From helpfindmadeleine at hotmail.co.uk Tue Nov 9 09:13:17 2010
From: helpfindmadeleine at hotmail.co.uk (Sophie)
Date: Tue, 09 Nov 2010 09:13:17 +0000
Subject: [arbcom-l] Thesevenseas Block
Message-ID: <E1PFkGT-0006Ul-8J@srv190.pmtpa.wmnet>

Hi there, im just wondering why user:Thesevenseas was blocked because on my talk page & archive, he was helping me understand phaser functions and mod functions. I read on the WP:ANI archive and block log that it was because of a script which was reverted and was unblocked but then he was blocked again by arbcom so i was just wondering as he was good at explaing things

NB: When replying, please remember than im 13 and please explain it differently than normal If possiable, I would a female person or someone who knows how to speak to young people.

Thanks

Sophie

--
This e-mail was sent by user "Sophie" on the English Wikipedia to user "Arbitration Committee". It has been automatically delivered and the Wikimedia Foundation cannot be held responsible for its contents.
----------
From marc at uberbox.org Tue Nov 9 15:16:09 2010
From: marc at uberbox.org (Marc A. Pelletier)
Date: Tue, 09 Nov 2010 10:16:09 -0500
Subject: [arbcom-l] Thesevenseas Block
In-Reply-To: <E1PFkGT-0006Ul-8J@srv190.pmtpa.wmnet>
References: <E1PFkGT-0006Ul-8J@srv190.pmtpa.wmnet>
Message-ID: <4CD965B9.9050107@uberbox.org>

Hello, Sophie.

On 11/09/2010 04:13 AM, Sophie wrote:
> Hi there, im just wondering why user:Thesevenseas was blocked because on my talk page & archive, he was helping me understand phaser functions and mod functions. I read on the WP:ANI archive and block log that it was because of a script which was reverted and was unblocked but then he was blocked again by arbcom so i was just wondering as he was good at explaing things
>
> NB: When replying, please remember than im 13 and please explain it differently than normal If possiable, I would a female person or someone who knows how to speak to young people.
>
> Thanks
>


That editor was giving a number of younger women, like you, a great deal
of attention -- sometimes much more than they wanted or were willing to
have. I'm glad that your interactions with him had been positive to
date, but we cannot allow behavior of that nature to take place on
Wikipedia.

I'd like to remind you that telling your age openly is sometimes a bad
idea. Lots of people edit Wikipedia, and not all of them for the right
reasons. By saying that you are a teenager, you risk attracting
attention from people you'd really rather not, even if they can be very
nice at first.

Please don't hesitate to contact us if you receive *any* unwanted
communication from Wikipedia editors, and try to keep all chat with
strangers on the wiki itself. It's better and safer when everything is
in the open. Also, please be wary of accepting invitations to meet
other editors outside of organized wiki meetings, especially when
extended to you privately (like by email or over chatting).

-- Marc
----------
From carcharothwp at googlemail.com Tue Nov 9 15:30:20 2010
From: carcharothwp at googlemail.com (Carcharoth)
Date: Tue, 9 Nov 2010 15:30:20 +0000
Subject: [arbcom-l] Thesevenseas Block
In-Reply-To: <4CD96748.4020703@gmail.com>
References: <E1PFkGT-0006Ul-8J@srv190.pmtpa.wmnet>
<4CD965B9.9050107@uberbox.org> <4CD96748.4020703@gmail.com>
Message-ID: <AANLkTi=DvA3YuuaVvRxfa3jvjCGchV-DrpXQNpcoDM=o@mail.gmail.com>

I read her e-mail thinking to myself, what child says "NB: When
replying, please remember than im 13 and please explain it differently
than normal If possiable, I would a female person or someone who
knows how to speak to young people."

If I was less cynical, I'd say it was someone pretending to be a
child. But who knows, maybe children do talk like that nowadays. The
problem with people who are, or claim to be children, is you can't ask
for verification (for obvious reasons). You have to assume they are
children, and that makes it easier to pretend you are a child as
people are reluctant to think otherwise.

Carcharoth

On Tue, Nov 9, 2010 at 3:22 PM, Roger Davies
<roger.davies.wiki at gmail.com> wrote:
> <list only>
>
> Incidentally, this editor has her age (13 yrs nn mths) on her talk page.
> Isn't it usual to vape that?
>
> Roger
>
>
> On 09/11/2010 15:16, Marc A. Pelletier wrote:
>
> Hello, Sophie.
----------
From risker.wp at gmail.com Tue Nov 9 16:31:37 2010
From: risker.wp at gmail.com (Risker)
Date: Tue, 9 Nov 2010 11:31:37 -0500
Subject: [arbcom-l] Thesevenseas Block
In-Reply-To: <4CD96A0F.4090504@gmail.com>
References: <E1PFkGT-0006Ul-8J@srv190.pmtpa.wmnet>
<4CD965B9.9050107@uberbox.org> <4CD96748.4020703@gmail.com>
<AANLkTi=DvA3YuuaVvRxfa3jvjCGchV-DrpXQNpcoDM=o@mail.gmail.com>
<4CD96A0F.4090504@gmail.com>
Message-ID: <AANLkTinRCWiGL6cP_9m1+qrc_Y2eTf0iR7tum3nFfF=v@mail.gmail.com>

<list only>

Well. The legislation under which oversighters "justify" removal of
information about minors is the COPPA (Children's Online Privacy Protection
Act), wherein operators are expected to protect the privacy of those under
the age of 13 years. Most of us will also routinely suppress personal
information of somewhat older children or those whose age is indeterminate
but could possibly fit into the age range, particularly if their only edits
are to user pages. These are the pages that DragonflySixtyseven routinely
"feeds" me (and other oversighters) when he is doing new page patrol, and
they probably make up about 70-80% of my suppressions. Many of these kids
appear to have created a Wikipedia user account and user page because
they're restricted from participating in other social media, such as Bebo or
Facebook, and they aren't actually editing.

Those who are actually editing we treat a little differently; first off,
we'll suppress revisions that identify that they are under 13 (usually on
the userpage, but sometimes elsewhere), and then we will usually leave them
a templated message to let them know of the suppression and that we have
concerns. Most of us use some variation of this one:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Alison/c

Absent an actual user Terms of Service that restricts participation by those
under a certain age, it's very difficult to really prevent young people from
revealing personal information, and once they're over 13, we don't even have
a legislation-based rationale for doing so.

I'm trying to remember when Sophie first came to my attention, probably back
in the spring through Chzz in the IRC help channel (I seem to be the
'default' female admin that a lot of the guys refer female and child editors
to), and at that time I believe I discouraged her from including her age and
making her youth such a prominent feature of her user page, but as I say
there's not that much that could be done here. A lot of her edits do seem
to be "age appropriate", similar to what I would expect a relatively bright
and self-confident 13-year-old to be making. But yeah, there's something
there that's been niggling at me for a while; her propensity toward off-wiki
communication is not a good sign, and her user page is almost provocative,
with the photo of the very young girl ("It's not me"), the Wikichild
userbox, the age userbox and the reference to being a "little kid". Could
this be a sting account? Possibly, although if so then the person behind it
is very, very good at faking being a 13 year old girl.

Risker/Anne

On 9 November 2010 10:34, Roger Davies <roger.davies.wiki at gmail.com> wrote:

>
> I'm glad you raised that point as that thought crossed my mind too.
>
> Roger
>
>
> On 09/11/2010 15:30, Carcharoth wrote:
>
> I read her e-mail thinking to myself, what child says "NB: When
> replying, please remember than im 13 and please explain it differently
> than normal If possiable, I would a female person or someone who
> knows how to speak to young people."
----------
From newyorkbrad at gmail.com Wed Dec 1 01:47:54 2010
From: newyorkbrad at gmail.com (Newyorkbrad)
Date: Tue, 30 Nov 2010 20:47:54 -0500
Subject: [arbcom-l] User:Sophie - urgent
Message-ID: <AANLkTikOP6oKDYjscmrkwDwKJ1fLNA6Qc4=U7HetHuQ2@mail.gmail.com>

Over the past couple of days I have seen some odd behavior from User:Sophie,
including her question to Giano on his arbitration questions page, among
others. Some of her conduct appears highly inconsistent with her
self-identified status as a 13-year-old girl.

I discussed this with Risker last night, and we agreed that a checkuser
might be in order. She and I both performed one. The check did not reveal
any obvious sock accounts (other than one account that Sophie claims is her
brother and another that she just set up as her iPhone account), but it
reflects that most of the edits are coming from a college IP. (I don't know
exactly what "college" means in this context.)

I received an e-mail from Timothy Usher last night, asking me why we are
allowing a blatantly deceptive persona to edit under the guise of being a
13-year-old girl. I did not reply

As Fred Bauder wrote in [[Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Protecting
children's privacy]], "Self-identified children may be children, adult
predators, trolls <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Troll_(Internet)>, adult
privacy-watchers testing our policies, or law enforcement personnel."

Most recently, I have just seen this thread on Wikipedia Review:
http://wikipediareview.com/index.php?showtopic=29340

I don't claim to understand what is going on here, but this could certainly
use some more eyes.

Newyorkbrad
----------
From shell.kinney at gmail.com Wed Dec 1 01:54:53 2010
From: shell.kinney at gmail.com (Michelle Kinney)
Date: Tue, 30 Nov 2010 20:54:53 -0500
Subject: [arbcom-l] User:Sophie - urgent
In-Reply-To: <AANLkTikOP6oKDYjscmrkwDwKJ1fLNA6Qc4=U7HetHuQ2@mail.gmail.com>
References: <AANLkTikOP6oKDYjscmrkwDwKJ1fLNA6Qc4=U7HetHuQ2@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <AANLkTimHfNemBWtAwt85O6aOBmPae0u5QhLAaxe-d6JO@mail.gmail.com>

I was also a bit concerned about the behavior - I have a 13 year old, and
these recent comments don't appear to be consistent with what I'd expect of
a 13 year old girl. At best, it's trolling - at worst, it could be a
predator of some kind.

Shell

On Tue, Nov 30, 2010 at 20:47, Newyorkbrad <newyorkbrad at gmail.com> wrote:

> Over the past couple of days I have seen some odd behavior from
----------
From KnightLago at gmail.com Wed Dec 1 01:57:57 2010
From: KnightLago at gmail.com (KnightLago)
Date: Tue, 30 Nov 2010 20:57:57 -0500
Subject: [arbcom-l] User:Sophie - urgent
In-Reply-To: <AANLkTimHfNemBWtAwt85O6aOBmPae0u5QhLAaxe-d6JO@mail.gmail.com>
References: <AANLkTikOP6oKDYjscmrkwDwKJ1fLNA6Qc4=U7HetHuQ2@mail.gmail.com>
<AANLkTimHfNemBWtAwt85O6aOBmPae0u5QhLAaxe-d6JO@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <AANLkTin6S0Cy3=LiAa+ObsWryGMm8N5hDS6Z_Xe77zOK@mail.gmail.com>

Risker has indef'd the account which seems prudent. Let's see if anyone
emails us and claims ownership.

KL

On Tue, Nov 30, 2010 at 8:54 PM, Michelle Kinney <shell.kinney at gmail.com>wrote:

> I was also a bit concerned about the behavior - I have a 13 year old, and
----------
From risker.wp at gmail.com Wed Dec 1 01:58:42 2010
From: risker.wp at gmail.com (Risker)
Date: Tue, 30 Nov 2010 20:58:42 -0500
Subject: [arbcom-l] User:Sophie - urgent
In-Reply-To: <AANLkTikOP6oKDYjscmrkwDwKJ1fLNA6Qc4=U7HetHuQ2@mail.gmail.com>
References: <AANLkTikOP6oKDYjscmrkwDwKJ1fLNA6Qc4=U7HetHuQ2@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <AANLkTin3GJu=B7My=NTDeYe9OLbZFzPLnAjwe096y9C=@mail.gmail.com>

On 30 November 2010 20:47, Newyorkbrad <newyorkbrad at gmail.com> wrote:

> Over the past couple of days I have seen some odd behavior from
> User:Sophie, including her question to Giano on his arbitration questions
> page, among others. Some of her conduct appears highly inconsistent with
> her self-identified status as a 13-year-old girl.
>
> I discussed this with Risker last night, and we agreed that a checkuser
> might be in order. She and I both performed one. The check did not reveal
> any obvious sock accounts (other than one account that Sophie claims is her
> brother and another that she just set up as her iPhone account), but it
> reflects that most of the edits are coming from a college IP. (I don't know
> exactly what "college" means in this context.)
>
> I received an e-mail from Timothy Usher last night, asking me why we are
> allowing a blatantly deceptive persona to edit under the guise of being a
> 13-year-old girl. I did not reply
>
> As Fred Bauder wrote in [[Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Protecting
> children's privacy]], "Self-identified children may be children, adult
> predators, trolls <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Troll_(Internet)>, adult
> privacy-watchers testing our policies, or law enforcement personnel."
>
> Most recently, I have just seen this thread on Wikipedia Review:
> http://wikipediareview.com/index.php?showtopic=29340
>
> I don't claim to understand what is going on here, but this could certainly
> use some more eyes.
>


I have blocked the account. Sophie communicated with arbcom a while ago and
my spidey sense was saying "no, probably not a 13 year old girl"...and her
subsequent activities and focus on child porn, as well as her reinstatement
of the kiddie photo and emphasis of age on her user page, really had my
radar going haywire. Finally, when she started mucking about on the
election and the RFAR pages, I'd had enough. I checkusered before going to
bed last night, and was going to dig deeper tonight after bouncing ideas off
NYB, but hadn't got that far. And no, I didn't see the WR thread at all
until NYB pointed it out to me

Risker/Anne
----------
From risker.wp at gmail.com Wed Dec 1 02:00:15 2010
From: risker.wp at gmail.com (Risker)
Date: Tue, 30 Nov 2010 21:00:15 -0500
Subject: [arbcom-l] User:Sophie - urgent
In-Reply-To: <AANLkTin3GJu=B7My=NTDeYe9OLbZFzPLnAjwe096y9C=@mail.gmail.com>
References: <AANLkTikOP6oKDYjscmrkwDwKJ1fLNA6Qc4=U7HetHuQ2@mail.gmail.com>
<AANLkTin3GJu=B7My=NTDeYe9OLbZFzPLnAjwe096y9C=@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <AANLkTi=0+xSBt7p0WEW_TRHoCoF8KRmEUS2K7Dhrpvyp@mail.gmail.com>

Oh, could someone else please run another checkuser on the account and get
the socks and the iPhone accounts? There's one that is claimed to be her
brother...
----------
From KnightLago at gmail.com Wed Dec 1 02:08:46 2010
From: KnightLago at gmail.com (KnightLago)
Date: Tue, 30 Nov 2010 21:08:46 -0500
Subject: [arbcom-l] User:Sophie - urgent
In-Reply-To: <AANLkTi=0+xSBt7p0WEW_TRHoCoF8KRmEUS2K7Dhrpvyp@mail.gmail.com>
References: <AANLkTikOP6oKDYjscmrkwDwKJ1fLNA6Qc4=U7HetHuQ2@mail.gmail.com>
<AANLkTin3GJu=B7My=NTDeYe9OLbZFzPLnAjwe096y9C=@mail.gmail.com>
<AANLkTi=0+xSBt7p0WEW_TRHoCoF8KRmEUS2K7Dhrpvyp@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <AANLkTikPGpnRc3VVadKVjcU2eDKQ4s2=c308HGL11R=N@mail.gmail.com>

I will.

KL

On Tue, Nov 30, 2010 at 9:00 PM, Risker <risker.wp at gmail.com> wrote:

> Oh, could someone else please run another checkuser on the account and get
> the socks and the iPhone accounts? There's one that is claimed to be her
> brother...
----------
From KnightLago at gmail.com Wed Dec 1 02:13:43 2010
From: KnightLago at gmail.com (KnightLago)
Date: Tue, 30 Nov 2010 21:13:43 -0500
Subject: [arbcom-l] User:Sophie - urgent
Message-ID: <AANLkTin=Gy_Sun-ifMfw+ZAOJ116PeeK3bD87Sb6PTxh@mail.gmail.com>

Alison,

Risker has already blocked the main Sophie account. I see that you just ran
a CU. Can you block the remaining accounts with a block summary similar to
Sophie's?

Thanks,

--KnightLago
----------
From KnightLago at gmail.com Wed Dec 1 02:23:14 2010
From: KnightLago at gmail.com (KnightLago)
Date: Tue, 30 Nov 2010 21:23:14 -0500
Subject: [arbcom-l] User:Sophie - urgent
In-Reply-To: <79001221-5A4D-48A2-BDE5-B60AAFE0BC51@me.com>
References: <AANLkTin=Gy_Sun-ifMfw+ZAOJ116PeeK3bD87Sb6PTxh@mail.gmail.com>
<79001221-5A4D-48A2-BDE5-B60AAFE0BC51@me.com>
Message-ID: <AANLkTimL6_JWneBrqoMw4PBDKphXEBTF2ZmSKSWXcFof@mail.gmail.com>

Oh, sorry! Enjoy your dinner. I will do the blocks. I just saw you ran a
recent CU and thought you were still around and would have discovered
everything to be found.

KL

On Tue, Nov 30, 2010 at 9:21 PM, Alison Cassidy <cooties at me.com> wrote:

> Oh! I'm out @ dinner here. Was going to write to ArbCom later tonight as I
> also have a related email conversation here relating to WP:CHILD and that
> editor. I took a look earlier and saw irregularities, esp. the
> 13-year-old-editing-from-university scenario
>
> Ok - someone email me the account list and I'll block from my cell here.
>
> -- Allie
----------
From KnightLago at gmail.com Wed Dec 1 02:50:33 2010
From: KnightLago at gmail.com (KnightLago)
Date: Tue, 30 Nov 2010 21:50:33 -0500
Subject: [arbcom-l] User:Sophie - urgent
In-Reply-To: <AANLkTimL6_JWneBrqoMw4PBDKphXEBTF2ZmSKSWXcFof@mail.gmail.com>
References: <AANLkTin=Gy_Sun-ifMfw+ZAOJ116PeeK3bD87Sb6PTxh@mail.gmail.com>
<79001221-5A4D-48A2-BDE5-B60AAFE0BC51@me.com>
<AANLkTimL6_JWneBrqoMw4PBDKphXEBTF2ZmSKSWXcFof@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <AANLkTi=i-ZHMMtCrJCdamDb_E4NCqNE-1S6=01U9Dsxk@mail.gmail.com>

I blocked the Picopa account. I did not see anything else though wouldn't
mind someone else looking as there is a lot to look at with the XFF headers.


KL

On Tue, Nov 30, 2010 at 9:23 PM, KnightLago <KnightLago at gmail.com> wrote:

> Oh, sorry! Enjoy your dinner. I will do the blocks. I just saw you ran a
----------
From though.poppies.blow at gmail.com Wed Dec 1 03:11:22 2010
From: though.poppies.blow at gmail.com (Sonia Newton-Shostakovich)
Date: Wed, 1 Dec 2010 16:11:22 +1300
Subject: [arbcom-l] User:Sophie
Message-ID: <AANLkTikvQusK=f2tYxaz-dy02=NM5FkWqMEaTAo1py2V@mail.gmail.com>

I've been emailing back and forth with her for a while. I don't need details
of why she was blocked, but I have a simple question. Was it because she was
who she said she was, or because she wasn't?

Sonia
----------
From cooties at mac.com Wed Dec 1 06:39:39 2010
From: cooties at mac.com (Alison Cassidy)
Date: Tue, 30 Nov 2010 22:39:39 -0800
Subject: [arbcom-l] User:Sophie - urgent
In-Reply-To: <AANLkTimL6_JWneBrqoMw4PBDKphXEBTF2ZmSKSWXcFof@mail.gmail.com>
References: <AANLkTin=Gy_Sun-ifMfw+ZAOJ116PeeK3bD87Sb6PTxh@mail.gmail.com>
<79001221-5A4D-48A2-BDE5-B60AAFE0BC51@me.com>
<AANLkTimL6_JWneBrqoMw4PBDKphXEBTF2ZmSKSWXcFof@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <B4EC70B3-FBA3-4F1A-9900-6BBB5E0B0810@mac.com>

Hi again,

I ran a followup and blocked two other accounts; User:SophJ and User:Sophie-iphone. FWIW, I had sneakily removed the information on Sophie's talk page, per [[WP:CHILD]]

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=...oldid=395098386

only to have them immediately re-instated;

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=...oldid=395380237

That was last month. An email followup, exhorting them to keep that sort of information private yielded this message, from an account 'helpfindmadeleine at hotmail.co.uk';

---------------------------------------------
==WP:CHILD==
Hiya, iv replaced it because

1) I dont think my age is really that personal because theres going to be hunderds of people with the same age and name as me. Its not like its my address, last name, school or something else whats actully personal.

2) It helps other editors see that I am young because before I added it (on another account (not sock but a surped account)) and when i asked for help i would get answers that i didnt understand as if i was an expert as wikipedia.

This can be seen with [[User talk:Sophie/Archive 1#There are thre ways that an article can be deleted]]

as there, chzz knew i was 13 and explained it so i understood it.
---------------------------------------------

Just FYI,

Regards,

-- Allie
----------
From KnightLago at gmail.com Wed Dec 1 11:28:29 2010
From: KnightLago at gmail.com (KnightLago)
Date: Wed, 1 Dec 2010 06:28:29 -0500
Subject: [arbcom-l] User:Sophie - urgent
In-Reply-To: <B4EC70B3-FBA3-4F1A-9900-6BBB5E0B0810@mac.com>
References: <AANLkTin=Gy_Sun-ifMfw+ZAOJ116PeeK3bD87Sb6PTxh@mail.gmail.com>
<79001221-5A4D-48A2-BDE5-B60AAFE0BC51@me.com>
<AANLkTimL6_JWneBrqoMw4PBDKphXEBTF2ZmSKSWXcFof@mail.gmail.com>
<B4EC70B3-FBA3-4F1A-9900-6BBB5E0B0810@mac.com>
Message-ID: <AANLkTimkAZ9Zw37_1Lfxp2WsNC1TSQNyBSqjKuQx6LDP@mail.gmail.com>

Thanks Alison!

KL

On Wed, Dec 1, 2010 at 1:39 AM, Alison Cassidy <cooties at mac.com> wrote:

> Hi again,
>
> I ran a followup and blocked two other accounts; User:SophJ and

From sophiejohnson97 at yahoo.co.uk Wed Dec 1 13:46:26 2010
From: sophiejohnson97 at yahoo.co.uk (Sophie Johnson)
Date: Wed, 1 Dec 2010 13:46:26 +0000
Subject: [arbcom-l] Why have I been blocked
Message-ID: <5B06F07E-7F48-4189-B496-09C7F902A0F5@yahoo.co.uk>

No one has told me why and it says to mail here.
----------
From risker.wp at gmail.com Wed Dec 1 17:11:18 2010
From: risker.wp at gmail.com (Risker)
Date: Wed, 1 Dec 2010 12:11:18 -0500
Subject: [arbcom-l] Why have I been blocked
In-Reply-To: <5B06F07E-7F48-4189-B496-09C7F902A0F5@yahoo.co.uk>
References: <5B06F07E-7F48-4189-B496-09C7F902A0F5@yahoo.co.uk>
Message-ID: <AANLkTim56TdQpmtPPAiNDS9uXpi7rEi1F7tMcKAD8Uop@mail.gmail.com>

On 1 December 2010 08:46, Sophie Johnson <sophiejohnson97 at yahoo.co.uk>wrote:

> No one has told me why and it says to mail here.
>
>
>
Hi Sophie -

Could you please use your Wikipedia email account to email the committee by
going to [[User:Arbitration Committee]] and clicking "Email this user"?
Because, as is indicated in the block reason, there is some private
information involved, I do not wish to discuss the block reason without
being sure I'm talking to the right person. This is to protect your
privacy. Thanks,


Risker
----------
From sophiejohnson97 at yahoo.co.uk Wed Dec 1 18:11:36 2010
From: sophiejohnson97 at yahoo.co.uk (Sophie)
Date: Wed, 01 Dec 2010 18:11:36 +0000
Subject: [arbcom-l] Block reason
Message-ID: <E1PNr9U-0004Z0-Hi@srv239.pmtpa.wmnet>

risker said to email here althought i already have sent an email from the address your going to reply to

--
This e-mail was sent by user "Sophie" on the English Wikipedia to user "Arbitration Committee". It has been automatically delivered and the Wikimedia Foundation cannot be held responsible for its contents.
----------
From newyorkbrad at gmail.com Wed Dec 1 20:01:15 2010
From: newyorkbrad at gmail.com (Newyorkbrad)
Date: Wed, 1 Dec 2010 15:01:15 -0500
Subject: [arbcom-l] Fwd: Unban
In-Reply-To: <AANLkTi=CSzK1KFvL15fmSvDJerWreTtGP+8K9tbYm7=g@mail.gmail.com>
References: <AANLkTinCxHJEZss3XvdZX_QxJwLCu_PUh8P=vmMujgfa@mail.gmail.com>
<AANLkTikd_S24h45kY=Hj8vE9JQZzNPgvtFAuv_hBdbaK@mail.gmail.com>
<AANLkTi=CSzK1KFvL15fmSvDJerWreTtGP+8K9tbYm7=g@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <AANLkTikuAP2ey+NtGwaW8yX61ZAujX0mTsh30wNgHMGg@mail.gmail.com>

I am forwarding this e-mail chain for what it is worth, which I have to say
is not a whole lot. Unless anyone disagrees I do not plan to respond
further.

Newyorkbrad

---------- Forwarded message ----------
From: Italian Vandal <italianwikivandal at gmail.com>
Date: Wed, Dec 1, 2010 at 2:41 PM
Subject: Re: Unban
To: Newyorkbrad <newyorkbrad at gmail.com>


What i wanted to say is that i want to come back as i please with as many
accounts as i want... after all what do you fear, and what do you think to
obtain by following around accounts and then block them all the time? The
useful contributions coming from such accounts would be too rebellious for
you fine citizens to bear... but still useful! Didn't you catch a potential
middle aged guy posing as a girl called Sophie recently?

After all what did you obtain from blocking Thekohser all the time? You
wasted time an energy for almost nothing...

2010/12/1 Newyorkbrad <newyorkbrad at gmail.com>

Dear Sir:
>
> This is not a decision I can make on my own. If you wish, you can send a
> request to me for forwarding to the Arbitration Committee and we can discuss
> it.
>
> It would be useful if in your request, you were to describe what sort of
> useful contributions you would make if you were allowed to return.
>
> Regards,
> Newyorkbrad
>
> On Wed, Dec 1, 2010 at 1:09 PM, Italian Vandal <
> italianwikivandal at gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> Hello Brad, i'm the Italian Vandal (User:Luigi Mario) and i have been
>> blocked a thousand times, but 999 of them happened 2 or 3 years ago
>>
>> Can i come back unbanned please? I need some ArbComer to make the formal
>> request though
>>
----------
From italianwikivandal at gmail.com Wed Dec 1 21:46:35 2010
From: italianwikivandal at gmail.com (Italian Vandal)
Date: Wed, 1 Dec 2010 22:46:35 +0100
Subject: [arbcom-l] Ban of Sophie
Message-ID: <AANLkTimgNRwU0WY7LZj36eCvs5GS0u_dmV_p_HOj1R52@mail.gmail.com>

13 year old User Sophie is actually a guy named Steve! AHAHAHAHAHA well at
least you can relax for a while, until a real mentally unstable person signs
up and starts trawling for sex with minors on Wikipedia! AHAHA

By the way, i noticed that Commons is yet again hosting some more borderline
lolicon, and it has been inserted in various high profile pages on
Wikipedia, and now it's up to you to find it, throw it into the trash, and
pointlessly ban the accounts who are uploading it (assuming you can
outnumber those who want this stuff to be kept...) !
----------
From DeltaQuad at live.ca Fri Dec 3 03:30:53 2010
From: DeltaQuad at live.ca (DeltaQuad)
Date: Fri, 03 Dec 2010 03:30:53 +0000
Subject: [arbcom-l] SophJ/Sophie
Message-ID: <E1POMMH-0000PD-A4@srv238.pmtpa.wmnet>

Good evening everyone,

I thank the members of the Arbitration Committee for their hard work to protect the wiki.

Right now, at this time, Sophie is absolutelty confused on why she is blocked. Risker did say something about it on her talk page, but she has not, from what she has told me, recieved a direct answer for why she has been blocked. And by direct, I am saying in plain english, not this ENWP term stuff. Instead she had a roundabout convo with another Arb into her activities, and that Arb promised chat tonight, but did not contact her. (I have left the Arbs name out, assuming you all know already.

This is just a mess and I hope we can resolve it on both sides, but when communicating with the user, please use plain english so they can understand (as that's what 13 year olds need).

I am not requesting information about the block or anything as such as that is private, I am just asking for this to be settled before any more users question this and what the heck is going on.

I trust you guys are doing the right thing, and I won't be upset if you don't reply, though I would like an acknoledgment of this.

Thanks for your time.
DeltaQuad - Aaron Passley (North Bay, ON) for those who don't know me.
deltaquad at live.ca

--
This e-mail was sent by user "DeltaQuad" on the English Wikipedia to user "Arbitration Committee". It has been automatically delivered and the Wikimedia Foundation cannot be held responsible for its contents.
-----------
From shell.kinney at gmail.com Fri Dec 3 04:58:40 2010
From: shell.kinney at gmail.com (Michelle Kinney)
Date: Thu, 2 Dec 2010 23:58:40 -0500
Subject: [arbcom-l] SophJ/Sophie
In-Reply-To: <E1POMMH-0000PD-A4@srv238.pmtpa.wmnet>
References: <E1POMMH-0000PD-A4@srv238.pmtpa.wmnet>
Message-ID: <AANLkTinAU9hpgy9XUxVgoUDhjrbf=zV7s6hExUFcfAxB@mail.gmail.com>

Thank you for the email.

We have been in contact with Sophie and will continue to address the block
with her; we are currently discussing the best way to proceed.

Shell Kinney

On Thu, Dec 2, 2010 at 22:30, DeltaQuad <DeltaQuad at live.ca> wrote:

> Good evening everyone,
>
> I thank the members of the Arbitration Committee for their hard work to
> protect the wiki.
----------
From shell.kinney at gmail.com Fri Dec 3 05:00:45 2010
From: shell.kinney at gmail.com (Michelle Kinney)
Date: Fri, 3 Dec 2010 00:00:45 -0500
Subject: [arbcom-l] User:Sophie
In-Reply-To: <AANLkTikvQusK=f2tYxaz-dy02=NM5FkWqMEaTAo1py2V@mail.gmail.com>
References: <AANLkTikvQusK=f2tYxaz-dy02=NM5FkWqMEaTAo1py2V@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <AANLkTikWDe=N2dJkfq-CEWkhmvRY-rY_CU6pshbHZ8C3@mail.gmail.com>

Sonia,

Unfortunately, we cannot give out private or personal information about a
Wikipedia editor. However, please remember that just like anywhere else on
the internet, it's always a good idea to be overly careful when contacting
people you only know through Wikipedia.

Shell Kinney

On Tue, Nov 30, 2010 at 22:11, Sonia Newton-Shostakovich <
though.poppies.blow at gmail.com> wrote:

> I've been emailing back and forth with her for a while. I don't need
----------
From sophiejohnson97 at yahoo.co.uk Fri Dec 3 22:45:21 2010
From: sophiejohnson97 at yahoo.co.uk (Sophie)
Date: Fri, 03 Dec 2010 22:45:21 +0000
Subject: [arbcom-l] Block Reason / unblock
Message-ID: <E1POeNV-0006XM-Dw@srv199.pmtpa.wmnet>

can you please tell me what iv done wrong and what i need to do to get unblocked please?

- sophie

--
This e-mail was sent by user "Sophie" on the English Wikipedia to user "Arbitration Committee". It has been automatically delivered and the Wikimedia Foundation cannot be held responsible for its contents.
----------
From carcharothwp at googlemail.com Sat Dec 4 14:47:07 2010
From: carcharothwp at googlemail.com (Carcharoth)
Date: Sat, 4 Dec 2010 14:47:07 +0000
Subject: [arbcom-l] Ban of Sophie
In-Reply-To: <AANLkTimgNRwU0WY7LZj36eCvs5GS0u_dmV_p_HOj1R52@mail.gmail.com>
References: <AANLkTimgNRwU0WY7LZj36eCvs5GS0u_dmV_p_HOj1R52@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <AANLkTinkSYvp0WQLhtzbPy-wDKtFCZeWwRwpFPVv5Het@mail.gmail.com>

I'm assuming this is Johnny the Vandal? Anyway, it seems that he and
WR may be right. If so, has this been reported to the WMF, as I'm not
entirely sure what should be done here (other than keep the block in
place on User:Sophie). Also, thanks to Shell for replying to Sonia and
giving her advice on being careful about who you interact with on the
internet. If this is all true, is there any way to find out who else
User:Sophie has been in contact with, and/or to get a reply from Sonia
to ensure she got the message (I don't know how old Sonia is).

There should, incidentally, be a standard procedure for this and
someone to pass such things to.

Carcharoth

On Wed, Dec 1, 2010 at 9:46 PM, Italian Vandal
<italianwikivandal at gmail.com> wrote:
> 13 year old User Sophie is actually a guy named Steve! AHAHAHAHAHA well at
> least you can relax for a while, until a real mentally unstable person signs
> up and starts trawling for sex with minors on Wikipedia! AHAHA
-----------
From shell.kinney at gmail.com Sat Dec 4 16:50:28 2010
From: shell.kinney at gmail.com (Michelle Kinney)
Date: Sat, 4 Dec 2010 11:50:28 -0500
Subject: [arbcom-l] Ban of Sophie
In-Reply-To: <AANLkTinkSYvp0WQLhtzbPy-wDKtFCZeWwRwpFPVv5Het@mail.gmail.com>
References: <AANLkTimgNRwU0WY7LZj36eCvs5GS0u_dmV_p_HOj1R52@mail.gmail.com>
<AANLkTinkSYvp0WQLhtzbPy-wDKtFCZeWwRwpFPVv5Het@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <AANLkTi=Y3N6aqvYsGWVL45DBYsDa+4ggX0qondcy4m-c@mail.gmail.com>

I actually talked to Sonia on IRC later, repeated my advice and
suggested that if she'd taken the time to email us with that specific
question, that perhaps she felt something was off. She agreed and
seems to have decided that she'd rather not communicate with the
person behind the Sophie account any more.

Shell

On Sat, Dec 4, 2010 at 09:47, Carcharoth <carcharothwp at googlemail.com> wrote:
> I'm assuming this is Johnny the Vandal? Anyway, it seems that he and
> WR may be right. If so, has this been reported to the WMF, as I'm not
-----------
From carcharothwp at googlemail.com Sun Dec 5 19:20:23 2010
From: carcharothwp at googlemail.com (Carcharoth)
Date: Sun, 5 Dec 2010 19:20:23 +0000
Subject: [arbcom-l] Ban of Sophie
In-Reply-To: <AANLkTi=Y3N6aqvYsGWVL45DBYsDa+4ggX0qondcy4m-c@mail.gmail.com>
References: <AANLkTimgNRwU0WY7LZj36eCvs5GS0u_dmV_p_HOj1R52@mail.gmail.com>
<AANLkTinkSYvp0WQLhtzbPy-wDKtFCZeWwRwpFPVv5Het@mail.gmail.com>
<AANLkTi=Y3N6aqvYsGWVL45DBYsDa+4ggX0qondcy4m-c@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <AANLkTi=AhJt4UgX2v_LXBDvYuTunCyDGCGZmG3OnHPzY@mail.gmail.com>

Thanks, Shell. Good to know that this was followed up.

Carcharoth

On Sat, Dec 4, 2010 at 4:50 PM, Michelle Kinney <shell.kinney at gmail.com> wrote:
> I actually talked to Sonia on IRC later, repeated my advice and
----------
From shell.kinney at gmail.com Mon Dec 6 16:17:09 2010
From: shell.kinney at gmail.com (Michelle Kinney)
Date: Mon, 6 Dec 2010 11:17:09 -0500
Subject: [arbcom-l] Election Scrutineers need some assistance
Message-ID: <AANLkTik5ra3KMsEBmQJTCZkVL2R2k4=TfsjxkHLZ6XFK@mail.gmail.com>

There was a question about two blocks (see the end of
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Arb...ember_2010/Log).
Sven asked me on IRC if either block was related to the elections; I
told him that the block on Sophie was not and AFAIK the block on Shuki
was sockpuppetry and we hadn't been notified of anything else about
it. He asked if I could make a note on the log, which I declined
since I'm running.

I told him I'd drop a note here and see if anyone has a moment to make
a note in the log for them indicating that ArbCom doesn't have any
info that would indicate either block was because of voting fraud.

Shell Kinney
-----------
From risker.wp at gmail.com Mon Dec 6 16:37:52 2010
From: risker.wp at gmail.com (Risker)
Date: Mon, 6 Dec 2010 11:37:52 -0500
Subject: [arbcom-l] Election Scrutineers need some assistance
In-Reply-To: <AANLkTik5ra3KMsEBmQJTCZkVL2R2k4=TfsjxkHLZ6XFK@mail.gmail.com>
References: <AANLkTik5ra3KMsEBmQJTCZkVL2R2k4=TfsjxkHLZ6XFK@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <AANLkTikkHvYur5oE-gRA_JR-cVvuVe63kTNsbJsSdLVk@mail.gmail.com>

Thanks for the heads up, Shell. I've left a message there for each of the
accounts.

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=...oldid=400875138

Risker/Anne

On 6 December 2010 11:17, Michelle Kinney <shell.kinney at gmail.com> wrote:

> There was a question about two blocks (see the end of
>
-----------
From shell.kinney at gmail.com Mon Dec 6 16:42:52 2010
From: shell.kinney at gmail.com (Michelle Kinney)
Date: Mon, 6 Dec 2010 11:42:52 -0500
Subject: [arbcom-l] Election Scrutineers need some assistance
In-Reply-To: <AANLkTikkHvYur5oE-gRA_JR-cVvuVe63kTNsbJsSdLVk@mail.gmail.com>
References: <AANLkTik5ra3KMsEBmQJTCZkVL2R2k4=TfsjxkHLZ6XFK@mail.gmail.com>
<AANLkTikkHvYur5oE-gRA_JR-cVvuVe63kTNsbJsSdLVk@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <AANLkTik1QSW+UEPxWMvboBsxR-xpW-LEzHV1EMYbW8FD@mail.gmail.com>

Sven kindly pointed out one teeny issue (and otherwise says thanks)

"Note: Confirm user voted before being blocked, and block is unrelated
to the election. Sockpuppet account did not block. Suggest leaving
this to the discretion of the scrutineers. Risker (talk) 16:35, 6
December 2010 (UTC)"

Should say the Sockpuppet account did not "vote"

Shell

On Mon, Dec 6, 2010 at 11:37, Risker <risker.wp at gmail.com> wrote:
> Thanks for the heads up, Shell.? I've left a message there for
-----------

From risker.wp at gmail.com Tue Dec 7 05:32:32 2010
From: risker.wp at gmail.com (Risker)
Date: Tue, 7 Dec 2010 00:32:32 -0500
Subject: [arbcom-l] Response to User:Sophie re her block (draft)
Message-ID: <AANLkTin2XHtjAAsB=XEKuxuUkwA0-xdS=eD9B1KMkkLN@mail.gmail.com>

Hi folks -

We've had several requests from User:Sophie, either to me personally or to
this list, about the block I made of this account.

I have drafted a response on the arbwiki at
https://secure.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/arbc...r:Risker/sophie and
would appreciate your feedback.

As well, I did have a brief chat with her one evening last week, but this
was during our accreditation survey and I was pretty tired so I ended it (it
was also the wee hours of the morning in the UK, so if she really is a 13
year old girl, she should have been in bed anyway). SirFozzie pinged me
during that one on one chat, and apparently young Sophie and some of her
friends thought they could bring down Arbcom because of her block. (Ah well,
I was once a teenager too.)

Below is the log of that chat. I've asked several others to look at this
log, and the uniform read on it is that, whoever Sophie is, she is not a 13
year old girl. YMMV.

Thanks,

Risker/Anne

LOG:

[2010-12-01 21:07:10] [INFO] Now logging to
<file:///C:/Users/Anne/Logs/All%20Users/IRC%20logs/freenode/users/SophJ.2010-12-01.log>.
[2010-12-01 21:07:10] [INFO] Query view for ``SophJ'' opened.
[2010-12-01 21:07:11] === SophJ <~SophJ at wikipedia/Sophie> ``Sophie''
[2010-12-01 21:07:11] === SophJ: attached to
lindbohm.freenode.net``Stockholm, Sweden''
[2010-12-01 21:07:11] === SophJ is logged in as SophJ
[2010-12-01 21:07:11] --- End of WHOIS information for SophJ.
[2010-12-01 21:07:16] <Risker> Sophie?
[2010-12-01 21:07:26] <SophJ> Yes
[2010-12-01 21:07:36] <SophJ> Note I'm on mobile
[2010-12-01 21:07:41] <SophJ> Replies little slow
[2010-12-01 21:07:57] <Risker> okay. Note I am logging this and will copy it
to Arbcom
[2010-12-01 21:08:15] <SophJ> Ok
[2010-12-01 21:08:27] <SophJ> Public or private
[2010-12-01 21:08:40] <Risker> private log you can have a copy if you like
as well
[2010-12-01 21:09:13] <SophJ> Ok, and pls
[2010-12-01 21:09:14] <SophJ> * pls
[2010-12-01 21:09:19] <SophJ> ** plz
[2010-12-01 21:10:21] <Risker> np
[2010-12-01 21:10:38] <Risker> so....tell me about where you are editing
from, SophJ
[2010-12-01 21:11:05] <SophJ> My house
[2010-12-01 21:11:28] <SophJ> My bros college as we have the thingys
[2010-12-01 21:11:37] <SophJ> Don't know how to explain it
[2010-12-01 21:11:50] <SophJ> But where younger people go to it for lessons
there
[2010-12-01 21:11:57] <SophJ> Same school subjects
[2010-12-01 21:12:01] <SophJ> Type thing
[2010-12-01 21:12:09] <Risker> what year are you in?
[2010-12-01 21:12:24] <SophJ> 8
[2010-12-01 21:13:18] <SophJ> Uk year 8
[2010-12-01 21:13:26] <Risker> yes, I know
[2010-12-01 21:13:51] <SophJ>
[2010-12-01 21:14:26] <Risker> so what are you taking at your brother's
college?
[2010-12-01 21:15:07] <SophJ> I'm not a pupil there
[2010-12-01 21:15:23] <SophJ> But we do, it, maths, history
[2010-12-01 21:16:45] <Risker> what lessons are you taking?
[2010-12-01 21:17:14] <SophJ> I'm not a pupil there
[2010-12-01 21:17:31] <SophJ> But we do ICT, maths, history
[2010-12-01 21:19:10] <Risker> well, this is unclear. You say that you are
not taking courses there, but that you are studying ICT, maths and history.
How are you doing that?
[2010-12-01 21:19:39] <SophJ> It's hard to explain
[2010-12-01 21:20:11] <SophJ> Our school takes us to the college
[2010-12-01 21:20:32] <SophJ> We are there for a while, we come back
[2010-12-01 21:20:47] <Risker> every day? once a week?
[2010-12-01 21:21:34] <SophJ> Depends, most days cause our school is being
rebuilt
[2010-12-01 21:23:55] <Risker> what is your association with the Wikimissing
website?
[2010-12-01 21:24:00] <SophJ> Oh, I also edit from my phone when I can (it's
harder though)
[2010-12-01 21:24:15] <SophJ> My dad owns it
[2010-12-01 21:24:45] <Risker> I agree that editing from the phone is hard
[2010-12-01 21:27:43] <Risker> Soph, are you repeating this convo anywhere
else?
[2010-12-01 21:28:34] <SophJ> Yes. I have a reason.
[2010-12-01 21:29:26] <SophJ> Mum said to never keep nothing a secret and
people (wiki people) are helping me deal with this
[2010-12-01 21:29:56] <SophJ> So I'm telling them as they know wikipedia
better
[2010-12-01 21:35:25] <Risker> why are you up at this hour?
[2010-12-01 21:36:27] <SophJ> I can't sleep cause I think im in big trouble
[2010-12-01 21:37:12] <Risker> do your parents know you are online right
now?
[2010-12-01 21:37:42] <SophJ> No. My brother does
[2010-12-01 21:39:20] <SophJ> Cause at the moment, I am shacking quite a lot
[2010-12-01 21:43:32] <Risker> shacking?
[2010-12-01 21:43:58] <SophJ> Shake - ing
[2010-12-01 21:44:57] <Risker> do your parents know how much time you are
online in chat rooms with grown men?
[2010-12-01 21:45:54] <SophJ> My brother does, which is why convos are
logged
[2010-12-01 21:46:18] <Risker> and why *do* you spend so much time in chat
rooms with grown men?
[2010-12-01 21:46:50] <SophJ> The first channel was wp-en-help
[2010-12-01 21:47:05] <SophJ> Chzz introduced me to his channel
[2010-12-01 21:47:16] <SophJ> Found out about wikimedia
[2010-12-01 21:48:42] <SophJ> Was in another project, they had irc
[2010-12-01 21:48:50] <SophJ> (not wmf)
[2010-12-01 21:49:11] <SophJ> People from there were also on wp
[2010-12-01 21:50:23] <SophJ> Some had their own channels
[2010-12-01 21:50:30] <SophJ> Joined them
[2010-12-01 21:51:48] <SophJ> Asked about wp things when relevant
[2010-12-01 21:52:09] <SophJ> And things like bots and how to make them
[2010-12-01 21:53:05] <Risker> tell me more about the wikimissing site
[2010-12-01 21:53:24] <SophJ> It's going to be a wiki for missing people
[2010-12-01 21:53:54] <SophJ> Dad helps with some things
[2010-12-01 21:54:26] <Risker> why do you want to make that site?
[2010-12-01 21:55:36] <SophJ> When I was on YouTube a while back, people
would post messages about their own family members being missing
[2010-12-01 21:55:53] <Risker> YouTube?
[2010-12-01 21:56:08] <SophJ> Yes. YouTube.com
[2010-12-01 21:56:47] <Risker> why were you on YouTube?
[2010-12-01 21:56:49] <SophJ> Anyway, i googled the missing persons name
[2010-12-01 21:57:02] <SophJ> No results
[2010-12-01 21:57:15] <SophJ> To watch videos, talk to people I know also on
there
[2010-12-01 21:59:13] <Risker> ah, you have an account there, I thought you
might have been in a video
[2010-12-01 21:59:30] <Risker> and how did the subject of missing family
members come up in your conversations on YouTube?
[2010-12-01 22:01:50] <SophJ> I am friends with people who upload Madeleine
tribute videos
[2010-12-01 22:02:07] <SophJ> So it's a common subject in those videos
[2010-12-01 22:03:42] <Risker> I don't want to be insulting, remember I live
on the other side of the world. Madeleine?
[2010-12-01 22:04:02] <SophJ> McCann
[2010-12-01 22:04:26] <Risker> ah
[2010-12-01 22:09:54] <Risker> so, you say it is your dad's site. Yet you
seem to be the person active on it
[2010-12-01 22:11:21] <SophJ> Yes. Dad doesn't know about wiki coding and
need to set up pol-a-seas first
[2010-12-01 22:11:36] <SophJ> Dad can be contacted in Whois info
[2010-12-01 22:18:06] <SophJ> Address is a contact one, not real
[2010-12-01 22:18:16] <Risker> I assume
[2010-12-01 22:18:28] <Risker> so are you acting as the site's sysadmin?
[2010-12-01 22:19:21] <SophJ> I am for the wiki, not the back end, dad does
that, don't want to break it
[2010-12-01 22:21:07] <Risker> is there more than the wiki?
[2010-12-01 22:21:18] <Risker> or is it just in development and not online
yet?
[2010-12-01 22:21:50] <SophJ> It's devolping and online
[2010-12-01 22:26:06] <Risker> what motivated you to post a question at
GiacomoReturned's candidate page?
[2010-12-01 22:27:36] <SophJ> I heard he was Can-did-ate but have 6 blocks
[2010-12-01 22:28:19] <Risker> why are there hyphens in some of your words?
pol-a-seas, can-did-ate?
[2010-12-01 22:28:39] <SophJ> I don't know how to spell them
[2010-12-01 22:28:59] <SophJ> But so you know what I'm saying
[2010-12-01 22:29:21] <SophJ> Fo-net-ik-lee
[2010-12-01 22:30:33] <Risker> most people just turn on the autocomplete on
the phone
[2010-12-01 22:31:15] <SophJ> Yea but if I don't know how to spell them to
begin with, it comes up with wrong words
[2010-12-01 22:31:23] <SophJ> And it is on
[2010-12-01 22:31:54] <SophJ> In that sentence, 'it is on' were all
corrected.
[2010-12-01 22:32:24] <Risker> SophJ, I cannot in all good conscience keep
you up any longer
[2010-12-01 22:32:32] <Risker> you need to go to sleep, you have school
tomorrow
[2010-12-01 22:32:44] <Risker> heck, I need to go to sleep, and I am five
hours later than you
[2010-12-01 22:33:02] <SophJ> Snow day
[2010-12-01 22:33:26] <SophJ> True should be morning then
[2010-12-01 22:33:47] <SophJ> But I won't get much sleep as I'm still
worried if I'm in trouble or not
[2010-12-01 22:34:34] <Risker> well, we can talk further tomorrow evening
[2010-12-01 22:35:44] <SophJ> I'll be on a lot of times, again
[2010-12-01 22:36:53] <Risker> you should probably not spend so much time
online
[2010-12-01 22:37:08] <Risker> well, perhaps that is a discussion you should
have with your parents
[2010-12-01 22:37:35] <Risker> get some sleep, Sophie
[2010-12-01 22:38:07] <SophJ> I'm not online that much normally, but iv been
worrying about what's happend that iv been panicking
[2010-12-01 22:39:12] <Risker> we'll talk more tomorrow evening, I will ping
you. that will be late evening for you, because of the time difference
[2010-12-01 22:40:01] <SophJ> You (arb) should have an email from the
Calvery person (arb canidate) about the panicking
[2010-12-01 22:42:01] <Risker> SophJ, that is something I would like to ask
more about tomorrow, but I don't want you worrying about it. It's a snow day
for you tomorrow, but I have to be up for work at 5 am, and I have a very
long day ahead of me. I have received a message though, yes.
[2010-12-01 22:42:34] <Risker> so consider it a snow day from WP as well, or
something along that line.
[2010-12-01 22:43:18] <Risker> for now, we both need sleep. On that note,
I'm heading off for the night, we can talk more tomorrow evening.
[2010-12-01 22:43:19] === The nickname ``SophJ'' does not exist.
[2010-12-01 22:43:48] <SophJ> Sorry, dc
[2010-12-01 22:44:14] <SophJ> And I can't go on wp anywhere
[2010-12-01 22:44:15] <Risker> I was just closing off with "for now, we both
need sleep. On that note, I'm heading off for the night, we can talk more
tomorrow evening."
[2010-12-01 22:44:19] <SophJ> * anyway
[2010-12-01 22:44:21] <Risker> yes
[2010-12-01 22:44:26] <Risker> okay, we will talk tomorrow
[2010-12-01 22:44:47] [QUIT] Disconnected from irc://freenode/ (irc://
irc.freenode.net/). [[Reconnect][Reconnect to freenode][reconnect]]
----------
From sophiejohnson97 at yahoo.co.uk Mon Dec 6 21:56:11 2010
From: sophiejohnson97 at yahoo.co.uk (Sophie)
Date: Mon, 06 Dec 2010 21:56:11 +0000
Subject: [arbcom-l] Please Explain The Block
Message-ID: <E1PPj2Z-0003hC-Bo@srv261.pmtpa.wmnet>

Please could you explain the reasons for the block, clearly and explicitly, so that I can address the concerns directly

- Sophie

--
This e-mail was sent by user "Sophie" on the English Wikipedia to user "Arbitration Committee". It has been automatically delivered and the Wikimedia Foundation cannot be held responsible for its contents.
----------
From roger.davies.wiki at gmail.com Tue Dec 7 08:20:49 2010
From: roger.davies.wiki at gmail.com (Roger Davies)
Date: Tue, 07 Dec 2010 08:20:49 +0000
Subject: [arbcom-l] Please Explain The Block
In-Reply-To: <E1PPj2Z-0003hC-Bo@srv261.pmtpa.wmnet>
References: <E1PPj2Z-0003hC-Bo@srv261.pmtpa.wmnet>
Message-ID: <4CFDEE61.5010503@gmail.com>

Hi Sophie:

We'll be writing to you shortly.

Roger Davies



On 06/12/2010 21:56, Sophie wrote:
> Please could you explain the reasons for the block, clearly and explicitly, so that I can address the concerns directly
>
> - Sophie
-----------
From shell.kinney at gmail.com Tue Dec 7 10:25:44 2010
From: shell.kinney at gmail.com (Michelle Kinney)
Date: Tue, 7 Dec 2010 05:25:44 -0500
Subject: [arbcom-l] Response to User:Sophie re her block (draft)
In-Reply-To: <AANLkTin2XHtjAAsB=XEKuxuUkwA0-xdS=eD9B1KMkkLN@mail.gmail.com>
References: <AANLkTin2XHtjAAsB=XEKuxuUkwA0-xdS=eD9B1KMkkLN@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <AANLkTimf-NeWC+a0EfBoP0+vromMr+BBdmm33D5iHkpL@mail.gmail.com>

I think the draft looks great, but I wonder if it might be better to
give this person much less information, kind of in a BEANS manner.
The last thing we want is to educate them how to get their story
straight and hide better next time (and I have no doubt there will be
other attempts).

Shell

On Tue, Dec 7, 2010 at 00:32, Risker <risker.wp at gmail.com> wrote:
> Hi folks -
>
> We've had several requests from User:Sophie, either to me personally or to
-----------
From carcharothwp at googlemail.com Tue Dec 7 10:55:08 2010
From: carcharothwp at googlemail.com (Carcharoth)
Date: Tue, 7 Dec 2010 10:55:08 +0000
Subject: [arbcom-l] Response to User:Sophie re her block (draft)
In-Reply-To: <AANLkTimf-NeWC+a0EfBoP0+vromMr+BBdmm33D5iHkpL@mail.gmail.com>
References: <AANLkTin2XHtjAAsB=XEKuxuUkwA0-xdS=eD9B1KMkkLN@mail.gmail.com>
<AANLkTimf-NeWC+a0EfBoP0+vromMr+BBdmm33D5iHkpL@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <AANLkTi=Zjr0RgNXp_vTdhcyZSKZ75pk0VBykjoNi5W=W@mail.gmail.com>

Shouldn't we just be reporting whoever is going around imitating a 13-year-old?

Carcharoth

On Tue, Dec 7, 2010 at 10:25 AM, Michelle Kinney <shell.kinney at gmail.com> wrote:
> I think the draft looks great, but I wonder if it might be better to
----------
From carcharothwp at googlemail.com Tue Dec 7 10:57:55 2010
From: carcharothwp at googlemail.com (Carcharoth)
Date: Tue, 7 Dec 2010 10:57:55 +0000
Subject: [arbcom-l] Response to User:Sophie re her block (draft)
In-Reply-To: <AANLkTi=Zjr0RgNXp_vTdhcyZSKZ75pk0VBykjoNi5W=W@mail.gmail.com>
References: <AANLkTin2XHtjAAsB=XEKuxuUkwA0-xdS=eD9B1KMkkLN@mail.gmail.com>
<AANLkTimf-NeWC+a0EfBoP0+vromMr+BBdmm33D5iHkpL@mail.gmail.com>
<AANLkTi=Zjr0RgNXp_vTdhcyZSKZ75pk0VBykjoNi5W=W@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <AANLkTikXt_nhn2bkwN4zdr6bvNCTQO41PQ1wA+1acnGe@mail.gmail.com>

PS. Ignore that until I've managed to read Risker's draft statement
(can someone post a copy to the mailing list?).

Carcharoth

On Tue, Dec 7, 2010 at 10:55 AM, Carcharoth <carcharothwp at googlemail.com> wrote:
> Shouldn't we just be reporting whoever is going around imitating a 13-year-old?
----------
From risker.wp at gmail.com Tue Dec 7 12:15:48 2010
From: risker.wp at gmail.com (Risker)
Date: Tue, 7 Dec 2010 07:15:48 -0500
Subject: [arbcom-l] Response to User:Sophie re her block (draft)
In-Reply-To: <AANLkTikXt_nhn2bkwN4zdr6bvNCTQO41PQ1wA+1acnGe@mail.gmail.com>
References: <AANLkTin2XHtjAAsB=XEKuxuUkwA0-xdS=eD9B1KMkkLN@mail.gmail.com>
<AANLkTimf-NeWC+a0EfBoP0+vromMr+BBdmm33D5iHkpL@mail.gmail.com>
<AANLkTi=Zjr0RgNXp_vTdhcyZSKZ75pk0VBykjoNi5W=W@mail.gmail.com>
<AANLkTikXt_nhn2bkwN4zdr6bvNCTQO41PQ1wA+1acnGe@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <AANLkTim3OG=Y=Aq+b3hnd0rBKC_TsvzLw-sP89cZYPmE@mail.gmail.com>

On 7 December 2010 05:57, Carcharoth <carcharothwp at googlemail.com> wrote:

> PS. Ignore that until I've managed to read Risker's draft statement
> (can someone post a copy to the mailing list?).
>
> COPY:

Dear Sophie -

This is to provide you with further explanation of your block, as you
requested.

On English Wikipedia, efforts are made to educate young users and to provide
them with what little protection we can give them, which is not a great
deal. Wikipedia is not intended to be a site edited by children, and the
majority of children who try to participate cannot function effectively at
even the minimal competency level expected, either socially or by virtue of
their ability to research and write. However, they are usually tolerated,
even indulged to some extent, as long as they are not behaving
inappropriately.

You were asked several times by several Wikipedians interested in your
welfare to downplay references to your self-reported age and your reported
personal history as a "child porn victim". Instead, it seems that each time
someone asked you to tone things down, you went out of your way to promote
yourself as "a little kid". Your edit notices emphasized that you were "a
little kid", you posted both your age (13) and your reported date of birth
on your userpage, and you added an image of a girl even younger than you as
"decoration". This was very provocative, as was explained to you. The
modified screenshot from /b/, an adult-only 4chan forum, that you posted on
Jimbo Wales' talk page again gave the appearance that you wanted to draw the
attention of the /b/ editors, known for their vandalism of Wikipedia and
their personal attacks directed at our editors. As you frequent the various
Wikipedia-related IRC channels, you are well aware of the type of behaviour
one can expect from /b/ participants. Your continual demands that people
speak to you as if to a young child, posting even on heavily trafficked
pages that you were "only 13", was almost calculated to draw attention to
yourself as a very young editor; in particular, your question of a high
profile Arbitration Committee candidate, and the request for arbitration
that you posted, seemed designed to bring your youthfulness to the attention
of an ever-increasing audience. The emphasis on your desire to be spoken to
like a child is very unusual behaviour for a 13-year-old girl.

Because of your behaviour, User:Sophie, your presence is drawing significant
attention from many people who are concerned about your well-being, while
you continue to ignore any suggestions at modifying your behaviour. This is
not the purpose of Wikipedia; our editors are not your guardians, and your
insistence that you be treated as a child has increasingly become
problematic, particularly as you tell us you are a child porn victim.

Apart from your behaviour on-wiki, there have been increasing concerns and
reports about the stories you have been telling other editors about
yourself: that you were kidnapped and forced to do "child porn"; that you
are in a witness protection program; that your school burned down so that is
why you edit sometimes from <redacted> College, where some of your classes
have been moved. (The only school fire reported in the <redacted> area
in the past year resulted in the school's kitchen being out of service for a
day.) You have made references to the Wikimissing.org website, which you say
is your father's website; it's registered to <redacted>. He is also the same person who runs the "Help bring
Madeline home" pages <
http://helpbringmadeleinehome.spaces.live....efault.aspx> and you yourself
have told me about the HBMH youtube page, which also is run by the same
person, and which you say you were involved with. <
http://www.youtube.com/user/HBMHcouk> I note with interest that two of the
videos on that site are about internet safety for young people. And yet you
would have us believe that your father/parents are oblivious to the fact
that you are online until the wee hours of the morning UK time on a regular
basis, talking to adult males in private IRC chat rooms, and cruising the
4chan /b/ channel. The moderator of the Youtube page, Steve, says his two
daughters were kidnapped for six years, and returned in 2008; I've not heard
of you mentioning a sister, just a brother, and I also note that there is
not a single online news source that corroborates such an unusual case. This
combination of stories doesn't add up very well at all.

User:Sophie, I do not know if you are a 13 year old girl behaving
provocatively, or someone pretending to be a 13 year old girl. Either way,
the manner in which you have been participating on Wikipedia, starting off
with the promotion of the Wikimissing.org site and now acting as a young
child, is not conducive to our primary objective, the development of an
encyclopedia.

Best,, etc....
----------

From risker.wp at gmail.com Tue Dec 7 12:24:59 2010
From: risker.wp at gmail.com (Risker)
Date: Tue, 7 Dec 2010 07:24:59 -0500
Subject: [arbcom-l] Response to User:Sophie re her block (draft)
In-Reply-To: <AANLkTimf-NeWC+a0EfBoP0+vromMr+BBdmm33D5iHkpL@mail.gmail.com>
References: <AANLkTin2XHtjAAsB=XEKuxuUkwA0-xdS=eD9B1KMkkLN@mail.gmail.com>
<AANLkTimf-NeWC+a0EfBoP0+vromMr+BBdmm33D5iHkpL@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <AANLkTika4km2YEGrUvnBinAM8jFm=i2mKFqJgBM=7JDe@mail.gmail.com>

Shell, this is one of the questions that occurred to me as well. One of the
larger challenges in this situation is that User:Sophie seems to have
persuaded a significant number of young and even adult males that she is,
well, a 13-year-old girl, and I'm not sure how they can be educated (in
particular, pointed to the holes in her story) without it getting back to
"Sophie" anyway. I suppose much of this is actually in preparation for
responding to any further questions or concerns from them, as much as to
respond to Sophie. As I look at this again after some sleep, it dawns on me
that I have once again fallen into the trap of putting "fairness" first,
above protection.

I'd be more than happy to create an abridged version of this. Any
suggestions on what should go, and how to put ourselves in a position to
share information with her "followers" without hitting the BEANS wall?

Incidentally, there have been offers of phone calls from "Sophie's dad" to
confirm her identity....

Risker/Anne

On 7 December 2010 05:25, Michelle Kinney <shell.kinney at gmail.com> wrote:

> I think the draft looks great, but I wonder if it might be better to
> give this person much less information, kind of in a BEANS manner.
----------
From kirill.lokshin at gmail.com Tue Dec 7 14:03:29 2010
From: kirill.lokshin at gmail.com (Kirill Lokshin)
Date: Tue, 7 Dec 2010 09:03:29 -0500
Subject: [arbcom-l] Response to User:Sophie re her block (draft)
In-Reply-To: <AANLkTimf-NeWC+a0EfBoP0+vromMr+BBdmm33D5iHkpL@mail.gmail.com>
References: <AANLkTin2XHtjAAsB=XEKuxuUkwA0-xdS=eD9B1KMkkLN@mail.gmail.com>
<AANLkTimf-NeWC+a0EfBoP0+vromMr+BBdmm33D5iHkpL@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <AANLkTi=fp63d=MN5d=K89OLGf3-+meTR44nfPuqXGDxw@mail.gmail.com>

True, but if we send out something with no details at all, it'll provide
fodder for our political enemies ("Look, ArbCom disappeared an editor
without any evidence!") if/when it gets leaked.

The alternative, I suppose, would be to allude to some undefined private
evidence we have, but not actually discuss it in detail.

Kirill

On Tue, Dec 7, 2010 at 5:25 AM, Michelle Kinney <shell.kinney at gmail.com>wrote:

> I think the draft looks great, but I wonder if it might be better to
> give this person much less information, kind of in a BEANS manner.
----------
From shell.kinney at gmail.com Tue Dec 7 14:15:05 2010
From: shell.kinney at gmail.com (Michelle Kinney)
Date: Tue, 7 Dec 2010 09:15:05 -0500
Subject: [arbcom-l] Response to User:Sophie re her block (draft)
In-Reply-To: <AANLkTika4km2YEGrUvnBinAM8jFm=i2mKFqJgBM=7JDe@mail.gmail.com>
References: <AANLkTin2XHtjAAsB=XEKuxuUkwA0-xdS=eD9B1KMkkLN@mail.gmail.com>
<AANLkTimf-NeWC+a0EfBoP0+vromMr+BBdmm33D5iHkpL@mail.gmail.com>
<AANLkTika4km2YEGrUvnBinAM8jFm=i2mKFqJgBM=7JDe@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <AANLkTimYVE15G-o2LWuXNmhv1FDOmo3CqpuvyNS8b8as@mail.gmail.com>

I'm not sure - it's a tough balancing act here. Is there a way we can
explain that the information she's given on-wiki and to us doesn't
jive with reality without giving details about which information we
were able to check and confirm?

As for dealing with other editors who knew her, there have been a
number of questions on IRC already. I've just explained that there
seem to be inconsistencies in who she says she isand as always, please
take care when meeting people on the internet. I've yet to have
anyone contest that, or even seem surprised, so I think more people
may think something funny is up than we first realized.

Shell

On Tue, Dec 7, 2010 at 07:24, Risker <risker.wp at gmail.com> wrote:
> Shell, this is one of the questions that occurred to me as well.? One of the
-----------
From carcharothwp at googlemail.com Tue Dec 7 14:20:26 2010
From: carcharothwp at googlemail.com (Carcharoth)
Date: Tue, 7 Dec 2010 14:20:26 +0000
Subject: [arbcom-l] Response to User:Sophie re her block (draft)
In-Reply-To: <AANLkTika4km2YEGrUvnBinAM8jFm=i2mKFqJgBM=7JDe@mail.gmail.com>
References: <AANLkTin2XHtjAAsB=XEKuxuUkwA0-xdS=eD9B1KMkkLN@mail.gmail.com>
<AANLkTimf-NeWC+a0EfBoP0+vromMr+BBdmm33D5iHkpL@mail.gmail.com>
<AANLkTika4km2YEGrUvnBinAM8jFm=i2mKFqJgBM=7JDe@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <AANLkTimv5f-0QV+-BykraWTSdiBYOo7BwwYC3z_PN7GF@mail.gmail.com>

I still think this needs reporting as worst-case scenario this could
be a vigilante setting traps, or someone trying (ineptly) to make
contact inappropriately with people of that age, or someone playing
out a fantasy or delusion, or someone trolling. I'd cut down on the
details as well and just tell them that their story doesn't add up.

Also, what happened here?

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=...&action=history

Carcharoth

On Tue, Dec 7, 2010 at 12:24 PM, Risker <risker.wp at gmail.com> wrote:
> Shell, this is one of the questions that occurred to me as well.? One of the
----------
From risker.wp at gmail.com Tue Dec 7 14:30:30 2010
From: risker.wp at gmail.com (Risker)
Date: Tue, 7 Dec 2010 09:30:30 -0500
Subject: [arbcom-l] Response to User:Sophie re her block (draft)
In-Reply-To: <AANLkTimv5f-0QV+-BykraWTSdiBYOo7BwwYC3z_PN7GF@mail.gmail.com>
References: <AANLkTin2XHtjAAsB=XEKuxuUkwA0-xdS=eD9B1KMkkLN@mail.gmail.com>
<AANLkTimf-NeWC+a0EfBoP0+vromMr+BBdmm33D5iHkpL@mail.gmail.com>
<AANLkTika4km2YEGrUvnBinAM8jFm=i2mKFqJgBM=7JDe@mail.gmail.com>
<AANLkTimv5f-0QV+-BykraWTSdiBYOo7BwwYC3z_PN7GF@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <AANLkTinNHEfxnZGong0A+nY7fgTEiXg+H_gGxapk-osq@mail.gmail.com>

On 7 December 2010 09:20, Carcharoth <carcharothwp at googlemail.com> wrote:

> I still think this needs reporting as worst-case scenario this could
> be a vigilante setting traps, or someone trying (ineptly) to make
> contact inappropriately with people of that age, or someone playing
> out a fantasy or delusion, or someone trolling. I'd cut down on the
> details as well and just tell them that their story doesn't add up.
>
> Also, what happened here?
>
>
> http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=...&action=history
>
>

That was a rename which was carried out in the usual manner.

I'll work a bit more on this later today to see if I can streamline this a
bit more.


Risker/Anne
----------
From User.CoolHandLuke at gmail.com Tue Dec 7 20:35:11 2010
From: User.CoolHandLuke at gmail.com (Cool Hand Luke)
Date: Tue, 7 Dec 2010 15:35:11 -0500
Subject: [arbcom-l] Response to User:Sophie re her block (draft)
In-Reply-To: <AANLkTinNHEfxnZGong0A+nY7fgTEiXg+H_gGxapk-osq@mail.gmail.com>
References: <AANLkTin2XHtjAAsB=XEKuxuUkwA0-xdS=eD9B1KMkkLN@mail.gmail.com>
<AANLkTimf-NeWC+a0EfBoP0+vromMr+BBdmm33D5iHkpL@mail.gmail.com>
<AANLkTika4km2YEGrUvnBinAM8jFm=i2mKFqJgBM=7JDe@mail.gmail.com>
<AANLkTimv5f-0QV+-BykraWTSdiBYOo7BwwYC3z_PN7GF@mail.gmail.com>
<AANLkTinNHEfxnZGong0A+nY7fgTEiXg+H_gGxapk-osq@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <AANLkTi=xNs7W2-b5TXb9S7R5tcX+k3vE37-Qk9_yjgMX@mail.gmail.com>

This line made me audibly chuckle: "Mum said to never keep nothing a secret
and people (wiki people) are helping me deal with this"

Elaborate troll; I suspect they planned to try to make us look bad no matter
what we did--and allowing such a provocative user would be even worse. I
support. Please add that to the wiki.

Frank
----------
From KnightLago at gmail.com Tue Dec 7 21:07:05 2010
From: KnightLago at gmail.com (KnightLago)
Date: Tue, 7 Dec 2010 16:07:05 -0500
Subject: [arbcom-l] Response to User:Sophie re her block (draft)
In-Reply-To: <AANLkTi=xNs7W2-b5TXb9S7R5tcX+k3vE37-Qk9_yjgMX@mail.gmail.com>
References: <AANLkTin2XHtjAAsB=XEKuxuUkwA0-xdS=eD9B1KMkkLN@mail.gmail.com>
<AANLkTimf-NeWC+a0EfBoP0+vromMr+BBdmm33D5iHkpL@mail.gmail.com>
<AANLkTika4km2YEGrUvnBinAM8jFm=i2mKFqJgBM=7JDe@mail.gmail.com>
<AANLkTimv5f-0QV+-BykraWTSdiBYOo7BwwYC3z_PN7GF@mail.gmail.com>
<AANLkTinNHEfxnZGong0A+nY7fgTEiXg+H_gGxapk-osq@mail.gmail.com>
<AANLkTi=xNs7W2-b5TXb9S7R5tcX+k3vE37-Qk9_yjgMX@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <AANLkTikE06f_es3U=Knnz9CtLEYyPU9O0JUGwEwo+3C5@mail.gmail.com>

I would change the word "porn" to "pornography" throughout. It sounds more
respectable. I would also find another word for "cruising". Again, nothing
wrong with the word choice, but we could sound more respectable by using
another word and we want to write this like it will be distributed to the
public (which may occur). Otherwise it is excellent.

KL

On Tue, Dec 7, 2010 at 3:35 PM, Cool Hand Luke
<User.CoolHandLuke at gmail.com>wrote:

> This line made me audibly chuckle: "Mum said to never keep nothing a secret
-----------
From newyorkbrad at gmail.com Tue Dec 7 21:34:03 2010
From: newyorkbrad at gmail.com (Newyorkbrad)
Date: Tue, 7 Dec 2010 16:34:03 -0500
Subject: [arbcom-l] Response to User:Sophie re her block (draft)
In-Reply-To: <AANLkTikE06f_es3U=Knnz9CtLEYyPU9O0JUGwEwo+3C5@mail.gmail.com>
References: <AANLkTin2XHtjAAsB=XEKuxuUkwA0-xdS=eD9B1KMkkLN@mail.gmail.com>
<AANLkTimf-NeWC+a0EfBoP0+vromMr+BBdmm33D5iHkpL@mail.gmail.com>
<AANLkTika4km2YEGrUvnBinAM8jFm=i2mKFqJgBM=7JDe@mail.gmail.com>
<AANLkTimv5f-0QV+-BykraWTSdiBYOo7BwwYC3z_PN7GF@mail.gmail.com>
<AANLkTinNHEfxnZGong0A+nY7fgTEiXg+H_gGxapk-osq@mail.gmail.com>
<AANLkTi=xNs7W2-b5TXb9S7R5tcX+k3vE37-Qk9_yjgMX@mail.gmail.com>
<AANLkTikE06f_es3U=Knnz9CtLEYyPU9O0JUGwEwo+3C5@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <AANLkTikd4wm7JbPhfh6W7UZ9NxeLsxu=g-1cyoDROTJf@mail.gmail.com>

I'd like a chance to comment tonight on the final draft, if possible.
I'm in transit now but will be available in an hour or two.

Newyorkbrad

On 12/7/10, KnightLago <KnightLago at gmail.com> wrote:
> I would change the word "porn" to "pornography" throughout. It sounds more
----------
From risker.wp at gmail.com Wed Dec 8 01:41:27 2010
From: risker.wp at gmail.com (Risker)
Date: Tue, 7 Dec 2010 20:41:27 -0500
Subject: [arbcom-l] Response to User:Sophie re her block (draft)
In-Reply-To: <AANLkTikd4wm7JbPhfh6W7UZ9NxeLsxu=g-1cyoDROTJf@mail.gmail.com>
References: <AANLkTin2XHtjAAsB=XEKuxuUkwA0-xdS=eD9B1KMkkLN@mail.gmail.com>
<AANLkTimf-NeWC+a0EfBoP0+vromMr+BBdmm33D5iHkpL@mail.gmail.com>
<AANLkTika4km2YEGrUvnBinAM8jFm=i2mKFqJgBM=7JDe@mail.gmail.com>
<AANLkTimv5f-0QV+-BykraWTSdiBYOo7BwwYC3z_PN7GF@mail.gmail.com>
<AANLkTinNHEfxnZGong0A+nY7fgTEiXg+H_gGxapk-osq@mail.gmail.com>
<AANLkTi=xNs7W2-b5TXb9S7R5tcX+k3vE37-Qk9_yjgMX@mail.gmail.com>
<AANLkTikE06f_es3U=Knnz9CtLEYyPU9O0JUGwEwo+3C5@mail.gmail.com>
<AANLkTikd4wm7JbPhfh6W7UZ9NxeLsxu=g-1cyoDROTJf@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <AANLkTimUd5uqA3p=9NwXWK-W7Jq7VgrDJ02=smXGjbUa@mail.gmail.com>

Thanks, NYB, if you can spare a few minutes. I'd like to get this sent
before I go to bed tonight, so that I awaken to the lively sounds of
screaming in my inbox....

Risker/Anne

On 7 December 2010 16:34, Newyorkbrad <newyorkbrad at gmail.com> wrote:

> I'd like a chance to comment tonight on the final draft, if possible.
----------
From newyorkbrad at gmail.com Wed Dec 8 03:05:46 2010
From: newyorkbrad at gmail.com (Newyorkbrad)
Date: Tue, 7 Dec 2010 22:05:46 -0500
Subject: [arbcom-l] Response to User:Sophie re her block (draft)
In-Reply-To: <AANLkTimUd5uqA3p=9NwXWK-W7Jq7VgrDJ02=smXGjbUa@mail.gmail.com>
References: <AANLkTin2XHtjAAsB=XEKuxuUkwA0-xdS=eD9B1KMkkLN@mail.gmail.com>
<AANLkTimf-NeWC+a0EfBoP0+vromMr+BBdmm33D5iHkpL@mail.gmail.com>
<AANLkTika4km2YEGrUvnBinAM8jFm=i2mKFqJgBM=7JDe@mail.gmail.com>
<AANLkTimv5f-0QV+-BykraWTSdiBYOo7BwwYC3z_PN7GF@mail.gmail.com>
<AANLkTinNHEfxnZGong0A+nY7fgTEiXg+H_gGxapk-osq@mail.gmail.com>
<AANLkTi=xNs7W2-b5TXb9S7R5tcX+k3vE37-Qk9_yjgMX@mail.gmail.com>
<AANLkTikE06f_es3U=Knnz9CtLEYyPU9O0JUGwEwo+3C5@mail.gmail.com>
<AANLkTikd4wm7JbPhfh6W7UZ9NxeLsxu=g-1cyoDROTJf@mail.gmail.com>
<AANLkTimUd5uqA3p=9NwXWK-W7Jq7VgrDJ02=smXGjbUa@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <AANLkTi=BMWeH8JHJoEnESs750NKzDjoKxqY0Jv=fcQjB@mail.gmail.com>

Could you (or someone) kindly copy the most current draft here? Thanks.

B.

On Tue, Dec 7, 2010 at 8:41 PM, Risker <risker.wp at gmail.com> wrote:

> Thanks, NYB, if you can spare a few minutes. I'd like to get this sent
----------
From risker.wp at gmail.com Wed Dec 8 03:53:21 2010
From: risker.wp at gmail.com (Risker)
Date: Tue, 7 Dec 2010 22:53:21 -0500
Subject: [arbcom-l] Response to User:Sophie re her block (draft)
In-Reply-To: <AANLkTi=BMWeH8JHJoEnESs750NKzDjoKxqY0Jv=fcQjB@mail.gmail.com>
References: <AANLkTin2XHtjAAsB=XEKuxuUkwA0-xdS=eD9B1KMkkLN@mail.gmail.com>
<AANLkTimf-NeWC+a0EfBoP0+vromMr+BBdmm33D5iHkpL@mail.gmail.com>
<AANLkTika4km2YEGrUvnBinAM8jFm=i2mKFqJgBM=7JDe@mail.gmail.com>
<AANLkTimv5f-0QV+-BykraWTSdiBYOo7BwwYC3z_PN7GF@mail.gmail.com>
<AANLkTinNHEfxnZGong0A+nY7fgTEiXg+H_gGxapk-osq@mail.gmail.com>
<AANLkTi=xNs7W2-b5TXb9S7R5tcX+k3vE37-Qk9_yjgMX@mail.gmail.com>
<AANLkTikE06f_es3U=Knnz9CtLEYyPU9O0JUGwEwo+3C5@mail.gmail.com>
<AANLkTikd4wm7JbPhfh6W7UZ9NxeLsxu=g-1cyoDROTJf@mail.gmail.com>
<AANLkTimUd5uqA3p=9NwXWK-W7Jq7VgrDJ02=smXGjbUa@mail.gmail.com>
<AANLkTi=BMWeH8JHJoEnESs750NKzDjoKxqY0Jv=fcQjB@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <AANLkTikkJ=AA2Qh0Nt5qT+PObnEpBytk+fR2n3SSXQUP@mail.gmail.com>

On 7 December 2010 22:05, Newyorkbrad <newyorkbrad at gmail.com> wrote:

> Could you (or someone) kindly copy the most current draft here? Thanks.
>
> B.
>
>
> Current draft, might be able to be cut down a bit:

Dear Sophie -

This is to provide you with further explanation of your block, as you
requested.

On English Wikipedia, efforts are made to educate young users and to provide
them with what little protection we can give them, which is not a great
deal. Wikipedia is not intended to be a site edited by children, and the
majority of children who try to participate cannot function effectively at
even the minimal competency level expected, either socially or by virtue of
their ability to research and write. However, they are usually tolerated,
even indulged to some extent, as long as they are not behaving
inappropriately.

You were asked several times by several Wikipedians interested in your
welfare to downplay references to your self-reported age and your reported
personal history as a "child pornogrpahy victim". Instead, it seems that
each time someone asked you to tone things down, you went out of your way to
promote yourself as "a little kid". Your edit notices emphasized that you
were "a little kid", you posted both your age (13) and your reported date of
birth on your userpage, and you added an image of a girl even younger than
you as "decoration". This was very provocative, as was explained to you. The
modified screenshot from /b/, an adult-only 4chan forum, that you posted on
Jimbo Wales' talk page again gave the appearance that you wanted to draw the
attention of the /b/ editors, known for their vandalism of Wikipedia and
their personal attacks directed at our editors. As you frequent the various
Wikipedia-related IRC channels, you are well aware of the type of behaviour
one can expect from /b/ participants. Your continual demands that people
speak to you as if to a young child, posting even on heavily trafficked
pages that you were "only 13", was almost calculated to draw attention to
yourself as a very young editor; in particular, your question of a high
profile Arbitration Committee candidate, and the request for arbitration
that you posted, seemed designed to bring your youthfulness to the attention
of an ever-increasing audience. The emphasis on your desire to be spoken to
like a child is very unusual behaviour for a 13-year-old girl.

Because of your behaviour, User:Sophie, your presence is drawing significant
attention from many people who are concerned about your well-being, while
you continue to ignore any suggestions at modifying your behaviour. This is
not the purpose of Wikipedia; our editors are not your guardians, and your
insistence that you be treated as a child has increasingly become
problematic, particularly as you tell us you are a child pornography victim.

Apart from your behaviour on-wiki, there have been increasing concerns and
reports about the stories you have been telling other editors about
yourself: that you were kidnapped and forced to do "child pornography"; that
you are in a witness protection program; that your school burned down so
that is why you edit sometimes from Loughborough College, where some of your
classes have been moved. (The only school fire reported in the
Leicestershire area in the past year resulted in the school's kitchen being
out of service for a day.) You have made references to the Wikimissing.org
website, which you say is your father's website; it's registered to Steven
Johnson of Rothley, Leicestershire, UK. He is also the same person who runs
the "Help bring Madeline home" pages <
http://helpbringmadeleinehome.spaces.live....efault.aspx> and you yourself
have told me about the HBMH youtube page, which also is run by the same
person, and which you say you were involved with. <
http://www.youtube.com/user/HBMHcouk> I note with interest that two of the
videos on that site are about internet safety for young people. And yet you
would have us believe that your father/parents are oblivious to the fact
that you are online until the wee hours of the morning UK time on a regular
basis, talking to adult males in private IRC chat rooms, and spending time
in the 4chan /b/ channel. The moderator of the Youtube page, Steve, says his
two daughters were kidnapped for six years, and returned in 2008; I've not
heard of you mentioning a sister, just a brother, and I also note that there
is not a single online news source that corroborates such an unusual case.
This combination of stories doesn't add up very well at all.

User:Sophie, I do not know if you are a 13 year old girl behaving
provocatively, or someone pretending to be a 13 year old girl. Either way,
the manner in which you have been participating on Wikipedia, starting off
with the promotion of the Wikimissing.org site and now acting as a young
child, is not conducive to our primary objective, the development of an
encyclopedia.

Best,
-----------
From newyorkbrad at gmail.com Wed Dec 8 04:04:09 2010
From: newyorkbrad at gmail.com (Newyorkbrad)
Date: Tue, 7 Dec 2010 23:04:09 -0500
Subject: [arbcom-l] Response to User:Sophie re her block (draft)
In-Reply-To: <AANLkTikkJ=AA2Qh0Nt5qT+PObnEpBytk+fR2n3SSXQUP@mail.gmail.com>
References: <AANLkTin2XHtjAAsB=XEKuxuUkwA0-xdS=eD9B1KMkkLN@mail.gmail.com>
<AANLkTimf-NeWC+a0EfBoP0+vromMr+BBdmm33D5iHkpL@mail.gmail.com>
<AANLkTika4km2YEGrUvnBinAM8jFm=i2mKFqJgBM=7JDe@mail.gmail.com>
<AANLkTimv5f-0QV+-BykraWTSdiBYOo7BwwYC3z_PN7GF@mail.gmail.com>
<AANLkTinNHEfxnZGong0A+nY7fgTEiXg+H_gGxapk-osq@mail.gmail.com>
<AANLkTi=xNs7W2-b5TXb9S7R5tcX+k3vE37-Qk9_yjgMX@mail.gmail.com>
<AANLkTikE06f_es3U=Knnz9CtLEYyPU9O0JUGwEwo+3C5@mail.gmail.com>
<AANLkTikd4wm7JbPhfh6W7UZ9NxeLsxu=g-1cyoDROTJf@mail.gmail.com>
<AANLkTimUd5uqA3p=9NwXWK-W7Jq7VgrDJ02=smXGjbUa@mail.gmail.com>
<AANLkTi=BMWeH8JHJoEnESs750NKzDjoKxqY0Jv=fcQjB@mail.gmail.com>
<AANLkTikkJ=AA2Qh0Nt5qT+PObnEpBytk+fR2n3SSXQUP@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <AANLkTimFxRhM98eJxXE4+EAYqhogb96Cb0XPh-ajBQ3L@mail.gmail.com>

Thanks for putting this together.

In the second (first long) paragraph, I would delete the discussion
about most children being unable to edit properly, etc. It is a
debatable statement (depending on what ages are considered "children")
and if this e-mails winds up being circulated, will lead to comments
along the lines of "why is anyone under [number] years old allowed on
Wikipedia at all given that they admit the can't contribute anyway?"

I think the discussion of Sophie's "provocative" conduct and the
inconsistencies in the story could both be shortened significantly.
In each case, a couple of instances should be cited, with a note that
these have been selected from multiple other examples.

I would, to an extent, reinstate the last paragraph of the prior draft
as the conclusion.

Regards,
Newyorkbrad
----------
From carcharothwp at googlemail.com Wed Dec 8 06:24:20 2010
From: carcharothwp at googlemail.com (Carcharoth)
Date: Wed, 8 Dec 2010 06:24:20 +0000
Subject: [arbcom-l] Response to User:Sophie re her block (draft)
In-Reply-To: <AANLkTimFxRhM98eJxXE4+EAYqhogb96Cb0XPh-ajBQ3L@mail.gmail.com>
References: <AANLkTin2XHtjAAsB=XEKuxuUkwA0-xdS=eD9B1KMkkLN@mail.gmail.com>
<AANLkTimf-NeWC+a0EfBoP0+vromMr+BBdmm33D5iHkpL@mail.gmail.com>
<AANLkTika4km2YEGrUvnBinAM8jFm=i2mKFqJgBM=7JDe@mail.gmail.com>
<AANLkTimv5f-0QV+-BykraWTSdiBYOo7BwwYC3z_PN7GF@mail.gmail.com>
<AANLkTinNHEfxnZGong0A+nY7fgTEiXg+H_gGxapk-osq@mail.gmail.com>
<AANLkTi=xNs7W2-b5TXb9S7R5tcX+k3vE37-Qk9_yjgMX@mail.gmail.com>
<AANLkTikE06f_es3U=Knnz9CtLEYyPU9O0JUGwEwo+3C5@mail.gmail.com>
<AANLkTikd4wm7JbPhfh6W7UZ9NxeLsxu=g-1cyoDROTJf@mail.gmail.com>
<AANLkTimUd5uqA3p=9NwXWK-W7Jq7VgrDJ02=smXGjbUa@mail.gmail.com>
<AANLkTi=BMWeH8JHJoEnESs750NKzDjoKxqY0Jv=fcQjB@mail.gmail.com>
<AANLkTikkJ=AA2Qh0Nt5qT+PObnEpBytk+fR2n3SSXQUP@mail.gmail.com>
<AANLkTimFxRhM98eJxXE4+EAYqhogb96Cb0XPh-ajBQ3L@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <AANLkTinrmj=N3JkrTOOiA=4kKVmu4nomDsCUg0Ax74BE@mail.gmail.com>

Agreed with Brad. My personal view is that children who edit should be
able to do so without people realising they are children. The most any
editor should need to say is that they are young and/or still in
eduction (to help explain some issues they may encounter while
editing). Though on re-reading, this does sound a lot like the "don't
say, don't tell" policy in the US military!

As soon as any young editor starts advertising their age or making a
big deal out of being younger than others, things get messy very, very
quickly. Given that it is impossible to adequately regulate behaviour
on Wikipedia unless it comes to people's attention, this should be
coupled with warnings to contact authorities/parents/someone you trust
if anything or anyone makes you uncomfortable (and especially if
people are contacting you by e-mail or through things like IRC).

I'm still not entirely sure about supporting the current wording of
the statement, as I get a horrible feeling it will be widely
circulated. If I could be sure that the user concerned would read it
and take it to heart, and/or tell us who they really are, then fine,
but if not, I fear that they will give copies of the statement to all
who ask for it, and parts of the statement may be quoted out of
context, necessitating a full publication to set the record straight.

Carcharoth

On Wed, Dec 8, 2010 at 4:04 AM, Newyorkbrad <newyorkbrad at gmail.com> wrote:
> Thanks for putting this together.
>

From carcharothwp at googlemail.com Wed Dec 8 06:27:47 2010
From: carcharothwp at googlemail.com (Carcharoth)
Date: Wed, 8 Dec 2010 06:27:47 +0000
Subject: [arbcom-l] Response to User:Sophie re her block (draft)
In-Reply-To: <AANLkTi=xNs7W2-b5TXb9S7R5tcX+k3vE37-Qk9_yjgMX@mail.gmail.com>
References: <AANLkTin2XHtjAAsB=XEKuxuUkwA0-xdS=eD9B1KMkkLN@mail.gmail.com>
<AANLkTimf-NeWC+a0EfBoP0+vromMr+BBdmm33D5iHkpL@mail.gmail.com>
<AANLkTika4km2YEGrUvnBinAM8jFm=i2mKFqJgBM=7JDe@mail.gmail.com>
<AANLkTimv5f-0QV+-BykraWTSdiBYOo7BwwYC3z_PN7GF@mail.gmail.com>
<AANLkTinNHEfxnZGong0A+nY7fgTEiXg+H_gGxapk-osq@mail.gmail.com>
<AANLkTi=xNs7W2-b5TXb9S7R5tcX+k3vE37-Qk9_yjgMX@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <AANLkTimB3MgVe1mzYmQ4r=zgZDhh_h83aMTKONhF2pKt@mail.gmail.com>

On Tue, Dec 7, 2010 at 8:35 PM, Cool Hand Luke
<User.CoolHandLuke at gmail.com> wrote:

> Elaborate troll; I suspect they planned to try to make us look bad no matter
> what we did--and allowing such a provocative user would be even worse.? I
> support.? Please add that to the wiki.

I agree with Frank here. Though I am wary of the real motivations of
the man named at various points in all this. If there is something
more nefarious going on here and anything bad does happen or has
happened, this has the potential to be big news in the UK, especially
if the Madeleine McCann angle is picked up on. It would be worth
trying to find out more about what this wikimissing site really is - I
noticed Iridescent made a comment in the WR thread about that site.

Carcharoth
----------
From risker.wp at gmail.com Wed Dec 8 06:34:17 2010
From: risker.wp at gmail.com (Risker)
Date: Wed, 8 Dec 2010 01:34:17 -0500
Subject: [arbcom-l] Response to User:Sophie re her block (draft)
In-Reply-To: <AANLkTimB3MgVe1mzYmQ4r=zgZDhh_h83aMTKONhF2pKt@mail.gmail.com>
References: <AANLkTin2XHtjAAsB=XEKuxuUkwA0-xdS=eD9B1KMkkLN@mail.gmail.com>
<AANLkTimf-NeWC+a0EfBoP0+vromMr+BBdmm33D5iHkpL@mail.gmail.com>
<AANLkTika4km2YEGrUvnBinAM8jFm=i2mKFqJgBM=7JDe@mail.gmail.com>
<AANLkTimv5f-0QV+-BykraWTSdiBYOo7BwwYC3z_PN7GF@mail.gmail.com>
<AANLkTinNHEfxnZGong0A+nY7fgTEiXg+H_gGxapk-osq@mail.gmail.com>
<AANLkTi=xNs7W2-b5TXb9S7R5tcX+k3vE37-Qk9_yjgMX@mail.gmail.com>
<AANLkTimB3MgVe1mzYmQ4r=zgZDhh_h83aMTKONhF2pKt@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <AANLkTikNgXZAxj6gH0uHLmifs4k3VT+ww3QOtVtxqZ8E@mail.gmail.com>

On 8 December 2010 01:27, Carcharoth <carcharothwp at googlemail.com> wrote:

> On Tue, Dec 7, 2010 at 8:35 PM, Cool Hand Luke
> <User.CoolHandLuke at gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > Elaborate troll; I suspect they planned to try to make us look bad no
> matter
> > what we did--and allowing such a provocative user would be even worse. I
> > support. Please add that to the wiki.
>
> I agree with Frank here. Though I am wary of the real motivations of
> the man named at various points in all this. If there is something
> more nefarious going on here and anything bad does happen or has
> happened, this has the potential to be big news in the UK, especially
> if the Madeleine McCann angle is picked up on. It would be worth
> trying to find out more about what this wikimissing site really is - I
> noticed Iridescent made a comment in the WR thread about that site.
>
>

Unless I am very much misreading some of the information I've dug up, I
believe that the Wikimissing site is registered by a man claiming to be a
photographer, living in the same tiny village as Madeleine McCann. That all
by itself seems to be a trolling: it's supposed to be one of the most
expensive places to live north of London. Iridescent actually contacted me
the same day that I blocked User:Sophie, having come to the conclusion that
this was either a troll or a predator - largely for the same reason I'd come
to that conclusion.

I will work some more on this tomorrow to pare it down considerably.
Carcharoth, am I correct in understanding that you still think there is the
possibility this is a 13 year old girl?

Risker/Anne
----------
From carcharothwp at googlemail.com Wed Dec 8 06:41:53 2010
From: carcharothwp at googlemail.com (Carcharoth)
Date: Wed, 8 Dec 2010 06:41:53 +0000
Subject: [arbcom-l] Response to User:Sophie re her block (draft)
In-Reply-To: <AANLkTikNgXZAxj6gH0uHLmifs4k3VT+ww3QOtVtxqZ8E@mail.gmail.com>
References: <AANLkTin2XHtjAAsB=XEKuxuUkwA0-xdS=eD9B1KMkkLN@mail.gmail.com>
<AANLkTimf-NeWC+a0EfBoP0+vromMr+BBdmm33D5iHkpL@mail.gmail.com>
<AANLkTika4km2YEGrUvnBinAM8jFm=i2mKFqJgBM=7JDe@mail.gmail.com>
<AANLkTimv5f-0QV+-BykraWTSdiBYOo7BwwYC3z_PN7GF@mail.gmail.com>
<AANLkTinNHEfxnZGong0A+nY7fgTEiXg+H_gGxapk-osq@mail.gmail.com>
<AANLkTi=xNs7W2-b5TXb9S7R5tcX+k3vE37-Qk9_yjgMX@mail.gmail.com>
<AANLkTimB3MgVe1mzYmQ4r=zgZDhh_h83aMTKONhF2pKt@mail.gmail.com>
<AANLkTikNgXZAxj6gH0uHLmifs4k3VT+ww3QOtVtxqZ8E@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <AANLkTi=7xeiEYXFnF596NM-09eKRGX8-mT2g27pJFdZH@mail.gmail.com>

On Wed, Dec 8, 2010 at 6:34 AM, Risker <risker.wp at gmail.com> wrote:

> I will work some more on this tomorrow to pare it down considerably.
> Carcharoth, am I correct in understanding that you still think there is the
> possibility this is a 13 year old girl?

No. I'm of the opinion (like Iridescent) that this is "either a troll
or a predator". My concern is that if this is a predator and all we do
is send this statement and nothing else, we won't have done enough.
Though I'm also aware that there are only two of us in the UK, and I
would be reluctant to actually report anything myself, though I think
something should be reported. I don't think this is a 13-year-old
girl, so I'm not opposing the statement. I suppose, though, that a
predator would be unlikely to appeal the block, which makes it more
likely to be a troll (or someone who is delusional, which is not
impossible either).

Carcharoth
----------
From carcharothwp at googlemail.com Wed Dec 8 06:43:21 2010
From: carcharothwp at googlemail.com (Carcharoth)
Date: Wed, 8 Dec 2010 06:43:21 +0000
Subject: [arbcom-l] Response to User:Sophie re her block (draft)
In-Reply-To: <AANLkTi=7xeiEYXFnF596NM-09eKRGX8-mT2g27pJFdZH@mail.gmail.com>
References: <AANLkTin2XHtjAAsB=XEKuxuUkwA0-xdS=eD9B1KMkkLN@mail.gmail.com>
<AANLkTimf-NeWC+a0EfBoP0+vromMr+BBdmm33D5iHkpL@mail.gmail.com>
<AANLkTika4km2YEGrUvnBinAM8jFm=i2mKFqJgBM=7JDe@mail.gmail.com>
<AANLkTimv5f-0QV+-BykraWTSdiBYOo7BwwYC3z_PN7GF@mail.gmail.com>
<AANLkTinNHEfxnZGong0A+nY7fgTEiXg+H_gGxapk-osq@mail.gmail.com>
<AANLkTi=xNs7W2-b5TXb9S7R5tcX+k3vE37-Qk9_yjgMX@mail.gmail.com>
<AANLkTimB3MgVe1mzYmQ4r=zgZDhh_h83aMTKONhF2pKt@mail.gmail.com>
<AANLkTikNgXZAxj6gH0uHLmifs4k3VT+ww3QOtVtxqZ8E@mail.gmail.com>
<AANLkTi=7xeiEYXFnF596NM-09eKRGX8-mT2g27pJFdZH@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <AANLkTimhd_k3SDSYBp2BFURso-DtEpBo-UdVgoGrhSm_@mail.gmail.com>

On Wed, Dec 8, 2010 at 6:41 AM, Carcharoth <carcharothwp at googlemail.com> wrote:

> Though I'm also aware that there are only two of us in the UK

Talking of which, someone remember to work out where people are from
in terms of countries and legal jurisdictions when the new arbs
arrive, exactly for things like this.

Carcharoth
----------
From KnightLago at gmail.com Wed Dec 8 11:49:25 2010
From: KnightLago at gmail.com (KnightLago)
Date: Wed, 8 Dec 2010 06:49:25 -0500
Subject: [arbcom-l] Response to User:Sophie re her block (draft)
In-Reply-To: <4CFF577D.7000909@gmail.com>
References: <AANLkTin2XHtjAAsB=XEKuxuUkwA0-xdS=eD9B1KMkkLN@mail.gmail.com>
<AANLkTimf-NeWC+a0EfBoP0+vromMr+BBdmm33D5iHkpL@mail.gmail.com>
<AANLkTika4km2YEGrUvnBinAM8jFm=i2mKFqJgBM=7JDe@mail.gmail.com>
<AANLkTimv5f-0QV+-BykraWTSdiBYOo7BwwYC3z_PN7GF@mail.gmail.com>
<AANLkTinNHEfxnZGong0A+nY7fgTEiXg+H_gGxapk-osq@mail.gmail.com>
<AANLkTi=xNs7W2-b5TXb9S7R5tcX+k3vE37-Qk9_yjgMX@mail.gmail.com>
<AANLkTimB3MgVe1mzYmQ4r=zgZDhh_h83aMTKONhF2pKt@mail.gmail.com>
<AANLkTikNgXZAxj6gH0uHLmifs4k3VT+ww3QOtVtxqZ8E@mail.gmail.com>
<4CFF577D.7000909@gmail.com>
Message-ID: <AANLkTi==L7hgn93KYsD2N4=rSpONcSpQRFhNi=YT5ky9@mail.gmail.com>

Roger does have a point.

KL

On Wed, Dec 8, 2010 at 5:01 AM, Roger Davies <roger.davies.wiki at gmail.com>wrote:

>
> I'm becoming increasingly concerned about this as I fear it will blow up in
> our faces. To an outsider, it's looking more and more like the sort of
> sleuthing which has caused so much much fuss with other editors in the past.
> Safest, I think, therefore to keep it short and sweet and omit anything
> about real life.
>
> The best approach might well simply to apparently take what she says at
> face value and to rely on the Child Protection policy to deal with it. That
> is, we say that we have a duty under policy to protect minors; that she is a
> 13-year-old child; and that her conduct on-wiki and in chatrooms is
> "facilitating inappropriate adult-child relationship" by drawing attention
> to her age and vulnerability, which could be easily exploited by pedophiles
> who will likely target her.
>
> The argument here is that she cannot have it both ways: she cannot claim to
> be vulnerable on-wiki and then complain when others step in to protect her.
>
> The other bases could be covered by a short note somewhere that alludes
> obliquely to trolling etc.
>
> Roger
----------
From newyorkbrad at gmail.com Wed Dec 8 12:40:28 2010
From: newyorkbrad at gmail.com (Newyorkbrad)
Date: Wed, 8 Dec 2010 07:40:28 -0500
Subject: [arbcom-l] Response to User:Sophie re her block (draft)
In-Reply-To: <AANLkTi==L7hgn93KYsD2N4=rSpONcSpQRFhNi=YT5ky9@mail.gmail.com>
References: <AANLkTin2XHtjAAsB=XEKuxuUkwA0-xdS=eD9B1KMkkLN@mail.gmail.com>
<AANLkTimf-NeWC+a0EfBoP0+vromMr+BBdmm33D5iHkpL@mail.gmail.com>
<AANLkTika4km2YEGrUvnBinAM8jFm=i2mKFqJgBM=7JDe@mail.gmail.com>
<AANLkTimv5f-0QV+-BykraWTSdiBYOo7BwwYC3z_PN7GF@mail.gmail.com>
<AANLkTinNHEfxnZGong0A+nY7fgTEiXg+H_gGxapk-osq@mail.gmail.com>
<AANLkTi=xNs7W2-b5TXb9S7R5tcX+k3vE37-Qk9_yjgMX@mail.gmail.com>
<AANLkTimB3MgVe1mzYmQ4r=zgZDhh_h83aMTKONhF2pKt@mail.gmail.com>
<AANLkTikNgXZAxj6gH0uHLmifs4k3VT+ww3QOtVtxqZ8E@mail.gmail.com>
<4CFF577D.7000909@gmail.com>
<AANLkTi==L7hgn93KYsD2N4=rSpONcSpQRFhNi=YT5ky9@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <AANLkTikks3krSit_qQkETt0pXCNQjf3huewCVuu69vWR@mail.gmail.com>

I am starting to wonder if our comment should simply be that because
private information is involved, this block has been carefully
reviewed by the Arbitration Committee, which endorses the block.

Newyorkbrad


On 12/8/10, KnightLago <KnightLago at gmail.com> wrote:
> Roger does have a point.
>
----------
From carcharothwp at googlemail.com Wed Dec 8 13:09:37 2010
From: carcharothwp at googlemail.com (Carcharoth)
Date: Wed, 8 Dec 2010 13:09:37 +0000
Subject: [arbcom-l] Response to User:Sophie re her block (draft)
In-Reply-To: <AANLkTikks3krSit_qQkETt0pXCNQjf3huewCVuu69vWR@mail.gmail.com>
References: <AANLkTin2XHtjAAsB=XEKuxuUkwA0-xdS=eD9B1KMkkLN@mail.gmail.com>
<AANLkTimf-NeWC+a0EfBoP0+vromMr+BBdmm33D5iHkpL@mail.gmail.com>
<AANLkTika4km2YEGrUvnBinAM8jFm=i2mKFqJgBM=7JDe@mail.gmail.com>
<AANLkTimv5f-0QV+-BykraWTSdiBYOo7BwwYC3z_PN7GF@mail.gmail.com>
<AANLkTinNHEfxnZGong0A+nY7fgTEiXg+H_gGxapk-osq@mail.gmail.com>
<AANLkTi=xNs7W2-b5TXb9S7R5tcX+k3vE37-Qk9_yjgMX@mail.gmail.com>
<AANLkTimB3MgVe1mzYmQ4r=zgZDhh_h83aMTKONhF2pKt@mail.gmail.com>
<AANLkTikNgXZAxj6gH0uHLmifs4k3VT+ww3QOtVtxqZ8E@mail.gmail.com>
<4CFF577D.7000909@gmail.com>
<AANLkTi==L7hgn93KYsD2N4=rSpONcSpQRFhNi=YT5ky9@mail.gmail.com>
<AANLkTikks3krSit_qQkETt0pXCNQjf3huewCVuu69vWR@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <AANLkTinpZjFK+vqfOEcHF_XtrvspeKaq61bWsJA7Bdz5@mail.gmail.com>

The statement here is not a public one - it is the statement to be
sent to the user appealing the block. I agree that public comments
should be limited to what Brad says below, unless more comes out on
this.

Carcharoth

On Wed, Dec 8, 2010 at 12:40 PM, Newyorkbrad <newyorkbrad at gmail.com> wrote:
> I am starting to wonder if our comment should simply be that because
----------
From marc at uberbox.org Wed Dec 8 13:19:14 2010
From: marc at uberbox.org (Marc A. Pelletier)
Date: Wed, 8 Dec 2010 08:19:14 -0500
Subject: [arbcom-l] Response to User:Sophie re her block (draft)
In-Reply-To: <AANLkTinpZjFK+vqfOEcHF_XtrvspeKaq61bWsJA7Bdz5@mail.gmail.com>
References: <AANLkTin2XHtjAAsB=XEKuxuUkwA0-xdS=eD9B1KMkkLN@mail.gmail.com>
<AANLkTimf-NeWC+a0EfBoP0+vromMr+BBdmm33D5iHkpL@mail.gmail.com>
<AANLkTika4km2YEGrUvnBinAM8jFm=i2mKFqJgBM=7JDe@mail.gmail.com>
<AANLkTimv5f-0QV+-BykraWTSdiBYOo7BwwYC3z_PN7GF@mail.gmail.com>
<AANLkTinNHEfxnZGong0A+nY7fgTEiXg+H_gGxapk-osq@mail.gmail.com>
<AANLkTi=xNs7W2-b5TXb9S7R5tcX+k3vE37-Qk9_yjgMX@mail.gmail.com>
<AANLkTimB3MgVe1mzYmQ4r=zgZDhh_h83aMTKONhF2pKt@mail.gmail.com>
<AANLkTikNgXZAxj6gH0uHLmifs4k3VT+ww3QOtVtxqZ8E@mail.gmail.com>
<4CFF577D.7000909@gmail.com>
<AANLkTi==L7hgn93KYsD2N4=rSpONcSpQRFhNi=YT5ky9@mail.gmail.com>
<AANLkTikks3krSit_qQkETt0pXCNQjf3huewCVuu69vWR@mail.gmail.com>
<AANLkTinpZjFK+vqfOEcHF_XtrvspeKaq61bWsJA7Bdz5@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <51B267A2-2A93-4A66-A580-CCC39E1FB492@uberbox.org>

Yes, but KL is right that any "private" response is plausibly going to find its way to the open.

-- Coren / Marc

Sent from my iPhone

On 2010-12-08, at 8:09, Carcharoth <carcharothwp at googlemail.com> wrote:

> The statement here is not a public one - it is the statement to be
----------
Date: Wed, 8 Dec 2010 08:22:19 -0500
Subject: [arbcom-l] Response to User:Sophie re her block (draft)
In-Reply-To: <AANLkTi=rhBaU3-sdFzA6uPKkz2O+cOXkMG4nXJknuxJ6@mail.gmail.com>
References: <AANLkTin2XHtjAAsB=XEKuxuUkwA0-xdS=eD9B1KMkkLN@mail.gmail.com>
<AANLkTimf-NeWC+a0EfBoP0+vromMr+BBdmm33D5iHkpL@mail.gmail.com>
<AANLkTika4km2YEGrUvnBinAM8jFm=i2mKFqJgBM=7JDe@mail.gmail.com>
<AANLkTimv5f-0QV+-BykraWTSdiBYOo7BwwYC3z_PN7GF@mail.gmail.com>
<AANLkTinNHEfxnZGong0A+nY7fgTEiXg+H_gGxapk-osq@mail.gmail.com>
<AANLkTi=xNs7W2-b5TXb9S7R5tcX+k3vE37-Qk9_yjgMX@mail.gmail.com>
<AANLkTimB3MgVe1mzYmQ4r=zgZDhh_h83aMTKONhF2pKt@mail.gmail.com>
<AANLkTikNgXZAxj6gH0uHLmifs4k3VT+ww3QOtVtxqZ8E@mail.gmail.com>
<4CFF577D.7000909@gmail.com>
<AANLkTi==L7hgn93KYsD2N4=rSpONcSpQRFhNi=YT5ky9@mail.gmail.com>
<AANLkTikks3krSit_qQkETt0pXCNQjf3huewCVuu69vWR@mail.gmail.com>
<AANLkTi=rhBaU3-sdFzA6uPKkz2O+cOXkMG4nXJknuxJ6@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <AANLkTi=xHqghLA-p0zHM_nRHP4xUvokFUccogbpKusXR@mail.gmail.com>

I would also support this approach.

Frank
On Dec 8, 2010 7:40 AM, "Newyorkbrad" <newyorkbrad at gmail.com> wrote:
----------
From risker.wp at gmail.com Wed Dec 8 16:06:16 2010
From: risker.wp at gmail.com (Risker)
Date: Wed, 8 Dec 2010 11:06:16 -0500
Subject: [arbcom-l] Response to User:Sophie re her block (draft)
In-Reply-To: <AANLkTi=xHqghLA-p0zHM_nRHP4xUvokFUccogbpKusXR@mail.gmail.com>
References: <AANLkTin2XHtjAAsB=XEKuxuUkwA0-xdS=eD9B1KMkkLN@mail.gmail.com>
<AANLkTimf-NeWC+a0EfBoP0+vromMr+BBdmm33D5iHkpL@mail.gmail.com>
<AANLkTika4km2YEGrUvnBinAM8jFm=i2mKFqJgBM=7JDe@mail.gmail.com>
<AANLkTimv5f-0QV+-BykraWTSdiBYOo7BwwYC3z_PN7GF@mail.gmail.com>
<AANLkTinNHEfxnZGong0A+nY7fgTEiXg+H_gGxapk-osq@mail.gmail.com>
<AANLkTi=xNs7W2-b5TXb9S7R5tcX+k3vE37-Qk9_yjgMX@mail.gmail.com>
<AANLkTimB3MgVe1mzYmQ4r=zgZDhh_h83aMTKONhF2pKt@mail.gmail.com>
<AANLkTikNgXZAxj6gH0uHLmifs4k3VT+ww3QOtVtxqZ8E@mail.gmail.com>
<4CFF577D.7000909@gmail.com>
<AANLkTi==L7hgn93KYsD2N4=rSpONcSpQRFhNi=YT5ky9@mail.gmail.com>
<AANLkTikks3krSit_qQkETt0pXCNQjf3huewCVuu69vWR@mail.gmail.com>
<AANLkTi=rhBaU3-sdFzA6uPKkz2O+cOXkMG4nXJknuxJ6@mail.gmail.com>
<AANLkTi=xHqghLA-p0zHM_nRHP4xUvokFUccogbpKusXR@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <AANLkTikGoC1+aK2mE5zCEin3kR4tM_=D3b2onTnBWwZi@mail.gmail.com>

Okay, folks, it's time to get our heads out of the sand here; we may or may
not get complaints about this one, but I'm now concerned that the fear of
someone complaining is weakening support for this block. Is that the
case? Even the nastiest of villians gets to know why they're blocked, and
saying "it's private information" doesn't work when it is the subject of the
private information who is requesting it. I am fine with limiting it to the
onwiki stuff (which really does have to be there, it is the primary reason
for the block) with a single sentence comment about the stories that were
being told on IRC. A response to a legitimate request has to actually give a
response, even if the response is likely to be made public. Frankly, I think
it will look worse if we give the impression that we're relying on WR's
information to block someone instead of saying "here are our reasons".

I think we have to be very careful in referring to our "child protection
policies. The WP:CHILDPROTECT policy is the one that says "no pedophiles",
and referring to that policy would probably be a lot more inflammatory than
anything in the current draft of the response. WP:CHILD is an essay with
little binding effect, and the emphasis on provocativeness seems to focus on
being sexually provocative.

I'm in meetings for most of the day, but if someone wants to take a crack at
removing the "excess" in the current draft over the next several hours,
please be my guest.

Arbcom historically is terribly risk-averse and often tries to get away with
not doing things because it might cause "drama". As we've seen with the
recent events, trying to avoid drama in the short term can actually cause
more serious problems in the long term.

Risker/Anne
----------
From newyorkbrad at gmail.com Wed Dec 8 16:20:10 2010
From: newyorkbrad at gmail.com (Newyorkbrad)
Date: Wed, 8 Dec 2010 11:20:10 -0500
Subject: [arbcom-l] Response to User:Sophie re her block (draft)
In-Reply-To: <AANLkTikGoC1+aK2mE5zCEin3kR4tM_=D3b2onTnBWwZi@mail.gmail.com>
References: <AANLkTin2XHtjAAsB=XEKuxuUkwA0-xdS=eD9B1KMkkLN@mail.gmail.com>
<AANLkTimf-NeWC+a0EfBoP0+vromMr+BBdmm33D5iHkpL@mail.gmail.com>
<AANLkTika4km2YEGrUvnBinAM8jFm=i2mKFqJgBM=7JDe@mail.gmail.com>
<AANLkTimv5f-0QV+-BykraWTSdiBYOo7BwwYC3z_PN7GF@mail.gmail.com>
<AANLkTinNHEfxnZGong0A+nY7fgTEiXg+H_gGxapk-osq@mail.gmail.com>
<AANLkTi=xNs7W2-b5TXb9S7R5tcX+k3vE37-Qk9_yjgMX@mail.gmail.com>
<AANLkTimB3MgVe1mzYmQ4r=zgZDhh_h83aMTKONhF2pKt@mail.gmail.com>
<AANLkTikNgXZAxj6gH0uHLmifs4k3VT+ww3QOtVtxqZ8E@mail.gmail.com>
<4CFF577D.7000909@gmail.com>
<AANLkTi==L7hgn93KYsD2N4=rSpONcSpQRFhNi=YT5ky9@mail.gmail.com>
<AANLkTikks3krSit_qQkETt0pXCNQjf3huewCVuu69vWR@mail.gmail.com>
<AANLkTi=rhBaU3-sdFzA6uPKkz2O+cOXkMG4nXJknuxJ6@mail.gmail.com>
<AANLkTi=xHqghLA-p0zHM_nRHP4xUvokFUccogbpKusXR@mail.gmail.com>
<AANLkTikGoC1+aK2mE5zCEin3kR4tM_=D3b2onTnBWwZi@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <AANLkTinwhx70fZchso-nw2yxMKSgATy8Vk=y4yTwYKCC@mail.gmail.com>

I think there's unanimous support for the block; certainly mine is
strong and unwavering. The question is whether we're obliged to tell
a troll how we know he or she is trolling (or to pretend that we don't
know he's trolling), as opposed to telling him or her to buzz off. On
this, we should primarily be guided by the likely impact of what we do
or say on innocent parties, not the troll.

Newyorkbrad

On 12/8/10, Risker <risker.wp at gmail.com> wrote:
> Okay, folks, it's time to get our heads out of the sand here; we may or may
----------
From marc at uberbox.org Wed Dec 8 16:28:56 2010
From: marc at uberbox.org (Marc A. Pelletier)
Date: Wed, 08 Dec 2010 11:28:56 -0500
Subject: [arbcom-l] Response to User:Sophie re her block (draft)
In-Reply-To: <AANLkTinwhx70fZchso-nw2yxMKSgATy8Vk=y4yTwYKCC@mail.gmail.com>
References: <AANLkTin2XHtjAAsB=XEKuxuUkwA0-xdS=eD9B1KMkkLN@mail.gmail.com> <AANLkTimf-NeWC+a0EfBoP0+vromMr+BBdmm33D5iHkpL@mail.gmail.com> <AANLkTika4km2YEGrUvnBinAM8jFm=i2mKFqJgBM=7JDe@mail.gmail.com> <AANLkTimv5f-0QV+-BykraWTSdiBYOo7BwwYC3z_PN7GF@mail.gmail.com> <AANLkTinNHEfxnZGong0A+nY7fgTEiXg+H_gGxapk-osq@mail.gmail.com> <AANLkTi=xNs7W2-b5TXb9S7R5tcX+k3vE37-Qk9_yjgMX@mail.gmail.com> <AANLkTimB3MgVe1mzYmQ4r=zgZDhh_h83aMTKONhF2pKt@mail.gmail.com> <AANLkTikNgXZAxj6gH0uHLmifs4k3VT+ww3QOtVtxqZ8E@mail.gmail.com> <4CFF577D.7000909@gmail.com> <AANLkTi==L7hgn93KYsD2N4=rSpONcSpQRFhNi=YT5ky9@mail.gmail.com> <AANLkTikks3krSit_qQkETt0pXCNQjf3huewCVuu69vWR@mail.gmail.com> <AANLkTi=rhBaU3-sdFzA6uPKkz2O+cOXkMG4nXJknuxJ6@mail.gmail.com> <AANLkTi=xHqghLA-p0zHM_nRHP4xUvokFUccogbpKusXR@mail.gmail.com> <AANLkTikGoC1+aK2mE5zCEin3kR4tM_=D3b2onTnBWwZi@mail.gmail.com>
<AANLkTinwhx70fZchso-nw2yxMKSgATy8Vk=y4yTwYKCC@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <4CFFB248.4050308@uberbox.org>

On 12/08/2010 11:20 AM, Newyorkbrad wrote:
> I think there's unanimous support for the block; certainly mine is
> strong and unwavering. The question is whether we're obliged to tell
> a troll how we know he or she is trolling (or to pretend that we don't
> know he's trolling), as opposed to telling him or her to buzz off. On
> this, we should primarily be guided by the likely impact of what we do
> or say on innocent parties, not the troll.
>

How about, "That account is either under the control of a minor who
behaves in a provocative manner, or someone pretending to be a minor.
While the evidence strongly favors the latter, neither scenario is
acceptable on Wikipedia."

-- Coren / Marc
----------
From carcharothwp at googlemail.com Wed Dec 8 20:57:51 2010
From: carcharothwp at googlemail.com (Carcharoth)
Date: Wed, 8 Dec 2010 20:57:51 +0000
Subject: [arbcom-l] Response to User:Sophie re her block (draft)
In-Reply-To: <4CFFB248.4050308@uberbox.org>
References: <AANLkTin2XHtjAAsB=XEKuxuUkwA0-xdS=eD9B1KMkkLN@mail.gmail.com>
<AANLkTimf-NeWC+a0EfBoP0+vromMr+BBdmm33D5iHkpL@mail.gmail.com>
<AANLkTika4km2YEGrUvnBinAM8jFm=i2mKFqJgBM=7JDe@mail.gmail.com>
<AANLkTimv5f-0QV+-BykraWTSdiBYOo7BwwYC3z_PN7GF@mail.gmail.com>
<AANLkTinNHEfxnZGong0A+nY7fgTEiXg+H_gGxapk-osq@mail.gmail.com>
<AANLkTi=xNs7W2-b5TXb9S7R5tcX+k3vE37-Qk9_yjgMX@mail.gmail.com>
<AANLkTimB3MgVe1mzYmQ4r=zgZDhh_h83aMTKONhF2pKt@mail.gmail.com>
<AANLkTikNgXZAxj6gH0uHLmifs4k3VT+ww3QOtVtxqZ8E@mail.gmail.com>
<4CFF577D.7000909@gmail.com>
<AANLkTi==L7hgn93KYsD2N4=rSpONcSpQRFhNi=YT5ky9@mail.gmail.com>
<AANLkTikks3krSit_qQkETt0pXCNQjf3huewCVuu69vWR@mail.gmail.com>
<AANLkTi=rhBaU3-sdFzA6uPKkz2O+cOXkMG4nXJknuxJ6@mail.gmail.com>
<AANLkTi=xHqghLA-p0zHM_nRHP4xUvokFUccogbpKusXR@mail.gmail.com>
<AANLkTikGoC1+aK2mE5zCEin3kR4tM_=D3b2onTnBWwZi@mail.gmail.com>
<AANLkTinwhx70fZchso-nw2yxMKSgATy8Vk=y4yTwYKCC@mail.gmail.com>
<4CFFB248.4050308@uberbox.org>
Message-ID: <AANLkTinNVz3q4PXgXJ61Z4q76v9Lycr_ZR6FEjYxE02w@mail.gmail.com>

On Wed, Dec 8, 2010 at 4:28 PM, Marc A. Pelletier <marc at uberbox.org> wrote:
> On 12/08/2010 11:20 AM, Newyorkbrad wrote:
>> I think there's unanimous support for the block; certainly mine is
>> strong and unwavering. ?The question is whether we're obliged to tell
>> a troll how we know he or she is trolling (or to pretend that we don't
>> know he's trolling), as opposed to telling him or her to buzz off. ?On
>> this, we should primarily be guided by the likely impact of what we do
>> or say on innocent parties, not the troll.
>>
>
> How about, "That account is either under the control of a minor who
> behaves in a provocative manner, or someone pretending to be a minor.
> While the evidence strongly favors the latter, neither scenario is
> acceptable on Wikipedia."

That works for me.

And for the record (responding to what Risker said), I suspect there
are some blocks where we were e-mailed by the account holder,
discussed a reply, and then never sent it. If they don't follow up, I
don't see that we are always obliged to respond. If they repeatedly
ask for a reason (as here), then yes, something does have to be sent.

Carcharoth
----------
From User.CoolHandLuke at gmail.com Thu Dec 9 03:38:01 2010
From: User.CoolHandLuke at gmail.com (Cool Hand Luke)
Date: Wed, 8 Dec 2010 22:38:01 -0500
Subject: [arbcom-l] Response to User:Sophie re her block (draft)
In-Reply-To: <4CFFB248.4050308@uberbox.org>
References: <AANLkTin2XHtjAAsB=XEKuxuUkwA0-xdS=eD9B1KMkkLN@mail.gmail.com>
<AANLkTimf-NeWC+a0EfBoP0+vromMr+BBdmm33D5iHkpL@mail.gmail.com>
<AANLkTika4km2YEGrUvnBinAM8jFm=i2mKFqJgBM=7JDe@mail.gmail.com>
<AANLkTimv5f-0QV+-BykraWTSdiBYOo7BwwYC3z_PN7GF@mail.gmail.com>
<AANLkTinNHEfxnZGong0A+nY7fgTEiXg+H_gGxapk-osq@mail.gmail.com>
<AANLkTi=xNs7W2-b5TXb9S7R5tcX+k3vE37-Qk9_yjgMX@mail.gmail.com>
<AANLkTimB3MgVe1mzYmQ4r=zgZDhh_h83aMTKONhF2pKt@mail.gmail.com>
<AANLkTikNgXZAxj6gH0uHLmifs4k3VT+ww3QOtVtxqZ8E@mail.gmail.com>
<4CFF577D.7000909@gmail.com>
<AANLkTi==L7hgn93KYsD2N4=rSpONcSpQRFhNi=YT5ky9@mail.gmail.com>
<AANLkTikks3krSit_qQkETt0pXCNQjf3huewCVuu69vWR@mail.gmail.com>
<AANLkTi=rhBaU3-sdFzA6uPKkz2O+cOXkMG4nXJknuxJ6@mail.gmail.com>
<AANLkTi=xHqghLA-p0zHM_nRHP4xUvokFUccogbpKusXR@mail.gmail.com>
<AANLkTikGoC1+aK2mE5zCEin3kR4tM_=D3b2onTnBWwZi@mail.gmail.com>
<AANLkTinwhx70fZchso-nw2yxMKSgATy8Vk=y4yTwYKCC@mail.gmail.com>
<4CFFB248.4050308@uberbox.org>
Message-ID: <AANLkTi=xWga9a1kS4iZ88hjF65_qFHZsEXezbUoHgFPt@mail.gmail.com>

Agree with NYB, and I agree with Marc's pared down version as well.

I think I've supported all approaches, but I do think trolling is much more
likely, so it's not something we need to overthink. In fact, I think the
dialog will be extended more if we treat it as if she *might actually be a
little girl* who should simply behave herself better.

I'm happy with the risk of a false positive for trolling. I think it's a
small risk, most detached users would agree with us, and she would need to
be dealt with harshly anyway. The answer is simply "no," and there are not
fine nuances for her to debate.

Frank
----------
From carcharothwp at googlemail.com Thu Dec 9 03:58:22 2010
From: carcharothwp at googlemail.com (Carcharoth)
Date: Thu, 9 Dec 2010 03:58:22 +0000
Subject: [arbcom-l] Response to User:Sophie re her block (draft)
In-Reply-To: <4D00537D.2080700@gmail.com>
References: <AANLkTin2XHtjAAsB=XEKuxuUkwA0-xdS=eD9B1KMkkLN@mail.gmail.com>
<AANLkTika4km2YEGrUvnBinAM8jFm=i2mKFqJgBM=7JDe@mail.gmail.com>
<AANLkTimv5f-0QV+-BykraWTSdiBYOo7BwwYC3z_PN7GF@mail.gmail.com>
<AANLkTinNHEfxnZGong0A+nY7fgTEiXg+H_gGxapk-osq@mail.gmail.com>
<AANLkTi=xNs7W2-b5TXb9S7R5tcX+k3vE37-Qk9_yjgMX@mail.gmail.com>
<AANLkTimB3MgVe1mzYmQ4r=zgZDhh_h83aMTKONhF2pKt@mail.gmail.com>
<AANLkTikNgXZAxj6gH0uHLmifs4k3VT+ww3QOtVtxqZ8E@mail.gmail.com>
<4CFF577D.7000909@gmail.com>
<AANLkTi==L7hgn93KYsD2N4=rSpONcSpQRFhNi=YT5ky9@mail.gmail.com>
<AANLkTikks3krSit_qQkETt0pXCNQjf3huewCVuu69vWR@mail.gmail.com>
<AANLkTi=rhBaU3-sdFzA6uPKkz2O+cOXkMG4nXJknuxJ6@mail.gmail.com>
<AANLkTi=xHqghLA-p0zHM_nRHP4xUvokFUccogbpKusXR@mail.gmail.com>
<AANLkTikGoC1+aK2mE5zCEin3kR4tM_=D3b2onTnBWwZi@mail.gmail.com>
<AANLkTinwhx70fZchso-nw2yxMKSgATy8Vk=y4yTwYKCC@mail.gmail.com>
<4CFFB248.4050308@uberbox.org>
<AANLkTi=xWga9a1kS4iZ88hjF65_qFHZsEXezbUoHgFPt@mail.gmail.com>
<4D00537D.2080700@gmail.com>
Message-ID: <AANLkTinN+C7-PAzz54i92tKmSf=Y6n275h8y2aXJ=Gxe@mail.gmail.com>

Agreed, this approach looks fine.

Carcharoth

On Thu, Dec 9, 2010 at 3:56 AM, Roger Davies
<roger.davies.wiki at gmail.com> wrote:
>
> Based on the foregoing, can we agree on sending out the following:
>
> Hi Sophie:
>
> Thank you for you message.
>
> The Arbitration Committee has now carefully examined all the circumstances
> surrounding the block. The account is under the control either of a minor
> who behaves in a provocative and inappropriate manner or someone who is
> pretending to be a minor. While the evidence strongly suggests the latter,
> neither scenario is acceptable on Wikipedia. The Committee is therefore
> unanimous in endorsing the block.
>
> For the Arbitration Committee, etc etc
>
> This will also spare Risker the anguish of pouring over her earlier draft to
> pare it down. The earlier draft would, incidentally, be very handy on
> ArbWiki as Wpuser:Sophie to provide all the background should this crop up
> again later (as I'm sure it will, either in the form of appeals or socks).
>
> Roger
----------
From risker.wp at gmail.com Thu Dec 9 03:58:53 2010
From: risker.wp at gmail.com (Risker)
Date: Wed, 8 Dec 2010 22:58:53 -0500
Subject: [arbcom-l] Response to User:Sophie re her block (draft)
In-Reply-To: <4D00537D.2080700@gmail.com>
References: <AANLkTin2XHtjAAsB=XEKuxuUkwA0-xdS=eD9B1KMkkLN@mail.gmail.com>
<AANLkTika4km2YEGrUvnBinAM8jFm=i2mKFqJgBM=7JDe@mail.gmail.com>
<AANLkTimv5f-0QV+-BykraWTSdiBYOo7BwwYC3z_PN7GF@mail.gmail.com>
<AANLkTinNHEfxnZGong0A+nY7fgTEiXg+H_gGxapk-osq@mail.gmail.com>
<AANLkTi=xNs7W2-b5TXb9S7R5tcX+k3vE37-Qk9_yjgMX@mail.gmail.com>
<AANLkTimB3MgVe1mzYmQ4r=zgZDhh_h83aMTKONhF2pKt@mail.gmail.com>
<AANLkTikNgXZAxj6gH0uHLmifs4k3VT+ww3QOtVtxqZ8E@mail.gmail.com>
<4CFF577D.7000909@gmail.com>
<AANLkTi==L7hgn93KYsD2N4=rSpONcSpQRFhNi=YT5ky9@mail.gmail.com>
<AANLkTikks3krSit_qQkETt0pXCNQjf3huewCVuu69vWR@mail.gmail.com>
<AANLkTi=rhBaU3-sdFzA6uPKkz2O+cOXkMG4nXJknuxJ6@mail.gmail.com>
<AANLkTi=xHqghLA-p0zHM_nRHP4xUvokFUccogbpKusXR@mail.gmail.com>
<AANLkTikGoC1+aK2mE5zCEin3kR4tM_=D3b2onTnBWwZi@mail.gmail.com>
<AANLkTinwhx70fZchso-nw2yxMKSgATy8Vk=y4yTwYKCC@mail.gmail.com>
<4CFFB248.4050308@uberbox.org>
<AANLkTi=xWga9a1kS4iZ88hjF65_qFHZsEXezbUoHgFPt@mail.gmail.com>
<4D00537D.2080700@gmail.com>
Message-ID: <AANLkTin9_UVOD3N7Rz5vdqMZDjtqSOXuQk3f1Fe318dd@mail.gmail.com>

Roger, I concur with all parts of your email. Let's go for it just as it
is, and leave the rest of the stuff on arbwiki. I may add a few other
details over the next bit. Thanks for this idea - and to everyone else for
all of the feedback.

Risker/Anne
----------
From marc at uberbox.org Thu Dec 9 04:02:01 2010
From: marc at uberbox.org (Marc A. Pelletier)
Date: Wed, 08 Dec 2010 23:02:01 -0500
Subject: [arbcom-l] Response to User:Sophie re her block (draft)
In-Reply-To: <4D00537D.2080700@gmail.com>
References: <AANLkTin2XHtjAAsB=XEKuxuUkwA0-xdS=eD9B1KMkkLN@mail.gmail.com> <AANLkTika4km2YEGrUvnBinAM8jFm=i2mKFqJgBM=7JDe@mail.gmail.com> <AANLkTimv5f-0QV+-BykraWTSdiBYOo7BwwYC3z_PN7GF@mail.gmail.com> <AANLkTinNHEfxnZGong0A+nY7fgTEiXg+H_gGxapk-osq@mail.gmail.com> <AANLkTi=xNs7W2-b5TXb9S7R5tcX+k3vE37-Qk9_yjgMX@mail.gmail.com> <AANLkTimB3MgVe1mzYmQ4r=zgZDhh_h83aMTKONhF2pKt@mail.gmail.com> <AANLkTikNgXZAxj6gH0uHLmifs4k3VT+ww3QOtVtxqZ8E@mail.gmail.com> <4CFF577D.7000909@gmail.com> <AANLkTi==L7hgn93KYsD2N4=rSpONcSpQRFhNi=YT5ky9@mail.gmail.com> <AANLkTikks3krSit_qQkETt0pXCNQjf3huewCVuu69vWR@mail.gmail.com> <AANLkTi=rhBaU3-sdFzA6uPKkz2O+cOXkMG4nXJknuxJ6@mail.gmail.com> <AANLkTi=xHqghLA-p0zHM_nRHP4xUvokFUccogbpKusXR@mail.gmail.com> <AANLkTikGoC1+aK2mE5zCEin3kR4tM_=D3b2onTnBWwZi@mail.gmail.com> <AANLkTinwhx70fZchso-nw2yxMKSgATy8Vk=y4yTwYKCC@mail.gmail.com> <4CFFB248.4050308@uberbox.org> <AANLkTi=xWga9a1kS4iZ88hjF65_qFHZsEXezbUoHgFPt@mail.gmail.com>
<4D00537D.2080700@gmail.com>
Message-ID: <4D0054B9.3000104@uberbox.org>

On 08/12/2010 10:56 PM, Roger Davies wrote:
>
> Based on the foregoing, can we agree on sending out the following:

* '''Support'''; ~~~~

-- Coren / Marc

From roger.davies.wiki at gmail.com Thu Dec 9 04:09:56 2010
From: roger.davies.wiki at gmail.com (Roger Davies)
Date: Thu, 09 Dec 2010 04:09:56 +0000
Subject: [arbcom-l] Please Explain The Block / User:Sophie
In-Reply-To: <08A7CFC9-0B2E-414E-AA83-0BC2AE6865FB@yahoo.co.uk>
References: <E1PPj2Z-0003hC-Bo@srv261.pmtpa.wmnet> <4CFDEE61.5010503@gmail.com>
<08A7CFC9-0B2E-414E-AA83-0BC2AE6865FB@yahoo.co.uk>
Message-ID: <4D005694.4070501@gmail.com>


Hi Sophie:

Thank you for your messages.

The Arbitration Committee has now carefully examined all the
circumstances surrounding the block. The account is under the control
either of a minor who behaves in a provocative and inappropriate manner
or someone who is pretending to be a minor. While the evidence strongly
suggests the latter, neither scenario is acceptable on Wikipedia. The
Committee is therefore unanimous in endorsing the block.

For the Arbitration Committee,

Roger Davies


On 07/12/2010 17:36, Sophie Johnson wrote:
> Ok, I will check my email a few times a day.
>
> - Sophie
>
>
> On 7 Dec 2010, at 08:20 AM, Roger Davies<roger.davies.wiki at gmail.com> wrote:
>> Hi Sophie:
>>
>> We'll be writing to you shortly.
>>
>> Roger Davies
----------
From User.CoolHandLuke at gmail.com Thu Dec 9 04:30:41 2010
From: User.CoolHandLuke at gmail.com (Cool Hand Luke)
Date: Wed, 8 Dec 2010 23:30:41 -0500
Subject: [arbcom-l] Response to User:Sophie re her block (draft)
In-Reply-To: <4D00537D.2080700@gmail.com>
References: <AANLkTin2XHtjAAsB=XEKuxuUkwA0-xdS=eD9B1KMkkLN@mail.gmail.com>
<AANLkTika4km2YEGrUvnBinAM8jFm=i2mKFqJgBM=7JDe@mail.gmail.com>
<AANLkTimv5f-0QV+-BykraWTSdiBYOo7BwwYC3z_PN7GF@mail.gmail.com>
<AANLkTinNHEfxnZGong0A+nY7fgTEiXg+H_gGxapk-osq@mail.gmail.com>
<AANLkTi=xNs7W2-b5TXb9S7R5tcX+k3vE37-Qk9_yjgMX@mail.gmail.com>
<AANLkTimB3MgVe1mzYmQ4r=zgZDhh_h83aMTKONhF2pKt@mail.gmail.com>
<AANLkTikNgXZAxj6gH0uHLmifs4k3VT+ww3QOtVtxqZ8E@mail.gmail.com>
<4CFF577D.7000909@gmail.com>
<AANLkTi==L7hgn93KYsD2N4=rSpONcSpQRFhNi=YT5ky9@mail.gmail.com>
<AANLkTikks3krSit_qQkETt0pXCNQjf3huewCVuu69vWR@mail.gmail.com>
<AANLkTi=rhBaU3-sdFzA6uPKkz2O+cOXkMG4nXJknuxJ6@mail.gmail.com>
<AANLkTi=xHqghLA-p0zHM_nRHP4xUvokFUccogbpKusXR@mail.gmail.com>
<AANLkTikGoC1+aK2mE5zCEin3kR4tM_=D3b2onTnBWwZi@mail.gmail.com>
<AANLkTinwhx70fZchso-nw2yxMKSgATy8Vk=y4yTwYKCC@mail.gmail.com>
<4CFFB248.4050308@uberbox.org>
<AANLkTi=xWga9a1kS4iZ88hjF65_qFHZsEXezbUoHgFPt@mail.gmail.com>
<4D00537D.2080700@gmail.com>
Message-ID: <AANLkTikxgxxF-dNDsvWF7hepOLcUJPWvoEM=XG16pgKr@mail.gmail.com>

Approve of this as well.

Frank
-----------
From sophiejohnson97 at yahoo.co.uk Sat Dec 11 01:03:20 2010
From: sophiejohnson97 at yahoo.co.uk (Sophie Johnson)
Date: Sat, 11 Dec 2010 01:03:20 +0000
Subject: [arbcom-l] Please Explain The Block / User:Sophie
In-Reply-To: <1F8C2A73-AE7D-49F5-9295-53EF4DECC798@yahoo.co.uk>
References: <E1PPj2Z-0003hC-Bo@srv261.pmtpa.wmnet> <4CFDEE61.5010503@gmail.com>
<08A7CFC9-0B2E-414E-AA83-0BC2AE6865FB@yahoo.co.uk>
<4D005694.4070501@gmail.com>
<1F8C2A73-AE7D-49F5-9295-53EF4DECC798@yahoo.co.uk>
Message-ID: <80A22B73-AA44-497A-9006-07F2D187B996@yahoo.co.uk>

I took a photo of me holding a White board with my name and the date on it on the 9th.

But speak to me first cause I'm like scared of sending it to someone iv not spoken before.

Thanks

- Sophie.



On 9 Dec 2010, at 02:53 PM, Sophie Johnson <sophiejohnson97 at yahoo.co.uk> wrote:

> Thanks for the email, 2 things
>
> 1)
>> evidence strongly suggests the latter
> What does that mean?
>
> 2) so what can I do to be unblocked?
>
> Thanks
>
> - Sophie
>
>
> On 9 Dec 2010, at 04:09 AM, Roger Davies <roger.davies.wiki at gmail.com> wrote:
>
>>
>> Hi Sophie:
>>
>> Thank you for your messages.
>>
>> The Arbitration Committee has now carefully examined all the circumstances surrounding the block. The account is under the control either of a minor who behaves in a provocative and inappropriate manner or someone who is pretending to be a minor. While the evidence strongly suggests the latter, neither scenario is acceptable on Wikipedia. The Committee is therefore unanimous in endorsing the block.
----------
From marc at uberbox.org Sat Dec 11 01:17:58 2010
From: marc at uberbox.org (Marc A. Pelletier)
Date: Fri, 10 Dec 2010 20:17:58 -0500
Subject: [arbcom-l] Please Explain The Block / User:Sophie
In-Reply-To: <80A22B73-AA44-497A-9006-07F2D187B996@yahoo.co.uk>
References: <E1PPj2Z-0003hC-Bo@srv261.pmtpa.wmnet>
<4CFDEE61.5010503@gmail.com> <08A7CFC9-0B2E-414E-AA83-0BC2AE6865FB@yahoo.co.uk> <4D005694.4070501@gmail.com> <1F8C2A73-AE7D-49F5-9295-53EF4DECC798@yahoo.co.uk>
<80A22B73-AA44-497A-9006-07F2D187B996@yahoo.co.uk>
Message-ID: <4D02D146.80203@uberbox.org>

On 10/12/2010 8:03 PM, Sophie Johnson wrote:
> I took a photo of me holding a White board with my name and the date on it on the 9th.
>
> But speak to me first cause I'm like scared of sending it to someone iv not spoken before.
>
> Thanks

<list only>

o_O

Well, strictly speaking, the only way to make this challenge "right" is
that the message on the board needs to contain a token of /our/
choosing, such as some random keyword. I don't expect it's very hard to
find some random picture of someone holding a whiteboard and a date.

But... this raises questions: (a) is it appropriate for us to
authenticate someone this way; (b) how confident would that technique
make us that the account is effectively under the control of the person
in the photo and © would that change anything?

I suppose that it might mean that, if we agree that Sophie is the real
thing, that a stern talking to and a few ground rules would allow a
return to editing? Or would that suffice?

-- Coren / Marc
----------
From risker.wp at gmail.com Sat Dec 11 01:23:09 2010
From: risker.wp at gmail.com (Risker)
Date: Fri, 10 Dec 2010 20:23:09 -0500
Subject: [arbcom-l] Please Explain The Block / User:Sophie
In-Reply-To: <4D02D146.80203@uberbox.org>
References: <E1PPj2Z-0003hC-Bo@srv261.pmtpa.wmnet> <4CFDEE61.5010503@gmail.com>
<08A7CFC9-0B2E-414E-AA83-0BC2AE6865FB@yahoo.co.uk>
<4D005694.4070501@gmail.com>
<1F8C2A73-AE7D-49F5-9295-53EF4DECC798@yahoo.co.uk>
<80A22B73-AA44-497A-9006-07F2D187B996@yahoo.co.uk>
<4D02D146.80203@uberbox.org>
Message-ID: <AANLkTinObhU8heeY_FPm8mNbb61JNO2X+1JArpHikqkg@mail.gmail.com>

On 10 December 2010 20:17, Marc A. Pelletier <marc at uberbox.org> wrote:

> On 10/12/2010 8:03 PM, Sophie Johnson wrote:
> > I took a photo of me holding a White board with my name and the date on
> it on the 9th.
> >
> > But speak to me first cause I'm like scared of sending it to someone iv
> not spoken before.
> >
> > Thanks
>
> <list only>
>
> o_O
>
> Well, strictly speaking, the only way to make this challenge "right" is
> that the message on the board needs to contain a token of /our/
> choosing, such as some random keyword. I don't expect it's very hard to
> find some random picture of someone holding a whiteboard and a date.
>
> But... this raises questions: (a) is it appropriate for us to
> authenticate someone this way; (b) how confident would that technique
> make us that the account is effectively under the control of the person
> in the photo and © would that change anything?
>
> I suppose that it might mean that, if we agree that Sophie is the real
> thing, that a stern talking to and a few ground rules would allow a
> return to editing? Or would that suffice?
>


User:Sophie has ignored all efforts to set ground rules in the past. And no,
it is not appropriate for us to be authenticating people this way, as far as
I am concerned.


Risker/Anne
----------
From shell.kinney at gmail.com Sat Dec 11 01:23:19 2010
From: shell.kinney at gmail.com (Michelle Kinney)
Date: Fri, 10 Dec 2010 20:23:19 -0500
Subject: [arbcom-l] Please Explain The Block / User:Sophie
In-Reply-To: <4D02D146.80203@uberbox.org>
References: <E1PPj2Z-0003hC-Bo@srv261.pmtpa.wmnet> <4CFDEE61.5010503@gmail.com>
<08A7CFC9-0B2E-414E-AA83-0BC2AE6865FB@yahoo.co.uk>
<4D005694.4070501@gmail.com>
<1F8C2A73-AE7D-49F5-9295-53EF4DECC798@yahoo.co.uk>
<80A22B73-AA44-497A-9006-07F2D187B996@yahoo.co.uk>
<4D02D146.80203@uberbox.org>
Message-ID: <AANLkTikCy82h5Ppxdj+1VtvF3JPFVhfuGSPQjOi4zi6P@mail.gmail.com>

Except that I could get my daughter or one of my younger sister's
friends to do something like that. Unfortunately, that's not really
authentication.

Shell

On Fri, Dec 10, 2010 at 20:17, Marc A. Pelletier <marc at uberbox.org> wrote:
> On 10/12/2010 8:03 PM, Sophie Johnson wrote:
>> I took a photo of me holding a White board with my name and the date on it on the 9th.
>>
----------
From frank.bednarz at gmail.com Sat Dec 11 01:32:26 2010
From: frank.bednarz at gmail.com (Frank Bednarz)
Date: Fri, 10 Dec 2010 20:32:26 -0500
Subject: [arbcom-l] Please Explain The Block / User:Sophie
In-Reply-To: <4D02D146.80203@uberbox.org>
References: <E1PPj2Z-0003hC-Bo@srv261.pmtpa.wmnet> <4CFDEE61.5010503@gmail.com>
<08A7CFC9-0B2E-414E-AA83-0BC2AE6865FB@yahoo.co.uk>
<4D005694.4070501@gmail.com>
<1F8C2A73-AE7D-49F5-9295-53EF4DECC798@yahoo.co.uk>
<80A22B73-AA44-497A-9006-07F2D187B996@yahoo.co.uk>
<4D02D146.80203@uberbox.org>
Message-ID: <AANLkTinyeZNZQERHZ_JFsxuU=DkvKcuHV4+1ceiyY29G@mail.gmail.com>

Well certainly, this would only work if we specified, say, her expression,
the words, etc.

But really, I don't think we should be humoring this entity any further. If
there is any reply, I would say: "You seem to be misunderstanding us. Your
presence is inappropriate on Wikipedia. This is our unanimous and final
decision."

Frank
On Dec 10, 2010 8:17 PM, "Marc A. Pelletier" <marc at uberbox.org> wrote:
> On 10/12/2010 8:03 PM, Sophie Johnson wrote:
>> I took a photo of me holding a White board with my name and the date on
it on the 9th.
----------
From risker.wp at gmail.com Sat Dec 11 02:11:04 2010
From: risker.wp at gmail.com (Risker)
Date: Fri, 10 Dec 2010 21:11:04 -0500
Subject: [arbcom-l] Please Explain The Block / User:Sophie
In-Reply-To: <4D02D808.9070907@gmail.com>
References: <E1PPj2Z-0003hC-Bo@srv261.pmtpa.wmnet> <4CFDEE61.5010503@gmail.com>
<08A7CFC9-0B2E-414E-AA83-0BC2AE6865FB@yahoo.co.uk>
<4D005694.4070501@gmail.com>
<1F8C2A73-AE7D-49F5-9295-53EF4DECC798@yahoo.co.uk>
<80A22B73-AA44-497A-9006-07F2D187B996@yahoo.co.uk>
<4D02D808.9070907@gmail.com>
Message-ID: <AANLkTikc5akdMzJhzn6d2Fe0JRixhVw-hkV0spRR-bR2@mail.gmail.com>

Works for me

Risker

On 10 December 2010 20:46, Roger Davies <roger.davies.wiki at gmail.com> wrote:

>
> <draft>
>
> Hi Sophie:
>
> What our email means is the evidence suggests that you are not in fact 13
> but that your behaviour is inappropriate whatever your age.
>
> The Committee has no plans to revisit your unblock so your offer of a
> photograph is declined.
>
> For the Arbitration Committee,
>
> Roger Davies
----------
From carcharothwp at googlemail.com Sat Dec 11 02:13:43 2010
From: carcharothwp at googlemail.com (Carcharoth)
Date: Sat, 11 Dec 2010 02:13:43 +0000
Subject: [arbcom-l] Please Explain The Block / User:Sophie
In-Reply-To: <AANLkTikc5akdMzJhzn6d2Fe0JRixhVw-hkV0spRR-bR2@mail.gmail.com>
References: <E1PPj2Z-0003hC-Bo@srv261.pmtpa.wmnet> <4CFDEE61.5010503@gmail.com>
<08A7CFC9-0B2E-414E-AA83-0BC2AE6865FB@yahoo.co.uk>
<4D005694.4070501@gmail.com>
<1F8C2A73-AE7D-49F5-9295-53EF4DECC798@yahoo.co.uk>
<80A22B73-AA44-497A-9006-07F2D187B996@yahoo.co.uk>
<4D02D808.9070907@gmail.com>
<AANLkTikc5akdMzJhzn6d2Fe0JRixhVw-hkV0spRR-bR2@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <AANLkTikqui=ydYozr0UnWe9J4mv+nwoiaugXtS9750fx@mail.gmail.com>

Me too.

Carcharoth

On Sat, Dec 11, 2010 at 2:11 AM, Risker <risker.wp at gmail.com> wrote:
> Works for me
>
> Risker
----------
From risker.wp at gmail.com Sat Dec 11 02:23:42 2010
From: risker.wp at gmail.com (Risker)
Date: Fri, 10 Dec 2010 21:23:42 -0500
Subject: [arbcom-l] Please Explain The Block / User:Sophie
In-Reply-To: <AANLkTikqui=ydYozr0UnWe9J4mv+nwoiaugXtS9750fx@mail.gmail.com>
References: <E1PPj2Z-0003hC-Bo@srv261.pmtpa.wmnet> <4CFDEE61.5010503@gmail.com>
<08A7CFC9-0B2E-414E-AA83-0BC2AE6865FB@yahoo.co.uk>
<4D005694.4070501@gmail.com>
<1F8C2A73-AE7D-49F5-9295-53EF4DECC798@yahoo.co.uk>
<80A22B73-AA44-497A-9006-07F2D187B996@yahoo.co.uk>
<4D02D808.9070907@gmail.com>
<AANLkTikc5akdMzJhzn6d2Fe0JRixhVw-hkV0spRR-bR2@mail.gmail.com>
<AANLkTikqui=ydYozr0UnWe9J4mv+nwoiaugXtS9750fx@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <AANLkTi=2kMm72kZGUF89DuSCNQy_ZzkrhD5z+p9mJy6-@mail.gmail.com>

For the record, when I came back from spending a few minutes with my family,
I found this in my IRC window:

[20:54][INFO]Query view for ?SophJ? opened.[20:54][INFO]Now logging to <
file:///C:/Users/Anne/Logs/All%20Users/IRC%20logs/freenode/users/SophJ.2010-12-10.log
>.[20:54]<SophJ <irc://freenode/SophJ,isnick>>Hello[20:54]===SophJ
<~SophJ at wikipedia/Sophie> ?Sophie?[20:54]===SophJ: attached to
hubbard.freenode.net ?Pittsburgh, PA, US?[20:54]===SophJ is logged in as
SophJ[20:54]---End of WHOIS information for
SophJ.[21:14]<SophJ<irc://freenode/SophJ,isnick>
>Just want to say you've won. I'm giving up trying to fight you and arbcom
to prove that I'm 13. Enjoy wikipedia - Sophie

Nonetheless, I still think the response should be sent.

Risker/Anne
----------
From User.CoolHandLuke at gmail.com Sat Dec 11 02:27:46 2010
From: User.CoolHandLuke at gmail.com (Cool Hand Luke)
Date: Fri, 10 Dec 2010 21:27:46 -0500
Subject: [arbcom-l] Please Explain The Block / User:Sophie
In-Reply-To: <AANLkTi=2kMm72kZGUF89DuSCNQy_ZzkrhD5z+p9mJy6-@mail.gmail.com>
References: <E1PPj2Z-0003hC-Bo@srv261.pmtpa.wmnet> <4CFDEE61.5010503@gmail.com>
<08A7CFC9-0B2E-414E-AA83-0BC2AE6865FB@yahoo.co.uk>
<4D005694.4070501@gmail.com>
<1F8C2A73-AE7D-49F5-9295-53EF4DECC798@yahoo.co.uk>
<80A22B73-AA44-497A-9006-07F2D187B996@yahoo.co.uk>
<4D02D808.9070907@gmail.com>
<AANLkTikc5akdMzJhzn6d2Fe0JRixhVw-hkV0spRR-bR2@mail.gmail.com>
<AANLkTikqui=ydYozr0UnWe9J4mv+nwoiaugXtS9750fx@mail.gmail.com>
<AANLkTi=2kMm72kZGUF89DuSCNQy_ZzkrhD5z+p9mJy6-@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <AANLkTin8+n_evqrwcy8QOKaPHyBd7udWYcBhEGwDvBaz@mail.gmail.com>

Support Roger's email.

Frank
----------
From KnightLago at gmail.com Sat Dec 11 03:56:09 2010
From: KnightLago at gmail.com (KnightLago)
Date: Fri, 10 Dec 2010 22:56:09 -0500
Subject: [arbcom-l] Please Explain The Block / User:Sophie
In-Reply-To: <AANLkTin8+n_evqrwcy8QOKaPHyBd7udWYcBhEGwDvBaz@mail.gmail.com>
References: <E1PPj2Z-0003hC-Bo@srv261.pmtpa.wmnet> <4CFDEE61.5010503@gmail.com>
<08A7CFC9-0B2E-414E-AA83-0BC2AE6865FB@yahoo.co.uk>
<4D005694.4070501@gmail.com>
<1F8C2A73-AE7D-49F5-9295-53EF4DECC798@yahoo.co.uk>
<80A22B73-AA44-497A-9006-07F2D187B996@yahoo.co.uk>
<4D02D808.9070907@gmail.com>
<AANLkTikc5akdMzJhzn6d2Fe0JRixhVw-hkV0spRR-bR2@mail.gmail.com>
<AANLkTikqui=ydYozr0UnWe9J4mv+nwoiaugXtS9750fx@mail.gmail.com>
<AANLkTi=2kMm72kZGUF89DuSCNQy_ZzkrhD5z+p9mJy6-@mail.gmail.com>
<AANLkTin8+n_evqrwcy8QOKaPHyBd7udWYcBhEGwDvBaz@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <AANLkTim67DeFeEgatLZ6Uek1mccaq-QrwHeOUtUJ58uo@mail.gmail.com>

I think Roger's email is fine, but this may be a case of where the law of
diminishing replies would be best. I would personally just ignore from this
point forward.

KL
-----------
From newyorkbrad at gmail.com Sat Dec 11 05:31:13 2010
From: newyorkbrad at gmail.com (Newyorkbrad)
Date: Sat, 11 Dec 2010 00:31:13 -0500
Subject: [arbcom-l] Please Explain The Block / User:Sophie
In-Reply-To: <AANLkTim67DeFeEgatLZ6Uek1mccaq-QrwHeOUtUJ58uo@mail.gmail.com>
References: <E1PPj2Z-0003hC-Bo@srv261.pmtpa.wmnet> <4CFDEE61.5010503@gmail.com>
<08A7CFC9-0B2E-414E-AA83-0BC2AE6865FB@yahoo.co.uk>
<4D005694.4070501@gmail.com>
<1F8C2A73-AE7D-49F5-9295-53EF4DECC798@yahoo.co.uk>
<80A22B73-AA44-497A-9006-07F2D187B996@yahoo.co.uk>
<4D02D808.9070907@gmail.com>
<AANLkTikc5akdMzJhzn6d2Fe0JRixhVw-hkV0spRR-bR2@mail.gmail.com>
<AANLkTikqui=ydYozr0UnWe9J4mv+nwoiaugXtS9750fx@mail.gmail.com>
<AANLkTi=2kMm72kZGUF89DuSCNQy_ZzkrhD5z+p9mJy6-@mail.gmail.com>
<AANLkTin8+n_evqrwcy8QOKaPHyBd7udWYcBhEGwDvBaz@mail.gmail.com>
<AANLkTim67DeFeEgatLZ6Uek1mccaq-QrwHeOUtUJ58uo@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <AANLkTi=PWYEUOvfMAdtBSxkt5rwck+13NoqLuAQGmt5s@mail.gmail.com>

I agree with Roger's reply. KnightLago has a point about what we
might want to send after this (i.e., not much), but if the IM to
Risker is for real then maybe it's a moot point.

Newyorkbrad
----------
From User.CoolHandLuke at gmail.com Sat Dec 11 10:42:56 2010
From: User.CoolHandLuke at gmail.com (Cool Hand Luke)
Date: Sat, 11 Dec 2010 05:42:56 -0500
Subject: [arbcom-l] Please Explain The Block / User:Sophie
In-Reply-To: <AANLkTim67DeFeEgatLZ6Uek1mccaq-QrwHeOUtUJ58uo@mail.gmail.com>
References: <E1PPj2Z-0003hC-Bo@srv261.pmtpa.wmnet> <4CFDEE61.5010503@gmail.com>
<08A7CFC9-0B2E-414E-AA83-0BC2AE6865FB@yahoo.co.uk>
<4D005694.4070501@gmail.com>
<1F8C2A73-AE7D-49F5-9295-53EF4DECC798@yahoo.co.uk>
<80A22B73-AA44-497A-9006-07F2D187B996@yahoo.co.uk>
<4D02D808.9070907@gmail.com>
<AANLkTikc5akdMzJhzn6d2Fe0JRixhVw-hkV0spRR-bR2@mail.gmail.com>
<AANLkTikqui=ydYozr0UnWe9J4mv+nwoiaugXtS9750fx@mail.gmail.com>
<AANLkTi=2kMm72kZGUF89DuSCNQy_ZzkrhD5z+p9mJy6-@mail.gmail.com>
<AANLkTin8+n_evqrwcy8QOKaPHyBd7udWYcBhEGwDvBaz@mail.gmail.com>
<AANLkTim67DeFeEgatLZ6Uek1mccaq-QrwHeOUtUJ58uo@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <AANLkTi=HorQLYd28jHZP1hQ5G3m2k1MB9VMhLtfKET-x@mail.gmail.com>

I'm open to that as well. I certainly think we're done after this, and the
draft is appropriately unequivocal.

Frank
----------
From roger.davies.wiki at gmail.com Sat Dec 11 18:25:11 2010
From: roger.davies.wiki at gmail.com (Roger Davies)
Date: Sat, 11 Dec 2010 18:25:11 +0000
Subject: [arbcom-l] Please Explain The Block / User:Sophie
In-Reply-To: <80A22B73-AA44-497A-9006-07F2D187B996@yahoo.co.uk>
References: <E1PPj2Z-0003hC-Bo@srv261.pmtpa.wmnet> <4CFDEE61.5010503@gmail.com>
<08A7CFC9-0B2E-414E-AA83-0BC2AE6865FB@yahoo.co.uk>
<4D005694.4070501@gmail.com>
<1F8C2A73-AE7D-49F5-9295-53EF4DECC798@yahoo.co.uk>
<80A22B73-AA44-497A-9006-07F2D187B996@yahoo.co.uk>
Message-ID: <4D03C207.5040404@gmail.com>


Hi Sophie:

What our email meant is that the evidence suggests that you are not in
fact 13 but that your behaviour is inappropriate whatever your age.

The Committee has no plans to revisit your unblock so your offer of a
photograph is declined.

For the Arbitration Committee,

Roger Davies


On 11/12/2010 01:03, Sophie Johnson wrote:
> I took a photo of me holding a White board with my name and the date on it on the 9th.
>
> But speak to me first cause I'm like scared of sending it to someone iv not spoken before.
>
> Thanks
>
> - Sophie.
----------
From jwales at wikia-inc.com Sat Dec 11 20:39:21 2010
From: jwales at wikia-inc.com (Jimmy Wales)
Date: Sat, 11 Dec 2010 15:39:21 -0500
Subject: [arbcom-l] Fwd: Concern with English Wikipedia ArbCom (Very Urgent)
Message-ID: <4D03E179.6080008@wikia-inc.com>

There is apparently a concern about a statement being released by ArbCom
which might negatively impact a minor. I have no idea what this is
about, but as usual urge caution and thoughtfulness.

--Jimbo

-------- Original Message --------
Subject: Concern with English Wikipedia ArbCom (Very Urgent)
Date: Sat, 11 Dec 2010 09:25:12 -0500
From: TE Joe <joegazz84 at techessentials.org>
To: jwales at wikia.com



We are writing you regarding one case which was recently closed by arbcom,
problem is that many people from community disagree with arbcom
decision. The issue is concerning Sophie who was blocked indefinitely
for two reasons which were clasified as confidential, one of reason was
that she seems to be pretending her age (she is 13). While she is
willing to proove that she is 13 they refuse to talk with her or us,
when we wanted to discuss it, her talk page was admin-protected to block
us from being able to talk about it. She had some conflict with certain
admin / checkuser (blurpeace) on irc, she later posted inappropriate and
hateful comment on his address on her page, my theory is that she was
blocked as a revenge from him, the block was issued by User:Risker, she
also explained to us many things which she was suspected from by several
CU findings but problem is that we can't explain it to anyone as they do
not talk with us, we don't know who to ask when we want to discuss things
related to such investigation because some admins told us that if we
started request on wikipedia it would be deleted. We don't think she
should be indefinitely blocked because of stupid conflict she was not
warned before and they indefinitely blocked her with no proper
explanation and denied us from being able to speak, we think this is not
right, to block child just because she posted something childish, yes
comment was stupid and childish but was not reason for indefinite block,
so the case should be reconsidered by someone who knows all facts and is
more neutral. We would take this to ombudsman committee but this needs
to be handled quicker because we have some concerns about the Sophie's
safety. She has a court order out that prevents and personal info from
being posted online and ArbCom told her that there would be a statement
released and that it could risk her safety. The statement is coming soon
so we would like you to please review the evidence and prevent the
statement from being released. We are extremely concerned about her
safety at this point and are also concerned about the amount of stress
that this is putting on her, last night we were told by her that this is
"too stressful, she can't take it anymore". We appreciate the
understanding and would like you to look over this and assist with the
resolution. We would like a reply of what action will be taken so we can
comfort our friend and fellow Wikipedia user, Sophie. Thank you.



--
Joe Gazzarato (JoeGazz84)
Peter (Petrb)
Alpha Quadrant
SophJ

From kenneth at planetkh.com Sat Dec 11 22:57:10 2010
From: kenneth at planetkh.com (Kenneth Kua/ArbCom)
Date: Sun, 12 Dec 2010 06:57:10 +0800
Subject: [arbcom-l] Fwd: Concern with English Wikipedia ArbCom (Very
Urgent)
In-Reply-To: <4D03E179.6080008@wikia-inc.com>
References: <4D03E179.6080008@wikia-inc.com>
Message-ID: <AANLkTins6hgF1VCpRaynVe=h5Y2yf-+FWRJEcoKdxM4L@mail.gmail.com>

I don't recall seeing any intention of ArbCom to issue any public statement.
Not now, not anytime soon.

So far, we've sent out direct, private correspondence to Sophie explaining
the reasons why she was blocked. (see other arbcom-l thread)

Kenneth/MD

On Sun, Dec 12, 2010 at 4:39 AM, Jimmy Wales <jwales at wikia-inc.com> wrote:

> There is apparently a concern about a statement being released
----------
From newyorkbrad at gmail.com Sat Dec 11 23:16:56 2010
From: newyorkbrad at gmail.com (Newyorkbrad)
Date: Sat, 11 Dec 2010 18:16:56 -0500
Subject: [arbcom-l] Fwd: Concern with English Wikipedia ArbCom (Very
Urgent)
In-Reply-To: <4D03E179.6080008@wikia-inc.com>
References: <4D03E179.6080008@wikia-inc.com>
Message-ID: <AANLkTin=YocznXgjYz36i8+QvmjsZM4ss+-UcdKkbuCh@mail.gmail.com>

Jimmy:

I don't think any of us understand exactly what is going on here, but the
bottom line is that we are convinced that User:Sophie is not a 13-year-old
girl at all, but a troll pretending to be one. She constantly emphasizes
her 13-year-old-girl-ness in a way that few real young people would do,
including in odd places (such as a question to Giano during the election),
and has various "child porn" related edits, and the bottom line is that
either (1) she is editing in a fashion inappropriate for her age, or (2) she
is someone pretending to be younger than she is. Neither of these
possibilities (and we lean strongly toward (2)) is an acceptable scenario.
See generally, [[Wikipedia:Protecting children's privacy#Response]];
[[Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Protecting children's privacy]] (this
was one of Fred's best-written decisions and has several useful
observations);; compare also, [[Anthony Godby Johnson]]; [[Kaycee Nicole]];
[[Munchausen by Internet]].

You can find discussion about the matter in several other threads if you
type "Sophie" into your e-mail search. The broader background, and the one
that brought on the block, was actually noticed in a Wikipedia Review thread
(sorry, but it's true; the thread has some nasty and sadly typical comments
about you, Jimmy but it contains some factual information as well) that I
brought to the attention of a couple of people, which is that there is a
connection between Sophie and a site called wikimissing.org, which at
various times has been described as either a site gathering information
about missing children and as a repository for missing children. Beyond
that, you will I am sure have noticed that the story presented in the e-mail
you forwarded to us makes absolutely no sense.

I do not understand the reference in the e-mail you forwarded to Blurpeace;
he had no connection to this block at all.

Contrary to what was said in the message you received, I don't think the
committee has any intention of saying anything further in public about this
matter, unless there is an entirely unanticipated development.

Newyorkbrad

On Sat, Dec 11, 2010 at 3:39 PM, Jimmy Wales <jwales at wikia-inc.com> wrote:

> There is apparently a concern about a statement being released by ArbCom
----------
From carcharothwp at googlemail.com Sun Dec 12 03:01:36 2010
From: carcharothwp at googlemail.com (Carcharoth)
Date: Sun, 12 Dec 2010 03:01:36 +0000
Subject: [arbcom-l] Fwd: Concern with English Wikipedia ArbCom (Very
Urgent)
In-Reply-To: <AANLkTim1_aqT023Nvd621vqu9dOV8JvT8+3_ZCsigDp-@mail.gmail.com>
References: <4D03E179.6080008@wikia-inc.com>
<AANLkTim1_aqT023Nvd621vqu9dOV8JvT8+3_ZCsigDp-@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <AANLkTikyrcgW5WLbDfqQ0n-Zf76EXTACFEDcuC-f-xgC@mail.gmail.com>

Before any checkuser, look through the edit histories to see which
ones look like socks and which ones look like long-term editors who
befriended or were befriended by User:Sophie. I don't think any
checkuser is justified before that is done to separate the wheat from
the chaff. Only where it is borderline and not clear where the account
came from, should something be done. While this is being discussed,
anyone know when User:Sophie (or the previous username) first
appeared?

Carcharoth

On Sat, Dec 11, 2010 at 11:17 PM, Newyorkbrad <newyorkbrad at gmail.com> wrote:
> Colleagues:
>
> Is there a basis for a checkuser on the accounts signing this message, or do
> we just think they were/are still?fooled?
>
> Newyorkbrad
----------
From jwales at wikia-inc.com Mon Dec 13 11:01:52 2010
From: jwales at wikia-inc.com (Jimmy Wales)
Date: Mon, 13 Dec 2010 06:01:52 -0500
Subject: [arbcom-l] Fwd: Concern regarding block of Sophie (ENWP) Urgent
Message-ID: <4D05FD20.50803@wikia-inc.com>

Just FYI. I join you in thinking that this simply doesn't ring true on
many fronts. I recommend that we not respond, or if we do respond, we
simply redirect to legal.

Some key points we should remember

1. There is no "right" to edit wikipedia - this is a private website of
a private organization that extends permission to participate quite
liberally, but any form of disruption in the judgment of the community,
ArbCom, etc. is grounds for banning.

2. All this offering to send in pictures of a 13 year old girl is creepy
and weird. It smells of a 4chan /b/ or GNAA trolling trap - looking to
get a quote from someone saying "please send a picture of a 13 year old
girl" to make them seem like a pedophile or whatever. It's just weird.

3. I am not a lawyer but have two basic responses to the COPPA argument
given below: (a) there is an exemption for nonprofits, so COPPA does not
apply to the Wikimedia Foundation and (b) we don't have anyone's
personal information anyway.

4. Generally speaking, I can't think of any reason why any volunteer
should ask a user to telephone or send a picture to prove they are
actually a 13 year old girl.

Although his email does not make a legal or pr threat directly, I think
we should treat this all with a great deal of suspicion. (I think you
already are.)



-------- Original Message --------
Subject: Concern regarding block of Sophie (ENWP) Urgent
Date: Sat, 11 Dec 2010 20:37:57 -0600
From: <steve at wikimissing.org>
To: undisclosed-recipients:;

C/O:
- Agent(s) responsible for complaints of abuse of tools.
- Agent(s) for child protection.
- The head of the English Wikipedia.

Dear sir or madam,

I am writing to file a complaint about abuse of the tool known as
"checkuser" which may of violated the Children's Online Privacy
Protection Act of 1998 by your users, violated set policies by your
users and spoken actions which make me believe that there are some
dangerous users on Wikipedia in relation to a block on my daughter and
son.

If I say anything which requires evidence to prove that it happened, I
will use the symbol: ^ and can be sent on request.

My 13 year old daughter Sophie, who's userpage is
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/user:sophie, has been blocked by Risker who
says they are part of the Arbitration Committee and the reason they gave
was and I quote:

>The Arbitration Committee has now carefully examined all the
> circumstances surrounding the block.
>The account is under the control either of a minor who behaves in a
> provocative and inappropriate manner or
>someone who is pretending to be a minor. While the evidence strongly
> suggests the latter, neither scenario is
>acceptable on Wikipedia. The Committee is therefore unanimous in
> endorsing the block.

This email^ was sent to her by Roger Davies
(roger.davies.wiki at gmail.com) on the 9th of December 2010, which was 9
days after she was blocked and several emails to them asking for a
reason into why she was blocked^. The date of the block can be found at:
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=...e=User%3ASophie

In reply to this email she asked what she could do to get unblocked^
and offered if she sent a photo of herself holding a sign saying her
name and the date. This was sent to Roger on the 9th of December at
14:45 UK time. In a reply back she got^ on the 11th of December said:

>What our email meant is that the evidence suggests that you are not in
>fact 13 but that your behaviour is inappropriate whatever your age.
>The Committee has no plans to revisit your unblock so your offer of a
>photograph is declined.

I will explain both of those issues later in this email.

In regards to the checkuser, on her talk page
(http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/user_talk:Sophie) it mentioned that there
had been 6 "checkusers" on her account. On the Wikipedia page
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:CHECK is says that grounds for
checking someone using this tool is:

>The tool is to be used to fight vandalism, to check for sock puppet
> activity, to limit disruption
>or potential disruption of any Wikimedia project, and to investigate
> legitimate concerns of bad faith editing.

To my understanding there needs to be relevant evidence in order for a
checkuser to be filed otherwise that violates your privacy policy and
because my daughter is 13, this might violate the Children's Online
Privacy Protection Act of 1998 as it states:

>Provide direct notice to parents and obtain verifiable parental
> consent, with limited exceptions,
>before collecting personal information from children"

This did not take place. I have not been contacted by anyone who made
this block or by a check user. Despite the fact that my daughter has
linked herself to a website I own
(http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User%3ASophie-iphone%2Fsophie%2Finfobox&action=historysubmit&diff=399703588&oldid=399702601)

and a contact email address being in the whois information.

>Provide parents access to their child?s personal information to review
> and/or have the information deleted;

I have spoken to several users on freenode's web chat and they have
said that they will not reveal any information out, despite COPPA and
your own privacy policy saying "With permission of the affected user".
As my daughter is 13, she is not able to give consent to this so I am
requesting it in this email.

> Give parents the opportunity to prevent further use or online
> collection of a child?s personal information
As said, I was not told that a check would be taking place what would
reveal her personal information.

I got the quotes about COPPA from the website:
http://www.ftc.gov/privacy/coppafaqs.shtm

From what I have determined, she was blocked because in the checkuser
results, it said she was editing from a college. However, despite the
concern from the users who did the block, there is a reasonable
explanation for why she was editing from a college. Her school was
subject to an arson attack and suffered some damage to the school
building. While repairs are taking place, she is taking lessons in the
college because the rooms she would normally have them in are being
replaced. This can be backed up by a BBC news article which I am willing
to provide with some discussion because of security issues which I will
go into further in this email.

My daughter suffers from Post Traumatic stress disorder from child
abuse. This block has left her feeling like the users behind this block
are the abusers punishing her again. The longer this block continues the
greater the mental trauma this is causing her because she is feeling
ever more guilty because she is being punished for something she did not
commit.

In regards to actually proving her identity as being a 13 year old
child, she is willing to fully comply with some understanding. Note the
fact she suffers from a state of dwarfism and is smaller than someone
her age. She has low self confidence when in a new environment or faced
with an unfamiliar task she is not used to, and has low self esteem
because she feels that she will make a mistake and people will laugh at
her because she made a mistake. This would be a badge of shame on her if
she did not build the confidence to do the task which, depending on the
task, can take several days to build the confidence she needs. She has
volunteered to take a picture of herself holding a white board with her
name, the date and time on it. This was done on the 9th of December
2010. She is willing to send this to someone with the terms that:
- The person who receives the photo deletes it, permanently and wiped
so it is unrecoverable.
- The photo does not get forwarded or passed it on to anyone. Including
but not limited to the Arbitration Committee.
- There is no discussion with other people about the photo unless
Sophie or me is notified.
- We have details of the person who will receive the photo.
- The current block by the Arbitration Committee is undone on:
A) Her main account (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/user:sophie)
B) Her secondary account
(http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/user:sophie-iphone)
C) Her brother (my son) account
(http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/user:picopa)

This is to put Sophie at ease so that she does not worry that the
picture is being abused or shown to other people with out her knowledge
or control, so that there is no badge of shame on Wikipedia as that will
add to her continuing mental suffering with this issue and so that for
her security she knows who the person who gets the picture because of
the risks she faces.

Please do let me know if you would like further proof that she is who
she says she is. Please remember there may be some limitations, but we
should be able to discuss a way around them.

In regards to what they said is "inappropriate behaviour", I believe
they are meaning the edit:
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=...oldid=398298089

I do not see that to be inappropriate because of the 3 edits he made to
my daughter:
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=...oldid=398113219
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=...oldid=398182683
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=...oldid=398182752

To Sophie, it appeared as he was:
- mocking her at leaving for a short time by calling her a diva (who is
defined as someone who takes a strop when they don't get their way)
- accusing her of getting 4chan to vandalize her page.

I know as her father she would not mock herself because of the PTSD as
said above and her home behaviour is not as such that she does not strop
when she does not get her way because of the abuse she knows how easily
it was for someone to force them to make her do acts she did not want to
do

Her response in the edit:
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=...oldid=398298089
was her way of saying to him "leave me alone" in the same way he called
her a diva. If you take a look at all her other edits they clearly way
up the fact that she is a good person and gets along with other users.
Their reason for that portion of the block was a clear misunderstanding
of what Sophie was trying to do.

As I have mentioned a few times about her personal security. As she was
a victim of abuse, we are very secure over what information is posted
online as she is still considered at risk by the courts. We split
personal information into 3 categories which are:
- Personal (First name/age/date of birth/location (country))
- Private (last name/email address)
- Confidential (full name/address/phone number/school/any traceable
information) to where the person getting this information is unknown.
We do monitor what websites she does go on for her own safety and she
also tells us of what she does, any problems and her likes for the
website in question.

With the people who have asked her questions which I as a parent find
disturbing that someone would ask her to, to be worrying that any other
people under 18 may be exposed to them. When discussing with fellow
Wikipedia editors on freenode how to become unblocked, she was asked
that to prove her identity she would need to call a specific user who
she (or I) did not know and were unsure of their real identity. This was
requested to her in a private message at over 1am. As Sophie is the
type who will inform other users of a problem, she passed on what the
specific user was saying to other users she trusts. She has told me the
name of this person and I have not mentioned it in this email because of
the amount of people who are seeing it. I do hope that that user can be
dealt with.

Please discuss this unblock request further with me.

Thank you.

Steve Johnson.
Sophie's Father.
-----------
From frank.bednarz at gmail.com Mon Dec 13 12:38:57 2010
From: frank.bednarz at gmail.com (Frank Bednarz)
Date: Mon, 13 Dec 2010 07:38:57 -0500
Subject: [arbcom-l] Fwd: Concern regarding block of Sophie (ENWP) Urgent
In-Reply-To: <4D05FD20.50803@wikia-inc.com>
References: <4D05FD20.50803@wikia-inc.com>
Message-ID: <AANLkTimPNcgottyARb0Oy=ZrmNtXmjPcfGPOzzj-8WY0@mail.gmail.com>

Thanks, Jimmy.

E-mail solidifies my certainty that she is not a child. Clear troll.

"Dear Sir or Mme., your site blocked my daughter, who by the way has been
abused and has dwarfism. I am outraged that your volunteers violated my
understanding of foreign law. Please allow her to send a picture of herself
to prove her age."

Right.

Frank
On Dec 13, 2010 6:01 AM, "Jimmy Wales" <jwales at wikia-inc.com> wrote:
> Just FYI. I join you in thinking that this simply doesn't ring true on
-----------
From shell.kinney at gmail.com Mon Dec 13 13:31:18 2010
From: shell.kinney at gmail.com (Michelle Kinney)
Date: Mon, 13 Dec 2010 08:31:18 -0500
Subject: [arbcom-l] SophJ
In-Reply-To: <536355.65675.qm@web55908.mail.re3.yahoo.com>
References: <536355.65675.qm@web55908.mail.re3.yahoo.com>
Message-ID: <AANLkTiki4iv_3NyC3vtPwYr68CS4dvL-OH0kb68brp6Q@mail.gmail.com>

Thank you for your email.

As you had already guessed, the reasons Sophie is giving for the account
block are not correct. As we've expressed to her privately, we have reason
to doubt various claims she's made about her life and regardless, her
behavior, as a whole, is not appropriate for editing Wikipedia. We've never
referred to the edits she mentions; they were not part of our discussion.

Shell Kinney

On Sun, Dec 12, 2010 at 17:51, addison herman <addihockey at yahoo.ca> wrote:

> Dear Arbcom,
>
> Attached is a log of conversation between SophJ and I. I thought you might
> want the IP s/he has logged in with as that may be more evidence on whether
> s/he is or is not guilty of the disturbing things the individual has done. I
> will not comment further on this, but right now I am siding with ArbCom.
>
> Logs:
>
> Sophiie (5c1986ab at gateway/web/freenode/ip.92.25.134.171) has joined
> ##Alpha_Quadrant
> <Sophiie>has AQ been on
> <Sophiie>or jow?
> <Sophiie>* joe
> <Addihockey10>Sophiie: You SophJ?
> <Sophiie>yep
> <Sophiie> just not logged in
> <Addihockey10>Ah
> <Addihockey10>Are you aware of the arbcom e-mail?
> <Addihockey10>Oh wait... I remember it was in SophJ's block log.
> <Sophiie>what email?
> <Addihockey10>I meant the e-mail address
> <Addihockey10>But nevermind, I'm sure if I inquire about your block it'll
> be fruitless.
> <Addihockey10>:/
> <Addihockey10>Have you gotten any response yet?
> <Sophiie>they arnt going to unblock me so my dad has sent an email to
> jimbo, WMF and ombisom committee
> <Addihockey10>Because they must be pretty sure of their suspicions
> otherwise and this could all be one huge mistake
> <Addihockey10>:/
> <Sophiie>it is
> <Sophiie>but they wont let me prove it
> <Addihockey10>Well how can you?
> <Addihockey10>or how have you?
> <Sophiie>send them a photo of me holding a sign with my name and the date
> on it
> <Addihockey10>They could believe it's photoshopped.
> <Addihockey10>A video would be better.
> <Sophiie>im 13, im not a photo expert
> <Addihockey10>Well they could have reason to believe you're not 13.
> <Addihockey10>:/
> <Addihockey10>Try a video.
> <Addihockey10>We all know you're innocent.
> <Addihockey10>You can't go saying you've tried your best if you haven't
> done the video.
> <Sophiie>the reason can be explained
> <Sophiie>and even if i do prove myself as being 13, they still wont
> unblock me
> <Addihockey10>Sophiie: Are you aware of that reason?
> <Sophiie>yea but its stupid because it was 1 edit
> <Addihockey10>What do you mean 1 edit?
> <Addihockey10>Sophiie: Ping
> <Sophiie>AQ suggested an edit what might of lead to the block
> -->|JoeGazz84 (~Joe_Gazz8 at wikipedia/Joe-Gazz84) has joined
> ##Alpha_Quadrant
> =-=Mode ##Alpha_Quadrant +v JoeGazz84 by ChanServ
> <Addihockey10>what edit? can I see?
> <Addihockey10>Sophiie:Ping
> <Sophiie> give me a few mins to find
> =-=Mode ##Alpha_Quadrant +o JoeGazz84 by ChanServ
> =-=Mode ##Alpha_Quadrant +v Sophiie by JoeGazz84
> <Sophiie>also JoeGazz84 jimbo replied to your message on his talk
> <JoeGazz84>okay
> <JoeGazz84> He said...
> <Sophiie>it had been passed to arbcom
> <JoeGazz84>Thats it
> <JoeGazz84>Im so pissed with WMF
> <JoeGazz84>I specifically said NOT TO!
> <JoeGazz84>Did your dad get an email...
> <Addihockey10>JoeGazz84: What do you honestly expect?
> <Addihockey10>I don't know what it is..
> <Addihockey10>But..
> <JoeGazz84> Him to respect wishes
> <JoeGazz84>It was specifically sent to him since Arb WON'T LISTEN
> <Sophiie>dad has not had a reply yet
> <Sophiie>from any of the people he sent the email to
> <Addihockey10>JoeGazz84: What is it about? otherwise I could see why or
> why it shouldn't have been replied to.
> <Addihockey10>why or why it shouldn't have been given to ArbCom
> <Addihockey10>I meant
> <Addihockey10>Sophiie: Diff of that edit?
> <Sophiie>
> http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=...oldid=398298089
> <Addihockey10>That's why they believe you're not 13?
> <Addihockey10>That's alot of evidence.
> -->|JoeGazzBot (~JoeGazzBo at c-68-43-194-122.hsd1.mi.comcast.net) has joined
> ##Alpha_Quadrant
> <Sophiie>no
> <Sophiie> they said
> <Sophiie>im not 13
> <Sophiie>and if i was, i dont behave
> <Sophiie>i can prove me being 13
> <Addihockey10>there has to be something bigger than that.
> <Sophiie>but because of /one/ edit they wont unblock me
> Hope this helps.
>
> ~Addihockey10

From kenneth at planetkh.com Mon Dec 13 17:50:39 2010
From: kenneth at planetkh.com (Kenneth Kua/ArbCom)
Date: Tue, 14 Dec 2010 01:50:39 +0800
Subject: [arbcom-l] Fwd: Concern regarding block of Sophie (ENWP) Urgent
In-Reply-To: <AANLkTimPNcgottyARb0Oy=ZrmNtXmjPcfGPOzzj-8WY0@mail.gmail.com>
References: <4D05FD20.50803@wikia-inc.com>
<AANLkTimPNcgottyARb0Oy=ZrmNtXmjPcfGPOzzj-8WY0@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <AANLkTinF_QBm7en7o=20YTLoBo=oGWEL62XXtOPRwwVH@mail.gmail.com>

<List-Only>

Agreed. I don't think we should respond anything more from this point on. It
just does not add up.

Whoever that takes the offer (or probably, the troll's bait) will get fried
big time; I won't be surprised if the "picture of herself" itself turns out
to be child pornography, his/her personal details get bcc-ed to the FBI
(4chan Partyvan) by the troll.

Kenneth/MD

On Mon, Dec 13, 2010 at 8:38 PM, Frank Bednarz <frank.bednarz at gmail.com>wrote:

> Thanks, Jimmy.
>
> E-mail solidifies my certainty that she is not a child. Clear troll.
----------
From risker.wp at gmail.com Mon Dec 13 18:25:30 2010
From: risker.wp at gmail.com (Risker)
Date: Mon, 13 Dec 2010 13:25:30 -0500
Subject: [arbcom-l] Fwd: Concern regarding block of Sophie (ENWP) Urgent
In-Reply-To: <AANLkTinF_QBm7en7o=20YTLoBo=oGWEL62XXtOPRwwVH@mail.gmail.com>
References: <4D05FD20.50803@wikia-inc.com>
<AANLkTimPNcgottyARb0Oy=ZrmNtXmjPcfGPOzzj-8WY0@mail.gmail.com>
<AANLkTinF_QBm7en7o=20YTLoBo=oGWEL62XXtOPRwwVH@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <AANLkTimYnP0RM07HKPPk7tcEvE39Znd6jvkhvSR_y2BJ@mail.gmail.com>

<List-only>

Wow, Kenneth, I'd not thought of that, but you're probably right. I will
admit that the possibility of a /b/ connection crossed my mind when
User:Sophie spammed Jimmy's talk page with an altered screencap from there,
although this is certainly a much more elaborate troll than they're usually
up for.

On the other hand, the harder User:Sophie pushes, the more people are
persuaded that there's something not quite right here.

Risker/Anne

On 13 December 2010 12:50, Kenneth Kua/ArbCom <kenneth at planetkh.com> wrote:

> <List-Only>
>
> Agreed. I don't think we should respond anything more from this point on.
-----------
From User.CoolHandLuke at gmail.com Mon Dec 13 19:44:56 2010
From: User.CoolHandLuke at gmail.com (Cool Hand Luke)
Date: Mon, 13 Dec 2010 14:44:56 -0500
Subject: [arbcom-l] Fwd: Concern with English Wikipedia ArbCom (Very
Urgent)
In-Reply-To: <AANLkTin=YocznXgjYz36i8+QvmjsZM4ss+-UcdKkbuCh@mail.gmail.com>
References: <4D03E179.6080008@wikia-inc.com>
<AANLkTin=YocznXgjYz36i8+QvmjsZM4ss+-UcdKkbuCh@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <AANLkTinCEr+v+DKJgWSHamvSbKak8vgjb1ZA_mDe8W-f@mail.gmail.com>

On Sat, Dec 11, 2010 at 6:16 PM, Newyorkbrad <newyorkbrad at gmail.com> wrote:

> See generally, [[Wikipedia:Protecting children's privacy#Response]];
> [[Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Protecting children's privacy]] (this
> was one of Fred's best-written decisions and has several useful
> observations);; compare also, [[Anthony Godby Johnson]]; [[Kaycee Nicole]];
> [[Munchausen by Internet]].
>
>
>

String cite of the day. Very interesting pages. Given the more recent
email discussing how "Sophie" is supposedly an abused child, these
references seem eerily on the mark.

Frank
----------
From dyellope.wiki at gmail.com Mon Dec 13 21:57:25 2010
From: dyellope.wiki at gmail.com (David Yellope)
Date: Mon, 13 Dec 2010 16:57:25 -0500
Subject: [arbcom-l] Fwd: Concern with English Wikipedia ArbCom (Very
Urgent)
In-Reply-To: <AANLkTimQKSJRXdHrJxX8cEoA3bX=tOBR4T-NDXA1hy8q@mail.gmail.com>
References: <4D03E179.6080008@wikia-inc.com>
<AANLkTin=YocznXgjYz36i8+QvmjsZM4ss+-UcdKkbuCh@mail.gmail.com>
<AANLkTinCEr+v+DKJgWSHamvSbKak8vgjb1ZA_mDe8W-f@mail.gmail.com>
<AANLkTimQKSJRXdHrJxX8cEoA3bX=tOBR4T-NDXA1hy8q@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <AANLkTi=sFMtuPzhE0dUkd66H9a59GGGotipLRzG8UpH3@mail.gmail.com>

I've shot an email to the AUSC list asking them not to respond to any
complaints (re:Sophie) till they have a full chance to review the situation,
Anne.

David

On Mon, Dec 13, 2010 at 4:32 PM, Risker <risker.wp at gmail.com> wrote:

> Just as a heads up to those of you on AUSC - "Dad" copied AUSC with this
> complaint as well. Please make sure that the community members on the
> committee do not respond to it before you have a chance to discuss it with
> them.
>
> Risker/Anne
-----------
From risker.wp at gmail.com Tue Dec 14 00:06:11 2010
From: risker.wp at gmail.com (Risker)
Date: Mon, 13 Dec 2010 19:06:11 -0500
Subject: [arbcom-l] Fwd: Concern with English Wikipedia ArbCom (Very
Urgent)
In-Reply-To: <AANLkTi=sFMtuPzhE0dUkd66H9a59GGGotipLRzG8UpH3@mail.gmail.com>
References: <4D03E179.6080008@wikia-inc.com>
<AANLkTin=YocznXgjYz36i8+QvmjsZM4ss+-UcdKkbuCh@mail.gmail.com>
<AANLkTinCEr+v+DKJgWSHamvSbKak8vgjb1ZA_mDe8W-f@mail.gmail.com>
<AANLkTimQKSJRXdHrJxX8cEoA3bX=tOBR4T-NDXA1hy8q@mail.gmail.com>
<AANLkTi=sFMtuPzhE0dUkd66H9a59GGGotipLRzG8UpH3@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <AANLkTi=BL=oZsUJhjFxs5=jv2SsvRAqha+iPt+W8qSdo@mail.gmail.com>

And I've just had a lovely chat with Christine from the WMF, who tells me
that Sue Gardner also got the email. I've given her the background. She'd
already had her own doubts about User:Sophie.

Risker/Anne

On 13 December 2010 16:57, David Yellope <dyellope.wiki at gmail.com> wrote:

> I've shot an email to the AUSC list asking them not to respond to any
----------
From newyorkbrad at gmail.com Thu Dec 16 04:26:23 2010
From: newyorkbrad at gmail.com (Newyorkbrad)
Date: Wed, 15 Dec 2010 23:26:23 -0500
Subject: [arbcom-l] User:Sophie RfC - immediate input needed
Message-ID: <AANLkTi=Qv22Oab65TRZoQQLCBgLRvVr=ct6YajscuYmu@mail.gmail.com>

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Req..._comment/Sophie

We need to decide urgently how as a committee we want to respond to this.
My view is that we need to reaffirm that we are unanimously behind the block
based on a substantial amount of evidence, much of which should not be
discussed on-wiki.

Newyorkbrad
----------
From User.CoolHandLuke at gmail.com Thu Dec 16 04:38:53 2010
From: User.CoolHandLuke at gmail.com (Cool Hand Luke)
Date: Wed, 15 Dec 2010 23:38:53 -0500
Subject: [arbcom-l] User:Sophie RfC - immediate input needed
In-Reply-To: <AANLkTi=Qv22Oab65TRZoQQLCBgLRvVr=ct6YajscuYmu@mail.gmail.com>
References: <AANLkTi=Qv22Oab65TRZoQQLCBgLRvVr=ct6YajscuYmu@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <AANLkTimSBcV27p5cSsJ+sOFDONHKNeGgi26ZQ6eq_NwJ@mail.gmail.com>

Unanimous, yes. I'd also be happy to state that the silly IRC theory she's
promoted is false--I don't think anyone was even aware of that
conversation. I don't even know who the alleged admin target of her
comments is.

Frank
----------
From User.CoolHandLuke at gmail.com Thu Dec 16 04:47:11 2010
From: User.CoolHandLuke at gmail.com (Cool Hand Luke)
Date: Wed, 15 Dec 2010 23:47:11 -0500
Subject: [arbcom-l] User:Sophie RfC - immediate input needed
In-Reply-To: <AANLkTimSBcV27p5cSsJ+sOFDONHKNeGgi26ZQ6eq_NwJ@mail.gmail.com>
References: <AANLkTi=Qv22Oab65TRZoQQLCBgLRvVr=ct6YajscuYmu@mail.gmail.com>
<AANLkTimSBcV27p5cSsJ+sOFDONHKNeGgi26ZQ6eq_NwJ@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <AANLkTi=Vk=B8LiOGXu_6vKeMq2zBUVP9F1_ScPkF52c_@mail.gmail.com>

Oh, and I never saw the WR thread on this before:
http://wikipediareview.com/index.php?showt...&st=40&p=260630 Wow. I
hope someone kindly explains to these folks why the account was
inappropriate any way you cut it. I'm happy with ArbCom tersely affirming
it though.

Frank
----------
From newyorkbrad at gmail.com Thu Dec 16 04:50:56 2010
From: newyorkbrad at gmail.com (Newyorkbrad)
Date: Wed, 15 Dec 2010 23:50:56 -0500
Subject: [arbcom-l] User:Sophie RfC - immediate input needed
In-Reply-To: <AANLkTi=Vk=B8LiOGXu_6vKeMq2zBUVP9F1_ScPkF52c_@mail.gmail.com>
References: <AANLkTi=Qv22Oab65TRZoQQLCBgLRvVr=ct6YajscuYmu@mail.gmail.com>
<AANLkTimSBcV27p5cSsJ+sOFDONHKNeGgi26ZQ6eq_NwJ@mail.gmail.com>
<AANLkTi=Vk=B8LiOGXu_6vKeMq2zBUVP9F1_ScPkF52c_@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <AANLkTimjnq3GmCU9RHrH2+6QObBYThE+GUWuUT3dgz6z@mail.gmail.com>

That's how I first became aware of the problem, as I indicated in my
response to Jimmy a few days ago. (It's the first time I've ever wanted to
cite a WR thread as part of the justification for a block, other than times
when I've wanted to block for threats etc. made IN the WR thread.)

We need some more input here to make sure we have a consensus on what to
say. I suppose that many of you are asleep at the moment, but that is
hardly an adequate excuse for not responding, is it?

Newyorkbrad
-----------
From newyorkbrad at gmail.com Thu Dec 16 04:56:50 2010
From: newyorkbrad at gmail.com (Newyorkbrad)
Date: Wed, 15 Dec 2010 23:56:50 -0500
Subject: [arbcom-l] User:Sophie RfC - immediate input needed
In-Reply-To: <4D099B3B.40008@gmail.com>
References: <AANLkTi=Qv22Oab65TRZoQQLCBgLRvVr=ct6YajscuYmu@mail.gmail.com>
<4D099B3B.40008@gmail.com>
Message-ID: <AANLkTiniCA5_mxkhHFUWo+OzoYBLZb3fa6MeA=kqsYw2@mail.gmail.com>

Thanks for checking into this. At this point I don't think I'm in favor of
escalating this with a third-party report, given our consensus that the
User:Sophie account is trollish in nature.

Newyorkbrad

On Wed, Dec 15, 2010 at 11:53 PM, Roger Davies
<roger.davies.wiki at gmail.com>wrote:

>
> I've just come from a lengthy phone conversation with the (24/7) National
> Society for Prevention of Cruelty to Children helpine<https://secure.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/wiki/NSPCC>here in the UK. I outlined the issues and asked for a sanity check. Their
> adviser's reactions were as follows:
>
> 1. If Sophie is in fact 13 and has indeed been subject to years of child
> abuse, then this should have reported to the police, who would in turn
> involve Child Protection for follow up monitoring, support and counselling.
> The NSPCC adviser thought Child Protection would be concerned about Sophie's
> online activities, and the apparent lack of parental supervision.
>
> 2. If, on the other hand, the alleged abuse has not been reported to the
> police, it should be.
>
> 3. If we have concerns that Sophie is not in fact 13, then the Child
> Exploitation and Online Protection Centre<https://secure.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/wiki/Child_Exploitation_and_Online_Protection_Centre>should be contacted. They can look into either a minor child engaging in
> risky online behaviour or a possible pedophile using the Sophie account for
> grooming.
>
> This may help inform how we handle this.
>
> Roger
----------
From roger.davies.wiki at gmail.com Thu Dec 16 05:07:00 2010
From: roger.davies.wiki at gmail.com (Roger Davies)
Date: Thu, 16 Dec 2010 05:07:00 +0000
Subject: [arbcom-l] User:Sophie RfC - immediate input needed
In-Reply-To: <AANLkTiniCA5_mxkhHFUWo+OzoYBLZb3fa6MeA=kqsYw2@mail.gmail.com>
References: <AANLkTi=Qv22Oab65TRZoQQLCBgLRvVr=ct6YajscuYmu@mail.gmail.com> <4D099B3B.40008@gmail.com>
<AANLkTiniCA5_mxkhHFUWo+OzoYBLZb3fa6MeA=kqsYw2@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <4D099E74.6050409@gmail.com>


I wasn't actually considering escalating it to law enforcement but the
NSPCC's responses do suggest a way forward for a statement:

1. We have no idea whose fingers are on the keyboard;

2. If 13, user was engaging in risky and inappropriate behaviour
(emphasise risky) for which we have evidence in spades and this should
be addressed by the appropriate authorities;

3. If not 13, user's behaviour was at best disruptive and at worst sinister.

I don't think any statement should mention anyone by name.

Roger
-----------
From carcharothwp at googlemail.com Thu Dec 16 08:14:08 2010
From: carcharothwp at googlemail.com (Carcharoth)
Date: Thu, 16 Dec 2010 08:14:08 +0000
Subject: [arbcom-l] User:Sophie RfC - immediate input needed
In-Reply-To: <4D099E74.6050409@gmail.com>
References: <AANLkTi=Qv22Oab65TRZoQQLCBgLRvVr=ct6YajscuYmu@mail.gmail.com>
<4D099B3B.40008@gmail.com>
<AANLkTiniCA5_mxkhHFUWo+OzoYBLZb3fa6MeA=kqsYw2@mail.gmail.com>
<4D099E74.6050409@gmail.com>
Message-ID: <AANLkTi=NstoVvh35U3E2xCTj8-JnKwLTQr6xdk7n5qkw@mail.gmail.com>

We can't say "we have evidence in spades" and "this should be
addressed by the appropriate authorities" and then in the same breath
say we are "not in favor of escalating this with a third-party report"
(what Brad said and what Roger agreed with). Just as suicide notes
should be reported even if trollish, so should this sort of thing.
Maybe the answer is simple - give User:Sophie the number Roger rang?
Or contact the "Child Exploitation and Online Protection Centre" (but
that could lead to a lot more questions asked about how the WMF
handles this sort of thing? Passing it all to the WMF (including the
contact details Roger provided) is another option, of course.

Carcharoth
----------
From newyorkbrad at gmail.com Thu Dec 16 14:22:49 2010
From: newyorkbrad at gmail.com (Newyorkbrad)
Date: Thu, 16 Dec 2010 09:22:49 -0500
Subject: [arbcom-l] User:Sophie RfC - immediate input needed
In-Reply-To: <AANLkTi=NstoVvh35U3E2xCTj8-JnKwLTQr6xdk7n5qkw@mail.gmail.com>
References: <AANLkTi=Qv22Oab65TRZoQQLCBgLRvVr=ct6YajscuYmu@mail.gmail.com>
<4D099B3B.40008@gmail.com>
<AANLkTiniCA5_mxkhHFUWo+OzoYBLZb3fa6MeA=kqsYw2@mail.gmail.com>
<4D099E74.6050409@gmail.com>
<AANLkTi=NstoVvh35U3E2xCTj8-JnKwLTQr6xdk7n5qkw@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <AANLkTimG5_QfVFcO-w_nNKs6g_kE+MCu7hhf1uKHBPEv@mail.gmail.com>

Deus ex machina:


- (del/undel<https://mail.google.com/w/index.php?title=Special:RevisionDelete&target=Special%3ALog%2Fdelete&type=logging&ids=33420158>
) 14:21, 16 December 2010 Spartaz<https://mail.google.com/wiki/User:Spartaz>
(talk <https://mail.google.com/wiki/User_talk:Spartaz> |
contribs<https://mail.google.com/wiki/Special:Contributions/Spartaz> |
block <https://mail.google.com/wiki/Special:Block/Spartaz>) deleted
"Wikipedia:Requests
for comment/Sophie<https://mail.google.com/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Requests_for_comment/Sophie&action=edit&redlink=1>"
? (This is out of scope, this was an arbitration committee action and the
only appeal is directly to the committee or to Jimbo)
(view/restore<https://mail.google.com/w/index.php?title=Special:Undelete&target=Wikipedia%3ARequests_for_comment%2FSophie>
)

I guess we'll see what happens next.

Newyorkbrad
----------
From User.CoolHandLuke at gmail.com Thu Dec 16 15:37:36 2010
From: User.CoolHandLuke at gmail.com (Cool Hand Luke)
Date: Thu, 16 Dec 2010 10:37:36 -0500
Subject: [arbcom-l] User:Sophie RfC - immediate input needed
In-Reply-To: <AANLkTimjnq3GmCU9RHrH2+6QObBYThE+GUWuUT3dgz6z@mail.gmail.com>
References: <AANLkTi=Qv22Oab65TRZoQQLCBgLRvVr=ct6YajscuYmu@mail.gmail.com>
<AANLkTimSBcV27p5cSsJ+sOFDONHKNeGgi26ZQ6eq_NwJ@mail.gmail.com>
<AANLkTi=Vk=B8LiOGXu_6vKeMq2zBUVP9F1_ScPkF52c_@mail.gmail.com>
<AANLkTimjnq3GmCU9RHrH2+6QObBYThE+GUWuUT3dgz6z@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <AANLkTi=NTe4tobVeq6-dsrK-wSV03T2mbfUkHfOc0k2Y@mail.gmail.com>

Yeah. I did not realize that practically everything in Risker's longer
draft email to Sophie is contained in that thread; the story is utterly
fantastic and somewhat disturbing. It therefore blows my mind that anyone
could say:

Investigation at other sites where this user is active shows little, if any
evidence that ArbCom's reason for issuing this block is viable.
*AndrewN<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:AndrewN>
talk <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:AndrewN>* 23:17, 15 December
2010 (UTC)

P.T. Barnum<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/There%27s_a_sucker_born_every_minute>was
right. Or is he not talking about WR?

Frank
----------
From newyorkbrad at gmail.com Thu Dec 16 15:45:40 2010
From: newyorkbrad at gmail.com (Newyorkbrad)
Date: Thu, 16 Dec 2010 10:45:40 -0500
Subject: [arbcom-l] User:Sophie RfC - immediate input needed
In-Reply-To: <AANLkTi=NTe4tobVeq6-dsrK-wSV03T2mbfUkHfOc0k2Y@mail.gmail.com>
References: <AANLkTi=Qv22Oab65TRZoQQLCBgLRvVr=ct6YajscuYmu@mail.gmail.com>
<AANLkTimSBcV27p5cSsJ+sOFDONHKNeGgi26ZQ6eq_NwJ@mail.gmail.com>
<AANLkTi=Vk=B8LiOGXu_6vKeMq2zBUVP9F1_ScPkF52c_@mail.gmail.com>
<AANLkTimjnq3GmCU9RHrH2+6QObBYThE+GUWuUT3dgz6z@mail.gmail.com>
<AANLkTi=NTe4tobVeq6-dsrK-wSV03T2mbfUkHfOc0k2Y@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <AANLkTinKj39wthU+aCwWYLjdqzPaoyuuyYhVAz-BEYtW@mail.gmail.com>

He refers to "other sites where this user [Sophie] is active" so I
don't think that's a reference to WR.

Newyorkbrad
----------
From User.CoolHandLuke at gmail.com Thu Dec 16 15:57:03 2010
From: User.CoolHandLuke at gmail.com (Cool Hand Luke)
Date: Thu, 16 Dec 2010 10:57:03 -0500
Subject: [arbcom-l] User:Sophie RfC - immediate input needed
In-Reply-To: <AANLkTinKj39wthU+aCwWYLjdqzPaoyuuyYhVAz-BEYtW@mail.gmail.com>
References: <AANLkTi=Qv22Oab65TRZoQQLCBgLRvVr=ct6YajscuYmu@mail.gmail.com>
<AANLkTimSBcV27p5cSsJ+sOFDONHKNeGgi26ZQ6eq_NwJ@mail.gmail.com>
<AANLkTi=Vk=B8LiOGXu_6vKeMq2zBUVP9F1_ScPkF52c_@mail.gmail.com>
<AANLkTimjnq3GmCU9RHrH2+6QObBYThE+GUWuUT3dgz6z@mail.gmail.com>
<AANLkTi=NTe4tobVeq6-dsrK-wSV03T2mbfUkHfOc0k2Y@mail.gmail.com>
<AANLkTinKj39wthU+aCwWYLjdqzPaoyuuyYhVAz-BEYtW@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <AANLkTi=zNRe95QyJJzx8oH57fVQWC+DfrRLKd3D_xzf8@mail.gmail.com>

Ah, that must be in reference to something he said on Talk:Sophie.

*I've looked (I have seen CU results from other wikis she operates on,
nothing alarming)*, and I see no viable reason for this to have been a ban,
let alone to have ArbCom involved. If I'm not mistaken, aren't users
supposed to be notified when ArbCom investigates them, or when a CU looks in
to them? Someone care to provide the diffs to those notifications, or were
they never made? I thought this was Wikipedia, not Nazi Germany, because
Arbcom is starting to look like the 3rd Reich. (Go ahead, block me for that
Risker. It'll REALLY help your case here.)
*AndrewN<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:AndrewN>
talk <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:AndrewN>* 01:31, 3 December
2010 (UTC)

Where is this? My first thought was simple, but User:Sophie on simple has
never edited, and Sophie J, who claims to be her, just started a few days
ago (post-dating this comment).
http://simple.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:C...utions/Sophie_J I don't see
an account by either name on commons. Where else is she?

Frank
----------
From carcharothwp at googlemail.com Thu Dec 16 16:16:16 2010
From: carcharothwp at googlemail.com (Carcharoth)
Date: Thu, 16 Dec 2010 16:16:16 +0000
Subject: [arbcom-l] User:Sophie RfC - immediate input needed
In-Reply-To: <AANLkTi=zNRe95QyJJzx8oH57fVQWC+DfrRLKd3D_xzf8@mail.gmail.com>
References: <AANLkTi=Qv22Oab65TRZoQQLCBgLRvVr=ct6YajscuYmu@mail.gmail.com>
<AANLkTimSBcV27p5cSsJ+sOFDONHKNeGgi26ZQ6eq_NwJ@mail.gmail.com>
<AANLkTi=Vk=B8LiOGXu_6vKeMq2zBUVP9F1_ScPkF52c_@mail.gmail.com>
<AANLkTimjnq3GmCU9RHrH2+6QObBYThE+GUWuUT3dgz6z@mail.gmail.com>
<AANLkTi=NTe4tobVeq6-dsrK-wSV03T2mbfUkHfOc0k2Y@mail.gmail.com>
<AANLkTinKj39wthU+aCwWYLjdqzPaoyuuyYhVAz-BEYtW@mail.gmail.com>
<AANLkTi=zNRe95QyJJzx8oH57fVQWC+DfrRLKd3D_xzf8@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <AANLkTinzj2C=Dp+21cG6oANj_q6QycXMsnWH02ZNZrc-@mail.gmail.com>

Maybe try the original name she was active under?

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=...&action=history

User:Sghfdhdfghdfgfd

http://toolserver.org/~vvv/sulutil.php?user=Sghfdhdfghdfgfd

http://toolserver.org/~vvv/sulutil.php?user=Sophie

Remember that User:Sophie was usurped here. Not sure, therefore, if
the other accounts on other wikis are actually this user, because I'm
not sure how that works. But there should be enough in the links above
to unravel this, unless of course that user was referring to a non-WMF
wiki (do non-WMF wikis even have CU?).

Anyway, how can AndrewN have seen CU results from other wikis?

http://toolserver.org/~vvv/sulutil.php?user=AndrewN

He doesn't appear to be a checkuser.

Carcharoth
----------
From User.CoolHandLuke at gmail.com Thu Dec 16 16:23:59 2010
From: User.CoolHandLuke at gmail.com (Cool Hand Luke)
Date: Thu, 16 Dec 2010 11:23:59 -0500
Subject: [arbcom-l] User:Sophie RfC - immediate input needed
In-Reply-To: <AANLkTinzj2C=Dp+21cG6oANj_q6QycXMsnWH02ZNZrc-@mail.gmail.com>
References: <AANLkTi=Qv22Oab65TRZoQQLCBgLRvVr=ct6YajscuYmu@mail.gmail.com>
<AANLkTimSBcV27p5cSsJ+sOFDONHKNeGgi26ZQ6eq_NwJ@mail.gmail.com>
<AANLkTi=Vk=B8LiOGXu_6vKeMq2zBUVP9F1_ScPkF52c_@mail.gmail.com>
<AANLkTimjnq3GmCU9RHrH2+6QObBYThE+GUWuUT3dgz6z@mail.gmail.com>
<AANLkTi=NTe4tobVeq6-dsrK-wSV03T2mbfUkHfOc0k2Y@mail.gmail.com>
<AANLkTinKj39wthU+aCwWYLjdqzPaoyuuyYhVAz-BEYtW@mail.gmail.com>
<AANLkTi=zNRe95QyJJzx8oH57fVQWC+DfrRLKd3D_xzf8@mail.gmail.com>
<AANLkTinzj2C=Dp+21cG6oANj_q6QycXMsnWH02ZNZrc-@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <AANLkTinaCEt7QDbMNfePLjkRLr6FbeC5TnT=e2fQCsY7@mail.gmail.com>

Well, maybe AndrewN is a CU on WikiMissing; I think non-WMF wikis have the
CU tool. But he doesn't appear to be, and almost nothing exists on that
site anyway, although I note that several of "her" supporters have accounts
there.

I might have to ask AndrewN what the hell he's talking about. Given his
join date post-dates Sophie's, I'm very suspicious of this character, but
would appreciate any leads.

I don't know whether simple has a non-dysfunctional admin corp, but I would
ask someone there to keep an eye on User:Sophie J, and consider blocking the
account if it slips into more roll play.

Frank
----------
From carcharothwp at googlemail.com Thu Dec 16 16:34:03 2010
From: carcharothwp at googlemail.com (Carcharoth)
Date: Thu, 16 Dec 2010 16:34:03 +0000
Subject: [arbcom-l] User:Sophie RfC - immediate input needed
In-Reply-To: <AANLkTinaCEt7QDbMNfePLjkRLr6FbeC5TnT=e2fQCsY7@mail.gmail.com>
References: <AANLkTi=Qv22Oab65TRZoQQLCBgLRvVr=ct6YajscuYmu@mail.gmail.com>
<AANLkTimSBcV27p5cSsJ+sOFDONHKNeGgi26ZQ6eq_NwJ@mail.gmail.com>
<AANLkTi=Vk=B8LiOGXu_6vKeMq2zBUVP9F1_ScPkF52c_@mail.gmail.com>
<AANLkTimjnq3GmCU9RHrH2+6QObBYThE+GUWuUT3dgz6z@mail.gmail.com>
<AANLkTi=NTe4tobVeq6-dsrK-wSV03T2mbfUkHfOc0k2Y@mail.gmail.com>
<AANLkTinKj39wthU+aCwWYLjdqzPaoyuuyYhVAz-BEYtW@mail.gmail.com>
<AANLkTi=zNRe95QyJJzx8oH57fVQWC+DfrRLKd3D_xzf8@mail.gmail.com>
<AANLkTinzj2C=Dp+21cG6oANj_q6QycXMsnWH02ZNZrc-@mail.gmail.com>
<AANLkTinaCEt7QDbMNfePLjkRLr6FbeC5TnT=e2fQCsY7@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <AANLkTinY7U8jHCkrO2z2_kch+KpZpVGFFDm3-LUt-G+3@mail.gmail.com>

On Thu, Dec 16, 2010 at 4:23 PM, Cool Hand Luke
<User.CoolHandLuke at gmail.com> wrote:

> I don't know whether simple has a non-dysfunctional admin corp, but I would
> ask someone there to keep an eye on User:Sophie J, and consider blocking the
> account if it slips into more roll play.

Unfortunately, the internet is not a place where you can feasibly
"keep an eye" on people, either to keep them safe or to restrain them.

Carcharoth
----------
From User.CoolHandLuke at gmail.com Thu Dec 16 16:43:32 2010
From: User.CoolHandLuke at gmail.com (Cool Hand Luke)
Date: Thu, 16 Dec 2010 11:43:32 -0500
Subject: [arbcom-l] User:Sophie RfC - immediate input needed
In-Reply-To: <AANLkTinY7U8jHCkrO2z2_kch+KpZpVGFFDm3-LUt-G+3@mail.gmail.com>
References: <AANLkTi=Qv22Oab65TRZoQQLCBgLRvVr=ct6YajscuYmu@mail.gmail.com>
<AANLkTimSBcV27p5cSsJ+sOFDONHKNeGgi26ZQ6eq_NwJ@mail.gmail.com>
<AANLkTi=Vk=B8LiOGXu_6vKeMq2zBUVP9F1_ScPkF52c_@mail.gmail.com>
<AANLkTimjnq3GmCU9RHrH2+6QObBYThE+GUWuUT3dgz6z@mail.gmail.com>
<AANLkTi=NTe4tobVeq6-dsrK-wSV03T2mbfUkHfOc0k2Y@mail.gmail.com>
<AANLkTinKj39wthU+aCwWYLjdqzPaoyuuyYhVAz-BEYtW@mail.gmail.com>
<AANLkTi=zNRe95QyJJzx8oH57fVQWC+DfrRLKd3D_xzf8@mail.gmail.com>
<AANLkTinzj2C=Dp+21cG6oANj_q6QycXMsnWH02ZNZrc-@mail.gmail.com>
<AANLkTinaCEt7QDbMNfePLjkRLr6FbeC5TnT=e2fQCsY7@mail.gmail.com>
<AANLkTinY7U8jHCkrO2z2_kch+KpZpVGFFDm3-LUt-G+3@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <AANLkTim5snt69GdS=ONxHPhBXb=CWLTE0f8QLwsE27tt@mail.gmail.com>

That is true, Carcharoth.

Anyhow, the fallout so far is that one of them reposted the gist of the RFC
on Jimmy's talk page, and he quickly stuck up for us.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Jim...est_for_comment

At this time, I'm going to stop keeping an eye on it.

Frank
----------
From sophiejohnson97 at yahoo.co.uk Thu Dec 16 23:19:34 2010
From: sophiejohnson97 at yahoo.co.uk (Sophie Johnson)
Date: Thu, 16 Dec 2010 23:19:34 +0000
Subject: [arbcom-l] Requesting to see the evidence on me
Message-ID: <45BDF6EA-5311-4816-822E-54327CD3696F@yahoo.co.uk>

Can I see what evidence you have on me please?

Thanks

- Sophie
----------
From KnightLago at gmail.com Fri Dec 17 00:03:31 2010
From: KnightLago at gmail.com (KnightLago)
Date: Thu, 16 Dec 2010 19:03:31 -0500
Subject: [arbcom-l] Requesting to see the evidence on me
In-Reply-To: <45BDF6EA-5311-4816-822E-54327CD3696F@yahoo.co.uk>
References: <45BDF6EA-5311-4816-822E-54327CD3696F@yahoo.co.uk>
Message-ID: <AANLkTi=O+YDO+xwB6bzVaninRwr7xuCEbiozZ0=77Jcv@mail.gmail.com>

<list only>

Recommend we ignore as previously discussed.

KL

On Thu, Dec 16, 2010 at 6:19 PM, Sophie Johnson <sophiejohnson97 at yahoo.co.uk
> wrote:

> Can I see what evidence you have on me please?
-----------
From kirill.lokshin at gmail.com Fri Dec 17 02:00:56 2010
From: kirill.lokshin at gmail.com (Kirill Lokshin)
Date: Thu, 16 Dec 2010 21:00:56 -0500
Subject: [arbcom-l] Requesting to see the evidence on me
In-Reply-To: <AANLkTi=O+YDO+xwB6bzVaninRwr7xuCEbiozZ0=77Jcv@mail.gmail.com>
References: <45BDF6EA-5311-4816-822E-54327CD3696F@yahoo.co.uk>
<AANLkTi=O+YDO+xwB6bzVaninRwr7xuCEbiozZ0=77Jcv@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <AANLkTimq2zjAKQmmBAQLJ6OEa-LzXBi6grWfnt55Dawb@mail.gmail.com>

Works for me.

Kirill

On Thu, Dec 16, 2010 at 7:03 PM, KnightLago <KnightLago at gmail.com> wrote:

> <list only>
>
> Recommend we ignore as previously discussed.
>
> KL

From dahowe at bsugmail.net Sat Jan 1 00:28:06 2011
From: dahowe at bsugmail.net (Dustin Howe)
Date: Fri, 31 Dec 2010 20:28:06 -0400
Subject: [arbcom-l] Sophie
Message-ID: <AANLkTim2MmAUiKeDGZ=Nvehcjsz-SZd1UP4SRmdVFqdi@mail.gmail.com>

I have been requested to contact ArbCom via difficulties that I've been
having issues with [[User:Sophie]] off of en.wiki and information I have
obtained with CheckUser data I have collected from my website.

How can I help ArbCom?

--
--
Thank You,

Dusti Howe

This message and it's attachments may contain confidential information that
is intended only for the individual named. If you are not the named
addressee you should not disseminate, distribute or copy this e-mail. Please
notify the sender immediately by e-mail if you have received this e-mail by
mistake and delete this e-mail from your system. E-mail transmission cannot
be guaranteed to be secure or error-free as information could be
intercepted, corrupted, lost, destroyed, arrive late or incomplete, or
contain viruses. The sender therefore does not accept liability for any
errors or omissions in the contents of this message, which arise as a result
of e-mail transmission.
----------
From chasemewiki at gmail.com Sat Jan 1 00:49:16 2011
From: chasemewiki at gmail.com (Chase Me)
Date: Sat, 1 Jan 2011 00:49:16 +0000
Subject: [arbcom-l] Sophie
In-Reply-To: <AANLkTim2MmAUiKeDGZ=Nvehcjsz-SZd1UP4SRmdVFqdi@mail.gmail.com>
References: <AANLkTim2MmAUiKeDGZ=Nvehcjsz-SZd1UP4SRmdVFqdi@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <AANLkTin2Ni2xCEE_ENrsFdFd7zyGYzGqUH+eRGt24idN@mail.gmail.com>

Dear Dusti,

This is to acknowledge receipt of your message, the contents of which have
been circulated to the committee for consideration. Could you go into
further detail regarding the difficulties?

Kind regards,

Chase me ladies, I'm the Cavalry

On Sat, Jan 1, 2011 at 12:28 AM, Dustin Howe <dahowe at bsugmail.net> wrote:

> I have been requested to contact ArbCom via difficulties that
----------
From KnightLago at gmail.com Sat Jan 1 01:17:46 2011
From: KnightLago at gmail.com (KnightLago)
Date: Fri, 31 Dec 2010 20:17:46 -0500
Subject: [arbcom-l] Sophie
In-Reply-To: <AANLkTintJpzcbxeZvCpfqNeLe-7ngpmykqZBkTyw1omM@mail.gmail.com>
References: <AANLkTim2MmAUiKeDGZ=Nvehcjsz-SZd1UP4SRmdVFqdi@mail.gmail.com>
<AANLkTintJpzcbxeZvCpfqNeLe-7ngpmykqZBkTyw1omM@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <AANLkTinXM4BH5UjzUxh4sD-QSc7KThzZNJkyV1mcnSno@mail.gmail.com>

<list only>

Why even bother asking? This email is highly suspicious to start, we can't
give him any information, don't want to make any accusations, and we do not
want to engage in a dialogue with anyone regarding this user anyway.

KL

On Fri, Dec 31, 2010 at 7:51 PM, Chase Me <chasemewiki at gmail.com> wrote:

> Dear Dusti,
>
> This is to acknowledge receipt of your message, the contents of which have
-----------
From chasemewiki at gmail.com Sat Jan 1 01:26:00 2011
From: chasemewiki at gmail.com (Chase Me)
Date: Sat, 1 Jan 2011 01:26:00 +0000
Subject: [arbcom-l] Sophie
In-Reply-To: <AANLkTinXM4BH5UjzUxh4sD-QSc7KThzZNJkyV1mcnSno@mail.gmail.com>
References: <AANLkTim2MmAUiKeDGZ=Nvehcjsz-SZd1UP4SRmdVFqdi@mail.gmail.com>
<AANLkTintJpzcbxeZvCpfqNeLe-7ngpmykqZBkTyw1omM@mail.gmail.com>
<AANLkTinXM4BH5UjzUxh4sD-QSc7KThzZNJkyV1mcnSno@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <AANLkTikXp6Erqgwk+JqgCwkLgJ946DSA+y5ORLJao7aL@mail.gmail.com>

I've been told on IRC that this is about Sophie is harassing a user and
calling users paedophiles. Not sure if it's in our remit but it can't hurt
to find out more...

On Sat, Jan 1, 2011 at 1:17 AM, KnightLago <KnightLago at gmail.com> wrote:

> <list only>
>
> Why even bother asking? This email is highly suspicious to start, we can't
-----------
From chasemewiki at gmail.com Sat Jan 1 01:27:25 2011
From: chasemewiki at gmail.com (Chase Me)
Date: Sat, 1 Jan 2011 01:27:25 +0000
Subject: [arbcom-l] Sophie
In-Reply-To: <AANLkTikXp6Erqgwk+JqgCwkLgJ946DSA+y5ORLJao7aL@mail.gmail.com>
References: <AANLkTim2MmAUiKeDGZ=Nvehcjsz-SZd1UP4SRmdVFqdi@mail.gmail.com>
<AANLkTintJpzcbxeZvCpfqNeLe-7ngpmykqZBkTyw1omM@mail.gmail.com>
<AANLkTinXM4BH5UjzUxh4sD-QSc7KThzZNJkyV1mcnSno@mail.gmail.com>
<AANLkTikXp6Erqgwk+JqgCwkLgJ946DSA+y5ORLJao7aL@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <AANLkTimpC-fwMx_e79KOARW52iusM7h89G3_qHrqn=k9@mail.gmail.com>

* *I should clarify: I've been told on IRC that this is about Sophie is
harassing a user and calling users paedophiles on en-wiki and on Wikimedia
IRC channels

On Sat, Jan 1, 2011 at 1:26 AM, Chase Me <chasemewiki at gmail.com> wrote:

> I've been told on IRC that this is about Sophie is harassing a user and
----------
From KnightLago at gmail.com Sat Jan 1 01:30:47 2011
From: KnightLago at gmail.com (KnightLago)
Date: Fri, 31 Dec 2010 20:30:47 -0500
Subject: [arbcom-l] Sophie
In-Reply-To: <AANLkTimpC-fwMx_e79KOARW52iusM7h89G3_qHrqn=k9@mail.gmail.com>
References: <AANLkTim2MmAUiKeDGZ=Nvehcjsz-SZd1UP4SRmdVFqdi@mail.gmail.com>
<AANLkTintJpzcbxeZvCpfqNeLe-7ngpmykqZBkTyw1omM@mail.gmail.com>
<AANLkTinXM4BH5UjzUxh4sD-QSc7KThzZNJkyV1mcnSno@mail.gmail.com>
<AANLkTikXp6Erqgwk+JqgCwkLgJ946DSA+y5ORLJao7aL@mail.gmail.com>
<AANLkTimpC-fwMx_e79KOARW52iusM7h89G3_qHrqn=k9@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <AANLkTimcqRcTc0tOV0zGDMUyP=42gx0wv9-VKKYr2nX1@mail.gmail.com>

Well, I would advise caution in dealing with anything regarding the Sophie
situation. We have felt all along there is something not quite right with
the user, and we have had a number of suspicious inquires about her. As for
IRC, there is not much for us to do there. I would suggest finding a channel
op and having her kicked out. Dustin also emailed AUSC asking for
information on Sophie. I just told him AUSC is not tasked with providing
information and informed him we, AUSC, couldn't help him.

KL

On Fri, Dec 31, 2010 at 8:27 PM, Chase Me <chasemewiki at gmail.com> wrote:

> * *I should clarify: I've been told on IRC that this is about Sophie is
-----------
From chasemewiki at gmail.com Sat Jan 1 03:55:20 2011
From: chasemewiki at gmail.com (Chase Me)
Date: Sat, 1 Jan 2011 03:55:20 +0000
Subject: [arbcom-l] Sophie
In-Reply-To: <AANLkTimcqRcTc0tOV0zGDMUyP=42gx0wv9-VKKYr2nX1@mail.gmail.com>
References: <AANLkTim2MmAUiKeDGZ=Nvehcjsz-SZd1UP4SRmdVFqdi@mail.gmail.com>
<AANLkTintJpzcbxeZvCpfqNeLe-7ngpmykqZBkTyw1omM@mail.gmail.com>
<AANLkTinXM4BH5UjzUxh4sD-QSc7KThzZNJkyV1mcnSno@mail.gmail.com>
<AANLkTikXp6Erqgwk+JqgCwkLgJ946DSA+y5ORLJao7aL@mail.gmail.com>
<AANLkTimpC-fwMx_e79KOARW52iusM7h89G3_qHrqn=k9@mail.gmail.com>
<AANLkTimcqRcTc0tOV0zGDMUyP=42gx0wv9-VKKYr2nX1@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <AANLkTike4zu3PdK7=w1Pi114aK1a+WbYS2OukWCwGL-K@mail.gmail.com>

Right, I've had a chat - an extremely guarded chat - on IRC, with Dustin.
I've not told him anything regarding the information we have. He's got CU on
an external wiki: that of 'TechEssentials', I believe. He wanted to know if
we were aware of the following:
Dusti <irc://freenode/Dusti,isnick>>1. The account comes from a collage IP
<Dusti <irc://freenode/Dusti,isnick>>2. Sophie has claimed that she is in
witness protection by the UK government (which, why would someone claim they
are in Witness Protection if they are... are you prevented from saying so?)
<Dusti <irc://freenode/Dusti,isnick>>3. Sophie has presented photo
identification to TechEssentials which has turned out to be fraudulent (it's
a copyrighted picture)
<Dusti <irc://freenode/Dusti,isnick>>4. In the beginning stages of
WikiMissing.org child pornography was placed on the site.
<Dusti <irc://freenode/Dusti,isnick>>Are these some of the reasons for the
block?
He was especially interested in knowing if there was "evidence beyond
suspicion" I followed the standard navy response: 'Security means I can't
answer your questions or tell you what we do or do not know' line, and told
him my (unobjectionable and vague) opinion: that if he believes a child is
involved, he should investigate as much as possible and contact the
authorities if he believes it necessary. My words were, "always investigate
to the fullest you can, then draw your conclusions based on that. If you're
concerned that something possibly illegal is going on, get in touch with the
authorities". He seemed satisfied with that, but I think it's important that
we keep an eye on any of these requests. It's worrying that there've been so
many. The Sophie case was weird enough without this nonsense carrying on.

In short: keep an eye out for people asking questions about this, and follow
the standard 'I can't tell you what to do or what we know" line. Loose lips
sink ships.

Chase

On Sat, Jan 1, 2011 at 1:30 AM, KnightLago <KnightLago at gmail.com> wrote:

> Well, I would advise caution in dealing with anything regarding the Sophie
------------
From chasemewiki at gmail.com Sat Jan 1 03:59:48 2011
From: chasemewiki at gmail.com (Chase Me)
Date: Sat, 1 Jan 2011 03:59:48 +0000
Subject: [arbcom-l] Sophie
In-Reply-To: <AANLkTim2MmAUiKeDGZ=Nvehcjsz-SZd1UP4SRmdVFqdi@mail.gmail.com>
References: <AANLkTim2MmAUiKeDGZ=Nvehcjsz-SZd1UP4SRmdVFqdi@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <AANLkTinq8c=oPrO3yTamaQ+v7HezxNnng5x9sJ+CdJYv@mail.gmail.com>

Dear Dustin,

Following our private discussion, I believe the matter has been addressed.
We can't involve ourselves with off-en.wikipedia.org sites, nor can we
discuss our evidence or advise you on what to do on you own site. This is
the same for every user of Wikipedia: we're all bound by the same privacy
policy. Nevertheless, thank you for the email, and best of luck in your
future endeavours.

Kind regards,

Chase me ladies, I'm the Cavalry

On Sat, Jan 1, 2011 at 12:28 AM, Dustin Howe <dahowe at bsugmail.net> wrote:

> I have been requested to contact ArbCom via difficulties that I've been
-----------
From User.CoolHandLuke at gmail.com Sat Jan 1 05:02:35 2011
From: User.CoolHandLuke at gmail.com (Cool Hand Luke)
Date: Sat, 1 Jan 2011 00:02:35 -0500
Subject: [arbcom-l] Sophie
In-Reply-To: <AANLkTike4zu3PdK7=w1Pi114aK1a+WbYS2OukWCwGL-K@mail.gmail.com>
References: <AANLkTim2MmAUiKeDGZ=Nvehcjsz-SZd1UP4SRmdVFqdi@mail.gmail.com>
<AANLkTintJpzcbxeZvCpfqNeLe-7ngpmykqZBkTyw1omM@mail.gmail.com>
<AANLkTinXM4BH5UjzUxh4sD-QSc7KThzZNJkyV1mcnSno@mail.gmail.com>
<AANLkTikXp6Erqgwk+JqgCwkLgJ946DSA+y5ORLJao7aL@mail.gmail.com>
<AANLkTimpC-fwMx_e79KOARW52iusM7h89G3_qHrqn=k9@mail.gmail.com>
<AANLkTimcqRcTc0tOV0zGDMUyP=42gx0wv9-VKKYr2nX1@mail.gmail.com>
<AANLkTike4zu3PdK7=w1Pi114aK1a+WbYS2OukWCwGL-K@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <AANLkTimFbuu72MCUYRbLY4kh4xpOWha61FFJ=7inhZ8B@mail.gmail.com>

On Fri, Dec 31, 2010 at 10:55 PM, Chase Me <chasemewiki at gmail.com> wrote:

> Right, I've had a chat - an extremely guarded chat - on IRC, with Dustin.
> I've not told him anything regarding the information we have. He's got CU on
> an external wiki: that of 'TechEssentials', I believe. He wanted to know if
> we were aware of the following:
> Dusti>1. The account comes from a collage IP
> <Dusti> 2. Sophie has claimed that she is in witness protection by the UK
> government (which, why would someone claim they are in Witness Protection if
> they are... are you prevented from saying so?)
> <Dusti> 3. Sophie has presented photo identification to TechEssentials
> which has turned out to be fraudulent (it's a copyrighted picture)
> <Dusti> 4. In the beginning stages of WikiMissing.org child pornography
> was placed on the site.
> <Dusti> Are these some of the reasons for the block?
> He was especially interested in knowing if there was "evidence beyond
> suspicion" I followed the standard navy response: 'Security means I can't
> answer your questions or tell you what we do or do not know' line, and told
> him my (unobjectionable and vague) opinion: that if he believes a child is
> involved, he should investigate as much as possible and contact the
> authorities if he believes it necessary. My words were, "always
> investigate to the fullest you can, then draw your conclusions based on
> that. If you're concerned that something possibly illegal is going on, get
> in touch with the authorities". He seemed satisfied with that, but I think
> it's important that we keep an eye on any of these requests. It's worrying
> that there've been so many. The Sophie case was weird enough without this
> nonsense carrying on.
>
> In short: keep an eye out for people asking questions about this, and
> follow the standard 'I can't tell you what to do or what we know" line.
> Loose lips sink ships.
>
> Chase
>
>
>

Is this guy User:AndrewN, who made this comment, which I found inexplicable?

You can confirm what findings from CU Hersfold? That she has multiple
accounts and probably edited from school a time or 2? This is beginning to
look more and more like Risker
<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Risker>made a block because someone
pissed her off, and now she is trying to get
Check Users to lie to cover her ass. I've looked *(I have seen CU results
from other wikis she operates on, nothing alarming)*, and I see no viable
reason for this to have been a ban, let alone to have ArbCom involved. If
I'm not mistaken, aren't users supposed to be notified when ArbCom
investigates them, or when a CU looks in to them? Someone care to provide
the diffs to those notifications, or were they never made? I thought this
was Wikipedia, not Nazi Germany, because Arbcom is starting to look like the
3rd Reich. (Go ahead, block me for that Risker. It'll REALLY help your case
here.) *AndrewN <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:AndrewN>
talk<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:AndrewN>
* 01:31, 3 December 2010 (UTC)

(emphasis added)

If so, this person isn't the sharpest tool in the shed, but it's encouraging
that Sophie's supporters are getting a clue one-by-one. We're aware of #1
and #4, and the others fit the pattern of this non-credible Sophie account.
I don't think any of it is worth explaining. Stick a fork in it.

Frank
----------
From User.CoolHandLuke at gmail.com Sat Jan 1 05:12:22 2011
From: User.CoolHandLuke at gmail.com (Cool Hand Luke)
Date: Sat, 1 Jan 2011 00:12:22 -0500
Subject: [arbcom-l] Sophie
In-Reply-To: <AANLkTimFbuu72MCUYRbLY4kh4xpOWha61FFJ=7inhZ8B@mail.gmail.com>
References: <AANLkTim2MmAUiKeDGZ=Nvehcjsz-SZd1UP4SRmdVFqdi@mail.gmail.com>
<AANLkTintJpzcbxeZvCpfqNeLe-7ngpmykqZBkTyw1omM@mail.gmail.com>
<AANLkTinXM4BH5UjzUxh4sD-QSc7KThzZNJkyV1mcnSno@mail.gmail.com>
<AANLkTikXp6Erqgwk+JqgCwkLgJ946DSA+y5ORLJao7aL@mail.gmail.com>
<AANLkTimpC-fwMx_e79KOARW52iusM7h89G3_qHrqn=k9@mail.gmail.com>
<AANLkTimcqRcTc0tOV0zGDMUyP=42gx0wv9-VKKYr2nX1@mail.gmail.com>
<AANLkTike4zu3PdK7=w1Pi114aK1a+WbYS2OukWCwGL-K@mail.gmail.com>
<AANLkTimFbuu72MCUYRbLY4kh4xpOWha61FFJ=7inhZ8B@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <AANLkTim0PQVZBmQ-M-WB42fi3b=BAsewj4rpbi4RhVVe@mail.gmail.com>

No, it seems that he's User:Dusti, a separate account on that Wiki.
http://www.techessentials.org/wiki/Special:ActiveUsers

Basically the same crew there as on the Wiki-missing site. If I were more
conspiratorial, I would start to imagine that these Sophie associates are an
even more elaborate setup, but perhaps I under-estimate the social
networking aspects of this media. I've never had a wiki crew myself...
*hmpf*

Anyhow, I'm not even slightly curious. If it's a game, we shouldn't play
it, and there's zero chance "Sophie" is getting unblocked in any event.

Frank
-----------
From shell.kinney at gmail.com Sun Jan 2 02:08:00 2011
From: shell.kinney at gmail.com (Michelle Kinney)
Date: Sat, 1 Jan 2011 21:08:00 -0500
Subject: [arbcom-l] Sophie
In-Reply-To: <AANLkTim0PQVZBmQ-M-WB42fi3b=BAsewj4rpbi4RhVVe@mail.gmail.com>
References: <AANLkTim2MmAUiKeDGZ=Nvehcjsz-SZd1UP4SRmdVFqdi@mail.gmail.com>
<AANLkTintJpzcbxeZvCpfqNeLe-7ngpmykqZBkTyw1omM@mail.gmail.com>
<AANLkTinXM4BH5UjzUxh4sD-QSc7KThzZNJkyV1mcnSno@mail.gmail.com>
<AANLkTikXp6Erqgwk+JqgCwkLgJ946DSA+y5ORLJao7aL@mail.gmail.com>
<AANLkTimpC-fwMx_e79KOARW52iusM7h89G3_qHrqn=k9@mail.gmail.com>
<AANLkTimcqRcTc0tOV0zGDMUyP=42gx0wv9-VKKYr2nX1@mail.gmail.com>
<AANLkTike4zu3PdK7=w1Pi114aK1a+WbYS2OukWCwGL-K@mail.gmail.com>
<AANLkTimFbuu72MCUYRbLY4kh4xpOWha61FFJ=7inhZ8B@mail.gmail.com>
<AANLkTim0PQVZBmQ-M-WB42fi3b=BAsewj4rpbi4RhVVe@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <AANLkTim-UskxSS2MuBrBqpZOxOBtQY_sTv_-vi4cap2m@mail.gmail.com>

FYI - TechEssentials seems to be playing both sides of things here:

[20:59] <Shell|recovering> lol - What's up?
[21:00] <Addihockey10> SophJ...
[21:00] <Shell|recovering> Ahh
[21:00] <Shell|recovering> What happened?
[21:00] <Addihockey10> TechEssentials tells me they have information that
she is not a threat
[21:01] <Addihockey10> Do you guys have indisputable evidence she is?
[21:02] <Addihockey10> you guys as in ArbCom.
[21:02] <Shell|recovering> Did someone from TechEssentials contact you
directly?
[21:02] <Addihockey10> Dusti
[21:04] <Addihockey10> What is your advice?
[21:04] <Addihockey10> Resign from TE?
[21:05] <Shell|recovering> I can't tell you what to do with other websites,
but the whole thing just seems a bit strange to me.

Shell Kinney

On Sat, Jan 1, 2011 at 00:12, Cool Hand Luke <User.CoolHandLuke at gmail.com>wrote:

> No, it seems that he's User:Dusti, a separate account on that Wiki.
----------
From fridaesdoom at gmail.com Mon Jan 31 01:45:50 2011
From: fridaesdoom at gmail.com (James Lu)
Date: Mon, 31 Jan 2011 12:45:50 +1100
Subject: [arbcom-l] Fwd: Sophie
In-Reply-To: <4D1D489D.7050202@gmail.com>
References: <E1PYTEG-0007Km-TL@srv159.pmtpa.wmnet> <4D1D489D.7050202@gmail.com>
Message-ID: <AANLkTike6k89ihur13o60ngseCdbofQ9=Ld6Dmr2N1L8@mail.gmail.com>

Sophie is usually on the #techessentials channel, she has been active daily
for the last couple of weeks, she uses an unaffiliated cloak most of the
time though she will be getting a new cloak, having been a donator.
I'm not sure what to do about this.
---------- Forwarded message ----------
From: Hersfold <hersfoldwiki at gmail.com>
Date: Fri, Dec 31, 2010 at 2:06 PM
Subject: Re: Sophie
To: Ancient Apparition <fridaesdoom at gmail.com>


I'm not on ArbCom - you may want to forward this to them at
arbcom-l at lists.wikimedia.org . Keep in mind, though, Wikipedia bans do not
extend to IRC.

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


On 12/30/2010 7:52 PM, Ancient Apparition wrote:

> =-= Topic for #wikipedia-en-abuse is ?English Wikipedia Abuse Response
> Team | Help define Wikipedia's counter-abuse strategy:
> http://enwp.org/WP:WCSI | Reminder to Members, please look at cases
> needing investigation.?
> =-= Topic for #wikipedia-en-abuse was set by
> DQ[around|afk]!~chatzilla at wikipedia/DeltaQuad on Monday, 20 December 2010
> 6:34:13 AM
> [11:21] =-= Mode #wikipedia-en-abuse +v FridaesDoom by ChanServ
> [11:36] -->| Sophiie (4e90dc3a at gateway/web/freenode/ip.78.144.220.58)
> has joined #wikipedia-en-abuse
> <Sophiie> does netalarm come in here?
> [11:37] <DQ[around|afk]> yep, but he isn't on
> <Sophiie> i know, ill wait till he comes
> [11:38] <DQ[around|afk]> he might not be back tonight, not sure
> [11:47] <FridaesDoom> Sophiie..... you shouldn't be on IRC...
> [11:48] <Sophiie> why not? some other bull crap excuse? (sorry for my
> language but arbcom stuff are peeing me off)
> <FridaesDoom> :S
> <Sophiie> ok, carmly, why shouldnt i be on IRC?
> [11:49] <FridaesDoom> you'll cause more drama for yourself
> <Sophiie> arbcom caused drama for me
>
> I just thought you might like to know.
>
>


--
-Ancient Apparition
(http://enwp.org/User:Ancient_Apparition<http://enwp.org/User:Fridae%27sDoom>
----------
From chasemewiki at gmail.com Mon Jan 31 02:58:39 2011
From: chasemewiki at gmail.com (Chase Me)
Date: Mon, 31 Jan 2011 02:58:39 +0000
Subject: [arbcom-l] Fwd: Sophie
In-Reply-To: <AANLkTike6k89ihur13o60ngseCdbofQ9=Ld6Dmr2N1L8@mail.gmail.com>
References: <E1PYTEG-0007Km-TL@srv159.pmtpa.wmnet> <4D1D489D.7050202@gmail.com>
<AANLkTike6k89ihur13o60ngseCdbofQ9=Ld6Dmr2N1L8@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <AANLkTik0m3KYYX2EbojdyKF+=TrgLxRUMh8twrUrtosH@mail.gmail.com>

James,

Thanks for the email - it's useful when we get information like this, as it
helps us keep track of banned users. I doubt, however, that we can help.

We'll deal with any issues that crop up on-wiki, but IRC is not technically
in our remit (it's not run by the WMF, but by individual Wikipedians) and it
would be seen as improper for us to get involved there. However, I would
advise you to make sure that the channel ops (particularly in channels such
as -en-abuse) are aware of Sophie's banned status on the English Wikipedia,
and be alert for any suspicious activity.

Unfortunately we cannot discuss the reasons for the block, but astute
Wikipedians will no doubt have formed their own concerns about Sophie's
edits.

Many thanks once again for the information.

Kind regards,

Richard Symonds

On Mon, Jan 31, 2011 at 1:45 AM, James Lu <fridaesdoom at gmail.com> wrote:

> Sophie is usually on the #techessentials channel, she has been active daily
----------
From chasemewiki at gmail.com Mon Jan 31 03:27:06 2011
From: chasemewiki at gmail.com (Chase Me)
Date: Mon, 31 Jan 2011 03:27:06 +0000
Subject: [arbcom-l] Fwd: Sophie
In-Reply-To: <000e0cd14e807fe791049b1bd3fb@google.com>
References: <000e0cd14e807fe791049b1bd3fb@google.com>
Message-ID: <AANLkTikYm5mOofUOmLi5Fpcv6=LvV9rS8dWPp8EDDKvx@mail.gmail.com>

For reference

On Mon, Jan 31, 2011 at 3:15 AM, <fridaesdoom at gmail.com> wrote:

> Ok, thanks for the response. The people in #techessentials seem to have no
> problem with Sophie, she does make spontaneous comments which are atypical
> for someone of her age. She isn't doing anything of suspicion at least not
> at the moment, I'll be sure to pass along more information and check my IRC
> logs for anything which may be of help.
>
> Thanks Richard!
>
> On , Chase Me <chasemewiki at gmail.com> wrote:
> > James,
> >
> > Thanks for the email - it's useful when we get information like this, as
-----------
From shell.kinney at gmail.com Mon Feb 28 07:33:21 2011
From: shell.kinney at gmail.com (Michelle Kinney)
Date: Mon, 28 Feb 2011 02:33:21 -0500
Subject: [arbcom-l] Members of TechEssentials Wiki on en.wp
Message-ID: <AANLkTin2X2sb+-NJDng5VxYUYBt_AmvuMr-eakt0swgS@mail.gmail.com>

I've had a number of, I guess I'd call them strange, interactions with
editors claiming to be from or administrators on TechEssentials. It
may be nothing, but on the off chance I'm not the only one or
something else does come up, I figured I'd share.

Those who were around for the discussions about Sophie may remember we
had some emails/IRC contacts from them during that time in which they
alternately claimed to agree completely with our findings and have
firm proof to that effect and later to completely disagree with our
findings and have firm proof to that effect. At the time, the emails
seemed a little like fishing for information and the contacts I've had
on IRC since then have led me further down that direction. Originally
they were fishing for information on Sophie - what we knew, how we
found it, would we share CU information - after they were firmly told
several times that we didn't share any of that kind of information,
the contacts ceased for a while. Recently they've started up again,
this time focusing on Addihockey10. In the most recent conversation,
Dusti, who claims to be an admin on TechEssentials contacted me
claiming that s/he was told that ArbCom wanted to speak with them.
After telling him I wasn't aware of any such request and asking for
more information, s/he told me they had an "informant" who told "them"
(whoever that is) that we were investigating Addihockey10. S/he then
went on to claim that Addihockey10 was banned from TechEssentials for
sexually harassing minors on the wiki and they wanted to do a joint CU
investigation but then went offline. Dusti had apparently forgotten
an earlier conversation where s/he complained that Addihockey10 (and
others) had left their wiki because they was upset TechEssentials had
"cleared" Sophie and unblocked her account(which jives with what I was
told at the time by Addihockey10 and another member of the site
JoeGazz). Finally, someone has now told a Functionary that
Addihockey10 was banned for creating sockpuppets.

I don't know that there's anything we need to do at this time
(Addihockey10's IPBE seems to fail on the merits anyways), but the
group of editors from that site are really setting off my spidey
senses.

Shell Kinney

The dumbass kids strike again. What twats. I only wish arbcom had dealt with this faster, however, the McCann connection and initial inquiry re Thesevenseas makes me think they were either working together or the same person.

Also, I don't envy arbcom here but I wish they would have acted to stifle the protests faster--they indicate the right mindset about child users, now would they please prevent the puerile stupidity from ruining their own lives?

I thought Joe gazz was a kid, too--or a pedo, too. His activity is a bit suspicious.

Looks to me like the delay here was caused by a group case of "WTF should we do with this?"... the arbs definitely look pretty good on this one (as opposed to the cases dealing with the regular cast of drama whores, where they don't come off as well).

This case is also a pretty good argument for why their archives are useful (to them), so perhaps the next time they'll be able to deal with it more quickly.

Funny though that they discuss (somewhere in there) how WR was useful, but that they didn't dare mention that WR was useful.

Besides Carcharoth's comment on the Nov. 9, it seems that the matter was not brought up again until Nov. 30. Risker blocked Sophie in the early hours of Dec. 1. Of course the post-block correspondence might have been handled better (as we can say in hindsight), but <12 hours of discussion before they decided to block is actually rather good.

That's very interesting, since I am Joe. I would appreciate not being called a Pedo, thank you very much. You don't know the whole real story, these are the opinions of ArbCom and that letter was sent after lengthy 20 hour discussion. I would appreciate you not jumping to accusations. Thanks

I would appreciate it if you, your stupidity, and your puerile ignorance ran the hell away from WR. Let's please not make this another place for obvious kids to hang out, like the joke that Wikipedia has become. Thanks