From: User.CoolHandLuke at gmail.com (Cool Hand Luke)
Date: Sat, 28 Nov 2009 18:48:45 -0600
Subject: [arbcom-l] David Gerard again - I move we remove his CU bit now
Message-ID: <8ec76cd10911281648qaca4d5dmf9b9b3eca5956cda@mail.gmail.com>
I hate to bring this up because it's circling Wikipedia Review, but I find
it even more troubling that Gerard's "joke" posts about Scientology, etc.
See:
http://davidgerard.co.uk/notes/2009/11/ ... e-of-skin/
Somebody posted a twitter message about about vandalism then on the page of
right-wing Australian bloger Andrew
Landeryou<http://twitter.com/jeamland/status/6096776618>.
In response, David Gerard
tweeted<http://twitter.com/davidgerard/status/6096819270>,
"mr landeryou has some history on wikipedia. (i did the sockpuppet
investigation.)" I think this troubling enough itself; it's unseemly for a
current checkuser to brag about catching somebody on Wikipedia, presumably
engaged in self-promotion. Andrew Landeryou sent Gerard an angry email
stating that Gerard should have talked to him before making the claim, then
adding a threat that Mr. Landeryou would investigate Gerard if he did it
again and it would be a "very unpleasant outcome for you, so I urge you to
Twit more carefully in future."
Gerard posts the whole thing, with headers, along with his original tweet.
Why does David Gerard still have checkuser? He used it a few weeks ago for
Amorrow, but prior to that had not used in eight months (and hardly any
checks for the last 17 months). I find Gerard's comments embarrassing to
Wikipedia and perhaps even chilling. Why would any notable person want to
edit Wikipedia when they know a loose cannon CU will publicly brag about
catching him or her later?
I move we remove his CU bit immediately. The rest (oversight, functionary
access), I don't feel so passionate about, but we have to send a signal to
the CU corp and the community that this crap is unacceptable.
Frank
----------
From marc at uberbox.org Sun Nov 29 00:57:14 2009
From: marc at uberbox.org (Marc A. Pelletier)
Date: Sat, 28 Nov 2009 19:57:14 -0500
Subject: [arbcom-l] David Gerard again - I move we remove his CU bit now
In-Reply-To: <8ec76cd10911281648qaca4d5dmf9b9b3eca5956cda@mail.gmail.com>
References: <8ec76cd10911281648qaca4d5dmf9b9b3eca5956cda@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <4B11C6EA.9060204@uberbox.org>
(cc'ed to Jimmy)
Cool Hand Luke wrote:
> I hate to bring this up because it's circling Wikipedia Review, but I
> find it even more troubling that Gerard's "joke" posts about
> Scientology, etc. See:
> http://davidgerard.co.uk/notes/2009/11/ ... e-of-skin/
Again?!
We need to show him the door. I'm sorry, but he's a liability for the
project(s) and his apparent status gives him the credibility to cause
real harm. It's a shame he's on so many rolodexes, but he still
blusters around as though he is speaking from the project when we are
consistently ashamed of his behavior.
He's had numerous chances before; we all tried several time to ask him
to tone his rhetoric down and he is unwilling or unable to. We need to
make it very clear that his behavior is unwelcome and unbecoming, and
that any pretension of speaking for the project is entirely illusory.
That he discusses his checkuser work is just the proverbial straw.
-- Coren / Marc
----------
From newyorkbrad at gmail.com Sun Nov 29 01:04:05 2009
From: newyorkbrad at gmail.com (Newyorkbrad (Wikipedia))
Date: Sat, 28 Nov 2009 20:04:05 -0500
Subject: [arbcom-l] David Gerard again - I move we remove his CU bit now
In-Reply-To: <4B11C6EA.9060204@uberbox.org>
References: <8ec76cd10911281648qaca4d5dmf9b9b3eca5956cda@mail.gmail.com>
<4B11C6EA.9060204@uberbox.org>
Message-ID: <c52819d30911281704n6215ab76s3f6227c22a658768@mail.gmail.com>
I'm also remarkably unimpressed by his posting the e-mail with the routing
information.
However, we probably do need to let him know we're considering action before
we finalize anything.
Newyorkbrad
On Sat, Nov 28, 2009 at 7:57 PM, Marc A. Pelletier <marc at uberbox.org> wrote:
> (cc'ed to Jimmy)
>
> Cool Hand Luke wrote:
> > I hate to bring this up because it's circling Wikipedia Review, but I
----------
From rlevse at cox.net Sun Nov 29 01:04:56 2009
From: rlevse at cox.net (rlevse at cox.net)
Date: Sat, 28 Nov 2009 20:04:56 -0500
Subject: [arbcom-l] David Gerard again - I move we remove his CU bit now
In-Reply-To: <4B11C6EA.9060204@uberbox.org>
Message-ID: <20091128200456.OOE5F.332690.imail@eastrmwml41>
Totally agree. See my posts from 6 months ago.
R
----------
From wizardmanwiki at gmail.com Sun Nov 29 01:05:32 2009
From: wizardmanwiki at gmail.com (Wizardman)
Date: Sat, 28 Nov 2009 20:05:32 -0500
Subject: [arbcom-l] David Gerard again - I move we remove his CU bit now
In-Reply-To: <20091128200456.OOE5F.332690.imail@eastrmwml41>
References: <4B11C6EA.9060204@uberbox.org>
<20091128200456.OOE5F.332690.imail@eastrmwml41>
Message-ID: <ef59f700911281705p4b170d14p60de903693645a4a@mail.gmail.com>
I third it.
~W
On Sat, Nov 28, 2009 at 8:04 PM, <rlevse at cox.net> wrote:
> Totally agree. See my posts from 6 months ago.
>
> R
----------
From marc at uberbox.org Sun Nov 29 01:13:13 2009
From: marc at uberbox.org (Marc A. Pelletier)
Date: Sat, 28 Nov 2009 20:13:13 -0500
Subject: [arbcom-l] David Gerard again - I move we remove his CU bit now
In-Reply-To: <ef59f700911281705p4b170d14p60de903693645a4a@mail.gmail.com>
References: <4B11C6EA.9060204@uberbox.org>
<20091128200456.OOE5F.332690.imail@eastrmwml41>
<ef59f700911281705p4b170d14p60de903693645a4a@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <4B11CAA9.1040109@uberbox.org>
Wizardman wrote:
> I third it.
> ~W
Money -> Mouth.
http://arbcom.en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dis ... vid_Gerard
-- Coren / Marc
----------
From jayvdb at gmail.com Sun Nov 29 01:21:10 2009
From: jayvdb at gmail.com (John Vandenberg)
Date: Sun, 29 Nov 2009 12:21:10 +1100
Subject: [arbcom-l] David Gerard again - I move we remove his CU bit now
In-Reply-To: <c52819d30911281704n6215ab76s3f6227c22a658768@mail.gmail.com>
References: <8ec76cd10911281648qaca4d5dmf9b9b3eca5956cda@mail.gmail.com>
<4B11C6EA.9060204@uberbox.org>
<c52819d30911281704n6215ab76s3f6227c22a658768@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <deea21830911281721p6d625b04qb25e1da557dd601f@mail.gmail.com>
On Sun, Nov 29, 2009 at 12:04 PM, Newyorkbrad (Wikipedia)
<newyorkbrad at gmail.com> wrote:
> I'm also remarkably unimpressed by his posting the e-mail with the routing
> information.
The routing information only gives details about Google.
As far as I can see, the only private information is the email
address, the timezone, and the contents of the email.
This is cyber-gonzo encyclopedia writing.
> However, we probably do need to let him know we're considering action before
> we finalize anything.
We have a process. We should follow it.
Coren has started a vote on the arbcom wiki.
--
John Vandenberg
----------
From newyorkbrad at gmail.com Sun Nov 29 01:23:25 2009
From: newyorkbrad at gmail.com (Newyorkbrad (Wikipedia))
Date: Sat, 28 Nov 2009 20:23:25 -0500
Subject: [arbcom-l] David Gerard again - I move we remove his CU bit now
In-Reply-To: <deea21830911281721p6d625b04qb25e1da557dd601f@mail.gmail.com>
References: <8ec76cd10911281648qaca4d5dmf9b9b3eca5956cda@mail.gmail.com>
<4B11C6EA.9060204@uberbox.org>
<c52819d30911281704n6215ab76s3f6227c22a658768@mail.gmail.com>
<deea21830911281721p6d625b04qb25e1da557dd601f@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <c52819d30911281723y3a10e3bp384f965205a7b307@mail.gmail.com>
Does the process include telling the person we're considering sanctioning
that we are considering sanctioning him?
Newyorkbrad
----------
From: marc at uberbox.org (Marc A. Pelletier)
Date: Sat, 28 Nov 2009 20:27:47 -0500
Subject: [arbcom-l] David Gerard again - I move we remove his CU bit now
In-Reply-To: <c52819d30911281723y3a10e3bp384f965205a7b307@mail.gmail.com>
References: <8ec76cd10911281648qaca4d5dmf9b9b3eca5956cda@mail.gmail.com>
<4B11C6EA.9060204@uberbox.org>
<c52819d30911281704n6215ab76s3f6227c22a658768@mail.gmail.com>
<deea21830911281721p6d625b04qb25e1da557dd601f@mail.gmail.com>
<c52819d30911281723y3a10e3bp384f965205a7b307@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <4B11CE13.4040202@uberbox.org>
Newyorkbrad (Wikipedia) wrote:
> Does the process include telling the person we're considering
> sanctioning that we are considering sanctioning him?
>
Not officially, and the drama is probably not worth it. But really,
Brad, we've been spending the year telling him that he needs to tone it
down several notches, and Carc has complained officially about him (with
him being copied) in the past.
He's been warned -- repeatedly.
-- Coren / Marc
----------
From jayvdb at gmail.com Sun Nov 29 01:27:59 2009
From: jayvdb at gmail.com (John Vandenberg)
Date: Sun, 29 Nov 2009 12:27:59 +1100
Subject: [arbcom-l] [[Andrew Landeryou]]
Message-ID: <deea21830911281727j3e3f75cr22a5b43dfe4445f0@mail.gmail.com>
subject was: Re: [arbcom-l] David Gerard again - I move we remove his CU bit now
On Sun, Nov 29, 2009 at 11:48 AM, Cool Hand Luke
<User.CoolHandLuke at gmail.com> wrote:
> I hate to bring this up because it's circling Wikipedia Review, but I find
> it even more troubling that Gerard's "joke" posts about Scientology, etc.
> See:
> http://davidgerard.co.uk/notes/2009/11/ ... e-of-skin/
>
> Somebody posted a twitter message about about vandalism then on the page of
> right-wing Australian bloger Andrew Landeryou.? In response, David Gerard
> tweeted, "mr landeryou has some history on wikipedia. (i did the sockpuppet
> investigation.)"? I think this troubling enough itself; it's unseemly for a
> current checkuser to brag about catching somebody on Wikipedia, presumably
> engaged in self-promotion.? Andrew Landeryou sent Gerard an angry email
> stating that Gerard should have talked to him before making the claim, then
> adding a threat that Mr. Landeryou would investigate Gerard if he did it
> again and it would be a "very unpleasant outcome for you, so I urge you to
> Twit more carefully in future."
>
> Gerard posts the whole thing, with headers, along with his original tweet.
The BLP was prodded by 99.35.128.68 a day ago with e/s "not the
Premier of the USSR; prod"
https://secure.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/ ... =327069534
In addition to dealing with David Gerard, we need to monitor the
content aspect as it will likely be used as a weapon by one or more
camps.
It would be good to find out what checkuser David actually performed,
what actions were taken, etc.
--
John Vandenberg
----------
From rlevse at cox.net Sun Nov 29 01:29:29 2009
From: rlevse at cox.net (rlevse at cox.net)
Date: Sat, 28 Nov 2009 20:29:29 -0500
Subject: [arbcom-l] David Gerard again - I move we remove his CU bit now
In-Reply-To: <4B11CE13.4040202@uberbox.org>
Message-ID: <20091128202930.WXKDM.332877.imail@eastrmwml41>
That's an understatement. Time's up.
R
---- "Marc A. Pelletier" <marc at uberbox.org> wrote:
> Newyorkbrad (Wikipedia) wrote:
> > Does the process include telling the person we're considering
> > sanctioning that we are considering sanctioning him?
> >
>
> Not officially, and the drama is probably not worth it. But really,
> Brad, we've been spending the year telling him that he needs to tone it
> down several notches, and Carc has complained officially about him (with
> him being copied) in the past.
>
> He's been warned -- repeatedly.
>
> -- Coren / Marc
----------
From risker.wp at gmail.com Sun Nov 29 01:31:00 2009
From: risker.wp at gmail.com (Risker)
Date: Sun, 29 Nov 2009 01:31:00 +0000
Subject: [arbcom-l] David Gerard again - I move we remove his CU bit now
In-Reply-To: <20091128202930.WXKDM.332877.imail@eastrmwml41>
References: <4B11CE13.4040202@uberbox.org>
<20091128202930.WXKDM.332877.imail@eastrmwml41>
Message-ID: <eb45e7c0911281731n3df699e6p9d8765f40859989a@mail.gmail.com>
John's started a separate thread about this and the article about Andrew
Landeryou, in which he asks about David's self-reported checkusering
involving the subject of the article.
I can't see anything obvious based on edit summaries or usernames, but it
isn't anything that has been done in the past year.
Anne
----------
From marc at uberbox.org Sun Nov 29 01:31:35 2009
From: marc at uberbox.org (Marc A. Pelletier)
Date: Sat, 28 Nov 2009 20:31:35 -0500
Subject: [arbcom-l] David Gerard again - I move we remove his CU bit now
In-Reply-To: <4B11CE13.4040202@uberbox.org>
References: <8ec76cd10911281648qaca4d5dmf9b9b3eca5956cda@mail.gmail.com>
<4B11C6EA.9060204@uberbox.org>
<c52819d30911281704n6215ab76s3f6227c22a658768@mail.gmail.com>
<deea21830911281721p6d625b04qb25e1da557dd601f@mail.gmail.com>
<c52819d30911281723y3a10e3bp384f965205a7b307@mail.gmail.com>
<4B11CE13.4040202@uberbox.org>
Message-ID: <4B11CEF7.6070705@uberbox.org>
Marc A. Pelletier wrote:
>
> He's been warned -- repeatedly.
>
Put another way, if he doesn't have enough judgment to realize that his
latest exploits would not lead to this despite the number of times his
off-wiki behavior has been raised, he doesn't have the judgment to hold
a position of trust in the first place.
-- Coren / Marc
----------
From jayvdb at gmail.com Sun Nov 29 01:31:37 2009
From: jayvdb at gmail.com (John Vandenberg)
Date: Sun, 29 Nov 2009 12:31:37 +1100
Subject: [arbcom-l] David Gerard again - I move we remove his CU bit now
In-Reply-To: <4B11CE13.4040202@uberbox.org>
References: <8ec76cd10911281648qaca4d5dmf9b9b3eca5956cda@mail.gmail.com>
<4B11C6EA.9060204@uberbox.org>
<c52819d30911281704n6215ab76s3f6227c22a658768@mail.gmail.com>
<deea21830911281721p6d625b04qb25e1da557dd601f@mail.gmail.com>
<c52819d30911281723y3a10e3bp384f965205a7b307@mail.gmail.com>
<4B11CE13.4040202@uberbox.org>
Message-ID: <deea21830911281731w4ee87713m252519517aaa59bc@mail.gmail.com>
On Sun, Nov 29, 2009 at 12:27 PM, Marc A. Pelletier <marc at uberbox.org> wrote:
> Newyorkbrad (Wikipedia) wrote:
>> Does the process include telling the person we're considering
>> sanctioning that we are considering sanctioning him?
Yes, that is required.
> Not officially, and the drama is probably not worth it. ?But really,
> Brad, we've been spending the year telling him that he needs to tone it
> down several notches, and Carc has complained officially about him (with
> him being copied) in the past.
>
> He's been warned -- repeatedly.
This is the procedure we agreed upon:
Level II procedures may be used if (a) the account's behaviour is
inconsistent with the level of trust required for its associated
advanced permissions, and (b) no satisfactory explanation is
forthcoming.
The procedure for removal of permissions is as follows:
1. The initiating arbitrator will (a) leave a message on the
account's talk page, asking the account to contact arbcom-l, and (b)
send a similar message to the account by Wikipedia e-mail, if enabled.
2. The initiating arbitrator will then send a message to arbcom-l
(a) stating the name of the account, (b) briefly describing the issue,
providing examples of inappropriate conduct, and © recommending
removal of permissions.
3. The Committee will then schedule deliberations on the matter.
4. A request for removal of advanced permissions may be made once a
motion to do so has been endorsed by a majority of active arbitrators.
5. Once temporary removal has been approved, an arbitrator will
post a notice, including the text of the motion and the names of
arbitrators endorsing it, to the Meta-Wiki permissions page, the
Committee's noticeboard, the administrators' noticeboard, and the
user's talk page.
<https://secure.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/wiki/Wikipedia:Arbitration_Committee/Procedures#Level_II_procedures>
--
John Vandenberg
----------
From marc at uberbox.org Sun Nov 29 01:33:36 2009
From: marc at uberbox.org (Marc A. Pelletier)
Date: Sat, 28 Nov 2009 20:33:36 -0500
Subject: [arbcom-l] David Gerard again - I move we remove his CU bit now
In-Reply-To: <deea21830911281731w4ee87713m252519517aaa59bc@mail.gmail.com>
References: <8ec76cd10911281648qaca4d5dmf9b9b3eca5956cda@mail.gmail.com>
<4B11C6EA.9060204@uberbox.org>
<c52819d30911281704n6215ab76s3f6227c22a658768@mail.gmail.com>
<deea21830911281721p6d625b04qb25e1da557dd601f@mail.gmail.com>
<c52819d30911281723y3a10e3bp384f965205a7b307@mail.gmail.com>
<4B11CE13.4040202@uberbox.org>
<deea21830911281731w4ee87713m252519517aaa59bc@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <4B11CF70.6040306@uberbox.org>
John Vandenberg wrote:
> On Sun, Nov 29, 2009 at 12:27 PM, Marc A. Pelletier <marc at uberbox.org> wrote:
>
>> Newyorkbrad (Wikipedia) wrote:
>>
>>> Does the process include telling the person we're considering
>>> sanctioning that we are considering sanctioning him?
>>>
>
> Yes, that is required.
>
>
>> Not officially, and the drama is probably not worth it. But really,
>> Brad, we've been spending the year telling him that he needs to tone it
>> down several notches, and Carc has complained officially about him (with
>> him being copied) in the past.
>>
>> He's been warned -- repeatedly.
>>
>
> This is the procedure we agreed upon:
>
> Level II procedures may be used if (a) the account's behaviour is
> inconsistent with the level of trust required for its associated
> advanced permissions, and (b) no satisfactory explanation is
> forthcoming.
>
Good point. My brain associations have attached this to "admin" but it
obviously applies to the other bits too. I'll handle the notifications
given I don't remember having had spats with him in the past.
-- Coren / Marc
----------
From newyorkbrad at gmail.com Sun Nov 29 01:34:30 2009
From: newyorkbrad at gmail.com (Newyorkbrad (Wikipedia))
Date: Sat, 28 Nov 2009 20:34:30 -0500
Subject: [arbcom-l] David Gerard again - I move we remove his CU bit now
In-Reply-To: <deea21830911281731w4ee87713m252519517aaa59bc@mail.gmail.com>
References: <8ec76cd10911281648qaca4d5dmf9b9b3eca5956cda@mail.gmail.com>
<4B11C6EA.9060204@uberbox.org>
<c52819d30911281704n6215ab76s3f6227c22a658768@mail.gmail.com>
<deea21830911281721p6d625b04qb25e1da557dd601f@mail.gmail.com>
<c52819d30911281723y3a10e3bp384f965205a7b307@mail.gmail.com>
<4B11CE13.4040202@uberbox.org>
<deea21830911281731w4ee87713m252519517aaa59bc@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <c52819d30911281734h426a3ca0ud6e530dcf648e438@mail.gmail.com>
I agree that his post was unacceptable. Perhaps what we should be doing is
asking him to resign. Recall the 80,000 words of drama we avoided in
Raul654's case when he agreed to resign quietly when he realized where the
committee's discussion was going. A similar outcome might be for the best
here (although of course there is no guarantee whatsoever that David would
indeed agree to resign).
Newyorkbrad
----------
From User.CoolHandLuke at gmail.com Sun Nov 29 01:37:47 2009
From: User.CoolHandLuke at gmail.com (Cool Hand Luke)
Date: Sat, 28 Nov 2009 19:37:47 -0600
Subject: [arbcom-l] [[Andrew Landeryou]]
In-Reply-To: <deea21830911281727j3e3f75cr22a5b43dfe4445f0@mail.gmail.com>
References: <deea21830911281727j3e3f75cr22a5b43dfe4445f0@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <8ec76cd10911281737r5613ee11id1ada467732445a1@mail.gmail.com>
David Gerard believed in 2006 that Landeryou was behind several vandal socks
who, among other things, vandalized articles of an acquaintance.
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/pri ... 01485.html
Frank
----------
From risker.wp at gmail.com Sun Nov 29 01:40:12 2009
From: risker.wp at gmail.com (Risker)
Date: Sun, 29 Nov 2009 01:40:12 +0000
Subject: [arbcom-l] David Gerard again - I move we remove his CU bit now
In-Reply-To: <4B11CF70.6040306@uberbox.org>
References: <8ec76cd10911281648qaca4d5dmf9b9b3eca5956cda@mail.gmail.com>
<4B11C6EA.9060204@uberbox.org>
<c52819d30911281704n6215ab76s3f6227c22a658768@mail.gmail.com>
<deea21830911281721p6d625b04qb25e1da557dd601f@mail.gmail.com>
<c52819d30911281723y3a10e3bp384f965205a7b307@mail.gmail.com>
<4B11CE13.4040202@uberbox.org>
<deea21830911281731w4ee87713m252519517aaa59bc@mail.gmail.com>
<4B11CF70.6040306@uberbox.org>
Message-ID: <eb45e7c0911281740m317d022fid543902825d3a984@mail.gmail.com>
2009/11/29 Marc A. Pelletier <marc at uberbox.org>
> <snip>
>
> Good point. My brain associations have attached this to "admin" but it
> obviously applies to the other bits too. I'll handle the notifications
> given I don't remember having had spats with him in the past.
>
> -- Coren / Marc
>
Thanks, Marc. It's worthwhile to try to get him to step down rather than
remove the bits. We put that process in place for a lot of reasons, so it's
to our advantage to carry it out. I'll head over to the arbwiki now.
Anne
----------
From marc at uberbox.org Sun Nov 29 01:42:11 2009
From: marc at uberbox.org (Marc A. Pelletier)
Date: Sat, 28 Nov 2009 20:42:11 -0500
Subject: [arbcom-l] David Gerard again - I move we remove his CU bit now
In-Reply-To: <c52819d30911281734h426a3ca0ud6e530dcf648e438@mail.gmail.com>
References: <8ec76cd10911281648qaca4d5dmf9b9b3eca5956cda@mail.gmail.com>
<4B11C6EA.9060204@uberbox.org>
<c52819d30911281704n6215ab76s3f6227c22a658768@mail.gmail.com>
<deea21830911281721p6d625b04qb25e1da557dd601f@mail.gmail.com>
<c52819d30911281723y3a10e3bp384f965205a7b307@mail.gmail.com>
<4B11CE13.4040202@uberbox.org>
<deea21830911281731w4ee87713m252519517aaa59bc@mail.gmail.com>
<c52819d30911281734h426a3ca0ud6e530dcf648e438@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <4B11D173.5080609@uberbox.org>
Newyorkbrad (Wikipedia) wrote:
> I agree that his post was unacceptable. Perhaps what we should be
> doing is asking him to resign. Recall the 80,000 words of drama we
> avoided in Raul654's case when he agreed to resign quietly when he
> realized where the committee's discussion was going. A similar
> outcome might be for the best here (although of course there is no
> guarantee whatsoever that David would indeed agree to resign).
>
Of course. I never have objections to an honorable withdrawal; it is
reasonable to offer him the opportunity. But we also need to make it
clear that this is under controversial circumstances.
Seppuku rather than execution? Well, it worked for the 47 ronin.
-- Coren / Marc
----------
From marc at uberbox.org Sun Nov 29 01:43:46 2009
From: marc at uberbox.org (Marc A. Pelletier)
Date: Sat, 28 Nov 2009 20:43:46 -0500
Subject: [arbcom-l] [Fwd: Copy of your message to David Gerard: Please
Contact ArbCom]
Message-ID: <4B11D1D2.1070802@uberbox.org>
Also on talk page:
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?tit ... =327113023
-- Coren / Marc
-------- Original Message --------
Return-Path: <wiki at wikimedia.org>
X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.2.5 (2008-06-10) on
beryl.uberbox.org
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-6.6 required=5.0
tests=BAYES_00,RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED autolearn=ham version=3.2.5
X-Original-To: marc at uberbox.org
Delivered-To: marc at uberbox.org
Received: from wiki-mail.wikimedia.org (wiki-mail.wikimedia.org
[208.80.152.133]) by mail.uberbox.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id
E6B7E1070250 for <marc at uberbox.org>; Sat, 28 Nov 2009 20:40:01 -0500 (EST)
Received: from srv139.pmtpa.wmnet ([10.0.2.139]:38374) by
mchenry.wikimedia.org with smtp (Exim 4.69) (envelope-from
<marc at uberbox.org>) id 1NEYlc-0003c6-As for marc at uberbox.org; Sun, 29
Nov 2009 01:40:01 +0000
Received: by srv139.pmtpa.wmnet (sSMTP sendmail emulation); Sun, 29 Nov
2009 01:40:00 +0000
Date: Sun, 29 Nov 2009 01:40:00 +0000
To: Coren <marc at uberbox.org>
Subject: Copy of your message to David Gerard: Please Contact ArbCom
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-type: text/plain; charset=utf-8
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
X-Mailer: MediaWiki mailer
From: Coren <marc at uberbox.org>
Message-Id: <E1NEYlc-0003c6-As at mchenry.wikimedia.org>
Hello David,
Please contact ArbCom via its mailing list (arbcom-l at lists.wikimedia.org) at your earliest convenience.
-- Coren / Marc; for the Committee
--
This e-mail was sent by user "Coren" on the English Wikipedia to user "David Gerard". It has been automatically delivered and the Wikimedia Foundation cannot be held responsible for its contents.
The sender has not been given the recipient's email address, or any information about his/her e-mail account; and the recipient has no obligation to reply to this e-mail or take any other action that might disclose his/her identity. For further information on privacy, security, and replying, as well as abuse and removal from emailing, see <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Email>.
----------
From rlevse at cox.net Sun Nov 29 01:44:12 2009
From: rlevse at cox.net (rlevse at cox.net)
Date: Sat, 28 Nov 2009 20:44:12 -0500
Subject: [arbcom-l] David Gerard again - I move we remove his CU bit now
In-Reply-To: <deea21830911281731w4ee87713m252519517aaa59bc@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <20091128204412.TNKZA.332988.imail@eastrmwml41>
Following process is fine, but I'm saying he's gone too far too often.
R
---- John Vandenberg <jayvdb at gmail.com> wrote:
> On Sun, Nov 29, 2009 at 12:27 PM, Marc A. Pelletier <marc at uberbox.org> wrote:
> > Newyorkbrad (Wikipedia) wrote:
> >> Does the process include telling the person we're considering
> >> sanctioning that we are considering sanctioning him?
>
> Yes, that is required.
>
> > Not officially, and the drama is probably not worth it. ?But really,
> > Brad, we've been spending the year telling him that he needs to tone it
> > down several notches, and Carc has complained officially about him (with
> > him being copied) in the past.
> >
> > He's been warned -- repeatedly.
>
> This is the procedure we agreed upon:
>
> Level II procedures may be used if (a) the account's behaviour is
> inconsistent with the level of trust required for its associated
> advanced permissions, and (b) no satisfactory explanation is
> forthcoming.
>
> The procedure for removal of permissions is as follows:
>
> 1. The initiating arbitrator will (a) leave a message on the
> account's talk page, asking the account to contact arbcom-l, and (b)
> send a similar message to the account by Wikipedia e-mail, if enabled.
> 2. The initiating arbitrator will then send a message to arbcom-l
> (a) stating the name of the account, (b) briefly describing the issue,
> providing examples of inappropriate conduct, and © recommending
> removal of permissions.
> 3. The Committee will then schedule deliberations on the matter.
> 4. A request for removal of advanced permissions may be made once a
> motion to do so has been endorsed by a majority of active arbitrators.
> 5. Once temporary removal has been approved, an arbitrator will
> post a notice, including the text of the motion and the names of
> arbitrators endorsing it, to the Meta-Wiki permissions page, the
> Committee's noticeboard, the administrators' noticeboard, and the
> user's talk page.
>
> <https://secure.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/wiki/Wikipedia:Arbitration_Committee/Procedures#Level_II_procedures>
>
> --
> John Vandenberg
----------
From wizardmanwiki at gmail.com Sun Nov 29 01:44:49 2009
From: wizardmanwiki at gmail.com (Wizardman)
Date: Sat, 28 Nov 2009 20:44:49 -0500
Subject: [arbcom-l] David Gerard again - I move we remove his CU bit now
In-Reply-To: <4B11D173.5080609@uberbox.org>
References: <8ec76cd10911281648qaca4d5dmf9b9b3eca5956cda@mail.gmail.com>
<4B11C6EA.9060204@uberbox.org>
<c52819d30911281704n6215ab76s3f6227c22a658768@mail.gmail.com>
<deea21830911281721p6d625b04qb25e1da557dd601f@mail.gmail.com>
<c52819d30911281723y3a10e3bp384f965205a7b307@mail.gmail.com>
<4B11CE13.4040202@uberbox.org>
<deea21830911281731w4ee87713m252519517aaa59bc@mail.gmail.com>
<c52819d30911281734h426a3ca0ud6e530dcf648e438@mail.gmail.com>
<4B11D173.5080609@uberbox.org>
Message-ID: <ef59f700911281744v7d1ea489x1837a113b3f675fc@mail.gmail.com>
Hopefully someone will send him a message soon then. Give him a time limit
for a response though so this doesn't carry on forever.
~W
On Sat, Nov 28, 2009 at 8:42 PM, Marc A. Pelletier <marc at uberbox.org> wrote:
> Newyorkbrad (Wikipedia) wrote:
> > I agree that his post was unacceptable. Perhaps what we should be
> > doing is asking him to resign. Recall the 80,000 words of drama we
> > avoided in Raul654's case when he agreed to resign quietly when he
> > realized where the committee's discussion was going. A similar
> > outcome might be for the best here (although of course there is no
> > guarantee whatsoever that David would indeed agree to resign).
> >
>
> Of course. I never have objections to an honorable withdrawal; it is
> reasonable to offer him the opportunity. But we also need to make it
> clear that this is under controversial circumstances.
>
> Seppuku rather than execution? Well, it worked for the 47 ronin.
>
> -- Coren / Marc
-----------
From marc at uberbox.org Sun Nov 29 01:58:00 2009
From: marc at uberbox.org (Marc A. Pelletier)
Date: Sat, 28 Nov 2009 20:58:00 -0500
Subject: [arbcom-l] David Gerard again - I move we remove his CU bit now
In-Reply-To: <ef59f700911281744v7d1ea489x1837a113b3f675fc@mail.gmail.com>
References: <8ec76cd10911281648qaca4d5dmf9b9b3eca5956cda@mail.gmail.com>
<4B11C6EA.9060204@uberbox.org>
<c52819d30911281704n6215ab76s3f6227c22a658768@mail.gmail.com>
<deea21830911281721p6d625b04qb25e1da557dd601f@mail.gmail.com>
<c52819d30911281723y3a10e3bp384f965205a7b307@mail.gmail.com>
<4B11CE13.4040202@uberbox.org>
<deea21830911281731w4ee87713m252519517aaa59bc@mail.gmail.com>
<c52819d30911281734h426a3ca0ud6e530dcf648e438@mail.gmail.com>
<4B11D173.5080609@uberbox.org>
<ef59f700911281744v7d1ea489x1837a113b3f675fc@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <4B11D528.4010008@uberbox.org>
Wizardman wrote:
> Hopefully someone will send him a message soon then. Give him a time
> limit for a response though so this doesn't carry on forever.
> ~W
[Draft -- not sent]
Hello David,
You recent blog post (see link at the end) has come to the attention of
the Committee, and we are disappointed that you were unable or unwilling
to heed the concerns expressed by the arbitrators and other
functionaries over the past year. Such outbursts are completely
unacceptable as they reflect poorly on the project and, given your
status as a functionary, particularly damaging. In particular,
disclosing past checkuser results (especially with a bragging tone) and
publishing email including private information are not compatible with
the trust and decorum expected of holders of advanced rights.
Given the warnings you have already received on that subject, the
Committee is voting to suspend both checkuser and oversight permissions,
and to remove you from the func-l mailing list. It appears at this time
that the motion will carry, but we wanted to extend the opportunity of
stepping down willingly of your own volition beforehand to reduce the
likelihood of drama and the possible embarrassment.
If you have comments to offer, please respond to this email before Dec
2; at which point we will otherwise close the pending motion.
For the Committee, Marc A. Pelletier (Coren)
http://davidgerard.co.uk/notes/2009/11/ ... e-of-skin/
[end draft]
-- Coren / Marc
----------
From wizardmanwiki at gmail.com Sun Nov 29 02:00:48 2009
From: wizardmanwiki at gmail.com (Wizardman)
Date: Sat, 28 Nov 2009 21:00:48 -0500
Subject: [arbcom-l] David Gerard again - I move we remove his CU bit now
In-Reply-To: <4B11D528.4010008@uberbox.org>
References: <8ec76cd10911281648qaca4d5dmf9b9b3eca5956cda@mail.gmail.com>
<c52819d30911281704n6215ab76s3f6227c22a658768@mail.gmail.com>
<deea21830911281721p6d625b04qb25e1da557dd601f@mail.gmail.com>
<c52819d30911281723y3a10e3bp384f965205a7b307@mail.gmail.com>
<4B11CE13.4040202@uberbox.org>
<deea21830911281731w4ee87713m252519517aaa59bc@mail.gmail.com>
<c52819d30911281734h426a3ca0ud6e530dcf648e438@mail.gmail.com>
<4B11D173.5080609@uberbox.org>
<ef59f700911281744v7d1ea489x1837a113b3f675fc@mail.gmail.com>
<4B11D528.4010008@uberbox.org>
Message-ID: <ef59f700911281800p63083976g32036a72a96727e6@mail.gmail.com>
Looks good to me. I'd even move it up to the 1st, though that is reducing
the time quite a bit.
~W
----------
From User.CoolHandLuke at gmail.com Sun Nov 29 02:02:42 2009
From: User.CoolHandLuke at gmail.com (Cool Hand Luke)
Date: Sat, 28 Nov 2009 20:02:42 -0600
Subject: [arbcom-l] David Gerard again - I move we remove his CU bit now
In-Reply-To: <ef59f700911281800p63083976g32036a72a96727e6@mail.gmail.com>
References: <8ec76cd10911281648qaca4d5dmf9b9b3eca5956cda@mail.gmail.com>
<deea21830911281721p6d625b04qb25e1da557dd601f@mail.gmail.com>
<c52819d30911281723y3a10e3bp384f965205a7b307@mail.gmail.com>
<4B11CE13.4040202@uberbox.org>
<deea21830911281731w4ee87713m252519517aaa59bc@mail.gmail.com>
<c52819d30911281734h426a3ca0ud6e530dcf648e438@mail.gmail.com>
<4B11D173.5080609@uberbox.org>
<ef59f700911281744v7d1ea489x1837a113b3f675fc@mail.gmail.com>
<4B11D528.4010008@uberbox.org>
<ef59f700911281800p63083976g32036a72a96727e6@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <8ec76cd10911281802p3e696596hfd74e89ba6ab0ea3@mail.gmail.com>
Good to me too. Although I would second kicking it up to the 1st. Is the
2nd so that it doesn't collide with first day voting drama?
Frank
----------
From marc at uberbox.org Sun Nov 29 02:05:26 2009
From: marc at uberbox.org (Marc A. Pelletier)
Date: Sat, 28 Nov 2009 21:05:26 -0500
Subject: [arbcom-l] David Gerard again - I move we remove his CU bit now
In-Reply-To: <4B11D645.5040302@uberbox.org>
References: <8ec76cd10911281648qaca4d5dmf9b9b3eca5956cda@mail.gmail.com>
<c52819d30911281704n6215ab76s3f6227c22a658768@mail.gmail.com>
<deea21830911281721p6d625b04qb25e1da557dd601f@mail.gmail.com>
<c52819d30911281723y3a10e3bp384f965205a7b307@mail.gmail.com>
<4B11CE13.4040202@uberbox.org>
<deea21830911281731w4ee87713m252519517aaa59bc@mail.gmail.com>
<c52819d30911281734h426a3ca0ud6e530dcf648e438@mail.gmail.com>
<4B11D173.5080609@uberbox.org>
<ef59f700911281744v7d1ea489x1837a113b3f675fc@mail.gmail.com>
<4B11D528.4010008@uberbox.org>
<ef59f700911281800p63083976g32036a72a96727e6@mail.gmail.com>
<4B11D645.5040302@uberbox.org>
Message-ID: <4B11D6E6.8010303@uberbox.org>
Marc A. Pelletier wrote:
> Wizardman wrote:
>
>> Looks good to me. I'd even move it up to the 1st, though that is
>> reducing the time quite a bit.
>> ~W
>>
>
> It's a weekend; I didn't want to be unreasonable either.
>
> -- Coren / Marc
>
>
That being said, at least four of us said 1st or 48h. I'll set with Dec
1 as the deadline (which will still give two whole days including a weekday)
-- Coren / Marc
----------
From marc at uberbox.org Sun Nov 29 02:13:03 2009
From: marc at uberbox.org (Marc A. Pelletier)
Date: Sat, 28 Nov 2009 21:13:03 -0500
Subject: [arbcom-l] Motion regarding your recent blog post
Message-ID: <4B11D8AF.2040102@uberbox.org>
Hello David,
You recent blog post (see link at the end) has come to the attention of
the Committee, and we are disappointed that you were unable or unwilling
to heed the concerns expressed by the arbitrators and other
functionaries over the past year. Such outbursts are completely
unacceptable as they reflect poorly on the project and, given your
status as a functionary, are particularly damaging. In particular,
disclosing past checkuser results (especially in a bragging tone) and
publishing email including private information are not compatible with
the trust and decorum expected of holders of advanced rights.
Given the warnings you have already received on that subject, the
Committee is voting to suspend both checkuser and oversight permissions,
and to remove you from the func-l mailing list. It appears at this time
that the motion will carry, but we wanted to extend the opportunity of
stepping down of your own volition beforehand to reduce the likelihood
of drama and the possible embarrassment.
If you have comments to offer, please respond to this email before
2009-12-01; at which point we will otherwise close the pending motion.
For the Committee, Marc A. Pelletier (Coren)
ref: http://davidgerard.co.uk/notes/2009/11/ ... e-of-skin/
----------
From jayvdb at gmail.com Sun Nov 29 02:14:10 2009
From: jayvdb at gmail.com (John Vandenberg)
Date: Sun, 29 Nov 2009 13:14:10 +1100
Subject: [arbcom-l] David Gerard again - I move we remove his CU bit now
In-Reply-To: <4B11D62A.4040204@uberbox.org>
References: <8ec76cd10911281648qaca4d5dmf9b9b3eca5956cda@mail.gmail.com>
<deea21830911281721p6d625b04qb25e1da557dd601f@mail.gmail.com>
<c52819d30911281723y3a10e3bp384f965205a7b307@mail.gmail.com>
<4B11CE13.4040202@uberbox.org>
<deea21830911281731w4ee87713m252519517aaa59bc@mail.gmail.com>
<c52819d30911281734h426a3ca0ud6e530dcf648e438@mail.gmail.com>
<4B11D173.5080609@uberbox.org>
<ef59f700911281744v7d1ea489x1837a113b3f675fc@mail.gmail.com>
<4B11D528.4010008@uberbox.org> <4B11D62A.4040204@uberbox.org>
Message-ID: <deea21830911281814i5e325035s2d8c49126405b79a@mail.gmail.com>
I'm not opposed to this draft .. but .. ;-)
I dont think we should be focused on asking him to stand down _in
order to_ minimise drama. We should be asking him to stand down _in a
manner_ which minimises drama. i.e. he needs to admit that he has
been a twit, and accepts the consequences.
I doubt there will be drama if we did it ; I suspect that there will
be drama if he is allowed to frame it however he wants. even more
drama if there is no explanation at all.
----------
From marc at uberbox.org Sun Nov 29 02:14:32 2009
From: marc at uberbox.org (Marc A. Pelletier)
Date: Sat, 28 Nov 2009 21:14:32 -0500
Subject: [arbcom-l] Motion regarding your recent blog post
In-Reply-To: <4B11D8AF.2040102@uberbox.org>
References: <4B11D8AF.2040102@uberbox.org>
Message-ID: <4B11D908.6000306@uberbox.org>
[list only]
Marc A. Pelletier wrote:
> Hello David,
>
I went ahead despite the limited feedback given we intend to move
swiftly; the short delay makes it imperative that he is notified as
quickly as possible to give him the whole two days.
-- Coren / Marc
----------
From marc at uberbox.org Sun Nov 29 02:17:43 2009
From: marc at uberbox.org (Marc A. Pelletier)
Date: Sat, 28 Nov 2009 21:17:43 -0500
Subject: [arbcom-l] David Gerard again - I move we remove his CU bit now
In-Reply-To: <deea21830911281814i5e325035s2d8c49126405b79a@mail.gmail.com>
References: <8ec76cd10911281648qaca4d5dmf9b9b3eca5956cda@mail.gmail.com>
<deea21830911281721p6d625b04qb25e1da557dd601f@mail.gmail.com>
<c52819d30911281723y3a10e3bp384f965205a7b307@mail.gmail.com>
<4B11CE13.4040202@uberbox.org>
<deea21830911281731w4ee87713m252519517aaa59bc@mail.gmail.com>
<c52819d30911281734h426a3ca0ud6e530dcf648e438@mail.gmail.com>
<4B11D173.5080609@uberbox.org>
<ef59f700911281744v7d1ea489x1837a113b3f675fc@mail.gmail.com>
<4B11D528.4010008@uberbox.org> <4B11D62A.4040204@uberbox.org>
<deea21830911281814i5e325035s2d8c49126405b79a@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <4B11D9C7.7040507@uberbox.org>
John Vandenberg wrote:
> I'm not opposed to this draft .. but .. ;-)
>
Too late for but(t)s. :-)
At any rate, reducing drama pretty much implies that he shouldn't raise
it himself. I don't expect he'll go down quietly, though, and we're
more likely than not going to have to do so forcibly and publicly.
More's the pity.
-- Coren / Marc
-----------
From User.CoolHandLuke at gmail.com Sun Nov 29 02:56:52 2009
From: User.CoolHandLuke at gmail.com (Cool Hand Luke)
Date: Sat, 28 Nov 2009 20:56:52 -0600
Subject: [arbcom-l] David Gerard again - I move we remove his CU bit now
In-Reply-To: <deea21830911281814i5e325035s2d8c49126405b79a@mail.gmail.com>
References: <8ec76cd10911281648qaca4d5dmf9b9b3eca5956cda@mail.gmail.com>
<c52819d30911281723y3a10e3bp384f965205a7b307@mail.gmail.com>
<4B11CE13.4040202@uberbox.org>
<deea21830911281731w4ee87713m252519517aaa59bc@mail.gmail.com>
<c52819d30911281734h426a3ca0ud6e530dcf648e438@mail.gmail.com>
<4B11D173.5080609@uberbox.org>
<ef59f700911281744v7d1ea489x1837a113b3f675fc@mail.gmail.com>
<4B11D528.4010008@uberbox.org> <4B11D62A.4040204@uberbox.org>
<deea21830911281814i5e325035s2d8c49126405b79a@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <8ec76cd10911281856h1b73626fwaf487be0f00cd662@mail.gmail.com>
Yes, I think you are right that there will be *relatively* little drama if
we forcibly removed him. He's not in the middle of a Giano/Bishonen
intrigue, and would be hard pressed to frame this as ArbCom 2009
incompetence. His post was just plain stupid.
That said, it's still relative drama, and I agree that we would prefer him
to withdraw in a classy way like Raul654. However, he doesn't seem to like
us--I doubt he will want to make it drama-free, even for the sake of the
project. I think you're right that we should expect some kicking.
Frank
On Sat, Nov 28, 2009 at 8:14 PM, John Vandenberg <jayvdb at gmail.com> wrote:
> I'm not opposed to this draft .. but .. ;-)
>
> I dont think we should be focused on asking him to stand down _in
> order to_ minimise drama. We should be asking him to stand down _in a
> manner_ which minimises drama. i.e. he needs to admit that he has
> been a twit, and accepts the consequences.
>
> I doubt there will be drama if we did it ; I suspect that there will
> be drama if he is allowed to frame it however he wants. even more
> drama if there is no explanation at all.
----------
From rlevse at cox.net Sun Nov 29 03:53:44 2009
From: rlevse at cox.net (Randy Everette)
Date: Sat, 28 Nov 2009 22:53:44 -0500
Subject: [arbcom-l] David Gerard again - I move we remove his CU bit now
In-Reply-To: <4B11D9C7.7040507@uberbox.org>
References: <8ec76cd10911281648qaca4d5dmf9b9b3eca5956cda@mail.gmail.com> <deea21830911281721p6d625b04qb25e1da557dd601f@mail.gmail.com> <c52819d30911281723y3a10e3bp384f965205a7b307@mail.gmail.com> <4B11CE13.4040202@uberbox.org> <deea21830911281731w4ee87713m252519517aaa59bc@mail.gmail.com> <c52819d30911281734h426a3ca0ud6e530dcf648e438@mail.gmail.com> <4B11D173.5080609@uberbox.org> <ef59f700911281744v7d1ea489x1837a113b3f675fc@mail.gmail.com> <4B11D528.4010008@uberbox.org>
<4B11D62A.4040204@uberbox.org> <deea21830911281814i5e325035s2d8c49126405b79a@mail.gmail.com>
<4B11D9C7.7040507@uberbox.org>
Message-ID: <01ff01ca70a7$8bdfcdb0$a39f6910$@net>
But he can't say he didn't have his chance now.
R
-----Original Message-----
From: arbcom-l-bounces at lists.wikimedia.org
[mailto:arbcom-l-bounces at lists.wikimedia.org] On Behalf Of Marc A. Pelletier
Sent: Saturday, November 28, 2009 9:18 PM
To: English Arbitration Committee mailing list
Subject: Re: [arbcom-l] David Gerard again - I move we remove his CU bit now
John Vandenberg wrote:
> I'm not opposed to this draft .. but .. ;-)
>
-----------
From: szvest at gmail.com (Fayssal F.)
Date: Sun, 29 Nov 2009 11:02:05 +0000
Subject: [arbcom-l] David Gerard again - I move we remove his CU bit now
Message-ID: <2a8c5680911290302h177717b3p50b59d0c443dfb84@mail.gmail.com>
I am supporting every measure that has been taken so far. The unacceptable
behaviour of David shows that he's not fit for the trusting job (not
acceptable even for an admin). Imagine law enforcement officers bragging
online about their actions and ridiculing people via multiple venues
(twitter, blog, etc). It's a pity to see people in their 40's or so getting
themselves dragged into such childish attitudes.
That's was the real drama, not what would follow! Our job is to protect the
integrity of this project and this is what we should focus on.
Fayssal F.
----------
From dgerard at gmail.com Sun Nov 29 11:14:27 2009
From: dgerard at gmail.com (David Gerard)
Date: Sun, 29 Nov 2009 11:14:27 +0000
Subject: [arbcom-l] Please Contact ArbCom
In-Reply-To: <E1NEYlb-0003an-A3@mchenry.wikimedia.org>
References: <E1NEYlb-0003an-A3@mchenry.wikimedia.org>
Message-ID: <fbad4e140911290314ode8100v7fc4463eb32019d6@mail.gmail.com>
Cheers, and what on earth?
- d.
2009/11/29 Coren <marc at uberbox.org>:
> Hello David,
>
> Please contact ArbCom via its mailing list (arbcom-l at lists.wikimedia.org) at your earliest convenience.
>
> -- Coren / Marc; for the Committee
>
----------
From sydney.poore at gmail.com Sun Nov 29 12:15:37 2009
From: sydney.poore at gmail.com (FloNight)
Date: Sun, 29 Nov 2009 07:15:37 -0500
Subject: [arbcom-l] [Functionaries-en] Fwd: Motion regarding your recent
blog post
In-Reply-To: <deea21830911290405v2bec8237w4b737fb127687f4c@mail.gmail.com>
References: <4B11D8AF.2040102@uberbox.org>
<fbad4e140911290319v7a480584q432f14239e0389b5@mail.gmail.com>
<fbad4e140911290320x4b331038m4204439d6ac17645@mail.gmail.com>
<deea21830911290405v2bec8237w4b737fb127687f4c@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <16032ea0911290415s3a9f9bc9tfdf48318b4a35733@mail.gmail.com>
On Sun, Nov 29, 2009 at 7:05 AM, John Vandenberg <jayvdb at gmail.com> wrote:
> On Sun, Nov 29, 2009 at 10:46 PM, David Gerard <dgerard at gmail.com> wrote:
> > 2009/11/29 John Vandenberg <jayvdb at gmail.com>:
> >> David, do you want this discussion to be conducted on functionaries-en ?
> > Actually, it should be conducted publicly on the wiki.
>
> I'll take that as a yes.
>
> If you don't discuss it with us privately, the next action from the
> committee will be a motion on the noticeboard.
(ArbCom list only)
David has taken this pubic on his talk page.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk: ... act_ArbCom
He mentions the past caution but does it in a way that dismisses the
problem.
Sydney
----------
From jayvdb at gmail.com Sun Nov 29 12:24:59 2009
From: jayvdb at gmail.com (John Vandenberg)
Date: Sun, 29 Nov 2009 23:24:59 +1100
Subject: [arbcom-l] [Functionaries-en] Fwd: Motion regarding your recent
blog post
In-Reply-To: <16032ea0911290415s3a9f9bc9tfdf48318b4a35733@mail.gmail.com>
References: <4B11D8AF.2040102@uberbox.org>
<fbad4e140911290319v7a480584q432f14239e0389b5@mail.gmail.com>
<fbad4e140911290320x4b331038m4204439d6ac17645@mail.gmail.com>
<deea21830911290405v2bec8237w4b737fb127687f4c@mail.gmail.com>
<16032ea0911290415s3a9f9bc9tfdf48318b4a35733@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <deea21830911290424x2c0e8e3g9c3f563325e358a1@mail.gmail.com>
I say we publish? he can appeal. that is how the level II procedure works.
On Sun, Nov 29, 2009 at 11:15 PM, FloNight <sydney.poore at gmail.com> wrote:
> On Sun, Nov 29, 2009 at 7:05 AM, John Vandenberg <jayvdb at gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>> On Sun, Nov 29, 2009 at 10:46 PM, David Gerard <dgerard at gmail.com> wrote:
>> > 2009/11/29 John Vandenberg <jayvdb at gmail.com>:
>> >> David, do you want this discussion to be conducted on functionaries-en
>> >> ?
>> > Actually, it should be conducted publicly on the wiki.
>>
>> I'll take that as a yes.
>>
>> If you don't discuss it with us privately, the next action from the
>> committee will be a motion on the noticeboard.
>
> (ArbCom list only)
>
> David has taken this pubic on his talk page.
>
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk: ... act_ArbCom
>
> He mentions the past caution but does it in a way that dismisses the
> problem.
>
> Sydney
>
> _______________________________________________
> arbcom-l mailing list
> arbcom-l at lists.wikimedia.org
> https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/arbcom-l
>
----------
From rlevse at cox.net Sun Nov 29 12:34:30 2009
From: rlevse at cox.net (Randy Everette)
Date: Sun, 29 Nov 2009 07:34:30 -0500
Subject: [arbcom-l] [Functionaries-en] Fwd: Motion regarding your
recent blog post
In-Reply-To: <deea21830911290424x2c0e8e3g9c3f563325e358a1@mail.gmail.com>
References: <4B11D8AF.2040102@uberbox.org> <fbad4e140911290319v7a480584q432f14239e0389b5@mail.gmail.com> <fbad4e140911290320x4b331038m4204439d6ac17645@mail.gmail.com> <deea21830911290405v2bec8237w4b737fb127687f4c@mail.gmail.com> <16032ea0911290415s3a9f9bc9tfdf48318b4a35733@mail.gmail.com>
<deea21830911290424x2c0e8e3g9c3f563325e358a1@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <022101ca70f0$4c01f8a0$e405e9e0$@net>
Yep. Publish it.
----------
From jayvdb at gmail.com Sun Nov 29 12:37:43 2009
From: jayvdb at gmail.com (John Vandenberg)
Date: Sun, 29 Nov 2009 23:37:43 +1100
Subject: [arbcom-l] [Functionaries-en] Fwd: Motion regarding your recent
blog post
In-Reply-To: <022101ca70f0$4c01f8a0$e405e9e0$@net>
References: <4B11D8AF.2040102@uberbox.org>
<fbad4e140911290319v7a480584q432f14239e0389b5@mail.gmail.com>
<fbad4e140911290320x4b331038m4204439d6ac17645@mail.gmail.com>
<deea21830911290405v2bec8237w4b737fb127687f4c@mail.gmail.com>
<16032ea0911290415s3a9f9bc9tfdf48318b4a35733@mail.gmail.com>
<deea21830911290424x2c0e8e3g9c3f563325e358a1@mail.gmail.com>
<022101ca70f0$4c01f8a0$e405e9e0$@net>
Message-ID: <deea21830911290437j40d8646ncfc77228f5c4710@mail.gmail.com>
Ready to roll - minor changes being the stripped->revoked, and
mentioning level II procedures at the end.
Subject: David Gerard (we used "nichalp' )
For repeatedly failing to maintain proper decorum in public fora, and
for unwarranted dissemination of private data acquired using
privileged rights, checkuser and oversight rights are revoked from
{{user|David Gerard}}, and he is removed from the functionary list
effective immediately, in accordance with
[[Wikipedia:Arbitration_Committee/Procedures#Level_II_procedures|Level
II procedures]]. ~~~~
* Support: Cool Hand Luke, Coren, FloNight, John Vandenberg,
Newyorkbrad, Rlevse, Risker, Stephen Bain, Wizardman
* Oppose: None
* Abstain: None
* Not voting: Carcharoth, Roger Davies, Vassyana
* Inactive: FayssalF
Carcharoth could be placed under inactive as he has told us that he is
away for the weekend
----------
From sydney.poore at gmail.com Sun Nov 29 12:44:35 2009
From: sydney.poore at gmail.com (FloNight)
Date: Sun, 29 Nov 2009 07:44:35 -0500
Subject: [arbcom-l] [Functionaries-en] Fwd: Motion regarding your recent
blog post
In-Reply-To: <deea21830911290437j40d8646ncfc77228f5c4710@mail.gmail.com>
References: <4B11D8AF.2040102@uberbox.org>
<fbad4e140911290319v7a480584q432f14239e0389b5@mail.gmail.com>
<fbad4e140911290320x4b331038m4204439d6ac17645@mail.gmail.com>
<deea21830911290405v2bec8237w4b737fb127687f4c@mail.gmail.com>
<16032ea0911290415s3a9f9bc9tfdf48318b4a35733@mail.gmail.com>
<deea21830911290424x2c0e8e3g9c3f563325e358a1@mail.gmail.com>
<022101ca70f0$4c01f8a0$e405e9e0$@net>
<deea21830911290437j40d8646ncfc77228f5c4710@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <16032ea0911290444i6df6961egad47daab1ab45392@mail.gmail.com>
I agree that we publish the motion. But then what comes next?
We need to be ready to roll into the next phase.
Sydney
-----------
From jayvdb at gmail.com Sun Nov 29 12:47:15 2009
From: jayvdb at gmail.com (John Vandenberg)
Date: Sun, 29 Nov 2009 23:47:15 +1100
Subject: [arbcom-l] [Functionaries-en] Fwd: Motion regarding your recent
blog post
In-Reply-To: <16032ea0911290444i6df6961egad47daab1ab45392@mail.gmail.com>
References: <4B11D8AF.2040102@uberbox.org>
<fbad4e140911290319v7a480584q432f14239e0389b5@mail.gmail.com>
<fbad4e140911290320x4b331038m4204439d6ac17645@mail.gmail.com>
<deea21830911290405v2bec8237w4b737fb127687f4c@mail.gmail.com>
<16032ea0911290415s3a9f9bc9tfdf48318b4a35733@mail.gmail.com>
<deea21830911290424x2c0e8e3g9c3f563325e358a1@mail.gmail.com>
<022101ca70f0$4c01f8a0$e405e9e0$@net>
<deea21830911290437j40d8646ncfc77228f5c4710@mail.gmail.com>
<16032ea0911290444i6df6961egad47daab1ab45392@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <deea21830911290447l1acac01br118e1156fa382044@mail.gmail.com>
motion posted. meta request done.
Im about to request that he be removed from the lists.
-----------
From jayvdb at gmail.com Sun Nov 29 12:56:43 2009
From: jayvdb at gmail.com (John Vandenberg)
Date: Sun, 29 Nov 2009 23:56:43 +1100
Subject: [arbcom-l] [Functionaries-en] Fwd: Motion regarding your recent
blog post
In-Reply-To: <deea21830911290447l1acac01br118e1156fa382044@mail.gmail.com>
References: <4B11D8AF.2040102@uberbox.org>
<fbad4e140911290319v7a480584q432f14239e0389b5@mail.gmail.com>
<fbad4e140911290320x4b331038m4204439d6ac17645@mail.gmail.com>
<deea21830911290405v2bec8237w4b737fb127687f4c@mail.gmail.com>
<16032ea0911290415s3a9f9bc9tfdf48318b4a35733@mail.gmail.com>
<deea21830911290424x2c0e8e3g9c3f563325e358a1@mail.gmail.com>
<022101ca70f0$4c01f8a0$e405e9e0$@net>
<deea21830911290437j40d8646ncfc77228f5c4710@mail.gmail.com>
<16032ea0911290444i6df6961egad47daab1ab45392@mail.gmail.com>
<deea21830911290447l1acac01br118e1156fa382044@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <deea21830911290456h7264c478sffa7a890be7155cd@mail.gmail.com>
On Sun, Nov 29, 2009 at 11:47 PM, John Vandenberg <jayvdb at gmail.com> wrote:
> motion posted. ?meta request done.
tools removed by a steward.
> Im about to request that he be removed from the lists.
list admins notified.
--
John Vandenberg
----------
From dgerard at gmail.com Sun Nov 29 12:58:13 2009
From: dgerard at gmail.com (David Gerard)
Date: Sun, 29 Nov 2009 12:58:13 +0000
Subject: [arbcom-l] [Functionaries-en] Fwd: Motion regarding your recent
blog post
In-Reply-To: <deea21830911290451o748a13c0ta7c2a56e0aaa4362@mail.gmail.com>
References: <4B11D8AF.2040102@uberbox.org>
<fbad4e140911290319v7a480584q432f14239e0389b5@mail.gmail.com>
<fbad4e140911290320x4b331038m4204439d6ac17645@mail.gmail.com>
<deea21830911290405v2bec8237w4b737fb127687f4c@mail.gmail.com>
<deea21830911290451o748a13c0ta7c2a56e0aaa4362@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <fbad4e140911290458k7ccbcf27ma8a3780fc6a2c2c3@mail.gmail.com>
2009/11/29 John Vandenberg <jayvdb at gmail.com>:
> On Sun, Nov 29, 2009 at 11:05 PM, John Vandenberg <jayvdb at gmail.com> wrote:
>> On Sun, Nov 29, 2009 at 10:46 PM, David Gerard <dgerard at gmail.com> wrote:
>>> 2009/11/29 John Vandenberg <jayvdb at gmail.com>:
>>>> David, do you want this discussion to be conducted on functionaries-en ?
>>> Actually, it should be conducted publicly on the wiki.
>>
>> I'll take that as a yes.
>>
>> If you don't discuss it with us privately, the next action from the
>> committee will be a motion on the noticeboard.
>
> David decided to conduct this [Break]
From jayvdb at gmail.com Mon Nov 30 01:04:10 2009
From: jayvdb at gmail.com (John Vandenberg)
Date: Mon, 30 Nov 2009 12:04:10 +1100
Subject: [arbcom-l] draft email to ComCom
In-Reply-To: <c52819d30911291653i2611ad1ds3bd37172ee5a09c8@mail.gmail.com>
References: <deea21830911290604h194b1a0fna23fe85674c51752@mail.gmail.com>
<deea21830911291632l5efe9849w99e3c464a45261ea@mail.gmail.com>
<c52819d30911291653i2611ad1ds3bd37172ee5a09c8@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <deea21830911291704q653ea343uda710cc87ed3a881@mail.gmail.com>
On Mon, Nov 30, 2009 at 11:53 AM, Newyorkbrad (Wikipedia)
<newyorkbrad at gmail.com> wrote:
> Given what's going on in the Functionaries-l thread, we should discuss
> whether to re-word the preamble of the motion before we do anything
> else.
I think we need to alert them promptly.
We could say that the wording of it is being disputed by WMF staff,
and we will let them know if it is amended.
> ?In particular, I am trying to figure out the genesis and nature
> of Mike's stated concerns.
your assistance there will be very helpful.
----------
From rlevse at cox.net Mon Nov 30 01:06:14 2009
From: rlevse at cox.net (rlevse at cox.net)
Date: Sun, 29 Nov 2009 20:06:14 -0500
Subject: [arbcom-l] draft email to ComCom
In-Reply-To: <deea21830911291704q653ea343uda710cc87ed3a881@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <20091129200614.JURJO.958224.imail@eastrmwml31>
Godwin has no standing to tell us what to do. I think it's possible someone, perhaps DG, asked him to intervene. Godwin has never tried to push us around before.
R
---- John Vandenberg <jayvdb at gmail.com> wrote:
> On Mon, Nov 30, 2009 at 11:53 AM, Newyorkbrad (Wikipedia)
> <newyorkbrad at gmail.com> wrote:
> > Given what's going on in the Functionaries-l thread, we should discuss
> > whether to re-word the preamble of the motion before we do anything
> > else.
>
> I think we need to alert them promptly.
> We could say that the wording of it is being disputed by WMF staff,
> and we will let them know if it is amended.
>
> > ?In particular, I am trying to figure out the genesis and nature
> > of Mike's stated concerns.
>
> your assistance there will be very helpful.
----------
From newyorkbrad at gmail.com Mon Nov 30 01:17:03 2009
From: newyorkbrad at gmail.com (Newyorkbrad (Wikipedia))
Date: Sun, 29 Nov 2009 20:17:03 -0500
Subject: [arbcom-l] draft email to ComCom
In-Reply-To: <deea21830911291704q653ea343uda710cc87ed3a881@mail.gmail.com>
References: <deea21830911290604h194b1a0fna23fe85674c51752@mail.gmail.com>
<deea21830911291632l5efe9849w99e3c464a45261ea@mail.gmail.com>
<c52819d30911291653i2611ad1ds3bd37172ee5a09c8@mail.gmail.com>
<deea21830911291704q653ea343uda710cc87ed3a881@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <c52819d30911291717h6ea7e8fn8150a71e50b639dd@mail.gmail.com>
I think we should leave out the preamble of the motion, just tell them
the decision itself.
Newyorkbrad
On 11/29/09, John Vandenberg <jayvdb at gmail.com> wrote:
> On Mon, Nov 30, 2009 at 11:53 AM, Newyorkbrad (Wikipedia)
> <newyorkbrad at gmail.com> wrote:
>> Given what's going on in the Functionaries-l thread, we should discuss
>> whether to re-word the preamble of the motion before we do anything
>> else.
>
> I think we need to alert them promptly.
> We could say that the wording of it is being disputed by WMF staff,
> and we will let them know if it is amended.
>
>> ?In particular, I am trying to figure out the genesis and nature
>> of Mike's stated concerns.
>
> your assistance there will be very helpful.
----------
From rlevse at cox.net Mon Nov 30 01:18:02 2009
From: rlevse at cox.net (rlevse at cox.net)
Date: Sun, 29 Nov 2009 20:18:02 -0500
Subject: [arbcom-l] draft email to ComCom
In-Reply-To: <c52819d30911291717h6ea7e8fn8150a71e50b639dd@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <20091129201802.VCF8E.958380.imail@eastrmwml31>
OK with me.
R
---- "Newyorkbrad (Wikipedia)" <newyorkbrad at gmail.com> wrote:
> I think we should leave out the preamble of the motion, just tell them
> the decision itself.
>
> Newyorkbrad
----------
From jayvdb at gmail.com Mon Nov 30 01:23:08 2009
From: jayvdb at gmail.com (John Vandenberg)
Date: Mon, 30 Nov 2009 12:23:08 +1100
Subject: [arbcom-l] draft email to ComCom
In-Reply-To: <c52819d30911291717h6ea7e8fn8150a71e50b639dd@mail.gmail.com>
References: <deea21830911290604h194b1a0fna23fe85674c51752@mail.gmail.com>
<deea21830911291632l5efe9849w99e3c464a45261ea@mail.gmail.com>
<c52819d30911291653i2611ad1ds3bd37172ee5a09c8@mail.gmail.com>
<deea21830911291704q653ea343uda710cc87ed3a881@mail.gmail.com>
<c52819d30911291717h6ea7e8fn8150a71e50b639dd@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <deea21830911291723l7d4aae13h663b37b85a5308e5@mail.gmail.com>
Brad,
the draft has three components:
1. the decision
2. the background, which is 100% factual
3. a note that this is subject to appeal, etc
precisely which bit should be cut ?
--
John Vandenberg
----------
From newyorkbrad at gmail.com Mon Nov 30 01:25:26 2009
From: newyorkbrad at gmail.com (Newyorkbrad (Wikipedia))
Date: Sun, 29 Nov 2009 20:25:26 -0500
Subject: [arbcom-l] draft email to ComCom
In-Reply-To: <deea21830911291723l7d4aae13h663b37b85a5308e5@mail.gmail.com>
References: <deea21830911290604h194b1a0fna23fe85674c51752@mail.gmail.com>
<deea21830911291632l5efe9849w99e3c464a45261ea@mail.gmail.com>
<c52819d30911291653i2611ad1ds3bd37172ee5a09c8@mail.gmail.com>
<deea21830911291704q653ea343uda710cc87ed3a881@mail.gmail.com>
<c52819d30911291717h6ea7e8fn8150a71e50b639dd@mail.gmail.com>
<deea21830911291723l7d4aae13h663b37b85a5308e5@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <c52819d30911291725n743da4e3t1d400122f79d5d44@mail.gmail.com>
In my view, the issue right now concerns the introduction to the
adopted motion ("For..."). That's the part I understand David is
factually disputing.
I'd like to see what other arbs have to say here too.
Newyorkbrad
-----------
From rlevse at cox.net Mon Nov 30 01:29:15 2009
From: rlevse at cox.net (rlevse at cox.net)
Date: Sun, 29 Nov 2009 20:29:15 -0500
Subject: [arbcom-l] draft email to ComCom
In-Reply-To: <c52819d30911291725n743da4e3t1d400122f79d5d44@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <20091129202915.75GR8.958510.imail@eastrmwml31>
We have plenty of evidence to support this on the page on him on arbwiki. THere's a link to it in my vote on the motion.
R
---- "Newyorkbrad (Wikipedia)" <newyorkbrad at gmail.com> wrote:
> In my view, the issue right now concerns the introduction to the
> adopted motion ("For..."). That's the part I understand David is
> factually disputing.
>
> I'd like to see what other arbs have to say here too.
>
> Newyorkbrad
----------
From jayvdb at gmail.com Mon Nov 30 01:42:53 2009
From: jayvdb at gmail.com (John Vandenberg)
Date: Mon, 30 Nov 2009 12:42:53 +1100
Subject: [arbcom-l] draft email to ComCom
In-Reply-To: <c52819d30911291725n743da4e3t1d400122f79d5d44@mail.gmail.com>
References: <deea21830911290604h194b1a0fna23fe85674c51752@mail.gmail.com>
<deea21830911291632l5efe9849w99e3c464a45261ea@mail.gmail.com>
<c52819d30911291653i2611ad1ds3bd37172ee5a09c8@mail.gmail.com>
<deea21830911291704q653ea343uda710cc87ed3a881@mail.gmail.com>
<c52819d30911291717h6ea7e8fn8150a71e50b639dd@mail.gmail.com>
<deea21830911291723l7d4aae13h663b37b85a5308e5@mail.gmail.com>
<c52819d30911291725n743da4e3t1d400122f79d5d44@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <deea21830911291742x181afa0dyc8b31405098ab832@mail.gmail.com>
On Mon, Nov 30, 2009 at 12:25 PM, Newyorkbrad (Wikipedia)
<newyorkbrad at gmail.com> wrote:
> In my view, the issue right now concerns the introduction to the
> adopted motion ("For..."). ?That's the part I understand David is
> factually disputing.
That is the _actual decision_, as published. They need to be aware of
what was actually published.
The third part explains that he is disputing it.
--
John Vandenberg
----------
From newyorkbrad at gmail.com Mon Nov 30 01:46:45 2009
From: newyorkbrad at gmail.com (Newyorkbrad (Wikipedia))
Date: Sun, 29 Nov 2009 20:46:45 -0500
Subject: [arbcom-l] draft email to ComCom
In-Reply-To: <deea21830911291742x181afa0dyc8b31405098ab832@mail.gmail.com>
References: <deea21830911290604h194b1a0fna23fe85674c51752@mail.gmail.com>
<deea21830911291632l5efe9849w99e3c464a45261ea@mail.gmail.com>
<c52819d30911291653i2611ad1ds3bd37172ee5a09c8@mail.gmail.com>
<deea21830911291704q653ea343uda710cc87ed3a881@mail.gmail.com>
<c52819d30911291717h6ea7e8fn8150a71e50b639dd@mail.gmail.com>
<deea21830911291723l7d4aae13h663b37b85a5308e5@mail.gmail.com>
<c52819d30911291725n743da4e3t1d400122f79d5d44@mail.gmail.com>
<deea21830911291742x181afa0dyc8b31405098ab832@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <c52819d30911291746o5737817fy7c6dc0d5bf1f2505@mail.gmail.com>
We now have a board member questioning the preamble also. I am not
convinced further publicizing it is the way to go.
Newyorkbrad
----------
From sydney.poore at gmail.com Mon Nov 30 09:12:01 2009
From: sydney.poore at gmail.com (FloNight)
Date: Mon, 30 Nov 2009 04:12:01 -0500
Subject: [arbcom-l] Wording of David Gerard motion
Message-ID: <16032ea0911300112o5fac8654h64dd6e32af9469b8@mail.gmail.com>
Do we want to tweak the wording of the motion to address the criticism
expressed by David, Mike, FT2, and Kat?
If so, could Newyorkbrad or someone else take a stab at re-writing it.
Sydney
----------
From: jayvdb at gmail.com (John Vandenberg)
Date: Mon, 30 Nov 2009 21:38:41 +1100
Subject: [arbcom-l] Wording of David Gerard motion
In-Reply-To: <16032ea0911300112o5fac8654h64dd6e32af9469b8@mail.gmail.com>
References: <16032ea0911300112o5fac8654h64dd6e32af9469b8@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <deea21830911300238x2e08db6cmd034149b2507fcb7@mail.gmail.com>
On Mon, Nov 30, 2009 at 8:12 PM, FloNight <sydney.poore at gmail.com> wrote:
> Do we want to tweak the wording of the motion to address the criticism
> expressed by David, Mike, FT2, and Kat?
>
> If so, could Newyorkbrad or someone else take a stab at re-writing it.
As far as I can see, the last three have not taken the time to review
the emails used as evidence.
I would appreciate it Mike looked at the email in question. Can we
send it to him?
--
John Vandenberg
-----------
From marc at uberbox.org Mon Nov 30 12:07:21 2009
From: marc at uberbox.org (Marc A. Pelletier)
Date: Mon, 30 Nov 2009 07:07:21 -0500
Subject: [arbcom-l] Wording of David Gerard motion
In-Reply-To: <16032ea0911300112o5fac8654h64dd6e32af9469b8@mail.gmail.com>
References: <16032ea0911300112o5fac8654h64dd6e32af9469b8@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <4B13B579.3010304@uberbox.org>
FloNight wrote:
> Do we want to tweak the wording of the motion to address the criticism
> expressed by David, Mike, FT2, and Kat?
I'm not opposed in principle if someone makes a good case that the
current wording is erroneous, but I note Mike has yet to address the
substance of my objection to his position.
I still stand by my position that saying "X is a sockpuppet" (however
you phrase it) *is* a disclosure of private information that is -- in
the context of preventing disruption (like SPI) -- an /acceptable/
disclosure, but that by saying anything of the sort years removed and
off-wiki you lose the protection afforded by the limited exceptions to
the privacy policy. Saying this when a real name is involved is worse;
and saying so when it's not even demonstrated is even more inappropriate.
I already explained this to Mike, but that particular email has gone
unreplied. (I've poked again just a few minutes ago).
-- Coren / Marc
------------
From jayvdb at gmail.com Mon Nov 30 12:24:31 2009
From: jayvdb at gmail.com (John Vandenberg)
Date: Mon, 30 Nov 2009 23:24:31 +1100
Subject: [arbcom-l] Wording of David Gerard motion
In-Reply-To: <4B13B579.3010304@uberbox.org>
References: <16032ea0911300112o5fac8654h64dd6e32af9469b8@mail.gmail.com>
<4B13B579.3010304@uberbox.org>
Message-ID: <deea21830911300424h5a462b37l1d1b9051b53fbf39@mail.gmail.com>
David has again used legal language.
https://secure.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/ ... =328738343
On Mon, Nov 30, 2009 at 11:07 PM, Marc A. Pelletier <marc at uberbox.org> wrote:
> FloNight wrote:
>> Do we want to tweak the wording of the motion to address the criticism
>> expressed by David, Mike, FT2, and Kat?
>
> I'm not opposed in principle if someone makes a good case that the
> current wording is erroneous, but I note Mike has yet to address the
> substance of my objection to his position.
>
> I still stand by my position that saying "X is a sockpuppet" (however
> you phrase it) *is* a disclosure of private information that is -- in
> the context of preventing disruption (like SPI) -- an /acceptable/
> disclosure, but that by saying anything of the sort years removed and
> off-wiki you lose the protection afforded by the limited exceptions to
> the privacy policy. ?Saying this when a real name is involved is worse;
> and saying so when it's not even demonstrated is even more inappropriate.
>
> I already explained this to Mike, but that particular email has gone
> unreplied. ?(I've poked again just a few minutes ago).
>
> -- Coren / Marc
----------
From newyorkbrad at gmail.com Mon Nov 30 12:35:28 2009
From: newyorkbrad at gmail.com (Newyorkbrad (Wikipedia))
Date: Mon, 30 Nov 2009 07:35:28 -0500
Subject: [arbcom-l] Wording of David Gerard motion
In-Reply-To: <16032ea0911300112o5fac8654h64dd6e32af9469b8@mail.gmail.com>
References: <16032ea0911300112o5fac8654h64dd6e32af9469b8@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <c52819d30911300435q3a1a444en5c6d1239695d0aaa@mail.gmail.com>
I will suggest something this morning and provide a rationale. I have
to go to a breakfast meeting but will turn to this as soon as I get to
my office afterwards.
Newyorkbrad
On 11/30/09, FloNight <sydney.poore at gmail.com> wrote:
> Do we want to tweak the wording of the motion to address the criticism
> expressed by David, Mike, FT2, and Kat?
>
> If so, could Newyorkbrad or someone else take a stab at re-writing it.
>
> Sydney
----------
From sydney.poore at gmail.com Mon Nov 30 12:38:22 2009
From: sydney.poore at gmail.com (FloNight)
Date: Mon, 30 Nov 2009 07:38:22 -0500
Subject: [arbcom-l] Wording of David Gerard motion
In-Reply-To: <4B13B579.3010304@uberbox.org>
References: <16032ea0911300112o5fac8654h64dd6e32af9469b8@mail.gmail.com>
<4B13B579.3010304@uberbox.org>
Message-ID: <16032ea0911300438n8c61d0fy93f1c4b18e837650@mail.gmail.com>
I agree that his use of the real name is not appropriate.
I'm not suggesting that we drop that aspect of the ruling but that we tweak
the wording as a way to be responsive to raised concerns.
I feel quite strongly that it is appropriate for the Arbitration Committee
to set standards for the way that the names of real people are linked to
accounts. This is a key aspect to the work that Checkusers do.
In this situation David linked the name of a real person to that of a sock
account. David did this in an inappropriate venue, and as a way to disparage
someone. He did this with no regard to the harm that could come to the
person by making this link. And when approached by the person, he revealed
their private correspondence and mocked them. I do not consider any of this
conduct appropriate for someone with special permissions.
If an editor wrote this comment on site today, we would oversight it if
requested?
Sydney
On Mon, Nov 30, 2009 at 7:07 AM, Marc A. Pelletier <marc at uberbox.org> wrote:
> FloNight wrote:
> > Do we want to tweak the wording of the motion to address the criticism
> > expressed by David, Mike, FT2, and Kat?
>
> I'm not opposed in principle if someone makes a good case that the
> current wording is erroneous, but I note Mike has yet to address the
> substance of my objection to his position.
>
> I still stand by my position that saying "X is a sockpuppet" (however
> you phrase it) *is* a disclosure of private information that is -- in
> the context of preventing disruption (like SPI) -- an /acceptable/
> disclosure, but that by saying anything of the sort years removed and
> off-wiki you lose the protection afforded by the limited exceptions to
> the privacy policy. Saying this when a real name is involved is worse;
> and saying so when it's not even demonstrated is even more inappropriate.
>
> I already explained this to Mike, but that particular email has gone
> unreplied. (I've poked again just a few minutes ago).
>
> -- Coren / Marc
>
-----------
From jayvdb at gmail.com Mon Nov 30 13:39:37 2009
From: jayvdb at gmail.com (John Vandenberg)
Date: Tue, 1 Dec 2009 00:39:37 +1100
Subject: [arbcom-l] Wording of David Gerard motion
In-Reply-To: <16032ea0911300438n8c61d0fy93f1c4b18e837650@mail.gmail.com>
References: <16032ea0911300112o5fac8654h64dd6e32af9469b8@mail.gmail.com>
<4B13B579.3010304@uberbox.org>
<16032ea0911300438n8c61d0fy93f1c4b18e837650@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <deea21830911300539o39790d5ne4b49493b563a74b@mail.gmail.com>
On Mon, Nov 30, 2009 at 11:38 PM, FloNight <sydney.poore at gmail.com> wrote:
> I agree that his use of the real name is not appropriate.
>
> I'm not suggesting that we drop that aspect of the ruling but that we tweak
> the wording as a way to be responsive to raised concerns.
>
> I feel quite strongly that it is appropriate for the Arbitration Committee
> to set standards for the way that the names of real people are linked to
> accounts. This is a key aspect to the work that Checkusers do.
>
> In this situation David linked the name of a real person to that of a sock
> account. David did this in an inappropriate venue, and as a way to disparage
> someone. He did this with no regard to the harm that could come to the
> person by making this link.? And when approached by the person, he revealed
> their private correspondence and mocked them. I do not consider any of this
> conduct appropriate for someone with special permissions.
We could default to the wording of Level II procedures:
"the account's behaviour is inconsistent with the level of trust
required for its associated advanced permissions"
https://secure.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/ ... procedures
maybe that should be changed to "account _holder's_ behaviour".
> If an editor wrote this comment on site today, we would oversight it if
> requested?
This is an interesting way to look at it.
With YellowMonkey, we suppressed and gave a serious warning (iirc??).
https://secure.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/ ... v&unhide=1
An example of where I deleted, but did not suppress:
https://secure.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/ ... v&unhide=1
I deleted a large chunk of diffs in that effort.
https://secure.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/ ... C325580555
That was discussed here (and on ANI, but I cant be bothered finding the link):
https://secure.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/ ... _vs_OUTING
--
John Vandenberg
----------
From jayvdb at gmail.com Mon Nov 30 13:46:08 2009
From: jayvdb at gmail.com (John Vandenberg)
Date: Tue, 1 Dec 2009 00:46:08 +1100
Subject: [arbcom-l] Wording of David Gerard motion
In-Reply-To: <deea21830911300238x2e08db6cmd034149b2507fcb7@mail.gmail.com>
References: <16032ea0911300112o5fac8654h64dd6e32af9469b8@mail.gmail.com>
<deea21830911300238x2e08db6cmd034149b2507fcb7@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <deea21830911300546v43923e39n8c77d5c59a59d42d@mail.gmail.com>
On Mon, Nov 30, 2009 at 9:38 PM, John Vandenberg <jayvdb at gmail.com> wrote:
> On Mon, Nov 30, 2009 at 8:12 PM, FloNight <sydney.poore at gmail.com> wrote:
>> Do we want to tweak the wording of the motion to address the criticism
>> expressed by David, Mike, FT2, and Kat?
>>
>> If so, could Newyorkbrad or someone else take a stab at re-writing it.
>
> As far as I can see, the last three have not taken the time to review
> the emails used as evidence.
>
> I would appreciate it Mike looked at the email in question. ?Can we
> send it to him?
Mike has now asked to see the email. If nobody has an issue about
that in the next 15 mins, I'll send the thread to him.
--
John Vandenberg
----------
From jayvdb at gmail.com Mon Nov 30 14:48:06 2009
From: jayvdb at gmail.com (John Vandenberg)
Date: Tue, 1 Dec 2009 01:48:06 +1100
Subject: [arbcom-l] Andrew Landeryou emails threads
Message-ID: <deea21830911300648y6d7f41edweb9aef4aebe5a696@mail.gmail.com>
Hi Mike & Jimmy,
Attached are the three relevant threads.
Jimmy, you can also read them here:
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/pri ... 01480.html
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/pri ... 03022.html
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/pri ... 03125.html
--
John Vandenberg
-------------- next part --------------
thread: [Arbcom-l] "Australian politics vandal" slandering again
From dgerard at gmail.com Sun Jan 8 09:34:07 2006
From: dgerard at gmail.com (David Gerard)
Date: Sun, 8 Jan 2006 09:34:07 +0000
Subject: [Arbcom-l] "Australian politics vandal" slandering again
Message-ID: <fbad4e140601080134m324936dat919ff016a1b4c5ff at mail.gmail.com>
(to Jimbo, cc: AC because the troll may try to push it that far -
appears to be feeling his way.)
See [[Talk:Paula Rizzuto]]. This is the guy under 1000 sock names who
I've been tracking several months. His MO is to make slanderous
additions to Australian politics articles. In this case, he's created
an entire article about a minor Australian political figure and edited
it as [[User:StephenBengHo]], which is the name of her husband. Of
course, checkuser shows it to be the usual sock of 1000 heads.
I believe the sockpuppetteer to be a fellow called Andrew Landeryou,
whose ambition in life is to be a political headkicker for the right
in Victoria. (Though I wouldn't say that publicly without
confirmation.) He's seriously trying to use Wikipedia as an arena for
particularly stupid political games. His contributions are bad enough
that I locked [[Paula Rizzuto]] blank with {{deletedpage}}; I strongly
suggest this for other examples of his work, and to keep a very close
eye on any pages about current Australian political figures, major or
minor.
I put the above note on [[WP:ANI]] and it should probably go on any
relevant Australian, political or Australian political noticeboards or
project pages.
- d.
From dgerard at gmail.com Sun Jan 8 10:48:39 2006
From: dgerard at gmail.com (David Gerard)
Date: Sun, 8 Jan 2006 10:48:39 +0000
Subject: [Arbcom-l] Re: "Australian politics vandal" slandering again
In-Reply-To: <fbad4e140601080134m324936dat919ff016a1b4c5ff at mail.gmail.com>
References: <fbad4e140601080134m324936dat919ff016a1b4c5ff at mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <fbad4e140601080248p3615c879hdc4ee55051bdc0b7 at mail.gmail.com>
On 1/8/06, David Gerard <dgerard at gmail.com> wrote:
> I believe the sockpuppetteer to be a fellow called Andrew Landeryou,
> whose ambition in life is to be a political headkicker for the right
> in Victoria. (Though I wouldn't say that publicly without
> confirmation.)
This guy: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Andrew_Landeryou - the interest
in student politics was the dead giveaway.
- d.
From misfitgirl at gmail.com Sun Jan 8 13:15:17 2006
From: misfitgirl at gmail.com (Rebecca)
Date: Mon, 9 Jan 2006 00:15:17 +1100
Subject: [Arbcom-l] Re: "Australian politics vandal" slandering again
In-Reply-To: <fbad4e140601080248p3615c879hdc4ee55051bdc0b7 at mail.gmail.com>
References: <fbad4e140601080134m324936dat919ff016a1b4c5ff at mail.gmail.com>
<fbad4e140601080248p3615c879hdc4ee55051bdc0b7 at mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <530912670601080515n3e5e82e0kbc07213d840cd210 at mail.gmail.com>
Wow. This would be quite a development if it were true (incidentally, I had
a suspicion you might be talking about Landeryou when you mentioned that you
thought you'd identified the culprit). Are you familiar with Landeryou
outside of his Wikipedia article? (I'm not sure how long you've been living
in England)
I'd like to ask a couple of things, though, if you can share it (and I
understand entirely if you can't, though what is posted on this list stays
on this list), firstly, what makes you think it's Landeryou?
Secondly, you mentioned that he's got a bunch of sockpuppets - I'd be
curious if possible to know what some of these are, as to the best of our
knowledge StephenBengHo was a lone account, and I'm very interested to know
if he's related to the Crocodile Dundee vandal we've been tracking (and who
popped up about the same time).
-- ambi
On 1/8/06, David Gerard <dgerard at gmail.com> wrote:
>
> On 1/8/06, David Gerard <dgerard at gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > I believe the sockpuppetteer to be a fellow called Andrew Landeryou,
> > whose ambition in life is to be a political headkicker for the right
> > in Victoria. (Though I wouldn't say that publicly without
> > confirmation.)
>
>
> This guy: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Andrew_Landeryou - the interest
> in student politics was the dead giveaway.
>
>
> - d.
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/priv ... chment.htm
From dgerard at gmail.com Sun Jan 8 14:08:27 2006
From: dgerard at gmail.com (David Gerard)
Date: Sun, 8 Jan 2006 14:08:27 +0000
Subject: [Arbcom-l] Re: "Australian politics vandal" slandering again
In-Reply-To: <530912670601080515n3e5e82e0kbc07213d840cd210 at mail.gmail.com>
References: <fbad4e140601080134m324936dat919ff016a1b4c5ff at mail.gmail.com>
<fbad4e140601080248p3615c879hdc4ee55051bdc0b7 at mail.gmail.com>
<530912670601080515n3e5e82e0kbc07213d840cd210 at mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <fbad4e140601080608i635374c5mbbd9b6d9fb0990cb at mail.gmail.com>
On 1/8/06, Rebecca <misfitgirl at gmail.com> wrote:
> Wow. This would be quite a development if it were true (incidentally, I had
> a suspicion you might be talking about Landeryou when you mentioned that you
> thought you'd identified the culprit). Are you familiar with Landeryou
> outside of his Wikipedia article? (I'm not sure how long you've been living
> in England)
> I'd like to ask a couple of things, though, if you can share it (and I
> understand entirely if you can't, though what is posted on this list stays
> on this list), firstly, what makes you think it's Landeryou?
Turns out Paula Rizzuto is a friend of several friends, i.e. we share
a social circle. (This happens after a while.) So I'm now on her LJ
and she's on mine. She detailed her suspicions in a locked post.
There's a fake blog for her which appears to be Landeryou's work, and
the deleted article is based on the same material.
But there's nothing I could nail him on, so I'm not voicing my
suspicions out loud.
> Secondly, you mentioned that he's got a bunch of sockpuppets - I'd be
> curious if possible to know what some of these are, as to the best of our
> knowledge StephenBengHo was a lone account, and I'm very interested to know
> if he's related to the Crocodile Dundee vandal we've been tracking (and who
> popped up about the same time).
There's a pile of names all editing the same sort of posts from the IP
- appears to be a Comindico static IP. (Comindico outsource dial-up
connections from a pile of .au ISPs, and evidently do the same for
DSL.) I'll prepare a list later.
I mention it to this list because of the obvious concern over
defamatory living biographies on the wiki, and the Australian politics
vandal is doing it with malicious intent.
- d.
From dgerard at gmail.com Sun Jan 8 14:10:10 2006
From: dgerard at gmail.com (David Gerard)
Date: Sun, 8 Jan 2006 14:10:10 +0000
Subject: [Arbcom-l] Re: "Australian politics vandal" slandering again
In-Reply-To: <fbad4e140601080608i635374c5mbbd9b6d9fb0990cb at mail.gmail.com>
References: <fbad4e140601080134m324936dat919ff016a1b4c5ff at mail.gmail.com>
<fbad4e140601080248p3615c879hdc4ee55051bdc0b7 at mail.gmail.com>
<530912670601080515n3e5e82e0kbc07213d840cd210 at mail.gmail.com>
<fbad4e140601080608i635374c5mbbd9b6d9fb0990cb at mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <fbad4e140601080610q36c3da64u3d51eddf1d482f55 at mail.gmail.com>
On 1/8/06, David Gerard <dgerard at gmail.com> wrote:
> There's a fake blog for her which appears to be Landeryou's work, and
> the deleted article is based on the same material.
And I don't know Landeryou's work directly, but I am grossly
overexperienced in dealing with the type. Australian student politics
is used by the major parties as a training ground. It's just
unspeakably wonderful.
- d.
-------------- next part --------------
Thread: Darren Ray/Andrew Landeryou RFAr
From dgerard at gmail.com Thu Mar 16 13:36:11 2006
From: dgerard at gmail.com (David Gerard)
Date: Thu, 16 Mar 2006 13:36:11 +0000
Subject: [Arbcom-l] Darren Ray/Andrew Landeryou RFAr
Message-ID: <fbad4e140603160536y121624fcn at mail.gmail.com>
These guys are either the Australian Politics Vandal or are closely
associated. They are Labor Right hacks who spend all their time online
- Wikipedia and elsewhere - attempting to defame their perceived
enemies within Labor. We so don't need them in any way, shape or form.
(Australian politics: Labor is the large more-leftish party, Liberal
is the large more-rightish party. In Australia, the conservative
party, precisely analogous to the US Republicans or the UK Tories, is
called "Liberal." This doesn't make sense, but it's there.)
The correct ending in this case would be to find any suitable way to
ban both of them from Wikipedia, however it can be managed from this
RFAr.
- d.
From misfitgirl at gmail.com Mon Mar 20 05:43:02 2006
From: misfitgirl at gmail.com (Rebecca)
Date: Mon, 20 Mar 2006 16:43:02 +1100
Subject: [Arbcom-l] Darren Ray/Andrew Landeryou RFAr
In-Reply-To: <fbad4e140603160536y121624fcn at mail.gmail.com>
References: <fbad4e140603160536y121624fcn at mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <530912670603192143j38638964g8d41d8f2f2eb491c at mail.gmail.com>
Can you please finish this report and block these guys?
DarrenRay has fired up his AChan sockpuppet again, and it's frustrating
having to keep reverting him when I *know* it's a sockpuppet account.
-- ambi
From jayjg99 at gmail.com Mon Mar 20 17:18:33 2006
From: jayjg99 at gmail.com (jayjg)
Date: Mon, 20 Mar 2006 12:18:33 -0500
Subject: [Arbcom-l] Darren Ray/Andrew Landeryou RFAr
In-Reply-To: <530912670603192143j38638964g8d41d8f2f2eb491c at mail.gmail.com>
References: <fbad4e140603160536y121624fcn at mail.gmail.com>
<530912670603192143j38638964g8d41d8f2f2eb491c at mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <6a8d9d700603200918n16d05479qa8af135bd1bfb3d1 at mail.gmail.com>
Can't it just be blocked as a sockpuppet created to violate policy?
Jay.
From misfitgirl at gmail.com Tue Mar 21 05:08:33 2006
From: misfitgirl at gmail.com (Rebecca)
Date: Tue, 21 Mar 2006 16:08:33 +1100
Subject: [Arbcom-l] Darren Ray/Andrew Landeryou RFAr
In-Reply-To: <6a8d9d700603200918n16d05479qa8af135bd1bfb3d1 at mail.gmail.com>
References: <fbad4e140603160536y121624fcn at mail.gmail.com>
<530912670603192143j38638964g8d41d8f2f2eb491c at mail.gmail.com>
<6a8d9d700603200918n16d05479qa8af135bd1bfb3d1 at mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <530912670603202108m41083a49k56e9ca2e0ffe838c at mail.gmail.com>
No, it can't. I only know it's a sockpuppet because David got a conclusive
CheckUser result, although it's damned obvious in hindsight. It's also not
the only sockpuppet in action here.
Seriously, I'm just about at the end of my tether here. I'm having to spend
just about all the little wiki-time I have dealing with these idiots, and
it's got to the point where they're popping up on articles I've written just
to be a nuisance. I've known for days that there's bad-faith editing going
on here, but I can't actually *do* anything about it because I'm too
involved. So please, can *someone* do something about this, if David doesn't
have the time to finish the job? I can't take this much longer.
-- an increasingly stressed ambi
From theresaknott at gmail.com Tue Mar 21 15:35:23 2006
From: theresaknott at gmail.com (Theresa Knott)
Date: Tue, 21 Mar 2006 15:35:23 +0000
Subject: [Arbcom-l] Darren Ray/Andrew Landeryou RFAr
In-Reply-To: <530912670603202108m41083a49k56e9ca2e0ffe838c at mail.gmail.com>
References: <fbad4e140603160536y121624fcn at mail.gmail.com>
<530912670603192143j38638964g8d41d8f2f2eb491c at mail.gmail.com>
<6a8d9d700603200918n16d05479qa8af135bd1bfb3d1 at mail.gmail.com>
<530912670603202108m41083a49k56e9ca2e0ffe838c at mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <1bfe3eb0603210735y5f196e8cibc3483649ea3a6e9 at mail.gmail.com>
On 3/21/06, Rebecca <misfitgirl at gmail.com> wrote:
>
> No, it can't. I only know it's a sockpuppet because David got a conclusive
> CheckUser result, although it's damned obvious in hindsight. It's also not
> the only sockpuppet in action here.
David are you sure it's a sock? Ambi why is it obvious in hindsight?
I've had an email from Darren Ray stating that he is not running any
socks and that Adam Carr has met him and one of the socks he is being
accused of. Is there any possiblity of an error?
Theresa
From kelly.lynn.martin at gmail.com Tue Mar 21 16:28:47 2006
From: kelly.lynn.martin at gmail.com (Kelly Martin)
Date: Tue, 21 Mar 2006 10:28:47 -0600
Subject: [Arbcom-l] Darren Ray/Andrew Landeryou RFAr
In-Reply-To: <1bfe3eb0603210735y5f196e8cibc3483649ea3a6e9 at mail.gmail.com>
References: <fbad4e140603160536y121624fcn at mail.gmail.com>
<530912670603192143j38638964g8d41d8f2f2eb491c at mail.gmail.com>
<6a8d9d700603200918n16d05479qa8af135bd1bfb3d1 at mail.gmail.com>
<530912670603202108m41083a49k56e9ca2e0ffe838c at mail.gmail.com>
<1bfe3eb0603210735y5f196e8cibc3483649ea3a6e9 at mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <bd4c411e0603210828j5a187a95xd23fb9f7c277c8dd at mail.gmail.com>
On 3/21/06, Theresa Knott <theresaknott at gmail.com> wrote:
> On 3/21/06, Rebecca <misfitgirl at gmail.com> wrote:
> >
> > No, it can't. I only know it's a sockpuppet because David got a conclusive
> > CheckUser result, although it's damned obvious in hindsight. It's also not
> > the only sockpuppet in action here.
>
> David are you sure it's a sock? Ambi why is it obvious in hindsight?
>
> I've had an email from Darren Ray stating that he is not running any
> socks and that Adam Carr has met him and one of the socks he is being
> accused of. Is there any possiblity of an error?
Ok, short summary.
Darren has been editing via three different ISPs over the last month,
Internode, Telstra, and MyTelecom.
One of the IPs he used at Internode he used exclusively prior to March
1. After March 1, that IP has been used exclusively by 2006BC (except
for a user creation by BibiCass, who is likely the same person as
2006BC). The other one has edits by DarrenRay, BenjaminCass (probably
the same entity as BibiCass and 2006BC), and HamishJay as well as
several unsigned edits. There have been no edits from this IP since
February 28th.
The IP at Telstra was used by Userfreespeech up to and through March
1st, with edits consistent with DarrenRay's profile. On March 5th
this IP was being used by DarrenRay; later that evening the BibiCass
account was created via Internode. Starting on March 7th, AChan was
created on this IP and has been used for edits consistent with
DarrenRay's profile. Also on March 7th, the 2006BC account was
created via Internode. None of these edits are overlapping; rather,
they're notched.
The IP at MyTelecom has been used by DarrenRay (and assorted
sockpuppets, mostly in February) exclusively since March 7th. As best
I can tell, usage of the three accounts has NEVER overlapped, although
I'm not 100% certain.
There's too many coincidences here for it to be coincidental.
Kelly
From dmcdevit at cox.net Tue Mar 21 17:10:21 2006
From: dmcdevit at cox.net (Dmcdevit)
Date: Tue, 21 Mar 2006 09:10:21 -0800
Subject: [Arbcom-l] Darren Ray/Andrew Landeryou RFAr
In-Reply-To: <bd4c411e0603210828j5a187a95xd23fb9f7c277c8dd at mail.gmail.com>
References: <fbad4e140603160536y121624fcn at mail.gmail.com> <530912670603192143j38638964g8d41d8f2f2eb491c at mail.gmail.com> <6a8d9d700603200918n16d05479qa8af135bd1bfb3d1 at mail.gmail.com> <530912670603202108m41083a49k56e9ca2e0ffe838c at mail.gmail.com> <1bfe3eb0603210735y5f196e8cibc3483649ea3a6e9 at mail.gmail.com>
<bd4c411e0603210828j5a187a95xd23fb9f7c277c8dd at mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <4420337D.3020901 at cox.net>
That "BenjaminCass" account used by DarrenRay's is indeed interesting,
since I got an email from 2006BC asserting he's not a sockpuppet, he's a
separate person. *Named Benjamin Cass*. I don't know if everyone else
got the email, but he even gave me his phone number, and says he's knows
who Ambi is, and that she's a political opponent of his.
Dominic
From dgerard at gmail.com Tue Mar 21 17:37:50 2006
From: dgerard at gmail.com (David Gerard)
Date: Tue, 21 Mar 2006 17:37:50 +0000
Subject: [Arbcom-l] Darren Ray/Andrew Landeryou RFAr
In-Reply-To: <4420337D.3020901 at cox.net>
References: <fbad4e140603160536y121624fcn at mail.gmail.com>
<530912670603192143j38638964g8d41d8f2f2eb491c at mail.gmail.com>
<6a8d9d700603200918n16d05479qa8af135bd1bfb3d1 at mail.gmail.com>
<530912670603202108m41083a49k56e9ca2e0ffe838c at mail.gmail.com>
<1bfe3eb0603210735y5f196e8cibc3483649ea3a6e9 at mail.gmail.com>
<bd4c411e0603210828j5a187a95xd23fb9f7c277c8dd at mail.gmail.com>
<4420337D.3020901 at cox.net>
Message-ID: <fbad4e140603210937p6882f2b8t at mail.gmail.com>
On 21/03/06, Dmcdevit <dmcdevit at cox.net> wrote:
> That "BenjaminCass" account used by DarrenRay's is indeed interesting,
> since I got an email from 2006BC asserting he's not a sockpuppet, he's a
> separate person. *Named Benjamin Cass*. I don't know if everyone else
> got the email, but he even gave me his phone number, and says he's knows
> who Ambi is, and that she's a political opponent of his.
Precis:
Darren Ray (User:DarrenRay) and Ben Cass (|User:2006BC and a few other
names) are different people, working together in tandem.
They have each edited from each others' houses, but the pattern's pretty clear.
AChan is a sock of Darren Ray. Block forthwith.
Ben Cass is running and has run several other usernames.
I'm pretty much certain these guys are, together, the Australian
Politics Vandal or major components of that vandal.
They see EVERYTHING as their small political battle. I got a note on
my talk page from Ben Cass asking what my party political affiliation
was. What the fuck.
More detail later. I'll just shoot AChan now.
- d.
From dgerard at gmail.com Tue Mar 21 17:40:30 2006
From: dgerard at gmail.com (David Gerard)
Date: Tue, 21 Mar 2006 17:40:30 +0000
Subject: [Arbcom-l] Darren Ray/Andrew Landeryou RFAr
In-Reply-To: <fbad4e140603210937p6882f2b8t at mail.gmail.com>
References: <fbad4e140603160536y121624fcn at mail.gmail.com>
<530912670603192143j38638964g8d41d8f2f2eb491c at mail.gmail.com>
<6a8d9d700603200918n16d05479qa8af135bd1bfb3d1 at mail.gmail.com>
<530912670603202108m41083a49k56e9ca2e0ffe838c at mail.gmail.com>
<1bfe3eb0603210735y5f196e8cibc3483649ea3a6e9 at mail.gmail.com>
<bd4c411e0603210828j5a187a95xd23fb9f7c277c8dd at mail.gmail.com>
<4420337D.3020901 at cox.net>
<fbad4e140603210937p6882f2b8t at mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <fbad4e140603210940r88d592o at mail.gmail.com>
On 21/03/06, David Gerard <dgerard at gmail.com> wrote:
> More detail later. I'll just shoot AChan now.
I've blocked AChan indefinitely and DarrenRay 48 hours for using
sockpuppets to evade 3RR. I'm leaving notes on RFAr, ANI and his user
talk, the last noting he is still able to communicate with the AC via
email (you lucky people!).
My apologies to Ambi for taking so long on this!
- d.
From kelly.lynn.martin at gmail.com Tue Mar 21 17:47:13 2006
From: kelly.lynn.martin at gmail.com (Kelly Martin)
Date: Tue, 21 Mar 2006 11:47:13 -0600
Subject: [Arbcom-l] Darren Ray/Andrew Landeryou RFAr
In-Reply-To: <fbad4e140603210937p6882f2b8t at mail.gmail.com>
References: <fbad4e140603160536y121624fcn at mail.gmail.com>
<530912670603192143j38638964g8d41d8f2f2eb491c at mail.gmail.com>
<6a8d9d700603200918n16d05479qa8af135bd1bfb3d1 at mail.gmail.com>
<530912670603202108m41083a49k56e9ca2e0ffe838c at mail.gmail.com>
<1bfe3eb0603210735y5f196e8cibc3483649ea3a6e9 at mail.gmail.com>
<bd4c411e0603210828j5a187a95xd23fb9f7c277c8dd at mail.gmail.com>
<4420337D.3020901 at cox.net>
<fbad4e140603210937p6882f2b8t at mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <bd4c411e0603210947je389ad3u9867624f0b5b076b at mail.gmail.com>
On 3/21/06, David Gerard <dgerard at gmail.com> wrote:
> Precis:
>
> Darren Ray (User:DarrenRay) and Ben Cass (|User:2006BC and a few other
> names) are different people, working together in tandem.
>
> They have each edited from each others' houses, but the pattern's pretty clear.
>
> AChan is a sock of Darren Ray. Block forthwith.
>
> Ben Cass is running and has run several other usernames.
>
> I'm pretty much certain these guys are, together, the Australian
> Politics Vandal or major components of that vandal.
>
> They see EVERYTHING as their small political battle. I got a note on
> my talk page from Ben Cass asking what my party political affiliation
> was. What the fuck.
>
> More detail later. I'll just shoot AChan now.
Ban the lot of them for bringing an outside dispute into Wikipedia, then.
Kelly
From dgerard at gmail.com Tue Mar 21 18:09:58 2006
From: dgerard at gmail.com (David Gerard)
Date: Tue, 21 Mar 2006 18:09:58 +0000
Subject: [Arbcom-l] Darren Ray/Andrew Landeryou RFAr
In-Reply-To: <bd4c411e0603210947je389ad3u9867624f0b5b076b at mail.gmail.com>
References: <fbad4e140603160536y121624fcn at mail.gmail.com>
<530912670603192143j38638964g8d41d8f2f2eb491c at mail.gmail.com>
<6a8d9d700603200918n16d05479qa8af135bd1bfb3d1 at mail.gmail.com>
<530912670603202108m41083a49k56e9ca2e0ffe838c at mail.gmail.com>
<1bfe3eb0603210735y5f196e8cibc3483649ea3a6e9 at mail.gmail.com>
<bd4c411e0603210828j5a187a95xd23fb9f7c277c8dd at mail.gmail.com>
<4420337D.3020901 at cox.net>
<fbad4e140603210937p6882f2b8t at mail.gmail.com>
<bd4c411e0603210947je389ad3u9867624f0b5b076b at mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <fbad4e140603211009l50e94acdk at mail.gmail.com>
On 21/03/06, Kelly Martin <kelly.lynn.martin at gmail.com> wrote:
> On 3/21/06, David Gerard <dgerard at gmail.com> wrote:
> > More detail later. I'll just shoot AChan now.
> Ban the lot of them for bringing an outside dispute into Wikipedia, then.
Can do. But (a) that won't stop the Aus Politics Vandal (nothing else
has), (b) this is part of a WIDE-ranging slander campaign across the
blogosphere and wikisphere (they even hit Uncyclopedia!) and © I've
yet to flush out what names/IPs are being used by the third member of
the triumvirate, Andrew Landeryou.
An official AC ban (not block) of Darren Ray, Benjamin Cass and (if I
can find anything) Andrew Landeryou - as in, "they were also
officially banned from Wikipedia for these actions" - would severely
damage the political capital they hope to enhance with this shit,
which would probably slow them down a bit. Though I dunno if that
would be too expressly political for the AC. But they've been going at
this for *months* as the Aus Politics Vandal, and it's the one thing
that occurs to me that might affect their motivation to continue.
- d.
From theresaknott at gmail.com Tue Mar 21 19:16:08 2006
From: theresaknott at gmail.com (Theresa Knott)
Date: Tue, 21 Mar 2006 19:16:08 +0000
Subject: [Arbcom-l] Darren Ray/Andrew Landeryou RFAr
In-Reply-To: <4420337D.3020901 at cox.net>
References: <fbad4e140603160536y121624fcn at mail.gmail.com>
<530912670603192143j38638964g8d41d8f2f2eb491c at mail.gmail.com>
<6a8d9d700603200918n16d05479qa8af135bd1bfb3d1 at mail.gmail.com>
<530912670603202108m41083a49k56e9ca2e0ffe838c at mail.gmail.com>
<1bfe3eb0603210735y5f196e8cibc3483649ea3a6e9 at mail.gmail.com>
<bd4c411e0603210828j5a187a95xd23fb9f7c277c8dd at mail.gmail.com>
<4420337D.3020901 at cox.net>
Message-ID: <1bfe3eb0603211116m538f1fdfod38b0f4a36b6a901 at mail.gmail.com>
On 3/21/06, Dmcdevit <dmcdevit at cox.net> wrote:
> That "BenjaminCass" account used by DarrenRay's is indeed interesting,
> since I got an email from 2006BC asserting he's not a sockpuppet, he's a
> separate person. *Named Benjamin Cass*. I don't know if everyone else
> got the email,
No but the DarreenRay email sent to me said almost exactly the same thing.
If they are not the same person they are discussing the emails that
they intend to send.
Theresa
From theresaknott at gmail.com Tue Mar 21 19:19:08 2006
From: theresaknott at gmail.com (Theresa Knott)
Date: Tue, 21 Mar 2006 19:19:08 +0000
Subject: [Arbcom-l] Darren Ray/Andrew Landeryou RFAr
In-Reply-To: <4420337D.3020901 at cox.net>
References: <fbad4e140603160536y121624fcn at mail.gmail.com>
<530912670603192143j38638964g8d41d8f2f2eb491c at mail.gmail.com>
<6a8d9d700603200918n16d05479qa8af135bd1bfb3d1 at mail.gmail.com>
<530912670603202108m41083a49k56e9ca2e0ffe838c at mail.gmail.com>
<1bfe3eb0603210735y5f196e8cibc3483649ea3a6e9 at mail.gmail.com>
<bd4c411e0603210828j5a187a95xd23fb9f7c277c8dd at mail.gmail.com>
<4420337D.3020901 at cox.net>
Message-ID: <1bfe3eb0603211119q1c10fe12q7c1b10e80cbda984 at mail.gmail.com>
On 3/21/06, Dmcdevit <dmcdevit at cox.net> wrote:
> That "BenjaminCass" account used by DarrenRay's is indeed interesting,
but he even gave me his phone number
It wasn't <redacted> by any chance?
From dmcdevit at cox.net Tue Mar 21 19:32:03 2006
From: dmcdevit at cox.net (Dmcdevit)
Date: Tue, 21 Mar 2006 11:32:03 -0800
Subject: [Arbcom-l] Darren Ray/Andrew Landeryou RFAr
In-Reply-To: <fbad4e140603210937p6882f2b8t at mail.gmail.com>
References: <fbad4e140603160536y121624fcn at mail.gmail.com> <530912670603192143j38638964g8d41d8f2f2eb491c at mail.gmail.com> <6a8d9d700603200918n16d05479qa8af135bd1bfb3d1 at mail.gmail.com> <530912670603202108m41083a49k56e9ca2e0ffe838c at mail.gmail.com> <1bfe3eb0603210735y5f196e8cibc3483649ea3a6e9 at mail.gmail.com> <bd4c411e0603210828j5a187a95xd23fb9f7c277c8dd at mail.gmail.com> <4420337D.3020901 at cox.net>
<fbad4e140603210937p6882f2b8t at mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <442054B3.9010007 at cox.net>
Well, that's strange, because 2006BC was blocked by Essjay, using
CheckUser, as a confirmed sock of DarrenRay.
07:06, March 21, 2006 Essjay <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Essjay>
blocked "2006BC <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:2006BC> (contribs
<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/2006BC>)" with an
expiry time of indefinite ({{Sockchecked|DarrenRay}})
Which was what he emailed me about. Essjay seems to have gotten the same
email as me, and still thinks that 2006BC and DarrenRay *are* the same.
Or I'm reading it wrong. He left this message on 2006BC's talk page
(which should probably be protected if he keeps up the ranting there):
"I received your email; I am not making an international phone call at
my own expense to discuss sockpuppetry. You may plead your case to the
Arbitration Committee via email; I ran the checkuser, I saw the results,
I reviewed them with two other checkusers, and I blocked eight obvious
sockpupets. The evidence has been made available to the Arbitration
Committee, and the matter is in thier hands now. Essjay
<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Essjay> ^/Talk/
<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Essjay> ? /Contact/
<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Essjay/Contact> 08:54, 21 March 2006
(UTC)"
Utterly confused,
Dominic
From dmcdevit at cox.net Tue Mar 21 19:39:37 2006
From: dmcdevit at cox.net (Dmcdevit)
Date: Tue, 21 Mar 2006 11:39:37 -0800
Subject: [Arbcom-l] Darren Ray/Andrew Landeryou RFAr
In-Reply-To: <1bfe3eb0603211119q1c10fe12q7c1b10e80cbda984 at mail.gmail.com>
References: <fbad4e140603160536y121624fcn at mail.gmail.com> <530912670603192143j38638964g8d41d8f2f2eb491c at mail.gmail.com> <6a8d9d700603200918n16d05479qa8af135bd1bfb3d1 at mail.gmail.com> <530912670603202108m41083a49k56e9ca2e0ffe838c at mail.gmail.com> <1bfe3eb0603210735y5f196e8cibc3483649ea3a6e9 at mail.gmail.com> <bd4c411e0603210828j5a187a95xd23fb9f7c277c8dd at mail.gmail.com> <4420337D.3020901 at cox.net>
<1bfe3eb0603211119q1c10fe12q7c1b10e80cbda984 at mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <44205679.3050000 at cox.net>
No it's something else. Actually, it's a 10-digit number, not including
the country code 61, which strikes me as wrong (but maybe that's just
because I don't make international calls?). In any case, my college
phone card has much better uses than a call to Australia for this. :-)
Dominic
From dgerard at gmail.com Tue Mar 21 20:30:10 2006
From: dgerard at gmail.com (David Gerard)
Date: Tue, 21 Mar 2006 20:30:10 +0000
Subject: [Arbcom-l] Darren Ray/Andrew Landeryou RFAr
In-Reply-To: <1bfe3eb0603211116m538f1fdfod38b0f4a36b6a901 at mail.gmail.com>
References: <fbad4e140603160536y121624fcn at mail.gmail.com>
<530912670603192143j38638964g8d41d8f2f2eb491c at mail.gmail.com>
<6a8d9d700603200918n16d05479qa8af135bd1bfb3d1 at mail.gmail.com>
<530912670603202108m41083a49k56e9ca2e0ffe838c at mail.gmail.com>
<1bfe3eb0603210735y5f196e8cibc3483649ea3a6e9 at mail.gmail.com>
<bd4c411e0603210828j5a187a95xd23fb9f7c277c8dd at mail.gmail.com>
<4420337D.3020901 at cox.net>
<1bfe3eb0603211116m538f1fdfod38b0f4a36b6a901 at mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <fbad4e140603211230t59b67a08q at mail.gmail.com>
On 21/03/06, Theresa Knott <theresaknott at gmail.com> wrote:
> No but the DarreenRay email sent to me said almost exactly the same thing.
> If they are not the same person they are discussing the emails that
> they intend to send.
They're different people (real-life humans called Darren Ray and
Benjamin Cass), and they are definitely working in concert.
- d.
From misfitgirl at gmail.com Wed Mar 22 02:17:56 2006
From: misfitgirl at gmail.com (Rebecca)
Date: Wed, 22 Mar 2006 13:17:56 +1100
Subject: [Arbcom-l] Darren Ray/Andrew Landeryou RFAr
In-Reply-To: <fbad4e140603211230t59b67a08q at mail.gmail.com>
References: <fbad4e140603160536y121624fcn at mail.gmail.com>
<530912670603192143j38638964g8d41d8f2f2eb491c at mail.gmail.com>
<6a8d9d700603200918n16d05479qa8af135bd1bfb3d1 at mail.gmail.com>
<530912670603202108m41083a49k56e9ca2e0ffe838c at mail.gmail.com>
<1bfe3eb0603210735y5f196e8cibc3483649ea3a6e9 at mail.gmail.com>
<bd4c411e0603210828j5a187a95xd23fb9f7c277c8dd at mail.gmail.com>
<4420337D.3020901 at cox.net>
<1bfe3eb0603211116m538f1fdfod38b0f4a36b6a901 at mail.gmail.com>
<fbad4e140603211230t59b67a08q at mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <530912670603211817x729ad6cbkb402c19829c2e233 at mail.gmail.com>
I'm fairly sure that the Australian Politics Vandal is not the same user,
and I still think that, based on what David has said previously, Landeryou
is the likely candidate. That user was obsessed with two articles which Ray
has never touched, and the IP addresses (I had Essjay run a check last
night) don't match. As far as I can see, the Australian Politics Vandal
hasn't been around since Ericdu in late January. While the two are obviously
ideologically aligned, I don't think they're the same person.
Just to clear one other thing up, re Dmcdevit's email earlier saying he'd
received an email saying that DarrenRay "knew who I was" and that I "was a
political opponent of his". One of the targets of the Australian Politics
Vandal is a very minor political figure by the name of Paula Rizzuto, who
David knows personally. I reverted his attempts at slandering her, and if I
recall rightly may have nominated the article for deletion. On that basis,
this idiot came to the conclusion that I must have been Rizzuto, and has
been running around announcing this to all and sundry. Unsurprisingly, this
is complete nonsense. We don't even live in the same state.
-- ambi
-------------- next part --------------
From essjaywiki at gmail.com Tue Mar 21 09:53:32 2006
From: essjaywiki at gmail.com (- Essjay -)
Date: Tue, 21 Mar 2006 04:53:32 -0500
Subject: [Arbcom-l] DarrenRay sockpuppetry
Message-ID: <3f56c95e0603210153j4f2ceca6gc0b9cd9652a27b72 at mail.gmail.com>
As I said on RfAr, I'm providing my raw results here. They are attached as a
text file. I'm also maintaining a copy in case more checks need to be run.
I'm working on a breakdown to put into evidence.
I indefblocked a total of eight socks, I believe, as well as giving
DarrenRay a month block for using them all. I'm willing to unblock him (or
for someone else to do it) to participate in the arbitration, but am not
inclined to do so unless the committee requests it.
On two housekeeping notes, while I'm emailing in:
1) Thank you very much for granting me the permissions, I'm very honored to
be trusted with the responsibility.
2) Would it be possible to get write-access to arbcom-l for these
situations; I know read access is restricted due to the sensitive matters
discussed, but it would be helpful to be able to forward on results such as
this, especially since I'm the only checkuser who doesn't have write access
to the list already. Of course, I can always do as I've done in the past,
and put it in the moderated queue.
Essjay
-----
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Essjay
Wikipedia:The Free Encyclopedia
http://www.wikipedia.org/
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <a href="http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/private/arbcom-l/attachments/20060321/122fc6cb/attachment.htm" target="_
From: jayvdb at gmail.com (John Vandenberg)
Date: Mon, 30 Nov 2009 12:04:10 +1100
Subject: [arbcom-l] draft email to ComCom
In-Reply-To: <c52819d30911291653i2611ad1ds3bd37172ee5a09c8@mail.gmail.com>
References: <deea21830911290604h194b1a0fna23fe85674c51752@mail.gmail.com>
<deea21830911291632l5efe9849w99e3c464a45261ea@mail.gmail.com>
<c52819d30911291653i2611ad1ds3bd37172ee5a09c8@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <deea21830911291704q653ea343uda710cc87ed3a881@mail.gmail.com>
On Mon, Nov 30, 2009 at 11:53 AM, Newyorkbrad (Wikipedia)
<newyorkbrad at gmail.com> wrote:
> Given what's going on in the Functionaries-l thread, we should discuss
> whether to re-word the preamble of the motion before we do anything
> else.
I think we need to alert them promptly.
We could say that the wording of it is being disputed by WMF staff,
and we will let them know if it is amended.
> ?In particular, I am trying to figure out the genesis and nature
> of Mike's stated concerns.
your assistance there will be very helpful.
----------
From rlevse at cox.net Mon Nov 30 01:06:14 2009
From: rlevse at cox.net (rlevse at cox.net)
Date: Sun, 29 Nov 2009 20:06:14 -0500
Subject: [arbcom-l] draft email to ComCom
In-Reply-To: <deea21830911291704q653ea343uda710cc87ed3a881@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <20091129200614.JURJO.958224.imail@eastrmwml31>
Godwin has no standing to tell us what to do. I think it's possible someone, perhaps DG, asked him to intervene. Godwin has never tried to push us around before.
R
---- John Vandenberg <jayvdb at gmail.com> wrote:
> On Mon, Nov 30, 2009 at 11:53 AM, Newyorkbrad (Wikipedia)
> <newyorkbrad at gmail.com> wrote:
> > Given what's going on in the Functionaries-l thread, we should discuss
> > whether to re-word the preamble of the motion before we do anything
> > else.
>
> I think we need to alert them promptly.
> We could say that the wording of it is being disputed by WMF staff,
> and we will let them know if it is amended.
>
> > ?In particular, I am trying to figure out the genesis and nature
> > of Mike's stated concerns.
>
> your assistance there will be very helpful.
----------
From newyorkbrad at gmail.com Mon Nov 30 01:17:03 2009
From: newyorkbrad at gmail.com (Newyorkbrad (Wikipedia))
Date: Sun, 29 Nov 2009 20:17:03 -0500
Subject: [arbcom-l] draft email to ComCom
In-Reply-To: <deea21830911291704q653ea343uda710cc87ed3a881@mail.gmail.com>
References: <deea21830911290604h194b1a0fna23fe85674c51752@mail.gmail.com>
<deea21830911291632l5efe9849w99e3c464a45261ea@mail.gmail.com>
<c52819d30911291653i2611ad1ds3bd37172ee5a09c8@mail.gmail.com>
<deea21830911291704q653ea343uda710cc87ed3a881@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <c52819d30911291717h6ea7e8fn8150a71e50b639dd@mail.gmail.com>
I think we should leave out the preamble of the motion, just tell them
the decision itself.
Newyorkbrad
On 11/29/09, John Vandenberg <jayvdb at gmail.com> wrote:
> On Mon, Nov 30, 2009 at 11:53 AM, Newyorkbrad (Wikipedia)
> <newyorkbrad at gmail.com> wrote:
>> Given what's going on in the Functionaries-l thread, we should discuss
>> whether to re-word the preamble of the motion before we do anything
>> else.
>
> I think we need to alert them promptly.
> We could say that the wording of it is being disputed by WMF staff,
> and we will let them know if it is amended.
>
>> ?In particular, I am trying to figure out the genesis and nature
>> of Mike's stated concerns.
>
> your assistance there will be very helpful.
----------
From rlevse at cox.net Mon Nov 30 01:18:02 2009
From: rlevse at cox.net (rlevse at cox.net)
Date: Sun, 29 Nov 2009 20:18:02 -0500
Subject: [arbcom-l] draft email to ComCom
In-Reply-To: <c52819d30911291717h6ea7e8fn8150a71e50b639dd@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <20091129201802.VCF8E.958380.imail@eastrmwml31>
OK with me.
R
---- "Newyorkbrad (Wikipedia)" <newyorkbrad at gmail.com> wrote:
> I think we should leave out the preamble of the motion, just tell them
> the decision itself.
>
> Newyorkbrad
----------
From jayvdb at gmail.com Mon Nov 30 01:23:08 2009
From: jayvdb at gmail.com (John Vandenberg)
Date: Mon, 30 Nov 2009 12:23:08 +1100
Subject: [arbcom-l] draft email to ComCom
In-Reply-To: <c52819d30911291717h6ea7e8fn8150a71e50b639dd@mail.gmail.com>
References: <deea21830911290604h194b1a0fna23fe85674c51752@mail.gmail.com>
<deea21830911291632l5efe9849w99e3c464a45261ea@mail.gmail.com>
<c52819d30911291653i2611ad1ds3bd37172ee5a09c8@mail.gmail.com>
<deea21830911291704q653ea343uda710cc87ed3a881@mail.gmail.com>
<c52819d30911291717h6ea7e8fn8150a71e50b639dd@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <deea21830911291723l7d4aae13h663b37b85a5308e5@mail.gmail.com>
Brad,
the draft has three components:
1. the decision
2. the background, which is 100% factual
3. a note that this is subject to appeal, etc
precisely which bit should be cut ?
--
John Vandenberg
----------
From newyorkbrad at gmail.com Mon Nov 30 01:25:26 2009
From: newyorkbrad at gmail.com (Newyorkbrad (Wikipedia))
Date: Sun, 29 Nov 2009 20:25:26 -0500
Subject: [arbcom-l] draft email to ComCom
In-Reply-To: <deea21830911291723l7d4aae13h663b37b85a5308e5@mail.gmail.com>
References: <deea21830911290604h194b1a0fna23fe85674c51752@mail.gmail.com>
<deea21830911291632l5efe9849w99e3c464a45261ea@mail.gmail.com>
<c52819d30911291653i2611ad1ds3bd37172ee5a09c8@mail.gmail.com>
<deea21830911291704q653ea343uda710cc87ed3a881@mail.gmail.com>
<c52819d30911291717h6ea7e8fn8150a71e50b639dd@mail.gmail.com>
<deea21830911291723l7d4aae13h663b37b85a5308e5@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <c52819d30911291725n743da4e3t1d400122f79d5d44@mail.gmail.com>
In my view, the issue right now concerns the introduction to the
adopted motion ("For..."). That's the part I understand David is
factually disputing.
I'd like to see what other arbs have to say here too.
Newyorkbrad
-----------
From rlevse at cox.net Mon Nov 30 01:29:15 2009
From: rlevse at cox.net (rlevse at cox.net)
Date: Sun, 29 Nov 2009 20:29:15 -0500
Subject: [arbcom-l] draft email to ComCom
In-Reply-To: <c52819d30911291725n743da4e3t1d400122f79d5d44@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <20091129202915.75GR8.958510.imail@eastrmwml31>
We have plenty of evidence to support this on the page on him on arbwiki. THere's a link to it in my vote on the motion.
R
---- "Newyorkbrad (Wikipedia)" <newyorkbrad at gmail.com> wrote:
> In my view, the issue right now concerns the introduction to the
> adopted motion ("For..."). That's the part I understand David is
> factually disputing.
>
> I'd like to see what other arbs have to say here too.
>
> Newyorkbrad
----------
From jayvdb at gmail.com Mon Nov 30 01:42:53 2009
From: jayvdb at gmail.com (John Vandenberg)
Date: Mon, 30 Nov 2009 12:42:53 +1100
Subject: [arbcom-l] draft email to ComCom
In-Reply-To: <c52819d30911291725n743da4e3t1d400122f79d5d44@mail.gmail.com>
References: <deea21830911290604h194b1a0fna23fe85674c51752@mail.gmail.com>
<deea21830911291632l5efe9849w99e3c464a45261ea@mail.gmail.com>
<c52819d30911291653i2611ad1ds3bd37172ee5a09c8@mail.gmail.com>
<deea21830911291704q653ea343uda710cc87ed3a881@mail.gmail.com>
<c52819d30911291717h6ea7e8fn8150a71e50b639dd@mail.gmail.com>
<deea21830911291723l7d4aae13h663b37b85a5308e5@mail.gmail.com>
<c52819d30911291725n743da4e3t1d400122f79d5d44@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <deea21830911291742x181afa0dyc8b31405098ab832@mail.gmail.com>
On Mon, Nov 30, 2009 at 12:25 PM, Newyorkbrad (Wikipedia)
<newyorkbrad at gmail.com> wrote:
> In my view, the issue right now concerns the introduction to the
> adopted motion ("For..."). ?That's the part I understand David is
> factually disputing.
That is the _actual decision_, as published. They need to be aware of
what was actually published.
The third part explains that he is disputing it.
--
John Vandenberg
----------
From newyorkbrad at gmail.com Mon Nov 30 01:46:45 2009
From: newyorkbrad at gmail.com (Newyorkbrad (Wikipedia))
Date: Sun, 29 Nov 2009 20:46:45 -0500
Subject: [arbcom-l] draft email to ComCom
In-Reply-To: <deea21830911291742x181afa0dyc8b31405098ab832@mail.gmail.com>
References: <deea21830911290604h194b1a0fna23fe85674c51752@mail.gmail.com>
<deea21830911291632l5efe9849w99e3c464a45261ea@mail.gmail.com>
<c52819d30911291653i2611ad1ds3bd37172ee5a09c8@mail.gmail.com>
<deea21830911291704q653ea343uda710cc87ed3a881@mail.gmail.com>
<c52819d30911291717h6ea7e8fn8150a71e50b639dd@mail.gmail.com>
<deea21830911291723l7d4aae13h663b37b85a5308e5@mail.gmail.com>
<c52819d30911291725n743da4e3t1d400122f79d5d44@mail.gmail.com>
<deea21830911291742x181afa0dyc8b31405098ab832@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <c52819d30911291746o5737817fy7c6dc0d5bf1f2505@mail.gmail.com>
We now have a board member questioning the preamble also. I am not
convinced further publicizing it is the way to go.
Newyorkbrad
----------
From sydney.poore at gmail.com Mon Nov 30 09:12:01 2009
From: sydney.poore at gmail.com (FloNight)
Date: Mon, 30 Nov 2009 04:12:01 -0500
Subject: [arbcom-l] Wording of David Gerard motion
Message-ID: <16032ea0911300112o5fac8654h64dd6e32af9469b8@mail.gmail.com>
Do we want to tweak the wording of the motion to address the criticism
expressed by David, Mike, FT2, and Kat?
If so, could Newyorkbrad or someone else take a stab at re-writing it.
Sydney
----------
From: jayvdb at gmail.com (John Vandenberg)
Date: Mon, 30 Nov 2009 21:38:41 +1100
Subject: [arbcom-l] Wording of David Gerard motion
In-Reply-To: <16032ea0911300112o5fac8654h64dd6e32af9469b8@mail.gmail.com>
References: <16032ea0911300112o5fac8654h64dd6e32af9469b8@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <deea21830911300238x2e08db6cmd034149b2507fcb7@mail.gmail.com>
On Mon, Nov 30, 2009 at 8:12 PM, FloNight <sydney.poore at gmail.com> wrote:
> Do we want to tweak the wording of the motion to address the criticism
> expressed by David, Mike, FT2, and Kat?
>
> If so, could Newyorkbrad or someone else take a stab at re-writing it.
As far as I can see, the last three have not taken the time to review
the emails used as evidence.
I would appreciate it Mike looked at the email in question. Can we
send it to him?
--
John Vandenberg
-----------
From marc at uberbox.org Mon Nov 30 12:07:21 2009
From: marc at uberbox.org (Marc A. Pelletier)
Date: Mon, 30 Nov 2009 07:07:21 -0500
Subject: [arbcom-l] Wording of David Gerard motion
In-Reply-To: <16032ea0911300112o5fac8654h64dd6e32af9469b8@mail.gmail.com>
References: <16032ea0911300112o5fac8654h64dd6e32af9469b8@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <4B13B579.3010304@uberbox.org>
FloNight wrote:
> Do we want to tweak the wording of the motion to address the criticism
> expressed by David, Mike, FT2, and Kat?
I'm not opposed in principle if someone makes a good case that the
current wording is erroneous, but I note Mike has yet to address the
substance of my objection to his position.
I still stand by my position that saying "X is a sockpuppet" (however
you phrase it) *is* a disclosure of private information that is -- in
the context of preventing disruption (like SPI) -- an /acceptable/
disclosure, but that by saying anything of the sort years removed and
off-wiki you lose the protection afforded by the limited exceptions to
the privacy policy. Saying this when a real name is involved is worse;
and saying so when it's not even demonstrated is even more inappropriate.
I already explained this to Mike, but that particular email has gone
unreplied. (I've poked again just a few minutes ago).
-- Coren / Marc
------------
From jayvdb at gmail.com Mon Nov 30 12:24:31 2009
From: jayvdb at gmail.com (John Vandenberg)
Date: Mon, 30 Nov 2009 23:24:31 +1100
Subject: [arbcom-l] Wording of David Gerard motion
In-Reply-To: <4B13B579.3010304@uberbox.org>
References: <16032ea0911300112o5fac8654h64dd6e32af9469b8@mail.gmail.com>
<4B13B579.3010304@uberbox.org>
Message-ID: <deea21830911300424h5a462b37l1d1b9051b53fbf39@mail.gmail.com>
David has again used legal language.
https://secure.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/ ... =328738343
On Mon, Nov 30, 2009 at 11:07 PM, Marc A. Pelletier <marc at uberbox.org> wrote:
> FloNight wrote:
>> Do we want to tweak the wording of the motion to address the criticism
>> expressed by David, Mike, FT2, and Kat?
>
> I'm not opposed in principle if someone makes a good case that the
> current wording is erroneous, but I note Mike has yet to address the
> substance of my objection to his position.
>
> I still stand by my position that saying "X is a sockpuppet" (however
> you phrase it) *is* a disclosure of private information that is -- in
> the context of preventing disruption (like SPI) -- an /acceptable/
> disclosure, but that by saying anything of the sort years removed and
> off-wiki you lose the protection afforded by the limited exceptions to
> the privacy policy. ?Saying this when a real name is involved is worse;
> and saying so when it's not even demonstrated is even more inappropriate.
>
> I already explained this to Mike, but that particular email has gone
> unreplied. ?(I've poked again just a few minutes ago).
>
> -- Coren / Marc
----------
From newyorkbrad at gmail.com Mon Nov 30 12:35:28 2009
From: newyorkbrad at gmail.com (Newyorkbrad (Wikipedia))
Date: Mon, 30 Nov 2009 07:35:28 -0500
Subject: [arbcom-l] Wording of David Gerard motion
In-Reply-To: <16032ea0911300112o5fac8654h64dd6e32af9469b8@mail.gmail.com>
References: <16032ea0911300112o5fac8654h64dd6e32af9469b8@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <c52819d30911300435q3a1a444en5c6d1239695d0aaa@mail.gmail.com>
I will suggest something this morning and provide a rationale. I have
to go to a breakfast meeting but will turn to this as soon as I get to
my office afterwards.
Newyorkbrad
On 11/30/09, FloNight <sydney.poore at gmail.com> wrote:
> Do we want to tweak the wording of the motion to address the criticism
> expressed by David, Mike, FT2, and Kat?
>
> If so, could Newyorkbrad or someone else take a stab at re-writing it.
>
> Sydney
----------
From sydney.poore at gmail.com Mon Nov 30 12:38:22 2009
From: sydney.poore at gmail.com (FloNight)
Date: Mon, 30 Nov 2009 07:38:22 -0500
Subject: [arbcom-l] Wording of David Gerard motion
In-Reply-To: <4B13B579.3010304@uberbox.org>
References: <16032ea0911300112o5fac8654h64dd6e32af9469b8@mail.gmail.com>
<4B13B579.3010304@uberbox.org>
Message-ID: <16032ea0911300438n8c61d0fy93f1c4b18e837650@mail.gmail.com>
I agree that his use of the real name is not appropriate.
I'm not suggesting that we drop that aspect of the ruling but that we tweak
the wording as a way to be responsive to raised concerns.
I feel quite strongly that it is appropriate for the Arbitration Committee
to set standards for the way that the names of real people are linked to
accounts. This is a key aspect to the work that Checkusers do.
In this situation David linked the name of a real person to that of a sock
account. David did this in an inappropriate venue, and as a way to disparage
someone. He did this with no regard to the harm that could come to the
person by making this link. And when approached by the person, he revealed
their private correspondence and mocked them. I do not consider any of this
conduct appropriate for someone with special permissions.
If an editor wrote this comment on site today, we would oversight it if
requested?
Sydney
On Mon, Nov 30, 2009 at 7:07 AM, Marc A. Pelletier <marc at uberbox.org> wrote:
> FloNight wrote:
> > Do we want to tweak the wording of the motion to address the criticism
> > expressed by David, Mike, FT2, and Kat?
>
> I'm not opposed in principle if someone makes a good case that the
> current wording is erroneous, but I note Mike has yet to address the
> substance of my objection to his position.
>
> I still stand by my position that saying "X is a sockpuppet" (however
> you phrase it) *is* a disclosure of private information that is -- in
> the context of preventing disruption (like SPI) -- an /acceptable/
> disclosure, but that by saying anything of the sort years removed and
> off-wiki you lose the protection afforded by the limited exceptions to
> the privacy policy. Saying this when a real name is involved is worse;
> and saying so when it's not even demonstrated is even more inappropriate.
>
> I already explained this to Mike, but that particular email has gone
> unreplied. (I've poked again just a few minutes ago).
>
> -- Coren / Marc
>
-----------
From jayvdb at gmail.com Mon Nov 30 13:39:37 2009
From: jayvdb at gmail.com (John Vandenberg)
Date: Tue, 1 Dec 2009 00:39:37 +1100
Subject: [arbcom-l] Wording of David Gerard motion
In-Reply-To: <16032ea0911300438n8c61d0fy93f1c4b18e837650@mail.gmail.com>
References: <16032ea0911300112o5fac8654h64dd6e32af9469b8@mail.gmail.com>
<4B13B579.3010304@uberbox.org>
<16032ea0911300438n8c61d0fy93f1c4b18e837650@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <deea21830911300539o39790d5ne4b49493b563a74b@mail.gmail.com>
On Mon, Nov 30, 2009 at 11:38 PM, FloNight <sydney.poore at gmail.com> wrote:
> I agree that his use of the real name is not appropriate.
>
> I'm not suggesting that we drop that aspect of the ruling but that we tweak
> the wording as a way to be responsive to raised concerns.
>
> I feel quite strongly that it is appropriate for the Arbitration Committee
> to set standards for the way that the names of real people are linked to
> accounts. This is a key aspect to the work that Checkusers do.
>
> In this situation David linked the name of a real person to that of a sock
> account. David did this in an inappropriate venue, and as a way to disparage
> someone. He did this with no regard to the harm that could come to the
> person by making this link.? And when approached by the person, he revealed
> their private correspondence and mocked them. I do not consider any of this
> conduct appropriate for someone with special permissions.
We could default to the wording of Level II procedures:
"the account's behaviour is inconsistent with the level of trust
required for its associated advanced permissions"
https://secure.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/ ... procedures
maybe that should be changed to "account _holder's_ behaviour".
> If an editor wrote this comment on site today, we would oversight it if
> requested?
This is an interesting way to look at it.
With YellowMonkey, we suppressed and gave a serious warning (iirc??).
https://secure.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/ ... v&unhide=1
An example of where I deleted, but did not suppress:
https://secure.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/ ... v&unhide=1
I deleted a large chunk of diffs in that effort.
https://secure.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/ ... C325580555
That was discussed here (and on ANI, but I cant be bothered finding the link):
https://secure.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/ ... _vs_OUTING
--
John Vandenberg
----------
From jayvdb at gmail.com Mon Nov 30 13:46:08 2009
From: jayvdb at gmail.com (John Vandenberg)
Date: Tue, 1 Dec 2009 00:46:08 +1100
Subject: [arbcom-l] Wording of David Gerard motion
In-Reply-To: <deea21830911300238x2e08db6cmd034149b2507fcb7@mail.gmail.com>
References: <16032ea0911300112o5fac8654h64dd6e32af9469b8@mail.gmail.com>
<deea21830911300238x2e08db6cmd034149b2507fcb7@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <deea21830911300546v43923e39n8c77d5c59a59d42d@mail.gmail.com>
On Mon, Nov 30, 2009 at 9:38 PM, John Vandenberg <jayvdb at gmail.com> wrote:
> On Mon, Nov 30, 2009 at 8:12 PM, FloNight <sydney.poore at gmail.com> wrote:
>> Do we want to tweak the wording of the motion to address the criticism
>> expressed by David, Mike, FT2, and Kat?
>>
>> If so, could Newyorkbrad or someone else take a stab at re-writing it.
>
> As far as I can see, the last three have not taken the time to review
> the emails used as evidence.
>
> I would appreciate it Mike looked at the email in question. ?Can we
> send it to him?
Mike has now asked to see the email. If nobody has an issue about
that in the next 15 mins, I'll send the thread to him.
--
John Vandenberg
----------
From jayvdb at gmail.com Mon Nov 30 14:48:06 2009
From: jayvdb at gmail.com (John Vandenberg)
Date: Tue, 1 Dec 2009 01:48:06 +1100
Subject: [arbcom-l] Andrew Landeryou emails threads
Message-ID: <deea21830911300648y6d7f41edweb9aef4aebe5a696@mail.gmail.com>
Hi Mike & Jimmy,
Attached are the three relevant threads.
Jimmy, you can also read them here:
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/pri ... 01480.html
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/pri ... 03022.html
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/pri ... 03125.html
--
John Vandenberg
-------------- next part --------------
thread: [Arbcom-l] "Australian politics vandal" slandering again
From dgerard at gmail.com Sun Jan 8 09:34:07 2006
From: dgerard at gmail.com (David Gerard)
Date: Sun, 8 Jan 2006 09:34:07 +0000
Subject: [Arbcom-l] "Australian politics vandal" slandering again
Message-ID: <fbad4e140601080134m324936dat919ff016a1b4c5ff at mail.gmail.com>
(to Jimbo, cc: AC because the troll may try to push it that far -
appears to be feeling his way.)
See [[Talk:Paula Rizzuto]]. This is the guy under 1000 sock names who
I've been tracking several months. His MO is to make slanderous
additions to Australian politics articles. In this case, he's created
an entire article about a minor Australian political figure and edited
it as [[User:StephenBengHo]], which is the name of her husband. Of
course, checkuser shows it to be the usual sock of 1000 heads.
I believe the sockpuppetteer to be a fellow called Andrew Landeryou,
whose ambition in life is to be a political headkicker for the right
in Victoria. (Though I wouldn't say that publicly without
confirmation.) He's seriously trying to use Wikipedia as an arena for
particularly stupid political games. His contributions are bad enough
that I locked [[Paula Rizzuto]] blank with {{deletedpage}}; I strongly
suggest this for other examples of his work, and to keep a very close
eye on any pages about current Australian political figures, major or
minor.
I put the above note on [[WP:ANI]] and it should probably go on any
relevant Australian, political or Australian political noticeboards or
project pages.
- d.
From dgerard at gmail.com Sun Jan 8 10:48:39 2006
From: dgerard at gmail.com (David Gerard)
Date: Sun, 8 Jan 2006 10:48:39 +0000
Subject: [Arbcom-l] Re: "Australian politics vandal" slandering again
In-Reply-To: <fbad4e140601080134m324936dat919ff016a1b4c5ff at mail.gmail.com>
References: <fbad4e140601080134m324936dat919ff016a1b4c5ff at mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <fbad4e140601080248p3615c879hdc4ee55051bdc0b7 at mail.gmail.com>
On 1/8/06, David Gerard <dgerard at gmail.com> wrote:
> I believe the sockpuppetteer to be a fellow called Andrew Landeryou,
> whose ambition in life is to be a political headkicker for the right
> in Victoria. (Though I wouldn't say that publicly without
> confirmation.)
This guy: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Andrew_Landeryou - the interest
in student politics was the dead giveaway.
- d.
From misfitgirl at gmail.com Sun Jan 8 13:15:17 2006
From: misfitgirl at gmail.com (Rebecca)
Date: Mon, 9 Jan 2006 00:15:17 +1100
Subject: [Arbcom-l] Re: "Australian politics vandal" slandering again
In-Reply-To: <fbad4e140601080248p3615c879hdc4ee55051bdc0b7 at mail.gmail.com>
References: <fbad4e140601080134m324936dat919ff016a1b4c5ff at mail.gmail.com>
<fbad4e140601080248p3615c879hdc4ee55051bdc0b7 at mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <530912670601080515n3e5e82e0kbc07213d840cd210 at mail.gmail.com>
Wow. This would be quite a development if it were true (incidentally, I had
a suspicion you might be talking about Landeryou when you mentioned that you
thought you'd identified the culprit). Are you familiar with Landeryou
outside of his Wikipedia article? (I'm not sure how long you've been living
in England)
I'd like to ask a couple of things, though, if you can share it (and I
understand entirely if you can't, though what is posted on this list stays
on this list), firstly, what makes you think it's Landeryou?
Secondly, you mentioned that he's got a bunch of sockpuppets - I'd be
curious if possible to know what some of these are, as to the best of our
knowledge StephenBengHo was a lone account, and I'm very interested to know
if he's related to the Crocodile Dundee vandal we've been tracking (and who
popped up about the same time).
-- ambi
On 1/8/06, David Gerard <dgerard at gmail.com> wrote:
>
> On 1/8/06, David Gerard <dgerard at gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > I believe the sockpuppetteer to be a fellow called Andrew Landeryou,
> > whose ambition in life is to be a political headkicker for the right
> > in Victoria. (Though I wouldn't say that publicly without
> > confirmation.)
>
>
> This guy: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Andrew_Landeryou - the interest
> in student politics was the dead giveaway.
>
>
> - d.
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/priv ... chment.htm
From dgerard at gmail.com Sun Jan 8 14:08:27 2006
From: dgerard at gmail.com (David Gerard)
Date: Sun, 8 Jan 2006 14:08:27 +0000
Subject: [Arbcom-l] Re: "Australian politics vandal" slandering again
In-Reply-To: <530912670601080515n3e5e82e0kbc07213d840cd210 at mail.gmail.com>
References: <fbad4e140601080134m324936dat919ff016a1b4c5ff at mail.gmail.com>
<fbad4e140601080248p3615c879hdc4ee55051bdc0b7 at mail.gmail.com>
<530912670601080515n3e5e82e0kbc07213d840cd210 at mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <fbad4e140601080608i635374c5mbbd9b6d9fb0990cb at mail.gmail.com>
On 1/8/06, Rebecca <misfitgirl at gmail.com> wrote:
> Wow. This would be quite a development if it were true (incidentally, I had
> a suspicion you might be talking about Landeryou when you mentioned that you
> thought you'd identified the culprit). Are you familiar with Landeryou
> outside of his Wikipedia article? (I'm not sure how long you've been living
> in England)
> I'd like to ask a couple of things, though, if you can share it (and I
> understand entirely if you can't, though what is posted on this list stays
> on this list), firstly, what makes you think it's Landeryou?
Turns out Paula Rizzuto is a friend of several friends, i.e. we share
a social circle. (This happens after a while.) So I'm now on her LJ
and she's on mine. She detailed her suspicions in a locked post.
There's a fake blog for her which appears to be Landeryou's work, and
the deleted article is based on the same material.
But there's nothing I could nail him on, so I'm not voicing my
suspicions out loud.
> Secondly, you mentioned that he's got a bunch of sockpuppets - I'd be
> curious if possible to know what some of these are, as to the best of our
> knowledge StephenBengHo was a lone account, and I'm very interested to know
> if he's related to the Crocodile Dundee vandal we've been tracking (and who
> popped up about the same time).
There's a pile of names all editing the same sort of posts from the IP
- appears to be a Comindico static IP. (Comindico outsource dial-up
connections from a pile of .au ISPs, and evidently do the same for
DSL.) I'll prepare a list later.
I mention it to this list because of the obvious concern over
defamatory living biographies on the wiki, and the Australian politics
vandal is doing it with malicious intent.
- d.
From dgerard at gmail.com Sun Jan 8 14:10:10 2006
From: dgerard at gmail.com (David Gerard)
Date: Sun, 8 Jan 2006 14:10:10 +0000
Subject: [Arbcom-l] Re: "Australian politics vandal" slandering again
In-Reply-To: <fbad4e140601080608i635374c5mbbd9b6d9fb0990cb at mail.gmail.com>
References: <fbad4e140601080134m324936dat919ff016a1b4c5ff at mail.gmail.com>
<fbad4e140601080248p3615c879hdc4ee55051bdc0b7 at mail.gmail.com>
<530912670601080515n3e5e82e0kbc07213d840cd210 at mail.gmail.com>
<fbad4e140601080608i635374c5mbbd9b6d9fb0990cb at mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <fbad4e140601080610q36c3da64u3d51eddf1d482f55 at mail.gmail.com>
On 1/8/06, David Gerard <dgerard at gmail.com> wrote:
> There's a fake blog for her which appears to be Landeryou's work, and
> the deleted article is based on the same material.
And I don't know Landeryou's work directly, but I am grossly
overexperienced in dealing with the type. Australian student politics
is used by the major parties as a training ground. It's just
unspeakably wonderful.
- d.
-------------- next part --------------
Thread: Darren Ray/Andrew Landeryou RFAr
From dgerard at gmail.com Thu Mar 16 13:36:11 2006
From: dgerard at gmail.com (David Gerard)
Date: Thu, 16 Mar 2006 13:36:11 +0000
Subject: [Arbcom-l] Darren Ray/Andrew Landeryou RFAr
Message-ID: <fbad4e140603160536y121624fcn at mail.gmail.com>
These guys are either the Australian Politics Vandal or are closely
associated. They are Labor Right hacks who spend all their time online
- Wikipedia and elsewhere - attempting to defame their perceived
enemies within Labor. We so don't need them in any way, shape or form.
(Australian politics: Labor is the large more-leftish party, Liberal
is the large more-rightish party. In Australia, the conservative
party, precisely analogous to the US Republicans or the UK Tories, is
called "Liberal." This doesn't make sense, but it's there.)
The correct ending in this case would be to find any suitable way to
ban both of them from Wikipedia, however it can be managed from this
RFAr.
- d.
From misfitgirl at gmail.com Mon Mar 20 05:43:02 2006
From: misfitgirl at gmail.com (Rebecca)
Date: Mon, 20 Mar 2006 16:43:02 +1100
Subject: [Arbcom-l] Darren Ray/Andrew Landeryou RFAr
In-Reply-To: <fbad4e140603160536y121624fcn at mail.gmail.com>
References: <fbad4e140603160536y121624fcn at mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <530912670603192143j38638964g8d41d8f2f2eb491c at mail.gmail.com>
Can you please finish this report and block these guys?
DarrenRay has fired up his AChan sockpuppet again, and it's frustrating
having to keep reverting him when I *know* it's a sockpuppet account.
-- ambi
From jayjg99 at gmail.com Mon Mar 20 17:18:33 2006
From: jayjg99 at gmail.com (jayjg)
Date: Mon, 20 Mar 2006 12:18:33 -0500
Subject: [Arbcom-l] Darren Ray/Andrew Landeryou RFAr
In-Reply-To: <530912670603192143j38638964g8d41d8f2f2eb491c at mail.gmail.com>
References: <fbad4e140603160536y121624fcn at mail.gmail.com>
<530912670603192143j38638964g8d41d8f2f2eb491c at mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <6a8d9d700603200918n16d05479qa8af135bd1bfb3d1 at mail.gmail.com>
Can't it just be blocked as a sockpuppet created to violate policy?
Jay.
From misfitgirl at gmail.com Tue Mar 21 05:08:33 2006
From: misfitgirl at gmail.com (Rebecca)
Date: Tue, 21 Mar 2006 16:08:33 +1100
Subject: [Arbcom-l] Darren Ray/Andrew Landeryou RFAr
In-Reply-To: <6a8d9d700603200918n16d05479qa8af135bd1bfb3d1 at mail.gmail.com>
References: <fbad4e140603160536y121624fcn at mail.gmail.com>
<530912670603192143j38638964g8d41d8f2f2eb491c at mail.gmail.com>
<6a8d9d700603200918n16d05479qa8af135bd1bfb3d1 at mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <530912670603202108m41083a49k56e9ca2e0ffe838c at mail.gmail.com>
No, it can't. I only know it's a sockpuppet because David got a conclusive
CheckUser result, although it's damned obvious in hindsight. It's also not
the only sockpuppet in action here.
Seriously, I'm just about at the end of my tether here. I'm having to spend
just about all the little wiki-time I have dealing with these idiots, and
it's got to the point where they're popping up on articles I've written just
to be a nuisance. I've known for days that there's bad-faith editing going
on here, but I can't actually *do* anything about it because I'm too
involved. So please, can *someone* do something about this, if David doesn't
have the time to finish the job? I can't take this much longer.
-- an increasingly stressed ambi
From theresaknott at gmail.com Tue Mar 21 15:35:23 2006
From: theresaknott at gmail.com (Theresa Knott)
Date: Tue, 21 Mar 2006 15:35:23 +0000
Subject: [Arbcom-l] Darren Ray/Andrew Landeryou RFAr
In-Reply-To: <530912670603202108m41083a49k56e9ca2e0ffe838c at mail.gmail.com>
References: <fbad4e140603160536y121624fcn at mail.gmail.com>
<530912670603192143j38638964g8d41d8f2f2eb491c at mail.gmail.com>
<6a8d9d700603200918n16d05479qa8af135bd1bfb3d1 at mail.gmail.com>
<530912670603202108m41083a49k56e9ca2e0ffe838c at mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <1bfe3eb0603210735y5f196e8cibc3483649ea3a6e9 at mail.gmail.com>
On 3/21/06, Rebecca <misfitgirl at gmail.com> wrote:
>
> No, it can't. I only know it's a sockpuppet because David got a conclusive
> CheckUser result, although it's damned obvious in hindsight. It's also not
> the only sockpuppet in action here.
David are you sure it's a sock? Ambi why is it obvious in hindsight?
I've had an email from Darren Ray stating that he is not running any
socks and that Adam Carr has met him and one of the socks he is being
accused of. Is there any possiblity of an error?
Theresa
From kelly.lynn.martin at gmail.com Tue Mar 21 16:28:47 2006
From: kelly.lynn.martin at gmail.com (Kelly Martin)
Date: Tue, 21 Mar 2006 10:28:47 -0600
Subject: [Arbcom-l] Darren Ray/Andrew Landeryou RFAr
In-Reply-To: <1bfe3eb0603210735y5f196e8cibc3483649ea3a6e9 at mail.gmail.com>
References: <fbad4e140603160536y121624fcn at mail.gmail.com>
<530912670603192143j38638964g8d41d8f2f2eb491c at mail.gmail.com>
<6a8d9d700603200918n16d05479qa8af135bd1bfb3d1 at mail.gmail.com>
<530912670603202108m41083a49k56e9ca2e0ffe838c at mail.gmail.com>
<1bfe3eb0603210735y5f196e8cibc3483649ea3a6e9 at mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <bd4c411e0603210828j5a187a95xd23fb9f7c277c8dd at mail.gmail.com>
On 3/21/06, Theresa Knott <theresaknott at gmail.com> wrote:
> On 3/21/06, Rebecca <misfitgirl at gmail.com> wrote:
> >
> > No, it can't. I only know it's a sockpuppet because David got a conclusive
> > CheckUser result, although it's damned obvious in hindsight. It's also not
> > the only sockpuppet in action here.
>
> David are you sure it's a sock? Ambi why is it obvious in hindsight?
>
> I've had an email from Darren Ray stating that he is not running any
> socks and that Adam Carr has met him and one of the socks he is being
> accused of. Is there any possiblity of an error?
Ok, short summary.
Darren has been editing via three different ISPs over the last month,
Internode, Telstra, and MyTelecom.
One of the IPs he used at Internode he used exclusively prior to March
1. After March 1, that IP has been used exclusively by 2006BC (except
for a user creation by BibiCass, who is likely the same person as
2006BC). The other one has edits by DarrenRay, BenjaminCass (probably
the same entity as BibiCass and 2006BC), and HamishJay as well as
several unsigned edits. There have been no edits from this IP since
February 28th.
The IP at Telstra was used by Userfreespeech up to and through March
1st, with edits consistent with DarrenRay's profile. On March 5th
this IP was being used by DarrenRay; later that evening the BibiCass
account was created via Internode. Starting on March 7th, AChan was
created on this IP and has been used for edits consistent with
DarrenRay's profile. Also on March 7th, the 2006BC account was
created via Internode. None of these edits are overlapping; rather,
they're notched.
The IP at MyTelecom has been used by DarrenRay (and assorted
sockpuppets, mostly in February) exclusively since March 7th. As best
I can tell, usage of the three accounts has NEVER overlapped, although
I'm not 100% certain.
There's too many coincidences here for it to be coincidental.
Kelly
From dmcdevit at cox.net Tue Mar 21 17:10:21 2006
From: dmcdevit at cox.net (Dmcdevit)
Date: Tue, 21 Mar 2006 09:10:21 -0800
Subject: [Arbcom-l] Darren Ray/Andrew Landeryou RFAr
In-Reply-To: <bd4c411e0603210828j5a187a95xd23fb9f7c277c8dd at mail.gmail.com>
References: <fbad4e140603160536y121624fcn at mail.gmail.com> <530912670603192143j38638964g8d41d8f2f2eb491c at mail.gmail.com> <6a8d9d700603200918n16d05479qa8af135bd1bfb3d1 at mail.gmail.com> <530912670603202108m41083a49k56e9ca2e0ffe838c at mail.gmail.com> <1bfe3eb0603210735y5f196e8cibc3483649ea3a6e9 at mail.gmail.com>
<bd4c411e0603210828j5a187a95xd23fb9f7c277c8dd at mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <4420337D.3020901 at cox.net>
That "BenjaminCass" account used by DarrenRay's is indeed interesting,
since I got an email from 2006BC asserting he's not a sockpuppet, he's a
separate person. *Named Benjamin Cass*. I don't know if everyone else
got the email, but he even gave me his phone number, and says he's knows
who Ambi is, and that she's a political opponent of his.
Dominic
From dgerard at gmail.com Tue Mar 21 17:37:50 2006
From: dgerard at gmail.com (David Gerard)
Date: Tue, 21 Mar 2006 17:37:50 +0000
Subject: [Arbcom-l] Darren Ray/Andrew Landeryou RFAr
In-Reply-To: <4420337D.3020901 at cox.net>
References: <fbad4e140603160536y121624fcn at mail.gmail.com>
<530912670603192143j38638964g8d41d8f2f2eb491c at mail.gmail.com>
<6a8d9d700603200918n16d05479qa8af135bd1bfb3d1 at mail.gmail.com>
<530912670603202108m41083a49k56e9ca2e0ffe838c at mail.gmail.com>
<1bfe3eb0603210735y5f196e8cibc3483649ea3a6e9 at mail.gmail.com>
<bd4c411e0603210828j5a187a95xd23fb9f7c277c8dd at mail.gmail.com>
<4420337D.3020901 at cox.net>
Message-ID: <fbad4e140603210937p6882f2b8t at mail.gmail.com>
On 21/03/06, Dmcdevit <dmcdevit at cox.net> wrote:
> That "BenjaminCass" account used by DarrenRay's is indeed interesting,
> since I got an email from 2006BC asserting he's not a sockpuppet, he's a
> separate person. *Named Benjamin Cass*. I don't know if everyone else
> got the email, but he even gave me his phone number, and says he's knows
> who Ambi is, and that she's a political opponent of his.
Precis:
Darren Ray (User:DarrenRay) and Ben Cass (|User:2006BC and a few other
names) are different people, working together in tandem.
They have each edited from each others' houses, but the pattern's pretty clear.
AChan is a sock of Darren Ray. Block forthwith.
Ben Cass is running and has run several other usernames.
I'm pretty much certain these guys are, together, the Australian
Politics Vandal or major components of that vandal.
They see EVERYTHING as their small political battle. I got a note on
my talk page from Ben Cass asking what my party political affiliation
was. What the fuck.
More detail later. I'll just shoot AChan now.
- d.
From dgerard at gmail.com Tue Mar 21 17:40:30 2006
From: dgerard at gmail.com (David Gerard)
Date: Tue, 21 Mar 2006 17:40:30 +0000
Subject: [Arbcom-l] Darren Ray/Andrew Landeryou RFAr
In-Reply-To: <fbad4e140603210937p6882f2b8t at mail.gmail.com>
References: <fbad4e140603160536y121624fcn at mail.gmail.com>
<530912670603192143j38638964g8d41d8f2f2eb491c at mail.gmail.com>
<6a8d9d700603200918n16d05479qa8af135bd1bfb3d1 at mail.gmail.com>
<530912670603202108m41083a49k56e9ca2e0ffe838c at mail.gmail.com>
<1bfe3eb0603210735y5f196e8cibc3483649ea3a6e9 at mail.gmail.com>
<bd4c411e0603210828j5a187a95xd23fb9f7c277c8dd at mail.gmail.com>
<4420337D.3020901 at cox.net>
<fbad4e140603210937p6882f2b8t at mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <fbad4e140603210940r88d592o at mail.gmail.com>
On 21/03/06, David Gerard <dgerard at gmail.com> wrote:
> More detail later. I'll just shoot AChan now.
I've blocked AChan indefinitely and DarrenRay 48 hours for using
sockpuppets to evade 3RR. I'm leaving notes on RFAr, ANI and his user
talk, the last noting he is still able to communicate with the AC via
email (you lucky people!).
My apologies to Ambi for taking so long on this!
- d.
From kelly.lynn.martin at gmail.com Tue Mar 21 17:47:13 2006
From: kelly.lynn.martin at gmail.com (Kelly Martin)
Date: Tue, 21 Mar 2006 11:47:13 -0600
Subject: [Arbcom-l] Darren Ray/Andrew Landeryou RFAr
In-Reply-To: <fbad4e140603210937p6882f2b8t at mail.gmail.com>
References: <fbad4e140603160536y121624fcn at mail.gmail.com>
<530912670603192143j38638964g8d41d8f2f2eb491c at mail.gmail.com>
<6a8d9d700603200918n16d05479qa8af135bd1bfb3d1 at mail.gmail.com>
<530912670603202108m41083a49k56e9ca2e0ffe838c at mail.gmail.com>
<1bfe3eb0603210735y5f196e8cibc3483649ea3a6e9 at mail.gmail.com>
<bd4c411e0603210828j5a187a95xd23fb9f7c277c8dd at mail.gmail.com>
<4420337D.3020901 at cox.net>
<fbad4e140603210937p6882f2b8t at mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <bd4c411e0603210947je389ad3u9867624f0b5b076b at mail.gmail.com>
On 3/21/06, David Gerard <dgerard at gmail.com> wrote:
> Precis:
>
> Darren Ray (User:DarrenRay) and Ben Cass (|User:2006BC and a few other
> names) are different people, working together in tandem.
>
> They have each edited from each others' houses, but the pattern's pretty clear.
>
> AChan is a sock of Darren Ray. Block forthwith.
>
> Ben Cass is running and has run several other usernames.
>
> I'm pretty much certain these guys are, together, the Australian
> Politics Vandal or major components of that vandal.
>
> They see EVERYTHING as their small political battle. I got a note on
> my talk page from Ben Cass asking what my party political affiliation
> was. What the fuck.
>
> More detail later. I'll just shoot AChan now.
Ban the lot of them for bringing an outside dispute into Wikipedia, then.
Kelly
From dgerard at gmail.com Tue Mar 21 18:09:58 2006
From: dgerard at gmail.com (David Gerard)
Date: Tue, 21 Mar 2006 18:09:58 +0000
Subject: [Arbcom-l] Darren Ray/Andrew Landeryou RFAr
In-Reply-To: <bd4c411e0603210947je389ad3u9867624f0b5b076b at mail.gmail.com>
References: <fbad4e140603160536y121624fcn at mail.gmail.com>
<530912670603192143j38638964g8d41d8f2f2eb491c at mail.gmail.com>
<6a8d9d700603200918n16d05479qa8af135bd1bfb3d1 at mail.gmail.com>
<530912670603202108m41083a49k56e9ca2e0ffe838c at mail.gmail.com>
<1bfe3eb0603210735y5f196e8cibc3483649ea3a6e9 at mail.gmail.com>
<bd4c411e0603210828j5a187a95xd23fb9f7c277c8dd at mail.gmail.com>
<4420337D.3020901 at cox.net>
<fbad4e140603210937p6882f2b8t at mail.gmail.com>
<bd4c411e0603210947je389ad3u9867624f0b5b076b at mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <fbad4e140603211009l50e94acdk at mail.gmail.com>
On 21/03/06, Kelly Martin <kelly.lynn.martin at gmail.com> wrote:
> On 3/21/06, David Gerard <dgerard at gmail.com> wrote:
> > More detail later. I'll just shoot AChan now.
> Ban the lot of them for bringing an outside dispute into Wikipedia, then.
Can do. But (a) that won't stop the Aus Politics Vandal (nothing else
has), (b) this is part of a WIDE-ranging slander campaign across the
blogosphere and wikisphere (they even hit Uncyclopedia!) and © I've
yet to flush out what names/IPs are being used by the third member of
the triumvirate, Andrew Landeryou.
An official AC ban (not block) of Darren Ray, Benjamin Cass and (if I
can find anything) Andrew Landeryou - as in, "they were also
officially banned from Wikipedia for these actions" - would severely
damage the political capital they hope to enhance with this shit,
which would probably slow them down a bit. Though I dunno if that
would be too expressly political for the AC. But they've been going at
this for *months* as the Aus Politics Vandal, and it's the one thing
that occurs to me that might affect their motivation to continue.
- d.
From theresaknott at gmail.com Tue Mar 21 19:16:08 2006
From: theresaknott at gmail.com (Theresa Knott)
Date: Tue, 21 Mar 2006 19:16:08 +0000
Subject: [Arbcom-l] Darren Ray/Andrew Landeryou RFAr
In-Reply-To: <4420337D.3020901 at cox.net>
References: <fbad4e140603160536y121624fcn at mail.gmail.com>
<530912670603192143j38638964g8d41d8f2f2eb491c at mail.gmail.com>
<6a8d9d700603200918n16d05479qa8af135bd1bfb3d1 at mail.gmail.com>
<530912670603202108m41083a49k56e9ca2e0ffe838c at mail.gmail.com>
<1bfe3eb0603210735y5f196e8cibc3483649ea3a6e9 at mail.gmail.com>
<bd4c411e0603210828j5a187a95xd23fb9f7c277c8dd at mail.gmail.com>
<4420337D.3020901 at cox.net>
Message-ID: <1bfe3eb0603211116m538f1fdfod38b0f4a36b6a901 at mail.gmail.com>
On 3/21/06, Dmcdevit <dmcdevit at cox.net> wrote:
> That "BenjaminCass" account used by DarrenRay's is indeed interesting,
> since I got an email from 2006BC asserting he's not a sockpuppet, he's a
> separate person. *Named Benjamin Cass*. I don't know if everyone else
> got the email,
No but the DarreenRay email sent to me said almost exactly the same thing.
If they are not the same person they are discussing the emails that
they intend to send.
Theresa
From theresaknott at gmail.com Tue Mar 21 19:19:08 2006
From: theresaknott at gmail.com (Theresa Knott)
Date: Tue, 21 Mar 2006 19:19:08 +0000
Subject: [Arbcom-l] Darren Ray/Andrew Landeryou RFAr
In-Reply-To: <4420337D.3020901 at cox.net>
References: <fbad4e140603160536y121624fcn at mail.gmail.com>
<530912670603192143j38638964g8d41d8f2f2eb491c at mail.gmail.com>
<6a8d9d700603200918n16d05479qa8af135bd1bfb3d1 at mail.gmail.com>
<530912670603202108m41083a49k56e9ca2e0ffe838c at mail.gmail.com>
<1bfe3eb0603210735y5f196e8cibc3483649ea3a6e9 at mail.gmail.com>
<bd4c411e0603210828j5a187a95xd23fb9f7c277c8dd at mail.gmail.com>
<4420337D.3020901 at cox.net>
Message-ID: <1bfe3eb0603211119q1c10fe12q7c1b10e80cbda984 at mail.gmail.com>
On 3/21/06, Dmcdevit <dmcdevit at cox.net> wrote:
> That "BenjaminCass" account used by DarrenRay's is indeed interesting,
but he even gave me his phone number
It wasn't <redacted> by any chance?
From dmcdevit at cox.net Tue Mar 21 19:32:03 2006
From: dmcdevit at cox.net (Dmcdevit)
Date: Tue, 21 Mar 2006 11:32:03 -0800
Subject: [Arbcom-l] Darren Ray/Andrew Landeryou RFAr
In-Reply-To: <fbad4e140603210937p6882f2b8t at mail.gmail.com>
References: <fbad4e140603160536y121624fcn at mail.gmail.com> <530912670603192143j38638964g8d41d8f2f2eb491c at mail.gmail.com> <6a8d9d700603200918n16d05479qa8af135bd1bfb3d1 at mail.gmail.com> <530912670603202108m41083a49k56e9ca2e0ffe838c at mail.gmail.com> <1bfe3eb0603210735y5f196e8cibc3483649ea3a6e9 at mail.gmail.com> <bd4c411e0603210828j5a187a95xd23fb9f7c277c8dd at mail.gmail.com> <4420337D.3020901 at cox.net>
<fbad4e140603210937p6882f2b8t at mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <442054B3.9010007 at cox.net>
Well, that's strange, because 2006BC was blocked by Essjay, using
CheckUser, as a confirmed sock of DarrenRay.
07:06, March 21, 2006 Essjay <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Essjay>
blocked "2006BC <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:2006BC> (contribs
<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/2006BC>)" with an
expiry time of indefinite ({{Sockchecked|DarrenRay}})
Which was what he emailed me about. Essjay seems to have gotten the same
email as me, and still thinks that 2006BC and DarrenRay *are* the same.
Or I'm reading it wrong. He left this message on 2006BC's talk page
(which should probably be protected if he keeps up the ranting there):
"I received your email; I am not making an international phone call at
my own expense to discuss sockpuppetry. You may plead your case to the
Arbitration Committee via email; I ran the checkuser, I saw the results,
I reviewed them with two other checkusers, and I blocked eight obvious
sockpupets. The evidence has been made available to the Arbitration
Committee, and the matter is in thier hands now. Essjay
<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Essjay> ^/Talk/
<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Essjay> ? /Contact/
<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Essjay/Contact> 08:54, 21 March 2006
(UTC)"
Utterly confused,
Dominic
From dmcdevit at cox.net Tue Mar 21 19:39:37 2006
From: dmcdevit at cox.net (Dmcdevit)
Date: Tue, 21 Mar 2006 11:39:37 -0800
Subject: [Arbcom-l] Darren Ray/Andrew Landeryou RFAr
In-Reply-To: <1bfe3eb0603211119q1c10fe12q7c1b10e80cbda984 at mail.gmail.com>
References: <fbad4e140603160536y121624fcn at mail.gmail.com> <530912670603192143j38638964g8d41d8f2f2eb491c at mail.gmail.com> <6a8d9d700603200918n16d05479qa8af135bd1bfb3d1 at mail.gmail.com> <530912670603202108m41083a49k56e9ca2e0ffe838c at mail.gmail.com> <1bfe3eb0603210735y5f196e8cibc3483649ea3a6e9 at mail.gmail.com> <bd4c411e0603210828j5a187a95xd23fb9f7c277c8dd at mail.gmail.com> <4420337D.3020901 at cox.net>
<1bfe3eb0603211119q1c10fe12q7c1b10e80cbda984 at mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <44205679.3050000 at cox.net>
No it's something else. Actually, it's a 10-digit number, not including
the country code 61, which strikes me as wrong (but maybe that's just
because I don't make international calls?). In any case, my college
phone card has much better uses than a call to Australia for this. :-)
Dominic
From dgerard at gmail.com Tue Mar 21 20:30:10 2006
From: dgerard at gmail.com (David Gerard)
Date: Tue, 21 Mar 2006 20:30:10 +0000
Subject: [Arbcom-l] Darren Ray/Andrew Landeryou RFAr
In-Reply-To: <1bfe3eb0603211116m538f1fdfod38b0f4a36b6a901 at mail.gmail.com>
References: <fbad4e140603160536y121624fcn at mail.gmail.com>
<530912670603192143j38638964g8d41d8f2f2eb491c at mail.gmail.com>
<6a8d9d700603200918n16d05479qa8af135bd1bfb3d1 at mail.gmail.com>
<530912670603202108m41083a49k56e9ca2e0ffe838c at mail.gmail.com>
<1bfe3eb0603210735y5f196e8cibc3483649ea3a6e9 at mail.gmail.com>
<bd4c411e0603210828j5a187a95xd23fb9f7c277c8dd at mail.gmail.com>
<4420337D.3020901 at cox.net>
<1bfe3eb0603211116m538f1fdfod38b0f4a36b6a901 at mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <fbad4e140603211230t59b67a08q at mail.gmail.com>
On 21/03/06, Theresa Knott <theresaknott at gmail.com> wrote:
> No but the DarreenRay email sent to me said almost exactly the same thing.
> If they are not the same person they are discussing the emails that
> they intend to send.
They're different people (real-life humans called Darren Ray and
Benjamin Cass), and they are definitely working in concert.
- d.
From misfitgirl at gmail.com Wed Mar 22 02:17:56 2006
From: misfitgirl at gmail.com (Rebecca)
Date: Wed, 22 Mar 2006 13:17:56 +1100
Subject: [Arbcom-l] Darren Ray/Andrew Landeryou RFAr
In-Reply-To: <fbad4e140603211230t59b67a08q at mail.gmail.com>
References: <fbad4e140603160536y121624fcn at mail.gmail.com>
<530912670603192143j38638964g8d41d8f2f2eb491c at mail.gmail.com>
<6a8d9d700603200918n16d05479qa8af135bd1bfb3d1 at mail.gmail.com>
<530912670603202108m41083a49k56e9ca2e0ffe838c at mail.gmail.com>
<1bfe3eb0603210735y5f196e8cibc3483649ea3a6e9 at mail.gmail.com>
<bd4c411e0603210828j5a187a95xd23fb9f7c277c8dd at mail.gmail.com>
<4420337D.3020901 at cox.net>
<1bfe3eb0603211116m538f1fdfod38b0f4a36b6a901 at mail.gmail.com>
<fbad4e140603211230t59b67a08q at mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <530912670603211817x729ad6cbkb402c19829c2e233 at mail.gmail.com>
I'm fairly sure that the Australian Politics Vandal is not the same user,
and I still think that, based on what David has said previously, Landeryou
is the likely candidate. That user was obsessed with two articles which Ray
has never touched, and the IP addresses (I had Essjay run a check last
night) don't match. As far as I can see, the Australian Politics Vandal
hasn't been around since Ericdu in late January. While the two are obviously
ideologically aligned, I don't think they're the same person.
Just to clear one other thing up, re Dmcdevit's email earlier saying he'd
received an email saying that DarrenRay "knew who I was" and that I "was a
political opponent of his". One of the targets of the Australian Politics
Vandal is a very minor political figure by the name of Paula Rizzuto, who
David knows personally. I reverted his attempts at slandering her, and if I
recall rightly may have nominated the article for deletion. On that basis,
this idiot came to the conclusion that I must have been Rizzuto, and has
been running around announcing this to all and sundry. Unsurprisingly, this
is complete nonsense. We don't even live in the same state.
-- ambi
-------------- next part --------------
From essjaywiki at gmail.com Tue Mar 21 09:53:32 2006
From: essjaywiki at gmail.com (- Essjay -)
Date: Tue, 21 Mar 2006 04:53:32 -0500
Subject: [Arbcom-l] DarrenRay sockpuppetry
Message-ID: <3f56c95e0603210153j4f2ceca6gc0b9cd9652a27b72 at mail.gmail.com>
As I said on RfAr, I'm providing my raw results here. They are attached as a
text file. I'm also maintaining a copy in case more checks need to be run.
I'm working on a breakdown to put into evidence.
I indefblocked a total of eight socks, I believe, as well as giving
DarrenRay a month block for using them all. I'm willing to unblock him (or
for someone else to do it) to participate in the arbitration, but am not
inclined to do so unless the committee requests it.
On two housekeeping notes, while I'm emailing in:
1) Thank you very much for granting me the permissions, I'm very honored to
be trusted with the responsibility.
2) Would it be possible to get write-access to arbcom-l for these
situations; I know read access is restricted due to the sensitive matters
discussed, but it would be helpful to be able to forward on results such as
this, especially since I'm the only checkuser who doesn't have write access
to the list already. Of course, I can always do as I've done in the past,
and put it in the moderated queue.
Essjay
-----
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Essjay
Wikipedia:The Free Encyclopedia
http://www.wikipedia.org/
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <a href="http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/private/arbcom-l/attachments/20060321/122fc6cb/attachment.htm" target="_
[Break]
From: User.CoolHandLuke at gmail.com (Cool Hand Luke)
Date: Mon, 30 Nov 2009 08:51:39 -0600
Subject: [arbcom-l] Wording of David Gerard motion
In-Reply-To: <deea21830911300546v43923e39n8c77d5c59a59d42d@mail.gmail.com>
References: <16032ea0911300112o5fac8654h64dd6e32af9469b8@mail.gmail.com>
<deea21830911300238x2e08db6cmd034149b2507fcb7@mail.gmail.com>
<deea21830911300546v43923e39n8c77d5c59a59d42d@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <8ec76cd10911300651v25c94756l1a8fcaab7d4ecd02@mail.gmail.com>
Thanks, John.
I have no problem with more precisely describing how David Gerard's conduct
was improper, but I'm surprised and demoralized that a WMF official believes
that it was acceptable, whereas we're supposedly acting out of a grudge. In
my view, this was a more clear-cut decision than many we've made this year
(including JayJG and Raul654), yet this is the only one where anyone from
the foundation has intervened.
Frank
----------
From marc at uberbox.org Mon Nov 30 15:05:04 2009
From: marc at uberbox.org (Marc A. Pelletier)
Date: Mon, 30 Nov 2009 10:05:04 -0500
Subject: [arbcom-l] Wording of David Gerard motion
In-Reply-To: <8ec76cd10911300651v25c94756l1a8fcaab7d4ecd02@mail.gmail.com>
References: <16032ea0911300112o5fac8654h64dd6e32af9469b8@mail.gmail.com>
<deea21830911300238x2e08db6cmd034149b2507fcb7@mail.gmail.com>
<deea21830911300546v43923e39n8c77d5c59a59d42d@mail.gmail.com>
<8ec76cd10911300651v25c94756l1a8fcaab7d4ecd02@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <4B13DF20.7070604@uberbox.org>
Cool Hand Luke wrote:
> Thanks, John.
>
> I have no problem with more precisely describing how David Gerard's
> conduct was improper, but I'm surprised and demoralized that a WMF
> official believes that it was acceptable, whereas we're supposedly
> acting out of a grudge. In my view, this was a more clear-cut decision
> than many we've made this year (including JayJG and Raul654), yet this
> is the only one where anyone from the foundation has intervened.
I have requested intervention from Jimmy and Cary. I found those
accusations to be unacceptable, and that even with a disclaimer that he
is not wearing his counselor hat, they are damaging and prejudicial
coming from Mike.
And I know others have expressed those concerns to be privately.
We might be doomed to suffer this from the WR crowd, but we do not have
to accept being mistreated thusly by a foundation officer.
-- Coren / Marc
-----------
From sydney.poore at gmail.com Mon Nov 30 15:09:02 2009
From: sydney.poore at gmail.com (FloNight)
Date: Mon, 30 Nov 2009 10:09:02 -0500
Subject: [arbcom-l] Fwd: [Functionaries-en] Fwd: Motion regarding your
recent blog post
In-Reply-To: <16032ea0911300707w1036e271udc21e28a3fc10b81@mail.gmail.com>
References: <4b12d208.1067f10a.54e1.ffffcb58@mx.google.com>
<7d0f4c330911291856u1f7fd1edsdd6ba17abe050b9a@mail.gmail.com>
<4B13352B.70908@uberbox.org> <4B13AF70.3090704@uberbox.org>
<7d0f4c330911300422v5d07f4d1p53a99dffad335e4c@mail.gmail.com>
<deea21830911300517o7d5dbc5fwf73cb5c98b9509e5@mail.gmail.com>
<7d0f4c330911300539hb2f2e19i6d616871fd68ca1e@mail.gmail.com>
<16032ea0911300558r38680c5fr5e3d62643e7818b2@mail.gmail.com>
<7d0f4c330911300612t64eee07eyb6c89d8ace4796@mail.gmail.com>
<16032ea0911300707w1036e271udc21e28a3fc10b81@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <16032ea0911300709n49e2f650i5c66e47869b0076c@mail.gmail.com>
--------- Forwarded message ----------
From: FloNight <sydney.poore at gmail.com>
Date: Mon, Nov 30, 2009 at 10:07 AM
Subject: Re: [Functionaries-en] Fwd: Motion regarding your recent blog post
To: mnemonic at gmail.com
On Mon, Nov 30, 2009 at 9:12 AM, Mike Godwin <mnemonic at gmail.com> wrote:
> FloNight writes:
>
> In this situation David definitively linked the name of a real person to a
>> checkuser investigation which means that the person must be an user. There
>> was no supporting evidence for the claim. So, either David misremembered
>> that there was no evidence, or David decided to make a public accusation
>> without evidence. Either way, David was careless in the way that he outed
>> this person in a definitive way.
>>
>
> How do you reconcile this statement with FT2's statement here:
>
>
> "It should also be noted DBuckner publicly self disclosed his identity
> on-wiki 2 months before the RFC (see link here and probably other places).
> <
> http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?tit ... ldid=24992
> 9690#Farewell_from_American_linguist<http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Jimbo_Wales&oldid=249929690#Farewell_from_American_linguist>>"
> ?
>
> David did this with no regard to the harm that could come to the person
>> by making this link. And when approached by the person, he revealed their
>> private correspondence and mocked them.
>>
>
> I'm not sure what you're referring to here, but this seems far afield from
> a checkuser issue.
>
>
>> When approached by ArbCom about our concern, rather than address the
>> actual issue, David attempted to take the discussion off topic and turn it
>> into a grudge match.
>>
>
> Is it possible that David interpreted this approach -- was it from ArbCom
> as a whole or just a particular member? -- as representing an
> already-existing "grudge"?
>
> Look, I understand that you may be impatient with people who are impatient
> with ArbCom, but so what? Impatience and irritation are not themselves sins.
>
>
>> I do not consider any of this conduct appropriate for someone with special
>> permissions.
>>
>
> Can you point me to an objectively stated standard that makes clear that
> this conduct is "inappropriate"? Because in the absence of such a standard
> it is hard for me not to interpret this statement as an expression of
> personal feeling rather than as application of neutral principles.
>
>
>> I support making the wording of the announcement better reflect the
>> Committee's actual concerns if the wording is not clear. And if David
>> contacts the Committee then I'll have my final decision reflect his input.
>>
>
> I think David probably should contact the Committee, but I hope his doing
> so is seen as an opportunity for constructive dialog rather than simply an
> excuse to reaffirm what strikes me as a one-sided decision arrived at
> without equitable process.
>
>
> --Mike
>
I was addressing David linking Landeryou name to a sock ring when as far as
I can tell there was no definitive evidence that Landeryou was involved.
I'm sorry if my formating did not make that clear.
ArbCom is elected by the Community to evaluated these situations and make a
decision about whether an user is acting within policy. We evaluate the
information and vote.
David himself has participated in and supported the authority of the
Arbitration Committee to make behind the scene decisions about selecting and
removing people from special permissions.
If you review my voting record over the past 3 years, you will see that my
approach is consistent.
Unpleasant reactions to ruling is all in a days work around this place.
Votes to separate users from their tools always gets a strong reaction from
the wikifriends of the user.
Votes to ban users have resulted in trolling and harassment.
Not pleasant to experience but someone has to do it.
Sydney
----------
From newyorkbrad at gmail.com Mon Nov 30 15:23:06 2009
From: newyorkbrad at gmail.com (Newyorkbrad (Wikipedia))
Date: Mon, 30 Nov 2009 10:23:06 -0500
Subject: [arbcom-l] David Gerard - potential amendment to motion - HIGH
PRIORITY
Message-ID: <c52819d30911300723p654c1842p453fcf8598a886ac@mail.gmail.com>
My thoughts on the current situation:
1. I take it, despite the criticism of the substance of our decision on
Functionaries-l, that we stand by the decision that David Gerard should no
longer be a Checkuser or Oversighter.
2. The concerns expressed over the preamble to our motion, specifically the
reference to "unwarranted dissemination of private data acquired using
privileged rights," were completely predictable. I had some qualms about
this wording on Saturday night, and when I saw David's response yesterday
morning, it was obvious that this would become an issue and that there
should be some focus on the wording.
3. I didn't have a chance to make this point yesterday morning, because the
decision that David's response was insufficient and we would go ahead and
publish the motion was made while I was either sleep or away from my
computer. Hindsight is 20:20 but in the absence of an immediate emergency
it would have been better to allow a little bit more time and achieve a
greater degree of consensus among us before making this decision. It is a
scientifically proven fact that I provide little if any useful input to this
list when I'm asleep, and I believe this goes equally for most of the other
arbitrators. Enough said on that.
4. Whether David's indecorous Tweet and blog post involved "dissemination
of private information" is a matter of how broadly or narrowly one
interprets that phrase. On the one hand, his writings could certainly (and
were certainly) read as stating or at least implying that he was relying on
information he obtained in his status as a Wikipedia functionary with
advanced access. On the other hand, there was no dissemination of IP
addresses or the like which is how some people seem to be narrowly
interpreting the phrase "private information."
5. There is no NEED to decide, for purpose of a motion removing David's
Checkuser and Oversight status, whether he "disseminated private
information" or whether his overstepping is best described in other ways.
By avoiding reference to dissemination of private data, we also avoid the
question of whether this issue falls within ArbCom's bailiwick in the first
instance or whether it was more the responsibility of either AUSC or the
Ombudsmen.
6. It is not clear to me whether David is asking us (or anyone) to
reconsider his Checkusership/Oversightship/Functionaryship, or merely to
have the allegation regarding access to private information withdrawn. I do
not know whether it would be worthwhile to clarify this.
7. It is not clear to me whether Mike Godwin has been in communication with
David on any of these issues. I do not know whether it would be worthwhile
to clarify this.
8. I think it is desirable that we remove the reference to dissemination of
private information obtained through privileged access from our formal
motion. This can be done most easily simply by making a neutral reference
to the events in question, without characterizing them. I offer a draft of
a motion below.
9. If we adopt a modification of the motion, we would need to consider
whether to provide an on-wiki explanation for the change. My current
thinking is no, but we can discuss this.
10. We should also consider whether to add some sort of thank you for the
service that David has provided to Wikipedia outside the problematic
aspects.
Newyorkbrad
DRAFT MOTION FOR DISCUSSION
The Arbitration Committee's motion of November 28-29, 2009 concerning David
Gerard is amended by deleting the words "and for unwarranted dissemination
of private data acquired using privileged rights" and substituting the words
"including the events of November 27, 2009"
----------
From User.CoolHandLuke at gmail.com Mon Nov 30 15:35:01 2009
From: User.CoolHandLuke at gmail.com (Cool Hand Luke)
Date: Mon, 30 Nov 2009 09:35:01 -0600
Subject: [arbcom-l] David Gerard - potential amendment to motion - HIGH
PRIORITY
In-Reply-To: <c52819d30911300723p654c1842p453fcf8598a886ac@mail.gmail.com>
References: <c52819d30911300723p654c1842p453fcf8598a886ac@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <8ec76cd10911300735t7beabf14pc36012b6dbeebb82@mail.gmail.com>
On Mon, Nov 30, 2009 at 9:23 AM, Newyorkbrad (Wikipedia) <
newyorkbrad at gmail.com> wrote:
> My thoughts on the current situation:
>
> 1. I take it, despite the criticism of the substance of our decision on
> Functionaries-l, that we stand by the decision that David Gerard should no
> longer be a Checkuser or Oversighter.
>
> 2. The concerns expressed over the preamble to our motion, specifically
> the reference to "unwarranted dissemination of private data acquired using
> privileged rights," were completely predictable. I had some qualms about
> this wording on Saturday night, and when I saw David's response yesterday
> morning, it was obvious that this would become an issue and that there
> should be some focus on the wording.
>
> 3. I didn't have a chance to make this point yesterday morning, because
> the decision that David's response was insufficient and we would go ahead
> and publish the motion was made while I was either sleep or away from my
> computer. Hindsight is 20:20 but in the absence of an immediate emergency
> it would have been better to allow a little bit more time and achieve a
> greater degree of consensus among us before making this decision. It is a
> scientifically proven fact that I provide little if any useful input to this
> list when I'm asleep, and I believe this goes equally for most of the other
> arbitrators. Enough said on that.
>
> 4. Whether David's indecorous Tweet and blog post involved "dissemination
> of private information" is a matter of how broadly or narrowly one
> interprets that phrase. On the one hand, his writings could certainly (and
> were certainly) read as stating or at least implying that he was relying on
> information he obtained in his status as a Wikipedia functionary with
> advanced access. On the other hand, there was no dissemination of IP
> addresses or the like which is how some people seem to be narrowly
> interpreting the phrase "private information."
>
> 5. There is no NEED to decide, for purpose of a motion removing David's
> Checkuser and Oversight status, whether he "disseminated private
> information" or whether his overstepping is best described in other ways.
> By avoiding reference to dissemination of private data, we also avoid the
> question of whether this issue falls within ArbCom's bailiwick in the first
> instance or whether it was more the responsibility of either AUSC or the
> Ombudsmen.
>
> 6. It is not clear to me whether David is asking us (or anyone) to
> reconsider his Checkusership/Oversightship/Functionaryship, or merely to
> have the allegation regarding access to private information withdrawn. I do
> not know whether it would be worthwhile to clarify this.
>
> 7. It is not clear to me whether Mike Godwin has been in communication
> with David on any of these issues. I do not know whether it would be
> worthwhile to clarify this.
>
> 8. I think it is desirable that we remove the reference to dissemination
> of private information obtained through privileged access from our formal
> motion. This can be done most easily simply by making a neutral reference
> to the events in question, without characterizing them. I offer a draft of
> a motion below.
>
> 9. If we adopt a modification of the motion, we would need to consider
> whether to provide an on-wiki explanation for the change. My current
> thinking is no, but we can discuss this.
>
> 10. We should also consider whether to add some sort of thank you for the
> service that David has provided to Wikipedia outside the problematic
> aspects.
>
> Newyorkbrad
>
> DRAFT MOTION FOR DISCUSSION
>
> The Arbitration Committee's motion of November 28-29, 2009 concerning David
> Gerard is amended by deleting the words "and for unwarranted dissemination
> of private data acquired using privileged rights" and substituting the words
> "including the events of November 27, 2009"
>
>
I do not have access to the ArbCom wiki, if this will be voted there, but I
*SUPPORT *the change and hope that we can pass it in an expedited manner.
Most functionaries do not appear to disagree that Gerard's post was bad
judgment, and I would rather hang the decision on that than split hairs
about the Platonic meaning of private information.
Frank
----------
From stephen.bain at gmail.com Mon Nov 30 15:37:41 2009
From: stephen.bain at gmail.com (Stephen Bain)
Date: Tue, 1 Dec 2009 02:37:41 +1100
Subject: [arbcom-l] David Gerard - potential amendment to motion - HIGH
PRIORITY
In-Reply-To: <c52819d30911300723p654c1842p453fcf8598a886ac@mail.gmail.com>
References: <c52819d30911300723p654c1842p453fcf8598a886ac@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <f30e42de0911300737l64b6aae3ibf91c7bd835dfa41@mail.gmail.com>
On Tue, Dec 1, 2009 at 2:23 AM, Newyorkbrad (Wikipedia)
<newyorkbrad at gmail.com> wrote:
>
> 4.? Whether David's indecorous Tweet and blog?post involved "dissemination
> of private information" is a matter of how broadly or narrowly one
> interprets that phrase.? On the one hand, his?writings could certainly (and
> were?certainly) read as stating or at least implying that he was relying on
> information he?obtained in his status as a Wikipedia functionary with
> advanced access.? On the other hand, there was no dissemination of IP
> addresses or the like which is how some people seem to be narrowly
> interpreting the phrase "private information."
Substitute "misuse" for "dissemination". The incident can be fairly
characterised as the use of data obtained by the CheckUser tool for
the purpose of attacking/criticising/etc Landeryou, a use case not
contemplated by the CheckUser policy. It is not necessary for
CheckUser data to be published for it to be misused.
--
Stephen Bain
stephen.bain at gmail.com
----------
From newyorkbrad at gmail.com Mon Nov 30 16:28:59 2009
From: newyorkbrad at gmail.com (Newyorkbrad (Wikipedia))
Date: Mon, 30 Nov 2009 11:28:59 -0500
Subject: [arbcom-l] David Gerard - potential amendment to motion - HIGH
PRIORITY
In-Reply-To: <f30e42de0911300737l64b6aae3ibf91c7bd835dfa41@mail.gmail.com>
References: <c52819d30911300723p654c1842p453fcf8598a886ac@mail.gmail.com>
<f30e42de0911300737l64b6aae3ibf91c7bd835dfa41@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <c52819d30911300828o770d5517mfbeb68868ac9a411@mail.gmail.com>
He'll still argue endlessly about the wording; I prefer my reformulation
which eliminates the issue entirely, while leaving the most recent basis for
our action clear.
Newyorkbrad
----------
From roger.davies.wiki at googlemail.com Mon Nov 30 16:35:17 2009
From: roger.davies.wiki at googlemail.com (Roger Davies)
Date: Mon, 30 Nov 2009 16:35:17 +0000
Subject: [arbcom-l] David Gerard - potential amendment to motion - HIGH
PRIORITY
In-Reply-To: <c52819d30911300828o770d5517mfbeb68868ac9a411@mail.gmail.com>
References: <c52819d30911300723p654c1842p453fcf8598a886ac@mail.gmail.com> <f30e42de0911300737l64b6aae3ibf91c7bd835dfa41@mail.gmail.com>
<c52819d30911300828o770d5517mfbeb68868ac9a411@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <4B13F445.3080106@gmail.com>
I agree with Brad here.
Roger
Newyorkbrad (Wikipedia) wrote:
> He'll still argue endlessly about the wording; I prefer my
> reformulation which eliminates the issue entirely, while leaving the
> most recent basis for our action clear.
>
> Newyorkbrad
-----------
From stephen.bain at gmail.com Mon Nov 30 16:37:46 2009
From: stephen.bain at gmail.com (Stephen Bain)
Date: Tue, 1 Dec 2009 03:37:46 +1100
Subject: [arbcom-l] David Gerard - potential amendment to motion - HIGH
PRIORITY
In-Reply-To: <c52819d30911300828o770d5517mfbeb68868ac9a411@mail.gmail.com>
References: <c52819d30911300723p654c1842p453fcf8598a886ac@mail.gmail.com>
<f30e42de0911300737l64b6aae3ibf91c7bd835dfa41@mail.gmail.com>
<c52819d30911300828o770d5517mfbeb68868ac9a411@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <f30e42de0911300837r76c34f4arb37fa61d0b6b7ee7@mail.gmail.com>
On Tue, Dec 1, 2009 at 3:28 AM, Newyorkbrad (Wikipedia)
<newyorkbrad at gmail.com> wrote:
> He'll still argue endlessly about the wording; I prefer my reformulation
> which eliminates the issue entirely, while leaving the most recent basis for
> our action clear.
Your modification would be my second choice. I will say that re your
point #9, removing a section would be more likely to prompt calls for
further explanation than would clarifying the existing motion by using
more precise language.
--
Stephen Bain
stephen.bain at gmail.com
----------
From risker.wp at gmail.com Mon Nov 30 17:16:41 2009
From: risker.wp at gmail.com (Risker)
Date: Mon, 30 Nov 2009 12:16:41 -0500
Subject: [arbcom-l] David Gerard - potential amendment to motion - HIGH
PRIORITY
In-Reply-To: <f30e42de0911300837r76c34f4arb37fa61d0b6b7ee7@mail.gmail.com>
References: <c52819d30911300723p654c1842p453fcf8598a886ac@mail.gmail.com>
<f30e42de0911300737l64b6aae3ibf91c7bd835dfa41@mail.gmail.com>
<c52819d30911300828o770d5517mfbeb68868ac9a411@mail.gmail.com>
<f30e42de0911300837r76c34f4arb37fa61d0b6b7ee7@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <eb45e7c0911300916i13b4ec3fi1b0dfd7689af8699@mail.gmail.com>
I am fine with NYB's proposed rewording. Like CHL, I do not have access to
the arbcom wiki so please include me in support. Let us take our time with
this, though; we can only do this once. Please note that there has been no
significant concern about this expressed onwiki; if anything, the response
has been positive. We should be cognizant of the opinion of the community
we represent as well, and shouldn't allow ourselves to be pulled into
unnecessary drama.
I also have no doubt whatsoever that David is getting full copies of all of
the emails to Functionaries-L; whether or not they are going out through
Mike or someone else is irrelevant, and we should keep this firmly in
mind.
The AUSC issue is a red herring; the AUSC reports to us, and we make
decisions based on their reports.
I too would have preferred a bit more talking before activating the motion;
however, what is done is done and this was an unequivocal vote to remove
David from these positions. I looked over his posts to functionaries-L and
found little useful criticism of the committee, some helpful historical or
technical information, a fair amount of drama mongering, and plenty of
pushes for us to get rid of vested contributors (yes, the irony!). I cannot
help wondering if it simply hasn't sunk in to some of the longterm vested
contributors that, bluntly, they are a significant part of the problem that
this iteration of the committee was elected to address.
Somewhat out of context, but brought a smile to my face: This post to
functionaries-L by David back in February: "And really. If checkusers
aren't trusted not to tell, they shouldn't be checkusers."
link<https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/private/functionaries-en/2009-February/000873.html>
---------
From marc at uberbox.org Mon Nov 30 17:17:50 2009
From: marc at uberbox.org (Marc A. Pelletier)
Date: Mon, 30 Nov 2009 12:17:50 -0500
Subject: [arbcom-l] David Gerard - potential amendment to motion - HIGH
PRIORITY
In-Reply-To: <c52819d30911300723p654c1842p453fcf8598a886ac@mail.gmail.com>
References: <c52819d30911300723p654c1842p453fcf8598a886ac@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <4B13FE3E.1080100@uberbox.org>
Newyorkbrad (Wikipedia) wrote:
> The Arbitration Committee's motion of November 28-29, 2009 concerning
> David Gerard is amended by deleting the words "and for unwarranted
> dissemination of private data acquired using privileged rights" and
> substituting the words "including the events of November 27, 2009"
I will support the motion, but I will comment on-wiki to the effect that
the Nov 27 event is viewed by members of the committee as misuse, but
that the opinions on whether, and how much, it constitutes dissemination
are more nuanced and that they were not pivotal in passing the motion
and thus reference to that aspect is best left off.
-- Coren / Marc
----------
From risker.wp at gmail.com Mon Nov 30 17:23:43 2009
From: risker.wp at gmail.com (Risker)
Date: Mon, 30 Nov 2009 12:23:43 -0500
Subject: [arbcom-l] David Gerard - potential amendment to motion - HIGH
PRIORITY
In-Reply-To: <4B13FE3E.1080100@uberbox.org>
References: <c52819d30911300723p654c1842p453fcf8598a886ac@mail.gmail.com>
<4B13FE3E.1080100@uberbox.org>
Message-ID: <eb45e7c0911300923r6a1791d8l67eca1946d380859@mail.gmail.com>
Keep in mind that the issue we are hearing from Mike isn't about the
"dissemination" vs "misuse" one....it is about the use of the term "private
data".
A
----------
From sydney.poore at gmail.com Mon Nov 30 17:16:10 2009
From: sydney.poore at gmail.com (FloNight)
Date: Mon, 30 Nov 2009 12:16:10 -0500
Subject: [arbcom-l] David Gerard - potential amendment to motion - HIGH
PRIORITY
In-Reply-To: <f30e42de0911300737l64b6aae3ibf91c7bd835dfa41@mail.gmail.com>
References: <c52819d30911300723p654c1842p453fcf8598a886ac@mail.gmail.com>
<f30e42de0911300737l64b6aae3ibf91c7bd835dfa41@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <16032ea0911300916h367f31fbwf66fd20f793613e6@mail.gmail.com>
On Mon, Nov 30, 2009 at 10:37 AM, Stephen Bain <stephen.bain at gmail.com>wrote:
> On Tue, Dec 1, 2009 at 2:23 AM, Newyorkbrad (Wikipedia)
> <newyorkbrad at gmail.com> wrote:
> >
> > 4. Whether David's indecorous Tweet and blog post involved
> "dissemination
> > of private information" is a matter of how broadly or narrowly one
> > interprets that phrase. On the one hand, his writings could certainly
> (and
> > were certainly) read as stating or at least implying that he was relying
> on
> > information he obtained in his status as a Wikipedia functionary with
> > advanced access. On the other hand, there was no dissemination of IP
> > addresses or the like which is how some people seem to be narrowly
> > interpreting the phrase "private information."
>
> Substitute "misuse" for "dissemination". The incident can be fairly
> characterised as the use of data obtained by the CheckUser tool for
> the purpose of attacking/criticising/etc Landeryou, a use case not
> contemplated by the CheckUser policy. It is not necessary for
> CheckUser data to be published for it to be misused.
>
> --
> Stephen Bain
> stephen.bain at gmail.com
I'm okay with Brad's wording.
My preference would be to tweak the wording so it still includes a concern
about naming a user. But I'm unclear as to what wording to use and I'm not
going to be around the rest of the day to work it out.
So, either approach is fine with me.
Sydney
----------
From marc at uberbox.org Mon Nov 30 17:25:49 2009
From: marc at uberbox.org (Marc A. Pelletier)
Date: Mon, 30 Nov 2009 12:25:49 -0500
Subject: [arbcom-l] David Gerard - potential amendment to motion - HIGH
PRIORITY
In-Reply-To: <eb45e7c0911300923r6a1791d8l67eca1946d380859@mail.gmail.com>
References: <c52819d30911300723p654c1842p453fcf8598a886ac@mail.gmail.com>
<4B13FE3E.1080100@uberbox.org>
<eb45e7c0911300923r6a1791d8l67eca1946d380859@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <4B14001D.6010609@uberbox.org>
Risker wrote:
> Keep in mind that the issue we are hearing from Mike isn't about the
> "dissemination" vs "misuse" one....it is about the use of the term
> "private data".
Yes, and I still believe he's completely wrong.
-- Coren / Marc
----------
From risker.wp at gmail.com Mon Nov 30 17:34:23 2009
From: risker.wp at gmail.com (Risker)
Date: Mon, 30 Nov 2009 12:34:23 -0500
Subject: [arbcom-l] David Gerard - potential amendment to motion - HIGH
PRIORITY
In-Reply-To: <4B14001D.6010609@uberbox.org>
References: <c52819d30911300723p654c1842p453fcf8598a886ac@mail.gmail.com>
<4B13FE3E.1080100@uberbox.org>
<eb45e7c0911300923r6a1791d8l67eca1946d380859@mail.gmail.com>
<4B14001D.6010609@uberbox.org>
Message-ID: <eb45e7c0911300934w3f609ce1wf0879a7a761b94d3@mail.gmail.com>
2009/11/30 Marc A. Pelletier <marc at uberbox.org>
> Risker wrote:
> > Keep in mind that the issue we are hearing from Mike isn't about the
> > "dissemination" vs "misuse" one....it is about the use of the term
> > "private data".
>
>
> Yes, and I still believe he's completely wrong.
>
>
>
For the record, so do I. I work with privacy legislation on a daily basis in
my workplace, and that would have been considered a breach here. Mind you,
we have a proper definition, not a vague concept.
Anne
----------
From: dgerard at gmail.com (David Gerard)
Date: Mon, 30 Nov 2009 21:30:09 +0000
Subject: [arbcom-l] A letter to arbcom over recent concerns
Message-ID: <fbad4e140911301330p64903beco3957446114632d69@mail.gmail.com>
We have a problem. But I'm willing to work towards a solution with
you, and I hope you're willing too. I've been in discussion with Mike
Godwin about how to resolve all this (and he is forwarding this to
functionaries-en for me).
I fully admit that I'm an acerbic pain in the arse, and have spent
most of this year on functionaries-en haranguing the 2009 arbcom about
what I think are its failings.
I understand that my tone as well as my substance has irritated some
of you - I hoped, however, that the criticisms would spur serious
thinking about what I perceive to be problems. I regret having
conveyed instead the impression that I can't work with you at all.
This will certainly be something we need much ongoing discussion of,
hopefully productive. I've stayed on the functionaries list because
it's important to the project and informs my ongoing volunteer work
for the Foundation.
So, I think we all agree that I could be a better, more diplomatic
collaborator, and I'm willing to try to do that.
There is, however, one thing that needs immediate resolution. Members
of the Arbitration Committee have issued the following
characterization of my use of checkuser and oversight powers:
"for unwarranted dissemination of private data acquired using
privileged rights."
This phrase is explicitly used as a reason for withdrawal of
"checkuser and oversight rights".
Apart from other disagreements with the 2009 Arbitration Committee
over the course of this year, this statement is not merely untrue, but
seriously defamatory. The clear implication is a violation of
checkuser privacy. As I work as a Unix systems administrator, this is
seriously problematic to my professional standing.
This is not merely hypothetical; thirty hours later, it's already
being taken as the case by Wikipedia Review, who are also discussing
in this thread how to spread it far and wide:
http://wikipediareview.com/index.php?sh ... 7610&st=20
And respected user Thatcher clearly took that as the implication on
Wikipedia itself:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_ ... vid_Gerard
You can see there's a problem there. There's actually no evidence to
support the obvious implication of your words. I have never disclosed
private information derived from checkuser or oversight powers, nor
would I.
I'm afraid I must require that the claim be withdrawn, and that those
who signed the motion state so on the wiki - an appropriate statement
such as this: "We accept that there is no evidence that David Gerard
has at any stage violated the privacy policy with regard to checkuser
or oversight in any manner. We did not at any stage intend any such
inference to be drawn, and withdraw any such implication unreservedly"
- would undo some of the damage to my reputation, and I'd regard it as
proof on your part of a good-faith belief in our potential to work
constructively together in the future.
You could add in a separate paragraph "We continue to have concerns as
to his suitability for holding the rights due to other concerns over
the year" or something like that - something that shows it's not a
violation of privacy, as it's being taken.
It's obviously fairly important to nip this in the bud sooner rather
than later, before more damage is done. This is in circulation now, as
a statement endorsed by Wikipedia's highest most authoritative body -
whose decisions are the subject of widespread tech site and tabloid
pages and have hit mainstream international new media. It'll be taken
seriously by any employer or reader to mean just what it seems to say,
as it was taken on Wikipedia.
This is quite a separate issue from any other disagreement with the
Arbitration Committee, which other issues may be discussed separately.
Again, I am willing to listen to other kinds of complaints, and can
certainly concede at the outset that there may be merit to the other
complaints. However, I hope you understand that I absolutely cannot
compromise on the above defamatory claim being withdrawn unreservedly,
because my professional career and livelihood will be affected if it's
left.
I've hardly used checkuser or oversight in the last several months,
except to deal with the latest Andrew Morrow flareup (and you'll need
people on the case for that), so that's not actually a worry.
However, I do want to keep working with you, in the future if not
immediately, and would like to open discussion toward that.
- d.
----------
From jayvdb at gmail.com Mon Nov 30 21:51:03 2009
From: jayvdb at gmail.com (John Vandenberg)
Date: Tue, 1 Dec 2009 08:51:03 +1100
Subject: [arbcom-l] A letter to arbcom over recent concerns
In-Reply-To: <fbad4e140911301330p64903beco3957446114632d69@mail.gmail.com>
References: <fbad4e140911301330p64903beco3957446114632d69@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <deea21830911301351n55dee8fai9e8184f609ae9aa8@mail.gmail.com>
the only clarification that I think it important is that he didnt
break the letter of the privacy policy.
On Tue, Dec 1, 2009 at 8:30 AM, David Gerard <dgerard at gmail.com> wrote:
> We have a problem. But I'm willing to work towards a solution with
> you, and I hope you're willing too. I've been in discussion with Mike
> Godwin about how to resolve all this (and he is forwarding this to
> functionaries-en for me).
>
> I fully admit that I'm an acerbic pain in the arse, and have spent
> most of this year on functionaries-en haranguing the 2009 arbcom about
> what I think are its failings.
>
> I understand that my tone as well as my substance has irritated some
> of you - I hoped, however, that the criticisms would spur serious
> thinking about what I perceive to be problems. I regret having
> conveyed instead the impression that I can't work with you at all.
>
> This will certainly be something we need much ongoing discussion of,
> hopefully productive. I've stayed on the functionaries list because
> it's important to the project and informs my ongoing volunteer work
> for the Foundation.
>
> So, I think we all agree that I could be a better, more diplomatic
> collaborator, and I'm willing to try to do that.
>
> There is, however, ?one thing that needs immediate resolution. Members
> of the Arbitration Committee have issued the following
> characterization of my use of checkuser and oversight powers:
>
> ?"for unwarranted dissemination of private data acquired using
> privileged rights."
>
> This phrase is explicitly used as a reason for withdrawal of
> "checkuser and oversight rights".
>
> Apart from other disagreements with the 2009 Arbitration Committee
> over the course of this year, this statement is not merely untrue, but
> seriously defamatory. The clear implication is a violation of
> checkuser privacy. As I work as a Unix systems administrator, this is
> seriously problematic to my professional standing.
>
> This is not merely hypothetical; thirty hours later, it's already
> being taken as the case by Wikipedia Review, who are also discussing
> in this thread how to spread it far and wide:
>
> http://wikipediareview.com/index.php?sh ... 7610&st=20
>
> And respected user Thatcher clearly took that as the implication on
> Wikipedia itself:
>
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_ ... vid_Gerard
>
> You can see there's a problem there. There's actually no evidence to
> support the obvious implication of your words. I have never disclosed
> private information derived from checkuser or oversight powers, nor
> would I.
>
> I'm afraid I must require that the claim be withdrawn, and that those
> who signed the motion state so on the wiki - an appropriate statement
> such as this: "We accept that there is no evidence that David Gerard
> has at any stage violated the privacy policy with regard to checkuser
> or oversight in any manner. We did not at any stage intend any such
> inference to be drawn, and withdraw any such implication unreservedly"
> - would undo some of the damage to my reputation, and I'd regard it as
> proof on your part of a good-faith belief in our potential to work
> constructively together in the future.
>
> You could add in a separate paragraph "We continue to have concerns as
> to his suitability for holding the rights due to other concerns over
> the year" or something like that - something that shows it's not a
> violation of privacy, as it's being taken.
>
> It's obviously fairly important to nip this in the bud sooner rather
> than later, before more damage is done. This is in circulation now, as
> a statement endorsed by Wikipedia's highest most authoritative body -
> whose decisions are the subject of widespread tech site and tabloid
> pages and have hit mainstream international new media. It'll be taken
> seriously by any employer or reader to mean just what it seems to say,
> as it was taken on Wikipedia.
>
> This is quite a separate issue from any other disagreement with the
> Arbitration Committee, which other issues may be discussed separately.
> Again, I am willing to listen to other kinds of complaints, and can
> certainly concede at the outset that there may be merit to the other
> complaints. ?However, I hope you understand that I absolutely cannot
> compromise on the above defamatory claim being withdrawn unreservedly,
> because my professional career and livelihood will be affected if it's
> left.
>
> I've hardly used checkuser or oversight in the last several months,
> except to deal with the latest Andrew Morrow flareup (and you'll need
> people on the case for that), so that's not actually a worry.
>
> However, I do want to keep working with you, in the future if not
> immediately, and would like to open discussion toward that.
>
>
> - d.
>
> _______________________________________________
> arbcom-l mailing list
> arbcom-l at lists.wikimedia.org
> https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/arbcom-l
>
----------
From newyorkbrad at gmail.com Mon Nov 30 22:08:44 2009
From: newyorkbrad at gmail.com (Newyorkbrad (Wikipedia))
Date: Mon, 30 Nov 2009 17:08:44 -0500
Subject: [arbcom-l] David Gerard - potential amendment to motion - HIGH
PRIORITY
In-Reply-To: <eb45e7c0911300934w3f609ce1wf0879a7a761b94d3@mail.gmail.com>
References: <c52819d30911300723p654c1842p453fcf8598a886ac@mail.gmail.com>
<4B13FE3E.1080100@uberbox.org>
<eb45e7c0911300923r6a1791d8l67eca1946d380859@mail.gmail.com>
<4B14001D.6010609@uberbox.org>
<eb45e7c0911300934w3f609ce1wf0879a7a761b94d3@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <c52819d30911301408q6f0bd5d4t2c39cc54292c7e8f@mail.gmail.com>
This has sat for some hours now, and everyone will have seen David's e-mail
demanding that we make an on-wiki statement that goes significantly farther
beyond what I've posted here. I am not at all happy with how this is going,
and frankly, I think that I am going to be a lot louder from now on about
making sure that these types of announcements do not get posted on wiki
until there is more time for people to review them in light of the most
current developments than this one had. In any event, thoughts at this
point, please?
Newyorkbrad
-----------
From User.CoolHandLuke at gmail.com Mon Nov 30 22:18:54 2009
From: User.CoolHandLuke at gmail.com (Cool Hand Luke)
Date: Mon, 30 Nov 2009 16:18:54 -0600
Subject: [arbcom-l] David Gerard - potential amendment to motion - HIGH
PRIORITY
In-Reply-To: <c52819d30911301408q6f0bd5d4t2c39cc54292c7e8f@mail.gmail.com>
References: <c52819d30911300723p654c1842p453fcf8598a886ac@mail.gmail.com>
<4B13FE3E.1080100@uberbox.org>
<eb45e7c0911300923r6a1791d8l67eca1946d380859@mail.gmail.com>
<4B14001D.6010609@uberbox.org>
<eb45e7c0911300934w3f609ce1wf0879a7a761b94d3@mail.gmail.com>
<c52819d30911301408q6f0bd5d4t2c39cc54292c7e8f@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <8ec76cd10911301418u50943bcds6255328dd1046a99@mail.gmail.com>
I dunno if anything was posted on the ArbCom wiki, but there are now seven
supports, a majority, if we include Stephen's as a "second choice," although
Risker cautions for more time in order to get it right.
Frank
On Mon, Nov 30, 2009 at 4:08 PM, Newyorkbrad (Wikipedia) <
newyorkbrad at gmail.com> wrote:
> This has sat for some hours now, and everyone will have seen David's e-mail
> demanding that we make an on-wiki statement that goes significantly farther
> beyond what I've posted here. I am not at all happy with how this is going,
> and frankly, I think that I am going to be a lot louder from now on about
> making sure that these types of announcements do not get posted on wiki
> until there is more time for people to review them in light of the most
> current developments than this one had. In any event, thoughts at this
> point, please?
>
> Newyorkbrad
----------
From newyorkbrad at gmail.com Mon Nov 30 22:20:07 2009
From: newyorkbrad at gmail.com (Newyorkbrad (Wikipedia))
Date: Mon, 30 Nov 2009 17:20:07 -0500
Subject: [arbcom-l] David Gerard - potential amendment to motion - HIGH
PRIORITY
In-Reply-To: <8ec76cd10911301418u50943bcds6255328dd1046a99@mail.gmail.com>
References: <c52819d30911300723p654c1842p453fcf8598a886ac@mail.gmail.com>
<4B13FE3E.1080100@uberbox.org>
<eb45e7c0911300923r6a1791d8l67eca1946d380859@mail.gmail.com>
<4B14001D.6010609@uberbox.org>
<eb45e7c0911300934w3f609ce1wf0879a7a761b94d3@mail.gmail.com>
<c52819d30911301408q6f0bd5d4t2c39cc54292c7e8f@mail.gmail.com>
<8ec76cd10911301418u50943bcds6255328dd1046a99@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <c52819d30911301420x1091f473jbd67a1d997a588ed@mail.gmail.com>
David Gerard I'm sure at this point would say that this is not good enough.
But I don't know whether there is anything a majority would support at this
point that would be good enough for him.
Newyorkbrad
----------
From wizardmanwiki at gmail.com Mon Nov 30 22:24:41 2009
From: wizardmanwiki at gmail.com (Wizardman)
Date: Mon, 30 Nov 2009 17:24:41 -0500
Subject: [arbcom-l] David Gerard - potential amendment to motion - HIGH
PRIORITY
In-Reply-To: <c52819d30911301420x1091f473jbd67a1d997a588ed@mail.gmail.com>
References: <c52819d30911300723p654c1842p453fcf8598a886ac@mail.gmail.com>
<4B13FE3E.1080100@uberbox.org>
<eb45e7c0911300923r6a1791d8l67eca1946d380859@mail.gmail.com>
<4B14001D.6010609@uberbox.org>
<eb45e7c0911300934w3f609ce1wf0879a7a761b94d3@mail.gmail.com>
<c52819d30911301408q6f0bd5d4t2c39cc54292c7e8f@mail.gmail.com>
<8ec76cd10911301418u50943bcds6255328dd1046a99@mail.gmail.com>
<c52819d30911301420x1091f473jbd67a1d997a588ed@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <ef59f700911301424l2259317exbf86f4d89f12ab40@mail.gmail.com>
It looks fine to me; it's about all we can do. If he's not happy with it, oh
well.
~W
----------
From User.CoolHandLuke at gmail.com Mon Nov 30 22:32:07 2009
From: User.CoolHandLuke at gmail.com (Cool Hand Luke)
Date: Mon, 30 Nov 2009 16:32:07 -0600
Subject: [arbcom-l] David Gerard - potential amendment to motion - HIGH
PRIORITY
In-Reply-To: <ef59f700911301424l2259317exbf86f4d89f12ab40@mail.gmail.com>
References: <c52819d30911300723p654c1842p453fcf8598a886ac@mail.gmail.com>
<4B13FE3E.1080100@uberbox.org>
<eb45e7c0911300923r6a1791d8l67eca1946d380859@mail.gmail.com>
<4B14001D.6010609@uberbox.org>
<eb45e7c0911300934w3f609ce1wf0879a7a761b94d3@mail.gmail.com>
<c52819d30911301408q6f0bd5d4t2c39cc54292c7e8f@mail.gmail.com>
<8ec76cd10911301418u50943bcds6255328dd1046a99@mail.gmail.com>
<c52819d30911301420x1091f473jbd67a1d997a588ed@mail.gmail.com>
<ef59f700911301424l2259317exbf86f4d89f12ab40@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <8ec76cd10911301432i5db35989p7c0b84aa4c6b68dc@mail.gmail.com>
That's eight. Should we just drop it in with a note that ArbCom wishes to
revise the original rationale and apologizes for any confusion?
I would be willing to go a bit farther, but not as far as David Gerard
demands. However, it's clear that even this revision is a stretch for some
of us. I think this is as good as we'll get in the near term, and would
like to replace the text ASAP.
Frank
----------
From jayvdb at gmail.com Mon Nov 30 22:32:11 2009
From: jayvdb at gmail.com (John Vandenberg)
Date: Tue, 1 Dec 2009 09:32:11 +1100
Subject: [arbcom-l] David Gerard - potential amendment to motion - HIGH
PRIORITY
In-Reply-To: <c52819d30911300723p654c1842p453fcf8598a886ac@mail.gmail.com>
References: <c52819d30911300723p654c1842p453fcf8598a886ac@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <deea21830911301432h551ae3cu9cda1dda2435fb24@mail.gmail.com>
On Tue, Dec 1, 2009 at 2:23 AM, Newyorkbrad (Wikipedia)
<newyorkbrad at gmail.com> wrote:
>...
>
> DRAFT MOTION FOR DISCUSSION
>
> The Arbitration Committee's motion of November 28-29, 2009 concerning David
> Gerard is amended by deleting the words "and for unwarranted dissemination
> of private data acquired using privileged rights" and substituting the words
> "including the events of November 27, 2009"
I can support this in principle, however the tweet is dated November 26, 2009.
I would much prefer that amend it to be more explicit and factual,
mentioning the tweet and the blog post.
How will this be implemented? Are we going to post the text of this
motion as-is, and then amend the prior text?
--
John Vandenberg
-----------
From jayvdb at gmail.com Mon Nov 30 22:36:04 2009
From: jayvdb at gmail.com (John Vandenberg)
Date: Tue, 1 Dec 2009 09:36:04 +1100
Subject: [arbcom-l] David Gerard - potential amendment to motion - HIGH
PRIORITY
In-Reply-To: <c52819d30911301420x1091f473jbd67a1d997a588ed@mail.gmail.com>
References: <c52819d30911300723p654c1842p453fcf8598a886ac@mail.gmail.com>
<4B13FE3E.1080100@uberbox.org>
<eb45e7c0911300923r6a1791d8l67eca1946d380859@mail.gmail.com>
<4B14001D.6010609@uberbox.org>
<eb45e7c0911300934w3f609ce1wf0879a7a761b94d3@mail.gmail.com>
<c52819d30911301408q6f0bd5d4t2c39cc54292c7e8f@mail.gmail.com>
<8ec76cd10911301418u50943bcds6255328dd1046a99@mail.gmail.com>
<c52819d30911301420x1091f473jbd67a1d997a588ed@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <deea21830911301436m3c1e103ax90573a11eaf51cb1@mail.gmail.com>
On Tue, Dec 1, 2009 at 9:20 AM, Newyorkbrad (Wikipedia)
<newyorkbrad at gmail.com> wrote:
> David Gerard I'm sure at this point would say that this is not good enough.
> But I don't know whether there is anything a majority would support at this
> point that would be good enough for him.
We should not be pandaing to his desires here. This alteration should
be merely to avoid escalation _while_ he mounts an appeal.
He has not provided any evidence that our wording was incorrect.
--
John Vandenberg
----------
From jayvdb at gmail.com Mon Nov 30 22:56:08 2009
From: jayvdb at gmail.com (John Vandenberg)
Date: Tue, 1 Dec 2009 09:56:08 +1100
Subject: [arbcom-l] Andrew Landeryou emails threads
In-Reply-To: <deea21830911300648y6d7f41edweb9aef4aebe5a696@mail.gmail.com>
References: <deea21830911300648y6d7f41edweb9aef4aebe5a696@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <deea21830911301456g52211d25h91d5f832b79c0c78@mail.gmail.com>
Wikipedia Review has found a post by David Gerard from 18:03, 21 March
2006 (UTC) where he states
"In addition, I'm now trying to work out what (if any) account Andrew
Landeryou is using."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia: ... ockpuppets
On Tue, Dec 1, 2009 at 1:48 AM, John Vandenberg <jayvdb at gmail.com> wrote:
> Hi Mike & Jimmy,
>
> Attached are the three relevant threads.
>
> Jimmy, you can also read them here:
>
> https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/pri ... 01480.html
>
> https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/pri ... 03022.html
>
> https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/pri ... 03125.html
>
> --
> John Vandenberg
>
----------
From marc at uberbox.org Mon Nov 30 23:38:25 2009
From: marc at uberbox.org (Marc A. Pelletier)
Date: Mon, 30 Nov 2009 18:38:25 -0500
Subject: [arbcom-l] A letter to arbcom over recent concerns
In-Reply-To: <deea21830911301351n55dee8fai9e8184f609ae9aa8@mail.gmail.com>
References: <fbad4e140911301330p64903beco3957446114632d69@mail.gmail.com>
<deea21830911301351n55dee8fai9e8184f609ae9aa8@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <4B145771.4020008@uberbox.org>
John Vandenberg wrote:
> the only clarification that I think it important is that he didnt
> break the letter of the privacy policy.
>
He did, but I am willing to downplay the part this had in the decision.
-- Coren / Marc
-----------
From marc at uberbox.org Mon Nov 30 23:41:13 2009
From: marc at uberbox.org (Marc A. Pelletier)
Date: Mon, 30 Nov 2009 18:41:13 -0500
Subject: [arbcom-l] A letter to arbcom over recent concerns
In-Reply-To: <fbad4e140911301330p64903beco3957446114632d69@mail.gmail.com>
References: <fbad4e140911301330p64903beco3957446114632d69@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <4B145819.2080208@uberbox.org>
Hello David,
This is to acknowledge that your email has been received, and that the
matter is under discussion by the Committee.
-- Coren / Marc
------------
From jayvdb at gmail.com Tue Dec 1 00:49:59 2009
From: jayvdb at gmail.com (John Vandenberg)
Date: Tue, 1 Dec 2009 11:49:59 +1100
Subject: [arbcom-l] A letter to arbcom over recent concerns
In-Reply-To: <4B145771.4020008@uberbox.org>
References: <fbad4e140911301330p64903beco3957446114632d69@mail.gmail.com>
<deea21830911301351n55dee8fai9e8184f609ae9aa8@mail.gmail.com>
<4B145771.4020008@uberbox.org>
Message-ID: <deea21830911301649m2e55540ev8762860d7eb2d0f1@mail.gmail.com>
On Tue, Dec 1, 2009 at 10:38 AM, Marc A. Pelletier <marc at uberbox.org> wrote:
> John Vandenberg wrote:
>> the only clarification that I think it important is that he didnt
>> break the letter of the privacy policy.
>>
>
> He did, but I am willing to downplay the part this had in the decision.
Err ... what I mean is that he didn't release actual CU data, and it
is worth clarifying that.
He said (offwiki) that a real world person "has some history on
wikipedia" and used his role as a checkuser of this history to
underscore that he is right. He does not publicly say what the "some
history" is. However we know David's own involvement within this
"some history".
The privacy policy talks about the actual data which is personally
identifiable, as opposed to the real world accusations of persons
without release of any private data. Combine that with his vague
comment, and it is not clear to me that he broke the letter of the
policy, and not worth trying to fight that battle when the WMF is
actively opposing us and unwilling to see that the tweet is
unacceptable use/release of information obtained with checkuser.
----
General Scope
This policy covers personally identifiable information collected or
stored by the Foundation on its servers in relation to the Projects
and their communities.
...
Release: Policy on Release of Data
It is the policy of Wikimedia that personally identifiable data
collected in the server logs, or through records in the database via
the CheckUser feature, or through other non-publicly-available
methods, may be released by Wikimedia volunteers or staff, in any of
the following situations:
1. In response to a valid subpoena or other compulsory request from
law enforcement,
2. With permission of the affected user,
3. When necessary for investigation of abuse complaints,
4. Where the information pertains to page views generated by a
spider or bot and its dissemination is necessary to illustrate or
resolve technical issues,
5. Where the user has been vandalizing articles or persistently
behaving in a disruptive way, data may be released to a service
provider, carrier, or other third-party entity to assist in the
targeting of IP blocks, or to assist in the formulation of a complaint
to relevant Internet Service Providers,
6. Where it is reasonably necessary to protect the rights, property
or safety of the Wikimedia Foundation, its users or the public.
Except as described above, Wikimedia policy does not permit
distribution of personally identifiable information under any
circumstances.
<http://wikimediafoundation.org/wiki/Privacy_policy>
----
Obviously "3" and "6" do not apply in this case, and I think that
arbitrators are taking extreme exception to 3.5 year old checkuser
information being used without any benefit for the project.
--
John Vandenberg
----------
From User.CoolHandLuke at gmail.com Tue Dec 1 01:22:41 2009
From: User.CoolHandLuke at gmail.com (Cool Hand Luke)
Date: Mon, 30 Nov 2009 19:22:41 -0600
Subject: [arbcom-l] David Gerard - potential amendment to motion - HIGH
PRIORITY
In-Reply-To: <deea21830911301436m3c1e103ax90573a11eaf51cb1@mail.gmail.com>
References: <c52819d30911300723p654c1842p453fcf8598a886ac@mail.gmail.com>
<4B13FE3E.1080100@uberbox.org>
<eb45e7c0911300923r6a1791d8l67eca1946d380859@mail.gmail.com>
<4B14001D.6010609@uberbox.org>
<eb45e7c0911300934w3f609ce1wf0879a7a761b94d3@mail.gmail.com>
<c52819d30911301408q6f0bd5d4t2c39cc54292c7e8f@mail.gmail.com>
<8ec76cd10911301418u50943bcds6255328dd1046a99@mail.gmail.com>
<c52819d30911301420x1091f473jbd67a1d997a588ed@mail.gmail.com>
<deea21830911301436m3c1e103ax90573a11eaf51cb1@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <8ec76cd10911301722n236eb153x452501914890ad2b@mail.gmail.com>
OK, well I'm home now and see there is not a parallel discussion on the
ArbCom wiki. Would prefer to put this up ASAP.
Unless someone tells me not to, I plan to change the text in one hour and
add a footnote after the clause. Below, the footnote would explain:
1. Revision approved by supporting arbitrators: Cool Hand Luke, Coren,
FloNight, John Vandenberg, Newyorkbrad, Risker, Roger Davies, Stephen Bain,
Wizardman
For the Arbitration Committee, ~~~~
I don't want to keep the original text up for any period after we've revised
it. This is a wiki. If they care what it said before, they can go through
the history.
Frank
----------
From newyorkbrad at gmail.com Tue Dec 1 01:38:55 2009
From: newyorkbrad at gmail.com (Newyorkbrad (Wikipedia))
Date: Mon, 30 Nov 2009 20:38:55 -0500
Subject: [arbcom-l] David Gerard - potential amendment to motion - HIGH
PRIORITY
In-Reply-To: <8ec76cd10911301722n236eb153x452501914890ad2b@mail.gmail.com>
References: <c52819d30911300723p654c1842p453fcf8598a886ac@mail.gmail.com>
<4B13FE3E.1080100@uberbox.org>
<eb45e7c0911300923r6a1791d8l67eca1946d380859@mail.gmail.com>
<4B14001D.6010609@uberbox.org>
<eb45e7c0911300934w3f609ce1wf0879a7a761b94d3@mail.gmail.com>
<c52819d30911301408q6f0bd5d4t2c39cc54292c7e8f@mail.gmail.com>
<8ec76cd10911301418u50943bcds6255328dd1046a99@mail.gmail.com>
<c52819d30911301420x1091f473jbd67a1d997a588ed@mail.gmail.com>
<deea21830911301436m3c1e103ax90573a11eaf51cb1@mail.gmail.com>
<8ec76cd10911301722n236eb153x452501914890ad2b@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <c52819d30911301738o49de098co7fcd800e7126041f@mail.gmail.com>
In the revision, change "November 27" to "November 26-27" per John V.
It might be best to publish the new motion as I wrote it, in addition
to revising the text, to make clear that we are deleting the original
allegation. (That's not a statement it was right or wrong, but tha[Break]
The system is fighting me, it won't upload large blobs of copy-pasted gunk.
This is the kind of material that I would put on a page, and if there is a post, it would explain why anyone might want to bother pouring over it. In fact, to me, with a lot of background, it's quite interesting. I assume this was from the leaked arbcom-l mailing list on Wikipedia Review. So many Wikipedia admins and functionaries become "entitled." I notice that the relevant history of User talk:David Gerard has been suppressed.
ReplyDeleteSTRELNIKOV IS SUCH AN INGRATE BITCH WIKIPEDOIA/WIKIPEEDOIA STYLE ARCHIVE.IS/Y0BB
ReplyDelete