From kirill.lokshin at gmail.com Tue Nov 30 01:55:52 2010
From: kirill.lokshin at gmail.com (Kirill Lokshin)
Date: Mon, 29 Nov 2010 20:55:52 -0500
Subject: [arbcom-en-b] Statement re: FT2
Message-ID: <AANLkTim5UFs=WA3_iKpyZCHMmtAEHpMOg7AHWkW3n11L@mail.gmail.com>

So what do we want to do here?

We have, I think, a very narrow window in which we can issue any meaningful
statement; if we can't publish something in the next couple of days, it's
likely to be too late to be anything other than a principled protest.

Given that we need to keep most of the details private, should we go for
something brief?

We should also consider the possibility that we will be asked why we did not
strip him of functionary status; I don't know that we have a good answer,
but we really need to have one ready before we publish anything.

Kirill

***********

From marc at uberbox.org Tue Nov 30 02:15:21 2010
From: marc at uberbox.org (Marc A. Pelletier)
Date: Mon, 29 Nov 2010 21:15:21 -0500
Subject: [arbcom-en-b] Statement re: FT2
In-Reply-To: <AANLkTim5UFs=WA3_iKpyZCHMmtAEHpMOg7AHWkW3n11L@mail.gmail.com>
References: <AANLkTim5UFs=WA3_iKpyZCHMmtAEHpMOg7AHWkW3n11L@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <4CF45E39.8080902@uberbox.org>

On 29/11/2010 8:55 PM, Kirill Lokshin wrote:
> So what do we want to do here?
>
> We have, I think, a very narrow window in which we can issue any
> meaningful statement; if we can't publish something in the next couple
> of days, it's likely to be too late to be anything other than a
> principled protest.
>
> Given that we need to keep most of the details private, should we go
> for something brief?
>
> We should also consider the possibility that we will be asked why we
> did not strip him of functionary status; I don't know that we have a
> good answer, but we really need to have one ready before we publish
> anything.
>

Honestly? I don't know. Something about being very concerned with the
tone of a letter sent during a sockpuppet investigation?

*Can* we make a meaningful statement? I don't think we agree about the
severity of the problem; I know we didn't agree about what should be
done about it. What is the objective of that statement? Help voters be
more informed? (That's laudable, but hard to do without the context
which must remain hidden due to privacy). Prevent him from being
elected? (Easy to do, but of dubious ethics).

We can't just say he went rogue, because he didn't. Regardless of any
feelings on the substantive matter, not every condemnation of Paul's
actions jibed with reality. Cary's intervention was... well, let's
just say he might have been distracted by some other matter at the time
because it didn't correspond with the facts.

There are two questions we *must* ask ourselves before we do anything:

1) Is Paul likely to be elected with or without our intervention; and
2) if he /does/ get elected, is that letter necessarily sufficient to
preclude his taking a seat?

Question 1 answers the issues leading to his departure. If he gets
elected despite those, then the community has seen fit to wipe the slate.

Question 2 is the tricky one. Is it possible to make certain that the
issue cannot possibly recur? If so, then I see no reason to discard an
experienced arbitrator who -- despite any failings -- was a net
positive. Call it "probation" if you will.

-- Coren / Marc

***********

From risker.wp at gmail.com Tue Nov 30 02:15:55 2010
From: risker.wp at gmail.com (Risker)
Date: Mon, 29 Nov 2010 21:15:55 -0500
Subject: [arbcom-en-b] Statement re: FT2
In-Reply-To: <AANLkTim5UFs=WA3_iKpyZCHMmtAEHpMOg7AHWkW3n11L@mail.gmail.com>
References: <AANLkTim5UFs=WA3_iKpyZCHMmtAEHpMOg7AHWkW3n11L@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <AANLkTi=_2aXOb-YhH-b44OnMwe_HYo=pBsyKU6zx+MPs@mail.gmail.com>

I will have something within the hour. I started working on this yesterday,
and so have formulated most of it already.

Risker/Anne

On 29 November 2010 20:55, Kirill Lokshin <kirill.lokshin at gmail.com> wrote:

> So what do we want to do here?
>
> We have, I think, a very narrow window in which we can issue any meaningful
> statement; if we can't publish something in the next couple of days, it's
> likely to be too late to be anything other than a principled protest.
>
> Given that we need to keep most of the details private, should we go for
> something brief?
>
> We should also consider the possibility that we will be asked why we did
> not strip him of functionary status; I don't know that we have a good
> answer, but we really need to have one ready before we publish anything.
>
> Kirill
>
> _______________________________________________
> Arbcom-en-b mailing list
> Arbcom-en-b at lists.wikimedia.org
> https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/arbcom-en-b
>
>

***********

From User.CoolHandLuke at gmail.com Tue Nov 30 02:21:28 2010
From: User.CoolHandLuke at gmail.com (Cool Hand Luke)
Date: Mon, 29 Nov 2010 21:21:28 -0500
Subject: [arbcom-en-b] Statement re: FT2
In-Reply-To: <AANLkTim5UFs=WA3_iKpyZCHMmtAEHpMOg7AHWkW3n11L@mail.gmail.com>
References: <AANLkTim5UFs=WA3_iKpyZCHMmtAEHpMOg7AHWkW3n11L@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <AANLkTimEJ3PtZq63FbiWEs=Qavkd1AT6=AxKEOiuizTv@mail.gmail.com>

I believe that we didn't strip him of functionary status because I was
sitting on the Poetlister email in typical indecisiveness; I figured that if
we let sleeping dogs lie it would be best for everyone. I contacted Mr.
[redacted] (PL) himself after I first received it, and he didn't want to again
become a spectacle on WR and was still somewhat afraid that FT2 would make
good on his extraordinary threats.

I only brought up the email when FT2 asked to regain access to the tools.
It would seem unfair (or at least unlucky) to suddenly remove him of
functionary status (whatever that is) in response to his request for the
tools.

That said, you're right that it's a likely question. The list does
occassionally discuss the sort of CU-related detective work that FT2 should
be walled off from IMO.

Frank

P.S.: I favor a very short statement, but it's very tricky to make a fair
one. It will be obvious who the "sock master" is if we try to fully explain
what FT2 did; we might ironically renew any harm FT2 caused. Attempting to
avoid this problem by running our statement past (PL) first seems
politically noxious if not unfair to FT2. On the other hand, if we leave
out any hints of Poetlister and speak only of an inappropriate or
threatening email, FT2 might rightly protest that it doesn't explain the
extraordinary threat to the project he perceived in this case.

I'm interested with what Risker comes up with. And Coren: he explicitly *
did* go rogue. The email itself disclaims WMF responsibility, and the WMF
folks we asked about it (Jimbo, Cary) were appalled by it, tending to
confirm that it was indeed out of their hands.


*******************

From risker.wp at gmail.com Tue Nov 30 02:20:49 2010
From: risker.wp at gmail.com (Risker)
Date: Mon, 29 Nov 2010 21:20:49 -0500
Subject: [arbcom-en-b] Statement re: FT2
In-Reply-To: <4CF45E39.8080902@uberbox.org>
References: <AANLkTim5UFs=WA3_iKpyZCHMmtAEHpMOg7AHWkW3n11L@mail.gmail.com>
<4CF45E39.8080902@uberbox.org>
Message-ID: <AANLkTin8Zwg6BBw_VHzAADABdjvOj=gP=k_vU84i42bM@mail.gmail.com>

On 29 November 2010 21:15, Marc A. Pelletier <marc at uberbox.org> wrote:

> On 29/11/2010 8:55 PM, Kirill Lokshin wrote:
>
> So what do we want to do here?
>
> We have, I think, a very narrow window in which we can issue any
> meaningful statement; if we can't publish something in the next couple of
> days, it's likely to be too late to be anything other than a principled
> protest.
>
> Given that we need to keep most of the details private, should we go for
> something brief?
>
> We should also consider the possibility that we will be asked why we did
> not strip him of functionary status; I don't know that we have a good
> answer, but we really need to have one ready before we publish anything.
>
>
> Honestly? I don't know. Something about being very concerned with the
> tone of a letter sent during a sockpuppet investigation?
>
> *Can* we make a meaningful statement? I don't think we agree about the
> severity of the problem; I know we didn't agree about what should be done
> about it. What is the objective of that statement? Help voters be more
> informed? (That's laudable, but hard to do without the context which must
> remain hidden due to privacy). Prevent him from being elected? (Easy to
> do, but of dubious ethics).
>
> We can't just say he went rogue, because he didn't. Regardless of any
> feelings on the substantive matter, not every condemnation of Paul's actions
> jibed with reality. Cary's intervention was... well, let's just say he
> might have been distracted by some other matter at the time because it
> didn't correspond with the facts.
>
> There are two questions we *must* ask ourselves before we do anything:
>
> 1) Is Paul likely to be elected with or without our intervention; and
> 2) if he /does/ get elected, is that letter necessarily sufficient to
> preclude his taking a seat?
>
> Question 1 answers the issues leading to his departure. If he gets elected
> despite those, then the community has seen fit to wipe the slate.
>
> Question 2 is the tricky one. Is it possible to make certain that the
> issue cannot possibly recur? If so, then I see no reason to discard an
> experienced arbitrator who -- despite any failings -- was a net positive.
> Call it "probation" if you will.
>



I'm not sure I understand what you're talking about with respect to Cary,
and we must remember that FT2 also implied that Jimmy was fully cognizant of
his actions. Both of them disavowed the letter completely.

Risker/Anne

**********

From marc at uberbox.org Tue Nov 30 02:26:07 2010
From: marc at uberbox.org (Marc A. Pelletier)
Date: Mon, 29 Nov 2010 21:26:07 -0500
Subject: [arbcom-en-b] Statement re: FT2
In-Reply-To: <AANLkTin8Zwg6BBw_VHzAADABdjvOj=gP=k_vU84i42bM@mail.gmail.com>
References: <AANLkTim5UFs=WA3_iKpyZCHMmtAEHpMOg7AHWkW3n11L@mail.gmail.com> <4CF45E39.8080902@uberbox.org>
<AANLkTin8Zwg6BBw_VHzAADABdjvOj=gP=k_vU84i42bM@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <4CF460BF.8050306@uberbox.org>

On 29/11/2010 9:20 PM, Risker wrote:
>
>
> I'm not sure I understand what you're talking about with respect to
> Cary, and we must remember that FT2 also implied that Jimmy was fully
> cognizant of his actions. Both of them disavowed the letter completely.

I do not know about Jimmy.

I expect that what ailed Cary, however, is a case of CYA-induced amnesia.

-- Coren / Marc

*******

From User.CoolHandLuke at gmail.com Tue Nov 30 02:29:11 2010
From: User.CoolHandLuke at gmail.com (Cool Hand Luke)
Date: Mon, 29 Nov 2010 21:29:11 -0500
Subject: [arbcom-en-b] Statement re: FT2
In-Reply-To: <4CF460BF.8050306@uberbox.org>
References: <AANLkTim5UFs=WA3_iKpyZCHMmtAEHpMOg7AHWkW3n11L@mail.gmail.com>
<4CF45E39.8080902@uberbox.org>
<AANLkTin8Zwg6BBw_VHzAADABdjvOj=gP=k_vU84i42bM@mail.gmail.com>
<4CF460BF.8050306@uberbox.org>
Message-ID: <AANLkTim8r4QvJtu7O7OJRGPVghcE_g7Unu76aLVkG-1s@mail.gmail.com>

So your contention is that in spite of Cary's flat denial and FT2's email
itself, which said it was not an WMF endeavor, Cary was in fact jeopardizing
the Foundation by condoning and directing FT2's actions?

Frank

******

From User.CoolHandLuke at gmail.com Tue Nov 30 02:41:51 2010
From: User.CoolHandLuke at gmail.com (Cool Hand Luke)
Date: Mon, 29 Nov 2010 21:41:51 -0500
Subject: [arbcom-en-b] Statement re: FT2
In-Reply-To: <AANLkTim8r4QvJtu7O7OJRGPVghcE_g7Unu76aLVkG-1s@mail.gmail.com>
References: <AANLkTim5UFs=WA3_iKpyZCHMmtAEHpMOg7AHWkW3n11L@mail.gmail.com>
<4CF45E39.8080902@uberbox.org>
<AANLkTin8Zwg6BBw_VHzAADABdjvOj=gP=k_vU84i42bM@mail.gmail.com>
<4CF460BF.8050306@uberbox.org>
<AANLkTim8r4QvJtu7O7OJRGPVghcE_g7Unu76aLVkG-1s@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <AANLkTi=O+hbwXOQGCGqhXkB9E4zx+ZFhGa7JsyCxsM4T@mail.gmail.com>

For reference:

-----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

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

The only conspicuous mistake in this email is that Cary didn't complete his
thought about FT2's prior investigation. From the tone, it sounds like the
end of that sentence would have been unfavorable, but let's not read into
it.

And from Jimbo:

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.

Frank

*******

From marc at uberbox.org Tue Nov 30 02:42:05 2010
From: marc at uberbox.org (Marc A. Pelletier)
Date: Mon, 29 Nov 2010 21:42:05 -0500
Subject: [arbcom-en-b] Statement re: FT2
In-Reply-To: <AANLkTim8r4QvJtu7O7OJRGPVghcE_g7Unu76aLVkG-1s@mail.gmail.com>
References: <AANLkTim5UFs=WA3_iKpyZCHMmtAEHpMOg7AHWkW3n11L@mail.gmail.com> <4CF45E39.8080902@uberbox.org> <AANLkTin8Zwg6BBw_VHzAADABdjvOj=gP=k_vU84i42bM@mail.gmail.com> <4CF460BF.8050306@uberbox.org>
<AANLkTim8r4QvJtu7O7OJRGPVghcE_g7Unu76aLVkG-1s@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <4CF4647D.4030308@uberbox.org>

On 29/11/2010 9:29 PM, Cool Hand Luke wrote:
> So your contention is that in spite of Cary's flat denial and FT2's
> email itself, which said it was not an WMF endeavor, Cary was in fact
> jeopardizing the Foundation by condoning and directing FT2's actions?

I said no such thing. Cary most certainly did not direct any of this.

He /was/ aware of the letter, and its contents.

My position on the whole mess, however, remains exactly as it was in
February. That letter was wrong, but not blackmail in any significant
meaning of the term, and Paul is being unfairly railroaded over it.
People who were fully cognizant of what was going on are now displaying
surprising failings of memory.

-- Coren / Marc

***********

From risker.wp at gmail.com Tue Nov 30 02:45:52 2010
From: risker.wp at gmail.com (Risker)
Date: Mon, 29 Nov 2010 21:45:52 -0500
Subject: [arbcom-en-b] Statement re: FT2
In-Reply-To: <AANLkTi=O+hbwXOQGCGqhXkB9E4zx+ZFhGa7JsyCxsM4T@mail.gmail.com>
References: <AANLkTim5UFs=WA3_iKpyZCHMmtAEHpMOg7AHWkW3n11L@mail.gmail.com>
<4CF45E39.8080902@uberbox.org>
<AANLkTin8Zwg6BBw_VHzAADABdjvOj=gP=k_vU84i42bM@mail.gmail.com>
<4CF460BF.8050306@uberbox.org>
<AANLkTim8r4QvJtu7O7OJRGPVghcE_g7Unu76aLVkG-1s@mail.gmail.com>
<AANLkTi=O+hbwXOQGCGqhXkB9E4zx+ZFhGa7JsyCxsM4T@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <AANLkTi=dhRRpAS8pHQsnOnRjc_6wqFVMTA0TnAQPD0Ko@mail.gmail.com>

On 29 November 2010 21:41, Cool Hand Luke <User.CoolHandLuke at gmail.com>wrote:

> For reference:
> <snip>
> The only conspicuous mistake in this email is that Cary didn't complete his
> thought about FT2's prior investigation. From the tone, it sounds like the
> end of that sentence would have been unfavorable, but let's not read into
> it.
>
> <snip>

Actually, I think that the "other user" Cary refers to is actually Durova,
not FT2. We all know how that ended.

Risker/Anne

********

From marc at uberbox.org Tue Nov 30 03:07:37 2010
From: marc at uberbox.org (Marc A. Pelletier)
Date: Mon, 29 Nov 2010 22:07:37 -0500
Subject: [arbcom-en-b] Statement re: FT2
In-Reply-To: <AANLkTikASN4AwQdQq75K57UDjm9V2_6cSVpCtwDW_FmC@mail.gmail.com>
References: <AANLkTim5UFs=WA3_iKpyZCHMmtAEHpMOg7AHWkW3n11L@mail.gmail.com> <4CF45E39.8080902@uberbox.org> <AANLkTin8Zwg6BBw_VHzAADABdjvOj=gP=k_vU84i42bM@mail.gmail.com> <4CF460BF.8050306@uberbox.org> <AANLkTim8r4QvJtu7O7OJRGPVghcE_g7Unu76aLVkG-1s@mail.gmail.com> <4CF4647D.4030308@uberbox.org>
<AANLkTikASN4AwQdQq75K57UDjm9V2_6cSVpCtwDW_FmC@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <4CF46A79.2010702@uberbox.org>

On 29/11/2010 9:51 PM, Cool Hand Luke wrote:
>
> I do share your surprised that no one brought this up earlier. I knew
> that at least John Vandenburg and Rlevse got a copy of the finished
> email (you've also admitted to getting one). Because no one had said
> a peep about it, I thought I'd lost my mind about what was and was not
> acceptable CU behavior.

Because I saw it as uncharacteristically strong, but I understood its
intent as "Fess up, man, because if we have to make a public
investigation to get rid of you it will affect your public life in bad
ways." I.e.: not blackmail, an "escape hatch" that left his dignity
mostly intact.

And because, frankly, a criminally insane man who steals identities of
his female coworkers (including pictures!) to "play" on one of the most
visited website of the world while ArbCom (then) floundered about
getting rid of him? That had more damage potential to the foundation
than the letter which Paul -- wisely -- disassociated from WMF.

In other words: I wouldn't want Paul to pull a stunt like that again,
but I can't fathom the apparent desperation at nailing him on a cross
over it.

-- Coren / Marc

******

From risker.wp at gmail.com Tue Nov 30 03:15:14 2010
From: risker.wp at gmail.com (Risker)
Date: Mon, 29 Nov 2010 22:15:14 -0500
Subject: [arbcom-en-b] Statement re: FT2
In-Reply-To: <4CF46A79.2010702@uberbox.org>
References: <AANLkTim5UFs=WA3_iKpyZCHMmtAEHpMOg7AHWkW3n11L@mail.gmail.com>
<4CF45E39.8080902@uberbox.org>
<AANLkTin8Zwg6BBw_VHzAADABdjvOj=gP=k_vU84i42bM@mail.gmail.com>
<4CF460BF.8050306@uberbox.org>
<AANLkTim8r4QvJtu7O7OJRGPVghcE_g7Unu76aLVkG-1s@mail.gmail.com>
<4CF4647D.4030308@uberbox.org>
<AANLkTikASN4AwQdQq75K57UDjm9V2_6cSVpCtwDW_FmC@mail.gmail.com>
<4CF46A79.2010702@uberbox.org>
Message-ID: <AANLkTi=LFqYR5QnOXvQNxN4sHZb-YVXqx=8JZ2iHkjDh@mail.gmail.com>

Okay....draft statement:



==Statement of facts concerning FT2 and request for reinstatement of
Checkuser/Oversight permissions==

On January 15, 2009, FT2 "stepped down" as a member of the Arbitration
committee,[
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=...oldid=264147855]
At that time, he remained a functionary and retained checkuser and oversight
permissions. FT2 voluntarily relinquished all tools on 26 October 2009 as
part of an extended wiki-break which he took for reasons unrelated to
Wikipedia.[
http://meta.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?titl...0&oldid=1687438]


On 24 February 2010, FT2 contacted the Arbitration Committee by email to
request return of Checkuser permissions for the purpose of participating in
a specific sockpuppetry investigation. At that time, an email written by FT2
came to the attention of the entire Arbitration Committee. The email was
addressed to an abusive sockpuppeter who had been banned from English
Wikipedia and some other WMF projects as a result of a cross-wiki
investigation in which FT2 played a significant role. In the email, FT2
threatened to contact family members of the sockpuppeter directly, and laid
out a series of conditions including those external to Wikipedia with the
threat of contacting employers, government agencies, and others about the
nature of the socking. It was known at the time this email was disclosed to
the Committee ''en banc'' that the conditions outlined in FT2's email had
not been met, and there was concern that he might proceed with the actions
he had threatened in the email. FT2 confirmed that the text of the email was
correct and implied that the content had been vetted in advance by a WMF
staff member and a WMF board member. Both denied having read the email at
any point. FT2 was also asked to provide further details of that particular
investigation, which he had refused to share with at least one sitting
member of the arbitration committee at the time of the investigation. The
discussion was largely abandoned about six weeks later. No formal decision
had been made because the Committee had not yet received the further
information requested.

In May 2010, FT2 advised the Arbitration Committee that he had now returned
from his wikibreak and requested both checkuser and oversight tools. He
acknowledged that he had not responded to the prior requests, and promised
to do so promptly. He did not provide that information to the Committee or,
to the best of our knowledge, any Committee member, from that point
forward. Because the Arbitration Committee never received the requested
information, and thus our investigation was incomplete, there was never a
formal vote on whether or not to reinstate FT2's checkuser and/or oversight
permissions. However, over the course of the two separate discussions, a
minimum of seven Arbitration Committee members expressed serious concerns
and/or outright opposition to returning checkuser to FT2.

Throughout 2009 and 2010, the standard by which candidates for checkuser and
oversight tools have been vetted is that the candidate fails vetting if
there are more than two arbitrators opposed to the candidate proceeding to
community review, or if any arbitrator opposes on the grounds of
privacy-related issues. There is no reason to believe that, had a formal
vote been taken, FT2 would have passed a vetting of the Arbitration
Committee for access to privacy-related tools. The Committee also has no
reason to believe that FT2 carried out the actions that he threatened in his
email to the sockpuppeter.

*****

From risker.wp at gmail.com Tue Nov 30 03:47:45 2010
From: risker.wp at gmail.com (Risker)
Date: Mon, 29 Nov 2010 22:47:45 -0500
Subject: [arbcom-en-b] Statement re: FT2
In-Reply-To: <AANLkTi=LFqYR5QnOXvQNxN4sHZb-YVXqx=8JZ2iHkjDh@mail.gmail.com>
References: <AANLkTim5UFs=WA3_iKpyZCHMmtAEHpMOg7AHWkW3n11L@mail.gmail.com>
<4CF45E39.8080902@uberbox.org>
<AANLkTin8Zwg6BBw_VHzAADABdjvOj=gP=k_vU84i42bM@mail.gmail.com>
<4CF460BF.8050306@uberbox.org>
<AANLkTim8r4QvJtu7O7OJRGPVghcE_g7Unu76aLVkG-1s@mail.gmail.com>
<4CF4647D.4030308@uberbox.org>
<AANLkTikASN4AwQdQq75K57UDjm9V2_6cSVpCtwDW_FmC@mail.gmail.com>
<4CF46A79.2010702@uberbox.org>
<AANLkTi=LFqYR5QnOXvQNxN4sHZb-YVXqx=8JZ2iHkjDh@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <AANLkTi=nt=X46X9LNkRSUpGYhCK8ay=yqUuK2qae+g87@mail.gmail.com>

Oh wow...boy did this list suddenly get quiet...

***********

From marc at uberbox.org Tue Nov 30 04:28:18 2010
From: marc at uberbox.org (Marc A. Pelletier)
Date: Mon, 29 Nov 2010 23:28:18 -0500
Subject: [arbcom-en-b] Statement re: FT2
In-Reply-To: <AANLkTi=nt=X46X9LNkRSUpGYhCK8ay=yqUuK2qae+g87@mail.gmail.com>
References: <AANLkTim5UFs=WA3_iKpyZCHMmtAEHpMOg7AHWkW3n11L@mail.gmail.com> <4CF45E39.8080902@uberbox.org> <AANLkTin8Zwg6BBw_VHzAADABdjvOj=gP=k_vU84i42bM@mail.gmail.com> <4CF460BF.8050306@uberbox.org> <AANLkTim8r4QvJtu7O7OJRGPVghcE_g7Unu76aLVkG-1s@mail.gmail.com> <4CF4647D.4030308@uberbox.org> <AANLkTikASN4AwQdQq75K57UDjm9V2_6cSVpCtwDW_FmC@mail.gmail.com> <4CF46A79.2010702@uberbox.org> <AANLkTi=LFqYR5QnOXvQNxN4sHZb-YVXqx=8JZ2iHkjDh@mail.gmail.com>
<AANLkTi=nt=X46X9LNkRSUpGYhCK8ay=yqUuK2qae+g87@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <4CF47D62.6000508@uberbox.org>

On 29/11/2010 10:47 PM, Risker wrote:
>
> Oh wow...boy did this list suddenly get quiet...
>

I indented to comment point by point in more detail, but that requires
less pain (or one more hand) than I can currently muster.

The short of it: the second paragraph severely mischaracterizes the
situation, gets the timeline wrong, and I must oppose it it as written.

"The email was addressed to an abusive sockpuppeter who had been banned"
is wrong on its face. It was addressed to the abusive sockpuppetter
/before/ he was banned, in order to limit the amount of disclosure
necessary to ban him.

"In the email, FT2 threatened to contact family members of the
sockpuppeter directly"; that's an outright fabrication. In the email,
FT2 states that proving the socking, if it came to that, would almost
certainly disclose his real life identity and workplace (since that is
where the connection lies), that the WR crowd (or others) would almost
certainly follow up on that and rip him to shred (which is what they
pretty much did anyways), and that there may be other real-life
consequences to revealing his misbehavior. The rest of the supposed
"threats" require a reading of the email with a particularly twisted
perspective in that context. Did you actually *read* the entire email
or just the cherry picked quotes with crucifixion-friendly highlighting
provided on arbcom-l?

(On a different note, the bits about caring for his family and children
was *way* out of line, but obviously a (rather sleazy) appeal to
Poetlister's "better sense" rather that any threat.)

"It was known at the time this email was disclosed [...] there was
concern that he might proceed with the actions he had threatened in the
email"; the only "threat" in the email is the necessary disclosure of
the link proving the sockpuppeting; and I see no such concern on
abrcom-l. Whose concern was this? Where was it expressed?

I also have some problems with the wording of the rest, but those are
comparatively minor.

-- Coren / Marc

*********

From kirill.lokshin at gmail.com Tue Nov 30 04:36:59 2010
From: kirill.lokshin at gmail.com (Kirill Lokshin)
Date: Mon, 29 Nov 2010 23:36:59 -0500
Subject: [arbcom-en-b] Statement re: FT2
In-Reply-To: <4CF47D62.6000508@uberbox.org>
References: <AANLkTim5UFs=WA3_iKpyZCHMmtAEHpMOg7AHWkW3n11L@mail.gmail.com>
<4CF45E39.8080902@uberbox.org>
<AANLkTin8Zwg6BBw_VHzAADABdjvOj=gP=k_vU84i42bM@mail.gmail.com>
<4CF460BF.8050306@uberbox.org>
<AANLkTim8r4QvJtu7O7OJRGPVghcE_g7Unu76aLVkG-1s@mail.gmail.com>
<4CF4647D.4030308@uberbox.org>
<AANLkTikASN4AwQdQq75K57UDjm9V2_6cSVpCtwDW_FmC@mail.gmail.com>
<4CF46A79.2010702@uberbox.org>
<AANLkTi=LFqYR5QnOXvQNxN4sHZb-YVXqx=8JZ2iHkjDh@mail.gmail.com>
<AANLkTi=nt=X46X9LNkRSUpGYhCK8ay=yqUuK2qae+g87@mail.gmail.com>
<4CF47D62.6000508@uberbox.org>
Message-ID: <AANLkTi=9W7T8v1OAphCj_v=PM5cMW_+2CNfSBF8xexG4@mail.gmail.com>

On Mon, Nov 29, 2010 at 11:28 PM, Marc A. Pelletier <marc at uberbox.org>wrote:

> "In the email, FT2 threatened to contact family members of the
> sockpuppeter directly"; that's an outright fabrication. In the email,
> FT2 states that proving the socking, if it came to that, would almost
> certainly disclose his real life identity and workplace (since that is
> where the connection lies), that the WR crowd (or others) would almost
> certainly follow up on that and rip him to shred (which is what they
> pretty much did anyways), and that there may be other real-life
> consequences to revealing his misbehavior. The rest of the supposed
> "threats" require a reading of the email with a particularly twisted
> perspective in that context. Did you actually *read* the entire email
> or just the cherry picked quotes with crucifixion-friendly highlighting
> provided on arbcom-l?


Um, the email seems fairly clear to me:

"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.... 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>
workplace for evidence, and the Department of Health, and probably
unavoidably, ending with family or someone will inform the police... Risk it
if you like. Your call."

I'm having difficulty reading this as anything other than a "nice shop you
got here... would be a shame if it were to burn down"-type threat.

(Now, granted, could be argued that when FT2 talked about "gloves coming
off", he was just speculating on what WR might do, and not implying that
he'd have any role to play himself -- but, in all honesty, I think that
requires an overly naive interpretation of the email, and not one that
(PL) could reasonably be expected to use.)

Kirill

*********

From marc at uberbox.org Tue Nov 30 04:45:00 2010
From: marc at uberbox.org (Marc A. Pelletier)
Date: Mon, 29 Nov 2010 23:45:00 -0500
Subject: [arbcom-en-b] Statement re: FT2
In-Reply-To: <AANLkTi=9W7T8v1OAphCj_v=PM5cMW_+2CNfSBF8xexG4@mail.gmail.com>
References: <AANLkTim5UFs=WA3_iKpyZCHMmtAEHpMOg7AHWkW3n11L@mail.gmail.com> <4CF45E39.8080902@uberbox.org> <AANLkTin8Zwg6BBw_VHzAADABdjvOj=gP=k_vU84i42bM@mail.gmail.com> <4CF460BF.8050306@uberbox.org> <AANLkTim8r4QvJtu7O7OJRGPVghcE_g7Unu76aLVkG-1s@mail.gmail.com> <4CF4647D.4030308@uberbox.org> <AANLkTikASN4AwQdQq75K57UDjm9V2_6cSVpCtwDW_FmC@mail.gmail.com> <4CF46A79.2010702@uberbox.org> <AANLkTi=LFqYR5QnOXvQNxN4sHZb-YVXqx=8JZ2iHkjDh@mail.gmail.com> <AANLkTi=nt=X46X9LNkRSUpGYhCK8ay=yqUuK2qae+g87@mail.gmail.com> <4CF47D62.6000508@uberbox.org>
<AANLkTi=9W7T8v1OAphCj_v=PM5cMW_+2CNfSBF8xexG4@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <4CF4814C.4020004@uberbox.org>

On 29/11/2010 11:36 PM, Kirill Lokshin wrote:
>
> (Now, granted, could be argued that when FT2 talked about "gloves
> coming off", he was just speculating on what WR might do, and not
> implying that he'd have any role to play himself -- but, in all
> honesty, I think that requires an overly naive interpretation of the
> email, and not one that (PL) could reasonably be expected to use.)
>

The email, I think, is damn clear. It says: "Look, I know. I can
prove it (but that makes your identity known). If you go away quietly
and don't fight it, I won't have to. Otherwise, I have to prove my case
and you'll end up in a great big pile of crap."

I *know* that is the intended meaning; and perhaps I read that intent
into the actual email because of that knowledge. I think that reading a
threat that FT2 will do anything more than "prove the case to make sure
we get rid of you, and you get to live with the broken pot" requires
presuming a great deal more ill-intent and malice in Paul than I can
even imagine him being capable of.

I remain convinced that the proper way to handle the matter -- in the
relatively unlikely case that he gets elected -- is to set boundaries to
make sure such ill-advised intervention does not take place anymore.
The proposed statement by Anne poisons the well irremediably, and
convicts him on the public stage for something I do not believe he has done.

-- Coren / Marc

************

From kirill.lokshin at gmail.com Tue Nov 30 04:45:57 2010
From: kirill.lokshin at gmail.com (Kirill Lokshin)
Date: Mon, 29 Nov 2010 23:45:57 -0500
Subject: [arbcom-en-b] Statement re: FT2
In-Reply-To: <AANLkTi=LFqYR5QnOXvQNxN4sHZb-YVXqx=8JZ2iHkjDh@mail.gmail.com>
References: <AANLkTim5UFs=WA3_iKpyZCHMmtAEHpMOg7AHWkW3n11L@mail.gmail.com>
<4CF45E39.8080902@uberbox.org>
<AANLkTin8Zwg6BBw_VHzAADABdjvOj=gP=k_vU84i42bM@mail.gmail.com>
<4CF460BF.8050306@uberbox.org>
<AANLkTim8r4QvJtu7O7OJRGPVghcE_g7Unu76aLVkG-1s@mail.gmail.com>
<4CF4647D.4030308@uberbox.org>
<AANLkTikASN4AwQdQq75K57UDjm9V2_6cSVpCtwDW_FmC@mail.gmail.com>
<4CF46A79.2010702@uberbox.org>
<AANLkTi=LFqYR5QnOXvQNxN4sHZb-YVXqx=8JZ2iHkjDh@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <AANLkTinuXTq8gqaNwiFgsiLkAYC=jSANeEUNpgd6yFi8@mail.gmail.com>

On Mon, Nov 29, 2010 at 10:15 PM, Risker <risker.wp at gmail.com> wrote:

>
> Okay....draft statement:
>
> ==Statement of facts concerning FT2 and request for reinstatement of
> Checkuser/Oversight permissions==
>
> On January 15, 2009, FT2 "stepped down" as a member of the Arbitration
> committee,[
> http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=...oldid=264147855]
> At that time, he remained a functionary and retained checkuser and oversight
> permissions. FT2 voluntarily relinquished all tools on 26 October 2009 as
> part of an extended wiki-break which he took for reasons unrelated to
> Wikipedia.[
> http://meta.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?titl...0&oldid=1687438]
>
>
> On 24 February 2010, FT2 contacted the Arbitration Committee by email to
> request return of Checkuser permissions for the purpose of participating in
> a specific sockpuppetry investigation. At that time, an email written by FT2
> came to the attention of the entire Arbitration Committee.
>

"entire Arbitration Committee" is awkward. If we go with the understanding
that contacting individual arbitrators doesn't constitute formally bringing
something before the Committee, can't we just say "came to the attention of
the Committee"?

The email was addressed to an abusive sockpuppeter who had been banned from
> English Wikipedia and some other WMF projects as a result of a cross-wiki
> investigation in which FT2 played a significant role.
>

I would omit the references to other WMF projects and cross-wiki work here;
they're not essential to the point, and provide unnecessary hints as to the
user's identity.


> In the email, FT2 threatened to contact family members of the sockpuppeter
> directly, and laid out a series of conditions including those external to
> Wikipedia with the threat of contacting employers, government agencies, and
> others about the nature of the socking.
>

If we want to avoid the question of whether FT2 was making a directly
personal threat, we could reword this as "In the email, FT2 laid out a
series of demands, including several external to Wikipedia, and threatened
that employers, government agencies, family members, and others would be
contacted about the sockpuppetry if those demands were not complied with."

It was known at the time this email was disclosed to the Committee ''en
> banc''
>

As above, I'd reword this as "at the time the email came to the Committee's
attention".


> that the conditions outlined in FT2's email had not been met, and there was
> concern that he might proceed with the actions he had threatened in the
> email.
>

Reword this as "concern that the threats in the email might be carried out"
to avoid the personal threat question?


> FT2 confirmed that the text of the email was correct and implied that the
> content had been vetted in advance by a WMF staff member and a WMF board
> member. Both denied having read the email at any point. FT2 was also asked
> to provide further details of that particular investigation, which he had
> refused to share with at least one sitting member of the arbitration
> committee at the time of the investigation. The discussion was largely
> abandoned about six weeks later. No formal decision had been made because
> the Committee had not yet received the further information requested.
>
> In May 2010, FT2 advised the Arbitration Committee that he had now returned
> from his wikibreak and requested both checkuser and oversight tools. He
> acknowledged that he had not responded to the prior requests, and promised
> to do so promptly. He did not provide that information to the Committee or,
> to the best of our knowledge, any Committee member, from that point
> forward. Because the Arbitration Committee never received the requested
> information, and thus our investigation was incomplete, there was never a
> formal vote on whether or not to reinstate FT2's checkuser and/or oversight
> permissions. However, over the course of the two separate discussions, a
> minimum of seven Arbitration Committee members expressed serious concerns
> and/or outright opposition to returning checkuser to FT2.
>

I would add "and there is no reason to believe that, had a formal vote been
taken, FT2 would have passed a vetting of the Arbitration Committee for
access to privacy-related tools" to the last sentence.

Throughout 2009 and 2010, the standard by which candidates for checkuser and
> oversight tools have been vetted is that the candidate fails vetting if
> there are more than two arbitrators opposed to the candidate proceeding to
> community review, or if any arbitrator opposes on the grounds of
> privacy-related issues. There is no reason to believe that, had a formal
> vote been taken, FT2 would have passed a vetting of the Arbitration
> Committee for access to privacy-related tools.
>

I suggest trimming this part; there's no need to delve into the minutiae of
our procedures at this point in the statement.


> The Committee also has no reason to believe that FT2 carried out the
> actions that he threatened in his email to the sockpuppeter.
>

I would move this to before the last sentence ("However...") in the
preceding paragraph; it looks somewhat out of place at the very end of the
statement, and detracts from the point that we're making about FT2 not
receiving CU/OS back.

Kirill

*********

From kirill.lokshin at gmail.com Tue Nov 30 04:56:01 2010
From: kirill.lokshin at gmail.com (Kirill Lokshin)
Date: Mon, 29 Nov 2010 23:56:01 -0500
Subject: [arbcom-en-b] Statement re: FT2
In-Reply-To: <4CF4814C.4020004@uberbox.org>
References: <AANLkTim5UFs=WA3_iKpyZCHMmtAEHpMOg7AHWkW3n11L@mail.gmail.com>
<4CF45E39.8080902@uberbox.org>
<AANLkTin8Zwg6BBw_VHzAADABdjvOj=gP=k_vU84i42bM@mail.gmail.com>
<4CF460BF.8050306@uberbox.org>
<AANLkTim8r4QvJtu7O7OJRGPVghcE_g7Unu76aLVkG-1s@mail.gmail.com>
<4CF4647D.4030308@uberbox.org>
<AANLkTikASN4AwQdQq75K57UDjm9V2_6cSVpCtwDW_FmC@mail.gmail.com>
<4CF46A79.2010702@uberbox.org>
<AANLkTi=LFqYR5QnOXvQNxN4sHZb-YVXqx=8JZ2iHkjDh@mail.gmail.com>
<AANLkTi=nt=X46X9LNkRSUpGYhCK8ay=yqUuK2qae+g87@mail.gmail.com>
<4CF47D62.6000508@uberbox.org>
<AANLkTi=9W7T8v1OAphCj_v=PM5cMW_+2CNfSBF8xexG4@mail.gmail.com>
<4CF4814C.4020004@uberbox.org>
Message-ID: <AANLkTimDvjEoeF8BRZNHuUDQ99qhdJPdmrzcJK6rxjqw@mail.gmail.com>

On Mon, Nov 29, 2010 at 11:45 PM, Marc A. Pelletier <marc at uberbox.org>wrote:

> I remain convinced that the proper way to handle the matter -- in the
> relatively unlikely case that he gets elected -- is to set boundaries to
> make sure such ill-advised intervention does not take place anymore.
>

But how are we going to enforce those boundaries? Keep in mind that his
entire investigation was only mentioned to a small subset of arbitrators,
and this final email to even fewer than that. What makes you think that,
should he see another occasion where this "needs to be done", he won't
simply do it in secret again?

(Not to mention the fact that, if he *is* elected, he's likely to consider
that result a vindication of everything he's done, and simply ignore any
statements we make to the contrary. I'd like to avoid having to try and
remove an arbitrator by force; that's one constitutional crisis we don't
really need at the moment.)

Kirill

******

From risker.wp at gmail.com Tue Nov 30 06:27:58 2010
From: risker.wp at gmail.com (Risker)
Date: Tue, 30 Nov 2010 01:27:58 -0500
Subject: [arbcom-en-b] Statement re: FT2
In-Reply-To: <4CF47D62.6000508@uberbox.org>
References: <AANLkTim5UFs=WA3_iKpyZCHMmtAEHpMOg7AHWkW3n11L@mail.gmail.com>
<4CF45E39.8080902@uberbox.org>
<AANLkTin8Zwg6BBw_VHzAADABdjvOj=gP=k_vU84i42bM@mail.gmail.com>
<4CF460BF.8050306@uberbox.org>
<AANLkTim8r4QvJtu7O7OJRGPVghcE_g7Unu76aLVkG-1s@mail.gmail.com>
<4CF4647D.4030308@uberbox.org>
<AANLkTikASN4AwQdQq75K57UDjm9V2_6cSVpCtwDW_FmC@mail.gmail.com>
<4CF46A79.2010702@uberbox.org>
<AANLkTi=LFqYR5QnOXvQNxN4sHZb-YVXqx=8JZ2iHkjDh@mail.gmail.com>
<AANLkTi=nt=X46X9LNkRSUpGYhCK8ay=yqUuK2qae+g87@mail.gmail.com>
<4CF47D62.6000508@uberbox.org>
Message-ID: <AANLkTik=Lv2E-ppMKbr2D2_difM9DE2D9moz7HODnuXt@mail.gmail.com>

On 29 November 2010 23:28, Marc A. Pelletier <marc at uberbox.org> wrote:

> On 29/11/2010 10:47 PM, Risker wrote:
> >
> > Oh wow...boy did this list suddenly get quiet...
> >
>
> I indented to comment point by point in more detail, but that requires
> less pain (or one more hand) than I can currently muster.
>
> The short of it: the second paragraph severely mischaracterizes the
> situation, gets the timeline wrong, and I must oppose it it as written.
>

I'm not sure where you have a problem with the timeline, Coren. It's taken
right from the emails involved.



>
> "The email was addressed to an abusive sockpuppeter who had been banned"
> is wrong on its face. It was addressed to the abusive sockpuppetter
> /before/ he was banned, in order to limit the amount of disclosure
> necessary to ban him.
>

The email was sent on September 13. Poetlister et al was blocked on
September 6. (The send date was included in Frank's email and was never
refuted by anyone, including FT2.)



>
> "In the email, FT2 threatened to contact family members of the
> sockpuppeter directly"; that's an outright fabrication. In the email,
> FT2 states that proving the socking, if it came to that, would almost
> certainly disclose his real life identity and workplace (since that is
> where the connection lies), that the WR crowd (or others) would almost
> certainly follow up on that and rip him to shred (which is what they
> pretty much did anyways), and that there may be other real-life
> consequences to revealing his misbehavior. The rest of the supposed
> "threats" require a reading of the email with a particularly twisted
> perspective in that context. Did you actually *read* the entire email
> or just the cherry picked quotes with crucifixion-friendly highlighting
> provided on arbcom-l?
>

Actually, I thought my wording was rather mild compared to what was present
in the email.



>
> (On a different note, the bits about caring for his family and children
> was *way* out of line, but obviously a (rather sleazy) appeal to
> Poetlister's "better sense" rather that any threat.)
>
> "It was known at the time this email was disclosed [...] there was
> concern that he might proceed with the actions he had threatened in the
> email"; the only "threat" in the email is the necessary disclosure of
> the link proving the sockpuppeting; and I see no such concern on
> abrcom-l. Whose concern was this? Where was it expressed?
>

I'm okay with taking that part out, I don't think it was really adding
anything.



>
> I also have some problems with the wording of the rest, but those are
> comparatively minor.
>
> -- Coren / Marc

*****

From carcharothwp at googlemail.com Tue Nov 30 11:07:03 2010
From: carcharothwp at googlemail.com (Carcharoth)
Date: Tue, 30 Nov 2010 11:07:03 +0000
Subject: [arbcom-en-b] Statement re: FT2
In-Reply-To: <AANLkTim5UFs=WA3_iKpyZCHMmtAEHpMOg7AHWkW3n11L@mail.gmail.com>
References: <AANLkTim5UFs=WA3_iKpyZCHMmtAEHpMOg7AHWkW3n11L@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <AANLkTinqjp9z_=QJ3k5CHD8KHfMOzZ9WmUUDdFMQ7qvP@mail.gmail.com>

On Tue, Nov 30, 2010 at 1:55 AM, Kirill Lokshin
<kirill.lokshin at gmail.com> wrote:
> So what do we want to do here?
> We have, I think, a very narrow window in which we can issue any meaningful
> statement; if we can't publish something in the next couple of days, it's
> likely to be too late to be anything other than a principled protest.

I still favour just asking him questions that he has to give straight
answers to (I'm still planning to do this tonight, but have deadlines
at work to meet today and only have time for this one e-mail).

For now, someone at least has twigged:

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=...oldid=399615036

That might be all that is needed as far as this thread goes.

Me, I'd ask him some combination of the following:

(1) Whether the arbs that were present when he stepped down (i.e. the
ones most able to bring scrutiny to his claims about what happened
then) are willing to endorse his bid to be re-elected, and/or whether
he thinks that matters or not (and if not, how the electorate can
fairly judge him).

(2) Whether those that see his off-wiki work before, during and after
his stepping down are willing to endorse his election bid and/or
corroborate any of the claims he makes in his election statement. And
whether any of those he works with on off-wiki matters have raised
concerns about his off-wiki work and whether he has satisfactorily
addressed any concerns raised, and whether the electorate have a right
to know if any such concerns exist.

(3) Why several former colleagues of his (John Vandenberg and
Wizardman) appear either unable to support his election bid or are
publicly questioning him about it, or publicly opposing his bid for
election. See in particular what Wizardman has said in his guide.

And so on, and so forth.

Confidentially, I contacted another former arbitrator who worked with
FT2 (who doesn't want to be named) and they have concerns as well.
Essentially, my thesis remains the same, that current and former arbs
standing for election, *especially* if they are standing on the basis
of a past track record that includes off-wiki work that they are
pointing to as a reason to elect them again, need to have claims about
that off-wiki work corroborated *before* (or soon after) they put up
an election statement. Otherwise people will dissemble and spin when
describing their own work, with the electorate being unable to
properly assess those claims.

Yes, I know it is an election where people make outrageous claims, but
you still need to be able to have proper scrutiny for such claims
(hence my questioning of the other arbs and former arbs as well). In
theory, if the discussions were robust and penetrating enough (and
lasted long enough), there would never be any need for ArbCom to
discuss issuing a statement such as has been drafted in this thread.
It would all get thrashed out on-wiki with FT2 calling people to
corroborate his claims or dismiss them (without private details being
given) and the electorate then being able to judge, or the really
private matters *not* being mentioned (i.e. accepting that some things
are just not brought up during an election campaign, as the privacy
issues don't allow proper scrutiny). But in a 10-day election (FT2
entered a few hours before nominations closed), there is not enough
time to tackle such issues.

Carcharoth


*******

From carcharothwp at googlemail.com Tue Nov 30 11:26:34 2010
From: carcharothwp at googlemail.com (Carcharoth)
Date: Tue, 30 Nov 2010 11:26:34 +0000
Subject: [arbcom-en-b] Statement re: FT2
In-Reply-To: <AANLkTinqjp9z_=QJ3k5CHD8KHfMOzZ9WmUUDdFMQ7qvP@mail.gmail.com>
References: <AANLkTim5UFs=WA3_iKpyZCHMmtAEHpMOg7AHWkW3n11L@mail.gmail.com>
<AANLkTinqjp9z_=QJ3k5CHD8KHfMOzZ9WmUUDdFMQ7qvP@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <AANLkTi=iU3+cj03qe9dX0sXo7KeGWJDk97MqU_iKVdPN@mail.gmail.com>

The other thought is that it might be best practice to send a
candidate a copy of any statement that will be issued about them.
Otherwise they could just be "unavailable" for the remainder of the
election, and then provide a rebuttal on return. The other option is
to wait for the election to finish, and then submit a statement to
Jimbo detailing concerns that the electorate were unaware of. And that
really is my last e-mail on the subject until 6pm UTC!

Carcharoth

*********

From User.CoolHandLuke at gmail.com Tue Nov 30 12:40:40 2010
From: User.CoolHandLuke at gmail.com (Cool Hand Luke)
Date: Tue, 30 Nov 2010 07:40:40 -0500
Subject: [arbcom-en-b] Statement re: FT2
In-Reply-To: <AANLkTi=iU3+cj03qe9dX0sXo7KeGWJDk97MqU_iKVdPN@mail.gmail.com>
References: <AANLkTim5UFs=WA3_iKpyZCHMmtAEHpMOg7AHWkW3n11L@mail.gmail.com>
<AANLkTinqjp9z_=QJ3k5CHD8KHfMOzZ9WmUUDdFMQ7qvP@mail.gmail.com>
<AANLkTi=iU3+cj03qe9dX0sXo7KeGWJDk97MqU_iKVdPN@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <AANLkTi=mLONDWKNT=A4oXYHVYDCLZYxgEZnDAr33=uF7@mail.gmail.com>

Coren: Risker is right. He was banned for a week. Not only banned, but
already named and outed on WR (as you can see by FT2's toe-curling
discussion about how WR got some details wrong). In my view, this timeline
makes the email even more inexcusable.

Whatever statement we pass, I think we should run it past FT2 before posting
to avoid any David Gerard-type mistakes and also give FT2 a chance to moot
the statement by dropping out. Contrary to Coren's repeated assertion,
we're not in the business of "crucifying" anyone. Heck, we don't already
have a statement precisely because we were reluctant to embarrass a former
volunteer.

But how are we going to enforce those boundaries? Keep in mind that his
entire investigation was only mentioned to a small subset of arbitrators,
and this final email to even fewer than that. What makes you think that,
should he see another occasion where this "needs to be done", he won't
simply do it in secret again?

(Not to mention the fact that, if he *is* elected, he's likely to consider
that result a vindication of everything he's done, and simply ignore any
statements we make to the contrary. I'd like to avoid having to try and
remove an arbitrator by force; that's one constitutional crisis we don't
really need at the moment.)

Kirill

Precisely.

Frank

**********

From risker.wp at gmail.com Tue Nov 30 13:34:14 2010
From: risker.wp at gmail.com (Risker)
Date: Tue, 30 Nov 2010 08:34:14 -0500
Subject: [arbcom-en-b] Statement re: FT2
In-Reply-To: <AANLkTi=iU3+cj03qe9dX0sXo7KeGWJDk97MqU_iKVdPN@mail.gmail.com>
References: <AANLkTim5UFs=WA3_iKpyZCHMmtAEHpMOg7AHWkW3n11L@mail.gmail.com>
<AANLkTinqjp9z_=QJ3k5CHD8KHfMOzZ9WmUUDdFMQ7qvP@mail.gmail.com>
<AANLkTi=iU3+cj03qe9dX0sXo7KeGWJDk97MqU_iKVdPN@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <AANLkTi=4toWcudEUYoTFLeUC6cVzzAvaWKgcsHcacb_8@mail.gmail.com>

On 30 November 2010 06:26, Carcharoth <carcharothwp at googlemail.com> wrote:

> The other thought is that it might be best practice to send a
> candidate a copy of any statement that will be issued about them.
> Otherwise they could just be "unavailable" for the remainder of the
> election, and then provide a rebuttal on return. The other option is
> to wait for the election to finish, and then submit a statement to
> Jimbo detailing concerns that the electorate were unaware of. And that
> really is my last e-mail on the subject until 6pm UTC!
>
>
Please don't take this as a criticism, Carcharoth. I started to read your
questions and the thought that came to me was "Who wrote this?? FT2??" If
it helps any, I had to rewrite the draft statement twice so that it didn't
sound like FT2 as well. Honest to pete, there's something about his style
that's contagious...

In any case, asking him questions is all well and good, but he could write
"I am Jack the Ripper" into the middle of one of his long statements and
nobody would notice. Furthermore, it does not dispose of *our* duty.

I believe that we are in possession of material fact and that we have an
obligation to find a way to make that information known to the electorate.
I think that by not stating this upfront and honestly, we really are hiding
information and acting in secret; we're not being transparent; and bluntly
put, we're putting Paul's right to run way, way over the community's right
to make an informed decision. We've been playing chicken with this issue
for almost two years, and we now have to put up or shut up, and I don't
think it is in the best interest of the committee or the community to shut
up.

Risker/Anne

*******

From carcharothwp at googlemail.com Tue Nov 30 14:10:45 2010
From: carcharothwp at googlemail.com (Carcharoth)
Date: Tue, 30 Nov 2010 14:10:45 +0000
Subject: [arbcom-en-b] Statement re: FT2
In-Reply-To: <AANLkTi=4toWcudEUYoTFLeUC6cVzzAvaWKgcsHcacb_8@mail.gmail.com>
References: <AANLkTim5UFs=WA3_iKpyZCHMmtAEHpMOg7AHWkW3n11L@mail.gmail.com>
<AANLkTinqjp9z_=QJ3k5CHD8KHfMOzZ9WmUUDdFMQ7qvP@mail.gmail.com>
<AANLkTi=iU3+cj03qe9dX0sXo7KeGWJDk97MqU_iKVdPN@mail.gmail.com>
<AANLkTi=4toWcudEUYoTFLeUC6cVzzAvaWKgcsHcacb_8@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <AANLkTi=pZRpJ7gfZMBCzBnSyN4uCYNASNddKa+UrJZu2@mail.gmail.com>

On Tue, Nov 30, 2010 at 1:34 PM, Risker <risker.wp at gmail.com> wrote:

> I believe that we are in possession of material fact and that we have an
> obligation to find a way to make that information known to the electorate.
> I think that by not stating this upfront and honestly, we really are hiding
> information and acting in secret; we're not being transparent; and bluntly
> put, we're putting Paul's right to run way, way over the community's right
> to make an informed decision.? We've been playing chicken with this issue
> for almost two years, and we now have to put up or shut up, and I don't
> think it is in the best interest of the committee or the community to shut
> up.

I agree absolutely, but the question will be asked, why now, why not
earlier when he put up his election statement? The answer is that it
has been a growing realisation that the electorate don't have all the
information they need. I think there are ways to make FT2 see that as
well, without issuing long and complicated statements, because really
it is not complicated. He is not being honest with the electorate.
Please don't make it a long and detailed statement - it can be very
simple.

I am also serious about the matters pertaining to the other arbs.
There are aspect to Casliber's resignation and John Vandenberg's
resignation that were not made public. There were aspects to Kirill's
resignation last year, and also Coren's resignation, that were not
made public. In each and *every* case (not just this one), you have to
ask yourself whether the electorate were fully informed, or able to be
fully informed, when they went to the polling booths (or at least
point to where full and frank disclosure of any necessary facts had
already been made and/or corroborated by those who know the
circumstances of the departures and any other non-public matters - if
Vassyana popped up and ran for election, for instance, would the
electorate need to know the circumstances of his departure? What about
Sam Blacketer?).

When any former or current arb runs for election or re-election, it
should be a requirement that their candidacy is scrutinised by any of
their colleagues-at-the-time who are st

Interesting.

Is this intentionally truncated?

looks like there's some sort of word limit to posts....

Yes, there is, and I don't know if there is a way of exempting Malice from it, but I'll look.

In the meantime, this about FT2 vs. PoetGuy, right? It's all clouded in BS, but nonetheless contains some gems of AC ineptitude.

Coren objects that FT2 did not issue any threats, and that Risker's summary is an outright fabrication.

Kirill retorts that the email is pretty clear.



And Kirill continues



Now I understand the importance of WjbScribe's email to the Committee a few days later. It gave the committee a wonderful opportunity to force FT2's resignation on different grounds than the real one.

I think there is a lot more that happened, and it would be interesting to see the discussions in December and January. My impression was that there were two factions on the Committee. One faction wanted to strip FT2 of any administrative rights, possibly to get him banned. The other wanted the whole thing to disappear.

Interesting that Jimbo is supposed to have condoned this.

Quite. These are events that the committee has known about since 2009 (even earlier). They cover something up, and time goes by, and then something happens that means they have to explain why they covered it up. So they have a second cover up. And a third, and a fourth, and so on.

In fact, what we are seeing here was also covered up until now. The mail from Carcharoth was November 30 2010. On that same date, WJBScribe writes to FT2, threatening to make certain other events public. I very much suspect there was a deal here, given the timing, and given that Scribe was also corresponding with 'Risker'. Risker probably asked Scribe to force FT2 to resign over the other incident, in return for immunity over Scribe's involvement.

Scribe made three separate threats to FT2, threatening to make the other incident public unless FT2 stepped down from the election. When FT2 finally agreed, Scribe emailed Risker (all these emails are in the thread here http://wikipediareview.com/index.php?showtopic=34116 ).

Once FT2 had resigned over the other, less damaging incident, the Committee would have breathed a collective sigh of relief.

PS As I say, I am speculating over Risker's role in this. My reasons for thinking it are the timing and the email between her and Will, as well as her very abrupt response to a mail I sent her on Saturday. 'Move on', she said.

The above contains the RL name of a member of Poetlister's family whom, I'm pretty certain, is not involved in this wikinonsense in any way. It's not rocket science to deduce her workplace, so can we at least redact her name, for her sake, whatever about that of her so-called 'better half'?

Agreed. Were you involved in any of this, Alison? I am piecing together the chronology, together with stuff I have from other sources. It seems FT2 approached Poelister's employers as early as August 2008. Poetlister was fired as a result - I still don't understand the chronology of the email being sent on the 13th September, given that everything was over by then.

This http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Requests_fo...lister_and_Cato suggests that the WMF were fully cognisant of events (i.e. someone acting for Wikipedia approaching an employer of a Wikipedia editor and getting them fired).

The committee found out about this in February 2010. Why wasn't action taken then? Why only an attempt to make a statement in November 2010? Was Will Scribe (who was involved in the 2008 events) forced to approach FT2 in order to made the resignation seem simpler than it really was?

I have emailed Jimbo again, to see if it can be made any clearer.

No, I wasn't, other than what I worked on as checkuser. I blocked his 'Ole.Holm' account, for example (which made him quite irate)

Then why do you call it Wikinonsense? You are implying it is trivial. You are implying that approaching people's employers for Wikinonsense crimes and getting them fired, when they have a family to support and get through school, is trivial? You are implying that the subsequent 2 year coverup was trivial? That forcing Scribe (if that is what happened) to email FT2 with threats about exposing a more trivial incident, in order to coverup the involvement of the commmitee, was trivial?

Fine.

(on my cell here. Can't quote text)

Sorry - it's in reference to PoetGuy's incessant socking and hunger for power, not the internal Arb stuff. I didn't mean to imply that it was somehow trivial.

And yet....FT2 is still an admin. And continues to edit.

Other people have been permabanned for less. I'd also like to hear the explanation.

Someone has just emailed me saying that P. was so bad that his employers should have been approached. I say, it has to be very bad before anyone does that - how do you know it was true, and so on. And why should an organisation like WMF condone this?

In any case, the Arbcom (see above) were united in condemning the email. The only disagreement was whether it had occurred or not (see Coren's remarks). They condemned it, yet they covered it up. Even worse, they got a fall guy (Scribe) to do the dirty work, knowing that it would incriminate him. Risker is FULLY to blame for that. Either she asked him to do it, or not. If the first, I rest my case. If the second, she must have realised the risk she was putting him in, and should have warned him. And in any case, if she thought the covered-up action was wrong, she should not have covered up. They are all EQUALLY to blame.

[Edit] And do not forget Jimbo. FT2 claims Jimbo saw the email, and approved it. Jimbo says he never saw it, or read it and forgot it. One of them is not being honest.

All of the preceding reminds me of this list.

How is FT2 getting someone fired (or Horse getting someone fired, or anyone getting someone fired)
over Wikipedia activities any different from WoW players deliberately spreading Blood Plague?
Or the "Eve Intergalactic Bank"?

The internet is for douchebags, not porn. Wikipedia, Reddit, Digg, MMORPGS, forums, you name it--
all for douchebags. Started by douchebags, run by douchebags, and packed full of douchebags.
They finally have a place to hang out, and "be themselves".

That makes two of us.

Wikipedia's not fair. It doesn't want to be fair. Get over it.

As in..."move on over here, big boy"? I think she was trying to seduce you, Petey.

Here’s what FT2 supposedly wrote (hopefully I will soon be getting a copy of the original email, which has not yet been made public).



And here is Coren defending it.



How does he know that is the intended meaning? I don’t read it as a result of ‘proving my case’. For the email says ‘one minute after that’, implying a phone call or a visit to the employers. Why would notifying employers prove any case anyway?

And more crucially, why was the email sent on 13th September 2008, when the editor who was being threatened had already been blocked and exposed on 6th Sep, a week earlier? Makes no sense. Even Risker spots this



You might say three cheers and hurrah to Risker for being a jolly good person and upholding honesty on the Wiki. Indeed, if you read down a bit, you see it was she who prepared the statement that would be made public in order to prevent FT2’s re-election. Hoorah!

But sadly, her statement was never published (until now of course). To understand why, take a peep at the other thread called “FT2's Failed Bid for the Arbitrary Committee”.

There are still a few loose ends to be explained.

Why have none of the Wikipedians picked up on this, given that they hate and abhor the community being ‘misled’. Do they think that stuff like this should be kept private? But in that case, they would have to agree that any time an arbitrator does something really badly horribly wrong, it should be kept secret (sorry ‘private’). Even the arbitrators show concern about this, if you follow the discussion



So Coren is concerned about the ethics of secretly preventing an Arb from getting elected, even though ‘easy to do’. Coren does ethics! Another explanation, though, is that Coren and others were worried about what FT2 had on Jimbo. FT2 always claimed that Jimbo sanctioned the email. And if FT2 was smart, he would have kept confirming evidence of this, perhaps letting a few trusted people know.

The thing now is to get hold of that email. More later.

222 of the morons voted for him in his second bid for arbcom. If he waits a couple of years and runs again he may very well win. Thats says all that needs to be said about Wikipedia's governance model.