Subject: [arbcom-l] Can Minor4th please be banned?
------------------------

From: NuclearWarfare <nw.wikipedia@gmail.com>
Date: Fri, Sep 24, 2010 at 01:11
To: English Arbitration Committee mailing list <arbcom-l@lists.wikimedia.org>


Dear Arbitrators,

I'm not exactly in the best of moods. I'm not going to do anything tonight, partially because I really should be asleep now and also because I am pissed off as well as a bit too involved. But I wanted to alert you guys about this:

Someone on Wikipedia Review asked how Minor4th figured that WR user Tarantino was WP user Proabivouac. She and I had had some discussions in the past about a situation involving herself, GregJackP, Timothy Usher (apparently aka Proabivouac), people harassing GregJackP over the phone, etc. I had tried to give some advice (as I had been in contact with Timothy Usher as well as ScienceApologist by email - neither SA or I knew who Timothy Usher was before the harassment began). I can go into more detail if necessary, but I think that at least several members of the Arbitration Committee (including but likely not limited to Risker) have the relevant information.

Tonight, approximately half an hour ago, I received an email from Timothy Usher, with the subject title of "Pathetic" (referring to myself, I assume), and the text of the webcitation link to http://wikipediareview.com/index.php?showtopic=30720&st=60. I was shocked to learn that Minor4th had posted partially redacted versions of our conversations on Wikipedia Review, without my knowledge or consent. I politely asked her to take this down; I received this response:

No. You don't understand how serious this has become. It is not my intent to hurt you, and I'm sorry you're disappointed, but you need to understand that this has had very very severe real life consequences for Greg and for me. I do not believe that you did anything malicious and I think you have been used by Josh and by Timothy Usher because you're young and too careless with people's confidential information. This got started because Josh was pissed that Greg brought an RfE against him! (NW's note: No evidence of this that I can see) Do you understand how insane that is? He brought a psychopath in to take care of Greg over a wiki squabble -- and if you had any idea what Greg has had to deal with and what I've had to deal with because of it, you'd not take this so lightly.

For starters, visit the links that are in tarantino's OP. Read those blogs and think about the effect that could have on a family lawyer's career. Greg is having to answer an internal affairs investigation because Usher gave the info to another psychopath who is intent on destroying Greg's life. This is not fun and games. After 20+ years in the police department, his job is now on the line because of this. This is not just a wiki game of gotcha. Again, I am sorry that you are a part of it and I like you -- but you are part of something that has been very damaging to real people. I hope you can understand and forgive me, and if not then I understand that too.

I understood when I ran for RFA that I would probably get outed one day. That isn't my big concern. The fact that another editor on Wikipedia would callously disregard another editor's privacy like this and knowingly expose them to a situation that increases the chances dramatically that such a thing would happen to me is insane. I empathize with Natalie and Greg, I really do. But I do not feel for one second that Natalie's action was or is appropriate, and I ask that ArbCom please take action pursuant to the intent of the NLT/OUTING policies.

Sincerely,
NW

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


----------
From: Roger Davies <roger.davies.wiki@gmail.com>
Date: Fri, Sep 24, 2010 at 06:53
To: English Arbitration Committee mailing list <arbcom-l@lists.wikimedia.org>


<list only>

Could someone at least acknowledge this please? I'm reluctant to because I'm already too bound up in this.

Also, I've very little experience of dealing with this sort of thing. How have we dealt with off-wiki disclosures in the past? Acted? Ignored?

Roger

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


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


----------
From: Risker <risker.wp@gmail.com>
Date: Fri, Sep 24, 2010 at 07:26
To: roger.davies.wiki@gmail.com, English Arbitration Committee mailing list <arbcom-l@lists.wikimedia.org>


<list only>
It will have to be someone other than me, too. I'm directly mentioned in that, and I spoke briefly with him last night and did tell him that we received the email. My personal prediction is that she's going to say Proab and I are great friends as well.

Risker/Anne

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


----------
From: Kirill Lokshin <kirill.lokshin@gmail.com>
Date: Fri, Sep 24, 2010 at 08:34
To: English Arbitration Committee mailing list <arbcom-l@lists.wikimedia.org>


It depends, really; we *have* banned people for off-wiki stuff before, provided it was egregious enough.

Having said that, I don't see any actual outing going on here; NW appears to be upset merely because it's now been revealed to Usher that he's been double-dealing him, and this will predictably encourage Usher & Co. to go after NW. It's a legitimate complaint, to some degree, but I think the old adage about sleeping with dogs applies here as well.

Kirill

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


----------
From: Kirill Lokshin <kirill.lokshin@gmail.com>
Date: Fri, Sep 24, 2010 at 08:44
To: NuclearWarfare <nw.wikipedia@gmail.com>, English Arbitration Committee mailing list <arbcom-l@lists.wikimedia.org>


NW,

We're looking into this matter, and will determine the proper course of action once we have all the details in hand.

In the meantime, if you could answer a few questions, that would be very helpful to us:

(1) Has Minor4th made any posting that actually "outs" you, or is the current complaint related exclusively to the publication of private correspondence?

(2) Taking into account the redactions made, is the correspondence posted by Minor4th substantively accurate, or have your comments been somehow fabricated or otherwise misrepresented?

Please also provide us with any information you have regarding Usher's activities. We are particularly interested in knowing how he became involved in this matter.

Regards,
Kirill

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


----------
From: Cool Hand Luke <User.CoolHandLuke@gmail.com>
Date: Fri, Sep 24, 2010 at 10:26
To: English Arbitration Committee mailing list <arbcom-l@lists.wikimedia.org>


This crew has been out for NW's blood. This is not simply a case where
we can shit our ears and say "well that's what you get for dealing
with Usher." There are serious issues with Minor4th/Greg's behavior,
and at the very least we should tell her this is inappropriate.

Frank

----------
From: Cool Hand Luke <User.CoolHandLuke@gmail.com>
Date: Fri, Sep 24, 2010 at 10:46
To: English Arbitration Committee mailing list <arbcom-l@lists.wikimedia.org>


Whoa. Typo. "shut our ears"

----------
From: Carcharoth <carcharothwp@googlemail.com>
Date: Fri, Sep 24, 2010 at 11:13
To: English Arbitration Committee mailing list <arbcom-l@lists.wikimedia.org>


On Fri, Sep 24, 2010 at 3:46 PM, Cool Hand Luke
I preferred the original!

And I agree with what Frank said.

Carcharoth

----------
From: NuclearWarfare <nw.wikipedia@gmail.com>
Date: Fri, Sep 24, 2010 at 11:29
To: Kirill Lokshin <kirill.lokshin@gmail.com>
Cc: English Arbitration Committee mailing list <arbcom-l@lists.wikimedia.org>


Kirill (and other Arbs,)

Thank you for looking into this and for your response. I shall do my best to answer your questions, and explain better what I wrote, because I feel like I did not adequately explain myself last night.

(1) My current complaint is solely focused on the publication of private correspondence. However, the words I used in those conversations were not the kindest ones I could have used to describe Timothy Usher. Now that Timothy Usher knows that I have been corresponding with Minor4th recently, which I believe had been successfully kept from him so far, it is tantamount to telling him "NuclearWarfare is whom you should go after next."

Now, had this release of the chat logs been for a valid purpose, I would not have complained so much. But Minor4th seems only to be using it to score points on Wikipedia Review. Does it really matter if Tarantino is actually Timothy Usher/Proabivouac? Does it matter enough to indirectly prod Proabivouac, someone who you know has harassed other people including yourself/people close to you, to go after someone else?

(2) I have not compared Minor4th's posts to my own chat logs, but substantially they seem accurate.

(3) Sometime between late July and Mid-August, while GregJackP was on the Climate Change Request for Enforcement board, I emailed ScienceApologist asking for a copy of a journal article that had been referenced. We corresponded once or twice on this matter, and I made a small remark about how the situation in the climate change area was deteriorating, and that GregJackP didn't seem to be helping. I remembered that GregJackP had a prior ANI report on him in June, but I couldn't remember what it was about besides the fact that it might have included selective misrepresentation of sources, so I asked ScienceApologist if he had "seen any sanctionable behavior from him (falsification of sources, etc.?)". He responded that the worst thing was that GregJackP and Minor4th often edited in tandem, and indicated that he saw them as in violation of WP:TAGTEAM/WP:MEAT. This post, for whatever reason, I did not respond to. I didn't exactly disagree with it, but I wasn't sure that there was really anything more to be said.

A few days later, ScienceApologist emailed me again, saying "Another Wikipedian [Timothy Usher] is convinced that these two are actually the same
account. I cc'ed him above." (Later, after the situation blew up with Timothy Usher harassing Greg in real life (apparently), I would ask ScienceApologist if he had any idea who Timothy Usher was. He said he didn't, and Timothy had emailed him out of the blue, likely because he was involved in a dispute with GregJackP. Risker hypothesized that Timothy Usher saw GregJackP of a friend of Lar, who apparently he has a history with.) We spoke for a while about the possibility of them being sockpuppets, but I had spoken with checkuser Brandon about this several months ago. I told Timothy that I thought it was unlikely. He gave me some relevant evidence from their editing histories, to which I replied "I thought much the same. Two separate CUs have looked into it though, and they are pretty definitely just RL friends. This was over IRC, not onwiki. The logs are on my old computer, so it would be quite a bit of work to dig them up, but the gist was this: Both of them logged in from different workplaces very often, far too often (and overlapping, I believe) for the two to bee [sic] the same user." That was probably a bit too much information to reveal, it is true, and I do apologize for making that error.

Timothy Usher responded back an hour later with a link to the real life identity of GregJackP. I didn't respond to that, and to the best of my knowledge neither did ScienceApologist, who had actually not posted to our discussion (which he had been cc'd on) since introducing me to Timothy Usher.

On September 9, Timothy Usher forwarded me and ScienceApologist an email that he had just sent to the RL emails of GregJackP and Minor4th. The text of the email was as such: " I'm an amateur investigator of Wikipedia. Studying a recent dispute regarding climate change, I've come across a number of Wikipedia accounts which have adopted elements of your respective identities. Since their activities appear coordinated and possibly the work of a single person, I've become concerned that one or the other of you - or both of you - is being impersonated. I thought the easiest way to clear it up would be to email both of you at once. [Followed by a link to about 6 accounts and Greg's blog]". I did not reply to this one either (and to the best of my knowledge, neither did ScienceApologist), but immediately forwarded the email to Risker, whereupon I learned what Timothy Usher's Wikipedia name was, which I recognized as a banned user.

A couple of days later, Minor4th emailed me for the first time. We engaged in several discussions, which you can see part of on Wikipedia Review. I also emailed ScienceApologist again, which is when he also denied any knowledge of Timothy Usher's past history with Wikipedia as well as any significant communication with him. Emails could be provided if you wish.

Sincerely,
NW

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


----------
From: Kirill Lokshin <kirill.lokshin@gmail.com>
Date: Fri, Sep 24, 2010 at 12:40
To: English Arbitration Committee mailing list <arbcom-l@lists.wikimedia.org>



I have two concerns -- one of principle and another that's merely pragmatic.

The first concern is that Minor4th has not actually outed NW, but only published their private correspondence. If that were sanctionable in and of itself, we'd have to ban dozens of editors, and I'm not particularly enthusiastic to do so; we have better things to do with our time than to try and play Miss Manners on WR.

(We could, of course, send Minor4th a finger-wagging note, but we shouldn't hold any illusions that it will be anything more than an expression of displeasure.)

The second, pragmatic concern is that, if Minor4th can indeed convince the WR crowd that Tarantino is Usher (and thus likely get him ejected from WR), that would be a major victory for us; I'm hesitant to interfere with what she's doing until that particular game plays out unless her actions begin causing significant harm. Given that the cat is well out of the bag regarding NW's actions, I don't see how we could prevent any further damage by reprimanding Minor4th.

I am, in any case, far more interested in the SA-Usher connection than in anything having to do with NW. The implication of the logs posted on WR is that SA encouraged Usher to investigate Greg, which is quite worrying. The last thing we want is for people to use Usher as a private SPI.

Kirill

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


----------
From: Risker <risker.wp@gmail.com>
Date: Fri, Sep 24, 2010 at 13:36
To: English Arbitration Committee mailing list <arbcom-l@lists.wikimedia.org>




I tend to agree here, on all points. No actual outing, and we don't even want to pretend that we have any control over the behaviour of people on another site. We barely keep up with our work now, heaven forbid we have to start managing complaints about off-site behaviour.
I find it hilarious that she's trying to make such a link there, they are so obviously different people for those who have observed them over time. (Usher doesn't have the level of self-control that Tarantino has.) I more or less expect that they'll be tarpitting the thread soon, because there's nothing particularly interesting about M4th and GJP, and now she's getting silly about one of their longstanding members.
This comes back to a point that I made earlier. Both the Timothy Usher and Proabivouac accounts are officially banned for socking to evade an Arbcom sanction, and there are no obvious hints anywhere on-wiki to indicate that there is more to it than that. Very few administrators actually know about Usher/Proabivouac's outings and personal attack behaviour, and the likelihood that an ordinary editor would know is minute. Nah, I think it's a simple case of SA getting emails periodically from someone he thinks is an ally of some sort, using their real name on the email instead of a hypothetical username, and he was happy to think that someone else was on "his side". Remember, Usher can be quite charming when he thinks it will be of benefit. My mother really enjoyed her conversation with him, although she remained convinced he was an old boyfriend of mine...


Risker/Anne



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


----------
From: Kirill Lokshin <kirill.lokshin@gmail.com>
Date: Fri, Sep 24, 2010 at 13:53
To: English Arbitration Committee mailing list <arbcom-l@lists.wikimedia.org>



Granted, and I'm not necessarily suggesting that SA has done something sanctionable.

We should, I think, issue a warning to the community in general terms (i.e. bad people are approaching users and pretending to help fight sockpuppetry... don't discuss other users with people whom you don't know... make sure you can connect them back to an account in good standing... etc.) without mentioning Usher as a specific threat, and issue a warning specifically about Usher & Co. to functionaries/clerks/etc. I'm also thinking that we may want to put together a briefing on "remarkably unwelcome" editors and send it to all administrators, and to every new administrator when they're promoted.

Kirill

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


----------
From: Cool Hand Luke <User.CoolHandLuke@gmail.com>
Date: Fri, Sep 24, 2010 at 15:35
To: English Arbitration Committee mailing list <arbcom-l@lists.wikimedia.org>


Incidentally, I have to agree with Risker that there's little chance
they are the same, and that there's even less chance she can convince
anyone significant on WR of the identity.

Incidentally, I have plotted out their WR posts in the past, and they
didn't seem obviously sock-like. I could study it more if you like.
Judd Bagley once told me that he thought Tarantino was a in the SCOX
crowd; I don't doubt he once tried to find out. Tarantino's first
posts on WR were to attack Overstock.com, causing Somey to initially
ask (due to these posts and his prolific use of proxies) if he was
Mantanmoreland himself. However, he has not stuck with this agenda and
no one now believes he has a stake in the internet NSS wars.

I just want Minor4th to know (1) that she's very close to the line,
(2) stress again that there does not seem to be a reason to assume
malice by NW or SA, but advising that any such evidence should be
posted to us rather that publicly, and (3) given that she rightly
feels victimized by her identity bring compromised, it's more that a
little ironic she has chosen to attack NW this way.

Actually, the last comment is unnecessary, but it is how I feel on the
matter. I am not suggesting any sort of sanction, just a private
warning.

Frank

----------
From: Newyorkbrad <newyorkbrad@gmail.com>
Date: Fri, Sep 24, 2010 at 16:36
To: English Arbitration Committee mailing list <arbcom-l@lists.wikimedia.org>


On Fri, Sep 24, 2010 at 1:53 PM, Kirill Lokshin <kirill.lokshin@gmail.com> wrote:

... we have better things to do with our time than to try and play Miss Manners on WR....

That's certainly a true observation. I once spent a little time trying to improve the tone of discussion on Wikipedia Review, but I found it pretty tough sledding, what with all kinds of louts like SarcasticIdealist and One and SirFozzie around.

Newyorkbrad

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


----------
From: David Yellope <dyellope.wiki@gmail.com>
Date: Fri, Sep 24, 2010 at 17:08
To: English Arbitration Committee mailing list <arbcom-l@lists.wikimedia.org>


*snerks*

you can lead a lout like Fozzie to manners, but you can't make him speak nicely, eh, Brad?



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


----------
From: Fayssal F. <szvest@gmail.com>
Date: Fri, Sep 24, 2010 at 19:03
To: arbcom-l@lists.wikimedia.org


I don't believe there's a need to warn the community. That would sound like a parent's advice to a child asking him to avoid talking to strangers who may ask him questions. Remember, for every wp story there factions and partisans of different kinds. So the 'warning' would just sound ridiculous for some of the unhappy ones.

I may be wrong here but many wp users (if that is what represents the community) tend to spend a lot of time on IRC doing just that: discussing other people's information with others.

Now, if you mean by that 'not to hand private information such as CU details or anything of that kind to anyone' then isn't that what the Privacy Policy says?

Fayssal F.

Date: Fri, 24 Sep 2010 13:53:51 -0400
From: Kirill Lokshin <kirill.lokshin@gmail.com>
Subject: Re: [arbcom-l] Can Minor4th please be banned?
To: English Arbitration Committee mailing list Message-ID:
<AANLkTimHMvV4PN9EZGX3DLGmomo8M66BmD86wSRtqCKV@mail.gmail.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" > On 24 September 2010 12:40, Kirill Lokshin <kirill.lokshin@gmail.com>wrote: >> enthusiastic to do so; we have better things to do with our time than to try
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/private...chment-0001.htm

------------------------------


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

Wow, these guys really spend a lot of time reading the Wikipedia Review. And this is funny, in either an accidental or a Freudian-slip sort of way:

He is a old boyfriend of yours, Anne. Really, really, realllly old.

Well, we knew this already: Cool Hand Luke / One trolling the Review for evidence against people on da wiki. Note that he still lurks here -- just doesn't post anymore.

As I pointed out in another thread, it was Minor4th who initially accused Tarantino of being Usher. She claimed she had evidence, but it was in email form, and only Somey saw it. Somey said there was nothing in it, but we have to take his word. However, Arbcom assumes they are one and the same, if you look at the list postings. They either found it out form Minor4th, or they read it on WR. The Sept thread and the WR discussion are the same time, and the info appears first on WR (Sept 17) and only later on arbcom-l (the next day, Sept 18). Cla68 brings the info to Arbcom from WR, and says so: http://wikipediareview.com/index.php?s=&sh...ndpost&p=277632

Wikipedians are so afraid that somebody will find out who they are in real life, that they've made it a high crime for anybody to "out" a Wikipedian's real name. But let us remember that plenty of Wikipedians post under their real names, or have disclosed them (including Bednarz), and I have yet to see one murdered over it. Most of this is just nonsense that WP spreads to aid admins in their dirty work in blocking people. It's kind of like claiming your family is all having surgery or you have to go to granny's funeral. If we don't know your name, we can't check your excuse.

This is strong evidence of Wikipedia's fundamental unhealthiness. If these people really were proud of what they were doing, they wouldn't be so ashamed of it as to not let their real names stand behind it.

The message from "NuclearWarfare" to the ArbCom-l list that heads this thread probably won't be read by many. It's worth reading, tho. NucWar is asking ArbCom to ban Minor4th on WP for "outing" Tarantino on WR! Minor4th, in turn, had been moved by Tarantino posting some nasty stuff to GregJackP's bosses (which actually did get him fired 3 months later). But THAT stuff wasn't his WP alias, it was about other high net-crimes and misdemeanors. Nobody will fire you from a police dept by finding out that you, Greg Jack Pickett, edit on WP as GregJackP. Outing was not the crime, here.

Minor4th is very upset about "Greg" losing his job. He must be a very close friend indeed.

And BTW, while GregJackP got banned for socking, Arbcom couldn't find any way to take any action against Minor4th. A lot depends on WHO you out. As we know.

You realize that every person involved in this (trivial crap) has been "outed", with one exception: NuclearWarfare himself.

The e-mail was sent to our staff inbox, so I wasn't the only person who saw it, FWIW. As for the likelihood of the allegations being true, I still think they're different people, though admittedly they do have similar objectives (most of the time). I could actually accept that Mr. Usher is capable of controlling his temper to the necessary extent to post as Mr. Tarantino, but there are too many other inconsistencies, too many other probable flaws in the logic.

Anyway, it would be more accurate to say that the evidence Ms. Minor4th had was woefully insufficient, or at least, way too conjectural - especially if the motive is to get us to act against one of our most well-established (and fr many of us, well-liked) members. It wasn't a tissue of lies or anything like that... it just wasn't anything close to enough.


True, but is there any real point in identifying him, given that he already calls himself "NuclearWarfare"?

Hmm, I thought it was fairly established who Mr. Tarantino is in real-life. He's definitely not Mr. Usher, but Mr. Tarantino is rather e-famous.

Err, NuclearWarfare is pretty easy to find. I assume nearly anyone who has gone looking has found him.

NuclearWarfare didn't handle this episode very well, and it's one of the reasons why I think WP shouldn't allow anyone under 18 to be an admin. In fact, 20 or 21 might be a better minimum age.

Somey - I didn't send you the "evidence" so whatever email you're referring to wasn't it. This is all very remote at this point and I can't even remember why I thought tarantino=Usher, nor do I care any more. Both are destructive and seem to seek attention by causing harm. I don't edit Wiki any more and I hadn't signed in here for months either.

Yes, I was upset about Greg losing his job. Greg was a real life friend, and I would have been distressed about any friend going through such hardship. And yes the precise reason for his termination was editing Wikipedia on the job.

Regarding NuclearWarfare -- he screwed up, but it was innocent carelessness and not maliciousness. I attribute it to his youth and inexperience. He confirmed a piece of the puzzle for Usher, who was actively "investigating" Greg. He was given checkuser data from Brandon, and it was that information that he discussed with Usher and Science Apologist. He meant no harm, but there are good reasons for the strict checkuser policies and privacy policies. In this case, a person lost a job he had for 20 years. That's a big deal, and its interesting that NW was complaining about being outed when he was not outed but when he did in fact reveal real life information about editors to Timothy Usher. I know NW's real identity and certainly could have outed him if I had any desire to do that. I don't. As a matter of fact, I alerted NW to the fact that his wiki handle could be associated with his real name, age and location through a public profile on another site -- I informed him so he could change his privacy settings and avoid exposure. He's young and he is trying to play grown up in wiki world before he had the maturity to handle the responsibilities.

Councelor M., if your memory is that bad and to fill its gaps, your imagination and propensity to tell stories that make you look good is THAT highly-developed, you're going to get yourself into real trouble one day. Perhaps it's useful on the job for a lawyer, but it can be taken for lying, don't you know. Some things go on the record, and then you get your feet held to the fire for the convenient inaccuracy.

First, you did say here on WR that Tarantino was Proab, who we all know is Usher, in a now-tarpitted thread (though it was not then) referenced at the beginning of THIS thread in NWs message. http://wikipediareview.com/index.php?s=&sh...ndpost&p=253604. That fact got picked up by ArbCom from here on WR, in info carried by Cla68, we now know.

You said here that Usher had a "tell," (as in pokerr) indicating from the messages that Usher had sent you (and presumably the posts of Tarantino) that you could identify one with the other.

Both Somey and I wanted evidence and so did carbuncle (http://wikipediareview.com/index.php?s=&showtopic=30720&view=findpost&p=253606), and you promised to send it. http://wikipediareview.com/index.php?s=&sh...ndpost&p=253663

Apparently you DID send your evidence and also posted in on WR. It was from an IRC channel between you and NucWarfare, and from what NW says, the stuff posted on WR from you was "partially redacted versions of our conversations." Somey deleted it, and said he was not convinced by it. http://wikipediareview.com/index.php?s=&sh...ndpost&p=253924

Whatever it was, it made NW so pissed off that a week after this allegation appeared on WR, he sent the message to ArbCom-L that begins this thread, asking that you be banned on WP as Minor4th (read the header of the message), for actions invading privacy and perhaps leading to outing (presumably of himself, I suppose).


Your response to him had been "no" (i.e., you wouldn't take it down from the WR board). Somey finally did it. NW tells me he was actually less concerned with outing that being outraged at your posting of personal emails from his to you, on WR. Which could potentially lead to outing. I don't think Somey redacted them because they proved that Tarantino was Usher (he says not, anyway). He also says in this thread, see above, that they wound up in the admin email box for WR and more than one person saw them. A whole bunch of people disagree with what you say in the message this replies to, and the evidence we have on the forum here, around the redacted "hole," supports NW and Somey's version, not yours. NW goes to ArbCom to get you banned from WP for SOMETHING. Do you think he would have done that if you hadn't been doing just what he and Somey said you did?


Um, the "precise reason"? How can you know the "precise reason" unless you were on the review board? It may have been the "precise reason given" by his department, but that doesn't mean it was the real one. It seems highly unlikely that a dept would fire a 20-year veteran for editing WP on the job, when they don't even fire you for an initial bout with alcoholism (WP is a similar addiction, you know, though there's no 12-step program yet). Editing WP is not illegal, and it's not even very malfeasant, considering cop standards. The idea that the police union would tolerate a department terminating a 20-year vet for wasting time on the job as a cop is so funny that it should be posted somewhere like The Onion, for its entertainment value.*

Say, was he editing from a Starbucks WiFi hotspot, while eating donuts? That must have driven his department insane. Efficiency loss, you know. Job time-theft.

I'm afraid the content of his edits must have been the issue, and you have been sold a bill of goods. And there must have been other stuff, or else the union would have been all over it.

MR

* Right next to it we can have the shocker of the lawyer who bills you for half an hour of time when they only thought about your case for 20 minutes. Call the police station! Er, I mean the donut shop....

I know the "precise reason" for the termination because I saw the termination letter and was familiar with every step of the process. The union fought back but these things take a very long time to work their way through the various reviews and appeals. You obviously have no respect for law enforcement and think of cops as nothing but donut-eating time wasters -- but this situation doesn't fit within your stereotype/bias.

About the rest of your comments, none of it is important to me and it's all very remote. Carry on.....

To the extent that they are NOT donut-eating time-wasters, then they fired old GregJackP for the right reasons, yes? Either Greg's a slacker by high cop standards, and his ramrod bosses righteously nailed him for it, or else he's no more a slacker than any other cop, and he's been singled out for political or other unfair reasons. I think you have failed to find your argument. You can hardly defend GregP and his bosses BOTH in this one, which you seem to be trying to do.

That's no problem for me, though. A lazy corrupt organiztion can certain fire somebody who is lazy and embarassing. Happens all the time.

Translation: you got flat-out caught talking bullshit about your own past actions on WR, and you'd naturally not like to discuss it any more. Fine. The record is here and I pointed it out and documented it for WR, which was my purpose. Your input was actually not necessary at all, and your "poor-memory defense" (grade = fail) did not help you.

Political and unfair reasons... Goes way beyond the scope of this discussion.

It's unfortunately easy, although he has removed a picture of him on at least one site since the last time I looked him up. But anyway, that's beside the point. Wikipedians like anonymity because they get more "respect" and reputation if no one knows they're a kid or they're an old fat guy. Neither of which are NW currently.

Either that or they don't want to deal with all the psychos that populate Wikipedia. You're - to use a Polish saying, but one which I think translates pretty well - standing the cat on its tail. It SHOULD be a "high crime" to out somebody on Wikipedia. If Wikipedia wasn't such an insanely dysfunctional milieu then people who are proud of what they're doing wouldn't have to worry about a bunch of nutzoids coming after them. I dunno, I haven't read the leaks but I have read much of the commentary and it does seem like "how to keep vicious little sociopaths" out of the project, or at least how to keep them from doing a shitload of RL harm, is pretty much THE central problem with the whole set up and one which the Arbs (and many others) are at least indirectly aware of. See the "other" thread (which you can't anyway) and all that.

There's no way you can blame anyone for wanting to be anonymous here.

Sure there is. I blame them for not leaving the moment it becomes apparent to them that the place is full of eels. I blame them for staying there when it's clearly harmful to do so. And I blame Jimbo for not shutting the whole thing down as a hazard to public mental health. Wikipedia is an attractive nuisance and ought to be regulated as such.

Agree with the last (Jimbo) point, the other two are a bit more complex. You can't blame people for giving a fuck, even when it's not their turn to give a fuck - well, not all that much. Or at least, that one is in the "venial sin" not the "mortal sin" category.