen887c2fa73397251b@mail.gmail.com>
<4ba29fe4.1090cc0a.52f1.1b59@mx.google.com>
<8ec76cd11003181524q49a78aedr3067c94cdbd47f35@mail.gmail.com>
<4ba2d710.5124cc0a.2ee1.241a@mx.google.com>
Message-ID: <8ec76cd11003181913w3cfc6e83k135e49b8d6a1b364@mail.gmail.com>

On Thu, Mar 18, 2010 at 8:44 PM, FT2 <ft2.wiki at gmail.com> wrote:

> You've seen evidence of same-time peer disclosure. You haven't seen the
> efforts to try and covertly prevent MB being outed (which I'll show Jimmy
> if
> you want verification). You know it's an exceptional case unique in WMF
> history. You might not like it, but you know it's 18 months ago, it was
> grave, the likely harm was massive, it worked, and its old. If you have a
> concern over it, then the easiest resolution is probably a friendly comment
> "Glad it worked, see what you were aiming for, too risky and edge-skirting
> for me, no more emails like that please", and that would probably be that.
> A
> friendly manner. Would that be a good way to resolve it for you?



I did not know about what you did until nearly a year after the fact, and
until quite recently I could not believe that you actually sent that email.
Presuming you don't do future investigations, there's nothing to resolve.



> The point is, you didn't need to write at all much less in that tone. Steve
> and Marc had explained and I'd already responded agreeably. Anyone could
> see
> today was a case of genuine unfortunate timing. Then you wrote in a heated
> accusatory manner as if Risker had been attacked, utter indifference
> whether
> a serious and negative claim was accurate or not, a tone of bad faith as if
> even wishing for a response and backup was inappropriate, dragging
> Poetlister into it, etc. No good came of it. Consider approaching people
> fairly. You wrote accusingly while others wrote fairly. They got a simple
> thank you. I found it hard to write a thank you to you this time.
>
> Paul.
>
>
>
I'm very sorry, perhaps I've misunderstood. You directed your message to
ArbCom, which to me implied that this was somehow ArbCom business. I
concluded that you were still trying to convince the committee to grant your
request for the checkuser tool to investigate Poetlister socks. This is why
I replied that Risker was not alone in her sentiments.

It seems, however, that this is more of an issue between you two. I'm
puzzled that you brought it to ArbCom-l if you are not still trying to
become involved in future Poetlister investigations. If you are not,
there's no need for me to write about it one way or another.

Don't worry about thanking me.

Frank
----------
From ft2.wiki at gmail.com Fri Mar 19 03:27:42 2010
From: ft2.wiki at gmail.com (FT2)
Date: Fri, 19 Mar 2010 03:27:42 -0000
Subject: [arbcom-l] Follow up
In-Reply-To: <8ec76cd11003181913w3cfc6e83k135e49b8d6a1b364@mail.gmail.com>
References: <4b85fbeb.0c58560a.2c69.21ed@mx.google.com>
<eb45e7c1002242053j5a8c0164t36885036f857744a@mail.gmail.com>
<4b860357.0338560a.749d.495c@mx.google.com>
<eb45e7c1002242109o47a57579yf185eb750f97b1e5@mail.gmail.com>
<4ba27224.13dbf10a.1935.0c1e@mx.google.com>
<8ec76cd11003181216m3a7f45aen887c2fa73397251b@mail.gmail.com>
<4ba29fe4.1090cc0a.52f1.1b59@mx.google.com>
<8ec76cd11003181524q49a78aedr3067c94cdbd47f35@mail.gmail.com>
<4ba2d710.5124cc0a.2ee1.241a@mx.google.com>
<8ec76cd11003181913w3cfc6e83k135e49b8d6a1b364@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <4ba2ef30.5124cc0a.21a4.2876@mx.google.com>

From: Cool Hand Luke
Sent: 19 March 2010 02:13
To: ft2.wiki at gmail.com; Arbitration Committee mailing list
Subject: Re: [arbcom-l] Follow up

I'm very sorry, perhaps I've misunderstood.? You directed your message to
ArbCom, which to me implied that this was somehow ArbCom business.? I
concluded that you were still trying to convince the committee to grant your
request for the checkuser tool to investigate Poetlister socks.? This is why
I replied that Risker was not alone in her sentiments.

It seems, however, that this is more of an issue between you two.? I'm
puzzled that you brought it to ArbCom-l if you are not still trying to
become involved in future Poetlister investigations.? If you are not,
there's no need for me to write about it one way or another.

Don't worry about thanking me.

Frank




Skipping the tone, I was inquiring if it would help to return from a break
to do CU based checking of his socks. Obviously that's passed and not
needed. Other than that I am still at ease on break, I am still up to
eyeballs for a month or so more.

I directed my message to AC since this was a sitting arb speaking, on the AC
list, on AC business, making a claim intended to be private to AC, in
relation to my email to AC, that seemed inaccurate. Hard to get any more
"AC" than that really.

I don't consider it a personal issue or indeed an "issue" at all yet. Risker
and I have had a friendly collegial style of chat over many months which I'd
like to keep. We've discussed her family at length. I've seen nothing to
suggest a change to that and I prefer to assume she would not act
erratically. And yet this is hard to explain and needs a response. I hope
she will explain and that it will be simply she was busy and overlooked
them, or some such simple answer.

In the meantime leaving it suspended in mid air, is not going to fly.
Negative claims should be matched with enough detail to check and verify
them, or retracted if they turn out mistaken. Archives this end say
"unlikely to be accurate". So I've formally noted my concern and (now
knowing she's away for family reasons) I hope that as soon as she can attend
to it, she'll take it as something that really does need prompt checking or
retracting, not deferral. It is not likely to go away. Negative claims are
by nature urgent and harmful. They need either evidence, correction, or
retraction. Otherwise they just poison the well indefinitely as "unproven
but claimed" issues.


Frank, being blunt, since you joined the committee your approach to me has
been noticeably prone to "bite nastily first, then discuss". You did that
right up front in 2008-ish, you did it in posting MB's email to the list
rather than assuming a good reason might exist, and you did it today in
responding to a matter others had already explained and I'd dealt with
agreeably. Of three responding arbs today you alone seemed unable to discern
the clear stated purpose of the request and posted in a hostile accusatory
form.

After nearly a month waiting for Risker to back up her claim of non
responsiveness I'm still happy to AGF in the main and look for a good
answer. I've defended AC on func-en or one list member from another often
enough that you know it. If you aren't getting graceful responses,
especially when others are easily getting them, look at _your_ tone compared
to _theirs_ and perhaps change a bit. Try to interact graciously and without
negative assumptions or hostile tone for a while. You never had good reason
to do those anyway. It will help.

Paul.
----------
From ft2.wiki at gmail.com Sat Mar 20 07:05:53 2010
From: ft2.wiki at gmail.com (FT2)
Date: Sat, 20 Mar 2010 07:05:53 -0000
Subject: [arbcom-l] Follow up
In-Reply-To: <8ec76cd11003190645vaab01c3i309c5ce4d0d798ce@mail.gmail.com>
References: <4b85fbeb.0c58560a.2c69.21ed@mx.google.com>
<4b860357.0338560a.749d.495c@mx.google.com>
<eb45e7c1002242109o47a57579yf185eb750f97b1e5@mail.gmail.com>
<4ba27224.13dbf10a.1935.0c1e@mx.google.com>
<8ec76cd11003181216m3a7f45aen887c2fa73397251b@mail.gmail.com>
<4ba29fe4.1090cc0a.52f1.1b59@mx.google.com>
<8ec76cd11003181524q49a78aedr3067c94cdbd47f35@mail.gmail.com>
<4ba2d710.5124cc0a.2ee1.241a@mx.google.com>
<8ec76cd11003181913w3cfc6e83k135e49b8d6a1b364@mail.gmail.com>
<4ba2ef30.5124cc0a.21a4.2876@mx.google.com>
<8ec76cd11003190645vaab01c3i309c5ce4d0d798ce@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <4ba473d4.9298cc0a.6971.6da4@mx.google.com>

From: Cool Hand Luke

Sent: 19 March 2010 13:46

To: ft2.wiki at gmail.com

Subject: Re: [arbcom-l] Follow up



For reference:

Apart from your atrocious timing, I don't appreciate you singling Risker out
for a view which enjoys majority support among the arbitrators.



(past repeat snipped)



I am sorry for misunderstanding the purpose of your message. At this point,
I only want to know whether you intend to apply for checkuser again once
your break is over.









Quick answers:





1/

I think the record's clear that I have at no time "singled Risker out" on
account of "a view that enjoys majority support". I asked reasonably for
checkable details of a specific likely-inaccurate claim (not "view").



If you can reconsider on review that Risker, a long term wiki-friend as far
as I know, was not being "singled out" for a "view" (god knows where you got
that; Steve and Marc didn't categorize it that way), then let's draw a line
under that unproductive point.





2/

Of course. But then you knew this back at the time it was discussed and
endorsed, so that's hardly news.



You'll notice that I volunteered for a break - it was neither requested nor
asked of me. Review of arb-l will confirm no prior discussions took place
(as you know), and review of on- and off-wiki events will show no complaint
was in the making. Risker readily endorsed it personally and confirmed AC
endorsed it too, in the middle of social chatter, saying it was well earned
and promising to let me know if the rules on WMF tool break length were
changed so I could re-request "on time" if needed, and you (who had known of
that email for many weeks by then) were fine with that too. It was a pure
voluntary break of a checkuser in good standing, due purely to real-world
events.





AC request (after discussion with Risker):

I'm going to take a break from CU/OS/Sysophood, as just told to Risker. I
have an announcement ready to go on RFP at Meta, but some arb should
probably post something at AC/N as well. ..... I have a load going on in
real life. I tried to take a wiki-break but I'm still too busy.



I have wanted to do this a while back but I've been heavily involved in the
RevDel rollout, interface development, bug hunting, fixing of old
unsuppressed matters, sock work, etc.



I have no idea if it's for a few months, or a year - 18 months .... I'll
remove myself from OS/CU lists but would like to remain on funcs-en. That
one's important so I stay abreast when I rejoin the tools....

Roger:

I suggest you just say you're going inactive for an indefinite period and
want the tools suspended as a security measure in the interim? There's no
need to go into detail about Func-en.


Risker (to list cc self):

Unless there are objections, I propose that the following notice be posted
ASAP, as FT2 is awaiting the notice before posting to Meta..... [[User:FT2]]
has elected to take a break..... He will remain a participant and list
administrator on the Functionaries-L mailing list during his break, but will
be requesting temporary removal of his various tools during this period.



Risker:



Okay, I think I will proceed to post this, as there don't seem to be any
objections. I'll make it past tense for the tool removals [will be
requesting->has requested] and add the "for security" bit, so that FT2 can
get onto his break.





As you can see, pretty clear-cut. Should not surprise you, as you were one
of the committee that agreed it was fine.



In general, consider talking in a sociable and fair way for real. Notice
that negative approaches gets you nothing, and that both Marc and Steve by
being balanced, showing trust, and trying to inform, communicated it all
quite fully in a few brief lines -- and one short response.



Paul.
----------
From User.CoolHandLuke at gmail.com Sat Mar 20 17:49:06 2010
From: User.CoolHandLuke at gmail.com (Cool Hand Luke)
Date: Sat, 20 Mar 2010 12:49:06 -0500
Subject: [arbcom-l] Follow up
In-Reply-To: <4ba4e833.8109cc0a.6677.ffff88ec@mx.google.com>
References: <4b85fbeb.0c58560a.2c69.21ed@mx.google.com>
<4ba29fe4.1090cc0a.52f1.1b59@mx.google.com>
<8ec76cd11003181524q49a78aedr3067c94cdbd47f35@mail.gmail.com>
<4ba2d710.5124cc0a.2ee1.241a@mx.google.com>
<8ec76cd11003181913w3cfc6e83k135e49b8d6a1b364@mail.gmail.com>
<4ba2ef30.5124cc0a.21a4.2876@mx.google.com>
<8ec76cd11003190645vaab01c3i309c5ce4d0d798ce@mail.gmail.com>
<4ba473d4.9298cc0a.6971.6da4@mx.google.com>
<8ec76cd11003200547p788d5555x2b8d9c4aee4321d@mail.gmail.com>
<4ba4e833.8109cc0a.6677.ffff88ec@mx.google.com>
Message-ID: <8ec76cd11003201049o4c35af68j29114a4bcaae0fa3@mail.gmail.com>

Note that the bits he's quoting are from an off-list discussion we had where
I "admitted" that it would have been better to redact portions of the
email. I stand by that; he's right that it would have been better to redact
those parts. But at the same time, "MB" knew the risks and still consented
to have it posted. Given the lack of "privacy and good faith" in this
conversation, I would be ill-advised to speak with FT2 "privately" again--so
no, don't call me on Skype.

I think it's vitally important to let people know what they're accused of.
You know my primary concerns, as everyone on the list does. I believe that
users must not threaten to ruin a person's life for their behavior on a
website. You say that your work was "beyond ArbCom," but this self-entitled
view of enforcement is precisely why I cannot allow your work to be
re-authorized. That you continue to defend your work on the Poetlister case
tends to militate against further work in this area.

The rest of your message speaks for itself.

Frank
----------
From risker.wp at gmail.com Sun Mar 21 03:55:48 2010
From: risker.wp at gmail.com (Risker)
Date: Sat, 20 Mar 2010 23:55:48 -0400
Subject: [arbcom-l] Follow up
In-Reply-To: <4ba27224.13dbf10a.1935.0c1e@mx.google.com>
References: <4b85fbeb.0c58560a.2c69.21ed@mx.google.com>
<eb45e7c1002242053j5a8c0164t36885036f857744a@mail.gmail.com>
<4b860357.0338560a.749d.495c@mx.google.com>
<eb45e7c1002242109o47a57579yf185eb750f97b1e5@mail.gmail.com>
<4ba27224.13dbf10a.1935.0c1e@mx.google.com>
Message-ID: <eb45e7c1003202055w35bf83b3l5a113cd30b334897@mail.gmail.com>

Hello FT2 -

Please accept my apologies for the delay in responding to this "formal"
email. As the members of this list are aware, I have had a death in the
family and am attending to personal business right now.

As I write this, I am out of town, and do not have access to my own
computer. I did start to look into this a few weeks ago, at which point I
realised that there had been some serious problems with file corruptions; I
am not certain if they happened before or after the file transfers from my
old computer to my current one, although I suspect they may have been
longstanding. Cursory spot checks done when I completed the file transfers
looked okay, but I didn't look at a lot of archival material such as IRC
logs or archived emails.

In any case, my IRC log archives are almost completely messed up (missing or
mislocated), and to be honest I have never been one to log every
conversation I have. My email archives are somewhat less spotty, but as I
have pointed out in a previous email, searching through Gmail is often
useless. When I did a search simply for the word "Poetlister", I only got
half a dozen results, and even current threads were missing.

All in all, since I cannot *prove* that you failed to give me the
information requested previously (although you do admit to having refused to
provide it to an arbitrator colleague of yours contemporaneously), I will
retract this statement.

So. Would you please provide me with all of the technical information that
you gathered when putting together the relevant block in September 2008?
Also useful will be the "tells" that assisted in identifying the
sockpuppetry. Thank you in advance for your assistance.

Risker/Anne
----------
From risker.wp at gmail.com Thu Mar 25 22:47:10 2010
From: risker.wp at gmail.com (Risker)
Date: Thu, 25 Mar 2010 18:47:10 -0400
Subject: [arbcom-l] Socks?
In-Reply-To: <b82ef2a01003251525m2dccf1e1vbf5e180e542ed908@mail.gmail.com>
References: <68683abb1003251515g6870c851x4a7053e7d072f0c0@mail.gmail.com>
<82bbea1b1003251518m1ee821f9u90e9fb86b2f79f63@mail.gmail.com>
<68683abb1003251519k324d9d46k643b67d27558f46e@mail.gmail.com>
<b82ef2a01003251525m2dccf1e1vbf5e180e542ed908@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <eb45e7c1003251547h2364b3a8r1ac17bb72ca76be4@mail.gmail.com>

I'll take a look at this in an hour or so, and will liaise with Alison about
Poetlister, although apparently I am supposed to get some info from FT2 on
PL tonight.

Risker/Anne
----------
From KnightLago at gmail.com Thu Mar 25 22:52:50 2010
From: KnightLago at gmail.com (KnightLago)
Date: Thu, 25 Mar 2010 18:52:50 -0400
Subject: [arbcom-l] Socks?
In-Reply-To: <eb45e7c1003251547h2364b3a8r1ac17bb72ca76be4@mail.gmail.com>
References: <68683abb1003251515g6870c851x4a7053e7d072f0c0@mail.gmail.com>
<82bbea1b1003251518m1ee821f9u90e9fb86b2f79f63@mail.gmail.com>
<68683abb1003251519k324d9d46k643b67d27558f46e@mail.gmail.com>
<b82ef2a01003251525m2dccf1e1vbf5e180e542ed908@mail.gmail.com>
<eb45e7c1003251547h2364b3a8r1ac17bb72ca76be4@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <b82ef2a01003251552n41c108ado92ac4d27942cbf3f@mail.gmail.com>

Please cc all of your conversations with FT2 to this list. That way we will
avoid further emails from him. And if we get them we can tell him to STFU.
(lacking a better expression there)

KL


On Thu, Mar 25, 2010 at 6:47 PM, Risker <risker.wp at gmail.com> wrote:

> I'll take a look at this in an hour or so, and will liaise with Alison
----------
From stevethearbitrator at gmail.com Thu Mar 25 23:06:53 2010
From: stevethearbitrator at gmail.com (Steve Smith)
Date: Thu, 25 Mar 2010 23:06:53 +0000
Subject: [arbcom-l] Socks?
In-Reply-To: <b82ef2a01003251552n41c108ado92ac4d27942cbf3f@mail.gmail.com>
References: <68683abb1003251515g6870c851x4a7053e7d072f0c0@mail.gmail.com>
<82bbea1b1003251518m1ee821f9u90e9fb86b2f79f63@mail.gmail.com>
<68683abb1003251519k324d9d46k643b67d27558f46e@mail.gmail.com>
<b82ef2a01003251525m2dccf1e1vbf5e180e542ed908@mail.gmail.com>
<eb45e7c1003251547h2364b3a8r1ac17bb72ca76be4@mail.gmail.com>
<b82ef2a01003251552n41c108ado92ac4d27942cbf3f@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <68683abb1003251606k28cf7266j9facf535011e1a12@mail.gmail.com>

Just in case that doesn't work, I'll try to dig up an appropriate Leonard
Cohen song. Maybe dedicate "Closing Time" to his mouth?

On Thu, Mar 25, 2010 at 10:52 PM, KnightLago <KnightLago at gmail.com> wrote:

> Please cc all of your conversations with FT2 to this list.
----------
From User.CoolHandLuke at gmail.com Mon Mar 29 14:58:54 2010
From: User.CoolHandLuke at gmail.com (Cool Hand Luke)
Date: Mon, 29 Mar 2010 09:58:54 -0500
Subject: [arbcom-l] Follow up
In-Reply-To: <8ec76cd11003201049o4c35af68j29114a4bcaae0fa3@mail.gmail.com>
References: <4b85fbeb.0c58560a.2c69.21ed@mx.google.com>
<8ec76cd11003181524q49a78aedr3067c94cdbd47f35@mail.gmail.com>
<4ba2d710.5124cc0a.2ee1.241a@mx.google.com>
<8ec76cd11003181913w3cfc6e83k135e49b8d6a1b364@mail.gmail.com>
<4ba2ef30.5124cc0a.21a4.2876@mx.google.com>
<8ec76cd11003190645vaab01c3i309c5ce4d0d798ce@mail.gmail.com>
<4ba473d4.9298cc0a.6971.6da4@mx.google.com>
<8ec76cd11003200547p788d5555x2b8d9c4aee4321d@mail.gmail.com>
<4ba4e833.8109cc0a.6677.ffff88ec@mx.google.com>
<8ec76cd11003201049o4c35af68j29114a4bcaae0fa3@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <8ec76cd11003290758m744bd801r31be4841423d847@mail.gmail.com>

<triple-check ArbCom-l only>

Incidentally, no one has said anything about this to me one way or another.
Was I way off course here?

Frank





On Sat, Mar 20, 2010 at 12:49 PM, Cool Hand Luke <
User.CoolHandLuke at gmail.com> wrote:

> Note that the bits he's quoting are from an off-list discussion we had
----------
From carcharothwp at googlemail.com Mon Mar 29 15:46:24 2010
From: carcharothwp at googlemail.com (Carcharoth)
Date: Mon, 29 Mar 2010 16:46:24 +0100
Subject: [arbcom-l] Follow up
In-Reply-To: <8ec76cd11003290758m744bd801r31be4841423d847@mail.gmail.com>
References: <4b85fbeb.0c58560a.2c69.21ed@mx.google.com>
<4ba2d710.5124cc0a.2ee1.241a@mx.google.com>
<8ec76cd11003181913w3cfc6e83k135e49b8d6a1b364@mail.gmail.com>
<4ba2ef30.5124cc0a.21a4.2876@mx.google.com>
<8ec76cd11003190645vaab01c3i309c5ce4d0d798ce@mail.gmail.com>
<4ba473d4.9298cc0a.6971.6da4@mx.google.com>
<8ec76cd11003200547p788d5555x2b8d9c4aee4321d@mail.gmail.com>
<4ba4e833.8109cc0a.6677.ffff88ec@mx.google.com>
<8ec76cd11003201049o4c35af68j29114a4bcaae0fa3@mail.gmail.com>
<8ec76cd11003290758m744bd801r31be4841423d847@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <206791b11003290846r61cc7deds8e68bfa870fed6bc@mail.gmail.com>

I was largely agreeing with what you were saying, but it is a truism
that people back away when things get aggressive (I mean aggression
from FT2, not you). The trouble is that FT2 does deserve a hearing,
but that it would have to be between him and ArbCom. I would suggest
to him what I have suggested to others, that he either ask the most
recently appointed arbitrators to review things, or he wait for some
fresh faces to appear on the committee and see if they have a
different opinion. It is possible that future ArbComs will agree with
his approach, but maybe not.

Carcharoth
----------
From stevethearbitrator at gmail.com Mon Mar 29 17:52:52 2010
From: stevethearbitrator at gmail.com (Steve Smith)
Date: Mon, 29 Mar 2010 18:52:52 +0100
Subject: [arbcom-l] Follow up
In-Reply-To: <206791b11003290846r61cc7deds8e68bfa870fed6bc@mail.gmail.com>
References: <4b85fbeb.0c58560a.2c69.21ed@mx.google.com>
<8ec76cd11003181913w3cfc6e83k135e49b8d6a1b364@mail.gmail.com>
<4ba2ef30.5124cc0a.21a4.2876@mx.google.com>
<8ec76cd11003190645vaab01c3i309c5ce4d0d798ce@mail.gmail.com>
<4ba473d4.9298cc0a.6971.6da4@mx.google.com>
<8ec76cd11003200547p788d5555x2b8d9c4aee4321d@mail.gmail.com>
<4ba4e833.8109cc0a.6677.ffff88ec@mx.google.com>
<8ec76cd11003201049o4c35af68j29114a4bcaae0fa3@mail.gmail.com>
<8ec76cd11003290758m744bd801r31be4841423d847@mail.gmail.com>
<206791b11003290846r61cc7deds8e68bfa870fed6bc@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <68683abb1003291052g7694fafcl7da33d68b09c2fc@mail.gmail.com>

I agree with your concerns, Frank. I'm not sure that having it out with FT2
served any purpose, but it probably didn't do any harm, either. In summary,
meh.

On Mon, Mar 29, 2010 at 4:46 PM, Carcharoth <carcharothwp at googlemail.com>wrote:

> I was largely agreeing with what you were saying, but it is a truism
----------
From User.CoolHandLuke at gmail.com Mon Mar 29 19:48:43 2010
From: User.CoolHandLuke at gmail.com (Cool Hand Luke)
Date: Mon, 29 Mar 2010 14:48:43 -0500
Subject: [arbcom-l] Follow up
In-Reply-To: <206791b11003290846r61cc7deds8e68bfa870fed6bc@mail.gmail.com>
References: <4b85fbeb.0c58560a.2c69.21ed@mx.google.com>
<8ec76cd11003181913w3cfc6e83k135e49b8d6a1b364@mail.gmail.com>
<4ba2ef30.5124cc0a.21a4.2876@mx.google.com>
<8ec76cd11003190645vaab01c3i309c5ce4d0d798ce@mail.gmail.com>
<4ba473d4.9298cc0a.6971.6da4@mx.google.com>
<8ec76cd11003200547p788d5555x2b8d9c4aee4321d@mail.gmail.com>
<4ba4e833.8109cc0a.6677.ffff88ec@mx.google.com>
<8ec76cd11003201049o4c35af68j29114a4bcaae0fa3@mail.gmail.com>
<8ec76cd11003290758m744bd801r31be4841423d847@mail.gmail.com>
<206791b11003290846r61cc7deds8e68bfa870fed6bc@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <8ec76cd11003291248r770ea619i74afc238378cbea4@mail.gmail.com>

I agree using the post-2009 arbitrators would be the best way to review
anything to do with FT2 if this comes up in the future.

Frank



On Mon, Mar 29, 2010 at 10:46 AM, Carcharoth <carcharothwp at googlemail.com>wrote:

> I was largely agreeing with what you were saying, but it is a
----------

A pox upon your houses, Arbies.

And then they went and did the usual circling of the wagons, whitewashing everything, and leaving his admin bit fully intact. "Hair-raising" indeed.

Bonus points if you spotted Jimbo endorsing blackmail as a "humanitarian kindness" in some cases.

Indeed, but you notice he backpedals as soon as he sees the mood of the committee. Someme memorable quotes:

"Coren “Not unlike Jimmy, I think this was a reasonable attempt at giving him an "out"."
Hersfold: “Even if he was acting on behalf of the Foundation, does that excuse what reads as threats and blackmail? "

Bednarz to Coren: “If you are telling me that you *supported *the use of blackmail (in the casual sense, although I'm not certain than it was not blackmail in the legal sense as well), then I severely question your judgment.”

Steve the Arbitrator “... I don't think we actually have grounds to desysop him."

Bednarz: “Reading his explaination, it sounds like *Heart of Darkness*. FT2 is Agent Kurtz way up the river, operating beyond any civilized control or oversight. We executives in Amsterdam just have no idea what it's really like out there, and we cannot judge him for his acts.

Bednarz “This committee is not in the business of telling users that we will "rip
apart their ego."”

It's a remarkable pattern, really: in all of these leaked threads, every time the Committee has faced a difficult situation requiring some amount of judgement, there you find Coren leading the charge towards incompetence, unprofessionalism, and just plain stupidity. It's a shame these leaks are coming 1.5 years too late.

Which reminds me: one thing I'd like to see from the archive is anything related to Coren's little-known "resignation" from the Committee. Even the fact that he once resigned has been carefully suppressed, so I wonder if there's anything about this in the archives.

I'm floored. FT2s email to PoetGuy is way worse than I imagined it. The weak response from the Wikimedia Foundation and the ArbCom is a disgrace. Any responsible website would have banned both participants the day this came to light. Any questions, call the office or email Mike Godwin. None of this email listserv b.s. It got way out of hand and way out of proportion to a stupid wiki website, and this little dorks playing lawyer act has got to stop.

I'm embarrassed for the Wikimedia Foundation and for ArbCom. Anyone of conscience should stop participating on Wikipedia right away, at least until a formal apology is issued and steps are taken to prevent this from happening again.

Note to Wikipedians: people like FT2 know who you are, and they're overseen by people like the ArbCom and Jimbo. Sleep well.

Mods there is personal information relating to the wife and the wife's employer could you please redact, many thanks.

Peter

Wait, where does/did Baxter's wife work, and what was "very sensitive" about the location?

Ah, never mind -- I see it now... Dechert LLP.

But now WR did find it out! Hah.

We on WR (actually I) had noticed back in 2008 the IP for Dechert LLP editing for the Poetsockfarm, but didn't really know what it meant, since MB was not known to work there. Now we do. Alison found they'd had the netblock for ages, so this is doubtless a London arm of this multinational. Wife's work computer. Naughty, naughty.

http://wikipediareview.com/index.php?s=&sh...ndpost&p=128550

WR is always improving, and quickly!

I remember that. None of us knew what the significance of it was at the time. But yeah, that's the most plausible answer, especially in light of what's being published now.