From residentanthropologist at gmail.com Sat Jun 11 21:48:07 2011
From: residentanthropologist at gmail.com (ResidentAnthropologist)
Date: Sat, 11 Jun 2011 17:48:07 -0400
Subject: [arbcom-l] Advice in situation involving Ethical issues,
Private Investigators and Outings
Message-ID: <BANLkTimUGAuv5yPb01oFjW+V73FC27_iMg@mail.gmail.com>
A bit of background on this,
Ganas is commune in Staten Island New York which practices
I originally watchlisted the article "Ganas" after an ANI thread last
December and became involved fixing the article to to more NPOV state
from a Coatracked state.
The article is having excessive ownership and POV warrior problems
from a SPA User:Eroberer and several Ganas residents.
We have had repeated outings of User:Eroberer by variety of accounts
affiliated with Ganas. Outing are an ethical violation of our core
policies on privacy and I respect that. I have seen several of the
outings prior to their deletion and it adds another notch of concerns
from my perspective.
Ganas affiliated accounts accuse User:Eroberer of being Rachel Johnson
who shot a "Core Member" in 2006. Prior to my entry into the conflict
the article was nearly 50% about the shooting and the variety of
allegations against Ganas made during the trial. So far User:Eroberer
has neither confirmed nor denied the allegation of being Rachel
Johnson but has had it oversighted as is her right. The Ganas accounts
have based this allegation over logged out edit that geolocate to
where Rachel Johnson allegedly is.
The article now has improved substantially but Ganas members and
User:Eroberer are going at it again over smaller details.
User:Eroberer has repeatedly agued that those with COI cannot edit the
article which is misrepresentation of policy over and over again.
Eroberer has shown lack of good faith editing and POV pushing over the
subject. Ganas accounts have shown an increasing agitation over the
lack of neutrality in the article and frustration with Eroberer.
My concern and the reason I am emailing you is one other older
accounts posted on my wall that Ganas has hired private investigators
over the dispute to investigate User:Eroberer.
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=...oldid=433665660
The diff is above.
I am unsure how to handle this from here as this on Wikipedia dispute
is evidently part of larger off-wikipedia dispute.
Any Advice would be helpful.
Thank you very much for your time,
Bryan Barkley
User:ResidentAnthropologist
----------
From risker.wp at gmail.com Sat Jun 11 23:10:25 2011
From: risker.wp at gmail.com (Risker)
Date: Sat, 11 Jun 2011 19:10:25 -0400
Subject: [arbcom-l] Advice in situation involving Ethical issues,
Private Investigators and Outings
In-Reply-To: <BANLkTimUGAuv5yPb01oFjW+V73FC27_iMg@mail.gmail.com>
References: <BANLkTimUGAuv5yPb01oFjW+V73FC27_iMg@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <BANLkTi=ZvFoLxyyEM32XRsC9Q-qN4jnk5Q@mail.gmail.com>
Hi ResidentAnthropologist -
This is to confirm that the Arbitration Committee has received your email.
I'm not entirely certain what advice to give you - I am inclined to at least
let the WMF Community staff know about this, if it is okay by you to forward
this email - but I'll try to look further over the course of the weekend.
It might be to your advantage at this point to disengage from the article
while this is sorted out. I'll look at whether or not to lock the article
completely for a period some time this evening.
Best,
Risker
----------
And nary another word. Privacy only matters when your one of their own, eh?