---------- Forwarded message ----------
From: Iridescent Wikipedia <REDACTED>
Date: Tue, Jun 7, 2011 at 16:52
Subject: [arbcom-l] Fw: Requesting advice
To: arbcom-l@lists.wikimedia.org


<list only>

For info. While I think a clean start in this case would be a good
thing if it worked, I think it has the potential to lead to a really
nasty situation.both when Sandstein & co spot the new account and a
block-unblock-reblock wheelwar starts, and when Pedro and pals start
accusing us of strangling Malleus and hiding his corpse in the
foundations of Jimbo's luxury mansion because he Got Too Close To The
Truth.and am doing my best to point out the many pitfalls he's headed
for if he goes down this route. (If I flat out tell him not to, he'll
ignore me; if I persuade him why it won't work, that's another
matter.) His style is so distinctive, I don't see how a clean start
could possibly work; while Frank is right that my sock guesses are
often wildly off, I didn't need a checkuser to be sure of that one the
moment I spotted it.

----- Forwarded Message ----
From: Eric <REDACTED>
To: Iridescent Wikipedia <REDACTED>
Sent: Tue, 7 June, 2011 20:23:26
Subject: Re: Requesting advice

I've got no objections to you forwarding this on to ArbCom, but as you
found the other account so easily I have to assume that others would
as well, so probably not much point. I don't want to waste any more of
your or anyone else's time over this, as I've got absolutely no
motivation to invent a new personality to go with a new account.

On 07/06/11 19:58, Iridescent Wikipedia wrote:

That wording's confusing; what's intended is "...should not return to
old topic areas previously identified as problematic". I don't think
there are any areas in which it would apply to you - it's aimed at
people like the Ireland POV-pushers returning in new identities to
remove "British Isles" again once their original accounts have been
told to stop. There are a lot of people who disagree with you over
tone, but (AFAIK) no problem topics for you as such.

If you're happy for me to forward this (the Arbcom list doesn't leak,
so you don't need to worry on that score) I can get a quick yea-or-nay
from The Cabal as to whether anyone foresees any problems. While
Arbcom isn't a governing body etc etc etc, if none of the 18 have any
issue it's vanishingly unlikely a complaint from anyone else would be
taken seriously.

________________________________
From: Eric <REDACTED>
To: Iridescent Wikipedia <REDACTED>
Sent: Tue, 7 June, 2011 19:27:10
Subject: Re: Requesting advice

"Clean-start accounts should not return to old topic areas ..." is an
unrealistically broad-brush exclusion as far as I'm concerned, so
that's not an option. So it looks like it's goodbye to William, and if
I want to edit wikipedia I'm going to have to stick with my
basket-case account.

Thanks anyway

On 07/06/11 16:43, Iridescent Wikipedia wrote:

If you mean "William Leadford", that's fairly easy to detect (I
spotted it without using any advanced permissions of any kind), so
don't expect it to stay secret for long if/when the sudden
disappearance of "Malleus" prompts all three of the WR crowd, Giano
and Bishonen's clique, and the Defenders Of The Wiki to start
sleuthing. As Geogre, Mattisse and RH&E have kindly demonstrated, it's
far harder than you'd think to operate a "clean" account without being
identified; since the person behind the account has the same writing
style and the same interests, to evade detection you're having
effectively to create a new personality, not just a new name. If
you're going to pretend that hard to be someone you're not, it's
unlikely to be worth the effort.

If you're going to go ahead and kill the Malleus account to make a
fresh start, I'd strongly recommend identifying the new account to
Arbcom. Plenty of people would love to catch you "evading scrutiny",
and if you've identified the new account to Arbcom then it greatly
reduces the chance of any unpleasantness down the line. To fall under
the "clean start" protection, you need not only to abandon the old
account altogether, but not return to any old fights. This is harder
to do than it sounds, and is why Mattisse's repeated clean starts
invariably eventually wound up blocked.

I imagine you're already aware of it, but before you do anything
drastic have a read of the official policy on the matter, and decide
whether you can actually work within those restrictions:

If you decide to make a fresh start, you can discontinue the old
account(s) and create a new one that becomes the only account you use.
Clean-start accounts should not return to old topic areas, editing
patterns, or behavior previously identified as problematic, and should
be careful not to do anything that looks like an attempt to evade
scrutiny. A clean start is permitted only if there are no active bans,
blocks, or sanctions in place against the old account. Discontinuing
the old account means it will not be used again; it should note on its
user page that it is inactive.for example, with the {{retired}} tag.to
prevent the switch being seen as an attempt to sock puppet. It is
strongly recommended that you inform the Arbitration Committee (in
strictest confidence if you wish) of the existence of previous
accounts before standing for adminship or functionary positions.
Failure to do so is likely to be considered deceptive.

________________________________
From: Eric <REDACTED>
To: Iridescent Wikipedia <REDACTED>
Sent: Mon, 6 June, 2011 23:25:33
Subject: Requesting advice

I apologise for adding once again to your email burden, but I'm
looking for a little bit of guidance.

I've long thought that the Malleus account is a hopeless basket case,
and it sometimes gets overwhelmed with copyedit requests, most of
which to be honest are on topics that I really couldn't give a
monkey's about. So to give me some quiet time, and a potential exit
strategy, I set up an alternate account well over a year ago now. The
two accounts never edit the same pages, and the alternate account
never edits on anything other than article pages or article talk
pages. You may remember my Nunez99 account that focused on Welsh towns
and villages? This one is rather similar, although not geography
related.

I won't compromise you by telling you what the account name is, but my
question is this; should I reveal this account to ArbCom or should I
keep shtum?

Eric



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

The list doesn't leak... well, until today that is!

Why would Malleus want a new account anyway? He can just ignore copyedit requests of articles he doesn't want to edit.

Heh.

Malley can do anything he wants...because he's awesome!

He can keep rhythm with no metronome.

Well it's pretty clear to me at least who has done this. Hopefully they'll give themselves up before someone does so for them.

Has the WP chattering class started their witch hunt yet?

I would appreciate it if you would forward that entire email chain (headers and all) to me.

I realize that it's more likely that your objective is to put eggs on the face of the committee and/or Malleus; but if your intent was to sincerely raise the issue of the leak on the AbbCom mailing list, sending this will help me nail the slime who did this.

-- Coren / Marc

Hey, it is my favorite pornographer! How is life in the skin trade?

Say, monsieur, you looked pretty plump in that photo from the Wikimedia election. How much do you weigh?



Malley is the closest thing that Wikipedia has to 1960s-era Steve McQueen cool.

Okay, kids, the Arbcom Casino is now open. Now which one of the sitting ducks arbitrators pulled a Bradley Manning?

Place your bets here!

P.S. I didn't realize that Coren was into S&M (check that last part of the quote). Are all French-Canadians so wacky?

I had assumed that the subscribers to the mailing list included past arbitrators as well as sitting ones, so it's disappointing to see that may not be true. What is all this "trust of the community" bollocks anyway?

Well, one of these characters is responsible:

Active arbitrators

1. Casliber
2. Cool Hand Luke
3. Coren
4. David Fuchs
5. Elen of the Roads
6. Iridescent
7. Jclemens
8. John Vandenberg
9. Kirill Lokshin
10. Mailer diablo
11. Newyorkbrad
12. PhilKnight
13. Risker
14. Roger Davies
15. Shell Kinney
16. SirFozzie
17. Xeno

Inactive arbitrators

1. Chase me ladies, I'm the Cavalry

Someone should set up a poll and we can vote on this.

You forgot Jimbo Wales.

Well, the person who tipped Malley off on this leak used an Australian IP. That puts Doc Liber and JV on the hot seat. But the tip-off includes a slam at Iridescent, which could be a way for Iri to throw off attention from him.

This really looks like a job for Tiptoety -- we need a good faux-cop to solve the case.

You realize that at the moment this person only has 4 posts on WR?

I say Risker



Who brings leaks with kisses for Horsey. Mwah! Mwah!

I've been waiting for Tiptoety to return from his unexplained wikibreak for a while now. I suspect he ain't coming back. (And Chase Me hasn't edited from his account since February so it looks like he and Panyd may have finally kicked the WP habit. Good for them!)

[Modnote: at the request of a member, I have redacted the actual email addresses. They seemed pretty generic to me, but I opted to err on the side of caution for the moment. I took a copy of the unredacted post, so it can be restored if there is reason to do so.]

It's funny, I told Risker (via e-mail, Tuesday, June 21) that she really, really didn't want to support deletion of my User page on the English Wikipedia. She didn't listen to me. Now her precious private mailing list isn't so private any more, is it?

I wonder if she'll put two and two together?

That email address identified Malleus, so of course he wanted it deleted.

That used to be the case until the...2010 (maybe 2009?) Committee. Most of the old Arbs are now on functionaries-en, which also has active checkusers and oversighters.

Are these two things related in some way?


Actually the request didn't come from me, I requested nothing.

Yes, see this thread.

Bravo, Mr. leaker. I applaud any sunshine let in on the secret committee running a supposedly open, community operated site. Now the interesting bit is how long it will take before the leaker is identified and if they play the right counter*.

*(Say you got hacked. It doesn't matter if it's plausible, no one will know and no one can disprove it.)

They'll have to figure it out... I'm not going to serve it up on a silver platter for them!

Don't be a santorum. Stop taking credit for someone else's work. Wave your penis in front of the ladies, not the forum.

Credit to Iridescent for spelling it out to Mally. What he really wanted to hear of course was that he could retire as Malleus (with all the angry satisfaction and ensuing wikilove), then he could quietly start on the same subjects and areas with his new unknown account. Only his 'ole shipmate Parrot of Doom and Iridescent would know about it (as originally posed), so he'd never be without support in those really annoying Wikipedia situations. Kudos to I for not going with it.

I feel sorry for him over his William Leadford account though - 2600 edits over the past 14 months, but the cover now completely blown. Wikipedia isn't a national government - as you no longer want to be an admin Malleus, you should have just carefully dropped your accounts and started from scratch without Wikipedia's support. What's the worse that could happen? As seen over paid editing and silly COI netiquette, Wikimedia administers something of a Catholic bollock-grab regarding morality.

Last I looked, Greg, your user page wasn't deleted. That seems unlikely. Blanked is likely. That comment from Risker was, however, seriously obtuse, which I've come to expect from her, ever since she clearly had no clue in RfAr/Abd-William M. Connolley, but turned the findings upside down.
Okay, what she said about what she did is authoritative on that action. However, there is no "global ban" on Thekohser. There is, last I looked, a global lock, placed by an individual steward, apparently as an isolated action, because it reversed what had been a public decision, earlier, implemented with a lot of effort, to lift the lock and replace it with a series of local blocks that local wikis could then overturn, making it clear that it was a local decision. A number of communities did just that. But then Mike.lifeguard, with no public discussion, violating steward policy, reinstated it, so a number of communities have actively defeated the lock by renaming the account to delink it. If this were truly a global ban, stewards would be enforcing it. Not a whisper of that, in almost a year.

The "inappropriate behavior" is that Greg criticised the WMF or asked inconvenient questions. He was blocked on Wikiversity by unilateral action by Jimbo, and that sequence of events was part of what brought down a dismantling of Jimbo's Uber-Tool status globally. This "ban" thing is mostly a Wikipedia creation.

This "Thekohser is globally banned" meme is a sign to me that Risker doesn't know what's actually happening, she just hears and believes rumors, then acts on them.

Yup, Malley has made a fool of himself once again. Is his craving for approval from the big wigs that great? What will he do with those 13 hours a day if he doesn't edit the pedia?

We're all ladies here. Syrian lesbian ladies, in fact!

It is Olympic standard snivelling, is it not?

With all that training in hospital risk managment, what else can you really expect?

Now, now, don't get frothy. I thought it would be fun to throw a little curve ball at the Arbies while they tried to sort things out. I never took credit, per se.

Wait, I know i'm slow and all in understanding politics, but could someone explain to me in simple terms what this mailing list discussion was about? (Other than the leaking and all of that, I get that, but I mean about Malleus)

Has he been using, essentially, a sockpuppet account under William Leadford for the past 14 months? While continuing to edit under Malleus Fatuorum? Is that what has happened?

Are there any ANI or AN discussions going on about this sockpuppetry that I missed?

Or maybe I missed something completely. I'm confused.

That they have secret Stasi files on participants, in addition to the public Stasi files on non-participants ought to come as no surprise.

That doesn't seem to answer my question about Malleus.

Well, yes. Malleus has been sockpuppeting.

And also under Numez99 as recently as a year ago.

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=...oldid=356639508

And maybe others? Who knows? and many may be stale. Will the usual sockpuppet chasers jump on their horse, or is Malleus too big to fail?

Beyond this leaked email conversation, is there any proof on-wiki that they are one and the same? Any correlating edits or comments?

I think he admitted it onwiki or here. It's also not against the sockpuppetry policy.

Look, don't be such a silly child Chrisoff. (or, if you are a child, try and be at least reasonably accurate in adult company will you). Sockpuppets edit over the same areas to influence the outcome. Is there evidence he's actually done that? You need evidence to make that kind of claim. With Nunez99 he seemed to just accidentally edit his Malleus page (or deliberate, as he says here.)

This is all about secondary or replacement accounts. The leak has definitely effected Malleus' freedom of action, even though he's played it down on Wikipedia.

The Stasi protected their informants especially when they had to go undercover.

HTHs

I hope not...my back is killing me from those jokers.

An address that traces back to Melbourne ... hmmmm ....